Protestants: is your denomination the one true church of Christ?

[Isaiah45_9]

The Orthodox Churches don’t profess different beliefs; they practice a different ecclesiology - it isn’t incompatible with the Catholic Church (since obviously we have the Eastern Rites, whose practices are identical to those of the Orthodox Churches - they remain in schism mostly for political reasons - they don’t like the Pope.

It’s not that they don’t like the Pope. They don’t like the political take over by Rome. They hold to the tradition of Acts 15:1-35, which was actually held at Jerusalem, not Rome. Regardless of this, Rome always held a place of honor until the Schism.

The other difference is the addition to the Nicene Creed by Rome in regards to the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox hold to John 15:26 in that the Spirit comes from the Father, stated by Jesus Himself.

In the Council at Toledo, Spain (AD 589), it was proposed that the Holy Spirit should be confessed that it proceeds from the Son as well. This was later adopted by Rome and is still active in the Roman Catholic Nicene Creed.

Rome later tried to overtake Constantinople and eventually separated from the East and later the Reformation broke from within Rome.

Can the OP please define what is meant by “true church”?

Thanks.

ETA: Grammar

 

[Izdaari]

The Orthodox Churches don’t profess different beliefs; they practice a different ecclesiology - it isn’t incompatible with the Catholic Church (since obviously we have the Eastern Rites, whose practices are identical to those of the Orthodox Churches - they remain in schism mostly for political reasons - they don’t like the Pope.

I actually do like the Pope: at least the three Popes I’ve known - John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. All very good men and very good Christian leaders. But they’re leaders of their church, which isn’t my church. Maybe it will be some day, we shall see. But if I did become Catholic, I would certainly be criticized for being a ‘cafeteria Catholic’.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

PathDiagnosis;8645413]I’m really confused. I know the Catholic Church claims to be the original apostolic Church that comes directly from Christ. But, there are numerous divisions in Protestantism. Any “non-denominational/independent” church is technically its own denomination because no two of such churches believe in the same thing

I’m confused as to how Methodists remain Methodists, Lutherans as Lutherans, etc. Based on my studies, no Protestant denomination claims to be the true church in the manner the Catholic Church does. There seems to be some sort of acceptance of “all are valid expressions of capital T Truth” (whatever that is, a little too poetic for me).

Does the idea that everything in Protestantism is a valid expression of “Truth” contradict Scripture?

For the first 1500+ years after the resurrection the only Church in existence is the Catholic Church before the protestant reformation.

What is interesting during the first 15OO years of Christianity the Catholic Church defeated many types of heresy that attacked the revelations of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles both written and oral sacred Traditions.

The Protestant reformation resurrected most if not all of these past heresies the Catholic church already defeated before the protestant reformation.

For example; You might get some protestant door knockers which come disguised teaching the heretical Neo- Manicheanism. Which teaches Christ came as a visible spirit to teach humans the difference between the kingdom of Light and of the Dark. This original form was annihilated by the Catholic bishop Augustine.

There are some protestants who teach a form of heresy called Neo-Arianism, which teaches Christ was not truly God but only a creature, these are door knockers also today.

The Neo-Nestorians today teach that Christ had two separate personalities, the divine joining the human after his birth.

Neo-Monophysism today teaches Christ only had one nature.

Here is the great protestant Neo-Antinomianism that is prevelant today which teaches the heresy that “salvation is by faith alone”.

Some protestants delve into closed societies, believing in a secret “underground church” that keeps Christ’s real teachings which none other than Neo-Gnosticism.

Another prevelant protestant defeated heresy that some hold to comes from Neo- Albigensianism, which denies or reject the sacraments and the Church hierarchy Jesus founded upon the Peter and the apostles.

The cousin to the Albigensianism heresy is Neo- Catharism that takes particular exception to infant baptism.

Neo-Pelagianism is taught among protestant circles which teach that grace doesn’t initiate a good work but only perfects it.

Neo-Montanism is known to crop up at times today.

What is fascinating is that all of these resurrected heretical protestant teachings use the same bible to self interpret the bible to fit their own belief’s.

All of the above have been invented by men in protestant circles and apply a name to their own church body to distinguish one from another.

It should be defined that a heresy is the WILLFUL denial of any of the Christian truths revealed by Christ and His apostles, but it has to be willful. As St.Augustine states "those who recieved an heretical creed from their parents are by no means to be counted among the heretics.

The Catholic Church can prove her valid apostolic succession and teachings from history, sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture unchanged these past 2000 years and counting.

Before the protestant reformation the Church always proclaimed “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. This still holds true, because the Catholic Church is still here and Jesus has never left her, for all those outside of her fall under her unbrella of protection and prayer to come to the light of salvation in the full deposit of faith in the body of Christ which is the Catholic Church.

Protestantism left the sacraments and the valid priesthood of Jesus Christ. Some have taken with them some sacraments such as baptism and marriage, but lack the full deposit of faith in Jesus Christ.

I should note here that the Catholic Church is never a “denomination”. Protestantism has denominated from the Catholic Church and Protestantism continues to splinter and denominate into other forms of christianity.

I know of no protestant Church today that can trace its founders teachings all the way back to the apostles.

 

[JustaServant]

But if I did become Catholic, I would certainly be criticized for being a ‘cafeteria Catholic’.

“Cafeteria Catholics” pick and choose what they want to believe. They
mistake ‘understanding’ something with ‘agreeing with it’.
When I reverted back to the Catholic Church there was much I did not yet understand, my coming back to the Church trancended and overpowered any questions and issues I had.

From the two years you have been on this forum Iz (and the time you were on a nameless forum) I have seen little evidence you would be a “Cafeteria Catholic”.

 

[Nicea325]

It’s not that they don’t like the Pope. They don’t like the political take over by Rome. They hold to the tradition of Acts 15:1-35, which was actually held at Jerusalem, not Rome. Regardless of this, Rome always held a place of honor until the Schism.

Political power? You mean to tell us the East had no involvement in politics? Time to read both sides of the coin my friend.

The other difference is the addition to the Nicene Creed by Rome in regards to the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox hold to John 15:26 in that the Spirit comes from the Father, stated by Jesus Himself.

In case you did not know,the Creed of 325 A.D. is not the same as 381 A.D. People see change and think it is wrong. Change is due to circumstances.

In the Council at Toledo, Spain (AD 589), it was proposed that the Holy Spirit should be confessed that it proceeds from the Son as well. This was later adopted by Rome and is still active in the Roman Catholic Nicene Creed.

And why wouldn’t the Spirit be capable of proceeding from the Son?

Rome later tried to overtake Constantinople and eventually separated from the East and later the Reformation broke from within Rome.

U-huh…and who asked for help from the Muslims who were moving in? The East.

 

[jmcrae]

What we are discussing here is the fundamental difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. We don’t believe that anyone particularly has the whole truth.

Then why did Jesus bother to become incarnate and die on the Cross? Was it not to make known to us the Truth? Was it not in order to establish His Church (which we Catholics believe to be the Catholic Church.), so that we could become incorporated into it, and become saved by His Passion and death?

But if the Truth cannot be known, and it’s fine to believe whatever, as long as you’re sincere, then it seems like a complete waste of time that He did all of that - we could have become sincere agnostics without His Incarnation and Passion - Mary could have just proclaimed, “there’s this guy called the Son of God who loves us a whole lot, and would have been willing to become a human being and die on the Cross for us, but I told Him not to bother, because it doesn’t really matter one way or the other - you can believe whatever you want about Him, and it’s still okay.”

 

[jmcrae]

I actually do like the Pope: at least the three Popes I’ve known - John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. All very good men and very good Christian leaders. But they’re leaders of their church, which isn’t my church. Maybe it will be some day, we shall see. But if I did become Catholic, I would certainly be criticized for being a ‘cafeteria Catholic’.

That’s because modern-day Anglicanism is an entirely different belief system - certainly, if you held to the teachings of the modern Anglican church while becoming Catholic, you would be in danger of being at least a material heretic.

 

[kathmandu]

That’s because modern-day Anglicanism is an entirely different belief system - certainly, if you held to the teachings of the modern Anglican church while becoming Catholic, you would be in danger of being at least a material heretic.

I too respect the pope. He is a good man with good intentions who gets a lot of bad press. And yes, it is true. Many of us would be called heretics if we converted to Roman Catholicism due to the fact that we would be cafeteria catholics at best. It is a matter of belief. If you can’t believe and accept it all, how could one possibly become Roman Catholic.

I am married to a cafeteria Catholic. He picks and chooses what he wants from your faith. It is not honest. But he is comfortable with it. Who am I to judge?

 

[fbl9]

I too respect the pope. He is a good man with good intentions who gets a lot of bad press. And yes, it is true. Many of us would be called heretics if we converted to Roman Catholicism due to the fact that we would be cafeteria catholics at best. It is a matter of belief. If you can’t believe and accept it all, how could one possibly become Roman Catholic.

I am married to a cafeteria Catholic. He picks and chooses what he wants from your faith. It is not honest. But he is comfortable with it. Who am I to judge?

no you wouldn’t be deemed heretical cause you would convert if you held to all the Church’s teachings

 

[Izdaari]

“Cafeteria Catholics” pick and choose what they want to believe. They
mistake ‘understanding’ something with ‘agreeing with it’.
When I reverted back to the Catholic Church there was much I did not yet understand, my coming back to the Church trancended and overpowered any questions and issues I had.

From the two years you have been on this forum Iz (and the time you were on a nameless forum) I have seen little evidence you would be a “Cafeteria Catholic”.

Has it really been that long?

I said I’d be criticized for it; I didn’t say the criticism would be justified.

But I simply don’t believe enough of the CC’s teachings to convert. I do believe enough Anglican teachings, and indeed it seems to be my best doctrinal match. It’s likely I will switch my formal allegiance from AG to Episcopalian soon.

 

[JustaServant]

Has it really been that long?

I said I’d be criticized for it; I didn’t say the criticism would be justified.

But I simply don’t believe enough of the CC’s teachings to convert. I do believe enough Anglican teachings, and indeed it seems to be my best doctrinal match. It’s likely I will switch my formal allegiance from AG to Episcopalian soon.

That’s okay. That’s the island in the middle of the Tiber.

 

[JRRTFAN]

I actually do like the Pope: at least the three Popes I’ve known - John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. All very good men and very good Christian leaders. But they’re leaders of their church, which isn’t my church. Maybe it will be some day, we shall see. But if I did become Catholic, I would certainly be criticized for being a ‘cafeteria Catholic’.

That’s interesting. The number of cafeteria Catholics is legion. Why do you think someone would enter or remain in the Church if they didn’t hold to its dogmas? For instance, I would not enter into the PC-USA and ignore its dogma that abortion is acceptable, or that active homosexuals could be ministers, even if I thought the rest of it was just right on. I don’t see how that works with any intellectual honesty.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Political power? You mean to tell us the East had no involvement in politics? Time to read both sides of the coin my friend.

Perhaps you have information I don’t and would be able to make a reference to it?

In case you did not know,the Creed of 325 A.D. is not the same as 381 A.D. People see change and think it is wrong. Change is due to circumstances.

And why wouldn’t the Spirit be capable of proceeding from the Son?

Well, Jesus said it proceeds from the Father. I know of NO higher authority other than the Father.

In addition, if you say something contrary to what Jesus said. I WILL go on the premise that you are wrong.

 

[jmcrae]

Perhaps you have information I don’t and would be able to make a reference to it?

Well, Jesus said it proceeds from the Father. I know of NO higher authority other than the Father.

In addition, if you say something contrary to what Jesus said. I WILL go on the premise that you are wrong.

The Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, because Jesus said, “But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I {the Son] will send him to you.” - John 16:7

 

[robbie20]

I’m not protestant but my Church has an illicitly ordained Bishop

 

[JonNC]

I’m not protestant but my Church has an illicitly ordained Bishop

Illicit by who’s definition?

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, because Jesus said, “But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I {the Son] will send him to you.” - John 16:7

Yes, but after he is reunited with the Father

Reading before and after the verse:

4But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you. "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you.
5But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’
6But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.
7Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
9concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
14He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

He can send it because He is the Word of God. Sending does not mean proceeding. When He went to be baptized, the Spirit descended on Him. The Spirit did not proceed from Him as the Spirit descended from Heaven.

Also in John 7:16, Jesus is clear in saying that He was sent by the Father and that the things He says are not His but from the Father. Therefore, the things the Son say come from the Father. When He sends the Holy Spirit it proceeds from the Father, since the origin of the command is not His but the Father’s. Who gives all authority to Him. Since the Father is the Creator of all Holiness, all that is Holy comes from the Father.

Hopefully this does not come as circular logic since I’m trying to respect the Father as the Head of the Holy Trinity.

I’ve had my typing hands and human understanding get in the way of my heart

In Him

 

[fbl9]

Yes, but after he is reunited with the Father

Reading before and after the verse:

4But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you. "I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you.
5But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’
6But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.
7Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
9concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
14He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

He can send it because He is the Word of God. Sending does not mean proceeding. When He went to be baptized, the Spirit descended on Him. The Spirit did not proceed from Him as the Spirit descended from Heaven.

Also in John 7:16, Jesus is clear in saying that He was sent by the Father and that the things He says are not His but from the Father. Therefore, the things the Son say come from the Father. When He sends the Holy Spirit it proceeds from the Father, since the origin of the command is not His but the Father’s. Who gives all authority to Him. Since the Father is the Creator of all Holiness, all that is Holy comes from the Father.

Hopefully this does not come as circular logic since I’m trying to respect the Father as the Head of the Holy Trinity.

I’ve had my typing hands and human understanding get in the way of my heart

In Him

In these words Christ is showing obedience and His humilty, which we are to imitate.
To me your post comes across as dividing the Holy Trinity into individuals. When they are only one.
God knowing Himself is the Father and this self knowldge is the Son and their mutual love is the Holy Spirit. So the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.

 

[Izdaari]

That’s interesting. The number of cafeteria Catholics is legion. Why do you think someone would enter or remain in the Church if they didn’t hold to its dogmas? For instance, I would not enter into the PC-USA and ignore its dogma that abortion is acceptable, or that active homosexuals could be ministers, even if I thought the rest of it was just right on. I don’t see how that works with any intellectual honesty.

For those kinds of reasons, I’m not planning to do it, though I think Garry Wills gives a pretty good explanation in *Why I Am a Catholic.

*But I likely will switch from AG to TEC. It’s time to admit I’m too liberal now for AG, and that I prefer liturgy. I’ve always thought of myself as Anglican anyway, no matter what church I was attending. Probably because C.S. Lewis and his Inklings friends are what brought me back to Christian faith.

 

[JRRTFAN]

For those kinds of reasons, I’m not planning to do it, though I think Garry Wills gives a pretty good explanation in *Why I Am a Catholic.

*But I likely will switch from AG to TEC. It’s time to admit I’m too liberal now for AG, and that I prefer liturgy. I’ve always thought of myself as Anglican anyway, no matter what church I was attending. Probably because C.S. Lewis and his Inklings friends are what brought me back to Christian faith.

One of the logical conundrums I see in this whole situation is idolatry. If Catholics (Roman and otherwise) and Orthodox believe that the eucharist is the real presence of Christ and worship same, one has to draw a conclusion. If that position is correct then everyone needs to do it.

If it’s wrong (false) then Catholics (Roman and otherwise) and Orthodox are idolators and should be scrupulously avoided by all non-Catholics . I do not see logical ground for acceptance of one by the other, do you?