Why I left Protestantism for Catholicism

February 06, 2015

[Talisker]

Not a brand. It is on your soul, put there by the Father Son and Holy Spirit. I don’t see why you would call that disgusting. The same thing happens at Confirmation and at a priest’s ordination — Holy Orders. They are spiritual marks that are there forever

And just how honest is your response to my comment that baptism is done without the conscious understanding and agreement of the baby? That you full well know and understand that the subject is the violation of free will.

Catholicism is based on nothing but an endless string of such insulting and juvenile evasions. Yeah, as if the Word of God depends upon such trickery. You don't even see that your very attitude denies the truth of your words.

You compare confirmation and ordination with a baby's baptism? Do you even realize that works both ways - that you're agreeing that even confirmation and ordination, at some level, are imposed upon their recipients, and denies them free will?

"Soul marks" doesn't sound like a brand? Yet isn't that exactly what they are? Don't they mark someones as property of the church? Do they alone guarantee salvation? Nope. Then what are these "marks" upon one's soul?

Brands. Property claims. And you put it perfectly - even if such s person leaves the church, the mark never leaves them and they can always return. How? Because they always belong. Why? Because they have the brand. And in the case of babies, they had no say whatever in the matter.

That's the truth of that teaching. Why pretend it's not?

[Steelfish]

No its not disgusting. You have badly misunderstood. Baptism is a sacrament. If you choose to return you don’t need to be re-baptized. That’s all there is to it. Of course, you have atheists and agnostic and even as the write proclaims he was anti-Catholic. If he/she should return they just don’t need to be re-baptized. No more, no less. On the other hand if non-Catholics like Laura Ingraham, Judge Bork, Judge Thomas, Robert Novak, Bobby Jindal, Tony Blair, G.K. Chesterton “as an adult” wishes to convert to Catholicism, then baptism is a necessity.

[Steelfish]

So what has that all that got to do with one’s personal three year honest soul-searching journey?

[Talisker]

Oh, so you can read Hebrew and Greek? I mean, that would be “God’s word direct and unadulterated”

Some people believe that God's word transcends language. That a layperson can read a Bible in English, or another language, and pray for understanding, and they will receive the understanding they seek from reading those words of God, even through translation.

Other people think this is not possible.

[Steelfish]

No, that’s the nadir of stupidity. This is not a branding as you uncharitably describe it like a piece of property. Baptism is a sacrament that washes away “original sin” it does not guarantee a permanent state of grace. One simply does not have to go through this ritual if one leaves the faith and then decides to return. This is the teaching of the early Church fathers. This is not the branding you have in either Buddhism or pantheistic religions where creatures are born as men or serpents or fish or fowl according to their prior births.

[Steelfish]

Those who believe that Christ as the Son of God believes He taught ONE truth. To make sure this ONE truth survives through the end of time, He commanded this deposit of faith to Peter and his successors. Before the Bible. there was the Church and under whose authority, we call Petrine Authority, the books in the Bible were assembled ( they did not fall from the skies and self order them in the form they appear in the Bible). This authority continues to this day.

This authority did in evaporate with the Reformation or any time thereafter. Each person and their grandmother don’t get to read scripture -the Word of God- according to their lights and dream up stuff by saying “God’s word transcends language” This is an oxymoron. God’s word comes from scripture, the received oral tradition, and sacred ritual. Of course for those who do not believe that Christ is true God and true Man, then you can dream up your own “transcendant” God. Muslims do that too.

[Talisker]

No, that’s the nadir of stupidity. This is not a branding as you uncharitably describe it like a piece of property.

What is uncharitable is your contempt towards a genuine expression of understanding about the faith.

And the true nadir of stupidity is simply proceeding, even upon being reminded up the subject, to double down on refusing to address the issue of free will.

But don't worry, what elsewhere is intellectual dishonesty is, within the church, "faithfulness."

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory and adheres to you."

[Talisker]

Those who believe that Christ as the Son of God believes He taught ONE truth. To make sure this ONE truth survives through the end of time, He commanded this deposit of faith to Peter and his successors. Before the Bible. there was the Church and under whose authority, we call Petrine Authority, the books in the Bible were assembled ( they did not fall from the skies and self order them in the form they appear in the Bible). This authority continues to this day.

This authority did in evaporate with the Reformation or any time thereafter. Each person and their grandmother don’t get to read scripture -the Word of God- according to their lights and dream up stuff by saying “God’s word transcends language” This is an oxymoron. God’s word comes from scripture, the received oral tradition, and sacred ritual. Of course for those who do not believe that Christ is true God and true Man, then you can dream up your own “transcendant” God. Muslims do that too.

“And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why do you speak unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them it is not given.”
- Matt 13:10-11

Gee, sounds like that one truth can - and was - taught in different ways, and at different levels, for different people, by Jesus Himself.

And in parables, no less. Which are, by definition, metaphorical, requiring God's word to... transcend language.

And no, the Bibles books didn't fall from the sky. They were voted on in a highly political process under Constantine (which is why they're called Petrine, no doubt to hide their origins). And those which didn't make it were burned, and those who objected were burned. Praise God for the cleansing of the Word in the Fire of Love!

Oh and as for your thesis that those who don't believe exactly as you do about the teachings of Jesus Christ are Muslims, thanks for sharing. You've actually said far more than you realize.

But then, I do indeed approve of clarity. Getting people to admit what they really believe is always so enlightening - especially when disagreeing with them is something they believe will result in eternal suffering.

Muslims believe that, too.

[Talisker]

Nice. Every gets to interpret their own way and ignorance is bliss, so the naturally corollary is Christ allowed for multiple interpretations, multiple truths. Don’t worry, be happy.

Logic's not your strong point. I'd advise you to keep to the knee-jerk doctrinal recitation without sticking any toes into apologetics.

It's okay, you can still be contemptuous. But when you start conflating your imaginings of new age perspectives with denunciations of any independent thought at all, it's time to back away from the heretics on the rack and take a breather. After all, to much dungeon work can make anyone lightheaded. And the heretics will still be there tomorrow - a zealot's work is never done. So have a beer, put up your feet, and take a break. For like, oh, a decade or so.

[vladimir998]

“That a layperson can read a Bible in English, or another language, and pray for understanding, and they will receive the understanding they seek from reading those words of God, even through translation.”

If it were that simple then no Protestant would ever come to a different conclusion than any other Protestant. But they do. Everyday.

[vladimir998]

“Logic’s not your strong point. I’d advise you to keep to the knee-jerk doctrinal recitation without sticking any toes into apologetics.”

That’s hilarious coming from you.

[BlueDragon]

If it were that simple then no Protestant would ever come to a different conclusion than any other Protestant. But they do. Everyday.

And so do Roman Catholics, just as Christians everywhere (including those who would eventually become recognized as 'Roman' Catholic) have for centuries.

On the pages of this forum, upon more than one occasion I have witnessed Romanists make a statement, then in the very next statement refute the one which they had just made, immediately preceding.

I mean, it's more often that when there are contradictions and disagreements with one's self, then that would be spread out from thread to thread, and over a matter of days...but I've seen the self-refuting commentary be self-contained in one comment/reply, more than once.

Then again, perhaps those particular 'Catholics' who refute themselves in consecutive statements are (borderline?) schizophrenic, and/or are off their med's (or need the dosage adjusted), which could perhaps be a logical excuse for themselves to be blatantly and immediately contradictory.

I've witnessed 'Catholics' disagree among themselves (not just within themselves, lol) as to doctrine also, though that does not appear as often --- openly --- with myself getting the impression that part of the reason for the comparable, seeming rarity of that (compared with freepers whom are not "Catholic" but venture to make comment) is lest the more hyena-minded Romanists whom infest the pages of FreeRepublic gang up on them, and then devour them, resulting in those whom would disagree (or worse! agree with so-called 'Protestant' expressions as being accurate enough for many things, to be useful) often 'lay low', or venture comments here on the 'religion' forum but rarely.

The indiscriminate condemnation of "protestants" which is often indulged in by Roman Catholics, the insults to the intelligence of this or that person, etc., are not exactly official doctrine and dogma of the RCC either, which means that when broadly sweeping criticisms & condemnations are dished out -- by the likes of, for example, yourself, then it could be argued that at those instances you yourself are "coming to a different conclusion" than men such as Ratzinger (a.k.a. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) often has, himself having gone so far as to say the likes of "we must listen to our partners" when referring to theologians outside of the ecclesiastical community to which he himself belongs.

But go on, yourself, be at odds with the "Magesterium" if you like, do whatever... whatever blows your own skirts up (as long as it's bashing 'protestants' is has to be right, eh?).

Meanwhile, did you do any checking into the background and personality of this latest 'convert to Catholicism' (converted in 1989, I take it)?

I AM ANARCHY - Jeffrey Tucker

I am not one of those who has much in the way of 'gay-dar', but one doesn't need highly tuned discernment in that area to realize the man is a flaming pillow-biter.

I could hardly bear to listen to him talk...uh, I mean lisp

All these years in the RCC, partaking communion in the RCC, and he's still a fag? And here I thought that doing so was supposed to inwardly change a person's soul, be as a veritable gnawing on the flesh of Christ, a means for grace itself.

In the video..the first thing the guy says is "is that a hot dog...with chile?" while performing a quick little squirm in his seat, then asking if the sellers accept Bitcoin.

Yeah sure, "can I have change for this Bitcoin?" (from the price of a sandwich). WHat a maroon!.

Oh well. Maybe that can be blamed on the Presbyterians (all the sins of the world, the very downfalling of human nature into sinful nature and condition -- IT"S ALL THE FAULT OF THOSE PROTESTANTS --- isn't it?) for he was allegedly one of those, once, for a few years, I think.

It's no wonder he trotted himself and his little bow-ties away from the 'Baptists' he was born among.

[trebb]

My story went in the other direction. Once Catholic, now Protestant.

Born into the Catholic Church - became agnostic for years then tried it and other religions and had my fill of them. Finally got what I needed (understanding of redemption through Christ) via non-denominational church.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Frying pan to fire, my friend. The progressives are taking it over just like they did the Episcopal church. The best church is the church of Self. I found i didn’t need all the prayer books and liturgical mumbo jumbo. And the “rules” I set for myself wouldn’t get passed by any “organized church” in these ...anything goes...days. I don’t have to convince people there is a God, ...I know He exists. And evolution is God’s ongoing , and amazing, work of continuous creation. You don’t believe this? ...guess what, I don’t care. :-)

[Old Yeller]

If you are a baptized Catholic -— then you will always be a baptized Catholic. The make of Baptism does not leave your soul.

Unless of course, you want to say something in a Catholic caucus thread.

[Old Yeller]

It takes a legal mind to navigate all the rules and regulations that the Church of Rome has established, then changed over the centuries. Surely God did not intend for salvation to be so convoluted. Many times in Scripture God promises that you can have assurance of your salvation. The Church of Rome always leaves you in doubt, so that you always fear death because you can’t have that promised assurance.

[CynicalBear]

>>the "at-homeness" of Catholicism<<

I've heard many people claim that "at home" welcome in bars also. Just sayin

[melissa_in_ga]

I haven’t read through the entire thread, nor have I yet read replies to your post. But I’d like to clarify something here.

Catholicism does require understanding and agreement as an adult (or older child). Babies born to Catholics are typically baptized as babies, but as they get older they move into the Sacrament of Reconciliation, their First Communion and then finally into Confirmation. Children take catechism classes that teach what the Church and the collect believe. I’ve taught some of these classes myself. Confirmation is a public affirmation of belief and agreement.

That’s as straight-forward as I can be without more coffee :)

[CynicalBear]

>>And why the misleading publication date?<<

This is a Catholic piece.