A stranger asks for the Catholic Church

[steve_b]

I’ve seen an argument repeatedly deployed on these forums, taken from Augustine’s Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:
Some posters here see this as a strong argument for the Roman Catholic Church’s claim Roman Catholic here to mean those Churches in communion with Rome, without prejudice to the Eastern Churches as opposed to the Latin] to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.

I haven’t read all the posts, so if this point has been made already just ignore

see [Roman Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm)

The Catholic Church

• The Roman / Latin **rite **= ~98% of the Catholic Church,
• Eastern **rites **= ~2% of the total.

ALL rites in the Catholic Church make up the Catholic Church, and are 100% Catholic because they are in full union with the pope…
N:

The problem is this: what would you do if someone asked where the Orthodox Church meets?

You’d ask them which Orthodox church they belong to. Not all Orthodox churches are in communion with each other.
N:

Would you direct him to your local RC Church,

No.
N:

or to one in communion with Constantinople, Moscow, etc.?

If they are Orthodox, they should know which one to look for.
N:

Or if someone asked where the Evangelical Church meets?

Then you show them where Evangelical Protestants meet.
N:

How can this argument be deployed without implicitly recognising that - by the same standard - one must abandon the claim to be orthodox, evangelical, or indeed any other title that is more commonly applied to a separate** church**?

Since the question is asking for the Catholic Church that specifies and narrows the choice.

 

[Peter_J]

The Catholic Church

• The Roman / Latin **rite **= ~98% of the Catholic Church,
• Eastern **rites **= ~2% of the total.

What about the Mozarabic Rite?

 

[steve_b]

What about the Mozarabic Rite?

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

 

[Reuben_J]

I’ve seen an argument repeatedly deployed on these forums, taken from Augustine’s Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:

Some posters here see this as a strong argument for the Roman Catholic Church’s claim * to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.

The problem is this: what would you do if someone asked where the Orthodox Church meets? Would you direct him to your local RC Church, or to one in communion with Constantinople, Moscow, etc.? Or if someone asked where the Evangelical Church meets?

How can this argument be deployed without implicitly recognising that - by the same standard - one must abandon the claim to be orthodox, evangelical, or indeed any other title that is more commonly applied to a separate church?*

I have not seen Catholics who make this argument other than pointing to the fact that Catholic Church is not to be confused with the Anglican or the Lutheran churches. But if some do, it is surely a very poor argument and God forbid that Catholics should be so naive as to make this kind of inference to their belief.

 

[Novocastrian]

I haven’t read all the posts, so if this point has been made already just ignore

see [Roman Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm)

The Catholic Church

• The Roman / Latin **rite **= ~98% of the Catholic Church,
• Eastern **rites **= ~2% of the total.

ALL rites in the Catholic Church make up the Catholic Church, and are 100% Catholic because they are in full union with the pope…

You’d ask them which Orthodox church they belong to. Not all Orthodox churches are in communion with each other.

No.

If they are Orthodox, they should know which one to look for.

Then you show them where Evangelical Protestants meet.

Since the question is asking for the Catholic Church that specifies and narrows the choice.

I’m not sure you’re really responding to what I wrote. I’ll rephrase: couldn’t one use Augustine’s argument to say that the Eastern Orthodox Church are the orthodox church, and the Evangelicals that they are the church of the Gospel? Obviously one would be mistaken to do so, but isn’t that where Augustine’s argument seems to lead?

 

[John_Lazarus]

Not to derail, but this sort of reminds me of a Wizard of Id cartoon. The King walks up to a priest outside his church and says, “Hey, padre, how many religions do we have in the Kingdom?”
The priest answers. “Just the one, Sire.”
Surprised, the King asks, “Then why are there so many churches?”
The priest says, “Well, the cults have to go somewhere…”

 

[Novocastrian]

Not to derail, but this sort of reminds me of a Wizard of Id cartoon. The King walks up to a priest outside his church and says, “Hey, padre, how many religions do we have in the Kingdom?”
The priest answers. “Just the one, Sire.”
Surprised, the King asks, “Then why are there so many churches?”
The priest says, “Well, the cults have to go somewhere…”

Nice

 

[steve_b]

I’m not sure you’re really responding to what I wrote. I’ll rephrase: couldn’t one use Augustine’s argument to say that the Eastern Orthodox Church are the orthodox church, and the Evangelicals that they are the church of the Gospel? Obviously one would be mistaken to do so, but isn’t that where Augustine’s argument seems to lead?

No.

The part of the quote you used from Augustine was

“…though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house”.

The Church who wrote the NT and collected the books and canonized those books that Catholics call the bible, IS the “Catholic Church.” And it is here with Pope Francis, 266th successor to St Peter, presiding over Our Lord’s Church

The greater context to that quote is

“[In] the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should… With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus [Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti.)[/COLOR]

The Catholic Church is the Church of the Gospel.

 

[adf417]

No.

The part of the quote you used from Augustine was

“…though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house”.

The Church who wrote the NT and collected the books and canonized those books that Catholics call the bible, IS the “Catholic Church.” And it is here with Pope Francis, 266th successor to St Peter, presiding over Our Lord’s Church

The greater context to that quote is

“[In] the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should… With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me… No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus [Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti.)[/COLOR]

The Catholic Church is the Church of the Gospel.

 

[SteveVH]

I’ve seen an argument repeatedly deployed on these forums, taken from Augustine’s Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:

Some posters here see this as a strong argument for the Roman Catholic Church’s claim * to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed.

The problem is this: what would you do if someone asked where the Orthodox Church meets? Would you direct him to your local RC Church, or to one in communion with Constantinople, Moscow, etc.? Or if someone asked where the Evangelical Church meets?

How can this argument be deployed without implicitly recognising that - by the same standard - one must abandon the claim to be orthodox, evangelical, or indeed any other title that is more commonly applied to a separate church?*

Since there is no such thing as the “Orthodox Church” any more than there is such a thing as the “Protestant Church”, I would ask them which Orthodox Church they are looking for; Greek, Russian, Byzantine, Independent, American…

I don’t see this as an issue at all.

 

[JonNC]

Common enough, of course, for a group to accept an originally insulting name given it by others: Methodist, Quaker, Whig, Tory …. and (some say) Welsh!

And Roman Catholic.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

After seeing the posts and their context, they refer to the conversation of those branches of Protestantism that understand them to belong to the Catholic Church.

I’ll be the first on to point to the Dominus Iesus document that expresses that all those who are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are members of the Catholic Church — although some might be in an imperfect union with the Church.

In this aspect - for example - where JonNC says that his Church is part of the Catholic Church - Jon is referring to a more advanced theological understanding.** I know for a fact, JonNC being steadfast and truthful - that if someone came to him and asked him - where is the Catholic Church? - Jon would point that person to the Catholic Church - and here I am speaking of the one in Communion with the Bishop of Rome.** I am pretty sure you would do the same. Unless you are always up for a deep theological debate in the middle of the street - and I’m ok if that is how you roll .

However, the context you are bringing up - this specific argument is not valid - because obviously if someone asks me about where is the Pentecostal Church - I would point them to the Pentecostal Church.

That’s why I wanted to see the specific thread of the argument.

Peace,

Correct.

And thank you.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

And Roman Catholic.

Jon

Yepers!

 

[steve_b]

After seeing the posts and their context, they refer to the conversation of those branches of Protestantism that understand them to belong to the Catholic Church.

I’ll be the first on to point to the Dominus Iesus document that expresses that all those who are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are members of the Catholic Church — although some might be in an imperfect union with the Church.

In this aspect - for example - where JonNC says that his Church is part of the Catholic Church - Jon is referring to a more advanced theological understanding. I know for a fact, JonNC being steadfast and truthful - that if someone came to him and asked him - where is the Catholic Church? - Jon would point that person to the Catholic Church - and here I am speaking of the one in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. I am pretty sure you would do the same. Unless you are always up for a deep theological debate in the middle of the street - and I’m ok if that is how you roll .

However, the context you are bringing up - this specific argument is not valid - because obviously if someone asks me about where is the Pentecostal Church - I would point them to the Pentecostal Church.

That’s why I wanted to see the specific thread of the argument.

Peace,

For clarification,

Dominus Jesus doesn’t say all who are baptised are members of the Catholic Church.

A trinitarian baptism makes one baptised.

• Baptism in the Catholic Church makes one a Catholic. It doesn’t mean one will be a good Catholic, nor remain Catholic
• Baptism outside the Catholic Church doesn’t make one Catholic nor gurantee one will be Catholic.
• Lutherans are NOT part of the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

For clarification,

Dominus Jesus doesn’t say all who are baptised are members of the Catholic Church.

A trinitarian baptism makes one baptised.

• Baptism in the Catholic Church makes one a Catholic. It doesn’t mean one will be a good Catholic, nor remain Catholic
• Baptism outside the Catholic Church doesn’t make one Catholic nor gurantee one will be Catholic.
• Lutherans are NOT part of the Catholic Church.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion.

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

]The Catholic Church

• The Roman / Latin **rite **= ~98% of the Catholic Church,
• Eastern **rites **= ~2% of the total.

ALL rites in the Catholic Church make up the Catholic Church, and are 100% Catholic because they are in full union with the pope…

Are there really sixteen different rites ? Would you also need to know if they are Pentecostal or Christo-Pagan or Evangelical,or Spiritist and also if they are moderate,Conservative, Traditional or Sedevacanist ? And wait, who has the nearest folk Mass? (well, that was the sixties).

 

[pocohombre]

ALL rites in the Catholic Church make up the Catholic Church, and are 100% Catholic because they are in full union with the pope…

Is that like saying, *ALL 21 Protestant traditions are 100% Protestant because they are not in union with the pope? *

You’d ask them which Orthodox church they belong to. Not all Orthodox churches are in communion with each other.

And,* ALL 19 Orthodox traditions are 100% Orthodox because they are not in union with the pope?*

 

[steve_b]

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion.

Jon

It’s Not my opinion. You know me by now, I can always back up what I say,.

all emphasis mine

"Strictly speaking, a Catholic is a person who has been baptized in the Catholic Church or has been received into the Church after a valid non-Catholic baptism ( i.e. they are not Catholic by virtue of baptism).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but “in body” not “in heart.” (CCC 837)

[http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...-the-churchs-social-teachings-for-example-put (http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...-the-churchs-social-teachings-for-example-put) "

Jon,

see all that language?

Baptism

• doesn’t automatically make someone Catholic.
• baptism in the Catholic Church makes one Catholic
• valid baptism by non Catholics that person must be received “into” the Catholic Church for that person to be Catholic. They aren’t automatically Catholic by their baptism.
• then we get into all the other issues

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It’s Not my opinion. You know me by now, I can always back up what I say,.

all emphasis mine

"Strictly speaking, a Catholic is a person who has been baptized in the Catholic Church or has been received into the Church after a valid non-Catholic baptism ( i.e. they are not Catholic by virtue of baptism).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but “in body” not “in heart.” (CCC 837)

[http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...-the-churchs-social-teachings-for-example-put (http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...-the-churchs-social-teachings-for-example-put) "

Jon,

see all that language?

Baptism

• doesn’t automatically make someone Catholic.
• baptism in the Catholic Church makes one Catholic
• valid baptism by non Catholics that person must be received “into” the Catholic Church for that person to be Catholic. They aren’t automatically Catholic by their baptism.
• then we get into all the other issues

Curious how you explain this:

This task is so urgent since
Catholics and Lutherans have never ceased to confess together the faith
in the »one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church
lutheranworld.org/sites/d…0Communion.pdf

 

[Isaiah45_9]

For clarification,

Dominus Jesus doesn’t say all who are baptised are members of the Catholic Church.

A trinitarian baptism makes one baptised.

• Baptism in the Catholic Church makes one a Catholic. It doesn’t mean one will be a good Catholic, nor remain Catholic
• Baptism outside the Catholic Church doesn’t make one Catholic nor gurantee one will be Catholic.
• Lutherans are NOT part of the Catholic Church.

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, **which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.**58 **The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.**60

**On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.**62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

1. From what has been stated above, some points follow that are necessary for theological reflection as it explores the relationship of the Church and the other religions to salvation.

Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78