Converting to Catholicism

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've decided to go through this process as well, although my life is currently too unsettled for me to do RCIA regularly. Good luck on your journey.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

It's an interesting doctrine, sola scriptura. It appears nowhere in the Bible itself--how could it? 'The Bible' obviously did not exist as a coherent body at the time that Scripture was written. When the New Testament says 'Scripture' it's generally referring to the Hebrew Bible. Scripture as we know it was compiled by the Church, as part of the series of developments that created the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Scripture and Tradition are not separate sources of authority.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Don't join the Catholic Church it is a false religion.

Protip: if you have absolutely nothing of worth to contribute to these threads, how about you don't post in them?

Okay I will not post anything that is not worthwhile.

Catholicism is a false religion.

Move along troll, your hate isn't going to influence anyone here.

I am not a troll. Catholicism is marred with un-Biblical doctrines which separates believers from God and his salvation. No one should be deceived and join this wicked institution.

It's an interesting doctrine, sola scriptura. It appears nowhere in the Bible itself--how could it? 'The Bible' obviously did not exist as a coherent body at the time that Scripture was written. When the New Testament says 'Scripture' it's generally referring to the Hebrew Bible. Scripture as we know it was compiled by the Church, as part of the series of developments that created the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Scripture and Tradition are not separate sources of authority.

There are many cases in the Bible of God using wicked people to do his will, not the least of which being the Romans involvement in the crucifixion of Jesus. So being involved in the compilation of the Bible proves nothing.
When tradition and doctrines contradict the Bible they can safely be dismissed.

But on what basis?

My point is that accepting the basis on which the Bible is confessed as Scripture necessitates, at the very least, accepting the authority of the early ecumenical councils. Sure, one might just decide to accept the Bible while rejecting and calling 'wicked' the reasoning behind the process by which it took shape, but, again, on what basis?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't know how good a claim this is, but I remember my fundamentalist pastor said that the canon was more or less fully developed before the ecumenical councils and that all churches were more or less operating on the same scripture, give or take a few books.

This is a reasonable response/counterclaim.

You don't need to know anything about how the Bible was compiled to believe it was written by inspiration of God. You just need to look at its characteristics and decide that there is something different and special about the Bible that makes the claims made in it about itself to be true. The Bible stands on its own and does not need the recommendation from anything else.

The thinking behind the compiling of the Bible might well have been right in many ways but that does not prove that the thinking of those same people was correct on everything or that they really were faithful servants of God.

This isn't.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As a sidenote, a far more effective angle of attack against the Catholic Church, in my mind, is to challenge the idea of papal infallibility.  Considering that Paul himself rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 in scripture (which the Catholic Church itself deems infallible), then it's clear that the Bishop of Rome isn't always infallible.  Of course, one could argue that since Peter wasn't speaking ex cathedra at the time, it's irrelevant; however, the fact that without Paul's help, Peter would have continued his Judaizing tradition - it certainly calls into question the validity of every tradition of the bishops of Rome, the authority upon which the Catholic Church rests.

I think this plays into the collegial-ultramontanist dispute within Catholicism more than anything else, honestly; the fact that the collegial position exists within Catholicism kind of blunts it as an attack against the Church (although, granted, one as a Catholic has to explain the collegial position's existence to defend against this attack, and 'if you're explaining, you're losing', as they say).

I did not start this line of discussion in the posts, it was started by LIVE THE DREAM. PURGE THOSE BOZOS, I was just replying to him.

The custom on this forum is to use the little name under the display name if the display name seems overtly bizarre or non-name-like. So, in this case, call me Nathan.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As a sidenote, a far more effective angle of attack against the Catholic Church, in my mind, is to challenge the idea of papal infallibility.  Considering that Paul himself rebuked Peter in Galatians 2 in scripture (which the Catholic Church itself deems infallible), then it's clear that the Bishop of Rome isn't always infallible.  Of course, one could argue that since Peter wasn't speaking ex cathedra at the time, it's irrelevant; however, the fact that without Paul's help, Peter would have continued his Judaizing tradition - it certainly calls into question the validity of every tradition of the bishops of Rome, the authority upon which the Catholic Church rests.

I think this plays into the collegial-ultramontanist dispute within Catholicism more than anything else, honestly; the fact that the collegial position exists within Catholicism kind of blunts it as an attack against the Church (although, granted, one as a Catholic has to explain the collegial position's existence to defend against this attack, and 'if you're explaining, you're losing', as they say).

This is fair, but on the other hand, doesn't it strongly blunt the "Catholicism is one true church because 36,000 Protestant denominations" claim used against Protestants, given the broad variety of differences within the Catholic Church on positions like the one described above?  I just think the claim of papal infallibility (even though only when speaking ex-cathedra) is a hard one to swallow when one considers all of the flaws of the first "pope," Pete, even with a collegial interpretation.

Well, yeah, it does blunt that claim, but I don't think that claim is a very strong one anyway. I think the stronger claim is, if anything, that Catholicism is capable of holding these sorts of disputes in creative tension without undergoing constant schism--which is a similar claim, but not the same sort of crass 'LOL 1,000,000,000/1 OF US 1,000,000,000/36,000 OF YOU' thing you often see certain types of Catholics using.

I attend a congregation of believers.

Describe it.

It is about 120 people plus un-baptized children and teenagers.

I mean describe its theology, worship style, liturgy, et cetera.