I can't shake my Protestantism

[Nabooru]

I would like to be a member of the RCC, but I’ve noticed there are some things I can’t reconcile myself to.

For example, relics. I can see a relic and think, “Hey, that’s cool, it touched a holy person.” Like the way you feel when you see Abraham Lincoln’s hat. But I don’t associate anything special in particular with them. I don’t feel that praying in front of them has any more effect than using any other object as a focus of prayer.

I also can’t submit myself entirely to a human being, even if he is the Vicar of Christ. I can’t stop reminding myself that the church is run by humans, and humans make a lot of mistakes, even when the Holy Spirit is within them. Jesus said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against His church; He didn’t say it would be always be right on every issue. I guess I just can’t buy the concept of infallibility. To me it seems to be rather fishy to claim that the Mormons’ prophets are liars who demand obedience, claiming to be the voice of God, while the Pope makes more or less the same claim. Sure, he is th successor of the church and the popes all the way back to Peter, but I don’t believe that makes him infallible. Not at all. God doesn’t grant constant infallibility to humans, even important ones.

Also, I can’t totally convince myself of every mystic’s claims, basically because I’m a mentally ill person and I see a lot of my symptoms, and those of other patients, in them - like seeing spirits and souls rise and fall and seeing Heaven and hearing voices, etc. I’m not saying their experiences are absolutely not real, just that I’m skeptical of them.

I don’t understand the emphasis on tradition and magisteria. The Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Period. It’s not that I think that tradition has no place in the church, or that it serves no purpose, but I could never hold it on the same level as God’s Word. And it’s not that I think the magisteria are hopelessly misguided - but I can’t accept that every conclusion they come to must as a matter of fact be the Will of God and on the same footing as the Bible.

There are some other minor (at least to me) doctrinal issues, but these are my main beefs. I can’t really seem to have them explained to me outside of “The Church says it, so if you don’t believe it just go on to Hell.” It always seems to boil down to that, and I’m just told to accept it and not to question it. But my Protestant leanings and upbringing demand I question and use my judgement. I guess I could just say that things seems to be a lot more practical and understandable in Protestant thinking. You are obedient to God and Christ, and expounded in the Word, and no one else. I suppose I can’t really change, at least maybe.

 

[Daizies]

I don’t understand the emphasis on tradition and magisteria. The Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Period. It’s not that I think that tradition has no place in the church, or that it serves no purpose, but I could never hold it on the same level as God’s Word. And it’s not that I think the magisteria are hopelessly misguided - but I can’t accept that every conclusion they come to must as a matter of fact be the Will of God and on the same footing as the Bible.

Just some food for thought on this point, how do you know which books belong in the Bible? How do you know that James is in and the Gospel of Thomas is out? Or that Revelation is in and the Gospel of Judas is out? The simple answer - Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Edward_H]

Relics, don’t get hung up on them, but you should remember the Biblical basis of them…

2 Kings 13:20-21 - Elisha’s bones, restored life; Acts 5:15-16 - Peter’s shadow; Acts 19:11-12 - cloths that touched Paul

Belief in the effect of them is Biblical. Many relics of saints have been associated with investigated miracles.

 

[Dubay]

Timothy 2:5

Tells us who is a mediator between man and God.

 

[kkollwitz]

And Elijah’s cloak parted the Jordan when Elisha used it after Elijah was gone. God’s grace and power is mediated through his physical creation. Sometimes through an object; sometimes a person; sometimes a relic.

 

[Bballer32]

I would like to be a member of the RCC, but I’ve noticed there are some things I can’t reconcile myself to.

For example, relics. I can see a relic and think, “Hey, that’s cool, it touched a holy person.” Like the way you feel when you see Abraham Lincoln’s hat. But I don’t associate anything special in particular with them. I don’t feel that praying in front of them has any more effect than using any other object as a focus of prayer.

I also can’t submit myself entirely to a human being, even if he is the Vicar of Christ. I can’t stop reminding myself that the church is run by humans, and humans make a lot of mistakes, even when the Holy Spirit is within them. Jesus said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against His church; He didn’t say it would be always be right on every issue. I guess I just can’t buy the concept of infallibility. To me it seems to be rather fishy to claim that the Mormons’ prophets are liars who demand obedience, claiming to be the voice of God, while the Pope makes more or less the same claim. Sure, he is th successor of the church and the popes all the way back to Peter, but I don’t believe that makes him infallible. Not at all. God doesn’t grant constant infallibility to humans, even important ones.

Also, I can’t totally convince myself of every mystic’s claims, basically because I’m a mentally ill person and I see a lot of my symptoms, and those of other patients, in them - like seeing spirits and souls rise and fall and seeing Heaven and hearing voices, etc. I’m not saying their experiences are absolutely not real, just that I’m skeptical of them.

I don’t understand the emphasis on tradition and magisteria. The Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Period. It’s not that I think that tradition has no place in the church, or that it serves no purpose, but I could never hold it on the same level as God’s Word. And it’s not that I think the magisteria are hopelessly misguided - but I can’t accept that every conclusion they come to must as a matter of fact be the Will of God and on the same footing as the Bible.

There are some other minor (at least to me) doctrinal issues, but these are my main beefs. I can’t really seem to have them explained to me outside of “The Church says it, so if you don’t believe it just go on to Hell.” It always seems to boil down to that, and I’m just told to accept it and not to question it. But my Protestant leanings and upbringing demand I question and use my judgement. I guess I could just say that things seems to be a lot more practical and understandable in Protestant thinking. You are obedient to God and Christ, and expounded in the Word, and no one else. I suppose I can’t really change, at least maybe.

Try thinking like Christ and see where these miracles stand. If you think God won’t except them then challenge us. But as i look at it, nothing that the Catholic Church believes goes against what Christ said or displayed

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Just some food for thought on this point, how do you know which books belong in the Bible? How do you know that James is in and the Gospel of Thomas is out? Or that Revelation is in and the Gospel of Judas is out? The simple answer - Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit.

That’s a good point. The same faith it takes to believe in the accuracy of the Bible is the same faith it takes to believe God will lead the Church and the humans within it in the right path or direction.

I would like to be a member of the RCC, but I’ve noticed there are some things I can’t reconcile myself to.

For example, relics. I can see a relic and think, “Hey, that’s cool, it touched a holy person.” Like the way you feel when you see Abraham Lincoln’s hat. But I don’t associate anything special in particular with them. I don’t feel that praying in front of them has any more effect than using any other object as a focus of prayer.

I also can’t submit myself entirely to a human being, even if he is the Vicar of Christ. I can’t stop reminding myself that the church is run by humans, and humans make a lot of mistakes, even when the Holy Spirit is within them. Jesus said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against His church; He didn’t say it would be always be right on every issue. I guess I just can’t buy the concept of infallibility. To me it seems to be rather fishy to claim that the Mormons’ prophets are liars who demand obedience, claiming to be the voice of God, while the Pope makes more or less the same claim. Sure, he is th successor of the church and the popes all the way back to Peter, but I don’t believe that makes him infallible. Not at all. God doesn’t grant constant infallibility to humans, even important ones.

Also, I can’t totally convince myself of every mystic’s claims, basically because I’m a mentally ill person and I see a lot of my symptoms, and those of other patients, in them - like seeing spirits and souls rise and fall and seeing Heaven and hearing voices, etc. I’m not saying their experiences are absolutely not real, just that I’m skeptical of them.

I don’t understand the emphasis on tradition and magisteria. The Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Period. It’s not that I think that tradition has no place in the church, or that it serves no purpose, but I could never hold it on the same level as God’s Word. And it’s not that I think the magisteria are hopelessly misguided - but I can’t accept that every conclusion they come to must as a matter of fact be the Will of God and on the same footing as the Bible.

There are some other minor (at least to me) doctrinal issues, but these are my main beefs. I can’t really seem to have them explained to me outside of “The Church says it, so if you don’t believe it just go on to Hell.” It always seems to boil down to that, and I’m just told to accept it and not to question it. But my Protestant leanings and upbringing demand I question and use my judgement. I guess I could just say that things seems to be a lot more practical and understandable in Protestant thinking. You are obedient to God and Christ, and expounded in the Word, and no one else. I suppose I can’t really change, at least maybe.

Well it was humans that wrote the Bible through God’s Spirit, so in trusting in the written word of God you are doing the same thing, putting your faith in what humans wrote believing it was inspired by God. So just think of Church leaders in the same way.

And as far as “mystics” claims, just think of Ezekiel’s wheel within a wheel and Moses and the burning bush. You believe those because they are in the word of God but believing in modern day visions is the same thing. Ezekiel and Moses were humans too. So if you trust the Bible like protestants do then you are basically doing the same thing as trusting in the Church and the humans within it. The Bible is the word of God and the Church is the Body of Christ. Humans are and were involved in the forming of both but they were/are led by God’s Spirit. You trust God that he would not let those who wrote the Bible write anything in error so trust God that He will not let the Church do anything in error. It’s the same thing really.

 

[poptown]

Glad to know that you are considering Catholicism! My suggestion is: if you believe that Protestantism (faith alone, once saved always saved, double predestination, etc.) is wrong, then there is nothing else you, as a Christian, can choose other than Catholicism (sorry my Orthodox friends). Therefore, focus on the major aspect of the issue, strengthen your faith against those essential errors of Protestantism, and you will not want to go anywhere other than the Catholic Church, the preserver of the right interpretation of the Holy Scriptures for thousands of years.

God bless.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I wouldn’t get hung up too much on mystics and relics. Clearly God can work through them if He so chooses, and in some cases He has. Beyond that, if devotion to relics or a particular mystic doesn’t help you, then just don’t do it.

I don’t understand the emphasis on tradition and magisteria. The Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Period. It’s not that I think that tradition has no place in the church, or that it serves no purpose, but I could never hold it on the same level as God’s Word. And it’s not that I think the magisteria are hopelessly misguided - but I can’t accept that every conclusion they come to must as a matter of fact be the Will of God and on the same footing as the Bible.

But why is it that you think that the Bible is the word of God? How do you know? Clearly it would be wrong to say “I don’t think the Bible is hopelessly misguided - but I can’t accept that every conclusion it comes to must as a matter of fact be the Will of God.”

After all, humans wrote the Bible. We claim that the authors were divinely inspired when they did so, but why is it that that claim must be true for the authors of a collection of books written over a thousand years ago, but cannot be true for our bishops today?

Clearly, God can guide people to make inerrant statements, or it would make no sense to say that the Bible is particularly special. Why would he stop there and leave us to wonder more or less aimlessly about what is actually true? The plethora of sincere yet contradictory interpretations of the scripture make it clear that if God wanted to the Bible to be a sure guide to Truth, then He messed up pretty bad. And God is not in the habit of messing up.

There are some other minor (at least to me) doctrinal issues, but these are my main beefs. I can’t really seem to have them explained to me outside of “The Church says it, so if you don’t believe it just go on to Hell.” It always seems to boil down to that, and I’m just told to accept it and not to question it.

Catholics are expected to accept Church teachings because to be Catholic is in large part to say that the Church is guided by God in matters of faith and morals. This does not, however, mean not asking questions. We should seek to understand these matters, and asking questions is how we do so. If our reason seems to lead us to a conclusion that we know must be false, then we should figure out how our reasoning is wrong.

But I’m not sure why anyone would tell a non-Catholic that he should accept all that the Church says without question. This is the same as saying that he should become Catholic without question, which is silly. Ideally a non-Catholic would come to believe the Church’s claims about itself and as a result accept even those doctrines which are not immediately apparent to him, but it makes little sense to ask him to start with the second part.

Which I think brings me to the final point rather nicely: The primary question (a person who is already Christian) should ask about the Catholic Church is this: Is it the Church founded by Christ? If it is, then in order for it to believe as it does and be wrong would require that God had abandoned it. Which really isn’t His style. And so the Church must be right, and all the little things follow.

 

[Richard320]

I would like to be a member of the RCC, but I’ve noticed there are some things I can’t reconcile myself to.

For example, relics. I can see a relic and think, “Hey, that’s cool, it touched a holy person.” Like the way you feel when you see Abraham Lincoln’s hat. But I don’t associate anything special in particular with them. I don’t feel that praying in front of them has any more effect than using any other object as a focus of prayer.

As a point of focus only, you are correct.

But consider this: At the End of the World, we will be reunited will our flesh. Don’t you think Saints be keeping an eye on their bones? If you’re asking for a particular Saint’s intercession, why not do it where they’re more likely to be paying attention? It’s much the same as praying before a statue; we aren’t praying TO the statue, but who it represents is more likely to be watching that spot.

I’m sure I’ll get blasted by someone who would prefer to correct others rather than try to help, but that’s how it was explained to me in CCD sometime on the 1970s, and it still makes sense to me.

 

[bzkoss236]

I would like to be a member of the RCC, but I’ve noticed there are some things I can’t reconcile myself to.

For example, relics. I can see a relic and think, “Hey, that’s cool, it touched a holy person.” Like the way you feel when you see Abraham Lincoln’s hat. But I don’t associate anything special in particular with them. I don’t feel that praying in front of them has any more effect than using any other object as a focus of prayer.

There is nothing special about the object itself, it is more the connection to the holy person. As shown in the biblical examples, and other instances of miracle through relics that can be found through a Google search, God works through relics, like he does people, to perform his will. For more on relics that might help with your understanding, check out the Catholic Answers tract on relics.

I also can’t submit myself entirely to a human being, even if he is the Vicar of Christ. I can’t stop reminding myself that the church is run by humans, and humans make a lot of mistakes, even when the Holy Spirit is within them. …, but I don’t believe that makes him infallible. Not at all. God doesn’t grant constant infallibility to humans, even important ones.

Any church (even protestant ones) are run by humans. And many protestant church pastors believe they are right about what they teach. There is no escaping that. The only difference is that we have one man who stands among the living as the head of the Church to keep safe the teachings of Christ and to make sure that all who belong to the Church follow the same correct teaching. Jesus, as the ultimate head of our Church, is human too (with his human body now residing in heaven). Granted, Jesus is also God, but don’t forget about the fact that he is also human. Also, the infallibility of the Pope has restrictions. It’s not like he can just spout off whatever he wants and claim it to be right (like how it can work in protestant churches). There are certain criteria that have to be met for it to be considered infallible, and one of those is that it cannot contradict that which is already doctrine of the Church. This, and the other criteria, help prevent corruption of doctrine, along with guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is how he is able to be infallible as the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ. And lastly, the Pope’s infallibility has only been used twice (at least in the last 200 years).

Also, I can’t totally convince myself of every mystic’s claims, basically because I’m a mentally ill person and I see a lot of my symptoms, and those of other patients, in them - like seeing spirits and souls rise and fall and seeing Heaven and hearing voices, etc. I’m not saying their experiences are absolutely not real, just that I’m skeptical of them.

I don’t really pay much attention to mystics, at least the modern day ones. But as long as they aren’t claiming stuff that is against Church doctrine, I’d say there isn’t anything to worry about.

I don’t understand the emphasis on tradition and magisteria. The Bible is the WORD OF GOD. Period. It’s not that I think that tradition has no place in the church, or that it serves no purpose, but I could never hold it on the same level as God’s Word. And it’s not that I think the magisteria are hopelessly misguided - but I can’t accept that every conclusion they come to must as a matter of fact be the Will of God and on the same footing as the Bible.

Can you accept what is taught in a protestant church as the Will of God when they teach based on what they feel God is saying instead of giving truth? You forget that it is by Tradition (meaning oral teaching; not the same as tradition, a history of practices) that the Bible even came to exist. Also, Jesus is the Word of God, the Bible is the words of God. The reason that Tradition can be equal to the Bible is because they teach the same thing, though one may contain more information on a particular matter that the other doesn’t. And because they teach the same thing, one cannot contradict the other. Any teachings from the Bible must be backed (or at least not contradicted) by Tradition, and vice versa.

There are some other minor (at least to me) doctrinal issues, but these are my main beefs. I can’t really seem to have them explained to me outside of “The Church says it, so if you don’t believe it just go on to Hell.” It always seems to boil down to that, and I’m just told to accept it and not to question it. But my Protestant leanings and upbringing demand I question and use my judgement. I guess I could just say that things seems to be a lot more practical and understandable in Protestant thinking. You are obedient to God and Christ, and expounded in the Word, and no one else. I suppose I can’t really change, at least maybe.

“The Church says it, so if you don’t believe it just go on to Hell” is not official Church teaching. In fact, the Church teaches that even those who are not believers have a chance to get to Heaven by God’s mercy on those who participate in His will, even if they do not realize it. That line is used more by people who are stubborn and arrogant, but passionate about the Church and its teachings. And because Christ founded the Church and protects its doctrine, as long as you then follow Church teaching, you will be following Christ’s teaching. Also, it is okay to have doubts and to take certain beliefs that you have trouble with on faith, as long as you don’t outright deny the teachings, you can become Catholic.

Good luck, and God bless, my friend.

 

[Nabooru]

Oh I don’t believe in OSAS - I totally believe that a person can decide to abandon their faith and their salvation. Otherwise Richard Dawkins is totally going to heaven because he was raised an Anglican. And I also don’t believe in DP, I actually don’t put any thought into predestination, because I consider it counterproductive. When we become Christians we are saved, that’s all we need to know.

The thing with the Bible is that Protestants believe that it is God’s final message to all mankind. Not His final message to every man, woman and child - He still speaks on a personal level - but basically, God put everything He wanted to be known in there. It’s not like God walked away from divinely inspiring the authors and then snapped his fingers and said, “Oh shoot, I forgot that one part about (whatever) - hey, you down there! I forgot something! Will you let everyone know that…” That’s the way I was taught to believe it.

Also, we need to consider that the Bible really is once and for all, because no one except the Mormons has substantially attached anything onto it. (There are some Eastern churches that accept this or that minor book, but not anything that offers huge changes in doctrine.) So a saint, for example, may have (or believe he or she has) a divine revelation, or an inspiration to write, but their writings and experiences don’t get added to the Bible. There is a strict warning at the end of Revelation about adding anything to the Book, so I think that’s why Protestants tend to be wary of considering other influences on doctrine besides the Bible.

 

[jay338wsfd]

I am simply a lost soul looking for help to find my way to heaven. I have been raised a Protestant but i am curious to know answers to questions that i am told “thats just the way it is.” Like the origional poster how do i over come the diffrences I have with being a Catholic?

 

[poptown]

Also, we need to consider that the Bible really is once and for all, because no one except the Mormons has substantially attached anything onto it. (There are some Eastern churches that accept this or that minor book, but not anything that offers huge changes in doctrine.) So a saint, for example, may have (or believe he or she has) a divine revelation, or an inspiration to write, but their writings and experiences don’t get added to the Bible. There is a strict warning at the end of Revelation about adding anything to the Book, so I think that’s why Protestants tend to be wary of considering other influences on doctrine besides the Bible.

Aha. I see what you are saying. But consider this: If Holy Scriptures are enough, why Protestants get the faith wrong? The Holy Scriptures is truly distinctive as God’s written Words. But it doesn’t mean that the other things God gives us, not being Holy Scriptures, are inferior in terms of importance and authority. Such things definitely include, for example, the true interpretation of Holy Scriptures, in the form of Catechism of Catholic Church, backed up by Apostolic Traditions.

 

[bzkoss236]

The thing with the Bible is that Protestants believe that it is God’s final message to all mankind. Not His final message to every man, woman and child - He still speaks on a personal level - but basically, God put everything He wanted to be known in there. It’s not like God walked away from divinely inspiring the authors and then snapped his fingers and said, “Oh shoot, I forgot that one part about (whatever) - hey, you down there! I forgot something! Will you let everyone know that…” That’s the way I was taught to believe it.

The problem is, there is nothing in the bible that suggests that it has everything God wants man to know it it. In fact, there are many verses which indicate that there were things left out of scripture.

Also, we need to consider that the Bible really is once and for all, because no one except the Mormons has substantially attached anything onto it. (There are some Eastern churches that accept this or that minor book, but not anything that offers huge changes in doctrine.) So a saint, for example, may have (or believe he or she has) a divine revelation, or an inspiration to write, but their writings and experiences don’t get added to the Bible. There is a strict warning at the end of Revelation about adding anything to the Book, so I think that’s why Protestants tend to be wary of considering other influences on doctrine besides the Bible.

It’s more likely that this verse in Revelation only applies to Revelation. There is no indication that it reflects the whole Bible. Also, if it did apply to the whole Bible, then the reverse would be true too, that you shouldn’t take away from the Bible, and yet protestants removed 7 books (and some verses of other books) from the Bible. (Not to mention that Luther considered taking the Book of Revelation out of the Bible while he was doing so, along with a few other New Testament books).

 

[acadiANNA]

Attend the RCIA meetiings and many questions you have will be discussed. God bless you on your faith journey. I will be praying for you.

 

[poptown]

I am simply a lost soul looking for help to find my way to heaven. I have been raised a Protestant but i am curious to know answers to questions that i am told “thats just the way it is.” Like the origional poster how do i over come the diffrences I have with being a Catholic?

Do not be afraid. Some doubts are placed by the Spirit, while some others are placed by Satan. Sometimes people feel so disappointed about not being able to clear up all the doubts in their minds that they started to turn negative and question instead whether God really wants to have people saved. Make no mistake, my friend. God truly wants everyone to be saved and has placed a longing of Him in our souls. Therefore, just study as much as you can, pray and meditate based on what you have learned, do not remain doubting about what you do not know (relics, Our Ladies, Papacy, purgatory …) but believe in those you already know and see where they lead you to, and the path to truths and eternal life will be revealed to you. Trust yourself, but trust God even more.

Hope this helps.

 

[geoformeo]

The thing with the Bible is that Protestants believe that it is God’s final message to all mankind. Not His final message to every man, woman and child - He still speaks on a personal level - but basically, God put everything He wanted to be known in there. It’s not like God walked away from divinely inspiring the authors and then snapped his fingers and said, “Oh shoot, I forgot that one part about (whatever) - hey, you down there! I forgot something! Will you let everyone know that…” That’s the way I was taught to believe it.

We Catholics also believe that the Bible is God’s final public revelation to all mankind, so there is no problem there. But what I think you’re missing is, what good is an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? The Bible is anything but self-explanatory (see 2 Peter 3:15-16). Jesus spoke largely in parables, and had to explain them in private to His apostles. And it was to His apostles, and them alone (and not all His followers), that He granted His infallible authority in clearly defining and teaching in matters of faith and morals (Matthew 16:18-19, 18:18). It is the direct successors of the apostles in the pope and the bishops in union with him that form the Magisterium, which is Christ’s appointed infallible interpreter of Scripture.

Think of it this way: who cares what the Bible says, if nobody can say for sure what it actually means? God would obviously not leave us in that situation. And He didn’t. Hence the Magisterium.

Also, we need to consider that the Bible really is once and for all, because no one except the Mormons has substantially attached anything onto it. (There are some Eastern churches that accept this or that minor book, but not anything that offers huge changes in doctrine.) So a saint, for example, may have (or believe he or she has) a divine revelation, or an inspiration to write, but their writings and experiences don’t get added to the Bible.

And nothing gets added to the Bible in Catholicism, either. The Word of God includes both oral and written Tradition. The Bible specifically says it doesn’t include everything Jesus did and said and taught (John 20:30, 21:25). But the Apostles would have known these additional things and passed them down to their successors, hence Sacred Tradition. The Church doesn’t add anything to the Bible; She interprets and explains written Scripture, and relates to the faithful the teachings that come orally through Sacred Tradition.

There is a strict warning at the end of Revelation about adding anything to the Book, so I think that’s why Protestants tend to be wary of considering other influences on doctrine besides the Bible.

Careful with this. While I agree with you that the canon of Scripture is closed and nothing new can be added to it, the warning in Revelation is for the “prophetic words in this book,” (Revelation), not the Bible as a whole. The Bible wasn’t even compiled when John wrote those words.

Keep searching. You ask good questions. The answers can be found within the Catholic Church.

 

[kmuestwin]

There have been many good answers to the OP’s questions but I think this is going to be a harder undertaking than a few amature posters like myself and others will be able to answer.

A lot of your questions seem to be about Catholic dogma. My suggestion to you would be to get a Catechism of the Catholic Church.

That’s just the first step.

The next step is reading it cover to cover carefully marking the parts you find difficult to understand or agree with.

The third step is to go back to each if the sections you took issue with and read the corresponding scripture and the other footnotes that go along with them.

Penultimately, when those questions aren’t answered you need to look at the items you still don’t agree with, figure out where you stand in reference to them and then research why you think you are right. Once you have looked at your argument vs. the Church’s argument, you can make an informed decision.

Lastly, once you’ve come to an informed decision, come back to the forum to ask another question.

The bottom line is this:

Nobody on this forum is going to be able to convince you of the dogmas of the Church. These are all things that you are going to have to learn and answer for yourself. I think that if you start off willing and able to do a lot of the homework, no matter which way you go, you’ll turn out better for it. This is my very serious and very heartfelt feelings on the Church. We have the history, we have the documentation, we have what I believe is the Truth.

All you have to do is look with an open mind and objectively study.

Please don’t think I’m being overly critical, I look at your posts On this thread and I see Very deep, very serious questions that need to be answered In the best way possible. Private research and prayer are what brought me to the Church.

I’ve seen too many people enter the Church without really comprehending what the Church teaches.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

The problem is, there is nothing in the bible that suggests that it has everything God wants man to know it it. In fact, there are many verses which indicate that there were things left out of scripture.

It’s more likely that this verse in Revelation only applies to Revelation. There is no indication that it reflects the whole Bible. Also, if it did apply to the whole Bible, then the reverse would be true too, that you shouldn’t take away from the Bible, and yet protestants removed 7 books (and some verses of other books) from the Bible. (Not to mention that Luther considered taking the Book of Revelation out of the Bible while he was doing so, along with a few other New Testament books).

Exactly! That alone should be enough to scare protestants and make them wonder. Martin Luther tampered with the Bible according to how he alone saw fit. Now many people read and study the Bible that one man tampered with to make it as he thought it should be not to mention how he almost removed the book of Revelations too. How many people today would follow behind a preacher who removed books from the Bible? Yet protestants don’t realize that’s what they are actually doing it just didn’t happen in their lifetime but it’s the same as any lone preacher today saying to come follow him then removing books from the Bible as he saw fit.