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

[O.S.Luke]

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

Maybe not, but Boyer is revered. Transmutation is not transubstantiation.

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.

My ordination allows it. My church believes in Real Presence. And probably leaves a lot of room for possibility. After reading about the Alexandrian Precedent and intention, I have few if any qualms about whether my ordination is ‘valid’ or not. If I did, I certainly wouldn’t still be here.

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.

I don’t have any need to rationalize what I believe and am convicted of. But I certainly understand and respect your conversion. That is always cause to celebrate.

 

[BelFarfalla]

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

It absolutely makes a difference if church policy support an immoral action or not. If a priest does something immoral because it is supported by the Church then the church and the priest are both immoral and most likely criminal. If a priest acts on his own in committing an immoral act, then the guilt is on the priest only.

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.

I hope you have the same reservations about leaving your 4 year old with any adult at all. Are you really so naive to think that a child is more likely to be molested by a Catholic priest then by a minister of any other religion? The percentage of priests who molest children is lower then the percentage in the general population who molest children. Further, the ministers of other faiths are just as likely to molest children as Catholic priests. Statistically, your child is many times more likely to be molested by a member of your extended family or a family friend then by a minister/priest of any religion. So if you are going to be paranoid about Catholic priests because a very very small percentage of them have molested children I suggest that you get extremely paranoid about all the other adults around you. Statistically your child is safer with a priest then with your uncle.

As far as unbiblical teachings, we can start a whole new thread there!

And you thread would be falling on deaf ears. I’ve argued this nonsense from ‘protestant’ sects dozens of times. I’m afraid that you will not convince me nor most Catholics that your personal interpretation of the bible and theology is the one we should follow. There is no reason at all that I should take anything you say about scripture seriously.

 

[BelFarfalla]

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.

Of course some times we all drop the ball. Prodestent sects did not improve on this one bit. They too are human.

 

[mark_a]

So anyways, concerning moral teachings, when did the Catholic Church depart from truth into error?

Or did it ever have the truth concerning moral teachings?

There is nothing but silence from Protestants on this question.

What’s the deal?

 

[Zooey]

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+

Ah,Luke!! The sky must be falling, because you and I agree totally here!!! How is this possible!!
God bless you, brother!!

 

[Zooey]

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

Ummmmmm…

Ye dinnae know your way around here yet, do ye, laddie?? I dinnae hae a catechism, yean; I hae the “Wee Red Book”…which is actually a Large Brown Book…
But I digress: I’m a Methodist, and happy to be so. But ye’re still blowing sand, yean: Show me the money----Oops!! I mean, show the place where ye found your wee notions of what Catholics believe, as opposed to what they truly believe. (That, or:shrug: admit ye dinnae hae a clue as to what ye’re saying).
I’ll be here…with a wee drop of the tay to keep me warm, whilst waiting… :coffeeread: :coffeeread: :coffeeread:

 

[BelFarfalla]

Ummmmmm…Oops!! I mean, show the place where ye found your wee notions of what Catholics believe, as opposed to what they truly believe. …

To help clear this up, I’ve found the text in the Catechism of the Catholic Church… and of course it was mistated and misrepresented.

The Cathechism’s teaching that Mary is the purest realization of faith when in fact in scripture it is Jesus Christ who is the purest realization of faith.

I have posted the two paragraphs from the Catholic Catechism that are taking about the above topic, paragraphs 148 and 149.

ACbishop says that the Catechism (CC) says “that Mary is the purest realization of faith”. Of course this is NOT what the CC says. Instead is says that in Mary we find the “purest realization of faith.” As usual, context is everything. The context is the manner in which Mary gave herself over to faith so totally and never wavered in that faith. This is the realization of the faith… the realization of the manner of faith we should all strive to achieve.

148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that “with God nothing will be impossible” and so giving her assent: “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.” Elizabeth greeted her: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.

149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary’s faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God’s word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.
For anyone interested, there is a searchable, online CC.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

 

[ACbishop]

To help clear this up, I’ve found the text in the Catechism of the Catholic Church… and of course it was mistated and misrepresented.

I have posted the two paragraphs from the Catholic Catechism that are taking about the above topic, paragraphs 148 and 149.

ACbishop says that the Catechism (CC) says “that Mary is the purest realization of faith”. Of course this is NOT what the CC says. Instead is says that in Mary we find the “purest realization of faith.” As usual, context is everything. The context is the manner in which Mary gave herself over to faith so totally and never wavered in that faith. This is the realization of the faith… the realization of the manner of faith we should all strive to achieve.

For anyone interested, there is a searchable, online CC.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

I didn’t make a mistake here as you alleged. Read the last line of 149. This is exactly what I said.

 

[BelFarfalla]

I didn’t make a mistake here as you alleged. Read the last line of 149. This is exactly what I said.

You did not quote the CCC as there were no quotes around what you said nor are the words you wrote exactly those that are in the CCC. Instead you misrepresented them. What you wrote says that the CCC says that Mary, the person, is the realization of the faith.

The Cathechism’s teaching that Mary is the purest realization of faith when in fact in scripture it is Jesus Christ who is the purest realization of faith.

Instead the CCC is speaking of her actions. Her actions show the ‘purest realization of the faith’. This means that they view Mary as a perfect example of how we should all exhibit faith.

148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that “with God nothing will be impossible” and so giving her assent: “Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word.” Elizabeth greeted her: “Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.” It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.
149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary’s faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfillment of God’s word. And so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith.

This is how Catholics interpret the CCC. If you want to read you own meaning into it, as you have, be my guest. Nothing I nor anyone else does will stop you from hating the Catholic Church as you do. It’s real rather sad to watch. I do wonder what your mission is here on a Catholic forum… with your hate towards us. Your intent cannot be a good one.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

(1) indulgences, (2) sexual immorality by the clergy, (3) unbiblical teachings and practices, do we need to continue to spell it all out for you?

Yes please.

(1) On the issue of indulgences - do you find any for sale in Catholic books stores and giftshops today? Seen any with a “buy it now” option on eBay?

Take a look at the following:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences

(2) Sexual immorality of the clergy made the Reformation necessary? Are Protestants without sex scandals?

As of current writing, about 1 in 63 priests have been accused or convicted or dismissed on any sort of allegation. Less then 2% have even been implicated.

(3) One man’s unbiblical is another man’s living bible. I think we need better examples than to say something is unbiblical. There is, no great way to understand the general concensus on this one whatsoever.

If you can cite some particular points of contention, we can start to examine some of the threads that are already online and talk about them.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes please.

(1) On the issue of indulgences - do you find any for sale in Catholic books stores and giftshops today? Seen any with a “buy it now” option on eBay?

Take a look at the following:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgences

(2) Sexual immorality of the clergy made the Reformation necessary? Are Protestants without sex scandals?

As of current writing, about 1 in 63 priests have been accused or convicted or dismissed on any sort of allegation. Less then 2% have even been implicated.

(3) One man’s unbiblical is another man’s living bible. I think we need better examples than to say something is unbiblical. There is, no great way to understand the general concensus on this one whatsoever.

If you can cite some particular points of contention, we can start to examine some of the threads that are already online and talk about them.

You can also add teachers are not immune to sex scandals. Look at those female teachers who had sex with minors, or that Evangelical Preacher who was caught have relationships with a gay prostitute.

 

[rr1213]

indulgences, sexual immorality by the clergy, unbiblical teachings and practices, do we need to continue to spell it all out for you?

Yes, I think that would be very worthwhile.

 

[Mannyfit75]

sex abuse is not a Catholic issue only. It is a society issue. There sex abuse scandals in the public schools, and also in Protestant churches…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

sex abuse is not a Catholic issue only. It is a society issue. There sex abuse scandals in the public schools, and also in Protestant churches…

Oh gosh, I can’t find my link to the actual statistics on this. Less than 1% in the case of Catholic priests. Much higher in the denominations, even higher among teachers, and extremely high among family members.

But here is a webpage which also deals with the subject.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I agree Manny but think of it from the other person’s point of view:

If people keep on saying loudly that the sex scandals are ONLY in the Catholic Church, and that they occur ONLY because the priests are ‘celibate’, they not only can ‘relax’ about their pastors (who are not celibate), and they can also relax about practicing homosexuals. Because obviously it is not practicing homosexual men who molest young boys. . .the only reason Catholic priests molest is because they can’t ‘get sex’ and historically speaking, the ones who helped around the altar until relatively recently were boys/young male teens. So the priests are not homosexual, they are ‘frustrated’ because of the mean old Catholic Church and its crazy positions on sex. And if one keeps saying ‘children’ (even though the majority of the abused were teens) one is also politically correct, because nobody wants to abuse a ‘born’ child. Of course before they are born, unless you are a crazy Catholic or some other religion that got ‘corrupted’ , they aren’t really children at all and so any woman can ‘choose’ to ‘terminate’ anything in her body. Which is of course another reason why the Church (those celibate old men) refuse to ‘allow’ women to be priests. Women are smarter, and women can choose, and they would never molest anyone. And no practicing homosexual would ever ‘molest’ anyone because they are ‘free’ from that Catholic repression, of course. Only sexually frustrated people are abusers.

Same with all the heterosexual people who are kept from ‘love’ because the Church insists on sex being between two people married to each other. Think of all the lives the Church **ruined ** because it insisted on people living up to their vows, if married, or on saving themselves for marriage. All those people whose own natural sexual impulses were twisted and distorted and forced into having dozens of children whose lives they tried to distort too. . .

See, this is the kind of twisted distortion that is being spread as, forgive the phrase, ‘gospel truth’ about Catholics and Catholicism. It is said so loudly, so often, and so frequently, and the rebuttals are swept aside, ignored, and derided, that pretty soon it is going to be a ‘truth’ of popular culture. No matter how often we are told that George Washington never chopped down that cherry tree, for instance, most people think he did. And if you can prove he didn’t by tracing the origin of the fable back, 9 out of 10 people will be angry at you for exploding their fantasy, and will then go out of their way to tease you unmercifully by insisting that George chopped it down, will institute festivals that promote the legend, etc. etc. so that the ‘falsehood’ will emerge stronger than ever.
It is really a tough situation. Right now, the only thing I think that will ever turn people minds from falsehood to truth is God’s grace and our prayer, plus our continuing to love all people even when they embrace falsehood and persecute those who tell the truth.

 

[mark_a]

C’mon folks! Can you show me when and where the Catholic Church departed from truth into error concerning moral teachings.

I’ll get you started:

How about the Catholic teachings against artificial birth control? Shouldn’t we stop trying to overpopulate this terrible world we live in?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

How about the Catholic teachings against artificial birth control? Shouldn’t we stop trying to overpopulate this terrible world we live in?

Do wolves have artificial birth control?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would very much like to respond to this in a serious fashion, but of course in such a manner that doesn’t place me in the middle of a dog fight. The Catholic church begun to run far off the tracks by the 1500’s.

If this is true, then I must ask:

Does your current theology agree with that of the Church from the 1400’s? Before it went off the rails?

By then we had clear teaching on the Eucharist, the papacy, Mary, purgatory, etc.

If the Church was off track AFTER all this was established, then you would be wise to believe everything the Church taught up until then correct?

So, how does your thinking line up with that of the pre-reformation Catholic Church which according to was still “on track” up until the 15th century or so?

 

[Randy_Carson]

indulgences, sexual immorality by the clergy, unbiblical teachings and practices, do we need to continue to spell it all out for you?

Two questions:

1. What is an indulgence?
2. When did the Church begin unbiblical teachings and practices?

 

[bethndanny]

That’s a pretty big statement, you should try re-reading your Bible. So says the Southern Baptist who shouldn’t believe in transubstantiation but does.

I’m not Catholic, but I’m pretty sure Catholic’s place Jesus higher than Mary. I’ve only been to Mass twice, but each time I’ve gone they have only even mentioned Mary a couple of times. And yes I have read what the Catechism speaks of about Mary. This quote is some ridiculous anti-Catholic Protestant jargon (Protestants who argue this way make me ashamed sometimes to call myself Baptist). This is in line with saying Catholic’s worship Mary and the Saints and statues.

I just had to say thank-you for helping to dispell some of the nonsense Catholic misconceptions, despite not being Catholic yourself. It really is nice to see Christians of all denominations coming together, one in Christ.