Does this passage prove that the RCC is the one true Church?

[whatevergirl]

In today’s Gospel reading…it definitely seems like Jesus is praying to God to keep unity amongst His followers…so, could this passage be proof for those skeptical of believing that the RCC is the one true Church that Jesus intended? It seems direct to me. I absolutely love this reading!

Gospel
Jn 17:11b-19

Lifting up his eyes to heaven, Jesus prayed, saying:
“Holy Father, keep them in your name
that you have given me,
so that they may be one just as we are one.
When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me,
and I guarded them, and none of them was lost
except the son of destruction,
in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
But now I am coming to you.
I speak this in the world
so that they may share my joy completely.
I gave them your word, and the world hated them,
because they do not belong to the world
any more than I belong to the world.
I do not ask that you take them out of the world
but that you keep them from the Evil One.
They do not belong to the world
any more than I belong to the world.
Consecrate them in the truth.
Your word is truth.
As you sent me into the world,
so I sent them into the world.
And I consecrate myself for them,
so that they also may be consecrated in truth.”

 

[gallo]

Just to note, when I was a baptist, this text was taken as symbolic. For example, methodists and baptists are different, but both Christians, therefore they are “one”. I guess the baptists I learned under, and other denominations at that matter, were so used to things being broken that they didn’t realize it. So to a baptist, this verse(s) wouldn’t mean the RCC is the one.

These verses were also used to support once-saved-always-saved doctrine, BTW.

 

[whatevergirl]

Just to note, when I was a baptist, this text was taken as symbolic. For example, methodists and baptists are different, but both Christians, therefore they are “one”. I guess the baptists I learned under, and other denominations at that matter, were so used to things being broken that they didn’t realize it. So to a baptist, this verse(s) wouldn’t mean the RCC is the one.

These verses were also used to support once-saved-always-saved doctrine, BTW.

interesting gallo–but, I wonder what the explanation is for the conversation Jesus had with Peter? And Peter in turn, started the Roman (Catholic) Church?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In today’s Gospel reading…it definitely seems like Jesus is praying to God to keep unity amongst His followers…so, could this passage be proof for those skeptical of believing that the RCC is the one true Church that Jesus intended? It seems direct to me. I absolutely love this reading!

Gospel
Jn 17:11b-19

Lifting up his eyes to heaven, Jesus prayed, saying:
“Holy Father, keep them in your name
that you have given me,
so that they may be one just as we are one.
When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me,
and I guarded them, and none of them was lost
except the son of destruction,
in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
But now I am coming to you.
I speak this in the world
so that they may share my joy completely.
I gave them your word, and the world hated them,
because they do not belong to the world
any more than I belong to the world.
I do not ask that you take them out of the world
but that you keep them from the Evil One.
They do not belong to the world
any more than I belong to the world.
Consecrate them in the truth.
Your word is truth.
As you sent me into the world,
so I sent them into the world.
And I consecrate myself for them,
so that they also may be consecrated in truth.”

No: because the question takes for granted something that needs to be established - namely, that the Apostles were Catholics.​

A prayer that “they may be one” does not of itself show that they are specifically Catholic, or Anglican, or Baptist, or Wesleyan, or any other specific body. Which is why all Christians can value it - for no one is excluded. ##

 

[Catholicdeacon]

Just to note, when I was a baptist, this text was taken as symbolic. For example, methodists and baptists are different, but both Christians, therefore they are “one”. I guess the baptists I learned under, and other denominations at that matter, were so used to things being broken that they didn’t realize it. So to a baptist, this verse(s) wouldn’t mean the RCC is the one.

These verses were also used to support once-saved-always-saved doctrine, BTW.

You know… that is one of those things about Sola Scriptura nobody has ever been able to explain to me. When do I know it is symbolic talk and when do I know that is not. It seems that the rule of thumb is… If it favors protestantism then should be taken literary, if it favor Catholilics then is should be symbolic as in:

“But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother.” Gal 1:19=> Literal

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” Jn 6:53=> Symbolic

In His Love…

A Catholic Deacon

 

[whatevergirl]

No: because the question takes for granted something that needs to be established - namely, that the Apostles were Catholics.​

A prayer that “they may be one” does not of itself show that they are specifically Catholic, or Anglican, or Baptist, or Wesleyan, or any other specific body. Which is why all Christians can value it - for no one is excluded. ##

The Lutheran derivatives were not around…I mean, the Catholic Church was the first organized church on earth…Protestantism (the protesting of Catholicism as we know it to mean) came way after the RCC was established. Just the mere definition of Protestant…is the protesting of Catholicism. Are you saying that the throwing out of Catholic doctrine was really what Jesus intended? Because to be Protestant…the basic tenets of that faith…came from the original Church. Just the breaking away from it.

 

[whatevergirl]

You know… that is one of those things about Sola Scriptura nobody has ever been able to explain to me. When do I know it is symbolic talk and when do I know that is not. It seems that the rule of thumb is… If it favors protestantism then should be taken literary, if it favor Catholilics then is should be symbolic as in:

“But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother.” Gal 1:19=> Literal

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” Jn 6:53=> Symbolic

In His Love…

A Catholic Deacon

lol great points.

 

[gallo]

interesting gallo–but, I wonder what the explanation is for the conversation Jesus had with Peter? And Peter in turn, started the Roman (Catholic) Church?

I’m assuming the conversation is question is the one where Jesus said that “upon this rock I will build my Church”. The baptists believe this again is symbolic, not a literal action of starting a Church with one man. (This is quite ironic, however, because all the denominations started with one man (or woman), but I don’t hear them saying that’s symbolic.) Anyway, this verse is interpreted as meaning upon “faith” that the Church is started because Jesus says this on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Son of God, which comes from faith.

As I look back now, I can’t figure out what WASN’T viewed as symbolic. I’m glad I’m past that.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m assuming the conversation is question is the one where Jesus said that “upon this rock I will build my Church”. The baptists believe this again is symbolic, not a literal action of starting a Church with one man. (This is quite ironic, however, because all the denominations started with one man (or woman), but I don’t hear them saying that’s symbolic.) Anyway, this verse is interpreted as meaning upon “faith” that the Church is started because Jesus says this on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Son of God, which comes from faith.

As I look back now, I can’t figure out what WASN’T viewed as symbolic. I’m glad I’m past that.

Praise be to God.

 

[gallo]

The Lutheran derivatives were not around…I mean, the Catholic Church was the first organized church on earth…Protestantism (the protesting of Catholicism as we know it to mean) came way after the RCC was established. Just the mere definition of Protestant…is the protesting of Catholicism. Are you saying that the throwing out of Catholic doctrine was really what Jesus intended? Because to be Protestant…the basic tenets of that faith…came from the original Church. Just the breaking away from it.

Most “protestants” don’t see themselves as such. That term is often abandoned and/or misunderstood. So many involved in the current day denominations have come to accept that the way their denomination runs is the way Christ meant it, especially when it comes to the baptist type because it is viewed that rituals and tradition are teachings of men and not God. “Protestant” becomes a separate denomination, if you will, that is differentiated from simply being a Christian. It’s confusing, I know.

I would encourage anyone who crosses paths with someone as such to take the “burden” of prayer for him/her upon themselves. Much of what is accepted as truth does not always just take correction and a change of mind, it takes deliverance.

And yes whatevergirl, praise be to God!

 

[colliric]

You know… that is one of those things about Sola Scriptura nobody has ever been able to explain to me. When do I know it is symbolic talk and when do I know that is not. It seems that the rule of thumb is… If it favors protestantism then should be taken literary, if it favor Catholilics then is should be symbolic as in:

“But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother.” Gal 1:19=> Literal

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” Jn 6:53=> Symbolic

In His Love…

A Catholic Deacon

It’s funny watching protestant debaters dance around James Chapter 2 in debates over “Faith and Works”… they don’t have the “symbolic” thing to help them with that one. I’ve never head a protestant give a good “Sola Scriptura” argument to support their position on that one.

 

[gallo]

It’s funny watching protestant debaters dance around James Chapter 2 in debates over “Faith and Works”… they don’t have the “symbolic” thing to help them with that one. I’ve never head a protestant give a good “Sola Scriptura” argument to support their position on that one.

Unfortunately, James is overlooked by many. If I understand correctly, Luther wanted to remove it from the canon and that is the sentiment that many protestants hold today. The feeling is that it can be construed to promote “earning” salvation, which goes against the faith “alone” doctrine. This is also ironical, because Luther added the word “alone” to the Scripture they use to justify this.

There are two parts of the problem when I look back on what I was taught and what I know now: simply language and history. When I was reconciled to the RCC, I had to “re-learn” how to communicate and “re-acquaint” myself with my heritage. As far as communication, as Catholics we see the Word of God as the Christ as a whole. Take paragraph 100 in the CCC for example. It states that the magesterium is responsible for interpreting the Word of God (the new gallo’s revised paraphrased version). Many non-Catholics would flip over this, including myself at the time. The Word of God primarily is the Scriptures and to a sola-scriptura believer, you can imagine what they think. However, if you read the context, it points out Christ, not solely the Scriptures. So words don’t mean the same to a protestant as to a Catholic.
The historical side is that many, or the average, non-Catholics think that the way their particular denomination is the way it’s always been and that the RCC is just another variation, not what has been and theirs split off. Also, there’s a the side similar to Mormons in that the Church was in error for who knows how long until Luther came with all the “saving graces”.

However, the Church clearly states that even though there are problems and errors, protestants, whether they call themselves as such or not, are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. So we need to continue to pray for deliverance from the spirit of misunderstanding and all to come back to the One Faith…preferably before passing into eternity where all things are revealed.

That’s my exegesis of the matter.

Sorry OP, I think I strayed a little.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

1 Corinthians 12:12-28 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

 

[Ilroy]

1 Corinthians 12:12-28 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.

21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

So, what is your point here? Are you saying that all the denoms are like the different parts of the body of Christ? If that is your point, then look again at vs. 27 and following. It clearly points out that we each have different gifts and therefore different functions of the body…not that the body is made up of different theologies and doctrines.
If that was not your point then my bad…

 

[whatevergirl]

So, what is your point here? Are you saying that all the denoms are like the different parts of the body of Christ? If that is your point, then look again at vs. 27 and following. It clearly points out that we each have different gifts and therefore different functions of the body…not that the body is made up of different theologies and doctrines.
If that was not your point then my bad…

yes daniel…i wondered this too.