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]

Then the question of definition must be asked, which is upon what basis was the original holy, catholic, apostolic church established? On the premise that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such possesses assured infallibility, as Rome claims?

I think this is the relevant basis.

What? Over 1,000 words of Scripture does not tell me what you understand all this to support.

And that this is essential for the conveyance, determination, assurance and preservation of Truth, and with authenticity being assured by historical descent?

There should be an unbroken chain of apostolic succession in the choice of bishops; there must always be a seed that held to the traditional teaching of the Jewish Apostles, guaranteed by the grace and truth of Jesus our Messiah who prophesied the gates of hell would not prevail against the church he built and builds;

So are you answering yes, that an assured infallible magisterium is essential for the conveyance, determination, assurance and preservation of Truth, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that such possesses assured infallibility?

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Luther removed NOTHING!!!

I.

The Bible that was in use in Luther's time was the Bible of the Catholic Church. There was no other Bible. There were no Protestants.

So by what authority did Luther remove books from the existing Bible, if the Bible ALONE is the ultimate rule of faith?

The reason why Luther removed books from the Bible was because of passages in the Old Testament that contradicted his new doctrines, like his rejection of Purgatory and praying for the dead.

2 Macabbees

46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

Luther's excuse for removing these books from the Bible was merely a pretext for defending his doctrines.

II.

There were competing OT canons among the Jews in Jesus' time.

Even if you reject the Authority that wrote the NT, and preserved and canonized the Bible, thus making the Bible "a fallible collection of infallible books," as R.C. Sproul famously said, the citations of the OT in the NT are mostly from the Septuagint.

Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament.

Mark 7:6-8

– Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the Septuagint –
“This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

Heb. 1:6 / Deut. 32:43

- let all the angels of God worship Him. Hebrew - the Masoretic text omits this phrase from Deut. 32:43.

The most obvious example is the story of the mother who watched her seven sons tortured to death for their faith, who in turn was also tortured and murdered. The entire story is recounted in 7 Macabbees, with an exerpt below.

2 Macabbees 7

Most admirable and worthy of everlasting remembrance was the mother who, seeing her seven sons perish in a single day, bore it courageously because of her hope in the Lord.

Filled with a noble spirit that stirred her womanly reason with manly emotion, she exhorted each of them in the language of their ancestors with these words:

e “I do not know how you came to be in my womb; it was not I who gave you breath and life, nor was it I who arranged the elements you are made of.

Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shaped the beginning of humankind and brought about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life, because you now disregard yourselves for the sake of his law.”

Hebrews 11:35

35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.

III.

Jesus didn't hand out Bibles. The canon of Scripture had to come from somewhere. Who or what entity infallibly determined the canon of Scripture?

Which brings us back to R.C. Sproul...

[Iscool]

Thanks for messing up a perfectly good ElsieThon!

Sorry, I should have waited...

[wmfights]

Thank you for the well thought out response.

Under the alternative, that of the church being supreme as possessing perpetual assured infallibility, which premise most cults effectively operate out of, ...

I am convinced that they lost their way when they decided that they would become a political institution and began to use the power of the state to impose their will. What has been lost to them is Jesus Christ did not come to establish a theocracy with His first advent. The theocracy will be established on earth during His millenial reign. Unfortunately for them they are so far down the road they can't change.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

It once again relies on a typical Roman recourse of a strawman, that of having the Bible without the Church, as holding Scripture as supreme and sufficient does not mean that, but means that the only source of Truth which is wholly inspired of God is the supreme authority for obedience and Truth, is abundantly evidence in Scripture.

Catholics can agree with that statement that the Bible is categorically different from the Church, in that it inspired by God. But the Church doesn't reject Sacred Tradition. The Church safeguards both Scripture and Tradition --the full "deposit of faith" given to the Apostles, which was handed on "by word of mouth or by letter."

My question is, what books constitute the canon of Scripture, and how do you know with certainty?

This is the fundamental logical incoherence of Luther's doctrine. The Bible can't tell us what constitutes the Bible.

The Church preceded the canon of Scripture, and even the writing of several books of the New Testament.

"If he won't listen to the Church, treat hims as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus.

As far as doctrinal unity goes, there is no comparison between Catholicism and Protestantism. Pentecostal youth minister-turned-Catholic-apologist, Tim Staples, has said that "the doctrinal unity of the Church is something I never dreamed possible as a Protestant."

In fact, I can't think of a single significant doctrine that all Protestants agree on, including the Trinity (Oneness Pentecostalism) or even Sola Scriptura (high church Anglicans), except "we're not Catholic."

[metmom]

As far as doctrinal unity goes, there is no comparison between Catholicism and Protestantism.

It's only Catholicism and cults that demand doctrinal unity.

God doesn't. He simply tells us to believe, to put our faith in His Son and we will be saved.

He made no criteria about having *correct* theology, as if anyone can. God can't be put in a box.

Even out best understanding of God is flawed, limited by our finite, mortal minds.

Anyone who claims to have God all figured out is a liar, plain and simple.

Catholics and Catholicism also seem to have a great deal of trouble trusting God to take care of His people and keep them on the right path.

It thinks it needs to step in and do the job for Him by force of law, and threat of damnation.

[Springfield Reformer]

I've been watching this game-playing with what Protestant means for a while now and it truly is erroneous the way many of the RC's handle it here. It is a fallacy to define Protestant as "Not Catholic," because obviously then one would have to include religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. So RC's tend to use the genetic definition, i.e., any religion, no matter how far removed, either in time or theology, that is in any way historically connected with some splinter from Rome.  Thus they can eliminate Buddhism, et al, but can include Scientology, Jim Jones, Mormonism, even Deism.  But not Eastern Orthodoxy, as that is also a split from Rome. So sticking with that definition ends up saying the EO's are Protestant, which is absurd.

But the absurdity doesn't stop there. One could go further and include various forms of atheistic rationalism, because these are also byproducts of a split with Rome, albeit not the one they usually invoke.  Aquinas himself is widely regarded among philosophers as a key factor in getting to the rationalism of the Enlightenment.  But as one can see, this is just a slightly pared down version of "Not Catholic," and gives no accounting whatsoever to the true nature of Protestantism, which cannot exist apart from a Nicene core of unity, and which all the historic expressions maintained, and thus have a vast majority of doctrines held in common with both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.  

But the genetic approach is a fallacy.  It is well recognized in logic that one cannot judge the difference of two things existing in the present simply by where they came from historically:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[2] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.[3]

From Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

But one can see the polemic value in refusing to limit the discussion to the historic definition of Protestant, which outside of these cloistered walls at FR, is relatively uncontroversial:

Protestantism is one of the three major branches of Christianity, along with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. It shares with all other Christians core beliefs in the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, the necessity of grace to save humans from the consequences of sin, and the centrality of Jesus' death and resurrection for salvation.

See:  http://www.patheos.com/Library/Protestantism.html

Any number of other sources would agree with the above generalities.  It is only in the heat of battle here that a wildly loose definition is deployed, the net effect of which is to create a gigantic straw man argument, which is much easier to "destroy" than the real differences that divide us.  Which in my mind discredits the polemicist willing to use it.  You can't get to the truth about Protestantism by way of known fallacies which predictably will produce false conclusions. And getting at the truth is what we all should want, is it not?  

Peace,

SR

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Protestantism is one of the three major branches of Christianity

Yes. A good definition would be "non-Catholic Christians," or "non-Catholic followers of Christ," since that would be the only significant doctrine that all Protestants hold in common, some rejecting the Trinity and even Sola Scriptura.

[Springfield Reformer]

I see. So the definition is whatever you say it is. Got it. Historical facts such as what Protestantism actually reflected confessionally are irrelevant. And by your definition I could make Muslims into Protestants. They do respect Jesus theoretically. Just not as the Son of God. And you don’t get the absurdity of that? Your definition cannot ever work. It is not truth. We don’t mind arguing about our differences, the real ones. But if you’re just going to use some arbitrary, irrational definition based on personal preferences, how does that help?

Furthermore, your definition allows that it is possible to be a Christian without being an RC. So we may be saved then, and full of the Holy Spirit, and enlightened as to faith in Jesus, without the least aid of papal recognition, or participation in any of the sacraments, which supposedly can only be administered properly by Rome? Because one cannot be a Christian without the Spirit of Christ:

(KJV)Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

And one cannot have the Spirit of Christ without being washed from their sin by the blood of Christ, or without a proper faith in Christ, for without faith it is impossible to please God, but with faith we are accounted as righteous before God, just as Abraham was. And none of these blessings can accrue to anyone who is not a sheep of Christ, who has not been called and drawn by the Father, who has planned out that person’s election to salvation from the beginning of time.

So you see your definition necessarily renders your Roman distinctive superfluous, if you allow Scripture and not Rome to define what a Christian is.

Here. I have a legitimate question for you. What is the official Roman Catholic definition of Protestant? And I don’t mean what some private Catholic author came up with. I mean stated as the official dogma of Rome, so there is no possibility you could be simply venting your own private opinion. And please cite your source.

Peace,

SR

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

I see. So the definition is whatever you say it is.

What doctrine or practice do all Protestants adhere to that can be used to define them? I use the definition of "non-Catholic followers of Christ" because it applies to all Protestants.

Got it. Historical facts such as what Protestantism actually reflected confessionally are irrelevant.

There are different confessions among different groups.

And by your definition I could make Muslims into Protestants.

Are they primarily followers of Christ or Mohammed?

They do respect Jesus theoretically. Just not as the Son of God. And you don’t get the absurdity of that? Your definition cannot ever work.

What do you mean by work?

It is not truth.

What's false?

We don’t mind arguing about our differences, the real ones. But if you’re just going to use some arbitrary, irrational definition based on personal preferences, how does that help?

What's irrational?

What's a personal preference?

It's a very precise term, which can logically include Oneness Pentecostals and high church Anglicans.

Catholics do not regard all forms of Protestantism as equivalent, since they aren't equivalent. We view them as separated brothers in Christ who are imperfectly united to the Church to varying degrees.

For example, churches that uphold seven sacraments are closer to Catholicism than churches that reject the sacraments.

Furthermore, your definition allows that it is possible to be a Christian without being an RC.

So we may be saved then, and full of the Holy Spirit, and enlightened as to faith in Jesus, without the least aid of papal recognition, or participation in any of the sacraments, which supposedly can only be administered properly by Rome?

The Church goes further than that, teaching that any person can be saved if that person follows his conscience to the best of his ability, strives to do good, believes in God, eternal punishments and rewards, and is ignorant of Christ and His Church through no fault of his own. Such a person would possess implicit faith. The salvation of such a person is always through the grace of Christ and His Atonement.

Does "no salvation outside the Church" include non-Catholic Christians?

Regardless, union with Rome is normative for salvation, and a sure means of receiving Christ's grace through the Sacraments.

I have a legitimate question for you. What is the official Roman Catholic definition of Protestant?

And I don’t mean what some private Catholic author came up with. I mean stated as the official dogma of Rome, so there is no possibility you could be simply venting your own private opinion. And please cite your source.

Sure. You can look up a lot of things (not every Catholic teaching) in the Catechism on-line.

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836

"All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320

837

"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321

838

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

[Resettozero]

The Church goes further than that, teaching that any person can be saved if that person follows his conscience to the best of his ability, strives to do good, believes in God, eternal punishments and rewards, and is ignorant of Christ and His Church through no fault of his own. Such a person would possess implicit faith. The salvation of such a person is always through the grace of Christ and His Atonement.

Please, is this your opinion or is it taught throughout the Roman Catholic church? Either way, thank you for posting this.

[metmom]

This is what's been taught throughout the RCC throughout the centuries.

These are quotes from their popes.

Some examples of papal pronouncements reiterated repeatedly over the years.

As for "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church there is no salvation)

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9): "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." Satis Cognitum (# 9): June 29, 1896:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

Pius 9, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..”
-http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM

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

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: 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. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11;
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."

Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516,
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215) [considered infallible by some]

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1

The COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE under Pope John XXIII condemned the proposition of Wycliff that “It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches.” [inasmuch as it would deny the primacy of the supreme pontiff over the other individual churches.] — Session 8—4 May 1415;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTANC.HTM

St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals [Greeks] says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” — St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38

St. Frances Xavier Cabrini: "Many Protestants have almost the same practices as we, only they do not submit to the Holy Father and attach themselves to the true Ark of Salvation. They do not want to become Catholics and unite themselves under the banner of truth wherein alone there is true salvation. Of what avail is it, children, if Protestants lead naturally pure, honest lives, yet lack the Holy Ghost? They may well say: 'We do no harm; we lead good lives'; but, if they do not enter the true fold of Christ, all their protestations are in vain." St. Frances Xavier Cabrini, "Travels", Chicago: 1944, pp. 84, 71.

St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke: "The Lord severed the Jewish people from His kingdom, and heretics and schismatics are also severed from the kingdom of God and from the Church. Our Lord makes it perfectly clear that every assembly of heretics and schismatics belongs not to God, but to the unclean spirit." — St. Ambrose, "Expl. of Luke", ch.7, 91-95; PL 15; SS, vol. II, p. 85, (quoted in The Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 4: "The Book of Christians", Chapter 2: "Those Who Reject Christ's Church are Anti-Christian").http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6480/catholics/apostolic4chp2.html

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302): "We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:8); which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "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; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. 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 Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart `into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; 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 and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]

[terycarl]

I'm stunned. Do you realize that you are not questioning my words? You are questioning the words of the Holy Spirit. James 1:13 was written by James who was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write them. Those were not my words. If you have a disagreement with the Holy Spirit I would suggest you address that disagreement with Him.

I'm not questioning the words of the Holy Spirit at all, I question your interpretation of the word bondage....Being a Catholic is not experiencing bondage....it is following Christ's church.

[Elsie]

Jesus didn't hand out Bibles.

Did Luther?

Did he have a special one PRINTED up or COPIED?

If not; why didn't the 'church' execute him for MODIFYING one of IT's bibles?

STA; your LOGIC in these threads is poorly exhibited.

[Elsie]

The Bible that was in use in Luther's time was the Bible of the Catholic Church.

TADA!

[Elsie]

Which brings us back to R.C. Sproul...

No; it don't.

[Elsie]

In fact, I can't think of a single significant doctrine that all Protestants agree on,

Your inability to think has nothing to do with the truth.

I think it's time for you to LIST all of these doctrines that you are CLAIMING the Prots don't agree on.

Your wordsw have proven to be quite shallow in the knowledge department.

[Elsie]

... since that would be the only significant doctrine that all Protestants hold in common...

See; you've now disagreed with yourSELF!!!

[Elsie]

#1463

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."

[Elsie]

The Church goes further than that, teaching that any person can be saved if that person follows his conscience to the best of his ability, strives to do good, believes in God, eternal punishments and rewards, and is ignorant of Christ and His Church through no fault of his own. Such a person would possess implicit faith. The salvation of such a person is always through the grace of Christ and His Atonement.

And the title of this thread is...

Why would anyone become Catholic?