Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

[AmateurPianist]

if what we see today, in one organization is not what Christ had in mind, then he is a liar. because he did promise, that he would build His Church. and the gates of hell would not overcome it. either Jesus is God the son, and can preserve that one Church, or we are all deceived by following him. the only divisions that existed at the time of the apostles, were the nicloation heresy which may have been a gnostic movement. maybe a coulple others. but these were not divisions. these were looked upon as a false Gospel. if you follow the historical line all the way back. its the Catholic Church that Christ founded. even some protestant writers have to aknowlege this. Peace

That assumes that your interpretation of that little phrase “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” is in fact the definitive one.

 

[jmcrae]

That assumes that your interpretation of that little phrase “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” is in fact the definitive one.

I’m not sure what else it could mean. Do you have an interpretation that allows for there to be several conflicting ideas about who Jesus is, and no final authority to sort them all out, that still makes sense in the context of Christ founding His Church on solid rock?

 

[benidict]

Good point, benedict.

I would point out that there have been numerous heresies and schisms in the history of the Church. For an interesting and informative treatment on the notion of heresy, check out the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on this site. I think it worthy of note that in order to have a heresy, there must be a cohesive set of doctrines and dogmas for one to disagree with. I would also like to point to St. Paul’s first letter to Timothy, specifically 1 Timothy 3:15, where we find that even then, the Church was given a place of precidence and authority:

“If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

if I am correct in my assumption of your working definition of “church”, Amateur Pianist, then I would ask how it is that a mystical body that merely refers to a group of believers could be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Where would one go to find that truth in such a mystical body? This is a practical question that must have some sort of logical answer. I’m not saying you don’t have one, but I’m very curious what that might look like.

In contrast, within the Catholic Church, we DO believe that there is a centralized repository of faith. We even give it a name, “The Deposit of Faith”. We believe in Apostolic Succession (a biblical concept, as we see in multiple instances where the apostles viewed their positions as an office, not merely a man. We even see in a couple of places how they went about selecting successors to those offices.) Through this Apostolic Succession, we believe that what we have come to call Bishops are, indeed, the successors of that authority granted to the original Apostles by Jesus. This pedigree, particularly with the Bishop of Rome, the preeminent Bishop in the Church, (i.e. “the Pope”) is well documented and able to be traced by anyone willing to take the time. When referring to the teaching authority of this college of Bishops, we use the term Magisterium. You have mentioned the schism between the Eastern and Western (i.e. Roman) Church. there are certainly differences between the two, but we each do recognize the apostolic succession of the other’s bishops and priests. Sadly, there are divisions still to be reconciled, but I think that at this point each does look forward to a time when we can become so. This is such an important point because we (Eastern and Western Catholics) do long for a time when we can put aside our differences and once again be ONE.

i will look this up. thanks hillsteven. God bless you and yours

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hrmm… okay. This does seem to be a good place to start then.

If you’d be so kind as to indulge me a little further here, I’d like to point out some linguistic, if not actual logical contradictions in your assertion:

“I believe that there is one church. I believe the one church today exists in several organizations.”

From a linguistic perspective, the church is either one, or it is several. I do note that you parse the two between one church and several** organizations**. This tells me that you see a distinction between the two concepts. Would it be a fair assumption to state that in your definition of the concept “church”, you mean the body of believers that follow Christ? In other words, from your perspective the concepts of “the church” and “Christians” are interchangeable? Stated another way, when you refer to “the church” it is solely in the context of the “Mystical body of Christ.”

Please confirm or correct my understanding of your definition. I’l leave this post short an focused solely on a working definition of “Church”. My reason for that is that if we’re going to debate the notion of “The True Church”, it would help to start by insuring that we both have the same understanding of what it is we are debating.

God Bless,

~Steven

Just to level set a couple of items.

I feel a little uncomfortable with the concept to “debate” when the subject is God’s word.

Maybe a part of it is that I am really not that good of a “debater”. I have zilch theological training. I am not the greatest communicator. I get my words messed up and don’t express myself all that well. And maybe another part of it is that I used to “debate” God’s word in college when I was the token Pentecostal, not-Calvinist in a group of Calvinist cessationalists.

And anyway, I am not here to convince anybody that I am the smartest thing since sliced bread. I am here to learn and if necessary to adjust my beliefs (and believe it or not in the last 2-3 years I have adjusted my beliefs some.

That said, when I consider the idea of “church” I like to first go to the end of the story in Revelation where you see “the bride”. In Revelation 7:9 there is a great multitude from every nation and all tribes and people standing before the throne and before the lamb. That to me is how Jesus sees His church in eternity. There will be no more church organizations. There will be Jesus (and the father and the Holy Spirit) and there will be His bride (and angels and more). If you are spending eternity with Jesus Christ, then you are a part of this great multitude and a part of the eternal bride of Jesus Christ.

I believe Jesus sees the church today in the same way he will see it a zillion years from now when there is a new heaven and new earth…as those people Jesus will spend eternity with as a part of His bride.

The only way in which the traditional Protestant teaching on the church leaves me not totally satisfied is left by itself it seems to excuse the several distinct organizations in competition with each other all proclaiming contradictory dogma and doctrines that we see today.

 

[benidict]

That assumes that your interpretation of that little phrase “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” is in fact the definitive one.

i dont see how it could be anything other than a definitive one. if todays Church/bride is not what Christ intended it to be, then what would be the point of him coming back for Her. if what he built could be torn down by man, then you may as well say he is powerless to keep his word. and that there is some confusion on the part of our Lord. if i held you line of thinking, i really would consider becoming an atheist. because everything Christ and his apostles taught, was a lie. and God the son, was not able to keep his bride spotless until his reappearing. thats a frightning thought. peace

 

[AmateurPianist]

if I am correct in my assumption of your working definition of “church”, Amateur Pianist, then I would ask how it is that a mystical body that merely refers to a group of believers could be “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Where would one go to find that truth in such a mystical body? This is a practical question that must have some sort of logical answer. I’m not saying you don’t have one, but I’m very curious what that might look like.

But to me this is more a question on how the church is to be organized. Remember I am not an apologist for several competing organizations…etc…

If the church were truly one in the same sense the apostolic church was one, yes I agree that it would better serve its function as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”. But even in its present state it does serve as the pillar and bulwark of the core message of Jesus Christ, His life, and His resurrection.

In contrast, within the Catholic Church, we DO believe that there is a centralized repository of faith. We even give it a name, “The Deposit of Faith”. We believe in Apostolic Succession (a biblical concept, as we see in multiple instances where the apostles viewed their positions as an office, not merely a man. We even see in a couple of places how they went about selecting successors to those offices.) Through this Apostolic Succession, we believe that what we have come to call Bishops are, indeed, the successors of that authority granted to the original Apostles by Jesus. This pedigree, particularly with the Bishop of Rome, the preeminent Bishop in the Church, (i.e. “the Pope”) is well documented and able to be traced by anyone willing to take the time. When referring to the teaching authority of this college of Bishops, we use the term Magisterium. You have mentioned the schism between the Eastern and Western (i.e. Roman) Church. there are certainly differences between the two, but we each do recognize the apostolic succession of the other’s bishops and priests. Sadly, there are divisions still to be reconciled, but I think that at this point each does look forward to a time when we can become so. This is such an important point because we (Eastern and Western Catholics) do long for a time when we can put aside our differences and once again be ONE.

And that is nice. You are assuming a governing metric of lineage…meaning in whatever divisions occur in the church God will always side with (meaning preserve the superior->inferior relationship as well as special benefits) with the side that maintains the lineage. I do not make this assumption.

It does seem that you are somehow minimizing the East/West split. No matter how you cut it there still are two organizations proclaiming contradictory doctrines/dogmas. And based on some of the discussions I have read here there is still to some extent competition between the two.

 

[AmateurPianist]

i dont see how it could be anything other than a definitive one. if todays Church/bride is not what Christ intended it to be, then what would be the point of him coming back for Her. if what he built could be torn down by man, then you may as well say he is powerless to keep his word. and that there is some confusion on the part of our Lord. if i held you line of thinking, i really would consider becoming an atheist. because everything Christ and his apostles taught, was a lie. and God the son, was not able to keep his bride spotless until his reappearing. thats a frightning thought. peace

First of all “prevail” in normal English usage indicates a status at the end.

In the super bowl next week, one team or another will “prevail”. Now maybe the game will be a blowout, but then again maybe the winning team will be down by 3 touchdowns going into the final quarter. We will not know who prevails until the end of the game.

I note that we are not at the end of the age.

I also note that today’s church is not what Christ intended for it to be anyway. Just follow the news for a couple of years and you can conclude this is true for all organizations. Good grief, if I held to a definition of “prevail” that incorporates “now” and “being outside of what God designed for it”, I would conclude from reading about the conduct of the church from the newspapers and internet that the gates of hell have prevailed already against the church. And that includes all organizations in which the church appears…

 

[AmateurPianist]

I’m not sure what else it could mean. Do you have an interpretation that allows for there to be several conflicting ideas about who Jesus is, and no final authority to sort them all out, that still makes sense in the context of Christ founding His Church on solid rock?

Yup.

As well as an interpretation that allows there to be many gross failures within the history of the church that have tarnished the reputation of the church throughout history.

Despite both of these phenomenons, amazingly, I still see God at work, drawing people to himself, and reaching the nations. I still can walk into buildings owned by several different organizations and sense the presence of Jesus.

Yes absolutely. Despite the failures of the church both in its conduct and dividing between itself, I still see God at work. And as long as I: see and sense the presence of Jesus Christ at work in this world, I can be assured that the gates of hell have not prevailed.

 

[hillsteven]

…I feel a little uncomfortable with the concept to “debate” when the subject is God’s word.

Maybe a part of it is that I am really not that good of a “debater”. I have zilch theological training. I am not the greatest communicator. I get my words messed up and don’t express myself all that well. And maybe another part of it is that I used to “debate” God’s word in college when I was the token Pentecostal, not-Calvinist in a group of Calvinist cessationalists.

And anyway, I am not here to convince anybody that I am the smartest thing since sliced bread. I am here to learn and if necessary to adjust my beliefs (and believe it or not in the last 2-3 years I have adjusted my beliefs some.

I want to comment, briefly here as well. Substitute any word you like for debate that makes you comfortable. “discuss”, “hash out”, whatever. I have no formal theological training either, though I have been reading/studying this stuff on/off since I started seriously investigating the real teachings of the Catholic Church (as opposed to what I understood them to be). That journey for me began in the summer of 1996. Don’t fret about your communication skills, or lack thereof. If I have a question on a point that I think needs clarifying, I’ll ask. I’m not trying to be demeaning or rude, just trying to understand your perspective. If you have the patience with me to hash out something over several posts, I’ve got the patience to dig into it to make sure we’re on the same page in actual fact, rather than just thinking we are.

That said, when I consider the idea of “church” I like to first go to the end of the story in Revelation where you see “the bride”. In Revelation 7:9 there is a great multitude from every nation and all tribes and people standing before the throne and before the lamb. That to me is how Jesus sees His church in eternity. There will be no more church organizations. There will be Jesus (and the father and the Holy Spirit) and there will be His bride (and angels and more). If you are spending eternity with Jesus Christ, then you are a part of this great multitude and a part of the eternal bride of Jesus Christ.

I believe Jesus sees the church today in the same way he will see it a zillion years from now when there is a new heaven and new earth…as those people Jesus will spend eternity with as a part of His bride.

The only way in which the traditional Protestant teaching on the church leaves me not totally satisfied is left by itself it seems to excuse the several distinct organizations in competition with each other all proclaiming contradictory dogma and doctrines that we see today.

Interesting view. Okay, I think I can run with that. A few thoughts on that then. Of course, I’m going to come at this from the Church’s perspective, and that’s a significant distinction that is worthy of note. Whenever I have these discussions with non-Catholic Christians (and when I was on your side of these types of discussions), the non-Catholic viewpoint invariably begins with “I believe”, or “I think” or some such. I think that this is a very important distinction. When discussing doctrine, I can feel much more confident in my beliefs because I can say “The Church teaches.” This is one of the reasons that I stated in another thread to you that it really comes down to authority. We, believe in the reality of Apostolic Succession (see my previous comments on this). This teaching has stayed consistent, and has never contradicted itself.

Anyway, the Church teaches that there are three “states” of the Church:

In paragraph 954 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), we read:
“When the Lord comes in glory, and all his angels with him, death will be no more and all things will be subject to him. But at the present time some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth. Others have died and are being purified, while still others are in glory, contemplating ‘in full light, God himself triune and one, exactly as he is’”

Another way I’ve heard this stated is that we have the Church Militant (that would be us here on earth), the Church Triumphant (those souls in Heaven, i.e. the Saints), and the Church Penitent (those souls that are being purified that they may enter into Heaven without any remaining stain of Sin).

It would seem that you are describing merely the Church Triumphant. Ultimately, yes, that IS what the church WILL become in its entirety. In the mean time, we’re still here “working out our salvation in fear and trembling.”

Okay, so where does that leave us… I am basically back to your thread title, I guess. Which one of these organizations here on Earth, if any, has the ability to call itself the “True” Church, by whose authority can such an organization propose to do so, and how can we believe them?

I think we’re really talking about two different sides of the same coin with our definitions, which is good.

It’s late, I think I’m down to talking myself in circles, so I’m headed off to bed. Logic is like that sometimes though… you may well end up back where you started, but at least you know where “here” really is!!

 

[hillsteven]

It does seem that you are somehow minimizing the East/West split. No matter how you cut it there still are two organizations proclaiming contradictory doctrines/dogmas. And based on some of the discussions I have read here there is still to some extent competition between the two.

There is definitely a difference of opinion, yes. if not, there would be no remaining schism!

My reasons for minimizing this split though, is that at the core, the teachings of both are still very much in line with each other. Truly, if a faithful member of the Eastern Orthodox church were to make themselves known in a Roman Catholic Church, they would be welcomed at the altar to take part in the Holy Eucharist. A non-Catholic (i.e. Protestant) would not. While we still recognized the many varied faith communities as brothers and sisters in Christ, we speak of them as those not in “full communion” with the Church. Why is this? Well, the Catholic Church has remained constant since Jesus established her upon the rock of Peter, reinforced by his commissioning the Apostles after the Resurrection, and birthed at Pentecost. Every other faith community, including that of the Eastern Church, has split off of that main vine. Every other faith community can trace its beginnings as a distinct organization to an event (and in many cases, a specific man) in history subsequent to Pentecost. This is not mere hyperbole, this is verifiable historic fact. The distinction with the Eastern Rite churches is that they do in fact validly claim Apostolic Succession. The separation there came as a result primarily of political differences, but the doctrines have remained very, very similar, and the authority given to their Bishops is of the same origin, and can trace its roots back to the original Apostles. The schism that happened was a result of the Eastern Church separating itself with Rome, not the other way around. (for the record, I for one pray that we may see the reunification of that schism in our lifetimes!!)

Hope that makes sense. I wasn’t minimizing the reality that there are indeed differences between the East & West, but those differences pale in comparison with what is commonly referred to as Protestant Churches. By definition, Protestantism means those who protest. I know some take that as some sort of politically incorrect slight or derogatory label. I don’t mean it as such.

Peace, and may God continue to Bless you with great Grace!!

 

[jmcrae]

That said, when I consider the idea of “church” I like to first go to the end of the story in Revelation where you see “the bride”. In Revelation 7:9 there is a great multitude from every nation and all tribes and people standing before the throne and before the lamb.

That sounds exactly like the Holy Roman Catholic Church - every nation, every tribe. No other church on earth has that - only the Catholic Church. I walk into my parish, I hear ten different languages being spoken among the families who come to Mass.

 

[Nine_Two]

That sounds exactly like the Holy Roman Catholic Church - every nation, every tribe. No other church on earth has that - only the Catholic Church. I walk into my parish, I hear ten different languages being spoken among the families who come to Mass.

Funny, I get the same thing when I walk into my non-Catholic parish.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Funny, I get the same thing when I walk into my non-Catholic parish.

To some extent all organizations today (or most) can probably make this claim.

The reality though is that none of us can, yet. The reality is that there are still unevangelized people groups (tribes and languages) scattered across the face of this planet that have no knowledge of the name of Jesus.

Oh and I welcome the contribution of the Orthodox on this thread. There were Orthodox on this at the beginning…it might even have been you. I think we might think alike.

 

[Monte1945]

If Christ is the Head of His Church, and He promises to be with us to the end of the age, and with the Holy Ghost overseeing and guiding, what right do we have to say that the Church is wrong about something she has definitively taught? From my faith perspective, it is folly to oppose what the Catholic Church would teach. It is not with docility alone that I believe every doctrine the Church teaches, but with inquisitive faith that trusts in God who has promised not to forsake the Church. I look into what the Church teaches and while the reasons she gives are not necessarily infallible, I am always intellectually satisfied. No not just satisfied…edified. I happily believe whatever Christ’s Church teaches.

The catholic church does not condemn any other christian church… She states that
she proclaims the Truths of God from what they taught from the start of God’s revelation to mankind. She has passed those truths down, in preaching and of writing and preserving these two traditions the scriptures and oral taught truths of Gode.

She saids of the other Christian churches for as far as they lift up Jesus Christ and Him Crucifed and Resserected they are part of the Mother chruch. She also reconizes that some of these brother churches do not teach all of God’s revealed Truths.

And that She “does” teach all that has been revealed as it has been revealed and even those truths which reason can not understand…

Nothing more and nothing less… I am a catholic christian as I find it has a full course
of spiritual nutrition in comparison of the other churches which seem to me to only offer a part of that same spiritual nutition need.

I find the division of the christian churches a sign of confusion to the lost of our world.
I do not, want to be part of holding some lost person back from finding God through Faith in their life time. I have not found any reason to find the Catholic Church in error in any form. It holds up Jesus Christ as God in the form of Son… and him crucified for my salvation.

 

[hillsteven]

The catholic church does not condemn any other christian church… She states that
she proclaims the Truths of God from what they taught from the start of God’s revelation to mankind. She has passed those truths down, in preaching and of writing and preserving these two traditions the scriptures and oral taught truths of Gode.

She saids of the other Christian churches for as far as they lift up Jesus Christ and Him Crucifed and Resserected they are part of the Mother chruch. She also reconizes that some of these brother churches do not teach all of God’s revealed Truths.

And that She “does” teach all that has been revealed as it has been revealed and even those truths which reason can not understand…

Nothing more and nothing less… I am a catholic christian as I find it has a full course
of spiritual nutrition in comparison of the other churches which seem to me to only offer a part of that same spiritual nutition need.

I find the division of the christian churches a sign of confusion to the lost of our world.
I do not, want to be part of holding some lost person back from finding God through Faith in their life time. I have not found any reason to find the Catholic Church in error in any form. It holds up Jesus Christ as God in the form of Son… and him crucified for my salvation.

Well put!

 

[jmcrae]

Funny, I get the same thing when I walk into my non-Catholic parish.

They permit more than one language-group to attend the same Orthodox Church? I thought you had to be of the nationality of that national church (which is why I can never be Orthodox - we only have Greek and Russian here, and I can’t even fake either one).

 

[Nine_Two]

They permit more than one language-group to attend the same Orthodox Church? I thought you had to be of the nationality of that national church (which is why I can never be Orthodox - we only have Greek and Russian here, and I can’t even fake either one).

Actually I’m from Calgary as well, assuming your location is accurate.

Anyone can go to any Orthodox service, regardless of their ethnicity. In Canada Orthodox parishes have traditionally been built around ethnic communities so it sometimes seems that way, however that is not the case at all.
Also, we do have far more than just the Greek and Russian churches here, we have about seven or eight, including one which uses English as its liturgical language, and is very ethnicly diverse (that would be mine).
Also Orthodox parishes, regardless of juristiction do interact with each other. Not as much as we should, but we do.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually I’m from Calgary as well, assuming your location is accurate.

Howdy.

Anyone can go to any Orthodox service, regardless of their ethnicity.

You can attend,but you can’t join, is my understanding.

In Canada Orthodox parishes have traditionally been built around ethnic communities so it sometimes seems that way, however that is not the case at all.

I had a friend who joined St. Peter the Aleut, up on 33rd; he was required to take Russian language and citizenship lessons as part of his Catechumenate.

Also, we do have far more than just the Greek and Russian churches here, we have about seven or eight, including one which uses English as its liturgical language, and is very ethnicly diverse (that would be mine).

Which one is that, if you don’t mind my asking?

 

[Nine_Two]

Howdy.

We need to organize a take Calgary take-over of these forums.

You can attend,but you can’t join, is my understanding.

Nope, you can join at any church. Aside from myself (being OCA), I know we have several Greek Orthodox and a Bulgarian Orthodox person on these forums, all of them coming from a non-Eastern European background.

I had a friend who joined St. Peter the Aleut, up on 33rd; he was required to take Russian language and citizenship lessons as part of his Catechumenate.

Might want to get some clarification on that. St. Peter’s is where I go, and we’ve got about 7 or 8 Russian speakers there, and our priest isn’t one of them. In fact you’re more likely to hear Romanian than Russian down at lunch after the Divine Liturgy. I suspect St. Peter’s just piqued your friends interest in Russian, personally it is a major reason I started taking Greek (90% of our icons are in Greek).
Also not sure what you mean by citizenship lessons, unless you mean the classes the church holds for catechumens. While those aren’t technically required - I know of at least one person who didn’t do them - they are highly recommended, and are little different than RCIA classes (from my understanding, obviously I’ve never done RCIA).

 

[TheosisM]

They permit more than one language-group to attend the same Orthodox Church? I thought you had to be of the nationality of that national church (which is why I can never be Orthodox - we only have Greek and Russian here, and I can’t even fake either one).

Most Orthodox parishes that I have encountered have English services, including the “ethnic” parishes. The problem though is that the English service may be at 7am, while the Slavonic Liturgy would be at 9 or 10. At least, that’s a problem for me .

The Russian cathedral in DC has an African American priest. The head (Metropolitan) of the Orthodox Church in America is a convert. You don’t have to be Greek or Russian to attend either type of Orthodox church, or to convert. As far as language, I think that it is no different than when Roman Catholic parishes used Latin for everything.