Why is the Catholic church the only true church?

[mattp0625]

You told me that Catholicism is “historically, theologically, and scripturally the best contender”, but you didn’t give me any reason to think that was true. Claims like that come a dime a dozen.

You’re not an expert in history, theology and scripture – hardly anyone is, including most apologists. So, how do you know enough about history, theology and scripture to say that Catholicism is the best contender? All we can do is study the issues as good as any amateur can and draw the conclusion that seems most reasonable to us. Fair enough. But, that is at best an educated opinion, and no more reasonable than any other educated opinion on the matter. If anyone really knows which denomination is right, it’s an expert, but because there are so many of them in utter disagreement, we can’t know which ones are right. All we can do is humbly develop the best educated opinion we can.

As Mere Christianity would have it, as long as you’re honest with yourself and strive after God, it really doesn’t matter which denomination you join, you’ll be judged by your relation to God, not by whether or not you were smart enough to figure out which denomination got it right.

Actually there are many proofs:

Jesus said to the apostles: I have all authority on heaven and earth, and I grant you that same authority to baptize, preach all I taught you and evangelize, and I will be with you until the end of days. Peter was among them, upon whom Jesus said He would build His church.

There is a traceable line of popes all the way back to Saint Peter and his successors (bishops). The second pope’s names was Linus. The third was Cletus. The fourth was Clement of Rome.

Ignatius of Antioch was the bishop of Antioch when it was the home of the original Christians in the first century. He was a direct disciple of the apostles of Christ. He named the church Catholic and his writings are full of Catholic doctrines.

The Catholic bishops, after the church was already formed, decided the canon of scripture, as well as the criteria to determine inspiration. There was not a full bible in one book before these synods at Hippo and Carthage.

These are not opinions. They are historical facts. Protestant churches cannot make these claims. They don’t even recognize the authority of bishops.

 

[Perplexity]

Miss Primrose, and for anyone else reading this who is in a similar position, I hope this thread has been instructive. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from psychology, it’s that people tend to overestimate their knowledge, and this is especially true in apologetics. It’s the one place where you can declare what is historical fact, or theologically certain, whether or not you’re even remotely qualified to do so.

Human beings are terrible thinkers when it comes to subjects they’re invested in and this has been proven time and again. We tend to look at data only in order to justify conclusions we’ve already drawn, ignore disconfirming information, and to limit ourselves to interacting only with the weakest and most easily refuted objections to our beliefs.

If you’re a committed Christian trying to figure out which denomination is right, just be humble and honest. Humility will protect you from thinking you’re infallible and therefore incapable of being wrong about your personal interpretations of history and scripture. Honesty will protect you from believing something for less than respectable reasons. Your mind will change as you learn new things, big deal, life will go on. Just keep things in perspective, and remember why you’re even looking into the matter in the first place.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You told me that Catholicism is “historically, theologically, and scripturally the best contender”, but you didn’t give me any reason to think that was true. Claims like that come a dime a dozen.

Since you sound like the kind of person who will actually read an article that is recommended to you, I will suggest that you take a look at this:

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447

It’s a tad long, but good questions deserve good answers.

 

[Perplexity]

Since you sound like the kind of person who will actually read an article that is recommended to you, I will suggest that you take a look at this:

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447

It’s a tad long, but good questions deserve good answers.

Thanks Randy, Akin’s “The Nature of the Church” section seemed like the most relevant one to this thread, so I read that with particular care. Here Akin gives a “limited proof” for the proposition that “the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded.” So who is he giving this proof to? “Protestants.”

But, then Akin goes on to say “the question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved”, which implies he’s not including Anglicans as “Protestants”. This is furthered by the fact that he states without argument that “only the Catholic Church goes back” as far as the founding of the Church in Matt. 16, when that is precisely what Anglicans deny.

It’s unfortunate then that Akin proceeds to give arguments for the visibility of the Church as if this were somehow a case for Catholicism, when an Anglican could give these very same arguments practically word for word.

Finally, each of Akin’s arguments is premised on the claim that “Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18)”, presupposing that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus builds his Church and that being this rock makes one the “head” of the Church. Both of these claims are significantly contested by Protestants, so I find it very confusing why Akin makes them in the first place without giving any reasons to agree.

All in all, I found the article to be a mixed bag: covers the extra ecclesiam nulla salus issue pretty clearly, but I don’t think his arguments for the visibility of the Church should cause any Protestant to change her mind about it. In any case, thanks for the link, haven’t read much of Akin!

 

[BobCatholic]

Christ is not divorced.

Christ is not divorced and remarried and divorced and remarried and…

Christ is not a polygamist.

Christ is the Bridegroom. The Catholic Church is the Bride.

One Bridegroom. One Bride.

One.

Not 35,000, 40,000, 45,000…

 

[Googler]

Dr. Stackpole has some insight. You may enjoy this interview.
Robert Stackpole: An Anglican Priest Who Became A Catholic - The Journey Home
youtube.com/watch?v=YGyV74kTTGI

 

[Perplexity]

Dr. Stackpole has some insight. You may enjoy this interview.
Robert Stackpole: An Anglican Priest Who Became A Catholic - The Journey Home
youtube.com/watch?v=YGyV74kTTGI

Thanks Googler, I watched it. I’d be curious to read his book. I would have liked to speak to Robert as he brought these points up because I think the most crucial points of his argument were undefended. Here’s a few examples to illustrate what I mean:

1. When addressing the silence of the early fathers on the existence of a papacy, Robert simply says that the papacy was not being attacked, so there was no need to address it. But, this is only true if there was a papacy, which is precisely what is at issue. So, Robert’s response is question begging. It also seems to assume that the early fathers only ever talked about what was being disputed.
2. When addressing the difference between Petros and petra in Matthew 16, Robert simply says that Matthew didn’t want to use a feminine form of “Peter.” But, this is only true if Matthew wanted to say that Peter was the rock, which is precisely what is at issue. So, Robert’s response is question begging.

I think he’d probably have some good things to say about this if given the chance, but as it was presented – which was appropriate for a Journey Home interview – I think his arguments are deeply contestable.

 

[mattp0625]

Irenaeus of Lyon, second century bishop, wrote the following:

(Note that Linus was the second pope after Peter, Cletus was third, and Clement of Rome was fourth).

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. 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.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels.

 

[Perplexity]

mattp0625: What do you intend these citations to show? That there was an unbroken line of episcopal succession at the time of Irenaeus? That Christians believed the church of Rome had a preeminent authority among churches at the time of Irenaeus? Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans will agree with you.

But, if you want these citations to show that the bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction, or that part of genuine apostolic succession was communion with the bishop of Rome, or, basically that there was a “papacy” there’s just nothing in the citations to support that.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t other citations that support the existence of the papacy in the early Church, only that these citations in particular do not do this.

 

[mattp0625]

mattp0625: What do you intend these citations to show? That there was an unbroken line of episcopal succession at the time of Irenaeus? That Christians believed the church of Rome had a preeminent authority among churches at the time of Irenaeus? Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans will agree with you.

But, if you want these citations to show that the bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction, or that part of genuine apostolic succession was communion with the bishop of Rome, or, basically that there was a “papacy” there’s just nothing in the citations to support that.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t other citations that support the existence of the papacy in the early Church, only that these citations in particular do not do this.

What else do you believe handing the office of the episcopate to Linus, to Cletus, and to Clement means ?

What does the church with preeminent authority mean to you ?

 

[Perplexity]

What else do you believe handing the office of the episcopate to Linus, to Cletus, and to Clement means ?

What does the church with preeminent authority mean to you ?

We have to build our theories out of the data. If the data doesn’t tell us what handing the office of episcopate on meant, then any answer to that question is speculation. The Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans will say it just meant the continuation of the episcopal office, as it did for all such lines of succession. The same thing goes with preeminent authority. If Irenaeus doesn’t say what he meant by that, all we can do is speculate. Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans will say it meant the church of Rome knew of what it spoke, having been founded by two Apostles. But, to say either of these references means something papal is to get more out of the data than is there. Even if Irenaeus did believe in the papacy, and meant as much in these citations, he wasn’t clear enough for us to draw that conclusion.

 

[mattp0625]

We have to build our theories out of the data. If the data doesn’t tell us what handing the office of episcopate on meant, then any answer to that question is speculation. The Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans will say it just meant the continuation of the episcopal office, as it did for all such lines of succession. The same thing goes with preeminent authority. If Irenaeus doesn’t say what he meant by that, all we can do is speculate. Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans will say it meant the church of Rome knew of what it spoke, having been founded by two Apostles. But, to say either of these references means something papal is to get more out of the data than is there. Even if Irenaeus did believe in the papacy, and meant as much in these citations, he wasn’t clear enough for us to draw that conclusion.

Peter and Paul- we know who they were

Committed into the hands - to pledge or bind to a certain course

Of Linus- historically known to be the second pope

The office of the episcopate - the office of the collective body of bishops.

Of The church founded in Rome- where the pope resides

By the two glorious apostles - Peter and Paul

The data is there, and also with Ignatius of Antioch. It is not complicated.

 

[Perplexity]

Peter and Paul- we know who they were

Committed into the hands - to pledge or bind to a certain course

Of Linus- historically known to be the second pope

The office of the episcopate - the office of the collective body of bishops.

Of The church founded in Rome- where the pope resides

By the two glorious apostles - Peter and Paul

The data is there, and also with Ignatius of Antioch. It is not complicated.

Where does Irenaeus say Linus was the second “pope”, or that the “pope” resides in Rome? You’re taking conclusions you’ve drawn elsewhere and reading them into Irenaeus.

 

[mattp0625]

Where does Irenaeus say Linus was the second “pope”, or that the “pope” resides in Rome? You’re taking conclusions you’ve drawn elsewhere and reading them into Irenaeus.

Where else does the pope reside?

Irenaeus clearly discusses the church in Rome having authority. He didn’t say Germany, England, or Constantinople (the bases of the Anglian, Lutheran, and Orthodox churches)

He said Rome, where Peter and Paul were.

Was there a different bishop of Rome in Rome? No.

Peter and Paul- the apostles of Christ, handed the office to Linus.

Where else was the office of the collection of bishops handed to someone from the apostles? There’s wasn’t somewhere else this happened. It was in Rome.

This was written in the second century, within 100 years of the apostles.

Folks who came along 1,500 to 2,000 years later can speculate, but it’s not complicated.

Unless, as a certain former president would say, it depends what your definition of “is” is.

 

[Perplexity]

Where else does the pope reside?

Irenaeus clearly discusses the church in Rome having authority. He didn’t say Germany, England, or Constantinople (the bases of the Anglian, Lutheran, and Orthodox churches)

He said Rome, where Peter and Paul were.

Was there a different bishop of Rome in Rome? No.

Peter and Paul- the apostles of Christ, handed the office to Linus.

Where else was the office of the collection of bishops handed to someone from the apostles? There’s wasn’t somewhere else this happened. It was in Rome.

This was written in the second century, within 100 years of the apostles.

Folks who came along 1,500 to 2,000 years later can speculate, but it’s not complicated.

Unless, as a certain former president would say, it depends what your definition of “is” is.

The “papacy” involves a lot more than just being the bishop of Rome. It involves being infallible under certain conditions and having universal jurisdiction etc.

The early church does overwhelmingly say there was a bishop of Rome, and that he could trace his succession all the way back. But, all that means is that there was a bishop of Rome. It doesn’t mean he was infallible, or that he had universal jurisdiction, etc.

Often times, “bishop of Rome” is simply equated with “pope”, so that evidence of the former is taken to be evidence of the latter. But, this is eisegesis and as Sherlock Holmes once said: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

 

[mattp0625]

The “papacy” involves a lot more than just being the bishop of Rome. It involves being infallible under certain conditions and having universal jurisdiction etc.

The early church does overwhelmingly say there was a bishop of Rome, and that he could trace his succession all the way back. But, all that means is that there was a bishop of Rome. It doesn’t mean he was infallible, or that he had universal jurisdiction, etc.

Often times, “bishop of Rome” is simply equated with “pope”, so that evidence of the former is taken to be evidence of the latter. But, this is eisegesis and as Sherlock Holmes once said: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

You’re changing the subject to infallibility?

Sorry, but this does nothing to negate the traceable events documented above.

There was an appointment from Peter and Paul. It was in Rome. This didn’t happen somewhere else.

There wasn’t another bishop of Rome or another city called Rome.

This is silly now.

 

[Perplexity]

It’s like you’re talking to someone else.

 

[Nelka]

I am sorry my friend, you are incorrect.

Messianic Jews are a relatively modern evangelical group derived from Protestantism.

The disciples were Catholic. The Catholic Church is the Church found in the New Testament. The Church with Peter as its leader. .

As mother Miriam says, the Catholic Church is the fullness of Judaism.

The Catholic Church was established by Jesus. So all the Jews that became Christian were Catholics.

There is no older form of Christianity than Catholic Christianity.

 

[Jack_Common]

All too often, it seems to me, Catholics are under the impression that their historical narrative is not just true, but obviously so. (Just think of standard slogans like “the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old” or “there is an unbroken succession of Popes back to Peter”). But, when you take a look at the situation objectively, the only thing that’s obvious is that the evidence can be interpreted in any number of ways.

The true Church of Christ is not known only by its antiquity. There are four marks of the true Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. It does not require a great deal of scholarship to see that all the Protestant sects lack these four marks. They all disagree with one and other, so they are obviously not One. They lack most of the sacraments and have produced no saints, so they are clearly not Holy. None of them can claim universal jurisdiction over all people at all times, so they cannot be Catholic. None of them are older than 500 years, so they cannot be Apostolic. It’s not difficult to see that Protestantism is false. It just requires a bit of honesty.

That only leaves the Catholic Church and the various autocephalous churches that all call themselves “Eastern Orthodox”. It’s not that difficult to figure this one out either. The Eastern Orthodox churches are not One or Catholic, they are various autocephalous (self-run) national churches that are based more on ethnicity/nationality than anything.

 

[Miss_Primrose]

Miss Primrose, and for anyone else reading this who is in a similar position, I hope this thread has been instructive. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from psychology, it’s that people tend to overestimate their knowledge, and this is especially true in apologetics. It’s the one place where you can declare what is historical fact, or theologically certain, whether or not you’re even remotely qualified to do so.

Human beings are terrible thinkers when it comes to subjects they’re invested in and this has been proven time and again. We tend to look at data only in order to justify conclusions we’ve already drawn, ignore disconfirming information, and to limit ourselves to interacting only with the weakest and most easily refuted objections to our beliefs.

If you’re a committed Christian trying to figure out which denomination is right, just be humble and honest. Humility will protect you from thinking you’re infallible and therefore incapable of being wrong about your personal interpretations of history and scripture. Honesty will protect you from believing something for less than respectable reasons. Your mind will change as you learn new things, big deal, life will go on. Just keep things in perspective, and remember why you’re even looking into the matter in the first place.

Thank you for saying something so important and obvious and yet so simple it often gets overlooked.

I started this post because I am a Christian who is drawn to the Catholic Church for reasons I don’t know and can’t understand, it has just been there in the background of my life and faith since I was about 9 or 10 years old and studying medieval monks and monasteries in History, it has always fascinated me, as I got older I looked into things more and more recently also I’ve looked into Celtic Christianity, now in England, Celtic Christianity was a part of British life before the Roman Catholic Church ever got it’s foot in the door, there were Roman Catholic monks in Britain who were sent by the Pope but the Church in this country was NOT connected to Rome in any way, it wasn’t until the synod of Whitby that things changed, the abbess of Whitby St Hilda, a Celtic Abbess, oversaw the synod at her Abbey and after I assume much talk and debating that the Roman Catholic Calendar was Excepted and the Roman Catholic Church gained some control in this country, The Celtic Church was brought to our shores from the countries which I think now are Orthodox and the Orthodox Church and the Desert Fathers played a big part in making this country Christian. I wanted to know about the truth of the Catholic Church because in England/Britain Christianity has existed in a Catholic form even if not Catholic Officially for a long time before the Catholic Church ever came to these shores and by all accounts these Celtic churches were more flexible and nature based than the catholic church which took over. So I was interested to know what made the Catholic Church right? over all other types of Christianity.