Are there any OTHER churces that claim to be the "One True Church Established by Jesus Christ?"

[EvangelCatholic]

Agree that it is likely all Christians proclaim to a member of the ‘One True Church Established by Jesus Christ’ that includes all of Christendom.

 

[EIF5A]

In one sense, though, we are far more bold, because we claim that the Orthodox exclusively are the one body of Christ, that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and we do so without any of the degrees of communion theology of Yves Congar and the Second Vatican Council, which is to say that while the Roman Catholic Church would say that the Orthodox are in an imperfect degree of communion with the Catholic Church, the Orthodox would deny that the Roman Catholic Church is in any sense Catholic, not having any tradition of ecclesiology with degrees of communion.

What objection does the Orthodox Church have against the Catholic Church that they believe she doesn’t have any tradition of ecclesiology?

I mean, as an outsider not in communion with either Church, the Catholic Church seems to hold more water…but the Orthodox Church also seems to have at least many truths within her.

 

[Cavaradossi]

(Greek Orthodox, blah blah, certain Anglicans, blah blah, Old Catholics, blah blah - I don’t want to get mired in these ancient topics, but rather discuss those faiths who identify themselves as “protestant,” which are none of the above, but which number in the thousands of churches, but none of which claim to be the One True Faith, AFAIK. I know there are Catholics who are not “Roman” Catholics, but I have not even heard these Faiths express themselves as boldly as to make this claim (they rather claim, “we are also Catholic,” which is true, but not as bold), so they would have probably have evaded detection on my alien sensors.)

You seem not to have encountered, then what the Greek Orthodox actually teach, especially the ones in Greece, who will tell you very frankly that there are no true baptisms outside of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is exclusively identical to those churches which hold to the Orthodox faith, which is quite unlike the claim of the Roman Catholic Church (quite inclusivist by comparison), that baptisms do exist outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What objection does the Orthodox Church have against the Catholic Church that they believe she doesn’t have any tradition of ecclesiology?

I didn’t write that (and I apologize if I gave that impression). I wrote that the Roman Catholic Church has a model of ecclesiology which uses “degrees of communion,” a teaching which originates with Yves Congar, and which received approval from the Second Vatican Council, which is not to say that the Roman Catholic Church is entirely untraditional in its ecclesiology, only that it incorporates certain teachings into its ecclesiology which are novel. The Orthodox on the other hand, do not have any teachings regarding, “degrees of communion,” since it is a new teaching, and instead we hold rather firmly to traditional ecclesiology, along the lines of St. Cyprian, St. Basil, St. Athanasius, St. Firmillian, et al.

 

[EIF5A]

I didn’t write that (and I apologize if I gave that impression). I wrote that the Roman Catholic Church has a model of ecclesiology which uses “degrees of communion,” a teaching which originates with Yves Congar, and which received approval from the Second Vatican Council, which is not to say that the Roman Catholic Church is entirely untraditional in its ecclesiology, only that it incorporates certain teachings into its ecclesiology which are novel. The Orthodox on the other hand, do not have any teachings regarding, “degrees of communion,” since it is a new teaching, and instead we hold rather firmly to traditional ecclesiology, along the lines of St. Cyprian, St. Basil, St. Athanasius, St. Firmillian, et al.

Apologies for misquoting/misinterpreting.

Does not the Orthodox Church believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church in truth? At what point in history do we say, “OK, anyone before this set year is a Church Father?”

If an idea arises out of historical necessity, does that make it theologically invalid because it wasn’t expressed by a Church Father from X number of years ago?

 

[adf417]

Agree that it is likely all Christians proclaim to a member of the ‘One True Church Established by Jesus Christ’ that includes all of Christendom.

Can someone explain to me how this vision of “Church” works within Mt 18:17? I may have heard it before but it still escapes me.

Peace!!!

 

[JRKH]

Can someone explain to me how this vision of “Church” works within Mt 18:17? I may have heard it before but it still escapes me.

Peace!!!

Basically what they do is to limit Mt 18:17 to telling it to the “local visible community” and listening to the “local visible community” (something the text does not say).
Within this context most that I have talked to have no problem with this idea applying to a representative board of church members rather than the entire church community…Which of course opens the door to “representatives” (elders) of various communities meeting in council (ala Acts 15)…not unlike how Catholic Bishops will meet periodically.

However - when I would propose this idea of distant and doctrinally diverse communities meeting in council to resolve differences - most all balk at the idea. For others it hits them as an idea that they have never even considered as a possibility.
This is in spite of the fact that the Bible is quite clear that this occurred between the local communities of Antioch and Jerusalem

Hope that helps a bit.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

In one sense, though, we are far more bold, because we claim that the Orthodox exclusively are the one body of Christ, that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and we do so without any of the degrees of communion theology of Yves Congar and the Second Vatican Council, which is to say that while the Roman Catholic Church would say that the Orthodox are in an imperfect degree of communion with the Catholic Church, the Orthodox would deny that the Roman Catholic Church is in any sense Catholic, not having any tradition of ecclesiology with degrees of communion.

And yet, historically, the schism didn’t happen in an instant but over several centuries: it was “finalized”, as it were, after the Council of Florence in the 15th century; but the two sides weren’t in full communion since 1054.

I don’t want to advocate an Anglican “Branch Theory” type of thinking, but surely it’s a bit more complicated than the Orthodox make it out to be. (Even nowadays, I think the Eastern Orthodox could be said to have a “pre-Florentine” type relationship with the Oriental Orthodox Churches.)

 

[benjohnson]

. The Orthodox on the other hand, do not have any teachings regarding, “degrees of communion,”

Let me amend my answer no that you’ve broken the wall

We Lutherans make a positive claim to be the OHCAC. It’s not that we don’t pray that others are part of the church, it’s just that we don’t know so it would be inappropriate to say.

Often times this is simplified to “We are a valid church” - implying that that our claim is a positive one and does not necessarily have to be exclusive given God’s love for His people.

 

[benjohnson]

Not to hyperanalyze, but would you see the word in the creed as “catholic”, rather than “Catholic”?

American Lutherans by way of Germany are a weird lot - our creed is translated from the German, where the Greek work ‘catholic’ was a bit too novel. So in German, the creed is translated to ‘Christian’ and in our English versions - is then translated to ‘Christian.’

If the creed is translated directly from Greek to English - it’s done with capitol letters, and as far as you good Catholics are in communion with us, you get included. But sadly, we’re not in communion with each other.

While we make a positive claim that we are the OHCAC, I don’t think any Lutheran expects to find only Lutherans as part of God’s salvation.

This problem of who is in the OHCAC reminds of the problem of infants dying before baptism - we can’t say what will happen to them, but we trust in God.

 

[East_Anglican]

When it comes to being the original church founded by Christ, due to the schism being caused by the then pope, the Eastern Orthodox have the best claim.

When it comes to being the only church that is right, due to having apostolic succession, the sacraments and justification by faith, we Anglicans have the best claim.

 

[pablope]

When Lutheran say the Nicene Creed, we’re not thinking that we believe in the ‘Catholic’ church a few blocks down the street.

We maintain that we a valid continuation of the western church. Some strident Lutherans may say we’re the valid continuation, but they usually can be softened with application of beer.

Well. ben…if a straner asked you where is the nearest Catholic church…where would you point that stranger to go?

 

[pablope]

I didn’t write that (and I apologize if I gave that impression). I wrote that the Roman Catholic Church has a model of ecclesiology which uses “degrees of communion,” a teaching which originates with Yves Congar, and which received approval from the Second Vatican Council, which is not to say that the Roman Catholic Church is entirely untraditional in its ecclesiology, only that it incorporates certain teachings into its ecclesiology which are novel. The Orthodox on the other hand, do not have any teachings regarding, “degrees of communion,” since it is a new teaching, and instead we hold rather firmly to traditional ecclesiology, along the lines of St. Cyprian, St. Basil, St. Athanasius, St. Firmillian, et al.

Hmmm…you got me curious…what do you mean by “degrees of communion”?

 

[benjohnson]

Well. ben…if a straner asked you where is the nearest Catholic church…where would you point that stranger to go?

Assuming the stranger wanted the a church with members in communion with the Bishop of Rome, then yes - I would point him to St. Anthony’s Parish.

If the stranger asked me if I was ‘Catholic’, and I perceived he had a lot of time on his hands, would also say yes. And then we could have a beer and a long talk.

Catholic has become a ‘brand’ for those churches in communion in Rome, but it’s original meaning is from the Greek καθολικός or ‘universal’.

 

[JRKH]

Assuming the stranger wanted the a church with members in communion with the Bishop of Rome, then yes - I would point him to St. Anthony’s Parish.

If the stranger asked me if I was ‘Catholic’, and I perceived he had a lot of time on his hands, would also say yes. And then we could have a beer and a long talk.

Catholic has become a ‘brand’ for those churches in communion in Rome, but it’s original meaning is from the Greek καθολικός or ‘universal’.

Quite right “Catholic” has become “branded” to the Churches in communion with Rome.

Not that it would ever happen…but what if someone were to skip the foreign words and asked where was the nearest “universal church”?..

What would be the reaction of ANY of us.

Of course this is off topic…but I couldn’t resist.

My first reaction would probably be that they were some sort of unitarian…
but definitely not of the “universal” (catholic) church…

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

I remember something Fr. Benedict Groschelle said (I think in the late 90s). It won’t come across as well in print, but anyhow he was saying how one time he had just arrived in Greece, and his rusty Greek was coming back to him. He was looking at a gas station, starting to recognize various words, including a sign listing different car parts to be fixed, ending with ‘and Catholics’.

"So I thought ‘Well that’s different, he fixes Catholics.’ "

 

[adf417]

Basically what they do is to limit Mt 18:17 to telling it to the “local visible community” and listening to the “local visible community” (something the text does not say).
Within this context most that I have talked to have no problem with this idea applying to a representative board of church members rather than the entire church community…Which of course opens the door to “representatives” (elders) of various communities meeting in council (ala Acts 15)…not unlike how Catholic Bishops will meet periodically.

However - when I would propose this idea of distant and doctrinally diverse communities meeting in council to resolve differences - most all balk at the idea. For others it hits them as an idea that they have never even considered as a possibility.
This is in spite of the fact that the Bible is quite clear that this occurred between the local communities of Antioch and Jerusalem

Hope that helps a bit.

Peace
James

No not really James… Has this “local visible community” become the civil authorities leaving issues like infant baptism up to the religious institutions? Is that the justification?

Peace!!!

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi SteveVH

You are right, and I wasn’t clear. Jesus Christ alone is the life of the Church – inspite of it being a human institution. The Church provides us the fullness of the life of Christ, the full deposit of faith in Christ.

 

[JRKH]

No not really James…

Sorry - I’ll try to do better…

Has this “local visible community” become the civil authorities leaving issues like infant baptism up to the religious institutions? Is that the justification?

No - I’m referring to the local church communities here - not the civil authorities.
Just to be clear - your original question was, what the protestant does with Mt 18:17 which says…
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (NAS)

The view held by some is that when Mt 18:17 says “Tell it to the church”, it’s referring to the local church community. They’re reading is that it is the church members assembled together and of course you can’t assemble the entire worldwide Church together.

What this view fails to take into account is what we see in Acts 15 where two geographically separated communities who had a dispute did not agree to disagree…but rather came together in council to resolve the matter.

In other words, they restrict the meaning of the passage to the local church community without taking into consideration the wider applications of “tell it to the church” for a world wide community - nor do they see the connection between Mt 18:15-18 as instructions - and Acts 15 as those instructions put into practice.

Not sure if I’ve explained it better or not…

Peace
James

 

[White_Tree]

It seems to me, if I were an alien from another planet who landed on earth, and was considering the Christian Faith, I would start out looking at whatever Christian Faith claimed to be the One True Faith. Why look at any faith that doesn’t even claim to be True?

But, as I look around, I find only the Catholic Church even being so bold as to even claim this.

My question is: Are there any protestant denominations who seriously claim (in some official capacity) that they are the “One True Church Established by Jesus Christ?” (obviously this would exclude ALL non-Christian churches, so let’s not get into Islam, etc.)

The Gnostics certainly make that sort of claim. Here’s a quote from the predominant Gnostic website in English:

In regard to the present time, the Gnostic Church is not just another church or a newly invented religious ideal. It is the church of Christ, the church preached by Jesus, the divine Rabbi of Galilee, with all of its sacred initiatic mysteries. It is the church of redemption, the primitive Christian church that suffered all of the attacks from the Catholic sectarianism, whose doctrine was altered to accommodate its aims and egotistic interest. The Gnostic Church possesses the holiest revelations and interprets and presents the truth in its most pristine purity without spots to dim it.

…

The Catholic Church, in its fight to establish itself in the world, did anything and by whatever means possible in order to erase the tracks of the Gnostics , whose vestiges were too clear and open and vast in revealing the truth. Therefore - although rivers of blood were soon spilled by the imposition of Christianity in its Catholic form - in the first centuries, it relied more upon diplomatic methods in order to burn books, falsify others, and collect those of greatest initiatic importance, that today are hidden in the Vatican. Naturally, within them a great deal is expressed in metaphors and symbols that the Catholics did not make any effort to decipher.

gnosticteachings.org/courses/sacraments-of-the-gnostic-church/671-initiatic-gnostic-church.html