If the Rock is Peter's faith

[rcwitness]

Thank you susanlo,
I am interested to see the rest of this statement, since it seems to be cut off mid sentence. He states,

“It is, to be sure, contrary to the Christian Faith that anyone who is unwilling and wholly opposed to it should be compelled to adopt and observe Christianity.”

Here is a statement from the same pope, Innocent III:

Letter on the Jews (1199)

We decree that no Christian shall use violence to compel the Jews to accept baptism. But if a Jew, of his own accord, because of a change in his faith, shall have taken refuge with Christians, after his wish has been made known, he may be made a Christian without any opposition. For anyone who has not of his own will sought Christian baptism cannot have the true Christian faith. No Christian shall do the Jews any personal injury, except in executing the judgments of a judge, or deprive them of their possessions, or change the rights and privileges which they have been accustomed to have. During the celebration of their festivals, no one shall disturb them by beating them with clubs or by throwing stones at them. No one shall compel them to render any services except those which they have been accustomed to render. And to prevent the baseness and avarice of wicked men we forbid anyone to deface or damage their cemeteries or to extort money from them by threatening to exhume the bodies of their dead…"

 

[josie_L]

Over the centuries after Nicea, the government and the Church became inseparable. The Roman Catholic Church/government did invade territories and force the inhabitants to become baptized or be killed. Those with contrary Christian views were burned at the stake or tortured to recant. Not being a Christian or holding contrary Christian views was a serious crime. I don’t think this is what Jesus had in mind with his great commission. I am glad that the Roman Catholic Church has changed in the recent centuries and no longer advocates this kind of evangelization. Separation of the church and state was a really good idea!

Pope Innocent III 1201 “[T]hose who are immersed even though reluctant, do belong to ecclesiastical jurisdiction at least by reason of the sacrament, and might therefore be reasonably compelled to observe the rules of the Christian Faith. It is, to be sure, contrary to the Christian Faith that anyone who is unwilling and wholly opposed to it should be compelled to adopt and observe Christianity. For this reason a valid distinction is made by some between kinds of unwilling ones and kinds of compelled ones**. Thus one who is drawn to Christianity by violence, through fear and through torture, and receives the sacrament of Baptism in order to avoid loss, he (like one who comes to Baptism in dissimulation) does receive the impress of Christianity, and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling **. . .” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

The Church (in its entirety) did not collude with the state to FORCE anyone into Christianity, in fact, depending upon the emperors ruling there was much tolerance of paganism and/or support for heretics within Christendom, that is to say that even the Church was persecuted by the State, if for example the emperor in question was a heretic himself or that emperor sought to control the Church. Therefore, the Church and the State were at odds many times throughout history, and so this inseparability of which you speak of does not fly in the face of historical analysis (at least not in the Western part of the Church). Point in fact, St. Ambrose of Milan’s actions vis a vis Emperor Theodosius’s execution of rebellious heretics (wherein St. Ambrose denied Emperor Theodosius the Eucharist unless he repented for his sins). There are many other examples wherein the Church overcame the State, knowing that the commission given to the Church from Christ superseded the objectives of temporal rulers, even the emperor, who in effect was the theoretical head of Christendom.

So although there was a link between Church and State, that link was tenuous at times.

p.s. And less heretics were killed prior to the Reformation than after it, i.e., interreligious wars were commonly fought after the Reformation, i.e., there were more executions, burnings, and torture due to the breakdown of Christendom. Moreover, separation of Church and State was not a Protestant ideal (none of the reformers advocated this).

 

[benhur]

I don’t see that there is any difference. All who defy the authority established by Christ will do so for a “good” reason. Gnostics and Arians believed they had it right. Those who ordain women do so because they believe it is right.

Hi g,

It all depends on what your emphasis is. If it is a personal knowledge and experience of the gospel,of Christ placing you in the ecclesia it makes a difference, as compared to emphasizing the institutions of said ecclesia.

There is a difference between knowledge that places you in the ecclesia and that which does not. So if you do not believe that Christ was God you are not in .But if you believe Christ as God and man, you are in irregardless if you think the patriarch of Rome is equal to the patriarch of of any other region, or of anything in indulgences or Mary reverencing etc.

I do agree that it is another thing to defy or disobey about a misunderstanding (which the issue of indulgences usually is), or something that is not a church teaching (it is not possible to “sell” an indulgence, so the appearance that one has been sold is a farce).

 

[benhur]

There are two aspects here. Jesus never promised that the man filling the office would never make mistakes. He promised that the Church would be led into “all Truth”. He protects the Church through the office, the councils, and the sensus fidelumYet it is interesting that councils are called to indeed correct error. That is for a time error has not been expunged,clarified etc. That is what i mean by not losing the war but certainly a battle.

The people of God are always in need of reform, but the doctrines of Christ are not. I think the biggest problem with the Reformation was changing doctrine in an effort to address corrupted clerics.