The TRUE Church

[rfournier103]

I borrowed Clarence Larkin’s “The Book of Revalation” from a former Protestant minister’s bookshelf recently. Having tried to read it (and failing), I am left with a serious question: if anti-Catholics say the Catholic Church is NOT THE TRUE CHURCH that Jesus Christ founded… then what is???

To denounce the Catholic Church is one thing; but if one is to attempt to discredit an institution’s claim of being the TRUE CHURCH; then wouldn’t one expect the attempted discreditation to be followed by a claim that another church is the True Church? Mr. Larkin failed to address that (as far as I can tell, anyway).

So… who do the anti-Catholics say is the True Church?

DISCLAIMER: I accept the Roman Catholic Church and all of her teachings. I am posting this to educate myself in order that I may understand other churches and their viewpoints; not embrace them.

 

[JerryZ]

I borrowed Clarence Larkin’s “The Book of Revalation” from a former Protestant minister’s bookshelf recently. Having tried to read it (and failing), I am left with a serious question: if anti-Catholics say the Catholic Church is NOT THE TRUE CHURCH that Jesus Christ founded… then what is???

To denounce the Catholic Church is one thing; but if one is to attempt to discredit an institution’s claim of being the TRUE CHURCH; then wouldn’t one expect the attempted discreditation to be followed by a claim that another church is the True Church? Mr. Larkin failed to address that (as far as I can tell, anyway).

So… who do the anti-Catholics say is the True Church?

DISCLAIMER: I accept the Roman Catholic Church and all of her teachings. I am posting this to educate myself in order that I may understand other churches and their viewpoints; not embrace them.

Well you hit that nail squarely on it’s head.
When confronted with the truth you can hear the crickets for their answer.
Possibly they heard so many times the Catholics where evil they end up believing it.
What is the saying? “You repeat a lie so many times people start believing it is true”

 

[Steveabrous]

Dear friend,

I am a former Protestant living in a heavily Protestant area. I have since gone to the true church (Roman Catholic Church).
I can tell you that there are as many answers to that question as there are Protestant denominatons (it’s a true thorn in their philosophy. But there is a common theme.
Most believe that the true church was lost ( some say when Constantine became Emporer others later, still others before the end of the 1st century) and the roman catholic church took over. The goal is to discover the true church through reading scripture. But as we know they can’t agree on what scripture says.

Still other groups believe the ‘Church’ is invisible with its members scattered among the different denominations, and that it was always that way. That there was never 1 single physical church. They believe the apostles started the churches gave limited pastoral advice and then they were on their own. then the Roman empire produced a bastardized version of christianity called Roman Catholicism in the 4th century forcing the true christians underground until the Protestant reformation.

 

[PJH_74]

Why do we even argue about the “true” church? The true church on earth is present anywhere a christian lives out our call to faith and service. Christ’s salvation is not arguing about who is more right.

 

[jacrow]

Dear friend,

I am a former Protestant living in a heavily Protestant area. I have since gone to the true church (Roman Catholic Church)…

…Still other groups believe the ‘Church’ is invisible with its members scattered among the different denominations, and that it was always that way. That there was never 1 single physical church. They believe the apostles started the churches gave limited pastoral advice and then they were on their own. then the Roman empire produced a bastardized version of christianity called Roman Catholicism in the 4th century forcing the true christians underground until the Protestant reformation.

Since there can only ever be one “One True Church”, which of the thousands of so called “churches” do protestants think it is?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Christ’s salvation is not arguing about who is more right.

Wisdom!

 

[jacrow]

Why do we even argue about the “true” church? The true church on earth is present anywhere a christian lives out our call to faith and service. Christ’s salvation is not arguing about who is more right.

I’m not arguing - just seeking the truth.

 

[rfournier103]

Dear friend,

I am a former Protestant living in a heavily Protestant area. I have since gone to the true church (Roman Catholic Church).
I can tell you that there are as many answers to that question as there are Protestant denominatons (it’s a true thorn in their philosophy. But there is a common theme.
Most believe that the true church was lost ( some say when Constantine became Emporer others later, still others before the end of the 1st century) and the roman catholic church took over. The goal is to discover the true church through reading scripture. But as we know they can’t agree on what scripture says.

Still other groups believe the ‘Church’ is invisible with its members scattered among the different denominations, and that it was always that way. That there was never 1 single physical church. They believe the apostles started the churches gave limited pastoral advice and then they were on their own. then the Roman empire produced a bastardized version of christianity called Roman Catholicism in the 4th century forcing the true christians underground until the Protestant reformation.

We all know that the True Church started with Jesus + 12. After that…? I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the Roman Catholic Church isn’t the linear Church founded by Jesus Christ. Why is it up to us to prove it? Why not let the naysayers prove THEIR point?

The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is our ONLY authority? Why is it so hard for others to look these facts in the eye? If the true Christians were ‘underground’; why wait for 1500+ years to surface? Would it not be better to strike early, and reclaim the true mantle of Christianity when the Catholic Church was in it’s infancy; rather that wait until it had reached the peak of it’s political power? Why not evangelize and spread the ‘true’ Christianity as we/they have a duty to do? Who makes all these excuses?

Please remember that I am only talking about the ANTI-Catholics, not non-Catholics. Almost every non-Catholic I have ever met has been very charitable, and level-headed. But… as we all know, the internet and various books are nothing but cesspools of bad information, and I love seeing the purveyors of this bad information being exposed for the hateful people they really are.

Are these anti-Catholics really blind to history and where our Faith really comes from? Do they know the truth but stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it; or are they just afraid? Where does the hate come from? How could such learned schollars see things SO differently than us?

 

[rfournier103]

Why do we even argue about the “true” church? The true church on earth is present anywhere a christian lives out our call to faith and service. Christ’s salvation is not arguing about who is more right.

I am only asking because I read a book by a Protestant author who wasn’t very charitable to the ‘Papal Church’. So… I wish to know who this man (Clarence Larkin, and those of similar theology) thinks is the True Church, if not the ‘Papal Church’. He, and those like him, have no problem slamming Catholicism, yet they refuse to say who else it might be. I’m throwing down the gauntlet, so to speak. I’m calling on them to defend their position. For my own knowledge.

 

[rfournier103]

I’m not arguing - just seeking the truth.

I’m not even trying to argue! I just want to know where these anti-Catholics stand. If someone wants to say something is bad… why not follow up and tell me what’s good?

 

[PJH_74]

I am only asking because I read a book by a Protestant author who wasn’t very charitable to the ‘Papal Church’. So… I wish to know who this man (Clarence Larkin, and those of similar theology) thinks is the True Church, if not the ‘Papal Church’. He, and those like him, have no problem slamming Catholicism, yet they refuse to say who else it might be. I’m throwing down the gauntlet, so to speak. I’m calling on them to defend their position. For my own knowledge.

That’s cool, I wasn’t trying to slam or argue with you. My main point being that I think we lose the point of the church on earth in many of these arguments.

That said Clarence Larkin lived and wrote more than a century ago at a particularly anti-Catholic time in the United States at a time when this country was seeing a large amount of Italian and Irish immigration. That probably explains some of his views. He’s also a major proponent of Dispensationalism, e.g. Book of Revelation predicting the end of the world which often sees the Pope as the Anti-Chirst and so on.

 

[Steveabrous]

Since there can only ever be one “One True Church”, which of the thousands of so called “churches” do protestants think it is?

They believe the “church” is invisible with it’s members scattered through out ever denomination accept catholics mormans and jh. Realize that I don’t agree with them all you have to do is look at history to see the catholic church is the true church

 

[Steveabrous]

If the true Christians were ‘underground’; why wait for 1500+ years to surface? Would it not be better to strike early, and reclaim the true mantle of Christianity when the Catholic Church was in it’s infancy; rather that wait until it had reached the peak of it’s political power? Why not evangelize and spread the ‘true’ Christianity as we/they have a duty to do? Who makes all these excuses?

I’ll go one better, if the big mean Catholic church was able to destroy The real church to the point that the now “Real christians” have to interpret vague scriptures to get to authentic teaching( of which they do not agree) then I say- the Gates of Hell have overcome the church. Something Christ said wouldn’t happen

 

[uther]

Why do we even argue about the “true” church? The true church on earth is present anywhere a christian lives out our call to faith and service. Christ’s salvation is not arguing about who is more right.

What you have stated is one side of the argument. Why do we discuss and debate it?

Probably because it may well be critical to our salvation. That is reason enough to get it right I would think.

Imagine someone who was not raised a Christian but who is curious about Christianity. He may well hear that Christians are followers of Jesus Christ. If that is the case and he wishes to read about it, he may well take up the gospels to find out who Jesus was and what he said. When he comes to the part where Jesus says “on this rock I will build my Church” he may well then ask, “If Jesus clearly intended to build a Church, where would I find that Church today?”

That is a legitimate question. But in looking around he will find a myriad of people claiming to be Christian, and on closer examination he will find that these Christians differ on many doctrines, some even critical to what Jesus was saying about eternal life and eternal damnation. For example, the necessity of baptism for salvation, or the necessity of the Eucharist for salvation.

Then the question does become, “Who is the true Church?” So yes, it is an important question to get right. As a convert from Evangelicalism to the Catholic Church for me that was the critical question. Believe me, if it was just a matter of esthetics or historical roots or lifestyle compatability I would never have become Catholic. It would have been a lot easier to just stay where I was.

 

[uther]

Still other groups believe the ‘Church’ is invisible with its members scattered among the different denominations, and that it was always that way. That there was never 1 single physical church. They believe the apostles started the churches gave limited pastoral advice and then they were on their own. then the Roman empire produced a bastardized version of christianity called Roman Catholicism in the 4th century forcing the true christians underground until the Protestant reformation.

That is the most common approach among Protestants I think. It is sort of nebulous but it does parallel a teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the mystical body of Christ, which as I understand it, draws a distinction between the sum total of the baptized Catholics and the actual faithful of heart. (Correct me if I’m wrong here anyone.)

This is how we can speak of the “one, Holy and apostolic Church” while at the same time recognizing the fact that many of the baptized are far from holy and may no longer even be Catholic in any real sense of the term.