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.

[terycarl]

You claim Peter as “the first pope.” Did Peter wear fancy robes, a big tall hat and live in gilded, jeweled luxury? Did the other apostles receive expensive rings as symbols of office? The early Church and today’s Catholic empire are two entirely different animals!

good grief, obviously the office of the Pope changed over the years as the vatican evolved...the first Pope, Peter, was an original apostle and obviously was not adorned in any sort of a uniform. As the office progressed over the centuries, it was probably necessary to remove the toga and replace it with a more visible sign of authority over a huge group of Christians.

[terycarl]

There are even Mass’s conducted by open homosexuals.

no there aren't ...you obviously don't know what you're talking about...pathetic

[daniel1212]

Cathoics have been following Christ for 1,600 years before there was a protestant....we have ALWAYS led people to Christ, it was the "reformation" that decided to lead people away from the truth.....PERIOD.

Once again a RC seems to imagine that because they say something then it must be true, however it has been shown and can be that the Roman Catholic church could not have been following Christ for 1,600 years before the Reformation, as the RCC did not exist then, except as invisible, and has engaged in progressive deformation since it has .

[Heart-Rest]

"Yep, and let's look at that Strong's 1510. eimi - Definition: I am, exist. 1510 eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be") – am, is. Note there is no beginning or end. The apostles did not initiate. It already existed. It had been known forever in heaven. As I said, the apostles simply ddclare d what already existed. "

=============================================================

No, CynicalBear, that is NOT the form used in those two Bible texts in Greek. (Do you need me to post the links to those two texts in the Greek New Testament?)

The form is "estai" - "will be".

"Will be" does NOT mean the same thing as "was".

[Springfield Reformer]

“Protestant” is just a slur cast at Christians, just as “Christian” was a slur aimed at followers of Jesus. If you wish to see the pivotal document, the actual protest which brought upon us Christians this new slur, it is here: http://www.thereformation.info/protest%20text.htm

As for Rome, she is a schism that happened gradually, but for the first few hundred years, we were happy enough with our first slur, simply being Christian.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

From the Greek lesson I cited above:

καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς
and whatever you bind on the earth will be having been bound in heaven
or more simply in English,
and whatever you bind on the earth will have been bound in heaven

So you're partly right about the form of the verb to be, in that it is future.  But it is not a simple, straightforward future, because it teams up with dedemenon to form the rare but not too difficult future perfect participle, which describes a future event pointing back to something already completed. The tip off to the perfect is the reduplication of the prefix de-.  So you see it is error to judge the full sense of the grammatical unit simply by the linking verb standing alone.

Admittedly, the result is very awkward in English, and even in the Greek is a fairly complex way of saying something for which there ought to be an easier way to say, but there isn't, which is why it's called a periphrasis, as the lesson says, a round-about way of saying something.  Which round-about-ness would not be at all necessary if the sense was the simple future you postulate.  The literal translators of the NASB are being fair with the text to render it as they have.

Peace,

SR

[Heart-Rest]

"It is future, anticipating some act of forbidding or permitting (binding/loosing). But as the act occurs in the future, the perfect indicates that the binding or loosing was already accomplished in the past, previous to the future act. The passive simply indicates the thing being bound or loosed is the passive recipient of the action."

=============================================================

If that is accurate and true, that sounds even more like Jesus was guaranteeing Peter infallibility in all his "binding", if every thing Peter was to bind on earth had already been bound by God.

(Of course, that is also reminiscent of the following text, which reaffirms that God is God.)

✝============================================================✝

"...your Father knows what you need before you ask him."    Matthew 6:8

✝============================================================✝

(In spite of that, Jesus still instructs us to "Ask...")

[BlueDragon]

I’m tired of the utter stupity[sic] on these forums.

Well, then, maybe you should stop posting stupid threads!

Mama said they was magic shoes. They could take me anywhere.

[boatbums]

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.

There's NO chance at all I would ever take a "maximalist ultramontane papalism" approach but I don't think even Newman would deny that that certainly WAS the view held by many Popes and their bishops in the past - that the whole world should be under the temporal as well as spiritual papal supremacy and in the clerical domination of society.

Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letters, p. 112 said:

And just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so is its authority the most exalted of all authority, nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the civil power, or in any manner dependent upon it.

He also stated in his Encyclical on the "Evils Affecting Modern Society", page 11:

Such too is the purpose of the seizing of the temporal power, conferred many centuries ago by Divine Providence on the Bishop of Rome, that he might without let or hindrance use the authority conferred by Christ for the eternal welfare of the nations.

Cardinal Henry Manning (1892), the Archbishop of Westminster, stated:

The right of deposing kings is inherent in the supreme sovereignty which the popes, as vice regents of Christ, exercise over all Christian nations.

In his book, "The Present Crisis of the Holy See", page 75, Archbishop Manning stated:

The Rome of the Middle Ages claimed universal monarchy. The modern Church of Rome has abandoned nothing, retracted nothing.

So, I hope you can understand that, when I read statements like those, other encyclicals and past ex cathedra proclamations of popes that there is no salvation to anyone who is not subject to the Pope of Rome, it isn't unreasonable to expect that this requires popes to be far different than any other Catholic. If, as FRoman Catholics frequently assert here, there is an "unbroken line of succession" all the way back to Peter and that the power and authority Christ granted to him is passed down to his successors, it raises the stakes and makes these men much more than merely bad popes - there should NEVER be one. If, as you say, they are "free to be stupid, confused or sinful as anybody else", then you are admitting - though perhaps not knowingly - that they are NOT Divinely ordained and anointed successors to Peter, and that whatever succession there was, it was one of the passing down of sound teaching rather than the authority of an Apostle.

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.

I often wonder how Catholics today would react if they had a Pope like Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia), for example? Would you feel obligated to obey him and submit to his authority or would you withhold that obedience based upon whether or not what he said and how he behaved matches what you already know is the truth? Jesus said unto whom much is given, much will be required. I don't think it is wise to brush off the depravity of Church leaders while asserting ALL of Christendom must submit to their authority. It's no surprise that the Reformation came about in the years leading up to and after such an ignoble time in the Catholic church. This is why I know the Roman Catholic church cannot be THE one, true church Jesus established and, though many of her members no doubt are part of that spiritual temple, the Body of Christ remains a set apart assembly of the redeemed, washed white in the blood of the Lamb and preparing to meet the Lord in the air and so to ever be with Him in heaven.

[Springfield Reformer]

Of course, that is also reminiscent of the following text, which reaffirms that God is God

And that is the tack that I believe CB is taking, that the initiative is with God, i.e., God is not passively waiting for apostolic permission or prohibition, but has already set those limits, and would act through the apostles to express those limits to His people.  Which in fact He has done, and the record of that expression is Scripture, which is why Scripture must be the first firewall in preventing error from entering the ecclesia, in terms of spurious "binding" and "loosing" introduced by unauthorized sources.  

BTW, I notice you focus your claim of infallibility on Peter.  But why? Because two chapters later, Jesus says this same power of permitting and forbidding is for all the apostles:

Mat 18:18  Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This, BTW, highlights one of the reasons to keep liking the KJV after all these years.  It captures the plural pronouns, like "ye", which modern English doesn't even have, unless you count, "all y'all."  So I don't usually have to peek back at the Greek to know if the group is being addressed or just one individual.

And in case you're wondering, yes, the future perfect is used here as well, so it has the same force for all the apostles, without distinction among them.  Thus, based on "binding" and "loosing," one cannot establish a unique Petrine office, let alone a perpetuation of that office, as the gift that supposedly defines it is given to all the apostles.

Peace,

SR

[boatbums]

SO: the pope gets a pass in what way?

One last thought on this. The pope gets a pass when he is permitted to remain in his position of authority - supposedly over all Christians - even when his behavior is contrary to Biblical standards for, at minimum, a member, and more so for those in positions of leadership. And...I'm not talking about whoopsies and the common human sin nature, but ongoing, public and overt displays of depravity and immorality. Ask yourself if St. Peter would have laid hands on any of those "bad popes" and placed them - or allowed them to remain - in church leadership? See, I don't think he would and that is why I reject both the mandated submission to the Pope of Rome and acceptance of dogmas that either contradict Scripture or do not have Apostolic sanction that are part of the Roman Catholic faith of today.

I appreciate your respectful reply and hope you have a blessed Lord's day.

[boatbums]

That is the beauty modern day Christians have that those in past centuries didn't...we can go to the expert Greek and Hebrew scholars' publications and see what words were actually used from the start. We can then see what those words meant in the original languages, how they were used IN CONTEXT, how these words may have changed over time or because of translations and come away with a very good basis for knowing the truth that God is communicating with His people. Of course, we must rely upon the Holy Spirit illuminating that truth to our hearts so that we can be corrected, edified, strengthened and able to use the Sword of the Spirit in battling against those who would pervert the word of God.

One doesn't NEED to be a language expert because of the diligent work of those who followed God's leading to do that for us all. A good student of the Bible has at his/her fingertips the knowledge of hundreds of "experts" with which to understand the truths of Scripture.

[Elsie]

I’m sure your face has character.

Aw...  shucks...

 

[Elsie]

When you get a response deleted by the Mod, it sure looks like a thumbs-down and not a thumbs-up.

As you can see from 893; a REASON was given for 881's removal.

If we are going JUDGE things by the way things LOOK; I guess all the pictures in these C vs P threads of Catholic PRACTICES (You Prots don't understand the MEANING!!!) are mighty damning as well.

[Elsie]

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."

No, I'm sorry, but the BIBLE does not support your assertion.

---

Let me post the data; one; more; time...

Matthew 16:13-18
 13.  When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
 14.  They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
 15.  "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
 16.  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,  the Son of the living God."
 17.  Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
 18.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades  will not overcome it.

 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."

 

Chapters and verses were invented later; as we all know...

 

   When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"   They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."   "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,  the Son of the living God."   Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.   And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades  will not overcome it.    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."

 

 

Reading the text we can see that Jesus is talking to the GROUP of disciples; and He is answered by the impulsive one - SIMON Peter.

After dealing with SIMON Peter, He states - to the group -  "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."

 

Catholic teaching limits this to SIMON Peter.

[Elsie]

... 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."

And what kind of a job was Peter doing later; as reasonable person might ask??

---

Galatians 2:1-14 (NIV)

1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. ² I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. ³ Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. ⁴ This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. ⁵ We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

⁶ As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. ⁷ On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. ⁸ For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. ⁹ James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. ¹⁰ All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

¹¹ When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. ¹² For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³ The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

¹⁴ When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

 

---

---

So; your "first pope" seems to have had a mighty poor learning experience in  his catechism classes!!  After fourteen years, he STILL is failing to TEACH correctly!

[Elsie]

The leaders and the teachers in the Church can't just make rulings out of thin air: they have to discern what is agreeable to the Holy Spirit (as in Acts), which is another way of saying it has "already been bound in heaven."

[Elsie]

Indeed!

[Elsie]

I could use a timeout, as I have a LOT of work to finish before the Train of Terror is ready for the annual Fall Festival/Halloween party in Elsie’s woods...

[Elsie]

Surely you have already studied the Geek to be able to say that right?

Sometimes a cigar...