Closer to Convinced

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesJr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JamesJr

Guest
Catholic Apologists,

I am a Protestant that is becoming more and more convinced that the Catholic Church is the true church.

I will provide more biographical information about myself. I am a 20 year old man from the Bible Belt of the United States. I spent 12 years of my life being educated by Mennonites. My mom is a Pentecostal lady. My dad claims to be Christian, but is not consistent in his practice in my opinion. On my side of things, there have been times of much confusion about my religion, doubt, and a near rejection of my faith. There have been times up until recently where I bounce around from zealous to borderline agnostic. But there has been a change that has occurred ever since I took a philosophy class last Summer.

Philosophy opened up my mind even more than it already was. Long story short, I let different philosophical ideas bounce around in my head without necessarily accepting them until I came to a certain point. With so many conflicting ideas and an influence of Reformed Theology (Calvinism) swirling, the words of our Saviour came to life: The foolish man built his house upon the sand; the wise man built his house upon the rock. I knew that I did not want to build my house on the sands of secular philosophy where there is much disagreement about things that are not even worthwhile. I want to build my house on the rock–Jesus Christ. But let me get back to Reformed Theology. That never had much of a grasp on me. I respect its rigor and a few other attributes, but its ideas concerning predestination look heretical to me. But this is part of a long observation of seeing denominations disagree and myself unable to find one that seemed objectively true. However, I think I may have found it in a place I would have not expected as a strong Protestant–the Roman Catholic Church. I should mention that the Eastern Orthodox Church is still in my consideration as well, and my Protestant mind is still open to the traditions formed after the Reformation. However, the Roman Catholic Church is winning me over so far.

Does any one of you Catholic Apologists have a strong argument that may tip me over the Tiber?
 
Last edited:
I believe the appropriate question to ask at this point is, what teachings of the Church are you struggling with or cannot comprehend yet? From here you can have a lively discussion with CAF apologists. You will be in my prayers.
 
A justification for apostolic succession would be helpful. In other words, a justification that papal authority existed in the early church and the churches in communion with the Church submitted to such authority. Use of secular or Protestant accepted sources would make such a case especially convincing. That would be the sort of thing that might win me over. Thank you for your prayers. I’m having a hard time accepting praying to the saints for intercession, but can you ask St. Thomas the Apostle to pray for me?
 
Welcome! I am an Orthodox Christian. Praying for you.
JamesJr said:
its ideas concerning predestination look heretical to me.
Click to expand...
Because they are 👍 It says that God damns people to hell without them committing sins (i.e. before they are born), and He does this totally randomly.
 
Last edited:
James,
God bless your journey. Keep searching for truth. I am not a scholar so my answers may not enjoy the scholarship you desire.
Prayer is talking! We can talk to God but we can also talk to all those in heaven. If to ask a Saint for something the saint takes our request to Jesus. What happen at the wedding feast when they were running out of wine. They went to Mary the mother of Jesus and she went to Jesus. In King Saul’s time it was know if you went to the mother of the king, he could not refuse his mother!
I ask St. Anthony to help me find things all the time. Try it out!
It is clear Jesus commissioned Peter to head His church. After Pentecost the Apostles had a Problem. There were only eleven and there were twelve tribes of Israel! So the elected a replacement. Paul left someone in charge when he established a new church! When Peter died he was replaced. History and logic speaks to the fact the Jesus did not want His Church to die.
 
Two big decisions that the church faced early on were what day to hold their weekly service and did converts have to become Jews before becoming Christians? Peter made both of those decisions!
 
Thank you for you prayers! I was suspicious of Calvinism. After I studied it a bit more closely, I was disturbed. It does not line up well with Sacred Scripture. One of the contributing factors of why I am at the point of near acceptance of Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut! I do not mean to be a Protestant that screams “show me that in the Bible!” But is the time Peter chose the day for the weekly service in the Bible? If not, can you find an early Christian source?
 
Thank you for sharing those details on your faith journey. It seems that you discerned very well so far, and found that you have to have a solid foundation. The philosophies of the world cannot provide it. Jesus established only one Church and we proclaim it to be the Catholic Church. The testimony of the Fathers of the Church all speak of the same thing. Eastern Orthodoxy has some beautiful aspects, but there is no one authority, it does not speak with a single voice. The See of Peter was established in the beginning and the Church is in communion with his successors. That is where Orthodoxy misses the mark.
Regarding worship on Sundays, this is a good resource:

 
Regarding Peter’s authority, there is a lot to look at. He lead the Council of Jerusalem, as mentioned, making the final decision. Every time the apostles are mentioned, Peter is mentioned first. Jesus referred to Peter in many things, and especially in giving him the Keys and the power to bind or loose. After the Resurrection, Peter was taken aside and told “feed my sheep”. The early Church traces succession of bishops from Peter - whose tomb is known to be in Rome, directly under the altar of the basilica in his name. We do not have succession lists of other bishops, only of Peter. In the very earliest centuries, Christians were taught that they must be in union with the bishop of Rome, the first of the Churches in priority and authority. St. Clement of Rome gives the earliest writing of a pope, following Peter - as he writes to a church in an entirely different city and gives commands of God’s law to them.
 
Thank you very much for all of the information you provided. I want to make a comment. The more and more I find myself coming into agreement with the Catholic Church, the stronger my faith feels. The Catholic Church seems to flesh out, justify, and give solid reason to believe. A 2,000 year history that goes back to Christ is beautiful to me. It actually makes me have even more faith in the Bible! The traditions and early church history are able to act as a guiding commentary. I see that if I accept the Church, I would have an authority that can really guide me rather than a bunch of conflicting interpretations. However, how can I be sure the Church did not become corrupt at some point? Have there not been any corrupt Popes or Cardinals?
 
That’s a tremendous insight, James and you’re sensing the excitement, confidence and freedom we have when we are part of the true Church. We now can rest on a solid authority, that came from Jesus Himself - God-willed. Yes, as you said - we have 2000 years of consistent teaching. And yes, the Bible itself has its true meaning within the Church that received, protected, published and gave the Scriptures to the faithful for all of those centuries. Yes, now when you struggle for an answer, or how to live, or ask “What does Jesus truly want of my belief and worship?” — we have the solid and true answers from the Church to guide us.
Your question is critical, and it is the basis of almost every non-Catholic Christian denomination. They all will claim that the Church became corrupt at some point. Then, they believe they had to start a new one (or re-start the Church somehow).
There are a multitude of problems with this idea that the Church became corrupt (and was rejected by God, somehow).
First, to say that Church was corrupted, is to say that it was non-corrupted at some point. If so, then it was the true Church at that point, then lost it (supposedly).
If it was the true Church - then we know that Jesus established a Church.
This already conflicts with the Protestant idea that there is no visible Church, it’s only invisible, or that Jesus didn’t start a Church. Clearly, if the Church became corrupt, then it was good before then.
However, some – seeing that problem (for them) will say “the Church became corrupt at the time of the apostles”.
We have to look at Jesus’ promise to Peter “the gates of hell will not prevail”. He said “upon this Rock I will build my Church”. The Church will never fail - it never has, it never will
To claim, as Mormons do, that the Church became corrupt before the apostles were gone from the earth means that Christ’s promise failed in the very first generation and then there was no Church on earth until the 16th century (for Protestants) or 19th century for Mormons.
 
Last edited:
I believe it is in the Bible. The decision was to celebrate on the day Jesus rose. I believe it is easier for you to find than I!
 
JamesJr said:
Have there not been any corrupt Popes or Cardinals?
Click to expand...
We are sad to know that there have been some very bad Popes and Cardinals through the ages. But the power that Jesus gave the Church is not lost by the sins of men. Otherwise, it could never persist.
For example, if Protestantism was dependent on sinless leaders, it would never exist either.
We look at the early Church. The writings of the Fathers. They condemned corruption in doctrine and in morals. There is also nothing of the Protestant - type of belief in those early Fathers. It is all Catholic teaching, the same as we have today.

A good resource is the book
https://www.amazon.com/Apostasy-That-Wasnt-Extraordinary-Unbreakable/dp/1941663494

The author gives a good overview on that topic in this video:

 
Last edited:
That is honestly a pretty convincing argument. However, I thought of a dilemma while pondering my question concerning a possible corruption of the Church that would affect a position as a Protestant. If the Church became corrupt at some point, then how can I put faith in the Bible when I know that I have my Bible because of the Catholic Church? This is not a question for you to answer. I am letting you know a thought. The rhetorical question puts me into an awkward position.
 
I will consider reading that book, and I will watch that video some time tonight. Thank you for the resources.
 
JamesJr said:
However, how can I be sure the Church did not become corrupt at some point? Have there not been any corrupt Popes or Cardinals?
Click to expand...
Because we have witnesses to the teachings on faith and morals not changing. I recommend looking into the Early Church Fathers. There is a book Fathers Know Best by Scott Hahn which is a very nice summary. Infallibility of the Pope does not mean impeccability, it means that the teachings were not corrupted.
 
That’s exactly the problem and a great point. If the Catholic Church was corrupt, then how could it have the divine authority to officially codify the Bible? The entire Protestant world has to depend on the certainty and truth of the Catholic Church in order to receive the Bible. Even Martin Luther did not believe that the Catholic Church had lost authority, but only that it needed reform. That’s another thing, is it “reformation” or “creating a new religion”? To reform is to keep the Catholic Church and make it better.
 
James - the first 20 minutes of that video he talks about conspiracies and it’s kind of wandering, so you could jump ahead. He gets going at that point and does a good job thereafter.
 
Thanks for the suggestion! I will consider reading that book. I became familiar with that author earlier today. I am around halfway done with a talk he gave about his conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top