A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 16: The Catholic Church is the Only True Church

OLRL ^ | Fr. William J. Cogan

[NYer]

Lesson 16: The Catholic Church is the Only True Church

"Whom do you say that I am?  Simon Peter answered and said:  Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.  And Jesus answering, said to him:  Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona:  because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father Who is in Heaven.  And I say to thee:  Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."  (Matthew 16:16-18)

JESUS GIVES HIS AUTHORITY TO THE APOSTLES

"And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying:  All power is given to Me in Heaven and in earth.  Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:  and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."  (Matthew 28:18-20)

1. Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible?
      No, because some of the things in the Bible can be misunderstood and because the Bible does not include everything that God taught.

   "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation."    (2 Peter 1:20)
   
   

   "As also in all his [St. Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [twist], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."    (2 Peter 3:16)

• What did Jesus do to make sure that His teaching would never be misunderstood?
     He established a church.

  "The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."    (1 Timothy 3:15)

• When did Jesus establish His Church?
     Nearly two thousand years ago.

• How many churches did Jesus establish?
     Only one.

  "Upon this Rock I will build My church."    (Matthew 16:18)
  
  

  "There shall be one fold and one shepherd."    (John 10:16)

• How long did Jesus plan His Church to last?
     Until the End of the World.

  "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."    (Matthew 28:20)

• How did Jesus establish His Church?
  By giving His authority to the Apostles to rule and to teach.

  "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."    (Matthew 28:20)

• Did the people have to obey the Apostles?
     Yes, because they spoke with the authority of Jesus, and therefore, to disobey them would be a sin.

  "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me."    (Luke 10:16)

• Did the authority of the Apostles die with them?
     No, they handed down their authority to others, since Jesus instituted His Church to last until the end of the World.

  Some of the men who received authority from the Apostles:  Matthias (Acts 1:22), Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:2), Timothy, Silas, Sylvanus, Titus, Luke, Mark (Acts 17:14; 2 Corinthians 1:19; 2 Timothy 14:11)

• Which Church today has the same authority?
     The Catholic Church, because it is the only Church established by Jesus Christ.

• How do you know the Catholic Church is the only true church?
     History shows that it is the only church that can be traced back to Christ.

• Does everyone have to obey the Catholic Church?
     Yes, because She alone has the authority of Jesus to rule and to teach.

  To disobey the Catholic Church knowingly is just as much a sin as to disobey Jesus Christ or His Apostles.

• Where did the Protestant churches come from?
     They were established by men who had no authority to start churches of their own.

• Who started the first Protestant church?
     The first Protestant church was established less than 500 years ago in Germany by Martin Luther, in 1520.

• Name the founders of other leading Protestant churches.
  

  Name of church	Founder	When	Where
  Episcopalian	King Henry VIII	1534	England
  Presbyterian	John Knox	1560	Scotland
  Congregationalist	Robert Browne	1583	England
  Baptist	John Smith	1600	Holland
  Methodist	John Wesley	1739	England
  Adventist	William Miller	1831	New York
  Christian Scientist	Mary Baker Eddy	1879	Massachusetts

PRACTICAL POINTS

1. A non-Catholic who suspects that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God and does not investigate Her claims with a mind to join if Her claims prove to be true, cannot be saved, because outside of Christ's Mystical Body (the Catholic Church), there is no salvation.

2. You should try to bring others "to the knowledge of the Truth"  (1 Timothy 2:4)  by prudently suggesting that they take instructions in the True Religion.

[FormerLib]

I got news for ya...If you don't have the written words of God, you don't have a Christian religion...

Wait a second, you're accusing the same Church whose Ecumenical Councils authenticated the books of the New Testament as not having the "written words of God?" I'm hoping you will realize how really silly that suggestion is.

[NYer]

I assume most RC's, as with most denominations, stop their catechism training with this kind of "short" or "brief" catechism. Am I wrong?

Yes and no ;-) It depends on the diocese and the materials chosen. It also depends on the parents. The Catholic Church is sacramental. Parents show up to have their children baptized and sometimes don't return until the child is ready for First Communion (age 8). They then resurface for the Sacrament of Confirmation, though I don't know of any Catholic Church that will administer the Sacraments without parent and child preparation ... i.e. religious education.

The best known and most comprehensive Catechism is the

Baltimore Catechism .

A simply amazing jump from "The Apostles" to "The Catholic Church". Forget the poo-pooing of their validity (for now), they are more talking points than catechism.

Thank you for this opportunity to address your concern with the Baltimore Catechism, linked above.

Do "cradle catholics" get better catechism at a later point?

For those who are interested, it doesn't get much better than

Mother Angelica

And the network she founded. EWTN

[Uncle Chip]

"Whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father Who is in Heaven. And I say to thee: Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:16-18)

Where is the word "Catholic" in this verse??? Where is the word: "Rome" or "Roman" or "Roman Catholic"??? It takes a vivid and unlearned imagination that defies logic and history to continue to quote this verse as if it is the foundation of the RCC especially when even Catholic scholars admit that there is no evidence for Peter's mythical sojourn to Rome.

[Pyro7480]

even Catholic scholars admit that there is no evidence for Peter's mythical sojourn to Rome.

Source? Are these "progressive" Catholic scholars?

[magisterium]

Were the Israelites abandoned by God during their enforced 40-year wandering for infidelity, or was that wandering merely a punishment or winnowing of a people still chosen by God? Is it possible that the same sort of 40-year wandering in theological silliness has been going on in the developed West to the same end? After all, this pope seems determined that 40 years is long enough, and the time has come to put a stop to the foolishness. The infidelity to authentic church teching is about to come to an abrupt end. The winnowing here will have its effect, just as it did for the Israelites.

It’s unfortunate that you were involved in what sounds like a pretty bogus RCIA program, run by entrenched allies of the Enemy. But they are being rooted out in due course. All along, though, the official teaching of the Church has not changed, and it was always not too hard to find. Thinking that Catholicism is *actually* an earth goddess religion might be excusable given your RCIA experience, but surely you must have known that, had you dug deeper on your own initiative, instead of taking immediate scandal, you would have found out what the Church really is and what it stands for. You can certainly glean this information from the many well-catechized Catholics on this very forum. Better days are already at hand. I will pray for you, too.

[NYer]

I got news for ya...If you don't have the written words of God, you don't have a Christian religion...

And here's some 'good news' for you, as well. Because the Old and New Testament Scriptures are the divinely-revealed, written Word of God, Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord's body. But Catholics do not believe that God has given us His divine Revelation in Christ exclusively through Scripture. Catholics also believe that God's Revelation comes to us through the Apostolic Tradition and teaching authority of the Church.

What Church? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).

[Petronski]

Matthew 7:6

DV

[Pyro7480]

Catholics venerate the Scriptures as they venerate the Lord's body

Well, it's not quite the level that Eucharistic adoration is at, but still, the wider point is true.

[Uncle Chip]

even Catholic scholars admit that there is no evidence for Peter's mythical sojourn to Rome.

Source? Are these "progressive" Catholic scholars?

Let's call them honest Catholic scholars and start here:

...we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

If you possess no precise details, then how with a clear conscience does your magisterium continue to propagate the legend of Peter in Rome to the gullible congregants who just blindly drink it up without asking questions.

[farmer18th]

Unfortunately, “digging deeper” only revealed how deeply entrenched things like the Marian heresy are in the Roman church, and how simple Christ’s teachings really are: “wherever two or three are gathered”

[Petronski]

Where’s the link?

[Petronski]

Here's the full sentence:

Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn.

What a shabby misquoting job you've done!

Here's the link you didn't want to provide:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

[Petronski]

Forgot to ping you to 92.

Prepare to laugh out loud.

[GCC Catholic]

Another point worth noting is that the article was written in 1911, before the excavations below St. Peter’s Basilica (which occurred in 1953).

[Petronski]

These attempts have resulted in complete stinging, embarrassing, laughable failure.

[armydoc]

A non-Catholic who suspects that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of God and does not investigate Her claims with a mind to join if Her claims prove to be true, cannot be saved, because outside of Christ's Mystical Body (the Catholic Church), there is no salvation.

LOL! Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus watered down and wimpified! For centuries, it was understood to mean that if you weren't a card-carrying Catholic, you burn. Now, you just have to "investigate" Her claims, and come to your own conclusion regarding their accuracy. Decide they aren't true? Fine, follow your conscience, the Catholic Church may save you anyway. Har!

[Uncle Chip]

Here's the full sentence: Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn.

How is it possible to teach something as fact to people when you have no details to verify it as fact??? Here is a statement from a Catholic author that is closer to the truth regarding the legend of Peter in Rome:

"All the essential claims of the modern papacy, it might seem, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Irenaeus' account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. The popes trace their commission from Christ through Peter, yet for Irenaeus the authority of the Church at Rome came from its foundation by two Apostles, not by one, Peter and Paul not Peter alone. The tradition that Peter and Paul had been put to death at the hands of Nero in Rome about the year AD 64 was universally accepted in the second century, and by the end of that century pilgrims to Rome were being shown the 'trophies' of the Apostles, their tombs, or cenotaphs, Peter's on the Vatican Hill, and Paul's on the Via Ostiensis, outside the walls on the road to the coast. Yet on all of this the New Testament is silent. Later legend would fill out the details of Peter's life and death in Rome--his struggles with the magician and father of heresy, Simon Magus, his miracles, his attempted escape from persecution in Rome, a flight from which he was turned back by a reproachful vision of Christ (the 'Quo Vadis' legend), and finally his crucifixion upside down in the Vatican Circus in the time of the Emperor Nero. These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church--Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, where ever we turn, the solid outlines of the petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve...

" Neither Paul, Acts nor any of the Gospels tells us anything direct about Peter's death, and none of them even hints that the special role of Peter could be passed on to any single 'successor'. There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament [Duffy, Eamon. Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. Yale University Press, New Haven (CT), 2002, pp.2,6).

[Petronski]

How is it possible to teach something as fact to people when you have no details to verify it as fact???

No PRECISE details.

[amihow]

Love the Church and know it is the true Church, but would it be more appropriate to say She is the only fully true Church or the only completely true Church? That is a formulation which would acknowledge implicitly that other Churches may have parts of Her truth.

Don’t know. Hope a theologian could answer.