PROVE Catholicism True!

[mozart-250]

The title, “Mother of God” is hardly “just a title” it is the natural consequence of the true personal unity of Christ as defined at the Council of Chalcedon. Don’t take it up with us. Go talk to a good Protestant, like R.C. Sproul, who will give you the best concise delineation of this doctrine that you will ever hear. This is not a doctrine on which Protestants and Catholics disagree.

Did I say I disagree with the doctrine? What is underneath the title is fine with me. And I recognize the title as just a title. I am in agreement with R.C. Sproul.

However a lot of Protestants do have a cow with the doctrine. They don’t understand what is underneath the title and think Catholics are saying that Mary was the mother of the pre-incarnate Christ or Mary was the mother the Holy Spirit or something.equally absurd which of course I know you are not saying.

Just some like Catholics do not understand the title “Sola Fide” and think it means antinomailism.

My only point is that misunderstandings based on ambiguous titles run both ways. Minor point really.

 

[mozart-250]

My point is merely about the method of determining what is true and what is not. I see no method in Protestantism for determining with certainty what is true. We can debate whether the Catholic method for accomplishing this certainty is valid or not, but I’m merely pointing a method exists.

When challenged to “prove Catholicism true”, it therefore makes sense to me to at least reduce the field of possibilities to those who at least claim to be able to determine what is and what is not true. And such a claim necessarily requires a truth verifying source external to the individual.

But you seem to be making the mistake of arbitrarily lumping all 9,356,194 Protestant denominations and 67,235,149 non-denominationals under one umbrella.

The fact is that individual Protestant Churches have a statement of faith that you have to sign on in order to be a member. This is I believe external to the individual.

Just as the Catholic Church has its dogma that you must believe in order to be a member.

And if you examine the statements of faith of Orthodox Protestant Churches you will find they are 95% in agreement.

The only difference is that the scope of what the Catholic Church says you must believe extends to the whole Catholic Church while the scope of what the denomination believes is extends to the denomination.

Both Catholics and Protestants have authoritative beliefs and structure. The differences are scope and infallability.

If you want to say you have problems with Protestantism because of the denominations I would at least understand. Although I don’t believe it proves Catholicism True by any means, it is evidence against anti-Catholic superiority claims.

 

[mercygate]

Did I say I disagree with the doctrine? What is underneath the title is fine with me. And I recognize the title as just a title. I am in agreement with R.C. Sproul.

However a lot of Protestants do have a cow with the doctrine. They don’t understand what is underneath the title and think Catholics are saying that Mary was the mother of the pre-incarnate Christ or Mary was the mother the Holy Spirit or something.equally absurd which of course I know you are not saying.

Just some like Catholics do not understand the title “Sola Fide” and think it means antinomailism.

My only point is that misunderstandings based on ambiguous titles run both ways. Minor point really.

Words are never “minor” in theology. And there ARE Protestants who do take “sola fide” to antinomianism.

 

[StHilarious]

I would therefore suggest that when trying to determine what is true or not, we should consider the method suggested by the differing religions for makinig such a determination. The Catholic Church provides a method (which can then be examined). Protestant churches do not.

What is the method provided by the RCC to determine what is true or not?

Other Christian religions use the scriptures to check to see if what their leaders saying is true. Acts 17:11

 

[djrakowski]

What is the method provided by the RCC to determine what is true or not?

Other Christian religions use the scriptures to check to see if what their leaders saying is true. Acts 17:11

How 'bout including the verse so everyone can see what you’re talking about:

Acts 17:11 (NIV) - “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

In other words, you’re saying that Christians today should use only the Old Testament to determine if their preacher is speaking truth? After all, the Bereans didn’t have a New Testament like the ones we have today.

Secondly, what does scripture itself say about where to look for truth?

1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) - “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Secondly, is the word of God only what is written down in sacred scripture? Not according to sacred scripture:

John 1:1 (NIV) - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The Bible was with God in the beginning, or the Word, Jesus? The Bible was God, or Jesus?

John 1:14-15 (NIV) - "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ "

The Bible became flesh and dwelt among us, or Jesus?

It seems that rightly dividing the truth involves the Church, of which the Bible says:

Ephesians 5:23b (NIV) - “as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”

Colossians 1:18a (NIV) - “And he is the head of the body, the church”

Colossians 1:24 (NIV) - “Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”

This is what sacred scripture teaches, and this is what the Catholic Church teaches. Anything else is quite contrary to the plain words of scripture.

 

[The_Catholic]

It can’t be proven “beyond a dout.” But as a dear friend of mine said the other night who is NOT a Catholic:

“Catholicism has the BEST claim to be the True Church of Christ. Two-thousand years of history, the church fathers, the WISDOM in the idea of there only being ONE Church is wonderful and makes a stronger witness to the world for Christianity, a togetherness and unity, wonderful acts of Saints in the past. I don’t see that in any other church. I have alot of respect for the Catholic Church.”

I was so overjoyed when I heard him say these words. He is a non-denominational Christian right now but who knows what he will become before it’s his time. He’s the most humble person among his beliefs that I have ever known. I feel he really is to the best of his knowledge searching for the Truth humbly. Praise God!

 

[mercygate]

What is the method provided by the RCC to determine what is true or not?

Other Christian religions use the scriptures to check to see if what their leaders saying is true. Acts 17:11

Love your user name and WELCOME to CAF!

In order to use the Scriptures, you need to know that the Scriptures have authority. That is where Catholic thinking comes down the hardest. We start from before ever there ever were tablets of stone, or before a quill ever touched papyrus. We take our cue from Paul in Romans 1, and from the books of Wisdom and Sirach, where we are counseled simply to look at the divine handiwork evident in the created world in order to know that there is a God. Revelation is added to the Natural Law, in order to teach us what cannot be known by the unaided intellect. The moral points of the law simply reflect what is already written on the face of creation and in the human heart. We need the written law because we are fallen creatures in need of reminding.

Catholic thinking relies on Scripture based on the combination of our tradition (from Judaism, which valued the books we call the Old Testament) and from a triple thread which authenticates the writings we call the New Testament:

1. 
   *]The plethora of ancient manuscripts and manuscript fragments, which, of themselves, provide massive evidence that these writings represent a credible mutual corroboration that the story they tell was consistent throughout a wide distribution.
   *]The non-Scriptural evidence both in the literature preserved within the Church and outside it of how the earlty Christians held to their faith despite persecution, torture, and execution.
   *]The evidence from writings in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries that the churches were united, in communion with one another, that they mutually recognized and fought heresy against true teaching, and that they respected the special position of the Church at Rome as a “presidency of love” (Ignatius of Antioch - 107 A.D.), acknowledging that, founded by Peter and Paul, and never having been tainted by heresy, the Church at Rome, she preserved the faith handed down by the Apostles with perfect integrity (Irenaeus of Lyons - ca. 185 A.D).
   So when Catholics discern “truth,” and particularly the truth of the Church, we look to the triple thread of reason, history and Scripture for corroboration. In the New Testament, Christ promises to build **his **Church, not a multitude of conflicting churches. Since reason, history, and Scripture all witness to the Catholic Church of the second and third centuries as being **that **Church, and since we can trace both our physical history and our doctrine directly back in a documented line to that Church, and since Jesus himself promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, and that he would send his Spirit to guide it into all the truth, we’re kind of stuck with it.

 

[StHilarious]

What is the method provided by the RCC to determine what is true or not?

Other Christian religions use the scriptures to check to see if what their leaders saying is true. Acts 17:11

How 'bout including the verse so everyone can see what you’re talking about:

Acts 17:11 (NIV) - “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

In other words, you’re saying that Christians today should use only the Old Testament to determine if their preacher is speaking truth? After all, the Bereans didn’t have a New Testament like the ones we have today.

I thought this scrpiture provided a wonderful example to check the scriptures. We are blessed that we can check the new testament as well.

Secondly, what does scripture itself say about where to look for truth?

**2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, **

 

[StHilarious]

Love your user name and WELCOME to CAF!

In order to use the Scriptures, you need to know that the Scriptures have authority. That is where Catholic thinking comes down the hardest. We start from before ever there ever were tablets of stone, or before a quill ever touched papyrus. We take our cue from Paul in Romans 1, and from the books of Wisdom and Sirach, where we are counseled simply to look at the divine handiwork evident in the created world in order to know that there is a God. Revelation is added to the Natural Law, in order to teach us what cannot be known by the unaided intellect. The moral points of the law simply reflect what is already written on the face of creation and in the human heart. We need the written law because we are fallen creatures in need of reminding.

Catholic thinking relies on Scripture based on the combination of our tradition (from Judaism, which valued the books we call the Old Testament) and from a triple thread which authenticates the writings we call the New Testament:

1. 
   *]The plethora of ancient manuscripts and manuscript fragments, which, of themselves, provide massive evidence that these writings represent a credible mutual corroboration that the story they tell was consistent throughout a wide distribution.
   *]The non-Scriptural evidence both in the literature preserved within the Church and outside it of how the earlty Christians held to their faith despite persecution, torture, and execution.
   *]The evidence from writings in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries that the churches were united, in communion with one another, that they mutually recognized and fought heresy against true teaching, and that they respected the special position of the Church at Rome as a “presidency of love” (Ignatius of Antioch - 107 A.D.), acknowledging that, founded by Peter and Paul, and never having been tainted by heresy, the Church at Rome, she preserved the faith handed down by the Apostles with perfect integrity (Irenaeus of Lyons - ca. 185 A.D).
   So when Catholics discern “truth,” and particularly the truth of the Church, we look to the triple thread of reason, history and Scripture for corroboration. In the New Testament, Christ promises to build **his **Church, not a multitude of conflicting churches. Since reason, history, and Scripture all witness to the Catholic Church of the second and third centuries as being **that **Church, and since we can trace both our physical history and our doctrine directly back in a documented line to that Church, and since Jesus himself promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, and that he would send his Spirit to guide it into all the truth, we’re kind of stuck with it.

1. 
   So God revealed himself through natural laws and through special revelation. This special revelation is in the form of the scriptures and both of us would be in trouble without them. Should we not value the Word of God as revealed in scripture over everything else? After all it is God’s Word.
   
   2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, NRSV
   
   We do not need the written law as we have become new creations and God has written his laws in our hearts.
   
   BTW thank you for your welcome.

 

[Truthstalker]

What is the method provided by the RCC to determine what is true or not?

Other Christian religions use the scriptures to check to see if what their leaders saying is true. Acts 17:11

StHilarious,

If the Bereans had stuck to Sola Scriptura, they would have rejected Paul’s message, as he brought new revelation. By Sola Scriptura they could not and would not have accepted the Gospel. This demonstrates one of the faults of SS, which has many faults.

Secondly, you didn’t seem to realize that the question you asked was a rhetorical one and was answered:

Secondly, what does scripture itself say about where to look for truth?

1 Timothy 3:15 (NIV) - “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Scripture says to look for the Church for truth, as you can see above.

It is true that Scripture is what you said it was, but the word “sufficient” or “complete” isn’t in 2 Tim 3:16. Useful, but not the sole criterion. Those who use this verse to justify Sola Scriptura are guilty of eisegesis - they read a meaning into the verse it doesn’t bear. It says “useful” not “adequate”, not “all-sufficient.”

By the way, “RCC” for “Roman Catholic Church” doesn’t include all the rites, etc., of the Catholic Church. It’s kind of like confusing Texas and the US. Some Texans may feel it’s identical, but people outside Texas don’t. There are a fair number of Eastern and Byzantine Catholics who post on this forum, and you need to make it clear when you are differentiating between Catholicism in general and the Roman Catholic Rite. Otherwise it gets confusing.

And welcome to the Forum.

 

[Truthstalker]

So God revealed himself through natural laws and through special revelation. This special revelation is in the form of the scriptures and both of us would be in trouble without them. Should we not value the Word of God as revealed in scripture over everything else? After all it is God’s Word.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, NRSV

We do not need the written law as we have become new creations and God has written his laws in our hearts.

BTW thank you for your welcome.

We value Christ over everything else, Christ who is the Word of God, who revealed Himself to men. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit they wrote the Bible and brought along an oral tradition as cited in the Bible (for example see 2 Thess 3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the **tradition **which he received from us). The Word was revealed both in writing and by mouth (see 3 John 17, for example). To hold the Bible above everything else would be idolatry. We hold God above all, and we value His Word because it is His.

 

[StHilarious]

StHilarious,

If the Bereans had stuck to Sola Scriptura, they would have rejected Paul’s message, as he brought new revelation. By Sola Scriptura they could not and would not have accepted the Gospel. This demonstrates one of the faults of SS, which has many faults.

Secondly, you didn’t seem to realize that the question you asked was a rhetorical one and was answered:

Scripture says to look for the Church for truth, as you can see above.

It is true that Scripture is what you said it was, but the word “sufficient” or “complete” isn’t in 2 Tim 3:16. Useful, but not the sole criterion. Those who use this verse to justify Sola Scriptura are guilty of eisegesis - they read a meaning into the verse it doesn’t bear. It says “useful” not “adequate”, not “all-sufficient.”

By the way, “RCC” for “Roman Catholic Church” doesn’t include all the rites, etc., of the Catholic Church. It’s kind of like confusing Texas and the US. Some Texans may feel it’s identical, but people outside Texas don’t. There are a fair number of Eastern and Byzantine Catholics who post on this forum, and you need to make it clear when you are differentiating between Catholicism in general and the Roman Catholic Rite. Otherwise it gets confusing.

And welcome to the Forum.

I do not know how you started talking about Sola Scriputra. I am talking about a biblical principle, which Jesus adhered to. Many times Jesus said: “It is written” My question is that if there is a biblical principle regards checking the scriptures in the OT, and Luke in Acts confirms this. Why would anyone not use this biblical principle, when we now have the new testament?

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[mercygate]

So God revealed himself through natural laws and through special revelation. This special revelation is in the form of the scriptures and both of us would be in trouble without them. Should we not value the Word of God as revealed in scripture over everything else? After all it is God’s Word.

Scripture holds a place of great privilege in the Catholic Church, but it has EARNED that place and that place is corroborated by reason and history. No doctrine of the Church contradicts Scripture.

StHilarious:

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, NRSV

Huh? That’s in the Catholic Bible, too. I’m not sure why you quote it here unless to make a pitch that Scripture is sufficient. That verse says that it is useful but it does not claim sufficiency.

StHilarious:

We do not need the written law as we have become new creations and God has written his laws in our hearts.

. . . and . . . ? You’re not saying that the law no longer has validity, are you? You are saying what St. Augustine meant when he said, “Love God and do as you please!” – the point being that if you love God, and are a “new creation” your heart will be truly free, and you will live, without struggle, according to the law. Right?
StHilarioius:

BTW thank you for your welcome.

:tiphat: My pleasure.

 

[homewardbound]

All I can tell you to do to prove as best you can to yourself that anything is true is to study what it teaches, pray a lot, compare its teachings to others in Christianity, and see what makes the most sense and is most biblically accurate and “feels” most right to you. There is no proving in religion. Just discovering and discerning what God wants us to find. If we seek God’s Truth He will show it to us. Demanding proof will never work, we must search on our own in order to find true grace and faithfulness.

 

[mercygate]

I do not know how you started talking about Sola Scriputra. I am talking about a biblical principle, which Jesus adhered to. Many times Jesus said: “It is written” My question is that if there is a biblical principle regards checking the scriptures in the OT, and Luke in Acts confirms this. Why would anyone not use this biblical principle, when we now have the new testament?

You are suggesting that Catholic theology is ignorant of Scripture? Is that your impression?

I recently gave a Plymouth Brethren (sola Scriptura/sola fide) friend of mine a copy of *The Catechism of the Catholic Church. *He confided to me absolute astonishment that everything in it is supported by Scripture.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[StHilarious]

I do not know how you started talking about Sola Scriputra. I am talking about a biblical principle, which Jesus adhered to. Many times Jesus said: “It is written” My question is that if there is a biblical principle regards checking the scriptures in the OT, and Luke in Acts confirms this. Why would anyone not use this biblical principle, when we now have the new testament?

You are suggesting that Catholic theology is ignorant of Scripture? Is that your impression?

The Hebrews had a biblical principle of checking the scriptures.
Jesus had a biblical principle of checking the scriptures.
The NT Christians had a biblical principle of checking the scriptures.

I will refrase the question: how often do you check the scriptures to see if what your teachers are saying is true?

 

[Chris_W]

But you seem to be making the mistake of arbitrarily lumping all 9,356,194 Protestant denominations and 67,235,149 non-denominationals under one umbrella.

My apologies if that seems unfair to you. I have no information that would suggest otherwise regarding this specific topic. If a Protestant religion provides a method of determining with certainty what is true, I welcome your correction of me for “lumping” them all together. I’ve simply not heard of such a method yet among Protestants.

The fact is that individual Protestant Churches have a statement of faith that you have to sign on in order to be a member. This is I believe external to the individual…

Well, yes this would be external to the individual, but I was referring to an external truth verifying source. Are you suggesting that because a particular church has an established statement of faith to which the members agree, that this somehow proves the statements are true? What happens when the church down the road has a contradicting statement of faith…which is true (if either one is)?

And if you examine the statements of faith of Orthodox Protestant Churches you will find they are 95% in agreement…

Perhaps. But truth mixed with small amounts of error cannot be called the truth.

Catholics and Protestants have authoritative beliefs and structure. The differences are scope and infallability…

Precisely. Authority without infallibility is merely opinion. It is unable to verify what is true.

If you want to say you have problems with Protestantism because of the denominations I would at least understand. Although I don’t believe it proves Catholicism True by any means, it is evidence against anti-Catholic superiority claims.

Don’t misunderstand, I am actually quite amiable with many dear Protestant friends, so I am not Protestant bashing here. I am trying to state the facts as I see them. As we discuss how to determine what is true, the method for making such a determination must be taken into consideration, and the fact is, Protestantism does not provide such a method.

 

[Chris_W]

So God revealed himself through natural laws and through special revelation. This special revelation is in the form of the scriptures and both of us would be in trouble without them. Should we not value the Word of God as revealed in scripture over everything else? After all it is God’s Word.

Indeed, we should value God’s Word. In fact, Jesus said every word of God is to be lived by. (Matt4,4) But Jesus spent 40 days after His Passion teaching the Apostles and we have no record of what He said or did (Acts1,3). How then could Christ expect us to live by every word of God, if forty days worth of words were not recorded, unless there is another way to learn what He taught which is outside of scripture? John also confirms that not everything concerning Christ’s work was recorded in scripture (John 21:25).

So back to your question, “Should we not value the Word of God as [it was revealed to us]? After all it is God’s Word.”

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, NRSV

Of course it is. It is the Word of God. Let me ask you something:

Is it useful because it is written down…or because it is the Word of God?

 

[Chris_W]

All I can tell you to do to prove as best you can to yourself that anything is true is to study what it teaches, pray a lot, compare its teachings to others in Christianity, and see what makes the most sense and is most biblically accurate and “feels” most right to you. There is no proving in religion. Just discovering and discerning what God wants us to find. If we seek God’s Truth He will show it to us. Demanding proof will never work, we must search on our own in order to find true grace and faithfulness.

So you will go with the theory that God cannot expect us to worship in spirit and in truth…because we have no way of knowing for sure what the truth is? That is unsatisfactory to me.

Do I need to confess my sins to a priest of God in order to get forgiveness? Is the bread and wine offered in church merely a symbol or will it really infuse me with special graces to strengthen me on my journey? Will divorce and remarriage really constitute a mortal sin capable of preventing me from entering heaven? Should I or should I not baptise my infant? Once I accept Jesus into my life, am I really guaranteed eternal salvation?

There are way to many questions out there with eternal consequences for me to satisfied with “ah, ya know, noboby knows for sure”. In fact, the very thought that I could not have faith with certainty would seem rather unfair.

 

[StHilarious]

Indeed, we should value God’s Word. In fact, Jesus said every word of God is to be lived by. (Matt4,4) But Jesus spent 40 days after His Passion teaching the Apostles and we have no record of what He said or did (Acts1,3). How then could Christ expect us to live by every word of God, if forty days worth of words were not recorded, unless there is another way to learn what He taught which is outside of scripture? John also confirms that not everything concerning Christ’s work was recorded in scripture (John 21:25).

So back to your question, “Should we not value the Word of God as [it was revealed to us]? After all it is God’s Word.”

Of course it is. It is the Word of God. Let me ask you something:

Is it useful because it is written down…or because it is the Word of God?

Col.1:25 I became its servant according to God’s commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations but has now been revealed to his saints.

Paul knew the Word of God fully and you and I agree that the scriptures are inspired. Any additional material is know as tradition.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.