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 ...
=============================================================
First of all, why are you bothered by the term I used, "Blessed Mother Mary"? The Bible quotes Mary as saying "All generations will call me "Blessed", she is the Mother of Jesus, and her name is Mary. What in the world do you find wrong with that title?
Next, there are very few records in the New Testament of Christians dying at all, let alone being prayed to, and there are very few prayers actually recorded in the New Testament. (See my post #1254 for my response to a similar question to that which you raised.)
Your last claim is not worthy of comment.
You are assuming the "church" is who determined what books were Divinely-inspired? Did the Jewish magesterium presume to dictate to God which of His prophets they would heed and whether or not their writings would be authoritative? No, the church received the writings from the Apostles and their disciples as they were given to them because they recognized their authority and the presence of God in those letters. Their words had power. Paul said if someone did not obey what he wrote to them they should be noted and corrected. The Christians had ALREADY accepted the Old Testament writings as from God because most of them WERE Jews and raised to see them that way. The Gentiles were also taught to respect and believe the Scriptures and they confirmed the promise of Christ. Do you actually think any local church could tell God what they would or would not accept from Him?
If the Church can err, then the canon can be erroneous. As R.C. Sproul famously said, “the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.”
Sproul doesn't speak for anyone but himself, but remember he is talking about the "canon" and not each of the books that made up that collection. Those books are and remain the word of God and holy men of God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. What fool would presume to tell God what He gave them was rejected? Those who actually did that were seen as heretics from the start. The canon IS a collection of the inspired books (scrolls, actually) called "The Holy Bible". But those books were inspired before that collection was placed together as one Bible. This could be the meaning behind Sproul's comment. And, yes, the "Catholic" church has erred many times. Case in point... including the Apocrypha as part of the canon.
By what authority did Luther remove several books from the accepted canon of Scripture? Luther violated his own principle of the Bible as the ultimate authority. He acted from a position of Scriptural superiority.
Why do you persist in making that false statement? You really SHOULD know by now that Luther did not remove ANY books from his German translation of the Bible. The Apocryphal books were in an "intertestamental" section in the same way Jerome and others did before him. The canon the Roman Catholic church eventually got around to formalizing in the SIXTEENTH century at Trent placed them along side the inspired books and concluded, falsely, that they were ALSO Divinely-inspired. The only way that Scripture retains its OWN superiority is by esteeming ALL the books as from God - and the Apocryphal books NEVER claimed to be that. The Roman Catholic church, as all other Christian churches, is to be submissive to the word of God, NOT the other way around.
I suspect that by including the painfully obvious errant human-originated writings - NOT God-breathed by any stretch of the imagination - into their canon, the Roman Catholic church asserted she was in authority over God's word. And, by that, she presumed the power to declare whatever she decided was doctrine/dogma to be believed by ALL Christendom. By casting doubt upon the veracity of Scripture, she pronounced herself ABOVE Scripture and the sole interpreter of what it does or doesn't say including NOT basing doctrines on Scriptural warrant. That attitude was the impetus of the Reformation and, as you can see, has NEVER been resolved.
It seems to me that you are not reading Eagleone's posts very well. He is NOT saying what you accused him of. He is simply stating that NONE of the original letters of the Apostles survived - whether by Divine design or passage of time on the fragile material they were written on. What we DO have and can have all the confidence in are manuscript COPIES of those originals. We have thousands of fragments, whole books/scrolls, repetition in the writings of early church leaders (enough to basically write the whole NT from them) and copies of Old Testament scrolls going back to hundreds of years before Christ (i.e., Dead Sea scrolls). What Eagleone clearly stated - to me at least - was that nobody has the actual letter written by the hand of Paul or Peter, John, James, Matthew, etc. Personally, I think that's a good thing, seeing as these would probably make certain people worship them as they do other relics.
And God tells us that where in Scripture? Show us the verses which require penance.
The Catholic god sure is all about inflicting pain and suffering on his people.
Gotta do penance, offer up your suffering to God for whatever, spend time in purgatory to "purge" your sins, etc.
And yet Catholics even go as far as to say that Jesus got every drop of His blood from Mary. If I were home, I'd provide you with the links but they are on my computer and I am not.
On the contrary, God's mercy is greater than Catholics give Him credit for and are apparently capable of understanding.
It's not non-Catholics who claim that people have to suffer in pain and torment for uncounted years in order to have their sins 'cleansed'. We believe that Jesus' blood washes us from ALL sin, just as we are told in Scripture and that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, because God in His mercy FORGIVES us our sin instead of making us pay for them ourselves.
"Celestial torture chamber"
That's great! Thanks for putting it in perspective rides a red horse, cause everything I've been told doesn't indicate that purgatory is all rainbows and unicorns.
Actually, we do, but I am absolutely not surprised that a Catholic would say that we don't need Scripture to back up claims about spiritual truths.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with Catholicism. You DO need to check with the Bible for everything regarding salvation and there you'll find that there is no scripturally ordained 'sacrament' for anything, much less confession. The word isn't even in the Bible to begin with, nor is there any precedent for confessing sins to a priest for absolution.
It's all a bogus power grab, claiming to have the power over people to determine their eternal destiny. What the ultimate control mechanism.
IIRC, the church officially has condemned such actions as self-crucifixion.
That would mean the individual Catholics are not free to interpret it any other way and to do so would put them in schism with the Catholic church.
And yet, here you are, in the thick of it......
There was no Christian acceptance of the Deuterocanonicals AS Divinely-inspired Sacred Scripture. Not to mention, we don't really know all the books that were translated into Greek in the Septuagint that first century Greek speaking Christians had access to. Let's also not forget that there were FIFTEEN Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books - NOT just the seven the Roman Catholic church decided in the sixteenth century to formally declare part of Divine-inspired Scripture. So what that the quotations of Old Testament Scripture in the Greek came from the Greek translation of the Hebrew? That doesn't prove anything about how either the Apostles or the early Christians saw the those extra-biblical books. Of course the Apostles wouldn't mislead them, which is why none of the Apostles ever quoted any of those books as "thus sayeth the Lord", "It is written" or in any way - if they even quoted them at all - as if these books came from the Holy Spirit. The Jews NEVER accepted those books either as part of their "canon". What makes you think Christians would have? I hope you understand that just by their appearance in the Septuagint is NO indication that they were thought of as God-breathed Scripture.
But the apostles did not merely place the deuterocanonicals in the hands of their converts as part of the Septuagint. They regularly referred to the deuterocanonicals in their writings. For example, Hebrews 11 encourages us to emulate the heroes of the Old Testament and in the Old Testament "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life" (Heb. 11:35).
Did the reference from Hebrews include any words to the effect that the story in Maccabees was the word of God? No, it didn't. Paul quoted a few pagan sayings, does that make them Scripture? No doubt, the story told in the Maccabees was relating real events experienced by real people, but they never claimed to BE speaking as a prophet of God or revealing Divine truth.
If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.
Luther didn't CUT any books out of his German translation of the Bible. When are y'all going to stop repeating that falsehood? If you want to attack someone, pick on Jerome - you know, the guy that redid the Latin translation called the Vulgate. He sure didn't agree they were part of the Hebrew canon and he said so in his prologues to each one. Nobody is arguing that people read these books or found them encouraging to read, just that they were NOT to be used to determine doctrine. Even Augustine said that.
The early Christians were thus fully justified in recognizing these books as Scripture, for the apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated.
Except they DIDN'T. That is a myth spread by those who cast doubt upon the inerrancy of God's word. Read this is you want to know the truth about that http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm.
What about BINGO?!?!?!
You forgot what they spend on BINGO!
Ironic, isn’t it that posting the very Scripture that Catholics claim they gave the world is considered “Catholic bashing”?
Just letting you know I am working on a response. You’ve provided a great deal to respond to, so it is taking some time. Longer because today I also spent some time with my five-year old granddaughter. She had her first ride on a real horse today. Fearless. And apparently a natural. Anyway, just letting you know I am planning to get back to you.
Peace,
SR
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chastiseth: and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons. For what son is there the father doth not correct?
8 But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards and not sons.
9 Moreover, we have had fathers of our flesh for instructors, and we reverenced them. Shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits and live?
10 And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification.
11 Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield to them that are exercised by it the most peaceable fruit of justice.
12 Wherefore, lift up the hands which hang down and the feeble knees:
13 And make straight steps with your feet: that no one, halting, may go out of the way; but rather be healed [1].
The Catholic god sure is all about inflicting pain and suffering on his people.
I would suggest you meditate on the value of redemptive suffering.
[1] The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. (2009). (Heb 12:5–13). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
This is the fallacy of protestant thinking. Somehow believing that Purgatory and by implication Heaven is merely an extension of this temporal realm. As I said before, Purgatory is not punitive but therapeutic.
We believe that Jesus' blood washes us from ALL sin, just as we are told in Scripture and that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, because God in His mercy FORGIVES us our sin instead of making us pay for them ourselves.
If that were the case then why do protestants believe that they must atone for their sins in order to restore fellowship with Christ if He's sufficient? Is it because they know that all that God created was good, even the body, and thus it requires attention as well despite their protestations to the contrary.
It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary". [1]
Of course the Apostles wouldn't mislead them, which is why none of the Apostles ever quoted any of those books as "thus sayeth the Lord", "It is written" or in any way - if they even quoted them at all - as if these books came from the Holy Spirit.
On that basis we would have to jettison almost the entirety of the New Testament books that do not refer themselves using those terms.
Luther didn't CUT any books out of his German translation of the Bible. When are y'all going to stop repeating that falsehood?
I suppose when protestants acknowledge that Luther, of his own volition, and without authority, determined the non-canonicity of the deuterocanonicals and relegated them to the appendix as instructive but not Divinely-inspired Scripture. If one is Catholic they understand that this materially removed the deuterocanonicals from the Canon of Scripture. But if protestants want to hang their hat on, "but they were published" Then I guess I should be grateful for their acknowledgement of the basic understanding of material vs. formal.
If you want to attack someone, pick on Jerome - you know, the guy that redid the Latin translation called the Vulgate. He sure didn't agree they were part of the Hebrew canon and he said so in his prologues to each one. Nobody is arguing that people read these books or found them encouraging to read, just that they were NOT to be used to determine doctrine. Even Augustine said that.
I refer you to the words of St. Jerome himself:
What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” [2]
[1] Kelly, J. (1959). Early Christian doctrines. New York: Harper.
[2] Jerome. (1892). Jerome’s Apology for Himself against the Books of Rufinus. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), W. H. Fremantle (Trans.), Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historial Writings, etc. (Vol. 3, p. 517). New York: Christian Literature Company.
Not when I have a living, breathing Church ordained by God. It would seem that protestants don't have an appreciation for the difference between living their faith as opposed to just reading about it.
...[a]nd there you'll find that there is no scripturally ordained 'sacrament' for anything, much less confession.
20 If a man carnally lie with a woman that is a bondservant and marriageable, and yet not redeemed with a price, nor made free: they both shall be scourged: and they shall not be put to death, because she was not a free woman.
21 And for his trespass he shall offer a ram to the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the testimony.
22 And the priest shall pray for him: and for his sin before the Lord: and he shall have mercy on him, and the sin shall be forgiven. [1]
And should the protestant feel compelled to retort with, "Jesus the High Priest" I offer the following NT verse:
21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. [2]
The word isn't even in the Bible to begin with, nor is there any precedent for confessing sins to a priest for absolution.
I think precedent has been established. As for the word itself, well neither is the word Trinity so that's no standard by which to ascertain scriptural warrant.
It's all a bogus power grab, claiming to have the power over people to determine their eternal destiny. What the ultimate control mechanism.
I've always found it interesting how the most conservative of protestants instantly turn into the most ardent of AFL-CIO-like acolytes with their talk of the Church and its "control" and "power grabs". I'm surprised they don't recognize this level of cognitive dissonance within themselves. Actually I think it's their love of the autonomous self-will. After all that is the mechanism by which they can proclaim the authority to interpret scripture.
[1] The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. (2009). (Le 19:20–22). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
[2] The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. (2009). (Jn 20:21–23). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
You did the same thing I did and had to backtrack:
It’s...ealgeone...not the other FReeper.
R2z
Thanks for the info!
I’ve missed Tony’s books since he died a few ago, too.
He wrote extensively about the NAvajo nation and the 4 corners area.
A few of his books were made into movies and tv shows.
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.