Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?
As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.
Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.
Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiegogo.com ...
good grief, obviously the office of the Pope changed over the years as the vatican evolved...the first Pope, Peter, was an original apostle and obviously was not adorned in any sort of a uniform. As the office progressed over the centuries, it was probably necessary to remove the toga and replace it with a more visible sign of authority over a huge group of Christians.
no there aren't ...you obviously don't know what you're talking about...pathetic
Once again a RC seems to imagine that because they say something then it must be true, however it has been shown and can be that the Roman Catholic church could not have been following Christ for 1,600 years before the Reformation, as the RCC did not exist then, except as invisible, and has engaged in progressive deformation since it has .
=============================================================
No, CynicalBear, that is NOT the form used in those two Bible texts in Greek. (Do you need me to post the links to those two texts in the Greek New Testament?)
The form is "estai" - "will be".
"Will be" does NOT mean the same thing as "was".
“Protestant” is just a slur cast at Christians, just as “Christian” was a slur aimed at followers of Jesus. If you wish to see the pivotal document, the actual protest which brought upon us Christians this new slur, it is here: http://www.thereformation.info/protest%20text.htm
As for Rome, she is a schism that happened gradually, but for the first few hundred years, we were happy enough with our first slur, simply being Christian.
Peace,
SR
=============================================================
If that is accurate and true, that sounds even more like Jesus was guaranteeing Peter infallibility in all his "binding", if every thing Peter was to bind on earth had already been bound by God.
(Of course, that is also reminiscent of the following text, which reaffirms that God is God.)
(In spite of that, Jesus still instructs us to "Ask...")✝============================================================✝
"...your Father knows what you need before you ask him." Matthew 6:8
✝============================================================✝
There's NO chance at all I would ever take a "maximalist ultramontane papalism" approach but I don't think even Newman would deny that that certainly WAS the view held by many Popes and their bishops in the past - that the whole world should be under the temporal as well as spiritual papal supremacy and in the clerical domination of society.
Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letters, p. 112 said:
And just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so is its authority the most exalted of all authority, nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the civil power, or in any manner dependent upon it.
He also stated in his Encyclical on the "Evils Affecting Modern Society", page 11:
Cardinal Henry Manning (1892), the Archbishop of Westminster, stated:
In his book, "The Present Crisis of the Holy See", page 75, Archbishop Manning stated:
So, I hope you can understand that, when I read statements like those, other encyclicals and past ex cathedra proclamations of popes that there is no salvation to anyone who is not subject to the Pope of Rome, it isn't unreasonable to expect that this requires popes to be far different than any other Catholic. If, as FRoman Catholics frequently assert here, there is an "unbroken line of succession" all the way back to Peter and that the power and authority Christ granted to him is passed down to his successors, it raises the stakes and makes these men much more than merely bad popes - there should NEVER be one. If, as you say, they are "free to be stupid, confused or sinful as anybody else", then you are admitting - though perhaps not knowingly - that they are NOT Divinely ordained and anointed successors to Peter, and that whatever succession there was, it was one of the passing down of sound teaching rather than the authority of an Apostle.
Popes have to be obeyed in the sense of having the authority of their office, in the same sense that the Captain of a Ship has to be obeyed. This does not imply that either popes or captains have flawless judgment, special access to hidden truths, or protection from screwing up big. It means "this guy is in charge here."
We are obliged in general to obey authority 1 Peter2:13 (LINK) --- and that deserves a good long look, because it applies to Church authorities even more than to secular authorities. This has to do with authority in general. But nobody is obliged to obey a sinful order, and that is true whether the guy giving the order is captain or pope.
I often wonder how Catholics today would react if they had a Pope like Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia), for example? Would you feel obligated to obey him and submit to his authority or would you withhold that obedience based upon whether or not what he said and how he behaved matches what you already know is the truth? Jesus said unto whom much is given, much will be required. I don't think it is wise to brush off the depravity of Church leaders while asserting ALL of Christendom must submit to their authority. It's no surprise that the Reformation came about in the years leading up to and after such an ignoble time in the Catholic church. This is why I know the Roman Catholic church cannot be THE one, true church Jesus established and, though many of her members no doubt are part of that spiritual temple, the Body of Christ remains a set apart assembly of the redeemed, washed white in the blood of the Lamb and preparing to meet the Lord in the air and so to ever be with Him in heaven.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.This, BTW, highlights one of the reasons to keep liking the KJV after all these years. It captures the plural pronouns, like "ye", which modern English doesn't even have, unless you count, "all y'all." So I don't usually have to peek back at the Greek to know if the group is being addressed or just one individual.
One last thought on this. The pope gets a pass when he is permitted to remain in his position of authority - supposedly over all Christians - even when his behavior is contrary to Biblical standards for, at minimum, a member, and more so for those in positions of leadership. And...I'm not talking about whoopsies and the common human sin nature, but ongoing, public and overt displays of depravity and immorality. Ask yourself if St. Peter would have laid hands on any of those "bad popes" and placed them - or allowed them to remain - in church leadership? See, I don't think he would and that is why I reject both the mandated submission to the Pope of Rome and acceptance of dogmas that either contradict Scripture or do not have Apostolic sanction that are part of the Roman Catholic faith of today.
I appreciate your respectful reply and hope you have a blessed Lord's day.
One doesn't NEED to be a language expert because of the diligent work of those who followed God's leading to do that for us all. A good student of the Bible has at his/her fingertips the knowledge of hundreds of "experts" with which to understand the truths of Scripture.
As you can see from 893; a REASON was given for 881's removal.
If we are going JUDGE things by the way things LOOK; I guess all the pictures in these C vs P threads of Catholic PRACTICES (You Prots don't understand the MEANING!!!) are mighty damning as well.
No, I'm sorry, but the BIBLE does not support your assertion.
Let me post the data; one; more; time...
And what kind of a job was Peter doing later; as reasonable person might ask??
Galatians 2:1-14 (NIV)
1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
6 As for those who were held in high esteemwhatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritismthey added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
So; your "first pope" seems to have had a mighty poor learning experience in his catechism classes!! After fourteen years, he STILL is failing to TEACH correctly!
Indeed!
I could use a timeout, as I have a LOT of work to finish before the Train of Terror is ready for the annual Fall Festival/Halloween party in Elsie’s woods...
Sometimes a cigar...
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.