Welcome to Gaia! ::

I could say the same about you in that post.
Here, let me explain . . .



Though, if you look at the things that Jesus and those 11 disciples did, you should see a pretty striking resemblance to some very uniquely Catholic practices and theology.
Example: Read the story about Jesus on the road to Emaus. (end of one of the Gospels. It's the first time Jesus shows up after the resurection) What does Jesus do? He celebrates the Mass (basically). Of course, Lutheran services do resemble this form quite a bit as well, as do a few other Protestant churches. However, many churches don't even celebrate the breaking of the bread, which I find incredibly odd. Didn't Jesus say, "Do this."? If that's not a commandment, I don't know what is.
But I'm getting a bit off topic, so let's continue.



You seem to be implying that the Roman Church was different than the Corinthian Church or the Phillipian Church.
This is a huge error. Yes, there were many churches, but there was only one Church. The early Church did have a hierarchy (even brief research into the early Church would reveal that) in which the local bishops of each church would answer to the Apostles, who in turn answered to Peter. (I can go into this more if you wish, but for now I'll leave it at that.) Because of this, each church didn't just do whatever it wanted. Each church didn't even worship in whatever way they wanted. The liturgy was developed in the early, early church in order to ensure that they worshiped in the same way. Why? Because they were one Church with one set of teachings and one theology.
Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church did not get its name from the fact that it came from Rome, as oposed to Corinth and the other cities. If this were true, then the early Christians in Rome would have described themselves as Roman Catholics, correct? Or, at the very least, by the 300s (a time when no one would argue the Catholic Church did not exist as one, unified church), wouldn't they have used the term Roman Catholic to distinguish from being a Corinthian Catholic? In fact, there is no evidence of the term "Roman Catholic" ever being used before the 1500s.



1. Fallacy of the wrong level.
You cannot use individual data to make claims about a group, nor can you use group data to make claims about an individual. The first is known as a reductionist fallacy. The second is an ecological fallacy. Both use false logic to arive at false conclusions.
You are guilty of a reductionist fallacy here. You use data about individuals to infer something about the group as a whole.
Individual members of the Catholic Church have been corrupt. The Church as a whole has never been corrupt.
How do we know this? Analyze group data. How do we do that? We look at the doctrine of the Church. Find me one corrupt teaching in there and I will concede that the Church is corrupt. Fail to do that, however, and you have no support for your assertions of corruption in the Church.

2. The Catholic Church never sold tickets to heaven. In fact, individual Catholics have also never sold tickets to heaven. (on a large scale, that is. I don't doubt some 6 year old Catholic child may have tried to sell pieces of paper with stickers that say, "ticket to heaven" at some point or another, but that's more cute than blasphemous)
Members of the Catholic Church did, at one time, sell tickets to get out of Purgaoty, but that is not the same as selling tickets to heaven. Once you're in Purgatory, there's no where to go except for heaven, so technically you already have the ticket to heaven. Indulgences were just said to speed along the process a bit. (obviously it was a lie, but whatever) The other lie told about indulgences at the time was that they could get rid of sins you had commited. Now, while this might seem like a ticket to heaven, all Catholics, even during this time period, understand that salvation is not a one time thing. You can always lose it. So, though they thought the indulgences would wipe their slates clean, they did not look at them as a ticket into heaven.
(note: I'm not defending this highly corrupt and dispicable practice of the Middle Ages. I'm just clarrifying what they actually were.)

(as for the whole child molestation thing, I believe it is also corrupt and dispicable, but as I said before, individual data does not infer group data.)


Huh?
Give me an example of the Church abusing its power today. (not an individual, mind you, but the Church)
As for holding ourselves more highly than we ought to, I'm not sure of what you mean by that. We do hold that we are the One True Holy and Apostolic Church that Christ established on Earth, but whether that is more than we ought to do is entirely based on your views of the Church. Obviously Protestants will disagree with this and obviously Catholics won't.
The truth of the matter, however, will not be solved either until we get to heaven or until the second comming (whichever comes first). Because of this, the Protestant assertion that the Catholic Church is not the One True Church is no more valid than the Catholic assertion that we are. Both are just opinions.
I also think I'm a great person. Are you going to tell me that I'm thinking more highly of myself than I ought to? No! (well, maybe you would, but I would hope not) Why? Because we all know it's an opinion. We all know that it isn't based on non-refutable evidence and we all know that it doesn't need to be.



Brad, you may think you know a lot about Catholicism, but I'm afraid you don't know enough about it to fully understand my religion. If you have any questions, pm me about it.

I strongly agree on this point; my partner and I are not of the same belief system, not of the same political views, and yet get along fabulously. I'm not going to lie - it took a lot of hard feelings, sacrifice and work. Yet now we literally think along the same lines in casual thought, and we're both happy to allow a freedom of belief in the relationship. He's open to God, he just doesn't believe right now. Yes I pray for him, and yes I would love him to be Catholic, but I don't want him to be Catholic if he doesn't believe.

The fact is, when you're going to marry someone, you have to be prepared to give up a hell of a lot for them. You need to be prepared to stand down completely in arguments, and you've basically got to love them enough to put up with all their annoying habits for a lifetime. Things like marriage preparation classes shouldn't really need to happen; you should be able to work with this person like clockwork before you even think about marriage.

Upon further speculation of my own opinion of Catholicism, I've realized some crucial errors in my thinking. First of all, I grouped all Catholics together, attributing the most radical theology that most-likely came from one particular group to all Catholics. The same mistake can be made when looking at any denomination wherein Christians can be found. Next, I directed my attack on a "strawman," of Catholicism, the hypocrites within the Catholic congregation, rather than the Christians that can be found in that very congregation. Once again, this same mistake can be made with any denomination. Really, my opinion beforehand started with problems with some Catholic theology, but then somehow turned into a judgment of Catholics as a whole. I've realized that my assertion that catholics are "the pharisees of today" has no basis at all. I'm really embarrassed to display such a mistake across the web, and there's really no excuse.
To address the initial question, go ahead and marry her. It's the same religion, if you want to call it that, just in a different building with different ways to worship.

Genrally I hear so much slander about the Catholic church that I honestly don't know what's true and what's not. I do beleive that when it comes tp sprinkling babies, it's not a good idea since those babies do not have a true understanding of God and are born without sin. In a since being babtist is an act of washing away your sins, and I never heard of anyone being sprinkled in the bible. Only emersed in water. This is my only opinion about the Catholic faith because like I said I don't know what is slander and what is fact.