Posted on 01/11/2007 10:55:59 AM PST by HarleyD
A rather interesting article.
Too long and misses the whole point. Protestants go Catholic because the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in Word and Sacrament in all its fullness. IOW, Catholic Christianity is the One, True Christianity. The psychoanalysis of Catholic converts is quite unnecessary. The truth is plain.
-Theo
read later - but my initial response is that Protestants have not been sufficiently taught the Bible and Protestant theology. Sadly, most of them won't recognize those reasons.
Lieberal takeover of mainline churches, line Lieberal takeover of anything is a process doomed to failure because they deliver an inferior product and drive out the very people who used to support them.
And the process is accelerated in the churches because nobody is forced to attend or pay taxes to support them, unlike other Lieberal failures such as education.
Authoritarians have always felt at home with Rome.
So you are saying that my Protestant Presbyterian belief is false?
This article boldly asserts conclusions, but never makes the arguments. First issue: Catholics and history. The article asserts that Catholicism is lacking treats history as the Church started in the 1st century. Certainly, in a very crucial sense, it did. But I'd argue that the Catholic Church also goes much more deeply into pre-Christian history than the Protestant Churches typically acknowledge, addressing the Palestinian, Diasporic and Greco-Roman roots of history. But so what if it doesn't? Isn't a history that starts with the period of direct, public and complete Revelation superior to one that starts in the 1520s?
Next, is a silly straw man argument regarding sola scriptura. The Catholic position certainly recognizes the supremacy of the scripture; the article makes it seem as if the Catholic position is that the recording of the bible is no more special that any other product of the Church. (And, yes, Peter, Paul, John, Matthew, Jude, James, John Mark and Luke are all part of the Church!) The Catholic Church's point is that it is illogical to argue "sola scriptura," when the scripture does not define itself; the Church was needed to define what constituted scripture.
And certainly, it is true that the existence of a plurality of opinions does not mean every one of those opinions is wrong, nor does unity imply correctness. Plurality means that all but one opinion is wrong, however, which shoots to hell the rebuttal that Christian unity lies in some consensus of denominations and congregarions, since there is no such consensus. The article is dead wrong when it insists that there is nothing inherently good about unity, as exists in the Catholic Church. Quite to the contrary, the bible demands unity, and assures us that the gates of Hell will nit prevail against his Church
How about protestantism is a lie?
That said the protestants I've met have found the infigting; inumerable idiotic interpretations f scripture, and profound lack of spirituality in the protestant church a solid reason to leave it.
I could go with this argument if the Catholic Church hadn't changed some of it's teachings, beliefs, and practices from time to time. It was the perverse teaching of paying indulgences that initially began Luther's path out of the Catholic Church.
What do you do with Jesus' statement that those who worship Him do so in "spirit and in truth"? This was in response to the Samaritan woman's question about where believers should worship God. She was looking for the place of true worship. Jesus didn't answer her as she expected, but said that worship comes from the inside out, not from the outside in, nor from the top down. Brought forward, the question would be, "Where should we worship God? In the Catholic Church, or in the Protestant church?" A: "You shall worship God in spirit and in truth."
I have a problem with the argument for the supremacy of the authority of the Catholic Church which stems mainly from the tradition of the Catholic Church. Seems like circular, self-serving logic to me.
That's pretty much what he's saying.
And how did they measure this?
I admit I have not read this lengthy article but our LCMS church has former Catholics.
Why is it strictly a question of an offshoot of the Roman church, or the Roman church?
It's sort of like saying because I want a hamburger I need to go to McDonalds or Wendys.
Profound anti-Christian positions of church 'leaders' in their protestant church.
I'll admit that I've but skimmed the article but both our Deacons are former Protestants.
>> I read the article as an analysis of the reasons ex-Protestants have given for becoming Catholic and how those arguments don't have merit from a true Protestant's perspective. <<
It's the assertion of the arguments as meritless that I'm addressing. I'd think it'd be much better if such an article looked at how the Protestant Churches could better meet the arguments themselves, then dismiss the arguments.
And please don't regard my comments as merely "advice from an opponent," a la Dick Morris' political advice. I certainly consider Protestantism far superior than agnosticism, atheism, irreligionism, or simply Sunday-couch-potato-ism. I'm not concerned that a focus on simply negating the validity of "neo-Catholics'" (I like that word, by the way) concerns will be ineffective; I'm concerned that when occasionally it is effective, it will not have the result of keeping such would-be neo-Catholics in Protestant churches, but rather simply weakening their faith.
Suppose every point in the article is 100% true. And suppose that the reader is capable of convincing the would-be neo-Catholic of that truth. Is the neo-Catholic going to be any more satisfied with the Protestant Church they were in? Wouldn't the person be better off in a Catholic Church, even though for imperfect reasons, then slowly dwindling away from a Protestant church?
Often, I debate topics on FR for intellectual simulation and formation, and to spread my points to other Catholics who might be engaged in apologetics. This post is one of the few that actually concerns me.
For that matter, I can fry up a hamburger on my backyard grill that tastes much better than anything I can get at McDonalds or Wendys. I'm OK with church traditions, ceremonies, and the like, but when the traditions and ceremonies take the place of daily fellowship and worship of God in Christ through the means of the Holy Spirit, than the traditions of man have interposed themselves over one's relationship to God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.