How Roman Catholic Youth Day led me to Christ

sydneyanglicans.net ^ | 14 July 2008 | Mark Gilbert

[Alex Murphy]

Mark Gilbert is the Sydneyanglicans.net correspondent at World Youth Day. This week, the Sydney Anglican minister shares his extraordinary story of what happened to him following the 1986 Papal visit to Sydney.

Being Catholic was always very important to me: it was my identity, my culture. Growing up, I can’t remember a time when I didn’t feel I had a relationship with God, though I was never sure exactly where I stood.

I knew God through religious activities: going to Mass, receiving the Sacraments and having spiritual experiences like retreats. If I’d just been away on a retreat I’d feel closer to God, but paradoxically I’d also feel worse about my sinfulness.

No solution was offered by church leaders other than ‘try harder’. Being a member of the Catholic Church gave me some confidence that I would get to heaven, but never certainty.

In 1986, when I was 17, I was part of a massive Catholic Youth Convention at the SCG. I was in the choir that sat just in front of the Pope.

The day was a buzz. The Pope in his pope-mobile. The SCG full of Catholics. My friend jumped the barrier and held the Pope’s hand as he waved it above his head during a song. The photo made the TV news and the front page of the papers. I remember the Pope saying that we must evangelise! As he left I got to shake the Pope’s hand – the softest I’d ever felt – and was given a set of rosary beads.

After the Youth Convention, I was convinced I needed to make God the priority in my life.

So when I started university and met Bible-believing Christians for the first time, it was confronting. I saw they lived good lives. When they asked what I believed, I had trouble answering because religion for me was more about experience and belonging.

When they asked why I believed what I did, I would usually say, “because the priest says so” – an unsatisfying answer for a first-year medical student!

A Bible-based revolution

I joined a Bible study to find out more, and it was there that I learnt that Jesus had done everything to pay for my sins. I finally knew where I stood with God! Even when I sinned, God was still close.

Being in a Bible study group was a revolution for me. I had read the Bible quite a bit before coming to university, but I read it differently and for different reasons. When I read the Bible as a Catholic, I would read it to have a religious experience, maybe to feel peace, or to read a verse and just see what thoughts came into my mind, completely unrelated to the context the verse was from. I hardly ever read it to learn something clearly about God.

Learning that God had a plan for the world from day one, and seeing how he worked it out through Jesus was amazing! Seeing how the Old Testament and the New Testament were consistent, learning about how faithful God was in keeping his promises built my confidence in being able to read the Bible for myself. I was able to trust what I learnt from the Bible even more than what the priests taught.

I kept going to the Catholic Church on Sundays and [an evangelical] Bible study during the week for a very long time – more than a decade actually!

Understanding the Bible was giving me the confidence to say the Catholic Church was wrong. For a young guy who had never met anyone else who had done such a thing … saying that such an august, historical and powerful institution was wrong was a pretty big deal. 

Then one day I met a girl… so I went to her church and was amazed!

Over 600 young people all taking God seriously. Little things, like the fact that people said the creed like they meant it, people actually hung around after church for hours and talked to each other, and not only did they talk to each other, they talked to each other about God!

I couldn’t take her out of a church that I could see was much more like the sort of church the Bible spoke of than mine was.

As a result, I met up with a mate from Uni who was now studying at Moore College. Over a month we looked at some of the official teachings of the Catholic Church and the book of Galatians.

I was now convinced the Catholic Church was teaching something different than the apostle Paul. Galatians 1:8 in particular really hit home. I had to leave. It was the worst day of my life and the best day.

My family took it very tough but we’ve survived. Making new Christian friends made it a lot easier. Today, my family are still close, even though I am now an Anglican minister.

I hope this upcoming Roman Catholic World Youth Day and the months that follow will be an opportunity for more Catholics to get serious about God, read their Bibles and come to know for themselves what Jesus has done for them … Maybe some of us can help them.

Resources for going further

The God who saves
By Mark Gilbert
Matthias Media, $4.95
Primarily written for Roman Catholics, these five studies explore what the Bible says on the foundational Christian salvation doctrines: the reason we need to be saved, how God saves us through Jesus and what faith has to do with us being saved.

Nothing in my hand I bring
By Ray Galea
Matthias Media, $16.95
Growing up Roman Catholic, Ray Galea began a quest to understand the respective teachings of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and to weigh up what the Bible said. Today, many wonder why we can’t just all be united together as ‘Christians’. In a gentle but clear way, Ray’s book provides the answer.

Ideas that changed the world
By Dominic Steele
Christians in the Media Resources, DVD: $35.00; Workbook: $7.95
A four-part series exploring the four truths of the Reformation: “Grace Alone”, “Faith Alone”, “Bible Alone” and “Christ Alone”. The pack comprises a DVD with short interviews of people who have converted to Protestantism from Roman Catholicism, sermons given by the author, and a booklet which includes historical notes and a Bible study for each Reformation idea.

[Alex Murphy]

Ping to some interested (and interesting) parties...

[vladimir998]

The guy wrote:

“I joined a Bible study to find out more, and it was there that I learnt that Jesus had done everything to pay for my sins.”

How did he not know this already?

“I finally knew where I stood with God! Even when I sinned, God was still close.”

God is still close? You mean sin means nothing? So no one goes to hell?

[doosee]

Another example of a Christian who thinks that because he “really” began reading the Bible it shows him that the Catholic Church is somehow misguided. What he may not understand even now is that the Catholic Church WROTE the Bible and even now possess the oldest known versions of the scriptures. So this guy, like many others, thinks he understands more about the Bible than the institution that wrote it.

[keats5]

Yes, sin indeed means something. It prevents each and every one of us from getting to heaven without Jesus. No matter how hard you try, you cannot become perfect, for Jesus set perfection as the standard.

That is why Jesus came here, to live the perfect life we should have lived and to take our own sins upon himself. He then gave us his perfect righteousness, at least in God's eyes, so that we could enter heaven.

Once you get your mind around that, your life will be radically changed. Your greatest desire will be to please this Lord, who loved you so much that he would have died for you, even if you were the only person on earth.

[XeniaSt]

What he may not understand even now is that the Catholic Church WROTE the Bible

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Bible was written by Jews.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Campion]

He then gave us his perfect righteousness, at least in God's eyes, so that we could enter heaven.

I see. He didn't really make us righteous, he merely made us appear righteous to his Father, so, based on that little subterfuge, we could sneak our way into heaven?

Meanwhile, over and against that error Martin Luther cooked up, we have the Scriptures which clearly assure us that nothing unclean shall enter heaven (Rev 21:27) and that our God is a consuming fire (Heb 12:29), not someone who can be fooled the way Jacob and Rebekah fooled Isaac (cf Gen 27).

What the God of the Bible declares to be, he enacts by that very declaration. When He said, "Let there be light," He did not merely forensically declare light to exist, even though everything remained dark.

In exactly that way, Christ does not merely impute his righteousness to us, nor does he merely forensically declare us righteous as Calvin and Luther wrongly taught. Rather, he communicates his very divine life to us in adopting us as sons and daughters.

Once you get your mind around that, your life will be radically changed. Your greatest desire will be to please this Lord, who loved you so much that he would have died for you, even if you were the only person on earth.

That much is true. But how much more excellent is the fullness of the Catholic gospel: that Christ loved me, not only enough to die for me, but enough to communicate to me his very life and nature, and to raise me to the dignity of a son of the Most High God?

[doosee]

You say the Bible was written by Jews. You must mean Jews who converted to Catholicism. Would a Jewish holy person write the phrases naming Christ as the Son of God, the Lord Savior? BTW, I have deep respect for those of the Jewish faith.

[thefrankbaum]

He’s left the Church to become an Anglican? How is that going?

[Unam Sanctam]

Oh boy, same old, same old, because of course Catholics are not Christians, and all Catholics are told that they are that they can never open or read a Bible on their own, because of Catholics are incapable of studying and communicating what their faith teaches and must only believe do and say thing “because the priest says so”, because one cannot look up in the Catechism what the Church teaches, because of course Catholics never have a personal relationship with Jesus, because Catholics reject the almighty, infallible magisterium of Calvin who of course has the only acceptable way of interpreting Paul (even though Protestants are supposed to believe in private judgment - go figure)... !ust the same old false, bad faith caricatures that anti-Catholic Protestants trot out again and again and again...

[Carpe Cerevisi]

Preach it brother!

[keats5]

“I see. He didn't really make us righteous, he merely made us appear righteous to his Father, so, based on that little subterfuge, we could sneak our way into heaven?”

Forgive me: I am not a polished word smith. I certainly did not mean to imply that Christ's imputed righteousness was a subterfuge! I merely meant to communicate the fact that even the undeserving beneficiaries of that righteousness lapse into sin, at least while still here on earth.

I should have just let Paul say it in his own words:

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Footnotes:

1. 2 Corinthians 5:21 Or be a sin offering

[Boagenes]

The Catholic Church did not write the Bible! The Apostles, and direct followers of the Apostles, wrote the Bible. The Catholic Church is nothing but an institution that believes it is the custodian of that Bible and an accompanying tradition they claim was also, and other denominations believe that this is a false claim.

[XeniaSt]

You say the Bible was written by Jews. You must mean Jews who converted to Catholicism. Would a Jewish holy person write the phrases naming Christ as the Son of God, the Lord Savior? BTW, I have deep respect for those of the Jewish faith.

8 posted on July 20, 2008 7:45:23 PM MDT by doosee

No Jews of the first century converted to Catholicism.

They remained Jews who accepted their Jewish Messiah.

Catholicism did not exist until the early fourth century.

The Roman church became codified under the Pagan Pontiff Emperor
Constantine when he called and directed the Council of Nicea.

Constantine promulgated the findings of the council which included
prohibiting Passover and mandating celebration of the Pagan feast of Easter.

Constantine introduced anti-semitism into the church
by blaming the Jews for the death of Yah'shua.

Most all Jews looked forward to the Messiah.

Some believed he would drive off the Romans and setup a kingdom.

Others just wanted to saved from sin.

His name is not G-zeus.

His NAME is Yah'shua which means in Hebrew: YHvH is my salvation.

also see:

Exodus 15:2; Psalm 18:2; Psalm 27:1; Psalm 62:1; Psalm 62:2; Psalm 62:6;
Psalm 62:7; Psalm 118:14; Psalm 119:174; Isaiah 12:2; Isaiah 46:13;
Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 51:5; Isaiah 56:1; Isaiah 19:20; Isaiah 43:3;
Isaiah 43:11; Isaiah 45:21; Isaiah 49:26; Isaiah 60:16; Hosea 13:4

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[veritas2002]

My suspicion about a lot of Catholics who leave the Church and who then say they found Christ in another ecclesial community that immerses them more deeply in the Scriptures is that there are some things that they are NOT saying.

I would like to know how often they were divorced and then wanted to remarry but could not do so in the Church. Because they were led by what THEY wanted rather than what Christ and His Church taught about divorce and remarriage, they made the decision to leave the Church and justify the move with the “Scriptures argument.”

Others don't like the Church's teaching on sexuality - especially contraception because once again, their own desires outweigh the teachings of Christ and His Church on separating marital union from its designed purpose which is procreation.

Others would have fallen into grave sin and because their pride kept them from confessing their sins as the Scriptures instruct, never frequented confessing.

But beyond that, I find it highly doubtful that someone raised in the Catholic faith and having received the Lord Jesus Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist can ever really get used to belonging to one of those ecclesial communities.

[doosee]

Nothing but an institution?????? How about “Upon this rock I will build MY church”, not some church, not one of thousands of churches, how about MY CHURCH? Read the facts please. Also, Peter was directly handed the KEYS to the kingdom by Christ. The Lord said that HIS Church would prevail FOREVER, so it didnt die when Peter died. That is called Papal succession. The apostles were sent out to evangelize for HIS church, and it remains so today. What I have just written is why Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, etc totally ignore early Christian Catholic history. Facts are hard to dispute. Peace to you.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Yes, sin indeed means something. It prevents each and every one of us from getting to heaven without Jesus.”

And that’s just it. The author seems to suggest sin means nothing.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I hate to burst your bubble, but the Bible was written by Jews.”

I hate to burst YOUR bubble, but Christians are considered Jews. And in any case, even if there were a time when it wasn’t easy to distinguish Christians from Jews, there was still the Catholic Church - founded by Christ, membered by the first Christians and author of the New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

[vladimir998]

LOL! Good question!

[vladimir998]

The Catholic Church most certainly did write the Bible. Yes the books were written by the Apostles and their immediate disciples, but they were all leaders in the Catholic Church. And it was the Catholic Church which also protected, proclaimed, and copied the books.

Denominations are exactly that so what they claim is completely unimportant. The Catholic Church is not a denomination.

[pgkdan]

When they asked why I believed what I did, I would usually say, “because the priest says so” – an unsatisfying answer for a first-year medical student!

What a joke. That answer should be unsatifying for a 6th grader properly educated in his Faith. For a medical student it's obvious evidence of something else. This guy claims to be a lifelong active Catholic but at the age of 20-25 this is the best answer he can give? Give me a break.

At least the author didn't pull out the old...'I was a lifelong Catholic and never heard of the Gospel until I became Christian'...blah, blah, blah.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“No Jews of the first century converted to Catholicism.”

Yes, actually they did as soon as they accepted Christ and were baptized into the Catholic faith taught by Christ and spread by the Apostles.

“They remained Jews who accepted their Jewish Messiah.”

In a manner of speaking yes, but they soon were ousted from the synagogues and that very faith in Christ separated them from Jews.

“Catholicism did not exist until the early fourth century.”

Impossible. It was already being discussed in writing as early as A.D. 110 so it could not have been invented 300 years after it was already being discussed as an already accomplished fact.

“The Roman church became codified under the Pagan Pontiff Emperor Constantine when he called and directed the Council of Nicea.”

Again, impossible. 1) The Roman Church already existed nearly 300 years before Constantine entered Rome. 2) Constantine was not truly a pagan after the Battle of Milvian Bridge. 3) He called together the council at the behest of a Catholic bishop and he did not direct its interior workings. 4) The council was not about the Roman Church but about defeating the Arian heresy. 5) The council issued no canons about a new foundation in Rome, a new church there, or any other arrangement than what already existed. 6) You idea is completely lacking any historical or logical foundation.

“Constantine promulgated the findings of the council which included
prohibiting Passover and mandating celebration of the Pagan feast of Easter.”

Easter is an Old English/Germanic word used in modern English. The word was completely unknown to Constantine as was the Germanic pagan celebration that went along with it. It appears no where in the Latin or Greek versions of the councils decrees. You are foisting an anachronistic understanding of something on someone who has been dead for 1600 years. That isn’t exactly a smart way to go.

“Constantine introduced anti-semitism into the church
by blaming the Jews for the death of Yah’shua.”

No. Jews were already treated with scorn by everyone in the ancient world and always had been. Your using an already refuted thesis here that just doesn’t hold water. It was invented by dissident Catholics who want the Church to accept homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, divorce and remarriage, pre-marital sex, and numerous other vices as being just fine. You’re putting yourself in quite sad complany by choosing their line of “thought”.

“Most all Jews looked forward to the Messiah.”

They missed Him already.

“Some believed he would drive off the Romans and setup a kingdom.”

Yep.

“Others just wanted to saved from sin.”

Okay.

“His name is not G-zeus.”

Uh, who claims it is? Jesus is merely the Greek way of saying Joshua transliterated into English. You do realize the New Testament came down to us in Greek right?

“His NAME is Yah’shua which means in Hebrew: YHvH is my salvation.”

Actually it means “YWHW is salvation.” You added the “my”. Try to get it right, please.

[Alex Murphy]

This guy claims to be a lifelong active Catholic but at the age of 20-25 this is the best answer he can give? Give me a break.

There are many, many former-Protestant-turns-Catholic conversion stories that are posted on FR that bear these same marks. The majority focus on converts that swam the Tiber in their early to mid twenties, who exhibited a poor command of their former faith. Some bear witness to a convert who was swayed by "every wind of doctrine" that came down the path before they converted.

One good example is James Akin's story, who is hawked as being a "former Presbyterian". He also converted in his mid-twenties, and was actually a whole lot of things a lot longer than he was Presbyterian.

Another favorite is the story of Rodney Beason, supposedly a former Calvinist. It was laughably resolicited as "a powerful conversion story", which was easily rebuffed. IN the end, Rodney Beason himself signed up to FR just to tell us the rest of his "powerful conversion story".

[tiki]

I agree, I will consider the story of an ex-Catholic when someone finds one by someone who actually knew the faith and THEN realized it was wrong.

All I’ve seen so far are ex-Catholics who didn’t know the Bible or their Catechism, the first clue is when they say that they never heard the Bible.

I always want to ask where they were on Sundays. I mean, the lector just procedes down the aisle with the Word elevated and places it in a prominent place on the altar. Then the 1st reading and the responsorial Psalm then the 2nd reading, both announced by the book from which they come, all in the missalette so if you haven’t read them before Mass you can follow along. At the end of each reading the lector announces, “this is the word of the Lord” and we reply, “Thanks be to God”.

Then the Alleluia, in our parish we have one alleluia that we often sing,

“Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, to our God
Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia, to God’s Word.”

Then the priest approaches the altar, raises the Book, the altar boys hold candles on either side of the pulpit, the priest gives a greeting of “the Lord be with you” and we reply “and also with you”.

Then the priest announces “A Holy reading from the Gospel of (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John) and we reply “Glory to You, Lord”, and we sign ourselves on the forehead, lips and heart to signify a prayer for the Gospel to be in our minds, on our lips and in our hearts. At the conclusion of the Gospel reading the priest pauses and says, “The Gospel of the Lord” and we reply, “Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ.”

Then the priest does a homily based on the Gospel reading but often bringing in all the readings and often re-reading parts of it to make a point in the homily.

...and somehow, we’re supposed to believe that these people were active Catholics who attended Mass regularly and had some idea, at least, what Catholicism was all about when they say things like, “I read the Bible for the first time.” Even if they never personally cracked a Bible, it was read to them most every week of their life because a good Catholic would be there every week unless they were sick.

What I get from most of these convert’s stories, is that they knew about as much about Catholicism as I did when I was a Methodist.

[Petronski]

The Apostles, and direct followers of the Apostles, wrote the Bible.

Fathers of the Catholic Church all.

[Petronski]

No Jews of the first century converted to Catholicism.

Every follower of Christ at the time was Catholic.

Catholicism did not exist until the early fourth century.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ circa AD 32.

[Boagenes]

The Church is simply the community of all believers, all Christians - those who have faith in Christ. Look at the structure of the early church. It was a loose knit collection of individual house churches in various cities connected only by people like Paul, who would write to them or visit on occassion. But they were independent of one another. There was no organized church with any hierarchy of bishops until the third century, really. There were independent bishops who oversaw various areas before then, but none was beholden to any other.

Paul did not treat Peter with any special deference, in fact, Peter deferred to Paul when it came to the inclusion of the Gentiles and whether or not they must become Jews. Further, Paul says he dressed Peter down for his treatment of Gentiles when the Jews came around or when he was with the Jews in the presence of Gentile believers. There is nothing that shows Peter had any special authority, especially over the other Apostles. It was James who became the head of the church in Jerusalem.

When asked what is required to be saved, by the Jailer and his family in Acts, the reply from Paul is something like, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you and all your family, and be saved." Paul says, in Romans, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Faith is what is required for salvation. Not works. Not faith in Jesus + confessing your sins...but if you have any mortal ones and can't get to the priest on time - OOPS! Into the fire with you. Not faith in Jesus + live a life producing good fruit, even as a sinner...you die, but well, you have to go to this purgatory place first...

No, purgatory is a heretical concept in my opinion. It denies the sufficiency of Christ's death on the cross. Christ's atoning death covered *all* sin, not "some". No one needs to be "purified" of anything, ones sins are already covered. That was the very *point* of his death on the cross. To add anything to that as a requirement, is to deny the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. That, to me, is an outrage and it goes against what the entire New Testament says about Christ's death and the atonement.

There is no basis for the centralized authority of the church of Rome under the Pope. You'll see that on other threads I do admire and respect Benedict XVI and love his book "Jesus of Nazareth" - one of the best books I've ever read, let alone the best I've yet to read on Jesus Christ. But I don't concede the church's arguments. Nor do I agree with its understanding of certain sacraments (I especially disagree, based on scripture, with the sacrament of reconciliation, purgatory, and everything to do with veneration and prayers to saints and especially to Mary - I disagree with all the Marian traditions).

[XeniaSt]

XS>“No Jews of the first century converted to Catholicism.”

Yes, actually they did as soon as they accepted Christ and were baptized into the Catholic faith taught by Christ and spread by the Apostles.

If we seek to understand water immersion (baptism in the Greek)
as practiced by John the Immerser, we need to understand the
Jewish culture of Mikvah at the time of Yah'shua.

Mikvah

Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the creation of man.
The Midrash relates that after being banished from Eden, Adam sat in a river that flowed from the garden.
This was an integral part of his teshuvah (repentance) process, of his attempt at return to his original perfection.

Before the revelation at Sinai, all Jews were commanded to immerse themselves in preparation for coming face to face with G-d.

Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the creation of man
In the desert, the famed "well of Miriam" served as a mikvah. And Aaron and his sons'
induction into the priesthood was marked by immersion in the mikvah.

In Temple times, the priests as well as each Jew who wished entry into the House of G-d had first to immerse in a mikvah.

On Yom Kippur, the holiest of all days, the High Priest was allowed entrance into the Holy of Holies,
the innermost chamber of the Temple, into which no other mortal could enter.
This was the zenith of a day that involved an ascending order of services, each of which was preceded by immersion in the mikvah.

from chabad.org

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[XeniaSt]

Every follower of Christ at the time was Catholic.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ circa AD 32.

You can repeat the lie until you are blue in the face,

it does not make is true!

If you were to seek the Ru'ach haKodesh to illuminate
G-d's Holy Word you would understand that it is a lie.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Petronski]

My repetition does not make it true. You got that much right.

No, it is the truth of history that makes it true: the Catholic Church was founded by Christ circa AD 32.

[XeniaSt]

XS>“His NAME is Yah’shua which means in Hebrew: YHvH is my salvation.”

Actually it means “YWHW is salvation.” You added the “my”. Try to get it right, please.

You did not read the scriptures provided.

For had you read the scriptures you would not make that statement.

When I call on His NAME as directed by Paul in
Romans 10:13 I seek my salvation.

NAsbU Romans 10:13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[sitetest]

Dear tiki,

You raise succinctly the questions I always have.

I figure that souls like this are either lying through their teeth, or just were entirely zoned out while at Mass every Sunday.

But think of it, even if they awoke from their zombie-like state even 10% or 20% of the time while at Mass, by the time one of these zombies was in his mid-20s, he'd still have heard the Gospels a couple of hundred times.

sitetest

[tiki]

Another dead giveaway is when they excoriate the Catholic Church for their own ignorance, if they are ignorant then it isn’t the Church’s fault.

I’ve never read a story by a convert to Catholicism from another faith who hated the denomination that they came from. They are most often thankful for what they got and what most of us got, prayer, Bible teaching, community...many things that formed our faith. In most cases Protestant churches have a lot of things right, it is just that the Catholic Church has the whole truth and the sacraments.

I don’t fault Methodism, I actually give my early formation in that denomination credit for teaching me to read the Bible and ask critical questions. There were other supernatural things that drew me to the Catholic Church but it was those questions I asked and learned the answer to that helped me discern that I was headed to the right place.

I look at it this way, my faith in Christ can be completely fulfilled through the Catholic Church-fully, gloriously, wonderfully fulfilled through the presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You did not read the scriptures provided.”

Please list for me the verses that actually contradict this: “ Actually it means ‘YWHW is salvation.’”

“For had you read the scriptures you would not make that statement.”

Again, please list the verses that contradict this: “Actually it means ‘YWHW is salvation.’”

“When I call on His NAME as directed by Paul in
Romans 10:13 I seek my salvation.”

That doesn’t change the meaning of His name.

“NAsbU Romans 10:13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” “

That doesn’t change the meaning of His name either.

Keep trying. You’ll get it right eventually.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

” If we seek to understand water immersion (baptism in the Greek) as practiced by John the Immerser, we need to understand the Jewish culture of Mikvah at the time of Yah’shua.”

Your judaizing doesn’t change the fact that John’s baptism was different than that taught by Christ. Do you really need this to be taught to you? Have you never read scripture?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“There are many, many former-Protestant-turns-Catholic conversion stories that are posted on FR that bear these same marks.”

Actually there aren’t. Protestants who become Catholics discover truths they were never taught. Catholics who leave orthodoxy either claim they never knew truths which the Church most definitely taught them or which are new fangled Protestant beliefs no one orthodox believed before 1500 (or since actually).

[XeniaSt]

Psalm 118:14

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Campion]

if you have any mortal ones and can't get to the priest on time - OOPS! Into the fire with you.

Do you understand that your rejecting a grade-school caricature of Catholic belief, not the real thing?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Psalm 118:14”

That does NOT say what the meaning of “Jesus” is.

Keep trying. You’ll get it right eventually.

[XeniaSt]

You are so Jesuitical.

I can not discern the Chesed of Yah'shua.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[doosee]

You wrote there is no basis for the Pope or the central church in Rome. You are ignoring the facts and the symbolism of what Christ did as he walked the earth. He gave Peter the KEYS to the kingdom. If I walk to your front door, and you have the key and I dont, I would conclude that you control the entry. With the keys, Peter had the power to let the good in and keep the evil out. As for all of these non-affiliated churches you speak of, that is pure nonsense. Again, scriptures refer to THE CHURCH or per Christ, MY CHURCH. That is exclusionary in itself. The Church (The Holy Roman Catholic Church) is also written as being the Bride of Christ. If that is so, and we all know that God is against divorce, then the “denominations” formed a thousand or more years later truly divorced from the Holy Church. God can not and is not happy with that fracture. Also, divorce leads to more divorce, as we see is the case of the continual fracturing of the Anglican church, the Presbyterian church, and on and on. Keep in mind that these are all good souls in these misguided and fractured assemblages, but facts are facts. God gave mankind the free will to divorce and to come back together so there is hope for reconciliation. On Paul’s writings about accepting Christ to be saved, I agree, this is true. However, if one has truly accepted Christ that means living a Christ-like existence. To me, a person who “claims” to be saved yet sits on their thumbs doing no good works, ignoring needy neighbors, turning a blind eye to the sick, etc has not truly accepted Christ. The good works is all part of the essence of living in the spirit. You are misguided in your thinking on this too.

[Boagenes]

My personal opinion is that Martin Luther and the Reformation was God’s visiting judgment upon the Church of Rome for all of its abuses and heresies, and that the resulting split was the punishment.

[Patriotic1]

2 weeks ago, I heard a homily stating that by the time someone is 25, they’ve heard the Gospel 1000 times. The priest asked - has the seed fallen on fertile soil? Has hearing the Word, and listening to the homily explaining it, actually penetrated one’s mind?

My SO went to Catholic schools, attends Church every Sunday, but really thinks he knows all there is to know about the faith. It’s sad, because he has the understanding of a child in it all. But it’s not the Church’s fault, it’s his fault. I make sure we discuss the Gospel reading later in the week. Someday, his soil will be more fertile...

[tiki]

My husband went with me to RCIA and joined the Church with me, he learned a lot but after that, not so much. Occasionally he asks a question, he doesn’t read the Bible regularly but he does go to Mass every week. We get there early and he reads the readings beforehand then and sometimes we discuss it in depth but not that often.

I don’t worry about it much because I’d love to be like him in many ways. He has such a profound faith, I swear it radiates from him. He accepts and I want to know the whys and the wherefores.

I think God gives us what we need in relationships if we are open, I use my husband as an example of trust, obediance and to not be afraid and he uses me for the intellectual side of the faith.

[tiki]

So who is being punished? The Catholic faith is the same faith as it was except that, yes, the Reformation was a wake-up call and they cracked down on the abuses. No-one has ever said that the human side of the Catholic Church is without fault.

So if the Church and the faith that began with Christ and has not changed its theology is the one being punished, then it seems that they were being punished all along.

OTOH, it would seem that Protestants suffer from splits and disagreements constantly. There are no 2 denominations that believe all the same things as another or they would be that denomination.

I’ve watched in my own small town how the new Evangelical churches split constantly for 30 years. Just like the Baptists did before them and the Church of Christ before them. They scatter, they splinter, one church dies out, another grows and then dies out.

Someone discovers something “new” in the Bible and the minister can’t accept it and then a little clique develops and pretty soon they clean up an old store front and it is the new evangelical church and the other ones are no good anymore. It seems that it becomes all about power plays and it is too easy to make your own rules and go where people will play by your rules until they get tired of it and then another one sprouts.

So anyhow, who do you think is being punished?

[annalex]

One good example is James Akin's story, who is hawked as being a "former Presbyterian". He also converted in his mid-twenties, and was actually a whole lot of things a lot longer than he was Presbyterian.

He was Presbyterian before he converted, that is probably why he describes himself in that way. Why does it matter, or is even surprising that someone tried one style of Protestantism after another before coming home to the Church Jesus Christ built?

Akin is a well-known Catholic apologist and prolific writer on matters of Catholic Christian faith. I posted several articles by him just recently.

SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING
THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE
RIGHTEOUSNESS AND MERIT

EWTN Library has 32 titles by Akin. Here is his personal site: jimmyakin.org

[doosee]

I am sure you are happy in your Lutheran beliefs. The truth is however the Lord created only one true church and scripture says it would prevail FOREVER against all evil. What part of forever is misunderstood. Your belief is God changed his mind and anointed Luther. The Jew hating side of Luther would have been kind of an odd mix since God’s only son was a Jew. As I indicated earlier, good things do not come out of divorce in a single family and the same holds true for God’s church. The children ultimately suffer from a divorce and carry those scars throughout their lives. The same holds true as humans who thought they knew more than God, i.e. Luther, Calvin, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, et. al. are examples of that.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You are so Jesuitical.”

No, I am just right. You have failed to prove what you claimed. What I wrote about the definition of “Jesus” was true and you can’t refute it.

“I can not discern the Chesed of Yah’shua.”

There are apparently many things you cannot discern.

[Boagenes]

That's the disagreement. I don't believe the Church (nor did the Reformers) was the same faith that was practiced all along. I'll give you an example, the Mary thing:

The Marian stuff was all entirely made up by the church, by men. There is no traditional or historical or scriptural basis for any of it. It was brought in by the pagan influences surrounding the early church community. The church was receiving many pagan converts and they were used to worshiping Artemis, Athena, etc (there were massive temples to both goddesses, one in Corinth, one in Ephesus). These pagans simply latched onto Mary as the "Mother of God" (which, no doubt, she was) and it was from this that all the ensuing "Marianism" (I call it Mariolotry. I know that Catholics find that insulting, but it's my personal opinion) flowed.

There is barely any mention of Mary in the scriptures, the beginning of Luke is really about it. What other information we have is that she at one early point she came to retrieve Jesus, with his brothers, because they thought he had gone off the deep end. And Jesus showed her no particular deference. He stayed inside the house where he was staying, and when the people outside told him his mother and brothers were outside, it specifically says he didn't go out to them but said, "Who is my mother and my brothers? Everyone who does the will of my Father is my mother and my brother and my sister." He doesn't show her any special significance.

The only other place she is mentioned, really, is at the cross, at the end, where Jesus entrusts her care to John. That's it. And yet the church developed a massive set of pseudo-worship practices around her. They even call her "distributor of all graces" and "Queen of Heaven" and "co-redemptrix". To me (and to many of the Reformers and Protestants in general), that is blasphemous. First, because it elevates her to a position that is to be found nowhere in scripture, and second, because that places her on a nearly equal, if not equal, level with the other members of the Holy Trinity. There's no getting around that. Then you have to take on other completely made up things, also with no scriptural basis and no tradition within the early church: the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption.

Mary went to live with John in Ephesus. Don't you think someone in Ephesus might have known if the Mother of God were to die and be bodily assumed into Heaven? Wouldn't that have been a big deal and a big story that would have spread everywhere within in the early church? It would have. But it didn't happen. There's no such story or tradition. It's a completely later invention of the church.

And that's all just touching on only one problem with the Catholic Church - the Marian stuff (and there's a lot more to be said than I could type here). You then have to get into things like purgatory, confession to priests, etc. None of which is based on anything but the most spurious and tortured exegesis of a single verse in scripture here or there.

I love a lot about the Catholic Church. I have considered joining it at various points. But my conscience and intellect tell me that there are things like I just laid out up above, that are clearly inventions coming from a medieval tradition, and I can't accept that. I do believe the Reformation was God's way of freeing men from a church that had crept into legalism and error. Remember, the Jews were God's chosen people. He told Abraham his line would endure forever, and David that his line would endure forever. He made many promises to Israel. When they turned away from Him, and began to worship other gods, and slipped into error, God turned away from them and let them be conquered by enemies, he gave them up.

I think this is what happened with the church. They slipped into error, inventing things, and worse actions like selling indulgences, etc, and enforcing a legalism that was the antithesis of the gospel...and God said, "okay, going to have to teach you a lesson..." And Martin Luther was God's instrument to bring men back to the gospel.

Mind you, I think the Catholic Church is Christian. I think that Catholics have just as great a chance of going to Heaven as any other Christian. But I think the church also is holding on to things that are still in error. That's my opinion, I'm sure you disagree, which is your right.