How I went from Christian to Catholic

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by sdegutis

The fact that Peter received authority to bind on earth and loose on earth, and that God would ratify his decisions in Heaven, persuaded me that Peter had authority to grant authority to his successors. Also when Jesus built His church upon Peter, the "rock", he declared that Peter was to be the head of the Church on earth. When Jesus later told Peter to feed His sheep, he was not reaffirming that Peter was the head of the Church on earth, the vicar of Christ, but also declaring his forgiveness for Peter's previous denial and asserting that he is still head of the Church. But Jesus obviously didn't mean this leadership would be for one generation only, since He knew that if the world was going to survive more than one generation, it would need constant leadership. When Jesus says that we ultimately should bring our disputes to the Church if they are not resolved sooner, this begs the question of who the Church is if it is not a visible body with a hierarchy. For surely there must be a hierarchy since there must be some way of settling disputes even among those who would settle the aforementioned disputes. And this consequently leads to a final authority, if all else fails and the dispute rises to the highest rank of authority, which again would point to the successor of Peter, a final authority on the matter. Jesus also breathed on His Apostles and gave them authority to forgive or retain sins on earth, reassuring them their decisions will be ratified in Heaven. He would not have done this if anyone can receive forgiveness simply by asking it of God directly, since this gift of the Apostles would then be redundant. Also when Jesus instituted the Eucharist, He did it only in the presence of His Twelve, who were the first bishops. This indicated to me that not only is Peter the head of the Church, but also that he had authority to grant his same authority to his successors, and that they had authority to pass on their ministerial gifts and responsibilities. And finally, if an individual could interprete Scripture infallibly then all individuals would be in agreement, which we see to not be the case either in our own time or in the early Church times. And if we cannot interpret it infallibly as individuals then the infallibility of Scripture is not accessible to us and the Scriptures are as good as fallible to the whole of humanity except a small few who guess the right interpretation by pure chance. Yet it was not God's will that the Light be hidden under a bowl but put in a hill for all the world to see. So there must be some not only in the early Church but also throughout all time who held the authority to interpret Scripture infallibly so that we could accept and believe it with full assurance that it is correctly relaying to us God's meanings. In the early days it was the Apostles led by Peter, and even since the earliest post-Apostolic days it was those who claimed to be their successors, all the way until today, which leads credence to the Magisterium as an infallible interpreter of Scripture.

Wow, what a breath of fresh air to find out that you quickly saw through the right of private judgment and the church as an invisible entity. I have Evangelical friends who interpret the passages about binding/loosing and forgiving sins to mean that each individual Christian has such authority. And refuting their ahistorical misunderstandings of the words of Christ is a tedious task: please pray for them.

[sdegutis]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

Wow, what a breath of fresh air to find out that you quickly saw through the right of private judgment and the church as an invisible entity. I have Evangelical friends who interpret the passages about binding/loosing and forgiving sins to mean that each individual Christian has such authority. And refuting their ahistorical misunderstandings of the words of Christ is a tedious task: please pray for them.

Well, I might not have saw through it this clearly from the beginning. I'm only presenting my current understanding of what I sort of vaguely saw back then, as through a dim glass. But I knew there was something like these ideas, even though at the time I couldn't articulate it well enough. So I don't want to take credit for having "quickly saw through" it all.

[sdegutis]

Originally Posted by Contra Mundum

Thank you for your conversion story.

I'd love to hear about you going from atheist to Christian.

Originally Posted by Trebor135

I second this post.

Okay, here's the story.

[Faith1960]

Originally Posted by sdegutis

Aww, I can't edit my post, and I forgot some of the juicier doctrinal stuff that was bothering me as a "Lutheran" such as, if we're saved by faith alone, then why does Jesus say we need to be baptized, and that if we do not eat his flesh and drink his blood then we have no life in us? But anyway these are not questions I expect anyone to answer, since I'm already Catholic. I just wished I had put it in the original story. I'm not a very good writer.

Actually, when I read your story I was thinking that you're a wonderful writer. Welcome home!

[Faith1960]

Originally Posted by Contra Mundum

Thank you for your conversion story.

I'd love to hear about you going from atheist to Christian.

Me too.

[sdegutis]

Originally Posted by Faith1960

Actually, when I read your story I was thinking that you're a wonderful writer. Welcome home!

Thanks! And, thanks again!

Originally Posted by Faith1960

Me too.

Okay, here it is.

[SwissGuard25]

Beautiful story, Welcome home to the Catholic Faith. May Christ keep you stead fast in the faith and may your family name continue to by generations in the Church. Amen.

P.S.
When you say you went from a Christian to a Catholic. Just so you know,
You're Still a Christian.