Joseph,

You perceptions must have come from observation, so I will not dispute what you have asserted.

But, the Catholic Church is the original, universal Church all over the world -- the one other Christian denominations have de-nominated themselves from.  We who are still in the Church have a wide variety of flaws; perhaps other denominations have different ones that are more focused, based on the particular theological focus of the branch.

Let me add this clarification to "robot."  I have rarely seen a lay Catholic able to defend their faith without resorting to rote statements that do not show their faith is sincere.  I don't doubt that their faith is sincere but where is the passion?  Where is the unapologetic approach to being Catholic, as evidenced by the responses here that when asked there can be an outright no-apology-for-being-Catholic answer?  Also, I do not mean defining one's faith as against anything but to be passionately for something.

Second, I would posit that Southern Baptist are as beat up as Catholics and will because Southern Baptists are on a whole, abstinate from alcohol, protest abortion almost as much but I do think Catholicism is the leader in that arena, and get little, if any, positive press coverage over a great many issues.  I suppose one could argue that Baptists may like to "thump it over one's head," and that may be the difference in expression of our faith.  Still, Baptists are often portrayed as narrow-minded-bigots in their belief.

Third, I was not referring to the Liturgy.  I think much can be learned from Litrugy in a Catholic Mass versus other services.  What I was specifically referring to was the response that Lay Catholics often give in defending their faith.

Fourth, Catholicism appears to fall back on the argument that only they are the universal church but regardless of what is written by Catholic theologians, historical research as well as the Scripture more than shows that Catholicism did not exist immediately after the Resurrection.  Every single original Christian was a Jew, not a Catholic.  Thus, I may understand more than I get credit for here in ackowledging that Catholicism considers itself "universal" but some of the facts stated by Catholicism are just  not accurate. 

Please, I ask all of you to feel free to share as heated as you need to as it would appear that on this exchange there can be heated debate without all of the "flaming" that exists on many of other boards.  After all, I asked specifically for "clear conviction" of Catholic belief.

Joseph Bailey

"Every single original Christian was a Jew, not a Catholic.  Thus, I may understand more than I get credit for here in ackowledging that Catholicism considers itself "universal" but some of the facts stated by Catholicism are just  not accurate. "

But to say someone is a Jew is to give a racial description not, in the early days of the Church, whether they were Jews who were also believers in Jesus the Messiah. Of course the original Christians were Jews but the NT also indicates that racially they were not strictly Jewish. Paul after all was the Apostle to the gentiles. St. Luke was a gentile by birth. Catholic is not a racial distinction but a distinction of communal belief.

The term Catholic for the Church which Jesus founded, was used quite early as evidenced in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, third bishop succeeding St. Evodius the immediate successor of St. Peter. St. Ignatius died a martyrs death in Rome in 110AD and wrote several letters to the communities through which he was taken on the way to his execution in Rome.

Here is an excerpt from the letter to the Smyrnaeans:

 "You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrate by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints.  Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid."

One of the advantages of being Catholic is having history, and at that history acknowledged by protestant scholars, on our side.

The above is from The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol 1, by William A Jurgens

Dado,

AMDG

First off, let me say that I knew ahead of time that my post would trigger a reaction but that is what I was looking for anyhow.  I know that for every Catholic on here who used to be Baptist, I could mention a Baptist who used to be Catholic.  Furthermore, I know that for a Catholic to get baptized in a non-Catholic Church that would not go over easy either.  Also, I do not doubt that many Catholics today still have Baptists or Methodists or others "praying for their salvation."  However, unless there is a real need for that to happe I,  personally, do not do that nor see the need too. However, I do see a need for Catholicism to take a step back and acknowledge that I can be a Christian without being a Catholic.  After all, what is the difference for a Catholic to speak of their issue at non-Catholics trying to get "them saved" when most Catholics (or at least in my travel's) do not equate my Christian with being one if I am not a Catholic.

I have found it fascinating and please, all of you take note that I am not a Catholic here, of the intensity of the passion over Catholicism and Protestantism still evident in 2007.  True, many Protestant churches and Southern Baptists are keen to do this, have a problem and just start another church.  In short order, "church hopping" is not any better than "bar hopping" and yet many Christians (generic term here for purposes of our discussion) just get mad and run from church to church.   

I find it extremely difficult to accept many of Catholicism's statements on tracing its history so far back but that issue does not mean I somehow have a less opinion of Catholicism.  My background in history just cannot accept some of the Church's claims but again that is not because I think there are "ulterior motives at work," (i.e., think Da Vince Code or whatever it was that came out bashing Catholics).  It is simply a search for the truth and accuracy.

There have been decades of mistrust and animosity between Catholics and non-Catholics (and lest we forget, there are Orthrodox Christians who would argue that they are the true church too) that we can discuss for decades about what was best/worst.  What is important now is to recognize that we have more in common than not and to work in what ways can be worked on Christian unity. 

I will add this note and I hope it is not misunderstood.  Catholicism would do well to protest loud and clear the horrible image that the media portrays of it.  Especially the way that Catholics are seen as being drunk all the time.  It is no wonder that many Southern Baptists look at needing to "pray for Catholics" as when one considers the abstinate obession of Baptists versus the popular image of drinking for Catholics.  Yet, I doubt that Catholics are drunks.  Also, while I may have an issue with the Eucharist versus the Lord's Supper, I have no problem with Catholics who use "wine" because in Catholic theology you are partaking of the blood, not wine.  We are in agreement on that here, so for future reference I get your point on that concern and were I not to create "Armageddon," (  ) I would argue that Baptist churches should use wine too, as that would be the correct and accurate way to observe the Lord's Supper. 

Thank you all for posting and please continue this thread.

Joseph Bailey

Let me add this comment to this current debate and see if it helps to clarify even better my position.  I first want to make clear that I am not attacking Catholicism and truly, I do "get it" of its role in the origins and continuity of Christianity.

The following is a quote from whom I believe a Catholic lay person on here and perhaps these words from a Catholic will address my Post question better and more directly, "The biggest problem facing the Catholic Church is not in her teachings nor in her claims to the Truth, it is in the cowardice of her leaders and the resulting lukewarmness and confusion by the faithful."  When I made my Post question I did so seeking to see clarity in belief of Catholics, not to offend anyone.  This qoute accurately portrays many Catholic's I know personally and I have always found it a contradiction that the Church would lay claim to such authority and yet, its faithful followers would be tepid in living out that authority with clear conviction of belief.  I may not agree with a teaching or a belief in Catholicism but seeing Catholics who are unapologetic about their beliefs means that I can respect and learn from them.

Joseph Bailey

Joseph,

In a sense, the entire history of mankind has been about one thing -- do you trust God? In Genesis, Adam and Eve failed to trust God when tempted by the serpent in the garden, so they ate of the forbidden tree. In Exodus, many of the Israelites failed to trust Him when Moses was up on Mount Sinai for forty days, so they built the golden calf. In John 6, many of Jesus' disciples failed to trust Him when He said we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we will have no life within us, so they followed Him no more.

And here we are today. Yes, my friend, it is a sad reality that many Catholics are tepid and its leaders seem to lack the conviction to unapologetically preach the truth. But that failure to trust God, as you seem to agree, does not mean the Faith is not true or that God is not to be trusted.

And, yes, many Baptists are passionate about their faith.  But that, I assume you would agree, does not of itself  make it true. After all, the folks in al Qaeda are passionate about their faith.

For PTK, let us try not to bring in al Qaeda when talking about Baptists, Catholics, or any other Christian group.  I think that is a topic for another thread.

Joseph Bailey

Joseph 

As I wrote before I am grateful to you for starting such interesting discussions. Your courteous and searching approach has elicited answers that are calm and reasoned.  

As previously stated by me,  it is correct to say fermented grape juice was used at the last supper, since that is what wine is. 

Of course  you  can be a Christian without being a Catholic.  A Christian is a follower of Christ.  Many consider a Christian as one who has been baptised. 

You wrote: What is important now is to recognize that we have more in common than not and to work in what ways can be worked on Christian unity. I agree with you fully in this and in much other of your thoughts. 

On a personal note, some years ago I was at a lecture in Jerusalem given by a former president of the World Council of Churches.  She was lamenting on the unhappy state of ecumenism, with the recent publication of Dominus Iesus etc.  I queried her and said I thought ecumenism was in a healthy state with reputable Bible scholars working to understand the word of God together.  

God bless,


NoelFitz.
_________________________________________________
In necessariis, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.
_________________________________________________

Joseph,

If, as you say,  your years of digging into Catholicism has made you more certain of being a Baptist than you were all those years ago, then you must have resolved a whole lot of problems.

For instance, you must believe the Catholic Church is wrong in its teachings on infant baptism, along with a considerable number of Protestant denominations. Am I correct?

Besides that, you must have figured some reasoning to accept the list of books to include in the New Testament as true if not because the Church says so. What is the rationale?

You must have come to some relsolution on there being one Church, as in our Lord's prayer for Chrisitan unity, that we might all be one as He and the Father are one. So is Southern Baptist the one church? If so, then how so?

And so on. 

For PTR, I would recommend that it would be better to ask what I have come to a conclusion on rather than assume what I may/may not believe.  Regarding infant baptism, it is as I have stated in another post in that I have no easy answer to it.  I have always had a problem with infant baptism because it has come across to me as allowing one to experience salvation without being saved.  However, when an infant or other young person dies then what of their salvation?  I will be the first to state that I am not necessarily inclined to argue with a Catholic about that issue as perhaps others may do and that I may be no better than a Thomas on this issue as yet.

The Canon issue is one that I do think Catholicism has been unwilling to address over the years.  There is no doubt that Catholicism played a role and the major one in assembling the Canon but at the birth of Christ there was no Catholic Church, none at the Resurrection, and the Apostles as well as Paul were all Jewish.  Am I and others to ignore that truth?  A little FYI, I accept the "whole Scripture" and find it puzzling that Baptists and other Protestants don't and especially the Book of Wisdom of Solomon.

Concerning "one church," I have never stated that Southern Baptist's ishe "one church."  Furthermore, my assertions have been that I can be Christian without being Catholic but that does not negate what Catholicism believes is its sacred duty to guard the deposit of faith.  I have yet to state to anyone on here that being Catholic means that they have no faith, only that a more fuller and bolder Catholicism is needed.  Also, I have yet to question one's faith as being illegitimate but in many posts done as a reply to mine that seems to the case.   What is the difference in a Catholic saying that a veil must be lifted or that I have never taken the Eucharist as compared to a Bible-thumping-Baptist Preacher laying down the law on how Catholicism is wrong?

Concerning who may be a coward?  I was quoting what a Catholic wrote, not what me, as a Baptist would write.  Also, I am not sure that I have accused anyone of anything save for not being bolder in their faith.  I will say this though and that is as I read the posts on CE, do more "digging," and so forth I really am surprised that Catholicism is not more bolder in its proclamation about being the one church.  So what if I do not agree?  Would that negate the duty given to Catholicism all those years ago?

Joseph Bailey

Joseph,

Why do Baptisits avoid any question that they do not, intellectually and spiritually, want to answer?

In Christ,

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

Let me respond to both PTR and David here in that order.

Concerning the proclamation that Benedict made this past summer, perhaps one should look at some earlier posts I made about that issue.  It is as I have said in those posts, that such an action is needed even if I disagree with it.  I say that because in, "big picture" terms Catholicism will need to reassert it's claims of authority. 

Concerning the Jewish background of the Apostles and Paul, it has everything to do with what we call Christianity.  The entire foundation of the Christian faith is not predicated upon the Catholic Church but upon the fulfillment of Judaic Prophesy and of the redemptive work of the Messiah.  What created so many issues of debate after the Resurrection was whether or not this news was to be made available to the non-Jewish world.  Thus, whatever Catholicism may be in terms of the guardian of the deposit of faith and upon whatever rock Peter gave his successors, the Catholic Church is a direct descendant of Judaic religious prophesy.  One cannot separate the two no more than how Catholicism claims what Protestants should not do in saying what it does about church history.

Concerning the "recommendation", maybe I misread you this past hoiliday weekend.  Typing on a computer keyboard while trying to watch football games and argue with a relative about which team is best is a potent mix  (  ).  After all, the team that lost the 4 Overtime game this weekend is where I get my username.  Thus, please feel to keep being strident.

For David, actually that is a good question.  I could argue that point about some issues concerning Catholics but it is relevant here due to concerns over infant baptism, the Sacraments, Canon development, so forth.  I would posit that many Protestants may be more outwardly passionate about their beleifs than Catholics and as such confuse that passion with a defense of their beliefs.  Also, I suspect that many Protestants do not know their history, whether it be "church history" or history in general and furthermore, do not know their Scripture.  There are several studies/polls that can be referenced to demonstrate the lack of Biblical literacy  nowadays.  It is that lack of grounded knowledge that keeps them from knowing what to say when asked a question.  Then I further suspect that such additional materials as the Southern Baptist's, Baptist Faith & Message, are not studied.  So, they use what a Pastor, or someone else has said to defend their faith without knowing their faith.   

Joseph Bailey