Why I Left Protestantism for Catholicism

Jeffrey A. Tucker

[JSDude1]

Good thoughts as long as we focus on Jesus and not any churches “teachings”. God’s word trumps all, and is really all we need to know Jesus-who is really ALL we need in the end.

[Steelfish]

Thank you!

[knarf]

Lost means .. one that is not saved or born again, which is (unfortunately) all too common in protestant churches .... and

loster only means that ... being a Catholic is not neccesarily being saved or born again ...

Lost to loster is a theological commentary about someone that wasn't saved in one denomination, going to another , even less likely to be saved ...

It ain't an attack ... but a commentary

and

a critical lack of critical thinking skillz merely means ... the one leaving protestantism didn't think very clearly ... like out of the fryuing pan into the fire

Neither reply #2 nor #3 are in and of themselves attacks, but comments on a person that left the place that salvation is actively taught (or should be) to go to a place where it is seldom taught (but should be)

[blackpacific]

Thanks for the post. It looks like I will need to add “The Catholic Church and Conversion” by Chesterton to our library. Gotta love the guy. In heaven he will be a grand charioteer.

[Steelfish]

True. Chesterton is brilliant and one of England’s finest minds.

[353FMG]

Amen to that.

And I shall embrace every ex-Muslim who converts to Christianity.

[ealgeone]

How absurd could this be?

Well let's see.

Mary was sinless in contradiction of the Word and many of the church fathers catholics claim to cling to. That's just for starters.

[Steelfish]

You need to seriously study Catholic theology. Point out one Church father who said Mary was sinless? You misunderstand the Immaculate Conception. Because she conceived the Son of God she was not stained with original sin.

Besides its odd isn’t it that you know better than the Church fathers, some of whom were contemporaries of John, and who infallibly sorted out the Word of God in heir interpretations of various written texts at that time when assembling together the canonical books in Scripture. Surely, if they were mistaken with Mary, then what makes you think that they were not mistaken in selecting the texts of scripture which you believe is the Word of God?

And apparently, all those pre-eminent Lutheran theologians (to say nothing of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict XVI -called the theological Einstein of our times) who converted to Catholicism missed your observation.

[boatbums]

God makes us feel at home when we have a sincere conviction of truth. There is no dichotomy between the two, as you suggested. Truth is what I sought when God led me to Rome....My plea is for you to take my conversion, and others like mine, seriously."

Sure, I can take him seriously as long as he, and those like him, are willing to accept and take seriously Roman Catholics converting to Protestantism/Evangelicalism because God led us out of Rome and into the truth we were seeking. So far, I haven't seen much in the way of reciprocity.

[boatbums]

Yet at the base, there is one reason why I converted to Catholicism. It is summarized by the line from the Apostle's Creed: "I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

If the Apostle's Creed was the "one reason" why he converted to Rome, I wonder if the author knows that this phrase was NOT in the original Apostles' Creed? From http://www.cogwriter.com/original-apostles-creed.htm:

Many scholars consider the "Old Roman Form" the earliest known form of the creed, and that it may have came from the second century. It was put together in the fourth century by Marcellus, Bishop of Anycra (now more commonly spelled Ankara) who is considered to have been Greek or Eastern Orthodox:
“I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; (the life everlasting).”

The last clause is omitted in the Latin form preserved by Rufinus, 390 AD. (Orr J. The Apostle's Creed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. 1. Original by 1923. Kindle Version viewed 07/21/11)

Also here are some additional legends about the creed:

Throughout the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed our present Creed between them, each of the Apostles contributing one of the twelve articles. This legend dates back to the sixth century (see Pseudo-Augustine in Migne, P.L., XXXIX, 2189, and Pirminius, ibid., LXXXIX, 1034) (Thurston, Herbert. "Apostles' Creed." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 21 Jul. 2011)

The legend was that the creed took shape at the dictation of the Twelve Apostles, each of whom contributed a special article. Thus, Peter, it was alleged, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, commenced, “I believe in God the Father Almighty”; Andrew (or according to others, John) continued, “And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord”; James the elder went on, “Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,” etc. This legend is not older than the 5th or 6th centuries, and is absurd on the face of it. (Orr J. The Apostle's Creed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol. 1. Original by 1923. Kindle Version viewed 07/21/11)

Whether or not the twelve apostle's stated each sentence can be debated as there is no actual proof. The fact is that there is no first century document with the creed. The Catholic Encyclopedia says the claim of apostolic origin was a fourth (via Rufinus or pseudo-Augustine) or sixth century development.

[gemoftheocean]

Ah, but sola scriptura is UNSCRIPTURAL!!!!! Who do you think had the authority to decide what was scriptural and what was not? Jesus did not throw down the NT intact as he was Ascending and yell “Good luck, y’all.” Hint: Jesus put someone in charge. Point 2: Communion is the real Body and Blood of Christ, and you have to remember when Jews says something 3 times, it’s FINAL. “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you.” We’re not talking symbolism here. “....hold fast to these truths whether by word of mouth or letter from us...” Yes, there is both Oral AND written tradition — the kind with the “big T” - i.e. traditions passed on from Jesus. Small “t” traditions can change, large T traditions can’t be. Popes wear white as “tradition” - but bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at mass — “Tradition.” Don’t confuse the two. But it’s best to not convert until you understand these points. Your RCIA class fell short of presenting the arguments for the faith correctly.

[boatbums]

Not one teaching of the Catholic Church has changed.

Sorry, but that is just not true.

[boatbums]

Who do you think had the authority to decide what was scriptural and what was not?

I hope you will take a moment to consider how truly wrong that theory is. When the Holy Spirit led each prophet of the books that are in the Holy Bible to write the very words of God, He didn't expect a group of men sitting around a table three centuries later passing their judgment on them deciding which ones they would "accept" and which ones were "unacceptable". Nope. When Paul wrote his epistles to the churches he was working with, he expected them to believe and obey the teachings he was passing on to them and he expected them to make copies and ensure other local churches received them as well.

The same with Peter and his two letters. He even stated that "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and that they did not write under their own interpretation but recorded what God revealed to them to ensure believers knew the truth. No one is saying the New Testament was some nice intact all-in-one book from the start, but as time went on, the collection grew - as God led each writer - and the Christian church received the writings as from God. We have writings from some of the earliest church leaders that enumerate the 27 book canon of the New Testament which shows they had already recognized the authority of the books.

Some excellent links to help you understand this better are:

The Formation of the New Testament Canon

Reliability of the Oral Transmission of the Bible

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability

New Testament Canon

[Steelfish]

If you have doubts that the early Church Fathers were not infallible when they assembled the canonical texts of the scripture you cite, and offer doubts on the same infallibility whereby the Church provides the Credo, then you must logically doubt whether the books they assembled were credible as well. In which case you must not cite scripture or Protestants should try assembling their own Bible. But you can’t have both.

You cannot cite to the infallible authority of the Church in authenticating the Bible and then doubt its subsequent infallibility. That Petrine infallibility in AD 382 on both the written and unwritten Word of God did not evaporate into the ether.

Playing “internet theologian” won’t do. So we must take “your” interpretation of Scripture or any other Tom, Dick, and Harry, or a Joel Osteen’s version versus those provided by the early Church Fathers and Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Benedict and a litany of eminent Protestant theologians, scholars, authors, and preachers who converted to Catholicism?

In the year 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

“Where the bishop is present, there let the congregations gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).

Can you point to any canonical texts that were different than those confirmed by the Synod of Rome in AD 382?

The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) confirmed definitive list of canonical books in the Synod of Rome. These were ALL Councils of the ONE Church. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible and its universal interpretation given by the Church. The only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later resulting in a tsunami of heresies where every local Foursquare Church pastor can offer his/her definitive interpretation of Scripture just as you are peddling “your” own interpretation of Scripture. This is what Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen etc have been doing to a gullible following.

Unfortunately, those in the Protestant pews are swallowing this theological cyanide while the theological intellectuals among the Protestants are converting to Catholicism.

[PeterPrinciple]

This is what Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen etc have been doing to a gullible following.

---

And the Roman Catholic church selling indulgences is different?

[Steelfish]

You must not confuse doctrine with certain practices. Even Paul and Peter had their little squabble about Gentile sand Jews eating together.

[Ken H]

Refresh my memory. Which side cracks their boiled eggs on the small end, and which on the large?

[Kolokotronis]

“At the end of the day absent Petrine authority, so well explained by the author, we descend into a chaos where every Tom, Dick, and Harry and their grandmother and your local Foursquare Church pastor cracks open the pages of the Bible and purports to offer his/her cockamamie “definitive” interpretation of scripture which is starkly at odds with that of the early Church fathers (some of whom were contemporaries of the Evangelist John) charged with assembling the canonical texts.”

As matter of curiosity, why do you suppose that there was a Protestant Revolution, as the nuns of my youth used to call it, in the Church in the West where there was/is Petrine Authority and no such thing in the Church in the East where there isn’t and never was any Petrine authority, at least not as it is being defined here?

[Petrosius]

Name what teachings have changed.

[Resettozero]

This is why like the author, droves of Protestant theologians, scholars, and preachers have left there former indefensible beliefs and converted to Catholicism. In the meanwhile Protestants still in the pews, keep swimming in the shallow end of the theological pool and are barely able to stay afloat except for citing out of context snippets of scripture for her and there to cast doubt on Church teaching.

Droves, eh?

The spirit of Alinksy is alive on FR!