The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[Natural Law]

"Stating facts is not ridicule. Show me the ridicule you're accusing me of. Post numbers, please...."

Show me the evidence that the confabulations you post about the Church and Catholics are indeed accurate and honest and I will be glad to respond and to explain or apologize when merited.

While there are legitimate issues and disagreements between Catholics and non-Catholics I'm not going to waste any time arguing against the fictitious entity and events you post. You make the charges, you substantiate them.

Peace be with you.

[Natural Law]

"it hard to have a discussion with anyone who rejects the Trinity."

It is equally hard to have a discussion with anyone who claims to be a Christian but refuses to declare that Jesus is God and to proclaim their personal love for Him. When the first and foremost premise is a refutation of Christianity nothing credible can follow.

Peace be with you.

[Titanites]

Perhaps it is a condemning attitude that was referred to

What condemning attitude?

And while you see Catholics who hold that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus leaves non-Catholics damned as being bitter, failed Catholics who know little about what the Church actually believes or teaches

No, that's not what I see. What I see is that ex-Catholics who are persistent in talking about the Church, without bothering to be truthful about its doctrine or teachings, whether intentionally or not, are bitter, failed Catholics who know little about what the Church actually believes or teaches.

more historical position of Rome, which does condemn “schismatics” to Hell,

No, it doesn't.

as seen here

It appears you put a lot of effort into cutting and pasting out of context snippets from various documents. I didn't have time to thoroughly investigate the lengthy cut and paste, but I did skim it. I didn't see the Church condemning anyone to hell.

[Natural Law]

"I didn't see the Church condemning anyone to hell."

The Church has never claimed the ability to condemn anyone to hell nor has it ever stated that its declaration of excommunication or anathema have any impact on ones salvation. Both excommunication and anathema deal only with a person's relationship with the Church, not God.

The Church, like all churches, has declared that that certain practices and beliefs will result in damnation, but doesn't claim the ability to enforce it.

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” - Harry S. Truman

[Titanites]

That's a pretty typical reaction. When someone can't refute the data or facts, to attack the integrity of the person presenting them.

That might be true if the person had the integrity to actually post the data or the facts. All you've posted are muddled musings with no evidence to demonstrate what is being posted is true.

When former Catholics present what they know to be the facts of Catholicism

But it's when these "facts" have repeatedly been demonstrated to not be facts at all, but are still repeated, that it begins to look like bitterness talking. And repeatedly posting erroneous doctrine after being corrected can only be seen as failure.

Since the facts cannot be disputed or refuted, the only option left is to imply that the messenger is unreliable.

The messenger has demonstrated on her own that she is unreliable. For example, we're still waiting for you to post facts regarding the Ukrainians that cannot be disputed or refuted.

[count-your-change]

“only adults were said to be baptized? really, you know the jailer had no cildren how?”

O.K., If we are to assume that he had children, assume since none are mentioned, then we may assume anything else we wish about them, perhaps assuming they were grown children living in the household, not uncommon even today.

But if we go with what the Scriptures say then only adults are spoken of as being baptized.

The long list of Church Fathers shows none defending infant baptism from the Scriptures.

So the pattern from the Scriptures was discipleship, baptism, learning the commandments. 1,2,3.

[metmom]

jvette post 366: I understand what you do and why, I just don’t care for it and don’t spend my time reading the lengthy and quite boring stuff cut and pasted from other sites.

I prefer to speak in my own words and to read what others have to say in theirs.

But when we post stuff in our own words, we're accused of lying about the Catholic church.

No offense. But, what you are doing in posting to me is a waste of your time.

No, it's not.

I enjoy apologetics, especially the back and forth of a conversation with others, who impart to me, in their own words what they believe and why they believe it.

I am glad that you enjoy his posts, I thought I was being honest in telling him that I do not read them, I find them to be dry, impersonal reading. I meant no offense, just letting him know that to post them to me is a waste of his time.

He's not posting them because they're exciting reading but rather because when people make comments about Catholicism, Catholics are constantly accusing non-Catholics of telling lies about Catholicism and demanding proof to back their statements.

And here, when it's provided, it's not even read.

I guess if you can't refute the comments, denigrate the person posting, or deny the evidence backing them up, you can just ignore it, plugging your ears, singing *La, la, la, la, laaaaaa...... I can't hear you.* and ignore it.

[metmom]

it hard to have a discussion with anyone who rejects the Trinity. if you don’t understand who God is, what basis do we have for a discussion?

Likewise for someone who rejects the truth and authority of Scripture. Catholics appeal to the church fathers and the CCC to defend their faith (in the Catholic church). Believers appeal to the inerrant, infallible, God breathed Scripture to defend their faith (in Christ).

[metmom]

I didn’t think you had anything.

Thank you for exonerating me.

[Titanites]

As a matter of fact, the very condemning comments here on these threads *bitter*, *failed Catholics*, etc, are EXACTLY the kinds of attitudes that I've encountered out of Catholics I've known personally. Catholics on these threads are no different than them.

If you are hearing it so often, and in so many different places, maybe you need to take a clue.

There is much condemnation of non-Catholics by Catholics on all levels.

Observing that someone is bitter or failed is just that, an observation. It is not a condemnation because it is something you can change.

[Natural Law]

"I didn’t think you had anything."

What I don't have is an honest or accurate criticism of the Church to defend. Hurt feelings from the failure to accommodate egocentricism are not the fault of the Church nor a reason to ascribe any number of false doctrines to it. I can forgive you, but I cannot exonerate anyone.

Peace be with you

[Titanites]

The Church, like all churches, has declared that that certain practices and beliefs will result in damnation, but doesn't claim the ability to enforce it.

That is worth repeating.

[Iscool]

it hard to have a discussion with anyone who rejects the Trinity. if you don’t understand who God is, what basis do we have for a discussion?

Would you care to show where I ever denied the Trinity???

Perhaps we can just make false accusations and hope they stick...Like, why do you attend a Catholic church on Saturday after worshiping in a mosque on Friday???

I guess if it works for you, it'll work for me...

[metmom]

The Church has never claimed the ability to condemn anyone to hell nor has it ever stated that its declaration of excommunication or anathema have any impact on ones salvation. Both excommunication and anathema deal only with a person's relationship with the Church, not God.

That is exactly what the RCC claims as stated in its own catechism. The RCC claims that salvation is through it as the true church established by Jesus Himself and that outside the church, there is no salvation, that it is the only means by which someone can come to God.

Why are you disagreeing with the CCC?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize "that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts." That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

The Church, like all churches, has declared that that certain practices and beliefs will result in damnation, but doesn't claim the ability to enforce it.

Sure it does. And the Catholic church and Catholics use these verses to back that up.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Catholic church does indeed do exactly that, claim to have the power to send people to hell and keep them out of heaven and enforce it, claiming that Jesus gave them that authority.

You want to try again with something people can actually believe?

[count-your-change]

“Observing that someone is bitter or failed is just that, an observation. It is not a condemnation because it is something you can change”

By that criteria any insult is acceptable to use since “you can change”. How ‘bout “liar”? Is that just an “observation”?
It sounds like a game of seeing how many innuendo loaded statements (”observations”) can be made before being asked to leave the thread.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

you are reading doctrines into the Scriptures that are not there and contradict 2,000 years of Christian practice and belief. who knows better what the Apostles taught than those who heard them and saw what they did?

the Scriptures DO NOT speak of only adults being baptized. Jewish 1st century households would have been full of children.

1,500 years is a long time for no one to understand a core doctrine like baptism.

[Titanites]

By that criteria any insult is acceptable to use since “you can change”. How ‘bout “liar”? Is that just an “observation”?

It can be an observation or it can be proven as fact.

It sounds like a game of seeing how many innuendo loaded statements (”observations”) can be made before being asked to leave the thread.

We were discussing observations that were claimed to have been made outside of FreeRepublic. It has nothing to do with a game, the threads, or being asked to leave. On FreeRepublic, making it personal is not allowed.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

i deny worshipping at a mosque.

do you deny rejecting the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus?

i thought JW’s rejected both.

[Gamecock]

Why are you disagreeing with the CCC?

That is a frequent phenomena among FRoman Catholics. Each FRoman Catholic is his/her own pope.

[Iscool]

only adults were said to be baptized? really, you know the jailer had no cildren how?

Because the scriptures forbid the baptizing of babies...

If someone says all your kids were at one time Boy Scouts, you know what that means???

But to lay this thing to rest, why not turn to the scriptures...Perhaps you can find a bible on line so you can follow along...

Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

Did you see that??? They spoke onto him the word of the Lord...And to all that were in his house...

They spoke to everyone in his house...Did they speak to babies???

Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Oh no, there's more???

THE ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD BELIEVED IN GOD...NO BABIES...

Anything and everything you can say or copy and paste contrary to the words of God are a waste of perfectly good air...

You want to post the garbage that your religion has practiced for centuries contrary to the word of God and call it Holy; and try to convince us that the Apostles didn't believe what they wrote, go for it...But I will and do recognize it for the garbage it is...