Why would anyone become Catholic?

https://www.indiegogo.com ^ | October 2, 2014 | Indiegogo

[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.

[daniel1212]

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.

Judge which one is closer to how the papacy is seen by trad. RCs.

According to Manning's theory, it is our duty to accept implicitly whatever the present Church teaches, and to be sure that, however opposed this may seem to what we find in Scripture or antiquity, we need not trouble ourselves about the matter, and that the opposition can only be apparent.

According to this theory, then, all the prerogatives of Scripture are annulled: the dicta of Pius IX. and Leo XIII. are as truly inspired by God's Spirit, and are to be received with as much reverence, as the utterances of Peter and Paul. Thus the function of the Church, in the latest form of Romanism, is made to be not so much to guard and hand down securely an original revelation as to be a perpetual organ for making new revelations.[11] Whenever a new controversy arises, the Pope is divinely inspired to discern its true solution, and to pronounce which of the parties is in the right and how far.

In this way Manning's party have now got beyond the old Ultramontane doctrine of the inerrancy of the Pope. This doctrine has been changed into that of his divine perpetual inspiration,[12] giving him a power of disclosing new truths as infallibly as Peter and Paul. Dr. Pusey called this theory a kind of Llamaism, implying as it does a kind of hypostatic union of the Holy Ghost with each successive Pope....

And, consequently, a thoroughgoing Infallibilist like Manning, is consistently a foe to all candid historical investigation, as being really irreconcilable with faith in the Church's authority at the only hand which they believed had power to save them from it. - THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH (1888 edition), GEORGE SALMON, D.D.; http://www.sounddoctrine.net/Classic_Sermons/George%20Salmon/infallibility_church.htm

Thus

“The real reason why I cannot be in communion with you [Catholics] is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine [but see his quote at link below on disagreements with some Roman Catholic doctrines], but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but also to what he is going to say.”- C. S. Lewis, “Christian Reunion”, in Christian Reunion and Other Essays, edited by Walter Hooper, London: Collins, 1990, p. 17-18. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co m/2011/09/two-excellent-quotes-by-c-s-lewis-on.html)

We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty..." "We have addressed to Catholic people, either collectively or individually; and above all, let them lay down for themselves as a Supreme Law, to yield obedience in all things to the teaching and Authority of the Church, in no narrow or mistrustful spirit, but with their whole soul and promptitude of will." - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

CCC 882 For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

Can. 1404 M The First See is judged by no one. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P5A.HTM

15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone..

Nor is it lawful to interpret in a different sense what was given to Peter alone, and what was given to the other Apostles conjointly with him....

wherefore Gelasius on the decrees of Councils says: "That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand; but what it has thought well to decree has been received by the whole Church... - — Leo XIII - Satis cognitum; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

Dictatus papae [1075] (a compilation of 27 statements of powers arrogated to the Pope that was included in Pope Gregory VII's register under the year 1075):

That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.

That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it. That he himself may be judged by no one. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp

[Gamecock]

Deny it?

I have seen them embrace it!

[verga]

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.

Interesting comment considering all the times Catholics have been accused of pagan idolatry based on appearances.

[metmom]

We can trust the inspired nature of Scripture, or Written Tradition, because of the authority given to the Church by Christ Himself. Similarly, the Church is the guardian of Sacred Tradition.

The fallacy is that Scripture is merely written tradition, therefore everything that the Catholic church claims is tradition is of equal inspiration.

Not only that, we are told in Scripture that it was written as men were moved along by the Holy Spirit. None of the writers of the NT give the least indication that what they were writing was merely a transcribing of oral tradition.

Even if some of what was written down was taught orally, that does not mean that oral teaching supersedes the written word, or that it is of greater import.

Catholics like to give all kinds of excuses and justifications for relying on continued revelation of oral tradition, but it is simply not supported in Scripture.

That some truths were taught orally that the Holy Spirit led men to record in Scripture is irrelevant.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Placemarker

[metmom]

I’ve always been curious about the mentality that God’s word is not sufficient when it says it is.

And why if the traditions that the Catholic church adds and added are so critical to salvation, what reason they would give for why the Holy Spirit left them out.

Or if, as the Catholics claim, the Bible is a Catholic document and they wrote it, (*the catholic church gave the world the Bible, say thank you Catholic church*) why they left to so many important things.

And also why, if they could not do an even halfway decent job of including in the Bible things that were so important to know, we should trust them now to fix it?

They proved themselves untrustworthy to do the job adequately in the first place and now we’re supposed to trust them to correctly interpret it and trust their additional revelation that they claim is from God?

[verga]

You left out poor catechesis, this is covered under ignorance. I am not surprised by this error on the part of a prot.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think we need to have, in common, a more adequate definition of the word "agree" and the word "authority."

Otherwise we're just slinging hash and not actually getting to the significance of these passages.

Ultimate authority is always Christ's, with the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. He does, however, delegate. We can get an idea of the significance of the concept of delegated authority when we look at Isaiah's foreshadowing passage about the "keys"
:

Isaiah 22:21-23
And I will clothe him with your tunic
And tie your sash securely about him.
I will entrust him with your authority,
And he will become a father
to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
and to the house of Judah.
"Then I will set the key of the house of David
on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will open.
"I will drive him like a peg in a firm place,
And he will become a throne of glory to his father's house.

There it is: the keys, the delegation of authority, the opening and closing. The commentaries from Clark and the rest, here (LINK) are especially helpful --- and no, they're not Catholic commentaries. It is simply not debatable that the keys are the ensign of authority.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Funny how the Christians who actually spoke Greek as their native language all their lives, and who studied the Greek Scriptures in the original, for 1500 years agreed with the Biblical doctrine that Mary is the "Panagia" --- based on "Kecharitomene."

And nobody was there to try to straighten 'em out until the German-speakers of the 16th century arrived to tutor them on the nuances of their own language!!

Με συγχωρείτε!

Μιλάτε Ελληνικά?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for this verse, Daniel1212, it is most apropos.

My earlier point was that the Bible does not make such a total separation between secular and church authorities, as 21s century Americans tend to suppose. Prophets, priests and kings are all anointed; authority itself, per se, pertains to God; and the "powers that be"" are ordained of God, as St. Paul says.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Did Peter wear gaudy robes and tall hats? Did he carry a bejeweled and gilded shepherd's staff?
Did the other apostles wear opulent jewelry as symbols of their offices?
Did they dwell in luxurious and comfortable gilded chambers?

I must say this is getting silly.

None of this pertains to the papacy per se. This is a wardrobe issue. The pope would be the pope, were he dressed as a Tiberian fisherman; or dressed as an Appian shepherd; or dressed as Solomon in all his glory; or "dressed" as a blind, naked beggar wandering the nuclear ruins of post-caliphate Europe. The truth pertains to the inside, not the outside.

But I think you knew that.

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's what I meant about the importance of first agreeing on a definition, and making distinctions between one thing and another.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/leadership?s=t

All of the words listed as synonyms cover approximately --- but not quite ---the same semantic field. If ou want to define authority as meaning only ultimate, supreme, executive command, of course that is God's.

Christus vincit. Christus regnat. Christus imperat.

But if you want to discuss the many occasions and gradations of administration; authority; command; control; direction; leadership; management; power; competency; directorship; domination; stewardship; superintendency; etc.---

Then we can talk. Occasions and gradations of delegated authority, leadership, oversight.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don’t see how there’s a problem here. Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven. Excellent.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Surely you don’t think the Church is subordinate to the State?

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Catholic teaching limits this to SIMON Peter."

Not so.

But I'm glad it gives me the opportunity to ou brought it up, since it gives me the opportuity to bring up a concept which many of us (Protestant and Catholic) may not be sufficiently aware of, and that is the Biblical idea of gradations of authoority.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is a certain degree of competency of authority which is proper at every level of the Church: a husband over a wife, parents over their children, a bishop over his diocese, etc. etc. There are sui generisand straight from God: they are not all local franchises of Pope Global Incorporated.

So in a sense they all have some degree of access , within their proper sphere, to those ensgins of power, the "keys."

Evey baptized person is anointed ---Catholics know this, or should --- with the oil that signifies a partaking of the offices of Christ: Priest, Prophet, King.

Each within his or her own sphere of responsibility.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[CynicalBear]

The underlying and ultimate authority is God. The keys to the kingdom of God is His word as recorded in scripture. The keys which open the kingdom to an individual is the scriptures. The gospel is what opens that door. It has already been determined who is allowed in. The keeper of the keys does not decide who goes in and who is not allowed in. That has already been decided and spelled out in scripture. Every believer is given those keys. Only those who accept Christ as their savior and repent are allowed in. Those who do not will be kept out. The authority to declare those truths is given to every believer.

It is true that initially it was the deciples of Christ who were given the responsibility to spread the gospel and those who have been grown in the faith have greater responsibility to uphold that gospel. That does not however negate the authority that all believers have in declaring the truths of the gospel. Anyone who has accepted Christ and been indwelt by the Holy Spirit holds the keys to the kingdom. The door has been open to all but it's scripture that tells us who will be allowed in. We nor the apostles, pope or anyone else can decide who is allowed in as that has already been decided.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's a wonderful Sunday when I can come back from 8:00 Mass and find seven to twelve messages in a row from Elsie on my breakfast plate!

I have to go call voters for YesOn1 in Tennessee. While we're doing all this --- mm --- dialoguing, the abortion-enthusiasts are pumping a quarter of a million dollars' worth of lying propaganda across the East Tennessee airwaves to secure their reign of baby-death forever.

So later for this dialogue (but thanks for the excellent Scripture passages, whose color-highlighted words I find especially clarifying and comforting).

A blessed Lord's Day to you!

? And... if you're in TN: Pro-Life Yes On One!

[Resettozero]

At this time, I have come to regret the harsh, inconsiderate, and flippant comments I’ve made to other posters on this thread and other FR threads in the past. I could have, and should have done a finer job of communicating my conviction that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that He alone is the One and Only Founder of His Church.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for these gracious words, Resettozero. I agree with every word you said. I hope you have a blessed Lord’s Day.

[Springfield Reformer]

Funny how the Christians who actually spoke Greek as their native language all their lives, and who studied the Greek Scriptures in the original, for 1500 years agreed with the Biblical doctrine that Mary is the "Panagia" --- based on "Kecharitomene."

Not 1500 years.  The first hint of panagia as a Marian title came in Origen's work, middle of the third century, and wasn't adopted in any official sense until about the eighth century.  Thus, like so many of Rome's theological innovations, it cannot be traced to the First Century, but must first show up in some flamboyant author's work, catch on, and eventually become "that's the way it always was," even if it wasn't. I mean really. Origen?  Did it have to be him?

Anyway, as has been much argued already in this forum, kecaritomene is nothing special in itself. It's built as a perfect passive participle inflection of caritow, "grace," and if appearing in a less controversial setting, would only mean "[one] having been [definitely] graced." And the same root is used of all believers in Ephesians 1:6, in which the inflected form is ecaritosen, being active, not passive, aorist and not perfect, first person plural and not second person singular.  To take all the effects into account, the difference in translation would come down to this:  To Mary:   "[one] having been [definitely] graced.", To all believers; "[he] graced us" The "definitely" is added to capture the certainty of the perfect. But it's the same grace. No difference in quantity. Whatever is said about Mary using that term must be applied to all believers as well.  So favor works equally well here.  eulogemanoi in Matthew 25:34 has the same perfect participle and accomplished the same emphasis of certainty, "Come [all of you] having been [definitely] blessed of my father ..."

So we see the grammatical perfect here speaks not to grace as a quantity, but to the certainty of the past action.  This is not fancy Greek.  This is basic knowledge of how the perfect operates grammatically.  It is egregious that certain apologists have tried to spin "perfect" into a theological meaning well beyond the limits of the grammar, but such a tactic cannot be effective with any but those who don't know the grammatical use of the term.  

And as for pardoning you, sure, but what did you do?  :)

And yes, I "speak" a wee bit of Koine, but modern Greek ain't the same animal, so no, none of that. Though I'm not against it. Just a time and activity problem.

Peace,

SR