Why Should I Become A Catholic.

[Mberg3]

I could respond to your earlier post, but there seems to be reoccuring themes throughout and I thinke they can mostly be answered in this one. If there is anything else you would like to know I am sure will not hesitate to say anything

This is absurd.

The Orthodox were united to Catholicism until 1054. They did not separate in the second century.

They have the same root faith as the Catholic faith so one would expect them to grow out of the same tradition used for Catholism. The arguements for the question regaring Cathic origins are the same as the Orthodox.

The office of the Bishop evidenced in 1Tim and elsewhere is part of the Apostolic Teaching that continues to be shared by the Catholics and Orthodox to this day!

1 Timothy is generally held to have been written around the beginning of the 2nd Century. (Margrette MacDonald - Professor of the New Testament from St. Xavior)

How do you account for the fact that Ignatius thought he was part of the Church founded by Christ, and no one disputed this fact with Him?

“Paul, damaged by the championship of Marcion, was credited with the so-called ‘Pastoral epistles’, which had the tone of the emerigin orthodox Church” HOC pg 55Ignacious was at very beginning of this crediting to silence hersey

I can see why you would need to create such a myth, however, since Iggy is clearly Catholic, as are Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

Tertullian is not Catholic. He converted to Montanism toward the end of his life. In the beginning perhaps but not at the end. It must be kept in mind that these men did not have the goal of critical literary analysis but instead used what they could to reinforce the orthodoxy

What he is basically saying is that God failed to preserve His Word both in the Church and in writing. The Gospels cannot be inspired and inerrant, since they were written by fallible men.

What he said was that the Gospels were imperfect pictures derived from rough written sources and diverse oral tradition which precludes them from inerrancy, but give us the best picture of what the Church believed about Jesus in earlier times. So you could say that your basic point is correct

This is not consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches and believes.

if this were true Catholic Historians would not be searching for the earlier manuscripts of the gospels, but they are because they feel as though they would be more accurate

Do you think finding a “Roman Catholic historian” who does not believe in the Catholic faith changes anything? This author’s opinion that God is unable to preserve His Word does not change the fact that Jesus gave the Truth to His One Body, the Church.

Good now all you have to do is show through contemporary scholarship why this is the case

You might want to look into this “other source”.

By the winky face I believe you are refering to the fact that there is actually no official source called “Q”. It is however an easy reference tool to refer to the “collective agreement” found in Matthew and Luke that does no derive from Mark and compare that too the Non-Mark differences of the two. Q is most likely common oral tradtion of the time.

This is an excellent example of horse hockey.

This is an excellent example of stating something without proof or thought

Again, the fact that they are synoptic does NOT equate to “major obscurities” or contradictions. The fact that eyewitnesses see and remember things differently, especially traumatic events, does not invalidate the different accounts.

They dont have the same list of the “12” between different Gospels… for example
There are also differences in Jesus cursing the fig tree… it happened at different times each one.
The sequence of major events isnt even consistant.
I guess “differences in remembering” still allows for “Inerrancy”

What can I say? The man has fallen from the faith, if indeed he ever had any. I suggest that you start with the original doctuments, Mberg, and what the Church says about herself, rather than the prattling of a person who no longer espouses the faith.

The Church has nothing to say for herself on the origins of the faith outside of vague statements that must be taken by faith alone. I think faith and historicity can co-exist dont you?

If you are going to use an apostate Catholic to justify your position, then you are in very poor shape spiritually.

I am sorry that using a Catholic historian makes me in poor shape spiritually. I could have use the great historian Martin E. Marty, or Ross Kraemer from UPenn, but I thought that non-Catholic sources may not go over well in a Catholic forum. I can assure you that Paul Johnson is quite sure of his faith. I suggest you not judge me for that though and simply debate the facts. The facts are true no matter their sources

Such a statement is contradicted by the NT itself, which invalidates it immediately. Even your apostate “Catholic historian” is in agreement that the NT documents represent 1st century reality.

Actually he said that the Gospels represented the reality of what different church bodies thought of Jesus. There were also other Church bodies who had ideas such as the Judaizers and Ebonites, and Gospels such as the Gospels of Thomas

Like I said, it would behoove you to start with the NT. Reading it, you will find that what your “historian” says is false.

 

[awantz]

Can you tell us about your taste test?

Can you tell us how you determine where God is leading you?

I attend a Catholic church with my husband every weekend and on all special services. Also, I have attended RCIA. I’ve done everything short of confirmation.

I had thought about becoming Catholic, but after going to RCIA, praying about it, ans listening for God’s voice I new it wasn’t right. Instead, God led me to another great church.

 

[Mberg3]

This is absurd.

The Orthodox were united to Catholicism until 1054. They did not separate in the second century.

The office of the Bishop evidenced in 1Tim and elsewhere is part of the Apostolic Teaching that continues to be shared by the Catholics and Orthodox to this day!

How do you account for the fact that Ignatius thought he was part of the Church founded by Christ, and no one disputed this fact with Him?

I can see why you would need to create such a myth, however, since Iggy is clearly Catholic, as are Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

What he is basically saying is that God failed to preserve His Word both in the Church and in writing. The Gospels cannot be inspired and inerrant, since they were written by fallible men.

This is not consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches and believes.

Do you think finding a “Roman Catholic historian” who does not believe in the Catholic faith changes anything? This author’s opinion that God is unable to preserve His Word does not change the fact that Jesus gave the Truth to His One Body, the Church.

You might want to look into this “other source”.

This is an excellent example of horse hockey.

Again, the fact that they are synoptic does NOT equate to “major obscurities” or contradictions. The fact that eyewitnesses see and remember things differently, especially traumatic events, does not invalidate the different accounts.

What can I say? The man has fallen from the faith, if indeed he ever had any. I suggest that you start with the original doctuments, Mberg, and what the Church says about herself, rather than the prattling of a person who no longer espouses the faith.

If you are going to use an apostate Catholic to justify your position, then you are in very poor shape spiritually.

Such a statement is contradicted by the NT itself, which invalidates it immediately. Even your apostate “Catholic historian” is in agreement that the NT documents represent 1st century reality.

Like I said, it would behoove you to start with the NT. Reading it, you will find that what your “historian” says is false.

I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but, despite the fact that I think it is in some ways errant. I do enjoy reading the New Testament. I try to read the Gospels and undisputed letters of Paul at least once monthly, but of course I do not seem to understand them as well as you do. I appreciate that they are usefull but not so much in history. I look forward to your next lesson

 

[Mberg3]

Can you please cite a source for this? I can’t imagine what you might be referencing here.

I was just referencing 1 Cor. 1:10-13 and 1 Cor. 3: 21-23. Which seem to be about internal differences. It does not establish Peter as the “right” theology. I know that it is argueable but it seems as though the Catholic Church at times justifies what is says by appealing to “We belong to Peter”

You are creating a false dichotomy. There is no separation between the two.

There seems to be a different theology on circumcision, or at least dietary requirements between the 2 groups when referencing Paul’s commentary on the event in, i believe, Galatians.

 

[Mberg3]

Can i ask you, are you really turning to Catholicism for the right reasons? you can’t really be coaxed into a faith, or pushed or nudged, it has to be a free choice. please correct me if i’m wrong but i get the impression that you’re only doing this because you’re engaged to a Catholic girl. that’s not quite enough. there will always be arguments for and against Catholicism and these debates will probably continue until the Second Coming. i just feel that you want this, but more so that your relationship with this girl can work, rather than your relationship with God. please do correct me if i’m being out of line. i hope you do settle into your faith and enjoy the unending magnificence of the working of the Holy Spirit.

Of course you are not out of line. I really am here to learn, like my fiancee has said, I do not want to join a Church just because it would make our lives easier, but because I am fully convinced of the truth. This is an excersise in trying to find that for me. If I would join now my concious would be nagging me because it wasnt “for the right reasons” as you say. I really am attracted to the Catholic Church. Even though I argue about alot of things on here alot of time that is the side I am not really leaning toward, but I need those answers met. I do truely feel as though the Catholic Church is founded directly from the time of Jesus, but I dont believe it was ever uniform of orthodox in its beliefs until later. There is a lot of room to argue whether this orthodoxy clarified point, or created them to fit their cultural expectations, but the age and general stability of Catholicism is attractive to me. I will not, however take any answer that simply states “because the church said so”, and so I try and challenge these good people to further explain their claims

 

[Mberg3]

I attend a Catholic church with my husband every weekend and on all special services. Also, I have attended RCIA. I’ve done everything short of confirmation.

I had thought about becoming Catholic, but after going to RCIA, praying about it, ans listening for God’s voice I new it wasn’t right. Instead, God led me to another great church.

may I ask which church that is

 

[Mberg3]

Mberg3;7838175:

Just some points for you to consider upon…

Paul, after his conversion at Damascus, spends years in places, learning about Christ and his teachings. He goes to Jerusalem (as recounted in Galatians) and confers with Peter to ascertain that what he is going to teach is not in vain.

Also, from Acts 13, prior to going on his first mission, he is ordained, laid hands on, by elders at Antioch. He submits to authority, gets ordained and is sent. He does not go out on his own.

It is well concidered. I meant that he was teaching without the authority of “those who were supposed to be the acknowledged leaders” in the Jerusalem Gal. 2:6. Paul also refuted the actions of Peter in Galatians but that really has nothing to do with the earlier story. It is hazy to tell what happened in the Jerusalem Council because of Luke’s late authorship and its provisions on dietary requierments are not completely in synch with Paul’s account

 

[Mberg3]

I am finding all of this quite interesting - 10 pages of persuasions of why to choose the Catholic Church.

Up until 1 1/2 years ago I would have held my own against all the arguments, having graduated from a Lutheran seminary. None of the Catholic reasons would have been good enough to match my Lutheran counterpoints.

But a year ago I entered the Catholic Church with no reasons needed - I wanted it more than anything - it was a treasure buried in a field and I sold everything to buy that field.

Why, if not from reasons?
Because one day I caught myself imagining that I was St. John walking with Jesus and his disciples as I was reading, and I called to mind what a Jew of that time would be waiting for (the Messiah, the Son of Man from Daniel’s description, the “Son of God” from the Psalms, etc.). Then, walking and talking with them and listening to Jesus, I hear him say to Simon(not to me, not to my brother James, not to Andrew or Matthew) “You are Cephas and on Cephas I will build my Church”, and “I give you the keys to my Kingdom” - and I knew what that meant, as a Jew, from my understanding of history - my King was giving executive authority, judicial authority, legislative authority to Simon. Nothing figurative in this; he was our awaited King, we all backed away a few feet from Simon in respect.

Suddenly, back in my understanding of myself as myself rather than as St. John, I realized that Jesus brought something better than doctrines to us; he brought a real Kingdom from Heaven, with himself as King. It was suddenly tangible. It is just as real as the United States is real. And here was legitimate historical creation of the way to participate in that Kingdom with Jesus as King. Peter (plus the rest of the disciples) was charged with guarding that Kingdom on the Earth, and granting citizenship to all who saw it as a treasure or a priceless pearl. I wanted the Church then, wanted to walk and talk with that band who wanders the world in countries in which we live, having citizenship with them in this better Nation.

The writings of the Bible are inextricably bound to the original recipients apart from some legitimate means of “being an original recipient” - that legitimate means is that they were written “to the church” to the citizens of Jesus’ Kingdom. There alone is participation in the Bible rather than reading it and trying to interpret it from afar.
So, I want to be one with the Church, and nothing else. My social security card is just a “green card” to live and work in the United States; my true nationality and citizenship are “Catholic”.

John Martin

I like this explaination. I am glad in how sincere you are in your faith. I am sure graduating from a lutheran Seminary and being able to argue so well that you had a difficult time, or an easy time I guess, changing some of your theological outlooks. Could you explain a little more how you made that change in your mind? Did you suddenly just trust Rome or did you need to reason through things. I am just interested in how you made the cognitive leap so I know how I can approach things more easily

 

[awantz]

may I ask which church that is

The church isn’t associated with any specific denomination.

 

[John_Martin]

I like this explaination. I am glad in how sincere you are in your faith. I am sure graduating from a lutheran Seminary and being able to argue so well that you had a difficult time, or an easy time I guess, changing some of your theological outlooks. Could you explain a little more how you made that change in your mind? Did you suddenly just trust Rome or did you need to reason through things. I am just interested in how you made the cognitive leap so I know how I can approach things more easily

I actually did not change my mind; before last year Christianity was a cognitive persuasion, doctrines and teachings about truth, about God, about Christ and what he did in his death and resurrection - and there was absolute certainty about these; I am sure you also know what it is to be certain about your understanding of things, maybe more, maybe fewer things than I.

But suddenly I was seeing John and Peter as real people who believed that the man with them was their King, and not their elected king, but their King sent from their God to be standing right next to them. If Barack Obama came to see you with the cameras rolling, and told you that you were going to be his secretary of state, suddenly you would be looked at in a whole new light by your friends and neighbors.

I suddenly saw Peter in that light - as clumsy as he is made out to be by many (compared to other desciples), as few as his letters number compared to Paul, still I suddenly felt a respect for him that I never had before. Not because of him, but because Jesus appointed him. And then suddenly also I realized that Jesus was just like King David - after being annointed king, but while Saul was still king, David had a band of loyal subjects who regarded him as their true king - they were part of David’s “nation” that had no land yet because David would not take the land by force from Saul - he would not slay the Lord’s annointed (Saul).

And the disciples knew that same thing with Jesus; they were with the true King, citizens of his People. Read through Acts and Paul’s letters and see how often you hear Paul speak of the “Kingdom” “I faithfully proclaimed the Kingdom to you” etc.

Suddenly I saw “home”, my people, my “heritage”. Before Christianity was a set of theological beliefs about God, praying to the God I knew in those understandings about him. My nationality or my identity was American, and my “religion” was Christian. Now, being part of that Body, that People, I see my national identity is Catholic (a Catholic who happens to live and work in America). And now I show great deference to the Pope, even defending him, because of who appointed him. I did not suddenly trust Rome; rather I suddenly saw Jesus as a real King in the world and trusted Him.

It is actually only after that when I began to be aware of theological / doctrinal “answers” that could explain things to my full satisfaction. I am demanding for legitimate explanations of reality / truth. I read the bible in Greek daily, fully work through the logical implications of things I read or hear people say. I find flaws with many things I hear from Catholic mouths, with many many things. But I am so very sure of the Kingdom established by God, and of the Holy Spirit (which I have never heard or understood so clearly until knowing I am in fellowship in this Kingdom) that I continue “patriotically” to participate in it, following my King, who is also my Brother, my Friend.

John Martin

 

[Mberg3]

It is actually only after that when I began to be aware of theological / doctrinal “answers” that could explain things to my full satisfaction. I am demanding for legitimate explanations of reality / truth. I read the bible in Greek daily, fully work through the logical implications of things I read or hear people say. I find flaws with many things I hear from Catholic mouths, with many many things. But I am so very sure of the Kingdom established by God, and of the Holy Spirit (which I have never heard or understood so clearly until knowing I am in fellowship in this Kingdom) that I continue “patriotically” to participate in it, following my King, who is also my Brother, my Friend.

John Martin

could you help clarify what you mean by “errors”. I have things that I think might be errors, but I am not sure enough in my own understanding to do much more than as for the explaination of others. The heritage portion is impressive to me as well, but I want to feel like a full citizen and agree with the “customs of the land” so to speak

 

[fred_conty]

Because we have bad catholics, lax catholics, lukewarm catholics, ignorant catholics, and still the church embraces them, encourages them, coaxes them, threatens them,
and loves them, all her children. Which demonstrates her patience and holiness. To the end of the road they will be the cross that Christ in His Mystical Body must carry on His
shoulder.

Then there are the “mother theresas” and “Frances” and “Benedicts” and "Dominics’ and “the little flowers” and “Newmans” and … and … and … SO many thru the ages loved the poor, sick, lost, and sinners.

The image of Christ, “and they will know we are christian by our love , yes they will know we are christian by our love.” Hymn

 

[guanophore]

I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but, despite the fact that I think it is in some ways errant. I do enjoy reading the New Testament. I try to read the Gospels and undisputed letters of Paul at least once monthly, but of course I do not seem to understand them as well as you do. I appreciate that they are usefull but not so much in history. I look forward to your next lesson

May the Scriptures make you wise unto salvation.

Can you please cite a source for this? I can’t imagine what you might be referencing here.

I was just referencing 1 Cor. 1:10-13 and 1 Cor. 3: 21-23. Which seem to be about internal differences. It does not establish Peter as the “right” theology. I know that it is argueable but it seems as though the Catholic Church at times justifies what is says by appealing to “We belong to Peter”

No, there are no “internal differences” in the Catholic Church. The doctrine is One. What these passages are describing is the childish behavior of new disciples who are worldly in their thinking.

Paul, Apollos, and Peter all espouse ONE FAITH and have unity of mind and purpose.

This passage is not an indictment by Paul of Peters “theology”.

There seems to be a different theology on circumcision, or at least dietary requirements between the 2 groups when referencing Paul's commentary on the event in, i believe, Galatians.

There was a difference of opinion, which is why the Council of Jerusalem was held. During the council, the Magesterium (teaching authority appointed by Christ) presented and discussed the issues, explored the Scriptures, prayed, and were led by the Holy Spirit to decide according to Christ’s instruction. This is how He intended the Church to function.

 

[guanophore]

1 Timothy is generally held to have been written around the beginning of the 2nd Century. (Margrette MacDonald - Professor of the New Testament from St. Xavior)

I think you will find that this idea is certainly not “generally held”. On the contrary, it is held to have been written by St Paul prior to his martyrdom in Rome.

“Paul, damaged by the championship of Marcion, was credited with the so-called ‘Pastoral epistles’, which had the tone of the emerigin orthodox Church” HOC pg 55Ignacious was at very beginning of this crediting to silence hersey

Who thought Paul was “damaged” by Marcion? How did Marcion “champion” over him?

What is the “crediting to silence” heresy?

What has any of that to do with Ignatius representation of the Catholic faith?

Tertullian is not Catholic. He converted to Montanism toward the end of his life. In the beginning perhaps but not at the end.

Yes, this is an important distinction, since he began Catholic, then fell away from the faith.
His works must be read in this context.

It must be kept in mind that these men did not have the goal of critical literary analysis but instead used what they could to reinforce the orthodoxy

And how is that relevant? Their works represent the Catholic faith. Of course they reinforced orthodox faith.

What he said was that the Gospels were imperfect pictures derived from rough written sources and diverse oral tradition which precludes them from inerrancy, but give us the best picture of what the Church believed about Jesus in earlier times. So you could say that your basic point is correct

I am mystified why any committed Christian would subscribe to a point of view that considered the Scriptures uninspired and errant. I read a post above wondering about your motives, and I must say I am curious as well. It does not seem like you are interested in a serious exploration of the faith.

if this were true Catholic Historians would not be searching for the earlier manuscripts of the gospels, but they are because they feel as though they would be more accurate

Yes, it would. Of course we are expected to use all of our scholarly abilities to apprehend the revelation of God to us. The Church teaches that the original monographs are inspired and inerrant, not the copies.

Good now all you have to do is show through contemporary scholarship why this is the case

No, Mberg, I do not. On the contrary, the revelation by God of Himself to mankind is quite outside and abive any “contemporary scholarship” of His creation. The fact that Jesus gave His Truth to the Church as a gift is a fundamental article of our faith. If you do not believe that God has revealed HImself to mankind, why are you here?

Q is most likely common oral tradtion of the time.

I thought you did not believe any such thing existed?

This is an excellent example of stating something without proof or thought

On the contrary, the recognition of horse hockey in relation to the Gospel of Christ requires that one be well familiar with that faith, and recognize any departure from it.

They dont have the same list of the “12” between different Gospels…

Yes, Mberg, they do.

for example There are also differences in Jesus cursing the fig tree… it happened at different times each one.

you really seem to be grasping at straws to find a reason NOT to believe. Why are you focusing on such minutia? What is the big picture here? Your girlfriend does not want to marry a heathen?

The sequence of major events isnt even consistant.
I guess “differences in remembering” still allows for “Inerrancy”

These are exegetical issues that can certainly be addressed, but I suspect they are not at the root of the issue at all. It is more likely there is something about the Church to which you do not want to submit yourself. All this seems like a smokescreen.

The Church has nothing to say for herself on the origins of the faith outside of vague statements that must be taken by faith alone.

Indeed you are having a crisis, but it is much more than “denominational”. You don’t appear to be posessed of even basic fundamentals in Christianity.

I think faith and historicity can co-exist dont you?

Yes, but the pursuit of God requires faith, seeking understanding. It would seem that any spiritual pursuit for you would need to begin with evangelization, since you are not presently Christian in faith.

 

[guanophore]

I am sorry that using a Catholic historian makes me in poor shape spiritually.

I think you missed my point. I said that using an apostate Catholic historian to bolster your own faithlessness indicates something crucial about your spiritual state.

I am sorry about it too. It is tragic.

I could have use the great historian Martin E. Marty, or Ross Kraemer from UPenn, but I thought that non-Catholic sources may not go over well in a Catholic forum. I can assure you that Paul Johnson is quite sure of his faith.

Well, this is a non-Catholic section. I assure you we deal with non-Catholic sources every day.

Paul Johnson may be quite sure of his faith, but clearly you are not of yours. I don’t think fiddle faddling over the apostate views of “Catholic” historians is going to help you solve your problem.

I suggest you not judge me for that though and simply debate the facts. The facts are true no matter their sources

No one here is in a position to judge you, Mberg. All we can do is respond to your posts. For all we know, you could be role playing someone you are not. Actually, this is a hopeful thought.

You have not presented any “facts”. You have presented the opinions of individuals who have left the faith of Christ. Perhaps you are putting these forward to represent yourself because you have done the same? There is nothing in your posts that indicate you actually did espouse the Christian faith at one point.

Actually he said that the Gospels represented the reality of what different church bodies thought of Jesus. There were also other Church bodies who had ideas such as the Judaizers and Ebonites, and Gospels such as the Gospels of Thomas

Certainly there were many communties and divergent beliefs. However, Jesus only founded One Church, and all who belonged to it were of one mind, and One Faith. The Holy Scriptures attest to this, as do the writings of their successors.

Perhaps you wish to co-exist with those considering themselves “Christian” without embracing their faith?

I really am here to learn, like my fiancee has said, I do not want to join a Church just because it would make our lives easier, but because I am fully convinced of the truth.

It sounds good, but there is a fundamental flaw in it. The question is not about whether to “join a church” but about whether you are ready, willing, and able to respond to the call of God in your life.

  This is an excersise in trying to find that for me. If I would join now my concious would be nagging me because it wasnt "for the right reasons" as you say.

If you just want to exercise, I guess that is ok. But between your mental calisthenics God is knocking at the door of your heart, waiting for you to invite him in.

I really am attracted to the Catholic Church. Even though I argue about alot of things on here alot of time that is the side I am not really leaning toward, but I need those answers met.

You will probably be very disappointed in the end, Mberg. When one comes to God in faith, responding to His grace and call, many answers are not met. This is why it is called a leap of faith. I am not saying that God is not willing and able to meet all that you need, but refusing to answer His call because certain things don’t make sense will not work. There are many mysteries in our faith that are above and beyond our puny little minds to comprehend. Mysteries are important to contemplate, but one must do so with the expectation that we may never “know” until we arrive with Him, and are know as we are known.

I do truely feel as though the Catholic Church is founded directly from the time of Jesus, but I dont believe it was ever uniform of orthodox in its beliefs until later.

This makes sense, since you do not believe that the New Testatment is the inerrant and inspired Word of God, then you cannot rely on the witness that is given.

 There is a lot of room to argue whether this orthodoxy clarified point, or created them to fit their cultural expectations, but the age and general stability of Catholicism is attractive to me.

As has been pointed out quite adroitly above, this is not a reason to become Catholic.

I will not, however take any answer that simply states "because the church said so", and so I try and challenge these good people to further explain their claims

I think this is a fruitless approach, Mberg. To me, it seems that you need to sit alone with God, and ask Him to make Himself known to you.

 

[John_Martin]

could you help clarify what you mean by “errors”. I have things that I think might be errors, but I am not sure enough in my own understanding to do much more than as for the explaination of others. The heritage portion is impressive to me as well, but I want to feel like a full citizen and agree with the “customs of the land” so to speak

A simple example of an error is from this set of postings, which I believe will not really help you to want to be Catholic, and will not help you “feel like a full citizen…” of the Kingdom established by God. It came from rikkk1958 (one or two pages back):
“If we have to be honest with you, we can tell you that the Church believes you can not be save outside the Catholic Church”
The Church teaches (your will find this in the Catechism) that everyone baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is joined to Christ (whether they wish to participate with his Church or not). When the Church confirmed that I was truly one of them last year, they did not re-baptize me - just as the apostles confirmed the reality of people’s unity with them in the book of Acts, coming to them after they were baptized and laying their hands on them, so the Church layed its hands on me and confirmed “Yes you really are one with us”.

Do you know, though, the one place I do not find errors is in that Catechism.

But, be that as it may, you will not find your answers in these postings, in all the explanations, etc.

Take a long look back through the Gospels, and you will see that when people came to walk with Jesus as his disciples, it was not because they now understood the correct interpretation of the old testament. His disciples did not understand all, or even much, of what he was talking about. They only had a hope, a longing, from what they did understand, and then Jesus was in front of them saying, “Come with me; I am the one you have been waiting for”. They did not understand that it was necessary for him to die, but they did understand that they wanted to be with him more than anything. They wanted him, only him, as their King, their only King.

It was only after he rose from death and sent his Spirit (somewhat akin to Confirmation) when they began to understand; also, the two disciples on the way to Emmaus - walking with him and listening to him but not recognizing him - then suddenly it became clear that he was real and who he was “in the breaking of the bread”, and now they understood all the explanations he had been speaking to him.

The explanations cannot convince anyone to be Catholic - what makes you want to be Catholic is a belief about the person / the people you want to be joined to - at my first confession I said to the Priest, “Father Mark, do you know that I see you as Jesus right now, just as clearly as if we were sitting on the shore of the Sea of Galilee; I want to tell you who and what I really am, I want you to know me and my sin, so that if you decide you really want me to participate in your Kingdom, then both you and I will know that I did not lie to sneak in.” then I told my sins. “Will you let me join you, remain one of your people?” Being a Catholic is about believing in the person you see in front of you, that Christ did join himself to that person; believing in those around you at Mass, that he did join himself to all of them and that all of them are your fellow citizens, no matter how good or bad they may seem. Only then can you see that Jesus is really present with you, and that you are a “sacrament” yourself of Jesus being present to those around you. And it is not just a presence today, there is a new understanding of union and of participation in the Bible. You are with Paul or Peter as they write their letters, saying yes to every word. You are there at the Last Supper, saying “I will eat the bread you give to me”. You hear the parables of the Kingdom from Jesus and say, “Yes, believe him everyone, the Kingdom is a priceless pearl!”

I regard you as a Catholic already, Mberg (it would be good to know your first name, though), yet I see that you do not regard yourself this way (I am presuming, of course, that you were baptized? if not, I would welcome you to be baptized). You are not yet in full fellowship with us, not sharing in the nourishment of the Eucharist - one day when you realize that it is really true you will be utterly surprised and joy filled.

John Martin

 

[Curious_Seed]

What brings you here to CAF, Curious? You are on a thread about why you should not become Catholic. Why is that?

Just curious.

 

[guanophore]

Just curious.

Indeed but curiosity implies intelligence and interest. You don’t seem to be interested in applying either of these to an exploration of the Catholic faith.

 

[Mberg3]

I think you will find that this idea is certainly not “generally held”. On the contrary, it is held to have been written by St Paul prior to his martyrdom in Rome.

I should clarify to say that most experts who study the orgional sources of the New Testament feel that, in all likelyhood, the Pastorals (1& 2 Timothy and Titus) are not origionally authored by Paul. You of course my disagree, but I tend to trust the experts

Who thought Paul was “damaged” by Marcion? How did Marcion “champion” over him?

As you well know Marcion was an early heretic who used the writings of Paul as the base of the Marconian cannon. Paul as a source was “damaged” as an orthodox source because he was being used to justiify heresy. Hence Paul was “championed” by Marcion as the only pure source of Jesus’ early teachings

What is the “crediting to silence” heresy?

What I meant to say was the Ignatius credited the “Pastorals” (which were pro-orthodoxy) to Paul as to redeem him as a champion of the orthodox chuch

What has any of that to do with Ignatius representation of the Catholic faith?

Yes, this is an important distinction, since he began Catholic, then fell away from the faith.
His works must be read in this context.

It is good to keep his orthodox writings seperate from his heretical ones, but it is an interesting case study to try and understand why an orthodox apologist would fall out to the faith he at first considered a heresy

And how is that relevant? Their works represent the Catholic faith. Of course they reinforced orthodox faith.

It is relavent because it explains why Ignatius was interested in crediting the Pastorals to Paul despite the fact that they were not proven, and were probably not, written by him. If it advanced the orthodoxy then Ig. would not care about checking sources.I am mystified why any committed Christian would subscribe to a point of view that considered the Scriptures uninspired and errant. I read a post above wondering about your motives, and I must say I am curious as well. It does not seem like you are interested in a serious exploration of the faith.

I am interested in exploring my faith, but my faith will not let me believe what has been proven to be false.

Yes, it would. Of course we are expected to use all of our scholarly abilities to apprehend the revelation of God to us. The Church teaches that the original monographs are inspired and inerrant, not the copies.

Then you state that the copies are with error, hence the Bible as we have it today contains errors that are impossible to consider unless compared to the origional documents. I am justified in what I said earlier that I cannot consider them (the NT as presented) to be without error

No, Mberg, I do not. On the contrary, the revelation by God of Himself to mankind is quite outside and abive any “contemporary scholarship” of His creation. The fact that Jesus gave His Truth to the Church as a gift is a fundamental article of our faith. If you do not believe that God has revealed HImself to mankind, why are you here?

I believe that God has revealed himself, yet that revelation must be consistant with what we know to be true about history. If you believe that there is a direct line then more power to you, but if you arent willing to prove the connection all I ask is that you dont use that point to advance you position.

I thought you did not believe any such thing existed?

I said a single souce is proably not existant, but there were probably many shared stories among those who followed Jesus that would be similar, but were never written down until the Gospels of Matt. and Luke. That would explain their similarities that are found outside of Mark

On the contrary, the recognition of horse hockey in relation to the Gospel of Christ requires that one be well familiar with that faith, and recognize any departure from it.

What does that even mean? There are manifest differences between John and the Synoptics

Yes, Mberg, they do.

I will check on this later

you really seem to be grasping at straws to find a reason NOT to believe. Why are you focusing on such minutia? What is the big picture here? Your girlfriend does not want to marry a heathen?

Finding discrepancies in the Gospels has nothing to do with my faith. You said that they had no errors that they were WITHOUT error. I showed you 2 different accounts of the same event, and it logically follows that either only one, or neither event is correctly depicted. Which follows only one or neither gospel is inerrant. There is error not matter how much you would deny it. The furthest you could state is that the core is inerrant and the details can err, but either way you cannot say they are inerrant.

These are exegetical issues that can certainly be addressed, but I suspect they are not at the root of the issue at all. It is more likely there is something about the Church to which you do not want to submit yourself. All this seems like a smokescreen.

All this is trying to get you to admitt reality. I cannot address you if you say may premise is invalid.

Indeed you are having a crisis, but it is much more than “denominational”. You don’t appear to be posessed of even basic fundamentals in Christianity.

Because I agree with the experts on Christianity?

Yes, but the pursuit of God requires faith, seeking understanding. It would seem that any spiritual pursuit for you would need to begin with evangelization, since you are not presently Christian in faith.

 

[Mberg3]

Why is everyone who does not agree with you a not a Christian?