So how do you know that Catholicism is correct?

[catharina]

It says right here that as a mark of being apostolic, the Church keeps hands on the teaching she has heard from the apostles. Now where did the apostles say that it is OK to annul a marriage based on the soft psychological grounds or reasons that we are reading about today? I don;t think that they did. The proof for this is to look at the situation in the Church as it was in 1930, when there were 9 annulments granted per year. And an annulment would be granted only for the most serious of reasons. Compare that with the situation recently and take a look at the reasons for granting an annulment today, as given in the book Judging Invalidity ©2002, By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn. These are lsited at the catholic site:
marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html

I’m not disagreeing with Pope JP II (or with you) as to the explosive number of annulments in recent years. Instead I’m suggesting you not attempt to tie the new numbers to what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have been practice in Apostolic days.

 

[manualman]

Mozart, did you forget about my post (#29&30)? I was looking forward to a discussion.

bozills, I suggest looking into the distinction in catholic teaching between discipline and doctrine. Discipline is changeable and always has been considered so. Anullments aren’t disciplinary, but they aren’t doctrine either. Since there exists an appeals process and some are overturned, one can conclude that they do not enjoy infallibility. As they are not a doctrinal issue, they are off-topic.

 

[bobzills]

Mozart, did you forget about my post (#29&30)? I was looking forward to a discussion.

bozills, I suggest looking into the distinction in catholic teaching between discipline and doctrine. Discipline is changeable and always has been considered so. Anullments aren’t disciplinary, but they aren’t doctrine either. Since there exists an appeals process and some are overturned, one can conclude that they do not enjoy infallibility. As they are not a doctrinal issue, they are off-topic.

Is it off topic to discuss whether or not the teachings of the Catholic Church today are apostolic?

 

[Benedict16]

The Catholic church is Apostolic because our faith starts from St. Peter with an unbroken link from him all the way, 265 popes later UNBROKEN! NO OTHER RELIGION CAN CLAIM THIS. We have an unbroken link from St. Peter up until now. Surely this must tell you something.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

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

Another poster pointed out the similarities (the ones that MATTER) between the Catholic and the Orthodox. The rest is window dressing.

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.

 

[bobzills]

The Catholic church is Apostolic because our faith starts from St. Peter with an unbroken link from him all the way, 265 popes later UNBROKEN! NO OTHER RELIGION CAN CLAIM THIS. We have an unbroken link from St. Peter up until now. Surely this must tell you something.

There may be a link from one man to another, but are the teachings of the Church today the same as they were in apostolic times, or has there been an essential change in some of the teachings? Also, since the true Church has the four marks of one, holy catholic and apostolic, I don;t see why it would be off topic to discuss whether or not the teachings of the Church today are the same as they were in apostolic times? Why would anyone consider this to be off topic?

 

[mozart-250]

Mozart, did you forget about my post (#29&30)? I was looking forward to a discussion.

bozills, I suggest looking into the distinction in catholic teaching between discipline and doctrine. Discipline is changeable and always has been considered so. Anullments aren’t disciplinary, but they aren’t doctrine either. Since there exists an appeals process and some are overturned, one can conclude that they do not enjoy infallibility. As they are not a doctrinal issue, they are off-topic.

Nope…did not forget about it…was waiting till you got back…and it appeared for a while the thread had died.

Will get to it this evening.

 

[mark_a]

…an obvious question I’ve always wanted to ask.

I want to refrain from debating as much as possible in this thread as debating has left a sour taste in my head. I will ask stupid questions if you don’t mind.

Fire away.

I’m not even sure I have the correct answer to the God question, but I do know that the Catholic Church has the correct moral teachings.

 

[manualman]

Is it off topic to discuss whether or not the teachings of the Catholic Church today are apostolic?

It is if you are trying to include disciplinary customs of the apostolic era in your definition of ‘teachings.’

Reread Jesus’ words. He didn’t say “No one must ever divorce for any reason.” He was more precise and careful, to the effect of “What God has joined let no man cast asunder.” (from memory, forgive me) This by necessity makes it necessary to discern whether the apparent marriage was, indeed, one in which God joined the two together. Grace isn’t just baptised magic. Marriage doesn’t happen because the couple recite the incantation and are blessed the priest. The couple must meet the definitions to be sacramentally married. God isn’t mocked. If a tribunal grants a nullity decree to a couple that really were sacramentally married, they are still married. It’s not an infallible declaration, its just formalized spiritual direction. They can be wrong, without the Church crashing down.

Yes, its off topic. Do you really think that annulment is central to the issue of determining the true Church Christ founded and wills us all to be unified within?

 

[bobzills]

Yes, its off topic. Do you really think that annulment is central to the issue of determining the true Church Christ founded and wills us all to be unified within?

Yes. It is appropriate to the question of whether or not the teaching is apostolic or something that was cooked up by some lawyers. And on top of that, we have the criticism of Pope John Paul II on the question.
The true Church is an apostolic Church and will not go against the teachings in effect at apostolic times.

 

[bobzills]

Reread Jesus’ words. He didn’t say “No one must ever divorce for any reason.”

Here is an excerpt from the Catholic journal, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, December 2005:
marysadvocates.org/Kendra.html
American Annulment Mills
By Robert J. Kendra
“…Jesus Christ sternly forbade divorce. “. . . whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her” (Mk 10:1-12; Lk.16:18; 1 Cor.7:10-11). Reinforcing the New Testament condemnations of divorce, Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI elaborated on the evils of divorce in their encyclicals “Arcanum,” and “Casti Connubii,” respectively. Vatican II continues by condemning the plague and profanation of divorce in “Gaudium et Spes,” and the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls divorce “a grave offense against the natural law,” and “immoral.” Canon Law even requires ecclesiastical approval for the separation of spouses. Rather than confront the dilemma, the American Church just sweeps 2,000 years of teachings under the rug. When was the last time you heard a bishop or priest condemn divorce?”
So the question comes up as to whether or not the Church tribunals of today are adhering to the apostolic teachings of the past 2000 years? This seems to me to be on the topic of whether or not Catholicism of today is correct?

 

[D317]

Yes. It is appropriate to the question of whether or not the teaching is apostolic or something that was cooked up by some lawyers. And on top of that, we have the criticism of Pope John Paul II on the question.
The true Church is an apostolic Church and will not go against the teachings in effect at apostolic times.

My 2 cents: it is way off topic!

You may not be aware of this, but one of the nice things about the Catholic Church can be found in MATT 16:18-19.

[sign]And so I say to you, your are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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.[/sign]

As you can see, Christ gave Peter and his successors the ability to define precisely what the apostolic church does through the Holy Spirit.

 

[mozart-250]

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.

OK…going in oldest order here

I am not sure what you are saying here… (at least a little).

Are you saying that you believe Catholicism is true because of what…lineage…the fact that is established Scripture…because “Protestantism” is not true.

I am not sure that the Catholic / Orthodox logic is not circular also (I find all “source of faith” arguments rely on circular logic).

It seems that the argument rests on the proposition that those who discerned the canon are “incapable of being incorrect”. But I am not sure how one can know that they are “incapable of being incorrect” other than the Catholic church saying they are incapable of being incorrect…and isn’t this also circular?

 

[napad]

Id say it in a practical way its the best choice.
Pascle wager better to believe in God than not.
Which religion? Is the next question.
well divide religion into reincarnation and no reincarnation.
It is better to go with the no reincarnation incase they are right. If they are wrong you will come back again.

Now we have 3 main no reincarnation religions
Islam
Judism
Christianity

How are you saved in Islam it is debatable they have no Pope to define the Official Way
Same with Judism orthodox, reformed, etc… No Pope no final court of what I need to do
Christianity : Protestants … etc… No Final interperter of Scripture

Catholic it is clear what we need to do and the is a Pope to make the tough calls when it get unclear.

I hope thats clear:wave:

 

[mozart-250]

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).

Aren’t some of the differences with infallible dogma. Two that I am aware of.

1. The Orthodox do not believe the Bishop of Rome is incapable of error when speaking ex-cathedra. I am quite sure the Orthodox believe that infallability died when you no longer can have united church councils.
2. There are some differences with the immaculate conception. For one, the Orthodox do not believe that Mary was delivered from original sin prior to conception. I recall having read some Orthodox claim it was possible that Mary committed venial sins.

If the Orthodox differ from the Catholic in regards to any dogma that you must believe, how can one say the differences are trivial.

1. 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.
2. 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.

When you talk about historical judgement, isn’t this really tradition? So doesn’t this reduce to two different interpretations of tradition?

 

[mozart-250]

However, that does not necessarily prove that one is 100% correct, because you could have a situation where some small errors have crept into the teachings of each one. Catholicism really does not hold 100% to the traditions in effect at Apostolic times. Take for example, the Apostolic tradition that women should be silent in the Churches or that women should have their heads covered while praying in Church.

A good point that I have been trying to ask.

Just because the other guy is incorrect doesn’t mean that you are correct does it?

 

[mozart-250]

Another poster pointed out the similarities (the ones that MATTER) between the Catholic and the Orthodox. The rest is window dressing.

But if they differ in any dogma that the Catholic has infallibly defined that you must believe, how can that be window dressing? Is infallible dogma window dressing?

No, I answered your question (“So how do you know that Catholicism is correct?”) by retelling in my elliptical way the path one would take if one BELIEVED Jesus to be the Messiah as foretold in the Jewish holy Scriptures.

Again, in essence, IF you believe what Christians have believed and practiced for CENTURIES about the True Presence, salvation, the importance of works grounded in faith and NOT done because required (i.e., OT Law), the UNITY of the Church founded by the Christ, the UNIVERSIALITY of its faith and mission, then you would have to be one of two Christians: Catholic or Orthodox.

To go elsewhere is to shop for the best deal, to approach Christianity in a very modern (late Renaissance) way as a “personal philosophy” with the Holy Spirit on call to personally inspire you to greater spiritual heights.

You know, like that Swiss Anabaptist Thomas Schucker who told his congregation (his father and mother included) that “he was under the influence of the spirit of God.” He commanded his brother to kneel down and then he drew out a sword. His parents (and others) demanded to know what he was about to do.

His answer? “Be satisfied, I will do nothing but what is revealed to me by our heavenly father.”

He then cut off his brother’s head.

This was in 1527, about the time that the “reformation” was gaining headway in northern Europe.

Western history (especially ours) is replete with ‘personal revelations’ leading to murder and maiming. And this is the Holy Spirit’s work?

No, this is the result of thinking the Bible is a personal How To book on gaining salvation and the keys to the Kingdom.

Robt

Let’s say for grins and giggles right now that everything you say here is correct (at a minimum I would say that everything here is a separate thread). That means the Protestants are wrong I would say.

But just because the Protestants are wrong doesn’t mean that Catholicism (or Orthodoxy for that matter) is correct does it? For starters, can’t all three be incorrect?

My reason for asking this btw is that it is my understanding that in order to be Catholic you must believe that everything the Catholic church teaches (at least in regards to infallible dogma) is correct.

If this is true, then it seems to me that it is not enough for the Catholic to claim they are preferable to the Protestant (and the realm of preferability seems to me to be a highly subjective exercise. BTW I had a friend in college that made a convincing preferability argument to me that I am surprised I have not read here…anyway). Because even if that is true, it does not necessarily follow that the Catholic is correct.

It seems to me that (1) claiming that everything she teaches infallability is correct and (2) requiring of the faithful that they must believe all infallible dogma requires a burden of proof level that is very difficult to meet.

 

[catharina]

It seems to me that (1) claiming that everything she teaches infallability is correct and (2) requiring of the faithful that they must believe all infallible dogma requires a burden of proof level that is very difficult to meet.

That’s the problem with the premise “burden of proof.” Faith requires no burden of proof.
Faith is a virtue, a gift from God that is given to all who ask Him for it.

I believe the Catholic faith is the true faith through the grace of God.

 

[manualman]

Here is an excerpt from the Catholic journal, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, December 2005:
marysadvocates.org/Kendra.html
American Annulment Mills
By Robert J. Kendra
"…Jesus Christ sternly forbade divorce. “. . . whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her” (Mk 10:1-12; Lk.16:18; 1 Cor.7:10-11)…

You still aren’t listening. The possibility of an anullment is very old and based on the way jesus condemned divorce. He clearly spoke of divorce of couples whom GOD had joined. This certainly leaves the door open to allowing the split of couples who did not validly marry. Do you really believe that EVERY couple who stands before a priest and says “I DO” is inseparably married in God’s eyes? Shotgun marriages? Coerced marriages? Parentally arranged marriages without consent? Is it the CONCEPT of an anullment that you find non-spostolic of the number and reasons for which they are issued?

The idea that some apparent marriages are not valid sacramental marriages is de fide, apostolic, infallible teaching. The specific criteria used by tribunals and their prudential judgements are NOT infallible, never have been claimed to be and are not relevant to this discussion! Even if every anullment granted by the tribunals in the USA for the last 100 years was erroneous and inappropriate, it would not disprove the apostolic consistency of the catholic church. Infallibility simply does not apply to tribunals.

You might as well say that the mistress of some pope 900 years ago disproves papal infallibility. You can say it all you want, but you only prove that you don’t understand the issue.

 

[manualman]

OK…going in oldest order here

I am not sure what you are saying here… (at least a little).

Are you saying that you believe Catholicism is true because of what…lineage…the fact that is established Scripture…because “Protestantism” is not true.

I am not sure that the Catholic / Orthodox logic is not circular also (I find all “source of faith” arguments rely on circular logic).
…

Let me try again. The catholic foundation begins with human reason, observation and historical facts. Reread my progression. We start with plain historical facts and apply human reason to it. From that, we conclude Jesus is God. From THAT, we conclude we can trust what He said. What he said and did was to establish apostles to teach with authority. What THEY did was immediately set up a system to perpetuate that authority. That authority structure (which we determined from reason was established by Christ) determined the Scriptures, so we consider the Scriptures infallible.

Protestants start with the assumption that Scripture is inspired and infallible, but have no foundation of reason, history and fact from which they can be sure that the Holy Bible is any more solid than the Book of Mormon or the Quran (which have also changed many lives and made people ‘feel’ close to God).

Your principle of reason is generally true: To prove one position is false does not prove the truth of another position. But in this particular case, we have the promises of Jesus to his Church that “the Gates (also translateable as ‘jaws’) of Hell will not prevail against you.” So SOME church out there is the recipient of that promise. Jesus didn’t establish an invisible association of believers. You won’t find that anywhere in the bible. In the NT, the Church was clearly visible and presided over by the apostles and those whom they appointed. (sound the Mission Imposible music) Your job is to find the Church to whom that promise was made. Good luck!