Calling all Catholics.

[Rushing Jaws]

What convinces you that the Catholic Church is the original church founded by Jesus? Being raised Catholic? Being a convert to the Catholic Church?

## Speaking as a convert:
1. The good things are of the kind one might expect
2. The bad stuff in particular is of the kind one might expect.

A Christian Church should bring forth fruits of holiness - the CC does. Case in point: Blessed Chiara Badano (1971-90). I mention her because she is very recent, and because teenage Saints are somewhat unusual, unless they are martyrs - she was not. She is also a model for bone cancer sufferers.

If the CC is Divine, the sins and scandals of the last 1900 years are not surprising. Only a Church that has the capacity for raising Saints of radiant holiness could produce some of the people who, fairly or not, are notorious for unholiness. That is one of the things I like best about the CC - it can accommodate some really horrible people; that means it has room for me. Which is in turn a reminder that one must not presume to judge others - today's alcoholic or murderer may in God's good time be recognised as a Saint. Being Catholic can be painful, but it is never dull. A great part of the attraction for me was the fact of the Saints. They are so varied, in so many ways. Their variety is for me one of the surest indications that the Church really is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic in time and space.

Jesus "taught with authority/power" -and the CC is not shy of making the very same claim. If it is the Church of Christ, it should do His works, by His authority. He claimed to pardon sin - it makes the very same claim. The accusations against it are often those made against Him. Blasphemy, driving out evil with the help of evil, being called accursed, being called demonic or satanic, being called the Antichrist, being called an enemy of religion or a deceiver, are reproaches made against both Him & it in one form or another.

None of these considerations is coercive, but put together I find them, and others, very powerful. But as for conviction, reason is far too feeble to give that. If a Christian religious commitment is to be made, only something as hardwearing as faith will do. And faith is fruitless without love. The giving of conviction is ultimately a mystery of God's grace.

[37818]

Oh, right, thanks for reminding me. I vaguely recall something about that. I seem to recall that some even claim to take their name from a core group of the followers of John the Baptist, or something like that.

That claim is a modern excuse to call themselves baptist. Historically has no bases that I know of. Only that there was always a church separate from Rome and Orthodox split. See also the Concise History of Baptists by Orchard.

[robrecht]

Can you help me out with the language here? Are they saying that those who were born into Protestant communities essentially don't know better, and thus have the right to be called "Christian", but those who were born into the Catholic Church, but who abandoned it, and then became Protestants....don't have the right to be called "Christian"? It doesn't say as much, but is that the correct reading between the lines?

No, I don't think that is at all intended. In the larger context, they are saying that both Catholics and Protestants who were involved in the creation of the schism are both at fault, not just the Protestants. Catholics are acknowledging that they are also at fault for the separation. But those who are born later bear no responsibility for the sin of schism.

[Adrift]

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

Can you help me out with the language here? Are they saying that those who were born into Protestant communities essentially don't know better, and thus have the right to be called "Christian", but those who were born into the Catholic Church, but who abandoned it, and then became Protestants....don't have the right to be called "Christian"? It doesn't say as much, but is that the correct reading between the lines?

[robrecht]

Is it feasible to say that Protestantism was founded on the Catholic church? And if the Catholic church is part of the original church founded by Jesus, by proxy, isn't that also true for Protestants?

That is my view. I view the chuch as primarily local, and secondarily a communion of churches.

[robrecht]

That's a fair question. As a Protestant, I have no issue with that.

I'm curious, though, if that's generally returned. Do Catholics consider Protestants part of the church? I've seen some comments by Catholics (none here, in particular) that make me think a lot of Catholics don't, in fact, think that.

I do, but not all Catholics would. The official teaching is characteristically vague and variously interpreted. Certainly, they would say something like the fullness of the church only 'subsists' in the Roman Catholic Church and those churches that are in union with Rome. I would have to look it up to give you the current, exact language.

Here's the relevant section of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

[Adrift]

Orthodox and Catholics both believe themselves and each other to be part of the original one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ. Of course, they have their theological and cultural differences, but this is not one of them. Do Protestants and Baptists really deny this? I mean, I know they believe that the church of the 16th century was in need of reform and that theological errors had crept in, and I suppose some still see the Pope as the Antichrist in some sense, but don't they generally believe that the Orthodox and Catholic churches were part of the original church founded by Jesus?

Is it feasible to say that Protestantism was founded on the Catholic church? And if the Catholic church is part of the original church founded by Jesus, by proxy, isn't that also true for Protestants?

[Zymologist]

Orthodox and Catholics both believe themselves and each other to be part of the original one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ. Of course, they have their theological and cultural differences, but this is not one of them. Do Protestants and Baptists really deny this? I mean, I know they believe that the church of the 16th century was in need of reform and that theological errors had crept in, and I suppose some still see the Pope as the Antichrist in some sense, but don't they generally believe that the Orthodox and Catholic churches were part of the original church founded by Jesus?

That's a fair question. As a Protestant, I have no issue with that.

I'm curious, though, if that's generally returned. Do Catholics consider Protestants part of the church? I've seen some comments by Catholics (none here, in particular) that make me think a lot of Catholics don't, in fact, think that.

[robrecht]

Not according to those Baptists who make a distinction between Protestant and Baptist; they believe that they alone are descendants of the original church (see "The Trail of Blood").

Oh, right, thanks for reminding me. I vaguely recall something about that. I seem to recall that some even claim to take their name from a core group of the followers of John the Baptist, or something like that.

[One Bad Pig]

Orthodox and Catholics both believe themselves and each other to be part of the original one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ. Of course, they have their theological and cultural differences, but this is not one of them. Do Protestants and Baptists really deny this? I mean, I know they believe that the church of the 16th century was in need of reform and that theological errors had crept in, and I suppose some still see the Pope as the Antichrist in some sense, but don't they generally believe that the Orthodox and Catholic churches were part of the original church founded by Jesus?

Not according to those Baptists who make a distinction between Protestant and Baptist; they believe that they alone are descendants of the original church (see "The Trail of Blood").

[robrecht]

Excellent. So what do Orthodox, Protestant and Baptist as examples miss that Catholics do not?

Orthodox and Catholics both believe themselves and each other to be part of the original one, holy, catholic and apostolic church founded by Christ. Of course, they have their theological and cultural differences, but this is not one of them. Do Protestants and Baptists really deny this? I mean, I know they believe that the church of the 16th century was in need of reform and that theological errors had crept in, and I suppose some still see the Pope as the Antichrist in some sense, but don't they generally believe that the Orthodox and Catholic churches were part of the original church founded by Jesus?

[37818]

Scripture

Excellent. So what do Orthodox, Protestant and Baptist as examples miss that Catholics do not?

[TimelessTheist]

But when Rome got Arrogant is when the great schism happened. Disavowing leadership of the apostolic successors and disregarding their authority and co leadership never served Rome well

[Catholicity]

I think the idea is that Peter is considered 1st among equals which is more appropriate. Peter had a headship/leadership role. its obvious. But when Rome got Arrogant is when the great schism happened. Disavowing leadership of the apostolic successors and disregarding their authority and co leadership never served Rome well

[TimelessTheist]

It is my view that was origial to Christian thought. It changed with interpretation that Peter was the rock. Only after the reformation did what was deemed Christian thought to reconsider, in what is in my view the truth.

Regardless of what your view on the passage is, it's confirmed historical fact that, for the thousand years before the Great Schism, the Primacy of Rome was accepted by everybody. You can argue that the Church got it wrong, but the fact that this was how it was originally understood before the Great Schism is so well grounded that even Eastern Orthodox historians and theologians admit this to be the case.