Help Discussing Catholic faith with a Southern Baptist

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Originally Posted by TeJayAll who posted for Calgar have answered him very well. Anna Scott you did an exceptional job. In fact you have stumped Calgar. He is doing what most do when they can’t effectively counter your statements.

One must realize what conversion means. Conversion is not merely an acceptance of one theology over another. True conversion is a complete trust to allow God to weave the degree of holiness He has set out for the soul. Thus becoming Catholic or urging someone to convert to Catholicism is not the ultimate goal. Becoming Catholic is merely the fist step. There are plenty of Catholics who squander their Catholicism. The goal is to become a saint by allowing God to transform the imperfect and wretched lives of us sinners and make us into His Image. Only God can make us holy when we freely surrender our will to do His will.

Catholicism is like a treasure, and all Catholics are very wealthy by the mere fact that they have the primary means for sanctifying grace-- the 7 sacraments. Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to give us sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace empowers us to do things we could never do on our own. But to those to whom much was given, much will be required. When we go to mass, we receive life, truth and grace, not merely for our personal sanctification, but rather that we may be equipped to go out and share it with those who are starving for truth and hungry for love. Sanctifying Grace is the life of God in our soul.

So next time we say “I’m Catholic”, we should realize that we are also saying is “I’m wealthy”, thus we should never look down on those who are not Catholic, as they are the ones with whom we are to share what we have been freely given. It is not about winning theological debates, it’s about sharing what we were given with those who are starving, especially when we have the greatest treasure, namely Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

One must realize what conversion means. Conversion is not merely an acceptance of one theology over another. True conversion is a complete trust to allow God to weave the degree of holiness He has set out for the soul. Thus becoming Catholic or urging someone to convert to Catholicism is not the ultimate goal. Becoming Catholic is merely the fist step. There are plenty of Catholics who squander their Catholicism. The goal is to become a saint by allowing God to transform the imperfect and wretched lives of us sinners and make us into His Image. Only God can make us holy when we freely surrender our will to do His will.

Catholicism is like a treasure, and all Catholics are very wealthy by the mere fact that they have the primary means for sanctifying grace-- the 7 sacraments. Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to give us sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace empowers us to do things we could never do on our own. But to those to whom much was given, much will be required. When we go to mass, we receive life, truth and grace, not merely for our personal sanctification, but rather that we may be equipped to go out and share it with those who are starving for truth and hungry for love. Sanctifying Grace is the life of God in our soul.

So next time we say “I’m Catholic”, we should realize that we are also saying is “I’m wealthy”, thus we should never look down on those who are not Catholic, as they are the ones with whom we are to share what we have been freely given. It is not about winning theological debates, it’s about sharing what we were given with those who are starving, especially when we have the greatest treasure, namely Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist.

You just gave me an idea.

I used to talk about how we might be more effective around non-Catholics by taking off our “Catholic” badge for a bit, this is a good comparison. Why wear a badge that shows what you are? Why not just be what you are, and let the Holy Spirit take you from there?

Alan

 

[Calgar]

All who posted for Calgar have answered him very well. Anna Scott you did an exceptional job. In fact you have stumped Calgar. He is doing what most do when they can’t effectively counter your statements. He changed the direction of the thread or simply mentions something completely different and off topic.
Well Done All.
TeJay

You make it sound like we are enemies, TeJay.

Just because I don’t have every answer in my pocket isn’t necessarily a bad thing as long as I’m willing to take the time to look it up. Which Anna and I are doing.

As to the changing direction of the thread and mentioning things off topic: I think we were pretty much off the op’s topic by page two. And it might not seem like it to you, but it seemed like quite a dog pile on me, so I have just picked the one person who I think can continue the conversation without being insulting.

 

[Calgar]

*If you wish to conduct discourse by PM only then you should not be on these Forums!

I’m sorry, Cinette. I came to these forums for faith questions and faith building. What are you here for?

 

[David_Castlen]

One must realize what conversion means. Conversion is not merely an acceptance of one theology over another. True conversion is a complete trust to allow God to weave the degree of holiness He has set out for the soul. Thus becoming Catholic or urging someone to convert to Catholicism is not the ultimate goal. Becoming Catholic is merely the fist step. There are plenty of Catholics who squander their Catholicism. The goal is to become a saint by allowing God to transform the imperfect and wretched lives of us sinners and make us into His Image. Only God can make us holy when we freely surrender our will to do His will.

Catholicism is like a treasure, and all Catholics are very wealthy by the mere fact that they have the primary means for sanctifying grace-- the 7 sacraments. Sacraments are visible signs instituted by Christ to give us sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace empowers us to do things we could never do on our own. But to those to whom much was given, much will be required. When we go to mass, we receive life, truth and grace, not merely for our personal sanctification, but rather that we may be equipped to go out and share it with those who are starving for truth and hungry for love. Sanctifying Grace is the life of God in our soul.

So next time we say “I’m Catholic”, we should realize that we are also saying is “I’m wealthy”, thus we should never look down on those who are not Catholic, as they are the ones with whom we are to share what we have been freely given. It is not about winning theological debates, it’s about sharing what we were given with those who are starving, especially when we have the greatest treasure, namely Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist.

 

[David_Castlen]

You just gave me an idea.

I used to talk about how we might be more effective around non-Catholics by taking off our “Catholic” badge for a bit, this is a good comparison. Why wear a badge that shows what you are? Why not just be what you are, and let the Holy Spirit take you from there?

Alan

What is that old saying?, “what you are screams so loud I can hardly hear what you say.”

 

[Cat_Herder]

You just gave me an idea.

I used to talk about how we might be more effective around non-Catholics by taking off our “Catholic” badge for a bit, this is a good comparison. Why wear a badge that shows what you are? Why not just be what you are, and let the Holy Spirit take you from there?

Alan

This is the same logic that says to put the Blessed Virgin Mary away because She is too divisive.

Problem is, the Messiah is supposed to be a descendant of David, which is impossible if He has no Mother, since His Father is not a descendant of David or anyone else for that matter. So if we take away Mary, we are no longer talking about Jesus.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This is the same logic that says to put the Blessed Virgin Mary away because She is too divisive.

I hear your concern, I think. I didn’t say to take her away, just don’t lead with these things. Like going in undercover police. You still have guns, lights, sirens, radios, you just don’t scare off the fish before you can get among them and get close by holding them all out in front of you.

Problem is, the Messiah is supposed to be a descendant of David, which is impossible if He has no Mother, since His Father is not a descendant of David or anyone else for that matter. So if we take away Mary, we are no longer talking about Jesus.

Where did we come around to taking Mary away and giving Jesus no mother? All I’m saying is that I could go the rest of my faith life without uttering the word “virgin” in connection with Mary, and do just fine including in my prayers to Mary. When my kids ask me for stuff they don’t have to tell me my medical history; they just ask for the thing.

Alan

 

[Cat_Herder]

I hear your concern, I think. I didn’t say to take her away, just don’t lead with these things. Like going in undercover police. You still have guns, lights, sirens, radios, you just don’t scare off the fish before you can get among them and get close by holding them all out in front of you.

Where did we come around to taking Mary away and giving Jesus no mother? All I’m saying is that I could go the rest of my faith life without uttering the word “virgin” in connection with Mary, and do just fine including in my prayers to Mary. When my kids ask me for stuff they don’t have to tell me my medical history; they just ask for the thing.

Alan

Again, holding that Mary is not ever-virgin raises serious problems with the messianic prophecies. But as you don’t consider the Bible to be true in the first place, then I can see why you have arrived at this conclusion.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Again, holding that Mary is not ever-virgin raises serious problems with the messianic prophecies.

Who is holding that Mary is not ever-virgin? Not me. Just because I can live without pondering and chatting about the sex life of the mother of our Lord doesn’t mean I think I know something about it. And if I did, far be it from me to betray her.

But as you don’t consider the Bible to be true in the first place, then I can see why you have arrived at this conclusion.

Please expand on the part of the Bible I don’t believe to be true, and what conclusion I’ve arrived at, because I would like to know.

Thank you for your time in engaging me in this discussion. I’m enjoying it, and I feel like I’m learning important things.

Alan

 

[Cat_Herder]

Who is holding that Mary is not ever-virgin? Not me. Just because I can live without pondering and chatting about the sex life of the mother of our Lord doesn’t mean I think I know something about it. And if I did, far be it from me to betray her.

…

Please expand on the part of the Bible I don’t believe to be true, and what conclusion I’ve arrived at, because I would like to know.

“Pondering” is not truth. Do you think that all the Bible is good for is “pondering”? Or are you holding Catholic doctrine to a different standard than Protestant doctrine?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

“Pondering” is not truth. Do you think that all the Bible is good for is “pondering”? Or are you holding Catholic doctrine to a different standard than Protestant doctrine?

Dear Cat Herder,

I hold them to the standards that they have the effect of be for Him or against Him.

Mark 9:
38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.”
39 Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me.
40 For whoever is not against us is for us.
41 Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

Jesus made it abundantly clear through a number of parables that it was less important to be in the right group than to show true humility and faith and do acts of mercy. “I desire mercy not sacrifice.” Remember the Pharisees were the ones who kept the law, yet who did he so often side against? They got the rules, just not the love.

WHen a man wants to rally people to worship Jesus, great! When a man wants to rally Christians to bash the Church, I’m bummed. For example, I went to a Promise Keepers meeting. Very inspiring but all I can remember is this one guy making fun of the kind of traditional organ music I play. He was saying that music is like “going to church” but he personally wants to “have a little church” which meant of course you dump the organ for a synthesizer and add drums and other instruments and play rock. I was very offended back then before I became un-offendable like I am now.

Alan

 

[Cat_Herder]

Dear Cat Herder,

I hold them to the standards that they have the effect of be for Him or against Him.

Mark 9:
38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.”
39 Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me.
40 For whoever is not against us is for us.
41 Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

Jesus made it abundantly clear through a number of parables that it was less important to be in the right group than to show true humility and faith and do acts of mercy. “I desire mercy not sacrifice.” Remember the Pharisees were the ones who kept the law, yet who did he so often side against? They got the rules, just not the love.

WHen a man wants to rally people to worship Jesus, great! When a man wants to rally Christians to bash the Church, I’m bummed. For example, I went to a Promise Keepers meeting. Very inspiring but all I can remember is this one guy making fun of the kind of traditional organ music I play. He was saying that music is like “going to church” but he personally wants to “have a little church” which meant of course you dump the organ for a synthesizer and add drums and other instruments and play rock. I was very offended back then before I became un-offendable like I am now.

Alan

But all of that presupposes that the Catholic Church is just a group, like the Rotary Club or the Optimists. Those clubs are voluntary. The Catholic Church is something else entirely: the Body of Christ.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 12:12-31[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Col 1:18[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Col 2:18-20[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Eph. 1:22-23[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Eph 3:19[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Eph 4:13[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[AlanFromWichita]

But all of that presupposes that the Catholic Church is just a group, like the Rotary Club or the Optimists. Those clubs are voluntary. The Catholic Church is something else entirely: the Body of Christ.

Sigh. I have no idea what you want me to say. Everything I offer is utterly wrong.

You can find excuses that the Lord’s teachings don’t apply; there are other examples but you’ll just do the same to them.

What about the Good Samaritan? The tax collector and the Pharisee? Or was it the Pharisee and the member of the Rotary Club? Aye -yi -yi!

Alan

 

[Cat_Herder]

Sigh. I have no idea what you want me to say. Everything I offer is utterly wrong.

Not completely.

 

[stewstew03]

ConstantinoA80,

Unfortunately, Southern Baptists have a history of this sort of vitriol toward Catholics, which, as we all know, is not a fruit of the spirit. And, as our Lord says, “By their fruits you shall know them…”

My two cents: arm yourself with knowledge, but don’t return evil for evil. And as always, pray unceasingly.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Just curious, when did the Roman Catholic Church write the New Testement?

Okay, first lets define our terms carefully. The name ‘Roman Catholic Church’ didn’t come about until the Anglican Church broke off from the Catholic Church in 1534; it was a name that the Anglicans gave to the Catholic Church as a way to usurp the authority of the Catholic Church. They wanted to claim that they were the true Catholic Church by making the true Catholic Church just the Church of Rome.

The Catholic Church however, is seen as early as AD 107 in Bishop Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch and a student of John the Apostle. He writes:

“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.”
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch )

St. Ignatius also writes on the Eucharist. He says:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1”
(ibid)

So, here we have the 3rd bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius, calling the church, the Catholic Church as if it is common knowledge and teaching the Eucharist is Christ’s flesh as early as AD 107. Other Church Fathers tell us that Ignatius was a student of John the Apostle himself. Indeed he lived during the apostles lifetime and so is called an Apostolic Father.

It was the Apostles and their close associates (like Luke) who wrote the New Testament. These writings were collected and preserved by the Catholic Church and were standardized into a universal canon in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. This was done because there were many different canons among Christians and the Church wanted to be able to standardize them so that everyone would be teaching the same things. How can you have unity if everyone holds different books to be scripture?

For example, the book of ‘Barnabas’ and the book called ‘The Shepherd of Hermas’. Some thought of these books as scripture. And, they are found listed in some of the earliest bibles (see codex website -http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx ). So, why don’t you have these books in your bible? Because the Catholic Church at the Council of Carthage decided these books were not scripture but still profitable for reading. Thus, the only reason you don’t have these books is because of the Catholic Church. And, the reason you have the books that you do in your NT is because those are the books the Catholic Church deemed as scripture. There were many other books that were deemed as spurious and altogether rejected.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I am aware of the history. I was addressing the poster who seemed to believe that the Roman Catholics wrote the New Testement. When in fact, the letters/books already existed and were in use. The assembly at Hippo supposedly collected them into one volume that has become the Holy Bible. But the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus make me question whether Hippo was actually where the Holy Bible was put together.

I addressed this over here

 

[fisherman_carl]

Also, who created the Orthodox Church in 1054? Did it appear out of thin air?

Well, no. The Eastern Church existed prior to 1054 AD. However, they were all called the Catholic Church. That is, prior to 1054 AD, there was only the Catholic Church that included both Eastern and Western Catholics; However, the Church split along East and West because some of the crusaders sacked Constantinople. These crusaders were excommunicated by the Pope. In fact, the Pope explicitly warned them on pain of excommunication that they should not attack any Christian cities in the East. But these particular crusaders did not listen to the Pope.

The Orthodox claim the Patriarch of Constantinople as their leader. They call him the first among equals. However, did you know that there was no Patriarch of Constantinople until the 4th century? Prior to that time there was not even the city of Constantinople. There was only a small village called Byzantium there. But it was Emperor Constantine who created the city of Constantinople and he started the Patriarch in that city. The Patriarchs of Rome, Jerusalem, and Antioch far antedate the Patriarch of Constantinople.

 

[Michael_Francis]

If you wish to conduct discourse by PM only then you should not be on these Forums!

I’m sorry, Cinette. I came to these forums for faith questions and faith building. What are you here for?

Please remember that both PMs and emails conducted through this site are subject to the same rules and guidelines (see the link in my signature) as posts and threads on the public forums. Any that violate any of those rules and guidelines should be forwarded to myself for evaluation and action. http://bestsmileys.com/cops/8.gif
Carry on…