Watch out! Loaded questions!

[Vandaler]

So you want to convert people to the Vatican II, novus ordo religion? I don't think that is even allowed anymore even if you wanted to.

 

What's to worry here; are you afraid I might be getting a ticket?

 

Edited to add.  I do not distinghuish NO and traditional catholics like you do. I recognize the differences of course;  But I don't foster the divide.

[kjvail]

I did forget to add, always remember it is not you who will convert the unbeliever, it is the Holy Spirit. He will open the eyes of someone when and how He sees fit.

That being said, I think there are good reasons for faith. Faith is not blind, God has revealed Himself to us in uncountable ways. To lead someone to the Church you need to befriend them, get to know them. Arguments are not going to work in  frontal assault type style but they do give us a foundation for the leap of faith that will finally be necessary.

[creimann]

I get kind of skeptical when people say there are "proofs" for God.

As for me, I meant that 'the rest follows' in that only the Catholic faith is coherent and sensible. Once a person agrees that there is a God Who matters, they ought to be able to arrive at Catholicism.

[CampeadorShin]

I suggest the following websites:

Catholicapologetics.info

Scripturecatholic.com

Fisheaters and Newadvent are good too.

[gladius_veritatis]

The best one-volume apologetics book I have seen (there are likely other very good ones, too) is Apologetics, by Mgr. Paul (?) Glenn, available at www.tanbooks.com

 

The very best reasoning can only lead someone to the 'door' of faith, but the person must co-operate with God's grace to enter the 'sacred building'.

 

As those in error are under the influence of the devil, to a greater or lesser extent, it is a good idea, and often absolutely necessary (as Our Lord tells us), to fast and pray for the person (who does not even know to do it for themselves).   Lent is a good time to focus the intentions of your fasts toward the conversion of (dying) sinners, infidels, etc, and those particular individuals you are trying to help know Our Blessed Savior.

[Deogratias]

I get kind of skeptical when people say there are "proofs" for God.

As for me, I meant that 'the rest follows' in that only the Catholic faith is coherent and sensible. Once a person agrees that there is a God Who matters, they ought to be able to arrive at Catholicism.

 

I totally agree with you, my post was meant to stand alone, it was not a response to yours, I knew what you meant.  I think everyone has made good points.

[Kephapaulos]

 

       The number one things which a person must do if he really wants to find the true religion is to lay aside all pre-concieved notions of all the religions. GK Chesterton says something to that effect. Humility and openness are the keys. This does not mean they open themselves to every spirit and "god" out there. It means they examine the claims of all the founders of the religions, and critically cross-test each one against the other. Now in about 35 more days, I will tell you the biggest difference.

Are you talking about the Sacrifice of our Lord occurring in 35 more days as the big difference, Credo?

 

 

To expand somewhat on what Vandaler says: St. Thomas observes that it begins with faith. If a person believes, has faith, that there is a God, then the rest follows and is provable. Yes it requires faith first. St. Thomas observed that those lacking faith must be approached on that level. Perhaps they have to learn to see that faith is reasonable. But those whose god is Reason will have a hard time with this leap. Western society is (presently) founded upon the notion that doubt is truth, that received wisdom is unwise, that questions are the answer, that life is an experiment. Faith is contrary to these premises, and indeed many people who profess faith may actually have what amounts to a secondary faith in their religion, and a primary faith in the secular values they see around themselves.

 

 

About the secondary and primary faith part you mentioned, creimann, I have been thinking of this. How can one have two faiths? Or if one is to have two faiths, then that is simply not having one faith, and if one of those faiths is the True Faith, then that means that person does not truly have the True Faith. Simply put: the person does not believe the Truth. There is this silly separation of believing and knowing that bothers me. They say they believe in the Catholic faith, and then they go turn around and accept the possibility of or respect the faith of a false religion. What gives?

 

EDIT: Again, if you try believing in a synthesis of two faiths (one being the Truth), then you do not really believe the Truth because you would think that the Truth plus error totals the Truth, when that is not so. You would be believing then in a false religion altogether, for if you believe the Truth, then that is all you would need to believe. Why go and make concessions and compromises to error?

 

[Kephapaulos]

I thank all of you.

[creimann]

About the secondary and primary faith part you mentioned, creimann, ... Simply put: the person does not believe the Truth. There is this silly separation of believing and knowing that bothers me.

Yes indeed, Marcellus! And I think the subordination of revelation to reason in the modern mind is key to this tendency. Their god is their belly whose god is reason. If they did but know it!

[Kephapaulos]

About the secondary and primary faith part you mentioned, creimann, ... Simply put: the person does not believe the Truth. There is this silly separation of believing and knowing that bothers me.

Yes indeed, Marcellus! And I think the subordination of revelation to reason in the modern mind is key to this tendency. Their god is their belly whose god is reason. If they did but know it!

That must have to do with one of the effects of original sin: ignorance.