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. 

[count-your-change]

Then we must ask who is included in the household that was baptized. If it cannot be established from that particular Scripture then we must look elsewhere for a definition of who could be baptized.

For example if “you say my house voted for candidate X” it doesn't mean your newborn voted, if you had one.

In Acts 10:24, When Cornelius was awaiting Peter and his message it was the adults that he called together and they were baptized. This occurred in Cornelius’ home. Were children present? Unknown but if so they weren't baptized when Cornelius’ friends and relatives were.

In Acts 2:37-47 describes adults doing this and such not children or babes in arms even though they were likely present.
In Acts 2:38 Peter tells the crowd, specifically the men,

‘Repent and be baptized’ yet what did little children or infants have to repent of? How could they make a turn around in their actions?

Like the infants and children of Noah's time they perished or lived according to the merit of their parents.

Whenever it can be clearly established it is adults that being baptized, being made disciples, “embracing the word heartily”, etc.
So when we see Households we must ask just how narrowly the writer is using this term since it can be applied to just the adults.

[Cronos]

Met, I'm not talking about experiences being different. the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is here in Warsaw (small communities) and across the granica in the Ukraine. There is no such thing as Catholics in the Ukraine considering each other as not legit because the other belongs to one rite or the other. That is incorrect -- I know families that have been intermarried going back to the 1800s.

you can posit that there were disputes, but at no point has there ever been any accusations of not being 'legit'.

[daniel1212]

Which Development of Doctrine was necessary due to problems one finds when getting "deep in history," (as in post 450 ), and the lack of the required “unanimous consent” of the fathers,

[count-your-change]

I usually don’t have much to say but I hope it’s worth the effort.

[metmom]

OK, I see where you're coming from with that.

However, the authority they have comes from the Law and cannot, or better should not, be used to demand adherence to the traditions they have set up. That is a misuse of the authority they were given.

Actually, He does rebuke them for several of their traditions in other places in the cases where they demand adherence to their traditions to the point of violating the Law.

Some examples of that are.....

I already posted Mark 7:1-13 so there's no point in doing it again.

However, Mark 7:9 gets to the heart of the matter.... “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!

And that is the big danger of incorporating tradition into religion or adding it to Scripture. It happened then and human nature being what it is, it will happen again.

So, it is not the tradition that kept them from knowing Jesus, but the hardness of their heart and their own selfish desires, along with a heaping dose of pride.

Yeah, and that's likely what caused them to demand adherence to their tradition instead of Scripture. And again, there's the blindness God put on them in order for prophecy to be fulfilled.

[Titanites]

You have no basis for telling me that what I heard was not true.

Yes, I do. It's absolutely not true, and I've post evidence to that effect.

No, it's not rumor because it's not something I heard ABOUT, it's stuff I heard.

It's nothing but rumor.

A rumor or rumour (see spelling differences) is often viewed as "an unverified account or explanation of events circulating from person to person and pertaining to an object, event, or issue in public concern"

Thus, rumor is a concept that lacks a particular definition in the social sciences. But most theories agree that rumor involves some kind of a statement whose veracity is not quickly or ever confirmed. In addition, some scholars have identified rumor as a subset of propaganda, the latter another notoriously difficult concept to define.

Rumors are also often discussed with regard to "misinformation" and "disinformation" (the former often seen as simply false and the latter seen as deliberately false.

[metmom]

Met, I'm not talking about experiences being different. the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church is here in Warsaw (small communities) and across the granica in the Ukraine. There is no such thing as Catholics in the Ukraine considering each other as not legit because the other belongs to one rite or the other. That is incorrect -- I know families that have been intermarried going back to the 1800s.

Well, I am. All that still does not refute what I've heard and experience. Again it just goes to show that your experience is different than mine.

Really,..... is there something too hard to understand about that?

[metmom]

Yes, I do. It's absolutely not true, and I've post evidence to that effect.

There is no evidence. I didn't see any quotes from the people I knew to refute that.

Unless you can read my mind and know who they are and go and interview them and ask them specifically about it, you have NOTHING.

[metmom]

Calling someone a liar and using lots of words to dance around it, is still calling them a liar.

What I related is what it is.

Others may not like it, they may want it to not be true, they may have had different experiences, (which I’M not accusing them of making up. I can accept that they never encountered what I did), it may not be official church policy, but nobody can tell me that I don’t know what I know.

[Titanites]

There is no evidence.

Here are your claims about Ukrainian Catholics:

353 So much for unity within Catholicism.

403 The Roman Catholics don't consider Ukrainian Catholics quite good enough and the Ukrainian Catholics know it.

431 Roman Catholics didn’t consider them *real* Catholics.

All you've posted as evidence are rumors and your lame claim to being a fraction Ukrainian.

I've posted the evidence that the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is fully Catholic and in full communion with the Pope, and acknowledgments from the Ukrainians that they are in agreement with that.

Unless you can read my mind and know who they are and go and interview them and ask them specifically about it, you have NOTHING.

That's the point. You've given us nothing but rumor.

[Natural Law]

"Calling someone a liar and using lots of words to dance around it, is still calling them a liar."

Please do not make personal accusations. If the level of discourse is too intense for you perhaps you should stick with devotional and caucus threads.

For the record, I did not call you or anyone else a liar. All I said was that we must all make decisions about what we choose to believe and not believe. What you claim to be a right in your persistent rejections of the teachings of the Catholic Church is no different than my rejection of your stories. Yours is not an exclusive license or privilege. The right of discernment is one we all have.

Peace be with you.

[metmom]

FOTFLOL!!!!!!

[boatbums]

As we frequently find out, usually well after the fact, there are ulterior motives to leaving the Church, rarely theological, if ever. Your own testimonies are very illustrative.

Since you are impugning my own testimony, please clarify what I have said that gives you that right.

Making the decision to return to God, following the example of the Prodigal Son, or the Roman centurion, is to be celebrated. Not sneered at.

I do not disagree at all that it is ALWAYS a cause for rejoicing when anyone either comes to saving faith in Christ or leaves a wanton lifestyle to return to living in holiness after an initial decision to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. I DO disagree that it is only the Roman Catholic Church that can be that place of homecoming. For many people such as myself, it was when I read God's word and recognized the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ that God lead me OUT of that religion and into a church where the truth of the Gospel was celebrated and where Christian living was encouraged out of gratitude for God's grace and not as a means to gain His grace. Thank you again for giving me a chance to retell my testimony.

[Natural Law]

"FOTFLOL!!!!!!"

I know.....and you can't get up.....

(You need to be more careful, this is not the first time you have been tripped up by your posting history and past statements......LOL)

[Cronos]

your “experience” is incorrect as i said above — there is no such thing as Catholics in the Ukraine doubting the “legit” of each other. Unless you’ve been to the Ukraine, whatever you have stated is hearsay or less..

[boatbums]

It is not an ownership issue it is an integrity issue. When quotes carefully selected to corroborate a premise while ignoring writings by the very same authors that substantiate Catholic doctrines it is an exercise in sophistry. Not just Catholics, but anyone interested in truth objects.

If it is not an issue of "ownership", then why the disparagement of any non-Catholic who uses stated beliefs of said persons? It is the height of sophistry to object to the use of thoughts and ideas of Christians from centuries past when those writings are shown to prove the contention being made. Just as the link I gave demonstrated, the Reformers had the backing of Holy Scripture as well as those early theologians to know what actually WAS orthodoxy and it is how they knew that the Roman Catholic Church at that time had strayed from that orthodoxy. A case in point was the concept of Purgatory and the use of money to buy a loved ones way out of that state, called Indulgences. Yes, we've all heard the rationalizations that the "Church" did not "officially" condone that activity, but it is undeniable that no one did much to discourage it from happening especially since the vast amounts of money collected helped to build the magnificent St. Peter's Basilica. And it is equally undeniable that the Church put a stop to that activity after the fact.

Of course, that is not the only doctrinal disagreement and it was quite telling about the state of pride and feared loss of control that the Catholic Church doubled-down and issued anathemas over doctrinal issues that they had at one time allowed, i.e.; justification by faith.

Think about this...if there were no questions at all about what are and are not the orthodox tenets of the Christian faith, then why was the Reformation started? Why had there been a schism from the Orthodox in the East five hundred years earlier that, to this day, is not yet fully mended? The Orthodox rejected the dogmas of the Primacy of the Pope of Rome along with many of the Marian dogmas, they disagreed over the wording of the Filioque and other doctrinal points. It was the stubbornness of the hierarchy in Rome that refused to reconsider their changed dogmas from what had always and everywhere been believed and that same stubbornness had not ebbed five hundred years later when the Reformers brought the same complaints.

These brave men and women tried to restore the Church back to what was the true Gospel and they were repelled not because the Church was right, but because they had too much to lose by admitting failure to uphold the truth of Christianity. They could not reform what they would not admit needed to be reformed and it was that pride and stubborn hold on power that caused the second split. The Reformers did not leave the Church, the Church left them. I, as well as millions, left the Roman Catholic Church when we saw what the Reformers also saw. The Catholic Church had ceased to BE catholic and left the most major doctrine that brought about the very salvation that it claimed to herald - that man is saved by faith apart from works because of the grace of God.

So please, spare me the lectures about "integrity". Integrity is speaking up for the truth even if it means admitting error and then making the needed changes to remain in truth. That truth is God's word and it is not an impossible source to understand. God gives us His Spirit to enable us TO understand His truth and that is what we must rely upon.

[count-your-change]

Don't let anyone give ya the verbal beat down, mm. This gnat straining is just that.

[bkaycee]

I do not disagree at all that it is ALWAYS a cause for rejoicing when anyone either comes to saving faith in Christ or leaves a wanton lifestyle to return to living in holiness after an initial decision to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. I DO disagree that it is only the Roman Catholic Church that can be that place of homecoming. For many people such as myself, it was when I read God's word and recognized the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ that God lead me OUT of that religion and into a church where the truth of the Gospel was celebrated and where Christian living was encouraged out of gratitude for God's grace and not as a means to gain His grace. Thank you again for giving me a chance to retell my testimony.

Yes, that is similar to my testimony. After hearing for 27 years, (12 years Catholic parochial school), how salvation was mostly works, ( baptism, confession, communion, mandatory Mass, Monstrance adoration, praying to Mary/Saints, offering up discomfort for those in purgatory, praying the rosary as well as good works) Jesus was rather distant and could be approached through Mary and her special relationship to Jesus.

God in His mercy took my blinders off and let me see the Saving Gospel of Grace, through Faith in Christ, where no one can boast of meritorous works to attain salvation. We only boast of Christ and His work on our behalf! Jesus came to save SINNERS, not the righteous! PRAISE to His Wonderful Name! The Roman system substitutes Trust in Jesus with sacramentalism to gather enough "grace" to help one attain salvation.

[Natural Law]

"it is not an issue of "ownership", then why the disparagement of any non-Catholic who uses stated beliefs of said persons?"

Because, as previously stated, it is an integrity issue, not yours, but theirs.

Whatever denomination you may be, if you are Christian you are an offshoot of the Catholic Church. As such, unless you deviate from the mainstream so as to be unrecognizable (and there are a few in these threads who have) you will find your doctrines reflected in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. To attempt to leverage that in to a repudiation of their Catholicity requires that their authority be impeached and any areas where their orthodoxy varies from Protestantism, be discounted, redefined, or simply ignored.

The ECF's wrote extensively about the authority of Scripture. In this respect their writings are reflected in the tenets of much of Protestantism, but also in the current doctrines of the Catholic Church. Their writings extensively supported the current Catholic doctrines of Tradition, Apostolic succession, and the teaching authority of the Church. Their writings on the Liturgy and the Sacraments are indistinguishable from the modern teachings of the Church.

In short, the entire body of their work must be entered into evidence. Deceptive limited disclosures and arguments that their positions on one aspect of Catholic doctrine are severable are dishonest.

Of course there were brave men and women associated with the Reformation, but as displayed by the Japanese on Iwo Jima bravery does not make anyone's cause the right one. History is full of stories of heroic dupes. So, if you want to discuss the causes of the Reformation start a new thread and be prepared to discuss the cultural, geopolitical, financial and psychological causes along with any theological and criminal causes. I would welcome it because Church History is one of my favorite subjects. We are going to establish that people were just as rotten then and God just as good then as now. I just won't entertain snippets from dubious websites, never subjected to peer review, and surveys from the Barna Group and NYT as legitimate substantiation.

Peace be with you.