How to resolve this dilemma?

[davidv]

What is truth? Just like that Pilate dude said in John’s gospel.

So I, too, repeat the same darn verbatim words that guy said approx. 2,000 years ago: What is truth?

What is truth is right! Truth is a rare thing in my opinion.

I was reading something what a rabbi said when he was asked about truth/religion or something. His response was something like if you’re in a majority group/religion, check your theology.

And to think about it, he does have a point there.

Given that “Truth” was standing directly in front of him, how did Pilate have the audacity to even ask the question?

Truth is not rare. It is ever-present in the person of Jesus Christ and in His body the Church.

Out of the approximately 7B people in the world about 1B are Catholic, so I guess you’ll to find out what religion other than Catholic is in the majority.

 

[Schabel]

Which church? There are many institutions that are claiming to be the church. Was your decision to trust in Rome an arbitrary decision, or did you make a reasoned decision to place your trust in Rome?

Well, one strong reason for me was the same that I found Cardinal John Henry Neuman had “succumbed” to, and he said it best:
“To be deep in history is to cease being protestant.”

He converted to Catholicism after years of prayer, study, and research.

That’s the short answer.

Now, picture this. It’s the year 60. You are talking to Sts. Peter and John. They are speaking on the Gospel.

Would you go to them and tell them that they’re interpretation is wrong?

Now, let’s go to the year 80. You’re listening to St. Clement talk about – the Gospel. He was a student of Sts. Peter and John. Ordained by St. Peter. Most probably the “fellow laborer” St. Paul spoke of. Now, would you tell HIM his interpretation of Paul’s letters, or Peter’s letters, or the Gospel, is wrong?

These were the first leaders of – the Catholic Church. WE have continuity all the way from Christ through His Apostles. And, from Christ, we have a promise that Hades itself won’t overcome the Church that He was (at the time) going to build. It’s HIS Church.

Now, what other claimnants are there for Christ’s Church?

 

[Nick_Jones]

Well, one strong reason for me was the same that I found Cardinal John Henry Neuman had “succumbed” to, and he said it best:
“To be deep in history is to cease being protestant.”

If it is necessary to be a student of history to find the one true church, then who would find it? Is Christianity just a religion of the scholarly elite?

He converted to Catholicism after years of prayer, study, and research.

That’s the short answer.

Now, picture this. It’s the year 60. You are talking to Sts. Peter and John. They are speaking on the Gospel.

Would you go to them and tell them that they’re interpretation is wrong?

Now, let’s go to the year 80. You’re listening to St. Clement talk about – the Gospel. He was a student of Sts. Peter and John. Ordained by St. Peter. Most probably the “fellow laborer” St. Paul spoke of. Now, would you tell HIM his interpretation of Paul’s letters, or Peter’s letters, or the Gospel, is wrong?

These were the first leaders of – the Catholic Church. WE have continuity all the way from Christ through His Apostles. And, from Christ, we have a promise that Hades itself won’t overcome the Church that He was (at the time) going to build. It’s HIS Church.

Now, what other claimnants are there for Christ’s Church?

If the only valid and reasonable contender is the one that makes the most noise, then you have the winner–the RCC wins that contest. But I strongly suspect that the real sheep follow Jesus and His word, and they have no need of a vicar, nor will they make room for any substitutes for the rock of their salvation, which is Jesus.

Your emphasis appears to be on visible and tangible continuity rather than spiritual continuity. What if your emphasis is misguided?

 

[Nick_Jones]

Did someone say in 33AD that He would build His church and that it would last, under His protection, until the end of time?

Where were the JW, Morman, etc. organizations in 33AD, 100AD, 1000AD, …

Thats why continuity is important, only the Catholic Church has a proven historical past all the way back 2000 years. And thats how you know its the original and trustworthy church you’re looking for.

Here, it appears as though you are eagerly attempting the very thing that Rome says we are not competent to do on our own–interpret the bible. And on your interpretation, only that which is visible can last and have continuity.

 

[teadough]

If the only valid and reasonable contender is the one that makes the most noise, then you have the winner–the RCC wins that contest. But I strongly suspect that the real sheep follow Jesus and His word, and they have no need of a vicar, nor will they make room for any substitutes for the rock of their salvation, which is Jesus.

Who are these “real sheep” you speak of and why are there so many denominations that split every single day? We are talking about thousands of denominations. I could show you 5 examples in my town. At one time this one particular church was one. Then, because the “real sheep” decided someone did not understand scripture, they split. They split again,and again,and then once more. Who was right? Every single one of those denominations believe in the same Jesus as the Catholics. All of the members have a real heart for Christ but they also have a problem with authority and when something did not go their way they split.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s say that you want to become part of the body of Christ, but you don’t know which so-called “church” is the real one. To further complicate matters, a Catholic friend tells you that Matthew 16:18 clearly says that Peter was the first pope in a long unbroken chain of succession. When you ask your friend why it matters if you are a Catholic or a Protestant, your friend tells you that it makes all the difference in the world, since as individuals, we are not really capable of correctly interpreting the bible. Your friend refers you to this:

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
The Fourth Session

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

---

At this point, if you believe Trent, you are completely unable to verify the claim that Matt. 16:18 says that Peter was the first pope because you now understand that correct interpretation of the Scriptures is not a matter of private judgment. So how should you verify that the Catholic Church is the one established by Christ and the apostles?

It’s quote simple – you go from church to church and ask them about their doctrine. When they finish their explanations, you ask, “But you admit you could be wrong, don’t you?”

Only one Church can answer “No” to that question – Protestant churches, by breaking away from the Catholic Church, and claiming the Church was “in error” have forfieted the *Kharisma *of Inifallibility.

 

[Erich]

It’s quote simple – you go from church to church and ask them about their doctrine.

Here are some questions you can ask…

 

[Thing]

Here, it appears as though you are eagerly attempting the very thing that Rome says we are not competent to do on our own–interpret the bible. And on your interpretation, only that which is visible can last and have continuity.

Rome, or more properly, The Vatican - I suppose, has a very limited number of bits of Scripture to which it attaches an intrepretation beyond question. Suggest you research how many bits exactly…its interesting.

Here is the Bible bit that you’re worried about:
There is no super-duper interpretation needed in this following sentence, it simply is what it is:

“…and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

The ‘it’ bit I underlined because the ‘it’ He refers to can only be a Thing.
The constituent bits that make up the Thing are visible people, namely the visible hand-picked Apostles, then the disciples, then the ordinary Catholic faithfull. The other bits that help complete this Thing are;
The Holy Spirit living in this Church; He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.;]

Unity of Doctrine, All the Apostles, disciples, and laity believed the very same things; [Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.]

A Unified Organization of people: [For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.]
To deliver this same Promise as St. Peter says, to every place in every time, and as prophecied - until the end of time, there needed to be some organization to protect Doctrine, otherwise you would be subjected to a protestant-style chaos - resulting in the type of confusion you are experiencing now.

The great thing about Catholicism is that because of the foresight of its Founder and Fathers, anyone can without any trouble compare the Doctrines of Catholicism today with Catholicism at any date in the last 2000 years, - it is recorded history. So you are sure, beyond any doubt, that here at least is a true record of Christianity from the beginning and its promise.

 

[Schabel]

If it is necessary to be a student of history to find the one true church, then who would find it? Is Christianity just a religion of the scholarly elite?

He didn’t say that studying history was necessary. What he did say is that a study of history will inescapably lead you to the conclusion that protestantism is untrue.

There are OTHER ways to find the Truth.

However, this Truth has been perverted by protestantism, and one sure way to determine this is to re-trace the steps taken.

If the only valid and reasonable contender is the one that makes the most noise, then you have the winner–the RCC wins that contest.

Where did you pull that strawman from?

But I strongly suspect that the real sheep follow Jesus and His word, and they have no need of a vicar, nor will they make room for any substitutes for the rock of their salvation, which is Jesus.

No. Again with the strawman? There is no substitute for Jesus.
However, if you want to deal with the way Jesus set things up, you’ll have to admit that Jesus, the one true shepherd, appointed Peter to shepherd His flock. You might want to think about this without using a strawman, as it goes directly against your presupposition.

Your emphasis appears to be on visible and tangible continuity rather than spiritual continuity.

You mean it’s wrong to look at historical truth? Please, tell me why.
And tell me why you’re setting up a false dichotomy of visible and tangible continuity versus spiritual continuity.
The spiritual continuity was passed on in a rather tangible way in the Early Church as witnessed by both the ECF and scripture, and carries on to this day … in the Catholic Church.

It seems to me that, not having any evidence for tangible continuity, you are making a dubious claim for some kind of “spiritual continuity” apart from historical continuity. This would be anti-biblical.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You mean it’s wrong to look at historical truth? Please, tell me why.

Because the historical truth is the record of spiritual continuity, of course. Looking at the historical record will show that the very earliest Christians – those taught by the Apostles – believed what the Catholic Church believes and teaches today.

And we can’t have that!

 

[Schabel]

Because the historical truth is the record of spiritual continuity, of course. Looking at the historical record will show that the very earliest Christians – those taught by the Apostles – believed what the Catholic Church believes and teaches today.

And we can’t have that!

 

[sandusky]

vern humphrey:

It’s quote simple – you go from church to church and ask them about their doctrine. When they finish their explanations, you ask, “But you admit you could be wrong, don’t you?”

IOW, the Catholic Church is right because it doesn’t admit that’s it wrong? :whacky:

 

[vern_humphrey]

IOW, the Catholic Church is right because it doesn’t admit that’s it wrong? :whacky:

No, the Catholic Church is right because it has the Kharisma of Infallibility – Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

Protestants are hoist on their own petard – they must reject that promise, otherwise they cannot justify separating from the Church. And having rejected it, they cannot claim that they have the Kharisma.

Therefore no Protestant church can proclaim its doctrine with certainty.

 

[sandusky]

vern Humphrey:

No, the Catholic Church is right because it has the Kharisma of Infallibility – Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.

Where does one find the promulgation of this kharisma?
vern humphrey:

Protestants are hoist on their own petard – they must reject that promise, otherwise they cannot justify separating from the Church. And having rejected it, they cannot claim that they have the Kharisma.

Christ’s church does not need a kharisma, it possesses a head, who is also its savior—OTOH, your church professes that it is the savior; doesn’t it?
vern Humphrey:

Therefore no Protestant church can proclaim its doctrine with certainty.

Why not? Because you say so?

The church that I belong to proclaims its doctrine with certainty, and it does so in concert with many other local congregations; therefore, you must be wrong.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Where does one find the promulgation of this kharisma?

Matthew, 16, 13-19

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and **upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

(My emphasis)

Christ’s church does not need a kharisma, it possesses a head, who is also its savior—

And Who created His Church and gave it the Kharisma of Infallibility.

OTOH, your church professes that it is the savior; doesn’t it?

Nope – we are the Church of the Savior, but we are not ourselves the Savior.

Why not? Because you say so?

The church that I belong to proclaims its doctrine with certainty, and it does so in concert with many other local congregations; therefore, you must be wrong.

So you do claim the Kharisma of Infallibility?

 

[sandusky]

vern humphrey:

Matthew, 16, 13-19…(My emphasis)

I cannot find the words *kharism, * or infallibility anywhere in that passage; will you re-post the passage, and add your emphasis to those words, please?
vern humphrey:

And Who created His Church and gave it the Kharisma of Infallibility.

To my knowledge, no one.
vern humphrey:

Nope – we are the Church of the Savior, but we are not ourselves the Savior.

After a tedious spiel, the CCC arrives at, and states this conclusion:780 The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men.

[emphasis mine]
vern humphrey:

So you do claim the Kharisma of Infallibility?

I’m just a man; and save for a few who are long dead, any man who claims the kharism of infallibility is, as the British say, “cracked;” IMO.

 

[Thing]

There is a sudden flash of light … Thunder rolls … God appears before Sandusky…

God - “The Gates Of Hell Will Not Prevail Against You!”

Sandusky - “Gosh! Thanks!”

 

[vern_humphrey]

I cannot find the words *kharism, * or infallibility anywhere in that passage; will you re-post the passage, and add your emphasis to those words, please?

Duck and hide, eh?

To my knowledge, no one.

You never heard of Jesus Christ, eh?

After a tedious spiel, the CCC arrives at, and states this conclusion:780 The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men.

[emphasis mine]

Sacrament of salvation is one thing, salvation itself is another. Christ created His Church to bring salvation to mankind – do you deny that?

I’m just a man;

And your opinion is that of any man.

and save for a few who are long dead, any man who claims the kharism of infallibility is, as the British say, “cracked;” IMO.

The Church, not a man, has the Kharisma of Infallibility.

And the consequence is, when you make your pronouncements, I can ask, “But you admit you could be wrong, do you not?”

And you must answer yes, since to say no would be to claim infallibility (that’s what infallibility means, can’t be wrong.)

But the Church can answer no. The Church is not a man. The Church is God’s creation, and has His promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

 

[sandusky]

vern humphrey:

Duck and hide, eh?

Is that another way of saying, “I can’t?”
vern humphrey:

You never heard of Jesus Christ, eh?

I know Him.
vern humphrey:

Sacrament of salvation is one thing, salvation itself is another. Christ created His Church to bring salvation to mankind – do you deny that?

Christ’s church is to proclaim the gospel; only God can bring salvation.

Then the “Sacrament” of salvation must not be truly necessary; is that correct?
vern humphrey:

And your opinion is that of any man.

No exception(s)?
vern humphrey:

And the consequence is, when you make your pronouncements, I can ask, “But you admit you could be wrong, do you not?”

And you must answer yes, since to say no would be to claim infallibility (that’s what infallibility means, can’t be wrong.)

But the Church can answer no. The Church is not a man. The Church is God’s creation, and has His promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

And the circular argument is complete, as we arrive back at my initial question, now rephrased as a statement: The Catholic Church is right because it says it’s right; IMO.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Is that another way of saying, “I can’t?”

Nope – it’s a way of saying, “None so blind as him who will not see.”

I know Him.

Then accept His Church, founded upon Peter, to whom was given the Keys to the Kingdom and the power to loose and bind. And who was promised the gates of hell would not prevail.

Christ’s church is to proclaim the gospel; only God can bring salvation.

Now there’s a meaningless statement!

Do you deny that salvation comes through His Church?

Then the “Sacrament” of salvation must not be truly necessary; is that correct?

No exception(s)?

There are exceptions – for one who is invincibly ignorant, but who nevertheless strives for a Christ-like life.

However, it is the existance of the Church that makes this possible.

And the circular argument is complete, as we arrive back at my initial question, now rephrased as a statement: The Catholic Church is right because it says it’s right; IMO.

No, because Christ made His promise to Peter.