I don't think belief in Christ as you and I understand it - is required. Infant baptism has been part of the church for some time. Grace is the gift from God.

On another note, thank you for the work you do for the youth in your parish. I too have seen kids that go through the motions, but I have come to a different understanding, that constant exposure to God's love either through his servants or through the word of God - can have an effect in the end. Speaking for myself, it took some time to get serious about God. I am thankful for a strong religious example set by my mother and grandmother.

jrico2727 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Strange.
CCC 1226 restates Acts 10 rather differently than the Bible including the RCC - New American Bible.

---

Here are the references
26 Acts 2:38.
27 Cf. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 10:48; 16:15.
28 Acts 16:31-33.

---

You're right. I mixed up Pentecost with acts 10 in Caesarea and the day the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, this is also relative to the baptism discussion. In fact, CCC references it also verse 48 but conveniently skips over the 5 versus leading up to 48 in chapter 10. This is likely intentional as it seems to teach a slightly different message that the RCC teaches.

PabloSerna said:

---

I don't think belief in Christ as you and I understand it - is required. Infant baptism has been part of the church for some time. Grace is the gift from God.

On another note, thank you for the work you do for the youth in your parish. I too have seen kids that go through the motions, but I have come to a different understanding, that constant exposure to God's love either through his servants or through the word of God - can have an effect in the end. Speaking for myself, it took some time to get serious about God. I am thankful for a strong religious example set by my mother and grandmother.

---

Thank you.

So, I have a question for you.
If you are Catholic then I presume your were baptized as an infant and went through confirmation as a teen most likely.
By your own admission, "it took some time for you to get serious about God".I'll presume this was later as an adult. That said, as you really connected with Christ and became seriously a follower by your own choosing, would you think confirmation and maybe even baptism should come more in line with your own true change of heart and serious devotion than what appears to happen in the Catholic Church?
After all, no one comes to to Christ unless the Father calls him. (John 6:44)
So, I sometimes wonder if the good intentions driven work of the RCC doesn't lead to a false sense of "salvation" in some because they have been through the process and checked all the boxes.
I just wonder what you think.

Wanted to preface this by saying it seems like this is becoming a bit adversarial. I don't mind being challenged, but I don't think an argument is beneficial. I'm glad to answer any questions about my faith, but I want to make sure it is productive for both of us. The goal here should be ecumenical dialogue, peacemaking. St Mark of Ephesus said "There is truly a need for much investigation and conversation in matters of theological disputation (lit. 'questionable dogmas'), so that compelling and conspicuous arguments might be considered. There is profound benefit to be gained from such conversation if the objective is not altercation but truth, and if the intention is not solely to triumph over others...Inspired by the same spirit [as the apostles at the council of Jerusalem] and bound to one another by love, the goal should be to discover the truth, and we should never miss the purpose that lies before us; even when its pursuit is prolonged, we should still always listen carefully to and address one another amicably so that our loving exchange might contribute towards consensus (omonoian - same+understanding)." If we can't do that, we should shift topics.

I think this will be most productive if we try to contain it and keep it from spiraling off into fractals of lines of inquiry. The differences between evangelicals and Orthodox are many - so let's both try to focus and I think it will go better.

Quote:

---

Also, which writings of the so-called "Fathers" from the 1st century support your theology and definition of what it is to be a Christian?

---

I'm not sure I understand the question here. I am not appealing to the ante-Nicene fathers for this definition of who is a Christian. It's all in the NT. For the sake of the discussion I am happy to limit things to the scriptures. Since I believe that the scriptures are an authentic witness to the tradition of the Church, they are a reliable source of teaching and doctrine. This witness is echoed and affirmed by the fathers - not established by them.

Would you mind explaining why you put fathers in sarcastiquotes?

Quote:

---

ETA: Do we have any written records of the earliest Church councils? If so, do we know what authority they relied upon to settle disputes?

---

Yes. The first is recorded in Acts. You can read the acts of other councils here - scroll to the section marked "councils". But the authority question is a little confusing. Can you clarify what you mean? What are you trying to get at, understand, or point out?

Quote:

---

ETA 2: To what authority did the early Church "Fathers" appeal or refer in their writings? It was entirely the Scriptures, not Church tradition, that is, not until much later when the organized Church had become bureaucratic and full of itself.

---

See, this again is becoming adversarial and not asked in good faith. The Church is lead by Christ. He is the head, He pastors and guides the Church, and is actively involved through the Church. The members of the Church are members of Christ, and the Church in its fullness is comprised of His body. Saying the Church is bureaucratic and full of itself is one a bit aggressive, two a bit of begging the question, and three a bit of an insult to Christ.

I'm going to flip it back to you. To what authority did St Paul appeal or refer to in his writings? He quoted scripture, yes - but he did not appeal to them for license to preach. Instead he appeals solely to Christ, his call as a prophet and apostle, and the command he received from Christ Himself to teach and proclaim the Gospel of Christ. He used the scriptures as witness to the truth of his claim, but they were not license for him.

Later fathers are much the same. The authority to teach is found in the truth which is the Church - as St Paul says, the pillar and foundation of Truth. St Irenaeus when developing a clear discussion of Church authority appeals to the continuous and public teaching of the faith as evidence. This of course is echoed in St Paul's writing to St Timothy - "what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." The authority is public teaching, which is always ratified by and never at odds with what is in sacred scripture.

Have we had this discussion before? Major Deja Vu regarding Clement... specifically referenced in almost the same way by a poster here - now deleted

https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2827612/replies/48292671

So this is a variance between the RCC and Orthodoxy that I personally find very important for a consistency of teaching.

A person who is baptized is a member of the Church, and is therefore able to partake of the Eucharist. Orthodoxy does not practice confirmation.

Understanding is not required for salvation, much less baptism. This emphasis on the intellectual aspect of faith comes much later in Christian history.

I believe that both the RCC and Orthodoxy affirm that the sacraments or mysteries are means of receiving grace - by which we say God's actions, not the more protestant view of unfavored merit - and are therefore works of God in our life for our salvation, which for baptism includes the remission of sin.

Forgive my ignorance, but I always was under the impression that infants were confirmed and receive Eucharist along with Baptism? It may just be a matter of vocabulary.

You're right - we don't do a separate event called confirmation. Newly baptized receive communion after baptism and chrismation, which happen all at once.

Catag94 said:

---

I attend mass weekly with my Catholic wife. I lead the high school age youth group and even teach them in Catholic way. I have a deep and strong faith in Christ and proudly, boldly say the Creed weekly (I skip the "for the forgiveness of sins" part relating to baptism and rather than "confess" one baptism I "profess" one baptism). I have encourage and lead my FIL (lifelong Catholic) in studying the Bible and we meet weekly. I enjoy the growth I can see in both our faiths and relationships with our savior. I challenge (very respectfully) others in an adult class following mass. I love discussing faith with priests. I was baptized in a Baptist church at the age of 17, but I find faults with that denomination as well.
I believe what matters with regard to eternity in the presence of God is simply did Christ know me (and I m Him); is my name written in the book of life.
I imagine many people were born into the RCC faith and were baptized as infants. As adults, that take the Eucharist weekly and yet, one that day, they may be chocked when Christ says, " Depart from me, I never knew you". It's one of the most alarming scriptures IMO.
I for one believe in the presence of Christ I. The Eucharist and I find it Pauling that some who are Catholic don't seem to have the proper reference for it. For example, I question why anyone would not take the cup but only the body (Pre Covid).
In fact, believing it to be transubstantiated to only being the body and blood of Christ, I don't understand the fear of Covid leading to withholding it all all the last couple years.

If the RCC allowed me to partake of the sacrament, I would do so according to Paul's teaching and with full belief in Christ's presence, with a proper heart and reverence.

Yet, the RCC will give the Eucharist to every 6 year old their parishioners have each year and, somehow trust, that they truly have an understanding and a faith / belief superior to my own, I guess.

I have asked before, why would you withhold the body and blood of Christ from anyone who seeks it earnestly. The usual answer is thAt out of compassion, they do not want one to take condemnation in himself. Yet every 6 YO is ok.
My wife teaches the confirmation-2 kids. 9 of 10 of them don't even come to mass, don't speak up in class, and don't do the work my wife (a very devout and faithful follower of Christ) gives them to do. There is no indication of a real faith in most of these kids. And often, they don't come to mass after confirmation either. It truly seems like they and their families just want to check the box. Yet, the RCC will gladly have these kids petals and share in the sacrament of the Eucharist.
To me, if a real faith and desire to follow Christ is not discernible by the priest, this should not happen or perhaps the church aiding in one taking condemnation on himself.

Oh, and I have zero belief in the infallibility of the RCC Pope and believe that one need look no further than Pope Francis for evidence of this being debunked. His statement and position on the death penalty which were based in morality, directly contradict the ordinance of the death penalty by God himself. I see this as nothing less than Pope Francis substituting his judgement of the justification of its application for that of God's.

I learn a lot form you guys in here and appreciate your sharing of your knowledge and faith. I have a great deal of respect for the exchanges in this forum. Thanks.

---

Seriously, thank you for the heartfelt and significant response. I sincerely appreciate it. I am glad you are directly and energetically engaged and I stand in judgment of no person. So, please hear this with that in mind: what or who is your ultimate authority for matters of faith. Ultimately, that is the question it seems that you must wrestle with. Why would you say part but not every word of the Creed? Do you think the Council was guided partially by the Holy Spirit? What about the Council that defined the canon? How do you know they got it right? By what authority?

Thanks again!
YBiC!

"Question for you guys. As I understand from your postings, you view the biggest differentiator and advantage of the RCC and the Orthodox Churches over Protestantism as being a unity of doctrine."

Great discussions all around. Since we are all Aggies here, let me give my 2 cents in a way only an Aggie can understand. Mind you, I'm Catholic and was in the Corps so there will be some bias here:

You are an Aggie (Christian) the moment you accept your invitation (accept Christ as your Savior) to attend the University. Some people, for tragedy or misfortune, will never get an opportunity to set foot on campus (the unborn). Some people, due to academic difficulties, will never be offered a seat to attend lectures but are Aggies nonetheless. I dare any of you to tell our family friend with Down Syndrome he is not an Aggie; That boy is more Aggie then 95% of TexAgs. Some people pretend to be Aggies (Jonestown, Branch Davidians), but let's face it, Blinn students aren't Aggies even if they wear maroon underwear.

The Corps of Cadets (Catholics) trace their origins and traditions back to the inception of the college. Through various reforms, the Non-regs (Protestants) emerged decades (Centuries) ago. I think we can all agree that the shared history makes us all stronger and our university wouldn't be what it is without either present. We can agree some traditions like hazing and axe handling (indulgences) went off the rails and needed to be addressed. We can mostly agree that some reforms like group identity politics (wokism) is diluting what it means to be an Aggie, We are and should be Aggies first.

While many non-regs believe the members of the Corps of Cadets follow universal practices, there are significant differences between the various units. And then there are the BQs (Orthodox) who participate in a lot of the same activities, wear the same uniforms, but do some very different things. The BQs also follow the Drum Major instead of the Corps Commander (Pope)... And on that note, the Corps Commander has very little to do with the daily workings within individual units (Churches).

There are some good Aggies in the Corps and there are some bad ones. There of some good Aggies that non-regs, and there are frats... opps did that slip out!? At the end of the day, what determines whether or not you are a good Aggie (Christian) is not by what others can see, but by the feelings you harbor in your heart. Are you doing as much as you can with the gifts given to your time in College Station (Matthew 5;14-16)? Are you setting an example of what being an Aggie should be to those around you (John 13:14-15)? I don't have the ability to see another man's heart, but I can see how a heart leads a man in their actions. I can usually pick out who I think are the good Ags by how they behave. If I see something wrong, I might gently point that out. However, I would truly only judge with an abundance of caution (Matthew 6:14).

Now to your original question using that background analogy: The biggest thing the RCC and orthodox church offer isn't "uniformity" as much as they place a greater stress on the mystical side of faith. I believe that is where it truly belongs. Faith, by definition, is not something you can quantify. The Holy Spirit (the Spirit) something you feel. From the outside you don't get understand it, from the inside you can't explain it... Sound familiar?

I am the type of person that would have found being a non-reg really boring. I really enjoy the tradition (Corps and Catholic) and believe it makes the experience complete. I believe in the mystical (i.e. Christ's presence in the Eucharist). I have attended many different protestant services and I've heard in those churches many very good sermons. But for me, it was just like attending a lecture in a bland lecture hall. Something is missing. For many people that is enough and that's fair. My sister, who was a terrible "Christian" as a Catholic, found a non-denominational church and now prays regularly. Had Catholism been the only option, I doubt she would have ever truly discovered Christ and placed Christ at the center of her heart. If you are happy in your church and feel God's presence, by all means stay. If you think there is something missing, give the RCC a try. But where every you go to church, keep searching and questioning. Final Review is coming though "you know nor the hour nor the day". Gig 'em (God Bless).

FIDO95 said:

---

"Question for you guys. As I understand from your postings, you view the biggest differentiator and advantage of the RCC and the Orthodox Churches over Protestantism as being a unity of doctrine."

Great discussions all around. Since we are all Aggies here, let me give my 2 cents in a way only an Aggie can understand. Mind you, I'm Catholic and was in the Corps so there will be some bias here:

You are an Aggie (Christian) the moment you accept your invitation (accept Christ as your Savior) to attend the University. Some people, for tragedy or misfortune, will never get an opportunity to set foot on campus (the unborn). Some people, due to academic difficulties, will never be offered a seat to attend lectures but are Aggies nonetheless. I dare any of you to tell our family friend with Down Syndrome he is not an Aggie; That boy is more Aggie then 95% of TexAgs. Some people pretend to be Aggies (Jonestown, Branch Davidians), but let's face it, Blinn students aren't Aggies even if they wear maroon underwear.

The Corps of Cadets (Catholics) trace their origins and traditions back to the inception of the college. Through various reforms, the Non-regs (Protestants) emerged decades (Centuries) ago. I think we can all agree that the shared history makes us all stronger and our university wouldn't be what it is without either present. We can agree some traditions like hazing and axe handling (indulgences) went off the rails and needed to be addressed. We can mostly agree that some reforms like group identity politics (wokism) is diluting what it means to be an Aggie, We are and should be Aggies first.

While many non-regs believe the members of the Corps of Cadets follow universal practices, there are significant differences between the various units. And then there are the BQs (Orthodox) who participate in a lot of the same activities, wear the same uniforms, but do some very different things. The BQs also follow the Drum Major instead of the Corps Commander (Pope)... And on that note, the Corps Commander has very little to do with the daily workings within individual units (Churches).

There are some good Aggies in the Corps and there are some bad ones. There of some good Aggies that non-regs, and there are frats... opps did that slip out!? At the end of the day, what determines whether or not you are a good Aggie (Christian) is not by what others can see, but by the feelings you harbor in your heart. Are you doing as much as you can with the gifts given to your time in College Station (Matthew 5;14-16)? Are you setting an example of what being an Aggie should be to those around you (John 13:14-15)? I don't have the ability to see another man's heart, but I can see how a heart leads a man in their actions. I can usually pick out who I think are the good Ags by how they behave. If I see something wrong, I might gently point that out. However, I would truly only judge with an abundance of caution (Matthew 6:14).

Now to your original question using that background analogy: The biggest thing the RCC and orthodox church offer isn't "uniformity" as much as they place a greater stress on the mystical side of faith. I believe that is where it truly belongs. Faith, by definition, is not something you can quantify. The Holy Spirit (the Spirit) something you feel. From the outside you don't get understand it, from the inside you can't explain it... Sound familiar?

I am the type of person that would have found being a non-reg really boring. I really enjoy the tradition (Corps and Catholic) and believe it makes the experience complete. I believe in the mystical (i.e. Christ's presence in the Eucharist). I have attended many different protestant services and I've heard in those churches many very good sermons. But for me, it was just like attending a lecture in a bland lecture hall. Something is missing. For many people that is enough and that's fair. My sister, who was a terrible "Christian" as a Catholic, found a non-denominational church and now prays regularly. Had Catholism been the only option, I doubt she would have ever truly discovered Christ and placed Christ at the center of her heart. If you are happy in your church and feel God's presence, by all means stay. If you think there is something missing, give the RCC a try. But where every you go to church, keep searching and questioning. Final Review is coming though "you know nor the hour nor the day". Gig 'em (God Bless).

---

And it's just another Corps Trip, so we're all going to march in behind the FTAB!

Catag94 said:

---

I have asked before, why would you withhold the body and blood of Christ from anyone who seeks it earnestly. The usual answer is thAt out of compassion, they do not want one to take condemnation in himself. Yet every 6 YO is ok.
My wife teaches the confirmation-2 kids. 9 of 10 of them don't even come to mass, don't speak up in class, and don't do the work my wife (a very devout and faithful follower of Christ) gives them to do. There is no indication of a real faith in most of these kids. And often, they don't come to mass after confirmation either. It truly seems like they and their families just want to check the box. Yet, the RCC will gladly have these kids petals and share in the sacrament of the Eucharist.
To me, if a real faith and desire to follow Christ is not discernible by the priest, this should not happen or perhaps the church aiding in one taking condemnation on himself.

---

I was really moved by your testimony. IMO, I think you are looking at communion backwards in the following sense. Most protestants are under the impression they are being denied the Eucharist. What is really at issue is that the Priest does not want to place someone in the position of bearing false witness. When the Eucharist is presented as "The Body of Christ", the parishioner should respond with "Amen". Amen by definition is "it is true". If you don't believe transubstantiation, saying "Amen" would be lie and that's not a good move for anyone trying to be a better Christian.

Finally, for those taking communion, it is up to the individual to decide if they are in the right place spiritually to accept the Eucharist. My advice to you would be to spend less (more like zero) time contemplating the "right" of others to receive it and more time focused if you should receive it. Practice forgiveness. Your salvation is based on your relationship with Christ, not what others are doing or not doing.

I'm not sure why you haven't just gone ahead with RCIA given your statements. There are Catholic teachings that I don't fully agree with and/or I have a hard time accepting. However, I don't denounce those things, I work for a better understanding. Sometimes I move closer, sometimes farther. I am comforted by the knowledge that none of us are really in "full communion" until our time here has ended and we are called. Until then, every day is a struggle towards that goal.

I completely understand your concern in regard to Catholic education. It is a mess and has been for years. It is why the numbers in the pews are getting thinner. I honestly learned to study the bible more through my Protestant friends. Many would ask me about Catholic theology. It made me feel stupid that I didn't have the answers. It led me into exploring Catholic apologetics in my late teen years. CCD didn't teach me about Catholism; I taught myself. Not everyone leaving your classes is going to have a deep understanding of their faith, but it sounds like you are planting healthy seeds that will someday bear much fruit.

FIDO95 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

I have asked before, why would you withhold the body and blood of Christ from anyone who seeks it earnestly. The usual answer is thAt out of compassion, they do not want one to take condemnation in himself. Yet every 6 YO is ok.
My wife teaches the confirmation-2 kids. 9 of 10 of them don't even come to mass, don't speak up in class, and don't do the work my wife (a very devout and faithful follower of Christ) gives them to do. There is no indication of a real faith in most of these kids. And often, they don't come to mass after confirmation either. It truly seems like they and their families just want to check the box. Yet, the RCC will gladly have these kids petals and share in the sacrament of the Eucharist.
To me, if a real faith and desire to follow Christ is not discernible by the priest, this should not happen or perhaps the church aiding in one taking condemnation on himself.

---

I was really moved by your testimony. IMO, I think you are looking at communion backwards in the following sense. Most protestants are under the impression they are being denied the Eucharist. What is really at issue is that the Priest does not want to place someone in the position of bearing false witness. When the Eucharist is presented as "The Body of Christ", the parishioner should respond with "Amen". Amen by definition is "it is true". If you don't believe transubstantiation, saying "Amen" would be lie and that's not a good move for anyone trying to be a better Christian.

Finally, for those taking communion, it is up to the individual to decide if they are in the right place spiritually to accept the Eucharist. My advice to you would be to spend less (more like zero) time contemplating the "right" of others to receive it and more time focused if you should receive it. Practice forgiveness. Your salvation is based on your relationship with Christ, not what others are doing or not doing.

I'm not sure why you haven't just gone ahead with RCIA given your statements. There are Catholic teachings that I don't fully agree with and/or I have a hard time accepting. However, I don't denounce those things, I work for a better understanding. Sometimes I move closer, sometimes farther. I am comforted by the knowledge that none of us are really in "full communion" until our time here has ended and we are called. Until then, every day is a struggle towards that goal.

I completely understand your concern in regard to Catholic education. It is a mess and has been for years. It is why the numbers in the pews are getting thinner. I honestly learned to study the bible more through my Protestant friends. Many would ask me about Catholic theology. It made me feel stupid that I didn't have the answers. It led me into exploring Catholic apologetics in my late teen years. CCD didn't teach me about Catholism; I taught myself. Not everyone leaving your classes is going to have a deep understanding of their faith, but it sounds like you are planting healthy seeds that will someday bear much fruit.

---

Thank you for you post.
Quick responses here

It may be semantics but, one who believes in consubstantiation could respond 'Amen' and not be baring false whiteness. And, I am not saying that I don't believe in transubstantiation.

I don't want my comments earlier to suggest I sit in judgement if others. I fact, during communion, I often just pray that those taking the Eucharist do so in earnest with a heart of reverence. However, I think most six year olds, to your first point are probably baring false whiteness simply out of ignorance or lack of understanding.

I don't go through RCIA simply because I don't believe it necessary to be Catholic to seek, know, and share Christ or to Love God with all my heart, soul, strength, and mind or to love my neighbor as myself. I think one day in the presence of Christ, all that will matter is that He knows me and my name is written in the book of life. Meanwhile, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the RCC either (I know others who do). I honestly try to share Christ with others, even if that is the Catholic Church.

Anyway, thanks again. I enjoy your posts.

I'm not 100% clear but on what you are referring to in regards to "need for grace". Catholics don't believe the Eucharist is needed for grace. The celebration of the Eucharist is from Jesus' commandment to his followers in Luke 22. It's designed to enrich your relationship with Christ. The Mass is a combination of Word of God and breaking of bread because as in the Walk of Emmaus, Christ presence to the disciples was only revealed after both were done. Having said all that, since Vatican II, the Catholic Church recognizes baptism and sacraments of other Protestant faiths. While I obviously believe the Catholic path is the best one, I in no way think you need to do Catholic things to get to heaven.

Sorry where did I write need for grace?

Let's not get lines crossed - "needed for grace" seems like you might be talking about a state of grace? I'm not sure.

For us Orthodox grace is God's activity in the world. Not favor (merited or otherwise) or an indicator of our own status. So the sacraments, or mysteries as we refer to them, are means of receiving that grace.

I agree with you on your 'understanding not required to receive God's Grace' point. However, maybe my point about 6 YOs was taken wrong. I simply was trying to illustrate that while the Catholic clergy will tell me that they recognize my baptism, they recognize my faith as true and real and quickly agree that I too am Christian and that as heaven is certainly open to me, they won't allow me to take the Eucharist. They will however, marry my Catholic wife and me. (another sacrament). So I think the Eucharist issue comes down to belief and that eventually comes down to understanding at some level.

I am a memeber of the catholic (universal) church. I also recognize that this does not put me in the Catholic (RCC) Church.
But, if the RCC recognizes other Christian denominations' baptisms and see those people as followers of Christ, I am surprised that they can't at least have a discussion with me to determine my beliefs and then, seeing that I believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, allow me to take it. On the contrary, they can herd a bunch of 6YO kids through CDC, then give communion to all of them.

Perhaps the question I should ask is, on what basis does the RCC think it is justified to offer the Eucharist to those kids but not to an adult Christian believer who can easily explain his beliefs.

Eventually, while you guys can articulate very sound reasons for this, in general, it seems the RCC is more about saving the Eucharist as a "members only" benefit. As long as you are a registered member, that's all that really matters.

Please don't take this as me being combative. I have been worshiping God, praying, and praising Him in the Catholic Church for years now. I am very comfortable with it because I am very comfortable with my relationship with Christ. I just think the RCC is withholding Christ's Body and Blood from one of their brothers in Christ.

Catag94 said:

---

I agree with you on your 'understanding not required to receive God's Grace' point. However, maybe my point about 6 YOs was taken wrong. I simply was trying to illustrate that while the Catholic clergy will tell me that they recognize my baptism, they recognize my faith as true and real and quickly agree that I too am Christian and that as heaven is certainly open to me, they won't allow me to take the Eucharist. They will however, marry my Catholic wife and me. (another sacrament). So I think the Eucharist issue comes down to belief and that eventually comes down to understanding at some level.

I see that as me being part of the catholic (universal) church. I also resognize that this does not put me in the Catholic (RCC) Church.
But, if the RCC recognizes other Christian denominations' baptisms and see those people as followers of Christ, I am surprised that they can't at least have a discussion with me to determine my beliefs and then, seeing that I believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, allow me to take it. On the contrary, they can herd a bunch of 6YO kids through CDC, then give communion to all of them.

Perhaps the question I should ask is, on what basis does the RCC think it is justified to offer the Eucharist to those kids but not to an adult Christian believer who can easily explain his beliefs.

Eventually, while you guys can articulate very sound reasons for this, in general, it seems the RCC is more about saving the Eucharist as a "members only" benefit. As long as you are a registered member, that's all that really matters.

Please don't take this as me being combative. I have been worshiping God, praying, and praising Him in the Catholic Church for years now. I am very comfortable with it because I am very comfortable with my relationship with Christ. I just think the RCC is withholding Christ's Body and Blood from one of their brothers in Christ.

---

Have you asked a priest these questions or are you saying the priest of the church you go to won't even talk to you? If so, that would surprise me and I would be looking for a new church.

Separately, while I was raised Catholic but have not been to mass in many years, I do recall there being adults who went through a process to become Catholic. Have you explored that?

This might answer some of your questions on children receiving their first communion:
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2010/04/08/can-children-make-their-first-communion-before-their-first-confession/

While not an official source and I am not an expert to be able to "fact check" it, it does appear that there is an onus on parents to ensure their children understand prior to receiving first communion. Is that happening? I have no idea.

Zobel, you are obviously intelligent and as such I assumed you'd recognize that catholic (lower case) simply mean universal, but I put universal in parentheses just in case.

This is why I have no issue with the part of the creed that states .."believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church". And yes, in the creed, the word is lower case and means universal.

I understand what you're saying, but the RCC teaches that the universal church and the RCC have an identity relationship. In other words, the venn diagram between the universal church and the RCC is just one circle.

You're making two circles that overlap, but that is a difference in understanding. The idea that there's a visible church and then some unknowable invisible church is at odds with the historical understanding of what church actually means. It is a concrete thing, an assembly of people, who have assembled at the eucharist.

I wrote a post a while back on this topic here.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2968219/0


Also, just to be pedantic when the creed was written there wasn't lowercase or upper case.

Zobel said:

---

I understand what you're saying, but the RCC teaches that the universal church and the RCC have an identity relationship. In other words, the venn diagram between the universal church and the RCC is just one circle.

You're making two circles that overlap, but that is a difference in understanding. The idea that there's a visible church and then some unknowable invisible church is at odds with the historical understanding of what church actually means. It is a concrete thing, an assembly of people, who have assembled at the eucharist.

I wrote a post a while back on this topic here.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2968219/0

---

Zobel, just one small clarification in that the "Catholic" position is that the RCC is one of several churches that make up the OHCAC. There are many other churches in communion with the RCC. It's not the RCC alone. Peace!

Ahh but they will recognize other Christians as being part of the universal church as followers of Christ.
Very much like Acts 10 where Peter, while speaking in Caesarea noticed the Holy Spirit came upon those listening including the Gentiles, and because of this he insisted they too be baptized.

Yes, I was oversimplifying. Replace what I said with churches in communion with Rome. Thanks for clarifying.

I think your understanding isn't quite what the teaching is - but I could be wrong. There's a difference between denying the agency of God, the ability to save whom He will, and identifying the Church.

Only a few years ago:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/09/eucharistic-real-presence-martin-luthers-magnificent-defense.html

"The theme of the week of Christian unity has Vatican watchers wondering if the Pope may announce that in certain limited cases intercommunion for Protestants might be possible. The Pope suggested such previously in an informal talk at a Lutheran parish in Rome where in November 2015 he told a Lutheran woman asking about receiving Communion with her Catholic husband to "go forward" guided by individual conscience.

That suspicion was given momentum last month when Cardinal Walter Kasper, one of the Pope's closest advisors, said he hoped that the Pope's "next declaration opens the way for shared Eucharistic communion in special cases."

Eucharistic intercommunion is the main desire for Lutheran and Catholic leaders involved in the Papal participation in the Lutheran commemoration. Swedish Professor Dr. Clemens Cavallin in an essay on "Sweden and the 500-year reformation anamnesis" notes that the Church of Sweden webpage states explicitly about the pope's visit: "What we foremost wish is that the common celebration of the Eucharist will be officially possible. This is especially important for families where members"

Catag94 said:

---

Ahh but they will recognize other Christians as being part of the universal church as followers of Christ.
Very much like Acts 10 where Peter, while speaking in Caesarea noticed the Holy Spirit came upon those listening including the Gentiles, and because of this he insisted they too be baptized.

---

Catag94,

You are our Brother in Christ and we see you as such. We believe that as long as anyone has a trinitarian baptism they are in a union with the mystical body of Christ. Now the other Catholic rites outside of the Roman rite, all profess the Creed, not all say the filioque btw and that is ok, accept the authority of the Pope and share the apostolic faith. It is my understanding that you haven't arrived there, but I feel your frustration.

I was not raised Catholic, I personally was very anti Catholic for some time. I never understood the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Our Lord as you do. I learned of the Eucharist in a history class, I took on the fools errand to prove it false. The Lord has a sense of humor and brought me in through my stubborn foolishness.

I remember going through RCiA believing I had greater knowledge than your average Catholic and it was unfair that they could receive the Eucharist and probably they didn't have the appreciation I would. That seemed counterproductive to say the least. I am glad I didn't succumb to my pride.

Your faith and good works do bring grace into your life. The sacraments, especially the Most Blessed Sacrament do continuously bring additional grace into your life. You have mentioned the 6 year olds that receive, and it is impossible for them to have your appreciation for the sacrament, which may be true. However did our Lord not tell us to enter the Kingdom we should have faith like they do. Your heart longs for the Lord, because it was built to offer your love and worship to him To receive him fully be like the child who gives all trust to the Father, maybe this will help you take the steps necessary to receive Our Lord.

FIDO95 said:

---

"Question for you guys. As I understand from your postings, you view the biggest differentiator and advantage of the RCC and the Orthodox Churches over Protestantism as being a unity of doctrine."

Great discussions all around. Since we are all Aggies here, let me give my 2 cents in a way only an Aggie can understand. Mind you, I'm Catholic and was in the Corps so there will be some bias here:

You are an Aggie (Christian) the moment you accept your invitation (accept Christ as your Savior) to attend the University. Some people, for tragedy or misfortune, will never get an opportunity to set foot on campus (the unborn). Some people, due to academic difficulties, will never be offered a seat to attend lectures but are Aggies nonetheless. I dare any of you to tell our family friend with Down Syndrome he is not an Aggie; That boy is more Aggie then 95% of TexAgs. Some people pretend to be Aggies (Jonestown, Branch Davidians), but let's face it, Blinn students aren't Aggies even if they wear maroon underwear.

The Corps of Cadets (Catholics) trace their origins and traditions back to the inception of the college. Through various reforms, the Non-regs (Protestants) emerged decades (Centuries) ago. I think we can all agree that the shared history makes us all stronger and our university wouldn't be what it is without either present. We can agree some traditions like hazing and axe handling (indulgences) went off the rails and needed to be addressed. We can mostly agree that some reforms like group identity politics (wokism) is diluting what it means to be an Aggie, We are and should be Aggies first.

While many non-regs believe the members of the Corps of Cadets follow universal practices, there are significant differences between the various units. And then there are the BQs (Orthodox) who participate in a lot of the same activities, wear the same uniforms, but do some very different things. The BQs also follow the Drum Major instead of the Corps Commander (Pope)... And on that note, the Corps Commander has very little to do with the daily workings within individual units (Churches).

There are some good Aggies in the Corps and there are some bad ones. There of some good Aggies that non-regs, and there are frats... opps did that slip out!? At the end of the day, what determines whether or not you are a good Aggie (Christian) is not by what others can see, but by the feelings you harbor in your heart. Are you doing as much as you can with the gifts given to your time in College Station (Matthew 5;14-16)? Are you setting an example of what being an Aggie should be to those around you (John 13:14-15)? I don't have the ability to see another man's heart, but I can see how a heart leads a man in their actions. I can usually pick out who I think are the good Ags by how they behave. If I see something wrong, I might gently point that out. However, I would truly only judge with an abundance of caution (Matthew 6:14).

Now to your original question using that background analogy: The biggest thing the RCC and orthodox church offer isn't "uniformity" as much as they place a greater stress on the mystical side of faith. I believe that is where it truly belongs. Faith, by definition, is not something you can quantify. The Holy Spirit (the Spirit) something you feel. From the outside you don't get understand it, from the inside you can't explain it... Sound familiar?

I am the type of person that would have found being a non-reg really boring. I really enjoy the tradition (Corps and Catholic) and believe it makes the experience complete. I believe in the mystical (i.e. Christ's presence in the Eucharist). I have attended many different protestant services and I've heard in those churches many very good sermons. But for me, it was just like attending a lecture in a bland lecture hall. Something is missing. For many people that is enough and that's fair. My sister, who was a terrible "Christian" as a Catholic, found a non-denominational church and now prays regularly. Had Catholism been the only option, I doubt she would have ever truly discovered Christ and placed Christ at the center of her heart. If you are happy in your church and feel God's presence, by all means stay. If you think there is something missing, give the RCC a try. But where every you go to church, keep searching and questioning. Final Review is coming though "you know nor the hour nor the day". Gig 'em (God Bless).

---

Great post, and a much more attractive way of presenting it than Zobel. It's my understanding from his posts that only members of the EO, and probably RCC too, are Aggies. The rest of us are attending Blinn.

And your second to last paragraph I find very attractive. I do like the mysticism, and yet the intellectualism, of the RCC, very much so. I also like liturgy - I find that it makes me much more receptive to a spiritual attitude than listening to a rock band on a stage. However, what keeps me from becoming a member of the RCC is its seeming refusal to admit its own faults, its failure to recognize that those faults may be systemic rather than one off, and that the basis of the systemic faults may be some claims to authority that are "a bridge too far". I love the idea of a unified Church and would love it if the RCC would return to its original roots. However, as an outsider, it seems that the RCC has over time become a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies has taken on a life of its own and has forgotten its original mission, which is to serve Christ, honor Christ, and be subservient to Christ.

Many posters on here seem to make the RCC itself something to worship and to bow down to. For example, the idea that any organization of men can be infallible is a non-starter for me. If the RCC could admit that it could be fallible, and that the Scriptures are the standard by which to measure it, then I would be more open to being an RCC.

Another way of putting it - I agree with your analogy that the Corps is the heart of A&M. However, the Corps went through decades in the wilderness when it had lost its way. It had, at times and places, become sort of a Lord of the Flies environment. For Aggies who attended during those times, being a non-reg was very probably the better decision.

jrico2727 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Ahh but they will recognize other Christians as being part of the universal church as followers of Christ.
Very much like Acts 10 where Peter, while speaking in Caesarea noticed the Holy Spirit came upon those listening including the Gentiles, and because of this he insisted they too be baptized.

---

Catag94,

You are our Brother in Christ and we see you as such. We believe that as long as anyone has a trinitarian baptism they are in a union with the mystical body of Christ. Now the other Catholic rites outside of the Roman rite, all profess the Creed, not all say the filioque btw and that is ok, accept the authority of the Pope and share the apostolic faith. It is my understanding that you haven't arrived there, but I feel your frustration.

I was not raised Catholic, I personally was very anti Catholic for some time. I never understood the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Our Lord as you do. I learned of the Eucharist in a history class, I took on the fools errand to prove it false. The Lord has a sense of humor and brought me in through my stubborn foolishness.

I remember going through RCiA believing I had greater knowledge than your average Catholic and it was unfair that they could receive the Eucharist and probably they didn't have the appreciation I would. That seemed counterproductive to say the least. I am glad I didn't succumb to my pride.

Your faith and good works do bring grace into your life. The sacraments, especially the Most Blessed Sacrament do continuously bring additional grace into your life. You have mentioned the 6 year olds that receive, and it is impossible for them to have your appreciation for the sacrament, which may be true. However did our Lord not tell us to enter the Kingdom we should have faith like they do. Your heart longs for the Lord, because it was built to offer your love and worship to him To receive him fully be like the child who gives all trust to the Father, maybe this will help you take the steps necessary to receive Our Lord.

---

Thank you so much for your post, sincerely. I really value your thoughts and experience and respect your testimony.

I would only add, at the risk of sounding prideful (something of which I truly do not want to be guilty) that, I honestly completely understand the 'faith like that of a child' ideology. I would say that is precisely how I am in my trusting/believing in the things I can not see. Years ago I responded to the Father calling me like a child and over the years, I believe I have moved on to 'solid food' as I have matured in my faith through prayer, worship, seeking Christ, and feasting on the Word of God aided by the Holy Spirit. I seek to do this communally with fellow believers as I believe Christ intends. I personally make no distinction as it relates to denominations. And, subject to believing in the core principles of the Gospel and teachings of Christ, like can be seen in the Acts of the Apostles, I think it would be awesome if all Christians could/would commune together at some level, despite how crazy that may seem.

After all, we are 'All sons and daughters of God through faith in Jesus Christ, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.' (Gal 3:26-28)

I believe that today, Paul would likely add that there is neither RCC, Orthodox, nor protestant to this list.

Quote:

---

After all, we are 'All sons and daughters of God through faith in Jesus Christ, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.' (Gal 3:26-28)

I believe that today, Paul would likely add that there is neither RCC, Orthodox, nor protestant to this list.

---

Amen

If you're not a member of a church, you're not a member.

I believe the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. If you're separate from that, you're not in the church. It doesn't mean you're not a Christian, or that you don't follow Christ, or that He can't save you, or you're damned. I do think the Church has the fullness of truth, and I think those outside of it do not.

I would hope that everyone believes this about their church.

When asking the RCC to be measured by the scriptures you're basically asking them to accept a Protestant ecclesiology. It's a non starter. It also doesn't work, because the scriptures don't and can't self ratify. You can't have scriptures without a canonical authority.

Quote:

---

I believe that today, Paul would likely add that there is neither RCC, Orthodox, nor protestant to this list.

---

Completely disagree. St. Paul was very clear about who was in the church, about what we are to do with those who do not keep the commandments or teach a different gospel or who are disobedient to the traditions and way of life he passed on, in multiple places.

I sincerely think minimizing real differences in favor of general commonalities can result in confessing that no church has the fullness of truth. This is a very bad teaching.

Zobel said:

---

If you're not a member of a church, you're not a member.

I believe the Orthodox Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. If you're separate from that, you're not in the church. It doesn't mean you're not a Christian, or that you don't follow Christ, or that He can't save you, or you're damned. I do think the Church has the fullness of truth, and I think those outside of it do not.

I would hope that everyone believes this about their church.

When asking the RCC to be measured by the scriptures you're basically asking them to accept a Protestant ecclesiology. It's a non starter. It also doesn't work, because the scriptures don't and can't self ratify. You can't have scriptures without a canonical authority.

---

Of course the Scriptures can and do self ratify. And if your position is that they cannot, then the church itself cannot self ratify either.

And thank you for grudgingly conceding that I am a Christian. That may be the first time that you have acknowledged that fact.

You never asked for my opinion it. It isn't grudging. You have a chip on your shoulder that's coloring much of this discussion. It's unwarranted, and it's making you assume things about me and what I'm saying that aren't correct.

As for the scriptures. Absolutely not. They list no canon. There is no scripture that says scripture are the measure of the church. There is no historical reality that points to scripture forming the church - the reality is the other way around.


Easier to copy paste from other threads where we've had this discussion before.

Scripture isn't self authenticating. A book doesn't <<verb>> anything. It just sits there. There are hundreds of spurious works that make all sorts of claims. If we accept that any book which makes a claim to divine inspiration is authoritative on the face of it, we have to accept nearly every religious text as true, both of current religions and dead ones.

Now we have the question of how to transmit and hold fast to these oral instructions. Nowhere in the written scripture does it make a claim that the NT is an exhaustive or exclusive list of instructions or prescriptions for Christians. In fact, it makes the opposite claim that there is a good deal left unwritten (John 16:12, John 20:30, John 21:25). What then?

The Word of God is Jesus Christ. He is the self-Authentication of God - in John 5 He explains that the witness to Him is the works He does, and the scriptures testify about Him. Christ actually says that life is in Him, not the scriptures. The scriptures "authenticate" because the information inside them is true, and the standard is Christ... not the other way around.

But we're still left with the position of how do we know what is true? In other words, how do we come to know Christ, so that by the Spirit of Truth we can discern (1 Cor 2:14)? There are spurious books about Jesus Christ that also claim to be true. In the words of scripture, how can we understand if no one explains it to us?

There has to be a mechanism to ratify and convey the trustworthiness of the message. And of course we have one: the testimony of those who knew Christ.

"You are witnesses of these things." Luke 24:48
"And you also bear witness, because you are with Me from the beginning." John 15:27
"And we are witnesses of all things that He did, both in the region of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they also put to death, having hanged Him on a tree. This One God raised up on the third day, and gave Him to become manifest, not to all the people, but to the witnesses having been chosen beforehand by God, to us who did eat with and drink with Him after His rising out from the dead. And He instructed us to proclaim to the people and to testify fully..." Acts 10

The writing comes after, and is ratified by public teaching - "teaching you publicly and from house to house" Acts 20:20. In fact, the scriptural chain is by public teaching, not writing - "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be competent to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2.

In the scriptures we even see that some things are said face to face: "I had many things to write to you, but I do not desire to write to you with ink and pen, instead, I hope to see you soon and speak face to face." (3 John 1:14)

And of course, we have transmitted them by preaching and teaching. All a person needs to do is to examine the public teaching, the public testimony, and the public preaching of the Church and use that as their guide. Whatever has been publicly entrusted is trustworthy and reliable - and this is the method by which scripture is authentic. This has always been the canonical standard: what scriptures are reliable are the ones read in the Church (i.e., publicly taught as we see in 1 Timothy 4:13 - "Until I come, give heed to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.)

When you break the chain of public teaching or omit it, there is no way to preserve or authenticate which writings are truly trustworthy and authoritative.