Are we absolutely sure that Catholicism is true?

[frobert]

You’re wrong that the Church doesn’t allow debate. That’s just what theologians do–debate what is and what isn’t sound teaching. I’m afraid you don’t know enough about this teaching to say that it is contradictory. There are many examples from Scripture that God saves whom he pleases outside any covenant he has made with mankind, from both the OT and the NT. This is not a “new” teaching.

As I explained before, the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church comes from the time of the reformation–when thousands of people were being led out of the Church by formal heretics. That is what it was meant to address, not the whole question of who may be saved.

I appreciate you taking the time to address my comments even though we disagree on a few things, actually, it’s good that we do as it’s helps expand our knowledge. You are correct that I do not have a through knowledge of the teachings. I had referred to “alleged” contradictions in me post and here is one source of the alleged contradictions which would be too lengthy to post in its entirety: jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc7-dogma.htm

Re: who is allowed to debate. We are in agreement that debate is limited to a select group of theologians. This can be considered a nested factor error as all belong to the select group with little or no (name removed by moderator)ut from laymen and ordinary clergy. I believe that Pope Francis has recognized the error by his requests for feedback from everyone. I see it as a hopeful sign and a good first start.

I’d like to share a bit about a good friend of mine whose total education from elementary school through college and medical school has been in catholic schools. He has a strong belief in God but has doubts to the divinity of Jesus. Because of his strong belief and desire to remain a catholic he has no problem accepting the teachings along with his doubts. His explanation is that the human brain is a receptacle to multiple paradoxes. By the way he is a psychiatrist and I myself, being a psychologist, I understand where he is coming from.

 

[frobert]

You’re wrong that the Church doesn’t allow debate. That’s just what theologians do–debate what is and what isn’t sound teaching. I’m afraid you don’t know enough about this teaching to say that it is contradictory. There are many examples from Scripture that God saves whom he pleases outside any covenant he has made with mankind, from both the OT and the NT. This is not a “new” teaching.

As I explained before, the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church comes from the time of the reformation–when thousands of people were being led out of the Church by formal heretics. That is what it was meant to address, not the whole question of who may be saved.

I appreciate you taking the time to address my comments even though we disagree on a few things, actually, it’s good that we do as it’s helps expand our knowledge. You are correct that I do not have a through knowledge of the teachings. I had referred to “alleged” contradictions in me post and here is one source of the alleged contradictions which would be too lengthy to post in its entirety: jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc7-dogma.htm

Re: who is allowed to debate. We are in agreement that debate is limited to a select group of theologians. This can be considered a nested factor error as all belong to the select group with little or no (name removed by moderator)ut from laymen and ordinary clergy. I believe that Pope Francis has recognized the error by his requests for feedback from everyone. I see it as a hopeful sign and a good first start.

I’d like to share a bit about a good friend of mine whose total education from elementary school through college and medical school has been in catholic schools. He has a strong belief in God but has doubts to the divinity of Jesus. Because of his strong belief and desire to remain a catholic he has no problem accepting the teachings along with his doubts. His explanation is that everything in the human brain is a receptacle multiple paradoxes. By the way he is a psychiatrist and I myself, being a psychologist, I understand where he is coming from.

 

[Lapey]

I appreciate you taking the time to address my comments even though we disagree on a few things, actually, it’s good that we do as it’s helps expand our knowledge. You are correct that I do not have a through knowledge of the teachings. I had referred to “alleged” contradictions in me post and here is one source of the alleged contradictions which would be too lengthy to post in its entirety: jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/rcc7-dogma.htm

Re: who is allowed to debate. We are in agreement that debate is limited to a select group of theologians. This can be considered a nested factor error as all belong to the select group with little or no (name removed by moderator)ut from laymen and ordinary clergy. I believe that Pope Francis has recognized the error by his requests for feedback from everyone. I see it as a hopeful sign and a good first start.

I’d like to share a bit about a good friend of mine whose total education from elementary school through college and medical school has been in catholic schools. He has a strong belief in God but has doubts to the divinity of Jesus. Because of his strong belief and desire to remain a catholic he has no problem accepting the teachings along with his doubts. His explanation is that the human brain is a receptacle to multiple paradoxes. By the way he is a psychiatrist and I myself, being a psychologist, I understand where he is coming from.

This site is NOT a source for anything but anti Catholic lies and hatred! You have to be able to see that by a simple glance. Please go to Catholic sources and not evil sites like this one for information!

PS. Yes, I meant EVIL.

 

[frobert]

This site is NOT a source for anything but anti Catholic lies and hatred! You have to be able to see that by a simple glance. Please go to Catholic sources and not evil sites like this one for information!

PS. Yes, I meant EVIL.

I agree the URL is suspicious. The messenger may be unclean but what about the papal proclamations cited?

Had I simply cut and paste the proclamations of various popes what would you say about me and the papal proclamations I cite? For example here is a proclamation from Pope Eugenius.

“It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

Am I evil for citing the proclamation?

I am not trying to trap you, I am only attempting to discuss “alleged” contradictions.

 

[Lapey]

I agree the URL is suspicious. The messenger may be unclean but what about the papal proclamations cited?

Had I simply cut and paste the proclamations of various popes what would you say about me and the papal proclamations I cite? For example here is a proclamation from Pope Eugenius.

“It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

Am I evil for citing the proclamation?

I am not trying to trap you, I am only attempting to discuss “alleged” contradictions.

From that site you can’t even be sure any pope said any of it at any time in history.

It’s all about causing doubt in Catholics. It is a site dedicated to fighting against the Church and nothing can be counted as authoritative.

Go to a Catholic site of the documents themselves. There is nothing stated from that site that I will believe ever happened. Nor will I take anything you or any one else states from it with any credibility what so ever; in fact it makes me question the motives of anyone using that site for anything other than to teach what is not a good source to go to.

 

[josh987654321]

I was having a conversation with someone that was about whether or not I would have converted to Christianity if I was born into Islam, for example. I said that I would have if I would have been able to (and willing to) searched for the truth wherever it lead me. He then asked me, “So, you’re saying that you know for a fact that Christianity is true?” Which makes me wonder about the Church’s stance on it. If the Church does say that we know for a fact that Christianity is true (which I think it does, but if I’m wrong about that, tell me), then how do we respond to a non-Christian who asks us how we know that with absolute certainty? After all, a lot of the arguments I’ve heard mention that Christianity is the best explanation of the facts, which would imply that it is epistemically possible that Christianity is false.

Look up Ravi Zacharias

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Della]

I agree the URL is suspicious. The messenger may be unclean but what about the papal proclamations cited?

Had I simply cut and paste the proclamations of various popes what would you say about me and the papal proclamations I cite? For example here is a proclamation from Pope Eugenius.

“It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

Am I evil for citing the proclamation?

I am not trying to trap you, I am only attempting to discuss “alleged” contradictions.

Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible, making it appear that there are gross contradictions in teaching, which has led to confusion and divisions. Church documents have to be read within their proper context–which is not only the document itself, but what it was intended to address, who it was directed to, and the times in which it was written (like St. Paul addressing the “Judaizers” of his day, who no longer exist). Most lay people don’t have all that information, and I can guarantee you that anti-Catholics don’t, or worse, won’t acknowledge that context means everything when reading any document.

Jesus didn’t establish documents as his word among men–he established his Church, which is a living institution not a monolith stuck in time. It is the Magisterium, who consult all sorts of people, lay, professionals in various fields, theologians, and the sensus fidelium (the sense of the whole of the faithful), who decide matters of faith and morals. It’s not as simple as cutting and pasting statements out of documents. If it were anyone could say what is, and isn’t, authentic teaching. That’s not how it works. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of men alone, that keeps the Church teaching what is right and true in every generation.

 

[frobert]

Anyone can do the same thing with the Bible, making it appear that there are gross contradictions in teaching, which has led to confusion and divisions. Church documents have to be read within their proper context–which is not only the document itself, but what it was intended to address, who it was directed to, and the times in which it was written (like St. Paul addressing the “Judaizers” of his day, who no longer exist). Most lay people don’t have all that information, and I can guarantee you that anti-Catholics don’t, or worse, won’t acknowledge that context means everything when reading any document.

Jesus didn’t establish documents as his word among men–he established his Church, which is a living institution not a monolith stuck in time. It is the Magisterium, who consult all sorts of people, lay, professionals in various fields, theologians, and the sensus fidelium (the sense of the whole of the faithful), who decide matters of faith and morals. It’s not as simple as cutting and pasting statements out of documents. If it were anyone could say what is, and isn’t, authentic teaching. That’s not how it works. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of men alone, that keeps the Church teaching what is right and true in every generation.

I can sympathize with your frustration because I am feeling frustration too.

From your response I take it you are saying it is what it is. It’s paradoxacal but the human brain is full of paradoxes so I can live with more of them.

Thank you again for the time and effort with your responses.

 

[McCartney]

I will narrow it down from Christianity to the Catholic Church. Of all the Christian religions only the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself in Matt 16:18, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.

The Catholic Church has over 300 incorruptible bodies - a clear sign from God that it is His true Church. There are many Eucharistic miracles and apparitions around the world.

 

[frobert]

From that site you can’t even be sure any pope said any of it at any time in history.

It’s all about causing doubt in Catholics. It is a site dedicated to fighting against the Church and nothing can be counted as authoritative.

Go to a Catholic site of the documents themselves. There is nothing stated from that site that I will believe ever happened. Nor will I take anything you or any one else states from it with any credibility what so ever; in fact it makes me question the motives of anyone using that site for anything other than to teach what is not a good source to go to.

My motives are simple. I have read several posts in this forum and in other christain blogs discussing alleged changes in CC dogma. I have a curious nature. I searched on “changes in catholic dogma” and came up with many sites. The citations on the one I posted had them conveniently all together. I have personally fact checked several of the citations from original sources if I thought it would do any good I would personally fact check every one of the citations and repost them without any comments on a pasteboard site.

I think not taking mine or anyone else’s word for it is a noble sentiment, you can fact each of the citations yourself by copying a couple lines of a citation and pasting it in a search engine. If valid it will lead you to the original source, I.e. The papal document it came from.

I have come to the conclusion though that the best I can hope for is to accept the belief as a paradox.

However if you would be up for seeing the fact checked citations on a neutral non anti Christian web page I would do so for you. You can let me know here or send me a PM if you want to keep it private.

 

[Auntie_A]

Notice how Christ said “Blessed are those who believe and do not see”, rather than, “Blessed are thise who believe without reason.” I don’t know if you were referring to what is usually called “blind faith”, but if you are, that verse supports the common definition that faith is believing without direct proof from your senses (or believing something that hasn’t been realized), and not what is usually called “blind faith”, or, belief without any reason at all.

Thanks for that differentiation.:flowers:

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Thanks for that differentiation.:flowers:

You are very welcome. Now go use it to clarify to people who insist on faith as “belief without evidence” based on that verse. They’ll get to something else as quickly as they can.

 

[tonyrey]

I find it…curious…that you believe in a religion and an entire belief system and base your life on it, but…you have not investigated its facts?

So far, we cannot factually “prove” that any religion is “true”. If we could, everyone would be that religion.
We can’t even prove that a man named Jesus existed! Though most historians and scholars do believe and agree he did.

This is why all religions are based on “faith”.

.

Everyone’s life is based on faith of some description. I base my life on the teaching of Jesus which has been preserved for two thousand years by the Church He established, is respected throughout the world even by atheists and is the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The truth shines by its own light…

 

[Lapey]

My motives are simple. I have read several posts in this forum and in other christain blogs discussing alleged changes in CC dogma. I have a curious nature. I searched on “changes in catholic dogma” and came up with many sites. The citations on the one I posted had them conveniently all together. I have personally fact checked several of the citations from original sources if I thought it would do any good I would personally fact check every one of the citations and repost them without any comments on a pasteboard site.

I think not taking mine or anyone else’s word for it is a noble sentiment, you can fact each of the citations yourself by copying a couple lines of a citation and pasting it in a search engine. If valid it will lead you to the original source, I.e. The papal document it came from.

I have come to the conclusion though that the best I can hope for is to accept the belief as a paradox.

However if you would be up for seeing the fact checked citations on a neutral non anti Christian web page I would do so for you. You can let me know here or send me a PM if you want to keep it private.

I don’t question your motives, just some websites and the motives of the creators of them.

As far as “changing dogma” is concerned, if something is considered dogma it will not and has not changed. It is truth which cannot change or it would not be truth. In the example you site, what is the change? It has always been taught as dogma as far as I know that there is no salvation outside of the Church. This statement does not mean and never has meant that only Roman Catholics are capable of reaching salvation.

Even the quote you posted if seen and used in its context along with the teaching of the Church repeats exactly the same message. This is the aspect the website you sited and many like it tend to leave out. They maliciously do that with statements by Church leaders and with God’s Word itself, Scripture. Take 2nd Timothy 3:16 for example;

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness”

This verse is proof that we should be “sola scriptura” Christians just like many Protestant denominations, right? Not hardly, put it in context. What was considered Scripture when this letter was written by Paul, only the Old testament. Paul was teaching in a written “circular” letter which later became Scripture, so what was this teaching? Yep, Tradition given to the Church by Paul. If you look at it in context you will see he instructs the hearers of his words to;

“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (verses 14-15)

In these two verses just before the one used as a weapon against Catholicism we see Paul talking of the Tradition, “what you have learned”, and the Scriptures, Old Testament, which was known “from infancy” before knowing Christ and the new covenant.

This is my point about taking points made on anti-Catholic sites for use in discussions. Everything must be taken in context, especially our leader’s words.

 

[frobert]

I don’t question your motives, just some websites and the motives of the creators of them.

As far as “changing dogma” is concerned, if something is considered dogma it will not and has not changed. It is truth which cannot change or it would not be truth. In the example you site, what is the change? It has always been taught as dogma as far as I know that there is no salvation outside of the Church. This statement does not mean and never has meant that only Roman Catholics are capable of reaching salvation.

Even the quote you posted if seen and used in its context along with the teaching of the Church repeats exactly the same message. This is the aspect the website you sited and many like it tend to leave out. They maliciously do that with statements by Church leaders and with God’s Word itself, Scripture. Take 2nd Timothy 3:16 for example;

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness”

This verse is proof that we should be “sola scriptura” Christians just like many Protestant denominations, right? Not hardly, put it in context. What was considered Scripture when this letter was written by Paul, only the Old testament. Paul was teaching in a written “circular” letter which later became Scripture, so what was this teaching? Yep, Tradition given to the Church by Paul. If you look at it in context you will see he instructs the hearers of his words to;

“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (verses 14-15)

In these two verses just before the one used as a weapon against Catholicism we see Paul talking of the Tradition, “what you have learned”, and the Scriptures, Old Testament, which was known “from infancy” before knowing Christ and the new covenant.

This is my point about taking points made on anti-Catholic sites for use in discussions. Everything must be taken in context, especially our leader’s words.

Thank you for clarifying that you are mot questioning my motives.

You are basically repeating what the church says that you must accept it on faith. Ok I can live with that so when I have a doubt I can pray to release the doubt. Keep in mind that I want remain a catholic. But how do those who want to evangelize explain such seemingly contradictions to non Catholics or those Catholics who are looking to change religions?

 

[Lapey]

I find it…curious…that you believe in a religion and an entire belief system and base your life on it, but…you have not investigated its facts?

So far, we cannot factually “prove” that any religion is “true”. If we could, everyone would be that religion.
We can’t even prove that a man named Jesus existed! Though most historians and scholars do believe and agree he did.

This is why all religions are based on “faith”.

.

It takes much more “faith” to doubt Catholicism than it takes to believe in it. History, secular and Church history, are in accordance with the belief that this Church is the Church built on the Rock, Peter.

You say, “If we could,” prove that it is, “everyone would be that religion.” Do you really believe that statement? We can prove that we went to the moon, do ALL believe it?

We can prove that 911 was not an inside job, but recent polls show almost half of Americans think GWB destroyed the twin towers for political and vengeful reasons. The proof is there in all of these scenarios but we choose to not believe.

John 20:29 - The message to Thomas;

Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

 

[Lapey]

Thank you for clarifying that you are mot questioning my motives.

You are basically repeating what the church says that you must accept it on faith. Ok I can live with that so when I have a doubt I can pray to release the doubt. Keep in mind that I want remain a catholic. But how do those who want to evangelize explain such seemingly contradictions to non Catholics or those Catholics who are looking to change religions?

Follow Pope Francis’ lead. All we can do is love them. If we treat people with respect love and dignity, they will listen to us if we live out the faith fully. We can’t be Catholic while in Mass, then not Catholic while in the world.

By my experience this past weekend at my home parish, as a member of the clergy mind you, I can see how people doubt and leave the Church. Sometimes people are not very nice, this includes family members in how they treat each other and also my pastor in how he treated me and my wife this past week. Don’t get me wrong, I love my pastor and I will serve him exactly as he asks me to, but sometimes he is not very perceptive on how he hurts people’s feelings.

The way we bring people to the faith is by being Jesus! Jesus did not hurt feelings or hurt people physically, He taught people the truth as we must as well, but He did it with compassion and love. He was Himself every moment of His life, not only in the synagogues. I think you get my point.

From time to time we will doubt, that is a given. In those moments we must hold on to the message from Hebrews;

13:7-9
“Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching. It is good to have our hearts strengthened by grace and not by foods, which do not benefit those who live by them.”

 

[Skeptic92]

I was having a conversation with someone that was about whether or not I would have converted to Christianity if I was born into Islam, for example. I said that I would have if I would have been able to (and willing to) searched for the truth wherever it lead me. He then asked me, “So, you’re saying that you know for a fact that Christianity is true?” Which makes me wonder about the Church’s stance on it. If the Church does say that we know for a fact that Christianity is true (which I think it does, but if I’m wrong about that, tell me), then how do we respond to a non-Christian who asks us how we know that with absolute certainty? After all, a lot of the arguments I’ve heard mention that Christianity is the best explanation of the facts, which would imply that it is epistemically possible that Christianity is false.

Of course there is a possibility that Christianity is false, doubt is the plague of modern man. The ‘perhaps its true’ can be just a strong statement to an Atheist as ‘Perhaps its false’ can be to a Catholic. We are certain in faith. but epistemically you are right: we do not have certainty. We however must recognise that due to our finite existence and restricted intellect we can never truly have certainty, that is just the nature of our existence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course there is a possibility that Christianity is false, doubt is the plague of modern man. The ‘perhaps its true’ can be just a strong statement to an Atheist as ‘Perhaps its false’ can be to a Catholic. We are certain in faith. but epistemically you are right: we do not have certainty. We however must recognise that due to our finite existence and restricted intellect we can never truly have certainty, that is just the nature of our existence.

This may be the essence of your skepticism, not mine.

You cannot believe that Christ is God and at the same time believe for a moment that you might be wrong. Either you believe in your certainty or you don’t. You cannot have it both ways. It was, I recall, Aquinas who disputed Siger of Brabant’s heresy that a thing might be true in religion and at the same time false in philosophy. One cannot believe in God and at the same time believe that God might not exist. Do you understand how silly that sounds?

 

[Skeptic92]

This may be the essence of your skepticism, not mine.

You cannot believe that Christ is God and at the same time believe for a moment that you might be wrong. Either you believe in your certainty or you don’t. You cannot have it both ways. It was, I recall, Aquinas who disputed Siger of Brabant’s heresy that a thing might be true in religion and at the same time false in philosophy. One cannot believe in God and at the same time believe that God might not exist. Do you understand how silly that sounds?

Go read the first chapter of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVIs book ‘Introduction to Christianity’ he deals at length with one I’ve just said. He gives what amounts to the same conclusion but more eloquently put.

I never said that Philosophy could falsify the Existence of God, just that we could never attain certainty. This shouldn’t be all that controversial, as within epistemology it is seen that true certainty of fact is problematic if not impossible. Show me the man that says he never doubts his faith, and I’ll show you a liar.