Thinking of Converting to Catholicism

[martinlawrencescott]

I am not a Catholic, but I commend you for taking the time to consider where God will have you. I know from my experience it wasn't a good idea to simply pick up and leave the church I was attending out of hurt, but that I should have informed those that have spent the time build up relationship with me before I left. After dealing with the bitterness I had, I was able to restore contact and remain loving with them after the fact, but I was out of order about it.

I think it is important to note, that when we place ourselves under the authority of church leadership (doesn't matter the tradition) we are subject to their authority just as we are to be good servants to our employers in occupations or superiors in the military, etc. We should always test what we are told, and shouldn't follow an order that contradicts God's principles, remaining graceful to the mistakes we all inevitably make when trying to remain servants in places of leadership which is contradictory to our sinful nature.

Just an encouragement to choose wisely and be prepared for the benefits and repurcussions of the decision you make. It is a great responsibility as well as privilege to be in your position of freedom of choice.

 

[John Zain]

Bible is man's because it was written by man.
The Bible as I see it is god's revelation to man but written according to man's experiecne and didn't just float down from heaven.
Catholicism is totally Biblical.
Think about it. Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood and Catholics and many Anglcians take that litterally to mean that the bread and wine actually becomes Christ's bodya nd blood but yet the Evangelicas who think they follow it so strictly deny this totally Biblical teaching and opt for a totally man made law.
I will rpeeat my position on scripture again; the Bible is not just God's work but man's as well.
I like to call it aco9llaboration between God and man or joint authorship.

The red is for all to see. Your thinking is as muddled as your last sentence. Good luck to you.
I'm a-outta here.
.

 

[tomwebster]

Bible is man's because it was written by man. The Bible as I see it is god's revelation to man but written according to man's experiecne and didn't just float down from heaven.

Catholicism is totally Biblical. Think about it. Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood and Catholics and many Anglcians take that litterally to mean that the bread and wine actually becomes Christ's bodya nd blood but yet the Evangelicas who think they follow it so strictly deny this totally Biblical teaching and opt for a totally man made law.

I will rpeeat my position on scripture again; the Bible is not just God's work but man's as well. I like to call it aco9llaboration between God and man or joint authorship.

Ya, you belong in the RCC!

 

[Templar81]

John Zion
There's more than a billion people in the world who would say you were muddled.

 

[Foreigner]

Bible is man's because it was written by man. The Bible as I see it is god's revelation to man but written according to man's experiecne and didn't just float down from heaven.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," - 2 Tim. 3:16

-- That scripture pretty well stamps null and void on what you said, Templar.
Unless you are saying that Timothy was wrong.
And if you are going to say that he was wrong - which you are not qualified to do - then there is no way to say that ANY part of the Bible is true and accurate.

Catholicism is totally Biblical.

-- There are multiple items within the Catholic faith, listed on this board more than once, that are either not supported within the Bible, or are in direct contradiction of the Bible.
- Praying to someone other than God for guidance and assistance
- Mary having no more children after Jesus
- Mary taken into heaven bodily and never dying
- Purgatory
etc. etc. etc.

So much for "totally Biblical."

Think about it. Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood and Catholics and many Anglcians take that litterally to mean that the bread and wine actually becomes Christ's bodya nd blood but yet the Evangelicas who think they follow it so strictly deny this totally Biblical teaching and opt for a totally man made law.

-- Actually YOU should think about it.

There is NOTHING - No Thing - scriptural to support the idea that every time bread and wine is blessed, it becomes the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus.

There is also NOTHING to support the idea that when Jesus said "take and eat" and "take and drink" that was literally his body and blood.

He said to do this in remembrance of Him, not in consumption of Him.

The Catholic process actually goes against what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that Jesus was sacrificed and died ONCE AND FOR ALL for our sins.

According to Catholic doctrine - and contrary to the Bible - He is still physically sacrificed every single day.

To claim that it is the actual body and blood of Jesus is as wrong. Jesus is right now sitting at the right hand of the Father.

He is not literally-bodily-physically returning every day to churches, chapels and private masses in hospitals, etc. thousands of time every day in order to be a Catholic's "happy meal."

Any actual presence of Jesus encountered every day by His children is in Spirit form - and nothing else.

 

[aspen]

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," - 2 Tim. 3:16

-- That scripture pretty well stamps null and void on what you said, Templar.
Unless you are saying that Timothy was wrong.
And if you are going to say that he was wrong - which you are not qualified to do - then there is no way to say that ANY part of the Bible is true and accurate.




-- There are multiple items within the Catholic faith, listed on this board more than once, that are either not supported within the Bible, or are in direct contradiction of the Bible.
- Praying to someone other than God for guidance and assistance
- Mary having no more children after Jesus
- Mary taken into heaven bodily and never dying
- Purgatory
etc. etc. etc.

So much for "totally Biblical."




-- Actually YOU should think about it.

There is NOTHING - No Thing - scriptural to support the idea that every time bread and wine is blessed, it becomes the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus.

There is also NOTHING to support the idea that when Jesus said "take and eat" and "take and drink" that was literally his body and blood.

He said to do this in remembrance of Him, not in consumption of Him.

The Catholic process actually goes against what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that Jesus was sacrificed and died ONCE AND FOR ALL for our sins.

According to Catholic doctrine - and contrary to the Bible - He is still physically sacrificed every single day.

To claim that it is the actual body and blood of Jesus is as wrong. Jesus is right now sitting at the right hand of the Father.

He is not literally-bodily-physically returning every day to churches, chapels and private masses in hospitals, etc. thousands of time every day in order to be a Catholic's "happy meal."

Any actual presence of Jesus encountered every day by His children is in Spirit form - and nothing else.

Foreigner, why are you willfully misrepresenting Catholic doctrine?

 

[Templar81]

Of course Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the father. But he is God too you know so he is omnipresent too. That's how bread and wine properly consecrated through te miracle that is transubtanciation become Jesus actualy body and blood, soul and divinity. He who does not eat the flesh fo the son of man and does not drink his blood will have no life in him.

Atre yous aying John is wrong because you don't have the authority to do that. BTW Timothy was supporting the scriptures, whcih had not eveen been decieded on then. Did you know that the Bible didn't jsut appear all of a sudden, it was actually put together over hundreds of years. Out of Man's writings and given God's stamp as God's revelation to man. So pelase do tell me exactly what scripture Timothyw as talking about sicne there was no such thing as a Bible back then.

 

[Foreigner]

Foreigner, why are you willfully misrepresenting Catholic doctrine?

-- Aspen, why do you support doctrine that runs contrary to the inspired Word of God?

(See how productive questions like that are?)

Why not be specific instead of just launching a blanket accusation, hmmmm?

And before you say "that's what you did" I would have you note that I did give specifics.

 

[Foreigner]

Of course Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the father. But he is God too you know so he is omnipresent too. That's how bread and wine properly consecrated through te miracle that is transubtanciation become Jesus actualy body and blood, soul and divinity. He who does not eat the flesh fo the son of man and does not drink his blood will have no life in him.

-- That "miracle" you talk about is not based on fact. At all. Someone (baselessly) claimed it was true and others fell for it.
When Jesus did a miracle he tended to make sure you knew it. Bread and fish actually feed 5000. The flow of blood stops. the child got up off the bed. Lazarus came forth. The seas calmed. The cripple got up and walked. The blind man could see. The lepers were cleansed. etc. etc. etc.

You are trying to have people believe that Jesus is now doing THIS "miracle" with absolutely none of the concrete proof that He has always used.
Checks after the bread and wine have been "consecrated" have shown no change whatsoever - on any level.
Yet you want people to believe and participate in this failed "miralce." That is tragic.
Just how many times does Jesus have to sacrifice His body for our salvation? Scripture says once.

BTW Timothy was supporting the scriptures, whcih had not eveen been decieded on then. Did you know that the Bible didn't jsut appear all of a sudden, it was actually put together over hundreds of years. Out of Man's writings and given God's stamp as God's revelation to man. So pelase do tell me exactly what scripture Timothyw as talking about sicne there was no such thing as a Bible back then.

-- LOL I am quite aware of how the Bible came into being. But you seem to ignore the fact that for the Bible to be accurate and complete, God had to have His hand on the process to ensure what He wanted recorded was thoroughly and completely recorded.

Apparently you don't believe that. Although Timothy said that before the Bible was created and finalized, what he says applies to today's Bible. All of it.
If you don't believe that then none of Paul's letters cannot be applied to anything no specifically covered by name in those letters that has happened after they were written.

Your very position is untenable.


Oh, and before you say that we can't know that our sins are forgiven because nothing physical happens, realize that the miracle proving that your sins ARE forgiven already happened.

He walked out of the tomb alive three days after His crucifiction. That tangible miracle is more than enough.

 

[Templar81]

I believe in the ressurrection foreigner. I just have the gumption to udnerstand that you can't treat the whole of the Bible as the same. The Gospels are by far, by a long shot the most important part of the Bible and we have four even though there were many more. How do you know what Timothy was thinking about when he said that all scripture is teh breath fo God? So you would ahve to tak that with a pinch of salt because Timopthy didn't have hindsight did he, he lvied in the days when there was no Bible.

Anywya, don't go trying that "examine it in a lab nonsense." with me. I know that if you analyzed consecrated bread and wine along with non consecrated bread and wine they wouldn't show up any different. Come on man, even the Pope couldn't imagine that happenning. Wven though it is a physical change it is only the accidents or appearances that stay the same and this would include the appearance of its composition but it wouldn't show its real composition.

Paul in 1st Corinthians !! say's that we have to discern the body and blood of CHrist or we will recieve it to our doom. I think it is very sad that people reject the real presence because I think they miss out on something really special.

 

[Foreigner]

I believe in the ressurrection foreigner. I just have the gumption to udnerstand that you can't treat the whole of the Bible as the same. The Gospels are by far, by a long shot the most important part of the Bible and we have four even though there were many more. How do you know what Timothy was thinking about when he said that all scripture is teh breath fo God? So you would ahve to tak that with a pinch of salt because Timopthy didn't have hindsight did he, he lvied in the days when there was no Bible.

-- See, I am of the belief that either you believe all of the Bible. If a person doesn't, they certainly aren't qualified to say which part to take seriously and which not to.

Anywya, don't go trying that "examine it in a lab nonsense." with me. I know that if you analyzed consecrated bread and wine along with non consecrated bread and wine they wouldn't show up any different.

-- So you just 'believe' it is the actual body and blood - with no proof or scripture support - because a man decided that was the case. Amazing.
Again, how many times does Christ's body have to be sacrificed?

Paul in 1st Corinthians !! say's that we have to discern the body and blood of CHrist or we will recieve it to our doom. I think it is very sad that people reject the real presence because I think they miss out on something really special.

-- Paul wasn't talking about the unsubstantiated ritual where it is claimed bread and wine is converted into the actualy body and blood of Christ.
You please the blood when you pray. You don't drink it. Why? Because it isn't actually the blood. Simple as that.

And as far as "real presence." I spent over 20 years as a Catholic - baptism, confirmation, confession, altar boy - the whole nine yards.

I didn't experience "the real presence" until I actually learned who Christ was. Wafers and fruit juice were NOT where it was at. The presence of the Holy Spirit IS.

 

[Templar81]

My only real criticism of the RCC is that it doesn't educate its younger membrs properly in scripture and doesn't give them enough encouragement to read the Bible. The catechism is a great way to teach but they ned to show where scripture supports doctrine and I believe it does. I beleive that the Holy Spirit has guided the Catholci chruch for the last 2000 years and that its doctrines come from God, not man. The bread and wine become, the body and blood of Christ, Mary remains the Virgin Queen of Heaven and there is a place called purgatory and it is a good thing.

No scriptural proof. This is my body, this is my blood. Maybe when you read that what you see is, "let's just pretend for a minute that this bread here is my body and we'll call this cup of wine my blood." NO it really is his body and blood. He who does not eat the body and drink the blood of teh son of man has no life in him and then there's St Paul's 1st letter to the COrinthians. There's more besides. What do you think bread of life means?

 

[aspen]

-- Aspen, why do you support doctrine that runs contrary to the inspired Word of God?

(See how productive questions like that are?)

Why not be specific instead of just launching a blanket accusation, hmmmm?

And before you say "that's what you did" I would have you note that I did give specifics.

scroll up and re-read my post - I already re-posted all of your misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine - how much more specific do I need to get?

-- See, I am of the belief that either you believe all of the Bible. If a person doesn't, they certainly aren't qualified to say which part to take seriously and which not to.

Even Mark 16?

 

[lawrance]

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," - 2 Tim. 3:16

-- That scripture pretty well stamps null and void on what you said, Templar.
Unless you are saying that Timothy was wrong.
And if you are going to say that he was wrong - which you are not qualified to do - then there is no way to say that ANY part of the Bible is true and accurate.




-- There are multiple items within the Catholic faith, listed on this board more than once, that are either not supported within the Bible, or are in direct contradiction of the Bible.
- Praying to someone other than God for guidance and assistance
- Mary having no more children after Jesus
- Mary taken into heaven bodily and never dying
- Purgatory
etc. etc. etc.

So much for "totally Biblical."




-- Actually YOU should think about it.

There is NOTHING - No Thing - scriptural to support the idea that every time bread and wine is blessed, it becomes the ACTUAL body and blood of Jesus.

There is also NOTHING to support the idea that when Jesus said "take and eat" and "take and drink" that was literally his body and blood.

He said to do this in remembrance of Him, not in consumption of Him.

The Catholic process actually goes against what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that Jesus was sacrificed and died ONCE AND FOR ALL for our sins.

According to Catholic doctrine - and contrary to the Bible - He is still physically sacrificed every single day.

To claim that it is the actual body and blood of Jesus is as wrong. Jesus is right now sitting at the right hand of the Father.

He is not literally-bodily-physically returning every day to churches, chapels and private masses in hospitals, etc. thousands of time every day in order to be a Catholic's "happy meal."

Any actual presence of Jesus encountered every day by His children is in Spirit form - and nothing else.

Dear Foreigner i hope that have you have bothered to study the Catholic doctrine in depth.

Where do you get the proof that Mary had more children in the Bible,? I have heard the nonsense that some push but it just does not cut it at all.
Some people can get caught up with the word virgin and they just run around in circles just like a dog chasing it's tail and can not see past the childish simplistic brat mentality of the true meaning of it, as it means pure as i comprehend it. even if she did have children it would not matter, she would still be pure.
As i see it an assault on Mary the mother of Jesus is the work of the Devil also that any attack on her can also be an attack on Christ pacifically to the foundations of him.
Mary has her place however and it is wonderful and magnificent and when i came to comprehend this i felt like i had been robed due to my protestant up bringing of comprehending this fact.
Mary can help us all, but it's only in the true spirit she comes alive as a true helper and she is totally dedicated to Christ our Lord and Saviour.
I must confess that in my ignorance i treated Mary as just nothing of any real significance but with out her saying yes where would we all be.

 

[Foreigner]

scroll up and re-read my post - I already re-posted all of your misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine - how much more specific do I need to get?

-- Try to focus, Aspen. You make the accusation, but you provided ZERO information to validate your accusation.

Or, to rephrase: You said I was wrong, but you provided NOTHING to actually show/prove I was wrong.


How much more specific do I need to get?

 

[Duckybill]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. From what I've read here in this forum the Bible is not highly esteemed among Catholics. That should be the most vital concern. The Bible should be the number one authority for anyone concerned about salvation through Jesus/God. I have not seen that to be true here.

 

[Templar81]

But we could just as easily say that Evangelical Protestants are too wrapped up int he Bible to know what is going on out there in the real world, they have some serious issues with double standards when it comes to interpretting scripture in that they will only take it litterally if when it suits them and that they have absolutly no respect for tradition on the principle that traiditons ahve always got to be bad.

 

[Duckybill]

But we could just as easily say that Evangelical Protestants are too wrapped up int he Bible to know what is going on out there in the real world, they have some serious issues with double standards when it comes to interpretting scripture in that they will only take it litterally if when it suits them and that they have absolutly no respect for tradition on the principle that traiditons ahve always got to be bad.

I thought we were talking about Catholicism?

 

[Foreigner]

Where do you get the proof that Mary had more children in the Bible,? I have heard the nonsense that some push but it just does not cut it at all.

Nonsense?

"and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Then they scoffed, "He's just the carpenter's son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers--James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas." - Matt. 13: 54-55

So........
Scripture, in this particular case, is "nonsense".

Some people can get caught up with the word virgin and they just run around in circles just like a dog chasing it's tail and can not see past the childish simplistic brat mentality of the true meaning of it, as it means pure as i comprehend it. even if she did have children it would not matter, she would still be pure.
As i see it an assault on Mary the mother of Jesus is the work of the Devil also that any attack on her can also be an attack on Christ pacifically to the foundations of him.
Mary has her place however and it is wonderful and magnificent and when i came to comprehend this i felt like i had been robed due to my protestant up bringing of comprehending this fact.
Mary can help us all, but it's only in the true spirit she comes alive as a true helper and she is totally dedicated to Christ our Lord and Saviour.
I must confess that in my ignorance i treated Mary as just nothing of any real significance but with out her saying yes where would we all be.

-- You DO realize that it is the Catholic Church itself that is "caught up with the word virgin".....don't you.

"...and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God."

Did you catch the "ever virgin" part?

It is the Catholic Church claiming that Mary never had children. You, ignoring scripture, support that position.



It is ALSO the Catholic Church that claims that Mary never died but bodily ascended into heaven.

I hear some Catholics say "the church doesn't teach that" but facts say otherwise.

I was in a Catholic school from 1st grade onward and we were taught that as fact.
We heard it both in the classroom and from the pulpit.
I had to know this for my Confirmation.
I was part of the music ministry for countless SEARCH weekends and that was taught there, as well

Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus, said this of Mary: "after the completion of her earthyly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."
He said that in 1950 and there have been no 'official' Catholic publications/pronouncements that refute or correct him.

Again, NOTHING to support the idea, but passed off as fact via Catholic Doctrine.

 

[Duckybill]

Templar81,

So then, why would you want to convert to any of these listed? Isn't the Bible your main authority and concern? If not, then jump in wherever makes you happiest.