Posted on 05/26/2007 4:32:30 PM PDT by Titanites
Perhaps they don’t serve beans at Church pot lucks because of this, I’m not sure since I haven’t attended any Catholic pot luck. Then again, maybe because I like baked beans is the reason they haven’t invited me.
Honestly, while I deeply respect the early church fathers, they were like everyone of us. It's a poor excuse (if its even an excuse) to become Catholic.
MUCH SUGGESTED READ!
"Did all of 12 years in parochial school,altar boy,stations of the cross,ceremonial sacrements,named after a gunned-down priest,corruption,mafia affiliatiations,etc,etc,etc.The sacrements once each,confession,communion{by wafer},baptism and confirmation all at the working end of a tough nun."
He indicated he was accepted into the Catholic Church at Easter in 2002, which indicates he completed his RCIA study in with an Easter Vigil baptism, as is standard. He also indicated he had been moving away from Calvinism to Catholicism for years. The charitable conclusion to draw is that he considered himself a Catholic when he wrote the question in 2001 even though he would not be baptized until the following Easter.
Of course, if your mission is to smear rather than being charitable, you will continue as usual. By all means, don't let me interrupt your party.
Thank you, Alpha! That is a book I recommend to just about every Christian I come across. It is absolutely terrific!!!
I...went after every one of them I found, beating them back with Scripture, upon Scripture
LOL. He says this like it's a BAD thing!?! LOL.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." -- Hebrews 4:12
Grabbing at straws, perhaps?
Most likely the writer considered himself to be a Catholic before being formally received into the Church. Admittedly, this simple explanation would not fit your theory.
However, rather than suggest that your speculation based on an apparent anomoly is a proven fact and then using this “fact” to suggest that conversions to Catholicm are bogus, you might want to dig a bit deeper.
It is this guy's alleged conversion from Calvinism that reeks of fraud. Either he was never a Calvinist or he never understood Calvinism. I suspect both, and FWIW I am not a Calvinist (although I was the only freeper to score 100% Calvin on the Theology test). :-)
Additionally there are at least three different versions of this "First Vision" story out there that I could find.
I’m not Catholic and never will be. I’m Bible based so to turn Catholic would be impossible. Clearly this poor soul didn’t know the Bible otherwise he would not be elevating Mary to the level of Christ, praying TO her etc. ALL unBiblcial.
I’ve always found it odd how many people who are not Catholic know exactly what Catholics believe.
ROTFL! I can't wait until someone cites your "church father" and his interpretation of John 3:8 as the reason why!
It's not like the Catholics post thread after thread telling us what they believe and why. As if that ever happens.
No doubt you'll be dismissed for saying that as though such an explanation could only possibly be an excuse and never the truth, but the comments he's made about how he thought and acted as a "calvinist" bear it out. He was doing some pretty selective reading when going through those books he says he had.
The Reformation was not some attempt to overcome the teachings of the Early Church Fathers...it was an attempt to return to the fidelity of their faith.
So, are you saying, that if he wasn't one of the Calvinistically foreordained elect, that he was irredeemably unregenerate, and that looking for God was a futile effort? Where in the Bible does it say that?
Last time I checked, the Bible says that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.
That is a very interesting response... Are you saying that it is impossible for a Calvinist to learn something new or simply that Calvinists are incapable of error?
I am saying that it is obvious that this guy did not understand the Calvinist system he claims he was once a part of. In that sense I am saying that I think he is either a fictional person or he is not the person he claims he was.
He expresses a common misconception about Calvinism that only a non-Calvinist would have. No Calvinist and no former Calvinist would make that claim.
I know this maybe shocking but we don’t live in a vacuum.
Most of my church are EX Catholics. They actually talk about what they were taught in the Catholic church and find it doesn’t match the Bible.
“It’s not like the Catholics post thread after thread telling us what they believe and why. As if that ever happens.”
Happens all the time.
When the Bible is used to point out the false teachings, like clockwork they get all nasty and start quoting “saints” and what they thought.
“Notice how he claims he was admitted to the Catholic Church around Easter of 2002, but then he claims to be a Catholic in 2001.”
Nice sleuthing, but to no effect. All this means is that he started undertaking his inquiry class (or RCIA program) in 2001, and was brought into full membership in the Church the following Easter. This schedule is typical. Baptized converts are received formally into the Church, and the unbaptized are baptize, both during the Easter vigil.
What are the specific misconceptions?
This is absolutely true. However in true Catholicism it is not limited to only Mary and Christ. Any saint or generally sincere person can be a redeemer. All that is necessary is to first cast a plaster statue of the individual and then when the statue has been dried, painted and decorated with gold leaf, to light candles in front of it while crossing yourself seven times superstitiously.
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.