Why is it better to be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nogames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
redbetta said:
The Bible as we know it was carefully assembled after the hundreds of texts floating around since the days of the apostles were shifted through and a lot were rejected. Who do you think did that?
Click to expand...
I don’t even have a clue who these individuals were. But as I hinted at above, it was the church that recognized what was inspired vs. what wasn’t.
 
nogames said:
Let me ask you this: how did you come to know that you cannot rely on your own personal interpretation of Scripture alone… that you need the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
The simple answer is… as you would say, by faith. 🙂

The more detailed answer:

Well I know I can’t rely on my own interpretation, because who’s to say that my interpretation is more valid than yours? Jesus did not come out and say that whatever CoeurRempli teaches is the truth.
But He did say to Peter “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed on earth”

This is not my own personal interpretation, this is what the Church teaches. And I know I can trust the Church because as we’ve established before through history, the Catholic Church is the original Church that Jesus founded.
It was this Church that led Christians before the Bible was compiled, it was this Church who had the authority to compile the Bible, and it was this Church that the Bible mentioned as being the "pillar of fire and truth. "
RKS89 said:
I think what everyone here, including yourself nogames, is asking for is reasonable evidence to base a belief system on. The disatisfaction you detect from some of us isn’t directed at you, but for those of us who converted that disatisfaction with Protestantism was the impetus for the change. We are asking you the same questions many of us have asked ourselves before converting. All that is being asked for is a reasonable amount of certainty based on evidence (when evidence is available) to be Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish or whatever other religion. Lee Strobel took none of the claims of Christianity at face value; he poked and prodded and dug deep into history, medical research and more to find reasonable evidence that Christ was who He said and that the Resurrection happened as outlined in the Gospel. Some people can go their entire lives without knowing, or wanting to know, the facts and details Strobel knows now and compiled into his book, and that’s fine. But there’s a lot of people like him on these forums. We aren’t demanding absolute proof, just reasonable evidence.
Click to expand...
Amen!!
 
nogames said:
That is a reasonable objective, and you are right. My point is that digging deeper is a good thing…up to a point. But ultimately, there has to be some limit to OUR ability to understand and process all of the data. I call the parts that fall beyond our abilities, FAITH. It always comes down to faith in the end.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you here!
Really, everything in the end comes down to faith in the end. But there is a lot more evidence that God gives us, than just the Bible, that we cannot ignore.
 
I agree, at the end of the day we can’t “prove” God exists, and, without a time machine, we can’t be 100% certain of anything- neither Protestants or Catholics.

For Catholics who’ve done the digging, we found a (sometimes shocking) amount of evidence that gives us reason to believe the Church has always been Catholic, as Catholic as it is today. These reasons serve to inform our faith in a similar way that we might argue the complexity of the human brain informs us that we didn’t just pop up out of the mud somewhere a billion years ago.

If I read multiple books about Church history and the development of Christian doctrine that all draw the same conclusion- that the early Church was "C"atholic- I can either stop there, accept it and hit the Easter Vigil, or I can say, “Ok, there’s a claim from some historian. Show me how he drew these conclusions.” And you look at the documents he cites to be sure he’s not misrepresenting what these men 2000 years ago wrote, you do some digging to see if he’s a credible historian and scrupulous with his work. You reduce the claims as far as you can, like you said, until you hit a wall. And then you have to make a decision- is this reasonable? Not is there definitive, hard proof, for which we have very little of for any historical matter. Simply asking, based on the evidence available (which there is a lot of), are the Churches’ claims, at the very least, reasonable?

A lot of us have concluded that not only is it reasonable and probable, its also far more reasonable and probable than Protestantism being representative of the Early Church.

That’s why there is a disconnect when you say you “know” by faith, as we do. We believe our Faith is informed by reasonable evidence to be Catholic, which is why we are disatisfied with some of your responses (again, it isn’t directed personally at you).
 
Last edited:
redbetta said:
What happened to the the small c Church?
Click to expand...
Jesus has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The catholic church is still here… even though it is getting harder to find a local church that still honors God’s word.
 
How would you know when you found a modern “catholic” church? What beliefs or practices would mark it as being a remnant from the early centuries of Christianity? Beyond teaching the Word of God?
 
RKS89 said:
I agree, at the end of the day we can’t “prove” God exists, and, without a time machine, we can’t be 100% certain of anything- neither Protestants or Catholics.

For Catholics who’ve done the digging, we found a (sometimes shocking) amount of evidence that gives us reason to believe the Church has always been Catholic, as Catholic as it is today. These reasons serve to inform our faith in a similar way that we might argue the complexity of the human brain informs us that we didn’t just pop up out of the mud somewhere a billion years ago.

If I read multiple books about Church history and the development of Christian doctrine that all draw the same conclusion- that the early Church was "C"atholic- I can either stop there, accept it and hit the Easter Vigil, or I can say, “Ok, there’s a claim from some historian. Show me how he drew these conclusions.” And you look at the documents he cites to be sure he’s not misrepresenting what these men 2000 years ago wrote, you do some digging to see if he’s a credible historian and scrupulous with his work. You reduce the claims as far as you can, like you said, until you hit a wall. And then you have to make a decision- is this reasonable? Not is there definitive, hard proof, for which we have very little of for any historical matter. Simply asking, based on the evidence available (which there is a lot of), are the Churches’ claims, at the very least, reasonable?

A lot of us have concluded that not only is it reasonable and probable, its also far more reasonable and probable than Protestantism being representative of the Early Church.

That’s why there is a disconnect when you say you “know” by faith, as we do. We believe our Faith is informed by reasonable evidence to be Catholic, which is why we are disatisfied with some of your responses (again, it isn’t directed personally at you).
Click to expand...
Well said, and no worries. I don’t take offense very easily. I really enjoy this discussion! You seem to be well informed.
 
nogames said:
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?
Click to expand...
Here’s one, that you’ll not find so plainly and clearly expressed in any Protestant church, if at all, because their understanding of justification is skewed. The Catholic Church teaches the following regarding our judgment, quoting St John of the Cross at the end:
"1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 – or immediate and everlasting damnation.596

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.597"

The Church simply knows God and His will better, having received the gospel first-hand 2000 years ago. And the more we know God and the faith He’s given us, the more we understand the truth of St John’s words. It’s love, a gift of grace by the God who transforms us into His own image, that justifies man, or makes him just, which is why the Greatest Commandments happen to be what they are BTW.
 
Last edited:
Thank you! I confess I’m just a parrot, I just have a good memory.
 
RKS89 said:
How would you know when you found a modern “catholic” church? What beliefs or practices would mark it as being a remnant from the early centuries of Christianity? Beyond teaching the Word of God?
Click to expand...
The modern Catholic Church differs from the ancient church (of the days of the apostles) in their teachings, their authority structure, and in the “object” of their devotion. The early church probably knew nothing of a papal office, purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of Mary, prayers for the dead, or the mixing of our works with God’s grace in salvation. To say that the modern Catholic Church is the same as that of the apostles is a lot like saying that the USA is the same country as the one founded in 1776.
 
Last edited:
nogames said:
Here again, you believe by faith, that Peter was the first pope. But the apostles never treated Peter as though he was a pope, and Jesus called Peter “Satan” just a few paragraphs after calling him a pebble.
Click to expand...
A Pope is what we made of him but that is another topic.

He was apostle and that is not a matter of faith but the truth… Christianity is a religion of apostolic witnesses and succession. So the Catholic Church received first hand from the apostles, St. Paul included.

So, again, I want you to provide specific reference as to why it was not the Catholic Church that the apostles served?
 
Reuben_J said:
So, again, I want you to provide specific reference as to why it was not the Catholic Church that the apostles served?
Click to expand...
The modern Catholic Church differs from the ancient church (of the days of the apostles) in their teachings, their authority structure, and in the “object” of their devotion. The early church apparently knew nothing of a papal office, purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of Mary, prayers for the dead, or the mixing of our works with God’s grace in salvation. To say that the modern Catholic Church is the same as that of the apostles is a lot like saying that the USA is the same country as the one founded in 1776.
 
nogames said:
40.png
Reuben_J:
So, again, I want you to provide specific reference as to why it was not the Catholic Church that the apostles served?
Click to expand...
The modern Catholic Church differs from the ancient church (of the days of the apostles) in their teachings, their authority structure, and in the “object” of their devotion. The early church apparently knew nothing of a papal office, purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of Mary, prayers for the dead, or the mixing of our works with God’s grace in salvation. To say that the modern Catholic Church is the same as that of the apostles is a lot like saying that the USA is the same country as the one founded in 1776.
Click to expand...
Your assertion is not enough for me. You have to give specific and authentic references why you said so. Anybody can say anything they like but it is just a saying only.
 
Reuben_J said:
40.png
nogames:
40.png
Reuben_J:
So, again, I want you to provide specific reference as to why it was not the Catholic Church that the apostles served?
Click to expand...
The modern Catholic Church differs from the ancient church (of the days of the apostles) in their teachings, their authority structure, and in the “object” of their devotion. The early church apparently knew nothing of a papal office, purgatory, indulgences, the veneration of Mary, prayers for the dead, or the mixing of our works with God’s grace in salvation. To say that the modern Catholic Church is the same as that of the apostles is a lot like saying that the USA is the same country as the one founded in 1776.
Click to expand...
Your assertion is not enough for me. You have to give specific and authentic references why you said so. Anybody can say anything they like but it is just a saying only.
Click to expand...
Are you willing to do the same? For example, if you’re going to say that the apostles knew anything of a “papal office” are you willing to prove that assertion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top