Why stay Protestant?

Medium Corporation ^ | 01/22/18 | Matthew Schultz

[boatbums]

Over the years, I’ve had several Catholic friends and converts ask why I ultimately didn’t convert to their denomination. During my first two years of college, I spent a significant amount of time with Catholics, including at the (then?) US Opus Dei headquarters in NYC. I attended these gatherings with a good friend, who eventually decided to convert from Evangelicalism. I came close to converting, but ultimately decided against it. This has surprised some Catholics. I suspect this is because the standard narrative is that Protestants, especially Evangelicals, are crossing the Tiber in great droves.

Statistically, the narrative isn’t quite so neat: in recent years, Catholicism has lost millions of adherents, most of these converting to a kind of nonreligious spiritualism/secularism or to Protestantism, while millions more Protestants remain Protestant. For every one person who converts to Catholicism, about six leave the church.

Still, the notion that Catholicism is attracting large numbers of Protestant converts, with no movement in the other direction, can create the impression that there is something irresistible about Catholicism to anyone who studies it. My reasons for remaining Protestant haven’t changed a great deal, although they have become more refined, especially since seminary. I would like to share some of them here.

[daniel1212]

its easy to be a Protestant....easy....you just do what you feel.... like Unitarians...make your own rules up as you go.

Then your definition of Protestant is so loose that it is effectively meaningless, yet that it actually a necessary recourse of Catholics, in the light of their own amalgamated church of diverse beliefs, from Ted Kennedy RCs to cultic traditionalists.

Yet the most fundamental aspect of the Reformation is the authority of Scripture, and despite divisions among the tribes, Bible Christians testify to being the most unified in basic beliefs, versus those whom Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.

I'm not a good, practicing Catholic but at least at one time we had values and rules and moral authority...

And at one time, prior to the needed Reformation, Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

[Mark17]

I have a Catholic Teen Bible sitting right here by my desk.

I am not really interested in a teen Bible. Does the one true church make an adult Bible, you know, the one WITHOUT a lot of words in the front? I can live without all those words. 😁👍

[daniel1212]

wow...and this is not Catholic bashing?...again, and again... perhaps all Catholic freepers should be asked to leave FR?..yes?...since we're no worthy...

Actually if you did a study of the RF you would see that it is almost always RCs who post articles attacking Protestant faith (besides their pope), and who were basically provided protection against consistent Catholic bashing via articles.

[Mark17]

I honestly could not believe, well I could, that a RC was telling me not to use Scripture to defend my position.

Just use scripture anyway.

[daniel1212]

Ignore the religion forum, it’s an embarrassment to FR. It’s populated by a small group of people who have, by just a rough observation of their time spent posting there, saying I’m right and you’re wrong,

And by censoring those who do then you are engaging in the same, and acting like a liberal, who argues that Truth is not exclusive by nature, and that the condition of this country is not related to its spiritual declension. Or that the latter does not require contention for basic NT faith, as is commanded. (Jude 1:3) Because there is a connection the promotion of Mormonic doctrine was basically banned from FR long ago.

have wasted years of the precious life He gave them in a way that sullies the name of Jesus.

What sullies the name of Jesus is a false gospel and false basic teaching, such as Catholic distinctives which are not what the NT church manifestly believed .

[MayflowerMadam]

Right. This was covered when I was in seminary in “Cults” class. Not sure if that was the exact verbiage, but the concept was there.

[ealgeone]

From one of Amy Welborn's books, the author of the The Catholic Teen Bible.

For a moment, though, move beyond the simple facts of history. Consider your understanding of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus, living, worshipping, and serving him in this world and hoping for eternal life in the next.

Imagine trying to do that without Mary in the room. Even if Mary doesn’t play a huge role in your devotional or spiritual life, the results of that mental exercise might surprise you.

Why is that? What is missing when we take Mary out of the picture?

Simple. We are. Without Mary, we risk Christianity becoming nothing more than an idea.

************************

It encapsulates what I've come to conclude about Roman Catholicism.....apart from Mary the Roman Catholic seemingly can do nothing. And no where in the New Testament is that ever attested.

[ealgeone]

Oh, I did.

[Mark17]

Oh, I did.

I was sure you did. I certainly would. 😁👍
No swimming the Tiber for me. 👎🇵🇭 I swim in the Gulf though. 😁

[PeterPrinciple]

To: PeterPrinciple
What has caused divisions in Catholicism??
The question still lingers...

What has caused divisions in Catholicism??

---

Read my response slowly and let you lips move...…………….

[ealgeone]

I swim in the Gulf though.

I bet you do!

So do I....except my Gulf is a little closer to the US than yours!

[daniel1212]

I could never convert to a protestant church....they are shallow Catholic churches in reality....none of the requirements of the traditional Catholic church

You mean requirements and expectations unseen in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), such as,

1. Looking to Peter as the first of a line of popes in an office of perpetual ensured (if conditional) infallibility?

2. Believing in a gospel of final salvation by actually becoming good enough to be with God via RC Purgatory, or a separate class of believers called “saints” who uniquely directly go to Heaven at death?

3. Granting indulgences in order to obtain early release from this condition for oneself or for others?

4. Looking to a separate class of celibate (with rare exceptions) believers (priests ) whose primary unique function is that of offering the Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins, and dispensing it to the people?

5. Believing in said Eucharist as the "true body of Christ and his true Blood" the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” (CCC 1376; 1381) the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings,(John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence) to be consumed as "the actual partaking of Christ in person," . (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) this being the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ," (CCC 1415) Refuted, by God's grace.

Praying to created beings in Heaven.

6. Kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

7. Baptism as the act itself effecting regeneration, and without the without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

And the list goes on.

[daniel1212]

Right. This was covered when I was in seminary in “Cults” class. Not sure if that was the exact verbiage, but the concept was there.

Which is one of the complaints by TradCats against V2.

Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents. The much debated issue as to whether the Council is only an "excuse" or in fact the "source" of the "autodemolition" of the Church is entirely beside the point. Whatever the case may be, as the Abbe of Nantes has pointed out, "there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master" (CRC May 1980)....It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes. - Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.; http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html

While Caths attack Bible Christians for ascertaining the validity of church teaching by examination of Scripture (the most ancient reliable source), and interpreting Scripture apart from submission to their church, the same engage in ascertaining the validity of church teaching by selective examination of historical Cath church teaching, and what constitutes submission to their church is subject to their interpretation of what it is and means.

Thus you have V2 RCs calling TradCats "Protestant," and traditionalists calling V2 Catholics liberal CINOs.

Consider how the TradCats understand historical Cath church teaching such as teaches that,

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

[Luircin]

It’s really getting to the point where we should call the Catholic Mary ‘Asherah’ instead.

Much the same blasphemy as when the people put up Asherah poles in the Temple of the Lord.

[Trailerpark Badass]

FRiend, I have no desire to censor anyone; I just choose not to particpate.

And youseem far more versed in the minutiae of Catholic dogma than I am.

Let me ask you: if there is some teaching, uttered by some obscure priest centuries ago, that is in error, that I don’t acknowledge, much less practice, I am still condemned, because I consider myself “Catholic?”

As for me, I find my hands full enough with Christ’s two commandments, which seem to entail continuous, life-long attention.

[Luircin]

As for me, I find my hands full enough with Christ’s two commandments, which seem to entail continuous, life-long attention.

***

What about Christ’s promises? Do you pay attention to those?

[Trailerpark Badass]

Certainly, I have not read one I do not believe.

[Luircin]

Good. Well, long as you remain believing the promise that it’s the grace of God, won by Jesus Christ, and not your own works that save you, then you’re good!

[daniel1212]

Let me ask you: if there is some teaching, uttered by some obscure priest centuries ago, that is in error, that I don’t acknowledge, much less practice, I am still condemned, because I consider myself “Catholic?”

No, and that is not being argued here, for instead the issue is of the premise of the Catholic church as the elitist one true church to whom all are to submit, and her distinctives, and of Traditional RCs condemning us evangelicals for reproving her. We are even accused of hating Mary for protesting the exaltation of her as a demigoddess.

And if you do not affirm the Catholic church as the uniquely one true church then the TradCats will also attack you, while insofar as you affirm Catholic distinctives which are not manifest in the the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, then you can expect us to challenge these beliefs, consistent with Jude 1:3. Love for God, His Truth and souls requires it.

As for me, I find my hands full enough with Christ’s two commandments, which seem to entail continuous, life-long attention.

Me also, but which extends to worship in Spirit and in Truth, and to the glory of God, and to the welfare of others, thus "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3)

[Trailerpark Badass]

Lol, Amy Welborn.