Question for protestants from a protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter april_hosen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Shlemele:
April from what I have read in your responses it sounds to me like some of the theology of the Catholic church might be a problem for you (the Catholic doctrines about communion and the place of scripture especially). Remember Catholicism is a pretty much an “in for a penny in for a pound” system. You aren’t allowed to pick and choose what parts of the church you believe and don’t. I have the same reservations so you aren’t alone.

To those posting reasons to be Catholic might I humbly ask that this thread not be turned into a "why we believe ___ " thread. Offering an encouraging word and some light clarifications are fine but the thread is getting a bit away from the topic at hand. Most of us protestants have a good handle on the theology of the church and getting into a quote war over differences in interpretations that our respective churches haven’t agreed on in 500 years isn’t productive as far as this threads subject is concerned.

April a good idea might be to visit some churches around your area of different denominations. Again I am a Mennonite and we have the added bonus of partying like it’s 1699!!!
Shlemele:

Jesus did not give us a range of options about which churches we can pick from. His Truth was not given out as if in a store catalog, to pick and choose which way makes us “feel” better. He gave us only one option as to where His Truth would be kept intact.

April: Jesus only has one Bride, not many. Look for His Bride.

Love,

Jorge 🙂
 
Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn’t He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not “who reads your writings”), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ’s name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of “tongues” of fire so that they would “speak” (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God’s infallible Word by “word of mouth.”

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is “heard” (not just read) which is the Word that is “preached” (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is “preached” (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have “heard” (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was “preached” (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles’ successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a “means to recall these things in mind.” But since this was his last canonical epistle, this “means to recall” must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God’s appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this. More here: scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
 
40.png
april_hosen:
HI,
When I first came to this site it was soley for research reasons. I never would of thought in a lifetime I’d be considering what I am now. I’m beginning to believe God is callingme into the Catholic Churchbut there’s still some things that just dont make sense. I was wondering if you guys have found any BIG reasons on why I shouldnt go ahead and do this? Thanks for your time!
  1. Almost every Catholic I know has the same appearance in lifestyle as someone who has no concern for Christ or Christianity.
    I have seen them swear, gossip, be mean to others, etc.
  2. Mary as the eternal virgin and without sin and with her own immaculate conception.
  3. If mass is as boring in person as it is on EWTN, I would be in torture.
What draws me:
  1. History and its role in the early Christian faith before Protestantism
    Without the history, I would have no interest in Catholicism. The only thing that Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism lacks is the history.
 
40.png
corpus:
Thanks for the welcome, Eden, and for the link to the article on the Eucharist. I’m happy to be corrected. Thank you too, Scylla, for your response. April, we’d better look at the article on the Mass.

corpus
Ok corpus,
But due to this thread I already have a ton of summer reading to do!😃
 
40.png
Delgadoajj:
Shlemele:

Jesus did not give us a range of options about which churches we can pick from. His Truth was not given out as if in a store catalog, to pick and choose which way makes us “feel” better. He gave us only one option as to where His Truth would be kept intact.

April: Jesus only has one Bride, not many. Look for His Bride.

Love,

Jorge 🙂
okay,
But where in the bible does it say the Catholic Church is the Bride? (Call me a Bible thumper, but if its God related but not in Gods word, how can it be true?)
 
40.png
CatherineofA:
  1. If mass is as boring in person as it is on EWTN, I would be in torture.
“In speaking about the continuity of the celebration of the liturgy today with the most ancient forms, the Catechism holds up for examination the text of St. Justin Martyr. ‘As early as the second century we have the witness of St. Justin Martyr for the basic lines of the order of the Eucharistic celebration. They have stayed the same until our own day for all the great liturgical families’” (section 1345 of the Catechism)

“St. Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century of the Christian era, was a devout follower of the Lord, convinced that he could bring others to the practice of the faith by explaining to them what Christians believe and how we worship. He wrote to the pagan Antoninus Pius, who reigned from 138 to 161, sometime around the year 155 explaining what Christians did when they celebrated the Eucharist. In the Catechism there is a step-by-step outline in the words of St. Justin Martyr. Were you to take this text and line it up against the order of the Mass that we use today, you would find very little difference - and only in the details (section 1345 of the Catechism)” (From The Catholic Way: Faith For Living Today by Bishop Donald Wuerl)"

Glad you weren’t there in 155 A.D. if you think watching TV is boring! :rotfl:
 
40.png
ChurchMilitant:
Hi April (and especially Bill the Sonseeker). It continues to amaze me that that anyone with all their faculties can conclude that the bread of life discourse is figurative
I am amazed that anyone with all their faculties can conclude that the bread of life discourse is literal; they simply choose to ignore the figurative language called metaphor.

Some O.T. metaphors (there are many more than these in both O.T. and N.T.):

*The Lord *IS my Shepherd (Ps 23)
*The Lord God *IS a Sun and Shield (Ps 84:11)
*His faithfulness *IS a shield and a bulwark(Ps 91:4)

Now, some N.T. metaphors:

You ARE the salt of the earth (Mt 5:13)
*This *IS my body (Mt 26:26)
*…and the good seed, these *ARE *the sons of the kingdom *(Mt 13:38)

Notice that two nouns are always present (except in the Mt 26:26 passage, where a pronoun and noun are present: Lord/Shepherd; Lord God/Sun and Shield/; You/Salt; This/Body (Mt passage pronoun and a noun) good seed/sons of the kingdom.

So, if we apply your argument, Michael, and the understanding that you have regarding bread of life discourse to the above metaphors, then the Lord is not the Lord, but a literal shepherd; the Lord God is not the Lord God, but literally a Sun and Shield; His faithfulness is not His faithfulness, but a literal shield and bulwark; believers are not believers (people), but literally salt; this (bread) is literally my body; the sons of the kingdom are not sons (people), but are literally seed. If I show you a photograph of my motorcycle and say “this is my motorcycle,” how would you understand that? All of those listed above are constructed as metaphors.

You (plural, this is not directed solely to you, Michael), will let every metaphor in the Scripture (and in real life) stand as a metaphor with one exception. Why is that? Why do you allow the metaphors, to which you take no exception, to stand as metaphors without argument? (I am assuming you are not going to argue with the metaphors presented, except for one, but perhaps you will argue that the Lord God is indeed, literally, a Sun and a Shield).

You run into the same the difficulty with the cup and blood of the covenant in 1 Cor 11:25: *this cup *IS *the new covenant. *Why do you not insist on transubstantiating the “cup” into “the new covenant?”

Because the verb eimi, eimi is used, and because its use refers to *signifying, *or *amounting to, *and not to *becoming, *there is, then, no intention stated Mt 26:26, or Jn 6, that the bread *becomes *the body.

If an actual “change of substance” is meant, then a verb other than “eimi” (to be—a state of being) must be used. The verb ginomai (ginomai) is generally used to indicate “change,” or “to become.” Let’s look at things becoming something different (ginomai): Mk 4:39: …*the wind died down and it *became perfectly calm. Lk 4:3: …tell this stone to become bread. Jn 2:9: …the headwaiter tasted the water, which had become wine. (true transubstantiation). Acts 26:28: …you will persuade me to become a Christian. And many others.

Further, the Jerusalem council gives another reiteration to ***Christians ***in Acts 15:29 to abstain from blood:that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

We are called to take communion in “remembrance” of Christ; we are not called to take communion to “ingest” Christ. His presence is spiritual—where two or three have gathered in my name I am in their midst (Mt 18:20); His physical body is said to be at the right hand of the Father. It is a physical body, localized in heaven, as your physical body is localized in Florida.

Bill
 
Bill - I think you may have missed posts #19 and #49. (I forgot to mention that both 19 and 49 have links for more information.) Oops! Almost forgot to mention #51 as well.
 
40.png
april_hosen:
okay,
But where in the bible does it say the Catholic Church is the Bride? (Call me a Bible thumper, but if its God related but not in Gods word, how can it be true?)
Hi April:

The title “Catholic” was given to the Church before the Bible was even canonized (year 384 or so, AD), but after all of the NT books that eventually were admitted into the canon were written.

This title started being used for Christ’s Church around the year 110 AD. The NT books were written between the year 54 AD and the year 100 AD. Just think about it: The time between Christ’s death and the time the first NT book was written was about 20 years. So, for the first 20 years, there wasn’t any NT books written. Christianity was purely based on oral (Apostolic) Tradition. It was then that the Apostles and their disciples began with their writings for different reasons. Now, the time between the last NT book writing(Revelation, year 100 AD) and the time the Church started being called Catholic was 10 years. This means that twice the length of time passed before the first writing of the NT than the using “Catholic” for the name of the Church after the writing of the last NT book.

The point I’m making is that the Sacred Writings are only 1/2 of the Revelation given to us through the Church. The other half of that same Revelation was given to us by that same Church: Apostolic Tradition. Now, it was Apostolic Tradition (the Church) that gave us what we call the Bible. The Bible did not give us Apostolic Tradition. The Bible doesn’t say that the Church was to be called “Catholic”. This was not necessary. Apostolic Tradition (the Church) chose that name, which has passed on through the centuries.

Another point is that the Bible doesn’t make any mention of the “Trinity”, yet all Chistians believe in this doctrine, which was given to us from the same Apostolic Tradition that gave us the title “Catholic”.

You may want to read St. Ignatius of Antioch. Go deep to the root. Remember: Our purpose is to give God the worship he requests. We have to determine the most perfect way to worship our Lord. We don’t want to do it our own way, we want to do it the way Jesus picked: by participating in that once-for-all sacrifice. This can only be done in the Mass.

Love,

Jorge. 🙂
 
High 5 Delgadoajj! I just want to mention though that the first recorded use of the word “Catholic” for the Church was around 110 A.D. From St. Ignatius of Antioch’s use, historians have concluded that it was already an established and well-known term. In fact, it may have gone all the way back to the beginning (about 77 years before) after Christ was Resurrected and the Apostles were beginning their mission.
 
40.png
Eden:
Bill - I think you may have missed posts #19 and #49. (I forgot to mention that both 19 and 49 have links for more information.) Oops! Almost forgot to mention #51 as well.
No, I didn’t miss those posts; I have read the arguments. I have also read the Scripture, and know that the writers used language God intended to be used. Why the early men went the way they went I won’t comment on, but clearly today, language is not thought to be important. One ignores the clear meaning and use of the language, only if the language weakens one’s position; had the eucharist the importance it is claimed to have, a clear communication would have been given IMHO. However, what we see happening, is an evolution of eucharistic doctrine (and sacramentalism as well) over a period of some 1100-1300 years. I do believe that God allows such oscillations of doctrine to occur, thus we have myriad warnings of false doctrines that will appear; He is in control of all things, even the propagation of false doctrine; it does not happen without His allowing it to happen.

The arguments given in your prior posts are defenses to a doctrine that the writer believes in, and that you believe in, and that I do not believe in. I expect you to embrace them easily. There is much speculation as to why the hearers left (it is assumed by the writer that those who left understood correctly: that Christ was speaking literally; that the hearers misunderstood is not even entertained, as there is a prior commitment to doctrine preventing); the writer again speculates as to why Christ offered no further explanation; again, the writer’s speculation shows a prior commitment to doctrine; one point of speculation that is absent is that of the truth being kept from the Jews by God (thus the Lord let them go in their error).

I am not persuaded by the arguments

Bill
 
40.png
sonseeker:
I am not persuaded by the arguments

Bill
Bless you on your journey. I have no doubt that you are seeking truth. You said, “I have also read the Scripture, and know that the writers used language God intended to be used.” I don’t understand why Protestants don’t mind that their Bible came about because the Catholic Church decided which were “inspired” books. You trust our Catholic Bishops who voted on which books would go into the Bible but you don’t trust the traditions that were handed down from the Apostles? :confused:

I’ll let a Baptist to Catholic convert’s words on the history of the Bible explain what I mean:

"But this was a Christian Church that didn’t leave it up to the individual to decide what he would believe. This Church was an authoritative teacher who claimed to be the repository of authentic Christian Revelation – of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) – and had a continuum of history to prove it!

The first jolt was my discovery of Bible history. It had never occurred to me as a Protestant to ask how we got the Bible. To learn that the early Church had existed for centuries before the New Testament canon was defined was a shock. All those Christian martyrs of the first four centuries Anno Domini had gone to their deaths without knowing the New Testament as I knew it. If the Bible was the sole rule of faith, how could they have known what to believe?

I learned that many writings about Jesus were circulated among the local churches in the early centuries, hand carried by travelers, and that no church possessed a complete “Bible” all at once, as it is known today – in fact, the Bible didn’t exist. No one knew which of these many, many writings were “Scripture” and which were not, until the canon was set by Catholic Church at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397). And there are no originals of the Scriptures. The Bible has come down to us through copies, and copies of copies – no one knows how many generations of copies – all made by Catholic hands. How could Christians be sure the copies were faithful to the originals? The answer was disturbing: only by the authority of the Catholic Church. Even more disturbing, only the originals are the “infallible word of God,” not the copies, and certainly not the translations.
I felt betrayed. I thought my “Bible only” teachers either knew this or should have known it, and should have told me. I began to wonder whether I would have become an agnostic/atheist if I had known these basic historical facts. It was the first crack in my atheist shell.

As I continued to read, I discovered early Christian literature. The Didache, for example, is older than some of the New Testament writings. Its full title is* The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles*, and it was used by the early Church to instruct adult pagan converts. The Didache says, “On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure…your sacrifice must not be defiled.” Sacrifice? No Protestant church offers sacrifice! This had to refer to the Sacrifice of the Mass!"

Source: revolutionoflove.com/rtd/conversion/jay.htm
 
40.png
WynCatholic:
April: Last Easter God thoroughly touched me and gave me the consolation of the deep relationship with Him. Your words described it so very well. Last Easter I was singing in a Mennonite-Brethren choir, and ministering. Last Easter becoming Catholic was inconceivable. Last Easter I was a former Baptist pastor that God was drawing back to ministry.
This Easter I became Catholic. :bigyikes: 🙂
The cautions about cultural differences you have read here are significant and to be considered. Your theological concerns will be resolved by scripture and the Holy Spirit opening your eyes to His truth and His plans for you.mn
I gotta go so I’ll leave you this:
  1. The pattern of how God reveals himself and communicated Himself has , throughout the scriptures and history been ‘incarnational’ . His Symbols are Real, His Word is His only eternally begotten Son, His messages are through the prophets-their lives, psalms, stories, sermons . [therefore the church’s history, practice and theology is comprehensible and not so foriegn]
    2.The Idea of being united with Christ, being one with Christ: The Mystical union. You are experiencing its comfort.Now consider its New Testament pedigree: reread the NT a few times [or listen via MP3] and discover how central the theology of that truth governs all they do,and are… From there you will see the communion of the saints and the salvific impact of your life and sufferings.
    In the Catholic Church Jesus Christ will still be your breath.
    He is my breath too. He is my food. And He is my Life.
    God Bless you.
Wayne
Wayne - how beautiful. I’m a cradle Catholic who is so thankful for pastors from other religions who are so passionate about our Lord and have converted to Catholicism. You, and many others, help fan the fire of faith in my life. God bless you.
 
40.png
Delgadoajj:
Hi April:

The title “Catholic” was given to the Church before the Bible was even canonized (year 384 or so, AD), but after all of the NT books that eventually were admitted into the canon were written.

This title started being used for Christ’s Church around the year 110 AD. The NT books were written between the year 54 AD and the year 100 AD. Just think about it: The time between Christ’s death and the time the first NT book was written was about 20 years. So, for the first 20 years, there wasn’t any NT books written. Christianity was purely based on oral (Apostolic) Tradition. It was then that the Apostles and their disciples began with their writings for different reasons. Now, the time between the last NT book writing(Revelation, year 100 AD) and the time the Church started being called Catholic was 10 years. This means that twice the length of time passed before the first writing of the NT than the using “Catholic” for the name of the Church after the writing of the last NT book.

The point I’m making is that the Sacred Writings are only 1/2 of the Revelation given to us through the Church. The other half of that same Revelation was given to us by that same Church: Apostolic Tradition. Now, it was Apostolic Tradition (the Church) that gave us what we call the Bible. The Bible did not give us Apostolic Tradition. The Bible doesn’t say that the Church was to be called “Catholic”. This was not necessary. Apostolic Tradition (the Church) chose that name, which has passed on through the centuries.

Another point is that the Bible doesn’t make any mention of the “Trinity”, yet all Chistians believe in this doctrine, which was given to us from the same Apostolic Tradition that gave us the title “Catholic”.

You may want to read St. Ignatius of Antioch. Go deep to the root. Remember: Our purpose is to give God the worship he requests. We have to determine the most perfect way to worship our Lord. We don’t want to do it our own way, we want to do it the way Jesus picked: by participating in that once-for-all sacrifice. This can only be done in the Mass.

Love,

Jorge. 🙂
Hi Jorge!
I like your name! 🙂 Thanks for shedding some light on the Catholic Church history for me. There’s somuch to learn about the Catholic Faith! (Thank you to all wo advised me to wait!) But what I’m trying to get across is that a lot of the Catholic traditions arent Bibical. I understand that they were descended down by the Apostles. Thats all well and good, but they are all oral. I dont know if you anyone here has played telephone. Here I’ll explain. So what you do is you get in a circle w/ a whole bunch of people and someone starts with a statement and whispers it into the person next to them’s ear. Then that person whispers to the person next to them and so on until the last person gets the word. Sometimes the last person has the correct statement. But the majority of the time they have something completely different and its pretty funny. My point here is, is what if thats what happened with the apostles.
 
I just read something refuting that a few weeks ago. It basically said that it really wasn’t much at all like telephone. There were still Apostles around and they were able to check with the others to see if what they had was still right. It was in “The Case for Christ,” I’ll see if I can look up exactly what the author says later.

Also, which traditions are you saying are not Biblical?
 
40.png
april_hosen:
… But what I’m trying to get across is that a lot of the Catholic traditions arent Bibical… if you anyone here has played telephone. Here I’ll explain…My point here is, is what if thats what happened with the apostles.
Hi, April,

I think you may be getting a bit mixed up. The Catholic Traditions are all biblical, but a lot of them aren’t clear on the surface of scripture. Some of them take real thought to put together - like the Trinity. ‘Trinity’ is never mentioned in the bible, but we believe it. Why? Because it was implicit in scripture, but not explicitly stated. Same with a lot of Catholic beliefs. Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption into Heaven are both *implicitly *in scripture, but aren’t screamed in bold type (if you will). If you like, we can start a new thread where we walk you through where to find it in scripture.

I think you may be having trouble with Traditions, as well. Sacred Tradition is not a secret that Bishops pass in whispered tones in the basement of the Vatican - Tradition is the “lived faith of the Church”. It’s not that it’s not written (indeed, much of it is), but rather it’s expressed consistantly and persistantly in the history of our Catholic Fathers. Think of it like America - I’ll put the parallels in parenthesis. We have the Constitution (Bible), but some things aren’t really clear on the surface - like if “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” should be covered under Freedom of Speach (if polygamy is sinful - Luther and Calvin thought it could be justified based on Scripture Alone). What do *we *do? *We *take it to an official interpreting body (Matt 18:15-18), the Judicial Branch (Church) to understand this. They go back and look at how the fore-fathers thought about these things when writing the Constitution, and they see what earlier court rulings there were on the matter (Early Church Fathers - like Ignatius). Based on the understanding of the Constitution and the writers’ teachings, we are able to have a “living” government.

SO…it’s not at all like the telephone game. Make more sense now?

God bless,
RyanL
 
Bill

A few quotes from Catholicism and Fundamentalism

As for the other metaphors Christ uses for himself-

“There is no logical parallel between the words 'This is MY body” and ‘I am the vine’ or 'I am the door. For the images of the vine and door can havem of their very nature, a symbolic sense. Christ is like a vine because of all the sap of my spiritual life comes from him. He is like a door since I go to heaven through Him. But a piece of bread is in no way like His flesh. Of its very nature it cannot symbolize the actual body of Christ. And he exludes that Himself by saying, 'The bread that I will give is My flesh for the life of the world, and My flesh is meat indeed. That is, it is to be actually eaten, not merely commemorated in some symbolical way."

Also-

“As John A. O’ Brien put it, “the prhase ‘to eat my flesh and drink the blood’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some seriously injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating Him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” christ would be saying, ‘He that reviles me has eternal life.’”
*
*Don’t forget that the early Church fathers agreed with the Catholic position that it is literal

catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

And do not dismiss the numerous Eucharistic miracles (Blood spurting out of a Eucharist broken in half, animals bowing down to it, and even starving ones choosing it over other food, as well as it actually turning into body and blood.) There were a few saints as well, who, for portions of their life lived on nothing BUT the Blessed Sacrament. If you want these stories, I can write shortened versions up tomorrow. Going to bed tonight though.😛
 
CatherineofA said:
1. Almost every Catholic I know has the same appearance in lifestyle as someone who has no concern for Christ or Christianity.
I have seen them swear, gossip, be mean to others, etc.
  1. Mary as the eternal virgin and without sin and with her own immaculate conception.
  2. If mass is as boring in person as it is on EWTN, I would be in torture.
What draws me:
  1. History and its role in the early Christian faith before Protestantism
    Without the history, I would have no interest in Catholicism. The only thing that Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism lacks is the history.
There is no reason to think Catholics are any “worse” than Protestants. I only have a few friends who are really “into” their faith, and its about even on both sides, probably even leaning a bit to the Catholics. I also know less Catholics than Protestants.

Mary-…so?

Mass-I’m sorry you feel that way. And yes, TV I imagine is MUCH worse. I went to a Methodist service, though once, and I can assure you I’d pick my Mass 100 times over. I have a friend whos considering converting to Catholicism, and he tells me his going to Mass weekly is “the highlight of his week.” The Mass FEELS good, and it FEELS as if God is present. Thats something you cannot get through a television.
 
In response to Sonseeker…Here’s the quote I’m reacting to:

“I am amazed that anyone with all their faculties can conclude that the bread of life discourse is literal; they simply choose to ignore the figurative language called metaphor.”

I AM EQUALLY AMAZED that anyone with all their faculties cannot understand the plain language Jesus uses in John 6 !!

I particularly like what He says in John 6:61:

“Does this shock you?”

And Sonseeker, check this out: John 6:66 (how about those numbers?!) :

“As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

It can’t be simpler! Read it again, then read it out loud, and meditate on it and be not afraid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top