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

[justasking4]

There were no Catholics living during New Testament times that adhered to Sola Scriptura, hence no Protestant can traced his theology to that time period.

Sola Scriptura was an impossibility during this time simply because of the process it took to recognize which books were canonical and which were not. It took nearly 500 years for all 27 current NT books to be formally recognized. None of those communities recognized the 27 current books before the late 4th century and many had books they thought to be sacred but never made it into the Bible.

If Sola Scriptura was followed, then all these early communities would have had different belief systems much like the different Protestant denominations do today.

If you agree that the Catholic Church can trace its roots back to NT times, what exactly makes you so sure that it wasn’t identical to the NT Church? Please give me some examples.

From what we know of the structure of the NT church for example we don’t see unmarried leadership as we see in the Catholic church. (I Timothy 3 spells out the qualifications of church leadership) We also don’t see many doctrines and practices of the Catholic in NT. Things like the Marian doctrines and practices comes to mind.
We also don’t see a supreme head of the church in the NT as we do in the Catholic church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

From what we know of the structure of the NT church for example we don’t see unmarried leadership as we see in the Catholic church. (I Timothy 3 spells out the qualifications of church leadership) We also don’t see many doctrines and practices of the Catholic in NT. Things like the Marian doctrines and practices comes to mind.
We also don’t see a supreme head of the church in the NT as we do in the Catholic church.

take a look at this.

1 And I beheld: and lo a Lamb stood upon mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty-four thousand, having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the noise of many waters and as the voice of great thunder. And the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers, harping on their harps. 3 And they sung as it were a new canticle, before the throne and before the four living creatures and the ancients: and no man could say the canticle, but those hundred forty-four thousand who were purchased from the earth. 4 These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth there was found no lie: for they are without spot before the throne of God.

 

[MDK]

I would agree that the Catholic church can trace it roots to the NT church (just as protestants can via the Catholic church to the NT church). However the Catholic church is not identical to the NT church.

Protestants have lost a tie in to the early Church by having no tie to Apostolic Succession, so they have a disconnect. Once untethered, they have floated waywardly upon the seas, splintering apart and drifting further away from the roots. The Catholic Church maintains Apostolic Succession from the first Apostles to the Bishops this day. It is not so with Protestantism.

Your use of the word “identical” is a red herring… The Head of the Church is still the same Jesus Christ. He said He would build His Church, which means grow it… not create it instantly mature in a miraculous single event.

It’s a little like development of a person… at conception has no name but is referred to as a baby, our baby, etc… sometime after birth given a name, say Michael. The person develops throughout life. Are they identical at 47 as they were at 1? No. Are we referring to the same person? Yes. In fact, even though not named Michael at conception, the parents may talk about when Michael was conceived, when Michael kicked inside mother’s womb, then when Michael was 1… One would be referring to the same person, the same entity named Michael at 47 or at any stage in their existence even before the name Michael was conferred. It’s the same DNA.

 

[justasking4]

MDK;4002838]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I would agree that the Catholic church can trace it roots to the NT church (just as protestants can via the Catholic church to the NT church). However the Catholic church is not identical to the NT church.

MDK
Protestants have lost a tie in to the early Church by having no tie to Apostolic Succession, so they have a disconnect. Once untethered, they have floated waywardly upon the seas, splintering apart and drifting further away from the roots. The Catholic Church maintains Apostolic Succession from the first Apostles to the Bishops this day. It is not so with Protestantism.

To whom was this “apostolic succession” pasted on to? Let’s take Peter as a case in point. Where and when did Peter pass his apostolic authority? If it was the bishop of Rome, was this bishop (Linus?) known as the supreme head of the entire church by other leaders in the church?

Your use of the word “identical” is a red herring… The Head of the Church is still the same Jesus Christ. He said He would build His Church, which means grow it… not create it instantly mature in a miraculous single event.

Where did Jesus say His church would grow like this? If the church is to grow as you say are there limits in the way it is to grow?

It’s a little like development of a person… at conception has no name but is referred to as a baby, our baby, etc… sometime after birth given a name, say Michael. The person develops throughout life. Are they identical at 47 as they were at 1? No. Are we referring to the same person? Yes. In fact, even though not named Michael at conception, the parents may talk about when Michael was conceived, when Michael kicked inside mother’s womb, then when Michael was 1… One would be referring to the same person, the same entity named Michael at 47 or at any stage in their existence even before the name Michael was conferred. It’s the same DNA.

 

[ChristianRoots]

From what we know of the structure of the NT church for example we don’t see unmarried leadership as we see in the Catholic church

.
Unmarried leadership IS NOT Catholic doctrine. It is a Catholic discipline based on 1 Corinthians 7:25-39.

We also don’t see many doctrines and practices of the Catholic in NT. Things like the Marian doctrines and practices comes to mind.

 

[MDK]

To whom was this “apostolic succession” pasted on to? Let’s take Peter as a case in point. Where and when did Peter pass his apostolic authority? If it was the bishop of Rome, was this bishop (Linus?) known as the supreme head of the entire church by other leaders in the church?

Where did Jesus say His church would grow like this? If the church is to grow as you say are there limits in the way it is to grow?

I don’t understand your question in the first paragraph. It doesn’t make sense. The office of Bishop has full Apostolic Succession. Once you’re a Bishop, you have full Apostolic Succession. Peter doesn’t have to lay hands on the next Pope for them to have Apostolic Succession, as they had this fully when they were made a Bishop.

The second paragraph, the Holy Spirit inspired author and Catholic St. Matthew recorded Jesus as saying “…I will build my church.” First thing is the word “build” has a meaning, does it not? Do you confuse that with “instantly create?” Secondly we see what Jesus has done, as it unfolded. The development and growth of the Church Jesus built is observed and recorded. What assumption is there? If you honestly knew Catholic faith, we never put limits on Christ, because we know better. Why do you call matching His word with recorded history putting limits on Christ? Anyone who has truly experienced the Holy Eucharist with expectant faith can testify that Christ has no limits. Once that has happened, though, we can speak about what was said and what transpired. Also, we don’t try to revise history to make it into something it was not.

What Jesus can do is absolutely unlimited. What he does with us, depends first on His plan, and also on our cooperation (He will not violate our free will). Do you think that perhaps God built the Church in this way, because He knows how He designed humans and knows how things work best with us and for us as a loving Father?

 

[MDK]

To whom was this “apostolic succession” pasted on to? Let’s take Peter as a case in point. Where and when did Peter pass his apostolic authority? If it was the bishop of Rome, was this bishop (Linus?) known as the supreme head of the entire church by other leaders in the church?

Yes, Linus was. As the next Bishop of Rome he was also the leader of the Church. The second in succession to Peter was also the Bishop of Rome, who was the leader of the Church, and so on until today… Benedict the XVI is the most recent to succeed Peter as Bishop of Rome and head of the Catholic Church. Benedict XVI is the 266th Pope and 265th to succeed Peter as head of the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

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

I believe that it is the Roman Catholic Church.

What are your thoughts? Please support your opinions with facts. I will provide information, which all goes to support the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church, founded by Jesus Christ and the Church that God intended for man…

Peace

I am glad that you are so proud of your Romanism, Jimmy B. However, since it comes across to me as narrow, I will continue to remind you that the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The majority of Westerneres are from the Latin Rite, and many people in the West do not even know about the other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church al in union with the bishop of Rome. However, we are all, just as you are, very happy to be Catholic. :extrahappy:

 

[guanophore]

Christ never started a church.
He is the shepherd of Gods people His assembly.
The people/assembly of God is made up of all who believe in/rely on/trust in God. You have been taught wrong. It is not your fault.

!!:bigyikes:

Do you think that Scripture containe errors?

Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I** will build my church**, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Why do you reject the biblical defintion of the Church?

 

[Jash]

There are only three who can contest.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormon)
2. Roman Catholic
3. Eastern Orthodox

Main Reason:

Authority (Heb. 5: 4 will get you started if you don’t understand this principle)

These are the only three who can claim a direct line of authority to Jesus Christ.

Either it was passed down through the papal line in catholic church or restored as the LDS claim through Peter, James, & John to Joseph Smith.

 

[Mannyfit75]

There are only three who can contest.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormon)
2. Roman Catholic
3. Eastern Orthodox

Main Reason:

Authority (Heb. 5: 4 will get you started if you don’t understand this principle)

These are the only three who can claim a direct line of authority to Jesus Christ.

Either it was passed down through the papal line in catholic church or restored as the LDS claim through Peter, James, & John to Joseph Smith.

I don’t think the LDS is the true Church. it’s foundation is founded on John Smith in 19th Century. There is no Great Apostacy. If that were so and that the Authority of the Church ended when the last Apostle died (around 100 AD) then what credit should you give the Bible? The Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church in 4th Century. That is long before the Great Schism of 1054 AD. The logic behind LDS reasoning to restore the Church of Christ is illogical.

Second, John Smith vision claim to see Jesus in flesh and God in Flesh. Well, in the Bible itself. Only Jesus became Man, and the Father is pure spirit. The Gospel of John states, “The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us.” This Word is Jesus. There is only One God, Three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our God is a Triune God.

I am also aware of the fact that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. The theologically that John Smith teach on Mormonism is contrary to the Bible and therefore, Mormonism is a false religion. It is an American made religion. It has no foundation on Jesus, and his Apostles.

If you want to be Jesus’ Church join the Catholic Church. It’s been around for 2,000 yrs.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
To whom was this “apostolic succession” pasted on to? Let’s take Peter as a case in point. Where and when did Peter pass his apostolic authority? If it was the bishop of Rome, was this bishop (Linus?) known as the supreme head of the entire church by other leaders in the church?

MDK
Yes, Linus was. As the next Bishop of Rome he was also the leader of the Church. The second in succession to Peter was also the Bishop of Rome, who was the leader of the Church, and so on until today… Benedict the XVI is the most recent to succeed Peter as Bishop of Rome and head of the Catholic Church. Benedict XVI is the 266th Pope and 265th to succeed Peter as head of the Catholic Church.

i agree that there are a couple of list of “popes” that are traced to Rome. The issue is was the bishop of Rome always acknowledged as the supreme head of the entire church? The historical evidence does not support this.

 

[justasking4]

There were no Catholics living during New Testament times that adhered to Sola Scriptura, hence no Protestant can traced his theology to that time period.

Sola Scriptura was an impossibility during this time simply because of the process it took to recognize which books were canonical and which were not. It took nearly 500 years for all 27 current NT books to be formally recognized. None of those communities recognized the 27 current books before the late 4th century and many had books they thought to be sacred but never made it into the Bible.

If Sola Scriptura was followed, then all these early communities would have had different belief systems much like the different Protestant denominations do today.

If you agree that the Catholic Church can trace its roots back to NT times, what exactly makes you so sure that it wasn’t identical to the NT Church? Please give me some examples.

What is your defintion of Sola Scriptura?

 

[cath2lic4ever]

I don’t think the LDS is the true Church. it’s foundation is founded on John Smith in 19th Century. There is no Great Apostacy. If that were so and that the Authority of the Church ended when the last Apostle died (around 100 AD) then what credit should you give the Bible? The Bible was canonized by the Catholic Church in 4th Century. That is long before the Great Schism of 1054 AD. The logic behind LDS reasoning to restore the Church of Christ is illogical.
Second, John Smith vision claim to see Jesus in flesh and God in Flesh. Well, in the Bible itself. Only Jesus became Man, and the Father is pure spirit. The Gospel of John states, “The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us.” This Word is Jesus. There is only One God, Three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our God is a Triune God.

I am also aware of the fact that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. The theologically that John Smith teach on Mormonism is contrary to the Bible and therefore, Mormonism is a false religion. It is an American made religion. It has no foundation on Jesus, and his Apostles.

If you want to be Jesus’ Church join the Catholic Church. It’s been around for 2,000 yrs.

amen to that. very good point. GOD bless & prayers to all!

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;4002924]

.
Originally Posted by justasking4
From what we know of the structure of the NT church for example we don’t see unmarried leadership as we see in the Catholic church

.ChristianRoots
Unmarried leadership IS NOT Catholic doctrine. It is a Catholic discipline based on 1 Corinthians 7:25-39.

I looked this passage up and it has nothing to do with church leadership.
What do you mean by “discipline”?

Quote:justasking4
We also don’t see many doctrines and practices of the Catholic in NT. Things like the Marian doctrines and practices comes to mind.

ChristianRoots
We also do not see which books should be part of the New Testament Bible. Your response?

The NT canon was not fully recognized during this period.

ChristianRoots
Concerning the Marian doctrines, while I agree they are not explicit in the New Testament, they are nevertheless implied. I know this is not good enough for Protestants because of Sola Scriptura, but for Catholics this is not problematic since Catholics utilize both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Even the traditions for Mary’s assumption are weak. Writing in 377 A.D., church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end.

For example, Mary’s sinlessness is implied in Luke 1:29. Why do
think Mary was troubled by the Angel’s manner of greeting? Let me be emphatic in stating that Mary was not troubled by the angel’s appearance but rather by how the angel addressed her.

This verse has nothing to do with her being sinless. When the angel called her “favored one, the Lord is with thee” would be something to ponder in her condition in life as a simple girl with no claims to anything.

Why would Mary be troubled by way she was greeted and not by the angel’s actual appearance? What do you think this special greeting implied?

Not sure what the angel looked like in this verse. It does not say. The special greeting is explained further on in her bearing the Christ. She alone was chosen by God for this great privilege.

Quote:justasking4
We also don’t see a supreme head of the church in the NT as we do in the Catholic church.

ChristianRoots
This statement is contrary to the Bible (see MT 16:16-18.)

Do we see in the rest of the NT Peter alone as being the supreme leader of the entire church? Do any writers of the letters ever appeal to his authority?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
.
Originally Posted by justasking4
From what we know of the structure of the NT church for example we don’t see unmarried leadership as we see in the Catholic church.

you mean St Paul was married?

 

[coyotekate77]

you mean St Paul was married?

And while Peter’s mother-in-law was mentioned, his wife was not–so Peter could have been a widower. Further, he is the only apostle who has had a ‘mention’ of a spouse/in-law. None of the others is mentioned specifically as having been married. Their wives and children are not mentioned. Scripturally speaking, there is no evidence that those who served as priests or bishops had to be married at all–they could be unmarried, widowers, and **if **they were married (as some Catholic priests still are today in Eastern rites) they could be the husband only of one wife, and could not remarry on her death.

A far cry from the idea that all priests ‘must be married’. . .

 

[justasking4]

I am glad that you are so proud of your Romanism, Jimmy B. However, since it comes across to me as narrow, I will continue to remind you that the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The majority of Westerneres are from the Latin Rite, and many people in the West do not even know about the other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church al in union with the bishop of Rome. However, we are all, just as you are, very happy to be Catholic. :extrahappy:

Would Rome agree with what you write here? Do they consider your church to be in full commonion with them?

 

[wisdomseeker]

And while Peter’s mother-in-law was mentioned, his wife was not–so Peter could have been a widower. Further, he is the only apostle who has had a ‘mention’ of a spouse/in-law. None of the others is mentioned specifically as having been married. Their wives and children are not mentioned. Scripturally speaking, there is no evidence that those who served as priests or bishops had to be married at all–they could be unmarried, widowers, and **if **they were married (as some Catholic priests still are today in Eastern rites) they could be the husband only of one wife, and could not remarry on her death.

A far cry from the idea that all priests ‘must be married’. . .

They do not understand what is written. did not St Paul said that if someone wants to marry is good but those who do not marry is better? why do they keep ignoring what is written? because they only aknowledge Scriptures that fit what their religion teaches. they dont want any Scriptures that justify what the CC is.

 

[MDK]

i agree that there are a couple of list of “popes” that are traced to Rome. The issue is was the bishop of Rome always acknowledged as the supreme head of the entire church? The historical evidence does not support this.

I really don’t know where you’re trying to go with this. Are you shooting for a technicality of always physically being located in Rome? Are you asking whether each pope was always also called the Bishop of Rome? Are you asking whether those who are now called Eastern Orthodox had a problem with it? Please ask your question clearly.

Nevertheless, to further expand on where you may be going, the validly elected successor to Peter is the head of the Catholic Church. The historical records do indeed support this, unless one attempts to revise history or make strange conclusions from the historical records. There were some pretenders to the chair, who were not validly elected, but they are not valid successors to Peter. The pope was not always in the physical location of Rome, as some were in exile, but the validly elected pope is still considered a successor to St. Peter, first Bishop of Rome.