Is it true that the Catholic church is the true Christian church?

[ChrisB103]

To believe Tertullian or Origen over the Gospels or the Epistles of Paul, Peter and James? Blasphemy! Surely one should read the New Testament (and preferably the Psalms) several times over before ever venturing to read the church fathers (Ante-Nicene Fathers included) or the Old Testament.

Yeah, that struck me as odd too. I wonder where that order came from, especially since we believe any individual Church Father could err but the Bible cannot

 

[mick321]

To believe Tertullian or Origen over the Gospels or the Epistles of Paul, Peter and James? Blasphemy! Surely one should read the New Testament (and preferably the Psalms) several times over before ever venturing to read the church fathers (Ante-Nicene Fathers included) or the Old Testament.

I think of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James, Peter and Paul as Apostles of Christ. If you wish to dispute the Apostleship of Paul because of his late conversion, I am content to stand opposed.

So bring your case against St. Paul, or kindly disabuse yourself of the blasphemy charge.

 

[mick321]

To believe Tertullian or Origen over the Gospels or the Epistles of Paul, Peter and James? Blasphemy! Surely one should read the New Testament (and preferably the Psalms) several times over before ever venturing to read the church fathers (Ante-Nicene Fathers included) or the Old Testament.

Point taken.

I have become conditioned to think of the Four Evangelists + Saints Paul, Peter and James as “Apostles”, thereby justifying their positioning after Christ Himself…

Writings of church fathers are certainly not at the level of scripture, however useful any of them may have later been in the production of the NT Canon.

Should ANY writing be considered Christian Scripture before it is formally canonized by the Church?

 

[moncler_kids]

Hello once again, that I found your blog I think became blog budies lol!Apart all Jokes nice page!I’m Marco I’m newbie at this web surfing stuff!Enjoyed a lot here
monclerjakkersalg.net/moncler-down-veste-kvinder-c-20.html
I came to your article from another article and am really interested in this learning about this. , I feel strongly about information and love learning more on this. If possible, as you gain expertise, It is extremely helpful for me. would you mind updating your blog with more information?
monclerpullover.org/moncler-daunenweste-m%C3%A4nner-c-7.html
The dissertation chapters should be perfectly composed by distinguished thesis service, when people want to present a writing talent. Thus, this is manifestly that you understand the right way to finish a superb issue referring to this topic. Thank you very much for distributing this.
monclerinn.com
kvindercanadagoose.com/canada-goose-parka-herre-chilliwack-bomber-c-28_35.html

 

[Cavaradossi]

Point taken.

I have become conditioned to think of the Four Evangelists + Saints Paul, Peter and James as “Apostles”, thereby justifying their positioning after Christ Himself…

Writings of church fathers are certainly not at the level of scripture, however useful any of them may have later been in the production of the NT Canon.

Should ANY writing be considered Christian Scripture before it is formally canonized by the Church?

Well, to be fair, there is certainly a hierarchy within the sacred scriptures, so ‘scriptures’ is maybe too broad of a term. The gospel books, for example seem to be more special than the epistles, and the psalms seem to be in a category of their own, used liturgically far more than either the gospels or the epistles, and yet their meaning is only made clear in virtue of the gospels. After that we have the Old Testament, which is not used as often (in either the Byzantine rite or the EF of the Mass). Revelation too is a strange book, which is not used often, despite being in the New Testament. There are some non-canonical books out there, like the proto-evangelium of James or didache, which are ‘worthy of being read’ despite not being scriptures, and would probably be on the same level as the fathers, in that you should believe them insofar as they do not contradict the New Testament.

 

[mick321]

The Orthodox believe that they are the true church of Christ also and that the Catholic church is NOT the real church

How do we know who is right?

Is St Peter and his sucessor the Pope and being in union with them the most important thing?

Catholics believe the gates of hell will never overcome their church,but i know that the Orthodox believe that the gates of hell HAVE overcome the Roman Catholic church

Why do they believe that ? that Rome is in error or heresy…?

If Romes beliefs were truly sound,then why would the Orthodox have such a case against them and accuse them of being heretical?

Who do we believe?

To revise and extend my previous remarks, I humbly submit:

All Christians should believe

• in historical order -

Christ, the Apostles, the Nicene Creed, the Bible.

.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

To revise and extend my previous remarks, I humbly submit:

All Christians should believe

• in historical order -

Christ, the Apostles, the Nicene Creed, the Bible.

.

And what about the Church that God and the apostles founded

Dont you think we have to attend chuch also? and take Holy communion?

Both catholic and orthodox say they are the true church…

 

[CopticChristian]

Catholics have one thing no one can prove or disprove. That is traditon, the unwritten word of Christ. Do you want a biblical church as is Lutheran and Presbyterians and hedge your bet traditions are fallacy?

One Example proves you are wrong.

The Monothelites were seventh-century heretics who claimed that Jesus had only one will, the divine. The orthodox position is that Jesus also has a human will which is distinct from but never in conflict with his divine will. This position was infallibly defined at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681).

Neither the Bible nor the writings of the earliest Church Fathers explicitly stated that Christ has a human will distinct from but in harmony with his divine will. That doctrine was not handed on from the apostles in explicit form, but it was handed on in implicit form.

The apostles taught, as the Bible and the Fathers indicate, that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. This contains the implicit teaching of two wills, because if Christ is fully human, he must have a human will, and if he is fully divine, he must have a divine will. For Christ to lack one or the other would make him either not be fully human or not be fully divine. Because of Christ’s supreme holiness and the unity of his Person, his human and divine wills are never in conflict.

All of this is recognized even by Protestants. They acknowledge that the doctrine of the two wills of Christ must be accepted as something coming to us from the apostles, even though it did not come in explicit form. It was a legitimate doctrinal development that emerged when a heresy struck and the Church was sought a deeper, more explicit understanding of what it already implicitly knew.

Because the Church cannot make an exhaustive list of implicit doctrines, it does not try, but allows new implications within the apostolic deposit to be realized over the course of time, as the Holy Spirit leads the Church into all truth (Jn 16:13).

If the Church tried to make such a list, it would be attempting to run ahead of the Holy Spirit by forcing the process of doctrinal development to a sudden and premature end. Attempting to cause doctrinal development to advance at a more rapid pace would inevitably lead to problems. One problem in making such a list is that it would become fodder for heretics. If the Church had tried to make such a list before the outbreak of the Monothelite controversy, the list would not have included the proposition “Christ has a human will distinct from but entirely in harmony with his divine will.”

No one would have thought to include that proposition because no dispute had arisen about the issue. Once the Monothelites appeared and the Church was pushed into realizing what Christ’s full humanity implies, the Monothelites would have said to the orthodox party, “You can’t say that Christ has two wills. The list of apostolic Teachings doesn’t mention such a doctrine.”

Paul says

8For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

The NIV says it better…

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

So,

we can look in the world to see the workings of God…even the world that is secular can admit that there is “oral tradition”…and thus there is a journal…Journal of Oral Tradition.

journal.oraltradition.org/

and here we see in this volume the following title…

journal.oraltradition.org/issues/25i

Oral Tradition in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
Oral Tradition Volume 25, Number 1March 2010

**The largely Western paradigm of the three monotheistic faiths as quintessential religions of the book is, thereby, called into question **in the present issue of Oral Tradition. If the flourishing discipline of orality-scribality-memory studies has shown anything conclusively, it is that prior to the invention of print technology the verbal arts were an intricate interplay of oral and scribal verbalization, with manuscripts often serving as mere reference points for recitation and memorization. The papers that follow show that this scenario applies with special relevance to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

This is not a religious journal and even the world can admit that the Western paradigm of Protestant thought that the book defines the Faith is faulty.

So, the truth is I have provided you one evidentiary element of Oral Tradtion that even Protestants accept. I need not provide more. Paul says that you can see in the world the workings of God. Suppressing the truth brings on the Wrath of God. There is an Oral Tradition, it is true, do not suppress the truth.

 

[Anthony_V]

And what about the Church that God and the apostles founded

Dont you think we have to attend chuch also? and take Holy communion?

Both catholic and orthodox say they are the true church…

This depends on what you mean by “true church”.

Both are part of the mystical body of Christ. What varies between us is doctrine. Of course, the addition of the eastern Catholic churches to the communion of the Roman Church has been invaluable in reconciliation efforts.

If our quarreling with one another is a reason that you will become neither orthodox nor Catholic, I beg you, pray that God will reunite the two communions.
The gravity of the situation is nearly overbearing at times :bighanky: :stretcher:

 

[Paul_theApostle]

.

If our quarreling with one another is a reason that you will become neither orthodox nor Catholic, I beg you, pray that God will reunite the two communions.
The gravity of the situation is nearly overbearing at times :bighanky: :stretcher:

yes it gets overbearing for me

ive been thinking/feeling lately im going to give up with it all and practice neither

i stopped with orthodoxy a while back,now feel like chucking in catholicism also

but maybe il pray like u said for union

 

[ChrisB103]

yes it gets overbearing for me

ive been thinking/feeling lately im going to give up with it all and practice neither

i stopped with orthodoxy a while back,now feel like chucking in catholicism also

but maybe il pray like u said for union

It’s always seemed to me that any degree of imperfection in the people of a Church should have no bearing on our decision of whether or not it is true, and therefore our decision of whether or not to be a part of it. If this were not so, then we could all throw out the Church Jesus founded on Peter because Peter denied him three times and Judas betrayed Jesus

 

[CopticChristian]

This depends on what you mean by “true church”.

Both are part of the mystical body of Christ. What varies between us is doctrine. Of course, the **addition **of the eastern Catholic churches to the communion of the Roman Church has been invaluable in reconciliation efforts.

If our quarreling with one another is a reason that you will become neither orthodox nor Catholic, I beg you, pray that God will reunite the two communions.
The gravity of the situation is nearly overbearing at times :bighanky: :stretcher:

Paul says it in Romans 3:10…it is actually to recall Psalm 14…

3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

4Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

5There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

The Lord looks down and sees His people…If you consider that there has been no addition, no subtraction, just human wills doing a balancing act with the Will of God…God looks down and sees His people…Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and OHCAC (to include all Baptized in the trinitarian formula in the Protestant ecclesial communities searching for truth)…this is His Israel…whose will is it that divides…Jesus prayed that they may be one…

Ask yourself from which side of heaven are you viewing the Israel of God…

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The Orthodox believe that they are the true church of Christ also and that the Catholic church is NOT the real church

I think this overstates the nature of the dispute. The Orthodox have issues with claims of Papal authority on matters of doctrine, but have always recognized the primacy of Peter as “first among equals.” Doesn’t this recognition implicitly acknowledge the authenticity of the Church, although the Orthodox would contend the Latin Rite Church has gone astray with respect to the assertion of papal doctrinal authority over the Councils
PaultheApostle:

How do we know who is right?

Ultimately, it is a matter of faith. You can reason through it to a point, but ultimately, you have to take a leap. In my case, the road of reason led me to the conclusion that Christ intended to establish a Church with an ultimate authority to decide matters of doctrine, and he appointed Peter (and his successors) to the office.
PaultheApostle:

Is St Peter and his sucessor the Pope and being in union with them the most important thing?

Following Christ and doing what He would have us do is the most important thing. If faith and reason lead one to accept the conclusion that the successor of Peter (Benedict XVI) is the earthly leader of Christ’s Church, then taking no action to align one’s practice with that authority amounts to disobedience of Christ.
Paulthe Apostle:

Catholics believe the gates of hell will never overcome their church,but i know that the Orthodox believe that the gates of hell HAVE overcome the Roman Catholic church

Some Orthodox persons believe this because that is what they were taught. Others have reasoned themselves to a point, then stepped out in faith to affirm what they believe to be God’s truth. Only God knows whether they are being honest with themselves or not. But for me, I have to follow my conscience and follow where faith and reason have led me. We all have to take that walk. But I would say truth is truth, whether people choose to believe it or not.
PaultheApostle:

Why do they believe that ? that Rome is in error or heresy…?

There are lots of reasons why people believe such things. For some, they were raised to believe it and have taken no time to really consider the issue. Others have been misled about what the differences are between Orthodox and Catholic. Still others have reasoned their way to such a conclusion, although I would disagree with their conclusion. Others have left the Orthodox faith to unite with the Catholic Church. Again, this should not disuade anyone from taking the same journey.
PaultheApostle:

If Romes beliefs were truly sound,then why would the Orthodox have such a case against them and accuse them of being heretical?

Because the issues that divide and separate are subtle and difficult.
PaultheApostle:

Who do we believe?

We try our best to believe the truth. But there’s no easy answer. It boils down to a leap of faith. People take that leap from different points along the way.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church is the true Church, but it doesn’t entirely eliminate the possibility that some protestant churches are Christ’s Church as well and it leaves the possibility that they unite with the Catholic Church.

Uh, the Catholic Church is God-made. All Protestant ecclesial communities (they have wrongly appropriated the name “church” for themselves) are made by ordinary men; we know their founders and the date of their origin – in or after the 16th century. How can any of literally thousands of such man-made organizations be Christ’s Church? They may have some of the truth, which they took from the Catholic Church, but they deny other truths, and they also have some untruths mixed with it.

Jim Dandy
Former Protestant, agnostic, atheist

 

[Paul_theApostle]

I think this…

thanks

peace

 

[karebear92]

Uh, the Catholic Church is God-made. All Protestant ecclesial communities (they have wrongly appropriated the name “church” for themselves) are made by ordinary men; we know their founders and the date of their origin – in or after the 16th century. How can any of literally thousands of such man-made organizations be Christ’s Church? They may have some of the truth, which they took from the Catholic Church, but they deny other truths, and they also have some untruths mixed with it.

Jim Dandy
Former Protestant, agnostic, atheist

They aren’t necessarily false Churches. They may be true Churches, not to the fullest truth but true nonetheless.

 

[Anthony_V]

Paul says it in Romans 3:10…it is actually to recall Psalm 14…

The Lord looks down and sees His people…If you consider that there has been no addition, no subtraction, just human wills doing a balancing act with the Will of God…God looks down and sees His people…Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and OHCAC (to include all Baptized in the trinitarian formula in the Protestant ecclesial communities searching for truth)…this is His Israel…whose will is it that divides…Jesus prayed that they may be one…

Ask yourself from which side of heaven are you viewing the Israel of God…

My apologies. I wasn’t looking to be prose insofar as denotation; rather just trying to get the point across. I understand how you can get to hair splitting there.

 

[LutheranSemGuy]

I guess the answer depends on who you ask. Personally, I think it it is important to distinguish between the catholic (Universal Christian) Church from the (Roman) Catholic Church. The catholic Church includes all Christians of all stripes, including Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

A couple of things I learned in confirmation and later in seminary:

1. A Christian is anyone who can affirm the three ecumenical creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene, Athanasian)
2. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. (Augsburg Confession Article VII:1)

 

[Nicea325]

I guess the answer depends on who you ask. Personally, I think it it is important to distinguish between the catholic (Universal Christian) Church from the (Roman) Catholic Church. The catholic Church includes all Christians of all stripes, including Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

A couple of things I learned in confirmation and later in seminary:

1. A Christian is anyone who can affirm the three ecumenical creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene, Athanasian)
2. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. (Augsburg Confession Article VII:1)

The Roman (Latin Rite) Catholic Church is not a separate entity from the Universal Church.

 

[Newsy]

I guess the answer depends on who you ask. Personally, I think it it is important to distinguish between the catholic (Universal Christian) Church from the (Roman) Catholic Church. The catholic Church includes all Christians of all stripes, including Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants.

A couple of things I learned in confirmation and later in seminary:

1. A Christian is anyone who can affirm the three ecumenical creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene, Athanasian)
2. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. (Augsburg Confession Article VII:1)

Funny thing is that when those creeds were written, only one Church existed. Those creeds were developed by the Catholic Church, because there were no protestants or EO at that time.

Regarding #2, this would effectively eliminate any church that has no valid sacraments, no?