The "True" Church?

[Kathryn_Ann]

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.

Amen, GraceSofia! Concise, true answer.
Joyous is The Church!
Kathryn Ann:harp::heaven::harp:

 

[joshua_b]

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

My response to this, as a Catholic Christian, is that the Jews started saying this about 2000 years ago when Someone first pointed out to them that they were wrong.

 

[joshua_b]

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.

Oh boy…where to start?

 

[Cosmian]

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 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.

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.

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.

Thank you, I really enjoyed your post. You’ll have to excuse me for not being more technically proficient, I can’t seem to get the hang of quoting people in my own posts.

 

[Cosmian]

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 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.

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.

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.

There are many New Testament scholars but I will provide a short list; Craig A. Evans, a well known Evangelical scholar, John Dominick Crossan, Catholic scholar, Amy-Jill Levine, a Jewish New Testament scholar, and Bart D. Ehrman, who claims that half of the New Testament is a forgery.

They make my head spin.

 

[Cosmian]

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 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.

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.

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.

Sorry, I’ll try to finish with this post.

Personally, I think your confidence in the Holy Spirit is wonderful but… I’m not sure that the Holy Spirit is confined to the Catholic Church. Jesus came first to minister to the Jews and ended up saving gentiles also so why couldn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the Protestant Churches?

I don’t agree with my friend much of the time but he gives me some things to think about. He would agree with you that modernity doesn’t equal superiority, he would consider the very idea chauvinistic.

He doesn’t believe that Jesus is a historical person and although he’s never said so, he would probably agree with those who dismiss that temple prophecy as having been recorded after the fact. Actually, it’s very unnerving and confounding when he gets together with his other Jewish friends and I don’t understand most of what they are saying. He did tell me about temple worship once but I forgot what he said.

 

[jochoa]

Personally, I think your confidence in the Holy Spirit is wonderful but… I’m not sure that the Holy Spirit is confined to the Catholic Church. Jesus came first to minister to the Jews and ended up saving gentiles also so why couldn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the Protestant Churches?

You definitely have an excellent outlook regarding the Holy Spirit inside every one of us, however consider the following concepts/perspectives:
First consider only the terms:
Catholic - All-encompassing or Universal
Protestant - Protesting
Now ask yourself a few questions:
Can anyone become a member of God’s Church? Yes. Therefore, God’s Church must be all-encompassing.
Is God’s Church united or divided? United.
Can unity exist if one is protesting? No.
Therefore, Protestantism cannot be the Fullness of Truth regarding God’s Church.

If one limits perspective to only being raised in the Protestant faith: Perhaps this person has never protested the ideas of the protestant church, nor the directions of their parental authorities, nor the knowledge of the Catholic Church, thereby essentially/technically making him/her Catholic.
Just as when a Catholic protests the directions of their parental authorities, or the knowledge of the Catholic Church, we are essentially/spiritually making ourselves Protestant.

Please know, I try my best to think as you stated in the example with your friend. I think according to the following: Since every idea is somehow Truth, I try to find the perspective which validates it as in alignment with the Holy Spirit within us.

Thoughts?

 

[inkaneer]

Sorry, I’ll try to finish with this post.

Personally, I think your confidence in the Holy Spirit is wonderful but… I’m not sure that the Holy Spirit is confined to the Catholic Church. Jesus came first to minister to the Jews and ended up saving gentiles also so why couldn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the Protestant Churches?

An interesting question indeed. Is the Holy Spirit confined to only one Church and that being the Catholic Church or does the Holy Spirit abide in other assemblies as well. Here I think the answer is that Jesus established one church and the Holy Spirit was sent to guide that one church into all truth. One thing we know about truthis that it does not change. It is the same in the past as it is now. When we look at the history of protestantism we do not see that sameness. Doctrines in all protestant denominations have changed over time. Sola scriptura is now fini scriptura. Abortion was once universally rejected as a sin as was contraception but is now accepted. Same with divorce. Where in all this is the Holy Spirit’s guidance that was promised by Jesus. Yet in the Catholic church we see a sameness of teaching. Doctrines have been more formally defined [Trinity, Transsubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc.] but this is only a more precise definition of a doctrine and not a contradiction of what was before.

 

[Prieldedi]

Thank you, I really enjoyed your post. You’ll have to excuse me for not being more technically proficient, I can’t seem to get the hang of quoting people in my own posts.

There are many New Testament scholars but I will provide a short list; Craig A. Evans, a well known Evangelical scholar, John Dominick Crossan, Catholic scholar, Amy-Jill Levine, a Jewish New Testament scholar, and Bart D. Ehrman, who claims that half of the New Testament is a forgery.

They make my head spin.

I don’t agree with my friend much of the time but he gives me some things to think about. He would agree with you that modernity doesn’t equal superiority, he would consider the very idea chauvinistic.

Personally, I think your confidence in the Holy Spirit is wonderful but… I’m not sure that the Holy Spirit is confined to the Catholic Church. Jesus came first to minister to the Jews and ended up saving gentiles also so why couldn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the Protestant Churches?

Sorry to say that I don’t know any of the scholars you mention, but between them and St. Augustine I would follow St. Augustine, who wrote the following:

“What the soul is to man’s body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church. The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all members of one body. But see what you must beware of, see what you must take note of, see what you must fear. It happens that in the human body, or rather, off the body, some member, whether hand, finger, or foot, may be cut away. And if a member be cut off, does the soul go with it? When the member was in the body, it lived; and off, its life is lost. So too, a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he is made a heretic; the Spirit does not follow an amputated member.”
Sermon 267,4

I believe that the Holy Spirit inspires protestant when they find the Truth in the Catholic Church and become Catholics. As long as they reject the Church they are being inspired by a different spirit, most likely their human spirit, vulnerable to human pride. I don’t see the Holy Spirit inspiring them to deny, among many things, the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary or inspiring them to deny She is the Mother of God and Queen of the Heavens.

He doesn’t believe that Jesus is a historical person and although he’s never said so, he would probably agree with those who dismiss that temple prophecy as having been recorded after the fact. Actually, it’s very unnerving and confounding when he gets together with his other Jewish friends and I don’t understand most of what they are saying. He did tell me about temple worship once but I forgot what he said.

What are his arguments against Jesus as a historical person? If he argues that Jesus never wrote anything and that He was invented by His followers, then the same argument can be applied to all of what he believes, as Adam, Abraham, Noah and many of the Old Testament figures left nothing in writing. From a historical perspective we know of them just like we know of Jesus, by way of third parties who wrote about them. Do you know the same applies to Socrates? I bet no one would deny Socrates is a historical person. Ask your friend if he thinks Socrates is a historical person, lets see what he says.

If the gospel were written after the facts I think the descriptions of the events would have been different. There would be more precise details of the prophecy and its fulfillment to make it 100% believable to anyone, nothing would’ve been left out to interpretations, they would’ve been presented in a way that all who read them would understand the same thing. I mentioned human pride before, I’m sure that human pride would be noticeable in their invented writings making the Gospels the work of men, period. The truth is that the Gospels are the work of men… but of men inspired by God.

Blaise Pascal said that “In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.” That’s the way God works, there is enough light and enough shadows in His written Word, the Bible. Your friend is blinded by the shadows, we see the light.

 

[Cosmian]

You definitely have an excellent outlook regarding the Holy Spirit inside every one of us, however consider the following concepts/perspectives:
First consider only the terms:
Catholic - All-encompassing or Universal
Protestant - Protesting
Now ask yourself a few questions:
Can anyone become a member of God’s Church? Yes. Therefore, God’s Church must be all-encompassing.
Is God’s Church united or divided? United.
Can unity exist if one is protesting? No.
Therefore, Protestantism cannot be the Fullness of Truth regarding God’s Church.

If one limits perspective to only being raised in the Protestant faith: Perhaps this person has never protested the ideas of the protestant church, nor the directions of their parental authorities, nor the knowledge of the Catholic Church, thereby essentially/technically making him/her Catholic.
Just as when a Catholic protests the directions of their parental authorities, or the knowledge of the Catholic Church, we are essentially/spiritually making ourselves Protestant.

Please know, I try my best to think as you stated in the example with your friend. I think according to the following: Since every idea is somehow Truth, I try to find the perspective which validates it as in alignment with the Holy Spirit within us.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Well…the term protestant, as applied to the 16th century reformers, strikes me as being political rather than spiritual in nature.

 

[Cosmian]

An interesting question indeed. Is the Holy Spirit confined to only one Church and that being the Catholic Church or does the Holy Spirit abide in other assemblies as well. Here I think the answer is that Jesus established one church and the Holy Spirit was sent to guide that one church into all truth. One thing we know about truthis that it does not change. It is the same in the past as it is now. When we look at the history of protestantism we do not see that sameness. Doctrines in all protestant denominations have changed over time. Sola scriptura is now fini scriptura. Abortion was once universally rejected as a sin as was contraception but is now accepted. Same with divorce. Where in all this is the Holy Spirit’s guidance that was promised by Jesus. Yet in the Catholic church we see a sameness of teaching. Doctrines have been more formally defined [Trinity, Transsubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc.] but this is only a more precise definition of a doctrine and not a contradiction of what was before.

We can’t quantify the Holy Spirit, we can only subjectively measure that quality known as holiness of life.

Doctrines are intellectual constructions and subject to the limitations of human intellect. Is it easier to train the intellect or to tame the emotions and have the right disposition of heart?

 

[Cosmian]

Sorry to say that I don’t know any of the scholars you mention, but between them and St. Augustine I would follow St. Augustine, who wrote the following:

“What the soul is to man’s body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church. The Holy Spirit does in the whole Church what the soul does in all members of one body. But see what you must beware of, see what you must take note of, see what you must fear. It happens that in the human body, or rather, off the body, some member, whether hand, finger, or foot, may be cut away. And if a member be cut off, does the soul go with it? When the member was in the body, it lived; and off, its life is lost. So too, a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he is made a heretic; the Spirit does not follow an amputated member.”
Sermon 267,4

I believe that the Holy Spirit inspires protestant when they find the Truth in the Catholic Church and become Catholics. As long as they reject the Church they are being inspired by a different spirit, most likely their human spirit, vulnerable to human pride. I don’t see the Holy Spirit inspiring them to deny, among many things, the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary or inspiring them to deny She is the Mother of God and Queen of the Heavens.

What are his arguments against Jesus as a historical person? If he argues that Jesus never wrote anything and that He was invented by His followers, then the same argument can be applied to all of what he believes, as Adam, Abraham, Noah and many of the Old Testament figures left nothing in writing. From a historical perspective we know of them just like we know of Jesus, by way of third parties who wrote about them. Do you know the same applies to Socrates? I bet no one would deny Socrates is a historical person. Ask your friend if he thinks Socrates is a historical person, lets see what he says.

If the gospel were written after the facts I think the descriptions of the events would have been different. There would be more precise details of the prophecy and its fulfillment to make it 100% believable to anyone, nothing would’ve been left out to interpretations, they would’ve been presented in a way that all who read them would understand the same thing. I mentioned human pride before, I’m sure that human pride would be noticeable in their invented writings making the Gospels the work of men, period. The truth is that the Gospels are the work of men… but of men inspired by God.

Blaise Pascal said that “In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.” That’s the way God works, there is enough light and enough shadows in His written Word, the Bible. Your friend is blinded by the shadows, we see the light.

I was once told that “rejection” was a loaded word. My purpose is not to convince anyone that their beliefs are right or wrong. I do not reject your conviction that the Catholic Church is the “true Church” but I acknowledge that others do not share this point of view and I do not reject their beliefs either.

That leaves me with my own beliefs and if I must one day answer to God for believing wrongly than that is between me and God. I’m actually more worried about answering for my conduct and my attitude toward others.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
An interesting question indeed. Is the Holy Spirit confined to only one Church and that being the Catholic Church or does the Holy Spirit abide in other assemblies as well. Here I think the answer is that Jesus established one church and the Holy Spirit was sent to guide that one church into all truth. One thing we know about truthis that it does not change. It is the same in the past as it is now. When we look at the history of protestantism we do not see that sameness. Doctrines in all protestant denominations have changed over time. Sola scriptura is now fini scriptura. Abortion was once universally rejected as a sin as was contraception but is now accepted. Same with divorce. Where in all this is the Holy Spirit’s guidance that was promised by Jesus. Yet in the Catholic church we see a sameness of teaching. Doctrines have been more formally defined [Trinity, Transsubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc.] but this is only a more precise definition of a doctrine and not a contradiction of what was before.

We can’t quantify the Holy Spirit, we can only subjectively measure that quality known as holiness of life.

Doctrines are intellectual constructions and subject to the limitations of human intellect. Is it easier to train the intellect or to tame the emotions and have the right disposition of heart?

But , if it is indeed truth, can doctrine change? Can the Holy Spirit lead one denomination to say one thing now and later have that same denomination contradict itself? That is what has happened in protestantism. And that is prima fascia evidence that the Holy Spirit does not abide in the protestant denominations.

 

[Cosmian]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
An interesting question indeed. Is the Holy Spirit confined to only one Church and that being the Catholic Church or does the Holy Spirit abide in other assemblies as well. Here I think the answer is that Jesus established one church and the Holy Spirit was sent to guide that one church into all truth. One thing we know about truthis that it does not change. It is the same in the past as it is now. When we look at the history of protestantism we do not see that sameness. Doctrines in all protestant denominations have changed over time. Sola scriptura is now fini scriptura. Abortion was once universally rejected as a sin as was contraception but is now accepted. Same with divorce. Where in all this is the Holy Spirit’s guidance that was promised by Jesus. Yet in the Catholic church we see a sameness of teaching. Doctrines have been more formally defined [Trinity, Transsubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc.] but this is only a more precise definition of a doctrine and not a contradiction of what was before.

But , if it is indeed truth, can doctrine change? Can the Holy Spirit lead one denomination to say one thing now and later have that same denomination contradict itself? That is what has happened in protestantism. And that is prima fascia evidence that the Holy Spirit does not abide in the protestant denominations.

Do we have evidence that a doctrine is true or do we only assume that it is true?
If evidence of doctrinal contradiction among Protestants consists of accepting (with qualifiers) abortion, it is worth noting that approximately 1000 Protestant denominations do take a pro-life stance.

I think that whenever we make accusations against others such as, “the Holy Spirit does not abide in the protestant denominations” we risk objectifying others and treating them impersonally. That feels wrong to me.

If anyone believes that the Catholic Church is the “True Church” and they find comfort in this assurance, they should remain faithful in charity while recalling the prayer of the Pharisee.

 

[fred_conty]

Cosmian you said,
“That leaves me with my own beliefs and if I must one day answer to God for believing wrongly than that is between me and God. I’m actually more worried about answering for my conduct and my attitude toward others.”

Dosen’t conduct and attitude depend a great deal on belief?

I’m just going to take one example out of thousands where this is important.
Abortion. Some believe wrong, some ok. It is about human life, an important issue.
And to those who deny it is about human life I would like to ask this question.
Suppose it happened to you? How human would that be?

I’m not going to belabor a point.
But …
churches teach morals and other issues based on their belief which directs or misdirects what we do, which in turn affects those under our influence.

Just a thought.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

Well, no, you wouldn’t expect a certain church to be mentioned in scripture because there was only one church to begin with. The Church. It didn’t have a name, other than perhaps, the Way. That single church is simply, the church, the ecclesia, the assembly. This church was universal. There were no denominations. Later on, even in New Testament times, other “churches” did appear. That is, non-orthodox groups claiming to be Christian came onto the scene. They were primarily local. There can be only one universal Truth, but many local falsehoods. So, the true church was the original universal, or in Greek, katholic church. Note that catholic is not a name, but an adjective.

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

True enough. However, the only way we know about God and his Son is via the Church. The mission of the Church is to proclaim the good news about his Son. The Church was created by Jesus for that task. Therefore to be able to put our trust in Jesus, we first must have trust in his Church.

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.

Well, the Church matters because the Church is the body of Christ. Christ is the head of his body. So when you are a member of Christ’s Church, you are a member of his body.

It is the Church which defines Christ and what his sacrifice means. I know of no other means to access Jesus and his teachings other than through the Church.

Now, how does that make one faith better or more true than another? I’m referring to Christian faiths obviously.

Different Christian faiths or denominations disagree with one another. Since they are not all the same, they can’t all be equally true!

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.

Of course, the Catholic church isn’t the only one to say it is the one true church. The Mormon church and the Watchtower organization think they are. And there are other non-Catholic denominations or congregations that think only they have the whole truth. Christianity as a whole is very judgmental about other, non-Christian religions! It has always been judging other beliefs as heretical. Can Truth tolerate error?

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

Yes, where do we start? Well, Catholics start with Church. They put their trust in Church, from which scripture is derived. Protestants, on the other hand, in general, start with scripture from which church is derived. The inverse process.

Which process do you prefer? Catholics choose the first process because they see that historically the universal Church existed before Christian scripture was written. They see scripture as having been born out of Church. Scripture is a child of the Church. Hence, having written scripture, the Church obviously knows best what scripture means.

But what if you don’t start with Church? Start with scripture? But to me that doesn’t make any sense, because scripture came out of Church!

That’s why I’m Catholic. Even though problems with the Catholic church are pointed out, I see even more problems elsewhere. The Catholic church existed before Protestant denominations came to be, and I believe today’s Catholic church is the same as the catholic church of the first and second centuries.

 

[inkaneer]

Do we have evidence that a doctrine is true or do we only assume that it is true?
If evidence of doctrinal contradiction among Protestants consists of accepting (with qualifiers) abortion, it is worth noting that approximately 1000 Protestant denominations do take a pro-life stance.

I think that whenever we make accusations against others such as, “the Holy Spirit does not abide in the protestant denominations” we risk objectifying others and treating them impersonally. That feels wrong to me.

If anyone believes that the Catholic Church is the “True Church” and they find comfort in this assurance, they should remain faithful in charity while recalling the prayer of the Pharisee.

Well in protestantism I can see how one can not be sure if a doctrine is really true or if one can only assume it to be. Take a look at water Baptism in protestantism and the different ways it is treated doctrinally. Does Baptism save, yes or no? Is it a sacrament or an ordinance? Is it necessary, yes or no? Adult only or children and infants too? Does it impart grace or not? These are contradictory doctrines of different protestant denominations. So then, tell me, where is the Holy Spirit’s guidance in this doctrinal mish-mash? Does the Holy Spirit tell Baptists one thing and Lutherans something contradictory? How many truths are there???

In protestantism there is no assurance of doctrinal truth. Not so in Catholicism. In doctrinal matters the church speaks with one voice as guided by the Holy Spirit so Baptism is necessary for adultsand children, it is a sacrament and it does impart grace and it does save. There is no concept of a “big tent” in Catholicism. That concept exists in protestantism because by denying church authority you cannot tell another denomination that their doctrine is false. You have no authority to do so, In Catholicism there exists the authority to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven as given by Jesus to His church. Consider this, The president of the United States is a powerful man with a lot of authority but even he cannot bind something in heaven. But a non descript fisherman from Galilee could.

 

[jochoa]

Thoughts?

Well…the term protestant, as applied to the 16th century reformers, strikes me as being political rather than spiritual in nature.

Thanks for sharing.

Do we have evidence that a doctrine is true or do we only assume that it is true?
If evidence of doctrinal contradiction among Protestants consists of accepting (with qualifiers) abortion, it is worth noting that approximately 1000 Protestant denominations do take a pro-life stance.

I think that whenever we make accusations against others such as, “the Holy Spirit does not abide in the protestant denominations” we risk objectifying others and treating them impersonally. That feels wrong to me.

If anyone believes that the Catholic Church is the “True Church” and they find comfort in this assurance, they should remain faithful in charity while recalling the prayer of the Pharisee.

Excellent points, my friend! To answer the first question: Do we have evidence that a doctrine is true or do we only assume that it is true? The evidence to Truth is found by becoming One with the Spirit of God by doing ALL the following in order to get to know God:

1. Want everyone to be able to experience happiness (contentment to intense joy) without ever losing any peace (freedom from disturbance).
2. Set out to master being unconditionally patient and kind so that your relationships and self may experience happiness without losing any peace. I recommend the first 10 days of the Love Dare to begin your journey to mastery.
3. Find the solution to the following problem:
   Given ALL the following:
   -You, as a thinking, feeling, acting, living being exist in solitude (Hint: It is best to think of yourself existing as a single-celled being, similar to how you first came to be).
   -There is nothing else in existence.
   -The only method to create something, living or non-living, is to first think of it in full detail.
   -You want to experience limitless happiness without ever losing peace.
   How do you make that happen? I recommend first thinking about what are the requirements and trying to figure out how to make those happen individually.

Regarding the Protestant Denominations, please consider the following concepts:
If a doctrine of a protestant church is in alignment with Catholic Doctrine, it is Catholic Doctrine.
It is similar to the individual. When an individual acts in accordance with the Holy Spirit, s/he is one with the Holy Spirit. However, when an individual acts out of accordance with the Holy Spirit, s/he is one with the unholy spirit.
The only difference is that regarding Doctrine, God has appointed the Holy Spirit to be with the Fathers of the Catholic Church.
And you are definitely correct in that we should not treat others less because the Catholic Church is the All-Embracing Church. We should try our hardest to understand how every person’s perspective is in the least, partially aligned with the Holy Spirit. We should even try to broaden our perspective by learning from them.

Thoughts?

 

[Abu]

Cosmian #46
Jesus came first to minister to the Jews and ended up saving gentiles also so why couldn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the Protestant Churches?

Jesus’ 12 Apostles including His Supreme Vicar, Peter, were Jews.
He did not send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to all and sundry – only to His closest followers.
Jesus founded only one Church (post #23) to teach all nations.

How could contrary teachings be tolerated by Him? Even those who would not listen were to be abandoned – when the Twelve are sent on mission, they are told by Christ “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15).

Until you have the sincerity and humility to accept that Jesus founded only one Church on St Peter, with His authority and power against erroneous teaching, and get to know what Christ really did and taught, you will not know the fullness of His truth.

 

[Cosmian]

Well in protestantism I can see how one can not be sure if a doctrine is really true or if one can only assume it to be. Take a look at water Baptism in protestantism and the different ways it is treated doctrinally. Does Baptism save, yes or no? Is it a sacrament or an ordinance? Is it necessary, yes or no? Adult only or children and infants too? Does it impart grace or not? These are contradictory doctrines of different protestant denominations. So then, tell me, where is the Holy Spirit’s guidance in this doctrinal mish-mash? Does the Holy Spirit tell Baptists one thing and Lutherans something contradictory? How many truths are there???

In protestantism there is no assurance of doctrinal truth. Not so in Catholicism. In doctrinal matters the church speaks with one voice as guided by the Holy Spirit so Baptism is necessary for adultsand children, it is a sacrament and it does impart grace and it does save. There is no concept of a “big tent” in Catholicism. That concept exists in protestantism because by denying church authority you cannot tell another denomination that their doctrine is false. You have no authority to do so, In Catholicism there exists the authority to bind and loose on earth as well as in heaven as given by Jesus to His church. Consider this, The president of the United States is a powerful man with a lot of authority but even he cannot bind something in heaven. But a non descript fisherman from Galilee could.

It is compelling to compare this doctrine to that doctrine and to seek the certainty that one is true while the other is not. This pursuit appears to be quite titillating, and perhaps profitable, for many religiously minded people.

When all is said and done, we are still left with the reality of religious pluralism and diversity of opinion. Attempts do convert those who do not have the “Truth” often result in increased hostility and even more division. What should we do about that? How are we going to build the kingdom?