Posted on 10/08/2014 11:39:09 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at indiegogo.com ...
As a small time goat owner, I get catalogs from time to time with sheep/goat related products.
The one I got this week showed some different colored spray that the critters get tagged with to them them apart; and had pictures as to how long the spray will remain visible through rain and just plain ol' wallerin' around that the animals do.
I also learned something new.
There is a colored pad that can be attached to your rams chest/brisket area that will transfer the color to the females back as mating occurs.
This way the rancher can tell which ewe is impregnated by which ram.
Good for keeping accurate lineage records.
http://beforeitsnews.com/self-sufficiency/2013/11/ram-marking-harness-2465878.html
As long as she’s singing and NOT spouting some of her Liberal; uh; stuff, I can handle it.
And as long as I don’t have to actually SEE her!
SHUDDER
You are right.
It was given NOTHING; and until the AM CHOOSES to reveal his (her?) reason; you are GUESSING. (That's a bit kinder than mindreading; don't you think? ;^)
You'd make a POOR Laz!
Hey!
She wasn't so bad in her youth (and neither was I!)
Thankyou so much SR.
Grace and peace to you FRiend
She wasn’t so bad in her youth (and neither was I!)
You could argue that Jane Fonda “wasn’t so bad in her youth.” Unfortunately like Jane Fonda, Barbara Streisand’s face and body has morphed and twisted to conform with what’s inside her.
Have you seen MY mirror??
I’m sure your face has character.
It seems to me you indicated you are a charismatic evangelical Catholic who felt led to identifiy as an Evangelical. Further I understand that you deem "those who hold most strongly to Scripture being the supreme authority as the wholly inspired and assured word of God, accurate in all of the principles it teaches" can belonog to any denomination, but are primarily self-identifying Evangelicals. I note this is not an Independent Fundamentalist (Baptist usually goes here) point of view. It seems to me the Billy Graham Organization (not organism) dovetails nicely with this view. However, there can be problems. Previously, Mormons had been on the evangelical organization’s “cult” list, alongside Unitarians, Scientologists, Spiritists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and adherents of the Unification Church.
The association’s quiet embrace of Mormonism came after a gay-rights group pointed out that Mormonism remained on the list despite Graham’s support for Romney. Pretty soon the “cult” reference was gone from the website, the Religion News Service reports.
The association’s spokesperson asserted that the removal had to do with its wish to stay away from a highly contentious issue. “Our primary focus at the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has always been promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” said the organization’s chief of staff, Ken Barun, in a statement, according to a story that appeared on the website of Christianity Today. “We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign.”.
Furthermore I must confess that I am not persuaded by your explanations and arguments about John 17:20-23. I find them inadequate. Neither do I agree with the comments about the Jewish Apostles.
However, I do acknowledge you as a baptized Catholic who has sought other pastures according to your conscience, and that you have a zeal of God to serve the LORD Jesus Christ.
Saw that but declined comment. Also delayed my next post.
"Merely" bad popes??? Like they weren't any different than any other Catholic?
Actually, that's right.
In themselves, popes aren't any different than any other Catholic. They are neither divinely inspired nor divinely controlled in their every thought-word-and-deed, they are not all-purpose Soothsayer of Truth, even in matters of faith and morals.
Pope Benedict XVI once said, "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know."(LINK) Reportedly when speaking at the Greek College in Rome 50 year ago, Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible."
So, yeah. The pope is not God's radio-controlled android. He's as free to be stupid, confused, or sinful as anybody else.
"Aren't these men supposed to be Holy Spirit-specially-selected to succeed St. Peter in authority?"
No, they're not Holy-Spirit-specially-selected in a predestined or dispositive sense as you seem to think. Naturally much ardent prayer goes into the election by the College of Cardinals. One hopes the whole Church is deep in prayer for a good, Holy-Spirit-blessed election. But it's an election; and the Cardinals (flawed as you and me) are still free to vote as they choose. Over the centuries, many of the choices were surprisingly good; some of the choices have left a lot to be desired, and a few were nothing sort of disastrous.
Yet the Church somehow reeled and careened but did not collapse despite this one--- and that one --- and the other one!! Myself, I think the survival of the Church itself, despite historic instances of hierarchical malpractice starting in the Acts of the Apostles, is pretty sound proof of Divine protection.
"I can't help but see duplicity when Martin Luther is thrown in the face of "Protestants" - as if they were involved in his selection as the Protestant "Pope" "
I'm not familiar with the context here, so I can't comment directly. I would agree that "Protestants" as a class are hardly responsible for Martin Luther's distinctive opinions. Protestants at large do not choose their founding fathers. Catholic at large do not choose their popes.
"... but the very guys y'all insist MUST be obeyed and submitted to get a pass."
Popes have to be obeyed in the sense of having the authority of their office, in the same sense that the Captain of a Ship has to be obeyed. This does not imply that either popes or captains have flawless judgment, special access to hidden truths, or protection from screwing up big. It means "this guy is in charge here."
We are obliged in general to obey authority 1 Peter2:13 (LINK) --- and that deserves a good long look, because it applies to Church authorities even more than to secular authorities. This has to do with authority in general. But nobody is obliged to obey a sinful order, and that is true whether the guy giving the order is captain or pope.
SO: the pope gets a pass in what way?
I would caution you in general not to take a maximalist, "ultramondane papalism" approach. That was ruled out by Vatican I, 140 years ago, which instead went along the more limited lines suggested by Blessed John Henry Newman. I'm studying Newman now, and appreciating his thinking on the subject.
Not sure what your discussion of mating goats and mating sheep has to do with this thread in the Religion forum.
However, the link you posted to the blocked site beforeitsnews.com, which also included a photo of sheep in the act of mating, is inappropriate for the Religion forum and it is also inappropriate for anywhere on Free Republic, even if you found the mating sheep on a site other than the blocked site beforeitsnews.com.
beforeitsnews.com is not welcome on Free Republic.
Thanks.
When you get a response deleted by the Mod, it sure looks like a thumbs-down and not a thumbs-up. I call that a reasonable inference from evidence :o)
The Apostle Paul insists that civil and church authority are not completely separate, but both are established by God:
" For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God;"
Second, while Christ is indisputably head over the assembly of believers, He Himself has established authority in His Church:
Matthew 28:18-20
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 18:18
“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
1 Corinthians 12:28-29
And God Himself has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?
So God Himself is shown to be the one who "appoints" and "establishes" both secular and church leaders, since He is the one with the ultimate authority, and all authority comes from Him.
In no case is the authority to be exercised as "apart from God" or "against God." But if a person in authority, whether an emperor, a governor, a magistrate, a priest, pastor, teacher or father or mother, were to lead in a defiant against Christ, that person would be outside of God's will and thus one wold not be bound in obedience to follow them in something sinful.
But to say "There is never any reference to submitting to any individual over another in the assembly of God." is simply wrong. You can see the operation of authority in the actions of the Council of Jerusalem, for sure; and Paul is constantly reiterating his legitimate authority. In the New Covenant, even though Christians are a kingdom of priests (1 Pet. 2:9), Jesus calls certain men to a special ministry (Rom. 15:15–16). Christ calls men to serve the Church (2 Tim. 1:6–7) as pastors, teachers, and spiritual fathers who heal, feed, and strengthen God’s people.
That's the kind of explicitly Biblical authority we're speaking of. Not to dominate, but to be shepherds like Christ, Who especially appointed Peter, personally, to the role of chief shepherd when He told him three times to "feed my lambs," "tend to my lambs," and "feed my sheep"; and also when He called him, personally, to "strengthen the brethren."
There is no "authority" established by Christ or the apostles other than the authorulity of Christ over the assembly of believers and the husband over the wife. Any other supposed "authority" within the assembly of believers is a perversion.
>>I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven<<
The "keys" are the scriptures. If you read the Greek it says that whatever you bind "will have already been bound in heaven". They were to simply apply the scriptures and declare what had been established in heaven. The Catholic Church has totally abandoned what the words in Greek mean. The apostles did NOT decide what would be established, they declared what was established in heaven.
>>Christ calls men to serve the Church (2 Tim. 1:6–7) as pastors, teachers, and spiritual fathers who heal, feed, and strengthen God’s people.≤<
Those are all servants. Not one of those was to be in a position of " authority. Reference Christ's words when the apostles asked who amongst them was greatest.
It's not like Church authorities can force things to be bound or loosed in heaven. It is the Holy Spirit who acts in all these things.
Second: servant authority is exactly what I'm talking about. This is the kind of authority Christ gives His Church.
Do not continue to speculate about another posters removed post as that is making the thread about a poster.
It distracts from the issues, and is rarely correct.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Thank you for this message!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.