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]

>>they were written down about l600 years before your church was invented....by the Catholic who were there at the time.<<

Impossible. You just told me they could neither read nor write.

[daniel1212]

What you must always remember is the protestant's outlook on anything Christian is determined by the impeccability of the individual.

Once again you are resorting to charging a Prot with having the same basis for veracity as Rome, which is both desperate and fallacious. Show me someone here who claims to possess assured infallibility, or imputes this to his earthy teacher, rather than the validity of his Truth claims resting upon Scriptural substantiation, and i will show you a Catholic or another cultist.

Its modern incarnation is the itinerant protestant who moves from one ecclesial community to the other searching for that which conforms to their personal preference i.e., a level of impeccability...

Once again, besides a ill-defined definition of Protestant which you would never tolerate for "Catholic," it is actually due to desire for spirituality that is behind evangelical migration, not some impeccable preacher, which in antithetical to evangelicals, and Rome bleeds souls away from reliance upon a church that is based upon the fallacious premise of ecclesiastical assured veracity, and one man's teaching as having it.

• In numbers (not percentage), Catholicism, which lists 68.1 million in the US, has experienced “the greatest net loss” of any major religious group. members. The 'had it' Catholics,” National Catholic Reporter ,Oct. 11, 2001, based on reports from the 2008 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey and the National Council of Churches’ 2010 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches.

• 68% of those raised Roman Catholic still are Catholic... at 76%). 15% are now Protestant (9% evangelical); 14% are unaffiliated. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf

• 80% of adults who were raised Protestant are still Protestant, but (analysis shows) 25% no longer self-identify with the Protestant denomination in which they were raised. ^

• 44 percent of Americans have switched religious affiliations since childhood, mostly mainline Protestants. 7% who were raised Protestant are now unaffiliated; 15% now belong to a different Protestant faith. ^

• 51% of Protestants from a different Protestant denomination cite a lack of spiritual fulfillment as a reason for leaving their childhood faith. 85% say they joined their current denominational faith because they enjoy the services and style of worship. Only 15% left say they left because they stopped believing in its teachings. ^

• Those who have left Catholicism outnumber those who have joined the Catholic Church by nearly a four-to-one margin. 10.1% have left the Catholic Church after having been raised Catholic, while only 2.6% of adults have become Catholic after having been raised in a different faith.^

  In numbers (not percentage), Catholicism, which lists 68.1 million in the US, has experienced “the greatest net loss” of any major religious group. members. The 'had it' Catholics,” National Catholic Reporter ,Oct. 11, 2001, based on reports from the 2008 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey and the National Council of Churches’ 2010 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches.

• 68% of those raised Roman Catholic still are Catholic (higher than the retention rates of individual Protestant denoms, but less than Jews at 76%). 15% are now Protestant (9% evangelical); 14% are unaffiliated. Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf

• 80% of adults who were raised Protestant are still Protestant, but (analysis shows) 25% no longer self-identify with the Protestant denomination in which they were raised. ^

• 44 percent of Americans have switched religious affiliations since childhood, mostly mainline Protestants. 7% who were raised Protestant are now unaffiliated; 15% now belong to a different Protestant faith. ^

• 51% of Protestants from a different Protestant denomination cite a lack of spiritual fulfillment as a reason for leaving their childhood faith. 85% say they joined their current denominational faith because they enjoy the services and style of worship. Only 15% left say they left because they stopped believing in its teachings. ^

• Those who have left Catholicism outnumber those who have joined the Catholic Church by nearly a four-to-one margin. 10.1% have left the Catholic Church after having been raised Catholic, while only 2.6% of adults have become Catholic after having been raised in a different faith.^

• Only 23% (20% now evangelical) were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); 23% also expressed disagreement with teaching on divorce/remarriage; 16% (12% now evangelical) were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control, 70% said they found a religion the liked more in Protestantism.

• 55% of evangelical converts from Catholicism cited dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about the Bible was a reason for leaving Catholicism, with 46% saying the Catholic Church did not view the Bible literally enough.

• 81% of all Protestant converts from Catholicism said they enjoyed the service and worship of Protestant faith as a reason for joining a Protestant denomination, with 62% of all Protestants and 74% Evangelicals also saying that they felt God's call to do so.

[af_vet_1981]

And I discovered more of just how much God loves His little children. And He has not forgotten Judah or Israel. Just felt like telling ya; hope it helps somehow.

I think it is a beautiful post, walking in the Holy Spirit, as it were.

[af_vet_1981]

The entire reading was included in the earlier Catholic bibles like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and as late as the Douay version of 1950, but removed from later Catholic versions (St. Joseph NAB 1969, New Jerusalem bible 1985), but now once again the 2009 The Sacred Bible Public Domain Version has gone back to include it!

Thanks, interesting.

[CynicalBear]

>>Where did that "alone" modifier come from?<<

Acts 4:12 and there is not salvation in any other, for there is no other name under the heaven that hath been given among men, in which it behoveth us to be saved.'

John 14:6 Jesus saith to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;

[metmom]

That sums it up pretty well, doesn’t it?

[daniel1212]

Perhaps. But really what it comes to is intent, does it not? I suppose if one's sole interest is to play "gotcha" games then by necessity the interrogatories must conform to the game in order to reach the desired outcome. Thus, the structure of the question is this:

In order to conceivably arrive at the this:

You are referring to here , and i suspect there is some PM activity behind your response, and which is a rather desperate protest to justify avoiding answering fundamental questions, which most every RCs has, or the outcome of doing so, but which are actually required in order to clarify and deal with the presuppositions behind the most prevalent RC polemic, expressed in varying forms, which is to assert, "the Catholic church gave you the Bible," meaning you have no right and cannot be right in opposing her.

This is typical RC recourse i have seen over the years, especially when their attempts to support traditions of men with Scripture fail. Expanded upon it basically argues that, the Catholic church goes back 2000 years, whom Christ promised never to leave and to lead into all Truth, and gave you the Bible, thus only it can assuredly tell us what it means, and you have no authority correct her with your "private interpretation" of Scripture, which cannot be right or provide assurance.

Thus it is necessary to clarify the presuppositions behind this premise for determination and assurance of truth,

Which is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

The fact that affirming this basic reasoning will result in exposing its fallacious nature does not justify not answering it, any more than no answering the related question by the Lord which He asked in response to the questions of where He obtained His authority. Mk. 11:27-33)

Meanwhile you still have avoided answering

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3212840/posts?page=3045#3045 to you.

[Resettozero]

One of the RC defenders of the RCC earlier on this thread referred to the red-lettering utilzed in the NT. So, this is in response to not just you but to that RCC defender as well.

For one reason, the red-lettering is useful to the reader of one of the Gospels in determining at a glance what Jesus said and what His detractors said. For example, the following really stands out when Jesus’ remarks are displayed in red lettering:

Jhn 8:12
Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

Jhn 8:13
The Pharisees therefore said to Him, “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.”

Jhn 8:14
Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going.

Jhn 8:15
“You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.

Jhn 8:16
“And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me.

Jhn 8:17
“It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true.

Jhn 8:18
“I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”

Jhn 8:19
Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.”

I hope all RCs can see that red-lettering, used in this manner in the NT, is an aid and not a hindrance to understanding what God has truly said.

[CynicalBear]

>>That sums it up pretty well, doesn’t it?<<

For a born again Spirit filled Christian it does.

[MamaB]

It is, “do as I say, not as I do.”. Some politicians act that way, too.

[Resettozero]

As enjoyable for some the high-minded, big words debate on FR might be for a few (Paul used smaller words and he was hard enough to understand), I would like to remind the scholars and pseudo-scholars of this (NKJV) fundamental of the Christian faith that gets short shrift too often:

Mat 18:1
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

Mat 18:2
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them,

Mat 18:3
and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:4
“Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:5
“Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.

Mat 18:6
“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mat 18:7
“Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!

Mat 18:8
“If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.

Mat 18:9
“And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.

Mat 18:10
“Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

I hope that in my zeal to post on FR yesterday, I didn’t back over any kids in the driveway.

[Springfield Reformer]

No harm done here. :)

Peace,

SR

[JPX2011]

You are referring to here , and i suspect there is some PM activity behind your response, and which is a rather desperate protest to justify avoiding answering fundamental questions...

You would be incorrect. What I'm referring to is an interesting exchange I observed approximately three weeks ago here in which this line of reasoning was brutally eviscerated by the Catholic Faithful. To use a sports analogy it was a portension of Bama vs. Texas A&M.

So I've already witnessed this drama played out. Though I do have to give the poster credit for going into the "Lions Den" so to speak.

[boatbums]

"Big deal"???? It should be a big deal if Roman Catholics expect all the Christians in the world to bow down in obedience to a man who supposedly succeeded St. Peter in Apostleship and authority. That it's no big deal to Catholics IS a big deal to real Christians!

I asked you this before and you never replied...if you were living in the fifteenth century and Pope Alexander VI was in charge, would YOU have any trepidation towards being under his authority?

[metmom]

And of course, as we’ve seen, it becomes a REALLY big deal when it’s LUTHER that Catholics are denigrating.

Then one man invalidates all of Protestantism.

The double standard applied is truly staggering.

[JPX2011]

And of course, as we’ve seen, it becomes a REALLY big deal when it’s LUTHER that Catholics are denigrating. Then one man invalidates all of Protestantism. The double standard applied is truly staggering.

Insofar as Luther the man is concerned at issue is how Luther's scrupulosity, a psychological disorder, informed the development of reformed doctrine. Catholics are not concerned with Luther's impeccability or lack thereof. Luther himself held the position of Catholics:

"The Church cannot err in proclaiming the faith. Only the individual within her is liable to error." ~ Martin Luther

As an aside, I would recommend watching this video by Father Barron on the Council of Trent, the Church's response to the Reformation. I think you might be surprised.

[xone]

YOU have any trepidation towards being under his authority?

How would he know he was under his authority? As I understand the dodge, no one could read.

[xone]

Luther himself held the position of Catholics:

But he didn't hold the same definition of the church.

[editor-surveyor]

We’re all supposed to be headed for that goal.

Some are, some think it not worth the effort.

John, who knew Yeshua better than any other apostle, says that it is definitely attainable, and if you’re not going for it, you’re not one of his.

[editor-surveyor]

All of the lost sheep of the House of Israel are “gentiles.”

They are the people to whom Yeshua came. They were declared “not my people” in Hosea, but under the ministry of Paul, they again became a people.

Basically, you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about, if you think being a “gentile” means anything at all.

There is no longer Jew, nor Gentile; Yeshua tore the vail, and opened the door that cannot be closed.