I'm joining the Catholic Church next month. Advice/Books/Etc.?

[Kolokotronis]

“What no beer?”

bof, have you ever drunk Greek beer? Its, well, awful. Trust me, you don’t want any!

[big'ol_freeper]

I’ll take your word for it.

[Kolokotronis]

“Nope. I can eat baklava, drink good coffee, and even sip on some licorice-tasting sweet liquor as a Latin. No religious test there.”

A common misconception. If you commune with azymes instead of good prosforo, the flavor of the cafe, the baklava and even the ouzo is adversely affected. But to each his own. Probably we Orthodoxers should be thankful that there are still Westerners who know what communion really is! :)

“What I want is to bust up some dishes after eating at a wedding!!!!!”

You should do that...and scare the white people! That’s the best part!

[Cronos]

So all non-Catholics are lost then? That just confirms my point.

No, not ALL --> let's beak down that large gruop who are not Catholic -- the Orthodox, the members of the ORiental and Assyrian Churches are not lost, they are part of The One Apostolic Church. Among Christians that are not part of the Apostolic Church, I will not make a blanket statement -- there are many true beleivers among protestant groups, but there are many protestant groups that I think are very, very far from The Church

[Cronos]

because between 1100 and 1500 (actually much earlier as well), people in the Alps and other places who believed something like I believe were being burned at the stake, drowned, put on the rack, hung by the neck

you mean groups like the Cathars and Albigensians? Do you believe what they believed in? Namely that Jehovah is nothing more than a demiurge, a false God and that the true God is hiding behind him, and that the world we live in is inherently evil since it was made by a false god? Is that what you believe in?

[Cronos]

But it also has well-publicized moral and ethical failings that preclude it from being perfection on Earth.

Oh, we aren't -- however, God keeps His Church on the right track. We have had bad priests and Pope before, but each time, God comes to His Church to clean i tup -- from the inside. You think we didn't have reformers IN the Church? We did -- St. Francis for one, St. Ignatius Loyola for another.

Where the Church does extend above the Protestant groups is that we are not man-made, with doctrine being created and preached by only one man, one pastor -- our teachings are from Christ, our Church doctors are those from the past 2000 years.

[Cronos]

true — we rather have our Saints who LIVE trying to imitate Christ — actions speak louder than words

[Cronos]

Depends on which Protestant group — when they say they’re joining the Jehovah’s witnesses or the Moonies (both of which call themselves Christian), I have doubts...

[Cronos]

Protestants do not bow to the Bible. Protestants do not pray to the Bible.

REally -- do you want to speak for all the myriad groups, sub-groups and sub-sub-groups calling themselves Protestants?

[OpusatFR]

“GROSS generalizations, of course.”

Oh, yes. Of course we can only guess. Some form of PD is likely. There is some component at work in the nonresponsiveness of some of them. It’s the repetition of a single thought. I just sense an underlying fear from the post ‘what if I’m wrong.’ It’s a compulsive need to be correct, not necessarily right, but correct. Repetition rather than discussion. Mantras rather than passages, held up as a mirror of self-affirmation not to engage but to reinforce a particular image.

[Mad Dawg]

I think God's god a sense of humor -- he made us didn't he? :)

I always take pleasure in the line from the Psalm about hwo the Lord has us in derision. I KNOW that's not what the Psalmist had in mind, but, well, every time (okay, ALmost every time, uh, maybe once or twice) I vested in the days of my Pepsicola priesthood, I would, in the midst of my prayers, think, "Oh Great! As a sign of my leadership God wants me to put on a dress. THAT'll bring 'em running!"

ANy clergyman who takes himself seriously has a severely damaged sense of proportion.

[Cronos]

More importantly, why did He not cause such "revival" all around the very cradle of Christianity so that all those lands became and have been mohammedan for fifteen hundred years now?

Need to point out the Historical inaccuracy -- Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Syria were all nearly 100% Christian at teh time of the Muslim invasions in the 7th century. They remained nearly 90% Christian until the 9th century when the Ummayyad CAliphate was overthrown by the Abbasid. The Ummayyads were Sunni Caliphs

The Abbasids were also Quaraishi, but more importantly, claimed direct descent from Mohammed. .

Fyi: after the death of Muhammed there was a Muslim civili war over who woudl be the new head of their Empire/Religion (there is/was no separation of Mosque and state in Islam -- the Caliph is the head priest and Emperor).B
Bukhari was the first Caliph after Muhammed and then 3 other companions. All the while, Muhammed's son-in-law Hussein Ali, wasaiting in the wings. ali became the fourth Caliph after Uthman Ibn Affan.

He was attacked and killed while praying in the mosque at Kufa near Najaf in Iraq.

Then, his son, Imam Hasan said he wanted the throne and so was killed \by muawiyah who was the Calioph and wanted the Caliphate for his (Mu'awiyah's) son. Finally, Hsan's bro, Hussein, grandson of Muhammed, was killed in a battle near the modern day Iraqi city of Karbala and he became a "martyr" (fancy martyr, eh? dying while trying to capture power) so that' shwy Karbala and it's mosque is holy land for Shia's

Anyway, so the Ummayyads won and they kept hte idea that the Arabs are the Chosen people and they discouraged conversions (as, in Islam, there is a definite caste system: on top are descendents of Mohammed, next come all Arabs, finally at the bottom are non-Arabs). The Abbassids were supported by Mawalis (non-Arabs) and encouraged conversions.

ok, I'm getting to my point (finally!) -- and that is that the conversions didn't really start until the 9th and 10 th centuries and even until the 19th century, a large minority were Christian. Many have since then fled to the West -- most of the "arabs" in the US are Christian Arabs.

[Cronos]

being Finns we are either of the tribe of Napthali or Dan

you';re kidding, right?

[Ultra Sonic 007]

US7, DrEck’s post is pretty devastating. In it she lists posts that go back to 2005 through 2007 that show you behaving in a Roman Catholic manner.

How so? Pinging the appropriate people - aka, the holders of a ping list - to a topic that interests them is somehow wrong? I have done, do, and will continue to do the same for NFL threads, Pro-Life threads, or any other thread. I was being courteous; after all, if it's a topic of interest, don't you think the holders of the appropriate ping list should be notified?

You say that you have just converted to RCatholicism, and your posting history goes to 2005 when you joined FR. Yet, in 2005 you evidence yourself as a Roman Catholic.

So anyone posting 'Catholic ping' to the holders of the Catholic ping list is evidenced as a Roman Catholic? Or merely commenting on the actions of the new Pope with regards to world events? Because that was a primary reason why I asked a long time ago to be put on the Catholic ping list; as far as news and world events are concerned, the Pope can have a pretty big impact on things.

Besides, reread my initial post in this topic. I'm joining a Catholic Church. I won't BE a Catholic until much later, after I learn the rites, the history, that sort of thing. Hence this thread.

On the other hand, you show no evidence of “protestant” type pings or posts that have been brought forward. You also are just now graduating from college which makes you roughly 21 years old today, and probably about 18 in 2005, and a consistent “Roman Catholic Pinger” in 2005 at that young age.

I've also been a consistent pinger for Pro-Life threads, Duncan Hunter threads, a few Fred Thompson threads, NFL threads, and various other topics of interest. But if the holders of a ping list have already pinged their ping list, there's not much for me to do.

With regards to no 'Protestant' pings, that's because I didn't familiarize myself with the names of the ping list holders. Primarily because, as said, the actions of Pope Benedict XVI interested me. Especially in this era of increasing liberalization and encroaching radical Islam; I wanted to see how he, as the leader of a very SUBSTANTIAL portion of Christianity, would impact world events.

My suggestion is that this seriously undermines the credibility of this thread. I’m sure you are free to post whatever you wish, and if the credibility had not been undermined, I’m also sure that I would have simply sighed that another had gone in an extra-biblical direction.

I'm still not sure why you're overstating a relatively minor issue. Events concerning the Roman Catholic Church have interested me, given the effect the Pope has on world events and the large media coverage given to the 'pedophile priest' scandal (that was another reason I was interested in Pope Benedict XVI; I wanted to see how he would ultimately handle this situation). It wasn't as though I was making sweeping defenses of Catholicism and jumping headlong into the trenches of a 'Catholic vs. Protestant' thread. Besides, as I've stated before, I'd wager over 99% of my posts have been in News/Activism.

Unfortunately, with the credibility issue, I’m only left with the real possibility that this thread is designed as some kind of coup for the RC side in the ongoing RC/Prot discussion.

Huh?

I only asked for advice and books. And I've received plenty. Then it turned into another Catholic/Protestant debate (and looking deeper into the Religion forum, it apparently happens often). Did I ask for it to happen?

It’s actually quite sad. To dispel that sadness, I would suggest a link to some old, very clearly protestant ping or post written by you that would establish the credibility of this thread.

Don't think you'll find one. Because I don't think I've ever pinged anyone holding a Protestant ping list. I'm certain I've viewed a number of News/Activism threads that dealt with Protestants/Baptists/non-demoninational/etc over the years.

And again, I don't see how my POSTING activity serves as the metric by which my own religion is determined. That would be like me saying that someone who posts a lot about cats (or, in my case, PINGING a person who holds the cat ping list) but not about dogs must be a dog hater.

Sure, news concerning the Catholic Church has caught my eye. And if it's not been seen by NYer or Salvation, I'll usually ping them. If they've gotten there before me, I usually just read and move on.

I don't see how that made me a Catholic back before I had even considered the thought.

Though, as Dr. Eckleburg himself said, only God knows the truth.

[OpusatFR]

“... you really want to eat baklava...”

Ohhhh...baklava! Ummmmm...

[Cronos]

US007: a few of you need to knock it off, and move it elsewhere if you don't mind.

Doc Eek: If you wanted a caucus or ecumenic thread, you should have labeled this as such. Since it's an open thread and you solicited opinions, you got them. Good luck as you venture toward Rome.

Get used to hatred when you follow Christ in His Church.

[John Leland 1789]

I speak of hundreds of thousands of Christians who believed in salvation by faith in the Cross-work of Christ, believers’ baptism by immersion, refusal of infant baptism, an aversion to the state-run churches whether Catholic or Protestant, a “gathered” church, i.e. a church where members were there because they had believed on Christ (a knowledgeable, personal faith) and so had been baptized by immersion, not because of State intervention or mandatory church attendance.

I speak of perhaps millions of Christians who went underground (if they were still in or still nearby the Empire; many had already spread beyond the practical reaches of the Empire) when “Christianity” became the official religion of the Roman empire, (the Roman church was never the only church, not even before the East-West split).

They will all be called “heretics” by some, regardless of their beliefs. Some of them were in fact heretical. Millions more were not (except when they are treated by the Roman Church or by the Geneva Protestants as such). There were both heretical and non-heretical Christians murdered by ecclesiastical authority for being dissenters from Rome, or having never been a part of it, refusing to come in to it. Which ones deserved to be murdered? To whom did the God of Heaven give authority to send frocked henchmen for the purpose of eradicating them?

[narses]

Nothing will satisfy those who hate the truth. It isn’t pretty but it is a fact.

[Cronos]

praying to Mary

Another lie -- have you ever seen the words of the Hail Mary? Hail Mary, mother of God, pray FOR us....

[Mad Dawg]

Well, leaving aside the guilty until proven innocent aspect of all this, and agreeing that in a way the post is asking for assistance in a personal step, so personal charges may be appropriate, the first ting to do is to distinguish between seeing something to be good and deciding to become a part of it.

In one example US7 approvingly pings his (Catholic)father to a thread about the Pope. This shows he was then Catholic or had then decided to become Catholic? On the one or two occasions when the Episcopal Church did something right and a Catholic friend would tell me, that PROVED he was a crypto-Episcopalian?

I k now that those who are devoted to the Word, don't like it when we look at the actual words and their possible meanings, but in the second example, we have a ping to some Catholics, with the words, "Catholic Ping". Well THAT's incriminating, isn't it? Except that a "Catholic Ping" could just as well be TOO Catholics, or ABOUT Catholics, as FROM a Catholic.

In the third example, on a thread about Our Lady of Guadelupe, we have an incriminating ping. Tis was about 6-7 months ago.Would it be better if US7 engaged in no thought or cocnveersation and keo himself from any knowledge of the Church until AFTEr he decided to join? Would that make his decision wiser and more credible?

It seems the case against US7 amounts to, "For three years or more, this man has been aware of the Church of which family members are adherents, has engaged in conversation, PUBLIC conversation no less, about that Church, and NOW he days he's decided to join it himself.

Well, THAT's suspicious!

NOT!

The argument seems to be that one can only be EITHER:
1) Ignorant of the existence of the Catholic Church;
2) Openly opposed to the Catholic Church; or
3) A member or spy or co-collaborator or unindicted co-conspirator of the Catholic Church. US7 was niether 1 nor 3, so he must be 3.

The possibility that one might spend a few years in a process of decision making about what might be the most important decision of one's life is evidently not deemed worthy of consideration.

No sale. Case dismissed for trying to spin a verdict out of gossamer.