Questions from your friendly neighborhood Protestant

[johnq]

The Iambic Pen:

the labeling of certain sins as “mortal sins,”

lambic Pen

Welcome! :clapping:

This one is easy. We label certain sins as mortal sins because scripture does.

1 John 5:

16] If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
17] All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Hope this helps.

God

 

[john_ennis]

The Iambic Pen:

I can look at passages supporting the Immaculate Conception and think to myself, “Yes, I can see how one could come up with that interpretation.” Of course, this is complicated by another thought that says, “Just because an interpretion is possible does not mean in and of itself that it’s true.”

Boy, is that the truth! And with the Bible as our only source, we can say that about many things both you AND we believe. I think, for example, about our belief that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person. That could be implied by the Bible, but it’s not explicit. How are we sure? The council of Nicea (if I’m not misken) tells us. Christ’s teaching Church.

Infant Baptism? Could be supported, but try to tell someone (who doesn’t already lean that way) that the Bible demands it! It’s not explicit. Sacred Tradition supports it.

And the fact that these particular books must be Scripture, and no others? The Bible definitely doesn’t say that, but we know it, from Sacred Tradition/Church Councils.

So, we aren’t saying that these tenets we find alluded to in Scripture are plainly described there, and that every faithful Bible reader should be able to understand them from Scripture. We believe them primarily because the teaching Church (whose origin is explicit in Scripture) tells us.

Peace.
John

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Tradition really is the key, then. The other day I was wondering what would happen if somehow a people who had never been exposed to Christianity were to find the Bible written in their own language. If they were to somehow believe it was true, what kind of religion would result? For all that Protestants claim “sola scriptura,” they are still heavily influenced by tradition. Of course, God didn’t just give us the Bible without any tradition to back it up. It isn’t like the Qu’ran or the Book of Mormon, which were suddenly “given” to one man in their complete form. The Bible is a collection of many separate accounts by different people, all of which, nevertheless, agree. So, we find ourselves in the present day with a Bible which was assembled over thousands of years. To be honest, one should take into account the interpretations of those who lived closer to the events recorded therein. I guess the problem I have is when someone from the fourth or fifth century announces some doctrine that I haven’t seen mentioned by anyone earlier. After all, four hundred years is a long time. Well, I need to go for now. God Bless!

 

[neophyte]

lambic Pen,

Welcome to the CA forums. I’m a recent convert from Protestantism, and I started in a manner similar to you. The rock that I foundered on was the question of authority: to whom did Christ give authority to teach binding doctrine, and what did they do with that authority? I ended up here:

neophyte:

Jesus gave the authority to teach in His name to the Aposostles (Matthew 10:20; Luke 10:1; Luke 10:16), with Peter having the preeminent position among them (Matthew 16:17-19), and promised that the Holy Spirit would protect them from ever teaching error (John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 17:17-19; Luke 21:33).

He said that they would remember everything Jesus taught them. (John 14:16-18, 26; Luke 21:33). He further promised that the fruit that the Apostles bore (i.e., the Bishops they appointed and the Church that He built on them(Ephesians 2:19-22)) would remain faithful (John 15:16). The Apostles in turn taught (again, without error) that they had the authority to pass that office on to their successors. Based on the word of Christ, we can know that the Bishops of the Catholic Church, in union with the sucessor to St. Peter, are protected by God from ever teaching false doctrine as being infallibly true and binding on all believers.

The structure of the argument is:

1. The historical evidence shows that Jesus said the Apostles had the authority to teach in his name, and that they would teach binding and infallible doctrine.
2. The historical evidence shows that the Apostles taught that this authority was to be passed on to their successors.
3. The historical evidence shows that their successors taught, as binding doctrine, that the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

Sacred Tradition is part of the deposit of faith given by Jesus to the Church and is thus both infallible and unchangeable (which is not to say that our understanding of it can’t develop). It’s the Word of God just as surely as the written Scriptures. It’s true because Jesus said so.

I struggled like heck to get out of this one, but eventually had to submit. I’ve discovered that every anti-Biblical thing that I knew the Catholic Church teaches, it actually doesn’t teach at all.

Thanks for serving, I pray you come home safely and soon.

 

[RyanL]

Iambic Pen,

When you start to speak about Sacred Tradition, it’s importaint to know what it is and what it is not. Here’s a succinct excerpt from the CA main site:

The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

Here are a couple of longer links to make sure you understand what the Church teaches about Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures:
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112chap.asp
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

May God bless you and keep you,
RyanL

Go Navy! Beat Army! (USNA '99)

 

[john_ennis]

The Iambic Pen:

I guess the problem I have is when someone from the fourth or fifth century announces some doctrine that I haven’t seen mentioned by anyone earlier. After all, four hundred years is a long time. Well, I need to go for now. God Bless!

But there can be a dependable link there. IF you are comfortable that the earliest fathers verify that the Holy Spirit teaches through a certain visible and identifiable body, then you should not have a problem when that body formally proclaims doctrine.

But you’d have to investigate and accept that link first.

Peace.
John

 

[Giennensis]

Just keep in mind that the Bible is the Tradition written in its very early stages, but the Tradition is alive. God Revealed many truths, but He did in a form the people of these ancient times could understand it. As soon as the new born Church needed to give reasons of their faith they needed to develop the doctrine. They weren’t making new revelations, but just explaining it in a more developed way, making relations between different revealed messages (after all, kif they come from God they cannot be contradictory) and developing the consequences if the Revelation (e.g.: if we have the revealed doctrine “A”, how can we apply it to a certain situation).

So, though we have the Bible as a basis, the Tradition is the same Revealed message. The Bible is like a photo of a baby, but the Tradition today is that baby now grown up.

The Bible was made in the form we know it today by some councils of the Church. In the first years of the Church the disciples didn’t write anything. They preached and used the OT Scritures, the same the jews used, because the Gospel was these Scriptures had been fulfilled by Christ.

Some years after, some people started to write things, letters, gospels, stories about Jesus. But then it was also easy to know which ones were fully inspired, because there were Apostles and disciples who met Jesus and they could judge what was the Truth.

But after the last Apostle died, it became necesary to decide wich writtings were inspired, because there were no more Apostles to be asked. The sucessors of the Apostles, the bishops, made several councils where showly, but fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, examinated the texts and the Church’s Bible born. Some texts were clearly inspired, bot other ones (like some letters from the Apostles or Paul, or even Revelations) were discussed for some more time. The Bible was finally closed by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

I hope this helps and sorry for any incorrect data or bad grammar I could have put in my reply

God Bless

 

[MikeB]

The Iambic Pen:

I guess we Protestants are able to have faith that God has preserved the truth of the Bible throughout the ages,

In severing our connection with tradition, all we have left is the Bible. That is why Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, try to determine all doctrine from the Bible and the Bible alone.

Lambic Pen, it truly sounds like you are looking at this with an open eye. The theme I keep hearing is the desire to know the history. You mentioned the Bible. With history as a background, ask the question, where did the Bible come from? What was the authority that looked at all of the books and letters and decided what goes in and what stays out? Ask the question why did the reformers leave certain books out when the King James was printed? FYI - the earliest printings of the King James kept those books in! Read the book WHERE WE GOT THE BIBLE by Rev Henry Graham, a former Calvinist who became a Catholic Bishop. Finally, we all accept that the Church had a history that is not perfect. Finally, ask yourself in the last 2000 years is there any other Church that has a Jewish heritage and did as Jesus commaned - “Go and preach to all the nations”?

Jesus clearly stated that His Church would stand up against the gates of hell.

 

[LSK]

The Iambic Pen:

Greetings to all of you. This is my very first post on this board, though I have been browsing topics for the last few days. I suppose my intent with this post is to ask a few questions about Catholicism. I realize that you have probably seen and answered these questions many times, so please bear with me, and feel free to direct me to other posts.

To help you better understand where I’m coming from, I’ll give a little info about myself. I am a Christian and have been since the age of five. I believe the Bible is absolutely true. Some would call me a Fundamentalist Evangelical (a commonly referred to group on these forums, it seems). Growing up, I attended a church that was very conservative in regard to political and moral issues, but placed very little importance on ceremony.

Anyway, an e-mail from a Catholic friend of mine from college got me thinking about Catholicism. She didn’t mention anything in the e-mail, but it reminded me of conversations we had had back in college. My previous contact with Catholics had been very limited and instruction about them was often negative, but it was obvious from talking to her that her Christian faith was genuine and true. So, I decided to do a little research on the internet to try to find out what I could about Catholicism. So, here I am!

I suppose there has long been something about me that has been drawn to the Catholic Church. The history, the tradition, the beauty of everything from stained glass windows to Gregorian chants, and, most of all, the solid doctrinal stands on every issue. Having been to many Protestant churches, I have become sick of buffet-style Christianity.

All of that, being said, there are still a number of Catholic beliefs I have a difficult time accepting. So, my long preamble complete, here are my objections/questions:

The Immaculate Conception. I realize this has been dealt with by Catholic apologists many times, but I find it difficult to believe that any person has been sinless. Some may have said that for Christ to be sinless, he would have to have come from a sinless womb, but if that was the case, a sinless Mary would have had to have had a sinless mother as well.

Going on further with the same issue, I have trouble accepting the belief that Mary and Joseph never “came together” as a husband and wife. As they were married, there would have been no sin in them doing so. The last mention of Joseph in Jesus’ life is when he was twelve, so we know Mary and Joseph were married for at least twelve years (and probably longer). It seems more than a little odd that they would go all this time without consumating their marriage.

The issue of Jesus’ brothers and sisters being his step brothers/sisters or cousins is a minor issue in my mind, but it still seems odd. Why couldn’t Joseph and Mary have had other children after Jesus?

Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. Though I absolutely do believe in miracles, it is difficult to accept that wine and bread literally become the blood and body of Christ. While I understand the ceremony as a way to remember Christ’s sacrifice, I fail to see what ingesting his physical body (which, so far as I understand it, was not divine in and of itself) does for the human soul.

Papal Infallibility. Seeing as how popes are men also, it seems that they would be very capable of making a wrong judgment on an issue. I guess that is why Protestants are drawn to sola scriptura, as we are reluctant to trust the word of any human (though, admittedly, the Bible was written by them…) on spiritual matters.

I guess those are the primary issues I have. There are others I do not fully understand, such as praying to the saints, praying for the dead (though I admit, I have often done so), the need to confess to a priest (though I see this as a good thing), the labeling of certain sins as “mortal sins,” and the existence of Purgatory. Anyway, those are some questions I have. Please understand none of this is an attack, but rather a desire to learn more about Catholicism. I look forward to your answers. God Bless!

What a wonderful post! Welcome! I have heard it said that Cardinal Newman stated that one cannot study Christian History and remain Protestant. I welcome you and hope my learned family members on this forum can help you discern the Truth.

I found your statement on the ‘sinless womb’ interesting. I would not be willing to place the same requirement of the womb of St Anne as the womb of the Mother of God for the simple reason that one carried only a creature (albeit a perfect one in the true image and likeness of her Creator, as Eve was) while the other womb carried the Creator, the Word Incarnate, Our Savior.

Probably simplistic theology … after all, I ain’t no Scott Hahn.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Again I thank all of you for your very helpful and informative information! I have to say, having actually studied (a small amount of) Catholic doctrine now, it is all beginning to make sense to me. Here’s a quick outline of the way I saw things and the way I am beginning to see them now:

Transubstantiation:
Old thought-The Catholic belief that the wine and the bread actually become the blood and body of Christ is strange, and even a bit cannibalistic. The celebration of the Eucharist (commonly referred to as Communion in Protestant churches) is to remind us of Christ’s sacrifice, but it is simply a ceremony.
New Thought-While I still find it strange, I see it as being no stranger than a number of other things I believe without difficulty (I mean, God coming to Earth as a man by being born from a virgin mother!).

Purgatory:
Old thought-This place simply does not exist. For us to say that people must suffer for their sins before entering heaven is to say that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient to pay for their sins.
New thought-Purgatory, if it indeed does exist, is not a place where people pay for their sins (Christ having done that already), but rather a place where the soul is made clean and the damage of sin is healed. This healing is often painful, but it is accepted with joy, because it preparing the person for heavenly glory.
(Note: I’m in the midst of reading an article by Patrick Madrid on the subject, which explains it very well)

The Immaculate Conception:
Old thought-Mary, while certainly a righteous and blessed woman, was a sinner as are all of us.
New thought-I’m having trouble changing my view on this, I must confess (after all, “All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God”). However, I will admit that I am more open to the possibility that it might be true. This might not mean much to you, but it is a huge admission for me.

Papal Infallibility:
Old thought-Popes, being men as capable of sin as any other, and possessing an earthly limited mind, are completely susceptible to wrong judgments and even deliberate subversion of the truth. This is not to say this happens often, but even one pope could make a wrong pronouncement that could corrupt doctrine for centuries to come.
New thought-As above, this is still a touchy subject. However, if I can trust that God has protected the Old and New Testaments from corruption for all of these years, isn’t it possible that God is still protecting the truth?

The Protestant Reformation: (Note: While this is not so much an issue of Catholic Doctrine, it is definitely relevant to this discussion)
Old though-The Protestant Reformation was a necessary answer to a church that had grown increasingly corrupt.
New thought-While reformers such as Luther did address some valid issues (particularly in regard to the sale of indulgences), the overall result of the Reformation has been a splintering of the church. The belief in sola scriptura has resulted in thousands of denominations, each following a different interpretation of the Bible (And yet these separate denominations still have books of doctrine; it seems that if one can get the truth purely from Scripture, these books contradict a centreal tenet of Protestantism). Even in Luther’s lifetime, the Protestants split on what true doctrine was, and this continues today.
(Note: in studying this issue, I actually read all about Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Erasmus, Knox and others. I even read the 95 theses! Fascinating, eh?)

Well, that’s a quick summary, long though it may be. There are other issues I’m still looking into, but these are some on which I’ve had some change of opinion. Obviously, my new opinions do not quite conform to Catholicism, but as I learn more, it is entirely possible (though I never would have admitted this until quite recently) that my beliefs will look like they came straight out of the catechism. Anyway, feel free to critique, analyze and criticize. I thank you again for your helpful answers! God Bless!

 

[1ke]

Iambic,

You’ve come a long way in a short time so don’t worry that you still have questions/concerns. I’d be concerned if you didn’t. I’ve seen too many people “get saved” at an altar call, only to be right back to their old ways the next day. Catholic conversions aren’t an emotional experience in the same way many protestant “conversions” are-- they take time and study. And that’s the way the Church wants it.

Remember, Catholicism is a rich and deep Faith. I converted in 1992, and I still had a few issues, like you. I made it my business to learn, but even after 13 years I’m still learning.

I got over my issues one by one as I continued to grow in the Faith-- all of a sudden it’s “oh… that makes sense now”. It just all locked into place-- even the things like Immaculate Conception, etc…

 

[JP2Admirer]

The Iambic Pen:

Tradition really is the key, then. The other day I was wondering what would happen if somehow a people who had never been exposed to Christianity were to find the Bible written in their own language. If they were to somehow believe it was true, what kind of religion would result? For all that Protestants claim “sola scriptura,” they are still heavily influenced by tradition. Of course, God didn’t just give us the Bible without any tradition to back it up. It isn’t like the Qu’ran or the Book of Mormon, which were suddenly “given” to one man in their complete form. The Bible is a collection of many separate accounts by different people, all of which, nevertheless, agree. So, we find ourselves in the present day with a Bible which was assembled over thousands of years. To be honest, one should take into account the interpretations of those who lived closer to the events recorded therein. I guess the problem I have is when someone from the fourth or fifth century announces some doctrine that I haven’t seen mentioned by anyone earlier. After all, four hundred years is a long time. Well, I need to go for now. God Bless!

I see that others have mentioned Cardinal Newman. Might I recommend his book, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine This book will clarify some of your ideas about doctrine.

Newman basically says that the truth is given to us as a whole in miniature, and then gradually we make sense of it. At one point he compares the development of doctrine to a river in that the source is murky, but the longer it lives the clearer it becomes. Doctrines aren’t invented, they develop from the truth already given. Doctrine is a clarification. Newman was going through a similar phase of questioning as you when he wrote the book. Obviously, he eventually bacame Catholic.

 

[MonicaC]

The Iambic Pen:

Again I thank all of you for your very helpful and informative information! I have to say, having actually studied (a small amount of) Catholic doctrine now, it is all beginning to make sense to me. Here’s a quick outline of the way I saw things and the way I am beginning to see them now:

Transubstantiation:
Old thought-The Catholic belief that the wine and the bread actually become the blood and body of Christ is strange, and even a bit cannibalistic. The celebration of the Eucharist (commonly referred to as Communion in Protestant churches) is to remind us of Christ’s sacrifice, but it is simply a ceremony.
New Thought-While I still find it strange, I see it as being no stranger than a number of other things I believe without difficulty (I mean, God coming to Earth as a man by being born from a virgin mother!).

Purgatory:
Old thought-This place simply does not exist. For us to say that people must suffer for their sins before entering heaven is to say that Christ’s sacrifice was not sufficient to pay for their sins.
New thought-Purgatory, if it indeed does exist, is not a place where people pay for their sins (Christ having done that already), but rather a place where the soul is made clean and the damage of sin is healed. This healing is often painful, but it is accepted with joy, because it preparing the person for heavenly glory.
(Note: I’m in the midst of reading an article by Patrick Madrid on the subject, which explains it very well)

The Immaculate Conception:
Old thought-Mary, while certainly a righteous and blessed woman, was a sinner as are all of us.
New thought-I’m having trouble changing my view on this, I must confess (after all, “All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God”). However, I will admit that I am more open to the possibility that it might be true. This might not mean much to you, but it is a huge admission for me.

Papal Infallibility:
Old thought-Popes, being men as capable of sin as any other, and possessing an earthly limited mind, are completely susceptible to wrong judgments and even deliberate subversion of the truth. This is not to say this happens often, but even one pope could make a wrong pronouncement that could corrupt doctrine for centuries to come.
New thought-As above, this is still a touchy subject. However, if I can trust that God has protected the Old and New Testaments from corruption for all of these years, isn’t it possible that God is still protecting the truth?

The Protestant Reformation: (Note: While this is not so much an issue of Catholic Doctrine, it is definitely relevant to this discussion)
Old though-The Protestant Reformation was a necessary answer to a church that had grown increasingly corrupt.
New thought-While reformers such as Luther did address some valid issues (particularly in regard to the sale of indulgences), the overall result of the Reformation has been a splintering of the church. The belief in sola scriptura has resulted in thousands of denominations, each following a different interpretation of the Bible (And yet these separate denominations still have books of doctrine; it seems that if one can get the truth purely from Scripture, these books contradict a centreal tenet of Protestantism). Even in Luther’s lifetime, the Protestants split on what true doctrine was, and this continues today.
(Note: in studying this issue, I actually read all about Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Erasmus, Knox and others. I even read the 95 theses! Fascinating, eh?)

Well, that’s a quick summary, long though it may be. There are other issues I’m still looking into, but these are some on which I’ve had some change of opinion. Obviously, my new opinions do not quite conform to Catholicism, but as I learn more, it is entirely possible (though I never would have admitted this until quite recently) that my beliefs will look like they came straight out of the catechism. Anyway, feel free to critique, analyze and criticize. I thank you again for your helpful answers! God Bless!

I really admire your courage to first address these issues and than to open your heart to our thoughts and answers. I really hope you continue on in your search for the truth.

Good luck!

Monica

P.S. Welcome home!

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Iambic - you’re well on the way on your journey.

Two questions:

• Where are you from in the States?
• What do you do in the Army (I was a 13M myself)

God bless you!

 

[Scotty_PGH]

The Iambic Pen:

Sometimes I wish God could just come to be and say, “The Catholic Church’s teachings are all true.”

He already did when He told Peter, “Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven…”!

Nobody but the Catholic Church can trace its history all the way back to that very moment. That seals the deal for me. Christ intended one, physical, real, earthly Church, with one rock as the foundation. To him (Peter) He gave special authority to lead this Church.

Earlier you asked how we can know that this authority extended beyond Peter. Well, Peter was mortal and soon to die. Christ’s Church, however, is undying. It is logical that the authority granted to Peter as the rock upon which Christ built His Church would apply to all future rocks, as long as the Church exists. And remember that He promised us that he would be always with us, until the end of the age.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I really should read Newman. When I was studying English in college, I read some of his work, which was very good. Obviously, as Newman was a former Protestant, his writings would be especially relevant to me.

Two questions:
Where are you from in the States?
What do you do in the Army (I was a 13M myself)

I’m from the beautiful state of Washington. The nearest decent size city to my hometown is Spokane, Washington, home to Gonzaga University. Even the Protestants cheer for their basketball team.

In the Army, I’m a 13F, Fire Support Specialist. King of Battle, hooah!

As always, I thank everyone for their answers. I never expected this thread would generate so much interest, and I am very thankful for all the information I have received.

On the subject of tradition, I am coming to a greater understanding of it. I just read a number of statements by several of the Early Church Fathers, some of which were from the first and second centuries, which strongly supported Catholic Doctrine. Very interesting information.

This whole investigation of Catholicism has proved to be very challenging and educational. It has certainly changed my views about Catholicism, as I have discovered that much of what I used to believe about Catholicism isn’t true. My past view of Christian history was that the Reformation brought Christianity back to its roots and left Catholicism languishing in the Middle Ages. I see now that this is definitely not the case.

The thing is, though, that despite all of this, I still agree with much of what the Reformers said. I read Luther’s 95 theses the other day, and it sounded to me like there was significant abuse going on in regard to indulgences. Though this forum isn’t exactly the door to the Wittenburg church, I’ll go ahead and post my remaining objections to Catholicism in separate threads. Keep in mind, as always, that many of my objections are based on a lack of information. Feel free to keep adressing the questions I’ve asked in this thread, as I will definitely be checking it! God Bless!

 

[johnq]

The Iambic Pen:

I read Luther’s 95 theses the other day, and it sounded to me like there was significant abuse going on in regard to indulgences.

The Church would agree with you. She also agreed to some of other issues he presented, but unlike St. Francis he left the Rock built upon Peter.

 

[Malachi4U]

Gods peace be with you theophilus lambic Pen,

Pt 1,

Here are a few questions you should ask yourself from a Protestant perspective, they are meant to encourage thought into the errors of the countless Protestant sects:
The Iambic Pen:

…I am a Christian and have been since the age of five.

So, do you believe in banning children from being baptized? Where is that in Scripture? I recall Jesus saying “suffer not the little children unto me”? So, the Bible in St. John 3:5 defines “CHRISTIAN” as one who is baptized in the name of the Trinity. Websters defines it as anyone who follows Jesus. They are both different, do you know why? According to Scripture a Christian is any properly baptized person. This includes children too.

I believe the Bible is absolutely true.

Which one and why? The Authorized and origional King James Version or one of the many spinoffs with missing/added verses, changed words, deleted books, etc… The NIV, the NWT, JST, etc… Does a President like Bill Clinton or dicatator like Hitler have a right and authority to change a Bible to his likeness? Did a flameing homosexual King like James? Do you know where the Bible came from and the history of how it was written, who first thought of putting it together and why, how long did it take to write one, etc…?

Some would call me a Fundamentalist Evangelical (a commonly referred to group on these forums, it seems).

Mostly good people with a deep love of Jesus.

Growing up, I attended a church that was very conservative in regard to political and moral issues, but placed very little importance on ceremony.

Did the preacher wear a suit? Did you allways start and end with a song? Did you allways read from Scripture? I bet you had ceremony but they taught you you didn’t because to have it would be Catholic! The OT/Jewish religion is full of ceremony, if God is unchangeing then why would He want us to stop?

…Having been to many Protestant churches, I have become sick of buffet-style Christianity.

You mean ‘Burger King’ theology - hold the Confession hold the Deturo’s add some ‘sola fida’ add some ‘sola scriputra’ heavy on the love and extra salvation! Try singing it to the BK tune! Who cares what Jesus taught, have it your way!

 

[Malachi4U]

Pt 2,

All of that, being said, there are still a number of Catholic beliefs I have a difficult time accepting.

Just like the Apostles had when they accepted what Jesus was teaching!

…I have trouble accepting the belief that Mary and Joseph never “came together” as a husband and wife. As they were married, there would have been no sin in them doing so. The last mention of Joseph in Jesus’ life is when he was twelve, so we know Mary and Joseph were married for at least twelve years (and probably longer). It seems more than a little odd that they would go all this time without consumating their marriage.

I suggest you read Scripture to find out what to believe and not to justify what you believe. Think about the difference and then try reading Scripture with NO bias or forgone conclusions. You will see that everything in Scripture is Catholic! (unless you read it to prove BK theology) Study history too, you will find people OFTEN entered into a sex free marriage. Scripture even encourages sex free clergy!

The issue of Jesus’ brothers and sisters being his step brothers/sisters or cousins is a minor issue in my mind, but it still seems odd. Why couldn’t Joseph and Mary have had other children after Jesus?

True it’s a minor issue. Research when this first became a big Protestant issue. You will find that Protestants started believing (or at least teaching) Jesus had siblings around the 1850’s. You won’t find hardly a word about this issue before then. Why? What happened in the Catholic Church about that time? Blessed Mary was declared to be ever virgin and the Protestants just had to attack the Church with something in retaliation so they invented this sibling BK theology.

Jesus walks into a temple and says "Hi, I am the Son of God, conceived of a virgin woman by the power of someone called the Holy Spirit. I’ll tell you more about this never heard of person of God later. I am the third person of God and all powerfull. I’d like to introduce my step-‘father’ Joseph - who had no relations with his fiancee - my mother -BEFORE they were married. Of course I was concieved after they got engaged. And here are my brothers and sisters who were concieved by my step father AFTER they were married…

Now what do you think the crowd in the temple would say when they stopped laughing so hard they couldn’t breath and were hopeing they didn’t loose bladder control? (Like when I saw the ‘Pink Panther Returns’ in the theatre as a child ) They’d tell Jesus he put too much ‘new wine’ into ‘old wineskins’ and was drunk off His @$&.

The idea of siblings of Jesus makes me laugh when I hear it even today.

Of course Protestants will accept siblings of Jesus but NOT the Eucharist when it is spelled out clearly in St. John 6. Of course this is when Jesus is first known to have lost followers and is still losseing them today over this same miracle of transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. Though I absolutely do believe in miracles, it is difficult to accept that wine and bread literally become the blood and body of Christ. While I understand the ceremony as a way to remember Christ’s sacrifice, I fail to see what ingesting his physical body (which, so far as I understand it, was not divine in and of itself) does for the human soul.

“Faith” is a gift. Either you have "F"aith or you have "f"aith. Jesus lost followers over this in Scripture and He seems to have lost you on this issue too? If He can raise the dead, if He is God, then can’t He have transubstantiation? Why transubstantiation? I don’t know and I don’t care, He said it so I believe it and follow Him without hestation or question. Did you ask why God did other things too you could not understand or just this one? Think of all the other things God did in Scripture that we have no answer for but believe all the same. Why did God send “the Angel of the Lord” (Gabrial) to Blessed Mary instead of going Himself? He had other commitments? Angels need work too? This also proves the Catholic intersession of Saints and Angels too wouldn’t it? Ask why Protestants DENY what Jesus taught not why Catholics believe what He taught.

 

[Malachi4U]

Pt 3,

Papal Infallibility. Seeing as how popes are men also, it seems that they would be very capable of making a wrong judgment on an issue. I guess that is why Protestants are drawn to sola scriptura, as we are reluctant to trust the word of any human (though, admittedly, the Bible was written by them…) on spiritual matters.

Jesus founded the Catholic Church and promised to be with it till the end of time and gave it His authority to bind or loose on earth and gave “MEN” (i.e. Popes) the ‘keys’ to His kingdom. Why do Protestants deny it? They have to to justify themselves?

A prisoner of Christ,

PS, I am a “Born Again” Catholic. I left the Protestant sects after 27 adult years of living with feel good theology BK style. Thankfully Joesph Smith, two Baptist Preachers, the AKJV of Scripture and the HOLY SPIRIT led me home to Rome when He lefted the ‘scales’ off my eyes and I could finally ‘see’ His Word. Crossing the Tiber and back into Christs body, His Catholic Church has given me a true Biblically correct ‘HOPE’ for salvation. Being a Christian (i.e. Catholic + Baptized) is not allways fun, but there is a great reward for those of us who can endure to the end, I know, He promised it.

Longest post I’ve writ in a coons age!