Why I Choose Catholic Christianity

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

"“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.

(The above video is an excellent Biblical description to add to this thread, with Bible references that Protestants will rightly demand. The link below 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!

 

[Albion]

Alex, I've come to appreciate your posts because, for one thing, they are thoughtful and thought-provoking, not the same old stuff we've debated umpteen times.

As for "Catholic Christianity," I think you are basically correct, but as for that one branch of Catholic Christianity, the reason for not going straight to it is because of its aberrations, add-ons to the faith, and so on, each justified by the denomination itself with those claims about being infallible and the one and only organization Christ meant to have exist.

IMHO therefore, a person who is generally sympathetic to the overall concept needs to consider Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, or one of the other communions that are Catholic in principle but avoided the doctrinal innovations that came along over the centuries.

 

[Charlie24]

"“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!

I enjoyed reading the OP, it was very interesting. I would love to read more posts of this nature, it is humbling to me.

My take is that the only truth that man can find concerning God will be found in His Word. The scripture says "sanctify them through thy truth, thy Word is truth." John 17:17

But we can easily, as you have pointed out very well, see that the church is far from unity. There is much division with salvation being by far the most important division of all.

How is this possible? Someone is right and someone is wrong, bottom line. But who is right, straight to what you are asking?

There are many reasons for different translations of scripture, I've often though of writing a simple book on the subject. I'll not follow that course here.

I believe there is only one True Church. It's not a specific denomination. The body of this church can be found in many denominations and worldwide. They all may not be correct on all doctrine but they have been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.

The question is, how do we become a member of this church? We know the answer is plainly written in scripture but we must search for it, pray for it, and I believe God will supply the answer.

 

[prodromos]

"“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!

Your post does not explain why you chose Catholicism over Orthodoxy.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Your post does not explain why you chose Catholicism over Orthodoxy.

Probably because, with respect, most Americans don't consider Orthodoxy to be a viable choice.

 

[prodromos]

Probably because, with respect, most Americans don't consider Orthodoxy to be a viable.

That is only due to ignorance.

 

[Clete]

"“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!

Your post talks a lot about the scriptures and correct interpretation of them and about "trying to follow God's word" but the problem is that Catholics simply do not do that. They just don't.

They believe, for example, that Peter was the first Pope and that Popes and other priests must be celibate but the bible talks about Peter's mother in-law (Matthew 8:14) and Paul talks about how the other Apostles, including Peter, travel with their wives but he is stuck with Barnabas (I Corinthians (9:5).

They believe that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. More than that, they believe that she was sinless and that it was her conception was immaculate. This is so blatantly unbiblical that it can hardly be comprehended! The bible repeatedly talks about Jesus' brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3 & Matthew 13:55-56 and I Corinthians 9:5) and records Mary calling Jesus her "God and Savior" (Luke 1:47).

These points go right to the very heart of Catholic belief and practice and they are not matters of biblical interpretation. It's just a matter a reading the text. There's nothing confusing or mysterious or even complex about them. Any third grade child could read them and fully understand what is being said and so it isn't about some perceived need to have "correct interpretation" of the scripture nor is it about "trying to follow God's word". I, frankly, don't really know what it's about but it certainly has nothing at all to do with an affinity for or an allegiance to God's word.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

records Mary calling Jesus her "God and Savior" (Luke 1:47).

Luke 1
28 Into her presence the angel came, and said, Hail, thou who art full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.

Jude
24 There is one who can keep you clear of fault, and enable you to stand in the presence of his glory, triumphant and unreproved, when our Lord Jesus Christ comes; 25 to him, who alone is God, to him, who gives us salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord, glory and majesty and power and domination are due, before time was, and now, and for all ages. Amen.

Zechariah 2
10 Sion, poor maid, break out into songs of rejoicing; I am on my way, coming to dwell in the midst of thee, the Lord says.

Zephaniah 3
14 Break into song, fair Sion, all Israel cry aloud; here is joy and triumph, Jerusalem, for thy royal heart. 15 Thy doom the Lord has revoked, thy enemy repulsed; the Lord, there in the midst of thee, Israel’s king! Peril for thee henceforth is none. 16 Such is the message yonder day shall bring to Jerusalem: Courage, Sion! What means it, the unnerved hand?

Isaiah 12
1 Angry with me, Lord? thou wilt say, when that day comes; ay, thou wast angry with me, but now, praised be thy name, the storm has passed; all is consolation. 2 God is here to deliver me; I will go forward confidently, and not be afraid; source of my strength, theme of my praise, the Lord has made himself my protector. 3 So, rejoicing, you shall drink deep from the fountain of deliverance; 4 singing, when that day comes, Praise the Lord, and call upon his name, tell the story of his doings among all the nations, keep the majesty of his name in grateful remembrance. 5 Sing in honour of the great deeds the Lord has done, make them known for all the world to hear. 6 Cry aloud in praise, people of Sion; great is the Holy One of Israel, that dwells among you.

Jeremiah 31
22 fickle maid, dally no longer. Here is a new order of things the Lord has established on earth; weak woman is to be the protectress of man’s strength.

Luke 1
42 so that she cried out with a loud voice, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Revelation 12
1 And now, in heaven, a great portent appeared; a woman that wore the sun for her mantle, with the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars about her head. 2 She had a child in her womb, and was crying out as she travailed, in great pain of her delivery.

Isaiah 66
7 Without travail, the mother has given birth; before her time a mother of men. 8 Never till now was such a tale heard, such a sight witnessed; should a nation’s pangs come upon it in a day, a whole people be born at once? Such are the pangs of Sion, such is the birth of her children.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That is only due to ignorance.

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.

 

[Lost4words]

Catholicism is the one true faith.

Thank God for the Catholic church

 

[prodromos]

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.

That is slowly changing. A large number of visitors to Arizona are being introduced to Orthodoxy through the monastery of St Anthony. The monastery is starting to rival the Grand Canyon as Arizona's main attraction.

 

[charsan]

They believe that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.

So did most of Christendom until the very radicals who jettisoned historic Christianity like Zwingli. Luther believed it, the Orthodox still do, and many other Christians and Churches still do.

More than that, they believe that she was sinless and that it was her conception was immaculate. This is so blatantly unbiblical that it can hardly be comprehended! The bible repeatedly talks about Jesus' brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3 & Matthew 13:55-56 and I Corinthians 9:5) and records Mary calling Jesus her "God and Savior" (Luke 1:47).

Who says that those siblings came from Mary, Joseph was quite a bit older than Mary. There both were not teens as modern depictions depict them. As far as the immaculate conception, you will not hear any Catholic deny that she also needed a Savior just like all of us but that since God is outside of time and not bound to time itself can apply Christ redemption anytime He wants. While I may not be Catholic if one is going to say something against them then one should study what Catholics really believe instead of just repeating countless falsehoods against Catholics that get bandied about as if those falsehoods are truth

 

[thecolorsblend]

That is slowly changing. A large number of visitors to Arizona are being introduced to Orthodoxy through the monastery of St Anthony. The monastery is starting to rival the Grand Canyon as Arizona's main attraction.

This is true.

And if I'm allowed to editorialize, a lot of Millennial (and even lower spectrum Gen X) Christians just don't connect to modern day Protestantism. But they're still a bit too Protestant to ever be Catholic. And so, the Orthodox Church would be (and somewhat is) a good alternative for this type of believer. As you probably already know, Orthodoxy is authentic, ancient and wholly reverent. Apart from my disagreements with the Orthodox Church, there is still a lot to admire about it.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Your post talks a lot about the scriptures and correct interpretation of them and about "trying to follow God's word" but the problem is that Catholics simply do not do that. They just don't.

They believe, for example, that Peter was the first Pope and that Popes and other priests must be celibate but the bible talks about Peter's mother in-law (Matthew 8:14) and Paul talks about how the other Apostles, including Peter, travel with their wives but he is stuck with Barnabas (I Corinthians (9:5).

They believe that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. More than that, they believe that she was sinless and that it was her conception was immaculate. This is so blatantly unbiblical that it can hardly be comprehended! The bible repeatedly talks about Jesus' brothers and sisters (Mark 6:3 & Matthew 13:55-56 and I Corinthians 9:5) and records Mary calling Jesus her "God and Savior" (Luke 1:47).

These points go right to the very heart of Catholic belief and practice and they are not matters of biblical interpretation. It's just a matter a reading the text. There's nothing confusing or mysterious or even complex about them. Any third grade child could read them and fully understand what is being said and so it isn't about some perceived need to have "correct interpretation" of the scripture nor is it about "trying to follow God's word". I, frankly, don't really know what it's about but it certainly has nothing at all to do with an affinity for or an allegiance to God's word.

,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! This thread would be a little useless without some respectful disagreement.

My question will not be referring to any of the particular issues brought up in your post, because that's not the focus of this thread. My question is, have you looked up the Biblical explanations for any of the seemingly unbiblical aspects of Catholic theology? Catholic Answers is one of many websites that gives explanations for these ideas.

Also, I must say that I have serious doubts that any third grader could understand these Biblical concepts. I know a 22-year old who still can't wrap his mind around the Trinity (his background is Mormon, so it's not an idea he's been raised with). In any case, what is your alternative? If everything in the Bible is so easy to understand, why are so many Bible -based churches have vastly different ideas? The aforementioned UFC and Seventh Day Adventists are very serious about being Biblical, and have vastly different ideas, to name just one of many examples. This is the heart of my post; please let me know what you think about this reply!

Thank you & may God continue to bless us all!

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Your post does not explain why you chose Catholicism over Orthodoxy.

From my understanding (do please correct me if I'm wrong), Orthodoxy lacks Papal Infallibility, or the infallibility of Church councils. Without infallibility, how can we get to the heart of truth on issues not directly addressed in the Bible? Acts 15 records the First Council of Jerusalem making such a decision, with Pope Peter having the final & most decisive voice. The prophets have had something more than infallibility, as have the writers of the Bible; how does all of this fit into Orthodoxy, especially in light of the recent schism with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?

That is only due to ignorance.

For my part, I knew very little of Orthodoxy before joining Christian Forums, when several Orthodox Christians make sure to bring up that option. I still disagree with a few tenants of Orthodoxy, but I hold your church in high respect. I appreciate the dedication of Orthodoxy to maintaining the 1st century Church, I just believe that Church authority extends throughout all of history.

Thank you & may God continue to bless us all!

 

[prodromos]

From my understanding (do please correct me if I'm wrong), Orthodoxy lacks Papal Infallibility, or the infallibility of Church councils.

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. None of the ancient Churches have any concept of papal infallibility, it is wholly an innovation of Rome. If the pope did have such a charisma, never in the history of the Church was it sought after to end disputes of theology and never did the pope offer himself to resolve such disputes. If papal infallibility were true then most popes will face severe judgment for failing to utilise the talent they were given when it was needed, electing instead to bury it in the ground.

Without infallibility, how can we get to the heart of truth on issues not directly addressed in the Bible? Acts 15 records the First Council of Jerusalem making such a decision, with Pope Peter having the final & most decisive voice.

My Bible says it was James who had the final say.

The prophets have had something more than infallibility, as have the writers of the Bible; how does all of this fit into Orthodoxy, especially in light of the recent schism with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church?

We've weathered complete heretics sitting on the patriarchal thrones. This particular disagreement will not outlive our current patriarchs. But since you pose the question, perhaps you can answer with regards to the schism in Chalcedon, or the schism in 1054, or the Old Catholics schism or the Sedevacantist schism or the schism which led to the reformation? From Rome's point of view you've had schism after schism after schism. Your supposed infallibility seems only to lead to division.

For my part, I knew very little of Orthodoxy before joining Christian Forums, when several Orthodox Christians make sure to bring up that option. I still disagree with a few tenants of Orthodoxy, but I hold your church in high respect. I appreciate the dedication of Orthodoxy to maintaining the 1st century Church, I just believe that Church authority extends throughout all of history.

We're not maintaining the 1st century Church, we are that Church through every century.

 

[Clete]

So did most of Christendom until the very radicals who jettisoned historic Christianity like Zwingli. Luther believed it, the Orthodox still do, and many other Christians and Churches still do.

Okay, so what?

I very much doubt that this is even true but regardless, whether Mary remained a virgin her whole life is not a matter of opinion. She either did or she didn't. God says she didn't in this book He wrote. We call it the bible. It was written down by the likes of the Apostle Matthew and the Apostle Paul. I'll take their Holy Spirit inspired testimony over any number of other people you can name.

Put another way, an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. A falsehood remains steadfastly false regardless of how many believe it to be true.

Who says that those siblings came from Mary, Joseph was quite a bit older than Mary.

This is called an argument from silence and is just a fallacious as you previous ad populum argument.
There is no basis other than your a priori doctrine to suggest that Jesus' brothers and sisters where born of anyone other than Mary. In fact, to the contrary, the context seems to leave no other viable option than that they were in fact Mary's children.

There both were not teens as modern depictions depict them.

I don't understand your point here.

As far as the immaculate conception, you will not hear any Catholic deny that she also needed a Savior just like all of us but that since God is outside of time and not bound to time itself can apply Christ redemption anytime He wants.

Ah yes, the magic salvation time machine theory.
I started to mention this as one of the many doctrines that Catholics believe that have nothing at all to do with the bible but didn't do so for the sake of brevity. This time travel theory is but one of several ways Catholics rationalize their way toward preserving an unbiblical belief that Mary was sinless. It, like all the others, is just as unbiblical as the doctrine which it is intended to defend.

There is no biblical evidence that God exists outside of time. In fact the very notion of existence outside of time is a contradiction and cannot be true because the very concept of existence implies duration. Duration has no meaning outside of time. In fact, duration and time are essentially the same thing. Further, there is nothing about time to exist outside of. Time is not an ontoligical thing, its an idea. Time is a convention of language used to convey information about the duration and sequence of events and that's all it is. You cannot exists outside of it.

Additionally, there is plenty of biblical evidence that not only does God experience time but that there is clearly time in Heaven...

Hebrews 10:12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.

Revelation 8:1 When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

Revelation 6: 9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

Revelation 11: 16 And the twenty-four elders who sat before God on their thrones fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17 saying:

“We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty,
The One who is and who was and who is to come,
Because You have taken Your great power and reigned.
18 The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come,
And the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints,
And those who fear Your name, small and great,
And should destroy those who destroy the earth.”

After this world is gone, in the New Heaven we find the Tree of Life...

Revelation 22: 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.​

That is by no means all the biblical material on the subject but, for the sake of brevity, that should suffice for now.

So, you might be asking yourself, if the idea that God exists outside of time does not come from the bible then where does it come from? That's a great question and goes straight to the heart of the issue of whether one is "trying to follow God's word" as the opening post suggests. The answer is that it comes from pagan Greek philosophy. More specifically, it comes from Aristotle and Plato. If you believe that God exists outside of time its because Augustine imported the belief into Christianty from when he had all but worshiped Aristotle and Plato.

I can prove that if you think it necessary. Most Catholics don't bother denying it. In fact, it wouldn't occur to most Catholics to deny it. They're proud of it.

While I may not be Catholic if one is going to say something against them then one should study what Catholics really believe instead of just repeating countless falsehoods against Catholics that get bandied about as if those falsehoods are truth

I agree that one should reject a doctrine based on what the doctrine actually teaches but you are quite wrong if you think that there are no Catholics that reject the notion that Mary needed a Savior. There are countless thousands of Catholics that would literally punch anyone in the face that they heard say such a thing. They would take deep personal offense as if someone had called their own biological mother a harlot. The doctrines surrounding Mary are not based on anything rational and most find no need to explain it or have it "make sense" in any sort of intellectual sense. For them it is a matter of blind faith, not understanding.

But leaving the emotionalistic nature of these beliefs aside, the time traveler explaination just doesn't work anyway because, if that's the way God goes about making one sinless, then were is the need for her conception to be immaculate? Why not simply make her sinless three seconds prior to her having conceived Christ in her womb? The fact that Catholics believe that it was Mary's conception that was immaculate implies that they believe, at the very least, the she did not commit sin for the first several years of her life prior to Christ conception.
Any alternative would have implications that no one wants to deal with. The whole purpose of the doctrine is their way of explaining how Christ could have been born without the sin nature. If her preconception redemption caused her to be sinless in spite of wrong doing on her part then why wouldn't the same apply to those of us who are redeamed now? Are all the children of saved parents born without the sin nature based on the fact that Christ blood had been applied to them before concieving their children?
I mean, YIKES! That is a dangerous path to go down if there ever was one.

Instead, those of us who do actually to try to follow God's word and form our doctrine based entirely on the bible itself and not the doctrines and traditions of men understand that sin is not passed through the mother but through the father. For it wasn't Eve, who sinned first, in which all mankind died, it was Adam. Jesus had/has no human father and thus the sin nature was not passed to Him. No need for anyone's conception to be immaculate aside from Christ's. Besides all that, making Mary's conception immaculate only backs the propblem that the Catholics are trying to fix up one generation anyway.

Clete

 

[Clete]

,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! This thread would be a little useless without some respectful disagreement.

Well, we agree on this much!

My question will not be referring to any of the particular issues brought up in your post, because that's not the focus of this thread. My question is, have you looked up the Biblical explanations for any of the seemingly unbiblical aspects of Catholic theology? Catholic Answers is one of many websites that gives explanations for these ideas.

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.

Also, I must say that I have serious doubts that any third grader could understand these Biblical concepts. I know a 22-year old who still can't wrap his mind around the Trinity (his background is Mormon, so it's not an idea he's been raised with).

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!)

In any case, what is your alternative? If everything in the Bible is so easy to understand, why are so many Bible -based churches have vastly different ideas?

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 aforementioned UFC and Seventh Day Adventists are very serious about being Biblical, and have vastly different ideas, to name just one of many examples.

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.).

This is the heart of my post; please let me know what you think about this reply!

Thank you & may God continue to bless us all!

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

 

[Albion]

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.

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--

*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

...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.

 

[Isilwen]

Catholicism is the one true faith.

So says the Catholic church.

I used to be Catholic, a cradle one at that, but no more.