Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

[AmateurPianist]

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church.

It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

As I commented in the other thread, in the English this passage is ambiguous. Whether I go with Peter as the rock in the end depends on whose version of the original languages I accept and whose I reject. Since I do not know the original languages, this is sort of problematic.

To keep this discussion going, I will assume this is a true statement.

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

I think all of these verses are subject to debate on two grounds: (1) Who the promises are for (Peter, all apostles, all believers) (2) What the promises exactly entail. For now I will accept your interpretation even though I am not convinced, because at the same time I am not convinced it should be eliminated.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

So what you are in effect saying is that through all the divisions that did occur in the church, Jesus had to take sides with one faction or another. If He did not take sides, then no one organization would still exclusively be “The True Church”, and thus the gates of hell would be prevailing over “The True Church”.

So for this premise to be “proven” by this passage, this one singular interpretation must be the correct, definitive one.

Again I am not going to try to eliminate the possibility of this one interpretation being correct. I just want to comment that I don’t see whereas this eliminates other possibilities, and it is not how I have always read this passage.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

Again, other groups will dispute that “only the Catholic Church goes back that far”.

And this is dependent upon the interpretation cited here of this passage of Scripture being the one, definitive, interpretation. That means that all other possible interpretations can be eliminated.

I don’t see why this is the case.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Josiah…

You wrote:

Friend, there’s simply a balance between authority and accountability that, IMHO, The Catholic Church has neglected (the LDS did at first, but I think at least THEORETICALLY now realizes). It’s not a question of absolute POWER, control, authority, lording over others. There is a flip side of humility, community, ACCOUNTABILITY. They belong together. The Catholic Church talks constantly about the Authority that it alone gives to it alone - infallible, unaccountable - and how everyone must accept “with docility” whatever it alone says. But it then applies some logic (?) to insist that if it alone is infallible and incaptable of error (in official matters of faith and morals) then accountability is moot in the case of just one - itself. In so doing, it circumvents the issue of accountability. Just accept whatever self alone says cuz self alone says that self alone has the authority to say it, and self alone cannot err because self alone cannot err so self alone cannot err when self alone says that self alone cannot.

Rory
The Church is accountable to Christ to not deny the infallibility that His living presence as Head of the Church provides. The Catholic Church “talks constantly” about subjects that get raised by those who deny the Catholic faith. If you don’t want the Church to defend herself, don’t listen when she responds to accusations. The rest of that stuff where you start talking about “self alone cuz self alone” doesn’t resonate with me. The Catholic Church defines infallibly what the Catholic Church believes. What is is so incredible about that?

The passage in Revelation 2, that commends the Ephesian church for discovering people claiming apostolic authority to be false, correspondingly means that God would have wanted the Ephesians to obey what they had been taught if they had discovered that the deceivers were true apostles. It supports the Catholic view which developed after the death of the last true apostle. When the Apocalypse was written, there was at least one living apostle, maybe more. Of course there was not yet any developed teaching on how to proceed after all the apostles were gone.

By pondering the privileges accorded to the apostles and to St. Peter in particular, the infant Church, with Christ at her Head, and by the guidance of the Holy Ghost began to discern how God intended the Church to be structured, after the apostles were all gone. The Church had to discover who were the true successors of the Apostles. The Apostolic churches, and especially the church located in Rome had maintained the commendable notoriety that preceded Paul’s first visit when he noted that “your faith is spoken of in the whole world.” (Ro. 1:8) This probably didn’t mean very much to an infant church being led by missionary apostles. But later, only a little later did the truth of the pre-eminence of the Roman church begin to bear greater fruit:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere.

—Adv. Heresies 3:3:2, St. Irenaeus

Catholics hold that revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. While revelation was still being given, the Church could not operate in the same fashion as she would need to afterwards. This is why we do not expect to find in the Apostolic Church, or the Apostolic writings, the precise, explicit structure that would replace it. But we get implicit instructions from inspired revelation as to how the Church should proceed. Like you Josiah, Catholics want to believe the same things what was taught at Rome before and after Paul’s arrival. We want to believe the faith commendable, “spoken of throughout the whole world”, the place where the great saints Peter and Paul were eventually martyred, where their bones rested, and where the blood of the martyrs filled the Colosseum. It is this faith that we want. It is this faith that conquered a pagan empire by taking the message of Christ to its very heart and converting it. And so with Irenaeus, we find it most reasonable, as well as implicitly biblical to say that it is a matter of necessity to agree with this church on account of its pre-eminent authority.

Sincerely,

Rory

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Sorry to truncate your post, but that one sentence to me seems to be a good summary of what you are trying to say.

While I am skeptical that one organization that we see today is “The One True” church from God’s perspective, there is another perspective here. That is the perspective of the individual believer.

I think it is possible for both of these conditions to be true.
(1) God does not look upon any one organization today as “The Church” exclusive of all other organizations.
(2) God does have a plan for each individual believer that includes connecting the believer to one organization in the area in which they reside.

If it is a part of God’s plan that I as a believer become connected to organization ‘A’, then if at a later point I get ticked at organization ‘A’ and then drift to organization B, C, and D, then I do so to my Spiritual detriment.

Hi Amateur Pianist.

I think you chose my summary point well. I appreciate that your own personal view does call for accountability to be ruled by elders of some sort. God bless as you sort things out.

 

[benidict]

I wouldn’t use the word predestination. It is just that God has a plan for each believers life, and a part of this plan would be plugging the believer into a church in the vicinity in which the believer lives.

I do not believe there is more than one truth. But in keeping with the subject of this thread, why does God necessarily provide this one truth to one organization while at the same time leaving the remaining organizations to fend for themselves in error to some degree?

good question. i think the best answere i can provide is that we have free will. we also have a responsibility inso far as we are able to find the truth. such as the servant who did not know what his master required will be beaten with few stripes, whereas the servant that did know what his master wanted and did otherwise will be beaten with many. not everyone is held to the same standard tho. what about the people who live in the deepest darkest corner of the globe? interesting. but with the internet, and the libraries we have. its very easy to study the origens of the Church and the Church fathers here in the western world. and if a person is so inclined they can find the truth and come out of error. that just leaves the question, who puts it in a persons heart to seek the truth?

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are Orthodox Churches throughout the world, where you will find Catholic Churches you will find Orthodox Churches.

Actually St. James in verse 19 seems to have spoken with final Authority.

Nope. Read on…

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ?
bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

To Bonocore’s comments above, I would add the following:

As leader of the church in Jerusalem, James headed up a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not.

Peter addresses the former with these words: “Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also: “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

 

[AmateurPianist]

good question. i think the best answere i can provide is that we have free will. we also have a responsibility inso far as we are able to find the truth. such as the servant who did not know what his master required will be beaten with few stripes, whereas the servant that did know what his master wanted and did otherwise will be beaten with many. not everyone is held to the same standard tho. what about the people who live in the deepest darkest corner of the globe? interesting. but with the internet, and the libraries we have. its very easy to study the origens of the Church and the Church fathers here in the western world. and if a person is so inclined they can find the truth and come out of error. that just leaves the question, who puts it in a persons heart to seek the truth?

First one must be able to make a distinction between what God has clearly revealed to mankind concerning the church as opposed to what men presuming to speak for God are claiming concerning their respective organizations.

I know that I can trust the Bible. I know of no other source that I can trust as much as I can trust the Bible.

If I found a passage of Scripture that spoke to Christians living in 2010 something to the effect of

• At some point in time in future church history there will be many organizations that are ‘Christian’.
• Only one of these organizations can be “The True Church”.
• Use this metric to determine which of these organizations is the church.

Then I would conclude that God has clearly weighed in on the topic and it would be to my best interests to get in line with what God has clearly revealed.

In absence of such a passage, I don’t know how one can claim that God has clearly revealed to the Christian in 2010 that
(1) only one organization in this time period can be 'the church
(2) the metrics one must use to uniquely identify this organization amongst all competing organizations.

 

[benidict]

First one must be able to make a distinction between what God has clearly revealed to mankind concerning the church as opposed to what men presuming to speak for God are claiming concerning their respective organizations.

I know that I can trust the Bible. I know of no other source that I can trust as much as I can trust the Bible.

If I found a passage of Scripture that spoke to Christians living in 2010 something to the effect of

• At some point in time in future church history there will be many organizations that are ‘Christian’.
• Only one of these organizations can be “The True Church”.
• Use this metric to determine which of these organizations is the church.

Then I would conclude that God has clearly weighed in on the topic and it would be to my best interests to get in line with what God has clearly revealed.

In absence of such a passage, I don’t know how one can claim that God has clearly revealed to the Christian in 2010 that
(1) only one organization in this time period can be 'the church
(2) the metrics one must use to uniquely identify this organization amongst all competing organizations.

hi. have you ever had the chance to study the didache. clements letter to the corinthians? clement was a desciple of peter. very interesting what he wrote to them, especially in paragraph 44. yes the bible is trustworthy. but its similar to our constitution. our founding fathers not only wrote the constitution, they wrote the federalist papers. it went into further detail as to what they meant and intended when they wrote the constitution. also with the apostles. remember the bible was not put together for some time after the apostles deaths. but we also have the writings of their desciples who shed alot of light as to what the apostles taught orally on top of the written word. its worth a study. you may be suprised at what you find and where it leads. what they taught is still taught in the Catholic Church today.God bless you and yours

 

[AmateurPianist]

hi. have you ever had the chance to study the didache. clements letter to the corinthians? clement was a desciple of peter. very interesting what he wrote to them, especially in paragraph 44. yes the bible is trustworthy. but its similar to our constitution. our founding fathers not only wrote the constitution, they wrote the federalist papers. it went into further detail as to what they meant and intended when they wrote the constitution. also with the apostles. remember the bible was not put together for some time after the apostles deaths. but we also have the writings of their desciples who shed alot of light as to what the apostles taught orally on top of the written word. its worth a study. you may be suprised at what you find and where it leads. what they taught is still taught in the Catholic Church today.God bless you and yours

I have read some…particularly of the earliest of the ECF. The Didache, Clement, and Ignatius come to mind.

I remember of concluding that it would probably be fallacious to superimpose them upon one and only one organization today, but if I were to do so it would probably be an inner city ethnic church or a persecuted church in Asia or Africa. My reasoning being the passion they had for Jesus Christ and the total lack of worldly values they held.

 

[benidict]

I have read some…particularly of the earliest of the ECF. The Didache, Clement, and Ignatius come to mind.

I remember of concluding that it would probably be fallacious to superimpose them upon one and only one organization today, but if I were to do so it would probably be an inner city ethnic church or a persecuted church in Asia or Africa. My reasoning being the passion they had for Jesus Christ and the total lack of worldly values they held.

correct. and look at the work the Catholic Church does in these areas. also doctrinally, these writings are very much Catholic. after reading these writings, who do they most line up with? protestantism, or Catholocism. doctrinally and socially? the Church doing the most work today in the sudan, is the Catholic Church. and the Christians over there are some of the most persecuted. agree with you on the passion and lack of worldly values, we all must strive to become that way.

 

[PJM]

=AmateurPianist;6123143]I hope the title is fairly self-explanatory.

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.

***Here’s a thought. What does Jesus have to say on this issue?

Here are but a FEW examples.

Does this effect your opinion? ***

John 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.
**Mt. 16: 15 ** He [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I **[singular] **tell you, you are Peter, [singular] and on this rock [singular] I will build my **[singular] **church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. **[singular] **19 I [God singular] will give you **[singular] **the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you **[singular] **bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

**Eph. 2:19 **So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure **[singular]**is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

**Eph. 4: 4 **“There is one body [One Church] and one Spirit, [One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, [One God] one faith, [One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. "

Eph. 5: 23 Christ is the head of the church [singular] , his body, [singular]

**1 Cor. 14: 12 **“ So with yourselves; since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. [singular]

**Eph. 3: 9 ** “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10 that through the church [singular] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Col. 1: 18 “ He is the head of the body **[singular], **the church; **[singular] **he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”

**Acts 20: 28 **“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of the LORD” [Singular]

Mt. 18: 15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; **[singular] **and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Because the Bible was completely written by the end of the First Century, when there was only today’s Catholic Church, we must understand the SINGULAR references apply to today’s Catholic Church.**

 

[char1963]

As I am currently struggling with this, this very timley. I know this is obviously a Christian board, but I have been researching other religons to help understand mine better. My view is very similar to Amateur Pianist’s. Who says any church ( religon) is the right one for everyone? Has anybody ever noticed that ALL the major religons have one thing in common?’ Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. This even includes, believe it or not, Wicca. Their creed?’ Do as you will , as long as it causes no harm.’ Please dont tell me what a horrible , blasphamis (sp) “religon” Wicca is, I am just pointing out that even neo pagans have that “golden rule”. The 7 laws of Noah are a new concept to me.What a wonderful world it would be if we lived by them ( minus the death pentalty part)! I can see why we are all supposed to worship one God . How confusing would it be if we didnt? We Christians have alot in common with the Jews and the Muslims. The Muslim’s Koran supposedly "fixes " the inconsistencies in our bible. I am not saying they do, but I agree that are some inconsistencies. I dont think that it matters in the long run , as they are not contradicting the important stuff. Does anybody here know the story of the blind men and the elephant? They all felt different parts of the elephant and discribed it differently. The point is even though their truth was evident to them, it was still an elephant. Is it possible that we are all looking at the same elephant from a different vantage point?

 

[benidict]

As I am currently struggling with this, this very timley. I know this is obviously a Christian board, but I have been researching other religons to help understand mine better. My view is very similar to Amateur Pianist’s. Who says any church ( religon) is the right one for everyone? Has anybody ever noticed that ALL the major religons have one thing in common?’ Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. This even includes, believe it or not, Wicca. Their creed?’ Do as you will , as long as it causes no harm.’ Please dont tell me what a horrible , blasphamis (sp) “religon” Wicca is, I am just pointing out that even neo pagans have that “golden rule”. The 7 laws of Noah are a new concept to me.What a wonderful world it would be if we lived by them ( minus the death pentalty part)! I can see why we are all supposed to worship one God . How confusing would it be if we didnt? We Christians have alot in common with the Jews and the Muslims. The Muslim’s Koran supposedly "fixes " the inconsistencies in our bible. I am not saying they do, but I agree that are some inconsistencies. I dont think that it matters in the long run , as they are not contradicting the important stuff. Does anybody here know the story of the blind men and the elephant? They all felt different parts of the elephant and discribed it differently. The point is even though their truth was evident to them, it was still an elephant. Is it possible that we are all looking at the same elephant from a different vantage point?

hi. yes this is true, all the major religions, including wicca have do unto others as a common thread. Christianity on the other hand, has a unique teaching. the Real Death, the Real Burial, and the Real Ressurection of one Jesus of nazareth. not a spiritual ressurection or a typolgy. we believe that God the Son actually died in our place, and that by faith in His work, and participating in his grace we may have eternal life. the other religions do not have this. protestantism does. its good to study other faiths. study judaism myself. but it is impossible to get away from the message of the Truth. that is found in the Gospels and Church teaching. God bless you and yours.

 

[char1963]

In case it wasnt clear, I am a Christian. A searching Catholic , I guess you could say. However, I was only Catholic because I was born into a Catholic family. My children , including my stepdaughter and my daughters boyfriend ( who I consider part of the family) are all following different religons. They were all baptized Catholic. They are all saved because they were baptized Catholic? My son, who is about as far from practicing Christanity as you can get is ironically the one most acting like a true Christian.My oldest daughter who is living a lifestyle that no one in most religons would support is the closest to Catholic ( does not go to Church, but if she did it would be the Catholic Church). How can that not be confusing?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Because the Bible was completely written by the end of the First Century, when there was only today’s Catholic Church, we must understand the SINGULAR references apply to today’s Catholic Church.

One thing that I find really frustrating is oversimplification. This is one issue where oversimplification seems to rule.

Now Protestants oversimplify by claiming “the church is all believers” and leaving it there. Now I agree with this statement. So does Catholicism to some extent since all believers are at least imperfectly united with the Catholic church.

But this statement tells me absolutely nothing about how this church of all believers was designed. Left by itself one gets the impression that God is absolutely cool with many distinct organizations feuding with each other, competing with each others for members, and proclaiming contradictory doctrine.

But Catholics oversimplify also. The logic used is something like this (with some variants)

• Jesus founded one church (I agree)
• The early, undivided church of the apostolic era called itself Catholic (I agree)
• Therefore we are the one true church

This logic completely ignores the fact that this one undivided church of the apostolic era that called itself Catholic later on split. Left by itself one gets the impression that the name on the door is the governing metric, that Jesus will always side with the organization (when it splits)…no matter what the underlying reasons for the split are and not matter what the spiritual condition each organization that is splitting is in…that keeps the name on the door.

Again…for any one organization today to be The One True Church (with all other organizations excluded and relegated to a lesser status) Jesus has to side with this organization each and every time that this organization divides no matter what the reason for the division is. The organization that Jesus sides with retains all of the benefits of the original organization while all other organizations are relegated to a lesser status.

This logic does not consider the possibility of a division occurring where Jesus just does not take sides.

Actually this is not quite true in the case of the restorationalist one true church like the Mormons and JW (they claim that everybody fell into apostasy and that God sort of started over again…with their respective organizations of course).

 

[benidict]

In case it wasnt clear, I am a Christian. A searching Catholic , I guess you could say. However, I was only Catholic because I was born into a Catholic family. My children , including my stepdaughter and my daughters boyfriend ( who I consider part of the family) are all following different religons. They were all baptized Catholic. They are all saved because they were baptized Catholic? My son, who is about as far from practicing Christanity as you can get is ironically the one most acting like a true Christian.My oldest daughter who is living a lifestyle that no one in most religons would support is the closest to Catholic ( does not go to Church, but if she did it would be the Catholic Church). How can that not be confusing?

understand the searching part. have you ever considered that what you are looking for is already in the Catholic Church? so many times people leave, when the answere is right in front of them. are you looking for more of the mystical path? if so there are many books and meditations on the rosary, stations of the cross. etc. also have had some very intense experiences at first friday adorations. anything you could possibly desire on the spiritual plane can be found within Catholocism. speaking as a convert. i envy someone who has had the opportunity to grow up in so great an institution. all else no matter how attractive is a counterfit. why trade platinum for brass? God bless you an yours.

 

[benidict]

One thing that I find really frustrating is oversimplification. This is one issue where oversimplification seems to rule.

Now Protestants oversimplify by claiming “the church is all believers” and leaving it there. Now I agree with this statement. So does Catholicism to some extent since all believers are at least imperfectly united with the Catholic church.

But this statement tells me absolutely nothing about how this church of all believers was designed. Left by itself one gets the impression that God is absolutely cool with many distinct organizations feuding with each other, competing with each others for members, and proclaiming contradictory doctrine.

But Catholics oversimplify also. The logic used is something like this (with some variants)

• Jesus founded one church (I agree)
• The early, undivided church of the apostolic era called itself Catholic (I agree)
• Therefore we are the one true church

This logic completely ignores the fact that this one undivided church of the apostolic era that called itself Catholic later on split. Left by itself one gets the impression that the name on the door is the governing metric, that Jesus will always side with the organization (when it splits)…no matter what the underlying reasons for the split are and not matter what the spiritual condition each organization that is splitting is in…that keeps the name on the door.

Again…for any one organization today to be The One True Church (with all other organizations excluded and relegated to a lesser status) Jesus has to side with this organization each and every time that this organization divides no matter what the reason for the division is. The organization that Jesus sides with retains all of the benefits of the original organization while all other organizations are relegated to a lesser status.

This logic does not consider the possibility of a division occurring where Jesus just does not take sides.

Actually this is not quite true in the case of the restorationalist one true church like the Mormons and JW (they claim that everybody fell into apostasy and that God sort of started over again…with their respective organizations of course).

actually, the Catholic Church has never split. others have left it. but the promise that Jesus made still holds true today and will a thousand years from now if the Lord waits that long to return. i will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. many sects have come and gone, and will continue to do so. but the Catholic Church. will remain faithfull and protected by the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[char1963]

Benedict, that is why I am in this forum I am considering the thought that I should “bloom where I am planted”. I am actually not into mystism, on the contrary , I tend to like things simple, which sometimes I feel the Catholic church is not. It was simple until I started to understand that I am supposed to believe things that dont even matter to me. Here is what used to be simple… Jesus died for me so that I would be saved from my sins. What are sins? Not following the ten commandments and the golden rule. Also my understanding of orignal sin… We are human, not God/apart from God , so therefore we are not perfect or in union with him. No matter how hard we try , we are bound to fail. That does not mean we shouldn’t keep trying , but that God is merciful and sent us Jesus to show us how to get back to God/ forgive our sins. Now I discover I am supposed to believe Mary was an eternal virgin? What difference does that even make? Honestly, I never gave Mary much thought except that she must have been very courageous to face all the scandal and very willing to do the will of God, even without understanding it. I certainly respect her for that. I do believe she was a virgin when she conceived . That can technically be done today with artificial insemenation, so I have no trouble believing that part. I can see why that would be important ( even the Koran agrees she was a virgin), but what does it matter if she wasnt one after ? She was a married woman, after all.

 

[apromisemade]

If someone decides to become part of a church they must on some level believe that it is at least close to the one “true church.” However, I think there is a difference between people who “know” unequiviocally and firmly that the faith they follow is true and those who believe they follow the true faith but are open to the possibility they might be wrong.

 

[AmateurPianist]

actually, the Catholic Church has never split. others have left it. but the promise that Jesus made still holds true today and will a thousand years from now if the Lord waits that long to return. i will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. many sects have come and gone, and will continue to do so. but the Catholic Church. will remain faithfull and protected by the power of the Holy Spirit.

When "others leave it"is is by definition a split.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jesus Christ says so! and so does the Word of God says so!

Matthew 16:17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth

1Timothy 3:14 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15 But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave** in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. Ephesians 3: 10 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the principalities and authorities 6 in the heavens. 11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, . 20 Now to him who is able to accomplish far more than all we ask or imagine, by the power at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen. **

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking 14 in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church,

Ephesians 4:1 I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, 3 striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: 4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Ephesians 4:10 The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. 11 And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, 12** to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, **

Ephesians 4:15 Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, 7 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love.

Ephesians 5: 29 For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church,
30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 **This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church. **

1CORINTHIANS 4:17 For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus),** just as I teach them everywhere in every church. **

Now you do the math, which Church suffered the persecutions of death and torture for Jesus Christ name sake? and maintain first century Martyrs and Saints to today? Which Church has outsurvived or out lived Kingdoms and nations for the past 2000 years? Which Church today can trace their succession directly to Peter and the original Apostles of Jesus Christ? IF you answered the Catholic Church you agree with history, and recorded historical facts.

Jesus promised us a Kingdom and what we got was Jesus himself in his body which is the Catholic Church, which Jesus promised himself to remain with always, to believe otherwise is to hold Jesus promises and Word in contempt and risk naming Jesus Christ a “liar” at ones own risk.

No matter how fancy the arguments today. Until man can prove God’s Word worthless and untruthful, then the Church Jesus built in Matthew 16 according to God’s Word remains today unchanged 2000 years in the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you