There is only one true church

[Deus vult]

If you believe what Christians have believed and have taught in all generations, then you're built upon the Apostles. But if you're particular faith..what you think is so important to say, is something that only began to be said in 500 AD or in 1000 AD or in 1500 AD or in 1959 AD..whatever you're in, as good as it might be, is inadequate and is something less than the church of Christ. It isn't Apostolic. There is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that church has been teaching the gospel and preaching the Christian faith for 2000 years. It is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is Orthodox, but not Jewish. It is Catholic, but not Roman. It is not non-denominational, it is pre-denominational. It has been believed, taught, preserved, defended, and died for. It is the Faith that has established the universe. Proclaiming the Truth since 34 AD. The Church began on the day of Pentecost after Christ's resurrection.

 

[Augustin56]

No one gave anyone the authority to found another Church apart from the one Christ founded and with which He identifies as one. Either we are obedient to Christ or we want to be our own Pope, appointed by ourselves.

Recall in Gen. 3:5, when the serpent (Satan) told Eve, "God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.” So many today want to be their own god, doing whatever they want to do rather than what God wants them to do.

 

[Deus vult]

No one gave anyone the authority to found another Church apart from the one Christ founded and with which He identifies as one. Either we are obedient to Christ or we want to be our own Pope, appointed by ourselves.

Recall in Gen. 3:5, when the serpent (Satan) told Eve, "God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know* good and evil.” So many today want to be their own god, doing whatever they want to do rather than what God wants them to do.

Which is why apostolic succession is important especially in this day and age with thousands of different denominations across the world. The true church all too often gets conflated with having to be the perfect church, that isn't the case. The true church is not perfect and we are thankful it's not because then there would be no place for us imperfect humans to be in it.

 

[Augustin56]

Which is why apostolic succession is important especially in this day and age with thousands of different denominations across the world. The true church all too often gets conflated with having to be the perfect church, that isn't the case. The true church is not perfect and we are thankful it's not because then there would be no place for us imperfect humans to be in it.

Good point. It boils down to authority. True authority is always given, not taken. And Christ clearly gave His authority to govern and sanctify to Peter and his successors, the Popes, and in a general way to the Apostles and their successors.

Jesus didn't give authority to anyoe to found a separate Church apart from the one He founded, and which is the only one that can trace itself back to the time of Jesus.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

There is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that church has been teaching the gospel and preaching the Christian faith for 2000 years.

The catholic church is spiritually bankrupt and has been teaching doctrines of demons ever since Paul left planet earth.

This is evident by all the doctrines they espouse that are not taught by Jesus and His Apostles.

I hope you get delivered from all the false doctrine before it's too late.

 

[Augustin56]

The catholic church is spiritually bankrupt and has been teaching doctrines of demons ever since Paul left planet earth.

This is evident by all the doctrines they espouse that are not taught by Jesus and His Apostles.

I hope you get delivered from all the false doctrine before it's too late.

Dan, not quite. The Catholic Church alone has the fullness of Christ's teaching. It alone can trace its roots directly back to Christ.

Protestantism didn't come along until the 16th century, started by rogue Catholics who rejected parts of the faith.

You have no basis to judge what the Catholic Church teaches other than your own personal interpretation of things, or the personal interpretation of some other mere human being without Divine authority.

See 2 Peter 1:20-21, that says, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."

And, yet, personal interpretation of Scipture is one of the founding principles of Protestantism. That's why there are literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations (and counting). Everyone is his/her own Pope, interpreting Scripture personally.

Unless, of course, you're claiming that Jesus, Himself, came back and informed you that what the Catholic Church is teaching is wrong? Or an angel?

 

[Dan Clarkston]

The catholic church alone has the fullness of Christ's teaching

You win today's . . . .

There's lots of stuff they teach that isn't even close to being biblical as in they do stuff Jesus and His Apostles never taught.

Those following unbiblical catholic doctrine go south when they croak.

You have no basis to judge what the catholic church teaches

I simply compared what God's Word teaches with what the catholic so called "church" teaches and it's easy to see the Lord is right and the catholics are wrong.

Some folk have to learn the hard way apparently, so enjoy!

 

[Augustin56]

You win today's . . . . View attachment 48086

There's lots of stuff they teach that isn't even close to being biblical as in they do stuff Jesus and His Apostles never taught.

Those following unbiblical catholic doctrine go south when they croak.




I simply compared what God's Word teaches with what the catholic so called "church" teaches and it's easy to see the Lord is right and the catholics are wrong.

Some folk have to learn the hard way apparently, so enjoy!
View attachment 48087

Correction: You said, "I simply compared what God's Word..." If you're honest, what you should have said is, "I simply compared what I PERSONALLY INTERPRET God's Word to teach..." BIG difference.

The Catholic Church has never once changed a teaching given it by Christ. Not once. Not ever. But we now have literally tens of thousands of man-made doctrinally contradicting Protestant denominations (and counting) based on some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture which is contrary to St. Peter's warning in 2 Peter 1:20-21. Protestants mistakenly think that they each have greater spiritual insight than the Apostles, disciples, Apostolic Fathers, the Church, and the Magiesterium because they have a Bible that the Church wrote, compiled, and gave to them. How looney toons can it get?!

There is nothing that the Catholic Church teaches that opposes anything in the Bible, when the Bible is correctly and authoritatively interpreted. Not one thing.

Aside from that, I doubt you really know very much about what the Catholic Church actually teaches or the history of Christianity. Like most Protestants, you've probably been fed all the common, old, tired anti-Catholic lies.

In general, I have observed that when a Catholic leaves the Church, they do so because they never really knew what it taught. When Protestants, especially a lot of highly educated theologians and pastors, convert to Cathollicism, they do so because they did a deeper dive into the Bible, history, the Early Church Fathers, etc. I've seen several who started out to prove the Catholic Church wrong, but at every turn, ended up being enlightened by Scripture, etc., as to what Christ actually taught. Most Catholics I know who have left the Church are bitter anti-Catholics. Most Protestants I know who have converted to Catholicism are happy and grateful.

Here's a link to many conversion stories (about 133 pages), told by those converting to Catholicism from almost every conceivable denomination. Maybe there are some from yours.

Conversion Stories Archives - The Coming Home Network

Here are some examples:

Former Evangelical Minister: Justin Hibbard - Former Evangelical Minister - The Coming Home Network

Former Church of Christ Minister: Lawain McNeil - Former Church of Christ minister - The Coming Home Network

Former Presbyterian Minister: A Presbyterian Minister's Journey to Catholicism - Dean Waldt - The Coming Home Network

 

[amadeus]

...The Catholic Church alone has the fullness of Christ's teaching.

And who is to measure that fullness? Some man or men? Consider what Apostle Paul meant when he penned these words:

1co 13:12

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Did he not mean that even he, apostle which we agree him to be, still fell short of that fullness?

He mentioned there also a promise in the "then face to face". But... when and how is that face to face to be encountered and by whom?

It alone can trace its roots directly back to Christ.

The "it" is the church of which you speak, but I would say that men are able to connect to Christ now. Why should anyone need to be looking back? Why should we not be seeking His face here and now? Did Jesus not say these words?

Mt 7:7	Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Mt 7:8	For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

"I simply compared what I PERSONALLY INTERPRET God's Word to teach..." BIG difference.

See, that's your problem... you don't have the Holy Ghost to lead and guide you in to all the Truth as Jesus promised.

Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

Funny how catholic doctrine is not found in scripture.

If you were being led by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ you wouldn't be committing idolatry by worshiping Mary among other heresies taught by the catholic cult.

When the future gets here you gonna be shocked to find yoselfs going south instead of north... unless you repent and come out of the catholic cult which is unlikely seeing you have already been turned over to a reprobate mind.

 

[PS95]

See 2 Peter 1:20-21, that says, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."

And, yet, personal interpretation of Scipture is one of the founding principles of Protestantism. That's why there are literally tens of thousands of man-made doctrinally contradicting denominations (and counting). Everyone is his/her own Pope, interpreting Scripture personally.

Hi Augustin,
"no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation"-
I agree and yet it's done all of the time. Especially with book of Revelation.
Makes me crazy. But dont you think that refers to just prophecies and not instruction?

 

[Dan Clarkston]

The catholiks are the one doing all the private interpretation since their doctrines aren't even in the Bible!

 

[Augustin56]

See, that's your problem... you don't have the Holy Ghost to lead and guide you in to all the Truth as Jesus promised.

Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

Funny how catholic doctrine is not found in scripture.

If you were being led by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ you wouldn't be committing idolatry by worshiping Mary among other heresies taught by the catholic cult.

When the future gets here you gonna be shocked to find yoselfs going south instead of north... unless you repent and come out of the catholic cult which is unlikely seeing you have already been turned over to a reprobate mind.

I have the Church, which is lead and protected by the Holy Spirit. I don't have to worry about reinventing the theological wheel from scratch like you guys. I can rely on the Church to tell me what has been taught from the beginning, 2000 years ago. Not something made up by mere humans within the last 500 years.

Protestantism? Let's see. An example. The Baptists claim that infant Baptism is invalid. The Lutherans and Anglicans claim it is valid. All read the same Bible and claim to be led by the same Holy Spirit, but come up with different and contradictory doctrines. The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of confusion or contradiction, however.

Multiply this same thing by 10's of 1000's of man-made, contradictory denominations that make up Protestantism. All claiming to be led in their personal interpretation of Scripture by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Stumpmaster]

It is Catholic, but not Roman.

Amen. Catholic but Not Roman, or Anglo-Catholic as Anglicans are sometimes described.

Sent by you:​

Meaning and etymology of catholic


Certainly! The term “catholic” has a rich history, and its roots stretch back to ancient times. Let’s explore its origins:

• Etymology: The word “catholic” traces its lineage to the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), which means “universal” or “general”. It’s a harmonious blend of two Greek components:
  • κατά (kata): Meaning “about” or “according to”.
  • ὅλος (holos): Signifying “whole” or "complete"12.
• Early Usage:
  • Originally, “catholic” described the early Christian Church, emphasizing its belief in the universal message of Jesus Christ.
  • Over time, the term became closely associated with the Roman Catholic Church and the concept of catholicity—a faith that transcends boundaries and embraces all believers3.

So, whether you envision ancient liturgies or the vastness of faith, “catholic” remains a word that echoes through time. ️

 

[Augustin56]

Hi Augustin,
"no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation"-
I agree and yet it's done all of the time. Especially with book of Revelation.
Makes me crazy. But dont you think that refers to just prophecies and not instruction?

Keep in mind who the prophets were. They were the people God chose to speak for Him and convey instructions to His people, the Jews.

Same as Scripture. Scripture is one of the two main methods of conveying the Word of God. Strictly speaking, the Word of God is not a book. It is a Person. Namely, Jesus Christ. See the beginning of the Gospel of John. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Clearly, John is referring to Jesus Christ here.

So, yes, the Bible is one of the two main methods of spreading the Word of God, like the prophets. The other is Oral Tradition (oral teaching), as St. Paul refers to in 2 Thes. 2:15.

I think we need only look at the fruits of personal interpretation to see the harm it has done to souls. We now have literally tens of thousands of differing, contradictory denominations in Protestantism, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, reading the same Bible, yet coming up with different and contradictory interpretations. That cannot possibly be the grounding for the fullness of truth.

I would refer to 1 Tim 3:15, where St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and bulwark of truth." Nowhere does it say the individual, personally interpreting a Bible is anything of the sort. And for good reason.

One more thing to think about. Historically, it has only been in the last 100 years, give or take, that mankind as a whole has had much interest in universal literacy. The vast, vast majority of humanity for the vast majority of the time Christianity has existed, were completely illiterate. A Bible-reading, self-interpreting approach would have effectively excluded the vast majority of humanity! That couldn't possibly have been Christ's intent, I don't think.

Your thoughts...?

 

[Augustin56]

Amen. Catholic but Not Roman, or Anglo-Catholic as Anglicans are sometimes described.

Sent by you:​

Meaning and etymology of catholic


Certainly! The term “catholic” has a rich history, and its roots stretch back to ancient times. Let’s explore its origins:

• Etymology: The word “catholic” traces its lineage to the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), which means “universal” or “general”. It’s a harmonious blend of two Greek components:
  • κατά (kata): Meaning “about” or “according to”.
  • ὅλος (holos): Signifying “whole” or "complete"12.
• Early Usage:
  • Originally, “catholic” described the early Christian Church, emphasizing its belief in the universal message of Jesus Christ.
  • Over time, the term became closely associated with the Roman Catholic Church and the concept of catholicity—a faith that transcends boundaries and embraces all believers3.

So, whether you envision ancient liturgies or the vastness of faith, “catholic” remains a word that echoes through time. ️

FYI, the official name of the Catholic Church isn't the "Roman Catholic Church" but just the "Catholic Church." The Roman part was added as a pejorative by the Anglicans way late in the game, as a sort of attempt at distinguishing between the English Catholic Church, founded by Henry VIIIth so he could divorce and remarry, and the original, authentic Catholic Church headquartered in Rome. There has been but one Church that has existed since the time of Christ, and that is the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about.

It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

 

[Augustin56]

And who is to measure that fullness? Some man or men? Consider what Apostle Paul meant when he penned these words:

1co 13:12

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Did he not mean that even he, apostle which we agree him to be, still fell short of that fullness?

He mentioned there also a promise in the "then face to face". But... when and how is that face to face to be encountered and by whom?


The "it" is the church of which you speak, but I would say that men are able to connect to Christ now. Why should anyone need to be looking back? Why should we not be seeking His face here and now? Did Jesus not say these words?

Mt 7:7	Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Mt 7:8	For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

amadeus, keep in mind that it was the Catholic Church that wrote the New Testment, and in the late 4th century decided that it was worthy of being called Scripture. The Catholic Church did this with the authority given it by Christ. Authority is given, not taken. Christ promised, in Matt. 16:18, that the "gates of hell" would never prevail over His Church. Therefore, if the Catholic Church ever declared a doctrine that was in error, then Christ would have broken His promise and the gates of hell would certainly have prevailed over His Church. That hasn't happened.

It is the Church that speaks for Christ with His authority. See John 20:21 that says, "Jesus said to them again,l “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." Note the bold printed part. How did the Father send Jesus? With ALL heavenly authority! So, He likewise sends the Apostles. And the Apostle did likewise to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise down through the centuries till today. Authority is given, not taken.

Protestantism crawls with error after error after error. That's why there are tens of thousands of doctrinally differing, disagreeing, contradicting, man-made denominations today. That cannot possibly be the grounding for the fullness of truth that Christ brought to mankind, can it?

 

[RedFan]

And Christ clearly gave His authority to govern and sanctify to Peter and his successors, the Popes, and in a general way to the Apostles and their successors.

Well, I think you may have overstated papal authority and understated episcopal authority a bit. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that papal authority differs from general episcopal authority only insofar as it is invoked to establish union in the face of doctrinal differences among bishops -- a preeminent authority, if you will, for purposes of quelling disunity.

 

[Augustin56]

Well, I think you may have overstated papal authority and understated episcopal authority a bit. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that papal authority differs from general episcopal authority only insofar as it is invoked to establish union in the face of doctrinal differences among bishops -- a preeminent authority, if you will, for purposes of quelling disunity.

Well, I think you make a good point. The Pope isn't a dictator, but more like a big brother or friendly supervisor, although he has ultimate authority within the Church. He can fire a bishop (did so recently) from a position (although the individual remains a bishop forever, just like priests who have their faculties removed). From a practical point, imagine you were CEO of a large corporation of 1.4 billion employees. But, you had responsibility for direct supervision of 5000 department heads, spread all over the globe! It would be impossible to know everything going on or to micromanage in that situation. So, the best you can do is have the visit you every so often and update you as to what's going on in their department.

 

[Aunty Jane]

There is nothing that the Catholic Church teaches that opposes anything in the Bible, when the Bible is correctly and authoritatively interpreted. Not one thing.

Can we have some scriptural evidence for that statement, please. “Correctly and authoritatively interpreted” can hide a multitude of sins.

Can you give us clear scriptural to support the fact that….

1) Jesus is other than “the son of God”, which he clearly identified himself to be. (John 10:31-36)
2) That Mary is ever called “the mother of God” or given titles that were formerly attached to pagan mother goddesses. (“our lady”, “queen of heaven”)
3) That purgatory exists, when humans are never said to enter such a place. (Eccl 9:5, 10) The dead are dead…awaiting a resurrection….the place from which Christ calls all the dead is “hades” or the common grave….a place where we all end up.
4) That a burning hell awaits the wicked.…there is no immortal soul to go anywhere. The dead cannot suffer.
5) That Christianity was to be governed by a Pope.….when he carries the pagan Roman title of “Pontifex Maximus”….Peter was never appointed to such a position. He was given responsibilities, not an office that placed him above his fellow apostles.
6) That titles were ever given to those who served in the congregation as teachers and spiritual guides.…and that these were to be distinguished by a certain manner of dress and the wearing of specific colors. (Matt 23:9-10) Was Jesus identified by what he wore? He looked like any other Jew, so Judas had to identify him with a kiss.
6) That there was ever an earthly priesthood in original Christianity. Priesthood was to be given only to the elect (the chosen ones) and only after their resurrection to heaven upon Christ’s return. (Rev 20:6; 1 Thess 4:13-17)
7) That a sinful human has authority to absolve anyone else from their sins by repeating words by rote as penance. (Matt 6:7-8)
8) That there was ritual and liturgy centered around the presence of religious images which God forbade the making of to his people. (Exodus 20:4-5)
9) That there is more than one mediator, so that praying to Mary and the saints is absolure disrespect and disobedience to the only mediator whom God appointed and recognizes. (1 Tim 2:5-6)

In general, I have observed that when a Catholic leaves the Church, they do so because they never really knew what it taught.

In my own personal experience, Catholic people have always been treated like mushrooms….kept in the dark and fed manure. It is only when they study the Bible for themselves, that they find out that all those things mentioned above are the manure, so that they need to wash themselves clean of all of that, and learn what the Bible really says about them.

As far as “church history” goes…..well, that speaks for itself. No genuine Christian can have blood on their hands. (Isa 1:15) God did not ever sanction a Christian’s involvement in warfare, and “the church” has routinely, throughout its history, been immersed in the politics of their nations, currying “friendship with the world” (James 4:4) and forgetting most of what Jesus taught…’to love their enemies and to pray for them‘. (Matt 5:43-44) How could people be led into such unchristian conduct, if they ever knew what it was in the first place? If “the church” had followed Christ’s teachings, the Crusades could never have happened.…and every spiller of innocent blood since, will be held to account.

How could their worship become so corrupted that what they practice is not found in the Bible at all…..
Who told them that it was? Christ and his apostles foretold that this apostasy would take place and that “wheat and weeds” would grow together in the world…..the church pretends that it never happened.