Do you believe there is one true church?

[anonymoususer]

In reference to the original post…

First, I think what you meant to say is…did Jesus intend for there to be so many denominations, ie Baptists, Protestants, Catholics, Lutherans, etc.

This is a very easy answer…NO

The evil one is 100% responsible for the multitude of Christian denominations. He weakens us by dividing us. The division doesn’t happen quickly, but over hundreds of years. Its so slow and gradual that people may not even notice it.

I am willing to bet you can trace back all other denominations besides Catholicism to one man, and because of the sin of pride, that man broke from the Universal Church and formed his own church.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

These movements were all Christian heresies - in that sense, of course they were Christian. But they also did leave the Church, and there is, after all, only one Church.

I am perfectly sure that all of the individuals involved were well-intentioned and doing their very best to serve God, because I cannot personally imagine someone coming up with a heresy, or following a heresy, merely in order to spit in God’s eye - that seems like a totally insane thing to do, and I do not think that anybody has ever done that on purpose.

But they did follow the deceits of their own hearts rather than the teachings of the Church, and they did refuse to be corrected by the Church, and no matter how well intentioned they were, the end result, objectively speaking, was heresy.

That’s all very nice, but you didn’t actually answer my question(s).

Do you consider Arianism Christian or non-Christian?
Do you consider Protestantism Christian or non-Christian?
Do you consider the Eastern Orthodox to be Christian or non-Christian?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

In reference to the original post…

First, I think what you meant to say is…did Jesus intend for there to be so many denominations, ie Baptists, Protestants, Catholics, Lutherans, etc.

This is a very easy answer…NO

The evil one is 100% responsible for the multitude of Christian denominations. He weakens us by dividing us. The division doesn’t happen quickly, but over hundreds of years. Its so slow and gradual that people may not even notice it.

I am willing to bet you can trace back all other denominations besides Catholicism to one man, and because of the sin of pride, that man broke from the Universal Church and formed his own church.

I’m assuming you must mean Henry VIII of England, he who was given the title “defender of the faith”.

But I submit to you that it wasn’t one many, but many who are responsible for setting forth a theory that was so wrought with error that those who have endeavored to uphold this error as truth by doing so tear at the very fabric of the Church which Christ founded and by their own actions, unintended in the cause which they would thus eventually effect though they be, have still brought division when they could have found unity of a different type, but they desire instead to preserve that form of unity which was never the intention nor inference of Christ when proclaiming the eternal nature of the Church. These men are those who sitting in council, under the direction of a spirit that could not have been the spirit of Christ declared, after hearing Leo’s letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: “so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo.” The error lay squarely at the feet of the Fathers of Chalcedon.

 

[Janet_S]

I’m assuming you must mean Henry VIII of England, he who was given the title “defender of the faith”.

But I submit to you that it wasn’t one many, but many who are responsible for setting forth a theory that was so wrought with error that those who have endeavored to uphold this error as truth by doing so tear at the very fabric of the Church which Christ founded and by their own actions, unintended in the cause which they would thus eventually effect though they be, have still brought division when they could have found unity of a different type, but they desire instead to preserve that form of unity which was never the intention nor inference of Christ when proclaiming the eternal nature of the Church. These men are those who sitting in council, under the direction of a spirit that could not have been the spirit of Christ declared, after hearing Leo’s letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: “so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo.” The error lay squarely at the feet of the Fathers of Chalcedon.

Ah, the Great Apostasy Theory!

Everybody has a different Great Apostasy Theory. The Jesus Seminar people believe the Catholic Church went “off the tracks” while the 4 Gospels were being written; the Mormons believe it happened at the close of the 1st century; the JW’s believe is happened at the Council of Nicea; the Anabaptists believe it happened with Constantine; the Orthodox churches believe it happened in the 9th century; now Grace Seeker believes it happened at the Council of Chalcedon. They can’t all be right. When did the CC really go “off the tracks?” What’s the real answer? Did it really happen?

You made the claim that the Church went “off the tracks” (set forth a theory wrought with error) in the 5th century at the Council of Chalcedon.

Do you believe that at some later time, the Church was restored or put back on the tracks?

Who was the person responsible for restoring the the Church?

When did this happen?

Where was the Church in the intervening years (years between AD 451 and when it was restored)?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Ah, the Great Apostasy Theory!

Everybody has a different Great Apostasy Theory. The Jesus Seminar people believe the Catholic Church went “off the tracks” while the 4 Gospels were being written; the Mormons believe it happened at the close of the 1st century; the JW’s believe is happened at the Council of Nicea; the Anabaptists believe it happened with Constantine; the Orthodox churches believe it happened in the 9th century; now Grace Seeker believes it happened at the Council of Chalcedon. They can’t all be right. When did the CC really go “off the tracks?” What’s the real answer? Did it really happen?

You made the claim that the Church went “off the tracks” (set forth a theory wrought with error) in the 5th century at the Council of Chalcedon.

Do you believe that at some later time, the Church was restored or put back on the tracks?

Who was the person responsible for restoring the the Church?

When did this happen?

Where was the Church in the intervening years (years between AD 451 and when it was restored)?

I didn’t think it happend at Chalcedon. I’m sure it had made errors both before and since. But that doesn’t mean I think the Catholic Church is apostate. That is too harsh a word. I do think it has gotten off track, and sometimes egregiously so. And no, I don’t believe the Catholic Church is on track yet. It isn’t now, and never has been perfect. No church is. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t of God. The Church which is the body of Christ is not identical with the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t think it happend at Chalcedon. I’m sure it had made errors both before and since.

Can you please be so kind as to point out what these are?

But that doesn’t mean I think the Catholic Church is apostate. That is too harsh a word. I do think it has gotten off track, and sometimes egregiously so. And no, I don’t believe the Catholic Church is on track yet.

How is that different than apostacy? What is currently off the tracks?

It isn’t now, and never has been perfect. No church is. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t of God. The Church which is the body of Christ is not identical with the Catholic Church.

I think something is not lining up here. jesus only created one church, and only has one body. He “perfected” her so that he could present her in purity to Himself. If she is not perfected, then scripture lies.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I think something is not lining up here. jesus only created one church, and only has one body. He “perfected” her so that he could present her in purity to Himself. If she is not perfected, then scripture lies.

I know that the one true Church, the body of Christ will be presented in purity to Himself.

I just get tired of those who think that because some body in 400 AD said that the Catholic Church is always right that the Catholic Church is always right. Can it not be that that person was wrong? Well, of course not, and do you know why? Because the Catholic Church is always right.

Aaarghh!! Talk about your circular logic.

Same goes with the idea that the Catholic Church is identical to the one true Church. It is because the Catholic Church said it is, and the Catholic Church is always right. I know someone will get on here and make reference to Matthew 16 or John 21 and say that Jesus said that the Catholic Church is always right. I don’t read those passages that way. That you do is an interpretation of the scriptures, not the clear teaching of them. But then, the Catholic Church has been entrusted with explaining the teaching of the scriptures, and the Catholic Church is always right.

Why do I say that the Catholic Church has made errors, because it is just as much a human institution as it is a divine one. When was the Church founded? By the thinking of many Catholics, when Jesus told Peter that he would build his church on him, yet Peter denied Christ subsequent to this. Well, then at Pentecost? And yet there were mistakes in the life of the early Church that are recorded in scripture. Things like some Church leaders wanting Gentile Christians to become Jewish in order to be considered part of the Church. No, that is not the ultimate decision made at the Council of Jerusalem and pass down through history, but it was part of the church’s life for a time. So, if there were errors made then, I have no doubt that there have been other errors made since.

But this is not the teaching of the Church? No, not on that occassion, but the rational given by the Catholic Church that it could never err in its teaching capacity seems itself to be weak and in error. And when I see Catholic Christians disavow the validity of the Eucharist in other denominations and claim to be the only true Church, it seems that I see those weeknesses in its teaching impacting and hurting the true Church of Jesus Christ today, which is the totality of his body, not just those who call themselves Catholic. Such actions also tell me that the Catholic Church is in error.

 

[Janet_S]

I didn’t think it happend at Chalcedon. I’m sure it had made errors both before and since. But that doesn’t mean I think the Catholic Church is apostate. That is too harsh a word. I do think it has gotten off track, and sometimes egregiously so. And no, I don’t believe the Catholic Church is on track yet. It isn’t now, and never has been perfect. No church is. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t of God. The Church which is the body of Christ is not identical with the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, as long as the Catholic Church thinks they are one and the same, it will be out of touch with reality. But like all truly crazy people, it tends to think itself sane and the rest of the world to be crazy.

If what you say is true, how does someone go about deciding what is true, authentic Apostolic teaching and what is not? How do you untangle the mess of history and pull the “real Church” out of it?

Did you ever **consider **the possibility that maybe (just maybe) the Catholic Church is the “real” Church Christ intended for us? (It is a possibility, you know.)

 

[Janet_S]

I didn’t think it happend at Chalcedon. I’m sure it had made errors both before and since. But that doesn’t mean I think the Catholic Church is apostate. That is too harsh a word. I do think it has gotten off track, and sometimes egregiously so. And no, I don’t believe the Catholic Church is on track yet. It isn’t now, and never has been perfect. No church is. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t of God. The Church which is the body of Christ is not identical with the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, as long as the Catholic Church thinks they are one and the same, it will be out of touch with reality. But like all truly crazy people, it tends to think itself sane and the rest of the world to be crazy.

By claiming these things, you are saying the CC is apostate. You can’t make these claims and believe otherwise.

I know you don’t believe the CC is on track. My original question was in reference to non-Catholic Christians. Do you believe that at some later time, the Church (non-Catholic) was restored or put back on the tracks? Who was the person responsible for restoring the the Church?

(Another question, did you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?)

 

[jmcrae]

That’s all very nice, but you didn’t actually answer my question(s).

Do you consider Arianism Christian or non-Christian?

It was a Christian heresy. They were in schism.

Do you consider Protestantism Christian or non-Christian?

“Protestantism” is a catch-all term for several varieties of modern-day Christian heresies. They are all in schism. In order to be restored to the Church, they have to make a Profession of Faith and recieve whatever Initiation Sacraments they did not receive in their Protestant church.

Do you consider the Eastern Orthodox to be Christian or non-Christian?

The Eastern Orthodox churches are in schism from the Church. In order to be restored to the Church, they have to make a Profession of Faith.

 

[guanophore]

I know that the one true Church, the body of Christ will be presented in purity to Himself.

I agree, but I was not speaking about that. I was speaking about the Church that Jesus already created and sanctified unto himself, the betrothed. Yes, she will be pure when the wedding feast of the Lamb occurs, but she is already one, and the gates of hell do not prevail against her.

I just get tired of those who think that because some body in 400 AD said that the Catholic Church is always right that the Catholic Church is always right. Can it not be that that person was wrong? Well, of course not, and do you know why? Because the Catholic Church is always right.

Ok, it is tiring. Question is, what shall we do with the tired? It is our responsibility, inasmuch as it depends upon us, to be at peace and unity with one another. Thus we shall fulfill the Law of Christ. Yes, the persons can be wrong, and have been wrong. On the other hand, Jesus is not wrong, nor shall He be wrong. So, if He says He created “my Church” (one) then that is what He did!

On the issue of infallibility, it is not really about the Catholic Church, but about Jesus’ promises and the Holy Spirit. If we cannot trust that God did what He said He would do, then what basis do we have for salvation at all?

Aaarghh!! Talk about your circular logic.

Sorry, I can’t see what this was reacting to on this screen.

Same goes with the idea that the Catholic Church is identical to the one true Church. It is because the Catholic Church said it is, and the Catholic Church is always right.

No, that is not the basis. Just like the circular reasoning of the Sola Scriptura, it is not effective. Testimony comes from witnesses, not from the accused. The Bible is inspired because it was created and prounounced to be so by the Holy Spirit, through the Church.

There is only one Church because Jesus and the Holy Spirit have testified to this, and we know the testimony is true. Yes, just as scripture also testifies to itself, the Church also testifies to itself, but it is the testimony of God that is validating.

I know someone will get on here and make reference to Matthew 16 or John 21 and say that Jesus said that the Catholic Church is always right.

I am not sure what you are hung up on here. I think it might be because you are thinking of Catholic as a denomination, instead of a description of Christ’s body.

I don’t read those passages that way. That you do is an interpretation of the scriptures, not the clear teaching of them.

This brings us full circle, back to the orignial source of the “protesting” the reformers began. It is a rejection of the magesterial (apostolic teaching authority) given by Jesus to the 12. Yes, of course it is an interpretation, and of course protestants interpret them differently! Jesus instructed us, when we had differences to resolve that could not be resolved between ourselves to “take it to the church”. Since this is not being done (respecting the authority that God appointed as arbitor) the dispute over interpretation does not get resolved.

 

[guanophore]

But then, the Catholic Church has been entrusted with explaining the teaching of the scriptures, and the Catholic Church is always right.

There IS ONLY ONE CHURCH! And yes, the apostolic succession exists which Jesus appointed to explain the teaching.

Why do I say that the Catholic Church has made errors, because it is just as much a human institution as it is a divine one. When was the Church founded?

Jesus was human and divine as well. Does that mean He made errors?

By the thinking of many Catholics, when Jesus told Peter that he would build his church on him, yet Peter denied Christ subsequent to this.

How does Peter’s personal failure nullify the gift and call of God?

Well, then at Pentecost?

Not sure what this is referencing either?

And yet there were mistakes in the life of the early Church that are recorded in scripture. Things like some Church leaders wanting Gentile Christians to become Jewish in order to be considered part of the Church. No, that is not the ultimate decision made at the Council of Jerusalem and pass down through history, but it was part of the church’s life for a time. So, if there were errors made then, I have no doubt that there have been other errors made since.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges here. Personal failings and weakness or errors on the part of individuals is very different than error in the divine deposit of faith. Jesus guaranteed that He would lead his followers into all truth. No amount of human error or shortcoming can weaken the power of God!

But this is not the teaching of the Church?

Did I miss something here. Maybe you should leave my statements in?

No, not on that occassion, but the rational given by the Catholic Church that it could never err in its teaching capacity seems itself to be weak and in error.

Can you pleaes explain this? What does that mean, teaching capacity weak and in error?

And when I see Catholic Christians disavow the validity of the Eucharist

It is very distressing!

in other denominations and claim to be the only true Church, it seems that I see those weeknesses in its teaching impacting and hurting the true Church of Jesus Christ today, which is the totality of his body, not just those who call themselves Catholic. Such actions also tell me that the Catholic Church is in error.

I still am not sure how the official teaching body of the Church is weak, just because certain people choose not to follow the teachings. I also don’t think that disobedient or sinful persons prove that the teaching is wrong?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Sorry all, I can’t keep up. Not three to one. And I can’t pick and choose, I want to respond to all, but really have other business I must also attend to. I apologize for starting something I can’t finish. Some of you asked some very good questions and made some good comments. I appreciate that.

A few that I can respond to very briefly:

Yes, I have a copy of and have read the Catholic Catechism.

I don’t think one pulls the “real” Church out of history. One recognizes that spiritual things are just as real as physical things – the Holy Spirit is real, God is real. The Church is literally an assembly. It is its most real when those who belong to Christ gather at one place to be the Church in worship or action. So, the College of Cardinals meeting in Rome is the Church. But so is a group of college kids gathered for prayer and Bible study in a college dorm room. And eccleisatical system for administering and governing local congregations of the Church, is just that a system, not the “real” church. The spiritual connection, via our oneness in Christ that makes us all real spiritual brothers and sisters creats a worldwide body of Christ, this too is the real Church. Even it is not visible to everyone, it is visible to God and is very much the real one true Church.

Did you ever consider the possibility that maybe (just maybe) the Catholic Church is the “real” Church Christ intended for us? (It is a possibility, you know.)

Yes, I’ve considered it.

jmcrae, why won’t you let your yes be yes and your no be no?
Can groups that are guilty of Christian heresies still be understood to be Christian?

Jesus was human and divine, but not guilty of sin. He probably did make errors. He probably misjudged the trajectory of the ball or whatever he and his peers kicked around in the street while playing games. The Church has surely made many misjudgments, it admits as much. It also has sinful people in its leadership. And has oppressed people in the name of God (giving permission to take people captive as slaves) and exploited them. It has done some of these things thinking that it was doing the right thing. So, as it has been wrong in respect to its moral judgments, I have no more hope for it being unfailingly perfect with respect to the rest of its teachings. I don’t have to specify them all (I have suggested a few in my various posts) to reach such a conclusion. Logic alone dictates the imperfect people are going to lead imperfectly, even when lead by the Holy Spirit, for they will also hear his guidance imperfectly. This does not mean that hell has prevailed, it simply means the battle continues till the last day, when the Church and all God’s people shall finally be made perfect.

I doubt that will satisfy all. But I cannot continue to pursue this conversation as vigorously as it deserves. So, I will address the original topic question and then leave this thread to others:

Do you believe there is one true church?

Yes. But it appears I preceive what it is differently than do my Catholic brothers and sisters.

 

[usr88]

If I were a Catholic and I love God and Jesus and believe in all the tenets of the Catholic Church except for, say, the local priest and those Catholic priests within my vicinity. Assuming further that I am a very proud person, what would such a person such as the hypothetical I, do? 3 things, I suppose: 1. go to another Catholic Church outside my vicinity 2. don’t go to church at all ( this of course is inconcictent with loving God) or 3. established my own church where there wouldn’t be any Mass nor Confession because there wouldn’t be any ordained priest. I can say the ‘Our Father’, the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘rosary’, though. I could perhaps even baptized, being a member of the priestly people of of God. I could do ‘The reading of The Word’, sing worship songs to my heart’s contents and even pray in tongues, and roll around worshipping and praising the Lord. In my life time, I could probably enforce the rule of no ‘condoms’ or any form of contraceptives and definitely no abortion. Would my Chuch be a Catholic Church?

500 years hence, would such church qualify to be a ‘catholic’ Church? Then, members of my church would probably have changed some of the tenets as most of them, in the absence of any clear authority, would probably demand for such ‘changes with the time’. Those members would probably be very confident of having a personal relationship with Christ. Could such a church as mine, then, qualify to be a ‘church’ of christ?

I think most of the 20,000 churches or so that have sprung out in recent times should be in the same category as ‘mine’ - not a true church but one made by the ‘effort’ of men however ‘christian’ it may appear to be.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae, why won’t you let your yes be yes and your no be no?

Because it’s not really a “yes or no” situation.

Can groups that are guilty of Christian heresies still be understood to be Christian?

The groups, no. Since the groups no longer follow Christ; they have schismated from His Church, and they have invented doctrines of man (heresies) which they follow in the place of Christ’s doctrines.

The individuals within them, however, may in fact be doing the very best they can to follow Christ with the knowledge that is available to them, and in that sense only, they could be considered just as “Christian” as any badly-educated Catholic who also faithfully follows Christ despite being mistaken in his beliefs on any number of different subjects. We are not Gnostics, and we don’t believe that knowledge saves - it is faithfulness that saves.

But it is better to be in the true Church, so that you at least have the opportunity to believe Christ’s doctrines, and so that your faith can bear fruit unto eternal life.

 

[Aaron409]

I think you have said this many times, and I am sure that you believe this with all your heart. And it is your right to do so. Others have the right to question your belief, to challenge it, to think intelligently about it, and even to reject it for themselves if they find that there is not substance to the belief.

Now please go away.

Did God not give his church to man? Were Martin Luther and Calvin not filled with pride?They made up there own rules and took their own thoughts and said that this was right. You can’t tell me they weren’t full of pride and spite when they did this. Obedience is a key virtue to perfect love towards God. Now if their spirtitual leader was wrong it is him who is punished by God not them. Their can never be order the protestant church world because it was born out of diorder.

 

[Aaron409]

If I were a Catholic and I love God and Jesus and believe in all the tenets of the Catholic Church except for, say, the local priest and those Catholic priests within my vicinity. Assuming further that I am a very proud person, what would such a person such as the hypothetical I, do? 3 things, I suppose: 1. go to another Catholic Church outside my vicinity 2. don’t go to church at all ( this of course is inconcictent with loving God) or 3. established my own church where there wouldn’t be any Mass nor Confession because there wouldn’t be any ordained priest. I can say the ‘Our Father’, the ‘Hail Mary’ and the ‘rosary’, though. I could perhaps even baptized, being a member of the priestly people of of God. I could do ‘The reading of The Word’, sing worship songs to my heart’s contents and even pray in tongues, and roll around worshipping and praising the Lord. In my life time, I could probably enforce the rule of no ‘condoms’ or any form of contraceptives and definitely no abortion. Would my Chuch be a Catholic Church?

500 years hence, would such church qualify to be a ‘catholic’ Church? Then, members of my church would probably have changed some of the tenets as most of them, in the absence of any clear authority, would probably demand for such ‘changes with the time’. Those members would probably be very confident of having a personal relationship with Christ. Could such a church as mine, then, qualify to be a ‘church’ of christ?

I think most of the 20,000 churches or so that have sprung out in recent times should be in the same category as ‘mine’ - not a true church but one made by the ‘effort’ of men however ‘christian’ it may appear to be.

1st off is what you are saying then is that you are better than the Lord?
2nd, being proud is a terrible thing. The Lord teaches you to be humble and meek just as he did dying on the cross for you.
3rd, now your just making excuses and you probably haven’t exausted all your efforts for a better church and if you have your really going to the mass to celebrate the sacrifice Christ made for you and to recieve him. So if you can still do that you’ll be alright.

So to answer your question NO you wouldnt be a catholic church.
The only thing your doing is preaching the same thing. You wouldn’t however be able to celebrate any of the 7 sacrements which are very vital to the the Catholic Church.

 

[ReginaCoeli]

Yes, there is one true church. The church founded by Christ. Which happens to be the Catholic Church. This is a very simple question to answer. God Bless.

 

[Aaron409]

Yes, there is one true church. The church founded by Christ. Which happens to be the Catholic Church. This is a very simple question to answer. God Bless.

Thank you, God bless you too

 

[DLC]

Did God not give his church to man? Were Martin Luther and Calvin not filled with pride?They made up there own rules and took their own thoughts and said that this was right. You can’t tell me they weren’t full of pride and spite when they did this. Obedience is a key virtue to perfect love towards God. Now if their spirtitual leader was wrong it is him who is punished by God not them. Their can never be order the protestant church world because it was born out of diorder.

Q. Why is it wrong to base you faith and practice upon God’s Holy Word? This what may people fail to do as they blindly follow man and not His written Word, the Bible.