How do you get from here to there?

[jmcrae]

I wish I could remember the Orthodox site I read that had a similar list to prove their Patriach also was a descendant of the apostle Peter. The point being that the metric of lineage is insufficient to point to one-and-only-one branch of Christianity.

They are right - they do have authority that has been passed down from the Apostles, especially Peter, to his successor in their Church. That’s why they continue to have valid Sacraments. But, Peter did not grant Papal authority to his successor in Antioch. (Nor does the Patriarch of Antioch ever claim that he did.)

The Patriarch of Antioch knows that he is not the Pope, and does not claim to be. He claims instead that there is no Pope, and his Church broke away from the Catholic Church because they thought that Rome was making some kind of novel claim to authority. However, when we look at the Early Fathers, we see that the succession is, indeed, counted through the Bishops of Rome.

So that begs the question on how important that metric is anyway.

The importance is to know whether they have valid Sacraments or not. Without valid Sacraments, it’s just a social club; not a Church.

Logically when an entity divides upon itself (say into entities A’ and B), both of child attributes inherit from the parent attribute.

Only if you are a paramecium. In the Church, when one breaks away from the other, one remains the original, and the other becomes a break-away sect. Keep in mind, the original Protestants weren’t establishing new rites within the same Church - they were leaving the Church altogether - apostasizing - and then starting up their own new religions by their own authority. They had no authority from the Church to start up “branch offices” of the Church, and nor was this what they were even attempting to do, anyway. They were trying to get rid of the original Church (by burning etc.), and replace it with their own version.

Umm…debatable. He also might read about the corruption that existed in the church at the time of the Reformation (which by the way Catholic scholars are in agreement with) and conclude the Reformation was totally righteous.

First, the whole Church was not corrupt. Certain individuals were - just as at all times in Church history. Father Tetzel was nowhere near as bad as Father Shanley, and yet I don’t see people starting up new religions over him; do you?

I suspect that the political situation in Europe had a lot more to do with Protestantism than whatever corruption may have been used as the excuse for it.

Secondly, evil is not remedied with evil. He will also read about the Counter-Reformation Saints, whose hallmark was obedience and love, and he will realize that that’s how you reform an organization when things are going haywire. Not by leaving and starting up your own, but by sticking with it, and everyone working together to root out the problems, put them out in the daylight, and solve them.

 

[mozart-250]

He wouldn’t be expecting to, unless he had somehow bought into the Protestant idea that everything has to be in the Bible, or else we aren’t required to believe it or do it.

He’d realize that the New Testament is the story of how the Church began, but not the story of where it is right now. For that, he would naturally look to history, which would bring him to the Early Church Fathers - who talk about the Mass, and Confession, and Baptism, and the roles of Bishops, priests, and deacons, etc., and he’d realize that it’s the Catholic Church that carries on these traditions.

Not necessarily.

All that is necessary is for him to come to the belief that the Bible is what it claims to be without any other assumptions, And I imagine he would come to that belief relatively quickly since it is common to not-liberal(Catholic,Protestant,Orthodoxy).

If he came to that belief relatively soon without any other assumptions, we would be the ones making the assumptions on how much weight he puts on Scripture as a source as opposed to extra Biblical sources like the Early Church Fathers. What if he begins to experience God speaking clearly to him through Scripture? What if he decides that Scripture is a very important source while extra-Biblical sources such as the Early Church fathers are less important? After all, the Early Church fathers do not make the same claims for themselves as Scripture does. Anyway, there is no guarantee he would use the metrics that either you or I would wish he would?

And even if he gives the Early Church fathers more weight that many protestants would, how would he handle the cases

• where he perceives the Early Church fathers disagree
• where he perceives a dogma does not begin to be confirmed by the Early Church fathers say until 250 years after the fact

Anyway, you seem to be assuming that he will naturally adopt the Catholic view of authority. I don’t see why he necessarily would.

 

[mozart-250]

The importance is to know whether they have valid Sacraments or not. Without valid Sacraments, it’s just a social club; not a Church.

You are making the assumption that one would naturally believe that some branches have valid Sacraments while others would not. I have no idea how this guy would come to that assumption.

Only if you are a paramecium. In the Church, when one breaks away from the other, one remains the original, and the other becomes a break-away sect. Keep in mind, the original Protestants weren’t establishing new rites within the same Church - they were leaving the Church altogether - apostasizing - and then starting up their own new religions by their own authority. They had no authority from the Church to start up “branch offices” of the Church, and nor was this what they were even attempting to do, anyway. They were trying to get rid of the original Church (by burning etc.), and replace it with their own version.

You are assuming that he will agree with you when he reads about the time period of the reformation. The problem occurs though once he begins reading of this period through non-Catholic sources.

This little exercise does confirm my perception that two underlying assumptions of Catholicism are

• The Catholic version of church history
• The Catholic teaching on authority

 

[mozart-250]

He’d still come to the Catholic Church, I think, since the Catholic Church certainly follows the precepts of the New Testament - she wrote them; she’d better follow them!

Hate to throw a wet blanket on this, but the headline on my local newspaper two days ago was local priest sentenced to six months on fondling charge.

I don’t see how anyone would come to the conclusion that the Catholic church follows the New Testament better than everybody else while at the same time reading these headlines.

My point is that sorting through theological and historical issues is a difficult task. Sorting through behaviour is relatively easy.

It would be natural to expect that any branch of Christianity that claims itself to be in a superior position with respect to the other branches of Christianity to be able to practice the outworking of the faith in a superior manner. If that is not done, the natural conclusion is that they are all equally messed up and that these claims of superiority are umm…bogus.

 

[sterryfamily]

Ah…interesting point.

Perhaps he might look at history to ask himself if any branch of Christianity looks significantly closer to the earliest church than other branches. And he might actually undertake the daunting task of reading the ECF.

What he will not do is go to Catholic Answers, read all of the ECF quotes, verify they are accurate, and then conclude yea verily the Catholic church is the one true church.

Now I am not an ECF expert, but from what I have personally read…about 95% of them deal with basic Christian conduct (I just perused 1 Clement and verified that was the case). If that is the case, why wouldn’t he choose the branch of Christianity that seems to practice the closest to the precepts of these books (which are in agreement to the New Testament).

Besides, it seems to me the best source of Church history is still the New Testament. You seem to assume that he would use the ECF to resolve Catholic / Protestant differences and conclude overwhelmingly for the Catholic (btw from my attempt in doing this it is a mixed bag). What if he takes his New Testament and becomes troubled by the fact that he can’t resolve some Catholic dogma within its pages.

Well, you are operating on a false premise, I’m afraid.

1. It is true that I am assuming this hypothetical person would actually study. And it is true that I am assuming he would be thorough and fair.
2. Your mistake is in your admitted lack of knowledge of early Christian writings. The things that the ECF’s vociferously fought for was apostolic succession and unity with the bishop of Rome. Whenever someone would set up an argument, the first question was always, “from where do you get your authority? Do you directly succeed an apostle?” If not, the point was moot. They always asked, "Where does the bishop stand on this. This was the PRIME test before any argument was considered.

This is also the same test in the old testament covenants. The model is the same. Jesus told His followers to do what the pharisees tell them, but not what they do because they preach but do not practice. Why? Because they derive their authority from the fact that they “sit on Moses’ seat (cathedra)”. Moses laid hands upon Joshua to ordain his successor. Judges were appointed to rule over Israel and their successors always possessed their authority. And Jesus ratifies their authority in the Gospel.

This is essentially the charism of infallibility. The early Church understood Moses’ seat to have passed to Peter in the new covenant. Jesus promised to send His Spirit to guide His Church “into all truth”. He further promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against her. This is our promise that when the college of bishops, in union with the pope, teach the faithful, that this teaching is protected by God against error (even though these men may be complete buffoons - all the Old Testament covenant mediators committed grave sin and yet, remained God’s chosen ones. Even David, who’s throne Jesus inherited, committed murder and adultery but remained the annointed messiah).

So we don’t have to wonder if it’s right. Jesus promised He would remain with His Church “even to the end of time”. He told them anything they bind on earth will be bound in heaven. And just as He demonstrated to us with the successors to Moses’ seat, it applies to the successors to the apostle’s seats (cathedras) as well.

The ECF’s started every thought with this assumption. There is no way anyone who is honest can come to any other understanding after even a brief perusal of the ECF writings.

 

[sterryfamily]

I wish I could remember the Orthodox site I read that had a similar list to prove their Patriach also was a descendant of the apostle Peter. The point being that the metric of lineage is insufficient to point to one-and-only-one branch of Christianity.

So that begs the question on how important that metric is anyway.

Logically when an entity divides upon itself (say into entities A’ and B), both of child attributes inherit from the parent attribute.

Why shouldn’t he use this logic when the church divides upon itself.

Umm…debatable. He also might read about the corruption that existed in the church at the time of the Reformation (which by the way Catholic scholars are in agreement with) and conclude the Reformation was totally righteous.

I don’t know how to divvy up the quotations in here, so I’ll approach it this way;

As to the question of Orthodox Patriarchs; They do not claim lineage to Peter, but to the other apostles. Their claim, after the schism, is not that they don’t recognize the primacy of Rome - in fact even today they will tell you the Pope is the “greatest among equals” - rather they claim that they never ascribed the kind of authority to him that Rome claims today (Even though the ECF’s of the east always went to the pope to settle disputes).

As to the question of corruption, the church describes herself as “a pilgrim on earth always in need of reform”. The pope recently, in case you haven’t heard, had to have the american bishops develop guidelines for sexual abuse in parishes. In the late middle ages the church had to come up with guidelines when some abused their positions in the way they handled indulgences. Heck, even Paul had to scold the pope (Peter) when he was not treating the Gentiles the way he ought.

None of this is new and it doesn’t contradict anything our man would learn from the early Church and how it later gave us the Bible.

 

[Genesis315]

You guys are missing out on one major part of the equation–God, especially in the person of the Holy Spirit. He draws men to the unity of the Catholic Church.

If this hypothetical person is being bombarded with all this conflicting information, and if he patiently studies and prays about it, and if he has not willfully blinded himself, he will be drawn by the Holy Spirit to Christ’s Church:

John 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. 5 But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers…14 I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me…16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

Likewise, as the First Vatican Council explained, besides all the evidence which points to Catholicism:

1. To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth [23] ; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light [24], so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.

23 1 Tm 2, 4.
24 1 Pt 2, 9; Col 1, 13.

 

[jmcrae]

Hate to throw a wet blanket on this, but the headline on my local newspaper two days ago was local priest sentenced to six months on fondling charge.

Where do you read in the Catechism that this is permitted or encouraged?

I don’t see how anyone would come to the conclusion that the Catholic church follows the New Testament better than everybody else while at the same time reading these headlines.

The Catholic Church = the teachings of Christ - not the people in it. People are flawed, but the teachings are perfect. To follow Catholic teachings is to follow Christ.

Protestant teachings, on the other hand, can be all over the place. Some Protestants ordain women and practicing homosexuals to their priesthood, openly and knowingly. They have actually changed the laws of their Church to conform to these ideas. They change their laws to conform to the behaviour of their people.

The priest in your example was not attempting to change Catholic Church law, though. He was breaking it. He has most likely already been excommunicated from the Church.

It would be natural to expect that any branch of Christianity that claims itself to be in a superior position with respect to the other branches of Christianity to be able to practice the outworking of the faith in a superior manner. If that is not done, the natural conclusion is that they are all equally messed up and that these claims of superiority are umm…bogus.

It might be a natural assumption, but from the beginning it has never been so - Judas was personally selected by Christ. There will always be Judases in the Church.

If you ever find a Church where there are no sinners, it is definitely the wrong one - the authentic New Testament Church is full of sinners, and always has been.

 

[sterryfamily]

All that is necessary is for him to come to the belief that the Bible is what it claims to be without any other assumptions, And I imagine he would come to that belief relatively quickly since it is common to not-liberal(Catholic,Protestant,Orthodoxy).

Ummm…The Bible doesn’t claim to be anything. The Catholic Church claimed, in the late fourth century, that the books of the Bible are the inspired word of God.

 

[sterryfamily]

Not necessarily.

All that is necessary is for him to come to the belief that the Bible is what it claims to be without any other assumptions, And I imagine he would come to that belief relatively quickly since it is common to not-liberal(Catholic,Protestant,Orthodoxy).

If he came to that belief relatively soon without any other assumptions, we would be the ones making the assumptions on how much weight he puts on Scripture as a source as opposed to extra Biblical sources like the Early Church Fathers. What if he begins to experience God speaking clearly to him through Scripture? What if he decides that Scripture is a very important source while extra-Biblical sources such as the Early Church fathers are less important? After all, the Early Church fathers do not make the same claims for themselves as Scripture does. Anyway, there is no guarantee he would use the metrics that either you or I would wish he would?

And even if he gives the Early Church fathers more weight that many protestants would, how would he handle the cases

• where he perceives the Early Church fathers disagree
• where he perceives a dogma does not begin to be confirmed by the Early Church fathers say until 250 years after the fact

Anyway, you seem to be assuming that he will naturally adopt the Catholic view of authority. I don’t see why he necessarily would.

Why will God not speak to him through the Gospel of Peter? Or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene? Or the Protoevengelium of James?

Because, as he studies, he will discover that it is the Church that Jesus founded, guided by the Holy Spirit that He promised would never fail her, who determined which books were inspired. He would also learn, rather easily, that the Sacred Scriptures are a part of the Church’s Sacred Tradition (and only a part) as evidenced by the way the apostles taught their successors.

As to disagreement of the ECF’s, he would learn, again rather easily, that debate and (name removed by moderator)ut have always been a part of the development of doctrine in the Church (as well as in the Old Testament covenants). He would also learn that Christ promised to send His Holy Spirit to guide His Church “into all truth” and that when that church makes a dogmatic proclamation on an issue it is binding on all (on earth as well as in heaven) and it settles the debate. He will discover that this was taught from the beginning, including at the council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts.

 

[mozart-250]

The ECF’s started every thought with this assumption. There is no way anyone who is honest can come to any other understanding after even a brief perusal of the ECF writings.

Good post.

And I can understand why this line of reasoning might be persuasive to some.

I think one of the ECF you might be referring to is St. Iraneaues. I’ve actually read some of his writings.

The underlying assumption here is that if we somehow were able to bring back St. Iranaeus to 21st century U.S. he will apply that logic and that logic alone and choosing Catholicism would be a no-brainer to him.

Now maybe he would, but I don’t see why one should necessarily assume this.

(and note…if St. Iranaeus were to be consistent under this hypothetical the heretics would be shunned as not Christian. None of this “separated brethren” compromise).

What if St. Iranaeus were to step back and observe any of the following.

• There is actually a history to how the church got in this state. What if in reading the history St. Iranaeus were to conclude that reality (at a minimum) is more nuanced than in his day?
• What if St. Iranaeus were to study the doctrinal issues that divide Catholics and Protestants and conclude these issues were more nuanced than the issues of his day (that concerned the nature and person of Christ).
• What if St. Iranaeus were to examine Catholicism and how it developed and all of a sudden it hits him that they did not believe this dogma when he was alive that now all of a sudden he must believe (example Assumption/Immaculate Conception).
• What if St. Iranaeus were to visit an inner city black Baptist church and (egads) he actually liked the openness and warmth and genuine Christlikeness of the congregation he found. What if he were to visit the local Catholic church and found that it did not seem to possess these attributes to the same degree the inner city Baptist church did.

 

[mozart-250]

The Catholic Church = the teachings of Christ - not the people in it. People are flawed, but the teachings are perfect. To follow Catholic teachings is to follow Christ.

You miss my point.

Let us say for the moment that you are correct. The teaching of the Catholic church is perfect. The teaching of everybody else is imperfect.

The only way this would not be reflected in the lifestyles of the adherents would be if statistically speaking there were a 0.0 correlation factor between the teaching of a church and the lifestyles of its adherents. A correlation factor of 0.0 means there is no connection between teaching and lifestyle.

That is a nonsensical proposition, because what that is really saying is that the message and teaching of Christ has no power to transform lives.

Just because two variables do not have a correlation factor of 1.0 does not mean that they have a correlation factor of 0.0.

 

[jmcrae]

You miss my point.

Let us say for the moment that you are correct. The teaching of the Catholic church is perfect. The teaching of everybody else is imperfect.

The only way this would not be reflected in the lifestyles of the adherents would be if statistically speaking there were a 0.0 correlation factor between the teaching of a church and the lifestyles of its adherents.

Are you saying that no Protestant has ever broken the teachings of his church? If a Protestant were to not follow the teachings of his church, would that cause something bad to happen to the teachings themselves?

We have sinners in the Catholic Church, for sure - but they don’t cause the teachings of the Church to become untrue.

Those who do follow the teachings of the Church (Mother Teresa, Jean Vanier, Pope John Paul II, etc.) change the whole world and make it a better place.

That is a nonsensical proposition, because what that is really saying is that the message and teaching of Christ has no power to transform lives.

It’s also a straw man. I have never said that the teachings of the Catholic Church don’t transform lives. Just ask the orphans at the house of the Sisters of Mercy in Calcutta, if you want to know about transformed lives in the Catholic Church.

 

[mozart-250]

Why will God not speak to him through the Gospel of Peter? Or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene? Or the Protoevengelium of James?

Hmm…in the source I use the Gospel of Peter is just a short fragment. I don’t have the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. The Protoevangelium of James seems a little sketch (one source lists it as apocrypha). It claims to have been written by James the stepbrother of Jesus but could not have been because it is dependent upon Matthew and Luke which.

I’d start with Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus myself.

But anyway, I would agree that God is not confined to Scripture as far as modes in which he speaks.

It is just that Scripture has this claim upon itself in 2 Timothy 3:16 that Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus do not claim for themselves.

Because, as he studies, he will discover that it is the Church that Jesus founded, guided by the Holy Spirit that He promised would never fail her, who determined which books were inspired. He would also learn, rather easily, that the Sacred Scriptures are a part of the Church’s Sacred Tradition (and only a part) as evidenced by the way the apostles taught their successors.

He will also very early on discover that the Church that Jesus founded divided upon itself. How he looks upon this division is an open issue, and I would be presumptive to figure that one out.

As to disagreement of the ECF’s, he would learn, again rather easily, that debate and (name removed by moderator)ut have always been a part of the development of doctrine in the Church (as well as in the Old Testament covenants). He would also learn that Christ promised to send His Holy Spirit to guide His Church “into all truth” and that when that church makes a dogmatic proclamation on an issue it is binding on all (on earth as well as in heaven) and it settles the debate. He will discover that this was taught from the beginning, including at the council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts.

So there is an underlying assumption that he must accept the Catholic interpretation of Acts 15, John 16:13 and Matthew 16:18-20 (for starters) as opposed to all other alternatives. In order for this assumption to be credible, it must be demonstrated that the Catholic interpretations of these passages are the only credible ones in existence.

This thread is persuading me that this is a daunting task and not one that somebody is likely to use in analyzing churches.

 

[mozart-250]

You guys are missing out on one major part of the equation–God, especially in the person of the Holy Spirit. He draws men to the unity of the Catholic Church.

If this hypothetical person is being bombarded with all this conflicting information, and if he patiently studies and prays about it, and if he has not willfully blinded himself, he will be drawn by the Holy Spirit to Christ’s Church:

Actually you are right on (almost).

I would expect at the end of the day a new convert would be hopelessly confused by the mounds of conflicting information he has no skill set to resolve. I would hope he would then just honestly go before God and ask Him where He would have him identify with.

Where I disagree is that God would automatically say the Catholic Church. I can not presume to speak for God in this matter.

I do notice that the Mormons (when one is evangelized by them) ask a potential convert to pray and ask God whether Mormonism is in fact the one true church. They have a name for this (which I have conveniently forgotten).

 

[jmcrae]

Where I disagree is that God would automatically say the Catholic Church. I can not presume to speak for God in this matter.

It’s possible that you have a vested interest of some kind in remaining Protestant.

I do notice that the Mormons (when one is evangelized by them) ask a potential convert to pray and ask God whether Mormonism is in fact the one true church. They have a name for this (which I have conveniently forgotten).

It’s called the “burning in the bosom” and it’s probably the worst possible way to discern truth.

Fortunately, the Holy Spirit doesn’t actually work like that. The Holy Spirit works through the Catholic Church, and draws all people to Him through the Church.

When the person is opened to the fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church, then, if he is committed to Christ above all, he will become Catholic.

 

[sterryfamily]

Good post.

And I can understand why this line of reasoning might be persuasive to some.

I think one of the ECF you might be referring to is St. Iraneaues. I’ve actually read some of his writings.

The underlying assumption here is that if we somehow were able to bring back St. Iranaeus to 21st century U.S. he will apply that logic and that logic alone and choosing Catholicism would be a no-brainer to him.

Now maybe he would, but I don’t see why one should necessarily assume this.

(and note…if St. Iranaeus were to be consistent under this hypothetical the heretics would be shunned as not Christian. None of this “separated brethren” compromise).

What if St. Iranaeus were to step back and observe any of the following.

• There is actually a history to how the church got in this state. What if in reading the history St. Iranaeus were to conclude that reality (at a minimum) is more nuanced than in his day?
• What if St. Iranaeus were to study the doctrinal issues that divide Catholics and Protestants and conclude these issues were more nuanced than the issues of his day (that concerned the nature and person of Christ).
• What if St. Iranaeus were to examine Catholicism and how it developed and all of a sudden it hits him that they did not believe this dogma when he was alive that now all of a sudden he must believe (example Assumption/Immaculate Conception).
• What if St. Iranaeus were to visit an inner city black Baptist church and (egads) he actually liked the openness and warmth and genuine Christlikeness of the congregation he found. What if he were to visit the local Catholic church and found that it did not seem to possess these attributes to the same degree the inner city Baptist church did.

He would ask them all, “Where is your bishop?” and “Is he united with the pope?” He would inform them that that is how the Church is defined.

 

[sterryfamily]

Hmm…in the source I use the Gospel of Peter is just a short fragment. I don’t have the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. The Protoevangelium of James seems a little sketch (one source lists it as apocrypha). It claims to have been written by James the stepbrother of Jesus but could not have been because it is dependent upon Matthew and Luke which.

I’d start with Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus myself.

But anyway, I would agree that God is not confined to Scripture as far as modes in which he speaks.

It is just that Scripture has this claim upon itself in 2 Timothy 3:16 that Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus do not claim for themselves…

2 Timothy does not refer to the New Testament, but rather the Old. Much of the NT was not yet written and none of it had been settled on by the Church as inspired.

He will also very early on discover that the Church that Jesus founded divided upon itself. How he looks upon this division is an open issue, and I would be presumptive to figure that one out…

“Divided upon itself” is highly inaccurate. He will discover how heresies were fought off by the successors of the apostles. He will also discover how some voiced varying opinions at times and even opposed commonly held teachings, but that when a matter was finally settled by the Church, the faithful accepted it, or were basically excommunicant.

So there is an underlying assumption that he must accept the Catholic interpretation of Acts 15, John 16:13 and Matthew 16:18-20 (for starters) as opposed to all other alternatives. In order for this assumption to be credible, it must be demonstrated that the Catholic interpretations of these passages are the only credible ones in existence.
.

He will discover that any other interpretations were very late inventions of men with personal agendas and that they do not sync at all with what the apostles taught.

 

[sterryfamily]

Where I disagree is that God would automatically say the Catholic Church. I can not presume to speak for God in this matter.

In all His old covenants God always left us covenant mediators (who all sinned and screwed up) whom He commanded we follow and promised us that their decisions would be protected and guaranteed by Him.

Christ told us He came to establish His Church. His Church was ONE in the beginning. It was also ONE in the second and third centuries. It was ONE in the seventh, eleventh, fourteenth and nineteenth centuries. It is ONE today.

Our man, provided he can truly put aside any prejudice, would see this easily and quickly. The Church’s constant witness tells us these things are so and the writings of the ECF’s corroborate it.

 

[mozart-250]

Are you saying that no Protestant has ever broken the teachings of his church? If a Protestant were to not follow the teachings of his church, would that cause something bad to happen to the teachings themselves?

We have sinners in the Catholic Church, for sure - but they don’t cause the teachings of the Church to become untrue.

Those who do follow the teachings of the Church (Mother Teresa, Jean Vanier, Pope John Paul II, etc.) change the whole world and make it a better place.

It’s also a straw man. I have never said that the teachings of the Catholic Church don’t transform lives. Just ask the orphans at the house of the Sisters of Mercy in Calcutta, if you want to know about transformed lives in the Catholic Church

You obviously don’t understand the concept of correlation well.

Note: it has been several years since I took statistics courses and my memory fades me somewhat. However, I think I remember the basic concepts.

Correlation is a statistical term that measures whether two variables are related and how closely they are coupled.

A correlation factor of 1.0 means that two variables are directly related to each other. As one changes the other changes proportionally. A correlation factor of 0.0 means that two variables are not related at all. A change in one does not mean a change in the other.

However, real life is not so neat-n-clean. Correlation factors are usually somewhere between 0 and 1. Meaning there is some relationship between the two but not a perfect one. The closer to 1, the stronger the relationship, the closer to 0, the weaker the relationship.

Now if there were a correlation factor of 1 between church teaching and conduct, then I would expect the phenomenon you describe. Perfect teaching would mean perfect conduct.

Obviously the correlation factor is not 1 here.

If the correlation factor is 0, then I would expect there would be no link between behaviour and conduct. You obviously by your comments do not believe the correlation factor is 0. Neither do I.

So where does that leave us. Obviously in real life where the correlation factors are commonly between 0 and 1.

With this correlation factor there is some relationship between teaching and conduct but an imperfect one. Here I would expect that if the teaching of one sample were significantly of higher quality (or in this case “perfect”) that it would have some measurable impact in the overall lives and testimony of its adherents than the sample where the teaching quality is “defective”. It is just that the relationship is not a perfect-neat’n clean one and I should not expect perfection in any case.

Conversely in any system where the correlation factor is not 0, it should give one some pause if he can not observe for himself a greater quality of lifestyle in the sample that claims for itself “perfect teaching”. Maybe the teaching is not as perfect as claimed.