Why Should I Become A Catholic.

[Mberg3]

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.

And I think your rejection of any discussion based off of scholarship and intellectual achievement indicates something equally crucial about you. A simple google search would show that Paul Johnson is a conservative Catholic who is impacted heavily by his faith. I personally dislike the man, but his history is impecable. I wish to discuss history with you and scholarship is an important part of that. Why can I not base my opinion on the collective expert concensus

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

The post started in the “Traditional Catholic” section and started with questions about traditional beliefs. The change in subject matter is why it came to the non-catholic forum. And if a devout catholic historian is consider apostate heaven forbid how the findings of a Lutheran or secular historian would be taken

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.

And I dont think you refusing to acknowledge that your faith does not neatly fit into the findings of history wont help me either

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.

What role would I be playing? And that statement comes directly after a judgement on my spirtitual situation.

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.

Once again they have NOT left the faith of Christ. Even if they had their research would still be valid. I am a Christian (happy?) but I will not take historical nonsense for an answer. I do not have time nor desire to teach a Course on the History of Christianity and I do not think it would do me good anyway. Your only response is to attack my personal faith and the faith of the sources I cite. I ask you to presetn your sources and to disagree with my sources based on their points and scholarship that suggests otherwise. If not then you are just presenting you opinions as truth. I have no reason to belive anything you say and none of it is supported by much of what I have read about the History of ChristianityCertainly 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?

They all claim to be founded by Jesus Christ I just asked you to prove that the Catholic Church is the one who was telling 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.

I do not want to be drawn into the wrong church. If the Catholic Church does not contain the truth when compared to others I will not join it. I am willing to listen as to why they are the true church but I will question your claims.

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.

There are manythings in which I am pulled to two different conclusion. I am trying to refute any rejections I may have.

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 ask not to have all the answers. All I ask is to have no objections.

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.

I do not rely on the sole evidence that is given, but I believe that in most cases it reflects things accurately.

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

Which is why I havent become catholic. It is a plus but not something I will make my decision on.

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.

The Church did not pull its ideas out of the sky. In many cases it did not pull its ideas straight out of scripture . There is logic and philosophy behind many ideas and I want to know what the logic and philosophy is. I do not believe that is fruitless

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

Hello Mberg. Welcome to the forums. I’ve been reading through posts and trying to catch up, but wanted to comment on your statement above. I too love the liturgy of the church and find comfort in the connection that it weaves between Calvary and all of the following generations of faithful who worship the Son of God. Do you think that your newfound love of liturgy is something that God may have given you to move you towards the Catholic Church? I certainly would agree that there are Lutheran, Orthodox and Anglican churches with similar liturgies. Do you feel that the Catholic liturgy is more or less compelling? Also, do you attend a church with sacraments? You mentioned the “True Presence” so I’m assuming you have that as part of your worship service? Do you feel a pull toward the sacramental life of the Catholic Church? This to me seems like its in line with the same love of liturgy. Any thoughts?

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.

Keep in mind that the Roman Rite is just one of many different rites within the Catholic Church. There are Catholics from other rites, like the Byzantine Catholics for example, that would not call themselves “Roman Catholics” but are fully Catholic in their belief.

However, I have noticed that this forum has sometimes refered to other Christians as outsiders or not truely in the Faith.

This is unfortunate. I certainly have visited non-Catholic discussion forums where members there don’t even acknowledge that Catholics are Christion. I understand your concern, having walked in those shoes for many miles. I think the term separated brethren can be taken as being off-putting by some, while perhaps welcoming to others. I like the way Lumen Gentium puts it…

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth. (Full Text Here)

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

Fair enough. I’ll try my best to return the courtesy.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Mberg3]

Hello Mberg. Welcome to the forums. I’ve been reading through posts and trying to catch up, but wanted to comment on your statement above. I too love the liturgy of the church and find comfort in the connection that it weaves between Calvary and all of the following generations of faithful who worship the Son of God. Do you think that your newfound love of liturgy is something that God may have given you to move you towards the Catholic Church? I certainly would agree that there are Lutheran, Orthodox and Anglican churches with similar liturgies. Do you feel that the Catholic liturgy is more or less compelling?

I dont know if i find it more or less compelling, I think that it is a little different but there are things I like about each. For example the Kyrie is something I love about the Catholic masses I have attened and is something that I enjoyed doing more than the translated version at my current Church. But in my current church I do like the full sermon when compared to the homily at the catholic masses so there is a little bit of a mixed bag.

Also, do you attend a church with sacraments? You mentioned the “True Presence” so I’m assuming you have that as part of your worship service? Do you feel a pull toward the sacramental life of the Catholic Church? This to me seems like its in line with the same love of liturgy. Any thoughts?

To me the Sacraments outside of the Eucharist are new and so I am curious about them but I do not know if you would say I “feel a pull”.

Keep in mind that the Roman Rite is just one of many different rites within the Catholic Church. There are Catholics from other rites, like the Byzantine Catholics for example, that would not call themselves “Roman Catholics” but are fully Catholic in their belief.

I guess I do not know what the differences are. Also there are not any other expressions of Catholicism where I live. It is kinda a small town.

This is unfortunate. I certainly have visited non-Catholic discussion forums where members there don’t even acknowledge that Catholics are Christion. I understand your concern, having walked in those shoes for many miles. I think the term separated brethren can be taken as being off-putting by some, while perhaps welcoming to others. I like the way Lumen Gentium puts it…

That is definatly true about non-Catholic groups and denominations. I left my own partially because of the disrespect it showed to Catholism and other Christian groups. I do know that people care about these issues and so will come on strong at times. I also do enjoy Lumen Gentium as a document. It is an important statement.
Fair enough. I’ll try my best to return the courtesy.

Peace,
Robert

 

[jlhargus]

If you would like we could start with salvation as you had earlier suggested; what would you say is the MEANS of salvation i.e. what processes need to occur before an individual can be saved?

JL: [Jn3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, **EXCEPT a man be BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he CANNOT ENTER into the KINGDOM OF GOD.] This is when sins are remitted, washed away, and one receives the indwelling Holy Spirit. Peter sums it up precisely when the gospel is preached the first time after Pentecost.

[Acts2:37 Now WHEN THEY HEARD this, THEY WERE PRICKED IN THEIR HEART, AND SAID unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, **WHAT SHALL WE DO? 38 Then **PETER SAID **unto them, REPENT, and **BE BAPTIZED **every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall RECEIVE the gift of THE HOLY GHOST. The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.]

First the adult hears the Word, the Holy Spirit convects them of sin, pricks their heart conceiving supernatural FAITH life in them. They accept or reject that faith life, if reject they abort that conception. If accepted they are instructed what they must do. Repent, be baptized, FOR remission of sins, and RECEIVE the HOLY SPIRIT.

[Acts22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and BE BAPTIZED, and WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.]

[Rv1:5 And from JESUS CHRIST, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and **WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD,]

What do we use to wash with? Water and a cleansing agent (soap). The Holy Spirit is the cleansing agent in the SACRAMENT of water baptism. By water AND the Spirit we are washed in the blood of Christ, cleansed of our sins. A sacrament produces the grace it signifies.

[TITUS 3:5 NOT by WORKS…we’ve done BUT by **HIS MERCY he SAVED us **BY **the **WASHING of REGENERATION **and RENEWING of the HOLY SPIRIT 6 which he **POURED OUT ON US **richly **THROUGH JESUS **Christ our Savior 7 SO we might be JUSTIFIED BY his GRACE and become HEIRS…] The Sacrament of Baptism not only remits, washes and cleanses, of sins but regenerates our soul, by POURING OUT the Holy Spirit. That indwelling Holy Spirit, justifies us by his grace making us a child of God and heirs. In baptism the body is now dead to sin, whereas before the soul was dead, and slave to the flesh. Now the body (flesh) is subject to the regenerated soul, by the Holy Spirit indwelling. Now we no longer live in old Adam but are born again into the new Adam.

[Gal 3:26 For** YE ARE all the **CHILDREN OF GOD **by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For **AS MANY **of you **AS HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED **into Christ HAVE PUT ON CHRIST.]

ACTS 19:1 And it came to pass that, while Apollos was at Corinth Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus and FINDING certain DISCIPLES 2 HE SAID unto them **HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YE BELIEVED? **And they said unto him WE HAVE NOT SO MUCH AS HEARD whether THERE BE ANY HOLY GHOST 3 And HE SAID unto them UNTO WHAT then WERE YE BAPTIZED? And THEY SAID UNTO JOHN’S BAPTISM 4 Then said Paul, JOHN verily BAPTIZED WITH the BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE SAYING unto the people that they should BELIEVE ON HIM WHICH should COME AFTER HIM that is ON CHRIST JESUS 5 When they heard this THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS [Evidently more is needed than belief and faith in Christ, to be born again, because John’s baptism was of repentance, believing or having faith in the one to come, Christ. They needed the sacrament of Christian water baptism because the Holy Spirit and baptism go hand and hand else why would Paul ask about baptism when he found they had not heard of the Holy Spirit? We receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Christ’s baptism.

[1Pt3:21 The like figure whereunto even **BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:]

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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

Conversion stories may be a good way to approach your issues as well. Reading about how others were convinced that the Catholic Church was what it claims may help you in your walk. If you’re interested I can make two recommendations.

The first is Patrick Madrid’s book “Surprised by Truth” that you can buy online through the Catholic.com bookstore, or Amazon.com. It’s a collection of conversion stories from various persons coming from different backgrounds, including backgrounds similar to the one you described of yourself.

The second is the recorded conversion story of Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister and theologian who went from being a staunch protestant anti-Catholic to a Catholic who now teaches as the Franciscan University at Steubenville in Ohio. I’m not sure if you can get the talk on CD (it’s very entertaining and about 1 hr long), but the transcript of the talk is here

I have found that it helps me my own personal study to see how other people grappled with the same issues of faith and conscience that I have wrestled with.

I think the overall consistency of Catholic teaching and the constancy of the institution over two millenia are together real and substantial evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit. I’m not saying its enough, but it’s a good piece of the puzzle.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Mberg3]

Conversion stories may be a good way to approach your issues as well. Reading about how others were convinced that the Catholic Church was what it claims may help you in your walk. If you’re interested I can make two recommendations.

The second is the recorded conversion story of Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian minister and theologian who went from being a staunch protestant anti-Catholic to a Catholic who now teaches as the Franciscan University at Steubenville in Ohio. I’m not sure if you can get the talk on CD (it’s very entertaining and about 1 hr long), but the transcript of the talk is here

I have found that it helps me my own personal study to see how other people grappled with the same issues of faith and conscience that I have wrestled with.

I think the overall consistency of Catholic teaching and the constancy of the institution over two millenia are together real and substantial evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit. I’m not saying its enough, but it’s a good piece of the puzzle.

Peace,
Robert

I am reading through the Catechism at the moment but I will keep your suggestions in mind. My finacee is actually attending Steubinville at the moment

 

[pablope]

I am reading through the Catechism at the moment but I will keep your suggestions in mind. My finacee is actually attending Steubinville at the moment

Here are some free MP3 recordings:

bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm#EWTN

Scott Hahn’s oral conversion story is here and other subjects:

catholicity.com/cds/

 

[Curious_Seed]

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.

Now, you are being mean spirited - intellect is better served, void of personal attacks, don’t you think?

No reply required.

 

[jlhargus]

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

JL: Yet they are not built on that ROCK on which Christ promised to build HIS CHURCH. The ROCK to whom Christ promised, when that ROCK was converted, his faith would FAIL NOT. The Rock Christ commissioned to feed HIS lambs and HIS sheep. That ROCK to whom alone the keys of the kingdom are given. The ROCK that can bind and loose apart from the other bishops. The ROCK all the others must be in union with to bind and loose as a group. The Church HE promised the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against. The fellowship which Christ promised to lead into ALL TRUTH. The ROCK by which anyone can identify the ONE Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, the Household of the living God, the pillar and ground of TRUTH.

 

[Mberg3]

Here are some free MP3 recordings:

bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm#EWTN

Scott Hahn’s oral conversion story is here and other subjects:

catholicity.com/cds/

I read his long transcript conversion story and several articles on his website. He explains his positions well, and I am very impressed with his sincerity (Which I have no reason to doubt). He also seems to address the sticking points between catholics and reformed christianity in a way that is very lucid yet hightly respectful of the other side. In short I really enjoyed this take one things much more than the articles on newadvent.com (nothing against if btw).

 

[Mberg3]

Now, you are being mean spirited - intellect is better served, void of personal attacks, don’t you think?

No reply required.

 

[fred_conty]

Josephback Hi,

In response to the question of catholic and orthodox, that is, who broke from whom
in 1054, when the split did occur, wasn’t there also a number of eastern churches that split from the orthodox church?

If we look at the latter split in the eastern churches, we find that a number of those eastern churches were loyal to the authority of the Roman catholic pope as they already had been for centuries and still are today.

So based on this loyality of these eastern churches which they had all along, then the
question of who split from whom should be clear.

In the history of things, rather than injuring the latins, the greek schism proved fatal to the eastern byzantine catholicism, politically speaking (History of Catholic Church, Neill Schnmandt, p.189)

 

[fred_conty]

Jerry-Jet Hi,

I’ve been catholic since day 2 , and I couldn’t have said it better.​

I believe in the sun, even when it isn’t shinning. (hymn)

 

[fred_conty]

Valentino Hi,

I’m not clear on something you said . The pope was infallible and made such gross error. And something else, when the pope expounds a document which is taken is infallible.

According to the catechism, when the pope is speaking infallibly on faith or morals, then he can’t error. And when he speaks infallibly he says that he is speaking from the chair of Peter and does that rarely. If he does not say he is speaking from the chair of Peter, then
he is not speaking infallibly. And it only pertains to faith and morals and not his private opinions or thoughts. If I misread your statement, then please pass me a piece of your humble pie.​

Eat this lamb, drink this cup, come to me and never be hungry. (hymn)

 

[guanophore]

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

My agreement is a moot point. What matters is what is passed down to us from the Apostles.

So, please post your experts that have studied the original sources. I am eager to explore them.

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

This is nonsense, Mberg. Yes, all heresies use the Sacred Writings to bolster their errant views. However, heresy does not “corrupt” or “damage” orthodoxy.

It might be difficult for you to grasp this concept, since you don’t espouse the Christian view that the Scriptures are inspired of God. But Chrisians believe that the Word of God is immutable, which means it cannot be “damaged” by any kind of attacks in the universe.

Further, any heretic claiming writings are a “pure source” is questionable due to the origin of the claim.

And finally, Chiristians don’t accept the views of heretics as accurately representing the faith of Christ and emphatically deny that Paul is 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

Why did Paul need to be “redeemed” if Marcion was claiming Paul was the ony pure source of Jesus’ teachings? What better “champion” would one require? Your logic does not make any sense.

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

YOu are not addressing the problem with your claim, Mberg. This is beside the point. I suspect your arguement is starting to unravel.

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.

This is false, Mberg. Ignatius was anxious to hold on to the faith that was passed down to him from the Apostles. I can assure you that he was a very careful scholars, and was quite confident about his “sources”.

However, ifyou wish to assert that Ignatius did not “check his sources” and that he thought the Pauline Pastorals were from Paul, but were not, please produce the sources that bolster this claim. That should keep you busy for a couple decades.
Mberg3;7842527:

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

To be honest, Mberg, I have not been able to detect much in your posts that reflects any faith at all, much less a Christian faith. It seems that your faith may be in yourself, in your own ability to determine what is true and false. It seems your faith (or perhaps better described as hope) that you can mate with a Catholic and share faith with her, despite your own lack of faith in her religion.

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

That’s fine, Mberg. It is becoming increasingly clear that you have very little interest in living a Christian life. It may be that God has yet to inflame your heart with passion for HIm, and that you do not know HIm at all, which is why this attempt on your part to discern the truth is grasping at thin straws to justifiy your lack of faith.

If you do not believe that God has revealed HImself to mankind, why are you here?

 

[guanophore]

I believe that God has revealed himself, yet that revelation must be consistant with what we know to be true about history.

What makes you think God has revealed Himself to man?

How are you going to determine which view of history to espouse?

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.

Mberg, I don’t think the Revelation by God of HImself is something that can be “proven” to your heart outside of the prevenient grace of God to enlighten your mind to Himself.

I advance the Christian position, and there are many mysteries contained in it that are beyond the ability of human comprehension.

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

This is an interesting speculation.

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

Somehow you seem to believe that this makes one or the other invalid, which it does not. However, I think I will not pursue this here,because it is a moot point. If you cannot accept the Christian Scriptures as inspired and inerrant, trying to use them to demonstrate the truth to you will be of little value.

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.

No, Mberg, it does not. However, the fact that you think it must demonstrates the concrete and inflexible level of thinking you are suffering. I will refrain from discussing the nature of the Holy Scriptures with you from this point.

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.

Well, Mberg, clearly we have different “reality”. I choose to espouse that which was handed down to me from the Apostles. You choose to reject it. You can address me from an invalid premise if you wish, but it will not change my position. On Christ the solid rock I stand.

Because I agree with the experts on Christianity?

You have cited no “experts” in Christianity, Mberg.

I suspect you may never have met one. If you knew a committed Christian, then you would know that a relationship with God is based in Spirit, not in human logic.

I will leave you with some Christian thoughts:

Mankind has become separated from God by sin.

God sent His Only Son Jesus, to redeem us from our sins, and enable us to live again in unity with Him, now and forevermore.

All men are called to repentance and faith in Him.

You must be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

Repent, therefore, and be baptized, for the remission of your sins. This is the work you must do - believe on Him.

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

You have offered yet another falsehood based upon your own limited perspective Mberg.

I think, if you were to examine the evidence, most of the people on CAF who disagree with me are, indeed, Christians. What makes a person Christian is a valid baptism, and embracing the faith that has been passed down to us from the Apostles.

And I think your rejection of any discussion based off of scholarship and intellectual achievement indicates something equally crucial about you.

If this were true, then it surely would. However, I have not rejected scholarship and intellectual achievement.

I have rejected the idea that one becomes a Christain through it. Study can lead a person to Christ, but but one must take a leap of faith to unite with Him.

I reject the scholarship of heretics and apostates to define what Christains believe.

 

[guanophore]

A simple google search would show that Paul Johnson is a conservative Catholic who is impacted heavily by his faith. I personally dislike the man, but his history is impecable.

I don’t think you can determine the nature of his relationship with God by a google search.

Being heavily impacted by heresies and apostasy does not make a person an adequate representation of the Catholic faith.

It is a bit disingenuous of you, don’t you think to proclaim this man’s scholarship “impeccable” when you do not accept the history of the Holy Scriptures?

I wish to discuss history with you and scholarship is an important part of that. Why can I not base my opinion on the collective expert concensus

I guess I will bown out on this one, since I have no interest in discussing this kind of history and so called scholarship. I am here to talk about the Catholic faith, not those who depart from it.

Of course you can base your opinion on whatever collective consensus your heart desires.

Just dont’ come to a Christian forum claiming you are thinking about becoming Christian and expect that we will approve of your decision.

There is a strong following of Paganism in our culture which is really getting popular, and I think a case can be made that it may well be the new consensus. I think the 'scholarship" you wish to espouse would fit in quite well. Perhaps you can google “why should I become a Pagan” and you will get a lot better results than you will here on CAF.

The post started in the “Traditional Catholic” section and started with questions about traditional beliefs. The change in subject matter is why it came to the non-catholic forum.

Ok.

It has become quite clear that your posts do not belong it the Traditional Catholic forum, since they are not even Catholic, and don’t even appear to be Christian, this is the best place for them.

And if a devout catholic historian is consider apostate heaven forbid how the findings of a Lutheran or secular historian would be taken

I can assure you that there are many Lutheran and secular historians that represent the Catholic faith better than your “devout historian” has done.

And I dont think you refusing to acknowledge that your faith does not neatly fit into the findings of history wont help me either

On the contrary, Mberg. My faith fits perfectly in to the findings of history. I do acknowledge that your perception of it does not. However, I don’t think either of these things will help you, as you seem to be suffering from a lack of internal experience of the Holy. No amount of scholarship will get you to heaven.

What role would I be playing? And that statement comes directly after a judgement on my spirtitual situation.

You might be playing the role of a non-Christian who wishes to mate with a Catholic, and wants to fit in with her faith.

No one here is able to judge your “spiritual condition”. This is between you and your Maker. I can only draw conclusions from reading your posts, which may be fabricated.

Once again they have NOT left the faith of Christ. Even if they had their research would still be valid.

I am sure he has a faith, just like you have a faith in your own ability to form logic. Some have faith in money, others in power, etc. Putting one’s faith in things does not make a person Christian.

You are right, plenty of non-Christian scholars have much of value to contribute to the history of Christianity. His contributions are not valid because they are inaccurate, as are your own.

 

[guanophore]

I am a Christian (happy?)

Who could tell?

Are you sure? What makes you think so?

And no, you do not seem like a happy “Christian” at all.

You seem like someone who rejects the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is a mystery why you would want to call yourself by a name that does not apply.

  but I will not take historical nonsense for an answer.

Ok, Mberg.

I do not have time nor desire to teach a Course on the History of Christianity and I do not think it would do me good anyway.

This is a great relief, since you seem to have very little accurate information about it.

I agree, history will not do you any good with your present situation. I think it can only be healed by getting in right relationship with God.

Your only response is to attack my personal faith and the faith of the sources I cite.

Mberg, you may wish to start a new thread over in Apologetics and try forwarding your historical stuff over there.

Perhaps this thread, with it’s topic of “Why should I become a Catholic” is not the most appropriate. In no case should anyone make a decision about becoming a Catholic based upon the so called “scholarship” of so called Catholics who have left the faith. One should only become Catholic because one believes what the Catholic Church says about itself, which clearly you do not.

I ask you to presetn your sources and to disagree with my sources based on their points and scholarship that suggests otherwise.

You did. And I concluded from your posts that this is a fruitless exercise.

If not then you are just presenting you opinions as truth. I have no reason to belive anything you say and none of it is supported by much of what I have read about the History of Christianity

No, you have no reason to believe anything I say.

A good reason for me to refrain from saying anything, don’;t you think?

 They all claim to be founded by Jesus Christ I just asked you to prove that the Catholic Church is the one who was telling the Truth

Yes, you did. You seem to be under the misapprehension that you will feel comfortable becoming Catholic if somehow the Catholic faith can meet your rational needs for “proof”.
This being the case, it seems that you are not ready to become Catholic.

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.

  I do not want to be drawn into the wrong church. If the Catholic Church does not contain the truth when compared to others I will not join it.

It is commendable that you do not want to be drawn into “the wrong church”, though odd, since you don’t seem to be a Christian, it would not seem to matter. However, I think it is good for anyone not to be drawn into the wrong church, whether he is a Christian, or not.

However, your premise is flawed. If you wish to determine the Truth of Catholicsim by comapring it to those who have left the faith you may not get very far. The Catholic faith is not determined by those who depart from her.

And how wil I am willing to listen as to why they are the true church but I will question your claims.

I don’t think you are willing to listen to why Catholics believe they are the Church Christ founded, Mberg. That is why I asked you why you came here to CAF. This website has a mission to give Catholic Answers. You dont’ seem to want them.

There are manythings in which I am pulled to two different conclusion. I am trying to refute any rejections I may have.

I will pray for you.

I ask not to have all the answers. All I ask is to have no objections.

This is not realistic. No one has ever come to God without reservations, objections, or the inablity to make sense of some things. It is not going to happen. God is so far above the human mind, well, as the East is from the West. And there are profound mysteries that are frankly beyond our human comprehension.

Add to that Jesus’ teaching that we are to come to him “as little children”, it is clear that allowing our “objections” to lead is the wrong method. Little children have not yet developed intellect. They come in faith and trust, eager to know the Truth and embrace Love.

I do not rely on the sole evidence that is given, but I believe that in most cases it reflects things accurately.

I think you have previously stated the opposite.

The Church did not pull its ideas out of the sky. In many cases it did not pull its ideas straight out of scripture . There is logic and philosophy behind many ideas and I want to know what the logic and philosophy is. I do not believe that is fruitless

You are right that the Church did not “pull” it’s ideas out of the sky. The Bread of Life came down from Heaven to reveal God to us.

You are also right that the Church did not “pull its ideas straight out of Scripture”. The Catholic faith produced the Scripture. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics as a REFLECTION of the Catholic faith. It is not the Source of it, Jesus is the Source.

If you wish to know the logic and philosphy behind Catholic theology, it would be best if you started from a Catholic point of view (faith seeking understanding). If you don’t do that, you may have a fine lifetime of study, but it will be fruitless as far as a faith journey is concerned.

 

[guanophore]

Now, you are being mean spirited - intellect is better served, void of personal attacks, don’t you think?

No reply required.

My observation that you seem to have no interest in Catholic answers is only an observation, Curious. For all I know, you are just role playing, and don’t believe anything you have written since you arrived here. You can see how it would be impossible to make a personal attack on anyone, this being the case.

 

[guanophore]

Josephback Hi,

In response to the question of catholic and orthodox, that is, who broke from whom
in 1054, when the split did occur, wasn’t there also a number of eastern churches that split from the orthodox church?

If we look at the latter split in the eastern churches, we find that a number of those eastern churches were loyal to the authority of the Roman catholic pope as they already had been for centuries and still are today.

So based on this loyality of these eastern churches which they had all along, then the
question of who split from whom should be clear.

In the history of things, rather than injuring the latins, the greek schism proved fatal to the eastern byzantine catholicism, politically speaking (History of Catholic Church, Neill Schnmandt, p.189)

With respect, from the Eastern point of view, it was Rome that broke away from the other 4 historical Sees.

Also, it is irrelevant whether there was any political influence in the Church, since the East was able to maintain a much higher degree of piety because there was no secular conflation with spiritual. The Eastern patriarchs had as their first duty the care of the Church, not the kingdoms of this world. As a result, the Faith has been preserved intact.

In the West, where the Roman patriarch received secular powers that became conflated with spiritual authority, we see the spawn of Protestantism in rebellion against corruption in the Church. Some Orthodox say they will be happy to return to unity with Rome, as soon as Rome reintegrates all of her Protestant stepchildren that are the spawn of her corruption.

You say it is “obvious” where the split originated, but it seems clear that you have not read the Eastern point of view, which holds the West at least as much, if not more responsible than the East.