Do you believe there is one true church?

[Traveller1534]

In being an ex-cradle Catholic, I can see that the largest problem here is that Catholicism teaches and brands into the minds of its faithful that the Roman Catholic church is THE one holy Catholic and apostolic church and that there is no other PERIOD! In being out of the church for over three years now, it has become clearer to me that this has caused a huge stumbling block in dialogues between Roman Catholics and other churches. I have even heard some of you claim that the Roman Catholic faith isn’t even a denomination. That is how poured into the concrete many Catholics believe that their church is the only church of Christ. However, I have come to know that many folks Catholic included would be considered one holy catholic and apostolic church. I know that many of you will disagree with me and that’s fine, but many others besides Roman Catholics are included in Christ’s one church.

 

[jmcrae]

In being an ex-cradle Catholic, I can see that the largest problem here is that Catholicism teaches and brands into the minds of its faithful that the Roman Catholic church is THE one holy Catholic and apostolic church and that there is no other PERIOD!

There can only be one. The New Testament is very clear on that point. The question then becomes, “Which one?”

Based on the evidence given in the New Testament, we know that it both existed at the time of the writing of the New Testament, and it exists today, AND, it has existed at every time in between: in other words, it didn’t exist, then cease to exist, and then get revived (as claimed by both the Baptists and the Mormons) -its existence has been continuous from the time that Christ founded it until now, and it will exist until the end of the world.

So, that pretty much leaves out every religion that was founded after New Testament times, including all of Protestantism.

Of the religions that existed at the time of the New Testament, only one still exists - that one being the Catholic Church. We know that the Catholic Church existed then because we know from history that the Apostle Peter was its first Pope. We know that it still exists today because history shows us that Pope Benedict XVI is St. Peter’s successor in a direct and uninterrupted Apostolic line.

 

[Traveller1534]

I understand your point, but it is a matter of debate if the Roman Catholic church that exists today is THE church that Christ founded. Some would argue that centuries ago, practices and dogma contrary to scripture forced the faithful to salvage what was early church doctrine and tradition and separate it from what had become clearly unbiblical and unchristian practice. These folks didn’t just walk away unblemished. The Reformation was many many years in the making and those who were successful in breaking away from Rome to carry on the true early church teachings, were under the most scrupulous treatment and conditions known to man. Look at Thomas Cranmer, the first Archbishop of Canterbury to be separate from Rome. He and two other officials of the Church of England were burned at the stake at the hands of Queen Mary (bloody Mary). As the three were led to their executions, they were blindfolded and the passers by sung what we know today as the nursery rhyme “Three Blind Mice”.

 

[jmcrae]

I understand your point, but it is a matter of debate if the Roman Catholic church that exists today is THE church that Christ founded.

By looking at history, the promises of Christ, and a process of elimination, we can easily see that it is.

Some would argue that centuries ago, practices and dogma contrary to scripture forced the faithful to salvage what was early church doctrine and tradition and separate it from what had become clearly unbiblical and unchristian practice.

This would require Christ to break His promises of eternal protection to the Church. If Christ broke His promises, then He is not God, and it is not only Roman Catholics who are in trouble, but everyone who worships Christ as God, or who believes the Bible.

These folks didn’t just walk away unblemished. The Reformation was many many years in the making and those who were successful in breaking away from Rome to carry on the true early church teachings, were under the most scrupulous treatment and conditions known to man.

You need to read The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens. The Early Church was most definitely Catholic.

Look at Thomas Cranmer, the first Archbishop of Canterbury to be separate from Rome. He and two other officials of the Church of England were burned at the stake at the hands of Queen Mary (bloody Mary). As the three were led to their executions, they were blindfolded and the passers by sung what we know today as the nursery rhyme “Three Blind Mice”.

Muslims also die for their beliefs; we don’t take their deaths as “proof” that Islam is true, do we?

 

[Traveller1534]

What you are saying would be true if there were never the problems of the past. If the church remained on course with Christ’s teachings, the Reformation would have never happened.

 

[jmcrae]

What you are saying would be true if there were never the problems of the past. If the church remained on course with Christ’s teachings, the Reformation would have never happened.

The Church has been continually assaulted by heresies, right from the very beginning. Arianism lasted centuries, and it got started during St. Augustine’s time.

Gnosticism was already on the horizon even before the death of the Apostle James.

I’m sure the Arians and the Gnostics also thought that they were “correcting the errors of the Church” - this is a very common theme among heretics.

 

[Traveller1534]

How are you so sure that there are not heretics in your church’s clergy today??

 

[jmcrae]

How are you so sure that there are not heretics in your church’s clergy today??

Of course there are. It’s the Pope who is infallible; not every single member of the clergy. And it’s the Church’s teaching that is protected; not every single teacher.

The teachings and the Pope help us to discern who the heretics are, and avoid them.

 

[Traveller1534]

What makes you certain that Pope Benedict 16 is the successor of Peter? Maybe the real heresy was when the church wouldn’t listen to the claims that Martin Luther laid out and continued to practice in fashions contrary to eraly church teaching and scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you. Racial diversity is inevitable as the Church straddles the globe. It is good when it hits even a local church, which is more and more common.

I was thinking more however of the diversity of relationships with God, and beliefs in His power, might, love and care; the intimacy of one’s relationship with Christ; the presence or otherwise of the communion of saints and martyrs; the idea of priestly intercession or mediation by Christ; transubstantiation; divorce and annulment; authority and democracy in the application of church doctrine; our understanding of the OT intentions of God, and the NT’s description of the life, nature and mission of Christ himself. Each denomination has a different take on important aspects of belief, of faith, and I think it is this diversity that keeps interpretation clean, that allows those who have strong practical social consciences to join certain churches, and those who prefer to be led by strongly applied doctrine to join others.

A diverse home (in my Father;s house are many mansions, and if it were not so I would have told you) provides comfort, and a base for Christian action for people of diverse beliefs. Sort of like sociable weavers.

Kinda sounds like a cafeteria approach to spiritual pursuits. If one searches diligently, one can find just the right spiritual home that will scratch their individual itch. Looking at all the offerings as equal in value and contribution to one’s path of growth will promote a selection that will uniquely benefit one’s needs.

 

[Efrain]

What you are saying would be true if there were never the problems of the past. If the church remained on course with Christ’s teachings, the Reformation would have never happened.

Sounds like you are implying that we no longer follow Christ’s teachings. Prove your point and state one doctrine where we contradict the teachings of Jesus, otherwise do not bear false witness.

 

[Efrain]

How are you so sure that there are not heretics in your church’s clergy today??

“Among you there will be lying teachers who will bring in destructive sects . . . And many will follow their wanton conduct, and because of them the way of truth will be maligned.” - 2 Peter 2:1-2

It is nothing new, has been happening since the begining, therefore is expected.

 

[Contarini]

What makes you certain that Pope Benedict 16 is the successor of Peter? Maybe the real heresy was when the church wouldn’t listen to the claims that Martin Luther laid out and continued to practice in fashions contrary to eraly church teaching and scripture.

So what is the heir to the pre-Reformation Catholic Church today? If Rome is heretical, who isn’t? Anglicanism? Which form of Anglicanism? If you are part of the Anglican Communion, then are you seriously claiming there are no heresies among us? If you are a member of one of the small splinter groups, how can you justify the endless schisms and petty quarrels that divide you? Your claim makes no sense.

Furthermore, just which of Luther’s critiques do you agree with? What were these heresies?

You keep making these sweeping charges against Rome, but you don’t articulate a coherent alternative.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Because Christ is omniscient, knows the future, he must have known there would be a fragmentation of His universal church on earth. He did not try to stop it by intervening to prevent schism. So why is it fragmented still.?.

By this logic, God wanted the Holocaust to happen. Are you sure you want to go there?

The fact that God permits something does not mean that it is according to His will.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It comes from a book of statistics that also claims that the Catholic Church has over 300 denominations. The reason is that it counts each country as a separate denomination - meaning that it’s probably not quite as inaccurate with regard to the Protestant denominations, since Protestantism does tend to be divided along national borders - the Episcopal Church in the USA is not, in fact, the same denomination as the Anglican Church in Canada, which is not the same denomination as the Anglican Church of England, and so on, since their “highest ups” are, in fact, the national Bishop’s committee, and not Queen Elizabeth II, which is what one would think.

I’m sorry, but that makes the whole question of “denominations” meaningless. If churches that are in full communion with each other are separate “denominations,” then why is having separate “denominations” in that sense bad?

And I can’t see in that case why the 22 sui juris churches of the Catholic Church are not separate denominations.

At that point it simply seems as if some overzealous Catholics are putting way too much importance on a top-down hierarchy. This doesn’t seem to be the Pope’s attitude, but alas his more balanced and truly traditional view has not trickled down to the folks on this forum.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

What makes you certain that Pope Benedict 16 is the successor of Peter? Maybe the real heresy was when the church wouldn’t listen to the claims that Martin Luther laid out and continued to practice in fashions contrary to eraly church teaching and scripture.

You are mixing apples and oranges, and throwing in some inaccurate spice. The church very carefully listened to the claims of Luther, as well as the other Reformers. This is called the counter-reformation. People behaving badly (practices) do not equal the teaching of the church. Many Catholics misbehaved, temporal leaders and religious leaders. The bad behavior of some individuals does not invalidate what the church teaches. The betrayal of Judas did not invalidate the founding of Jesus’ church upon the apostles.

 

[Contarini]

Carol,

Your theses here are very interesting and I wish I had gotten to them sooner. Here are some thoughts and points of disagreement I have.

1. When he gave authority to Peter, Christ – being divine – knew there would be dissension and schism in the church he established, and in fact this started before 100 CE.

As I said in another post, I can’t see that this proves anything.

1. Instead, to reform the exactions of the church, to reform perceived errors of doctrine, and to reform the morals of society became – more or less – the aims of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

True, although in many ways I prefer medieval Catholicism to both “Reformations.”

1. The protestant movement particularly reacted against scholastic subtlety, theological speculation,

Early on, sure. In the long run, as Erasmus saw very quickly, the Reformation resulted in a new and far more destructive scholasticism (far more destructive because ordinary people were expected to sign on to complex statements of faith, and errors in abstruse points of theology had devastating consequences for this world and were believed to have no less devastating ones for the next–the humane if patronizing concept of “implicit faith” was destroyed by the Reformation, particularly among Protestants).

Edwin

 

[Efrain]

What makes you certain that Pope Benedict 16 is the successor of Peter? Maybe the real heresy was when the church wouldn’t listen to the claims that Martin Luther laid out and continued to practice in fashions contrary to eraly church teaching and scripture.

Christ taught: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Mt 19:17

Luther teaches: “If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out – chase yourself to the Jews” Lecture at Wittenburg

Christ taught: “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.” Mt 5:16

Luther teaches: “Peasants are no better than straw. They will not hear the word and they are without sense; therefore they must be compelled to hear the crack of the whip and the whiz of bullets and it is only what they deserve.” Erlangen Vol. 24 pg, 294

Christ taught: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” Mt 22:39

Luther teaches:“ If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham” Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. V. pg. 413

Sounds like the doctrine of the enemy to me. No wonder the Church refused to listen to his doctrines.

 

[Contarini]

Coombe # 2
13. Thus did the new or reformed universal church of Christ become established .

To speak of a universal Church in the sense of the Creeds and to maintain that this Church is divided is a simple contradiction. The patristic concept of the Catholic Church leaves no room for this.

1. Christ was perhaps the first democrat, who despised authority save that of his Father, and his earthly mother.

I can’t see this. I think it’s an anachronistic extrapolation from our cultural norms.

1. Christ established his first, authoritative church through Peter and his apostles, but knew it would ultimately and inevitable be fragmented.
2. Christ did not intervene at any point in the history of his universal church when secession threatened and actually occurred.

As I’ve said previously, this applies to all other evils that have happened in the history of the world. So what does it prove?

1. The Reformation, uncontrollable, resulted in separation with two principal results: a range of relatively liberal mainline Christian denominations of fierce faith; and the Counter-Reformation within RCC which strengthened, stabilised and empowered a declining institution. The universal church of Christ benefited from the close scrutiny of traditional faith, doctrine, belief and practice.

I think that’s a highly dubious proposition. I’m not convinced that late medieval Catholicism was really declining–I suspect that that’s mostly Reformation propaganda. And I’m not at all sure that any of the Reformations strengthened the Church on the whole. You could make a case for what you’re saying–but also a case in the other direction. I don’t think the arguments are conclusive either way, though as I said I tend to lean pro-medieval and anti-Reformation-in-all-its-forms.

I do not see liberal mainline denominations as having “fierce faith.” Nor did liberal mainline denominations immediately result from the Reformation. If there have ever been declining institutions in the history of the Church, it would be these liberal mainline denominations.

1. There is no doubt that latterly, since say 1960, numerous ‘off the wall’ sects and evangelical congregations focussing on particular themes – being born again, amassing wealth, ascribing to the most fundamental tenets of the faith with possible psychological impact on adherents – have thrown themselves up.

Evangelicalism did not originate since 1960. Nor is “being born again” an “off the wall” concept in my book. With all due respect, your account here is tendentious and prejudiced to the highest degree.

The World Council of Churches provides some control.

On what? How? And why are you so sure this is good? You seem to be in a very different world from mine!

On the other hand, a forest of oak trees, propagated from the original but growing vitally and independently, is less likely to suffer any of these fates.

This is the universal church of Christ, His Body, His great power: one holy catholic and apostolic church.

I simply don’t think this is compatible with the New Testament or the witness of the early Church. A Christianity that glorifies division cannot be authentic Christianity, because the purpose of the Incarnation was to “gather in one the children of God who were scattered abroad” (as St. John puts it), not to scatter them further.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I was thinking more however of the diversity of relationships with God, and beliefs in His power, might, love and care; the intimacy of one’s relationship with Christ; the presence or otherwise of the communion of saints and martyrs; the idea of priestly intercession or mediation by Christ; transubstantiation; divorce and annulment; authority and democracy in the application of church doctrine; our understanding of the OT intentions of God, and the NT’s description of the life, nature and mission of Christ himself. Each denomination has a different take on important aspects of belief, of faith, and I think it is this diversity that keeps interpretation clean, that allows those who have strong practical social consciences to join certain churches, and those who prefer to be led by strongly applied doctrine to join others.

Carol, are you seriously saying that those (for instance) who don’t have a social conscience should be made comfortable in their apathy? I find this an astounding, and frankly a horrifying statement. And I would say the opposite as well–those who don’t care for doctrine or liturgy or whatever need to be challenged to see the need for these things. That’s why a unified Church is essential. If the Church is simply a set of options designed to meet our individual spiritual needs, then I want none of it. It’s not worth the bother. I’d rather be a pagan and go out and commune with the tree spirits.

A diverse home (in my Father;s house are many mansions, and if it were not so I would have told you) provides comfort, and a base for Christian action for people of diverse beliefs. Sort of like sociable weavers.

Is it the job of the Church to provide comfort to everyone in all circumstances? Isn’t it the job of the Church to “comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable”?

Customized Christianity is false Christianity.

In Christ,

Edwin