Posted on 04/04/2008 11:01:22 AM PDT by Gamecock
Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.
Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to discern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.
When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my "Top Ten List" in response to this fine inquiry.
10) Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome's claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.
9) Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?
8) Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?
7) Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome's ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome's answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn't Rome's magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen's Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?
6) Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?
5) Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome's doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?
4) Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don't believe these things anymore?
3) Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that's a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that's the Holy Spirit)? Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ's will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?
2) Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary? Do you seriously believe the Apostles taught that Mary was immaculately conceived, and that she was a perpetual virgin (so that she traveled about Palestine with a group of young men who were not her sons, but were Jesus' cousins, or half-brothers (children of a previous marriage of Joseph), or the like? Do you really believe that dogmas defined nearly 2,000 years after the birth of Christ represent the actual teachings of the Apostles? Are you aware that such doctrines as perpetual virginity and bodily assumption have their origin in gnosticism, not Christianity, and have no foundation in apostolic doctrine or practice? How do you explain how it is you must believe these things de fide, by faith, when generations of Christians lived and died without ever even having heard of such things?
And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father's will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God's elect? Do you really believe that the endless cycle of sacramental forgiveness to which you will now commit yourself can provide you the peace that the perfect righteousness of Christ can not?
That’s right.
Yep. The world and 1800 years of generations prospered before the RCC wrote its heretical belief in the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven.
Paganism has no place in Christianity. May God reverse this long-standing trend in the RCC.
You are bearing false witness again.
You’re wrong as usual.
His comments, which I will not call hatred, are proportioned quite well to the kind and intensity of behavior noted.
= = =
Say whuuuut????? Must be part of the new/old Latin rite.
Oh please! I know this becaused I am a Catholic and I know what it is to be a Catholic! More than I can say for the liar Ottofire and apparently you. That liar claimed to be a former Catholic but didn't know that the Gospel is read at every Mass ever celebrated..every day of every year. And it has been so ever since the fonding of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
You never know!
They may not want to admit it publicly, but I'm always hopeful.
**I can’t begin to tell you how thankful I am concerning the unanimous love, kindness, and understanding shown to non-Catholics by all Catholic FReepers. **
Wow! What a statement!
>>mom, the road here runs both ways or haven’t you noticed?<<
Honestly, No. Not in past practice.
I have been the first one to get on a Catholic who has made baiting statements. Want to know how many times? Twice. If you find a Catholic who baits, call me. If it’s not a defensive statement in response to a post, I’ll get on them too. ALL of us should be “Brothers and Sisters in Christ” not just the Non-Catholic Christians.
Unlike many people here, I feel that any Christian denomination holds people who are my “Brothers and Sisters in Christ”
I have NEVER been called this by one of the “Ususal Suspects”.
>>I can’t begin to tell you how thankful I am concerning the unanimous love, kindness, and understanding shown to non-Catholics by all Catholic FReepers.<<
>>I can’t begin to tell you how thankful I am concerning the unanimous love, kindness, and understanding shown to non-Catholics by all Catholic FReepers.<<
I can’t begin to count the amount of non-Catholic FReepers who are so wonderfully kind to the Catholic FReepers that, it has in the past, brought tears to my eyes. And I am not kidding about that. I’ve tried to point out every time a non-Catholic poster is Christlike and say thank you. It truly warms my heart, especially after a long hatefilled thread.
Then there are baiters and those that enable them...
You’re going to lose your “Immaculate Metal” decoder ring if you let the secret out that we read the Gospel at EVERY mass...XD
You’d think so, going to what is claimed to be a Christian church. But, thank Christ Jesus, she first heard it from my cousin, while she was dying. Imagine that.
Who was she?
Helen Keller? Did your cousin restore her hearing on her deathbed?
The Gospel is read, verbatim from the New Testament, at every Mass.
Is your definition of "the Gospel" the verbatim text of the New Testament or is your definition of "the Gospel" the words your cousin?
"A reading from the Gospel, according to Ottofire's cousin: Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Buttonwillow, about seven miles from Bakersfield, and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing, Ottofire himself came near and went with them ........"
Now that’s funny!! I don’t care what anybody says.
Grandma who never heard the Gospel when she was a Catholic....FAIL!!
And, Lord, please enable me in this post to live up to the standard you so beautifully imparted to Judith Anne. In Jesus' Name.
WOW, Somehow, I missed this tanker truck load of personally assaultive bile.
“Are there too few RC’s of great resilience, robustness, candor, good humor and intellectual fortitude around any more?”
If you mean Catholics that have so little regard for or loyalty to their faith that they are willing to blithely accept vicious, intellectually dishonest and morally depraved attacks on the Church, there are more than a few around. They are called CINO’s, apostates or heretics and beneath the contempt of any true believer.
And as for your “MASTICATING MARY MANTRAS”, the Blessed Mother has been far too good to me to not defend her in the strongest of terms. Therefore, I will tell you what you are in those terms.
You are a blithering idiot, so consumed by your rabid ant-Catholicism, that you flaunt it for all the world to see and to recoil at your lack of good will and magnaminity. Do you feel threatened by Catholicism? Are you jealous or envious of it? Are you one of those cosmically disingenuous, self-proclaimed “Recovering Catholics” who blame the Church for all their failings? There must be something in your make up besides mere meanness of spirit that causes you to so villify an institution that could not possibly effect your everyday existence. You’re a sad case and a bane for any honorable person of any persuasion.
By the way, why do you use Quix as your screen name? Obviously it is short for Quixote whom was both honorable and courageous. You are neither.
Now, let's see if I can manage to allow The Lord to help me reply in a spirit and attitude that Judith Anne; markomalley and Mrs. Don-o would resonate with whether they'd agree with my words, or not. It might be easier to just ignore it all but I have a strong bias and passion for "to every man, an answer," where at all remotely workable and fitting.
1. Quite a number of RC folks seem . . . bent . . . on demonstrating the opposite of what they preach--particularly to wit . . . they scream bloody murder about any Protty even hinting faintly at asserting that ANY RC individual does the slightest hint of anything which the magicsterical might proscribe.
2. Put another way . . . if a Protty asserts that ANY RC worships anything but God, regardless of the evidence, the RC individual wails, screams, throws dust in the air and parks on the abuse button for a marathon sitting session.
3. Yet, here we have an RC rep telling me in rather outrageous personally assaultive terms that I've done thigs I'm quite confident I have not done . . . that I've felt things toward RC's and their edifice that I've not felt and that I've had attitudes toward them that I've not had. Clearly, the '[un]holy [un]santified DOUBLE STANDARD' has struck again.
4. I don't recall ever, hereon, calling for or even wanting RC's to have a lack of loyalty to their faith IN GOD. Any assertions or assumptions to the contrary are wholesale false with not a shred of a connection with reality.
that they are willing to blithely accept vicious, intellectually dishonest and morally depraved attacks on the Church,
5. The assertion implies I have something to do with such things. I consider that utterly false.
6. vicious--according to Merriam-Webster: 1: having the nature or quality of vice or immorality : depraved
2: defective, faulty; also : invalid
3: impure, noxious
4 a: dangerously aggressive : savage b: marked by violence or ferocity : fierce
5: malicious, spiteful
6: worsened by internal causes that reciprocally augment each other
synonyms vicious, villainous, iniquitous, nefarious, corrupt, degenerate
7.I do not recall thinking, feeling, acting in any degree of a malicious, spiteful, vilianous, iniquitous, nefarious, corrupt, degenerate, immoral, depraved or corrupt way in any of my postings to RC's.
8. I CERTAINLY did not feel, think nor act out any malicious, spiteful, villainous, iniquitous, nefarious, corrupt, degenerate, immoral, depraved nor corrupt stuff toward RC INDIVIDUALS. But, actually, I didn’t even feel them toward the institution. I don’t like such gunk in my heart, mind, spirit and I work earnestly to avoid giving such airtime in my person, at all.
9. Certainly that does NOT PREVENT folks looking on from IMPUTING to me such things out of their own stuff. I’m a fairly intense Rorschach. All my life I’ve triggered vivid things from folks’ inner selves into erupting on the surface for they and others to see more overtly and consciously. ‘Tis not, per se, something I asked for—by a LONG SHOT--but it has been part of my creation and thrownness as long as I can remember. And, I’ve seen God put it to startlingly dramatic use on many occasions . . . often with a huge built-in delay factor. LOL.
10. Now, one can assume I’m lying. I assure anyone thinking of that—that they will be in huge trouble with my DADDY if they take that stance.
11. Certainly one could assume I’m an idiot as the poster so fiercely and assaultively declared. I don’t know if that means I’m innately stupid—low in IQ, in their eyes or just common sense clueless or all of the above or what. I certainly have to own my share of cluelessness on a number of points alarmingly frequently. However, I know of no valid evidence of cluelessness in terms of the issues and concerns “discussed” on these threads.
12. I’m not exactly wholesale ignorant of the basics of the Roman edifice. And, I have had close relationships with quite a number of RC folks over the years including my step-mother and my beloved colleague in China.
13. I suppose the assumption could be that I’m engaging in some perverse malicious game for my own amusement. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do ENJOY INTENSE exchanges, dialogue, groups. It’s part of my nature and conditioning. Wasn’t always. But after 3,000+ hours of leading intense group work . . . it’s been a very ‘natural’ part of my preferences and inclinations for a long time. I think folks read sentences like that and pass on by without a shred of understanding or appreciation for the importance of what I said. Yet they expect me to understand and appreciate thinks key and important in understanding their personal makeup and preferences, inclinations. Fascinating instances of hypocrisy, imho.
14. Of course, it would appear that no one on the RC side would remotely be willing to even imagine in their worst nightmare that I might just be honestly stating my observations, convictions, understandings, beliefs, interpretations etc. I have rarely seen such a level of denial of raw facts and truth anywhere else but in my dealings with alcoholics or perhaps fierce Chinese bias and prejudice about us barbarians . . . or some of the same on the part of Westerners towards Chinese and Japanese folks. It’s actually a SHOCKING DEGREE OF DENIAL in my experience as a psychologist and sociologist.
15. And, I’ve never found such denial to be very conducive to good survival options; nor to any remotely effective effort to discover and explore truth.
16. INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST? Oh? Not by a long shot. I don’t ever recall in 61 years having anyone who really knew me call me intellectually dishonest. Usually they say things quite the opposite about me . . . “obsessively precise;” etc. I can shoot from the fingers; but even when I do, it’s chronically based on countless hours of pondering such issues—usually over many years, even decades. I certainly earnestly endeavor to write and speak only what I strongly believe based on abundant evidence. That is virtually a formerly desperate need. Growing up accused of various things, I hated being accused of being wrong, most of all. So, I’ve long worked very hard being as accurate as I could be—particularly intellectually.
17. MORALLY DEPRAVED? Thankfully, I sure don’t recall being called that very often in 61 years! LOL. My statements are as resonant, accurate, consistent with Biblical and objective, EVIDENCE BASED truth as I know how to make them. And, they are as consistent and accurate with Biblical priorities as I know how to make them.
18. I suppose someone could fantasize that I have no sense of morality at all, from which to make any sound moral judgments or foster any moral actions. But such a person with such an attitude and perspective would be thought to be . . . very out of touch with reality by all who know me best and actually all who know me even casually, face to face.
19. Of course, some folks are not interested in truth—evidence based, or not. They just want to maintain a death grip on their distorted constructions on reality as any other possibility is far too threatening to their comfort zones, biases, relationships, . . . whatever.
20. ATTACKS? Welllll, I certainly attack falsehood, duplicity, hypocrisy, and particularly idolatry and blasphemy somewhat wherever I find evidence of such. However, I’m not really interested in attacking individuals. I’d rather see them grow and become all God intends for them to become—IN HIM.
21. ON THE [RC] CHURCH? I certainly attack those aspects of the edifice which I find false, duplicitous, hypocritical, dishonest, and particularly idolatrous and blasphemous. I owe that much to folks deluded by such as well as I owe my Lord faithfulness to such. I’d want the same in return were anyone to see me awash in such crud.
22. MARY MANTRAS etc? As impossible as it seems to be . . . this appears to be more RC hypocrisy. RC’s DEMAND, ABSOLUTELY DEMAND that Prottys join the RC’s in their RC constructions on reality in 100% of Protty statements about RC’s and their beliefs. Yet, on the part of far too many, there’s NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT SUCH RC’S ARE WILLING IN THE LEAST TO EVEN IMAGINE THE LEAST BIT OF WHAT THE PROTTY PERSPECTIVE, REALITIES AUTHENTICALLY CONSIST OF—much less why in terms of solid evidence. What a pile of stinking DOUBLE STANDARD that is.
23. For the umpteenth time . . . I have nothing negative to say whatsoever about the authentic Biblical MARY, Mother of Jesus.
24. I have had and will continue to have a lot to say about the horrific kartoon caricature of a demonically oriented more or less so called ‘new age’ earth mother archetype that the RC edifice has built in offensively mangling the Name and image of Jesus’ Mother. I consider it appallingly horrific and from the pit of hell. There’s no nice way to say that. And, I believe the overwhelming solid evidence is firmly on my side in that perspective.
25. One can be indignant, horrified, outraged etc. at my perspective. But it is more than a reasonable perspective. I consider it to be the only logical one BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, as well as on Scripture.
26. RC’s demand that we Protty’s respect their perspectives. I do respect your right to your perspective. I don’t respect all things about all perspectives and all aspects of said perspectives. I very definitely do NOT respect double standards about how one holds and expresses one’s perspectives.
27. I do not read such a post as I’m replying to as having the LEAST SHRED of ANYTHING to do with the authentic Mary, mother of Jesus. And, it is EXTREMELY OUTRAGEOUSLY OFFENSIVE to me as a Protty to see such a horrific defense of such a blasphemous caricature of someone my Lord must love quite a lot.
. 28. A BLITHERING IDIOT? I appreciate the Heavenly points. However, the hazard to one’s own soul for such an assertion has to be a higher concern, to me. Reaping what one has sown in such regards . . . particularly in view of what appears to be serious haughty critical judgment, if the word choices are any clue . . . very sobering.
29. In terms of the accusation . . . it’s outrageously laughable. Some of my close friends might think of me as off the wall on more than one occasion. But not a one of them think’s I’m a blithering idiot. Most importantly, DADDY knows quite well who and what I am. Praise HIS Name.
30. Rabid anti-Romanism? Actually, no. I’m rabidly hostile to some of the outrageous aspects of the RC edifice. But not the whole ball of wax. I know many in the edifice who truly Love and earnestly try to serve Jesus.
31. Lack of good will and magnanimity. LOL. I’m thinking of all the folks in China who’d talk long about seeing me as a paragon example of such in their views of me. LOL. What a contrast. I’m not THAT schizophrenic! LOL.
32. THREATENED, JEALOUS OF THE RC EDIFICE? I’d put about a dozen laughing gifs in here, if I were allowed. The edifice doesn’t threaten me in the least. I’m secure in Christ. I’m not the least bit jealous. I consider it amongst one of the worst RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS of which there are also an abundance of Protty examples almost as bad in a list of similar respects.
33. Interesting that one evidently must feel compelled to define all “Recovering” RC’s in such wholesale biased, perhaps blind, terms. Evidently in this construction on reality, ABSOLUTELY NO RC individual has ever had a sufficiently horrible RC experience justifying any departure at all from the edifice. LOL. What an outrageous assumption thoroughly out of touch with objective reality.
34. MEANNESS OF SPIRIT? Really? Then why do more than 3,000 Chinese students define me much, much, much to the contrary—e.g. as the most gentle, most loving, etc. person they’ve known or amongst the most such they’ve known??? I guess all 3,000 of them would be considered idiots, too? LOL. Hint, the Chinese, as a people, are amongst the best judges of character of any large cultural group I know.
35. I haven’t posted a single post that I can recall, out of the least bit of meanness. I hate meanness in any form and prefer that it not even be near me, much less within me.
36. Vilify an institution? Do I do that, really? Hard for me to judge. I don’t think I do so of the institution as a whole. At least not every corner of it. But I don’t have to the other outrageously flawed parts . . . The RC edifice vilifies itself. I just point out the facts, the evidence . . . somewhat vividly . . . but the horrific flaws are rather vivid, too.
37. A sad case? Wellll, I did suffer from a lot of depression for half my life! LOL. I suppose one could collect together sufficient numbers on FR who’s see me that way that one could have a group Bar-B-Q. Enjoy.
38. Why Quix? Because it described in a short word how the Chinese students saw me. And I wanted to kind of memorialize their descriptions of me as an encouragement in my life.
Welllllllllll, dear Judith Anne, markomalley, Mrs. Don-o, DarthVader, Alamo-Girl et al . . . I have done the best I can do with the time I can devote to this. My attitude and spirit have been calm, level, caring, humbled . . . etc. as God is my judge. And, given that He’s the One who matters, I guess the chips will now have to fall where they may. I have certainly worked earnestly to write the above out of the spirit and attitude called for by Judith Anne and her excellent standard. Of course, I have no control over how OTHERS SEE SUCH. And, it seems quite axiomatic . . . that it will most likely be seen AS THE READER IS much more than as I am. That’s life. AT least, I did my best, before God.
LUB, BLPH,
Of course if such putrid trash was directed at you the callus on your "abuse button" finger would be thicker than it is now.
I have NEVER been called this by one of the “Ususal Suspects”.
= = =
Perhaps some of the new memory pills would be helpful.
IIRC, I’ve noted that there are many RC believers/bros/sis hereon.
I haven’t named a list because I don’t know hearts that intimately.
Ya know, your screeching rants get boring over time. I tend to just move by your multi-colored bigotry. But you ought to take a break. You need rest. Truly.
Not a single RC has remotely even addressed my point shooting the assertions about the Gospel read at every mass out of the water in terms of this and similar cases.
That the Gospel is read is largely a moot point. Has little to do with the problem.
Well, obviously not all prayeres are answered "yes."
In light of my earlier posted thread, please do not ping me to any more of these. In order to honor my request, you will have to leave my name off your posts. I have read this thread, and I have a far different than you do.
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.