One true church: maybe we should take a step back

[hansard]

I mean, take a step back and be prepared to discuss more.

The matter often arises of “who claims to be the one true, universal church?” The intolerance of some Catholics is noteworthy. The answer, of course, is always “the Catholic church”, based on 2000 years of making the claim. You’ll argue, but that 2000-year figure IS often cited when claiming that the Catholic church is the one true church. I’ve seen it around here many times, in just a couple of months.

It is the laziest kind of logic: because we’ve been claiming it for so long, and others for only a fraction of that time, we must be correct and they must be wrong.

About 15 percent of the world’s population is currently Catholic–about a billion out of 6.7 billion people (see census.gov/main/www/popclock.html). And this is the “one true, universal church”?
(by the way, Islam is the fastest-growing religion; it boasts a similar number, and will soon overtake Catholicism.)

It seems that most people do not believe the “one, true Church” message; never have, never will.

The thing is, most religious traditions and belief systems in the world don’t consider the concept of “church”, much less “the one true church”. There are believers, members, adherents, brethren… and many other names for participants in those faiths and belief systems… but “church” does not enter the vocabulary. It’s like talking about “democracy” to someone who has no cultural or historical concept of it, or “money” to someone from a remote, subsistence tribe. It’s just a word, sure, but if a “church” is to be universal, its language has to be universal.

I think Catholics need to be more prudent in claiming to be “the one true faith”. It comes across as highly patronising, belittling and quite dismissive of other beliefs. Most other people in the world are equally convinced that they are right, but they do not have the gall to insist that others are wrong. Usually, they are prepared to live and let live. And there are plenty (85%) of them.

I postscript all this by saying (as my signature notes) that I am a Catholic—just “on the journey” and I can see great merit in many other religious traditions.

 

[RyanML]

I mean, take a step back and be prepared to discuss more.

The matter often arises of “who claims to be the one true, universal church?” The intolerance of some Catholics is noteworthy. The answer, of course, is always “the Catholic church”, based on 2000 years of making the claim. You’ll argue, but that 2000-year figure IS often cited when claiming that the Catholic church is the one true church. I’ve seen it around here many times, in just a couple of months.

It is the laziest kind of logic: because we’ve been claiming it for so long, and others for only a fraction of that time, we must be correct and they must be wrong.

About 15 percent of the world’s population is currently Catholic–about a billion out of 6.7 billion people (see census.gov/main/www/popclock.html). And this is the “one true, universal church”?
(by the way, Islam is the fastest-growing religion; it boasts a similar number, and will soon overtake Catholicism.)

It seems that most people do not believe the “one, true Church” message; never have, never will.

The thing is, most religious traditions and belief systems in the world don’t consider the concept of “church”, much less “the one true church”. There are believers, members, adherents, brethren… and many other names for participants in those faiths and belief systems… but “church” does not enter the vocabulary. It’s like talking about “democracy” to someone who has no cultural or historical concept of it, or “money” to someone from a remote, subsistence tribe. It’s just a word, sure, but if a “church” is to be universal, its language has to be universal.

I think that Catholics in particular, and many Christians in general, need step back from this arrogance about “we are the one true faith”. It comes across as highly patronising, belittling and quite dismissive of other beliefs. Most other people in the world are equally convinced that they are right, but they do not have the gall to insist that others are wrong. Usually, they are prepared to live and let live. And there are plenty (85%) of them.

I postscript all this by saying (as my signature notes) that I am a Catholic—just “on the journey” and I can see great merit in many other religious traditions.

But, our Lord Jesus Christ said I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life. He did not say I am A way, A truth, and A life. Jesus is not just one option among many. There is no name under heaven by which men can be saved except Jesus Christ. If we are arrogant for saying that there is only one truth, then we must also accuse our Lord and the apostles of arrogance.

Christ founded one Church and he gave that Church authority through His Apostles, particularly Peter to whom He gave the “keys to the Kingdom”. If you study the history of Christianity and the Catholic Church it becomes quite clear that the faith and church of the Apostles was indeed one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Now, if you believe Christ’s promise that He would send the Spirit to lead and guide the Church in all truth, then logically one must conclude that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church and that according to Christ’s promise she can not err. Therefore, any belief or ideology opposed to the teachings of Christ and His Church must be erroneous.

As far as there being good in other religions, our salvation depends entirely on God’s grace and our response to that grace. It has nothing to do with how “good” we are. There may be morals and shadows of truth in other religions and for these things we give thanks to God. But, without Christ there is no grace and without grace there is no merit. So other religions, no matter how “good”, have no saving merit. If those of other faiths are saved, then they are saved by Christ, and by His grace, despite their false religion, not because of it.

 

[PadraigPearce]

One of the biggest misconceptions I always had about the Catholic Church was that it claimed a monopoly on the truth. That always seemed rather arrogant to me. I’d never heard the phrase “the fullness of faith” before a family friend who is a priest explained it to me. Catholic theology started to look attractive to me exactly because of its universality, its catholicity. We don’t have to deny the truth in other religions or philosophies. We can acknowledge some good and truth in every belief system, to a greater or lesser extent. In a way, Catholicism is not a religion, it’s the “repository for all religion”, to steal a phrase from Henri de Lubac. And as far as the number of Catholics in the world, I don’t think that would make much of a difference to the Church’s truth claims. 15% or 1%, either it’s true or it’s not.

 

[hansard]

Yes, but you’re still rigidly adhering to the notion of “church” and notions such as “Kingdoms” and “Holy Spirits”. (And so you should, I guess, as you believe it).

If anything, you’ve confirmed my main point: they’re not saying you are wrong, that you practise a “false religion” or have “shadows of truth”, yet here you are, saying those very things about the teeming millions of Hindu and Buddhist faithful in the world–people who would utterly reject the ideas of Christianity if ever they were exposed to them–not out of malice, probably, but just out of adherence to their own traditional beliefs. What would you expect?

To most people in the world, there IS no "church’. they don’t care about Catholicism, have never seen or read a Bible, have never met a Christian, don’t know anything about Jesus.
Do you see?-- to most people, there IS no Christ. I just don’t believe that this negates their beliefs.

For example, you begin your reply by quoting biblical scripture: how on earth is that any more important than the sacred texts of other traditions? They hold their texts just as dearly as you hold the bible.
We can’t prove the existence of Jesus by referring to the bible, because the bible presupposes the existence of Jesus. It would be like trying to prove the existence of Walt Disney by showing a Mickey Mouse cartoon. (The one presupposes the other).

Their Gods are their Gods, and none other will ever do. And your God is yours. And mine.

There is nothing logical about any of it.

I state, once again, that we have no right to declare them as having “no saving merit”. This is harsh, judgemental and (I think) unChristian.

I do thank you for your reply (so quickly, too!).

 

[Eucharisted]

I think Catholics need to be more prudent in claiming to be “the one true faith”. It comes across as highly patronising, belittling and quite dismissive of other beliefs. Most other people in the world are equally convinced that they are right, but they do not have the gall to insist that others are wrong. Usually, they are prepared to live and let live. And there are plenty (85%) of them.

NO.

I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We believe in the Holy Catholic Church.

This belief will never change. So don’t waste your breath.

 

[hansard]

Cross-posted with you, Padraig.

Yes, I largely agree.

“repository of all religions”–that seems rather dubious. I’ll take your word on the source, but am keen to look up the quote, if I can.

As for my percentages: I just mean to emphasise the point that, if the Kingdom of God is here on earth (as is often stated on this forum), an appalling number of people are not following Jesus at all, and a significant majority of people have never heard anything about him.

All of this creates doubt in an inquiring mind.

 

[hansard]

Honestly, Eucharisted, you can be THE most stubborn participant around here. (Peace, anyway.)

Wasting my breath? Why am I wasting my breath by encouraging my fellow Catholics to be more tolerant of their fellow human beings, a little more accepting of other beliefs?

Sure, believe in the one true, holy, apostolic church, and no other, for ever and ever. I would expect nothing else.

I am not advocating that the Church *abandon *its claim of “one true church”, but simply, (as clearly stated above) to be prudent–that is: try not to use it as an arrogant kind of “trump card”, or a means of silencing debate, or a means of self-righteousness, or (especially) as a way of denigrating the beliefs of others.
That should not be too contentious.

But (just for argument’s sake, if you’re up for it) what is really wrong with those multitude of others who clearly have non-Christian beliefs?

I mean, why not engage in discussion? Would it hurt?

 

[RyanML]

Yes, but you’re still rigidly adhering to the notion of “church” and notions such as “Kingdoms” and “Holy Spirits”. (And so you should, I guess, as you believe it).

If anything, you’ve confirmed my main point: they’re not saying you are wrong, that you practise a “false religion” or have “shadows of truth”, yet here you are, saying those very things about the teeming millions of Hindu and Buddhist faithful in the world–people who would utterly reject the ideas of Christianity if ever they were exposed to them–not out of malice, probably, but just out of adherence to their own traditional beliefs. What would you expect?

To most people in the world, there IS no "church’. they don’t care about Catholicism, have never seen or read a Bible, have never met a Christian, don’t know anything about Jesus.
Do you see?-- to most people, there IS no Christ. I just don’t believe that this negates their beliefs.

For example, you begin your reply by quoting biblical scripture: how on earth is that any more important than the sacred texts of other traditions? They hold their texts just as dearly as you hold the bible.
We can’t prove the existence of Jesus by referring to the bible, because the bible presupposes the existence of Jesus. It would be like trying to prove the existence of Walt Disney by showing a Mickey Mouse cartoon. (The one presupposes the other).

Their Gods are their Gods, and none other will ever do. And your God is yours. And mine.

There is nothing logical about any of it.

I state, once again, that we have no right to declare them as having “no saving merit”. This is harsh, judgemental and (I think) unChristian.

I do thank you for your reply (so quickly, too!).

If other religions are meritorious, then the Incarnation, the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ means nothing. Salvation is of grace, and that grace was won for us on Calvary. And, our Lord Himself makes it quite clear what He means by “Church”, “Kingdom”, and “Holy Spirit”.

If you take the time to study the Gospels and the history behind them then there is sufficient evidence for THE central event which we celebrate every Sunday, the Resurrection. Granted, it takes a step of faith on our part to accept that truth, but if we are convicted that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead then everything else falls into place. One thing after another begins to make more and more sense.

Spiritual realities are just as real, or more so, than physical realities and ignoring them or pretending they don’t exist doesn’t make them go away. It doesn’t matter if a tribe in the middle of the Amazon has never heard of Jesus Christ or His Church. That doesn’t make Christ any less the Truth. That does however lessen their culpability. The Church teaches that those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church will not be held accountable for not knowing Him. But again, if they are saved we know that it is still by Christ and His saving grace, and not because of their religion.

 

[Alindawyl]

You seem to have a mistaken idea that the Church walks around with a chip on her shoulder trying to pick fights with other faiths. While some members of the Church do that under the mistaken idea it’s how the Gospel should be shared, the Church herself seeks agreement and common ground whenever possible. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification written a decade ago in conjunction with the Lutheran World Federation (and later agreed to as well by the World Methodist Council) is one example of that.

When there is not common ground, however, the Church will hold fast to that which is true and will not compromise. She won’t initiate a fight, but she won’t back down when directly challenged either. Nor should she.

 

[RyanML]

Wasting my breath? Why am I wasting my breath by encouraging my fellow Catholics to be more tolerant of their fellow human beings, a little more accepting of other beliefs?

You’ll have to explain what you mean by this. Of course we must be tolerant of others, treat them with the utmost respect and dignity, and respect their freedom of conscience. But that does not mean we must say “your truth is just as true or good as my truth”. There is only one Truth and that is Jesus Christ. It doesn’t matter what percentage of people know it or don’t know it. When Christ was on earth, only a few dozen people truly knew Him and believed Him to be the Messiah, the Son of God. That didn’t make it any less true.

 

[Fensterblau]

It seems at some point the discussion in this thread has taken a split from believing and professing that there is “one true church” and being tolerant of other beliefs, religions and opinions.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am extremely tolerant of those things. I don’t believe in them or subscribe to them in the least… but I can totally and complete accept other people’s belief in them.

I’m not really sure what the topic starter was hoping to get with this thread, other than spark a heated debate on a Catholic forum about whether Catholic (universal) is actually the one true church. It’s almost like standing up in the middle of an AA meeting and saying something completely contrary to their teaching, or standing in the middle of the street in an all black neighborhood and screaming something derogatory about race… I just don’t see the point.

Not exactly sure what you were hoping for with this one, but I can assume that 99% of the people here aren’t going to agree. Which leads me to believe that there could only be one real reason for starting a topic like this…

 

[hansard]

Thanks, RyanML.
Yes, that’s traditional church thinking. No arguments from me.

Just *what if *(you know–“Imagine there’s no heaven”–go with me–it won’t make you a heretic to consider it), what if they are right and we are wrong, and we are saved only because of their faith?

Can any faith use its own sacred texts as proof of its beliefs? If I were a first-time reader of the Bible, I’d see how some passages tend to support other passages, but as for the veracity of the whole thing…well, some parts of it seem rather far-fetched.

(not to be unduly argumentative or anything, but I did start the thread, and the point is a valid one. I am not trying to negate or question anyone’s Catholicism.)

 

[hansard]

Fact is, there’s been a bit of cross-posting on the thread (RyanML, that’s what happened above). These things usually sort themselves out. It’s a busy time of day.

Fensterblau: no other motive than to create a bit of discussion. Not agreement, just discussion. I think the thread has gone along reasonably well, so far. It is good that you are so tolerant, yet ultimately sticking with your faith. Long may it be so.

Alindawyl: yes, the Joint Dec was a significant move on both sides. Look at the carefully measured language in the final statement. There really was only minimal ground given, would you agree?

 

[RyanML]

Thanks, RyanML.
Yes, that’s traditional church thinking. No arguments from me.

Just *what if *(you know–“Imagine there’s no heaven”–go with me–it won’t make you a heretic to consider it), what if they are right and we are wrong, and we are saved only because of their faith?

Can any faith use its own sacred texts as proof of its beliefs? If I were a first-time reader of the Bible, I’d see how some passages tend to support other passages, but as for the veracity of the whole thing…well, some parts of it seem rather far-fetched.

(not to be unduly argumentative or anything, but I did start the thread, and the point is a valid one. I am not trying to negate or question anyone’s Catholicism.)

Aside from the Gospels, I believe if you study the history of the apostolic Church, the evidence supports the Resurrection. As I said, if the Resurrection is true, then we can safely assume that what Jesus claimed about Himself is true and then all these other things begin to fall in place. I firmly believe that a historical argument can be made for the truthfullness of Christianity but I am not well read enough, nor do I have the intellectual stamina, nor is this the appropriate thread, to go into all that.

Now, for sake of argument, if Christianity is false and another religion is true then our salvation would depend very much on the dictates of whatever religion that would be. Most religions outside of Christianity are works based and so “salvation” is totally dependant on us and the amount of good we do. Of course, different religions have different definitions of “work” and “good”. Thankfully, as St. Teresa of Avila said, “all is a grace”.

God bless!

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I mean, take a step back and be prepared to discuss more.

The matter often arises of “who claims to be the one true, universal church?” The intolerance of some Catholics is noteworthy. The answer, of course, is always “the Catholic church”, based on 2000 years of making the claim. You’ll argue, but that 2000-year figure IS often cited when claiming that the Catholic church is the one true church. I’ve seen it around here many times, in just a couple of months.

It is the laziest kind of logic: because we’ve been claiming it for so long, and others for only a fraction of that time, we must be correct and they must be wrong.

About 15 percent of the world’s population is currently Catholic–about a billion out of 6.7 billion people (see census.gov/main/www/popclock.html). And this is the “one true, universal church”?
(by the way, Islam is the fastest-growing religion; it boasts a similar number, and will soon overtake Catholicism.)

It seems that most people do not believe the “one, true Church” message; never have, never will.

The thing is, most religious traditions and belief systems in the world don’t consider the concept of “church”, much less “the one true church”. There are believers, members, adherents, brethren… and many other names for participants in those faiths and belief systems… but “church” does not enter the vocabulary. It’s like talking about “democracy” to someone who has no cultural or historical concept of it, or “money” to someone from a remote, subsistence tribe. It’s just a word, sure, but if a “church” is to be universal, its language has to be universal.

I think Catholics need to be more prudent in claiming to be “the one true faith”. It comes across as highly patronising, belittling and quite dismissive of other beliefs. Most other people in the world are equally convinced that they are right, but they do not have the gall to insist that others are wrong. Usually, they are prepared to live and let live. And there are plenty (85%) of them.

I postscript all this by saying (as my signature notes) that I am a Catholic—just “on the journey” and I can see great merit in many other religious traditions.

 

[hansard]

Thanks, RyanML: it has been good having an honest (albeit brief!) discussion with you. Peace to you.

Sword Brethren
I gather that was supposed to be a “swords-down” to the entire discussion. Way to reply, dude. U N UR SWRD Yeah–you rock!

 

[Cristiano]

T…Just *what if *(you know–“Imagine there’s no heaven”–go with me–it won’t make you a heretic to consider it), what if they are right and we are wrong, and we are saved only because of their faith?..

If there is no heaven there is no God. If there is no God there is no salvation, we do not need to be saved.

…Can any faith use its own sacred texts as proof of its beliefs? If I were a first-time reader of the Bible, I’d see how some passages tend to support other passages, but as for the veracity of the whole thing…well, some parts of it seem rather far-fetched…

There is a difference between a sacred text, books that are divinely inspired, and texts that hold the historical scrutiny. For example the Gospels cover the three cases, can you please show which other books do the same?

 

[hansard]

Cristiano:

re the “heaven” bit: no, you missed the point, I think. There was no mention of “no God”–just the (apparently absurd) notion that the gods of other faiths are as strong as ours.
Try to tell them otherwise.

Can you prove that the Gospels are divinely inspired (without resorting to scripture)?

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Alindawyl]

Alindawyl: yes, the Joint Dec was a significant move on both sides. Look at the carefully measured language in the final statement. There really was only minimal ground given, would you agree?

I would say that there was no ground given whatsoever on the part of any Catholic or any Lutheran in the writing of that document. It was a statement of where agreement exists, which means nobody had to compromise a thing about their beliefs to write it…

 

[hansard]

Yes. Indeed.
It seems a rather “cold” document.
Many thanks for your reply.