Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

[Monte1945]

I’m glad you said it was your opinion. With respect, though, sir, there is simply no way that you can validly be a Catholic **and **a Baptist and a Pentecostal., all at once. You might think that registering in a parish and showing up for church makes you a member, but it doesn’t. And if you have been baptized as a Catholic and receive communion in a Catholic Church, then you cannot ‘also’ be simultaneously a professed, registered, baptized Baptist and/or Pentecostal. I wish you well on your journey to God but I would be remiss in my duties as a Catholic Christian if I did not tell you that your claim to be a ‘member’ of three separate Churches is a claim that is simply not permitted by the Catholic Church.

The offical statement of the Catholic Church on "other denomanations is:

If each chruch that has faith in Jesus Christ as their center… then they are
of the Chruch… The chruches other than the Catholic churches are
of the Catholic faith but have less Sacraments to offer"…

According to the statements of The Vatican… I can go to any christian church
and be within a Christian church… accepted by the Vatican…

There is a common agreement that the Catholic church proclaims and that
is that the Truths of God are constant but the “working out” of those truths
are "progressing’ within each and every chruch in the world.

The Catholic church does not teach any catholic christian to go to
the other christian churches and attempt to convert them from
their church but that catholic christians proclaim she has the truth
of God and to defend the doctrines of the chruch when someone
comes from outside of her and attempts to proclaim the catholic
chruch doctrines to be in error…

The Catholic Church even teaches that if one’s "Will is in tune with
the Agape love of the Holy Spirit… regardless of any religious membership… they
can be within the Grace of God… These are for men of good will who do not
belong to any chruch at all…

The Catholic church seems to teach and proclaim more than what you seem
to know of it. My statements here are not by whim or just my personal
opinion. I would not dare put out publically anything that does not have
Catholic foundation behind it.

The Catholic church has changed her attitudes from Vatican II that
are much more than what I sense from reading here. She has called
all other religions “brothers of the same family”… Even towards
the Jewish faith… Pope John Paul II began this work and showed
it in his travels and visits.

There is more depth to the revealed Truths of God than what some
surface christians seem to be aware of…

 

[Monte1945]

God provided benefits to this one organization that He does not to other organizations, that this organization should pass the smell test of possessing a superior Christianity that outworks itself in a superior way to all of the other organizations. Otherwise, what is the sense of being the One True Church if you are just as messed up as everybody else.

My opinion is my opinon but we all have one… smile… From my opinion one would
have to first have a:

“Some means where one could measure a denomination who claims to be of the true church”… Some kind of an example of the true church"…

That we could use to lay up against these proclamations and see if they fit within the true guide lines?

You mention the " Bible"… I think that is what all of the denominations ARE using
but it doesn’t seem to be clear enough as there are so many different groups claiming
to not only have that truth be can actually explain it but yet there are just as many
different claims as there are denominations… Seems like a catch 22 there yes?

But what I am really interested in is whether God has clearly chimed in on the issue. Can I read somewhere where God has plainly spoken that if you observe what appears to be the church existing in multiple organizations that only one of these organizations can be the one true church. And by the way, use this metric to determine the one true church out of all the phony ones.

It seems from my point of view from my reading of the bible and historically writers
that Jesus did create a physical church with calling and pointing out the first twelve
apostles… out of thousands of other deciples… The point is he DID appoint them Himself.
And he seemed to say, he gave Peter authority over the others… But the problem which came about is that some other denominations claim that set up, died out with the last of those original twelve… Then comes in all this confusion… there seems to me to be actual scripture which saids or at least implies that the offices of the first twelve, those Bishops actually passed on their office within their oral teachings and laying of the hands.
But some other denominations claim that since Jesus didn’t actually call them out
then it doesn’t count.

One of the major causes of Martin Luther (real name Luder) opposition of the structure
of the catholic church was that the Popes were not the only person who could receive
instructions direcly from God… That each and every man/woman could be in direct relationship with God to the extent that each one of them could by pass any authority
of the chruch and find not only his salvation but also his call from God…

With that option being taught as the truth… then it is not difficult to understand how all of these opinions came into the picture as to which church has the right and correct truths of God within.

I am an ex-Independent Bapist ordained Minster of nine years of service within that
position… and I know from the Baptist Seminary and of my fellowship with many thousands
of other non-catholic christians their general attitudes of doctrines.

From these it is not that cut and dry as to what doctrines one wants to accept. One as an individual can understand the truths of God within a very broad scope. Often other ministers and I would discuss that which we believed what certain scriputures were teaching and we would be allowed to a certain degree our own perspecitves of them.
There were thirteen different solid doctrines of the faith, but if one didn’t think against those then one could understand all the others as they felt God was revealing to them
alone… But from my catholic exposure to the doctrines… I was shown 2800 doctrines
and they are solid… and if one was to say one saw any of them in a different way they would be called “wrong”… and not allowed…

There is certainly two different attitudes regarding discovering the truths of God…
One has to discover the Truths, in order to be able to measure whether their
church was the true one… from whether their church taught those same truths…

What I am trying to say and doing a bad job of it… Is that from a non-catholic
point of view… it is more difficult for a catholic to discuss these things as they
don’t often have the back ground where they felt the need to look at the doctrines
to see if from within their own abilities to read and comprend what was being
taught and then to question those different feelings of the same doctrine.

Unlike the non-catholic christian denominations… there the laity has had many years
of following the ministers sermons from within their own bibles to see if they too agree
with the truths the preachers there were preaching… and chrisitans from this point
of view… have exercised this kind of thinking for most of their adult christian life…

But because the Catholic Chrisitian might not have that much experience in proclaiming their doctrines it does not mean their doctrines are in error… they just do not have the education or might not have had too much oppotunity in order to discuss their doctrines with others.

I teach some doctrine classes at the parish I attend… I have mostly elderly life long catholics who are not famliar with most of the doctrines, that is why they are in the class
as they really want to know… They all say the same thing…

They accept the Authority of the Church from the view that the educated religious have one common goal in mind and that is to get all her members into the knowledge which will help them to enter into the christian life and to go into eternity with God.

They not only have faith in God, but faith in the Authority of the church…

 

[Bill_Pick]

I agree that everybody claims themselves as “Correct” or at least “More correct than the next guy”

That is not the same as claiming oneself to be “The One True Church”.

The “One True Church” claim is a claim of intrinsic superiority in the eyes of God. And that God gives your organization special graces, benefits, and priviliges that that He just will not give other Christian organizations.

The denomination of the church I attend does not claim intrinsic superiority in the eyes of God to other denominations. We do not claim that God gives us any special benefits on the basis of being “Assembly of God” that He just will not give to other organizations.

The Cathloic Church was started in 33ad by Our Lord Jesus Christ,the rest about 1500 years later,If it is not the CC PLEASE tell us what church are you talking about,Read MT.16…18-19 or LK 10-16 and 1Tim 3-15 That will answer your question,Have a good day and may Our Lord bless You

 

[Monte1945]

Now this could lead to a debate on whether a Catholic priest has the power to forgive sins. And I have some questions I could ask here if I wanted to.

It is a very interesting question…

I find that there are some Bible scriptures which are very direct and others according to the Fathers of the Chruch which can be called “implications of the scriptures”.
Meaning that though there isn’t a direct direction of what is within the Truths
of God…

It is the duty and new nature of the converted christian to “be what he ought to be”
instead of what he actually is…
And that part of us, which is not what we ought to be… is a sin…

(He who knows to do good, and does it not it is a sin unto him" James)

And of course if we do some of the things the ten commandments say we shouldn’t do.
And then we have the beatitudes, of things we should do… and aren’t… and we need to
study the ten fruits of the spirit in Galations… In the Catholic church we call this
“self examination”… sort of measure our spiritual growth against the scriptures.

With the Grace of God… we can over come these sins… and it is our duty to work out our
Salvation with fear and trembling…

My view of this, is for me to enter into my relationship with God and to fight my personal sins… and I find the sacrament of the Confessional an excellent means to do that.

The bible certainly teaches for me to repent and to confess my sins to other brothers and sisters of the church… The priest is a member of the church…

If any two agree on anything it shall be granted to him…

If I ask another christian to help me to pray… then it has more power than if I pray alone.

I am not only called to repent in order to have those sins covered but… and to ask God thought another person praying with me to help me to “overcome” those sins.

As for the Priest having the right to forgive sins, he does not. Jesus forgives our sins
through the prayer of the Priest who at that time is standing in for Jesus.
I guess it is more like this: The priest is there in the confessional a private place,
where it is only you and the priest. and he is under a vow to God to never ever
mention what you say… keeps it secret forever, makes one more relaxed to share
their weaknesses with another christian… He leads you into the routine but what he
is also doing is that he is measuring the sincerity of your repentance… and he
can seem to be kind of say like the coach at a game, whether you are within the right kind
of spirit to have your sins forgiven… and if you are, then he raises his hands to
you and saids… "yes, according to the truth from God, you are in the right kind
of mind so that God will forgive your sins, and I am joining with you so that both
of our prayers will go to God for this forgivness of your sins, AND to give you
some power (Grace) for you to fight this particular sin in your life for the future.

Yes, I know I can pray to God alone here in my room, and have that same forgiveness
but it seems more too me to have a prayer partner who can not only help me to get
forgivness but to receive “santifying Grace of God” …

I find it a wonderful means to help me to become who God wants me to be…
And not to mention the clean feeling I always have when I come out there.
It is like, God is saying… I know you messed up… but come on get back in
the game… you are starting over again… it is a wonderful way to feel God’s forgiving
love…

There are many things in the Catholic chruch that one can use in order to feel
their relationship with God… One does not have to use them… no one has to go
to confession… but the chruch provides the helps in case you might want to use
them. If you have commited some serious sins… then it is necesary for one
to go to a confessional but those sins are so serious that you would never
feel right again unless you confessed them.

I know you don’t have a problem with confessional in the Catholic church
but there are so many people who really don’t see the merit in it… and I could
not reist an opportunity to share my experience and feelings for it…
I thank God for it…

 

[sablouwho]

A question (and I don’t mean this in a sense to disparage your choice).

It seems from reading your posts that you believe most of the various Christian organizations are roughly equal to each other.

I would be more comfortable affirming something like this: I don’t think that authentic religious experiences and faithfulness in Christ are limited to one organization that bears the “Christian” moniker. (For that matter, I don’t think authentic religious experiences of God are limited to explicitly Christian religions. But I would say that because they don’t have Christ, they have less awareness of God’s nature since they don’t know the Jesus aspect. But that is a rabbit hole for another time.)

However, I have found for me, personally that (to borrow a phrase from George Orwell) while “all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others.”

Basically, I grow more in faith in some particular contexts more than others. I tend to prefer those organizations over the other ones. It’s a matter of what has resonated for me personally.

Now I have observed
(1) This is not the claim that the Catholic church makes concerning itself. Instead there are graces and benefits that are unique only to the Catholic church.
(2) The Catholic church demands that its adherents believe that everything it teaches is true.
(3) I have observed some pharisees here persecute a certain 71 year old Catholic grandmother and revert because she hold certain beliefs that are not totally orthodox to them.

Re: #1 I am currently agnostic as to whether this claim it is actually true.
Re: #2 They can demand it, but it appears to me that many adherents don’t actually comply. One more is about to be added to their ranks. I’m Jewish in thinking–we question things and don’t easily swallow anyone’s “whole enchilada”.
Re: #3, I suspect the pharisees won’t like what I think either. Oh well

So something is not quite adding up as to how you can hold the belief of rough equality of organizations and then join up with an organization that claims something else and demands that its adherents believe the same thing.

I agree that does seem like a paradox, so I will try to clarify.

In the actual practice of my own religious life, I don’t experience these organizations to be roughly the same as each other, for me. I definitely “get more” out of one than the others. Despite this, I am agnostic on the CC’s claim to somehow be “more” than the others This is in spite having read CC apologetics on this issue (I’ve read some counter-arguments that make some good points too.) And I’ve also read some Church history.

But if that is fine with you and fine with your priest(s) and parish, then it is certainly fine with me and God bless you (and I do notice that this same 71 year old grandmother here is fine with the leadership of her local parish and vice versa). Now it might not be fine with some of the pharisees here, but to me that is their problem.

For the most part, it is fine with me. I do struggle with the idea of there being a one true church because I tend to be a black and white thinker. So in some ways it would be easier for me to buy into one organizations totality of teachings. But I am working on this, I don’t think that the black/white thinking is all that helpful to me in many areas of my life. Life is just more subtle than that.

I agree, for the pharisees, it will be their problem.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I agree that everybody claims themselves as “Correct” or at least “More correct than the next guy”

That is not the same as claiming oneself to be “The One True Church”.

The “One True Church” claim is a claim of intrinsic superiority in the eyes of God. And that God gives your organization special graces, benefits, and priviliges that that He just will not give other Christian organizations.

The denomination of the church I attend does not claim intrinsic superiority in the eyes of God to other denominations. We do not claim that God gives us any special benefits on the basis of being “Assembly of God” that He just will not give to other organizations.

Fair enough. I think you phrased it better.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The Cathloic Church was started in 33ad by Our Lord Jesus Christ,the rest about 1500 years later,If it is not the CC PLEASE tell us what church are you talking about,Read MT.16…18-19 or LK 10-16 and 1Tim 3-15 That will answer your question,Have a good day and may Our Lord bless You

I never understand how Matthew 16 is always twisted to allege that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054 AD, after it and the Orthodox Church split. Period.

 

[wisdomseeker]

God provided benefits to this one organization that He does not to other organizations, that this organization should pass the smell test of possessing a superior Christianity that outworks itself in a superior way to all of the other organizations. Otherwise, what is the sense of being the One True Church if you are just as messed up as everybody else.

Just my two cents. Catholics have no reason to go around questioning the Church since we know what the Church is. protestants dont have this confidence since they were made on mistrust and to question everything. but who is to be right when everybody is question everything? who decides the Truth?

as Catholics we have the confidence and trust. we dont need to go around questioning God and His Church, speaking for myself, i have no authority i know my place in the Church. i know whom God put in authority. and love and admire and honor and obey those whom God gave as authority in His Church. just like St Paul said to honor those on authority over me. the Church is the new Israel, so things are done pretty much that way. we follow the leaders Jesus gave us.

Peace.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I never understand how Matthew 16 is always twisted to allege that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church came into existence in 1054 AD, after it and the Orthodox Church split. Period.

really? well, my presbyterian friend said that the Catholic Church did not exist until the 1500’s. the mormons says that the Catholic Church existed but apostasized, they cannot tell when. some think that the Church only existed until the last apostle died.
many others say that the Catholic was found by Constantine which was 400’s.

which one is it?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

God provided benefits to this one organization that He does not to other organizations, that this organization should pass the smell test of possessing a superior Christianity that outworks itself in a superior way to all of the other organizations. Otherwise, what is the sense of being the One True Church if you are just as messed up as everybody else.

I believe what Monte1945 has introduced here is an effort through “ecumenism” which the magisterium is excercising. The proclamation that “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” still stands. I like to use an evangelical protestant phrase here; “if the bible (Jesus) said it, then that settles it” Jesus built his Church upon Peter and the apostles. There is only one unbroken succession to Peter and the apostles which can only be found in the Catholic Church supported by both the practices of the Apostolic Catholic Faith and historical record by both religious and secular. All other Christian faiths have denominated from the One Catholic Church.

These community of believers outside the body of Jesus Christ have taken with them, some of the sacramental Apostolic Catholic belief’s and hold to Catholic belief’s such as the Trinity and the Catholic Canon of scripture, whether they have rejected some of the canonized books, makes them fall under the umbrella of the Catholic Church. It is here where “ecumenism” is being reached out by her excellencies and his holiness. It is through ecumenism that the Truth of the Catholic faith be proclaimed and revealed to rebutt all of Protestantism and Evangelical false accusations of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith. Informing the misinformed protestant communities of the Truth, gives the honest choice to protestants and non catholics either to accept the biblical Apostolic Catholic 2000 year old gospel teachings or reject them. But they first must be informed correctly through “ecumenism”. It’s ok if there are those who are not against us, are for us, but those who are not for us, we are to love and reveal Jesus “Truth” to them, so that the scriputures come to pass;

1Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written: **“What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,”
10
this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. **
11
Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God.
12
We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.
13
And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms. 7
14
Now the natural person 8 does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.
15
The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment 9 by anyone.
16
For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Jesus founded an organization. We see that in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. The Apostles were the leaders of an organization that had teaching authority and decision-making power.

Well what the Bible specifically says is that Jesus founded a church. We can see in the Book of Acts how this church was organized. Later the church split into multiple organizations.

The Catholic Church provides the raw materials with which other churches find Christ (in the cases where they do). The Bible came from the Catholic Church. The teaching that Jesus is True God and True Man came from the Catholic Church.

That Word of God that your missionary is sharing came to him (via a long and winding route) from the Catholic Church, The Catholic Church is responsible for the original forming of that Bible, however edited it may have become while in the hands of your organization, that your missionary is passing around in China. The source and style of his preaching probably traces back to St. Dominic. Such graces as are received through his preaching, are coming from the 24 hours a day, seven days a week prayers of little nuns cloistered away in Catholic convents praying for the conversion of the whole world.

Even though your missionary isn’t Catholic, he shares in these Catholic graces because of his Baptism, and because of his sincerity of heart.

I think a little example can say what I want to say better.

It was in the 1700s the first Methodists appeared.

Over time these first Methodists split into multiple organizations.

One organization (the United Methodist church) kept the name “Methodist” (they later added the United when they merged with somebody else.

The other organizationhs of course have different names but common ancestry.

In some cases I suppose the divisions were acrimonious, in other cases they were not.

Not all organizations that are children of the original Methodists agree. Some are relatively liberal, while others are relatively conservative. It is a subject of debate which of these many Methodist organizations that exist today are most like the original Methodists.

Now I believe that all these organizations today share equally from their original parents and that there is no one true Methodist church. I further believe that the original one Methodist movement is common to all of the organizations today that descend from this one movement. It would be wrong for the United Methodist church to claim that the early Methodists were exclusively their domain. The early Methodist church now appears in many organizations.

The same thing is true for the early apostolic church which soon after adopted the name “Catholic” for itself.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I would be more comfortable affirming something like this: I don’t think that authentic religious experiences and faithfulness in Christ are limited to one organization that bears the “Christian” moniker. (For that matter, I don’t think authentic religious experiences of God are limited to explicitly Christian religions. But I would say that because they don’t have Christ, they have less awareness of God’s nature since they don’t know the Jesus aspect. But that is a rabbit hole for another time.)

However, I have found for me, personally that (to borrow a phrase from George Orwell) while “all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others.”

Basically, I grow more in faith in some particular contexts more than others. I tend to prefer those organizations over the other ones. It’s a matter of what has resonated for me personally.

Re: #1 I am currently agnostic as to whether this claim it is actually true.
Re: #2 They can demand it, but it appears to me that many adherents don’t actually comply. One more is about to be added to their ranks. I’m Jewish in thinking–we question things and don’t easily swallow anyone’s “whole enchilada”.
Re: #3, I suspect the pharisees won’t like what I think either. Oh well

I agree that does seem like a paradox, so I will try to clarify.

In the actual practice of my own religious life, I don’t experience these organizations to be roughly the same as each other, for me. I definitely “get more” out of one than the others. Despite this, I am agnostic on the CC’s claim to somehow be “more” than the others This is in spite having read CC apologetics on this issue (I’ve read some counter-arguments that make some good points too.) And I’ve also read some Church history.

For the most part, it is fine with me. I do struggle with the idea of there being a one true church because I tend to be a black and white thinker. So in some ways it would be easier for me to buy into one organizations totality of teachings. But I am working on this, I don’t think that the black/white thinking is all that helpful to me in many areas of my life. Life is just more subtle than that.

I agree, for the pharisees, it will be their problem.

AP Will you please tell us why you do not thing the Cathloic Church is the one true Church.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

really? well, my presbyterian friend said that the Catholic Church did not exist until the 1500’s. the mormons says that the Catholic Church existed but apostasized, they cannot tell when. some think that the Church only existed until the last apostle died.
many others say that the Catholic was found by Constantine which was 400’s.

which one is it?

Before 1054 there was only “The One, Holy, catholic [SMALL c] and Apostolic Church”, of which the modern Catholic Church was a part, but was not it in its entirety. Surely there was no papal supremacy at that point.

After 1054 we got the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Before 1054 there was only “The One, Holy, catholic [SMALL c] and Apostolic Church”, of which the modern Catholic Church was a part, but was not it in its entirety. Surely there was no papal supremacy at that point.

After 1054 we got the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

surely there was no papal supremacy at that point?

how did you come up with this conclusion?

what historical facts do you have for this?

what Truth do you find on others that the CC does not have?

Peace.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Before 1054 there was only “The One, Holy, catholic [SMALL c] and Apostolic Church”, of which the modern Catholic Church was a part, but was not it in its entirety. Surely there was no papal supremacy at that point.

After 1054 we got the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Actually 1054 was not the first time the church divided into multiple organizations.

It was in the 400s that the Oriental Orthodox appeared as a separate entity.

And this excludes groups such as the Donatists which have been labelled as heretics but I am not sure why (I have to study up on this admittedly).

And this excludes the fact that due to travel restrictions there were organizations started such as Kerela India and Ethiopia which were originally part of the one church but apparantly lost contact and developed independently.

 

[Bill_Pick]

surely there was no papal supremacy at that point?

how did you come up with this conclusion?

what historical facts do you have for this?

what Truth do you find on others that the CC does not have?

Peace.

Where do you get your fact, you need to understand your historyfor history you get a F_

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Before 1054 there was only “The One, Holy, catholic [SMALL c] and Apostolic Church”, of which the modern Catholic Church was a part, but was not it in its entirety. Surely there was no papal supremacy at that point.

After 1054 we got the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Jesus is the one who says “I will build my Church upon you” Peter end of story;

Here is the correction to your history; After 1054 “some” Eastern Catholic Church communities fell into schism with the authority of the Pope, not all Eastern, or newly founded name “Orthodoxy” communities disobeyed Jesus Words from the bible and Apostolic followers, from biblical times. Your notion is false and needs clarification. Those who renamed themselves as “orthodox” after 1054 fell into schism, they did not become a separate divided Church, they have called into question after 1100 years later the authority of Peter and the Popes. (it would do you well to relearn these Orthodox in schism new teachings about Peter, when the Early Church Eastern Orthodox Fathers never taught what they introduce into the scriptures, something for you to consider here, if you are one who seeks Truth?) Our sacramental Apostolic lifestyle remains intact, the body of Jesus Christ remains one faith. Schism (tare) does not qualify a separation from the body of Jesus Christ as does those Western protestants who reject the true “presence” apostolic sacramental life in Jesus Christ body.

So there is no separate Orthodoxy and Roman Catholic Church, because the majority of the Eastern “Orthodoxy” Catholic Rites remain in full communion with Peter and his successors in the Popes since Peter after the resurrection. Your “Orthodox” communities in schism with Jesus given authority to Peter and his successors is what became new in 1054 and are in the minority not the majority of Eastern Orthodox Catholic communities.

The reason this 1054 a.d incident appears new, is because it is new, never did the Early Church Fathers reject the (Popes) successors of Peter before 1054 a.d as did the few newly named “Orthodoxy” communities. The problem with the authority does not disqualify their faith, we remain in the same Apostolic 2000 year old Catholic faith unchanged. They may have some argument from the Pope defining or defending the Apostolic Faith while they remained idle in “orthodoxy” only reveals the maturity that needs to be addressed here. But that is another story.

What you falsely acclaimed too here, deserves much clarification. If you should make such misinformed accusations about the Catholic Church, please specify with official historical data. To blatantly make a general statement like you have made here, which deserves detail explanations, or it leads to false misinfomation and confusion.

Peace be with you

 

[jmcrae]

Before 1054 there was only “The One, Holy, catholic [SMALL c] and Apostolic Church”, of which the modern Catholic Church was a part, but was not it in its entirety. Surely there was no papal supremacy at that point.

Read the Sermon for Pentecost by St. John Chrysostom (an Eastern Bishop, for what it’s worth) - Vatican I quoted extensively from that sermon to support the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. It was originally written and preached a couple of decades before we finally had a Bible - n the mid to late 300s AD.

After 1054 we got the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Actually, we got seven Orthodox Churches - they divided from each other as well as from the Catholic Church, and became local, nationalistic organizations, rather than Catholic (meaning “universal”) churches. It was the Western Church, headed by the Pope, that retained the identity and continued the mission of that which had been established by Christ.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Read the Sermon for Pentecost by St. John Chrysostom (an Eastern Bishop, for what it’s worth) - Vatican I quoted extensively from that sermon to support the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope. It was originally written and preached a couple of decades before we finally had a Bible - n the mid to late 300s AD.

Actually, we got seven Orthodox Churches - they divided from each other as well as from the Catholic Church, and became local, nationalistic organizations, rather than Catholic (meaning “universal”) churches. It was the Western Church, headed by the Pope, that retained the identity and continued the mission of that which had been established by Christ.

Of course one would expect the Orthodox to have a different opinion on this than your opinion.

I have seen a diagram here posted by the Orthodox that shows the Orthodox as the One True Church and the Catholic as the offshoot.

And then there are the Trail of Blood Baptists that at least imply their organization (or lack of it) is the One True Church.

And we are still neglecting the assorted restorationalist organizations out there.

 

[jmcrae]

Of course one would expect the Orthodox to have a different opinion on this than your opinion.

I have seen a diagram here posted by the Orthodox that shows the Orthodox as the One True Church and the Catholic as the offshoot.

I’ve seen it. It doesn’t account for how it is that there were seven different national churches that were not communicating with each other on the Orthodox “branch.”

And then there are the Trail of Blood Baptists that at least imply their organization (or lack of it) is the One True Church.

Yes - they trace themselves back to such things as the Waldensian heresy, the Nestorian heresy, and the Arian heresy, among others. That’s not exactly an endorsement of Apostolic purity - and I’m pretty sure that modern-day Baptists would be sorely tempted to burn those guys at the stake, too, if they actually understood what they were teaching.

And we are still neglecting the assorted restorationalist organizations out there.

Since they already admit that they have no lineage back to the Apostles, and since none of the signs that typically accompany a replacement Covenant are present with them, I think we can safely eliminate them from the running.