How do you get from here to there?

[mozart-250]

A hypothetical has been on my mind for a while…

Imagine a new convert to Christ. He/she is totally green to Christianity (in this hypothetical we will make him of Jewish ).

He now is dealing with the maze of Christian denominations from this totally green perspective. From his vantage point the Catholic church looks just like another denomination out there.

So how does this guy go from here to a belief that the Catholic church is the “one true church”.and everyone else is hmm… something else. I’m specifically curious what assumptions would this guy need to make to get from here to there.

Some groundrules

(1) He holds to very few basic assumptions about Christianity. Perhaps a basic belief that Jesus was whom he claimed to be.

(2) He is totally intellectually honest but totally uneducated within Christianity. He does not have the skill set to sort through any issues where it seems to him that unbiased authorities disagree and that he needs an advanced degree to get at the truth.

(3) He is fair. To the same extent he checks out Catholicism, he will check out claims of competing Christian branches. This means he will not go on just your say so. But then again he holds no particular anti-Catholic bias.

(4) If one branch of Christianity does not distinguish itself above the others, he will identify with the branch of Christianity that seems to him to practice the Christian faith the best in the community where he lives.

 

[jmcrae]

If he were being, as you suggest, fair and balanced, he would figure out from a short study of Christian history that the Catholic Church is the one that Christ actually founded, and that the rest of them didn’t even exist until centuries later.

The majority of people don’t operate that way though. Normally, they just join the same Church as their friend that introduced them to Christ in the first place, since friendship with Christian people is usually the first step to conversion.

It doesn’t normally occur to new converts to wonder whether their friend’s church is affiliated with the one that Christ founded - they just assume that it is, without ever actually asking that question.

 

[elvisman]

He now is dealing with the maze of Christian denominations from this totally green perspective. From his vantage point the Catholic church looks just like another denomination out there.
quote]

Well, it’s kind of a loaded question.
First of all, he would have to realize that the Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the Universal (Catholic) Christian Church.
The phenomenon of naming different groups happened after the Protestant Reformation with the multitudes of different interpretations.
It would also depend on whether or not he is a convert to the fullness of truth of the Catholic Church or only the partially accepted truth of one of thousands of Protestant denominations.

 

[mozart-250]

Well, it’s kind of a loaded question.
First of all, he would have to realize that the Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is the Universal (Catholic) Christian Church.
The phenomenon of naming different groups happened after the Protestant Reformation with the multitudes of different interpretations.
It would also depend on whether or not he is a convert to the fullness of truth of the Catholic Church or only the partially accepted truth of one of thousands of Protestant denominations.

Elvis:
The assumption is that he is not a convert from any church. Just on his own he decided the evidence was sufficient to believe that Jesus is in fact the Messiah.

From that vantage point the Catholic church looks like just another denomination. If Catholicism is in fact the one true church and not just another denomination, it is something he would have to somehow figure out.

 

[sterryfamily]

If one could put aside any prejudice, as you are suggesting, he would study the early Church and find that they believed in purgatory and prayers for the dead, liturgy, the sacraments, and most importantly, apostolic succession and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. He would discover the way that Christ set up His Church through the apostles and how the Church councils worked and why. There would be no other choice. Providing, of course, that one procede without prejudice.

 

[mozart-250]

If he were being, as you suggest, fair and balanced, he would figure out from a short study of Christian history that the Catholic Church is the one that Christ actually founded, and that the rest of them didn’t even exist until centuries later.

The majority of people don’t operate that way though. Normally, they just join the same Church as their friend that introduced them to Christ in the first place, since friendship with Christian people is usually the first step to conversion.

It doesn’t normally occur to new converts to wonder whether their friend’s church is affiliated with the one that Christ founded - they just assume that it is, without ever actually asking that question.

Manny:
I agree with you that most people do not operate that way. The natural thing is to hook up with whomever converted you. If not that, then use some subjective measure on whom they hook up with. I was just trying to put myself in the shoes of someone attempting to be objective.

In your case, he will probably quickly run up against the claims of Catholicism to be the church that Christ founded. However, he would also run up against the claims of the Orthodox that they are the church that Christ founded and that Catholicism departed (by tweaking a creed I think). So is it fair to for him to conclude that there is only one church that claims to have been the church that Christ started.

With the Protestants, he soon will run up against the historical event known as the Reformation. He will encounter both Catholic and Protestant spin doctors of this event. He will encounter learned, objective authorities in disagreement about this event. He also will encounter learned Catholic authorities in agreement that the church at the time was very badly in need of internal reformation.

I guess it depends on how he processes this flood of information. He might conclude that Catholics are the good guys and Protestants are the bad guys. He might conclude the other way around. But I would think the natural tendency when there is schism is to spread the blame around. What if he concludes that everyone to some extent is at fault here?

 

[jmcrae]

In your case, he will probably quickly run up against the claims of Catholicism to be the church that Christ founded. However, he would also run up against the claims of the Orthodox that they are the church that Christ founded and that Catholicism departed (by tweaking a creed I think).

He would then be faced with the challenge of which of the Orthodox is the “real thing” and which ones are splinters off of that. Also, he would notice that the Catholic Church remained united under one Pope, while the Orthodox split off into four Patriarchies, and then ever more and more as time went on - I think there are 16 at present, but I don’t know for sure.

So is it fair to for him to conclude that there is only one church that claims to have been the church that Christ started.

With the Protestants, he soon will run up against the historical event known as the Reformation. He will encounter both Catholic and Protestant spin doctors of this event. He will encounter learned, objective authorities in disagreement about this event. He also will encounter learned Catholic authorities in agreement that the church at the time was very badly in need of internal reformation.

I guess it depends on how he processes this flood of information. He might conclude that Catholics are the good guys and Protestants are the bad guys. He might conclude the other way around. But I would think the natural tendency when there is schism is to spread the blame around. What if he concludes that everyone to some extent is at fault here?

At some point it would occur to him (again, if he is being objective, and not being swayed by the need to be “on side” with friends, family, etc.) that Christ only made promises to one Church; that which He founded. Since the others are not under the umbrella of those promises, he would choose the one that is - otherwise, why be a Christian at all, unless he had some reason to keep one foot out the door?

Also, again, if he is being objective, how would he make a difference in his mind between the Reformation (aka the Protestant heresy) and the Arian heresy, the Gnostic heresy, the Manichean heresy, etc., which were all started by men who split from the Catholic Church to found their own organizations to “reform” Catholic teachings? He would most likely notice that this is just the modern-day heresy, of which the Catholic Church has had continual experience.

Also, although we are surrounded by Protestantism in North America, there are Catholics in the world who are not affected by it at all - I once spoke to a priest from Spain who was amazed to find out that it is still going on; he had no idea that there are still any Protestants in the world at all.

 

[sterryfamily]

In your case, he will probably quickly run up against the claims of Catholicism to be the church that Christ founded. However, he would also run up against the claims of the Orthodox that they are the church that Christ founded and that Catholicism departed (by tweaking a creed I think). So is it fair to for him to conclude that there is only one church that claims to have been the church that Christ started.

?

Nah…He’ll get over that one real fast. Assuming, as you say, he is fair and honest. He will see that the Early Church Fathers in the east were just as strong in their defference to the Bishop of Rome and how they always appealed to him to settle disputes.

 

[rr1213]

Also, although we are surrounded by Protestantism in North America, there are Catholics in the world who are not affected by it at all - I once spoke to a priest from Spain who was amazed to find out that it is still going on; he had no idea that there are still any Protestants in the world at all.

I understand that Spain is still emerging out of Franco’s Catholic dictatorship, but had the man never heard of Germany, Britain and the Netherlands? They really aren’t that far away from Spain, especially in the new world of the EU.

 

[jmcrae]

I understand that Spain is still emerging out of Franco’s Catholic dictatorship, but had the man never heard of Germany, Britain and the Netherlands? They really aren’t that far away from Spain, especially in the new world of the EU.

Of course he’s heard of those countries. He just didn’t realize that Protestantism was still being practiced anywhere.

I suppose he may have been under the impression that when Catholicism became legal again, that everyone would have gone back to the Church.

 

[elvisman]

Elvis:
The assumption is that he is not a convert from any church. Just on his own he decided the evidence was sufficient to believe that Jesus is in fact the Messiah.

From that vantage point the Catholic church looks like just another denomination. If Catholicism is in fact the one true church and not just another denomination, it is something he would have to somehow figure out.

Ahhhhhh - I was assuming that he was already a Christian (eg., baptized). If so, he would ALREADY belong to a Church.
I meant no disrespect. I just don’t know how somebody could become a Christian without repentance and Baptism.

 

[mozart-250]

Ahhhhhh - I was assuming that he was already a Christian (eg., baptized). If so, he would ALREADY belong to a Church.
I meant no disrespect. I just don’t know how somebody could become a Christian without repentance and Baptism.

He had repentance and the Baptism of desire…same as the thief on the cross.

 

[jmcrae]

He had repentance and the Baptism of desire…same as the thief on the cross.

Is he dead, then? Or is he still wondering which Church to join?

 

[mozart-250]

Nah…He’ll get over that one real fast. Assuming, as you say, he is fair and honest. He will see that the Early Church Fathers in the east were just as strong in their defference to the Bishop of Rome and how they always appealed to him to settle disputes.

Of course the underlying assumption is that when he asks his Eastern Orthodox friends what gives here is that they will give the same answer as you. Otherwise whose spin will he believe.

 

[jmcrae]

Of course the underlying assumption is that when he asks his Eastern Orthodox friends what gives here is that they will give the same answer as you. Otherwise whose spin will he believe.

He doesn’t have to rely on “spin.” We have the original documents of the Church, and they have been translated into English. If he is really objective, he will look at these, and see which Church they came from - which Church they are describing. Then, he will become Catholic.

 

[mozart-250]

He would then be faced with the challenge of which of the Orthodox is the “real thing” and which ones are splinters off of that. Also, he would notice that the Catholic Church remained united under one Pope, while the Orthodox split off into four Patriarchies, and then ever more and more as time went on - I think there are 16 at present, but I don’t know for sure.

Actually none of us can assume what metrics he will use. I am just observing that if he looks at the metric of lineage it is not sufficient to point to one and only one (what appears to him) denomination.

At some point it would occur to him (again, if he is being objective, and not being swayed by the need to be “on side” with friends, family, etc.) that Christ only made promises to one Church; that which He founded. Since the others are not under the umbrella of those promises, he would choose the one that is - otherwise, why be a Christian at all, unless he had some reason to keep one foot out the door?

Of course he would have to assume that the promises of Christ are applicable to only one branch of Christianity. I don’t know why he would assume this.

Also, again, if he is being objective, how would he make a difference in his mind between the Reformation (aka the Protestant heresy) and the Arian heresy, the Gnostic heresy, the Manichean heresy, etc., which were all started by men who split from the Catholic Church to found their own organizations to “reform” Catholic teachings? He would most likely notice that this is just the modern-day heresy, of which the Catholic Church has had continual experience.

Why would he assume the “Protestant heresy” is the same as the (Arian, Gnostic …) heresy. After all, he would not be able to observe Arian or Gnostic churches in his community while he would be able to observe Protestant churches.

Besides, being the objective sort he would talk to his Protestant friends whom I am sure will give him a different spin.

I would think he would be just as skeptical of Catholic claims of superiority as he would be of Protestant ones.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually none of us can assume what metrics he will use. I am just observing that if he looks at the metric of lineage it is not sufficient to point to one and only one (what appears to him) denomination.

If he starts at the beginning with the Apostles, he will find that first list of the Popes that St. Irenaeus put together, and then he will notice that the Apostle Peter is the ancestor of Pope Benedict XVI, in the Papacy of the Catholic Church.

Of course he would have to assume that the promises of Christ are applicable to only one branch of Christianity. I don’t know why he would assume this.

Because it was the only “branch” in existence at Christ’s time. The rest of them broke away; they didn’t “branch off” from the Catholic Church. They severed all their connections.

Why would he assume the “Protestant heresy” is the same as the (Arian, Gnostic …) heresy. After all, he would not be able to observe Arian or Gnostic churches in his community while he would be able to observe Protestant churches.

No, but he can certainly read about them, from authors who were there at the time and lived through them at the time, and he would notice the same themes occurring over and over again in all of them.

 

[mozart-250]

If one could put aside any prejudice, as you are suggesting, he would study the early Church and find that they believed in purgatory and prayers for the dead, liturgy, the sacraments, and most importantly, apostolic succession and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. He would discover the way that Christ set up His Church through the apostles and how the Church councils worked and why. There would be no other choice. Providing, of course, that one procede without prejudice.

Ah…interesting point.

Perhaps he might look at history to ask himself if any branch of Christianity looks significantly closer to the earliest church than other branches. And he might actually undertake the daunting task of reading the ECF.

What he will not do is go to Catholic Answers, read all of the ECF quotes, verify they are accurate, and then conclude yea verily the Catholic church is the one true church.

Now I am not an ECF expert, but from what I have personally read…about 95% of them deal with basic Christian conduct (I just perused 1 Clement and verified that was the case). If that is the case, why wouldn’t he choose the branch of Christianity that seems to practice the closest to the precepts of these books (which are in agreement to the New Testament).

Besides, it seems to me the best source of Church history is still the New Testament. You seem to assume that he would use the ECF to resolve Catholic / Protestant differences and conclude overwhelmingly for the Catholic (btw from my attempt in doing this it is a mixed bag). What if he takes his New Testament and becomes troubled by the fact that he can’t resolve some Catholic dogma within its pages.

 

[jmcrae]

Ah…interesting point.

Perhaps he might look at history to ask himself if any branch of Christianity looks significantly closer to the earliest church than other branches. And he might actually undertake the daunting task of reading the ECF.

What he will not do is go to Catholic Answers, read all of the ECF quotes, verify they are accurate, and then conclude yea verily the Catholic church is the one true church.

Now I am not an ECF expert, but from what I have personally read…about 95% of them deal with basic Christian conduct (I just perused 1 Clement and verified that was the case). If that is the case, why wouldn’t he choose the branch of Christianity that seems to practice the closest to the precepts of these books (which are in agreement to the New Testament).

He’d still come to the Catholic Church, I think, since the Catholic Church certainly follows the precepts of the New Testament - she wrote them; she’d better follow them!

Besides, it seems to me the best source of Church history is still the New Testament. You seem to assume that he would use the ECF to resolve Catholic / Protestant differences and conclude overwhelmingly for the Catholic (btw from my attempt in doing this it is a mixed bag). What if he takes his New Testament and becomes troubled by the fact that he can’t resolve some Catholic dogma within its pages.

He wouldn’t be expecting to, unless he had somehow bought into the Protestant idea that everything has to be in the Bible, or else we aren’t required to believe it or do it.

He’d realize that the New Testament is the story of how the Church began, but not the story of where it is right now. For that, he would naturally look to history, which would bring him to the Early Church Fathers - who talk about the Mass, and Confession, and Baptism, and the roles of Bishops, priests, and deacons, etc., and he’d realize that it’s the Catholic Church that carries on these traditions.

 

[mozart-250]

If he starts at the beginning with the Apostles, he will find that first list of the Popes that St. Irenaeus put together, and then he will notice that the Apostle Peter is the ancestor of Pope Benedict XVI, in the Papacy of the Catholic Church. .

I wish I could remember the Orthodox site I read that had a similar list to prove their Patriach also was a descendant of the apostle Peter. The point being that the metric of lineage is insufficient to point to one-and-only-one branch of Christianity.

So that begs the question on how important that metric is anyway.

Because it was the only “branch” in existence at Christ’s time. The rest of them broke away; they didn’t “branch off” from the Catholic Church. They severed all their connections.

Logically when an entity divides upon itself (say into entities A’ and B), both of child attributes inherit from the parent attribute.

Why shouldn’t he use this logic when the church divides upon itself.

No, but he can certainly read about them, from authors who were there at the time and lived through them at the time, and he would notice the same themes occurring over and over again in all of them.

Umm…debatable. He also might read about the corruption that existed in the church at the time of the Reformation (which by the way Catholic scholars are in agreement with) and conclude the Reformation was totally righteous.