On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

[PJM]

Great response. For non-Catholics, this question doesn’t makes sense.

OK:blush:

But WHY NOT! Is it that truth is no longer relevant? Or the fact that the bible clearly teaches just One God; One set of faith beliefs and through One Church?

**Mt 10: 18
Mt 16: 18-19
John 17: 17-20
Mt 28:19-20

Are but a few evidences of the Catholic position.** Singular tense is chosen time and time again by Christ.

I’m TRULY trying to understand Protestant positions and the reason that it’s OK with God to have a multiplicity of faith beliefs.

The question can ONLY “NOT make sense” if both truth in its most basic and widely held understanding, and the bible itself declares clearly God’s Will [IMO]

“TRUTH. Conformity of mind and reality. Three kinds of conformity give rise to three kinds of truth. In logical truth, the mind is conformed or in agreement with things outside the mind, either in assenting to what is or in denying what is not. Its opposite is error. In metaphysical or ontological truth, things conform with the mind. This is primary conformity, when something corresponds to the idea of its maker, and it is secondary conformity when something is intelligible and therefore true to anyone who knows it. In moral truth, what is said conforms with what is on one’s mind. This is truthfulness and its opposite is falsehood” FATHER HARDON’S CATHOLIC DICTIONARY

God Bless you, and THANKS for joining our dialog!
Patrick

 

[PJM]

In the 4,000 some odd years of Judaism that preceded Christianity, God had himself a chosen people (and they still are His chosen people, for that matter). At any point in the history of Judaism- and here, I’m especially looking at periods of time in which there is no living prophet and no new revelation is being introduced- was there ever a point where God introduced a teaching office with the purpose of always having an objective standard within Judaism? Or did God “leave them to themselves,” as long as you ignore the whole “chosen people” status…and you’ll also have to set aside all the prophets, the revelations, the miracles and various types of deliverance…but as long as you set all that aside, when it comes to having a hierarchy and a teaching office with supreme authority, did God leave his chosen people to themselves in these matters?

Keep in mind, the main point here is that I’m poking holes in the argument that this is an absolute necessity and that we can draw broadly negative conclusions about the nature of God if there is no such teaching office.

EXCELLENT, thanks!

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[PJM]

My church doesn’t claim to be the one true church. We do worship the one true God. Our church points people towards relationship with the one true God.

I agree with other posters that the idea of one true church is not something familiar to protestant churches. There are many churches that are faithfully serving God, but I don’t know if one is more True than the other. I do see some degree of danger if we put too much faith in an earthly “true” church instead of putting that faith in the true God.

So, for the sake of dialog, am I understanding you to say that it is POSSIBLE to “worship the One True God” without also accepting the FAITH-beliefs taught by that God?

OR can Godly worship be separated from faith-beliefs?

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

The presence of other valid churches doesn’t take away from the authenticity of the RCC.

OK, so TRUTH is irrelevant?

I’m trying to understand the BASIS for such a position?

And if the RCC “is the authentic Church”, WHY are there competition-faiths?

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Padres1969]

Dear friend in Christ,

On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?

OR: Is this not a factor in salvation’s path?

God Bless you,
Patrick

I presume by “church” you are referring to denomination. And on that basis I will say my church does not claim to be the one true church.

Rather my church does claim to be part of the one true faith contained within the one holy catholic and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

I’ll also what josephback said in the second post.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The Orthodox Church claims to be the One True Church on the basis of succession of the Episcopate from the Apostles, and its keeping of the “Faith once delivered to the Apostles” complete and without addition.

 

[PJM]

[1] and it preaches the pure word of God

and administers the sacraments/ordinances as well as provides pastoral care and discipline. We are never without the church or its guidance unless we separate ourselves from it by choice.

[2] Yes, there has always been diversity both within and without the body of Christ. There has always been differences of opinion within the church over various matters and then there have been heresies that had to be confronted and rooted out. Today is not different.

Who is arguing that God has left us alone? I am not. He has sent us the Holy Spirit to dwell in us and guide us and teach us as it says in John 14. It is the anointing of the Holy Spirit, not the teaching of man, that has taught us to “abide in Him” (1 John 2:27).

[3] Who is arguing the absence of a teaching office? I am not. The argument is over what kind of teaching office has been established by God’s Word:

[4] The goal of every Christian should be that we attain the unity of the faith, but just because we have not achieved perfect unity does not mean there can be no true church at this time. It simply means we all have more maturing to do.

No. We have to stop being stubborn and listen to Authority with Love. It’s not about maturity.

MJ

I would like to respond to Irwis points that I HAVE NUMBERED 1-4

1 Your opening statements seem to indicate a singular tenses [and correctly so] to “church” Mt 16:18

But how does one separate the term “church” without applingy to it , at the SAME time, the set of faith-beliefs practiced therein?

2 “diversity”: Jesus and Yahweh both held to a single set of faith beliefs, as BEING God’s Truth. Is that no longer essential? [As the OP, that was the point I was hoping to make]

3 It is the Bibles & the position of the CC that what Jesus intended was singular-tense church and faith

HOW can these bible passages be seen in a different light? What is it that we Catholics fail to grasp?

Mt 16-18-19
[18] And I say to YOU: That thou art Peter; and upon {YOU} this rock I will build** my church**, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth,** it shall be loosed also in heaven**

Mt 28: 19-20
[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

A Catholic reading of these passages seems to indicated a direct AND exclusive command /Mandate to only the CC

[4] If ? By “maturing” you mean to say; “more humble” and obedient, we agree. where in the bible is there even a single example of God being in any manner, accepting of competition faith beliefs?

Thanks and God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

The office given to Peter by Christ, and continually occupied by succession in the See where Peter was believed to preside and suffer martydom.

It relies on two things:

1.) Peter presiding in Rome, and dying there.

2.) A line of ordained Bishops to this office.

How do you mean “factor”?

Originally Posted by PJM View Post
Dear friend in Christ,

On WHAT basis does your Church claim to be the One TRUE-Faith Church of the Bible?
The office given to Peter by Christ, and continually occupied by succession in the See where Peter was believed to preside and suffer martydom.

REPLY:
It relies on two things:

1.) Peter presiding in Rome, and dying there.

Secular history proves that both Peter and Paul were Martyred in Rome. GOOGLE IT

2.) A line of ordained Bishops to this office.

Again GOOGLE " List of Popes"… it to is provable in secular history

{PJM] OR: Is this not a factor in salvation’s path?

]QUOTE]REPLY
How do you mean “factor”?/QUOTE}

By “factor I meant” the TRUTH. as in singular per defined issue.

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Hi Susan.

Point understood, however, we shouldn’t try and separate God from His Church ACTS 9:4

THANKS, agree!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I presume by “church” you are referring to denomination. And on that basis I will say my church does not claim to be the one true church.

Rather my church does claim to be part of the one true faith contained within the one holy catholic and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ.

I’ll also what josephback said in the second post.

THANK YOU, and I get what your saying; BUT my friend how can that be unless “faith beliefs” are somehow not an intricate, and essential part of that “church”? I [ME] don’t see how that is possible?

I do get WHY Protestants do hold a different view of just one true- Church, and DO separate the faith beliefs of that group from "church: as being essential to the definition of Church

FROM the Catholic Catechism

171 The Church, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, faithfully guards “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”. She guards the memory of Christ’s words; it is she who from generation to generation hands on the apostles’ confession of faith. As a mother who teaches her children to speak and so to understand and communicate, the Church our Mother teaches us the language of faith in order to introduce us to the understanding and the life of faith.

186 From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formula normative for all. But already very early on, the Church also wanted to gather the essential elements of her faith into organic and articulated summaries, intended especially for candidates for Baptism:

This synthesis of faith was not made to accord with human opinions, but rather what was of the greatest importance was gathered from all the Scriptures, to present the one teaching of the faith in its entirety. And just as the mustard seed contains a great number of branches in a tiny grain, so too this summary of faith encompassed in a few words the whole knowledge of the true religion contained in the Old and the New Testaments.

778 The Church is both the means and the goal of God’s plan: prefigured in creation, prepared for in the Old Covenant, founded by the words and actions of Jesus Christ, fulfilled by his redeeming cross and his Resurrection, the Church has been manifested as the mystery of salvation by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. She will be perfected in the glory of heaven as the assembly of all the redeemed of the earth (cf. Rev 14:4).

855 The Church’s mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity. Indeed, “divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects.”

**816 **“The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.”

**813 **The Church is one because of her source: “the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.” The Church is one because of her founder: for “the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body.” The Church is one because of her “soul”: “It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity.” Unity is of the essence of the Church:

1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us. From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders, holding them in respect and affection. Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church

1181 A church, “a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful - this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial.” In this “house of God” the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place. Amen

 

[susanlo]

Hi Susan.

Point understood, however, we shouldn’t try and separate God from His Church ACTS 9:4

Acts 9:4 "He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’”

I don’t understand who is separating God from His Church.
All who follow Christ are Christians and part of the church or body of Christ on earth. Is that what you are meaning to state with Acts 9:4?

 

[susanlo]

So, for the sake of dialog, am I understanding you to say that it is POSSIBLE to “worship the One True God” without also accepting the FAITH-beliefs taught by that God?

OR can Godly worship be separated from faith-beliefs?

God Bless you,
Patrick

I think we would disagree about what the beliefs are and what the sources of the beliefs are. We would probably disagree as to whether the magisterium is infallible and if Tradition is inspired by God. I think it is a fundamentally different understanding of what the teaching of God is that separates our idea of what church is.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Acts 9:4 "He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’”

I don’t understand who is separating God from His Church.
All who follow Christ are Christians and part of the church or body of Christ on earth. Is that what you are meaning to state with Acts 9:4?

Saul/Paul was persecuting the Christian church. Yet Jesus says why are you persecuting ME?

Meaning, Jesus and the Church He established are inseparable.

You said:

I do see some degree of danger if we put too much faith in an earthly “true” church instead of putting that faith in the true God.

You can not go wrong trusting in the Church that Jesus established and gave us the bible. The two are inseparable and the Pillar and foundation of the Truth 1 Tim 3:15

Pax

 

[susanlo]

Saul/Paul was persecuting the Christian church. Yet Jesus says why are you persecuting ME?

Meaning, Jesus and the Church He established are inseparable.

I don’t disagree with this. I just think we have a different definition of church.

You said:

You can not go wrong trusting in the Church that Jesus established and gave us the bible. The two are inseparable and the Pillar and foundation of the Truth 1 Tim 3:15

Pax

Yes, Paul is giving instructions in 1 Timothy on how things should be conducted in Christian worship and how leaders should be selected. That way the church can uphold the truth.
1Timothy 3:14 “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

I don’t know if this is a guarantee that the church would be incapable of teaching error. If so, it wouldn’t need instructions from Paul. I always thought that this meant that the church should strive (through his instructions) to uphold the truth.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I don’t disagree with this. I just think we have a different definition of church.

Yes, Paul is giving instructions in 1 Timothy on how things should be conducted in Christian worship and how leaders should be selected. That way the church can uphold the truth.
1Timothy 3:14 “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

I don’t know if this is a guarantee that the church would be incapable of teaching error. If so, it wouldn’t need instructions from Paul. I always thought that this meant that the church should strive (through his instructions) to uphold the truth.

I think if we rewind to 1st century Judea, there was no canon to point to and debate over. The Truth that occurred would have been coming from oral tradition, the Spirit led Apostles guiding and directing and appointing others to guide and direct, appropriately…

Disputes were handled with the Church as the final authority. MATT 18:17. But if said Church is a divided mess, teaching error and contradicting herself, then the whole house of cards may come crumbling down. The Church needed to be visible and trustworthy, rather than just some abstract body of believers with a variety of opinions, imo.

So you are correct in saying we have a different understanding of the Church. Completely different, but to me, it looks like non-Catholics, I guess in a attempt to justify SS and varying doctrines, try and place a wedge between Jesus and the visible Church He established.

Pax

 

[Darryl_B]

Truth came from God down to earth, was transmitted to the chosen who were given instructions to pass that Truth on from generation to generation, all the while under the auspices of heaven, for those who would listen. Eventually this in turn became personal truth, sincere opinion, which is then in turn regarded by that sincere opinion as pleasing to the originator of that Truth ie God.

The thing about the gospel is that the messenger is intertwined with the message as a means of authenticating that message.

 

[Padres1969]

THANK YOU, and I get what your saying; BUT my friend how can that be unless “faith beliefs” are somehow not an intricate, and essential part of that “church”? I [ME] don’t see how that is possible?

I do get WHY Protestants do hold a different view of just one true- Church, and DO separate the faith beliefs of that group from "church: as being essential to the definition of Church

PJM, you answered your own question to me. You asked how can that be unless “faith beliefs” aren’t a intricate and essential part of the church? But that’s the answer. They’re not as intricately tied to or as essential as they would be in say the RCC. In a denomination where scripture and holy tradition are joined equally with reason, many of what you might consider “essentials” or beliefs intricately tied to the faith, aren’t monolithic givens.

 

[ltwin]

How do you explain these realities?

What realities?

Unless the term CHURCH" chosen precisely by Jesus does not have the meaning that we Catholics apply to it, meaning I suppose only the building and NOT what we hold it to include, namely. the FAITH beliefs of that community.

Pagans would have their Temples
Jews their Synagogues
Catholic-Christians their Church

In the New Testament, the Greek word for “church” is ecclesia which literally means “called out” and refers to the nature of the church as being the elect called out from among the world. It has absolutely nothing to do with a building; though we naturally associate the meeting place with the larger reality.

Mt [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The Catholic position is founded on the fact that we see “Church” and the Faith beliefs of that community as being inseparable.

I agree with this.

And nowhere in the Bible that I can find, where did GOD; Yahweh or Jesus ever indicate even the slightest approval of competing faith beliefs and practices ever being acceptable, or approved by them.

Well of course the Bible doesn’t approve of schism or division, but nevertheless, we do have division and disagreement over some important beliefs. The question becomes are the people you disagree with heretics or are they just Christians you disagree with.

The older I get the more confused I get about .the justification of more than a single set of God desired, faith beliefs. How can this be explained?

Christians disagree, but just because 2 groups of Christians disagree with each other does not necessarily mean that one group is outside of the church.

HOW is it possible to be “part of that one true church”; and yet hold to vastly differing faith beliefs? [Meaning Doctrines and Dogmas, not practices]?

Because what makes us part of the Church is our union with Christ, which is not predicated on perfect agreement with other fallible human beings.

 

[ltwin]

1 Your opening statements seem to indicate a singular tenses [and correctly so] to “church” Mt 16:18

But how does one separate the term “church” without applingy to it , at the SAME time, the set of faith-beliefs practiced therein?

You mean the faith-beliefs of the Catholic Church? It’s kind of circular reasoning: the Catholic Church is the one true church and submitting to godly authority is something both Catholics and Protestants both claim to believe in, so why won’t Protestants just stop being so stubborn and submit?

The answer is that we have not been convinced by biblical proof that the Catholic Church is as infallible on all doctrinal issues that it claims to be. While Catholics would respond ( I suppose?) that it is not the Christian’s place to challenge church authority, Protestant history shows us that we see things differently. From Luther to modern times, Protestants have taken seriously the Christian’s responsibility to test all things. This is a responsibility of judgment, and church authorities are not exempt from having their teachings and actions judged by those under them simply because they are in positions of teaching authority.

Simply put, the Catholic Church, like all human organizations, can err. Since it can err in its teaching and its actions, nothing it or its agents teach should just be accepted without first having been found in accordance with the Scriptures–which teach no error.

Protestants have found error in Catholic Church teaching and have felt the need to correct those errors. Not being able to do that in the Catholic Church, it was sadly found necessarily to separate and reform the Church.

And yes, this process has continued and now we have many Protestant denominations–it’s not a great situation but it’s a lot better than being forced to remain subservient to ecclesiastical authorities in which you have no confidence.

2 “diversity”: Jesus and Yahweh both held to a single set of faith beliefs, as BEING God’s Truth. Is that no longer essential? [As the OP, that was the point I was hoping to make]

Of course, truth is essential. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus Christ is truth, and there can be no grace without truth. The question is who or what defines the truth of the Christian faith?

3 It is the Bibles & the position of the CC that what Jesus intended was singular-tense church and faith

Yes. Protestants believe in only one Church and one faith.

HOW can these bible passages be seen in a different light? What is it that we Catholics fail to grasp?

Mt 16-18-19
[18] And I say to YOU: That thou art Peter; and upon {YOU} this rock I will build** my church**, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth,** it shall be loosed also in heaven**

Mt 28: 19-20
[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

A Catholic reading of these passages seems to indicated a direct AND exclusive command /Mandate to only the CC

Yes, I’ve been told by Catholics that this mandate was only given to apostles (and now bishops). I’ve always found that interpretation odd. I was always taught and still am convinced that this commission was given to the whole church, not just the apostles.

[4] If ? By “maturing” you mean to say; “more humble” and obedient, we agree. where in the bible is there even a single example of God being in any manner, accepting of competition faith beliefs?

Thanks and God Bless you,
Patrick

By “maturing”, I mean growing into the unity of the faith. We aren’t quite there yet (and it can be argued that we never fully were after the Apostolic Age) and thus we have more maturing to do.

 

[josephback]

I never said there was not a church. There is still a church, and it preaches the pure word of God and administers the sacraments/ordinances as well as provides pastoral care and discipline. We are never without the church or its guidance unless we separate ourselves from it by choice.

I was talking about the capital c Church in a hierarchical and conciliar sense which defeated Arianism, Pelagianism, et cetera even when these movements argued their case from Scripture. Different denominational bodies often teach doctrines widely at variance with each other. Which visible entity [Church] teaches the truth about salvation and how can we know this? The Bible doesn’t interpret itself and God would not be love to enjoin certain things to salvation and leave us with no way to determine what they are. That’s what I’m saying.