How Can You Be Sure Catholicism Is The Right Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ephphatha:
Several years ago, I read Raymond E. Brown’s two volumes on John in the Anchor Bible Commentary series. I remember him saying that there was nothing in John 6 that would’ve led those listening to believe there would be a passover meal in which Jesus identified the bread with his flesh and the wine with his blood. With the advantage of hind sight, it’s easy to perceive references to the last supper in John 6, but without already knowing about the last supper, do you think John 6 would’ve led you to believe in anything like the real presence in the Eurcharist?
star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/scmnt4.html

If you are interested here is a beautiful article by Scott Hahn. Scroll down about half way and he really digs into John 6 and the passover. Scott basically shows how all of John chapter 6 was written with the Passover in mind. This will be a good starting point to begin this discussion. God Bless!

star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html

This one’s called “Eucharist: Holy Meal” and it’s a very excellent teaching as well. I think these should help you make the connection if you seriously want to learn.
 
El Catolico, the reason I said those writers did not seem to understand John 6 as having to do with the Eurcharist, was not because they were not considering it in light of the Eurcharist, but because their interpretation seemed to be inconsistent with a Eucharistic interpretation. You are right, though, to point out that those who did seem to believe in the real presense based it on things Jesus said in the last supper. If I ever get around to doing this search again, I’ll post my findings on this board. I realize it’s not easy to respond to unknown comments by unknown authors, and I didn’t mean to debate the issue.

Max and Dano, thanks for the links.
 
40.png
Steven87:
I’ve recently been thinking that, what if catholicism isn’t the true faith, and how do you guys keep faith.

We would only be angering God and end up in hell in the end… So what makes you so sure this is the true faith?
I know i’m a little paranoid but the word hell des nothing but make me sick to my stomach, and if you mention eternity and hell in the same sentence you’d better get me a bucket!
Just like anything else, you must research and study and make a final decision about what to believe. Accept criticism, address all the objections, always be willing to abandon what you believe if it is simply not true. In the end, you will make an informed decision which will embrace the truth, as best you can determine it. That is how you keep faith in a time of difficulty; you build it upon the strongest foundation of truth.

Why does “hell” make you sick to your stomach? As long as you inform yourself and do what you truly believe is right, you have nothing to worry about. Why on earth would Catholicism anger God, even if it isn’t the “true religion” (and if it isn’t, I haven’t a clue what else could be!)? Remember, God knows your heart.

I guess I’m a little worried that you’re obsessively afraid of hell and that it might point to a larger problem - a misconception of God. I know it’s a bit off-topic, but it is a big worry of mine upon reading that bit you wrote at the end!
 
40.png
Steven87:
I’ve recently been thinking that, what if catholicism isn’t the true faith, and how do you guys keep faith.

We would only be angering God and end up in hell in the end… So what makes you so sure this is the true faith?
I know i’m a little paranoid but the word hell des nothing but make me sick to my stomach, and if you mention eternity and hell in the same sentence you’d better get me a bucket!
Dear Steven,

I recommend you go to Jesus and ask Him if you are practicing the religion He wants you to practice. I’ve looked around and have seen my faith is reinforced in the Catholic Church. Faith and religion are different things. Religion is of man and faith is of God.
 
If you want some bona fide (even scientific) proof that Catholicism is the true faith–or at least in the right ballpark–think of the Eucharistic miracles, particularly the one that took place in Lanciano (think I spelled that right), Italy. Way back when, in the Middle Ages or around that general time period, there was a Catholic priest in that town who was offering Mass. A brief tidbit about this priest–he, like you, was having questions, even doubts, about the validity of Catholicism. Anyhoo–one day, he was saying Mass, he said the words of the Consecration, same as always, when, suddenly, the Host began bleeding in his hands and actually became real flesh. Naturally, the miraculous Host was preserved, and centuries later, scientists ran some tests on it and came up with startling results.
Thingie #1: The flesh that the Host had turned into proved to be real heart tissue.
Thingie #2: The blood was analyzed and found to be type AB–a blood type that is quite rare, but most commonly found in people of Jewish descent. Hmmm…Interesting. We all know who Jesus was descended from. Also, the miracle itself took place when people had no idea what blood types were, or that they even existed, so–gross as it sounds–some sicko wouldn’t have known to just kill a Jew and smear his blood on the Host to make things even more realistic.
Anyhoo, theres some proof for you, although we all know that shouldn’t be what we rely on to believe. It helps, though.
 
Hatter, that sounds to me like a good reasons not to believe in transubstantiation (or at least not to believe it’s very usual). If what happened to that bread and wine was a real transubstantiation, then we now know what a real transubstantiation look like. And since what happens every Sunday when the priest consecrates the bread and wine is nothing like what happened in that miracle, then we know transubstantiation doesn’t happen every Sunday when the priest consecrates the bread and wine.
 
One reason for me to believe that the Catholic Church is the true church?

Christ built his Church upon Peter with the promise of lasting until the end of time. Why would Jesus allow the church he built to be destroyed and then reformed after 1500 years? And then reformed again after 5 yrs, and then reformed again and it just keep on reforming and reforming and reforming ! Hey now we got 100, 200, maybe thousands of different churches. One of them have to be the right one. Which one will you choose? The one that started in 33 AD or the one that just started 1500 or 2000 yrs ? I’ll rather stick with the original instead of the late, later, or latest version.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top