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

[Janet_S]

I I’m just stating a quote from Ambrose that seems very contrary to Catholic church teaching and it concerns me a great deal.

I have no doubt you are sincere. However, you got the right quote, but the wrong person. A few posts back, I referred you to another thread where Catholics and Orthodox posters are discussing the IC. One of posters, Fr Ambrose, an Orthodox priestmonk, cited a quote from St Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 AD), a hghly esteemed Catholic saint and doctor of the Church. Here is the quote Fr Ambrose gave. I bolded the part that is similar to your.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2700394&postcount=37

From the 174th Episle of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux:
" I am frightened now, seeing that certain of you have desired to change the condition of important matters, introducing a new festival unknown to the Church, unapproved by reason, unjustified by ancient tradition. Are we really more learned and more pious than our fathers? You will say, ‘One must glorify the Mother of God as much as Possible.’ This is true; but the glorification given to the Queen of Heaven demands discernment. This Royal Virgin does not have need of false glorifications, possessing as She does true crowns of glory and signs of dignity. Glorify the purity of Her flesh and the sanctity of Her life. Marvel at the abundance of the gifts of this Virgin; venerate Her Divine Son; exalt Her Who conceived without knowing concupiscence and gave birth without knowing pain. But what does one yet need to add to these dignities? People say that one must revere the conception which preceded the glorious birth-giving; for if the conception had not preceded, the birth-giving also would not have been glorious. But what would one say if anyone for the same reason should demand the same kind of veneration of the father and mother of Holy Mary? One might equally demand the same for Her grandparents and great-grandparents, to infinity. Moreover, how can there not be sin in the place where there was concupiscence? All the more, let one not say that the Holy Virgin was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of man. I say decisively that the Holy Spirit descended upon Her, but not that He came with Her."
“I say that the Virgin Mary could not be sanctified before Her conception, inasmuch as She did not exist. If, all the more, She could not be sanctified in the moment of Her conception by reason of the sin which is inseparable from conception, then it remains to believe that She was sanctified after She was conceived in the womb of Her mother. This sanctification, if it annihilates sin, makes holy Her birth, but not Her conception. No one is given the right to be conceived in sanctity; only the Lord Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and He alone is holy from His very conception. Excluding Him, it is to all the descendants of Adam that must be referred that which one of them says of himself, both out of a feeling of humility and in acknowledgement of the truth: Behold I was conceived in iniquities (Ps. 50:7). How can one demand that this conception be holy, when it was not the work of the Holy Spirit, not to mention that it came from concupiscence? The Holy Virgin, of course, rejects that glory which, evidently, glorifies sin. She cannot in any way justify a novelty invented in spite of the teaching of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of imprudence, the sister of unbelief, and the daughter of lightmindedness.”

I think if you read the entire quote, you will see St Bernard even though he disagreed with the IC, still had a very different understanding from the average 21st century Protestant. He is not denying Mary’s immaculate nature–he is just claiming it happened at birth, not conception.

If you really are concerned about the doctrine of the IC, I suggest you visit the IC thread I referred you to and read the posts. Join in if you want to.

Catholics acknowledge there was controversy about the doctrine of the IC as there was controversy about every doctrine that was defined by the Church. It would have been nice if there had been complete unanimity about every issue, but unfortunately that’s not the case. Controversy in the Church is what led to defining doctrine, including the doctrine of the Trinity in the 4th century. Ultimately the Church, led by the Holy Spirit discerned the doctrine of the IC and infallibly defined it in 1854 AD. You may find Catholics throughout the ages on both sides of the issue, but ultimately the Church, with guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided what was true.

 

[BrewMax]

But you didn’t give a citation for the quote, which means that someone could have just made it up and then pretended that St. Ambrose said that, or maybe he was talking about something else entirely that is not related to Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but rather to something else that was going by that name back in the day, but rather than go through six pages of trying to prove whether he actually said it or not, or what exactly he was getting at, let’s just get back on to the subject at hand.

It is extremely unlikely that the Church would suddenly permit a feast day that it had previously forbidden (unless there were some matter of discipline involved, which would have nothing to do with the interpretation of Scripture), so there is definitely some kind of error in the quotation.

This was a bona fide quote. If you wish to pretend that it doesn’t exist than thats up to you. It came from a credible national source. The fact is that this wouldn’t be the only instance by far when the church formed its teachings in contrast to the early church fathers. This is what really bothers me.

 

[po18guy]

I guess I don’t understand risking hell. Jesus saved me from that when he died on the cross. I have the joy of Christ in my life, I don’t tremble and fear for my salvation. Sounds like maybe you need some Biblical reassurance my friend. If your priest told you this or someone else in the church, then shame on them!! The Bible is what you have to go by, not people’s opinions.

Well, no, you apparently don’t understand risking hell. You are apparently Evangelical - a bunch of you folks showing up recently. We welcome all of you. You came here for a reason, but not the one you think. By the way, I see no “Biblical reassurance” in your reply.

Please consider:
Judas travelled and worked miracles while with Christ. Mark 3:14-19 speifically mentions that the Twelve had “authority to drive out demons”. So, at that point, can we agree that Judas was “saved”? However, Jesus also said, “But woe to him by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It would be better for him if he had bever been born” (Matthew 26:24) Does that sound like heaven to you? You’d better believe Christ who cannot lie. Did Judas lose his salvation? If you answer “No” then beg the Lord to take his place.

Do you believe the Apostle Paul? In Philippians 2:12 he admonished: “Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” This was said to obedient Christians. Was Paul lying to them?

You have been greatly mislead about the Catholic church. There is much to learn here, if you are willing to listen and your heart is not hardened. Others and I will delight in teaching you more about the unparalleled history, solidity, richness and depth of the Catholic faith-the church founded by Christ on Cephas (Peter) in Matthew 16:18. Let’s roll!

 

[Janet_S]

This was a bona fide quote. If you wish to pretend that it doesn’t exist than thats up to you. It came from a credible national source. The fact is that this wouldn’t be the only instance by far when the church formed its teachings in contrast to the early church fathers. This is what really bothers me.

Does it bother you as much that the church you are attending now teaches OSAS? That doctrine is against what the Fathers taught.

If you church doesn’t believe in baptismal regeneration, that is against the Fathers.

If your church doesn’t believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that is against the Fathers.

If your church doesn’t believe in the sacrificial nature of the Mass, that is against the Fathers.

If your church doesn’t believe in Apostolic succession, that is against the Fathers.

(I could go on, but I think that’s enough for now.)

 

[po18guy]

Ephesians doesn’t talk about needing to do works to be saved. I believe that Jesus saves us, not the Catholic church or any church for that matter. If you don’t trust Jesus’ sacrifice to be sufficient, you surely can’t be saved then.

Well, James sure does. (James 2:18-20) (New International Version)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

Did Jesus found a church? If so, then why? Read Matthew 16:18.

Do you believe this? It’s right there in your bible (the one the Catholic church shed blood to preserve for you).

Christ’s peace, my brother.

 

[BrewMax]

Does it bother you as much that the church you are attending now teaches OSAS? That doctrine is against what the Fathers taught.

If you church doesn’t believe in baptismal regeneration, that is against the Fathers.

If your church doesn’t believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that is against the Fathers.

If your church doesn’t believe in the sacrificial nature of the Mass, that is against the Fathers.

If your church doesn’t believe in Apostolic succession, that is against the Fathers.

(I could go on, but I think that’s enough for now.)

You are just merely ranting at me now and that’s what i hoped would not have happened. I’m sorry this has happened.

 

[Contarini]

This was a bona fide quote. If you wish to pretend that it doesn’t exist than thats up to you. It came from a credible national source.

What does “a credible national source” mean? Why “national”? And why are you so coy about citing it? Something is fishy here. If you are unwilling to say where you found it, then no one is likely to put much credence in this alleged quote–presumably you are holding back this information because you know if you told us where you got it many people would dismiss it. (If that’s not your reason, what on earth is?)

Furthermore, your less than transparent methods here cast doubt on everything else you say. Your credibility on this board is on the line. You need to provide your source for that quote.

It appears from Janet S’s post that your source has mixed up St. Ambrose and St. Bernard. St. Bernard makes a lot more sense historically as the person who said what you quote (since the feast day had been introduced by this time).

But the question remains: what is your source?

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[BrewMax]

What does “a credible national source” mean? Why “national”? And why are you so coy about citing it? Something is fishy here. If you are unwilling to say where you found it, then no one is likely to put much credence in this alleged quote–presumably you are holding back this information because you know if you told us where you got it many people would dismiss it. (If that’s not your reason, what on earth is?)

Furthermore, your less than transparent methods here cast doubt on everything else you say. Your credibility on this board is on the line. You need to provide your source for that quote.

In Christ,

Edwin

Why is that so necessary being as I have yet to see anyone prove theirs in conversations with me. This is a needless game of cat and mouse really. Why would I need to cite the quotes anyway if you are so well versed in church history, you should know it anyway. Sir, I really couldn’t care less what you have to say about my credibility. Why don’t you provide proof for your sources?

 

[qui_est_ce]

You are just merely ranting at me now and that’s what i hoped would not have happened. I’m sorry this has happened.

Anwering your misunderstandings with truth is a rant?

 

[Contarini]

Why is that so necessary being as I have yet to see anyone prove theirs in conversations with me. This is a needless game of cat and mouse really. Why would I need to cite the quotes anyway if you are so well versed in church history, you should know it anyway. Sir, I really couldn’t care less what you have to say about my credibility. Why don’t you provide proof for your sources?

Sources for what? I provide sources when asked to do so.

Clearly you are hiding something here.

I do not know every quote in church history–sorry to disappoint you. I was pretty sure that what you quoted had to come from a period later than that of Ambrose, and Bernard makes sense as a source.

So what do you have to add to this? Do you agree that in fact Bernard and not Ambrose said it?

Yes, it is a silly cat and mouse game. And you are the one playing it.

The fact is that you goofed (perhaps mixing up two quotes right next to each other in your source?). There’s no shame in admitting that you made a mistake.

Edwin

 

[BrewMax]

Anwering your misunderstandings with truth is a rant?

You have yet to prove that these are really truths and not just merely the church’s position. I guess that this is really the dillema here. You take it upon faith that if the church says that it is true, then it must be. I do not subscribe to this. Jesus said to beware of this.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You have yet to prove that these are really truths and not just merely the church’s position. I guess that this is really the dillema here. You take it upon faith that if the church says that it is true, then it must be. I do not subscribe to this. Jesus said to beware of this.

The Church’s position is not Truth?? Are you saying that just because the CC teaches it is truth it is “merely the church’s position”, we should not believe it? What if we belive Truth, and it happens to be in agreement with CC teaching?

 

[BrewMax]

The Church’s position is not Truth?? Are you saying that just because the CC teaches it is truth it is “merely the church’s position”, we should not believe it? What if we belive Truth, and it happens to be in agreement with CC teaching?

Well there are many of those teachings: the Trinity, the Real Presence, The virgin birth of Christ etc.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes, it is a silly cat and mouse game. And you are the one playing it.

The fact is that you goofed (perhaps mixing up two quotes right next to each other in your source?). There’s no shame in admitting that you made a mistake.

Edwin

Yes, Edwin, it is most difficult, to which you can attest.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well there are many of those teachings: the Trinity, the Real Presence, The virgin birth of Christ etc.

You don’t beleive in any of these?? Are you a Bible Christian?

 

[BrewMax]

Sources for what? I provide sources when asked to do so.

Clearly you are hiding something here.

I do not know every quote in church history–sorry to disappoint you. I was pretty sure that what you quoted had to come from a period later than that of Ambrose, and Bernard makes sense as a source.

So what do you have to add to this? Do you agree that in fact Bernard and not Ambrose said it?

Yes, it is a silly cat and mouse game. And you are the one playing it.

The fact is that you goofed (perhaps mixing up two quotes right next to each other in your source?). There’s no shame in admitting that you made a mistake.

Edwin

You are correct, it was from Bernard and not Ambrose. My mistake and my apologies.

 

[qui_est_ce]

My mistake and my apologies.

Step one on the road home to Rome

 

[Janet_S]

You are just merely ranting at me now and that’s what i hoped would not have happened. I’m sorry this has happened.

I don’t see it as “ranting” but go ahead and call it what you want. It’s just the truth. If you’re a fundamentalist (and it seems like you are) your church is worlds apart from from the Church of the Fathers. You could find that out for yourself if you wanted to.

And I agree with Edwin, you seem to be hiding something by throwing out quotes without giving your sources. And are you really a Catholic who has just “gone to a different church a few times?” That’s a little hard to believe, but you claimed that when you first came on this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2752527&postcount=843

You sound pretty hard-core fundamentalist to me. Of course, the most virulent anti-Catholics on this forum are ex-Catholics, so anything is possible.

 

[richardwy]

What if we belive Truth, and it happens to be in agreement with CC teaching?

This is what gets so many folks all balled up in knots.

It does not occur to them exactly what you said.

When I began reading history – in my case after 2 bachelors degree and a master degree and 1 bachelors was a theology degree from a protestant school – I saw so clearly that all of what we discuss took place in time and in a certain place on the globe.

My experience can be well summed up with Newman’s “to be ignorant of history is to be protestant.”

 

[kms123]

youtube.com/watch?v=h0nSjxDKJEo