The Catholic Standard: The Amazing Hypocrisy in Debating Catholics

[tequilamac]

er…no he didn’t. Which of the following statements proves Catholicism is THE ONE TRUE RELIGION

The church is the one true church because the church says so? If that’s really what you find a compelling arguement then I understand why it’s taking so long to explain basic logic to you. Oh, and by the way, if you send me a million dollars you’ll be happy forever. Don’t believe me? Well, I have proof! I say so.

And that doesn’t offer any arguement at all.

There are two ways to check whether the Church is the "One True Church: historically and theologically. Historically can be accomplished by a simple world history class in any high school or college class. Theologically- it depends on how angry one is at anytime or how unacquainted with actual Church teachings one is.
Historically-
Generally, we say the Church is the one true church by tracing back through history and the succession of bishops. Just like when tracing a monarchy, one follows the monarchial line back to it’s origins or tracing a family tree one follows the documentation back to see if there is a break in the chain. As of today there is no break. Apostolic succession and papal office have been documented all the way back to Peter. This is one of the reasons why we say we are the original or the one true Church. The apostolic succession has been zealously guarded and as far as I know we do have have a Papal dispute in the middle ages which was resolved. All other Churches are splinters of the RCC which anyone taking a course in World History would also readily discover.

The “trueness” of the Church from historical terms has rarely been disputed by anyone at any time.

The “trueness” of the Church from theological terms is debated by everyone all the time whether it be the Orthodox, Martin Luther, or Joseph Smith or Julius Ceasar.

 

[maryj]

Perhaps that is just natural, given that they already have arrived at a belief system and are then looking outward from that.

For example, I am Catholic. If a Mormon were to ask me to believe in the Book of Mormon, well, I would be very skeptical and would question every little thing. Why? Because I already adhere to a system, and that system says to me that I have no reason to accept the book of Mormon.

However, if I were coming from a more unconvinced position, I might be more likely to entertain the idea of believing in the Book of Mormon or the Koran or whatever. I think it is easier to convince people the first time around than the second. Mind you, I also think a certain type of humanism or skepticism is something people can get convinced of the first time around. Anyway, that is my first though upon reading your post.

Also my first thought, and then this occurred to me… For example, I am a cradle catholic(just an example of course), very poorly catechised(is that a word?) If a mormon were to ask me to believe in the book of mormon, or an evangelical gives me a tape to watch that tells me that catholics worship Mary, is it pure ignorance that turns me in the direction of either of these churches, laziness, lack of reference materials?? I agree with you in the fact that it’s easier to convince people the first time around, I know so many catholics who are no longer catholic because they never took the time, never thought to investigate statements, took it for granted that the catholic church was wrong and these “others” were correct. Yet unwilling to investigate the claims lodged against their “new” beliefs too. I’m going with Pride, and ignorance, quite the combination to overcome. And I’ll bet that most people who have left the catholic church, had something placed in front of them about our religios beliefs and never fully investigated it to see if it were the “truth”, yup I’d bet the farm on that one.

 

[I_Leatherman]

False Dichotomy

Not at all.
The moment you say that you ‘believe’ or do ‘not believe’ a thing you have changed reality for yourself.
Those particular words have meaning and consequences.
If I said ‘…I do not believe in Paris.’, logically, if I actually meant what I said - my reality would have changed and I could not go to Paris, and, even if I found myself in Paris accidently I still would not believe in Paris.
Paris would not exist for me, I have issued an infallible belief.

There is subjective as well as objective infallibility. The subjective kind in this instance does not cause a dichotomy, as either a positive or negative argument always produces the positive outcome.

No, I clearly provided an explanation, you’re just illeterate…

I do that all the time…

here’s where I disagreed with you.

Nope.

A compelling argument!

Quote:
I haven’t a good reason to believe that anything I’ve run into is infallible, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Very very very unlikely, but not impossible.

As I say you cannot have a neutral ‘belief’ in something. That would be an oxymoron. And either a positive or negitive ‘belief’ of any type assumes a position of positive infallibility for the subject.

… do you just want to keep posting smiley faces like a 12 year old girl?

Ummm…keep posting smiley faces?

If someone says to me “Will the cowboys win the superbowl?” and I say “I don’t believe so” does that imply that I’m god?

Yes. (a subjective god, that is)
Words have meaning, as I said before.
And if you don’t believe what you are saying you would be telling a lie, and if you do actually believe what you are saying, you have subjective infallibility.

 

[Mersenne]

Not at all.
The moment you say that you ‘believe’ or do ‘not believe’ a thing you have changed reality for yourself.
Those particular words have meaning and consequences.
If I said ‘…I do not believe in Paris.’, logically, if I actually meant what I said - my reality would have changed and I could not go to Paris, and, even if I found myself in Paris accidently I still would not believe in Paris.
Paris would not exist for me, I have issued an infallible belief.

If someone says to me “Will the cowboys win the superbowl?” and I say “I don’t believe so” does that imply that I’m god?

Well, either you’re joking or you’re mentally ill, either way, I don’t argue with such people.

 

[Mersenne]

Generally, we say the Church is the one true church by tracing back through history and the succession of bishops. Just like when tracing a monarchy, one follows the monarchial line back to it’s origins or tracing a family tree one follows the documentation back to see if there is a break in the chain. As of today there is no break. Apostolic succession and papal office have been documented all the way back to Peter. This is one of the reasons why we say we are the original or the one true Church. The apostolic succession has been zealously guarded and as far as I know we do have have a Papal dispute in the middle ages which was resolved.

The ligitimacy of the existence of Jesus isn’t even without dispute. Certainly, details of his life, exactly what he said, if Peter existed and was handed the reigns of the church from Jesus…we have no idea. And then you’ve got the problem that most christians disagree that peter was confered pope status by Jesus.

All other Churches are splinters of the RCC which anyone taking a course in World History would also readily discover.

Yes, all current churches are splinters of Catholisism. That tends to happen when you murder everyone who is in a competing sect. I really don’t think that speaks wonders of the “trueness” of the church.

The “trueness” of the Church from historical terms has rarely been disputed by anyone at any time.

The “trueness” of the church isn’t really a question relevent to the study of history.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Well, either you’re joking or you’re mentally ill, either way, I don’t argue with such people.

ciao… (personally, I vote for mentally ill)

 

[tequilamac]

The ligitimacy of the existence of Jesus isn’t even without dispute. Certainly, details of his life, exactly what he said, if Peter existed and was handed the reigns of the church from Jesus…we have no idea. And then you’ve got the problem that most christians disagree that peter was confered pope status by Jesus.

Yes, all current churches are splinters of Catholisism. That tends to happen when you murder everyone who is in a competing sect. I really don’t think that speaks wonders of the “trueness” of the church.

The “trueness” of the church isn’t really a question relevent to the study of history.

LMAO

 

[Integritus]

I don’t believe in the infallibility of anything.

Ah, sounds like a cold case of Skepticism and postmodern Relativism. I mentioned your kind in the original post.

"The young skeptic says, ‘I have a right to think for myself.’ But the old skeptic, the complete skeptic, says, “I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.’ ” - GK Chesterton

And then you’ve got the problem that most christians disagree that peter was confered pope status by Jesus.

Yes, all current churches are splinters of Catholisism. That tends to happen when you murder everyone who is in a competing sect. I really don’t think that speaks wonders of the “trueness” of the church.

The truth is most Christians in the world confess Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (pope).

The rest of your claims are laugheable at best. Don’t expect anyone to take you seriously when you consistently demonstrate a lack of knowledge with regards to our Church. And your childlike insults to others are unnecessary, keep the forums civil. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[Starwynd]

I always question everything even if it’s something I strongly believe in. Sometimes there are things going on behind the scenes or secrets behind a belief that people are not aware of, or don’t care or simply use semantics to rename it or bury it under a lot of rational details.

Anyway, when talking about a mthodology of examination, it might be wise to descrive exactly what the methodology uses.

 

[Philthy]

I don’t believe in the infallibility of anything.

That would include the above statement then?

 

[Teflon93]

As to Protestant communities not making extraordinary claims, I think this is simply an indefensible position.

Protestant pastors routinely claim to having been called by God to their offices. Rank-and-file Protestants routinely claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit in everything from interpreting Scripture to choosing a career to naming their kids. Protestants of various stripes claim to have a personal relationship with Christ which goes beyond even the Eucharistic and prayer norms for Catholics. A very common Protestant claim since the Reformation has been that Protestant community X is closer to the Early Church than the Catholic Church is.

A good test of this is to ask a Protestant what John 6 means. The claims of their particular community will come fast and furious then, I assure you.

 

[atmmgraves]

There has been some powerful posts here. The central argument presented about “on whose authority” Protestants can claim to have “the truth” is central to my problems with them. Discussion after discussion ends with them having no answer for this rather important issue. This troubling reality has led me to conclude - and I know this will not sound charitable - that Protestantism is, at its core, illogical. To state one has “the truth” but one cannot point to the authority which verifies this “truth” is not only not supportable, it is illogical. The only recourse is to state that the authority comes from Christ - but then ALL the thousands of Protestant denominations claim this. This is why the arguments with Protestants are always unfair. They have “the truth” and they never - never - have to justify their claims and on whose authority they can make them. The natural progression of Protestantism is 1) for each Protestant to have their own church and do what they do, which is to determine their own “truth” and 2) for Protestantism to evolve into a capitalist enterprise, such that we see with “prosperity gospel”. In truth Protestantism is a capitalist system, as each denomination as well as churches within denominations compete for members - each with their own brand of “truth” to sell. God bless.

 

[Odell]

Originally Posted by Malcolm McLean
Can we be sure that the Church is the real thing? Yes we can.

How?

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

The simple answer is because Jesus said so

 

[wisdomseeker]

I came from a generic evangelical protestant background, but I know exactly what you’re saying. I remember actually saying to a Catholic once (may God have mercy on my soul), “So you mean you’re gonna let some old man in Rome decide how many children you have when he doesn’t have to feed, clothe, and care for them?” That was the attitude, that you weren’t thinking for yourself if you believed in any higher authority except God Himself.
Of course, eventually, I began to really think for myself, and began an intense (self-directed) study of the bible, whereupon I found these odd apocryphal books. Hmmm. You mean that was the real bible that Jesus used and Luther threw them out? Hmmm. More study, and eventually, even though I didn’t want to, I came to believe that the Catholic Church is the one, true, holy, and apostolic Church founded by Christ Himself.
Why did I not realize that before? Lack of information. Lack of desire. Laziness. I just absorbed what I had been spoon-fed all my life without making any effort to find out what was true. It was good enough for everybody else, right? Surely when people told me that Catholics worship statues and the Pope, they were right?
That’s why people remain protestant. They refuse to do the mental work necessary to find out the Truth. Jesus only founded one Church, it lasted for 1500 years, and since then men have founded Churches, not Jesus. But if you are happy and content in your own little tiny dark corner of the spiritual world, and do not seek out the real Truth, you will never find it.
In a way, it drives me crazy that people refuse to look at the facts, because it would make them uncomfortable. Guess what, it was extremely uncomfortable for me, turned all my family against me–they think I’m certifiably crazy now for being Catholic, lost all my friends at church, lost my comfort zone. Most of all, I lost the ability to be my own Pope. I could no longer decide what was right and wrong. I had to listen to Jesus, through his apostles and their successors. THAT is what keeps people in protestantism. They don’t want to give up their own papacy over their own lives. Authority. Pride. The idea of I must be right, everyone else wrong. It’s all pride.
So yeah, I see the point of this line of thought. I was there. But I gave up my own papacy to yield to the real one. May God bring more and more people to the Truth, as He did this unworthy servant.

what a beautiful witness. you actually picked up your cross and followed Our Lord. what a sign of obedience.
Glory be to our God for ever. Amen

 

[KenEOTE]

I have questioned the writings of Luther, and Calvin, and the Pope and many others. I do not see what is wrong with questioning the teachings of the church. I have however foudn that when asking questions that often you are met with anger and name calling. We need to get to a point when we can talk honestly with eachother. We need to get to a place where we can ask questions in a healthy manner. With out calling eachother heretics.

 

[Teflon93]

I have questioned the writings of Luther, and Calvin, and the Pope and many others. I do not see what is wrong with questioning the teachings of the church. I have however foudn that when asking questions that often you are met with anger and name calling. We need to get to a point when we can talk honestly with eachother. We need to get to a place where we can ask questions in a healthy manner. With out calling eachother heretics.

We need to get to a place where our first objective is to obey God.

It is He who must be satisfied, not we.

Heresy arises when enough people decide that it is they who must be satisfied above all.

 

[KenEOTE]

Exactly Obey God is at the forefront. By obeying God we must show each other love.

When we start letting pride or self-righteousness to cloud our views we are in trouble.

Our Pursuit should be a closer walk with God, and submission to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Teflon93]

Exactly Obey God is at the forefront. By obeying God we must show each other love.

When we start letting pride or self-righteousness to cloud our views we are in trouble.

Our Pursuit should be a closer walk with God, and submission to the Holy Spirit.

Which also includes submission to the Church He founded and in which He abides.

Unfortunately, such clarifications are necessary in an age where self-service trumps service to the Almighty.

In extending your comments I am not attempting to correct you—I happen to agree with you—but rather am trying to stave off those who see inquiry of the Church (a good thing) as a license to disobey the Church (a bad thing). Of course we should ask questions, but the point of our questions should be how we may serve God better.

 

[KenEOTE]

I totally agree with you Teflon. I am a person who seeks the truth. I want to know the truth. For we know the truth can only come from God.

What I have found though when questioning both sides is a lot of anger. They equate questioning and seeking with heresy. Not everyone but a few. What happens is that they few are always more vocal and that is where the stereotypes evolve from.

I know that some ask questions only to try and prove their own agenda. I have been guilty of that for sure, but normally it is only after my questions are rebutted with name calling and no answers.

 

[Teflon93]

I totally agree with you Teflon. I am a person who seeks the truth. I want to know the truth. For we know the truth can only come from God.

What I have found though when questioning both sides is a lot of anger. They equate questioning and seeking with heresy. Not everyone but a few. What happens is that they few are always more vocal and that is where the stereotypes evolve from.

I know that some ask questions only to try and prove their own agenda. I have been guilty of that for sure, but normally it is only after my questions are rebutted with name calling and no answers.

There’s no excuse for namecalling, surely, and there’s a big difference between asking questions and holding dogmatically to heretical beliefs.

We also have to be careful not to let the lack of charity we sometimes experience harden our hearts to the truth. It is a natural human reaction to do so, but the truth is the truth even if a bonehead is spouting it.