What Is The One and Only True Church? The evidence is here!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jimmy_B

Guest
I think that an honest investigation of the Bible, Jewish history, Christian history, Catholic apologetics, the formation of the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Archeological evidence, ancient Christian (Catholic) traditions, ancient Christian (Catholic) document (example, the Didache and 1st,2nd and 3rd century Homilies –“Sermons”) and The collected works of the Catholic Church Doctors, Saints and the religious, would make it abundantly clear to anyone with an open mind and the ability to reason, that the Roman Catholic Church is obviously the one true religion.

There exist overwhelming evidence in support of Catholicism which far outweighs any argument to the contrary. Start you investigation today.

Here are a few helpful links:

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
Catholic Online
http://www.catholic.org/sitemap.php?four
Catholic Answers –Home Page
catholic.com/
On-line Bible
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/
Scripture in the order of the (Catholic) Mass
http://www.stpio-soe.org/scriptural_mass.html
The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/imitation/imitation.html
Introduction to a Devout Life by Saint Francis de Sales
http://www.catholicity.com/devoutlife/
Camelite.com, Spirituality, The collected works of Saint John of the Cross
http://www.carmelite.com/saints/john/works/index.shtml
The Shorter Summa by Saint Thomas Aquinas
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
 
Searchers of the Truth
If you are truly searching for the One True Church, or you are interested in learning the arguments supporting Catholicism, if you want the answer, then with an open mind, research the evidence provided in this thread before making your final decision.

Catholics Sharing the Truth
If you have evidence, know of links, or books the supports the argument that the **Roman Catholic Church **is the One True Church, post it here!
 
Introduction to a Devout Life by Saint Francis de Sales
(the link provide in the first post was not working)
ccel.org/ccel/desales/devout_life.toc.html

Christian Classics library
ccel.org/

True Roman Catholic Links
catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/booklinks.htm

EWTN Apologetics Library
ewtn.com/library/indexes/Answers.htm

Catholic Radio, online
wdeo.net/

EWTN Catholic TV, on-line
ewtn.com/audiovideo/index.asp

The Mary Riot Act
home.inreach.com/bstanley/riot.htm

Vivificat, Catholic blog
vivificat1.blogspot.com/search/label/Blogs%20and%20Blogging

The Vatican: The Holy See
vatican.va/
 
**One final note, if you want anybody to get something out of this thread, please do not post personal opinons or “preach” here. Only post credibly sourced evidence/information. **
**Answer questions with quotes and links. **

Let’s keep the personal attacks and arguing back and forth outside this thread or at least at a minimum. Here is a thread that can actually provide real credible answers that is of course, if you all help, thank you.
 
Catholic Evangelism /Resource Center
http://www.catholicevangelism.org/index.shtml
Formation of the Bible , time line
http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.shtml
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia and library
http://www.newadvent.org/
The New American Bible - Vatican%between%
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM
Code of Canon Law
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_INDEX.HTM
Saint Paul** Center**** for Biblical Study **
http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/apologetics/index.cfm?PID=1194
 
I reviewed each link, and read every post you have ever put up here for good measure. I am sorry to say that after intense investigation, I have concluded that my current faith is best for me and that all credible evidence points to the fact that Judaism was not meant to be supplamented or fullfilled by Christianity.

I will of course keep an open mind to any further evidence you wish to present.
 
Valke2 said:
I reviewed each link, and read every post you have ever put up here for good measure. I am sorry to say that after intense investigation, I have concluded that my current faith is best for me and that all credible evidence points to the fact that Judaism was not meant to be supplamented or fullfilled by Christianity.

I will of course keep an open mind to any further evidence you wish to present.
Click to expand...
i am a Christian. let me start by saying that.

i also have a profound respect for the catholic church and can fully admit that it is extremely possible that i might come back to her someday (possible soon).

that being said, i have to sort of (meaning not in exact words or sentiment) agree with valke. “evidence” is only as good as the bias of the person interpreting it. if you are looking for the “one, true church” and you look all through Christian history, you will probably find more that leads you to the RCC than would find that leads you away. if you were jewish (and had a grasp of how a jewish person views the tanakh and how they interpret it… especially torah) you would probably find that (based purely on history) there is no way Jesus was the messiah and Christianity is not an outgrowth of judaism but an entirely new religion. if you are muslim, you might find that mohammed was right. buddhist, agnostic, atheist, hindu, etc. would allow “history” and the writings you are referring to lead them to different places.

evidence does not change a heart. God (and God interacting with others through people meaning us as His representatives) alone has the ability to “convince”.

so while it was a great job posting all those links for people to go an find the one, true church, they will not lead everyone to the RCC because EVERYONE approaches the evidence with some form of bias and will see that evidence through their point of view. there is no such thing as a truly open mind.

now, we can try to be open and really seek to understand the arguments of all sides and then come to a conclusion. but that is not an easy thing because you would have to learn (or try to learn as best you can) how to think like some one else. it is especially hard when it is some one from a completely different cultural background.
 
JimmyB,

People who believe that their church (any church) is the one true church are a turn off to non believers, and to some believers, like me.
I tend to avoid these kind of churches because the truth is not in them. God will judge people with His truth. Not by anyone’s alleged one true religion.

Psalms 96:13 *Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.

Jesus is the truth. Noy any one church.

John 1:14 *And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 14:6 *Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The truth is within us. Not within a man made church.

17 *Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:13 *Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Word of God is the one true religion. Not any church.

John 17:17 *¶Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

We are sanctified by the truth of His Word. Not any church or sacrament.

19 *And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

John 18:37 Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

1 Corinthians 3:11 *¶For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The church is not the foundation of truth.

22 *And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, (all churches)

Luke 9:46 *Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.
47 *And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
48 *And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

No man and no church is greater. He that is most humble is greatest. Is it humble or “least among you” to say Catholicism is the one true church?

1 Corinthians 14:33 *For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Ephesians 4:11 *And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 *For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Romans 12:4 *For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 *So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Did you get that?

In John 15, Jesus say’s He is the vine and we are the branches. The Catholic church is neither.

1 Corinthians 3:11 *¶For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Christ is the foundation, not any one church.

Ephesians 4:25 *Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
The one fold is the body of Christ. Not the Catholic church.

Why spend so much time promoting your church as the greatest when it’s obvious that we are all part of the body of Christ. It’s better to promote Him as the one true God than any man made church!

SE
 
Valke2 said:
I reviewed each link, and read every post you have ever put up here for good measure. I am sorry to say that after intense investigation, I have concluded that my current faith is best for me and that all credible evidence points to the fact that Judaism was not meant to be supplamented or fullfilled by Christianity.

I will of course keep an open mind to any further evidence you wish to present.
Click to expand...
Hello Valke2,

Thank you for actually taking some time to review the posts here, but did you read anything, on any of the links I provided here? I would like to know for instance, what you think about the works of Thomas Kempis, John of the Cross or Thomas Aquinas? Moreover, are there any “universal” truths found in their works that you could accept as a Jewish person,(substituting the name “Jesus”, with G-d) ?

The Catholic God is the God of Moses and Abraham, we share the same God, the God of the Old Testament, I’m sure that you know that. As far as Judaism; not being a “supplemental” to Catholicism, this might be true, as worded, but the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian-Judeo religion, Judaism validates our faith in many ways (the Old Testament prophesies) and as such, is obviously influenced by some of the ancient Jewish religion and Jewish traditions.

Remember, we are the religion of “Bible and Tradition”, “Faith and Works”. Moreover, “tradition” is embraced in the Catholic Church. Catholics love their Jewish brothers and sisters and embrace many of their traditions that have been passed down over the many years.

The first time I heard the story and meaning of Hanukkah and the explanation of the candles, was during a Roman Catholic Mass, (I Maccabees are II Maccabees are in the Catholic Bible).

Here are just two examples of Jewish tradition that are still with Catholicism (however, the list is many); the use of incense during Mass and the design, or lay-out of the interior of a Catholic church building, both of these come from are Jewish roots and traditions. I have read some interesting books on this topic, so if you are interested I will comment on them some more, at a later time.

Thank you and God bless you.
Jimmy
 
SpecialED,
I sympathize with a lot of what you’re saying, but I feel like some of your criticisms of Jimmy are a little off, with all due respect.

Is it arrogant for me to declare to non-Christians that Jesus Christ is a greater man and teacher than Buddha or Moses? No, it’s not - because it’s true. Being humble does not mean dumbing down the truth or evading it - that would be a form of sacrilege. Now, if I told a Buddhist that I were so much smarter and holier than him because of my belief in Christ, that would be arrogant and foolish, and precisely what Jesus would abhor.

Second point is that the Church is not man-made - Christ founded it. He founded it (upon Peter) - the Church did not found itself. That is a major distinction. So the Church is not a Church of man but HIS Church, and that makes it very special. None of the earliest Christians thought the Catholic Church (their words for it in the West, not mine) was made by human beings - they knew it was Christ who founded it.

Now, you also say that no man and no church is greater. But what if a church, such as certain liberal sects, denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God? That would clearly be a lesser church, because it is in heresy and untruth. A church that worships Christ IS greater than one that doesn’t. Therefore, a Church which worships Christ more fully is a greater Church than one that worships Him less so. That is why Catholics claim the Catholic Church is greater than any Protestant one - because the Catholics have preserved the Church that Christ founded over 2,000 years ago whereas Protestants have altered it greatly with the Reformation. Whether or not this is true is not my point. But clearly it is not arrogant for Catholics to proclaim that if their reasoning and belief are centered in Christ.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Hello Valke2,

Thank you for actually taking some time to review the posts here, but did you read anything, on any of the links I provided here? I would like to know for instance, what you think about the works of Thomas Kempis, John of the Cross or Thomas Aquinas? Moreover, are there any “universal” truths found in their works that you could accept as a Jewish person,(substituting the name “Jesus”, with G-d) ?

There are many teachings of Jesus that I would say are in harmony with and/or do not conflict with teachings of Judaism. I have not studied the works you mention here sufficiently to feel comfortable giving an opinion. I’m sure I could find things that each taught which I would agree with.
The Catholic God is the God of Moses and Abraham, we share the same God, the God of the Old Testament, I’m sure that you know that. As far as Judaism; not being a “supplemental” to Catholicism, this might be true, as worded, but the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian-Judeo religion, Judaism validates our faith in many ways (the Old Testament prophesies) and as such, is obviously influenced by some of the ancient Jewish religion and Jewish traditions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Valke2 said:
Again, I am not intending to imply that you are wrong in your faith. I’m only saying that I am not wrong in mine.
Click to expand...
I find a lot of difficulties in Judiasm, and also many good arguments and evidences.

As for the difficulties, I know many Jewish believers and they all seem to have a different view of what Judiasm is. I don’t know any ultra-orthodox Jews so perhaps they’re the most certain. But the different branches of Judiasm cannot all be correct and yet I do not see a way to determine which is which.

I think the Catholic teaching is that Jesus is a fulfillment and extension of Judiasm. He extended it beyond a single ethnic/racial group (as necessary as that was for a time) to include all those who believe in the Messiah as part of the spiritual children of Abraham.

What branch of Judiasm do you adhere to?
 
Brothers and sisters,Im a Protestant.Ive read Catholic apologetics and I agree with some of them,but let me ask you,what is the proof that Apostolic authority continued after the death of the Apostles?

I believe Peter was the rock on which Christ built His Church.But how do you know that the person who claimed to be Pope immediately after Peter was not,say,one of those false prophets Christ warned about

:confused:
 
reggieM said:
I find a lot of difficulties in Judiasm, and also many good arguments and evidences.

As for the difficulties, I know many Jewish believers and they all seem to have a different view of what Judiasm is. I don’t know any ultra-orthodox Jews so perhaps they’re the most certain. But the different branches of Judiasm cannot all be correct and yet I do not see a way to determine which is which.

I think the Catholic teaching is that Jesus is a fulfillment and extension of Judiasm. He extended it beyond a single ethnic/racial group (as necessary as that was for a time) to include all those who believe in the Messiah as part of the spiritual children of Abraham.

What branch of Judiasm do you adhere to?
Click to expand...
I don’t want to hijack the thread. I’m a Conservative Jew and would be happy to discuss these issues in another thread.
 
EB4304, You said,
Is it arrogant for me to declare to non-Christians that Jesus Christ is a greater man and teacher than Buddha or Moses? No, it’s not - because it’s true. Being humble does not mean dumbing down the truth or evading it - that would be a form of sacrilege. Now, if I told a Buddhist that I were so much smarter and holier than him because of my belief in Christ, that would be arrogant and foolish, and precisely what Jesus would abhor.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand your point, but it is arrogant for someone to say their church is the one true church within the body of Christ.
Second point is that the Church is not man-made - Christ founded it. He founded it (upon Peter) - the Church did not found itself. That is a major distinction. So the Church is not a Church of man but HIS Church, and that makes it very special. None of the earliest Christians thought the Catholic Church (their words for it in the West, not mine) was made by human beings - they knew it was Christ who founded it.
Click to expand...
Even if Peter did have some influence in the birth of Catholicism, it doesn’t mean that it is the only true church. It just means that he was most instrumental in establishing the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth, the true bride and body of Christ. Not just Catholicism.

We have inherited the fruit of the labors of all who were instrumental in the formation and birth of today’s church as well as the church of the past. All churches are descendents of our beloved apostles and disciples. I think Peter was the rock God chose to establish the church because of his firmness and strength of his soul. He was a strong leader and oversear of others in the work of spreading the gospel. He was not the first pope.

In Mt.16:18

Church is ekklesia, Strong’s # 1577
  1. a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
    a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
    b) the assembly of the Israelites
    c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
    d) in a Christian sense
  2. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
  3. a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake
  4. those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven
Rock is petra, Strong’s # 4073
  1. a rock, cliff or ledge
    a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
    b) a rock, a large stone
    c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness and strength of soul
Build is oikodomeo Strong’s # 3618
  1. to build a house, erect a building
    a) to build (up from the foundation)
    b) to restore by building, to rebuild, repair
  2. metaph.
    a)** to found, establish**
    b) to promote growth in Christian wisdom, affection, grace, virtue, holiness, blessedness
    c) to grow in wisdom and piety
 
Now, you also say that no man and no church is greater. But what if a church, such as certain liberal sects, denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God? That would clearly be a lesser church, because it is in heresy and untruth.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about churches that may be inferior. Even when I consider good Protestant or Catholic churches who uphold the true Christ, none of them are any better than the other. And not all who believe are part of the body of Christ. Demons also believe…and tremble.
Of course some churches are better than others. But for any church to say they are the ONE true church is wrong. That’s just another reason other churches start calling you heretic’s or a sect.
A church that worships Christ IS greater than one that doesn’t. Therefore, a Church which worships Christ more fully is a greater Church than one that worships Him less so. That is why Catholics claim the Catholic Church is greater than any Protestant one - because the Catholics have preserved the Church that Christ founded over 2,000 years ago whereas Protestants have altered it greatly with the Reformation. Whether or not this is true is not my point. But clearly it is not arrogant for Catholics to proclaim that if their reasoning and belief are centered in Christ.
Click to expand...
The Catholic church has no more or less the presence of Christ than any good Protestant church. The quality of the worship in any church is reflected by the the presence of Christ within the believers. It is not reflected by the church structure and establishment itself, but that too needs to stand of firm ground.

A good Catholic church worships Christ as well as any good Protestant church. Each individual church have different degrees of the quality of that worship. So to say that Catholicoism is the one true church that worships Christ more fully is a matter of opinion and far from fact. That’s why it surprises me a bit to see people promote Catholicism in that way because it truly is a turn off to many people. In escense you are saying that you are better or greater than all the rest. That doesn’t usually make points with people who are seeking.
I do like some of the links Jimmy posted and will continue to research them.

SE
 
Special Ed,
Thank you for your response.

I’m beginning to understand what you’re saying, but a lot of it just isn’t consistent with what the earliest Christians believed. Peter and the early Christians didn’t think there was any Church but ONE. Paul was disgusted with the divisions within the Corinthian church. The Church Fathers, especially Saint Irenaeus, all spoke passionately for unity against heresy. He said, and I quote, “It is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with the Church of Rome, on account of its preeminent authority.”

Also, the orthodoxy of a church was often measured by whether or not it was in communion with the Church of Rome. The Catholic (“universal”) Church was not to be split - it was to be one. If any of the early Christians and saints would hear us talking about different churches (not local parishes but different denominations with essential differences in doctrine) as if it were anything less than a scandal, they would be horrified.

And also, it is a historical fact the Peter was the first pope. The pope means “the Bishop of Rome” and the early historical testimony is unanimous in naming Peter as the founder of the Church of Rome and its first bishop. That is something that almost no one denies anymore because of the overwhelming historical evidence; to deny it would be like denying the existence of Socrates.

And lastly, you are very right to say that Christian communities are scattered. But they all make up the Body of Christ and, as the early Church believed, were to be united in their beliefs as well. The Church was called “catholic” because it was a universal Church, united in belief (not just about the nature of Christ, but also about the Real Presence, etc.)
 
This is a response to I Seek Truth.

I understand your questions, since I had them as well before I became a Catholic! But I think you can answer your own question.

Now, if Peter was the bishop of Rome and founded the community there, it highly probably that his community would have known a great deal about the nature of the Church and what was to happen after Peter died (or was martyred, as was his case). Now, if after the death of Peter, someone unjustly usurped power, don’t you think that the Roman Christians would have jumped all over it? What about all of the other Christians in the world? Certainly they would have perceived a heretical assumption of power and authority. What about John the Apostle, who was still alive while at least three other popes were in place in Rome? Why would he still be silent?

It just doesn’t really make sense. To be a bishop of Rome was a death sentence - for someone to accept the position, they must have been truly selfless, because almost all of them were tortured and martyred by the Roman government. Why would someone falsely usurp power so that they could control a small community of believers and end up being crucified? And why would people KEEP doing it for centuries afterwards?

Lastly, all of the saints and Church Fathers who mention the popes after Peter all speak of them highly - not as heretics. They clearly weren’t wicked people - they were highly esteemed for their position. They valued and loved those that succeeded the Chair of Peter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top