Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)

[Teflon93]

787 From the beginning, Jesus associated his disciples with his own life, revealed the mystery of the Kingdom to them, and gave them a share in his mission, joy, and sufferings.215 Jesus spoke of a still more intimate communion between him and those who would follow him: "Abide in me, and I in you. . . . I am the vine, you are the branches."216 And he proclaimed a mysterious and real communion between his own body and ours: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him."217

788 When his visible presence was taken from them, Jesus did not leave his disciples orphans. He promised to remain with them until the end of time; he sent them his Spirit.218 As a result communion with Jesus has become, in a way, more intense: "By communicating his Spirit, Christ mystically constitutes as his body those brothers of his who are called together from every nation."219

789 The comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are to be more specifically noted: the unity of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as bride of Christ.

790 Believers who respond to God’s word and become members of Christ’s Body, become intimately united with him: "In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe, and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his Passion and glorification."220 This is especially true of Baptism, which unites us to Christ’s death and Resurrection, and the Eucharist, by which "really sharing in the body of the Lord, . . . we are taken up into communion with him and with one another."221

791 The body’s unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: "In the building up of Christ’s Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church."222 The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: "From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice."223 Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."224

792 Christ "is the head of the body, the Church."225 He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father’s glory, "in everything he [is] preeminent,"226 especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.

793 Christ unites us with his Passover: all his members must strive to resemble him, “until Christ be formed” in them.227 "For this reason we . . . are taken up into the mysteries of his life, . . . associated with his sufferings as the body with its head, suffering with him, that with him we may be glorified."228

794 Christ provides for our growth: to make us grow toward him, our head,229 he provides in his Body, the Church, the gifts and assistance by which we help one another along the way of salvation.

795 Christ and his Church thus together make up the “whole Christ” (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ. The saints are acutely aware of this unity:

Let us rejoice then and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ himself. Do you understand and grasp, brethren, God’s grace toward us? Marvel and rejoice: we have become Christ. For if he is the head, we are the members; he and we together are the whole man. . . . The fullness of Christ then is the head and the members. But what does “head and members” mean? Christ and the Church.230
Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church whom he has taken to himself.231

Head and members form as it were one and the same mystical person.232

A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: "About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter."233

The Church is the Bride of Christ

796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.234 The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom."235 The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.236 The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.237 "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her."238 He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:239

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church."240 And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."241 They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself "bride."242

 

[Teflon93]

and

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:

• a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280

• conversion of heart as the faithful “try to live holier lives according to the Gospel”;281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ’s gift which causes divisions;

• prayer in common, because “change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;”'282

• fraternal knowledge of each other;283

• ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;284

• dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285

• collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 “Human service” is the idiomatic phrase.

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize “that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts.” That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288

Note that the Catechism itself is yet another sign of the Church’s unity.

Please let me know when the Protestant Catechism is published so I can compare it to the Church’s.

 

[Teflon93]

And one more, in case anyone would claim that the Catechism refers to an “invisible” church:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "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.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

This is also the passage to quote to those who question whether the Pope is Catholic.

 

[mathematician]

Why does the bible receive a free pass, but not the Church?

The big advantage the Bible has is that it is not an institution populated by human beings who have egos, just like everybody else, are as subject to the dictum “Power tends to corrupt” as anybody else, and, as if to demonstrate that, nevertheless make extravagant claims for themselves. The Bible, by its very nature, is exempt from that.

 

[davidv]

The big advantage the Bible has is that it is not an institution populated by human beings who have egos, just like everybody else, are as subject to the dictum “Power tends to corrupt” as anybody else, and, as if to demonstrate that, nevertheless make extravagant claims for themselves. The Bible, by its very nature, is exempt from that.

Only if it is left on the book shelf unread. As soon as someone reads it, human corruptions enter the picture.

 

[utunumsint]

I think I understand where you’re going. However, it leaves two flaws I can see:

1. Sometimes the words of popes can be interpreted in different ways by well-meaning individuals. This breaks unity.

Why? Sometimes a position can have a wide spectrum of different interpretations, but this does not invalidate the position or break unity. Indeed, sometimes a Pope has to rule on the validity differing interpretations, for example on the issue of predestination.

1. There are many issues where the pope has either not completely, or not at all clarified things.

Again, why is this a problem?

While the idea of having a single leader who can declare things right or wrong is appealing, in practice it doesn’t remove the uncertainty on issues where the pope hasn’t spoken.

True, but everyone knows who does have the final say should the question become that important that the Pope needs to intervene. Until the Pope defines it, or a council declares it, the question remains open…to a certain extent. In practice, I find this very useful.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Teflon93]

The big advantage the Bible has is that it is not an institution populated by human beings who have egos, just like everybody else, are as subject to the dictum “Power tends to corrupt” as anybody else, and, as if to demonstrate that, nevertheless make extravagant claims for themselves. The Bible, by its very nature, is exempt from that.

Replace “the Bible” with “the Constitution” and the error should become obvious.

Just as Congress is necessary to craft laws expounding upon the Constitution, a judiciary is necessary to interpret it, and an executive is necessary to enforce it.

Protestants conveniently forget the purpose of the Church, and the need for it, even as they build their own traditions and magisteria.

 

[mathematician]

Replace “the Bible” with “the Constitution” and the error should become obvious.

Just as Congress is necessary to craft laws expounding upon the Constitution, a judiciary is necessary to interpret it, and an executive is necessary to enforce it.

It comes back to “Power tends to corrupt”. Paul, for example, undoubtedly had an ego, which is very much on display in his epistles, but he didn’t have too much power. (“My strength is made perfect in weakness”.)

Protestants conveniently forget the purpose of the Church, and the need for it, even as they build their own traditions and magisteria.

Catholics don’t seem able to get their heads around the fact that Protestants feel no need for a magesteria. Again and again on this site I read the question, “Okay, so if the Pope isn’t your pope, who is your pope? Your church must have a pope.” At the end of the 19th century there was an attempt to turn the Archbishop of Canterbury into an Anglican pope, and it was quite rightly thrown out.

 

[savedsinner]

I understand. However, the key point that you guys emphasize is that your unity makes you the valid church. I think something’s being lost here, so let’s have a look at what “unity” means…

(From dictionary.com)
unity - oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement. Thus, for a church (a group of persons) to be united, they must be in agreement. Therefore, any member who disagrees on any point is not in unity on that point, by definition. If you’re thinking of another definition of unity, please don’t hesitate to share it.

Correct, and the exact same thing can be applied to interpretations of the CCC, and any other beliefs in the RCC. In the previous thread regarding infallible statements, several individuals interpreted their listings as valid, based on some interpretation of the evidence, CCC and/or other RCC documents. Note that no document specifically defines which statements are infallible, and so the criteria given were interpreted in differing ways.

No one was guilty of going against what they believe the RCC is teaching, and yet there was not unity.

The point in question seems to be whether or not the true church is united. You would argue that Protestantism is not that church because its various constituents do not agree with one another. Since it’s been conceded that many individual churches, and perhaps even some denominations do have a sense of unity, we can only certainly find disunity in doctrinal teaching by comparing one denomination to another. This is no more fair than saying the RCC isn’t true because it disagrees with the EO, or any other denomination.

Again, the question of unity ultimately comes back to an individual level, or it’s not unity.

I think I understand where you’re going. However, it leaves two flaws I can see:

1. Sometimes the words of popes can be interpreted in different ways by well-meaning individuals. This breaks unity.
2. There are many issues where the pope has either not completely, or not at all clarified things.

While the idea of having a single leader who can declare things right or wrong is appealing, in practice it doesn’t remove the uncertainty on issues where the pope hasn’t spoken.

While I was going to respond to Teflon’s posts, I think I can sum it up this way – Teflon, what do you think unity means, exactly? Please provide a dictionary definition that shows how all members of the RCC are united while they disagree with one another over some issues. Thanks.

I am not saying myself that the unity makes us the valid church, I am trying to say that we have more unity than the different Protestant denominations, and that is because we look to the church for authority, instead of our own personal interpretation of scripture as our authority.
As for unity, you have made some good points, all I can do right now is to point you to Ephesians chapter 4.
Tell me, after reflecting closely of these passages, is this unity Paul that writes about, more closely reflected in the Catholic church or the Protestant churches?

I would say myself that it is reflected more closely in the Catholic church…one faith, one baptism, not being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, working for the unity of faith ect…

Ephesians 4:1-14
I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called,with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

 

[Teflon93]

It comes back to “Power tends to corrupt”. Paul, for example, undoubtedly had an ego, which is very much on display in his epistles, but he didn’t have too much power. (“My strength is made perfect in weakness”.)

Power certainly corrupted Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. The lesson of the Reformation is that when men turn from God and to secular rulers, murder and anarchy flow.

Catholics don’t seem able to get their heads around the fact that Protestants feel no need for a magesteria. Again and again on this site I read the question, “Okay, so if the Pope isn’t your pope, who is your pope? Your church must have a pope.” At the end of the 19th century there was an attempt to turn the Archbishop of Canterbury into an Anglican pope, and it was quite rightly thrown out.

All Catholics need to do is look at the state of the Anglican and other Protestant communities today. Schism after schism, fad after fad, and in the case of Europe, dying community upon dying community. One cannot serve God and Mammon both; those communities lacking magisteria and uncoupled from apostolic tradition wither and die.

There is only one Pope. When we ask where the Protestant pretender to the throne of St Peter is, we are merely calling attention to the fact that Protestants, unable to agree amongst themselves even at the most atomized level of faith, have very little to offer Orthodox and Catholic, possessed of the full complement of sacraments and the entire Bible as we are.

The question, as always, is which is the true Church of Christ—that which has existed for a dozen years (the case for the majority of Protestants today), and certainly no more than 500, or that which has existed continuously since Pentecost in an unbroken line from Peter?

The answer is obvious, although unpalatable to some. It was unpalatable to me for a long time, having been raised an Episcopalian myself.

But one cannot serve God and Mammon both.

 

[PC_Master]

I’d first like to note that Teflon did not address the question of exactly what the word unity means. I’m still waiting for that before we can really move on. We have to agree what is meant by that word before we can say whether some group actually possesses unity.

The only definitions I’ve seen thus far require a consent of mind, with the constituents of a group all being in agreement on a topic. Thus, they are united on that topic. Whether they act in accordance with that is another matter.

The rest of Teflon’s posts talk about what the CCC says on a subject. Again, however, this doesn’t prove unity of all Roman Catholics on the subject. This only shows a documented teaching, which may or may not have unclear points that can be interpreted in different ways by different Roman Catholics.

Note that the Catechism itself is yet another sign of the Church’s unity.

No – it’s a sign of the RCC’s hierarchy. Having a hierarchy that can write down rules and regulations does not imply unity. Even if the leadership actually were completely united (in agreement – not just in obedience to the pope – and mind you I’m not saying that it is), that doesn’t make all of the RCC in agreement.

Please let me know when the Protestant Catechism is published so I can compare it to the Church’s.

Why? We’re not discussing the need of an established hierarchy – we’re discussing unity. They’re not the same thing.

And one more, in case anyone would claim that the Catechism refers to an “invisible” church:

I’ve heard differing interpretations on this – from Roman Catholics.

The big advantage the Bible has is that it is not an institution populated by human beings who have egos, just like everybody else, are as subject to the dictum “Power tends to corrupt” as anybody else, and, as if to demonstrate that, nevertheless make extravagant claims for themselves. The Bible, by its very nature, is exempt from that.

I wouldn’t precisely agree with that. What I would say is that scripture has a big advantage because of it’s God-inspired quality. The guidance of the holy spirit can prevent corruption. (The question then is whether or not the holy spirit leads the RCC or not.)

Why? Sometimes a position can have a wide spectrum of different interpretations, but this does not invalidate the position or break unity. Indeed, sometimes a Pope has to rule on the validity differing interpretations, for example on the issue of predestination.

Unity is agreement. If any disagreed with one another prior to, or after, the pope’s ruling, there was disunity. It’s that simple. This isn’t about whether the leadership of the RCC can resolve disputes. This is about whether there are disputes or not, thereby breaking unity.

Again, why is this a problem?

Simple – if something hasn’t been officially clarified, individual Roman Catholics can disagree about it, thus bringing disunity into the RCC. If unity is required for the true church, then anything which isn’t clear and has individuals disagreeing over it breaks this.

True, but everyone knows who does have the final say should the question become that important that the Pope needs to intervene. Until the Pope defines it, or a council declares it, the question remains open…to a certain extent. In practice, I find this very useful.

It may be useful, or even beneficial, but it’s not united.

Replace “the Bible” with “the Constitution” and the error should become obvious.

We’re not debating the overall merits of the RCC vs other denominations right now. We’re discussing unity. Please kindly stay on topic, or clarify that you’re abandoning that topic.

Catholics don’t seem able to get their heads around the fact that Protestants feel no need for a magesteria. Again and again on this site I read the question, “Okay, so if the Pope isn’t your pope, who is your pope? Your church must have a pope.”

With the holy spirit to guide, we don’t need a pope or magisterium. To say that a pope and/or magisterium is necessary simply says that the holy spirit is impotent.

I am not saying myself that the unity makes us the valid church, I am trying to say that we have more unity than the different Protestant denominations…

If unity isn’t a sign of the valid church, then arguing that you have more unity is of no benefit. Thus, your argument is moot.

It seems like you’re trying to dance around saying “we have more unity”, while ignoring the fact that you’re quite disunified yourselves.

…we look to the church for authority, instead of our own personal interpretation of scripture as our authority.

Instead, you have to interpretation the traditions and writings of the RCC, which as I’ve demonstrated, different individuals do in different ways.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

As for unity, you have made some good points, all I can do right now is to point you to Ephesians chapter 4.
Tell me, after reflecting closely of these passages, is this unity Paul that writes about, more closely reflected in the Catholic church or the Protestant churches?

It’s more closely reflected by the invisible church, which consists of those who truly follow Christ. The passage isn’t about an earthly organization establishing doctrine to be obeyed. It’s about obeying the teachings of God, and in a more grand scheme, following the guidance of the holy spirit. It’s not about denominations.

Power certainly corrupted Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. The lesson of the Reformation is that when men turn from God and to secular rulers, murder and anarchy flow.

I’d say the history of the RCC demonstrates the same corruption – popes have been quite corrupt. You really should try addressing the points raised, rather than avoiding them for the sake of honing your apologetic skills.

(I would note that Protestants admit they’re not unified. Why can’t Roman Catholics do the same?)

The question, as always, is which is the true Church of Christ—that which has existed for a dozen years (the case for the majority of Protestants today), and certainly no more than 500, or that which has existed continuously since Pentecost in an unbroken line from Peter?

The invisible church certainly has. Despite the corruption of the RCC, the teachings of God, and guidance of the holy spirit haven’t lost potency.

So, again – what’s the definition (clear and concise) of “unity” that you’re using, Teflon?

 

[mathematician]

All Catholics need to do is look at the state of the Anglican and other Protestant communities today. Schism after schism, fad after fad, and in the case of Europe, dying community upon dying community. One cannot serve God and Mammon both; those communities lacking magisteria and uncoupled from apostolic tradition wither and die.

I don’t know which planet you have been living on, but all of the churches are in decline - Roman Chatholic included.

The question, as always, is which is the true Church of Christ—that which has existed for a dozen years (the case for the majority of Protestants today), and certainly no more than 500, or that which has existed continuously since Pentecost in an unbroken line from Peter?

Before the Reformation there was something called “the Church”. That something fractured at the time of the reformation, and the RC Church is merely the largest fragment.

 

[mrteachersir]

It’s more closely reflected by the invisible church, which consists of those who truly follow Christ. The passage isn’t about an earthly organization establishing doctrine to be obeyed.

This might be a very good point, with the exception of 2 Corinthians 10-13, particulary 10:16b “For we do not want to boast about work already done in another man’s territory.” This infers that Corinth is Paul’s territory, that he was assigned to this part of the world by the “Holy Ones” in Jerusalem. This illustrates, to some extent, and already visible and heirarchical Church. Paul admits to being commissioned and sent by the Apostles in Jerusalem. Clearly that is heirarchical. The fact that Paul appoints Timothy as a minister of a local church, and appoints Titus as his representative (with his authority) also reflects this.

Consider also the establishment of “elders, presbyters, and deacons”. Subsequent use of the terms hold elders with authority over presbyters and deacons. Clearly this is heirarchical, no?

(I would note that Protestants admit they’re not unified. Why can’t Roman Catholics do the same?)

Because we are united. We have one faith, handed down since Pentacost from the apostles, to their successors. Those who don’t follow that faith aren’t Catholics, just like people who don’t follow the Apostles’ Creed aren’t Christians. We have one Baptism, as recently evidenced by the Magisterium’s rejection of “modern” formulas that display heretical, non-apostolic beliefs.
We also break one Bread, the Body of Our Lord, like all of the Catholics in the past. We are united to them by the Eucharist, the real Communion of the Saints. That is true unity.

The invisible church certainly has. Despite the corruption of the RCC, the teachings of God, and guidance of the holy spirit haven’t lost potency.

There is no “invisible church”. The word “church” comes from the Greek ekklesia, which roughly means “assembly”. An assembly is visible, and it is heirarchical.

 

[SCALCO]

1. There are many issues where the pope has either not completely, or not at all clarified things.

While the idea of having a single leader who can declare things right or wrong is appealing, in practice it doesn’t remove the uncertainty on issues where the pope hasn’t spoken.

What are the examples where the Pope has not clarified things?

If I remember correctly, it is ok to have more than one interpretation on something as long as they do not contradict other teachings.

 

[PC_Master]

This might be a very good point, with the exception of 2 Corinthians 10-13, particulary 10:16b “For we do not want to boast about work already done in another man’s territory.” This infers that Corinth is Paul’s territory, that he was assigned to this part of the world by the “Holy Ones” in Jerusalem. This illustrates, to some extent, and already visible and heirarchical Church. Paul admits to being commissioned and sent by the Apostles in Jerusalem. Clearly that is heirarchical. The fact that Paul appoints Timothy as a minister of a local church, and appoints Titus as his representative (with his authority) also reflects this.

Paul ministered for over 3 years after his conversion experience before he ever went to Jerusalem. Clearly, the authority provided him by God’s anointing was enough for him.

Consider also the establishment of “elders, presbyters, and deacons”. Subsequent use of the terms hold elders with authority over presbyters and deacons. Clearly this is heirarchical, no?

Sure, but that doesn’t mean all of the above were united, and more importantly, it doesn’t mean that they established an earthly authority with a pope, etc.

Because we are united. We have one faith, handed down since Pentacost from the apostles, to their successors. Those who don’t follow that faith aren’t Catholics, just like people who don’t follow the Apostles’ Creed aren’t Christians.

In other words, only those who follow the true faith, in completeness and 100% agreement are a part of the true church, right? Obviously this doesn’t include all official members of the earthly organization (the RCC), as I know many such members who don’t agree with the RCC on a lot of things (even very clear ones).

So, now we can’t say that the RCC is united, because many of its members aren’t. About the best you can do is say that those who follow the true faith completely and totally are united…but there’s no earthly way to determine who those individuals are. Thus, we’re back to an invisible church (at least if unity is required).

We have one Baptism, as recently evidenced by the Magisterium’s rejection of “modern” formulas that display heretical, non-apostolic beliefs.

And I’m sure there are many Roman Catholics who still agree with those “heretical” beliefs. I guess that means those individuals, while on the rolls of the RCC, aren’t really members of the true church.

We also break one Bread, the Body of Our Lord, like all of the Catholics in the past. We are united to them by the Eucharist, the real Communion of the Saints. That is true unity.

In that case, all protestants who don’t believe in transubstantiation are also united. But this is just one issue. And again, I’ll bet there are those in the RCC who don’t truly believe in transubstantiation.

There is no “invisible church”. The word “church” comes from the Greek ekklesia, which roughly means “assembly”. An assembly is visible, and it is heirarchical.

The typical ekklesia gatherings were “town meetings”, basically. They weren’t hierarchal, and they didn’t expand outside of a local scope. Thus, clearly, “the church” breaks this mold in more ways than one.

What are the examples where the Pope has not clarified things?

I’m sure you’re more able to explain this than I am. However, let’s just take a typical issue – salvation outside the RCC. Many individuals within the RCC have explained it in different ways. I’ve had some tell me there’s absolutely no salvation outside of the official membership rolls of the RCC. I’ve had others tell me that all those who believe in Christ’s salvatory work are saved through “invincible ignorance” and/or “baptism of desire”, etc.

The point is that there are individuals who disagree which are otherwise “good Roman Catholics”. Or are you arguing that every true Roman Catholic actually does fully agree with every other Roman Catholic on every teaching and belief? If so, you’ve got quite the case to prove.

If I remember correctly, it is ok to have more than one interpretation on something as long as they do not contradict other teachings.

According to Roman Catholic teaching, perhaps. But that’s not what “unity” means. Unity requires having the same mind, not just non-conflicting.

 

[Swan]

It’s more closely reflected by the invisible church, which consists of those who truly follow Christ. The passage isn’t about an earthly organization establishing doctrine to be obeyed. It’s about obeying the teachings of God, and in a more grand scheme, following the guidance of the holy spirit. It’s not about denominations.

I’d say the history of the RCC demonstrates the same corruption – popes have been quite corrupt. You really should try addressing the points raised, rather than avoiding them for the sake of honing your apologetic skills.

(I would note that Protestants admit they’re not unified. Why can’t Roman Catholics do the same?)

The invisible church certainly has. Despite the corruption of the RCC, the teachings of God, and guidance of the holy spirit haven’t lost potency.

So, again – what’s the definition (clear and concise) of “unity” that you’re using, Teflon?

This is an excellent post! These issues are so often tapdanced around or answered in double-speak that I despair of ever receiving a straight answer.

 

[Pons]

Paul ministered for over 3 years after his conversion experience before he ever went to Jerusalem. Clearly, the authority provided him by God’s anointing was enough for him.

Then why did he bother going to Jerusalem at all?

 

[PC_Master]

I don’t see any problem with him going to Jerusalem. The problem, however, is in assuming he went there to get permission to carry out his ministry. If he’d gone at the beginning of his ministry, perhaps it would make sense – but waiting 3 years? Clearly getting permission from a hierarchy wasn’t his concern. (Also note that scripture does not mention that a hierarchy met to give him permission to continue his ministry.)

Note that I see no conclusive evidence to make that instance a separate one from the “Council of Jerusalem”, in which case the reason for the visit is obvious (to resolve the issue addressed in Acts 15).

By the way Teflon, I’m still waiting for a definition of the word “unity”, so that I can see where our thought processes are diverging.

 

[planter654]

This is an old argument that seemed to be leading to something new and then it suddently stopped. I thought pnuema offered a very compelling argument from scripture that does support the idea of a formalized church hierarchy.

In regards to the truth, the church, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, is intended to proclaim the truth with no uncertainty. I am curious to hear a non-Catholic christian perspective of this.

If each individual claims to receive an interpretation directly from the Holy Spirit, but are all proclaiming different things and contradicting each other, can we still have “the church is the pillar and support of the truth”? If this is an invisible church united in spirit and truth, where do we see it supporting and proclaiming the truth? Where is communion celebrated? Where do I get baptised? Who are my leaders? This list of questions could go on and on. If THE church is to be united in truth and spirit, it would be a contradiction to say God intended the church to have such uncertainty.

I only see one system where this works, where the church is assisted by the Holy Spirit with only one interpretation and has teaching authority.

We, God’s children make up Christ Church his body. Jesus Christ is HIGH PRIEST forever over us his church…promised and given authority by God himself. The Holy Spirit dwells in all of us!! God knows his own and chooses who he wills. The Holy Spirit assist all who ask seek knock to know God our Holy Father.

Book of Revelations: Chapter 3 Verse 18

I AM the first and the last, the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I AM alive forever and ever. “I HOLD THE KEYS” to death and the netherworld.

God Bless