Why would someone convert to Catholicism?

[Pope Leo Decrapio]

Now if Christianity werent complete bullshit here is why it would be better to be Catholic than Protestant.

The councils that decided the Canon of Scripture that would be in the first Christian Bible took place after Christianity became the official Religion of the Roman Empire and therefore it was the Roman Catholic Church that put together the first Bible and decided the New Testament Canon that is accepted by noncatholics.

There is overwhelming evidence that the Catholic Church began in the first century and that the Papacy is nearly 2,000 years old http://www.catholic.com/tracts/browse/Papacy

Most of what people think is extremely Unchristian (Satanic) about the Church like Mariology, confession of sin to a priest, the sacrifice of the mass, seven sacraments, communion of Saints, Holy images etc. was practiced by the Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Coptic, and Orthodox Churches...

...so if those practices are Satanic and therefore not Christian as many claim, that would mean that every Christian Church on the face of the earth was propagating Satanic practices and therefore, there was not a Christian Church the earth before the 16th Century. if you follow that philosophy

So Protestants say the Bible decides, but this begs the question when the two warring parties agree that the Bible is the final authority yet disagree on the interpretation where do we go?

Since there is a document that many are divided on wouldnt God leave us with a Supreme Court to interpret it and settle Doctrinal or interpretational disputes?

Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.

Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological "pick and choose" state of affairs, which leads to the uncertainties and "every man for himself" confusion within the private interpretation system among laypeople.

Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians and the Church Fathers.

Protestantism arose in 1517, and is a "Johnny-come-lately" in the history of Christianity (having introduced many doctrines previously accepted by no Church, or very few individuals). Therefore it cannot possibly be the "restoration" of "pure", "primitive" Christianity, since this is ruled out by the fact of its novelties and absurdly late appearance.

The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the great ecumenical councils which defined and developed Christian doctrine such as the Trinity and the Nicene Creed which are embraced by most Protestants

Protestantism has too often neglected the place of liturgy in worship (with notable exceptions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism). This is the way Christians had always worshiped down through the centuries, and thus cant be so lightly dismissed.

Many Protestant denominations have removed the Eucharist from the center and focus of Christian worship services. Some Protestants observe it only monthly, or even quarterly (the Reformed are notorious for this). This is against many centuries of Christian Tradition and therefore should not be lightly dismissed.

Most Protestants (Lutherans and high-church Anglicans being the exception) believe in a merely symbolic Eucharist, which is contrary to universal Christian Tradition up to 1517, the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, and the Bible (Mt 26:26-8; Jn 6:47-63; 1 Cor 10:14-22; 11:23-30), which hold to the Real Presence

Protestantism has abolished the priesthood (Mt 18:18) and the sacrament of ordination, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Acts 6:6; 14:22; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6).

The majority of Protestants deny baptismal regeneration, contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5).
Protestantism is divided into five major camps on the question of baptism.

Protestantism denies the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and contrary to Christian Tradition and the Bible (Gen 2:24; Mal 2:14-16; Mt 5:32; 19:6,9; Mk
10:11-12; Lk 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-14,39).

Many Protestant denominations (mostly its liberal wing, but alarmingly in many other places, too) have changed their previous stances on women pastors, abortion, and homosexuality. Catholicism remains firm on what it has always taught

Women pastors is contrary to Christian Tradition (including traditional Protestant theology) and the Bible (Mt 10:1-4; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 3:1-12; Titus 1:6). (I personally dont care)

Protestantism sanctions contraception,(they changed their stance) in defiance of universal Christian Tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) up until 1930 - when the Anglicans first allowed it - and the Bible (Gen 38:8-10; 41:52; Ex 23:25-6; Lev 26:9; Deut 7:14; Ruth 4:13; Lk 1:24-5). Luther and Calvin, e.g., regarded it as murder. Now, only Catholicism retains the ancient Tradition. (However, I have a hard time seeing contraception as evil)

Protestantism has contradictory views of church government, or ecclesiology (episcopal, presbyterian, congregational, or no collective authority at all), thus making widespread discipline, unity and order impossible.

Some sects even claim to have "apostles" or "prophets" among them, with all the accompanying abuses of authority resulting there from and false predictions of the end times and belief's like the Rapture.

Sola scriptura is an abuse of the Bible, since it is a use of the Bible contrary to its explicit and implicit testimony about itself and Tradition.The Bible is, in fact, undeniably a Christian Tradition itself.

Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Tim 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.

Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively. At best, the individual Protestant can only take a head count of how many Protestant scholars, commentators, etc. take such-and-such a view on Doctrine or interpretation x, y, or z; Or (in a more sophisticated fashion), the Protestant can simply accept the authority of some denominational tradition, confession, or creed (which then has to be justified over against the other competing ones). There is no unified Protestant Tradition.

[Nine]

Woo! Red!

[Pope Leo Decrapio]

Woo! Red!

Why not?

[Kayenneh]

Why not?

Because it makes my banhammer hand itchy.

[Nine]

Why not?

Because it just makes it unreadable. Small bite sized chunks preferably in black in the default font and size will be your friend. This is the internet after all. Attention spans aren't all that great when there are so many things to do!

[Angrboda]

I think your Catholicism is showing.

You obviously went to a lot of effort in your attempts at stealth evangelization, except like most bad lovers, you came like a rocket even before we'd progressed very far into foreplay.

I'll simply point out two errors. First, there's good evidence that, informally, without the influence of a central authority, a stable canon was shaping up by the end of the second century. Furthermore, many of those who exerted the strongest influence on the solidification of canon did so without explicit mandate from any centralized Roman authority. Moreover, the consolidation of power in Rome happened rather late in the process of canon formation, and throughout the centuries, the Holy Roman Catholic church has been as much an unstable and decentralized force for orthodoxy as not, with significant events being the late consolidation of power, frequently weak and impotent early papal regimes, the Avignon crisis and other occurrences of multiple or false popes, the Great Schism which led to the split between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Roman Catholicism, and finally the schism with the orthodox Holy Roman church which led to the Protestant reformation. So, no, far from being a bedrock upon which one can rest a consistent, unified, and enduring legacy, the Catholic church has been a Johnny come lately, wracked with numerous problems and divisions, and as often caused as many stumbling blocks in the path of consolidating the faithful as it might arguably be said to have solved. And now, in the 20th and 21st centuries, the Catholic church's mishandling of the problem of sexual abuses among its ranks of clergy, its unpopular stance on reproductive rights, as well as its vacillation between using the carrot or the stick in managing relations with its faithful, has left us in a world in which the Catholic church is once again causing the faithful to splinter and divide, rather than serving as a strong force to encourage a cohesive and unified faith. So, again, no, the Catholic church hasn't been a unique voice, encouraging unity and salvation in Christ's name, but just another weak, often impotent, and frequently divisive voice in the history of the body of Christ as a whole.

[Drich]

I think your Catholicism is showing.

You obviously went to a lot of effort in your attempts at stealth evangelization, except like most bad lovers, you came like a rocket even before we'd progressed very far into foreplay.

I'll simply point out two errors. First, there's good evidence that, informally, without the influence of a central authority, a stable canon was shaping up by the end of the second century. Furthermore, many of those who exerted the strongest influence on the solidification of canon did so without explicit mandate from any centralized Roman authority. Moreover, the consolidation of power in Rome happened rather late in the process of canon formation, and throughout the centuries, the Holy Roman Catholic church has been as much an unstable and decentralized force for orthodoxy as not, with significant events being the late consolidation of power, frequently weak and impotent early papal regimes, the Avignon crisis and other occurrences of multiple or false popes, the Great Schism which led to the split between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western Roman Catholicism, and finally the schism with the orthodox Holy Roman church which led to the Protestant reformation. So, no, far from being a bedrock upon which one can rest a consistent, unified, and enduring legacy, the Catholic church has been a Johnny come lately, wracked with numerous problems and divisions, and as often caused as many stumbling blocks in the path of consolidating the faithful as it might arguably be said to have solved. And now, in the 20th and 21st centuries, the Catholic church's mishandling of the problem of sexual abuses among its ranks of clergy, its unpopular stance on reproductive rights, as well as its vacillation between using the carrot or the stick in managing relations with its faithful, has left us in a world in which the Catholic church is once again causing the faithful to splinter and divide, rather than serving as a strong force to encourage a cohesive and unified faith. So, again, no, the Catholic church hasn't been a unique voice, encouraging unity and salvation in Christ's name, but just another weak, often impotent, and frequently divisive voice in the history of the body of Christ as a whole.

Since the pope was ban may I have this dance Ms. rats-et-sue?? (Pronounced Rats et or ate Sue) I like alpo better but this works too

While the Catholic Church has been far from the Rock Jesus promised to build His church on it has indeed played a pivotal role as a member of the body of Christ. I don't feel the need to waive the banner as strongly as the pope did, but for the sake of argument (just playing pope's/devil's advocate) I will stand behind most of the historical stuff the pope put In his op, but at the same time point out the diversity and ability to hold different understandings of various doctrines is what has kept the body of Christ alive and vibrant. (And it is what pulled us out of the dark ages)

Aside from that I also see the RC church playing a pivotal role in the future as well. John of Patmos has her playing the great harlot of the book of revelation, which means her involvement and support of the anti Christ will finally usher in the end of Days, and God's Kingdom will come. You can't say that does not set the RC church apart from all other churches. So In A sense the pope was 100 % right, non catholic Christians do not have the unity, legacy, tradition, nor the prophetic evolvement the RC church has going for it.

[Angrboda]

I hope you realize that 'et' in French takes the place of the English connective 'and'. I hope you also realize that making fun of someone's name makes you look like a five year old.

[Minimalist]

(And it is what pulled us out of the dark ages)

Kindly pull your head out of your ass and understand it was when the power of the church was broken that the West emerged into the brilliance of the enlightenment. We don't need you or your fucking stupid superstitions anymore, Drippy.

And kindly blow the pope out of your ass, too.

[Drich]

I hope you realize that 'et' in French takes the place of the English connective 'and'.

In southern english 'et' takes the place of Ate. As in; 'I et me some of that and it was goood!' and as I speak a southern dialect and not french.. I figured it would work.

I hope you also realize that making fun of someone's name makes you look like a five year old.

I was going for lovable scamp, or even light hearted bully as it is all apart of my hearts and minds campain.

If you don't want to play anymore then I won't make fun of your name. Just don't call my wife a dried up crack whore anymore. It was Herion.

---

(And it is what pulled us out of the dark ages)

Kindly pull your head out of your ass and understand it was when the power of the church was broken that the West emerged into the brilliance of the enlightenment. We don't need you or your fucking stupid superstitions anymore, Drippy.

And kindly blow the pope out of your ass, too.

I hope you also realize that making fun of someone's name makes you look like a five year old.