Why is the Catholic church the only true church?

[ChurchSoldier]

Christianty is a church which many different paths within it, the Catholic church, Protestantism in it’s many forms aswell as the Coptics, Chinese catholic, old catholic, Orthodox aswell as many more I probably have never heard off, so what makes the Catholic church the Right Church?

I have always thought of the church as being Universal, to include everyone, all Christians, why then are Protestants and others not connected to the catholic church officially seen as following a ‘false’ theology and the Catholic church considered as being the ‘Correct’ theology?

Can’t all Christians be considered as having the right theology even though there different, maybe God deliberately created/allowed many Christian denominations so as to include everyone and not just a few?

Can anyone explain this to me? Thank you.

Guess it depends on your definition of “true” and whether that can be held by more than one body (it can).

All Christians can’t claim to have right theology if only because many of the theologies out there are diametrically opposed. I.E. You can’t have the Eucharist being the true body of Christ, yet only believe it is a piece of bread which we hold as purely symbolic.

As stated though, an in depth answer is far too voluminous for a post here.

Good luck with your research.

 

[steve_b]

Christianty is a church which many different paths within it, the Catholic church, Protestantism in it’s many forms aswell as the Coptics, Chinese catholic, old catholic, Orthodox aswell as many more I probably have never heard off, *so what makes the Catholic church the Right Church? *

Could I ask, is that the first time you have thought of or asked that question? Just asking.

I have always thought of the church as being Universal, to include everyone, all Christians, why then are Protestants and others not connected to the catholic church officially seen as following a ‘false’ theology and the Catholic church considered as being the ‘Correct’ theology?

Can’t all Christians be considered as having the right theology even though there different, maybe God deliberately created/allowed many Christian denominations so as to include everyone and not just a few?

Can anyone explain this to me? Thank you.

 

[steve_b]

Christianty is a church which many different paths within it, the Catholic church, Protestantism in it’s many forms aswell as the Coptics, Chinese catholic, old catholic, Orthodox aswell as many more I probably have never heard off, so* what makes the Catholic church the Right Church? *

I have to ask. Have you never asked that question before? Just asking
You’ve asked THE question every one should ask and should be able to answer.

• catholicbible101.com/whostartedyourchurch.htm
• this showed up the other day on these forums #[68 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13891016&postcount=68)
• That it is the Catholic Church “in writing” from the beginning, is absolutely provable #34 be sure and open up all the internal links in that link to read the context. I’m showing a quick history of the first 400 years.

MP:

I have always thought of the church as being Universal, to include everyone, all

Christians, why then are Protestants and others not connected to the catholic church officially seen as following a ‘false’ theology and the Catholic church considered as being the ‘Correct’ theology?

Can’t all Christians be considered as having the right theology even though there different, maybe God deliberately created/allowed many Christian denominations so as to include everyone and not just a few?

Can anyone explain this to me? Thank you.

Look over those links then ask away

 

[mattp0625]

Christianty is a church which many different paths within it, the Catholic church, Protestantism in it’s many forms aswell as the Coptics, Chinese catholic, old catholic, Orthodox aswell as many more I probably have never heard off, so what makes the Catholic church the Right Church?

I have always thought of the church as being Universal, to include everyone, all Christians, why then are Protestants and others not connected to the catholic church officially seen as following a ‘false’ theology and the Catholic church considered as being the ‘Correct’ theology?

Can’t all Christians be considered as having the right theology even though there different, maybe God deliberately created/allowed many Christian denominations so as to include everyone and not just a few?

Can anyone explain this to me? Thank you.

As stated in various ways on this thread, the Catholic Church is the only church that can trace its origins to the apostles of Christ. All the others are traceable to Martin Luther or other founders after the Reformation.

Now consider this - assuming you believe in Sola Scriptura - all matters of faith and morals are found in the bible…

Yet their are thousands of Protestant denominations, who believe they can all be in communion with each other because they agree on “the essentials”. In other words, it does not matter that we have so many denominations in “Christ’s church”, if His church truly includes all denominations.

Where in the bible does it list the essential beliefs versus the non essential beliefs. Who decided what is essential?

A large part of your question has to do with origins and authority. We rely on apostolic succession as the continuous authority granted by Christ to Peter the Apostle. You can see evidence of this in the gospels as well as the Book of Acts, and throughout history. We don’t rely on Luther and Calvin or any others who came 1,200 years later.

I suggest reading the writings of Saint Ignatius of Antioch - the 3rd bishop of Antioch in the first century and direct student of the apostles. Acts 11 indicates that the disciples were first named Christians at Antioch.

 

[Miss_Primrose]

Thank you all for your comments, I found some of the answers very interesting, I have also recently found a book called The Protestant’s dilemma by a man called Devin Rose, that has also answered a lot of my questions. Thank you.

 

[Church_Militant]

Thank you all for your comments, I found some of the answers very interesting, I have also recently found a book called The Protestant’s dilemma by a man called Devin Rose, that has also answered a lot of my questions. Thank you.

I have that too and I think you’ll find it very helpful.

 

[Perplexity]

Christianty is a church which many different paths within it, the Catholic church, Protestantism in it’s many forms aswell as the Coptics, Chinese catholic, old catholic, Orthodox aswell as many more I probably have never heard off, so what makes the Catholic church the Right Church?

I have always thought of the church as being Universal, to include everyone, all Christians, why then are Protestants and others not connected to the catholic church officially seen as following a ‘false’ theology and the Catholic church considered as being the ‘Correct’ theology?

Can’t all Christians be considered as having the right theology even though there different, maybe God deliberately created/allowed many Christian denominations so as to include everyone and not just a few?

Can anyone explain this to me? Thank you.

Miss Primrose, there are fundamentally two different ways for a believer to look at Christianity. On the one hand, you might think that the denominations of Christianity are really like compartments in Noah’s ark: it doesn’t ultimately matter which one you belong to, just so long as you’re on the ark! This view is perhaps best known from C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. On the other hand, you might think that one denomination of Christianity in particular is really like Noah’s ark itself: then it does ultimately matter which denomination you belong to! This view is perhaps best known from Catholic theology.

The problem is that it’s harder than some would have you believe to discern between these views. Why? Because most people trying to figure this out are not expert historians, and so when they look into this issue, they run head first into the scores of conflicting historical narratives and find each propounded by extremely qualified scholars. Who is she to believe? From her perspective, it isn’t at all obvious which historians are more reliable than others, and each view will be biased toward “their” scholars. Take Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox historians. Both claim their respective church has the historical pedigree, both quote the exact same church fathers and councils etc. How does a layman know who to trust?

It seems to me that if your salvation depended on belonging to any particular denomination, then God would make it a heck of a lot more obvious to which denomination that was. Because he has not, I think that’s a powerful reason for a believer to take C.S. Lewis’ view.

 

[Abu]

Perplexity #26
It seems to me that if your salvation depended on belonging to any particular denomination, then God would make it a heck of a lot more obvious to which denomination that was. Because he has not, I think that’s a powerful reason for a believer to take C.S. Lewis’ view.

God has made it crystal clear through Jesus of Nazareth – His foundation of His Catholic Church on St Peter – post #15, His Resurrection, and His subsequent appearances.

Jesus of Nazareth is the only one who claimed to be God of many claimants – no other religious founder claimed to be God – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism – and His recorded miracles followed by His witnessed resurrection attest to that.

His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

The multitude of saints, the humanly inexplicable events at Fatima, recorded in disbelief but truthfully by journalists, the medically examined cures at Lourdes – miracles – all have to be doubted in the mad rush to evade reality.

You might look at that great convert John Henry Cardinal Newman: With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua). [Fr Dubay, *Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995, p 82-4].

If you think that you are the ultimate doubter, you might deign to contemplate the dawn of understanding of the world’s leading former atheist Anthony Flew:

In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism.
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm
Excerpts:
Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive.* One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe.* The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.* I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot beexplained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

That Intelligence we call God – a spiritual being who has redeemed us from the Fall and whose followers have built Western civilization.

Salvation is available to all, but will they make the effort to gain it even when offered the opportunity? The choice is there, but no pain, no gain.

In reality, he came to see a "growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe.*

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Matthew 16:18

 

[Perplexity]

Abu: You seem to be talking about a general case for Christianity, not for Catholicism, specifically – and we can discuss Christianity in general if you like. But, the problem I’m raising here is that most people who are already Christian and just want to figure out which form of Christianity is true face an insurmountable obstacle: scores upon scores of extremely qualified scholars disagree with one another over what the early church fathers taught and how to interpret the Bible. Catholics will of course recommend Catholic Biblical and historical scholars, Eastern Orthodox will recommend Eastern Orthodox Biblical and historical scholars, as will Protestants, etc. How is the non-expert supposed to know who to trust? These scholars are just as qualified as each other and cite the exact same sources.

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.

I think Catholic apologetics has a long way to go before it catches up with the questions that most Christians in 21st century pluralistic societies need to be answered.

 

[Abu]

Perplexity #29
I think Catholic apologetics has a long way to go before it catches up with the questions that most Christians in 21st century pluralistic societies need to be answered.

Dr Alexis Carrell is historically real.

Throughout much of his adult life Dr Alexis Carrel felt that Immanuel Kant had once and for all disposed of a rationally respectable belief in God, revelation, and – last but not least – miracles.

He went from being a skeptic of the visions and miracles reported at Lourdes to being a believer after experiencing a healing he could not explain. Alexis Carrel refused to discount a supernatural explanation and steadfastly reiterated his beliefs, For such an attitude toward Lourdes, Carrel was declared unwelcome in the medical establishment in free-thinking and anti-clerical Lyons. Their leaders had to eat humble pie upon Carrel’s return for a brief visit to France in 1912 with the halo of a Nobel Prize around his head. In a new edition by Real-View-Books, of *The Voyage to Lourdes *(1939) this realization is explained, with an introduction by Fr Stanley Jaki, winner of the Templeton Prize for 1987 for his work on science and religion, who was an honorary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/VOYLOUR.HTM

Thus, His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

So, the reality is that the multitude of saints, the humanly inexplicable events at Fatima, recorded in disbelief but truthfully by journalists, the medically examined cures at Lourdes – miracles – all have to be doubted in the mad rush to evade reality.

But, the Christ as God, cannot be denied.

 

[Perplexity]

;13914365:

Dr Alexis Carrell is historically real.

Throughout much of his adult life Dr Alexis Carrel felt that Immanuel Kant had once and for all disposed of a rationally respectable belief in God, revelation, and – last but not least – miracles.

He went from being a skeptic of the visions and miracles reported at Lourdes to being a believer after experiencing a healing he could not explain. Alexis Carrel refused to discount a supernatural explanation and steadfastly reiterated his beliefs, For such an attitude toward Lourdes, Carrel was declared unwelcome in the medical establishment in free-thinking and anti-clerical Lyons. Their leaders had to eat humble pie upon Carrel’s return for a brief visit to France in 1912 with the halo of a Nobel Prize around his head. In a new edition by Real-View-Books, of *The Voyage to Lourdes *(1939) this realization is explained, with an introduction by Fr Stanley Jaki, winner of the Templeton Prize for 1987 for his work on science and religion, who was an honorary member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
ewtn.com/library/MARY/VOYLOUR.HTM

Thus, His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

So, the reality is that the multitude of saints, the humanly inexplicable events at Fatima, recorded in disbelief but truthfully by journalists, the medically examined cures at Lourdes – miracles – all have to be doubted in the mad rush to evade reality.

But, the Christ as God, cannot be denied.

Okay Abu

 

[mattp0625]

Abu: You seem to be talking about a general case for Christianity, not for Catholicism, specifically – and we can discuss Christianity in general if you like. But, the problem I’m raising here is that most people who are already Christian and just want to figure out which form of Christianity is true face an insurmountable obstacle: scores upon scores of extremely qualified scholars disagree with one another over what the early church fathers taught and how to interpret the Bible. Catholics will of course recommend Catholic Biblical and historical scholars, Eastern Orthodox will recommend Eastern Orthodox Biblical and historical scholars, as will Protestants, etc. How is the non-expert supposed to know who to trust? These scholars are just as qualified as each other and cite the exact same sources.

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.

I think Catholic apologetics has a long way to go before it catches up with the questions that most Christians in 21st century pluralistic societies need to be answered.

With your thesis, one has to put forth the following:

Either:

1. The origins of Non Catholic Christianity are not traceable to Martin Luther and John Calvin, or
2. There is not a traceable line of popes which comprises apostolic succession.

One can establish the answer to these questions using multiple sources, including unbiased sources.

 

[mattp0625]

If you listen to most conversion stories, including Dr. David Anders or Scott Haun, as they studied more, they found they they were being misled historically or at least steered away from certain truths

 

[Perplexity]

With your thesis, one has to put forth the following:

Either:

1. The origins of Non Catholic Christianity are not traceable to Martin Luther and John Calvin, or
2. There is not a traceable line of popes which comprises apostolic succession.

One can establish the answer to these questions using multiple sources, including unbiased sources.

My thesis is that there is no consensus among those who are most qualified to figure out which denomination of Christianity is right. There is not even a majority opinion. There are just as many extremely qualified Catholic scholars as there are Orthodox and Protestant.

Because of this confusion, God would not make salvation contingent upon figuring this stuff out: such a condition would condemn the vast majority of mankind, and not through any failing on their part, since most lack the means to figure this out.

What this implies is that the denomination you belong to is not important for your salvation. This is directly contrary to those denominations which claim it is important for your salvation to belong to them, such as Catholic, Orthodox, or Jehovah’s Witnesses etc.

So before even looking at arguments for such denominations, we can know it is extremely unlikely that they are right. The default position should be the one that C.S. Lewis defended in Mere Christianity, wherein denominations are more like the compartments of Noah’s ark: it doesn’t matter which one you’re in, just as long as you’re on the ark.

According to this perspective, every denomination can be wrong in some respect or other since salvation obtains despite denomination. As such, Christians can continually reform their knowledge of God’s revelation, especially as they progress in sanctification.

 

[mattp0625]

My thesis is that there is no consensus among those who are most qualified to figure out which denomination of Christianity is right. There is not even a majority opinion. There are just as many extremely qualified Catholic scholars as there are Orthodox and Protestant.

Because of this confusion, God would not make salvation contingent upon figuring this stuff out: such a condition would condemn the vast majority of mankind, and not through any failing on their part, since most lack the means to figure this out.

What this implies is that the denomination you belong to is not important for your salvation. This is directly contrary to those denominations which claim it is important for your salvation to belong to them, such as Catholic, Orthodox, or Jehovah’s Witnesses etc.

So before even looking at arguments for such denominations, we can know it is extremely unlikely that they are right. The default position should be the one that C.S. Lewis defended in Mere Christianity, wherein denominations are more like the compartments of Noah’s ark: it doesn’t matter which one you’re in, just as long as you’re on the ark.

According to this perspective, every denomination can be wrong in some respect or other since salvation obtains despite denomination. As such, Christians can continually reform their knowledge of God’s revelation, especially as they progress in sanctification.

So majority rules? Not so, if one community has purposefully avoided the facts. Most converts attest to this in their stories.

Even some Protestants are honest enough to attest to the historical facts about the reformation

Dr Scott Haun approached the “leaders” of various Protestant communities about the origins of their doctrines and came up empty. The best they could do was trace them to was Martin Luther, who created his own church and doctrine.

 

[mattp0625]

Additionally, a larger quantity of independent authors does not make a majority

 

[Perplexity]

I should add that I’m not saying this because I’m a Protestant and therefore biased – I’m not even Christian. I’m just saying the most consistent Christian perspective is the Mere Christianity one.

 

[Perplexity]

So majority rules? Not so, if one community has purposefully avoided the facts. Most converts attest to this in their stories.

Even some Protestants are honest enough to attest to the historical facts about the reformation

Dr Scott Haun approached the “leaders” of various Protestant communities about the origins of their doctrines and came up empty. The best they could do was trace them to was Martin Luther, who created his own church and doctrine.

Most Christians are not experts in any of the fields relevant to figuring out which denomination is right. So they ought to defer to those who are best equipped to figure that out, not because these experts are infallible, but because they are in a better position to know of what they speak than non-experts. But, as I said, there’s no way for the non-expert to know which expert to trust: there’s not even a majority view to look for.

Every convert is going to say the same thing about their old religion: it’s deceptive, misinformed etc.

And as far as Protestant teaching being traceable to the reformers, if Mere Christianity is right – as I’ve argued it would be – then we should expect Christians to err in their understanding of revelation, so that reformation is inevitable. On this view, all interpretations of revelation are fallible – including the Catholic’s.

 

[mattp0625]

Most Christians are not experts in any of the fields relevant to figuring out which denomination is right. So they ought to defer to those who are best equipped to figure that out, not because these experts are infallible, but because they are in a better position to know of what they speak than non-experts. But, as I said, there’s no way for the non-expert to know which expert to trust: there’s not even a majority view to look for.

Every convert is going to say the same thing about their old religion: it’s deceptive, misinformed etc.

And as far as Protestant teaching being traceable to the reformers, if Mere Christianity is right – as I’ve argued it would be – then we should expect Christians to err in their understanding of revelation, so that reformation is inevitable. On this view, all interpretations of revelation are fallible – including the Catholic’s.

You’re assuming that the work of PhDs are still biased?
These people converted based on their studies. There are more of them. You can judge for yourself. They all say the same thing, even those that previously studied at Protestant universities.

I think you’re attracted to the relativism.