The RCC facade

[Contarini]

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.

It was left unsaid because I had no wish to assert it. You claimed to be contradicting me: “contra Contarini.” You can’t be “contra” something I did not say. This is plain logic. If I choose not to assert something, you have no right to claim to be contradicting me when you deny it.

I have no wish to get into another personal sparring match with you. But every time you make a claim like this, I will point out that you are being inaccurate.

Edwin

 

[Atemi]

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

Then arbitrarily pick one of the many “one, true churches” and get it over with. The fence is not the place for Christians.

No, we do not make the grave error of claiming our church is the “one, true church” no more than the churches in the Apostolic era did so.

When Rome did start pushing that claim around, it caused nothing but schism in the Body of Christ ever since.

…

 

[Pax]

Alright, here is a portion of my prior post to you which is followed by the appropriate portions of your response. I will comment on your remarks in “blue” type.

Atemi,

…
…
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 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.”

True believers are visible, Pax.

…
…
…

The problem is that you misidentify the modernist RCC as Christ’s church.
It is Christ’s church and that is a historical fact that you need to refute by way of history.
…
…

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. Naturally, I disagree…the Catholic Church’s teaching is fully supported by scripture. Certainly, much more so than any Protestant claims. Orthodox, Traditional Catholics, and the others you like to mention share an enormous amount with the Catholic Church. It is Protestantism where this really breaks down.

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. Perhaps, but there is one true Church or Jesus is a liar. No Protestant Church makes the claim and cannot reasonably do so.

All rhetoric without substance at all. Your denial can be characterized in the same way, and that criticism is more easily justified and defended.

…
…
How utterly sad.

You value your reputation with the WORLD and esteem it. You have made a huge mistake here. There is nothing sad in what I wrote. Please refer to the quote from my post as seen above. I did not place any particular value on the reputation with the world nor esteem it. I merely quoted Jesus in his prayers for unity. Jesus wants this unity so that the “world would know that the Father sent Him.” Apparently, the world recognizes the Catholic Church as the heart and center of Christianity even if you do not.

…
If it did, I would be Roman Catholic again. I hope and pray that you will. To receive the body and blood of our Savior in the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

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

…
…
…

Atemi,

May the Lord’s peace be with you.

 

[Pax]

Then arbitrarily pick one of the many “one, true churches” and get it over with. The fence is not the place for Christians.

No, we do not make the grave error of claiming our church is the “one, true church” no more than the churches in the Apostolic era did so.

When Rome did start pushing that claim around, it caused nothing but schism in the Body of Christ ever since.

…

History will prove you wrong on this one. Ignatius of Antioch is the first making the claim in his letters concerning heretics. This did not cause schisms and neither did all of the other claims to this effect prior to the Great Schism.

 

[guanophore]

Disunity is defined by rebels and dissenters…that includes the very many at Mass with you every weekend. That is the whole point.

Are you suggesting we should not allow the wheat and the tares to grow together?

They are Catholic and do not believe as you do…thus rampant disunity.

Atemi, if they are not in union with the Pope, and the teachings if the church, then they are not Catholic. They may think they are, but they are living in la la land. Many will say to Him, “Lord, Lord,” and do not the things that He says.

No, they are all around you.

I know! I used to BE one! I left for the better part of 25 years and sojourned in Protestant circles. Now, I realize that those that surround me at Mass are more faithful than I ever knew. Now that I go to daily Mass, I see mostly the grandmas and grandpas in the pews, very few, but loyal. This amounts to maybe 1/20 of the Sunday service, and represents the “true” Catholics in the parish.

They are the little old lady saying the Rosary as you enter church or the deacon serving the Eucharist.

Amen!

I have seen them all.

And you hate them…why?

They have not left you. They are very much at home in the RCC and proud to call themselves Catholics.

No, they have not left the faithful so much as individuals as they have left the faith, in terms of the teachings of the church. You are right, in doing that, they also leave us who are still faithful, but most do not leave because of the people, but because of the doctrine.

Many are also your future priests and bishops.

My parish has a school, and the children have parts in the Mass. I hope all these youngsters that read, sing, and serve as acolytes will all consider religious life.

Too bad the “1 billion” are still hanging out.

Hmmm. Not so sure “too bad”. I had to make a long sojourn to understand the gospel, but I hope that the rest will somehow encounter it where they are. I hope that they all have teachers like Fr. Corapi, and will repent of their sins, and practice the faith into which they were born.

Constantly pointing at your Catechism as if that has any bearing on the true and tangible unity among Catholics is a serious mistake, IMO.

This comment is confusing to me. It is the teaching of the church that unifies Catholics. That teaching is made available and clear in the catechism. How is pointing to it a mistake? It is those who disagree with it, or fail to espouse it that define themselves as non-Catholic. What better measure is there? Does not that solve the “facade” of the OP?

 

[guanophore]

Disunity is defined by rebels and dissenters…that includes the very many at Mass with you every weekend. That is the whole point.

Are you suggesting we should not allow the wheat and the tares to grow together?

They are Catholic and do not believe as you do…thus rampant disunity.

Atemi, if they are not in union with the Pope, and the teachings if the church, then they are not Catholic. They may think they are, but they are living in la la land. Many will say to Him, “Lord, Lord,” and do not the things that He says.

No, they are all around you.

I know! I used to BE one! I left for the better part of 25 years and sojourned in Protestant circles. Now, I realize that those that surround me at Mass are more faithful than I ever knew. Now that I go to daily Mass, I see mostly the grandmas and grandpas in the pews, very few, but loyal. This amounts to maybe 1/20 of the Sunday service, and represents the “true” Catholics in the parish.

They are the little old lady saying the Rosary as you enter church or the deacon serving the Eucharist.

Amen!

I have seen them all.

And you hate them…why?

They have not left you. They are very much at home in the RCC and proud to call themselves Catholics.

No, they have not left the faithful so much as individuals as they have left the faith, in terms of the teachings of the church. You are right, in doing that, they also leave us who are still faithful, but most do not leave because of the people, but because of the doctrine.

Many are also your future priests and bishops.

My parish has a school, and the children have parts in the Mass. I hope all these youngsters that read, sing, and serve as acolytes will all consider religious life.

Too bad the “1 billion” are still hanging out.

Hmmm. Not so sure “too bad”. I had to make a long sojourn to understand the gospel, but I hope that the rest will somehow encounter it where they are. I hope that they all have teachers like Fr. Corapi, and will repent of their sins, and practice the faith into which they were born.

Constantly pointing at your Catechism as if that has any bearing on the true and tangible unity among Catholics is a serious mistake, IMO.

This comment is confusing to me. It is the teaching of the church that unifies Catholics. That teaching is made available and clear in the catechism. How is pointing to it a mistake? It is those who disagree with it, or fail to espouse it that define themselves as non-Catholic. What better measure is there? Does not that solve the “facade” of the OP?

Who cares what authority they have?
They are the evidence of disunity.

I think that is the very crux of the issue, Atemi. THey reject the authority appointed by Christ, and therefore, they reject Christ. What other fruit will be produced, but disunity?

This is much more rampant in America, where rejection of the appointed authority is part of our charter, and the notion of freedom is somehow mistakely tied with “I can do whatever I think is right”.

And in order to have unity you can boast about, real people must believe them.

I wonder about this. Is there not something wrong with this logic? If Jesus says that unity is found in the love that we have for one another, how many “real people” does that require? I am sure the apostles felt very alone after His death. Did they not have unity because the rest of Jerusalem did not believe them?

Doctrine cannot be unified. Only PEOPLE can be unified.

This is very true. However, it is the doctrine around which they are unified. Those that do not hold the teachings are not part of the unity.

Ink on paper doesn’t mean much when the people do not all unify with what it teaches.

This is very true. Ink on paper does not bring unity. The HS brings unity among brethren who all espouse the same doctrine.

BTW, look at all the schisms within Catholicism before talking like there are none. …

A good point. One oneders, Atemi. Why are YOU looking at all the schisms in Catholicism? What do YOU hope to find, or despair that you have NOT found?

 

[guanophore]

Agreed…but it is still disunity and it is rampant in the Roman Catholic Church.

I think not. All those who are not unified with the teachings are not really Catholic, whether they know it, or not.

You do understand that the type of Catholic that posts at a place like this is a rare breed, don’t you?

I do believe that sincerely, Atemi. I wish every Catholic in the pew was as fervent as the ones I have met here. However, their refusal to follow the faith into which they were born/baptized does not, in itself, disunify the Church.

Why did you not include all the Orthodox, and all the Old Catholics, and all the Traditionalists, and all the sedavacantists, and all the Old Calendarists, etc., etc…?

I am sure that the schisms that are present today are no worse than those that occurred during the thriving Arianism, Nestorianism, etc. However, the doctrine has not changed, and those who do not espouse it are either not part of Catholicism, or are in rebellion.

They also claim to be the Catholic Church.

If I call the cow’s tail a leg, how many legs does it ihave?

Catholics remove themselves from identifiication as CAtholics every day! I think you are right, and it makes it hard to count how many real Catholics there are. On the other hand, who cares? Did God ever care how many really faithful He had? Did He not always take the small remnant, and make them victorious?

 

[Atemi]

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.

Not at all.

The answer I gave is the same answer every Catholic gives when they complain about the state of Catholicism in the world today. They do not complain because they have stats from their worldwide travels of sampling every nation in the world.

What nonsense.

It’s just that I am not Roman Catholic so my similar position is summarily rejected.

I am familiar with this so carry on.

Your experience is extremely limited both temporally and geographicallhy.

You’re the one who called Africa a “country.”

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?

The very facts you demand from me you do not require of yourself or any other Catholic here.

This is telling.

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

First: you dont know that - you simply assume based on your limited experience.

This is plain.

Please at least open your eyes to this reality. If not, this same desperate denial will go on for who knows how long and no corrections will be made in your own community.

Second: Even if it were trye, so what?

It means doctrinal disunity is rampant among “1 billion” Catholics.

It means Catholics have no business ever lecturing other houses when their own house is in shambles.

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

Within a certain context, yes I absolutely am.

Within a certain context, I am too.

Perhaps you never earned the degree you now feel you should have? No doubt that’s the CC’s fault as well…

Are you kidding me?

Please stay on topic and away from silly personal comments.

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?

Yes.

The “Apostle’s Creed” is one such creed.

And if they were anonymous or penned even by the hand of one man, that says nothing about their content…just like any statement of faith.

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.

Voluminous pages of doctrine after doctrine after doctrine is beneficial?

Just the fact that the vast majority of Catholics do not even know all the dogmas of their own church, the one’s they supposedly “believe,” speaks against such an idea.

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?

My point is not that such a thing is necessarily a bad thing, just that just about all churches have one, to one degree or another.

Some degrees are more efficient than others, IMO.

The NT authors certainly didnt sum up the faith in a few pages and call it quits.

The NT is not a catechism.

Catholics have always been sure to point this out to me, but I guess that depends on the thread.

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.

Leave your feelings about me aside and let’s just talk about what is.

This thread is about the regular RC claim to “unity” that is obviously and plainly not the reality. Let’s keep it on topic.

…

 

[Atemi]

History will prove you wrong on this one. Ignatius of Antioch is the first making the claim in his letters concerning heretics. This did not cause schisms and neither did all of the other claims to this effect prior to the Great Schism.

Ignatius never taught that the church at Antioch was the “one, true church” all Christians must unify with. Ignatius also never taught that the church at Rome was the “one, true church” either.

And all my EO friends all insist that Ignatius was Eastern Orthodox too.

But this is another thread, I suppose.

…

 

[Tonks40]

Doctrinal unity among modernist Roman Catholics today, yes.

The teachings of the Didache and any of the other myriad of early writings, no.

…

So, in your view, “modernist Roman Catholic” teaching is not unified doctrinally…ah, I see now.

So tell us, where did us “modern Roman Catholics” get our current teachings, anyways? Or would you rather not suspect? Give us some proof that Catholic teaching has split into a billion different directions - and show us some documented proof, if you please, from reliable, unbiased sources (meaning sources that neither side with Catholic or protestant thought, in case you need clarifying.)

 

[Atemi]

So, in your view, “modernist Roman Catholic” teaching is not unified doctrinally…ah, I see now.

No.

I said modernist Roman Catholics are not doctrinally unified.

Teachings cannot practice unity, only people can. Christ did not pray that any teachings would be as one, but that His people would be as one.

…

 

[Tonks40]

No.

I said modernist Roman Catholics are not doctrinally unified.

Teachings cannot practice unity, only people can. Christ did not pray that any teachings would be as one, but that His people would be as one.

…

So, you would like us, the Universal Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself, to drop the “facade” and admit to ourselves, mere people, that we are not a unified people as Christ so desired, because people of our Church, at different stages of spiritual development, do not subscribe to the doctrines fully and totally, yet recite the Creed at Mass and sing the Kyrie.

That’s like saying that we, as people of the United States of America, should not call ourselves a country because there are people within our country who do not subscribe to the basic fundamental rights of the Constitution, yet say the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the National Anthem.

Doctrines are there for a reason. Just like mission statements for a business, or a constitution for a country…to guide people towards a particular expectation. Some people understand and fully internalize these doctrines…some don’t. Just like some citizens subscribes to the Constitution, and other citizen, who don’t concern themselves with the common good, decide to violate the Constitution and impede on other people’s rights for their own selfish purposes. What shall we do to these people? Tell them that our country is not a country? We are not unified under a common idea? Coz you know, in this country, some citizens believe that we have the right to bear arms, and there are others who don’t. We have those who believe in some form of censorship, and those who adhere to free speech. Are they not citizens of the United States? Gosh, what should we do with these people???

Honestly, it gets tiring seeing the ping-pong of “rhetoric - fact” “rhetoric - fact” that has gone on in this thread. Your arguments against the unity of the Church are not substantial enough to hold up to the facts presented to you.

Maybe you should take a class on how to conduct a meaningful debate.

 

[Atemi]

So, you would like us, the Universal Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself, to drop the “facade” and admit to ourselves, mere people, that we are not a unified people as Christ so desired, because people of our Church, at different stages of spiritual development, do not subscribe to the doctrines fully and totally, yet recite the Creed at Mass and sing the Kyrie.

That’s like saying that we, as people of the United States of America, should not call ourselves a country because there are people within our country who do not subscribe to the basic fundamental rights of the Constitution, yet say the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the National Anthem.

Doctrines are there for a reason. Just like mission statements for a business, or a constitution for a country…to guide people towards a particular expectation. Some people understand and fully internalize these doctrines…some don’t. Just like some citizens subscribes to the Constitution, and other citizen, who don’t concern themselves with the common good, decide to violate the Constitution and impede on other people’s rights for their own selfish purposes. What shall we do to these people? Tell them that our country is not a country? We are not unified under a common idea? Coz you know, in this country, some citizens believe that we have the right to bear arms, and there are others who don’t. We have those who believe in some form of censorship, and those who adhere to free speech. Are they not citizens of the United States? Gosh, what should we do with these people???

So basically you agree with me, but go on to make excuses why you do not have the doctrinal unity of Catholics that so many RC apologists boast about.

I just wish you would give others as much as a pass as you give yourselves, that’s all.

Honestly, it gets tiring seeing the ping-pong of “rhetoric - fact” “rhetoric - fact” that has gone on in this thread. Your arguments against the unity of the Church are not substantial enough to hold up to the facts presented to you.

And to think you just told me all about the disunity of those in your church and the excuses for all of it. Was all that rhetoric or fact?

Maybe you should take a class on how to conduct a meaningful debate.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Tonks.

I am learning to accept them regularly here.

Have a great day and God bless you.

…

 

[Tonks40]

So basically you agree with me, but go on to make excuses why you do not have the doctrinal unity of Catholics that so many RC apologists boast about.

I just wish you would give others as much as a pass as you give yourselves, that’s all.

How is my statement agreeing with you?..I’m pointing out the fallacies of your argument. If I did agree with you, I’d be looking for some church that exhibited the type of utopian group-think that you’re so desperately trying to standardize in religion…

I think the Borg qualifies for that.

And to think you just told me all about the disunity of those in your church and the excuses for all of it. Was all that rhetoric or fact?

Poor form and foul play, my friend. Why the need to turn not only my statement, but everyone else’s on the thread, around to your advantage? You haven’t shown us a shred of hard evidence that undeniably concludes towards this “facade” that you claim runs rampant in the Church. You’ve only shown us your opinions and your rhetoric.

Allow me to redefine for you the following:

rhet·o·ric: Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.

fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

I’m sorry, but there is just no depth or substance and no hard evidence to prove your point.

Thanks for the gratuitous insult, Tonks.

I am learning to accept them regularly here.

Have a great day and God bless you.

…

No insult - just constructive criticism - in hopes that your critical thinking skills expand moreso.

Christ be with you, also.

 

[Michael_Francis]

The discussion of the Didache and it’s relevance to modern Catholic catechesis has now been SPLIT: “The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.”
MF

 

[lukewarm]

There is a bit of truth to the OP, today the Catholic Church is very fragmented. Take a sampling of 1,000 professed Catholics and you will get very different beliefs on the Eucharist, confession, baptism, salvation outside the Catholic Church, women’s ordination, Marian Dogma, praying to Saints, abortion, contraception, etc…

There’s no doubt that the Catholic Church is very widely fractured in terms of core belief, at LEAST among the practicing Catholics if not the Bishops, clergy, and religious themselves.

 

[Teflon93]

There is a bit of truth to the OP, today the Catholic Church is very fragmented. Take a sampling of 1,000 professed Catholics and you will get very different beliefs on the Eucharist, confession, baptism, salvation outside the Catholic Church, women’s ordination, abortion, contraception, etc…

There’s no doubt that the Catholic Church is very widely fractured in terms of core belief, at LEAST among the practicing Catholics if not the Bishops, clergy, and religious themselves.

With a billion Catholics worldwide, a sample size of 1,000, chosen at random, would yield a confidence interval of +/- 3% at the 95% confidence level.

This means if we found 82% of Catholics in our sample hold that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ, the true sample mean would be between 79% and 85%.

The trick, of course, is that one must sample 1,000 Catholics from all over the world for this sample to be relevant to Catholics as a whole.

I think Americans who live in portions of the country with very liberal Catholics or whom only get exposure to Catholics through the prism of the media vastly overestimate the number of Catholics In Name Only out there.

It is a similar tendency found among the college educated, who believe that rates of college education are much higher than they actually are (about 20% college graduates among general population) because they associate predominately with college graduates like themselves.

Would you really expect a diehard Pentecostal to have a lot of Catholic friends, or perhaps know one or two fallen-away Catholics?

Thus we should strongly prefer actual studies done with some reasonably methodical discipline to these type of anecdotes.

 

[Church_Militant]

There is a bit of truth to the OP, today the Catholic Church is very fragmented. Take a sampling of 1,000 professed Catholics and you will get very different beliefs on the Eucharist, confession, baptism, salvation outside the Catholic Church, women’s ordination, abortion, contraception, etc…

There’s no doubt that the Catholic Church is very widely fractured in terms of core belief, at LEAST among the practicing Catholics if not the Bishops, clergy, and religious themselves.

I disagree…and if you’d read the entire thread, (I realize that is a challenge ) you would have known that the difference is that the people that you refer to are not representative of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The point is that the unity lies in the faithful that are following the single authoritatively stated Catholic doctrines, not those that represent dissent or (more often than not) sin.

The contention that n-C communities have some semblance of unity that the Catholic Church does not is a specious fiction even worse than any supposed “facade” asserted by the OP.

 

[Atemi]

The contention that n-C communities have some semblance of unity that the Catholic Church does not is a specious fiction even worse than any supposed “facade” asserted by the OP.

Well if we also pad the results with everyone that suits our particular fancy, we are totally united too.

Who knew that when you counted only those that agree perfectly, you would get a result where everyone perfectly agrees?

It’s amazing.

…

 

[Teflon93]

Well if we also pad the results with everyone that suits our particular fancy, we are totally united too.

Who knew that when you counted only those that agree perfectly, you would get a result where everyone perfectly agrees?

It’s amazing.

…

Who knew that when you changed the focus from doctrinal to practical unity and fail to distinguish between dogma, doctrine, and practice everyone completely disagrees?

It’s amazing.