R
ralphinal
Guest
This is the first valid argument I have seen on the issue. Does it matter to your position if the Church knew about it but did not fix the problem versus the wrong idea being given to them from the beginning?
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
No. One is a sin of commission, and the other is the sin of omission. Both are equally wrong.
zerinus
R
ralphinal
Guest
Alright. Let me frame it in this way. Suppose that by the time the Church found out about it and reacted, it was too late. Most of the history of the Church was prior to the information age. News was slow to travel, then you had to study the problem. Does that make a difference?
Z
zerinus
Guest
Yes it would. But you will find that most of the cases in point do not fall into that category. The abuses often continued over extended periods of time during which communication was not an issue.
zerinus
R
ralphinal
Guest
Really? Suppose you look at the Crusades. Most of the “crimes” of the Crusades occured in such a manor that the Pope could not have stopped them. SOme of the other issues you mentioned were more societal than Church issues, such as the treatment of women. Anti-Jewish sentiment also has more than one cause, and it is unfair to pin it on the Church alone. The inquisition is a unique entity and is best served by its own study.
Can you name any faith system that does not have issues in its past?
Z
zerinus
Guest
The Crusades had a long history. There were many Crusades; and the Catholic Church had ample opportunity to learn from the first one not to commit the second. The Crusades were foundationally wrong, and against Christian principles, because they involved violence against another people simply because they were of another faith. Here is an informative link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade
You are now trying to justify or excuse the sins for which the Pope had apologized for. You need to make up your mind whether you want to go along with the Pope and apologize for them, or go against the Pope and justify them. Which one do you intend to do?
Maybe not; but that was not the issue. I brought that subject up because there were some posters like Sir Knight, FCEGM, and rinnie, who were arguing that the Catholic Church could do no wrong. If you are now admitting that it could, then thank you for agreeing with me.
zerinus
D
distracted
Guest
D
distracted
Guest
]
You cannot say Catholicism is no good because some of its people are “no good”… People are notorious for preaching wht they do not practice…
IYou are never guilty of that, are you ??
R
ralphinal
Guest
First, I do not concied that the Crusades were fundamentally wrong. In theory, they were needed, in application not so much.
Second, I agree with the Pope and what he said. He did not say the the Church taught sin or in error. He said humans had failed God.
Finally, I do not think that the Church can do wrong. I do think that rulings on things can be changed as information related to them changes. The statement about Freemasonry applies until it is shown that Freemasons do not fall into the problem category.
It is my position that the Catholic Church has never taught error or encouraged sin as virtue. This is not the position that you have. I am cool with that. I do not attack anyone for holding a different opinion on that. After all, if you agreed, you would be Catholic.
Z
zerinus
Guest
R
Rachel_Malloy
Guest
This is not a thread about the Crusades.
Stay on topic please.
God bless-
Rachel
Stay on topic please.
God bless-
Rachel
C
catharina
Guest
So now, I say to you, YES, it has changed.
Evil is evil.
It is the PENALTY that has changed.
The penalty for masonic membership now is NOT excommunication; it is instead a barrier to the Eucharist. Membership in the masons is a mortal sin for Catholics. The penalty (since 1983) is a ban from receiving the Eucharist. Until 1983, the penalty was exccommunication for any Catholic who joined the masons. Perhaps the penalty was changed because some Catholics are so driven by personal pride that they would best be guided to turn from error by a penalty of distance from the Holy Eucharist, rather than distance from the Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Let’s be precise here, okay?
The Church can err in her actions but not in her teaching…a subtle but important distinction. Jesus himself talked about this type of situation on more than one occasion.
If a Church leader is guilty of gross immorality, does his sin invalidate his position or authority?
Many, if not most, Protestants would say that it does, and they often use this line of reasoning to justify their denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. They cite historical events such as the Crusades, the Inquisition or reign of the Borgia Popes as evidence that the Church has lost its claim to moral and spiritual authority.
Such a response, however, is unbiblical. For example, Scripture states that Jesus knew “from the beginning” who would betray him – namely Judas, whom Jesus calls a “devil” (cf. John 6:64–71). This fact is significant, since Judas was selected as an apostle even though Jesus knew that he was corrupt.
Another example would be found in Jesus’ teaching on “Moses’ seat” found in the opening verses of Matthew 23: “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” (Matthew 23:1-3)
“Moses’ seat” is a phrase that referred to a position of legitimate teaching authority held by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Later, Jesus condemned these men as “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “blind fools,” “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers.” But in the passage above, Jesus specifically instructed the crowds and his disciples to obey these leaders – despite their corruption – because of the authority of their position.
If it were true that immorality invalidated a religious leader’s authority, then why did Jesus command his followers to “obey and do everything” the scribes and Pharisees tell them? Jesus merely admonished his followers not to follow their hypocritical example. There is not even the slightest hint that their positions had been forfeited or abrogated because of their hypocrisy or immorality. If anything, the reverse is true because Jesus validated these leaders’ office by telling people to obey them. From this, we see that sin and corruption found in the individual office holders has no impact whatsoever on the authority of the office itself.
In the Parable of the Weeds found in Matthew 13, Jesus tells His disciples to anticipate corruption within the Church. He said:Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. "The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ (Matthew 13:24-30)
Notice it is not the world at large that is being described but rather the “kingdom of heaven” or Church that is portrayed as the field containing both wheat and weeds. Jesus does not indicate that weeds (sinners) should be uprooted from the field (Church) until the separation done at the time of the final harvest.
Jesus clearly taught that sins of individual Church leaders do not invalidate the authority of the positions those leaders hold. These sins, whether real or imagined, do not undermine the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and do not provide an excuse for those who refuse to acknowledge and obey her. The authority given by God to the Church and the office of the Papacy is the same today as it was in the days of Peter, Linus, Anacletus and Clement because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Randy, thanks for stopping in and clearling this up for us. 
Z
zerinus
Guest
Judas was not corrupt when Jesus called him. He became corrupt later in his career as he yielded to the temptations of the devil. Jesus would not have called a corrupt person to become His Apostle. The fact that Jesus “knew from the beginning who would betray Him,” did not mean that Judas was corrupt when Jesus called him.
I think you have misunderstood that one. Jesus did not just condemn the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and evil deeds, but also for their teachings. They led people away from God both by their evil actions, as well as by what they taught:
Matthew 23:
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
How did they do that, except by incorrect teaching, as well as incorrect actions? Continuing in the same chapter it adds:
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Again, how could they do that, except by incorrect teachings? Continuing on, Jesus adds:
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
This is now a condemnation of their teachings, not just of their actions. Here is another example:
zerinus
Continued . . . /
Z
zerinus
Guest
/. . . Continued
Matthew 15:
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mark 7:
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Here is another:
Matthew 15:
12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
These are condemnations of their teachings, not just of their actions. If what you are saying is true, then Jesus was acting against His own interests, because the Pharisees were teaching the people to reject Jesus.
If you want to compare the Catholic priests to old Jewish scribes and Pharisees, I agree that that is an apt comparison; but I wouldn’t recommend it. You wouldn’t be paying them a complement if you do!
zerinus
Matthew 15:
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mark 7:
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Here is another:
Matthew 15:
12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
These are condemnations of their teachings, not just of their actions. If what you are saying is true, then Jesus was acting against His own interests, because the Pharisees were teaching the people to reject Jesus.
If you want to compare the Catholic priests to old Jewish scribes and Pharisees, I agree that that is an apt comparison; but I wouldn’t recommend it. You wouldn’t be paying them a complement if you do!
What invalidates the authority of the Catholic Church (and every other Christian church except LDS), is the apostasy of the early Christian church, not just the evil actions of a few rogue elements.
zerinus
R
ralphinal
Guest
zerinus;3744209[COLOR="darkred":
But some would say that it is errors of teaching and history that invalidates LDS. So, we have nothing left but Judaism.
Z
zerinus
Guest
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
You obviously didn’t read what Randy quoted above …
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples*: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you*. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’” – Matthew 23:1-3
… Jesus commanded the people to OBEY everything that the Pharisees said to do. If Jesus condemned their teaching, why would He tell the people to obey false teaching?
Let’s see … “I condemn their teaching as being wrong but you HAVE TO OBEY it anyway” … I don’t think so – that wouldn’t make any sense.
Z
zerinus
Guest
- Status