Reformation part deux

[Contarini]

"In 1075 Pope Gregory VII forbade any further lay investiture, declaring it a form of simony. Moreover, he also declared that any secular leaders who tried to invest someone with a clerical office would suffer excommunication. Henry IV, who had long seethed under the pressures from the church, refused to accept this change which undercut significant aspects of his power. " Research: newadvent.org/cathen/08084c.htm

Imho, the lay movement now being pushed to the forefront is similar to the issue addressed by H.H. Pope Gregory VII, but instead of Kings and wealthy barrons, we see neoliberals and “spirit” of Vatican II types using this tactic to usurp the control of Holy Mother Church from The Pope and the Magesterium.

So is it your contention that before the time of Gregory VII, the Catholic Church was not the true Church?

If it was, then even if you were correct in your parallel, it would not be true that this is an assault on the truth of the Catholic Church.

It is my understanding that matters of discipline may be changed and that one may hold different views about them without being unorthodox. It would then follow that one could conceivably disagree with some of the disciplinary Gregorian reforms without being a heretic.

And finally, I am enough of a modern Westerner to think that there is some difference between the powerful in society dominating the Church by virtue of their worldly power, and the Church allowing laypeople who feel a calling to minister more freely than they have previously been able to do.

This is a power play, period.

That wasn’t the case in the Middle Ages–the emperors and other monarchs had a theological self-understanding rooted in the Old Testament and the days of the Christian Empire. They saw themselves as “the Lord’s Anointed,” divinely authorized to care for and protect the Church. Of course this could be abused, and I would agree that it was theologically flawed in the first place. But it wasn’t merely a power play. Few things are.

It’s a cheap tactic to accuse the other side of making a “power play” while justifying your own side’s claims of power as being above such petty considerations.

And should one want to see how this will play out, just look at any of our seperated bretheren in the protestant sects and how their church councils govern their respective churches. And how easily one can modify/reject faithful teaching.

So it is your contention that the infallibility of the Catholic Church derives not from the eternal promise of Christ but from particular forms of polity such as those established in the Gregorian Reforms?

And you call that an orthodox position?

Wasn’t Christ guiding the Church in the early Middle Ages? Wasn’t Christ guiding the Church under Constantine, even though the emperor was given a lot more authority than we would now consider proper?

What about the polity of, say, the Episcopal Church (apart from not being in communion with Rome, and leaving aside women’s ordination) is contrary to Catholic doctrine?

In other words, what Catholic doctrine would be violated if bishops were elected by conventions with both clerical and lay delegates, and if regional conferences had more disciplinary power and had clerical and lay delegates as a separate house alongside the bishops?

You may think that this would be a bad thing. Similarly, other Catholics are free to think that the present situation is less than perfect. But neither group, surely, is free to claim that its polity preferences would make or break the Catholicity of the Church, which depends on apostolic succession and union with the See of Peter, unless my understanding of Catholic theology is seriously flawed. (If it is, please instruct me from authoritative sources.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Oh please.

Its just exaggeration most likely.

I don’t think you would be so quick to condone this “exaggeration” if it were directed against some group you respected. If someone said that Catholics are monsters and called down fire from heaven on them, would you give that person a pass, or would you say that they lacked charity?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t think we are limiting Christ at all. I think we are just taking Him at His word. He said a Kingdom divided against intself cannot stand. He warned of those that would try to lead us astray. To suggest that he would speak through heretics is contradictory to the instructions he already left us. We are certainly not limiting Him, just sharing what he already warned us about.

I get really put off when people say we “limit” God. No, we certainly do not Limit Him. We believe He can do anything. He created everything that exists just through thinking it. But, we also take Him at His word. We do not limit Him. Rather He chooses to makek Himself known so that we may follow Him.

By the way, I get put off by the argument, but not by you Cont. It’s the argument I hear from my moral relativist cafeteria non practicing Catholic mother when she has no other argument, so you bear the brunt of what I won’t say to her face in trying to honor the fourth commandment, lol

I understand where you’re coming from. I agree that liberals misuse this rhetorical tool. To say that God has revealed Himself in certain definite ways, and that certain things are contrary to this revelation, is not “limiting” God.

But to say that God cannot speak through heretics does limit God.

Can’t you see the difference?

Edwin

 

[jmj1984]

I don’t think you would be so quick to condone this “exaggeration” if it were directed against some group you respected. If someone said that Catholics are monsters and called down fire from heaven on them, would you give that person a pass, or would you say that they lacked charity?

Edwin

That depends entirely on the circumstances, reading through his posts I am sure it is a misunderstanding or an exaggeration, after all we should always take the most charitable interpretation of a persons words if possible.

 

[jam070406]

I understand where you’re coming from. I agree that liberals misuse this rhetorical tool. To say that God has revealed Himself in certain definite ways, and that certain things are contrary to this revelation, is not “limiting” God.

But to say that God cannot speak through heretics does limit God.

Can’t you see the difference?

Edwin

I’m not sure I can agree with this. Jesus said if you are not with Him you are against Him.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not sure I can agree with this. Jesus said if you are not with Him you are against Him.

Matt. 12:30. But in Mark 9:40 He put it the other way round, in a more relevant context. The disciples wanted to rebuke someone who didn’t follow them, and Jesus told them not to!

Edwin

 

[jam070406]

Matt. 12:30. But in Mark 9:40 He put it the other way round, in a more relevant context. The disciples wanted to rebuke someone who didn’t follow them, and Jesus told them not to!

Edwin

But it doesn’t say those people refused a Divinely revealed Truth, post Baptism.

 

[Boulder257]

I don’t think you would be so quick to condone this “exaggeration” if it were directed against some group you respected. If someone said that Catholics are monsters and called down fire from heaven on them, would you give that person a pass, or would you say that they lacked charity?

Edwin

I would pray for them and ask God’s forgiveness for they know not what they do.

 

[Boulder257]

I understand where you’re coming from. I agree that liberals misuse this rhetorical tool. To say that God has revealed Himself in certain definite ways, and that certain things are contrary to this revelation, is not “limiting” God.

But to say that God cannot speak through heretics does limit God.

Can’t you see the difference?

Edwin

Oh yes, I agree it limits God, I just argue that WE are not limiting Him, He just chose to Limit himself for our benefit. We may just be saying the same thing my friend.

 

[Boulder257]

I would rather God send down fire and destroy them and bring suffering to their families as a hard-earned lesson. I see monsters, not humans, in Europe. And I’m growing disgusted. Eventually, if things continue like this, there won’t be anything left about Catholicism worth fighting for. It’ll just be another Protestant Church.

Thank God I have a back-up.
-MontChevalier

Come on man. That’s not what Abraham did when he looked down at Soddom and Gomorrah. You are entering extremely dangerous territory now.

 

[Dirt]

So is it your contention that before the time of Gregory VII, the Catholic Church was not the true Church?
I did not say that, nor do i beleive that to be true.
If it was, then even if you were correct in your parallel, it would not be true that this is an assault on the truth of the Catholic Church.

It is my understanding that matters of discipline may be changed and that one may hold different views about them without being unorthodox. It would then follow that one could conceivably disagree with some of the disciplinary Gregorian reforms without being a heretic.
yes they may, and yes you may, to a point.
And finally, I am enough of a modern Westerner to think that there is some difference between the powerful in society dominating the Church by virtue of their worldly power, and the Church allowing laypeople who feel a calling to minister more freely than they have previously been able to do.

Depends on how you define “minister” Unfortunately what we are seeing are “ministers of this” and “ministers of that” to the point that Parishes are getting into the same trap that encircles many of our seperated bretheren. I live in the south and have a good working knowledge of protestant culture since i hear about it constantly. many protestant communities are deeply divided due to infighting from this group or that groupp of “ministers” and church councils. The same is beginning to happen at Parishes where the Parish councils start “running” the show instead of the Preist, or where a full time Preist is not availible. Most of these folks are well meaning, but lack the knowledge of what is and is not allowed.

That wasn’t the case in the Middle Ages–the emperors and other monarchs had a theological self-understanding rooted in the Old Testament and the days of the Christian Empire. They saw themselves as “the Lord’s Anointed,” divinely authorized to care for and protect the Church. Of course this could be abused, and I would agree that it was theologically flawed in the first place. But it wasn’t merely a power play. Few things are.

It’s a cheap tactic to accuse the other side of making a “power play” while justifying your own side’s claims of power as being above such petty considerations.

Straw arguement framing my comments as one sided.

So it is your contention that the infallibility of the Catholic Church derives not from the eternal promise of Christ but from particular forms of polity such as those established in the Gregorian Reforms?
Putting woords in my mouth that i did not utter.
And you call that an orthodox position?
see last comment.
Wasn’t Christ guiding the Church in the early Middle Ages? Wasn’t Christ guiding the Church under Constantine, even though the emperor was given a lot more authority than we would now consider proper?
Yes, and HE still is. But we both know that Just as God chastised the Jews throughout the Old Testament times, we are not imune to the same.Just as the Jews demanded Kings from God to administer them, we seem to be demanding control of what is not up to us to define.
What about the polity of, say, the Episcopal Church (apart from not being in communion with Rome, and leaving aside women’s ordination) is contrary to Catholic doctrine?

In other words, what Catholic doctrine would be violated if bishops were elected by conventions with both clerical and lay delegates, and if regional conferences had more disciplinary power and had clerical and lay delegates as a separate house alongside the bishops?

You may think that this would be a bad thing. Similarly, other Catholics are free to think that the present situation is less than perfect. But neither group, surely, is free to claim that its polity preferences would make or break the Catholicity of the Church, which depends on apostolic succession and union with the See of Peter, unless my understanding of Catholic theology is seriously flawed. (If it is, please instruct me from authoritative sources.)
Yes, i do think this would be a terrible thing, for when you democratize the heirarchy of the Church to the whims of people that can be swayed be whatever blows through on any given day, you wind up with what our seperated brethern in the protestant camps now have; loss of faith, incoherent doctrine, and splinter groups forming overnight for every little difference of opinion on just about every issue. We have The Successor to Peter, given the Keys to the Kingdom by Christ Jesus, and the successors to the Apostles. Along with the Magesterium that is all we need. I would suggest in all charity that if you have not done so, please spend some time reading the Encyclicals from Previous Popes, especially those concerning right ordering of the Church and it’s relationship to the secular world. You can find much information here: papalencyclicals.net/
and of course here:
vatican.va/phome_en.htm
A Blessed Advent to you Edwin.
Edwin

 

[MontChevalier]

Oh please.

Its just exaggeration most likely.

Just ignore him. I know I am.

-MontChevalier

 

[MontChevalier]

Come on man. That’s not what Abraham did when he looked down at Soddom and Gomorrah. You are entering extremely dangerous territory now.

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold up. Sodom and Gomorrah WERE destroyed by fire and brimstone. Abraham can do anything he wants, but Sodom and Gomorrah are still gone.

-MontChevalier

 

[wisdomseeker]

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold up. Sodom and Gomorrah WERE destroyed by fire and brimstone. Abraham can do anything he wants, but Sodom and Gomorrah are still gone.

-MontChevalier

 

[wisdomseeker]

Just ignore him. I know I am.

-MontChevalier

 

[Boulder257]

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold up. Sodom and Gomorrah WERE destroyed by fire and brimstone. Abraham can do anything he wants, but Sodom and Gomorrah are still gone.

-MontChevalier

I agree with you; however, my point was that it was destroyed by God. The righteous man prayed for those inside while God did the judging. I agree with your point, I just think that we should be very careful when we make comments that are judgmental of ones eternal destiny. I think our time is much better spent praying for those who are in need of God’s mercy. To each his own I guess, I just know I can’t throw stones, so I prefer to hope and pray for God’s mercy. I would much rather see the town remain because people repented than the town destroyed because of their wickedness.

 

[manualman]

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold up. Sodom and Gomorrah WERE destroyed by fire and brimstone. Abraham can do anything he wants, but Sodom and Gomorrah are still gone.

-MontChevalier

Yes but the point is that such a decision is GOD’s to make. Once you decide to start helping him out by selecting deserving targets for Him, you’ve crossed the line.

Rule #1: He’s God, we’re not. Repeat as necessary.

 

[Dirt]

Yes but the point is that such a decision is GOD’s to make. Once you decide to start helping him out by selecting deserving targets for Him, you’ve crossed the line.

Rule #1: He’s God, we’re not. Repeat as necessary.

 

[Warrenton]

But to say that God cannot speak through heretics does limit God.

God can speak through any medium. Scripture has instances of animals, dead bodies, Roman centurions (two that come to mind). If the faithful do not declare the word, Christ said the very stones will cry out.

 

[MontChevalier]

Yes but the point is that such a decision is GOD’s to make. Once you decide to start helping him out by selecting deserving targets for Him, you’ve crossed the line.

Rule #1: He’s God, we’re not. Repeat as necessary.

Is it? When you help someone who doesn’t want to be helped, how does that benefit either of you? I would say that such a person is already damned. What’s left is that we just finish the job and take them to their Satan; especially considering that they want it.
Besides, in today’s world, nothing really seems to be working.

-MontChevalier