Why Should I Become A Catholic.

[Annabelle_Marie]

I understand your positions, but would not those example fall under the “not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’”… Matthew 7:21-23. Meaning that there is a rocky path for those who claim to know the Lord but do not. Meanwhile the statements of Paul, such as 1 Corinth. 15 seem to be full of certainty, and as Hebrews states “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” I like to emphasis the CERTAIN part of that because it seems to be a key element in faith. Although you may say that faith is in God and not that he will save you, I would say that faith in a God that may not save you is a sad thought… in my opinion.

Toward the Bottom of catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp there is a better explanation of how the Christian can be assured of Salvation, but understandably it does leave out self-delusion

But why would Paul say “No, I keep on discipline my body, making it serve me so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not somehow be disqualified.” if salvation was assured?

 

[wed2catholic]

Hello all, I am a younger man who is in a Denominational Crisis in the Christian Faith. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household who was very anti-Catholic and preached against the Church consistently. Now, however, I am at a point in my life where I am engaged to a Catholic girl and would love to share a single faith as we now look toward the future.

I am currently attending a more traditional and Liturgical protestant Church and have fallen in love with the beautiful and ancient Church ritual that was lacking in my youth. I am much more informed about the Church than I once was, but my protestant roots are pulling hard against any ideas about converting over. There are a lot of points of differences between me and the Roman Church and I feel like it would be to big of a gulf to fill so I am trying to interact with those people who can better explain the differences and explain to my why they are the correct choices. I will ask questions based on any statements I receive.

I know that many people on here are convinced and on fire to support the validity of the Catholic Church, and I have no problem with that. However, I have noticed that this forum has sometimes refered to other Christians as outsiders or not truely in the Faith. While I understand that this is an easy assumption to make I hope that I may be treated with the respect and dignity of someone who feels as thought they are truely a part of the fullness of Christ. Christian civility is all I ask.

Further more I ask that in stating your points and premises that you do not state the reality as stated as the Church. I understand most of the Church’s positions on theological issues, but do not understand the reasoning behind them. Whenever possible then it would be nice to provide as many quotes and supporting evidence as possible that I may understand more fully.

Finally if I refute anyone, or state that I believe them to be in error, I will try to state as best as I can the reasons why I differ. I do not mean to attack anyone’s beliefs, but instead want to clarify my own and think about things more fully.

I thank you for you time and appreciate your position as to why the Catholic Church should be the right Church for any Christian.

Thanks

I fully understand your position, as I too have experienced it. I was raised in an anit-catholic, fundamentalist church. When I became engaged to my now husband, I was told it would be the wrong thing to do–to get married to a Catholic. I had a really hard time with the gulf that separated Catholics and Protestants as well. For the first few months of our marriage, we continued to go to his church on Saturday, and we shopped around for a church for me on Sunday. I soon found peace in a Presbyterian USA church, and discovered some of the tradition I had been missing, as they have some similarities in their order of worship to Catholic and Anglican churches. I was also amazed at how open-minded they were. I continued to attend chuch with my husband on Saturdays, and I too found the Catholic’s claims to be the “one church” quite arrogant. I resisted the Catholic faith quite a bit until a few months ago, convinced that we would just go to 2 churches forever. Then I actually allowed myself to begin studying the Catholic faith from their perspective. I have learned so much. I am still not convinced I want to become Catholic, but I am going to try to attend RCIA this year to learn more. I guess the biggest pull for me in why the Catholic church may be the one true church, is history. It all makes sense when you study the early church fathers. They saw and heard the apostles’ teachings, and they constantly tried to maintain those teachings, as well as unity. They vehemently denounced anyone who separated from the church. As far as I could figure out, the Catholic church still seeks to maintain and develop those same teachings as best she can. The key is authority for me. If the Catholic chuch is the one true church that has always been, then I should follow her teachings even if I don’t fully understand them. Also, the way the Protestants teach different things on a myriad of topics really bothers me. It just does not make sense that they could all be right, or even just one of them be right. Somebody has to be right. . .maybe it is the Catholic church. I am seeking just as you are, and I hope to find my answers too.

 

[HolyHandGrenade]

So if the Priest acts “in the place of Christ” I assume that you mean that he pronounces that absolution which is from Chirst, which is not “in the place of” but as a “representative” of Christ. So that the actual role “in the place of Christ” would be the “Pronouncement of penance for our sins” which is “in the Place of” not mearly his representative.There seems to be a difference to me but I may be splitting hairs. Do you need to do the Penance to be forgiven your sins. If you your sins are forgiven before Penance then what is the role of penance in the believers life, and if sins are forgiven after penance it would seem as though the absolution could not be said until penance was completed. I assume it is the former option so clarifacation would help

"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." John 20:21-23

The majority of Non-Catholic Christians believe that they can just confess their sins to God and be forgiven without having to get absolution from an ordained priest that is acting in Persona Christi in the sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation. These Christians believe themselves to all be ordained priests and therefore able to receive Gods absolutions through their own private confessions. However when it comes to asking these Christians if you can confess your sins to them and if they can forgive your sins some hesitate while others says yes. Yet when you ask them if they can retain your sins all of them say they cannot. The conclusion ones come to is that their priesthood is not one that coincides with Scripture.

I’m sick with sin what do I do?

"Is any one of you sick? He should call the priests of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." James 5:14-16

A Catholic Bishop/Priest acts in the person of Christ when forgiving sins: "For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ" 2 Corinthians 2:10

The ordained bishops and priest have been given this ministry of dispensing the merits of Christ’s sacrifice to all those who seek absolution and forgiveness of their sins. The fact that Saint Paul calls himself an ambassador of Christ shows that he holds an office of authority in Christ’s Church, an office which can only exist if Gods Church is a visible entity.

"But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation. For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:18-20

This ability for priests to forgive sins and impart Gods absolution is not something new. It was practice in the Old Testament Church as well.

"The man shall bring a ram to the entrance of the Tent of my presence as his repayment offering, and with it the priest shall perform the ritual of purification to remove the man’s sin, and God will forgive him." Lev. 19:20-21

Since Christ’s death was the ultimate sacrifice for sins we no longer need to offer rams but we still need to go to the priests of the Church and perform the ritual of purification and receive absolution from God (Confession.)

 

[Mberg3]

"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." John 20:21-23
The problem with this passage is the “them” in verse 21 was identified as the “disciples” of Christ which were not idenified with the “12” but with all of the disciples in the room which would have included Mary Magdalene. The “12” were explicitly pointed out later in John 20, and they would have been similarly emphasised if it was an exclusive statement to them.

I’m sick with sin what do I do?

"Is any one of you sick? He should call the priests of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." James 5:14-16

The term “priest” in James 5 is a mistranslation of the early office of the “Elder” so it should read “call the elders of the church”. This is important because the efficacy of such prayers is then stated to not be because of their official position, but because they are established as person’s with high faith and righteousness. Furthermore, James says to confess your sins “to eachother” which is obviously differentiated for the “elders” from earlier in the passage. Why would it not say “Therefore confess your sins to the Elders/Priest” instead of eachother?

A Catholic Bishop/Priest acts in the person of Christ when forgiving sins: "For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ" 2 Corinthians 2:10
The Full verse is :** The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes**
It seems as though he is not forgiving sins as “Acting in the Person of Christ” but that he is reaffirming the validity of the forgiving of sins that was already taking place in the community.

"But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation. For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:18-20

who is this “we” that are ambassators? In all of Paul’s letters the “we” is usually the community at large to whom he is writing.

"The man shall bring a ram to the entrance of the Tent of my presence as his repayment offering, and with it the priest shall perform the ritual of purification to remove the man’s sin, and God will forgive him." Lev. 19:20-21

Since Christ’s death was the ultimate sacrifice for sins we no longer need to offer rams but we still need to go to the priests of the Church and perform the ritual of purification and receive absolution from God (Confession.)
So we no longer need to offer rams to sacrifice for sins but we need to ritually purify ourselves through Jesus after we sin. If the Priests role was to offer the ritual sacrifice of the ram, then would not the removal of the ram mean the removal of the priest as the metaphoric ram (Jesus) chose to sacrifice hiself as the offering. Futhermore is not Jesus the “High Priest” as stated in the book of Hebrews, and if he is what is the problem with asking Jesus in the office of his high priesthood to hear our confession.

 

[pablope]

QUOTE=Mberg3;7807660]So if the Priest acts “in the place of Christ” I assume that you mean that he pronounces that absolution which is from Chirst, which is not “in the place of” but as a “representative” of Christ. So that the actual role “in the place of Christ” would be the “Pronouncement of penance for our sins” which is “in the Place of” not mearly his representative.There seems to be a difference to me but I may be splitting hairs.

I think you are indeed splitting hairs. When “in the person of”, “standing for the person of”…just means representing…it is just another way or saying it. I think you are mistaking “in lieu of”…which the priest is not doing.

Do you need to do the Penance to be forgiven your sins. If you your sins are forgiven before Penance then what is the role of penance in the believers life, and if sins are forgiven after penance it would seem as though the absolution could not be said until penance was completed. I assume it is the former option so clarifacation would help

Let me put it this way…you recognize your sin, then there is the guilt and the desire to be forgiven, you go to confession, the priest gives advice, prescribes the penance and says the absolution.

Then you go do the penance prescribed. It is not…do the penance then go back for the absolution.

Penance is left to you to do. I would say it is up to your conscience and your heart. The process is to confess and do the penance, it is not just going to confession. Beside, if you do not do the penance, you are committing another sin…disobedience.

Why Penance? Penance is one oportunity to grow spiritually. Penance provides for the restitution and to repair the damage of our sins to both God and our fellowman. Penance is intended to restore and strengthen our bond of love with Christ and our fellow Christians.

 

[pablope]

"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." John 20:21-23

The Full verse is :** The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes**
It seems as though he is not forgiving sins as “Acting in the Person of Christ” but that he is reaffirming the validity of the forgiving of sins that was already taking place in the community.

[Since Christ’s death was the ultimate sacrifice for sins we no longer need to offer rams but we still need to go to the priests of the Church and perform the ritual of purification and receive absolution from God (Confession.)
[-]So we no longer need to offer rams to sacrifice for sins but we need to ritually purify ourselves through Jesus after we sin. If the Priests role /-]was to offer the ritual sacrifice of the ram, then would not the removal of the ram mean the removal of the priest as the metaphoric ram (Jesus) chose to sacrifice hiself as the offering. Futhermore is not Jesus the “High Priest” as stated in the book of Hebrews, and if he is what is the problem with asking Jesus in the office of his high priesthood to hear our confession.

This post is hard to read and distinguish your response. You should learn to use the quote icon. It is on top of the response box, to the left of the “#” icon. Highlight what you want to response to, then click the quote icon.

 

[pablope]

As much as I appreciate your view I do not simply take your word that the Roman Church is the One, Holy, Etc Church. and that the whole faith is preserved in Rome. If this was the case at one point I want proof that it was. If that is proven I want to know why that does not extend to the Orthodox Church. If that is proven I want to know why that is valid for the Church today any more so than the Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodoxy, etc claim to have the whole faith preseved.

This is subject for another thread. But put it in the “Apologetics” section. This “Traditional” section is for the traditional forms and practices of Catholicism.

 

[Peter_Gabriel]

As much as I appreciate your view I do not simply take your word that the Roman Church is the One, Holy, Etc Church. and that the whole faith is preserved in Rome. If this was the case at one point I want proof that it was. If that is proven I want to know why that does not extend to the Orthodox Church. If that is proven I want to know why that is valid for the Church today any more so than the Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodoxy, etc claim to have the whole faith preseved.

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

Neither the Orthodox nor the Anglicans acknowledge the authority of the Bishop of Rome. They are not within the unity of the Catholic faith. No Salvation outside the Church is a dogma, however, there are more strict and less strict interpretations of it - the very loose interpretations are undoubtedly condemned.

 

[Peter_Gabriel]

The problem with this passage is the “them” in verse 21 was identified as the “disciples” of Christ which were not idenified with the “12” but with all of the disciples in the room which would have included Mary Magdalene. The “12” were explicitly pointed out later in John 20, and they would have been similarly emphasised if it was an exclusive statement to them.

Your interpretation is novel. As evidenced by the belief of the early Christians.

“For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, ‘Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.’ They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, ‘Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?’ What authority could be greater than this? ‘The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?’ But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son.” John Chrysostom, The Priesthood, 3:5 (A.D. 387).

I’m sick with sin what do I do?

"Is any one of you sick? He should call the priests of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." James 5:14-16

The term “priest” in James 5 is a mistranslation of the early office of the “Elder” so it should read “call the elders of the church”. This is important because the efficacy of such prayers is then stated to not be because of their official position, but because they are established as person’s with high faith and righteousness. Furthermore, James says to confess your sins “to eachother” which is obviously differentiated for the “elders” from earlier in the passage. Why would it not say “Therefore confess your sins to the Elders/Priest” instead of eachother?

The priesthood was taken for granted in early Christianity, St. Jerome here thinks the now common protestant idea of no separation between priest and layman ridiculous.

1. I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman,

The Full verse is :** The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes**

It seems as though he is not forgiving sins as “Acting in the Person of Christ” but that he is reaffirming the validity of the forgiving of sins that was already taking place in the community.

"But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation. For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:18-20

who is this “we” that are ambassators? In all of Paul’s letters the “we” is usually the community at large to whom he is writing.

Since Christ’s death was the ultimate sacrifice for sins we no longer need to offer rams but we still need to go to the priests of the Church and perform the ritual of purification and receive absolution from God (Confession.)
So we no longer need to offer rams to sacrifice for sins but we need to ritually purify ourselves through Jesus after we sin. If the Priests role was to offer the ritual sacrifice of the ram, then would not the removal of the ram mean the removal of the priest as the metaphoric ram (Jesus) chose to sacrifice hiself as the offering. Futhermore is not Jesus the “High Priest” as stated in the book of Hebrews, and if he is what is the problem with asking Jesus in the office of his high priesthood to hear our confession.

The problem is that God established a Church with the means of applying the merits Christ won on the cross, you don’t get to follow your own path to heaven - you must follow Christ.

 

[steve_b]

I understand this, but what would be the response to both the Anglican and Orthodox Churches who claim that (traditionally) they have as much legitimacy as the Roman Church

• They both are seperated from the chair of Peter. So how can that be legitimate since we know that’s NOT what Jesus wants?
• Anglicans like all other protestant denominations, don’t have valid orders.

 

[steve_b]

I suppose It would be best to create a list of Topics

• Purgatory

Even the Jews believe in a type of purgatory, although they don’t call it that.
Mb:

• The means of Salvation

Grace, obedience to Faith, good works, sacraments,…
Mb:

• Marin Theology

Specifically?
Mb:

• The Role of the Saints

role models, prayer warriors
Mb:

• Penance

Absolutely essential sacrament, as all sacraments, instituted by Christ to give required grace for the journey

 

[steve_b]

• So if Salvation is a Process is an individual “more saved” at one point of their life than another, or is this an incorrect understanding of the message

it’s more accurate to say one can lose their salvation by serious sin if they don’t repent before they die.

For example
Gal 5:
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. "

• Those sins Paul mentions are serious enough to send a soul to hell if one dies in them. i.e. by definition, they are mortal sins, NOT venial sins.
• The Holy Spirit is inspiring Paul to teach this. And technically the Holy Spirit is getting this instruction from Jesus.* “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind* you of everything I have said to you.”[Jn 14:26]

Therefore,Jesus the one who saves, teaches that salvation can be lost due to mortal sin.

As for the topic of the thread “why should I become a Catholic”, did you notice the sins of dissent and factions in that list from Paul. As you know, in Protestant DNA is division from the Church of Rome, the chair of Peter. I can’t speak for you, nor would I ever try. I can only speak for myself. If I was Protestant, and saw that warning, and really understood that I was divided from the Church Jesus started and wants all to be a part of, I’d beat a path to the Catholic Church faster than it took me to write this. But that’s just me.

 

[HolyHandGrenade]

Mberg3 can you forgive or retain my sins?

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

Hello all, I am a younger man who is in a Denominational Crisis in the Christian Faith. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household who was very anti-Catholic and preached against the Church consistently. Now, however, I am at a point in my life where I am engaged to a Catholic girl and would love to share a single faith as we now look toward the future.

I am currently attending a more traditional and Liturgical protestant Church and have fallen in love with the beautiful and ancient Church ritual that was lacking in my youth. I am much more informed about the Church than I once was, but my protestant roots are pulling hard against any ideas about converting over. There are a lot of points of differences between me and the Roman Church and I feel like it would be to big of a gulf to fill so I am trying to interact with those people who can better explain the differences and explain to my why they are the correct choices. I will ask questions based on any statements I receive.

I know that many people on here are convinced and on fire to support the validity of the Catholic Church, and I have no problem with that. However, I have noticed that this forum has sometimes refered to other Christians as outsiders or not truely in the Faith. While I understand that this is an easy assumption to make I hope that I may be treated with the respect and dignity of someone who feels as thought they are truely a part of the fullness of Christ. Christian civility is all I ask.

Further more I ask that in stating your points and premises that you do not state the reality as stated as the Church. I understand most of the Church’s positions on theological issues, but do not understand the reasoning behind them. Whenever possible then it would be nice to provide as many quotes and supporting evidence as possible that I may understand more fully.

Finally if I refute anyone, or state that I believe them to be in error, I will try to state as best as I can the reasons why I differ. I do not mean to attack anyone’s beliefs, but instead want to clarify my own and think about things more fully.

I thank you for you time and appreciate your position as to why the Catholic Church should be the right Church for any Christian.

Thanks

You have received alot of answers and I didn’t read through them all. I just thought I would give you my reasons for returning to the Catholic Church after having been in the fundamentalist protestant/evangelical world for 14 years.

I was led back because of one thing mainly. Authority. I was in mainline protestant churches and evangelical protestant churches. I hungered to know more about God and would involve myself in many Bible studies because I believed the Bible alone was final authority. After a while as I began to hear so many different points of view I became confused. So I started researching different denominations, trying to figure out who was right. I got even more confused. Everyone had a bible verse to defend their position or defend themselves against someone elses position. One time in an evangelical church the pastor used 9 different bible versions for every verse he was using to defend a position he was talking about. By the time he was done I didn’t even know what bible version to use. Everyone has their own opinion on which one of those to use. It just gets crazier and crazier the more you research into protestantism. I’m not saying they are not Christians but Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. How can everyone’s different opinion on what the teachings of the Bible are be all truth. Either it is true or not. The bottom line is, someone has to be in authority. Someone has to be in charge.
You wouldn’t run a car or airplane manufacturing plant or any other business allowing everyone to do things their own way. If they don’t agree with the pastor they fire him or move on.
I have family that run a small fundamentalist church. They hire their pastor on whether or not they like what he preaches and that’s what alot of people do. They decide what they believe and then go out and find or start a church that teaches that way.
So that is why you should be Catholic because it is not just another way of believing. It is where you find truth. There can only be one truth.
God left someone in charge to help us know what is truth. It is the Catholic church.

I highly recommend the Coming Home Network and watch The Journey Home on EWTN on Monday nights.

 

[wed2catholic]

You have received alot of answers and I didn’t read through them all. I just thought I would give you my reasons for returning to the Catholic Church after having been in the fundamentalist protestant/evangelical world for 14 years.

I was led back because of one thing mainly. Authority. I was in mainline protestant churches and evangelical protestant churches. I hungered to know more about God and would involve myself in many Bible studies because I believed the Bible alone was final authority. After a while as I began to hear so many different points of view I became confused. So I started researching different denominations, trying to figure out who was right. I got even more confused. Everyone had a bible verse to defend their position or defend themselves against someone elses position. One time in an evangelical church the pastor used 9 different bible versions for every verse he was using to defend a position he was talking about. By the time he was done I didn’t even know what bible version to use. Everyone has their own opinion on which one of those to use. It just gets crazier and crazier the more you research into protestantism. I’m not saying they are not Christians but Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth. How can everyone’s different opinion on what the teachings of the Bible are be all truth. Either it is true or not. The bottom line is, someone has to be in authority. Someone has to be in charge.
You wouldn’t run a car or airplane manufacturing plant or any other business allowing everyone to do things their own way. If they don’t agree with the pastor they fire him or move on.
I have family that run a small fundamentalist church. They hire their pastor on whether or not they like what he preaches and that’s what alot of people do. They decide what they believe and then go out and find or start a church that teaches that way.
So that is why you should be Catholic because it is not just another way of believing. It is where you find truth. There can only be one truth.
God left someone in charge to help us know what is truth. It is the Catholic church.

I highly recommend the Coming Home Network and watch The Journey Home on EWTN on Monday nights.

This is the way it is; I agree. I either have to come to the conclusion that no one (Christian denominations only, of course—not other religions) has the complete truth, so all beliefs are equally valid, or that one church has the truth. Which church is it???

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

This is the way it is; I agree. I either have to come to the conclusion that no one (Christian denominations only, of course—not other religions) has the complete truth, so all beliefs are equally valid, or that one church has the truth. Which church is it???

I heard a quote from someone once. It said, “to be knee deep in history is to cease to be protestant.” When you study history and what the early christians were like you will find they were Catholic. Two people I learned about while I was protestant that helped convert me was St. Ignatius of Antioch and Saint Francis of Assisi.

St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John. Peter and Paul suggested him to be a bishop. One of his writings states, “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” All I ever heard in the protestant churches was that Constantine was the first to call it catholic. Umm, well, I learned that wasn’t true. Since there were early Christian writings that proved otherwise.

Saint Francis was a great Christian and loved the church long before the reformation. There were many great christians who kept the faith alive and moving long before Martin Luther came along.

Also, universality. You can go anywhere in the world and everyone is reading the same bible chapters, professing the same creed and praying the same prayers. There is only one church where that happens.

What does the bible say is the foundation of truth. " that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1Timothy 3:15 KJV and Douay-Rheims.

As I said before, watch the Journey Home on EWTN on Monday nights or on the internet and you will hear people just like you, who went through the same thing. Searching denomination after denomination.

Arguing Bible verses and doctrine doesn’t really help alot because that already happens in the protestant churches and they still haven’t come to an agreement. You could do that all day long and not get anywhere. You have to come to the point of realizing that there is a church that is given the authority to interpret the bible and that interpretation has to have remained the same since the days of the early apostles and still be happening. Many churches today are saying let’s be Acts 2 churches. Well in Acts 2 it says, “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread…” There is only one church that continues meeting daily and breaking bread. That has remained the same since the days of the apostles. And it is certainly clear in the bible that there were bishops, or overseers in the church as there are now.

I know where you are coming from. I went through the same thing, with the same question.Let’s see if I go to a protestant pastor he will tell me protestants are right. If I go to a Catholic priest he will tell me Catholics are right. That’s just people arguing. You have to read history. You have to go the early Christians. You have to read the ancient documents. You have to get close to the people who were close to Jesus and the apostles. Once you do that, once you find what the early christians believed and passed on as Jesus was just starting his church out you will then be able to accept everything else because you will realize it is of God.

Also, ask God to show you who is right. That’s what I did and it wasn’t long before I was home.

 

[Brendan_McCabe]

This is the way it is; I agree. I either have to come to the conclusion that no one (Christian denominations only, of course—not other religions) has the complete truth, so all beliefs are equally valid, or that one church has the truth. Which church is it???

The One true Church, and how to recognize it:

*It was founded by Jesus Christ Himself in Mt 16:18.
*It would be built on Simon Peter, Mt 16:18.
*It would be defended by GOD Himself, Mt 16:18-19.
*It would have authority given by Jesus Christ, Mt 16:19,18:17-18.
*It would be guided by the Holy Spirit who will dwell within it, Jn 14:15-17, Act 15:28,16:6.
*It would be one and undivided, Mk 3:24-25.
*It would have one fold and one shepherd, Jn 10:16.
*It would have Priests, Bishops, and Deacons, 1Tim 3:1-13.
*It must have the Holy Eucharist celebration, Jn 6:42-70, Act 2:42.
*It must be found in all nations, Mt 28:19.
*It must be found in all centuries, Mt 28:20.
*Jesus Christ said He would be with His Church every day, in every year, until the end of the world, Mt 28:20. This means no gaps in time.

Examine your Church to see if it meets ALL of these requirements.
It must NOT have a human person founder.
It must have a continuous history going back over 1950 years.

 

[sean1i0]

Frankly I must confess that I like you’re style! It’s the same one that I had when I began looking into the claims that the Church makes. Now, for me, theologically, philosophically, and historically all the evidence pointed in one direction: to the Catholic Church. So, let me start some dialogue with you in that manner of thinking.

The first question you have to (as a person) answer for yourself is who do you believe Jesus was/is? Now, you’re already a Christian, so I know what your answer is. So then we have to ask ourselves whether or not we are willing to take Jesus seriously. Have you ever considered that way? For me it was an earth shattering reality check that if I really believed that Jesus was and is God almighty and not just some human teacher, then, philosophically and logically, that had some serious ramifications.

So, what are those? Well, let’s start with the first and most important one. If Jesus is God, and, almost more importantly, if Jesus, the man and God, was and is the culmination of God’s eternal plan to save the human race and if he died for us and, as is pretty clear from all accounts of Jesus, if he intended for us to hear the Truth about him, then one would imagine that he was pretty effective at communicating the Truth about him to his closest disciples, a.k.a. his apostles and company.

Now, this is the main point to be considered then: If we aren’t going to take Christ seriously and say that the apostles got it wrong, then he clearly wasn’t God, because, logically, if all the above are taken as true, then Christ would have been entirely efficacious at communicating his message to his apostles. People called him teacher, right? There isn’t really a greater monument to ineptitude than a great teacher who can’t teach and such a monument certainly could, logically, not be God incarnate. Logically we would say that this not an if and only if statement, by the way, but only a p → q situation. If Jesus is God, then he was efficacious in teaching. (Although it does become an if and only if when we amend it - Jesus is God if and only if he was/is perfectly efficacious in teaching - which is really what we believe if we believe that he is God. Nothing else would be rational. This is actually a stronger argument, but we’ll ignore it for now.)

With all of this being said, the thing to do is to figure out what his apostles believed and the only way to do that is to go read what the apostles and their disciples wrote and believed. (That is, to read the Church Fathers, with greater emphasis originally being given to those closest to the apostles.)

Now, you’ll find all you need there, but let me say one more thing while I’m on the subject. Given that we believe that Jesus is God and that he came to earth in the fulness of time to die for our sins and to bring us the good news and that, logically, he was entirely efficacious in teaching, does it make rational sense to say that we believe that Christ was entirely efficacious in his teaching, because the Truth about him is, from what we know from the gospels, incredibly important to transmit, but that he left nothing to make sure that his Truth was faithfully transmitted?

First off, you’ll find that the Church Fathers, and in this instance I mean people who were taught by the apostles themselves, refute this idea themselves. The apostles clearly taught that Christ instituted a Church to be headed by the Bishop of Rome first and then by his brother bishops secondly (we can find this attitude explicitly stated in writings from A.D. 110 by St. Ignatius of Antioch and, clearly, if what the apostles, and therefore, Jesus, taught had vanished that quickly, then he wasn’t God, but merely a man). Secondly, while it is clear that for a Christian to suppose that Christ left nothing to keep his message faithful is irrational, we must consider what many Protestants would say when asked to ruminate upon this: They would retort that he left the Holy Spirit to do that job. Well, let’s take time to consider that.

 

[sean1i0]

Technically we can say that such a statement is true. The only way we are in communion with God is through the Holy Spirit, so, yes, the Holy Spirit is he who will keep Christ’s message faithfully with us. But, we must ask, in what manner does he accomplish this task? Is it just through a faithful and sincere reading of holy scripture? Well, first of all, that could not have been true in the beginning for the simple fact that there was no Bible (as we think of it) until the Catholic Church (guided by the Holy Spirit working through Holy Tradition and the magisterium) defined of what exactly the Old and New Testaments consisted. In fact, the decision made by the Catholic Church was not the a foregone conclusion on all fronts: There were books that many people thought would be included that were not and there were books that many people thought would be rejected (such as Revelations) and were not. Consider that alone for a moment. But let’s forget all of this as a mere logical “bump in the road” for a moment (although it certainly isn’t): Let us posit the idea that the Holy Spirit, at some point in history after the Bible was set, began to interact with individuals in the way previously claimed. Now, we need to consider something else: Is the truth of Jesus Christ one truth or many truths? In other words, is Jesus the Truth or the truths? Well, clearly, he is one truth. Then, logically, if the Holy Spirit is to communicate his truth through only medium of a sincere and prayerful soul, then, positing the idea that there are such souls in all denominations and churches in Christendom, which I think is absolutely true, then all denominations and churches should recognize the same truth. Except that such is not the case. If the disagreements were just minor ones, then perhaps a case could be made that this was really so, but, seriously, when the all of Christendom cannot even agree on a canon of scripture, then clearly this is not so. Therefore, we have a contradiction and, consequently, our premises cannot all be true. The only one that is disputable, though, is that the Holy Spirit works in the aforementioned individualistic manner. Therefore, that is clearly not the manner in which he works.

I’m sure you’ve realized by now that this train of logical proof goes on for a quite a bit longer than it already has. Allow me to amend it for the time being and to skip to the part where I posit that the only logical option is that Christ founded an institution (theologically equivalent with a heavenly Kingdom of David) to preserve and proselytize his Truth. Then, obviously, we must discover what that institution looked like in the first century to figure out which one it is now. Anglicanism is not even an option (sadly for the Anglicans), because it wasn’t around in the first century. The only two options for what Jesus Christ’s Christianity looks like (remember, this is if we want to take Jesus Christ seriously and if we want to be logically consistent with ourselves - two things that most people don’t want to do) are then Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

This then becomes quite easy logically. Let’s look at what both of them profess to be true. Both of them believe in the 4 marks of the Church (this is why the 4 marks were dissatisfying to you earlier - because you hadn’t logically deduced their reliability and necessity). They both believe that Christ’s true Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Well, both of them have the Holy and Apostolic in the bag. But only Catholicism is One and Catholic. Let’s look at Catholic first. Now, here the word in all its technicalities means “universal,” even though the word had already, by the 2nd century, come to have its modern meaning of “the Catholic Church,” which means, by the way, that the Apostles Creed actually does refer to the Catholic Church and not just a vague “universal church,” although that is besides the point presently. Eastern Orthodoxy is just not universal. Without loss of generality we can notice that there are not many Japanese people in the Greek Orthodox Church. But perhaps there is a clever argument against this. Even if we could posit that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are Catholic, they are, by definition, not “One.” That all goes back to St. Paul’s theology of the “Body of Christ,” by the way, with respect to the 4 marks of the Church. It is very biblical as well as being rooted in tradition.

So, logically, we are left with the Catholic Church being the only option if we are going to take Christ seriously and be logically consistent. To me, if someone reaches this point, then all the minor issues kind of fade away. But, at a later date, since I’m certain you’re tired of reading this by now, I will go into some thoughts on the some of the more specific points you raised.

For now, God bless you and may you have fruitful thoughts!
In Christ,
Sean

 

[PiousTemplar]

Thats for you to find the answer.