Which church is God's true church? Is it the Roman Catholic Church?

[MDK]

I don’t need to, Catholics have done that on their own.

Truthfully, Catholics are the only Christians who don’t. We know that the one Church is the Body of Christ… which, by the way is back to the discussion of the OP for this thread.

 

[Namesake]

You have a problem with how the church is organized and how translations come about. My question is this does any of these things take away from the simplicity of your faith initially?

Faith or church? The complexity of the church destroys faith. Faith doesn’t depend on church. That’s my point. If God is so loving He wouldn’t make coming to Him dependent on middlemen like priests and bishops and such.

If God loves us each individually, well, that God can have a personal relationship with me, one on one. No one or anything else required.

That is a loving and powerful God! He doesn’t need the middlemen. He and I can do just fine on our own because He can make that happen and in fact almost certainly did because people are pretty simple. It’s the bureaucrats who stand to lose and the people stand to win if God doesn’t need the bureaucrats. So lets toss the bureaucrats and deal with God individually. Simple. Kinda like what Jesus did a few years back.

 

[Hobble]

I can’t recall the exact quote.
But didn’t Jesus say something along the lines of “Pray in your closet”?

Much of what he said makes me find it difficult to believe he’s support the church.

 

[MDK]

Yes of course I will stand by my assertion that lots of transitional fossils exist. It cannot be refuted. They exist.

If you make define something in terms that don’t fit, you can claim anything you want. Doesn’t make it true, though.

You might try to understand that we don’t follow Darwin 100%. Things have changed and the theory of biologic evolution has , well…evolved. Darwin wouldn’t recognize the theory as it exists today. Your reaching into the past isn’t useful.

Actually, in the current. That the theories proposed by Darwinists have evolved is probably true, in the sense that when they find out something was false, they morph to the next attempt.

If you abide by the Catholic teaching on this and don’t violate it, then you should be okay. If you go outside this, then you’re hosed.

I have a suspicion that you’re hosed.

 

[MDK]

I can’t recall the exact quote.
But didn’t Jesus say something along the lines of “Pray in your closet”?

Much of what he said makes me find it difficult to believe he’s support the church.

Jesus built the Church, and said He would remain with it until the end of time, and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Either you don’t believe Jesus the Christ, or you’ve come up with your own version of a god you like better.

 

[Hobble]

Jesus built the Church, and said He would remain with it until the end of time, and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Either you don’t believe Jesus the Christ, or you’ve come up with your own version of a god you like better.

If only it were that simple. But the church hasn’t always stayed faithful to Jesus’ original teachings. and especially today believers warp his words to justify their own greed.

 

[Namesake]

Actually, in the current. That the theories proposed by Darwinists have evolved is probably true, in the sense that when they find out something was false, they morph to the next attempt.

That’s the way science works. Always ready, even eager, to give up a hypothesis if testing shows it to be false and then redesign the hypothesis and test again, and so on until replication shows a true hypothesis and then incorporate it into a theory and continue testing.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If “The Church” were only made up of its believers you would have a point.

But The Church is not ‘only’ made up of its believers.

The Church–being the Bride of Christ–is thus in a union with Christ.

CHRIST is thus not just ‘in’ the Church–He, united to His followers–IS the Church.

Therefore–and Lord knows you not only have seen the relevant teaching on this and other threads, including the citations of documents and links to the catechism so you have no excuse whatsoever for your continual refusal to accept those teachings and substitute false ones which you then claim 'are what Catholics believe–The Church, according to Christ Himself who left the Paraclete to guide us to all Truth, established His One Church which is the Catholic Church, in matters of faith and morals as revealed to us by the Paraclete under circumstances clearly laid out, cannot teach error. The Church cannot, at one and the same time, BE Truth (having within itself Jesus Christ in union) and be “untruth” (teaching untruths).

Jesus never promised that His Church would be full of perfect people Quite the contrary. Jesus never promised that, in recorded time, people who belonged to the Church would not perform actions that later generations would find ‘wrong’ even if in the time they were performed they were considered not to be wrong. (We are of course speaking of matters specifically related to the transmission and teaching of doctrine/dogma. We are not speaking of secular and matters that are not involved in such teaching. Popes were, are, and will be capable of personal sin. They will be capable of making wrong judgments on matters outside of faith and morals. If you think otherwise, you have confused ‘infallibility’ with ‘impeccability.’) Never, ever, did Christ say, "and lo, the members of my church, yea, even the Vicar, will be incapable of personal sin and ye shall know they are my church for they will be the only church which has perfect people in it at all times.’ Because if you’re claiming that because Catholics aren’t perfect, they can’t be the True Church–guess what? You are then saying NO CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH–because, of course, there is no church of perfect people–and you are then stating that Christ was a LIAR because, if there IS ‘no true Church’, and we KNOW that Christ promised to establish His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it–but, whoopsie, there is no ‘true church’ by YOUR OPINION–you have thus made Christ a liar. Whoopsie indeed.

The Church has never taught that what was taught ‘from the beginning’ as true can at any point become ‘not true’ when it comes as matters of faith and morals.

Since ‘geocentricity’ was never taught dogmatically, it obviously could have been believed (scientifically speaking, not 'theologically speaking, you are confusing the two if you think that because a person argued about ‘earth center of universe’ that it was purely, or even mainly, on theological grounds) at one time but not at another.

Since the Trinity was taught as truth from the beginning, though the fullness of the doctrine developed over time and we still do not fully understand the mystery, the Catholic Church maintains this teaching as ‘infallibly true’.

Interestingly enough, there are some Protestants who do NOT believe in the Trinity. They use all sorts of Scripture-alone to support their view. In their teaching though, they have maintained that what was taught ‘then’ was an error, and what is taught now is correct.

Likewise some (not all) Protestants teach the Eucharist is symbolic. This was not Christian teaching at the time they ‘developed/made up" the teaching. Christian teaching was, and had been since the time of the apostles, that the Eucharist was really and truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, re-presented (not resacrificed) at every Mass. These Protestants, refusing to accept anything but their own, ‘personal interpretation’ of Scripture, changed Christian teaching on the Eucharist such that what ‘had been’ taught ‘before’ was absolutely not what was taught’ now.

So which church(es) have been tinkering with doctrine and changing it? If you say the Catholic Church does so, show the doctrine that it has explicitly ‘changed’ . It should be easy. There should be a Papal Bull or a document which says that "from now on, Catholics will no longer profess in the Trinity. . .or the Eucharist. . .or Purgatory. . .or have ‘male only’ priests. . . or decided that contraception is okay, and abortion is permitted. . .

 

[Hobble]

You hit the nail on the head when you said “NO CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You hit the nail on the head when you said "NO CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH

Actually, I didn’t say that in the way you are posting it.

I said that some posters appear to be claiming this. . .and in doing so, they call Christ a liar. How sad. . .

I most certainly believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Hobble]

Actually, I didn’t say that in the way you are posting it.

I said that some posters appear to be claiming this. . .and in doing so, they call Christ a liar. How sad. . .

I most certainly believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Yes, I know it wasn’t your personal opinion. I guess the way I quoted it was misleading. Sorry about that.
I meant you hit the nail on the head of my own opinion.

 

[Hobble]

I’d like to say also though, that I do think the Catholic church is closest to the truth.

I don’t want to seem like I think the Catholic church teachings are completely useless or wrong, I think there is a vast amount of valuable knowledge in the church, but I think it’s not seeing the whole truth yet.

 

[Namesake]

If “The Church” were only made up of its believers you would have a point.

But The Church is not ‘only’ made up of its believers.

The Church–being the Bride of Christ–is thus in a union with Christ.

CHRIST is thus not just ‘in’ the Church–He, united to His followers–IS the Church.

Therefore–and Lord knows you not only have seen the relevant teaching on this and other threads, including the citations of documents and links to the catechism so you have no excuse whatsoever for your continual refusal to accept those teachings and substitute false ones which you then claim 'are what Catholics believe–The Church, according to Christ Himself who left the Paraclete to guide us to all Truth, established His One Church which is the Catholic Church, in matters of faith and morals as revealed to us by the Paraclete under circumstances clearly laid out, cannot teach error. The Church cannot, at one and the same time, BE Truth (having within itself Jesus Christ in union) and be “untruth” (teaching untruths).

Jesus never promised that His Church would be full of perfect people Quite the contrary. Jesus never promised that, in recorded time, people who belonged to the Church would not perform actions that later generations would find ‘wrong’ even if in the time they were performed they were considered not to be wrong. (We are of course speaking of matters specifically related to the transmission and teaching of doctrine/dogma. We are not speaking of secular and matters that are not involved in such teaching. Popes were, are, and will be capable of personal sin. They will be capable of making wrong judgments on matters outside of faith and morals. If you think otherwise, you have confused ‘infallibility’ with ‘impeccability.’) Never, ever, did Christ say, "and lo, the members of my church, yea, even the Vicar, will be incapable of personal sin and ye shall know they are my church for they will be the only church which has perfect people in it at all times.’ Because if you’re claiming that because Catholics aren’t perfect, they can’t be the True Church–guess what? You are then saying NO CHURCH IS THE TRUE CHURCH–because, of course, there is no church of perfect people–and you are then stating that Christ was a LIAR because, if there IS ‘no true Church’, and we KNOW that Christ promised to establish His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it–but, whoopsie, there is no ‘true church’ by YOUR OPINION–you have thus made Christ a liar. Whoopsie indeed.

The Church has never taught that what was taught ‘from the beginning’ as true can at any point become ‘not true’ when it comes as matters of faith and morals.

Since ‘geocentricity’ was never taught dogmatically, it obviously could have been believed (scientifically speaking, not 'theologically speaking, you are confusing the two if you think that because a person argued about ‘earth center of universe’ that it was purely, or even mainly, on theological grounds) at one time but not at another.

Since the Trinity was taught as truth from the beginning, though the fullness of the doctrine developed over time and we still do not fully understand the mystery, the Catholic Church maintains this teaching as ‘infallibly true’.

Interestingly enough, there are some Protestants who do NOT believe in the Trinity. They use all sorts of Scripture-alone to support their view. In their teaching though, they have maintained that what was taught ‘then’ was an error, and what is taught now is correct.

Likewise some (not all) Protestants teach the Eucharist is symbolic. This was not Christian teaching at the time they ‘developed/made up" the teaching. Christian teaching was, and had been since the time of the apostles, that the Eucharist was really and truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, re-presented (not resacrificed) at every Mass. These Protestants, refusing to accept anything but their own, ‘personal interpretation’ of Scripture, changed Christian teaching on the Eucharist such that what ‘had been’ taught ‘before’ was absolutely not what was taught’ now.

So which church(es) have been tinkering with doctrine and changing it? If you say the Catholic Church does so, show the doctrine that it has explicitly ‘changed’ . It should be easy. There should be a Papal Bull or a document which says that "from now on, Catholics will no longer profess in the Trinity. . .or the Eucharist. . .or Purgatory. . .or have ‘male only’ priests. . . or decided that contraception is okay, and abortion is permitted. . .

To accept your points one must accept that the RCC represents the only truth. The proof of that comes only from the RCC. That is circular reasoning.

Isn’t God powerful enough to present His truth in more than one form? If He created humans in so many different manifestations of His image doesn’t it follow that He would present Himself in many different ways? Why couldn’t/wouldn’t God do that? Is he limited to the RCC way?

God, or some god has apparently shown truth to ,many different peoples in many different ways. Why is the RCC so sure that they are the only recipients of truth when there are so many peoples who believe they have a perfectly good truth?

 

[Hobble]

I’d like to say also though, that I do think the Catholic church is close to the truth.

I don’t want to seem like I think the Catholic church teachings are completely useless or wrong, I think there is a vast amount of valuable knowledge in the church, but I think it’s not seeing the whole truth yet.

 

[wisdomseeker]

To accept your points one must accept that the RCC represents the only truth. The proof of that comes only from the RCC. That is circular reasoning.

Isn’t God powerful enough to present His truth in more than one form? If He created humans in so many different manifestations of His image doesn’t it follow that He would present Himself in many different ways? Why couldn’t/wouldn’t God do that? Is he limited to the RCC way?

God, or some god has apparently shown truth to ,many different peoples in many different ways. Why is the RCC so sure that they are the only recipients of truth when there are so many peoples who believe they have a perfectly good truth?

the word believe. what does that mean to you?

if i grew up being thought that there is no God, obviously i would believe that there is no God. Now, is it true that there is no God just because i believe there is no God?

 

[Namesake]

wisdomseeker:
the word believe. what does that mean to you?

if i grew up being thought that there is no God, obviously i would believe that there is no God. Now, is it true that there is no God just because i believe there is no God?

Seriously, that sort of parsing isn’t productive. English speaking intelligent people ought not decline to that level.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Seriously, that sort of parsing isn’t productive. English speaking intelligent people ought not decline to that level.

seriously, is that all you got?

 

[Namesake]

seriously, is it all you got?

Well, I say we don’t gain much by defining common words when most reasonably intelligent folks full well know the meaning of words like *believe. Kind of a Bill Clinton approach, ya know?

It ain’t all I got by a long shot and you know that too. It’s a poor debate tool and a dull one at that.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, I say we don’t gain much by defining common words when most reasonably intelligent folks full well know the meaning of words like *believe. Kind of a Bill Clinton approach, ya know?

It ain’t all I got by a long shot and you know that too. It’s a poor debate tool and a dull one at that.

Well, I’m curious. Do you, namesake, think that if a person ‘believes’ that there is no such thing as God, then that makes God not to exist?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Well, I say we don’t gain much by defining common words when most reasonably intelligent folks full well know the meaning of words like *believe. Kind of a Bill Clinton approach, ya know?

It ain’t all I got by a long shot and you know that too. It’s a poor debate tool and a dull one at that.

really! i think i got you in the corner.