Why Aren't You Roman Catholic?

[Prufrock]

(2.) There is also usually a distinction made between Romanism and the Papacy.

Could you shed a bit more light on the distinctions you have in mind, Rev. Winzer?

To anticipate where he may be going (while we wait to catch up with Australian time), you may want to check out Turretin's Institutes III, topic XVIII, Q.XIV, paragraph III, where a similar type of distinction is made. I'm sure, however, that Rev. Winzer will have something better to say.

 

[apaleífo̱]

The fact of the matter is that most “Protestants” in the world today are Protestants of taste rather than Protestants of conviction. They just prefer their religion the way they have it. Maybe they don’t like old cathedrals, or they don’t like backwards collars, or the smell of candles. Maybe they think the Pope’s hat is funny. Whatever the reason, they are not Roman Catholics basically because they don’t feel like it. They are not convinced that Rome’s gospel is false or that her theology is blasphemous. No, they have never really given all of that much thought. They might find the Marian dogmas a bit odd, but in the final analysis, their current religious affiliation is just a matter of taste, nothing more. And let me tell you: those folks are ripe for conversion: either conversion to Rome, or, conversion to apostasy, either one. For if they have no passion for the gospel, they have no passion for Christ, and hence no foundation of faith.

[/QUOTE]

I particularly agree with this part: I think the greatest shame in modern-day Protestantism is the fact that so few of us understand our wonderful heritage. The Puritans have been so effectively demonized today, that after passing over the Salem Witch Trials and Anne Hutchinson, textbooks generally move on without even mentioning men like Reverend Solomon Stoddard and Reverend John Cotton -- the latter of which wrote part of the New England Primer which was an extremely important book in the educational systems of early America.

By the way, did any of you know that the first anti-slavery pamphlet written in English in America was penned by a Puritan -- nay, not only a Puritan, but a Salem Witch Trial Judge? Yes, one of life's little ironies...

 

[MW]

(2.) There is also usually a distinction made between Romanism and the Papacy.

Could you shed a bit more light on the distinctions you have in mind, Rev. Winzer?

I can't improve on Turretin; thankyou Paul.

 

[Edward]

No, Lynnie is quoting me. That's from my own blog. The denomination is the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.

I would be interested in knowing if other Presbyterian bodies have deleted/modified/revised this sort of language to make it more "pope-friendly."

OK. That quoted text doesn't display for me at the second link (Link goes to a page with a pretty picture, and the text: "Gairney BridgeIf at first you don’t Secede…" I click on the links button, and find this: "Why Aren’t You a Roman Catholic
Sunday, April 12, 2009 6:20 PM
Maybe it’s because of the certain “chic-ness” modern American Roman Catholicism exudes (e.g., consider that many of the conservative political commentators in this country are RC, either long-time adherents or by recent conversion: Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich, etc.), or maybe it’s because I live in a RC town where folks fluctuate [...]"

I click on the headline to look for more text, and it takes me back to the first, mostly blank, page. Thus my confusion.

To answer your question - a few years ago, one of the yankee presbyteries of the PCA made a run at trying to repeal the ban on intermarriage. It was shot down at General Assembly. I don't recall the Presbytery or the year at this point.

 

[Marrow Man]

(2.) There is also usually a distinction made between Romanism and the Papacy.

Could you shed a bit more light on the distinctions you have in mind, Rev. Winzer?

To anticipate where he may be going (while we wait to catch up with Australian time), you may want to check out Turretin's Institutes III, topic XVIII, Q.XIV, paragraph III, where a similar type of distinction is made. I'm sure, however, that Rev. Winzer will have something better to say.

Since I do not have Turretin's Institutes handy (and I can't find them online), could you give me a simple definitional difference between the two terms in just a few sentences? If it is too time consuming, however, just say so and I will commit myself to the task of finding the appropriate sections.

 

[Rangerus]

I am not Catholic because:

1. Romans 6:20 KJV For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
2. Romans 9:11 KJV For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.
3. Matthew 26:28 KJV For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
4. Romans 9:16 KJV So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
5. John 10:27-28 KJV My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

and one other point:

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God.- LBCF

 

[Hawaiian Puritan]

Too many rules and not enough grace.

 

[Richard King]

They have bad theology and I have bad knees

 

[Dieter Schneider]

Check Berean Beacon

 

[tcalbrecht]

Why Aren't You Roman Catholic?

Been there done that. Didn't even get a t-shirt.

 

[Pergamum]

This thread is relevant to me because this week my Catholic college roommate finally dropped me from support.

Yes, he actually supported me monthly and pledged monthly missionary support to me. His dad was Council of Trent faithful and he is one of those catholics that generally agree with Catholic doctrine, but is unsure of purgatory and etc. He is very dear to me and we talk without venom to one another about our disagreements. We value each other and I am trying to lovingly explain why I believe he is wrong. Out of our close friendship him and his dad have now supported me now for 2 years.

So, now, due to some opportunities and a wave of zeal that I helped stir up in the national church here, I am starting to spear the placing of evangelical evangelists now into Catholic areas,.........

....... so I get a letter from both my catholic college roommate and his dad - both highly offended at this... this all happened just today.




The trouble I have with articles such as the one posted (IF this article was written for Catholic to read) is this: if we are really cultivating friendships and have many folks who are dear to us who are Catholic, unneeded provacation only makes more barriers. YOU ARE PART OF A FALSE RELIGION AND YOU STUPIDLY FOLLOW AN IMPOSTER is not the way to win people. I think we preach and write theology articles for the choir instead of to attract the lost. We try to score points instead of lovingly persuade people I think. We write articles about why not to be catholic, but if we were really wanting Catholics to read and respond in a good manner to these articles (instead of just gathering amens from those who already agree with us) then we would strive to respect the nuances of their position and realize that they are not all blinded dupes who follow the Pope, but that there are complex issues to be dealt with and there are real people to be respected. We are trying to win people, not arguments.


Is James White's article geared evangelistically towards Catholics or is it written to be read by those who already agree with him? That is of major importance.



So, pray for Rick and his dad, and that I would be able to continue to value their friendship and value them and try to reason with them instead of chalk them off as stupid sheep of the Pope or resort to calling them names. I would love to find an article that I can link to Rick that will not needlessly offend and that will treat him as a dear friend instead of as "The Enemy."


Rant off: I guess it is not even really a rant. Especially if James White meant his article to be read mainly by those who already agree with him (writing theology for the choir instead of evangelistically).

-----Added 4/15/2009 at 09:58:19 EST-----

P.s. anyone have any good tracts to give to Catholics?

 

[Marrow Man]

Is James White's article geared evangelistically towards Catholics or is it written to be read by those who already agree with him? That is of major importance.

Actually, I think it's neither. He is quite dogmatically stating why he believes the Roman Catholic church to be a false religion, that is certainly true. But his major complaint, as I see it, is that Protestants in many ways are not any better. They are simply "Protestant" by way of preference. They know nothing about the false doctrines of Rome, nor do they know much about their own "doctrine." Many are false converts littering the American theological landscape, which makes them right pickings for any RC (or Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or Muslim, for that matter) to come along and "convert" them.

 

[Pergamum]

Good point.

A great article would be to write for american evangelicals and title it, "You might as well be Catholic."

 

[Marrow Man]

Good point.

A great article would be to write for american evangelicals and title it, "You might as well be Catholic."

I absolutely agree. It is almost treated by many Protestants as "any other denomination." White's point was "sure it's weird," and that's probably the only reason many more Prots don't jump ship.

 

[Reformed Thomist]

because i have a bible and can read

lol.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Pergamum,

Rather than handing them a tract, try sharing the Good News with them. I am sure you are doing this, so leave the matter of how God gathers His elect in His hands. The gospel message is the means by which God gathers His people. For those that have honest questions, collect them and direct them to former Catholics, and there are many of us here.

I don't think tracts do much good for most who are steeped in their system of beliefs. For that matter, what is the literacy levels you are dealing with? I believe what is needed is direct dialog with those equipped to answer tough questions.

 

[Parsifal23]

As a guy who almost joined the Roman Catholic Church this has been something that I have had to think over and my main reasons I am not Roman Catholic are in no particuler order

1. Transubstantioation
2. Lack of any church discpline for heretics
3. Inclusiveism
4. The Romanist understanding of Justification
5. The Vanity and worldiness of many in modern day Americn Romanism
6. Sola Scriptura
7. The Anathma of Trent
8. The Evil popes
9. The Historical Persicutions of Protestants
10. Lack of any hope of true assurnce
11. Indulgnces

 

[dudley]

I am an ex Roman Catholic and now a Reformed Protestant

I agree with Tim Philips when he said in the opening of this blog "I am not a Roman Catholic because Roman Catholicism is a false religion. It is headed by an imposter, a man who claims to be something he is not. The Pope is not the Vicar of Christ, he is not the head of the Christian Church, he is not a “Holy Father,” and I owe him no fealty, honor, nor respect in the religious sense. Roman Catholicism is a man-made perversion of the truth.

I am an ex roman catholic and now a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant.

I was a Roman Catholic all my life. I left the Roman catholic church in January 2006 initially at first because I was no longer in line with the current pope. I had become very anti papist gradually and while still a Roman Catholic however in recent years I came to also believe that this current pope Benedict was leading the Roman Catholic church back to pre Vatican II thinking and positions. I also think God has led me to become a Protestant and a Protestant who is in line with the Reformed Protestant theology.

I initially became an Episcopalian in 2006 because I was comfortable with the similarities to the roman church. However I studied the Protestant reformation and I came to believe that the Reformed Protestants are the restoration of the church to its uncorrupted foundations. When Benedict reaffirmed the pre-Vatican II teaching 2 summers ago that Protestant churches are Ecclesial communities without the fullness of truth and said only the Roman Catholic church has the fullness of truth I was convinced I made the correct decision in leaving Roman Catholicism.

I made an extensive study when I left Roman Catholicism in 2006. I have said I initially became an Episcopalian because I was comfortable with the similarities to the roman church. Since I left the roman catholic church I have explored besides the Episcopal church, the Lutheran, LCMS, and the ELC, the Methodist, several Baptist congregations and the Presbyterian church the OPC, PCA, and the PCusa. However as I studied the Protestant reformation I have come to believe that the Reformed Protestants are the restoration of the church to its uncorrupted foundations.

I am in faith now a Reformed Protestant theologically. As I said I at first attended and joined an OPC congregation for several months after leaving the Episcopal church in February 2007. I joined a Westminster class with the OPC congregation and in the process I came to truly believe there is nothing outrageous in believing that all true Christians are justified by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone and that the Bible is our only source of authority. To challenge these twin pillars of Christian faith is to challenge the heart of the Gospel. Those who set aside these basic Christian tenets are themselves ‘outrageous’ and stand against the Gospel.


I find that too many Protestants have bought into the idea that we have a lot spiritually in common with Catholicism. Yet in reality, we have as much in common with the roman catholic church as we do with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't see the distinction between a system of bondage and a message of freedom.

Once God removes the veil from the eyes of the Roman Catholic and gives him/her eyes to see and ears to hear and new heart of trust in the real grace of God there is no more Roman Catholicism left in the soul. Hence, to be born again by the Spirit puts an end forever to Roman Catholicism. I really did not leave the roman catholic religion I was no longer a roman catholic. One cannot believe in salvation through the Roman Catholic system of sacraments, etc., and salvation by grace through faith alone at the same time. It is one or the other. I am a Reformed Protestant because I believe that all Christians are catholic, and I made an affirmation of faith as a Presbyterian Protestant because I chose the other as the truth once I was born again.

I know it is hard for life long reformed Protestants to understand the following. I think ex roman catholics like myself become more avowed Protestants than many who have been born into the Protestant fold. Only my opinion.

Again, I say to others and repeat....To be a Roman Catholic is to give allegiance to a pope, Mary and the sacraments among many other things. Simply read the Catholic Catechism and see for yourself. So, when one forsakes the Roman Catholic religion and gives allegiance to Jesus Christ through His Gospel then one is no longer a Roman Catholic. You cannot have it both ways. If you are a Christian [faith alone-Bible alone etc.] then you are no longer a Roman Catholic.

As reformed Protestants and as Presbyterians we know that there is no other condition for salvation than faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone. However, it is incongruent and a false gospel to suggest that one can come to Christ through the Gospel and remain in an anti-Christ system of theology,which is roman catholicism and also Anglican communities that retain the elements of the roman church in liturgy, sacrament and government.

If we prudently preach the Gospel "Leaving the Roman Catholic religion is the natural fruit of coming to Jesus. One does not become a Christian by leaving Rome. But, all Christians will leave Rome. They cannot stay in a false religion."

We must remain authentically Protestant, as apeople who profess and who believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation i.e. the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

"After all, there is a Protestantism still worth contending for, there is a Calvinism still worth proclaiming, and a gospel well worth dying for" (CH Spurgeon)

 

[Grimmson]

Pergamum,

I don't think tracts do much good for most who are steeped in their system of beliefs. For that matter, what is the literacy levels you are dealing with? I believe what is needed is direct dialog with those equipped to answer tough questions.

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[historyb]

Why Aren't You Roman Catholic?

I don't know, I don't know

 

[DMcFadden]

10. I saw The Exorcist when it came out in the early 70s and it scared me to death about Catholics.
9. Most RC churches are too ornate, gaudy, and just plain gross.
8. I have an irrational fear of penguins; nuns just creep me out.
7. I prefer to wear crosses that are plain rather than with figurines on them.
6. I do not speak Latin or Irish. The priests I know cannot be understood with that Irish brogue.
5. Every time I attend a RC church, I can't remember when to stand, when to sit, or when to say those cute responsive thingies.
4. I'm allergic to incense.
3. Bingo bores me.
2. After all of the news reports, I'm not getting into one of those little closets with some priest.
1. Any religion that accepts both Ted Kennedy AND Newt Gingrich must have some terminal cognitive dissonance problems.

[Unfortunately too many evangelicals could come up with no better substantive reasons for not being RC. I think that in many cases it is simply a matter of seeing RC as "just another denomination." And, with all of the ECT activity and de rigeur "dialogue" among the mainlines and even prominent evengelicals with Catholics, it probably will not get any better soon.]

 

[Poimen]

Q. Why I am not a Roman Catholic?

A. Because I have a Saviour.

Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 30

Q.30: Do those also believe in the only Savior Jesus, who seek their salvation and welfare from "saints," themselves, or anywhere else?

A.30: No; although they make their boast of Him, yet in their deeds they deny the only Savior Jesus; for either Jesus is not a complete Savior, or they who by true faith receive this Savior, must have in Him all that is necessary to their salvation.

 

[Wayne]

8. I have an irrational fear of penguins;

So Linux is out for you too?

Sorry

 

[dr_parsley]

I would love to be a Roman Catholic. Seriously, it would make things a lot easier if there was just one good church. In Zululand most churches are in very serious error - when I see the things on these forums that are called outright heresy, believe me by those standards EVERY SINGLE ONE of the churches here are in grave apostasy. But apostasy from what? For most of the history of the church we would have been able to say clearly, they are at odds with the teaching of the church and reel them back into line. Even if that teaching isn't perfect it's better than the churches I know! At least the Roman Catholics aren't privately doing explicit ancestor worship and witchcraft. So I would love for the Roman Catholic church to be reformed and become again the one church.

It grieves me terribly though, that when I read their Catechism I couldn't find any way to agree. Not with any amount of grace and charity and humility and benefit of the doubt, I couldn't find any way to agree with several of the items. Some of those items would have been very bad for me and in serious error (and I don't call an error serious lightly). But if they can just clear up those maybe six to twelve rather major points, I'd consider joining. I think God is seriously grieved by the divisions of His Church. I started re-reading Owen's Mortification of Sin yesterday and was struck by his very first comment in the preface that temptation is so great because professing Christians are "in peace with the world and divided amongst themselves".

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

I'm not RC by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

As revealed in Scripture to the Glory of God alone.

 

[Berean]

I'm not RC by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

As revealed in Scripture to the Glory of God alone.

 

[steven-nemes]

Well I am not a Catholic because I was not raised in a Catholic household, nor in a Catholic community, nor did I have at any point in my life a desire or a disposition towards Catholic theology or practices.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Because I have a Bible and can read

WCF 1

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

Lest we be persuaded that our persuasion of such things is nothing more than our intellectual capacity.

 

[historyb]

Well I am not a Catholic because I was not raised in a Catholic household, nor in a Catholic community, nor did I have at any point in my life a desire or a disposition towards Catholic theology or practices.

I wish I could say that but the truth of the matter is for me I still am drawn to Catholicism, as well as the other churches I left

 

[py3ak]

The Roman Catholic church is insufficiently holy, insufficiently apostolic, insufficiently catholic. It is also, of course, insufficiently dominical, insufficiently patristic and insufficiently medieval. But the point that causes the greatest gag reflex for me is the use of the titles "Holy Father" and "Vicar of Christ" for the pope. Jesus calls God the Father, "Holy Father" in John 17:11, and it betrays an appalling lack of reverence and sensitivity to apply that to a man. And of course it is the Spirit who is Christ's vicar, in that Christ is with us through the Spirit: again to apply that title to a human office, is utterly repugnant. Roman Catholicism dishonors the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.