Why is it better to be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nogames
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi @nogames, you are asking your initial question at a Catholic Forum, where a majority of us are Catholics, and naturally think better of Catholic Church than the Protestant churches. I like that the Catholic Church stemmed from Early Church traditions. I also like the beauty and splendour of the Catholic cathedrals, analogous to the tabernacle at Moses time through which God is glorified.

There are many types of Protestant churches - Anglican, Evangelical, charismatic, non-denominational, etc. Their weaknesses are their variety or split. However, their variety can be ordained by God - out of God’s prophetic imaginations. The variety can become their strength!

I personally endorse all Christ-following churches and determined disciples of Christ.
 
Oh yes definitely! Just take a look through this thread and many ASSUMPTIONS will come up and taken as fact and then even used as an argument…
 
Believe_85 said:
Reading material:
Click to expand...
Thanks, Believe_85, I have read your links. Here is my reaction to it:
  1. The papacy doesn’t seem to be an important biblical teaching… if it’s a biblical teaching at all. How flimsy could that teaching be? As hard as I try, I just can’t see the papacy hinted at in Scripture. If the papacy was so important, we can be quite certain that the bible would be very clear about it.
  2. Where in Scripture is the “unbroken succession” said to be so important, and if it is so important, why couldn’t God have prevented the multiple popes problem from happening? Did God build the CC on chaos and disorder?
  3. The CC has been teaching doctrines that the apostles apparently knew nothing about. When did purgatory start to be taught? The treasury of merit? Indulgences? Justification by faith plus our works?
 
One of the problems with that claim is that the sects that they claim we’re Baptist all had different names and held beliefs that the Baptist Church of today would consider heretical. The Catholic Church has been consistent in it’s beliefs for 2000 years. It’s been years since I really looked into the trail of blood but it was quite apparent to me that all they did was use any sect that was separate from the Catholic Church and claim it as their own regardless of what that sect believed. That’s not evidence of anything, you can’t compare that to the recorded history that exists that makes a case for Catholicism. Not by a long shot. Also, that book is only like 90 or 100 years old… If it was older than the Protestant Reformation maybe it would have a case. Look up the groups listed in the trail of blood. Some were so heretical that the overwhelming majority of protestants and Catholics today would say they are not correct in their doctrine, including Baptists. That book just does not stand up to scrutinty.
 
Last edited:
The papacy is clearly in the Bible to me, but I was raised Catholic and understand scripture through that lens. When we are asking genuine questions about other belief systems, our own biases can make it difficult to understand what each other are trying to say. We talk past each other, we look for confirmation of our own beliefs so as not to be uncomfortable with the possibility we are wrong.
I would challenge you, if you are here to really know what our beliefs are to read more material from Catholic sources on the subjects you have asked about. Otherwise, it seems you may be looking just for debate.
 
Also, everything that is important to Christianity isn’t “clear” in scripture. Case in point in the Trinity. So using that as your dichotomous key is going to make conversations with Catholics difficult.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
LaughingBoy1503:
The Catholic Church has been consistent in it’s beliefs for 2000 years.
Click to expand...
During the inquisition, torture was acceptable, but now it is not.
Click to expand...
Torture is not part of dogma/doctrine. Besides, I think it was the civil authorities that employed torture.
 
“nogames said:
“Believe_85 said:
Reading material:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks, Believe_85, I have read your links. Here is my reaction to it:
  1. The papacy doesn’t seem to be an important biblical teaching… if it’s a biblical teaching at all. How flimsy could that teaching be? As hard as I try, I just can’t see the papacy hinted at in Scripture. If the papacy was so important, we can be quite certain that the bible would be very clear about it.
Click to expand...
Well…so was the Trinity…there was a heresy that was borne…Arianism.

Here is youtube video that discusses the early church…How Do We Know the Early Church? - Dr. William Marshner - YouTube

Dr. Marshner provides info on how the early Christians…viewed Peter…and illustrated him holding the Keys and drew him as Moses. (I believe this is at the 12 minute).
  1. Where in Scripture is the “unbroken succession” said to be so important, and if it is so important, why couldn’t God have prevented the multiple popes problem from happening? Did God build the CC on chaos and disorder?
Click to expand...
Well…for one thing…to disprove heresy…as this writing from the early Church…against the Donatists…

St. Optatus on Schism and the Bishop of Rome | Called to Communion

June 4 is the feast of St. Optatus, a fourth-century bishop of Milevis, in Numidia, about ten miles from the Mediterranean Sea on the coast of northern Africa in what is now Algeria. He was a convert to the Catholic faith, and an African by birth, according to St. Jerome. He died around AD 385,
www.calledtocommunion.com

Later in the work he shows that St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles, was the first to occupy the Episcopal Cathedra in Rome, and that the purpose of this Cathedra was to preserve unity among all Christians, including even the other Apostles. He writes:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25
  1. The CC has been teaching doctrines that the apostles apparently knew nothing about. When did purgatory start to be taught? The treasury of merit? Indulgences? Justification by faith plus our works?
Click to expand...
I think you may want to start a separate thread on each one…but purgatory and indulgences are tied together…so here is a link, for starters on Purgatory…and its roots is traced in the OT…Purgatory: Holy Fire
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think the question is rather, does a claim hold up from a third person perspective when measured with a reasoned and logical argument, for or against a proposition. That has to be the standard in evaluating something.
 
Last edited:
The Eucharist. The body, blood, soul an divinity of Christ rests in the Catholic Church. There is nothing like it outside of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. The Bible; canonized by the Catholic Church. Tradition, 2000 years of teaching, stretching back to the apostles and through them Christ himself.

Those are the reasons I feel compelled to follow the Catholic Church, and would feel bereft in a protestant church, no matter how good the preacher or the fellowship was.
 
pablope said:
Here is youtube video that discusses the early church…

Dr. Marshner provides info on how the early Christians…viewed Peter…and illustrated him holding the Keys and drew him as Moses. (I believe this is at the 12 minute).
Click to expand...
It is 17:20 in the video.
Do you know what source Marshner uses for the art in the first 3 centuries of Christianity? He throws out a lot of specific details including precise numbers of pictures of Peter, but he doesn’t share where he got this information. It seems contrary from what I can easily find on the internet. Since Marshner has a number of other errors in this lecture, I would like to see more details about the facts behind the artwork claims in his presentation. Do you know where I can find that?
 
Even if you are correct, which you are not, that does not make the heretical beliefs of various sects who also disagreed on other doctrine besides heresy any more genuinely Baptist. The fact is that John Smyth founded the Baptist Church in the 1600s. That’s what can be really proven. As already pointed out, the sin of a church leader if he were to endorse torture is not the same as heretical doctrine.
 
Last edited:
That was my response when I was asked in RCIA if I wanted to continue with the process of becoming Catholic.

My being Catholic is simply an answer to prayer. I had a conversion moment and frightened by the fog of protestant denominationalism my earliest prayer was for Jesus ‘to let me know Him the way He wanted to be known’. Within a month I was enrolled in RCIA, confirmed Catholic the next Easter and shortly after that was asked to be an altar server.

Prayer answered. 😀
 
pablope said:
Hi Susanlo,

Am not sure where. I, for one, know Dr. Marshner is a learned man and a scholor, and I do not think he would state or present something without evidence, otherwise, it would denigrate his credibility.

I found this website about him…https://www.christendom.edu/2016/10...aculty-member-dr-william-marshner-now-online/
Click to expand...
At 4:30 in the video he cites Irenaeus’ succession list and states “Peter put in place Clement.” However Irenaeus wrote that Peter and Paul ordained Linus as the Bishop of Rome before Peter and Paul left Rome. Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 3.3

Marshner also cites Tertullian’s succession list. (8:10 in the video) Tertullian did write that Peter ordained Clement directly as Marshner correctly reads in the video. Prescription against Heretics Chapter 32 So Marshner correctly represents Tertullian’s list, however this order does not agree with the succession list produced by the Roman Catholic Church.

I do not know much about Marshner, but I am concerned about the accuracy of what he says. Why does he misquote Irenaeus? Why does he give Tertullian’s list as proof of Papal succession when it actually is historically inaccurate compared to what the “official” succession list is?
 
I remember you asking even more questions some time back on this very video. It was a while ago and I remember checking out all your questions. Long story short the video and the presenter became very questionable very quickly.

Maybe find the link to your previous comments on this and post it.

Regards
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top