A conversation about unity.

[Strong in Him]

Only a few Baptize with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with the intention of removing original sin.

Jesus removes sin - not baptism.

And many validity baptized so eventually reject His Church.

Do you mean that many people are baptised as children but stop going/never go to church? Or that many are baptised but don't go to/go to but then leave the Catholic church?

If the former, it is sadly true that some have their children baptised for the sake of tradition/the party afterwards. and it doesn't mean anything to them.
If you mean the latter - so what if a person decides to never attend, or attend and then leave a Catholic church? I've never been to one; I'm still a Christian.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Jesus removes sin - not baptism.

“And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptised, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.” — Acts 22:16, NRSV

Do you mean that many people are baptised as children but stop going/never go to church? Or that many are baptised but don't go to/go to but then leave the Catholic church?

If the former, it is sadly true that some have their children baptised for the sake of tradition/the party afterwards. and it doesn't mean anything to them.
If you mean the latter - so what if a person decides to never attend, or attend and then leave a Catholic church? I've never been to one; I'm still a Christian.

One must understand that baptism, according to Catholic doctrine, is not merely symbolic or cultural—it is a sacrament instituted by Christ that effects a real ontological change in the soul. Through baptism, you are freed from original sin, reborn as a child of God, and incorporated into the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] §§1213–1215). This sacramental character is indelible (CCC §1272); even if you later abandon the Church, the mark of baptism remains. However, baptism is not a guarantee of salvation without perseverance in faith and communion with the Church. As St Augustine taught, “He who created you without you, will not save you without you” (Sermo 169).

To claim Christian identity while rejecting the Church Christ founded is a contradiction in Catholic theology. The Second Vatican Council affirms that the Church is necessary for salvation, as it is through her that the fullness of the means of grace subsists (Lumen Gentium §14). While non-Catholic Christians may be saved, this occurs despite their separation, not because of it, and always through the grace flowing from Christ’s Church (CCC §§846–848). If you were baptised into the Catholic Church, you are bound by that sacramental covenant. To knowingly reject her teaching and sacramental life is to place your soul in grave jeopardy (CCC §2089). The Church does not coerce, but she does warn: salvation is not a private affair, and Christ did not establish multiple churches. He founded one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church—and to her you are called.

 

[public hermit]

To claim Christian identity while rejecting the Church Christ founded is a contradiction in Catholic theology

Christ did not establish multiple churches. He founded one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church—and to her you are called

In other words, if one is not a member of the Catholic Church, then they are not a Christian. This thread is a farce and should be closed. I'll leave it to your own integrity to ask the moderators to do so.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In other words, if one is not a member of the Catholic Church, then they are not a Christian. This thread is a farce and should be closed. I'll leave it to your own integrity to ask the moderators to do so.

That's just bad reasoning!

PS: if you do not want to participate then stop posting in this thread - those who do want to participate can continue and you need never trouble yourself again, Okay?

 

[Strong in Him]

“And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptised, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.” — Acts 22:16, NRSV

I do wish there was a commandment, "thou shalt read the Bible in context and not make doctrines from single verses."

Paul was giving his testimony to a crowd of Jews. He spoke of how he had rejected Jesus and persecuted believers. After he met Jesus, Ananias told him to be baptised for the forgiveness of his sins.
Jews did not baptise for forgiveness - their sins were atoned for by animal sacrifice. Baptism was given to unclean Gentiles who wanted to convert and become a child of God. By submitting to baptism in the name of Jesus Jews would have been declaring that they intended to trust in him and convert FROM their Jewish practices.

It is not teaching that anyone who is baptised has their sins washed away. May have been baptised and gone on to become unbelievers, criminals and so on.

One must understand that baptism, according to Catholic doctrine, is not merely symbolic or cultural—it is a sacrament instituted by Christ that effects a real ontological change in the soul.

That's your teaching, yes. I am not a Catholic.

Through baptism, you are freed from original sin, reborn as a child of God,

We are born again, or born from above, by the Holy Spirit, John 3:3, not by baptism. We are children of God because we believe in Jesus, John 1:12 and this is confirmed by the Holy Spirit, Romans 8:16-17. We are new creations through Jesus, 2 Corinthians 5:17.
Important as it is, baptism may be requested by unbelievers or relatives whose child is about to die. It can even be performed by an unbeliever.

To claim Christian identity while rejecting the Church Christ founded is a contradiction in Catholic theology.

So, according to Catholics, non Catholics aren't Christians and aren't saved?
I follow the Bible, not the Catholic church.

“And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptised, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.” — Acts 22:16, NRSV


The Second Vatican Council affirms that the Church is necessary for salvation,

But the Bible doesn't.
I know which I prefer.

While non-Catholic Christians may be saved, this occurs despite their separation, not because of it, and always through the grace flowing from Christ’s Church

No - grace flows from God. It is he who saves, through Jesus, without conditions.

If you were baptised into the Catholic Church, you are bound by that sacramental covenant.

I wasn't.

To knowingly reject her teaching and sacramental life is to place your soul in grave jeopardy

Nope.
Christians who may have left the Catholic church, or who have never accepted its teachings, still have eternal life, belong to Jesus, are children of God and can NEVER be snatched from his hand, John 10:29.

He founded one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church—and to her you are called.

All believers are THE church.
I am not called to become a Catholic.

 

[Strong in Him]

That's just bad reasoning!

That's what you said:

To claim Christian identity while rejecting the Church Christ founded is a contradiction in Catholic theology. The Second Vatican Council affirms that the Church is necessary for salvation,

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I do wish there was a commandment, "thou shalt read the Bible in context and not make doctrines from single verses."

Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 22:16
“And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptised, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.”

• Spoken to Saul (Paul) after his Damascus encounter, this verse frames baptism as a cleansing from sin and a public invocation of Christ.
• It underscores the urgency and transformative power of baptism in apostolic conversion.

Both verses reflect early Christian theology where baptism is not merely symbolic but sacramental—effecting forgiveness and spiritual rebirth.

Paul was giving his testimony to a crowd of Jews. He spoke of how he had rejected Jesus and persecuted believers. After he met Jesus, Ananias told him to be baptised for the forgiveness of his sins.
Jews did not baptise for forgiveness - their sins were atoned for by animal sacrifice. Baptism was given to unclean Gentiles who wanted to convert and become a child of God. By submitting to baptism in the name of Jesus Jews would have been declaring that they intended to trust in him and convert FROM their Jewish practices.

It is not teaching that anyone who is baptised has their sins washed away. May have been baptised and gone on to become unbelievers, criminals and so on.

The claim that baptism was alien to Jewish practice and reserved solely for Gentile converts is historically and theologically false. While Levitical sacrifices were central to atonement under the Mosaic Law (cf. Leviticus 4–6), ritual washings—including full immersion—were integral to Jewish purification rites (cf. Leviticus 15:5–11; Numbers 19:19). The Essenes and other Second Temple groups practised regular immersion for spiritual cleansing, and proselyte baptism was well established by the first century. John the Baptist’s ministry, directed at Jews, explicitly called for repentance and baptism “for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3), prefiguring Christian sacramental theology. Thus, Ananias’ command to Paul—“Be baptised, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16, NRSV)—was not a repudiation of Judaism but a fulfilment of its messianic hope through Christ, consistent with Peter’s Pentecost exhortation (Acts 2:38).

The assertion that baptism does not effect forgiveness because some baptised individuals later apostatise or sin gravely betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of sacramental efficacy. Catholic doctrine, grounded in Scripture and Tradition, teaches that baptism confers an indelible spiritual mark and truly remits all prior sin (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] §§1272–1274). The possibility of post-baptismal sin does not negate the sacrament’s efficacy; rather, it necessitates ongoing conversion and recourse to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (cf. CCC §1425). As St. Paul himself attests, “All of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death… so that we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3–4). Baptism is not symbolic assent or cultural repudiation—it is a supernatural rebirth (John 3:5), instituted by Christ and affirmed by apostolic witness. To deny its regenerative power is to reject both Scripture and the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, from Justin Martyr to Augustine.

 

[Hentenza]

All Christians are part of Christ's Catholic Church. Some simply lack the fullness of the faith.

All Christians are part of the church universal (adjective) of which the Catholic (noun) church is also a part. All Christian churches of orthodox beliefs have the fullness of faith given by our faith in our Savior.

 

[Hentenza]

That's just bad reasoning!

PS: if you do not want to participate then stop posting in this thread - those who do want to participate can continue and you need never trouble yourself again, Okay?

So instead of being a thread about unity it is a bull horn for you to spout your Catholic beliefs…..I see.

 

[public hermit]

That's just bad reasoning!

PS: if you do not want to participate then stop posting in this thread - those who do want to participate can continue and you need never trouble yourself again, Okay?

How is one supposed to respond? You clearly argue that, according to your church's teachings, to identify one's self as Christian and not be a member of said church is a contradiction. That means, although you know it already, that those who are not a member of your church, but say they are Christian, are not speaking truly. You also said there is only one true church, which happens to be the one to which you belong.

The only way this leads to unity is if everyone who claims to be a Christian also joins your church. In short, the only possible unity is within your church. That's a farce. But to be fair, it's not news either, since most folks know this attitude exists. Your position is not in any way conducive to unity.

You know something that makes for unity? Being able to admit you might be wrong, mistaken, or not have the whole truth. I know what Vatican II says about truth outside the Church, but from the outside, many within your church speak double-talk. You say we're in the truth but we don't have all of it. The fullness of faith? Please. It's simply an offense, which is also not conducive to unity. Mind you, we often overlook it as you all's peculiarity, but don't get it twisted. Many Christians accept the fact that there are Christians outside their own peculiar group. And many recognize that our unity is greater than our differences. I'm not seeing that in your position.

 

[PloverWing]

I want to return to a statement in the original post.

The Catholic critique of Protestant ecclesiology is not a dismissal of sincere faith or doctrinal convergence, but a theological response to the revealed structure of the Church. As Dominus Iesus (§16) clarifies, “the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery are not Churches in the proper sense.” This is not a polemical assertion but a doctrinal distinction rooted in sacramental and apostolic continuity. Unity, in Catholic understanding, is not merely mutual recognition but visible communion in faith, sacraments, and governance.

Your concern for ecumenical charity is well placed. The Church teaches that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of her visible structure” (Lumen Gentium, §8), and she earnestly seeks unity through dialogue and mutual understanding. Yet, fidelity to Christ’s intention for His Church requires clarity: unity must be more than doctrinal harmony—it must be sacramental and hierarchical, as instituted by Christ and perpetuated through apostolic succession.

The visible, structural unity of the Church was broken 900 years before I was born. It was already breaking apart in the schisms of the 5th century, but the Great Schism of 1054 was the end. There is no longer any organization that can correctly claim to be the whole embodiment of the Church Jesus founded. Jesus gave us the Church, and we broke it, or our ancestors did. Now we're muddling along, doing the best we can with the broken pieces.

God, who can save and heal all things, may in the end be able to heal the church and restore its unity. But that has not happened yet.

As we try to envision Christ's intention for his Church, there's a lot of guesswork involved. Love for each other, definitely, and service, and humility; Jesus talks about those things. Jesus talks very little, however, about organizational structure, so that's where we have to make some guesses. The threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons emerged by the second century AD, if my memory is correct, but we don't have recorded words of Jesus setting up those offices, so they probably post-date his ministry. The threefold ministry works pretty well, and I like the idea of preserving the line of apostolic succession, but I want to be careful about saying that these were instituted by Christ. Better to say that it's a good organizational structure created by faithful early Christians.

I have strong reservations about the word "hierarchical", though. Jesus spent so much time talking about upending human power structures. If the hierarchy is merely organizational, a way of structuring a huge group of people so that they can function together, then that could be okay. But as power enters that hierarchy, we start to depart from the teachings of Jesus. This has been a problem for Christians in many times and places.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How is one supposed to respond? You clearly argue that, according to your church's teachings, to identify one's self as Christian and not be a member of said church is a contradiction. That means, although you know it already, that those who are not a member of your church, but say they are Christian, are not speaking truly. You also said there is only one true church, which happens to be the one to which you belong.

According to Catholic dogma, to claim Christian identity while rejecting communion with the Catholic Church is a contradiction. Christ founded one Church—not many—and that Church subsists fully and exclusively in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter (cf. Lumen Gentium §8; Matthew 16:18). Saint Paul affirms this singularity: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). The Catechism teaches that this Church is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” (CCC §811), and full membership requires baptism, profession of faith, and submission to the Roman Pontiff.

The Church has always taught, with blunt clarity, that outside her there is no salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus). Pope Boniface VIII infallibly declared: “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam, 1302). While Vatican II acknowledges that non-Catholic Christians may possess elements of truth and sanctification, they remain outside full communion. Thus, if one knowingly rejects the Catholic Church yet claims to be Christian, one is not speaking truthfully according to Catholic teaching. To speak truly, one must speak from within the Church Christ Himself founded.

The only way this leads to unity is if everyone who claims to be a Christian also joins your church. In short, the only possible unity is within your church. That's a farce. But to be fair, it's not news either, since most folks know this attitude exists. Your position is not in any way conducive to unity.

You know something that makes for unity? Being able to admit you might be wrong, mistaken, or not have the whole truth. I know what Vatican II says about truth outside the Church, but from the outside, many within your church speak double-talk. You say we're in the truth but we don't have all of it. The fullness of faith? Please. It's simply an offense, which is also not conducive to unity. Mind you, we often overlook it as you all's peculiarity, but don't get it twisted. Many Christians accept the fact that there are Christians outside their own peculiar group. And many recognize that our unity is greater than our differences. I'm not seeing that in your position.

Your objection rests on a flawed premise: that unity can be achieved by relativising truth. Catholic dogma teaches that true unity is not a vague sentiment or mutual tolerance, but a visible, sacramental communion grounded in the one Church Christ founded. As Lumen Gentium affirms, “This Church constituted and organised in the world as a society subsists in the Catholic Church” (§8), and “the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church” (§14). To dismiss this as a “farce” is not a rebuttal but a refusal to engage with the Church’s claim to divine institution. Christ Himself prayed “that they may be one” (John 17:21), and that unity is not merely spiritual—it is ecclesial, doctrinal, and sacramental.

You err in suggesting that admitting uncertainty fosters unity. While humility is a virtue, doctrinal relativism is not. The Church does not claim that non-Catholic Christians possess no truth; rather, she teaches that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside her visible structure” (Lumen Gentium §8). Yet she also insists that “they derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio §3). To say “we’re in the truth but don’t have all of it” is not double-talk—it is a precise theological distinction between partial and full communion. The fullness of faith is not an insult; it is a gift entrusted by Christ to His Church, and it obliges proclamation, not apology.

Finally, your appeal to a broader Christian unity overlooks the nature of ecclesial identity. The Church teaches that “those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church… may achieve salvation” (CCC §847), but this does not negate the necessity of the Church for the fullness of truth and sacramental life. To equate all Christian groups as equally valid expressions of Christ’s Church is to contradict both Scripture and Tradition. Saint Paul warned against schism and doctrinal deviation: “I appeal to you… that there be no divisions among you” (1 Corinthians 1:10). Unity is not forged by diluting truth—it is achieved by conforming to it. The Catholic Church does not hinder unity; she defines it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All Christians are part of Christ's Catholic Church. Some simply lack the fullness of the faith

If there's "fullness of the faith" to have, I'm pretty sure I have it already without also being an official member of the RCC.

The RCC is just on additional Trinitarian choice among many, but it has an ongoing history of deductively and sequentially over-inflating its claims of authority, tradition and provenance over the Christian faith. The RCC just needs to tone down the rhetoric and deflate itself to a more equitable level of self-awareness.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

According to Catholic dogma, to claim Christian identity while rejecting communion with the Catholic Church is a contradiction. Christ founded one Church—not many—and that Church subsists fully and exclusively in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter (cf. Lumen Gentium §8; Matthew 16:18). Saint Paul affirms this singularity: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). The Catechism teaches that this Church is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” (CCC §811), and full membership requires baptism, profession of faith, and submission to the Roman Pontiff.

The Church has always taught, with blunt clarity, that outside her there is no salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus). Pope Boniface VIII infallibly declared: “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam, 1302). While Vatican II acknowledges that non-Catholic Christians may possess elements of truth and sanctification, they remain outside full communion. Thus, if one knowingly rejects the Catholic Church yet claims to be Christian, one is not speaking truthfully according to Catholic teaching. To speak truly, one must speak from within the Church Christ Himself founded.


Your objection rests on a flawed premise: that unity can be achieved by relativising truth. Catholic dogma teaches that true unity is not a vague sentiment or mutual tolerance, but a visible, sacramental communion grounded in the one Church Christ founded. As Lumen Gentium affirms, “This Church constituted and organised in the world as a society subsists in the Catholic Church” (§8), and “the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church” (§14). To dismiss this as a “farce” is not a rebuttal but a refusal to engage with the Church’s claim to divine institution. Christ Himself prayed “that they may be one” (John 17:21), and that unity is not merely spiritual—it is ecclesial, doctrinal, and sacramental.

You err in suggesting that admitting uncertainty fosters unity. While humility is a virtue, doctrinal relativism is not. The Church does not claim that non-Catholic Christians possess no truth; rather, she teaches that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside her visible structure” (Lumen Gentium §8). Yet she also insists that “they derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio §3). To say “we’re in the truth but don’t have all of it” is not double-talk—it is a precise theological distinction between partial and full communion. The fullness of faith is not an insult; it is a gift entrusted by Christ to His Church, and it obliges proclamation, not apology.

Finally, your appeal to a broader Christian unity overlooks the nature of ecclesial identity. The Church teaches that “those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church… may achieve salvation” (CCC §847), but this does not negate the necessity of the Church for the fullness of truth and sacramental life. To equate all Christian groups as equally valid expressions of Christ’s Church is to contradict both Scripture and Tradition. Saint Paul warned against schism and doctrinal deviation: “I appeal to you… that there be no divisions among you” (1 Corinthians 1:10). Unity is not forged by diluting truth—it is achieved by conforming to it. The Catholic Church does not hinder unity; she defines it.

So, basically--------and this follows what I've been saying----------you're insinuating that I need to throw out my copy of Millard J. Erickson's, Christian Theology, along with every other non-Roman Catholic book or journal article I own because they just don't cut the mustard of "fullness" and just keep all of my Catholic books, right?

This is where I'm calling you out since you've obviously changed your posture from what it seemed to once be in the recent past.

As I told camper last night, the Rabbit Hole looks might deep. Are you prepared to jump into with me? I don't think you are. You're over confident and your verbosity and rhetoric shows it. Of course, I know it's not solely your fault for your posturing. It's what was given to you to posture with from your church (just like so many Protestants do with their own churches------------posture in "faith").

 

[Valletta]

If there's "fullness of the faith" to have, I'm pretty sure I have it already without also being an official member of the RCC.

Of course that is pretty much the belief of every Christian.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I want to return to a statement in the original post.



The visible, structural unity of the Church was broken 900 years before I was born. It was already breaking apart in the schisms of the 5th century, but the Great Schism of 1054 was the end. There is no longer any organization that can correctly claim to be the whole embodiment of the Church Jesus founded. Jesus gave us the Church, and we broke it, or our ancestors did. Now we're muddling along, doing the best we can with the broken pieces.

God, who can save and heal all things, may in the end be able to heal the church and restore its unity. But that has not happened yet.

As we try to envision Christ's intention for his Church, there's a lot of guesswork involved. Love for each other, definitely, and service, and humility; Jesus talks about those things. Jesus talks very little, however, about organizational structure, so that's where we have to make some guesses. The threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons emerged by the second century AD, if my memory is correct, but we don't have recorded words of Jesus setting up those offices, so they probably post-date his ministry. The threefold ministry works pretty well, and I like the idea of preserving the line of apostolic succession, but I want to be careful about saying that these were instituted by Christ. Better to say that it's a good organizational structure created by faithful early Christians.

I have strong reservations about the word "hierarchical", though. Jesus spent so much time talking about upending human power structures. If the hierarchy is merely organizational, a way of structuring a huge group of people so that they can function together, then that could be okay. But as power enters that hierarchy, we start to depart from the teachings of Jesus. This has been a problem for Christians in many times and places.

I credit your reflections as sincere and thoughtful, and they deserve a response that honours both your concern for unity and your desire for fidelity to Christ. The Catholic Church acknowledges the pain of division and the historical reality of schism. Yet she does not concede that the visible, structural unity of the Church was destroyed. Rather, she teaches that the Church Christ founded continues to subsist fully in the Catholic Church, despite human failings. As Lumen Gentium affirms, “This Church… subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (§8). Christ promised, “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18), and this promise is not voided by historical rupture. The Church remains one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not by human merit, but by divine constitution (cf. CCC §811–816).

You rightly note that God alone can restore full visible unity, and the Church prays unceasingly for this. Yet unity is not a vague hope—it is a concrete reality grounded in sacramental communion and apostolic succession. The Second Vatican Council teaches that “the fullness of Christ’s Church belongs to the Catholic Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio §3), and that other communities, though wounded by separation, are “joined to the Church in many ways” (Lumen Gentium §15). This is not triumphalism but theological precision. The unity Christ wills is not merely spiritual affinity but visible communion: “that they may be one… so that the world may believe” (John 17:21). Fragmentation is not normative; it is a wound to be healed through truth and charity.

Regarding the threefold ministry, it is not a later invention but a divinely instituted structure. Christ chose the Twelve (Luke 6:13), gave Peter primacy (Matthew 16:18–19; John 21:15–17), and the Apostles, under divine guidance, appointed successors (cf. Acts 1:20–26; Titus 1:5). Saint Clement of Rome, writing before AD 100, testifies: “The Apostles… appointed bishops and deacons… and gave them a permanent character” (I Clement 42–44). The Catechism teaches that apostolic succession is “a permanent office” (CCC §861), and that “episcopal consecration confers the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders” (CCC §1557). This structure is not merely functional—it is sacramental, instituted by Christ and sustained by the Holy Spirit.

Your concern about hierarchy and power is deeply valid. Christ did indeed rebuke worldly domination: “The greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matthew 23:11). But the Church’s hierarchy, when faithful, is not a power structure—it is a ministry of service. The Pope is called “Servant of the Servants of God,” and bishops are charged to “shepherd the Church of God” (Acts 20:28). The Catechism insists that “the authority of the Church is exercised in the name of Christ” and “must be a service” (CCC §876). Abuse of power is a grave scandal, but it does not invalidate the divine origin of the Church’s structure. Rather, it calls each member to deeper conversion, so that the hierarchy may reflect not domination, but the humility of Christ crucified.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course that is pretty much the belief of every Christian.

The question, though, is do YOU believe that about me. So, do you? See, I have little problem in extending theological charity to other Trinitarian Christians of WHATEVER denomination and aver that the Lord holds them, with fullness, in His Hand. But that's not reciprocated. I've had to deal with that ridiculous posturing from my own crowd even within the Protestant churches I've formerly attended or have been a member of. I didn't put up with it from them and I'm not going to put up with it from any other quadrant of the overall Church either, no matter what the claims are.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So, basically--------and this follows what I've been saying----------you're insinuating that I need to throw out my copy of Millard J. Erickson's, Christian Theology, along with every other non-Roman Catholic book or journal article I own because they just don't cut the mustard of "fullness" and just keep all of my Catholic books, right?

This is where I'm calling you out since you've obviously changed your posture from what it seemed to once be in the recent past.

As I told camper last night, the Rabbit Hole looks might deep. Are you prepared to jump into with me? I don't think you are. You're over confident and your verbosity and rhetoric shows it. Of course, I know it's not solely your fault for your posturing. It's what was given to you to posture with from your church (just like so many Protestants do with their own churches------------posture in "faith").

When I read a reply that starts with, " so basically", I am inclined to take that as code meaning, " I am about to offer a summary that I am pretty sure is not full and accurate". and when you continue with observing, " you're insinuating that I need to...", I feel sure that my initial assessment is right.

You misunderstand the Catholic position if you presume it demands the wholesale rejection of all non-Catholic theological literature. The Church does not forbid engagement with Protestant scholarship; rather, she urges discernment. Unitatis Redintegratio teaches that “Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren” (§4). However, she also affirms that “the fullness of the means of salvation” subsists in the Catholic Church alone (Lumen Gentium §8). Thus, while you may read Millard J. Erickson or other non-Catholic authors, you must do so with the understanding that their theological frameworks lack the fullness of truth entrusted by Christ to His Church (cf. CCC §819).

Your accusation of rhetorical inconsistency fails to grasp the distinction between irenicism and doctrinal fidelity. The Church’s posture has not changed; she remains committed to truth in charity. Saint Paul exhorts, “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ” (Ephesians 4:15). To proclaim the Catholic Church as the one true Church is not arrogance—it is obedience to Christ’s own words: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church” (Matthew 16:18). The Church does not posture; she professes. If her tone seems confident, it is because she speaks not from human invention but divine commission (cf. CCC §857).

Finally, your metaphor of the “Rabbit Hole” suggests a descent into confusion, yet the Church offers clarity, not obscurity. The Catechism teaches that “the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (CCC §171; cf. 1 Timothy 3:15). You are invited not to abandon inquiry, but to pursue it within the light of revealed truth. The Church does not fear deep questions; she welcomes them, provided they are asked in humility and with a willingness to be conformed to Christ. If you are prepared to seek truth without evasion, then yes—you are invited to enter the depths. But you must do so with reverence, not presumption.

 

[public hermit]

According to Catholic dogma, to claim Christian identity while rejecting communion with the Catholic Church is a contradiction. Christ founded one Church—not many—and that Church subsists fully and exclusively in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter (cf. Lumen Gentium §8; Matthew 16:18). Saint Paul affirms this singularity: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). The Catechism teaches that this Church is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” (CCC §811), and full membership requires baptism, profession of faith, and submission to the Roman Pontiff.

The Church has always taught, with blunt clarity, that outside her there is no salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus). Pope Boniface VIII infallibly declared: “It is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam, 1302). While Vatican II acknowledges that non-Catholic Christians may possess elements of truth and sanctification, they remain outside full communion. Thus, if one knowingly rejects the Catholic Church yet claims to be Christian, one is not speaking truthfully according to Catholic teaching. To speak truly, one must speak from within the Church Christ Himself founded.


Your objection rests on a flawed premise: that unity can be achieved by relativising truth. Catholic dogma teaches that true unity is not a vague sentiment or mutual tolerance, but a visible, sacramental communion grounded in the one Church Christ founded. As Lumen Gentium affirms, “This Church constituted and organised in the world as a society subsists in the Catholic Church” (§8), and “the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church” (§14). To dismiss this as a “farce” is not a rebuttal but a refusal to engage with the Church’s claim to divine institution. Christ Himself prayed “that they may be one” (John 17:21), and that unity is not merely spiritual—it is ecclesial, doctrinal, and sacramental.

You err in suggesting that admitting uncertainty fosters unity. While humility is a virtue, doctrinal relativism is not. The Church does not claim that non-Catholic Christians possess no truth; rather, she teaches that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside her visible structure” (Lumen Gentium §8). Yet she also insists that “they derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio §3). To say “we’re in the truth but don’t have all of it” is not double-talk—it is a precise theological distinction between partial and full communion. The fullness of faith is not an insult; it is a gift entrusted by Christ to His Church, and it obliges proclamation, not apology.

Finally, your appeal to a broader Christian unity overlooks the nature of ecclesial identity. The Church teaches that “those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church… may achieve salvation” (CCC §847), but this does not negate the necessity of the Church for the fullness of truth and sacramental life. To equate all Christian groups as equally valid expressions of Christ’s Church is to contradict both Scripture and Tradition. Saint Paul warned against schism and doctrinal deviation: “I appeal to you… that there be no divisions among you” (1 Corinthians 1:10). Unity is not forged by diluting truth—it is achieved by conforming to it. The Catholic Church does not hinder unity; she defines it.

Well, I can see my thoughts on the matter had no effect. Shocking! Oh well, as you were.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well, I can see my thoughts on the matter had no effect. Shocking! Oh well, as you were.

I replied to your expressed thoughts what you make of The reply is entirely up to you. there is no need for a sarcastic, "Shocking!", but you are free to do what you like in your own posts.