Is Catholicism a true religion

[metis]

If it does mean a actual church, then it most certainly wouldn't be the catholic church lol
/first actual churches

You might check this out, and look under "7. History": Catholic Church - Wikipedia

A reminder that Wikipedia is not a Catholic website..

 

[metis]

Peter's name means a small stone or pebble, not a rock. Peter was a small part of the early church but not the rock that it was built on.

Actually the operative name is "Kephas", which means "rock". However, when Peter's Aramaic name was translated into Koine Greek, which is gender sensitive. they couldn't use "Petra" because that's feminine-- therefore, "Petros".

If you reread Matthew 16, you'll see that the "you" that Jesus uses several times can only be taken as a rather clear-cut reference to Peter. We also know that the 2nd century church taught that Peter was the spiritual head of the church (James was the administrative head and Judas had been the treasurer).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If there can be only one ultimate truth pertaining to anything, then only one of the world's religions can have the ultimate truth. One test would be in God demonstrating and proving to the world who he is, which would bring us first to Judaism and then to Christianity, after God more fully revealed himself along with further proof. And if a particular Christian faith is the One True Faith, then it would have to be the one that Christ himself established, not some variant that a mortal man invented 1500 years or so later.

Did you notice how many "ifs" you employed? That in itself suggests quite a bit of uncertainty.

But the fact is, no matter how you try to slice it, the God we find in the OT is truly not the God we find in the NT -- therefore the Jewish and Christians Gods are not one and the same.

But you ignore the fact that this "one God" is supposed to have revealed Himself to Adam, and then to Noah, and then to Abraham, and then to Moses, and then to Joshua, and on and on and endlessly on through prophets that all saw this "one God" completely differently. And in every case it is -- if you do the careful work of reading -- a different God. It is, in every case, a "god" that reflects the notions of the writer. Doesn't that tell you anything? Really?

And then I have to ask why 1500 years later? Why not 500 years (that would be Mohammed)? Why not 1800 years (Joseph Smith? This is and has always been one of my most important questions about God, and nobody ever -- EVER -- answers it. If God is truly God, and can reach us all and is all-knowing, then this God MUST KNOW that the use of such prophets is futile and must go wrong. And we know today that this is true, because it DOES god wrong.

So we are told to beware "false prophets," and given some silly notions about how we can tell which prophets are false and which aren't.

But think very carefully about this for just a moment -- if you can tell, out of your own apprehension, which prophets are true and which false, then that can only be because you have received the wisdom of God. And if everybody can do that, then everybody has received that wisdom -- and all of us are prophets.

Now, what does that tell you about "truth?"

 

[Forever_Catholic]

There are many places in the Bible that show that Jesus is the "rock". God would not build His church on any human person but on the "rock" of Jesus. Peter's name means a small stone or pebble, not a rock. Peter was a small part of the early church but not the rock that it was built on.That is one reason protestants left the early church. Protestants base their religion on the rock of Jesus and not on a small stone.

In first-century Greek, "Petra" and "Petros" were synonymous. And "Petros," whether given in Greek by Jesus, or translated to Greek in Saint Matthew's gospel, it was was expressed in Aramaic (transliterated to Cephas from Kepha), in both Galatians and 1 Corinthians. For example, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 1 Corinthians 15:5 And "Kepha" means rock, not pebble.

For the sake of making Simon's new name to mean rock and expressing it in Greek, "Petra" would not have been suitable anyway because it has a feminine grammatical ending. That may be beside the point, but for that reason alone, a man's name would have to be "Petros."

A man to whom Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven is not "a small part of the church."

And Protestants did not leave the early Church. There were no Protestants then.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Add to that, denominations have no history in Christianity prior to the 16 cent.

What about the Eastern Orthodox Church whose final schism from Catholicism culminated in Rome's sacking on Constantinople in 1204?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Did you notice how many "ifs" you employed? That in itself suggests quite a bit of uncertainty.

If I said it as firmly as I believe it, it might have seemed too pushy for you.

But you ignore the fact that this "one God" is supposed to have revealed Himself to Adam, and then to Noah, and then to Abraham, and then to Moses, and then to Joshua, and on and on and endlessly on through prophets that all saw this "one God" completely differently. And in every case it is -- if you do the careful work of reading -- a different God. It is, in every case, a "god" that reflects the notions of the writer. Doesn't that tell you anything? Really?

He is all the same God. Why would you think he is a different God each time he made contact?

And then I have to ask why 1500 years later? Why not 500 years (that would be Mohammed)? Why not 1800 years (Joseph Smith? This is and has always been one of my most important questions about God, and nobody ever -- EVER -- answers it. If God is truly God, and can reach us all and is all-knowing, then this God MUST KNOW that the use of such prophets is futile and must go wrong. And we know today that this is true, because it DOES god wrong.

Because 1500 years later is when Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church to start his own. Mohammed doesn't count at all to me. He did nothing but extract, pervert, and combine various elements of Judaism and Christianity to form a false religion. Joseph Smith doesn't count either. He wrote his own bible from scratch, and took heresy to whole new science-fiction sort of level.

So we are told to beware "false prophets," and given some silly notions about how we can tell which prophets are false and which aren't.

But think very carefully about this for just a moment -- if you can tell, out of your own apprehension, which prophets are true and which false, then that can only be because you have received the wisdom of God. And if everybody can do that, then everybody has received that wisdom -- and all of us are prophets.

The closer you get to Our Lord, the better you know him and the more unmistakable true and false become.

Now, what does that tell you about "truth?"

It tells me that Jesus Christ is truth.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It tells me that Jesus Christ is truth

Let me ask.

Fact and truth can be two separate things. I know Jesus is in the Eucharist. To me that's a fact. I am not a practicing Catholic; and, I know many Christian facts exist and I don't believe in them; they aren't the truth.

Truth has to do with morals not facts.

We know what jesus did. We know the sacraments. We know the facts. How does that translate to jesus being the truth; and, how is he the truth?

The bible doesn't count since facts are not depended on anything to exist. (I don't have to put two fingers together to know one and one is two nor a math book for that matter).

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

And just how do you know Jesus is in the eucharist? Because some church person said so? Many other people know that the eucharist uses bread and wine to represent Jesus body and blood but to say they are physically present makes no sense. If you draw a map and put an X and say this is the gas station on Main Street, you know that that X is not really a gas station, it represents the gas station. In the same way, when Jesus said this is my body He was saying the bread represents His body, not that His body was physically present.

 

[kaoticprofit]

By virtue of rejecting this fundamental, dogmatic element of Catholic faith, you are no more Catholic than a militant atheist. One either holds the Catholic faith in full, or he does not hold it at all.

According to who? Again, you. And again, you have no authority. Rather than listening to this baseless garbage you are vomiting forward, I would sooner look to scripture to determine the necessity of holding the one true faith founded upon and rooted within the Gospel of Jesus Christ in effecting one's salvation:

(Galatians 1:9):
"As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."

This is not what I was insinuating. I was posing the question of how it could possibly be that this near-illiterate simpleton could possibly determine divine truth in opposition to those saintly men who have populated the body of the Church since its founding.

One thing for sure big guy is that it's people like you who make people like me sick of Christianity. You contribute NOTHING to the gospel, nothing to Christianity, and nothing to the Catholic church. Your nothing but an arrogant offensive turn off just like the Protestants. It's people like you who turn a Catholic against a Catholic. You can go to hell.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Truth has to do with morals not facts.

To me, truth has to do with both morals and facts. But if something is regarded by people as being moral that is contrary to what God has said, then it is a false morality. And if things presented as facts or explained as facts are not true, then they are not facts. Whatever is moral to God and whatever is factual to God is true because he is perfect and omniscient.

We know what jesus did. We know the sacraments. We know the facts. How does that translate to jesus being the truth; and, how is he the truth?

A person could write an essay on these questions. My simple bottom line on it is that Jesus is God. How could he not be the truth? There is no greater perfection and no higher power.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To me, truth has to do with both morals and facts. But if something is regarded by people as being moral that is contrary to what God has said, then it is a false morality. And if things presented as facts or explained as facts are not true, then they are not facts. Whatever is moral to God and whatever is factual to God is true because he is perfect and omniscient.

I don't know if this would make sense to you, but say someone proved that it wasn't my grandmother who shoved my shoulder to save me from getting hit by a car. I have the facts but in this case, though the facts tell me X is true, what helps me spiritually and what is spiritually/morally fact to me is not X but Y. Out of the two, I choose Y.

That's basically saying that facts are not a dictator to truth and even though a person can prove god does not exist, how would that affect the believer in how he sees truth rather than fact?

A person could write an essay on these questions. My simple bottom line on it is that Jesus is God. How could he not be the truth? There is no greater perfection and no higher power.

True. Essays are fun, though.

Not everyone thinks that way, though: "It's common sense" point of view. I've told many people about my grandmother-incident and only my friend believed me, my other friend didn't, and the rest of my family gave me a "mhm" look. My intermediate family interacts with spirits all the time. My mother with her mother and so on. So, it's common sense.

But is it, though? It isn't. Wouldn't there be a way to explain how jesus is the truth since not everyone has common sense from your point of view?

"How could he not be the truth?"

Because truth has to do with morals and not all morals are healthy or true/fact depending on how one is raised and environment. Facts do not change or not influenced by environment. Alegbra has many ways to solve one problem but it's the same problem just letters and numbers mixed around.

Jesus would have to be fact to say he is the truth. He'd have to be a universal means of defining what truth is just as we have foundations of how to solve math to foundations or how to convict someone based on our laws common to society as a whole.

How do you make jesus common sense to someone? How is he the truth not just yours and christian john?

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I don't know if this would make sense to you, but say someone proved that it wasn't my grandmother who shoved my shoulder to save me from getting hit by a car. I have the facts but in this case, though the facts tell me X is true, what helps me spiritually and what is spiritually/morally fact to me is not X but Y. Out of the two, I choose Y.
That's basically saying that facts are not a dictator to truth and even though a person can prove god does not exist, how would that affect the believer in how he sees truth rather than fact?

Not sure I understand because I don't know who X or Y is. Who pushed you out of the way of the car, and who do you believe it was? And are you saying that people can make a truth for themselves by choosing what is fact and what isn't?

Jesus would have to be fact to say he is the truth. He'd have to be a universal means of defining what truth is just as we have foundations of how to solve math to foundations or how to convict someone based on our laws common to society as a whole.

Well, he is a fact, and does not cease to be, even if people say he doesn't exist. We all believe and disbelieve certain things, and we have all been wrong sometimes. No one can know every fact, and certain facts can not be known by anyone, but the truth is what it is nevertheless. Certain things are known to all human souls after they leave their bodies.

How do you make jesus common sense to someone? How is he the truth not just yours and christian john?

You mean when Jesus said it? - I am the way and the truth and the life. John 14:6 This truth is proven by Jesus himself to anyone who draws close to him with faith and trust. That is done through a habit of prayer and a desire to know his will and unite with it. It should include repenting of sins and striving toward greater purity. Along with new understandings there are things that only God can give, such as the most genuine and lasting internal peace and joy, sanctifying grace, and the certainty that he knows and loves you. That and more. Jesus will interact with you, and you will know it is him.

By "you" in the above paragraph, I mean anyone, but for a Catholic or former Catholic Carlita like you, the surest approach would be from within the spiritual realm of Christ's own Church and with the help of the graces he gives in the sacraments. And if you were to go to an adoration chapel right now and speak to him from your heart as you never have before, there could be a response such as you have never received before.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

And just how do you know Jesus is in the eucharist? Because some church person said so? Many other people know that the eucharist uses bread and wine to represent Jesus body and blood but to say they are physically present makes no sense. If you draw a map and put an X and say this is the gas station on Main Street, you know that that X is not really a gas station, it represents the gas station. In the same way, when Jesus said this is my body He was saying the bread represents His body, not that His body was physically present.

We know it first of all because Jesus said so in the Bread of Life Discourse (John 6) and at the Last Supper, when he said "This is my body," and "This is my blood " He did not say that the bread / wine "represents," but that it is.

Within Catholicism there is further evidence, such as validated Eucharistic miracles and private revelations received by saints while they were living on earth. These can be believed or disbelieved by Catholics, They are almost invariably disbelieved by non Catholics, so I won't go into them here except to say that Jesus has provided further understanding and proof for those who will accept it.

There is no earthly comparison to the process, which is called "transubstantiation," and no way to explain the mechanics of it, but it is true that Christ is present in the Eucharist; body, blood, soul, and divinity. He is also entirely aware of entering into the body and soul of each person who receives him. In communing with us in this way, he gives us sanctifying grace and forgiveness of venial sins for which we are repentant.

 

[Stalwart]

One thing for sure big guy is that it's people like you who make people like me sick of Christianity.

You are sickened by truth? Your loss - I couldn't care less.

You contribute NOTHING to the gospel, nothing to Christianity, and nothing to the Catholic church. Your nothing but an arrogant offensive turn off just like the Protestants. It's people like you who turn a Catholic against a Catholic. You can go to hell.

There is nothing to contribute; my only place is to uphold what has been established. I intend on doing just that, no matter how many degenerates and deviants get their feelings hurt as a result.

 

[Desert Snake]

One thing for sure big guy is that it's people like you who make people like me sick of Christianity. You contribute NOTHING to the gospel, nothing to Christianity, and nothing to the Catholic church. Your nothing but an arrogant offensive turn off just like the Protestants. It's people like you who turn a Catholic against a Catholic. You can go to hell.

Why are you a Lutheran if you hate Protestants?

 

[Stalwart]

@metis

refutes your holier than thou nonsense

...What?

Why are you a Lutheran if you hate Protestants?

By rejecting the Trinity, he cannot be called a Lutheran. He may be a Christadelphian.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm.

To be continued.. sorry presed the post button too fast

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not sure I understand because I don't know who X or Y is. Who pushed you out of the way of the car, and who do you believe it was? And are you saying that people can make a truth for themselves by choosing what is fact and what isn't?

Well, X is fact and Y is truth. If someone convinced me (or tried to) convince me that my grandmother didn't save me from getting it by a car and I know, from my experience and belief that she did, if I had an option to believe the facts they give me and the truth I know not made up, I'd rather stick with the truth.

What is the benefit of needing to base the truth on facts?
If jesus didn't exist, how would that affect your faith in him and his word?

Well, he is a fact, and does not cease to be, even if people say he doesn't exist. We all believe and disbelieve certain things, and we have all been wrong sometimes. No one can know every fact, and certain facts can not be known by anyone, but the truth is what it is nevertheless. Certain things are known to all human souls after they leave their bodies.

We both just separated truth from fact. There are no facts that jesus is god nor there are facts that god of abraham exists. Many believers go by experiences and testimonies of their own and people in the Bible (which I see no difference in quoting scripture and telling me your testimony) and it is considered the truth.

My family spirits existing is the truth and they help me. Whether they are facts or not is irrelevant to me. Why is it relevant to you?

By "you" in the above paragraph, I mean anyone, but for a Catholic or former Catholic Carlita like you, the surest approach would be from within the spiritual realm of Christ's own Church and with the help of the graces he gives in the sacraments. And if you were to go to an adoration chapel right now and speak to him from your heart as you never have before, there could be a response such as you have never received before.

I do miss the Church greatly, but I decided I do not want to disrespect the sacraments so that is one of the biggest reasons I stopped going. I can't lie to myself because I "think" I feel god's presence. God being jesus is not truth to me nor is god being a deity. I talked with a good priest before going through RCIA and he said maybe I should wait. I didn't take his advice. I wish I would have.

But basically I'm asking you about facts verses truth.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If there can be only one ultimate truth pertaining to anything, then only one of the world's religions can have the ultimate truth. One test would be in God demonstrating and proving to the world who he is, which would bring us first to Judaism and then to Christianity, after God more fully revealed himself along with further proof. And if a particular Christian faith is the One True Faith, then it would have to be the one that Christ himself established, not some variant that a mortal man invented 1500 years or so later.

But that is NOT what happened, if you look more closely. Rather, what happened was that some (very few) human beings said things about God, that they claimed to have gotten by revelation from God, which was followed (and is still being followed) by more people making exactly the same claims. At no point in all of it has there been anything that can be scientifically, archaeologically or otherwise demonstrated that was just done by God alone.

Therefore, you have simply decided for yourself where you would cut of the prophets -- and since that presupposes some knowledge that you have that the rest of us don't, makes you yourself a de facto prophet -- privy to knowledge directly from the deity himself, and not from what other prophets purport to say.