What evidence is there that The Catholic Church


#1

has interpreted The Bible correctly?

-About it being the One True Church stablished by Christ.
-About it’ sstatement being infallible
-About it being incapable of erring.
-Etc.


#2

[quote=salival]has interpreted The Bible correctly?

-About it being the One True Church stablished by Christ.
-About it’ sstatement being infallible
-About it being incapable of erring.
-Etc.
[/quote]

The simplest and most obvious evidence is the Catholic Church has taught a coherent doctrine for almost two thousand years, while Protestants have splintered, fragmented, spilt and re-split into tens of thousands of sects in less than a quarter of that time.


#3

plus Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church.


#4

[quote=vern humphrey]The simplest and most obvious evidence is the Catholic Church has taught a coherent doctrine for almost two thousand years, while Protestants have splintered, fragmented, spilt and re-split into tens of thousands of sects in less than a quarter of that time.
[/quote]

But hasn’t the Catholic Church split betwen orthodox and catholics? and then between Catholics and reformers and then between Catholics and old Catholics? I am sure there are some more.


#5

[quote=cardenio]plus Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church.
[/quote]

Ok, but how do you link Jesus claim to The Catholic Church?


#6

[quote=salival]Ok, but how do you link Jesus claim to The Catholic Church?
[/quote]

Because of what vern humphrey said. As far as orthodoxy is concerned, I cannot help you there. I’ve only encountered Protestants and non-Christians in my theological debates, and since necessity is my main motivation, I have not really looked into orthodoxy at all.


#7

Look up Matthew 16, and remember that Peter was the first Pope, the first Bishop of Rome. The Orthodox, I do believe, don’t deny that;).

Might I add what evidence is there that the Bible is infallible? What evidence is there that the set of Scriptures you’re looking at are THE Scriptures inspired by God? What is wrong with my Scriptures? How do you know Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the inspired Gospels? Why not the Gospels of Curly, Harry, or Moe?


#8

[quote=salival]But hasn’t the Catholic Church split betwen orthodox and catholics? and then between Catholics and reformers and then between Catholics and old Catholics? I am sure there are some more.
[/quote]

No. The split between Catholics and Orthodox is based solely on the issue of the Papacy. Although the so-called Filoque Controvesy is often cited, there are no real doctrinal issues.

The “Old Catholics” are not Catholics, and we do not recognize them.

The Catholic Church has maintained a consistent, coherent doctrine for almost two thousand years.


#9

[quote=FuzzyBunny116] Might I add what evidence is there that the Bible is infallible? What evidence is there that the set of Scriptures you’re looking at are THE Scriptures inspired by God? What is wrong with my Scriptures? How do you know Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the inspired Gospels? Why not the Gospels of Curly, Harry, or Moe?
[/quote]

Sure, let’s say that we got The Bible from The Catholic Church, but so what? Just because of this does not means that The Church cannot err or that it is infallible in it’s interpretation of it. It can wander into error very much like the pharisees in the day of Jesus.


#10

[quote=vern humphrey]No. The split between Catholics and Orthodox is based solely on the issue of the Papacy. Although the so-called Filoque Controvesy is often cited, there are no real doctrinal issues.
[/quote]

They have other issues like scholasticism and the fact that Catholics have gone out of their way to define many things which they consider speculaton.

The “Old Catholics” are not Catholics, and we do not recognize them.

Well they, just like the orthodox do not accept the infaiibility of the pope.

The Catholic Church has maintained a consistent, coherent doctrine for almost two thousand years.

Sure, but it is a doctrine consistent with it’s own interpretation of The Bible. The thing is, what evidence do you have that it is in fact the correct interpretation.


#11

[quote=salival]Sure, let’s say that we got The Bible from The Catholic Church, but so what? Just because of this does not means that The Church cannot err or that it is infallible in it’s interpretation of it. It can wander into error very much like the pharisees in the day of Jesus.
[/quote]

Except that it hasn’t wandered into error – it has taught a consistent, coherent message for nearly two thousand years. Read the early Church Fathers and you will be impressed at how Catholic they are – and how today’s Church still delivers the same message.

On the other hand, Protestants in a quarter of that time have fragmented, split, quarreled, broken apart and re-fragmented until today there are literally tens of thousands of Protestant sects.


#12

For the record and to avoid any misconceptions. I am not a protestant who is just trying to attack Catholicism. I am just looking for some answers about this.


#13

[quote=salival]They have other issues like scholasticism and the fact that Catholics have gone out of their way to define many things which they consider speculaton.
[/quote]

“Scholasticism?” As in Medevial Scholasticism? How does that separate the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[quote=salival]Well they, just like the orthodox do not accept the infaiibility of the pope.[/quopte]

That’s not the only difference – they do not have the Apostolic Successior or valid orders. As I say, they are not Catholics, no matter what they call themselves, and we do not recognize them.

[quote=salival]Sure, but it is a doctrine consistent with it’s own interpretation of The Bible. The thing is, what evidence do you have that it is in fact the correct interpretation.
[/quote]

That it is consistent with the early Church. Christianity is what it was – we believe as the early Christians believed. Since there has been no public revelation from the time of Christ and will be none to the end of the world, those who differ with the early Christians are obviously in error.
[/quote]


#14

[quote=vern humphrey]“Scholasticism?” As in Medevial Scholasticism? How does that separate the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?
[/quote]

I will have to look it up, but they have a beef with it in that it attempted to rationalize faith or something along those lines.

That it is consistent with the early Church. Christianity is what it was – we believe as the early Christians believed. Since there has been no public revelation from the time of Christ and will be none to the end of the world, those who differ with the early Christians are obviously in error.

Ok, if there had been no new public revelation form the time of Christ then what about the two dogmas about Mary? What about Papal infallibility? How are these not new revelation? What about the rosary and it’s mysteries?

If The Church really is consistent with what Christianity was then how can they say dogma develops?


#15

You know, the people of Irael wanted an Earthly Authority when God Almighty wanted to be their king, many jews still don’t accept Christ because they’re still looking for an Earthly Authority.

There is no proof that the Catholic Church is THE Church, it’s taken on faith like everything else.


#16

[quote=salival]Ok, if there had been no new public revelation form the time of Christ then what about the two dogmas about Mary? What about Papal infallibility? How are these not new revelation? What about the rosary and it’s mysteries?

If The Church really is consistent with what Christianity was then how can they say dogma develops?
[/quote]

Understanding of the truth develops. Perhaps you should go to John Henry Cardinal Newman’s *Development of Christian Doctrine *to understand this better. We perceive the truth more deeply as time passes, but that doesn’t mean that it has changed, just that we understand it better. It is the mustard seed growing into the mustard tree.


#17

[quote=salival]I will have to look it up, but they have a beef with it in that it attempted to rationalize faith or something along those lines.
[/quote]

Scholasticism is the belief that all that can be known is known. It is essentially Platonic in outlook, and is based on referring everything to published authority. The great debate on this philosophical (not religious) issue came long after the Great Schism.

[quote=salival]Ok, if there had been no new public revelation form the time of Christ then what about the two dogmas about Mary?
[/quote]

They are not based on new revelation, but merely a statement of what Catholics have always believed. The only change is that they have been defined de fide.

[quote=salival]What about Papal infallibility?
[/quote]

“Infalibility” is the proposition that the Church cannot teach error. There are three standards for infallibility:

  1. The Ordinary Magisterium. This is the Church’s authority to teach. What the Bishops teach under the supervision of the Pope world-wide is without error.

  2. The Extraordinary Magisterium is employed when there is no consensus. This is an ecuminical council, under the supervision of the Pope which studies and discusses the issues and makes a pronouncement.

  3. The Pope speaking ex-Cathedra (as the Church.) This is extremely rare, but the Pope does have the power to exercise the Magisterium in his person.

Normally, the Church prefers** not** to make a given belief dogma, and only does so with great reluctance – and usually because there is some dispute to be settled.

[quote=salival]How are these not new revelation?
[/quote]

There is nothing new about them – they simply formalize what Catholics have always believed. Peter, for example, exercised the Magisterium in his person.

[quote=salival] What about the rosary and it’s mysteries?
[/quote]

What about it? There is no dogma there. The Rosary is simply an ancient custom, dating back to medieval Ireland.

[quote=salival]If The Church really is consistent with what Christianity was then how can they say dogma develops?
[/quote]

It doesn’t develop – it is formalized.

For example, the Church has never made the issue of dietary law dogma. Yet that was a major issue in the very early Church. However, if there were a reason to do so, the Church might declare that to be de fide.


#18

[quote=Manphibian]You know, the people of Irael wanted an Earthly Authority when God Almighty wanted to be their king, many jews still don’t accept Christ because they’re still looking for an Earthly Authority.

There is no proof that the Catholic Church is THE Church, it’s taken on faith like everything else.
[/quote]

Truth, of necessity, is unity. There cannot be two opposing doctrines which are both truth.

Therefore, if there is a true church, it must be the one Church which has maintained a constant and consitant message since the time of Christ.


#19

[quote=Manphibian]You know, the people of Irael wanted an Earthly Authority when God Almighty wanted to be their king, many jews still don’t accept Christ because they’re still looking for an Earthly Authority.
[/quote]

Ok, then what makes you think that God had the intention of stablishing another authority on earth (The Church) if he did not want to stablish an earthly authority in the first place?

There is no proof that the Catholic Church is THE Church, it’s taken on faith like everything else.

If there is no proof then how can you say that it is the one true Church? Upon what evidence do you make this decision?


#20

[quote=vern humphrey]Scholasticism is the belief that all that can be known is known. It is essentially Platonic in outlook, and is based on referring everything to published authority. The great debate on this philosophical (not religious) issue came long after the Great Schism.
[/quote]

Ok, it may have come after it but The Catholic Church does relies a lot on Aquinas, a couple of Popes have encouraged and recommended it as the main philosophy of The Church. And this seems to bether the Orthodox and it also makes things a bit narrow. They also rely a lot in Augustine. Why are the other fathers given so little attention?

They are not based on new revelation, but merely a statement of what Catholics have always believed. The only change is that they have been defined de fide.

None of the apostles mentioned any of this nor is it found in any of the writtings up to the fourth century. So it is not really what has always been believed. Maybe her virginity, but not her assumption to heaven.

“Infalibility” is the proposition that the Church cannot teach error.

I know, it says that the Pope when speaking ex-cathedra in matters of faith and morals if free from erring. But this statement is rare, how can the Pope declare an infallible statement declaring himself to be infallible when declaring infallible statements? This seems like circular and biased.

Normally, the Church prefers** not** to make a given belief dogma, and only does so with great reluctance – and usually because there is some dispute to be settled.

Why does it prefers not to declare a given belief dogma if what The Church delcares to be infallible is free from error?

There is nothing new about them – they simply formalize what Catholics have always believed. Peter, for example, exercised the Magisterium in his person.

I have a hard time accepting that the Christians have always accepted the Pope to be infallible in matters of faith and morals. What evidence is there for this?

Also note, that Peter, the first Pope, erred and was corrected by Paul.

What about it? There is no dogma there. The Rosary is simply an ancient custom, dating back to medieval Ireland.

So, if there seems to arise some controversy over the Rosary then the Church could/would define that custom as de fide?

It doesn’t develop – it is formalized.

And what is the difference? Jesus didn’t give any explanation about the Trinity or the relationship between the persons or the filogue. It came about much latter thru the use of greek philosophy and was much later deepened and developed by Augustine, Aquinas, etc.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.