Why should one be a Catholic?

[lookaround]

The NT was written by Christian none of them ever heard of a Catholic.

 

[Thing]

The NT was written by Christian none of them ever heard of a Catholic.

The Gospel of John was written by St. John the Apostle; St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Apostle; St. Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp.

St. Polycarp and St. Irenaeus were both Catholic Bishops of the same Church and religion as St. John the Apostle.

 

[lookaround]

Simple time line

First there were Jews, then disciples of Jesus, these disciples preached the Gospel and were called Christians, being a Christian became illegal, eventual it became legal, Christians could all meet, all of Christendom came together (universal church), this continued until an argument started over bread, the argument turned into an issue over authority, the east and west separated, the west separated again, the west separated again, the west separated again.

This is where the questions come:
Did Christ prayer that we be one not happen?
Did Christ find a physical church?
Did Christ find a spiritual church?

 

[Thing]

…
This is where the questions come:
Did Christ prayer that we be one not happen?
Did Christ find a physical church?
Did Christ find a spiritual church?

I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 17

21 That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Matthew 18

17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Acts Of Apostles 20

28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

2 1 Corinthians 14

35 But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

Titus 3

10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:

1 Corinthians 11

19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.

=> There is a Church; It is visable; It is one; It has Jesus Christs Authority.

• There are Heretics; they are ostensibly christian; They are outside the Authoritive Church; Heretics are permitted as St. Paul said so “that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you.” and not because heresies are approved by God.

 

[lookaround]

There is a Church; It is visable; It is one; It has Jesus Christs Authority.

I don’t believe that there is a visible church (as you understand it)
but since you do
Why do you believe it is yours and not the EO (or even the LDS)?

 

[Thing]

I don’t believe that there is a visible church (as you understand it)
but since you do
Why do you believe it is yours and not the EO (or even the LDS)?

Because there was neither EO nor LDS in the first century. There was however the Church of St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, and St. John the Apostle, all three men were Bishops of the same Church, taught the same doctrines, held to the same faith. And they in turn passed that same faith to the next generation of Bishops. That is why I am Catholic, because Catholicism is that same faith of the first christians, of St. John the Apostle and of his disciples St. Polycarp and his disciple St. Irenaeus. Catholicism is Christs Church.

If the ‘church’ is invisable then you cannot - “tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican”-Matthew 18
17.

 

[lookaround]

Because there was neither EO nor LDS in the first century. There was however the Church of St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus, and St. John the Apostle, all three men were Bishops of the same Church, taught the same doctrines, held to the same faith. And they in turn passed that same faith to the next generation of Bishops. That is why I am Catholic, because Catholicism is that same faith of the first christians, of St. John the Apostle and of his disciples St. Polycarp and his disciple St. Irenaeus. Catholicism is Christs Church.

This does not exclude the EO (I am not going to defend the LDS if that’s ok with you)
Not as an insult, but it does not look like you have a good understanding of church history

If the ‘church’ is invisable then you cannot - “tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican”-Matthew 18
17.

first off it does not say tell it to the RCC (or any other denomination).

In charity I will try to make what I have been saying more clear (please bear with me)
It would be silly for anyone to say there is no visible church (you can open up a phone book and find many visible churches).
The CHURCH is the body of Christ, the bride, all of Christendom.
The church is any specific church one attends.

If you think about it, if you and I were to tell the church. We would tell the church we attend.
Now if you believe there was some overall method of communication between all of Christendom in early Christian history. Fine.
but historical we know that its not true.

In fact if you attended the church in Corinth and I attend the church in Thessalonia. I would probably not know of the letters to the Corinthians and you would probably not know of the letters to the Thessalonias.

In case this is still unclear, all I am trying to show you is that this universalism (as you understand it) did not exist until Christianity was legal.

Now am I saying it was wrong for the church to become visibly universal? No (at least I don’t think so).
but somehow the RCC believes that they are the universal church ie all of Christendom.

You might have wanted to make the argument that there are no Christians outside of the RCC. But the RCC does not teach that (it teaches the opposite).

Another way of looking at it
Lets say in all the world there were 4 Christians and all 4 Christians came together in one room. If 2 Christians leave that room there are still 4 Christians in the world. 2 in the room and 2 out of the room.
Some how the RCC views the room as the key component since at one point all 4 Christians were in the same room.
Stranger still is how the average RC will ignore the pre-room history ie a time when these 4 Christians were still Christians but in different rooms.

I know I just went through a lot and I hope it makes some sense.

 

[Thing]

This does not exclude the EO (I am not going to defend the LDS if that’s ok with you)
Not as an insult, but it does not look like you have a good understanding of church history

first off it does not say tell it to the RCC (or any other denomination).

In charity I will try to make what I have been saying more clear (please bear with me)
It would be silly for anyone to say there is no visible church (you can open up a phone book and find many visible churches).
The CHURCH is the body of Christ, the bride, all of Christendom.
The church is any specific church one attends.

If you think about it, if you and I were to tell the church. We would tell the church we attend.
Now if you believe there was some overall method of communication between all of Christendom in early Christian history. Fine.
but historical we know that its not true.

In fact if you attended the church in Corinth and I attend the church in Thessalonia. I would probably not know of the letters to the Corinthians and you would probably not know of the letters to the Thessalonias.

In case this is still unclear, all I am trying to show you is that this universalism (as you understand it) did not exist until Christianity was legal.

Now am I saying it was wrong for the church to become visibly universal? No (at least I don’t think so).
but somehow the RCC believes that they are the universal church ie all of Christendom.

You might have wanted to make the argument that there are no Christians outside of the RCC. But the RCC does not teach that (it teaches the opposite).

Another way of looking at it
Lets say in all the world there were 4 Christians and all 4 Christians came together in one room. If 2 Christians leave that room there are still 4 Christians in the world. 2 in the room and 2 out of the room.
Some how the RCC views the room as the key component since at one point all 4 Christians were in the same room.
Stranger still is how the average RC will ignore the pre-room history ie a time when these 4 Christians were still Christians but in different rooms.

I know I just went through a lot and I hope it makes some sense.

You are taking about different churches.
There were twelve Apostles. But there were not twelve creeds. There was one creed. One system of belief and One set of doctrines. Outside of this one set of doctrines the Apostle tells you there were heretics, those who subverted or denied doctrines.

All of these churches you mention in the first century were established by the Apostles, all taught the same doctrines. They were not different churches, they were the same church in different locations.
Unfortunately for the LDS or any other protestant derived churches, those simply did not exist before the reformation and some did not even exist, its safe to say, five years ago. And they all teach something different. Contradictory doctrines or no doctrines or creed at all.
So how do you know if the church you attend today is the Apostolic church of the first century or one of the heretical churches mentioned by the Apostle St. Paul.
For me, thats an easy question. The church of the Apostles was actually a ‘real’ thing, in that it possessed a real set of beliefs, a real set of doctrines, and a real set of real people. All of this reality really does leave a very real historical record. there are letters from Bishops who learned the faith from the Apostles directly, and letters from them to the next generation of Bishops. There is an historical record which shows the continuity of this Apostolic church, and consequentally the continuity of doctrine.

Now I could go out tomorrow and start my own church, and either have doctrines or not, and if I have I might base them on the Scriptures (which, unfortunately for me were preserved by this Apostolic Church; which makes it difficult for me to explain to myself why I am starting another new church, trying to reinvent the wheel, except this time with new doctrines.) Now I fall into uncertainty as to whether my new church is heretical or not as I now know for a fact that I do not teach the same doctrines the Apostles taught and the Apostles did in fact call christians heretics who did not hold to the doctrines taught by their Church.

 

[lookaround]

So how do you know if the church you attend today is the Apostolic church of the first century or one of the heretical churches mentioned by the Apostle St. Paul.

I answered a question similar to this before.
General/Orthodox Christian theology is usually summarized in the nicene creed.

Now a church does not have to have the creed (publicly posted or spoken) but they must agree to its points in order to be traditional Christianity.

All other theology is either nontraditional, unorthodox, or heretical.

This is not to exclude churches that debate the Filioque or churches that prefer the apostles creed.

If someone believes in those teachings they are Apostolic.

I understand as a Catholic you have a hard time/don’t believe there is a difference between an Apostolic Church and Apostolic Succession.
but as for us to maintain a dialog it will be helpful for you to at least understand where I am coming from.

 

[lookaround]

someone that might be interesting for you to consider is the Apostle Paul (try to understand what I am saying).

We both believe that Paul was an Apostle. However, Paul makes it very clear that he was not made one by the Apostles but by God.

Now I am not suggesting (LDS style) that there are new Apostles, but (once again try to understand) under your theology you probably would not have considered Paul an Apostle if you were alive back then (there were people who didn’t).

I am not saying this to accuse you but consider the idea.
If this was unclear then I apologize.

 

[Thing]

Apostolic succession guarantees that an Apostolic Church is an Apostolic Church.

Succession is like the divine cookie-cutter; but there are many faker-bakers out there, thats why Christ established one church and established it personally. Its why He guaranteed its preservation through time - so we would always find His Church in every age, that is why we find Apostolic succession to be so very interesting and useful.

A continuous Church leaves a continuous trail through history. If your church calls itself Apostolic but does not look like the historical Apostolic Church you ought to wonder why.