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. 

[metmom]

Observing that someone is bitter or failed is just that, an observation. It is not a condemnation because it is something you can change.

No, it's not, because when reading just words that are written and not knowing the person or the tone of voice used or other clues that you can pick up when actually interacting face to face, there is simply no way of picking up motivation from the written word. It has to be implied, or projected, onto that person and that reveals more about the person making the accusation than the person being accused.

It reveals the mindset of the accuser because they would conclude that others would do what they would do in a similar situation.

I am not bitter. That would be the result of a lack of forgiveness towards those who offended me and I have forgiven them., therefore, no bitterness.

As far as the accusation of being a *failed* Catholic, that doesn't work either because I didn't leave the Catholic church because I couldn't keep up with the hoop jumping required by it to earn salvation, but because I read the Word of God and saw the truth in it that the Catholic church contradicts with its own teaching.

I suppose that if that makes me a failed Catholic, it's just a label I'll have to wear as a badge of honor.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forgive

a : to give up resentment of or claim to requital for *forgive an insult*
b : to grant relief from payment of *forgive a debt*

2 : to cease to feel resentment against (an offender) : pardon *forgive one's enemies*

Forgiveness does not entail denial of reality. I can relate the offenses done against me by Catholics without anger, bitterness, resentment, or whatever. Forgiveness doesn't mean denying that what happened really happened, but rather acknowledging the wrong and choosing to not hold it against someone.

I didn't leave the Church for good because or bitterness or resentment or failure, but for theological reasons, that is that the teachings of the Catholic church do not line up with Scripture.

Whether you choose to accept that or not is your business and I can't control that, but I CAN tell you the truth about what I did and why. If you don't like that, I can't help it.

[metmom]

Perhaps we can just make false accusations and hope they stick...Like, why do you attend a Catholic church on Saturday after worshiping in a mosque on Friday???

LOL!!!

[count-your-change]

“the Scriptures DO NOT speak of only adults being baptized. Jewish 1st century households would have been full of children”

But the jailer was one household not Jewish households in general. Is there any Scripture that indicates infants were baptized?

“1,500 years is a long time for no one to understand a core doctrine like baptism”

It is, however Jesus’ illustration of the wheat and weeds foretold a longtime from beginning to end of it's fulfillment.
Now near the harvest time the difference between the wheat and the poisonous darnel becomes ever clearer.

[metmom]

That is a frequent phenomena among FRoman Catholics. Each FRoman Catholic is his/her own pope.

Yup.

With their YOPIOTCCC - Your own personal interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic church.

Even if they did leave the interpretation of Scripture completely in the hands of the Catholic church and did none at all on their own, they're still stuck having to interpret the interpretation and who knows of their own personal interpretation of the interpretation was interpreted correctly.

They're simply adding more layers to be interpreted which leaves far more room for misinterpretation and error.

[Titanites]

there is simply no way of picking up motivation from the written word

Well, I got as far as this statement and realized that the rest would probably be as false.

[Gamecock]

‘xactly.

Once can see that from contradictory statements FRoman Catholics make here on FR. Statements that contradict each other. Posts that contradict the catechism, etc.

But why not? FRoman Catholic teaching over the centuries has been very contradictory.

The interesting part is if a Catholic points this out, they are accused of being a CINO. If we Prods point it out we are engaging in hate speech.

[metmom]

Nothing like giving someone the benefit of the doubt, is there?

[metmom]

Their mind is made up. Don’t confuse them with the facts.

[daniel1212]

What condemning attitude? I

didn't have time to thoroughly investigate the lengthy cut and paste, but I did skim it. I didn't see the Church condemning anyone to hell.

It is quite evident there, but skimming or less seems to be the most some RCs can tolerate lately.

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her;...No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. - Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758 A.D.).

"The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life..unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." — Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), proclaimed “ex cathedra” (infallible).

Well, despite attempts to deny it, this is what was taught by many, and your denial and argument on this is not simply with me but with many Traditional RCs and sedevacantists, if you cannot presently see the condemnation and the condemning attitude then more proof now will not suffice.

The problem is that while the liberal view may hold that baptized Protestants are joined to the Lord in His Mystical Body and thus are a part/member of the Catholic, as it is the Mystical Body of Christ, yet there is room for interpretation as to the "no fault of their own" and "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (846,47) conditions mean.

Some see these as excluding all who have heard the claims of Rome to be the OTC but reject them, leaving only ignorant type souls to be possibly saved, while another sees the exclusion as only applying to those who acknowledge the claims of Rome as being true but reject them anyway, while even Muslims can be saved.

[CynicalBear]

And they still expect us to take them seriously after they make comments that are so starkly contrary to what the RCC actually professes.

[metmom]

And they claim that we don’t really know what the Catholic church teaches.

We know alright. We just don’t deny it in the face of all the evidence.

[daniel1212]

"I didn't see the Church condemning anyone to hell."

"The Church has never claimed the ability to condemn anyone to hell,"

Understood as the power to actually send one to Hell, no, but to make that as disallowing the Church as condemning anyone to hell is not correct, whether anyone wants to see that or not.

While Rome has claimed temporal power at the will and sufferance of the priest, it cannot actually place one in Hell, but by claiming power to bind and to loose, and excluding those who deny Christ, and defining denial, and defining who may be saved, she is condemning souls to hell (and affirms at least one is in Hell). The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment and shall condemn men, and believers themselves will judge angels.

•"We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

•“There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

•Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

[Titanites]

Seriously, if you would work on your run on sentences, it might make your posts more readable.

Let's suppose that person A holds the belief that you must have faith to be saved. And let's also suppose person B claims to have no faith. In your view, has person A condemned person B to hell?

[Titanites]

Nothing like giving someone the benefit of the doubt, is there?

The benefit of the doubt about what?

The fact is, that if someone constantly extols the presidency of Barack Obama, and falsely makes claims as to the great things he has done for our country, the motive is plain to see.

Similarly, if someone constantly harps on the Church with never a good thing to say, and persistently makes false claims about the Church's beliefs or doctrine even after being corrected numerous times, the motive is plain for all to see.

[metmom]

By claiming that they have the power to bind and loose that was given them by God, they are in effect putting God subservient to their proclamations.

He is then obligated to adhere to whatever they bind or loose.

Seems that I recall seeing an RC recently post that God is obliged to obey the pope or some such nonsense because of the binding and loosing thing, but I cannot remember exactly where it was.

[metmom]

Corrected?

All I get told is that I’m wrong. That doesn’t count.

Is somebody going to tell me what’s *right* and cite it?

We’ve provided citations to back up our claims.

Where are yours?

[daniel1212]

There are reasons for changes, but why they were changes and the warrant for them and the contrasts are worth examining: http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2011/09/contradictions-in-roman-catholicism.html

[Titanites]

By claiming that they have the power to bind and loose that was given them by God, they are in effect putting God subservient to their proclamations.

Do you believe Matthew 16:19 makes God subservient to Peter?

He is then obligated to adhere to whatever they bind or loose.

Was God obligated to adhere to whatever Peter bound or loosed?

but I cannot remember exactly where it was.

That's convenient.

[Titanites]

We’ve provided citations to back up our claims.

You have not. You made the claim that Roman Catholics don't consider them [Ukrainian Greek Catholics] *real* Catholics. You have provided no evidence to back up your claim.

Where are yours?

Divine Liturgy Celebrated in Rome by the New Head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

On March 23, the bishops of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church elected as their new leader the youngest member of their hierarchy, 41 year-old Bishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, of the Eparchy of Santa Maria del Patrocinio in Argentina. He succeeds as Major Archbishop of Kiev-Halych Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, who retired on February 10 due to failing eyesight. After the confirmation of the election by Pope Benedict XVI on March 25, Archbishop Shevchuk was enthroned in the still-to-be completed Cathedral of the Resurrection in Kiev on March 27th. Almost immediately thereafter, he and several members of the Permanent Synod of the UGCC hierarchy came to Rome, and were received in audience by the Holy Father on April 1.


Cardinal Sandri reads Pope Benedict's letter confirming
the election of Archbishop Shevchuk.

[Titanites]

Saint Vladimir Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

The Eastern Churches

By Most Reverend Basil H. Losten

The Second Vatican Council teaches that:

“The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgi­cal rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the es­tablished standards of the Christian life of the Eastern churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity. there remains con­spicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers1 and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.”2

The same Council also teaches us the “special position of the Eastern Churches”3 and urges all Catholics to learn more about the Eastern Churches.

The Christian East includes Churches of several different tradi­tions, and we shall try to say something about each one. There are two important groups of Eastern Churches: those in full commu­nion with the Catholic Church, and those who have, as yet, imper­fect communion with the Catholic Church.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are in full communion with the Catholic Church.4 All Catholic bish­ops and priests may concelebrate Holy Mass with one another and all Catholic people may receive Holy Communion at the hands of any Catholic bishop or priest, whether that bishop or priest belongs to the Latin Catholic Church or to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches (just as all Catholics may receive Holy Communion from any Catholic bishop or priest, whether the bishop or priest belongs to this or that diocese or monastic order). All Catholics may come to Confession in any Catholic Church, re­gardless of whether this is a Latin Church or an Eastern Catholic Church. All Catholics recognize the primacy of the Holy Father, the Pope or Bishop of Rome, who is the First Bishop of the entire Catholic Church and the Vicar of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul. In turn, the Holy Father exercises pastoral care for all Catholics, whether they belong to the Latin Church or to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Ukrainian Greek Catholics are *real* Catholics, and are considered to be *real* Catholics by the Latin Church.