When do you claim that the Catholic Church began

[Contarini]

Edwin,

Why does it matter who believes or disbelieves the truth? Why is that any kind of argument? Is truth really subject to popular vote?

CDL

This is a discussion forum. If we are just here to shout at each other, what’s the point? If you say things that do not communicate because they misrepresent or ignore what your “opponents” believe, then why say them at all?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What, on earth, do you think is meant by, “Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.
… they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness…”?

I think it means that baptism genuinely incorporates people into Christ, whether or not they ever become Catholic, but it does so imperfectly as long as it is not completed by full union with the Church and participation in the Eucharist (though of course if the person became Orthodox one of those could happen without the other!).

What on earth do you think it means? It seems pretty clear to me, though it is written in Vaticanese.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

“Christ is a good man”, Bsp. Joseph Sprague. This is an Arian view.

Yes, but it is emphatically not the teaching of the UMC.

“The sacraments are only symbols. Christ is only a Spirit”, many former lay and ministerial UM colleagues. This is a Gnostic or Docetic view.

If they deny the bodily resurrection of Christ, then they are denying Christ. If they deny that the sacraments are more than symbols, then they are not denying Christ (whatever labels you want to put on it), even though they are terribly wrong.

“A practicing homosexual can be in persona Christi as a bishop”, one of your bishops.

Well, first of all as it stands your statement (implying disagreement with the quote) is Donatist. (Yes, I know that there’s a new-fangled notion floating around that homosexuals are incapable of ordination–this is downright heretical and I hope Pope Benedict squashes it soon. The question of ordination of practicing homosexuals is one of morality. The ordination of celibate homosexuals is a question of prudence. If there is such a thing as a homosexual orientation or identity which is analogous to gender and thus can make a homosexual incapable of being ordained, just as in your Church’s theology a woman is incapable of being ordained–then the liberals are right.)

A practicing homosexual can be in persona Christi by virtue of his office, just as any other sinful office-holder can. But a practicing homosexual ought not to be ordained.

Still, this is also not a make-or-break question for whether someone is a Christian or not. There are people who are wrong about homosexuality and still believe in the same Jesus I do, and they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Again, you are twisting, here. The Church has never changed it’s position. She may claim a deeper understanding and impart it to her faithful, but it has never changed.

Not by your “definition” of change, which I maintain is a strained and weird one invented solely to justify Catholicism. Normally change means, well, change of any sort! If I have a deeper understanding of something, then my understanding has changed, because it has become deeper. Becoming deeper is a kind of change.

Back to the original point that started all of this: if a person holding beliefs XYZ can be an orthodox Catholic in 1540 but not in 1570, then between 1540 and 1570 Catholicism has changed. You all keep ignoring this point, because you cannot refute it.

Edwin

 

[Zooey]

All Methodists still share the same set of beliefs - if a Nazarene pastor were to preach at a Free Methodist Church or vice versa, the people wouldn’t notice any more difference in the theology being presented to them than if another minister of the same group as themselves were to give the preaching. It’s just that he reports to a different boss - but they all have the same basic theological beliefs.

Clearly, you don’t know us Methodists…
Its nothing like that simple!!

Hmm…tell that to my United Methodist parents and Nazarene aunt that they share the same beliefs. They will both disagree with you.

Exactly!!
I was raised Free Methodist…The number of people who think that Zooey “doesn’t believe in anything” due to being United Methodist… Oy!!!

In which case, they are two different religions.

It seems quite straightforward that having a different set of religious beliefs causes one to be of a different religion.

Nope! It’s a little more complex than this…

That’s not what he said. He said “Hmm…tell that to my United Methodist parents and Nazarene aunt that they share the same beliefs. They will both disagree with you.”

Example lay members (the parents and the aunt) of each group notice significant differences between their belief systems, to the point where they would not agree that they share the same beliefs.

If the people in the pews are noticing significant differences, then I’m sure their respective theologians are also noticing significant differences.

Two different sets of religious beliefs = two different religions.

Not two religions; but 2 very different churches.
Even United Methodists & Congregational Methodists have our differences…
But the biggest thing that factors in here, is the Holiness movemnet of the 19th C, & the Conservative Holiness movemnet of the 20thC.
There is a whole spectrum of conservative/liberal, Holiness/non-Holiness that needs to be factored in.
Please note that I said “Holiness”, not “holiness”. There is an enormous difference, & therein lies the controversy.

I am trying to think how to explain this to a predominantly Catholic audience. The best I can come up with, is to say, think SSPX versus the Catholic Church… As I understand it, SSPX thinks that it is the Catholic Church, & that Catholics are wrong. The Catholic Church says that SSPX is-- What? Schismatic? Not quite that? Well, the Holiness (say, Nazarene) people say that they are the (possibley only) true Methodists, & that the UMC has fallen to modernism, while the UMC (say, Zooey) feels that the Holiness camp has moved so far from historic Methodism as to form a whole new [schismatic, IMHO] body.
But we are all branches from the same tree…Whilst, in the meantime, the brothers Wesley have been placed in the canon of Anglican saints…Something that they always were–Anglican, I mean-- Whereas, Holiness people would claim that the Wesleys left the Anglicans, in the same way that Luther left the Catholics.
This is now beginnning to make me http://bestsmileys.com/fainting/2.g...ng/2.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/fainting/2.gif !!!

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Yes, but it is emphatically not the teaching of the UMC.

One would not have guessed it when I charged him with heresy.

If they deny the bodily resurrection of Christ, then they are denying Christ. If they deny that the sacraments are more than symbols, then they are not denying Christ (whatever labels you want to put on it), even though they are terribly wrong.

How does one make a distinction between a denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and “terribly wrong”?

Well, first of all as it stands your statement (implying disagreement with the quote) is Donatist. (Yes, I know that there’s a new-fangled notion floating around that homosexuals are incapable of ordination–this is downright heretical and I hope Pope Benedict squashes it soon. The question of ordination of practicing homosexuals is one of morality. The ordination of celibate homosexuals is a question of prudence. If there is such a thing as a homosexual orientation or identity which is analogous to gender and thus can make a homosexual incapable of being ordained, just as in your Church’s theology a woman is incapable of being ordained–then the liberals are right.)

A practicing homosexual can be in persona Christi by virtue of his office, just as any other sinful office-holder can. But a practicing homosexual ought not to be ordained.

I’ve pondered this argument for years, actually decades, but I’m still not sure I agree. I suppose that since the ECUSA openly and knowingly ordained this rascal that demonstrates that ECUSA itself is not a Church.

Still, this is also not a make-or-break question for whether someone is a Christian or not. There are people who are wrong about homosexuality and still believe in the same Jesus I do, and they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Edwin

I guess then that there must be some truth in the old canard, though I hope that I’m not hoisted upon this ‘canard’, “Satan believes in the same Jesus I do.” Does that mean that he is my/your brother in Christ?

CDL

 

[estesbob]

Back to the original point that started all of this: if a person holding beliefs XYZ can be an orthodox Catholic in 1540 but not in 1570, then between 1540 and 1570 Catholicism has changed. You all keep ignoring this point, because you cannot refute it.

Edwin

Being it is a false premise there is really nothing that can be said.

 

[sterryfamily]

I think it means that baptism genuinely incorporates people into Christ, whether or not they ever become Catholic, but it does so imperfectly as long as it is not completed by full union with the Church and participation in the Eucharist (though of course if the person became Orthodox one of those could happen without the other!).

What on earth do you think it means? It seems pretty clear to me, though it is written in Vaticanese.

Edwin

OK… “Baptism envisages complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be”

What do you suppose the Catholic Church teaches Christ’s will to be regarding the system of salvation?

And…“Baptism envisages complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion… … they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness…”

What would one take from the Church saying that, “Baptism envisages complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion…” but that " … they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness…"

Seems completely consistent with the Church’s constant teaching of, “No salvation outside the Church”

Again, the Church has always recognized that God can convert someone to Catholicism without our knowledge, but that His kingdom is the Catholic Church - in Heaven, in Purgatory, and on Earth. Therefore, anyone in Heaven is a Catholic.

 

[sterryfamily]

Not by your “definition” of change, which I maintain is a strained and weird one invented solely to justify Catholicism. Normally change means, well, change of any sort! If I have a deeper understanding of something, then my understanding has changed, because it has become deeper. Becoming deeper is a kind of change.

Back to the original point that started all of this: if a person holding beliefs XYZ can be an orthodox Catholic in 1540 but not in 1570, then between 1540 and 1570 Catholicism has changed. You all keep ignoring this point, because you cannot refute it.

Edwin

OK…let’s be careful not to argue semantics. You stated that the Church has altered dogma throughout history. While dogma can refer to general teaching, my use was in reference to solemn definition - and I made that clear.

If you mean to imply that disciplines have changed or that individual Catholics have wondered aloud about certain doctrines, or even that doctrines have developed over time, I have agreed with you. However, no solemnly defined dogma has ever been reversed or contradicted any previous definition. Can you show otherwise?

Throughout all of salvation history, God has allowed men (His chosen covenant mediators, in particular) to absorb and comprehend things according to the limitations of their own intellect over time, thus the development of doctrine as the Spirit revealed it to us. This is the same in the new testament covenant God made with us through the Church He established for us as it was in all the old testament covenants.

To imply that such development should not occur would be to tell God, “we do not allow you to behave the way you used to, because it does not jibe with our modern sensibilities.” He still promised His eternal guidance and protection to the magisterium He gave us.

 

[Contarini]

Being it is a false premise there is really nothing that can be said.

What is a false premise? It’s quite obviously true historically that there were such people. Read Dermot Fenlon’s *Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy *if you don’t agree with me.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

while the UMC (say, Zooey) feels that the Holiness camp has moved so far from historic Methodism as to form a whole new [schismatic, IMHO] body.

When my wife became Methodist Librarian at Drew, one of the changes she made was to ask for the Nazarene and other Holiness literature to be moved from the “main” library to the Methodist collection. My wife comes from the Asbury wing of Methodism (her grandfather was the president of Asbury Seminary), and she definitely considers the holiness tradition to be part of the story of Methodism. Her much more liberal predecessor apparently did not!

Also, she had great fun buying up all the books she could find relating to the small Holiness denomination founded by (among others) my great-great-uncle. This was quite legitimate, but she did get a kick out of collecting material on her husband’s ancestors’ church!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

One would not have guessed it when I charged him with heresy.

LOL! In a sort of black-humor, laugh-till-you-cry sort of way . . .

I’ve had this argument with a number of people (including you, I believe) before. But I would maintain adamantly that there is a huge difference between poor discipline and a change in doctrine. Obviously the RCC also tolerates views that are not its official teaching, although nowhere near to the extent of Sprague or Spong. The UMC deeply dislikes calling anyone a heretic, as you know. This is unfortunate (well, the extent to which they take it is unfortunate–I would be far more disturbed by any group of people who *liked *accusing people of heresy!), but it doesn’t change the fact that they do have doctrinal standards which completely contradict Sprague’s views.

How does one make a distinction between a denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and “terribly wrong”?

I think you misunderstood me. I am not making a distinction–I said that such a denial is terribly wrong.

I’ve pondered this argument for years, actually decades, but I’m still not sure I agree.

Why not?

I suppose that since the ECUSA openly and knowingly ordained this rascal that demonstrates that ECUSA itself is not a Church.

How is this not Donatism?

I do not agree that +Robinson is a “rascal.” I do not claim to be able to judge the degree of his culpability, but would be inclined to say that he made the reprehensible choices he did (to leave his wife–albeit with his wife’s full consent–and later to enter into a sexual relationship with another man) under the influence of strong cultural presuppositions concerning the nature of sexual orientation and its relationship to God’s will. In other words, he came to believe that in striving to resist his homosexual inclinations–as he clearly did for many years, because of his desire to lead a godly life–he was going against the identity God had given him. I have no reason to believe that this was not a good-faith decision. That does not exempt him from culpability (since we are all responsible for forming our consciences correctly), but it does make the question ambiguous enough that it is unjust and uncharitable to call him a “rascal,” unless you know a lot more about him than I do.

I guess then that there must be some truth in the old canard, though I hope that I’m not hoisted upon this ‘canard’, “Satan believes in the same Jesus I do.” Does that mean that he is my/your brother in Christ?

CDL

You know better than that, surely. Satan does not believe in Jesus at all. Satan believes all the right things about Jesus, but he does not believe in Jesus. This is not just a Protestant distinction–medieval Western theology (I don’t know about the East) made a distinction between “credere Deum” (to believe God exists), “credere Deo” (to believe what God has revealed), and “credere in Deum.”

Also, see Aquinas’s distinction between the two ways in which we can be said to believe something, and his assertion that the demons only believe in the second sense and not in the first (ST II/II, Qu. 5, art. 2).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

OK… “Baptism envisages complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be”

What do you suppose the Catholic Church teaches Christ’s will to be regarding the system of salvation?

That would require a very long answer, but I think what you are looking for is that Christ’s will is for everyone to be fully incorporated into the Church (i.e., in full communion with Rome both in terms of visible affiliation and in terms of faith and doctrine), and of course to be fully sanctified by the means of grace operative most fully in the Catholic Church.

That does not contradict what I have said–even though in the Catholic view baptized non-Christians lack much of the fullness of the faith, your Church still recognizes that we have means of grace and that these means of grace are operative even in the absence of the full communion that can alone bring them to completion.

What would one take from the Church saying that, “Baptism envisages complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion…” but that " … they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness…"

I woudl certainly not take from it the idea that baptism does not convey grace in the absence of the “complete ingrafting.” Rather, baptism points toward that ingrafting and is incomplete without it. The point as I understand it (and as most orthodox and well-informed Catholics I’m aware of interpret it) is that our (non-Catholics’) baptism leads us and urges us toward full incorporation in the Catholic Church. NOT that baptism only conveys its proper grace in the event of such a full incorporation.

Seems completely consistent with the Church’s constant teaching of, “No salvation outside the Church”

The two sentences you cite are, but the entire passage is not (not consistent with how that teaching was once understood, that is–the slogan itself can be and has been reinterpreted, for which I am profoundly grateful).

Again, the Church has always recognized that God can convert someone to Catholicism without our knowledge,

But that simply isn’t envisioned in this text. It clearly talks about the effects of baptism on those who are *not *converted to Catholicism–and part of the point is that baptism points toward Catholicism even in the lives of those who do not become Catholic.

but that His kingdom is the Catholic Church - in Heaven, in Purgatory, and on Earth. Therefore, anyone in Heaven is a Catholic.

That’s not what I am disputing.

It is unseemly for a non-Catholic to wrangle with a Catholic over what the Catholic Church teaches. But in this case I am compelled to do so, because of the importance of the issue to me as a non-Catholic. If you were right in your interpretation, it would be pretty clear to me that the Catholic Church could not be the true Church. Because to say that the regular means of grace do not operate among those who remain Protestant is patently false. I would have no reason to be a Christian at all if what you are saying was true. I am drawn to Catholicism precisely because a good case can be made that it is the completion of the Christianity I have already known. If that Christianity is graceless (normatively, in the absence of some mysterious, merciful action of God), then I have no reason to think that any form of Christianity at all is true.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

OK…let’s be careful not to argue semantics.

Why? Careful use of language is essential if we are going to communicate at all. If you don’t want to communicate, then tell me and I won’t respond further!

You stated that the Church has altered dogma throughout history.

To “argue semantics” again, what I said was that my remarks about change applied to dogma and that there had been change on the level of dogma. If you want to say that the dogmas themselves did not change, but rather that old dogmas have been clarified and new dogmas added (new in the sense that they weren’t binding as dogmas before–I know that these are never brand new ideas), then I won’t quarrel with you. That is still “change on the level of dogma,” as per my Tridentine example. The point I am making is that if the Church is defined (in part) by its dogmas, then in a sense the Church as we know it only dates back to the last time a dogma was clarified or newly defined, so that it’s disingenuous to say things like “Lutheranism dates to 1517 but Catholicism dates to 33 A.D.” (Lutheranism more reasonably dates to 1530 or maybe 1521 or some point soon thereafter, but that’s another issue!)

If you mean to imply that disciplines have changed or that individual Catholics have wondered aloud about certain doctrines, or even that doctrines have developed over time, I have agreed with you.

They have developed into dogmas, and these dogmas have been further clarified, sometimes in ways that look to outsiders like downright reversal (EENS is the classic example). Again, this is “change on the level of dogma.”

However, no solemnly defined dogma has ever been reversed or contradicted any previous definition. Can you show otherwise?

No, and I never claimed to be able to. (We could argue EENS, but I’ve done this many times before, and while I find the Catholic explanations a bit dodgy, I don’t claim to be able to prove them wrong.)

I have said over and over that you can define “change” so as to say that the Church has not changed. The point I am making is that people who could be part of the Church at point X could not be part of it at point Y without themselves changing in some way. This means, in ordinary language, that the Church has changed. You keep responding by reiterating the special sense of “change” designed to reinforce Catholicism. I’m not disputing that–I’m insisting on using the word “change” as I would if I were talking about another church, or another group of people altogether.

Here’s an example. Suppose that the Confederacy had succeeded in gaining its independence and had survived to the present. If a Confederate and a Unionist were arguing, the Unionist would be right in a sense in claiming that the U.S.A. dated to 1776 (or 1787–itself an interesting point), while the Confederacy only dated to 1861. But if the Unionist wanted to make an ideological point on that basis, the Confederate could rightly respond that the Confederacy also had continuity with the pre-1861 United States. The Confederate could furthermore point out the significant changes, including Constitutional amendments, that had taken place in the Union, and as a debating point could legitimately maintain that the Union we know today had only come into being with the last such change.

That’s the point I’m maintaining here. If you want to use continuity of identity as a debating point, then you have to use a very strict criterion for continuity. That is why I answered as I did on the original poll, and that is why I’m making myself obnoxious on this thread!

To imply that such development should not occur

But of course I’m implying no such thing. I’m saying that development is a form of change, and therefore you cannot say without qualification that change is bad. You have to use language like “reversal” or “contradiction”; you have to give Protestants the same leeway in reinterpreting their previous traditions (including our common pre-Reformation heritage) that you claim for yourself; and you have to be willing to balance the advantages of insisting on complete continuity against the directness and honesty of saying “we have changed in many ways, but the fundamental things remain the same” (which is what Protestants say).

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

This discussion seems to assume the Church is an organization, i.e., we ask how does change affect an organization and what is the effect of that change? What if the Church is considered, as described by Scripture, to be a living body? For example, in one sense a person born 40 years ago today (April 13, 1967) is not the same person that he was 20 years ago because his experiences in the intervening 20 have changed him to some degree and, indeed, he may not have the same beliefs at 40 that he had at 20. Yet, in a more fundamental sense, and in the more commonly understood sense, he is exactly the same person who was born 40 years ago on April 13, 1961 and who existed on April 13, 1981.

 

[sterryfamily]

That would require a very long answer, but I think what you are looking for is that Christ’s will is for everyone to be fully incorporated into the Church (i.e., in full communion with Rome both in terms of visible affiliation and in terms of faith and doctrine), and of course to be fully sanctified by the means of grace operative most fully in the Catholic Church.

That does not contradict what I have said–even though in the Catholic view baptized non-Christians lack much of the fullness of the faith, your Church still recognizes that we have means of grace and that these means of grace are operative even in the absence of the full communion that can alone bring them to completion.

I woudl certainly not take from it the idea that baptism does not convey grace in the absence of the “complete ingrafting.” Rather, baptism points toward that ingrafting and is incomplete without it. The point as I understand it (and as most orthodox and well-informed Catholics I’m aware of interpret it) is that our (non-Catholics’) baptism leads us and urges us toward full incorporation in the Catholic Church. NOT that baptism only conveys its proper grace in the event of such a full incorporation.

The two sentences you cite are, but the entire passage is not (not consistent with how that teaching was once understood, that is–the slogan itself can be and has been reinterpreted, for which I am profoundly grateful).

But that simply isn’t envisioned in this text. It clearly talks about the effects of baptism on those who are *not *converted to Catholicism–and part of the point is that baptism points toward Catholicism even in the lives of those who do not become Catholic.

That’s not what I am disputing.

It is unseemly for a non-Catholic to wrangle with a Catholic over what the Catholic Church teaches. But in this case I am compelled to do so, because of the importance of the issue to me as a non-Catholic. If you were right in your interpretation, it would be pretty clear to me that the Catholic Church could not be the true Church. Because to say that the regular means of grace do not operate among those who remain Protestant is patently false. I would have no reason to be a Christian at all if what you are saying was true. I am drawn to Catholicism precisely because a good case can be made that it is the completion of the Christianity I have already known. If that Christianity is graceless (normatively, in the absence of some mysterious, merciful action of God), then I have no reason to think that any form of Christianity at all is true.

In Christ,

Edwin

OK. Thank you for the clarification. I understand what you are saying. To a casual observer (and one as slow as I) your statements could have been taken quite differently, and that misperception is what I would have to take issue with.

Thanks.

 

[JoeyWarren]

IMHO, the church started when Jesus said: “Tend My Sheep”

 

[sterryfamily]

Why? Careful use of language is essential if we are going to communicate at all. If you don’t want to communicate, then tell me and I won’t respond further!..

…and the rest of your statement (my post was too long)
Edwin

Fair enough. We all often want to define the parameters of our arguments.

Again, our position would be that protestants (and any “heretics” in history) LEFT the church and REVERSED doctrine, as opposed to developed. Of course you are aware that my belief would be that, just as when David, or Moses, or Joshua sinned in the old testament, God did not trade in His people for a new denomination. Rather He continued to guide (and discipline) them. It is pretty darned clear to me that Jesus, the apostles and the ECF’s desired, expected, and commanded for His Church to remain one (as evidenced by adherence to the magisterium) - even through turmoil, disagreement and, yes, development of doctrine.

On your confederacy example, the issue for us (since the confederacy broke properly enacted laws) goes to the desire of the framers of the constitution. In our case, how was the Church set up by our Lord? What is His will?

For another thread I would love to understand your thoughts on;

1. Development of doctrine
2. How this compares with OT covenants
3. Jesus’ desire for His Church to be one
4. The Catholic notions of apostolic authority and succession
5. Again, how this compares with OT models and first century thinking
6. Where is the Spirit guiding the Church “into all truth”
7. How the apostles and ECF’s viewed these things

One last thing… And I’m sure it goes without saying, but… Because particular ECF’s made statements about particular teachings, or because they argued for certain positions is not to say that Catholic teachings have changed over time - rather, it is part of the development process. Of course, Catholics understand that it is the Holy Spirit who makes the FINAL determination on doctrine, and I for one, am grateful without limit for the charism of infallibility. It makes no sense that God would leave it up to fallible men to decide what He wants from us. We, of course, link this to Christ’s promises of the guidance of the Spirit and of eternal protection.

Thanks again.

 

[jmcrae]

Jmcrae, I am of course not disputing that your Church teaches that it is the normal means of salvation. But I would like to see where the RCIA or any other Church document says that baptism is devoid of grace for those who remain Protestants.

Of course a Protestant receives the fullness of grace at Baptism.

But, how does he retain it for an entire lifetime? Since he has no access to the Confessional, which washes away mortal sins committed after Baptism, or to the Sacrament of the Sick, which gives perseverance in faith to the sick and dying, or to the Eucharist, which strengthens us against temptations, and remits venial sins? Not to mention the many sacramentals, and both formal and informal liturgies outside of Mass that also strengthen us against sin and remit venial sins?

Like I said before, it is possible for Protestants to be saved. But how likely is it that a Protestant can go his entire life without committing sin - and thus irreparably losing his Baptismal graces? Since he has no access to the Confessional for his mortal sins, and, in certain traditions, no knowledge of the various means of remitting venial sins, nor of the need to do so?

 

[StMarkEofE]

I think it means that baptism genuinely incorporates people into Christ, whether or not they ever become Catholic, but it does so imperfectly as long as it is not completed by full union with the Church and participation in the Eucharist (though of course if the person became Orthodox one of those could happen without the other!).

What on earth do you think it means? It seems pretty clear to me, though it is written in Vaticanese.

Edwin

The catholic Church started at Pentecost.