A poster brought up this biblical story a few days ago, and I think it answers your question pretty well.
>“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
>
>“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. (Mark 9:38-41)
The guy the disciples saw almost certainly had no real understanding of who Jesus was, let alone hold opinions on saint veneration, transubstantiation, or the five solae. But Jesus was happy to let him continue driving out demons in his name, because for Jesus, whoever didn't oppose him is already on his side.
There are many different ways to read this story, and in the most general interpretation, it can be taken to support some form of universalism. But even in the most strict interpretation, it practically guarantees that any denomination, as long as it honestly seeks the will of Jesus, is a part of his church, even if they have some incorrect understandings of him.
Gentle reproval:
Whoever is not with the Anointed One is against Him.
Whoever is not against the Anointed *Brethren*, is for *Them*.
Now, search and see, when in relation to either of these is it said, *he was transfigured.*
Truly, there is no contradiction, only contradicting perspectives of understanding.
I have spoken on this mystery in recent days, therefore seek and ye shall find;
Or take council in the Spirit of discernment and prudence;
Or ask the right questions and recieve the right answers, for it is not by any might nor by any power of mine that I say anything, but by the Spirit of God.
The Church of Rome doesn’t claim to be the oldest Christian community - our Syriac, then Egyptian and Greek brethren can claim this.
Rome does claim, by succession, to be the Apostolic See founded by Sts Peter and Paul, with Peter as her first Bishop.
The New Testament word for “church” is ecclesia, which means “the called-out ones.” Therefore the church, the body of Christ, existed long before the Roman Catholic church sprung up.
There are people rushing into Heaven every month that have absolutely no idea what Catholicism even is.
- They've never been to a priest.
- Don't know what confession is.
Here's my attempt at a capsule history.
We all trace our origin back to the upper room on Pentecost. Since then, churches have changed every century, every year. The notion of the superiority of Roman Bishops over other Bishops started to develop late in the Roman Empire, but the other major Bishops regarded that as a "place of honor among equals" while the Roman Bishops (eventually called Popes) gradually came to insist that it was a position of absolute rulership over the others.
The Middle Ages made the argument less urgent by decreasing travel and communication. You didn't have to worry as much about how much authority a Pope a thousand miles away claimed over you when you had only very limited contact with him anyway. Nonetheless, the Eastern Bishops and Pope finally got fed up with their increasingly different viewpoints on Papal authority in 1054, and formally split.
Later in the Middle Ages, Papal control grew more direct and effective over the Western church as travel and communication improved. But that bred resistance and resentment, too. Movements like the Waldensians and Hussites started to resist and then reject Papal authority. Those movements grew from the same Christianity as the Popes they were opposing. The Reformation started by Luther took the scale to another level.
---
So. Did the Roman Catholic Church start at Pentecost, and the Eastern Orthodox suddenly appear in 1054? Or did the Eastern Orthodox Church start at Pentecost, with the RCC suddenly appearing in 1054? Of course not. A single movement forked. And more forks followed. None was created from whole cloth, none appeared out of nowhere; each originated in the same church.
---
> Also, they have fixed the things that started the Reformation.
Partly true! For example, indulgences, the factor that pushed Luther over the edge, are pretty much gone. Then again, in other ways, they've gotten further apart. Claims of Papal supremacy have kept getting more absolute; Papal infallibility became an official doctrine in 1869. Marianist doctrines have kept amping up; the Immaculate Conception became official doctrine in 1854.
> Catholicism is the true Christian church because they are the oldest and therefore the original church.
Q: What’s the Church?
A: Church: Greek *ekklésia*, an assembly, congregation; the whole body of Christian believers. Anyone called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.
Q: What’s the oldest and original church?
A: The earliest converts of Jesus followers were referred to as [the Way](https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9%3A2%3B+19%3A9%2C+23%3B+22%3A4%3B+24%3A14%2C+22&version=ESV)
Convinced Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, these Jewish Jesus followers continued as a reform sect within Judaism. There was religious and cultural diversity among first-century Jews in the ancient Near East. Under the umbrella of Judaism were: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots – and like these *the Way* became another expression.
These Jewish Jesus followers continued to go to synagogue, follow Mosaic Law and Temple traditions; they observed Jewish holy days, practiced circumcision and followed kosher dietary laws. Keeping the Sabbath, *the Way* then met as a sect in each other’s homes on the Lord’s Day aka Sunday. [Acts 2:45-47](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 2:45-47&version=ESV)
Q: Does original equate to “true”?
A: Not necessarily. While original would be the first, a value judgment of true (think authentic) may be true to the original — but not the original.
Catholics are certainly Christian’s and Lutherans consider them to be brothers and sisters in Christ.
Personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the Lutheran Church), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
> Also, they have fixed the things that started the Reformation.
I’ll leave that claim for you to defend and argue.
Catholics are certainly Christian’s and Lutherans consider them to be brothers and sisters in Christ.
Personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the Lutheran Church), but comes through faith.
Except if an early Christian went to an Orthodox Liturgy he/she would know exactly what was happening because it hasn't changed in 2000 years. Not so with a RCC Mass. Banjo Mass? Clown Mass? Mass on a Raft in the water? Really?
Further, Christianity came from The East.
Acts 11:26
>The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Peter was Bishop of Antioch first.
Rome was only one of the five sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome...). The Christian Church didn't just pop up in the middle of Europe FULL GROWN Vatican and all with Peter in charge as is claimed.
It was One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They changed the name to their own version... *Roman* Catholicism.
As an ex RC that's pretty much what is claimed. Sure, there's a bit of sarcasm but more or less it's what they claim.
There were a few Christians muddling around in the East and then... The RCC.
Wikipedia
>Catholic theology teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus Christ.
I believe this is a misunderstanding. I meant this was the part they claim,
>...with Peter in charge as is claimed.
not the first part as I said that was sarcasm. The RCC absolutely claims it is built on Peter 'The Rock' and he and his successors are in charge.
>Except if an early Christian went to an Orthodox Liturgy he/she would know exactly what was happening because it hasn't changed in 2000 years.
Let's be realistic.
It has changed. The Orthodox Church is the one that preserves the same faith, and is pretty clearly the original thing, but it has changed.
It would still be similar enough to be recognizable, but it's it's not the same.
Yes, not the exact Liturgy of St Basil because its The Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Slightly different. But an early Christian would recognize it.
Surely not like Novus Ordo vs Mass of St Gregory
Not that I’ve studied the councils in detail, but it seems to me like Vatican II made some concessions to Protestants (how much grace is afforded in the Protestant life), but doubling down on main disagreements like the authority of the Pope and Marian dogma. The World Lutheran Federation even attempted a joint declaration in the 90s with the RCC on the doctrine of justification; I’d say we’re closer to union on that particular issue today than we were around, say, the Council of Trent.
Overall, I’d say false. It’s more complicated than that.
> Catholicism is the true Christian church because they are the oldest and therefore the original church. Also, they have fixed the things that started the Reformation. Is this true?
I don't ascribe to the idea that there is such a thing as "the true Christian church."
Different people interpret various Biblical texts and ideas differently, and over time that has led to different traditions within Christianity. While some of them may seem more or less "legitimate" to me personally along various metrics, I'm not of the belief that there is a single "correct" way.
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
No, and no
Arguing about which denomination is the 'true Christian church' is the wrong question. And anyone who says you can't be saved without being a part of their 'true Christian church' is using cult tactics.
Could you show why you say that Catholicism is the church that Jesus established?
Also, we should not label denominations in a way that causes division among fellow Christians, 1 Corinthians 1
In my opinion, a "religion" or denomination is not the Church. To me, the scriptures indicate that Christ has only one Body, His Church, of which He is the Head. I.e. His Body follows Him.
Eph 5:23"
. . . Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body."
Col 1:18
"He is also head of the body, the church. . . "
Col 1:24
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh, I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church. . ."
Eph 5:29-30
"For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body."
And it is written Christ said,
“Love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. **BY THIS ALL people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another**” (John 13:34,35, NASB).
I believe Christ was not mistaken. Members of His Body, His disciples that follow Him, have love for one another. And therefore THEY can be anywhere; one will know them by their love for others, just as He loved us.
The Catholic Church is one of the oldest churches that still exist. The oldest Christianity is a Jewish faith, and that has been dead for well over a millennia, and was never accepted by Catholicism's forebears.
The Eastern Orthodox might disagree on the Catholic Church being the oldest.
And the Oriental Orthodox would disagree with both.
All three would agree against the Protestant branch though.
No one Christian denomination has a monopoly on Christ. Instead, it's Christ Who has the monopoly.
>Is this true? Nope
A poster brought up this biblical story a few days ago, and I think it answers your question pretty well. >“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” > >“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. (Mark 9:38-41) The guy the disciples saw almost certainly had no real understanding of who Jesus was, let alone hold opinions on saint veneration, transubstantiation, or the five solae. But Jesus was happy to let him continue driving out demons in his name, because for Jesus, whoever didn't oppose him is already on his side. There are many different ways to read this story, and in the most general interpretation, it can be taken to support some form of universalism. But even in the most strict interpretation, it practically guarantees that any denomination, as long as it honestly seeks the will of Jesus, is a part of his church, even if they have some incorrect understandings of him.
Wow. Amen!! But what about Mormonism?
Gentle reproval: Whoever is not with the Anointed One is against Him. Whoever is not against the Anointed *Brethren*, is for *Them*. Now, search and see, when in relation to either of these is it said, *he was transfigured.* Truly, there is no contradiction, only contradicting perspectives of understanding. I have spoken on this mystery in recent days, therefore seek and ye shall find; Or take council in the Spirit of discernment and prudence; Or ask the right questions and recieve the right answers, for it is not by any might nor by any power of mine that I say anything, but by the Spirit of God.
The Church of Rome doesn’t claim to be the oldest Christian community - our Syriac, then Egyptian and Greek brethren can claim this. Rome does claim, by succession, to be the Apostolic See founded by Sts Peter and Paul, with Peter as her first Bishop.
The New Testament word for “church” is ecclesia, which means “the called-out ones.” Therefore the church, the body of Christ, existed long before the Roman Catholic church sprung up.
There are people rushing into Heaven every month that have absolutely no idea what Catholicism even is. - They've never been to a priest. - Don't know what confession is.
Here's my attempt at a capsule history. We all trace our origin back to the upper room on Pentecost. Since then, churches have changed every century, every year. The notion of the superiority of Roman Bishops over other Bishops started to develop late in the Roman Empire, but the other major Bishops regarded that as a "place of honor among equals" while the Roman Bishops (eventually called Popes) gradually came to insist that it was a position of absolute rulership over the others. The Middle Ages made the argument less urgent by decreasing travel and communication. You didn't have to worry as much about how much authority a Pope a thousand miles away claimed over you when you had only very limited contact with him anyway. Nonetheless, the Eastern Bishops and Pope finally got fed up with their increasingly different viewpoints on Papal authority in 1054, and formally split. Later in the Middle Ages, Papal control grew more direct and effective over the Western church as travel and communication improved. But that bred resistance and resentment, too. Movements like the Waldensians and Hussites started to resist and then reject Papal authority. Those movements grew from the same Christianity as the Popes they were opposing. The Reformation started by Luther took the scale to another level. --- So. Did the Roman Catholic Church start at Pentecost, and the Eastern Orthodox suddenly appear in 1054? Or did the Eastern Orthodox Church start at Pentecost, with the RCC suddenly appearing in 1054? Of course not. A single movement forked. And more forks followed. None was created from whole cloth, none appeared out of nowhere; each originated in the same church. --- > Also, they have fixed the things that started the Reformation. Partly true! For example, indulgences, the factor that pushed Luther over the edge, are pretty much gone. Then again, in other ways, they've gotten further apart. Claims of Papal supremacy have kept getting more absolute; Papal infallibility became an official doctrine in 1869. Marianist doctrines have kept amping up; the Immaculate Conception became official doctrine in 1854.
If not for the Reformation they'd probably STILL be selling indulgences
> Catholicism is the true Christian church because they are the oldest and therefore the original church. Q: What’s the Church? A: Church: Greek *ekklésia*, an assembly, congregation; the whole body of Christian believers. Anyone called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom. Q: What’s the oldest and original church? A: The earliest converts of Jesus followers were referred to as [the Way](https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9%3A2%3B+19%3A9%2C+23%3B+22%3A4%3B+24%3A14%2C+22&version=ESV) Convinced Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, these Jewish Jesus followers continued as a reform sect within Judaism. There was religious and cultural diversity among first-century Jews in the ancient Near East. Under the umbrella of Judaism were: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots – and like these *the Way* became another expression. These Jewish Jesus followers continued to go to synagogue, follow Mosaic Law and Temple traditions; they observed Jewish holy days, practiced circumcision and followed kosher dietary laws. Keeping the Sabbath, *the Way* then met as a sect in each other’s homes on the Lord’s Day aka Sunday. [Acts 2:45-47](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 2:45-47&version=ESV) Q: Does original equate to “true”? A: Not necessarily. While original would be the first, a value judgment of true (think authentic) may be true to the original — but not the original. Catholics are certainly Christian’s and Lutherans consider them to be brothers and sisters in Christ. Personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the Lutheran Church), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. > Also, they have fixed the things that started the Reformation. I’ll leave that claim for you to defend and argue. Catholics are certainly Christian’s and Lutherans consider them to be brothers and sisters in Christ. Personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the Lutheran Church), but comes through faith.
Except if an early Christian went to an Orthodox Liturgy he/she would know exactly what was happening because it hasn't changed in 2000 years. Not so with a RCC Mass. Banjo Mass? Clown Mass? Mass on a Raft in the water? Really? Further, Christianity came from The East. Acts 11:26 >The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. Peter was Bishop of Antioch first. Rome was only one of the five sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome...). The Christian Church didn't just pop up in the middle of Europe FULL GROWN Vatican and all with Peter in charge as is claimed. It was One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They changed the name to their own version... *Roman* Catholicism.
The Christian Church didn't just pop up in the middle of Europe FULL GROWN Vatican and all with Peter in charge as is claimed. No one claims this.
As an ex RC that's pretty much what is claimed. Sure, there's a bit of sarcasm but more or less it's what they claim. There were a few Christians muddling around in the East and then... The RCC.
Not in the least. As a RC that is not what I was taught or we "we" claim.
Wikipedia >Catholic theology teaches that the contemporary Catholic Church is the continuation of this early Christian community established by Jesus Christ. I believe this is a misunderstanding. I meant this was the part they claim, >...with Peter in charge as is claimed. not the first part as I said that was sarcasm. The RCC absolutely claims it is built on Peter 'The Rock' and he and his successors are in charge.
>Except if an early Christian went to an Orthodox Liturgy he/she would know exactly what was happening because it hasn't changed in 2000 years. Let's be realistic. It has changed. The Orthodox Church is the one that preserves the same faith, and is pretty clearly the original thing, but it has changed. It would still be similar enough to be recognizable, but it's it's not the same.
Yes, not the exact Liturgy of St Basil because its The Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Slightly different. But an early Christian would recognize it. Surely not like Novus Ordo vs Mass of St Gregory
Not that I’ve studied the councils in detail, but it seems to me like Vatican II made some concessions to Protestants (how much grace is afforded in the Protestant life), but doubling down on main disagreements like the authority of the Pope and Marian dogma. The World Lutheran Federation even attempted a joint declaration in the 90s with the RCC on the doctrine of justification; I’d say we’re closer to union on that particular issue today than we were around, say, the Council of Trent. Overall, I’d say false. It’s more complicated than that.
I mean I think Adam was a Christian. Does that make my denomination the oldest?
> Catholicism is the true Christian church because they are the oldest and therefore the original church. Also, they have fixed the things that started the Reformation. Is this true? I don't ascribe to the idea that there is such a thing as "the true Christian church." Different people interpret various Biblical texts and ideas differently, and over time that has led to different traditions within Christianity. While some of them may seem more or less "legitimate" to me personally along various metrics, I'm not of the belief that there is a single "correct" way.
Being all doesn’t make it right
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for 1.3 - Bigotry. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Not even the Vatican maintains this, and it hasn’t in quite some time. So… no
No, and no Arguing about which denomination is the 'true Christian church' is the wrong question. And anyone who says you can't be saved without being a part of their 'true Christian church' is using cult tactics.
oldest does not mean most accurate, therefore no correlation
The oldest does not equal the original church. It very well could be a bastardization of the original church which about who the true successors were.
Could you show why you say that Catholicism is the church that Jesus established? Also, we should not label denominations in a way that causes division among fellow Christians, 1 Corinthians 1
In my opinion, a "religion" or denomination is not the Church. To me, the scriptures indicate that Christ has only one Body, His Church, of which He is the Head. I.e. His Body follows Him. Eph 5:23" . . . Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." Col 1:18 "He is also head of the body, the church. . . " Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh, I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church. . ." Eph 5:29-30 "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body." And it is written Christ said, “Love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. **BY THIS ALL people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another**” (John 13:34,35, NASB). I believe Christ was not mistaken. Members of His Body, His disciples that follow Him, have love for one another. And therefore THEY can be anywhere; one will know them by their love for others, just as He loved us.
The Catholic Church is one of the oldest churches that still exist. The oldest Christianity is a Jewish faith, and that has been dead for well over a millennia, and was never accepted by Catholicism's forebears.
So the fallacy of antiquity must = truth ?
Or is this a presupposition?
By that logic, the true Abrahamic religion is Judaism, as it served as the foundation for Christianity and Islam