The "True" Church?

[LostChemist]

Ok, so I was in another part of the forums where a member referred to catholicism as the true church. My problem with this is that scripturally a certain church isn’t mentioned. It really only says in brief that the only way to God is through his Son. I don’t mean to minimize the scriptures and I know that there are a few other necessities, but basically it’s not the church that is supposed to matter but rather our belief in Christ and his sacrifice. Now, how does that make one faith better or more true than another? I’m referring to Christian faiths obviously. My wife is Protestant and believes in most of what the catholic church does. She has her disagreements with some of the things the Catholics do, but nothing that the bible precludes as sinful. For example, I don’t see anywhere in th bible where not believing in intercession is a reduced price ticket to hell. So to me it seems pretentious to say that Catholicism is the one true church. It also seems very judgmental. I’m curious to see other (name removed by moderator)ut on this. I’d also like to see someone define the true church. Are Catholics supposedly more right concerning the scripture? Is Catholicism the only way to God? Etc… I’m not looking to start a head debate with those trying to defend Catholicism. I’m not attacking it. I’d just like some facts to support this statement! Thanks.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Ok, so I was in another part of the forums where a member referred to catholicism as the true church. My problem with this is that scripturally a certain church isn’t mentioned. It really only says in brief that the only way to God is through his Son. I don’t mean to minimize the scriptures and I know that there are a few other necessities, but basically it’s not the church that is supposed to matter but rather our belief in Christ and his sacrifice. Now, how does that make one faith better or more true than another? I’m referring to Christian faiths obviously. My wife is Protestant and believes in most of what the catholic church does. She has her disagreements with some of the things the Catholics do, but nothing that the bible precludes as sinful. For example, I don’t see anywhere in th bible where not believing in intercession is a reduced price ticket to hell. So to me it seems pretentious to say that Catholicism is the one true church. It also seems very judgmental. I’m curious to see other (name removed by moderator)ut on this. I’d also like to see someone define the true church. Are Catholics supposedly more right concerning the scripture? Is Catholicism the only way to God? Etc… I’m not looking to start a head debate with those trying to defend Catholicism. I’m not attacking it. I’d just like some facts to support this statement! Thanks.

Let put it to me bluntly but in no way I am attacking your wife’s beliefs (I do not need to, do I?).

Many churches disappeared in 2000 years of the Church. I have serious doubts that the Protestant Churches will survive another 2000 years as they are splintering more and more (33 000 now: please do not dispute this number with me. If you do not believe it, search the Internet. Anyhow, I am ready not to dispute the number).

So, the Church which survives is the True Church. The churches that do not survive, are not the true Church. Christ said: “I will be with you till the end of times”.

You can discuss for hundreds of hours the minudences of thd CaTholic Dogma.

But we, as Catholics, have only one guide: the Pope. We follow him as our Shepherd. I do not care too much, like an humble dheep, where we are going. I follow Him. Period.

The problem with Protestantism is that Protestant discuss all the fine points, so, if they are not happy with any of the ecisting Churches, they just create one which is in accordance with his/her principles. Hence, the splittering…

The Catholic Church is the True Church. BUT it is a Church of sinners. How come?. Christ is the Church, The Tree, and we are the branches. If you live in Him, we live. If we do separate from the Tree. we die.

The root of the tree is the Pope. The foundation. Kill the root and you would kill the Tree. But Christ, in 2000 years, did not allow that tho happen. Once, there were 3 Popes fighting each other, another time, the Borggia times, things were nor model, but Christ made Our Tree survive through hell, storm, hail and fire.

And OurTree will survive to the end of times.

Other religions are connected to the tree by invisible strings. All men were created to be with God. Christ saved all men and not only the Catholics. It is through Christ that every religion is saved. How they connect with Christ is a matter of debate. I have got my theory but will not enter into that.

BUT, the 7 billion people on Earth, ONLY through Christ, Our God, Our Savior, Our Master, Our Redemptor, only through Him, are saved.

 

[thistle]

Ok, so I was in another part of the forums where a member referred to catholicism as the true church. My problem with this is that scripturally a certain church isn’t mentioned. It really only says in brief that the only way to God is through his Son. I don’t mean to minimize the scriptures and I know that there are a few other necessities, but basically it’s not the church that is supposed to matter but rather our belief in Christ and his sacrifice. Now, how does that make one faith better or more true than another? I’m referring to Christian faiths obviously. My wife is Protestant and believes in most of what the catholic church does. She has her disagreements with some of the things the Catholics do, but nothing that the bible precludes as sinful. For example, I don’t see anywhere in th bible where not believing in intercession is a reduced price ticket to hell. So to me it seems pretentious to say that Catholicism is the one true church. It also seems very judgmental. I’m curious to see other (name removed by moderator)ut on this. I’d also like to see someone define the true church. Are Catholics supposedly more right concerning the scripture? Is Catholicism the only way to God? Etc… I’m not looking to start a head debate with those trying to defend Catholicism. I’m not attacking it. I’d just like some facts to support this statement! Thanks.

The Catholic Church has an unbroken line directly back to Peter on whom Christ established the Church and gave it authority. The earliest protestants have only been around a few hundred years.

scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

 

[Jaypeeto4]

The other “churches” (such as the Protestant communities)
NEVER, EVER existed in the first 1527 years of Christianity.
That’s one proof that they, with their various “doctrinal systems,”
are NOT the “true” church, despite their many good points.
The “true” church, whatever the faults of it’s members, was promised by Christ
that it would NEVER disappear from the earth.
The Protestant Churches and doctrinal systems, not only “disappeared,” they
never existed for the first 1527 years of Christianity. Therefore, unless Christ is
a liar, they cannot be, any of them, the “true” church.
The true Church has a basic set of doctrines, INCLUDING Mary as the “New Eve,”
the mother of all mankind, especially of Christ’s redeemed, which goes back to the very beginning of the Church (hundreds of years before Constantine legalized Christianity).
Other marks of the true Church are the REALITY of Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread and wine offered in communion at the Holy Eucharist (the REAL LITERAL PRESENCE OF JESUS). This is attested to also, in the earliest Church, by writers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian (who later apostatized into Montanism, a weird sect), and many others, long before the time of Constantine. No “pope” invented the doctrine of the literal Real Presence of Christ in Communion. It is purely apostolic. The Protestant Churches ALL DENY this universally-historic Christian doctrine. Therefore, they cannot be the true Church. The sacrament of confessing sins to the presbyters/elders/priests, along with the sacrament of anointing of the sick AND that that very anointing by the presbyters bring the FORGIVENESS of the sick man’s sins, is attested to infallibly in the Letter of James. No “pope” invented this. It is in the New Testament and clear as a bell there. ALL of the Protestant Churches deny that the anointing of the Sick is a sacrament that obtains the forgiveness of the sick man’s sins,
as well as the Sacrament of Confessing One’s Sins to the presbyters (priests/elders).
These, and many other universal early Christian teachings, are denied by all the protestant communities. They are held ONLY by those whose teachings go back to the first century, namely, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which came about after the schism of 1054 A.D. (as communities no longer in communion with Rome, but retaining nearly ALL other early Christian teachings. They differ with us chiefly on 1) the jurisdiction of the Roman Pope (they do NOT disagree that the Roman Pope is the successor of Saint Peter, as do the protestants, but they do believe that he is a “first among equals”, a more honorary office that does not include jurisdictional authority)
2 The Immaculate Conception of Mary. They DO believe that Mary is perpetually-virgin, had no other children, and is the ALL-HOLY Mother of God, the Theotokos.
They also believe that she likely never committed even the slightest or most venial, sin.
But they don’t believe that she was exempt, from her very conception in her mom’s womb, from the stain of the fall of Adam. We do, and with good reason.
Make no mistake, doctrinally the Eastern Orthodox are basically Catholic, not protestant.
They believe in ALL seven sacraments, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Marriage as a holy Sacrament, the Priesthood (holy orders), Confession of Sins and absolution, Regeneratin being effected normally by Baptism, Confirmation (usually done right after baptism in their churches), etc. And, like Catholics, they pray to the Saints who are already in heaven, for their Intercession for us with Christ and the Father.
And they ALWAYS HAVE. These teachings and practices of theirs, are CATHOLIC, not protestant. And they go back to the 1st century A.D. They tend not to believe in “purgatory” after death, at least not of any length, because primarily they do not have
an extensively-developed theology of what happens to our souls during the “Intermediate State”---- the time between our deaths and when we a) enter heaven or b) the Second Coming of Christ.
It DOES matter what church you belong to,
because the Catholic Church has the fullness of apostolic teaching and practice and sub-apostolic practice (such as prayer for help to the saints and martyrs), because the sub-apostolic teachers (1st and 2nd century) were taught BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES.
God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[GraceSofia]

Ok, so I was in another part of the forums where a member referred to catholicism as the true church. My problem with this is that scripturally a certain church isn’t mentioned. It really only says in brief that the only way to God is through his Son. …

In Matthew 16, Jesus says, “And 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

That’s the Catholic Church that Jesus is talking about and that He founded. There was only one Church in the beginning: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church which continues today as the Catholic Church.

 

[maryj]

There are four marks of the church

1. One
2. Holy
3. catholic
4. apostolic

 

[kepha1]

Ok, so I was in another part of the forums where a member referred to catholicism as the true church. My problem with this is that scripturally a certain church isn’t mentioned.

Scripturally a certain church is mentioned.

CATHOLIC comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.
It means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein’. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

It is inferred in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world.” That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Rom. 1:8 ….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”

Acts 9:31 “the Church throughout all” (Greek: ekklesia kath olos).

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8 and Acts 9:31.

“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D.,

It really only says in brief that the only way to God is through his Son.

Yes, that has always been a Catholic teaching.

I don’t mean to minimize the scriptures and I know that there are a few other necessities, but basically it’s not the church that is supposed to matter but rather our belief in Christ and his sacrifice. Now, how does that make one faith better or more true than another? I’m referring to Christian faiths obviously. My wife is Protestant and believes in most of what the catholic church does. She has her disagreements with some of the things the Catholics do, but nothing that the bible precludes as sinful. For example, I don’t see anywhere in th bible where not believing in intercession is a reduced price ticket to hell.

I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where faith alone is a free ticket to heaven.

 

[kepha1]

So to me it seems pretentious to say that Catholicism is the one true church. It also seems very judgmental. I’m curious to see other (name removed by moderator)ut on this. I’d also like to see someone define the true church. Are Catholics supposedly more right concerning the scripture? Is Catholicism the only way to God? Etc… I’m not looking to start a head debate with those trying to defend Catholicism. I’m not attacking it. I’d just like some facts to support this statement! Thanks.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” 269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism 270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers. 271 818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” 272

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” 273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” 274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, 275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.” 276

The Catholic Church is the most INCLUSIVE of all churches. This is evident in her formal teachings, something that is, I dare say, absent in Protestant churches. No one has the corner market on truth. By “one true Church”, we mean the Catholic Church has the fulness of faith, not that she is the only church with truths. There is nothing pretentious in some Catholics stating the facts, and lastly, the Catholic Church doesn’t go around beating a drum of exclusivity.

 

[alejo85]

Long answer… sorry

Historically

The Roman Catholic Church has claimed historically to be the only one true church and that it is only in the true church that people find salvation. The papacy started to gain more power and influence over the other Apostolic Sees somewhere around the 5th century (becoming more powerful around the 7th century with Gregory the Great) the concept of one church under one [earthly] shepherd (the pope) was being ‘exported’ progressively by the Roman See and adopted by people on the western church. With this power, the statements given by the Church were starting to become more authoritative, to the point on which it was said that everyone needed the Roman Catholic Church in order to please God and be saved. For instance, here is a statement from the 14th century that states:

“We declare,say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

(Pope Boniface VIII, the Papal Bull " Unam Sanctum", 1302 A.D.)

And…

" The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatic’s, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her. and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian solder. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, not even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ,
can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

( Pope Eugene IV, the Papal Bull " Cantate Domino", 1441 A.D.)

However

After the first and second Vatican councils an ‘open door’ was given by the church to people outside the Roman Catholic Faith, who are considered to be in “invincible ignorance” and that are from any other religions and that can be saved outside the church. By invincible ignorance, the church means that it is someone who has not being taught the catholic faith because of different circumstances (not in a Catholic-friendly country, never told what the Roman Catholic Church really believes, etc) and people in this condition are said to be ‘guiltless’ of not believing the faith, here is one statement from Vatican I

“We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?”

Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX (December 9th, 1854)

And here a document after the Second Vatican Council

“Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace. Whatever goodness or truth is found among them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the gospel. She regards such qualities as given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”

(Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, n.16)

SO, to summarize this rather long text… The church has historically held to the view of people outside the Church being not saved. However, within the last 2 centuries, this tendency has changed and some people would argue that is leading towards universalism (hopefully not). That is why we have people these days (as the Sedevacantist) that are pointing out this very issue amongst others.

I hope that this long answer kind of helps. If you are concerned historically, well, read both “sections”, if not, you can read the last (and most current, historically) section.

Sadly, the tradition of the Church seems to be rather “changing” than “unchangeable and firm”

 

[jochoa]

I’d also like to see someone define the true church. Are Catholics supposedly more right concerning the scripture? Is Catholicism the only way to God? Etc… I’m not looking to start a head debate with those trying to defend Catholicism. I’m not attacking it. I’d just like some facts to support this statement! Thanks.

What amazing questions, my friend! I look forward to learning from you and with you in discussion. Please consider the following understandings and help me see where you perceive the lack of Truth:

In order to demonstrate that Catholicism is the only way to God one must find a working understanding to How God Works.
He operates according to a:
Truly Loving Nature: Every purposeful person has the choice to align his/her will with that of Jesus Christ: Always want to learn, do, and spread the means to be perfectly patient and kind and motivated with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self, in order to achieve unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, unstoppable energy, and content wisdom, as a society as well as individually. The Truly Loving Nature is the Universal Pinnacle of being, the True Loving Nature of Jesus Christ (Mind, Body, Will, and Spirit), and this is Universal to all people.
He leads free-willed man to Him through the Entity of:
The Holy Trinity: The Universally Greatest Being of society, where a single person of the governing head sets the Truly Loving commandments. Then the governed body of persons, including the head person, freely subjects themselves to the same laws. Then the will of the body of persons, including the head person, perfectly proceeds from the commandments, as set by the head person, and the body of persons. To simply state this: The Father is the person of the Spirit of God (has the exact image of Jesus Christ). The Son is the person of the body of God that came down from heaven and subjected himself to the laws of existence in this world, therefore He has a human mind, a godly body, a human and godly will, and has a human spirit, which, in His mind and will, developed and grew to become at one with the Truly Loving Nature. The instance His mind and human will were at one with the nature of His Body, His Spirit revealed the Holy Spirit. But in order to reveal the Holy Spirit of Unity in the Truly Loving Nature to free-willed beings, a free-willed human must become at one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ to demonstrate to the free world the power and beauty of being one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ!
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: God’s Church must operate in the same being of society, which Roman Catholicism does in several ways:

1. Apostolic - Jesus handed authority to Peter. Where Peter, the head, would interpret the law, subject himself to it, and the body of apostles followed.
2. Magisterium - The other posts comment on this.
3. The Church as a Worldly Organization - Priest/Bishop/Cardinal interpret the laws, subject themselves to it, and the body of followers follow.
4. The layout of the Church - The Church is the Body of God. Jesus is at the Head of the Church. Seated under Jesus is the Priest (Head), and on his right hand the deacon (Body), and on the left hand the servers (Will).

Thoughts?

Whether or not one chooses to accept the Universal Truths of Existence is their choice. However, it is when one accepts, lives, and proclaims these Universal Truths as the Catholic Faith, that one begins to Truly Live!

Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and excellent questions! I look forward to hearing your response and developing my understandings.

May peace be with you and Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[lizaanne]

Excellent video - this should clear up much of these questions for you: The Church : The Same Yesterday, Today and Forever

~Liza

 

[govav8er]

Excellent video - this should clear up much of these questions for you: The Church : The Same Yesterday, Today and Forever

~Liza

Heck Yeah! Great video. Sent it to my family as well. Love RealCatholictv.com!

 

[alejo85]

The other “churches” (such as the Protestant communities)
NEVER, EVER existed in the first 1527 years of Christianity.
That’s one proof that they, with their various “doctrinal systems,”
are NOT the “true” church, despite their many good points.
The “true” church, whatever the faults of it’s members, was promised by Christ
that it would NEVER disappear from the earth.

Hi Jaypeeto4

I think that it would be hard to try to respond to all your statements not because they are hard, but because they are many

To begin, this notion of the protestant church starting 1527 years after original christianity… it is true that the name “protestant” started in the 16th century. However, the reformers claimed to be “recovering” the “original christian faith” and there were people like John Calvin who sought to bring back the early church councils and contrast them with what the church was doing back in the 16th century. It is true that the Church is kept by the Holy Spirit but the reformers argued that the Church is the body of believers and not an specific “see”, rather the Church is identified by the believers’ fidelity to the revelation of God (Scripture) and His commands. And in that sense the Church has been kept through the ages because there have always been believers independently of the corruption of the church (which happened overtime), that’s what the reformers argued

Other marks of the true Church are the REALITY of Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread and wine offered in communion at the Holy Eucharist (the REAL LITERAL PRESENCE OF JESUS). This is attested to also, in the earliest Church, by writers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian (who later apostatized into Montanism, a weird sect), and many others, long before the time of Constantine. No “pope” invented the doctrine of the literal Real Presence of Christ in Communion. It is purely apostolic. The Protestant Churches ALL DENY this universally-historic Christian doctrine. Therefore, they cannot be the true Church.

The Roman Catholic Church has not always believed what they believe since the beginning, but things have been taken progressively. What you mentioned here (for instance). Reformers like Calvin (and Luther, in a different way) did believe in the real presence, but they argued against Transubstantiation! The real presence has been believed by the early church but it has never been understood as Transubstantiation until somewhere around the 12th century (and affirmed in the 4th Lateran council, 13th century!). Calvin argued that to speak of transubstantiation is to go against Jesus’ humanity, because it is deifying the body of Christ (making it omnipresent) and therefore Christ’s body is not entirely human, leading to a “monophysite” understanding of the nature of Christ! (monophysitism was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon as a heresy!) Calvin argued that Jesus’ presence was real, that His spirit was in the Sacrament in a special way (because Jesus’ spirit is deity).

Other things that you mention, like the Marian dogmas, there are a few that were believed but not taught in scripture. However, the mention of the Theotokos (literally means "God bearer) was affirmed at the council of Ephesus, and historic protestant theology upholds the term Theotokos for Mary. Theotokos is an important term, not because of Mary but because of Jesus, because it was meant to re-affirm Jesus’ true humanity and divinity. But, things like the inmaculate conception of Mary and the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven were defined in the 19th century and it was not believed by the whole council of the early church, nor even hinted…

Most of the current teachings of the Roman Catholic Church were developed over time sacraments such as penance (as we have it today), the sacraments of confirmation, marriage (as a sacrament), and extreme unction. The Church is to be understood as developing over time.]

And to end… you are right on something. It does matter what church you belong to. The Church is the one that Christ is building, you believe it to be the Roman Catholic Church… I was raised on the same church but lately I am kind of looking at a different direction… but yeah, it is very important to determine this… to the glory of God in our lives.

May God bless you

 

[wisdomseeker]

Ok, so I was in another part of the forums where a member referred to catholicism as the true church. My problem with this is that scripturally a certain church isn’t mentioned. It really only says in brief that the only way to God is through his Son. I don’t mean to minimize the scriptures and I know that there are a few other necessities, but basically it’s not the church that is supposed to matter but rather our belief in Christ and his sacrifice. Now, how does that make one faith better or more true than another? I’m referring to Christian faiths obviously. My wife is Protestant and believes in most of what the catholic church does. She has her disagreements with some of the things the Catholics do, but nothing that the bible precludes as sinful. For example, I don’t see anywhere in th bible where not believing in intercession is a reduced price ticket to hell. So to me it seems pretentious to say that Catholicism is the one true church. It also seems very judgmental. I’m curious to see other (name removed by moderator)ut on this. I’d also like to see someone define the true church. Are Catholics supposedly more right concerning the scripture? Is Catholicism the only way to God? Etc… I’m not looking to start a head debate with those trying to defend Catholicism. I’m not attacking it. I’d just like some facts to support this statement! Thanks.

Maybe you want to read this. the four Marks of the Church

star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/Mod3.html

 

[fhansen]

Ok, so I was in another part of the forums where a member referred to catholicism as the true church. My problem with this is that scripturally a certain church isn’t mentioned. It really only says in brief that the only way to God is through his Son. I don’t mean to minimize the scriptures and I know that there are a few other necessities, but basically it’s not the church that is supposed to matter but rather our belief in Christ and his sacrifice. Now, how does that make one faith better or more true than another? I’m referring to Christian faiths obviously. My wife is Protestant and believes in most of what the catholic church does. She has her disagreements with some of the things the Catholics do, but nothing that the bible precludes as sinful. For example, I don’t see anywhere in th bible where not believing in intercession is a reduced price ticket to hell. So to me it seems pretentious to say that Catholicism is the one true church. It also seems very judgmental. I’m curious to see other (name removed by moderator)ut on this. I’d also like to see someone define the true church. Are Catholics supposedly more right concerning the scripture? Is Catholicism the only way to God? Etc… I’m not looking to start a head debate with those trying to defend Catholicism. I’m not attacking it. I’d just like some facts to support this statement! Thanks.

The problem is that there are so many differences-sometimes amounting to different gospels-among the various Christian faiths. The Orthodox and Catholic faiths don’t base there authority in Scripture first and foremost, they locate it in the Church-and Jesus did establish a church and 1Tim 3:15 tells us the church is "the pillar and foundation of truth."

 

[govav8er]

Hi Jaypeeto4

I think that it would be hard to try to respond to all your statements not because they are hard, but because they are many

To begin, this notion of the protestant church starting 1527 years after original christianity… it is true that the name “protestant” started in the 16th century. However, the reformers claimed to be “recovering” the “original christian faith” and there were people like John Calvin who sought to bring back the early church councils and contrast them with what the church was doing back in the 16th century. It is true that the Church is kept by the Holy Spirit but the reformers argued that the Church is the body of believers and not an specific “see”, rather the Church is identified by the believers’ fidelity to the revelation of God (Scripture) and His commands. And in that sense the Church has been kept through the ages because there have always been believers independently of the corruption of the church (which happened overtime), that’s what the reformers argued

The Roman Catholic Church has not always believed what they believe since the beginning, but things have been taken progressively. What you mentioned here (for instance). Reformers like Calvin (and Luther, in a different way) did believe in the real presence, but they argued against Transubstantiation! The real presence has been believed by the early church but it has never been understood as Transubstantiation until somewhere around the 12th century (and affirmed in the 4th Lateran council, 13th century!). Calvin argued that to speak of transubstantiation is to go against Jesus’ humanity, because it is deifying the body of Christ (making it omnipresent) and therefore Christ’s body is not entirely human, leading to a “monophysite” understanding of the nature of Christ! (monophysitism was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon as a heresy!) Calvin argued that Jesus’ presence was real, that His spirit was in the Sacrament in a special way (because Jesus’ spirit is deity).

Other things that you mention, like the Marian dogmas, there are a few that were believed but not taught in scripture. However, the mention of the Theotokos (literally means "God bearer) was affirmed at the council of Ephesus, and historic protestant theology upholds the term Theotokos for Mary. Theotokos is an important term, not because of Mary but because of Jesus, because it was meant to re-affirm Jesus’ true humanity and divinity. But, things like the inmaculate conception of Mary and the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven were defined in the 19th century and it was not believed by the whole council of the early church, nor even hinted…

Most of the current teachings of the Roman Catholic Church were developed over time sacraments such as penance (as we have it today), the sacraments of confirmation, marriage (as a sacrament), and extreme unction. The Church is to be understood as developing over time.]

And to end… you are right on something. It does matter what church you belong to. The Church is the one that Christ is building, you believe it to be the Roman Catholic Church… I was raised on the same church but lately I am kind of looking at a different direction… but yeah, it is very important to determine this… to the glory of God in our lives.

May God bless you

Alejo,
When you say that Catholics have not always believed what we believed from the begining, is not totally correct nor is maybe an understanding of the various councils that such proclamations were made, as the notion of a Triune God. This and many other truths were not invented nor established but like you said, affirmed or solidly declared by the Church due to nessesity because of a heresy or schism or theological problem that was developing. When the Trinity was declared, it was because of the Arian Heresy that said that Jesus was not God but just a REALLY good guy. This, and If you know this I apologize I just want to clarify, does not mean that Catholics before this council of Nicea did not know or believe this but that the Church has not officially delcared it. The Council of Trent did not add books to the Bible, it was to affirm that the books of the New and Old testament that were being used by Christians for the previous 1100 years were just that, those same books. It was Luther who by his own will and choice corrupted the Word of God by eliminating the 7 books of the OT. (He also wanted to remove James and Revelation because he said that the Book of Revelations should be revealing. Truths can and are slowly revealed to us by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of us through the Pope and the magesitrium.

I relate a great analogy regarding the revealed Truths of the Church. Say you are in a dark room, Pitch Black but do not know where you are. Then you notice that there is a very small light right above your head and you notice slight colors like your shirt maybe your pants. The light intensity then increases slowly and you can see that you are on a chair and there is an ottoman in front of you. More light reveals the color of the floor… a rug, and there is a couch next on it. Where are you? don’t know yet. More light reveals more furniture and coffee tables and you see price tags. Bingo, your in a furniture store. Do you need to see the sign on the outside of the building to know that?

 

[thenobes]

Wow, what a long history!

“We declare,say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

(Pope Boniface VIII, the Papal Bull " Unam Sanctum", 1302 A.D.)

And…

" The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatic’s, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her. and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian solder. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, not even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ,
can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

( Pope Eugene IV, the Papal Bull " Cantate Domino", 1441 A.D.)

…

SO, to summarize this rather long text… The church has historically held to the view of people outside the Church being not saved.

250 whole years! I guess that proves the historical case. Yeppers!

It could never be that invincible ignorance has been held as a Church teaching for an even longer time before, could it?

peace
steve

 

[alejo85]

Wow, what a long history!

250 whole years! I guess that proves the historical case. Yeppers!

Hi Steve,

I am not sure whether you understood what the issue was here. The issue is that the Church has claimed that people outside the church are outside Christ. That is what the Church has claimed for herself for a long time (those statements were only examples, there are many more) but, I was making the point that the church has changed her view on the matter since the Vatican councils, on which they stopped calling protestants “heretics” and now are called “separated brethren” (for instance).

You can read what the quote from pope Eugene says and contrast it with “invincible ignorance”… I can’t seem to find room for that idea on the pope’s declaration, can you?

Peace,

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hi Steve,

I am not sure whether you understood what the issue was here. The issue is that the Church has claimed that people outside the church are outside Christ. That is what the Church has claimed for herself for a long time (those statements were only examples, there are many more) but, I was making the point that the church has changed her view on the matter since the Vatican councils, on which they stopped calling protestants “heretics” and now are called “separated brethren” (for instance).

You can read what the quote from pope Eugene says and contrast it with “invincible ignorance”… I can’t seem to find room for that idea on the pope’s declaration, can you?

Peace,

I think that the interpretation of invencible ignorance by many Catholics here is wrong.

I think that the Church is changing its instance on protestants because she sees no stopping with them. She changed the strategy because she wants to be an example in hope that these people will eventually convert to the Church. She wants to dessiminate the fear that they have acquired along the years by their preachers against the Church. protestantism still is a heresy, no doubt. but the Church does not want to call those who were borne into this belief system which is not their fault. I think the Church is treating them as just anyone outside of the Church and that they need to hear the Truth about the Church.

the way was done was wrong because the ecumaniacs instead adopted protestantism ideas and made a mess in teh Church.

I would consider invencible ignorance those people who have no intelect and are incapable of ever understand the Truth. And because they have been raised not knowing the Truth of the Church but only lies, they are now incapable of ever come to the Truth. They are brain washed. I know I have cousins and can tell you that they dont even touch a Catholic book because they are so afraid that they will commit a sin. that is how bad it is.

 

[TimothyH]

Ok, so I was in another part of the forums where a member referred to catholicism as the true church. My problem with this is that scripturally a certain church isn’t mentioned. It really only says in brief that the only way to God is through his Son. I don’t mean to minimize the scriptures and I know that there are a few other necessities, but basically it’s not the church that is supposed to matter but rather our belief in Christ and his sacrifice. Now, how does that make one faith better or more true than another? I’m referring to Christian faiths obviously. My wife is Protestant and believes in most of what the catholic church does. She has her disagreements with some of the things the Catholics do, but nothing that the bible precludes as sinful. For example, I don’t see anywhere in th bible where not believing in intercession is a reduced price ticket to hell. So to me it seems pretentious to say that Catholicism is the one true church. It also seems very judgmental. I’m curious to see other (name removed by moderator)ut on this. I’d also like to see someone define the true church. Are Catholics supposedly more right concerning the scripture? Is Catholicism the only way to God? Etc… I’m not looking to start a head debate with those trying to defend Catholicism. I’m not attacking it. I’d just like some facts to support this statement! Thanks.

One Church can be proven very easily in scripture.

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God(1 Colossians 1:24-25)

Chris’s body is the Church. Christ had one body and so he has one church. Christ’s body was visible, and so his Church is visible. Paul was a minister in the Body of Christ, his Church, and so Christ’s Church has ministers. Peter was the Prime Minister.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)*

Peter was the prime minister, and the office of prime minister in Christ’s one, visible body was fortold in the Old Testament many times.
Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts:
Up, go to that official,
Shebna, master of the palace, (and say)
I will thrust you from your office
and pull you down from your station.
On that day I will summon my servant
Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe,
gird him with your sash,
confer on him your authority.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder;
what he opens, no one will shut,
what he shuts, no one will open.
(Isaiah 22:15, 19-22)*

It’s really quite simple. Christ revealed himself to us as a king. God the Father is a father to us, and Christ is a king. That is how God chose to reveal himself to us. And kingsoms are untied, they have one king over one kingdom, various ministers and one who is appointed a prime minister. The whole revelation of the Old Testament is about kingdoms, and kings, and queens, and people praying that the kingdom would be reestablished by God.

-Tim-