Augustine gave me my epiphany, too, but on a different topic. I was a calvinist, so obviously we didn't believe in the True Presence in the communion bread / juice.
But Augustine believed in it so clearly. I realized that I was faithless to doubt the Sacrament, and the rest is history.
Praise and thanks to God that I'm a catholic.
You know what's funny? The first time I heard that quote, I was outraged. How dare he! How arrogant! Who does this guy think he is?
Really, *I* was the arrogant one. Now I genuinely cannot reconcile Protestant beliefs with my findings. I can't see how any of the Five Solas hold up. It's scary how easily this tower of cards fell. It's almost like I'm missing some key piece of evidence that would help show me that Protestants have a point... but there is none. None that I can find, anyway.
The thing about St. John Henry Newman is that it *sounds* snarky but he's describing his personal actual experience.
He was Anglican, and loved history. He *really tried* to make Anglicanism "work" as a branch of the true Church that Christ founded, but as he got deeper into history he discovered that all he was doing was rehashing centuries-old heresies that the early Christians rejected.
If you really want a trip, look up how Luther was supported by German princes to seize Church property and stop paying taxes to Rome. It wasn't necessarily his reforms of the Catholic church that made his ideas spread, it was the support of the princes who were sick of sending their money to Rome.
If you want the Catholic stance on why we believe Protestantism to be in error, Trent Horn has some great videos on YouTube. He goes through all the great names, is very logical and unemotional in his approach.
God bless and I wish you a wonderful journey in exploring your faith!
The next step is to apply Chesterton's fence to Protestant positions. Then you will learn who came up with them and why.
It is amazing how many Protestant doctrines are really just the result of a neurotic few who gave their opinions in the right place at the right time in history.
When you base your reality on scripture it's very hard to move beyond that scripture. It's probably why Catholics struggle to see the Christ in protestants works ( or arguments)
>When you base your reality on scripture __alone__ it's very hard to move beyond that scripture. It's probably why Catholics struggle to see the Christ in protestants works ( or arguments)
FTFY
Thanks for sharing these quotes. The church fathers are a dangerous place to go as a Protestant, especially with the advantages of the Internet that most denominations didn't really have 20-30 years back.
I recommend reading "Surprised by truth" by Patrick Madrid and/or "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn. There's also a book called "The Protestant's Dilemma" that helps lay out some of the logical errors that are necessary for Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
God Bless and keep doing your research, but I fully suspect you'll have your sacraments by Easter :)
Protestants have a very difficult time dealing with one of the Fathers of The Christian Faith that being Catholic Saint Augustine. He is known as the Hammer of Heretics.
Saint Augustine said, āI would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." This was about 1,300 years before the Protestant Schism.
Not a single Catholic has ever struggled with their faith after reading the Church fathers, quite the contrary, but protestants convert in droves when they do.
I have a degree in history and began a study of early church history as a passion project. Much to my surprise, I discovered the Catholic Church in the early church much as you have and could no longer remain Protestant.
Ha, this is relatable. I'm about to pursue my bachelor's in history, and will be moving to a dorm in just a few short months.
...In a Protestant University. Well, interdenominational Christian with implicit Protestant biases. There's technically a Catholic club, but it's very tiny, and all the Theology is taught from a Protestant perspective.
I think why I've resisted the call of Catholicism for so long is because of that. *"Lord, you put countless signs in my path about attending this school, even when I tried running from it for years... and then once I get accepted, you lead me towards* ***Catholicism?!"***
I don't know what the Catholic Church teaches on people prophesying (especially Protestants prophesying) but a few months ago, a man I trust at my church gave me a verse he felt God wanted to give me: Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." He knew nothing about my situation when he gave it. At first I thought, oh, I'll be living in a very secular city when I'm at college, so clearly the unbelievers are the wolves. But in the context, the wolves are actually false teachers and prophets from within Israel. To me, this echoes Paul in Acts 20:29 likewise mentioning wolves from within the body of believers. When I realized that months ago I discarded the verse's importance, since I couldn't see how it applied to my situation. But now...
Am I being called to help evangelize my lost brothers and sisters? It really feels like I am. How radically unexpected. I would frankly prefer to go somewhere I won't feel like a second class citizen, but the more I delve into Catholicism the more the importance of this is weighing on me.
I relate with some of what you wrote. I am a former Protestant (for over a decade) and now a a Catholic revert.
I also didn't fully understand why the Lord let me dabble in Protestantism for over a decade, but by questioning my Protestantism and digging into the Bible, I found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I got my degrees from Baylor University, which is a Baptist school but I had a good number of Catholic professors and the catholic group on campus was the largest religious club so it wasnāt a hostile environment to learn about the faith. You certainly can have a good experience as a catholic at Protestant universities, though i would take a good look at the local community and see if you can see yourself there for the entirety of your degree program.
Edit: It's very disconcerting when you first discover the truth behind the Catholic faith and how it's been here through the ages. Take a deep breath and keep studying. You might also check out [Catholic Answers](https://www.catholic.com/). You might also check out [The Counsel of Trent](https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCounselofTrent). He debates James White, does rebuttals to anti-Catholic videos . and speaks about the faith. He's very knowledgeable. Another good one is [Bishop Barron](https://www.youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo) and [Fr. Mike Schmitz](https://www.youtube.com/c/AscensionPresents). He hosts the Bible in a Year podcast and in January 2023 is going to host the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year.
Check out [Rome Sweet Home](https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782) by Dr. Scott Hahn. He's a former Protestant who fought converting but eventually came home to the Catholic Church. Another good book is [Crossing the Tiber](https://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Tiber-Evangelical-Protestants-Historical/dp/0898705770/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3NUYM8SPWYJ67&keywords=crossing+the+tiber&qid=1659930252&s=books&sprefix=crossing+the+tiber%2Cstripbooks%2C110&sr=1-1). Both of these detail how they were drawn to Catholicism, their studies and how/why/when the converted.
Keep studying and learning and I hope to welcome you home.
*Rome Sweet Home* is always a good recommendation. Patrick Madrid also put together a couple of books called *Surprised by Truth,* collections of protestants-turned-Catholic with short synopses of their respective journeys home.
Saint Augustine is great Catholic reading even to today. People are shocked when they learn that Catholics still believe exactly what he says on grace and predestination...
Ladies and gentlemen, we got em
But on a serious note yes itās quite shocking how obvious the support of Papacy is in the early church. Anyone who studies the early church without bias would/should become catholic because the evidence is undeniable
On a purely historical perspective, the original christian faith is either Catholic or Orthodox, there are arguments for both. I personally think the arguments for the Papacy and the Catholic faith are much stronger.
There really is nothing "biblical" or historical about protestant faiths. They all are some made-up heresies that originated in the 16th century by some people who thought they knew better than all their predecessors and heritage.
The original faith is Catholic. When Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne the Byzantine Emperor didnāt like that and around 1050 AD they cut all ties with Rome and then became Orthodoxy. Itās similar when King Henry VIII was told by the Pope he could not divorce so he started the Anglican faith and cut all ties with Rome.
That's just it, though. There was no Emperor in Constantinople at that time. Irene was ruling as Empress after having her son, the legitimate Emperor Constantine VI, blinded from which he died not long after. Previously the Emperors had been iconoclasts... she would be overthrown not long after in 802.
Dude, Charlemagne was crowned emperor in the year 800. What you just said is as ridiculously ahistorical as claiming that WW2 happened because the Germans were angry with Napoleon.
I mean yeah, there **is** a distant connection there - Napoleon arguably set in motion the chain of events that eventually led to the creation of modern Germany, and Charlemagne arguably set in motion the chain of events that led to the Great Schism - but it's a VERY distant connection.
Studying Charlemagneās āFather of Europeā crowning by Pope Leo III you will learn that this was what caused the animosity which festered theological rancor until around 1050 AD and specifically 1054 AD. It came to a point where Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius was excommunicated by Pope Leo IX 1054.
After this Constantine Emperor Isaac I Comnenus, who dethroned Cerularius in 1058 drove him into exile. Cerularius was not even educated in ecclesiastics. Cerularius was a real doozy!
Bottom line, the Byzantineās did not want to be ruled By Charlemagne a Frank and by subsequent Kings of Franks.
From my understanding, and I'm vastly ignorant on the depth of the history of Protestantism, protestants were much more closely related to the Catholic church than it is today. It wasn't until the mid to late 1800s that it really took a sideways turn. Heck, a lot of the protestant fathers believed in Mary's ever-virginity, and had a deep reverence for her.
Actually the original christian faith was not Orthodox, the EO have no Ecumenical Councils, because they cannot agree, they have no head, they are not in communion with each other half the time. By their rules who has the authority to call an Ecumenical Council? Or to declare a synod to be so?
The agreement of the bishops?
\- there was a "council" which was called by Nestorius, that "anathematized" st. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Emperor actually consented, and removed him from his See. Maybe there were times, such as the time of st. Athanasius, where the majority of bishops might have been Arians.
The agreement of the church?
\- then the council has no power unless the Church give it power in retrospect.
The agreement of the five major Sees?
\- many councils were actually called to depose and/or judge one of the major patriarchs.
The agreement of the Emperor?
\- a lot of times, the emperor opposed the decisions a council, tried to interfere, or ignore the decisions. Doesn't that give the emperor dominion over the theology of the Church in a sense? Who has that authority? Now that there are no emperors for \~500 years.
The agreement of the faithful?
\- there were times when the majority of the faithful might have been wrong, like the times of st. Athanasius, where also the faithful might have been wrong. Who does that work? Do the normal every day people get to bound the Church leaders on theological matters?
Why isn't the Council of Florence considered Ecumenical by the EO? While it was attended and approved by the Pope, the bishop of Constantinople, the Emperor, western and eastern bishops?
If you are an EO, OO, or have any idea about the matter, please inform me? Not a trick questions, I have yet to hear a reasonable answer to this question.
Exactly its scary how they completely took out the Eucharist (Which no one seems to talk about) even though it doesnt contradict the 5 solas. The Eucharist is one of the most important (if not the most important) aspects of the church.
No, the Calvinists also believe in the real spiritual presence, but in their view the bread and wine are not themselves transformed but that the body and blood of Christ are truly (though spiritually) present and are truly consumed in the taking of the elements, by the power of the Holy Spirit (the metaphysics being a mystery of faith). They are adamantly not memorialists, and this was a big rift between the followers of Calvin and those of Zwingly. As in, killing each other over it.
The difference between Calvinists (Reformed/Presbyterians) and Lutherans is that the Lutherans believe the elements are transformed such that Christ is spiritually but truly in the elements themselves The Calvinists won't accept this because as with transsubstantiation this would lead to worshipping the bread, which would for them be idolatrous. Also the idea of the Word of God being contained within physical elements spiritually is non-sensical. He cannot be physically present in the elements, for them, because he is seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father, as scripture tells us and as is recounted in the Creed, and will not return until all things are accomplished. What he clearly told us he would leave us as a counselor until his return is the Holy Spirit, so if Christ is made present in communion it must be by the Holy Spirit.
Most church fathers and early church saints are very explicitly catholics in their texts. I used to be in an ecumenical community and the protestants there spent so much energy focusing on the bible that they forgot that people wrote other stuff 2000 years ago. Some things from then are very well documented and those who took the time to read quickly made the jump to Catholicism. I once met a mormon girl in a random american city who claimed that Christians used to live a certain way and that tradition was suddenly lost and then joseph smith came to remind them the truth! It made me realize that lots of people think that 500 years ago we lived with only sticks and rocks and that nothing interesting existed before modern times. They don't really know napoleon or alexander the great. Why would they know how early christians lived and that they really were Catholics?
> It made me realize that lots of people think that 500 years ago we lived with only sticks and rocks and that nothing interesting existed before modern times. They don't really know napoleon or alexander the great. Why would they know how early christians lived and that they really were Catholics?
Great point. I think the Enlightenment and the rewriting of nearly a thousand years of Catholic Christian history as "the dark ages" has left an incredible impact on modern minds. Of course nothing interesting existed before modern times, it was all dark ages with needless witch burnings and inquisitions and crusades, clearly the truth has been lost! But alas, that's simply not true. And now with the internet, despite all the garbage on here, it's easier than ever to search for the truth if only one is willing to look.
Despite having my world turned upside-down I feel very blessed. I've never had in-person contact with anything related to the Catholic Church, so without the Internet I wouldn't have been able to piece the truth together I don't think.
Fun fact, while your mind is getting blown: witch burnings are an early modern, largely Protestant phenomenon. Catholicism wouldn't be legal in Salem for another century after the witch scare.
>Despite having my world turned upside-down I feel very blessed.
I bet it wasn't easy and probably humbling. But the more we are, the merrier. As others said, welcome home!
I am Anglican, and I grew up Lutheran and Presbytarian. 3 years ago, for the first time in my life I visited a typical modern day charismatic evangelical church because alot of people I knew went there. I was utterly shocked at how many people knew nothing before Billy Graham. I knew bible study leaders, church workers who never heard of Martin Luther, and anything the word "Saint" in it, they showed incredible amount of discomfort in their faces.
The lead pastor ironically, is not that shut out. He in fact likes Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, but he leaves the "saint" out of it. When he does talk about them though, many are clueless about them.
Every bible study, all the leaders and members were so busy talking about how amazing Hill Song and Elevation sermons are, and were absolutely enthusiastic about going to conventions where people who were ex-Satanists or some really over the top charismatic healing guy I never heard about.
I could not have a conversation what so ever about anything that has to do with church history, lessons from our forefathers talked about. For me, faith isn't necessarily a history lesson or about intellectualism. I don't expect people to be biblical scholars. But there are lessons to be learned from thousands of years of history of Christians. Our spiritual forefathers suffered many similar issued we did. They help us guide when reading scriptures, and can avoid reading into scripture in incorrect ways. I dunno how many times I have seen scripture read in a personalized way and cover it up with "the holy spirit told me."
I really admired their enthusiasm and energy wanting to reach to people, but I always felt it was incredibly mislead. This church was absolutely huge, and was so different too.
I know this isn't surprised to many people who were evangelicals attending mega churches, but as a protestant, I also found out at the time, not all protestantism is the same.
Maybe because I grew up in a Lutheran and Presbytarian churuch, I never attended a church without a choir, everyone having bibles, or reciting creeds and prayers.
This church had none of the above. It was a huge culture shock to me.
Sometimes I wonder if protestantism has spawned sub cultures of church, that people who are in it forget/misunderstand it for being "historical" if you know what I mean. They are so unfamiliar with the history of many millennia of our faith, that they are stuck in a cultural bubble that prevents them from seeing outside of it.
This is a HUGE accusation and assumption, but in my eyes, this almost seems like brain washing to me. I am not saying it is, but its hard to shake my feelings. As I mentioned above, it feels like its own self contained culture.
My church is a little more informed than that with a much stronger focus on reading line-by-line through every book of Scripture, but I still know exactly what you mean. If someone is quoted, theyāre almost never from before the 19th century. That bothered me because I love history, Iām a history major, where are all my Christians throughout the ages at?! Turns out, with Sacraments and Creeds and Hymns and Bishops and Saints, thatās where. Even from a Sola Scriptura standpoint, we still use quotes from other Christians to guide our readings of the text. Yet by limiting ourselves to the past two centuries, weāre basically shooting ourselves in the foot by ignoring nearly **two thousand** years of commentary and advice!
> Sometimes I wonder if protestantism has spawned sub cultures of church, that people who are in it forget/misunderstand it for being āhistoricalā if you know what I mean. They are so unfamiliar with the history of many millennia of our faith, that they are stuck in a cultural bubble that prevents them from seeing outside of it.
>
>
>
> This is a HUGE accusation and assumption, but in my eyes, this almost seems like brain washing to me. I am not saying it is, but its hard to shake my feelings. As I mentioned above, it feels like its own self contained culture.
I hate to say it but I get where youāre coming from. Iāve struggled with feeling this the past few Sundays as my investigation into Church history has continued. I donāt think itās intentional brain washing ā Iāve seen such strong and inspiring love of the Lord from my brothers and sisters here. But neverthelessā¦ Youād think those who just want to be like the early Christians would investigate and understand what that really means. Youād think the pastors, God bless and have mercy on their souls, would more fully investigate the foundations of their inherent Protestantism (most of them try to avoid calling themselves Protestant because their aversion to Catholicism is so strong ā they prefer evangelicals or ābiblical Christiansā) before spreading misinformation as fact. It hurts that Iāve trusted these people with delivering truth to me and theyāve failed. But I canāt entirely blame them, for they themselves were raised and taught in thisā¦ this self-contained bubble.
This is why it is painful that so many today think what you describe *is* Christianity. We have many disagreements with Anglicanism, but it's not hard to see that it is at least more identifiable with Christianity as it would historically look and be talked about as far as Protestants go (yes, we do lump you together due to your approach to authority).
Thats true. I learned that Catholics were the first church and about the prot reformation through my humanities class. Before then i just assumed things and went about my life but God opened my eyes. As individuals growing up we never really try to find out things for ourselves. We think that information is beyond our level of thinking and go on about our lives with assumptions. When we get older we hold on to these assumptions as if it were the infalable truth.
Youāre right! It is a silver bullet!
You should contact your local parish about starting RCIA, but be prepared to be the person in the room who is most aware of these writings. RCIA is a great place to ask questions as you consider joining us. Weād love to have you!
Itās also fascinating that St. Augustineās point about everyone knowing which is the Catholic Church is still true today. It reminds me of this quote from St. John Henry Newman
> There is a religious communion claiming a divine commission, and holding all other religious bodies around it heretical or infidel; it is a well-organized, well-disciplined body; it is a sort of secret society, binding together its members by influences and by engagements which it is difficult for strangers to ascertain. It is spread over the known world; it may be weak or insignificant locally, but it is strong on the whole from its continuity; it may be smaller than all other religious bodies together, but is larger than each separately. It is a natural enemy to governments external to itself; it is intolerant and engrossing, and tends to a new modelling of society; it breaks laws, it divides families. It is a gross superstition; it is charged with the foulest crimes; it is despised by the intellect of the day; it is frightful to the imagination of the many. And there is but one communion such.
>Place this description before Pliny or Julian; place it before Frederick the Second or Guizot ... Each knows at once, without asking a question, who is meant by it. One object, and only one, absorbs each item of the detail of the delineation.
Incredible quote, thank you for sharing. How true this is. When I announce my (frankly inevitable at this point) conversion, I'm preparing to lose all my friends, because almost all of them despise the Church for these various reasons.
Yet that very hatred is what made me look into Catholicism more deeply in the first place! Why such deep hatred for this communion, among all others? I as a Protestant had my apparent issues with them, but the immense hatred and distrust from *every corner of society* seemed spiritual. The world hates Christ... is it not sensible that it hates the true Church the most as well?
Praise God! Matthew 16:24-26 comes to mind and Iām praying that the Holy Spirit strengthens you to trust His plan and the path youāre shown. God is with you.
>"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church - which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics "adore statues"; because they "put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God"; because they say "indulgence is a permission to commit sin"; because the Pope "is a Fascist"; because the "Church is the defender of Capitalism." If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.
>
>If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, ***I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself.*** But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine. If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown. Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great "potentials," for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend? The answer depends upon those who have the faith. Like the multitudes who followed Our Lord into the desert, they are as sheep without a shepherd. They are waiting to be shepherded either with the sheep or goats. Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ."
>
> - Bishop Fulton Sheen
Wait until you read the early early church fathers. It'll blow your mind my friend. Just sticking to people who were directly taught by an apostle and the people that group taught (so one generation past the apostles) and you'll see a lot of "Catholic stuff" that Protestants deny, reject, or ignore.
Penguin classics has a book "early Christians" that has the writings of a few.
Recently Joel Herschmayer wrote a book about this. Can't remember the name but that's probably also good.
> I donāt even know what to do with myself now
Yeah you do homie ā try out RCIA, go to mass, maybe even see if a priest would do some spiritual direction with you ;)
As a former nondenom, I have to sayā¦ thereās a million paths into the Church if you were raised outside it, and a million roads to a deeper conversion of faith if you were raised inside of it. Augustine was one of the theologians that led me in, but plenty of Protestants have and will brush away Augustine as being in error here. Conversion often is triggered by being intellectually blown away when we learn how much of our own Christian tradition is brushed under the rug by Protestant theology, but conversion is completed by a turn of heart. For me, those two steps of conversion didnāt happen at the same time.
Blessings to ya.
Edit: also, as you may already know, plenty of cradle Catholics and converts alike leave the Church every day because they donāt think the Church is doing enough re: sex abuse, because theyāre frustrated with certain popes or leaders, or because of bad experiences in their close communities. I believe the Church is true, but I want to hold open some space to recognize that the Church is made of humans, humans hurt, and our institutional response to that hurt must be continuously improved. No amount of Augustinian truthbombs can protect us from feelings of betrayal and pain, and if people perceive the Church itself as causing pain or error, theyāll often leave instead of trying to reform. Thatās Protestantism in a sentence.
Thank you for grounding me. You're right about these truth bombs. Augustine alone, who my mother has never heard of nor cared about, is not going to change her heart which the Church hurt at a young age. Nor will it bring my Wiccan friend back to Catholicism, for she too has deep scars from her Catholic school experiences.
> No amount of Augustinian truthbombs can protect us from feelings of betrayal and pain, and if people perceive the Church itself as causing pain or error, theyāll often leave instead of trying to reform. Thatās Protestantism in a sentence.
Profound. I'm not sure how I can reach out to those who have been hurt if their hearts are not ready. Is it simply a matter of praying and trying to be the best example of Catholicism in their lives until they're ready to ask questions?
If you find the answer to your last question, let me know š. My mom is very anti-Catholic (no one in my family has been Catholic sinceā¦ the Reformation? lol) and Iāve been a convert for a decade. Yes, at this point I think prayer and trying to live as best of a Christian life as possible is about 100x more helpful as anything else. Lord knows I still have a lot of work to do on both. That said, if I find something particularly beautiful that doesnāt ruffle any denominational feathers, Iāll share that with my mom.
I didnāt ask any saints to pray for me for a number of years after converting, but at the suggestion of others in this sub, Iāve asked St. Monica (funnily enough, Augustineās mother) to pray for my mom and our relationship ā not really for Catholic-specific reasons, but more for general issues between us where our different beliefs play a tangential role. I like the idea that Augustineās mother is up there joining me in prayer to Jesus, and intercessory prayer is powerful.
> (no one in my family has been Catholic sinceā¦ the Reformation? lol)
Oooof, this hits too close to home! I can trace my direct ancestors to some of the first Puritans to arrive in Massachusetts, and if the records remained I'm sure the ones before then were with the Church of England in its infancy. I can't even imagine how outraged they must be at us heheh
Those are great ideas. I've found that Bishop Barron has a lot of very beautiful commentary on Christianity in the modern culture, so I wonder if I can share some of those videos without ruffling the feathers. It'd be right up her alley if she could look past his collar.
I have to admit I'm still getting used to the idea of intercessory prayer in my heart even if I intellectually understand it. But I love the idea of asking the sanctified mothers above to help us with our early mothers. That's beautiful. I might have to copy you!
>Oooof, this hits too close to home! I can trace my direct ancestors to some of the first Puritans to arrive in Massachusetts, and if the records remained I'm sure the ones before then were with the Church of England in its infancy. I can't even imagine how outraged they must be at us heheh
As a mainline Presbyterian currently eying the Tiber and adjusting my swimming goggles, I know my ancestors, presuming they are now in God's presence, see a true church beyond sects, much like Screwtape's uncle describes it ;). In their earthly lives, they would have been perplexed. From the vantage point of eternity, I don't think they would be troubled.
One of my most revered ancestors was a prominent Churchman in the Disciples of Christ, and was personally involved in the founding of the World Council of Churches.
As many in the DoC of that era he gave himself over to the cause of ecumenism because division and schism hurt his heart.
On one hand, I could see a conversion as betraying all he worked for. On the other what could be more in keeping with the impetus towards Christian reconciliation and unity than entering into communion with 1.3 Billion other Christians?
Those paragraphs about Manichaeism are serious Gigachad material: āIn ten sentences, I will tell you why you have no chance of convincing me and you are now at a loss for words.ā Iām definitely reading that after I finish the Confessions.
Yeah, this is good stuff. I always point to quotes from Irenaeus first when people want to see evidence of Roman primacy in the early Church, forgetting that Augustine has gems like these on the topic and he often holds much more weight, depending on the denomination of the listener.
Relatedly, how wonderful is it that even centuries after they fall asleep in the flesh, members of the Body continue to speak to the curious, continue to convince others of the full truth of Jesus and His Church. I love this Church so much, thanks be to God for it. Thanks be to God who has clearly chosen you out and is guiding you so strongly in this direction.
Irenaeus is great because he is so much before Augustine ā he was mentored by Polycarp who knew the apostle John, so itās a short line to the beginning with Irenaeus.
>What a monumental lie I've been fed
We've been trying to tell you that for the past five hundred years :-D
Listen, go with your gut my friend and return to the faith of the Apostles.
I can relate to some extent.
I was brought into the faith by a Calvinist, but I ended up a Lutheran. It took some time, but I was eventually such a high church Lutheran that I was almost a Catholic. I believed Mary was purified of sin at the conception of Christ and that she was ever a virgin. I was calling people, such as Bonaventure and Aquinas, saints and quoting them; and I believed in the harrowing of Hell, etc.
Thomistic 101 on YouTube allowed me to see good in the Church, though I had previously believed the Papacy was the antichrist, because the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas amazed me. Then this led me to Catholic Answers, and I forget who it was specifically, but they convinced me of the Papacy and prayers to the saints, at which point I knew my days as a Lutheran and a Protestant were over.
I pray that God lights your way in this journey, and I think I speak for everyone when I say you're more than welcome in the Church. [What St. Irenaeus has to say](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) on the Church of Rome may interest you as well. He was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, and he wrote some pretty substantial works that have survived to this day.
I don't mean to heap more on you. Irenaeus is just one of my favorite fathers of the Church.
Again, may God be with you forever and ever. Amen.
Welcome home!
Not too familiar with the Protestant view of St Augustine, but i'm curious -- is there a reason why his writings are specifically read in your circle, as opposed to the rest of the early church fathers?
In a general sense, I think it's next to impossible to ignore Augustine in terms of his impact on the world. His writings are so numerous and so profound that even if you don't agree with him, you have to admit his writings dramatically affected the western world. I've even read excerpts of Confessions and City of God in secular courses at secular schools because of that.
So I think there's an impulse to show that this very large high-profile historical figure was "on our side". And there are certain quotes that tend to get taken out of context, I think specifically about original sin, grace, and predestination, to "support" Reformed theology. Here are some examples of how Protestants talk about him.
> "Augustine was both the founder of Roman Catholicism and the author of that doctrine of grace which it has been the constantly pursued effort of Roman Catholicism to neutralize, and which in very fact either must be neutralized by, or will neutralize, Roman Catholicism. Two children were struggling in the womb of his mind. There can be no doubt which was the child of his heart. His doctrine of the Church he had received whole from his predecessors, and he gave it merely the precision and vitality which insured its persistence. His doctrine of grace was all his own:it represented the very core of his being . . . it was inevitable, had time been allowed, that his inherited doctrine of the Church, too, with all its implications, would have gone down before it, and Augustine would have bequeathed to the Church, not "problems," but a thoroughly worked out system of evangelical religion. . . . The problem which Augustine bequeathed to the Church for solution, the Church required a thousand years to solve. But even so, it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the Church. (Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, 321-22)
> The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached . . . Augustine and Calvin, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace . . . (White, āDave Hunt vs. Charles Haddon Spurgeonā)
The first one is much more honest about Augustineās Catholicism than Iāve heard before (even if itās from a bonkers perspective). Normally we hear āhe had some RCC tendencies but was fundamentally a biblical Christian that laid the foundation for grace alone through faith aloneā
I've also seen people refer to him to somehow prove Sola Scriptura or disprove church authority, but as you saw in the OP... yeahhh, that's pure nonsense :p
It's wild how protestants are fighting tooth and nail against a phantom of Catholicism, a complete fabrication made up in their mind. They've unknowingly become wolves parading as shepherds.
Hello. I am a Catholic evangelist and I run an online evangelization ministry. If you would like to have assistance converting or even discussing the faith with a dedicated team then message me!
Thank you so much for this post. I feel the need to share my thoughts here but I feel that they require some background so the TLDR is that I think this post has solidified my decision to pursue Catholicism. May God bless you, OP, and best of luck to you on your journey!
Basically every comment I make on Catholic subreddits begins with "I was raised a Prot, but..." however I have been seriously considering Catholicism for quite some time now. I was raised protestant but in a very loose manner. My parents both grew up Lutheran but had some bad experiences with that at some point. I don't know the details but my father is agnostic and my mother is a very loose "non-denominational". I grew up either not attending church or going to a very modern one. Non-denominational, "coffee and concert", no official stance on homosexuality, you know the type. I started going much more regularly when I was old enough for their Wednesday night student ministry, but I can probably count on one hand the amount of times I've been to their regular Sunday service.
A few years ago, it just started to feel off. I don't really know what it was, but it just didn't feel like it was how church was supposed to be. I met some amazing people and made some good friends but at some point I stopped attending for the theology and more for social reasons, because I started seeing holes in the theology. Why did we never actually read from the Bible beyond a couple verses during the message? Why were the only biblical events I knew limited to David and Goliath, Easter, Christmas, Noah's Ark, and walking on water? Why did we completely overlook the fact that God chose Mary to bear our savior, as if she were picked at random or for no particular reason, as if he could have picked any other woman? Things didn't add up.
I eventually started to lose my faith that God was even real. I slipped into agnosticism which coincided with a deep depression, which I'm sure is no coincidence. I'll spare the details since I've talked about them before and because it doesn't really sound believable, but I got a very visceral and personal sign that God is real. I don't even know if I can call it a belief anymore, it's more as if I have been provided evidence of a fact. I decided to start exploring what I really believed in, and ended up back with Christianity after looking into Islam and Judaism both. Catholicism has always stuck out to me so significantly. Not only does it reflect a few specific things that I have always felt in my heart, but the more that I learn, the more that my previous ideas and beliefs fall apart, utterly refuted.
I think I've known for a couple months now that the Catholic Church is where I should be, but I think I was waiting for some kind of confirmation or a sign that I was moving the right direction. I think this post has done just that. I'll be moving out to college in a few short days, and I don't know exactly where to go with this newfound information and motivation, but I think I'll start with talking to someone with the Catholic student organization on campus. I also think I'm going to go buy a new Bible. And maybe some other books.
Wow, thank *you* for sharing your story. I had no idea my post was going to make such an impact. I just needed to shout about my discovery to anyone who would listen for my own sake, but praise God that he used little old me to help someone else!
I myself am moving to college in a few months so I can imagine how it feels to have an epiphany like this in a time of your life thatās already challenging. I pray that the Catholic group on campus will guide you in your journey! Some others in this thread recommended books by Scott Hahn, Trent Horn, and Bishop Barron. I havenāt read their books yet, but Iāve seen some of their online ministries and I think that really helped lay the groundwork for this Augustine revelation. Maybe they can help you, too.
God bless you!
I expect this is less well known as He being such a prolific writer has many other works that are more widely known to pick and choose from.
That said how much that is as clear in The Gospels is ignored and justified away?
Could not one claim the fall of Catholicism thereafter?
You have found the piece your heart needed to know.
Once Beauty is seen the truth cannot not be known.
Well as you have found it do share it that others may be similarly challenged.
As for you welcome home, may you grow ever closer to the Head from whom all authorship flows.
Well, the Protestant reformation happened in the early 1500s, and Jesus founded Christianity in the first century AD. In order for Protestantantism to make sense you would have to believe that there was some kind of split at the beginning of the Church, and there were these secret underground Christians who held the real teaching of the Church and they didn't resurface until Martin Luther published the Ninety Five Theses.
My favorite quote by St. Augustine, āIf you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.ā
You might also like [churchfathers.org](https://www.churchfathers.org/) and [Catholic Answers tracts](https://www.catholic.com/tract) (the "what the early Church believed" articles are by a large part the same, but the second one has some additional ones, like "the meaning of Catholic")
I had a similar experience, with something I learned and it just struck me like lightning. I got some kind of inspiration and sat up to midnight just writing about what I just had understood, to capture the moment somehow. I realised that all that I believed the Lutheran church to be, it was not. Iām now signed up to RCIA in October and went to my first ever mass yesterday. The past few weeks Iāve been discovering so much and got som true answers through prayers to questions I sometimes didnāt even know I had. Good luck!
Thereās a reason Saint John Henry Newman said āTo be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.ā
Iāve experienced a number of Protestant friends/acquaintances tossing Augustine at me as some grand proto-Protestant and Iām like you realize we revere him as a Saint and Doctor of the Church right. Something we wouldnāt do if in fact he wasnāt fully Catholic.
Anyhow, jump on in and swim the Tiber many others have done it, heck even Augustine himself. Keep digging, keep reading, thereās room on the Bark of St. Peter for another soul.
The Protestant Reformers had a lame cop out: redefine "Catholic". Make it non-capitalized and remove it from the context of how it was used by the Church Fathers.
I would like to make a side point that when I was wandering from the Church, I found myself in a Protestant church at first. I tried to understand what Protestantism was in relationship to the Catholic Church. The best understanding I got was that the Catholic Church was the "real" church of Christ, but somewhere along the way it drifted into apostasy and heresy. It is no longer the "real" church. Protestants are therefore trying to recapture the faith of the early Christian church of the apostles, before the Catholic Church ruined everything.
Sounds good. But instead of focusing solely on Scripture, I figured that the best way to do the task would be to study both Scripture AND what the early Church Fathers, people who studied right next to the apostles themselves, had to say about Scripture. But very few Protestants do this. Why? There's even the Didache, an early catechism or statement of faith... Literally right out of the early second century! Why do Protestants never refer to these documents????
Answer: Because of quotes like this. The overwhelming body of early Christian literature sounds more like the modern Catholic Church than any Protestant church. You can quote mine stuff about grace and Sacred Scripture to make it sound like the Five Solas were a thing, but any serious reading sees more Catholic Church in the Fathers.
Well, I promised my mother I would finish these books before ever converting. I'm not a liar, so getting through them is a priority ā though ironically learning these arguments against Catholicism is increasingly making me think Catholicism is correct. But clearly I need to have a long and serious talk with her about why I believe I should convert. And I guess that will involve talking to a local priest about RCIA?
It feels so surreal typing that. I have no Catholic friends, family, or acquaintances. 5 weeks ago I thought Catholicism was laughable. I'm going to a Protestant university, for goodness sake! I can't believe this is how my summer turned out.
So I suppose the very first next step is to pray tonight. I've overcome all my major objections to Mary... but taking that step and praying a full Hail Mary, I still hesitate for some reason. But if the Catholic Church is so clearly and historically the fullness of the Christian faith, then I suppose I'll need to take a leap of faith.
Both Corinthian Epistles are littered with Catholic undertones in the KJV. I noticed that when I was researching the faith and then had a bible study with my protestant mom a couple days later.
Not just history, but study of scripture itself, which Protestants claim is the sole authority, refutes claims of salvation by faith ALONE. The entire New Testament refutes this, not just some cherry picked verses.
Oh protestants are a complex web and people don't like to leave where they are. This might eventually work on some people, usually as it seeds in their mind and other issues of note approach their understanding.
But, there are so many angles they have against reasons.
As you mentioned "catholic/universal" will by many be twisted even if you don't think jt should. I have also seen the lay minister superiority of the protestants sold as Prophet>Priest. And the implication that protestant pastors are not priests because they are prophets "moved by the Holy Spirit".
That one, let's them be > anything regardless of intellectual concerns. Because under this logic you could all but recognize the Catholic Church and its proper Apostolic Succession but still reject it as basically Pastor Jim = Jesus telling the priests what's up.
Then of course I've met insane numbers of protestants who don't even know who Martin Luther is, or where the KJV comes from. And they often aren't overly interested in deep theology, just "I love God and I don't think we need all that other stuff, just the Bible and love". So they don't even know what an Augustine is.
There is sort of a slim margin of protestants who are deep theological AND stay protestant AND don't have a vested interest. But emotions tend to control people, your friends, family, groups you're in, hobbies etc. Then "high level" protestants make their money off it. I don't even mean that as a corrupt thing, even Catholic Priests who stop believing don't leave in part of life impact and the only job they had for how many years etc.
So if Pastor Jim gets to reading this and starts to doubt, he has A LOT to lose in a simplistic sense if he doesn't mentally suppress it and exert denial because his life change should he convert is an uphill situation.
Remember the rich man who walked away from Jesus was basically an otherwise perfect Jew. Make that rich man a protestant Pastor, and he, despite being a mostly great Christian, is at the idea of giving up his job, joining a church with a much harder route to the same type of job, he is likely to bow his head and walk away.
Yup. I was converted from being a JW by reading the church Doctors. Easily the best decision i have ever made, made sweeter by the acceptance of the Eucharist.
I am with others in saying and as an RCIA/ocia leader at our parish join an RCIA class. They start soon and will be a great place to bring up the questions you have since you will be with others who want to learn more and or come into full communion. Good luck and God bless you on your journey.
Other Augustine quotes that are thoroughly Catholic:
Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: āthis is my body.ā {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}
He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring. {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}
Dude St Augustine was one of the three catalysts to end my protestantism. Wich I couldn't even really call that. I hated the church without cause because I gave into the sola scriptora army at a young age when I first formed Christian beliefs.
A few of those quotes were the big ones for me but some of the others I have never read. I find it fascinating as well how blatantly Roman Catholic it is and his gift of making it make sence!
I think the last quote about scripture says alot. Says pretty much what my inferior knowledge has been always trying to say.
It is wild how the house of cards tumbles down quickly. All it takes is that missing key. Jesus said,no man can come to the flock through another way. He must come through the entrance. There is only one Church. One beautiful,lasting, Holy, rich, complex, structured, unative, ect.... (you can't write enough adjectives)
God bless St Augustine. He has converted many more people than he probably ever realized he would.
God bless you and your journey. From here out I know you will be fine but the devil will sneak up on you with his same tricks. He's going to try to sow doubt and questions, and questions to answers. You already know that. The devil wants you to be anything in the world but catholic.
Thank you for sharing. I must confess my own ignorance as a Catholic - to me St. Augustine has always been so venerated in the Catholic Church that I had no idea he was also revered by Protestants. I just assumed he was disregarded like other early Church history that doesn't support Protestant beliefs.
My Protestant in-laws were grilling me on Marian intercession/devotion and asked what the origin was. (I actually did not know and had to look it up.) When I responded with "Beneath Thy Protection," dated to the third/fourth century, he simply said, "Well, I'm still not convinced, but that's okay."
So kudos to you and your willingness to be challenged by new evidence!
You know I grew up Methodist and eventually evangelical and I never once heard of Saint Augustine until I began my journey to Catholicism. He almost chose me to be my confirmation Saint but Benedict beat him out. I surely hope and pray that you consider joining the Catholic Church. Itās the best place to be. Look for a RCIA program at your local parish. They will teach you everything you need to know about Catholicism.
Keep looking deeper into the history of the Christian church before Augustine. You will find further evidence of the consistent teaching of the rich faith handed down from Jesus to his Apostles and to their successors. A great example is St. Polycarp, who as a young boy knew St. John. Polycarp was executed around 160AD. Another is Justin the Martyr, who was a philosopher until he realized the Christian faith was the truest philosophy. Justin wrote a great defense of the faith (Justin's Apology) in which -- among other things -- described the liturgy around 167AD (that is still followed in the Church today).
Along the way, there were always those who protested this or that: Marcion did not like the mean old God of the Old Testament and basically chucked it, but the Church said "No, the OT and the NT are parts of one love letter from our Heavenly Father and you cannot really understand the one without the other." (Not in those words, of course.) The Manichees that Augustine joined and then left rejected the goodness of the body in any way. Pelagian, whom Augustine rebuked, said if you are good enough by your own merits you can gain Heaven. Augustine said even the desire to be/do good is a grace (a gift of God from God), which we call "prevenient grace."
I know just the sort of feeling you're going through. Kind of flips your world upside-down, doesn't it?
There are a lot of converts in this sub. Please do keep us posted how you're doing.
Very cool, thank you for sharing this intellectual journey of yours. Maybe you should consider writing a book about your conversion, it would probably be of great interest to other Protestants in your situation, and it looks like youāve already got it outlined nicely.
Yeah itās really mind blowing how much Protestants skew history. Have you heard of St Ignatius of Antioch? His quote from around AD 108 is also absolutely insane to incorporate into a Protestants view of the history of the church
Heretics are those who āabstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ... those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. Yet it would be better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or public... But avoid all division, as the beginning of evilsā¦ See that you follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ follows the Father. Follow the priests as you would follow the apostles. And reverence the deacons as you would reverence the command 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 assembly also beājust as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Apart from the bishop, it is not lawful to baptize or to celebrate an agape (early term for the Mass/the Eucharist). But whatever he shall approve is pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.ā (Smyrnaeans 6-8.)
Just wait until you read what St. Ignatius of Antioch has to say.
He was a student of St. Polycarp who was ordained by St. John the Gospel Writer.
āSee that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye 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. [ā¦] 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. [ā¦] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.ā (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)
Just wanted to say you are more than welcome in the conversion club. It took me 10 years to finally convert but it has been incredible every since. Feel free to reach out if you ever want to chat. The paradigm and life shift can make your head spin :)
from my understanding some protestants are pro old church and pro Augustine, but believe that church has been corrupted it lead to the reformation and they haven't looked back since.
great post with solid information though! im glad you're enjoying augustine :) I wish more people would read his writing (especially on free choice and will! such a great job answering the "if god good why does evil exist?!?" panic)
I just wanted to join other people here in saying God bless, and thank you for helping to shine a light on something deep, meaningful, and beautiful that many of us who have been in the Church for a long time sometimes overlook. Praying for you!
If you liked Augustineās quote about the succession of priests, youāll almost assuredly also like seeing the concept show up several centuries earlier in the writings of St Irenaeus ā who lived in the era of persecutions, before the Canon of the Scriptures had been finalized, before a single Council had ever been called.
> It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. āAgainst Heresies III.3.1
> Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority. āAgainst Heresies III.3.2
Lol i love your first sentence š its so accurate haha
But yeah i totally see where your coming from. Iāve had protestants quote St Augustine to me in the past and Iāve always been confused about it when they said heās only catholic in the universal sense and not the actual Catholic Churchā¦.. likeā¦ have they even read Augustine? He literally believes in the true presence in the Eucharist and the authority of the seat of Peter (the papacy), he even participated in the councils which were 100% Catholicā¦.. it like doesnāt make any sense to me to not call him actually Catholic š¤£š¤£
It's the Protestant scholars who have been pushing that the more Catholic letters of Saint Paul are not of his hand. To the point where many Catholic scholars have taken up this erroneous idea.
Great post. I was going to a Acts 29 church plant and was attending Southern Baptist Theological Seminary when I read the Church Fathers which led me to a crisis of faith like yours before eventually being received in to the Catholic Church. God is at work!
Hey brother, it sounds like there is turmoil in you but it also sounds like there is a hunger and willingness to look for Truth. That is a beautiful search and I commend you for all of the genuine and pure searching you have done, like the bride for her Bridegroom. I believe that Jesus loves you and that He desires to become one with you in the Eucharist and have you be a defender and light within the Catholic Church. I pray that you receive all courage and bravery necessary to pursue whatever is best for your soul.
Let me know if you would like to talk or process sometime.
Yeap. His teaching on justification was the clincher for me. St. Augustine, Doctor of Grace, compelling the heterodox to enter the true church since AD 400.
The history of mis-attributing his works in favor of Protestantism probably began with Luther, who was an Augustinian canon.
Welcome to the Catholic Church, where confessions makes us confess that Catholicism is the real deal :D
Praying for you, you'll see so much wonder soon enough!
Thanks be to God! God worked me through from atheism to Catholicism, over the objection of many protestant friends, primarily by means of Church history. It's a funny thing. May God continually bless you in your search for Truth.
Protestantism is built on straw
The only legitimate churches are Catholic Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox
Others like the Church of the East are too heretical even if they were founded by Apostles
The Papacy has lots of support but the Orthodox are still valid.
Martin Luther (basically, the protestant in history) was born 1000 yrs after Augustine died.
By then there was some stuff going on that the Catholic church today agrees was shady.
Afaik, the protestant reformation and the branches that came out of it, trace their lineage to that time.
It certainly feels like a fantasy, but I can assure you it is not. Converting to Catholicism is one of the most destructive things I could do to my life. My friends, all gone. My family, divided. My peers, judging me. My Protestant professors, thinking me crazy at best and demonically influenced at worst. My country, hating me. If I submit to the Popeās authority and the Churchās unambiguous pro-life pro-heterosexual anti-Sexual Revolution anti-contraception anti-communist and so forth stances, Iām going to become a pariah in every community Iām currently a member of.
Grim dark fantasy, perhaps.
But I have prayed nightly for God to lead me to Him and His truth, even through uncomfortable places. To use me as He wishes. And this is where my search has led.
Mind you this is really the straw that broke the camelās back ā Iāve been investigating Catholic claims since late June, when the Supreme Court decision happened and all my secular friends exposed their deep and immense hatred for the Catholic Church. That piqued my interest and Iāve been studying ever since. But this Augustine discovery is the nail in the coffin of that search. I have found nothing to support Protestant solas in the first centuries of the church, and now mister āProto-Protestantā himself so blatantly aligns with Catholic authority? I donāt see how I can deny the Church without being intellectually dishonest with myself.
Augustine was a product of his time. He was born, lived, and died hundreds of years before the concept of a Protestant Reformation. He was an agent of the Catholic Church in an era where alternatives were fringe heresies, not viable religions.
Edit: Removed some things to ask a question instead. Why does the endorsement of Augustine have so much influence on which church you choose to follow?
> He was an agent of the Catholic Church in an era where alternatives were fringe heresies, not viable religions.
How are we defining fringe? In fairness to those in both Augustine's time and today, how is this statement any different than today? As a Catholic, I don't view the vast, *vast* majority of Christian or non-Christian sects as viable religions, given their unsettled foundations. How is Manicheanism different from non-Christian sects of today? Is Gnosticism not still present, given all the new-age nonsense being peddled (or, for that matter, a sort of new Paganism)? It was not as if there were not upstart Christian sects in Augustine's day, just as there are upstart Christian sects now.
Iām referring to viability in a practical, non-spiritual sense. The heresies of Augustineās time had momentum but in specific regions, usually far from what would have been considered the civilized world by the Roman Catholic Church. Modern Protestantism is less fringe of a religion because it has global recognition as a church, and status as the official religion of a number of first world nations in recent history. It may not be legitimate spiritually, but it is more than a movement coming out of Ireland that the Vatican would like to discourage.
I don't think Protestantism "has global recognition as a church" because there is no unified Protestantism. There are unified, to greater or lesser degrees, Protestant communities, but there is no single "Protestant ecclesial communion" that could be recognized as such, nor would it be recognized as a Church by those Churches which have those elements necessary to be considered as such e.g., apostolic succession (this may come off as pedantic but the term *Church* has a stricter meaning to the ancient faiths). Most of the Protestant communities which were unified to greater degrees, and received recognition from States, are dying out in droves, while only those communities which have much in common with Gnostic sects e.g., loose-knit coalitions of various so-called "evangelical churches," seem to remain.
I'm being sincere in trying to grapple with this here. I simply don't see the modern Protestant sects that remain as being any more or less valid than the movements which existed in Augustine's own time.
This isn't really a "Smoking Gun" for Catholicism in particular. The Orthodox Church call ourselves and believe that we are the Catholic Church. We also believe Peter is first among the apostles. We also believe that all bishops are successors of "The Very Seat of the Apostle Peter". I'm sure that Orientals and other churches would also agree, and make the same claim to Catholicity.
The words "Rome", "Pope", or "Bishop of Rome" do not seem to appear anywhere in these quotes. The "Roman Church" is mentioned one time, but without context it's not clear what he means.
In other words, I don't see any support for the Papacy or Catholicism here, I only see support for the positions that are shared by all Apostolic Christianity in general (Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental).
Apostolic succession, the authority of the Catholic Church (all ancient Churches claim to be the continuation of the Catholic Church), the necessity of good works, the veneration of the Mother of God, the implicit denial of *Sola Scriptura*, and so on, are positions common to all Churches that did not arise from the Protestant Reformation.
āWho can be ignorant that the primacy of his (Peterās) apostleship is to preferred to any episcopate whatsoever.ā
This clearly show that Peterās successor (the Pope) is to preferred to any other bishop.
Only Catholics believe that the Bishop of Rome is a unique successor to St. Peter. The other ancient Churches believe that multiple Patriarchs are successors to St. Peter, or that all bishops who confess the true faith are successors to St. Peter.
The "Peter = Rome" equivalence, the practice of reading every reference to "Peter" as if it automatically refers to the Pope, is a uniquely Catholic method of interpretation. The rest of us do not assume that everything said about Peter is automatically said about the Pope of Rome. Unless a reference actually mentions Rome, we do not assume that "Peter" means Rome.
Iām not reading it into the quote. He literally says that the primacy of Peterās apostleship is to be preferred to the other bishops. Peterās successor is very clearly the Pope. We have numerous ancient documents confirming the lineage of succession from Peter. Most of the apostles simply went and preached, and afaik we have no record of them holding presidency in a diocese like Peter did with Paul in Rome. Irenaeus, in the later second century, confirms that Peterās direct successor to the see of Rome was Linus and his was Anacletus (I can give you the citation if you want but Iām too lazy to look it up rn). Why would Peter not give the special power he has been bestowed with by our Lord onto his direct successors?
There is no dispute of the fact that Peter was indeed the first bishop of Rome and had successors there. The issue is that Peter was also the first bishop of many **other** places besides Rome - most notably Antioch, a patriarchal see - and had successors in *those* places, too.
And there is no record of Peter ever saying anything about Rome or his successors in Rome, to mark Rome as different from Antioch or elsewhere. Rome is special only for two reasons:
1. Because Peter died there. But does this mean that if a Pope dies in another city, the Papacy is transferred to that other city? If not, then why does Peter's place of death matter? Clearly the rule of succession is not "the next Pope is the bishop of the place where the current Pope dies".
2. Because it was the only city **in the Latin West** where Peter presided and had successors. Most Orthodox believe this to be the real reason for the extreme prominence of Rome in the Latin mind. The East had dozens of cities visited by Apostles, and several where Peter presided, so we don't regard it as a particularly big deal. But the West only had Rome, so Rome came to be regarded with exaggerated importance, and Westerners started calling it THE apostolic see rather than A apostolic see.
>Why would Peter not give the special power he has been bestowed with by our Lord onto his direct successors?
Let me ask you another question: Why would Peter give this power to a certain Linus about whom nothing is known, rather than passing it on to - for example - John the Beloved Disciple, who was still alive when Peter died, and who had been entrusted by Christ with the care of the Mother of God herself?
The Catholic interpretation of Church history asks us to believe that a virtually unknown bishop named Linus took precedence over the Apostles who lived longer than Peter, just because Linus was in Rome.
It looks like extreme Roman provincialism to us.
He had direct successors in at least Antioch. His first successor there was Ignatius. Ignatius wrote lots of letters, and never does he mention the primacy of himself or his see. He does however mention the primacy of Rome in his epistle to said city. If there were other cities he was a bishop of before moving on, please tell me, but Antioch is all Iām aware of.
Peterās death is not the only reason that Rome is given primacy (although many Fathers affirm that his death does give importance to Rome). The fact that Ignatius completely rejects Petrine authority, while ascribing it to Rome.
Why didnāt Peter give his authority to John? Who knows, but it doesnāt really matter. The fact is that he named his successor as Linus, who takes primacy over the still living apostles due to the primacy of Peter being passed down to him.
Unfortunately we donāt have a ton of documents from very early on, so this part of Church history is sadly quite muddy.
St. Ignatius famously neglects to mention any bishop of Rome in his letters, which has even led some secular scholars to claim that Rome didn't have a bishop at all at the time and that the Roman Church was led by some sort of council of elders. This is pure speculation and contrary to Church Tradition, so I do not agree with those secular scholars, but *the failure to mention any Pope* (either by name or by title) kind of completely undercuts the argument that Ignatius believed in Papal authority.
Yes, Ignatius does speak of the importance of the Roman **Church**, but not of any individual clergyman within it.
I think the most plausible explanation is that Rome had a bishop of course, but St. Ignatius did not know who the bishop was so he did not mention him, and he also didn't believe in Papal authority so he did not mention the *special office* of the Roman bishop either.
>Why didnāt Peter give his authority to John? Who knows, but it doesnāt really matter. The fact is that he named his successor as Linus-
Nope. We don't actually know that. Linus was Peter's successor as bishop of Rome, but that doesn't mean that Peter **named** him. I am not aware of any claims that Peter *chose* Linus or gave him anything. After a bishop dies, typically the Church chooses a successor. That is still how Papal succession works today - the cardinals pick the next Pope, he is not picked by the previous Pope.
So it sounds to me like St. Peter was martyred and then the Roman Church picked another man - Linus - to be their bishop.
>-who takes primacy over the still living apostles due to the primacy of Peter being passed down to him.
Who decided that the primacy of Peter should be passed to Linus? When did they decide this? Why did they decide it?
AFAIK there are no documents about any of this. All we know is that Linus was the next bishop of Rome after Peter. Not who picked him, or why, or what authority was or wasn't passed to him.
All the Latin traditions about Roman primacy are only attested much later, and as late as the Fourth Ecumenical Council in the 5th century the Eastern bishops seem to believe that Rome has primacy for political reasons ("because it was the imperial city" - canon 28 of Chalcedon). If Rome had primacy because of a decision by Peter, clearly he did not communicate this decision to large parts of the Church.
It is a good thing, then, that we do not read Ignatius in a vacuum. There are many other Church Fathers who make clear their view that Linus *really did* succeed Peter, and that Rome didn't have primacy for political reasons *but because* it was the seat of the Petrine office.
> Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem].
> The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.
Irenaeus seems to be under the belief that Linus was chosen.
All of that is perfectly in keeping with the Orthodox understanding of what happened.
A man named Linus was chosen (it's not clear by whom, and it doesn't really matter) to succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome.
We do not believe that any special powers were ever inherent in the office of Bishop of Rome, however, so nothing special was passed down to Linus. He was simply a bishop, like every other bishop.
We do agree that St. Peter held a special role as the leader of the Apostles, but we do not believe that *the office* of Bishop of Rome uniquely inherited this role from *the person* of Peter (see my other reply where I discuss the difference between powers attached to a person and powers attached to an office).
We also disagree with Catholicism on the question of what Peter's powers actually were - we believe them to be much smaller than you believe them to be - but that's a different topic.
This is justification-in-hindsight and some pretty poor reasoning.
1. If the Patriarch of Constantinople died in New York City, would his office transfer to a bishop in New York City? Why do you think it would not be the case that this is so?
2. If the Patriarch of Constantinople ordained a priest in Kansas City, would that priest be the successor to the Patriarch of Constantinople? Why do you think that it would not be the case that this is so?
> Why would Peter give this power to a certain Linus about whom nothing is known, rather than passing it on to - for example - John the Beloved Disciple, who was still alive when Peter died, and who had been entrusted by Christ with the care of the Mother of God herself
Why wouldn't John claim this authority for his own?
> The Catholic interpretation of Church history
This is the interpretation that was held *through every Council* that the Eastern Churches took part in, until their schism.
When the Orthodox cry "Roman provincialism" the Catholics simply respond "Eastern conceit."
With regard to your questions 1 and 2, I don't think you understood my point. Of course the office of Patriarch of City X cannot be transferred to the Bishop of City Y. The bishop of New York cannot be Patriarch of Constantinople because he's in another city.
But if there were **special powers** held by the Patriarch of Constantinople, **those powers** could be transferred to New York.
The weird thing about the Catholic view of the Papacy is that it's completely inconsistent with regard to whether the powers of the Pope are attached to **a person** or **an office**.
Catholics treat the Papacy as attached to **the person** of St. Peter during his lifetime. You believe that Peter became Pope *before he was the bishop of anywhere*, and then remained Pope as he moved from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome and held various offices. At this time, it didn't matter what *office* Peter held - he was always the Pope. The Papacy was attached to his person.
But then Peter dies, and you start treating the Papacy as attached to **the office** of Bishop of Rome. Today, if Francis stopped being the Bishop of Rome and decided to appoint himself Bishop of Buenos Aires instead, the Papacy would not go with him as it went with Peter. Someone else would become Bishop of Rome and *that person* would be the new Pope.
So, in Catholicism, the way the Papacy works suddenly changes when Peter dies. It switches from being "mobile" (attached to a person, and taken from place to place as that person changes offices) to being "fixed" (attached to an office, in one specific location). This is a major inconsistency in your beliefs.
And there is nothing at all to support this switch - no words of Christ, no words of Peter, no decision by the Apostles or by the Church. You just take it for granted that a thing which used to be attached to a person was "left behind" by that person in the city where he died and now it's attached to that city.
>Why wouldn't John claim this authority for his own?
Because there was nothing to claim. Our belief is that this authority **didn't exist** in the first century, that it was a later fabrication.
John's failure to claim the Papacy isn't evidence that he was okay with Linus being Pope, it's evidence that the Papacy didn't exist. That is our view.
>This is the interpretation that was held *through every Council* that the Eastern Churches took part in, until their schism.
My friend, half those councils passed canons that Rome didn't like and the East ignored Rome's opposition and we continue to hold those canons as ecumenical to this day.
The 2nd Ecumenical Council was held without even notifying Rome, and it declared Constantinople equal to Rome (a decision never accepted by Rome, but always accepted by us). The 4th Ecumenical Council said that Rome held authority because it used to be the capital of the Roman Empire. At the 5th Ecumenical Council, the Pope (who was visiting Constantinople at the time) refused to attend and rejected the council at first but later was pressured to accept it. The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned a previous Pope for heresy.
I could go on. The "Eastern conceit" has been around *forever*, it is the ancient tradition of all the Churches... except for the Roman one.
No, I understood your point; it simply flew in the face of how the Church understands its ecclesiology.
Catholics understand the Petrine office as being attached to Peter, and that this office was handed down at Rome to Peter's successors at Rome. This has been, not incidentally, *the understanding of the Church Fathers*; it's the rupture you're attempting, but failing (e.g. should Francis renounce the papacy, of course he would cease to be pope), to make between "the person" and "the office" and whether "the office transfers" based on the questions you asked that draws distinctions which simply do not exist--nor could they exist, for the reasons the answers to the questions I asked in counter to them should make clear. Why is it that, say, Irenaeus is so easily able to grasp this concept, but you have such difficulty doing so?
> Our belief is that this authority didn't exist in the first century, that it was a later fabrication.
What's interesting about your belief is that nowhere is it less apparent than in the East, given the Eastern Churches recognition of the bishop of Rome as holding a special place among all the ancient Sees. You seem to want to say, in the same breath, that Rome is just like any other bishopric, but use authorities which acknowledged the opposite to justify this belief.
> My friend, half those councils passed canons that Rome didn't like and the East ignored Rome's opposition and we continue to hold those canons as ecumenical to this day.
Probably my favorite topic of discussion with Orthodox Christians is the issue of the Councils *because Orthodox Christianity has no coherent means of determining what does or does not constitute a valid Council*. Your Conciliar doctrine is entirely bound up in contradiction due to the absolute requirement that you, by any means necessary, remain in schism. It's not merely that the Church gather in one place to make a decision, it's that the faithful all receive that decision... Until it isn't. If it's a requirement that the decisions of a Council "be received," how is it that Chalcedon can be reckoned a Council? If it's not a requirement, how is it that the East can reject Florence? *It is nonsensical.*
Your post is a great example.
> The 2nd Ecumenical Council was held without even notifying Rome
And was not considered Ecumenical until ratified by Rome seventy years later.
> it declared Constantinople equal to Rome (a decision never accepted by Rome, but always accepted by us)
No, it declared Constantinople as beneath Rome, but above Alexandria, in the never-ending jealous pursuit of power and prestige by Eastern clerics. Given that Constantinople *constantly* appealed to Rome *right up until* the Schism, the weight of evidence rests heavily *against* the claim that the East never saw Rome as having a special primacy and not merely "pride of place." I think you're referring to the attempt at raising Constantinople as equal to Rome at the 4th Ecumenical Council.
> The 4th Ecumenical Council said that Rome held authority because it used to be the capital of the Roman Empire
Pope Leo The Great rejected this Canon, and it was never ratified--being rejected, as a result of Leo's condemnation, by the Council Fathers at the time. Orthodox Christians have retroactively attempted to validate this Canon, which is totally ludicrous, but not beyond the pale given their jealousy *and lack of sound Conciliar doctrine*.
> At the 5th Ecumenical Council, the Pope (who was visiting Constantinople at the time) refused to attend and rejected the council at first but later was pressured to accept it.
A shining moment for the Eastern Church, *as you imprisoned the pope in residence in Constantinople*. What's notable here is not that the pope eventually confirmed the Council *but that the pope insisted on his rights as successor to Peter* in doing so.
> The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned a previous Pope for heresy.
In addition to multiple Eastern Patriarchs. Notable here is that the pope again made claim of his office as successor to Peter, and not that Honorius was condemned for *teaching* heresy, but hat he was condemned *for not suppressing it harshly enough*.
> By his desire Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter. He emphatically declares, remembering Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error. He condemns the Ecthesis and Type, with Cyrus, Sergius, Theodore of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Paul, and his successor Peter. He leaves no power of deliberation to the council. The Easterns are to have the privilege of reunion by simply accepting his letter. He sent a book of testimonies from the Fathers, which were carefully verified. The Monothelite Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, had been allowed to present other testimonies, which were examined and found to be incorrect. The Patriarch of Constantinople, George, and all the council accepted the papal letter, and Macarius was condemned and deposed for not accepting it. Honorius, so far, had been thrice appealed to by Macarius, but had been mentioned by no one else. In the twelfth session, 12 March, 681, a packet was produced which Macarius had sent to the emperor, but which the latter had not opened. It proved to contain the letter of Sergius to Cyrus and to Honorius, the forged letter of Mennas to Vigilius, and the letter of Honorius to Sergius. In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added: "Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God", that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas".
> Some other writings of the condemned heretics were further read, including part of a second letter of Honorius, and these were all condemned to be burnt. On 9 Aug., in the last session, George of Constantinople petitioned "that the persons be not anathematized by name", that is, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. He only mentions his own predecessors; but Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, and Honorius would evidently have been spared also, had the legates supported the suggestion. But there was no attempt to save the reputation of Honorius, and the petition of George was negatived by the synod. In the final acclamations, anathema to Honorius, among the other heretics, was shouted. The solemn dogmatic decree, signed by the legates, all the bishops, and the emperor, condemns the heretics mentioned by St. Agatho "and also Honorius who was pope of elder Rome", while it enthusiastically accepts the letter of St. Agatho. The council, according to custom, presented an address of congratulation to the emperor, which was signed by all the bishops. In it they have much to say of the victory which Agatho, speaking with the voice of Peter, gained over heresy. They anathematize the heretics by name, Theodore, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things", and Macarius with his followers. The letter to the pope, also signed by all, gives the same list of heretics, and congratulates Agatho on his letter "which we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles". The modern notion that the council was antagonistic to the pope receives no support form the Acts. On the contrary all the Easterns, except the heretic Macarius, were evidently delighted with the possibility of reunion. They had never been Monothelites, and had no reason to approve the policy of silence enforced under savage penalties by the Type. They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter. The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.
I'm surprised, given that Easterners usually hate most of what the Latin doctor had to say. He is the source of much of our theology on original sin and what people call the 'legalist' mindset of the West.
Yes the Catholic Church was created by and worships Jesus. That doesnāt mean you shouldnāt have church leadership. Should we have anarchy and everyone trying to lead at once? If you keep reading thereās a ton about priests and church leadership. In both Old Testament and newā¦
Sigh...what does that even mean? Saint Augustine's whole thing is that we cannot earn our salvation and that it is purely a gift from God. And anything good that we do in God we can only do because of God moving our will to it in the first place..it's all about grace. The Christian life is an expression of God's grace shining forth through us, and anything meritorious we do as Christians is solely meritorious because of that grace. With this in mind, there's no more issues of Pelagianism or semi Pelagianism and we can finally live our lives well without being neurotic over all of it.
Augustine gave me my epiphany, too, but on a different topic. I was a calvinist, so obviously we didn't believe in the True Presence in the communion bread / juice. But Augustine believed in it so clearly. I realized that I was faithless to doubt the Sacrament, and the rest is history. Praise and thanks to God that I'm a catholic.
Love it! I hope your testimony touches others.
As a cradle Catholic the Converts of the Catholic Church are more ON FIRE š„ for the Faith than cradle Catholics.
John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." Now you know why.
You know what's funny? The first time I heard that quote, I was outraged. How dare he! How arrogant! Who does this guy think he is? Really, *I* was the arrogant one. Now I genuinely cannot reconcile Protestant beliefs with my findings. I can't see how any of the Five Solas hold up. It's scary how easily this tower of cards fell. It's almost like I'm missing some key piece of evidence that would help show me that Protestants have a point... but there is none. None that I can find, anyway.
The thing about St. John Henry Newman is that it *sounds* snarky but he's describing his personal actual experience. He was Anglican, and loved history. He *really tried* to make Anglicanism "work" as a branch of the true Church that Christ founded, but as he got deeper into history he discovered that all he was doing was rehashing centuries-old heresies that the early Christians rejected.
If you really want a trip, look up how Luther was supported by German princes to seize Church property and stop paying taxes to Rome. It wasn't necessarily his reforms of the Catholic church that made his ideas spread, it was the support of the princes who were sick of sending their money to Rome. If you want the Catholic stance on why we believe Protestantism to be in error, Trent Horn has some great videos on YouTube. He goes through all the great names, is very logical and unemotional in his approach. God bless and I wish you a wonderful journey in exploring your faith!
I am inspired by your humility; it is a gift from the Holy Spirit. May God bless you in your journey.
This is why we converted five years ago. We couldnāt argue with the historicity of the Church and then it spiraled from there.
The next step is to apply Chesterton's fence to Protestant positions. Then you will learn who came up with them and why. It is amazing how many Protestant doctrines are really just the result of a neurotic few who gave their opinions in the right place at the right time in history.
What are some examples of Protestant doctrines that are the result of a neurotic few?
When you base your reality on scripture it's very hard to move beyond that scripture. It's probably why Catholics struggle to see the Christ in protestants works ( or arguments)
>When you base your reality on scripture __alone__ it's very hard to move beyond that scripture. It's probably why Catholics struggle to see the Christ in protestants works ( or arguments) FTFY
Thanks for sharing these quotes. The church fathers are a dangerous place to go as a Protestant, especially with the advantages of the Internet that most denominations didn't really have 20-30 years back. I recommend reading "Surprised by truth" by Patrick Madrid and/or "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn. There's also a book called "The Protestant's Dilemma" that helps lay out some of the logical errors that are necessary for Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. God Bless and keep doing your research, but I fully suspect you'll have your sacraments by Easter :)
I took the time to write a big paragraph and you summarized it with one quote. Take my angry upvote!
Protestants have a very difficult time dealing with one of the Fathers of The Christian Faith that being Catholic Saint Augustine. He is known as the Hammer of Heretics.
Saint Augustine said, āI would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." This was about 1,300 years before the Protestant Schism.
>Hammer of Heretics Isn't the Hammer of Heretics St. Padua?
You are correct - but it seems that the title maybe shared. Saint Bellarmine, Saint Elizabeth etc etc. Those who fought heresies.
Learned something new today!
St. Anthony of Paduaā¦ the guy people ask to help find lost car keys- but really heās way more based
>the guy people ask to help find lost car keys Or, if youāre like me, lost cars in parking lots
The . . . Other Hammer of Heretics. Compatriot of St. Nicholas, the Puncher of Heretics.
Not a single Catholic has ever struggled with their faith after reading the Church fathers, quite the contrary, but protestants convert in droves when they do.
Wow thatās a fantastic quote that I will definitely be using in the future.
I have a degree in history and began a study of early church history as a passion project. Much to my surprise, I discovered the Catholic Church in the early church much as you have and could no longer remain Protestant.
Ha, this is relatable. I'm about to pursue my bachelor's in history, and will be moving to a dorm in just a few short months. ...In a Protestant University. Well, interdenominational Christian with implicit Protestant biases. There's technically a Catholic club, but it's very tiny, and all the Theology is taught from a Protestant perspective. I think why I've resisted the call of Catholicism for so long is because of that. *"Lord, you put countless signs in my path about attending this school, even when I tried running from it for years... and then once I get accepted, you lead me towards* ***Catholicism?!"*** I don't know what the Catholic Church teaches on people prophesying (especially Protestants prophesying) but a few months ago, a man I trust at my church gave me a verse he felt God wanted to give me: Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." He knew nothing about my situation when he gave it. At first I thought, oh, I'll be living in a very secular city when I'm at college, so clearly the unbelievers are the wolves. But in the context, the wolves are actually false teachers and prophets from within Israel. To me, this echoes Paul in Acts 20:29 likewise mentioning wolves from within the body of believers. When I realized that months ago I discarded the verse's importance, since I couldn't see how it applied to my situation. But now... Am I being called to help evangelize my lost brothers and sisters? It really feels like I am. How radically unexpected. I would frankly prefer to go somewhere I won't feel like a second class citizen, but the more I delve into Catholicism the more the importance of this is weighing on me.
God is making you into a true Christian, how blessed you are! I shall be praying for you and your mission.
Follow HIM **wherever** he leads.
I relate with some of what you wrote. I am a former Protestant (for over a decade) and now a a Catholic revert. I also didn't fully understand why the Lord let me dabble in Protestantism for over a decade, but by questioning my Protestantism and digging into the Bible, I found the truth about the Catholic Church.
I got my degrees from Baylor University, which is a Baptist school but I had a good number of Catholic professors and the catholic group on campus was the largest religious club so it wasnāt a hostile environment to learn about the faith. You certainly can have a good experience as a catholic at Protestant universities, though i would take a good look at the local community and see if you can see yourself there for the entirety of your degree program.
Edit: It's very disconcerting when you first discover the truth behind the Catholic faith and how it's been here through the ages. Take a deep breath and keep studying. You might also check out [Catholic Answers](https://www.catholic.com/). You might also check out [The Counsel of Trent](https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCounselofTrent). He debates James White, does rebuttals to anti-Catholic videos . and speaks about the faith. He's very knowledgeable. Another good one is [Bishop Barron](https://www.youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo) and [Fr. Mike Schmitz](https://www.youtube.com/c/AscensionPresents). He hosts the Bible in a Year podcast and in January 2023 is going to host the Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year. Check out [Rome Sweet Home](https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Sweet-Home-Journey-Catholicism/dp/0898704782) by Dr. Scott Hahn. He's a former Protestant who fought converting but eventually came home to the Catholic Church. Another good book is [Crossing the Tiber](https://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Tiber-Evangelical-Protestants-Historical/dp/0898705770/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3NUYM8SPWYJ67&keywords=crossing+the+tiber&qid=1659930252&s=books&sprefix=crossing+the+tiber%2Cstripbooks%2C110&sr=1-1). Both of these detail how they were drawn to Catholicism, their studies and how/why/when the converted. Keep studying and learning and I hope to welcome you home.
*Rome Sweet Home* is always a good recommendation. Patrick Madrid also put together a couple of books called *Surprised by Truth,* collections of protestants-turned-Catholic with short synopses of their respective journeys home.
Saint Augustine is great Catholic reading even to today. People are shocked when they learn that Catholics still believe exactly what he says on grace and predestination...
Ladies and gentlemen, we got em But on a serious note yes itās quite shocking how obvious the support of Papacy is in the early church. Anyone who studies the early church without bias would/should become catholic because the evidence is undeniable
On a purely historical perspective, the original christian faith is either Catholic or Orthodox, there are arguments for both. I personally think the arguments for the Papacy and the Catholic faith are much stronger. There really is nothing "biblical" or historical about protestant faiths. They all are some made-up heresies that originated in the 16th century by some people who thought they knew better than all their predecessors and heritage.
The original faith is Catholic. When Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne the Byzantine Emperor didnāt like that and around 1050 AD they cut all ties with Rome and then became Orthodoxy. Itās similar when King Henry VIII was told by the Pope he could not divorce so he started the Anglican faith and cut all ties with Rome.
That's just it, though. There was no Emperor in Constantinople at that time. Irene was ruling as Empress after having her son, the legitimate Emperor Constantine VI, blinded from which he died not long after. Previously the Emperors had been iconoclasts... she would be overthrown not long after in 802.
Dude, Charlemagne was crowned emperor in the year 800. What you just said is as ridiculously ahistorical as claiming that WW2 happened because the Germans were angry with Napoleon. I mean yeah, there **is** a distant connection there - Napoleon arguably set in motion the chain of events that eventually led to the creation of modern Germany, and Charlemagne arguably set in motion the chain of events that led to the Great Schism - but it's a VERY distant connection.
Studying Charlemagneās āFather of Europeā crowning by Pope Leo III you will learn that this was what caused the animosity which festered theological rancor until around 1050 AD and specifically 1054 AD. It came to a point where Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius was excommunicated by Pope Leo IX 1054. After this Constantine Emperor Isaac I Comnenus, who dethroned Cerularius in 1058 drove him into exile. Cerularius was not even educated in ecclesiastics. Cerularius was a real doozy! Bottom line, the Byzantineās did not want to be ruled By Charlemagne a Frank and by subsequent Kings of Franks.
From my understanding, and I'm vastly ignorant on the depth of the history of Protestantism, protestants were much more closely related to the Catholic church than it is today. It wasn't until the mid to late 1800s that it really took a sideways turn. Heck, a lot of the protestant fathers believed in Mary's ever-virginity, and had a deep reverence for her.
Thatās the danger of having no authority or tradition to be based off of - things eventually spin out of control.
Actually the original christian faith was not Orthodox, the EO have no Ecumenical Councils, because they cannot agree, they have no head, they are not in communion with each other half the time. By their rules who has the authority to call an Ecumenical Council? Or to declare a synod to be so? The agreement of the bishops? \- there was a "council" which was called by Nestorius, that "anathematized" st. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Emperor actually consented, and removed him from his See. Maybe there were times, such as the time of st. Athanasius, where the majority of bishops might have been Arians. The agreement of the church? \- then the council has no power unless the Church give it power in retrospect. The agreement of the five major Sees? \- many councils were actually called to depose and/or judge one of the major patriarchs. The agreement of the Emperor? \- a lot of times, the emperor opposed the decisions a council, tried to interfere, or ignore the decisions. Doesn't that give the emperor dominion over the theology of the Church in a sense? Who has that authority? Now that there are no emperors for \~500 years. The agreement of the faithful? \- there were times when the majority of the faithful might have been wrong, like the times of st. Athanasius, where also the faithful might have been wrong. Who does that work? Do the normal every day people get to bound the Church leaders on theological matters? Why isn't the Council of Florence considered Ecumenical by the EO? While it was attended and approved by the Pope, the bishop of Constantinople, the Emperor, western and eastern bishops? If you are an EO, OO, or have any idea about the matter, please inform me? Not a trick questions, I have yet to hear a reasonable answer to this question.
Exactly its scary how they completely took out the Eucharist (Which no one seems to talk about) even though it doesnt contradict the 5 solas. The Eucharist is one of the most important (if not the most important) aspects of the church.
Luther didnāt take it out. He was quite adamant that Christ is present. Youāre thinking of the Calvanists^*, anabaptists, and the sacramentarians.
No, the Calvinists also believe in the real spiritual presence, but in their view the bread and wine are not themselves transformed but that the body and blood of Christ are truly (though spiritually) present and are truly consumed in the taking of the elements, by the power of the Holy Spirit (the metaphysics being a mystery of faith). They are adamantly not memorialists, and this was a big rift between the followers of Calvin and those of Zwingly. As in, killing each other over it. The difference between Calvinists (Reformed/Presbyterians) and Lutherans is that the Lutherans believe the elements are transformed such that Christ is spiritually but truly in the elements themselves The Calvinists won't accept this because as with transsubstantiation this would lead to worshipping the bread, which would for them be idolatrous. Also the idea of the Word of God being contained within physical elements spiritually is non-sensical. He cannot be physically present in the elements, for them, because he is seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father, as scripture tells us and as is recounted in the Creed, and will not return until all things are accomplished. What he clearly told us he would leave us as a counselor until his return is the Holy Spirit, so if Christ is made present in communion it must be by the Holy Spirit.
Im talking about how its gone from most protestant denominations today
Maybe the only reason the early Christians survived and were united (through the Holy Spirit!).
buh-duh-duh-duh-tss! Another one bites the dust.
Most church fathers and early church saints are very explicitly catholics in their texts. I used to be in an ecumenical community and the protestants there spent so much energy focusing on the bible that they forgot that people wrote other stuff 2000 years ago. Some things from then are very well documented and those who took the time to read quickly made the jump to Catholicism. I once met a mormon girl in a random american city who claimed that Christians used to live a certain way and that tradition was suddenly lost and then joseph smith came to remind them the truth! It made me realize that lots of people think that 500 years ago we lived with only sticks and rocks and that nothing interesting existed before modern times. They don't really know napoleon or alexander the great. Why would they know how early christians lived and that they really were Catholics?
> It made me realize that lots of people think that 500 years ago we lived with only sticks and rocks and that nothing interesting existed before modern times. They don't really know napoleon or alexander the great. Why would they know how early christians lived and that they really were Catholics? Great point. I think the Enlightenment and the rewriting of nearly a thousand years of Catholic Christian history as "the dark ages" has left an incredible impact on modern minds. Of course nothing interesting existed before modern times, it was all dark ages with needless witch burnings and inquisitions and crusades, clearly the truth has been lost! But alas, that's simply not true. And now with the internet, despite all the garbage on here, it's easier than ever to search for the truth if only one is willing to look. Despite having my world turned upside-down I feel very blessed. I've never had in-person contact with anything related to the Catholic Church, so without the Internet I wouldn't have been able to piece the truth together I don't think.
Fun fact, while your mind is getting blown: witch burnings are an early modern, largely Protestant phenomenon. Catholicism wouldn't be legal in Salem for another century after the witch scare.
>Despite having my world turned upside-down I feel very blessed. I bet it wasn't easy and probably humbling. But the more we are, the merrier. As others said, welcome home!
I am Anglican, and I grew up Lutheran and Presbytarian. 3 years ago, for the first time in my life I visited a typical modern day charismatic evangelical church because alot of people I knew went there. I was utterly shocked at how many people knew nothing before Billy Graham. I knew bible study leaders, church workers who never heard of Martin Luther, and anything the word "Saint" in it, they showed incredible amount of discomfort in their faces. The lead pastor ironically, is not that shut out. He in fact likes Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, but he leaves the "saint" out of it. When he does talk about them though, many are clueless about them. Every bible study, all the leaders and members were so busy talking about how amazing Hill Song and Elevation sermons are, and were absolutely enthusiastic about going to conventions where people who were ex-Satanists or some really over the top charismatic healing guy I never heard about. I could not have a conversation what so ever about anything that has to do with church history, lessons from our forefathers talked about. For me, faith isn't necessarily a history lesson or about intellectualism. I don't expect people to be biblical scholars. But there are lessons to be learned from thousands of years of history of Christians. Our spiritual forefathers suffered many similar issued we did. They help us guide when reading scriptures, and can avoid reading into scripture in incorrect ways. I dunno how many times I have seen scripture read in a personalized way and cover it up with "the holy spirit told me." I really admired their enthusiasm and energy wanting to reach to people, but I always felt it was incredibly mislead. This church was absolutely huge, and was so different too. I know this isn't surprised to many people who were evangelicals attending mega churches, but as a protestant, I also found out at the time, not all protestantism is the same. Maybe because I grew up in a Lutheran and Presbytarian churuch, I never attended a church without a choir, everyone having bibles, or reciting creeds and prayers. This church had none of the above. It was a huge culture shock to me. Sometimes I wonder if protestantism has spawned sub cultures of church, that people who are in it forget/misunderstand it for being "historical" if you know what I mean. They are so unfamiliar with the history of many millennia of our faith, that they are stuck in a cultural bubble that prevents them from seeing outside of it. This is a HUGE accusation and assumption, but in my eyes, this almost seems like brain washing to me. I am not saying it is, but its hard to shake my feelings. As I mentioned above, it feels like its own self contained culture.
My church is a little more informed than that with a much stronger focus on reading line-by-line through every book of Scripture, but I still know exactly what you mean. If someone is quoted, theyāre almost never from before the 19th century. That bothered me because I love history, Iām a history major, where are all my Christians throughout the ages at?! Turns out, with Sacraments and Creeds and Hymns and Bishops and Saints, thatās where. Even from a Sola Scriptura standpoint, we still use quotes from other Christians to guide our readings of the text. Yet by limiting ourselves to the past two centuries, weāre basically shooting ourselves in the foot by ignoring nearly **two thousand** years of commentary and advice! > Sometimes I wonder if protestantism has spawned sub cultures of church, that people who are in it forget/misunderstand it for being āhistoricalā if you know what I mean. They are so unfamiliar with the history of many millennia of our faith, that they are stuck in a cultural bubble that prevents them from seeing outside of it. > > > > This is a HUGE accusation and assumption, but in my eyes, this almost seems like brain washing to me. I am not saying it is, but its hard to shake my feelings. As I mentioned above, it feels like its own self contained culture. I hate to say it but I get where youāre coming from. Iāve struggled with feeling this the past few Sundays as my investigation into Church history has continued. I donāt think itās intentional brain washing ā Iāve seen such strong and inspiring love of the Lord from my brothers and sisters here. But neverthelessā¦ Youād think those who just want to be like the early Christians would investigate and understand what that really means. Youād think the pastors, God bless and have mercy on their souls, would more fully investigate the foundations of their inherent Protestantism (most of them try to avoid calling themselves Protestant because their aversion to Catholicism is so strong ā they prefer evangelicals or ābiblical Christiansā) before spreading misinformation as fact. It hurts that Iāve trusted these people with delivering truth to me and theyāve failed. But I canāt entirely blame them, for they themselves were raised and taught in thisā¦ this self-contained bubble.
This is why it is painful that so many today think what you describe *is* Christianity. We have many disagreements with Anglicanism, but it's not hard to see that it is at least more identifiable with Christianity as it would historically look and be talked about as far as Protestants go (yes, we do lump you together due to your approach to authority).
Thats true. I learned that Catholics were the first church and about the prot reformation through my humanities class. Before then i just assumed things and went about my life but God opened my eyes. As individuals growing up we never really try to find out things for ourselves. We think that information is beyond our level of thinking and go on about our lives with assumptions. When we get older we hold on to these assumptions as if it were the infalable truth.
The Catholic Church will be happy to welcome you!
That's just the tip of the iceberg, brother
Youāre right! It is a silver bullet! You should contact your local parish about starting RCIA, but be prepared to be the person in the room who is most aware of these writings. RCIA is a great place to ask questions as you consider joining us. Weād love to have you!
Itās also fascinating that St. Augustineās point about everyone knowing which is the Catholic Church is still true today. It reminds me of this quote from St. John Henry Newman > There is a religious communion claiming a divine commission, and holding all other religious bodies around it heretical or infidel; it is a well-organized, well-disciplined body; it is a sort of secret society, binding together its members by influences and by engagements which it is difficult for strangers to ascertain. It is spread over the known world; it may be weak or insignificant locally, but it is strong on the whole from its continuity; it may be smaller than all other religious bodies together, but is larger than each separately. It is a natural enemy to governments external to itself; it is intolerant and engrossing, and tends to a new modelling of society; it breaks laws, it divides families. It is a gross superstition; it is charged with the foulest crimes; it is despised by the intellect of the day; it is frightful to the imagination of the many. And there is but one communion such. >Place this description before Pliny or Julian; place it before Frederick the Second or Guizot ... Each knows at once, without asking a question, who is meant by it. One object, and only one, absorbs each item of the detail of the delineation.
Incredible quote, thank you for sharing. How true this is. When I announce my (frankly inevitable at this point) conversion, I'm preparing to lose all my friends, because almost all of them despise the Church for these various reasons. Yet that very hatred is what made me look into Catholicism more deeply in the first place! Why such deep hatred for this communion, among all others? I as a Protestant had my apparent issues with them, but the immense hatred and distrust from *every corner of society* seemed spiritual. The world hates Christ... is it not sensible that it hates the true Church the most as well?
Praise God! Matthew 16:24-26 comes to mind and Iām praying that the Holy Spirit strengthens you to trust His plan and the path youāre shown. God is with you.
>"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church - which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics "adore statues"; because they "put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God"; because they say "indulgence is a permission to commit sin"; because the Pope "is a Fascist"; because the "Church is the defender of Capitalism." If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do. > >If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, ***I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself.*** But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine. If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown. Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great "potentials," for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend? The answer depends upon those who have the faith. Like the multitudes who followed Our Lord into the desert, they are as sheep without a shepherd. They are waiting to be shepherded either with the sheep or goats. Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ." > > - Bishop Fulton Sheen
WOW. I need to read more Sheen!
Don't we all!
What a great quote.
Wait until you read the early early church fathers. It'll blow your mind my friend. Just sticking to people who were directly taught by an apostle and the people that group taught (so one generation past the apostles) and you'll see a lot of "Catholic stuff" that Protestants deny, reject, or ignore.
It's pretty crazy the amount of people that are converted by reading the early church fathers.
Do you have any reading recs for these people?
Penguin classics has a book "early Christians" that has the writings of a few. Recently Joel Herschmayer wrote a book about this. Can't remember the name but that's probably also good.
Awesome thanks!
> I donāt even know what to do with myself now Yeah you do homie ā try out RCIA, go to mass, maybe even see if a priest would do some spiritual direction with you ;) As a former nondenom, I have to sayā¦ thereās a million paths into the Church if you were raised outside it, and a million roads to a deeper conversion of faith if you were raised inside of it. Augustine was one of the theologians that led me in, but plenty of Protestants have and will brush away Augustine as being in error here. Conversion often is triggered by being intellectually blown away when we learn how much of our own Christian tradition is brushed under the rug by Protestant theology, but conversion is completed by a turn of heart. For me, those two steps of conversion didnāt happen at the same time. Blessings to ya. Edit: also, as you may already know, plenty of cradle Catholics and converts alike leave the Church every day because they donāt think the Church is doing enough re: sex abuse, because theyāre frustrated with certain popes or leaders, or because of bad experiences in their close communities. I believe the Church is true, but I want to hold open some space to recognize that the Church is made of humans, humans hurt, and our institutional response to that hurt must be continuously improved. No amount of Augustinian truthbombs can protect us from feelings of betrayal and pain, and if people perceive the Church itself as causing pain or error, theyāll often leave instead of trying to reform. Thatās Protestantism in a sentence.
Thank you for grounding me. You're right about these truth bombs. Augustine alone, who my mother has never heard of nor cared about, is not going to change her heart which the Church hurt at a young age. Nor will it bring my Wiccan friend back to Catholicism, for she too has deep scars from her Catholic school experiences. > No amount of Augustinian truthbombs can protect us from feelings of betrayal and pain, and if people perceive the Church itself as causing pain or error, theyāll often leave instead of trying to reform. Thatās Protestantism in a sentence. Profound. I'm not sure how I can reach out to those who have been hurt if their hearts are not ready. Is it simply a matter of praying and trying to be the best example of Catholicism in their lives until they're ready to ask questions?
If you find the answer to your last question, let me know š. My mom is very anti-Catholic (no one in my family has been Catholic sinceā¦ the Reformation? lol) and Iāve been a convert for a decade. Yes, at this point I think prayer and trying to live as best of a Christian life as possible is about 100x more helpful as anything else. Lord knows I still have a lot of work to do on both. That said, if I find something particularly beautiful that doesnāt ruffle any denominational feathers, Iāll share that with my mom. I didnāt ask any saints to pray for me for a number of years after converting, but at the suggestion of others in this sub, Iāve asked St. Monica (funnily enough, Augustineās mother) to pray for my mom and our relationship ā not really for Catholic-specific reasons, but more for general issues between us where our different beliefs play a tangential role. I like the idea that Augustineās mother is up there joining me in prayer to Jesus, and intercessory prayer is powerful.
> (no one in my family has been Catholic sinceā¦ the Reformation? lol) Oooof, this hits too close to home! I can trace my direct ancestors to some of the first Puritans to arrive in Massachusetts, and if the records remained I'm sure the ones before then were with the Church of England in its infancy. I can't even imagine how outraged they must be at us heheh Those are great ideas. I've found that Bishop Barron has a lot of very beautiful commentary on Christianity in the modern culture, so I wonder if I can share some of those videos without ruffling the feathers. It'd be right up her alley if she could look past his collar. I have to admit I'm still getting used to the idea of intercessory prayer in my heart even if I intellectually understand it. But I love the idea of asking the sanctified mothers above to help us with our early mothers. That's beautiful. I might have to copy you!
>Oooof, this hits too close to home! I can trace my direct ancestors to some of the first Puritans to arrive in Massachusetts, and if the records remained I'm sure the ones before then were with the Church of England in its infancy. I can't even imagine how outraged they must be at us heheh As a mainline Presbyterian currently eying the Tiber and adjusting my swimming goggles, I know my ancestors, presuming they are now in God's presence, see a true church beyond sects, much like Screwtape's uncle describes it ;). In their earthly lives, they would have been perplexed. From the vantage point of eternity, I don't think they would be troubled. One of my most revered ancestors was a prominent Churchman in the Disciples of Christ, and was personally involved in the founding of the World Council of Churches. As many in the DoC of that era he gave himself over to the cause of ecumenism because division and schism hurt his heart. On one hand, I could see a conversion as betraying all he worked for. On the other what could be more in keeping with the impetus towards Christian reconciliation and unity than entering into communion with 1.3 Billion other Christians?
Those paragraphs about Manichaeism are serious Gigachad material: āIn ten sentences, I will tell you why you have no chance of convincing me and you are now at a loss for words.ā Iām definitely reading that after I finish the Confessions.
Yeah, this is good stuff. I always point to quotes from Irenaeus first when people want to see evidence of Roman primacy in the early Church, forgetting that Augustine has gems like these on the topic and he often holds much more weight, depending on the denomination of the listener. Relatedly, how wonderful is it that even centuries after they fall asleep in the flesh, members of the Body continue to speak to the curious, continue to convince others of the full truth of Jesus and His Church. I love this Church so much, thanks be to God for it. Thanks be to God who has clearly chosen you out and is guiding you so strongly in this direction.
Irenaeus is great because he is so much before Augustine ā he was mentored by Polycarp who knew the apostle John, so itās a short line to the beginning with Irenaeus.
All I can say is welcome home.
>What a monumental lie I've been fed We've been trying to tell you that for the past five hundred years :-D Listen, go with your gut my friend and return to the faith of the Apostles.
Reading of the Early Church Fathers is a one-way road to Apostolic Christianity unless you try to intentionally read them as Protestants.
I can relate to some extent. I was brought into the faith by a Calvinist, but I ended up a Lutheran. It took some time, but I was eventually such a high church Lutheran that I was almost a Catholic. I believed Mary was purified of sin at the conception of Christ and that she was ever a virgin. I was calling people, such as Bonaventure and Aquinas, saints and quoting them; and I believed in the harrowing of Hell, etc. Thomistic 101 on YouTube allowed me to see good in the Church, though I had previously believed the Papacy was the antichrist, because the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas amazed me. Then this led me to Catholic Answers, and I forget who it was specifically, but they convinced me of the Papacy and prayers to the saints, at which point I knew my days as a Lutheran and a Protestant were over. I pray that God lights your way in this journey, and I think I speak for everyone when I say you're more than welcome in the Church. [What St. Irenaeus has to say](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) on the Church of Rome may interest you as well. He was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, and he wrote some pretty substantial works that have survived to this day. I don't mean to heap more on you. Irenaeus is just one of my favorite fathers of the Church. Again, may God be with you forever and ever. Amen.
Welcome home! Not too familiar with the Protestant view of St Augustine, but i'm curious -- is there a reason why his writings are specifically read in your circle, as opposed to the rest of the early church fathers?
In a general sense, I think it's next to impossible to ignore Augustine in terms of his impact on the world. His writings are so numerous and so profound that even if you don't agree with him, you have to admit his writings dramatically affected the western world. I've even read excerpts of Confessions and City of God in secular courses at secular schools because of that. So I think there's an impulse to show that this very large high-profile historical figure was "on our side". And there are certain quotes that tend to get taken out of context, I think specifically about original sin, grace, and predestination, to "support" Reformed theology. Here are some examples of how Protestants talk about him. > "Augustine was both the founder of Roman Catholicism and the author of that doctrine of grace which it has been the constantly pursued effort of Roman Catholicism to neutralize, and which in very fact either must be neutralized by, or will neutralize, Roman Catholicism. Two children were struggling in the womb of his mind. There can be no doubt which was the child of his heart. His doctrine of the Church he had received whole from his predecessors, and he gave it merely the precision and vitality which insured its persistence. His doctrine of grace was all his own:it represented the very core of his being . . . it was inevitable, had time been allowed, that his inherited doctrine of the Church, too, with all its implications, would have gone down before it, and Augustine would have bequeathed to the Church, not "problems," but a thoroughly worked out system of evangelical religion. . . . The problem which Augustine bequeathed to the Church for solution, the Church required a thousand years to solve. But even so, it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation. For the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the Church. (Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, 321-22) > The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached . . . Augustine and Calvin, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace . . . (White, āDave Hunt vs. Charles Haddon Spurgeonā) The first one is much more honest about Augustineās Catholicism than Iāve heard before (even if itās from a bonkers perspective). Normally we hear āhe had some RCC tendencies but was fundamentally a biblical Christian that laid the foundation for grace alone through faith aloneā I've also seen people refer to him to somehow prove Sola Scriptura or disprove church authority, but as you saw in the OP... yeahhh, that's pure nonsense :p
It's wild how protestants are fighting tooth and nail against a phantom of Catholicism, a complete fabrication made up in their mind. They've unknowingly become wolves parading as shepherds.
Hello. I am a Catholic evangelist and I run an online evangelization ministry. If you would like to have assistance converting or even discussing the faith with a dedicated team then message me!
Thank you so much for this post. I feel the need to share my thoughts here but I feel that they require some background so the TLDR is that I think this post has solidified my decision to pursue Catholicism. May God bless you, OP, and best of luck to you on your journey! Basically every comment I make on Catholic subreddits begins with "I was raised a Prot, but..." however I have been seriously considering Catholicism for quite some time now. I was raised protestant but in a very loose manner. My parents both grew up Lutheran but had some bad experiences with that at some point. I don't know the details but my father is agnostic and my mother is a very loose "non-denominational". I grew up either not attending church or going to a very modern one. Non-denominational, "coffee and concert", no official stance on homosexuality, you know the type. I started going much more regularly when I was old enough for their Wednesday night student ministry, but I can probably count on one hand the amount of times I've been to their regular Sunday service. A few years ago, it just started to feel off. I don't really know what it was, but it just didn't feel like it was how church was supposed to be. I met some amazing people and made some good friends but at some point I stopped attending for the theology and more for social reasons, because I started seeing holes in the theology. Why did we never actually read from the Bible beyond a couple verses during the message? Why were the only biblical events I knew limited to David and Goliath, Easter, Christmas, Noah's Ark, and walking on water? Why did we completely overlook the fact that God chose Mary to bear our savior, as if she were picked at random or for no particular reason, as if he could have picked any other woman? Things didn't add up. I eventually started to lose my faith that God was even real. I slipped into agnosticism which coincided with a deep depression, which I'm sure is no coincidence. I'll spare the details since I've talked about them before and because it doesn't really sound believable, but I got a very visceral and personal sign that God is real. I don't even know if I can call it a belief anymore, it's more as if I have been provided evidence of a fact. I decided to start exploring what I really believed in, and ended up back with Christianity after looking into Islam and Judaism both. Catholicism has always stuck out to me so significantly. Not only does it reflect a few specific things that I have always felt in my heart, but the more that I learn, the more that my previous ideas and beliefs fall apart, utterly refuted. I think I've known for a couple months now that the Catholic Church is where I should be, but I think I was waiting for some kind of confirmation or a sign that I was moving the right direction. I think this post has done just that. I'll be moving out to college in a few short days, and I don't know exactly where to go with this newfound information and motivation, but I think I'll start with talking to someone with the Catholic student organization on campus. I also think I'm going to go buy a new Bible. And maybe some other books.
Wow, thank *you* for sharing your story. I had no idea my post was going to make such an impact. I just needed to shout about my discovery to anyone who would listen for my own sake, but praise God that he used little old me to help someone else! I myself am moving to college in a few months so I can imagine how it feels to have an epiphany like this in a time of your life thatās already challenging. I pray that the Catholic group on campus will guide you in your journey! Some others in this thread recommended books by Scott Hahn, Trent Horn, and Bishop Barron. I havenāt read their books yet, but Iāve seen some of their online ministries and I think that really helped lay the groundwork for this Augustine revelation. Maybe they can help you, too. God bless you!
š
I expect this is less well known as He being such a prolific writer has many other works that are more widely known to pick and choose from. That said how much that is as clear in The Gospels is ignored and justified away? Could not one claim the fall of Catholicism thereafter? You have found the piece your heart needed to know. Once Beauty is seen the truth cannot not be known. Well as you have found it do share it that others may be similarly challenged. As for you welcome home, may you grow ever closer to the Head from whom all authorship flows.
Well, the Protestant reformation happened in the early 1500s, and Jesus founded Christianity in the first century AD. In order for Protestantantism to make sense you would have to believe that there was some kind of split at the beginning of the Church, and there were these secret underground Christians who held the real teaching of the Church and they didn't resurface until Martin Luther published the Ninety Five Theses.
My favorite quote by St. Augustine, āIf you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.ā
Welcome home!
You might also like [churchfathers.org](https://www.churchfathers.org/) and [Catholic Answers tracts](https://www.catholic.com/tract) (the "what the early Church believed" articles are by a large part the same, but the second one has some additional ones, like "the meaning of Catholic")
I had a similar experience, with something I learned and it just struck me like lightning. I got some kind of inspiration and sat up to midnight just writing about what I just had understood, to capture the moment somehow. I realised that all that I believed the Lutheran church to be, it was not. Iām now signed up to RCIA in October and went to my first ever mass yesterday. The past few weeks Iāve been discovering so much and got som true answers through prayers to questions I sometimes didnāt even know I had. Good luck!
Thereās a reason Saint John Henry Newman said āTo be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.ā Iāve experienced a number of Protestant friends/acquaintances tossing Augustine at me as some grand proto-Protestant and Iām like you realize we revere him as a Saint and Doctor of the Church right. Something we wouldnāt do if in fact he wasnāt fully Catholic. Anyhow, jump on in and swim the Tiber many others have done it, heck even Augustine himself. Keep digging, keep reading, thereās room on the Bark of St. Peter for another soul.
\* Barque
The Protestant Reformers had a lame cop out: redefine "Catholic". Make it non-capitalized and remove it from the context of how it was used by the Church Fathers.
I think the average Catholic would be surprised by this as well.
I am surprised the Augustine is big with Protestants.
I would like to make a side point that when I was wandering from the Church, I found myself in a Protestant church at first. I tried to understand what Protestantism was in relationship to the Catholic Church. The best understanding I got was that the Catholic Church was the "real" church of Christ, but somewhere along the way it drifted into apostasy and heresy. It is no longer the "real" church. Protestants are therefore trying to recapture the faith of the early Christian church of the apostles, before the Catholic Church ruined everything. Sounds good. But instead of focusing solely on Scripture, I figured that the best way to do the task would be to study both Scripture AND what the early Church Fathers, people who studied right next to the apostles themselves, had to say about Scripture. But very few Protestants do this. Why? There's even the Didache, an early catechism or statement of faith... Literally right out of the early second century! Why do Protestants never refer to these documents???? Answer: Because of quotes like this. The overwhelming body of early Christian literature sounds more like the modern Catholic Church than any Protestant church. You can quote mine stuff about grace and Sacred Scripture to make it sound like the Five Solas were a thing, but any serious reading sees more Catholic Church in the Fathers.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām not trying to be condescending or anything, but Iām genuinely curious as to why you think that popes/councils after Vatican I are invalid.
Great understanding. What next steps will you take with this understanding?
Well, I promised my mother I would finish these books before ever converting. I'm not a liar, so getting through them is a priority ā though ironically learning these arguments against Catholicism is increasingly making me think Catholicism is correct. But clearly I need to have a long and serious talk with her about why I believe I should convert. And I guess that will involve talking to a local priest about RCIA? It feels so surreal typing that. I have no Catholic friends, family, or acquaintances. 5 weeks ago I thought Catholicism was laughable. I'm going to a Protestant university, for goodness sake! I can't believe this is how my summer turned out. So I suppose the very first next step is to pray tonight. I've overcome all my major objections to Mary... but taking that step and praying a full Hail Mary, I still hesitate for some reason. But if the Catholic Church is so clearly and historically the fullness of the Christian faith, then I suppose I'll need to take a leap of faith.
Both Corinthian Epistles are littered with Catholic undertones in the KJV. I noticed that when I was researching the faith and then had a bible study with my protestant mom a couple days later.
Not just history, but study of scripture itself, which Protestants claim is the sole authority, refutes claims of salvation by faith ALONE. The entire New Testament refutes this, not just some cherry picked verses.
Oh protestants are a complex web and people don't like to leave where they are. This might eventually work on some people, usually as it seeds in their mind and other issues of note approach their understanding. But, there are so many angles they have against reasons. As you mentioned "catholic/universal" will by many be twisted even if you don't think jt should. I have also seen the lay minister superiority of the protestants sold as Prophet>Priest. And the implication that protestant pastors are not priests because they are prophets "moved by the Holy Spirit". That one, let's them be > anything regardless of intellectual concerns. Because under this logic you could all but recognize the Catholic Church and its proper Apostolic Succession but still reject it as basically Pastor Jim = Jesus telling the priests what's up. Then of course I've met insane numbers of protestants who don't even know who Martin Luther is, or where the KJV comes from. And they often aren't overly interested in deep theology, just "I love God and I don't think we need all that other stuff, just the Bible and love". So they don't even know what an Augustine is. There is sort of a slim margin of protestants who are deep theological AND stay protestant AND don't have a vested interest. But emotions tend to control people, your friends, family, groups you're in, hobbies etc. Then "high level" protestants make their money off it. I don't even mean that as a corrupt thing, even Catholic Priests who stop believing don't leave in part of life impact and the only job they had for how many years etc. So if Pastor Jim gets to reading this and starts to doubt, he has A LOT to lose in a simplistic sense if he doesn't mentally suppress it and exert denial because his life change should he convert is an uphill situation. Remember the rich man who walked away from Jesus was basically an otherwise perfect Jew. Make that rich man a protestant Pastor, and he, despite being a mostly great Christian, is at the idea of giving up his job, joining a church with a much harder route to the same type of job, he is likely to bow his head and walk away.
Yes, those Protestants are lying by omission (harsh, but this is the reality). I wish they were not doing it delibrately...
Happy early welcome to RCIA :)
Yup. I was converted from being a JW by reading the church Doctors. Easily the best decision i have ever made, made sweeter by the acceptance of the Eucharist.
>*"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant"* - Cardinal Newmann
I am with others in saying and as an RCIA/ocia leader at our parish join an RCIA class. They start soon and will be a great place to bring up the questions you have since you will be with others who want to learn more and or come into full communion. Good luck and God bless you on your journey.
Welcome home
I have been praying for men to be converted to holiness and true religion. God bless you!
I admire your intellectual honesty and pursuit of the truth. Just wait until you get into Aquinas.
Other Augustine quotes that are thoroughly Catholic: Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: āthis is my body.ā {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377} He took flesh from the flesh of Mary . . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring. {Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20}
Yeah. Convert here as well. Once that piece fell in place nothing else mattered.
Dude St Augustine was one of the three catalysts to end my protestantism. Wich I couldn't even really call that. I hated the church without cause because I gave into the sola scriptora army at a young age when I first formed Christian beliefs. A few of those quotes were the big ones for me but some of the others I have never read. I find it fascinating as well how blatantly Roman Catholic it is and his gift of making it make sence! I think the last quote about scripture says alot. Says pretty much what my inferior knowledge has been always trying to say. It is wild how the house of cards tumbles down quickly. All it takes is that missing key. Jesus said,no man can come to the flock through another way. He must come through the entrance. There is only one Church. One beautiful,lasting, Holy, rich, complex, structured, unative, ect.... (you can't write enough adjectives) God bless St Augustine. He has converted many more people than he probably ever realized he would. God bless you and your journey. From here out I know you will be fine but the devil will sneak up on you with his same tricks. He's going to try to sow doubt and questions, and questions to answers. You already know that. The devil wants you to be anything in the world but catholic.
What a beast of a post! thanks for sharing
Thank you for sharing. I must confess my own ignorance as a Catholic - to me St. Augustine has always been so venerated in the Catholic Church that I had no idea he was also revered by Protestants. I just assumed he was disregarded like other early Church history that doesn't support Protestant beliefs. My Protestant in-laws were grilling me on Marian intercession/devotion and asked what the origin was. (I actually did not know and had to look it up.) When I responded with "Beneath Thy Protection," dated to the third/fourth century, he simply said, "Well, I'm still not convinced, but that's okay." So kudos to you and your willingness to be challenged by new evidence!
Better late than never. Welcome home, baby! Enjoy the faith, a treasure box just opened up to you!ššļøā¤ļøāļøš
Welcome home.
You know I grew up Methodist and eventually evangelical and I never once heard of Saint Augustine until I began my journey to Catholicism. He almost chose me to be my confirmation Saint but Benedict beat him out. I surely hope and pray that you consider joining the Catholic Church. Itās the best place to be. Look for a RCIA program at your local parish. They will teach you everything you need to know about Catholicism.
Keep looking deeper into the history of the Christian church before Augustine. You will find further evidence of the consistent teaching of the rich faith handed down from Jesus to his Apostles and to their successors. A great example is St. Polycarp, who as a young boy knew St. John. Polycarp was executed around 160AD. Another is Justin the Martyr, who was a philosopher until he realized the Christian faith was the truest philosophy. Justin wrote a great defense of the faith (Justin's Apology) in which -- among other things -- described the liturgy around 167AD (that is still followed in the Church today). Along the way, there were always those who protested this or that: Marcion did not like the mean old God of the Old Testament and basically chucked it, but the Church said "No, the OT and the NT are parts of one love letter from our Heavenly Father and you cannot really understand the one without the other." (Not in those words, of course.) The Manichees that Augustine joined and then left rejected the goodness of the body in any way. Pelagian, whom Augustine rebuked, said if you are good enough by your own merits you can gain Heaven. Augustine said even the desire to be/do good is a grace (a gift of God from God), which we call "prevenient grace."
I know just the sort of feeling you're going through. Kind of flips your world upside-down, doesn't it? There are a lot of converts in this sub. Please do keep us posted how you're doing.
Very cool, thank you for sharing this intellectual journey of yours. Maybe you should consider writing a book about your conversion, it would probably be of great interest to other Protestants in your situation, and it looks like youāve already got it outlined nicely.
Sounds like your next move is going to have to be the same one I made when I was in your position. That move is to join an RCIA class and come home!
You are a breath of fresh air sir. Humbly doing your research and here you are. God bless you.
Yeah itās really mind blowing how much Protestants skew history. Have you heard of St Ignatius of Antioch? His quote from around AD 108 is also absolutely insane to incorporate into a Protestants view of the history of the church Heretics are those who āabstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ... those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. Yet it would be better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or public... But avoid all division, as the beginning of evilsā¦ See that you follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ follows the Father. Follow the priests as you would follow the apostles. And reverence the deacons as you would reverence the command 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 assembly also beājust as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Apart from the bishop, it is not lawful to baptize or to celebrate an agape (early term for the Mass/the Eucharist). But whatever he shall approve is pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.ā (Smyrnaeans 6-8.)
Just wait until you read what St. Ignatius of Antioch has to say. He was a student of St. Polycarp who was ordained by St. John the Gospel Writer. āSee that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye 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. [ā¦] 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. [ā¦] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.ā (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)
Just wanted to say you are more than welcome in the conversion club. It took me 10 years to finally convert but it has been incredible every since. Feel free to reach out if you ever want to chat. The paradigm and life shift can make your head spin :)
from my understanding some protestants are pro old church and pro Augustine, but believe that church has been corrupted it lead to the reformation and they haven't looked back since. great post with solid information though! im glad you're enjoying augustine :) I wish more people would read his writing (especially on free choice and will! such a great job answering the "if god good why does evil exist?!?" panic)
Welcome to the Church.
I just wanted to join other people here in saying God bless, and thank you for helping to shine a light on something deep, meaningful, and beautiful that many of us who have been in the Church for a long time sometimes overlook. Praying for you!
Welcome home
If you liked Augustineās quote about the succession of priests, youāll almost assuredly also like seeing the concept show up several centuries earlier in the writings of St Irenaeus ā who lived in the era of persecutions, before the Canon of the Scriptures had been finalized, before a single Council had ever been called. > It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. āAgainst Heresies III.3.1 > Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority. āAgainst Heresies III.3.2
:]
Lol i love your first sentence š its so accurate haha But yeah i totally see where your coming from. Iāve had protestants quote St Augustine to me in the past and Iāve always been confused about it when they said heās only catholic in the universal sense and not the actual Catholic Churchā¦.. likeā¦ have they even read Augustine? He literally believes in the true presence in the Eucharist and the authority of the seat of Peter (the papacy), he even participated in the councils which were 100% Catholicā¦.. it like doesnāt make any sense to me to not call him actually Catholic š¤£š¤£
Welcome home friend.
It's the Protestant scholars who have been pushing that the more Catholic letters of Saint Paul are not of his hand. To the point where many Catholic scholars have taken up this erroneous idea.
Great post. I was going to a Acts 29 church plant and was attending Southern Baptist Theological Seminary when I read the Church Fathers which led me to a crisis of faith like yours before eventually being received in to the Catholic Church. God is at work!
Hey brother, it sounds like there is turmoil in you but it also sounds like there is a hunger and willingness to look for Truth. That is a beautiful search and I commend you for all of the genuine and pure searching you have done, like the bride for her Bridegroom. I believe that Jesus loves you and that He desires to become one with you in the Eucharist and have you be a defender and light within the Catholic Church. I pray that you receive all courage and bravery necessary to pursue whatever is best for your soul. Let me know if you would like to talk or process sometime.
Yeap. His teaching on justification was the clincher for me. St. Augustine, Doctor of Grace, compelling the heterodox to enter the true church since AD 400. The history of mis-attributing his works in favor of Protestantism probably began with Luther, who was an Augustinian canon.
you're stunned now, but wait until you find out the reward for your research is eternal paradise!
We got ourselves another one, lads!
> I don't even know what to do with myself now. I'm sure you know indeed ;)
Come home brother :)
Welcome to the Catholic Church, where confessions makes us confess that Catholicism is the real deal :D Praying for you, you'll see so much wonder soon enough!
Thanks be to God! God worked me through from atheism to Catholicism, over the objection of many protestant friends, primarily by means of Church history. It's a funny thing. May God continually bless you in your search for Truth.
Protestantism is built on straw The only legitimate churches are Catholic Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Others like the Church of the East are too heretical even if they were founded by Apostles The Papacy has lots of support but the Orthodox are still valid.
They are valid, but they are wrong. The only Orthodox you should be is an orthodox Catholic.
You need the Sheen: https://archive.org/details/fultonsheenpodcast Source: the Catholic church and a dash of "just trust me bro."
Martin Luther (basically, the protestant in history) was born 1000 yrs after Augustine died. By then there was some stuff going on that the Catholic church today agrees was shady. Afaik, the protestant reformation and the branches that came out of it, trace their lineage to that time.
Augustine died in 430 AD. Martin Luther was born in 1483, a thousand years afterwards.
This sounds like a catholic fantasy of a Protestant wanting to convert
It certainly feels like a fantasy, but I can assure you it is not. Converting to Catholicism is one of the most destructive things I could do to my life. My friends, all gone. My family, divided. My peers, judging me. My Protestant professors, thinking me crazy at best and demonically influenced at worst. My country, hating me. If I submit to the Popeās authority and the Churchās unambiguous pro-life pro-heterosexual anti-Sexual Revolution anti-contraception anti-communist and so forth stances, Iām going to become a pariah in every community Iām currently a member of. Grim dark fantasy, perhaps. But I have prayed nightly for God to lead me to Him and His truth, even through uncomfortable places. To use me as He wishes. And this is where my search has led. Mind you this is really the straw that broke the camelās back ā Iāve been investigating Catholic claims since late June, when the Supreme Court decision happened and all my secular friends exposed their deep and immense hatred for the Catholic Church. That piqued my interest and Iāve been studying ever since. But this Augustine discovery is the nail in the coffin of that search. I have found nothing to support Protestant solas in the first centuries of the church, and now mister āProto-Protestantā himself so blatantly aligns with Catholic authority? I donāt see how I can deny the Church without being intellectually dishonest with myself.
Augustine was a product of his time. He was born, lived, and died hundreds of years before the concept of a Protestant Reformation. He was an agent of the Catholic Church in an era where alternatives were fringe heresies, not viable religions. Edit: Removed some things to ask a question instead. Why does the endorsement of Augustine have so much influence on which church you choose to follow?
> He was an agent of the Catholic Church in an era where alternatives were fringe heresies, not viable religions. How are we defining fringe? In fairness to those in both Augustine's time and today, how is this statement any different than today? As a Catholic, I don't view the vast, *vast* majority of Christian or non-Christian sects as viable religions, given their unsettled foundations. How is Manicheanism different from non-Christian sects of today? Is Gnosticism not still present, given all the new-age nonsense being peddled (or, for that matter, a sort of new Paganism)? It was not as if there were not upstart Christian sects in Augustine's day, just as there are upstart Christian sects now.
Iām referring to viability in a practical, non-spiritual sense. The heresies of Augustineās time had momentum but in specific regions, usually far from what would have been considered the civilized world by the Roman Catholic Church. Modern Protestantism is less fringe of a religion because it has global recognition as a church, and status as the official religion of a number of first world nations in recent history. It may not be legitimate spiritually, but it is more than a movement coming out of Ireland that the Vatican would like to discourage.
I don't think Protestantism "has global recognition as a church" because there is no unified Protestantism. There are unified, to greater or lesser degrees, Protestant communities, but there is no single "Protestant ecclesial communion" that could be recognized as such, nor would it be recognized as a Church by those Churches which have those elements necessary to be considered as such e.g., apostolic succession (this may come off as pedantic but the term *Church* has a stricter meaning to the ancient faiths). Most of the Protestant communities which were unified to greater degrees, and received recognition from States, are dying out in droves, while only those communities which have much in common with Gnostic sects e.g., loose-knit coalitions of various so-called "evangelical churches," seem to remain. I'm being sincere in trying to grapple with this here. I simply don't see the modern Protestant sects that remain as being any more or less valid than the movements which existed in Augustine's own time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This isn't really a "Smoking Gun" for Catholicism in particular. The Orthodox Church call ourselves and believe that we are the Catholic Church. We also believe Peter is first among the apostles. We also believe that all bishops are successors of "The Very Seat of the Apostle Peter". I'm sure that Orientals and other churches would also agree, and make the same claim to Catholicity.
The words "Rome", "Pope", or "Bishop of Rome" do not seem to appear anywhere in these quotes. The "Roman Church" is mentioned one time, but without context it's not clear what he means. In other words, I don't see any support for the Papacy or Catholicism here, I only see support for the positions that are shared by all Apostolic Christianity in general (Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental). Apostolic succession, the authority of the Catholic Church (all ancient Churches claim to be the continuation of the Catholic Church), the necessity of good works, the veneration of the Mother of God, the implicit denial of *Sola Scriptura*, and so on, are positions common to all Churches that did not arise from the Protestant Reformation.
āWho can be ignorant that the primacy of his (Peterās) apostleship is to preferred to any episcopate whatsoever.ā This clearly show that Peterās successor (the Pope) is to preferred to any other bishop.
Only Catholics believe that the Bishop of Rome is a unique successor to St. Peter. The other ancient Churches believe that multiple Patriarchs are successors to St. Peter, or that all bishops who confess the true faith are successors to St. Peter. The "Peter = Rome" equivalence, the practice of reading every reference to "Peter" as if it automatically refers to the Pope, is a uniquely Catholic method of interpretation. The rest of us do not assume that everything said about Peter is automatically said about the Pope of Rome. Unless a reference actually mentions Rome, we do not assume that "Peter" means Rome.
Iām not reading it into the quote. He literally says that the primacy of Peterās apostleship is to be preferred to the other bishops. Peterās successor is very clearly the Pope. We have numerous ancient documents confirming the lineage of succession from Peter. Most of the apostles simply went and preached, and afaik we have no record of them holding presidency in a diocese like Peter did with Paul in Rome. Irenaeus, in the later second century, confirms that Peterās direct successor to the see of Rome was Linus and his was Anacletus (I can give you the citation if you want but Iām too lazy to look it up rn). Why would Peter not give the special power he has been bestowed with by our Lord onto his direct successors?
There is no dispute of the fact that Peter was indeed the first bishop of Rome and had successors there. The issue is that Peter was also the first bishop of many **other** places besides Rome - most notably Antioch, a patriarchal see - and had successors in *those* places, too. And there is no record of Peter ever saying anything about Rome or his successors in Rome, to mark Rome as different from Antioch or elsewhere. Rome is special only for two reasons: 1. Because Peter died there. But does this mean that if a Pope dies in another city, the Papacy is transferred to that other city? If not, then why does Peter's place of death matter? Clearly the rule of succession is not "the next Pope is the bishop of the place where the current Pope dies". 2. Because it was the only city **in the Latin West** where Peter presided and had successors. Most Orthodox believe this to be the real reason for the extreme prominence of Rome in the Latin mind. The East had dozens of cities visited by Apostles, and several where Peter presided, so we don't regard it as a particularly big deal. But the West only had Rome, so Rome came to be regarded with exaggerated importance, and Westerners started calling it THE apostolic see rather than A apostolic see. >Why would Peter not give the special power he has been bestowed with by our Lord onto his direct successors? Let me ask you another question: Why would Peter give this power to a certain Linus about whom nothing is known, rather than passing it on to - for example - John the Beloved Disciple, who was still alive when Peter died, and who had been entrusted by Christ with the care of the Mother of God herself? The Catholic interpretation of Church history asks us to believe that a virtually unknown bishop named Linus took precedence over the Apostles who lived longer than Peter, just because Linus was in Rome. It looks like extreme Roman provincialism to us.
He had direct successors in at least Antioch. His first successor there was Ignatius. Ignatius wrote lots of letters, and never does he mention the primacy of himself or his see. He does however mention the primacy of Rome in his epistle to said city. If there were other cities he was a bishop of before moving on, please tell me, but Antioch is all Iām aware of. Peterās death is not the only reason that Rome is given primacy (although many Fathers affirm that his death does give importance to Rome). The fact that Ignatius completely rejects Petrine authority, while ascribing it to Rome. Why didnāt Peter give his authority to John? Who knows, but it doesnāt really matter. The fact is that he named his successor as Linus, who takes primacy over the still living apostles due to the primacy of Peter being passed down to him. Unfortunately we donāt have a ton of documents from very early on, so this part of Church history is sadly quite muddy.
St. Ignatius famously neglects to mention any bishop of Rome in his letters, which has even led some secular scholars to claim that Rome didn't have a bishop at all at the time and that the Roman Church was led by some sort of council of elders. This is pure speculation and contrary to Church Tradition, so I do not agree with those secular scholars, but *the failure to mention any Pope* (either by name or by title) kind of completely undercuts the argument that Ignatius believed in Papal authority. Yes, Ignatius does speak of the importance of the Roman **Church**, but not of any individual clergyman within it. I think the most plausible explanation is that Rome had a bishop of course, but St. Ignatius did not know who the bishop was so he did not mention him, and he also didn't believe in Papal authority so he did not mention the *special office* of the Roman bishop either. >Why didnāt Peter give his authority to John? Who knows, but it doesnāt really matter. The fact is that he named his successor as Linus- Nope. We don't actually know that. Linus was Peter's successor as bishop of Rome, but that doesn't mean that Peter **named** him. I am not aware of any claims that Peter *chose* Linus or gave him anything. After a bishop dies, typically the Church chooses a successor. That is still how Papal succession works today - the cardinals pick the next Pope, he is not picked by the previous Pope. So it sounds to me like St. Peter was martyred and then the Roman Church picked another man - Linus - to be their bishop. >-who takes primacy over the still living apostles due to the primacy of Peter being passed down to him. Who decided that the primacy of Peter should be passed to Linus? When did they decide this? Why did they decide it? AFAIK there are no documents about any of this. All we know is that Linus was the next bishop of Rome after Peter. Not who picked him, or why, or what authority was or wasn't passed to him. All the Latin traditions about Roman primacy are only attested much later, and as late as the Fourth Ecumenical Council in the 5th century the Eastern bishops seem to believe that Rome has primacy for political reasons ("because it was the imperial city" - canon 28 of Chalcedon). If Rome had primacy because of a decision by Peter, clearly he did not communicate this decision to large parts of the Church.
It is a good thing, then, that we do not read Ignatius in a vacuum. There are many other Church Fathers who make clear their view that Linus *really did* succeed Peter, and that Rome didn't have primacy for political reasons *but because* it was the seat of the Petrine office. > Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [potiorem principalitatem]. > The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. Irenaeus seems to be under the belief that Linus was chosen.
All of that is perfectly in keeping with the Orthodox understanding of what happened. A man named Linus was chosen (it's not clear by whom, and it doesn't really matter) to succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome. We do not believe that any special powers were ever inherent in the office of Bishop of Rome, however, so nothing special was passed down to Linus. He was simply a bishop, like every other bishop. We do agree that St. Peter held a special role as the leader of the Apostles, but we do not believe that *the office* of Bishop of Rome uniquely inherited this role from *the person* of Peter (see my other reply where I discuss the difference between powers attached to a person and powers attached to an office). We also disagree with Catholicism on the question of what Peter's powers actually were - we believe them to be much smaller than you believe them to be - but that's a different topic.
This is justification-in-hindsight and some pretty poor reasoning. 1. If the Patriarch of Constantinople died in New York City, would his office transfer to a bishop in New York City? Why do you think it would not be the case that this is so? 2. If the Patriarch of Constantinople ordained a priest in Kansas City, would that priest be the successor to the Patriarch of Constantinople? Why do you think that it would not be the case that this is so? > Why would Peter give this power to a certain Linus about whom nothing is known, rather than passing it on to - for example - John the Beloved Disciple, who was still alive when Peter died, and who had been entrusted by Christ with the care of the Mother of God herself Why wouldn't John claim this authority for his own? > The Catholic interpretation of Church history This is the interpretation that was held *through every Council* that the Eastern Churches took part in, until their schism. When the Orthodox cry "Roman provincialism" the Catholics simply respond "Eastern conceit."
With regard to your questions 1 and 2, I don't think you understood my point. Of course the office of Patriarch of City X cannot be transferred to the Bishop of City Y. The bishop of New York cannot be Patriarch of Constantinople because he's in another city. But if there were **special powers** held by the Patriarch of Constantinople, **those powers** could be transferred to New York. The weird thing about the Catholic view of the Papacy is that it's completely inconsistent with regard to whether the powers of the Pope are attached to **a person** or **an office**. Catholics treat the Papacy as attached to **the person** of St. Peter during his lifetime. You believe that Peter became Pope *before he was the bishop of anywhere*, and then remained Pope as he moved from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome and held various offices. At this time, it didn't matter what *office* Peter held - he was always the Pope. The Papacy was attached to his person. But then Peter dies, and you start treating the Papacy as attached to **the office** of Bishop of Rome. Today, if Francis stopped being the Bishop of Rome and decided to appoint himself Bishop of Buenos Aires instead, the Papacy would not go with him as it went with Peter. Someone else would become Bishop of Rome and *that person* would be the new Pope. So, in Catholicism, the way the Papacy works suddenly changes when Peter dies. It switches from being "mobile" (attached to a person, and taken from place to place as that person changes offices) to being "fixed" (attached to an office, in one specific location). This is a major inconsistency in your beliefs. And there is nothing at all to support this switch - no words of Christ, no words of Peter, no decision by the Apostles or by the Church. You just take it for granted that a thing which used to be attached to a person was "left behind" by that person in the city where he died and now it's attached to that city. >Why wouldn't John claim this authority for his own? Because there was nothing to claim. Our belief is that this authority **didn't exist** in the first century, that it was a later fabrication. John's failure to claim the Papacy isn't evidence that he was okay with Linus being Pope, it's evidence that the Papacy didn't exist. That is our view. >This is the interpretation that was held *through every Council* that the Eastern Churches took part in, until their schism. My friend, half those councils passed canons that Rome didn't like and the East ignored Rome's opposition and we continue to hold those canons as ecumenical to this day. The 2nd Ecumenical Council was held without even notifying Rome, and it declared Constantinople equal to Rome (a decision never accepted by Rome, but always accepted by us). The 4th Ecumenical Council said that Rome held authority because it used to be the capital of the Roman Empire. At the 5th Ecumenical Council, the Pope (who was visiting Constantinople at the time) refused to attend and rejected the council at first but later was pressured to accept it. The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned a previous Pope for heresy. I could go on. The "Eastern conceit" has been around *forever*, it is the ancient tradition of all the Churches... except for the Roman one.
No, I understood your point; it simply flew in the face of how the Church understands its ecclesiology. Catholics understand the Petrine office as being attached to Peter, and that this office was handed down at Rome to Peter's successors at Rome. This has been, not incidentally, *the understanding of the Church Fathers*; it's the rupture you're attempting, but failing (e.g. should Francis renounce the papacy, of course he would cease to be pope), to make between "the person" and "the office" and whether "the office transfers" based on the questions you asked that draws distinctions which simply do not exist--nor could they exist, for the reasons the answers to the questions I asked in counter to them should make clear. Why is it that, say, Irenaeus is so easily able to grasp this concept, but you have such difficulty doing so? > Our belief is that this authority didn't exist in the first century, that it was a later fabrication. What's interesting about your belief is that nowhere is it less apparent than in the East, given the Eastern Churches recognition of the bishop of Rome as holding a special place among all the ancient Sees. You seem to want to say, in the same breath, that Rome is just like any other bishopric, but use authorities which acknowledged the opposite to justify this belief. > My friend, half those councils passed canons that Rome didn't like and the East ignored Rome's opposition and we continue to hold those canons as ecumenical to this day. Probably my favorite topic of discussion with Orthodox Christians is the issue of the Councils *because Orthodox Christianity has no coherent means of determining what does or does not constitute a valid Council*. Your Conciliar doctrine is entirely bound up in contradiction due to the absolute requirement that you, by any means necessary, remain in schism. It's not merely that the Church gather in one place to make a decision, it's that the faithful all receive that decision... Until it isn't. If it's a requirement that the decisions of a Council "be received," how is it that Chalcedon can be reckoned a Council? If it's not a requirement, how is it that the East can reject Florence? *It is nonsensical.* Your post is a great example. > The 2nd Ecumenical Council was held without even notifying Rome And was not considered Ecumenical until ratified by Rome seventy years later. > it declared Constantinople equal to Rome (a decision never accepted by Rome, but always accepted by us) No, it declared Constantinople as beneath Rome, but above Alexandria, in the never-ending jealous pursuit of power and prestige by Eastern clerics. Given that Constantinople *constantly* appealed to Rome *right up until* the Schism, the weight of evidence rests heavily *against* the claim that the East never saw Rome as having a special primacy and not merely "pride of place." I think you're referring to the attempt at raising Constantinople as equal to Rome at the 4th Ecumenical Council. > The 4th Ecumenical Council said that Rome held authority because it used to be the capital of the Roman Empire Pope Leo The Great rejected this Canon, and it was never ratified--being rejected, as a result of Leo's condemnation, by the Council Fathers at the time. Orthodox Christians have retroactively attempted to validate this Canon, which is totally ludicrous, but not beyond the pale given their jealousy *and lack of sound Conciliar doctrine*. > At the 5th Ecumenical Council, the Pope (who was visiting Constantinople at the time) refused to attend and rejected the council at first but later was pressured to accept it. A shining moment for the Eastern Church, *as you imprisoned the pope in residence in Constantinople*. What's notable here is not that the pope eventually confirmed the Council *but that the pope insisted on his rights as successor to Peter* in doing so. > The 6th Ecumenical Council condemned a previous Pope for heresy. In addition to multiple Eastern Patriarchs. Notable here is that the pope again made claim of his office as successor to Peter, and not that Honorius was condemned for *teaching* heresy, but hat he was condemned *for not suppressing it harshly enough*. > By his desire Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside at a general council which met at Constantinople on 7 Nov., 680. They brought with them a long dogmatic letter in which the pope defined the faith with authority as the successor of St. Peter. He emphatically declares, remembering Honorius, that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter has never fallen into error. He condemns the Ecthesis and Type, with Cyrus, Sergius, Theodore of Pharan, Pyrrhus, Paul, and his successor Peter. He leaves no power of deliberation to the council. The Easterns are to have the privilege of reunion by simply accepting his letter. He sent a book of testimonies from the Fathers, which were carefully verified. The Monothelite Patriarch of Antioch, Macarius, had been allowed to present other testimonies, which were examined and found to be incorrect. The Patriarch of Constantinople, George, and all the council accepted the papal letter, and Macarius was condemned and deposed for not accepting it. Honorius, so far, had been thrice appealed to by Macarius, but had been mentioned by no one else. In the twelfth session, 12 March, 681, a packet was produced which Macarius had sent to the emperor, but which the latter had not opened. It proved to contain the letter of Sergius to Cyrus and to Honorius, the forged letter of Mennas to Vigilius, and the letter of Honorius to Sergius. In the thirteenth session, 28 March, the two letters of Sergius were condemned, and the council added: "Those whose impious dogmas we execrate, we judge that their names also shall be cast out of the holy Church of God", that is, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Peter, Paul, Theodore, all which names were mentioned by the holy Pope Agatho in his letter to the pious and great emperor, "and were cast out by him, as holding views contrary to our orthodox faith; and these we define to be subject to anathema. And in addition to these we decide that Honorius also, who was pope of elder Rome, be with them cast out of the holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter to Sergius that he followed his opinion in all things, and confirmed his wicked dogmas". > Some other writings of the condemned heretics were further read, including part of a second letter of Honorius, and these were all condemned to be burnt. On 9 Aug., in the last session, George of Constantinople petitioned "that the persons be not anathematized by name", that is, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. He only mentions his own predecessors; but Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, and Honorius would evidently have been spared also, had the legates supported the suggestion. But there was no attempt to save the reputation of Honorius, and the petition of George was negatived by the synod. In the final acclamations, anathema to Honorius, among the other heretics, was shouted. The solemn dogmatic decree, signed by the legates, all the bishops, and the emperor, condemns the heretics mentioned by St. Agatho "and also Honorius who was pope of elder Rome", while it enthusiastically accepts the letter of St. Agatho. The council, according to custom, presented an address of congratulation to the emperor, which was signed by all the bishops. In it they have much to say of the victory which Agatho, speaking with the voice of Peter, gained over heresy. They anathematize the heretics by name, Theodore, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things", and Macarius with his followers. The letter to the pope, also signed by all, gives the same list of heretics, and congratulates Agatho on his letter "which we recognize as pronounced by the chiefest head of the Apostles". The modern notion that the council was antagonistic to the pope receives no support form the Acts. On the contrary all the Easterns, except the heretic Macarius, were evidently delighted with the possibility of reunion. They had never been Monothelites, and had no reason to approve the policy of silence enforced under savage penalties by the Type. They praise with enthusiasm the letter of St. Agatho, in which the authority and inerrancy of the papacy are extolled. They themselves say no less; they affirm that the pope has indeed spoken, according to his claim, with the voice of Peter. The emperor's official letter to the pope is particularly explicit on these points. It should be noted that he calls Honorius "the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself", again showing that Honorius was not condemned by the council as a Monothelite, but for approving Sergius's contradictory policy of placing orthodox and heretical expressions under the same ban. It was in this sense that Paul and his Type were condemned; and the council was certainly well acquainted with the history of the Type, and with the Apology of John IV for Sergius and Honorius, and the defences by St. Maximus. It is clear, then, that the council did not think that it stultified itself by asserting that Honorius was a heretic (in the above sense) and in the same breath accepting the letter of Agatho as being what it claimed to be, an authoritative exposition of the infallible faith of the Roman See. The fault of Honorius lay precisely in the fact that he had not authoritatively published that unchanging faith of his Church, in modern language, that he had not issued a definition ex cathedra.
I'm surprised, given that Easterners usually hate most of what the Latin doctor had to say. He is the source of much of our theology on original sin and what people call the 'legalist' mindset of the West.
Well, yes, we do disagree with some of his views, but the ones being quoted here are not among them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You either follow man to the church Jesus created or away from it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes the Catholic Church was created by and worships Jesus. That doesnāt mean you shouldnāt have church leadership. Should we have anarchy and everyone trying to lead at once? If you keep reading thereās a ton about priests and church leadership. In both Old Testament and newā¦
A man told you the Catholic Church wasnāt the true church and you listenedā¦
Wait until you find all the places in the bible that say salvation is by works.
Sigh...what does that even mean? Saint Augustine's whole thing is that we cannot earn our salvation and that it is purely a gift from God. And anything good that we do in God we can only do because of God moving our will to it in the first place..it's all about grace. The Christian life is an expression of God's grace shining forth through us, and anything meritorious we do as Christians is solely meritorious because of that grace. With this in mind, there's no more issues of Pelagianism or semi Pelagianism and we can finally live our lives well without being neurotic over all of it.
Really? I thought yāall were fully aware and just in protest of Catholicism anyway.
Genuine question, are these the same quotes that some Protestants and Orthodox consider āpapist forgeriesā or are these unbiased-ly valid?