Positive Proof The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church

[Shai22]

How come this thread is about positive proof and so far we’ve gotten none?

Because there isn’t any.

 

[Shai22]

To Michael

This I agree with. But it does not preclude the divinity of Christ, in fact it would seem to support it

The question was Did I believe that Christ was GOD. I have shown proof that HE is not GOD, but the Son of GOD.

You agreed as your statement states above. Thank you for making my point.

No one said that Christ was not Divine. To be divine Michael, means “emanating from GOD”. Christ has HIS Son, did emanate from HIS FATHER, as the bible is very clear about that. Anyone who lives in complete obedience to all GOD’S Laws and Commands, is emanating from GOD, so therefore GOD’S people are also Divine. Jesus is still KING of GOD’S people in both Heaven and Earth, because through his death he earned that position.

Finally you woke up. I suggest Michael, before you engage in conversation about GOD and HIS Son, that you know what you are talking about, instead being wishy washy in thoughts.

GOD says study my Laws and Commands day and night, know them like your own hand.

If you decide to go to the priesthood, which I know you aren’t]
I pray from this day forward, that you give people proper spiritual food, to uplift them, and keep them full.

This conversation was good enough for you Michael to keep
coming back and responding. I don’t know whether to feel sorry for you or pity you, but I prayed about it last night, and the answer is I pity you. I pray Michael that GOD strengthens your faith, which will strengthen your knowledge of who HE is.

Shai

 

[Roamin_Xian]

They were not disputing the primacy of Peter or the papacy.

Gnostics weren’t even Christian.

Arianism denied that Christ was human.

Those are not splits within Christianity as we know it.

They were rifts!

And let’s not forget the Avignon Papacy, the “Western Schism” of the antipopes.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

But I digress- no true church founded by Jesus of Nazareth would have authorized torture and killing of people who disagreed with or deviated from said Church.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

They were rifts!

And let’s not forget the Avignon Papacy, the “Western Schism” of the antipopes.

They were not rifts within legitimate Christianity.

Gnosticism predates Christianity, it merely adapted some of the teachings to take on the popularity of Jesus.

Arianism would not be accepted by any legitimate Christian denomination today.

We were specifically addressing the lack of evidence that true Christians rejected the authority of the pope.

Do you have such evidence for the first 1000 years of Christianity?

 

[Hisalone]

But I digress- no true church founded by Jesus of Nazareth would have authorized torture and killing of people who disagreed with or deviated from said Church.

Excellent point.

 

[happilycatholic]

See, thats what gets me. I have fought people for saying they are superior to me in real life. That is what I do to solve conflict. It is fast, and usually not that painful.

If a man ever came to me and said his religion or whatever was superior, and had no real proof, then I would lay them out. Why? Cause, I believe in what they call stand-off theology. Basically, if a man dis-respects you, you and him fight it out until one or the other calls it quits and says he is sorry for being dis-respectful. Primitive, yes, but also effective.

Yay.

 

[ckempston]

But I digress- no true church founded by Jesus of Nazareth would have authorized torture and killing of people who disagreed with or deviated from said Church.

A very loud Amen.

 

[joshua_b]

But I digress- no true church founded by Jesus of Nazareth would have authorized torture and killing of people who disagreed with or deviated from said Church.

Nonsense! By this logic, no true Apostle appointed directly by Christ would betray Him and hand Him over to the Romans to be crucified. To make a statement like this denies the basic Scriptural concept humanity, free will to reject God.

There is not one faith tradition that has existed more than about a half-hour that has not been scandalized and tainted by mankind’s free will. A casual reading of the Gospels will quickly reveal, that the Church that Jesus established was scandalized by our human nature while He was still alive, in effect even before it was established. If an unblemished history is a pre-qualifier for the “true Church”, then the Gates of Hell have prevailed and Jesus was a liar, because there is not one group of Christians in the last 2000 years that would qualify…not ONE.

 

[happilycatholic]

How come this thread is about positive proof and so far we’ve gotten none?

Because there isn’t any.

You don’t have positive proof that God exsists or Christ walked the earth. Does this mean you don’t believe?

I’m just curious.

 

[ckempston]

Nonsense! By this logic, no true Apostle appointed directly by Christ would betray Him and hand Him over to the Romans to be crucified. To make a statement like this denies the basic Scriptural concept humanity, free will to reject God.

Judas betrayed Christ, and the rest of the Apostles abandoned him, in fulfillment of prophecy. Your analogy falls flat on its face.

There is not one faith tradition that has existed more than about a half-hour that has not been scandalized and tainted by mankind’s free will. A casual reading of the Gospels will quickly reveal, that the Church that Jesus established was scandalized by our human nature while He was still alive, in effect even before it was established. If an unblemished history is a pre-qualifier for the “true Church”, then the Gates of Hell have prevailed and Jesus was a liar, because there is not one group of Christians in the last 2000 years that would qualify…not ONE.

As long as there has been a single Christian on the face of the earth, Hades has not prevailed. Your statement is untrue.

 

[Shai22]

To Joshua

Church that Jesus established was scandalized by our human nature

That is a powerful statement you made. I would only like to add one thing. The Church [Truth] was scandalized by human nature, even before Christ’s birth which is very clear in the OT.

 

[joshua_b]

Judas betrayed Christ, and the rest of the Apostles abandoned him, in fulfillment of prophecy. Your analogy falls flat on its face.

As long as there has been a single Christian on the face of the earth, Hades has not prevailed. Your statement is untrue.

The analogy is quite accurate. The Apostles chosen were quite a motley bunch, and I could even argue that Christ Himself scandalized his own Church in the eyes of the people he came to redeem with His selections. They were definitely not above social reproach…Peter was a “thug” and was extremely predictable and unstable, even denying Christ 3 times. Judas, of course, needs no further commentary, and GASP, A TAX COLLECTOR?!?!

My statement IS true, it just makes you uncomfortable. Nowhere in all of Scripture is the Church qualified in individualistic terms. The Church, by the very nature of its being and definition is communal, and an individual believer can not compromise the “Church”. All of that aside, nowhere in Scripture is supported the notion that the litmus test for “true believers” is their “christian-like behavior”. The challenge still stands to name one “church” that was not scandalized by it’s own members, and qualify it as the “true Church”.

 

[joshua_b]

To Joshua

Church that Jesus established was scandalized by our human nature

That is a powerful statement you made. I would only like to add one thing. The Church [Truth] was scandalized by human nature, even before Christ’s birth which is very clear in the OT.

Regardless of your definition and understanding of teh “Church”, I take Jesus words to be true that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. We humans have been trying to destroy it since it was founded, and God simply refuses to allow it to happen.

 

[ckempston]

The analogy is quite accurate. The Apostles chosen were quite a motley bunch, and I could even argue that Christ Himself scandalized his own Church in the eyes of the people he came to redeem with His selections. They were definitely not above social reproach…Peter was a “thug” and was extremely predictable and unstable, even denying Christ 3 times. Judas, of course, needs no further commentary, and GASP, A TAX COLLECTOR?!?!

A bunch of irrelevancies. You suggested that it’s ok for the church do commit all sorts of crimes against humanity because, hey, Peter denied Christ and Judas betrayed him. My point was that this was all done in fulfillment of prophecy, while the Catholic church’s crimes against humanity are not. Your analogy fails miserably. I’m not uncomfortable with it; it’s simply a false analogy.

My statement IS true, it just makes you uncomfortable. Nowhere in all of Scripture is the Church qualified in individualistic terms. The Church, by the very nature of its being and definition is communal, and an individual believer can not compromise the “Church”. All of that aside, nowhere in Scripture is supported the notion that the litmus test for “true believers” is their “christian-like behavior”. The challenge still stands to name one “church” that was not scandalized by it’s own members, and qualify it as the “true Church”.

Fine. As long as there have been two Christians, Hades has not prevailed. There you go. Totally Biblical: “where two or more gather in my name, there I am also.”

 

[Roamin_Xian]

Nonsense! By this logic, no true Apostle appointed directly by Christ would betray Him and hand Him over to the Romans to be crucified. To make a statement like this denies the basic Scriptural concept humanity, free will to reject God.

There is not one faith tradition that has existed more than about a half-hour that has not been scandalized and tainted by mankind’s free will. A casual reading of the Gospels will quickly reveal, that the Church that Jesus established was scandalized by our human nature while He was still alive, in effect even before it was established. If an unblemished history is a pre-qualifier for the “true Church”, then the Gates of Hell have prevailed and Jesus was a liar, because there is not one group of Christians in the last 2000 years that would qualify…not ONE.

How is it nonsense? Peter was scolded by Jesus for cutting of the ear of a soldier who was arresting him! The Church was supposed to be free from the corruption of materialism (aka, the world), but it has often been right smack dab in the middle of it. Popes with mistreses and lavish lifestyles(though the Papacy was never an intended office- but that’s another thread). The Vatican controlling Navies and Papal States; the Church being a privileged class in France. The Church officially torturing and killing “heretics.” A Pope utilizing papal bulls (like Unam Sanctam) in spurious secular conflicts for his own powerful ego. A Pope exhuming a predecessor, putting him on trial, and convicting it? And SO MANY more examples.

The Roman Catholic Church falls flat on its face in regards to its claim of “uniqueness”- no community of believers would have taken the path such as the RCC. Before Catholic, is the word “Roman,” and that church has always shown its Imperialism. Don’t agree with us? Tax you, throw you in jail, or have you tortured. Christ would be appalled by the smug route taken by the imperial-minded Roman Church.

 

[joshua_b]

A bunch of irrelevancies. You suggested that it’s ok for the church do commit all sorts of crimes against humanity because, hey, Peter denied Christ and Judas betrayed him. My point was that this was all done in fulfillment of prophecy, while the Catholic church’s crimes against humanity are not. Your analogy fails miserably. I’m not uncomfortable with it; it’s simply a false analogy.

Fine. As long as there have been two Christians, Hades has not prevailed. There you go. Totally Biblical: “where two or more gather in my name, there I am also.”

So, in esssence, you are saying that the “true Church” is nothing more than (at least) 2 human beings who are impervious to the temptations of sin and the possibly negative effects of free will, living the Gospel of Jesus perfectly and incessantly and in it’s entirety ?

Well, that should be easy enough. Where can I find this? Point me to it please, and I will sign up today.

 

[joshua_b]

How is it nonsense? Peter was scolded by Jesus for cutting of the ear of a soldier who was arresting him! The Church was supposed to be free from the corruption of materialism (aka, the world), but it has often been right smack dab in the middle of it. Popes with mistreses and lavish lifestyles(though the Papacy was never an intended office- but that’s another thread). The Vatican controlling Navies and Papal States; the Church being a privileged class in France. The Church officially torturing and killing “heretics.” A Pope utilizing papal bulls (like Unam Sanctam) in spurious secular conflicts for his own powerful ego. A Pope exhuming a predecessor, putting him on trial, and convicting it? And SO MANY more examples.

The Roman Catholic Church falls flat on its face in regards to its claim of “uniqueness”- no community of believers would have taken the path such as the RCC. Before Catholic, is the word “Roman,” and that church has always shown its Imperialism. Don’t agree with us? Tax you, throw you in jail, or have you tortured. Christ would be appalled by the smug route taken by the imperial-minded Roman Church.

What about all of the other Catholic Churches that are not Roman?

If this is your argument, then I point you also to my last post, and beg that you tell me where I can find the “true Church”, and I will sign on today.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

What about all of the other Catholic Churches that are not Roman?

If this is your argument, then I point you also to my last post, and beg that you tell me where I can find the “true Church”, and I will sign on today.

I understand that though “sui iuris,” Byzantine Catholics (aka other Orthodox-based churches) are still Roman.

It is my argument- are you suggesting our Lord Jesus Christ would condone the wild pursuits of the Roman Church of the last 1700 years, like TORTURE and murder of “heretics” (a word He NEVER would have used? For goodness sakes, He was tortured.

Personally, I ascribe to Anglican tradition of Christianity, but I never boast of “I’m true and you’re not.” I find the Anglicans to follow the Biblical notion of visible authority, good works, and personal relationship with God, but I don’t claim others are lost.

 

[joshua_b]

I understand that though “sui iuris,” Byzantine Catholics (aka other Orthodox-based churches) are still Roman.

It is my argument- are you suggesting our Lord Jesus Christ would condone the wild pursuits of the Roman Church of the last 1700 years, like TORTURE and murder of “heretics” (a word He NEVER would have used? For goodness sakes, He was tortured.

Personally, I ascribe to Anglican tradition of Christianity, but I never boast of “I’m true and you’re not.” I find the Anglicans to follow the Biblical notion of visible authority, good works, and personal relationship with God, but I don’t claim others are lost.

By your own argument, the Anglican tradition can not be the “true Church”, and a quick study of their political history will show clearly that our Lord Jesus Christ would not possibly condone the wild pursuits of the Anglican Church (yes including murder and torture). The Anglican tradition is hardly a better example of a group following the Biblical principles you so highly espouse. We can start a new thread on that topic if you would like, because a discussion of the detailed atrocities of the Anglican church would quickly derail this thread, but, suffice it to say that the Anglicans can not be the “true Church” as you define it, so I guess I will postpone my conversion until you can give me a more shining alternative.

So, the question still remains…"Where can I find the “true Church?”