Uncommon Problem with RCC

[ezeekl]

It is important to consider this. Jesus promised the church that it would never teach error. See Mt 16:18-19. Jesus never promised anyone in the church that they would not commit sin. So sinful men can teach divine truth. To deny that means you have to deny that God is omnipotent. You do that and you are on your own, literally.

 

[pablope]

Hello everyone,
I have read all of your comments and greatly appreciate and admire you all for taking the time to post concerns, questions, advice, etc. I greatly appreciate it.

There are many, many other comments I would like to make, but I think it would be more productive in general (instead of me arguing) to listen to what others have to say on the issue. Thank you all again and I hope to hear more from others.

I hope the excerpt from this article will help you more:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

On this point I discovered a very deep difference between myself and Aquinas. The more I studied his writings, the more the difference was noticeable to me. Aquinas believed that faith in Christ necessarily involves trusting the Church, because Christ cannot fail to guide and protect the development of His Church.

I came to see that I did not fully trust Christ, not because I thought Him untrustworthy, but because I had not understood that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head, and which He has promised to protect and preserve until He returns. I had not apprehended the ecclesial organ Christ established through which the members of His Body are to trust Him. I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”29 This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church, the basis for the priest speaking in persona Christi.

As I began to grasp that, I began to grasp that my Church-less faith was too small. Apart from the Church, I had conceived of faith in Christ as something entirely inward. But upon coming to understand that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head and which He promised to preserve, I came to see that the way to trust Christ is to trust His Church of which He is the Head, just as the early Christians trusted Christ precisely by trusting the teaching of the Apostles. Trusting the Apostles did not subtract from (or compete with) their trust in Christ. On the contrary, when Jesus tells the Apostle Thomas, “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,”30 He implies that greater faith is required and shown in those who trust in Christ not by seeing Him, but by believing the testimony of the Apostles. Jesus refers to this way of believing when He prays, “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”31

How would the integrity of the Gospel be preserved while it was taken to all the world over hundreds and now thousands of years?

The Church has this charism because the Church is the Body of Christ, and He, the Truth, is the Head of the Body. That ontological reality underlies Christ’s promise that the gates of Hades will never prevail against His Church,35 that His Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth,36 and that He will be with her to the end of the age,37. It underlies the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.38

The indefectibility of the Church is a gift from Christ to the Church by which she is preserved to the end of the age as the “institution of salvation.” She can neither perish from the world nor depart from “her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy.”39

The gift of indefectibility does not imply that the members of the Church, even members of the Magisterium, cannot sin or err. But it does entail that the Magisterium of the Church can never lose or corrupt any part of the revelation of Christ, which includes both matters theological and moral. This gift of indefectibility is essential to Christ’s purpose in establishing His Church as the means of continuing His saving work to all the nations and peoples of the world until the end of the age. Regarding this purpose, Pope Leo XIII wrote, “What did Christ the Lord achieve by the foundation of the Church; what did He wish? This: He wished to delegate to the Church the same office and the same mandate which He had Himself received from the Father in order to continue them.”40

The commission Christ gave to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 did not end with the death of the last Apostle, because this commission was given not only to the Apostles, but to their successors and the whole Church. The task of taking the Gospel to all nations and the ends of the earth goes beyond what the Apostles could accomplish in their own lifetime. In the same way, the promises of Christ do not extend only to the Apostles, but to their successors and all in union with them. This understanding of Christ’s promise to the Church provided a basis of assurance for the Fathers that Christ would preserve and guide the Church through apostolic succession. The pattern revealed through Christ’s relation to the Father is the pattern that is to endure until Christ returns.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

As Andrew stated baptism makes a Christian/Catholic. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Matt 28:19-20

As far as problems with the Church, this is a problem that many face.

'The kingdom of Heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everybody was asleep his enemy came, sowed darnel all among the wheat, and made off. When the new wheat sprouted and ripened, then the darnel appeared as well. The owner’s labourers went to him and said, “Sir, was it not good seed that you sowed in your field? If so, where does the darnel come from?” He said to them, “Some enemy has done this.” And the labourers said, “Do you want us to go and weed it out?” But he said, “No, because when you weed out the darnel you might pull up the wheat with it. Let them both grow till the harvest; and at harvest time I shall say to the reapers: First collect the darnel and tie it in bundles to be burnt, then gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ Matt 13:24-30

The kingdom/Church will never be free from corruption as the Church Militant, because the earth is subject to decay. The enemy will always attack the bride of Christ, but we have the faith that he has already won.

 

[DMC12]

well, like clearwater said, papal infability does not means that everything the Pope says is going to be right, it is just in some situations about dogmas when the Pope does that. (also known as speaking Ex Cathedra).

about the other stuff, well, sometimes the Church made mistakes because we are human, some people used the church power to get what they wanted, some others just made a mistake with the best intentions. it is something natural to be mistaken sometimes in over 2000 years.

I have this idea of why Catholic Church has done more mistakes than others religions. quoting uncle ben: “With a great power comes a great responsability.” some of those sects tht like to attack the Catholic Church claim that theirs never did something such as what the Catholic Church did, but IMO they did not because they had not the chance, no one asked their opinions, nor could they move people to do something of that significance, while the Catholic Church is a very important part of the world thus it has to be in contact with more conflicts and just by statistics more prone to do a mistake.

 

[steve_b]

One of the major roadblocks I am running into though is about the Catholic Church’s governing structure and the problems that come from it. Regardless of what you think about papal infallibility, papal authority, or the episcopal form of government, fair Catholics have to admit that a lot of really awful things have come from it. A lot of corruption, a lot of strife, murder, the restriction of liberty, etc.

Wasn’t Judas selected by Jesus? And he had an episcopal office. And he was aweful…right? Did Jesus ever promise there would be no more Judases? No.

Re: infallibility, It’s very restrictive in its definition… it’s not a wide open charism
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9976434&postcount=146
j:

It’s a historical fact that the Catholic Church supported the kings of Europe against the democratization of the West and that the RCC was intricately tied to the opposition of the principle of separating church governance and government in general.

That history is far more complicated than to reduce it to that
j:

How do you all deal with these problems? Wouldn’t the church be better off with less authority concentrated in one church governing office?

I look at all of the corruption and problems the Catholic Church has endured over the years and I feel saddened by it. I just don’t know if I want to be apart of that.

keep reading
j:

I believe Christian unity is important (one of the main reasons I am attracted to the Catholic Church), but I just can’t shake the feeling that if the Church has abused its power in the past, it could do it again.

You should be attracted to the Catholic Church because Jesus started it. It’s His Church. He insists on unity in His Church. He gives all His promises to His Church. Outside of it, there is no salvation. period dot end of sentence. (explanation to follow)

Protestantism is NOT His Church. They’re not even valid churches. It’s just a gigantic heresy. Heresy on steroids, heresy gone viril. God didn’t start them. Heretical and schismatic men started everyone of them no matter the stripe. You realize division from Our Lord;'s Church is condemned as are those who divide and remain so?

Protestants can’t get around these passages. The warnings are forever!!! There is no expiration to these warnings and consequences.

Romans 16:17-20 ,Galatians 5:19-21 The sin I’m focusing on is division. In Gal 5, dissension / division. In the Greek it’s διχοστασία dichostasia* =* dissension / division / sedition. I point this out because Romans gives the condemnation for dissension from the Catholic Church but not the consequences for one’s soul. Gal 5 mentions the sin and gives the consequences to that soul who dissents / divides from the Catholic Church and remains divided. The Greek word is the same in both readings. And the one outside the Church and remains there won’t inherit heaven

The CCC says the same thing 846

If you’d like to see what the ECF’s have to say, just ask

 

[jinc1019]

Thank you for all of the replies, I greatly appreciate them. I promise I am reading them, although it would be impossible for me to respond to each one to the depth that I should. I am carefully considering each point!

 

[Kliska]

Protestants can’t get around these passages. The warnings are forever!!! There is no expiration to these warnings and consequences.

Protestants would never want to “get around” those verses. They don’t mean what you propose they mean. For example, here’s some context in Galatians:

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 **But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.**16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

 

[fred_conty]

I don’t know that you will ever get anything settled at looking at people’s sins.
Skeleton’s are found in every closet.

What is needed is to look at what is taught. Was what was taught also taught from the very beginning, and is what is taught different than from the beginning. What does the church itself teach? And is what it teaches true.

Christ founded an organization that is suitable, not perfect. But he did promise to be with it until the end. Would he promise this if the structure was unsuitable? And how is this possible? The catholic church is 2000 years old, while the others are about 500 or less. The catholic church’s teachings are the same now as then and are world wide. Other church’s teachings have changed, and do change and are local and independent. These other churches do not have a structure that will keep them one as the catholic church does.

Quite a few of Paul’s letters written to different congregations were telling them not to succumb to sins and to bad teaching from others. He was concerned that they would become corrupt and some did become corrupt. The reason is that that is just human nature. And this will continue until the kingdom of God is established at the second comming.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[Muzhik]

You mentioned as one of your objections the fact that the Vatican (not the Church in general – I want to emphasize that) opposed “democratization.” I want to point out that tomorrow (Nov. 24) is the Feast of Christ the King. This feast was created in 1925 by Pope Pius XI. It’s not the Feast of the Divine Election of Jesus. It is a recognition of the Biblical Truth that Jesus is King over all.

This does not sit well with some people. In fact, I get the feeling that may Protestants look at G_D not as King but as a Divine CEO; and if they sit on their church’s board then they have the right to vote on and determine policy. (It seems like some have had a vote of “No Confidence” in their CEO and are seeking to replace Him with someone more “modern” and “relevant.” But that’s a subject for another rant.)

Viva Christo Rey!

 

[DavidFilmer]

Your argument is built on a serious anachronism. US political system (as most political systems today) is based on the idea of separation of powers. Montesquieus’ On the Spirit of Laws which advanced the idea was not published until 1748. Funnily enough, the book was quickly placed by the Church on the Index of Forbidden Books (included in 1751 edition).

Exactly. The Church’s political system has NOTHING in common with ANY separation of powers. It still does not. The Pope is an absolute monarch. The CIA Factbook lists Vatican City (a sovereign state) as an “absolute monarchy,” and I doubt anybody here would care to disagree. You DO understand, DON’T YOU, that this is part of my point???

So it’s not that the Church has a ridiculous political system when compared to the US, it’s that the US political system is based on ideas which have been condemned by the Church. Go figure.

You misunderstand my point. I have claimed that the US political system is based on ideas which have NOTHING IN COMMON WHATSOEVER with the Church. I used American political constructs to CONTRAST (not compare) systems. The American political system is based on a “balance of powers.” There is NO SUCH BALANCE whatsoever in the Catholic Church. The Pope (the “president”) is an absolute monarch. The Bishops (the College of Cardinals) are his minions. If they fail in their mission, they may be dismissed without recourse by the president.

Dude, the Catholic Church is an absolute monarchy ruled over by the Pope. It is (by FAR) the longest-standing absolute monarchy in the history of the world, and it is no different today.

The United States happens to be the longest-standing democratic republic. We have stood longer than any OTHER previous democratic republics. On this basis alone, many historians have predicted the failure of American society. All other democratic republics (from Rome onward) have failed because the voting majority figured out that they could legislate financial benefits for themselves (at the expense of the “rich”). Take from the rich, and give to the poor. But, then, what is the incentive for anybody to become rich? Then, everybody becomes poor. Who is John Galt?

The United States has been around for - what - 225 years or so? The Catholic Church has been around for nearly 2000 years.

 

[Dorothy]

I don’t know that you will ever get anything settled at looking at people’s sins.
Skeleton’s are found in every closet.

What is needed is to look at what is taught. Was what was taught also taught from the very beginning, and is what is taught different than from the beginning. What does the church itself teach? And is what it teaches true.

Christ founded an organization that is suitable, not perfect. But he did promise to be with it until the end. Would he promise this if the structure was unsuitable? And how is this possible? The catholic church is 2000 years old, while the others are about 500 or less. The catholic church’s teachings are the same now as then and are world wide. Other church’s teachings have changed, and do change and are local and independent. These other churches do not have a structure that will keep them one as the catholic church does.

Quite a few of Paul’s letters written to different congregations were telling them not to succumb to sins and to bad teaching from others. He was concerned that they would become corrupt and some did become corrupt. The reason is that that is just human nature. And this will continue until the kingdom of God is established at the second comming.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

fred conty:

Thank you for posting that quote. So many thoughts expressed there jumped out at me, and I feel the need to respond while it is still fresh in my mind.

The Church is NOT an organization…The Church is the Body of Christ! Though it is Christ that is holy, (and our Blessed Mother), all the members are either in a process of become sanctified, or, moving away from the truth, or having fervor removed from them) May the Lord help us!

And, yes, our Lord Jesus Christ promised this even with the corruption of its members. I thank the Lord for all the saints who cooperated with His grace and became like Him!

He kept the covenant with Israel in spite of all their sins. God keeps His promises! And the Church is the new Israel!

Thanks be to Him there was/is always a remnant who stayed the course. Then and now.

Many people mention about our human nature “it is only human” they say. No! It is our FALLEN human nature we are talking about.

Glory to Jesus Christ our King!

P.S. Fred, am I right in assuming that it is someone named “Justin” who the quote is from? It didn’t appear that way on my post…I did click on the quote button.

 

[steve_b]

Protestants would never want to “get around” those verses. They don’t mean what you propose they mean. For example, here’s some context in Galatians:

incorrect. Protestantism divided from Our Lord’s Church in the 16th century.
K:

Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

and division = sin against charity.
K:

15 , [snip] for space
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the whichI tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[snip] for space

Do you see that word sedition?

As I pointed out, in Romans 16:17-20 ,Galatians 5:19-21 The sin I’m focusing on in both readings, is division / sedition. In Gal 5, as in Rom 16, dissension / division In the Greek is ιχοστασία dichostasia* =* dissension / division / sedition is the same in both readings. In Romans we see the condemnation for that sin, In Galatians we see the consequence to the soul for that sin.

the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to teach that… John 14:25-26. Which means that teaching came from Jesus. John 16:12-15 . Jesus wants perfect unity John 17:20-23 … therefore Jesus tells us in advance through the HS, through Paul, how He will judge division from His Church. And there is no expiration date on that warning.

 

[Tomdstone]

incorrect. Protestantism divided from Our Lord’s Church in the 16th century…]

John Wycliffe lived in the 14th century, and Jan Hus was the founder of an early Protestant church the Moravians. He was burned to death in 1415.

 

[Kliska]

John Wycliffe lived in the 14th century, and Jan Hus was the founder of an early Protestant church the Moravians. He was burned to death in 1415.

Yes, it’s amazing how quickly we forget to love our neighbors… even our enemies, to do good to them, to pray for them.

I’ll not fruitlessly argue with someone who won’t read the context of the scriptures they quote. Besides, I’ve been told here that RC’s aren’t allowed to interpret scripture anyway, but go by what other men have deemed appropriate interpretation, so even if I showed error, no error would be recognized. It’s kind of a catch 22, and only results in the protestant getting in trouble on the forums.

 

[steve_b]

John Wycliffe lived in the 14th century, and Jan Hus was the founder of an early Protestant church the Moravians. He was burned to death in 1415.

Heretics were always to be found. Protestantism is recognized as starting in the 16th century

 

[steve_b]

Yes, it’s amazing how quickly we forget to love our neighbors… even our enemies, to do good to them, to pray for them.

I’ll not fruitlessly argue with someone who won’t read the context of the scriptures they quote. Besides, I’ve been told here that RC’s aren’t allowed to interpret scripture anyway, but go by what other men have deemed appropriate interpretation, so even if I showed error, no error would be recognized. It’s kind of a catch 22, and only results in the protestant getting in trouble on the forums.

You didn’t follow the context. Schism / division / dissension whichever term one wants to use is the same word in Greek, in both those readings.διχοστασίας

It’s condemned to divide from the Church as are those who do it. And that condemnation has no expiration date. It’s condemned in the 1st century, the 10th century, the 16th century the 21st century, and forever. " they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God" [Gal 5:21] There is no point in arguing about it.

 

[Kliska]

You didn’t follow the context. Schism / division / dissension whichever term one wants to use is the same word in Greek, in both those readings.διχοστασίας

It’s condemned to divide from the Church as are those who do it. And that condemnation has no expiration date. It’s condemned in the 1st century, the 10th century, the 16th century the 21st century, and forever. " they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God" [Gal 5:21] There is no point in arguing about it.

A word and its meaning are not context. You miss the point that Paul is making, in effect, not seeing the forest for the trees, nor seeing how it is meant within the letter. Again, you have no disagreement with me on the literal analytical meaning of the word, but rather the application in the context of what Paul is preaching, and to whom he is preaching.

To you it obviously applies to anyone teaching anything against the Roman Catholic faith. That’s not the meaning. But as you say, there is no point in arguing about it.

 

[Bill_Martin]

The Church is made of people. People do bad stuff. It’s nothing to get hung up on. You should base your decision on what you believe, not what other people do.

 

[zz912]

Yes, it’s amazing how quickly we forget to love our neighbors… even our enemies, to do good to them, to pray for them.

I’ll not fruitlessly argue with someone who won’t read the context of the scriptures they quote. Besides, I’ve been told here that RC’s aren’t allowed to interpret scripture anyway, but go by what other men have deemed appropriate interpretation, so even if I showed error, no error would be recognized. It’s kind of a catch 22, and only results in the protestant getting in trouble on the forums.

You seem to have a comprehension issue. Your personal theology may be coloring your understanding of the Catholic faith. Catholics are free to interpret Scripture, but it must be in line with Church teaching. And you yourself ascribe to this belief, you just don’t admit it. And the standard for judging if something is appropriate is if it is in alignment with your personal theology. (or is someone free to interpret the Scripture to believe that Jesus is not God? And why not?)

And you claim to show error. That’s an interesting statement. Are you claiming infallibility? Or are you possibly wrong? If you are possibly wrong, then how would you prove someone wrong?

 

[UbiCaritas15]

A word and its meaning are not context. You miss the point that Paul is making, in effect, not seeing the forest for the trees, nor seeing how it is meant within the letter. Again, you have no disagreement with me on the literal analytical meaning of the word, but rather the application in the context of what Paul is preaching, and to whom he is preaching.

To you it obviously applies to anyone teaching anything against the Roman Catholic faith. That’s not the meaning. But as you say, there is no point in arguing about it.

To take Paul only for who he was writing in the letter is to throw out the idea of inspired scripture that applies to us. Yes, there was one context to the congregation he is addressing, but this denies God’s ability to write one continuous story in the bible.

From the beginning of the bible God is telling the story of his marriage to the assembly. Whether it is the Israelites who abandon the king he chose or the detractors who have abandoned the Church Christ founded, the story is the same.

Division is not of God. “For I hate divorce. says The Lord” Mal 2:16