why catholic?

Question

Can anyone who is NOT catholic testify that catholic beliefs are true?

For example, is there proof that some books were removed from the "original" bible by non-catholic denominations?

How can their traditions be supported if most of them are not written down, from a non-catholic perspective? (I don't mean anti-catholic, I just want an uninfluenced source)

Answer 1

What is untrue about Catholic beliefs? A lot of what they are accused of is just people not understanding what they do. And refusing to listen to actual explanation. Catholics have the longest branch of Christianity. I would think they are doing something right.

Answer 2

Greetings Sir.

Since you wanted a non-Catholic to respond, I will do so, as I am not Catholic. However, I must confess that I have been sympathetic to Catholicism of recent, and have considered converting.

You asked if, for example, there is evidence of a canon different from the one Protestants hold to. The answer is, emphatically, yes. For example, consult with a Greek Orthodox Church. They have almost an identical canon to the Catholic canon, yet they are not Roman Catholics. The so-called "Oriental Orthodox" Christians (AKA "Monophysites"), who have been separated from the Catholic and Orthodox churches since the council of Chalcedon (i.e. 451 CE), also have a larger canon than the one endorsed by Protestants.

That sort of evidence begins to point to the Protestant canon starting with the Protestant reformation. And that begs the question: what gave Martin Luther the authority to choose what is and is not in the Bible? That, in turn, begs the question: how do we determine what is in the canon? Who decides?

For me, this quickly boils down to an issue of Church authority. This idea of "the Bible alone" falls flat, as the Bible alone does not tell us what the canon is. The Bible does, however, inform us, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and that the Church has the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19), which I take to mean that the Church has the power to set doctrine (as it did in Acts 15), and it also has the authority to decide what is in the canon.

Now, by "the Church", do I mean the Roman Catholic Church? No, but it is precisely the sort of reasoning above that has caused me to look away from the Protestant anarchy, and consider the ancient liturgical churches. Maybe the Roman Catholic is The Church, or maybe the Greek Orthodox Church is, or maybe it is the collection of "Oriental Orthodox" churches (e.g. Armenians, Copts, Syrians and Ethiopians). This is why, at this point in my life, I am considering those three groups (Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and, to a significantly lesser degree, the Monophysite churches). Whatever the case is, seriously pondering this issue of the canon leads us to the issue of church authority, which causes us to ask: what/where/who is The Church.

I invite others to e-mail me, for further discussion on this topic of the canon.

Answer 3

Pastor Billy says: i salute you Jill for your openness,

Why do some people keep writing Bel and the Dragon as if the entire bible is actually written in a literal form? Revelations is not a literal style of writing as it is extremely symbolic and yet it forms a part of every Protestant bible.

I would suggest you start by examining the personal testimonies of numerous Protestant ministers and preachers and teaching authorities who have come into the Catholic Church and understand both sides of the fence especially the numerous misconceptions non-Catholics have on Catholicism.

go to this website and download any of the numerous audio files you'll need real player maybe
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/file_index.asp?SeriesId=-6892289&pgnu=

BTW haven't you considered there are different traditions of biblical interpretation and therefore the assertion of "How can their traditions be supported if most of them are not written down" doesn't hold water once you are open to the possibility of muliple biblical interpretation. Heck I would think it obvious from a non-Catholic perpective just look at all the so-called "bible churches" in Protestantism that all disagree with each other on doctrine.

Answer 4

I am finding more and more truth as I "investigate" the Catholic Church. It began as just simply studying my girlfriend's faith, and I began to realize that a lot of my "anti-Catholic" sentiment was simply ignorance and misinformation.

For proof that some books were removed ... the fact that Protestant churches use the Bible that doesn't have those books is evidence itself.

Traditions are one aspect that I am still stumbling over when I study the Catholic faith. When you said "most of them are not written down", I get the image/idea of Native Americans, whom I worked with in Oklahoma; many of their stories, customs, and rituals were passed down verbally from generation to generation.

Answer 5

You want uninfluenced source? Look it up through the historical record. You will find that Martin Luther did remove books that he did not agree with. You will find that after the early christians were using scripture to prove Jesus was the Messiah, the Jews at the time removed books from their scriptures!

Answer 6

Yes it can be proved that books have been removed by the protestants. First of all it was the African Synods in the late forth and early fifth century that decided the Canon. The OT Canon was based on the Essene/Diaspora Greek Canon which is quoted in the NT by the writers.

Actually most of Sacred Tradition is based on writings of the Church fathers and the declarations of the Church Councils and Synods.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 7

I think we can all agree there is no perfect church...the catholics believe in the trinity and that Jesus died for our sins therefore they are as good as any other christian church..I remember when the abortion bill was before the supreme court and the catholics went on record against it..now guess what..they were correct except now we have choice at least for women but not for men.

Answer 8

The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen. Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?
Matthew 23:2-3
[Jesus speaking] The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.



2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Our Lord founded a Church (Matthew 16:18-19), not a book, which was to be the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). We can know what this Church teaches by looking not only at Sacred Scripture, but into History and by reading what the earliest Christians have written, what those who've sat on the Chair of Peter have spoken consistently with Scripture and Tradition, and what they've solemnly defined. To believe that the Bible is our only source of Christian Truth is unbiblical and illogical.

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. 16:18). 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, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members 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.

What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all." Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages. All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone. Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church?

Answer 9

not even the catholics can swear that they have it all the right way . did they not change the days of worship from saturday to sunday ? and said the poope had that much power to do so for he is lord on earth. the keys of Peter

Answer 10

What Jill said. My Christian friend still believes that Catholics view Mary as a deity, even though we've all told her otherwise. But not all Christains are that thick-headed. Ask, and you'll get an answer. Usually they justify their traditions by the fact that their traditions bring them closer to God, etc.