Why I Choose Catholic Christianity

[thecolorsblend]

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.

And the Bible as the Protestants know came even later than that.

 

[Albion]

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

We have the writings of some of the Early Church Fathers in which they credit Scripture and only Scripture for various beliefs. By contrast there are NONE which credit "Sacred Tradition" or "Holy Tradition, so-called. The same is true for the Creed, too.

...He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures."

 

[Lost4words]

We have the writings of some of the Early Church Fathers in which they credit Scripture and only Scripture for various beliefs. By contrast there are NONE which credit "Sacred Tradition" or "Holy Tradition, so-called. The same is true for the Creed, too.

...He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures."

 

[charsan]

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.

It is not an appeal to popularity, your errant positions are more so. The Bible was not meant to contain everything nor is it the only authority and in fact you will never see the Bible talk about itself as if it should be followed alone. The idea that the Bible is supposed to be followed alone is a man made idea not an idea that comes from God. In the future you need to stop talking down to me.

 

[DennisTate]

"“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 found the fact that Roman Catholics tend to take near death experience accounts more seriously than many Protestant denominations tend to do to be impressive.
I thought that many near death experience accounts reminded me of the idea of Purgatory.

Your Purgatory idea seems more accurate than heaven vs hell?


Howard Storm's Near-Death Experience

 

[The Liturgist]

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.



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.

There is an answer however, and that is to carefully study the early Church, and the continuing unifying principles of the Christian churches since then, following the advice of Vincent of Lerins, that, to paraphrase, the beliefs of the Universal Church are those which have been held everywhere, by everyone, since the beginning.

And, as illogical as some Roman Catholic arguments are, the proposition of a Great Apostasy* that a few Radical Reformers and the 19th century Restorationist and Landmarkist churches use is, as I am sure you will agree, fallacious, illogical, contrary to recorded history, unsupported by historical evidence, contradicted by the cohesiveness of all of the major Christian churches, including Protestants, Catholics and those of the East, and most importantly, unscriptural, contrary to the exact words of Jesus Christ our God in Matthew, and to the guidance** of the Holy Spirit among the churches ensured elsewhere in Acts and the Epistles.

So, if we study the early church, and then trace how this has been implemented since that time, we get a good Christian praxis. And I think traditional Anglicanism does a very good job at this (as well as the Methodists, the other magisterial Protestants like the Presbyterians and Moravians, my Congregationalist family of churches, and also the ecumenically-minded Eastern Christians who are reaching out to the West, like the Antiochian, Polish Orthodox, Armenian and Coptic churches). And frankly I think the Catholic Church is trying, but its just the model of governance that is a problem; I wish the Cardinals could fire the Pope, and the bishops could fire the Cardinals, if doctrinal deviation or any kind of unethical behavior or violations of canon law were comitted by the Pope and the Cardinals. Now I have read that theoretically, a Pope who erred would self-excommunicate, but I just don’t see in the Roman church a system to enforce that.

Now, since I am Mr. Footnote, or Mr. Asterisk, whichever you prefer, here the asterisks are answerisked:

*This includes my church back when it was Puritan and hanged people for mere allegations witchcraft based on “spectral evidence”; that’s actually the dark secret past of the Congregationalist churches in New England, whether they are UCC, or Unitarian Universalist, or CCCC like Park Street Church, they were all under the influence of Cotton Mather, who was President of Harvard, and together with his father, the main intellectual defender of the witch trials. However, not all Congregationalists have this guilt, notably free from blame are the Hungarian Reformed, Greek Evangelical, and, the largest group, the Prussian Reformed churches that joined the Congregationals in the 19th century, instead of the LCMS (which was formed from the Prussian Lutheran majority; the Prussian royal family and a minority of the people were Calvinist or Reformed, but the majority were Lutheran, so in the 18th century the King, I forget which one, mashed them all together in one church, which existed until the Third Reich seized control of the Protestant churches in Germany and created the Reichskirche, which resulted in the underground Confessing Church led by saintly martyrs such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer). Now, while the LCMS was by far the larger slice of the Prussian pie, the Prussian Reformed churches are probably at least a third of Congregational churches, UCC or otherwise, and a majority in the Midwest and rural Pennyslvania. But the Congregational churches have apologized and denounced the witchhunts, however, as far as I know, Harvard University pretends to be innocent. But even if they have admitted wrongdoing on their part in the late 17th century, I still really passionately dislike Harvard, especially its School of Divinity, although I am fascinated by, but completely opposed to, the work of Karen Pagels, who has become the most important Gnostic apologist of our era. So she is totally wrong, and also got defrauded once buying what was an alleged lost Gospel, which turned out to have been a very skillful forgery (genuine ancient papyrus, compatible ink formula, but the brush strokes indicated the use of modern fibers, and the strokes of the characters were also typical of what it looks like when someone today learns how to write in the ancient scripts, rather than the natural elegance of authentic manuscripts in Hebrew, Demotic, Coptic, Estrangela, Greek and other ancient writing systems).

**I am not saying gifts, although I am neither cessationist nor charismatic, because I think charismatics and Pentecostals don’t actually have true charismas, but I have met a few holy people who I believe did possess these gifts, but they are not what people think they; I respect the cessationist viewpoint however, because my view can only be the result of an empirical experience which not everyone has, and I can’t ask people to take my word for it). So if you are a cessationist, rest assured, my position is 100% cessationist-compatible, because I regard cessationism as being logically indicated.

 

[prodromos]

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".

This is nonsense. What was different about the theology of the Oriental Orthodox after they became seperated from the Chalcedonians? The answer is nothing. Was was different about the theology of the Eastern Chalcedonian Churches after Cardinal Umberto's Bull of Excommunication was thrown on the altar at Hagia Sophia? Again, nothing.
What is different about Romes theology since those times? Where to start!
Both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are consistent in what they teach today and what they taught many centuries ago. The same cannot be said for Rome.

 

[prodromos]

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

Ditto for papal infallibility.

 

[Guojing]

Acts 15 records the First Council of Jerusalem making such a decision, with Pope Peter having the final & most decisive voice.

Do almost every Catholic believes this? Didn't the Bible record that James had the final say?

Actually, when you literally read how Acts 15 went down, as recorded by Luke. Peter actually stated this:

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

A literal reading will tell you that Peter is actually saying that he wants the Jews (we), from then on, to be saved, as a Gentile (they).

James did his final announcement that

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Are these two the same in content and meaning?

 

[Lost4words]

Ditto for papal infallibility.

The Holy Spirit has guided the Catholic church from the very beginning.

 

[prodromos]

The Holy Spirit has guided the church from the very beginning.

That is the Eastern Orthodox position, yes.

 

[Lost4words]

That is the Eastern Orthodox position, yes.

Yes, its the Catholic position i was referring to. Thank you.

God bless you

 

[bmjackson]

Scripture was never meant to be our primary source of authority. It is the fountain, but not the source. The living water is the source, which is the Holy Spirit, but whatever is discerned must not be contradicted by scripture which is why l cannot accept Catholic dogma.

So how do we know what is coming from the Holy Spirit and what is coming from mans mind or even Satan?

Only those who have been authentically baptised in the Holy Spirit and are therefore made holy, not as a position but as a reality, have that discernment, but still there will be areas where they are not sure, as Paul wasn't when he said so. But he had the discernment to know what was definitely from God.

We are only given more light if we obey the light we have been given.

The early Quakers stood for this and Barclay explained it very well in his Apology.

 

[zoidar]

"“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!

Hasn't there been and still are questions being debated in the Catholic church, meaningly we don't have a constant theology. That means a Catholic of let's say year 500 wouldn't agree with a Catholic of today.

 

[Clete]

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.

True but I don't see much of a problem with that, do you?

I mean, it wasn't the average person's fault that there was no common access to the scriptures nor was it typically their fault that they were uneducated and unable to read. Plus, even if they had the bible and were educated like we are today, doesn't the bible anticipate the normal person's tendancy toward believing what they are taught to believe?

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

 

[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.

Then don't talk about Mary. Try choosing any one of the other half dozen or more points I spent well over an hour making.

What makes you think anyone is interested in having their time wasted like this? What makes you think that anyone cares about why you chose Catholicism unless you bring it up as a way of starting a discussion about the Catholic faith and it's particular distinctive doctrines? This is, after all, a discussion forum. I just do not understand what you're doing here if you are going to avoid discussing the issues that come up in your own threads.

 

[Clete]

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.

So, if two truth claims cannot contradict and both be true and if the bible is true as both Catholics and Protestants attest, and Catholic dogma, regardless of its source, contradicts the bible then what does that tell us about that particular dogma?

• Two truth claims that contradict one another cannot both be true at the same time and in the same context. - Law of contradiction - corollary to the Law of Identity
• The bible is true. - Fundamental presupposition of all Christianity.
  
• Doctrine XYZ contradicts the bible.
• Therefore, doctrine XYZ is false.

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.

The problem is that their supposed inspiration contradicts the bible. Contradiction can only occur when something false has been stated.

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.

This is hasty generalization fallacy.

If, and I say IF the Holy Spirit is "guiding the Church" or anything else for that matter, then that guidance cannot be in contradiction the Word of God which He Himself inspired the writing of.

Whether or not any such inspiration is ongoing is a topic for another discussion. The point here is that Catholic dogma contradicts the bible and as such they can reject the dogma, reject the bible or reject the desire to maintain a rationally coherent worldview. Those are their three options, there are no others.

Clete

 

[Clete]

It is not an appeal to popularity, your errant positions are more so. The Bible was not meant to contain everything nor is it the only authority and in fact you will never see the Bible talk about itself as if it should be followed alone. The idea that the Bible is supposed to be followed alone is a man made idea not an idea that comes from God. In the future you need to stop talking down to me.

If you think I'm talking down to you, you're manufacturing that in your own mind. I have no such intention.

And yes, it absolutely is an appeal to popularity. Your simply denying that it is doesn't count as a rebuttal.

And the bible does talk about itself in several places, not the least of which is...

II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And I never said that bible is supposed to be followed alone. There is clearly natural law and other sources of truth. My only point is that when one's doctrine contradicts the bible then you are forced to choose which you are going to accept as true and which you're going to reject as false. Otherwise, you've elected to reject the need to have a rationally coherent worldview and at that point anything goes. You might as well start praying to David Koresh or Yahweh Ben Yahweh.

Clete

 

[Albion]

Hasn't there been and still are questions being debated in the Catholic church, meaningly we don't have a constant theology. That means a Catholic of let's say year 500 wouldn't agree with a Catholic of today.

The Church does add new dogmas as time goes along, if that's what you mean. Examples are Papal Infallibility, the Assumption of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception--and that's just to deal with dogmas made only within the last 200 years.

 

[Albion]

True but I don't see much of a problem with that, do you?

Only if a person insists that Christians of other denominations are expected to fend for themselves when it comes to defining doctrine BUT that the speaker doesn't do that, instead just accepting whatever God wants or whatever is the truth (!), depending on how that person decides to describe his own personal selection.

Unfortunately, that self-serving POV is heard often, and it isn't confined to members of only one denomination/church.

I mean, it wasn't the average person's fault that there was no common access to the scriptures nor was it typically their fault that they were uneducated and unable to read. Plus, even if they had the bible and were educated like we are today, doesn't the bible anticipate the normal person's tendancy toward believing what they are taught to believe?

I agree with much of that, but it's the hypocrisy that I was addressing and the fact that it is virtually built in to some denominations.

They teach their people that other Christians just interpret the faith as suits them (tsk tsk) whereas "in our church" we only believe what God said to believe (Hooray for our side). .