What are the reasons I should (or shouldn't) become Catholic?

[Contarini]

So, the Church in the phrase you mentioned is not an accurate description of the actor that needed to do the “protection”, and it’s being “either divine or human” is irrelevent.

I find that to be an overly docetic, gnostic view of the Church.

If they (ecclesial bodies) DON’T claim that they have the right to speak authoritatively about God’s law (how to behave), then what ARE the members of those bodies following as authority?

As I’m sure you know, Protestants regard Scripture as having the final authority (next of course to the person of Christ Himself, who as you say is not available for direct, objectively verifiable consultation!). The Church has a lesser authority–for those of us on the high-church end it is close to infallible in the sense that we trust the Holy Spirit not to allow the historic Church to err on matters of vital importance. But on controversial issues that arise we have to muddle along with authorities that are real but fallible, just as you do in non-dogmatic matters. I don’t claim that it’s satisfactory. But having church leaders who are guilty of spectacular moral failure or horrific imprudence isn’t very satisfactory either, and that’s a boat we are all in.

If that “authority” is self-chosen, then what’s the difference being a “self-choosing” Catholic as opposed to a “self-choosing” protestant?

You can try not to choose, though it’s hard in the modern world.

I think you’ll need to clarify to me what “claim on my trust” means to you in this,… as I may not be clear as to what you mean.

I mean trusting that the Catholic Church is true and (as a corollary) will help me become holier. That’s where the issue of moral failure becomes relevant.

If you choose not to accept the fact that the Church is both fully human AND fully divine, then why do you accept that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine?

Jesus’ humanity was sinless, so it’s not a valid analogy.

Jesus bled. Bleeding is a “failing” of mankind. Does that take away any divinity of Jesus?

I don’t think bleeding is a failing.

What would you “need for conversion”? I don’t understand how believing in the truth, and being WITH the truth, is affected by any “present membership” such that that membership would keep you away from the truth?

You need a higher standard of proof to convert than simply to stay where you are.

In matters of religious affiliation, given the division of Christians today, the Hippocratic Oath is not a bad place to start: First Do No Harm!

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

It’s not the fact that the leaders of the Church sin and err. It’s the fact that they then claim a kind of trust from me that no Protestant church claims. Even the Orthodox don’t quite claim what the Catholic Church claims.

Edwin

Even the most sinful priest still has the power to give the Absolution in the Confessional and to confect the Eucharist at Mass. (As you know, I’m sure.)

So, they can always be trusted in the things that we ought to trust them in. The vast majority of priests are also certainly kind, decent, normal human beings - good leaders, good pastors, and gifted with all manner of talents for the building up of the Church - we have the odd crank, of course, and we have a few major sinners - Judas himself was hand-picked by Jesus Christ, so it seems as though that aspect of it is inevitable. But it’s not as common as the news media might like to have us believe, either.

 

[po18guy]

Gasparo Contarini was a Catholic cardinal (and Venetian diplomat) in the sixteenth century, who saw a lot of merit to the Protestant understanding of faith but remained staunchly loyal to the Church, and tried to work out an agreement with the Protestants on justification in 1541. He wasn’t the most profound thinker of the 16th century, but I really admire him and if I lived in the 16th century would have been basically on the same page.

A basically Protestant take on him can be found here, and a Catholic interpretation here.

Edwin

Edwin, you are an unfortunate (we’ll revisit that shortly) victim of the Episcopal church’s recent and continuing loss of its mind. As set beliefs melt away when subjected to the abuse of modernism’s heat lamp, thousands are in a quandry. They seem unable to stop what is occurring; they cannot stay and do not want to leave. The ship is burning, but there could be sharks in the water. The water will quench the flames, but…

Where to go from here? There is nothing to do but take the plunge-trusting God to care for you as He always has. There remains just one choice if you wish to remain Christian, knowing what you do. Easy choice? No! But necessary. All the help you will ever need is at hand.

Since we know that everything occurs for a reason, let reason lead you to its fulfillment in faith.

Christ’s peace.

 

[AgnosTheist]

SURE THEY DO…! All of them, other than your being a nun!

You comply with 1b2, 2, 3, and 4.

lets see…

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

I dont do any service for the Divine, yet. But I would be happy to! As soon as He/She tells me what needs be done.

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

just the belief that there is a Divine, by itself is not a set or a system.

3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

I am not conforming with anyone, well not in the spiritual sense.

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

just the belief that there is a Divine, by itself is neither a cause, a principle, nor a system.

That’s because you define “experience of God” as an impossible experience,

No I dont. Must you talk as if you know me better than I know myself?

If you actually ARE an Agnostic Theist, then you believe in a “Theos” (god), which you believe without experience of it, due to your “agnosticism”, which is your belief in as a dogma, because believing in something that you can’t believe in (because of your dogma of never believing in things that aren’t “proved” to you) is logically contradictory,…

hey my "dogma of never believing in things that aren’t “proved”" only applies to religion.

That is simple idolatry of self. You are your god. You KNOW god intimately,… thus your “gnosis”.

You know, you talk like as if you are God. Can you read my mind like Jesus?

 

[AgnosTheist]

1a) something held as an established opinion
The child holds the established opinion that Mom will feed him when he cries.

LOL! Man, we are talking about religious & philosophical dogmas here. If its just practical dogmas then the article is equally ridiculous, for everyone has practical dogmas. religious or not. christian or atheist.

Now tell me, those children who died without the luxury of inventing a dogma, are they less human than you are?

that article is just so stupid.

 

[po18guy]

Even the most sinful priest still has the power to give the Absolution in the Confessional and to confect the Eucharist at Mass. (As you know, I’m sure.)

So, they can always be trusted in the things that we ought to trust them in. The vast majority of priests are also certainly kind, decent, normal human beings - good leaders, good pastors, and gifted with all manner of talents for the building up of the Church - we have the odd crank, of course, and we have a few major sinners - Judas himself was hand-picked by Jesus Christ, so it seems as though that aspect of it is inevitable. But it’s not as common as the news media might like to have us believe, either.

Many of us trust our children, our teasures, to the public school system for 35 +/- hours per week. The public schools have many times the abuse of the church, but are not as easy a target, and certainly not the favorite target. How much do we worry and fret over that? This is much greater than the 1 hour per week that our children are exposed to just one Priest (that is assuming he’s abusive!), rather than the many teachers (the vast majority of whom are fine, upstanding citizens-even Catholic). Also remember that teachers are specifically drawn to children-a tiny minority for evil reasons. Just a penny and a half’s thoughts.

Christ’s peace.

 

[jmcrae]

Many of us trust our children, our teasures, to the public school system for 35 +/- hours per week. The public schools have many times the abuse of the church, but are not as easy a target, and certainly not the favorite target. How much do we worry and fret over that? This is much greater than the 1 hour per week that our children are exposed to just one Priest (that is assuming he’s abusive!), rather than the many teachers (the vast majority of whom are fine, upstanding citizens-even Catholic). Also remember that teachers are specifically drawn to children-a tiny minority for evil reasons. Just a penny and a half’s thoughts.

Christ’s peace.

Priests are very seldom ever alone with the children anymore, either. Usually there are other staff members of the Church wandering in and out of classrooms looking for things, a helper to change the slides on the slide projector, and other adults in the building - and that’s if the priest is even the one teaching the Catechism classes, which nowadays is very seldom.

He sees the Altar servers for five minutes before Mass to remind them of various things and to pray with them, but that’s about it, in most cases - and there are readers, EMHCs, and the Sacristan getting ready for Mass back there, too.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Janet S:

Man can be defined as an animal that makes dogmas. As he piles doctrine on doctrine and conclusion on conclusion in the formation of some tremendous scheme of philosophy and religion, he is, in the only legitimate sense of which the expression is capable, becoming more and more human

. When he drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he disbelieves in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sits as God, holding no form of creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass. Trees have no dogmas. Turnips are singularly broad-minded.

OH,… that’s some GOOD stuff…!! Woof…!

I can imagine thats how christians found it worthwhile to burn alleged witches, heretics & infidels on the stake. By mindlessly agreeing together with a religious rationalization that reduces a fellow human being into “vagrant animals”.

Shame on you both.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
So, the Church in the phrase you mentioned is not an accurate description of the actor that needed to do the “protection”, and it’s being “either divine or human” is irrelevent.

I find that to be an overly docetic, gnostic view of the Church.

Do tell me how that is?

Quote:
If they (ecclesial bodies) DON’T claim that they have the right to speak authoritatively about God’s law (how to behave), then what ARE the members of those bodies following as authority?

As I’m sure you know, Protestants regard Scripture as having the final authority (next of course to the person of Christ Himself, who as you say is not available for direct, objectively verifiable consultation!). The Church has a lesser authority

And this is the error. I’ll leave it to those better able to deal with this primary protestant error to explain it.

–for those of us on the high-church end it is close to infallible in the sense that we trust the Holy Spirit not to allow the historic Church to err on matters of vital importance. But on controversial issues that arise we have to muddle along with authorities that are real but fallible, just as you do in non-dogmatic matters. I don’t claim that it’s satisfactory. But having church leaders who are guilty of spectacular moral failure or horrific imprudence isn’t very satisfactory either, and that’s a boat we are all in.

OK. So you’ve pointed out the identical way that PEOPLE are culpable for their sins, but this simply says that BOTH Catholic and otherwise “churches” are in the same position as regards “preferability”.

It doesn’t answer the issue of why anyone would believe a group who doesn’t claim “truth” over one who DOES claim truth.

Quote:
If that “authority” is self-chosen, then what’s the difference being a “self-choosing” Catholic as opposed to a “self-choosing” protestant?

You can try not to choose, though it’s hard in the modern world.

No. You misunderstand. It’s the SELF-choosing (of doctrine) that is wrong (in error).

If you’re a self-choosing Catholic, you’re not REALLY a Catholic. If you’re a self-choosing protestant, you’re a good and faithful protestant.

Quote:
I think you’ll need to clarify to me what “claim on my trust” means to you in this,… as I may not be clear as to what you mean.

I mean trusting that the Catholic Church is true and (as a corollary) will help me become holier. That’s where the issue of moral failure becomes relevant.

So, you would hinge your belief system (your holiness) on the sins of sinners…!? Sinners sin, in all temporal organizations of humans.

Under that criterion, NO organization is worthy of you. Therefore, what DO you use as a basis to choose?

I choose the fullness of revelation (tools!) within the Church (Catholic) as my basis. You will come to choose as you will.

Quote:
If you choose not to accept the fact that the Church is both fully human AND fully divine, then why do you accept that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine?

Jesus’ humanity was sinless, so it’s not a valid analogy.

His BODY had it’s faults, while He, as a human person, was sinless.

I am “equating” His human body with the Church’s human members.

Quote:
Jesus bled. Bleeding is a “failing” of mankind. Does that take away any divinity of Jesus?

I don’t think bleeding is a failing.

Bleeding is not “perfect”, as it is “weakness”. God has no weakness. But God, as Jesus, carried the “weakness” of His humanity. That mystery is the same mystery as that the Church, the Body of Christ, has no weakness, but carries the weakness of Her humanity.

If one can accept the mystery of the incarnation, one can equally accept the mystery of the Church.

Quote:
What would you “need for conversion”? I don’t understand how believing in the truth, and being WITH the truth, is affected by any “present membership” such that that membership would keep you away from the truth?

You need a higher standard of proof to convert than simply to stay where you are.

That makes sense, as inertia (habit) is a powerful force, but what did Jesus say about bad habits,… or “less-good” habits…?

In matters of religious affiliation, given the division of Christians today, the Hippocratic Oath is not a bad place to start: First Do No Harm!

If you choose to focus on the divisions, as opposed to the truth, then that makes sense.

But is it right? Is it what we are told to do?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *SURE THEY DO…! All of them, other than your being a nun! *

*You comply with 1b2, 2, 3, and 4.*lets see…

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

I dont do any service for the Divine, yet. But I would be happy to! As soon as He/She tells me what needs be done.

You are committed and devoted to your anti-religious religion. You act to spread “the word of truth” that all religions, except yours, are BOGUS…!

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

just the belief that there is a Divine, by itself is not a set or a system.

A set of ONE is still a set, dude. Check with set-theory about that. Though in fact you have a large set of beliefs, as regards “religion” as demonstrated by your conversation.

You also have attitudes (expressions), based on your beliefs, and practices (praxis), based on your attitudes.

3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

I am not conforming with anyone, well not in the spiritual sense.

Since your GOD (small “g”) is you, you conform pefectly to your god. You are VERY conscientious, and your scrupulosity is near legendary.

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

just the belief that there is a Divine, by itself is neither a cause, a principle, nor a system.

Once again, a belief system of “ONE” is still a belief system,… but in reality your belief system is much more extensive. You just refuse to admit that it is,… while the rest of us can see it clearly, and wish to help you see the errors of them for your own good.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *That’s because you define “experience of God” as an impossible experience,*No I dont. Must you talk as if you know me better than I know myself?

Why, YES! Yes I must…! Since you refuse to see what is obvious to others, it’s incumbant on me to help you out.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *If you actually ARE an Agnostic Theist, then you believe in a “Theos” (god), which you believe without experience of it, due to your “agnosticism”, which is your belief in as a dogma, because believing in something that you can’t believe in (because of your dogma of never believing in things that aren’t “proved” to you) is logically contradictory,…*hey my "dogma of never believing in things that aren’t “proved”" only applies to religion.

That’s my point exactly. You define religion as improvable (unprovable?), and then demand that it be proved to be “real”.

That is pathological.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *That is simple idolatry of self. You are your god. You KNOW god intimately,… thus your “gnosis”.*You know, you talk like as if you are God. Can you read my mind like Jesus?

That would be,… no.

If you think I DO talk like God, the most wise, perhaps YOU would like to talk like God as well? Become a Catholic, and you too can talk like me…!

Thanks mightily for such an incredible compliment.

You know, your reaction that “He speaks as God speaks!”, was the same reaction that “the savages, gentiles” reacted to the Word of Truth.

Come on in, you adorable barbarian you…!

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
1a) something held as an established opinion
The child holds the established opinion that Mom will feed him when he cries.

LOL! Man, we are talking about religious & philosophical dogmas here. If its just practical dogmas then the article is equally ridiculous, for everyone has practical dogmas. religious or not. christian or atheist.

Your “mind” is too “compartmentalized”. That’s what produces that chaos that comes out of your mouth.

You’ll find that that is one of the “many pains and horrors” that will grow over time in you until you either give in to them, or find the truth that is in contradistinction to them.

Now tell me, those children who died without the luxury of inventing a dogma, are they less human than you are?

Which children are those?

Dogma is simply “that which we count on”, in some way. No human being, nor any being for that matter, exists who has nothing that they count on.

Your narrow definintions (philosophy) force you into seeing things in “bad” ways, ways that aren’t real but have affect on you that warp your behavior, and tend to reinforce themselves.

That is the meaning of Satan. Satan sets you up as your own god, and makes your “god” more REAL than God such that mocking God seems like a charitable thing to do, and plays with you, to reinforce himself, in his nasty game of shadows.

that article is just so stupid.

Which article are you talking about?

 

[AgnosTheist]

You are committed and devoted to your anti-religious religion. You act to spread “the word of truth” that all religions, except yours, are BOGUS…!

you are being redundant. how can you use the term religion to define religion? the key word there is ‘religious faith’, which i dont have. its just faith, nothing religious about it.

A set of ONE is still a set, dude.

hey that was quite clever. i was amusingly surprised! almost caught me on that one, but notice that “attitudes, beliefs, and practices” are all in plural. whew!

You also have attitudes (expressions), based on your beliefs, and practices (praxis), based on your attitudes.

supposed to be ‘religious’ attitudes, dude. that i dont have.

Since your GOD (small “g”) is you, you conform pefectly to your god. You are VERY conscientious, and your scrupulosity is near legendary.

i conform with myself? LOL! you are gonna make a trinity out of me yet!

Once again, a belief system of “ONE” is still a belief system,…

its in plural again my friend.

Why, YES! Yes I must…! Since you refuse to see what is obvious to others, it’s incumbant on me to help you out.

keikiolu you funny guy you.

That’s my point exactly. You define religion as improvable (unprovable?), and then demand that it be proved to be “real”.

That is pathological.

wasnt your point about a contradiction? if my ‘dogma’ is limited only to religion then how does that contradict the belief that there is a god?

If you think I DO talk like God, the most wise, perhaps YOU would like to talk like God as well? Become a Catholic, and you too can talk like me…!

LOL!

Come on in, you adorable barbarian you…!

You know, I’m doing that Holy Hour thingie. Wish me luck.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You know, I’m doing that Holy Hour thingie. Wish me luck.

When and where?

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

You are committed and devoted to your anti-religious religion. You act to spread “the word of truth” that all religions, except yours, are BOGUS…!
you are being redundant. how can you use the term religion to define religion?

I’m not doing that. Your religion is anti-religion. Religion is defined as “a faith”. You have faith, therefore, you have a religion. Your religion is the bashing of all faiths but yours, therefore, your religion is anti-religious toward all religions you consider TO BE religions (your definition of religion applies here).

the key word there is ‘religious faith’, which i dont have. its just faith, nothing religious about it.

That is not an acceptable use of the word “religious” to me. I understand that that is the way you see it, but your opinion neither overides my opinion nor overides what religion actually is.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

*A set of ONE is still a set, dude. *
hey that was quite clever. i was amusingly surprised! almost caught me on that one, but notice that “attitudes, beliefs, and practices” are all in plural. whew!

Your scrupulosity is like acne. Very difficult to hide.

Are you actually just playing a juvenile game with us to see how far you can push your nonsense? Do I really expect a truthful answer to that? No.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

You also have attitudes (expressions), based on your beliefs, and practices (praxis), based on your attitudes.
supposed to be ‘religious’ attitudes, dude. that i dont have.

You do have religious beliefs, whether you see it that way or not. You’re entitled to your opinion, and your opinion on this tells us volumes about your “nearness to reality”. Thanks for playing.

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Since your GOD (small “g”) is you, you conform pefectly to your god. You are VERY conscientious, and your scrupulosity is near legendary.
i conform with myself? LOL! you are gonna make a trinity out of me yet!

Oh, you’re much more than a trinity, my friend…! Chaos breeds profusely.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote: Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

*Once again, a belief system of “ONE” is still a belief system,… *
its in plural again my friend.

You have plural beliefs, but even if you didn’t (which is impossible) one thing is still a system if it’s describable as such. You’re grasping at straws is very amusing.

Quote: Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Why, YES! Yes I must…! Since you refuse to see what is obvious to others, it’s incumbant on me to help you out.
keikiolu you funny guy you.

Quote: Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

That’s my point exactly. You define religion as improvable (unprovable?), and then demand that it be proved to be “real”.

That is pathological.
wasnt your point about a contradiction?

Yes. Your basic contradiction that you demand something be true and not true simultaneously. How is that not a contradiction?

if my ‘dogma’ is limited only to religion then how does that contradict the belief that there is a god?

Because the THING that you simultaneously want proof that it does and doesn’t exist is GOD.

You define God as unprovable and then demand God be proven.

Quote: Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

If you think I DO talk like God, the most wise, perhaps YOU would like to talk like God as well? Become a Catholic, and you too can talk like me…!
LOL!

Quote: Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

Come on in, you adorable barbarian you…!
You know, I’m doing that Holy Hour thingie. Wish me luck.

Uh,… Holy Hour Thingie…? I don’t know about that one. What the heck is that…?

 

[AgnosTheist]

When and where?

my aunt is still inquiring.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Your religion is anti-religion.

you cant even prove how a single one-liner belief qualifies as a religion. You just see what you want to see. You have made up your mind and there is no way you would understand another person whose beliefs differs from yours. Bigotry. For me thats a mighty good reason why one shouldnt become a catholic (or any other monotheistic organized religion for that matter). Though catholics can be very nice people, they can also be be very annoyingly narrow minded when it comes to things religious.

 

[qui_est_ce]

you cant even prove how a single one-liner belief qualities as a religion. You just see what you want to see. You have made up your mind and there is no way you would understand another person whose beliefs differs from yours. Bigotry. For me thats a mighty good reason why one shouldnt become a catholic. Though catholics can be very nice people, they can also be be very annoyingly narrow minded when it comes to things religious.

Agnus, don’t you think you’re being a little harsh? As a Catholic Apologist, you have to hold yourself up to a certain standard

 

[AgnosTheist]

Uh,… Holy Hour Thingie…? I don’t know about that one. What the heck is that…?

Yo Christine! Looks like youll have to convince this one too. He could use it more than I do.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yo Christine! Looks like youll have to convince this one too. He could use it more than I do.

Eucharistic adoration and Benediction

Agnus, did you really ask your aunt to find one for you?