Talk:One true church

Untitled

This page redirects to the Eastern Orthodox Church, implying that it is the One True Church.

At least several churches claim to be the One True Church, some of them based on the notion of Apostolic Succession, some based on the claim that later revelation taught them the one true way. Many other churches believe that the One True Church goes beyond denominational boundaries, that no one denomination can legitimately make that claim.

It doesn't seem appropriate to pick just one of the One True Churches and have this page redirect to that one.

Jonathan.robie (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Open question: Does the Catholic Church make the claim to be the "One True Church"?

Or is their claim simply one of "Primacy"? 75.15.196.53 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer is yes, the Catholic Church does teach that it is the one true Church. From the Vatican's CDF's document "RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH" (from 2007):

[In Caput I in genere: Act Syn III/II 297-301]

"4 – Let it be said more expressly that there is one sole true Church of Christ; that this is the Apostolic Roman Church; that all must seek to know Her and enter Her in order to obtain salvation…"

"Thus the commission whose task it was to evaluate the responses to the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio clearly expressed the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and its unicity, and understood this doctrine to be founded in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium."

"5 – It should be said more clearly that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church…

The reply is made: The text presupposes the doctrine set out in the constitution ‘De Ecclesia’ [= Concerning the Church], as is affirmed on page 5, lines 24 – 25.” (Act Syn III/VII 15). Thus the commission whose task it was to evaluate the responses to the Decree Unitatis redintegratio clearly expressed the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and its unicity, and understood this doctrine to be founded in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium . D) [In Nr. 2 Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 297s]

“Pag. 6, lin. 1- 24: Clarius exprimatur unicitas Ecclesiae. Non sufficit inculcare, ut in textu fit, unitatem Ecclesiae.

R(espondetur): a) Ex toto textu clare apparet identificatio Ecclesiae Christi cum Ecclesia catholica, quamvis, ut oportet, efferantur elementa ecclesialia aliarum communitatum”.

"Pag. 7, lin. 5: Ecclesia a successoribus Apostolorum cum Petri successore capite gubernata (cf. novum textum ad pag. 6, lin.33-34) explicite dicitur ‘unicus Dei grex’ et lin. 13 ‘una et unica Dei Ecclesia’ ” (Act Syn III/VII). The two expressions quoted are those of Unitatis rredintegratio 2.5 e 3.1. D) [In Nr. 2 Schema Decreti: Act Syn III/II 297s]

"Page 6, lines 1 – 24: Let the unique nature of the Church be expressed more clearly. It is not enough to insist upon the unity of the Church, as is done in the text."

"The reply is made: a) The identification of the Church of Christ with the catholic Church is clearly apparent from the entire text, although the ecclesial elements of other communities are declared, as should be done."

"Page 7, line 5: The Church governed by the successors of the Apostles with the successor of Peter as its head (compare the new text on page 6, lines 33 – 34) is explicitly described as ‘the sole flock of God’ and on line 13 as ‘the one, sole Church of God'”. (Act Syn III/VII). The two expressions quoted are those of Unitatis redintegratio 2.5 e 3.1."

And, as stated originally in the Fourth Lateran Council: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.130.189 (talk • contribs)

Diff of the above unsigned post. Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Exsult1 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC) It is necessary to consider two very important words in the Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) of the Second Vatican Council: "subsistit in." In the fifty years since the end of Vatican II, there have been a variety of interpretations. See

Diff of the above strangely signed post. Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Merge discussion

The "Latter Day Saints" section at One true faith should be merged to One true church#Latter Day Saints. This is duplication without usefulness, and since the Latter Day Saints movement being part of Christianity, it doesn't make sense that they be singly highlighted under the Christianity of One true faith where other parts of Christianity are only listed at One true church. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, though I suggest a bolder move, and merge both articles together, as removing LDS from "One True Faith" leaves a bare stub for Christianity, and then a brief paragraph for Islam. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Why I unmerged the discussion

I disagree, and I undid the merge. Those who believe in the "One True Church" (I don't) would say that Christianity is the one true faith, and that their denomination is the true representation of Christianity. It's quite possible to believe Christianity is "the one true faith" and not believe that there is a "one true church". It's less common, but still possible, to believe that a given church is the "one true church", but to also believe that there is more than one true faith (e.g. some believe that Judaism and Christianity are both valid faiths, and to believe that the Orthodox church is the one true church). Jonathan.robie (talk)

I think that they ought not to be merged unless the whole of the article is merged. There is no reason why under the Christianity subset on the "one true faith" page there will be represented other churches but not the Latter-day Saints. Since there are breaks among those who consider themselves "Christian" about what the "true Christian faith" is it ought to be maintained. It might be more prudent to discover if among Judaism or Islam if there are certain traditions considered more or less correct (e.g. Orthodox vs. Reformed). If the decision is made to merge the Latter-day Saints section then it is only logical to also merge the Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox and Churches of Christ subsections as well. Meaning that on the "one true faith" page a statement about each broad faith (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam) is listed; the "one true church" page as a discussion for the specific churches (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Latter-day Saints). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.236.110 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

churches of Christ

The churches of Christ are also very staunch on the idea that they are the "One True Church". They are very vocal on the fact they believe Romans 16:16 refers to them and they are the "One True Church" and that other denominations are lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twicks696 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that One true faith be merged into One true church. The content of the Faith article is considerably shorter, and the subject of the Faith article can be characterized as identical with, or as a subset of, the Church article.

Whether the general concepts of "faith" and "church" are synonymous or not in a general context (and I agree that they are not synonyms) is irrelevant here: the relevant question for this merge proposal is how the terms "one true faith" and "one true church" are used. Throughout the Faith article, the demurral of one Talk page merge opponent above notwithstanding, there is never a distinction drawn between the terms "one true faith" and "one true church".

In the Faith article, in the first half of the first sentence, the expression "One true church" is listed as one of the synonyms of "One true faith" (the other being "One true religion").

There are further examples later in the Faith article. For example, the Christianity section of the Faith article repeatedly uses the expression "one true church" or equivalent as a synonym of "one true faith" :(1. the one and only church to which Jesus gave his authority, 2. apostolic succession is seen as one of the essential elements in constituting the one true church, and 3. The claim to be the one true church is related to the first of the Four Marks of the Church). In fact, the expression One true faith is not used at all in the Christianity section of the Faith article--only One true church is used.

Lastly, the Church article is of a reasonable size such that the merging of Faith will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Mathglot (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The one true faith has only a very few lines not covered in the "one true church" article and its opening statements are unsourced and questioned. Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Since a week has gone by and opposition has appeared, I have performed the merger. Esoglou (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Religious exclusivism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to withdraw proposal w^{L<speak·check>} 02:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Do both these articles cover the same content? Other than one being a church and the other being a religion, the both start with the assertion that a certain faith is true. w^{L<speak·check>} 00:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

To be more clear, I propose One true church to be merged into the Christian section of Religious exclusivism as the OTT seems to expand on later forms of Christianity that have "the doctrine or belief that only one particular religion or belief system is true." --w^{L<speak·check>} 01:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This merge proposal is just wrong. These are very different topics. The "one true church" notion is a very specific notion within Christianity. The merge proposal has no merit at all and should be ended. It should also be mentioned that a specific church is not the same as a specific religion. Afterwriting (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that this notion of there being a "one true church" is a very notable and significant one within Christianity and the topic clearly deserves its own dedicated article. The notion should not simply be subsumed into a generic article on "religious exclusivism". Afterwriting (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Support I think the merge proposal has a lot of merit. This article should be merged into Relgious exclusivism, and the content condensed somewhat. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Very Strongly Oppose: This is an important theological issue, especially between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. The article should not be merged into any other one. Anglicanus (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please open your eyes. The articles cover the exact same thing. This one even has sections on judaism and islam. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. This article is specifically about the issue of whether there is one true CHURCH within Christianity ~ NOT about whether there is one true RELIGION. These are clearly distinct topics. And, for your information, I have no need to open my eyes. Anglicanus (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

do you acknowledge that they are related, at least? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose For reasons already given above. The merge proposal is based on an inability to understand the differences between the notions of "one true (Christian) church" and "one true faith". These are very different matters. Afterwriting (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. What afforded grounds for this proposal was the mistaken edit I made on 1 April 2014 (I was an April Fool!), by merging "One true faith", which had very little material, into the "One true church" article. If I had known that the "Religious exclusivism" article existed, I wouldn't have made that mistake. I then redirected "One true faith" to "One true church", but have now corrected it to redirect to "Religious exclusivism". By undoing my April Fool mistake and restoring the "One true church" article to what calls itself a church (and thus Christian), I have, I believe, removed what seemed to be grounds for this proposal. Esoglou (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

An understandable confusion. I agree that the "One true faith" article can appropriately be merged with "Religious exclusivism" as this is more or less the same thing. The specifically Christian notion of there being "one true church" is significantly different and the topic is important enough to require its own distinct article. Afterwriting (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"One true faith" section is irrelevant to this article.

Why on earth has the "One true faith" article been merged with this article?! This is absurd and shows just how ignorant some editors can be on religious matters. As has been pointed out regarding the equally misguided merge proposal with "Religious exclusivism" this article is meant to be about an argument in Christianity about whether there is "one true church" and not about "one true faith" or "one true religion". Why is this distinction not clearly obvious to some editors? The section on other "faiths" should be removed from this article. It is irrelevant to this article which is specifically on whether there is one true Christian church. Afterwriting (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I thank Esoglou for correcting this confusion for the reasons he gave in the previous section above. I also withdraw my own previous comments in this section here as Esoglou is not "ignorant" on such matters. Afterwriting (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I may or may not be ignorant, but I do make mistakes. In fact, there is a proposal to ban me from Wikipedia or at least from articles about Christianity. Esoglou (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Restorationist/Mormon churches section

I noticed a bit of debate in the edit comments about the table that currently exists in the LDS Church section. I think it is pretty clear this table has to go. It is just proof texting with primary sources (the bible and Mormon scriptures), and is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. COGDEN 20:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed that the section included material relating to the Churches of Christ. I have made the section broader, to include all the Restorationism branches of Christianity, and made the LDS Church material a little more succinct, adding a source on baptism for the dead. COGDEN 20:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made a second reversion to another editor who blanked the Iglesia ni Cristo paragraphs of this section, who claims WP:UNDUE. I disagree, as it hold a relatively large number of adherants for a restorationist church. --w^{L<speak·check>} 03:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Christian church to Christian denomination

I wanted to link to something which describes what a church is in this context at the lead section, but I found that the article for Christian Church describes every believer in Christ, so I looked at the disambig text at the top of that article and it spoke about denominations being what we describe (groups of people within the faith). I think the link for denomination works, thoughts? --w^{L<speak·check>} 22:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar

It's unfortunate IMO that this article currently uses the Catholic Church sidebar template.

One True Church can be seen as a proper name and a sort of brand of the (Roman) Catholic Church (as can Catholic Church itself).

However, the uncapitalised one true church is a descriptive phrase, and disputed. And this is exactly what the article currently says too! So to imply that this also refers exclusively to the Catholic Church is highly POV. See Roman or Catholic or neither or both for disclosure of my background, views and possible COI on this.

On the brighter side, the lead is not just about the Catholic view on this, and the Wikiproject Chrstianity banner links to several other denominational subprojects.

I also note that this article is the product of a merge of two articles one true church and One True Church. That merge is not necessarily a bad thing, but the sidebar needs to be brought into conformity with the lead and the rest of the article IMO. Andrewa (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The true church is IGLESIA NI CRISTO po

💚🤍❤️ 2001:4455:5ED:2F00:5D0B:3164:2197:A2F0 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)