How do you know you understand real Christianity, as opposed to other Christians who hold fast to an emasculated version?
There's also countless medically and scientifically verified miracles. They're still happening today, and it's not just "oh trust me it was a miracle", but actual medical professionals testify under oath that such-and-such truly happened and that it isn't possible under any known laws of physics or medicine etc.
And then there's just the fact that it's the only philosophy that truly lines up with real life experience. Every other form of Christianity will eventually say "it just is what it is, you just have to have faith." But this is the only one that fully satisfied my intellectual mind without having to give up intellectual integrity. I also found out about Fulton Sheen this year, and he understood this the same way. He's extremely underrated and should be read and listened to by anyone who considers themselves intellectual.
And finally, it's the only philosophy or religion that has ever fixed me. All others failed.
Such as Mother Teresa, who allowed people to die in horrible conditions in hospices where patients were given insufficient food and no painkillers because "suffering makes you closer to god," and then went to a costly, fancy facility and took painkillers herself when it was her time to die.
>There's also countless medically and scientifically verified miracles.
This is absurd. Just because something happens that can't be fully explained by science with current knowledge and technology does not make it a religious miracle. Also, pretending that is true, how would that be evidence of you belonging to a denomination that is "real Christianity." Perhaps it was one of the other countless religions that try to falsely attribute things they don't understand to 'miracles'
>it's the only philosophy that truly lines up with real life experience
Satanism truly lines up with my real life experiences. Is that evidence that that is the true or real religion?
>But this is the only one that fully satisfied my intellectual mind without having to give up intellectual integrity.
You just said that you believe that there are medically and scientifically verified miracles, so I'd say this statement is false. How do you feel about dinosaurs? How old do you think the earth is?
>And finally, it's the only philosophy or religion that has ever fixed me
This I can understand and respect. IMO the rest of what you said is mostly brainwashing/indoctrination.
It doesn't help that groups aligned with politically activist right-wing Protestant Evangelical/Fundamentalist groups are instrumental in funding and shaping much Catholic media (notably, EWTN) in the US, which often results in political propaganda supporting policies pushed by the “Christian” Right being portrayed in Catholic media as if it were accepted Catholic doctrine despite often not being (or even conflicting with) the doctrine of the Church.
> There's also countless medically and scientifically verified miracles. They're still happening today, and it's not just "oh trust me it was a miracle", but actual medical professionals testify under oath that such-and-such truly happened and that it isn't possible under any known laws of physics or medicine etc.
But in a broader discussion about astrology, these are the kinds of claims made by all sorts of groups.
As for the works of Christian bodies throughout history, well, the world has seen it and it is what it is. It may be good, it may be bad, or somewhere in-between, but it isn't morally beautiful enough as a sole justification to adopt a position of faith on these matters.
But none of this really talks about why you know the real Christian groups from the lesser ones. That's the kind of talk any Christian group would make against another.
> and they were saints because they lived those teachings
They were saints because they passed the Roman Catholic saint tests. The Church is very specific about that.
> All forms of Protestants started off in the 1500s
Of the ones that called themselves Protestant, you may be correct. Of the groups that the Church labelled heretical and got quite pointy with, they've been around a lot longer.
> They started off on the logical fallacy...
Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon.
> There is no credible basis for any of their teachings at all
The Bible is a bit picky about idolatry and excess of mammon. I guess it's each to their own as to what you consider a credible teaching.
> And she was healed of her gangrene and errors
Well, that's good to know. Hate to think there's any systemic issues with the modern Church.
Yeah and that test is that (a) they lived a very virtuous life, with virtues being generally well defined and these definitions generally agreed upon by anyone who ever learned a thing or two about them, and (b) through their intercession miracles have happened and been verified thoroughly as being outside the boundaries of science.
> Of the ones that called themselves Protestant, you may be correct. Of the groups that the Church labelled heretical and got quite pointy with, they've been around a lot longer.
Sure, there were Arians and Gnostics for example, but no Christians today ever say they're Arians of Gnostics, they say they adhere to the doctrines of Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Joseph Smith or the Queen of England, etc.
> Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon. [...] The Bible is a bit picky about idolatry and excess of mammon. I guess it's each to their own as to what you consider a credible teaching.
That's the same thing I said: they claim the church became corrupt, and for their reasoning they point to bad practices, trying to draw from these bad practices conclusions about corrupted doctrines.
> Well, that's good to know. Hate to think there's any systemic issues with the modern Church.
Your sarcasm is very warming on this bitterly cold day. Yes, there is corruption in the church once again. That doesn't mean the teachings or the Sacraments are invalid, just that the teachings aren't understood as well or followed as much anymore, nor are the Sacraments received properly often enough.
That's why I try to correct any and all misunderstandings anyone has about Catholic teachings insofar as I am able. So many people are led away from Catholicism, or lukewarm with it, simply because of misunderstandings about what it really is and what it really teaches.
"Protestant" and "schismatic" don't mean the same thing. There are certainly Christian and pseudo-Christian groups that have existed out of union with Rome before the Protestant Reformation, but neither they nor the Catholic Church nor Protestants consider them "Protestant", and their disagreements with and relations with the Roman Catholic Church are distinct from those between Protestant Churches and Rome (and the latter group is itself quite diverse.)
> Nah, most of the Protestants started off having problems with the idolatry and the excess of mammon.
Not with your expansive definition of Protestantism they didn't. I mean, that clearly isn't an issue with the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and either the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox Churches. And while I suppose that something that might loosely be described that way was involved with groups like the Bogomils and Cathars, in both cases more fundamental differences over Christology and the nature of God were more central. (For that matter, much of the Protestant-in-the-strict-sense split was more about secular politics than theology.)
Speaking as a Catholic, no there aren't.
There are simply alleged miracles that have not been scientifically explained. Miracles aren't scientifically verifiable, and even a lack of current explanation is necessarily potentially a transitory state.