Discussion: Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church the only true Christian church?

probably so. i am entertaining and well spoken.

however, the magic wizard hats are only in reference to popes and cardinals and such. and also jews and their dumbass yarmulkes. i think jews are stupid too, but i have to more careful saying it because they are higher on the politically protected list.

i am sure if you search my post history, you could find some witty and accurate quotables that apply broadly to all believers.

 

i have some questions very similar to yours:

1. which tv psychic is more accurate when "crossing over"?
2. what size voodoo dolls are most effective?
3. could harry potter beat dumbledore in his prime?
4. exactly how many virgins will i get if i muder thousands of americans?

 

Would you put up a building, draw a salary and "speak" to 200 people if you had to pay taxes?

 

Sorry to chime in so late.

I consider myself a devout Catholic. I am not one who keeps my faith inside the walls of the church because the Church is a living breathig body.

To answer your initial question. Yes the Catholic Church is the one true Church. It is the one promissed to us by Christ. It is the one that is set on a hill and the fires of Hell will never prevail against it.

As the Church teaches, there is no salvation outside the Church. Very few understand what that means. I was very turned off when I first heard the Church could teach such a thing, but gaining an understanding of that statement has helprd my faith grow by leaps and bounds. It does not mean that only Roman Catholics or for that matter only Christians can be saved. What it does mean that anyone is saved it is because of the salvation that Christ mediated through his church. Only those who know that Catholism is true and still choose to reject it and thus reject God's grace are in grave danger of damnation.

I expect there are many Baptists, Moslems, Buddhists, and Mormons in heaven. They were still saved through Christ and the Catholic Church though.

The notion that the Bible is the sole rule of faith to me is very very silly. The Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura are turning their backs on to the beuty and understanding that comes from Sacred Tradition.

Why do I think this is silly:

The Chuch existed long before the Bible. The cannon wasn't finalized untill the 3rd century. The founding of the Church happens at the last supper.

The Bible teaches us that scripture is proffittable for teaching. It does not make the claim to be suffiecient.

In fact in multiple verses the Bible tells us their is alot more to this faith of ours than what is in its pages.

John wrote in his Gospel that Christ did so many things all the volumes in the world coudn't contain them.

Paul wrote that the Thesolonians were blessed for holding fast to the traditions they were taught through word of mouth or in a letter.

And lastly where was this sola scriptura church before Martin Luthor. Are we to belive there was no orthodox Christianity before the Reformation.

I've rambled enough.

 

Tiger Rag, while I commend you on the topic and I agree with you on several points I can't help but point out that this forum isn't really a good place to discuss these matters. That's why your running into the "interference" from Martin and some others. They are not the type to stay out of debates.....I actually spent several days debating whether Jesus existed or not with these same characters. Looking back on it, it was a complete waste of my time and their's. And, for the record, Martin, I appreciate your personality and fondness for debate-a lot of times I feel the same way.....so nothing personal against you whatsoever. My point is only that these forums function well for certain topics but I've come to the point where dinner is being served and must abandon my post.....the little woman wins this one everytime :yelwink2: :yelwink2:

 

not me, i am not a historian and continually remind you peeps that i neither know nor care if jesus existed. in fact i dont recall anyone ever denying jesus existed. i believe red argued that is was not a historical certainty, which i agree with. i think i can speak for red when i say that neither of deny jesus existed.

i actually think the real issue there is whether he was the messiah or not, and that is matter of faith, not history.

 

Well, as a Catholic I do not feel my religion is the be all end all of religions. While it is documented fact that the majority of Christian religions direved from Catholicism, you need to look at exactly why these religions came about, and why these are still issues haunting the Catholic church today.

Other religions severed from the Catholic church for differences in belief. The church still has this issue today when it comes to it's mega conservative stance on birth control, homosexuality, and women's roles in the church. What the church is failing to recognize (or refusing to) is that modern times call for more lenient doctrines in the publics interests. By rejecting birth control, the catholic church is in effect endorsing the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies. Their rebuttal is well, don't have sex unless you want to procreate.......not in today's age of sex on tv and porn in your gas stations and on pay per view.

The church strongly opposes homosexuality, yet it protects priest who molest children while hiding behind the collar. That is a double standard in my opinion, and the church needs to do better in that area or risk losing a lot of its members. It is also time to recognize women in the church. You rarely see female alter servers, and the church is strongly against women as deacons and priest......it is a new millenium and women are a force, time to deal with it.

That being said, there are biggots and heathans in every religion...I went to a baptist school and saw many "true baptists" getting drunk often, going to strip clubs, and dancing like circus bears. I myself strongly believe in birth control which is in direct defiance of Catholic doctrine.

so, to answer your question, that is what i have. as an open minded person, i see the validity in the arguements of martin and the like regarding the relevance and facts of the Bible....and back that by asking why do we have to have several different versions of THE Bible? Why not just one, as it is supposed to be THE word of the Lord?

and, martin, i think HP kicks Dumbledor's ass anyday of the week.

 

You are abosolutely wrong here. It is not the job of the Chirch to conform to society. The Church, since its inception, has stood in defiance of society. And that is what Christ designed it to do when society lives in error, as ours does. John Paul II once said that moral truth cannot be decided by democracy.

You allude to reletvism. Bedidcit XVI is absolutist. He will not change any Church teachings on matters and faith and morals because what the Church teaches is true. It was true 2000 years ago and will be true 2000 years from now.

The role of women in the Church is based on Christs ordination of men. No where in the Bible or in the writings of the Church Fathers is there mention of women acting as priests. Many argue that Christ did not ordain women because of the times in which he lived, but that does not flow with the teachings of Jesus which were by and large in opposition to popular thinking of the time. If he want women priests he would have ordained them. He didn't, and the Church never will.

The notion that rejecting birth control leads to spread of disease is just absurd. The birth control pill will not protect against disease. Contraceptives like condoms have also proven ineffective in the third world. In contrast Calcutta has one of the lowest std and pregancy rates in the third world. What is the difference? Well Mother Theresa and the nuns of her convent taught abstinance and Natural Family Planning.


The Church absolutely must stand by its doctrines in todays culture of death that promotes contraception and abortion.

The Church does not strongly oppose homsexuality. All people are creations of God and are to be loved and treated with tollerance. This does not mean I have to accept or condone their behavior. The fact is gays cannot be married. Sex out of wedlock be it with a woman or a man is sinful. I do not envy the position the homosexual is in, but they are called to the same abstinance and chastity as a singel straight person. This is not biggotry from the Church it is respect for the Natural Law.

The sex abuse scandal was indeed horrible, but the sins of the extreme few Bishops and priests do not reflect on the teaching authority of the Church. Peter was rebuked by St. Paul for the hypocricy of teaching that Gentiles could be saved and were clean, but then refusing to dine with them as unclean. Here Peter was teaching truth but living sin. Unfortunately the Church found itself in that position also. Hopefully the steps taken will lead to a Church that does not passively allow suck attrocities.

 

Your comment about how the church should not change (conform) to reflect modern times and society is exactly the reason why the Catholic church is alienating so many of its own members, not just other religions. We do not live in the 1st century anymore, things have changed, and the church should recognize that and change accordingly, or risk becoming obsolete all together. I think the drop in church attendance and money donated to the church is a big indicator of this being correct.

Benedict 16 is a hand picked Cardinal of John Paul II, so he will naturally be mega conservative on important issues facing the church and most likely continue to alienate catholics around the world. He was known as Cardinal NO in the Vatican, and he strongly opposes homosexuality. The fact that you are so intelligent on your religion (this is not a shot at you, because your response was great), but niave to the catholic church's complete disapproval of gays is laughable. I invite you to read more about our new pontiff and his views on this issue.

 

I'd just like to add that Tigerandrew is dead on with this one, If you'd study some you'd see his point here is valid. the Mosiac law is not observed by Christians, or shouldn't be. There are many more verses that can be cited to prove this, but he gave a good one.

to answer the question:

Acts 11:26 (King James Version)

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

the first christians were originally jews, it was organized and had nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

Later the emperor Constantine was converted to CHRISTAINITY, not Catholisim and the early church was "authorized" instead of persecuted, as it had been previosuly.
At that time the word "Pope", Papacy, and Catholicism did not exist, they were simply called Christians. This fact is well documented in Roman secular history.

SO the answer to your question is easily answered, no matter if you look at it from a secular point of view, or biblical. It's history. The catholic church was not the first form of Christanity. Peter and Paul were Christians converted Jews. Even if you go back to the original Arabic writings, it verifys this. As well as the hisorical accounts of the Roman/Jewish historian Joesephus.

This may sound over simplified but the first Christians were...well Christians, just as the book of Acts says.
Catholics? Protestants? neither.

There are religious groups around the world that are not Protestant ( originally a split as a result of Martin Luther's 20 points )
or Catholic.
These would be those groups that proclaim a reformation of the original Christians, ie the disciples and the early church. The belief is that if you are Christian, you are just that Christian.... anotherwords.....the sign on the door means nothing. The yardstick used is the Bible.

It can be argued that the "name tag" on the door does not exclude one from Christainity, it's what is in the heart that would exclude a soul from passing through the pearly gates so to speak.

I have nothing agaisnt Catholics, Protestants, Jews or any form of organized religion. I do have some serious doubts about the teachings of Islam though.

I feel a person's beliefs are a personal thing between him/her and his maker. I do enjoy engaging in these sort of debates though. I try my best to be a good Christian, as I am sure most do. Some just do a better job than others, I thank God for Grace where I fall short.


Have a great day.