Why is the Catholic Religion the truth?

[Aleii]

Yup slowly, you’ve hit the nail on the head about a big problem with religion. In my studies of comparative religion, you can see that other religions have their own ideas of why their religion is the correct one above all others, and people of other religions are just as fervent as Catholics in their beliefs that what they believe/know is correct. You can find people in every major faith that dedicate their lives to, and would die for, what they believe in.

I found this chart to be pretty interesting
religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

I agree with you that it is all highly confusing, even after years of study. I have slowly become convinced that it will take a minimum of a lifetime of study for me to possibly understand what is the “truth”.

 

[Mannyfit75]

1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Catholic Church is the Church which Paul describe in 1 TIm 3:15.

 

[onenow1]

1 Tim 3:15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

The Catholic Church is the Church which Paul describe in 1 TIm 3:15.

Absolutely! there are so many diverging opinions out there in literature I think the devil himself is confused or at the least, scrataching his horns.
Matt.16:18, Jesus builds a Church on Peter.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

Thanks, this is really a neat answer.

I will try to summarize for myself: If I get the wrong answer through prayer, then it is because I have not been exposed enough (via the Catholic community) to the ideas and truth that the Church represents. Sounds reasonable.

Correspondingly, if it get an answer that the Reborns are in fact the true Religion, then this probably means I hung out too much with them.

So then in order for me to make sure I get the right answer from God I must choose my friends wisely .

Of course, it would have all been much simpler if God could just give me the right answer in the first place. Imagine if God gave the same answer to everyone in the world who prays to Him about this, regardless of whom they hung out with. It could actually mean a radical decline in the number of confused/strayed Religions. In fact, imagine a world with only one Religion (whichever that might be), imagine how much confusion, pain and suffering could have been avoided.

But I guess there is no point complaining, this is not going to happen.

I have met a number of ‘born-again’ christians and am usually impressed with their ‘sincerity’ of faith…BUT…when you ask them what the term ‘born-again’ means , they , of different protestant churches , often give you many differing answers !!! The bible tells us to repent and follow Christ…yet when you tell a protestant that you went to confession [repentance] today and you are now born-again…they won’t believe you !!! This is why i say that i am a born-again catholic , when anybody asks me what denomination i belong to.I hope you find a ‘church’ to call home…i personally find our faith to be very fair and reasonable…and i have never heard a priest/deacon/nun run down any other denomination…ever !!! Peace now more than ever !!!

 

[Robert902]

It is only the Catholic Church that could trace its history back to the apostles. All historical records support this.

For the Catholic Church, Christ is the head of the Church. No argument over that. But Jesus also made Peter as the head of the Church. Of course, Peter is not above of Christ but a servant of Him.

The flock, meaning the Church, had been entrusted to Peter’s care by saying “Feed my sheep”.

John 21:15-17

15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

Ephesians 2:20 “having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.” God means what He says and says what He means , and He said apostles, and He meant apostles. Peter is only one apostle, so he can’t singularly be the foundation of the church. This fact cannot be dismissed. But if one is to believe that The Apostle peter was the first pope, Gods plural use of the word apostle must be ignored. For me I will never ignore God’s word, no matter what anyone tells me.

God Bless
Robert

---

God commands us to “test all things”.​

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Are you (and Augustine) then saying that God purposefully made the Bible (and His revelation in general) ambiguous?

Yes.

And as a result there are 30000 Christian denominations?

I think the denominations resulted not from the ambiguity inherent in God’s natural and supernatural revelation, but instead resulted from a lack of faith and charity.

Even if I want to “respond to Him in faith” how would I know which denomination or Bible based Religion I must do this through.

That’s the faith journey that everyone has to travel based upon their own situation. For me, among the 33,000+ denominations, I started that journey by asking one question: How big is your book of Daniel?After much prayerful discernment regarding what the earliest Christian view of Scripture, Tradition, and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff meant, through “calculatis eliminatus” the solution became very clear in my mind. After resolving to live a Catholic life and experiencing the metanoia which resulted, it became very clear in my heart.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

St. Augustine, De doctrina Christiana:

…hasty and careless readers are led astray by many and manifold obscurities and ambiguities, substituting one meaning for another; and in some places they cannot hit upon even a fair interpretation. Some of the expressions are so obscure as to shroud the meaning in the thickest darkness. And I do not doubt that all this was divinely arranged for the purpose of subduing pride by toil, and of preventing a feeling of satiety in the intellect, which generally holds in small esteem what is discovered without difficulty.*… ****what is attended with difficulty in the seeking gives greater pleasure in the finding. *.-- For those who seek but do not find suffer from hunger. Those, again, who do not seek at all because they have what they require just beside them often grow languid from satiety. Now weakness from either of these causes is to be avoided. Accordingly the Holy Spirit has, with admirable wisdom and care for our welfare, so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger, and by the more obscure to stimulate our appetite. For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere…

…although that light may begin to appear clearer, and not only more tolerable, but even more delightful, still it is only through a glass darkly that we are said to see, because we walk by faith, not by sight, while we continue to wander as strangers in this world" [Bk II, Ch. VI, VII]

“…let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church…give a meaning in harmony with the faith” [Bk III, Ch. II]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**Slowly,

**I suggest you also reflect upon what St. Ephraim the Syriac, a deacon from the 4th century, says with regard to Sacred Scripture:

 Lord, who can grasp all the wealth of just one of your  words.  What we understand is much less than what we leave behind.  Like thirsty  people who drink from a fountain, for your word, Lord, has many shades of  meaning, just as those who study it have many points of view.

The Lord has colored his word with many hues, so that each person who studies it can see in it what he loves. He has hidden many treasures in his word, so that each of us is enriched as we meditate on it. The word of God is a tree of life that from all its parts offers you fruit that is blessed. It is like that rock that is open in the desert, which from all its parts gave forth a spiritual drink. He, who comes into contact with some share of its treasure, should not think that the only thing contained in the word is what he himself has found. He should realize that he has only been able to find that one thing from among many others. Nor, because only that one part has become his should he say that the word is void, empty, and look down on it. Because he could not exhaust it, he should give thanks for its riches.

Be glad that you are overcome and do not be sad that it overcame you. The thirsty man rejoices when he drinks, he is not downcast because he cannot empty the fountain. Rather let the fountain quench your thirst, than have your thirst quench the fountain. Because if your thirst is quenched and the fountain is not exhausted, you can drink from it again whenever you are thirsty. But if, when your thirst is quenched, the fountain also is dried up, your victory will bode evil for you.

So be grateful for what you have recieved and don’t grumble about the abundance left behind. What you have received and what you have reached is your share. What remains is your heritage. What at one time you are unable to receive, because of your weakness, you will be able to receive at other times, if you persevere. Do not have the presumption to try to take in one draft what cannot be taken in one draft. And do not abandon out of laziness what you may only consume little by little.

[St. Ephraim, cited by Dr. Scott Hahn, *The End: A Study of the Book of Revelation

, (St. Joseph Communications, audio series)]

 

[eqreed]

I am still not sure how I am supposed to respond to this though. Even if I want to “respond to Him in faith” how would I know which denomination or Bible based Religion I must do this through.

Slowly,

First of all, thank you for posting your questions and responses. This thread has been really enjoyable to read.

I must ask, what exactly are you trying to do? Are you trying your best to make some kind of decision? If so, what will it take for you to make a decision?

To me it sounds like you’re trying to figure out which is the “best” religion. Most religions and denominations have very smart people who all make good arguments. I admire and respect that you are trying your best to make a decision based upon sound reason. My fear is that you will never arrive a satisfactory answer. How can our finite mind grasp what an infinite God is doing without it being greatly “dumbed down” to our level?

Have you considered more experiential approaches? If you suspect God might be the kind of God that hears individuals, ask God for help with the decision. If there are churches or religions you are considering, attend them.

My own belief system is that if you are truly seeking God honestly, God will respect and honor that, and will allow himself/herself/whatever to be found.

 

[slowly]

Yes.
I think the denominations resulted not from the ambiguity inherent in God’s natural and supernatural revelation, but instead resulted from a lack of faith and charity.

So you think it is impossible that the ambiguity in God’s revelation can have anything to do with the 30 000 Christian denominations? Given how even on this forum there is so much disagreement in the interpretation of scripture I am surprised that you can hold to such a belief.

And you suggest that Protestants are confused because they have a lack of faith! Ok I don’t know that many Protestants but I must tell you from my experience Protestants show just as much faith in their Religion and God as any Catholic. If you truly believe that Protestants have no or little faith then I think you and me have a totally different understanding of the meaning of the word “faith”.

A more plausible position would have been if you had said that Protestants had faith but that it was a faith in the wrong Church and Religion. In that case I would still argue that it is the ambiguity of God’s revelation that allowed them to have this erronous faith.

 

[slowly]

**Slowly,

**I suggest you also reflect upon what St. Ephraim the Syriac, a deacon from the 4th century, says with regard to Sacred Scripture:

…
The Lord has colored his word with many hues, so that each person who studies it can see in it what he loves.
…

Just to show you how easily confusion can arise, I understand this quote actually to support the Protestant case, in that it suggests that personal study is sufficient to come to valid conclusions about the Bible and that the authority of the Papacy is not an integral part of this process. In fact no where in this quote is the role of the Church mentioned. And sure, it is possible that in that era it was less important to point this out as everyone assumed this fact. Still I can see how Protestants can find support for their approach in this text as well.

Also, if what the author is saying is true does this not also give Protestants the right to make their interpretation of the Bible?

 

[slowly]

Slowly,

First of all, thank you for posting your questions and responses. This thread has been really enjoyable to read.

I must ask, what exactly are you trying to do? Are you trying your best to make some kind of decision? If so, what will it take for you to make a decision?

These questions are what my inquiry really is all about. I am trying to find the One True Religion (assuming there is such a thing), the Religion that is more true that any other Religion. And I am looking for that one or two criteria that will make it obvious that I have found this Religion. Surely if this One True Religion exists, should it not be possible to clearly establish it as such?

Although my discussion here has focussed largely on the Catholics vs Protestant case my search actually includes all Religions.

To be honest I don’t quite know what I am looking for and I hope that I will recognize it when I see it. I know it is a bit unfair to the posters here and this is probably a good point to thank all the posters here for their patience and effort. What I do know is that arguments that are used by more than one Religion are problematic since the same argument does not appear to unambiguously point to the One True Religion. The historical/scriptural argument is an example of such an argument.

To me it sounds like you’re trying to figure out which is the “best” religion. Most religions and denominations have very smart people who all make good arguments. I admire and respect that you are trying your best to make a decision based upon sound reason. My fear is that you will never arrive a satisfactory answer. How can our finite mind grasp what an infinite God is doing without it being greatly “dumbed down” to our level?

I am glad you appreciate the complexity of my quest here. I realize that it may not be possible to get an answer in this way but there are not many other options. Also, if there is a One True Religion, why is not possible to find it in this way? Should it not be clearly evident that this One Religion is special in some way?

Have you considered more experiential approaches? If you suspect God might be the kind of God that hears individuals, ask God for help with the decision. If there are churches or religions you are considering, attend them.

My own belief system is that if you are truly seeking God honestly, God will respect and honor that, and will allow himself/herself/whatever to be found.

I realize that an experiential approach may be inevitable. Yet I am discouraged a bit by the fact that this experiential approach is how most people come to faith within their (10000) Religions. Most peoples’ faith in their Religions are based on their experience of God within their respective Religions. To be clear, most people that try out Mormonism becomes Mormons, most people that try out Catholocism becomes Catholics. The same goes for all the variants of Protestant churches, all the Hindu Religions, Hare Krishnas, Jehova Witnesses and so on. What exactly should I expect when I experience Catholicism that would be different from all those other Religions? And no, the answer is not “God will tell you that Catholocism is the truth”. All Religions claim that this is what God will tell me if I study their Scriptures and pray to God.

Another question that I have pondered on is why do all believers assume that their Religion is the only Religion where God will answer your prayers and tell you that their Religion is the truth? I wonder because this is exactly what followers from all Religions have so far told me. So when a person from Religion X tells me that I am supposed to take this experiential approach seriously yet the person from Religion X does not take a person from Religion Y seriously when he says exactly the same thing, how am I suppose to understand this? I do not mean any offence by this but it really seems that many believers of all Religions tend to fence themselves off from the ideas of other Religions by maintaining in their thoughts fallacious caricatures of all other Religions.

This entire situation astonishes me.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I believe that you will find that Catholics believe that God answers all prays from those that beseech Him in faith and belief. The sad thing is when people don’t understand that prayers are sometimes answered in the negative for reasons only God knows. Each individual is held to his/her knowledge of God.

Now I believe that the Catholic Church has the full truth not just part of it like many other religions. This is who I am I am a Catholic Christian. Thus I expect to be held to the teachings of my church and faith.

 

[Eileen_T]

It was talking to a couple of Mormon missionaries that started my quest to find the Truth. I did not have a Forum (or the Internet) where I could ask questions, yet it was my firm conviction that if there was a God it was vital that I find it out and worship Him/Her the way that god wished to be worshipped.

I used logic and reason to work my way throughproofs for the existence of God, to Christianity and then to Catholicism, although at that stage I really, really did not want the Catholic Church to be the ONE! (And I didn’t really rely, initially, on the Bible for my source.)

Since then, I have been confirmed in my belief countless times. Catholicism is the only way that makes perfect sense of life.

 

[slowly]

I believe that you will find that Catholics believe that God answers all prays from those that beseech Him in faith and belief. The sad thing is when people don’t understand that prayers are sometimes answered in the negative for reasons only God knows. Each individual is held to his/her knowledge of God.
…

I am not sure what you are saying here. Please elaborate on how this belief would help me to establish whether Catholocism is the one true Religion.

Thanks

 

[aur]

Hi

I am looking for a few good reasons why Catholics believe that their Religion is true.

Thanks

Schmidt and Perkins, in their book Faith and Reason, cover extensibly the answer to your question. I suggest you read the book. In their approach they demonstrates, thru reason, that:

1. The Bible is authentic, entire and trustworthy. They dedicate several chapters to this claim. Bottom line, they show how the Bible is not invention, forgery nor have been corrupted.
2. The Bible, as a historical proof (plus other documents and history), shows that Jesus is God and his followers believed He was God. (Mainly by His resurrection)
3. Jesus loves all men equally and wanted all men to have access to the SAME truth revealed by Him to his apostles and disciples.
4. If the uncorrupted truth will be preserved thru the ages then and infallible “means” must be put in place by Jesus.
5. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Jn 14,25 & Jn 16,12), and His promise to be with them until the end of the times (Mt 28,20), Jesus establishes His infallible Church (Mt 16, 18 and 1 Tim 3,15)
6. In his Church, Jesus himself prays for the infallibility of Peter (Lk 22,31)
7. The gift of infallibility is promised to the apostles (Lk 10,16 “Whoever listens to you, listens to me”) specially Peter. (Mt 16,19 “tie and untie”)

So, back to the question: Why I believe the Catholic Church is the true church? Because I believe Jesus is God and He established and infallible Church so I can access to the truth revealed by Him 2000 years ago. Other Christian denominations, can not give this assurance. They were not there and the they were not promised the gift of infallibility.

Good luck in your quest.
Armando

 

[slowly]

It was talking to a couple of Mormon missionaries that started my quest to find the Truth. I did not have a Forum (or the Internet) where I could ask questions, yet it was my firm conviction that if there was a God it was vital that I find it out and worship Him/Her the way that god wished to be worshipped.

I used logic and reason to work my way throughproofs for the existence of God, to Christianity and then to Catholicism, although at that stage I really, really did not want the Catholic Church to be the ONE! (And I didn’t really rely, initially, on the Bible for my source.)

Since then, I have been confirmed in my belief countless times. Catholicism is the only way that makes perfect sense of life.

People like you are an exception. I specifically used the word “most” in my argument when I said most people that try out the Mormon Religion become Mormons.

Interesting point though, the Mormons told me that the only way to really know whether Mormonism is true is to study their scriptures, to participate in the Mormon practices and community and to ask God in prayer whether Mormonism is true. Unless you have done all of this (and it is not clear from your post whether you did) you may not know whether Mormonism is really the true Religion (at least according to the Mormons that is).

 

[KathleenElsie]

I am not sure what you are saying here. Please elaborate on how this belief would help me to establish whether Catholicism is the one true Religion.

Thanks

Other religions exclude the possibility of people that do not belong to their “true” beliefs to enter into Heaven. Like an exclusive club.

It is only the Holy Mother Church that understands and teaches that everyone in Heaven is not Catholic. A truly compassionate and just God looks at what we have been exposed to and the knowledge we have learned in this life to judge us. Our faith is inclusive no exclusive.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So you think it is impossible that the ambiguity in God’s revelation can have anything to do with the 30 000 Christian denominations?

For example, Martin Luther was a Catholic Augustinian monk, who took a life-long vow to God which was three-fold: a vow of poverty, a vow of celibacy, and a vow of obedience. He vowed to God to live according to the rule of St. Augustine. Did he keep his promise to God? No. While some parts of Scripture may be ambiguous, Hebrew 13:17 is very clear: “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

There was but one universal Church of Christ in the first century. Those who broke away from that one Church commit heresy and/or schism, which results from a lack of faith and charity. Do the first and second century fathers of Christian teach Protestantism or Catholicism?

While some parts of Sacred Scripture may indeed be ambiguous, just as God’s natural revelation is sometimes ambiguous and “mysterious,” that doesn’t mean that we can simply reject that which is clearly revealed. Some ambiguity and mystery is not the same as saying that everything in God’s revelation is ambiguous.

The Christians of the first and subsequent centuries held to an ancient rule of faith which was the norm or standard for determining Christian truth. Using this rule of faith, one can clearly see and easily know that which they needed to know to become justified and attain salvation.

Do you know what that ancient Christian rule of faith was?

According to Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelly:

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation*, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring* grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness” (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48)

According to another Protestant historian, Ellen Flessman-Van Leer:

Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers." (Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church, p.188)

As the quote from St. Augustine I provide earlier stated:

…consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church…give a meaning in harmony with the faith" [Bk III, Ch. II]

Why did they choose to reject the ancient rule of faith, the very standard that would have helped them from splintering into over 33,000 denominations?

May God enlighted them and bring them back to that ancient path they long ago abandoned. That ancient path is very clear, when one properly applies the ancient rule of faith.

Regarding faith and charity, I meant this in the theological sense. That is, faith in God, love for God. Faith and love for God includes obedience to God, who clearly affirmed the authority of the Church he established, saying, “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me.” (Luke 10:16).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Just to show you how easily confusion can arise, I understand this quote actually to support the Protestant case

I don’t think so, given the context of all of St. Ephraim’s writings. He was Catholic.

… in that it suggests that personal study is sufficient to come to valid conclusions about the Bible

I agree. How is that not Catholic?

Moreover, written communication alone is ambiguous. I can surely draw some rather bizarre conclusions about quantum physics, for example, if I were to simply pick up a book about it and attempt to teach it to myself. However, Christianity is not a self-study correspondence course, it never has been. Paul, for example, did not simply send letters for them to guess at what he meant. He also visisted those communities and taught them with two-way communications, as other fields of study benefit from. Christianity was taught by those vested with teaching authority by God. This is the Scriptural view and also remains the Catholic view. Your claim would make a lot of sense if I were Protestant claiming a Bible alone epistemology. I’m not.

I don’t think I should learn medicine by simply reading book. Nor do I claim that reading alone suffices for Christianity, which pertains to the well-being of one’s soul. Such important matters require the help of teachers who are vested with teaching authority.

… and that the authority of the Papacy is not an integral part of this process.

That’s not from either St. Ephraim or Scripture, so I don’t see how you came to that conclusion. The NT Church, according to Scripture had ONE GUY as the chief apostle: Peter. A broad consensus of Protestant Bible scholar admit this. Catholics see no Scriptural reason why that hierarchical government established by Jesus himself should no longer be in accord with this Biblical construct having ONE GUY as chief pastor of the universal Church.

In fact no where in this quote is the role of the Church mentioned.

Correct. I gave it to you so that you can see that the Church has always understood Scritpure to be purposefully ambigious in some of its passages. If you wan’t to know more about the Biblical reasons for the ONE GUY as chief pastor of the universal Church, see here:

Unity of Command … not just a good idea, but biblically established

Upon this Rock … is the rock of Matt 16:18 Peter?

Bind and Loose and the Keys of the Kingdom

Also, if what the author is saying is true does this not also give Protestants the right to make their interpretation of the Bible?

Everyone must interpret the revelation of God. That’s why God gave it to us. We all must must interpret nature, although if I were to assert an interpretation of the “mystery” and “ambiguity” of nature so as to claim the world is flat, that wouldn’t necessarily mean my interpretation is true, does it?

Like wise, we must all interpret God’s supernatural revelation. Catholic Church is PRO interpretation. Yet, they are against erroneous interpretations.

There’s a rule of faith which Christians have always followed. Just like scientist who refuse to follow the scientific method are bound to error, so too are Christians who refuse to follow the Christian rule of faith in their interpretation of God’s supernatural revelation.