The Church Is Right?

[at0m1c]

[quote][b]The first thing that made my question my faith was when a non christian asked me which protestant denomination is the right one since there are so many of them and all have very different foundations. [/b]

Most protestant denominations have the same foundations. Justification by faith. Sola Scriptura etc. Charismatic churches also have such foundations.

Your non christian friend asked a good question, but I shall ask a better one. Which denomination is right? Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church? You can say they have almost identical foundations, but they still split. So God cannot prevent the Great Schism or He allowed it?

[b]But the fact is, history books and encyclopedia all agree that the Catholic church is the original church. Original church can't go wrong. [/b]

My question last time was left unanswered - if Peter was the supposed Rock, how come James was the head of the Jerusalem Church and not him? I think the "diocese" of Rome came after the "dioceses" of Jerusalem, Alexandra and Antioch?

I dunno what is original church since the church was not an institutional body from the very beginning.

[b]This means that if the Catholic Church went wrong, then which demonimation that sprang out from it could go any more right. [/b]



Hah, what logic is that? It is like saying evil parents will give birth to evil children. No good children can come out of evil parents?![/quote]

I need some help in answering the ones not in bold....

[phatcatholic]

[quote]Most protestant denominations have the same foundations. Justification by faith. Sola Scriptura etc. Charismatic churches also have such foundations.[/quote]

well, it depends on how you define "foundation." if foundation means "rule of faith" then all protestant denominations agree. however, if foundation means "how to be saved" then all denominations do not agree. this is a valid definition of "foundation" for many protestant denominations have formed based on their unique belief in what it takes to be saved.

--some say you have to be baptized, others do not
--some say you have to speak in tongues, others don't even believe in this gift
--some say works are a vital component of faith that saves, others totally deny the role of works in salvation
--some say you can lose your salvation, others believe in OSAS
--some say the spirit works through certain sacraments to save us, others deny that there is any such thing as sacraments
--some say that obedience to God's laws is important, others believe that your one moment of prayer is all that is needed
--if we consider Anglican and Orthodox Churches as "protestant" then we add to the mix an even greater diversity on this issue

the fact is that no matter how you define "foundation" protestantism isn't as "One" as your opponent may desire

[quote]Your non christian friend asked a good question, but I shall ask a better one. Which denomination is right? Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church? You can say they have almost identical foundations, but they still split. So God cannot prevent the Great Schism or He allowed it?[/quote]
ok, here's the important distinction. when a protestant denomination breaks from a protestant denomination, they still remain protestant. more specifically, there are many different baptist sects who all claim to be baptist (southern baptist, independent baptist, northern baptist, seventh-day baptist, american baptist--for examples go [url="http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap021200.htm"][b]here[/b][/url]). however, there is only one Catholic Church. whenever any church breaks away from the Catholic Church, they cease to be Catholic. so, whereas division w/in protestantism severly confounds the onlooker in search of the right protestant church or the right baptist church, that same onlooker need only look in one direction to find the right Catholic Church.

[quote]My question last time was left unanswered - if Peter was the supposed Rock, how come James was the head of the Jerusalem Church and not him? I think the "diocese" of Rome came after the "dioceses" of Jerusalem, Alexandra and Antioch?[/quote]b/c Peter is the bishop of the entire church. that's like saying that John Paul II isn't the pope b/c Archbishop Kelly is the bishop of the diocese of Louisville.

to answer this question from another angle, James only had the authority to head the Jerusalem church, whereas Jesus, in making Peter the rock, gave him authority over the entire Church.

honestly, i don't see how James being the bishop of Jerusalem discredits Peter as the rock and the first pope.

[quote]I dunno what is original church since the church was not an institutional body from the very beginning.[/quote]for one, it depends on how you define "institutional body." secondly, the fact that it may not have had the organizational structure that it had now does not void its existence. likewise, the Catholic Church did not begin at the date in which it had such a structure, but has existed in apostolic authority and belief from the very beginning.

[quote]Hah, what logic is that? It is like saying evil parents will give birth to evil children. No good children can come out of evil parents?![/quote]
he's right here. your logic is flawed on that point.

a twist on your logic that would be correct is the following statement:

--any denomination that exists as the alteration of beliefs that have always been right/true/good can only be wrong/false/evil. the Catholic Church has been holy in her beliefs from the very beginning, for she feeds off the one deposit of faith given to the apostles by Jesus Christ Himself. (of course, if you're going to make this claim, be ready to defend it! )

i hope this helps. if necessary, elaboration on these points can be made

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited August 26, 2004 by phatcatholic