Positive Proof The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church

[onenow1]

You are incorrect and have not searched the Scripture:

in truth

, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.

It is the Word that penetrates and save, not the preacher.

The Word, the Word, the Word, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word is God!

onenow1. No ! It is you that do not understand .

Luke 24: 45-49, Jesus instructs the Apostles.

John 22: 21 23, Jesus breathes on them, and they receive the Holy Spirit.

NC, Jesus opened the OT scriptures to them so they may understand, and be able to teach others. If the word of God were self attesting and understandable by all, as I see it there would be no need for the Apostles to interpret scripture for any, and as you know very well there were no Gospels as yet.

Have to run, but there is much,much more. Matt. 28: 19-20.

Peace, onenow1

 

[ckempston]

I realize this was a reply to NonCatholic, but I have a couple of comments:

I several places, not all of which mean “all”. For example:

Mark 1:4-5
5 And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

We know that not “all” went out to him, and not “all” were baptized. Similarly, not “all” have fallen short, either. Jesus Himself says that He did not come to call the righteous, so we know there were some that were.

So, some men don’t need Jesus? Is that what you’re saying? Please clarify.

Well, there are a couple problems with this. One is that the exception don’t conflict with what God has stated, only your understanding of what was stated. Second, God gave authority to His Church to define and develop doctrine. This does not take authority away from God.

Or, so you misunderstood the passage.

I am glad to hear that you realize some of your beliefs also cannot be shown in scripture.

It’s dishonest for anyone to suggest otherwise.

So, we are in agreement that “all” does not mean “all”?

I would pretty much explain your examples in one of two ways:

• Either “pas/pantas” has an indeterminate meaning that is determined by context, or
• Where authors use “all” and it is difficult to harmonize with either reality or other scriptures, he was using a figure of speech, such as hyperbole.

This approach yields a much more consistent interpretation, and this type of rhetoric and symbolism is not uncommon for the New Testament writers, so this seems a reasonable approach.

In general if “all” doesn’t mean “all” in the passages under discussion, you have to admit that some people in the world are not in need of a savior. Since “all” are touched by Original Sin, “all” are indeed in need of a savior. The main problem is that whatever “all” means, it cannot change meaning within a single sentence, which is what is required of the Catholic position (at least in this discussion).

 

[cjcapta]

** The proof lies in the fact that the Catholic church alone corresponds exactly to the exact religion established by Christ. Now, the Christian religion is that religion which–
a.) Was founded by Christ personally
b.) Has existed continuously since the time of Christ;
c.) Is Catholic or Universal, in accordance with Christ’s command to go to all the the world and teach all nations;
d.) Demands that all her members admit the same doctrine;
e.) Exercises Divine authority over her subjects, since Christ said that if a man would not hear the Church he would be as the heathen.

Now the Catholic church alone can claim–
a.) To have been founded by Christ personally. All other churches disappear as you go back through history. Christ said “Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my church.” Matt 16:18
There are many claimants to the honor of being Christ’s Church. But among all non-Catholic Churches, we find one built by John Wesley, another on a Martin Luther, another on a Mrs. Eddy, etc…
But the Catholic church alone can possibly claim to have been built on Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and one-time Bishop of Rome.
b.) To have existed in all the centuries since Christ
c.) That every one of her members admits exactly the same essential doctrines
d.) To be Catholic or Universal
e.) To speak with a voice of true authority in the name of God.

**

Even if all of those things are true, the title is misleading because that just proves that Catholicism is the true Christian religion, what about all the other non-Christian religions? And there are two Catholic religions: Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, which is supposed to be the true one?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Even if all of those things are true, the title is misleading because that just proves that Catholicism is the true Christian religion, what about all the other non-Christian religions? And there are two Catholic religions: Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, which is supposed to be the true one?

Feel free to make the case that Christianity is not true. Most of us think that it is.

As to the Orthodox, they don’t acknowledge the primacy of Peter, even though their precursors(early eastern patriarchs) did.

 

[guanophore]

So, some men don’t need Jesus? Is that what you’re saying? Please clarify.

No, all of humanity is under the death sentence of original sin, and only Jesus can save us. However, Paul here is drawing a comparison about personal sin, saying that the Jew is no better off than the Greek when it comes to personal sin.

Not everyone has personal sins, infants, for example, and children under the age of reason, then mentally incapacitated, etc.

Jesus Himself testified that there are righteous persons that did not need to be called to repentance. The passage from which this was taken in the Psalms also testifies that there are righteous persons.

I would pretty much explain your examples in one of two ways:

• Either “pas/pantas” has an indeterminate meaning that is determined by context, or
• Where authors use “all” and it is difficult to harmonize with either reality or other scriptures, he was using a figure of speech, such as hyperbole.

This approach yields a much more consistent interpretation, and this type of rhetoric and symbolism is not uncommon for the New Testament writers, so this seems a reasonable approach.

In general if “all” doesn’t mean “all” in the passages under discussion, you have to admit that some people in the world are not in need of a savior. Since “all” are touched by Original Sin, “all” are indeed in need of a savior. The main problem is that whatever “all” means, it cannot change meaning within a single sentence, which is what is required of the Catholic position (at least in this discussion).

Well said.

Even the “righteous” need a saviour, as none of us are able to act in righteousness without grace, through faith.

 

[guanophore]

As to the Orthodox, they don’t acknowledge the primacy of Peter, even though their precursors(early eastern patriarchs) did.

Oh, they do! They just don’t acknowledge the “supremacy” of Peter. All the Orthodox admit the primacy of Peter, and the “first among equals” of his successor, until that successor ceased to act in communion with ecclesial councils.

 

[ckempston]

No, all of humanity is under the death sentence of original sin, and only Jesus can save us. However, Paul here is drawing a comparison about personal sin, saying that the Jew is no better off than the Greek when it comes to personal sin.

There is nothing to suggest that he is only referring to personal sin. In fact, if you say that “all sinned” means that “some have sinned, personally”, you have to perform mental gymnastics to reconcile that interpretation with later statements of Paul, and others. My interpretation, however, needs no further reconciliation, because it is already totally compatible with other statements regarding sin in the New Testament. At the moment of conception, a baby is guilty of Original Sin, because,

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–

and

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Not everyone has personal sins, infants, for example, and children under the age of reason, then mentally incapacitated, etc.

I’d agree, but it’s irrelevant. Whether original, or personal, we’re still separated from God because we “all sinned in Adam.”

Jesus Himself testified that there are righteous persons that did not need to be called to repentance. The passage from which this was taken in the Psalms also testifies that there are righteous persons.

I believe if you look at the context, you will find it blatantly obvious that this was a rhetorical comment by Jesus. And again, because of your position on this, you have to explain away other plain statements of scripture.

 

[Figaro_Jones]

Feel free to make the case that Christianity is not true.

The OP’s claim was that his list of points was “proof positive” that the Catholic Church is the only true church. **Cjcapta **was merely pointing out, I think, that OP had not made his case. I’d have to agree; the logic is not exactly airtight. A lot of assumptions there, starting with his premises.

 

[guanophore]

There is nothing to suggest that he is only referring to personal sin. In fact, if you say that “all sinned” means that “some have sinned, personally”, you have to perform mental gymnastics to reconcile that interpretation with later statements of Paul, and others.

This particular statement is referring to personal sin, because personal sin requires a choice. Original sin is a consequence of the fall, and is not something a person “has done”. Original sin is passive, while personal sin is active.

My interpretation, however, needs no further reconciliation, because it is already totally compatible with other statements regarding sin in the New Testament. At the moment of conception, a baby is guilty of Original Sin, because,

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–

and

Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

Yes. We are in agreement on this point.

I’d agree, but it’s irrelevant. Whether original, or personal, we’re still separated from God because we “all sinned in Adam.”

We are all in as state of sin through Adam, but we did not inherit the personal sin of Adam, just the consequence of the sin.

I believe if you look at the context, you will find it blatantly obvious that this was a rhetorical comment by Jesus. And again, because of your position on this, you have to explain away other plain statements of scripture.

We just understand the scripture differently. There are some people who cannot commit personal sin, thereby we know that in this passage, “all” does not mean ALL.

 

[ckempston]

This particular statement is referring to personal sin, because personal sin requires a choice. Original sin is a consequence of the fall, and is not something a person “has done”. Original sin is passive, while personal sin is active.

But that’s not what Romans 5 says. It says that in Adam, all sinned. It doesn’t say we are affected by the consequence. It says we sinned.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–

Yes. We are in agreement on this point.

Based on what you stated above, and what you state below, I’d say we are not in agreement.

We are all in as state of sin through Adam, but we did not inherit the personal sin of Adam, just the consequence of the sin.

Again, according to Romans 5:12, we all sinned in Adam.

We just understand the scripture differently. There are some people who cannot commit personal sin, thereby we know that in this passage, “all” does not mean ALL.

Romans 5:12. We all sinned in Adam. (/broken record)

 

[ryanoneil]

Catechism of the Catholic Church 402:

All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church 403:

Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 404:

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 405:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

 

[guanophore]

But that’s not what Romans 5 says. It says that in Adam, all sinned. It doesn’t say we are affected by the consequence. It says we sinned.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–

The only way that “death spread to all men” is through the consequence of original sin. Look back at how the verse opens:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned — Rom 5:12

This is a reference to original sin.

Not all men have personal sin. Personal sin requires knowledge that the act is against God, and willful intention to rebel against His commandment. We know that babies, handicapped etc. do not have all the elements necessary to commit personal sins. The same is the case for those without the “law” (knowledge).

Rom 5:13
13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law.

People that don’t know any better are not guilty of personal sin, or are not “as” culpable as those who do.

Based on what you stated above, and what you state below, I’d say we are not in agreement.

Again, according to Romans 5:12, we all sinned in Adam.

Romans 5:12. We all sinned in Adam. (/broken record)

What you seem to want to believe is that Adam’s sin creates personal sin for all of humanity, but this is not the case. We are born into original sin, but we are not obligated to commit personal sin.

“hamartia” (sin) literally means to “miss the mark” (as in not hitting the bull’s eye with the arrow). One runs, but does not get the prize. Original sin, the consequence of the fall, causes us to be “off the mark” in our relationship with God. We are not able to be in fellowship with him as He intended when He created us.

 

[guanophore]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Thanks for posting this, ryan!

 

[ckempston]

The only way that “death spread to all men” is through the consequence of original sin. Look back at how the verse opens:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned — Rom 5:12

This is a reference to original sin.

Not all men have personal sin. Personal sin requires knowledge that the act is against God, and willful intention to rebel against His commandment. We know that babies, handicapped etc. do not have all the elements necessary to commit personal sins. The same is the case for those without the “law” (knowledge).

Rom 5:13
13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law.

People that don’t know any better are not guilty of personal sin, or are not “as” culpable as those who do.

What you seem to want to believe is that Adam’s sin creates personal sin for all of humanity, but this is not the case. We are born into original sin, but we are not obligated to commit personal sin.

Actually, I just want to believe what the Apostle Paul says.

“hamartia” (sin) literally means to “miss the mark” (as in not hitting the bull’s eye with the arrow). One runs, but does not get the prize. Original sin, the consequence of the fall, causes us to be “off the mark” in our relationship with God. We are not able to be in fellowship with him as He intended when He created us.

 

[ryanoneil]

Thanks for posting this, ryan!

Your welcome!