Featured My Journey Into The Catholic Church

Yea....thats called catholic guilt. LOL!!! since you were raised as a catholic, you still view the world as if you have to do something (Im guessing anyway)
You feel the comfort of the mass as you cuddle into Momma church....where you probably feel you belong. I assure you Matt, its not about the physical mass, the rituals (that you feel strangely apart of), the reverences to Mary, liturgical calendar events, etc. It is you comfort zone.

Brother, if you were to step away from all that (as Merton & Anthony of the Desert, & St. Frank did for a time) & just simplify your existence (and I know its hard with a family, job responsibilities, stress of the day) you will be surprised at how clean you will begin to feel.

As ex romans, we feel the gravitational pull of that world view in order to feel complete.....but I assure you that that will not do it for you in the long run. In the long run, its Christ without the costumes, Christ without the preponderance of denominational participation.....that is what we really long for and want.....thats peace my brother.

 

No, the thing is I don't feel 'guilty' , at least certainly not in the sense of 'condemned', but rather 'unfulfilled'. My wife put it well to me once: she remembers making a commitment to Christ at age 6 or thereabouts in her Plymouth Brethren home and asking her mother: "OK, I've done that, now what?" She was told, "That's it, that's all you have to do." Looking back, she remembers feeling vaguely 'cheated' by that and that feeling is much stronger now that she's in her 30s.

 

Well, maybe I was wrong in amending my post. Maybe I should have left the word "honest" in there after all. You know good and well that the churches which were in union with the state were guilty of persecution, torture, and murder. The Roman Catholics were, and so were the Magisterial Protestants. You know that is diametrically opposite to the position and actions of Baptists, Quakers, and Mennonites who were steadfastly against such practices and stood for religious freedom, not just tolerance, for all and were against state churches. To try to compare the Munsterites to the rest of Anabaptism and attempt to tar the Anabaptist movement by using a small bunch of fanatics is dishonest and inaccurate. The Anabaptists were pacifists in favor of complete religious liberty, not only for themselves like the hypocritical Puritan state church of New England, but for everyone.

And you include Virginia as being for religious "toleration"? Virginia, stronghold of the Anglican state church? The only reason the Anglicans gave up that position in Virginia is because they were forced to. James Madison, an Anglican, was convinced by Baptist communication with him of the rights of all to religious liberty. Look up John Leland.

No, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and all the infant baptizing, state church Magisterial Protestants were in favor of slaughtering and persecuting Anabaptists, Baptists, and other Dissenters. In this they joined the RCC which was the greatest persecuting, murdering apparatus in the history of Christendom. After all, they had centuries to practice and perfect it.

To claim that it was the state only and not the church which was responsible for state church atrocities is simply bogus. It was approved policy of the church and its leaders and also the state which was a full partner in executing the policy. Pardon the pun. The free churches never approved of such and stood valiantly against it and for absolute religious liberty for all, even their tormentors.

Those are the facts.

 

I find that a curious reply to Matt's Statement

As if when living in sin though we are to be new creatures created in Christ we wouldn't feel guilt. As if God give His nod of approval when we sin because Christ already paid for it therefore we can partake in futre sin as though it were a prepaid meal which we could enjoy. Wouldn't one who was born from above remade in the image of Jesus Christ rather than Adam find abhorance to committing sin thus feel guilty?

Participation in the sacraments is a participation in recieving grace which empowers us to live the sanctified life which must be done in faith. This is no different a consept than when one believes that reading scriptures empowers them supernaturally to live a holy life. Or that by continuing in prayer one is empowered to draw closer to Christ. You seem stuck the modes such as picking up the bible and reading it before receipt of grace to understand it as a hinderence to actually recieving from scripture. It is this type of reasoning that you apply to sacrament.

 

Ahh, yes, but the critical difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism is that in Anglicanism scripture is the primary and final authority, whereas in the RCC tradition is equal to or exceeds scripture in authority. As I said, that is a critical difference.

So, what do you do when RCC tradition contradicts scripture? And it does in many ways.

 

But you see, Catholics don't see Scripture and Tradition in conflict. You might do, but that, I would humbly submit, is due to your interpretation of Scripture being in conflict with Tradition.

 

This is not about making a journey from one religion to another. One could be baptized and join every religion in the world and still be bound for hell.

The real question is: What have we done with Jesus? This is not about liturgies and sacraments.

Jesus is either your saviour or not. You either have Him and the power of His resurrection in you or you do not. It is like Jesus told Nicodemus, a right reverend doctor of orthodoxy: you must be born again-- from above. This is the blessed assurance Jesus gives to all of His sheep. They hear His voice and follow Him. Another they will not follow.

This has absolutely nothing to do with ecclesiastical connections and sacramental prittle prattle. He who has the Son has life.

Choose wisely.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Jesus is my Saviour. Absolutely. 100%

But that's not the subject matter of this thread IMO.

 

Are you suggesting I'm not being honest? I am being honest. The problem is that you look at the issues from propaganda rather than what it is. Look at the problem with your next statement.

Look at how you mislead by this statement. I bolded the particular object which is purposely misleading in your statement. You state that "churches which were in union" obviously to make the reader make a false connection due to similarity of language to the ecclesiological meaning regarding full communion which recognizes a relationship between church organizations that mutually recognize their sharing the essential doctrines. Thereby equating the State beliefs and practices with that of the Church when in fact the two are not the same. Even when the lines seem somewhat blured whereby a state that is lead by a Monarch claims to have a particular faith. However, in that case the Monarch still acts independently as a state and is inhibited only as far as their individual conscience allows. The flaw you have is you believe the state is a subsidary of the Church. This is just not the case. Thus I cannot blame the Protestant churches for the Monarchs acts against Catholics. I place the blame where it belongs: on Monarch. Just as Tyndale placed the blame where it belongs: King Henry. Thus if any union between Church and State exist it only goes as far as the concience of the regent as can be seen in Europe time and again. The regents viewed themselves as defenders of their faith in their realms thus they delt with faith issues as they saw fit. And unfortunately many regents were unjust.

Many as you said were opposed to state run churches. Look at the emphasis "state run churches" not "church run state".

To blame the Catholic Church for atrocities conducted by the regent of Spain is no less dishonest and inaccurate.

Most I agree were.

Look how misleading this is. You imply by what I bolded that I held Virginia was always tollerant. What did I actually say? the first 3 states to legislate religious tollerance (during the revolution). I didn't say it was always tollerant. In fact didn't I mention that this Anglican state cause the Puritans to move into Maryland which had a religeous tollerance act in place only to attempt to get rid of it? My point was Catholics in the colonies were proponents for Religious Liberty not just the Baptist, Quakers, or Mennonites.

Again you mislead here. I bolded what I mean. In which you attempt to lead the reader to believe that infant baptizing has something to do with the 1) creation of a State Church and 2) the subsequent slaughtering and persecuting of Anabaptist, Baptist, and other Dissenters. Whether one believes in infant baptism or not does not affect whether they hurt others. You don't even see how you introduce propaganda to your argument. You purposely put infant baptism and connect the practice to killing discenters when one has nothing to do with the other. Its purpose is to inflame and mislead to a false connection.

It is certain you've never actually studied history apart from a propaganda machine built from the conflicts during the reformation. Things are certainly less black and white than you imagine them. I suppose you believe the Crusades were wars of aggression against muslims. When in reality Islam was aggressing against Christianity and the Eastern Europeans sought the assistance from the west to defend land already in Christian hands. But hey if you want to believe the hype thats on you.

Try some actual history. What you will find is that it is always the State leader who executed people. The Church determined who was and was not a heretic. And the State would use that label as the justification for the execution. Sadly certain Church leaders were in agreement with the States actions. However, knowing the time period and the cultures which lead to this its understandable if not agreeable to my modern sensibilities. In fact the Inquisition grew up out of a need to provide due process in Civil Courts which inlcuded matters of faith creating a religeous review during the 1200's before civil authorities carried out judgement. However, in that day and age the State believed it was responsible for the faith with in its realm. Because the though of the day was

 

Interesting.....you were raised RC thinking you always had to do something to work thru your salvation & so you feel empty & your wife was the opposite, "That's it, that's all you have to do" ..... so she feels cheated.

But here is the other shoe...what about the "GREAT COMMISSION" to go and make disciples of all nations????

Then the second part of my questioning is do you feel Christ died for his own or do you feel his dying was a hypothetical salvation where He removed obstacles that stand in your way of salvation to make provision for salvation?

 

Sorry, but you misunderstand me in your first sentence: I didn't feel unfulfilled when I was Catholic; my reference to that was to my time (over 20 years) as a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical. My wife also felt that at the time of her evangelical conversion as a child and feels that more so now.

Yes, I understand about the Great Commission and do my best to fulfil that, but it's difficult to 'sell' it to people when one doesn't see a great deal of fruit resulting from it in one's own life. Hence my sense - growing sense - of dissatisfaction. Surely, if the Holy Spirit is doing what He should in my life, there should be more evidence of change - of movement from forensic justification to actually becoming more Christ-like (per Rom 12:1-2) and 'fitted for Heaven' (as the Christmas Carol goes). That basically isn't happening with or for me within evangelicalism, nor is it happening for my wife. Is this because we are Bad Christians? Or does it make us Bad Christians? I don't know...but I do know that there should be - must be - more to the Christian life than what we presently have.

As to your second question, I can respond that Christ died for me. Beyond that, I don't really want to get into a Calvinism-v-Arminianism debate - there's far too much of that already on these boards!

 

Where does scripture state that there were "successors" to Peter? Or that Peter was the first Pope? Where does it state that any of the other apostles answered directly to Peter and that he was above them in authority? Actually Peter got his clock cleaned as he was being hypocritical regarding following the "Law".
Peter was an apostle no less or no greater than any others and had no successors.

 

First, I don't believe the canon came from the Catholic church.

Second, God breathed the scriptures to the writers of the bible, and carried them along to superintend the inerrancy of what they wrote in their own words. That is not repeatable with the Pope, my Preacher, or any other minister, no matter how much regard man has for them. What people say about scripture has never been infallible or guaranteed to be from God. Thus, the Bereans were called more noble because they searched the scriptures to see if what had been preached to them was true. Saying the Pope is infallible at any time, no matter if it's only once in a blue moon, is blasphemous in my book, no offense, as it give rise to idolatry, just as Mary worship does.

 

Why is Peter mentioned by name 195 times in the NT (the most often named Apostle) seconded only by John who is mentioned 99 times? Why is it that whenever the apostles are all listed by name as a group he is always listed first while Judas the betrayer is always listed last? Why is it when the apostles aren't mentioned by name as a group we see phrases like "Peter and the others"? Why did Jesus change Peter's name to rock in Aramaic? Why did Jesus specifically mention Peter when he said that he would recieve the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Why did Jesus single Peter out in Matthew 16:18-19 saying that what he bound in heaven would be bound and what on earth he looses it is loosed? Why did Jesus specify Peter when he said "Simon Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you , that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for your that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your bretheren" when he could have easily prayed the same for all the apostles? Clearly Peter plays a special role among the apostles. He even spoke for the 12 in John 6 and at other times.

 

Why did Paul, when he wrote Romans, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and approved as canon by the Catholic church, greet everybody and their brother, EXCEPT Peter, who the CC says was the first Pope in Rome? No way Peter was the first Pope in view of all the evidence.

 

None of that remotely explains why Peter is held as the 1st Pope by the RCC. But one thing in your post really jumped out at me.

Are you saying that the Pope holds the keys to the Kingdom?