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

[justasking4]

This quote really tells that you have a lot of learning ahead of you. Jesus taught One Truth, established One Church, wanted everyone to be One - not many. He started His Church - the Early Church - the Catholic Church. He breathed on the apostles (which is a very important) and gave His Authority to Apostles to go forth and teach, to bind and loose, gave Peter the Keys and told him to feed His sheep, and promised to guide them and protect the Church until the end of time. Do you believe that he means what he says? Do you believe that Jesus meant what he said there? Anyway, that is One Church beginning, not many. There can and is only One true Church founded by Christ and he wanted every Christian to be One in it. Splits off of the original Church that Christ founded to begin their own Churches aren’t One. They were started by man, not by Christ. Nor were they given His divine Authority. Just start reading from the historical beginning, all the history of the times, the beginning of the Church, what the original teachings were for over 1500 years before the Reformation brought changes to those teachings. The Catholic Church still teaches those SAME teachings. It’s teaching and interpretation of Christ’s Deposit of Faith has NEVER changed. It is One. From the Reformation forward, you can p(name removed by moderator)oint the exact years that each denomination/Church was established and who established it. That alone tells you it is not Christ’s Church. He said One, and that is what he meant.

I’m confused by your claim that there is only one church. I have read on these forums that there are 22-23 rites in the Catholic church and not all adhere to the same identical things. Would this not mean that there is not a unity in the Catholic church?

 

[Always_For_Him]

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.

The original Church established at Pentecost and is 2,000 years old. The Apostles (who taught their successors Jesus’ Depost of Faith because he commaned them to go forth and teach) are the VERY people who lived thousands of years ago, that you will never know, but perfectly understood what Jesus told them and perfectly taught what Jesus taught them through the guidance of His Holy Spirit because that is what Jesus said He would do. The right path is what Jesus said it would be. Everyone is a single person, but there is only One path, on right path - that is the path of the Catholic Church founded by Christ. God is everywhere, but there is only One understanding of His message. Humans get in there and muck it up with their own interpretations of what they think it means. The devil sends messages as well, so we have to know with authority the Real Truth. The fact that their are so many “Truths” out there that each denomination/Church teaches as what is the real truth, proves the need for authoritative Truth - that can be learned from the Cathoic Church that was given the very Authority to teach by Jesus himself.

 

[Always_For_Him]

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

Are you here to learn if that could possibly be true? If not, then why are you here writing your opinions and statements against the beliefs of Christians?

 

[justasking4]

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

Why don’t you believe He was not?

 

[guanophore]

What Apostolic Teaching of the apostles themselves are you referring to?

All that which Jesus taught them, especially the world view necessary to interpret the scripture.

Acts 1:1-3
"…all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning 2 until the day when he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

I think we agree that not all of what Jesus did and taught made it into writings. The difference is that Catholics believe the Apostles faithfully preserved and taught this, by the Power of the Holy Spirit, where as fundamentalists say that God is too impotent or disinterested to keep HIs word so that this could happen.

 

[Always_For_Him]

If God loves people so much why would He make it so darned hard to understand all this stuff? Wouldn’t it be a lot better to make things plain and simple?

And, if God created man (and we know that most people are just average in intellect) why not make the book He provided really easy for average people to read and understand? Now that would be a cool god.

Good thought! I know that God reveals his plan on his own time. Over time, he has revealed what he wants us to know. He guides his Church by his own design, not ours.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Yes.

Well, mangy, it looks like you just got a gromming because you are so perfectly right!

 

[guanophore]

Can you give me a couple of examples of “Traditons” by the fathers?

Don’t fall for this ploy coyotekate77 . ja4 will just run you around in circles, then after all the work you have done, tell you that is all “speculations of men”.

… your church makes these great claims based on Sacred Traditions …

… i don’t see the evidence for the claim. Its like trying to nail jello to the wall.

I’m beginning to think that such a thing (Sacred Tradition) really doesn’t exist and is something that is introduced in the discussion that has no real substance. I don’t see how it tells catholics anything.

i know catholics accept these things as true. However due to the nature of these sacred traditons and the claims made in regard to them, they really don’t support what the apostles taught. Your church goes far beyond what the apostles taught with so many of its doctrines.

I’m interested because the truth matters. If what the catholic church teaches is true, then there must be evidence for it. If you want to claim the sacred traditions support your beliefs then i would think you would want to know the foundation of these traditions i.e. who taught it, when and on what scriptural basis are they using to support the claim. **This is the only way to avoid being deceived by false teachers which the scriptures warned would come into the church itself. Sadly i see catholics unwilling or fearful to hold their church accountable. **

He is not here to learn anything, but just to create rebellion and foment dissention.

 

[Always_For_Him]

The insults aren’t personal, they are institutional. The RCC pushes the insults.

Study of Christian scripture doesn’t do much to convince a devout non-Christian. Just because that old book says so doesn’t make it so, and just because the Catholic church says it’s so doesn’t make it so.

If you want to believe it that’s fine, but if I want to believe something different, that old book doesn’t give you or the RCC license to cast aspersion upon me. Or preferably, shouldn’t.

Then why believe the “story” at all? Just because you can’t PROVE it is True other than recorded history, doesn’t mean it isn’t True. You have to look at every historical recording/writing. The information is there, so you can find it. The thing is, there have been 2,000 years of a Church preserving and continuing to teach that Truth so you don’t have to recreate the wheel and fall into error by using your own interpretation of what you think all of that writing means. There are hundreds/thousands (whatever the number of denominations/Churches) out there, but there are thousands if not millions of individual interpretations of people’s own personal comprehension of what they have read it to be. There is only one Truth, which is WHY Jesus said that, which is WHY he gave His Authority and guidance of His Holy Spirit to go out and teach it as He wanted it taught. He only taught One Truth. That means that that there is only One Interpretation! He only gave it ONCE to His One Church that He founded and sent to teach it! So, because the Catholic Church says so most certainly does make it so, otherwise you wouldn’t have the “Old Book” or any Scripture to believe in at all. They teach the original teaching/interpretation of that Scripture as given to them by Christ himself. NOONE or NO other denomination was given that Deposit of Faith. NO other Church was given the Deposit of Faith by Jesus Himself. So, the Catholic Church is the only Church that has the Deposit of Faith and the Fullness of Christ’s teachings. So, why is it that NO OTHER denomination/Church believes in the fullness of Catholic teachings, but will use what they want to from the Catholic Bible?

That “BOOK” was Jesus Deposit of Faith that He gave to the men he founded His Church on. You have free will to believe anything that you want to, but that doesn’t make the teachings/traditions of man from splintered churches the Truth. If you want the Truth, then you need to be open to learn/understand what the RCC teaches and the Truth in what we are writing here. Why not try to be open to the original teaching/interpretation as it was for over 1500 years before the Reformation? If it is because your Church has taught you that the Catholics are wrong, well, that is teachings of man, and not representing the Truth.

 

[Always_For_Him]

In simple words, the more you know, the more you are held responsible. By nature, humans are religious beings, with a need for God that only He can fill. Before knowing God, people made false religions. Over the course of time, God revealed Himself to man, creating covenants including gradually greater numbers of people and significance (Adam and Eve, then Noah and family, then Abraham and tribe, then Moses and tribes, then David and Tribal Kingdom, then Christ and worldwide family). At the fullness of time, God sent His only begotten Son to the world to establish the greatest of the covenants, the New and Everalsing Covenant as a worldwide blessing for His family. Now, we have revelation of God, and the Church He established for His worldwide family. God has perfect judgement, so He alone knows which person(s) would make it to Heaven. However, if one is invinceably ignorant, they are not held accountable for something they didn’t know. For those who are exposed to the truth, and who reject it, there are consequences. For those who love God, and remain in friendship with God, He has told us that there are blessings and everlasting life with Him. God does everything in His time, and perfectly. I recommend you actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to see the teachings on salvation, rather than have me spoon feed you. This would be a sign of seeking God, rather than scoffing.

MDK,
This is so perfectly, simply stated. Thank you for sharing this with us.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The pastors and elders. It is their job to understand the Scriptures correctly and to teach others.

**Pastors and elders? hunmmmmmmmm! you mean you accept the authority of your pastors and elders? men who have no authority and have no apostolic sucsession? and you are telling us that we must reject the authority of the CC to follow your pastors and elders? **

Lets take baptism as an example. In Scripture we see:
1- repentance
2- belief that Christ died for those sins
3- confess Christ
4 -full immersion in baptism

this only shows how much you undersstand SS, if it is not there perfectly written in black in white then it must be rejected. do you realize what you are saying here? and then you say the HS help you to understand what is written? you don t need the HS here, all you need is to be written down word for word. Please! open your eyes to own deceitfulness. **why dont you admit you have been deceived by those who claim the HS helps them to enterpret the Bible. just like you they cant unless it is written word for word they dont understand either. **

If someone wants to refute these principles then they are going to have to bring those ideas to the table for study.

under whose authority? and authority of what church?

Take infant baptism. It fails on the first 3 points.

if you really, really think about it, you will see your err right here. I am going to say this again, Jesus is the One who gave authority to His Church. The Church did not wait untill the Bible was put to use to come into existence. Jesus did not give authority to the Bible, He gave authority to chosen man.

**why do you think there is? make because man are somewhat evil and could get this Book and do many wrongs just like we see it happening all the time, dont we? **

 

[wisdomseeker]

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

you mean, Catholics are now coming up with chick tracts to remove the members of your churches and bring them back to the CC?

 

[Mannyfit75]

No. However Paul does seem to say that it is better to marry than to burn. I Corinthians 7:9.

What do you think are the characteristics of a celibate man? Does it mean he has no desire for the opposite sex or sex at all?

Celibacy is interior self offering to God. A person who is celibate commits him/ or herself to Christ alone and vows to God. Celibacy itself is not limited to the clergy. In the early days of Christianity, there were virgins who committed themselves to Jesus like St. Celicia who refuse to marry a pagan from an arrange marriage because she confesses that her true spouse is Jesus Christ.

It is not desire for sex. Desire for sex brings sinful thoughts of lust. It is bodily pleasure. However, sexual intercourse is not dirty. Sexual intercourse only have one function, pro-creation. Sex is not use for pleasure or self-gratification. To view sex as such reduces the person’s humanity as a mere toy, like dildo. Humans beings are not toys for seeking pleasures.

The Catechism states:

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single."136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

On the issue of Sex, the Catholic Church teaches the following as well:

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”
Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

 

[ChristianRoots]

The church itself did not “produce” the Scriptures but they have their source in God. We also know that the OT Scriptures were not produced by the church. God used people to write these things down.
If by authority you mean the church i did not say that. The church as an authority still exists and exercises that authority.

The Church’s source is in God, therefore, the Church did produce the Scriptures, i.e. the Bible. The Church correctly identified the inspired and uninspired books, no other entity on earth, including the Scriptures themselves, were able to do that. Such a fact undermines Sola Scriptura because, ulitmately, it was God who decided NOT let the Scriptures dictate which books were inspired and which ones were not, an anti-Sola Scriptura event.

We can know many things for sure today. If a person wants to present a new doctrine or practice then we can go to the scriptures to see if such a thing should be done. We can even ask if such a thing is necessary if the Scriptures already teach such a thing. Praying to the saints is one such example. Its unnecessary since Christ alone is sufficient for everything we need. We have direct access to Him.

I disagree. Any new doctrine must be tested against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It cannot be ONLY the Scriptures. It was never **ONLY the Scriptures **in early Christianity.

You admit that you engage in a religious worship service on December 25th, Christmas Day. Yet, Christmas on December 25th is unbiblical according to your logic. How do you account for this discrepancy?

I Thess 5:21-22 is a good place to start—
21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
22 abstain from every form of evil.

Also Acts 17:11 is a demonstration of this.

These verses do not say that the Scriptures are the only or final authority. Besides examining new ideas against Scripture, it can also be tested against the Sacred Traditions of the Church, too. ( 2 Thess 2:15)

True. It also does not follow that since we don’t have the bones she must have been taken up into heaven either. There is no positive evidence this happened.

God can assume a living person or a dead person into heaven. It does not matter if Mary died or not. The doctrine would still remain in effect.

Do you have any evidence in the NT that leads you to think that Mary thought she was without sin?

Mary most likely did not understand what the title, Full of Grace, meant. She was a very humble person.

I don’t think she expected such a thing and was probably overwhelemed with it all.
I get the sense from the passage that this encounter went rather quickly and it would take time to absorb it all. Actually she was not elated but troubled by it. See Luke 1:29
i agree with the first part here but i don’t know where you get the idea that i think this what you write in the 2nd part.

Why do you think Mary was troubled then? Was it because God reached out to her for a purpose? Was it because she was uncertain about what was about to happen to her? In both instances, it would be unbiblical for Mary to have a troubled reaction.

Do you agree or disagree?

If you agree, why was Mary troubled? I thought you said in an earlier post that Mary’s reaction was only natural considering she would later find out she would bear God’s Son?

 

[Always_For_Him]

It’s not true at all because my old book says it isn’t true. And my old book is older than your old book so it is true and your old book isn’t true. Of course what my old book says about your old book isn’t aspersion, it’s true. Same for my church. If my church says your church is false then that isn’t aspersion, it’s true.

Do you understand that at all? Your belief is no more true than my belief. And that’s the truth.

So, what is your, “old book” the Torah? What Christian Book that Christians follow today could be older than the Holy Bible?

 

[Always_For_Him]

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.

Examples of such a disrespectful statement please! “Warp his words to justify their own greed” WOW! The Catholic Church is the Church that really takes His words literally. We know when it is a parable, we know when it is metaphorical, we know when it is literally the Truth. It is explained how to tell the difference. It is denominations/Churches outside of the Catholic Church that “warp His words to justify their own greed” and warp His words to mean what they want them to mean.

 

[MDK]

I’m confused by your claim that there is only one church. I have read on these forums that there are 22-23 rites in the Catholic church and not all adhere to the same identical things. Would this not mean that there is not a unity in the Catholic church?

Finally, one thing we agree on… you’re confused. You’re also correct in that rites inside the Church would not mean there is not a unity in the Catholic Church.

Do you ask for perfect unity among men, and is this a real possibility or even the best thing? Local Churches are critical to meet the needs of the communities, and we would not expect nor desire one in Armenia to be exactly like one in Texas. Ultimately, true Catholicism is not found in uniform worship or liturgy—the Catholic Church has not, since its earliest days in Jerusalem, been uniform in those areas. Rather, it has been united in its common faith, doctrine, and sacraments, concretely demonstrated by communion with the pope, the bishop of Rome. While there is a proper diversity in the realm of liturgical practice, devotions, and even disciplines, there is an essential unity in doctrine and dogma. There are three particular areas that must be seen as a unity: Christology (what the Church teaches about the person of Jesus Christ), ecclesiology (what she teaches about the Church), and sacramental theology (what she teaches about the Eucharist). For these, the Eastern Catholic rites are in communion with the Western Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that there is one universal Church, the “unique Catholic Church,” and many particular churches, each a community of Catholics who are joined by faith and the sacraments and their bishop (CCC 833). The Second Vatican Council teaches that from these individual churches comes the fullness of the one and only Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium 23).

God wills unity for his people. Christian disunity greatly hinders proclaiming the gospel to a world in need of Christ. And so the Catholic Church is committed to carrying on ecumenism. The commitment is firm. Unity includes doctrine and dogma. Do our separated brethren share in this doctrine and dogma like the rites within the Catholic Church? Do the separate brethren even share doctrine and dogma in common with each other?

There is no mention in the New Testament nor any suggestion that Christ founded a plurality of churches. In a related manner “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt. 12:25).

Vatican II expressed the hope that all Christians would be gathered eventually into “the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning.” In strongest possible terms, the Council taught, “This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something which she can never lose.” The Catholic’s ecumenical responsibility is greater than that of the non-Catholic simply because the Catholic stands within the unity into which the separated brother or sister is being invited.

 

[justasking4]

Finally, one thing we agree on… you’re confused. You’re also correct in that rites inside the Church would not mean there is not a unity in the Catholic Church.

Do you ask for perfect unity among men, and is this a real possibility or even the best thing? Local Churches are critical to meet the needs of the communities, and we would not expect nor desire one in Armenia to be exactly like one in Texas. Ultimately, true Catholicism is not found in uniform worship or liturgy—the Catholic Church has not, since its earliest days in Jerusalem, been uniform in those areas. Rather, it has been united in its common faith, doctrine, and sacraments, concretely demonstrated by communion with the pope, the bishop of Rome. While there is a proper diversity in the realm of liturgical practice, devotions, and even disciplines, there is an essential unity in doctrine and dogma. There are three particular areas that must be seen as a unity: Christology (what the Church teaches about the person of Jesus Christ), ecclesiology (what she teaches about the Church), and sacramental theology (what she teaches about the Eucharist). For these, the Eastern Catholic rites are in communion with the Western Catholic Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that there is one universal Church, the “unique Catholic Church,” and many particular churches, each a community of Catholics who are joined by faith and the sacraments and their bishop (CCC 833). The Second Vatican Council teaches that from these individual churches comes the fullness of the one and only Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium 23).

God wills unity for his people. Christian disunity greatly hinders proclaiming the gospel to a world in need of Christ. And so the Catholic Church is committed to carrying on ecumenism. The commitment is firm. Unity includes doctrine and dogma. Do our separated brethren share in this doctrine and dogma like the rites within the Catholic Church? Do the separate brethren even share doctrine and dogma in common with each other?

There is no mention in the New Testament nor any suggestion that Christ founded a plurality of churches. In a related manner “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate, and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt. 12:25).

Vatican II expressed the hope that all Christians would be gathered eventually into “the unity of the one and only Church, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning.” In strongest possible terms, the Council taught, “This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something which she can never lose.” The Catholic’s ecumenical responsibility is greater than that of the non-Catholic simply because the Catholic stands within the unity into which the separated brother or sister is being invited.

Do you know the kind and nature of the unity that Christ prayed for? What was the kind of unity He had with the Father? Do you think the Catholic church has acheived the unity of John 17:21?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Do you know the kind and nature of the unity that Christ prayed for? What was the kind of unity He had with the Father? Do you think the Catholic church has acheived the unity of John 17:21?

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

 

[justasking4]

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

:dancing: