The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

my point stands.

if you can’t find “wheat” for the first 1,500 years after Christ, you just may be following a false gospel.

the mormons for example, teach the true church went apostate in the 1st century and was restored in the 19th.
i guess you might agree with them, only the “restoration” took place in the 16th.
of course, Jesus tells us this isn’t possible.

[Jvette]

****Baptism should be reserved for the TRUE purpose it was created for - to testify to others that we have made a choice to follow Christ and live in newness of life****

Where is this said in Scripture?

[Jvette]

Sorry, not buying your commentary as neither passage ever says that only adults were baptized.

Children do not act for themselves. Parents act and speak for them, and that would include having them baptized.

Remember, to the Jewish people, the children did carry the sins of their parents so it would not have seemed wrong to have little ones baptized.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

BB = baptism is for testifying to others.

The Scriptures = baptism is for the remission of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit and placing one “into Christ”

the question everyone must ask is, do i follow the Scriptures or the 16th century tradition of men?

[metmom]

There has never been a religious split between Ukrainian Graeco-Catholics and Ukrainian Latin-Rite Catholics.

Nor did metmom say anything about a split between Ukrainian Graeco-Catholics and Ukrainian Latin-Rite Catholics.

But I see that that hasn't stopped anyone from getting off the subject anyway.

[Natural Law]

"Nor did metmom say anything about a split between Ukrainian Graeco-Catholics and Ukrainian Latin-Rite Catholics."

Whenever anyone speaks authoritatively on behalf of all members of both parties in a nonexistent dispute it invites problems. Moderators cannot always protect anyone from themselves.

Peace be with you

[Titanites]

Semantics, semantics, semantics.

It is not semantics that there is no schism between the Ukrainian and Latin Catholics.

[Titanites]

What does that, or any of these, have to do with the conversation that there is an “attitude” of superiority of some in the RCC?

You may be in a discussion about "attitude of superiority". I'm in a discussion to demonstrate that the Ukrainians and the Latins are in unity, as opposed to what was claimed.

[Natural Law]

"“We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it.”?"

That quote is from an interview with Cardinal Husar recounting what he believes happened in the 18th century. If you had bothered to read the entire interview you would have discovered he went on to say what they finally agreed to:

": No, dear brothers, one can be Ukrainian, one can be Byzantine, one can be at the same time Catholic. These different elements do not contradict one another."

Later in the same interview he said:

"Sorry, you'll have to point out to me where in that the Patriarch denies Vatican I's definition of Papal infallibility, I'm not seeing it."

I guess the question you should ask yourself before you most in God's name or defense is; Are you stating the Truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth?".

[CynicalBear]

Of course that whole conversation was about some fictional dispute among the lay and some in the leadership wasn’t it. But of course everyone knows that it is fiction to even think there are any differences within the different sects of Catholics. After all, we are told that all Catholics are of one mind and no contentions exist even to this day. That conversation was just in case anyone might have thought there were any differences because as we all know there is none that exists. Right? I mean, Catholics have never fought with anyone let alone within their own ranks.

[count-your-change]

But in every instance where baptism is described there is a process, make the disciple, baptize, instruct further and teach. and that was of adults.

This was the pattern Jesus himself set, disciple, baptize, teach.

Not a single instance of a child being baptized can be found in Scripture. Not one.

[CynicalBear]

>> I'm in a discussion to demonstrate that the Ukrainians and the Latins are in unity, as opposed to what was claimed.<<

So you believe there has not been nor is there now any animosity between the UGCC and the RCC lay people?

[Titanites]

Do you deny that the Ukrainian Catholic is in full communion with the Pope?

Could you show where I ever said they weren’t?

Sure:

648 It is obvious that there was and is a schism.

The two churches can't be in full communion and in schism at the same time.

Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity.

[Titanites]

So you believe there has not been nor is there now any animosity between the UGCC and the RCC lay people?

Show me a church, parish, or congegration, Catholic or non-Catholic, where there is not animosity somewhere.

The fact is the UGCC and the Latin Catholic Churches are in full communion and unity, as opposed to what was claimed.

[metmom]

It’s not all that difficult these days to look up the history. As I posted yesterday about the comment of Lubomyr Cardinal Husar of the UGCC “We were told: If you want to be a real Catholic, you have to be Latin. And they pushed us into it.” It is obvious that there was and is a schism. Husar wasn’t just some lowly lay person within the Ukrainian church after all. One would have to be rather dense or simply in complete denial to not see that what metmon says is truth.

You know, the gross overreaction and resulting firestorm over one comment actually corroborated by the quote you provided, certainly has been enlightening.

It gets back to what has been said, that anything that makes the Catholic church look bad is dismissed as false offhand. And when corroborating evidence is provided, the level of denial is ratcheted up several orders of magnitude, to the point of it being almost comical.

Instead of reacting with something along the lines of *Well, if that's what the Catholics you knew thought, they were wrong.* would have been a very reasonable response and it would have died on the vine.

The absolute meltdown by the Catholics on this thread are what's kept it going.

The complete denial of the facts in the matter would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[boatbums]

I don’t recall “mind-reading” as a fruit of the Spirit.

[Jvette]

Not a single instance of baptism being reserved or restricted to adults can be found in Scripture, not one.

See how that works for both of us?

We have Scripture of Jesus with children,

Matt 18:13Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 15And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

What can we glean from that? That parents brought their children to Jesus. What are the ages of the children? One? Two? Three? Four? Five? Six? Seven? Eight? Nine? Ten? Eleven? Twelve?

Did they leave the infants home?

—Matthew 18:1-6, 10-14
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

And what do you make of this verse?

For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.
—Luke 1:44

What does Paul mean here?

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”
—Ephesians 6:1-3

[count-your-change]

Your point is contrary to what Jesus said in the illustration. That the two elements would grow together, inseparable until fruit was produced sufficient to see the difference.

“if you can’t find “wheat” for the first 1,500 years after Christ, you just may be following a false gospel.”

Were the Cathars, Waldensians and assorted groups “Wheat or weeds”?

“.....you just may be following a false gospel.”

Matthew is a false gospel??? Really?
What I do or do not do will not make Matthew false.

[Jvette]

It is the utmost in irony or hubris or willful ignorance, I can’t decide which, for the dissenters to hold fast to those doctrines which they can accept and reject others on their own “feeling” of being led by the Spirit from Scripture.

The hubris, irony or ignorance is that they hold to those doctrines citing Scripture, which came to them from the authority and tradition of the Church that they reject.

In fact, any orthodox doctrine of faith they have, came to them from the Catholic Church. The “reformers” didn’t reinvent the wheel, they warped the old one and called it good.

[count-your-change]

“We have Scripture of Jesus with children,”

And with adults and so what does that have to do with infant/adult baptism?

“And what do you make of this verse?”

I would ask the question above, What does Luke 1:44 have to with baptism?

“What does Paul mean here?

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”
—Ephesians 6:1-3”

I think he's instructing children to obey their parents. He was giving counsel in the fifth and sixth chapters to wives, husbands, children, slaves, masters and others unspecified.

All fine Scriptures to be sure.