Pope Says There is Only One True Church

[estesbob]

Or do you think that Cyprian was right? And was this same Cyprian right when he, like Iraneus, challenged the bishop of Rome when they thought him to be in error? This idea that the bishop of Rome was always the first among equals is another invention of the Catholic church that was unknown by the catholic Church. There is no conclusive evidence that the bishop of Rome ever exercised jurisdiction outside of Rome prior to the time of Constantine. Honor yes. Jurisdiction no. That the Catholic church today teaches otherwise is just another part of the Orwellian nature I was referring to earlier.

Again its not a matter of so much as to whethter Cyprian was right as it is how could God allow everyone to be wrong for almost 75% of the time since Christ founded his Church.? The question is how could Luther, Calivin et al be right, given no basis in either Scripture or tradtion for the doctrines they invented.?

As far as peter goes once again it is obvious you dont know much about Church history:

Hermas

***“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]). ***

***But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). ***

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp

I believe that what Ignatius meant when he said that the Church was catholic was that though there were many congregations, each with their own bishop or presbyter, that wherever individual congregations might gather, they were not separate institutions but one in Christ. So, though there were many scatter congregations and though (despite what I expect you to claim) there was no central authority, it was still one Church because it all belonged to the one Christ. I submit that this is what we still have today. Though there are some that look to their own particular bishop or presbyter for governance of their local congreation(s), we still belong to the one Christ (thus there is no need for any other central authority) and this body of Christ represented by Orthodox and Roman and Coptic and various protestant congregations spread around the world (each with many different earthly leaders) is still one catholic Church in the sense that Ignatius first used the term. Any other interpretation is simply to move away from what Ignatius taught at the time.

Ignatius believed that the Catholic Church was the one true Church and acknowledged that the Pope was the leader of the Church. Can you find us any wrtings of the early Church that support your claim that the church is made of an invisible mismash of people who share only a belief in Christ ?

 

[estesbob]

First of all, because we can be confident that God will not allow the Church to err on essential matters. And in the second place, because we have reason to think that certain doctrines are true and others are more dubious!

Your reason to think this is based soley on your ***personal ***interperation of Scripture and ignoring the Hostory of the Church. In doing you embraced doctrines that stragely enough are self contradictoy as they are not supported by the very Scripture you claim is the ONLY source to be used.

The same “inept god” who allows the Church to be full of sinners, and even to be led by them (this applies to any Christian group). The same “inept god” who allowed the Church to make grave mistakes in practical pastoral and administrative matters, including issues with serious moral implications. The same “inept god” who doesn’t appear to ensure that everyone on the planet hears the Gospel. The same “inept god” who sent His only Son to die on a Cross. The only God I know and worship seems to have an embarrassing habit of doing things that human beings consider inept.

So when he said the “gates of hell will not prevail” he was lying?

You have deftly tried too change the subject-I was talking about the Church-you want to talk about individuals who belong(ed) to the Church. The latter can most certainly be in error-The Church can not.

I

 

[Man]

Ignatius believed that the Catholic Church was the one true Church and acknowledged that the Pope was the leader of the Church. Can you find us any wrtings of the early Church that support your claim that the church is made of an invisible mismash of people who share only a belief in Christ ?

He repeatedly told people to submit to their bishops and called the Bishop of Rome -President- of the Church.

What do you want?

And you can’t sight the EO Church “Schism” either. They refused to honor the Popes in the way the Popes thought that they should be honored. And, of course, it makes no difference that they see the protestant assertion that they are “true Churches” with the same critical eye that the Holy See does. Where’d the Sacraments go? oof: Why don’t you honor at least your local (properly ordained Catholic or Orthodox) bishop? oof:

All gone. Should I be my own bishop too?

 

[sterryfamily]

I hear crickets chirping

 

[estesbob]

He repeatedly told people to submit to their bishops and called the Bishop of Rome -President- of the Church.

What do you want?

And you can’t sight the EO Church “Schism” either. They refused to honor the Popes in the way the Popes thought that they should be honored. And, of course, it makes no difference that they see the protestant assertion that they are “true Churches” with the same critical eye that the Holy See does. Where’d the Sacraments go? oof: Why don’t you honor at least your local (properly ordained Catholic or Orthodox) bishop? oof:

**All gone. Should I be my own bishop too?/**quote]

Evidently all it take is a*** personal*** revelation from the Spirit.

 

[StJeromeromer]

That’s nice an all… but book, chapter, and verse please where Jesus said to listen to the Pharisees?

Matthew 23 Verses 1-3:
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples,
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they say, but do not do.”

This is taken from the New King James Version Nelson Press.

 

[Contarini]

Your reason to think this is based soley on your ***personal ***interperation of Scripture and ignoring the Hostory of the Church. In doing you embraced doctrines that stragely enough are self contradictoy as they are not supported by the very Scripture you claim is the ONLY source to be used.

I have no idea what you have in mind–do you? Or are you just uttering propagandistic cliches?

Since I never in any way suggested that Scripture is the only source to be used, I suspect the latter. You would be a much better apologist if you would actually pay attention to what the person you are talking to believes.

So when he said the “gates of hell will not prevail” he was lying?

Cliche again. Or, more precisely, petitio principii–you are assuming that your interpretation of what it means for the gates of hell to prevail is correct, which is precisely what I’m challenging.

You have deftly tried too change the subject-

Of course, in the sense that I refuse to start from your premises. If you force people to argue from your premises, naturally you can force them to come to your conclusions.

I was talking about the Church-you want to talk about individuals who belong(ed) to the Church.

Since I do not believe in some ghostly “invisible Church” that is distinct from the people who actually belong to the Church, obviously I do not recognize the relevance of this distinction. (I don’t mean that every action by every member of the Church is equally representative, but when you find things commonly being taught and accepted on all levels of the Church hierarchy, or policies being carried out with the approval of the Pope and the bishops, etc., it makes no sense from a Protestant perspective to say that “the Church” is not doing those things.) Furthermore, you are working on the assumption that official doctrinal definitions are acts of “the Church” while the things I mentioned are not. Why? You have to demonstrate that premise before you can build on it.

Your arguments only work with people already convinced of your premises (or people who find those premises intuitively convincing without having to be convinced of them, or people who are confused enough that they accept your premises without thinking about them).

Edwin

 

[East_Anglican]

The Catholic Church being the One True Church is nothing new, but I am glad that the Vatican reminded the Protestant churches of this, and I forsee that there are gonna be many angry protestants.

Article XXXVII
Of the Civil Magistrates
The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction.
Where we attribute to the Queen’s Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, we give not to our princes the ministering either of God’s word or of sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testify: but only that prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself, that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

The laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences.

It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars​

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England. Inshort, I don’t care.

 

[estesbob]

I have no idea what you have in mind–do you? Or are you just uttering propagandistic cliches?

Since I never in any way suggested that Scripture is the only source to be used, I suspect the latter. You would be a much better apologist if you would actually pay attention to what the person you are talking to believes.

Cliche again. Or, more precisely, petitio principii–you are assuming that your interpretation of what it means for the gates of hell to prevail is correct, which is precisely what I’m challenging.

Of course, in the sense that I refuse to start from your premises. If you force people to argue from your premises, naturally you can force them to come to your conclusions.

Since I do not believe in some ghostly “invisible Church” that is distinct from the people who actually belong to the Church, obviously I do not recognize the relevance of this distinction. (I don’t mean that every action by every member of the Church is equally representative, but when you find things commonly being taught and accepted on all levels of the Church hierarchy, or policies being carried out with the approval of the Pope and the bishops, etc., it makes no sense from a Protestant perspective to say that “the Church” is not doing those things.) Furthermore, you are working on the assumption that official doctrinal definitions are acts of “the Church” while the things I mentioned are not. Why? You have to demonstrate that premise before you can build on it.

Your arguments only work with people already convinced of your premises (or people who find those premises intuitively convincing without having to be convinced of them, or people who are confused enough that they accept your premises without thinking about them).

Edwin

Funny how you never answer the questions put to you. So lets keep it simple and go one step at a time.

You said:

And in the second place, because** we** have reason to think that certain doctrines are true and others are more dubious!

What do you base that on. Also who is the "we’ you refer to?

 

[Contarini]

What do you base that on. Also who is the "we’ you refer to?

That is a side issue. All that is necessary for this thread is to say that non-Catholics (the “we” in question) have specific reasons for objecting to specific Catholic doctrines. Therefore, there is nothing contradictory about our accepting other Catholic doctrines which we believe to be true, or even accepting them specifically because the historic community of Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome accepted them for centuries (this applies to Protestants, not on the whole to the Orthodox, who don’t defer to you guys as much as we do). Whether our reasons are good or bad is not the point. The point is that the reasons are specific to each doctrine. You can’t generalize and say that if you reject one you must reject all. That’s not an argument–it’s simply an irrational demand based on premises we reject.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

That is a side issue. All that is necessary for this thread is to say that non-Catholics (the “we” in question) have specific reasons for objecting to specific Catholic doctrines. Therefore, there is nothing contradictory about our accepting other Catholic doctrines which we believe to be true, or even accepting them specifically because the historic community of Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome accepted them for centuries (this applies to Protestants, not on the whole to the Orthodox, who don’t defer to you guys as much as we do). Whether our reasons are good or bad is not the point. The point is that the reasons are specific to each doctrine. You can’t generalize and say that if you reject one you must reject all. That’s not an argument–it’s simply an irrational demand based on premises we reject.

Edwin

Funny how you never answer the questions put to you. So lets keep it simple and go one step at a time.

You said:

Quote:
And in the second place, because** we** have reason to think that certain doctrines are true and others are more dubious!
What do you base that on. Also who is the "we’ you refer to?

---

 

[Contarini]

Funny how you never answer the questions put to you. So lets keep it simple and go one step at a time.

You said:

Quote:
And in the second place, because** we** have reason to think that certain doctrines are true and others are more dubious!
What do you base that on. Also who is the "we’ you refer to?

---

I answered the question about “we,” and I explained why the other question is irrelevant. Go back and look at the thread title. This is not “name your Catholic doctrine and explain why it is wrong” thread. This is a thread about the Catholic claim to be the one true Church. I am simply noting that Protestants have specific objections to specific Catholic doctrines, thus disposing of your silly argument that Protestants are inconsistent if they don’t either accept or reject all Catholic doctrines.

You are raising an irrelevant question to distract from the fact that you made glaring historical and logical errors that derail your entire argument.

You claimed that there were no other churches before the Great Schism–I showed this to be wrong. You made the tired claim that if the Catholic Church made any doctrinal errors then the gates of hell have prevailed–I challenged you to back this up, and you are dodging. I asked you to justify the view that the Church only acts in offficial doctrinal definitions and not when popes, bishops, priests and laypeople teach doctrine (on the “ordinary” level), engage in pastoral care, decide church policy, and otherwise act as an institutional body. You have not responded. I pointed out that a “Church” distinct from the human beings who belong to it is the very “invisible Church” you earlier claimed to be a Protestant invention–you have not responded.

You ignore all these relevant points, and instead try to bog me down in a discussion of specific doctrines. Your evasive tactics are obvious.

Edwin

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I answered the question about “we,” and I explained why the other question is irrelevant. Go back and look at the thread title. This is not “name your Catholic doctrine and explain why it is wrong” thread. This is a thread about the Catholic claim to be the one true Church. I am simply noting that Protestants have specific objections to specific Catholic doctrines, thus disposing of your silly argument that Protestants are inconsistent if they don’t either accept or reject all Catholic doctrines.

You are raising an irrelevant question to distract from the fact that you made glaring historical and logical errors that derail your entire argument.

You claimed that there were no other churches before the Great Schism–I showed this to be wrong. You made the tired claim that if the Catholic Church made any doctrinal errors then the gates of hell have prevailed–I challenged you to back this up, and you are dodging. I asked you to justify the view that the Church only acts in offficial doctrinal definitions and not when popes, bishops, priests and laypeople teach doctrine (on the “ordinary” level), engage in pastoral care, decide church policy, and otherwise act as an institutional body. You have not responded. I pointed out that a “Church” distinct from the human beings who belong to it is the very “invisible Church” you earlier claimed to be a Protestant invention–you have not responded.

You ignore all these relevant points, and instead try to bog me down in a discussion of specific doctrines. Your evasive tactics are obvious.

Edwin

But what do you base this? I think in all fairness I don’t think any of us should let you get away with not answering this question.

CDL

 

[Contarini]

But what do you base this? I think in all fairness I don’t think any of us should let you get away with not answering this question.

CDL

On what do I base what? My belief that Protestants have specific reasons for disagreeing with each Catholic doctrine they reject? Are you seriously claiming otherwise? I made no claim regarding the strength or weakness of these reasons, only that they exist and are the basis for the Protestant rejection of certain Catholic doctrines. This shouldn’t be controversial.

This is a typical evasive maneuver: if you aren’t winning on one front, open up a general attack and force your opponent to justify every single position he holds. It may be clever, but it doesn’t deserve much respect, frankly.

The more you and estesbob belabor this point, the more you trumpet the fact that you can’t answer my challenges on the issue actually under discussion in this thread.

Edwin

 

[estesbob]

I answered the question about “we,” and I explained why the other question is irrelevant. Go back and look at the thread title. This is not “name your Catholic doctrine and explain why it is wrong” thread. This is a thread about the Catholic claim to be the one true Church. I am simply noting that Protestants have specific objections to specific Catholic doctrines, thus disposing of your silly argument that Protestants are inconsistent if they don’t either accept or reject all Catholic doctrines.

You are raising an irrelevant question to distract from the fact that you made glaring historical and logical errors that derail your entire argument.

You claimed that there were no other churches before the Great Schism–I showed this to be wrong. You made the tired claim that if the Catholic Church made any doctrinal errors then the gates of hell have prevailed–I challenged you to back this up, and you are dodging. I asked you to justify the view that the Church only acts in offficial doctrinal definitions and not when popes, bishops, priests and laypeople teach doctrine (on the “ordinary” level), engage in pastoral care, decide church policy, and otherwise act as an institutional body. You have not responded. I pointed out that a “Church” distinct from the human beings who belong to it is the very “invisible Church” you earlier claimed to be a Protestant invention–you have not responded.

You ignore all these relevant points, and instead try to bog me down in a discussion of specific doctrines. Your evasive tactics are obvious.

Edwin

And in the second place, because** we** have reason to think that certain doctrines are true and others are more dubious!

What do you base that on?

 

[cathgal]

This statement does seem to upset a lot of people if interested check out the discussion board on this story on MSNBC. I sense a lot of hate towards Catholics in some of the posts.

boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?boardid=380&ThreadID=339581

Yep, that’s the protestants.

Love to protest…even to this day.

Gosh, if only they take the time to look it up as to why they’re not the true churches than to waste time and protest…

They’re soo…ignorant, especially some of the Catholic ones.

 

[fix]

And that’s what estesbob was doing by claiming that Catholicism is “the same Church” and thus has the same authority as the early Church. To the rest of us it looks different enough that the truth of its claims is far from self-evident.

Edwin

Is not your argument the same old argument that says you yourself are the final judge in all these matters? Is that not the premise of Protestantism?

 

[estesbob]

Is not your argument the same old argument that says you yourself are the final judge in all these matters? Is that not the premise of Protestantism?

Exactly.

 

[tomarin]

The Catholic Church you speak of is something that evolved over time. The Church which was catholic (meaning universal) was that because the Church understood itself as one body, not divided. And as far as I am concernd there still exists a catholic (again meaning universal, not meaning connected to Rome) Church in that all Christians belong to one body in belonging to Christ. But being catholic doesn’t make us Catholic.

with all due respect, this seems like an arbitrary judgement to make. yes, the church has changed, but that change is largely due to a deepening of the understanding and knowledge of jesus’s truth that we have had since the beginning.

is it so incredible a statement that the core beliefs and practices of the catholic church are the same as that of the early christian church? don’t protestants regularly convert after discovering in the writings of the early church fathers the catholic church? if not, am i missing something here? please fill me in because if i am wrong then i am worshipping at the wrong church.

tomarin

 

[desertwoman]

I"m glad the Pope reiterated this statement. I use to go to the Church of Christ, and this was reiterated as well. Since Christianity is not an inclusive religion, it has to be the right one baby.