Is there one true Christian church?

Domino

Pigeon
A lot of words to say, "The Catholic Church is the one true church because the Catholic Church says so."

Hint: that does not make it so.

Give a closer reading to your Bible, the actual inspired Word of God, rather than the traditions of men. spouting this nonsense sound literally indistinguishable from the Pharisees Christ repeatedly rebuked, who clung to their religious traditions (the teaching of men) rather than those of the scripture (the teaching of God).
“Tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” not “and if he will not read his Bible and decide for himself, let him be to thee as the heathen”. Jesus Christ established His Church (not churches) as one single visible society which, by the divine assistance of the Holy Ghost, is enabled to TEACH, to SANCTIFY, and to RULE the faithful in His name until the end of time, preserving her from all error in its teaching. Thus He commissioned His Church:
“Going therefore, TEACH ye all nations, baptizing them, etc. TEACHING them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you..” Notice He didn’t say:
“Go therefore, publish ye Bibles an distribute them to individuals in all nations, telling them to read and privately interpret for themselves what I have commanded you”.

Christ founded a Church, The Church is the rule of faith. If the Bible (according to one’s own individual interpretation, of course) were supposed to be our rule of faith, wouldn’t Christ have founded a printing press instead of a Church? (((Protestantism))) is nothing if not a hodgepodge of the traditions of mere men. The passage doesn’t pertain us, whose divine traditions derive from the apostles and Christ Himself.
 
Last edited:

TheMost

Robin
There are various scriptural references to God as a polygamist. In the book of Revelation, Jesus had 7 churches, not one. I think the modern doctrine of monogamy is tied in somehow to this "one true church" talk. When the New Testament says the Church can (and should) judge you in various matters, it makes most sense to understand that has your local church body, which is one church among God's many churches.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
Interpreting scripture without the exegesis of 2,000 years of unchanging tradition is not something I feel confident I can do.

When I see people arguing over scripture, I want to ask: "Can you speak Greek, Latin, and Hebrew?", "Do you feel confident that the translation that you are quoting when arguing is satisfactory?" "Are you 100% you have the analysis correct?" "How many perspectives have you gathered about that passage that agree with you?"

I totally get that's it's good to be suspicious of experts in the modern age, most modern scientists are partisan hacks and their competence is doubtful in many fields. (#ReplicationCrisis)

It's a little different with the Catholic Church. 2,000 years of longevity counts for something. The faith has not changed in that time span (Vatican II is a different religion so doesn't count).

So I rely on Tradition and Faith in the Catechisms and writings of the numerous brilliant Church Doctors over the centuries to provide clarity. I'm the sort of person who likes to get many perspectives on the same thing. So for instance on one Bible passage, I'd like to read what all the Church Doctors say to then feel confident that I really know what it's about. Even then, I can't read the original Latin so I have to trust the Catholic Church on faith, and I do.

I'm still reading everyday and understanding the scripture I gather must be a life-long endeavor. But it's the Catholic Church that has A) put the Bible together that we're arguing about and B) kept the consistent faith.

If you disagree with that, tell me where the Catholic Church has changed doctrine (don't bring up Vatican II, that's a heretical council).
 

Joe316

Robin
Interpreting scripture without the exegesis of 2,000 years of unchanging tradition is not something I feel confident I can do.

That's where the Holy Spirit helps.

When I see people arguing over scripture, I want to ask: "Can you speak Greek, Latin, and Hebrew?", "Do you feel confident that the translation that you are quoting when arguing is satisfactory?" "Are you 100% you have the analysis correct?" "How many perspectives have you gathered about that passage that agree with you?"

If you're an unbeliever strictly treating the Bible as written record, then that's what you have to worried about. If you are a believer treating is as God's Word, then you can bring anything to Him in prayer and He is going to help.
 

DanielH

Pelican
If you disagree with that, tell me where the Catholic Church has changed doctrine (don't bring up Vatican II, that's a heretical council).
I'll be blunt. That is a loaded question where you can just shift goalposts as much as you want. Sedevacantism is a cult. You are in an internet cult. "Oh you just need to go back before X or Y or Z date/pope/"ecumenical" council and then it was good." (which one? Sedevacantists can't even agree when the "true" Catholic Church went underground) OR we can judge things by their fruit, and we can see the fig tree barren, meaning look to the fig trees that haven't changed and dried up. Don't try to make your own Church without leadership. Aquinas cited forgeries in claiming Papal supremacy. The Immaculate Conception only became dogmatic in the 1800s. A good Catholic in the 17th century could have been excommunicated by the Catholic Church of the 19th century. Orthodoxy does not have new teachings. Look before Vatican I, before Vatican II. It's either Orthodoxy was right or the Protestants were right and there was never any visible Church, which is ridiculous. This is why the Protestant Reformation was inevitable and is why Orthodoxy is receiving so many young male converts.

Out of one end of your mouth you speak humility,

When I see people arguing over scripture, I want to ask: "Can you speak Greek, Latin, and Hebrew?", "Do you feel confident that the translation that you are quoting when arguing is satisfactory?" "Are you 100% you have the analysis correct?" "How many perspectives have you gathered about that passage that agree with you?"

And then you claim you've found the true secret Catholic Church known only to you and a small select group of people with internet access. Your reliance on the Church Doctors (Fathers) is exactly what Orthodoxy does. and is how @Hermetic Seal comes to his conclusions.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
I'll be blunt. That is a loaded question where you can just shift goalposts as much as you want. Sedevacantism is a cult. You are in an internet cult. "Oh you just need to go back before X or Y or Z date/pope/"ecumenical" council and then it was good." (which one? Sedevacantists can't even agree when the "true" Catholic Church went underground) OR we can judge things by their fruit, and we can see the fig tree barren, meaning look to the fig trees that haven't changed and dried up. Don't try to make your own Church without leadership. Aquinas cited forgeries in claiming Papal supremacy. The Immaculate Conception only became dogmatic in the 1800s. A good Catholic in the 17th century could have been excommunicated by the Catholic Church of the 19th century. Orthodoxy does not have new teachings. Look before Vatican I, before Vatican II. It's either Orthodoxy was right or the Protestants were right and there was never any visible Church, which is ridiculous. This is why the Protestant Reformation was inevitable and is why Orthodoxy is receiving so many young male converts.

Out of one end of your mouth you speak humility,



And then you claim you've found the true secret Catholic Church known only to you and a small select group of people with internet access. Your reliance on the Church Doctors (Fathers) is exactly what Orthodoxy does. and is how @Hermetic Seal comes to his conclusions.
Pretty harsh response, but it's okay.

I think Sedevacantism bothers anti-Catholic bashers because they can't hammer us over the head with all the depravity and horrors of Vatican II, so instead your main barbs are all ad hominems: the attack on the medium (the internet, which is pretty ironic considering how we are communicating) or our relative size (small but fast-growing). It's easy to bash Vatican II, but try harder with actual Catholic faith.

Aquinas citing forgeries, why would that bother me? Popes have been anathematized by later popes for falling into heresy. Did the Church fail there? No, of course not. (e.g. Pope Honorius I)

News flash for those not familiar with the Catholic faith: Popes can be sinful people. Popes can go to purgatory. Popes can even be in hell! Being a sinful Pope is not the same as a heretical pope. For a Pope to be valid, his bullarium must be flawless. John XII was an extremely sinful man, but he had a perfect bullarium. He probably had a pretty harsh particular judgment, but we cannot speculate.

Regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, first I'd like to say that i'm amazed that anyone would dare treat that most perfect creation without the deepest veneration. She is our main intercessor, she prays for us and is always on our side. But back to the point, councils clarify dogma, they do not innovate. Just because something became dogmatic doesn't mean up to that point it changed. She was always immaculately conceived. How could someone who bears the taint of original sin bear our most perfect Redeemer? Of course she was immaculately conceived.

As for confusing dates: It's very, very simple, no X Y or Z date/pope/council for sedes.

It's 1958. Pretty much all sedevacantists believe this to be true. It's not true that sedes are arguing about the exact breach of faith, that's fake news. 1958, the death of Pope Pius XII.

But thank you for replying and I want to hear more criticisms of the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic faith.
 
Last edited:

bucky

Ostrich
So for instance on one Bible passage, I'd like to read what all the Church Doctors say to then feel confident that I really know what it's about. Even then, I can't read the original Latin so I have to trust the Catholic Church on faith, and I do.
Possibly just a mistake and you meant to say Hebrew and Greek, but if not, I feel like it's worth pointing out that 0% of scripture was originally written in Latin.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
Possibly just a mistake and you meant to say Hebrew and Greek, but if not, I feel like it's worth pointing out that 0% of scripture was originally written in Latin.
Yes, the sources but St Jerome‘s Vulgate is in Latin and that is officially authorized in the Catholic Church. And since Catholics regarding the Catholic Church as a divine institution with the Holy Ghost, if something is made official, we treat it with confidence and 100% complete faith that it is the Truth.

Otherwise you end up like Bart Ehrman, disillusioned, defeated and an atheist. He’s not a dumb guy, but I believe he fell too in love with the scientific method and it destroyed his faith.
 

DanielH

Pelican
Pretty harsh response, but it's okay.

I think Sedevacantism bothers anti-Catholic bashers because they can't hammer us over the head with all the depravity and horrors of Vatican II, so instead your main barbs are all ad hominems: the attack on the medium (the internet, which is pretty ironic considering how we are communicating) or our relative size (small but fast-growing). It's easy to bash Vatican II, but try harder with actual Catholic faith.
That's not what I did, and it wasn't all ad-hominem.
Aquinas citing forgeries, why would that bother me? Popes have been anathematized by later popes for falling into heresy. Did the Church fail there? No, of course not. (e.g. Pope Honorius I)

News flash for those not familiar with the Catholic faith: Popes can be sinful people. Popes can go to purgatory. Popes can even be in hell! Being a sinful Pope is not the same as a heretical pope. For a Pope to be valid, his bullarium must be flawless. John XII was an extremely sinful man, but he had a perfect bullarium. He probably had a pretty harsh particular judgment, but we cannot speculate.
I know. That's not what I'm arguing.
Regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, first I'd like to say that i'm amazed that anyone would dare treat that most perfect creation without the deepest veneration. She is our main intercessor, she prays for us and is always on our side.
Yes. Again that's not what I'm arguing.
But back to the point, councils clarify dogma, they do not innovate. Just because something became dogmatic doesn't mean up to that point it changed. She was ALWAYS immaculately conceived. How could someone who bears the taint of original sin bear our most perfect Redeemer? Of course she was immaculately conceived.
Original sin is perhaps the crux of the division between the East and West. The East does not view original sin as you do. We view it as us inheriting the consequences of the original sin (like you inheriting the consequences of a alcoholic father who gambles away your inheritance), but not the guilt, which is why we don't need these new Marian doctrines that she was given a pass unlike the rest of us, and is why we don't have disputes on what happens to unbabtized infants and fetuses who die. Many disputes today in the West, like the Immaculate Conception, and Calvinism, are only a thing because of this western conception of original sin.
As for confusing dates: It's very, very simple, no X Y or Z date/pope/council for sedes.

It's 1958. Pretty much all sedevacantists believe this to be true. It's not true that sedes are arguing about the exact breach of faith, that's fake news. 1958, the death of Pope Pius XII.
So are you in SSPV, CMRI, IMBC, SST, RCI, Catholic Restoration, Most Holy Family Monastery, or the UOGCC? They all agree on 1958?
 

bucky

Ostrich
Yes, the sources but St Jerome‘s Vulgate is in Latin and that is officially authorized in the Catholic Church. And since Catholics regarding the Catholic Church as a divine institution with the Holy Ghost, if something is made official, we treat it with confidence and 100% complete faith that it is the Truth.

Otherwise you end up like Bart Ehrman, disillusioned, defeated and an atheist. He’s not a dumb guy, but I believe he fell too in love with the scientific method and it destroyed his faith.
I'm not Catholic and therefore don't see the Vulgate as infallible like you do, but I sort of wish I did. It's basically the simplest possible Latin, very easy to learn to read. Vastly easier than New Testament Greek, which I never got far with, and I'm sure it's far easier than Hebrew. You should consider learning to read it. I'd say a solid year of study would do it.
 

Joe316

Robin
This is a gross misinterpretation of Scripture, so egregious that I believe you are being intentionally misleading.
[...]
Anyone claiming that salvation lies exclusively in a single earthly church is preaching a false gospel, and needs to reacquaint themselves with the Scripture, as it runs contra to everything Christ said in the gospels themselves and that Paul elaborated on at length in his numerous epistles.

I don't know why an account, which joined yesterday (!) starts posting divisive immediately. Do they get banned and then re-register? Or what is happening here?

I think many people are too concerned about some perfect church and way too little about salvation. Like they used to follow party politics and now switched to another organization to defend / fight against.

However the most pressing topic in end times before the return of Christ is salvation of many souls. We're supposed to convert unbelievers, not fight brethren for sharing "heretic" views. Which means seeking the Lord, sacrificing worldly lifestyle, being the salt of the Earth and being used for good.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
Original sin is perhaps the crux of the division between the East and West. The East does not view original sin as you do. We view it as us inheriting the consequences of the original sin (like you inheriting the consequences of a alcoholic father who gambles away your inheritance), but not the guilt, which is why we don't need these new Marian doctrines that she was given a pass unlike the rest of us, and is why we don't have disputes on what happens to unbabtized infants and fetuses who die. Many disputes today in the West, like the Immaculate Conception, and Calvinism, are only a thing because of this western conception of original sin.

So are you in SSPV, CMRI, IMBC, SST, RCI, Catholic Restoration, Most Holy Family Monastery, or the UOGCC? They all agree on 1958?
To be honest, I'm really out of my depth here on Orthodox Christianity and still have more reading/studying to do. I haven't explored the Great Schism in detail, and maybe this forum is a good place to hear the arguments. I am very curious about the arguments against Filioque, Papal infallibility and want to read up on my history more.

As much as possible, I don't want to really argue with Christians here, but I do want to clarify misconceptions wherever possible. Or at least, clarify the sedevacantist position. Even if no one wants to see it, let no one say they didn't have the opportunity to get clarity on the positions being rejected.

With regard to factions, I'm being pastored by a priest who worked under Bishop Donald Sanborn, who's a very respected sedevacantist. Novus Ordo Watch is a very prominent Sede website and I haven't heard much of alternative years to 1958 being the date of fracture.
 

DanielH

Pelican
To be honest, I'm really out of my depth here on Orthodox Christianity and still have more reading/studying to do. I haven't explored the Great Schism in detail, and maybe this forum is a good place to hear the arguments. I am very curious about the arguments against Filioque, Papal infallibility and want to read up on my history more.
@OrthoLeaf compiled a great list of youtube channels and books for people looking into Orthodoxy here: https://www.rooshvforum.com/threads/chrismated-into-the-church-what-to-expect-now.39370/post-1447778

In addition to @OrthoLeaf, I can recommend @Hermetic Seal and @MichaelWitcoff for their explanations of Orthodoxy. @MichaelWitcoff also has a YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtMjnFbRQplYQNi9pLhePlQ/videos

I would say one of the biggest difficulties in dialogues between the East and West is that we often use the same words but have different meanings for them, and that is responsible for some of the confusion regarding the Filioque.
 
The Catholic Church is a blend of Paganism and Christianity. Definitely not true. Orthodox is a branch off Catholicism. As are the Protestants, so no possibility for a true church among them as they are all blended with Roman paganism/Eastern mysticism.

There is no such thing as a true church but the closest are independent, Bible believing churches most closely aligned with Baptist and non denominational. Remember Baptists and non denominational are not Protestant. Protestant refers to a specific group that originated from the Catholics and as such are still just a branch off of it (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodist, etc).
 

DanielH

Pelican
The Catholic Church is a blend of Paganism and Christianity. Definitely not true. Orthodox is a branch off Catholicism.
You've got that backwards. How is Orthodoxy a branch off of Roman Catholicism when 4/5 patriarchates sided with Orthodoxy in the Great Schism, and Orthodoxy is unchanging? In the Bible you have bishops ordaining bishops, real sacraments, fasting, and a council. Does that sound like your local bible believing church or "non-denominational" church or does that sound like Holy Orthodoxy?
 
Oh, no.
You've got that backwards. How is Orthodoxy a branch off of Roman Catholicism when 4/5 patriarchates sided with Orthodoxy in the Great Schism, and Orthodoxy is unchanging? In the Bible you have bishops ordaining bishops, real sacraments, fasting, and a council. Does that sound like your local bible believing church or "non-denominational" church or does that sound like Holy Orthodoxy?
Wait, what? You just said what I said in regard to where Orthodoxy stemmed from. You merely stated that you think Orthodoxy is better. I didn't say anything about which one was better.
 
Top