Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Rutles4Ever; BulldogCatholic; Biker Pat; kosta50; annalex

"If what you [Bulldog Catholic] are saying is true, then Jesus was the greatest conman who ever lived. If the very sacrifice itself has been somehow penetrated by Satan, then the Church has fallen, contrary to the promise of Christ. If what Peter binds on earth is not bound in heaven, if 'he who hears you' does NOT 'hear Me', then you've gone a long way to proving that salvation history is a sham."

C.S. Lewis, an Anglican, used that sort of argument against atheists. So have I from time to time against Protestants, most recently Biker Pat. Here an NO RC is using it against a more traditional one.

The argument works as above stated by Rutles4Ever only if one identifies the Church with a particular see, in this instance Rome, under any and all circumstances. Constantinople, for example, says to be Orthodox requires union with Constantinople. Orthodox outside of that union, however, find this claim absurd.


75 posted on 08/09/2005 5:31:32 AM PDT by Graves (Remember Esphigmenou - Orthodoxy or Death!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: Graves; Rutles4Ever

>>>>The argument works as above stated by Rutles4Ever only if one identifies the Church with a particular see, in this instance Rome, under any and all circumstances. Constantinople, for example, says to be Orthodox requires union with Constantinople. Orthodox outside of that union, however, find this claim absurd.

I'm not sure you are correct that the argument only works if one identifies the Church with a particular see. If you define the Church in the sense of the Catholic Church (as do the trads we are talking about - as compared to the Orthodox), and you then state that the Mass is invalid, the quite simply the necessary characterictics of the Church, e.g., one of the necessary sacraments is lost, and the church is not truly indefectible. As he stated, if the Mass is gone, the Church has fallen. The argument only collapses if you import a different definition of Church entirely (not merely changing the association with a particular see), and define the Church to include the Orthodox, for example. However, none of the people in this debate do that.

This is, IMHO, one of the fundamental problems with sedevacantism. I consider it to fly in the face of the promises Christ made to the Church, if its carried through its logical ends.

patent


94 posted on 08/09/2005 9:23:06 AM PDT by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson