The one true Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter CompSciGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CompSciGuy

Guest
I converted to Catholicism about two years ago after having been raised devout Presbyterian and falling away while in college. I think the thing that really caught me was the fact that the Catholic Church is, historically, the church founded by Jesus Christ and His apostles, and that the authority of the Church was real and was believed even by the earliest Christians. I saw that the Church that Jesus founded, and that existed 1500 years before the reformation, was completely Catholic, there wasn’t anything even close to what we know as Protestant denominations today. This was the ultimate eye-opener for me. When I realized this I could never look at Christianity the same again. However, when I am asked by friends why I became Catholic, I explain this point to them, and for a lot of my protestant friends it just seems to completely fly over their heads. I don’t understand why this is. Has anyone else had this experience? I mean it seems like they don’t really take these claims into consideration or have any interest in researching them, they believe that they are perfectly fine where they are. I can’t help but wonder if maybe I am not communicating this point clearly enough. I usually get a response somewhere along the lines of “well we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ and I’m glad that you’ve found Jesus in the Catholic Church.”
 
The Reformation explains disunity by asserting the “church catholic” over against the “Catholic Church”. The practical result of this is religous relativism. I remember before I converted thinking there was only one true faith, but also thinking the Catholic Churches claim of being THE Church as a bit much. Basically you’re speaking a foreign language to them. Keep speaking it though, and try to point out the relativist implications of denominationalism. You never know how God might work.

Ora et labora - pray and evangelize:)
 
This is a good question. I’ve always stumbled when people say “as long as your Christian that is all that matters”. I’ve always tried to explain about sacramental graces but people just think I’m being superstitious
 
CompSciGuy, but before you had that eye-opening experience, weren’t you the same way? I sure was. Many Christians grow up not knowing about the Church’s visible organization. They are conditioned to think of the Church purely in terms of its invisible aspects. It’s not their fault in most cases. And it’s not easy to change that way of thinking. Not to mention that in the end, it’s a matter of faith which requires divine intervention. We’re not Catholics because we’re smart. We’re Catholics because God opened our eyes.
 
Ad_Orientem said:
CompSciGuy, but before you had that eye-opening experience, weren’t you the same way? I sure was. Many Christians grow up not knowing about the Church’s visible organization. They are conditioned to think of the Church purely in terms of its invisible aspects. It’s not their fault in most cases. And it’s not easy to change that way of thinking. Not to mention that in the end, it’s a matter of faith which requires divine intervention. We’re not Catholics because we’re smart. We’re Catholics because God opened our eyes.
Click to expand...
👍 …and not that all Catholic’s eyes have been opened yet. Some, like me, are just waking up. Good Morning!!! Coffee anyone? :coffeeread:
 
Ad_Orientem said:
CompSciGuy, but before you had that eye-opening experience, weren’t you the same way? I sure was. Many Christians grow up not knowing about the Church’s visible organization. They are conditioned to think of the Church purely in terms of its invisible aspects. It’s not their fault in most cases. And it’s not easy to change that way of thinking. Not to mention that in the end, it’s a matter of faith which requires divine intervention. We’re not Catholics because we’re smart. We’re Catholics because God opened our eyes.
Click to expand...
Well that’s because no one had ever told me before that the Catholic Church was the *one *true Church. If someone had then I probably would have looked into it (which I eventually did) and come to that realization.
 
CompSciGuy said:
Well that’s because no one had ever told me before that the Catholic Church was the *one *true Church. If someone had then I probably would have looked into it (which I eventually did) and come to that realization.
Click to expand...
No one likes to be told their parents are not their real parents!
The feeling and ramifications are the same.

:cool:
 
cessnawag said:
This is a good question. I’ve always stumbled when people say “as long as your Christian that is all that matters”. I’ve always tried to explain about sacramental graces but people just think I’m being superstitious
Click to expand...
This has been a tough objection for me to handle as well.

Here’s the response I recently formulated:
  1. St. Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians telling them off about falling into the judaizing error. Shouldn’t he have left them alone?–They could say the same thing: “We’re Christian, and that’s all that matters.”
  2. The Church held a binding council about circumcision (read Acts chapters fifteen and sixteen). Why bother making a fuss?–Everyone involved could also say the same thing: “We’re Christian, and that’s all that matters.”
  3. In light of the above, the New Testament Christian community was clearly concerned with doctrine. Why should we be any different?
  4. Martin Luther, the very founder of Protestantism and a heroic figure to millions, believed (as I’ve read) that his fellow “Reformer” Huldrich Zwingli was going to hell because the former considered Christ’s real presence in the Lord’s Supper to be “essential” and the latter denied this “ordinance” to be anything but symbolic. Since doctrine has been shown to be important according to the standards of the New Testament Church, how can we determine, going by the Bible alone, which issues are “essential” and which “non-essential”? Was Luther right to declare Zwingli to be in damnable heresy, or should the two of them have agreed to disagree?
 
Trebor135 said:
This has been a tough objection for me to handle as well.

Here’s the response I recently formulated:
  1. St. Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians telling them off about falling into the judaizing error. Shouldn’t he have left them alone?–They could say the same thing: “We’re Christian, and that’s all that matters.”
  2. The Church held a binding council about circumcision (read Acts chapters fifteen and sixteen). Why bother making a fuss?–Everyone involved could also say the same thing: “We’re Christian, and that’s all that matters.”
  3. In light of the above, the New Testament Christian community was clearly concerned with doctrine. Why should we be any different?
  4. Martin Luther, the very founder of Protestantism and a heroic figure to millions, believed (as I’ve read) that his fellow “Reformer” Huldrich Zwingli was going to hell because the former considered Christ’s real presence in the Lord’s Supper to be “essential” and the latter denied this “ordinance” to be anything but symbolic. Since doctrine has been shown to be important according to the standards of the New Testament Church, how can we determine, going by the Bible alone, which issues are “essential” and which “non-essential”? Was Luther right to declare Zwingli to be in damnable heresy, or should the two of them have agreed to disagree?
Click to expand...
👍
 
Trebor135 said:
This has been a tough objection for me to handle as well.

Here’s the response I recently formulated:
  1. St. Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians telling them off about falling into the judaizing error. Shouldn’t he have left them alone?–They could say the same thing: “We’re Christian, and that’s all that matters.”
  2. The Church held a binding council about circumcision (read Acts chapters fifteen and sixteen). Why bother making a fuss?–Everyone involved could also say the same thing: “We’re Christian, and that’s all that matters.”
  3. In light of the above, the New Testament Christian community was clearly concerned with doctrine. Why should we be any different?
  4. Martin Luther, the very founder of Protestantism and a heroic figure to millions, believed (as I’ve read) that his fellow “Reformer” Huldrich Zwingli was going to hell because the former considered Christ’s real presence in the Lord’s Supper to be “essential” and the latter denied this “ordinance” to be anything but symbolic. Since doctrine has been shown to be important according to the standards of the New Testament Church, how can we determine, going by the Bible alone, which issues are “essential” and which “non-essential”? Was Luther right to declare Zwingli to be in damnable heresy, or should the two of them have agreed to disagree?
Click to expand...
Wow that is probably the best response I have ever heard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top