Confused which is the true church

[LoricaLady]

There is no "true Church" except for the body of believers in Messiah. The word "Church" is just a Greek translation from the word "ecclesia" which simply means a congregation of believers any time anywhere.

The concept of a Church, meaning a big building with a cross on top where you go to worship on Sunday, with rules and governing bodies, is not seen in the Bible. The idea that you have to go to a Church is not in the Bible. Now, where Churches have been true to the Word, they have done this world a huge service. However, they often actually deviate from the Word. For example they generally celebrate the pagan, totally unsupported by the Bible, Christmas and Easter holidays, even sometimes Halloween. That's just for starters.

You need to seek the Holy Spirit, not people who are tied into traditions from their Churches. Though we can seek counsel from wise people, it is also true, as the Bible says "You need that no man should teach you, but the Holy Spirit will teach you."

 

[Bartek Swierczek]

The true Church keeps to the Word.

JOHN.1:1 & 14 = 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. & 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Amen brother. I would also add Revelation 12:17. Is it not what true Church is? Keeping God's commandments and proclaiming Jesus as the only way to everlasting life is certainly what true believers do.

 

[Hazelelponi]

With respect - You make a great many assertions and statements, ( RCC not this or that) with nothing to back them up.

The reality is there was only one church in early times, other than a few heretical groups outed as such, take for example gnostics and modalists - noted as heresies in such as iraneus - in pre New Testament times , who also noted the importance of church teaching /and faith passed by tradition and that of Rome presided. He also listed the bishops of Rome - as did Augustine centuries on in new testament canon formation time.


That church was the Catholic Church the " foundation of truth", which was only given the name" Roman " by others after the eastern split away. To us it is still the Catholic Church.

But I urged you and OP to consider four things - have you?

First how consistent you are with what those taught by apostles believed ( e.g. Eucharist of " real flesh" valid only if performed by bishops in succession. That alone reduces Church possibilities to very few.

Second that " what you believe" should be subordinated to early church tradition - teaching of apostles - faith handed down - and the authority of councils to " bind and loose" on disputes on doctrine. Given by Jesus. That's what bind and loose means!

Third - that without that authority you would not have a New Testament canon.

Finally that many follow early tradition without recognising it for what it is. I gave examples. Which do not change because truth does not change. Understanding may develop e.g. Trinity. But what all of us regard as understanding of trinity was always true, it did not exist only from the time it was first mentioned as such!


Those who believe that only scripture matters and that the Holy Spirit guides them to truth, believe in a myriad of exclusive alternatives on every aspect of doctrine, ad witness so many denominations. Which proves scripture is not enough. Because they diverge on every aspect of meaning. Who is to say yours is right?

I urge the OP to study early church, indeed who and how the canon was chosen, and that all follow tradition, many without recognising it.

My suggestion is all read books like " by what authority" Mark Shea. And see that the idea of scripture without tradition simply doesn't work.

We can sit all day and argue particularities; we can have pages and pages of doctrinal disputes but in the end there are too many differences, many of them foundational differences at that, which leaves us arguing apple's to oranges - not apple's to apples.

I'm only paying attention to this thread because Catholics are telling the OP his salvation will be lost if he goes to a protestant church and/or is born again in Christ Jesus.

The above is something I absolutely don't believe in, as i dont believe anyone can lose their salvation, which leaves us speaking foreign languages concerning doctrine.

I do know what its like to be in terror of going to hell for becoming Christian, so i sympathize with the OP's confusion and predicament, if nothing else, and do care to be here to answer questions or at least see them answered when he asks.

But I don't know enough about Catholic doctrine to get too deeply into protracted debates as I don't know some basics like do Catholics believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? - it seems not from speaking to any Catholic, and that is core to my belief.

So, while we could discuss and debate transsubstantiation and our doctrinal differences thereof, or whether John was a mystic, or whether the Pope is infallible.. I can't say I know enough about Catholics belief to have pages and pages and pages of debate - and to be honest I don't care to.

What I care to do is make sure the OP is okay..

I've no desire to debate you for the sake of argument, I'll not change your beliefs, and you'll not change mine - and if I'm correct neither of us will change the OP either.. all either of us can do is make sure he doesn't end up in some crazy cult.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think The most important thing is our relationship with Jesus ,but not what church we attend.

You think right, and it's what the bible says, not what men say, and when men and the bible conflict, try not to let that confuse...adhere to the bible...problem solved

It makes me feel like I don't belong neither in Catholic or other churches.

That's not a bad thing, especially in this day and age. I'd go so far as to say that outlook may say good things about your understanding, and you are not so confused after all.

 

[fhansen]

Hardly. It's a matter of well documented history that even Catholic historians acknowledge. Not at all "sheer contrived, anti-Catholic, a-historical wishful thinking."

Of course that quote was preceded by "truths, half-truths..." Any responsibile historian knows that a "Careful study of the history of the Papacy" post (#63) reveals a long line of amazingly good and holy men considering the number of popes and centuries involved covering historical times often very different from our own in terms of commonly held values-and then a handful of dirtbags. It would be the height of naivete to assume that the record would be pristine, that every pope would live up to the standards of his office. And the idea that the Church changed or disappeared or went underground beginning around the time of Constantine is just self-serving revisionism.

The "faith taught by the apostles" is found in Scripture, not in man-made doctrines and traditions that go against Scripture.

Yes, it is. The problem is that the faith found in Scripture very often isn't agreed upon anyway, going by Scripture alone.

God has always had His faithful "remnant." In any case, as I realize this is the advice area of the forums, and not the debate or discussion area, I will go no further with this here.

His remnant-a nebulous group who thought like yourself I'll assume.

I do give the advice that the OP do careful research into the doctrines and traditions of the Catholic Church, compared to Scripture. (As all Christians should.)

I advise people to boldly study: Scripture, history, church documents, Augustine, Aquinas-not just the Reformers, Jack Chick, and pop-mythology et al. Search for the truth-and let that be one's guide.

 

[stevenfrancis]

There are really only two contenders when all information, (history/scripture/tradition), are taken into account. Your profile lists you as Catholic....that's one of them, and the one I was led to after my journey, (which each person must take for themselves, through prayer and study), and the other is the group of Churches referred to en masse as the Eastern Orthodox. Between those two, it would boil down to your interpretation of Episcopal authority, and whether you believe the theological importance of magesterium. I do. It seemed too willy nilly to me without God having given us a binding and loosing authority for all Christians until He returns at the conclusion of time. There are so many Christian denominations. It didn't make any sense to me. I came to believe that the denominations came about through man's pride. I know it's more nuanced and gray than that, but if you cut to the heart, I believe that's what you'll find. If the reformation had yielded one simple alternative to the Catholic Church founded by Jesus, and didn't splinter itself into so many different groups, and didn't change dogma to suit each group then perhaps I'd have landed on Protestantism. Perhaps there's too much emotion and feelings involved in a person "finding a church". Tastes get involved. Thoughts about music, and languages, and liberalism, and conservatism, etc. etc..
Yes, the Catholic Church has been through some awful times in history. There have been bad popes, pedophile priests, the confusion of the renaissance, the crusades, and the inquisitions, but only the Catholics and the Orthodox can trace themselves to our Lord and Saviour, and the Apostles He breathed the Holy Spirit upon, and gave the gift and responsibility of binding and loosing. Does man muck it up? All the time. Jesus didn't say that it would be a smooth ride. But He DID say His Church would withstand and emerge from all battles and difficulties, and so far, it has. "Let them be one, as you and I are one".

Having said all this, I have great love and respect for all trinitarian Christians of all stripes. In fact, I myself, (and my immediate family, and Mother-In-Law), are the only Catholics, (and we are converts), in my family tree as far back as I have been able to go...(1600's so far). We're mostly Lutherans. But that leads me to something else too. A lot of my protestant brothers and sisters are of the faith that they were raised in. It's generational. And unless you're the type, like myself, to go on a long and deep journey of faith, there's no reason why you'd ever even think to leave the thing you were raised in. This even applies to some extent to the non-Christian religions. I think family, community and how we're raised play into this enormously. Whether or not they should is another topic. I've decided that they shouldn't. Only the truth ended up mattering to me, whether I personally "liked" the truth or not. I often don't, to be perfectly honest. But my faith keeps me obedient to it, even if my own opinions vary at times. I count this as grace, as I count all things as grace. Peace to all.

 

[rockytopva]

I believe that the true church was born into seven different congregations....

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

So the whole church... Messianic, Persecuted, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Revived, Charismatic, is the true church, each with her different set of challenges. I believe we are all challenged with the issues of Laodicea. If you don't believe it call a prayer meeting and see how many people show up.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I have been born again and accepted Jesus Christ to my life 6 years ago. I am Catholic btw. Since that time while reading bible I found some contradictions with catholic teachings or confusion. I found that for me it's no difference in what church I am as I think The most important thing is our relationship with Jesus ,but not what church we attend. But also when I start reading bible I get confused with Catholic Church and i feel bad not knowing where is true anymore. It makes me feel like I don't belong neither in Catholic or other churches. I been studying in Vatican theology for a year,but still haven't mad me more clear although it does tract a catholic church as being one of the first and oldest churches ,but trough history there was some bad times where some teachings might changed..Where is the truth some one please help.

Where is the truth? The truth is in the word of God, the scriptures you have been studying. Anytime the word of man contradicts the word of God, dismiss the word of man.

 

[rockytopva]

I believe that the true church was born into seven different congregations....

Ephesus - Messianic - Beginning with the Apostle to the Circumcision, Peter
Smyrna - Martyr - Beginning with the Apostle to the Un-Circumcision, Paul
Pergamos - Orthodoxy formed in this time... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholicism formed in this time - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestantism formed in this time- A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism formed in this time - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Charismatic movement formed in this time - Beginning with DL Moody, the first to make money off of ministry

So the whole church... Messianic, Persecuted, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Revived, Charismatic, is the true church, each with her different set of challenges. I believe we are all challenged with the issues of Laodicea. If you don't believe it call a prayer meeting and see how many people show up.

And I have no problem with quotations such as this...

Pope Francis: And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?

 

[stevenfrancis]

Hi. A couple of thoughts.

2. If you disagree with the Catholic Church's dogmas, then it would be wrong to remain a member and a communicant since, to the Catholic Church, these are not optional matters.

This is a complicated statement. Not as simple as it would appear. It comes down to objective truth vs. relative truth. "I feel" vs. "It IS". Yes, we are accountable to our conscience, but that is a well catechised conscience. But you did mention disgreement with "dogmas", which is better that saying disagreement with procedures or behaviours. The dogmas that trouble me at times I "don't like", but this is different from disagreement with them. I can subjectively not care for a dogma, but I also trust that they are truth by faith, and the grace of God, so incorprate them into reality. The best example I can think of, is there is much of the Old Testament I don't like at all. I believe it to be the truth, because I believe that Jesus Christ is the truth, and HE believed and quoted the Old Testament, and was a faithful Jew. So I can't say I "disagree" with the Old Testament, because I would be falling out of belief of my Lord. I just don't personally "like" some of what happened and what is said by some of the prophets. That doesn't change their truth, or how I have come to accept them I'm probably not making much sense in this day and age. But the truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and the same for falsehood. It is false even if everyone believes it. Our faith should lead us to accept the truth, through prayer and grace, even when it rubs up against our "feelings"

 

[amariselle]

Of course that quote was preceded by "truths, half-truths..." Any responsibile historian knows that a "Careful study of the history of the Papacy" post (#63) reveals a long line of amazingly good and holy men considering the number of popes and centuries involved covering historical times often very different from our own in terms of commonly held values-and then a handful of dirtbags. It would be the height of naivete to assume that the record would be pristine, that every pope would live up to the standards of his office. And the idea that the Church changed or disappeared or went underground beginning around the time of Constantine is just self-serving revisionism.

Yes, it is. The problem is that the faith found in Scripture very often isn't agreed upon anyway, going by Scripture alone.

His remnant-a nebulous group who thought like yourself I'll assume.

I advise people to boldly study: Scripture, history, church documents, Augustine, Aquinas-not just the Reformers, Jack Chick, and pop-mythology et al. Search for the truth-and let that be one's guide.

As I said, I am not going to debate this further here as it is the "Christian Advice" section of the forums.

God bless.

 

[Albion]

This is a complicated statement. Not as simple as it would appear. It comes down to objective truth vs. relative truth. "I feel" vs. "It IS". Yes, we are accountable to our conscience, but that is a well catechised conscience. But you did mention disgreement with "dogmas", which is better that saying disagreement with procedures or behaviours. The dogmas that trouble me at times I "don't like", but this is different from disagreement with them. I can subjectively not care for a dogma, but I also trust that they are truth by faith, and the grace of God, so incorprate them into reality.

Well, I don't think that was what our friend was saying. I took the OP to mean that he was sincerely convinced that the teachings were in error.

I don't believe that he has answered us back as to which dogmas those might be, but that would help.

 

[fat wee robin]

I am not native speaker we have bible in my country language but for some reason I don't like reading it in my language for me it seems not very good translation or I just prefer more in English because it's more clear,but my English is not perfect so sometimes it's not easy to understand everything perfectly. I been to other churches before to Anglican,baptist and other. I liked there I see better community and I found more similar people who have been born again. In my church it teaches If you leave the church you are fallen away and there is no salvation outside of the church at least that's what Vatican teaches.So there is also fear for leaving.If I leave I would feel like betraying Jesus

AS some have said here ,there is no Church which has the full Truth .My family are a part of the Roman Catholic Church for many générations and I have problems with some of the hierarchy and the world structure of the Roman Church ,but when it comes to Jesus ,I have no problem ,as that is where we learned, and much of the protestant population learned to know and love Jesus .
I have spent years now with 'christians and found them ALL to lacking in spite of their constant going on about the bible ,most particularly the King James version .
.There is no reason why you cannot continue to benefit from the Church and READ the bible too
"Galilee63, post: 72948535, member: 344050"]
Visit Jesus on a Friday around 3pm if you can and adore our Lord Jesus Christ in His Blessed Holy Divine Sacrament at the Altar - Jesus said "few do this".

Hand over your heart Soul and Life to Jesus in complete trust and you wont ever be indecisive on His Holy Divine Church matters[/QUOTE]
The last sentence is good and true , but as a questioning Catholic , I disagree with the 'holy' rosary ', and that you go through Mary, to get to Christ .
If some choose this, they should avoid pushing it, as it is sending away lots of believers ,and it seems to be more prévalent in less educated, more superstitious Catholic communities .
As for being in contact with Jesus by visiting him at 3 PM , then this again is nonsense ,as when you are a true Christian , He is with you Night and Day ,and
can be contacted anywhere by prayer and contemplation .

 

[W2L]

I'm only paying attention to this thread because Catholics are telling the OP his salvation will be lost if he goes to a protestant church and/or is born again in Christ Jesus.

I dont belong to any denomination, but i know about the Lord and I hope in Him.

 

[Mountainmike]

Not true.

Again you make a dogmatic statement " salvation lost by "
Without reference in that case to true catholic dogma and teaching which disputes that.

One of the big problems we have is criticism of the Catholic Church based on misinformation. I find it sad you make in your first post to which I responded " Catholic Church not this , not that" type statements whilst unprepared or unable to defend them. So I would urge you not to criticise Catholicism before understand it . Fair comment?

The points I made are not apples to oranges : your church either does or does not conform to apostolic and early church teaching. The true faith handed down - paradosis - the meaning of " tradition" . Most of it Black and white.

I cited a simple example - ignatius to smyrneans on validity of Eucharist of " real flesh" valid only if performed or authorised by bishops in succession: ignatius teaching came from John the apostle who wrote John 6. Showing Scripture is not enough by itself. Tradition carries the meaning,

There are very few churches who can claim compatibility with that. To us - being faithful to early church and apostolic teaching matters. There can only be one truth.

As for Holy Spirit - again you are wide of the mark.
Our beliefs are no secret, nor are they variable, they are there in the catechism for all to read. Please do so ..

. I'm only too happy to see the Catholic Church criticised for what it does believe, because then a proper debate can occur.

We can sit all day and argue particularities; we can have pages and pages of doctrinal disputes but in the end there are too many differences, many of them foundational differences at that, which leaves us arguing apple's to oranges - not apple's to apples.

I'm only paying attention to this thread because Catholics are telling the OP his salvation will be lost if he goes to a protestant church and/or is born again in Christ Jesus.

The above is something I absolutely don't believe in, as i dont believe anyone can lose their salvation, which leaves us speaking foreign languages concerning doctrine.

I do know what its like to be in terror of going to hell for becoming Christian, so i sympathize with the OP's confusion and predicament, if nothing else, and do care to be here to answer questions or at least see them answered when he asks.

But I don't know enough about Catholic doctrine to get too deeply into protracted debates as I don't know some basics like do Catholics believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? - it seems not from speaking to any Catholic, and that is core to my belief.

So, while we could discuss and debate transsubstantiation and our doctrinal differences thereof, or whether John was a mystic, or whether the Pope is infallible.. I can't say I know enough about Catholics belief to have pages and pages and pages of debate - and to be honest I don't care to.

What I care to do is make sure the OP is okay..

I've no desire to debate you for the sake of argument, I'll not change your beliefs, and you'll not change mine - and if I'm correct neither of us will change the OP either.. all either of us can do is make sure he doesn't end up in some crazy cult.

 

[W2L]

Not true.

Again you make a dogmatic statement " salvation lost by "
Without reference in that case to true catholic dogma and teaching which disputes that.

One of the big problems we have is criticism of the Catholic Church based on misinformation. I find it sad you make in your first post to which I responded " Catholic Church not this , not that" type statements whilst unprepared or unable to defend them. So I would urge you not to criticise Catholicism before understand it . Fair comment?

The points I made are not apples to oranges : your church either does or does not conform to apostolic and early church teaching. The true faith handed down - paradosis - the meaning of " tradition" . Most of it Black and white.

I cited a simple example - ignatius to smyrneans on validity of Eucharist of " real flesh" valid only if performed or authorised by bishops in succession: ignatius teaching came from John the apostle who wrote John 6. Showing Scripture is not enough by itself. Tradition carries the meaning,

There are very few churches who can claim compatibility with that. To us - being faithful to early church and apostolic teaching matters. There can only be one truth.

As for Holy Spirit - again you are wide of the mark.
Our beliefs are no secret, nor are they variable, they are there in the catechism for all to read. Please do so ..

. I'm only too happy to see the Catholic Church criticised for what it does believe, because then a proper debate can occur.

Following the Lord doesnt require one to be catholic. The fact that you are promoting a church rather than the Word shows that you lack understanding.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Not true.

Again you make a dogmatic statement " salvation lost by "
Without reference in that case to true catholic dogma and teaching which disputes that.

One of the big problems we have is criticism of the Catholic Church based on misinformation. I find it sad you make in your first post to which I responded " Catholic Church not this , not that" type statements whilst unprepared or unable to defend them. So I would urge you not to criticise Catholicism before understand it . Fair comment?

The points I made are not apples to oranges : your church either does or does not conform to apostolic and early church teaching. The true faith handed down - paradosis - the meaning of " tradition" . Most of it Black and white.

I cited a simple example - ignatius to smyrneans on validity of Eucharist of " real flesh" valid only if performed or authorised by bishops in succession: ignatius teaching came from John the apostle who wrote John 6. Showing Scripture is not enough by itself. Tradition carries the meaning,

There are very few churches who can claim compatibility with that. To us - being faithful to early church and apostolic teaching matters. There can only be one truth.

As for Holy Spirit - again you are wide of the mark.
Our beliefs are no secret, nor are they variable, they are there in the catechism for all to read. Please do so ..

. I'm only too happy to see the Catholic Church criticised for what it does believe, because then a proper debate can occur.

Not true what?

That the thread creator stated in post 11 that his church (which from the OP is Catholic) is telling him he will lose his salvation if he attends a protestant church?

And NOT ONE Catholic, which appear in plentiful supply in this thread, has disagreed and told the person it's untrue and that the Vatican isn't teaching this...

So, before you judge me for assuming this is the teaching, perhaps you should spend more time explaining to the thread creator how he is not in danger of eternal damnation if he spends some time with the protestants.

But its apparent no Catholic is willing to do that, so yes, that does leave the rest of us fairly certain on the Catholic position on that matter - and a little worried about the OP.

Before you call ME a liar why don't YOU go read post 11.

 

[W2L]

But its apparent no Catholic is willing to do that, so yes, that does leave the rest of us fairly certain on the Catholic position on that matter - and a little worried about the OP.

This.

 

[Devin P]

I have been born again and accepted Jesus Christ to my life 6 years ago. I am Catholic btw. Since that time while reading bible I found some contradictions with catholic teachings or confusion. I found that for me it's no difference in what church I am as I think The most important thing is our relationship with Jesus ,but not what church we attend. But also when I start reading bible I get confused with Catholic Church and i feel bad not knowing where is true anymore. It makes me feel like I don't belong neither in Catholic or other churches. I been studying in Vatican theology for a year,but still haven't mad me more clear although it does tract a catholic church as being one of the first and oldest churches ,but trough history there was some bad times where some teachings might changed..Where is the truth some one please help.

Well, I mean there are various things that the catholic church practices that are directly in opposition to the bible, but that's not the point. The point is, that you have a desire for truth, which is a huge blessing! Pray that He leads you into truth, and seek everything out through scripture, and you will be shown and led into truth, without fail. But, you have to be praying for it.

I personally don't believe that the catholic church is the best church to be in, but you nailed it on the head, it doesn't matter where, so long as you're after His heart, with all that you've got.

 

[AlexDTX]

I have been born again and accepted Jesus Christ to my life 6 years ago. I am Catholic btw. Since that time while reading bible I found some contradictions with catholic teachings or confusion. I found that for me it's no difference in what church I am as I think The most important thing is our relationship with Jesus ,but not what church we attend. But also when I start reading bible I get confused with Catholic Church and i feel bad not knowing where is true anymore. It makes me feel like I don't belong neither in Catholic or other churches. I been studying in Vatican theology for a year,but still haven't mad me more clear although it does tract a catholic church as being one of the first and oldest churches ,but trough history there was some bad times where some teachings might changed..Where is the truth some one please help.

The Church is not an organization but the people of God. The English word "church" comes from the German word, "kirk", which means house. God does not dwell in structures brick and stone but the hearts of men. The house of God are all people who are born again. The true church are everyone who have died with Christ and have been raised with Christ. Christ is the Church of God.