One true church: maybe we should take a step back

[RosaryCrusader]

Hansard,

Because certain religions (or the lack thereof) do not understand the word “Church” (taking your word for this assertion, btw) does not mean they do not comprehend the concept of hierarchy and faithful. You’re implying that the vast majority of the earth’s populace are imbecilic and uncapable of grasping something so elementary and fundamental to all cultures; chiefs & indians - and the effect each has on the community [the communion of Saints].

I think your line of thinking stems from a copious imbibing of ecumenism which is poison to the soul.

Objective Truth is Objective Truth - and in this case Truth is a Person; Christ.

 

[PadraigPearce]

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.

I think that idea of “repository of all religions” simply means that everything we acknowledge as being naturally true in other religions belongs to Christianity and Catholicism by right. Christ is the truth, therefore everything that is true is already present in his Church. So we can admire ancient greek philosophy for its dogged search for ultimate truth, but acknowledge that it fell short of realizing God’s true nature. We can admire Hinduism because of its focus on the transcendent God, but not accept its pantheism. The difference with Catholicism is that it’s a directly revealed religion. We had the truth given to us rather than having to sort it all out for ourselves. Maybe that’s an arrogant position, but I think it’s a true one.

 

[Cristiano]

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…

I think that even if you sign yourself as a Catholic you are quite confused of what the Church teaches about God and heaven, you did not even built a logical straw man.

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

The rule of the game is that you first answer the questions and then you can ask a new one! 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]

Oh, are those the rules, Cristiano? Thanks for setting them.
Well…no, I can’t tell you any other texts that claim those three things.
Now you can answer my question. It’s easy enough.

 

[manualman]

The OP would be absolutely right if all religions were human constructs, a cobbling together of our best efforts at figuring out a remote and distant god. But such an approach is incompatible with christianity in general and catholicism in particular.

Sometimes things really are simpler than we make them. It comes down to this: do you believe Jesus was the Son of God, the Messiah promised explicitly by God to his chosen people in the original covenant, or don’t you? Is He God himself, or just one of a long line of wise gurus?

If the former, did he or did he not hand pick apostles and command them to go and spread the gospel to all nations? Did those apostles not immediately begin the practice of choosing replacements and ordaining new bishops? Has there ever been a break in that line of succession? Can any other christian group say the same? (actually yes, the Eastern Orthodox, who are actually a part of the catholic church, though somewhat estranged from the Catholic point of view.)

Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and the rest don’t believe Jesus was God the Son, like He told us he was. Again, if we were muddling this all out by ourselves, their opinion WOULD be as valid as ours. But we aren’t. We are taking Jesus at his word. What’s so arrogant about that?

 

[bluecake]

Surely belief is largely an accident of birth; which family one is born into. I speak from experience, having grown up with a Catholic father and a Jewish mother.
I consider myself Catholic, but I would never doubt the Jewish belief system.
All anyone can do is to make their own way, tread their own path.
Catholicism is young, in terms of world religions.

 

[hansard]

Thanks for those recent couple of replies, which were quite sensible and thought-provoking. Yes, it does come down to what you are born into. Good point.

I’ll have to abandon the thread for some time, as I’m out of town for a while.

Carry on if you wish.

 

[palmas85]

Surely belief is largely an accident of birth; which family one is born into. I speak from experience, having grown up with a Catholic father and a Jewish mother.
I consider myself Catholic, but I would never doubt the Jewish belief system.
All anyone can do is to make their own way, tread their own path.
Catholicism is young, in terms of word religilons.

In terms of Pagan and animist beliefs yes. Judaism, no,you are correct in that it pre dates Catholicism by several thousand years.

It is interesting to note though that through belief in Jesus as the Messiah, the earliest Christians, from what we now know as the Catholic faith, saw Christianity as the fulfillment of Judaism, the correct path for Judaism to take and to believe in…

Besides that one example I don’t think that any monotheistic faiths that currently exist, pre date Christianity.

 

[bluecake]

Zoroastriansim is a monotheistic religion - still being practised today, I think it predates almost everything! There was a program about it on TV here recently, all I can remember is rather a lot of sacred fire!

 

[RyanML]

Surely belief is largely an accident of birth; which family one is born into. I speak from experience, having grown up with a Catholic father and a Jewish mother.
I consider myself Catholic, but I would never doubt the Jewish belief system.
All anyone can do is to make their own way, tread their own path.
Catholicism is young, in terms of world religions.

Yes, we live in a fallen world where false doctrines and religions are everywhere. They’ve been around since the beginning. But it’s sad that even those who call themselves Catholic forget about the power of grace and the amazing miracles that God can work, if we only trust Him and give of ourselves generously. If He wanted to, Jesus could reveal Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life in such a way that no one could deny it. But He chose not to work this way. Instead, He chose to allow us to cooperate in His work of saving souls when He gave the great commission to go teach all nations and to baptize. Yes, a person’s worldview and belief system is certainly in large part due to their upbringing, but salvation and conviction of the truth is all because of God’s infinite goodness, mercy, and grace. We can’t leave God out of the picture

 

[da_nolo]

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.

step backwards? forget that take a step closer to God. it is true that there is as there could be only one Church. there is no question about that. you bring in good points however in saying peoples ideas about Church may be wrong or blured. I would agree to say that as many people jump to their tongue they do not always know what to say nor why they say it. As you may already have been answered, Jesus did declare there only being ONE way, and not many. therefore many, as there are many, say that Catholocism is the only and one way to Heaven/Truth/etc. I would only agree in a different way that one would think.

In today’s world the word Church is thrown around a lot and it’s wonderful meaning is largely forgotten or never described. so as we hear that word majority people speak about a building or institute. They miss how obviously wrong they are, but thats understandible as I once thought the same. For you see the Church is the Body of Christ. plain and simple, we are the body…therefore we are the Church. it is not the Priests,Pope, Deacons, Nuns, etc. that make up the Church, nor the brick buildings we have created to present an awe and worship within. Not to say the Priests, the Pope, and other officials are not important as they truly are, but simply declaring an understanding that we are the Church and when someone says the Church they mean or as they should mean everyone.

It has been explainned that all religions carry some amount of truth towards the universe, with some being more than others. which is a likely occurance. Now whether it is known or not, The Church exists within Heavin. there is not a change or end after death as in reality the Church began in Heavin and expaned into Earth. done so through adam and eve, abraham, mosses, and all the prophets…including of coarse the Prophet of Prophets Jesus Christ.

so as you may now see, through this and other explainnations most likely given, there is an understanding as to why we Catholics declare our religion as the only means to Christ and the one true Church. it is an arrogant comment I asure and a prideful one. People should choose Catholicism because it brings them closer to God, as many people feel it does. This inspiration, however, I would agree does not as it should not come from a statemtent in Pride as Pride is a deadly sin and one that is hardly seen. thats why I never got those “proud to be Catholic” signs. it’s rather backwards if we are to be without pride. SINCE WE ARE(no worries that last statement was directed towards everyone, please don’t take it too harshly hansard).

So as said above there is a disagreement within how people react to this, so I must declare a statement for all. JESUS CHRIST is the only bridge to heaven, we should act as His body, His Church to help bring people towards Christ, towards God, towards our journey of perfection (as only perfection may think/act outside their own body and mind) towards ourselves being Saints…warriors in Christ who reject the devil and act outside sin. And therefore building on the Rock, St. Peter as our ancestors have.

 

[hansard]

Back. Still an interesting thread.

Rosary Crusader:
At no point did I claim that other religious traditions do not *understand *the meaning of “church”, but rather, they tend not to use that word.
Further, there’s nothing wrong with ecumenism. The Catholic Church is embracing the concept more and more. Write to the Pope and tell him that ecumenism is “poison to the soul”. You’ll feel better.

PadraigPearce:
Not an arrogant position at all. God bless you for your open-mindedness.

ManualMan:
There’s nothing arrogant at all about positing a thesis and defending it to the end. It just makes one seem a bit more reasonable if one listens to others and quietly agrees to disagree, after all the debates and flame-wars are over.

RyanML:
Hello again. No, we can’t leave God out of the picture. But we can be a bit more gracious in our assertions.

Da Nolo:
Thanks for that very considerate reply. Peace to you.

To (perhaps) finish with: I don’t think it is arrogant to claim the “fullness of truth” or “the one true church”—I do, however, think that it serves us poorly to ram it down the throats of others, to damn them to hell (as some do) or to dismiss their beliefs.

As I stated a while ago, taking a step back means listening, respectfully debating, and allowing others the right to disagree with us.
If nothing else, it makes us look like nice, tolerant, understanding people.

 

[RyanML]

RyanML:
Hello again. No, we can’t leave God out of the picture. But we can be a bit more gracious in our assertions.

Perhaps you are right. We can sometimes become over zealous in our efforts to witness the truth that we lose our charity. Saint Paul reminds us to always have an answer for the hope that is in us but to always preach the truth in love. Saint Francis de Sales was responsible for numerous conversions during a time in Europe when Calvinism was rampant and he never once compromised the truth of the Faith. However, his gentleness and kindness in dealing with heretics was so great that it caused scandal at times. He wrote in his book Introduction to the Devout Life,

You will catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a hundred barrels of vinegar. Were there any thing better or fairer on earth than gentleness, Jesus Christ would have taught it us ; and yet he has given us only two lessons to learn of him—meekness and humility of heart.

 

[manualman]

Manualman:
There’s nothing arrogant at all about positing a thesis and defending it to the end. It just makes one seem a bit more reasonable if one listens to others and quietly agrees to disagree, after all the debates and flame-wars are over.

You still make it sound like catholicism is a really good idea we came up with and are proud of. That’s totally not the case at all! Catholicism is merely the inheritance of what Jesus brought to the world. That’s not an abtract idea, it’s historical fact.

 

[wizeoz]

Just want to chime in here and thank all of you… this has been a very interesting thread of posts. I am new here to this Forum and am searching for the “Roots” of my faith and very much appreciate all of your comments.

I see that we as followers of the truth, Jesus Christ, are very much in the same position as the first disciples, in that we must understand Jesus and what he showed us and taught us, then defend it and live it…then we can go and make others disciples as well.

pax

 

[Spiritoftruth]

…what??? and call Christ a liar, not me bub!

 

[EphelDuath]

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.

How is it “intolerance” to suggest that our Church is the true one? I honestly don’t even understand this. Are scientists intolerant to people who don’t believe in oxygen? Should they step back and say, “well despite all the evidence that oxygen exists, we don’t want to be bigots: so we will admit that oxygen doesn’t exist!”

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.

:ehh:

How is it lazy logic? Obviously another church cannot be the one of Christ and the Apostles if it didn’t exist in the first century.

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.)

So? In 33 AD, not .00001% of the earth believed in Christ. That doesn’t mean Christianity is automatically false, does it?

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

“Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.” (Luke 13:24)

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”.

Most scientists don’t consider the idea that the periodic table of elements is a lie, much less that oxygen doesn’t exist.

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.

I mean no offense, brother, but it seems that you’ve substituted reason with blind tolerance. The Church being the infallible Church of Christ built upon Cephas is something that cannot, nor ever will change. Recanting on this doctrine is tantamount to suggesting that Jesus erred.

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.

Unless you simultaneously believe every religion and religious adherence is equally true, in spite of the fact that almost every religion makes contradictory claims of the others, you are automatically insisting that others are wrong.

I admire trying to reach out to others in the spirit of peace, but this is not the way to do it. Watering down the truth so that it’s easier for others to accept it is something I flat-out refuse to do.

 

[thunderballs75]

Here’s the problem with your idea. If everybody is right, then pretty much everybody is wrong. If the Jews are correct, then they are correct in saying the Muslims and Christians are wrong. If the Christians are correct, then they are correct in saying the Jews and Muslims are wrong. If the Muslims are correct, then they are correct in saying the Jews and Christians are wrong.

Saying “everybody is correct” is the same as saying “everybody is wrong”.

This is also a heresy called “indifferentism” and “moral relativism”. Unfortunately, many clergy are afraid to teach this or don’t want to anymore.