The "True" Church?

[wisdomseeker]

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-

Nicely done. protestants developed the idea that God talks to every individual. God choses an individual to give His message and not each individual. That is so wrong to go around preaching such a falsehood about God. That is why Jesus built a Church to give His message to the world and not each individual to give His message.

 

[Ignatius]

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.

That’s because, at the time the New Testament was being written, the only Christian Church was The Catholic Church.

God Bless.

 

[Abu]

LostChemist #1
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?
alejo85 #18
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…

Do you really think it is “pretentious” and “judgmental” for Christ, God the Son, to establish His Church to save mankind? And as He did, what other “church” could be “true”?

1. He did found His Church on His chosen St Peter and thus gave us specifically a line of Supreme Vicars.
   Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
   All four promises to Peter alone:
   “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
   “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
   I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
   “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

1. Since Christ’s Church wrote the New Testament and declared which writings and no others form the Sacred Scriptures, She interprets what they mean, with Christ’s authority.
2. As early as about 95 A.D., Pope St Clement I, wrote to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145]. So ideas that She has changed Her teaching are false, not with Vatican II or anywhere else.

 

[Cosmian]

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.

I have a Jewish friend who often points out that Christ and his followers were Jewish heretics. He claims that Christians, no matter what their denomination, have no clue how to read Jewish scriptures. He does seem to think that Protestants have especially misinterpreted scripture by focusing only on the literal meaning of poorly translated texts.

I find him very hard to comprehend not being in the least bit as brilliant as he is, but one thing I did learn is that it is possible to idolize one’s own religion. Whenever religion is used to hurt rather than to heal it is very possible that those doing the hurting are guilty of idolatry.

I perceive from your post that you may be uncomfortable with expressions of pretentiousness and judgementalism from Catholics in particular. Pretentiousness and judgementalism really aren’t particularly Catholic traits.

I don’t know where the one and only “true church” is. Is it a mystical concept that we can perceive as a concrete reality? On a practical level, is the true church a community of believers who really don’t have a community at all? There are church buildings where people gather who make very minimal contact with each other. One of my pet peeves is that the center of the pews are often empty as though everyone seems to prefer sitting closest to the exit.

On the other hand, my Pentecostal friends gather in each others homes singing joyous praises to God and often have to call home because they hate to have to leave on time.

 

[Abu]

Cosmian #24
I don’t know where the one and only “true church” is. Is it a mystical concept that we can perceive as a concrete reality? On a practical level, is the true church a community of believers who really don’t have a community at all?

“Institution” = an organization founded and united for a specific purpose/the act of starting something for the first time; introducing something new. So, clearly, Jesus who is “concrete reality” founded an organization with a Supreme Vicar with His authoritative powers. (Post #23).

“Christ used the word ‘Church’ only twice, which the evangelists identified with ekklesia, corresponding to the Hebrew term quhal, meaning a congregation or assembly of the faithful.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday 1975, p 209).

ECCLESIA. The unchanged Latin rendering of the Greek ekklesia, meaning assembly or community. The Bible uses the term in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew kahal in both a secular and a religious sense. In the New Testament the word is used of the whole community of the believers in Christ (Matthew 16:18) and of a singly community of the faithful (Romans 6:5).
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

On Easter Sunday the multitudes present at St Peter’s in Rome for the Holy Mass and around the world in Catholic Churches witnessed to His Divinity and His Church. Your TV had it, no doubt.

So the question is: as you don’t know Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church, what are you doing to find out what She teaches from the Son of God?

Protesting ignorance, while going around in circles getting nowhere, won’t help, but a genuine resolve to examine Christ’s “Institution” the Catholic Church, and His teaching, can.

my Pentecostal friends gather in each others homes singing joyous praises to God and often have to call home because they hate to have to leave on time.

The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth proclaims that He is God – as nearly all Christians will agree. Some settle for singing and listening to parts of what they have in their incomplete Bibles.

Those without the knowledge of His Church, even with a valuable but incomplete Bible, don’t understand, or reject, His mandate to Peter and the Apostles and so don’t have all of the seven sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the certain teaching with which Jesus endowed His Supreme Vicars.

Those who do what they think is right, avoiding what they think is wrong, are open to salvation. Those who are not open to searching for the truth, have only themselves to blame for imperiling their salvation.

 

[Ignatius]

Ok, so I was in another part of the forums where a member referred to catholicism as the true church. My problem with this . . . …

Discerning the Church which Christ founded.

There are a few things we know about this true church:

1. It was built by Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18) which means that His church must be about 2000 years old. This face alone eliminates the vast majority of churches.
2. Jesus only built ONE church (Matt 16:18) hence there is only one.
3. The Church which Jesus Christ founded is the one to whom He revealed and which declared and decreed which books are to be contained in the New Testament.
4. Jesus handed His Authority to His Apostles (Mat 28:16-20), therefore His Church must be able to trace its chief pastors back in a line of succession to The Apostles.

Also, ask them to consider the following facts:
Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded by Abraham about 4,000 years ago.

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.

If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.

If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.

 

[Cosmian]

“Institution” = an organization founded and united for a specific purpose/the act of starting something for the first time; introducing something new. So, clearly, Jesus who is “concrete reality” founded an organization with a Supreme Vicar with His authoritative powers. (Post #23).

“Christ used the word ‘Church’ only twice, which the evangelists identified with ekklesia, corresponding to the Hebrew term quhal, meaning a congregation or assembly of the faithful.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday 1975, p 209).

ECCLESIA. The unchanged Latin rendering of the Greek ekklesia, meaning assembly or community. The Bible uses the term in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew kahal in both a secular and a religious sense. In the New Testament the word is used of the whole community of the believers in Christ (Matthew 16:18) and of a singly community of the faithful (Romans 6:5).
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

On Easter Sunday the multitudes present at St Peter’s in Rome for the Holy Mass and around the world in Catholic Churches witnessed to His Divinity and His Church. Your TV had it, no doubt.

So the question is: as you don’t know Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church, what are you doing to find out what She teaches from the Son of God?

Protesting ignorance, while going around in circles getting nowhere, won’t help, but a genuine resolve to examine Christ’s “Institution” the Catholic Church, and His teaching, can.
The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth proclaims that He is God – as nearly all Christians will agree. Some settle for singing and listening to parts of what they have in their incomplete Bibles.

Those without the knowledge of His Church, even with a valuable but incomplete Bible, don’t understand, or reject, His mandate to Peter and the Apostles and so don’t have all of the seven sacraments, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the certain teaching with which Jesus endowed His Supreme Vicars.

Those who do what they think is right, avoiding what they think is wrong, are open to salvation. Those who are not open to searching for the truth, have only themselves to blame for imperiling their salvation.

The question is what makes one faith better and more true than another faith. Naturally each one feels that they have the most compelling arguments in asserting that their faith is superior to all others.

I assume that most people with strong religious convictions have spent a great deal of time seeking out the truth. Who doesn’t crave certainty in an uncertain world?

I sense your frustration and impatience with going around in circles but I find that life itself is cyclical in nature. I appreciate that you have fully given your intellectual assent to matters of faith and strive to defend that faith. I was reminded on Easter Sunday that faith is a living thing that grows in one’s heart as well as in one’s mind. For the sake of unity sometimes we might have to agree to disagree and learn to respect each others differences.

 

[ahs]

For the sake of unity sometimes we might have to agree to disagree and learn to respect each others differences.

This is a very kind and respectful statement…but it’s not Biblical. I suppose it depends on how one understands “agree to disagree”. If it is only a temporary means by which a person takes time to pray for another while continuing to witness to the Truth, then this cn be okay. But if it becomes a permanent way of simply accepting others and their beliefs with no desire or effort to discuss Truth in an effort to bring the Truth to that person…well, this actually would be against Scripture. (…Correct the sinner, rebuke your neighbor, admonish the sinner…how many verses like this in the Bible?)

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

**

“If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” I Timothy 3:15.

Why do you doubt Christ’s own words?

**

 

[Prieldedi]

The question is what makes one faith better and more true than another faith. Naturally each one feels that they have the most compelling arguments in asserting that their faith is superior to all others.

I assume that most people with strong religious convictions have spent a great deal of time seeking out the truth. Who doesn’t crave certainty in an uncertain world?

I sense your frustration and impatience with going around in circles but I find that life itself is cyclical in nature. I appreciate that you have fully given your intellectual assent to matters of faith and strive to defend that faith. I was reminded on Easter Sunday that faith is a living thing that grows in one’s heart as well as in one’s mind. For the sake of unity sometimes we might have to agree to disagree and learn to respect each others differences.

Cosmian… God decided which faith is the better and truer, he also decided which Church is the better and truer, and He did it when He instituted His Church with Peter as Her visible head in communion with the rest of the Apostles. I understand and I have to accept your “for the sake of unity sometimes we might have to agree to disagree” argument. What you have to ask is: will God agree to disagree?

2000 years ago Jesus said: “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me”. (Luke 10:16)

Luther rejected those whom Jesus sent, therefore Luther rejected the One who sent Jesus, God the Father, and so did in turn Calvin, Swingli, Henry VIII and the rest of the reformers. You say you “assume that most people with strong religious convictions have spent a great deal of time seeking out the truth”, but have they really? Is it biblical to split the Body of Christ? Is it biblical to reject the authority of God’s leader just because he’s s sinner? What would have happened if Luther had rebelled against King David or King Solomon instead of Pope Leo X? Have protestants compared Solomon’s sins against those of Pope Leo X? I would like them to show us the biblical passage that tells us it’s OK to break away from God’s leader due to his sins.

If there is biblical precedence to what Luther did you’ll find it in Numbers 16, the story of “Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, from the tribe of Levi - and also Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, son of Peleth, from the tribe of Reuben - rebelled against Moses.” (Number 16:1) This episode of the Bible is the one that can be compared to what happened during the reformation. If today’s protestants “with strong religious convictions” have truly spent a great deal of seeking out the truth, then upon reading Numbers 16 they should conclude that they are Korah, not Moses; they would have also come to the same conclusion Cardinal John Newman came to in the 19th Century: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

St. Paul warned us too: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

Is it biblical to start a new church and preach a new gospel as the reformers did? For that is what they did, start a new church and preach another gospel. The gospel they preached was “other than that which” St. Paul “preached unto” the Galatians. How could a reformer/protestant know which gospel St. Paul preached the Galatians if St. Paul didn’t leave a copy of it in writing, and they reject “Christian Oral Tradition”? Nowhere in this warning from St. Paul is he referring to the written “Word of God”, that is the Bible, he explicitly refers only to the “oral” gospel he had preached them before.

How can those seeking out the Truth miss it? Could it be you have the answer in the sentence that describes your religion… “I’m not as humble as I wannabe…”?

 

[Cosmian]

This is a very kind and respectful statement…but it’s not Biblical. I suppose it depends on how one understands “agree to disagree”. If it is only a temporary means by which a person takes time to pray for another while continuing to witness to the Truth, then this cn be okay. But if it becomes a permanent way of simply accepting others and their beliefs with no desire or effort to discuss Truth in an effort to bring the Truth to that person…well, this actually would be against Scripture. (…Correct the sinner, rebuke your neighbor, admonish the sinner…how many verses like this in the Bible?)

You’re right, it’s not biblical. It’s a statement strictly based on my own intuition and my effort to be unbiased.

I feel that it’s better to share the goodness that we have in common than to dwell on the evil that divides us.

Sometimes the least said, the soonest mended; which doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t share with others what our faith means to us. It also doesn’t mean that we should tolerate evil.

I don’t want to be one of those who think evil of others who don’t agree with me over the finer points of scripture and theology.

I

 

[Cosmian]

Cosmian… God decided which faith is the better and truer, he also decided which Church is the better and truer, and He did it when He instituted His Church with Peter as Her visible head in communion with the rest of the Apostles. I understand and I have to accept your “for the sake of unity sometimes we might have to agree to disagree” argument. What you have to ask is: will God agree to disagree?

2000 years ago Jesus said: “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me”. (Luke 10:16)

Luther rejected those whom Jesus sent, therefore Luther rejected the One who sent Jesus, God the Father, and so did in turn Calvin, Swingli, Henry VIII and the rest of the reformers. You say you “assume that most people with strong religious convictions have spent a great deal of time seeking out the truth”, but have they really? Is it biblical to split the Body of Christ? Is it biblical to reject the authority of God’s leader just because he’s s sinner? What would have happened if Luther had rebelled against King David or King Solomon instead of Pope Leo X? Have protestants compared Solomon’s sins against those of Pope Leo X? I would like them to show us the biblical passage that tells us it’s OK to break away from God’s leader due to his sins.

If there is biblical precedence to what Luther did you’ll find it in Numbers 16, the story of “Korah, son of Izhar, son of Kohath, from the tribe of Levi - and also Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, son of Peleth, from the tribe of Reuben - rebelled against Moses.” (Number 16:1) This episode of the Bible is the one that can be compared to what happened during the reformation. If today’s protestants “with strong religious convictions” have truly spent a great deal of seeking out the truth, then upon reading Numbers 16 they should conclude that they are Korah, not Moses; they would have also come to the same conclusion Cardinal John Newman came to in the 19th Century: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

St. Paul warned us too: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

Is it biblical to start a new church and preach a new gospel as the reformers did? For that is what they did, start a new church and preach another gospel. The gospel they preached was “other than that which” St. Paul “preached unto” the Galatians. How could a reformer/protestant know which gospel St. Paul preached the Galatians if St. Paul didn’t leave a copy of it in writing, and they reject “Christian Oral Tradition”? Nowhere in this warning from St. Paul is he referring to the written “Word of God”, that is the Bible, he explicitly refers only to the “oral” gospel he had preached them before.

How can those seeking out the Truth miss it? Could it be you have the answer in the sentence that describes your religion… “I’m not as humble as I wannabe…”?

You’re saying that it takes humility to know the will of God and that because “I’m not as humble as I wanna be” I am missing the truth about the Catholic Church and God’s will.

That could very well be but I am trying. I’m just glad that the Grand Inquisitor hasn’t come knocking on my door.

The Jews claim that Catholics as well as Protestants misinterpret scripture, all of which was written and studied by the Jews first.

 

[Prieldedi]

You’re saying that it takes humility to know the will of God and that because “I’m not as humble as I wanna be” I am missing the truth about the Catholic Church and God’s will.

I said “could it be”? Maybe yes, maybe no. I don’t have a definite reason.

That could very well be but I am trying. I’m just glad that the Grand Inquisitor hasn’t come knocking on my door.

No worries about the inquisitors, they were investigators, please don’t believe the way Hollywood portrays them, or the History, Discovery or NGS channels. Really, all of them are not in the “truth” business, they are in the entertainment business.

The Jews claim that Catholics as well as Protestants misinterpret scripture, all of which was written and studied by the Jews first.

All changed with Jesus, a Jew, and also the Son of God. All prophesies of the Messiah are fulfilled with Jesus. He said: “Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39

The Temple has been destroyed for more than 1900 years now, the Jews have not had the Holy of Hollies for all those years. That should tell them a lot.

As for misinterpretation of Scriptures I ask: which was first, the Oral Gospel or the Written Gospel? The Oral Gospel. With this I’m trying to show that the Catholic Church had the Oral Gospel first and then put part of it in writing. The Church has not played the “guessing game” with Scriptures, which is what those who broke away from it and took a lighter Bible with them do, they “guess”, we don’t because we know for sure. We wrote the Book.

 

[Pax]

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.

LostChemist in Christ,

It is important to note that scripture refers to the Church as the body of Christ, Moreover, Jesus prayers for unity among the apostles and then for unity among all those that they disciple. Jesus prayer for unity is found in John 17 and it is worth reading carefully and prayerfully with a follow up of careful meditation.

In his prayer, Jesus prays that the unity of the members will be the same as the unity that exists between himself and the Father. Jesus wants us to be “one” just as he and the Father are “one.” There is no division between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and there are not supposed to be any divisions among the body of Christ. Unfortunately, division is more the rule than is unity among Christians today.

It is important to tie Jesus prayers for unity with what he says in John 12:44-50 which reads as follows:

And Jesus cried out and said, “He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And he who sees me sees him who sent me. I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has bidden me.”

Clearly, our unity is tied to all that Jesus said and taught. We cannot pick and choose or reduce these things to what is the lowest common denominator shared within Christian circles. It is the fullness of the truth that we must love and accept if we truly “believe” in Jesus. The seeker must be willing to look for the fullness of truth. That is where the unity will be established. All else will be fractured.

There must also be a structure that binds things together. Jesus is our king and he established a kingdom rather than a democracy. We are not free to simply pick and choose. The Church is the structure with hierarchy established by Christ as king. We see hierarchy in the New Testament in many places.

Please note that Jesus gave authority and power to the apostles that He did not give to others. This is made quite clear in Matthew 16:19, Matt 18:18, Mark 3:15, John 20:21, and John 20:23. Moreover, the NT church clearly has positions and lines of authority as outlined by the following passages:

Pauls says:

Titus 1:7-11
For a bishop, as God’s steward…… must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers….they have no right to teach.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.

2 Cor 13:10
I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority…

3 John 1:9
I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

Acts 14:23
And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.

Acts 15:2
And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

1 Cor 12:28-30
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

1 Tim 3:1-5
THE SAYING is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?

This is but a smattering of the available verses that indicate that there are various positions of authority within the Church by way of scripture. It seems clear that this hierarchical structure is a natural necessity for governing the kingdom and body of Christ on earth particularly for the preservation of unity. So the question is…where do we see this kind of structure and hierarchy and what does history tells us about the same? I think history indicates that it is the Catholic Church.

I hope this helps and God bless.

 

[Cosmian]

I said “could it be”? Maybe yes, maybe no. I don’t have a definite reason.

No worries about the inquisitors, they were investigators, please don’t believe the way Hollywood portrays them, or the History, Discovery or NGS channels. Really, all of them are not in the “truth” business, they are in the entertainment business.

All changed with Jesus, a Jew, and also the Son of God. All prophesies of the Messiah are fulfilled with Jesus. He said: “Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39

The Temple has been destroyed for more than 1900 years now, the Jews have not had the Holy of Hollies for all those years. That should tell them a lot.

As for misinterpretation of Scriptures I ask: which was first, the Oral Gospel or the Written Gospel? The Oral Gospel. With this I’m trying to show that the Catholic Church had the Oral Gospel first and then put part of it in writing. The Church has not played the “guessing game” with Scriptures, which is what those who broke away from it and took a lighter Bible with them do, they “guess”, we don’t because we know for sure. We wrote the Book.

 

[Cosmian]

I said “could it be”? Maybe yes, maybe no. I don’t have a definite reason.

No worries about the inquisitors, they were investigators, please don’t believe the way Hollywood portrays them, or the History, Discovery or NGS channels. Really, all of them are not in the “truth” business, they are in the entertainment business.

All changed with Jesus, a Jew, and also the Son of God. All prophesies of the Messiah are fulfilled with Jesus. He said: “Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me.” John 5:39

The Temple has been destroyed for more than 1900 years now, the Jews have not had the Holy of Hollies for all those years. That should tell them a lot.

As for misinterpretation of Scriptures I ask: which was first, the Oral Gospel or the Written Gospel? The Oral Gospel. With this I’m trying to show that the Catholic Church had the Oral Gospel first and then put part of it in writing. The Church has not played the “guessing game” with Scriptures, which is what those who broke away from it and took a lighter Bible with them do, they “guess”, we don’t because we know for sure. We wrote the Book.

Yes, the Church has an oral tradition as well as those writings (by the early Jewish disciples of Jesus of Nazareth) which were later canonized. You are asserting that the Catholic Church “wrote the Book” because of the process of canonization.

I’m guessing (because I don’t have time to devote to a more thorough study) that this process was not as cut and dry as I would like to assume. There still seems to be an air of controversy and scholarly debate surrounding the early manuscripts of these Jewish disciples.

The oral tradition of the Catholic Church has been invaluable in shaping the faith of Catholics but oral tradition is not unique to Catholic culture. This is also an area of study unto itself. I can’t say that it proves anything other than that the Catholic Church considers itself to be the one and only church founded by Christ himself.

My Jewish friend,who does give considerable time to scholarly study, has said;

“We would have to grow up in a mostly illiterate and oral culture, which was pre-scientific … to appreciate Jesus’ words in scripture. When modern people say they relate to Jesus, they are only relating to their projection of their own self upon Jesus, not Jesus himself. They are worshipping their own image.”

This is just something to think about. My main concern is not so much which church is the true Church but whether or not we truly understand who Jesus is. Of course Catholics have their church and it’s traditions as their guide. Can it honestly be said that most Catholics, over the course of history and as evidenced by their actions, have always represented Jesus accurately?

Your comment regarding the Jews not having access to their Holy of Holies is interesting but if I were to comment about the current state of their temple in Jerusalem I might lead us off the topic of which church is the “true church”. I think that the point that you are trying to make is that Jews no longer have a temple because of the sacrifice of Jesus in atonement for our sins.

Catholics now have the sacrifice of the Mass and the Jews have hopes of restoring their temple for a third time. In each person there is a “Christ consciousness” to be realized and hopefully the Catholic Church can be a guide for some and love its neighbors as much as it loves itself.

 

[Phillip31]

John 2 : 19 Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Remember how they laughed at Jesus

Each person’s body is to be a holy living temple or true church for God. Ecclesiastes is the house of the teacher or preacher, which people know as church. But Church is a temple of worship.
Each person is a livng and Holy temple to the Lord, by the power of the Holy Spirit (the comfortor) that Jesus was excited to send to us. You show your faith by works, not simply by your lips. You can’t say on thing then do another.

Believing in Christ Jesus as Lord and savior, repentance, recieving the Holy Spirit. Like the Angels move by the motions of Gods, so to are we by the power of the Holy Spirit. People are the true Church, the dwelling place of the Lord.

 

[inkaneer]

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.

Well I will most respectfully disagree with you. A certain church is mentioned in the scriptures and that church is the Catholic Church. But first why is there a church? In Mt 16 Jesus states He will establish a church. Why? For the same reason God established the Law in the OT to provide a way to salvation. But while the Law was almost impossible to abide by and thus required the sacrifices as enumerated in the law, the NT church established by Christ would have only one eternal sacrifice as provided by Christ Himself. But why is it the Catholic Church? To answer this one must know where the name Catholic Church came from. It came from the Greek words in Acts 9:31 wherein it says:

“31So the **church throughout **all Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.” [Acts 9:31 RSV]

I emboldened the applicable words "church throughout’. In Greek this is 'ecclesia kata holis’. Ecclesia meaning Church and kata holis meaning throughout all or universal. From this Bishop Ignatius who succeeded Elvodius as third bishop of Antioch would write in his letter to the Smyrneans in 110 AD:

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

This is the first recorded use of the term ‘Catholic Church’ but the rather matter of fact way Ignatius uses it seems to indicate he was not inventing the term in 110 AD. The term is also used in the writing entitled The Martyrdom of Polycarp written in 155 AD:

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

Later, Cyril of Jerusalem would write:

“[The Church] is called catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description” (Catechetical Lectures 18:23 [A.D. 350]).

Cyril followed this with this gem:

“And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is—for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’—nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God” (Catechetical Lectures 18:26 [A.D. 350]).*

 

[Prieldedi]

Yes, the Church has an oral tradition as well as those writings (by the early Jewish disciples of Jesus of Nazareth) which were later canonized. You are asserting that the Catholic Church “wrote the Book” because of the process of canonization.

I’m guessing (because I don’t have time to devote to a more thorough study) that this process was not as cut and dry as I would like to assume. There still seems to be an air of controversy and scholarly debate surrounding the early manuscripts of these Jewish disciples.

I said “we wrote the Book” meaning that Catholic authors wrote the New Testament books of the Bible, which were eventually chosen and canonized by Catholic bishops ca. 400 AD together with the Old Testament books.

You mention scholars. Who are they? Are they Christians, Jewish, non religious?

The oral tradition of the Catholic Church has been invaluable in shaping the faith of Catholics but oral tradition is not unique to Catholic culture. This is also an area of study unto itself. I can’t say that it proves anything other than that the Catholic Church considers itself to be the one and only church founded by Christ himself.

The Catholic Church has the Holy Spirit. That alone, the promise by Jesus that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, makes a huge difference between the Church and any other group regarding oral traditions. Many try to put the Church at the same level of any other human institution, but the truth is that the Church is in a higher level than the rest regarding the Word of God. All other religions/churches are not from God. His is only One.

My Jewish friend,who does give considerable time to scholarly study, has said;

“We would have to grow up in a mostly illiterate and oral culture, which was pre-scientific … to appreciate Jesus’ words in scripture. When modern people say they relate to Jesus, they are only relating to their projection of their own self upon Jesus, not Jesus himself. They are worshipping their own image.”

This is just something to think about. My main concern is not so much which church is the true Church but whether or not we truly understand who Jesus is. Of course Catholics have their church and it’s traditions as their guide. Can it honestly be said that most Catholics, over the course of history and as evidenced by their actions, have always represented Jesus accurately?

Do you mean “We” the Church, or “we” individuals? Because as individuals “we” have to trust and obey “We” the Church. I don’t agree with your friend. The Gospels show us people asking Jesus many questions that many “modern” citizens would have never asked Jesus if given the chance. Modernism doesn’t put us at a higher level than our ancestors when dealing with religious matters. We may have better technology, not necessarily better religious or moral knowledge. Catholics have known Jesus for who He is for 2000 years. No human trend can change what Jesus is, and “we” individuals understand who He is because “We” the Church tells us who He is and how to understand Him. If a Catholic comes to a different understanding of Jesus from the one that has been taught by the Church for 2000 years, he is wrong. We are not allowed to make Jesus “fit” to our way of thinking subject to the changes society imposes on us, whether we live in a “modern” world or not.

Your comment regarding the Jews not having access to their Holy of Holies is interesting but if I were to comment about the current state of their temple in Jerusalem I might lead us off the topic of which church is the “true church”. I think that the point that you are trying to make is that Jews no longer have a temple because of the sacrifice of Jesus in atonement for our sins.

Catholics now have the sacrifice of the Mass and the Jews have hopes of restoring their temple for a third time. In each person there is a “Christ consciousness” to be realized and hopefully the Catholic Church can be a guide for some and love its neighbors as much as it loves itself.

This is a very sensitive topic for Jews, so If what I say seems rude to your friend I apologize, I’m honestly asking questions that I think they should consider answering. As a Catholic I know that Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple:

Jesus left the Temple and as he was walking away, his disciples came to him and boasted about the imposing Temple buildings. But he said, “You see all this? Truly I say to you: not one stone will be left upon another here. All will be thrown down.” Matthew 24:1-2 (Also in Mark 13:1-2; check Luke 19:41-44 too)

That prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army. Today a mosque, the Dome of the Rock, stands (since the year 701 AD) where the Temple once stood. To rebuild the Temple a third time would require the removal of the Dome of the Rock, because the third Temple has to be rebuilt in the same place where the other two stood, whose location was given by God to King David. You know the implications for this to happen. My point was also regarding the Messiah, who I understand they are still waiting. If that is the case, they’ve gone like 2500 years without a prophet announcing the coming of the Messiah. I believe the last one would be Malachi and then none after him, and 2500 years is a very long time. Have you asked your friend about this? Take this example:

“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the LORD, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)

Since there has been no Temple since 70 AD and there is no Temple today, how will this prophecy be fulfilled? With Jesus the prophecy was fulfilled and John the Baptist was His messenger.