So how do you know that Catholicism is correct?

[manualman]

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.

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

1. Yep, this is a true difference. The Orthodox don’t believe that the Petrine Office is really anything more than a ceremonially pre-eminant position. So this difference requires the curious believer to inquire WHY there is this difference of opinion, what the origins of the split were and what circumstances lead to the development of both positions. My reading indicates to me that the EO position is a political development for which a doctrinal justification was slapped together. Again, I AM operating from a position that Jesus really did establish a TRUE Church and promise her that she would endure throughout history. I tend to find him trustworthy.
2. Kinda. Orthodox believe in the complete sinlessness of Mary (whom they call Theotokos - God Bearer). What the EO have a problem with is the Catholic concept of Original Sin. IIRC, they share our belief in the fall (Adam and Eve), but don’t believe that that original sin resulted in guilt being passed onto their descendents, just a falleness that inclines us to sin. Thus, they object to the Catholic explanation of the Immaculate Conception since it refers to her being free of the stain of Original Sin. (Any Orthodox who claims that Mary committed venial sin must have slept through most of his classes.) This is Catholic / Orthodox theology 303, so don’t feel at all bad if you don’t quite follow it. I’d not do well at summing up the Calvinist / Armenian arguments, so fair is fair!
3. The differences you cite, papal infallibility and the guilt of original sin (and its effects on the language used in the Immaculate Conception dogma) ARE minute compared to what we have in common. The Papal authority issue is rooted in politics. The original sin issue is in fact mostly an issue of translation difficulty, as evidenced by the fact that the Byzantine Catholic Church holds to theological positions identical to Orthodox, yet is in full union with the pope. This is possible because some holy people spent a lot of time working out the fact that the things each side objected to in the other were actually misunderstandings of the other. Language is actually a pretty poor way of communicating complex ideas - its just the best tool we have for it!

 

[mozart-250]

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.

OK.

But isn’t faith useless if the object of that faith is false. I mean I can have faith up the yazoo that the JW organization is God’s true organization on planet earth, but if JW turns out to be just another sect that is not true, then that faith doesn’t matter very much.

And while I agree that may be impossible to logically prove that the object of my faith is true, at a minimum I would request an intellectually satisfying and credible reason to believe that something is true before I would bite at it. Otherwise you can get me to believe anything.

BTW I have that with Christianity as a whole. I know of no other explanation of who Jesus Christ was that makes any sense other than He was whom He claimed to be.

 

[Benedict16]

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?

Remember that it was the Catholic church who has protected the Bible since day one and tried to ex-communicate anyone who did in fact try to change it. We have the infallible Word of God. When Luther tried to come in and did indeed change his own Bible in which he reworded it. Our Bible is the same as Apostolic time.

 

[mozart-250]

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.

OK I understand it better. I am not sure it necessarily follows from this that Catholicism is true. But then again I don’t think that is what you are saying.

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).

As with many Catholic assertions about Protestants, I find this one to be overstated. We do have good reasons to accept the Bible as the inspired word of God that are just not applicable to the Book of Mormon or the Quran. But that is a separate issue.

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!

OK. This is what I thought.

It basically flows through your interpretation of Matthew 16:13-20. So then the question becomes how you know that your interpretation is correct. The answer I have gotten thus far on this thread is because the Catholic Church says so.

I am specifically interested in your interpretation of verse 18 and why you feel that the verb prevail means that right now at this point in time in history one of the denominations that we see must be in entirety the church of Jesus Christ.

I have always read the verb prevail to mean “at the end” of something. My Boston Red Sox prevailed against the Cleveland Indians in the ALCS last fall. It does not mean that before the end of the series that we weren’t down 3-1.

Where this is applicable is that I have always kept the two issues in my mind separate:
(1) What did Jesus have in mind when He designed the church
(2) What do we see today

I guess I have never assumed that I just observe today what Jesus had in mind when He designed His church.

The way verse 18 has always read to me is that at the end of the age the church will be in accordance to the design of Jesus Christ. However verse 18 makes no promise for today since it is not the end of the age. Today it is what it is.

I understand that if you equate #1 and #2 above…that what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church must be visible today that you would have different conclusions. I just don’t understand the basis of this other than an interpretation of verse 18 that is provided by the Catholic church.

 

[manualman]

I honestly can’t see how you can believe that the verse merely means the Church will be triumphant at the end! Your baseball analogy serves me better than you. I never claimed that the Catholic Church would always LOOK better, or appear to be WINNING versus competing claims using worldy measures of ‘success.’ Hopefully, you still stick by your team even when they are behind. As do I.

Having once been immersed in evangelicaldom myself, I can understand that it is hard to see the catholic position. You deserve credit understanding so much! But when you see the way in which the Church was established in the Scriptures is there ANY hint that after the deaths of the apostles that the Church would become an invisible association rather than a visible and authoritative structure? SHOULDN’T there be if the Bible is to be the sole rule of faith? Such a sudden change in the basis of authority surely deserves some mention, doesn’t it? From the miraculous tranport of Phillip to the new believer to even the Bereans, Scripture isn’t shown to TRUMP the teaching authority of those Christ commissioned to teach, but to supplement it. The Catholic model of teaching authority is quite simply more consistant with what Jesus established than the Protestant one.

Your interpretation of ‘prevail’ to mean only the end times result is inconsistant with the character of God himself. It necessarily implies that God reversed himself in the progress of salvation history. From Abraham to the judges, the kings and prophets, to Christ we had a steady progression of God steadily revealing MORE of himself to man and providing more and more a reliable place to look to to learn the Truth about him. To say that at the climax of salvation history God put out a book and stood back and allowed numerous competing churches to exist without ANY of them any longer being a totally reliable place to turn to with questions on faith and morals is to ignore what we know about God’s love and mercy for all. God knows man, our weaknesses, pride and foibles. He knows that leaving a mere book as an authority necessarily means leaving us at the mercy of our own creative rationalizations. It isn’t like Him, so I don’t believe it.

 

[mercygate]

Are you sure of this?

Don’t the Orthodox claim their lineage go back to Jesus Christ also? I could start a thread here to make sure this is true?As others have pointed out, the Orthodox also legitimately trace their lineage all the way back to the Apostolic age. For me, in addition to the fact that I am deeply occidental in outlook, I found that Mt. 16:18 could not be got round. Whatever the crisis was that broke the Church, I could not get past the idea that CHRIST’s Church was the one with Peter at its earthly core.

As far as beliefs how do you know that all of the beliefs of the Catholic Church are traceable to Jesus Christ Himself? For example can you trace the assumption of Mary back to Jesus Chris Himself?

Have you read Newman’s *Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine? *For a concise treatment of doctrinal/dogmatic development, have a look at this good essay by Fabian Bruskewitz, Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska.

 

[mercygate]

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?

I disagree with the idea that Catholicism and Orthodoxy cancel each other out. We hold in common nearly all of the deposit of faith and we both have valid Holy Orders. Even within the Catholic Church, our Eastern Churches hold their own distinctly Eastern beliefs, disciplines and practices.

The separation of East and West, at its root, has a far grearter political-historical component than a theological component.

 

[mercygate]

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…

Good grief. You mentioned the word “Y***ee” in a post to a Red Sox fan? You live dangerously!

 

[mercygate]

Hi Arnobius. I finally figured out what I meant to say.

It appears to me that the Catholic and the Orthodox have different interpretations of tradition. And as expected, each interpretation has a slant towards their own respective denominations.

This is not unlike different Protestant denominations have different interpretations of the Bible.

I can understand why you would interpret tradition according to a Catholic slant. And I can understand why the Orthodox would interpret tradition according to an Orthodox slant. I don’t know how you (or anybody else) can know that your denomination’s interpretation is correct relative to the other denomination.

Of course I am in no position to judge whose interpretation of tradition is correct…similarly you are in no position to judge which Protestant interpretation of the Bible is correct. It is what it is I guess.

Beore I was Catholic, I was in a denomination that claimed to have Apostolic succession. Many of us, stuck on Mt. 16:18-19, believed Peter to be Christ’s chosen vicar to head the earthly Church. One day, at prayer, it was as if the Lord whispered in my ear: “If you have Apostolic succession, and Peter is NOT in your house of bishops, you are missing the centerpiece.”

So, for me, Scripture interpreted the history.

 

[ralphinal]

For me, the answer is based on two things that I have noticed.

First, there is the history. Only a handful of groups can trace back to the apostles. The Orthodox and those in Union with Rome. That for me is evidence that one of them must be correct. I was born Catholic and I have had little exposure to Orthodox, so i am comfortable there. Having a Pope in charge, so to speak, makes more logical sense to me than the Orthodox view.

Secondly, the theology is more fleshed out. I can see how all of my faith is supported in both logic and the Bible. This leads me to one of me favorite teachings of the Church: the connection between suffering and salvation. I have never heard or seen a non-Catholic explain better why there is suffering in the world or why it is good that we suffer at times. It is an answer to one of life’s great questions, and we have it.

 

[mercygate]

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?

It’s not!

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?

How about “for grins and giggles” starting with figuring out who has a better claim to authority based on history and continuity of teaching (including doctrinal development)?

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.

That is not as hard as it seems once you drill down to the core. Paul does admonish us to put on the WHOLE armor of God, not just the pieces we think we need.

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.

I disagree. If “preferability” can be established based on stronger claims, then you are in a better place than you would be with a “less preferable” option. You would have moved from lesser to greater certainty. That’s a good thing.

Ultimately confidence in the Church and her teachings is a subjective virtue, the virtue of faith. Yes, we substantiate our faith in the Church through history and by the use of reason, but ultimately, it is not more difficult or unreasonable to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church than it is to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This is how Catholics define the virtue of faith (emphasis mine):

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because He is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will.

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.

The Orthodox also require total faith in all the teachings of the Church. They base the Church’s right to demand this on the “indefectibility” of the Church (Catholics use that term also). The Orthodox believe that the Church cannot defect from true doctrine (i.e., she is infallible). So if you’re going to be Orthodox, you STILL have to hold *de fide *all the teachings of the Church.

Unlike Rome, they clench their jaws at the idea that any one bishop should be essential to the Church’s indefectibility. Yet because they lack a central/centralizing figure, the world can sometimes perceive them to be ethnically parochial, mutually invidious, and organizationally ineffective. This, of course, would be the *appearance *to an outsider and does not reflect the view that Orthodoxy holds of herself.

 

[mozart-250]

I honestly can’t see how you can believe that the verse merely means the Church will be triumphant at the end!

It makes perfect sense to me to be honest.

Because otherwise, I have a hard time reconciling what I see in the present and read about in the past with a church that is always triumphant.

For starters I look at stuff like the Protestant TV and megachurch sex scandals, the Catholic priest sex abuse scandals. In the past I read about stuff like witch hunts, inquisitions, crusades, corrupt popes, corrupt church leaders, Catholics burning the Protestants at the stake. Protestants burning Catholics at the stake. Everyone burning the anabaptists.

The list just goes on.

It just seems clear to me that these are areas where the church just has fallen short of what God has designed. All of us.

It just seems a great disconnect for me to apply this verse to doctrinal purity only when the church has obviously not maintained moral purity.

But when you see the way in which the Church was established in the Scriptures is there ANY hint that after the deaths of the apostles that the Church would become an invisible association rather than a visible and authoritative structure? SHOULDN’T there be if the Bible is to be the sole rule of faith? Such a sudden change in the basis of authority surely deserves some mention, doesn’t it?

Now you get into the issue as to what did God design (as opposed to what we see today). On the point of what God designed, the Catholic model seems at least credible (I find myself unsure of this and have some stupid questions I would ask both sides if I had the opportunity). Oh with the exception of the “incapable of being incorrect” part which to me sounds like a violation of human free will and inconsistent with how God works.

Again I have not eliminated the possibility that both the Catholics and Protestants are incorrect to some extent concerning the precise relationship the Bible and the church are designed to work in harmony in the life of the believer.

From the miraculous tranport of Phillip to the new believer to even the Bereans, Scripture isn’t shown to TRUMP the teaching authority of those Christ commissioned to teach, but to supplement it. The Catholic model of teaching authority is quite simply more consistant with what Jesus established than the Protestant one.

Maybe both are incorrect to some extent anyway. For starters I don’t like either the verbs “trump” or “supplement” when used to describe the relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ and the Bible is (now don’t go asking me what the right verb is…I’m not that smart)

Your interpretation of ‘prevail’ to mean only the end times result is inconsistant with the character of God himself

I beg to disagree. I look at Israel and the Jewish people and it seems quite obvious that they fell short of what God designed. Yet in Romans chapter 11, St. Paul indicates that God is not done with Israel and at the end of time Israel will be what God had in mind. At least according to St. Paul.

To say that at the climax of salvation history God put out a book and stood back and allowed numerous competing churches to exist without ANY of them any longer being a totally reliable place to turn to with questions on faith and morals is to ignore what we know about God’s love and mercy for all.
To say that at the climax of salvation history God put out a book and stood back and allowed numerous competing churches to exist without ANY of them any longer being a totally reliable place to turn to with questions on faith and morals is to ignore what we know about God’s love and mercy for all.

Surprisingly, this scenario is credible to me. Except that I don’t draw the same conclusions that it violates God’s love and mercy.

It seems credible to me that one of the consequences of the church failing to be what God designed would be for the church to divide upon itself. It also seems credible to me that God would not play favorites amongst the various divisions if this were to happen. It also seems credible to me that a consequence of division would be that no one side has a monopoly on truth.

It also seems credible to me that at some point God will fix this, but that is a separate issue.

Where I see God’s love and mercy is that in the midst of the division and fragmentation that has occurred, He continues to work in all of the fragments and that none (well most anyway) have not departed so far from what God has designed that one can not find eternal life and the will of God within one of these fragments.

Anyway, that is what seems credible to me. I realize this is very highly subjective and other models may seem equally credible to other believers.

 

[manualman]

Good discussion! I wish you well in your discernment.

 

[mercygate]

Good discussion! I wish you well in your discernment.

Mozart-250 is approaching all of this with formidable integrity.

 

[catharina]

OK.

But isn’t faith useless if the object of that faith is false. I mean I can have faith up the yazoo that the JW organization is God’s true organization on planet earth, but if JW turns out to be just another sect that is not true, then that faith doesn’t matter very much.

And while I agree that may be impossible to logically prove that the object of my faith is true, at a minimum I would request an intellectually satisfying and credible reason to believe that something is true before I would bite at it. Otherwise you can get me to believe anything.

BTW I have that with Christianity as a whole. I know of no other explanation of who Jesus Christ was that makes any sense other than He was whom He claimed to be.

I’m still answering the same original question. I know that Catholicism is the truth through faith. I needn’t know what anyone else might believe or why. For me, the answer is the gift of faith.

 

[onmyknees]

It makes perfect sense to me to be honest.

Because otherwise, I have a hard time reconciling what I see in the present and read about in the past with a church that is always triumphant.

For starters I look at stuff like the Protestant TV and megachurch sex scandals, the Catholic priest sex abuse scandals. In the past I read about stuff like witch hunts, inquisitions, crusades, corrupt popes, corrupt church leaders, Catholics burning the Protestants at the stake. Protestants burning Catholics at the stake. Everyone burning the anabaptists.

The list just goes on.

It just seems clear to me that these are areas where the church just has fallen short of what God has designed. All of us.

It just seems a great disconnect for me to apply this verse to doctrinal purity only when the church has obviously not maintained moral purity.

Now you get into the issue as to what did God design (as opposed to what we see today). On the point of what God designed, the Catholic model seems at least credible (I find myself unsure of this and have some stupid questions I would ask both sides if I had the opportunity). Oh with the exception of the “incapable of being incorrect” part which to me sounds like a violation of human free will and inconsistent with how God works.

Again I have not eliminated the possibility that both the Catholics and Protestants are incorrect to some extent concerning the precise relationship the Bible and the church are designed to work in harmony in the life of the believer.

Maybe both are incorrect to some extent anyway. For starters I don’t like either the verbs “trump” or “supplement” when used to describe the relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ and the Bible is (now don’t go asking me what the right verb is…I’m not that smart)

I beg to disagree. I look at Israel and the Jewish people and it seems quite obvious that they fell short of what God designed. Yet in Romans chapter 11, St. Paul indicates that God is not done with Israel and at the end of time Israel will be what God had in mind. At least according to St. Paul.

Surprisingly, this scenario is credible to me. Except that I don’t draw the same conclusions that it violates God’s love and mercy.

It seems credible to me that one of the consequences of the church failing to be what God designed would be for the church to divide upon itself. It also seems credible to me that God would not play favorites amongst the various divisions if this were to happen. It also seems credible to me that a consequence of division would be that no one side has a monopoly on truth.

It also seems credible to me that at some point God will fix this, but that is a separate issue.

Where I see God’s love and mercy is that in the midst of the division and fragmentation that has occurred, He continues to work in all of the fragments and that none (well most anyway) have not departed so far from what God has designed that one can not find eternal life and the will of God within one of these fragments.

Anyway, that is what seems credible to me. I realize this is very highly subjective and other models may seem equally credible to other believers.

The Catholic Church still stands and has not split! It still has the primacy of the pope as the authority and apostolic succession given by Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has not failed ! Just because some popes, bishops and priests sinned gravely doesn’t mean that the church failed. We are all sinners. The teaching dogmas and doctrines have not changed ever for 2000+ years. The little “t” traditions have always been able to be changed by the Church, for example; the cultural wearing of veils at mass for women, priests being married or not, the rules for fasting and abstaining on penitential days. These decisions are made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles at the very beginning of the Church.

 

[catharina]

The Catholic Church still stands and has not split! It still has the primacy of the pope as the authority and apostolic succession given by Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has not failed ! Just because some popes, bishops and priests sinned gravely doesn’t mean that the church failed. We are all sinners. The teaching dogmas and doctrines have not changed ever for 2000+ years. The little “t” traditions have always been able to be changed by the Church, for example; the cultural wearing of veils at mass for women, priests being married or not, the rules for fasting and abstaining on penitential days. These decisions are made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles at the very beginning of the Church.

While I know that the Catholic faith is the true faith, thanks to the gift of faith, I agree too that your logic is without fault. The Catholic Church still exists today in Rome (the Vatican) where St. Peter himself was martyred. It is here. it is real. Blessed be God!

 

[Love_is_Patient]

Here’s how I think about it:

1. Either 1 church is right or no church has it all together
2. Only 2 churches claim to be THE Church: Catholic and Orthodox
3. Therefore, either all churches are created equal, the Catholic Church is THE Church, or the Orthodox Church is THE Church.
4. Either God established 1 Church to guide us into all Truth or God figured we didn’t need to have 1 Church to guide us into all Truth.
5. God values Truth. “Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth will set ye free.”
6. “I came so they might have life and might have it abundantly.” God wants us to be complete Christians, to be radically transformed, have the Truth, not a mixture of truth and error.
7. Thus, either the Catholic Church is THE Church or the Orthodox Church is THE Church.
8. Historically speaking, the Catholic Church seems to make more sense, not to mention it has done a better job, in my head, of spreading the Good News to all nations.
9. The Catholic Church is the Church.

That’s just my :twocents: May God bless you on your journey.

Love is Patient.

 

[onmyknees]

mozart-250
Have you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers? Some of them were taught by the apostles themselves and some of them were taught by those who had known the apostles. When I speak with converts to the Roman Catholic faith the reason that I hear the most for their conversion this that they read the Early Church Fathers.

 

[St_Aloysius]

So how do you know that Catholicism is correct?

Well, skipping over the whole journey to Christianity itself, and STARTING with the presupposition of Christianity’s validity, it becomes rather easy:

Christ established one Church. Scripture and the Fathers paint a picture of this early Church for us. Mention is made of the Catholic Church as early as 100 A.D. The Orthodox Churches are similar in doctrine many times but are hopelessly divided between states and can’t even agree on a canon of Scripture. I suppose one Protestant denomination COULD theoretically be correct (albeit the fact that its base theology, *sola fide *and sola scriptura, could never match up to the historical Church’s), but good luck finding the “true, Protestant church” among 30,000 others–with two more coming into existence every week.

That’s my logic. It’s oversimplified, yes, and granted I did come from a Protestant background and the trasfer was not painless–but it was worthwhile, for sure.

Pax