Why would anyone become Catholic?

https://www.indiegogo.com ^ | October 2, 2014 | Indiegogo

[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.

[BlueDragon]

Are you aware that the in citation from Ignatius -- he is not referring to the bishop of Rome?

This is all too funny.

That one has been misused for so long, it has lost all it's original meaning.

I would suggest that you go find it in the [greater] context from where that one originates. It's in the footnote you supplied (but obtained form some RC apologetic page -- correct?).

It is not exactly substantiation for later Romish claims, as it can be reasonably interpreted to undo them -- as regards to singular papacy and the like.

Hence -- "squatters with mouths full of lies" still stands.

To put down rebellion is not murder

It was still murder -- much more than not. All the latter-day justifying for it engaged in by RC apologists serves chiefly to indicate those persons be sons of those fathers, similar to the Jews who Christ called out as having established that they were 'sons of' those whom had murdered the prophets.

Which leads us to Waldo and his merry band of outlaws damning souls to Hell with their dualist semi-pelagian heresy..."

Not all the "Waldensians" who came after Waldo were semi-pelagian, although that is a convenient accusation -- it still is not enough to justify what was done to "them" indiscriminately.

[CynicalBear]

>>Is this a game?<<

It seems to be part of the Catholic way. Withhold from the people the ability to "search the scripture to see if these things be true".

[BlueDragon]

Which leads us to Waldo and his merry band of outlaws damning souls to Hell with their dualist semi-pelagian heresy who had no authority from the bishops to preach. So they rebelled which protestants are wont to do. And so today we have protestant holding them up as some sort of shining example of proto-protestant. Even Waldo came back to the Catholic Church. If its the ascetic nature that is appealing then the protestant would do well to emulate St. Francis.

That sort of thing which you wrote, is so messed up it is difficult to know where to begin.

Semi-pelagian? The Waldensians were not accused of that -- that I know of. Then, even if accused, one would need prove the accusation.

That leads to mention of the Cathars and Albegensians.

Those were not identical to Waldensians, though there was some degree of overlap. The latter two were not even identical to each other, much less the Waldensians, although there may well have been a semi-pelagian aspect to *some* of the so-called Cathars, was it?

These things are difficult to establish, since Roman Catholics killed so many of them, there exists some documents which accuse, but when the parties themselves are allowed to speak for themselves -- then the accusations brought by Roman Catholic murderers are less than fully established (to say the least).

And I really don't think Waldo ever "came back' to the Roman Catholic Church.

You said that.

Now -- prove it, or retract that statement.

Meanwhile, read and learn -- before speaking.

Here's a good place to start ---->Schaff, History of the Church § 84. The Waldenses.

[BlueDragon]

If that's the so-called answer -- then why does trhe preponderance of historical evidence so strongly suggest differently -- in that whatever so-called primacy for Peter was not in the least seen to belong to Rome, alone, but was a thing which all were inheritors of?

For several centuries everyone must have been idiots -- until later, when those of Rome somehow remembered what was [allegedly] established by Christ -- that Peter wwas in charge of all, and that the bishopric of Peter was only in Rome (and no where else) etc.

Sorry, but that's much more the truth of the matter, instead of all the blather which you copy/pasted from some Romish apologetics page, somewhere...

[Springfield Reformer]

If you have not personally attended a PROTESTant service you would not know what it is actually like.

I did...once. As an ignorant teenager. Intuitively knew it was a sham then. Don't know why but I felt compelled to genuflect when leaving the "service" Oh the looks I got. LOL

You can't tell much about the entire body of evangelical belief and practice by showing up to only one service ever. I went to one Catholic service, ever.  It felt positively evil, all those dead ceramic faces staring at me.  I went to a Baha'i temple once too.  Felt the same evil.  So if intuition is a valid guide, as you suggest, what should I think?

BTW, I have attended literally thousands of Protestant services, Independent Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Southern Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, Lutheran (Missouri Synod, EV Free), Pentecostal, Nondenominational, Messianic, Methodist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, and so forth.  In all of those the only ones that ever seemed to go off the rails in terms of failing to present regular, high doses of Scripture were a small handful of either a) mainline liberal churches focused on liberal pablum and larges doses of loud, unintelligible music (mistakes which I avoided later), or b) some of the fundy Baptist churches that had gone to a circus motif (mistakes which I also avoided later).

In all of the others, Scripture was served up generously, repeatedly, and with practicality.  Spend 10 years in most Protestant fellowships, and you will have more exposure to the Scripture than you'll know what to do with, and at a level of depth that goes beyond public recitation, but encompasses a complete contextual understanding, followed up by an application to one's life.  We don't just scan the text and call it done. We always ask, how does this teaching affect my life in Christ, my relationship to God, my relationship with my wife, children, family, friends, neighbors and even strangers (this forum being no exception).  

At my present church we are going over 2 Timothy.  The theme is endurance.  We do a congregational reading, or else have one or more designated readers. Then comes the sermon, where the concepts of the reading are unpacked for us.  Then we are challenged to find some specific way to implement those insights into how we live before God and each other.  One of the happy consequences of this is we are not only doctrinal well aligned with Scripture, but we are also heavily invested in doing good, both to each other, and to those in the community who we can help one way or another. Christian love, expressed. It is evidently the work of God, and as CS Lewis once said, nothing God does is a sham.

Peace,

SR

[CynicalBear]

Once again a lengthy twisting of scripture to establish a false hierarchy of authority by the Catholic Church. Jesus speaks of the keys.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

The keys to the kingdom are the scriptures. The keys were not given so much as authority but as a responsibility uphold and enforce the rules of the King. It has been established by God who is allowed in and that is contained in scripture. As has been shown here often, the keys were not given to Peter alone but to all apostles. The apostles had the responsibility to bind (hold back) or loose (open up) what had already been established in heaven. An example of binding can be found in Acts 8 where Peter dented the laying on of hands because Simon the Sorcerer offered money to obtain the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That is not the way established in scripture. Peter was simply applying the rules that had been established by the King.

The apostles had to obey what had been established.

Romans 1:5 through whom we did receive grace and apostleship, for obedience of faith among all the nations, in behalf of his name; 6 among whom are also ye, the called of Jesus Christ;

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Once again a lengthy twisting of scripture

You're referring to my "twisting of Scripture" in post #2435

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

So Paul may or may not have hallucinated from heat stroke (or gotten a temporal lobe seizure from dehydration and hyponatremia), but God arranged the medical problem so that he could direct the vision to change Paul’s life.

---

Can others “hear” someonees hallucinated from heat stroke or temporal lobe seizures? The men with Saul could!

Acts 9:1-9

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

[CynicalBear]

Scripture seems to not get in the way for those who have their own agenda already established in their mind.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

>All four had authority.<

Four what?

---

Upthread, we were talking about Peter “Choosing” Matthias and Jesus calling Saul/Paul.

No mind reading here, just a guess, but I believe af vet is saying Jesus, Paul, Peter and Matthias all had authority. I’m not exactly sure what the poster means by that but fellow Catholics are surely outraged that the poster failed to add Mary to make the gathering into the “fab five.” Where would Catholics be if they couldn’t worship Mary?

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

You guys are all taught the SAME thing; aren’t you?

Can’t one be replaced for the other?

---

So Catholicism is sort of like the “Best Western” hotel chain?

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

I do respect the fact that the RCC is the singular entity within organized religion that unflinchingly stands up for the unborn...

---

I'll give props to the RCC for their official pro-life stand; however I wish they would do more to publicly censure pro-abortion Catholic politicians such as Pelosi.

Although the organization “speaks out” against abortion I know a lot of Catholics, including family members, who “personally disagree with abortion but I cannot interfere with a woman's difficult decision.” In other words they are “pro-choice” which is essentially “pro-abortion.”

I only became truly pro-life once I drifted away from the church and eventually “got into” God's word.

[metmom]

Although the organization “speaks out” against abortion I know a lot of Catholics, including family members, who “personally disagree with abortion but I cannot interfere with a woman's difficult decision.” In other words they are “pro-choice” which is essentially “pro-abortion.”

I have had faithful, weekly or more mass attending Catholic tell me that they vote for the dems in spite of their pro-abortion stand because *democrats are for the poor*.

The latest one was just recently and she said, "I know what the church teaches, but no one has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body."

She also was raving about her niece's homosexual marriage.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

If that's the so-called answer -- then why does trhe preponderance of historical evidence so strongly suggest differently

Post 2435 shows that the historical evidence, recorded in the Bible, goes back to the Davidic kingdom.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

You can’t tell much about the entire body of evangelical belief and practice by showing up to only one service ever. I went to one Catholic service, ever. It felt positively evil, all those dead ceramic faces staring at me. I went to a Baha’i temple once too. Felt the same evil. So if intuition is a valid guide, as you suggest, what should I think?

---

While growing up Catholic I always had the notion something didn’t quite add up. I’ve had the same experience in several other churches. It wasn’t until I read His Word that I could identify the problems.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Can others “hear” someonees hallucinated from heat stroke or temporal lobe seizures? The men with Saul could!

---

Wow - before coffee!

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

But God says:

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (John 14:6)

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Is anyone disputing this? Of course salvation comes through the grace of God and Christ's atoning death. I don't know any Christians who would argue this.

But what about the hard case of the person who is ignorant of Christ and His Church, through no fault of his own. Is he damned? If so, how can that be reconciled with God's nature as Justice Itself?

What do you say, in your interpretation of Scripture?

Catholics recognize that God is Justice Itself, and cannot damn a person because of his ignorance of Christ.

If that's what you think, you should seriously examine your belief.

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

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Since you persist in posting this verse out of context; after you, and the entire readership of this and others threads have SEEN what it is referring to; I can only conclude that you are TRYING to deceive others.

With all due respect, I don't find your exegesis compelling. I can't be concerned with the effect that my beliefs have on you, because I'm telling you what I truly believe.

So where do we go from here?

I have a Bible. You have a Bible. And you are accusing me of trying to deceive you. I believe that you have sinned against me.

What should we do now?

What does the Bible say?

What does Jesus say?

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

[CynicalBear]

>>This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:<<

OK, so let me get this straight. Someone doesn't know Christ but lives a good life is already saved. So Christ tells His apostles to go out and proclaim His gospel of salvation. They go out and tell these people that if they don't accept Christ they will now be sent to hell. The people say no we already are going to heaven so they reject this story. Now they are going to hell. Did I get the gist of that?