One True Church - Another Criteria?

[Ernie07]

I’ve noticed that when debating with Protestants most Catholics seem to argue that the Catholic Church is the one true Church by using multiple scripture passages (Peter and the keys, Peter is The Rock…and many others) Then, those opposed will use either the same ones and interpret them differently (Rock is Jesus…) or different passages that appear to prove their point. It’s basically a “my interpretation is better than yours” kind of back and forth dialogue that seems to accomplish little. I’d like to suggest a different set of criteria that proves the Catholic Church is the one true Church and see what some of you think:

1. For the first 750+ years after the resurrection of Jesus there was just 1 Christian Church (I use the Church up to 787 A.D. because although the Orthodox schism wasn’t official until 1054 A.D. they only recognize the first 7 ecumenical councils). I can’t find any person or organization during that time that even claimed they were the “real” Church.
2. Jesus said that He would build His Church and protect it from the gates of hell (this must include teaching error because if His Church taught idolatry or some other grievous error that would be clear proof that Satan infiltrated Jesus’ Church)
3. Therefore, the early single Christian Church above must have taught the truth (there are only 2 options, either this single Christian Church taught the truth and Jesus kept His promise to protect His Church or it taught error meaning Jesus failed to keep His promise to protect His Church. Since we know Jesus can’t fail at anything option 2 is impossible).
4. Based on official Church Council documents we know that the early Church believed in the Eucharist, Mary Mother of God, Infant Baptism, Mary ever-virgin, 73 book Bible among their beliefs. (I use Church Council documents because I’ve had Protestants quote early Church Fathers that made it seem like they believed in the Eucharist figuratively as an example. Then we’re back to the “my interpretation is better than yours” back and forth. When I use Church Council documents it’s much harder to refute)
5. All the above beliefs of the early Church are the beliefs of today’s RCC. No decree made by an earlier Council has been renounced or deemed as erroneous by a later Council
6. Therefore, the Catholic Church is the one true Church as every other Christian church rejects some of the truthful teachings of the early single Christian Church thus teaching error.

OK, start ripping holes in my logic!!! Seriously, rip away as I’m just searching for better and more effective ways of evangelizing our great Catholic faith! Thanks!

-Ernie-

 

[Reepicheep]

I don’t have a problem with your logic, but I think the Protestants you argue with will simply refuse to accept the Council documents as evidence.

 

[PluniaZ]

I like the “know them by their fruits” test. The early centuries of Christianity were filled with every imaginable heresy, from adpotionism to modalism. The only church that never succumbed to any of the heresies is the Church of Rome, for which reason Rome was universally acknowledged as the only reliable source of unity and correct faith in the early church (see Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage, the Edict of Thessalonica, the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and the Formula of Hormisdas). This is proof that the promise of John 16:13 (“He will lead you into all truth”) rested on the Church of Rome.

So then, since our understanding of who Jesus is - both God and man in one person - comes entirely from the Church of Rome, why do Protestants doubt the Holy Spirit’s protection on Rome for far lesser technical matters (e.g., is justification forensic or infused)?

 

[Ernie07]

I don’t have a problem with your logic, but I think the Protestants you argue with will simply refuse to accept the Council documents as evidence.

Thanks for the reply. But, what then will they use as evidence of what they think the early Church believed?

 

[Reepicheep]

Thanks for the reply. But, what then will they use as evidence of what they think the early Church believed?

I suspect their own interpretation of Scripture, which they will offer you as ‘the plain meaning of Scripture’.

 

[Ernie07]

I suspect their own interpretation of Scripture, which they will offer you as ‘the plain meaning of Scripture’.

Yeah, that’s usually what happens when I use this logic or they refuse to engage and attack a specific Catholic belief or they go the route of saying there was an underground church hidden for 1500 years. When used the first time I laughed, not meaning to be disrespectful, but thinking they were kidding. When I realized they weren’t I figured my reasoning was pretty sound. I asked how could you possibly think that the “real” church stayed hidden for 1500 years and how doesn’t that violate Jesus’ statement that His believers should be like a light shining on a hill for all to see. They basically ignored my question and began again to personally interpret random scripture to their supposed advantage. It was kind of bizarre and sad.

-Ernie-

 

[PluniaZ]

Yeah, that’s usually what happens when I use this logic or they refuse to engage and attack a specific Catholic belief or they go the route of saying there was an underground church hidden for 1500 years. When used the first time I laughed, not meaning to be disrespectful, but thinking they were kidding. When I realized they weren’t I figured my reasoning was pretty sound. I asked how could you possibly think that the “real” church stayed hidden for 1500 years and how doesn’t that violate Jesus’ statement that His believers should be like a light shining on a hill for all to see. They basically ignored my question and began again to personally interpret random scripture to their supposed advantage. It was kind of bizarre and sad.

-Ernie-

It’s the visible vs invisible argument. Evangelicals say there were always true believers (people who read the Bible and had faith in Jesus) and even though we don’t have any writing or documentation of these people at all, that just shows that the true church is invisible!

 

[Ernie07]

It’s the visible vs invisible argument. Evangelicals say there were always true believers (people who read the Bible and had faith in Jesus) and even though we don’t have any writing or documentation of these people at all, that just shows that the true church is invisible!

Ah ha, but the cloak of invisibility magically disappeared when it became convenient to become visible shortly after 1500!! They also were able to magically read a book that didn’t exist for a couple hundred years after Jesus ascended to heaven! You can’t make this stuff up!

 

[PJM]

I’ve noticed that when debating with Protestants most Catholics seem to argue that the Catholic Church is the one true Church by using multiple scripture passages (Peter and the keys, Peter is The Rock…and many others) Then, those opposed will use either the same ones and interpret them differently (Rock is Jesus…) or different passages that appear to prove their point. It’s basically a “my interpretation is better than yours” kind of back and forth dialogue that seems to accomplish little. I’d like to suggest a different set of criteria that proves the Catholic Church is the one true Church and see what some of you think:

1. For the first 750+ years after the resurrection of Jesus there was just 1 Christian Church (I use the Church up to 787 A.D. because although the Orthodox schism wasn’t official until 1054 A.D. they only recognize the first 7 ecumenical councils). I can’t find any person or organization during that time that even claimed they were the “real” Church.
2. Jesus said that He would build His Church and protect it from the gates of hell (this must include teaching error because if His Church taught idolatry or some other grievous error that would be clear proof that Satan infiltrated Jesus’ Church)
3. Therefore, the early single Christian Church above must have taught the truth (there are only 2 options, either this single Christian Church taught the truth and Jesus kept His promise to protect His Church or it taught error meaning Jesus failed to keep His promise to protect His Church. Since we know Jesus can’t fail at anything option 2 is impossible).
4. Based on official Church Council documents we know that the early Church believed in the Eucharist, Mary Mother of God, Infant Baptism, Mary ever-virgin, 73 book Bible among their beliefs. (I use Church Council documents because I’ve had Protestants quote early Church Fathers that made it seem like they believed in the Eucharist figuratively as an example. Then we’re back to the “my interpretation is better than yours” back and forth. When I use Church Council documents it’s much harder to refute)
5. All the above beliefs of the early Church are the beliefs of today’s RCC. No decree made by an earlier Council has been renounced or deemed as erroneous by a later Council
6. Therefore, the Catholic Church is the one true Church as every other Christian church rejects some of the truthful teachings of the early single Christian Church thus teaching error.

OK, start ripping holes in my logic!!! Seriously, rip away as I’m just searching for better and more effective ways of evangelizing our great Catholic faith! Thanks!

-Ernie-

THANKS Ernie, a thoughtful post:thumbsup:

GBY

 

[Mammoths]

I’ve noticed that when debating with Protestants most Catholics seem to argue that the Catholic Church is the one true Church by using multiple scripture passages (Peter and the keys, Peter is The Rock…and many others) Then, those opposed will use either the same ones and interpret them differently (Rock is Jesus…) or different passages that appear to prove their point. It’s basically a “my interpretation is better than yours” kind of back and forth dialogue that seems to accomplish little. I’d like to suggest a different set of criteria that proves the Catholic Church is the one true Church and see what some of you think:

1. For the first 750+ years after the resurrection of Jesus there was just 1 Christian Church (I use the Church up to 787 A.D. because although the Orthodox schism wasn’t official until 1054 A.D. they only recognize the first 7 ecumenical councils). I can’t find any person or organization during that time that even claimed they were the “real” Church.
2. Jesus said that He would build His Church and protect it from the gates of hell (this must include teaching error because if His Church taught idolatry or some other grievous error that would be clear proof that Satan infiltrated Jesus’ Church)
3. Therefore, the early single Christian Church above must have taught the truth (there are only 2 options, either this single Christian Church taught the truth and Jesus kept His promise to protect His Church or it taught error meaning Jesus failed to keep His promise to protect His Church. Since we know Jesus can’t fail at anything option 2 is impossible).
4. Based on official Church Council documents we know that the early Church believed in the Eucharist, Mary Mother of God, Infant Baptism, Mary ever-virgin, 73 book Bible among their beliefs. (I use Church Council documents because I’ve had Protestants quote early Church Fathers that made it seem like they believed in the Eucharist figuratively as an example. Then we’re back to the “my interpretation is better than yours” back and forth. When I use Church Council documents it’s much harder to refute)
5. All the above beliefs of the early Church are the beliefs of today’s RCC. No decree made by an earlier Council has been renounced or deemed as erroneous by a later Council
6. Therefore, the Catholic Church is the one true Church as every other Christian church rejects some of the truthful teachings of the early single Christian Church thus teaching error.

OK, start ripping holes in my logic!!! Seriously, rip away as I’m just searching for better and more effective ways of evangelizing our great Catholic faith! Thanks!

-Ernie-

I would ask if you are sure that what we see is actually the church. That’s awkwardly put. The gates of hell are designed to keep prisoners in. So by virtue of the (presumed) fact that the evangelical is being saved from hell, the gates of hell are not keeping the church ch imprisoned. Jesus said, “Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.” There are some who would then say that the church is not the apparent congregation but what is left over when you through out the tares and the birds. It’s not a denomination so much as it is the faithful. I would have an answere for that along with your gates of hell concept. For me, all the scripture about deacons and bishops and submitting to church authority points to the idea that although the kingdom of God is within us it is also expressed in a visible community with an identifiable hierarchy. Since the church is visible and God is faithful to guide her… I hope that helps. I am only just learning this stuff but I know where I would have gone 6 months ago if this defense was brought up.

 

[Mammoths]

Ah ha, but the cloak of invisibility magically disappeared when it became convenient to become visible shortly after 1500!! They also were able to magically read a book that didn’t exist for a couple hundred years after Jesus ascended to heaven! You can’t make this stuff up!

Ernie, I think you overstate your case slightly. You do know the early fathers quoted the nt scriptures extensively before 391. They had the scriptures they just didn’t have a formal declaration of the canon. This whole theory that the New Testament suddenly appeared at the Catholic Church’s convenience in 391 is for its enemies. Do you know who was the first person to declare “The First Epistle of Saint Peter” to be scripture? Hint: it was a pope who was crucified upside down.

 

[Ernie07]

I would ask if you are sure that what we see is actually the church. That’s awkwardly put. The gates of hell are designed to keep prisoners in. So by virtue of the (presumed) fact that the evangelical is being saved from hell, the gates of hell are not keeping the church ch imprisoned. Jesus said, “Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.” There are some who would then say that the church is not the apparent congregation but what is left over when you through out the tares and the birds. It’s not a denomination so much as it is the faithful. I would have an answere for that along with your gates of hell concept. For me, all the scripture about deacons and bishops and submitting to church authority points to the idea that although the kingdom of God is within us it is also expressed in a visible community with an identifiable hierarchy. Since the church is visible and God is faithful to guide her… I hope that helps. I am only just learning this stuff but I know where I would have gone 6 months ago if this defense was brought up.

I’ll be honest it was hard for me to follow your logic, which is a testament to my low IQ!! My bottom line is the truth yesterday (or 1900+ years ago) must be the truth today. Doesn’t every believer have an obligation to prove that their “truths” of today can be substantiated by it being the truth in the early Church? As Catholics we can do that. No one else can, which is our great advantage. I also have a little cheat sheet of 2 believers in what I believe from the 1st century to the present day. It’s basically just a list of saints in every century. Simple, but effective. Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Ernie, I think you overstate your case slightly. You do know the early fathers quoted the nt scriptures extensively before 391. They had the scriptures they just didn’t have a formal declaration of the canon. This whole theory that the New Testament suddenly appeared at the Catholic Church’s convenience in 391 is for its enemies. Do you know who was the first person to declare “The First Epistle of Saint Peter” to be scripture? Hint: it was a pope who was crucified upside down.

That’s true, but their belief is the Bible-alone and that is a book that has 39 books in the OT and 27 books in the NT. Their belief is not “some Bible books alone” but rather “the 66 book Bible alone” belief system so it is up to them to justify their belief is applicable for all Christians including those in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

I also have a list of excommunications that occurred in the 2nd and 3rd centuries prior to any agreement of a 27 book NT. These excommunications prove that the Church, without the use of a NT, had the authority to say who was and wasn’t a Christian…and no one questioned that authority. The truth is a beautiful thing!!

-Ernie-

 

[po18guy]

I know of at least one person who rejects all councils outside of Acts 15 - because they are not in the scriptures. Like herding cats, I tell ya’

 

[Ernie07]

I know of at least one person who rejects all councils outside of Acts 15 - because they are not in the scriptures. Like herding cats, I tell ya’

But then how does that person know who made up Jesus’ Church in say the first 300 years? One of the big issues I have with some Protestants is that they only seem to care about Christians of today. What I mean is that whenever I ask them who would they consider their Christian brothers and sisters in 200 A.D. or 1000 A.D. they act as if I asked a dumb question as if it doesn’t matter.

If I felt that I had the truth, but I couldn’t find another person that collectively believed like me for that many years, that would really bother me. I’d definitely start to question whether I really had the truth…or was every single person deceived prior to believing like me? But, it doesn’t seem to bother them and I don’t know why. They are so fixated on their private interpretation of their Bible that their Christian brothers and sisters in history don’t matter. To me, it’s one of the saddest things about Protestantism.

Anyway, thanks for the dialogue!

-Ernie-

 

[po18guy]

But then how does that person know who made up Jesus’ Church in say the first 300 years? One of the big issues I have with some Protestants is that they only seem to care about Christians of today. What I mean is that whenever I ask them who would they consider their Christian brothers and sisters in 200 A.D. or 1000 A.D. they act as if I asked a dumb question as if it doesn’t matter.

If I felt that I had the truth, but I couldn’t find another person that collectively believed like me for that many years, that would really bother me. I’d definitely start to question whether I really had the truth…or was every single person deceived prior to believing like me? But, it doesn’t seem to bother them and I don’t know why. They are so fixated on their private interpretation of their Bible that their Christian brothers and sisters in history don’t matter. To me, it’s one of the saddest things about Protestantism.

Anyway, thanks for the dialogue!

-Ernie-

You are challenging both ideology as well as ego - an uphill battle.