Why Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sidheil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sidheil

Guest
Hello,

I recently came to the conclusion that I cannot be a Protestant. Too many things just don’t make any sense. So my question is, why Catholicism? I’ve been doing research, on both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Both claim to be the “one true Church”, and both have decent support for the claim. Ditto for theology, there are differences, but both churches have credible arguments to back it up. However, I know that only one can be true. So I’m back to my question, why Catholocism?
 
Because Eastern Orthodoxy, beautiful as it is, is incomplete without communion with the See of Peter.
 
Sidheil said:
Hello,

I recently came to the conclusion that I cannot be a Protestant. Too many things just don’t make any sense. So my question is, why Catholicism? I’ve been doing research, on both Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Both claim to be the “one true Church”, and both have decent support for the claim. Ditto for theology, there are differences, but both churches have credible arguments to back it up. However, I know that only one can be true. So I’m back to my question, why Catholocism?
Click to expand...
Do you find it plausible that Christ intended there to be something lasting about the ministry of Peter when he said “Upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church?”
 
Yes, there should be one unified Christian church. Peter was perhaps put at the head of it, or Jesus was referring to Peters confession of faith as the rock, as the Orthodox believe. As I said, there is credibility either direction.
 
Sidheil said:
Yes, there should be one unified Christian church. Peter was perhaps put at the head of it, or Jesus was referring to Peters confession of faith as the rock, as the Orthodox believe. As I said, there is credibility either direction.
Click to expand...
Either way, one cannot separate the man from his faith. there you have it. follow the chair of St Peter.
 
I suppose, but claiming St. Peter was the prime leader of the church, and the Bishop of Rome heads the church in Rome, is different than saying that someone 2,000 years after St. Peter is the supreme ruler of the church on earth and capable of declaring infallible doctrine. When was the change?
 
I suggest you get a copy of Steve Ray’s book, Crossing the Tiber. It is his personal conversion story from evangelical Protestant to Catholicism. He too came to the same conclusion you have - there are just too many questions in Protestantism to which no satisfactory or reasonable answer can be provided. He initially started out to convert to Orthodoxy. His reasoning was he had two choices - Catholic or Orthodox. EVERYBODY knows (or thinks they know) what being Catholic means. But very few people know anything about the Orthodox church. So it was his simple solution to all the rebuttal he would face once he converted. However, his study of the early church fathers lead him to the truth that the roots of the earliest Christian church can be found in today’s Catholic church and none other.

Best of luck on your journey!

Jeff
 
Sidheil said:
I suppose, but claiming St. Peter was the prime leader of the church, and the Bishop of Rome heads the church in Rome, is different than saying that someone 2,000 years after St. Peter is the supreme ruler of the church on earth and capable of declaring infallible doctrine. When was the change?
Click to expand...
Might want to breeze through this. The CC is great move IMHO.

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
 
Sidheil said:
I suppose, but claiming St. Peter was the prime leader of the church, and the Bishop of Rome heads the church in Rome, is different than saying that someone 2,000 years after St. Peter is the supreme ruler of the church on earth and capable of declaring infallible doctrine. When was the change?
Click to expand...
who says it changed?
 
Very interesting…and definitely makes a good case. But what about the changing doctrines? The development of an age of reason and whatnot. Seems to contradict what was done before, doesn’t it?
 
wisdomseeker said:
who says it changed?
Click to expand...
From my understanding everyone accepted the primacy of the Pope, but it wasn’t until after the Schism that Papal Supremacy and infallibility and whatnot came about. If I’m mistaken, then please, correct me.
 
Sidheil said:
From my understanding everyone accepted the primacy of the Pope, but it wasn’t until after the Schism that Papal Supremacy and infallibility and whatnot came about. If I’m mistaken, then please, correct me.
Click to expand...
I will reiterate one poster’s suggestion…Crossing the Tiber and another book by the same author…Upon This Rock.

This may get you stared, look for Steve Ray’s talk:

bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm#EWTN
 
Sidheil said:
Very interesting…and definitely makes a good case. But what about the changing doctrines? The development of an age of reason and whatnot. Seems to contradict what was done before, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
Doctrines have never changed in the history of the church. Discipline has changed - but not doctrine. One easy example is the change that the Mass be said in the language of the people and not Latin.

Doctrines have developed, evolved, grown in understanding. A simple comparison is to consider the redwoods in California. Do they look the same today as they did 2,000 years ago? Not at all. Are they still a redwood? Absolutely.

There have been times when doctrine has been declared or clearly defined. However, these have been supported by evidence from the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians. For example, the Immaculate Conception was clearly defined and proclaimed as doctrine in 1854. But it was demonstrated that this belief was held by Catholic Christians throughout history.
 
Sidheil said:
From my understanding everyone accepted the primacy of the Pope, but it wasn’t until after the Schism that Papal Supremacy and infallibility and whatnot came about. If I’m mistaken, then please, correct me.
Click to expand...
That is because when someone denies the Truth, the truth must be reinterated and affirmed. that is all. Everything is known until someone begins to deny, then it must be affirmed.
 
wisdomseeker said:
That is because when someone denies the Truth, the truth must be reinterated and affirmed. that is all. Everything is known until someone begins to deny, then it must be affirmed.
Click to expand...
But primacy and supremacy are two different things, as are Roman jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction. Going from one to the other isn’t affirmation, it’s a change.
 
FWIW, and I know that many Catholic and Orthodox here will disagree…

The article of faith in the creed “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church…”, I cannot in good conscience state that to the exclusion of Rome or Constantinople.

For the most part…

Rome is ok with that.

Constantinople is not.
 
Sidheil said:
But primacy and supremacy are two different things, as are Roman jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction. Going from one to the other isn’t affirmation, it’s a change.
Click to expand...
St Peter only has one chair. who sits on the Chair today? it doesnt matter what people claim, what it matters is the truth. it seems that the chair of St Peter has been in rome from the beginning. It is in this one man that the unity of Church is.
 
Sidheil said:
Yes, there should be one unified Christian church. Peter was perhaps put at the head of it, or Jesus was referring to Peters confession of faith as the rock, as the Orthodox believe. As I said, there is credibility either direction.
Click to expand...
Well naturally I disagree. I don’t think Jesus would have bothered to change Simon’s name to Peter with all that that symbolizes if he were merely talking about Peter’s faith serving as the “rock” (which frankly I’ve never understood the meaning of, as an explanation).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top