I
interestedman
Guest
Most of the Catholics on here would say that the church’s teachings on faith and morals are backed by God. What is the evidence that supports this?
What is the evidence that the church's teachings are backed by God?
- Status
C
cjforJesus
Guest
faith
D
Dubay
Guest
Sometimes biblical and other times Tradition.
P
piejesu
Guest
Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. (Heb. 11:1 DR)
Faith is a good answer in a theological sense. Ontologically I would go with the undeniable longevity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which has stood the test of time.
But a Pharisee in the council named Gama’li-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men…So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (Acts 5:34-39 RSV)
Faith is a good answer in a theological sense. Ontologically I would go with the undeniable longevity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which has stood the test of time.
But a Pharisee in the council named Gama’li-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men…So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (Acts 5:34-39 RSV)
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
- The historical testimony of the Incarnation
- divine revelation
- the miracles of Christ, and his resurrection
- the miracles performed subsequently by the apostles and disciples
- the early Church martyrs
- the continued miracles occurring to this day in his name
- the fluidity of Church teaching without contradiction and its survival in the face of constant attack for 2000 years
- etc…
S
snarflemike
Guest
The evidence that
a) Jesus existed
b) Jesus was/is God
c) Jesus founded a Church
d) That Church is the Catholic Church
e) That Church has not changed its teachings since its founding
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Particularly when it comes to morality, the evidence is this:
When the world veers from her moral teaching, bad things inevitably ensue.
The astounding foresight of the Church played a major part in my conversion.
When the world veers from her moral teaching, bad things inevitably ensue.
The astounding foresight of the Church played a major part in my conversion.
N
nuntym
Guest
+JMJ+
History.
P
Portofino
Guest
“a ) Jesus existed” can be reasonably established (even though some hardened skeptics deny that he ever existed) ; even Josephus attests to the existence of Jesus, who was crucified under Pilate. Plus, the existence of a man – any man – is no extraordinary thing. It does not require extraordinary evidence for it to be accepted.
“b) Jesus was/is God” is huge in terms of proving. As a Catholic, you are personally convinced by the circumstantial evidence that has come down to us from his biographers, as well as–perhaps–what you’ve seen from his Church and its affect on history (though others see differently). That Jesus is God cannot be proven, by any reasonable standards of proof. Ultimately, it is a matter of faith and of “inner illumination.” I respect that, but I think even the Church is clear that reason alone is not sufficient. Faith is not a four-letter word, for a Christian, even if it is for a skeptical non-believer. I think it is a better strategy not to back off from faith, and to admit that only faith can take you the whole distance.
"c ) Jesus founded a Church – this is much easier to establish than b), but still somewhat uncertain. Many contemporary theologians will posit that, “Jesus never intended to found the Church, as we know it.” It is unclear whether he did, or not. The most evidence for his intention is in a single Gospel – the Gospel of Matthew (Peter as the rock upon which the church will be built). It is unclear whether Jesus actually said that, or whether this was attributed to him by the early Christians, who appreciated how remarkable a leader Peter was. Jesus gathered the disciples – that much is clear. That he intended to break definitively from Judaism, and not look back – that is less clear.
“d ) that Church is the Catholic church” – historically speaking, it certainly became the Catholic Church. Whether it continued to be infallibly guided, after the “death” of Jesus – or ever was infallibly guided – and whether it bears strong resemblance to the Church as Christ supposedly founded it, is less certain.
“e ) the Church has not changed its teaching since its founding” – that is also open to debate. Its changed in many ways, and remained the same in many others. The argument hinges on whether it is had changed in what is non-essential, and remained the same in what is essential. It hinges on whether one agrees with the Church’s self-definition of what is essential and what is non-essential (if the Church alone gets to decide what is essential and what is non-essential, what can be changed, and what can’t, then it’s home free
).
E
empther
Guest
The Catholic Church has the most complete explanation of God’s plan for man’s salvation.
Not other group comes close, not even the Protestants who can’t even agree with each other.
Not other group comes close, not even the Protestants who can’t even agree with each other.
J
JDaniel
Guest
IM:
Christ’s promise(s) to Peter (the Rock), formerly known as Simone-Peter (Simon - the Rock) in the garden at Gethsemane, and carried forward by Apostolic succession. The Catholic Church is not a building, or the building; instead, it is the people. What people: ALL people. As time went on, the Church formed a Magisterium, which safeguards the deposit of Faith of the people, for the people. So, I guess you could say that we have nothing more than Revelation.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Oh, and one more little thing: the non-dishonesty of Jesus Christ, God and the Holy Spirit.
God bless,
jd
T
Trurl
Guest
You made a slight mistake with your question. You should have asked: “What OBJECTIVE, INDEPENDENT evidence supports this?” After all the catholic church or the bible (partly composed by the church) or the so-called “sacred” tradition (whatever that means) cannot be accepted as OBJECTIVE, INDEPENDENT evidence.
There is absolutely no independent, non-hearsay evidence of any of the claims (and hearsay evidence is usually excluded for well known reasons). The church is a self-proclaimed authority. Yet, its authority in several important fields is seriously questioned by a significant (and growing) percentage of the catholic people and outside the catholics it has no authority at all…
Triple cheers for your intellectual honesty!
P
Portofino
Guest
G
GratefulFred
Guest
There are a number of Biblical sources that support the Church’s teachings are backed by God. Here is one:
Matthew 16: 13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
In other places in the New Testament, Jesus explained His thoughts to His Apostles in private that are not recorded in the New Testament. Jesus also promised to send the Holy Spirit to REMIND them of all that He taught. And Jesus said He would be with them through the end of time.
And in every encyclical I have read issued by a Pope, successors of St Peter, the teachings are well footnoted to the Bible.
If we believe that Jesus Christ is indeed the living Son of God, we do well to do our best to understand and follow the Church’s teachings coming directly from the Bible. Christ gave no other Church the authority to teach in His Name.
Matthew 16: 13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
In other places in the New Testament, Jesus explained His thoughts to His Apostles in private that are not recorded in the New Testament. Jesus also promised to send the Holy Spirit to REMIND them of all that He taught. And Jesus said He would be with them through the end of time.
And in every encyclical I have read issued by a Pope, successors of St Peter, the teachings are well footnoted to the Bible.
If we believe that Jesus Christ is indeed the living Son of God, we do well to do our best to understand and follow the Church’s teachings coming directly from the Bible. Christ gave no other Church the authority to teach in His Name.
D
dailey
Guest
Excellent post!
T
Trurl
Guest
That is not surprising… after all the NT was compiled by the catholic church. If you are in the position to select your own “supporting evidence”, they will always support you.
The point is that the bible is not an independent document to be accepted as a reliable evidence. Except for those who already are believers. But they do not need evidence…
G
grannymh
Guest
May I respectfully suggest that this question is backwards?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Personal opinion. There are as many Catholics today as last year, just not in the West - and so what. That proves nothing.You made a slight mistake with your question. You should have asked: “What OBJECTIVE, INDEPENDENT evidence supports this?” After all the catholic church or the bible (partly composed by the church) or the so-called “sacred” tradition (whatever that means) cannot be accepted as OBJECTIVE, INDEPENDENT evidence.
Triple cheers for your intellectual honesty!
Have you ever bothered to read a history of the Catholic Church? You might find it interesting. I suggest The Building of Christendom by Warren H Carroll.
And how about giving Thomas Aquinas a read, pretty interesting stuff.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Trurl:That is not surprising… after all the NT was compiled by the catholic church. If you are in the position to select your own “supporting evidence”, they will always support you.
Not so. The Bible, including the New Testament, was compiled by Christendom. Your veiled slur against the Catholic Church is noted for its selection.
Isn’t it amazing how such backward people could have developed such a successful strategy for fooling the rest of the world, and were able to keep it going for centuries? Which is it, were early Christians moronic Cretans, or were they the most intelligent people to populate this Earth ever? Depending on your personal POV, you pick whatever argument fits your criterion. To Hades with the Truth.
When a person knows nothing about brain surgery, that person should not be conducting a seminar on it. You know very little about the Church and being Churched. Your arguments are, I am sure, straight from an atheist website.
If you were really intellectually honest and were arguing in good faith, you would enter into these discussions with a willing suspension of disbelief, and a willing suspension of overt enmity against our Church. You know, you might be right, but you may also be very wrong. A courteous and deeply interested explorer would speak a bit more courteously, in my opinion.
God bless,
jd
- Status