Positive Proof The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church

[Roamin_Xian]

I would caution that there are many individuals who contend that the two principles are not mutually exclusive of one another. There is a great amount of humility in obedience to the Church. To Catholics, subjugation to the Church IS subjugation to God.

God is incapable of producing errors- the Roman Catholic Church isn’t. I fully understand the RC notion of subjugation to the Church-I was baptized and raised RC. Jesus said that those who believe in Him will have eternal life- not that if you reject a Ecclesial institution, you are damned. That is RC innovation. I’m Anglican, and we have visual leadership and conventions to discuss doctrine, but there is “no subjugate to us to be saved” notion. Only God, as the Scriptures proscribe.

Many non-Catholics seem to present this false dichotomy, and I think they may simply refuse to understand, because they do not accept it. (Bear in mind that understanding is not equal to acceptance). Jesus is inseparable from His Church. The Church IS Christ, and Christ IS the Church. So, to Catholics, to submit to the Church IS submission to God out of love and obedience.

The church is a community of believers. Your definition of Church seems to be the Pope? That’s atleast what Boniface VIII declared.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

But I guess I also have a problem with the RCC, because it is not consistent. It is supposed to be the “One True Church,” yet it has declared since Vatican II that there are elements of salvation in other Christian communities, and that the Holy Spirit works within non-Catholic Christian bodies?

What gives?

“Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines.”

 

[ckempston]

Inexcusable or corrupt behavior does not automatically negate legitimate authority or correct doctrine. Jesus Himself, when speaking to the Jewish people about the Pharisees, told them “do as they say, just not as they do”, and never implied that simply because they were hypocritical, self-serving, and immoral that they were to be disregarded as their behavior no longer made their authority and leadership legitimate.

This scripture is so misused by Catholics it is ridiculous. This is not a blanket endorsement of following corrupt authority, but a very specific situation (Jews following the Law), in which Jesus told them to listen to the Pharisees. In any case, the Apostles DISOBEYED Jesus, (by your interpretation), when they did not follow the command of the Jewish leaders to stop preaching Christ. What did the Apostles say? They will obey God, rather than man. The same thing most “Protestants” say to Catholics.

 

[joshua_b]

God is incapable of producing errors- the Roman Catholic Church isn’t. I fully understand the RC notion of subjugation to the Church-I was baptized and raised RC. Jesus said that those who believe in Him will have eternal life- not that if you reject a Ecclesial institution, you are damned. That is RC innovation. I’m Anglican, and we have visual leadership and conventions to discuss doctrine, but there is “no subjugate to us to be saved” notion. Only God, as the Scriptures proscribe.

The church is a community of believers. Your definition of Church seems to be the Pope? That’s atleast what Boniface VIII declared.

The debate on what constitutes “belief” could (like many other points) completely derail this thread. Start a new one on what it really means to “believe in Jesus” and I will gladly (and charitably) participate.

The Church is the Body of Christ, the pillar and bullwark of Truth, and possesses the fullness of God’s revelation to humankind as it was given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and promised it would be led to ALL Truth. The promise that it would be led to all Truth by the Holy Spirit, and would be the pillar of said Truth, are some pretty substantial claims. To simplify the definition of “church” to simply a “community of believers” is to sell it way short of what the Scripture tells us about it. And, yes, my definition does include very tangible elements of unity and governance, as would any institution visible on earth.

 

[Shike]

I dont think it’s a non-issue because we found strong basis in the bible that it is JESUS CHRIST himsef who is the ROCK upon which the TRUE CHURCH is built. So, the ROCK (PETRA) mentioned in Matthew 16:18 is no other than Jesus Christ, not Peter. Is this a non-issue? Please enlighten me.

Scrutinizing further the verses of the bible, on the preceding verses, on their conversation, the topic of the discussion is all about JESUS, about the MESSIAH. “…and and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Precisely, it is JESUS referred to as ROCK in this verse, NOT PETER.

Peace!

My point was that either way the keys were passed to Peter. That is significant.

 

[joshua_b]

This scripture is so misused by Catholics it is ridiculous. This is not a blanket endorsement of following corrupt authority, but a very specific situation (Jews following the Law), in which Jesus told them to listen to the Pharisees. In any case, the Apostles DISOBEYED Jesus, (by your interpretation), when they did not follow the command of the Jewish leaders to stop preaching Christ. What did the Apostles say? They will obey God, rather than man. The same thing most “Protestants” say to Catholics.

You have completely missed my point. I can’t comment on this, as this is tangential to the ultimate point I have been trying to make.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

The Church is the Body of Christ, the pillar and bullwark of Truth, and possesses the fullness of God’s revelation to humankind as it was given the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and promised it would be led to ALL Truth. The promise that it would be led to all Truth by the Holy Spirit, and would be the pillar of said Truth, are some pretty substantial claims. To simplify the definition of “church” to simply a “community of believers” is to sell it way short of what the Scripture tells us about it. And, yes, my definition does include very tangible elements of unity and governance, as would any institution visible on earth.

I agree with all those statements- but when you state it is the Roman Church, many of us say no it’s not. So, now it’s reduced to a conflict of opinions. It seems (and I stress 'seems) that you want your Church to be imperial- the title “Roman” radiates the word and notion of imperialism. No doubt, that is probably why the RCC has been so undemocratic in its practices and policies- because it is ROME (with majestic voice and trumpets).

Correction- how is calling it a “community of believers” cutting Scripture short?? I don’t agree with that comment.

 

[janw]

Matthew 16:18 And so I tell you, Peter you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church and not even death will ever be able to overcome it.

Jesus is speaking about TRUTH… HE built his church on TRUTH. Peter was a rock [solid]in the truth.

The scripture was taken from the Good News Bible with Deuterocanonical Apocryphal Books.

Shai22

Matt:16 verse 18 says Now I say to you that you are Peter ( peter means rock) – you are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my church.

To get any other meaning out of this, you gotta do a lot of twisting.

 

[joshua_b]

I agree with all those statements- but when you state it is the Roman Church, many of us say no it’s not. So, now it’s reduced to a conflict of opinions. It seems (and I stress 'seems) that you want your Church to be imperial- the title “Roman” radiates the word and notion of imperialism. No doubt, that is probably why the RCC has been so undemocratic in its practices and policies- because it is ROME (with majestic voice and trumpets).

Correction- how is calling it a “community of believers” cutting Scripture short?? I don’t agree with that comment.

“Conflict of opinion” I can accept. The issue of the True Church has divided Christianity for as long as it has existed. I am not so arrogant as to think I can solve that argument and convince anyone of the correctness of my position. In all fairness to the imperialism of the Roman Church; whether you agree or disagree with it’s assertions, you have to acknowledge that if you believe to be speaking with the authority given directly from Christ, it is difficult to not be so seemingly bold. I have seen many non-denom, fundamentalist evangelicals speak with conviction that rivals equally the authoritative voice of the Roamn Pontiff.

My objection was to the seeming implication that the Church is simply a collection of people who are Christian, and that it served no higher collective purpose. I hold a very lofty ideal (based on Scripture of course) of what the Church actually is. To call it a “community of believers” may be academically correct, but theologially (in my perception) that leaves a lot unsaid about its true nature. You obviously acknowledge the Church to more than “just” a group of believers, so at this point the argument would be over a mere misunderstanding of implications.

 

[ChristianKnight]

You can say this seriously and not be ashamed of yourself?

It would be even more effective if you killed anyone you didn’t like. Do you want to defend that?

If you use violence to respond to an intellectual claim, you are a boor and a barbarian. And I hope I would have the courage to say the same thing even if you knew me in real life and could apply your favorite mode of argument to me.

Any serious argument about truth involves the claim to be “better” in some sense. That’s what an argument is about. If you don’t want to engage in arguments, then don’t talk to people who are different from you. Hitting them out of frustration with your own inability to defend your own beliefs is not the answer. It just discredits what you believe. (People may be afraid to tell you to your face how ridiculous your beliefs are, but that is clearly what they will think.)

Edwin

When did I say kill? I have never killed a man.

Welcome to my life. Last time I explained that to a friend, he punched me, you think I am the barbarian? You try going to a school where if you can read above the 6th grade level your a weirdo.

I do not care, if they cannot prove it, then its simply a false argument to have.

 

[Shike]

Shai22,
I’m glad you decided to stay.

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

So I now think that this quote is sufficient for me to say you don’t believe Jesus is God; I will no longer formulate this belief of yours as conditional.

I am trying to figure out still exactly where you fall in your beliefs, my current guess is that you’re a Jew for Jesus.

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

Now don’t be too hasty. Truth is important… important enough to warrent more than your argument puts forth. Firstly, yet again you did not adress my response to yours. But for the sake of other readers, I will put it forth:

Your argument:

• The Apostle’s Creed doesn’t say Jesus is God.
• Therefore, Jesus is not God.
  My response:
• Firstly, the Apostle’s Creed doesn’t deny Jesus is God.
• Secondly, I should accept the authority of the Church in which it originated from.
• The Church in which it seems like it orginates from is the CC
• Therefore, I should accept that Jesus is God because the CC says.
  It seems like you have a problem with the doctrine of the Trinity. If that doctrine is not true, many many problems arise. My understanding of this Mystery is limited, but note the Mystery is not contradictory…

At least two persons are needed for true love, the willing of the good of the other. How can one will the good of the other if he (singular) is the only one in existance? If you respond, “That’s why He created man” that creates a problem. Because that would mean before man existed, God was lacking in love and therefore not perfect. But you decry, “But God is Love, and he is also One”. I agree, that is true. That is why we believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. God is three persons in one God, and because so, He is Love. With this model, many passages in scripture start to make sense… for instance when Jesus says everyone that sees Him, sees the Father. And also when Jesus specifically claimed He was God when He said “I AM” in the garden of Gethsemene. Not to mention that for a very long time (excuse the generality because of my lack of knowledge of specifics) this doctrine was accepted, so much so that it is often used as a critereon to define the line between Christians and non-Christians.
I think it is unwise to think that one is smarter than almost the totallity of Christianity and claim the doctrine false, besides all the problems if it isn’t accepted (ie. Jesus specifically claiming He is God) Humility is the first stage of wisdom.

So there becomes an ultimatum. Either God is love, and you accept the Trinity, or you reject the Trinity and God is not love. Or you end up not believing in God at all (don’t go down this path).

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.

I’m doing the best I can. But when you see a wishy washy thought, please point it out to me very explicitly so that perhaps I can explain it better.

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.

Franciscans are a religious order, not necessarily all priests but can be. If I will be a Franciscan, or a Franciscan and a priest, it is for God to decide. And I could help others no better than by hopefully leading them to the sacraments.

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.

It takes two to tango. We are already dancing.

peace,
Michael

 

[Roamin_Xian]

In all fairness to the imperialism of the Roman Church; whether you agree or disagree with it’s assertions, you have to acknowledge that if you believe to be speaking with the authority given directly from Christ, it is difficult to not be so seemingly bold. I have seen many non-denom, fundamentalist evangelicals speak with conviction that rivals equally the authoritative voice of the Roamn Pontiff.

I firmly agree with you that the Roman Church is bold, because it proclaims itself as the sole interpretor of and for Jesus. I am just as befuddled by non-denominational fundamentalists, who have no visible leadership or historic episcopal polity.

My objection was to the seeming implication that the Church is simply a collection of people who are Christian, and that it served no higher collective purpose. I hold a very lofty ideal (based on Scripture of course) of what the Church actually is. To call it a “community of believers” may be academically correct, but theologially (in my perception) that leaves a lot unsaid about its true nature. You obviously acknowledge the Church to more than “just” a group of believers, so at this point the argument would be over a mere misunderstanding of implications.

I didn’t say that “Church” has no other purpose- Churches are supposed to live out the ministry of Jesus. Matthew 25 and the Great Commission. I don’t see how this is not a “lofty” idea based on Scripture.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

This seems to be the crux of the Catholic-Anglican-Protestant divide:

RCC: There is continuing revelation of doctrines, not mentioned in the Bible.

Anglicans/Protestants: Dude, that’s not in the Bible

 

[joshua_b]

I didn’t say that “Church” has no other purpose- Churches are supposed to live out the ministry of Jesus. Matthew 25 and the Great Commission. I don’t see how this is not a “lofty” idea based on Scripture.

I misconstrued your definition of Church as being too simplistic, and miinimalizing its true calling and place of importance. I have no argument with your actual definition based on your clarifications and later posts.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

I misconstrued your definition of Church as being too simplistic, and miinimalizing its true calling and place of importance. I have no argument with your actual definition based on your clarifications and later posts.

That was mostly my fault, and I apologize

 

[ckempston]

You have completely missed my point. I can’t comment on this, as this is tangential to the ultimate point I have been trying to make.

How convenient.

 

[Shai22]

To Joshua

We are all called to obedience, and even those of us with the highest callings have been subject to our own freewill and the temptations that come with it.

Everyone born to earth uses free will Joshua. Those who have a high calling struggled with this, but GOD teaches that HE will forgive us, and our simple mistakes we make everyday, because we strive to live in complete Obedience. GOD does not expect us to be perfect, perfection is something we strive to be, as the prophets and apostles did.

Remember Deuteronomy 6:5, as long as it is imbedded in our hearts mind and souls, we don’t have to worry about GOD’S forgiveness or the wrath of HIS anger, because when we love we don’t do things to bring us serious danger. GOD prepares HIS people through the ones who have a high calling

I want to share with you also something that helps me a lot. In fact I have incorporated this command in my daily prayers.

In this scripture GOD is speaking to Joshua. GOD has just chosen Joshua to replace Moses and from the scripture you know that Joshua is afraid and doubting.

Joshua 1:9 Remember I am commanding you to be determined and confident. Do not be afraid or discouraged, for I, the LORD your GOD is with you wherever you go.

I read that prayer as well as Deuteronomy 6: 4-9 morning and night.

The whole of the law can be summed up as thus. Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself". I know the quote is not 100% accurate, and I can not quote chapter and verse, but THAT is the essence of “true Christianity”.

Not only Christianity Joshua but all who “Believe, in GOD.”

GOD builds bridges, satan divides

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

This seems to be the crux of the Catholic-Anglican-Protestant divide:

RCC: There is continuing revelation of doctrines, not mentioned in the Bible.

Anglicans/Protestants: Dude, that’s not in the Bible

Is the doctrine of OSAS in the bible?

How about the Trinity?

How about altar calls?

The reality is, Protestantism is new and different from Christianity as practiced by the apostles. You reject many of the things they held dear.

The Catholic Church most closely follows the teachings, practices, and beliefs of the early Christians.

 

[joshua_b]

This seems to be the crux of the Catholic-Anglican-Protestant divide:

RCC: There is continuing revelation of doctrines, not mentioned in the Bible.

Anglicans/Protestants: Dude, that’s not in the Bible

To further complicate the matter, the Catholic Church will claim it IS in the Bible (whatever “it” may be). I have yet to see a Catholic doctrine that could not be defended Scripturally. Now, whether or not that defense agrees with someone else’s interpretation of Scripture is another matter entirely.

I think the other roadblock is one of simple definition. A classic anecdotal example…

Some anti-catholics argue that the Catholic doctrines have changed. Example, priests are not allowed to be married. This was not always so.

The Catholic response is that priests in Eastern rites ARE allowed to be married (that discipline is exclusive to the Latin Rite), and that is a DISCIPLINE, not a doctrine of the Faith anyway. Disciplines are (and always have been) subject to change at the discretion of the Church leadership.

I respect the beliefs and endeavors of anyone trying to live a life devoted to God according to the grace and revelation they have been given. I have no tolerance for those who do not reciprocate that respect.

“Upon this Rock I will build my church…” is very plainly stated and requires a great deal of mental, exegetical, and hermaneutical gymnastics to get around. Even many well renowned Protestant scholars will readily recognize the Catholic premise that this passage points to the primacy of Peter. Where they disagree is that this primacy was passed on through successorship and still exists today as Jesus intended it to exist with Peter among the original twelve.

I get the impression that some individuals are so opposed to the Catholic Church that they will almost deny the very tenets of Scripture in order to avoid any notion that may be simply “too Catholic”.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Is the doctrine of OSAS in the bible?

How about the Trinity?

How about altar calls?

The reality is, Protestantism is new and different from Christianity as practiced by the apostles. You reject many of the things they held dear.

The Catholic Church most closely follows the teachings, practices, and beliefs of the early Christians.

All of them are if you know how to discern truth.
This is where you came to hang out CR? not very challenging is it?
Simonthezealot.