Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope the title is fairly self-explanatory.

By the church, I do not mean that only card carrying members of this organization have eternal life. I do mean that some certain graces or gifts are only available to those within the organization and that it would be to the benefit of every Christian to be a part of this organization.

To get this started, I like to brainstorm. These are possibilities that I have heard along the way. Any additions to my possibilities are welcome.

If one organization today is “The True Church”, I have come up with the following logical possibilites:
  • The Catholic organization is “The True Church”.
  • The Orthodox organization is “The True Church”.
  • A restorationalist organization (Mormon, JW) is “The True Church”
  • The trail of blood theory, i.e. “The True Church” was underground for a certain period of time and now exists today in one form or another (most commonly in independent, separatist, fundamentalist Baptist)
  • A trivial possibility that nobody believes: “The True Church” is one Protestant organization.
If no one organization today is “The True Church” I have come up with the following possibilities
  • What we see today is compatible with how Jesus designed the church.
  • What we see today is not compatible with how Jesus designed. Therefore what we see today is a result of sin.
There of course are sub possibilites under these two. Two that I have come up with in the “not compatible” category are
  • Jesus designed local organizations only. Centralization and denominations are outside of His design and therefore sin.
  • Jesus designed one centralized church. Because of sin, this once centralized church fragmented. As a result Jesus can not bless the individual fragments in the same way He could bless the one church.
Anyway, that is what I have come up with. Nothing really original here (I’m not that original), just assorted theories that I have heard along the journey.
I always say that if I was non-Catholic Christian, I would come to the Roman Catholic Church (though it is never as easy as that as Faith is a gift from God):
  • If I was say Anglican or Lutheran, I would be bothered when I came to the part ‘I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’ whenever I recited the Creed.
  • When investigating those ‘Catholic Churches’, the one that has unbroken succession from the Apostles is the Catholic Church
It is clear and evident but in the world of men, it is never that clear or evident…
 
Not making a lot of sense to me. The Holy Spirit is adequate to send a Christian out into the world to pray, teach, and minister with the guidance of Scripture. You think you need a ticket punched on Earth by a human being?

(The Bible is God-given guidance, not an actor that sends anyone anywhere to do anything. The Holy Trinity does the sending.)
How does the Holy Spirit “send” you out into the world?

Do you hear it’s voice?

The Holy Spirit is a spirit and does not have a voice to make sounds.

Can he inspire you? if so, can the devil inspire you too?

How can you know the difference and follow the right inspiration?

(Some think the Church can help one to decide that)
 
How does the Holy Spirit “send” you out into the world?

Do you hear it’s voice?

The Holy Spirit is a spirit and does not have a voice to make sounds.

Can he inspire you? if so, can the devil inspire you too?

How can you know the difference and follow the right inspiration?

(Some think the Church can help one to decide that)
Does not the Holy Spirit speak to you?
 
God Bless you if you believe that.
How do you believe the Bible was compiled and preserved from the Roman persecutions and the Barbarian Dark Ages to the printing press?

Who was printing, reading, distributing, and preaching the Bible during this time period?
 
Does not the Holy Spirit speak to you?
Yes - by means of the Church, through the Scripture readings, homilies, and teachings that I hear at Mass and other parish gatherings, through what I read in the Scriptures (a Catholic book) and through what I am taught in my reading of the Scriptures, the writings of the Saints, and other books that are put out by the Church.
 
How do you believe the Bible was compiled and preserved from the Roman persecutions and the Barbarian Dark Ages to the printing press?

Who was printing, reading, distributing, and preaching the Bible during this time period?
The Apostles,we did not have a printing press or any thing being distrbut,it was the monks of the Cathloic Church for the first 3 or 4 hundren years we did not have a bible.
PS If was just a teaching Church, Jesus never told any one to write
 
The Apostles,we did not have a printing press or any thing being distrbut,it was the monks of the Cathloic Church for the first 3 or 4 hundren years we did not have a bible.
PS If was just a teaching Church, Jesus never told any one to write
I was curious as to Tweet’s opinion, since in her last post to jmcrae, she seemed to be questioning this.
 
It looks like you have a different opinion than jmcrae, correct me if I’m wrong. If you disagree with her opinion, give me yours.🙂
What did I question?
Keep in mind that the Bible is one of the documents of the Catholic Church that would disappear if the Catholic Church were to disappear with all of its documents and institutions (as would all Sunday Schools and other educational institutions, since these are also institutions of the Catholic Church).
God Bless you **if **you believe that.
 
That everything would disappear if not for the CC.
If the CC had never existed, then neither would any of these things. It was by the decree of Pope Innocent I that we know what is supposed to be in the Bible.

Without what is in the Bible, there is no Bible.
that the scriptures are only understood by the CC
The CC wrote it, and compiled it, so is much more likely to know why it was put there, and what it means, rather than people who come along hundreds of years later, and just decide to make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

It reminds me of the story of Stephen Leacock, a Canadian writer, who is reasonably famous, but people don’t really know what he looks like; he doesn’t get a lot of interviews, and he is very seldom photographed.

Anyway, one time, his local college put on a course on his writings, and, just to see what was being taught, he decided to apply for the course under an assumed name.

Well, the teacher told the students all kinds of very interesting things about the meaning of Stephen Leacock’s writings. When it came to the final essay and exam, though, Mr. Leacock wrote down what he had actually meant to convey by these things that he had written, rather than giving back to the teacher what she had interpreted it to mean.

He failed the course, and he was told by the teacher that he had no comprehension of the writings of Stephen Leacock.

Boy, were they ever embarrassed when he revealed who he was. 😊

The same thing happens to the Catholic Church, with regard to the Bible. Protestants have all these ideas of what the Bible “really means” which have nothing at all to do with what the Catholic Church had originally intended to mean when these things were first written.

Unfortunately, instead of recognizing the Catholic Church as the author of these things, and changing their opinions based on what they are being told by the Church, they simply offer the Church a “failing grade” and then continue to persist in their errors.
 
that the scriptures are only understood by the CC
I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever claimed that Scripture is **only **understood in the Catholic Church. Certainly it is most fully understood there (though not necessarily by each individual Catholic as can be plainly seen). I think though that if other Christians have a scriptural interpretation that differs significantly from the Catholic interpretation that we can claim (as Catholics) that the Catholic interpretation is the correct one.

I do not believe that it is possible for a nonCatholic Christian to say, for example, that their position in, oh let’s say support of gay marriage, because “the Spirit tells me this is right” can possibly be held as being more ‘correct’ than the teaching of the Catholic Church, which likewise claims the guidance of the Spirit. Since the Spirit cannot teach ‘against’ Himself, if one person claims the Spirit says "gay marriage is acceptable’ and the Catholic Church teaches it is not. . .well, we can be assured that no matter how ‘loving’, how kind, how ‘sincere’ the nonCatholic (or sadly even the Catholic dissenter who might support them) might be in thinking the Spirit has spoken to him. . .that person is wrong.
 
If the CC had never existed, then neither would any of these things. It was by the decree of Pope Innocent I that we know what is supposed to be in the Bible.

Without what is in the Bible, there is no Bible.

The CC wrote it, and compiled it, so is much more likely to know why it was put there, and what it means, rather than people who come along hundreds of years later, and just decide to make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

It reminds me of the story of Stephen Leacock, a Canadian writer, who is reasonably famous, but people don’t really know what he looks like; he doesn’t get a lot of interviews, and he is very seldom photographed.

Anyway, one time, his local college put on a course on his writings, and, just to see what was being taught, he decided to apply for the course under an assumed name.

Well, the teacher told the students all kinds of very interesting things about the meaning of Stephen Leacock’s writings. When it came to the final essay and exam, though, Mr. Leacock wrote down what he had actually meant to convey by these things that he had written, rather than giving back to the teacher what she had interpreted it to mean.

He failed the course, and he was told by the teacher that he had no comprehension of the writings of Stephen Leacock.

Boy, were they ever embarrassed when he revealed who he was. 😊

The same thing happens to the Catholic Church, with regard to the Bible. Protestants have all these ideas of what the Bible “really means” which have nothing at all to do with what the Catholic Church had originally intended to mean when these things were first written.

Unfortunately, instead of recognizing the Catholic Church as the author of these things, and changing their opinions based on what they are being told by the Church, they simply offer the Church a “failing grade” and then continue to persist in their errors.
I am very happy and pleased that you believe and practice your faith and may God Bless you on your journey to our ultimate goal. I am very pleased with Jesus in my life and will continue to worship Him daily. And do my best to always please Him.
 
I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever claimed that Scripture is **only **understood in the Catholic Church. Certainly it is most fully understood there (though not necessarily by each individual Catholic as can be plainly seen). I think though that if other Christians have a scriptural interpretation that differs significantly from the Catholic interpretation that we can claim (as Catholics) that the Catholic interpretation is the correct one.

I do not believe that it is possible for a nonCatholic Christian to say, for example, that their position in, oh let’s say support of gay marriage, because “the Spirit tells me this is right” can possibly be held as being more ‘correct’ than the teaching of the Catholic Church, which likewise claims the guidance of the Spirit. Since the Spirit cannot teach ‘against’ Himself, if one person claims the Spirit says "gay marriage is acceptable’ and the Catholic Church teaches it is not. . .well, we can be assured that no matter how ‘loving’, how kind, how ‘sincere’ the nonCatholic (or sadly even the Catholic dissenter who might support them) might be in thinking the Spirit has spoken to him. . .that person is wrong.
Well I have been told diffrerently here that some scriptures are for the hiaracy pf the church. I am not for gay marriage , And there are a lot of people who promote gay marriage in the CC.
So it being totally one sided is false.
 
But tweety, we do need to be careful about ‘indifferentism’.

I’m not saying you’re promoting it yourself (not being able to read your heart) but either there is ‘one’ way (Jesus spoke of ONE Church), or there’s ‘no way’. Now, people might have ‘branched off’ the one way because they think they’ve got a great shortcut, but while they might still find Jesus, it’s like coming to him,instead of on the nice, smooth superhighway, along one of the side roads. There might be some really ‘nice’ sights on the side roads but there are also some major dumps, some real stumbling blocks, etc. So to say, “oh, but so long as you reach Jesus it doesn’t matter if you took the ‘direct’ route but came on a different one, the routes are equally valid provided you wind up with Jesus”. . .is wrong.

The route DOES matter. And they aren’t all equally valid. . .and unfortunately the more that sweet-natured but woolly-headed indifferentists continue to insist on the ‘many paths’ bologna, the more people will get convinced that ‘any Christian’ teaching or heck, even just being a ‘good person’ will lead you to God and that what is ‘best for you’ doesn’t have to be ‘best for anybody else’. Sad.
 
Well I have been told diffrerently here that some scriptures are for the hiaracy pf the church. Hearsay from ‘what you were told’ is not Church teaching. I am not for gay marriage , And there are a lot of people who promote gay marriage in the CC. Irrelevant. People who belong to a church yet deny its teachings aren’t limited to the Catholic Church and the fact that, say, Mr. X of St. Pius might ‘promote gay marriage’ doesn’t mean that the CHURCH promotes it. I’m sure you know the difference between people flouting a teaching and people espousing a teaching, and that neither the flouting nor the epousal will make the teaching right or wrong; it is the teaching itself that is right or wrong, no matter who or how many support or reject it.
So it being totally one sided is false.
Not sure what you mean but if you’re calling something I said false, could you be specific? What do you mean here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top