One true Church?

[charsan]

Catholic churches believe that it is literally him, produced in the Catholic only process of transubstantiation. But at the last supper he held it up, before he was sacrificed, and said,"this is my body"

Protestant churches believe that it is a memorial meal only, and a symbol. But Jesus said about the bread "this is my body"

Not Protestant but Evangelicals and some Reformed are the ones that believe that the Holy Eucharist is nothing but symbolic. Anglicans/Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, and even my Church believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist and I found recently that the Orthodox do believe in Transubstantiation. For my Church we believe that Christ is really present in the elements.

 

[His student]

I don't think it's of that big importance if you believe the Lords supper/eucharist is symbolic or not. If it literally is Christ's body, then great, if not, then still great. I mean it's not a matter of what we believe, it is what it is.

Quite right - it is what it is and we'll all see it more clearly when we get to the other side.

It only matters now in this world if one side or the other links salvation in the most basic sense to what you believe about it and whether and how you partake of it.

Therein lies the rub. Some say it must be taken and believed in a certain way in order to be saved.

It's the false gospel that is being preached that matters and not strictly what is happening in the invisible world to the elements themselves - even though I have my own opinion about that and find it to be an important doctrine.

 

[His student]

For my Church we believe that Christ is really present in the elements.

I, on the other hand, believe that He is physically ressurrected and sitting at the right hand of glory.

The only way He is really present in the elements is in the Spirit in which He fills heaven and earth.

 

[public hermit]

What if it is him, symbolically and literally, and both are right, and both are wrong? That would mean that you will be judged on how much you loved others and showed mercy, no mater what rituals you did or church you belonged to.

New International Version
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

New International Version
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

I do believe this. And I believe that the church with a small "c" catholic, is the universal church of all who believe in and love and follow Jesus. Peace

I agree. I wonder, when we see our Lord face to face, will he be impressed with our divisions that have resulted from these distinctions concerning the Eucharist? Will he commend one group and condemn another for their understanding? Or, will he point out that the one thing he prayed for is that we would be one just as He and the Father are One. Will he find the fact that we have divided over doctrine acceptable and perfect in his sight? I doubt he will if we abrogated love in the process.

If all things are in Him and through Him, then what is it in this world that is not sacramental except evil?

 

[Redwingfan9]

They also knew that He couldn't walk on water...but He did.
They knew that He was dead...until He walked thru a door that was closed.
They knew that he couldn't heal a blind man...until he put a handful of dirt in His hand, spat on it, made a bit of mud, prayed, and placed it on the man's eye.

Your post also reminded me of the reaction of Thomas when he saw the risen Lord.
Jesus knew that it was important to Thomas that he believe the evidence of his eyes and ears to prove things.
So Jesus invited Thomas to put his finger in the wound in His side, made by the spear, and in the holes that the nails made in His hands. And so Thomas believed, because he found a way through his faith to believe what he also saw with his eyes.

And because his faith supplied the missing link that couldn't possibly be physically happening, Thomas found a way to understand what Jesus was telling and showing him.

There's a massive flaw in your argument. The disciples could visually see Jesus walking on water. They ate the bread and wine, they knew it wasn't literally his body and blood.

 

[Not David]

When I see modernist denial of the Real Presence

 

[Anguspure]

I know of a few churches that believe that their church is the one true church, and all others are either less than they are or are flat out going to hell.

First of all, I am Catholic. My church believes this. Other churches are "separated"

I think the main difference between Catholic Churches and Protestant churches is Communion.

Catholic churches believe that it is literally him, produced in the Catholic only process of transubstantiation. But at the last supper he held it up, before he was sacrificed, and said,"this is my body"

Protestant churches believe that it is a memorial meal only, and a symbol. But Jesus said about the bread "this is my body"

What if it is him, symbolically and literally, and both are right, and both are wrong? That would mean that you will be judged on how much you loved others and showed mercy, no mater what rituals you did or church you belonged to.

New International Version
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

New International Version
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

I do believe this. And I believe that the church with a small "c" catholic, is the universal church of all who believe in and love and follow Jesus. Peace

There is only one Church, and that Church is in Him, orientated towards Him and moving with Him only. Any other distinction is irrelevant and facing away from Him.
The Apostle writes: So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God. 1 Corinthians 3

 

[Jonaitis]

I know of a few churches that believe that their church is the one true church, and all others are either less than they are or are flat out going to hell.

First of all, I am Catholic. My church believes this. Other churches are "separated"

I think the main difference between Catholic Churches and Protestant churches is Communion.

Catholic churches believe that it is literally him, produced in the Catholic only process of transubstantiation. But at the last supper he held it up, before he was sacrificed, and said,"this is my body"

Protestant churches believe that it is a memorial meal only, and a symbol. But Jesus said about the bread "this is my body"

What if it is him, symbolically and literally, and both are right, and both are wrong? That would mean that you will be judged on how much you loved others and showed mercy, no mater what rituals you did or church you belonged to.

New International Version
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

New International Version
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

I do believe this. And I believe that the church with a small "c" catholic, is the universal church of all who believe in and love and follow Jesus. Peace

I wouldn't say the main difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants is the Lord's Supper, although that is a major point of doctrinal differences. You must understand that Protestantism isn't monolithic either, each denomination deviate in other doctrinal points, including the Lord's Supper. The concept of a mere memorial of the ordinance was the Reformer Zwingli's view, but it certainly was not for Luther and Calvin and Cranmer. In the Reformed faith, we hold that it is a means of grace that augments the believer's faith (not necessarily contribute to salvation), just as the word of God, prayer, baptism and the public gathering for fellowship are seen as means of grace. It is not in, under, above, around the elements, but the Spirit of God who communes with us in the participation of the communion. We are feeding on Christ by faith, in the Spirit, and this picture is united with it and encourages us through it. It is more than a memorial for us.

In historic Protestantism (or at least in most, due to the controversial nature of this forum), salvation isn't dependent upon a membership of a church denomination, but rather a saving knowledge of and faith in Jesus Christ. It is possible to be Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox and still be a Christian, in our view, so as long as the message of the gospel and way to be saved is not distorted. Matt Maher, who I use to listen to in my early Christian years, is a "Roman Catholic," although his lyrics sound very Protestant. Do I believe he is saved? I don't know, but it is possible.

I understand the one true church to be the collective body of Christ in all denominations who savingly knows and believes in Christ. Or, as you mentioned, the "catholic" (universal) church, in all places, with a small "c." You are my brother and sister, even if you differ on secondary issues.

 

[DamianWarS]

What if it is him, symbolically and literally, and both are right, and both are wrong? That would mean that you will be judged on how much you loved others and showed mercy, no mater what rituals you did or church you belonged to.

New International Version
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

New International Version
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

I do believe this. And I believe that the church with a small "c" catholic, is the universal church of all who believe in and love and follow Jesus. Peace

Schrodinger's bread and wine. It is both Christ and not Christ at the same time. But I do track with your sentiments. I think the ekklesia of Christ is far greater than what these "few churches" declare and we miss the point when we become more focus on the form of the church over the function of the church.

 

[Jamdoc]

I know of a few churches that believe that their church is the one true church, and all others are either less than they are or are flat out going to hell.

First of all, I am Catholic. My church believes this. Other churches are "separated"

I think the main difference between Catholic Churches and Protestant churches is Communion.

Catholic churches believe that it is literally him, produced in the Catholic only process of transubstantiation. But at the last supper he held it up, before he was sacrificed, and said,"this is my body"

Protestant churches believe that it is a memorial meal only, and a symbol. But Jesus said about the bread "this is my body"

What if it is him, symbolically and literally, and both are right, and both are wrong? That would mean that you will be judged on how much you loved others and showed mercy, no mater what rituals you did or church you belonged to.

New International Version
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

New International Version
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

I do believe this. And I believe that the church with a small "c" catholic, is the universal church of all who believe in and love and follow Jesus. Peace

The main difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant church movements is the idea of salvation through works vs salvation through grace alone.
A Catholic believes that a Protestant has no incentive to stop sinning because they believe that forgiveness is absolute and once saved always saved. To a degree, some people do believe this and aren't truly repentant. The protestant defense is that you don't stop sinning and start doing good works out of reward incentive or avoiding punishment, but out of a desire to love God and show Him you love Him through how you live your life.
A Protestant believes that the Caholic way, seeking to "earn" your way into salvation through good works, tithing, communion and so on, is arrogant, that you stop depending on God because you are trying to do it yourself. To a Protestant there's nothing we can personally do to save ourselves except put ourselves in God's hands and trust Him. A less thought about aspect of this is such things as plenary indulgences, that a MAN can forgive you for sins against GOD and that God will honor this. It gives men too much power in it all.

Ultimately there is scripture supporting each viewpoint, and we really don't know which interpretation is correct, but I believe that both viewpoints can come to the same profitable outcome if there's faith and dependence on God in both, and in both viewpoints you should do good works, but the movitvations may differ.

 

[zoidar]

Therein lies the rub. Some say it must be taken and believed in a certain way in order to be saved.

Really? That sounds real weird. I know the eucharist is the main focus in Catholic sermons, but don't think they teach that it's necessary for salvation. I wonder what Catholics believe of the Protestant communion. I guess they believe it's symbolic in Protestant churches, but real in the Catholic ones?

 

[Dave L]

In the New Testament, the Church met in homes. Pastor, elder, and bishop were synonyms. Denominations did not exist. So a true Church exists anytime two or more believers meet for worship ...say, at Mickey D's. Denominations including the Catholics sprang up around the errors that divide them from the body of Christ. And that is where we are today. We should can "church" and all start meeting in small groups in homes and even at Mickey D's.

 

[Jamdoc]

In the New Testament, the Church met in homes. Pastor, elder, and bishop were synonyms. Denominations did not exist. So a true Church exists anytime two or more believers meet for worship ...say, at Mickey D's. Denominations including the Catholics sprang up around the errors that divide them from the body of Christ. And that is where we are today. We should can "church" and all start meeting in small groups in homes and even at Mickey D's.

I got more out of small bible study groups with friends and neighbors than I ever got out of any sermon and I've been to churches of a good half dozen or more denominations
No frills just reading the bible and talking about it together, and praying together.

 

[AlexDTX]

I know of a few churches that believe that their church is the one true church, and all others are either less than they are or are flat out going to hell.

First of all, I am Catholic. My church believes this. Other churches are "separated"

I think the main difference between Catholic Churches and Protestant churches is Communion.

Catholic churches believe that it is literally him, produced in the Catholic only process of transubstantiation. But at the last supper he held it up, before he was sacrificed, and said,"this is my body"

Protestant churches believe that it is a memorial meal only, and a symbol. But Jesus said about the bread "this is my body"

What if it is him, symbolically and literally, and both are right, and both are wrong? That would mean that you will be judged on how much you loved others and showed mercy, no mater what rituals you did or church you belonged to.

New International Version
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

New International Version
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

I do believe this. And I believe that the church with a small "c" catholic, is the universal church of all who believe in and love and follow Jesus. Peace

There is one true church, but it is neither a denomination nor ecclesiastical practice. It is invisible and has members in all denominations. The body of Christ are all believers who have the new birth. There are millions of born again Catholics and Protestants. These are believers who have died with Christ by faith and have been spiritually resurrected by Christ with the down payment of the Holy Spirit in their hearts.

How do you know who they are? By their fruits. Fruits is not defined by good works, for unregenerate Christians can do good works. Fruit is found in their expression of their personal relationship with Christ. Unregenerate Christians can talk as though they have a personal relationship with Christ, too, but what those with the new birth say will bear witness to others with the new birth. What the unregenerate say will not bear witness.

 

[Albion]

But disagreeing with each other on doctrinal issues doesn't make it right to do so.
The only thing that disagreement means is one of two things:

1. We don't yet know the answers to the things that divide us.
2. When we are told all things (whether in Heaven, or in the last days of our lives) then we have a decision to make:
to believe what God tells us, or stick to our own wisdom in the matter.

God will know our heart in all matters, and He will judge rightly.

But what's the point here?

Take almost any denomination--yours, mine, or theirs--and you see that it has beliefs that other denominations do not share. That's a fact of life, although perfect unity among all Christians would be better.

So when someone tries to say that his denomination believes X, therefore it must be the one true church since all the other churches taken together are in disunity...or says that those are all denominations but his denomination is obviously above that...or claims that what his church believes is what God likes while the beliefs of every other denomination are the opposite...

...he's using either a trick with words on the listener or has been sold a bill of goods by his particular denomination and needs to see reality for a change.

 

[BrotherD]

There is one true church:
Hebrews 12:23 KJV — To the general assembly and CHURCH OF THE FIRSTBORN, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

This is Christ church and only he can add to it:
Acts 2:47 KJV — Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

The scriptures is how he speaks to us and what he commands us to do and how we do it:
2 Timothy 3:16 KJV — All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

There is only one truth, therefore somebody's denomination is lying. I say if it isn't from his word, properly interpreted from his word, then it is a lie.

Numbers 23:19 KJV — God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

We should make sure the traditions of men are in agreement with God and if it be found that it is not, we should toss out man's traditions.

 

[Albion]

As far as I know the Orthodox church will always accept a Catholic baptism, and really any baptism so long as it is a trinitarian baptism.

and it might also be observed that the earlier statement we read about the Catholic Church accepting other churches' baptisms (so long as they are performed with water and the Trinitarian invocation) is not exactly true either. It's true in theory, but not in practice.

 

[Phronema]

and it might also be observed that the earlier statement we read about the Catholic Church accepting other churches' baptisms (so long as they are performed with water and the Trinitarian invocation) is not exactly true either. It's true in theory, but not in practice.

Interesting, are you sure about that? How is it true in theory, and not practice?

 

[His student]

Really? That sounds real weird.

I agree.

Tying basic salvation to any sacrament is weird when the scripture’s picture of the simple gospel is considered.

I know the eucharist is the main focus in Catholic sermons, but don't think they teach that it's necessary for salvation.

It depends on the source. It’s a debatable issue in the Catholic church at large.

Many Catholics either say that it is necessary or they equivocate when they answer the question. Many of those are authoritative sources.

Some say that it is necessary once a Catholic reaches the age of accountability and knows enough about the Eucharist to understand what it is according to Catholic doctrine.

Augustine and Aquinas said no.

Most official Catholic sources say that it isn’t necessary for salvation in the same way that having a boat or an airplane isn’t necessary to cross the Pacific Ocean. It can be done. But it’s much more difficult to say the least.

All that being said, I never mentioned either Catholics or their sermons in my post. You must have misread my post or, more likely, made an assumption.

I wonder what Catholics believe of the Protestant communion.

Probably many things - some wrong and some right.

I suppose it depends which individual Catholics we are talking about and which Protestant communion practices they are considering.

I guess they believe it's symbolic in Protestant churches, but real in the Catholic ones?

With all due respect – that makes no sense.

 

[Albion]

Interesting, are you sure about that? How is it true in theory, and not practice?

It's fair of you to ask for some clarification, I realize. All the major church bodies accept the validity of baptisms performed in other of those churches unless there is a good reason to doubt that water was used and the Trinitarian formula also used.

This is true of the RCC also, but it is distressingly common for a convert to that church to be told a new baptism is required because, allegedly, it is not known if the other baptism was performed this way or not, even though it would be unheard of in that denomination for it not to have followed that format. I am not referring to any converts who merely allege a church membership and a baptism but for which there are no records.