Thank you for answering.
My husband and I are the only Catholics in a large group of Southern Baptist! We absolutely love them, and are loved by them. I respect very much how committed they are to their faith in Christ. However, I can’t help but hurt for their loss and misunderstanding of the Eucharist. I often want to ask, not sure why I haven’t, what they believe the early church looked like? Where would they go to find out? Would they even read what St Thomas Aquinas, Ignatius of Antioch, John of the cross, ect ect ect, had to say about the Eucharist? The Eucharist, is What makes or breaks the Catholic church. If he is present, then who in their right mind would walk away!?! If he is not, then who in his right mind would stay. I believe if your truly searching, this is the question that you should to discern… love and prayers brother!
Only then Mystic Pizza would make sense in the end.
Subjective? After 30 plus years as a “Protestant” and some of that vehemently anti Catholic it’s a bit more than subjective. When Jesus told Peter He, Jesus, would build His church he didn’t wave a wand and boom what you see now appeared. It took centuries and if one is open minded and logical the pieces fit quite well to see the church today as the growing vibrant organism that was in it’s embryonic state at that point. My faith has brought me to accept the Catholic Church as it is, the true body of Christ. My hope is that more and more see Her for what God truly made Her. The Catholic Church through Jesus has made me a better person and has shown me how to genuinely love my enemies. Something I really never was able to do as a Protestant. God bless you!
You answered yourself in your question. The “various” Protestant denominations. Jesus said He would build His Church not He would build a variety of sects with each one’s interpretation of His Word and words. And you pick one that fits your style.
One of my favorite quotes of Jesus is , “And upon this rock I will build my church”. God works through other people, and Jesus started this mission of speaking for His teachings with Peter. Before His Ascension, He gave authority for human beings to do what He did-administer the sacraments, which were founded by Jesus.
I would challenge you to do some research into that statement. You might be shocked by what you find elsewhere.
The Catholic Church neither owns nor wrote the book on sex scandal under the spire.
Judas turned Jesus over to the ones who would judge and have Him crucified but the Church continues to this day. We are not a Perfect Church because those who make up the Catholic Church are human and fall. But the Church is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church established by Jesus Himself.
I would add that, as promised by Jesus, The Holy Spirit continues to guide his true Church. The proof is that, in spite of any number of heresies and apostasies, it is still standing after 2000 years.
It doesn’t follow (logically) that in spite of any number of heresies and apostasies, the CC is still standing after 2000 years, so we can know from this, that the CC is His true church.
It doesn’t matter how ancient the religion is. The continued existence of the Shia Muslims doesn’t give them any more credibility than that of the the Mormons does it?
Another poster asking this>>
Isn’t it true that at various times in history there have been two or three popes all at the same time? Was it intentional or did it occur unintentionally? How can that be consistent with an "unbroken succession of popes?
Respectfully toward to ask the question one must of done already some research on this also?
Respectfully toward in searching out truths of such finding.
Western Schism the Western Schism also called Papal Schism Great Occidential Schism and Schism of 1378 was a split with the Catholic Church from 1378-1417 in which 2 since 1410 even three rival Popes each with their own following, Cardinals and his own administration offices, simultaneously claimed to be the true Pope. unquote.
Council of Constance, Antipope Benedict X111 Council of Pisa
Sources Encyclopedia Britannica and other books written on Historically also if one chooses to search out such sources.
If one wants to enter the Kingdom Obey the Commandments and Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
It is not that the Church is old. It is that Christ clearly founded the Church with the intention that it remain unified and clearly placed it not in a book but in the hands of Apostles who were given authority over it and promised the Church would not be abandoned, that the Holy Spirit would remain with it. The Catholic Church, then, does have the four marks: one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic (linked by a line of succession to the Apostles, which the New Testament clearly shows is a mark of the Church).
It does not follow logically that those who left the Church could start other churches with these same attributes. If you want to follow the Bible, you won’t find anywhere in the after-Pentecost accounts where a believer has the authority to depart from the authority of the Apostles and start their own thing.
This sounds like a circular argument. How did you come to know that there are four “marks” and not three, five, one, or some other number of marks? How did you learn that the word, “apostolic” has anything to do with a “succession of apostles”? Where in Scripture do we find this particular teaching?
Late here, but if you are really looking for an honest answer, there really is none. Jehovah Witnesses believe they have the better way. Lutheran’s believe they do. Evangelists believe, fundamentalists do. One follows the order of any particular church because they believe that their church has the fullness of truth also. It’s all in your own personal belief which is the better fit for you. I’ve read most of the responses here, and they pertain to the truth, the first church past down from Jesus to the apostles, the Eucharist as the true body and blood. Those answers do not make it better to be Catholic if you do not believe that this is true. Some may say that our liturgies are beautiful and the Easter Vigil is a must. That is no answer why Catholic is better. Other churches have beautiful services too.
I see that some have similar answers to mine. It is not “why is it better to be Catholic,” but rather why is it better to follow Christ and believe. In our creed, we state that we believe in on holy catholic and apostolic church. The small C is there for a purpose…meaning universal, not the Catholic Church.
If you are looking for a church, you must know their beliefs and find one that you can really believe in, e.g. if you believe that confessing to God is a personal thing between you and God alone, Catholicism is not for you. If you cannot believe that a priest can, through the action of the Holy Spirit, turn the bread and wine into the real presence of Christ himself, Catholicism is not for you.
I can go on an on, but I believe you get my point.
It’s the Church Jesus commissioned the apostles to spread throughout the world. Protestant denominations are only partially united to this Church (RCC) in their faith. The CC (and OC) is the only Church that provides access to the sacraments other than Baptism in order to help the faithful live holy lives. These sacramental graces are not available in Protestant denominations. But essentially, it is the living Church established by the apostles, the only one in which there successors still carry on their ministry. The Church isn’t some vague communion in people who profess Christ. The profession is part of it, of course, but it’s thw actual institution commissioned by the apostles, too. To be a Christian outside of it is to be imperfectly participating in the Church established by Jesus.
There is no reason that I know of that there are to be four. It is just that there are four.
It was the Twelve who selected the replacement of Judas and the Apostles who laid hands on those sent out with the authority to spread the Gospel. This practice is clearly shown in the Scriptures; bishops and other ministers were not self-appointed, but selected by those already sent into ministry by the Apostles.
After all, where did you get the Scriptures that you have as an authority? The authority to deem what was in the canon was the authority of the Apostles. We know what is in the faith because it was handed down in an unbroken line from those appointed to be authoritative witnesses to the world: that is, the Twelve.
The Church is to be one because Our Lord himself set it down that his followers were to be one as he and the Father are one. Likewise, the Church is to be holy (1 Pet 1:15-16). Finally, the Apostles are commanded to bring the Gospel to all nations, so it follows that the true Church is to be catholic, or universal, rather than provincial.
I agree. The responses are highly subjective, and in the end, people tend to choose the type of church (or religion) that most closely matches what they already believe is true.
Does the veracity of a statement depend on whether or not the hearer has the capacity to understand it and believe it? Those who refuse to believe the truth because they objectively do not have the capacity to accept it are not culpable, but they are still incorrect if they believe something that is not true rather than what is true.
Having said that, the reason to become Catholic is that you believe what the Church teaches is true. If you don’t believe that and have some other reason to want to be Catholic, you have some problems. (You would essentially have to lie to get in.) It would be wrong to pressure someone to join the Church who does not believe that what the Church teaches is true. You would be pressuring them to commit perjury and a sacrilege.
The reality of confirmation bias is not evidence in favor of a subjective view of reality.
Either Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon in July 1969 or they didn’t. What someone chooses to believe or not believe about that is irrelevant. If there was not a living soul that believed that it happened, that doesn’t change the truth a bit. Armstrong and Aldrin said it happened. They told others. Either you believe the line of evidence or you don’t.
Totally false. One example: Lutherans are protestants, no? They baptize, they have First Holy Communion, they have Confirmation. To Lutherans, they are sacramental graces of their church.
Wow. So, you are saying that those who are not Catholic are imperfect and thus not following Jesus correctly? Everyone who follows Jesus as their Lord and Savior, is loved. So much, for “love one another.” That does not mean love one another who are Catholic only.
Furthermore, do you believe that every Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic church? If not, are they imperfect as well?
I think that following the “right religion” shouldn’t be the main goal. Our faith should be a personal faith… in the one person who is able to save us from hell. Jesus never really made His Jewish religion a big deal. This is largely why I don’t care much about religion. I don’t think that Jesus came to the world to create another religion; he came to His people to teach them and to save them. When Jesus said, “I am the way”, we should take Him seriously. Religion often divides and misleads people. We need Jesus. We can (by the power of the Holy Spirit) know Him through the bible.