Does any existing ecclesialistical body have ALL four of the marks of the church exclusively to itself?

[benidict]

Both Orthodox and Catholic do. And looking at how we’re moving towards full union, it seems that Protestants will have fewer excuses to sidestep this question with…

yep. i have heard of the the orthodox and catholics as being the two great lungs of the church. we really dont need the protestants. as welcome as they are to come into communion with us. what we really need and are seeing is the move to full union of orthodox and catholic. its more a matter of custom than dogma that seperates us anyway. give it a few more decades it will happen.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You do realize that both of our Churches came together as the Commission with the initials ARCIC. ARCIC= Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission . Read this agreed statement by both of our Churches. anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/catholic/arcic/docs/mary_grace%20_and_hope.cfm --Roman Catholic is all over it.

God Bless!

The ARCIC documents could be used for a lesson in studied ambiguity. They belong on the same rubbish-tip as the Balamand Agreement and other ecclesiastical lies ​

 

[Bluegoat]

Even if there is one, it means nothing; for the marks are of no practical value. As is proved by the fact that no such body is recognised, except by its own adherents. Marks of identification that don’t identify are not much use There are Churches of varying size that lay claim to these marks - but the other claimants, do not concede that the claims of their rivals are justified.​

THis strikes me as really funny. Because it’s true. Either people disagree on what the mark actually is, or it’s importance, or doesn’t think the other group actually has it - the evidence is not there.

Sometimes here on CAF, since it is a Catholic place, you’ll see people try to make this argument to non-Catholics. “We are the only ones who follow the inheritor of Peter”, or “We are the only Church that was given authority” or The Church is One and we have Truth so no one else does."

Of course that is what Catholics think - but I can never quite understand how it is supposed to be an argument. As an Anglican, people occasionally say these things to me as if they are supposed to be convincing. The authority of the Pope is a big one that gets harped on. But obviously I don’t agree that the Pope has the kind of authority being claimed, or I’d be Catholic. I just don’t get how asserting such things to be the case without offering evidence is meant to be effective.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Most of us recognize that in the beginning the NT church had the following 4 marks about it: it was one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Today some individuals hold that these 4 marks are the means by which one is to evaluate the validity of any existing ecclesiatical body as being the Church of Jesus Christ.

My question is therefore twofold:

1. Is there any existing ecclesialistical body that has ALL four of these marks of the Church?

and

1. Should any such ecclesiastical body be found, does that ecclesialistical body have ALL four of the marks of the Church exclusively to itself?

Note: I do ask one personal priviledge of all those posting here, that we adopt a common way of writing with respect to the terms. My proposal:

1. If one is using any of the above terms (one, holy, catholic and apostolic) as an adjective to describe the nature of the ecclesiatical body that one NOT capitalize the term.
2. If one is using the term as being the moniker which identifies that ecclesiastical body that one DOES capitalize the term.

Thus, a few blocks down the street from my house there is an ecclesiastical body that considers itself a church and that has given themselves the name The Apostolic Church. Therefore when speaking of them I will capitalize the letter “A” in their name, but when discussing whether or not they are apostolic in character I will not. Likewise a disccusion as to the catholicity of the Catholic Church would similarly use miniscule “c” and capital “C” respectively. So, a person writing that the NT Church was catholic and a person writing that the NT Church was Catholic would be articulating two different things, and one who wanted to say both would need to say that the NT Church was both catholic and Catholic.

Hi Grace Seeker. I am a convert to the Catholic faith. In my search for the one visible church, I only considered a handful. If an ecclesiastical community said it wasn’t the one true church, I took them at their word. I guess I made it a presupposition that there was one true church. I suspect you would take issue with me at the very foundation, but I’ll continue on to your question for now. You can probably guess that one who begins this way will hold that the one true church will exhibit all four marks.

In my opinion, your question as to whether other church communties may be said to also have the four marks is answered by the fact that one of the marks is the the church is oneness. If mutliple churches, not in communion with one another, disagreeing with each other so much that the respective members cannot go to church together have the other three marks of the church, they nevertheless cannot BOTH be one. It seems to me that if there are mutliple qualifying communities, it could only be if the first mark, oneness, were changed to plurality.

I realize I haven’t demonstrated that my church qualifies or that another doesn’t. I am suggesting that my original presupposition, given the first mark, is that if I find even one church that has all four, it by definition means there are no more than one.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi Grace Seeker. I am a convert to the Catholic faith. In my search for the one visible church, I only considered a handful. If an ecclesiastical community said it wasn’t the one true church, I took them at their word. I guess I made it a presupposition that there was one true church. I suspect you would take issue with me at the very foundation, but I’ll continue on to your question for now. You can probably guess that one who begins this way will hold that the one true church will exhibit all four marks.

In my opinion, your question as to whether other church communties may be said to also have the four marks is answered by the fact that one of the marks is the the church is oneness. If mutliple churches, not in communion with one another, disagreeing with each other so much that the respective members cannot go to church together have the other three marks of the church, they nevertheless cannot BOTH be one. It seems to me that if there are mutliple qualifying communities, it could only be if the first mark, oneness, were changed to plurality.

I realize I haven’t demonstrated that my church qualifies or that another doesn’t. I am suggesting that my original presupposition, given the first mark, is that if I find even one church that has all four, it by definition means there are no more than one.

Well, I think you could say that only if you have understood “oneness” correctly. It could be that it means something different and that a person could then look for oneness in the wrong area.

 

[StillWondering]

Well, just looking at what various groups claim as part of their understanding of themselves, I think for me apostolic and catholic are fairly clear in their meaning. Many Christian groups understand their calling as being catholic in the sense of being meant for all humanity. There are many that don’t bother with apostolic at all, and I think there are others that have very different understandings of what it means. Most Christians also recognize being holy as important.

I think one is the most difficult for me, both in the sense of what it should mean and who embodies it. I think many claim it in one sense or another. But I may be inclined to think that no Christian group embodies it perfectly, both because empirically none has been actually able to keep it together, but also, to be truly one would imply, I suspect, perfect charity (among other things), and none of us have it.

Now, all who dwell in Christ are made one through him. And if I thought it included most of the members of one church and not many of the others I suppose that might mean something, but I am not sure I believe that. And I don’t really have any way to know in any case.

I just wanted to make a quick remark that came to mind when I read your post Bluegoat.

God is one. Everyone that chooses God and does what it takes to properly choose God then they would be with God. Now those that do not choose God, instead go towards one sin or another breaks away from this unity God calls. Does that make God not All Good, All Powerful, and All Knowing? No, that would be illogical. Not choosing God does not mean that God lacks anything true. Thus, the sins an individual may follow is following a false and an illusion. God choose to give us free will so while God is All Powerful, he allows us to make our own choice – even if its a choice away from God. And God already knows all these and so our actions would be known. Yet this does not make our choices any less free nor God any less knowing.

Any true Christian would agree with what I wrote right?

So let take to be true that Christ built the Church given them the Sacraments spoken about in the Gospels and Acts. Since Christ only built one church, the Church. Let’s see what happens when people leave that Church and follows other traditions. Well, they are making a choice for something not the Church. If they call their new church “one, holy, apostolic, and/or catholic” this does not negate that the original Church having any of those. It is merely a false claim.

So I will assert by this logic, any faith tradition that does not have complete continuity in their apostolic succession throughout the totality of the faith community, then they cannot have true Apostolic Succession. Some in the community may, but not the faith tradition itself. The same with holy I would understand. Anything that is not God is only holy in that they follow faithfully what God teachers or God makes to be holy. Thus faith traditions that refuses or drops or mutilate God’s original teachings would not fit in this understanding of holy.

Now to deal with “catholic” and “one”. As explained above, when someone splits off from the original, it does not mean that the original has necessary lost “catholic” nor “one”. If people refuses God and choose sin to be “their good”, God never lost any good nor his call for unity. Thus any faith tradition that leaves the original tradition does not take away the “catholic” since the original Church still open its doors for universality if the faith traditions that left will return to the proper and original teachings. In the same way this does not make the original Church any less one since if the original Church keeps its teachings completely and continuously it is still one despite others refusing to be part of it.

I hope my logic is flawless and easy to follow. Could someone tell me it’s inaccuracies?

Lastly, the logic above would suggest that there is the Church that is “one, holy, apostolic, and catholic” and that it still exists this day. To find it, we trace the history of this Church all the way back to Christ as the source of the other faith traditions.

 

[Bluegoat]

I just wanted to make a quick remark that came to mind when I read your post Bluegoat.

God is one. Everyone that chooses God and does what it takes to properly choose God then they would be with God. Now those that do not choose God, instead go towards one sin or another breaks away from this unity God calls. Does that make God not All Good, All Powerful, and All Knowing? No, that would be illogical. Not choosing God does not mean that God lacks anything true. Thus, the sins an individual may follow is following a false and an illusion. God choose to give us free will so while God is All Powerful, he allows us to make our own choice – even if its a choice away from God. And God already knows all these and so our actions would be known. Yet this does not make our choices any less free nor God any less knowing.

Any true Christian would agree with what I wrote right?

So let take to be true that Christ built the Church given them the Sacraments spoken about in the Gospels and Acts. Since Christ only built one church, the Church. Let’s see what happens when people leave that Church and follows other traditions. Well, they are making a choice for something not the Church. If they call their new church “one, holy, apostolic, and/or catholic” this does not negate that the original Church having any of those. It is merely a false claim.

So I will assert by this logic, any faith tradition that does not have complete continuity in their apostolic succession throughout the totality of the faith community, then they cannot have true Apostolic Succession. Some in the community may, but not the faith tradition itself. The same with holy I would understand. Anything that is not God is only holy in that they follow faithfully what God teachers or God makes to be holy. Thus faith traditions that refuses or drops or mutilate God’s original teachings would not fit in this understanding of holy.

Now to deal with “catholic” and “one”. As explained above, when someone splits off from the original, it does not mean that the original has necessary lost “catholic” nor “one”. If people refuses God and choose sin to be “their good”, God never lost any good nor his call for unity. Thus any faith tradition that leaves the original tradition does not take away the “catholic” since the original Church still open its doors for universality if the faith traditions that left will return to the proper and original teachings. In the same way this does not make the original Church any less one since if the original Church keeps its teachings completely and continuously it is still one despite others refusing to be part of it.

I hope my logic is flawless and easy to follow. Could someone tell me it’s inaccuracies?

Lastly, the logic above would suggest that there is the Church that is “one, holy, apostolic, and catholic” and that it still exists this day. To find it, we trace the history of this Church all the way back to Christ as the source of the other faith traditions.

There are a few issues through your post that struck me as not logical.

In your first paragraph, you seem to be assuming that anyone who does not follow God perfectly, or recognize truth perfectly, is sinning. You may only be wishing to discuss that situation which is fine, but I am sure you know many people (all people) do not grasp Truth perfectly even when they sincerely try to. Assertions that do not have the fullness of Truth are not always sins. However, you are right in that whatever any person believes, it makes no difference to Truth itself.

Then you made this statement:

So let take to be true that Christ built the Church given them the Sacraments spoken about in the Gospels and Acts. Since Christ only built one church, the Church.

There is nothing wrong with clearly making an assumption like this to follow an argument to it’s conclusion. But if you do so, the argument depends on the assumption being true - and you haven’t proved any such thing. You haven’t given any reason to think that Christ built the Church and gave them the sacraments, or that he built only one church, or that the one church is the Church (by which I believe you mean Catholic Church?)

The rest of your logic may follow, but it doesn’t, I’m afraid, prove anything, since the assumptions you made were in fact the very questions under discussion. What is the Church? What does it mean for it to be One (or Holy, or Whatever)? Is unity found in doctrine, political structure, liturgy? Is it something that is clearly visible to all, or invisible? In a fallen world, will the Church look the way it would be expected to in an unfallen world, or will the signs be somehow obscured or distorted - if so, can we recognize them?

 

[StillWondering]

Even if there is one, it means nothing; for the marks are of no practical value. As is proved by the fact that no such body is recognised, except by its own adherents. Marks of identification that don’t identify are not much use There are Churches of varying size that lay claim to these marks - but the other claimants, do not concede that the claims of their rivals are justified.​

The idea for those interested in seeking this out is that if there really is a Church currently existing, as it should since Christ says “the gates of Hell will not destroy it” (my paraphrase from the gospel text), then the only logical choice is to find this Church and be a part of it.

 

[StillWondering]

The rest of your logic may follow, but it doesn’t, I’m afraid, prove anything, since the assumptions you made were in fact the very questions under discussion. What is the Church? What does it mean for it to be One (or Holy, or Whatever)? Is unity found in doctrine, political structure, liturgy? Is it something that is clearly visible to all, or invisible? In a fallen world, will the Church look the way it would be expected to in an unfallen world, or will the signs be somehow obscured or distorted - if so, can we recognize them?

You and I are different people. I personally believe that the questions you presented above are questions we all need to answer for ourselves. If God is personal as so many claims, then should we not personally choice to answer those questions. I’m not saying “do it alone” but I am saying the final choice is ours to choose what God planned or not.

There are a few issues through your post that struck me as not logical.

In your first paragraph, you seem to be assuming that anyone who does not follow God perfectly, or recognize truth perfectly, is sinning. You may only be wishing to discuss that situation which is fine, but I am sure you know many people (all people) do not grasp Truth perfectly even when they sincerely try to. Assertions that do not have the fullness of Truth are not always sins. However, you are right in that whatever any person believes, it makes no difference to Truth itself.

That is my expectation that as Christians that is what we believe even if we may not be able to logically define it as such. The reason I assumed this is because as Christians we believe Christ is the Second Person in the Trinity, particularly God the Son. Now we also as both Christians and Jews (Christianity being the fulfillment of Jewish understandings of the Messiah) also believe as fact that God is All Powerful, ie. infinitely eternal and beyond us who is mortal (i.e. finite in power and being). Thus any choice that is not God would be a choice infinitely separated from God. The real assumption that I made here is that others understand sin to be what I as a Catholic understand it. I understand sin as a choice for something that lacks the goodness of God. That’s my real assumption. I was not assuming nor presented that that those who do not fully know the truth is in sin. It’s a subtle difference but valuable one, which is the difference between “choice” and “knowledge”.

Then you made this statement: “So let take to be true that Christ built the Church given them the Sacraments spoken about in the Gospels and Acts. Since Christ only built one church, the Church.”

There is nothing wrong with clearly making an assumption like this to follow an argument to it’s conclusion. But if you do so, the argument depends on the assumption being true - and you haven’t proved any such thing. You haven’t given any reason to think that Christ built the Church and gave them the sacraments, or that he built only one church, or that the one church is the Church (by which I believe you mean Catholic Church?)

This is from the understanding of the Scriptures based on Sacred Tradition that passed down from the Apostles to the Early Church Fathers. If you read the Scriptures and then read the Early Church Fathers writing on the Scriptures over many iterations you will see some Sacraments and the idea of a Single physical entity being the Church. The Gospels were written earliest at around 60 AD or so and their were already parallel documents form the first disciples of the Apostles talking about what they learn and come to believe form the Apostles teachings who were sent out by Christ to baptize and teach the whole world.

So I present as evidence writings from the Early Church Fathers and the Scriptures themselves. Going into detail would be beyond the scope of any particular thread but this initiation is appropriate.

---

As for the question of the OP, I think how you reworded it Bluegoat seems different then what I read from the OP. Just to be sure I’m on the right track, the OP was asking “Does any existing ecclesiastical body have ALL four of the marks of the church exclusively to itself?” This I gather is really a multipart question and should be answered in parts. The part I choose to answer is that if there is, then it must … be a continuous body that has been in existence since the Apostles and of which not only retain these four marks but are the source of other faith traditions that split off from this body. Else it would fail the test since the four marks represents particular concepts “one, holy, apostolic, and catholic” as well as having a moment in time where all four marks co-existed.

 

[StillWondering]

Well, I think you could say that only if you have understood “oneness” correctly. It could be that it means something different and that a person could then look for oneness in the wrong area.

I would definitely agree with this analysis. The only way one could understand the attribute of “one” within the context of the four marks as described by the OP is to be in the same mindset as those who wrote down this list of marks. I am not scholar but I believe it may have been the Council of Niceed since it is found in the Niceed Creed. It could be before this, I would leave that to a scholar to answer.

However, those who wrote this document and use the term “one” would logically refer to the faith community they are participating in else they would leave to find that “one”.

So this is where one can find out the meaning of “one” within the four marks. I hope we can all find this for ourselves, those who honestly seek.