Why is it better to be Catholic?

[nogames]

nogames:

I’m curious about why so many people here seem convinced that the Catholic Church is a much better choice than any protestant church. I realize that these kinds of choices can be (for lots of people) mostly subjective, but is there an objectively good reason to choose the Catholic Church over any of the various protestant churches?

Yes, it is the church that Jesus Himself founded. When He told Simon his name’s was now Peter and upon this rock He was going to build His church, He did and He did then not get things started some 1500 years later. The CC is our Lord’s church!

As I suggested in my opening post, lots of people have highly subjective reasons for wanting to be Catholic. Your reason is very common, but since you have no way of objectively knowing that Jesus made a pope out of Peter, or that Jesus thought that one man (besides Himself) should be the head of His church on earth, it is highly subjective…even purely speculative for you to take all of this as factual data. I doubt that anyone who hadn’t heard what the CC teaching is (Matthew chapter 16) would ever think of a “papal office”.

 

[RKS89]

I doubt anyone could have put together the doctrine of the Trinity, either, but we both share it. To suggest Catholicism lacks sufficient “objective” evidence is to make the exact same claim for any other denomination.

 

[pablope]

nearlycatholic:

nogames:

I’m curious about why so many people here seem convinced that the Catholic Church is a much better choice than any protestant church. I realize that these kinds of choices can be (for lots of people) mostly subjective, but is there an objectively good reason to choose the Catholic Church over any of the various protestant churches?

Yes, it is the church that Jesus Himself founded. When He told Simon his name’s was now Peter and upon this rock He was going to build His church, He did and He did then not get things started some 1500 years later. The CC is our Lord’s church!

As I suggested in my opening post, lots of people have highly subjective reasons for wanting to be Catholic. Your reason is very common, but since you have no way of objectively knowing that Jesus made a pope out of Peter, or that Jesus thought that one man (besides Himself) should be the head of His church on earth, it is highly subjective…even purely speculative for you to take all of this as factual data. I doubt that anyone who hadn’t heard what the CC teaching is (Matthew chapter 16) would ever think of a “papal office”.

This is from a non-catholic…Protestants Need the Pope – The Jagged Word

We do. We really, really do. We Protestants need the papacy. We need it for our theology. We need it for our politics. We need it more than we want to admit.

And this is a good thing. (Yeah, I said it Rev. Hess, the papacy is a good thing!) For those Lutherans and other Protestants who think Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, and Saints John Paul II and John XXIII are the antichrist, you should probably stop reading this post right now, bec

Lutherans Should Reconsider the Papacy

By Graham Glover – Last year I tried to make the argument that “Protestants Need the Pope”. Among other things, I suggested that the papacy is critical to the theology of Protestant (and espe…

thejaggedword.com

The Bishop of Rome, more than any other office, has the authority to speak the truths of the faith to a world that denies the saving grace of the Lord Jesus and among a fractured church that becomes even more divided and more confused about its theology as each generation passes…I wonder why we no longer realize this value and make our theological claims not against the papacy, but as a movement that exists in support of and alongside this Bishop.

 

[MichaelP3]

I would love to discuss his works with you but it has been a while since I read them.

For now I would google them and then go through the effort to see if that poster or publisher is a Protestant or Catholic or whatever.

Then we can check to see if it gets to being a biased publishing and maybe then I will give you that Dollar

 

[MichaelP3]

At least from your Catholic view “us” Protestants are “a lot” in there and those WILL have salvation… eventually.

I do not mean this in a bad way. It is way better than what I have seen on here.

 

[nogames]

We do. We really, really do. We Protestants need the papacy. We need it for our theology. We need it for our politics. We need it more than we want to admit.

And this is a good thing. (Yeah, I said it Rev. Hess, the papacy is a good thing!) For those Lutherans and other Protestants who think Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, and Saints John Paul II and John XXIII are the antichrist, you should probably stop reading this post right now, bec

Lutherans Should Reconsider the Papacy – The Jagged Word

The Bishop of Rome, more than any other office, has the authority to speak the truths of the faith to a world that denies the saving grace of the Lord Jesus and among a fractured church that becomes even more divided and more confused about its theology as each generation passes…I wonder why we no longer realize this value and make our theological claims not against the papacy, but as a movement that exists in support of and alongside this Bishop.

This doesn’t even make any sense. If we (protestants) need the papacy, we could just stop being protestant and start being Catholic. It’s not rocket science. The real question is, did Jesus think that we need a papacy? If so, why didn’t He say something about that.

 

[straykat]

I think Catholics and Orthodox both share a lot to claim fullness. But the thing that makes me depart from Orthodox is that they kowtowed to divorce laws (apparently for their rulers). Which isn’t all that different than the Anglican church… but the Anglicans went way off the rails because it was tied to the Reformation as well.

This is unchangeable, and straight out of Christ’s teachings.

 

[RKS89]

How do you know your interpretation of Scripture accurately represents Christ’s intentions?

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

How do you know he truly did not? Scripture says there is lots of stuff he did that was not written down. In the old testament times when a King gave “The keys” to a person that makes that person his representative. When the one who held the keys for the king died, the keys were passed on to someone else. Thus, the current pope has “The Keys” The Jewish community who were the first Christians knew what Christ meant when he said “And I will give to you the keys to the kingdom of heaven” to St. Peter in the 16th chapter of Matthew. It is in these modern times that “And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven” would need a lot more explaining to make sense of since people do not generally talk like that anymore. The papacy is very much in The Bible here and in other places. What Christ never said was that it would take 1500 years for someone to truly get what he meant right for the first time.

 

[nogames]

How do you know your interpretation of Scripture accurately represents Christ’s intentions?

This question assumes that Scripture might be insufficient in certain ways. But ultimately, Scripture contains exactly what God intends for His church; no more, and no less. As to the interpretation of it, I’m not claiming that every person who reads the bible will understand it correctly. But that is why the witness of the Holy Spirit is necessary for His people to understand what they need to understand. Jesus promised His people that He wouldn’t leave them as orphans. He would send the “helper” (the Holy Spirit) to the church to serve God’s purposes in guiding it. So, even if I don’t correctly understand any of the important parts in the bible, God’s purpose isn’t diminished in any way. God will save ALL of those whom the Father has given to Him.

 

[Reuben_J]

This doesn’t even make any sense. If we (protestants) need the papacy, we could just stop being protestant and start being Catholic. It’s not rocket science. The real question is, did Jesus think that we need a papacy? If so, why didn’t He say something about that.

I just want to point to you how ridiculous your questions are.

You do not know what Jesus think, ok? Some of the things you know about Jesus, are what the apostles told you, right?

So do not come around saying Jesus did not think this or Jesus thought it is like this or that. Don’t speculate.

We are Christians today because of the apostles. Without them you would not know Jesus, if they did not tell you or me.

Remember, the apostles. They were the people who communicated / handed to us what Jesus wanted, who and what he is.

You will do fine if you take the words of the apostles seriously. Catholics believe in the apostles, and trace their belief from the tradition of the apostle.

So there you have it - the Pope, as we know it now.

 

[RKS89]

As a Catholic I don’t find Scripture lacking or insufficient; I see the papacy clearly within Matthew’s Gospel. I simply recognize the reality that the Church Fathers and not a few scholars perceived, that Christianity was built on a triune foundation of Apostolic Teaching, Sacred Scripture and the authority of the Church. To suggest otherwise is to introduce a dichotomy that simply never existed within the Early Church and does not exist to this day in the Catholic Church.

 

[straykat]

Paul himself talks about traditions handed down, both in word and writing [2 Thess 2:15]

But even common sense would say as much. If I was managing a group project or something, not everything I wrote in email was the sum total of the project. What about coming into work, day-in, day-out for months on end? That’s all thrown out of the window? I’d fire the people for their incompetence if they thought that But this is precisely what Paul did when he came to churches. And every other teacher and Apostle.

By the 1st century, we already got the Didache, an extrabiblical document of basic guidelines for the churches. Where they did get this from? It’s not the Bible, but it’s still orthodox in it’s teaching. And then we get early letters of bishops into the late 1st to the 2nd century. These men talk about the authority handed down to them. You either believe them or not. But the idea that everyone was a fool until 1500 years later is even more preposterous.

 

[RKS89]

As to the interpretation of it, I’m not claiming that every person who reads the bible will understand it correctly. But that is why the witness of the Holy Spirit is necessary for His people to understand what they need to understand.

I’m curious how you see Objective Truth fitting into this statement.

 

[Pup7]

I learn more about my new faith from these threads than I think anywhere else…CCC and Bible at the ready, guys. Keep 'em coming. I may not be able to answer but I’ve got your back.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

This question assumes that Scripture might be insufficient in certain ways. But ultimately, Scripture contains exactly what God intends for His church; no more, and no less.

The Bible is Materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. The difference is like this. There is a home depot store. There is everything you need in it to build a house, it is materially sufficient, but unless you have the help of someone who knows what they are doing, you cannot build a house. It is not Formally sufficient. Scripture is the same say. Formally sufficient would mean everything is pretty well clear in its meaning and anyone can understand it and know how to utilize it to its fullest use. That is not scripture. It is hard to understand and not always clear. Thus , why God gave us The Papacy because He wants us to know the full truth to the best that our human minds can grasp. And I would bet all I have that the papacy gets it right more than any other denomination or pastor out there.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t think you REQUIRE Catholicism for salvation. I don’t think salvation is that hard, and that’s one reason why the damned suffered so much. But I also don’t think people understand how their soul will be assaulted at Judgement by the forces of evil making the case for your damnation. That’s why asking for Mary’s help is so important.

The trick is being the best person you can be and understanding God’s plan wholly. And there may be more Protestants going to heaven than Catholics, as my old religion teacher said, given how some Catholics act. You can see all of the excuse-making and eager-to-please attitudes that go on here.

 

[Darryl_B]

This doesn’t even make any sense. If we (protestants) need the papacy, we could just stop being protestant and start being Catholic. It’s not rocket science. The real question is, did Jesus think that we need a papacy? If so, why didn’t He say something about that.

I recognized that protestantism is all over the place. All over. Not just a little bit here, a little bit there, but quite frankly all over the place. Some parts of it are quite simply an embarrassment to protestantism even. I solved this dilemma by being “non-denominational”, which suited me very well for a time, but the cracks began to appear, and quite frankly having been there, protestantism is in a very very serious mess. For me who looked at the papacy as just the papacy standing alone as an institution by itself, it would be fine, but I was looking for in persona Christi, and eventually found it, it has always been there since Jesus Christ said, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[nogames]

nogames:

As to the interpretation of it, I’m not claiming that every person who reads the bible will understand it correctly. But that is why the witness of the Holy Spirit is necessary for His people to understand what they need to understand.

I’m curious how you see Objective Truth fitting into this statement.

I didn’t claim that my reason for trusting in Scripture is based on objective knowledge. You trust in the Traditions of the authorities in Rome, while I trust in the bible. My opening post was not a denial of my own presuppositions regarding my ultimate authority. My church isn’t infallible… period! But neither is your church. I believe that Scripture is infallible, and that the Holy Spirit is willing and able to guide His people to understand God’s word.

 

[nogames]

Paul himself talks about traditions handed down, both in word and writing [2 Thess 2:15]

But even common sense would say as much. If I was managing a group project or something, not everything I wrote in email was the sum total of the project. What about coming into work, day-in, day-out for months on end? That’s all thrown out of the window? I’d fire the people for their incompetence if they thought that But this is precisely what Paul did when he came to churches. And every other teacher and Apostle.

By the 1st century, we already got the Didache, an extrabiblical document of basic guidelines for the churches. Where they did get this from? It’s not the Bible, but it’s still orthodox in it’s teaching. And then we get early letters of bishops into the late 1st to the 2nd century. These men talk about the authority handed down to them. You either believe them or not. But the idea that everyone was a fool until 1500 years later is even more preposterous.

I have no objection to church traditions as long as they don’t conflict with Scripture.