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]

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.

Under which Rome had her greatest unity and rule, if unScriptural. No wonder some devout want a RC monarchy.

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.

They also deny His millennial reign. Perhaps it is seen as competition.

[af_vet_1981]

Peter chose Matthias but Jesus chose P Saul. Who had authority?

All four had authority.

[daniel1212]

It seems to me, (hmm, should I call you by an honorific here ?), that there are a dearth of straightforward answers coming my way. Nonetheles

Thanks for confirming you have no real argument, but indicate avoiding the consequences of answering the necessary fundamental questions, and thus are fit to be ignored until you do. It took a while but you earned it. Bye.

[Popman]

Matthias was not chosen by Peter, he was chosen by casting lots....

[CynicalBear]

>>There is no requirement that a bishop be married or that his wife be able to conceive.<<

1 Timothy 3:4 his own house leading well, having children in subjection with all gravity, 5 (and if any one his own house how to lead hath not known, how an assembly of God shall he take care of?)

Catholics like to ignore the parts they don't like don't they.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Matthias was not chosen by Peter, he was chosen by casting lots....

---

Tell that to af vet.

[daniel1212]

I do not think pasting public domain text needs to be cited as to source. But chapter and verses would be fitting.

[CynicalBear]

>>Which also debunks the current New Apostolic Reformation that is popular today.<<

Satan surely works at all levels and from all angles.

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

1 Timothy 3:4 his own house leading well, having children in subjection with all gravity, 5 (and if any one his own house how to lead hath not known, how an assembly of God shall he take care of?)

Catholics like to ignore the parts they don't like don't they.

---

af vet already explained that this has something to do with polygamy.

;-)

[metmom]

Pretty blue font.

Is it yours?

If not, why isn’t it cited?

[LadyDoc]

Jesus "chose" Paul? When?

Or do you mean anyone hallucinating Jesus during heat stroke is automatically an Apostle? (which is the secular description of what happened to Paul).

Or do you mean he was called by his vision as described in ACTS.

Suddenly a light from heaven flashed round about him. He fell on the ground and he heard a voice saying to him, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' He said, `Who, are you, sir?' He said, `I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise; go into the city, and you will be told what to do.'

So he went to Christians to get healed.

From Barclay's bible study (a protestant book)

This is Luke's account of what happened to Paul after his conversion. If we want to have the chronology of the whole period in our minds we must also read Paul's own account of the matter in Gal.1:15-24. When we put the two accounts together we find that the chain of events runs like this. (i) Saul is converted on the Damascus Road. (ii) He preaches in Damascus. (iii) He goes away to Arabia (Gal.1:17). (iv) He returns and preaches in Damascus for a period of three years (Gal.1:18). (v) He goes to Jerusalem. (vi) He escapes from Jerusalem to Caesarea. (vii) He returns to the regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal.1:21).

In other words, he preached locally but wasn't an apostle.(Ac.4:36-37). Again, from Barclay:

When Barnabas saw the Gentiles being swept into the fellowship of the Church he was glad; but he recognized that someone must be put in charge of this work. That someone must be a man with a double background...

So essentially it was Barnabas who "appointed" Paul to preach to the gentiles. I could go on, but I advise you read it for yourself.

[Resettozero]

You can make an argument that bishops be allowed to marry.

You can make an argument that pigs have flown.

(As in...over the cliff and into the sea.)

But why would we follow such a diversion?

[CynicalBear]

>>Peter had the authority to choose another apostle<<

Peter chose???

Acts 1:26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

>>Matthias was an apostle<<

You don't say.

[metmom]

I do not think pasting public domain text needs to be cited as to source.

I recognize that, but for those who are not well versed in Scripture, they may not recognize whether it's Scripture being posted or not. They would not necessarily know if it was Scripture, ECF, just someone's opinion, whatever.

And if they did know that it was Scripture, they would not likely be able to find it.

But chapter and verses would be fitting.

It would be courteous at the very least, but it appears that common courtesy is sorely lacking amongst the Catholic contingent.

[CynicalBear]

>>Catholics jump, twist and tie themselves in knots to avoid facing truth. In this way Catholics are a lot like “progressive”/liberals.<<

It's stunning to say the least.

[Resettozero]

Or do you mean anyone hallucinating Jesus during heat stroke is automatically an Apostle? (which is the secular description of what happened to Paul).

Dang, LadyDoc; I bet your Christian expository liabilty insurance is sky-high!

[metmom]

Or do you mean anyone hallucinating Jesus during heat stroke is automatically an Apostle? (which is the secular description of what happened to Paul).

And someone should listen to a secular person's analysis or opinion of Scripture for exactly what reason?

So essentially it was Barnabas who "appointed" Paul to preach to the gentiles. I could go on, but I advise you read it for yourself.

Paul tells a different story. He tells us that Jesus sent him.

[CynicalBear]

>>Peter chose Matthias but Jesus chose Paul.<<

Peter didn't choose. They prayed that God would choose.

Acts 1:24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

Once again Catholics have tried to give man credit for what God has done. It's called blasphemy.

[Springfield Reformer]

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.

I can't answer that question till you answer mine.  What is the Roman magisterium's official, certified, dogmatic definition of Protestant.?

That is what I asked for and the remainder of your post failed to provide. It makes no sense to evaluate what Protestant's are or are not until

1.  Either we get a Rome-approved, purportedly infallible definition to work with (I will hold my breath while I wait - or not), or ...

2.  We agree to a working definition that accurately accounts for the common theological core that defines historic protestantism (I know - fat chance).

Here's the problem.  If you use historical genetics as opposed to confessional correlation, you are going to end up proving the Oneness Pentecostals are Catholic. Read that again if it helps.  I suspect it's counterintuitive for you.  Here's what I mean.  Your genetic approach for Protestants ascribes the Protestant label to whatever goof ball derivatives spin off of it no matter how attenuated from the confessional source (Westminster, Dort, Augsburg, to name a few), and no matter how weak the historical connection. But for Catholicism, the standard is different.  Protestantism is an historical derivative of Catholicism, albeit with modified content, yet it is treated as no longer Catholic, because of a difference in that content!  

So your definition is liable to the criticism of a double standard:

1. If you allow yourself the flimsiest sort of genetic connection to encapsulate as Protestant every religion that has some remote connection to Christ, then you are duty bound to apply that same standard to Catholicism's relationship to Protestantism, and admit we are Catholic after all, even though we don't meet the criteria of matching your confessional content.  And as there is no logical stopping point for this slippery slope, and as Oneness Pentacostalism could in the barest sense be viewed as a historical derivative of Protestantism, it is therefore also Catholic, because confessional content doesn't matter, only historical derivation. Right?

2. But if you must insist on using confessional content to keep the separation between Catholicism and Protestantism, then you must, to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, apply the same standard of confessional content and allow historic Protestants to separate themselves from their offshoots by the evaluation of confessional content.

BTW, if you wish to test this theory, here is a link that provides you access to all the major and even some of the minor confessional standards of historic Protestantism.  I challenge you to find even one of them that does not have substantially the same Nicene core theology:

http://www.monergism.com/topics/creeds-and-confessions/all-creeds-and-confessions

So again I ask, does your magisterium provide a dogmatic, certified infallible definition for the word "Protestant?" And if not, by what authority do you expect us to accept your privately invented, unauthorized, and logically inconsistent definition?

Peace,

SR

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues, do not make it personal.