The clincher - what made me return to Catholicism

[ConfusedTim]

The fact is that everyone can read into the bible and interpret it as they see fit and even though you may not agree with it you can see why other people might have diffrent views of things like the eucharist etc to your own.

In terms of my own beliefs the big turning point from me was reading about what the early Christians actually belived i.e. the historical stuff around the Bible rather than what is in scripture. These Christians are the people who did not have any denomenational baggage, lived close to the same time era as Jesus and whose faith put their lives at risk i.e. you would hardly put your life at risk for something you did not think about and believe.

I have not come across one pice of historical writing that does not support clearly support the Catholic churchs position especially on the eucharist as being the actual body and blood of Jesus.

So Catholics should widen the discussion and help explain to our fellow Christians why the truth is the truth.

 

[guanophore]

I have not come across one pice of historical writing that does not support clearly support the Catholic churchs position especially on the eucharist as being the actual body and blood of Jesus.

So Catholics should widen the discussion and help explain to our fellow Christians why the truth is the truth.

This is the purpose of CAF. Welcome aboard!

 

[Trishie]

You make a good point.

Welcome back to the Church!

 

[ckempston]

The fact is that everyone can read into the bible and interpret it as they see fit and even though you may not agree with it you can see why other people might have diffrent views of things like the eucharist etc to your own.

In terms of my own beliefs the big turning point from me was reading about what the early Christians actually belived i.e. the historical stuff around the Bible rather than what is in scripture. These Christians are the people who did not have any denomenational baggage, lived close to the same time era as Jesus and whose faith put their lives at risk i.e. you would hardly put your life at risk for something you did not think about and believe.

I have not come across one pice of historical writing that does not support clearly support the Catholic churchs position especially on the eucharist as being the actual body and blood of Jesus.

So Catholics should widen the discussion and help explain to our fellow Christians why the truth is the truth.

Thanks for sharing, but allow me to point out the elephant in the room, and another example of Catholic Special Pleading.

For one, someone still needs to interpret Catholic teaching (e.g. the Catechism is not always self-explanatory). The existence of CAF, and some of the arguments between Catholics themselves, proves that Catholic teaching still requires interpretation, which many don’t agree upon.

Secondly, see posts in CAF regarding someone wanting their Bishop to be replaced because he’s not teaching Catholic doctrine, or a Priest counseling some kid to go ahead and marry his wiccan girlfriend, or that some teen’s going to be confirmed regardless of the fact that she believes abortion and pre-marital sex is OK. (All real, current or recent discussions in CAF). Catholicism seems as much a free-for-all as Protestantism.

Thirdly, as I have pointed out elsewhere, Catholics must also make a “personal interpretation” as to what their source of “Truth” is. Ultimately, whether you’re Catholic or Protestant, it comes down to your personal choice. The fact that Catholics surrender their intellect to a third party in matters of faith and morals does not make them any better off than Protestants. Ultimately, you still have to make a choice as to what your standard for Truth is. Catholics choose the Magesterium, Protestants choose the Bible. There is no difference.

 

[ConfusedTim]

My wife and kids attend a protestant evangelical church and i go along every now and then with them. I also did the bible study group meetings last year and learned a great deal. However, for me the Catholic interpretation of the bible always seemed to make more sense.

I wanted everything to be happy and easy going and so I tried not to think about the things too deeply and instead focus on the common ground across the different christian faiths.

However when i started to read about the early church fathers i found that i could no longer live a lie and deny that there was one true church. My wife who is a worship leader in the evangelical church is also moving in the Catholic direction.

Now that i dont go to the evangelical church I do miss the puppet shows and the slide presentations of the missionary trips to Asia but hey then you cant have everything

 

[ckempston]

My wife and kids attend a protestant evangelical church and i go along every now and then with them. I also did the bible study group meetings last year and learned a great deal. However, for me the Catholic interpretation of the bible always seemed to make more sense.

I wanted everything to be happy and easy going and so I tried not to think about the things too deeply and instead focus on the common ground across the different christian faiths.

However when i started to read about the early church fathers i found that i could no longer live a lie and deny that there was one true church. My wife who is a worship leader in the evangelical church is also moving in the Catholic direction.

Now that i dont go to the evangelical church I do miss the puppet shows and the slide presentations of the missionary trips to Asia but hey then you cant have everything

It is a “Grave Matter” if you are missing your Sunday Obligation to attend a Protestant church.

I hear where you are coming from with regard to the ECFs; however, no church is without its problems, including the Roman Catholic one. I have found that I agree with Catholic interpretations of the Bible in just about every instance. That is not the problem for me. The problem is in all the extra stuff.

 

[JED8643]

It is a “Grave Matter” if you are missing your Sunday Obligation to attend a Protestant church.

I hear where you are coming from with regard to the ECFs; however, no church is without its problems, including the Roman Catholic one. I have found that I agree with Catholic interpretations of the Bible in just about every instance. That is not the problem for me. The problem is in all the extra stuff.

I totally understand where you are coming from. The ECF’s had a huge impact on my reversion from Protestantism.

The question ultimately comes down to authority. Did Jesus found an authoritative church with power to bind and loose, guided by the Holy Spirit, or did he mean for the individual interpretation of scripture. The Old Testament helped also. When Jesus told his disciples to yield to the authority of the Pharisees because they held the “seat of Moses” that helped me understand the way God set things up.

Once you answer that question your well on your way. Of course the church has problems. The Jews had alot of problems as well, just read the OT. All the extra stuff falls into place once you get the issue of authority settled.

Peace

 

[Lancer]

Thanks for sharing, but allow me to point out the elephant in the room, and another example of Catholic Special Pleading.

For one, someone** still needs to interpret Catholic** teaching (e.g. the Catechism is not always self-explanatory). The existence of CAF, and some of the arguments between Catholics themselves, proves that Catholic teaching still requires interpretation, which many don’t agree upon.

Secondly, see posts in CAF regarding someone wanting their Bishop to be replaced because he’s not teaching Catholic doctrine, or a Priest counseling some kid to go ahead and marry his wiccan girlfriend, or that some teen’s going to be confirmed regardless of the fact that she believes abortion and pre-marital sex is OK. (All real, current or recent discussions in CAF). Catholicism seems as much a free-for-all as Protestantism.

Thirdly, as I have pointed out elsewhere**, Catholics must also make a “personal interpretation”** as to what their source of “Truth” is.** it comes down to your personal choice.** The **fact that Catholics surrender their intellect to a third party in matters of faith and morals does not make them any better off than Protestants. Ultimately,you still have to make a choice as to what your standard for Truth is. Catholics choose the Magesterium, Protestants choose the Bible. ** There is no difference.

First, thanks for the compliments…especially abut “the fact” that we have to surrender our intellect to a third party…no sweat…for there is truth in your backhanded compliment. Yes, we are called and strive to surrender…all we are…all we have…and all we ever will have…to God the Father…in God the Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ…and through the power and grace of God the Holy Spirit. Yes, that “third party” is actually a “party of three Divine Persons”…The Holy Trinity. Here is how Saint Ignatius of Loyola prays it : "SURRENDER"

*Take, O Lord, and receive my entire liberty, my memory, my understanding and my whole will. All that I am and all that I possess You have given me: I surrender it
all to You to be disposed of according to Your will. Give me only Your love and Your grace; with these I will be rich enough, and will desire nothing more. *
​

Second, what you said that is unequivocally correct is that we (Catholics) “…still have to make a choice…”. Thank God…its called free will…he gave it to the angels, even Lucifer and his gang, and he gives it to you and me…without it there is no genuine Love. You use the words “**interpret Catholic teaching of the Catechism” **…actually, the correct words are “catechize” and “catechesis”…big difference from what you say and what the Church actually does.

Third, and this is to me the “crux of the matter”…based on your erroneous edicts about what Catholicism is or is not:

Catholics must also make a “personal interpretation” as to what their source of “Truth” is."

Nothing could be farther from the reality of Catholicism…for us…Truth is not something…its is someone…a person…Our Lord Jesus Christ (para JP-II & Pope B-XVI):

"Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” John 14:1-15 (English Standard Version)

So, with His Church founded and built on Peter (Matthew 16:18), our first Pope…and with Our Lord Jesus as the Head…and the Pope as his vicar on earth… and the baptized as the members of his Body…we can see why Saint Paul advises Timothy:1 Timothy 3:15

“…if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves** in God’s household**, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

why…because the Church…is Christ Jesus…thus the Church is …the way…the Truth and …the life. Note…the bible [alone] is not the pillar and foundation of Truth…because someone has to interpret it…and **that authority is the Magisterium of the Church…the pillar and foundation of Truth. **

Lastly, the “…elephant in the room…” that you speak about is what I call “invincible pride”…it is the “will to disbelieve” regardless of the facts. It is the ability of an individual…especially a Catholic…to say…

[as I like to quote/paraphrase Prof. Peter Kreeft, Boston College]:

Ah, excuse me Jesus, but I believe that you are sitting on my throne!
or…
Ah, excuse me Saint Peter (Pope Benedict XVI), but I believe that you are sitting in my Chair!

If you judge Catholics and Catholicism…do so by judging the players who played it the way Christ directed it to be done…The Saints…not people like me who may be “in the game” and on the “football field” playing my heart out…but too often has not seen (spiritually speaking) the “football” since the “kickoff”…in other words…don’t judge it by someone like me…a sinner!

Pax Christi

 

[ckempston]

First, thanks for the compliments…especially abut “the fact” that we have to surrender our intellect to a third party…no sweat…for there is truth in your backhanded compliment. Yes, we are called and strive to surrender…all we are…all we have…and all we ever will have…to God the Father…in God the Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ…and through the power and grace of God the Holy Spirit. Yes, that “third party” is actually a “party of three Divine Persons”…The Holy Trinity. Here is how Saint Ignatius of Loyola prays it : "SURRENDER"

*Take, O Lord, and *receive my entire liberty, my memory, my understanding and my whole will. All that I am and all that I possess You have given me: I surrender it
all to You to be disposed of according to Your will. Give me only Your love and Your grace; with these I will be rich enough, and will desire nothing more.
​

It wasn’t a backhanded compliment, it was a statement of fact, and it was not meant to be offensive. Catholics do submit to all decisions with regard to faith and morals to a third party. Were I to become Catholic, I would not have a problem admitting this. That’s not the point. The point is that submitting to a third party does not somehow relieve you of personal responsibility.

Second, what you said that is unequivocally correct is that we (Catholics) “…still have to make a choice…”. Thank God…its called free will…he gave it to the angels, even Lucifer and his gang, and he gives it to you and me…without it there is no genuine Love. You use the words “**interpret Catholic teaching of the Catechism” **…actually, the correct words are “catechize” and “catechesis”…big difference from what you say and what the Church actually does.

So, there’s no such thing as the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”? I’m confused as to what you’re saying here. Obviously, based on posts here by Catholics, even those who have been “properly catechized” don’t always understand Catholic teaching.

Third, and this is to me the “crux of the matter”…based on your erroneous edicts about what Catholicism is or is not:
Nothing could be farther from the reality of Catholicism…for us…Truth is not something…its is someone…a person…Our Lord Jesus Christ (para JP-II & Pope B-XVI):So, with His Church founded and built on Peter (Matthew 16:18), our first Pope…and with Our Lord Jesus as the Head…and the Pope as his vicar on earth… and the baptized as the members of his Body…we can see why Saint Paul advises Timothy:1 Timothy 3:15
why…because the Church…is Christ Jesus…thus the Church is …the way…the Truth and …the life. Note…the bible [alone] is not the pillar and foundation of Truth…because someone has to interpret it…and **that authority is the Magisterium of the Church…the pillar and foundation of Truth. **

Oh, whatever. I agree Truth is someone. Stop the twisting of my comments to say things they clearly don’t say. The rest of your comment clearly misses the point. Even with a Magesterium to intepret for them, Catholics still don’t get it right sometimes.

Lastly, the “…elephant in the room…” that you speak about is what I call “invincible pride”…it is the “will to disbelieve” regardless of the facts. It is the ability of an individual…especially a Catholic…to say…

[as I like to quote/paraphrase Prof. Peter Kreeft, Boston College]:

Ah, excuse me Jesus, but I believe that you are sitting on my throne!
or…
Ah, excuse me Saint Peter (Pope Benedict XVI), but I believe that you are sitting in my Chair!

I think no such thing.

If you judge Catholics and Catholicism…do so by judging the players who played it the way Christ directed it to be done…The Saints…not people like me who may be “in the game” and on the “football field” playing my heart out…but too often has not seen (spiritually speaking) the “football” since the “kickoff”…in other words…don’t judge it by someone like me…a sinner!

Pax Christi

This is not about players, but about doctrine, and the utterly FALSE claim that because Catholics have someone to further complicate matters for them, that individuals somehow DO NOT still have to interpret things for themselves.

Your entire post was a bunch of platitudes. Catholics have to interpret the teaching of the Magesterium STILL and it is quite obvious that they are not always in agreement on what the Magesterium says, exactly.

 

[wcknight]

Yes, the Catholic Church has the Magisterium and thank God we do. It is far better to have a KNOWLEDGEABLE SINGLE source of authority than a mish-mash of thousands of indepentant or semi independant preachers, all with their own agendas. The Magisterium has at its disposal, hundreds if not thousands of Bibilical scholars and theologians, PLUS they have the backing of the Pope.

The Magisterium in concert with the Pope with the power of the Holy Spirit, guides the Church as it always has for thousands of years. That is the way Christ established things in His Church. Whether or not folks follow the authority of Church teaching is up to the individual, BUT they go against Church teachings at their own peril.

It is Jesus Himself who gave the Church authority to do so. So if you want to oppose the Church’s authority, you are doing so contrary to Christ.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The fact is that everyone can read into the bible and interpret it as they see fit and even though you may not agree with it you can see why other people might have diffrent views of things like the eucharist etc to your own.

In terms of my own beliefs the big turning point from me was reading about what the early Christians actually belived i.e. the historical stuff around the Bible rather than what is in scripture. These Christians are the people who did not have any denomenational baggage, lived close to the same time era as Jesus and whose faith put their lives at risk i.e. you would hardly put your life at risk for something you did not think about and believe.

I have not come across one pice of historical writing that does not support clearly support the Catholic churchs position especially on the eucharist as being the actual body and blood of Jesus.

So Catholics should widen the discussion and help explain to our fellow Christians why the truth is the truth.

I’m assuming by saying Catholic you mean Roman Catholic? Were you aware that a goodly number of non-RC’s adhere to a belief in the real presence in the Holy Eucharist?

What writings specifically about the eucharist are you relying upon? I’m just curious.

 

[ckempston]

Yes, the Catholic Church has the Magisterium and thank God we do. It is far better to have a KNOWLEDGEABLE SINGLE source of authority than a mish-mash of thousands of indepentant or semi independant preachers, all with their own agendas. The Magisterium has at its disposal, hundreds if not thousands of Bibilical scholars and theologians, PLUS they have the backing of the Pope.

The Magisterium in concert with the Pope with the power of the Holy Spirit, guides the Church as it always has for thousands of years. That is the way Christ established things in His Church. Whether or not folks follow the authority of Church teaching is up to the individual, BUT they go against Church teachings at their own peril.

It is Jesus Himself who gave the Church authority to do so. So if you want to oppose the Church’s authority, you are doing so contrary to Christ.

Well, that’s the question that begs to be asked: did Jesus give this authority to the church in the way Catholics understand it? (another discussion altogether, obviously).

 

[imasinner]

I’m a cradle Catholic. I never really stopped believing in the authority of the Church to teach. But my rebellion came about because of the uncompromising stance on moral issues such as contraception, pre-marital sex (including mastubastion) and that non-attendance of the Mass was a mortal sin for a Catholic. Saturday nights were for partying hard and Sundays were for recovering before one had to work on Monday

As I wanted to enjoy these liberties without the consequences of guilt I looked elsewhere to justify my lifestyle. However in my search for a denominations that would soothe my conscience I realised that I was mixing with Christians who believed he/she could personally interpret the bible for him/herself. I could not accept newly baptised peoples testimony of Jesus which many times invariably included some revelations/interpretation of scriptures passages shown to them while reading the bible… Speaking in tongues seemed contrived to me and not genuine. I realised these “masses” were not Christ-centred but centred on people faith in Jesus not Jesus Himself. The Real Presence in the Eucharist was a joke to these Christians. I was shocked to say the least when out came the grape juice!

I even tried non-denomination but I couldnt focus on the service whenever the woman pastor officiated. It just seemed so wrong to be sitting there when holding up the communion wafer she declared “This is My Body, take It and eat It.” It was then that I knew I was kidding myself, I was Catholic in belief but I wanted the licence to sin without the guilt.

God’s mercy allowed me to understand I was running from the Truth so I returned to the Church. . Praise God for the Sacrament of Reconciliation!

God bless ALL

 

[ConfusedTim]

Lol

That sounded so like me… we must be one of many!

The final thing that got me really thinking about where i should be was when i turned up at the evangelical service and the puppet show started. It was very entertaining and i laughed a lot.

Then just when i was looking for some inspiration the team who had just visited East Timor was asked to come up and “share” their trip experience. It was only a few weeks after another group had “shared” how they got on at some other remote island - slides and all

The thing is there was never ever a feeling/sense of spirituality in that church and i had to ask myself what i was doing even being there. Just to get abck on topic thats when i started to take note about what people thought who lived in the first few centuries AD. These were the people who really had an insight into what was meant by scripture.

 

[imasinner]

Lol

That sounded so like me… we must be one of many!

The final thing that got me really thinking about where i should be was when i turned up at the evangelical service and the puppet show started. It was very entertaining and i laughed a lot.

Then just when i was looking for some inspiration the team who had just visited East Timor was asked to come up and “share” their trip experience. It was only a few weeks after another group had “shared” how they got on at some other remote island - slides and all

The thing is there was never ever a feeling/sense of spirituality in that church and i had to ask myself what i was doing even being there. Just to get abck on topic thats when i started to take note about what people thought who lived in the first few centuries AD. These were the people who really had an insight into what was meant by scripture.

Hi Tim!

Yes, we are not unique

Worship the evangelical way was not solemn. Before a service there was no time or oppotunity for quiet comtemplation but this time was spent in gossip and catching up. I couldnt get use to this. The feeling I got from these non-Catholic services was one of comraderie. I was made to feel very welcome and the warmth of the people was genuine. However, many times I was suspect about their motives in being nice to me as my catholicism was obvious. I wasnt an expert in Catholic theology (still not) but my non-Catholic brothers and sisters would blatantly claim to know better than I did about what I actually believed in. Many times I was hurt by their stubborn insistence that I needed to be saved. Yes the Eucharist lead me back home.

Sorry that I was off topic. I misread the title of the thread by substituting “me” with “you” God’s blessing on you and yours.

 

[wcknight]

Well, that’s the question that begs to be asked: did Jesus give this authority to the church in the way Catholics understand it? (another discussion altogether, obviously).

And the definitive answer is an unequivical, absolutely, postively, YES. He did in fact give the CATHOLIC Church His authority. That is why we have popes that date back to St. Peter. why Chist Himself has appeared to numerous CATHOLIC saints and why EVERY saint has declared that the ONE AND ONLY Catholic Church is the true CHURCH of Christ.

There is no debate, only inane claims by a bunch of want-a-bees,

 

[ckempston]

And the definitive answer is an unequivical, absolutely, postively, YES. He did in fact give the CATHOLIC Church His authority. That is why we have popes that date back to St. Peter. why Chist Himself has appeared to numerous CATHOLIC saints and why EVERY saint has declared that the ONE AND ONLY Catholic Church is the true CHURCH of Christ.

There is no debate, only inane claims by a bunch of want-a-bees,

I thought he gave Peter his authority? Which is it? The church, or the successor of Peter? Are you using these interchangeably? Why do Catholics change definitions of “church” to suit whatever argument they are making?

The only wannabe claims around here are from those who make claims that make Jesus a liar when he said the Apostles would be led into all truth. All truth was revealed before the Apostles’ deaths, my friend. Period. I’ve brought this up numerous times and most Catholics conveniently ignore the comment.