Struggling with converting to Catholicism

[tgGodsway]

The Church also functioned for over 300 years without a set canon of the Bible. I don’t find this Marian argument from silence especially compelling.

No… the 1st. and 2nd. century Church enjoyed the letters and gospels that were passed among them. It was a direct link to the Apostles and their doctrine. It was an inspired work before the ink dried.

 

[Entwhistler]

Sure they had the letters and such. But there was no official canon until the Council of Hippo in the late 300s. There were apocryphal books floating around that were held in high regard. From my recollection Revelation almost didn’t make the cut.

 

[lilypadrees]

Today, in my view, Mary is more than idolized. She is queen of heaven, a place given to her by no foundational apostle or gospel writer. Given to her by this elusive thing called oral tradition and papal decree.

Glad you admit that this is your view.

Since every teaching was oral before being written down, how can you consider oral tradition “elusive”? Papal decree affirms what the Council already declared.

 

[Hello_All]

Hello,i just watched a video testimony of a former virulently anti catholic evangelical pastor from brazil. He was responsible for brainwashing many weak catholics to abandon their faith,which he was very successful.he smashed numerous statues of the virgin mary ,during his church services,including the image of patroness of brazil.one day,he was assigned to preach in another town for several days.while he was alone in a rented apartment,he smelt scent of roses.couldnt figured ,where it was coming from.then,he felt that somebody was with him.he thought it was the holy spirit.but,it was the virgin mary.she appeared to him for over an hour and was able to ask her questions.he felt like he was floating on air,with no legs.to make long story short,he is now a defender of the catholic church.the video is about hour,titled “he kept smashing statues,until virgin mary appeared to him”. Ex pastor narrated that he used to hand out anti catholic materials inside and outside catholic churches,in the plazas etc.fortunately,video testimony is dubbed in spanish ,which i understand ,from portuguese language.this occurred in year 2000.

 

[otjm]

I am going to give you a rather short answer. Your questions are why the Church has what is called the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults - known as RCIA. You spend class time once a week from September to Easter learning the answers to these questions and many more.

However, no one is going to drag you into the Church. It is “come and see” - come, learn what the Church teaches and why, and then you make the decision; this is the path you wish to follow to salvation, or you do not. It is not unheard of that people may say, after a year, that they are not ready, or not convinced, or still have questions; and almost always, they are invited to return in the Fall and continue on in the classes.

I would invite you to explore this opportunity for you to learn more about the Church and its teachings.

 

[stpurl]

I’m glad you’re saying it is in ‘your view’. Permit me to say that the contrary, new, 'teaching of man" you claim as truth, per one modern fallible human being at one very tiny fraction of time as opposed to the view not just of millions and millions over centuries and centuries through the guidance of the Holy Spirit Himself, isn’t going to change my way of thinking, which is that the latter teaching is the correct one. . .thinking for myself, as one should.

Especially as you still have never bolstered your (not my, but your) claims with the evidence requested several times --where is the proof Mary’s sinlessness was 'never taught until way after the apostles", said proof to be demonstrated with clear evidence the doctrine was NEVER taught in the Church (this includes the Orthodox) before an authoritative document issued to the entire Church made the teaching, with a specific date and a specific person instituting this.

 

[humbleservant]

I am so glad to hear that you are considering becoming Catholic. Your struggle with Mary is not unique to those considering becoming Catholic. I think you agree that we are called to follow Jesus and imitate Jesus. Jesus loved Mary, but he didn’t worship her. If we are to be like Jesus, we are to love her like he does. Our goal should be no more and also no less.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sure they had the letters and such. But there was no official canon until the Council of Hippo in the late 300s. There were apocryphal books floating around that were held in high regard. From my recollection Revelation almost didn’t make the cut.

Just to add - letters were to specific churches, which by no means known to everybody. There has to be central authority already and that was the body of the apostles, which is the Catholic Church.

Letters were not enough as there was much more in term of belief and doctrines which were not explicitly written but believed by the body of Christians.

 

[tgGodsway]

Since every teaching was oral before being written down, how can you consider oral tradition “elusive”?

It is elusive when there are direct contradictions between tradition and what we find in sacred scripture. For instance the teaching passed down that say Mary was born and lived without sin by a special miracle. I am asked to believe oral tradition, or sacred tradition, whichever, no questions asked.

Is it too much to ask for at least three eyewitness and an acknowledgment to this so-called fact by the people who surrounded her? Is it too much to ask the theologians of her day, maybe the Pharisees, or later the Apostles, to include this very profound and theological view in their writings? Even a hint? All I find is evidence to the contrary.

I am called the hater because I ask for verification. All you can give me is this shadow of tradition excluding the testimony of the key people who would know.

On another note to consider. The Apostle Paul said in Galatians 1 that he did not get his revelation from MAN, but God himself. Is not oral tradition the voices of men?

 

[hope]

If you see a contradiction it is because of your misunderstanding not because there is one. Your example is pitiful. Mary being sinless does not contradict scripture in the least. Your understanding of scripture is deficient. Yes it is to much to ask for eye witnesses. God doesn’t perform miracles as a sideshow carny that has to have witnesses.
Where are the three witnesses to Elijah? Where are the witnesses to Abraham being stopped by and angel? The key people who would know are those who have been inspired by God to know. You claim, rightly so, that God inspired scripture but than you turn around and demand verification ignoring inspiration from God.

 

[lilypadrees]

You’re the skeptic not us. Maybe I missed it. But I haven’t seen anyone other than yourself, refer to you as a hater just because you don’t believe as we Catholics do.

What witnesses do you want? And how can one witness someone being made sinless before their conception?

Do you honestly think Mary would have told someone she had been created without original sin had she known it? I don’t.

The only human witnesses, if there had been any, would have had to have known her from Day 1 of her life until the moment her earthly life ended and then been inspired by God to have written it down.

Why are you unable to believe that it happened without it having to be written down? Since she wasn’t and isn’t Our Lord and Savior, it isn’t necessary. We worship Jesus not His mother.

I personally believe that Mary was sinless prior to her conception because she would’ve had to be sinless to have carried the Savior in her womb. No sin shall enter Heaven. The Holy Spirit showed me that during my Bible reading one day.

I don’t need witnesses to convince me that Mary was sinless prior to her conception and throughout her life. Nor do I need it in writing in order to believe it’s true. I believe that God can do anything He Wills.

You do know that out of the Twelve Apostles, God the Father revealed the truth about Jesus to the Apostle Peter.

You also realize that Jesus, the only begotten Son of God has two natures, one of which is human.

Every teaching in the Bible was first taught orally by men who were inspired of God. These men were the Apostles. Some of the Apostles wrote the teachings they had received down. These teachings were later translated from their original tongue to others and passed down from generation to generation. Each translation is a little different because we no longer have the original texts.

You are skeptical about the story of Mary’s birth. But you have no proof that her life wasn’t as written since not everything is written in the Bible Inc many things Christians believe in.

Whose life is more important to Christians? Mary or Jesus? Every Christian, and yes, Catholics are Christians, will answer “Jesus, of course.” His is the priority since He is God, the Word made flesh who dwelt among us for 33 years before suffering, dying, being buried and then ascending into Heaven.

 

[Techno2000]

I see so many videos of Catholics walking around and carrying these massive statues of Mary that are adorned with different clothing and golden fixtures. Almost as if they are worshiping them.

There is tons of anti-Catholic propaganda floating around out there.

 

[tgGodsway]

If you see a contradiction it is because of your misunderstanding not because there is one. Your example is pitiful. Mary being sinless does not contradict scripture in the least. Your understanding of scripture is deficient. Yes it is to much to ask for eye witnesses. God doesn’t perform miracles as a sideshow carny that has to have witnesses.

The word of God recorded over 500 WITNESSES to the resurrection. Why bother? Because He knew the resurrection would be the most disputed belief in Christianity to this day!

Requiring an eye-witness is a common ground understanding to any first year bible student. It’s demand is all over the bible if you will do the work.

Upon the mouth of two or three witness, let every word be established, Moses said. Jesus quoted and supported Moses when He offered instructions about getting to the truth of a matter when a brother sins against you. in Matt. 18:16. Paul agreed with Moses and Jesus and he too passed on this wonderful tradition that says …

“This will be the third time I am coming to you, By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” 2nd. Cor. 13:1.

So, what I ask for is biblical, Hope. You just don’t know enough about what you are talking about to make a real argument.

If I wanted to work hard enough I could probably find your biblical witnesses to Elijah and Abraham.

The doctrine of Mary as sinless did not originate with the founding fathers of the faith in the first century. The holy Spirit did not decide to preserve what you say is truth on Mary, though it was within His power to do so. He did not preserve it.

 

[tgGodsway]

What witnesses do you want? And how can one witness someone being made sinless before their conception?

Do you honestly think Mary would have told someone she had been created without original sin had she known it? I don’t.

Yeah you make a good point. Did she know she was NOT a sinner like her first born Son? Did her husband know she was NOT a sinner? Did the community know she was NOT a sinner? Did anyone know that she was unable to sin?

 

[hope]

The word of God recorded over 500 WITNESSES to the resurrection. Why bother? Because He knew the resurrection would be the most disputed belief in Christianity to this day!

I had a discussion with a Muslim about this very same thing. He wanted the names and the testimony of these witnesses. I couldn’t give him any but the apostles.

Requiring an eye-witness is a common ground understanding to any first year bible student. It’s demand is all over the bible if you will do the work.

Or you can just say it is there without providing evidence and than say it is on the other person to provide your evidence.

Upon the mouth of two or three witness, let every word be established, Moses said. Jesus quoted and supported Moses when He offered instructions about getting to the truth of a matter when a brother sins against you. in Matt. 18:16. Paul agreed with Moses and Jesus and he too passed on this wonderful tradition that says …

You have got to be kidding me. You aren’t serious are you? Matt 18:16

15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established.

You have taken it out of context to make it support your statement which it does not.

“This will be the third time I am coming to you, By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” 2nd. Cor. 13:1.

Again taken out of context and strung to another verse to try to support your view.

So, what I ask for is biblical, Hope. You just don’t know enough about what you are talking about to make a real argument.

Your opinion that is not supported by what you write. It could be applied to you more than to me.

If I wanted to work hard enough I could probably find your biblical witnesses to Elijah and Abraham.

If it required a lot of work, it probably would be a strain on credibility.

The doctrine of Mary as sinless did not originate with the founding fathers of the faith in the first century. The holy Spirit did not decide to preserve what you say is truth on Mary, though it was within His power to do so. He did not preserve it.

Again just your opinion. My opinion is that it is has been the constant belief from the beginning. That the Holy Spirit reveled this truth through such scriptures as Hail, full of grace (charitoo) , the Lord is with thee
It must be noted that every time but once that the Greek word charitoo is translated into English, it is “grace”. I don’t think there should be an exception.
Luke 4:22, John 1:14, John 1:16, Acts 14:3, Acts 15:11, Acts 18:27, Acts 20:24, Acts 20:32, Rom 5:17, Rom 11:5, Rom 12:3, Gal 1:15, Gal 5:4, Eph 1:6, Eph 1:7, Eph 2:7, Eph 3:2, Eph 3:7, Php 1:7, Heb 4:16, Heb 10:29, Heb 12:15, 1 Pe 1:10, 1 Pe 3:7, 1 Pe 4:10, 1 Pe 5:10
There are many other valid reasoning from scripture.The only reason this is disputed is because there are those who believe that it undermines the Church but all it does is undermine the truth.

 

[guanophore]

The Mary you speak of is not the Mary of the N.T. bible. She is an invention of people who were far removed from the apostolic circle.

I can see how it would seem this way to you. The Mary of the NT travelled with the disciples often, and they visited her. She was placed into the care of John, and lived in Ephesus, where St. Luke and St Paul founded the Church.

The Apostles knew her well, and she was with them in the Upper Room at Pentecost, and was an ongoing resource for them throughout her life. No one on the face of the earth spent more time with Jesus than she.

Oral tradition has invented and perpetuated this lie all of these years. It is sad.

You see, tgG, when you say things like this, it is hard to turn again and defend that you are not anti-Catholic. There is nothing sad about Jesus mother, her relationship with the Apostles, and her role in the Early Church.

The Mary of the bible knew she was a sinner who sinned.

Now you are projecting your theology into the text! The Mary of scripture knew that Jesus was her savior.

So did everyone else know this about her, … as all men are sinners and need Christ.

Can sinners stand before God righteous and blameless?

Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Mary needed Christ. Christ was her savior. this does not equate to her being a sinner.

You are reading the scripture with your anti-Catholic bias.

 

[po18guy]

We have heard your concerns many times. Sad to say that protestant “worship”, from its fairly profound beginnings, has become so watered down, so simplistic, so kindergarten variety, so devoid of the rich heritage of true worship, that anything with more depth is shocking.

1. Do not pay attention to BAD practitioners of Catholicism, but good practitioners.
2. Get a catechism.
3. Read it.
4. Attend a mass - but do not receive communion. You will see that it is 100% Christ-centered.
5. Listen to Dr. David Anders on EWTN’s “Called to Communion.”
6. Call him with questions - he was a staunch Calvinist who set out to prove the Catholic Church wrong and of course, ended up converting.
7. Report back.

 

[guanophore]

But Luther and Calvin are not my measuring stick to truth. If Luther, who was raised to believe Mary was sinless, did not yet turn against this based on scripture, then Luther was blind to the obvious evidence of scripture. I am pretty sure he eventually turned.

I have read that he prayed the Rosary on his deathbed. I wonder if that is true. He certainly never wrote anything to contradict the Marian doctrines.

But Luther and Calvin are not my measuring stick to truth.

Indeed not. You are your own prophet!

Bottom line, there is a contradiction between “oral tradition” and the testimony of the apostolic circle.

Certainly there is through your anti-Catholic lenses. Perhaps, once you read more of your family history, this may change?

Paul was clear when he said that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

He was clear, of course, but you have taken this out of context, so you have suffered a lack of clarity.

Mary herself knew she was born “under the law,” as all Jews were. Her sin offering in Jerusalem was common ground to her as a sinner.

Actually, this is ritual uncleanness, and has nothing to do with moral impurity.

Unless you think a woman giving birth or having her period makes her a sinner?

Oral tradition conflicts with inspired scripture on this.

It certainly conflicts with your perceptions of Scripture.

God did not need Mary to be sinless to produce a sinless Son. This was the theological mistake that created this mess.

I agree. God could have had Jesus appear full grown upon he earth. But He came “born of woman”. He took His flesh from hers. Add the Theotokos to your list of things to study!

 

[guanophore]

quote=“tgGodsway, post:49, topic:489599”]
I’m not sure what you are talking about here with the Ark.
[/quote]

[Luke, who spent time with Mary in Ephesus, structured his Gospel to reflect Mary as the Ark.](http://luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.)

Oral tradition is an un-provable concept. You use an unrecorded source to say this is how scripture came into being and recorded. That is nonsense. God’s word had to get TO THEM, before it could get FROM THEM to others.

Oral tradition is an un-provable concept. You use an unrecorded source to say this is how scripture came into being and recorded. That is nonsense. God’s word had to get TO THEM, before it could get FROM THEM to others.

How can you say this, since you have in your hands the product? I know you don’t believe the NT just fell out of the sky!

What you are describing is Sacred Tradition - the oral teaching of the Apostles that got from one person to the next.

Scripture’s source has never been from oral tradition. Scripture’s source (and claim) is from God’s mouth to the Apostle’s hearts, recorded onto parchment we call letters, gospels, ect. The living word became the written word as each Apostle died off.

So you really believe that the Apostles did not teach those things that were written?

What do you think Paul talked about for three months in the synagogue?

8 And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, arguing and pleading about the kingdom of God; 9 but when some were stubborn and disbelieved, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the hall of Tyran′nus.

10 This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks. Acts 19

What do you think he talked about for TWO YEARS in the hall of Tyrannus? You can’t rationally believe it is all written in the NT!!!

Tradition, if any, is subordinate to inspired scripture, not its source.

Of course you must cling to this, or return to the faith into which you were baptized.

To your third point, 1500 years of Catholic teaching is fine, as long as each piece of doctrine has an eye-witness to settle it. Those eye-witnesses are the foundation of the Church. If there is teaching without the validation from the Apostolic foundation, that teaching has no biblical merit.

Kinda like Sola Scriptura?

 

[tgGodsway]

I had a discussion with a Muslim about this very same thing. He wanted the names and the testimony of these witnesses. I couldn’t give him any but the apostles.

Okay… so the Apostles and Dr. Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, plus Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s narrative-gospels who recorded the eye-witnesses at the empty grave, is all we’ve got. The three Marys who witnesses the grave mean nothing? Add to all of this, the historical records outside of the scriptures, both oral and documented. Do they not make a compelling case?.. unless these records are not real and these people didn’t exist. But if that is true, we could also say the same thing about Jesus himself. I choose to believe the documented records, the oral traditions, and, most importantly, the scriptures.