Why Should I Become A Catholic.

[kevin63392003]

I haven’t read through all the posts so if someone aready posted this i appologize. This article was written by a fundamentalist missionary who converted to catholicism. I believe you could relate well to it and it answers some of your questions

envoymagazine.com/backissues/0.1/solved.htm

 

[Mberg3]

Mberg3 can you forgive or retain my sins?

That is a very Interesting question let me try to break it down.

• The first condition to answering the question is the fact that you would have to ask me first. To ask me to forgive your sins I suspect you would need to know me better than you do now so it is unlikely you will ask me, hence I probably would not be able to.
• Secondly, I think you would agree with me that if you asked a priest to forgive your sins and you did not do it with a repentant heart then the priest’s statement of absolution would not be valid before the eyes of God due to you lack of contrition. Therefore I say that is more what is in your heart than what the priest tells you that merits forgiveness because the priest issues absolution based on what he thinks he knows about your contrition where as God’s descisions are based on what is truely in your heart.

-Thirdly, If a priest retains your sin over a misunderstanding of your true contrition, the logic from above suggest that you would be truely absolved before God who knows the truth of hearts and minds.

-Finally, If we accept the above propostition then the forgiveness of sins does come from Christ based on the true state of the person’s at the time of confession. The priest then becomes the spokesman for Christ based on his assessed state of the person contrition but his decisions do not bind Christ to grant Grace soley on his proclaimation of absolved or retained. Otherwise the priest would have more power than Christ himself which is blasphamy. Therefore if I knew you well enough and had reason to think you were truely contrite then I would be justified to declare your sins forgiven or if I thought the opposite I could declare the opposite, but - like the priest - my statement could not be binding to Christ who truely knows the state of you conscience.

 

[Mberg3]

I would like everyone to keep in mind the the Church theology between the years 50-100 AD was significantly different than the Church’s theology and structure after the year 100 AD. I consider the early Church to be the community before 100AD so please keep that answer in mind while answering questions. For an excellent overview on the changes between the 1st and 2nd Centuries I suggest Catholic historian Paul Johnson’s “A History of Christianity” with emphasis on the first several chapters. Thanks.

 

[josephback]

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.

I was sold on Orthodoxy for a while, but they reject the Pope. As for Luther, he broke away from the Church and started to pick and choose what he wanted. A lot got lost in the process. I don’t know much about the Anglican Church, but my understanding is that they only have two Sacraments, not seven.

Historically, only two big churches can put their founding before the 16th century; Orthodoxy and Rome. Determine who broke away from whom and you find the Apostolic religion - But I can’t prove it. It all comes down to faith.

 

[Peter_Gabriel]

I would like everyone to keep in mind the the Church theology between the years 50-100 AD was significantly different than the Church’s theology and structure after the year 100 AD. I consider the early Church to be the community before 100AD so please keep that answer in mind while answering questions. For an excellent overview on the changes between the 1st and 2nd Centuries I suggest Catholic historian Paul Johnson’s “A History of Christianity” with emphasis on the first several chapters. Thanks.

You are just arbitrarily picking dates to avoid having to deal with what hard evidence exists regarding what the early Church believed and functioned like. Some people regard Bernard of Clairvaux (1153) as the last father of the Church, so if you are going to say the early Church ended in 100 A.D. you are going to have to back it up. If the Church was radically different after 100 A.D. then you have to admit that Christ and the Apostles were rather poor teachers, and their followers rather lax and unscrupulous if they thought they could rewrite the theology that came from Christ himself. Also, it would make the Church hardly a pilllar and ground of truth.

1 Timothy 2:15 But if I tarry long, 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.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

 

[valentino]

I would like everyone to keep in mind the the Church theology between the years 50-100 AD was significantly different than the Church’s theology and structure after the year 100 AD. I consider the early Church to be the community before 100AD so please keep that answer in mind while answering questions. For an excellent overview on the changes between the 1st and 2nd Centuries I suggest Catholic historian Paul Johnson’s “A History of Christianity” with emphasis on the first several chapters. Thanks.

that doesn’t change the fact that the Church was founded by Christ and that he wanted the Church to have a structure.Naturally it had to start someplace.Everyone knows that the Church has instituded structural reforms over the centuries but the message is still the same.Christ knew as the Church expanded to all corners of the earth that cultures and languages would be different from AD33 and that the Church would have to adapt to accomadate these.Theology is based in scripture and the Church has grown in knowledge of the bible.Theology changes are actually just a clearer meaning of the texts.A better knowledge of Christ and His expectations of man have grown through the years.

 

[lisaraek]

I am confident that folks here will give you a lot of wonderful suggestions for discovering why you should become a Catholic. Here is my contribution… I was in your place six months ago…questioning my Protestant (Southern Baptist) faith. I did a great deal of praying for Wisdom and Spiritual Discernment and for God to direct me to where HE wanted me to go to church.
I received His answer but it wasn’t what I expected or wanted. I thought I would be lead to another Protestant denomination…probably Presbyterian or Episcopal etc. But I wasn’t prepared for Catholic!! Coming from a culturally anti-Catholic, fundamentalist background, being lead to the Catholic Church was a terrible shock. No matter how shocking however, God seized me with the most intense desire to read books about the Early Church and what the first Christians believed. I read everything I could get my hands on about the history of Christianity…some Catholic, most secular…and this lead to additional reading about why the early Christians believed what they did. After literally months of reading, I realized what Cardinal Newman meant when he famously said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”.
A word of warning. I’ve found that there is a high price to pay when you convert to the Catholic faith from a fundamentalist background.and you must consider this angle as you pursue your conversion inquiry. I’ve been shunned by all my old Baptist friends…even ones I thought would stand by me. Some of my family were fine with the decision, some were hostile. I was stunned by the anger I encountered. There is a whole lot of anti-Catholic feeling out there and the first time I realized that it is directed at me was very disturbing.
All that said, my recommendation is that you begin to read early church history, (Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett is a good place to start) and conversion stories (Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn for example). Join the RCIA program at your local parish and start attending Sunday Services there, even if you don’t understand what’s going on. You will desperately need to make new friends in a Catholic-safe environment to get you through the transition to your new faith. With RCIA’s support, you can find the answers to all your questions about whether you should convert or not…Lisa Rae

 

[RC1947]

I would like to recommend that you acquire and read

The Teaching of the Catholic Church A Summary of Catholic Doctrine arranged and edited by Canon George D. Smith, D.D., Ph.D. Volumes I and II
The Macmillan Company, 1964

This work carries both a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur which declare it to be free from doctrinal or moral error.

Pat

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

I would like everyone to keep in mind the the Church theology between the years 50-100 AD was significantly different than the Church’s theology and structure after the year 100 AD. I consider the early Church to be the community before 100AD so please keep that answer in mind while answering questions. For an excellent overview on the changes between the 1st and 2nd Centuries I suggest Catholic historian Paul Johnson’s “A History of Christianity” with emphasis on the first several chapters. Thanks.

Sorry, made that argument a long time ago myself. It doesn’t work and never will. I have heard it from different denominations. All believing they are restoring what they believed was a New Testament church that ended after 100AD.
Problem with that is Jesus said he would never leave us and that he would always be with us.

Anyhow, if you do choose to believe that, then you have to decide which protestant denomination truly restored the church, since they all started at different times in history and all believe they did. Who would be the real Christians. Which one was given the authority. Which one is the true church?

It all comes back to God leaving an authority. A visible Church to guide us. One that was founded by Jesus and never left.
.
In a situation where there is a disagreement in a protestant denomination how do you carry out this teaching of Jesus when the hierarchy only goes so far because there is not a Church as a final authority.

Matthew 18:15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church…

Where do you go? You split, is what happens.

That is why there are so many (39,000+ last I read) different denominations. They have no where to go when a disagreement arises. No authority. It’s just me and the Bible and however I want to interpret it and if I disagree with you I’ll just go start another church down the street and if that doesn’t work start a house church.

The Bible talks of bishops and deacons and the church and Holy Communion and baptism and all things found in the Catholic Church. So, sorry, that Christianity being different before 100AD doesn’t fly, no matter who writes a book about it. The Bible says different

When you attend a protestant church on Sunday ask yourself where did the pastor get his authority to interpret the Bible the way he is and how do you know he is right considering there is another protestant church down the street interpreting it a different way and another around the corner interpreting it still a different way and so on.

You need authority. You need someone visible to guide you. A visible church with true hierarchy. The one Church Jesus said he would build and did and has weathered storms and attacks through history. Staying strong all because Jesus said he would never leave us and he is there everyday 24/7.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I’m 52 years old and became Catholic at the Easter Vigil!

The Catholic Church is the greatest thing in the world and I have never been happier or more at peace anytime in my entire life!

There is nothing in the universe that compares with communion with Jesus Christ during the Mass! The reality of being one with His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is beyond anything my limited finite mind can grasp!

The peace that comes to my soul during confession when the priest absolves me of my sins is something that I have never experienced before!

There is no real freedom or peace without Jesus and the best and greatest way to experience Jesus is in His Catholic Church!

Just think how much Our Heavely Father LOVED us to send His only begotten Son Jesus to offer the greatest sacrifice in the whole world!

And the power to be a great witness for Jesus happens nowhere better than in Confirmation when we RECEIVE the Holy Spirit!

Being a Catholic now I have the great fortune of the communion of saints to help me in this life and struggle against temptations and the devil.

And the greatest help I have is Our Blessed Mother Mary–and her gift of the Rosary!

I took the Confirmation name of Benedict and St. Benedict helps me!

When my wife passed away last August a Catholic priest gave her the Annointing of the Sick–I believe it might have saved her from Hell! She also received the apostolic pardon and nowadays I have masses said for her at church!

It is such a great comfort to be a Catholic and to pray for her and for all the other souls that are in purgatory!

The poor souls help me–the saints help me–Our Blessed Mother helps me!

I can never repay the Catholic Church for all it has given me or this forum for all the education it has given me!

God Bless the Catholic Church–God Bless Catholic Answers Forums and I’ll be praying that you too become a Catholic–make it to heaven–and help many other people get to heaven where we can love the Blessed Trinity face to face!

I love the Catholic Church so much it brings tears to my eyes!

Thanks Jesus for giving us the Catholic Church!

 

[mark_a]

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.

I hope you find some good material here.

In order to realize the most profound differences between Catholicism and others, I suggest you investigate the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and how they differ from the denominations.

Best wishes.

 

[Mberg3]

that doesn’t change the fact that the Church was founded by Christ and that he wanted the Church to have a structure.Naturally it had to start someplace.Everyone knows that the Church has instituded structural reforms over the centuries but the message is still the same.Christ knew as the Church expanded to all corners of the earth that cultures and languages would be different from AD33 and that the Church would have to adapt to accomadate these.Theology is based in scripture and the Church has grown in knowledge of the bible.Theology changes are actually just a clearer meaning of the texts.A better knowledge of Christ and His expectations of man have grown through the years.

But the point being that

1. The fact the Orthodox Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ has not been proven by this statement - Please do so for me.
2. Christ wanted there to be a Structure- Argueable but irrelavant
3. Theology is based in Scripture - Scripture is based on the Catholic Churchs descision… its a circular argument.= Why is it Catholic? because its true, why is it true? because its Catholic… Not saying its wrong, just that so far it has been poorly justified
4. That the Changes have been because there has been a better knowledge has also not been proven. For example differences between Augustine and Aquinas are largely due to whether they have a Neo-Platonic or Aristotilean mindset not any “better” interpretation.

 

[Mberg3]

You are just arbitrarily picking dates to avoid having to deal with what hard evidence exists regarding what the early Church believed and functioned like. Some people regard Bernard of Clairvaux (1153) as the last father of the Church, so if you are going to say the early Church ended in 100 A.D. you are going to have to back it up. If the Church was radically different after 100 A.D. then you have to admit that Christ and the Apostles were rather poor teachers, and their followers rather lax and unscrupulous if they thought they could rewrite the theology that came from Christ himself. Also, it would make the Church hardly a pilllar and ground of truth.

You are just arbitrarily picking dates to avoid having to deal with what hard evidence exists regarding what the early Church believed and functioned like. Some people regard Bernard of Clairvaux (1153) as the last father of the Church, so if you are going to say the early Church ended in 100 A.D. you are going to have to back it up. If the Church was radically different after 100 A.D. then you have to admit that Christ and the Apostles were rather poor teachers, and their followers rather lax and unscrupulous if they thought they could rewrite the theology that came from Christ himself. Also, it would make the Church hardly a pilllar and ground of truth.

Is 100 AD arbitrary… Answer Yest
Why then did I choose 100 AD. Answer… The reason which i choose 100 AD is that it is a nice round number which roughtly correlates to the changes of the Catholic Church during the decades affer the death of the first generation of Christianity. It also is fairly close to the Rise of St Ignasious which is the, in my opinion, the start of a new wave of Christianity. It is the start of the 2nd Century which would include Tertullian, and Justin Martyr and coincides with the increase in the office of Bishop which can be evidenced by 1 Timothy (writted ca 100-120 AD). It is also the centruy in which the orthodox began.

As for Theology coming from Christ himself…

"Though [the Canonical Gospels] are presented as historical narratives, their origins are complex and their reliability variable…then,in the decades of the sixties, with the progressive elimination of the first generation of Christians… provided an urgent incentive to record Jesus’s teachings in imperishable shape.
Mark, from the circle of Peter, first created the Gospel as a literary form… his problems were not only those of an unpracticed writer but also those of an amateur theologian trying to transmit a complex message which he recieved from the far from lucid Peter. Hence he often does not try to solve the problem of comprehensibility.

Matthew and Luke,quite independently, produced their own narratives… Each had Mark to work from, though probably in carelessly copied form; and also had anouther source …Q

John has no demonstrable connection to the synoptics… It is, however, more of a theological treatise than a historical narrative…there is evidence of tampering in the earliest manuscripts
…
None of this would matter much if the central doctrine and teaching of Jesus emerged strongly, consistently and coherently form all the canonical sources… yet even in [the Passion] there are major obscurities an apparent contrdictions…
It is thus misleading to speak of apostolic age and equally misleading to speak of a primative pentacostal Church and Faith. The last point is important because it implies Jesus left a Norm, in terms of doctrine, message, and organization, from which the Church subsequently departed. There was never a norm… If the famous Petrine text in Matthew is genuine and means what it is alleged to mean Peter was a very unsteady rock on which to found a Church. He did not exercise powers of leadership and seems to have allowed himself to be disposed by James an other members of Jesus’s family, who had played no part in the origional mission."
“A History of Christianity” - Roman Catholic Historian Paul Johnson pg 24-33

The point is that there was no unified organized Church in the years before roughly 100 AD and the Catholic Church cannot claim to be the pure distillation of truth unless it proves that it was so dictated by Christ. I want proof before 100 AD, before the Church claimed to be the source of truth to justify that it could make that claim

 

[sean1i0]

I am, frankly, blown away. First off, I don’t see any attempt to deal with what I’ve previously said in one way or another. Just ignoring logic is never the way to go about finding the truth.

More importantly though, this is what happens when someone reads a piece of historical-critical “scholarship” without determining the a priori assumptions of the author. It really makes my head hurt every time this happens. There are actually two major flaws in thinking that are going on here: The first is that a very stale “historical-critical” argument is being re-hashed without, by the way, any real justification for his view and there is an assumption that since he’s a “scholar” and since he’s written a book that it “must be right” without any actual critical thinking about whether or not what he is saying makes the most sense out of all the possible explanations for the data he has set before us. Yes, he’s a scholar, but that doesn’t mean that he is automatically correct. So, you have decided Paul Johnson is right. Fine, but please attempt to justify that opinion. Yes, many scholars do agree with him, but you should be aware that these are the same scholars who don’t necessarily believe things like the multiplying of the loaves, the prophecies of Christ, or even that he was literally raised from the dead. Many of them would rather believe that he was “symbolically” raised from the dead. These scholars are barely Christians. There are plenty of other, actually Christian and not in name only, scholars who think that Markan priority, the theory of the Q document, which, by the way, is one of the most laughable “scientifically historical” theories ever, and the entire gamut of a priori positivistic assumptions are ridiculous. (By the way, do you know that one of the primary reasons these scholars believe that Matthew had to have been written after A.D. 70 - thus establishing one of the reasons that they believe in Markan priority - is because of the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. Since Jesus said that Jerusalem would be destroyed in Matthew and since it was in A.D. 70 and since prophecy “just doesn’t happen” - an a priori assumption - then no matter what tradition shows us and no matter what other now-ancient scholars thought and no matter what other evidence we have, it “must” have been written after A.D. 70. That is just pure idiocy!)

Here’s the deal: If you read the bible with rationalistic assumptions, which these scholars do, then you begin by reading it with 2 primary assumptions: (1) That miracles do not happen and (2) that God doesn’t communicate with humans. Now, what problems do you see here? Clearly, if you a priori assume that these 2 things never happen - no matter what the evidence - you will not only not give the evidence a fair trial, but you will never read the bible in the same way as someone who comes to it fairly and with an open and intelligent and critical mind. What good is any philosophy that ignores the data it’s supposed to explain? Seriously, everyone should spend time thinking about that. Philosophies are created to help explain the world. If those philosophies ignore data in the world, because it doesn’t fit with a philosophy that is based off an incomplete set of data, in other words, for no good reason, then they become nothing more than, excuse the turn of phrase, but I think it’s appropriate, mental masturbation. They are less than useless, they are harmful.

It’s just like David Hume. Have you ever read him? He said that he would never believe that a miracle ever occurred, because there was always an explanation for the miracle that was more probable than the miracle actually occurring. First of all, that’s just bad logic. A miracle isn’t actually improbable if God wills it. David Hume is the same man who said that the apostles were just ignorant fishermen and, so, their eye witness statements about the resurrection could not be trusted. They weren’t educated enough. The obvious retort, that a colleague of his made by the way, is to ask how educated someone has to be to recognize that a person was executed and is now, a few days later, walking around and eating meals? Obviously, not very educated at all. Hume also asked if a colleague of his would believe that a squirrel lifted a battleship out of the water if 500 people claimed to have seen it. His colleague replied that if a squirrel actually did do such a thing that by Hume’s standards we would have no way of knowing it. David Hume’s entire philosophical system was and is flawed.

And that’s who is informing the worldview by which you are reading the bible whenever you listen to only the historical critical method. That’s positivism at its best (or worst). It’s actually unreasonable and illogical. There are other and better ways to explain the apparent discrepancies in the gospel narratives and they’re not well kept secrets. You just have to go out and find them and ask yourself whether or not what Paul Johnson is saying is the best explanation for the data. Is it? Well, I’ll leave you to contemplate that one for yourself for the moment, but I think the answer to anyone with a shred of common sense should be obvious.

 

[sean1i0]

The take home message, as one of my favorite history professors used to say, is the same thing that I have said previously: You have to be logically consistent and you have to figure out what you believe and then take those beliefs seriously. If you say that you believe that Jesus is God, then that data has serious implications. That feeds back into being logically consistent. One of the things that feeds into that consistency is being willing to realize what the implications of your beliefs are. If p → q and you believe p, then you better be sure that you realize that you also believe q. And if, in that case, you say that you believe p and that you don’t believe q, then I cannot take anything you say from that point forward seriously, because you’re being illogical. Neither should you take anything you say seriously again until you make yourself be honest. If p → q and you believe p, then admit that you must believe q. Don’t lie about it. People do this all the time and it’s just intellectual dishonesty. It’s just a form of escapism. Also, always, always, always know what a priori assumptions both you and everyone around you is making. Those assumptions are the reasons that you come to your conclusions and they come to theirs.

Anyway, that’s the end of my soap box on the “historical critical” method and its related “scholarship.” Really, it’s just utter refuse. It really is less than worthless: It’s very dangerous, because many people read it without any training and end up losing their grip on reality.

 

[Mberg3]

1- You stated that I did not respond to your question… here it is…

You are just arbitrarily picking dates to avoid having to deal with what hard evidence exists regarding what the early Church believed and functioned like. Some people regard Bernard of Clairvaux (1153) as the last father of the Church, so if you are going to say the early Church ended in 100 A.D. you are going to have to back it up.
**
My response was to agree that 100AD is arbitrary, but I thought it was a good standard because of historically documented changes that occured throughout the Church ca. 70-120 CE**

Secondly…

If the Church was radically different after 100 A.D. then you have to admit that Christ and the Apostles were rather poor teachers, and their followers rather lax and unscrupulous if they thought they could rewrite the theology that came from Christ himself. Also, it would make the Church hardly a pilllar and ground of truth.
**
My response was to present to you an acclaimed Catholic Author and Historian who seemed to disagree with you. My friend, you were the one who never refuted me. I responded to you not in my own words but in the words of one who has much more knowledge of the subject. If my presentation of his material is unfair, I gave you the book and the cited page numbers to read for yourself. This is not a forum to discuss the merit of the Historical Critical methods. I see that you are not a big fan, but that does not defeat the purpose of my original point- to show that there is no consensus on the things which you so boldly claim as truth. If you are going to claim it I just ask you use more than tear down my source. Please present you side so I may respond in kind. We are here to discuss not to convert.
God Bless**

 

[sean1i0]

Ok, if that’s the response, then I have to say that I still don’t see a response to my logical arguments. Logically if Paul Johnson is correct, then I would find philosophically impossible for Jesus to be God. In fact, if Paul Johnson is correct, then we don’t know anything about Jesus to know if he is God. I have to disagree with you though: This is exactly the place to discuss the historical critical method. Because how you approach Sacred Scripture determines what type of faith you have in Jesus.

In fact, if 1 Timothy actually was written between A.D. 100-120, then that means that Timothy never knew Paul and it means that what we know is a lie. This is a matter of enormous importance! If all of our scriptures are written by people who are claiming to be someone they are not, then we have a bunch of lies for scripture. And the reason that they came to that conclusion is, I think, obvious when we understand their underlying assumptions with which they have come to the text. Also, do you think that it’s true that Jesus’s doctrine, personality, etc. don’t appear clearly in the Gospels? If you just read through the Gospels without prejudice, is that the impression that you get? Or do you get the impression of eyewitness or eyewitness informed accounts?

Anyway though, even though I think that historical criticism of the Bible is neither historically based nor critical, I will work off of the basis of it for a moment. If historical criticism (henceforth denoted simply by HC), then why is Jesus what we believe him to be? Logically, that is. Now, clearly people such as Paul Johnson, Raymond Brown, and John Collins have reasons for believing it, but I would still question the logical cohesiveness of their thinking. Also, if Paul Johnson is using HC, then what, with those set of assumptions that lead him to that, cause him to be Roman Catholic? Since that is your question, then I would think that looking at Paul Johnson and why he is a Catholic is a good place to start.

However, having said all of that, I think that you should most certainly look at what you’re assuming about Christ. Also, if you believe that the Christianity of A.D. 100 was not representative of the Christianity Christ intended, then what Christianity would you say is the true Christianity? Also, what about the didache? Is it also from a much later time?

 

[valentino]

But the point being that

1. The fact the Orthodox Roman Catholic Church was founded by Christ has not been proven by this statement - Please do so for me.
2. Christ wanted there to be a Structure- Argueable but irrelavant
3. Theology is based in Scripture - Scripture is based on the Catholic Churchs descision… its a circular argument.= Why is it Catholic? because its true, why is it true? because its Catholic… Not saying its wrong, just that so far it has been poorly justified
4. That the Changes have been because there has been a better knowledge has also not been proven. For example differences between Augustine and Aquinas are largely due to whether they have a Neo-Platonic or Aristotilean mindset not any “better” interpretation.

Christ said to peter:Upon this rock I will build my church.I believe the Church having a structure is relevant and necessary.The Church has to have a structure and an authority to maintain adherence to CC teachings and preserve the bible.The Church is the safeguard and protector of the bible and truth.Since Christ instituted the establishment of Church He prayed for Her and promised always to be with Her and guide Her with His HS.God gave His life for man but also for His Church.A Catholic must believe that Chris’t promise that the Church will remain till the end of time is true.Christ never promised that their wouldn’t be errors committed But through it all He is still in charge and guiding Her.Not always.there are many Saints and Scholars down through the centuries that have added to the meaning of the scriptures and then have been incorporated into the CC teaching.The Catholic Church is made up of one Billion members now and some holy person in the Church may recieve some vision or spiritual inspiration which may be accepted by Her and can lead to a better understanding of Jesus’ intentions for Her church.If God can’t and won’t protect Her then His Life and death would be in vain.The Church may just fade away.But for 2000yrs. the Church has grown and spread and will continue to spread albeit persecutions.Many marytrs die for the Church every year and in various countries.Always has been that way.Pope Paul 11 said the Church grows on the seed of Marytrs.Aquinas and Augustine and other Catholic philosophers debated life and truth and the reality of God and the reality if no God,ect.only reason they read Plato and aristotle was because they were the most respected Philosophers at the time and they had debated the same issues .They studied many different philosophers but the public always regarded plato and aristotle as the authorities in trying to discover truth.

 

[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.

Thanks

I have been reading this thread for a while and just a couple of things.
You are getting married and marrying a Catholic. Marriage is a very hard thing and when you add religious differences it gets harder. If you feel God is leading you in this direction I would listen. Sometimes God calls us to do things that don’t seem to make sense to us but after we obey and see what he wants of us and what is in store it is a great and wonderful thing to have obeyed.

I reverted from protestantism myself and there were alot of things that tugged at me but now I wouldn’t go back for anything, anything in the world. Obeying God and coming home was the best thing.

In reading your posts you continue to mention Paul Johnson. I don’t know him, havent read his book but usually when presenting an argument it is best to have more than one source, besides that maybe you are interpreting him wrong.

Here are some good websites that discuss church history and answer alot of questions.

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/
thefathersknowbest.com/
davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm
ignatiusproductions.org
salvationhistory.com/
ewtn.com/vexperts/conference.htm

This thread and reading peoples posts of why they are Catholic convinces me even more coming home was the best thing.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

You should become Catholic in order to have access to the 7 valid sacraments, that you may fully receive grace from God.

Peace, praying for you and all other potential converts.