I'm going out on a limb here

but the truth remains that Jesus Christ founded only one church. There is no debate her right? Even among Protestants and the Orthodox, there can be no debate. Jesus didn’t found 30,000+ denominations. He founded one church. All other supposed churches - though they profess the same creed - define their essence by what they are not. They are not the authentic church founded by Christ. They may have some truth but they are not the fullness of truth. I am correct here, yes?

Now don’t misunderstand me. I have been worshipping in an Anglican church for over a decade but something keeps needling me. Though I may have profound issues with the RC church, and am at home in the Anglican church right now, I cannot say that the Anglican church is “the” church that Christ wanted to found. If that was the case, he would have founded the Anglican church first. Do you follow my logic here?

What I’m saying is that every denomination somehow, in some way, takes exception with the RC church on something - otherwise they’d be RC themselves. But none of those churches can claim to be the authentic church of Christ unless the RC church became defective at some point. This creates a conundrum then. Why would Christ found a church, give Peter the keys of authority, give his followers the power to heal and the resources to teach and claim that the Spirit would always be with them only to have it fall apart?

The truth is, all the other denominations have a defect. That defect is that they were not the church founded by Jesus. They are a way to God but they are not “the” way. That is why the RC church can maintain it possess the fullness of revelation.

You see where I am going with this… I’m actually negating Protestantism.


“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant,” or some such thing.

By an Anglican, I think.

I identified before my conversion as both non-Catholic, and anti-Protestant.

Now I’m just Catholic.


You line of thinking is precisely the justification that drew me to the Catholic Church. Since She is the original, the burden of proven a defect falls on the dissenting party who wants to start their own denomination. Each time I read the arguments for the Protestant denominations, and the the Church’s response to them, I find my faith in the Catholic Church confirmed and deepened.


Your post comes at a time that I’m researching the ECFs and have felt the nudge to the RCC. Still have issues with the Pope and Marian Doctrines, but feel the Holy Spirit might be sending me a strong message.


Like really, who is kidding who? Did Luther honestly believe that his Protest-ant church what the church that Jesus wanted. Did Henry think that the C of E was what Jesus wanted? Did Calvin really believe that the church that professed for 1600 years prior to his existence on earth had gotten it wrong and he got it right?


If you are going out on a limb here so will I . I’m sure I will be castigated, spurned aND even burned at the stake in the imaginations of some but I believe Jesus did found only one Church and all who believe in Him and His message are a part of it whether Catholic or non-Catholic.


Someone posted something here or elsewhere when discussing Sola Scriptura. Jesus didn’t tell St. Peter, “upon this rock I give you this book.”


In fact, the bible as we know it, didn’t exist at the time Jesus walked on earth.


Exactly. And if the Council who put the Bible together 300-400 years later was inspired by the Holy Spirit, who’s to say Councils afterwards weren’t?


About this, yesterday I read this out of Revelations. I’ve never heard it mentioned but it’s another passage that I can’t imagine a Protestant explaining away without some significant word gymnastics/semantics.

9 And [the 24 elders in the throne room] sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

So Christ established one kingdom. And he established a priesthood to rule it. Hmm. Don’t see too many Protestant priests running around. Only a few Christian communions can even claim to have priests leading back to Christ.

And you can’t say it’s the Jewish people being talked about because it specifically talks about gathering all people on Earth in Christ’s kingdom.

And your reasoning is sound. At the end of the day sheer logic alone dictated the move back to the RCC for me. By logic alone, but a logic that wasn’t alone :smile:. There are plenty of other reasons to be Catholic of course and at the end of the day the RCC has room for us all. There simply never was a reason to leave to begin with; whether 5 centuries ago or now, there’s no greener grass.


In fact He takes it a step further:

This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit in us individually and the Church Magisterium is God’s law. Not a book.

1 Like

The Church is going through the passion just like Jesus did. We will come through with greater glory.


Many Protestants believe all Christians are priests. They mistakenly compare that to our Apostolic succession of priesthood.

1 Like

Never thought of it that way before. Thanks

This thread was really interesting.

We don’t need gymnastics or semantics. You just need to stop misinterpreting scripture. Nowhere does this passage even imply an exclusive priesthood. It’s clearly talking about a universal priesthood. The priests mentioned here are clearly the persons purchased “from every tribe and language and people and nation”, i.e. the whole church.

It is not “the priesthood” who will rule and reign with Christ. It is all Christians. 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 teaches us that “do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels?” And for clarification, when Paul uses the word “saint” he is speaking of any and all Christians.

The Jews were indeed given the promise that God would make them a nation of priests. This was realized through the church–in which all who belong to Christ are a royal priesthood. We see this promise in Exodus 19:6–

“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

We see this realized in the New Covenant, such as in 1 Peter 2:9–

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”

And there is no way you can say the author was writing only to ordained priests. The letter is addressed to “To God’s elect . . . who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood.”

For me, all the other 1,000s of denominations are like little boats on a big ocean, all without rudders! Aimlessly going in all different directions.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has Jesus at its helm.


Correct, but His Church is not found only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
“I believe in one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church” means just that.

The Catholic Church takes exception with everyone of these. They take exception with each other. That’s why there is division.

Why is entire defect the only possibility?
Why isn’t it Holy Orthodoxy?
Your presumption is that the Roman See has something more than the primacy it held in the first millennium. If that is the case, it seems to me you must join in communion with the pope. I wouldn’t criticize it, if that’s what you believe.

Now I want to play devil’s advocate with my own logic. Let’s just say that the RC has a defect. And let’s that the defect is the sale of indulgences. Luther maintained that the church authorities had lost their way and were using the sale of indulgences to fund the building of churches. If this was the reason the break with Rome then Lutheranism should have been the new RCism - but it wasn’t. Pretty soon theologians were spinning theories about the interpretation of scripture, or the number of sacraments or papal authority or whatever came to mind. All the while each maintained that the Holy Spirit was guiding their decision making. So who has it right?

If Luther wasn’t right, why not Henry. Maybe Anglicanism has it right. Maybe Anglicanism embodies a reformed version of the Catholic Church. Maybe it’s the church that Christ meant to found and Henry, as defender of the faith (and guardian of his bed chamber) knew best all along. Despite his shortcomings and misdeeds, suppose that Henry and Elizabeth and their successors are the true defenders of the faith. But if that’s so, if Anglicanism remedies the “defect” of Lutheranism (as Lutheranism remedied the defect of Catholicism), then why wasn’t Anglicanism enough? Why didn’t Calvin and Zwingli rally around the Church of England and claim that as the true faith.

Each one then, becomes a knock off of the other. Their objective might be to know Christ better, but they don’t possess the full package. They continue to spinoff from one another when they encounter an objection. In the end, Protestantism simply becomes a protest against itself.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.