Christianity's First Dark Age

[JRKH]

Oh Elvisman, I can see you just aren’t going to get it. As long as Catholics keep seeing “The Church” as being a denomination, there will always be division. There were many churches, even with differing practices, in the New Testament, yet one Church. Things were not defined as much as they are now, which allowed for more unity.

Actually in one sense you are right and an another you are wrong. Yes the various early Church communities had varying practices - heck some even had and used different letters and gospel writings in their liturgy. Did this allow greater “Unity”? That might depend on how you define unity. When did the earliest heresies begin? Who fought them? How and Why were they defeated?
The Church, that is the one called Catholic, actually does not define itself as a denomination. It IS the original Christian Church. All other non-catholic churches have their roots within it because they all base their theology on the book assembled and protected by the Church for 1500 years before the “Reformation”.

The more humans try to figure out God and put him into a box, and giving everyone labels, the more there will be division. The more they stick to Jesus’ words alone, the more unity there will be.

I agree. Now let us take your advise. Let us Follow the Words of Jesus.

Let us take our disagreements and, “Tell it to the Church” (Matthew 18: 15-18)
Let us be,One for as Jesus Prayed, "“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one” (John 17:20-23)

So let’s do - Let’s follow Jesus own commands and stop labeling each other. Let’s take ALL the disagreements in theology to “The Church” as Jesus commands. Then, Once “The Authoritive Church” decides what is correct, and renders a decision we will all abide by that decision. For if we, “refuse to listen even to the church, let (us) be …as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Mattew 18:17)

These Are Jesus Own words. His own Command. Yet, among protestants who can say where this authoritative Church is?
One Church - One Authority - Those Are Christ’s Words.
Shall we ALL abide by them?

If all the denominations accept each other’s differences, as long as they were not condemned by Christ or his apostles, they can all be one. I feel unidifed with all Christians, despite some doctrinal/denominational differences because we all love Christ and try to follow him. Of course, the more we see eye to eye, the more we have in common, but we all are one body in Christ.

So what you are saying here is that the Body of Christ is allowed to be schizoprenic. That is to have different minds. That is to say differennt doctrines on the Matter and meaning of the Eucharist, the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, The Allowance of Contraception, and other docrinal issues are allowable for the sake of unity. Yet Christ Did not pray for such schizophrenic unity. He prayed that we be of one mind. To be one as He and the Father are One.
Can the Body have more than one mind and be called healthy?
Remember - You wish to stick to Christ’s words. Well - How well are you doing that when you do not seek the true unity of Christians within the Church He - Himself - Founded?
The Church He told us to take disagreements to?

Peace
James

 

[mesl4]

Oh you guys, I’m getting so tired of this. I just want to surrender and get confirmed and hope for mercy if I’m wrong. You all have very good arguments for many things. I do think you have a good case. There are just those things that make me wonder “How can that be God’s Church” (ie. crusades/inquisition/indulgence selling/other abuses that I really don’t know much about but people that know about them use those as reasons why catholics can’t be Holy Spirit led). Last wk I told my RCIA teacher I wouldn’t do the confirmation this year because I was no more convinced now then last yr- in fact, probably less convinced. But, if it’s wrong, I’m really depressed and confused. I just want to jump in and get over it. But I don’t know if that’s the right attitude- the “if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em” thing.

 

[elvisman]

Oh you guys, I’m getting so tired of this. I just want to surrender and get confirmed and hope for mercy if I’m wrong. You all have very good arguments for many things. I do think you have a good case. There are just those things that make me wonder “How can that be God’s Church” (ie. crusades/inquisition/indulgence selling/other abuses that I really don’t know much about but people that know about them use those as reasons why catholics can’t be Holy Spirit led). Last wk I told my RCIA teacher I wouldn’t do the confirmation this year because I was no more convinced now then last yr- in fact, probably less convinced. But, if it’s wrong, I’m really depressed and confused. I just want to jump in and get over it. But I don’t know if that’s the right attitude- the “if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em” thing.

First of all - who ever told you that individuals within the Church wouldn’t sin? Where is that written?

Secondly, the Church didn’t sell indulgences. This was an abuse that was perpetrated by individuals acting apart from the church.
The Spanish Inquisition was a product of the country of Spain. If there were Catholic individuals involved - they are the ones who were wrong - not the Church.

If you’re going to go by that measuring rod - NO church in the wolrd would pass your test because thay ALL have sinful people in them.
Don’t forget - Jesus chose 12 Apostles and one of them was a devil (John 6:70-71). Does that make Jesus fallible? Of course not.

Keep on with your RCIA studies. If you’re not ready yet - at least you realize this and are struggling towards the truth.

 

[Arandur]

Oh you guys, I’m getting so tired of this. I just want to surrender and get confirmed and hope for mercy if I’m wrong. You all have very good arguments for many things. I do think you have a good case. There are just those things that make me wonder “How can that be God’s Church” (ie. crusades/inquisition/indulgence selling/other abuses that I really don’t know much about but people that know about them use those as reasons why catholics can’t be Holy Spirit led). Last wk I told my RCIA teacher I wouldn’t do the confirmation this year because I was no more convinced now then last yr- in fact, probably less convinced. But, if it’s wrong, I’m really depressed and confused. I just want to jump in and get over it. But I don’t know if that’s the right attitude- the “if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em” thing.

I think investigating those things that cause you doubt is part of what you should be doing. Growing closer to God in prayer, devotion, and obedience in your moral life is primary, before and along with seeking to increase your knowledge of Him and His Will. I don’t think it’s wrong, however, to take the approach of submitting to what you think is God’s Will even if you aren’t quite sure–when in doubt, you follow God to the best of your ability, submitting to Him even when it is uncomfortable and praying for assurance and peace.

I personally think that, when considering Christianity, it is only right and proper to give the benefit of the doubt to the only Church that even claims to have existed and taught continually from Christ’s direct, personal establishment up to the present day (well the Orthodox make a similar claim, but they are the only others, and you will find that they essentially agree with us on all points of dogma). Why wouldn’t you give such a Church the benefit of the doubt? Particularly when none others come close, and there are good arguments to be made from so many sources to support it (whether you fully agree with those arguments or not).

In the meantime, I encourage you to keep learning and exploring those areas where you have doubt. The historical acts that you have listed have responses as well. Indeed, the “common knowledge” about these things is usually extremely propagandist and wildly inaccurate; modern scholarship tells a much more accurate tale than Protestants tend to. Then of course you have to ask yourself what actions matter, since none of us follow Jesus perfectly. We may know, believe, and teach perfect truth but struggle to follow it, or even personally choose not to. Does not Satan know much of the Truth, yet act against it? Why then should the failings of men in the Church be a surprise? Jesus came for sinners. His Truth is and can be preserved and transmitted uncorrupted and uncorruptible despite the sins of men; the fallible writers of Scripture transmitted this Truth infallibly in Scripture, did they not? So too with the Church.

 

[mesl4]

So would you say the RCC teaches that the Popes are like living apostles? That’s how the LDS see their “prophet”/president. They have living apostles so they think that they can trust them just as much as we could trust the original 12. Is that how the RCCs would see the Popes? Now, I assume they dont see all bishops that way since if they disagree w/the Pope on a doctrine, their opinion doesn’t really count, so it’d just be the Pope that has that authority right?

 

[Arandur]

So would you say the RCC teaches that the Popes are like living apostles? That’s how the LDS see their “prophet”/president. They have living apostles so they think that they can trust them just as much as we could trust the original 12. Is that how the RCCs would see the Popes? Now, I assume they dont see all bishops that way since if they disagree w/the Pope on a doctrine, their opinion doesn’t really count, so it’d just be the Pope that has that authority right?

Nope. The LDS believe their Prophet speaks directly with God’s voice, writes new Scripture, reveals new Public Revelation that changes, corrects, or adds to previously revealed truth and is necessary for salvation. The Catholic belief in infallibility is a much, much lesser gift. It is only that the Church is preserved from teaching error–not that it doesn’t make mistakes in the choices that it makes, and not that it teaches truth well, just that it doesn’t teach falsehoods. It is a lesser gift than the Inspiration of the Scriptures, which included both infallibility AND proper teaching well taught (Scripture teaches well if read in context; the Church does not always teach well).

Further, infallibility is only expressed under very limited conditions. The normal formula is teaching of the Magisterium through a collection of bishops (exercising the apostolic office) gathered in an ecumenical council at which the Petrine bishop is present. When such teachings are officially defined and received by the faithful (senses fidelius) and is in line with Scripture and Tradition, it is infallible. An ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope that is similarly “ratified” is also infallible–this is a sort of “emergency power” only very rarely expressed when the ecumenical council is not practical.

With the understanding that the gift of infallibility is so limited in its expression, and properly exercised by the action of the bishops in communion, it is apparent how Catholics regard all bishops as holding the apostolic office.

The difference between apostles (bishops) and the original Apostles was that the original Apostles, as explained in Scripture (including Matthias), all walked personally with Christ in the flesh and experienced his life on earth. As such, they had special graces with which to get the Church rolling, so to speak (they were entrusted with promoting the rest of Public Revelation as given by Jesus).