Non-Catholics on these boards...

[Churchmouse]

JPrejean:

Alas, finding a conflict between Scriptural exegesis and Tradition is the surest sign that your Scriptural exegesis is not good.

Alas, I would go to the contrary. Not finding conflicts with some traditions and Scripture is the surest sign that your Scriptural exegesis is not good.

I never said that all traditions are bad or that they don’t have Scriptural basis, only that some don’t.

Peace,
CM

 

[juvefan]

I am not Catholic, but do consider myself to be Christian. I do not however belong to any organized religion. Long story there. I am currently dating a wonderful woman who is Catholic, and this has raised a few questions. My old roommate is a very devout Catholic and he directed me here to look for some answers.

 

[MariaG]

Hi Heathen Dawn,

Glad you liked it. I do understand about not being able to see something. I would encourage you to study St. Fransis. He was a very down to earth person who was able to see God thourgh His creation, and not have to just worship the creation.

I do, as a Christian find it sad that you seem to have to worship that which is created. I think I would even be happier if you worshiped Gods instead of that which was created by Him(them). And that I find kind of ironic. A christian encouraging a pagan to worship your God or Gods not the creations of them!

 

[Shari]

Churchmouse:

Hi Shari,

I saw the movie too. I thought he was accurately portrayed. The movie was produced by a Lutheran group. Luther was very troubled throughout, but my point is that O’hare’s book goes beyond (as shown in what I’ve submitted), he gets personal. It doesn’t attempt to be fair, but inflicts the authors own biases and hatred towards him.

Peace,
CM

CM I am not trying to say that Luther was mentally disturbed or anything. He was plagued most of his life by what he called demons and was disturbed in many ways, partly from a troubled childhood. I am sure he was a very God fearing man, I have no doubts about that. And I know he didn’t mean to have a new religion started However I have read other sources quoteing him as saying things such as the devil needs to be shoved in his but(not the language used.) My point on O’hares book is that pretty much everything in it is gotten from protestant writers. That is my only point. I haven’t finished it yet, and I definelty think a person should read more than just one book to get different views before deciding on what they think. Also a good source I think is an older world history book.

 

[Malachi4U]

SPOKENWORD:

A FOLLOWER OF JESUS CHRIST. IM HERE TO ADD MY TWO CENTS OF GODLY WISDOM. HOPEFULLY WE CAN LEARN FROM EACH OTHER AND NOT DEVIDE THE BODY OF CHRIST. AMEN

Luther actually succeded in seperating protestants from Christs Church in 1517 by inventing newly inspired theology. But inspired by whom is the question? Gods Word never changes and Luther’s false teachings were never taught by Christians (i.e. Catholics) before 1517. Luther taught and preached things like polygamy, drunkeness, etc…http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon3.gif Has the light come on yet? Christs body (i.e. His Catholic Church) is still one body and only one body, protestants just are not a part of it anymore. Christ spoke of His body as the Church, when Luther and his revelutionaries left the Church they also left Christs body. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

Good news though, there is allways a ‘Hope’ for salvation if you obey His teachings and believe in Jesus Christ as your perssonal Lord and savior as Catholics do and have a perssonal relationship with Him!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[Geocacher]

My hand is also raised.

Im a Mormon from the LDS Church, and been listening to Catholic Answers for several years now on EWTN. The thing thats bringing me toward catholic life is Cronic Fatigue, with a big cross, and this is a problem in the LDS faith.

 

[Malachi4U]

Ric:

2 Corinthians 6:16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (NIV)

Ric,

When St. Paul wrote this he was preaching to those in the Church who where making errors by straying away from the verbal teachings of the Church (there was no Bible yet, it was spoken word or Gospel at this time! Boy, that sounds like St. Paul was in the Catholic Church even then.). This proves authority too does it not? The message of unity in one Church is overwhelming in Corinthians but is somehow mysterious for protestants to ‘see’? St. Paul repeatedly spoke of a ‘hope’ for salvation and of unity in the Church and of the Churches authority. I also have numerous protestant abridged Bibles with only 66 minus books but they all still talk of unity and authority in Christs Church.

Can you give me the chapter and verse where the Sacred Scriptures tell us not to listen to our Church authority and to start a new protestant sect every time two people are gathered and the wind changes direction? 33,000 protestant sects today in the USA alone that all disagree with each other can’t be wrong? Or can they?

After 27 years I left the protestant theology and came home to Rome and look forward to welcoming you home in Rome too!

A prisoner of Christ

Malachi4U

 

[Malachi4U]

Ric:

Thanks for the welcome Bud!

Let me assure you that I can by no means ‘pick off the weak of the flock’ here, that is not my job - that’s God’s job. My job is only to share God’s truths with all (Roman Catholic or not). I am a Christian apologist, still learning. And all I want to share is the TRUTH (God’s truth and not mine) and I use the Bible through the Holy Spirit. If I learn something from these forums of Karl’s, I would welcome it if it is Biblical! (And I have learned a few things from Roman Catholics that are truly Biblical, what a blessing!)

Gods peace be with you Theophilus,

Ric,

Just a few points:

Why would God pick off the weak from His own body? Is not that the job of Satan and his dissenting minions? Christ is the head of one body not bodies.

Aren’t all Catholics (i.e. Christians) given the task to evangelize those whom do not have the Scripturally correct “HOPE” for future salvation as St. Paul taught repeatedly in Sacred Scripture?

What authority told you ‘your’ truth was from God? Joseph Smith, Martin Luther, Calvin, Foxe, Zwingli, Eddy, White, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc. etc. etc. were all inspired too! But by whom? That’s the question since no two of those I listed agreed totally on the ‘truth’ with the others.

Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. etc. etc. all believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior and are therefore Christians too by protestant theology. They are also saved by that same theology regardless of what they do (works) or believe since they have already saved themselves with this theology. Who needs God if we are already saved? We are Gods if we can assure ourselves of salvation and that would make the Latter Day Saints the ‘true’ religion logically, would it not? They also ‘claim’ the truth just as you do. (Perhaps a space shuttle will take us to KOLOB someday and settle this question once and for all?)

You claim the Bible is your source of truth? When did Jesus tell anyone to write it? Who wrote the Sacred Scriptures? (Dictated or scribed?) When was each written? When the New Testament refers to Scripture does it refer to all Scripture or just the Septuagint? Who inspired it? Who translated it? (It did NOT come from golden plates like the Book of Mormon!) Can it be mistranslated? Misinterpreted? (JW version, Joe Smith version, AKJV? etc…) Is Gods mouth sewn shut from further revelation and has Gods power of speech been taken away from Him? Were books left out that are ‘inspired’? Are books in it that are uninspired? (Luther deleted 11+ books from his and some protestants are trying to chop off more today.) Where is the canon/index listed in Scripture or did someone just invent it too? What authority said the Bible is any more inspired then the Book of Mormon or Koran? God never said it? Did Jesus or the Holy Spirit give/dictate St. Peter/Cephas the King James Bible for us to use? What if “EX”-President Clinton wrote a Bible like King James did and forced us to use it too? Would his version be inspired since he was a political leader and forced it on us like King James did to his subjects? Did protestants like or hate the AKJV when it first came out? Who deleted books and rewrote verses from the AKJV to make today’s KJV?

I can help you answer some of these questions, it was the Catholic Church that wrote (from inspiration), authorized, declared to be inspired, chose the canon (until Luther), preserved and still preserves the complete and accurate Bible for us today.

Since we did not even have a Bible till the late 4th century let alone have time to ‘hand copy’ and distribute it, I guess all the early Christians are unsaved and in Hell? What about all those in concentration camps that became Christians and never read a line from the Bible, are they roasting down below? The Catholic Church is the Pillar and Foundation God put on this earth and authorized to spread His Word. I know the Bible is inspired because the Catholic Church says it is by the authority God gave it on earth. The Bible is a good tool of the Church to help spread Gods Word but we can be ‘saved’ without it.

A prisoner of Christ

 

[Lurker]

I’m not Catholic. Technically I’m a Presbyterian. But I hope to convert soon. Alas for me, the nearest Parish is up a REALLY steep hill and I’m lazy. Not a very good excuse but it’s the truth.

 

[mango_2003]

Malachi4U:

Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. etc. etc. all believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior and are therefore Christians too by protestant theology. They are also saved by that same theology regardless of what they do (works) or believe since they have already saved themselves with this theology. Who needs God if we are already saved? We are Gods if we can assure ourselves of salvation and that would make the Latter Day Saints the ‘true’ religion logically, would it not? They also ‘claim’ the truth just as you do. (Perhaps a space shuttle will take us to KOLOB someday and settle this question once and for all?)

What you said is simply not true. As far as I know…Protestant theology teaches that one’s faith must be in the TRUE Christ, one of the 3 person’s of the Trinity. This would not be true of False Christ’s, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses Christ who is actually Micheal, and the Mormon’s Christ who is Satan’s brother.

Don’t blanket, it’s dangerous.

~mango~

 

[Charles]

Lurker:

I’m not Catholic. Technically I’m a Presbyterian. But I hope to convert soon. Alas for me, the nearest Parish is up a REALLY steep hill and I’m lazy. Not a very good excuse but it’s the truth.

Good luck Lurker! Maybe as you learn more about us that hill will start to appear a little easier to navigate! Please take advantage of these boards to ask any questions you may have about our Faith. I’m sure a lot of people will be praying for you as you continue your journey.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Malachi4U:

Luther actually succeded in seperating protestants from Christs Church in 1517 by inventing newly inspired theology. But inspired by whom is the question? Gods Word never changes and Luther’s false teachings were never taught by Christians (i.e. Catholics) before 1517. Luther taught and preached things like polygamy, drunkeness, etc…http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon3.gif Has the light come on yet? Christs body (i.e. His Catholic Church) is still one body and only one body, protestants just are not a part of it anymore. Christ spoke of His body as the Church, when Luther and his revelutionaries left the Church they also left Christs body. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

Good news though, there is allways a ‘Hope’ for salvation if you obey His teachings and believe in Jesus Christ as your perssonal Lord and savior as Catholics do and have a perssonal relationship with Him!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

Malachi, Its to bad that you think that protestants are not part of the body according to you.Ill stick to what the Word of God says.{ephesians 4 vs.4. We are all parts of one body,we have the same spirit, and we have been called to the same glorious future. In this statement I believe he was addressing christians not roman catholics and that does include me. vs.5.For there is only one Lord,one faith,one baptism,and we all have the same God and Father,who is ovewr us ALL,and living through every part of us. Oh im sorry I forget to mention also one hope.

 

[Pax]

Churchmouse:

Understood, but I have read some of Luther’s writings as well. However, I have thumbed through a friends copy of O’hare’s book and it is a slamfest.

Well, as far as igniting the Reformation, I wouldn’t classify him a “hero”, but I do credit him with being God’s man for this time. No one is saying that he wasn’t troubled, but let’s be fair, there are a lot of things one can say about him and a lot you can say about others . The church had its trouble souls as well. People are people regardless. If folks convert on the basis of finding out who Luther was or wasn’t, well that seems pretty fickle to me. No offense, but the Reformation was about change and not necessarily Luther.

Peace,
CM

I think you may have admitted more about Luther than you may have wished to. Luther was a troubled man. Luther’s teachings were huge and troubled changes to orthodox Christianity.

The Reformation was indeed about change and it was also necessarily about Luther and those that followed his lead. There are very many causes that contributed to the Reformation that go beyond the realm of certain corruptions in behavior that existed within the church. I would suggest reading Hilaire Belloc’s classic book, The Great Heresies. The interesting thing about Belloc’s work is that he outlines many cultural, philosophical, social, and political forces that contributed heavily to the Reformation. He doesn’t dwell heavily on the different teaching issues in the book, so you don’t have to feel like you’re reading the teachings of the church. It is really worth the read.

 

[Malachi4U]

Ric:

If any “church” claims one needs something for salvation (e.g. water baptism), then that “church” is adding to God’s Gospel and therefore is wrong.

Ric,

Perhaps you haven’t finished reading your Bible yet - as a new apologist - but there are numerous verses that tell us what is needed for salvation. All of the Bibles I have read teach obedience to Jesus’ teachings for one. What Bible do you use that omits these things? Catholics just follow whats there without adding to it. Luther added the word “alone” to one verse in the Bible and look at all the damage that Satan has done to Christs one true body, His one Church as a result! When the Catholic Church, His body, found bad versions of the Bible she destroyed/corrected them. See some of Jesus’ requirements/commandments in these verses: Mt 10:13-31, Mk 16:16, Lk 3:7-9, 6:43-49, Jn 14:15 &14:17 & 14:21, Acts 2:38, 6:7 See Acts 19:19 for book burning. There’s a whole lot more too.

Catholics have a Catechism but it does not add verses to the Bible, it just states clearly ‘Roman’ Catholic/Christian Faith and Scripture meaning. Of course, the Catholics did origionally write, compile, list the canon, preserve and declare as inspired the Bible. Thats why you have one today, even if incomplete or mistranslated by earthly protestant homosexual Kings, vile and immoral excomunicated monks, and money grubbing book publishers. Jesus ‘breathed’ unto the apostles and gave St. Cephas His keys to bind on earth what is Gods. His body on earth is His Church and the leader of that Church has the “keys” as given by Christ to him and the promise by God to be with His Church untill the end of times. God himself gives her the authority to give us a Bible and declare it inspired as she did in the 4th century. The Bible remained intact till Luther’s vile acts of plagerism and editing.

Which Bible do you claim is inspired, true, accurate and cannot be misinterpreted? The version by a politician to protect his own bacon and throne? The Joseph Smith translation? The JW New World Translation? 1699 Geneva, Bishops, AKJV, KJV, NKJV, Etc.?

I use the Catholic Bible to get the correct wording and meaning since it was the Church and authority that gave us the Bible to begin with and continues to protect it today and tomorrow from evildoers like Luther and King James. (I have numerous protestant versions and can now find their errors easily.) The Bible even warns us against self-interpretation!

Now to correct you with a Bible verse. Oh what version should we use? Hum, I know, how bout lets use the KJV to see if “water baptism” is - as your own ‘Ric’ theology/authority says - useless:

John 3:3-5 (KJV) “3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Mk 16:16 (KJV) “16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…”

So, acording to Jesus Christ, to be ‘Born Again’ means to have a water baptism! It is not symbolic at all! A Catholic cannot pick and choose what to believe is symbolic, we must believe everything Jesus tells us to without question. To be Catholic is to ‘Love’ and obey Scripture. I know you must have overlooked this passage so now that you have read it, have you ‘seen it?’ We must be baptised to “enter into the kingdom of God.” Not my words, Jesus’ Words!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

If baptism is merely symbolic, why do (Ana)Baptists have such a cow over it? A symbol has no meaning so why make ‘RE’-baptism manditory? It is because baptism is NOT symbolic at all!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

(Actually we can only be baptised once so an (Ana)/‘RE’-baptism is actually only symbolic after all, though an abomination to God. The protestants at least got the symbolic part of ana/re-baptism right. Just as useless as a Mormon Baptism of the dead. So, Baptists and Mormons have something more in common then both haveing been created by men in the ‘re’-formation.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif)

A prisoner of Christ

Gal 4:16 (KJV) "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

 

[Malachi4U]

Britta:

I love scripture and search daily. Actually, my point was really more about interpretation rather than baptism.

I know some very smart, God fearing, Jesus loving people (Catholic and Protestant) take the exact same scriptures and interpret them in completely different ways on any given point. How can anyone “know” the Truth of what Jesus taught?

Just because I read a passage and understand it one way does not mean it is God’s Truth. His Word must be read in context. There is so much more to it than that.

We know the Holy Spirit guides us. Why would the Holy Spirit guide so many people in so many different directions?

Thanks.

 

[Malachi4U]

Shari:

There is a thing of invencible ignorance. And the thief on the cross would have died without being able to be baptized, but the intention in his heart was probably there. Just like if I died before I am received into the Catholic church, I would have died with the intention of being a Catholic. I am not good at putting thoughts into words so if anyone else understands what I am saying and can put it better, please give me a hand.

Gods peace be with you Theophilus,

Catholic’s recogognize 3 baptisms.

1. By water (in Scripture)
2. By blood (A martyer who dies for God/Faith before a water baptism is possible)
3. By desire (Had a desire to have a water baptism but died before completed)

I think baptism by blood and desire both require Faith prior to the baptism as well. Water baptism can be administered to anyone living, Faith is NOT a prerequisite anywhere in Scripture or in Christ’s Church. However if you have the Faith then baptism is mandatory by Scripture.

For those infants that die either by natural causes or by murder like abortion, then we must trust in Gods loving nature that He will have mercy on these inocent babies.

This is just a short discussion on the topic.

A prisoner of Christ

 

[Malachi4U]

Ric:

Search the Scriptures, search the Scriptures…

You will find out for yourself that water baptism always happened after salvation.

Gods peace be with you Theophilus,

Don’t forget to search the Church Fathers and the Catechism too! We did not allways have a Bible and nowhere does the Bible state that it is Gods complete and only truth. It is a good source though, just not exclusive by any means.

Just a note, some Bibles are written to support theological beliefs and not to the correct translation from Greek to our language. Not all Bibles are alike though all I’ve seen are good.

Just comapre the JST, NIV, NWT, AKJV, KJV, NKJV to see this come true with the verses that talk about works like Eph 2:8-10 or Jas 2. If the verse supports the Catholic belief then protestants like to use words like deeds or does. If it appears (since they acctually don’t) to contridict Catholic teaching the word work is used! How cheap a shot is that? Shame on them.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif

Check some out at:

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm

biblegateway.com/

A prisoner of Christ

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Steve Ray, a convert to the Church from Protestantism, said Protestants usually have three problems with the Catholic Church: authority, authority, and authority. Perhaps in the end this is what it comes down to. There was a time in my life when I attended a Presbytarian congregation, and it was intresting to me that the official doctrine of the Pres. church (this was told to me, and later I found the same info. on a Pres. site on the net) is that a person can believe whatever they want in terms of doctrine–provided that he/she believes that Jesus Christ is his/her savior–all other articles of faith are open for individual interpretation and acceptance. So while Presb. leaders would meet to rearticulate official church doctrine now and then…individual members were free to assent to or reject any of it.

Perhaps my view of myself is too cynical or suspicious, but I don’t know if every individual is smart enough or even inclined to define truths for themselves with any decree of accuracy. Unless a person does not believe in truth at all, but I think any scientist or philosopher will testify to the fact that there are general scientific and moral truths in the universe. Read The Moral Sense by James Wilson for a good discussion of the evidence for human moral universals (also from a more secular perspective --Matt Ridley’s The Origin of Virtue also provides good evidence for human moral universals)

Incidently, my new question of the day, how can you have a creation without a creator?

I would recommend to everyone to read read Behe’s book (I think it is called Darwin’s Black Box or something like that). Behe shows scientifically that there are levels of irreducible complexity in evolution. So even if one thinks that humans evolved from “lower” primates–at some point there would have had to have been a creation of life, and with Adam and Eve a creation of the soul.

Echoing the advise of other writers on the site, I would also recommend to people, who might want to experience more spirituallity as the practice religion, the short book The Classics of Catholic Spirituality edited by Peter Cameron. This short book contains an overview of Catholic spiritual thought from Augustine to Therese of Lisieux.

God bless

 

[Churchmouse]

Pax:

I think you may have admitted more about Luther than you may have wished to. Luther was a troubled man. Luther’s teachings were huge and troubled changes to orthodox Christianity.

I think you are equating two very different things here, Luther being a troubled man doesn’t quite equate to “huge and troubled changes to orthodox Christianity.” Besides, no offense, but it seems you have your own biases regarding Luther from this statement alone. By all means, document the “troubled Luther” but don’t give me O’hare, Grisar, and the like. As a Protestant, I won’t accept these sources. Give me much more unadulterated, less tainted, sources.

The Reformation was indeed about change and it was also necessarily about Luther and those that followed his lead. There are very many causes that contributed to the Reformation that go beyond the realm of certain corruptions in behavior that existed within the church. I would suggest reading Hilaire Belloc’s classic book, The Great Heresies. The interesting thing about Belloc’s work is that he outlines many cultural, philosophical, social, and political forces that contributed heavily to the Reformation. He doesn’t dwell heavily on the different teaching issues in the book, so you don’t have to feel like you’re reading the teachings of the church. It is really worth the read.

No one denies that there were other dynamics which led to the Reformation, without having to go into details with Belloc. Yet, to point to these aspects and say, “Well, there wouldn’t be a Reformation if these issues were address” is naive at best. These dynamics may have made the era prime for it, but in no way would it have stopped the inevitable IMHO. All in all, once I finish reading the 12 or so books I’ve divided my time with, I’ll give that one a look-see. No promises, but I’ll try.

Peace,
CM

 

[Malachi4U]

mango_2003:

I fail to see how this matters…especially when taking into account the following verses (all in NIV):

Eph 2:8-9 “For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast.”

Gal 5:4 “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

Gal 2:21 "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!

If a work is necessary, such as baptism…we have a contradiction. Scary ground to walk upon, IMHO.

~mango~

Gods peace to you Theophilus,

First problem? You use the NIV that is written by publishers to sell Bibles to protestants and not to translate the most correct Greek Scriptures into our English language today. (Long topic that includes styles and copyright laws too.)

Second, you may fail to know who the Scripture passages you quoted were written to and the false beliefs they were correcting. This is part of what Catholics call context which many protestant sects ignore.

Third, when were each of these Scriptures written and did they refer to any New Testament Scripture at all? Context again.

Fourth, protestant preachers almost allways ignore and delete Eph 2:10 which puts the verses 8-9 in context. Verse 10 proves Catholic theology correct in verses 8-10 since these are manditory works of “Jewish” law and not voluntary freelly offered good deeds! (I used deeds instead of workshttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Fifth, Catholics agree with what is said in all these verses toohttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon9.gif! It is clear you do not understand what the Church teaches or you would not make such comments. Your preacher lied to you when he said Catholics can “Work” their way to heaven with “Works of the Law” . These are comments invented by the “re”/de-formers up to 500 years ago like Luther, Calvin, Smyth, Eddy, White. Nobody can ‘work’ their way to heaven, not even a Catholic. We must have Faith, and the Fruit of that Faith. Remember the parable of the Fig tree? Jesus said all that call upon His name will not be saved, remember this verse too? He also gave us commandments to follow, remember them all? There’s a whole bunch of them in the Bible.

Sixth, I suggest you read a quality Bible like the one listed here:

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm

Seventh, I sugest you read the Church Fathers here:

newadvent.org/fathers/

Eigth, I suggest you read the Catechism of the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church here to ‘see’ the truth in what ‘Roman’ Catholics actually believe:

usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm

Ninth, do not trust protestant sect preachers to tell you the truth about Catholics. I went to Baptists churchs and repeatedly heard the preachers outright lie about Catholics. I will admit though, for the time I went to the Lutheran church I never heard them preach lies about any other religion from the pulpit anyway. This is a compliment to them actually. I was a protestant for 27 of my adult years and I cried when I found the Holy Spirit leading me Home to Rome. I wanted any church at all as long as it wasn’t the horrible Catholic one. I would of joined David Koresh before I joined the Catholics in those days. Good thing for me he was no longer an option. I actually believed the lies at sites like www.chick.com and www.mtc.com. The truth is hard to accept and you will someday when you go to truthfull books and websites to learn it. It took me a long time and an enourmous amount of research to find the lies with chick and mtc propaganda. If you want to know the truth then go and find it and never be afraid of the Holy Spirit when He leads you home too. A good truthfull site with ministers who joined the Catholic Church after learning the truth is the Coming Home Network at chnetwork.org/. Lots of stories from portestant sect ministers who saw the truth, somtimes after many many years of denial - its not just a river.

I wish you a journey filled with truth and a hope that you find it. Jesus loves us all, even sinners like me.

Praise God!

A prisoner of Chrust