Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

[hillsteven]

Hi.

I know what you are saying. I have been told that before here. I guess my point is that if the God sees the Catholic church as an institution (organization) as superior to all other Christian organizations that somehow I should see this relationship reflected in the people that make up these institutions.

I certainly do not expect any organization to be perfect. The Bible teaches we are all sinners. The New Testament certainly has folks that are not perfect. My expectations are not perfection, just a positive difference. If you appear to be just as messed up as we are, then I can’t help but thinking that is because in God’s eyes your organization is on an equal footing as our organizations.

BTW NonChristians have these same expectations of us as Christians in relationship to them, and I for one can not fault them for having these expectations. We should somehow be positively different from them.

Okay… why? If part of the reason that Jesus came down to earth is because we as humans need a redeemer, doesn’t that mean that one would expect to see what is, in reality, a bunch of sinners? The Church, as an institution, has been guaranteed not to fall to sin… but as i mentioned, nowhere does that guaranteed to them people who make up that church.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Okay… why? If part of the reason that Jesus came down to earth is because we as humans need a redeemer, doesn’t that mean that one would expect to see what is, in reality, a bunch of sinners? The Church, as an institution, has been guaranteed not to fall to sin… but as i mentioned, nowhere does that guaranteed to them people who make up that church.

Do you think that nonChristians are right to expect to see something positively different in Christians than what they observe in themselves and those around them? Why or why not?

You may or may not agree, but I believe this is a perfectly reasonable expectation for a nonChristian to have?. Why become a Christian when Christians are no different than yourself?

I have similar expectations for any organization that claims itself to be the one true church and claims to be superior to some extent thant mine. That is all. No more…no less.

Note: what happened in my life is that overall Christians did seem different. I saw folks that I used to get high and drunk with no longer engaging in that behaviour as they became Christian. So when the time came that I wanted to be free from these addictions, Christianity seemed a right place to turn.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Just as a point to ponder, if Christ came to establish a Church which would be made of ‘morally superior people’, then why on earth did He choose a bunch of at best ‘middle class’ men, all of whom deserted Him at His arrest and trial, and even after His resurrection were still capable of personal sin? (that includes St. Peter, St. James, St. Paul and even St. John. . .both Scripture and Sacred Tradition speak of all of them,and others, while being morally ‘zealous for Christ’ as being still capable of ‘fault.’ St. Peter had to his dying day a ‘hasty temper.’ St. James traditionally speaking was (if the James of the “Bonarges” both hasty and 'thinking he should sit at the right hand of Christ", if the 'St. James the less was supposed to 'look down on Gentiles".) St. Paul, of course, accuses himself of being a great sinner, and not just ‘before’ he follows Christ but still afterward. Even St. John (in his youth as ‘hasty’ as his brother) and even though ‘beloved’, is thought to be at least a tad conceited.

IOW–you seem to feel, AP (probably guided by Hollywood ‘epics’) that all the ‘early Christians’ were saintly milquetoasts who lived in perfect harmony and bliss, and that this ‘moral superiority’ was what ‘won the empire’ so to speak. But that ‘ain’t necessarily so.’ Yes, many Christians certainly were good people (by all lights). . .certainly as compared to nonChristians. But there were heretics and backsliders from the first, and nobody left the Church because, say, Annaias and Saphira (who were members, be sure) turned out to 'cheat the church" and were ‘dealt with.’ Surely, even though St. Peter gave them the smackdown, the fact that they WERE members ‘gone bad’ should have put the kibosh on the idea that 'all Christians are simon-pure perfect all the time".

 

[James_Least]

Who decided which books belong in the New Testament?The Cathloic Church

My New Testament says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” II Tim. 3:16-17.

Sounds like God decided–HE said what HE meant and meant what HE said. He has a lot to say about True Church as well. See I Corinthians, the whole letter. See also the seven churches of asia, Book of Revelation. What happens to the churches without candlesticks?

What does your New Testament say?

Peace,

James Least

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Do you think that nonChristians are right to expect to see something positively different in Christians than what they observe in themselves and those around them? Why or why not? Isn’t there a Scripture that tells us that God judges not by appearances, but by the heart? In a society like ours in which appearances do not necessarily reflect accurately on the heart, I would say that just because a person calls himself Christian I would not necessarily expect to see a ‘positive difference’ because who’s going to judge? What I call a positive difference (say, in standing firm for upholding innocent unborn) somebody ELSE might call ‘mean, nasty, judgmental, anti-woman, mediaval, holier-than-thouism’> . . see the point?

You may or may not agree, but I believe this is a perfectly reasonable expectation for a nonChristian to have?. Why become a Christian when Christians are no different than yourself? And you will not know the ‘difference’ through appearance alone.

I have similar expectations for any organization that claims itself to be the one true church and claims to be superior to some extent thant mine. That is all. No more…no less. Why do you have that expectation? In an organization that is a hospital for sinners, not a museum of saints, why would you expect ‘perfection.?’

When you go to your local hospital, do you expect the people there to have a ‘better standard of health’ than the people on the street? I don’t think you do, do you?

Note: what happened in my life is that overall Christians did seem different. I saw folks that I used to get high and drunk with no longer engaging in that behaviour as they became Christian. So when the time came that I wanted to be free from these addictions, Christianity seemed a right place to turn.

Christianity is about following Christ, not your friends. . .God bless them for doing the right thing but you shouldn’t be basing your own faith on the actions of OTHER PEOPLE.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

My New Testament says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” II Tim. 3:16-17.

Sounds like God decided–HE said what HE meant and meant what HE said. He has a lot to say about True Church as well. See I Corinthians, the whole letter. See also the seven churches of asia, Book of Revelation. What happens to the churches without candlesticks?

What does your New Testament say?

Peace,

James Least

My New Testament says, “Gee, isn’t it funny, but there is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament or New Testament which gives a list of what Scriptures belong IN the Bible. I mean, there are a lot of other letters of early Christian times which were attributed to St. Paul and St. Peter. There were things like the Didache, and the Protoevangelium, which were often used in teaching, but which today aren’t part of the Bible.”

Does YOUR New Testament acknowledge that when St. Paul was writing to Timothy about “all Scripture” what was being written of was only the OLD TESTAMENT? Not even the GOSPELS were KNOWN to be Scripture when St. Paul wrote to Timothy about “all scripture”. Are you going to 'throw away the New Testament?" I hope not. And I hope you thank the Catholic Church for making sure that you have it (plus the extra 7 books that some --not all–Protestants took out.)

 

[AmateurPianist]

Just as a point to ponder, if Christ came to establish a Church which would be made of ‘morally superior people’, then why on earth did He choose a bunch of at best ‘middle class’ men, all of whom deserted Him at His arrest and trial, and even after His resurrection were still capable of personal sin? (that includes St. Peter, St. James, St. Paul and even St. John. . .both Scripture and Sacred Tradition speak of all of them,and others, while being morally ‘zealous for Christ’ as being still capable of ‘fault.’ St. Peter had to his dying day a ‘hasty temper.’ St. James traditionally speaking was (if the James of the “Bonarges” both hasty and 'thinking he should sit at the right hand of Christ", if the 'St. James the less was supposed to 'look down on Gentiles".) St. Paul, of course, accuses himself of being a great sinner, and not just ‘before’ he follows Christ but still afterward. Even St. John (in his youth as ‘hasty’ as his brother) and even though ‘beloved’, is thought to be at least a tad conceited.

IOW–you seem to feel, AP (probably guided by Hollywood ‘epics’) that all the ‘early Christians’ were saintly milquetoasts who lived in perfect harmony and bliss, and that this ‘moral superiority’ was what ‘won the empire’ so to speak. But that ‘ain’t necessarily so.’ Yes, many Christians certainly were good people (by all lights). . .certainly as compared to nonChristians. But there were heretics and backsliders from the first, and nobody left the Church because, say, Annaias and Saphira (who were members, be sure) turned out to 'cheat the church" and were ‘dealt with.’ Surely, even though St. Peter gave them the smackdown, the fact that they WERE members ‘gone bad’ should have put the kibosh on the idea that 'all Christians are simon-pure perfect all the time".

I’ll ask you the same question, do you think that nonChristians are justified in expecting to see something positively different in Christians than what they see in themselves?

Not perfection, just different.

 

[hillsteven]

I’ll ask you the same question, do you think that nonChristians are justified in expecting to see something positively different in Christians than what they see in themselves?

Not perfection, just different.

The one thing that differentiates us as Christians that non-Christians have… is hope. We understand, as they cannot, that while we are sinners here on earth, that there is hope in an eternal salvation. For that salvation, we have fallen in love with our God and Jesus our Saviour. Out of fillial love, we do strive to be what our ultimate lover, Jesus Christ, would have us be.

Similarly, as Catholics, we have something that you non-Catholics do not: the Graces available through the Sacraments. Through those Sacraments, we have access to the completeness of the graces that our Lord made available to us here on earth. The difference here is that you already have the grace of Baptism, so are therefore already Christian. The distinctions become much more subtle. We also have the assurance that we have an earthly authority that we can look to for correct interpretation when things get murkey in a moral or theological sense, rather than having to “go it alone”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The one thing that differentiates us as Christians that non-Christians have… is hope. We understand, as they cannot, that while we are sinners here on earth, that there is hope in an eternal salvation. For that salvation, we have fallen in love with our God and Jesus our Saviour. Out of fillial love, we do strive to be what our ultimate lover, Jesus Christ, would have us be.

Similarly, as Catholics, we have something that you non-Catholics do not: the Graces available through the Sacraments. Through those Sacraments, we have access to the completeness of the graces that our Lord made available to us here on earth. The difference here is that you already have the grace of Baptism, so are therefore already Christian. The distinctions become much more subtle. We also have the assurance that we have an earthly authority that we can look to for correct interpretation when things get murkey in a moral or theological sense, rather than having to “go it alone”.

And it’s important, I think, to note that what we have which does differentiate us is often not perceived at all or is ‘mistakenly’ perceived by nonCatholics.

As I said above, what we know as ‘loving our neighbor’ is going to come across as ‘hateful’ if in order to love our neighbor we have to tell him/her the truth–that abortion is murder, that sex outside of marriage is sinful, etc.

Furthermore, it is also important to note that simply ‘calling ourselves’ Catholic is no guarantee that we ‘live’ as obedient Catholics. (And this was the case back in AD 33 too; Simon Magus ‘called himself’ a follower of Christ, as did Annanias and Saphira. They called themselves Christians. . .but were they true followers despite their insistence of the 'label?" no they weren’t. Not everyone who claimed the name ‘walked the walk and talked the talk’. . .by any means. And I don’t truly think that, Biblical pix aside (pace, Charlton Heston, I love you), that the majority of people heard the word “Christian” or 'the way" or whatever it was in Greek etc. and immediately thought, “Wow, these people are so different!” or if they did, they thought the ‘difference’ wasn’t very nice!

 

[James_Least]

My New Testament says, “Gee, isn’t it funny, but there is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament or New Testament which gives a list of what Scriptures belong IN the Bible. I mean, there are a lot of other letters of early Christian times which were attributed to St. Paul and St. Peter. There were things like the Didache, and the Protoevangelium, which were often used in teaching, but which today aren’t part of the Bible.”

Does YOUR New Testament acknowledge that when St. Paul was writing to Timothy about “all Scripture” what was being written of was only the OLD TESTAMENT? Not even the GOSPELS were KNOWN to be Scripture when St. Paul wrote to Timothy about “all scripture”. Are you going to 'throw away the New Testament?" I hope not. And I hope you thank the Catholic Church for making sure that you have it (plus the extra 7 books that some --not all–Protestants took out.)

Are we suggesting that God has not preserved His Word in every generation? We still have to explain why there are two streams of scripture: one polluted, the other preserved by the power of God. We do err thinking God needs anyone to carry out His Will and purpose in this world and the world to come. He said He would never leave His sheep nor forsake them. He has kept His promise.

Where will we be in 100 years?

Peace,

James Least

 

[hillsteven]

Are we suggesting that God has not preserved His Word in every generation? We still have to explain why there are two streams of scripture: one polluted, the other preserved by the power of God. We do err thinking God needs anyone to carry out His Will and purpose in this world and the world to come. He said He would never leave His sheep nor forsake them. He has kept His promise.

Where will we be in 100 years?

Peace,

James Least

Two streams of scripture??? Would you expound on that one for us, please? For me, at least, that one slipped by me a bit fast…

 

[AmateurPianist]

OK.

It is still a disconnect that I just can’t get my head around though.

On the one hand we have:

We are the One True Church. There are certain ways in which God blesses us/gives us graces that He just will not do for you. We are correct in everything you teach just by virtue of being the One True Church. You on the other hand are not. It would be really to your advantage to become a part of our organization, in fact there is no salvation outside of our organization (yeah I know that does not mean you have to be a card carrying member of your organization)

On the other hand we have

We who are members of this One True Church are not any different from you all who are not, and you should not expect us to be any different.

Maybe someday I will get my head around this.

 

[schaick]

Can someone explain which statments are considered infallible-if they fall into the catagory of capable of being infallible.

Catholics say:

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved. – Pope Innocent III, in Profession of Faith Prescribed for Durand of Osca and His Waldensian Companions [From the letter “Eius exemplo” to the Archbishop of Terraco, Dec. 18, 1208].

Catholic Catachism says:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

You do realize don’t you that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was crucified?

According to the Catholic Catechism,

(839-841) Muslims and Jews will be saved despite their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Savior

(847) ignorant can be saved despite their ignorance of Jesus Christ

Yet, Protestant [Trinitarian] Christians who are dedicated Christians that know and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, yet stubbornly and “knowingly” refuse to become Catholics because of questionable doctrines will not find salvation!

Who says one organization today is “The True Church” I only hear Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons saying this.

I hear Trinitarian Christians say that we are all members of the One True Church.

 

[AmateurPianist]

My New Testament says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” II Tim. 3:16-17.

Sounds like God decided–HE said what HE meant and meant what HE said. He has a lot to say about True Church as well. See I Corinthians, the whole letter. See also the seven churches of asia, Book of Revelation. What happens to the churches without candlesticks?

What does your New Testament say?

Peace,

James Least

It is a little more involved than this.

At some point in time God did use actual human beings to determine say that the books of James and Hebrews were to be a part of the canon while the books of Clement and Ignatius were not (for example).

To deny this is to deny the historical record.

 

[schaick]

My New Testament says, “Gee, isn’t it funny, but there is absolutely nothing in the Old Testament or New Testament which gives a list of what Scriptures belong IN the Bible. I mean, there are a lot of other letters of early Christian times which were attributed to St. Paul and St. Peter. There were things like the Didache, and the Protoevangelium, which were often used in teaching, but which today aren’t part of the Bible.”

Does YOUR New Testament acknowledge that when St. Paul was writing to Timothy about “all Scripture” what was being written of was only the OLD TESTAMENT? Not even the GOSPELS were KNOWN to be Scripture when St. Paul wrote to Timothy about “all scripture”. Are you going to 'throw away the New Testament?" I hope not. And I hope you thank the Catholic Church for making sure that you have it (plus the extra 7 books that some --not all–Protestants took out.)

100AD - 27 books of the New Testament were in common use, accepted, excluding Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John and Revelation.

The canon only confirmed what GOD had already shown man.

Paul wrote about the Gospels.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

1 Timothy 5
18For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”** and “The worker deserves his wages.”[c] 19Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

“Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,”-Deut. 25:4

“The worker deserves his wages.”-Luke 10:7**

 

[hillsteven]

OK.

It is still a disconnect that I just can’t get my head around though.

On the one hand we have:

We are the One True Church. There are certain ways in which God blesses us/gives us graces that He just will not do for you. We are correct in everything you teach just by virtue of being the One True Church. You on the other hand are not. It would be really to your advantage to become a part of our organization, in fact there is no salvation outside of our organization (yeah I know that does not mean you have to be a card carrying member of your organization)

On the other hand we have

We who are members of this One True Church are not any different from you all who are not, and you should not expect us to be any different.

Maybe someday I will get my head around this.

You have indeed hit here upon a seeming paradox. Part of the answers I believe really do lie in history. I know that many of us, myself included, have referred to scriptures and the writings of the earliest church fathers… and there is good reason for that. It occurs to me that the disconnect here may lie in the fact that we have read those writings, some of us extensively, while you have not; at least I believe not extensively. John Henry Newman has said (paraphrasing, since I don’t have the quote handy) that to know the history of Christianity is to become Catholic. This is someone who, if you read his early writings, was vehemently anti-Catholic… yet converted himself to Catholicism.

Having brought him up in the same paragraph as the Church Fathers, here’s one quote from him on those same men:
“The Fathers are primarily to be considered as witnesses, not as authorities. They are witnesses of an existing state of things, and their treatises are, as it were, histories, - teaching us, in the first instance, matters of fact, not of opinion. Whatever they themselves might be, whether deeply or poorly taught in Christian faith and love, they speak, not their own thoughts, but the received views of their respective ages.”
{Primitive Christianity, 1833-1836, in Essays and Sketches, ed. Charles Frederick Harrold, London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1948, p. 126}

This I think is pertinent here because the writings of those great men show us a reflection of what was believed and taught during their times, and they date from St. Polycarp, who himself as a child sat at the feet of St. John, the Apostle, all the way to St. John of Damascus, who died in 749. One thing I’ve seen pointed out from multiple sources is the fact that we see several things time and time again in the writings of these church fathers.
Given how unbelievably conservative the Church (when I use capitals I am referring to the Catholic Church) has always been, and how reluctant she has always been to embrace any new ideas, it should be noted that some of the viewpoints that are so vehemently argued against by many non-Christians today were proposed as a basis for proofs against heresies by many of these men! For them to do that, it must have been understood by their audiences that those things were understood by all of their contemporaries to be true. Some examples are the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Divinity of the person of Christ, the authority of the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope), etc. Let’s not derail the discussion by debating those points here in this thread, but it is an interesting perspective to consider, if nothing else.

~Steven

 

[James_Least]

Two streams of scripture??? Would you expound on that one for us, please? For me, at least, that one slipped by me a bit fast…

Call it up on Google or whatever: Two streams of Scripture. There are several places to surf.

Peace,

James Least

 

[Anna_Scott]

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.

AP,

This is a very interesting Thread. I have things to say, just haven’t been able to get to it yet. Hopefully in the next day or so–if there is anything left to say by then. Great posts, here.

Anna

 

[benidict]

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…

if you are refering to all the bad press the Catholic Church has recieved, and are making judgments based on a liberal media bias, that in and of itself is a problem. even with all the bad press, its still less than one percent of the priesthood that have violated the law of man and God. thats a far better track record than say… the puplic school system today. yes there is chaff with the wheat, but the Savior said that would happen. so no the gates of hell have not prevailed. and the Church is right where the Good Lord wants her to be, and still is what Jesus designed it for 2000 years ago. reguardless of what the liberal media is saying. peace

 

[jmcrae]

I do know that the Orthodox either have a different belief in purgatory or do not believe in it at all. I do know that the Orthodox have a different understanding of the Immaculate Conception. I do know that the Orthodox have a different understanding of authority.

Similar but not identical is still mutually exclusive. Both can not have the benefit of leadership being incapable of being incorrect.

The Orthodox make no such claim, as far as I am aware. They rely on the Ecumenical Councils of past ages to set their doctrine for them, and they simply don’t vary from it, in any detail, without distinguishing between discipline and doctrine.