Christ's Church

[Beryllos]

Concerning historical changes in church teachings and disciplines, I quote this from the CCC:

Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:
— “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”; it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth.”

— “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience,” the sacred Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.”

— “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.”

95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

 

[ichabode]

what happens if, down the years, the Church strays from what God taught? Is that still the Church of God?

The answer would be NO. It would not be the Church of God, and that is why it is important to check what the other Christian Churches teach and see if that is the one deposit of faith handed to the Apostles.

You can do this by reading scripture and reading what those early priest and Bishops, who were the disciples of the disciples, wrote about. There are many of their writings and you they are called the “Early Church Fathers”. I always found it interesting that when I walk into a protestant book store they have numerous books on Angles and spirituality etc, but they never have any of the writings by the disciples of Saint John. I would think every Christian would want to read what the disciples of the Apostles taught. Don’t you?

 

[benjohnson]

It comes from the Latin word ‘papa’ meaning ‘father’ which traditionally being used to address priests. It stuck with the Pope and papacy is a noun understood to describe the institution and the succession of the Pope

A bit of trivia: the Roman Bishop wasn’t the first to be called Pope - If I remember correctly, the first was the Patriarch of Alexandria.

 

[Reuben_J]

A bit of trivia: the Roman Bishop wasn’t the first to be called Pope - If I remember correctly, the first was the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Exactly. It is just a word used by Catholics to mean the whole institution of the seat of Peter . Had the word Pope did not stuck, we would have another term today.

Similarly we were never called Roman Catholics. It stuck nevertheless.

Thanks.

Reuben.

 

[MarcoPG]

Men modified the confessions all the time. That’s how the Filioque was added to the creed. That being said, the Augsburg confession wasn’t a modification of a creed or confession.

Lots of reformers were rejected in their time. Now your church looks at Luther a lot more favorable than it did hundreds of years ago.

Lutheranism has hierarchy, veneration of saints, and the real presence…

1. Men modified (developed) it, and then it was ratified by the Church, in the same fashion as, in the first century in the Book af Acts, 15:28, it comes “from the Holy Spirit and the Apostles”. So not merely from men, but from one and the same authority, which is divine
   Another quotation is Peter saying that lying to the Apostles is lying to the Spirit (5:3);
2. As I said, reforming is not the problem, it is the preservation of the Faith; how the Church regarded Luther is also a question of how the hierarchy behaved which wasn’t always the best, but we chould make the difference between the pope as a sinner, which he is, and the pope as the rock, which he also is. An opinion on Luther may change, but this doesn’t change the Faith. Again, Look at Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena, these were reformers, too. But the big difference was that they wanted to reform the behaviour, not the Faith. For sure every single reformer that would go against Catholicism has to be rejected;
3. I made some examples here, which maybe weren’t the clearest, yes. But when I say hierarchy, I mean a head of the bishops, which would maintain the Faith from being changed and not, in the end, private interpretation;

Venerating the saints and the doctrine of soli Deo gloria are a bit conflicting in Lutheranism then. Or, if it is permitted, well, it is pretty Catholic. No, it would be Catholic, i the meaning of this veneation had not been changed. Lutherans may honour saints, but deny any participation in Christ’s power and intercession, which is also an aspect for which they are venerated;

The definition of the real presence is not the same in Lutheranism and Catholicism, that is why I mentioned it;

I could have made other examples, like Sola Scriptura, which was quite a novelty.

 

[Duane1966]

I just know that when the Church proclaims something dogmattically, I hear Jesus. If I choose to reject something the Church teaches dogmattically, I know I am rejecting Jesus. End of story.

 

[Dorothy]

I just know that when the Church proclaims something dogmattically, I hear Jesus. If I choose to reject something the Church teaches dogmattically, I know I am rejecting Jesus. End of story.

Amen.

 

[Hat4]

This I understand…seriously…but have you thought of the influence of man throughout the 2,000 years? Again…it’s been squirreling around in my head and just thought I’d put it out there.

When Constantine became “king” there had to be those who wanted to have his ear…would not some abuse of those wanting their way happen? Just a thought as well.

Hello Rita,

I’ve always enjoyed your charitable posting style so count me as one more who won’t “unfriend” you over honest questions.

When I was looking around I had considered the influence of men also. I think the difference is I decided to trust the people who had been defending the faith for 2,000 years over trying to decide which of the many people who came recently supposedly finally found true Christianity. The example of Constantine actually strengthens that for me. You are correct, there were people who had Constantine’s ear, they were called Arians. Despite this the Church still voted to deny Arianism even with an Emperor who favored them.

 

[Dorothy]

Hi Rita,

The infallibility of the Magisterium is with regard to not teaching error in faith and morals.

It does not mean that all the members of the Church (even popes, bishops, and cardinals) will be in a state of high sanctity and friendship with the Lord.

I am aware that Luther had a right to be upset… he saw corruption that needed correction. The Church needed correction and renewal, but not a change in doctrine. I don’t know as lot about all this as do others…it can get so complicated.

All Christians have free will, and many make bad choices constantly. I see that it is across the board of many denominations, not just in the Catholic Church.

I am thankful for the heroic virtue of the saints that give us great example of what the Lord can do in us when we cooperate!

Peace in our Lord Jesus Christ,

Dorothy

 

[rfournier103]

)** Jesus did not use the word ‘Papacy,’ but He did clearly establish the Papacy**.
Where did the word papacy come from?
2) Mary is not worshipped or adored, period. Only God is worshipped and adored. The teachings of the Catholic Church in regard to Mary make sense, and Martin Luther, the earliest Protestant, even accepted them.
Agreed! But she is known as the Queen of Heaven and I cannot find where that came from - without checking out websites that have misinformation. Martin Luther accepted them but not all that Martin said is followed by Lutherans
3) Petitioning saints in heaven is referenced in the book of Revelation (it mentions the prayers of the saints).
I need more study in that area
4) Apostolic succession is a fact. Jesus blew on His disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” These disciples ordained priests. Those priests ordained priests. This has continued to this day.
I have no problem with Apostolic Succession but where are the other apostles??
5) The Sacramental system is all over scripture.
If the Catholic Church chooses to consider their sacraments that is their choice.
6**) Infant Baptism parallels the Old Testament practice of circumsizing infants.**
I have no problem with Infant baptism and love to see a new “saint” brought into the kingdom
7) Confession of sin to a priest was instituted by Christ: “whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” - John 20:23I would have no problem having to confess to a priest but I believe that my requests and confessions can be brought right to Christ.
8) Purgatory is referenced in scripture.
Not convinced of this yet
9) Indulgences are exercised by the Church’s authority, bestowed on her by Christ.
All that I know about indulgences are those that were “sold” prereformation
**10) "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. " - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
** But are they written down so that they can be accessed and studied? I’ve asked and never had an answer.

Peace -

Rita

Good morning, Rita.

You have many questions and seem very interested in learning. Good for you!

1. The words “pope” - the person, and “papacy” - the office, come from the word “papa” which means father. I took this from www.catholicapologetics.org:

The faithful of the Church has always called their ordered leadership “father.” In Greek, the language of the early Church, the word for father was pappas; in Latin, the language of the later Church, the word for father was papa.

By the 300’s, bishops were sometimes called “pope” a corruption of the word for father. By the 700’s the title for affection and respect for the Bishop of Rome exclusively was Pope.

1. Mary being referred to as the Queen of Heaven comes directly from the Book of Revelation:

Rev. 12:1-5 ~ A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth. Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems. Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth. She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

Is there any doubt who the Child is? And knowing that, can there be any doubt who His mother is?

1. As was said above, the Book of Revelation contains MUCH that will be useful to your quest for knowledge.
2. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “where are the other Apostles?”
3. Seven Sacraments. Entire threads have sprung up about this.
   ~Baptism
   ~The Holy Eucharist
   ~Confession/Penance
   ~Confirmation
   ~Matrimony
   ~Holy Orders
   ~Anointing of the Sick

These could be discussed for days.

 

[rfournier103]

1. Okay.

Confession of sin to a priest was instituted by Christ: “whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” - John 20:23

I would have no problem having to confess to a priest but I believe that my requests and confessions can be brought right to Christ.

You have an interesting take on this… echoed by almost every Protestant who ever lived (and many Catholics, as well!)

Here’s the thing… WHY WHY WHY would Jesus EVER say this to his Apostles in the Gospel of John? After His glorious Resurrection? If every single sin is forgiven by a simple “I’m sorry, Jesus”; why would Jesus want to or need to bestow this awesome power on His chosen Apostles? And how could those men forgive sins (as Jesus clearly gave them authority to do so) if someone didn’t tell them out loud what their sins were? As far as we know, the Apostles were NOT given the authority to read minds.

The Church has stated that venial sins (lesser sins) do not require confession to a priest. Mortal sins (very serious sins) do. You may read more here: catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/mortal-and-venial-sin

1. and 9. I am not as well versed in these topics as I would like, and probably can’t give you the help you are looking for. I will leave you with these:
2. A link to Catholic Answers articles about PURGATORY: catholic.com/search/content/Purgatory
3. A link to Catholic Answers articles about INDULGENCES: catholic.com/search/content/indulgences
4. Traditions. If you’re looking for a place where they might all be written down, I would suggest the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don’t own a copy myself, but I’d bet you’re likely to find what you’re looking for in there.

Lastly, I recommend a good Catholic study Bible that will give you good commentary on the Church’s interpretation of Sacred Scripture. I own “The New Catholic Answer Bible”. A very good Bible aimed at answering the zillions of questions people have. Granted, it won’t give you a doctoral thesis on every topic, but it proved helpful to me.

 

[Duane1966]

When people confess their sins to Christ, does He ever retain any of them?

 

[Dorothy]

If they repent of their sins and have a resolve not to commit them again, then they are gone.

 

[MarcoPG]

About confessing directly to God, I heard from an evanngelical friend that doubting that he would forgive everything is doubting his love and mercy.
Still, i think there is something wrong with this, because we have examples in Scripture of God not forgiving certain actions, and we have the words of Jesus as well, implying that some sins aren’t forgiven. This also open the door to the temporal punishment problem. But first of all, it sounds to me a bit presumptuous, when we know our repentence is nt always that great, and God knows it, even if we think we are contrite. But as Christ said, not everyone will enter because he think he is righteous.

 

[Dorothy]

If they repent of their sins and have a resolve not to commit them again, then they are gone.

In my above statement I meant it regarding confessing to a priest one’s serious sins. The priest is “in persona Christi” and it is awesome to hear the words of absolution coming from him.

 

[spedteacherita]

Thanks, all for the charitable way in which you answered. I felt very sad last night because I was posting a question for discussion and got blasted by other Christians. I wasn’t coming back until today I decided to just check in and saw answers to question. I think I understand the keys given to Peter now…but someone on the EWTN radio mentioned that Paul ought to be remembered because he was martyred about the same time as Peter…remember that it was from EWTN. Anyways…I will go back and read over your responses and will probably have more questions to ask. Any other non-Catholics please join in. I wanted it to be a discussion from both sides.

God bless all!

 

[jpltanis]

As I’ve been reading thru some of the threads we have here I have a question that has been squirreling around in my head. Let’s say (as my friends have told me) that Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom and upon the 'Rock of Peter His Church is built. I think I’ve stated it correctly.

Now that squirreling question is what happens if, down the years, the Church strays from what God taught? Is that still the Church of God?

Please know that this is for discussion and debate and NOT for people to get angry with each other. I like a lot of what the Catholic Church teaches but I don’t think it’s the same as when Christ gave Peter the keys…

Discussion??

God Bless,
Rita

Hi Rita,

You posed an interesting question and I would answer it this way. Did the actions of Judas, Peter (his denial), abandonment of the apostles in-validated Jesus’s teachings in anyway?

If you consider the owner of the church is Jesus (God). He will work to protect his teaching from sinful man. Jesus personally guarantee that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. That is good enough for me. Jesus said it and I believe it. Important thing to see is that the church have had bad popes,bishops, and priests in its history and yet they didn’t make any teaching that were against the Bible and bind it to the church to believe. God will strike such a person dead before such things can happen. Yes, people can break from the faith and start their own church and indeed many have. Just look at Protestantism, you can see the fruits of it - the constant breaking off of each other and each to their own interpretations of the Bible. They have various amount of God’s truths but sadly not all of it.

 

[ericc]

As I’ve been reading thru some of the threads we have here I have a question that has been squirreling around in my head. Let’s say (as my friends have told me) that Peter was given the Keys of the Kingdom and upon the 'Rock of Peter His Church is built. I think I’ve stated it correctly.

Now that squirreling question is what happens if, down the years, the Church strays from what God taught? Is that still the Church of God?

Please know that this is for discussion and debate and NOT for people to get angry with each other. I like a lot of what the Catholic Church teaches but I don’t think it’s the same as when Christ gave Peter the keys…

Discussion??

God Bless,

Rita

That is an excellent question Rita. If the Church were ever to stray we can all pack up our bags and go home and do other things. Because this will mean that Jesus lied and that the Holy Spirit didn’t do his job. These verses together mean that a divine warranty was given some 2000 years ago.

Mat 16:18 “gates of Hades shall not prevail”
Mat 28:20 “I am with you always to the close of the age”
Jn 14:16 “…Counselor, to be with you for ever”
Jn 14:26 " he will teach you all things"
Jn 16:13 “he will guide you into all the truth”

If the warranty is broken or non-perpetual, then Jesus words can not be trusted as of divine origin. Then there is no need for any church at all. Because any church can teach error if without the protection of a divine warranty. And historical record shows only the CC was given that warranty because at that time there was only one holy catholic apostolic church. Any church that teaches error can only be at best titled a community gathering of like minded persons. Sure that church may also teach some truth. But when truth is mixed with untruths, discerning which is which becomes rather impossible.

Obviously when Jesus sent out the HS to teach us all things and truth for all times, it must necessarily mean that there are things yet to be taught. That there are truths to be taught and guided for all times. Therefore the stuff that Peter taught during his time compared to now would be different. The early Church focus would be rather different compared to now. During those times there was no child pornography, there was no injected drug abuse, there was no DNA genetic manipulation nor secular supported abortion clinics. Or technology capable of sustaining life artificially. As society evolves, technology and its moral implications need to be taught and guided.

 

[Telstar]

That is an excellent question Rita. If the Church were ever to stray we can all pack up our bags and go home and do other things. Because this will mean that Jesus lied and that the Holy Spirit didn’t do his job. These verses together mean that a divine warranty was given some 2000 years ago.

Mat 16:18 “gates of Hades shall not prevail”
Mat 28:20 “I am with you always to the close of the age”
Jn 14:16 “…Counselor, to be with you for ever”
Jn 14:26 " he will teach you all things"
Jn 16:13 “he will guide you into all the truth”

If the warranty is broken or non-perpetual, then Jesus words can not be trusted as of divine origin. Then there is no need for any church at all. Because any church can teach error if without the protection of a divine warranty. And historical record shows only the CC was given that warranty because at that time there was only one holy catholic apostolic church. Any church that teaches error can only be at best titled a community gathering of like minded persons. Sure that church may also teach some truth. But when truth is mixed with untruths, discerning which is which becomes rather impossible.

Obviously when Jesus sent out the HS to teach us all things and truth for all times, it must necessarily mean that there are things yet to be taught. That there are truths to be taught and guided for all times. Therefore the stuff that Peter taught during his time compared to now would be different. The early Church focus would be rather different compared to now. During those times there was no child pornography, there was no injected drug abuse, there was no DNA genetic manipulation nor secular supported abortion clinics. Or technology capable of sustaining life artificially. As society evolves, technology and its moral implications need to be taught and guided.

i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Telstars/Applause-2.gif

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Rita,

The infallibility of the Magisterium is with regard to not teaching error in faith and morals.

It does not mean that all the members of the Church (even popes, bishops, and cardinals) will be in a state of high sanctity and friendship with the Lord.

I am aware that Luther had a right to be upset… he saw corruption that needed correction. The Church needed correction and renewal, but not a change in doctrine. I don’t know as lot about all this as do others…it can get so complicated.

All Christians have free will, and many make bad choices constantly. I see that it is across the board of many denominations, not just in the Catholic Church.

I am thankful for the heroic virtue of the saints that give us great example of what the Lord can do in us when we cooperate!


Peace in our Lord Jesus Christ,

Dorothy