Posted on 05/24/2004 9:17:25 PM PDT by churchillbuff
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- As president of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, John Giles is no stranger to a pew. Yet he remembers well the time he got lost in a Roman Catholic church.
"I couldn't even follow the order of service, it was so foreign to me," Giles says of that day some six years ago.
Since then he's found his way and a new home in the Roman Catholic church — a home that might seem foreign to the overwhelmingly Protestant church population of Alabama.
"I have to admit to you that the whole time that I was in that church service, I was reduced to tears, and I couldn't explain it," Giles said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press.
"In fact," he jokes, "you would have thought I had been spending the whole weekend down at the House of the Rising Sun down in New Orleans, that I had all this sin in my life that I had to get out."
In any case, Giles and his wife, Deborah, were received into the Catholic Church at St. Peter's Parish in Montgomery on Easter Sunday.
Such a decision normally wouldn't be a matter of public interest, but Giles says he anticipated the questions that have followed his conversion from the Protestant faith.
"It would be nice if my private, Christian walk could be my private, Christian walk, but it's very difficult in my job for that to be the case," he says.
Giles says he knew the questions would come because as a Protestant he, too, had mistaken notions about Catholics. And the most frequent question he gets from his friends is "why?"
With that in mind he wrote an eight-page letter explaining his reasoning. In it, he explains that he had attended a variety of Protestant churches in Montgomery, including Christian Life Church and River of Life Church.
But once he visited the Roman Catholic church, he found himself in awe of its history and ritual, particularly its use of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch in each service.
Trips to Israel and Rome spurred his curiosity. And the deeper he looked into the faith — which is the largest in the United States but lags behind Southern Baptists and other Protestant denominations in the South — the more he says he realized that many of his beliefs about Catholicism had been wrong.
"There is a perception among Protestants — you kind of have this perception that if you're Episcopal or Catholic, you're not even saved, you're not born again, which is totally a myth," he says.
He recalls one example from the New Year's holiday, which he spent in Florida with the chairman of his board. He had told the chairman of his and Deborah's plans to convert, and he says they were well-received.
"But we went to some other friends of theirs' house on one of the nights we were down there," Giles remembers. "And so we're sitting around visiting and this one lady was teaching a Sunday School class on cults. And she began to name off all the cults that she'd be teaching and named Catholic in there."
He acknowledges that the reaction by his Protestant constituents may be mixed.
"We didn't make this change to win friends and influence people and do it from a popularity standpoint, because we knew that in the state of Alabama, this is probably not a popular position to take in the Christian movement," he says. "So it remains to be seen."
But he hopes they, like he and his wife, will keep an open mind.
"We hope that we could have a small contribution to building bridges where there weren't bridges," he says. "Because Christians are Christians. There's no such thing as Christians and Catholics."
The Pope???
Sorry I don't follow the Pope and never would since his office is mentioned nowhere in the Bible.
To be fair, that's not what Protestants believe. This thread has a lot of misperception about other faiths, both from Catholic and Protestant posters.
Most Protestant believe that they can trace their Christian heritage all the way back to Jesus and his apostles, not to a monk in the Middle Ages.
Just like a tree with three powerful branches, the trunk belongs to all the branches.
After the split of the Eastern/Western Church, the trunk (universal church) gave rise to two branches. Later the Western Church split into Protestant and Roman Catholic.
To say that the Roman Catholic branch is the only church that can trace its heritage back to the First Century is not a Protestant believe.
I think we sometimes get into unneeded argument when we confuse the term "word" as used in our religious discussion.
We should be clear when we speak of "The Word" as differentiated from "words."
This is a straw man argument and you know it. The Bible has what we need to know to be saved. If you actually believe that in order for the Bible to authoritative and complete that it had to record every miracle. That is ridiculous. The verse you are referring to is the one where they were describing the fact that he performed so many miracle.
Confess, you are just looking for an excuse not to believe.
1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.
The Bible is very clear on this subject.
I would take issue with that to this extent - they have decided largely that they like playing in philosophy as much as you guys do. In the course of doing that, they do as you guys do - grasp at any appearance of support for any wild notion they fancy as a philosophical construct. Christians rightly divide the word. Religionists and philosophers twist it to their purposes. All of them claim they're right. But that is why the Apostles gave us clear writings that can be understood in CONTEXT. Jesus gave the truth to the Apostles; but, to unbelievers, he gave parables. Which is why the crowd didn't follow his direction to immediately eat his flesh.. present tense wasn't it - in John 6. Or are we to understand that it was literal; but, figurative rofl. Yes, I understand the games you all play in order to prop up the indefensable.
Care to try your parsing on #365?
They're actually Remonstrant churches and reject the superior Biblical theology of the Reformers in favor of the same human glorifying errors that infect Catholicism
HUH??????
What didn't you understand?
***but but but -- how does one KNOW if he's properly repentant of his sins? Could someone be... half-hearted repentant and not know it and subsequently NOT be forgiven when they think they are?***
Yes, of course they could. But they would be self-deceived. Jesus warned us abundantly of this very thing. A few verses spring to mind...
"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." Matt 6
"everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it." - Matt 7
""But what do you think about this? A man with two sons told the older boy, `Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.' The son answered, `No, I won't go,' but later he changed his mind and went anyway. Then the father told the other son, `You go,' and he said, `Yes, sir, I will.' But he didn't go. Which of the two was obeying his father?"
They replied, "The first, of course." - Matt 21
All show the dangers of incomplete repentance.
***Ah, well, you see, we Catholics don't rely on scripture ALONE***
"... if you wander beyond the teaching of Christ, you will not have fellowship with God. But if you continue in the teaching of Christ, you will have fellowship with both the Father and the Son." - 1 John
***which is certainly reflected in Jesus' repeated admonitions to Peter (not any of the other Apostles) to "tend his sheep," and "feed his flock".***
Actually St. Paul gave the same charge to the elders of the church at Ephasus...
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." - Acts 20
So it must not be a solely Petrine charge or privelege.
We attend a wonderful church in the Louisville area - the Dominican Friars - what a blessing.
Contrare. I think you'll find that the early books were so well known for their authenticity amoung actual christians that all the books that make up the modern 66 book canon were quoted in full with the exception of about 6 verses. What was authentic was known. The problem is that error had crept into the church in the time of the apostles and the erroneous sects were competing with the true followers. If you can't get rid of Christians, flood them out of their own game - dilute the pool and take over the church to destroy it from within. That was the devil's game then and it continues.
These were most definitely MEN, and most definitely FOLLOWED. St. Paul practically had his own cult of personality among believers, he was so revered.
It's one thing to say that. It's quite another to say that this was by design. Paul preached against it fervantly. To say nothing of the fact that none can excuse their own actions by pointing to those of another. Saying "well, early "christians" believed X is worthless. What the Apostles and Christ taught is the standard. And if it didn't come from them, it is in question on it's face.
***Are Protestants in the habit of hanging pictures of dead loved ones in their homes for the purpose of honor?***
Do Protestants kneel daily before those pictures, professing the love and devotion to them. Asking them to grant their requests and petitions?
No.
If they did we would call it idolatrous "ancestor worship".
***You know, when Jesus was praying to Moses and Elijah?***
Jesus, being God incarnate, would not need to "pray" to his own creatures. Recheck the passage. I think you will find that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus while he was praying to his Father in Heaven. (Luke 9)
But it is interesting that you bring that passage up. Peter, James and John were awed by what they saw on the mountain. So awed that they wanted to do something to honor Jesus, Moses and Elijah. But how did God Almighty respond to this?...
"He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said,
"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified. But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and have no fear."
And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only." - Matt 17
"... Jesus only."
God the Father tells the disciples to put their focus on Jesus.
Jesus.
Sorry, but you go against the Word of God.
John 20:23 "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
Now, in another way, you are right. It is Christ, acting through the priest, Who actually remits the sin. The priest is acting "in persona Christi", in the "person of Christ" just as Our Lord directed the Apostles to act.
I'm not sure I understand your concept of time in perspective to God. Time is a created dimension - I think that much can be agreed upon. Also, God exists outside of what we know as the created dimension of time. As a result, God can view our time dimension at any point along its linear path. Also as a result, God is omniscient, and He alone knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10).
From OUR perspective, because we exist within it, there is time past, present, and future unknown. From GOD'S perspective, there is a plane of events that have a predetermined beginning and end, but which do not limit His actions the way time does ours.
With that in mind, yes, eternity is timeless. However, the crucifixion is not, because it was a specific event that took place in our linear time. Hence the Hebrews "once for all" - Jesus' sacrifice took care of all past, present and future sin. The RESULT of the crucifixion is of course timeless, because it is of eternal consequence.
In God's eyes it is NOT still happening, as you put it. In God's eyes, it is finished, in fact it has been since the creation of all things (Rev 13:8), because if it were not, it would be of no eternal significance whatsoever. That RESULT is what is timeless, not the actual event.
Hebrews 10:12-13, "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool."
I believe that Catholics understand the "Lamb that seemed to have been slain" which stands before the throne in Revelations 5 to be Jesus eternally presenting His Sacrifice of the Cross. So while Jesus continually presents in Heaven the sacrifice, so too is it continually presented in tandem on Earth in the Mass.
What Jeus said in John 6 is no different than what God relayed through Isaiah:
Isaiah 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Isaiah 55:2 Wherefore do ye spend money for [that which is] not bread? and your labour for [that which] satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye [that which is] good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
Isaiah 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, [even] the sure mercies of David.
The bread of life, even in old testament times was the word of the living God. As deuteronomy tells us. Man does not live by [physical] bread alone; but, by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. IE, what God says gives life. It isn't the eating of some physical food. And Christ so stated.
As for the meal of remembrance, do you have any clue how God addressed the failure of an israelite to follow God's command re the 7 days of unleavened bread - the feast of unleavened bread. Anyone violating it was cut off from the house of Israel. That's scripture. Symbolic gestures are
to be headed in the manner in which God directed. They are no less symbolic jestures.
So what exactly is it you think needs parsed?
Most Catholic detractors have no idea that the Bible they read is missing seven books.
Don't you have a Klan meeting to get to?
What would be the purpose in telling his plan to unbelievers? Here's what he had to say:
Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? [11] He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
It was enough that they were in unbelief. Why on earth would he have chased after them knowing they'd betray his plan. Why would God risk that.
1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: [8] Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
If you're gonna invade Europe and liberate it's people, you don't march up to a group of nazis and start telling them your D-Day plans. If we're smart enough to get this, do you suppose Christ was at least half as smart given that he took the same position.
Christ wasn't talking about giving them his flesh to eat. He was telling them in form of a parable that they would have to destroy his body in sacrifice. And they eventually did. But they didn't eat him to accomplish it. Nor must we. Our job as he said over and over and over up to the point of coming out and saying he was going to die for us is and was to believe on him whom God had sent. To believe every word that flowed out of the mouth of God that we might have eternal life. That group of words to be believed in this case was that Christ must die for our sins. We had to believe that. The Apostles didn't even fully get it till Christ told them in private what he'd been saying in parable.. at which time even Peter rebuked him causing Christ to respond, saying "get thee behind me Satan.."
But, you guys think Eisenhower should have run after the nazis yelling, "Normandy. We're attacking at Normandy with X number of troops, X number of ships, landing craft planes, on this date and here's the time you should expect us.." Thankfully, neither Eisenhower or Jesus were that dumb.
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.