How long will it take for non-Catholics to finally accept Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter iaskquestions
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For me it is enough to know the presence is real – not just symbolic & not only spiritual but physical and actual, which is the Methodist view & has been adopted by Presbyterians (at least the PCUSA & it’s offshoots). So this would be an area where I do disagree with Calvin.

Calvin is accused of trying to infuse too much “logic” into this matter – which is actually something I agree with. The Lord’s Supper is a mystery of faith. However, I would also say the RCC has gone too far in creating philosophical concepts to explain these mysteries. To quote Tertullian, “what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem”?
don’t know what you could possibly be talking about. The Cahtolic Church is the only One tht has the Real Presence…

Only a valid Eucharist has the real Presence… and it can only be brought about by a properly-ordained Catholic priest…

not very many of the churches you mentioned (Meth, prespb) have ordained Catholic priests as pastors…
 
Which church is that – the RCC or EOC? Also are you saying that God dwells in buildings or churches (as physical structures)?

*Acts 17:24-25 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.

2 Corinthians 6:16-17 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God*; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
God dwelt with the Israelites - in the Ark of the covenant…

and the ark was put into a temple and the bible talks about the presence of God being there… (Chronicles… Psalms, etc.).

Jesus Christ’s presence abides in a real, tangible way in the Catholic Church -
 
don’t know what you could possibly be talking about. The Cahtolic Church is the only One tht has the Real Presence…

Only a valid Eucharist has the real Presence… and it can only be brought about by a properly-ordained Catholic priest…

not very many of the churches you mentioned (Meth, prespb) have ordained Catholic priests as pastors…
Here goes the rant. I can telegraph it when someone makes a very valid and truthful point, the rant and the stuff hitting the fan aimed at them commenses.
 
God dwelt with the Israelites - in the Ark of the covenant…

and the ark was put into a temple and the bible talks about the presence of God being there… (Chronicles… Psalms, etc.).

Jesus Christ’s presence abides in a real, tangible way in the Catholic Church -
Well, maybe Paul was blowing smoke – or maybe things have changed?

In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land," declares the LORD, "men will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the LORD.’ It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made (Jeremiah 3:16).

Seems pretty clear to me – so I’m gonna have to go with Paul on this one?
 
PROTESTANTS VS. PROTESTANTS?
Code:
Someone has posted the idea that all Protestant sects think they are better than other Protestant sects, and certanly superior to Catholicism.

 I take issue with that. Most mainline Protestants - Methodists, Presbyterians, most Lutherans, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, certain Baptist groups, etc. - have cooperated together for decades through the World Council, National Council and local clergy groups. Their members often change affiliation when they move and find a church they like with a different label. Methodists easily become Presbyterians, etc. You often do find a dogmatism among avid fundamentalist Protestants - among some (not all) Southern Baptists, for example.   

  As for becoming Catholic, most Protestants are comfortable where they are and will not change except perhaps join a different Protestant church when they move, maybe are dissatisfied with a new minister, etc. They choose a church - as when they move - not so much because of theology or even liturgy, but such factors as location, atmosphere, friendliness, education, Sunday School facilities, overall program, music, sermons, ministerial personality, outreach by local church, and even parking!  Theology doesn't play a central role anymore among the large majority of mainline Protestants. While a Methodist may first visit a Methodist church in a new community, if they find a Presbyterian church more to their liking for whatever reason, they  might decide to go there. That style of ecumenism is very widespread and has been around a long time.

   Mainline Protestants will seldom become Catholic because so many of them are 'freethinkers' and value that intellectual freedom.  Conservative Protestants are more likely to be theologically committed, though the center of their theology is 'being saved' or 'born again' and few are interested in a wide range of complex doctrines. Conservatives also are more likely to be alienated by formality in worship - vestments, incense, "prayers-book" religion, and other liturgical practices. They enjoy spontaneity, spirited worship that varies some from week to week.
 
Well, maybe Paul was blowing smoke – or maybe things have changed?

In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land," declares the LORD, "men will no longer say, ‘The ark of the covenant of the LORD.’ It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made (Jeremiah 3:16).

Seems pretty clear to me – so I’m gonna have to go with Paul on this one?
i would have to have the whole contexxt… but maybe he was talking about Heaven… of course there would be no need of the Ark then…

Or he could be talking about how the real Presence replaces the Ark… You know, there hasn’t been an Ark of the covenant for a very long time now… thousands of years mabye???
 
PROTESTANTS VS. PROTESTANTS?
Code:
Someone has posted the idea that all Protestant sects think they are better than other Protestant sects, and certanly superior to Catholicism.

 I take issue with that. Most mainline Protestants - Methodists, Presbyterians, most Lutherans, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, certain Baptist groups, etc. - have cooperated together for decades through the World Council, National Council and local clergy groups. Their members often change affiliation when they move and find a church they like with a different label. Methodists easily become Presbyterians, etc. You often do find a dogmatism among avid fundamentalist Protestants - among some (not all) Southern Baptists, for example.   

  As for becoming Catholic, most Protestants are comfortable where they are and will not change except perhaps join a different Protestant church when they move, maybe are dissatisfied with a new minister, etc. They choose a church - as when they move - not so much because of theology or even liturgy, but such factors as location, atmosphere, friendliness, education, Sunday School facilities, overall program, music, sermons, ministerial personality, outreach by local church, and even parking!  Theology doesn't play a central role anymore among the large majority of mainline Protestants. While a Methodist may first visit a Methodist church in a new community, if they find a Presbyterian church more to their liking for whatever reason, they  might decide to go there. That style of ecumenism is very widespread and has been around a long time.

   Mainline Protestants will seldom become Catholic because so many of them are 'freethinkers' and value that intellectual freedom.  Conservative Protestants are more likely to be theologically committed, though the center of their theology is 'being saved' or 'born again' and few are interested in a wide range of complex doctrines. Conservatives also are more likely to be alienated by formality in worship - vestments, incense, "prayers-book" religion, and other liturgical practices. They enjoy spontaneity, spirited worship that varies some from week to week.
***well, all i can say is they don’t know wht they are missing… 😦 ***
 
Here goes the rant. I can telegraph it when someone makes a very valid and truthful point, the rant and the stuff hitting the fan aimed at them commenses.
and your point would be?

Oh… that’s right… you don’t have one… 😃
 
i would have to have the whole contexxt… but maybe he was talking about Heaven… of course there would be no need of the Ark then…

Or he could be talking about how the real Presence replaces the Ark… You know, there hasn’t been an Ark of the covenant for a very long time now… thousands of years mabye???
No – Jeremiah was talking about Jesus; who is the correct “type” for the Ark …
 
No – Jeremiah was talking about Jesus; who is the correct “type” for the Ark …
the ark HELD God…

the ark was not itself God…

Jesus is not the ark… He is God in the ark (the Church)…

Mary was the new ark when Jesus lived in her womb… Revelation mentions the new ark (mary)…
 
the ark HELD God…

the ark was not itself God…

Jesus is not the ark… He is God in the ark (the Church)…

Mary was the new ark when Jesus lived in her womb… Revelation mentions the new ark (mary)…
Of course not – it is a “type” for Jesus. For instance, the Ark was constructed of wood (signifying humanity) and gold (signifying divinity). This construction in a sense foretold of Jesus. Within Him was the word. The Temple at the time was the church, while the Ark was actually God’s throne (and it was held in the inner sanctuary within the Temple – or church). The mercy seat of the Ark, constructed of gold, was where the Levite priests would sprinkle blood from the offerings on Yom Kippur (the annual day of atonement).

So the Ark symbolizes both the human aspect of Christ and God. Jesus, our high priest, offers one perfect blood sacrifice to God for all sins.

Did Mary spill blood? Was it Mary who the blood sacrifice was offered to in order to propriate for the sins of mankind?

This all begins with a failure to understand that the flesh Jesus inherits from Mary is totally and completely human flesh. Behind that faulty premise is perhaps an even more profound one. The idea that purity or at least something close to it can be had in the flesh apart from grace (in other words the faulty premise that we are not totally depraved). This is why it becomes so important to have a perfect Mary.

However, the truth is God overcame the flesh – it’s really as simple as that.

The nexus the RCC draws between the Ark descending from heaven (at the end of Rev. 11) and the “woman” in Rev. 12 is erroneous. If you read the two chapters closely these two events are actually separate periods. One speaks of end times while the other of Israel (appropriately represented by Mary).
 
f you read the two chapters closely these two events are two separate periods. One speaks of end times while the other of Israel (appropriately represented by Mary).
you believe as you want and i will know as i know…
 
Which Truth would you like to use for your bashing? The Taoist’s Truth? What about a Baptist’s? How about a Hindu’s? What about Jimmy Swaggert’s Truth? Jack Chick’s? Pope Pius X’s? A Jew’s? How about a Communist’s?

**Just very quickly - ****I wish someone would explain this saying of Pius X 😦 **​

  • In response to someone who begged Pope St Pius X to “go soft” on the Modernists, he retorted: “Kindness is for fools! They want them to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses. But they ought to be beaten with fists! In a duel you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can! War is not made with charity, it is a struggle, a duel. If Our Lord were not terrible He would not have given an example in this too. See how He treated the Philistines *[sic] *; the sowers of error; the wolves in sheep’s clothing; the traitors in the temple. He scourged them with whips!”
    Fr. Z is Moderator of the Catholic Online Forum
Jesus as Rambo ? Pretty much. A Rambo Jesus is not attractive, & people will not become Catholic if Catholicism is not attractive: especially if they left it.

The sainted Pope appears to forget that he was not fighting a war - the “Modernists” were not members of an enemy state, but his co-religionists.


**IMHO, it is far better to live a morally decent life of foolish kindness, than to bother with the trivia of doctrines which cause no end of trouble, are highly doubtful, have stirred up no end of bitterness between those who were at peace & in unity, are irrelevant to real life, & bear no relation to anything Jesus was concerned about. Sometimes, it is possible to honour the values of Jesus only by ignoring the Churches & their competing truths. **
 
the ark HELD God…

the ark was not itself God…

Jesus is not the ark… He is God in the ark (the Church)…

Mary was the new ark when Jesus lived in her womb… Revelation mentions the new ark (mary)…
Hi! Your discussion here is rather complicated to me. I would just like to comment on your mention of Mary. I’ve not seen Mary mentioned in Revelation. Could you please give me the text? Also, I believe we should not make Mary for what she is not. The Bible plainly tells us that there is only one mediator, and that is Jesus Christ: “For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).

God bless.
 
Hi! Your discussion here is rather complicated to me. I would just like to comment on your mention of Mary. I’ve not seen Mary mentioned in Revelation. Could you please give me the text? Also, I believe we should not make Mary for what she is not. The Bible plainly tells us that there is only one mediator, and that is Jesus Christ: “For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).

God bless.
Amen!
 
How long will it take for non-Catholics to finally accept Catholicism?

I think it will take less than 5 years for the majority of non-Catholics to accept Catholicism.
By the enabling grace of God alone, never! How do you guys come up with these threads?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskquestions
How long will it take for non-Catholics to finally accept Catholicism?

I think it will take less than 5 years for the majority of non-Catholics to accept Catholicism.
accept it as what?
Good point. I like your signiture by the way.

If I understand the o.p.'s thinking, I would add that the only reason people will begin to convert to the Catholic Church in droves is because it and it’s flock would have changed dramatically. The Universal Church will define itself against an “other” as they say in sociology circles. I believe that is what Catholics are supposed to believe…
 
I think if more catholics presented their case in a tactful and respectful manner like Scott Hahn, Marcus Grodi, both John Pauls, and others in that same mold, more people might be “swimming the river” to the rcc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top