Becoming Catholic?

I can't take the poll, but I can tell you this. I have a whole raft of writings I did as a Fundamentalist and a Calvinist, and if you were to read them, you would understand that converting to the Catholic Faith was absolutely the LAST thing I ever imagined myself doing.

I am so happy that I was wrong.

Cordially in Christ through the Theotokos,

Brother Ed

 

Or to sum up in those most mournful of words, "Oh no Lord, not there!"

 

I would become a Catholic in a heartbeat - if it could be proven to be doctrinally correct.

But as we saw with the RC story about the flying apostles swooping in on Mary at her death and assumption - many of the Catholic teachings require that you "already BE Catholic" before you can "Believe them".

The more you know - the less likely that is - as it turns out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

.......many of the Catholic teachings require that you "already BE
Catholic" before you can "Believe them".

That explains the problem we non-RCs have with trying to believe Catholicism.
Also explains why young Catholic children are so adamant about their church.
They are taught to defend the church in spite of anything else. After taking
Catholic vows, new converts through marriage are supposed to be good little
Catholics, but many never do 'make the grade' if they've had ANY other
bible teaching at all. It's just like learning a whole new religion. Many Catholics
in my area never miss a mass, yet live a lifestyle in need of repair and display
an attitude that I would not relate to christianity.

Actually, what I've learned of the RCC in the past 3 years gives evidence of it
being a different gospel. Their denial of the need for 'accepting Christ', altar
calls, denial of the bible as the complete word of God...etc suggests something
even worse than I grew up believing.

I couldn't imagine ever seeing the need to become RC. I'd have to deny the
Christ I know and believe in one who followed the guidelines of the RCC.
Why would I give up the best thing in the world for a SYSTEM.

I don't need to vote....I think I've been clear.

 

This is just silly nonsense. I'm looking forward to hearing how you account for, e.g., me. I'm 48 and didn't become adamant about Christ's Church until last year.

No, we don't have altar calls. But we do have altars, where we join in offering ourselves through, in and with the once-for-all Offering of Christ to the Father. Yessir, I sure am adamant about that!

 

I find it interesting that some Evangelical churches have altars. An altar is something upon which a sacrifice is offered, and if the Lord's Supper isn't a sacrifice (that is, the sacrificial meal, which renews the covenant), then why call the thing an altar? This is an example - I think - of something inherited from the true Church, which has lost its meaning apart from that Church.

 

The altar call or walking the aisle has only existed for about 150-200 years, so I don't understand why a church denying the need for something so newly invented and unknown to the NT church should be a problem. The rest, yeah; that, no.

BTW, as neither Catholics nor Protestants, no Anabaptist churches I've ever seen included either an 'altar' or a national flag in their auditoria.

 

Given all the truly bizzare teachings and beliefs of your prophetess, Ellen White, this is a very funny thing for you to be saying.

 

We also have crucifixes in our churches but that does not mean we crucify Christ again. The altar and the crucifix reminds us of Christ's one-time sacrifice for sin. Grundtvig expresses this beautifully in his hymn, "Built on the Rock the Church doth Stand."

Here stands the font before our eyes
Telling how God did receive us;
The altar recalls Christ's sacrifice
And what His table doth give us;
Here sounds the Word that doth proclaim
Christ yesterday, today, the same,
Yea, and for aye our Redeemer.

 

This is just silly nonsense. I'm looking forward to hearing how you
account for, e.g., me. I'm 48 and didn't become adamant about Christ's
Church until last year.

What do you think you've gained by becoming jubilant about a church?
Christ was in the business of saving souls before an organization like
what you're addicted to existed.

Would you say your newfound dedication has gained you brownie points
with the Maker? Is THAT what it's all about.....a scoring system where
he who has DONE more than others gets in to heaven? I know of at least
one retired Catholic who rises early and trapses a few blocks to the Catholic
Church to do his thing. Why? Isn't God available to him in his home?

If you're a ''late bloomer'' in the RCC, then you must not have been considered
a Good Catholic until now. That indicates to me that you must feel that you
weren't good enough to be saved until now. (So it's something you Catholics
do that gets you in line to receive God's "Well Done, Child").

If you hadn't been well rooted in Catholicism as a young man, then why did you stay?
It's typical of RCC kids; they don't necessarily know why they are adamant, but they'll
defend their church to the end. The syndrome is a quandary isn't it ?

I got out of my 'system' when I realized at that young age that it was putting an
unrightful emphasis on itself. Sound familiar?

 

The altar call or walking the aisle has only existed for about 150-200 years,
so I don't understand why a church denying the need for something so newly
invented and unknown to the NT church should be a problem.

The altar is only one place that could be the scene of a person accepting Christ.
I did so in a movie theatre (a place of sin to some minds). The Woman at the Well
did her accepting "at the well". Thousands believed and were saved out in the
goat pasture when Jesus preached. Others come to that point on their deathbeds.

All this is possible without an altar or a church.

 

And how would anyone "prove" any doctrine, regardless of what church they belong to? The best we can do is point to our authority, which is for us Protestants, the scriptures. But even then, how can one be sure their *interpretation* of those scriptures is correct? Protestants, using the same passage from scripture, will debate for centuries on a doctrine. Ultimately, none of us can "prove" we are "doctrinally correct", for our doctrines come via our own personal interpretation, which is anything but inerrant. There needs to be an additional authority, so we can have an authoritative interpretation. This is why Catholics believe some things that seem strange and/or have little direct scriptural support: because they believe the Church is that authority. What does scripture say is "the pillar and ground of the truth"? The Church. So for me, the deciding factor for possibly becoming Catholic is not necessarily "proving" each and every last doctrine, but determining if the Catholic Church indeed carries that authority - if it does, one should believe those doctrines whether one can prove them or not, because the Church's authority would be greater than the authority of personal interpretation and rationalization.

I find it VERY interesting that in Matt 23:1-3, Christ tells his listeners to submit to the authority of the scribes and Pharisees, even though they no doubt taught things that were "additional" to scripture, and even though they were often hypocritical. Wow. Jesus wasn't "sola scriptura", nor did he tell them to "prove" the Pharisees were doctrinally correct.

Lastly, scripture says that without faith it is impossible to please God. If you could in fact "prove" Catholicism to be doctrinally correct, what room is there left for faith?

Just some thoughts I've been having lately.

 

Those are constructive thoughts, BrianT.

What does scripture say is "the pillar and ground
of the truth"? The Church.

The big Big BIG question becomes "What is The Church".

Catholics are told (by their authoritive church) to claim that the word
'church' as appears in the bible refers to the Catholic Church.

Non-Catholics claim that 'church' refers to the body of Christ.

Catholics believe the body of Christ IS the church and they also
believe the bride of Christ is the church.

Our inhouse Catholic Convert had this to say:

"Let's understand something. The Catholic FAITH is the Faith which Christ God
gave to the apostles to give to the whole earth"

Again, that's like saying that the circular stone that the caveman made was the actual
Ford. Nonsense ! It was the predecessor of the wheel; same as faith and church
were not the Catholic Church, they were the predecessors of the body of Christ.

Misunderstanding of that fact leads some to make ridiculous statements like:

"Since we know that God's end in creating us was communion with
him (this is the essence of the Church: man's communion with God and
thus with one another), we can say that the Church is the purpose for
his creation.

Now this statement makes sense coming from someone who does not believe
that the sun rises and sets on the RCC. But, the RCC quotes it with the intent
of attributing all power and glory to itself.

Read any quote that uses the word ''church'' from the bible and try to
attribute it to the Catholic Church.
It doesn't work...!!!


It's like trying to prove that the circular stone was a Ford.

 

I see it a little differently. I've read where Catholics, instead of using your wheel anology, use an acorn analogy. The beginning of the church was an acorn. That acorn has grown into a great oak tree. Now an acorn is not just the "predecessor" of the oak tree, but the oak tree itself, just really young.

The question I'm trying to figure out is if the RCC is the trunk of that oak tree (and other groups are "branches" off the trunk). If it is, and because the trunk is closer to the root than the branches are, I should become Catholic - depite the occasional blemish on the bark or knot in the wood.

 

Out of pure nosiness, could someone who's eligible to vote in the poll please let the rest of us know what the current results are?

(That's one thing I don't like about this poll feature -- apparently you can't see the results unless you vote).

Thanks,

Mark

 

Current results (21 votes):

Actually, I plan on becoming Catholic, but am not one yet: 0

It's a definite possibility: 1 (guess who)

Only if all of my objections were cleared up first: 3

When cows sprout wings and fly: 5

not a chance: 9

I'm picking this option because I'm a non-conformest and refuse to vote.: 3

Personally, I'm not sure what the difference is between options 2 and 3, and between 4 and 5.

 

Hmmmm...

I guess I'll have to resume those cow aerodynamics tests I was working on a few years back. I hadn't realized people were waiting on me to produce results!

Mark

 

Actually cows do fly!! Didn't you see that movie TWISTER with the flying cows?


LaRae

 

Click here for pics of flying cows

I especially like the first pic on the second page.