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.

[CynicalBear]

>>It's clear evidence that the person who thinks like that has never experienced the new birth otherwise they would know that someone born again does not, and could not think that way.<<

They do expose the condition of their soul don't they.

[CynicalBear]

It’s always someone else’s fault.

[daniel1212]

If protestants want to align themselves with people who practiced homosexuality, fornication, suicide and euthanasia that's their business..Protestant treats the issues of faith and morals as issues of individuality.

But the "Protestants" that are most liberal are those who are closest to Rome, whose fruit is far more liberal than those who most strongly hold to what you must attack, that of Scripture being supreme as the assured word of God, accurate in all it teaches.

[daniel1212]

rejecting Catholicism is rejecting the church that Christ founded and thus rejecting Christ...

So are you SSPX or SSPV seeing as you reject V2 teaching on properly baptized Prots?

[af_vet_1981]

Hi. After his conversion to Christ, who was it that Paul had killed? (Since Paul was not a civil servant in obedience to Roman or other rulers' instructions, that would indeed be murder.)

Paul was not a man of many words but little or no authority. I accept the scriptures and find several occasions where the Apostle either pronounced sentence, or threatened to pronounce, sentence of death on other erstwhile believers.

1. 1 Cor 5 -- clear death sentence; ambiguous ending (some hold the man who married his mother was restored although there is no clear indication the man in 2 Cor is the same man;)
2. Gal 5 -- clear desire for a death sentence, but no one selected or named; perhaps due to jurisdiction, Peter being the Apostle to the Jews; indeed we see a Paul took the issue to the apostolic council in Jerusalem
3. 1 Tim 1:20 -- similar to 1 Cor but naming names; perhaps they were Gentiles

[daniel1212]

Learn something new everyday. Which is another affirmation of the superiority of this forum software over others i have been on.

[metmom]

There was nothing wrong with what you said.

It was probably just eh way I read it.

[daniel1212]

? I said I have no problem with keeping heretics out of our midst. I didn't say which method that should entail.

Indeed, as you among others failed to answer the question as to whether you affirm the carnal means of doing so which Rome sanctioned and set rules for in so doing (which early Prots had to unlearn), that of the torture of suspected "heretics" and even witnesses, and the killing of the former (even if the numbers of those killed by Inquisitions may have been exaggerated)?

And of requiring Catholic rulers to exterminate the heretics, or else his subjects are no longer subject to his authority?

[MamaB]

Amen.

[Resettozero]

Thank you for your civil response. Yes, I checked and all three passages you cited are indeed in the New Testament.

You conflate “turning over to Satan” with the murdering of those people. That is an incorrect assessment of Scripture, in all three instances.

I understand that you are fighting against the repentant sinner of 2 Cor being the same sinner as Paul instructed the Church at Corinth to “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” (How would this be done, apart from denying him fellowship with the believers.)

You are wrestling with the clear meanings of passages in the New Testament, not with my personal interpretation.

[daniel1212]

so.....Charles Martel and the Crusaders who ran the moslem hoardes out of Europe and freed up previously Christian countries from them were murderers?????

Context. The issue was using the sword of men to slay theological dissenters, not supporting an army against a physical murders, though a church raising an army to engage in a holy war against Muslims, inducing the former with indulgences, was overall doing a right thing the wrong way, as it is not in the charter of the church to rule over those without using the sword of men.

And in addition were Crusaders fighting against Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Jews, and political enemies of the popes, and in way that too often went barbaric.

[daniel1212]

I accept the scriptures and find several occasions where the Apostle either pronounced sentence, or threatened to pronounce, sentence of death on other erstwhile believers.

1 Cor 5 -- clear death sentence

1Cor. 5 is not at all a "clear" death sentence, unless you need it to be, as to be delivered over to the devil for chastisement has its only clear precedent in the story of Job, which was not unto death, but refinement of character

And as 1Cor. 11:32 teaches that "when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world" - and which is only ever shown to be in this world/life, to which this text refers to- thus the incestuous man was chastened by allowing the devil to have at him, as God did to Job.

The Bible also teaches that the wicked are God's sword, (Psalms 17:13) which He used to chasten Israel with, and and as the devil is the god of this world, (2Co. 4:4) so to be delivered unto the devil could also mean oppression by the lost.

And as with any troubles, it can be for refinement of good character among the penitent, revealing things needed to be more like Christ, or to bring repentance unto getting back to walking in faith.

Gal 5 -- clear desire for a death sentence,

"I would they were even cut off which trouble you," (Galatians 5:12) is not a clear desire for a death sentence, though it may be if not wishing they would castrate themselves as your NAB renders it.

1 Tim 1:20 -- similar to 1 Cor but naming names; perhaps they were Gentiles

This is clearly not a desire for a death sentence, but to chastisement, "that they may learn not to blaspheme," which hardly beneficial by dying, while in 2Ti 2:17 they are charged with "saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."

But that capital punishment is Biblical is clear , and Paul warned that the civil powers had that power to use it justly, while the only means of such physical punishment for the church for its wars is spiritual, as I have shown you.

And which remains the issue, and the unwillingness thus far from what i have seen, to deny or affirm the torture of suspected "heretics" and even witnesses, and the killing of the former (even if the numbers of those killed by Inquisitions may have been exaggerated) which early Prots had to unlearn.

And of requiring Catholic rulers to exterminate the heretics, or else his subjects are no longer subject to his authority.

[daniel1212]

It occurs to me that when we see the RC's here showing their support for the power of the church to kill heretics, that that includes US.

At least some have gratefully affirmed it on the past, and at least one has called for a Catholic monarchy, and for the extermination of Protestants.

And to see some of what we are referring to in medieval Roman Catholicism:

Pope Gregory I. denounced as worthless a confession extorted by incarceration and hunger.369³⁶⁹    Epist. VIII. 30. But at a later period, in dealing with heretics, the Roman church unfortunately gave the sanction of her highest authority to the use of the torture, and thus betrayed her noblest instincts and holiest mission. The fourth Lateran Council (1215) inspired the horrible crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses, and the establishment of the infamous ecclesiastico-political courts of Inquisition. These courts found the torture the most effective means of punishing and exterminating heresy, and invented new forms of refined cruelty worse than those of the persecutors of heathen Rome.

• Pope Innocent IV, in his instruction for the guidance of the Inquisition in Tuscany and Lombardy, ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of all their accomplices (1252).371^371...

This was an ominous precedent, which did more harm to the reputation of the papacy than the extermination of any number of heretics could possibly do it good. Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073.The Torture http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.vi.viii.html

• Paul Johnson, English Roman Catholic writer: Ever since the eleventh century, secular rulers had been burning those who obstinately refused to fit in with established Christian arrangements; the Church had opposed capital punishment, successive councils decreeing confiscation of property, excommunication, imprisonment or whipping, branding and exile. But in the 1180s, the Church began to panic at the spread of heresy, and thereafter it took the lead from the State, though it maintained the legal fiction that convicted and unrepentant heretics were merely 'deprived of the protection of the Church', which was (as they termed it) 'relaxed', the civil power then being free to burn them without committing mortal sin. Relaxation was accompanied by a formal plea for mercy; in fact this was meaningless, and the individual civil officer (sheriffs and so forth) had no choice but to burn, since otherwise he was denounced as a 'defender of heretics', and plunged into the perils of the system himself.

The codification of legislation against heresy took place over half a century, roughly 1180-1230, when it culminated in the creation of a permanent tribunal, staffed by Dominican friars, who worked from a fixed base in conjunction with the episcopate, and were endowed with generous authority. The permanent system was designed as a reform; in fact it incorporated all the abuses of earlier practice and added new ones. It had a certain vicious logic. Since a heretic was denied burial in consecrated ground, the corpses of those posthumously convicted (a very frequent occurrence) had to be disinterred, dragged through the streets and burnt on the refuse pit. The houses in which they lived had to be knocked down and turned into sewers or rubbish-dumps.

Convictions of thought-crimes being difficult to secure, the Inquisition used procedures banned in other courts, and so contravened town charters, written and customary laws, and virtually every aspect of established jurisprudence. The names of hostile witnesses were withheld, anonymous informers were used, the accusations of personal enemies were allowed, the accused were denied the right of defence, or of defending counsel; and there was no appeal. The object, quite simply, was to produce convictions at any cost; only thus, it was thought, could heresy be quenched. Hence depositors were not named; all a suspect could do was to produce a list of his enemies, and he was allowed to bring forward witnesses to testify that such enemies existed, but for no other purpose. On the other hand, the prosecution could use the evidence of criminals, heretics, children and accomplices, usually forbidden in other courts.

Once an area became infected by heresy, and the system moved in, large numbers of people became entangled in its toils. Children of heretics could not inherit, as the stain was vicarial; grandchildren could not hold ecclesiastical benefices unless they successfully denounced someone. Everyone from the age of fourteen (girls from twelve) were required to take public oaths every two years to remain good Catholics and denounce heretics. Failure to confess or receive communion at least three times a year aroused automatic suspicion; possession of the scriptures in any language, or of breviaries, hour-books and psalters in the vernacular, was forbidden. Torture was not employed regularly until near the end of the thirteenth century (except by secular officials without reference to the Inquisition) but suspects could be held in prison and summoned again and again until they yielded, the object of the operation being to obtain admissions or denunciations. When torture was adopted it was subjected to canonical restraints - if it produced nothing on the first occasion it was forbidden to repeat it. But such regulations were open to glosses; Francis Pegna, the leading Inquisition commentator, wrote:

'But if, having been tortured reasonably (decenter), he will not confess the truth, set other sorts of torments before him, saying that he must pass through all these unless he will confess the truth. If even this fails, a second or third day may be appointed to him, either in terrorem or even in truth, for the continuation (not repetition) of torture; for tortures may not be repeated unless fresh evidence emerges against him; then, indeed, they may, for against continuation there is no prohibition.'

Pegna said that pregnant women might not be tortured, for fear of abortions: 'we must wait until she is delivered of her child'; and children below the age of puberty, and old folk, were to be less severely tortured. The methods used were, on the whole, less horrific than those employed by various secular governments - though it should be added that English common lawyers, for instance, flatly denied that torture was legal, except in case of refusal to plead.

Once a victim was accused, escape from some kind of punishment was virtually impossible: the system would not allow it. But comparatively few were executed: less than ten per cent of those liable. Life-imprisonment was usual for those 'converted' by fear of death; this could be shortened by denunciations. Acts of sympathy or favour for heretics were punished by imprisonment or pilgrimage; there were also fines or floggings, and penance in some form was required of all those who came into contact with the infected, even though unknowingly and innocently. The smallest punishment was to wear yellow cloth crosses - an unpopular penalty since it prevented a man from getting employment; on the other hand, to cease to wear it was treated as a relapse into heresy. A spell in prison was virtually inevitable.

Of course there was a shortage of prison-space, since solitary confinement was the rule. Once the Inquisition moved into an area, the bishop's prison was soon full; then the king's; then old buildings had to be converted, or new ones built. Food was the prisoner's own responsibility, though the bishop was supposed to provide bread and water in the case of poverty. The secular authorities did not like these crowded prisons, being terrified of gaol fever and plague, and thus burned many more people than the Church authorized. The system was saved from utter horror only by the usual medieval frailties: corruption, inertia, and sheer administrative incompetence...

In the Middle Ages, the ruthless and confident exercise of authority could nearly always swing a majority behind it. And the victims of the flames usually died screaming in pain and terror, thus appearing to confirm the justice of the proceedings. — Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, © 1976 Athenium, pgs. 253-255.

• Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda, papal bull, promulgated on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, which explicitly authorized (and defined the appropriate circumstances for) the use of torture by the Inquisition for eliciting confessions from heretics.

The following parameters were placed on the use of torture:[1]

• that it did not cause loss of life or limb (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum)
• that it was used only once
• that the Inquisitor deemed the evidence against the accused to be virtually certain.

The requirement that torture only be used once was effectively meaningless in practice as it was interpreted as authorizing torture with each new piece of evidence that was produced and by considering most practices to be a continuation (rather than repetition) of the torture session (non ad modum iterationis sed continuationis).[1]

The bull conceded to the State a portion of the property to be confiscated from convicted heretics.[3] The State in return assumed the burden of carrying out the penalty. The relevant portion of the bull read: "When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podestà or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them."[4]

Innocent’s Bull prescribes that captured heretics, being "murderers of souls as well as robbers of God’s sacraments and of the Christian faith, . . . are to be coerced – as are thieves and bandits – into confessing their errors and accusing others, although one must stop short of danger to life or limb." — Bull Ad Extirpanda (Bullarium Romanorum Pontificum, vol. 3 [Turin: Franco, Fory & Dalmazzo, 1858], Lex 25, p. 556a.) — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_extirpanda

• Canons of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215:

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. — http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

• Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine: [Error condemned] “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” [consider infallible by some], — Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520 http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

• Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors): "[It is error to believe that] The (Catholic) Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect." Section V, Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights, #24.

The Church has the right, as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for attaining its end,...has, therefore, the right to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction...

...with the formal recognition of the Church by the State and the increase of ecclesiastical penalties proportioned to the increase of ecclesiastical offences, came an appeal from the Church to the secular arm for aid in enforcing the said penalties, which aid was always willingly granted.... — Catholic Encyclopedia Jurisdiction

[Gamecock]

Ahhh, for the good old days. </sarc>

[RegulatorCountry]

The smallest punishment was to wear yellow cloth crosses

So that's what inspired the yellow stars. All the screeching and assignations of blame directed at Martin Luther seem contrived in light of this.

[Elsie]

Learn something new everyday. Which is another affirmation of the superiority of this forum software over others i have been on.

Now if Jim would just get John to ADD to PrivateReply the posting reply number that it was sent from...

[Elsie]

None of what you claim can be supported anywhere in Scripture.

WHY do you try to limit GOD???

--Catholic_Wannabe_Dude(Hail Mary!!!)

[af_vet_1981]

Thank you for your civil response. Yes, I checked and all three passages you cited are indeed in the New Testament. You conflate “turning over to Satan” with the murdering of those people. That is an incorrect assessment of Scripture, in all three instances. I understand that you are fighting against the repentant sinner of 2 Cor being the same sinner as Paul instructed the Church at Corinth to “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.” (How would this be done, apart from denying him fellowship with the believers.) You are wrestling with the clear meanings of passages in the New Testament, not with my personal interpretation.

That would be an incorrect assessment and mischaracterization of my position; I interpret “turning over to Satan” as is obvious (to me) in the Greek with killing (not murdering, how many times must we revisit the difference ?). Compare my interpretation with Job 2 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life. , where in my view, God limits Satan from what he would normally do (kill) with someone "handed" over to him. Job was perfect (Hebrew tam) and God did not permit the adversary to kill him. In my opinion, the exception here complements the general case elsewhere.

Now as for our unnamed Corinthian, I find it preposterous to hold that denying someone fellowship, or the sacraments if you would, means the same as delivering someone to Satan. While the former is certainly true and falls under the purvey of "church discipline," the latter (delivery to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, ie, body) means physical death and requires a true biblical prophet or apostle walking in the Spirit of God, God's messenger if you will, and it could also be at the hand of an angel of the LORD. As to whether the Corinthian lived or died, what gives me the most pause is the severity of his sin and judgment; imagine instead he was guilty as an adult of homosexual fornication/rape of a boy (not unusual in Corinth). Can you just imagine the parallel with the deviant priests, pastors, and rabbis, which if they repent Paul would be telling us to "confirm your love toward him." I tend to agree more with John, 16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. I will accept what the Apostle wrote, but there is not enough there for me to be certain it is the same man, and in light of Matt 18:6, I don't think I'm being overly cautious here. If you know for certain who this man is, perhaps you can identify the man in this verse as well, thinking long and hard before you answer (Im not sure who it was). 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

[Resettozero]

I interpret “turning over to Satan” as is obvious (to me) in the Greek with killing (not murdering, how many times must we revisit the difference?).

I know that is what you believe as an RC (you've stated it yourself). Yet you are in error to declare you've established the fine line between "killing" and "murder". On this thread, for certain.

I find it preposterous to hold that denying someone fellowship, or the sacraments if you would, means the same as delivering someone to Satan.

It appears you hold as "preposterous" that which you neither understand nor can disprove because of your bias in favor of the RCC.

[Resettozero]

Sometimes, I feel as if I’m making the same mistake as your first Pope did by whacking you up the side of the head with a Sword.

I trust you can forgive me for not acquiescing to your personal beliefs, and that The Lord will repair any ears I may have severed in my rush to defend Him and His Word.