Protestants: Have you changed your mind on anything "Catholic" because of something said on these forums?

  • Thread starter Thread starter distracted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BMCD said:
I have changed my mind on the ever virginity of Mary. I used to believe that Mary had other children, so much so that I once got into a huge argument with someone about it. Now I fully accept the ever virginity of Mary thanks to the search function.
Click to expand...
How so when there is no basis in Scripture?
 
thecoach said:
How so when there is no basis in Scripture?
Click to expand...
I believe there is a basis in scripture.

First Luke 1:34 states, “Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” It can be argued that this means that Mary was only a virgin at the time, but why would she be so surprised that she would conceive if she were betrothed. Surely a normal marriage could have resulted in pregnancy. If she were a consecrated virgin this would make more sense however, but you wanted scripture only.

The second and most compelling argument from scripture is that Jesus entrusted His mother to the apostle John (John 19:26-27). If Jesus had brothers why would He have entrusted His mother to the apostle John and not let one of His brothers take care of her?

Many more arguments regarding the ever virginity of Mary may be found here:
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
and
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

The case gets even better when you consider the early Church Fathers overwhelmingly accepted the ever virginity of Mary. So much so that it was virtually unquestioned until well after the reformation began.

Now I will concede that there is no one verse that directly states that Mary never had sexual relations, but then again there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that sets out the canon either. For that matter the word Trinity is never used either, but it is overwhelmingly believed by all of Christianity. Many doctrines are not directly stated in Scripture but are be inferred.
 
[SIGN]Yes![/SIGN]
Last things (I used to believe in “soul sleep” instead of private judgement") Once that got streightened out (thanks Church Millitant and Puzzle Annie! 👍) indulgences, praying to Mary and so forth fell into place although that was due in part to these forums too.

But I’m not Protestant any more – I was baptised this Easter along with my two kids. My wife (a baptised Protestant) proceeded us in the rite of confirmation too.
 
distracted said:
Please let us know what it is. Thanks… 🙂
Click to expand...
I’ve also wondered this:thumbsup: … I’m glad some have already answered positively, but I would imagine most wouldn’t admit it if they have (I hope they prove me wrong)… I would use allischalmers as an ex., but I think he would argue with God himself.😉

SD
 
distracted said:
no… Sorry… you are not “forever baptist”… If the Catholic Church is the one Christ established on Earth… (and it is), you will be Catholic either here or in the next life (Purgatory, hopefully)…

Every knee shall bow… To Christ and his Church… One saint (can’t recall which one) said that “The Church IS Christ.”

If you knew what i know… you would agree…
Click to expand...
Oh boy, here we go. 😉
 
The answers thus far are pretty much what I would expect: some saying that they’ve decided that the Catholic Church is right on something or everything, some saying that they’ve decided that the Catholic Church is even worse than they had previously thought, and some saying it hasn’t altered them at all.
 
1stChristian said:
Being a persecuted non-Catholic, would that just about make you angry also?
Click to expand...
True, so youd think they would have wrote so as to make definiately clear Peter’s supremacy. And yet…they didnt? Maybe because it didnt really exist.
 
thecoach said:
and you assume I am angry why? Are you projecting?
Click to expand...
I am just curious as to why your signature would read a persecuted non-Catholic. Just want to know why you would post that. Help me to understand.
 
thecoach said:
True, so youd think they would have wrote so as to make definiately clear Peter’s supremacy. And yet…they didnt? Maybe because it didnt really exist.
Click to expand...
hehehe … scales, scales.

by the time the last new testament writings were written, the Catholic Church was already on it’s 5th successor to Peter.

Peter’s supremacy is clear in scripture as well as history.

michel
 
thecoach said:
True, so youd think they would have wrote so as to make definiately clear Peter’s supremacy. And yet…they didnt? Maybe because it didnt really exist.
Click to expand...
Are you saying Peter was never a pope to begin with? Are you denying Peter was ever in Rome? Because if you are, I have around 50 writings with evidence to prove he was and who he was.
 
1stChristian said:
I am just curious as to why your signature would read a persecuted non-Catholic. Just want to know why you would post that. Help me to understand.
Click to expand...
Lets just say that not all are treated equally on this forum.
 
cazayoux said:
hehehe … scales, scales.

by the time the last new testament writings were written, the Catholic Church was already on it’s 5th successor to Peter.

Peter’s supremacy is clear in scripture as well as history.

michel
Click to expand...
Actually, no its not. On the contrary.
 
I’m in the middle of a faith journey…no longer considering myself Catholic.

I have learned in a very short period of time to post more charitably, to tone down my tendency to write in an aggressive style and to let my anger go…well, that’s a work in progress…hey I’m honest.

Just because I don’t believe in something, does not make it wrong. I don’t feel there is an absolutely right way, so why didn’t my belief appear in my posts?

My ego, stubbornness and anger…I was at times a hypocrite. I would say, there is no right way, but basically your way is wrong. 🤷

So, sorry everyone and yes, I have learned allot around here…about myself.
 
1stChristian said:
Are you saying Peter was never a pope to begin with? Are you denying Peter was ever in Rome? Because if you are, I have around 50 writings with evidence to prove he was and who he was.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if he was ever in Rome, but the Scriptures do NOT portray him as the head of anything. That much is very plain. Yes, I am saying he was never a pope to begin with. See my proofs posted on another thread. They were, of course, criticized, but not refuted.
 
onetimeposter said:
I’m in the middle of a faith journey…no longer considering myself Catholic.

I have learned in a very short period of time to post more charitably, to tone down my tendency to write in an aggressive style and to let my anger go…well, that’s a work in progress…hey I’m honest.

Just because I don’t believe in something, does not make it wrong. I don’t feel there is an absolutely right way, so why didn’t my belief appear in my posts?

My ego, stubbornness and anger…I was at times a hypocrite. I would say, there is no right way, but basically your way is wrong. 🤷

So, sorry everyone and yes, I have learned allot around here…about myself.
Click to expand...
Apparently, onetime…theses forums are such that it is made sure that only non-catholics are forced to learn those lessons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top