Good Doctrine v. Bad Doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Valke2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I just find it hard to believe that a corrupt man would rise to power and NOT add new teachings that suit him. I still question why the original Vatican contitution was dropped in favor of Vatican 2.

Anyhow, my original question was whether or not the RCC would be able to oust a corrupt Pope, or if his office makes him ‘untouchable’.
 
I just find it hard to believe that a corrupt man would rise to power and NOT add new teachings that suit him.
Then again, we’re not talking about just any ol’ man. We’re talking about the successors to Peter. BTW have you located any of these “teachings” yet? Surely there is something solid you use to base your beliefs upon.
I still question why the original Vatican contitution was dropped in favor of Vatican 2.
You lost me.
 
I think you misunderstand me.

If a corrupt man becomes Pope, then his actions and use of power will reflect his corruption. This hasn’t influenced anything? If you say new doctrines haven’t been made, fine. But what about the areas that he would change?
 
If a corrupt man becomes Pope, then his actions and use of power will reflect his corruption. But you have not proven that this has, in fact, occurred in regards to Catholic teaching–that a teaching has in fact been corrupted by a corrupt Pope.This hasn’t influenced anything?No–there has been no teaching corrupted. If you say new doctrines haven’t been made, fine. But what about the areas that he would change? That he “would” change? What do you mean by this?
 
A Pope cannot change an article of faith [doctrine] to fit his whims, and why would even a corrupt Pope try to do so?

*Scripture is the inspired and infallable word of God. *Why would even a corrupt Poope want to change that donctrine and make himself the leader of a faith that has no authoritative document?

Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus is God, etc. Why would a Pope change the Godhead of Jesus? Would he want to lead a religion that did not worship God? Silly…

That is why it is You need to provide the substance of your accusation [ie facts]…You think that a corrupt man could not rise to power and change doctrine and You believe [although you admit you have no example] that they [the Bad Popes…which you also do not name…] have done so. With that position You have now asked how we might remove a bad pope.

We’ll here is my answer: If a bad Pope was elected, God would prevent the teacing of error and institution of false doctrines. God would take care of the removal process…it is called the “working of the Holy Soirit” God would use this period of time to His purpose, while protecting His Church.
 
40.png
Tantum_ergo:
When a corrupt Pope sent soldiers out to murder Jews and convert them by the sword, this was seen by many non-Catholics. These non-Catholics probably saw this and thought that this violence was part of Catholic dogma.

Now, even if a Pope has not added new doctrines - a corrupt Pope could create the appearance that a new way of doing things has been adopted.
 
Exactly which
Pope sent soldiers out to murder Jews and convert them by the sword,
and who were the
many non-Catholics. These non-Catholics probably saw this and thought that this violence was part of Catholic dogma.
and exactly what did they perceive the dogma to be?

It is still just generalities…

The same questions can be asked about the non-Catholic Christian religions [Main-line Protestant and the host of non-denominational and evangelilcal churches]. Your leaders are legion. The good and bad have taught a host of supposed Christian belief, some Christ-like good teachings [even in line with the Catholic Church]. Some were down right evil. How do you get “rid” of them? Who has the authority to remove them?
 
I think you misunderstand me.

If a corrupt man becomes Pope, then his actions and use of power will reflect his corruption. This hasn’t influenced anything? If you say new doctrines haven’t been made, fine. But what about the areas that he would change?
Such as?

You’re dealing in complete hypotheticals. So far I don’t recall you citing specific popes doing specific things.

I agree that corrupt men do corrupt things. I also agree that all men, including popes, are sinners, and therefore are corrupt in some ways.

Popes are protected by God from teaching error in faith and morals, but not in other fields. For instance, a pope may issue some teaching about the universe, saying the Earth is at the center and the sun orbits it. That would be error, but not error in faith and morals. Surely various popes have held opinions about things that turned out to be erroneous, but none has ever taught error in faith, morals, doctrine. This is the protection God gives the popes, known as infallibility. It is very limited, but has been very effective in preventing bad or mediocre popes from teaching error.
 
It does seem likely that Catholics persecuted Jews at various times and in various places, though the selection of quotes offered at this link are very small, so that context is lacking in most of them. Still, it doesn’t seem worth arguing that Catholics didn’t persecute Jews. Jews after all persecuted Christians. This is known in the Scriptural record, and elsewhere.

But, are you aware that Protestants persecuted the Jews as well, after the reformation? My understanding is that the reformers originally appealed to the persecuted Jewish minorities in Europe, and that there was hope among Jews that they would fare better under Protestants than they had under Catholics. This turned out to be tragically untrue.

The point being, anti-semitism isn’t something confined to Catholics, but is also found among Protestants. If you’re looking to criticize Catholics for this, then you must also be willing to suffer the same criticism.
 
I know I’m going to get pummelled from all directions on this one!! 😃 But I just have to pipe up in this discussion.

I really struggle with understanding the Immaculate Conception (formalized as doctrine in 1854, right?). I have read a few discussions and articles on this doctrine, but it still hits me as being contrary to Scripture. I think this may be a good example of where some of us non catholic christians look at the catholic church and question the power of the pope to set doctrine like this in stone, so to say.

Thoughts from either side???

Respectfully,
Your sister in Christ,
Christina
 
Hi Christina…

Here’s a pretty good (and short) article about this and other Mary subjects here at CA:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

Here’s a quote snipped from the article on Immaculate Conception:

*""The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. “”*
 
It does seem likely that Catholics persecuted Jews at various times and in various places, though the selection of quotes offered at this link are very small, so that context is lacking in most of them. Still, it doesn’t seem worth arguing that Catholics didn’t persecute Jews. Jews after all persecuted Christians. This is known in the Scriptural record, and elsewhere.

But, are you aware that Protestants persecuted the Jews as well, after the reformation? My understanding is that the reformers originally appealed to the persecuted Jewish minorities in Europe, and that there was hope among Jews that they would fare better under Protestants than they had under Catholics. This turned out to be tragically untrue.

The point being, anti-semitism isn’t something confined to Catholics, but is also found among Protestants. If you’re looking to criticize Catholics for this, then you must also be willing to suffer the same criticism.
What I’m getting at is that Non-Catholics at those times may have been given the impression that the anti-semitism was a part of Catholic dogma. Either way, it hurt the RCC to have a Pope (or Popes) teaching such unbiblical things.

I understand Protestants have discriminated too, but what Protestants do doesn’t make the Papacy look bad. The words and actions of Popes do that.
 
What I’m getting at is that Non-Catholics at those times may have been given the impression that the anti-semitism was a part of Catholic dogma. Either way, it hurt the RCC to have a Pope (or Popes) teaching such unbiblical things.

I understand Protestants have discriminated too, but what Protestants do doesn’t make the Papacy look bad. The words and actions of Popes do that.
Prior to the onset of the Reformation in the early 16th century, there were no non-Catholics in Europe. The nations states of Europe were Catholic, and most all people were Catholic

One theme that has been the source of a lot of anti-Jewish persecution over the centuries has been that of the Jews as Christ Killers. During the early years of the Church, the Christians were mostly Jewish converts, and were a minority under the Jewish peoples, and they were badly persecuted by these Jews. The story of Paul’s conversion speaks of this, as he was one Jew who was on the hunt, and was present at the stoning of the first martyr, Stephen, by the Jews.

After the destruction of Jerusalem in around 70 a.d. and the diaspora of Jews across the Roman Empire, which later became the nations of Europe, the Jews found themselves a minority, and at the mercy of the Christians. I don’t think there is any question that Jews over many centuries in Europe suffered horribly at the hands of Christians. Still, it isn’t exactly correct to say that these things are “unbiblical.” The New Testament tells many stories of Jews persecuting Christians. My guess is that Christians in Europe figured that turnabout is fairplay. And there is absolutely no question that the Gospels depict the Romans as hesitant to crucify Jesus, but pressured into doing so by the Jewish religious leaders. These things, coupled with the natural “oddness” of the Jews in Europe, who refused to intermarry, or have much to do with the non-Jewish neighbors, except in doing business with them, helped create an atmosphere of occasional persecution. It isn’t accurate to say that Jews were relentlessly or universally persecuted. But persecutions arose here and there and were often caused by complex sets of circumstances, rather than being the sole result of statements by popes or bishops.

So, what we have is an anti-semitism with multiple causes. Maybe popes could have done more to rein it in, and didn’t. Maybe they didn’t have the power to do so. After all, mobs usually aren’t easily controlled. But Protestants were just as bad, and they didn’t have a pope to obey.

Let me put it this way: You have a hard time believing that corrupt popes didn’t corrupt doctrine and dogma. I have a hard time believing that most leaders of the Church, both Protestant and Catholic, didn’t do their best to keep the anti-semitism under some control. You know, there weren’t that many Jews, and still aren’t. If there hadn’t been some restraint, it wouldn’t have been all that hard to wipe them out completely.
 
Prior to the onset of the Reformation in the early 16th century, there were no non-Catholics in Europe. The nations states of Europe were Catholic, and most all people were Catholic

One theme that has been the source of a lot of anti-Jewish persecution over the centuries has been that of the Jews as Christ Killers. During the early years of the Church, the Christians were mostly Jewish converts, and were a minority under the Jewish peoples, and they were badly persecuted by these Jews. The story of Paul’s conversion speaks of this, as he was one Jew who was on the hunt, and was present at the stoning of the first martyr, Stephen, by the Jews.

After the destruction of Jerusalem in around 70 a.d. and the diaspora of Jews across the Roman Empire, which later became the nations of Europe, the Jews found themselves a minority, and at the mercy of the Christians. I don’t think there is any question that Jews over many centuries in Europe suffered horribly at the hands of Christians. Still, it isn’t exactly correct to say that these things are “unbiblical.” The New Testament tells many stories of Jews persecuting Christians. My guess is that Christians in Europe figured that turnabout is fairplay. And there is absolutely no question that the Gospels depict the Romans as hesitant to crucify Jesus, but pressured into doing so by the Jewish religious leaders. These things, coupled with the natural “oddness” of the Jews in Europe, who refused to intermarry, or have much to do with the non-Jewish neighbors, except in doing business with them, helped create an atmosphere of occasional persecution. It isn’t accurate to say that Jews were relentlessly or universally persecuted. But persecutions arose here and there and were often caused by complex sets of circumstances, rather than being the sole result of statements by popes or bishops.

So, what we have is an anti-semitism with multiple causes. Maybe popes could have done more to rein it in, and didn’t. Maybe they didn’t have the power to do so. After all, mobs usually aren’t easily controlled. But Protestants were just as bad, and they didn’t have a pope to obey.

Let me put it this way: You have a hard time believing that corrupt popes didn’t corrupt doctrine and dogma. I have a hard time believing that most leaders of the Church, both Protestant and Catholic, didn’t do their best to keep the anti-semitism under some control. You know, there weren’t that many Jews, and still aren’t. If there hadn’t been some restraint, it wouldn’t have been all that hard to wipe them out completely.
Well I think that just about sums it up. The Jews brought all the mass murders, forced conversions and forced expulsions committed against them by Catholics in the name of Catholicism on themselves and they should just be thankfull that you didn’t wipe them out entirely. The Catholics aren’t to blame because other Christian denominations did the same thing against the Jews.

Did I miss anything? You must forgive me if I did. We cursed Jews, making up only one quarter of one per cent of the world’s population, are indeed extremely very “odd” in relation to you gentiles (see jinfo.org/ )
 
What I’m getting at is that Non-Catholics at those times may have been given the impression that the anti-semitism was a part of Catholic dogma. Either way, it hurt the RCC to have a Pope (or Popes) teaching such unbiblical things.

I understand Protestants have discriminated too, but what Protestants do doesn’t make the Papacy look bad. The words and actions of Popes do that.
Chris if i can re-word that a bit: “Either way, it hurt the RCC to have a Pope (or Popes) modeling such unbiblical behavior.”

(which is a type of teaching that doesn’t involved the written promulgation of doctrine.)

Then I think I have to agree. Popes who publicly do things that look bad, look bad. I love the Church, but I’m not going to deny that we have some bad actors in high places from time to time. But they always held that true doctrine was true, even when they didn’t live up to it. The miracle is that they never lowered the standards to cover themselves.
 
Well I think that just about sums it up. The Jews brought all the mass murders, forced conversions and forced expulsions committed against them by Catholics in the name of Catholicism on themselves and they should just be thankfull that you didn’t wipe them out entirely. The Catholics aren’t to blame because other Christian denominations did the same thing against the Jews.

Did I miss anything? You must forgive me if I did. We cursed Jews, making up only one quarter of one per cent of the world’s population, are indeed extremely very “odd” in relation to you gentiles (see jinfo.org/ )
Don’t be so dadgum touchy! You are completely perverting what I said to make it seem as if I am justifying persecutions against Jews in Europe at the hands of Christians. For instance, you phrase what I said about the fact they weren’t completely wiped out as if I were stating it as something Jews should be thankful for. Nonsense. I phrased it to say that there MUST have been restraints, most likely applied by religious leaders, against the pogroms, otherwise the Jews surely would have been wiped out.

And BTW, I wasn’t there, so don’t blame me.

Anyways, if what I wrote seemed mean, I apologize. It may have come across in a way I did not intend. Please notice the context in which it was written, which was a conversation with a fundamentalist.
 
“I phrased it to say that there MUST have been restraints, most likely applied by religious leaders, against the pogroms, otherwise the Jews surely would have been wiped out.”

I have wondered if it isn’t similar to Papal infallibility. The reason theyhaven’t is because someone is looking out for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top