Why is Catholicism true?

[flameburns623]

Now, I would put Catholicism there instead, honestly. My reasons for believing so may not be so evidencial as you’d like, but rather moral. In that way, it is definitely falsifiable.

Meaning, I guess, that the RCC has had some members who had moral failings. Which would not falsify much of anything. One could not prove that universities or governments are bad things because they were sometimes populated by bad people, for example. In any case, your own church has had a goodly number of moral failures within it’s history as well. Not all of them related to Joseph Smith. On FAIR-LDS, for example there have been some discussions of sexual scandals usually covered up by the LDS Church. Some have involved high leaders–a General Authority now long deceased who was widely known to have a mistress.

By the way–I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a former LDS among other things that I explored in my 45-odd years. Now an Anglican. :tiphat:

For example, ever hear a Buddhist argue against Christianity?

I dabbled in Eastern Mysticism in college. Hey the New Age movement was BIG in those days. Shirley McClaine was praying to rocks and all that.:whacky: So yeah–I HAVE heard Buddhists bash Christianity. Some of my best friends were Nicheren Shoshu Buddhists–the ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses of Japanese Buddhism’, famous for their debates with Christians, if not for their militant iconclasm. (The Amidists are equivalent to Pentecostals or Christian Scientists I’m told–but I never met an Amidist so can’t tell you for sure). Apart from those sectarian groups–Buddhists are often sneeringly disdainful of any sort of Christian church or theology, though they usually speak highly of Jesus Himself. Hindues likewise. And yes, there ARE Hindus and Buddhists who argue forcefully against Christianity. Google the topic, you’ll find 'em.

Ultimately, you and I are guests here, invited to engage Roman Catholics in an on-going dialogue about truth. If you honestly don’t believe that something called ‘absolute truth’ exists and is discoverable by the right use of intellect and the grace of God–why come onto a web board where this is the starting philosophical assumption? You can find heaps and heaps of places to go which presuppose religious relativism. Are you certain you’re not just venting frustration at not being able to ‘win’ in a lot of the discussions you’ve taken part in here?

 

[StratusRose]

Wait a minute here…members have given you historical as well as biblical proof, and you still believe that Joseph Smith read “secret” Scriptures off of gold tablets that he viewed through a hat? That no one even saw?

Furthermore, where in the Bible does it saw that the BIBLE is the only source of authority. Where does it say that the Book of Mormon is to be considered a source of authority?

 

[mjdonnelly]

Here’s one for you, you may as well ask how to prove to a blind man that the sky is blue, but, he doesn’t believe anything you say.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi Chris;

Allow me to respond…
Chris Jodrey:

Now, I would put Catholicism there instead, honestly. My reasons for believing so may not be so evidencial as you’d like, but rather moral. In that way, it is definitely falsifiable. It all depends on what your criteria is for falsification. More than anything, it seems that many Christians have the propensity to want to falsify other beliefs, while this is not as common in other world religions. For example, ever hear a Buddhist argue against Christianity?

Gee, Chris, I think my criteria for falsification would be “lack of truth.” The less true something is, the more false it is. Doesn’t sound that hard to me, unless you find that truth is relative. But I reject that philosophy as unsound. Some may “want to falsify other beliefs” but want and proof are two different things.
Chris Jodrey:

Yes, I am aware that any Catholic on this board would be quick to point out that their church is the most logical, well-supported, true, divine, beautiful on earth and throughout history. This is not news to me. The problem arises when you begin asking those who are not Catholic.

Start asking them what? The Catholic position is that the fullness of truth can be found in the Catholic Church. But that understanding is not inconsistent with a belief that truth to some other degree is not present in other religions.
Chris Jodrey:

This is just plain hard to believe. Maybe the Church takes these measures, but many Catholics will find a miracle in anything they can…

You are confusing the perception of miracles by the faithful with Church action. For example, the news frenzy over the appearance of an image of Mary in a leaky drain pipe in Chicago resulted in lots of people leaving candles at the site. The Church took no position on the validity of the miracle; did not report the miracle in any official capacity that I know of, and did not use this “miracle” to promote the faith. In other words, there is usually no Church action to criticize when this type of event occurs, only the actions of individuals are usually involved. So, really, you are not addressing any real criticism of the Church, only your own healthy skepticism when it comes to accepting these reported miracles.
Chris Jodrey:

I doubt it. This is one of the big flaws I find in your reasoning – “Go study, and if you study a lot, and are real smart, then you’ll know I’m right.” What about those that can’t read or aren’t that smart? There are plenty that might just get confused. There are others that just don’t have the time or patience. Study is good, but in religious matters it only gets you so far. Without spirituality, intellectualism is moot…

It is this kind of attitude that I am getting sick of here. It is a sort of bigotry that permeates many Catholics’ posts. I try to be as open, humble, and patient as I can, but it has been bothering me now for a while. Hopefully something will change, but it hasn’t so far and unfortunately, I don’t expect it to.

What attitude? Where is the bigotry? Are you suggesting that one’s faith is harmed by study and reason? I, for one, would want nothing to do with a religion that discourages me from a sincere search for truth with all of my faculties, or a religion that discourages me from reason and discernment linked to my spirituality. I’m not suggesting in any way that that one’s mental faculties should be divorced from spirituality. My belief is that reason and spirituality should be complimentary. If you feel threatened by such an approach so much that you would call it “attitude” and “bigotry” then perhaps it is you who are in conflict in this area and not the Catholic posters to this thread.

Again, I’m not suggesting that LDS members must set aside reason to believe what their faith teaches. TOmNosser seems to be a ready example of faith and reason in support of the LDS Church, although I would disagree with his conclusion, some of his arguments are quite lucid. Apparently TOm has studied a great deal and that has only confirmed his LDS faith for him. So, I see no reason why you should feel some sort of concern about delving into the Church fathers and church history on your own as well. You do not have to set aside the books to believe. You should feel that study will only enhance your spiritual side. I don’t say any of this out of malice, Chris, but out of a sincere belief that through study and prayer together, one can grow in faith. My journey has led me to the Catholic faith. But I do not profess to know it all. I only urge you to take the same rigorous approach with your faith that I am willing to take with mine.

Sincerely,
-Rob

 

[Aaron_I]

Intelligence isn’t a requirement for a Catholic, though it should be one for a Protestant. After all, if they didn’t try to get overclever they wouldn’t have left the Church. Seriously, why would anyone accept Smith over the Magisterium? Only because through REASON they decided it made more sense. Clearly you are asserting something contrary to the truth. Go the scripturecatholic.com for scriptural basis for several Catholic teachings.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We will gladly give you proof, but like Jesus, who requests you answer a challenge first before he answers the question directed at Him.

From the official LDS online page lds.org talking about a very important LDS founder Orson Pratt (edited for size): Apr. 1984, 55Ensign,
…
…Even before the Book of Mormon came off the press in March 1830, it came under fierce attack. Thus, early missionaries had to defend its origin and content continually. …
… In the first long defense of the Book of Mormon, William W. Phelps used these arguments, in combination with personal testimony, biblical witness, and archaeological evidences.
…
…
Lorenzo D. Barnes’s *References to Prove the Gospel in its Fulness *was issued in 1841…
…together with Charles B. Thompson’s 1841 *Evidences in Proof of the Book of Mormon *provided the Church with a rich resource for the study and defense of the Book of Mormon.
…
…
His most extended defense of the book, titled *The Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, *was an essay published in six parts between October 1850 and January 1851 while he was president of the British Mission. It was later gathered into a single volume. This ninety-six-page essay reveals several things about Orson Pratt’s particular approach to defending the Book of Mormon:

1. He took a logical, systematic approach. For example, he began the essay by establishing an either/or proposition. (“Either the book is true or it is not.”) He then proceeded to argue that continuing revelation is necessary, scriptural, and reasonable. With these basic propositions in place, he employed a systematic process of reasoning to substantiate his assertion that the book is in fact true. This tack is not surprising in light of Orson’s interest in and study of mathematics and astronomy.
   1. Orson drew upon the Bible as a proof text. In other words, he showed that the very arguments used to prove the divinity of the Bible could be used to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. Orson used this line of reasoning in many of his other writings and discourses. 4
   2. He relied heavily on archaeological and historical evidence to substantiate his position.
   3. He relied on material **from an earlier period **in Latter-day Saint literature, particularly the writings of his brother Parley. For him, the early events of the Restoration and the Joseph Smith story provided strong evidences of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. His major argument was always that the Book of Mormon provides evidence that God has continued to speak to mankind.
   4. Orson clarified and elaborated on arguments already advanced: first, the “two sticks” argument of Ezekiel 37 Ezek. 37], and second, that North and South America was the land of promise for the remnant of Joseph, as suggested in Genesis 49 Gen. 49].
   5. Finally, he compared events of the Book of Mormon with emerging archeological information on Central America, particularly that by Stephens and Catherwood. 5 For Orson Pratt, the detailed history of the Book of Mormon gave convincing evidence that a young New England farm boy could not have fabricated it. And he was confident that further discoveries would substantiate its truth.
      Your position doesnt hold water in light of your own church leader’s words.
      If you can convince your church leaders that they cant really proove anything then we can continue with the question if Catholics can proove anything.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Chris Jodrey:

I doubt it. This is one of the big flaws I find in your reasoning – “Go study, and if you study a lot, and are real smart, then you’ll know I’m right.”

This isn’t a flaw according to Saint Paul nor Sacred Scripture:
2 Tim 2:15:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

And I encourage you to read that passage in full context… I’m not into proof-texting Scripture; but the board limits how many characters can be put into an individual post.

 

[BJRumph]

So…the RCC can only be true if one asks a Protestant or Buddhist if the RCC is true, and they respond “Yes, it is true”? Really Chris…

And, as others have pointed out, your definition of Proof (ie, something that will convince everyone of its validity when exposed to it) suggests to me that you live in a world that is unprovable, as you will find dissenters on any “proof”, even scientific ones. Even geometrical “proofs” rely upon a rejectable philosophical axiomatic base, meaning someone can reject their “proofs”, even if the rest of the world will, quite justifiably, laugh at them.

 

[John_Paul_III]

Chris,

The base of Mormonism is that the Catholic Church was true.
And through the time of the Apostles and the early Church, the Mormons claim that the Church went through an Apostasy ( meaning that we lost our priesthood). Now the Catholic Church teaches the same thing for the Protestant side, even though they are Christian in belief, they and their priesthood or ministry is not alligned with the seat of Peter.

So is this debate, we have to first agree that the Church was true durring the early Church days. If you do not agree than you are also admitting that your church is just as irrelevent as anyone else’s.

So might first proof to you that the Church is true, is that your Mormon church teaches its doctrine on the fact that our Church was alligned with the Seat of Peter, but durring the dark ages we lost it.

Chris to lose something means that at one time we could agree then we had it.

Now my proof that we did not lose it is this:

We can now both agree that the Church at one point in time was alligned in all truth and with the seat of Peter.

Jesus himself that we both believe to be true set the Church and the birth of His Church was in the upper room prior to going back up to Heaven.

Jesus also promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. Now your own Mormon doctrine is based on the principle that our Church was once true.

So for you to make the case that we lost it, is that Jesus does not keep promises.

Can you give me one example in the bible or anywhere else where Jesus breaks promises or even lies?