Why can the world not see the true Church founded by Jesus?

[Justin_Mary]

However, since 33 AD the ONE Church has split into many churches such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Evangelical church, the Anglican church, the Old Catholic church, the Lutheran church, etc. Each one claims to be a continuation or restoration of the original church

Only the Orthodox & Catholic Church claims to go back to 33 AD. It’s debatable which one actually is the trunk & which is branch.

 

[74giant]

I understand your point of view. But Jesus came to bring a sword and division, not to bring peace. (Matthew 10:34) The world needs to wake up

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The world needs to wake up

Nobody gets convinced by being called dumb. Peach the Gospel. When necessary, use words.

 

[AlNg]

Only the Orthodox & Catholic Church claims to go back to 33 AD.

Really? I thought that the Anglican church claimed apostolic succession?
And i thought that in the book: The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carrol (1931) he claims that the Baptist churches are a succession from the first Christians. Many other Baptists claim to go back to 33 AD as you can read for yourself in the book: The Baptist Heritage by H Leon McBeth (1987) p. 59 - 60.

 

[74giant]

Probably not. I can only imagine God’s frustration at how many of His signs are being ignored. All we can do is point people in the right direction

 

[Justin_Mary]

Really? I thought that the Anglican church claimed apostolic succession?
And i thought that in the book: The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carrol (1931) he claims that the Baptist churches are a succession from the first Christians. Many other Baptists claim to go back to 33 AD as you can read for yourself in the book: The Baptist Heritage by H Leon McBeth (1987) p. 59 - 60.

Ok. I’m not up to date on such claims.

So what did the Baptist church look like in the 6th century?

 

[anon98328916]

Get a grip please, you are overreacting and trying to judge my post as something it is not.
If you are that offended by my post, which you obviously are, you need to ask yourself why?

 

[anon98328916]

One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Salibi]

A point can be made in that the adherents of nearly every non-Catholic religion have oft themselves asked, “Why can’t they that we are the truth?”

 

[Salibi]

you are that offended by my post, which you obviously are, you need to ask yourself wh

Your post isn’t offensive as much as it is non-sensical (sorry). I have many non-Catholic friends who often ask how I can’t see that their religion is the true one. Your post can easily be anyone of any religion talking.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Get a grip please, you are overreacting and trying to judge my post as something it is not.

This isn’t an overreaction. It’s a proper response to a claim, made without evidence, which either directly or indirectly demeans others. I have non-Catholic friends that I don’t blame for not being in the Church. Some had bad experiences with religion in the past. Some don’t see enough reason to accept Christianity. They are on their own paths and they don’t see the Church as true for valid reasons. I pray for them but I know they need time to come to their own conclusions. They would never be convinced or brought to the Church by speech such as that in the OP.

If you are that offended by my post, which you obviously are, you need to ask yourself why?

It’s not constructive, it’s not productive, and it gives Catholics a bad reputation as pompous and haughty. “How can they not see what’s so obvious? Let’s theorize about all their invalid reasons for not seeing the truth!” I don’t want this forum to become a place where these thoughts are common.

 

[RyanBlack]

Only the Orthodox & Catholic Church claims to go back to 33 AD. It’s debatable which one actually is the trunk & which is branch.

Also, the Church of the East is apostolic.

 

[amcintosh]

from what I have seen from some Orthodox Christians and Lutherans, there is a view that the Catholic Church may have been the Church founded by Peter, but due to corruption and traditional, non-Scriptural practices, the Church has fallen off the true, holy, catholic and apostolic church and does not have the four marks of the Church. Some Orthodox Christians see the Eastern Orthodox Church as the true authority because of their practices and orthodox viewpoint, in contrast to the alleged corruption of what became Catholicism. Lutherans are just Lutherans and don’t have great arguments, but some see the Church as too corrupt and diverted away from Scripture that they do not think of it as a legitimate ecclesiastical authority, and therefore not the true church.

I don’t study modern theological viewpoints well enough nor have I spoken to enough Prots/Orthos to get an accurate assessment, but these are arguments I have seen from some notable figures online.

 

[tafan2]

I honestly don’t understand the insult. You have failed to produce any evidence if your claim against the Church’s hierarchy. You then proceeded to explain your logic as to how you came to your conclusion. I am simply stating what seems rather clear.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As I told you, read about Church history from a credible source

Trying to find information I read in a book and was taught in a class on Liturgical History over 25 years ago on the internet, is not possible at this point.

Abuses on indulgences and other issues took place in the Church in the past and even today, we see the sexual abuse scandal which has rocked the Church.

It’s better to accept that there has been dirty laundry in the Church rather than deny it and to make sure it never happens again.

 

[tafan2]

As I told you, read about Church history from a credible source

That is insulting, assuming all if my church history reading is not credible.

Trying to find information I read in a book and was taught in a class on Liturgical History over 25 years ago on the internet, is not possible at this point.

Ok, you read it 25 years ago, from one source that is not available. I will say I have never read that particular claim in over 35 years of reading church history. But I suppose none of my books, nor the books you currently do have access to, now anything on the internet is credible.

Abuses on indulgences and other issues took place in the Church in the past and even today, we see the sexual abuse scandal which has rocked the Church.

It’s better to accept that there has been dirty laundry in the Church rather than deny it and to make sure it never happens again.

Yes abuses have occurred. And they should not be denied. But we should not make up stories of abuse either.

There are historical and cultural reasons as to why their were at times more days if obligation. I do not believe that “filling coffers” is one of them beyond perhaps a couple specific circumstances (anything can happen in 2000 years), but to make a general claim such as yours, with no backup is slanderous.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Once again you accuse me of “making up stories.”

I’m done with you !

 

[AlNg]

People from other religions have approached me and come out fairly hostile towards Catholicism instead of providing a strong basis for why their religion is credible.

I don’t doubt that was your experience, but how often have you been to a Buddhist temple? i was there recently, and after the service there was a kind of “catechism” lesson from the Buddhist monk. He was teaching and people were listening however, i was the only one asking a lot of questions basically from the Roman Catholic POV. Everyone knew I was Catholic and people, including the monk, said that they appreciated my questions and invited me back. They did not seem to have anything against Roman Catholicism but were more or less comfortable with their Buddhist beliefs and practices.