Why I am Catholic

[excubitor]

What if you were told that YOU were in schism from the Eastern Church, or the Assyrian Church, or the Oriental Orthodox Church?

I would encourage you to look at the Bible and see that there is no such thing as a "church" in any other sense than a group of believers. In fact, there was no centralized (human) authority in the early church.

In fact photius initially appealed to the pope and when he did not get the judgement he wanted he split the church in the great schism. King Henry viii did the same thing. He appealed to the pope for an annulment and when he did not get it he split from the church and formed a state church. Anglican and eastern orthodox lack one of the marks of the true church. Have you not read the creed? They are not catholic. Catholic means universal in other words not tied to a particular nation or region. The church was always catholic. The fellowships which split off took upon themselves the names of the nations. Eg. Greek orthodox Latvian orthodox Church of England. There is only one apostolic catholic church spoken of in the creeds and we all know what that church is.

[Sojourner55]

In fact photius initially appealed to the pope and when he did not get the judgement he wanted he split the church in the great schism. King Henry viii did the same thing. He appealed to the pope for an annulment and when he did not get it he split from the church and formed a state church. Anglican and eastern orthodox lack one of the marks of the true church. Have you not read the creed? They are not catholic. Catholic means universal in other words not tied to a particular nation or region. The church was always catholic. The fellowships which split off took upon themselves the names of the nations. Eg. Greek orthodox Latvian orthodox Church of England. There is only one apostolic catholic church spoken of in the creeds and we all know what that church is.

Schisms are a valid topic for discussion, and as fascinating as it may be, it is ultimately doctrinal truth for which we as individuals will be called into account. As such, I wonder if you might educate us on the Scriptural basis for doctrines such as Mary's immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, and status as "queen of heaven." I'm sure your corroboration will be solidly Biblical, and that you will not have to resort to "talking through your hat."

[excubitor]

Schisms are a valid topic for discussion, and as fascinating as it may be, it is ultimately doctrinal truth for which we as individuals will be called into account. As such, I wonder if you might educate us on the Scriptural basis for doctrines such as Mary's immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption into heaven, and status as "queen of heaven." I'm sure your corroboration will be solidly Biblical, and that you will not have to resort to "talking through your hat."

clearly you are unable to answer the points I made and so are seeking to change the subject to something you believe you will have better success with. And then if you are really lucky you will get me banned for promoting catholic ideology. I,m not interested in pursuing a particular religious ideology. I just want to correct error and advance the truth.

[Sojourner55]

clearly you are unable to answer the points I made and so are seeking to change the subject to something you believe you will have better success with. And then if you are really lucky you will get me banned for promoting catholic ideology. I,m not interested in pursuing a particular religious ideology. I just want to correct error and advance the truth.

First of all, this forum is for the discussion of religious doctrines--not history; so the points you are pursuing are off topic. I'm not changing the subject for any ulterior motives, but for administrative reasons. You will not be banned for defending Catholic doctrine in this forum. Like you, I'm also interested in correcting error and advancing the truth, which is why I'm giving you the opportunity to prove the validity of your beliefs. But apparently neither you nor Catholic Crusader are up to the task. Discuss your doctrine, or move along.

[Athanasius]

In fact photius initially appealed to the pope and when he did not get the judgement he wanted he split the church in the great schism. King Henry viii did the same thing. He appealed to the pope for an annulment and when he did not get it he split from the church and formed a state church. Anglican and eastern orthodox lack one of the marks of the true church. Have you not read the creed? They are not catholic. Catholic means universal in other words not tied to a particular nation or region. The church was always catholic. The fellowships which split off took upon themselves the names of the nations. Eg. Greek orthodox Latvian orthodox Church of England. There is only one apostolic catholic church spoken of in the creeds and we all know what that church is.

The Church is catholic, including the church called Roman Catholic.

[excubitor]

First of all, this forum is for the discussion of religious doctrines--not history; so the points you are pursuing are off topic. I'm not changing the subject for any ulterior motives, but for administrative reasons. You will not be banned for defending Catholic doctrine in this forum. Like you, I'm also interested in correcting error and advancing the truth, which is why I'm giving you the opportunity to prove the validity of your beliefs. But apparently neither you nor Catholic Crusader are up to the task. Discuss your doctrine, or move along.

Are you admitting that your religious doctrine is not supported by the facts of history? If your doctrine is true then show how it is true in both scripture and history.

[Sojourner55]

Are you admitting that your religious doctrine is not supported by the facts of history? If your doctrine is true then show how it is true in both scripture and history.

History has a way of being manipulated and changed to suit an agenda. Scripture is consistent, and the NT represents a record of what the early church was actually taught and believed--especially the book of Acts. I think you know you cannot sufficiently support Catholic doctrine by Scripture alone, because so much of the dogma is unsound, unscriptural, fabrication--concocted by personages when the Apostles were no longer around to refute it. That's why you're being so evasive.

[excubitor]

Are you saying that scripture cannot be manipulated and changed to suit an agenda? Where have you been?
Please demonstrate how history has been manipulated to show how the Roman church did not split off in schism from any other Christian body. You remind me of the muslims who claim that the Jews and Christians have manipulated and corrupted the scriptures, but are unable to provide any historical or documentary evidence to substantiate their claim. If history is an invalid witness then how can we know that the scriptures have not been manipulated in the manner the muslims claim?

[excubitor]

Excuse me it is you who is being evasive. You have failed to refute my claim that the Catholic church did not split from any other religion. Instead you changed the subject.
Please may we work through this issue and then If you want to start another thread on one the other subjects you mentioned I will happilly demonstrate your error on that subject as well.

History has a way of being manipulated and changed to suit an agenda. Scripture is consistent, and the NT represents a record of what the early church was actually taught and believed--especially the book of Acts. I think you know you cannot sufficiently support Catholic doctrine by Scripture alone, because so much of the dogma is unsound, unscriptural, fabrication--concocted by personages when the Apostles were no longer around to refute it. That's why you're being so evasive.

[Athanasius]

Excuse me it is you who is being evasive. You have failed to refute my claim that the Catholic church did not split from any other religion. Instead you changed the subject.
Please may we work through this issue and then If you want to start another thread on one the other subjects you mentioned I will happilly demonstrate your error on that subject as well.

You're glazing over the historical reality that the Catholic church - which is not to be confused with the catholic (universal) Church - was a regionally located Church, i.e. in Rome, and that part of the reason the schism occurred between Western and Eastern Christianity, is that the Roman (Catholic) church began demanding it be seen as the head of all other churches.

[decrumpit]

Have you not read the creed? They are not catholic. Catholic means universal in other words not tied to a particular nation or region. The church was always catholic. The fellowships which split off took upon themselves the names of the nations. Eg. Greek orthodox Latvian orthodox Church of England. There is only one apostolic catholic church spoken of in the creeds and we all know what that church is.

The Orthodox church is indeed a universal church - they are not bound by nationalities. They are organized by country, kind of like the RCC is organized by diocese or many Protestant churches are organized by country/church/region/state etc.

But my argument (and the argument of the Eastern Churches) is that the Pope as we today understand the office didn't exist until late in the game. It was quite literally the Bishop of Rome trying to usurp the authority of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria. In fact, MOST of the bishops sided with the Eastern church.

But even if we grant that the Eastern church is in error, it still doesn't stand that the Catholic Church as organized under a ruling bishop is the only definition of a "church". If you keep thinking in that manner (that "church" is only applicable to a single authority promulgating the same belief system) then you will always arrive at the same conclusion.

In fact photius initially appealed to the pope and when he did not get the judgement he wanted he split the church in the great schism.

The only problem is this - what if Photius was right? What if Luther or Calvin or whoever was right? Since when has truth come down to a majority vote?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

What if the myriad problems were only solved correctly by the Eastern church, or not at all? What if the bishop of Rome really had no authority over the entire church?

My point is that if you assume that the RCC is correct, you will always come to the conclusion that it is correct.

[Sojourner55]

Excuse me it is you who is being evasive. You have failed to refute my claim that the Catholic church did not split from any other religion. Instead you changed the subject.
Please may we work through this issue and then If you want to start another thread on one the other subjects you mentioned I will happilly demonstrate your error on that subject as well.

My, you are abrasive, aren't you bucko? If you expect to continue as a member here, you need to lose the snide, arrogant attitude. Got it?

First, the OP is "Why I am a Catholic," and Catholic Crusader launched into extolling the virtues of the Catholic religion as the only legitimate representation of the church. Your reference to schisms in post #7 steered the thread toward whether or not the Catholic church split from another religion.

Second, I never said the Catholic church split from another religion, so I can hardly be accused of evading that issue. I do maintain however, that the Roman Catholic church--like a cancer cell within the body--is an apostate, heresy-laden mutation of the original church, and that your "holy see" eventually replaced the secular powers of Rome as Satan's tool for persecuting Christians. (But, we'll get to that part of history later).

Since you really want to talk about the Catholic church in the context of history--which you maintain is so reliable a witness, let's start with the history of the papacy. Pleas answer the following questions:

1. Irenaeus stated that Linus was the first successor to Peter, but Hippolytus declares that Peter selected Clement I. How do we know for sure who is right? History seems to be of little help in clearing up that dispute.

2. If you decide that it was Linus, on what Scriptural basis do you assert that the position and authority of Peter was passed to him? I can find no reference in the historical record, in which Jesus ever intended or authorized such a succession. Maybe you can clear that up for us.

3. How was this office actually conferred upon Linus? I can't seem to find any information on that matter either--not in Scripture, or among the writings of the church fathers. I mean, was he elected, did they flip a coin, or what? What does history tell us about that?

4. Aside from the one mention of him by Irenaeus (written a hundred years after the fact), and a possible reference to him in a letter by Paul, What exactly do you even know about Linus? (Details about this person in the historical record seem a little sketchy, considering the critical position Linus holds with regard to papal succession).

5. What about the copious discrepancies in the various listings of the popes--the three popes named John, placed between Benedict VII and Gregory V, etc. And how do we know for sure the sitting popes were all more legitimate successors to Peter than the many antipopes? The "unbroken chain" seems to have a number of weak, disputed, and even questionable links in it. History seems a little muddled there as well.

Since you are eager to correct errors, start by clearing up these matters from the dusty pages of history. In the meantime, I will do as you suggest, and start a thread on the Scriptural validity of Catholic dogma. Looking forward to benefiting from your storehouse of knowledge and wisdom.

[episkopos]

Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world." He then noted that "a city set on a hill cannot be hid" (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:1 8 ). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, because any merely human organization would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH

If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church. The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church. His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8 )
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23). But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).

The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20). For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28 ). Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19). The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2). These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself. Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).

He guided the Israelites on their escape from Egypt by giving them a pillar of fire to light their way across the dark wilderness (Exod. 13:21). Today he guides us through his Catholic Church.

The Bible, sacred Tradition, and the writings of the earliest Christians testify that the Church teaches with Jesus’ authority. In this age of countless competing religions, each clamoring for attention, one voice rises above the din: the Catholic Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, "He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.


Adapted from this source: http://www.catholic.com/documents/pi...illar-of-truth

There are other types of unity other than organizational ones. For instance there is unity in the Holy Spirit OUTSIDE formal religions. Have you considered that?

[claybevan]

My, you are abrasive, aren't you bucko? If you expect to continue as a member here, you need to lose the snide, arrogant attitude. Got it?

First, the OP is "Why I am a Catholic," and Catholic Crusader launched into extolling the virtues of the Catholic religion as the only legitimate representation of the church. Your reference to schisms in post #7 steered the thread toward whether or not the Catholic church split from another religion.

Second, I never said the Catholic church split from another religion, so I can hardly be accused of evading that issue. I do maintain however, that the Roman Catholic church--like a cancer cell within the body--is an apostate, heresy-laden mutation of the original church, and that your "holy see" eventually replaced the secular powers of Rome as Satan's tool for persecuting Christians. (But, we'll get to that part of history later).

Since you really want to talk about the Catholic church in the context of history--which you maintain is so reliable a witness, let's start with the history of the papacy. Pleas answer the following questions:

1. Irenaeus stated that Linus was the first successor to Peter, but Hippolytus declares that Peter selected Clement I. How do we know for sure who is right? History seems to be of little help in clearing up that dispute.

2. If you decide that it was Linus, on what Scriptural basis do you assert that the position and authority of Peter was passed to him? I can find no reference in the historical record, in which Jesus ever intended or authorized such a succession. Maybe you can clear that up for us.

3. How was this office actually conferred upon Linus? I can't seem to find any information on that matter either--not in Scripture, or among the writings of the church fathers. I mean, was he elected, did they flip a coin, or what? What does history tell us about that?

4. Aside from the one mention of him by Irenaeus (written a hundred years after the fact), and a possible reference to him in a letter by Paul, What exactly do you even know about Linus? (Details about this person in the historical record seem a little sketchy, considering the critical position Linus holds with regard to papal succession).

5. What about the copious discrepancies in the various listings of the popes--the three popes named John, placed between Benedict VII and Gregory V, etc. And how do we know for sure the sitting popes were all more legitimate successors to Peter than the many antipopes? The "unbroken chain" seems to have a number of weak, disputed, and even questionable links in it. History seems a little muddled there as well.

Since you are eager to correct errors, start by clearing up these matters from the dusty pages of history. In the meantime, I will do as you suggest, and start a thread on the Scriptural validity of Catholic dogma. Looking forward to benefiting from your storehouse of knowledge and wisdom.

Don't sweet talk him Sojourner, tell him straight

[excubitor]

Again, I challenge you to provide historical documentary evidence of this. If the church regionally located in Rome was never the head of all the churches then please answer the following questions.
Why did Saint Clement say this Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt?
"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

Why did Saint Ignatius Bishop writing from Antioch (modern Turkey) write this?
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

Why did St. Iraneus, a bishop if Gaul (Modern France) write this?
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

Cyprian was a bishop in Carthage (North Africa) who died a martyrs death. Needless to say the Chair of Peter was always in Rome. At times of persecution the Chair of Peter moved temporarily from Rome but the church never flourished during such times and the Chair of Peter was always returned to Rome. Cyprian said.
"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

This is just scratching the surface. Of course I admit that there have always been men challenging the authority of Rome. There were also men that challenged the authority of the apostles and Jesus himself. That is not surprising. The reason that there is a challenge against the authority of Rome is proof in its very nature that Rome had an authority to challenge in the first place. So what you must do is to show from history when where and how the church in Rome falsely and illegitimately wrested authority from the churches in other regions prior to 200AD.

Please show your historical documents which show that the Roman church did not begin to demand headship over the other churches until the Great Schism.
Athanasius, I think you know now that you were just making it up and that you just fired off a post without checking first what you were saying.

You're glazing over the historical reality that the Catholic church - which is not to be confused with the catholic (universal) Church - was a regionally located Church, i.e. in Rome, and that part of the reason the schism occurred between Western and Eastern Christianity, is that the Roman (Catholic) church began demanding it be seen as the head of all other churches.