Catholic? Why

[CrossofChrist]

Answering why one believes in Christ is not the same thing as answering why one believes in the papacy.

I believe in the Catholic Church because I believe in Christ. Anything less compromises the Truth.

A reconstructionist attempt at history to say either the Catholic Church isn’t the “original” Christian Church or that it’s beliefs have changed isn’t very convincing IMO.

 

[TexanKnight]

although I am converting, I’m willing to play a bit of Devil’s advocate. The entire bible is littered with people chosen by God and Jesus that absolutely failed.

Not sure why you are equating people chosen by God with a Church started by God that Jesus promised would never perish…but, out of curiosity, can you name the folks littered throughout the Bible?

 

[rinnie]

although I am converting, I’m willing to play a bit of Devil’s advocate. The entire bible is littered with people chosen by God and Jesus that absolutely failed.

Failed or sinned? I can’t see how they failed when they lived out their life to teach and preach the good news as asked of them by God.

Is failing when you sin? Then what is it when you confess repent and are rid of the sin?

 

[Della]

1. Define “the Church” - do “the called of Jesus Christ,” “beloved of God,” “partakers of the heavenly calling” include unbelievers? A protestant can say “no, of course the Body of Christ is only constituted of true believers.”
   By contrast, if you think the Church for which Christ died, and whose members are partakers of the heavenly calling is the RCC, your answer is “yes, this Church, the body of perfectly holy Christ obviously has some unbelievers - it is membership in an external society, not faith, that matters: extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.

No, we don’t believe that the Church is “membership in an external society, not faith, that matters.” Faith matters very much indeed, as do good works, both fruits of God’s grace offered to all the world through the redemptive life, death and resurrection of Christ Our Lord.

There’s a few passages with that reference of the Church as the bride (because like a good Protestant, I encourage anyone to check up on what I say): - Ephesians 5:22-27, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Revelation 19:7-9 and Revelation 21:1-2,10. They talk about the Church, yes, not the RCC. Ephesians 5:22 says “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” And there is the wheat and the chaff in any congregation, even in the RCC. So ask yourself if Christ is the head and the saviour of unbelievers. If what I’m saying is true, Christ isn’t one with the RCC at all. He said he is united to the Church, which must be a spiritual body of believers. Christ are the RCC are not one, and they do disagree on teachings.

Where does the Bible tell us that the Church “must be a spiritual body of believers” and not a visible one? I’d be interested in chapter and verse. Christ and the Catholic Church (RCC refers to the Roman rite, but there at many rites, Eastern and Western in the Catholic Church plus all apostolic ones, such as the Orthodox). Christ is the head of the Catholic (universal) Church, which is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The Catholic Church has taught what Christ revealed to her since he established her and since the outpouring the Holy Spirit upon it in 33 AD.

Do you eat red meat on a Friday? Jesus made it quite clear that you can eat what you like and it wouldn’t affect your righteousness before God.

Mark 7:18-19: “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

I understand that the mortal sin of eating a hamburger is perceived to be of disobedience to the RCC (I try not to misrepresent RC doctrine) not that the hamburger is ‘unclean’, but it’s nevertheless a strange discipline when all dietary restrictions were lifted by Christ. It isn’t even in place everywhere - and surely something that affects salvation should be the same for everyone? This sort of arbitrary legalism should be foreign to Christianity. Christmas is another example. I always celebrate Christmas, and a time of love and goodwill is only a good thing. But it is a man-made feast day and it wasn’t instituted by Christ. Catholics must nevertheless observe the day on pain of mortal sin! Paul’s letter to the Galatians is all about the Judaisers who were adding legalistic requirements to the gospel, and he was not amused. I find the RCC completely at odds with the very spirit of Christianity.

Abstinence from red meat is merely a discipline, not a doctrine. Disciplines change but doctrines do not. The Church teaches that we are to do penance on Fridays because it is the day on which Christ died for our sins. But, if one cannot abstain from meat or if another penance would have more meaning for us, we can substitute something else, such as giving up some innocent pleasure.

continued next post…

 

[Della]

1. Define “apostle” - You are assuming the perpetuity of the apostleship, which is Rome’s claim. Perhaps start by looking at what Paul felt it necessary to prove when he claimed to be an apostle.
   (1.) That he had been appointed not by man nor through men, immediately by Jesus Christ - Galatians 1:1.
   (2.) That he had not been taught the gospel by others, but received his knowledge by immediate revelation - Galatians 1:12.
   (3.) That he had seen Christ after his resurrection - 1 Corinthians 9:1 and 15:8.
   (4.) That he was inspired, or infallible as a teacher, so that men were bound to recognize his teachings as the teaching of Christ - 1 Corinthians 14:37.
   (5.) That the Lord had authenticated his apostolic mission as fully as he had done that of Peter. Galatians 2:8.
   (6.) “The marks of an apostle,” he tells the Corinthians, “were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” - 2 Corinthians 12:12.

Did any, or could any, of the church leaders who followed the apostles have those credentials? Paul had to prove he was appointed not by men but by Christ, had met Christ personally, and that he had received his mission and knowledge from Christ personally - in each case, as the other 11 apostles had, in order to be accepted a real apostle. Can anyone after Paul claim to be an apostle and have that authority? Emphatically, no. None of Peter’s successors personally met Christ, or were personally appointed by Christ. Can/could Francis, Benedict 16, JP 2 demonstrate the signs, wonders, and miracles of a true apostle like Paul? Again, no. Do popes claim to have the same authority as the apostles without having the gifts on which that authority was founded? Yes.

Why do you leave out any references to Paul meeting with the other Apostles who affirmed his election and calling? Because they would not make you case? An Apostle is one who is called by the Lord to be his representative before men. Jesus called and appointed 12, but one fell and was lost. Jesus called Paul to be an Apostles to join the others in their mission of preaching and teaching and baptizing. All of them, in turn laid hands on others who succeeded them. It’s right there in the NT, clear for all to see. Do you really think the Church stayed intact with Christ’s teachings intact with no successors appointed by the Apostles? You have bought into a revisionist history that exists only in the minds of those who must deny the claims of the Church in order to be apart from full union with her. Christ did not found the Reformed Church or any other Protestant church. He founded one Church on Peter and the Apostles to be one in faith, baptism and practice.

 

[steve_b]

Judas failed, but his office remained. One of the first business decisions the apostles made was who would be the man God had chosen to take the office that Judas had held (Acts 1:15-23).

So True

 

[PJM]

=StephenL;11366143]Why are you Catholic?

BECAUSE:

There is but One TRUE God

That One true God can and DOES have only Hs One True Faith [set of beliefs]
anything more is illogical

And has Always had just one chosen pople:
OT= the Hebrew nation
NT= The only church Founded, guided, protected and desired by Christ: toda’s Catholi church

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[batman1973]

I still dont understand why this is in the non catholic forums. It should be moved

 

[Heart_Foam]

Do you really think the Church stayed intact with Christ’s teachings intact with no successors appointed by the Apostles?

Of course there were church leaders, appointed according to Biblical standards, who lead churches after the apostles. But the next generation were not apostles. They did not have the same authority, and no ECF claims that authority.

 

[Heart_Foam]

Why do you leave out any references to Paul meeting with the other Apostles who affirmed his election and calling? Because they would not make you case?

Not at all. What references do you have in mind?

 

[PRmerger]

Even in the Roman Catholic tradition, original sin is inherited by the child from the father. Not the mother.

Source, please?

Not at all. What references do you have in mind?

Hiya, Stephen!

Could you please answer the above regarding your source for original sin being inherited by the father?

Thanks.

You have a history of posting and then leaving the room–kind of a peripatetic pattern that is not conducive to good dialogue.

 

[PJM]

=Heart Foam;11374480]Of course there were church leaders, appointed according to Biblical standards, who lead churches after the apostles. But the next generation were not apostles. They did not have the same authority, and no ECF claims that authority.

OF COURSE THEY DID

Read please Mt. 10: 1-8

Then Mt. 18:18

John 17:14-20

and then this noting that is mt 10 Jesus COMMANDS them to go “ONLY TO THE JEWS”

Mt.28:16-20 " And the eleven disciples [Apostles] went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

It is Jesus Himself who Mandates Succession of authority in order to accomidate the change from cf. “just the jews” to “THE ENTIRE WORLD.”

Mark 16:14-15 CONFIRMS THIS "At length he appeared to the eleven [APOSTLES] as they were at table: and he upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart, because they did not believe them who had seen him after he was risen again. ** And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. **

So dear friend, your issue here is with our God; not us mortals working for Him.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Heart_Foam]

With regard to all the permanent positions of the Church, there is, firstly, not only a command to appoint suitable people to fill it, but also a specification of the qualifications they must have. Titus 1, for example. Secondly, records exist of the actual appointment of such people. And thirdly, there is abundant historical evidence that proves their continuance in the Church from the early church until now. With regard to the Apostles, all this is lacking. If it’s true that the bishops of Rome, or of any other church, are apostles (the Copts trace a direct succession back to Mark), invested the same authority to teach and to rule as the original messengers of Christ, then I agree we must have the same faith in their teaching, and submit the same obedience to their commands as are due to the inspired writings of the New Testament. To be able to answer “Catholic? Why?” is surely when you can prove that premise true. (See! Amazingly linked back to the topic!)

Della:

Christ did not found the Reformed Church or any other Protestant church.

Correct. That is not our definition of the Church for which Christ promised salvation.

Patrick, you haven’t moved the conversation on at all. I think we all agree the 11, and later Paul, received a direct commission from Christ. The question is whether the successors to the apostles had the authority to define new dogma, or if they were church leaders of the regular, fallible kind.

PR, hi there. I was already composing this when I saw your reply. Time zones have something to do with it, and also the lack of interest in endless replies. Something I say might pique someone’s curiosity and encourage them to research and test for themselves. But I can’t reply to every piece of assertion that I am hopelessly wrong and Catholicism is obviously right. (For that matter, on some threads - did you see my posts on Chalcedon? - no one engages with what I say at all. I’m not going to hold my breath for someone to say, “okay, those are some good points”.) I did see your comment about sin passing from the father, but you agreed that Mary being sinless was not necessary for Christ to be sinless so I’m not sure what gap that would fill. The problem of Catholic private judgement looms rather large - there is no access to an infallible guide, only these fallible ones - but here, disagree or not, it’s out there:

“Roman Catholic doctrine and tradition hold that Adam’s sin has been passed down from generation to generation. It is not simply that the world around us has been corrupted by Adam’s sin in such a way that all those who have followed have found it nearly impossible not to sin (an admittedly simplified version of the Eastern Christian view), but that our very nature was corrupted in such a way that life without sin is impossible. This corruption of our nature, passed down from father to child, is what we call Original Sin.”
…

“Jesus Christ was born without Original Sin because He was conceived without Original Sin. The Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Christ is also the Son of God. In the Roman Catholic tradition, Original Sin is, as I mentioned, passed down from father to child…”

catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Who-Was-Born-Without-Original-Sin.htm

This is obviously the way that Protestants explain why Jesus is sinless too, and it’s what I was brought up with. There may be one or two scenarios that it can’t explain. But I’d still say, that even if Mary was miraculously - however briefly - made sinless, it should not be an article of faith as it has no bearing on the gospel. Mary’s sinlessness is just speculation. (Sorry, other folk, this goes back to another thread.)

I know I’m going to take a lot of flack. It’s the nature of the beast, and that’s fine. I’m sure the Catholics on this thread are sick of my replies, and I’m going to check out of this thread.

God bless
Stephen

 

[PRmerger]

PR, hi there. I was already composing this when I saw your reply. Time zones have something to do with it, and also the lack of interest in endless replies. Something I say might pique someone’s curiosity and encourage them to research and test for themselves. But I can’t reply to every piece of assertion that I am hopelessly wrong and Catholicism is obviously right.

I understand.

However, we have lots of folks here in different time zones who dialogue quite readily, proficiently and prodigiously. In fact, being in different time zones is not a barrier at all.

And, it is just common courtesy to address questions posed to you.

Finally, the forum culture here is dialogue-driven. There is a give and take.

When you post, and then leave the room, it makes it appear as if you cannot refute any of the responses addressed to you.

Just sayin’…

 

[Della]

Of course there were church leaders, appointed according to Biblical standards, who lead churches after the apostles. But the next generation were not apostles. They did not have the same authority, and no ECF claims that authority.

They are called bishops, not apostles, but the authority given to them is the same, although each bishop is only responsible for his own diocese and not the Church at large as the original Apostles were. The scope of responsibility is the only difference.

Della:
Why do you leave out any references to Paul meeting with the other Apostles who affirmed his election and calling? Because they would not make you case?

Not at all. What references do you have in mind?

Acts 9[26] And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple.
[27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.
[28] So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem,
[29] preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.

It’s clear that he was approved in his ministry by the other apostles. Paul sought them out–he didn’t preach all on his own. They recognized that Christ had called him just as he had called them, although, as Paul said of himself “as one born out of time.” So, there was no division between Paul and the other Apostles in the teaching of “the faith once handed down.”

What I meant in saying that the Reformed churches were not founded by Christ is that they, like all Protestant churches, were breakaways from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church Christ founded. This is plain historical fact that cannot be disputed unless one simply does not want to accept it.

I was very staunchly Protestant and I understand the allure of being independent and discovering doctrine for oneself and thinking that our generation is the one finally “gets it.” But, that’s a mirage of man’s ego. Christ founded his Church which is both divine and human. In her divinity she cannot err in matters of faith and morals, but in her humanity she can muck things up pretty good. Fortunately for us, though, Christ made certain promises to his Church that he has not broken nor failed to keep.

These promises, upheld through the power of the Holy Spirit ensure that despite man’s best efforts (from within and without) to destroy Christ’s Church we cannot do it. This is a miracle of God that cannot be explained. God wanted his presence in the world to be within the Body of Christ which he wanted it to be visible and recognizable by the four marks that distinguish it–that is it one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Each of those words is important. If the Church fails in any one of them she cannot be of God. Yes, it’s that precarious and that miraculous. G. K. Chesterton marveled that the Church, (I paraphrase) although appearing to always be on the brink of toppling over as it hurtles down through the ages always rights itself. This is only possible because God is with her.

 

[Snowwhite16]

Before I converted and became a Catholic I always had doubts about every single Church I entered into. I never wanted to have doubt because I “we” wanted to belong. I was raised in the United Church of Christ, must like Lutheran minus the kneeling.

A friend of mine was Catholic and I would go to mass off and on. Now that felt right.

Years went by and I went to various Lutheran and Methodist Churches then upon moving to the south, well on every street corner and spots in between are Baptist Churches. Boy by their accounts I was going to hell and I didnt do anything to cause that, but I would not be good enough in their eyes unless I did the famous alter call. As I watched 15 plus people on stage each holding their microphones singing, drums blaring—I became more cynical thinking 'wanna be roadies" looking for their 1 hour of fame and oh by the way where did they get their degree from the back of the Globe Rag Mag?
It hit me when one of our infants was near death waiting for a very serious heart surgery and the Pastor would not, flat out refused to baptist this sweet innocent child 2 days before the operation. The Pastor (using that term very lightly) told us, who were weeping that if the baby would die, then so be it and it was God’s will. Who is HE to know what God’s will was.

So, I took tap water, carried my baby in my arms and baptized him myself. It was an emergency and my Lord understood my pain.

I am a Catholic because it has always felt right deep inside my soul. I am a Catholic because for what ever the reason I am finally home. There is no more guessing, no more worry, no more wondering. I am Catholic and I am finally at peace.

 

[PJM]

=Della;11375079]They are called bishops, not apostles, but the authority given to them is the same, although each bishop is only responsible for his own diocese and not the Church at large as the original Apostles were. The scope of responsibility is the only difference.

Della:
Why do you leave out any references to Paul meeting with the other Apostles who affirmed his election and calling? Because they would not make you case?

Acts 9[26] And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple.
[27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.
[28] So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem,
[29] preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.

It’s clear that he was approved in his ministry by the other apostles. Paul sought them out–he didn’t preach all on his own. They recognized that Christ had called him just as he had called them, although, as Paul said of himself “as one born out of time.” So, there was no division between Paul and the other Apostles in the teaching of “the faith once handed down.”

What I meant in saying that the Reformed churches were not founded by Christ is that they, like all Protestant churches, were breakaways from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church Christ founded. This is plain historical fact that cannot be disputed unless one simply does not want to accept it.

I was very staunchly Protestant and I understand the allure of being independent and discovering doctrine for oneself and thinking that our generation is the one finally “gets it.” But, that’s a mirage of man’s ego. Christ founded his Church which is both divine and human. In her divinity she cannot err in matters of faith and morals, but in her humanity she can muck things up pretty good. Fortunately for us, though, Christ made certain promises to his Church that he has not broken nor failed to keep.

These promises, upheld through the power of the Holy Spirit ensure that despite man’s best efforts (from within and without) to destroy Christ’s Church we cannot do it. This is a miracle of God that cannot be explained. God wanted his presence in the world to be within the Body of Christ which he wanted it to be visible and recognizable by the four marks that distinguish it–that is it one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Each of those words is important. If the Church fails in any one of them she cannot be of God. Yes, it’s that precarious and that miraculous. G. K. Chesterton marveled that the Church, (I paraphrase) although appearing to always be on the brink of toppling over as it hurtles down through the ages always rights itself. This is only possible because God is with her.

ADDING to Della great comments:

Acts 20: 28-30 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, [singular] which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Douay Rheims Bible"

 

[Heart_Foam]

Why do you leave out any references to Paul meeting with the other Apostles who affirmed his election and calling? Because they would not make you case?

Acts 9[26] And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple.
[27] But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.

I was making the point about the credentials Paul had to have to be considered a true apostle, and the verses you quote make my point. The reason he was accepted was because he, like them, could claim to be a direct messenger of Christ. That is what apostolic authority rests on, and why they are a group without peers. The popes, however, claim no immediate commission, no independent knowledge derived from immediate revelation, no personal infallibility, no vision of Christ, and no gift of miracles. That is empirical fact. They claim the same authority (like you said) as the apostles, without the reality behind it. The things that meant the apostles could teach authoritatively, the popes do not have. It’s an historical fact that corrupt, immoral and ignorant men have claimed (and bought) the “same authority” to teach and rule that belonged to men to whom the truth was supernaturally revealed, and who received their mission from God Himself.

And there is only one Church. The Catholic definition doesn’t fit the promises made to the Church in Scripture. But that’s for another thread. I appreciate the sincerity, but it is essentially patronising, and I could in return pity you for choosing Rome. It’s not objective or fair.

PR, it’s sometimes give and take. You and John S have both replied multiple times on that other thread without breathing a word about Chalcedon since I addressed it. Let’s be consistent. It seems the Protestant must give and take, but not Catholics. On the whole, I think Catholics will not use their own private judgement, and will submit to the private judgement of the bishop who gave his imprimatur to a tract despite it leaving out the crucial information that Leo’s letter actually quotes Peter.

GK Chesterton also said:
“They are always telling us that priests and ceremonies are not religion and that religious organisation can be a hollow sham; but they hardly realise how true it is.”

 

[ffg]

:doh2:

‘it’ is not what you think it is.

 

[Heart_Foam]

ADDING to Della great comments:

Acts 20: 28-30 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, [singular] which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Douay Rheims Bible"

I want to exit this thread, but so long as there is poor theology I must jump in.

Firstly, let me observe that you expect me to understand Scripture without an infallible interpreter, and, which is perhaps more interesting, that you do so to. Secondly, who is Acts 20:28-30 addressed to? It’s the “overseers” or bishops:

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.

Given Catholic theology, verse 30 is remarkable:

“Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth”.

Bear in mind that Catholics must submit intellect and will to the magisterium, and that you take these verses to be addressed to Catholic bishops. Paul is saying flat out that some of your own number will teach heresy. These aren’t outsiders. These are people within the RCC magisterium.