Having issues with friend about Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter caadam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

caadam

Guest
Apologies, mods, if this thread is meant to be somewhere else!

Anyway… I’m a catechumen right now, and I’ve been talking for a short while with a friend about my thoughts on becoming a part of the Catholic Church. I told him that I wanted to become a Catholic, and he seemed concerned. He’s a Protestant and a very smart guy—much smarter than I am in a theological sense. He’s gone to seminary for a few years now or so, and wants to be a Christian counselor.

He asked me if I was 100% sure I wanted to be a Catholic, and that I should be aware that there’s a lot of “weirdness” in the Church. Because he and I are very good friends, like siblings, I had no fear in asking him what he thought was strange. I assumed it would be a list of the usual misunderstandings that are out there, like the “worship” of saints, the Eucharist, etc. After I asked him, though, I remembered who I was really asking, lol.

Whatever the case, he came up with a list of about six things, including infant baptism, papal infallibility and apostolic succession, the Catholic Church being the one true Church, purgatory, and the two things I already assumed he’d ask. I did my best in answering him correctly with what I’ve researched and learned in RCIA, but I know that with my lack of knowledge as someone still pretty brand new to Catholicism, and his strong foundation in Protestantism, there’s nothing I can really say to make him see that my choice is the right one.

This is all being done through messages, by the way. I feel like all I’m going to get in return is him telling me how everything I said was heretical, bad, and I shouldn’t be a Catholic. In fact, while he was listing his questions, he even told me, “The Catholic Church teaches this, but know that this is incorrect and unbilical,” as though I could pick and choose what to believe if I were to become a Catholic. Isn’t there some kind of term for that? A cafeteria Catholic, right? I felt like he was trying to convince me to be a cafeteria Catholic.

That was one of the reasons why I left Protestantism—I felt like I was constantly being told to be a cafeteria Protestant, to just pick and choose and ignore the contention and division among the denominations. But I digress on that.

So, my problems lie in this: when he comes back at me with will most likely be a lot of rebuttals, what should I do? I already told him that everything I responded with in my message was the honest extent of my knowledge so far, but I know he’s going to leave me in a position where he will be strongly against my explanations and my choice. I feel kind of helpless, because I’m just a meager catechumen who’s just beginning to get down the basics. I couldn’t even explain papal infallibility to him because it’s something that I can’t wrap my head around yet, even though I’ve been trying my best to research it. Should I bring it up to my catechist?

Or, perhaps, should I just leave the conversation at that? I’m not sure, because I know my friend loves to debate, to argue, and I know that even in my situation, he will want to get into an argument with me over this. I’m afraid it might cause an even greater rift between us because I hate arguing and I won’t do it if I see the conversation going in that direction.

But another, quick question: could someone please explain papal infallibility to me? I’ve been going through thread after thread on this forum about the topic, and I’ve already read the tracts on the Catholic Answers site. It’s just not sinking in, lol. So I guess, could someone offer a simple explanation? I’d really appreciate it.
 
it is a very rare occurrence when the Pope speaks “ex cathedra”, take a look at this link.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

It is not taken lightly and the last time a Pope spoke such was with the Immaculate conception.

I may have a few books I could send you but one of the easiest to read is “why do Catholics do that”. They have the book in my public library and may have it in yours as well.

Purgatory is a tough on even for me a lifetime Catholic. The best answer would be from a good standing priest.

Saints: could you please Pray for me? Isn’t that the same as asking a Saint to pray for you? Why do Protestants name their churches with “St. So and so?” We only worship one God in 3 divine beings in one. The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost/Spirit.

As for being the one true church. Read about Martin Luther and what he wanted to change and what we have to day as Protestant denominations. It is eye opening how the message has been skewed over the last 500 years.

I would not shy away from dialogue. This is an excellent chance to learn more deeply about your faith and evangelize or sow seeds with your friend.

I have a friend who is a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran. He is very anti-catholic and I take our meetings as a chance to witness and be an example of Catholicism to him. He is by far and away more intelligent and more read then I am but it encourages me to learn more about my faith.

Prayer.

Mike
 
caadam said:
But another, quick question: could someone please explain papal infallibility to me? I’ve been going through thread after thread on this forum about the topic, and I’ve already read the tracts on the Catholic Answers site. It’s just not sinking in, lol. So I guess, could someone offer a simple explanation? I’d really appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Papal infallibility is a gift from Jesus (Mt. 16:18-19) to insure that what His Church teaches is truth. It should not surprise any Christian, including your friend, that He who IS truth would want His Church, His body (cf. Eph 5:23), proclaiming as truth only what is in fact true; He would not want it teaching falsehood. Neither should any Christian doubt that God has the power to control what His Church officially teaches – to ensure it teaches only truth.

The Pope exercises this gift of infallibility when he speaks as head of the Church and proclaims a particular truth as definitive and is to be accepted by the whole Church. Only rarely as the Pope done this on his own.
The usual manner is when he and the bishops together (Magisterium) define a truth in the various councils. Here specific papal infallibility comes into play because the Pope’s agreement is necessary before the particular teaching in question could become an official doctrine of the Church. If the other bishops voted to declare something a Catholic doctrine but the Pope refused his consent to it, then it would not become a doctrine - at least not at that time; not until such time as a pope consented to it.
 
caadam said:
But another, quick question: could someone please explain papal infallibility to me? I’ve been going through thread after thread on this forum about the topic, and I’ve already read the tracts on the Catholic Answers site. It’s just not sinking in, lol. So I guess, could someone offer a simple explanation? I’d really appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Here’s a simple thought. Does your Protestant friend believe the Holy Spirit protected the writers of Scripture from teaching error when they wrote Scripture? Yes, he does. The protection of the Pope speaking as a function of his papal office for the whole Church to hold a belief of faith or morals bears a similar protection. I’ll leave it at that, because you asked for simple. Nita gave you a good nutshell answer too.

As for responding to your friend, I must say that if he believes all those Catholic teachings are weird and he brought up the 2 issues you thought, then his theology is not all that great. Catholic theology is profound, sober, and coherent, especially when taken in light of the whole of divine revelation. You said: “there’s nothing I can really say to make him see that my choice is the right one.” So I think you answered the question yourself. You gave reason for your faith and you have confidence. It is not him you must please, nor is it in your power to open his eyes. That’s God’s affair. If you really feel there’s something more that could help, then feel free to say it. But sometimes, saying it once and leaving it at that can be the most powerful seed you can plant.
 
scripturecatholic.com/

That may be a good one to counter his arguments. The way I look at situations like these is to remember, he’s only using one aspect of our faith to make his argument. He seems to be Sola Scriptura, so he doesn’t have the magisterium, or Sacred Tradition.

I say stay the course, hang in there. Ultimately if he’s your friend, he’ll back off if he thinks it’s creating a rift.

A little education goes a long way in situations like these.

Good luck to you! And God bless.
 
Welcome to the Catholic Church! I’m so happy for you. You ask many good questions and so does your friend.

In part, you answered your own question with the following quote:
“That was one of the reasons why I left Protestantism—I felt like I was constantly being told to be a cafeteria Protestant, to just pick and choose and ignore the contention and division among the denominations.”
Click to expand...
Did you mention those words to him? Our Catholic faith is not based on picking and choosing. The Catholic Church teaches exactly what was taught from the beginning, they are the teachings of Jesus and the Catholic Church has never changed one word of Jesus’ teachings. Can any of the 30,00 Protestant churches say the same?

If he has told you that what the Catholic Church teaches is incorrect and unbiblical then I would say that he is incorrect and being unbiblical because if he is just going to “Protestant” based information, then that is all he is going to come up with. Tell your friend that he needs to be challenged and to go to the source itself: The Catholic Church!

Here is a link that will help your friend discern what is and what isn’t:

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

This link shares conversion stories to Catholicism from every other faith out there:

whyimcatholic.com/

Regarding the six things your friend has trouble with, I will try to answer Infant Baptism:
  1. Infant Baptism.
Jesus said, “Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, He cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

Most people back 2,000 years ago that converted were adults but the Bible gives proof of whole familes being baptized at the same time so we would also assume that would include infants or babies.

Jesus also said, “Let the children come to me” and “Do not hinder the little ones”. Why do you think He spoke those words? When Jesus lived on earth 2,000 years ago, some of His disciples tried to keep the children away from Jesus because they thought that they were bothering Jesus. But that was not the case at all. Jesus knew the children could help Him teach everyone how important and easy it is to love God because children accept and give love with complete trust and demand nothing in return for their love and that is exactly how Jesus asks all of us to love God with the same total trust.

We should also remember that The Holy Spirit gives 2 types of life: Human life and Supernatural life.

Supernatural life is God’s life within us. We are all born without the life of God within us as a result of the first sin that entered the garden when Adam and Eve sinned against God. God could no longer live in them because by their sinning, they had turned away from God and God is so holy and divine that He cannot be near any sin; that is how holy God is. So because of Original sin, we are all born without grace in our souls or supernatural life so there is no way for us to have a relationship with God.

We are all born without the life of God within us. So why would we deny this life of God within an infant? If he is going to say that Baptism needs to be an individual commitment to Jesus as Lord and Savior, we do as Catholics when we make our other Sacraments; The Holy Eucharist when we accept Jesus for the first time under the apperance of ordinary bread and wine and Confirmation when we ask the Holy Spirit to come into our hearts and guide and guard us in our Spiritual walk home to heaven.

Baptism is a Sacrament (A Sacrament is an outward, visible or physical sign [water] that gives our souls inward, invisible grace or holiness) that opens our souls to Supernatural Life.

When we are Baptized and before the priest pours the water over us, he first asks the Holy Spirit to come down upon the water and make it holy. When we are baptized, we experience something like a new creation or a second creation as the Holy Spirit sweeps over the waters of Baptism so that the waters have the power to cleanse our souls from this Origianal Sin and to create God’s Supernatural Life in us.
  1. Papal Infallibility just means that when the Pope is teaching something to do with the teachings of the Catholic Church what he teaches is correct and true and incapable of error and it does not imply that he is perfect and incapable of error just what he teaches with regards to the words of Jesus. In fact I think there was a pope who was going to teach some thing not true and he died. The Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways!
 
To add to these other fine replies, two books in particular helped me to understand the “whys” of Catholic teaching and also may help you in evangelizing to your friend.

Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism
Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity

Good luck 👍
 
“Why do Catholics Do That?” is a great book to read and a quick read.

I have a LCMS (Missouri Synod) friend who is a Pastor and WHOA…that was.my first experience as a lifelong Catholic with grave up close and personal dialogue with someone very Anti Catholic in theology. Reading it and hearing it from a friend CONSTANTLY are two different things completely. I also briefly knew a WELS Lutheran who considered the LCMS heretics interestingly enough that had strayed and forsaken Martin Luther and his full teachings.

I used to ask him without a magisterium how do you keep true to the teachings of Martin Luther for it seemed to me when there was a disagreement they simply divided into another synod.

That sent me on a journey to learn everything I can about Catholicism.
(Pope or his office, I’ve heard both versions, is the AntiChrist? I was so naive then about
how our faith is perceived and how anti-Catholic some can be I truly couldn’t believe that anyone truly believed this!) That said I was raised a Cradle Catholic and went to Catholic schools.

I consider my faith a lifelong journey indeed; that’s the best part I think.

We have remained friends and he said he considered it a faillure he never was able to convetr me to the LCMS. Apparently his perception was you could say a few things about the typical issues(purgatory, saints, Mary) and convert a Catholic in “10 easy steps”
I began to wonder if he got a raise or "bonus points’ for converting Catholics 🙂
Peace in Christ,
Mary.
 
caadam said:
Apologies, mods, if this thread is meant to be somewhere else!

Anyway… I’m a catechumen right now, and I’ve been talking for a short while with a friend about my thoughts on becoming a part of the Catholic Church. I told him that I wanted to become a Catholic, and he seemed concerned. He’s a Protestant and a very smart guy—much smarter than I am in a theological sense. He’s gone to seminary for a few years now or so, and wants to be a Christian counselor.

He asked me if I was 100% sure I wanted to be a Catholic, and that I should be aware that there’s a lot of “weirdness” in the Church. Because he and I are very good friends, like siblings, I had no fear in asking him what he thought was strange. I assumed it would be a list of the usual misunderstandings that are out there, like the “worship” of saints, the Eucharist, etc. After I asked him, though, I remembered who I was really asking, lol.

Whatever the case, he came up with a list of about six things, including infant baptism, papal infallibility and apostolic succession, the Catholic Church being the one true Church, purgatory, and the two things I already assumed he’d ask. I did my best in answering him correctly with what I’ve researched and learned in RCIA, but I know that with my lack of knowledge as someone still pretty brand new to Catholicism, and his strong foundation in Protestantism, there’s nothing I can really say to make him see that my choice is the right one.

This is all being done through messages, by the way. I feel like all I’m going to get in return is him telling me how everything I said was heretical, bad, and I shouldn’t be a Catholic. In fact, while he was listing his questions, he even told me, “The Catholic Church teaches this, but know that this is incorrect and unbilical,” as though I could pick and choose what to believe if I were to become a Catholic. Isn’t there some kind of term for that? A cafeteria Catholic, right? I felt like he was trying to convince me to be a cafeteria Catholic.

That was one of the reasons why I left Protestantism—I felt like I was constantly being told to be a cafeteria Protestant, to just pick and choose and ignore the contention and division among the denominations. But I digress on that.

So, my problems lie in this: when he comes back at me with will most likely be a lot of rebuttals, what should I do? I already told him that everything I responded with in my message was the honest extent of my knowledge so far, but I know he’s going to leave me in a position where he will be strongly against my explanations and my choice. I feel kind of helpless, because I’m just a meager catechumen who’s just beginning to get down the basics. I couldn’t even explain papal infallibility to him because it’s something that I can’t wrap my head around yet, even though I’ve been trying my best to research it. Should I bring it up to my catechist?

Or, perhaps, should I just leave the conversation at that? I’m not sure, because I know my friend loves to debate, to argue, and I know that even in my situation, he will want to get into an argument with me over this. I’m afraid it might cause an even greater rift between us because I hate arguing and I won’t do it if I see the conversation going in that direction.

But another, quick question: could someone please explain papal infallibility to me? I’ve been going through thread after thread on this forum about the topic, and I’ve already read the tracts on the Catholic Answers site. It’s just not sinking in, lol. So I guess, could someone offer a simple explanation? I’d really appreciate it.
Click to expand...
nowadays i am of the view that religion is the bane of humanity!..that is obvious…

on the other hand, all religions are paths to the one CREATOR, and obviously no one religion is superior to another!..

we are all born accidentally or providentially into a particular religion, and it follows from the above, we are to defend all the TRUTH only, that our religion stands for or affirms!

from the internet i have just read that the inter-faith dialogue that jp2 concentrated on, has been repudiated or diluted by his successor…i presume that jp2’s 3 predecessors, all popes of great discernment, were his guides…IN FACT, it has to be so, since jp2 adopted the twin names of his predecessors!

christians, jews and muslims (according to jp2 to muslim youth, they & christians worship the same God), adore the same God, yet all 3 have been at war against one another. negativing their own religious beliefs, esp. w r t Murder!..and history is replete with blood-shed of innocents!

as to infallibility, although you will never understand it (or perhaps you will), you are going to pay ‘homage’ to it, because it is mandatory, though not necessarily the TRUTH!

Note: this is a sensitive sub. on a Cat. site, and these are my views based on what i have read or heard of the WORD OF GOD - JESUS CHRIST…no replies would be given to any arrogant persons, who are a dime a dozen (meaning innumerable) on this site!

‘TRUTH IS OFTEN ECLIPSED BUT IT CAN NEVER BE EXTINGUISHED’ - Livy.
 
Thank you, all of you, for your helpful replies. It really helped to bring some peace of mind over the situation.

I guess the reason why it truly worried me the most is because when he and I were first getting to know each other, we were at serious odds. After we reconciled and became closer friends, he told me that at one point (when we were both at odds), he thought I was some kind of messenger of Satan, trying to tear down his faith. I was pretty surprised and upset by this, but was empathetic; I was going through a rough time of spiritual desperation myself, and didn’t really know what to hold on to as far as truth. He was already grounded in what he chose to believe when he and I met, while I wasn’t. Our disagreements caused a real train wreck of contention and anger in both of us.

The whole thing has kind of made me shy away from arguing with him; I don’t want him to see me in that light because I love him like he was my very own brother.

peace2u2, I did tell him my thoughts about Protestantism, though I worded it differently. He knows how I’ve felt about it for a while now, but it’s always been treated with an attitude of “Oh well, what can ya do?” until I came to the Catholic Church.

And I actually did encourage him to read the CCC on the Vatican site, lol. I also led him to this site, and another called NewAdvent. The latter site seems to have a ton of heavy-duty reading, which I figured he’d like.

MarcoPolo, you’re right that it’s not in my power to open his eyes, or that I should worry about pleasing him. I can sometimes be a people-pleaser, and I know it’s a weakness of mine. I suppose one of my concerns was with being able to explain my answers correctly; I didn’t want to misrepresent the Church by telling him something that was incorrect. I did my best, double checking and making sure it sound, albeit it simpler in wording because I’m no theologian, lol. It doesn’t help that I’m a terrible debater, too. I won’t deny it, and my friend knows it.

loozcannon, thanks for the website. I also reminded my friend of the inclinations he and I tend to fall under when we start arguing with each other, that I don’t want that happening between us. It’s enough that our beliefs are already a division; the last thing I’d want is to lose his friendship.

Nita, thanks for answering my question regarding papal infallibility. And yes, it did help a lot! I understand it much better, along with MarcoPolo’s and peace2u2’s additions. 🙂

And since I’ve had “Why Do Catholics Do That?” recommended twice, I’ll check that out, too. I’ll also see if I can find the books lux recommended. There’s so much reading to do; I’ve honestly never have done this much reading as a Protestant, but I don’t say that like it’s a bad thing. In fact, I’m very grateful for all the information the Catholic Church has.
 
Good.

One thing I’ve noted is that there are two subjects sure to start an argument.
Politics and Religion.
I try to avoid both.
 
caadam said:
Apologies, mods, if this thread is meant to be somewhere else!

Anyway… I’m a catechumen right now, and I’ve been talking for a short while with a friend about my thoughts on becoming a part of the Catholic Church. I told him that I wanted to become a Catholic, and he seemed concerned. He’s a Protestant and a very smart guy—much smarter than I am in a theological sense. He’s gone to seminary for a few years now or so, and wants to be a Christian counselor.

He asked me if I was 100% sure I wanted to be a Catholic, and that I should be aware that there’s a lot of “weirdness” in the Church. Because he and I are very good friends, like siblings, I had no fear in asking him what he thought was strange. I assumed it would be a list of the usual misunderstandings that are out there, like the “worship” of saints, the Eucharist, etc. After I asked him, though, I remembered who I was really asking, lol.

Whatever the case, he came up with a list of about six things, including infant baptism, papal infallibility and apostolic succession, the Catholic Church being the one true Church, purgatory, and the two things I already assumed he’d ask. I did my best in answering him correctly with what I’ve researched and learned in RCIA, but I know that with my lack of knowledge as someone still pretty brand new to Catholicism, and his strong foundation in Protestantism, there’s nothing I can really say to make him see that my choice is the right one.

This is all being done through messages, by the way. I feel like all I’m going to get in return is him telling me how everything I said was heretical, bad, and I shouldn’t be a Catholic. In fact, while he was listing his questions, he even told me, “The Catholic Church teaches this, but know that this is incorrect and unbilical,” as though I could pick and choose what to believe if I were to become a Catholic. Isn’t there some kind of term for that? A cafeteria Catholic, right? I felt like he was trying to convince me to be a cafeteria Catholic.

That was one of the reasons why I left Protestantism—I felt like I was constantly being told to be a cafeteria Protestant, to just pick and choose and ignore the contention and division among the denominations. But I digress on that.

So, my problems lie in this: when he comes back at me with will most likely be a lot of rebuttals, what should I do? I already told him that everything I responded with in my message was the honest extent of my knowledge so far, but I know he’s going to leave me in a position where he will be strongly against my explanations and my choice. I feel kind of helpless, because I’m just a meager catechumen who’s just beginning to get down the basics. I couldn’t even explain papal infallibility to him because it’s something that I can’t wrap my head around yet, even though I’ve been trying my best to research it. Should I bring it up to my catechist?

Or, perhaps, should I just leave the conversation at that? I’m not sure, because I know my friend loves to debate, to argue, and I know that even in my situation, he will want to get into an argument with me over this. I’m afraid it might cause an even greater rift between us because I hate arguing and I won’t do it if I see the conversation going in that direction.

But another, quick question: could someone please explain papal infallibility to me? I’ve been going through thread after thread on this forum about the topic, and I’ve already read the tracts on the Catholic Answers site. It’s just not sinking in, lol. So I guess, could someone offer a simple explanation? I’d really appreciate it.
Click to expand...
I think that if your so called friend is going to argue and upset you on your choice to become Catholic, then you basically may need to find a new friend. Just because you think he is “smart” or has been to s seminary (Protestant) doesn’t mean he really know anything about what the Catholic Church really teaches. While you are coming into the Church, you don’t need to have “friends” that want to dissuade you or confuse you. I don’t think that you are going to win the arguments with him so politely say that if he can’t respect your choices, then you won’t have much contact with him. Sadly, when adults come into the Church, they loose some of their former friends do to these types of issues.
About the Pope, Patrick Madrid has a great book out there “Pope Fiction” and it covers a number of these issues with the Papacy.
 
caadam said:
Thank you, all of you, for your helpful replies. It really helped to bring some peace of mind over the situation.

I guess the reason why it truly worried me the most is because when he and I were first getting to know each other, we were at serious odds. After we reconciled and became closer friends, he told me that at one point (when we were both at odds), he thought I was some kind of messenger of Satan, trying to tear down his faith. I was pretty surprised and upset by this, but was empathetic; I was going through a rough time of spiritual desperation myself, and didn’t really know what to hold on to as far as truth. He was already grounded in what he chose to believe when he and I met, while I wasn’t. Our disagreements caused a real train wreck of contention and anger in both of us.

The whole thing has kind of made me shy away from arguing with him; I don’t want him to see me in that light because I love him like he was my very own brother.

peace2u2, I did tell him my thoughts about Protestantism, though I worded it differently. He knows how I’ve felt about it for a while now, but it’s always been treated with an attitude of “Oh well, what can ya do?” until I came to the Catholic Church.

And I actually did encourage him to read the CCC on the Vatican site, lol. I also led him to this site, and another called NewAdvent. The latter site seems to have a ton of heavy-duty reading, which I figured he’d like.

MarcoPolo, you’re right that it’s not in my power to open his eyes, or that I should worry about pleasing him. I can sometimes be a people-pleaser, and I know it’s a weakness of mine. I suppose one of my concerns was with being able to explain my answers correctly; I didn’t want to misrepresent the Church by telling him something that was incorrect. I did my best, double checking and making sure it sound, albeit it simpler in wording because I’m no theologian, lol. It doesn’t help that I’m a terrible debater, too. I won’t deny it, and my friend knows it.

loozcannon, thanks for the website. I also reminded my friend of the inclinations he and I tend to fall under when we start arguing with each other, that I don’t want that happening between us. It’s enough that our beliefs are already a division; the last thing I’d want is to lose his friendship.

Nita, thanks for answering my question regarding papal infallibility. And yes, it did help a lot! I understand it much better, along with MarcoPolo’s and peace2u2’s additions. 🙂

And since I’ve had “Why Do Catholics Do That?” recommended twice, I’ll check that out, too. I’ll also see if I can find the books lux recommended. There’s so much reading to do; I’ve honestly never have done this much reading as a Protestant, but I don’t say that like it’s a bad thing. In fact, I’m very grateful for all the information the Catholic Church has.
Click to expand...
If this guy really told you he thought you were a messenger from Satan then you need to drop him as a friend like a hot potato and move on. There is no excuse for this and whatever smarts you admire in him is negated by stupid statements such as this.
 
I completely agree with robwar. A friend calling you a “messenger of Satan?” Move on
QUICKLY.
He’s just interested in debating and tryiing to tear down the Faith and not learning more about Catholicism.

Peace in Christ,
Mary.
 
wisedom said:
nowadays i am of the view that religion is the bane of humanity!..that is obvious…

on the other hand, all religions are paths to the one CREATOR, and obviously no one religion is superior to another!.. [rest edited for being repetitive]
Click to expand...
Wisedom, one of the the corporal acts of mercy is to instruct the ignorant–I do not in any way or form think you are unintelligent. merely taken in by certain reletavistic, universalist “tropes” that while sounding nice and inclusive are just a mass of inchoherent, illogical and rationaly-indefensible cliches. You project these upon John Paul the Great only because you absolutly ignore (or perhaps are just unaware) that his ecumenicalism in no way whatsoever denied the uniqueness, the particularity, and yes the validity of truth claims of the Catholic faith above all others.

I really need to think you need to actualy study reason and logic as a serious discipline, especially in regards to religion and spirituality. The late Mortimer Adler’s Truth in Religion is a good start. Peter Kreeft has several books that can help clarify things as well

Per Professor Kreeft:

1. “All religions are the same, deep down.”
That is simply factually untrue. No one ever makes this claim unless he is (1) abysmally ignorant of what the different religions of the world actually teach or (2) intellectually irresponsible in understanding these teachings in the vaguest and woolliest way or (3) morally irresponsible in being indifferent to them. The objector’s implicit assumption is that the distinctive teachings of the world’s religions are unimportant, that the essential business of religion is not truth but something else: transformation of consciousness or sharing and caring or culture and comfort or something of that sort—not conversion but conversation. Christianity teaches many things no other religion teaches, and some of them directly contradict those others. If Christianity isn’t true, why be a Christian?
By Catholic standards, the religions of the world can be ranked by how much truth they teach.
  • Catholicism is first, with Orthodoxy equal except for the one issue of papal authority.
  • Then comes Protestantism and any “separated brethren” who keep the Christian essentials as found in Scripture.
  • Third comes traditional Judaism, which worships the same God but not via Christ.
  • Fourth is Islam, greatest of the theistic heresies.
  • Fifth, Hinduism, a mystical pantheism;
  • Sixth, Buddhism, a pantheism without a theos;
  • Seventh, modern Judaism, Unitarianism, Confucianism, Modernism, and secular humanism, none of which have either mysticism or supernatural religion but only ethics;
  • Eighth, idolatry; and
  • Ninth, Satanism.
To collapse these nine levels is like thinking the earth is flat."
http://www.integratedcatholiclife.org/2012/07/dr-kreeft-the-uniqueness-of-christianity/
 
caadam said:
I didn’t want to misrepresent the Church by telling him something that was incorrect. I did my best, double checking and making sure it sound
Click to expand...
That’s one of the best things you can do. :o
 
I have some thoughts on the purgatory objection by your Protestant friend…here is the backstory…

If I am playing catch with my son near my neighbors house, and we are both negligent of exercising reasonable care for my neighbors property, and the baseball we are throwing winds up going through a window of my neighbors house, then I have sinned against my neighbor by not exercising regard for his property, prudence in my game of catch, and in this moment of negligence, causing him the loss of the rightful utility of his window.

If i confess my sin, and receive absolution, this only deals with the eternal consequences of my sin. This is what the “work of Jesus” (as you protestant friend no doubt refers to Jesus’s death on the cross) accomplishes…allowing reconciliation with God for the eternal impact of sin choice.

However…injustice is still lingering in the air; my neighbor is still without use of his window. Even though God has forgiven my sin, God has not reassmebled the broken window into it former pristine self, restoring my neighbor in the process.

This reality of sin is called “temporal punishment”…it is the temporal (i. e., timely, not eternal) realities of sin. What ‘fixes’ temporal punishments is either restoration or reparation by the offender, or forgiveness by the offended. In other words, if my neighbor is Bill Gates and he was about to tear down the room that the broken window was in to make an open air porch out of it…my negligence was still sin because I didn’t know Bill’s plans), but Bill would simply forgive the broken window with no need for recompense or restoration.

Or…I could just call the Glass Doctor and pay to have my neighbor’s window fixed…or work out some other arrangement with my neighbor.

Jesus death and resurrection does not eliminate or mitigate temporal punishments…these must be served, dealt with, or realized.

Protestant soteriology completely ignores temporal punishments. Ask your Protestant buddy what the sinner’s responsibility is to the offended, in the name of perfect justice. He won’t have an answer. If you run the “broken window” story by him, he’ll change subjects or dismiss temporal punishments all together. It is simply a reality completely ignored by Protestants…they have no way to actually describe a mechanism of justice within their faith, because “Jesus paid it all”…to which I always reply “Yes…but Jesus doesn’t call the Glass Doctor”.

1 Cor 3 deals with temporal punishments, where Paul likens the realities of temporal punishments to the rendering of gold in a fire…melt the gold, and all the slag and impurities that are not gold, which are lighter than the gold, float to the top to be skimmed away, leaving nothing but pure gold. Likewise, in Paul’s time, cooking pots were rendered clean by placing them in a fire, which burned off all the food residues, but left the pot intact, thus rendering it perfectly clean (the ancients didn’t realize they were sterilizing their pots, they just knew that this practice kept them from getting sick the next time they cooked). Paul uses this imagery of fire to describe the idea that with time and grace, the residue and chaff of our sinful choices passes away as our trespasses are forgiven by others, or mitigated by our friends and loved ones. Once all of these temporal punishments are served, we are saved, but as through fire…

Its an interesting discussion to have with Protestants. From this idea also comes the roots of indulgences, whereby the Church, under her authority to bind and loose, might use the good work of the loved ones of a deceased soul, or the charity of the faithful of the Church, to also mitigate the temporal punishments for the deceased…thereby “shortening” the temporal duration before the soul is rendered pristine and perfectly clean, just like the cooking pot, and is then ready for entry to heaven per Revelation (“only the clean shall enter”).

…Mods…Feel free to move this to the appropriate thread, but i figured this might help out the catechuman/catechist…
 
If you do feel the messaging will go back and forth forever, and not really get anywhere, you can always leave it as
“T`his is where I feel God is leading me at this time. I know you don’t agree, but I ask for your prayers as I discern God’s will in my life.”
 
Aggies08 said:
If you do feel the messaging will go back and forth forever, and not really get anywhere, you can always leave it as
“T`his is where I feel God is leading me at this time. I know you don’t agree, but I ask for your prayers as I discern God’s will in my life.”
Click to expand...
…where’s the fun in that?..👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top