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

[josephback]

However most Protestants reject that notion of what constitutes the Church as being limited to one denomination…Apostolic succession and connection to the historic Episcopate is an important part of my denomination just as it is for the RCC.

How does one then determine where “the pure word is preached and the sacraments administered” and what happens if you disagree with your bishop?

 

[Padres1969]

How does one then determine where “the pure word is preached and the sacraments administered” and what happens if you disagree with your bishop?

Can’t speak for all protestants, but I view it as does the clergy have apostolic succession? If so they’re administering the sacraments and their preaching the “pure word” (in so far as such a thing is possible). And if I disagree with my bishop, what happens would likely depend on what we’re disagreeing about. I’ve never had the misfortune of disagreeing with my bishop, but if I ever do I’ll let you know.

 

[bobbyanderson]

the church (churches) i attend are penecostal and spirit filled-- where people function in the power and authority of the Holy Spirit-is in operation-we let 2 or 3 prophecy and let the others judge as in 1 cor chapter 12/ chapter 14/

it appears that the roman catholic church separated from the church assembly back in the time of constine- and then invented the doctrune of "replacement theology "

But as people can see – there is a re assurgence of discovering the Jewish roots-

1 Corinthians 14:25 KJV - And thus are the secrets of his heart - Bible …

And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

John 14:26 ESV / 1,096 helpful votes

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Romans 8:26 ESV / 748 helpful votes

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.

Galatians 5:22-23 ESV / 570 helpful votes

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Acts 2:38 ESV / 527 helpful votes

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV / 423 helpful votes

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,

John 14:15-17 ESV / 402 helpful votes

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

Isaiah 11:2 ESV / 366 helpful votes

And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.

John 16:12-15 ESV / 358 helpful votes

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Luke 11:13 ESV / 323 helpful votes

If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

2 Corinthians 3:17 ESV / 303 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Constantine also enforced the prohibition of the First Council of Nicaea against celebrating Easter on the day before the Jewish Passover.[26] Some commentators have concluded that the desire for an independent Christian calendar was motivated by bitterness towards Judaism.[27] A circular letter of Emperor Constantine issued during the Council with strong anti-Jewish language lends weight to the charge of anti-Judaism, stating that that: “…It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy festival we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. …Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way.”[28]

Constantine instituted several legislative measures which had an impact on Jews. They were forbidden to own Christian slaves or to circumcise their slaves. Conversion of Christians to Judaism was outlawed. Congregations for religious services were restricted, but Jews were allowed to enter Jerusalem on Tisha B’Av, the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple. From the time of Constantine more and more anti-Jewish legislation was passed as Christianity grew in prestige and power.

 

[steve_b]

And again, this is where definitions of what constitutes the Church come into conflict. The RCC would say as you’ve made clear that it sees itself as the lone church of Christ on Earth. The Orthodox and several other groups make similar claims to being that one true Church.

I’ve asked this question many times in many different ways on these forums over the last 12 years.

We know the name “Orthodox Church” appears in writing. My question is

*When is the first time we see the name “Orthodox Church” in writing, in history, *properly referenced of course.

Don’t feel bad if you don’t know the answer. I’ve asked that question to all types of people including the Orthodox. No answer … yet.
P:

However most Protestants reject that notion of what constitutes the Church as being limited to one denomination.

Protestants will have to ask themselves, how they think that will play with Jesus John 17:20-23
P:

As for authority being directed to the apostles and their successors personally I agree with you on that aspect. Apostolic succession and connection to the historic Episcopate is an important part of my denomination just as it is for the RCC.

I would be remiss if I didn’t share this with you.

When one leaves the Catholic Church, ( as in your denomination’s historical pedigree) there are consequences to that, in more ways than just having left the Church at some time in history. Collateral damage happens as well. Here’s what also happened and why

• Anglican Orders
• null and void, papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

 

[Padres1969]

I’ve asked this question many times in many different ways on these forums over the last 12 years.

We know the name “Orthodox Church” appears in writing. My question is

*When is the first time we see the name “Orthodox Church” in writing, in history, *properly referenced of course.

Don’t feel bad if you don’t know the answer. I’ve asked that question to all types of people including the Orthodox. No answer … yet.

Protestants will have to ask themselves, how they think that will play with Jesus John 17:20-23

I would be remiss if I didn’t share this with you.

When one leaves the Catholic Church, ( as in your denomination’s historical pedigree) there are consequences to that, in more ways than just having left the Church at some time in history. Collateral damage happens as well. Here’s what also happened and why

• Anglican Orders
• null and void, papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm

Thought it went without saying that an Anglican such as myself reject the RCC’s claim that our clergy’s orders are null and void . But apparently it needed to be said.

As for your question about the title of “Orthodox” that the Eastern Churches use for themselves, this might help answer your question or at the very least get you started.

With regard to John 17:20-23, I’m not concerned Jesus would have any objection. We’re all one within the Christian Church despite denominational differences.

 

[PJM]

It is critical to confess what Pope Saint John Paul II says in Ut Unum Sint:
47. Dialogue does not extend exclusively to matters of doctrine but engages the whole person; it is also a dialogue of love. The Council has stated: "Catholics must joyfully acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brothers and sisters. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in his works and worthy of admiration".
The Holy Spirit, at work in and through these other ecclesial communities, is accomplishing marvels of sanctification for which God is to be praised
48. The relationships which the members of the Catholic Church have established with other Christians since the Council have enabled us to discover what God is bringing about in the members of other Churches and Ecclesial Communities. This direct contact, at a variety of levels, with pastors and with the members of these Communities has made us aware of the witness which other Christians bear to God and to Christ
This was a gift of the Holy Spirit to us as Catholics through the Council Fathers who discerned the many ways and the many places in which the Holy Spirit was at work outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church. And thus we acknowledge the work of God occurring in and through “the members of other Churches and Ecclesial Communities.”

Indeed, every Catholic must make his or her own the words of Pope John Paul II in this critical encyclical when he declares:
[Par. 43] I have thanked God “for what he has already accomplished in the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities and through them”, as well as through the Catholic Church. Today I see with satisfaction that the already vast network of ecumenical cooperation is constantly growing. Thanks also to the influence of the World Council of Churches, much is being accomplished in this field.
Where the Gospel is proclaimed, where Jesus Christ is witnessed to…even to the shedding of blood…where the Holy Spirit is present with His gifts and fruits, where grace is at work – there the Lord is to be adored and glorified

May the relations of the Holy See and the World Council of Churches and its constituent members occasion the promotion of Christian unity. Indeed, as one who worked in this field for a very long time, it is hard to praise sufficiently the partnership between the Holy See and the World Council of Churches. One sees over that span of years incredible growth and the paradigm of partnership as a crucial – and already lived – reality

THANK YOU, and I fully agree, BUT none of this is telling a “different story” than what I shared in the Catechism

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

And again, this is where definitions of what constitutes the Church come into conflict. The RCC would say as you’ve made clear that it sees itself as the lone church of Christ on Earth. The Orthodox and several other groups make similar claims to being that one true Church. However most Protestants reject that notion of what constitutes the Church as being limited to one denomination.

As for authority being directed to the apostles and their successors personally I agree with you on that aspect. Apostolic succession and connection to the historic Episcopate is an important part of my denomination just as it is for the RCC.

I Do get that!

BUT on what basis other than personal desire to do so:shrug:

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[steve_b]

Thought it went without saying that an Anglican such as myself reject the RCC’s claim that our clergy’s orders are null and void . But apparently it needed to be said.

Padres,

my response was directed at your following response

Originally Posted by **P**

As for authority being directed to the apostles and their successors personally I agree with you on that aspect. Apostolic succession and connection to the historic Episcopate is an important part of my denomination* just as it is for the RCC.

All I’m saying

the Anglican link to apostolic succession doesn’t come from the Anglicans, it comes through the Catholic Church when you were Catholic. After Anglicans left the Catholic Church, and changed the sacrament of orders, the Catholic Church decreed those changes Anglicans made to the sacrament of orders, invalidated your orders. And so they are null and void.
P:

As for your question about the title of “Orthodox” that the Eastern Churches use for themselves, this might help answer your question.

Thanks for your answer.

from that link

"Orthodox" as a title of the Eastern Orthodox churches

"From what I can see, the term “Orthodox” was not used as a distinctive term until many years after the Schism. The more normal way was to talk about the Eastern Church and the Western Church. The everyday usage was “the Greeks”, though this is of course inaccurate since not all Greeks are Orthodox and not all Orthodox are Greek. Meanwhile, Christians in general could be called orthodox or catholic for some centuries, regardless of their east-west allegiance.
For example, in the proceedings of the Council of Basel (1431-5), we read “the Greeks” as the standard term for the Greek Orthodox delegates, as opposed to “the Romans”; but “the orthodox faith” and “the catholic church" are both used to mean Christianity in general. The Orthodox churches were certainly using the term as part of their identity by 1672,”

a key part of answering my question is that the answer has to provide references properly referenced for the name “Orthodox Church” in history, in writing. That link unfortunately didn’t open for me, so I couldn’t see the proof they use. AND it says “the* orthodox faith*” NOT “Orthodox Church”

 

[susanlo]

As an aside, let’s not forget, the “Christians” you mention are **all **Catholics in the Catholic Church. Ignatius only has to name the Church as the Catholic Church once. He doesn’t have to keep repeating the name over and over again. The reader knows who he is talking about.

They (the Catholic Church he writes to in 6 locations) have a bishop, priests, and deacons as the hierarchy of the Church. So Ignatius in his writing to the Catholic Church in any of those 6 locations, is not going to go against his own teaching, which is “do nothing without the bishop”. As a bishop himself, Ignatius is not going to go against his own teaching and bypass another bishop.

The term catholic means universal. It was an adjective of the Christian Church that was used in the early centuries.

They had bishops and deacons, but they didn’t have Christian priests yet. The Christian leaders in the New Testament were usually termed presbureros or episcopos for elder or bishop. The Greek word hiereus which is translated to priest was only used for Jewish priests and Jesus as the high priest in the book Hebrews. (1 Peter 2:5 & 9 uses hierateuma for priesthood of all believers). I believe I read somewhere that Origen 203-250 was the first to refer to a Christian leader as a hiereus and then in the coming centuries the term became customary to use.

 

[Padres1969]

Padres,

my response was directed at your following response

All I’m saying

the Anglican link to apostolic succession doesn’t come from the Anglicans, it comes through the Catholic Church when you were Catholic. After the split, when Anglicans changed the sacrament of orders, the Catholic Church decreed those changes you made, to the sacrament of orders, invalidated your orders. And so they are null and void.

All I’ll say to this is yes the link to the Episcopate comes through the RCC. That’s not in question. However as I said, Anglicanism doesn’t accept that the minor changes to holy orders severed that connection. As far as we’re concerned our orders are still valid and true. And the RCC declaring them invalid 3 1/2 centuries after the fact doesn’t change that, not for the least of reasons that the RCC has no authority over the Anglican churches.

 

[susanlo]

I’ve asked this question many times in many different ways on these forums over the last 12 years.

We know the name “Orthodox Church” appears in writing. My question is

*When is the first time we see the name “Orthodox Church” in writing, in history, *properly referenced of course.

Don’t feel bad if you don’t know the answer. I’ve asked that question to all types of people including the Orthodox. No answer … yet.

The adjective orthodox was used to describe people and beliefs that were orthodox as opposed to heterodox. It was used in this way multiple times in early centuries. There wasn’t a separate Catholic and Orthodox Church until 1054. I believe you are aware of this and I am wondering what you are trying to get at with this question.

dictionary.com/browse/orthodox?s=t

1. of, relating to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, relating to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, especially theological or religious doctrine.
5. conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
6. (initial capital letter) of, relating to, or designating the Eastern Church, especially the Greek Orthodox Church.
7. (initial capital letter) of, relating to, or characteristic of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Judaism.

 

[steve_b]

The term catholic means universal. It was an adjective of the Christian Church that was used in the early centuries.

Did you happen to open this link to see all the internal links? #34

IMV, Irenaeus, in his “Against Heresies” had a great definition of Catholic Church

(all emphasis mine)

"that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, * that is, the faithful everywhere*, inasmuch as the *tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] *. " ( Bk 3, Chapter 3, v 2)

BTW, Irenaeus is a Catholic Bishop, in the Catholic Church (Bk 1 Chapter 10 v 3)

I’m sure I will be showing you more references
s:

They had bishops and deacons, but they didn’t have Christian priests yet.

and I thought we were doing sooooo well. I’m disappointed … ah just kidding

Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office.

Our apostles also knew, through Our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour." Clement to the Corinthians First Epistle

You probably missed that when we were talking about Clement
s:

The Christian leaders in the New Testament were usually termed presbureros or episcopos for elder or bishop.

They are different offices although they were fluid in the beginning.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The strongest claims to being the Church of the one true Church of the Bible would be those Churches that claim apostolic succession in faith and the episcopacy. My Orthodox Church would therefore claim on that apostolic basis that it is the one true Church which Christ established and has been preserved by God through the various Saints and the leaders of the Church throughout the centuries until now.

There is so much more that could be said however.

 

[Wannano]

Thought it went without saying that an Anglican such as myself reject the RCC’s claim that our clergy’s orders are null and void . But apparently it needed to be said.

As for your question about the title of “Orthodox” that the Eastern Churches use for themselves, this might help answer your question or at the very least get you started.

With regard to John 17:20-23, I’m not concerned Jesus would have any objection. We’re all one within the Christian Church despite denominational differences.

That is exactly right. We have joint Easter services in our community where all Christians from numerous different denominational perspectives gather to share communion with all who are one in Christ. We are one in the bond of love. I am sure Jesus is pleased with this action and behavior. Christ is the central focus of our worship and the world will know we are Christians by our love and acceptance of one another.

 

[benhur]

Do you believe that it is possible for any one church to have the capital T Truth and others to have elements of truth, or does this imply that different groups have equal elements of truth?

Hi jb,

It is not either or. I posted before , " There is wisdom and there is truth. Sectarianism can hide behind the idea of absolute truth, but wisdom allows for more universality, apart from relativism."

Wisdom and Truth are found in Jesus Christ. The Christian church puts Him forth. Wisdom teaches that it is OK to be universal on many things, but not necessarily on all things, and that “one” is not supreme over the “others”. All strive to be 1000 % Truthful. “We know all things” (John’s epistle) but, " see darkly thru a glass" (Paul’s epistle).

If truth can be found even in atheism and Gnosticism why did the early church evangelize?

My point was that they do not think themselves deluded, believing in untruths. They found what they sought. That does not mean they rest in absolute Truth.

Blessings

 

[total_Catholic]

That is exactly right. We have joint Easter services in our community where all Christians from numerous different denominational perspectives gather to share communion with all who are one in Christ. We are one in the bond of love. I am sure Jesus is pleased with this action and behavior. Christ is the central focus of our worship and the world will know we are Christians by our love and acceptance of one another.

So you have a valid ordained priest there to consecrate bread and wine into body and blood ?Because THAT is the only form of worship Christ instituted and THAT is backed up by the Bible. Peace.

 

[benhur]

Alright. Let’s begin there. I want to make it clear I’m not a catholic appologist, and everything I share is part of my ongoing journey concerning Catholicism.

I pull open my Catholic Ignatius Study Bible, approved by Catholic Answers and the Catholic Church.

Matt 18:16:

Ignatius Study Bible: "He enables Peter(and his successors) to hold error at bay and faithfully proclaim the gospel. Also found in CCC552.

Benhur, what do you think about that interpretation: That Jesus and the Holy Spirit would NOT let error affect His Church—his visible Church that He established, because as he once said, a city on a hill cannot be hid.

I also invite you to read up on “What does Catholic mean” according to the lens of the Catholic Church. After reading that, I’d like you to share with us what conclusion you come to with regards to the article:

catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

Hi CC,

Before that , I would just like to say of course God would have us in a church where we can both grow and serve. So it matters which church.

However, will Jesus love you or me more in any particular church ? Is His love conditional for us ? Of course not.

Can you or I love Him back more in any particular church ? Can we talk to Him more, cry out to Him more, seek Him more, praise Him more, testify of Him more, read His Writ more, love others more, volunteer more, in one church over the other? Is that conditional on which church ? Of course not.

Of course we must be obedient to the Lord’s leading, being fully convinced of our path. Beyond that however, our spiritual experience and maturity can not be restricted to institutional boundaries.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The term catholic means universal. It was an adjective of the Christian Church that was used in the early centuries.

They had bishops and deacons, but they didn’t have Christian priests yet. The Christian leaders in the New Testament were usually termed presbureros or episcopos for elder or bishop. The Greek word hiereus which is translated to priest was only used for Jewish priests and Jesus as the high priest in the book Hebrews. (1 Peter 2:5 & 9 uses hierateuma for priesthood of all believers). I believe I read somewhere that Origen 203-250 was the first to refer to a Christian leader as a hiereus and then in the coming centuries the term became customary to use.

 

[Cyril_Of_Canada]

Hi CC,

Before that , I would just like to say of course God would have us in a church where we can both grow and serve. So it matters which church.

However, will Jesus love you or me more in any particular church ? Is His love conditional for us ? Of course not.

Can you or I love Him back more in any particular church ? Can we talk to Him more, cry out to Him more, seek Him more, praise Him more, testify of Him more, read His Writ more, love others more, volunteer more, in one church over the other? Is that conditional on which church ? Of course not.

Of course we must be obedient to the Lord’s leading, being fully convinced of our path. Beyond that however, our spiritual experience and maturity can not be restricted to institutional boundaries.

Blessings

Did God permit the prophets of Israel to leave and form little israels in protest of his people falling into error? Do you feel Jesus called for the reformers to cause division and schism?

 

[Wannano]

So you have a valid ordained priest there to consecrate bread and wine into body and blood ?Because THAT is the only form of worship Christ instituted and THAT is backed up by the Bible. Peace.

I have been to services at the local Catholic Church that did not contain the Eucharist and felt the worship there was genuine. But you would say it was all in vain? So sad.