What Helps Protestants Convert to Catholicism? | Bishop Barron |
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- Bishop Barron explains what he believes helps Protestants convert to Catholicism. I provide my protestant insights afterwards.
Here's the book I mention: amzn.to/4cZryyh
Original source: • What Helps Protestants...
#catholicsm #bishopbarron #conversion #god #catholicapologetics #reformation #jesus #christianity
@KyleWhittington be sure to subscribe to his channel.
POPE BENEDICT XVI: “The Church does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by attraction... she accomplishes every one of her works in spiritual and practical imitation of the love of her Lord.
Charitable works cannot be used as a means of engaging in proselytism. Love is free. It is not practiced as a way of achieving other ends.
Those who practice charity in the Church’s name will never seek to impose the Church’s faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. They know when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. They know that God is love, and that God’s presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love.” (2007 in Brazil)
Popes views change with the new Pope
@@dallasbrat81 I think Pope Francis has also rejected forms of proselytism that use deceptive tactics, especially financial aide and economics/Money to get people to become Catholic. Do Evangelization, which is Christ working through the Church, not deceptive proselytism.
In my opinion the most important thing for protestants to realize is that god did not put a book as the infallabile source of doctrine for his people, but a church. This church guided by the holy spirit is coming closer and closer to the truth with each day.
I agree, that appears to be the main driving point. The issue is we believe Scripture is the Word of the Living God. Something we take very seriously.
@@christafarion9 John 1:1 - In the beginning there was LOGOS, and LOGOS was with God, and LOGOS was God.
That's the original Greek. "Word" is a weak translation of "Logos." Nothing in English can capture and define it. It is so much more than "words alone in a book." The Greeks (who were John's audience here) understood the concept of Logos long before the understood the concept of a triune God. That's why John spoke to them in that way.
@julieelizabeth4856 My favorite Scripture. Pure beauty. In my copy, "Word" is capitalized. Pretty good for a translation if you ask me. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. Jesus is the Word of God, the speech of God, as He is God. Logos is another great way of putting it.
@@christafarion9 The New Testament was originally written in Greek. In the Greek-English dictionary, Logos is "defined" (attempted, not even all these together capture it) as: reason, teaching, law, purpose, principle, word, speech, language, way, order, testimony, wisdom, cause, proof, knowledge, intelligence, reckoning, rule, formula, and the list goes on. A book alone can't capture everything that God is.
@julieelizabeth4856 right ✅️ 👌 "the Word" not sure if we're agreeing or disagreeing
Edit: oh, I see, down at the bottom. You don't have that much respect for the Holy Scriptures, do you? It's just a book to you?
Another realy great book on Mary is by Tim Staples called "Behold your mother" where he really expounds on the typology issues especially.
As I understand Mary as the new Eve: The first Eve was disobedient to God when she was persuaded by the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit while Mary, in her obedience to God and His plan (the incarnation, knowing the potential social consequences of pregnancy and yet choosing to TRUST God), corrected the mistake of the first Eve and became the new Eve. And Jesus, as opposed to the disobedience of Adam, was obedient unto death to God the Father and He is called the New Adam. Jesus and Mary, therefore, in their choices, fulfilled the will of God as the first parents did not. They righted the wrong. One step further is that just as the old Eve is the mother of humanity in their disobedience, the new Eve is the Mother of the Church (Christ is the head of the Church and she is the mother of Christ)-and those obedient to her Son in their obedience. Her humility is a model of obedience to the Will of God and by extension, the Church’s obedience to the Will of God.
I am 77 I’m a cradle Catholic. I began listening to James Dobson when he first came out about in the late 70s I guess.
From that moment on, I was in love with my protestant brothers and sisters. I am a fervent Catholic, and I was so thrilled to hear other Christians.
They were more emotional into the Bible and into stories and into testimonies.
So what did I do?
I combined the two.
I was very involved in my sacramental church. I love Jesus Christ and I put the two together and it came out in one big Whole.
I believe it is the small c catholic universal Church, which is what Jesus Christ founded.
There’s no reason to differentiate, and there’s no reason to get caught up in the differences.
Love, Jesus, enjoy each other’s company and unify as much as you can .
Back in Jesus time, there were other people who didn’t follow the specifics of the apostles, but they were using the name of Jesus to heal, and Jesus said that was good.
So if we just stopped intellectualizing, and just gave our hearts to Jesus and kept seeking him and combining the two sides of the issue, we have the universal church right there!
But people mess it up all the time.😢
Protestantism has evolved, divided, sub divided, changed throughout its existence in various times and ways to serve, cater to, adapt to, the wants and desires of the generations. Truly, protestantism is the world’s panreligion.
Rome hasn't been immune to those pressures, either, and is better suited, and better positioned to be the world's panreligion than all the protestant denominations pooled together.
@@noxvenit Protestantism was made for and created to be a “religion for all”, to make popes out of anyone, like in the movie Ratatouille: anyone can cook.
The catholic church falls in snares of protestantism, yes, because it is not immune nor infallible. Islam falls into traps of protestantism as well. Just look at it now. So rabid about their book. Effect of decades of exposure from protestantism. There are are more “protestant” in Rome than what most know. That’s partly why Rome wreaks of erroneous ideologies.
Here's a question I would like to have answered - "What Helps 'CATHOLICS' Convert to Catholicism?"
I am hoping Protestants will agree on Mary. All they have to do is start fervently praying the rosary. I think the new Eve is the key. They agrue "new Eve" is not in the bible. That is true the title is not there but it can be seen thru types.
Please explain how Mary can interact with the millions of catholics praying to her at the same time.
As Christian we are ought to pray for each other, we are part of mystical body of Christ. James 5 16 the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. Just ask Mother Mary to pray for us. Peace bro
@@davidlarson4647 The simplest explanation of the "how" I have heard is that Mary could have prayed to God something like: "God hear and grant the prayers offered to me according to Your will." Any answer to the "how" question is always highly speculative on these topics.
@@philipmarchalquizar7741 Amen
@@davidlarson4647 Why would Jesus prevent His mother from hearing His children?
To clarify, I am a devout Catholic in the sense of Roman Catholic…
There’s the eastern churches, the orthodox churches there’s protestants etc.
There’s so many out there. The universal church is when we unify. That is the church that Jesus founded it’s WE the people!
We can listen to the pope, we can be devoted to Mary, we can inundate ourselves with the Bible etc.
We do that anyway individually!
Some Catholics don’t pray the rosary. Some protestants do pray the rosary!
It’s Christianity. It’s not individual boxes in Christianity.
💥Christianity is one big whole thing and yes the pope is the authority but a lot of Catholics don’t listen to him anyway.
So let him be at the helm and let people know that!
We Christians must join all together!
So I personally am Catholic but I also can be you might say protestant…
I’m not protesting I’m just combining and unifying.
And I believe every single thing we need to be brought to the Lord in heaven, and unify is in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
But most people do not have all of it within themselves.
So we can take from the protestants and take from the Catholics of what is true good and beautiful and doctrinal and combined them .
I think that’s also a possibility of unification.
Jesus said what do people say I am, wrong answers came up, He reduced it to 12 and asked who do you say I am. God gave the correct answer through peter. Gods word is living but it needs a vessel that is alive to serve as a channel. Jesus gave him the keys whatever peter bindes on earth will b bound in heaven. when Bishop talk of a living voice he means a vessel that is still breathing to keep the unity in enterpretations from Gods perspective. It God who always chooses the vessel to communicate through, Moses, Elijah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah etc. To keep the unity, he always choose Just one. The problem protestant have is seeing the pope as competing with Jesus. But the Catholic see him as representative of Jesus in the physical realm. Remember Jesus was battling with satan and both of them were using scriptures. If Jesus is in the spiritual realm how do we know when we read scriptures its him we are understanding and not satan's will who is also in the spirits? Remember mosses did miracles and Other people did magic. Buy yet Moses still have to prove he was a living voice of God. Same with Mary. Because of Eve sin came into the world throug a man, So too because of Mary Gods divine mercy came into the world in the form of a man. she is also a Channel for God to use . We cant get to God by our efforts. We need Mary because TO GOD THE FATHER SHE IS A DAUGHTER, TO GOD THE SON SHE IS A MOTHER AND TO GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT SHE IS A SPOUSE. Her relationship with the holy trinity is intimate and profound. Do not see her as God but see her as a channel to get to God. She will help you
I think that the largest barrier between Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox is soteriology, a division that goes back to Paul and James in the Epistles. The Catholic Church underwent its own 'reformation' and shed itself of many of the complaints of the reformers. Also High-Church Protestants like Anglicans and Lutherans have a LOT in common with Catholics.
The scripture is a living voice and it extrapolates the role of Mary as undoing the disobedience of Eve.. The sinless arc of the new covenant and the mother given to John and in essence the Church.
Bishop Baron have wisely said that the pope is the living voice of God. It is good to mention that when st. Paul wrote that the word of God is living and active he may not only meant the scripture but also to the voice of the church since during the time of st. Paul's life the Bible is non existent.
Hey, @TJSeaney! You're _not wrong_ in saying that in Catholicism, authority is "tied to the pope." But I fear that's too narrow, and risks creating a straw-man. The _Church_ in her _Magisterium_ is what has the benefit of authority, and thus infallibility; and the pope is a "tent-peg" in that system, which holds the whole tent up so it doesn't collapse. So you always need to see the pope _in context_ with the _other parts_ of the "college" of Royal Steward/Judge/Overseers, like the following:
1. Jesus, as King, established His Church Militant/Kingdom with Overseers holding "Stewardly" offices-of-succession, to achieve four things:
(a.) That what He revealed in the Apostolic Deposit of Faith would not be lost amidst competing interpretations (which would make His Truth impossible to clearly identify with principled certainty, a needle in a needle-stack of mostly-similar needles);
(b.) That His future disciples (and adopted younger-sibs) would be able to remain unified as He and The Father are unified (John 17), so that the world would be thereby convinced that He was sent by the Father;
(c.) That there would be a unified hierarchy across continents and cultures, providing an objectively-identifiable visible source of valid sacraments and authoritatively promulgated teaching, so that in Him (specifically in His body) _all things_ might be reconciled, rather than remain divided, scattered, and at war;
(d.) That there would be a unified Church Discipline system with a single appeals process terminating in a final-court-of-appeal, so that disputes between Christians would not be interminable or lead to schism.
2. In order to achieve the mission of the Church, Jesus knew that there must be an _objective_ means of identifying "Which church is the Real Church?" amidst a crowd of claimants.
3. One cannot identify _which one is the real Real Church_ by identifying "which one teaches correct doctrine?" ..., precisely because such opinions are _subjective_ and vary among Christians according to their culture, training, experience, and personal frailties. This leads to different Christians identifying _different groups_ as "the Real Church," not merely through recalcitrance, but often through honest error...and _that_ leads to scattering, disunity, schism.
4. Therefore, in constituting the Church, Jesus established an _objective_ set of identifying marks for the _judicial, legislative, and teaching authority_ He was establishing; namely, that it consisted of "the Apostolic-Successor Stewards-Overseers who are in communion with the Petrine-Successor Steward-Overseer."
5. When the Magisterium of _that Church_ teaches something definitively and irreformably, asserting that the Christian faithful should hold a truth to be "revealed by God," then Jesus promises the Church that "whatsoever y'all bind on earth has already been bound in Heaven, and whatsoever y'all loose on earth has already been loosed in Heaven." (Note the use of the correct, proper, and civilized form of the English second-person-plural pronoun.)
6. Knowing that the Steward-Overseers in Apostolic Succession could easily fall into disputes with one another (and not wishing to override their free will to prevent it), Jesus ensured that _one_ Steward-Overseer (the Petrine Successor) could resolve disputes between other Steward-Overseers, "loosing what they had bound, and binding what they had loosed; and no other could bind what he had loosed, or loose what he had bound." This dispute-resolution role was given first to Peter, then to his successors, emulating the Davidic Dynasty's office of the Al Bayith (c.f. Isaiah 22, Matthew 16). This provides a tie-breaker or final-appeal, enabling the Episcopal College to loose/bind with finality. This re-instituted the historical system of Royal Stewards which the Ruling Davidic Monarchs had previously had in the Kingdom of Judah, but applied it afresh to the Kingdom of God, under the kingship of the new Divine Monarch, Jesus, the Son of David.
THEREFORE,
7. It is the _Church_ (Christ's own body) which Christ purposed to speak authoritatively in His name, so as to preserve what He had revealed. It is NOT uniquely the pope. When we over-emphasize the papacy, we get a distorted picture.
However, the system _doesn't work_ without a pope, just as the system of Royal Stewards of the "House of David" wouldn't have worked without the Al Bayith (like Eliakim son of Hilkiah). To be sure, sometimes a bad Al Bayith would make things look corrupt or luxurious (like Shebna). But the office remained necessary, so that disputes could be resolved. (In any court-system, there must be a "final court of appeals." Without that, no case could ever be resolved.)
CONCLUSION:
None of this denies that the "word of God is living and active." But, when unifying a large group of people, we will inherently get subgroups centering around dissenting opinions about _whether God has spoken_ and _what, if anything, He has said._
The Bible is no help to resolve such disputes. It isn't that _nothing_ is clearly spelled-out in Scripture; it's just that _too many things_ are _sufficiently ambiguous_ that equally-sincere, equally-highly-trained interpreters keep coming to opposite conclusions! (We have 500 years' evidence to support that assertion; it's no longer reasonable to doubt it.)
What we _do_ know is that Christ established authorities in the Church with _judicial_ power. For Matthew 18's "Church Discipline" passage to function worldwide (enabling Christian unity worldwide) it _must_ be the case that, at some point, cases involving doctrinal quarrels need to be _settled_ beyond any further appeal.
There is only one Christian communion in the world which...
(a.) has a plausible historical claim to continuity since the first century; and,
(b.) has a judicial system which claims to be able to settle such disputes beyond any further appeal.
If there were another Christian communion which _even claimed_ to be able to do what Christ's promises require of the Church, I might not have become Catholic. But, in point-of-fact, there really isn't. (The various Orthodoxies come closest, but there's a huge logical problem with that claim.) Certainly, the Protestantism of my youth couldn't make it work.
So, as far as I can tell, the Catholic Church is the only functioning Kingdom of God in town.
Rather than, "The Church in her Magisterium is what has the benefit of authority, and thus infallibility...."
The extension from the possession of teaching authority to the attribute of infallibility is unwarranted. The lid on infallibility was blown off long ago, and should be repudiated: Rome claims too much for herself. Take Küng's advice (probably the only thing he was correct about): drop 'infallibility' in favor of 'indefectibility'. That would be a good start.
@@noxvenit: Hmm. I'm not sure I understand the distinction _you_ are making between the two terms. Don't misunderstand me: I agree there _is_ a distinction! ...but I'm suspecting from what you wrote that you'd articulate it differently from me. We normally attribute _indefectibility_ to the Church, and _infallibility_ to the minimum-required protections on the authoritative activity of the Magisterium, whatever's minimally-sufficient from a logical and historical perspective to allow _indefectibility_ to exist even in principle, in such a way as to fulfill the _telos_ of the Church and the promises of Christ.
In that fashion, the _indefectibility_ of the Church logically implies the _infallibility_ of some of her decisions (or else Christianity, as a divinely-revealed body of specific doctrine and practice, is just functionally irretrievable). And of course the Church ponders the mystery of the ways in which her authority is exercised (and by whom) over time, in order to better understand _which_ decisions can be identified as infallible, and how they are identified in real time.
But it seems to me you're using the terms slightly differently? I suspect so: I don't know precisely what you mean by "the lid on infallibility was blown off," although I'm _guessing_ the metaphor is intended to indicate you think _some_ claim was made logically untenable? (I don't know whether it's the _Catholic_ claim, or not.)
Off-topic: I'm interested in your moniker: "Night is coming." I know why the phrase "Winter is coming" became popular, a few years back; but, which "night?"
Best to you,
CW
@@cw-on-yt Very good question. Thank you. I regret the sort of exposition required is too long for this venue, so I will need to punt. The distinction is well explained by Hans Küng in his book, 'Infallible? And Inquiry.' Granted he was declared a heretic, but I point you to him only because, right or wrong, he provides the explanation you're looking for.
For now I will say that Küng's argument is that because only God is infallible, the most we can expect of the church is that she be indefectible: that while she may in fact teach error here and there, to greater or lesser extents, still, the gates of hell shall not prevail.
The moniker is derived from the latin of John 9.4, except that I transposed 'nox' and 'venit'.
As a Protestant, I was drawn to the allure of Roman Catholicism’s beauty and reverence missing in many Protestant denominations. However, it was this dive into Roman Catholicism that affirmed my Protestant position. In studying the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers I was shocked to see how little Romanism was present and how much Protestantism was there. This in combination with an open fidelity to God’s Word kept me firm in my Protestantism. And I’m thankful to God for this affirmation. God bless you all!
Would you mind providing a specific example? My experience was the exact opposite (and most everyone else that I have come across). I found that as a Protestant, when I looked at the church fathers expecting to find Protestantism, I found examples of that to support my preconceived ideas (confirmation bias). But, when I ACTUALLY looked at their writings AS A WHOLE, I found that it did NOT support Protestantism in anyway and the "quotes" I previously used were taken out of context.
For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in 110 AD (who also was a disciple of St. John the Apostle) "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery (priests) as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid".
So, right away we have the structure of the Church put into place right from the start. Now, when we understand the Jewish backdrop of "how" things were done. It gives even more of a picture. In Judaism, priests had to show a lineage going back to Aaron and the Levites. No lineage, no priesthood. Historical evidence supports that this practice was also continued on in Christianity. All bishops/priests had to show a lineage to the Apostles and were ordained by the laying on of hands (which is mentioned in the NT). So, we have Apostolic Succession and the early Church structure going back to the Apostles. Protestants have no lineage and are illegitimate according to how things were properly done. Even going back to the OT, we see that God punished Korah and the others because they claimed that since they were all a nation of priests, there should be no priesthood (Numbers 16).
Now add in other verses in the NT, that say that there is only one Body of Christ, to obey your spiritual leaders, people who cause schisms and division in the body must be removed, and we find that Protestantism is not tenable unless you reject the Bible (or ignore what it actually says).
@@hirakisk1973 Yes, Ignatius’ quote is misapplied. But the further issue is that when you read the apostolic and ante-Nicene Fathers you’ll find just 1 with this view, and the application is dubious. None of the others mention this as well as most other Roman doctrines. This is the same even through Augustine-who it seems is more Protestant in his views than Roman. Romanism doesn’t really begin until The Middle Ages. That is why The Reformers were intent on bringing the Roman Church back to the Early Church views. Before the Middle Ages.
@lproof8472 wonder why so many protestants then get upset reading early church. What are they reading that your not? Additionally many converts to the Catholic church cite reading early church as the reason for their conversion.
The early church is the Catholic Church
There's no once saved always saved. No faith ALONE. No sola-scriptura. No pastors autonominating themselves as such and starting their own church.
@@DUZCO10 I’ve never once met Protestants who get upset from the Early Church writings. And the Reformed view separates the Catholic Church from the Roman Church. They’re different altogether. Again, the Roman Church didn’t really begin to develop until the Middle Ages. Not trying to convert you, but sharing the mainline view of the Reformers, and my view is that the evidence is overwhelming in their favor once studied.
@@lproof8472"to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" -Cardinal John Henry Newman
I think your instinct of the Pope as interpreting the living Word is good. You see it in Acts where the apostles decide when there's disagreement. The Pope similarly is that final voice to settle matters, obviously keeping with the Word and sacred tradition (the new testament being part of that as it was all oral before it was written).
Second, on Mary vs the Church as the bride, why not both? Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) wrote about how typology doesn't have to be exclusive (example, Rev 12: the woman being Mary, the bride, and the Church).
So Mary is the new Eve, the new mother of the living. Christ gives us this new life, through baptism we become his brothers, and that makes Mary (Jn 19:27) our mother.
A Protestant response. The “living voice of authority” has done nothing to stop factionalism and discord within Roman Catholicism. To say you are leaving Protestant disunity for Roman Catholicism unity is a myth. It doesn’t accurately portray Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. To suggest Protestants don’t have any authority is again a caricature and does not reflect reality. There is also a certain condescension and arrogance coming from the Roman Catholic side that I find off putting. As a Protestant Christian I am not lacking in anything as is so often suggested. I am fully united to Christ and his church. Protestants are Catholic. It would be a conversion to Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism does not own the word catholic. Protestants do honor Mary. They simply don’t confer any salvific role to her.
Why should a Protestant choose Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy?
Without singular leadership, Eastern Orthodoxy is splitting more too. The groups are ex-communicating each other.
@@julieelizabeth4856 it’s really hard to overlook the corruption that has been historic in the Catholic institution, from reparations, to rampant child abuse, and the cover ups by the Vatican and church leadership to save face.
Jesus said he would give to "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter alone (Matt 16:18-19). Those "keys" have been passed on from Peter to his successors - specifically, to the Bishop(s) of Rome, whom we know as the Pope of the Catholic Church.
The point is, no one in the Eastern Orthodox Churches holds the "keys", so no Eastern Orthodox Church can claim to be the true Church.
Only the Catholic Church can claim to be the true Church, bcoz only the Catholic Church holds the "keys".
@@AndrewLane-pm2ro as the the true church, why have there been so many immense challenges with issues such as indulgences, which were essentially bribery, as well as more recently, the abuse of tens of thousands of little ones by thousands of priests, and then the deliberate cover up by bishops, cardinals, and even the pope?
If Kyle shows up here… can a brotha get a book??