In your opinion, when was the first time? (At what moment in time did the Church lose its authority to teach the Gospel, thus making it “okay” for people to invent their own forms of Christianity?)
For at least a century or so before Vatican II that had been relaxed through the notion of “invincible ignorance.”
Why is that an error? It’s a perfectly reasonable and moderate traditional discipline. I actually find the RCC too lax in this regard.
I do believe that the true church is the invisible body of all true believers and not some visible instituation. The person who sits next to you in the pew is a part of the visible institution. However, nobody but God knows his true status. For all we know he may be a dedicated Satan worshipper. The church is the body of Christ. Would Christ’s true body include this hypothetical member of the visible institution? I would argue that his body would not include such a person and, if there is even one member of the visible institution who is not a part of Christ’s bofy, then the true church is indeed invisible to us as we cannot tell if anyone we know is a part of it.The way out, which many Protestants have chosen, is to say that (despite the clear evidence to the contrary in the New Testament) Jesus never intended to establish a visible Church, and that His Church is an invisible assembly of “true believers” who cannot be known in this world, but who will be made visible in Heaven.
It is not a necessary conclusion that once error started that it means nothing taught after that must be wrong. Error can be introduced gradually and I would not presume to say that Roman Catholicism is apostate, just that the institution has made errors.
Do you think I’ll beat you there?
, but it’s also pretty much where I am now.I’ve been there for about twelve yearsDo you think I’ll beat you there?
Yeah, there is a good chance I may convert. At times I think it is imminent, then there are times when I just think “no way…it’s too different from what I’ve always believed and I just can’t buy it.” I know that there is a fine example of sophisticated theological thinking
This is where you need to incorporate a bit of history into your thought process. The fact is that at the time the majority of the countries held officially the Catholic Church as their religion. Therefore, heresy was seen by the state as a direct attack on the state and was to be dealt with. The Church did try those accused of heresy and determined their guilt or innocence. The state gave ample opportunity for the guilty to come to their senses and repent of their heresy and they would be just fine. If they did not cease of their heresy the state imposed whatever punishment they saw fit, which yes, did frequently include execution. Another fact that needs brought to light is that the accused were always more assured of better treatment in the trial process and were more likely to get a fair trial.
Another point that no one seems to mention is that the accused could go to Confession at any time, confess his sins in private to the priest, receive the Absolution, and the trial would stop, since it would be presumed that, if guilty, the man had confessed, turned away from, and been absolved of whatever heresy he was being accused of. Obviously, the priest was not at liberty to share the contents of anyone’s confession with the court - nevertheless, it was acknowledged by the court that the accused was held innocent by God after making a good confession, and the court did not consider itself to be above God.
)Ok, I understand your position now. My appologies, my friend. I will be quiet now and watch with great interest.
I took 17 years, and I probably should have taken 18 years, but I knew I was ultimately going to become Catholic, and my sponsor figured I’d get the missing details along the way, one way or another - she was right.I’ve been there for about twelve years
Edwin
I think this is a very reasonable premise; it’s one I can also accept.
I read Clement. I do not see it.What do you consider to be the first Council? Prior to the Council of Jerusalem (which is recorded in Acts 15), they went to the Apostles.
Between the death of St. Peter and the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD, they went to the same place we still go to, today - the Bishop of Rome.
Just one example of people going to the Bishop of Rome for answers - here is a small section of the response given by the Pope to the Corinthian Church in 90 AD:
“Indeed, you will give joy and gladness to us [the Bishop of Rome], if having become obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will cut out the unlawful application of your zeal according to the exhortation which we have made in this epistle concerning peace and union.” (Letter of Pope Clement I to the Corinthians, c. 90 AD - indicates that the Bishop of Rome was the final authority in matters of doctrine and discipline.)
From Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, page 19.
There are several points to consider. First, the letter itself. Why does it even exist?
To answer some of your questions…
) ) I think, however, confession took on some different shapes, but the heart and soul remained the same: reconcilliation with God and His Church.No, the lack of thoughtfulness is either in how I have expressed myself or how you have interpreted me!
No, I did not. Remember that I am speaking as a Protestant. My point is precisely that this is an example of what we Protestants mean when we speak of the Church erring. It may well be that our “erring Church” and your infallible Church are compatible–indeed I dearly hope that this is the case. I thought I explicitly said that I was not making an argument against the Catholic stance on infallibility, but obviously I didn’t say so plainly enough.
IN my snarkier moments. I’m not really sure that it is. Mostly I’m frustrated with the Catholic refusal to engage Protestant concerns on their own terms. You always retreat to “well, it’s not infallible dogma.” You don’t seem to understand that at some level we don’t care, except insofar as we’re happy to hear that you are willing to renounce that particular part of your past. But as an evaluation of how well you have preserved the Gospel, we think things like this matter. The fact that laypeople were at times kept from free access to the Bible is an extremely serious matter to us. It’s good that this is not dogma and that it is no longer the policy, but it’s still an example of the Church going very far astray indeed.
I don’t think that is true. I do not have statistics at hand, but from the accounts of executions I’ve read I’m pretty sure that in many cases condemnation was followed pretty quickly by execution. The stage of trying to get the accused to recant usually came before the formal handing over of the condemned person to the secular authorities. Also note that from the 13th century on the Church courts used torture (with fairly strict regulations).
That case can be made, yes.
Possibly because a Protestant church is the sum of its membership, but the Catholic Church is the Holy Spirit acting in the world.
Intersting question. Being a cathololic who tries to dialoge with those of protestant belief systems I have often wondered this myself. I have asked this qestion on non-catholic threads and never gotten any kind of lucid answer. So, I tried to answer it for myself. The best I could come up with were the schisms and heresies. Of which I could find only 4 prior to Martin Luther that are left still existing. The earliest of those that still exist are the Nestorians around the 5th century. I would ask that If you know of any viable answers to this question contained within the replys please direct me to it.