Why is Catholicism true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris_Jodrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will repeat though that there is an important aspect of “proving” religion that does require study. Faith without works IS dead. You can’t expect God to just grant you knowledge without any effort on your part. Those of us who converted to the RCC did in fact do quite a lot of reading and study. RCIA takes the better part of a year for that reason.
 
Chris Jodrey:
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?
Click to expand...
As I have said for years, all of life goes back to the Simpsons.

Here are the proofs that I see:
  1. Spriptural. Only the Catholic Church fullfills the Church described in Scripture.
  2. Historical. Only the Catholic Church resembles the Church described from the first century Fathers on.
  3. Supernatural. Only the Catholic Church has Eucharistic miracles, incorruptables, icon and statuary miracles, apparitions, and healings on a massive scale.
Now, the Catholic Church doesn’t use mountains of evidence to prove its beliefs because it needs verbosity to confuse you to prove its point. The truth of Catholicism can be very simple, but it has all of Scripture and 2000 years of history to prove it has been faithful to the original deposit of faith. It may look complicated but it really isn’t, it is just substantial.

The proofs of Mormonism may look simple (burning in the bossom) but in reality the LDS church has nothing substantial to back up its claims.
 
Brad Haas:
Some of us would appreciate it if you read what we wrote…
Click to expand...
I agree, Brad. :tiphat:

Chris, we can appreciate that you have a life off the board (so do we all!), but that can’t excuse your side-stepping our responses to your direct questions. If you have no interest in discussing, but only in throwing out accusations and spurious arguments, then please stop wasting our time and yours. :tsktsk:
 
Chris Jodrey:
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?
Click to expand...
Dear Chris;

I think that it is impossible to provide “proof” for the validity of *any * religion by the standard which you impose.

However, it may be possible to *disprove * the validity of a religion by that standard, where one can disprove a foundational element of the religion.

I think that the arguments to disprove the validity of the doctrines of the LDS religion are strong, based upon the lack of historical evidence supporting the foundational element of a great apostasy. Even Bickley admits that if there was no great apostasy, there would be no reason for the restoration. (Sorry if I am starting to sound like a broken record.)

So, Chris, if the point of this thread is to get me to concede that I cannot “prove” the truth of Catholicism to you with empirical data, then I would concede that fact, with the caveat that study, reason, and logic, are all tools that - together with prayer - can help you to discover the truth of Catholicism. But I will readily admit that you will not come to accept that truth without the help of the Holy Spirit. Arguments alone - however persuasive - are not sufficient. I would also concede that you can make the same argument from your perspective. However, to make such a statement persuasive, it is your burden to first address the historical and scriptural evidence that undermines your perception that there was a need for the “Restoration” upon which your faith is founded.
 
Chris Jodrey:
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?
Click to expand...
This is not the same as what you are doing on the other threads. We have constantly provided ample evidence to refute your claims while supporting our own. We are not closed minded, we just want something of substance from your side, not circular reasoning, arguments for silence, and arguments that beg the question. Is this too much to ask?

What I have experienced on those other threads has finally been spelled out for all to read: you are not open to the slightest possiblity that what you believe maybe false. You are so sure of your beliefs, no matter what evidence or proof or reasons we give you to the contrary you will not see it. Why? You don’t want to, simple as that.

Is this what we are doing? Do we present the same unwillingness to openness that you have shown? I don’t think so. I have mentioned many times of this forum that I could be wrong, and I say it here as well. If you can show me the Catholic Church is false I will leave Her. I am willing to look into the evidence and take the time to explore the arguments. Just show me the Great Appostasy in the early Church and you have yourself a convert. And I am not lying. I will follow the truth wherever it leads me.

Peace
 
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.
Click to expand...
You know, i’ve looked and i looked i don’t see the name of the founder of your cult in the Bible anywhere. But the Founder of our Church/religion is found through out the Bible. Gesh even your readers digested version of the Bible tells of the event when Jesus Christ himself gave the keys to the founder of our Church.
so if you follow the Bible as much as you claim you do, there is your proof. Or do you pick and choose what you follow in your Bible? HMMM?
Maybe you haven’t read it i don’t know . It wouldn’t suprise me if your pastor/leader Snuck into your “church” and crazy glued those pages togther so no one would read it? Really if you want to rely on the Bible for every little bit of christian history/facts then you would have more credibilty if you follow ALL of it. Not what just supports your little “theories”
 
Chris Jodrey:
Can you all prove beyond a doubt to anyone (even those that can’t read) that Catholicism is true?
Click to expand...
It isn’t a matter of proof.

You can prove that E=mc2. If that’s the sort of proof you’re looking for, you won’t find it.

It’s a matter of faith.
 
Because it’s the Chruch our Lord established 2,000 years ago! 👍
 
Chris Jodrey:
I think that proof should be the ability to convince anyone of what it is you are trying to prove…Or maybe you don’t agree with my definition of proof?
Click to expand...
If, by saying this, you are saying that Catholicism is not true because Catholics cannot convince EVERYONE that Catholicism IS true, then, by default, you are also saying that LDS is not true. 😉

Also, you are expecting US to prove our faith to you by ONLY using the Bible, but do Mormons use ONLY the Bible? No. You also have the BoM, PoGP, D and C. 👍
 
How can anyone proove anything to anyone that does not open their minds to it.

My proof is that the Church is that of which Christ set down and it says in the Bible that the Holy spirit will keep it correct… It also says that you shouldn’t change or go away from Christ’s original Church and teachings.

Also another proof of the Catholic church being the correct one is the point that you ask for proof from Bible alone. The Catholic Church wrote the Bible so that confuses me for starters. As the Catholic Church wrote the bible it also the correct one to translate the bible… If you wrote a book your ideas of what it means would be the correct ones.
 
40.png
fellicia:
How can anyone proove anything to anyone that does not open their minds to it.

My proof is that the Church is that of which Christ set down and it says in the Bible that the Holy spirit will keep it correct… It also says that you shouldn’t change or go away from Christ’s original Church and teachings.

Also another proof of the Catholic church being the correct one is the point that you ask for proof from Bible alone. The Catholic Church wrote the Bible so that confuses me for starters. As the Catholic Church wrote the bible it also the correct one to translate the bible… If you wrote a book your ideas of what it means would be the correct ones.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church didn’t write the Bible. It decided which writings were to be part of the canon of New Testament scripture. This didn’t officially happen until the 4th century, centuries after the individual books were written.
 
40.png
misterX:
You know, i’ve looked and i looked i don’t see the name of the founder of your cult in the Bible anywhere. But the Founder of our Church/religion is found through out the Bible. Gesh even your readers digested version of the Bible tells of the event when Jesus Christ himself gave the keys to the founder of our Church.
so if you follow the Bible as much as you claim you do, there is your proof. Or do you pick and choose what you follow in your Bible? HMMM?
Maybe you haven’t read it i don’t know . It wouldn’t suprise me if your pastor/leader Snuck into your “church” and crazy glued those pages togther so no one would read it? Really if you want to rely on the Bible for every little bit of christian history/facts then you would have more credibilty if you follow ALL of it. Not what just supports your little “theories”
Click to expand...
This type of sarcastic, rude, response has no place in this forum, and should have no place in a Christian heart.
 
Sorry yeah that is what I meant. so it is the best place to find the meaning too. Because it would have put them in knowing what they mean.

x x x
 
40.png
Tmaque:
This type of sarcastic, rude, response has no place in this forum, and should have no place in a Christian heart.
Click to expand...
I’m sure since “mr Jodrey” doesn’t mind a a bit of rudeness and sarcasim, as he often likes to deal it out. he wouldn’t mind a bit back. And as far as what is in my heart thats between God and i, and nothing to do with you.
 
Where do you think that the bible came from? …If you would read what everyone has ask you to read, you would understand that in all sense, the Bible is a Catholic book. The NT was written, copied and collected by Catholics.The official canon of the books was authoritively determined by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. Thus, the reason that you have a bible at all.

So really, wouldnt it make sense that THe church with the authority to determine the infallible Word of God must have the infallible authroity and guidance of the Holy Spirit?.

To trust the Bible is to trust the authority of the church which guarantees the Bible.

It is contradictory for Protestants to accept the Bible and yet reject the authority of the Catholic Church that gave it to them.

See, not much reading at all…although I would suggest it.
 
Thats what I said hehee but you said it better.

Shouldn’t you be asking for proof outside of the bible rather than from the bible in which our Church wrote?

Fellicia x x x
 
Hello…

From my own search, not only does Catholicism satisfy the student of history, but is also grounded on solid metaphysics. It makes the most sense. Catholicism’s hierarchy of truth leaves no room for error. Faith and Reason! Fides et Ratio!

OptimusPrimefan
 
Religion cannot be “proven” true, from your definition of it. Even science could not be proven true, even if it constitutes as proof itself - this is because we don’t know EVERYTHING about the world of science. What if there’s some unknown force that drives energy that doesn’t apply to E=MC^2? Faith is required in religion, even anti-religion (atheism), for example.

The Bible cannot be taken as the sole area for proof when neither you nor I believe Sola Scriptura. What does this leave us with? History, of course.

For three hundred years, there were no “Bible-believing” Christians because there was no Bible - it was oral tradition, some of which was written down later. It was still true, though, because the Bible would otherwise be wrong (being compiled by these said oral believers that held Catholic beliefs).

Feeling and emotion don’t cut it in my opinion. If historical evidence, the Bible, among other things do not appear to be “truth” to you, then what is?

(By the way, people can try to “prove” evolution or ID, but that doesn’t mean everyone accepts either one of those.)

Just trying to help, Peace 🙂
God bless you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top