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.

[JPX2011]

Precisely so. /s

Indeed. and on a more serious note I can think of a better question:

Do you have an assembly to go to whose denominational name you are willing to share as an alternative to the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church ?

[Resettozero]

I was addressing another; I thought you cursed me the other day.

This thread is not private. I've cursed no one; not even the atheist that showed up late. Another false accusation.

Do you have an assembly to go to whose denominational name you are willing to share as an alternative holy catholic apostolic church?

You have not answered my questions or addressed in good faith my statements; neither will I yours.

[Resettozero]

Do you have an assembly to go to whose denominational name you are willing to share as an alternative to the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church?

Yes. Asked and answered on this thread at least twice before. I owe you only to speak the truth; not to indulge you.

[af_vet_1981]

Tell that to af vet.

You stated in 2320 that Peter chose Matthias. I had stated in 2316 that Peter had the authority to choose another apostle. Remember the LORD gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which indicates Peter's authority as King Messiah's delegated, chosen steward. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16 is properly understood from understanding Isaiah 22, as well as Jewish laws and customs.

And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons. In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it.

[JPX2011]

Yes. Asked and answered on this thread at least twice before. I owe you only to speak the truth; not to indulge you.

Interesting phrasing. Because God knows we should never give too much of ourselves to another. We have our autonomy to think about.

[Resettozero]

Remember the LORD gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which indicates Peter's authority as King Messiah's delegated, chosen steward.

Some of you like to add to what is in Scripture, as you did here. There really is no way to proceed beyond this impasse...except through Christ and His Word.

[Resettozero]

Interesting phrasing. Because God knows we should never give too much of ourselves to another. We have our autonomy to think about.

Another response that has little bearing on what you asked and how I responded. Always deflecting.

[CynicalBear]

>>When was the last time you personally attended a Catholic mass<<

God says.

Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God:

The Catholics say.

The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.[Cardinal Newman - Development of Christian Doctrine, pg 373]

Disobedience to God's word.

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

[af_vet_1981]

This thread is not private. I've cursed no one; not even the atheist that showed up late. Another false accusation.

To write "I thought you cursed me" is neither an accusation nor false. I twice asked you to clarify and explain and you were silent until you started addressing me again. Would you clarify why you used the name of the adversary with me, and why you used the term "slop hogwash" after I was explaining matters using Jewish terms ?

Your posts from this thread (bolded for emphasis)
1. Why would anyone become Catholic? Fri Oct 17 2014 00:00:23 GMT+0000 (GMT) · 1,985 of 2,365 Resettozero to af_vet_1981 ...of whom Peter became chief servant,... Not in Ephesians. Warning issued for misquote, ala Satan.
2. Why would anyone become Catholic? Fri Oct 17 2014 01:18:18 GMT+0000 (GMT) · 2,016 of 2,365 Resettozero to af_vet_1981 if you are going to contest Peter bring the Apostle of the Jews, the chief servant Messiah chose, well it won't be from ignorance of never having been taught the truth. You misquoted Ephesians and your addition made Peter the most chief of the foundation builders. You did that. You're not making great sense about some posts. YOU brought up (by yourself and with no help from me) the subject of Peter being Apostle to the Jews. Are you hearing voices? You aren't listening to me at all. Why is it you are having trouble hearing me tonight and, rather, are quoting me for things I haven't posted? No more insults are necessary from you to defend your religious preferences or slop hogwash toward my belief.

"Do you have an assembly to go to whose denominational name you are willing to share as an alternative holy catholic apostolic church?"

You have not answered my questions or addressed in good faith my statements; neither will I yours.

It seems to me that you don't have an alternative to the holy catholic apostolic church for me.

[af_vet_1981]

If you have not personally attended a mass you would not know what it is actually like. I have found that to be similar in nature to the assumptions of some Christians who have no personal experience with Jewish assemblies. Is it a sin for you to attend either Catholic or Jewish assemblies ?

[JPX2011]

Another response that has little bearing on what you asked and how I responded. Always deflecting.

In point of fact my reply has direct bearing on how you responded.

For the protestant, the autonomous self-will is what reigns supreme, not Christ. Their theology speaks to that. The ultimate deciding factor: what does it mean to me; how does it speak to me; how does it make me feel; how does it affect me? The supremacy of self as the arbiter of Truth. The rest flows from that. The protestant interaction with others is not informed by Scripture but what they deem to be most advantageous to self. In that, a cold calculation is made.

As a result this mentality leads one to say internally, "This far and no farther." Or in your terms, "I'm only obligated...and nothing more. Safeguarding self is paramount.

Which is why most protestants will say, "I'm not giving the homeless man a dollar because [whatever justification they use]. Their sense of charity being obfuscated by either secular concerns or protection against injury to self.

It's worship of self, self-deification that is the order of the day for protestants.

[BlueDragon]

Why publish mish-mash of scripture in that manner?

That such herky-jerky combinations are interspersed with instances where you cite scripture more precisely in the way each sentence follows another in the actual text -- makes it all that much the worse when you do not.

And that font -- not fit for a king (despite the name "royal" someone chose to attach to that color) but fit for being passed over and ignored for reason of being difficult to read from a white background.

But I suppose the font may serve well if the aim is to state whatever it is -- but not have any question the way you may be intending for it to be taken to mean.

[CynicalBear]

Ah yes! The pagan sunburst wafer god.

[JPX2011]

Ah yes! The pagan sunburst wafer god.

I knew you wouldn't let me down.

[CynicalBear]

>>Is it a sin for you to attend either Catholic assemblies ?<<

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Jewish synagogues include no paganism. I still don't attend them as they have been set aside by God "until the time of the Gentiles" comes in.

[af_vet_1981]

Why publish mish-mash of scripture in that manner? That such herky-jerky combinations are interspersed with instances where you cite scripture more precisely in the way each sentence follows another in the actual text -- makes it all that much the worse when you do not. And that font -- not fit for a king (despite the name "royal" someone chose to attach to that color) but fit for being passed over and ignored for reason of being difficult to read from a white background. But I suppose the font may serve well if the aim is to state whatever it is -- but not have any question the way you may be intending for it to be taken to mean.

If you don't want it, give it back.

Do you have an alternative holy catholic apostolic church to the Catholic Church, and if so, does it have some kind of denominational or fellowship name ?

[BlueDragon]

Do you have an assembly to go to whose denominational name you are willing to share as an alternative to the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church ?

Shopping around for an alternative to the Roman 'Catholic' Church?

Why, I wouldn't blame a person one bit for doing that.

Being that it is plain enough that that one is not all that much, very 'holy' (holy is a thing which does need sufficient entirety), not apostolic for it has departed from the Way, while at the same time was from around the 12th century onwards (at least that far back) something of a squatter (with a mouth full of lies) in regards to the word -- catholic -- claiming that strictly for their own ecclesiastical community over and above any and all others.

That "they" used to murder dissenters by the cartload proves the points, well enough.

"They" did not slaughter Waldo straight off --- a pope even entertained the man in audience once -- but later Roman Catholics under direction of popes DID attempt to kill off those who recognized the truth to some of that man's insights...

Later came the Lollards. They were persecuted, chiefly for their opposition to 'popery'. Oh, and having different ideas, ones which by-passed the sacerdotalism of the so-called 'priesthood' of the Romish Church.

That was Rome's last chance, in a sense. For after that came the the much larger and widely sweeping Reformation. The rest is history -- and a history which the RCC cannot CONTROL. The truth still gets out (much to their chagrin)

Many (not all) of the RCC seem like they still haven't gotten over it. Despite their own historians finally (in the last half-century or so) becoming a bit more honest about how things really went.

Still, for those who do find Him among or amid that ecclesiastical community -- then may they ever more do so.

Meanwhile...fortunately enough for all the rest, He does condescend to men of humility who do earnestly and diligently seek Him, Himself pouring His own Spirit out upon them, wherever He finds them to be.

[af_vet_1981]

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Jewish synagogues include no paganism. I still don't attend them as they have been set aside by God "until the time of the Gentiles" comes in.

I think I understand what you wrote. It seems to me it is a matter of conscience for you, given that interpretation, only to fellowship with like minded people. It seems to me you consider Catholic assemblies, where we publicly confess Jesus LORD and Christ, crucified for our sinsm , risen from the dead, ascended to heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father, until he comes again to judge the living and the dead, "unfruitful works of darkness." It seems clear to me why this kind of Protestantism/Evangelicalism/Otherism would produce vehement denunciations of both Catholic and Jewish doctrines and customs. I would think it very difficult to have any real friendship or dialogue with either Catholics or Jews given that premise (all that is available is street fighting, oops street evangelism). Catholics, on the other hand, regard Jews as elder brethren, and while they may argue can make long enduring friendships of love.

[Resettozero]

Catholics, on the other hand, regard Jews as elder brethren, and while they may argue can make long enduring friendships of love.

Yes, there has been a detectable aura of affinity with the sect of the Pharisees in many of your non-responsive FR replies.

And, yeah, we have seen the RCC's "friendships of love" with the descendants of Judah and Israel. Because an RCC chooses to blind himself doesn't mean others cannot see.

[daniel1212]

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

Well, you could use the "if the shoe fits" criteria:

• LUMEN GENTIUM: "..there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities…"

• "They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.

"Ecclesiastical communities" does not describe EOs, as Rome calls them churches, which it imagines Prot churches are not to be called, and other teaching shows it only refers to trinitarian baptism, eliminating the SA and OPs, and most cults at least.

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

Like as the basic distinctive aspect for Rome as regards what a actual church may be is the perpetual separate class of sacerdotal priests, which was foreign to the NT church , likewise I would posit that the most basic distinctive aspect of the Reformation was that of Scripture being the supreme authoritative source of Truth as the wholly inspired actual words of God. Upon which doctrines of grace are based.

Along with that are the core Truths we hold in common with Rome, as stated in the apostle's creed, and salvation from Hell to Heaven by grace thru faith, not on the basis of personal moral perfection via baptism and purgatory as normative under Rome's system.

This excludes the like of Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian type churches, as they either effectively operate under the premise of their church leadership being effectively supreme, as Rome also does, or they effectively deny Scripture as being the the wholly inspired actual words of God, usually holding to liberal revisionism instead, as much of modern Roman scholarship does.

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?

The answer to that is easy: whatever one is polemically useful, even while RCs get indignant about calling their institution that Roman Catholic church, and even deny the EOs are to be included under the title "Catholic church." No double standard if done by an RC.

And see here on the 35,000 Prot denom canard.

Next,

The (Orthodox?) author of the first image argues,

Churches in doctrinal agreement with the Patriarch of Constantinople, are the actual direct descendants of the State Religion of the Roman Empire, founded under the authority of the Patriarch and the Emperor in Constantinople (starting with Constantine), while modern Roman Catholicism, far from being Christianity "fused with the Roman Empire," is the religion of the Bishops of Rome who repudiated the authority of the Roman Emperor and excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople.” (http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#pope)

Another Orthodox voice states,

On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."

Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs...

On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. (“Father” Michael Azkoul, http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)

More on EOs vs Latin

The author of the one on the bottom contends,

“The problem is obvious - Rome, sedevacantists, traditionalist Catholics, Pope Michael-ists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and various other churches with incompatible teachings all appeal to this set and limited corpus of Scripture and Tradition. It would appear that the criticism against Sola Scriptura of multiple denominations applies to the Roman and EO rule of faith as well.

The Romanist or Orthodox might object: "But we're not in communion with those schismatics/heterodox/heretics!" Now, what if I were to reply, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, that, have no fear my non-Sola Scripturist friends, my church holds that everyone who's not a member of a Southern Baptist church is a schismatic/heterodox/heretic too? Would that make our Romanist or Orthodox friends feel better?

Or would that make them criticise us even more strongly: "See? You Sola Scripturists can't even hold communion with each other!"? Yep, my money's on that one, too. We're darned if we do and darned if we don't, but somehow if the Romanists or Orthodox don't hold communion with these other churches, that's just fine. Such special pleading is just...special...(http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/12/special-pleading-of-sola-ecclesia-ists.html)