Why with 35,000 other options would someone wish to be a Catholic?

[Della]

Reply: Awesome Post! Thanks!

as an FYI, the 2002 catholic Alamanac claims 33,000. I’ve seen reports published this year (please don’t ask me to prove it, as I throw much more away than I keep) that calims 40,000. But “Nuff said on that topic.”

Some really good reply’s but no one has answered my orginal question. "With ??? choices why would someone choose to be a Catholic? With 10% of Americans fallen away, it must be a tough task?

PJM

Thank you for your kind words.

The reason why people ought to choose Catholicism is because it was founded by Christ himself, has an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles to our modern day bishops and pope, teaches the truth (no matter the prevailing spirit of the age), and has Christ’s own promise of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. What more should motivate people to enter the Catholic Church?

 

[PJM]

It may be bad to have 5,000 denominations but on what account should any protestant bother to listen to people who lie and claim there are 35,000 then there are 5,000? Any Catholic who is trying to convince me that they have the “Fullness of TRUTH” will get absolutely no where with me or most of my fellow protestants by using falsehoods and justifying it by saying “Well 5,000 is bad too!”

As an asside I did and posted a Google search yesterday and it said 34, 000 BUT that got as much flack as my number.

The argument here is that people are trying to convince us that they have the fullness of truth by using a lie. Why do so many Catholics not see that it is not only unwise but its morally WRONG?

Reply: I’m the culpert who started this string:blush:

I’m ready to admit that I was wrong!

I know that I read the stat somewhere but cannot now find it so I recant the number 35,000. Sorry that it became more of an issue than the REAL question.

"Why would someone choose to be a informed, practicing Roman Catholic, when 1. We “all?” beleive in Jesus, and 2. There seem to be alot of choices that are easier?

Some have given a partial answer but without offering any evidence to back up their claims. One post was exceptional, but not fully complete, and left some room for doubt.

Syele;4347006], you make a very valid point about “truth.”

So I will ask my question in a different manner: Is there proof that one should be a Roman Catholic?

Again, I offer sincere apologies for causing such a brew-hah with the HUGE NUMBER.

God’s continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[Syele]

Sola scriptura, from my understanding, is the Bible is the sole authority…

There are many many Protestants who don’t follow Sola Scriptura. Im not even so sure Martin Luther coined that term as most of the 5 solas were made up later as a way to summarize teachings. They were never meant to be taken individually in the first place.

Through Martin Luther’s actions, Protestantism was started. It wasn’t long others, through their own interpretation of scriptures, schismed and other denominations were started.

It wasn’t Martin Luthers intention to begin a new denomination. And I really doubt he wanted the others to sprout from it once it did. He actually Tried to work with the Church before leaving it, otherwise there would never have been any theses nailed to any door. If Martin Luther had never existed, more denominations still would have happened. there were groups with differing views well before him and there would be more after him.

Do as they say seems to indicate the Lord knew the teachings would be true, even though those who sat upon the chair were “men” who did not do as they taught themselves.

Hypocrites are not regulated to only Protestant churches.

I apologize and did not mean to assume anything about you. My statement as more a question than an assertion. I saw your profile and saw Christian but do not know your denomination or affliation and I believe you’ll admit that covers alot of different doctrines. I’m used to most that reject the authority of the Catholic Church on these forums, using scriptures to justify their rejection.

I am non-denominational in a large part because I believe that denominations cause disunity, something I think you will agree with at least to a point. I used to have a more specific set of beliefs posted in my profile but people complained. Of course people complain now that I’m not specific… So I suppose I really cant win. My beliefs are primarily Arminian/Wesleyian, but I do not “Follow” Arminus and Wesley rather I learned of them well after I began to believe what I do from Bible study. If I use scripture to reject the Authority of the Catholic Church then it is because I am unconvinced the Authority of the Catholic Church is coinciding with Scripture. Since I have been convinced Scripture is Truth and is God Breathed anything that does not agree with it must be incorrect. This is simple logic based on what I know to be true, not on a hatred for any one or any authority. If A is 100% true and B does not agree with A then B is false. If B agrees with A and A is 100% true than we can believe both. One needs no bias for or against B for this to have the same answer.

This is where we may differ. The truth the Protestant Churches are striving to understand came from the Catholic Church. That is their faith in Christ, whichever of the sacraments they have accepted, whichever traditions they have accepted…those “parts” they have came from the Catholic Church, which Catholics believe still have all the parts.

The Truth we strive to understand came from God first. Period. If the Catholic Church recognized and accepted that truth then awesome, but it did not come form the Catholic Church first. Gods plans were set in motion not only before the Catholic Church existed but before time began.

The Catholic Church is part of Protestant History, in that you will get no argument from me, but the Catholic Church was not “First” God is the First and the Last. My faith in Christ is not Dependant on the Catholic Church any more than it is Dependant on the Jews. You firmly and sincerely believe the Catholic Church still has all the parts. The Jewish people still believe they still have all the parts. Being first, or second as opposed to being 300th or 500th or whatever number proves nothing in itself. In many cases, the last will be first, and the first last. Who was first proves nothing. That God CAN preserve His Church does not prove that He preserved it in the manner you believe nor that He preserved it exactly in a certain form.

The Bible itself does not contain all the information about Christ, there’s no way I could write everything in one thread, much less a single post.

The Bible cannot contain everything there is to know about Christ, and definitely not everything there is to know about everything. That does not make it less true in what it covers and does not mean things contradicting it can be true. I was not asking you to cover everything thing in a single post. I was questioning the credibility of anyone willing to use false information to make a true point.

I just don’t think anyone is intentionally stating falsehoods in these respects. I tried to clarify that with my example of, “100 denominations is too many”.

I think many are intentionally stating falsehoods. Do a search here on CAF for “35,000 denominations” and you will find 81 threads. I bet there are even more if you include all the ones that say 35k or 250,000 or 33,000, or “hundreds of thousands” and other variations. Most of those threads have at least one person, if not several in them pointing out that that number is false. Some go in depth for pages upon pages of people showing all the flaws in Barretts study. Anyone on CAF who has been in any of those threads knows they are not being totally honest when using that number to be dramatic and get attention.

Besides that most people in these threads when called on using bad info say “it doesn’t matter cause more than one is bad.” IOW if you can convince me that having denominations is bad and to join the Catholic Church then it doesn’t matter what lies you spread to get that result. I’m sorry but you cannot convince me that that is ok. Last I checked the Catholic Church condemns it too.

 

[Syele]

MarcoPolo:

You don’t have to listen to Catholics. Just look at the numbers and join us in condemning this sifting of wheat.

“For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
We already know from scripture that only a few find it. Yelling “A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE AREN’T FINDING IT!” hardly proves you are the one who found it.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

On the issue of “who was first”, I present Matthew 20.

"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

"‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
"He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

"But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

hardly proves you are the one who found it.

I’m not trying to prove the truth of Catholicism in this thread. I am beckoning you to join me in condemning the number of churches that teach conflicting doctrine as clearly NOT Christ’s plan. Will you do so?

 

[Syele]

Reply: I’m the culpert who started this string:blush:

I’m ready to admit that I was wrong!

I know that I read the stat somewhere but cannot now find it so I recant the number 35,000. Sorry that it became more of an issue than the REAL question.

"Why would someone choose to be a informed, practicing Roman Catholic, when 1. We “all?” beleive in Jesus, and 2. There seem to be alot of choices that are easier?

Some have given a partial answer but without offering any evidence to back up their claims. One post was exceptional, but not fully complete, and left some room for doubt.

Syele;4347006], you make a very valid point about “truth.”

So I will ask my question in a different manner: Is there proof that one should be a Roman Catholic?

Again, I offer sincere apologies for causing such a brew-hah with the HUGE NUMBER.

God’s continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.

Thank you, I did not see this post cause you posted at the same time I did.

I like your rephrased question much more . Id like to see proof that one should be Roman Catholic. So far, most of what I have seen is sincere and heartfelt but not necessarily proof.

 

[Syele]

I’m not trying to prove the truth of Catholicism in this thread. I am beckoning you to join me in condemning the number of churches that teach conflicting doctrine as clearly NOT Christ’s plan. Will you do so?

Everyone cannot be correct as long as any conflict exists However, it is not best to accept what is wrong for the sake of unity only.

 

[wcknight]

Pick a number any number, 5, 10, 100, 1000 or 5000+ the point is NOT how accurate the number is or how big or outrageous the number is. The fact that there are many different interpretations of what the Truth is, is the underlying reason why the Catholic Church is far better choice than any other Christian denomination.

Protestants claim that anyone reading scriptures will be inspired by the Holy Spirit and will automatically be led to the Truth. The problem is there are thousands of Truth because every time someone disagrees with their church’s interpretation of the truth they move down the street and open up their own church.

It happens with such regularity that there is no accurate count of how many sub denominations there are. Only God knows and given a few days, even He would be wrong by the time it’s published.

At least with the Catholic Church there is only one interpretation of the Truth. You don’t need a calculaor or score card to figure out which denomination you should belong to or which church has the same interpretation that you do. Move to another city or another country and the Catholic Church there has the exact same interpretation of scriptures as any other Catholic Church.

It’s simple logic that IF the Holy Spirit infallibly interpreted the Truth for anyone reading scriptures that He would in fact lead EVERYONE to interpret the Truth one way and only way only.

IF there are hundreds or thousands of different views of the Truth, pretty soon, no one will recognize it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There are many many Protestants who don’t follow Sola Scriptura. Im not even so sure Martin Luther coined that term as most of the 5 solas were made up later as a way to summarize teachings. They were never meant to be taken individually in the first place.

While Martin Luther did not “coin” the term “sola scriptura”, it was his argument of his private interpretations were all that mattered that initiated those who did.

Again, I can agree that it was not Martin Luther’s intention, it was his ultimate decision to schism that started the reformation. I cannot speculate as to whether or not denominations would have split had not Martin Luther started the wheels rolling.

Hypocrites are not regulated to only Protestant churches.

I agree with this and hope you did not take my post to mean so. I was saying that even in Christ’s Church there would be “men” who did other than what they taught. My point was, that Christ seemed to be saying the teachings would be safe, even if the teacher did not live what they taught.

I am non-denominational in a large part because I believe that denominations cause disunity, something I think you will agree with at least to a point. I used to have a more specific set of beliefs posted in my profile but people complained. Of course people complain now that I’m not specific… So I suppose I really cant win. My beliefs are primarily Arminian/Wesleyian, but I do not “Follow” Arminus and Wesley rather I learned of them well after I began to believe what I do from Bible study. If I use scripture to reject the Authority of the Catholic Church then it is because I am unconvinced the Authority of the Catholic Church is coinciding with Scripture. Since I have been convinced Scripture is Truth and is God Breathed anything that does not agree with it must be incorrect. This is simple logic based on what I know to be true, not on a hatred for any one or any authority. If A is 100% true and B does not agree with A then B is false. If B agrees with A and A is 100% true than we can believe both. One needs no bias for or against B for this to have the same answer.

Again, it was speculation on my part and I did not mean any offense. There are many sola scripturists here.

I assume you know the history of the Bible. With that assumption, I will say that the faith and Church existed several hundred years prior to the Bible becoming one complete book through the canonical process. Many were coverted to Christianity before there was a Bible. It was the Catholic Church that made the decision on what letters and epistles were to be a part of the complete book we know as the Bible.

The Truth we strive to understand came from God first. Period. If the Catholic Church recognized and accepted that truth then awesome, but it did not come form the Catholic Church first. Gods plans were set in motion not only before the Catholic Church existed but before time began.

No argument here. I don’t think any Catholic would argue that the truth did not come from God. You’re right, it’s awesome.

The difference in Jewish people believing they have all the parts as opposed to Catholics believing they have all the parts, is Christianity. The Jewish people, as far as I know, are still waiting for the Messiah. They reject that Christ was the Messiah. Christians, believe Christ was the Messiah, who was the new and everlasting covenant with God.

The Bible cannot contain everything there is to know about Christ, and definitely not everything there is to know about everything. That does not make it less true in what it covers and does not mean things contradicting it can be true. I was not asking you to cover everything thing in a single post. I was questioning the credibility of anyone willing to use false information to make a true point.

I agree with this and was trying to make the same point you’re making. It brings about a question I’d like to ask. How do you feel about the writings of the early Church fathers? Do you read them?

Besides that most people in these threads when called on using bad info say “it doesn’t matter cause more than one is bad.” IOW if you can convince me that having denominations is bad and to join the Catholic Church then it doesn’t matter what lies you spread to get that result. I’m sorry but you cannot convince me that that is ok. Last I checked the Catholic Church condemns it too.

I believe it is not acceptable to “lie for the Lord”, it reminds me of Mormons to be honest. Because some accept information found and is used to make a point, does not necessarily mean someone is lying by using the information found. As I’ve said, and others in this very thread, the number is not important. That fact that there are different denominations with different doctrines is, in my opinion.

I apologize for not being able to post your entire quotes…the limitations of characters allowed got me.

 

[Soutane]

The Catholic church as other offices that were not part of the NT church. Priests as an offical would be one such office not mentioned in the NT. The requirement of the Scriptures that a bishop is to be married with children is part of the NT church while the church in Rome today rejects this.

There was no pope in the NT church. That took time before that happened.

Presbyter means priest,so yes there are NT references to priests.The Bishop with one wife red herring refers to the fact that the Bishop could not have more than one wife,either concurrently or consecutively.And yes Bishops and Presbyters were allowed to marry as this is Church discipline and not dogma.This situation unlike women priests MAY occur in the future.We do as a matter of fact have legitimately married priests.There certainly was a Pope in the NT (CATHOLIC)Church-his name,Rock or Peter.The official title is Bishop of Rome or as it was referred to in code by St Peter himself,Babylon.The title Pope is a derivative of pappa or Holy Father.I personally prefer and love Servant of the Servants of God.

 

[Soutane]

I sincerely appreciate the kind invitation, but how would my “coming home” reduce things to one? In fact, if those like me
who have a strong desire for unity were to “come home”, that would probably greatly reduce the chances of unity.

Jon

I hate to be trite and shudder at quoting Mao but the journey of one thousand miles starts with a single step.But I do agree with you that it SEEMS to be a conundrum.

 

[Soutane]

It may be bad to have 5,000 denominations but on what account should any protestant bother to listen to people who lie and claim there are 35,000 then there are 5,000? Any Catholic who is trying to convince me that they have the “Fullness of TRUTH” will get absolutely no where with me or most of my fellow protestants by using falsehoods and justifying it by saying “Well 5,000 is bad too!”

The argument here is that people are trying to convince us that they have the fullness of truth by using a lie. Why do so many Catholics not see that it is not only unwise but its morally WRONG?

I have used that quote in all honesty as there are several non-catholic sources that tout that figure.I do resent that you seem to be implying that whenever that figure is used it is a deliberate lie.If I were to deliberately lie during the couse of apologetic discussion I would have to answer for the sin of calumny and for bearing false witness against my neighbour-obviously mortal sin,as it would break a Commandment.Please be careful with your choice of words as the word “lie” in my case is certainly at the very least also rather defamatory.

 

[Syele]

I have used that quote in all honesty as there are several non-catholic sources that tout that figure.I do resent that you seem to be implying that whenever that figure is used it is a deliberate lie.If I were to deliberately lie during the couse of apologetic discussion I would have to answer for the sin of calumny and for bearing false witness against my neighbour-obviously mortal sin,as it would break a Commandment.Please be careful with your choice of words as the word “lie” in my case is certainly at the very least also rather defamatory.

The original source of the figure is not a Catholic one so its not surprising you found it among non-Catholic sources. It uses a bad definition of denomination that also shows quite a few Catholic Denominations among other serious problems with it as “research” .

I did cite the over 80 threads already covering this information as my reason for thinking most users of the figure use it while knowing its false. If you used the information unknowing that it was false then perhaps you should be careful not to repeat things without checking them out first?

As for defaming you, I did not make a list of liars. I said that the information is false, that some people keep saying its ok to use the information even though its false. I said that the ends dont jsutify the means. If you are not one of those people claiming that its ok to use the bad figure cause more than one is bad enough, then obviously you weren’t one of those who lied but instead were misled.

 

[JonNC]

I hate to be trite and shudder at quoting Mao but the journey of one thousand miles starts with a single step.But I do agree with you that it SEEMS to be a conundrum.

Shudder not, my friend, as I believe the quote is from Lao-tzu, though Mao, not surprisingly, could have stolen it. It is a conundrum for me, as someone who has truly considered the invitation you made.

Jon

 

[Soutane]

The original source of the figure is not a Catholic one so its not surprising you found it among non-Catholic sources. It uses a bad definition of denomination that also shows quite a few Catholic Denominations among other serious problems with it as “research” .

I did cite the over 80 threads already covering this information as my reason for thinking most users of the figure use it while knowing its false. If you used the information unknowing that it was false then perhaps you should be careful not to repeat things without checking them out first?

As for defaming you, I did not make a list of liars. I said that the information is false, that some people keep saying its ok to use the information even though its false. I said that the ends dont jsutify the means. If you are not one of those people claiming that its ok to use the bad figure cause more than one is bad enough, then obviously you weren’t one of those who lied but instead were misled.

Nor am I convinced that that figure is NOT accurate although in future I will simply use the adjective MANY or THOUSANDS in future.Will this satisfy you?Just because YOU say it’s false does not necessarily make it so.Get off your high horse, I’ll decide if I was misled.This issue is NOT fait accompli.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Everyone cannot be correct as long as any conflict exists However, it is not best to accept what is wrong for the sake of unity only.

Well, I can agree with everything you said here. God bless!

 

[Syele]

While Martin Luther did not “coin” the term “sola scriptura”, it was his argument of his private interpretations were all that mattered that initiated those who did.

Again, I can agree that it was not Martin Luther’s intention, it was his ultimate decision to schism that started the reformation. I cannot speculate as to whether or not denominations would have split had not Martin Luther started the wheels rolling.

While there is no way to determine if they would be the same as they are today had it not been Martin Luther, We do know that groups split before Martin Luther, so it would be weird to contend that had Martin Luther not split that no one else ever would have.

I agree with this and hope you did not take my post to mean so. I was saying that even in Christ’s Church there would be “men” who did other than what they taught. My point was, that Christ seemed to be saying the teachings would be safe, even if the teacher did not live what they taught.

Christs teaching will never leave this earth… He did tell us they would be safe. The question here is “who has 100% of those teachings?” not “have Christs teachings perished?”

Again, it was speculation on my part and I did not mean any offense. There are many sola scripturists here.

Im not offended, I only wanted to suggest that there may be less of them than you think.

I assume you know the history of the Bible. With that assumption, I will say that the faith and Church existed several hundred years prior to the Bible becoming one complete book through the canonical process. Many were coverted to Christianity before there was a Bible. It was the Catholic Church that made the decision on what letters and epistles were to be a part of the complete book we know as the Bible.

The Catholic Church recognized what was already the truth. The decision of the Canon was not a ‘lets sit down and decide what will be inspired and what will not’, it was simply a recognition of of what was already evident. My agreement with them now, does not mean I accept their authority, it means that I also recognize the same evident truth they recognized. You are confusing mutual recognition of inspiration with acceptance of authority. If Protestants really did accept the Catholic Councils Authority in deciding what books would be cannical, then there would be no dispute requarding the deuterocannicals.

No argument here. I don’t think any Catholic would argue that the truth did not come from God. You’re right, it’s awesome.

I never expected you to argue it, However I said all that to point out that your argument appeared to elevate the Church above God Himself. I didnt think that was your intention, but it came off that way.

The difference in Jewish people believing they have all the parts as opposed to Catholics believing they have all the parts, is Christianity. The Jewish people, as far as I know, are still waiting for the Messiah. They reject that Christ was the Messiah. Christians, believe Christ was the Messiah, who was the new and everlasting covenant with God.

I used that example because to convince a Jewish person that Christ is the Messiah is about as involved and trying to convince Catholics and protestants to switch positions. We all believe we have the right parts. We believe it enough to stake our eternity on it. So many of the arguments that get thrown about are ones of passionately defending our desire to be right rather than anything of real prooftext like substance. One example being one you brought up about Peter meaning Rock. I have seen entire threads just on that topic but in the end I don’t see the Catholic interpretation being more or less convincing than the protestant one that says Peter was named rock to point to the truth of what Peter said immediately before that as the reason. Catholics have the Authority of the Catholic Church to say “Ours is correct” so naturally all the Catholics will choose that one.

I agree with this and was trying to make the same point you’re making. It brings about a question I’d like to ask. How do you feel about the writings of the early Church fathers? Do you read them?

I read the early Church Fathers about as much as I read current popular books on theology and with the same grain of salt. All are capable of error and all are also capable of really hearing from God and passing on things we need to know.

I believe it is not acceptable to “lie for the Lord”, it reminds me of Mormons to be honest. Because some accept information found and is used to make a point, does not necessarily mean someone is lying by using the information found. As I’ve said, and others in this very thread, the number is not important. That fact that there are different denominations with different doctrines is, in my opinion.

I admit I get a bit grumpy anymore when the number of denominations thing pops up over and over. Its kind of like if some uninformed protestant said “All Catholics worship Mary and that proves that its wrong to worship people other than God” then the Catholics inclination would be to say “Hey we don’t worship Mary!” and then the Uninformed Protestant(UP) could answer “Oh, well, that doesn’t matter, my point wasn’t about that it was about worshiping only God!” I’m sure you can imagine how quickly the topic would get sidetracked to the Worship or non-worship of Mary instead of the topic the person intended… Worshiping God alone. I doubt the Catholic in this scenario would then find the UP someone they felt they could trust to have any clue what they are talking about.

I apologize for not being able to post your entire quotes…the limitations of characters allowed got me.

No Problem, I seem to have the same trouble.

 

[PJM]

People would choose to become Catholic for a variety of reasons. The “easiest” is they realize if you use sola scriptura and have thousands of interpretations of the scriptura you eventually would like to know which one is right. The only one who was passed down from Jesus, to the apostles, to their disciples etc. is the Catholic church with a historical succession to prove it.

The other one is for some blessed reason you “get” that the Eucharist is the true body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ that was given to us a gift beyond measure. Once you witness that for yourself, there’s no turning back.

Reply:
A great and thoughtful post. But if I’m a skeptic, would I take your word for your excellent “Blessed reason?”

God’s Continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

Thank you for your kind words.

The reason why people ought to choose Catholicism is because it was founded by Christ himself, has an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles to our modern day bishops and pope, teaches the truth (no matter the prevailing spirit of the age), and has Christ’s own promise of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. What more should motivate people to enter the Catholic Church?

Reply:
Yep you pertty much nailed it. BUT, I’m a skeptic, how does one prove your well thought out points?

Thanks,
God continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.