E
eucharist04
Guest
The Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 came up with the term Transsubstantiation to define what was already believed for centuries, beganning with the early church:yup:
- Status
A
az_4_faith
Guest
No historical basis for that statement whatsoever.
Hasn’t happened. Please provide evidence if you insist.
V
Valke2
Guest
The canonical doctrine of reception, broadly stated, asserts that for a law or rule to be an effective guide for the believing community it must be accepted by that community.
This doctrine began with John Gratian in the twelfth century. Gratian based his version of the teaching on the writings of Isidore of Seville (seventh century) and Augustine of Hippo (fifth century).
Gratian went on to illustrate the meaning of approval of a law by the practices of its users. He gave the example of a papal law ordering clergy to fast and abstain during Lent. Since the law was never approved by the practices of the users, other clerics could not be accused of a transgression for not obeying it.
arcc-catholic-rights.net/doctrine_of_reception.htm
This doctrine began with John Gratian in the twelfth century. Gratian based his version of the teaching on the writings of Isidore of Seville (seventh century) and Augustine of Hippo (fifth century).
Gratian went on to illustrate the meaning of approval of a law by the practices of its users. He gave the example of a papal law ordering clergy to fast and abstain during Lent. Since the law was never approved by the practices of the users, other clerics could not be accused of a transgression for not obeying it.
arcc-catholic-rights.net/doctrine_of_reception.htm
R
Rocky
Guest
The law that Valke quotes is a disciplinary law and not a doctrine. Fast and abstinence laws are ways to express faith. They help the community to reinforce faith. But one need not believe in those laws, and many are often excused from said laws because of age or health reasons. And those laws can be changed depending on circumstances. Even celibacy for Latin Rite priests is a discipline and not a doctrine.
I
Ilroy
Guest
Exactly.
I believe the problem many people have in understanding Catholocism is that they simply don’t understand what Doctrine is as compared to Discipline as compared to Dogma as compared to Devotion and many other aspects of the faith. I guess we just need to explain those things as clearly as possible.
Incidently, I know many Catholics who aren’t exactly proficient in their understanding of these things either.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
These wicked Popes obviously were forwarding the idea that extreme violence was ok to do to people. This in itself could be considered an unwritten doctrine.
A
Allweather
Guest
Chris, you say “obviously” but I’m not seeing anything “obvious” in what you’re claiming. Can you give us something more concrete?
In Patrick Madrid’s book, Pope Fiction, there is a section on the papal attitudes towards the type of slavery that came about as Europeans sailed west and south, and encountered the native peoples of the lands they found. Even the sinful pope Alexander VI prohibited the enslavement of these people, or the deprivation of their property. Several popes along the way between 1500 and modern times wrote detailed prohibitions against this slavery, and excommunicated slavers. The popes consistently upheld the humanity of these people, and insisted that they were not to be forced into Christianity against their will.
The documents are there, and can be read in English. So we can provide you with documentary evidence that works to contradict what you’re claming about “wicked popes” perpetrating “extreme violence” upon people. Surely you can produce something similarly concrete to support your belief.
In Patrick Madrid’s book, Pope Fiction, there is a section on the papal attitudes towards the type of slavery that came about as Europeans sailed west and south, and encountered the native peoples of the lands they found. Even the sinful pope Alexander VI prohibited the enslavement of these people, or the deprivation of their property. Several popes along the way between 1500 and modern times wrote detailed prohibitions against this slavery, and excommunicated slavers. The popes consistently upheld the humanity of these people, and insisted that they were not to be forced into Christianity against their will.
The documents are there, and can be read in English. So we can provide you with documentary evidence that works to contradict what you’re claming about “wicked popes” perpetrating “extreme violence” upon people. Surely you can produce something similarly concrete to support your belief.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
Gee, sorry for insulting your church.
A
Allweather
Guest
Well, just don’t let it happen again…
We take our Church seriously 'round these here parts.
We take our Church seriously 'round these here parts.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
I guess you know how Muslims feel when we pick their faith apart, huh?
A
Allweather
Guest
There’s a difference between “picking apart” and slinging unfounded and unmerited accusations.
When you pick apart, you sift through it in detail. That’s not what you’re doing. You’re merely calling Popes wicked, and charging them with crimes, without providing any evidence. If you were picking Catholicism apart, you’d be presenting a well-documented case. Again, that is not what you’ve been doing.
Hey, brother… no one here is allergic to detailed accusations. You present the evidence and let’s deal with it, item by item. But if all you can do is call Popes wicked, and accuse them of crimes against humanity, without a bit of detail as to which crimes, which doctrines, when, who, etc, then there’s nothing for us to grab ahold of.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
I don’t know of any examples, but it seems strange to me that a corrupt man would assume power somewhere and NOT create rules that reflect his corruption. If not doctrines per say, then evil actions and policies that hurt the Church.
R
Rocky
Guest
Yes, there have been Popes who were more interested in temporal power for the Church and themselves rather than in teaching and preaching. There have been weak Popes. The funny thing—the wonderful thing—the thing that makes us know that this Church is of God, is that those Popes did not ever institute any Doctrine/Dogma that contradicted or changed what was taught from the beginning. And many times the Holy Spirit raised up lay people to bring the Church back in line. I’m thinking in particular of that young woman of Sienna, Catherine, who is not only a Saint of the Church but also listed as a Doctor of the Church, and who called the Pope of her day back to Rome, even telling him “to be a man.” What a saint!
A
Allweather
Guest
It would seem strange to me, too, especially if we’re talking about General Motors, or Germany in 1934. But that’s not what we’re talking about. Jesus promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. Satan is the master of Hell, and he is certainly far more powerful than any man, let alone a corrupt man. If Satan can’t prevail against the Church that God ordained and established, then it is certain that no man could, either deliberately, or as a consequence of mismanagement.
And sure enough, here the Catholic Church stands after 20-some centuries, its doctrines intact. There never has been a perfect pope. Even Peter, the first Pope, was a sinner who failed Jesus in a most profound way. Papal infallibility doesn’t mean popes are perfect, it just means they are protected from teaching error. That’s why Catholic doctrine is so rock-solid, and has been protected even from the worst popes’ corruptions and mismanagement. I reckon we can see these sinful popes as a proof of infallibility, right?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
That’s because of the way the question is posed - no such doctrine can be put away, because if it it can be put away, it was not a doctrine (still less a dogma) in the first place. 
(Even if it was.)
That’s why it is methodologically impossible to convince some people that there is error in the Bible - there are always ways to interpret errors so that they are not errors.Which is why it is so frustrating, & usually pointless, to argue with Fundamentalists, of any kind - the inerrancy or infallibility or perfection of their world-view cannot be shown to be errant, fallible, or imperfect, even if it is; because one of their axioms is the perfection of their world-view: so if there are data which threaten it, there are hermeneutic principles in their world-view, such as its inerrancy, which interpret the data so as render the data harmless.
Logically, the process of thinking which preserves the perfection of the Fundamentalism is circular - that is not felt as a problem, largely because Fundamentalism is a highly self-enclosing ideology.
This self-enclosing & circular character helps to account for Fundamentalism’s insensitivity to the tradition within which Fundamentalism arises, & its simplification of doctrines & their inter-relations into a list of disconnected items that must be believed.
Which is why Calvinists are not going to reject any of their doctrines, Catholics theirs, or the Orthodox theirs. All are Fundamentalist in various ways, & all have doctrines that are not negotiable at present. If their Fundamentalism is helped by casting off something at present regarded as essential to it, it will be cast off. The Fundamentalist tradition of each of these ideologies is the supreme value, the one thing that must not be allowed to be harmed.
So there is far more to Fundamentalism than “literalism” - a great deal more. IMHO, it’s one of the most serious threats to the Church; partly because of the good in it.
As for the “gates of Hell” - why must those words mean that the Church is never defeated at all ? Christ’s promise would still be verified, just as long as the Church is not finally overcome - no matter how often the Church were defeated & successfully invaded by all manner of evils in the intervening period. He is still with her, no matter how often she is defeated and perverted & spoiled, & no matter how often she is unfaithful & sinful - just as long as He does not let her go under decisively at the last: the final battle is the one that counts. God was immovably faith ful to His Covenant with Israel - Israel was constantly being defeated, yet was never forsaken; why must the Church be different ? This assumption of constant victory is just that, an (unexamined) assumption. And that is sad. ##
A
Allweather
Guest
In this case, though, we’ve got facts up against fantasies. The fantasies are that popes are wicked and have “damaged” the Church by imposing false doctrines that have, among other things, caused crimes against humanity over a period of centuries.
I pretty much agree with you on the fundamentalism thing. Having been one myself, I can relate. Fundamentalism is a disease, very similar to drug addiction or alcoholism, and there are help groups with 12-step programs for fundamentalists. However I disagree that it is pointless to argue with a fundamentalist. I was one, and I came out of it, and I’ve seen others come out of it. So it isn’t a given that a fundamentalist can’t become a good Catholic. In fact, a fundamentalist is probably MORE likely to become a good, orthodox Catholic once he learns some truth, and the best way he’s going to learn some truth is to have someone pose it to him.
I pretty much agree with you on the fundamentalism thing. Having been one myself, I can relate. Fundamentalism is a disease, very similar to drug addiction or alcoholism, and there are help groups with 12-step programs for fundamentalists. However I disagree that it is pointless to argue with a fundamentalist. I was one, and I came out of it, and I’ve seen others come out of it. So it isn’t a given that a fundamentalist can’t become a good Catholic. In fact, a fundamentalist is probably MORE likely to become a good, orthodox Catholic once he learns some truth, and the best way he’s going to learn some truth is to have someone pose it to him.
I’m not sure where you get that anyone is claiming that the Church is some sort of irresistable force, relentlessly victorious. History certainly proves otherwise. In fact, the failures of the Church are part of the proof of God’s loving protection. There’s a NT verse, or part of a verse, I think in Romans (too lazy to look it up just now) to the effect, where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more. The Church is composed of sinners who screw up constantly, and that includes popes. God has a way of turning bad into good, and apparently this is his way of doing business. I’m not aware of anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church is perfect, but it’d be nice if those making accusations against it would at least acquaint themselves with a few facts along the way.
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
Henery Ford reportedly put anti-semetic literature into the glove boxes of cars coming off the assembly line for a period of time. The History Channel had a documentory.
R
Rocky
Guest
So did the documentary say that this evil action by Henry hurt the Ford Motor Company?
C
Chris_LaRock
Guest
What I’m saying is that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Corruption has a way of trickling down.
A
Allweather
Guest
Anti-semitism was, and is, commonplace and widespread in the U.S. There are various reasons for it, of course, including a feeling among some Christians that the Jews killed Christ. I found this sentiment among my fundamentalist brothers and sisters 25 years ago, and I feel sure that this type of anti-semitism is still common among fundamentalists.
Does that make fundamentalists corrupt? If so, does that make Chris LaRock corrupt for being a fundamentalist? After all, according to his quaint truism, “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree” and something about sewage running downhill.
- Status