BRINGING EX-CATHOLICS BACK TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A PERSONAL STORY

CATHOLIC CLASSICS UNLIMITED BRINGING EX-CATHOLICS BACK TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ^

[OrthodoxIndianCatholic]

Introduction :

It is my objective and endeavour to bring Ex-Catholics back to the Catholic Church in 2015 as well as in 2016. I intend to achieve this through "Catholic Classics".

What I mean is this -- I want Catholics who have left the Catholic Church to read awesome and amazing "Catholic Books" posted on my Catholic Blog.

Many Catholics in India specially in "Metro Cities" have left the Catholic Church and have joined "Non - Denominational Churches".

Most of them are unaware of "Catholic Classics" which encompass and explain the beautiful Catholic Faith.

In Cities like Mumbai in Maharashtra, Panjim and Margao in Goa, Bangalore in Karnataka, and Chennai in Tamil Nadu Catholics have left the Church for a variety of reasons; mostly for monetary reasons but some have also left because of animosity with Priests, or Nuns, or Bishops.

Let me tell you my personal story with regard to "Catholic Classics" and how they changed my life forever.

In Mid- 2012, 3 years back, I was quite angry with Catholic Priests because of negative experiences I had with them while growing up in Mumbai.

In the latter half of 2012, while surfing the "Net" for Catholic Websites I came across a beautiful, outstanding, and extra-ordinary Catholic Website called "E-Catholic 2000"-- "Catholics for the Third Millenium".

Once, I entered this amazing website I happened to stumble across four Catholic Classics--

1) Calvary and the Mass.

2) True Devotion to Mary.

3) Secret of the Rosary.

4) Secret of Mary.

After reading these 4 Catholic Classics over a number of months - I lost all animosity I may have had against Catholic Priests in Mumbai or anywhere else.

I promise you that when you read these 4 books, you will be changed forever and will fall in love with the Catholic - Christian Faith instantly as I did.

These are 4 Books, that positively changes lives and souls.

Read them and you will never be sorry that you visited my "Catholic Blog" accidentally or purposely.

These "Catholic Classics" proudly promote Jesus Christ as the "Centre of our Faith".

The Catholic Church is more than 2000 years old. Let us never forget that.

These Catholic Classics present to us the vibrant Catholic Faith as it has been through the centuries.

Conclusion :

No one will ever regret reading "Catholic Books" @ my blog. These Catholic Books help to build one up in the faith and help to strengthen one about the truths of the Catholic Faith.

I strongly recommend 4 Catholic Classics to Catholics who have left the Church and who might visit my Catholic Blog in the future.

1) Calvary and the Mass

http://www.ecatholic2000.com/calvary/mass.shtml

2) True Devotion to Mary

http://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/true/devotion.shtml

3) Secret of the Rosary

http://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/rosary/rosary.shtml

4) Secret of Mary

http://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/secret/secret.shtml

Happy and Holy Reading.

[Legatus]

I suppose if one were to really stretch the meaning of the word holy it could be said that a person not yet a Christian is "holy" in that they are set apart for God. But I think we could only make that call after the fact.

[ealgeone]

If he isn’t practicing Christianity......no.

[ealgeone]

I see your point. We should be thankful He does love us and forgives our shortcomings.

[af_vet_1981]

I suppose if one were to really stretch the meaning of the word holy it could be said that a person not yet a Christian is "holy" in that they are set apart for God. But I think we could only make that call after the fact.

Not a stretch at all if one believes the scriptures and accepts a scriptural truth about who is holy, as the Apostle to the Gentiles teaches :

For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

Romans, Catholic chapter eleven, Protestant verse sixteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Mark17]

There was a Freeper in a very bad state
Who once had a big problem with hate
Through Christ, he was born again
Now, his works do clearly show men
But only born again Christians can relate.

How does that grab ya?

:-)

[Mark17]

LOL, of course you knew I would say number two is best.

:-)

[daniel1212]

“...I was referring to evidence that he frequents the RF, which I have not seen.”

I have. So the problem is your apparent lack of knowledge, correct?

No, to the contrary, I can abundantly show that he was a relative stranger in the RF debates here, and does not frequents the RF, seeing i have engaged most every regular. And as Google search of the RF since 2005 to the present find[s] very sparse participation. Compare with yourself: or myself , by the grace of God.

tioga’s been here. You didn’t know that apparently. Deal with it.

So now since you cannot show that tioga was one who frequents the RF, which you contended against, then you must simply argue that tioga’s been here, as if i, with 13,429 posts, meant "stranger" in an absolute sense? That sense surely would be presumptuous and wrong, and in need of clarification, which was provided (thank you).

But about 60 posts over a 12 year period does not testify that one frequents the RF, but instead evidences that one would be such a stranger that he can be excused as being ignorant of the frequent provocative RC articles that resulted in the anti-Catholicism responses he censures

If you wanted to make your argument based on a absolute idea of "stranger" then you had your chance, and should not have argued against my clarification, that what you saw is that tioga ”frequents the RF." Do you want to deny that? If not, put up or shut up. Invoking Clinton testifies to desperation.

[daniel1212]

Dude, context is not your friend is it??

Indeed. If he sincerely actually mistook "stranger" in the context of being ignorant of the constant posting of Catholic articles over the years, then i apologize for not making it clear enough, yet he contended against the clarification, and thus must substantiate what he claims to have seen, or apologize.

[daniel1212]

Yet you did not use that expression, you wrote "Wrong, as the church of Rome simply did not exist as a visible church in the NT,"

You do understand context do you not? Do you honestly really think that in responding to the assertion that "the Church that brought you the Bible and even the FIRST English translation" then i, who am well aware book of Romans, was thinking of and referring to the church at Rome? Do you???

Moreover, "church of Rome" is a common handle for the RCC, due to the historical location of its headquarters, and even its affinity with the nature of imperial Rome. And to be precise, in Scripture no church is ever named as being the church of a city, but are said to be the church of the people who dwell there (as in "church of the Thessalonians").

As in another case, I apologize for not making it clear enough (for either the ignorant or some hungry fault-finding RCs). Never presume what should be obvious will be.

[Springfield Reformer]

Ontology discusses being. A parent passes the nature of their being to their child, in the ordinary way in which parent is used.  Try a substitution:

"Mary is the parent of God," or, more cautiously "Mary is a parent of God."

Does that work? I don't think so. The average reader, not conditioned to short-circuit the standard sense of parent, would see this ontologically, as a comment on the nature of the child deriving from the nature of the parent. Without specialized training to the contrary, it is an almost involuntary reaction to the structure.

I believe that's why in Scripture you only ever find that ontological connection set up between the Father and the Son. Jesus does have His human nature through Mary, and in that sense as a person, in the union of the two natures, there is an ontological connection between Jesus and Mary:

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
(Romans 1:3)

But that is not what is in dispute.  No one here, AFAIK, is arguing against the hypostatic union, the seamless personhood of Christ.  The point of contention, as I see it, is whether it is right to confuse the two natures, as the Council itself warns against, in language you recited in an earlier post.  The language of Scripture never confuses the divine and human natures of Jesus.  Uniformly, when speaking of Mary's connection to Him, it is in terms of His humanity, never His divine nature.  And uniformly, with one exception (Mark 6:3), when Jesus is called out as Son it is in connection with the Father, because that is what the sacred text emphasizes.  The Father and the Son are one, i.e., they share the same nature, are ontological peers.  This is not accidental. I believe with all my heart this is deliberate, an expression of the will of God for us to use as a template to speak of these matters.

By contrast, the contentious expression "Mother of God" erases these critical distinctions, blurs the ontological lines, and gives the ordinary listener an opportunity to slide into great error.  I would have no problem with theotokus if, at every single usage, it was qualified as only speaking to the issue that Jesus had His divine nature from the very beginning, and did not acquire it at some later stage of life, as some heretics proposed.  But diffusing it to seemingly describe Mary as a parent of God in the ontological sense is like greasing a tightrope and expecting no one to get hurt trying to walk across it. It doesn't make sense.

Peace,

SR

[rwa265]

Thank you for your response. I do not have a great deal of knowledge regarding the field of ontology, so I will back off on my comment that Mary is the mother of God ontologically.

But Mary did have a maternal relationship with God through her ontological relationship with Jesus. The dispute is not over confusing the two natures; it is over what we can rightly call the mother of that person due to her ontological connection with the human nature of that person.

I understand your concern over calling Mary the mother of God. It is the same concern that the Assyrian Church had, and it is why Calvin did not think it was right, or becoming, or suitable. But it is what Catholics always have and will continue to call Mary. Shouting “MARY IS NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD” will not change this.

The term does cause many Catholics to fall in error, though, and those that do should be challenged. Mary is not God, or a supreme being in any sense. She is not our Savior, it is only through Jesus that we are saved.

Peace,
Rich