Questions For Those Who Converted To Catholicism

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Graciela' post='1734343' date='Dec 23 2008, 12:46 PM']If I had experienced the respectfulness of which you speak by other posters on PM, perhaps I would not have been so offended and thus, cranky.

Graciela[/quote]

It's understandable that we all get cranky, lol yours truly was guilty this morning as I attempted to fight my way through the ice and the traffic this morning! However it helps to keep Jesus' example always before you. On a forum we have the advantage of having to actually type out our words which usually introduces "an extra layer of grace" so to speak, where we have time to correct ourselves before we hit "post." Other people may annoy us but that doesn't make it OK to give it back... lol I have had conversations with Jesus where I say "please, Lord, they so deserve it, let me slap them down!" Sometimes saying a prayer before typing or before hitting post helps. We could all do better

The one thing about "priestess" is that it is just a part of our English language... god vs. goddess, actor vs. actress etc. I mean it [b]has [/b]pagan connotations but that's just the reality of the situation? That's why people find the concept creepy, not because they think women ministers from other denominations are scary but because it reminds them of Roman temples and bloody sacrifices etc. Maybe after x many years it will lose its pagan connotations and people will think "priestess" means Anglian woman priest?

I know that to Episcopalians there is no difference between male and female ministers but to most historical Churches it IS an issue, so in talking about them we have to differentiate in order to make our conversations less confusing. What is better, should we say "male priest" and "female priest"? Honest question.

I also know that some people find the "ess" ending deeply offensive and anti-feminist but to me that is silly, as a lover of language I don't like artifical mutilations like that... in many languages all the words have gender, such as my beloved French for example! Of course now that I know it is offensive I'll try to remember not to use it in reference to Anglicans... although I have also run into some who don't mind?

Edited December 23, 2008 by Maggie

[Guest]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1729182' date='Dec 16 2008, 12:18 AM']You thinking you are not crazy or delusional does not mean you are not crazy or delusional.[/quote]

If you read my post I said I was crazy. I think alot of people are crazy and dont realise it. You not believing in the God who created you makes you crazy. You not asking the holy spirit to come into your heart and show you he is real makes you crazy. I am a firm believer there are two kinds of crazy. One good one bad.

As far as me being delusional ? hmmmmm mabey, but probally not.
Like I said the holy spirit is real and living and once you have an encounter with him you become aware of this. Faith is a gift from the God. Without the holy spirit you cannot expercience faith. You cant really say if my experiences are authetnic or not. You have not been seeing through my eyes.

Again, if I tell you that I went over to my grandmas and we ordered pizza and had a great afternoon, then conclude to say that she loves me, you dont necessarily have to believe me.
You could say I was delusional and really didnt go. I could be lieing that I went over there. I could be lieing that we actually got pizza and that she loves me. BUT if I know I went over there and I know my grandma loves me it really doenst matter if you say im delusional.

We belive in God which means we believe in love. You dont belive in love because you dont believe in God. God is real and breathing. You cant just go into religion with the intent of having God proove himself to you. You have to ask humbly for God to come into your life. You have to love God. Without love you are nothing and it doesnt matter how religious you are.

IF YOU SINCERLY ASK GOD INTO YOUR LIFE HE WILL COME INTO IT. GOD IS JESUS CHRIST AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS HIS CHURCH.



peep my music all day

Im Coming Down




(chorus, to be chopped and screwed)
im coming down coming down coming down man
im coming down coming down coming down man
im coming down coming down coming down man
im coming down coming down coming down man
im coming down in'a caddy sitten low
trunk full of flow rep'n from ohio
throw up the peace sign while i recline press rewind
cuz you know im coming down

1st Verse

fade busters like saints keep on moven
if they sellen they soul guess it mean that they losen
proven just check it in scripture
paint it like'a artist paint ya a picture
holdup
why they always talken proove ?
im like get'a some faith huh what it do ?
myspace full of fake gangsters and pimps
im like shorty what it do lets eat us some shrimp
keep it pimp without the p got swag for sho
catch me comen down clean just enjoyen the show
throw dueces like parker like im liven in texas
like george straight all my x's liven in texas
heard they ride clean in bright shiny lexus's
argue bout the flow and who be spitten it the bestestes
heard there nice country girls who be cooken the best dishes
a buncha good phamly always senden they best wishes

(chorus, to be chopped and screwed)

im coming down coming down coming down man
im coming down coming down coming down man
im coming down coming down coming down man
im coming down coming down coming down man
im coming down in'a caddy sitten low
trunk full of flow rep'n from ohio
throw up the peace sign while i recline press rewind
cuz you know im coming down

Edited December 23, 2008 by Guest

[Socrates]

[quote name='Graciela' post='1734184' date='Dec 22 2008, 11:47 PM']There is NO Episcopal "Conference" so clearly you have NO idea about our polity. We have diocese and bishops and a trienniel General Convention at which clergy and lay delegates meet to make decisions affecting the nation al church. And no one anywhere in the Anglican Communion claims infallibility as the Pope does.[/quote]
I stand corrected.

The Episcopalian trienniel General Convention does not control God.

[Graciela]

I know that to Episcopalians there is no difference between male and female ministers but to most historical Churches it IS an issue, so in talking about them we have to differentiate in order to make our conversations less confusing. What is better, should we say "male priest" and "female priest"? Honest question.

I also know that some people find the "ess" ending deeply offensive and anti-feminist but to me that is silly, as a lover of language I don't like artifical mutilations like that... in many languages all the words have gender, such as my beloved French for example! Of course now that I know it is offensive I'll try to remember not to use it in reference to Anglicans... although I have also run into some who don't mind?
[/quote]

I appreciate your question, Maggie. On a day to day basis for us, specifying whether a priest is male or female is not necessary- it is implied in the context such as talking about the rector and his wife or the vicar and her husband or that the priest at such-and-such parish is pregnant and expecting her first baby any day now (that pretty much seals the deal that she is female).

However in those contexts were it is necessary to specify, I would propose that saying male or female priest is preferable to using priest and priestess for males and females respectively. I posit this in recognition of typical English usage patterns in the US, where we no longer
"gender-ize" titles for roles and jobs. For example, a woman holding a job as a Director is not called a Directress, and such usages would seem anachronistic today in public contexts. Even some parts of the entertainment industry are starting to move away from actor and actress to "actor" regardless of gender.

I love French too, but I remember that learning the masculine and feminine forms was a challenge at first because we don't have the same patterns in English usage. So my proposal is not a theological argument but a common language usage one.

[Johnny]

[quote name='Theosis3' post='1718776' date='Dec 4 2008, 03:06 PM']God be with all of you,

This is a personal question for those of you [b]who are converts[/b].

What made you convert to the Catholic Church? Did you ever consider the Eastern Orthodox Church? If so, why did you choose the Catholic Church over the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Thank you.[/quote]
Can't say that I did, at least not when I was in the process of converting. I didn't really know what it was. Although it's allured me very heavily for the past 6 months or so. What keeps me Catholic? Well, I felt a very strong calling to the Catholic Church, anyone who knows me and my up bringing realizes how hard it was for me to become Catholic, I come from a long, long line of Baptists. Anywho, my very strong calling to the Church means a lot to me. Too me it's what I hearken back to when I am feeling doubtful or down, I know the Lord called me in that direction, I know He did. I became a Catholic for a reason.
The second reason is well Jesus said we are to be the light of the world, and a city sitting upon a hill. We were also given the Great Commission. How could Orthodoxy be the one true faith if so little people have heard of it, and even less people are Orthodox?

[Vincent Vega]

I voted "Yes" and "No."
Spending my early years in Western PA, where there is a strong Eastern European presence, I was aware of the Orthodox Church. I was also aware of the Roman Catholic Church, because the Catholic presence in the Pittsburgh area is huge, and because my grandparents are Catholic. I was pretty young when we moved (nine or ten), so I had never given religion a great deal of thought, other than I knew I was Christian - I never really knew nor gave a lot of time to what "Presbyterian" meant. I did know, from going to masses every now and again with my grandparents, that Catholics, and the Orthodox too, in limited experience, were very different.
I always enjoyed the more elevated and reverent atmosphere with the "kneeling" and "communion" and whatnot of both the Catholic and Orthodox . I never really understood what it meant, nor really thought about it for another five or six years. I remembered loving the liturgies of both the Eastern and Western Churches, but here in Jacksonville, the closest Orthodox churches are 30/40+ minutes away. I couldn't drive when I started discerning my conversion, so geography helped decide for me. Later, when I learned of what caused the schism, I decided that with the filioque, that both had valid points, but the primacy of St. Peter as preached by the Latins was what really won me.

[catholicrox]

[quote name='Theosis3' post='1718776' date='Dec 4 2008, 03:06 PM']God be with all of you,

This is a personal question for those of you [b]who are converts[/b].

What made you convert to the Catholic Church? Did you ever consider the Eastern Orthodox Church? If so, why did you choose the Catholic Church over the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Thank you.[/quote]

My whole family converted to Catholicism. Before becomming Catholic we were non-denom. protestents. The first time we attended mass was at an amazing Catholic Church in Augusta,Ga called Most Holy Trinity. When Christ was elevated in the form of the eucharist my family had a physical "reaction". We were literally thrown into the back of the pew. This led us to believe that there was something more here extc..... Yes absoultly we considered joining the Eastern Orthodox Church. It was a great struggle for us. Eventually though, we were convinced that we should go with the seat of peter and chose Roman Catholicism. Hope I could help,
God Bless,
catholicrox

[Hulkster]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1718807' date='Dec 4 2008, 03:25 PM']First, the presence of the pope as the first among all bishops, completing the pattern of hierarchical structure seen everywhere else in the Church (father over the domestic church, priest over the parish, bishop over the diocese, archbishop uniting several dioceses, and finally pope uniting all bishops).

Second, which is kind of a corrolary to the first, is the Catholic Church's consistent stance on contraception, which is rooted in the first point because it's only by the pope's authority that we can say the Catholic Church is consistent. Within both Orthodox and Catholic Churches, there are priests and bishops who preach different stances, but Catholics can look above that fray of dissention to find a clear source of truth.

As biotechnology greatly advances in the coming decades, I think authoritative teaching on all the moral questions and dilemmas that are unthinkable today will require the pope's authority far more urgently than the Church has ever needed before.[/quote]

This is almost exactly the same reasons I chose Catholicism over Eastern Orthodoxy.

[Guest Andrew_the_convert]

Yes I considered Orthodoxy because I was a Baptist who hated Catholicism more than anything on earth. But then I read Bishop Ware's conversion story and he said that if you are in the west and don't wish to be protestant to just become Catholic, because it's easier. As well the Orthodox Church in our town refuses to welcome Non-Greeks, The Ukrainian Orthodox church in our town says that I have to learn Ukrainian first... not very evangelical....

Plus Orthodoxy still denies the apostolic doctrine of petrine supremacy, and it seems arbitrary to say that the Church would be deliberating on matters of faith and having councils until 1054 when suddenly it was pleasing to God to split it into chaos and 19 national churches all with confused bishoprics and no means of addressing modern problems.

As well St. Irenaeus explicitly speaks against it. Plus the Latins have all the coolest Church Fathers and theologians, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Andrew_the_convert

[cmotherofpirl]

Welcome to the phamily:)

[Formosus]

I have/am considering the Orthodox Church, though I am not a convert, but a revert. Historically speaking, there are many holes in the claims made by the Roman Church for its supremacy. The Orthodox Church has far less holes, imo, and the holes it has have more reasonable explanations. Many citations of early Latin fathers on the supremacy of Rome are taken out of context. I hold onto communion with Rome mainly because of

1. Contraceptives. Admittedly the Orthodox Church will deal with this eventually at the next pan-Orthodox council whenever it happens, but it is something that is still troubling to me.


For me, it has really came down to the question of whether or not different theologies( that seemingly can be contradictory) can co exist within the same Church. The E. Orthodox say they can not, and the Catholic Church says they can.


I would like to say that the "Ecumenical Council" concern is somewhat irrelevant. Originally Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor and presided over by the Emperors, not the Pope. The Eastern Orthodox have not had an Ecumenical Council because the Ecumene(the Empire) is gone. Ecumene meant the civilized world, the Roman world. After the (real) Council of Constantinople II, the Ecumene was extremely reduced. The Orthodox have continued to hold councils, though now called Pan-Orthodox Councils. They are not "ecumenical" but their decrees are held as being universal. Further, I would ask why we today would need "Ecumenical Councils". All the great dogmatic issues have been settled by the first 7. The East does not believe in the "development of dogma" as Cardinal Newman articulated in defense of VI. Problems many westerners (including myself when I first was exposed to Byzantine theology) run into are really non-issues once one comes to understand the workings of the Byzantine world from a byzantine point of view.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Formosus' post='1759855' date='Jan 23 2009, 11:51 PM']I have/am considering the Orthodox Church, though I am not a convert, but a revert. Historically speaking, there are many holes in the claims made by the Roman Church for its supremacy. The Orthodox Church has far less holes, imo, and the holes it has have more reasonable explanations. Many citations of early Latin fathers on the supremacy of Rome are taken out of context. I hold onto communion with Rome mainly because of

1. Contraceptives. Admittedly the Orthodox Church will deal with this eventually at the next pan-Orthodox council whenever it happens, but it is something that is still troubling to me.


For me, it has really came down to the question of whether or not different theologies( that seemingly can be contradictory) can co exist within the same Church. The E. Orthodox say they can not, and the Catholic Church says they can.


I would like to say that the "Ecumenical Council" concern is somewhat irrelevant. Originally Ecumenical Councils were called by the Emperor and presided over by the Emperors, not the Pope. The Eastern Orthodox have not had an Ecumenical Council because the Ecumene(the Empire) is gone. Ecumene meant the civilized world, the Roman world. After the (real) Council of Constantinople II, the Ecumene was extremely reduced. The Orthodox have continued to hold councils, though now called Pan-Orthodox Councils. They are not "ecumenical" but their decrees are held as being universal. Further, I would ask why we today would need "Ecumenical Councils". All the great dogmatic issues have been settled by the first 7. The East does not believe in the "development of dogma" as Cardinal Newman articulated in defense of VI. Problems many westerners (including myself when I first was exposed to Byzantine theology) run into are really non-issues once one comes to understand the workings of the Byzantine world from a byzantine point of view.[/quote]

How do you feel about the role of nationalism in the Orthodox Churchs?

[Formosus]

I don't see it as an issue. I think that if one were to judge a communion by its worst members then one doesn't get an accurate picture. Eastern Catholic Churches , for instance, are divided by national lines as well. Or take for instance the problems between various latin elasticities in the United States.


I would like to clarify that I also hold onto Rome because the primacy of the Roman see is something that was held important in the early Church (primacy, not supremacy) The disagreements between the East and West perhaps are not so great to deny communion with one another, especially at this point where Rome has begun to realize that Eastern Churches are equals with the latins and not subordinate.

[Formosus]

Latin ethnicities*

Sorry firefox likes to correct my spelling sometimes.

[Ziggamafu]

I considered it - anything but Catholicism, after all - but a look at theology surrounding the keys of the kingdom and the respect given to the bishop of Rome by the early Fathers compelled toward the fullness of Truth.