Why is it better to be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nogames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brittany said:
It was passed down through apostolic succession. The Church from the very beginning has been Catholic.
Click to expand...
Some Baptists say that the early church was Baptist and they have the apostolic succession from the very earliest times beginning with John the Baptist.
 
nogames said:
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?
Click to expand...
Sure. Apostolic succession.

Now to be sure, the Catholic Church isn’t the only church to claim it. Orthodoxy’s claim is likely as good and then behind that are the claims of churches that have broken off from the Catholic Church; like the Anglicans and Lutherans.

But if the Church is to be “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”, then most of your protestant churches out there cannot claim to be apostolic without degrading the term to practical meaninglessness.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing about making those claims is that a lot of heretics in those first centuries did as well. They said, “We learned this from the Apostles!” And one of the Fathers (I think its Against Heresies by St. Iranaeus) basically calls them out and says, “Show us the list of Apostolic and holy men you recevied these teachings from. Produce your list of Bishops just like we produce our list.” You can imagine how the rest went…
 
nogames said:
There can be no “unbroken succession” of popes. As I pointed out earlier, there have been periods of history in which two or three popes existed all at the same time!
Click to expand...
Genuinely, I don’t see how this breaks the succession of popes.

Confuses it at the moment of multiple claimants? Sure. But three banner-carriers claiming to be the true banner-carrier isn’t the same thing as no banner-carrier.
 
And yet they have no historic evidence to prove this. I think even a harsh critic can agree that at least Catholicism can make a strong case for itself as being the true first Church even if they don’t think it truly is. Furthermore John’s baptism was different than Christ’s so if they came from John the Baptist, their baptism would not be a sacramental baptism but the point is moot anyways because they did not.
 
Last edited:
The major reason I became Catholic is that they take following God’s laws and precepts very seriously. They helped me with sexual immortality issues in particular .

I also like their form of confession, it is properly private and discreet . The priest is not permitted to repeat what he hears to anyone. This church policy reduces the prevalence of gossip, which is generally a sinful and harmful act.
 
LaughingBoy1503 said:
And yet they have no historic evidence to prove this.
Click to expand...
Apparently you have not read the book The Trail of Blood (1931) by James Milton Carroll. In a series of five lectures, he presents the history of Baptist churches, which is a succession from the first Christians.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Hmmm…I’ve heard this assertion does not stand up under scrutiny. I don’t know the details exactly. But I could research it. Or put it in the out there as a forum topic.
 
JamalChristophr said:
I’ve heard this assertion does not stand up under scrutiny.
Click to expand...
I do not doubt that some of the claims of Baptists are not accepted by Roman Catholics. OTOH, however, I have heard that some of the assertions made by Catholics are not accepted by Baptists and many other Christian groups as well.
 
Its not that people have different opinions that matters. The point is what evidence do you have to support your claim.

The trail of blood has been proved wrong by Baptists themselves and is more or less fiction
 
That book is a fine example of historical revisionism. It’s also exceptionally short and lacking in citations. It should not qualify as “history” for anyone interested in the serious pursuit of the subject of Early Church (or any time frame). There are far, far better authors out there.
 
I had been protestant for most of my life, and am now Catholic. The four years I have been Catholic, are far greater than the 45 years I were protestant, every Mass is a profound moment. I just wish there were no protestant, that I would not have to wait so many years of my life, to experience that which Jesus Christ, my Lord, said, in truth.
 
As a protestant, I had the same history, but I were not Southern Baptist, in fact we had no regard for Southern Baptist, but we were that very history, we were christadelphian. When O when is this warped history going to stop, how far shall we go to prove ourselves, and how many unusual belief systems will we adopt for the sake of a history.
 
@nogames

John 6:52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

The Words of Eternal Life
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”

66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
 
Last edited:
Well said, thanks for making known the value of the Holy Mass, it made be really edified.

Psalm 84:1-4 How lovely is your dwelling place, O Lord of hosts! 2 My soul longs, indeed it faints for the courts of the Lord;my heart and my flesh sing for joy to the living God.3 Even the sparrow finds a home,and the swallow a nest for herself where she may lay her young,
at your altars, O Lord of hosts,my King and my God 4 Happy are those who live in your house, ever singing your praise.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.
 
ConfusedTim said:
The trail of blood has been proved wrong by Baptists themselves and is more or less fiction
Click to expand...
So are you claiming that Tertullian did not exist and there was no such group as Montanists in the second century AD?
 
We know Tertullian, and the Montanists, existed. The issue is the Trail of Blood theory (and the book) has scant supporting evidence in the likes of citations and references. It is one thing to put forth a claim, quite another to build it up with citations and references.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top