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

[po18guy]

I’m curious as to what are the reasons that I should or shouldn’t become Catholic in your opinions.

Welcome! You have a seeking heart, and love Christ. That is what lead you here in the first place.

In any church, you must have a foundation, a history, an unbroken line from Christ to today. The Catholic church has the only continuous history, having been founded by Christ Himself upon Peter (Matthew 16:18).

It retains the fullness of truth, which is what you seek from God.

You may worship anywhere in the world and be at home.

But most of all, where is Christ in the other churches? He is physically present in EVERY Catholic church, right there in the Tabernacle. Go, and spend time in His Holy presence. He will give you the answer you seek.

We love Him. He is our everything. Don’t look at those around you-they’re also sinners. Look at Him.

Christ’s peace be with you, and welcome.

 

[Contarini]

i have, but of all the things i’ve heard from different sects i’m not so sure anymore which one is catholic. was it that much of the bible has to taken metaphorically? beginning with the creation accounts?

The position of the Catholic Church today is that Scripture needs to be interpreted according to genre, which would include a recognition that history is not the only genre used, and that when a narrative is intended as historical it still uses liberties that modern historians might not, putting words into the mouths of characters, for instance (I can’t for the life of me see that “purple” vs. “scarlet” has any importance at all, in fact I’m not sure that the above considerations are even relevant, since the same color might easily be described as “purple” and “scarlet” by two reliable observers).

The most relevant passage for the issue of inerrancy is this:

Cum ergo omne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat assertum a Spiritu Sancto, inde Scripturae libri veritatem, quam Deus nostrae salutis causa Litteris Sacris consignari voluit, firmiter, fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt.

I would translate this as: “Since therefore everything that the inspired authors or sacred writers assert, ought to be held as having been asserted by the Holy Spirit, for that reason the books of Scripture should be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error the truth that God wanted to consign to Sacred Literature for the sake of our salvation.” Or, in the official translation on the Vatican’s website: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.”

I interpret this to mean that there may be errors in Scripture, but that Scripture teaches saving truth without error. This is, in my experience, the way most Catholics interpret it, but I’ve had conservative Catholics (particularly one convert from Calvinism) insist that it’s really saying that everything in Scripture is there for salvation and thus is without error. Since I am not Catholic, this is not at this point a matter of the first importance for me, but on the whole I’d say that most Catholic biblical scholars have if anything a more liberal view of Scripture than I do. The folks on this board are, of course, another story.

how do you reconcile that with your faith? when i was a christian it bothered me to no end.

It doesn’t bother me that much, because hypocrisy and greed are two extremely serious sins and because God killed them directly. As the Methodist theologian Stanley Hauerwas put it, speaking of the OT massacres, “God is God; God can kill whoever the h_ll God wants to.” My problem with the OT massacres is with God telling human beings to commit these atrocities. God Himself is the author of life and can take it away any time He wants to. (Some would argue, as Hauerwas apparently does–the remark in question was one I heard him make off the cuff in response to a question about the relationship between the OT holy wars and the modern theory of just war–that if God can do it Himself He can tell humans to do it, but I can never quite persuade myself to accept this, since for one thing it’s clear that the OT massacres were part of a cultural pattern of slaughtering enemies.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As interesting as the rest of your post (which I deleted from this quote) is do you see how silly this kind of talk is if you look at the bigger picture?

Er, no. Obviously if I thought it was silly I wouldn’t have said it. It is your job to show how what I said is silly, and it would help if you actually had an argument

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It doesn’t mean they aren’t a threat.

You don’t get to kill people just because they are a threat. That’s radically immoral, even amoral. This is how tyrants have justified killing children who might grow up to overthrow them. No one calling themselves moral should tolerate this kind of thinking for an instant.

Many police officers and soldiers have been exonerated for killing children who were pointing loaded guns at them - those children were not morally culpable of their actions, but at the same time, we don’t say, “You are only allowed to defend yourself if your attacker has reached the age of accountability.”

Interesting. Are you aware that this is one of the arguments used to justify abortion? How would you respond to this? By your logic, it would appear that an unborn baby could be killed as an “aggressor” against the mother’s body.

The case you mention is obviously a very difficult one–as, for that matter, is a case where a pregnancy is genuinely threatening a woman’s life. But the principle that one does not take innocent life needs to be upheld. I’d need to see what the circumstances were in the cases you mention–I can certainly understand a court exonerating an officer for reacting to the threat of a loaded gun without stopping to ask how old the attacker was. But that is very different from deliberately killing a child. Furthermore, Saul and the Israelites were the aggressors in this war–they don’t appear to have been under immediate threat even from Amalekite adults, much less from children. So your example doesn’t work at all.

This seems like emotional speculation - do you have some kind of solid evidence that the writers of Scripture were making stuff up?

LOL! This from the person who invents a colorful scenario of murderous toddlers out of thin air!

I am following the principle of St. Augustine that when the literal sense of Scripture teaches something contrary to faith, hope, and charity, it must be set aside in favor of a spiritual interpretation.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[qui_est_ce]

Er, no. Obviously if I thought it was silly I wouldn’t have said it. It is your job to show how what I said is silly, and it would help if you actually had an argument
Edwin

Your discussions with jmcrae is deteriorating into a discussion of the age of accountability of inbred, FAS, murderous babies.

Obvious is a term frequently used around here. Your posts are obviously important to you. You’re serious.

Others, like agno theist, like to throw red herrings, to initiate discussions.

So, you think your discussions about inbred, fas, murderous infants and toddlers are important to you, I think it’s silly. You think it’s important.

The big picture is probably more along the lines the the Jews were living among barbarous heathens who were threatening them, and so they decided, “God is on our side.” God was true to them even when they sinned. He was with them went they were in exile in Babylon. They just didn’t have as developed a concept of God as we do today, because He was still revealing Himself. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT. God had completely revealed Himself in the person of Jesus. The more we study Scripture, the more we see this.

You and Agnos will be well acquainted with the Scriptures I am going to quote below, but I am doing this for the sake of anyone else perusing this thread who may not be as learned as you.

Another example of how you have to know the audience. On the cross, Jesus cried out, “MY God, why have you forsaken me.” Fundamentalists will say God abandoned Jesus for 3 days. In reality, Jesus was quoting from

*Psalms
Chapter 22

2
My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? Why so far from my call for help, from my cries of anguish?*

Which is really a Psalm of hope

*25
For God has not spurned or disdained the misery of this poor wretch, Did not turn away from me, but heard me when I cried out.
26
I will offer praise in the great assembly; my vows I will fulfill before those who fear him.
27
The poor will eat their fill; those who seek the LORD will offer praise. May your hearts enjoy life forever!"
28
All the ends of the earth will worship and turn to the LORD; All the families of nations will bow low before you.
29
For kingship belongs to the LORD, the ruler over the nations.
30
All who sleep in the earth will bow low before God; All who have gone down into the dust will kneel in homage.
31
And I will live for the LORD; my descendants will serve you.
32
The generation to come will be told of the Lord, that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn the deliverance you have brought. *

Note especially vs 32

Read Isaiah, the Servant. Creepy how true it is.
Isaiah 53:

5
But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.
6
We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.
7
Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth.
8
Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny? When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people,
9
A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood.
10
(But the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.) If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.
11
Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.
12
Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses.

Verse 6 reminds me of Protestanism.

Well, anyway, that’s my opinion, I’ll hold it to myself and not thump anybody over the head with it.

I’m still waiting to see when you will join the ST

 

[jmcrae]

You don’t get to kill people just because they are a threat. That’s radically immoral, even amoral. This is how tyrants have justified killing children who might grow up to overthrow them. No one calling themselves moral should tolerate this kind of thinking for an instant.

I have read the description in Genesis of the Amalekites, and it doesn’t seem to me like this is a case of “some day in the future, they might pose a threat.”

I have only heard stories of people dealing with kids who have FAS, but from what I understand, they are pretty much “born to kill.” That kid who murdered her parents last summer has FAS, from what I understand. I’m sure the reason her parents died was that they couldn’t believe it was happening - this cute, innocent-looking little girl couldn’t possibly want to kill them, could she? Surely she’s only playing, and it’s only a toy knife …

Imagine an entire tribe of them, coming across your lawn, towards your wife and children.

 

[Sigifredo]

hi i was a catholic two weeks ago but now i’m a mormon because i know that the mormon church is the only true church of jesus christ.

 

[Techno2000]

Church Militant,

Maybe you can take a stab at my question since no one else answered it and you don’t usually dodge or twist from things.

Why didn’t the ones who understood Christ in John 6 as you guys claim “literally” stay and grab a hunk of flesh so as to have eternal life, people have desired the path to everylasting life both spiritually and in flesh for millenia…

They just trusted that Jesus would explain to them what this really meant later on.

 

[Contarini]

Your discussions with jmcrae is deteriorating into a discussion of the age of accountability of inbred, FAS, murderous babies.

Sorry for being snippy. I see what you mean, but yes, I do think there are serious issues here. They may not seem serious to you. I take them seriously because I grew up around Protestant fundamentalists, and I have seen the damage that this kind of interpretation of Scripture can do. I do not think that AgnosTheist is just throwing red herrings. I think he is a sincere seeker and he deserves to be shown an alternative to jmcrae’s approach, which is admittedly an extreme case but which in its essentials is pretty typical of a lot of conservative Christians (i.e., finding some way to defend the indefensible because “God said it”).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I have read the description in Genesis of the Amalekites, and it doesn’t seem to me like this is a case of “some day in the future, they might pose a threat.”

Well, first of all that was centuries earlier. And in the second place, I didn’t deny that the Amalekites were a threat. My point was that this was not a situation comparable to officers attacked by children with loaded guns.

Your speculations about FAS are simply irrelevant, and I seriously doubt that they are correct anyway. I would have to be persuaded by 100% solid scientific evidence, and then I would seriously question whether I could remain a believer in the light of this evidence. Free will is pretty important to Christianity, you know.

Anyway, since there is no evidence that Amalekite children had FAS, you are speculating just as much as I am. The difference is that your speculations are morally troubling, potentially undermining of basic Christian doctrine (not to say downright weird), and completely unsupported in Christian tradition, while mine are in accord with at least one strand of early Christian thought and preserve both God’s holiness and human free will.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Ignatius]

I’m curious as to what are the reasons that I should or shouldn’t become Catholic in your opinions.

Only one reason. Because it is the Church which Jesus Christ founded. After I discovered this, I left Protestantism.

 

[Hellisreal]

hi i was a catholic two weeks ago but now i’m a mormon because i know that the mormon church is the only true church of jesus christ.

How wonderful!

Tell us more.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sorry for being snippy. I see what you mean, but yes, I do think there are serious issues here. They may not seem serious to you. I take them seriously because I grew up around Protestant fundamentalists, and I have seen the damage that this kind of interpretation of Scripture can do. I do not think that AgnosTheist is just throwing red herrings. I think he is a sincere seeker and he deserves to be shown an alternative to jmcrae’s approach, which is admittedly an extreme case but which in its essentials is pretty typical of a lot of conservative Christians (i.e., finding some way to defend the indefensible because “God said it”).

Edwin

Dear Edwin,
The Bible and the Truth are extremely serious issues for me, but I see the digressions happening in this discussion that are diverting us from discussing the Real Truth. Really, FAS, infant murders…get beyond that. That’s the stuff fundamentalists are made of, because, being literalists, they will never get beyond wordology.
AT is throwing red herrings to get us energized to defend and support our Truth. He not only is a sincere seeker as many of us on the Forum are, I think he already knows the Truth, as do you . But. unlike you, who can’t make the leap just yet, I believe AT never left the CC, and is calling us to task to defend our faith.

If you read my earlier posts and his “confession” you’ll see what I mean.

Having said all that, I will admit to being an EXTREMELY Orthodox Catholic. I stick to the Traditional. I understand Fundamentalism, because, as you know from other threads, I was involved with so callled “non-denominationists” who were really Fundamentalists, telling me I would go to Hell, simply bc I was Catholic, and Catholics are not Christians.

 

[Janet_S]

I will tell you the truth, I love the Catholic church. In real life I am surrounded by wonderful catholics. This discussion while its enjoyable, it pains me occassionally. Most people need religion, and I believe Christianity is one of the most beneficial religions around.

I’m confused. Which is the real you? Agnos the Christian critic/cynic of your previous posts or Agnos the Catholic sympathizer of this post?

If you are an agnostic/atheist I can understand your point of view since I used to be an unbeliever myself. However, I want to point out that it is always easier to be the one ripping apart and demolishing religion than it is to be the one defending it. In other words, it’s easier to destroy than to build up.

I don’t deny there are many clever atheists demanding proofs that they are never satisfied with. But if you truly are an agnostic/atheist be careful. If you rip apart and destroy any possibility of the transcendent, what are you left with?

 

[qui_est_ce]

hi i was a catholic two weeks ago but now i’m a mormon because i know that the mormon church is the only true church of jesus christ.

WOW, when you get better acquainted with this Forum, you might be a lttile embarrassed to have said this. In addition, it is against Forum rules to misrepresent yourself.

 

[Janet_S]

hi i was a catholic two weeks ago but now i’m a mormon because i know that the mormon church is the only true church of jesus christ.

And. . . .?

What’s your point?

There’s got to be more to this story.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m confused. Which is the real you? Agnos the Christian critic/cynic of your previous posts or Agnos the Catholic sympathizer of this post?

AT knows the Truth. He said it today. He just wants us to be prepared to defend the faith. His MO is sarcasm. Not my favorite means, but it is his, and he has certainly called us to examine why we belive what we believe. This is his way of relating. Often intellectuals have a hard time relating to the “masses” if you will.

 

[po18guy]

Catholics have the Holy Spirit thorugh the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. Name ONE thing Protestants have that Catholics don’t? Please.

Other than the lack of seven books of the BIBLE, lack of five Sacraments, lack of priests, lack of One worldwide church, lack of the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, not much comes to mind. Wait! They have strong anti-Catholicism! That has bound them into a cohesive group of 33,000 bickering denominations. And you thought they didn’t have more.

 

[fellowChristian]

I’m curious as to what are the reasons that I should or shouldn’t become Catholic in your opinions.

You sure know how to get everyone going.

It is like a race to win you over.

In my opinion I don’t even know you, how can I say which path to follow?

I guess I would have to ask you what is it that you search for?
The easy road or the hard road?

In the Protestant faith there lies some truths. But no authority. Everyone is their own boss.

Salvation is a done deal. Once saved always saved.
You decide what the bible says.
No confession.
Abortion is ok in some cases.
Women are allowed to pastor.
Contraception is ok.

I guess if you were looking for something easy I’d say don’t join the Catholic Church.

It does have the full truth.
And the Body and Blood of Christ
The Holy Spirit was given to the church by God
Abortion is never ok.
Contraception is holding back yourself from life giving love.
Women are important in the church but they can not ever be priests.
Missing Mass is a sin.
You must confess your mortal sins.
The church has one head shepherd.
The apostles have taught us what the bible says. Through Sacred Tradition.
And about salvation
“Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist.

The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8),
but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12),
and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15).
Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12),
with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”
catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

You have to learn what the Catholic Church teaches and believe it.
Good luck on your journey. Pray for guidence.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The position of the Catholic Church today is that Scripture needs to be interpreted according to genre, which would include a recognition that history is not the only genre used, and that when a narrative is intended as historical it still uses liberties that modern historians might not, putting words into the mouths of characters,

Thats a little too deep for me, are you trying to say that each section of the bible has to be seen/interpreted according to the context of the culture of the time it occured? Like in the time of Moses it was common to kill someone who took out your eyes?

(I can’t for the life of me see that “purple” vs. “scarlet” has any importance at all, in fact I’m not sure that the above considerations are even relevant, since the same color might easily be described as “purple” and “scarlet” by two reliable observers).

Its not that important. This would only pose a problem if taken literally, for however similar those two colors are, there is still some difference. It makes sense if taken metaphorically- red symbolizes christ’s sacrifice, purple symbolizes royalty.

I interpret this to mean that there may be errors in Scripture, but that Scripture teaches saving truth without error. This is, in my experience, the way most Catholics interpret it, but I’ve had conservative Catholics (particularly one convert from Calvinism) insist that it’s really saying that everything in Scripture is there for salvation and thus is without error. Since I am not Catholic, this is not at this point a matter of the first importance for me, but on the whole I’d say that most Catholic biblical scholars have if anything a more liberal view of Scripture than I do. The folks on this board are, of course, another story.

Ooooh now I remember! In plain words the bible is perfect only in matters of salvation! So all of those little imperfections that has nothing to do with the message of salvation should be okay. Well thats pure faith. Did not work for me, for how can you trust the message when you know there have been some problems with the text itself.

You know, I only heard about that doctrine around 5 years ago after bible criticisms became popular online. It was never mentioned in Catholic school back in the 80s.

if God can do it Himself He can tell humans to do it, but I can never quite persuade myself to accept this

Thats how it went with me as well. Thanks for sharing.