Protestants: When did the Church depart from Truth into Error?

[ACbishop]

You are setting a trap–the word execution may not occur in canon 3 of 4 Lateran, but heretics are to be handed over to the secular authorities, and the secular authorities are enjoined to exterminate heresy. We know quite well how this was done–it was done by burning obstinate or relapsed heretics at the stake. Reasonably, this is what the Fathers of the Council intended. I am not interested in arguing that this is the only possible meaning. That is why I said that the “official teaching” issue is uninteresting to me. You wind up playing word games. But historically there is no doubt whatever that this was done, and that 4 Lateran sanctioned and encouraged the practice.

Edwin

You are absolutely right. This is what happened to Thomas Cranmer and two others at the hands of bloody Mary. As they were led away blinfolded to be burned at the stake, the crowd began to sing Three Blind Mice, hence the present day nusery rhyme.

 

[Rocky]

You are setting a trap–the word execution may not occur in canon 3 of 4 Lateran, but heretics are to be handed over to the secular authorities, and the secular authorities are enjoined to exterminate heresy. We know quite well how this was done–it was done by burning obstinate or relapsed heretics at the stake. Reasonably, this is what the Fathers of the Council intended. I am not interested in arguing that this is the only possible meaning. That is why I said that the “official teaching” issue is uninteresting to me. You wind up playing word games. But historically there is no doubt whatever that this was done, and that 4 Lateran sanctioned and encouraged the practice.

Edwin

Let’s see, the year is 1213, the Christian west is continuing to be under attack from Muslim forces, a crusade is called, and among other things the council puts forth a canon saying heresies are to be stamped out in Catholic lands. Included in said canon is the fact that those accused are to be able to have some defense and are not just to be handed over.

But since we are judging this canon through the lens of 2007, I also would like to remind you that this is a disciplinary canon and not one that deals with doctrine.

 

[I_Believe]

“The Church” never departed from truth.

However, some members of the church did. No one denies that individuals, sometimes many individuals, went against the church teachings into things like selling indulgences (for their own personal gain), went against their vows of poverty, chastity and obedience as priests; were lazy, greedy, sinful etc.

Since clergy were held to a high standard, and a small (though still too large) number were extremely blatant in their sinning, and since any ‘chastisement’ from their superiors tended to be ‘too little, too late’, a number of well intentioned people stepped forward in an effort to purify, not so much “the church” but some of the church’s ‘clergy’.

And then, as often happens, they went a little too far. They became more concerned not with what was offending God (as they had been at first), but what offended them. And in order to bolster their own selves and to ‘prove’ that they were being more ‘godly’ than the clergy, they started to ‘cherry pick’ scripture.

Instead of arguing (quite correctly) that a man who had vowed chastity should not be fornicating, they started to go even further. Why, when one looked at “scripture” and not “the Church” (“The Church”, after all, was full of SINNERS but ‘the Bible’ was not --here is the start of Biblolatry), were priests ‘celibate’ to begin with?
And ‘who’ started this clergy ‘power’ anyway?

Anticlericalism became more and more vocal and vicious. People looked at the very high profile ‘sinner’ they either knew or had ‘heard of’, and ignored the hundreds of quiet and godly clergy in their midst. Hey, these people ‘shut themselves away’, these people ‘mumbled’ in a ‘foreign language’. Sure, they may ‘act nice’ right NOW. . .but can you trust them? Can you trust them not to be like the Borgia pope? They aren’t ‘like us’. They are trying to ‘keep’ us from having the Scripture because they’re afraid we’ll find out ‘we’ are as good as ‘they’ are. IN fact, we’re BETTER because ‘we’ are ‘pure’ and ‘we’ follow the BIBLE and not some ‘man’.

Welcome to the ‘reformation’ as most know it–not the beginning with its honest concern over individual wrongs, but the fight to the literal death over doctrine and the wholesale abandonment and ‘rewriting’ of Scripture to bolster the fighting.

This thread may die without anyone disputing what you have said. There is a lot of hard truth in your reply.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Here you go again with this, “We are right and the rest of creation is wrong” stuff again. This seems to be the norm with you sir. You have a huge beef with Protestants in general and will stop at nothing to continue to feed your own ego and keep reminding yourself that you are right on all counts. Maybe this is what you have to do to keep all of the Catholic propaganda from appearing to be the lies, deceit and manipulation that it genuinely is. It proves nothing to non-Catholics to use, “the church says that it is so” as proof on any and all issues. The Reformation took place becase it had to for Christianity to survive.

This doesn’t address any part of the question.

CDL

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here you go again with this, “We are right and the rest of creation is wrong” stuff again. This seems to be the norm with you sir. You have a huge beef with Protestants in general and will stop at nothing to continue to feed your own ego and keep reminding yourself that you are right on all counts. Maybe this is what you have to do to keep all of the Catholic propaganda from appearing to be the lies, deceit and manipulation that it genuinely is. It proves nothing to non-Catholics to use, “the church says that it is so” as proof on any and all issues. The Reformation took place becase it had to for Christianity to survive.

AC-

Manny is not alone in holding these ideas.

But that is not what the OP is asking…just focus on the question.

 

[christcnection1]

My journey from Evangelical/Charismatic Christianity to the Catholic Church was extraordinarily difficult. Studying these issues was a very long and prayerful process.

Through many miraculous interventions, I believe the merciful Lord led me to Catholicism. That being said, there is no doubt in my heart and mind that other Christian groups have a burning love for the Lord, sincerity in spirit, and possess many wonderful gifts to offer the Catholic Church.

This is an important dialogue; however, it’s one where our views and our tone could really cause pain. Let us try to be charitable and honest in this conversation. Let us really try to understand why we believe what we do. I genuinely believe nearly everyone here has purity of heart and intention.

Hey, I could be wrong in my convictions , but the Lord knows me through and through, so I trust in His mercy and love.

On an intellectual level, I embraced Catholicism for many reasons. Again, this was a long and difficult process, but the following is a short list of points that convinced me that the Catholic Church never went astray. Clearly, each point could be it’s own thread and could be addressed until we are blue in the face, but that’s not the objective here.

1. Justification (I always had difficulty accepting that we were saved by faith alone, in light of many passages of scripture.)
2. Sola Scriptura/Bible Alone (Although the idea of using the Bible alone appeals to me, it’s a hard concept for me to accept because of many passages of scripture affirming tradition, and because the Bible itself does not claim to be the final and sole rule of faith. Also, if the Lord intended to use the Bible alone, why didn’t He ensure the printing press to be invented many centuries earlier? Why didn’t He ensure the canon of scripture to come out sooner?)
3. Apostolic Succession
   catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
4. Lack of Unity outside of Catholic Church
   (I find it difficult to accept that God wants thousands of denominations. God’s people can hardly agree on the “essentials” and what are the “essentials.” Certainly some groups are better than others, and I recognize there is a degree of unity on many issues. However, I only see things getting worse in this department.)
5. Early Church Fathers
   (We have their writings, and have a very clear sense of what they believed, and how the Early Church lived. Based on this, I believe that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy best reflects how the Early Church lived out their faith. We also know how they “interpreted” the Bible.)
6. The Bible
   (Interestingly, this is why I use to reject the Catholic Church. As I came to learn what Catholics truly believed concerning the word of God, it really made a lot of sense. This is just my prayerful opinion, and did not happen over night!)
7. Inspirational
   (I am just amazed by the “Saints,” the miracles, history, tradition, the unity/structure, and so many other things. I wish I had not been so hard on the Catholic Church as an Evangelical; so many of my objections were baseless and unwarranted. I am also surprised by the hundreds, if not thousands of Protestant ministers and pastors converting to the Catholic Church in recent years. I can certainly identify with some of their experiences.)

Finally, based on what we know about the Early Church, (with little wiggle-room) either you have to conclude one of two things if you assume that modern “Protestant” Christianity is the purest version…

A. The Church went terribly astray very early on (within the first couple of centuries)

                              -OR-

B. The Church remained faithful, and never went astray.

Ultimately, I cannot accept ‘A’ because I think that says something negative about God. To me it says, God didn’t care for His people enough for well over one thousand years (until the Reformation) to guide them back to “Biblical” Christianity. It also says that essentially after the apostles, God did not ensure that a stable/reliable structure would guide His people into truth right from the start.

Again, I could be wrong, and I’m open to seeing other perspectives.

I love all of you, my siblings in Christ! Let us reason with charity.

 

[mark_a]

They may be required to by Canon law but do they really? Certainly not.

 

[Contarini]

Let’s see, the year is 1213, the Christian west is continuing to be under attack from Muslim forces, a crusade is called, and among other things the council puts forth a canon saying heresies are to be stamped out in Catholic lands. Included in said canon is the fact that those accused are to be able to have some defense and are not just to be handed over.

Yes, but the fact was that heretics were to be handed over to the secular arm simply for their heresy–contrary to some Catholic spin, this was not to be done only if they were doing some concrete social harm distinct from denying Catholic teaching. Denial of the Real Presence, for instance, could be and was punished with death.

But since we are judging this canon through the lens of 2007,

I’m not morally judging it in the sense of saying that its framers were bad people. I’m saying that it was wrong.

I also would like to remind you that this is a disciplinary canon and not one that deals with doctrine.

Irrelevant to the point I was making. However, if it was only discipline, why were both Hus and Luther condemned in part for denying it (obviously both of them had other “errors” as well)?

Edwin

 

[Rocky]

You are absolutely right. This is what happened to Thomas Cranmer and two others at the hands of bloody Mary. As they were led away blinfolded to be burned at the stake, the crowd began to sing Three Blind Mice, hence the present day nusery rhyme.

What happened to Thomas Canmer is terrible. What happened to the English martyrs under Elizabeth I is equally terrible. I think of St. Margaet Clitherow, wife and mother, who was executed because she would not give up her Catholic faith. She was stripped of her clothing and crushed under a hard door with heavy weights. I am sure that many tears were shed on both sides.

We can go on pointing fingers all day about which side acted more outrageously. The question, however, is when did the Church depart from Truth? The Truth that the Church teaches is 2,000 years old and has not changed. Although disciplines have changed, what has not changed is doctrine and dogma. And when the Church uses the word “dogma” it means the interpretation of scripture that has been from the beginning—for instance how the Church interprets the Gospel of John, Chapter 6.

 

[rr1213]

Well folks, being charitable, we have about six serious responses to this question, only four of which are actually on point with respect to the inquiry… and Edwin is responsible for three of those. Thanks Edwin!

I understand that Catholics do not believe that the Church, as opposed to individuals in the Church, can err on matters of faith and morals. I truly do understand that concept, although I don’t accept it.

Protestants, on the other hand, do believe that the Church has erred. What I am really and quite seriously interested in discussing is when and how this happened. If we, as Protestants ,believe this to be true, then we should be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint some point (or points) in history at which we can reasonably assert that the train went off the rails. Was this right at the beginning in the first century? Or was it only after the Church became the established religion of the Empire? Or was it the medieval Church? The Church immediately prior to Trent? I don’t know, but you get the picture.

If we as Protestants are right, we should be able to answer this question. If we cannot, then perhaps we are wrong or maybe we are not conversant enough with our own ecclesiastical history. I’m not baiting anyone here and I’m not sure what the answer is, but I would like to hear rational, reasonable and thoughtful responses.

Finally, everyone should know that I also posted this question over at CARM. Certainly, I shouldn’t expect to get more serious answers over there than here, now, should I?

 

[christcnection1]

We can go on pointing fingers all day about which side acted more outrageously

Indeed, and I do not think this is fair. If we used atrocities perpetrated as the basis to reject a certain group of Christians, we could probably reject them all (maybe with the exception of the Annabaptists).

Furthermore, if you compare the good versus evil committed by individuals in the Catholic Church, that’s like comparing a cantaloupe to a pea. In other words, there are far more people like Mother Theresa than Judas.

We forgive the evil Protestants did against us. Please forgive us for the evil we did against you. We were both very wrong.

 

[Rocky]

Well, rr1213, from what you have just written, I guess that only Protestants should answer this question, because as you pointed out Catholics do not believe that the Church erred as opposed to individuals in the Church. So given our honest belief how can we as Catholics answer you in any other way than we already have? Are you really expecting us to deny what the Holy Spirit has promised?

 

[christcnection1]

Well folks, being charitable, we have about six serious responses to this question, only four of which are actually on point with respect to the inquiry… and Edwin is responsible for three of those. Thanks Edwin!

I understand that Catholics do not believe that the Church, as opposed to individuals in the Church, can err on matters of faith and morals. I truly do understand that concept, although I don’t accept it.

Protestants, on the other hand, do believe that the Church has erred. What I am really and quite seriously interested in discussing is when and how this happened. If we, as Protestants ,believe this to be true, then we should be able to p(name removed by moderator)oint some point (or points) in history at which we can reasonably assert that the train went off the rails. Was this right at the beginning in the first century? Or was it only after the Church became the established religion of the Empire? Or was it the medieval Church? The Church immediately prior to Trent? I don’t know, but you get the picture.

If we as Protestants are right, we should be able to answer this question. If we cannot, then perhaps we are wrong or maybe we are not conversant enough with our own ecclesiastical history. I’m not baiting anyone here and I’m not sure what the answer is, but I would like to hear rational, reasonable and thoughtful responses.

Finally, everyone should know that I also posted this question over at CARM. Certainly, I shouldn’t expect to get more serious answers over there than here, now, should I?

What is your opinion of the Early Church Fathers?
How important is it to you how they viewed scripture?
Can you accept that the Church went astray within the first couple of centuries?
Do you have any thoughts on my first post? (the long one)

I appreciate your sincere question. I think it’s a valid and important topic to have a discussion on.

 

[I_Believe]

rr1213, I too feel you have asked an interesting question, and I’ll follow the thread to see the replys.

My apology for inviting AC to venture further off topic with my question regarding his reply.

God Bless,
Charles

 

[Contarini]

Well folks, being charitable, we have about six serious responses to this question, only four of which are actually on point with respect to the inquiry… and Edwin is responsible for three of those. Thanks Edwin!

I’m happy to be appreciated–but then maybe you could answer me. . . . Why do we have to believe that Catholicism “went off the rails”? Why can’t it be, at the very worst, in the same boat we are?

The little byplay about Catholic vs. Anglican persecutions illustrates my point. I never intended to suggest that I thought Anglicans had clean hands persecution-wise. My point is precisely that even if the RCC is in some rarefied sense infallible, in the normal day-to-day sense it has made a lot of mistakes just as we have.

Edwin

 

[Techno2000]

Well folks, being charitable, we have about six serious responses to this question, only four of which are actually on point with respect to the inquiry… and Edwin is responsible for three of those. Thanks Edwin!

Birds of a feather, flock together

 

[rr1213]

Well, rr1213, from what you have just written, I guess that only Protestants should answer this question, because as you pointed out Catholics do not believe that the Church erred as opposed to individuals in the Church. So given our honest belief how can we as Catholics answer you in any other way than we already have? Are you really expecting us to deny what the Holy Spirit has promised?

If you look at the OP it was directed primarily towards Protestants, but I’m still interested in hearing from Catholics as well assuming that it is on the topic of the thread and not just a version of “this is stupid; we know the Church cannot err”. We have had one or two serious comments from Catholics who did not concede the premise of the OP…

 

[Rocky]

I am not sure what you consider a “serious” answer by a Catholic to be.

 

[rr1213]

What is your opinion of the Early Church Fathers?
How important is it to you how they viewed scripture?
Can you accept that the Church went astray within the first couple of centuries?
Do you have any thoughts on my first post? (the long one)

I appreciate your sincere question. I think it’s a valid and important topic to have a discussion on.

I’ve not read enough of the ECFs to have an intelligent discussion. Still, from the little I have read, as well as what I’ve read about the ECFs, I suspect that they are for the most part consistent with Catholic teaching. I don’t think that all of them are always consistent with Catholic teaching (and I know that Catholics wouldn’t disagree there). Reading more of the ECFs is one of my goals.

Can I accept that the Church went astray early? Sure, if that is where the evidence leads.

Thoughts on your first post? It was very well thought out and one of the few serious posts on the subject, although you actually got to the topic of the OP late in the post. (Your post was one of the “serious” posts I was thinking of ). To be truthful, I agree with most of the points you made.

 

[rr1213]

I am not sure what you consider a “serious” answer by a Catholic to be.

Being willing to at least consider the premise of the OP. Or at least offering something besides a simple “the Church does not err”. I accept that Catholics believe that the Church does not err as to matters of doctrine and faith. With respect, it does not advance my understanding to simply hear folks chiming in with a variant of that same message.

It is my premise that if Protestants (of which I am currently one) believe that the Church DOES err then we should be able to analyze when and how that happened. That’s what I’m looking for…reasoned discussion on that point.