Why the Catholic Church is the true Church


#1

In many of the apologetic arguments it always ends with what authority does one have to interpret scripture. I am going to argue that the Catholic Church is the sole authentic interpreter of Scripture and I will use the Bible … not using verse quotations but the Bible as a story for it is the story of God revealing himself to man. The similarity between the story of Abraham and God is very similar to that of Jesus and Peter. The role of lineage and passing of authority is a key component.

God used Abraham to found the Jewish nation. He first did this by changing Abram’s name to Abraham and telling him he will be the father of a host of nations. Fatherhood implies authority and a responsibility … one of a leader. To follow Abraham one must have faith that Abraham speaks for God. While Abraham is not God … he does wield whatever power and authority God has given him and it was great. God put Abraham in charge. Was the authority give to Abraham gone after his death. No, it was passed to his son Isaac thus starting a means of succession. This gave the Jewish people an identity and continuity, a feeling of family. This is important because what happens when people are leaderless. There is splintering and fragmenting … it is not pretty. God had not abandoned them even after the deaths of leaders. Were the leaders always the best people or did they always do what was right. No but does that change the validity or the authority of that leader. No it does not, it remains. The other important point is that God created something concrete. It was real. The nation was real.

In much the same way the story of Jesus and Peter follows the same script. It seems Peter was always getting the tough questions from Jesus. Peter was being prepared for what God had in store for him. While Jesus was alive did Peter any authority … no not from reading the Gospels. He was learning and many times seemed to frustrate Jesus with his comments. Jesus knew he was not going to be on earth to lead them for much longer. Like the Old Testament we were not going to be left leaderless or without something concrete and real, so what did Jesus do? He changed Peter’s name and Jesus left him the keys and said on this I will build my church … this is similar to what happened in the Old Testament. Someone was anointed by God to lead. Where is that place … it is real and it exists … it is not something hidden. It is his visible church on earth, the Catholic Church.

The key elements are …1) God speaks to someone 2) a leader is identified and given authority 3) this authority does not leave when the person dies, it is passed to a succesor.

This is why apostolic succession is so important for Catholics … it is our lineage back to Christ. It points out that we are part of what Jesus actually created. The same as the Old Testament Jews tracing lineage back to Abraham.

This is why the Catholic Church is the same Church Christ started 2000 years ago. God revealed this formula for his people long before Christ came to earth. Like I said look at it from the story perspective.


#2

Hi all:

If Abraham and God are a picture of the Catholic Church (the one true church) how do you explain that the nation that Abraham is the father of spilt into two nations, Judah and Isreal, each with their own king.

forever Baptist
allischalmers


#3

[quote=allischalmers]Hi all:

If Abraham and God are a picture of the Catholic Church (the one true church) how do you explain that the nation that Abraham is the father of spilt into two nations, Judah and Isreal, each with their own king.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

Judah is a tribe of Israel. Are you trying to say that Israel is a country with its own leader and Christianity recognizes Christ as its leader?


#4

[quote=allischalmers]Hi all:

If Abraham and God are a picture of the Catholic Church (the one true church) how do you explain that the nation that Abraham is the father of spilt into two nations, Judah and Isreal, each with their own king.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

The nation of Israel came into existence because they felt the reign of Roboam would be too unpleasent to deal with. Rather than endure and trust God that a more congenial King would succeed Roboam, ten tribes packed up (schism) and headed north where they created their own nation, Israel, with Samaria as its capital. They then set up two golden calves to worship. God sent them into exile where, in essence, they lost their identity never to be heard from again.

The Protestant churches came into existence because they felt the reign of the popes would be too unpleasent to deal with, and that they were too corrupt to tolerate. Rather than endure and trust God that His church would be purified from within, they packed up (schism) and headed to the four corners of the earth where they created their own version of Christianity. They then set up two golden calves to worship. (Sola Fide & Sola Scriptura.) God has not sent them into exile, since they exiled themselves thereby losing their identities amongst 60,000 denominations world wide and growing.

Or is it just a coincidence?

Thal59


#5

[quote=allischalmers]Hi all:

If Abraham and God are a picture of the Catholic Church (the one true church) how do you explain that the nation that Abraham is the father of spilt into two nations, Judah and Isreal, each with their own king.

forever Baptist
allischalmers
[/quote]

Out of one line came Jesus out of the other … came Islam I believe … correct me if I am wrong. Is one the ancestor of Truth and the other not. I think you bring up another interesting point though. Which one is true … can you tell?


#6

No, Islam had nothing to do with the Northern Kingdom. Muslims claim that Arabs descend from Ishmael, Abraham’s older son. That’s different.

However, you can claim that the Northern Kingdom was never really legitimate. That’s what Tim Gray argued to me way back when I first started thinking about Catholicism.

The more serious argument, I think, is that the OT parallels are clearly not infallible. Defiance of a divinely appointed ruler is sometimes the right thing to do. Furthermore, there are indications that God can actually abandon the one He has chosen and transfer authority to someone else (this is most dramatically seen in 1 Samuel, with the switch from Eli to Samuel and then from Saul to David).

In the case of church history, I’d argue the former and not the latter. I don’t think the See of Rome will ever lose its place as the primatial see of the Universal Church. But I see no sufficient reason to think that it is infallible.

Edwin


#7

[quote=Contarini]No, Islam had nothing to do with the Northern Kingdom. Muslims claim that Arabs descend from Ishmael, Abraham’s older son. That’s different.
[/quote]

Correct.

[quote=Contarini]However, you can claim that the Northern Kingdom was never really legitimate. That’s what Tim Gray argued to me way back when I first started thinking about Catholicism.
[/quote]

True, it never was. It engaged in idol worship.

[quote=Contarini]The more serious argument, I think, is that the OT parallels are clearly not infallible. Defiance of a divinely appointed ruler is sometimes the right thing to do.
[/quote]

Parallels between OT and NT, or even regarding church history cannot be considered either fallible or infallible as it is our inability to even be able to discern such parallels that confuses the issue. But regarding the portion of your reply that I have bolded, you are completely wrong. It is never the right thing to do. Reread the epistle of Jude who tells of how those who defied Moses and Aaron had perished. Or, look to Matthew 23. “The Pharisees have sat in the seat of Moses, all things therefore they tell you, observe and do, but do not do as they do for they preach but do nothing.”

Jesus makes it painfully clear that no matter how difficult, corrupt, or hypocritical the leadership becomes, they are still in a position of authority. Our task is to be obedient to that authority, (because it came from God in the frst place…Rom 13:1-7) and to have faith that God will correct or replace the failing leadership in His own good time.

[quote=Contarini]Furthermore, there are indications that God can actually abandon the one He has chosen and transfer authority to someone else (this is most dramatically seen in 1 Samuel, with the switch from Eli to Samuel and then from Saul to David).
[/quote]

Exactly what I have said in the blue text above. However, in the case you cited, God is transfering authority from one person to another within His true religion. (At that time, Judaism.) He is not striping authority from Judaism so that the people can seperate from Judaism and start a faith of their own. The parallel then becomes; one cannot seperate from the Catholic church on the issue of corruption presuming God has striped away authority from the church. God may take authority away from the corrupt individual(s) in question and give them to someone else** who is in the church,** but He does not invaidate the entire church by doing so, and it remains our duty to be subject to those higher authorities until this happens. (See the Romans referrence again.)

[quote=Contarini]In the case of church history, I’d argue the former and not the latter. I don’t think the See of Rome will ever lose its place as the primatial see of the Universal Church. But I see no sufficient reason to think that it is infallible.

Edwin
[/quote]

This is a subject for a different thread. But the core truth of scripture and the writings of the church fathers stands… schism is never justified.

Thal59


#8

[quote=Contarini]The more serious argument, I think, is that the OT parallels are clearly not infallible. Defiance of a divinely appointed ruler is sometimes the right thing to do. Furthermore, there are indications that God can actually abandon the one He has chosen and transfer authority to someone else (this is most dramatically seen in 1 Samuel, with the switch from Eli to Samuel and then from Saul to David).
[/quote]

I don’t intend them to be infalliable. My point is when God wants something created … He does so in a certain way. We should be able to recognize what is man made and what is God made. God does not create multiples in the beginning so there should be no confusion and I argue that there is no confusion early. That always comes later.

[quote=Contarini]In the case of church history, I’d argue the former and not the latter. I don’t think the See of Rome will ever lose its place as the primatial see of the Universal Church. But I see no sufficient reason to think that it is infallible.
[/quote]

In areas of doctrine … yes it must be infalliable. If it is not then it must be a man-made church not a divine one. If the Catholic Church cannot claim infallability in its doctrine then it is no different than any other church. The infalliability comes not from the current head but from its origin. The man is not infalliable but his office is. You must be able to recognize the origin.


#9

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.