"The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." (-John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).

"Where the bishop is, there let the people gather; just as where ever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church". -St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca 110 AD)a martyr later thrown to the lions, wrote to a church in Asia Minor. Antioch was also where the term "Christian" was first used.

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic." -CCC 811

Thursday, December 20, 2012

FAQ about the Catholic Church: The ONE Church

Why do Catholics believe that their Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that Christ's true Church is a spiritual union of all Christian denominations?

Catholics believe that theirs is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, firstly, because theirs is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ; secondly, because theirs is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity, the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church; and thirdly, because the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ's true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles' Creed and the Primitive Christian letters). Wrote Ignatius of Antioch, illustrious Church Father of the first century: ``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.'' Our Lord said: ``There shall be one fold and one shepherd, yet it is well known that the various Christian denominations cannot agree on what Christ actually taught. Since Christ roundly condemned interdenominationalism (``And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.'' Mark 3:25), Catholics cannot believe that He would ever sanction it in His Church.

Why do Catholics refuse to concede that their church became doctrinally corrupt in the Middle Ages, necessitating the Protestant Reformation?

Catholics refuse to concede such a thing out of faith in Jesus Christ. Christ solemnly pledged that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), and He solemnly promised that after His Ascension into Heaven He would send His Church ``another Paraclete . . . the spirit of truth,'' to dwell with it forever (John 14:16-17), and He inspired the Apostle Paul to describe His Church as ``the pillar and ground of the truth.'' (I Tim. 3:15). If the Catholic Church (which Protestants admit was the true Church of Jesus Christ before Luther's revolt) became doctrinally corrupt as alleged, it would mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed against it--it would mean that Christ had deceived His followers. Believing Christ to be the very essence of truth and integrity, Catholics cannot in conscience believe that He could be guilty of such deception. Another thing: Catholics cannot see how the division of Christianity into hundreds of rival camps and doctrinal variations can be called a ``reformation'' of the Christian Church. In the Catholic mind, hundreds of conflicting interpretations of Christ's teachings do not add up to a true interpretation of Christ's teachings.

If the Catholic Church never fell into error, how explain the worldly Popes, the bloody Inquisitions, the selling of indulgences and the invention of new doctrines? A careful, objective investigation of Catholic history will disclose these facts: The so-called worldly popes of the Middle Ages--three in number--were certainly guilty of extravagant pomposity, nepotism and other indiscretions and sins which were not in keeping with the dignity of their high church office--but they certainly were not guilty of licentious conduct while in office, nor were they guilty of altering any part of the Church's Christ-given deposit of faith. The so-called bloody Inquisitions, which were initiated by the civil governments of France and Spain for the purpose of ferreting out Moslems and Jews who were causing social havoc by posing as faithful Catholic citizens--even as priests and bishops--were indeed approved by the Church. (Non-Catholics who admitted they were non-Catholics were left alone by the Inquisition.) And the vast majority of those questioned by the Inquisition (including St. Teresa of Avila) were completely cleared. Nevertheless, the popes roundly condemned the proceedings when they saw justice giving way to cruel abuses, and it was this insistent condemnation by the popes which finally put an end to the Inquisitions.

The so-called selling of indulgences positively did not involve any ``selling''--it involved the granting of the spiritual favor of an indulgence (which is the remission of the debt of temporal punishment for already-forgiven sins) in return for the giving of alms to the Church for the building of Christendom's greatest house of prayer--St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. One must understand with regard to indulgences that there are always two acts to be fulfilled by the one gaining the in-dulgence: 1) doing the deed (e.g., alms-giving) and 2) saying of some prescribed prayers with proper spiritual dispositions. In the case in point, the first act for gaining the indulgence was ``giving alms.'' If the almsgiver thereafter failed to say the requisite prayers, he would not receive the indulgence because he had failed to fulfill both required acts. The indulgences therefore were not ``sold''; the very giving of money was itself the first of two requisite acts for gaining the indulgence in question.

The so-called invention of new doctrines, which refers to the Church's proclamation of new dogmas, is the most baseless and ridiculous charge of all--for those ``new'' dogmas of the Church were actually old doctrines dating back to the beginning of Christianity. In proclaiming them to be dogmas, the Church merely emphasized their importance to the Faith and affirmed that they are, in truth, part and parcel of divine revelation. The Catholic Church followed the same procedure when, in the fourth century, she proclaimed the New Testament to be divinely revealed. Hence it is obvious that the Catholic Church did not fall into error during the Middle Ages as some people allege, for if she had, she could not have produced those hundreds of medieval saints--saints the calibre of St. Francis, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Clare, St. Anthony, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Elizabeth and St. Vincent Ferrer (who performed an estimated 40,000 miracles).

Read More HERE


  1. An information to be accepted as a favt, it must beproperly documented. Without proper and credible documentation it will remain as opinion, rumor or just a story. It is clear that wyour statements here lack proper and credible documentation and I see a lot of historical errors. One example is your statement that Ignatius was a first century church father. I am sorry to say but he is not. Another misinformation committed by Catholic Defender 2000.

    Another thing, You mention only the Freanch and Spanish inquistion. Actually, the history recorded three inquisition of the Catholic Church: the medieval inquisition, the Spanish inwuition, and the Counter-reformation inquisition. Do you know that the head of the Spanish inquisition eventually became the head of the Counter-Reformation Inquisition, and later became pope. It's for you to find out who it was (homework LOL). Have you also forgot the popes (including Joh Paul II and Benedict XVI) apologized for this stain in the office of the papacy?

    Now you mentiononly three worldly pope. how will you explain the part of history called the "Midnight of Papacy," the period of the "Rules of the Harlot in the Papacy," the "Great Western Schism," "Eve of Reformation popes" inclusing the popes Alexander the VI, Leo X and Julius. How will you explain what happen to Pope Formusus, Zacarias and many more.

    You said Christ condemned "interdenominationalism" while the Roman Catholic Churches in fact is composed of 14-16 separate churches. Haveyou forgotten the eartern rites churches of the Roman Catholic Church with each having different sets of doctrines that the only commonalities between them is that they all recognized the pope in Rome.

    Huhhh...ang dami ko pang gustong sabihin, sa susunod lang siguro.

    Rich, thanks, I just followed your suggestion to contribute about Church History.

    Thanks rin po Catholic Defender 2000 for giving me opportunity to contribute.

    PS I will no more make "kantiyaw", forguve ne for the caroling and everything, an old man just having fun.

    May God bless you all.
    Thanks again.

    1. Mr. Mundo, we have well established our POSITION historically and doctrinally. It's your homework to PROVE US WRONG.

      Our official Catechism is there found in many Catholic sites (which I have provided on my header) and especially in the official Vatican site, published in different major languages so that everyone is invited to see, investigate, and evaluate... and everyone is welcome to challenge us.

      We also have our history written in many languages, published in the internet and in print... both good and bad. It's there for everyone to see.. everyone is welcome.

      Since you claim to be Ph.D. and soon to be "expert" in history, why not challenge the Catholic Church and publish a book that we can official refer to it officially as an expert (scholar). We welcome such challenges.

      But a piece of warning. For centuries, many kings, intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, dissenters, critics, bigots, kings, leaders, judges, lawyers had challenged the same CHURCH you are challenging but they are all gone in history. Some of them, their names were never remembered.

      But the Church of Christ had celebrated its 2 millenia and now moving to the third one (in contrast yours is just a centenary soon).

      Now, show us your experties bases on FACTS: how could the INC of Manalo be the original Church when it's just 98 years? Show us HISTORICAL FACTS how and when the CHURCH completely APOSTATIZED. And since the INC claimed that the Church COMPLETELY apostatized, this event must be WORLDWIDE PHENOMENON, for sure there should be some documents, edicts, letters, decrees, etc that had recorded that....

      Prove us WRONG by FACT not buy just talking here nonsense... show us your BOOK as you claim and any link that supports your claims (official sites). Maghihintay kami.

    2. Mr. Ges Mundo: When you said "God bless you all" would it be BLASPHEMOUS to say "Jesus bless you all"?


Comments are moderated by the blog owner.

Thank you and God bless you.

My Blog List

My Calendar

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...