Why Should I Become A Catholic.

[Mberg3]

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?

I ask you to turn to Paul Johnsons Prologue, as I cannot speak for him myself:
“You may ask: is it possible to write of Christianity with the requisite degree of historical detachment? In 1913 Ernst Troeltsch argued persuasively that sceptical and critical methods of historical research were incompatible with Christian belief; many historians and most religious sociologist would agree with him. There is, to be sure, an apparent conflict. Christianity is essentially a historical religion. It bases its claims on the historical facts it asserts. If these are demolished it is nothing. Can a Christian, then, examine the truth of these facts with the same objectivity he would display toward other phenomenon?.. In the past, very few Christian scholars have had the courage or the confidence to place the unhampered pursuit of truth before any other consideration. Almost all have drawn the line somewhere. Yet how futile their defensive efforts have proved! How ridiculous their sacrifice of integrity seems in retrospect! We laugh at John Henry Newman because, to protect his students, he kept his copy of The Age of Reason locked up in his safe… For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach - and properly understood, does teach - that interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts; a Christian historian who draws the line of limiting the field of inquiry at any point whatsoever, is admitting the limits of his faith. And of course he is also destroying the nature of his religion, which is a progressive revelation of truth. So the Christian, according to my understanding, should not be inhibited in the smallest degree from following the line of truth; indeed he is positively bound to follow it. He should be, in fact, freer than the non-Christian, who is precomitted to his own rejection. At all events, I have sought to present the facts of Christian history as truthfully and nakedly as I am able, and leave the rest to the reader”

-History of Christianity vii-viii

Very noble words if is say so myself
You also must understand my main point. That I do not disagree with your statements in per-se, I just wish for you to acknowledge that there has been a change. I do not say for better or worse, but the assertion that the holy Church remained relatively unstable since 33 CE is quite false. It gained stability by the beginning of the 2nd Century which is why I used that for my date. I do not assert that any one point is more “true” than the other, but I do assert that there are differences you must acknowledge. Christianity and the structure of the 2nd Century was representative of most Christian Churches of that time with several exceptions such as Montanism. I do not think that it was the norm in the years 50-70 roughly, but the significance of that can be debated. I am a History major so historical analysis is what I do. We may disagree on HC method, but let us respectfully disagree or do not comment any more. I would rather use this time in other ways.
God Bless

 

[Mberg3]

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.

I appreciate your posts. I have looked into several of your links before, especially new advent, and I will try to read futher into your other posts.

As to Paul Johnson: As I stated before, his use is that he is highly respected and Roman Catholic as well. I have other sources such as the wonderful scholar Martin E Marty, but the fact that he is a Lutheran would, perhaps, make his arguments less compelling in a Catholic forum. I also do not have the time to double, triple, or otherwise cite my sources, so Johnson provides a source for facts from a wide time period of Christianity. The is always the chance that I have misinterpreted the information that I have read. My advice would be to check-out the book from a local library if there are any concerns. I have already provided page numbers and I may be able to guide you to other useful parts of the book as well. I would like to thank you again for your civility. It is great knowing you found a home in the Catholic Church and I hope I will one day too. I may come off as less than accepting, but it is only to push the boundaries a bit and to try to make more sense of every thing.
God Bless

 

[Mberg3]

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.

I appreciate your answer very much. I would like to clarify that I agree almost 100% with your statements about the need for the Church structure and authority in biblical matters. Your explanation was beautifully written and well done. We may differ slightly on the interpretation of Matthew and the statement of Peter as the Rock, but we can discuss that more if you would like. The Church had indeed survived 2000 years but not without Schism. Paul schismed from the Jerusalem Church, the Orthodox schismed from the Catholic Church, and the Reformation created the largest schism of all. We are all Christian brothers and sisters and there was something about Jesus that brings us all together. I just wish that there could be more acceptance of Christian heterodoxy in the Catholic Church, and if that happened I believe it could truly become Catholic and repair the schisms of the past.

 

[Mberg3]

I ask you to turn to Paul Johnsons Prologue, as I cannot speak for him myself:
“You may ask: is it possible to write of Christianity with the requisite degree of historical detachment? In 1913 Ernst Troeltsch argued persuasively that sceptical and critical methods of historical research were incompatible with Christian belief; many historians and most religious sociologist would agree with him. There is, to be sure, an apparent conflict. Christianity is essentially a historical religion. It bases its claims on the historical facts it asserts. If these are demolished it is nothing. Can a Christian, then, examine the truth of these facts with the same objectivity he would display toward other phenomenon?.. In the past, very few Christian scholars have had the courage or the confidence to place the unhampered pursuit of truth before any other consideration. Almost all have drawn the line somewhere. Yet how futile their defensive efforts have proved! How ridiculous their sacrifice of integrity seems in retrospect! We laugh at John Henry Newman because, to protect his students, he kept his copy of The Age of Reason locked up in his safe… For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach - and properly understood, does teach - that interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts; a Christian historian who draws the line of limiting the field of inquiry at any point whatsoever, is admitting the limits of his faith. And of course he is also destroying the nature of his religion, which is a progressive revelation of truth. So the Christian, according to my understanding, should not be inhibited in the smallest degree from following the line of truth; indeed he is positively bound to follow it. He should be, in fact, freer than the non-Christian, who is precomitted to his own rejection. At all events, I have sought to present the facts of Christian history as truthfully and nakedly as I am able, and leave the rest to the reader”

-History of Christianity vii-viii

Very noble words if is say so myself
You also must understand my main point. That I do not disagree with your statements in per-se, I just wish for you to acknowledge that there has been a change. I do not say for better or worse, but the assertion that the holy Church remained relatively stable since 33 CE is quite false. It gained stability by the beginning of the 2nd Century which is why I used that for my date. I do not assert that any one point is more “true” than the other, but I do assert that there are differences you must acknowledge. Christianity and the structure of the 2nd Century was representative of most Christian Churches of that time with several exceptions such as Montanism. I do not think that it was the norm in the years 50-70 roughly, but the significance of that can be debated. I am a History major so historical analysis is what I do. We may disagree on HC method, but let us respectfully disagree or do not comment any more. I would rather use this time in other ways.
God Bless

Editing Post to read “Stable” not “unstable”

 

[ClamDigger]

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

• Purgatory
• The means of Salvation
• Marin Theology
• The Role of the Saints
• Penance

I have already looked into the statements about these things on Catholic websites, but I would like to know what they mean to the average Catholic, and to be allowed to ask questions about their beliefs.

So… do you want scriptural justification of our doctrines, or do you want how these doctrines make an individual Catholic feel, or do you want both? I’m confused. I’ll just give you both.

Purgatory:
“I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the very last mite.” --Luke 12.59
“Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” --1 Corinthians 3.14-15
“There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.” --Revelation 21.27

Means of Salvation:
“And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.” --Matthew 7.23
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.” --Ephesians 2.10
“Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works.” --2 Corinthians 11.15
“Who will render to every man according to his works.” --Romans 2.5
“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” --Revelation 20.12
“Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works.” --Revelation 22.12

Marian Theology:
Sinlessness of Mary:
“Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.” --Luke 1.28
(Mary could not be sinful, or full of sin, and simultaneously full of grace.)
Mary as God’s chosen conduit of grace:
“And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.” --Luke 1.41
Queen of Heaven and Mother of the Church:
“And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” --Revelation 12.1
“And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” --Revelation 12.17
(Many Protestants like to think that the Woman of Revelation is just a symbol of the Church, but this is not the case. The Woman of Revelation is Mary as the Mother of the Church. We know this because Christ gave birth to the Church, not the other way around. Therefore, how could the Woman of Revelation gives birth to Christ in 12.5 if she is not Mary but just an embodiment of the Church?)

Saints:
Prayers of Saints:
“And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God.” --Romans 8.27
“By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints.” --Ephesians 6.18
“I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men.” --1 Timothy 2.1
“And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.” --Revelations 5.8
“And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.” --Revelations 8.4
Asking the intercession of saints is very ancient:
“Call now if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints.” --Job 5.1
The High Priests would not have thought Jesus was calling upon Elias to save him and waited to see if his prayer was beneficial in Matthew 27.47 had it not been an accepted practice.

 

[ClamDigger]

(cont’d. from above)…

Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance:
“And the multitude seeing it, feared, and glorified God that gave [the power to forgive sins] to men.” --Matthew 9.8
“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” --Matthew 16.19
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” --John 20.23
“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.” --1 John 1.9
“And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. 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
“But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.” --2 Corinthians 5.18
“Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.” --James 5.14-16

Of course, these are just some of the Biblical reasons for what we believe. Much of what we believe also comes to us from the oral tradition of the Apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Now, as far as how all of these things make me feel as a Catholic?
I have no problem with Purgatory. It makes sense to me. If I were to die today, I do not feel as though I would merit eternal suffering in hell, but I also do not feel as though I would be even somewhat worthy of the joy of God in heaven. It just makes sense to me that God would purify me of my sins before he would allow me to reign with him in heaven.

Salvation through faith coupled with good works only makes sense to me. After all, how can someone truly have faith if they do not do good works? I could not see God rewarding someone for their faith while ignoring atrocities they have committed. That would mean that many evil people who did things in the name of faith would be rewarded for their atrocities because they did them in the name of faith! Seems pretty ludicrous to me.

I love Mary. I believe she is our mother. I can’t see why God would leave his Church, which is the Body of Christ, without a mother. After all, he asked her to be the mother of the literal body of Christ, why would he not ask her to be the mother of his Body the Church as well?

Jesus told us that we have eternal life if we persevere in his righteousness, so obviously we are not “conjuring the dead” in praying for the saints’ intercession, as some Protestants would try to lead us to believe. The Bible tells us that we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, which is most surely the great saints that have gone before us. It seems obvious to me that saints must be able to see what happens here on earth, otherwise they would have no reason to pray in heaven. Praise, sure, but there is nothing they could want in heaven were it not for their friends here on earth. We are told that the prayers of the just do much good. Well, who is more just than the martyrs and witnesses of our faith? I enjoy having friends in heaven. They are like beloved family to me.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation is kind of intimidating the first few times, but God tells us to “work out our salvation through fear and trembling.” It makes sense to me that God would expect us to work in cooperation with him in order to receive the benefits of Christ’s death and thereby merit our salvation. Maybe that’s just me, though.

 

[Curious_Seed]

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

Catholicism is only one flavor of the Christian ice cream.

Your belief in Christ, as per Luke 23:43, is enough for salvation.

The Catholic denomination of Christ’s Church is an aged institution of thoughts and opinions presenting more than anyone can consume, in a lifetime: a treasure, to be sure.

But, old does not always mean true - as history evidences, so frequently.

So, keeping Luke 23:43, enjoy a lifetime of Christian research and practice, among the paths of your Romans 8:28 experiences, whether Catholic or not.

 

[sean1i0]

Ok, well those are all fair points. Let me ask you this then, do you agree then that the Catholic Church is the church that emerges from the teaching of the apostles? Believe it or not, I do believe that the Church changed from A.D. 33, but only because it had to change. There were a lot more people in the Church in the decades after the death and resurrection of Christ, so the structure had to change. I would say that the Catholic Church, which is so present, is the divinely approved structure that Christ wanted to emerge as more people joined the Church.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Catholicism is only one flavor of the Christian ice cream.

(…)

The Catholic denomination of Christ’s Church is an aged institution of thoughts and opinions presenting more than anyone can consume, in a lifetime: a treasure, to be sure.

But, old does not always mean true - as history evidences, so frequently.

(…)

I seem to remember you saying something similar on another thread and not replying to the Catholic Answers to these claims. Catholicism is the whole true flavor of Christianity.
Catholicism is NOT a denomination. Catholicism is the original, the rest denominated from the Truth. And again, you have not tried to back up your history comments on this other thread.

 

[awantz]

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 where you are coming from. I’m a non-Catholic Christian now married to a Catholic man. When I was in your situation we went/do go to church together. Also, I attended RCIA to find out more about his beliefs, but after prayer, it seemed conversion wasn’t what God was calling me to do. As far as your decision on conversion, you need to pray about it and be prepared to do whatever God calls you to do.

 

[John_Martin]

“Mberg3”, when you were baptized you were granted entrance into the Church, and the Catholic Church upholds that decision made about including you by the people who baptized you. Further, our King in Heaven upholds that decision to include you as one of the citizens of His Kingdom. You are already one of us, but simply lacking fellowship, full communion with us, missing the rich nourishment of Christ feeding us with his flesh and blood, with his whole living presence, at the Eucharist, a nourishment we need for the journey in this foreign land in which we live and move to the place he is preparing for us.

I am human; I cannot transcend this world and go up to heaven to touch God or his Christ. This is the joy of the Catholic People - we are recieved and nourished and blessed through tangible means - the Sacraments - a person baptized us, receiving us into citizenship in this Kingdom established by God, and Christ says Amen to it. A person sits and hears us confess our sin, and grants us Heaven’s forgiveness, and Christ says Amen. A person speaks for Jesus, declaring bread and wine are his body and his blood of the new covenant, and gives them to us to eat and drink, and Christ says Amen, and is there with us. And all the other sacraments are also tangible to me as a human.

Water on my head, a priest’s hand marking the cross on my forehead, a wafer of unleavened bread and a sip of wine - those things I can do as a human and I can fully participate - and then, my King promises me that he also gives me life eternal - my citizenship is not just here under the Pope, it is eternal under the One whom the Pope represents. The forgiveness is not just momentary, but it is actually Jesus speaking from Heaven. The bread and wine are not what they appear as I eat and drink, but are the Lamb of God, my Lord and King.

You are Catholic already, what is keeping you from being confirmed in that citizenship which you were given when you were baptized, from receiving the fullness of His gifts?

John Martin

 

[royalbroncs]

Why shouldn’t you become Catholic? How can you understand how awesome chocolate ice cream is with hot fudge on it, without tasting it? So how can I explain the treasures of the Catholic Church? Hmmm, I definetely advise you to pray about it…that’s what I did. I’m a cradle Catholic born and raised. It wasn’t until my confirmation classes, that I fully realized the teachings and fully accepted them (in the beginning, I just was doing it to stop having to go to education). I’ve been to and studied all different sorts of churches; baptist, pentecostal, mormon, islam, etc. Most of them have something to offer, but again, not fullness. The sacrament of reconciliation, oh man, I wish I could describe it better but my words don’t give it justice, alas, I will still try. Standing in line waiting to go in to the confessional, the reflection of your sins weigh on you, literally. It becomes hard to breathe, like a load of bricks was put on your chest and the load gets heavier the closer you get to the confessional, until when you finally walk in you can barely talk, let alone think (thus why I write down my sins so I don’t forget and can get through it). One by one, you go through your list, and literally with each word your load is lightened (so serious about this). When you finish, you hear the words, “you are forgiven” (paraphrasing here, but you get the gist). Relief sweeps over you, it takes over all your emotions, so much you might cry or in my case, feel very light-headed making it hard to walk. The priest gives you, your penance, and you are happy to do it. More so, it really makes you not want to sin again. Okay, so moving on to the Sacrament of marriage being as your about to marry a catholic. My husband is baptist and had been married before so we had to go through the classes and plus, find out if we could marry in the Church being as he had been married before and divorced. On a side note, I would’ve loved my husband to convert but didn’t want to push him into something he wasn’t ready for, our priest was so helpful along with the Church teachings. The classes took about a year, but that year, we learned more about ourselves and the importance of our decision. Although, my husband is not catholic, through those classes, alot of his misconceptions vanished and he had a better understanding of my faith and me of his. (luckily his ex-wife had been previously married so there were no, problems getting married) Honestly, if everyone went through those classes there would probably be alot less divorces. We grew so close and still remain close. I only bring this up because not many churches out there offer this to couples and it was extremely helpful for us. The sacrament of baptism, you are to be baptised in water and the holy spirit. Why do you think Jesus said water along with holy spirit? Baptism is a beautiful thing. Anyways going off here, back to the Church. Jesus told Peter, you are the rock I shall build my church. When Jesus spoke these words, he was using aramaic and in that language, there is only one word meaning rock, cephus. (spelling bad, sorry)There can be no other interpretation of this. Peter is, was the foundation of Christ’s church. “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven”, keys means authority. “and the gates of hell shall not prevail it” this refers to the infallibility. The pope can make mistakes but not when it concerns church doctrine, why? Well because Jesus says so, if the Pope makes one tiny little lie, concerning Church doctrine, then the gates of hell has prevailed the Church. (example: one pebble hitting a windshield causing a tiny crack, will ruin the windshield) So, what is the one true church? Well, catholicism is the only religion with a pope so, if we prove the validity of pope, we can prove it is catholicism. So, let’s start with a quiestion; why did Jesus choose Judas as a disciple, knowing that he would betray him? (Ponder on that) Okay, so in Acts, Peter speaks for all, and says let another man take his office (meaning Judas’). This shows apostolic succession and Peter’s authority. Another example of Peter’s authority was the decision to allow gentiles to convert without circumcision (there was great debate until Peter announced what to be done, and it was done) In fact, there are more examples of Peter exercising his authority and the submission to Peter. So, Peter did apostlic succession and Jesus gave him the authority. Was, this Church and authority to die along with the apostles, or is it available for us? I’m sure you believe the Bible to be infallible, because the men who wrote it, were inspired by God. So, why is it hard to believe that a Church could be infallible in it’s teachings? Does Jesus warn us of bad men in his church, yes. Doesn’t matter, his church will prevail. Peter means rock( study other languages if the message isn’t clear). Peter is given keys, keys = authority (Isiah 22 ). Jesus, didn’t say he gave the keys to all 12,no he gave them to Peter. Peter, replaces Judas’ office. (succession) Again. please just pray about this, and hopefully the Holy Spirit will give you wisdom and knowledge.

 

[Mberg3]

Ok, well those are all fair points. Let me ask you this then, do you agree then that the Catholic Church is the church that emerges from the teaching of the apostles? Believe it or not, I do believe that the Church changed from A.D. 33, but only because it had to change. There were a lot more people in the Church in the decades after the death and resurrection of Christ, so the structure had to change. I would say that the Catholic Church, which is so present, is the divinely approved structure that Christ wanted to emerge as more people joined the Church.

I do agree with you that the change was necessary. I also believe that the “catholic” church was present in the earliest years and was especially visible starting around the year 70 AD but I also believe there were many different varieties at that time as well. I also believe that there were some changes in theology in that time, but one could argue that it was more of a clarification than a change. I dont necessarily believe that the Apostles (ie the Twelve) were needed to spread the true Gospel of Christ. Paul, who was not one of the Twelve, probably had the most impact in creating a foundation for the early church than even the “Apostles”. (Though he was an apostle ie sent directly from the risen Lord). To me none of that matters because Truth is still Truth if noone believes it and False is still False if everyone believes it. Not that using the Apostles as evidence is bad I just think it should stand on its own without necessarily needing them.

 

[John_Martin]

… I dont necessarily believe that the Apostles (ie the Twelve) were needed to spread the true Gospel of Christ. Paul, who was not one of the Twelve, probably had the most impact in creating a foundation for the early church than even the “Apostles”. (Though he was an apostle ie sent directly from the risen Lord). To me none of that matters because Truth is still Truth if noone believes it and False is still False if everyone believes it. Not that using the Apostles as evidence is bad I just think it should stand on its own without necessarily needing them.

Well, if you think that, then you are able to see something no one else can see - nowhere do we have a book written by Jesus, or a recording of his voice from the first century. All we have are recollections of those apostles, and even second-hand recollections, such as in the case of Luke-Acts. And those recollections were not a “Bible” at the time they were written, but were just letters to very specific audiences. What went on “behind the scenes”, not written, was a group of apostles and bishops and priests and deacons all agreeing who they were (they were the new Nation, the new People, the Kingdom established by God), and agreeing on what was sound teaching. This “tradition” behind the scenes brought you your “Bible”, you would not have it, not have the Gospel (the Gospel Jesus proclaimed: The Kingdom established by God is here), not have Truth - and it is that group behind the scenes who were commissioned by their Lord and King to guard that Truth, hold it close.

A person can come up with any truth he wants, but the Bishops, the Apostles, were commissioned to hold and to proclaim a specific Truth. Being one with the Catholic Church is a taking hold of their Truth as the Truth, and repenting (turning away from) all the other truths and sources of truths that we choose to believe.

John Martin

 

[Mberg3]

So… do you want scriptural justification of our doctrines, or do you want how these doctrines make an individual Catholic feel, or do you want both? I’m confused. I’ll just give you both.
**
This is a TON to respond to… But in a good way**
Purgatory:
“I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the very last mite.” --Luke 12.59
I think that this passage could possibly be refering to purgatory, but the preceeding portions of Luke make the translation obscure. It could be strickly a literal piece of advice, but it is surronded by 2 metaphors so it sems unlikely to be purely literal. It is, however vague enough not to be compelling proof for purgatory. Shall I put it under "Maybe?"
“Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” --1 Corinthians 3.14-15
First thing is that “which he hath build thereupon” is Jesus (1 Cor. 3:11)
It seems like this could go under the “probable” as to something resembling a “purification” if you will, which in turn could be argured to be a Purging (just terminology basically). The only interesting thing is that if it is refering to works in aggregate because if all of your work burns then you will be saved still with Jesus yet so as by fire, where as those who have better works in aggregate would not need to worry"There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb." --Revelation 21.27
I would say that is more escatology then Purgatory… in general irrelevant
Overall I think that there are several good quotes of scripture to suggest a middle place of purification which can be defined as Purgatory. I agree and tend to see this as a place, where as some Catholic Theologians have argued, that one becomes aware of and needs to acknowledge all the bad deeds done in their life. Not what is traditionally thought as Purgatory. BTW. This is one thing I have changed my mind about since the first time I posted**

**

 

[Mberg3]

U]Means of Salvation:
“And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.” --Matthew 7.23
“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.” --Ephesians 2.10
“Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works.” --2 Corinthians 11.15
“Who will render to every man according to his works.” --Romans 2.5
“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” --Revelation 20.12
“Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works.” --Revelation 22.12

IDK what I meant by “Means of Salvation” so I cant respond lol.
Marian Theology:
Sinlessness of Mary:
“Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women.” --Luke 1.28
(Mary could not be sinful, or full of sin, and simultaneously full of grace.)
"It concerns Mary as one who has been “Graciously favored (by God) [Parethesis not added]This translation full of Grace, which is not literal, is gradually being replaced among Roman Catholic translators” Mary in the New TestamentMary as God’s chosen conduit of grace:
“And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.” --Luke 1.41
Queen of Heaven and Mother of the Church:
“And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” --Revelation 12.1
“And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” --Revelation 12.17
Perhaps and embodiment of the Jewish people would be correct. Revelation states that the birth happened before the woman came out of heaven which would be unlikely if it was Mary. The crown of 12 stars is an echo of the 12 brothers each which traditionally had a tribe of Judiasm named after them. The birth of the “woman” ie Judaism could have been Christianity which was painfully in conflict with Judiasm (which would be the child pangs). It also has the “dragon” as Rome who persecuted Christians because of their Jewish heritage or the “seed”(read Children) of the woman (Read Judaism)(Many Protestants like to think that the Woman of Revelation is just a symbol of the Church, but this is not the case. The Woman of Revelation is Mary as the Mother of the Church. We know this because Christ gave birth to the Church, not the other way around. Therefore, how could the Woman of Revelation gives birth to Christ in 12.5 if she is not Mary but just an embodiment of the Church?)

Saints:
Prayers of Saints:
“And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God.” --Romans 8.27
“By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints.” --Ephesians 6.18
“I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men.” --1 Timothy 2.1
“And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.” --Revelations 5.8
“And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.” --Revelations 8.4
Asking the intercession of saints is very ancient:
“Call now if there be any that will answer thee, and turn to some of the saints.” --Job 5.1
The High Priests would not have thought Jesus was calling upon Elias to save him and waited to see if his prayer was beneficial in Matthew 27.47 had it not been an accepted practice.

I do not have time to answer for the “Elias” question, but most of the time Paul refers to the living Christians in the congregation as “saints” not to the departed Christians so the intercession is done by and for the living. Just saying.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I do not have time to answer for the “Elias” question, but most of the time Paul refers to the living Christians in the congregation as “saints” not to the departed Christians so the intercession is done by and for the living. Just saying.

Ahh, but who says the saints in heaven are not living?

 

[guanophore]

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.

Welcome to CAF Mberg3! You sound like a man who is sincere about his faith and with very good values about the need for your relationship to reflect these. This is truly an inspiration.

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.

You sure came to the right place. :yup:

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.

Not only is this appropriate, but also part of the forum rules.

Further more I ask that in stating your points and premises that you do not state the reality as stated as the Church.

I am not sure what you mean by this, but we might be unable to comply. Catholicism is not a matter of personal opinion. We are commanded to espouse the One Faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles, and to have one mind about it. We really have no “reality” to state, other than what was deposited once for all to 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.

Again, you have come to the right place.

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.

That is an appropriate use of the forum.

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

Do you? Why do you appreciate that? I mean, why would you think it is ok for one group of Christians to think this way?

 

[guanophore]

I find this one to be especially done in poor taste. This is obviously written for the Catholic audience, but I feel that it is full of bigotry and misunderstandings. If this is the Catholic position on those who disagree with it then I would have a had time thinking about joining them.

Please elucidate, Mberg. Where do you see bigotry and misunderstanding? Post the parts that trouble you, and let us discuss them.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Both things are true. He is in the place of Christ = he represents Christ to us. He has been authorized by God to retain or remit sins. The rest of us are also to represent Christ, but we do not have the authority to retain and remit. The priest has can say “go in peace, your sins are forgiven”.

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

This is a very good question. Penance is designed to heal the believer of the causes of the sin, and help him to make reparation to Christ, and to the Body, just like Zacheus said “today if I have taken anything I return it etc”.