Callers to my door.

hinault · 30-04-2011 9:03pm #1

Earlier today, two Baptist preachers called to my door. They were handing out leaflets explaining their churches view on sin and death.

I explained to both of the callers that I am a practicing RC and that their literature was wasted on being given to me.
One of the preachers became slightly defensive and asked me if I read the Bible.
I told the preacher that I did and he immediately stated that I could get absolution from God without having to attend confession.
I explained to him that it is my belief and the RC teaching that one has to receive the sacrament of penance.
He tried to claim that a priest had no power to absolve sins. I told him that God absolves sin but that every priest has been enpowered by God to administer the sacrament of penance.
he immediately started quoting the Bible at me saying that nowhere in the Bible does it state this.
He cited John 3:16.
There followed a protracted and lively discussion with me citing John 20:22-23.

Do any of my fellow RC members here get in to protracted discussions with callers like these?

tenchi-fan · 30-04-2011 10:52pm

hinault wrote: »

There followed a protracted and lively discussion with me citing John 20:22-23.

Good for you! Catholics are meant to know enough about the bible to defend their faith, especially given that these preachers know enough about Catholicism to try to sway you from it.

Out of interest, what was their view on John 20:22-23?

Quo Vadis · 30-04-2011 10:59pm

hinault wrote: »

Do any of my fellow RC members here get in to protracted discussions with callers like these?

I would say you were a rare challenge for them. Thanks to very poor Catechesis in recent years, most Catholics would not be up to it.

"Always be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" 1 Peter 3:15

antiskeptic · 30-04-2011 11:29pm

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Out of interest, what was their view on John 20:22-23?

Not apostolic succession apparently..what with them being able to read and everything.

Onesimus · 30-04-2011 11:55pm

I dont bother. I just say ''no thank you'' and return to eating my toast and spending time reading forums. In the case of Jehovahs I might end up having to close my blinds as well as they are more annoying than X-Factor.

Donatello · 01-05-2011 12:35am

Onesimus wrote: »

I dont bother. I just say ''no thank you'' and return to eating my toast and spending time reading forums. In the case of Jehovahs I might end up having to close my blinds as well as they are more annoying than X-Factor.

I once spent an hour talking with some Mormons in Carlisle city centre. It was a most enjoyable experience. Although we got absolutely nowhere, I figured that for the hour they were stood talking to me, they were not getting any new recruits.

hinault · 01-05-2011 2:54am

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Good for you! Catholics are meant to know enough about the bible to defend their faith, especially given that these preachers know enough about Catholicism to try to sway you from it.

Out of interest, what was their view on John 20:22-23?

Their view was that John 20:22-23 did not explicitly confer rights upon the clergy?

This isn't a case of me trying to inflict my views upon them. More a case of my defending my point of view when challenged about the sacrament of penance and how this sacrament is not needed, in the view of Baptists.

I have no difficulty with anyone from any denomination dropping literature in to my home.
However, I do take exception to others trying to undermine the tenets of the RCC teaching.

Onesimus · 01-05-2011 3:44pm

Donatello wrote: »

I once spent an hour talking with some Mormons in Carlisle city centre. It was a most enjoyable experience. Although we got absolutely nowhere, I figured that for the hour they were stood talking to me, they were not getting any new recruits.

I never hold conversations with them. Its pointless. They are not interested in friendly conversation, they are just interested in converting you. I dont even respond to them on the street when I pass them and they try to stop me and say ''hi''. this is not out of uncharitbleness Lord knows I love them dearly, but I'd rather avoid such a conversation and have the freedom to do so as long as I'm not doing it out of ''hatred'' but rather protection of both myself and family.

FISMA · 02-05-2011 5:43am

"You are Peter on upon this rock I will build my church."

Singular, possessive.

Not my 1000's of churches, but the one true church.

philologos · 02-05-2011 8:47am

They should have a bit of respect if they are calling to your door.

Quo Vadis · 02-05-2011 2:27pm

Here's a very good site for providing scriptural backup for the teachings of the Catholic Church. It also provides lots of writings from the early Church confirming our Catholic traditions.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

From the same site, here's a useful top ten of biblical quotes for Catholics to learn off chaper and verse for such debates.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/my_top_ten.html

Remember :

"Always be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" 1 Peter 3:15

God Bless

Tim Robbins · 02-05-2011 2:51pm

hinault wrote: »

Earlier today, two Baptist preachers called to my door. They were handing out leaflets explaining their churches view on sin and death.

I explained to both of the callers that I am a practicing RC and that their literature was wasted on being given to me.
One of the preachers became slightly defensive and asked me if I read the Bible.
I told the preacher that I did and he immediately stated that I could get absolution from God without having to attend confession.
I explained to him that it is my belief and the RC teaching that one has to receive the sacrament of penance.
He tried to claim that a priest had no power to absolve sins. I told him that God absolves sin but that every priest has been enpowered by God to administer the sacrament of penance.
he immediately started quoting the Bible at me saying that nowhere in the Bible does it state this.
He cited John 3:16.
There followed a protracted and lively discussion with me citing John 20:22-23.

Do any of my fellow RC members here get in to protracted discussions with callers like these?

ha good for you. As an atheist if anyone tries to quote the bible to me for a reason for anything I point out that their logic is circular. And that is just met usually with an empty face. Occasionally you'll get someone like PDN say "What do you know about logic?"

I reckon I am in the top 2% of the population for logical ability. But obviously people are allowed to disagree on this serious issue :pac:;)

philologos · 02-05-2011 3:00pm

Quo Vadis:

Here is a quote from the start of your list of quotations:

The following is a list of my Top Ten Scripture passages which Protestants cannot adequately explain without embracing the teachings of the Catholic Church

How come I as a non-Catholic a number of possibilities arise for these verses in light of the Christian church as a whole rather than the RCC specifically?

PDN · 02-05-2011 3:41pm

Tim Robbins wrote: »

ha good for you. As an atheist if anyone tries to quote the bible to me for a reason for anything I point out that their logic is circular. And that is just met usually with an empty face. Occasionally you'll get someone like PDN say "What do you know about logic?"

I reckon I am in the top 2% of the population for logical ability. But obviously people are allowed to disagree on this serious issue :pac:;)

While your selective memory is remarkable, your logical abilities are about on a par with your humility.

Robert ninja · 02-05-2011 3:46pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Quo Vadis:
How come I as a non-Catholic a number of possibilities arise for these verses in light of the Christian church as a whole rather than the RCC specifically?

Because the bible, despite what christians may say, is not perfectly written and indeed lends its self to be read, understood and used for almost any purpose the reader wants it to be used for. It's the big book of multiple choice.

philologos · 02-05-2011 3:53pm

Robert ninja wrote: »

Because the bible, despite what christians may say, is not perfectly written and indeed lends its self to be read, understood and used for almost any purpose the reader wants it to be used for. It's the big book of multiple choice.

I don't think I'm the one putting my assumptions into it. When I see people going on about Peter being the rock of the church along Matthew 16 or Mark 8. I do nothing apart from said that Peter was chosen to lead the Christian church. It is others who go the step further and assume that this is the Roman Catholic Church without basis.

That's the same for every reference to church on that page. None of those references to church make explicit reference to the Roman Catholic Church. I suspect this is largely because the RCC didn't exist until after Constantine. The word "catholic" means universal, it doesn't mean the Roman Catholic Church which is a particular denomination of the catholic church.

Also, just because clergy can be used to confess Biblically, it doesn't mean that this is the only way to confess. I don't take any issue with someone going to their priest or pastor to confess. What I do take issue with is the claim that if I don't I won't be forgiven, despite the fact that the Bible says that one can repent directly to God:

Acts 8:20-23 wrote:

Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that He may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

Donatello · 02-05-2011 5:48pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think I'm the one putting my assumptions into it. When I see people going on about Peter being the rock of the church along Matthew 16 or Mark 8. I do nothing apart from said that Peter was chosen to lead the Christian church. It is others who go the step further and assume that this is the Roman Catholic Church without basis.

I suspect this is largely because the RCC didn't exist until after Constantine. The word "catholic" means universal, it doesn't mean the Roman Catholic Church which is a particular denomination of the catholic church.

No Catholic will say that sacramental confession is the only way to confess, but it is the ordinary means by which Catholics can be forgiven from their mortal sins and be welcomed back into communion with the Church and receive the Holy Eucharist. We can and should confess our venial sins directly to God each day, and if we commit mortal sin, we can and should make a confession to God directly and make a sincere act of contrition, ensuring that we get to confession asap, and certainly before receiving Holy Communion again.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. The Protestant ecclesial communities which broke away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant revolt, and the offshoots from those, can be referred to as denominations.

The Catholic Church was established by Christ and He gave Peter the authority and He gave him the keys to the Kingdom. This fulfils the Old Testament. Peter and his successors are the 'prime ministers' in the Davidic Kingdom, just as in Isaiah.

Jakkass wrote: »

Quo Vadis:

Here is a quote from the start of your list of quotations:

How come I as a non-Catholic a number of possibilities arise for these verses in light of the Christian church as a whole rather than the RCC specifically?

Robert Ninja makes a good point. In the final analysis, this is the main issue for Protestantism: authority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWYwBDqFsuE

Slav · 02-05-2011 6:23pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I suspect this is largely because the RCC didn't exist until after Constantine.

Sorry for dragging it further off-topic but could you explain why it did not exist before Constantine? For example why the Paul's epistle to the Romans could not be considered an epistle to the RCC?

philologos · 02-05-2011 6:44pm

Donatello wrote: »

No Catholic will say that sacramental confession is the only way to confess, but it is the ordinary means by which Catholics can be forgiven from their mortal sins and be welcomed back into communion with the Church and receive the Holy Eucharist. We can and should confess our venial sins directly to God each day, and if we commit mortal sin, we can and should make a confession to God directly and make a sincere act of contrition, ensuring that we get to confession asap, and certainly before receiving Holy Communion again.

I thought if you didn't confess to a priest that your sin wasn't forgiven. Would you mind running through what the difference between a venial and a mortal sin is. The only sin I am familiar with is that which separates us from God, what falls short of His standard for mankind. The essential reason why Jesus needed to come into the world to stand in our place.

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. The Protestant ecclesial communities which broke away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant revolt, and the offshoots from those, can be referred to as denominations.

It is though. The Roman Catholic Church was one church amongst others which were set up by the Apostles such as the Jewish church, the Indian Mar Thomas Church, or the Armenian Apostolic church. All these came under the banner of the universal Christian faith. All were established by the Apostles and all were in existence simultaneously.

You seem to speak about the Reformation as if it was a bad thing, but wasn't there valid grounds as to why the Reformers challenged the church. For example indulgences and large scale corruption in the churches. Wouldn't it have been better if the RCC had listened to the Reformers rather than forcing them to set up outside?

All branches of Christianity are denominations. The RCC, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, Baptist, Presbyterianism etc can be referred to as denominations of the overall Christian faith. Unless you are saying that non-Catholics aren't really Christians.

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholic Church was established by Christ and He gave Peter the authority and He gave him the keys to the Kingdom. This fulfils the Old Testament. Peter and his successors are the 'prime ministers' in the Davidic Kingdom, just as in Isaiah.

The RCC didn't exist until Constantine, so I don't understand how you can make that leap with the text and what was the case historically.

Donatello wrote: »

Robert Ninja makes a good point. In the final analysis, this is the main issue for Protestantism: authority.

I wouldn't call it authority but cohesion certainly. We are going to be all accountable to God, and there are structures in churches that provide order in worship amongst other things or there should be. As one of the quotes mentions the Eucharist can be abused if there isn't guidelines as to how it should be regarded.

Reformed churches put the Bible first people disagree as to what the Bible says so therefore there is division. The RCC puts the church and tradition first limiting peoples interpretation of Scripture, thus denying them this liberty in favour of cohesion. There are disadvantages in both approaches. Largely I would think that it is better to allow people to come into a personal relationship with God by encountering Jesus and then providing a means for them to learn more about Him through the Christian church and indeed to find opportunities to serve Him rather than just sitting in the pews and leeching from the church.

Slav wrote: »

Sorry for dragging it further off-topic but could you explain why it did not exist before Constantine? For example why the Paul's epistle to the Romans could not be considered an epistle to the RCC?

The RCC as in the institution that currently exists didn't exist until after Constantine.

The churches in Rome certainly did exist as a part of the overall Christian church. Which could be called the catholic church, but the catholic church merely meant the Christian church, not the RCC as it currently stands. The term "catholic" has been twisted and distorted beyond recognition since. If Donatello was only saying that the RCC means the Roman branch of Christianity and that other people were able to look to other branches of Christianity I wouldn't have a problem to be honest with you. It is the claim to superiority that I find to be simply incorrect.

Quo Vadis · 02-05-2011 7:15pm

Jakkass wrote: »

The RCC as in the institution that currently exists didn't exist until after Constantine.

The Catholic church is the same church it always was, until Luther, Calvin, Knox, Henry VIII etc. decided to invent their own to suit. Now we have 30,000 Protestant denominations, and every time they don't agree with something among themselves, they start their own Protestant church.

Donatello · 02-05-2011 7:17pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I thought if you didn't confess to a priest that your sin wasn't forgiven.

If you commit a mortal sin, you put yourself out of communion with the Catholic Church. If you make a perfect act of contrition, you will be forgiven by God, and if you died before getting to confession, you will not go to hell (assuming you did actually make a perfect act of contrition, and they don't grow on trees), but to be reconciled and welcomed back into the Church, you must go to confession. Only after confession can you receive the Eucharist again. Sins hurts the entire Body of Christ, so you have to be reconciled in the Sacrament of Penance.

Jakkass wrote: »

Largely I would think that it is better to allow people to come into a personal relationship with God by encountering Jesus and then providing a means for them to learn more about Him through the Christian church and indeed to find opportunities to serve Him rather than just sitting in the pews and leeching from the church.

The Catholic Church desires all Her children to come into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In case you haven't noticed, the Catholic Church in Ireland has not been very well run, so it should not be regarded as the model example, but merely an example of what happens when things go very badly wrong. When the bishops and priests get it wrong, the WHOLE Church suffers.

I believe I have addressed your other points in the past on many occasions, so I'm not going to rehash.

philologos · 02-05-2011 7:34pm

Quo Vadis wrote: »

The Catholic church is the same church it always was, until Luther, Calvin, Knox, Henry VIII etc. decided to invent their own to suit. Now we have 30,000 Protestant denominations, and every time they don't agree with something among themselves, they start their own Protestant church.

It simply doesn't hold up with history, how do you account for the other churches that existed before the Roman Catholic Church and indeed Apostolic churches which operated outside of the Roman Catholic Church such as the Mar Thomas Church in India.

hinault · 02-05-2011 8:00pm

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Here's a very good site for providing scriptural backup for the teachings of the Catholic Church. It also provides lots of writings from the early Church confirming our Catholic traditions.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

From the same site, here's a useful top ten of biblical quotes for Catholics to learn off chaper and verse for such debates.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/my_top_ten.html

Remember :

"Always be prepared to make a defence to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence" 1 Peter 3:15

God Bless

Thanks for this link, QV.

antiskeptic · 02-05-2011 8:10pm

Jakkass wrote: »

It simply doesn't hold up with history, how do you account for the other churches that existed before the Roman Catholic Church and indeed Apostolic churches which operated outside of the Roman Catholic Church such as the Mar Thomas Church in India.

You are Peter and on this rock..

Q.E.D.

Slav · 02-05-2011 8:43pm

Jakkass wrote: »

The RCC as in the institution that currently exists didn't exist until after Constantine.

Why? What exactly happened during the Constantine's time? I don't recall any events that would let us say that yes, this is the starting point of RCC as the institution in its current form.

Obviously Christianity was legalised and even raised up to the status of the new state religion but it had no effects on Christian ecclesiology as far as I'm aware.

It was also the time of the first ecumenical council but it hardly can be seen as evidence of RCC formation - Rome was only represented by 2 presbyters. The idea of a council as the highest Church governing body was not an invention either as we know from the book of Acts.

Finally, Constantine finished the process of moving the capital out of Rome and founded another centre of Christianity in Constantinople which in a way can be seen as Rome's competitor.

wolfsbane · 02-05-2011 8:55pm

FISMA wrote: »

"You are Peter on upon this rock I will build my church."

Singular, possessive.

Not my 1000's of churches, but the one true church.

True. All true Christians are members of that one true church.

Sadly, many people think it is the RCC. Given the RCC's doctrine - not to say, practice - that is obviously not the case. The true church will be known by her resemblance to the NT pattern of faith and practice, not the traditions of men.

There are many local churches throughout the world, many not deserving the name 'Christian', but also many following Christ in a substantial manner. Each of the latter may be properly called Christian churches, local expressions of the one true church.

In addition, many individuals call themselves Christian, without warrant. Many others however are true Christians. Most of the latter are in true local churches. Some are in churches not worthy of the name Christian - to whom Scripture directs the call, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues." Rev.18:4b.

*************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.

philologos · 02-05-2011 9:06pm

Slav wrote: »

Why? What exactly happened during the Constantine's time? I don't recall any events that would let us say that yes, this is the starting point of RCC as the institution in its current form.

I don't believe the RCC is the same thing as the early Christian church, and there is no reason to believe that it was as far as I would see it.

Slav wrote: »

Obviously Christianity was legalised and even raised up to the status of the new state religion but it had no effects on Christian ecclesiology as far as I'm aware.

The Roman Catholic Church came into existence as being distinct from other Christian churches that existed at that time. Namely the Jewish church, the Mar Thomas Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church. Before then it was Christianity that united these churches not Roman Catholicism or any other denominational mindset.

It was also the time of the first ecumenical council but it hardly can be seen as evidence of RCC formation - Rome was only represented by 2 presbyters. The idea of a council as the highest Church governing body was not an invention either as we know from the book of Acts.

Slav wrote: »

Finally, Constantine finished the process of moving the capital out of Rome and founded another centre of Christianity in Constantinople which in a way can be seen as Rome's competitor.

Indeed, and we know what happened with that eventually. It is interesting to note that much of Donatello's frustrations lie with Protestants though rather than previous apostates if you will

Donatello · 02-05-2011 9:15pm

Jakkass wrote: »

It simply doesn't hold up with history, how do you account for the other churches that existed before the Roman Catholic Church and indeed Apostolic churches which operated outside of the Roman Catholic Church such as the Mar Thomas Church in India.

You have misunderstood the meaning and application of terms.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ on the rock of Peter. The Lord gave Peter the keys and the power of binding and loosing. To be in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ, one must be in communion with the Pope, the successor of Peter. Peter made his way to Rome, and he was the first Bishop of Rome. All the Particular Churches of the world and their bishops must be united to the Bishop of Rome, otherwise they are not part of the Catholic Church.

I've seen the same argument you are attempting to make, by a man, a member of the CoI, who tried to make out that the Roman Catholic Church was just one among many Churches. The logic is flawed. Yes, the Church at Rome is a Particular Church - the Diocese of Rome, and yes, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the Bishop of that Particular Church. HOWEVER, The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. You can use the title Roman Catholic Church if you like, so long as you understand that this means only the Church at Rome, i.e. the Diocese of Rome, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), but not in any way so as to understand the Roman Catholic Church as simply a denomination, among the Baptists, Pentecostals, Anglicans etc... for it is not. The Church at Rome, the Diocese of Rome, with the Pope as its Bishop (the Bishop of Rome) is a particular Church. But it is not a denomination. Denomination has no use as a term within the Catholic Church. Denomination is simply a term used to describe those who broke away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant Revolt, and the offshoots from these (30,000+). The successors of the first Pope, Peter, have resided at Rome, and the Bishop of Rome has a supreme jurisdiction over the Universal Church, that is, the Catholic Church.

The Catechism also helps to explain this:

The episcopal college and its head, the Pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

884 "The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council."405 But "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."406

885 "This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."407

886 "The individual bishops are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches."408 As such, they "exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them,"409 assisted by priests and deacons. But, as a member of the episcopal college, each bishop shares in the concern for all the Churches.410 The bishops exercise this care first "by ruling well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church," and so contributing "to the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which, from another point of view, is a corporate body of Churches."411 They extend it especially to the poor,412 to those persecuted for the faith, as well as to missionaries who are working throughout the world.

887 Neighboring particular Churches who share the same culture form ecclesiastical provinces or larger groupings called patriarchates or regions.413 The bishops of these groupings can meet in synods or provincial councils. "In a like fashion, the episcopal conferences at the present time are in a position to contribute in many and fruitful ways to the concrete realization of the collegiate spirit."414

Let us summarise:

- The Catholic Church is not a denomination.
- The Church at Rome (the Particular Church at Rome, the Diocese of Rome) is overseen by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, just as Dublin Archdiocese (the Particular Church of Dublin) is overseen by Archbishop Martin.
- The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, commonly referred to as the Catholic Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, although that term is not so much used now. The Catholic Church has the Pope as it's supreme earthly head, as ordained by Christ.
- The Catechism tells us: ''The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Donatello · 02-05-2011 9:28pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, and we know what happened with that eventually. It is interesting to note that much of Donatello's frustrations lie with Protestants though rather than previous apostates if you will

The Orthodox are schismatics, not apostates.

It would be easier for the Orthodox as a group to return to the one fold than the Protestants in their plethora of sects, although neither is beyond the grace of God, though each would require copious amounts of grace and the good will of men, and the setting aside of old pride and prejudices.

As the Catechism reminds us:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

The following link explains these terms: Heresy, Schism and Apostasy

The oneness of faith that Christ desired can only come about when all are within the one fold, which Christ desired should be shepherded by Peter and his successors, along with the Apostles, and their successors, the other bishops of the world.

Christian unity comes from oneness with God as expressed by one reality, one truth, one belief, one faith, and one doctrine.*

philologos · 02-05-2011 9:33pm

Donatello wrote: »

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ on the rock of Peter. The Lord gave Peter the keys and the power of binding and loosing. To be in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ, one must be in communion with the Pope, the successor of Peter. Peter made his way to Rome, and he was the first Bishop of Rome. All the Particular Churches of the world and their bishops must be united to the Bishop of Rome, otherwise they are not part of the Catholic Church.

There is no reason to believe this from Scripture. The passage says church, the Christian church, it doesn't make any mention to Catholicism. Unless you are saying that the RCC is the only Christian church, there is no logic behind stating this.

Donatello wrote: »

I've seen the same argument you are attempting to make, by a man, a member of the CoI, who tried to make out that the Roman Catholic Church was just one among many Churches.

He seems like a wise man.

Donatello wrote: »

The logic is flawed. Yes, the Church at Rome is a Particular Church - the Diocese of Rome, and yes, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the Bishop of that Particular Church. HOWEVER, The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. You can use the title Roman Catholic Church if you like, so long as you understand that this means only the Church at Rome, i.e. the Diocese of Rome, the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), but not in any way so as to understand the Roman Catholic Church as simply a denomination, among the Baptists, Pentecostals, Anglicans etc... for it is not. The Church at Rome, the Diocese of Rome, with the Pope as its Bishop (the Bishop of Rome) is a particular Church. But it is not a denomination. Denomination has no use as a term within the Catholic Church. Denomination is simply a term used to describe those who broke away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant Revolt, and the offshoots from these (30,000+). The successors of the first Pope, Peter, have resided at Rome, and the Bishop of Rome has a supreme jurisdiction over the Universal Church, that is, the Catholic Church.

This logic is flawed. Let me bring you on a thought experiment.

1) Is the RCC a Christian church? - Yes.
2) Does the RCC account for all Christians? - No.
3) If the RCC is a Christian church and the RCC doesn't account for all Christians isn't it fair to say that the adherents of the RCC are merely a subset of all Christians? - Yes.
4) The RCC can only account for its own members, and there are other churches which account for other Christians. Therefore the RCC as a church is a subset (denomination) of Christianity.

Catechism or no Catechism.

The only logical way to resolve the difficulty you are in is to claim that all Christians outside of the RCC aren't really Christians. In doing so that would mean that RCC <=> Christian both words are homogenous. At present it cannot follow that all Christians are RCC, but it can follow that some Christians are RCC. Therefore this means that the RCC is a subset.

Thanks for engaging us as always Donatello

keano_afc · 02-05-2011 9:36pm

It always pains me to see and hear Catholics trying to defend their man-made doctrine when faced with biblical truth. From reading the OP I didnt find one thing that those callers said that wasnt true, especially in regard to the forgiveness of sin. My own church has a team coming over from North America to do door to door work next month and bring the gospel to lost sinners. Thankfully, the Word is getting true and people are being saved.

Praise the Lord that some of the people we speak to on the doors accept biblical truth and dont hide behind the fallible teaching of men.

Callers to my door.

Comments