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.

[af_vet_1981]

. As bb pointed out before, combining passages of Scripture to make them say something they don’t lacks integrity. My opinion is that it more than smacks of dishonesty.

I call on Captain Teague, keeper of the code."

"The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent."

[Religion Moderator]

more than smacks of dishonesty

Do not accuse another Freeper of telling a lie. It is a form of "making it personal" because it entails the intent to deceive. "Dishonesty" also entails intent.

Words such as "false" "wrong" "error" do not entail an intent to deceive.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[BlueDragon]

It helps?

forget it.

I didn't appreciate the "game".

'Rome' had very little to do with the scriptures themselves, anyway, other than to be on the receiving end of things.

Like;
Paul wrote them a letter.

NOT ---the other way around.

[af_vet_1981]

'Rome' had very little to do with the scriptures themselves, anyway, other than to be on the receiving end of things.

Like; Paul wrote them a letter.

NOT ---the other way around.

Yes, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and he wrote to the Romans, and afterword was martyred in Rome.I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

Did Paul write you any letter ?

[BlueDragon]

Yes he did.

I've read them all.

As was the greater, higher purpose and intent.

[af_vet_1981]

Yes he did.

Why herein is a marvellous thing

It seems to me a very adaptive religious denomination/sect/group that can modify the addressees of all of Paul's letters. Perhaps Reconstruction would be a better term than Reformation.

[BlueDragon]

Go troll someone else.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “well, there is a commandment to keep holy the sabath” <<

.
Which to my knowledge, no Catholic has ever done!

The Sabbath begins at sundown on what you pagans call Friday.

There is no scripture whatsoever that supports changing the Sabbath to a pagan day.
.

[editor-surveyor]

All of Paul’s letters were completed almost 300 years before the Roman catholic church was founded.

They were written to real believers, not Mary/Easter worshipers, humanists, nor sun god worshipers. They were written to the “Lost Sheep of the House of Isael” scattered across the north rim of the Mediterranean, the people that were declared no longer a people in the book of Hosea, but again became a people under the ministry of Paul.

[daniel1212]

Amazing. So your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium

that pretty much sums it up, unless I hear otherwise, I will stick with Catholic 2,014 year old teachings from the book that they wrote.

Thank you for being honest, but you have just effectively nuked the church by your affirmation that that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means such is an assuredly infallible magisterium, and that this is essential for determination and assurance of Truth

For the the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation; (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

I said the church of Rome is basically invisible in Scripture, and now you have confirmed it. At you were honesty.

[JPX2011]

The Catholic Church is in this world.

You're 1/3 of the way there. Catholic Church also resides in Heaven and in Purgatory. There is no separation from Jesus.

For your edification:

The Church, the Mystical Body, exists on this earth, and is called the Church militant, because its members struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil. The Church suffering means the souls in Purgatory. The Church triumphant is the Church in heaven. The unity and cooperation of the members of the Church on earth, in Purgatory, in Heaven is also called the Communion of Saints. When St. Paul uses the word "Saints" in opening an Epistle, he does not mean they are morally perfect. He has in mind Hebrew qadosh, which means set aside for God, or coming under the covenant. Being such means of course they are called to moral perfection. But of course, not all have reached it in this world.[1]

[1] The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. (1990). Retrieved from http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura1.htm

[JPX2011]

Are you aware that the in citation from Ignatius -- he is not referring to the bishop of Rome? This is all too funny.

It is funny. Especially when an individual attempts to change the subject from universality to papal primacy after they've been proven incorrect in their assumption. However we can make a quick side trip to that issue:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God. [1]

I would suggest that you go find it in the [greater] context from where that one originates. It's in the footnote you supplied (but obtained form some RC apologetic page -- correct?).

Your suggestion is noted, however your conclusion is incorrect.

It is not exactly substantiation for later Romish claims, as it can be reasonably interpreted to undo them -- as regards to singular papacy and the like.

See above.

Not all the "Waldensians" who came after Waldo were semi-pelagian, although that is a convenient accusation -- it still is not enough to justify what was done to "them" indiscriminately.

Heresy is the murder of the soul. I don't have any problem with the practice of having heretics removed from our midst. I assume you have proof to back up your assertion of what was done, "indiscriminately"?

[1] Church Fathers: Epistle to the Romans (St. Ignatius) Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. .

[JPX2011]

Semi-pelagian? The Waldensians were not accused of that -- that I know of. Then, even if accused, one would need prove the accusation.

Other doctrinal developments added to the ascetic orientation in Waldensian ethics and demarcated them further from similar contemporary religious movements. First, Waldensians' views on salvation were characterized by a dichotomous soteriology and a semi-Pelagian understanding of how salvation could be achieved. The dichotomy in their soteriology--based on soteriological rather than metaphysical dualism--consisted of a strong belief in the existence of only two ways in life: the narrow path to salvation through Christ, in repentance and living according to this commands, and the broad way straight to hell. In its semi-Pelagian component, an emphasis on the human capability to choose righteousness and reject evil deliberately, Waldensianism stressed that it was in the here and now, in faith and in works, that every Christian could and had to choose between the two. While the semi-Pelagian component in early Waldensian ethics stressed the active pursuit of sanctification, the notion of the two ways made a Waldensian's moral probity in the process of achieving salvation all the more imperative. [1]

That leads to mention of the Cathars and Albegensians. Those were not identical to Waldensians, though there was some degree of overlap. The latter two were not even identical to each other, much less the Waldensians, although there may well have been a semi-pelagian aspect to *some* of the so-called Cathars, was it?

Nobody said they were identical and its disingenuous to suggest that they are being conflated. Semi-Pelagianism and Gnosticism are distinct heresies. The only reason to mention the Cathars and the Albigensians in reference to the Waldensians is in the sense that the Waldensians, in the beginning, were quite anti-Cathar and were initially dismayed at the Church's response to them. They believed the Church was not going far enough to suppress this heresy. The overlap occurs when the Waldensians begin to adopt some of the Cathar ecclesiastical structures.

Now -- prove it, or retract that statement.

I don't have to prove anything. However, I would suggest you review Waldo's Confession of Faith.

Meanwhile, read and learn -- before speaking.

I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing. If you have a problem with that then feel free to frequent some other forum.

[1] Kaelber, L. (1998). Schools of asceticism: Ideology and organization in medieval religious communities. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

[JPX2011]

Have you met or personally talked with all Protestants Catholics so that you can't be accused of making rhetorical, polemical and bigoted statements condemning all Protestants Catholics No, I KNOW you haven't.

...you might object to such a broad brush of condemnation. This kind of accusation is neither honest nor logical - not the caliber of dialog that is beneficial to all Freepers.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I observe a protestant's contribution to dialogue consisting of only parroting what a Catholic says rather that refute what is being said. Too clever by half.

[WVKayaker]

I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing. If you have a problem with that...

You are a champ at it!

FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.

[JPX2011]

You are a champ at it! FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.

Thank you for your input.

[Elsie]

line 1 does not sem to agree with line 2

#1463 seems to disagree with what the Catholic church teaches today.

Any thoughts?

[Elsie]

I merely pointed out that Jesus died is that also proof positive???

I merely pointed out that Scripture says that ALL will die.

Is THAT not PROOF that RCC's modern teaching about Mary is WRONG??

How about...

1 Corinthians 15:50

Now this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

So; does your church's made-up Mary have a GLORIFIED body now; to be able to perform like a Superwoman in Heaven?