C
catholicbudgie
Guest
Firstly, please, TITL, could you not use blue? Really messes with my mind.
What pushed me over the edge (so to speak)? The issue of authority. The priest I was speaking to was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone, etc etc who was ordained by Peter to whom Christ gave the keys of Heaven.
What else? Feeling the real presence of Christ deep down inside somehow when I first walked into a Catholic Church - BEFORE the concept was explained to me.
Continuity of teaching. The ability to realise a problem and change it without falling apart. Let’s face it, most of Luther’s theses were valid concerns and the church has changed itself, through proper process, rather than disintergrating.
Vatican II. I would also not be a Catholic today if not for Vatican II. I thought that if an organization as big, as integrated, as stodgy as the Catholic Church could look at itself without imploding, the least I could do was take an unbiased look. That’s why I went to the Catholic Church I mentioned earlier - I looked it up in the phone book, went there, and asked the priest to tell me about it.
The breathtaking lack of consistency vis a vis doctrine, teaching and organization of the non-Catholic denominations. If Catholicism is wrong, as they assert, then one of them must be right. But, each of them says they’re right, as does Catholicism. So, the mere assertion of correectness in and of itself is not a relevant judgment point. It must be defined elsewhere.
So, a cursory glance of the history lead back to the fact that all the denominations had their formation because of a difference of opinion (either established or imagined) with the orthordoxy of the time.
Simply, that orthodoxy is: The Catholic Church.
IMHO
What pushed me over the edge (so to speak)? The issue of authority. The priest I was speaking to was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone, etc etc who was ordained by Peter to whom Christ gave the keys of Heaven.
What else? Feeling the real presence of Christ deep down inside somehow when I first walked into a Catholic Church - BEFORE the concept was explained to me.
Continuity of teaching. The ability to realise a problem and change it without falling apart. Let’s face it, most of Luther’s theses were valid concerns and the church has changed itself, through proper process, rather than disintergrating.
Vatican II. I would also not be a Catholic today if not for Vatican II. I thought that if an organization as big, as integrated, as stodgy as the Catholic Church could look at itself without imploding, the least I could do was take an unbiased look. That’s why I went to the Catholic Church I mentioned earlier - I looked it up in the phone book, went there, and asked the priest to tell me about it.
The breathtaking lack of consistency vis a vis doctrine, teaching and organization of the non-Catholic denominations. If Catholicism is wrong, as they assert, then one of them must be right. But, each of them says they’re right, as does Catholicism. So, the mere assertion of correectness in and of itself is not a relevant judgment point. It must be defined elsewhere.
So, a cursory glance of the history lead back to the fact that all the denominations had their formation because of a difference of opinion (either established or imagined) with the orthordoxy of the time.
Simply, that orthodoxy is: The Catholic Church.
IMHO