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

[josephback]

Nicely done. Thanks! *nnn

I’m trying now as a Catholic to better understand your mindset.

So am I correct that you don’t feel that “Truth” has to be singular per defined issue? Or is it that “truth” is not relevant to this discussion? Or that “One” church [and only Only true church…Mt .15:18], was Christ intent?

Can their be more than a single truth per defined issue was the object of the POST.

I’m trying hard not to be closed minded about the issue, and felt it to be a topic suitable of discussion

God Bless you,
Patrick*

My religion isn’t listed but I was mostly explaining what I grew up in. To one immersed in the denominational model, the question doesn’t occur. I’ve uploaded a visible illustration of things, but it may be getting moderated as it doesn’t show. Hopefully it shows eventually.

 

[Abu]

susanlo #30
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?

The Catholic Church teaches that real Christians are part of the Catholic Church, but lacking many vital truths and sacraments. Until you realise that, and correct it, you cannot enter into the fullness of Truth.

#31
I think it is a fundamentally different understanding of what the teaching of God is that separates our idea of what church is.

Christ’s teaching is crystal clear – as long as you fight Him you shall not see that.

Itwin #37
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.
#38
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.

As the Church Christ so clearly established is NOT a “fallible human organisation” but divinely created by God the Son, the gross, easily corrected, error here is that, as God, Christ cannot err or teach error and He mandated the infallibility of His Chief Vicar to teach infallibly on faith and morals when defining to the whole Church.

As She collected and authorised the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, as Christ wrote nothing, it is a pathetic cop out to ignore Christ’s foundation of His Church with his authority therein, while posting that they “teach no error”.

 

[PJM]

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.

SO:shrug:

Am I right

Or are you right

Or or in you’re view “we’re BOTH right”

HOW can this be TRUE:shrug:

 

[PJM]

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.

WOW

How can that be and have any faith at all?

How can one seperate Faith -beliefs from the Church they associate with:shrug:

REALLY, I don’t get it

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[Padres1969]

WOW
**
How can that be and have any faith at all?**

How can one seperate Faith -beliefs from the Church they associate with:shrug:

REALLY, I don’t get it

God Bless you,

Patrick

Because the list of what we consider to be beliefs intricately tied to the faith does exist, please don’t mistake what I said in that regard… it’s just that list is a much shorter list than a devout Catholic would typically have.

That said, I can see how such a thing might be perplexing to a devout Catholic such as yourself. The RCC stands as a much more authoritative entity on a much broader range of what it considers key faith issues than many other Christian faiths. That’s just not the way our particular corner of Christendom is structured.

 

[PJM]

What realities?

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.

I agree with this

Whew, we agree on something.

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.

They are christian [their man-invented idea of being Christians]

Their views are Heresy

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

Of COURSE it does. n truth it can mean nothing less:shrug:

The Church as is historically and biblically taught is SINGULAR:

Faith beliefs therefore MUST ALSO be singular per defined issue. And it is impossible that God [ALL GOOD THINGS PERFECTED], could have, would have or did wait some 1,500. YEARS after He Founded, His Protected Catholic Church, for the reformations to develop alternatives to His One True faih

Mt 16:18-19
John 17; 17-20
Mt 28: 19-20

Pay close attention to the singular tense words of command and instruction in these teachings.

God Bless you,
Patrick

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.

 

[PJM]

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

Itwin THANKS for your reply.

I VERY much wish to give it a full discussion, which space does not here permit.

PLEASE look for a private message from me

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[rcwitness]

SO:shrug:

Am I right

Or are you right

Or or in you’re view “we’re BOTH right”

HOW can this be TRUE:shrug:

Depends which institution one chooses to shepherd them.

Most Christians recognize that the basic Gospel is upheld in The Catholic Faith. And Scripture is a foundation of Revelation.

When Christians do not believe the Church is able to give an infallible Confirmation in faith and morals, they are subject to uncertainty, and therefore ultimately afford themselves the position to overrule the Bishops.

I don’t know how Non Catholic Christians have such confidence in a Canon of Scripture as divinely Confirmed, but question all other matters.

 

[PJM]

my religion isn’t listed but i was mostly explaining what i grew up in. To one immersed in the denominational model, the question doesn’t occur. I’ve uploaded a visible illustration of things, but it may be getting moderated as it doesn’t show. Hopefully it shows eventually.

thanks

 

[susanlo]

SO:shrug:

Am I right

Or are you right

Or or in you’re view “we’re BOTH right”

HOW can this be TRUE:shrug:

I would say off the top of my head that a Christian is somebody who believes in God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A Christian believes salvation is through Jesus Christ who was born, died and resurrected. They follow the Ten Commandments and the commandments to love God and love your neighbor from Matthew 22. I think these are the essentials that I can think of.

I don’t think it is necessary to be in agreement on everything. My disagreeing with my biological brother doesn’t mean that he is not still the son of my parents. We don’t have to agree on everything to be brother and sister.

In Acts 15:39 Paul and Barnabas have a “sharp disagreement” and part company. They are still brothers in Christ even if they don’t agree and choose to go their separate ways.

 

[rcwitness]

I would say off the top of my head that a Christian is somebody who believes in God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A Christian believes salvation is through Jesus Christ who was born, died and resurrected. They follow the Ten Commandments and the commandments to love God and love your neighbor from Matthew 22. I think these are the essentials that I can think of.

I agree. And I don’t think this is the cause of division, but the contrary.

I don’t think it is necessary to be in agreement on everything. My disagreeing with my biological brother doesn’t mean that he is not still the son of my parents. We don’t have to agree on everything to be brother and sister.

By “necessary”, I assume you mean still being able to enter heaven after Christ’s judgment?

In Acts 15:39 Paul and Barnabas have a “sharp disagreement” and part company. They are still brothers in Christ even if they don’t agree and choose to go their separate ways.

Was their disagreement with the Church, or between themselves? Was it a matter of faith and morals, or a preference of where to go, and with whom?

 

[Abu]

susanlo #49
I would say off the top of my head that a Christian is somebody who believes in God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A Christian believes salvation is through Jesus Christ who was born, died and resurrected. They follow the Ten Commandments and the commandments to love God and love your neighbor from Matthew 22. I think these are the essentials that I can think of.

The “essentials” that Christ teaches as to how to know His Truths are found in His Church only.

How very strange that you continually evade that mandate of His as found in Mathew’s Gospel 16:18-19, in Lk 22:32 and in Jn 21:17, but prefer “off the top of my head”.

In Acts 1 5:39 Paul and Barnabas have a “sharp disagreement” and part company. They are still brothers in Christ even if they don’t agree and choose to go their separate ways.

That “sharp disagreement” is only about “John surnamed Mark” who had deserted them in Pamphylia.

Why use such a flimsy excuse for ignoring the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John? Isn’t it time to follow Christ as He taught?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

The Catholic Church teaches that real Christians are part of the Catholic Church, but lacking many vital truths and sacraments. Until you realise that, and correct it, you cannot enter into the fullness of Truth.
Christ’s teaching is crystal clear – as long as you fight Him you shall not see that.

As the Church Christ so clearly established is NOT a “fallible human organisation” but divinely created by God the Son, the gross, easily corrected, error here is that, as God, Christ cannot err or teach error and He mandated the infallibility of His Chief Vicar to teach infallibly on faith and morals when defining to the whole Church.

As She collected and authorised the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, as Christ wrote nothing, it is a pathetic cop out to ignore Christ’s foundation of His Church with his authority therein, while posting that they “teach no error”.

Posts like this keep people OUT of the Catholic Church.

 

[cmodrmac]

we have no claims of exclusivity at all-we are members of the holy catholic apostolic Church-

we feel all denominations are working to spread God’s word

 

[susanlo]

I agree. And I don’t think this is the cause of division, but the contrary.

By “necessary”, I assume you mean still being able to enter heaven after Christ’s judgment??

I feel that it isn’t necessary to agree with a brother or sister for us both to be God’s child. If someone is a child of God, then he/she is part of the true church and is a brother or sister in Christ.

 

[rcwitness]

I feel that it isn’t necessary to agree with a brother or sister for us both to be God’s child. If someone is a child of God, then he/she is part of the true church and is a brother or sister in Christ.

Then why wouldn’t you be Catholic as opposed to some other denomination???

The Catholic Church doesn’t tell you it’s necessary to agree with other members. What she says is necessary, is that we all assent to what She declares/professes/Teaches.

Did Paul and Barnabas reject anything the Church was Teaching? They had a difference of opinion concerning who they should bring with them to visit churches. You don’t think the Catholic Church considers that a serious division over faith and morals do you???

 

[susanlo]

Then why wouldn’t you be Catholic as opposed to some other denomination???

The Catholic Church doesn’t tell you it’s necessary to agree with other members. What she says is necessary, is that we all assent to what She declares/professes/Teaches.

Did Paul and Barnabas reject anything the Church was Teaching? They had a difference of opinion concerning who they should bring with them to visit churches. You don’t think the Catholic Church considers that a serious division over faith and morals do you???

To be Roman Catholic I would have to accept teachings that I disagree with.

My point with Paul and Barnabas is that there have always been disagreements and divisions within the united church.
Clearly Catholics and Protestants have different understandings towards unity. I spent my whole life believing that all Christains were united despite differences. I didn’t know there was a lack of unity until my Catholic friend told me last year. I realize now that Catholics have a different understanding of what it means to be united.

 

[benhur]

Your question only makes sense if one thinks of the Church as a visible, indefectible, authoritative and hierarchical body. You have to understand that from a denominational church model this generally isn’t the case. For Orthodox and Catholic the grace of God is mediated to one through the sacraments of the church. For those who do not ascribe to such a model the question makes no sense. Luther kept a role for the visible church and the sacraments but among groups descended from the Anabaptists any visible body is more or less a practical matter. The existence of a traceable, identifiable, hierarchical Church that safeguards the teachings of Christ is not considered. This is a Catholic/Orthodox mindset.

HI jb,

Have to think about your response. Not sure if there is anyone who thinks that the church is not both visible and invisible, with authority and hierarchy.

Your second sentence switches then to mediation of God’s graces. Not sure about believing in seven or two "sacraments’’ defining a visible church as an either or proposition. Is two more visible than one ? I suppose so.

I think I find myself between the C/O mindset and the “Anabaptist”. The preceding covenant had similar mindsets I think.

In the end , the C and O are to me quite sectarian. Two more labels in the Christian faith.

Salvation is in the Christian community, the “ecclesia”/church, primarily in and of the Christ they hold up.

Just as Jesus said, " Salvation is of the Jews (and their Messiah)" (not the Essenes, or Sadducees or Pharisees etc…).

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

To be Roman Catholic I would have to accept teachings that I disagree with.

Isn’t that part of becoming Christian… We are only part of the body. We assent to matters the Church Judges.

My point with Paul and Barnabas is that there have always been disagreements and divisions within the united church.
Clearly Catholics and Protestants have different understandings towards unity. I spent my whole life believing that all Christains were united despite differences. I didn’t know there was a lack of unity until my Catholic friend told me last year. I realize now that Catholics have a different understanding of what it means to be united.

I think it’s the same, but that we recognize levels of unity. Not everyone accepts all things of the faith.

 

[benhur]

Posts like this keep people OUT of the Catholic Church.

Hi S/N,

On second reading, especially first sentence, he does state the CC position correctly I think, according to Lumen Gentia. P’s and O’s somehow add to the unity of the CC, as “brethren” , with the gospel of grace and salvation, though imperfectly joined, holding on to the old “salvation is of the Roman Catholic Church”. God honors these “others” , for the sake of the One, True Catholic Church, stemming from her.

I simply see it as a very unique way to authenticate, validate ones heirachy and doctrine relative to other Christian views/churches.

But thank you for being sensitive to how others view such postings.

Blessings