Why I Choose Catholic Christianity

Clete · Dec 20, 2019

Albion said:
I find myself agreeing with some of what each of you has written, but as for your point here, when Alex includes (and emphasizes) the following in his presentation to us--

...he is saying that we should defer to someone or other when it comes to what we believe.

That's all. The presumption that it is those people rather than those other people who should be turned to is just a matter of personal preference, not proof-positive that the right ones were chosen by any of us.

Naturally, it makes a better argument for choosing the Roman Catholic Church when the post contrasts that body against two of the least typical churches that are classified as Protestant--the UCC and the SDA. I didn't think the decision to do that helped the OP's presentation.

That's an interesting take.

Do I understand you to mean that Catholics simply prefer the doctrines laid down by what they call the "church fathers" (i.e. Augustine, Justinian, etc) over those laid down by others and they don't believe that those doctrines are necessarily any more (or less) true?

My experience seems to suggest otherwise. They seem to believe that what Augustine taught is true by virtue of the fact that it was Augustine who taught it along with the fact that every other Catholic in history has believed it. In other words, they believe that God would not have allowed the church to be wrong for so long and that what the church has traditionally believed, whether it happens to be explicitly biblical or not, must, therefore, be true.

Albion · Dec 20, 2019

Clete said:
That's an interesting take.

Do I understand you to mean that Catholics simply prefer the doctrines laid down by what they call the "church fathers" (i.e. Augustine, Justinian, etc) over those laid down by others and they don't believe that those doctrines are necessarily any more (or less) true?

It's simpler than that. People talk as though everyone else is 'on his own' to make sense of the Bible while they--the ones making the claim--accept the proven and truthful explanation given by ___________ (fill in the blank with the name of one's favorite denomination).

The fact is that whichever denomination or guru one is deferring his judgment to...he's still making a personal decision to go with someone else, to go with A rather than B or C or D, don't you see?

Whether it is to go with one's own reading of the Bible or some church's reading of the Bible, that person is deferring to another. It is not, therefore, the case that some are left on their own while others of us are in step with what anyone can plainly see is "the true" understanding. :doh:

My experience seems to suggest otherwise. They seem to believe that what Augustine taught is true by virtue of the fact that it was Augustine who taught it along with the fact that every other Catholic in history has believed it. In other words, they believe that God would not have allowed the church to be wrong for so long and that what the church has traditionally believed, whether it happens to be explicitly biblical or not, must, therefore, be true.

Well, this is a separate issue. And when it is asked what Catholics look to for doctrine, the correct answer is that--in addition to the Bible--they are taught that what their church says was always believed, by tradition, is God revealing his truth in another way (in addition to his revelation in Scripture). In practice, that which is called "Tradition" is often just the opinions of several Church Fathers, and they often are separated in time by many years.

Clete · Dec 20, 2019

Albion said:
It's simpler than that. People talk as though everyone else is 'on his own' to make sense of the Bible while they--the ones making the claim--accept the proven and truthful explanation given by ___________ (fill in the blank with the name of one's favorite denomination).

The fact is that whichever denomination or guru one is deferring his judgment to...he's still making a personal decision to go with someone else, to go with A rather than B or C or D, don't you see?

Okay, but in the context of this thread, with the opening post's comments clearly in mind, do you think that this mere personal preference conjecture of yours applies to the typical Catholic priest or even to Alex himself (it's clearly true of the average parishioner)?

Whether it is to go with one's own reading of the Bible or some church's reading of the Bible, that person is deferring to another.

In what way would going with one's own reading of the bible be deferring to another?

It is not, therefore, the case that some are left on their own while others of us are in step with what anyone can plainly see is "the true" understanding.

My experience is that no one that tries to suggest that their doctrine is "the truth" is capable of defining just what they mean by "the truth" when pressed to do so. The best they can do is "whatever I happen to believe", which any other their opposition can claim with no more or less legitimacy.

I've spent my entire life trying to understand why one group believes one thing while the group across the street believes something else. The only fruitful way of exploring it is to stay away from generalities and focus on specific ideas and whether one can support them and if so, how. If one cannot make an argument then whatever else they have to say is nothing but mere personal opinion/preference. If, on the other hand, one can make an argument then it's no longer about personal preference but about reason, understanding and wisdom or the lack thereof.

Well, this is a separate issue. And when it is asked what Catholics look to for doctrine, the correct answer is that--in addition to the Bible--they are taught that what their church says was always believed, by tradition, is God revealing his truth in another way (in addition to his revelation in Scripture). In practice, that which is called "Tradition" is often just the opinions of several Church Fathers, and they often are separated in time by many years.

This is completely correct. That's just exactly what Catholics do. The problem for them is that reality does not contradict itself. Two truth claims that contradict each other cannot both be true. Thus, if their tradition or other extra-biblical doctrinal source is in contradiction with the bible then one or the other (or both) is false, by definition.

Catholics simply don't understand that you just do not get to eat their cake and have it too - even if its the Pope who does the baking.

Clete

Albion · Dec 20, 2019

Clete said:
Okay, but in the context of this thread, with the opening post's comments clearly in mind, do you think that this mere personal preference conjecture of yours applies to the typical Catholic priest or even to Alex himself (it's clearly true of the average parishioner)?

Well, of course. That is characteristic of all Catholics. To trust that the church is, as it claims to be, the only true church, the only one established by Christ, the one that is endowed with infallibility. I do not want to savage anyone over this point, though. My comment before was about something much more basic--

When it comes to the claim, whether made by a Roman Catholic or a person affiliated with some other church (and we could name plenty) that members of other churches believe whatever they figure out for themselves from the Bible while they, the speakers, instead go with the truth (which is whatever their preferred denomination tells them)...

they are fooling themselves.

EVERYONE makes a personal choice. Some choose a POV that they have figured out; others defer to another party. But it's all the same because those who defer are making a personal decision to believe someone else's interpretation of things spiritual.

My experience is that no one that tries to suggest that their doctrine is "the truth" is capable of defining just what they mean by "the truth" when pressed to do so.

I cannot agree. Whether it's "Holy Tradition" and something St. Augustine or a Pope said, or something that Martin Luther or Ellen White or Joseph Smith said, or something in a preacher's sermon or book, there usually is somebody being held up as having the answers and our position is allegedly to believe them.

BNR32FAN · Dec 20, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
Be that as it may, and putting aside the disagreements I obviously have with Orthodoxy, it's a practically invisible element of American Christianity. Good, bad or indifferent, a surprising number of Americans have zero familiarity with Orthodoxy.

I can attest to that, 8 years ago I had never heard of the EOC. The only way I found out about her was by studying the history of the Catholic Church in search of the apostlic Church of God. We need more Orthodox Churches here in America, we have plenty of sinners here.

Clete · Dec 20, 2019

Albion said:
Well, of course. That is characteristic of all Catholics. To trust that the church is, as it claims to be, the only true church, the only one established by Christ, the one that is endowed with infallibility. I do not want to savage anyone over this point, though. My comment before was about something much more basic--

When it comes to the claim, whether made by a Roman Catholic or a person affiliated with some other church (and we could name plenty) that members of other churches believe whatever they figure out for themselves from the Bible while they, the speakers, instead go with the truth, which is of course whatever their preferred denomination tells them...

they are fooling themselves.

EVERYONE makes a personal choice. Some choose a POV that they have figured out; others defer to some third party. But it's all the same.

Okay, I get what you saying but I'm not sure you understand my question, which is undoubtedly my fault, not yours.

You're saying that its all a matter of personal choice but what I'm asking you is whether you are suggesting that Catholics acknowledge this? My experience tells me that they do not. They believe that the church fathers were spirit led people who got their doctrine dead on correct and to suggest otherwise is tantimount to questioning the veracity of the Holy Spirit's own work.

I cannot agree. Whether it's "Holy Tradition" and something St. Augustine or a Pope said, or something that Herbert W. Armstrong or Ellen White or Joseph Smith said, or something in a preacher's sermon or book, there usually is somebody being held up as having the answers and our position is allegedly to believe them.

There is just no question at all that this is true of the vast majority of Christians. More than that, this is true of the vast majority of human beings, Christian or otherwise. People, by and large, believe what they are taught to believe.

But there are notable exceptions. Martin Luther's 95 theses is proof enough of that. Luther wasn't taught by any contemporary of his that practice of selling indulgences was a gross abuse of power by the church that had nothing at all to do with the bible or with anything else that can be consider righteous or just. Not only that but he believed what he believed to his own detriment (in this life). In short, the sentiment expressed in his famous quote...

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. ... Here I stand."

...cannot be consider a mere personal preference as though such a stance has no more validity or merit than the rampant anti-intellectualism of much of the modern church, including Catholicism.

Clete

PaulCyp1 · Dec 20, 2019

The short version: I accept the Catholic Church because history plainly shows it is the only Christian Church that existed for the first ten centuries of Christianity, and is therefore the one Church Jesus Christ founded, which He said was to remain one, to which He promised "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me".

Albion · Dec 20, 2019

Clete said:
Okay, I get what you saying but I'm not sure you understand my question, which is undoubtedly my fault, not yours.

You're saying that its all a matter of personal choice but what I'm asking you is whether you are suggesting that Catholics acknowledge this?

Not at all. What I explained usually doesn't make a dent.

They believe that the church fathers were spirit led people who got their doctrine dead on correct and to suggest otherwise is tantimount to questioning the veracity of the Holy Spirit's own work.

I think the references to the Holy Spirit are only part of the picture. But Sacred Tradition, a slanted view of church history, claims of the Papacy and Councils to infallibility, the place of the Church Fathers, etc....They're all part of it.

There is just no question at all that this is true of the vast majority of Christians. More than that, this is true of the vast majority of human beings, Christian or otherwise. People, by and large, believe what they are taught to believe.

Yes, that's why a good education is important. Unfortunately, we are getting less and less of that.

But there are notable exceptions. Martin Luther's 95 theses is proof enough of that. Luther wasn't taught by any contemporary of his that practice of selling indulgences was a gross abuse of power by the church that had nothing at all to do with the bible or with anything else that can be consider righteous or just. Not only that but he believed what he believed to his own detriment (in this life). In short, the sentiment expressed in his famous quote...

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. ... Here I stand."

...cannot be consider a mere personal preference as though such a stance has no more validity or merit than the rampant anti-intellectualism of much of the modern church, including Catholicism.

Clete

The thing is that Luther was the premier Bible scholar in his day. So that is why he came to his conclusions.

The rest of society, however, was in the position of either believing in him or following the Roman Church, accepting that it was right when it condemned Luther.

Albion · Dec 20, 2019

PaulCyp1 said:
The short version: I accept the Catholic Church because history plainly shows it is the only Christian Church that existed for the first ten centuries of Christianity, and is therefore the one Church Jesus Christ founded, which He said was to remain one, to which He promised "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me".

Are you testifying to what you believe yourself or verifying what it is that Catholics typically are taught to believe?

Part of that ("history plainly shows it is the only Christian Church that existed for the first ten centuries of Christianity,...") is SOOOOoooo wrong that most Catholics know better than to believe THIS, all the rest of your post aside.

Woke · Dec 20, 2019

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:
"“True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts." --Malachi 2:4-8

[Yes, yes, this post is long. But it's a description of the central idea that leads me to choose Catholic Christianity over any other form, so I thought thoroughness would be good. As such, I would appreciate it if you would not skim this post, but read it in detail to best understand what I'm trying to say. Thank you & pray for the Spirit to lead us both in the right direction!]

Suppose you have a very solid Biblical idea of something. For example, most Christians have a Biblical idea that Hell is an eternal punishment for those who do evil & choose to reject God, even at the moment of their death.

Now suppose you come across a particular United Church of Christ, which teaches that there is no Hell. You hear their Biblical arguments about God's goodness, and His eternal mercy, and you realize that an eternal Hell is a concept you've always accepted, never looking particularly hard for its Biblical reasonings. You find the UCC's argument more Biblical than what you've always accepted, so you begin to believe that their is no Hell.

Now suppose you come across a brochure from the Seventh Day Adventists, which has an exceptionally thorough Biblical argument for Hell being temporary, and all people eventually being brought into Heaven. (I'm not making this up; I visited an SDA church & picked up a few brochures, one of which makes this very argument, and the UCC from a town I was at for awhile taught that there is no Hell). Suppose you see how Biblical they make the argument, referencing every point in Scripture that talks about Hell, and the New Creation, the details of what is meant by the Day of Judgement, and so on. Suppose this convinces you, and you now believe (still on Biblical grounds) that Hell is only temporary.

The question: Where is truth? All of these arguments are thoroughly Biblical; why would God leave us to figure out for ourselves which argument is the best? And Hell is just one issue, and one of the least disputed issues in Christianity, compared to the countless threads on Christian Forums & beyond about sola scriptura, the Eucharist, the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the saints, the roles of modern patriarchs & priests, the pope, and so on. As I have learned from my time on these forums, all of these issues have very Biblical reasonings for contrary ideas; look up the Biblical arguments for & against the Real Presence of the Eucharist (or any other issue), and you'll see just how deep into Scripture both sides can be, even with converts from either direction adding in their input.

God would not leave us without answers. Why would God leave us so confused about the meaning of Scripture? I've even heard some of my Protestant Christian friends talk in our small group about their belief that we'll never really know what the Bible teaches; there's just too many different directions to take Biblical ideas, as the above illustration of Hell illustrates. This made me feel a real compassion for them; God gave the Church an authority to teach about these crucial issues of morality & theology, and this made me very aware that Christians who are separated from the Church just don't realize that Apostolic Authority is still in effect today.*

*Please note that I am not at all arguing against God's wonderful gift of the Bible; I just believe that we need to be careful with how we handle it. My point is not, "The Bible doesn't matter, listen to the Pope!" I'm simply saying that we can be easily led to very contrary ideas of Christianity if we don't listen to the Spirit-led authorities that God has so graciously given us; Catholic binding authority and Old Testament analogies

The above article highlights some of the main ideas of Church authority. If you want an exceptionally thorough Biblical argument about the Apostolic Church, check out Protestant-turned-Catholic author Dave Armstrong's A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, specifically Appendix 2, with about 12 pages loaded with Biblical citations for Church authority.

This is what it all comes down to; we're all trying to follow God's word, which is most clearly expressed in the Bible. I just want to make sure that I'm following God's word as He intends, and following Church authority seems to be the best way to do just that. If you can disprove me on this point, you can convert me away from Catholicism, provided you can explain why 1 (only 1) of the alternatives is correct. And please remember to pray; I'm not so focused on "I'm right, you're wrong!", so much as I've spent a few years on these forums & in discussions with other Christians about how to find the truth of Christianity, and this is what I truly believe to be just that, and why.

(This is just intended to be a fun little addition to this post; while I think it does bring up a few good points, I don't intend for this video to become the subject of discussion. I just like satirical humor & thought some laughter may brighten our day:
The Reformation PiggyBackers | Lutheran Satire

May God continue to bless us all & lead us all to the truth!

Where in scripture does it state a believer in Christ must interpret his words on the rich man and Lazarus story literally or either figuratively to be saved by Christ? There is no place in scripture stating that.

God allows Christians to interpret some scriptures inaccurately to demonstrate what those people themselves, and other Christians with opposing beliefs, will do about that. Usually what they do about the opposing beliefs of other Christians identifies them as close followers of Christ's words, or misled and deceived people following men not Christ. It is God's will that this clear delineation be shown to Christ's church. See Romans chapter 14. And it's on this basis Christ chooses his church. See Matthew 7:2.

The proof is in the pudding. You cannot hide taste. As Christ said wisdom is proved righteous by its works. A single Christian or a whole church is proved Christian or not by their works. Anyone can claim Christianity, but that claim does not make it so according to Christ-see Matthew chapter 7.

Your church tortured Christians who did not agree with its biblical teaching. The Inquisition was an ecclesiastical tribunal established by Pope Gregory IX c. 1232 for the suppression of heresy. It was active chiefly in northern Italy and southern France, becoming notorious for the use of torture. In 1542 the papal Inquisition was re-established to combat Protestantism, eventually becoming an organ of the papal government.

You need to decide whether you want to KEEP following men or start instead to follow Christ. No one who chooses the first is fit to rule over the world in Christ's kingdom. All the prophets came, the scriptures were written for this purpose, and we among Christ's true church are here to let it be known to all claiming to follow God that you either follow God, or you follow man (including yourself). You cannot do both. See Luke 6:39. Christ's real church is not snuggling together in a single denomination, believing they are safe by doing what the church leaders say. We follow Christ.

So, what are you claiming? Are you claiming you believe in torturing people who claim to follow Christ but who do not share your exact scriptural beliefs, or the beliefs your church claims they must? Or, are you claiming your church Popes in past centuries made unchristian decisions in torturing people, that those decisions were fallible, but today your church Popes are infallible? Or do you claim that the decisions of your church Popes were never infallible, not yesterday, or today? If you claim the latter you don't believe in your church, since there is a contradiction with that last idea and your stated belief that the one true church to you is Catholic.

PuerAzaelis · Dec 20, 2019

Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground. Christianity is the only frame which has preserved the pleasure of Paganism.

... How can we say that the Church wishes to bring us back into the Dark Ages? The Church was the only thing that ever brought us out of them.

We die daily. We are always being born again with almost indecent obstetrics. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that there is in historic Christendom a sort of unnatural life: it could be explained as a supernatural life. It could be explained as an awful galvanic life working in what would have been a corpse. For our civilization ought to have died, by all parallels, by all sociological probability, in the Ragnorak of the end of Rome. That is the weird inspiration of our estate: you and I have no business to be here at all. We are all revenants; all living Christians are dead pagans walking about. Just as Europe was about to be gathered in silence to Assyria and Babylon, something entered into its body. And Europe has had a strange life -- it is not too much to say that it has had the jumps -- ever since.

Authority and the Adventurer

^_^

The Liturgist · Dec 20, 2019

Unofficial Reverand Alex said:
Now suppose you come across a particular United Church of Christ, which teaches that there is no Hell.

Just a minor fact check: not all UCC congregations teach this. While you are more likely to encounter heterodoxy in the UCC these days, unfortunately, there are some UCC churches which are doctrinally solid, for the moment; the group of parishes and ministers is called Faithful and Welcoming.

My UCC parish definitely did not teach anything contrary to Scriptural eschatology (soul sleep or universalism), but rather the Last Judgement and the World to Come. But we were in a minority. The First Congregational Church in Los Angeles recently joined the UCC on account of their “contemporary theology.”

Please pray for the UCC, because their parishes in New England are the oldest, most historic and most beautiful in the nation, with the exception of some churches that were Congregational but apostatized to Unitarianism in the 1780s (they took control of the oldest surviving church, Old Ship Church, tragically, and also Harvard, which is why we Congregationalists established Yale).

The UCC is still shrinking, because its political activism and heterodoxy interferes with the Gospel message Christians in general want to hear. Conversely, the Unitarians, or the Unitarian Universalist Association as they are now known, are actually growing, because there is no cognitive dissonance between their wordliness and their non-Christian teaching. Some people call the UCC “Unitarians Considering Christ” but this is not really accurate, but it could become the case, so please, I beseech you, pray that it doesn’t.

I love the Roman Catholic Church by the way, especially its liturgical traditions. The only thing about the RCC that makes me unhappy is that Pope Benedict XVI, who I really liked, resigned and was replaced by Pope Francis, who has walked all over a lot of people and his actions and those of the other bishops present at the Amazonian synod really upset me. And it seems like even though a majority of Catholic bishops are probably leery of him, there is nothing they can do to reign him in. If the Pope was first among equals among the Cardinals and a procedure existed for getting rid of an errant Pope, I would be completely pro-Catholic. But as it is, I love the Catholic church, especially the Tridentine mass, the old Latin masses of the Province of Braga, the Cathedral of Lyons, the Dominicans, Norbertines, Carmelites and Carthusians, which are similar to the Tridentine mass but differ in the details, and the ancient Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites.

And I also love the rich liturgical diversity in the Eastern Catholic church, especially the Maronites, who are a unique West Syriac Christian community totally unrelated to any other (they separated in a schism from the Syriac Orthodox Church around 600 AD, so their liturgy is like a simplified, more consistent version of the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholic liturgy). Also, the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church in Sicilly has really beautiful music; it uses the Byzantine Rite, like the Eastern Orthodox, but is in Sicily and is integrated into the Roman church, rather than being a Sui Juris Eastern Catholic church. I know they have at least one bishop, and his ordination is attended by other Greek Catholic bishops as well as Roman Rite bishops (and there is a video of it on YouTube I can link you to), but I think he is an auxiliary or suffragan rather than a diocesan ordinary.

Also, the Hungarian Greek Catholic Church is unique because there never was a Hungarian Orthodox community, ever. Whereas there were historically always Greeks using the Byzantine Rite in Sicily and elsewhere in Italy.

The Liturgist · Dec 20, 2019

Woke said:
Where in scripture does it state a believer in Christ must interpret his words on the rich man and Lazarus story literally or either figuratively to be saved by Christ? There is no place in scripture stating that.

Even if you interpret that scripture figuratively, the last judgement is warned of by our Lord many times. Those who do not repent and accept His salvation will wind up in the lake of fire, the outer darkness, where there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth, and “their worm dieth not.” The words of our Lord.

Regarding Roman Catholic persecution in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and the Inquisition in general, they have apologized for it formally, and have in my opinion more than atoned for it, because in the US only two other churches come close to the Catholics in terms of the scale of their charitable work, those being the Methodists and Episcopalians. Worldwide, the Roman Catholic Church is probably the best humanitarian aid organization in terms of its size, dedication, and quality. Now, many other churches including the UCC, the Lutherans and so on also do a really good job, its just that the Catholics are the largest church and have the most people in the most countries, and this gives them the greatest ability to be “Good Samaritans” and “Our brother’s keeper.” Almsgiving is very important, taught Jesus.

PuerAzaelis · Dec 20, 2019

I find it very difficult to take some of the Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, "This is all hocus-pocus"; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, "Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh." But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, "Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense," is sensible. To say, "Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest," is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.

Similarly, I could never take seriously the fear of the priest, as of something unnatural and unholy; a dangerous man in the home. Why should man who wanted to be wicked encumber himself with special and elaborate promises to be good? There might sometimes be a reason for a priest being a profligate. But what was the reason for a profligate being a priest? There are many more lucrative walks of life in which a person with such shining talents for vice and villainy might have made a brighter use of his gifts. Why should a man encumber himself with vows that nobody could expect him to take and he did not himself expect to keep? Would any man make himself poor in order that he might become avaricious; or take a vow of chastity frightfully difficult to keep in order to get into a little more trouble when he did not keep it? All that early and sensational picture of the sins of Rome always seemed to me silly even when I was a boy or an unbeliever; and I cannot describe how I passed out of it because I was never in it. I remember asking some friends at Cambridge, people of the Puritan tradition, why in the world they were so afraid of Papists; why a priest in somebody's house was a peril or an Irish servant the beginning of a pestilence. I asked them why they could not simply disagree with Papists and say so, as they did with Theosophists or Anarchists. They seemed at once pleased and shocked with my daring, as if I had undertaken to convert a burglar or tame a mad dog. Perhaps their alarm was really wiser than my bravado. Anyhow, I had not then the most shadowy notion that the burglar would convert me. That, however, I am inclined to think, is the subconscious intuition in the whole business. It must either mean that they suspect that our religion has something about it so wrong that the hint of it is bad for anybody; or else that it has something so right that the presence of it would convert anybody. To do them justice, I think most of them darkly suspect the second and not the first.

http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/conversion.txt

^_^

dzheremi · Dec 20, 2019

Was there a question in the OP that we're supposed to engage with?

I mean, sure, "Where is truth?" is technically a question, but it is clearly presented rhetorically so that the OP could present all the reasons they believe it is in the RCC.

I don't agree (ex-Catholic here), but I don't see that there's enough in the OP to make a discussion out of, or at least not one that will be fruitful.

The RCC is wrong in its reading of history and its eisegesis of the scriptures in support of its present/medieval understanding of its own role in said history and its attendant ecclesiology and Theology, so...now what? Answers rooted in Protestant or other western Christian objections don't work on me -- I am a member of THE first Papal Church in the world, and yet we have never believed anything like what Rome does in matters of ecclesiology or related things.

There's nothing to grab on to in any of this. Sorry. (It's a good reminder of one of the many reasons why I left the RCC, though. Shallow history, shallow apologetics, shallow liturgics, shallow theology, etc. The RCC is the birdbath of traditional churches. It's sad.)

Unofficial Reverand Alex · Dec 20, 2019

Clete said:
Well, we agree on this much!

I take this to mean that you have no intention of engaging the debate.

What exactly is the point of being here if you aren't going to respond to people's posts in a substantive manner? I don't get it.

Who said anything about the Trinity? I didn't say anything about the Trinity. Why are you equating that doctrine with something as simple as Peter having a mother in-law or traveling with his wife?

I cited specific passages. Passages that directly and explicitly contradict Catholic doctrine and that are not difficult for anyone to understand. If you can read English on a third grade reading level you can understand fully what is being said in the specific passages I cited. I wasn't making any sort of blanket comment about how simple the entire bible is to understand or that every Christian doctrine can be grasped by children. But you had to have known that I wasn't saying anything like that. I just reread my post and I could not have been clearer. What exactly is the point of such blatant obfuscation? What could be the point except that instead of "trying to follow God's word" , you are rather preserving your doctrine in spite of it? (That's a real question, not a veiled insult!)

Again, I didn't say that "everything in bible is so easy to understand". In fact, I'd say that the thickness of the bible is in direct relation to the thickness of men's skulls. People are stupid for the most part, stupid and evil. It takes a great deal of effort to understand the bible and an entire lifetime is insufficient to plumb it's depths.

Still, my solution begins with reading it, which almost no Catholic (or any other sort of Christian) ever bothers to do. Instead, they are almost universally content to believe whatever the man behind the pulpit tells them to believe along with whatever doctrine tickles their ears. There's not one Christian in a thousand (worldwide) that conforms his doctrine the God's word. Rather it's the other way around, they twist and contort the bible into whatever complex knot it needs to be in order to conform it to their doctrine and Catholics are, in my view, perhaps the worst offenders in this regard because they just simply do not care what the bible says if it contradict their doctrine in even the slightest way. This is how you end up with a Pope that is unwilling to judge homosexual priests and says that "the tendency (same sex attraction) isn't the problem".

The UFC? I don't know what that is.

Regardless, if they can make biblical arguments for their doctrine then they are one step ahead of much of what makes Catholics Catholic who mostly don't bother with the bible thinking that the church fathers did all that already.

Also, there isn't as much difference between most major Christian denominations are you seem to be suggesting. If you listened to a typical sermon preached at a Seventh Day Adventist church on any typical Saturday service, you'd not likely be able to tell that it hadn't been preached by a Baptist on the following Sunday and vice versa. The exceptions being, of course, those sermons that deal with specific distinctive doctrines. The point being that the vast majority of the bible and it's overall message is really really really easy to understand and all but impossible to miss. It's the details that people disagree about.
Having said that, there are, of course, some very major differences between some of the major denominations but it turns out that most of the really big ones aren't about biblical disputes but rather about doctrines that do not find their origin in the bible at all (e.g. absolute divine immutability, et. al.).

Well, I think you ask good questions but I sure wish you'd actually make some attempt to rebut the arguments I've spent the time it takes to write. A big part of this theology forum hobby is about one's own ability to defend what they believe and to make arguments for why they accept or reject some particular doctrine but it sure is a lot more fun when there's an actual two way exchange that occurs. Even if no one is convinced to change their minds, the very exercise of making arguments, having those arguments rebutted and then offering rejoinders to the rebuttals is worthwhile for BOTH parties as is any honest pursuit of the truth (doctrinal or otherwise). That two way exchange is THE process of iron sharpening iron. One wack from each sword isn't going to do any sharpening. There has to be persistent opposing pressure from both parties for the sharpening benefit to be realized.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Fair points; I just don't want a discussion on the broad idea of the Church to derail & become a discussion on Mary. I'm any case, you have not mentioned if you've looked up the Biblical reasons for Catholic teachings on Mary.

Also, I meant UCC (United Church of Christ), not UFC. It was a typo; whoops! :sorry:

prodromos said:
The Church is infallible. Church councils are not considered inerrant unless they are recognised as such by the Church. This recognition happens through the Holy Spirit. There is no formula for this as the Holy Spirit blows where He wills and is not subject to how we would like things to be determined.

Interesting post, thank you for sharing so much. My follow-up is this: How do you know when the Holy Spirit recognizes something as inerrant? If there's no formula, how do you know when something is inerrant?

Thank you all for your posts & may God continue to bless us all! :pray:

thecolorsblend · Dec 20, 2019

Clete said:
This is completely correct. That's just exactly what Catholics do. The problem for them is that reality does not contradict itself. Two truth claims that contradict each other cannot both be true. Thus, if their tradition or other extra-biblical doctrinal source is in contradiction with the bible then one or the other (or both) is false, by definition.

Catholics simply don't understand that you just do not get to eat their cake and have it too - even if its the Pope who does the baking.

This is a curious objection. Protestants will generally acknowledge divine inspiration in the writing of Sacred Scripture. They will also generally agree that divine guidance led to the recognition of scriptural canon, centuries after those texts were written. For the most part, neither of those are controversial notions in the Protestant world.

But one key difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is that Catholics believe that the aforementioned divine guidance and inspiration continues to this day. Specifically, the same Holy Spirit that inspired Sacred Scripture and which guided the council members who recognized the canon of scripture guides the Church in other ways to this day.

Protestants, meanwhile, seem to believe that the Spirit arbitrarily stopped guiding the Church on a corporate level at some arbitrary point in medieval times for arbitrary reasons.

Woke · Dec 20, 2019

The Liturgist said:
Even if you interpret that scripture figuratively, the last judgement is warned of by our Lord many times. Those who do not repent and accept His salvation will wind up in the lake of fire, the outer darkness, where there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth, and “their worm dieth not.” The words of our Lord.

Regarding Roman Catholic persecution in the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and the Inquisition in general, they have apologized for it formally, and have in my opinion more than atoned for it, because in the US only two other churches come close to the Catholics in terms of the scale of their charitable work, those being the Methodists and Episcopalians. Worldwide, the Roman Catholic Church is probably the best humanitarian aid organization in terms of its size, dedication, and quality. Now, many other churches including the UCC, the Lutherans and so on also do a really good job, its just that the Catholics are the largest church and have the most people in the most countries, and this gives them the greatest ability to be “Good Samaritans” and “Our brother’s keeper.” Almsgiving is very important, taught Jesus.

You quoted my comment, but you utterly failed to address the two points I raised. I first asked what scripture states it is necessary to interpret the rich man and Lazarus story either figuratively or literally, in order for Christ to accept that person into his church? Then I definitively stated there is not one scripture that states that. What you believe about that is not important. What Christ believes about accepting an individual based on their belief is. You quoted my comment as if your belief made a relevant point about my comment. You didn't. Because you dodged the issue I raised, which is what Christ believes about accepting Christians based on their understanding of that specific scripture, and the idea of what hell is. If Christ accepts them then their belief about that now is rather irrelevant, isn't it? At least irrelevant to Christ's acceptance, which was my point.

You did the same thing with the next issue I raised. As it relates to this other issue, I previously raised, it doesn't matter if the Catholic church apologized for torturing Christians, because their beliefs differed from those of the Catholic Church, or how you feel about other charitable acts the Catholic Church has done. The point I brought up was that the Catholic church teaches its Popes make infallible religious decisions that they then spread to their flock, as if their religious directions are always leading their flock according to God's will. The fact that they apologized about any of their teachings or religious practices proves that is a lie. Or do you have another explanation for it? The only logical explanation is that the Catholic church does not teach their Popes spread infallible biblical doctrine and are infallible in teaching God's directions to Christians, as I stated it teaches. So, am I correct, or incorrect in stating what that church teaches? The import of that has to do with the Opening Comment. That poster claims he follows the Catholic church. And it appears he does in everything. My point was I follow Christ. And now add I only follow men as the Bible directs. It intructs not to follow any incorrect biblical teachings that are harmful to anyone.

Sidestepping issues with comments that discuss other points related to the issue but that do not address the actual issue raised accomplishes nothing. Rather that type of comment implies you don't understand at best, or that you are a deceptive teacher attempting to hide the truth about an important issue that is raised at worst. Best to stay on point when entering a conversation so that this worst implication about your comment doesn't arise in the minds of your audience.

Albion · Dec 20, 2019

thecolorsblend said:
This is a curious objection. Protestants will generally acknowledge divine inspiration in the writing of Sacred Scripture. They will also generally agree that divine guidance led to the recognition of scriptural canon, centuries after those texts were written. For the most part, neither of those are controversial notions in the Protestant world.

But one key difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is that Catholics believe that the aforementioned divine guidance and inspiration continues to this day. Specifically, the same Holy Spirit that inspired Sacred Scripture and which guided the council members who recognized the canon of scripture guides the Church in other ways to this day.

Protestants, meanwhile, seem to believe that the Spirit arbitrarily stopped guiding the Church on a corporate level at some arbitrary point in medieval times for arbitrary reasons.

It would be more correct to say that Protestants do not think that the Holy Spirit changes his mind about the beliefs his church ought to hold to. And, having given us the Holy Scriptures, it is not believed that he later alters them, augments them, or supplants them.

Lost4words · Dec 20, 2019

Sola Scriptura was unheard of in the early church. It is a modern invention.

In the early church, people were guided via 'Word of mouth' by 'Tradition'. Handed down and infused by the Holy spirit.

Scripture was sparse and rare. Even the Bible as we know it didnt arrive until the 4th century.

Why I Choose Catholic Christianity

Active Member

Facilitator

Active Member

Facilitator

He’s a Way of life

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Pray in silence...God speaks softly

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

Active Member

Facilitator

Jesus I Trust In You

Similar threads