A couple of Baptist Ladies knocked on my door and then...


#1

Wow Southern Baptists are catechizing their folks well. Saturday night a couple 13-15 year girls stopped by to invite us to their church and blew me away at how knowledgeable they were. Quoting scripture and finding things in the bible to show us (wife and I). Our conversation lasted about 30 minutes due to a faith alone/ faith works debate. It was fantastic and engaging. Luckily I bought some apologetics books and even broke out nuts and bolts by Tim Staples right there so we would at least present the Church teachings correctly. We did not change any minds which wasn’t the point anyway but I cannot get over how poised and articulate the girls were in presenting their faith.

It ended with another invitation to their church and I told them in a light tone that we would love to join them and then they could join us on Sunday:)

They are good!

Thanks

Eric


#2

I think what you saw was the tip of the iceberg.


#3

[quote=Exporter]I think what you saw was the tip of the iceberg.
[/quote]

:hmmm:
Care to elaborate?


#4

Care to elaborate?
[/quote]

I was wondering the same Mary…


#5

[quote=EricCKS]Wow Southern Baptists are catechizing their folks well. Saturday night a couple 13-15 year girls stopped by to invite us to their church and blew me away at how knowledgeable they were. Quoting scripture and finding things in the bible to show us (wife and I). Our conversation lasted about 30 minutes due to a faith alone/ faith works debate. It was fantastic and engaging. Luckily I bought some apologetics books and even broke out nuts and bolts by Tim Staples right there so we would at least present the Church teachings correctly. We did not change any minds which wasn’t the point anyway but I cannot get over how poised and articulate the girls were in presenting their faith.

It ended with another invitation to their church and I told them in a light tone that we would love to join them and then they could join us on Sunday:)

They are good!

Thanks

Eric
[/quote]

I am Southern Baptist. Are you sure they were Southern Baptist and not another Baptist denomination? I ask because the term Baptist covers more than one group. Instead of discussing theology next time, discuss historical precedence with them. Mention how long the Catholic Church was around for centuries in western Europe with no rivals. If it is “incorrect” or not “valid”, why was it the only faith source available for so long? I would be curious to know what they say.


#6

[quote=EricCKS]Wow Southern Baptists are catechizing their folks well. Saturday night a couple 13-15 year girls stopped by to invite us to their church and blew me away at how knowledgeable they were. Quoting scripture and finding things in the bible to show us (wife and I). Our conversation lasted about 30 minutes due to a faith alone/ faith works debate. It was fantastic and engaging. Luckily I bought some apologetics books and even broke out nuts and bolts by Tim Staples right there so we would at least present the Church teachings correctly. We did not change any minds which wasn’t the point anyway but I cannot get over how poised and articulate the girls were in presenting their faith.

It ended with another invitation to their church and I told them in a light tone that we would love to join them and then they could join us on Sunday:)

They are good!

Thanks

Eric
[/quote]

This is good and now the catholics have to formate well too to answering, this is very competitive.


#7

I’m more impressed with your performance! Way to go! :thumbsup:


#8

[quote=CatherineofA]I am Southern Baptist. Are you sure they were Southern Baptist and not another Baptist denomination? I ask because the term Baptist covers more than one group. Instead of discussing theology next time, discuss historical precedence with them. Mention how long the Catholic Church was around for centuries in western Europe with no rivals. If it is “incorrect” or not “valid”, why was it the only faith source available for so long? I would be curious to know what they say.
[/quote]

Off topic, but I’m curious…you’re Baptist, yet you made a pretty convincing case the Catholicism. Why are you not Catholic?


#9

[quote=CatherineofA]I am Southern Baptist. Are you sure they were Southern Baptist and not another Baptist denomination? I ask because the term Baptist covers more than one group. Instead of discussing theology next time, discuss historical precedence with them. Mention how long the Catholic Church was around for centuries in western Europe with no rivals. If it is “incorrect” or not “valid”, why was it the only faith source available for so long? I would be curious to know what they say.
[/quote]

You make an excellent point Catherine, one you probably didn’t mean to make.

Remember something, Catholicism is not a denomination, like say, Southern Baptist (No offence intended). The Catholic faith is the universal Christian faith, which is also why you will not find “rivals”, because the only other “rivals” where not Christian. Some heretics who taught false doctrines, different doctrines than taught by the Apostles and their direct successors (which Christians always knew was the way to know the true church and the truth before what we know as the bible today existed) tried to assume the name “Christians” which is why the distinction had to be made for Catholic (aka universal).

We know the bible is inspired and NO BOOKS WERE LEFT OUT because we know that Jesus promised the guidance on the holy spirit for HIS CHURCH. That is why you will see, especially once you really study this history of the councils and the early church, that it is the Catholic Bishops all over the world who had this authority, because it was given to them by Christ. It is all connected. Accepting the infallibility of the Catholic Church in its decision of the final Canon of the Bible, is in essence affirming what the Catholic Faith has always taught.


#10

[quote=tkdnick]Off topic, but I’m curious…you’re Baptist, yet you made a pretty convincing case the Catholicism. Why are you not Catholic?
[/quote]

Hi! Long story made short. I am a history buff and have an undergrad degree in history with a small selection of art history courses. I have been interested in English history since I was a teenager. While reading about England, I came discover that Christianty was represented by the Catholic Church in western Europe and Orthodoxy in the east for centuries. It gave me a new perspective on Catholicism as I had mostly grown up hearing about how off the wall and unBiblical it was and how there was an unusual amount of focus on the church as an institution. I have been recently wanting to get into some reading and research on the Catholic Church’s claims that they were the church established by Christ and not just an early church that was established after the time of Christ. I mentioned what I did to the original poster because many Protestants see Catholicism as a load of false and created doctrine. I am often interested in what their response is when they are told that medieval western Europe was only Catholic for centuries and how they explain such a church with false information lasting so long as the only source. The answer I usually get is that they presented the basic information correctly and that was the message of Christ’s salvation. If they had been inadequate, God would have provided another avenue. Another avenue was eventually needed due to the Catholic focus on non Biblical standpoints and a need to see the church on level with scripture.


#11

[quote=Catholic Tom]You make an excellent point Catherine, one you probably didn’t mean to make.

Remember something, Catholicism is not a denomination, like say, Southern Baptist (No offence intended). The Catholic faith is the universal Christian faith, which is also why you will not find “rivals”, because the only other “rivals” where not Christian. Some heretics who taught false doctrines, different doctrines than taught by the Apostles and their direct successors (which Christians always knew was the way to know the true church and the truth before what we know as the bible today existed) tried to assume the name “Christians” which is why the distinction had to be made for Catholic (aka universal).

We know the bible is inspired and NO BOOKS WERE LEFT OUT because we know that Jesus promised the guidance on the holy spirit for HIS CHURCH. That is why you will see, especially once you really study this history of the councils and the early church, that it is the Catholic Bishops all over the world who had this authority, because it was given to them by Christ. It is all connected. Accepting the infallibility of the Catholic Church in its decision of the final Canon of the Bible, is in essence affirming what the Catholic Faith has always taught.
[/quote]

Could you discuss what you meant by your last sentence you started with…“Accepting the infallibility…”

I noticed that you stated that there is only one Catholic Church. In recent media articles, it has been mentioned that Mel Gibson and his father do not recognize the authority of more recent decisons by the Catholic Church. One or both really dislike Vatican II. They have kept the older customs and positions prior to Vatican II. Would this not be an example of two Catholic forms of worship? What about Orthodoxy? Would it not be Catholic in many ways outside of a few differences?


#12

[quote=CatherineofA]Could you discuss what you meant by your last sentence you started with…“Accepting the infallibility…”

I noticed that you stated that there is only one Catholic Church. In recent media articles, it has been mentioned that Mel Gibson and his father do not recognize the authority of more recent decisons by the Catholic Church. One or both really dislike Vatican II. They have kept the older customs and positions prior to Vatican II. Would this not be an example of two Catholic forms of worship? What about Orthodoxy? Would it not be Catholic in many ways outside of a few differences?
[/quote]

I’ll start with the first point. If you accept the bible as the word of God, you need an outside source to affirm that. That source is the Catholic Church which through the authority of the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in 393AD and 397AD. Since the Catholic Church is recognized as the Church that Jesus founded, the decision for the Canon was accepted by the world. This was an infallible decision, which means “incapable of error”.

Now, in regards to Mel Gibson, and his form of Catholicism. It is ironic that he sought the Vatican opinion of his film given he has rejected the teaching authority of the church past Vatican 2. Though it is true, that anyone can reject the Church’s teachings and follow similar style worship and similar doctrine, they are not Catholic as the do not have valid orders and have broken off Apostolic Succession. Therefore they have illegitmately ordained priests. Again, anyone can start up a church an independant church (like he did) and call it the Catholic Church, that’s anyone’s right, but then it is not part of the universal church if it does not hold the universal faith, and more importantly does not have valid sacraments. They don’t worship Jesus during the Eucharistic Adoration, they worship bread.

In regards to Orthodoxy, they are considered to have valid sacraments, therefore they have maintained Apostolic succession, have valid orders, celebrate a valid Eucharist, etc. They are in schism with the church over various issues. I’m not an expert on this so I won’t talk much more about that, however the union is imperfect.

You see, the Catholic Church (specifically the Apostles, and their successors), has been given the power of binding and loosening, and what it binds and looses on earth will be so in heaven. This is a very specific authority, as well as the giving of the Keys to Peter, hence the succession to the seat of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. So if the Church excommunicates members, or whatever it does, we must be obiedient to it because Christ commands us to “he who hears you, hears me…and he who rejects you, rejects me…and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me”. I doubt any of this will convince you, but I hope it give you some insight on where the Catholic is coming from.


#13

[quote=Catholic Tom]I’ll start with the first point. If you accept the bible as the word of God, you need an outside source to affirm that. That source is the Catholic Church which through the authority of the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in 393AD and 397AD. Since the Catholic Church is recognized as the Church that Jesus founded, the decision for the Canon was accepted by the world. This was an infallible decision, which means “incapable of error”.

Now, in regards to Mel Gibson, and his form of Catholicism. It is ironic that he sought the Vatican opinion of his film given he has rejected the teaching authority of the church past Vatican 2. Though it is true, that anyone can reject the Church’s teachings and follow similar style worship and similar doctrine, they are not Catholic as the do not have valid orders and have broken off Apostolic Succession. Therefore they have illegitmately ordained priests. Again, anyone can start up a church an independant church (like he did) and call it the Catholic Church, that’s anyone’s right, but then it is not part of the universal church if it does not hold the universal faith, and more importantly does not have valid sacraments. They don’t worship Jesus during the Eucharistic Adoration, they worship bread.

In regards to Orthodoxy, they are considered to have valid sacraments, therefore they have maintained Apostolic succession, have valid orders, celebrate a valid Eucharist, etc. They are in schism with the church over various issues. I’m not an expert on this so I won’t talk much more about that, however the union is imperfect.

You see, the Catholic Church (specifically the Apostles, and their successors), has been given the power of binding and loosening, and what it binds and looses on earth will be so in heaven. This is a very specific authority, as well as the giving of the Keys to Peter, hence the succession to the seat of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI. So if the Church excommunicates members, or whatever it does, we must be obiedient to it because Christ commands us to “he who hears you, hears me…and he who rejects you, rejects me…and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me”. I doubt any of this will convince you, but I hope it give you some insight on where the Catholic is coming from.
[/quote]

When you mentioned the binding and loosening, do you think the pope has the authority to determine what is Christian? Can he one day decide to make Muslims Christian? Is this considered part of what could be the binding and loosening?
As far as the Mel Gibson thing, I see your point. However, if he were to practice all things Catholic except for recognizing the current pope, it would be a form of Catholicism would it not? It certainly would not be Protestant or Orthodox. What would it be?


#14

Actually, what you propose is what we refer to as “Cafeteria Catholics”, something one truly can’t be. To be Catholic requires that one accept the full Dogma of the Church, including the Infallibility of the Pope, teachings on the sanctity of life, a male only priesthood and all the other teachings of the Church. Christ never claimed it would be easy to be a Christian. If it’s going to be hard, who’s out there to ensure that even the tough teachings are held to, if not a Pope?

God Bless,

CARose


#15

I think the main thing we should get from this is that the Catholic Church ought to be catechising and inspiring its youth to this standard.

It can be done, but it needs the will, and the dropping of all the Catholicism-lite teaching styles.


#16

[quote=CatherineofA]When you mentioned the binding and loosening, do you think the pope has the authority to determine what is Christian? Can he one day decide to make Muslims Christian? Is this considered part of what could be the binding and loosening?
As far as the Mel Gibson thing, I see your point. However, if he were to practice all things Catholic except for recognizing the current pope, it would be a form of Catholicism would it not? It certainly would not be Protestant or Orthodox. What would it be?
[/quote]

Hi Catherine…I’m really tired, so not thinking entirely straight at the moment, lol, just that this forum is so addictive with all the knowledge here from Catholics and Non-Catholics alike. I would also like to say that I respect you for the charity of your posts as someone who is honestly asking/seeking, and not just here to provoke, which sadly is the case with some people (Catholics too).

The pope’s infallibility is when he is speaking ex-cathedra, that is in his official capacity. I’m sure there are better explanations that what I’ve given. The councils, because they are the consensus of the entire church becomes infallible in it’s official pronouncements, and one council can never contradict a previous one, just like no doctrine can ever be changed or retracted. This is the guarantee that Jesus gave his church built on the apostles, that it would be the pillar and bulwark of truth, and the he would send his Holy Spirit to guide the church, etc. Some of what I have written here may need some correction, or maybe can be worded better, so if anyone pleases, feel free.

Protestantism is still under heresy, and it contradicts the universal faith on many levels. People who have grown up in Protestantism are only materially responsible through no fault of their own and the Church teaches that they can attain salvaltion through their faith in Jesus Christ (although it’s a much tougher road considering in essence they are rejecting his church, which is rejecting him, etc, I already went over that and I understand you may not hold that view).

Orthodox represent the faith up until a certain council, and has remained static ever since and does not continue to grow in understanding of scripture. The Catholic Church continues to gain deeper understanding of scripture, which is why you may see some doctrines “defined” at different times (i.e. purgatory, assumption of mary, the trinity, etc)…this is affectionately known as the Development of Doctrine. Jesus told his apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide the church to all truth, but they could not bear it at that time…we are still learning the fullness of the truth.

I’m deviating from your question a little. I understand what you are saying about Mel Gibson practicing the Catholic faith without recognizing the pope, but if his church does not have valid sacraments, then he is not practicing the Catholic faith. In other words, the Sacraments are a real imparting of Grace’s, and are not merely symbolic rituals. Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul and washes away Original Sin, Confirmation is the completion of Baptism when we are old enough to become warriors for the faith (for lack of a better phrase), Holy Communion is where we encounter Jesus Christ, both Physically (as the bread becomes his body and blood) and spiritually, confession is the avenue Jesus gave us when he gave the authority to his Apostles to forgive or retain sins, Holy Orders are the valid ordination of Priests by the Bishops, and the Bishops by the Church. Everything I just talked about, hinges on Valid orders, without them, none of the sacraments are possible. Not to say that God doesn’t impart other graces, but these specific ones are extremely important to the daily walk of a Christians life…specifically the Eucharist at Holy Communion, and regular confession which I have been doing now for 3 months. I can’t tell you how a) embarrassed I am of my sins b) how liberating confession is c) how it really keeps you on the straight and narrow.

This is why, Mel Gibson is only partaking symbolically, as his “independant” Catholic Church does not have valid sacraments. I’m not sure what it is about vatican 2 that he has a problem with.


#17

[quote=CatherineofA]Hi! Long story made short. I am a history buff and have an undergrad degree in history with a small selection of art history courses. I have been interested in English history since I was a teenager. While reading about England, I came discover that Christianty was represented by the Catholic Church in western Europe and Orthodoxy in the east for centuries. It gave me a new perspective on Catholicism as I had mostly grown up hearing about how off the wall and unBiblical it was and how there was an unusual amount of focus on the church as an institution. I have been recently wanting to get into some reading and research on the Catholic Church’s claims that they were the church established by Christ and not just an early church that was established after the time of Christ. I mentioned what I did to the original poster because many Protestants see Catholicism as a load of false and created doctrine. I am often interested in what their response is when they are told that medieval western Europe was only Catholic for centuries and how they explain such a church with false information lasting so long as the only source. The answer I usually get is that they presented the basic information correctly and that was the message of Christ’s salvation. If they had been inadequate, God would have provided another avenue. Another avenue was eventually needed due to the Catholic focus on non Biblical standpoints and a need to see the church on level with scripture.
[/quote]

Hi Catherine!
It just doesn’t sound right does it…?
Pax tecum,


#18

Thanks for the answers! I think the “problem” his father has with Vatican II is some of the changing views on Protestants.


#19

Hmmm really interesting about Mel Gibson, didn’t know any of that!Still I do believe in the Apostolic church and that Peter was the stone on which it was built, only look at the old testament and see how many divisions it gave in the Jewish religeon, they are a people called by God, and God is the same yesterday today and forever more!
The only point is Jesus, accepting Him, the Roman church has no clearly defined roots to Peter, God allows everything, Being the only church for many years, is not a reason for joy, God waited for the right person to come along for the teaching of His children, as the Church grew it needed other outlets, which the Romans wouldn’t give
and so came protestants, protesting not against Gods church, but against falsehood, that is the true protestants, there were misusers like Henry VIII, still Gods mercy allowed the founding of the Anglican church and since then it has grown.
Luther had good reason to protest too!
Jesus was talking to us all, not just a Pope, otherwise His word would not be open to us all, which of course was against the Roman way.
God decided we needed to know his word, the Roman chuch didn’t want this, so it is natural (or supernatural) that God found a way around this, I mean paying money to be saved! well that never was Jesuses intent.
Disobediance to Jesus and His teachings never pays, so there are protestants because the Roman church didn’t listen, or listened to the Enemy insted of Christ.
Christ blesses them, so perverse teachings are banned, within the Roman church this was impossible, Peter and Paul could both see this, so why is protestant a problem?

Hope this isn’t provocative, though the word of God is a two edged sword so it should be!


#20

PS though in many protestant churches they are disobeying today in ordaining women, When Jesus doesn’t protest against that!
Well asides from the methodists who protested against the anglicans!
a right mix up protesting against protestants who protest against protestants who originally protested against the church of Rome! :slight_smile:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.