No True Scotsman Fallacy

[fhansen]

One problem is that a person becomes a Christian before they become a saint; a Christian is always in the process of becoming, and while the ultimate ideal, saintliness, may rule out the possibility of sin, or of committing the crimes mentioned here in any case, few of us are expected to be fully reformed sinners at any given point in life. We acknowledge that “condition”, of all believers, as part of the bargain.

 

[inocente]

Well, obviously all Catholics do not follow the bible. I was talking about the inherent obligation of Catholics to follow the Bible.

But you had said “We Catholics, unlike some Protestants, follow the Bible”. Now, apparently, you really meant “some Catholics, just like some Protestants, follow the Bible”.

Previously there was a discussion about being baptized by a priest making you a Catholic forever (although for many it is done when they are too young to make the decision). Is that the difference between your true Catholic and a false Catholic, or is it following the bible? What is it?

I do not judge who belongs to Christ. Did I say I did? Point out to me where I said that. What I said is that we are entitled to judge the conduct of others by their deeds, as Paul judged the man guilty of incest. I have never said that you or anyone else does not belong to Christ. That would be stupid. But there are some who do not belong to Christ, and some who do. Do you deny that, or are you going to do what Peter Plato complained of, and say that we all belong to Christ and we are not to discern that some do and some do not?

The Church has been going for 2,000 years, so if you’re right there must be criteria written down to guide laity in making such a momentous discernment of who does and doesn’t belong to Christ. Where are these criteria, please cite evidence that the Church (and Christ) wants or even warrants you to discern, rather than (as the bible passage I paraphrased) warning us never to do so.

I think you can’t. It’s for Christ to say, not for us. He is the Shepherd, we are all sheep or goats. When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, HE will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and HE will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

 

[inocente]

What you seem to be saying is that Catholic laity are not supposed to know or think.

But they do. They know what the Church teaches, and they know what Christ taught.

And when they see Catholic politicians telling the public that the Catholics bishops don’t understand about abortion, they understand that these politicians are not presenting the true Catholic position to the public. They are either lying or insufferably stupid about Catholic theology. They are in effect cafeteria Catholics, just as most Protestants are cafeteria Protestants. One is true to the Protestant faith to pick and choose one’s beliefs. One is not true to the Catholic faith who does the same.

You’ve said it yourself in other threads. Baptists do not have a creed.

See previous post.

If you think a Catholic politician is not representing Church teaching then write to your Bishop.

Either Christ is alive or Christ is dead. If the former, then epithets such as cafeteria, which set out to stereotype and judge others, are iniquitous. Christ calls us to encourage, not to damn, to change our mindset:

*For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, to acknowledge those who work hard among you, who care for you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone. Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else.

Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.

May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do it.

Brothers and sisters, pray for us. Greet all God’s people with a holy kiss. I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers and sisters.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.*

 

[Peter_Plato]

See previous post.

If you think a Catholic politician is not representing Church teaching then write to your Bishop.

Either Christ is alive or Christ is dead. If the former, then epithets such as cafeteria, which set out to stereotype and judge others, are iniquitous. Christ calls us to encourage, not to damn, to change our mindset:

No doubt Christ did call his followers to encourage, but that does not mean they are ONLY to encourage. This is where your either/or position gets the better of you. It stops you from seeing that the message in the “selected” quotes of yours are intended with regard to those headed in the direction of the right and good, but there are a boatload of quotes where a Christ himself called unrepentant evil doers by not so encouraging names - whited sepulchres, fit for hell, wolves in sheep clothing, etc., come to mind.

Paul, whom you respect in your unique “when he can be used to express your thoughts” kind of way, minces no words about “judging:”

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men;
not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one.
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the Church whom you are to judge?
God judges those outside. " Drive out the wicked person from among you."
(1 Cor 5:9-13)

It certainly appears from the words above that Christians are NOT to judge those of “the world” because God does, but just as clearly Christians are to “judge” those, including themselves, who do not maintain the high standard of Christ and to even “drive out the wicked” from among them.

The question becomes: “Who” is to do the driving out? I suggest it is those who truly represent Christ by being faithful to him and by discerning when the “immorality” of those “within” the community has become a threat to Christ being fully embodied within the community.

This also entails that our own tendencies, proclivities, ideas and deeds that are not “of Christ” are also to be properly judged and “cut off” if they are scandalous to others or misrepresent Christ.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Therefore; baptized and former altar boy Hitler was Catholic.
Right?

I keep seeing the image of the Nazi belt buckle: “God is With Us”.

.

Not sure what your point is here; he was also, like you, a human being. Does that mean that you, as a human being, must bear responsibility for what Hitler did?

The point about Baptism is that all sins, including original sin were remitted or removed and the Baptized person has had their supernatural life renewed. What that means, essentially, is that Hitler has no excuse for his choices and deeds. His guilt is not mitigated as resulting from the effects of original sin, but, rather, that he alone bears full responsibility for what he did. He should have known and done better, in other words, but he didn’t.

It is not as if his “being Catholic” and doing all of what he did reflects on Catholicism. It doesn’t. There is nothing in the teaching of the Church, ethical or spiritual, that in any way supports or excuses his behaviour and actions. He did what he did as the result of his own choices. Full stop. In addition, his Baptism means he has nothing, as a fallback, that could mitigate his own guilt and responsibility.

Your attempt to find guilt by association is interesting. Made even more curious by the fact that you are a journalist. Is digging up the dirt or stirring the pot an essential part of your brand of journalism, or just a sideline?

 

[inocente]

No. The point was that being Catholic in a definitional sense of being part of the Catholic Church may be quite a different matter than being acceptable to Christ.

As to “no one is acceptable to Christ” there is the little issue of the final judgement, which could be what “acceptable to Christ” signifies. Or are you saying that no one is “acceptable” but everyone will walk straight into heaven no questions asked and with absolutely no reference to the kind of life the person has lived? Otherwise, I am puzzled by how Christ will make the “judgement” call since no one is acceptable but he’ll have to be quite arbitrary and selective about who he allows in if not everyone is to enter - I recall something about narrow the way.

I suggest you try to remember you are not God. It is not your job to judge Him. God will judge you, and He will judge you whether or not it puzzles you.

And I am not quite sure how your view accords with the Gospel requirements to repent and be redeemed or saved, if what we are being saved FROM is inconsequential to begin with, since no one is acceptable but all will be accepted.

As usual there seems to be a whole lot of conflating of ideas occurring in your posts which makes taking them appear, at least at face value, a tad problematic. This does, however, explain why I engage in the apparently futile attempt to analyze your points from a psychological angle - it does seem a waste of time, granted, but absent that there remains no basis left from which to find any consistency at all in your free ranging and wildly disjointed points.

I suggest you try to remember you are not me. It is not your job to judge me. God will judge me, and He will judge me whether or not it puzzles you.

When you arrive at the Pearly Gates, it might be an idea to try to avoid the temptation to psychoanalyze God.

As for not finding any consistency in the basic Christianity understood by children, since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

 

[inocente]

No doubt Christ did call his followers to encourage, but that does not mean they are ONLY to encourage. This is where your either/or position gets the better of you. It stops you from seeing that the message in the “selected” quotes of yours are intended with regard to those headed in the direction of the right and good, but there are a boatload of quotes where a Christ himself called unrepentant evil doers by not so encouraging names - whited sepulchres, fit for hell, wolves in sheep clothing, etc., come to mind.

Paul, whom you respect in your unique “when he can be used to express your thoughts” kind of way, minces no words about “judging:”

Please try to remember you are not Christ.

*It certainly appears from the words above that Christians are NOT to judge those of “the world” because God does, but just as clearly Christians are to “judge” those, including themselves, who do not maintain the high standard of Christ and to even “drive out the wicked” from among them.

The question becomes: “Who” is to do the driving out? I suggest it is those who truly represent Christ by being faithful to him and by discerning when the “immorality” of those “within” the community has become a threat to Christ being fully embodied within the community. *

If Christ is alive then He will do any necessary driving out. Only if God is dead do you get to decide who can and can’t be in your gang. Otherwise it’s God’s gang, not yours.

You should know that when your child does something wrong, the worst thing you could do is tell her she is no longer your daughter. It could damage her forever to believe even for a short while that she has been cut off. That’s real proven psychology, not the ersatz pseudo-psychology seen from some on the internet.

And God practices that psychology, God never cuts anyone off. So if God himself won’t do that, why not follow His example?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please try to remember you are not Christ.

If Christ is alive then He will do any necessary driving out. Only if God is dead do you get to decide who can and can’t be in your gang. Otherwise it’s God’s gang, not yours.

You should know that when your child does something wrong, the worst thing you could do is tell her she is no longer your daughter. It could damage her forever to believe even for a short while that she has been cut off. That’s real proven psychology, not the ersatz pseudo-psychology seen from some on the internet.

And God practices that psychology, God never cuts anyone off. So if God himself won’t do that, why not follow His example?

In other words, you are right and Paul was wrong?

Read again…

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men;
not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one.
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the Church whom you are to judge?
God judges those outside. " Drive out the wicked person from among you."
(1 Cor 5:9-13)

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please try to remember you are not Christ.

If Christ is alive then He will do any necessary driving out. Only if God is dead do you get to decide who can and can’t be in your gang. Otherwise it’s God’s gang, not yours.

You should know that when your child does something wrong, the worst thing you could do is tell her she is no longer your daughter. It could damage her forever to believe even for a short while that she has been cut off. That’s real proven psychology, not the ersatz pseudo-psychology seen from some on the internet.

Actually, the worse thing you could do is to lead someone to believe what they are doing is fine and life giving when it is really death dealing and to their ultimate harm. Better to be truthful and help others see the truth than confirm them in their misconceived notions, leading them to believe they are right when, in actuality, they are not.

And God practices that psychology, God never cuts anyone off. So if God himself won’t do that, why not follow His example?

Sin is “separation from God.” Now whether it is God that does the cutting or the sinner is a theoretical question, but the truth is that those who sin are, indeed, “cut off” from God.

My view is that a true assessment of where we stand vis a vis God is the correct psychology. Self-deception, ultimately, never profits anyone, even if it does make them feel better for a while. It is a placebo to prescribe sugar coated sugar because that assumes nothing is really the matter.

True spiritual medicine: get an accurate diagnosis, a correct prognosis and then follow the prescription.

If you want to insist and go on insisting “there is nothing really wrong with anyone” and “I’m okay, you’re okay,” be my guest, but I am quite certain that is not the message of Moses, the Prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, the Church Fathers and the Church throughout its entire history.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Please try to remember you are not Christ.

That is not at issue.

The issue is, “What does Christ say?”

You have your take on that, I am claiming you have a false reading because of what Paul, the Church, the Church Fathers, Jesus, the Prophets, etc., all insist.

Was Paul wrong, then?

NOTE: It is not me who wrote 1 Corinthians, so it is not about whether I think I am Christ that is at issue.

Was Paul wrong? Are you right?
Paul had the authority of Christ. That is widely acknowledged.

And your authority, where does it derive? Your reading of Scripture and your conscience?
I can read Scripture and I, too, have a conscience. That balances your claim…

Which leads us back to Paul. Was he wrong? By whose authority do you make that judgement? (And a “judgement” it is, despite your attempts to make it appear that your view is simply the correct one above all others.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Church has been going for 2,000 years, so if you’re right there must be criteria written down to guide laity in making such a momentous discernment of who does and doesn’t belong to Christ. Where are these criteria, please cite evidence that the Church (and Christ) wants or even warrants you to discern, rather than (as the bible passage I paraphrased) warning us never to do so.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit…. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23 “

When Christ says Beware of false prophets," is he not asking us to discern who is false and who is true?

“By their fruits you will know them.” Are we not asked to discern who is true and who is false?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Therefore; baptized and former altar boy Hitler was Catholic.
Right?

I keep seeing the image of the Nazi belt buckle: “God is With Us”.

.

I didn’t know Hitler was an altar boy. Where do you find that documented?

Are you suggesting that being an altar boy made him an evil monster?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I believe Flew was a Deist, not Theist.

.A Deist in a “Thomas Jefferson” way, it has been described.

Documentation, please. We know for certain he ceased to be an atheist because his last published book was titled There is a God. We know from that book that he was corresponding with an Anglican bishop concerning the Resurrection.

 

[inocente]

In other words, you are right and Paul was wrong?

Read again…

*I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men;
not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality *or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one.
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the Church whom you are to judge?
God judges those outside. " Drive out the wicked person from among you."
(1 Cor 5:9-13)

Ah, the old verse mine. Try reading from the start of the chapter. The congregation is proud of the immoral man. Then try reading what he says. Instead of being proud of the man, don’t keep his company.

So is that man, “sleeping with his father’s wife”, a true Catholic? A false Catholic? A Catholic at all? What do you say, and how is your decision, as laity, implemented?

Come on, you keep telling me how much better off you are with the Magisterium and tradition to give you an infallible interpretation of scripture, so all you have to do is link the relevant section of the CCC. As it says "this catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.

So this must be in the CCC, don’t go all sola scriptura on me, just link the relevant section. Or if you can’t, please explain how calling people true or not true or cafeteria Catholics could possibly be part of True Catholicism.

 

[inocente]

Actually, the worse thing you could do is to lead someone to believe what they are doing is fine and life giving when it is really death dealing and to their ultimate harm. Better to be truthful and help others see the truth than confirm them in their misconceived notions, leading them to believe they are right when, in actuality, they are not.

You’re still trying to conflate morality with belonging to Christ.

Sin is “separation from God.” Now whether it is God that does the cutting or the sinner is a theoretical question, but the truth is that those who sin are, indeed, “cut off” from God.

Nope, it’s not hypothetical. God never cuts anyone off, the line is always open. But a Christian can cut herself off by blaspheming against the Spirit. And by cutting herself off, she leaves no way to be forgiven. Here it is:

*CCC 1864 “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. *

 

[inocente]

The issue is, “What does Christ say?”

You have your take on that, I am claiming you have a false reading because of what Paul, the Church, the Church Fathers, Jesus, the Prophets, etc., all insist.

Was Paul wrong, then?

NOTE: It is not me who wrote 1 Corinthians, so it is not about whether I think I am Christ that is at issue.

Was Paul wrong? Are you right?
Paul had the authority of Christ. That is widely acknowledged.

And your authority, where does it derive? Your reading of Scripture and your conscience?
I can read Scripture and I, too, have a conscience. That balances your claim…

Which leads us back to Paul. Was he wrong? By whose authority do you make that judgement? (And a “judgement” it is, despite your attempts to make it appear that your view is simply the correct one above all others.)

Again, where is this true Catholic stuff in the CCC?

 

[inocente]

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit…. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23 “

When Christ says Beware of false prophets," is he not asking us to discern who is false and who is true?

“By their fruits you will know them.” Are we not asked to discern who is true and who is false?

Do Catholics not get any help in interpreting scripture? Us lowly sola scriptura dudes have loads of commentaries to aid us, and a quick look shows they interpret this passage to be about false preachers (the tree being the doctrine, the fruit being the outcome of the doctrine).

For instance, John Wesley has:

Beware of false prophets — Who in their preaching describe a broad way to heaven: it is their prophesying, their teaching the broad way, rather than their walking in it themselves, that is here chiefly spoken of. All those are false prophets, who teach any other way than that our Lord hath here marked out. …] A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree good fruit — But it is certain, the goodness or badness here mentioned respects the doctrine, rather than the personal character. For a bad man preaching the good doctrine here delivered, is sometimes an instrument of converting sinners to God. Yet I do not aver, that all are true prophets who speak the truth, and thereby convert sinners. I only affirm, that none are such who do not. - christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=40&c=7&com=wes

Matthew Henry’s concise commentary has:

Nothing so much prevents men from entering the strait gate, and becoming true followers of Christ, as the carnal, soothing, flattering doctrines of those who oppose the truth. They may be known by the drift and effects of their doctrines. Some part of their temper and conduct is contrary to the mind of Christ. Those opinions come not from God that lead to sin. - christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=40&c=7

Seems a reasonable interpretation. I imagine the Church has an official process for dealing with false preaching.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Again, where is this true Catholic stuff in the CCC?

It doesn’t have to be in the CCC to be true.

For example, this is not in the CCC:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23 “

The New Testament and the CCC are complementary texts for our Catholic Faith.

Do Baptists have anything other than the New Testament?

Or is it that each Baptist creates in his own head the complementary equivalent to the CCC? And if he does, on what authority does he do so? Does he assume the authority for himself? I don’t mind that he does, but if he is going to do that, he needs to prove that he has read the text rightly. The above text cannot mean anything other than what it says. “I never knew you” means that **“You never truly belonged to me.”
**

Or, to be more concise, “You never were a true believer.”

Certainly Christ alone can judge, but we can just as certainly have our suspicions. That the CCC does not address** cafeteria Catholics **by that phrase, does not mean that cafeteria Catholics do not exist and that no one has a right to point out their existence.

innocente, I have noticed that in many threads you strive mightily to use the teachings of the Catholic Church to defeat the views of the Catholic apologists in this forum. It’s a failing strategy on your part, but it’s a hopeful sign that in order to do this you have to learn a great deal about the teachings of the Catholic Church, and for that you are to be congratulated.

 

[inocente]

It doesn’t have to be in the CCC to be true.

For example, this is not in the CCC:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23 “

The New Testament and the CCC are complementary texts for our Catholic Faith.

Do Baptists have anything other than the New Testament?

Or is it that each Baptist creates in his own head the complementary equivalent to the CCC? And if he does, on what authority does he do so? Does he assume the authority for himself? I don’t mind that he does, but if he is going to do that, he needs to prove that he has read the text rightly. The above text cannot mean anything other than what it says. “I never knew you” means that **“You never truly belonged to me.”
**

Or, to be more concise, “You never were a true believer.”

Certainly Christ alone can judge, but we can just as certainly have our suspicions. That the CCC does not address** cafeteria Catholics **by that phrase, does not mean that cafeteria Catholics do not exist and that no one has a right to point out their existence.

innocente, I have noticed that in many threads you strive mightily to use the teachings of the Catholic Church to defeat the views of the Catholic apologists in this forum. It’s a failing strategy on your part, but it’s a hopeful sign that in order to do this you have to learn a great deal about the teachings of the Catholic Church, and for that you are to be congratulated.

You’ve not explained what being or not being a true Catholic might mean, or what the criteria might be.

You’ve not linked any guidelines from the Church, but it would surely provide some if laity were expected to tell other laity they are not a true Catholic, as doing so could devastate someone and sow discord in the flock.

You’ve not been able to link any commentaries supporting your interpretations of scripture.

So you don’t seem to have any support at all from the Church, What does your priest say, does he think it’s a good idea for you to tell someone she is not a true Catholic?

As a Baptist I’ve been in bible study groups and house groups. We’re encouraged to read scripture through the eyes of the writer’s intended original audience. We’re warned not to mine verses and not to impose our own subjective view on what is being said. And, of course, the Spirit aids us. We’re encouraged to read research from bible scholars, and commentaries. Talks (you might call them sermons) also help. If we can’t agree we go to the pastor, and if he or she can’t work it out she talks it over with colleagues. If we still can’t agree, we agree to disagree.

I don’t think “I never knew you” means “You never truly belonged to me.”. The “truly” sounds a bit teenage romance novel, and the “belonged to me” is unclear about whether the fault is with you for not giving yourself, or with Christ for not getting the ownership sorted. Interestingly the Message paraphrase (sometimes good value, other times not) interprets the paragraph as being about those who strut around saying they’re true Christians! “Knowing the correct password—saying ‘Master, Master,’ for instance—isn’t going to get you anywhere with me. What is required is serious obedience—doing what my Father wills. I can see it now—at the Final Judgment thousands strutting up to me and saying, ‘Master, we preached the Message, we bashed the demons, our God-sponsored projects had everyone talking.’ And do you know what I am going to say? ‘You missed the boat. All you did was use me to make yourselves important. You don’t impress me one bit. You’re out of here.’”

From memory, I’ve never said anything against any Catholic apologist on CAF. There are some wannabe apologists with no qualifications who think that just by putting “Catholic” on their profile they magically become an authority, but they don’t count.

You can often tell when they’re out of their depth, as they switch into personal remarks and off-topic questions in increasingly desperate attempts to cover their retreat.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again, where is this true Catholic stuff in the CCC?

Right here:

The Church is ultimately one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in her deepest and ultimate identity, because it is in her that “the Kingdom of heaven,” the "Reign of God,"380 already exists and will be fulfilled at the end of time. The kingdom has come in the person of Christ and grows mysteriously in the hearts of those incorporated into him, until its full eschatological manifestation. Then all those he has redeemed and made "holy and blameless before him in love,"381 will be gathered together as the one People of God, the "Bride of the Lamb,"382 "the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God."383 For "the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."384

IN BRIEF

866 The Church is one: she acknowledges one Lord, confesses one faith, is born of one Baptism, forms only one Body, is given life by the one Spirit, for the sake of one hope (cf. Eph 4:3-5), at whose fulfillment all divisions will be overcome.

867 The Church is holy: the Most Holy God is her author; Christ, her bridegroom, gave himself up to make her holy; the Spirit of holiness gives her life. Since she still includes sinners, she is “the sinless one made up of sinners.” Her holiness shines in the saints; in Mary she is already all-holy.

868 The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is “missionary of her very nature” (AG 2).

869 The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: “the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev 21:14). She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops.

870 “The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines”(LG 8).

In other words, of one is a “member” and incorporated into the Body of Christ it is necessary to be one, holy, catholic AND apostolic. Being one or some of those things does not make one fully “Catholic” in the sense of being fully one with the “sole Church of Christ” (870) because all of those together are what defines the deepest and ultimate identity of the Church itself. It is not possible to share in the identity of the Church (i.e., be a true Catholic) without being one with that which identifies the Church as being THE TRUE Church.