The RCC facade

[Pax]

Atemi,

I have, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that you believe as most Evangelicals and non-denominational Christians do. That is to say, that there is an “invisible” church made up of all of the “true believers” wherever they may be. Moreover, it is not possible to separate the wheat from the tares throughout Christendom. Some Baptists are true members of the invisible body and are therefore in an invisible Christian unity and some are not. The same applies to some Evangelicals, some Lutherans, some Methodists, etc, etc, and maybe even some Catholics.

The problem is that this invisible Church has no unity whatsoever.

The so called invisible church has no unity in fellowship; it has no unity in worship; and it has no unity in doctrine.

The entire idea of an invisible church without visible unity is absolutely contrary to John Chapter 17 and other passages of scripture. Scripture says the following:

John 17:20-23
“I[Jesus] do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, **so that the world may know **that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.”

The unity Jesus speaks of and prays for will be a sign to the world. You are, IMHO, ignoring what Jesus is saying. I also believe that any Christian that espouses the idea of an “invisible” church with an “invisible” unity is also ignoring what Jesus is saying.

Here are more passages that support the idea and need for unity:

Eph 4:1-5
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, **making every effort 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 of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Phi 1:27
Only, live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel,

Phi 2:1-2
If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Again, please note the bolded portions. The points of unity always include being of one mind in our faith. Paul condemns factions and divisions. Doctrinal differences are not created by themselves and they certainly aren’t caused by the Holy Spirit.

People cause doctrinal divisions.

People do this because of their personal desires. They have as Paul says “itching ears” and they seek out teachers after their own liking[2 Tim 4:3]. This is what causes divisions within the body.

The unity of doctrine is the only thing that can give a locus for all other unity. That’s what it means to be of one mind in the Spirit. The Spirit is the source and foundation of scripture. Jesus is the source and the foundation of the Church. Jesus established His Church and the Spirit guides His Church. Jesus promised to protect His Church even against the gates of hell. Jesus also promised to remain with His Church until the end.

This is not rhetoric. Please do not respond to me with that answer. If you do so, please be aware that what you call “rhetoric” is straight from the scriptures, and that the scriptures are God breathed.

Matt 5:14 puts it this way: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.”

There is an unpleasant fact that disturbs non-Catholic Christians no end, and it tends to reinforce the fact that the Catholic Church is in fact that “city on the hill.” Virtually, every Christmas and Easter when the secular media highlights the spiritual side of these holidays, we find that the Catholic Church is at the forefront of the coverage. When a Pope passes the “world” focuses its attention on the event. The “world” recognizes that the Catholic Church is at the heart of Christianity.

The biblical data, the historical data, and the current empirical data show the Catholic Church to be the “visible” Christian Church. The Catholic Church is the “light of the world” and the “city on a hill.”

 

[po18guy]

Atemi, There is an unpleasant fact that disturbs non-Catholic Christians no end, and it tends to reinforce the fact that the Catholic Church is in fact that “city on the hill.” Virtually, every Christmas and Easter when the secular media highlights the spiritual side of these holidays, we find that the Catholic Church is at the forefront of the coverage. When a Pope passes the “world” focuses its attention on the event. The “world” recognizes that the Catholic Church is at the heart of Christianity.

The biblical data, the historical data, and the current empirical data show the Catholic Church to be the “visible” Christian Church. The Catholic Church is the “light of the world” and the “city on a hill.”

As each of us does, Atemi needs prayer. Let’s commit to that prayer. “When reason fails, and emotion flails, prayer prevails”

Christ’s peace.

 

[mgrfin]

Atemi,

I have, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that you believe as most Evangelicals and non-denominational Christians do. That is to say, that there is an “invisible” church made up of all of the “true believers” wherever they may be. ."

You came to the wrong conclusion, at least about me and about the Roman Catholic Church.

We believe in a visible Church, not an invisible one. The visible Church is the Mystical Body of Christ because its members are united by supernatural bonds with one another and with Christ, their Head, thus resembling the members and head of the living human body.

John 15:4-7; Col 1:18; Romans 12:4-5

peace

 

[Pax]

You came to the wrong conclusion, at least about me and about the Roman Catholic Church.

We believe in a visible Church, not an invisible one. The visible Church is the Mystical Body of Christ because its members are united by supernatural bonds with one another and with Christ, their Head, thus resembling the members and head of the living human body.

John 15:4-7; Col 1:18; Romans 12:4-5

peace

I agree…I am not speaking of Catholics or the view point of the Catholic Church. I am speaking of the non-Catholic view.

 

[Atemi]

I think there certainly is disunity among Catholics as with any other group of human beings BUT there is also remarkable unity because the Roman Catholic Church has defined what it is to be Roman Catholic. So, yes when I was Catholic and manning a pro life booth at church we had a woman going into mass come and chew us out as she was pro choice. On the surface that looks like disunity but that is really someone who is not playing by the rules of the game. It is her that was out of unity with the church.

The Orthodox also have (based on the 7 Ecumencial Councils) determined what it is to be Orthodox. A pro abortion politician may call himself Orthodox but they are not following the tenets of the faith. Again, it is not the Church that is out of step but the individual who is not in unity.

And you are thus not in unity with the Apostolic doctrine that the RCC teaches. You are a schismatic according to them and thus do not count toward Christian unity either.

Groups like the Baptists are very individualistic. There is no unity. Each congregation makes its own rules. Even though they may belong to the Southern Baptist Convention, the authority of beleif and so on rests with the local congregation. Anglicans may have the 39 articles but lord knows they have been free to believe whatever they choose. Including the retired Bishop of Newark (spon) who said we need to get away from a theistic notion of God.

I see your double standard.

You like to arbitrarily remove the Eastern Orthodox from the mix as a separate church just to knock Protestants.

Sorry, but you are just as much disunited as I am according to modern Catholicism. My church is extremely united, but I do not see you offering my church the same pass.

As an RC here just said, how can there be any unity if it is not in the truth? In case you were unaware, “the truth” is only totally found in their Catechism (at least the latest one).

Sorry, but we all can see the huge disparity between RC claims to unity and the reality in the world today.

…

 

[Atemi]

There is no such thing as Catholic disunity.

LOL.

And this is exactly the willful denial of reality that does not help the RC apologetic at all.

When guys like the OP come around and are confused by the disunity, you just wave your Jedi fingers across his face and chant “there is no disunity…”

You know, I think it is silly to try to convince people about unity. Jesus said that people would know us by our love, and I think that is more convincing.

Calling the majority of your brethren that love you and your church heretics and excommunicated is not showing much love.

We have a catechism from the first century called the Didache, and the teachings have not changed since that time.

Oh please, guan.

The one page Didache is the same as your teachings today?

That is nonsense.

The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today. What a horrible claim.

…

 

[po18guy]

I agree…I am not speaking of Catholics or the view point of the Catholic Church. I am speaking of the non-Catholic view.

Amen. You and mgrfin are both correct. We are not the Masons, the Mormons or the JWs with inner sanctums, secret handshakes and faith that changes with the wind. We are called to be light unto others, as Christ is the light of the world. Everything that He is, we must strive toward.

 

[po18guy]

My church is extremely united, but I do not see you offering my church the same pass…

Atemi,

Who claimed unity in the first place? A poster here?

 

[Atemi]

I have, rightly or wrongly, come to the conclusion that you believe as most Evangelicals and non-denominational Christians do. That is to say, that there is an “invisible” church made up of all of the “true believers” wherever they may be.

True believers are visible, Pax.

Lights on a hill…

Moreover, it is not possible to separate the wheat from the tares throughout Christendom. Some Baptists are true members of the invisible body and are therefore in an invisible Christian unity and some are not. The same applies to some Evangelicals, some Lutherans, some Methodists, etc, etc, and maybe even some Catholics.

The problem is that this invisible Church has no unity whatsoever.

The so called invisible church has no unity in fellowship; it has no unity in worship; and it has no unity in doctrine.

And if the RCC’s “Mystical Body of Christ” is accurate, the problem still remains…unless you want to remove everyone but Roman Catholics from the Body.

The unity Jesus speaks of and prays for will be a sign to the world.

And guess what?

The Catholic Church does not have that either…and in spades.

Here are more passages that support the idea and need for unity:

Again, please note the bolded portions. The points of unity always include being of one mind in our faith. Paul condemns factions and divisions. Doctrinal differences are not created by themselves and they certainly aren’t caused by the Holy Spirit.

And my church is wonderfully united as these Scriptures teach.

And you say your church is too…even though untold numbers of Catholics are not of one mind and one faith.

And the Traditionalists say the same.

And the Old Catholics say the same.

That’s all we got.

People cause doctrinal divisions.

As do church leaderships.

People do this because of their personal desires. They have as Paul says “itching ears” and they seek out teachers after their own liking[2 Tim 4:3]. This is what causes divisions within the body.

Agreed.

The unity of doctrine is the only thing that can give a locus for all other unity.

And that is found in the Scriptures, the Word of God.

That’s what it means to be of one mind in the Spirit. The Spirit is the source and foundation of scripture. Jesus is the source and the foundation of the Church. Jesus established His Church and the Spirit guides His Church. Jesus promised to protect His Church even against the gates of hell. Jesus also promised to remain with His Church until the end.

Yes.

The problem is that you misidentify the modernist RCC as Christ’s church.

Not possible.

This is not rhetoric. Please do not respond to me with that answer. If you do so, please be aware that what you call “rhetoric” is straight from the scriptures, and that the scriptures are God breathed.

The Scriptures are not rhetoric. The rhetoric is the usual bold and tired claims about your personal church of choice that do not match up to those Scriptures.

My church is this, my church is that, my church cannot ever err…

I can hear the same from a pile of other churches all claiming to be the “one, true church” too.

All rhetoric without substance at all.

Matt 5:14 puts it this way: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.”

There is an unpleasant fact that disturbs non-Catholic Christians no end, and it tends to reinforce the fact that the Catholic Church is in fact that “city on the hill.”

LOL.

Not at all.

I love that verse.

Virtually, every Christmas and Easter when the secular media highlights the spiritual side of these holidays, we find that the Catholic Church is at the forefront of the coverage. When a Pope passes the “world” focuses its attention on the event. The “world” recognizes that the Catholic Church is at the heart of Christianity.

How utterly sad.

You value your reputation with the WORLD and esteem it.

The biblical data, the historical data, and the current empirical data show the Catholic Church to be the “visible” Christian Church. The Catholic Church is the “light of the world” and the “city on a hill.”

If it did, I would be Roman Catholic again.

As it stands, there is nothing further from the truth…but I am aware that you must believe this.

In any event, I must say it is truly a pleasure dialoguing with you. As your name implies, you keep your head on your shoulders and that is appreciated. That comes in short supply.

…

 

[po18guy]

LOL.

OK. Are you either Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness? Come on, you know OUR faith. Please grant us the courtesy of knowing where the “inquiries” are coming from. The Gauntlet is thrown. Defend YOUR faith. We have no reason to defend ours.

1 Peter 3:15-16 “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”

Christ’s peace.

 

[Contarini]

The one page Didache is the same as your teachings today?

That is nonsense.
.

The Didache is a lot longer than a page, but I certainly agree that it doesn’t provide evidence for the absolute identity of current Catholic teaching with that of the early Church.

Edwin

 

[po18guy]

…

“In Japanese martial arts, atemi (???, atemi?) designate blows to the body, as opposed to twisting of joints , strangleholds, holding technique and throws …”

This explains a lot. You clearly enjoy meting out punishment. But, still no answer as to your “church”. (insert “Jeopardy” theme here)…

 

[Teflon93]

And you are thus not in unity with the Apostolic doctrine that the RCC teaches. You are a schismatic according to them and thus do not count toward Christian unity either.

Our Orthodox brothers are close enough to us that they have been invited to the Lord’s table at Mass. There is far greater unity between Catholic and Orthodox than between Protestant communities. These days, there is far greater unity between Catholic and Orthodox than WITHIN Protestant communities, given the schism rending or looming in many of the great, mainline communities.

It seems to suit you to point to disunity where it is minor. Why not cast your gaze around your own faith community rather than ignore the major disunity so tragically present therein?

Or are you more temperamentally suited to rending than healing?

I see your double standard.

You like to arbitrarily remove the Eastern Orthodox from the mix as a separate church just to knock Protestants.

He did no such thing. He simply didn’t attack the Catholic Church with sufficient zeal for your taste.

Sorry, but you are just as much disunited as I am according to modern Catholicism. My church is extremely united, but I do not see you offering my church the same pass.

Oh, pish. The Orthodox have been more united for far longer than the Protestant communities have, and despite considerable secular pressure too. Our brothers and sisters in the Russian Orthodox Church in particular are fast healing the wounds wrought by 70 years of Communist repression; their own exile in Babylon which added some 20 million martyrs to the rolls.

You apparently know as little about them as you do about Catholicism. Will you treat them with the same lack of charity and rage as Luther treated the Jews when they rejected Lutheranism?

As an RC here just said, how can there be any unity if it is not in the truth? In case you were unaware, “the truth” is only totally found in their Catechism (at least the latest one).

The Catechism is a wonderful resource. The Orthodox agree with more of it than Protestants do, but not all of it. We hope one day for the schism between us to be completely healed, though.

Isn’t it funny how our doctrine and dogma may be found within the covers of the Catechism? Where may we find yours?

Sorry, but we all can see the huge disparity between RC claims to unity and the reality in the world today.

…

The disparity is between Atemi’s irrational hatred of the Church and reality.

But we pray for you nonetheless.

 

[RobHom]

Saying yes doesn’t make it yes. Evidence makes it yes. You don’t have any evidence.

Oh…yes he does!! His “imperious” opinion…:

That one roof is Magisterial Truth. One billion differing Catholics unifed by ONE Magisterial Truth. You have walked into your own trap… the sound of Wiley Coyote whistling to his doom at the bottom of a canyon and a small puff of white canyon dust…

I like the wiley coyote comparison…

Protestant method? Which one?

Yes, of the “thousands” …which one?

So? Sin is sin whether public or private.

And is public sin a point of pride for protestants?

So?

Then don’t teach it.

You don’t really expect them to change do you?

It is hard to find one ‘error’ among so many other errors.

Its really hard to even decide where to begin, is it not?

 

[Teflon93]

The Didache is a lot longer than a page, but I certainly agree that it doesn’t provide evidence for the absolute identity of current Catholic teaching with that of the early Church.

Edwin

How did anyone get the notion the Didache was one page?

Also, the Didache is not considered to be utterly reliable, although it is an interesting window into the early Church.

I would also note contra Contarini that the Church of the Didache looks a lot more like Catholic and Orthodox than any Protestant community; similarly, the Mass of Justin Martyr doesn’t resemble much Protestant worship services today, with the usual exception of High Church Anglican.

 

[Contarini]

You like to arbitrarily remove the Eastern Orthodox from the mix as a separate church just to knock Protestants

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. As I read the Reverend Doctor, I think he was just saying that both Catholics and Orthodox have internal unity characterized by an official teaching. I would add that both groups claim to be the true Church. The problem for Protestants is that, however we parse it, we don’t have a true visible Church that can act authoritatively and in unity–unless you are so bold as to claim that your particular Protestant church is the One True Church. This is probably the most basic reason why I don’t think I’ll ever be able to settle down as a Protestant.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I would also note contra Contarini that the Church of the Didache looks a lot more like Catholic and Orthodox than any Protestant community; similarly, the Mass of Justin Martyr doesn’t resemble much Protestant worship services today, with the usual exception of High Church Anglican.

I don’t know–both models are pretty vague. And the basic “word and table” model is catching on among more Protestants than just Anglicans (and certainly is not confined to High Church Anglicans–I don’t see what is particularly High Church about Justin’s picture). The liturgical pattern you find in the Methodist hymnal is explicitly based on Justin (among others), although admittedly it is not binding and many congregations don’t use it (the Methodist church I attend is switching to it next Sunday, though they are sticking with monthly communion for now).

As for the Didache–it has been a source of some embarrassment among high-church Anglican (and I believe also Catholic) scholars, since it does not mention the Real Presence (in any way–there’s no association between the bread and wine and Jesus’ body and blood). Some have even suggested that it is not describing the Eucharist at all but merely a fellowship meal. So I think it is rather odd to rely on the Didache to prove Catholicism.

However, your post did not contradict anything I said–I only said that the Didache doesn’t show the exact identity of early Christianity with contemporary Catholicism. I note this simply because you show a persistent pattern of ascribing to me things I did not say, and I am going to keep calling you on this in the hope that you will eventually start describing my posts more accurately. In spite of the above considerations, I really don’t have an opinion on whether the Didache itself is closer to Protestantism or Catholicism. Early Christianity as a whole is definitely closer to Catholicism/Orthodoxy than to Protestantism, and while the Didache may be weird from a Catholic perspective it doesn’t look much like most forms of Protestantism either.

Edwin

 

[RobHom]

Seems to me the most remarkable thing that atemi seems to able to do is bang his head on the proverbial anvil and express his opinion… as if it were binding. That he claims to have been Catholic once has a deep negative meaning in that apparently his faith was weak, and his conviction even weaker. Sounds like a very unhappy person… even with the theology he has presently grasped…

Yes, he does need our prayers…

 

[Philthy]

Experience.

I asked a simple question: how many countries did you sample for your statements regarding Catholics. The answer you gave is a complete dodge. Your experience is extremely limited both temporally and geographicallhy. If you wish to discuss the issue, be prepared to separate fact from opinion. If you cant handle that why pretend to be interested in talking?

atemi:
Most Catholics just do not believe everything they are supposed to.

First: you dont know that - you simply assume based on your limited experience. Second: Even if it were trye, so what? As long as they dont pretend that their opinion somehow supercedes the authority of the Church to proclaim it, that is OK.

atemi:

As Catholics grow in wisdom, this is quite evident to them as well.

No doubt this is from your experience as well - both who has grown in wisdom and what they have come to know.

atemi:

Are you impressed by “stamps” and “titles”?

Within a certain context, yes I absolutely am. Do you not respect the title of physician within the context of a medical issue? This is another dodge. Perhaps you never earned the degree you now feel you should have? No doubt that’s the CC’s fault as well…
atyemi:

Just like the ancient Creeds themselves, they need not “stamps” and “authorized signatures” to say what they mean.

Now you are confusing “what they mean” with who gave the message. Where did we get those creeds, BTW? Anonymous? Or were they produced through councils comprised of respected religious leaders of their day?

atemi:
If you need a huge, voluminous stack of paper to explain your faith, then something is seriously wrong, IMO.

That is certainly an opinion. I never claimed that a voluminous stack of paper was required - I simply implied it was beneficial.
You started by arguing that “All churches generally” have a statement of faith or a catechism comprable to the CCC. Now you seem to be arguing that such a thing is bad - which is it? :ehh: The NT authors certainly didnt sum up the faith in a few pages and call it quits. With time they kept writing and writing and writing. Look at Paul - do you think there was “something seriously wrong” with his faith since he wrote so much or do you simply hold the CC to a different standard than everyone else? I get the feeling that no matter what the CC does it wont be good enough for you and that no matter what other churches do it will always be good enough, or at least excusable.

atemi:

I do not think your Magisterium has preserved the faith as they should have, and that is evident from history itself.

This is your personal opinion based on what? Let me guess - the Bible that the Church preserved for you which you casually disregard. I happen to disagree with your opinion though I can imagine things being better. That doesnt make me right. Just for a little perspective, do you believe another church has preserved it better, or is this just another meaningless gripe at the CC.

atemi:

So in actuality, I would probably find Pastor Bob’s mere 3 page document to be in a much higher class than much of what we find in the RC Catechism.

Such an absurd comment, without the benefit of even seeing Pastor Bob’s document, sheds a tremendous amount of light on your perspective.

atemi:

And that is definitely not the modernist RCC. It may be the traditionalist RCC or the Orthodox, but that is a different thread.
…

Yes, a different thread. But it is relevent if you are not a member of either of those churches either. Are you?

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t know–both models are pretty vague. And the basic “word and table” model is catching on among more Protestants than just Anglicans (and certainly is not confined to High Church Anglicans–I don’t see what is particularly High Church about Justin’s picture). The liturgical pattern you find in the Methodist hymnal is explicitly based on Justin (among others), although admittedly it is not binding and many congregations don’t use it (the Methodist church I attend is switching to it next Sunday, though they are sticking with monthly communion for now).

As for the Didache–it has been a source of some embarrassment among high-church Anglican (and I believe also Catholic) scholars, since it does not mention the Real Presence (in any way–there’s no association between the bread and wine and Jesus’ body and blood). Some have even suggested that it is not describing the Eucharist at all but merely a fellowship meal. So I think it is rather odd to rely on the Didache to prove Catholicism.

However, your post did not contradict anything I said–I only said that the Didache doesn’t show the exact identity of early Christianity with contemporary Catholicism.** I note this simply because you show a persistent pattern of ascribing to me things I did not say, and I am going to keep calling you on this in the hope that you will eventually start describing my posts more accurately.** In spite of the above considerations, I really don’t have an opinion on whether the Didache itself is closer to Protestantism or Catholicism. Early Christianity as a whole is definitely closer to Catholicism/Orthodoxy than to Protestantism, and while the Didache may be weird from a Catholic perspective it doesn’t look much like most forms of Protestantism either.

Edwin

Edwin, Edwin, Edwin—THIS again? One day you will discover sufficient charity and humility that you will not presume attacks (much less distortions) where there are none. Until that day, why don’t you look for something along the lines of “Contradini/Edwin said…” in these posts before claiming I said you said anything, particularly when you apparently use “said” synonymously with “mean”?

I took little issue with what you said, but what was left unsaid, which is that Protestant communities resemble the Church of the Didache less than Catholic and Orthodox.

So yes, it is quite true that the Didache is not the missal of the early Church and does not settle the debate about her, but given the posts from others on the board it is important to note that what it describes doesn’t look like Protestant practice to any large degree. Exception noted for those Protestant communities rebuilding their particular liturgies based on the ECFs.