Posted on 05/01/2008 5:07:35 PM PDT by annalex
You know, many times people leave the Catholic Church out of curiosuity, experiment a bit with Protestant theologies and come back to the Lord, strengthened.
Yes. Also the social cohesion fostered, especially, by Baptist churches is truly remarkable. We have much to learn from them.
It is, perhaps, an American trend, as English speaking Catholics grew out of relentless persecution by the British, and Mexicans still have the scars from their masonic revolution in the early 1900’s. In England, Mass had to be celebrated in secret for centuries: no wonder Catholics are not used to socialize in church.
How did you intellectually make the leap into ignoring the total lack of scriptural evidence, traditional evidence, or the use of simple reason and honest rationale to believe in things like the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary when it is clearly tradition that was made up whole cloth by the Church?
Until the day comes that I can chuck my conscience and reason out the window, I cannot cross the Tiber. This has been the single biggest stumbling block to ever becoming Catholic. I can't accept things that aren't based in Scripture or some real, definable, documented tradition of the very early Church fathers who had the closest ties to the apostles. Things that were made up centuries later, by men...sorry, that just doesn't wash.
Dear Annalex,thanks for posting this wonderful article! Inviting our protestant brothers and sisters to attend Eucharistic Adoration is the key to conversion.
After all,Our blessed Lord is fully present right there on the alter in the monstrance.
I wish you a Blessed day!
First, if Christ is there in the Eucharist and you know it, then the rest should not really matter. Your question is like Nathaniel being surprised that the Christ came from the unlikely place of Nazareth. If that's where Christ is, and you are a Christian, that's where you go.
Second, what lack of evidence? "Hail full of grace" implies the Immaculate Conception very strongly; Apocalypse 12 describes Mary in her body as a queen in heaven. These are all ancient beliefs of the Church. The Orthodox do not have a problem with them (they have a problem with papal infallibility and with Catholic way of refining dogmas, but not with these Marian beliefs themselves).
Thnak you for the kind words, God bless.
Second, others in the Bible are also called "favored" or "highly favored" of God, too. It doesn't imply anything more than one on whom God has shown his favor. It doesn't mean they aren't sinners or any less sinful.
Only Catholics believe that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary. There are counter (and better argued) arguments that the woman represents Israel (as Protestants have long agreed). There is nothing in Revleation 12 that argues the woman is supposed to be Mary, this is just how Catholics choose to interpret it.
I once asked if anyone could name a prominent Protestant who had once been a Catholic. Got doznes of responses and thousands of reads. No good responses. Since then, Glen Beck certainly has become prominent, but most people don’t count Mormons as Protestants.
On Luke 1:28, you rely on obfuscatory Protestant translations, designed to propagate mariophobic falsehoods.
The original says “Kecharitomeneh”, a unique to Luke word formation from “charis”, “grace”. It is true that “charis” is sometimes translated “favor”, but never in theological context. The same Protestant translations that have “favored” in Luke 1:28 always translate “charis” as “grace” everywhere else. It is simply a dishonest attempt to trivialize the manner of the angel’s salutation, even though St. Luke makes a special effort to underscore its uniqueness in the following verse.
Further, “kecharitomeneh” is past tense, — something English translation cannot properly convey. This points to the fact that Mary is not filled with grace at the time of the Annunciation, but that she had been filled with it all along, hence Immaculate Conception.
St. Stephen is also described as “full of grace”, but the context is clear that he experiences a surge of grace and fortitude as he speaks, and the origional uses a different verbiage.
The woman in Apocalypse (Revelation of St. John) is described as mother of Christ (Apoc. 12:5, 10). The interpretation that she is somehow Israel is just plain silly.
“Yes, obviously. However, Catholicism and Protestantism aren’t enemies. We are all one Body under the Headship of Christ.”
****************
Not exactly true. Only those Catholics and Protestants and others who have been authentically born again of the Spirit of God are part of the Body of Christ.
Denominational and traditional affiliations, Catholicism, Protestantism and etc. will get you nowhere with God.
“You must be born again.”
“Incidentally, I hardly ever see hostility to the community of faith that Catholic converts left; invariably, “
If we had a better search function, I could show you quite a few right here.
“he only problem is that the “scriptura” can be interpreted many different ways (witness the many different understandings of same among different Protestant groups).”
But, but but...
Can’t the Church Fathers ALSO be interpreted many different ways???
Or did God supposedly give the Church Fathers the ability to write more clearly than the Apostles????
**********************
“”Sola Scriptura” is “sola stupid”.”
Great argument!
But tell it to St. Paul. He’ll disagree with you.
“First, if Christ is there in the Eucharist and you know it”
Christ was sacrificed ONCE, not every Sunday. The Mass is no real sacrifice. Communion is a “rememberance” - not the real thing.
*********************
“Apocalypse 12 describes Mary in her body as a queen in heaven. “
Revelations 12 is not Mary. The Revelations 12 woman had pain in child birth - something Mary didn’t have according to the RCC.
“I once asked if anyone could name a prominent Protestant who had once been a Catholic.”
Dangus, what in the world does “prominence” have to do with anything???
“... or consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;”
In my experience, the three former Catholics I knew became agnostic or atheist in their beliefs.
This "born again" is baptism. However, baptized Christians at times fall away from the Catholic Church for a variety of reasons.
Hey, to a Catholic, anything made up whole cloth by the Church is true and cannot be questioned. And plenty of apologists will twist the Bible into making it look like it was there all along.
“This “born again” is baptism.”
annalex, “born again” is not baptism.
Being “born again” is when a sinful person hears the Gospel and believes and the Holy Spirit enters their life and being and gives them a new spirit and a new heart.
From then on, that person want to love God and do what is pleasing to Him. And they only way they can keep doing that is by living is close fellowship with the Lord.
Yes, I know. But here we have a forum designed for spirited exchange. I am not a convert from Protestantism, but I consider Protestantism to be a colossal theological error. Consequently, I express myself in a way that at times comes across as hostility. Of course, Protestants are not exactly shrinking violets themselves when it comes to their criticisms of Catholicism. What I am saying is that former Protestants who convert to Catholicism do not, typically, deny their former faith altogether, they just wish more converted with them. My wife, for example, often points out that Protestants believe what they do because their pastors teach them, and that their desire to find Christ outside of the Catholic Church is sincere and should count for something.
My case is easy since I converted from Orthodoxy, but likewise I have nothing but praise for the Orthodox Church and am very reluctant to criticize it, even when I think to myself that I could.
***“”Sola Scriptura” is “sola stupid”.”
Great argument!
But tell it to St. Paul. He’ll disagree with you.***
It’s nice to see that not all Protestants claim to speak for God. St. Paul certainly is a step down. Can you show where St. Paul advances the notion of sola scriptura?
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.