The Survival of Catholicism is proof of its Divinity?

[devonsams]

“The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine — but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”

Hilaire Belloc.

Comments on this quote.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Yep. Especially when combined with its fruitfulness.

 

[Sochi]

“The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine — but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”

Hilaire Belloc.

Well, it is quite an indictment. And as for the “survival” factor being a “proof,” proofs not meaning something is necessarily true, we must then consider Confucianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and above all, non dualism, and likely a few more which all have been around longer, some a lot longer. So it looks like we are back to the indictment. Hmmm. Point being?

 

[adawgj]

Well, it is quite an indictment. And as for the “survival” factor being a “proof,” proofs not meaning something is necessarily true, we must then consider Confucianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and above all, non dualism, and likely a few more which all have been around longer, some a lot longer. So it looks like we are back to the indictment. Hmmm. Point being?

Good point.

 

[devonsams]

But Catholicism is the only one of all who holds that is infallible in its teaching and its leader are infallible and also the pope in the matter of doctrines and morals. And the only one who says that the gates of hell won’t prevail.

Buddhism, Jainism and others have multiple interpretations, none claim to be infallible in its teachings.

Islam also has many different interepretations, they don’t have an equivalent to the catholic church.

Judaism has how many faithful followers today? Less than 10 millions, and they don’t have an orthodoxy in its teachings, it has also multiple interpretations.

The other only option I would accept is eastern orthodoxy, but I think catholic church went in more trouble than orthodoxy

 

[Sochi]

But Catholicism is the only one of all who holds that is infallible in its teaching and its leader are infallible and also the pope in the matter of doctrines and morals. And the only one who says that the gates of hell won’t prevail.

Yes, lots of religions hold things. Many religions, though not overtly claiming infallibilitiy, hold that they are the “only” way. And as member’s of religions stay with the one they are in, for the most part, that idea is tacit in all religions. Also, many religions don’t have a belief in hell, so that clime as you phrase it is mostly irrelevant.

Buddhism, Jainism and others have multiple interpretations, none claim to be infallible in its teachings.

As does christianism have many interpretations, even in this faith. Aren’t you on a discussion forum?

Islam also has many different interpretations, they don’t have an equivalent to the catholic church.

Meaning what?

Judaism has how many faithful followers today? Less than 10 millions, and they don’t have an orthodoxy in its teachings, it has also multiple interpretations.

Yes, just like Catholicism, with its Eastern and other factions.

The other only option I would accept is eastern orthodoxy, but I think catholic church went in more trouble than orthodoxy

?

 

[acarlson]

Well, it is quite an indictment. And as for the “survival” factor being a “proof,” proofs not meaning something is necessarily true, we must then consider Confucianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and above all, non dualism, and likely a few more which all have been around longer, some a lot longer. So it looks like we are back to the indictment. Hmmm. Point being?

Exactly what I was going to say.

 

[SecretCatholic]

But Catholicism is the only one of all who holds that is infallible in its teaching and its leader are infallible and also the pope in the matter of doctrines and morals. And the only one who says that the gates of hell won’t prevail.

Buddhism, Jainism and others have multiple interpretations, none claim to be infallible in its teachings.

Islam also has many different interepretations, they don’t have an equivalent to the catholic church.

Judaism has how many faithful followers today? Less than 10 millions, and they don’t have an orthodoxy in its teachings, it has also multiple interpretations.

The other only option I would accept is eastern orthodoxy, but I think catholic church went in more trouble than orthodoxy

Catholicism also has a clear line of continuity and is as much an institution as a movement. Buddhism, Jainism and many others are not institutions. They are beliefs and movements.

If the Church fell, that probably wouldn’t be the end of all Christian belief, but it would be the end of Catholicism (and for me, the end of Christian belief, as I could no more believe in a “new Catholic Church” than a protestant one).

This is what, to me, gives that statement bite. If we define “Church” as just “Catholics” without a pope and a structure, then it loses its bite, because we could count any number of religions and beliefs. Heck, even atheism probably goes way back!

 

[NekoNecro]

I would be very, very wary about using the age of Catholicism as proof of it’s divine authenticity.

Let me propose a counter example, the Japanese Monarchy has existed in unbroken succession for 2674 years (They know this to be true to within ten years). Until shortly before the end of world war two they claimed to hold divine support for their continual survival, because the royal family were the descendants of the Sun “Kami” (Great Spirit, Goddess isn’t quite the right word) Amaterasu.

They ruled as both king but also a form of spiritual leader of Shinto. They no longer claim divine ancestry but the Emperor continues to retain a seat of great honor and leadership in Shinto rites (roughly equivalent to the Pope one could say, but not an absolute authority). It has survived everything from losing it’s political power in the Shogunate (but still existing) to civil wars, nuclear bomb drops to invasions, and yet it’s weathered every single threat and come out stronger with more power every single time.

If the Catholic Church can prove to hold divine authenticity by virtue of it’s age, the Japanese royal family has a better claim to it than the papacy. Which in turn would make Shinto the one true faith…

I’d really just avoid it

 

[SecretCatholic]

I would be very, very wary about using the age of Catholicism as proof of it’s divine authenticity.

IIf the Catholic Church can prove to hold divine authenticity by virtue of it’s age, the Japanese royal family has a better claim to it than the papacy. Which in turn would make Shinto the one true faith…

Age is just one factor. I think it’s an important one, though. Something that doesn’t last a few decades or centuries did not prove to be long-lasting and I think is less likely to be divinely inspired. Even if I don’t hold it to be the “one true faith,” there must be something true and powerful to Shinto for it to have lasted this long. Something frivolous would have not survived the test of time. Maybe there is even something divine there, even if it isn’t the totality of the truth.

 

[Granum_Frumenti]

As we keep talking, don’t forget that the “proof” isn’t based solely on the age of an institution–it also involves the mention of “such knavish imbecility.”

I don’t suppose that Belloc would’ve based a sort of argument like this on age alone; as probably everyone posting so far would agree, such an argument would be quite silly.

 

[Sochi]

I would be very, very wary about using the age of Catholicism as proof of it’s divine authenticity.

Let me propose a counter example, the Japanese Monarchy has existed in unbroken succession for 2674 years (They know this to be true to within ten years). Until shortly before the end of world war two they claimed to hold divine support for their continual survival, because the royal family were the descendants of the Sun “Kami” (Great Spirit, Goddess isn’t quite the right word) Amaterasu.

They ruled as both king but also a form of spiritual leader of Shinto. They no longer claim divine ancestry but the Emperor continues to retain a seat of great honor and leadership in Shinto rites (roughly equivalent to the Pope one could say, but not an absolute authority). It has survived everything from losing it’s political power in the Shogunate (but still existing) to civil wars, nuclear bomb drops to invasions, and yet it’s weathered every single threat and come out stronger with more power every single time.

If the Catholic Church can prove to hold divine authenticity by virtue of it’s age, the Japanese royal family has a better claim to it than the papacy. Which in turn would make Shinto the one true faith…

I’d really just avoid it

This is a wonderful parallel! But I think the point of Belloc’s statement is the “knavish imbecility.” He’s using the longevity as a device for contrast in order to bring home his point. Jes sayin.

 

[NekoNecro]

This is a wonderful parallel! But I think the point of Belloc’s statement is the “knavish imbecility.” He’s using the longevity as a device for contrast in order to bring home his point. Jes sayin.

Of course, and he may be right to a degree. The Japanese Monarchy has had their own little scandals and bouts of incompetence too (being subservient to the Shogunate for a few hundred years until Emperor Meiji kicked them out was a pretty big one!) albit with Japan’s smaller size they’ve never been quite on the same scale as that of the then Papal States.

There have been less skilled men at the helm at some point in all of the worlds oldest organizations. Rome was great, but you could still get a crackpot like Commodus in charge, likewise you could get a great leader like Marcus Aurelius. Even with imbecility all of these organizations existed for many millennia (If we judge the Roman Empire as having existed from the Republic to the fall of Byzantium that too could be a parallel to the Catholic Church having existed for around 2000 years)

 

[Sochi]

Of course, and he may be right to a degree. The Japanese Monarchy has had their own little scandals and bouts of incompetence too (being subservient to the Shogunate for a few hundred years until Emperor Meiji kicked them out was a pretty big one!) albit with Japan’s smaller size they’ve never been quite on the same scale as that of the then Papal States.

There have been less skilled men at the helm at some point in all of the worlds oldest organizations. Rome was great, but you could still get a crackpot like Commodus in charge, likewise you could get a great leader like Marcus Aurelius. Even with imbecility all of these organizations existed for many millennia (If we judge the Roman Empire as having existed from the Republic to the fall of Byzantium that too could be a parallel to the Catholic Church having existed for around 2000 years)

Yes, I agree with all that, of course. Which brings me, at least, back to asking what is the OP’s point? Any institution can be slammed. As can any person. So what is really being said by the OP? Come forward and be clear!

 

[johnmann]

Well, it is quite an indictment. And as for the “survival” factor being a “proof,” proofs not meaning something is necessarily true, we must then consider Confucianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and above all, non dualism, and likely a few more which all have been around longer, some a lot longer. So it looks like we are back to the indictment. Hmmm. Point being?

None of those are institutions. The Catholic Church is the oldest surviving institution in the world.

Survival isn’t dispositive proof of divinity but it’s one explanation that fits.

 

[NekoNecro]

None of those are institutions. The Catholic Church is the oldest surviving institution in the world.

Survival isn’t dispositive proof of divinity but it’s one explanation that fits.

I’m afraid you are mistaken, the oldest surviving institution in the world is the Imperial Japanese Court (The Japanese Emperor and his Bureaucracy), check it out if you don’t believe me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_House_of_Japan

Even if we count the moment Jesus named Peter his rock as the second the Catholic Church came into being, it’s still at very least six hundred years older than the Catholic Church.

 

[rightofcenter77]

Catholicism also has a clear line of continuity and is as much an institution as a movement. Buddhism, Jainism and many others are not institutions. They are beliefs and movements.

If the Church fell, that probably wouldn’t be the end of all Christian belief, but it would be the end of Catholicism (and for me, the end of Christian belief, as I could no more believe in a “new Catholic Church” than a protestant one).

This is what, to me, gives that statement bite. If we define “Church” as just “Catholics” without a pope and a structure, then it loses its bite, because we could count any number of religions and beliefs. Heck, even atheism probably goes way back!

I agree. The Catholic Church is a clear institution that has existed for 2000 years. I don’t think Buddhism or any other "ancient’ religion exist as an institution. I can’t even say for sure that a Buddhist today believes or has anything in common with a Buddhist from 2000 years ago. I’m curious to look into that more closely.

Peace,

Sean

 

[johnmann]

I’m afraid you are mistaken, the oldest surviving institution in the world is the Imperial Japanese Court (The Japanese Emperor and his Bureaucracy), check it out if you don’t believe me. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_House_of_Japan

Even if we count the moment Jesus named Peter his rock as the second the Catholic Church came into being, it’s still at very least six hundred years older than the Catholic Church.

It’s debatable. The verifiable age of the Imperial House is something like 1500 years.

 

[devonsams]

For gods sake the main issue of the tópic is the quote of hilaire belloc and not that many religions exist until today, i should have changed the title of the tópic please focus on commenting the quote of belloc please

 

[Sochi]

For gods sake the main issue of the tópic is the quote of hilaire belloc and not that many religions exist until today, i should have changed the title of the tópic please focus on commenting the quote of belloc please

Yes, we are wondering why you posted it, to what end? It’s obviously a slam on the Church. It’s easy to do that, as it is to do with any one or thing. But why, even if he is right? What’s your point?