Positive Proof The Catholic Church Is The Only True Church

[NDfan]

This still does not address the signifigance of Peter’s assigned change of name, the signifigance of the Keys to the Kingdom, or to whom/what Jesus is handing the keys to (and why), if the Church is to be built on the abstract, intangible concept of “Truth”.

Furthermore, I mean no disrespect or ill feelings, but, the Good News Bible is not exactly renowned for it’s accuracy in translation.

Joshua I’ll add my comments here.

The name change is not insignificant although we see many name changes in scripture. Usually name changes are associated with someone that has a significant part in something that GOD is doing. So for instance Abram was changed to Abraham. Abraham was who GOD created HIS covenant with. Jacob became Israel and as we now know the 12 tribes of Jacob/Israel is who the covenant passed through to. From Abraham to Isaac to Jacob.

Now the question is what significant part does Simon have with regard to his name change to Peter. To answer we need to look at the context of what is going on with Peter and Christ. Christ calls Simon Peter from the first moment it appears but there’s no reason given in the Gospel at this time. Meaning in Matthew 4 for instance we read Simon who is called Peter stated. But Matthew doesn’t say Simon who is called Peter because (fill in the blank).

In the conversation with the disciples Jesus asked all Apostles who do you say that I am, to which they give a bunch of answers HE’s not looking for. Finally to drive home the point of HIS question Jesus basically says that’s all well and good but who do YOU say that I am. Christ is checking to see of they get it yet with regard to who HE is. Simon/Peter answers you are the messiah the son of GOD to which Jesus says you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. Now the church can’t be built on Peter as a person because the church is built on Christ. That’s why we are called Christians and not Peterians or Kephans. So then the Rock must be the confession Peter just gave. It’s the confession we all make when we profess Christ to be our Savior. Jesus knowing Simon would be the one to first make this confession renames him Peter to represent the confession of faith the church would be founded upon.

As far as the keys this is a terrible misinterpretation and link to the OT. If Peter has the key to the house of David then you need to reconcile Revelation 3:7:

7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

The Holy One is not Peter it most certainly is Christ. The keys Christ gave to Peter were not identified as the key to the house of David. This is Scott Hahn’s explanation of Christ re-establishing the Davidic Kingdom. But we see no reference to Christ’s kingdom in Heaven as being called the Davidic Kingdom. So then that begs the question just what is this key then. The answer is quite simply the ability to preach with Heaven’s authority the gospel to all men. We see this as being consistent with Peter’s actions. He was all over the place preaching and not staying stationary in Jerusalem ruling over the church. That was more of James responsibility.

Even a brush through of very early church history finds no allusion to Peter as the supreme leader of the church. Peter in his letter identifies himself as an Elder and claims no supremacy at all. Early church fathers identify Peter as the first in **honor **among bishops but certainly not as the head of the church with a successor named every so many years. Commentaries from Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret etc. make no mention of a supremacy being given to Rome because of Peter.

PEACE

 

[ckempston]

It is far from “undeniable fact”. Everyone did not subit to “Rome”, with that I agree, but everyone did submit to their local bishop, and their local bishop submitted to Peter, who, himself was a bishop just like them. Without the biblical badmitton of Scripture supporting/denying this, there is a great deal of historical evidence that supports the idea of a structured heirarchy within the Church from its outset.

I didn’t deny there was local unity, bishops, deacons, evangelists, etc., but I would challenge you to prove that Bishops submitted to Peter. I will also add several caveats to the statement on local unity: if someone preached falsehood, that person was ignored and marginalized, regardless of any supposed authority in the church.

The fledgling Church had not had time to define and name every single doctrine, but, the Church did have the power to define doctrine and insist on unity and adherence to the doctrines it did define. This is seen as early as the book of Acts. Without the power to define doctrine and practice, by what authority could the apostles have made the declaration that the mosaic dietary laws were no longer binding?

They were just repeating what Jesus taught. I would argue that the same cannot be said for the Catholic church and all of its subsequent councils.

I don’t disagree with this, but I do consider it an incomplete definition, and leaves several Scriptural voids. If I am having a dispute with my brother, I can not take him to an unseen, mystical body of all believers past and present. Elders and Presbyters can not preside over an abstract concept of spiritual communality. An unseen group of believers can not ordain and send people to preach.

I didn’t say it was merely mystical or unseen, that’s a misrepresentation of what I wrote. If it’s made up of believers in Christ, it is clearly visible and functioning on earth. The church is not a building, and it is not a group of people who do little else than call themselves a certain name or submit to a certain leader.

I am in agreement with you (as is Catholic teaching) that the Church is composed of all believers past, present and future, but Scripturally, the church is referred to repeatedly in terms that require it to have a facet that is an organized, functioning, governing and earthly institution.

Referred to repeatedly by whom?

 

[happilycatholic]

I think the problem here is the definition of “church.”

I agree with you. People tend to interpret the word “church” loosely.

It is an undeniable fact that in the first century, there was no central government in the church, yet it was still the church. Everyone didn’t submit to Rome, yet it was still the church. Not everyone even agreed on every single doctrine, yet it was still the church. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that when Catholics set up a requirement of “communion with the Pope” as the indicator of one’s position to God, they are quite obviously mistaken.

No, they had quite obviously gotten themselves on the right track. See what you are saying here:

“It is an undeniable fact that in the first century, there was no central government in the church, yet it was still the church. Everyone didn’t submit to Rome, yet it was still the church. Not everyone even agreed on every single doctrine, yet it was still the church.”

It may have been imperfect in form at the time, but never in matters of faith. Whether the unfaithful chose to follow and whether the faithful chose to practice according to doctrine is not the question. The question is, was the Church there? Yes, it was. The Church has always been. Hence, in your words, “yet it was still the Church”.

I find the Catholic definition of church that you seem to be suggesting with comments like, “where is it?” to be rather unbiblical.

Really? What do find about the Catholic definition of “church” to be in conflict with the difinition of “church” in scripture?

Christ said by their fruit, and by their love for one another, will the world know who his followers are. Nothing about clubs, associations, or submission to one or another earthly authority.

I’m not concerned whether you consider the Catholic Church to be an “association, submission to one or another earthly authority, or a club”. That is your observance of the catholic faith. But you had the first part correct.

“The church” is all believers in Christ, everywhere, every time, and in every nation, both dead and alive, regardless of association.

Yes, and some just happen to be non-practicing catholics whether they believe it or not. All of Christ’s church is one. No denominations, no individual interpretations. If one so chooses to worship in his own way, that is his choice. It doesn’t “divorce” him from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ. It doesn’t make him a non-Christian or doom him to Hell. It just says that he has chosen his own way. If he is okay with that, then so be it.

 

[joshua_b]

I didn’t deny there was local unity, bishops, deacons, evangelists, etc., but I would challenge you to prove that Bishops submitted to Peter. I will also add several caveats to the statement on local unity: if someone preached falsehood, that person was ignored and marginalized, regardless of any supposed authority in the church.

This is my point. Without a recognized authority on doctrine and faith, by what power could anyone claim someone else’s preaching as falsehood?

They were just repeating what Jesus taught. I would argue that the same cannot be said for the Catholic church and all of its subsequent councils.
I am not convinced that the role of the first century bishops was to “repeat what Jesus taught”. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus address the nature of his divinity in relation to his human nature, or tell the Apostles that his human and devine nature are inseparable. This was a doctrine defined by the early Bishops, and was an article of faith, required to be accepted as Truth, in direct contradiction to Gnosticism. Again, without substanative authority and oversight, there is no objective standard by which to judge heresy.

I didn’t say it was merely mystical or unseen, that’s a misrepresentation of what I wrote. If it’s made up of believers in Christ, it is clearly visible and functioning on earth. The church is not a building, and it is not a group of people who do little else than call themselves a certain name or submit to a certain leader. That was the impression of what you wrote that was conveyed to me. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. The church is much more than a building or group or mere submission to one specific leader. On that we (and the Catholic Church) are in agreement.

Referred to repeatedly by whom?

Scripture. The Church, as referenced in Scripture, is charged with very specific tasks, and Christians are instructed to look to the Church in various circumstances, and to submit to that same Church. It would be impossible to look to the Church as the N.T. tells us to do, if it did not have a very visible presence and very clear position of authority.

 

[happilycatholic]

It would be impossible to look to the Church as the N.T. tells us to do, if it did not have a very visible presence and very clear position of authority.

ckempston: Please take note when you are pondering my question as to “where is it”.

 

[ckempston]

I agree with you. People tend to interpret the word “church” loosely.

It may have been imperfect in form at the time, but never in matters of faith. Whether the unfaithful chose to follow and whether the faithful chose to practice according to doctrine is not the question. The question is, was the Church there? Yes, it was. The Church has always been. Hence, in your words, “yet it was still the Church”.

I have no disagreement so far. I think where we will obviously separate, though, is when you claim the Catholic church has never been wrong in matters of faith.

Really? What do find about the Catholic definition of “church” to be in conflict with the difinition of “church” in scripture?

I agree with much of Catholic doctrine. I am validly baptized, try to lead a repentant lifestyle, and devote myself to as many worthy causes as I can in the name of Christ. however, according to the Catholic church, I could not possibly be a part of the “church.” This is a totally separate discussion, but I am, according to the Catholic chuch, going to hell.

I’m guilty of mortal sins after baptism (along with every other baptized person in the world, unless that person is killed within minutes of being baptized).
I have never confessed them to a priest and been absolved.
People who die with unconfessed mortal sin go to hell.

This would include every non-Catholic Christian on the face of the earth, and probably a good number of Catholics. Of course, I don’t believe this, but that’s what the church teaches, is it not?

 

[ckempston]

This is my point. Without a recognized authority on doctrine and faith, by what power could anyone claim someone else’s preaching as falsehood?

Easy, just as Paul said, if it’s a “different gospel” it’s from Satan. Why does everything get made out to be so difficult by Catholics?

I am not convinced that the role of the first century bishops was to “repeat what Jesus taught”. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus address the nature of his divinity in relation to his human nature, or tell the Apostles that his human and devine nature are inseparable. This was a doctrine defined by the early Bishops, and was an article of faith, required to be accepted as Truth, in direct contradiction to Gnosticism. Again, without substanative authority and oversight, there is no objective standard by which to judge heresy.

My definition of church has a very visible presence, and a very clear position of authority.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.

Gabriel of 12
Peter’s original name was “Simon” Jesus spoke aramaic which is Kephas = Rock= translated from Greek to Peter (Petros) the masquline noun.

JESUS DOES NOT BUILD ON TRUTH FOR JESUS IS TRUTH, and has remained with his Catholic (Universal) church since he instituted her upon Peter (Kephas).

Here is Jesus again speaking to Peter in his resurrected state before he ascends into heaven and leaves Peter in charge of his flock.

John 21:Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Feed my lambs.” **16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” **He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” **
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” **(Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep. **

Here Jesus has already layed the foundation (himself) of his Church which Jesus is the corner stone layed that the builders rejected. Jesus begins to build upon his foundation with Peter as leader of the apostles, and then leaves Peter in charge to feed and tend his Sheep and lambs on earth. Remember what Jesus told Peter what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

** 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.

Gabriel of 12;
This is the most important matter, that all believers confess the same belief unchanged, this can only be found in the Catholic church from the Didache, and the “Amen” confessed the last 2000 years by every Catholic who has lived, living and to come confess the profession of faith in Jesus in one faith, one baptism, one Lord in one Holy Catholic Apostolic church. Inconclusion the “Amen” every Catholic confesses at Holy Communion in the Eucharist for the last 2000 years.

All other denominations and non catholic christian faiths do not have this unity in one faith for they all have denominated from the Catholic church or splintered off into other sects without unity of one faith.

 

[happilycatholic]

I have no disagreement so far. I think where we will obviously separate, though, is when you claim the Catholic church has never been wrong in matters of faith.

Big one, but we can agree to disagree here.

I agree with much of Catholic doctrine. I am validly baptized, try to lead a repentant lifestyle, and devote myself to as many worthy causes as I can in the name of Christ. however, according to the Catholic church, I could not possibly be a part of the “church.” This is a totally separate discussion, but I am, according to the Catholic chuch, going to hell.

I’m guilty of mortal sins after baptism (along with every other baptized person in the world, unless that person is killed within minutes of being baptized).
I have never confessed them to a priest and been absolved.
People who die with unconfessed mortal sin go to hell.

This would include every non-Catholic Christian on the face of the earth, and probably a good number of Catholics. Of course, I don’t believe this, but that’s what the church teaches, is it not?

It sort of sounds like you’ve at least looked into becoming catholic. I’m sorry if this is an assumption that goes too far. I hope if you wanted to become catholic, you wouldn’t let this prevent you from doing so. We ALL have sins in our closet. We will have more before we die.

It is hard to say the least to approach someone in total humility and tell him about things you’ve done. But he’s committed sin too. That part of it has to do with being accountable. It’s easy to confess sin alone, in the dark and with no one to know you ever committed the sin. I personally find it enlightening to take that sin and bring it into the light. It’s kind of like killing a vampire.
And once it’s done, it’s over and gone and the whole world lights up again!

And you are incorrect. The Catholic Church does not believe that those not confirmed in the faith will go to hell if they don’t confess their mortal sins. This is why we have All Souls Day. See:

The Roman Catholic celebration is based on the doctrine that the souls of the faithful which at death have not been cleansed from venial sins, or have not fully atoned for mortal sins, cannot attain the beatific vision in heaven yet, and that they may be helped to do so by prayer and by the sacrifice of the Mass. (It’s from Wiki but it’s an accurate explaination.)

We as catholics have friends and family that don’t go to confession and we do not believe they are going to hell because of that. But I will say that confession could do you some good even if you’re not catholic. I can’t convence you of this, it’s something you just have to try. If not, pray about it and ask for forgiveness, as I’m sure you have.

One more thing, the catholic faith is one of, if not the most forgiving and tolerant faiths I have ever come in contact with. Is this not like Jesus?

Peace Be With You

HC

 

[joshua_b]

Easy, just as Paul said, if it’s a “different gospel” it’s from Satan. Why does everything get made out to be so difficult by Catholics?
The gospel is not a set of 4 books. The Gospel is the teachings that Christ handed to the Apostles, and commissioned them to pass on. Someone can only be preaching a “different Gospel” in relation to Apostolic teaching.

While I find explanations of Jesus’ divinity in relation to his human nature useful, I hardly find them necessary. They couldn’t possibly be, as you point out, because there were Christians before these tenets were even beliefs of the church. You are “waging war” as the world does: with philosophy and fine sounding arguments. Paul instructed the churches to stick to what they know, stick to the scriptures, and to follow the Spirit.
I don’t believe that Christ founded His Church with the instruction to merely repeat what He had preached. (Yes, I know I said that before, but I feel it merits repeating, for it is at the heart of the concept of a binding, authoritative, living magisterium). If that were the case, then at Pentecost, Christ could have simply said “here’s the book. Stick with it and you can’t go wrong”. If the Magisterium was not intended to be a living entity, why would they need the promise that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth ? I am not offering that as any sort of compelling argument or evidence that demands to be considered; I am just sharing what, for me, is the only logical conclusion given the totality of Scripture and history

Ok. I suppose this is because Catholics sometimes mean different things when they say church. Sorry for the confusion.
So, I assume we agree on this point.

My definition of church has a very visible presence, and a very clear position of authority.

It sounds like we agree on this also (at least in theory), so my question is (as at least one other poster has asked…“Where is it?” Does it still exist, because it almost certainly did exist as readily identifiable and undeniable in it’s role, at least in the first century.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Protestants here will say it is unnecessary to be subject to any visible organization. But pay attention to the words of Christ. He thought it necessary, and He has the right to map out the kind of religion we accept. If Christians had to accept such disiplinary authority in the time of the Apostles, they must accept it now.
Christianity is Christianity. It does not change with the ages. If it did, it would lose it’s character, and not remain the religion of Christ, to which religion alone, he attached His promises. And remember His prediction that His flock would be one fold with one shepherd. You would have sheep, not gathered into one fold, but straying anywhere and everywhere, having no shepherd with any real authority over them.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

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

Isn’t the Good News Bible a paraphrase Bible like the Living Bible, rather than a translation?

Here is Matthew 16:18 in three well respected translations.

King James Bible:
Matthew 16:18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

New American Standard Bible:
Matthew 16:18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

New International Version:
Matthew 16:18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

These are much different from the Good News Bible.

For a good understanding of the original language meaning please read:

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp

God bless all!!!

 

[joshua_b]

I agree with much of Catholic doctrine. I am validly baptized, try to lead a repentant lifestyle, and devote myself to as many worthy causes as I can in the name of Christ. however, according to the Catholic church, I could not possibly be a part of the “church.” This is a totally separate discussion, but I am, according to the Catholic chuch, going to hell.

I’m guilty of mortal sins after baptism (along with every other baptized person in the world, unless that person is killed within minutes of being baptized).
I have never confessed them to a priest and been absolved.
People who die with unconfessed mortal sin go to hell.

This would include every non-Catholic Christian on the face of the earth, and probably a good number of Catholics. Of course, I don’t believe this, but that’s what the church teaches, is it not?

I am sorry ck, (and everyone else, bc this is quite a bit off topic), but I feel compelled to address this simply because you are wrong.

Catholic teaching is that all believers are part of the Church (yes, the Catholic Church, capital “C”, Rome Sweet Home baby). The normative way of initiation into the Church is valid baptism. So, by nature of your valid baptism you are a member of the Church. (Baptism needs only proper form and intent to be valid, so, much to the dismay of our many protestant bretheren, they are also official members of the Catholic Church according to official Catholic teaching.) So, you most certainly ARE a member of the Church. Baptism leaves an indellible mark on your soul; that means your membership in the Church is irrevocable.

As far as the Church’s teachings on the state of your soul…
The Church has never difinitively declared the condemnation of anyone. Only God knows the condition of your heart, and only He can judge you. That is official Catholic teaching.

As far as confession, the Church teaches that it is the NORMATIVE way our sins are forgiven, but not the ONLY way. If an individual dies with the stain of a mortal sin on their soul, then their soul is in danger, but, only God, who’s mercy and wisdom are infinite beyond our comprehension can determine your eternal fate. The danger is greater if you are fully aware of the normative means of receiving God’s mercy (confession), and choose to ignore it, but even then, you are in the hands of a just and merciful God, and the Church has absolutely no way of knowing (or pretending to know) your eternal fate.

God will only bind us to the Truths that we are aware of (Those to whom much has been given, much will be required), and I am quite certain His litmus test for our “awareness” and “knowledge” is nothing we can imagine. THAT is what the Church teaches.

 

[Shai22]

Here is the same scripture Matthew 16:18 from 3 different Catholic bibles, and they all the same as the Good News.

New American Bible

Matthew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

New Jerusalem Bible

Matthew 16:18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.

The Roman Catholic Holy Bible

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Lastly, If people owned the Truth within their hearts, as GOD says they do, it wouldn’t be debated. Truth speaks for itself, doesn’t need to be proved, or justified. Jesus spoke the truth but never debated it, or argued over it.

May your eyes and hearts be open to hearing GOD speak teaching you what TRUTH is.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Here is the same scripture Matthew 16:18 from 3 different Catholic bibles, and they all the same as the Good News.

New American Bible

Matthew 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

New Jerusalem Bible

Matthew 16:18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.

The Roman Catholic Holy Bible

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Lastly, If people owned the Truth within their hearts, as GOD says they do, it wouldn’t be debated. Truth speaks for itself, doesn’t need to be proved, or justified. Jesus spoke the truth but never debated it, or argued over it.

May your eyes and hearts be open to hearing GOD speak teaching you what TRUTH is.

May your eyes and heart be open to hearing what Jesus Christ has taught us about His church He established, teaching you what truth is.
1Timothy 3:15

 

[Shai22]

1Timothy 3:15 is misinterpreted to be a literal church. Another word for church is “salvation”. Jesus didn’t teach about a literal church, he taught people a way of life, in complete obedience in GODS LAWS, meaning the OT, Exodus Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which is more than the 11 commandments.

GOD teaches that Truth is the faith that one holds in their heart, and when they are silent they can hear it be spoken when one seeks to know who I AM.

Shai22

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

1Timothy 3:15 is misinterpreted to be a literal church. Another word for church is “salvation”. Jesus didn’t teach about a literal church, he taught people a way of life, in complete obedience in GODS LAWS, meaning the OT, Exodus Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which is more than the 11 commandments.

GOD teaches that Truth is the faith that one holds in their heart, and when they are silent they can hear it be spoken when one seeks to know who I AM.

Shai22

You are misled I am afraid, I will name at least 50 Scripture lines from Christ and His Apostles of how the Church came first and itis the true church Christ established, but I need to go out for the evening. I will list them tomorrow.

And BTW, 1Timothy 3:15 should not be taken literally as it so clearly states the church as the **Pillar of foundation and truth. **clear to me…

 

[Shai22]

Salvation is the pillar and foundation for TRUTH. certainly not a church which is what it is, just a building. The building doesn’t provide anything to anyone, it is the people that fill the building up that makes it what it is which is a building where mind like people gather together to praise GOD in HIS Glory. To be thankful that HE is gracious, merciful, kind, devoted, loving to HIS people.

Shai22

What would happen if the churches were shut down, would your faith be enough to sustain you?

 

[Snow]

** 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.

**

That’s all fine and dandy but prove absolutely nothing about the RCC being the only true Church.

Does God agree with you? That’s the ONLY proof that matters.

I’m guessing you can’t prove that He does.