Why is Catholicism true?

[Chris_Jodrey]

Now, many of you here have demanded proof of the truth of Mormonism. Lest we unknowingly apply a double standard, let’s see this for the Catholic side. Proove to us dumb 'ol More-Mans that the Catholic Church is true.

The whole “We’ve been here longer so it’s your job to proove what you believe since you’re the ones invading our terrain!” just won’t work here, as many of you have repeatedly written (and implied) that you can proove true the RCC, while the LDS Church can do no such thing. So I’d like to see if the bite is as nasty as that big ol’ bark.

Although this post is full of sarcasm, and my motive seems otherwise, I would sincerely like to know why you believe what you do, and although I do plan on not being convinced, and prooving false your proof, I will not ridicule any personal reasons you believe what you do. In another thread, I put up a list of reasons for why Mormons believe in the Great Apostasy. You can do this too, but make it general; you don’t need to focus on just the apostasy.

So, what is this proof that I have been reading so much about?

 

[arieh0310]

Because Catholic beliefs can be proven historically. It is all there (just a sampling):

Pope:
*“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1). *

Apostolic Succession:
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Clement, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

**Confession: **

• “Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]). *

**Real Presense: **
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

And there is so much more, the historical proofs for Catholicism are inexhaustible.*

 

[majick275]

Start with these links on this page:
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

There is SO much more material to work with on Catholic evangelization as compared to LDS that it really requires a lengthy process…hence RCIA. This is to allow the “investigator” (catechumen) the opportunity to truly “prove” all things by searching, pondering, praying THEN asking God if it’s true. I don’t mean to sound flip but if you really want the best experience of seeing the Catholic position then you should attend an RCIA class in your area. There is NO pressure to convert in these and it is not uncommon for some to repeat the class just to be sure. It is NOTHING like LDS missionary discussions, new member classes or the like and it is perfectly acceptable to attend just to study what catholics believe and why.

 

[mattrue]

listen to Father Corapi on Relavant Radio.com everyday, especially now because he is teaching about the catholic church teachings. very good stuff, God Bless You

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Arieh seems to have the most concrete response here. But there’s one problem… None of that stuff is in the Bible (the way you have described it). Therefore, no proof. Try again.

 

[Della]

Because, in matters of faith and morals, which is the only area in which the Church decides what is infallibly true and what isn’t, it hasn’t changed its teachings in 2 millenniums. Doctrines have been proclaimed dogmas, but they are the same teachings not new ones.

Christ founded the Church while he was on earth, giving it the promise of both infallibility in matters of faith and morals as well as the promise of never failing, so no Great Apostasy, of the sort you mean could ever happen to the Church founded on Peter and the Apostles, which is the same Catholic Church today as it was at Pentecost in 33 AD. It’s just that simple.

 

[Della]

Chris Jodrey:

Arieh seems to have the most concrete response here. But there’s one problem… None of that stuff is in the Bible (the way you have described it). Therefore, no proof. Try again.

Quotes do not have to be from the Bible to be historically accurate. You “try again.”

 

[arieh0310]

Chris Jodrey:

Arieh seems to have the most concrete response here. But there’s one problem… None of that stuff is in the Bible (the way you have described it). Therefore, no proof. Try again.

OK, here you go:

Pope (Peterine Primacy):
Matthew 16:
16: Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Apostolic Succession:
Check out this link there are plenty of Scripture references, too much to post.

Confession:
*"‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23)

“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18)

“Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” (James 5:15)*

Real presence:

Just read John 6, the last supper narratives, and 1 Corintians 11:
*23: For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24: and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25: In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28: Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29: For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30: That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. *

We could go on…

 

[Brad_Haas]

Chris Jodrey:

Arieh seems to have the most concrete response here. But there’s one problem… None of that stuff is in the Bible (the way you have described it). Therefore, no proof. Try again.

I’m surprised to see you say that, but perhaps you don’t know that the Catholic Church is one of the only Christian communions not to stake her claim to existence on the Bible alone. The reason for that is that she preceded and assembled the New Testament, and the canonical Scriptures as we know them. For more, see Bishop Graham’s excellent little book, *Where We Got the Bible *. This isn’t to say that anything in the Catholic faith is un-Biblical – it’s not. It’s just that Scripture is a subset of God’s revelation, which in its entirety was delivered by Jesus and is preserved and delivered still by His body the Church.

As for your original question, you might like this article that I wrote. It’s not my most fully-developed line of thought, but I don’t have time to write much nowadays.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Chris Jodrey:

Now, many of you here have demanded proof of the truth of Mormonism. Lest we unknowingly apply a double standard, let’s see this for the Catholic side. Proove to us dumb 'ol More-Mans that the Catholic Church is true.

I don’t think you are dumb. Your posts to this site evidence thoughtfulness and intelligence. The fact that we disagree over matters of faith is no cause for me to belittle you, and I sincerly hope that you don’t think different of me.
Chris Jodrey:

The whole “We’ve been here longer so it’s your job to proove what you believe since you’re the ones invading our terrain!” just won’t work here, as many of you have repeatedly written (and implied) that you can proove true the RCC, while the LDS Church can do no such thing. So I’d like to see if the bite is as nasty as that big ol’ bark.

It’s not just the fact that the Catholic Church can trace its origins back to Christ, although that is part of the argument. It is the consistency of the Church’s teachings, its ability to not simply survive, but thrive despite the sins of many of its individual members. I will elaborate below.
Chris Jodrey:

Although this post is full of sarcasm, and my motive seems otherwise, I would sincerely like to know why you believe what you do, and although I do plan on not being convinced, and prooving false your proof, I will not ridicule any personal reasons you believe what you do. In another thread, I put up a list of reasons for why Mormons believe in the Great Apostasy. You can do this too, but make it general; you don’t need to focus on just the apostasy. So, what is this proof that I have been reading so much about?

I think there are many reasons to believe that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, and the Church that contains and teaches the fullness of the Gospel. I want to think about this one before I post my argument for the truth of the Catholic faith.

-Peace

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Chris Jodrey:

Arieh seems to have the most concrete response here. But there’s one problem… None of that stuff is in the Bible (the way you have described it). Therefore, no proof. Try again.

You are headed down the wrong path here. Catholics do not hold to Sola Scriptura. Authority exists in both the Apostolic Tradition of the Church as Well as Scripture. Both are valid sources of authority. You may want to scan some earlier threads discussing this difference. In any event, to say that I don’t believe it because it’s not in the Bible does not seem like an appropriate argument coming from a person who believes in an open canon and several different works of scripture. Let’s not hold each other to different rules.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Ahem… many here have told me they can prove to me that their church is true. I just want to see if that is right.

So far, the best argument I can hear you say is that the RCC has not changed since the beginning. But I have talked to many protestants even who say it has (people who have supposedly read into depth the ECFs - this is based on a topic a while back at Christian Forums). Now, has the RCC always preached indulgences too and does it continue to do so now?

(Note to self: proof still lacking.)
(Note to self: would this convince an atheist? a jew? a buddhist?)

 

[Brad_Haas]

Chris,

Side note: you need not say “RCC” - there’s only one Catholic Church. See this little page for information on the term “Roman Catholic Church.”
Chris Jodrey:

So far, the best argument I can hear you say is that the RCC has not changed since the beginning. But I have talked to many protestants even who say it has (people who have supposedly read into depth the ECFs - this is based on a topic a while back at Christian Forums).

Have you yourself read the early Church Fathers in-depth? You can read texts from The Ante-Nicene Fathers etc. online for free, without any commentary from Catholic or LDS authors (for example, at NewAdvent’s library ).

The Catholic faith hasn’t changed in the sense that no essential beliefs have changed. Our understanding of the faith has developed, of course, as a seed does not remain a seed but grows into a tree.
Chris Jodrey:

Now, has the RCC always preached indulgences too and does it continue to do so now?

(Note to self: proof still lacking.)
(Note to self: would this convince an atheist? a jew? a buddhist?)

Yes, and yes. Do your notes to self mean that we don’t need to bother explaining it to you, as you won’t listen?

Did you read my article, and if so, did you have any comments on it?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Chris Jodrey:

The whole “We’ve been here longer so it’s your job to proove what you believe since you’re the ones invading our terrain!” just won’t work here, as many of you have repeatedly written (and implied) that you can proove true the RCC, while the LDS Church can do no such thing. So I’d like to see if the bite is as nasty as that big ol’ bark.

You ask me to prove that the Catholic Church is true, but you admit you won’t be convinced. I would concede that I cannot “prove” to you the truth of the Catholic Church under such circumstances - because that requires faith.

But, let me suggest to you that the Catholic Church is unique in all of history, because it alone can claim an unbroken chain back through the ages to Christ himself. I’m not just referring to a papal line of succession from Benedict XVI to St. Peter, but also to a doctrinal linkl. This doctrinal link is consistent with the deposit of faith that was left by Christ and His apostles. It can be traced through history starting with the earliest writings of the Church, which were canonized by the Church, and explained and taught by the Church in a manner that was consistent with the non-written teachings of the Apostles that were carried out by their successors, and their successors’ successors to the present day without change.

Yes, forms and disciplines have developed and changed, but the doctrines themselves have remained constant, while those who left the church through the ages to attempt “reformation” have ultimately been scattered into many groups, all preaching a truth that is a little bit (or a lot) removed from the original deposit of faith that was taught by Peter and the other Apostles.

I’ve mentioned the book in other posts, but I suggest you read Kenneth Whitehead’s book, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It is an easy read that studies the early church and concludes that it most resembles the Catholic Church - more than any other denomination on earth today. This, to me, is strong evidence that something is working to keep things consistent with what the Apostles and what Christ was teaching to the early followers. The faith that comes next closest is the Orthodox Church which - in all but a few issues (albeit they are serious issues) is so closely united in doctrine that even the sacraments can be shared among the faithful. So, really, I think the words of Cardinal Newman (a convert from Protestantism to the Catholic faith) were correct when he said that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. To the contrary, the LDS faith has no history prior to the early 1800s, but premises its faith upon a “restoration” from a total apostasy can did not occur.

Because - according to your rules - you do not accept the argument from history let me pose this other thought.

It’s all a question of authority…

Lets assume for the sake of argument that there is such a thing as absolute truth.

Then we (LDS and Catholics) can both be wrong, but we cannot both be right. But lets keep this discussion as an either/or debate to keep it simple.

Each of our faiths is premised upon the general proposition that God came down to earth and gave to our prospective leaders the authority to establish a Church that would teach “truth” as revealed by God - and establish doctrines and a moral code of conduct.

We both agree that Christ is our Lord, and that he was the one who established the Church. So, for both of us, that rules out all non-christian religions.

We both agree that the authority to establish doctrine lies in a hierarchical authority - for the Catholic Church it is the bishops in union with the Pope, while in the LDS church it is the Presidency.

The distinction between our faiths is the idea of a “great apostasy.” The LDS church relies upon it as a basis for the restoration, while the Catholic Church of today would be lacking authority were it true.

There is nothing in history to support the “great apostasy”
There is nothing in scripture to support the idea that a total apostasy would ever occur.
Scripture expressly supports the idea that Christ’s church will never fail - ONLY the Catholic Church - headed by the successor of Peter - has never failed.

 

[majick275]

I can’t help but notice that my suggested method of proving the Catholic faith true has been ignored in favor of sound bites. While LDS missionaries may preach instant conversion and hope to read a scripture, say a prayer and get a baptismal comitment, we Catholics know better. There are no shortcuts. God has given what we need and thus he expects us to use it.

 

[Della]

Chris Jodrey:

Ahem… many here have told me they can prove to me that their church is true. I just want to see if that is right.

So far, the best argument I can hear you say is that the RCC has not changed since the beginning. But I have talked to many protestants even who say it has (people who have supposedly read into depth the ECFs - this is based on a topic a while back at Christian Forums). Now, has the RCC always preached indulgences too and does it continue to do so now?

(Note to self: proof still lacking.)
(Note to self: would this convince an atheist? a jew? a buddhist?)

I too have read the so-called arguments against the Church supposedly based on the ECFs. The one little detail that the author of that argument always seems to leave out is that he quoted passages not only out of context, but conveniently left out any words that would not make his case for him. Is that honest? Is that good argumentation or just pushing an agenda?

And yes, the Church has always taught indulgences and always will until Christ returns. Why shouldn’t it? Do you really know what indulgences are or are you basing what you think you know, once again, on false information from Protestants with an agenda? Have you read the CCC on the subject?

And could you please drop the snide attitude? If you wanted to convert us all to the LDS it certainly wouldn’t help your cause, you know.

 

[Melanie01]

This is a trick question right…

Jesus Christ establish His church on earth and Peter was made Vicar on Earth. Vicar/Pope is the caretaker as Jesus is the actual Head of the Church

 

[Eireann]

It’s true because it has an unbroken lineage back to the time that Christ walked this earth, when He gave Peter the power to bind or loosen.
And it hasn’t been broken, if you say it has, then you are taking issue with the words of Jesus,
" that the gates of hell will not prevail againt it."

Jesus didn’t build His house on sand, and then when the rain came washed it all away, he was true to His own parable, build your house on rock.

Do you think Jesus would contradict Himself and build His house on sand ?

If this answer doesn’t suffice then I can’t help you, you’ll just have to read the facts and if you can live with the outcome, then it’s down to faith like the rest of us.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Robert in SD:

You ask me to prove that the Catholic Church is true, but you admit you won’t be convinced. I would concede that I cannot “prove” to you the truth of the Catholic Church under such circumstances - because that requires faith.

Ah, here we go. Some of you have already noticed that I simply won’t be convinced no matter what you say. So then, where is the proof? You see, I think that proof should be the ability to convince anyone of what it is you are trying to prove. If it needs be so complicated as to read hundreds of volumes of books (something I doubt that most of you have done), then most people would not be very interested in doing so. You see, there are mathematical proofs, and scientific proofs, things which cannot be shown to be otherwise. Religion just doesn’t fit the same category, because most of it is all based on something much more personal. Are there historical facts involved? Sure, more or less. But even history can lie. And science can be mistaken and misinterpreted. So even there, “proof” cannot exist. Good arguments can be made, but no proof.

Did anyone ever see the Simpsons episode where Homer got the crayon taken out of his brain and became super-smart? and then went to visit Flanders and said something like, “Hey, neighbor, I just thought I’d let you know that while I was doing my taxes I mathematically proved that God doesn’t exist. Just thought I’d let you know.” And, of course, Flanders is stumped. So, can Catholics do the same thing? Can you all prove beyond a doubt to anyone (even those that can’t read) that Catholicism is true?

Or maybe you don’t agree with my definition of proof?

 

[Della]

Chris Jodrey:

Or maybe you don’t agree with my definition of proof?

No, we don’t agree with your definition of proof. God gave us his Church that has stood the test of time, bad popes, wars, internal and external attacks, survived many hostile cultures and endured every calumny man and devil can hurl against it. Isn’t that proof enough even for you?

And we don’t use the Bible and never have seen the Bible as a proof-text for beliefs. It is the witness to God’s redemptive acts first through the people of Israel and then through his Son and his Church, not a personal reference book. We don’t scan verses looking for proofs of anything. The Church knows that the Bible is its witness and support, so it doesn’t need to prove to the world that its own book proves its teachings, which is not the function of the Bible and never was. It is a support and witness not a proof-text. Plain and simple.