Why is the Catholic church the only true church?

[JM3]

So I was interested to know what made the Catholic Church right? over all other types of Christianity.

That would be Peter. Jesus built His Church on Peter and gave him the keys to the kingdom. There are 23 Churches in the Catholic Church, all under Peter’s jurisdiction.

 

[Perplexity]

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.

I totally understand. Of those churches that claim to succeed the apostles, I think the Catholic Church is particularly good at presenting itself in a certain way, giving the impression that it’s legit. Ya know, when a small group of people dress up in togas and go through rites that they’ve made, it strikes us as playing dress up: you can’t just make stuff up and know it’s having any effect. But, there’s nothing weird about the Catholic Church’s clerical garbs etc. And for a lot of folks, research into history and Scripture confirm this impression. It could happen for you, I suppose time will tell. Best of luck on your journey though, I hope you find the answers you’re looking for!

 

[mattp0625]

I totally understand. Of those churches that claim to succeed the apostles, I think the Catholic Church is particularly good at presenting itself in a certain way, giving the impression that it’s legit. Ya know, when a small group of people dress up in togas and go through rites that they’ve made, it strikes us as playing dress up: you can’t just make stuff up and know it’s having any effect. But, there’s nothing weird about the Catholic Church’s clerical garbs etc. And for a lot of folks, research into history and Scripture confirm this impression. It could happen for you, I suppose time will tell. Best of luck on your journey though, I hope you find the answers you’re looking for!

According to someone’s opinions …

CS Lewis has all the answers? No, while useful, he wasn’t appointed by anyone and never met Christ.

 

[Perplexity]

According to someone’s opinions …

That thinks CS Lewis has all the answers …

No I think Lewis was almost entirely wrong about theology, I’m Pagan after all. But, as I’ve said, I think his ideas about ecclesiology are the most consistent. I’d subscribe to them anyway if I were Christian.

 

[mattp0625]

No I think Lewis was almost entirely wrong about theology, I’m Pagan after all. But, as I’ve said, I think his ideas about ecclesiology are the most consistent. I’d subscribe to them anyway if I were Christian.

Read Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Tertullian and you’ll have answers

That is, unless you can’t accept them as early realities - aka within a generation of the apostles of Christ or direct students thereof.

 

[Perplexity]

Read Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Tertullian and you’ll have answers

That is, unless you can’t accept them as early realities - aka within a generation of the apostles of Christ or direct students thereof.

I don’t think anyone aware of the complexity and delicacy of patristics would make such cavalier recommendations.

 

[mattp0625]

I don’t think anyone aware of the complexity and delicacy of patristics would make such cavalier recommendations.

It’s not terribly complex reading, unless you’re trying to protest. Then, you can question anything you like.

Ignatius gets to the point in a clear manner.

 

[Nicene]

I don’t think anyone aware of the complexity and delicacy of patristics would make such cavalier recommendations.

Why not? You’ve said you view scripture and Christianity through the lens of C.S Lewis, while we view scripture and Christianity through the lens of the church fathers.

Do you also view the church fathers through the lens of Lewis? It’s actually a legitimate question.

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[Perplexity]

Why not? You’ve said you view scripture and Christianity through the lens of C.S Lewis, while we view scripture and Christianity through the lens of the church fathers.

Do you also view the church fathers through the lens of Lewis? It’s actually a legitimate question.

Peace and God bless
Nicene

mattp0625 has pointed to a couple of patristic teachings, but he hasn’t actually shown that these teachings are the seeds that developed into the fleshed out Catholic doctrines of today.

The problem is that one cannot determine what became of certain teachings just by looking at the teachings themselves: one must follow these teachings through the ages to see what became of them. For example, some fathers speak about the “real presence” of Jesus in the Eucharist. But, you can’t determine, just by looking at this teaching, that it developed into what is now called ‘transubstantiation’, rather than, say, what is now called ‘consubstantiation’. Rather, you have to trace this teaching down through the ages and follow it until you reach one or the other.

Accurately mapping out the historical development of patristic teachings requires extensive knowledge of first-hand sources, the original languages in which they were written, and the system of checks and balances afforded by peer-review. History is a science, and can’t be ‘intuited’ or unraveled a priori. It requires years of gathering data, formulating theories, and surrendering them to the exacting criticisms of the community of experts. The Catholic narrative of history is certainly not obvious, and is just one of many narratives competing to explain our data.

 

[Nicene]

You should clarify, “not obvious” to you. They do in fact say it is the actual body and blood of Christ. With regard to con vs trams, that development came later with regard to his divinity and physicality. Something C. S. Lewis struggled with. So it is safe to say you view the church fathers also through his lens.

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Just to clarify what you are saying, given your last paragraph is that whatever modern concensus projects onto the church fathers that is what they meant instead of taking them at their word. Unfortunately that science changes over time, tomarrow that consensus will be different, essentially relativism.

Who to believe, the fathers of the moderns?

Peace and God bless
Nicene

 

[Perplexity]

You should clarify, “not obvious” to you. They do in fact say it is the actual body and blood of Christ. With regard to con vs trams, that development came later with regard to his divinity and physicality. Something C. S. Lewis struggled with. So it is safe to say you view the church fathers also through his lens.

Just to clarify what you are saying, given your last paragraph is that whatever modern concensus projects onto the church fathers that is what they meant instead of taking them at their word. Unfortunately that science changes over time, tomarrow that consensus will be different, essentially relativism.

Who to believe, the fathers of the moderns?

Where did you get that I “view the church fathers” through the lens of C.S. Lewis, or that I think “whatever [the] modern consensus projects onto the church fathers” is “what they meant instead of taking them at their word”? I certainly have said anything like that. And why did a standard description of history as a science provoke you to call it ‘relativism’? It seems to me that, in the interest of defending your faith, you want to find problems in what I say, no matter what I do in fact say. There’s much that I could respond to – as I think there are interesting issues raised as well as fallacies and factually incorrect statements in what you say – but I guess I don’t see the point. This goes back to the detrimental effects that apologetics have on the mind: it exalts critical thinking to the exclusion of all other cognitive skills, like problem-solving and creative thinking, witling debate down to nothing more than attempts to win arguments.

 

[mattp0625]

For the OP

I think you would get a lot out of the called to communion program, especially in certain areas where Dr David Anders discusses the origins and doctrines of Protestantism and compares it to Catholicism.

I posted a few links to it on YouTube below

youtu.be/fYXEr9ghxiI

youtu.be/3zv0kiE9aE4

 

[mattp0625]

One more

youtu.be/OvF9NgeCmwA