Positive Proof The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church

[CHESTERTONRULES]

In this scripture GOD is speaking to Joshua. GOD has just chosen Joshua to replace Moses and from the scripture you know that Joshua is afraid and doubting.

I think you are pointing out a major error in the way protestants read the bible.

I once did the same thing you are recommending.

The bible is the word of God, but that doesn’t mean all the words are meant for us.

Protestants seem to take it for granted that when God made a promise to the apostles are a particular person that it can apply to all Christians.

For example, protestants believe that Jesus was promising THEM that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth when in fact he was promising this to his disciples.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Is the doctrine of OSAS in the bible?

How about the Trinity?

How about altar calls?

The reality is, Protestantism is new and different from Christianity as practiced by the apostles. You reject many of the things they held dear.

The Catholic Church most closely follows the teachings, practices, and beliefs of the early Christians.

Good lord- you obviously paid no attention to my posts. I am Episcopalian, and we reject the heretical notion of “Once Saved Only Saved.” Altar calls are emotion moments that probably offer no salvific goods, as they are pathos-based appeals, not substantive workings for God.

Chesterson, I’d say that all churches fail the original Christianity at some point. But the worst off is the RCC. A cold imperial hierarchy, alien doctrines related to the Papacy and Mary, among others.

I agree- most Protestant groups get Christianity wrong with OSAS. That is a notion that Jesus would likely have rejected if presented to him by one of these fundamentalist evangelicals. It’s a system of religion that negates the notion of good works in role of salvation, which Jesus Himself stated WAS necessary.

 

[joshua_b]

How convenient.

Start a new thread on the subject and I will eagerly participate. I will not, however, derail this one with you effort to latch on to something tangential to the topic at hand and exploit it as an opportunity to somehow unequivocably “prove” the Catholic Church is unscriptural, or pagan, or not truly Christian, or whatever other position it is you hold.

 

[hadassahjones]

I give two thumbs up to the OP.

While the Catholic Church has in times past not been perfect, I believe it is the original and intended faith. Until the Reformation, the Catholic Church was Christianity. There was nothing else.

By the time of the Reformation, the church indeed did need to be reformed, and sadly, there were too much politics for Luther to do so within the church. It had degenerated to the point where no one man, not even a few like-minded men, could make a difference.

The Church, I believe, has since made great leaps and bounds in perfecting herself. I do say that Jesus set Peter up as the head of the Church and essentially, the first Pope. Of course they did not answer to Rome then…Rome was viruently anti-Christian.

(I don’t know why it eventually became Rome, I would be interested in finding out.)

Anytime you put a human man in charge, you run the risk of getting a bad apple. Unfortunately, there was a time in history when there were many bad apples, and it has haunted us consistently through the ages. Sin can corrupt anyone human, and the Popes who came after Peter did not have the distinct advantage of having followed our Lord in person. Nonetheless, I believe the Catholic Church to be the best representation of the Christian faith, without the histironics present in so many Protestant denominations. You can go anywhere in the world and the Mass will be the same. The homily may be different, worse, or better, but the basic tenets will be the same. No Protestant can claim this.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Good lord- you obviously paid no attention to my posts. IQUOTE]

I usually don’t.

As you can see from my post, I wasn’t responding to you.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

By the time of the Reformation, the church indeed did need to be reformed, and sadly, there were too much politics for Luther to do so within the church.

And instead the church dug it’s heels into some of the strangest doctinal stances imaginable.

 

[joshua_b]

It became Rome because that is where Peter held his office. It is not because of geography, per se, but because that is where Peter decided to administer his office, and it has remained there ever since. According to Catholic belief, if Peter had died in jerusalem, the we would be arguing about the supremacy of Jerusalem right now.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

To further complicate the matter, the Catholic Church will claim it IS in the Bible (whatever “it” may be). I have yet to see a Catholic doctrine that could not be defended Scripturally. Now, whether or not that defense agrees with someone else’s interpretation of Scripture is another matter entirely.

As I mentioned- a war of claims. I’ve seen several that can’t be successfully defended by Scripture. I guess it depends on your outlook.

Some anti-catholics argue that the Catholic doctrines have changed. Example, priests are not allowed to be married. This was not always so.

The Catholic response is that priests in Eastern rites ARE allowed to be married (that discipline is exclusive to the Latin Rite), and that is a DISCIPLINE, not a doctrine of the Faith anyway. Disciplines are (and always have been) subject to change at the discretion of the Church leadership.

That’s true, and a proper distinction. But you all fiercely defend clerical celibacy as if it were doctrine. When an RC, I was fully in support of Latin Rite married clergy. Vicious debates ensued. It seems many in the RCC need to be reminded of the difference between “discipline” and “doctrine.”

I get the impression that some individuals are so opposed to the Catholic Church that they will almost deny the very tenets of Scripture in order to avoid any notion that may be simply “too Catholic”.

On the contrary, it’s because of the tenets of Scripture that we deny the authority of the RCC. Because frankly, it’s terribly hard to locate many RCC doctrines in Scripture, and to do so requires extraordinary mental gymnastics.

But please know by making these statements, I don’t consign you to the fires of Hell as your Church (used to) do so to folks like me. God is the foundation of our beliefs, not an Ecclesial institution.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

It became Rome because that is where Peter held his office. It is not because of geography, per se, but because that is where Peter decided to administer his office, and it has remained there ever since. According to Catholic belief, if Peter had died in jerusalem, the we would be arguing about the supremacy of Jerusalem right now.

It’s the mindset. “ROME”- imperial, cold hierarchical structures, no democracy (though popes and bishops had been selected by popular vote. Not in the Rome of Constantine- imperialism is the name of the game.

Jerusalem should be the physical center of the Church, not a secondary city. “Because Peter died at…” With all due respect, but who cares where he died? St. Simon Peter was a colossal proponent of the faith, and no doubt brought many to Jesus. Jesus died in Jerusalem; it’s placing the secondary over the primary.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Roamin_Xian;4555497:

Good lord- you obviously paid no attention to my posts. IQUOTE]

I usually don’t.

As you can see from my post, I wasn’t responding to you.

I feel doubly silly. Sorry my friend

 

[joshua_b]

And instead the church dug it’s heels into some of the strangest doctinal stances imaginable.

Strange when judged by what standard? Strange perhaps through a 20th century, evangelical, non-denom frame of reference, but certainly not strange, novel or alien to the historical context of Christianity as it had been practiced from the Apostolic age up until that time.

The doctrinal stances of the Reformation are strange and alien in the context of history. There is no historical record of any group believing OSAS or Sola Scriptura (whatever arbitrary flavor of that doctrine you choose to present) as beliefs that had been handed down from the apostles and practiced from the apostolic age all the way up to the middle ages.

 

[ron77nyc]

Whatever happened to these old apostolic traditions? I miss those days.

Acts 15:28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: 29 That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father’s wife. 2 And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed. 3 I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; 5 To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 3:1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.

 

[joshua_b]

It’s the mindset. “ROME”- imperial, cold hierarchical structures, no democracy (though popes and bishops had been selected by popular vote. Not in the Rome of Constantine- imperialism is the name of the game.

Jerusalem should be the physical center of the Church, not a secondary city. “Because Peter died at…” With all due respect, but who cares where he died? St. Simon Peter was a colossal proponent of the faith, and no doubt brought many to Jesus. Jesus died in Jerusalem; it’s placing the secondary over the primary.

Perhaps I did not articulate this clearly, and you misconstrued the point.

The whole point is that Jesus left a supremacy of power with Peter, and that supremacy was intended to be (and has been) inherited by successorship. (I’m not asking you to agree with anything other than the fact that this is the official Catholic belief)
The primacy of the Bishop of Rome has nothing to do with Rome, or “where Peter died”. It has to do with the fact that the successors to St. Peter inherit the distinct legal and administrative powers bestowed to that position by Christ Himself. Let me put it another way. Pope Benedict could decide today to move his episcopacy from Rome to Berlin
Germany. If he did, Catholics would from tomorrow forth, be subject to the Bishop of Berlin.

 

[joshua_b]

Whatever happened to these old apostolic traditions? I miss those days.

Acts 15:28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: 29 That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father’s wife. 2 And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed. 3 I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; 5 To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 3:1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.

Okay, I’ll play your silly little game…what happened to them?

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Perhaps I did not articulate this clearly, and you misconstrued the point.

The whole point is that Jesus left a supremacy of power with Peter, and that supremacy was intended to be (and has been) inherited by successorship. (I’m not asking you to agree with anything other than the fact that this is the official Catholic belief)
The primacy of the Bishop of Rome has nothing to do with Rome, or “where Peter died”. It has to do with the fact that the successors to St. Peter inherit the distinct legal and administrative powers bestowed to that position by Christ Himself. Let me put it another way. Pope Benedict could decide today to move his episcopacy from Rome to Berlin
Germany. If he did, Catholics would from tomorrow forth, be subject to the Bishop of Berlin.

Again, fair enough. I am aware of the official RC position, but you did a nice job of describing it.

 

[joshua_b]

As I mentioned- a war of claims. I’ve seen several that can’t be successfully defended by Scripture. I guess it depends on your outlook.
It does indeed, and I can charitably agree to disagree on a great many things.

That’s true, and a proper distinction. But you all fiercely defend clerical celibacy as if it were doctrine. When an RC, I was fully in support of Latin Rite married clergy. Vicious debates ensued. It seems many in the RCC need to be reminded of the difference between “discipline” and “doctrine.”
I can not comment on what “you all” say and do. I do agree (and I consider it quite annoying by the way) that there are some Catholics who are (or at least try to be) more Catholic than the Pope. While their attitude may be quite bothersome, it still does not negate, or reflect the official position of the Catholic Church.

On the contrary, it’s because of the tenets of Scripture that we deny the authority of the RCC. Because frankly, it’s terribly hard to locate many RCC doctrines in Scripture, and to do so requires extraordinary mental gymnastics.
I have found them all fairly obvious when Scripture is interpreted through the lens of history, and historical Christianity. Others disagree with me of course, but that is fodder for another thread. Again, I can agree to disagree on a great many things.

But please know by making these statements, I don’t consign you to the fires of Hell as your Church (used to) do so to folks like me. God is the foundation of our beliefs, not an Ecclesial institution.

I believe absolutely and without a doubt that the Catholic Church is founded on God and the gospel of Jesus, and not merely a concept of “Ecclesial institution”. As soon as someone prooves otherwise, I will leave the Catholic Church. Just so you know, I am a “revert”, and it was my intense scrutinization of Scripture and Apostolic Christianity that brought me back to Catholicism. When I actually started looking for answers, instead of presupposing that I knew all the answers, I was amazed at how much of the Catholic Church made sense in a way that no other Church did. I mean to imply nothing about anyone’s earnest search for Truth; I simply offer that to say that my search for Truth led me BACK to the Catholic Church that I doubted and, at a point in time, even opposed as a mere “Ecclesial institution”.

 

[ron77nyc]

Okay, I’ll play your silly little game…what happened to them?

Both Catholics and Protestants do not follow all the apostolic teachings of the early church. I’m sure they all have their reasons for not doing so but why should one side accuse the other when both have strayed?

 

[joshua_b]

Both Catholics and Protestants do not follow all the apostolic teachings of the early church. I’m sure they all have their reasons for not doing so but why should one side accuse the other when both have strayed?

So, what happened to the Apostolic beliefs ? Who holds the deposit of faith as it was handed to the Apostles?

 

[Shai22]

Here’s a joke.

Sitting on the side of the road along Navajo Route 12
somewhere between Lukachukai and Round Rock waiting to
catch speeding drivers, a Navajo Police officer sees a black charger puttering along at 12 mph. He thinks to himself. This drive is dangerous.

So he turns on his lights and pulls the driver over.
Approaching the car he notices that there are 5 elderly Navajo ladies
two in the front seat and three in the back, wide-eyed and white as ghosts.

The driver, obviously confused says to him, “Officer, I don’t understand. I was going the exact speed limit. What seems to be the problem?”

The officer trying to contain a chuckle explains to her that 12 was the route number, not the speed limit. A bit embarrassed, the women grinned and thanked the officer for pointing out her error. But before you go, Ma’am I have to ask is everyone ok in this car? These women seem awfully shaken.

The woman said, "Oh they’ll be alright in a minute officer,. We just got off route 191.!!!

LOL

Hope everyone had a laugh!!!

 

[ron77nyc]

So, what happened to the Apostolic beliefs ? Who holds the deposit of faith as it was handed to the Apostles?

The Catholic Church hold the deposit of faith. In cases where the Church cannot reach people or fails in its duties then God himself delivers the deposit of faith to those predestined to be conformed to His image.