Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?
As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.
Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.
Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiegogo.com ...
Yet they with all confidence and in all caps no less make statements that clearly expose their lack of knowledge of scripture. But they will explain how they hear more scripture in mass then anyone else.
But they will explain how they hear more scripture in mass then anyone else
They hear “something” that tickles their ears.
Which Jews? When?
The overwhelming number of OT citations in the NT are from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the OT, which contains the "deuterocanonical" or "apocryphal" books of the OT.
Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).The Jewish canon wasn't settled in Jesus' time, and a consensus didn't develop until the second century, well into the Church age, when the Jews were probably motivated to distance themselves from Christians. Regardless, by the second century, Hebrew teaching authority had been superseded by the Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
"If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." -- Jesus
(FYI, you can find the answers to questions like this by searching the Catechism. Since the on-line version is difficult to search, I recommend googling something like, "catechism Catholic Church salvation non-Catholics.")
From the Catechism:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336
847
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848
"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338"
It seems to me, (hmm, should I call you by an honorific here ?), that there are a dearth of straightforward answers coming my way. Nonetheless But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church, where my King said And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven and his Jewish Apostle wrote built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
I did? Where did I say that if Jesus was sinless He couldn't die?
Provide the link, please.
2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
ouch.......
Wide is the road and broad is the path that leads to destruction and many there are that find it.
Jesus told the pharisees that they erred because they did not know Scripture. The same can be said for the Catholic church and the VAST majority of practicing Catholics.
Longevity does not by default equate to being correct.
It just means they've been wrong for a LONG time. Because it's whether they are close to Scripture that determines whether they are correct or not, not how long they've taught or believed something.
So all that pretty blue font. It’s from where, exactly?
Are you passing that off as your own? Or just plagiarizing it?
Acts 1:20 for it hath been written in the book of Psalms: Let his lodging-place become desolate, and let no one be dwelling in it, and his oversight let another take.
Nothing in the passage you posted shows succession beyond those twelve.
Yes, I know the scripture and this common error. There was no law among the Jews against polygamy. The NT ruled hire that a Jew (or a Gentile for that matter) could only have one wife if he were to rise to the office of a bishop. A thousand years ago Rabbi Gershom ruled against polygamy for Jews. Ashkenazim accepted this as law. Polygamy is almost nonexistent today among Jews. In addition, the NT in harmony means a bishop cannot be divorced. It is obvious to me, though apparently nor some Protestors, that a bishop cannot be a woman. There is no requirement that a bishop be married or that his wife be able to conceive (we are not Mormon). You can make an argument that bishops be allowed to marry.
Jesus established much of what is accepted in the OT as Scripture by quoting from various books and calling them Scripture.
People later determining what was canon is irrelevant at that point. We have Jesus word to go on in that matter.
More pretty blue font.
Where’s that from? Is it yours?
If not, why isn’t it cited?
There’s nothing ANYWHERE in Scripture that provides for apostolic succession.
Which also debunks the current New Apostolic Reformation that is popular today.
R2Z: “Please, is this your opinion or is it taught throughout the Roman Catholic church?”
STA: “(FYI, you can find the answers to questions like this by searching the Catechism. Since the on-line version is difficult to search, I recommend googling something like, “catechism Catholic Church salvation non-Catholics.”)”
Would you be more comfortable if at this point in the thread you were invited to give your evasions to virtually every sincere question FReepers have posed to you...in Latin? (I don’t speak Latin so you would be still safer from giving a true answer.)
Well done
Catholics jump, twist and tie themselves in knots to avoid facing truth. In this way Catholics are a lot like “progressive”/liberals.
But the issue is that for an RC the Bible doctrinally is only a servant, not a master, as it can only support Rome due to the premise of the assured veracity of Rome as being the One True Church®.
But the Church doesn't reject Sacred Tradition. The Church safeguards both Scripture and Tradition --the full "deposit of faith" given to the Apostles, which was handed on "by word of mouth or by letter."
More propaganda does not constitute truth but testifies to lack of an argument. Under the premise of Roman assured veracity, Scripture, history and tradition only assuredly consist of and mean what Rome autocratically officially says they do, and which eliminates any possibility of contradiction, including with herself, regardless of what even EOS or some Catholics say.
My question is, what books constitute the canon of Scripture, and how do you know with certainty?
The answer is by the same means both men and writings of God were assuredly known to be so long before a church of Rome presumed she alone was essential for this.
This is the fundamental logical incoherence of Luther's doctrine. The Bible can't tell us what constitutes the Bible.
Rather, since writings of God were assuredly known to be so long before a church of Rome even existed, which in principle provides for recognition of a canon, thus the fundamental logical incoherence is that of Rome's presumption that an infallible magisterium is essential for such recognition.
The Church preceded the canon of Scripture, and even the writing of several books of the New Testament.
But Scripture preceded the church, which was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with Scripture manifestly being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, as is abundantly evidenced. t
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
"If he won't listen to the Church, treat hims as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus.
Which actually applies to matters of personal wrongs, yet there is nothing new here, as the same principle is set down in the OT, and despite the strawman of your parroted polemic it is often used), under the premise of the supremacy and sufficiency (formal and material aspects) of Scripture magisterial authority is upheld. Westminster itself affirmed,
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)
Both as in the OT and the NT and the beginning of the church in dissent from the powers that be, this never meant that the magisterium was perpetually assuredly infallible, which is The Issue here.
As far as doctrinal unity goes, there is no comparison between Catholicism and Protestantism. Pentecostal youth minister-turned-Catholic-apologist, Tim Staples, has said that "the doctrinal unity of the Church is something I never dreamed possible as a Protestant."
Your reliance on specious Staples is apparent (he refused to go further rounds with me), and his testimony carries no weight against what said. I am a former RC, who remained in RC for 6 years after becoming manifestly born again, and know both sides. It remains that the RC means for "unity" is not Scriptural, and few realize the "unity of the Spirit" as truly born again souls do, and Rome's is very limited and largely on paper, yet even many the the most devout RCs see modern Rome as contradicting her historical meanings, while what she really believes is shown by what she does, with results in more disunity.
Beyond the paper unity, what even excludes the possibility of lawful dissent is a mater of confusion, as often is the meaning of official teaching. IF RCs were more committed you would see this more manifest, and it is among the most devout that we see the strongest divisions.
The fact is that Rome interprets herself, and higher levels of the magisterium often see a need for interpretation, which is proffered by lower levels, down to the priests and laity. A coherent meaning of EENS even here finds conflict. All of which has resulted in multitudes of RCS looking to the unofficial Internet "magisterium" of which Staples is a part, yet there can be conflict btwn them and prelates and even each other, and testify to the variety of beliefs Rome implicitly sanctions.
Robert Sungenis recently stated Rome's scholars are worse than Protestant liberals. Jimmy Akin recently chastised the interpretation of his priest saying, "This isn't exegetical rocket science." Steve Ray had some similar problems with a priest and concludes the church is "Always reforming, always in need of reform." Mark Shea accuses Robert Sungenis of lying. Sungenis says Scott Hahn misunderstands of the whole issue of justification. Over on the Catholic Answers forum, they recently had a heated discussion as to whether Scott Hahn teaches "prima scriptura." Tim Staples says he went to a mass in which the priest led the church in "the wave." Jimmy Akin says you can pray to whoever you want to, even if they aren't saints. Art Sippo says Mary should be Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces. Patrick Madrid disagreed with him. Karl Keating states, "Many Catholics are confused because some priests tell them contracepting is immoral, while others tell them the practice is morally neutral; some priests speak as though Mary had only one child, while others imply that she was the mother of the 'brethren of the Lord', some priests correctly explain the meaning of the Real Presence, while others refer to the Eucharist as only a symbol. Priests are authority figures, and lay people expect them to know and teach the faith accurately- not a safe assumption nowadays." Jim Burnham stated on Catholic Answers that Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist.
I could go on and on. I didn't even mention any of my "We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary " posts. In those posts, you can see that Catholic apologists disagree with each other when they interpret the Bible. Then there are the big issues, like evolution. If you want to see diversity of opinion, simply try and nail down a Catholic apologist or a Catholic theologian on it. You would think Catholic theologians could at least be unified on Luther and the Reformation. Some say Luther was sent by Satan, others think he wasn't such a bad guy.
And it remains that, despite the "tribalism" of evangelicals, those who most strongly hold to Scripture being the supreme authority and being correct are far more unified in basic core conservative beliefs than the fruit of Rome she would make us members with.
In fact, I can't think of a single significant doctrine that all Protestants agree on, including the Trinity
The the problem is that of superficiality (ever hear of the resurrection?) or ignorance, and your definition of "Protestant," which is so inclusive that it would be like including Santeria as Catholic, while on the street level of member where it counts the most, testifying to what one most effectually conveys, it remains that Catholics widely vary in their beliefs. And the EOs disagree with Rome on significant doctrines. no less than papal infallibility, from which flows conciliar infallibility, and thus what it teaches under that premise.
Thus under the Catholic model of sola ecclesia you also have division, but it is not the basis upon which the church began.
(Oneness Pentecostalism) or even Sola Scriptura (high church Anglicans), except "we're not Catholic."
Yet Sabellianism (from which the "Oneness" modalism comes from) preceded the Reformation by over a millennium, coming from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the 3rd century. And Anglicanism is far more Catholic than evangelicals who Rome counts as her greatest threat, since her primacy is the preeminent priority.
1. Peter had the authority to choose another apostle
2. Matthias was an apostle
Peter chose Matthias but Jesus chose Paul.
Who had authority?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.