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

[Tantum_ergo]

Wrong. Why?]there are those in the RCC that will find the narrow path that Scripture speaks of Yes, I believe thisand there will be others Yes, I believe non-Catholics may also indeed find that narrow pathbut one denomination being the only one Church Christ founded? Not a chance. We Catholics believe we are not just ‘one denomination’ but the ‘One Church’. But even so, can you tell me why one CHURCH (or if you prefer to call the Catholic Church a denomination, ‘one denomination’) CANNOT be the only one Church Christ founded? If He founded One Church (and Scripture says He did), are you saying that Church disappeared? Where, when, why, and how did that happen, and where is the evidence to support your assertion?

 

[SIA]

Tantum_ergo:
The RCC has quietly accpeted much of the Reformation, althought they would never admit it.

 

[Jimmy_B]

The RCC has quietly accpeted much of the Reformation, althought they would never admit it.

Hello SIA,

Can you provide an example? Reform within the Catholic Church had started 200 years prior to Luther’s 95 Thesis. Between 1215 and 1545, eight Church-Councils were held with “Church reforms” as their primary intent. If you are claiming that Luther was some how a positive influence, or the main influence on the Catholic Church, during the second half of the 16th century, then why was he excommunicated? Protestantism has been a disaster for Christianity.

XII. FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL Year: 1215
XIII. FIRST COUNCIL OF LYONS Year: 1245
**XIV. SECOND COUNCIL OF LYONS **Year: 1274
XV. COUNCIL OF VIENNE Years: 1311-1313
XV. COUNCIL OF VIENNE Years: 1311-1313
XVII. COUNCIL OF BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE Years: 1431-1439
XVIII. FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL Years: 1512-1517
XIX. COUNCIL OF TRENT Years: 1545-1563

More on Catholic Church Councils here.

Historically speaking, “reform” has occurred within Catholicism (the early Church) since the very beginning. The Catholic Church has defined Christianity for more than 2000 years now and will continue to do so. Catholics are not free to “interpret” the Bible in a way that is contrary to Catholicism. The errant belief, which allows for “personal interpretation” of the Bible, is a Protestant invention.

There is now and has always been a need for Church Councils. This was true, well before Martin Luther and well after Martin Luther.

Thank you for your post.

Peace

 

[AlegreFe]

Which church is God’s true church?

This answer cannot be true as we all know that Jesus is only ONE! Jesus has only ONE BODY, not many like there are Protestant churches. The Holy Spirit is only one spirit, one mind. So all these different interpretations of the bible and of the faith cannot be true. There are truths in many of the denominations but not all have the FULLNESS of the TRUTH. We in the Catholic Church have all the truths in their fullness.
4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Eph 4:4-6 (ESV)

shrugs
Whatever floats your boat.

That’s right. Jesus & Peter float my boat, or rather Peter’s boat, from where Jesus preached!

If Divinity is infinite

:yup:

I don’t quite understand how all the Truth can be contained in one particular denomination

The Catholic Church is not a denomination.

of one particular sect.

We are not a sect either.

It seems that Hindu claim to Truth, or the Buddhist, or the Native American religions, or the Taoist all have as good a claim to the Truth as Christianity’s.

Wrong. Where’s your proof? The truth is absolute and objective. There can be only ONE Truth because there is only ONE Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life! Amen!

Just my opinion, of course.

That’s right, it’s just your opinion.

 

[AlegreFe]

Wrong. there are those in the RCC that will find the narrow path that Scripture speaks of and there will be others but one denomination being the only one Church Christ founded? Not a chance.

Just like the weeds & the wheat, there are good and bad in everything. But there is only one Church that Jesus built on Peter the Rock. The Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners. Jesus came for the sick (sinners), not the well (righteous). We have everything in the Catholic Church that a sinner needs to become holy and survive. We have the ordinary means of forgiveness of sins, baptism, … etc. We have all the Sacraments that Jesus established during his public ministry. Those are our means of survival because they are the conduit of the graces that we need to survive. They are the means for Sanctifying grace.

Unlike some protestant denominations the Catholic Church does not say who will not survive eternal life. I know of some protestants who say that Catholics will go to hell. They are not in a position to condemn anyone. The Catholic Church condemns no one. We know that there are Christians that are not in the Catholic Church that will pass through the narrow gate. We also know that there could possibly be some Catholics who will not pass through the narrow gate. But as I said, we cannot condemn anyone. We condemn ourselves if that is to be our outcome.

The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination either. Do you know what “denomination” means? We did not derive out of something else. We are the only one and the first one as a WHOLE, not part of something that existed before us as a Christian Church. The only religion started by God that existed before the Catholic religion is Judaism. Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill. Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism.

And YES, there is only ONE Church! Why? Because there is only ONE Jesus!

 

[AlegreFe]

The RCC has quietly accpeted much of the Reformation, althought they would never admit it.

Which one are you talking about? There were many of those before Luther came along. And if you mean Luther’s, where’s your proof? The burden of proof is always on you. So I would choose wisely on what you want to base your arguments.

 

[Hobble]

All of them and none of them.
No one knows for sure, and no one will be able to prove which one is the true church.
All people can do is decide for themselves which way they see fit to express their love for God.

Personally I don’t feel any religion is right yet. I don’t feel safe following directions from people who lived thousands of years ago, who I will never know, and I get a gut feeling that they misinterpreted a lot. I feel like there’s some truth and some lies in most religion’s teaching.

It’s a personal journey for everyone, and I don’t think any church can truthfully claim to be the right one. There is no single right path for everybody, it’s different for every single person. God is everywhere, and God is everything, we just need to be open and receptive to the messages God sends us.

 

[cazayoux]

All of them and none of them.
No one knows for sure, and no one will be able to prove which one is the true church.
All people can do is decide for themselves which way they see fit to express their love for God.

Personally I don’t feel any religion is right yet. I don’t feel safe following directions from people who lived thousands of years ago, who I will never know, and I get a gut feeling that they misinterpreted a lot. I feel like there’s some truth and some lies in most religion’s teaching.

It’s a personal journey for everyone, and I don’t think any church can truthfully claim to be the right one. There is no single right path for everybody, it’s different for every single person. God is everywhere, and God is everything, we just need to be open and receptive to the messages God sends us.

God wants a relationship with us.
So much so that he came to Earth Himself as Jesus.
Jesus founded a church.
Jesus told us how to have a relationship with God.
Why ignore that for the relativistic Unitarian view to ‘connect to God however you feel’.
This is to ignore what God has already given us.

michel

 

[Hobble]

God wants a relationship with us.
So much so that he came to Earth Himself as Jesus.
Jesus founded a church.
Jesus told us how to have a relationship with God.
Why ignore that for the relativistic Unitarian view to ‘connect to God however you feel’.
This is to ignore what God has already given us.

michel

And how do you know that the events involving Jesus happened the way they say they happened? or that Jesus said what they say he said? How do you know they didn’t alter his teachings to benefit their own ideals?

I just can’t trust an ancient book written by people who could have been liars.

I think God gave us logical reasoning for us to always use it, not to ignore it and follow blindly.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Wrong. Where’s your proof? The truth is absolute and objective.

You are absolutely correct. Truth is objective and absolute (and infinite, I might add). However, we - you, me, all humans - are not. Our perception of Truth not absolute nor is it objective. It can be nothing more - I cannot understand the “fullness of Truth” because I am a finite being with finite understanding.

The best I can hope for is to understand the sliver of Truth that is revealed to me in my life.

That is what the Catholics have done - they have understood the part of Truth that they “grok”. Other Christians have done the same. As have the Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, etc. All have a different perspective of the Truth of the Divine.

Are each of them totally correct? No. But they aren’t wrong, either.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ah. Now if you argue that Truth is absolute (I agree) and people are not (not sure on this; we do have ‘eternal souls’ after all) and that because we are limited while the Truth is not we can never ‘fully claim we have it all’. . .that MIGHT be correct except that God already took care of the problem.

God is absolute, no? When He sent His Son, Jesus, ‘absolute Truth’ (which is ‘part of God’, God being everything, no?) resided in the body of a HUMAN BEING.

Christ ‘became Truth’ (that is, humanity in Christ became absolute).

Why we as Catholics can claim to have ‘absolute truth’ is that we are in a relationship WITH Christ such that we are ‘in Him and He in us’. Therefore, in Christ we can and do possess absolute truth and the fullness of truth, even though ‘we’ are limited beings. . .because He, man like us and yet God, abides in us and we in Him.

 

[AlegreFe]

You are absolutely correct. Truth is objective and absolute (and infinite, I might add). However, we - you, me, all humans - are not. Our perception of Truth not absolute nor is it objective.

(bold emphasis mine)
You are absolutely right about that. :yup:

That is why Jesus established the Catholic Church and He promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to bring the Church to all truth. We don’t have to rely on our own human understanding or concept of truth or warped interpretation of the bible because the Holy Spirit will give us the truth and the correct interpretation. But that truth of the Holy Spirit has to be given to a certain someone or a certain Church so that we can know. That is why Jesus had to put someone in charge here on earth. So that we can know that we have the whole truth, the full & complete truth. Peter is the one that Jesus put in charge of His flock here on earth. Without Peter we would just be another denomination or some other cult floating in space not knowing where the wind will blow us next.
A Protestant can tell me, “but I have the Holy Spirit so I know the correct interpretation of this verse.” How does that person know he/she has the correct interpretation? If that interpretation does not match that of the Church’s then I know it is not the correct one.

The Catholic Church has the Deposit of Faith in the fullest. We just have to uncover it. It doesn’t happen overnight with ALL of it as there is so much to uncover. But the Holy Spirit guides the Church to do this whenever God sees fit to uncover a truth for us. That is called the development of dogma.

Thank you Jesus for the Catholic Church!

 

[Peter_J]

cheese_sdc,

If you want to talk about comparisons/contrasts between Christianity and Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, etc., it might be better to start a new thread for it. (Just my opinion.)

 

[cazayoux]

And how do you know that the events involving Jesus happened the way they say they happened? or that Jesus said what they say he said? How do you know they didn’t alter his teachings to benefit their own ideals?

I just can’t trust an ancient book written by people who could have been liars.

I think God gave us logical reasoning for us to always use it, not to ignore it and follow blindly.

I agree that reasoning and logic is not something that is to be abandoned.
Reasoning can be used to tell us about the existence of things we cannot see.
There is wind I cannot see, but I see the effect on the trees.
I can’t see gravity, but I can see the effects of it.

I do believe something that, ultimately, I cannot personally prove.
I call this faith.
You, as an atheist, probably call this illogical.

However, you do the *exact *same thing.
There is no *proof *for your position, yet you would state that there is no God.

I’m used to discussions with Christians.
I can easily find the common ground for starting discussions.
I’m not sure what common ground I start with when discussing theology with an atheist.
I need to do some homework here.
I’ll see what I can find for a logical (based on history outside of Christianity) discussion of this group of people that believed God came to Earth as a man, died, and was resurrected.

Salut, friend!

michel

 

[Peter_J]

I agree that reasoning and logic is not something that is to be abandoned.
Reasoning can be used to tell us about the existence of things we cannot see.
There is wind I cannot see, but I see the effect on the trees.
I can’t see gravity, but I can see the effects of it.

I do believe something that, ultimately, I cannot personally prove.
I call this faith.
You, as an atheist, probably call this illogical.

However, you do the *exact *same thing.
There is no *proof *for your position, yet you would state that there is no God.

I’m used to discussions with Christians.
I can easily find the common ground for starting discussions.
I’m not sure what common ground I start with when discussing theology with an atheist.
I need to do some homework here.
I’ll see what I can find for a logical (based on history outside of Christianity) discussion of this group of people that believed God came to Earth as a man, died, and was resurrected.

Salut, friend!

michel

I think I missed something here. How do you know Hobble is an atheist?

 

[cazayoux]

I think I missed something here. How do you know Hobble is an atheist?

his profile.
go to one of his posts and click on his name.

Salut!

michel

 

[cheese_sdc]

Ah. Now if you argue that Truth is absolute (I agree) and people are not (not sure on this; we do have ‘eternal souls’ after all) and that because we are limited while the Truth is not we can never ‘fully claim we have it all’. . .that MIGHT be correct except that God already took care of the problem.

God is absolute, no? When He sent His Son, Jesus, ‘absolute Truth’ (which is ‘part of God’, God being everything, no?) resided in the body of a HUMAN BEING.

Christ ‘became Truth’ (that is, humanity in Christ became absolute).

Why we as Catholics can claim to have ‘absolute truth’ is that we are in a relationship WITH Christ such that we are ‘in Him and He in us’. Therefore, in Christ we can and do possess absolute truth and the fullness of truth, even though ‘we’ are limited beings. . .because He, man like us and yet God, abides in us and we in Him.

All that you say would be true, if I believed that Jesus was the Son of God.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

All that you say would be true, if I believed that Jesus was the Son of God.

Actually, it is true whether or not you believe in God. Truth does not depend on personal acceptance, it ‘is’ whether or not any given person ‘accepts’ it.

So all that I say is true, and what remains is for you to have the faith to believe that Jesus is the Son of God so that you know and accept that truth which itself will ‘remain’ true no matter what.

If you do not mind, I will pray a novena for you that you do receive that gift of faith.

If you do mind. . .well I will pray anyway but I won’t tell you if it makes you uncomfortable!

 

[cheese_sdc]

Actually, it is true whether or not you believe in God. Truth does not depend on personal acceptance, it ‘is’ whether or not any given person ‘accepts’ it.

So all that I say is true, and what remains is for you to have the faith to believe that Jesus is the Son of God so that you know and accept that truth which itself will ‘remain’ true no matter what.

I meant that it had a certain internal logic to it. However, your original statement still contains some really odd things - like God becoming man - the Infinite becoming finite. When I was a Christian, the Incarnation was a wondrous concept - and I think that it is a central strength of Catholicism that the other Protestant faiths miss out on.

The “lesson” I took from the Incarnation is that the Divine has hallowed, sanctified, made holy, blessed - whatever your term is - creation. That central sacramentality (that is the word Catholics use, I think) is an important concept and lesson for those that don’t understand it.

But I digress. You are partly correct, in your mind I lost my faith. To me, however, my understanding of Divinity changed. I still believe in a Source, a Divine Self, whatever. I just don’t believe that Catholicism contains all of It.

If you do not mind, I will pray a novena for you that you do receive that gift of faith.

I would rather you pray that I understand Truth (as much as I can, anyway!). There is only one source for It in the Universe, no matter how an individual understands it.

 

[cazayoux]

I agree that reasoning and logic is not something that is to be abandoned.
Reasoning can be used to tell us about the existence of things we cannot see.
There is wind I cannot see, but I see the effect on the trees.
I can’t see gravity, but I can see the effects of it.

I do believe something that, ultimately, I cannot personally prove.
I call this faith.
You, as an atheist, probably call this illogical.

However, you do the *exact *same thing.
There is no *proof *for your position, yet you would state that there is no God.

I’m used to discussions with Christians.
I can easily find the common ground for starting discussions.
I’m not sure what common ground I start with when discussing theology with an atheist.
I need to do some homework here.
I’ll see what I can find for a logical (based on history outside of Christianity) discussion of this group of people that believed God came to Earth as a man, died, and was resurrected.

Salut, friend!

michel

I was really hoping to get a comment from Hobble on the fact that he has faith as well.

michel