So how do you know that Catholicism is correct?

[paarsurrey]

Are you saying Islam is true? After all it has been around for 14 hundred years or so and what about Buddhism and Hinduism they have also been around for a few years.

Hi

All revealed religions (attributed to Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad) are from GodAllahYHWH, so in origin they were all truthful, later with the time the message was diluted from the memory of the followers, so the message is revived.

[2:214] Mankind were one community, then they differed among themselves, so Allah raised Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and sent down with them the book containing the truth that He might judge between the people wherein they differed. But then they began to differ about the Book, and none differed about it except those to whom it was given, after clear Signs had come to them, out of envy towards one another. Now has Allah, by His command, guided the believers to the truth in regard to which they (the unbelievers) differed; and Allah guides whomsoever He pleases to the right path.
www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=2&verse=207

Thanks

 

[SacredHeartFan]

I am saying that Islam is almost correct. they just need to change a few things. And as for buddah or whatever they find peace so it works for them.

 

[mozart-250]

The Orthodox and Catholics have the same base, but separated in AD 1054. The main area of dispute (but not the only one) is the Primacy of the Pope.

It would be rather illogical to claim that one or the other had no claim to the early Church in the sense that Protestantism violently severed everything they disagreed with.

Catholics would argue that the Orthodox were the ones who broke away and Orthodox claim that it was the Catholics who did.

The history of both sides helped lead me to Rome as opposed to Constantinople as being the Church Christ founded.

Well that is closer to my understanding.

Therefore Catholicism and Orthodoxy are mutually exclusive. Both can not be 100% true, correct.

Therefore is it not true that any line of reasoning here that not uniquely identify one versus the other is fallacious?

Anyway, if I am understanding you correctly I assume it took historical understanding to separate the two.

Would not the Orthodox have a different interpretation of history ot (they presumably would not listen to your reasoning and go “duh why did we miss this all along”). I would also suspect it would be a cumbersome task for someone who is neither Orthodox or Catholic and does not have the skill set of a seminary degree with a strong church history background to sift through the various historical arguments and objectively analyze them. But anyway…

Is it correct to say this is a historical judgement call that you made to separate the two?

 

[mozart-250]

I know that Catholicism is the fullness of Jesus’s Church through Sacred Scripture,Sacred Traditions, and Sacred Teachings.

Good. My question though is how do you know this?

I know the Apostles were in Class for 3 years with Jesus and in three years everything could not be put into print (Bible). Scripture

I do not beleive I am any more or less intelligent than the Apostles. If it took the Apostles 3 full years night and day of being taught by the ultimate Rabbi (meaning teacher) Jesus Christ. Then I need Sacred Teachings also.

Jesus followed the traditions of the faith to which he was born (Hebrew) and all the while creating traditions of the new covenant. Washing of the feet, the last supper, etc…

That is good. I am missing though how this means that Catholicism is correct.

I know Catholicism is correct as I have a peace and contentment within me that I just cannot describe. T o know me before when I was a Cradle Catholic going through the motions and to know me now as a practicing Catholic you would see two different persons. Yes the Holy Spirit is within me esspecially at Church I know I am home. Instead of a one way conversation of me to Jesus now I shut up long enough to hear what the Lord is telling me.

Excellent. I do not disparge any testimony.

I would ask though what a testimony objectively proves though? I could through google locate testimonies of folks leaving Catholicism into any Protestant denomination (as well as vice-versa). For that matter I suspect I could find testimonies of folks leaving both denominations into Mormonism. JW and any number of “Christian restorationalist” groups. I also have read testimonies of folks leaving Christianity altogether. I should not conclude from reading these testimonies that Christianity is incorrect should I?

However, I do think a good Christian testimony is indicative of the Lord Jesus Christ working in a person and leading them into His will. If Catholicism is God’s will for you, who am I or anybody else to say otherwise.

 

[mozart-250]

Because history, Tradition, and Scripture prove that it is correct. That and I have faith that Catholicism is correct.

But that does not answer my question on how you know it is correct?

I realize you have faith that Catholicism is correct, but you do realize that a lot of folks have faith that Catholicism is not correct. How do you know that the object of your faith is correct?

 

[mozart-250]

If you believe that Jesus is the Messiah then your ‘assembly’ or ekklesia would be the Church which grew out of Judaism: the Catholic Church. If your rite or tradition was Eastern, then you would still be part of the Church (forget the stupid and silly Schism: the sacraments, saints, Traditions in teaching what Jesus taught the Disciples are all the same).

Why should one forget the “silly Schism”? Another poster here said they disagree on some points. Therefore both can not be correct can they?

If you have difficulty understanding the development of the hierarchy, the beginning and rationales of the disciplines [unmarried clergy, for example] and other non-Traditional things (non-T being changeable and not a doctrinal/dogma matter) then you might become any of the many thousands of denominations and sects and individual churches which claim to be Christian.

Politely, the term is cafeteria-Christian. Taking something from the OT here and the NT there and weaving an ‘interpretation’ around it and opening for business.

That is sad and that is unfortunate.

If you do not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, then you can take any number of routes post-Jamnia into Judaism: reform, orthodox (and its variations), secular, kabbalist, et cetera. Or become moslem or mormon and claim everyone prior to your prophet and his book were really Ur-moslems or Ur-mormons and didn’t really know it.

To claim to believe the Gospel of Jesus entails believing what Christians have believed since His death and resurrection, and these things were and are taught through the Church.

The Bible is a liturgical book (the Mass and its traditions - going back to the early Christian centuries- used directly or through paraphrase sections of what became Scripture for Christians).

The Bible was NEVER meant to be interpreted as the How-To-Be-A-Christian Book for individual understanding. That is a modern (1500+) misconception. It’s like trying to run the American government with a copy of the US Constitution.

The irony is that non-Cs like to hit us Catholics over the head with the Bible as their end-all authority when they can never tell us where in that Bible does it state that it is the end-all authority (and what manuscript, pray tell?).

So that’s it: if you’re a Christian, then you should be a Catholic or Eastern one. All others are pale variations by way of nationalistic or personal preference.

Personal interpretations lead to personal biases and delusions. I prefer the proven and centuries old teachings handed down from the time of Jesus and His Disciples through the Catholic Church.

Robert

You are answering the question as to why you believe the other guy is incorrect. That is nice, but is not really the question I am asking.

Just because the other guy might be incorrect does not mean that you are correct does it?

 

[catharina]

Just to follow up on this question. You seem to think that one denomination must be 100 percent accurate in what it teaches. How do you know that is the case?

I know by faith and thank God for it.
I know that the Church will not teach error in matters of faith and morals…

(The Catholic Church is the Church. Denominations are small and large splinter groups.)

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Observation: Don’t the Orthodox also claim lineage back to Christ?

Question: How do you know that just because your lineage goes back to Christ that Catholicism is correct, especially since a claim of lineage does not seem to be unique to Catholicism?

And they would be correct up to a point in that they Still hold the Tradition of Christ Church, The reason for there separation from Rome is ( this is just the bottom line over the last 950 years there have been other reasons) not excepting The Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ. Other that that there are very few major differences from the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. Were as with in the protestant denomination/ non denominational churches Many of the truths taught by the Catholic Church and the Orthodox are not taught or taught as being incorrect. As I see it th e scripture and traditions can down to us to guide and help in our gaol to find and worship God and Christ. If you get rid of half ( tradition) then you open yourself to the possibility of missing the more finite meaning of scripture and true worship. You run the risk of being lead by the sprite of man and hence all the various denominations.

Now this is not to say that there have not been error in the Catholic Church over the last 2000 years but in the end they are dealt with without the need to form a new church. Its when the sprite of man as come into play that division in Christ Body have occurred that is the saddest of all.

There are so many different reasons I can give to the OP. It would fill books. Now I have members of my family that belong to all the major denominations have have attend services and bible studies with them, there is something missing in them That I can only find within the Catholic Church.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

 

[manualman]

The catholic church and orthdox churches are the only christian faiths based on progressive logic. The rest are mired in circular logic.

Catholic/Orthodox:

1. History clearly demonstrates that Jesus existed via numerous independent documents and evidence.
2. The eyewitness accounts and reason suggest that only a genuine resurrection could account for the explosive growth of christianity instead of a collapse once fraud was exposed or fraud perpetrators no longer had anything to gain (e.g. facing execution).
3. The resurrection demonstrates that Jesus is Divine as He claimed.
4. The fact that He is Divine means that everything he said is trustworthy.
5. He told his 12 apostles that they were to have authority to teach, that they would be filled with the Holy Spirit, they would have the authority to forgive sins or NOT forgive them as appropriate and he gave the keys of the Kingdom to the first among those 12.
6. Those 12 immediately established the practice of chosing a replacement for a lost apostle (Judas Iscariot).
7. The apostles established the practice of ordaining NEW bishops (beyond the original 12) to authoritatively teach in new geographic areas where the gospel spread.
8. The later successors of the apostles (by a couple hundred years) using their apostolic authority compiled alleged apostolic writings and discerned which ones would become defined as Scripture and that no further General Revelation (i.e. Scripture) would be forthcoming.
9. The Pope (Peter’s successor) and bishops of the catholic and orthodox churches of today continue in unbroken succession the office and responsibility of teaching the faith.

Protestants:
1-5 are the same.
6. The aposltes preached and wrote to spread the gospel.
7. Fallible humans gathered hundred of years later to discern which alleged early writings of the apostles were inspired Scripture.
8. Christians must now use the “infallible” Scripture as their sole rule of faith and authority, even though their ideology can’t demonstrate the infallibility of those Scriptures. This is the tragic circular part.

The catholic understands that scripture is reliable because it was established by those to whom Jesus gave the authority to teach. The protestant view creates a disconnect between Jesus and the NT Scriptures that makes the infallibility of those Scriptures hard to be sure of intellectually.

 

[manualman]

Well that is closer to my understanding.

1. Therefore Catholicism and Orthodoxy are mutually exclusive. Both can not be 100% true, correct.
2. Therefore is it not true that any line of reasoning here that not uniquely identify one versus the other is fallacious?
3. Anyway, if I am understanding you correctly I assume it took historical understanding to separate the two.

Would not the Orthodox have a different interpretation of history ot (they presumably would not listen to your reasoning and go “duh why did we miss this all along”). I would also suspect it would be a cumbersome task for someone who is neither Orthodox or Catholic and does not have the skill set of a seminary degree with a strong church history background to sift through the various historical arguments and objectively analyze them. But anyway…

1. Is it correct to say this is a historical judgement call that you made to separate the two?

1. No and yes, respectively. The Catholic church does not dispute the validity of the apostolic succession of the orthodox churches. I don’t know how much ‘catholic’ you speak, but this means that their sacraments/mysteries are considered valid (continue to be true conduits of Grace) and their theology regarding God, man, sin, redemption and salvation squares 99.5%. We squabble over the .5%, but most protestant MDivs would not likely see any difference. Our differences center on role of the successor of Peter and some minutae about the inner relationship amongst the persons of the Trinity.
2. Nope. As I said above, the differences are trivial. In fact the Catholic Church includes Eastern Churches such as the Byzantine Catholic Church whose members have come to believe in the Catholic position on the primacy of the pope, but retain their own liturgical and theological traditions (small t). Catholicism isn’t homogenous. Blind men perceive an elephant differently. Limited humans develop strains to thought based on Scripture and Tradition that seem different (even sometimes apparently contradictory), but actually describe the same God (who is beyond mere human comprehension).
3. Yes, the Orthodox see things differently. They were often quite badly treated by Catholics in centuries past on those wounds still sting. You’ll note from Scripture and personal experience that the Holy Spirit does not prevent us from sinning against our fellow man even after conversion. Same goes for apostles, bishops and popes, I’m afraid.
4. Yup, historical judgement is required. I’ve no personal ethnic experience with the catholic/orthodox conflict (American midwest upbringing). This gives me a certain freedom from emotionalism, resentment and defensiveness that have been the hallmarks of catholic orthodox relations for centuries. Jesus promised us a narrow road, a hard path, trouble and strife. What do you know, He was right again. From this vantage point, the orthodox objections are based heavily on resentment of past treatment and fear of future wrongdoing rather than on an honest and dispassionate examination of what Scripture and Tradition say about Peter’s office.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hi Manny.

So you know that Catholicism is correct based on Matthew 16:13-20, correct?

How do you know that you are correctly interpreting this passage of Scripture?

Because the Church teaches it. The Magisterium professes this for over 2,000 yrs. It’s not my interpretation. It is the Church who has authority. I do not have authority. I am only echoing back what the Magisterium teaches.

The Catechism also made this very clear. The Holy Spirit preserve the teaching office of the Church in matters of faith and morals.

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

 

[Arnobius]

Well that is closer to my understanding.

Therefore Catholicism and Orthodoxy are mutually exclusive. Both can not be 100% true, correct.

Where they differ, one must err correct.

Therefore is it not true that any line of reasoning here that not uniquely identify one versus the other is fallacious?

Not sure where you are going with this to be honest. I was responding to your question of both the Orthodox and Catholics claiming direct lineage to Christ,

Anyway, if I am understanding you correctly I assume it took historical understanding to separate the two.

It took a series of cultural issues and different understandings that led to the mutual claims.

Would not the Orthodox have a different interpretation of history ot (they presumably would not listen to your reasoning and go “duh why did we miss this all along”). I would also suspect it would be a cumbersome task for someone who is neither Orthodox or Catholic and does not have the skill set of a seminary degree with a strong church history background to sift through the various historical arguments and objectively analyze them. But anyway…

The Orthodox would have a different understanding of history of course, but then so would the Moslems, the Protestants and others for that matter. Sincerity of belief does not mean correctness.

Since there is no cause for saying Christ abandoned the Church He founded, it follows that those who would have broken from it did so wrongly, even if they did so sincerely.

The problem with the Orthodox claim is that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was not an ancient See as was Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. It was formed with the growth of influence of the political nature as it was made the new capitol. The Patristic documents show that their reasoning was along the lines of saying that because Rome was the old capitol and Constantinople was the new capitol, the Patriarch of Constantinople should have commensurate authority with Rome. (The first Patriarch of Constantinople was Anatolius and his Bishopric was elevated to a Patriarchate in AD 451, though the Orthodox do say the Bishopric of Byzantium was established by Andrew the Apostle)

The fallacy here is that it links the Church authority to the temporal power of the place. However, historical documents demonstrate that Rome’s influence was always understood as being linked to Peter.

As I view history, it seems that the tensions with Constantinople were based on the political basis of the claims the Patriarchate of Constantinople made.

The Orthodox will doubtless disagree with my assessment, but when they appeal to the authority of the Ecumenical Council over all, they are referring to something that had its first basis in AD 325 in reaction to Arianism. If the Ecumenical Council was to be the ultimate authority, it brings up the question where the authority of the Church was prior to AD 325.

Is it correct to say this is a historical judgement call that you made to separate the two?

I don’t think it was a judgment call. Rather I do not see how the Orthodox can claim to be the authentic Church in a way that excludes Rome based on history.

Catholics do indeed recognize the fact that the Orthodox Churches have authentic sacraments and orders, and what is sought is to restore the broken communion between them

 

[lukewarm]

I can’t say for certain it’s true. I won’t pretend to be 100% certain it’s true. But I do know I’ve tried just about everything and Catholicism’s brand of Christianity works for me. It makes me feel closer to God (albeit still quite far), and makes me more cognizant of my sin and strive to better myself and live more like Christ, and it makes me a better father and husband.

I go in cycles though, sometimes as a very inspired practicioner, sometimes a complete cynic plagued by doubts. It’s just my nature and will always be.

 

[mozart-250]

I can’t say for certain it’s true. I won’t pretend to be 100% certain it’s true. But I do know I’ve tried just about everything and Catholicism’s brand of Christianity works for me. It makes me feel closer to God (albeit still quite far), and makes me more cognizant of my sin and strive to better myself and live more like Christ, and it makes me a better father and husband.

I go in cycles though, sometimes as a very inspired practicioner, sometimes a complete cynic plagued by doubts. It’s just my nature and will always be.

Thanks for the honest answer.

That would be along the lines of my answer, though as a non-Catholic.

 

[lukewarm]

Thanks for the honest answer.

That would be along the lines of my answer, though as a non-Catholic.

Interesting… You’re a conservative Evangelical, a Red Sox fan and an amateur pianist. While I am a Roman Catholic, rabid Yankee fan, and amateur violinist. You’re like me in bizzaro world…

 

[manualman]

Interesting… You’re a conservative Evangelical, a Red Sox fan and an amateur pianist. While I am a Roman Catholic, rabid Yankee fan, and amateur violinist. You’re like me in bizzaro world…

Funny how often bizzaro world comes up. You’d never suspect a comic / cartoon would have such an influence, but humorous references to it show up ALL the time!

Weird, yet fun!

 

[mozart-250]

Not sure where you are going with this to be honest. I was responding to your question of both the Orthodox and Catholics claiming direct lineage to Christ,

I guess I have a hard time comprehending a line of reasoning that claims one denomination is correct, but yet the same line of reasoning points to multiple denominations that are mutually exclusive.

The Orthodox would have a different understanding of history of course, but then so would the Moslems, the Protestants and others for that matter. Sincerity of belief does not mean correctness.

Since there is no cause for saying Christ abandoned the Church He founded, it follows that those who would have broken from it did so wrongly, even if they did so sincerely.

The problem with the Orthodox claim is that the Patriarchate of Constantinople was not an ancient See as was Rome, Antioch and Alexandria. It was formed with the growth of influence of the political nature as it was made the new capitol. The Patristic documents show that their reasoning was along the lines of saying that because Rome was the old capitol and Constantinople was the new capitol, the Patriarch of Constantinople should have commensurate authority with Rome. (The first Patriarch of Constantinople was Anatolius and his Bishopric was elevated to a Patriarchate in AD 451, though the Orthodox do say the Bishopric of Byzantium was established by Andrew the Apostle)

The fallacy here is that it links the Church authority to the temporal power of the place. However, historical documents demonstrate that Rome’s influence was always understood as being linked to Peter.

As I view history, it seems that the tensions with Constantinople were based on the political basis of the claims the Patriarchate of Constantinople made.

The Orthodox will doubtless disagree with my assessment, but when they appeal to the authority of the Ecumenical Council over all, they are referring to something that had its first basis in AD 325 in reaction to Arianism. If the Ecumenical Council was to be the ultimate authority, it brings up the question where the authority of the Church was prior to AD 325.

I don’t think it was a judgment call. Rather I do not see how the Orthodox can claim to be the authentic Church in a way that excludes Rome based on history.

Catholics do indeed recognize the fact that the Orthodox Churches have authentic sacraments and orders, and what is sought is to restore the broken communion between them

I find this very confusing as one who is neither Catholic or Orthodox. It does seem that the reasoning each side uses is extra-Biblical. I have no idea how one who is neither Catholic or Orthodox can figure out whose extra-Biblical reasoning is correct (if either is).

The best I can figure out is that both the Catholic and the Orthodox claim to be correct based on different readings of history.

 

[mozart-250]

Interesting… You’re a conservative Evangelical, a Red Sox fan and an amateur pianist. While I am a Roman Catholic, rabid Yankee fan, and amateur violinist. You’re like me in bizzaro world…

Well I have not problem with #1 and #3 on this list. #2 though will take a lot of grace on my part. But then again my next door neighbor and my piano student are also Yankee fans. I just assume it is invincible ignorance due to a faulty upbringing or something like that.

Unfortunately my kids are home on vacation and we have exceeded the satellites fair usage policy for the last 24 hours. Consequently, the internet for the next 24 hours will be slow to a screaching halt. There is quite a bit here that warrants follow up questions…particularly the post by Manualman. However I don’t know how much patience I have with a slow internet.

I think instead I will go watch the Simpson’s Movie DVD that we got from my son for Christmas for about the 5th time already.

 

[Arnobius]

I guess I have a hard time comprehending a line of reasoning that claims one denomination is correct, but yet the same line of reasoning points to multiple denominations that are mutually exclusive.

Well so long as the Orthodox church was in communion with Rome, we would hold they were correct though there were errors where they held differently from Rome, but once they had broken away, they were not protected from error. It is possible for someone to be in error and not know it of course

I find this very confusing as one who is neither Catholic or Orthodox. It does seem that the reasoning each side uses is extra-Biblical. I have no idea how one who is neither Catholic or Orthodox can figure out whose extra-Biblical reasoning is correct (if either is).

The best I can figure out is that both the Catholic and the Orthodox claim to be correct based on different readings of history.

Well, I would say that to break off because of historical problems is of course wrong. My studies have led me to believe that to base the governance of the Church based on the actions of the emperor in Constantinople as opposed to the Apostolic authority is of course wrong. It appears the Orthodox were content to go along with Rome so long as they agreed, but when they disagreed they tended to fall into error when separated from Rome

 

[inthecloud]

I find this very confusing as one who is neither Catholic or Orthodox. It does seem that the reasoning each side uses is extra-Biblical. I have no idea how one who is neither Catholic or Orthodox can figure out whose extra-Biblical reasoning is correct (if either is).

The best I can figure out is that both the Catholic and the Orthodox claim to be correct based on different readings of history.

Sometimes I do base my faith choices in extrabiblical evidence, I’m a deist and amateur historian who is contemplatin a return to christianity.
As a historian I love to look at evidence.

1. There is a umbroken line of succesion in both the CC and the EOC, both are parts of the Apostolic Church Jesus founded who are in schism now.
2. I do not believe in Sola Scriptura or One Saved Once Saved, that and a belief in evolution have discouraged me to go the evangelical protestant way (most evangelicals I know are creationists). Again historical evidence showed me who’s interpretations were correct.
3. I do thing the EOC is more correct in practice to first millenmia christianity but sometimes I thing change is necessary. And supersiting the Church to the Emperor’s will had introduced the banne of nationalism, as the events in the Holy Sepulcre had shown us. That is why also I look at the Anglican Comunion too as the liberal counterpart with the OC to the right and the CC to the center.
4. O in the end I might revert to the CC. But if the Russians, not the Greeks open a EOC here I can also look at the EOC. The Greeks are just too nationalistic sometimes.