Ask-A-Catholic

[HRoberson]

So what must I do to be Catholic - dissenting of course, from the start, but what would I need to do, since I've been baptized, and Benedict says that that's good enough?

I'll let go for now the distinction between being saved and being a Christian. May want to re-look that one at a later time.

Well I'll let you in on a little secret...as we believe that anyone who is baptized is baptized into "the Church," and as we believe that "the Church" means the Catholic (Universal) Church, on some level, we consider all Christians to be part of the Catholic Church already.

Obviously, though, there is a separation between us in doctrine! This is why the Church speaks of non-Catholic Christians as our separated brothers and sisters. One of the main things that signifies a Catholic from a non-Catholic, in an everyday manner of speaking, is reception of the sacraments. If one believes in and/or partakes of the sacraments, he would likely be considered Catholic, even if he was dissenting on some issues.

And I'm not sure what you mean about Pope Benedict saying "that's good enough."

Yeah, I've heard that. I remain a bit confused how I can be all three of these:

--in the church
--be separated
--have to cross my arms across my chest if I approach the officiant during communion (which I therefore would not receive)

Can you help me out here?

Oh, "good enough:" I'm gonna be in Heaven.

[Bon Voyage]

The following is my favorite quote from a Catholic:

Son, in 35 years of religious study, I have only come up with two hard incontrovertible facts: there is a God, and I'm not Him.  - Father Cavanaugh

[mllevaleur]

So what must I do to be Catholic - dissenting of course, from the start, but what would I need to do, since I've been baptized, and Benedict says that that's good enough?

I'll let go for now the distinction between being saved and being a Christian. May want to re-look that one at a later time.

Well I'll let you in on a little secret...as we believe that anyone who is baptized is baptized into "the Church," and as we believe that "the Church" means the Catholic (Universal) Church, on some level, we consider all Christians to be part of the Catholic Church already.

Obviously, though, there is a separation between us in doctrine! This is why the Church speaks of non-Catholic Christians as our separated brothers and sisters. One of the main things that signifies a Catholic from a non-Catholic, in an everyday manner of speaking, is reception of the sacraments. If one believes in and/or partakes of the sacraments, he would likely be considered Catholic, even if he was dissenting on some issues.

And I'm not sure what you mean about Pope Benedict saying "that's good enough."

Yeah, I've heard that. I remain a bit confused how I can be all three of these:

--in the church
--be separated
--have to cross my arms across my chest if I approach the officiant during communion (which I therefore would not receive)

Can you help me out here?

I'll do my best!

Because there is only One Church, anyone baptized as a Christian becomes, by virtue of their baptism, a member of Christ's body, His Church. Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that brands them as Christians, forever. However, this does not mean that they will have a proper understanding of the teachings, or have access to what we call "the fullness of the faith," or agree with it. To have true unity, we believe it is necessary to agree and submit to the fullness of the faith once baptized.

In the Catholic view, many non-Catholics are missing parts of the faith, especially the sacraments.

This is the reality of the situation. We can not be truly and fully unified if we disagree on such fundamental issues. So, we're separated by disagreement on a belief-level. To overlook that and act as if we're unified when we're not is not considered a productive way to deal with the real divisions that exist. We WANT to be unified in truth.

We believe Christ's Church holds the deposit of faith, Christ's revelation to us...she holds truth. People are being added spiritually, if you will, to the Church, they are being marked as Christian, but they're not in a full unity because they're holding back agreement with Church teaching.

It's kind of like if I registered myself as a Republican, so that I was "branded" republican, but then disagreed with many republican ideals. If we imagine that there was a clear standard of official republican ideals (lol!), I would not be unified in belief if I didn't hold to them all, although I would technically belong to the party. Does that make sense?

As for communion, one of the requirements is that the person receiving the Eucharist must affirm all that the Church teaches (which we do by saying "Amen" before receiving), because otherwise to partake of something as a sign of unity, when we're not in fact united, is simply fraudulent. It's a lie.

So, we all claim the same father, and the same savior, but in many beliefs we are divided, and cannot call ourselves "one" or act as if we are one (through communion) unless and until we really are. Otherwise, we are deceiving ourselves and perpetrating lies (albeit with nothing but good intentions.)  

I hope that explains the Catholic outlook somewhat!

Oh, "good enough:" I'm gonna be in Heaven.

Oh I see. Well technically the Church doesn't say anyone will definitely go to Heaven (not even Catholics.) She teaches, and has taught, that all grace and salvation comes from Christ, who always works through His Church, though in many instances outside its visible boundaries. And it's not just Benedict who said this, but the Church in general and for quite some time.

[ravenlorre]

Stephanie,

You have really contributed some clear and thoughtful posts lately; I appreciate your willingness to participate on this thread.  I totally agree with you about how much thinking, pondering, contemplation there is for Catholics who look for it, in the Church.  I could spent a lifetime studying the Bible and Tradition and still have so much to learn. 

I also agree with you that the purpose of this thread is not to strong-arm or manipulate or seduce anyone into the Catholic Church.  We are merely stating our POV and clearing up misconceptions.

I hope to continue learning from all the Catholics and nonCatholics on this board.

I do have a question for several people who have either stated or implied that Stephanie's posts are "condescending" - I am just not seeing it.  I think we share the same intention for this thread and we think quite highly of the majority of noncatholic Christians on this board.

blessings

[kensington]

HRoberson...

My husband got baptized again after he was saved and left the Catholic church.  He said the first one, his mom did for her. He wanted his own baptism that mattered after he walked from religion into right relationship with Christ after being born again.

He did not, and does not believe that an infant baptism chosen by his parents in any way reflects salvation or a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. 

He says that only the baptism he did in obedience to Jesus Christ after being saved is the only one that matters or counts.  That one is done on a foundation of Jesus. 

[ravenlorre]

HRoberson...

My husband got baptized again after he was saved and left the Catholic church.  He said the first one, his mom did for her. He wanted his own baptism that mattered after he walked from religion into right relationship with Christ after being born again.

He did not, and does not believe that an infant baptism chosen by his parents in any way reflects salvation or a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. 

He says that only the baptism he did in obedience to Jesus Christ after being saved is the only one that matters or counts.  That one is done on a foundation of Jesus. 

I got baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian church and then was convinced that it didn't count by a conservative, nondenominational church and was manipulated into being baptized again - just so we could all make sure it "took".  Instead, of just trusting that God had chosen me and started my justification through baptism - I allowed myself to be led into the sin of re-baptism.

Boy, I was sure glad when I became Catholic and didn't have different authorities telling me different things, everywhere I turned.  Today, I am securely grounded in the Word and Tradition - no matter who (Catholic / Protestant / Anabaptist / Ba'hai / Sufi / Buddhist, etc) tells me what God requires of me.  If I am ever in doubt, I can flip open the Bible and Catechism.

I am glad your husband found Christ - I am sorry that it took the drastic measure of him having to leave the Church Christ established on Peter, to do so.

blessings

[Bon Voyage]

HRoberson...

My husband got baptized again after he was saved and left the Catholic church.  He said the first one, his mom did for her. He wanted his own baptism that mattered after he walked from religion into right relationship with Christ after being born again.

He did not, and does not believe that an infant baptism chosen by his parents in any way reflects salvation or a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. 

He says that only the baptism he did in obedience to Jesus Christ after being saved is the only one that matters or counts.  That one is done on a foundation of Jesus. 

I got baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian church as an infant and then was convinced that it didn't count by a conservative, nondenominational church and was manipulated into being baptized again - just so we could all be sure it "took".  Instead, of just trusting that God had chosen me as an infant and started my justification through baptism - I allowed myself to be lead into the sin of re-baptism.

Boy, I was sure glad when I became Catholic and didn't have different authorities telling me different things, everywhere I turned.  Today, I am securely grounded in the Word and Tradition - no matter who (Catholic / Protestant / Anabaptist / Ba'hai / Sufi / Buddhist, etc) tells me what God requires of me.  If I am ever in doubt, I can flip open the Bible and Catechism.

I am glad your husband found Christ - I am sorry that it took the drastic measure of him having to leave the Church Christ established on Peter, to do so.

blessings

I will first start by disagreeing that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established.

Anyways, I think you would be surprised at the number of folks who grew up Catholic and found Christ outside the Catholic Church.

I know quite a few from my congregation fit that bill.  They may have been baptized as infants, but they didn't know Christ in the Catholic Church.

[broach972]

Stephanie,

You have really contributed some clear and thoughtful posts lately; I appreciate your willingness to participate on this thread.  I totally agree with you about how much thinking, pondering, contemplation there is for Catholics who look for it, in the Church.  I could spent a lifetime studying the Bible and Tradition and still have so much to learn. 

I also agree with you that the purpose of this thread is not to strong-arm or manipulate or seduce anyone into the Catholic Church.  We are merely stating our POV and clearing up misconceptions.

I hope to continue learning from all the Catholics and nonCatholics on this board.

I do have a question for several people who have either stated or implied that Stephanie's posts are "condescending" - I am just not seeing it.  I think we share the same intention for this thread and we think quite highly of the majority of noncatholic Christians on this board.

blessings

Ravenlorre,
I must echo this as well.  I have been extremely impressed with Stephanie's posts and positive approach to the issues.  As a Catholic myself, I am still learning so much about the faith, and this has been a positive experience to that end.

In the discussion on communion, I would add that the Eucharist is viewed very differently by Catholics and non-Catholics.  Also, in order for Catholics to receive communion, one must be in a "state of grace."  Again, another principle comes into play here--the concept of mortal sin, which many non-Catholics reject.  Catholics who exist in a state of mortal sin cannot receive communion.  Another sacrament, the sacrament of Reconciliation(Confession), restores a person to the "state of grace" required to receive communion.  I can only imagine that I am opening up a new can of worms by stating this principles but it is necessary to expound further as to why non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, may not receive communion at any given time.

[Bon Voyage]

Why are not some Catholic politicians who defy the will of the Catholic Church denied communion?

[broach972]

Anyways, I think you would be surprised at the number of folks who grew up Catholic and found Christ outside the Catholic Church.

And you would be surprised at the number of folks who grew up non-Catholic who have found Christ and a "fullness of the faith" inside the Catholic Church.  I am one of them.  A trend that is currently growing.  Ironically, the two priests at my church grew up Baptist.

[trifecta]

I will first start by disagreeing that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established.

Historically, this is true.  To deny it is to deny that people like Ireneous, Ignatious, and Justin Martyr were  Christians.  They were early church fathers.  The church at that time was called the Catholic Church.

However, please let me interupt this thread to say today's Catholic Church is not the only one making the claim to be the church established by Christ in Matt 16:18.   In fact, the early church was called the Catholic Church (without the word Roman) and the faith was the Orthodox faith.   That is how we got Catholic and Orthodox as the names of the largest churches of those times.

trifecta
(the original ask-a poster--see my blog)

[mllevaleur]

Stephanie,

You have really contributed some clear and thoughtful posts lately; I appreciate your willingness to participate on this thread.  I totally agree with you about how much thinking, pondering, contemplation there is for Catholics who look for it, in the Church.  I could spent a lifetime studying the Bible and Tradition and still have so much to learn. 

I also agree with you that the purpose of this thread is not to strong-arm or manipulate or seduce anyone into the Catholic Church.  We are merely stating our POV and clearing up misconceptions.

I hope to continue learning from all the Catholics and nonCatholics on this board.

I do have a question for several people who have either stated or implied that Stephanie's posts are "condescending" - I am just not seeing it.  I think we share the same intention for this thread and we think quite highly of the majority of noncatholic Christians on this board.

blessings

Ravenlorre,
I must echo this as well.  I have been extremely impressed with Stephanie's posts and positive approach to the issues.  As a Catholic myself, I am still learning so much about the faith, and this has been a positive experience to that end.

Why thank you both! 

[mllevaleur]

I will first start by disagreeing that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established.

Historically, this is true.  To deny it is to deny that people like Ireneous, Ignatious, and Justin Martyr were not Christians.  They were early church fathers.  The church at that time was called the Catholic Church.

However, please let me interupt this thread to say today's Catholic Church is not the only one making the claim to be the church established by Christ in Matt 16:18.   In fact, the early church was called the Catholic Church (without the word Roman) and the faith was the Orthodox faith.   That is how we got Catholic and Orthodox as the names of the largest churches of those times.

trifecta
(the original ask-a poster--see my blog)

Indeed, the Catholic Church today is still properly called the "Catholic Church" without the Roman.

It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when non-Catholics refer to the whole Catholic Church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, as this is a misnomer. Technically, the "Roman" Catholic Church only refers to the Latin Rite of the Church, and there are many other rites, Western and Eastern, that are all Catholic.

[trifecta]

Actually, I have to disagree.  The western and eastern rite churches are under the authority of Rome, so, they should be considered part of the Roman Catholic Church,
even if Roman is not in their name.

IMHO, Roman Catholic is appropriate because it is under the See of Rome, one of five original patriarchates. 

While I agree that the RCC has more unity than most churches, this eastern and western rite stuff prevents the church from being more unified.



trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)

[mllevaleur]

Actually, I have to disagree.  The western and eastern rite churches are under the authority of Rome, so, they should be considered part of the Roman Catholic Church,
even if Roman is not in their name.

IMHO, Roman Catholic is appropriate because it is under the See of Roman, one of five original patriarchate. 

Well, I find it proper to call a group by the name they call themselves. I call the Orthodox Church the Orthodox Church, although I disagree that they are completely orthodox. It's just common courtesy. 

In Church documents, and anywhere you go in the world, we are called the "Catholic Church." If you walk up to a Byzantine Catholic, and proceed to tell him he is Roman Catholic, he will be very confused! lol  We are not all Roman, we are Universal, encompassing all cultures, which can be seen by the different rites who, though they may have different ethnical (small t) traditions, all hold to the same One Faith. Now I understand that YOU may consider him Roman because he is in submission to the pope, but this is not how WE use the term "Roman," the fact that the Pope resides in Rome has nothing to do with our catholicity.

There was a recent explosion on this very topic on a Catholic blog I frequent. There is some good food for thought in the comments, and in the follow up post. This, from the comments, explains what I mean well:

There is nothing wrong with the term "Roman Catholic Church" when properly used to refer to the Latin Church of the Catholic communion, in contradistinction to the 21 other particular Churches of the Catholic communion, including the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Armenian, Antiochian and Chaldean Catholic Churches.

All of these are fully Catholic and in communion with the successor to St. Peter, but they are not Latin or Roman and thus are not Roman Catholic. When referring to the entire communion of all Catholic Churches in communion with the bishop of Rome, the correct term is "Catholic Church," not "Roman Catholic Church," which devalues and mislabels the non-Latin Catholic Churches.

The magisterium is the teaching authority of the universal Catholic Church, and does not pertain specially to any particular Church such as the Latin Church. It comprises the bishop of Rome and all bishops of all particular Churches in communion with him. The magisterium is established by Jesus Christ, and belongs to the whole Catholic communion. (There is thus no such thing as a "Roman Catholic magisterium.")

Now obviously, you aren't going to agree with the "established by Jesus Christ" part, but nevertheless that doesn't mean it's correct to refer to the whole Catholic Church as Roman, since that is not how we refer to ourselves.

There was another discussion in the comments here, which discussed who gets to decide what name is used. The consensus is that the person or group being referred to is the one who gets to decide what they are called. An example being used was American Indians:

The clear implication is that it is American Indians, more than others, who get to decide whether they can be called American Indians or not...

This is precisely why the pejorative and objectionable "Romanist/Romanism," and to a lesser degree the less problematic but still incorrect term "Roman Catholic/ism," are not acceptable terms for the Catholic Church and her members (except those who actually do belong to the Roman or Latin Church). In this case, the body that gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable is the Holy See, which speaks for the Catholic Church. In official Church teaching documents, "Roman Catholic" always refers specifically to the Latin Church, and the entire communion of Churches united under the Bishop of Rome is always called "the Catholic Church."

"Roman Catholic" as a way of referring to the entire Catholic Church is contrary to the Church's self-designation, self-understanding, and usage, and should therefore be avoided. Theological caveats regarding the applicability of the term are no excuse for misuse of terms as proper names.

So, in my opinion, it's simply incorrect to call the whole Catholic Church Roman, because the Catholic Church herself does not call herself Roman Catholic, that's all. It would be like insisting on calling all the Orthodox churches Russian, regardless of what they actually were. I tend to think of it as simple Christian charity to have enough respect for others to call them the name by which they self-indentify. :-)

Sorry that was so long, it's been a hot topic recently so there was a lot of relevant stuff to share!

While I agree that the RCC has more unity than most churches, this eastern and western rite stuff prevents the church from being more unified.



trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)

I'm sorry...I'm not sure what you mean? Would you say that the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches are not unified because of their different traditions? The different rites are simply different ethnical traditions, but we all hold to the same beliefs, and we all clearly submit to One Church, and are therefore unified. Not sure what else needs to be done to have more unity than that? 

[HRoberson]

So what must I do to be Catholic - dissenting of course, from the start, but what would I need to do, since I've been baptized, and Benedict says that that's good enough?

I'll let go for now the distinction between being saved and being a Christian. May want to re-look that one at a later time.

Well I'll let you in on a little secret...as we believe that anyone who is baptized is baptized into "the Church," and as we believe that "the Church" means the Catholic (Universal) Church, on some level, we consider all Christians to be part of the Catholic Church already.

Obviously, though, there is a separation between us in doctrine! This is why the Church speaks of non-Catholic Christians as our separated brothers and sisters. One of the main things that signifies a Catholic from a non-Catholic, in an everyday manner of speaking, is reception of the sacraments. If one believes in and/or partakes of the sacraments, he would likely be considered Catholic, even if he was dissenting on some issues.

And I'm not sure what you mean about Pope Benedict saying "that's good enough."

Yeah, I've heard that. I remain a bit confused how I can be all three of these:

--in the church
--be separated
--have to cross my arms across my chest if I approach the officiant during communion (which I therefore would not receive)

Can you help me out here?

I'll do my best!

Because there is only One Church, anyone baptized as a Christian becomes, by virtue of their baptism, a member of Christ's body, His Church. Baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul that brands them as Christians, forever. However, this does not mean that they will have a proper understanding of the teachings, or have access to what we call "the fullness of the faith," or agree with it. To have true unity, we believe it is necessary to agree and submit to the fullness of the faith once baptized.

In the Catholic view, many non-Catholics are missing parts of the faith, especially the sacraments.

This is the reality of the situation. We can not be truly and fully unified if we disagree on such fundamental issues. So, we're separated by disagreement on a belief-level. To overlook that and act as if we're unified when we're not is not considered a productive way to deal with the real divisions that exist. We WANT to be unified in truth.

We believe Christ's Church holds the deposit of faith, Christ's revelation to us...she holds truth. People are being added spiritually, if you will, to the Church, they are being marked as Christian, but they're not in a full unity because they're holding back agreement with Church teaching.

It's kind of like if I registered myself as a Republican, so that I was "branded" republican, but then disagreed with many republican ideals. If we imagine that there was a clear standard of official republican ideals (lol!), I would not be unified in belief if I didn't hold to them all, although I would technically belong to the party. Does that make sense?

As for communion, one of the requirements is that the person receiving the Eucharist must affirm all that the Church teaches (which we do by saying "Amen" before receiving), because otherwise to partake of something as a sign of unity, when we're not in fact united, is simply fraudulent. It's a lie.

So, we all claim the same father, and the same savior, but in many beliefs we are divided, and cannot call ourselves "one" or act as if we are one (through communion) unless and until we really are. Otherwise, we are deceiving ourselves and perpetrating lies (albeit with nothing but good intentions.)  

I hope that explains the Catholic outlook somewhat!

Oh, "good enough:" I'm gonna be in Heaven.

Oh I see. Well technically the Church doesn't say anyone will definitely go to Heaven (not even Catholics.) She teaches, and has taught, that all grace and salvation comes from Christ, who always works through His Church, though in many instances outside its visible boundaries. And it's not just Benedict who said this, but the Church in general and for quite some time.

OK, so we're back to how much and what stuff can I disagree with and still be Catholic, or in union with the Catholic church? I suspect that American Catholics who don't agree with the church's view of contraception are still Catholics and can take communion. So, what's the line?

Yeah, I don't know that everyone who is baptized is going to Heaven either. I'm assuming for our discussion that one who is baptized and follows God as best she can, will receive the grace of God, and be allowed into His presence.

[mllevaleur]

OK, so we're back to how much and what stuff can I disagree with and still be Catholic, or in union with the Catholic church? I suspect that American Catholics who don't agree with the church's view of contraception are still Catholics and can take communion. So, what's the line?

No, that's incorrect. An actively dissenting Catholic (that is, one who doesn't agree with Church teaching, and who therefore defies Church teaching in his actions), will likely be in grave sin, and may not take communion. Likewise, to approach the Eucharist, and to proclaim "Amen," that is to say, "I believe and affirm all that the Church teaches" would therefore be a lie for this person, compounding sin upon sin. As the other Catholics mentioned above, even Catholics have to be in a proper state to receive communion. A Catholic in the state of mortal sin may not receive.

A good rule of thumb in general is probably, to be considered a Catholic and part of the visible Catholic Church, one would need to be confirmed Catholic, or have the intention of being confirmed Catholic (in the case of those who have not yet been confirmed.) There is no, "how Catholic can I be without being Catholic," because...well, what's the point of that?

Those who are baptized Christian elsewhere are loosely united to the Church through their baptism, but they're missing all the other sacraments, and a lot of Christian Teaching. The closer in teaching a Christian is to the Catholic Church, the more united. (There's a spectrum of closeness in teaching from bible-alone type Christians, all the way to Orthodox Christians, who are about as close as you can get w/out actually being Catholic.) But until one is fully united, it would be a lie to say that we are "one" by the action of all receiving the Eucharist together as an act of unity. (Not to mention the very important distinction between the different views of the Real Presence in the Eucharist...the "Amen" is also signifying that one believes Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist, so again someone affirming this who doesn't believe it would be stating a lie.)

There is a distinction in my mind between saying, "That person is baptized and is therefore a part of the Church," and saying "That person is Catholic." It's like the difference between saying this person is baptized and a part of the Church, but he is an atheist. We don't consider someone Catholic or in unity with the Catholic Church if their actions and beliefs are not Catholic, even if they are "a part of the Church" by virtue of their baptism. Does that make sense?

Now in the case of dissenting Catholics, usually the great majority of their beliefs are Catholic, they have partaken of the sacraments, they have lived the Catholic faith for the most part. Where is the line where they are "no longer Catholic" because their beliefs are so far removed from Church teaching? Well, I couldn't say, I don't think that's really for me to decide. If they have any integrity, at some point if they have so many disagreements with the Catholic Church, I would think they would choose to no longer be Catholic. And anyway, I don't really think the "how far can we get before we cross the line" type questioning is all that helpful. Someone shouldn't be looking at how far away he can go before being considered Catholic or not, if one believes the Catholic Church is the authority God gave us on earth, he should want to submit to it entirely.

Let me know if there's anything I need to clarify about the above!

Yeah, I don't know that everyone who is baptized is going to Heaven either. I'm assuming for our discussion that one who is baptized and follows God as best she can, will receive the grace of God, and be allowed into His presence.

Gotcha! 

[Harold]

I'm at my wits end so; what is a Catholic?

FTL

[don has a plan]

In Church documents, and anywhere you go in the world, we are called the "Catholic Church." If you walk up to a Byzantine Catholic, and proceed to tell him he is Roman Catholic, he will be very confused! lol  We are not all Roman, we are Universal, encompassing all cultures, which can be seen by the different rites who, though they may have different ethnical (small t) traditions, all hold to the same One Faith. Now I understand that YOU may consider him Roman because he is in submission to the pope, but this is not how WE use the term "Roman," the fact that the Pope resides in Rome has nothing to do with our catholicity.

I call the Catholic Church the 'Roman Catholic Church,' and I have no hesitation in doing so.  The whole church of Christ--of which the RCC is only part--is the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

IIRC, btw, in most RCC documents, the RCC is referred to simply as the Christian Church.  I would never call it such, as it is but one component of the Christian Church.  Would you reserve the term 'Christian Church' for the RCC just because it is what RCC documents clearly indicate the RCC wants to be called?

I understand wanting to be called a particular something -- Many Baptists and church of Christ folks have complained for years at being labeled 'Protestants' by RCC and other folks.  (Baptists and coc-ers are Protestants, of course, but still what's good for the goose should be good for gander.  If they want to be called something different, and if we hold to the 'Please call the RCC just the CC' doctrine, then we should have no problem reclassifying Baptists and coc-ers as non-Protestants, right?)

[HRoberson]

OK, so we're back to how much and what stuff can I disagree with and still be Catholic, or in union with the Catholic church? I suspect that American Catholics who don't agree with the church's view of contraception are still Catholics and can take communion. So, what's the line?

No, that's incorrect. An actively dissenting Catholic (that is, one who doesn't agree with Church teaching, and who therefore defies Church teaching in his actions), will likely be in grave sin, and may not take communion. Likewise, to approach the Eucharist, and to proclaim "Amen," that is to say, "I believe and affirm all that the Church teaches" would therefore be a lie for this person, compounding sin upon sin. As the other Catholics mentioned above, even Catholics have to be in a proper state to receive communion. A Catholic in the state of mortal sin may not receive.

So, Catholics who don't buy into the contraception arguments shouldn't be allowed to take communion. But they are, by apostolically-appointed bishops and priests. So, what's the problem here? Or is disagreeing with Catholic dogma a mortal sin in and of itself?

Those who are baptized Christian elsewhere are loosely united to the Church through their baptism, but they're missing all the other sacraments, and a lot of Christian Teaching. The closer in teaching a Christian is to the Catholic Church, the more united. (There's a spectrum of closeness in teaching from bible-alone type Christians, all the way to Orthodox Christians, who are about as close as you can get w/out actually being Catholic.) But until one is fully united, it would be a lie to say that we are "one" by the action of all receiving the Eucharist together as an act of unity. (Not to mention the very important distinction between the different views of the Real Presence in the Eucharist...the "Amen" is also signifying that one believes Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist, so again someone affirming this who doesn't believe it would be stating a lie.)

Wouldn't this closeness be dependent on salvation issues? If not, why not? I believe Catholics are Christians and are acceptable to God even if I think they've got some ego (institutionally speaking) issues with form and precedence. And so, I can say 'amen' rather easily to my union with Catholics, just as I can with Baptists and a host of other believers. If a Catholic can take (be given) communion and disagree with Catholic teachings (and they can; it happens every day), why not a Protestant?

There is a distinction in my mind between saying, "That person is baptized and is therefore a part of the Church," and saying "That person is Catholic." It's like the difference between saying this person is baptized and a part of the Church, but he is an atheist.

I'm not sure that non-Catholics are atheists, or that Catholic dissenters are either. A more accurate comparison would be 'Can a Baptist believe that baptism is necessary, and still be Baptist?' Or perhaps, 'Can a Church of Christ bubba not see instrumental music as wrong, and still be a Church of Christ bubba?'

We don't consider someone Catholic or in unity with the Catholic Church if their actions and beliefs are not Catholic, even if they are "a part of the Church" by virtue of their baptism. Does that make sense?

Not really. If I'm part of the church, and the RC is the church, how can I not be part of it?

Now in the case of dissenting Catholics, usually the great majority of their beliefs are Catholic, they have partaken of the sacraments, they have lived the Catholic faith for the most part. Where is the line where they are "no longer Catholic" because their beliefs are so far removed from Church teaching? Well, I couldn't say, I don't think that's really for me to decide. If they have any integrity, at some point if they have so many disagreements with the Catholic Church, I would think they would choose to no longer be Catholic. And anyway, I don't really think the "how far can we get before we cross the line" type questioning is all that helpful. Someone shouldn't be looking at how far away he can go before being considered Catholic or not, if one believes the Catholic Church is the authority God gave us on earth, he should want to submit to it entirely.

Well, I agree with you that our intent is not to see how far we can go, but in this discussion about who and what the Catholic church accepts as 'brothers,' it is important to ask 'what makes a Catholic,' and 'what makes a Catholic not a Catholic?'

The reasons I ask these questions is my own history. I'm a Church of Christ bubba from long back. I understand pretty well the coc views of things (although there are usually always some niche group somewhere who will argue that if the cup gets spilled, we have to start communion all over), but I also have views that aren't in-line with those older mainline views (completely). Little things like, I think Catholics are Christians; many of my compatriots from a couple decades ago would argue that point. And so I find myself in a faith community that has its definitions, and yet I am willing to let Catholics take communion with me. Or Baptists, or Unitarians, or whoever feels like we're in this thing together. And so I am curious why the Catholic church holds the views it does, and at the same time seems to contradict itself in its behavior.

I guess that if I don't buy the Pope thing, or Mariology, or transubstantiation, I can't be Catholic. OK, I understand the Pope thing (sort of, since there seems to be quite a few other groups that Rome recognizes to some extent that don't quite buy it either), but the Mariology and transubstantiation make me wonder 'what's up with that?'

[ravenlorre]

I will first start by disagreeing that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this point, I suppose.

Anyways, I think you would be surprised at the number of folks who grew up Catholic and found Christ outside the Catholic Church.

I believe people need to go where they can find Christ.  If it takes leaving the Catholic Church to see God standing right in front of them; sadly I have to say - so be it. 

As you are aware, all Christian Churches have a steady flow of people exiting our doors for the Mormon Church, in recent years; just because you are convinced that leaving a church is the right thing to do, doesn't mean you have found truth.

I know quite a few from my congregation fit that bill.  They may have been baptized as infants, but they didn't know Christ in the Catholic Church.

This is my own speculation - it seems to me, churches that focus on helping Christian adults mature by providing structure for the sanctification process - Presbyterians, Methodist, Anglicans, all forms of Catholicism, tend to be lacking in the youth/children's ministry department.  The Catholic Church ministers to adults very well - better than any place I have ever been (and I have been to a lot of churches), but they are not very good at meeting children where they are at - for example, teaching the Catechism to a junior high kid is not an effective way to teach him about a personal relationship with Christ.  It is almost like the Church is caught back in the Victorian days when kids were viewed as mini-adults.  So, it doesn't surprise me that a person who grew up in the Catholic Church, enduring Catechism classes, not understanding the Mass; squirming in their seat until church was over; feels suddenly alive in Christ in a charismatic or evangelical environment.  The problem is not the subject matter taught; it is the method in which it is taught.

I've seen the reverse happen in conservative, charismatic, fundamentalist, church circles.  They are great at focusing on recruiting the new believer and great at ministering to them and their children for the first couple of years of their Christian lives.  But, as time goes on, and the initial excitement of being a new Christian starts to fade, and most of the Bible has been read 2 or three times, Bible studies seem to turn from discovery into self-congratulatory, pep-rallies (called encouragement) sessions - filled with Christian buzz-words that are supposed to help you feel like you belong, and you've endured your last alter call, along with the guilt feeling of "may be I am not really saved?!  - for churches that preach once saved always saved there sure is a lot of doubt raised about members salvation eeeeeeesh; anyway, many, many people start looking around an asking themselves "is this it?".  The conservative churches (I attended 4; joined 1) had a turn over rate of about three years.

One thing that I noticed as I move through the ranks of the Protestant churches - conservative churches are brimming with young people and young families; as I moved up the chain to Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, and Episcopal, the congregation got markedly older.  At first I thought, well, these mainline churches just sing old hymns and aren't really concerned about Jesus - it is all academic with them - they are just here because their families go back generations in these churches; then I started asking some of my friends in the congregations - most of them (60%) started out conservative Protestants and needed more growth.  All of them said that they had reached a ceiling in their Christian faith and were looking for a church that taught about a bigger version of God with a real plan for their lives and a genuine interest in impacting the world.

It was at this point that I moved to the Catholic Church - 8 members of my RCIA group (membership class) were Presbyterians, 5 were nonreligious, and 9 were conservative Protestant.  We were all looking for a deeper relationship with Christ (with the exception of 2 people who were joining because of pressure from their fiancee)   

My point is, all churches have strengths and weakness and definite blind spots.  I can see the blind spots of my Protestant past, but I certainly do not tout my personal experiences as reason for why Protestant churches are not really Christian.  I am grateful for my church upbringing - I was grounded in the Bible and received an enthusiasm about Christ and church - a thirst for knowledge that is missing in some of my Catholic brothers and sisters that were raised in the Church.

blessings

[mllevaleur]

In Church documents, and anywhere you go in the world, we are called the "Catholic Church." If you walk up to a Byzantine Catholic, and proceed to tell him he is Roman Catholic, he will be very confused! lol  We are not all Roman, we are Universal, encompassing all cultures, which can be seen by the different rites who, though they may have different ethnical (small t) traditions, all hold to the same One Faith. Now I understand that YOU may consider him Roman because he is in submission to the pope, but this is not how WE use the term "Roman," the fact that the Pope resides in Rome has nothing to do with our catholicity.

I call the Catholic Church the 'Roman Catholic Church,' and I have no hesitation in doing so.  The whole church of Christ--of which the RCC is only part--is the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

IIRC, btw, in most RCC documents, the RCC is referred to simply as the Christian Church.  I would never call it such, as it is but one component of the Christian Church.  Would you reserve the term 'Christian Church' for the RCC just because it is what RCC documents clearly indicate the RCC wants to be called?

I understand wanting to be called a particular something -- Many Baptists and church of Christ folks have complained for years at being labeled 'Protestants' by RCC and other folks.  (Baptists and coc-ers are Protestants, of course, but still what's good for the goose should be good for gander.  If they want to be called something different, and if we hold to the 'Please call the RCC just the CC' doctrine, then we should have no problem reclassifying Baptists and coc-ers as non-Protestants, right?)

Well, right! That was pretty much my point.   

If someone requests that they not be called a protestant, I will happily concede (as I did earlier in this very thread.) I continue to call the Church of Christ by its proper name, although I don't believe it is THE Church of Christ.

I'm secure enough in my beliefs not to be bothered by a name that I might regard as theologically inaccurate, and to use it as a sign of charity and respect regardless. I'm not worried that someone will think I agree with the tenants of a faith because I use the name they have given themselves. I think most people are smart enough to figure out that usage of a name doesn't imply agreement with belief! 

[mllevaleur]

OK, so we're back to how much and what stuff can I disagree with and still be Catholic, or in union with the Catholic church? I suspect that American Catholics who don't agree with the church's view of contraception are still Catholics and can take communion. So, what's the line?

No, that's incorrect. An actively dissenting Catholic (that is, one who doesn't agree with Church teaching, and who therefore defies Church teaching in his actions), will likely be in grave sin, and may not take communion. Likewise, to approach the Eucharist, and to proclaim "Amen," that is to say, "I believe and affirm all that the Church teaches" would therefore be a lie for this person, compounding sin upon sin. As the other Catholics mentioned above, even Catholics have to be in a proper state to receive communion. A Catholic in the state of mortal sin may not receive.

So, Catholics who don't buy into the contraception arguments shouldn't be allowed to take communion. But they are, by apostolically-appointed bishops and priests.

Some are, yes. This is an abuse, it is wrong. Of course there's no way a priest is going to know if each and every person receiving communion is lying or not when they say their "Amen," that's why it's up to us to be honest and refrain from receiving if we should. Some don't realize it's wrong, of course, and therefore their culpability is lessened, but some do and unfortunately don't care and partake anyway.  Scripture tells us that they'll have to answer for partaking of Christ's body unworthily.

So, what's the problem here?

The problem is often ignorance of Church teaching on the matter, sometimes combined with disobedience (knowingly or not).

Or is disagreeing with Catholic dogma a mortal sin in and of itself?

No of course not. I know some who disagree or don't completely understand, but still obey. It is acting on the disagreement that constitutes grave matter, and of course full knowledge and consent have to be in play in order for it to be mortal.

Those who are baptized Christian elsewhere are loosely united to the Church through their baptism, but they're missing all the other sacraments, and a lot of Christian Teaching. The closer in teaching a Christian is to the Catholic Church, the more united. (There's a spectrum of closeness in teaching from bible-alone type Christians, all the way to Orthodox Christians, who are about as close as you can get w/out actually being Catholic.) But until one is fully united, it would be a lie to say that we are "one" by the action of all receiving the Eucharist together as an act of unity. (Not to mention the very important distinction between the different views of the Real Presence in the Eucharist...the "Amen" is also signifying that one believes Christ is truly present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist, so again someone affirming this who doesn't believe it would be stating a lie.)

Wouldn't this closeness be dependent on salvation issues? If not, why not?

Well the problem is, who is to say what is and isn't a salvation issue? It is wonderful to acknowledge the things we do agree on, and to try and build on those. But again, to ignore that there are major disagreements and commune as if we are one in belief is seen as, very simply, a lie. Granted, Catholics are idealists in this regard, who trust and believe that God in His omnipotence can bring about TRUE and COMPLETE unity, without sacrificing any of our long-held tenants.

I believe Catholics are Christians and are acceptable to God even if I think they've got some ego (institutionally speaking) issues with form and precedence. And so, I can say 'amen' rather easily to my union with Catholics, just as I can with Baptists and a host of other believers.

Ah, but the Church doesn't ask you to say "Amen, sure I consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ." The "amen" that is required is one that affirms the truth of all the teachings of the Catholic Church, including the Real Presence. If someone cannot affirm that they submit fully to the teachings of the Church (all of them), then any "sign of unity" is simply fraudulent, because there is not, in reality, a complete unity.

If a Catholic can take (be given) communion and disagree with Catholic teachings (and they can; it happens every day), why not a Protestant?

You may be right, it can and does happen. That doesn't make it right, though. And as wrong as an actively dissenting Catholic is for ignoring the requirements for reception of the Eucharist, a Protestant will likely be even further removed from true unity because of even more diverse beliefs.

There is a distinction in my mind between saying, "That person is baptized and is therefore a part of the Church," and saying "That person is Catholic." It's like the difference between saying this person is baptized and a part of the Church, but he is an atheist.

I'm not sure that non-Catholics are atheists, or that Catholic dissenters are either.

I'm sorry I don't quite follow...what I meant to say was, we consider even an atheist technically "part of the Church" by virtue of his baptism, but obviously he is no longer a Catholic if he denies Christ and the Church.

A more accurate comparison would be 'Can a Baptist believe that baptism is necessary, and still be Baptist?' Or perhaps, 'Can a Church of Christ bubba not see instrumental music as wrong, and still be a Church of Christ bubba?'

Well, this makes things difficult because, in my mind, there is only One Church. I have to think on different levels, if you will...in some sense, all Christians are part of the same One Church of Christ if they are baptized into Christ. However, whether or not they are ontologically unified with the Church is a separate question. If they do not accept all the tenents of the One Faith, they are not in a true unity with the Church, although they are part of the Church.

We don't consider someone Catholic or in unity with the Catholic Church if their actions and beliefs are not Catholic, even if they are "a part of the Church" by virtue of their baptism. Does that make sense?

Not really. If I'm part of the church, and the RC is the church, how can I not be part of it?

We distinguish between being "a part of something," and being "in unity with something."

Back to my Republican example, I may be a card carrying republican (or democrat, whichever), but I may not be united in belief with them. For true unity to occur, we would not only need to both be officially republican, but we would need to both act as republicans, and believe as republicans. To call oneself republican and then denounce the standards upon which they stand would be seen as dishonest by most, I think.

Now in the case of dissenting Catholics, usually the great majority of their beliefs are Catholic, they have partaken of the sacraments, they have lived the Catholic faith for the most part. Where is the line where they are "no longer Catholic" because their beliefs are so far removed from Church teaching? Well, I couldn't say, I don't think that's really for me to decide. If they have any integrity, at some point if they have so many disagreements with the Catholic Church, I would think they would choose to no longer be Catholic. And anyway, I don't really think the "how far can we get before we cross the line" type questioning is all that helpful. Someone shouldn't be looking at how far away he can go before being considered Catholic or not, if one believes the Catholic Church is the authority God gave us on earth, he should want to submit to it entirely.

Well, I agree with you that our intent is not to see how far we can go, but in this discussion about who and what the Catholic church accepts as 'brothers,' it is important to ask 'what makes a Catholic,' and 'what makes a Catholic not a Catholic?'

Of course, I do hope you know, we have no problem calling someone our brother while maintaning that they are not Catholic.

The reasons I ask these questions is my own history. I'm a Church of Christ bubba from long back. I understand pretty well the coc views of things (although there are usually always some niche group somewhere who will argue that if the cup gets spilled, we have to start communion all over), but I also have views that aren't in-line with those older mainline views (completely). Little things like, I think Catholics are Christians; many of my compatriots from a couple decades ago would argue that point.

Indeed, this is the flavor of the CoC I came from myself. ;-)

And so I find myself in a faith community that has its definitions, and yet I am willing to let Catholics take communion with me. Or Baptists, or Unitarians, or whoever feels like we're in this thing together. And so I am curious why the Catholic church holds the views it does, and at the same time seems to contradict itself in its behavior.

I see, this helps me understand where you're coming from, thanks!

Catholics see ecumenism as acknowledging what we have in common, and building on that, while at the same time acknowledging our differences and discussing them. What we do not see as ecumenism is the idea that we can overlook our differences completely and just focus on the similarities.

Communion in the Catholic Church is an extremely important sacrament. So important, that even Catholics must have a proper understanding and be in a proper state to receive it. It is a sign of our unity...not unity just on the things we agree on while overlooking the rest, but a sign of FULL and complete unity, on all teachings handed down to us in the deposit of faith. Since those who disagree with many of the teachings are not in reality unified with us, we find it a bit misleading to act as if they are.

But this is a different issue to us than whether or not they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. If one is baptized, then he is, but we are separated by disunity in belief.

It's just like a physical family...you may have a brother or sister who is and always will be your brother and sister, but that doesn't mean you are automatically united in belief with each other, that's a different issue.

I like how Dave Armstrong says it here.

[Communion] is a symbol of unity (doctrinal and relational), and as...mentioned above, such oneness is currently lacking in the Body of Christ. For us to offer communion to anyone without requiring doctrinal consent would be dishonest for us and in our opinion a corruption of communion as a symbol of unity in the Body. It's not a matter of "looking down" upon our "separated brethren" but of simple honesty and seeking to be true to what we feel is Christ's teaching.

I guess that if I don't buy the Pope thing, or Mariology, or transubstantiation, I can't be Catholic. OK, I understand the Pope thing (sort of, since there seems to be quite a few other groups that Rome recognizes to some extent that don't quite buy it either), but the Mariology and transubstantiation make me wonder 'what's up with that?'

Well first I'd say, this is a prime example of why going only with "essential doctrines" or "salvation issues" won't work, because we'll never agree what is central or not!

The Eucharist, to Catholics, is about the most central doctrine there is...it is the height and purpose of every mass, the Most Blessed Sacrament. Other Christians don't have quite the same view, so that alone causes a problem with communion.

But in answer to your question, "What's up with that?" I'd say this: For us, there is but one doctrine, and one accepts it in its entirety or not. If not, they are not considered to be in full communion, and to act otherwise is seen as dishonest. We don't look down on them, it's just an acknowledgement of the reality of the situation! We're very happy to acknowledge the areas where we agree, but we don't see complete unity as something that can be partial, it's all or nothing, really, and so to welcome them to communion when we're not really in complete union just doesn't make sense to us.

Hope that explains why we have a closed communion!

[Harold]

OK I'll try again, define Catholic for me?

FTL

[kensington]

HRoberson...

My husband got baptized again after he was saved and left the Catholic church.  He said the first one, his mom did for her. He wanted his own baptism that mattered after he walked from religion into right relationship with Christ after being born again.

He did not, and does not believe that an infant baptism chosen by his parents in any way reflects salvation or a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. 

He says that only the baptism he did in obedience to Jesus Christ after being saved is the only one that matters or counts.  That one is done on a foundation of Jesus. 

I got baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian church and then was convinced that it didn't count by a conservative, nondenominational church and was manipulated into being baptized again - just so we could all make sure it "took".  Instead, of just trusting that God had chosen me and started my justification through baptism - I allowed myself to be led into the sin of re-baptism.

Boy, I was sure glad when I became Catholic and didn't have different authorities telling me different things, everywhere I turned.  Today, I am securely grounded in the Word and Tradition - no matter who (Catholic / Protestant / Anabaptist / Ba'hai / Sufi / Buddhist, etc) tells me what God requires of me.  If I am ever in doubt, I can flip open the Bible and Catechism.

I am glad your husband found Christ - I am sorry that it took the drastic measure of him having to leave the Church Christ established on Peter, to do so.

blessings

We are never bound to a committment, promise or pledge we did not make of our own free will, with full knowledge, such as an infant baptism.   

In that alone, my husband deserved to have a choice on where he served God. And I agree with him.  He found Christ outside of the Catholic church... He found it in the Body of Christ, the true believers, who are saved by grace through faith in JESUS CHRIST...  not a religion.  He is a member of the Blood bought church of the LIVING GOD... that CHRIST started. 

Peter didn't die for him naked and beated in the rain,  Peter is not seated at the right hand of the Father, interceding for him. Peter won't step out and call the body home. And Peter won't open the Lamb's Book of Life.  Peter won't rule and reign for all eternity either.

[mllevaleur]

OK I'll try again, define Catholic for me?

FTL

Sorry, I meant to come back to this earlier!

I suppose my definition would be something along the lines of, a person who submits to the teachings of the Catholic Church, in action and belief.

[trifecta]

Well, I find it proper to call a group by the name they call themselves. I call the Orthodox Church the Orthodox Church, although I disagree that they are completely orthodox. It's just common courtesy. 

Fair enough.  I'll be happy to call you a Catholic or Catholic Christian.    One of my pet peeves is that when I tell people I plan in converting to Orthodoxy, they say "So, your becoming Greek (or Russian) Orthodox."  No, I'm an American and I will be an American Orthodox, thank you.   In fact, I prefer to be known as just Orthodox or an Orthodox Christian.    So, I guess I can relate.

While I agree that the RCC has more unity than most churches, this eastern and western rite stuff prevents the church from being more unified.



trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)

I'm sorry...I'm not sure what you mean? Would you say that the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches are not unified because of their different traditions? The different rites are simply different ethnical traditions, but we all hold to the same beliefs, and we all clearly submit to One Church, and are therefore unified. Not sure what else needs to be done to have more unity than that? 

I wasn't very clear. The problem I see in all the Rite churches, is it does not follow the one church model.  The early church fathers established that one bishop would oversee a geographical area.  The Rite churches are under a different bishop than the RCC bishop, causing IMHO unnecessary division within a single geographical area.  We have the same problem, frankly, in the Orthodox Church in America.  I hope they fix it soon.

[mllevaleur]

Well, I find it proper to call a group by the name they call themselves. I call the Orthodox Church the Orthodox Church, although I disagree that they are completely orthodox. It's just common courtesy. 

Fair enough.  I'll be happy to call you a Catholic or Catholic Christian.    One of my pet peeves is that when I tell people I plan in converting to Orthodoxy, they say "So, your becoming Greek (or Russian) Orthodox."  No, I'm an American and I will be an American Orthodox, thank you.   In fact, I prefer to be known as just Orthodox or an Orthodox Christian.    So, I guess I can relate.

Thanks!

While I agree that the RCC has more unity than most churches, this eastern and western rite stuff prevents the church from being more unified.



trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)

I'm sorry...I'm not sure what you mean? Would you say that the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches are not unified because of their different traditions? The different rites are simply different ethnical traditions, but we all hold to the same beliefs, and we all clearly submit to One Church, and are therefore unified. Not sure what else needs to be done to have more unity than that? 

I wasn't very clear. The problem I see in all the Rite churches, is it does not follow the one church model.  The early church fathers established that one bishop would oversee a geographical area.  The Rite churches are under a different bishop than the RCC bishop, causing IMHO unnecessary division within a single geographical area.  We have the same problem, frankly, in the Orthodox Church in America.  I hope they fix it soon.

Oh I see! I was confused because we kind of see it differently...I hadn't really thought about the geographical area thing. I just think of it as all the bishops united under one. But I can see your point about being divided by rites in the same areas. Guess that's kind of hard to manage when you have a melting pot type place like America, huh? 

[Harold]

OK I'll try again, define Catholic for me?

FTL

Sorry, I meant to come back to this earlier!

I suppose my definition would be something along the lines of, a person who submits to the teachings of the Catholic Church, in action and belief.

As in the Universal Church of Christ?

FTL

[mllevaleur]

OK I'll try again, define Catholic for me?

FTL

Sorry, I meant to come back to this earlier!

I suppose my definition would be something along the lines of, a person who submits to the teachings of the Catholic Church, in action and belief.

As in the Universal Church of Christ?

FTL

As in, the visible and clear teachings of the visible Catholic Church.

[Harold]

OK I'll try again, define Catholic for me?

FTL

Sorry, I meant to come back to this earlier!

I suppose my definition would be something along the lines of, a person who submits to the teachings of the Catholic Church, in action and belief.

As in the Universal Church of Christ?

FTL

As in, the visible and clear teachings of the visible Catholic Church.

Catholic means universal, Church body of Christ. I thought that would mean Universal Church of Christ. But the point is we have much in common.

FTL

[CSloan]

2Cr 6:16 
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

[broach972]

2Cr 6:16 
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And your point.....

[CSloan]

And your point.....

2Cr 6:17-18 
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

[broach972]

And your point.....

2Cr 6:17-18 
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

Still looking for that point...

and by the way, I take a shower every morning...cannot stand to feel unclean