Protestants:concerning moral teachings, when did the Catholic Church depart from truth into error?

[Maxply]

I read this part of the forums regularly, mainly to see the kind of responses you find here: considerable and deep unawareness of the Catholic Church.

This non-knowledge/false knowledge stuff gets passed along generation to generation by Protestants. So Catholics hear Protestants repeat this misinformation on and on and on.

Curious to me that Protestants don’t make the effort to really find out what Catholics believe. Mary is not rated higher than Jesus; the Pope is not always infallible, for example. But this “Scary Catholicism” stuff gets preached by preachers with minimal knowledge of the Church, it keeps getting passed along, etc.

So if you’re a Protestant, what you’ve been told about the Church’s teachings may not correspond with reality.

In my background, I’ve been taught to work hard to find both sides of the argument, to check things out. A lot of Protestants just ape these old chestnuts that only serve to reinforce prejudice.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I read this part of the forums regularly, mainly to see the kind of responses you find here: considerable and deep unawareness of the Catholic Church.

This non-knowledge/false knowledge stuff gets passed along generation to generation by Protestants. So Catholics hear Protestants repeat this misinformation on and on and on.

Curious to me that Protestants don’t make the effort to really find out what Catholics believe. Mary is not rated higher than Jesus; the Pope is not always infallible, for example. But this “Scary Catholicism” stuff gets preached by preachers with minimal knowledge of the Church, it keeps getting passed along, etc.

So if you’re a Protestant, what you’ve been told about the Church’s teachings may not correspond with reality.

In my background, I’ve been taught to work hard to find both sides of the argument, to check things out. A lot of Protestants just ape these old chestnuts that only serve to reinforce prejudice.

Exactly. I had many misconceptions about the what the Catholic Church really teaches, when I first began my journey. I have learned a lot by reading these boards, and especially by reading the CCC. These misconceptions were always from Protestants. It was very mind-blowing when I learned the truths about the Catholic Church, because all these things I heard where blatant mis-understandings.

 

[O.S.Luke]

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

Transmutation is not transubstantiation. Check Catholic scholars Louis Bouyer and Edward Schillebeeckx for their take on it.

As far as Irenaeus… I have no debate (my favorite ECF, by the way). I believe in the Real Presence of Christ at the Table. All transubstantiation does is try to explain away the mystery. It’s the body and blood of Jesus. Period. No explanation necessary.

Also if the Catholic Church didn’t believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist until 1215, then why do ALL of the Orthodox Churches believe in it, when the Churches split in 1054?

The Orthodox do believe in Real Presence, as do I. But you shouldn’t have brought the Orthodox into this discussion, because you won’t like what they say.

The Eastern Church is getting away from the term transubstantiation.

"As the words of the Epiclesis make abundantly plain, the Orthodox Church believes that after the consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the REALITY of the change, it has never attempted to explain the MANNER of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the nuetral term metaballo, to ‘turn about’, to ‘change’, to ‘alter’.

"It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term ‘transubstantiation’ (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between substance and accidents. But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, **since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible.’ ** (note: emphasis O.S.'s)

"Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms substance and accidents were not employed.

“Today a few Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts.” (Bishop Kallistos Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp. 283-284)

The Byzantines/Eastern Church would never use the concept of “essence” (Gk: ousia) in Eucharistic or sacramental theology - essential (no pun intended) to the use of “substance” and “accidents” - and transubstantiation (gk: metousiosis) is never used; rather, the Greek words metabole, metastoicheiosis, or metarrhythmisis are used. Loosely, those translate as “reordering.”

The Eastern Church treats the Eucharist with far more mystery than the West. I must say that my communion’s current statement on the Real Presence yields more to mystery than to explanation.

The above was research from my work on my seminary/master’s thesis. I had one Catholic scholar tell me that even most Catholics, including the Magisterium, don’t know the dogma and the philosophy well enough to explain or defend it. If they did, they’d adopt the Eastern stance. Mysteries are mysteries - by definition they define explanation.

Of course, this is a subject up for debate. But such debate is usually a straining at gnats… for 99% of the communicants, it being the Body and Blood of Christ is sufficient. No explanation necessary.

O+

 

[mark_a]

Transmutation is not transubstantiation. Check Catholic scholars Louis Bouyer and Edward Schillebeeckx for their take on it.

As far as Irenaeus… I have no debate (my favorite ECF, by the way). I believe in the Real Presence of Christ at the Table. All transubstantiation does is try to explain away the mystery. It’s the body and blood of Jesus. Period. No explanation necessary.

The Orthodox do believe in Real Presence, as do I. But you shouldn’t have brought the Orthodox into this discussion, because you won’t like what they say.

The Eastern Church is getting away from the term transubstantiation.

The Byzantines/Eastern Church would never use the concept of “essence” (Gk: ousia) in Eucharistic or sacramental theology - essential (no pun intended) to the use of “substance” and “accidents” - and transubstantiation (gk: metousiosis) is never used; rather, the Greek words metabole, metastoicheiosis, or metarrhythmisis are used. Loosely, those translate as “reordering.”

The Eastern Church treats the Eucharist with far more mystery than the West. I must say that my communion’s current statement on the Real Presence yields more to mystery than to explanation.

The above was research from my work on my seminary/master’s thesis. I had one Catholic scholar tell me that even most Catholics, including the Magisterium, don’t know the dogma and the philosophy well enough to explain or defend it. If they did, they’d adopt the Eastern stance. Mysteries are mysteries - by definition they define explanation.

Of course, this is a subject up for debate. But such debate is usually a straining at gnats… for 99% of the communicants, it being the Body and Blood of Christ is sufficient. No explanation necessary.

O+

Uh, but what about the moral teachings?

Has the Catholic Church fallen away from the truth concerning moral teachings?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Sky aka OS Luke,

Thank you for a very astute study. You should probably strart a new thread on this but there are two reservation I have about this.

First, The Church does not accept Schillebexx formulations but I don’t know enough about the reasons why to say anything else about it.

Second, I’m not sure believing in the real presence makes the consecration mean that the communion offeed the real deal. I believed in the real presence for decades before I converted. It made no sense to me to believe in something I could not confect. My ordination did not allow it. The church in which I was ordained did not believe in it. Even if it did that church is probably not connected to the apostolic Church so the belief wouldn’t really mean much of anything.

I couldn’t rationalize it any longer so I converted. Perhaps you have found a way to rationalize this. It would be good to hear.

CDL

 

[The_Truthinator]

The indulgence scandal was, really and truly, just more of an eye-opener in my mind than it was the ultimate vice of the church …

 

[BelFarfalla]

As I said, I don’t believe the Church is guilty of abuse where indulgences is concerned anymore.

Selling indulgences was not Church policy ever. There were some priests who did it. They were disciplined for this by the Church.

Did you even read this link? It gives the specifics.

catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

 

[BlestOne]

Indulgences are a very misunderstood thing. It is sad really, because so many Catholics have shied away from them without understanding them because of Protestant condemnation. When I was at the Basilica in DC we were told that if we confessed, we could receive an indulgence for this pilgrimage. There was no money involved and the main requirement was to confess… doesn’t sound like buying our way out of hell to me… does it to you?

That pilgrimage to the national shrine was one of the most uplifting and beautiful experiences of my life. I went to help my daughter’s school… but what it did for me was so much more. I saw a glimpse of something so beautiful and so sacred… it changed me. I saw teens that love our Lord more than anything, I saw kids lining up in long lines to confess their sins, I heard these same kids exclaim how good they feel when they receive the graces from reconciliation. What I saw was a glimpse of heaven on earth… the faithful, making sacrifices to support a cause greater than the sum of her members… to support life. Therein lies the reward… to make me a better Christian, a better mother and a better servant of God…

What is so bad about that? Truthinator?

 

[BelFarfalla]

indulgences,

Selling of indulgences was against Church doctrine then as it is now.

sexual immorality by the clergy,

Sexual immorality was not and is not Church doctrine or policy. Those who were immoral answer God all on their own.
By the way, are you presuming to tell us that the Reformation ended immorality in the protestant clergy? I hardly think so.

unbiblical teachings and practices, do we need to continue to spell it all out for you?

I, as most Catholics do, disagree with you on this one.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Indulgences are a very misunderstood thing. It is sad really, because so many Catholics have shied away from them without understanding them because of Protestant condemnation. When I was at the Basilica in DC we were told that if we confessed, we could receive an indulgence for this pilgrimage. There was no money involved and the main requirement was to confess… doesn’t sound like buying our way out of hell to me… does it to you?

That pilgrimage to the national shrine was one of the most uplifting and beautiful experiences of my life. I went to help my daughter’s school… but what it did for me was so much more. I saw a glimpse of something so beautiful and so sacred… it changed me. I saw teens that love our Lord more than anything, I saw kids lining up in long lines to confess their sins, I heard these same kids exclaim how good they feel when they receive the graces from reconciliation. What I saw was a glimpse of heaven on earth… the faithful, making sacrifices to support a cause greater than the sum of her members… to support life. Therein lies the reward… to make me a better Christian, a better mother and a better servant of God…

What is so bad about that? Truthinator?

You are right. Indugences are simply a blessing that occurs after a person is sought and received forgiveness of their sins… An indulgence cannot even take affect if a person has not already been forgiven of the sins.

 

[BelFarfalla]

The indulgence scandal was, really and truly, just more of an eye-opener in my mind than it was the ultimate vice of the church …

Again, selling indulgences was not Church doctrine or policy. Did you read the link provided on this thread about indulgences?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I did a research on this. There is no Church document that calls for selling indulgences. So it was not a part of the deposit of faith. Selling did happened during Martin Luther’s time and this was illegal. The Council of Trent condemned the selling of Indulgences. Like everyone said, it was never a part of Church doctrine to sell indulgences.

 

[BelFarfalla]

I did a research on this. There is no Church document that calls for selling indulgences. So it was not a part of the deposit of faith. Selling did happened during Martin Luther’s time and this was illegal. The Council of Trent condemned the selling of Indulgences. Like everyone said, it was never a part of Church doctrine to sell indulgences.

This is one of my issues with Martin Luther. He was a priest so he would have known that it was against Church doctrine to sell indulgences. I believe that he had been a priest for only about 3 years when he posted is list of 95 items. Perhaps he was protesting something that he really did not know a lot about.

 

[ACbishop]

This is one of my issues with Martin Luther. He was a priest so he would have known that it was against Church doctrine to sell indulgences. I believe that he had been a priest for only about 3 years when he posted is list of 95 items. Perhaps he was protesting something that he really did not know a lot about.

Martin Luther was a devout priest and monk. He cont(name removed by moderator)lated and knew many many things concearning the faith. He absolutely knew that there were many abuses of the faith going on and what is so much more, he knew that the church itself had run off the tracks and there was no getting it back on. Thank God he had the courage that so many before him didn’t have or lost their life over.

 

[ACbishop]

: Ummm…OK. Where did you get this one??? Let me guess: Jack Chick? William Webster? Somebody-else-whose-“gospel”-isn’t-in-the-Bible??

…::

It came from your own Catechism! Don’t you know your own Catechism?

 

[ACbishop]

Selling of indulgences was against Church doctrine then as it is now.

Sexual immorality was not and is not Church doctrine or policy. Those who were immoral answer God all on their own.
By the way, are you presuming to tell us that the Reformation ended immorality in the protestant clergy? I hardly think so.

I, as most Catholics do, disagree with you on this one.

What difference does it make whether wrongdoing is church policy or not? It certainly isn’t church policy that priests can molest young boys but would that prompt me to never be concearned about my 4 year old in a church setting? This whole notion is silly. As far as unbiblical teachings, we can start a whole new thread there!

 

[Goth_Catholic]

What difference does it make whether wrongdoing is church policy or not? It certainly isn’t church policy that priests can molest young boys but would that prompt me to never be concearned about my 4 year old in a church setting? This whole notion is silly. As far as unbiblical teachings, we can start a whole new thread there!

Your church’s officals children as well. The catholic church isn’t the only one to suffer these problems, the damn liberal media just likes to focus on catholic scandals I would never worry about my kids in church because the church is the safest place for them to be.

 

[BlestOne]

Your church’s officials children as well. The catholic church isn’t the only one to suffer these problems, the damn liberal media just likes to focus on catholic scandals I would never worry about my kids in church because the church is the safest place for them to be.

Funny how the statistics show that they have a worse problem, but somehow Catholics are saddled with this distinction huh? I am with you… I would and I have left my children in the care of my pastor… trust me, they were very safe!

ACBishop: check out this link
reformation.com/CSA/startPage.html

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What difference does it make whether wrongdoing is church policy or not?

What difference? My dear man, it makes all the difference in the world.

For if your objection to Catholicism is “There are sinners among Catholics who go against church policy and do wrong”. . .please tell me which religion–nay, tell me which person–is without sin through his/her/its entire existence, never goes against “church policy” and indeed never against Christ The Truth as well. You? (May I remind you, you aren’t ‘done yet’ in your existence and you don’t know what sins you may commit, and perhaps do not recognize the sins you have already committed, hmmm?) Your church? It never erred? Its members never sinned?

Unless you are seriously delusional, you will recognize that not only you, but any and all members of your ‘church’ and even your church itself not only might have committed ‘wrong’ which was against your ‘policies’, but that even your policies may be errors against truth themselves. For you have no assurance, do you, that what ‘your church’ teaches is 100% what Christ taught, do you? If the Bible is your guide. . .well, what of the countless other ‘Bible believing churches’ who disagree with some of your teachings? If they are studying the Bible as you do, why do they interpret one way and you another?

As far as personal wrong, again, unless you are seriously delusional, you will recognize that anyone, from you to your ‘leader’ and the oldest, most revered person who has lived a godly life–can still sin, and sin to the death.

And if you are going to scream, “Catholics sin, and it doesn’t matter if they are actually sinning against their own teachings, the fact that they sin at all makes their religion and their people untrustworthy and wrong”–you are going to have to leave your own religion because people there do the very same thing. Looks like you can’t trust anyone, even your own self.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Selling indulgences was not Church policy ever. There were some priests who did it. They were disciplined for this by the Church.

Did you even read this link? It gives the specifics.

catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

I did. I think some of the problem in this discussion is the difference between church teaching and church praxis. Unfortunately, the world knows the Church far better by what it practices than what it preaches.

And sometimes, we drop the ball.