Uncommon Problem with RCC

[Randy_Carson]

OK, but it doesn’t mention whether or not the crime of heresy should merit the death penalty.

The argument put forth - by Aquinas, I think - is that someone who commits murder kills the body only. Someone who teaches heresy kills the soul which is of far greater value.

 

[Simpleton]

My story is long and very complicated (and has been discussed at length on these forums many times in the past)…so I won’t go into it.

As a brief summary, you should know that I grew up in the Catholic Church, but was never really a true Christian. My parents were “spiritual” but they went to Catholic church out of habit, not out of faith.

When I was in college (at an Evangelical school), I became a Christian for the first time (with a lot of help from my Catholic father-in-law to be) and I have been looking for a Christian home ever since.

I have spent years examining MANY different Christian denominations and I have given everyone a fair chance (at least I have tried to! I am a fallen human after all).

After making the rounds and studying all of the issues carefully, I am considering entering the Catholic Church once again (this time getting confirmed) and really becoming apart of the community there permanently.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Please don’t treat my comments harshly. I am coming here truly trying to find a way to approach these problems differently because, on my own, I haven’t been able to figure out a way to deal with them.

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Justin

Hi Justin,

How I handled these issues was I looked back throughout history and realized God’s Church was never filled with impeccable leaders even from the time of the OT. Noe liked the sauce, Moses had murdered someone, David was an adulterer and murderer, etc. in the NT Peter had denied Christ, Judas had betrayed Christ, the rest except for John had run off to hide while Christ went through His Passion and death so there aren’t a lot of upstanding people even from the start. Yet did any of their actions change the truth of what Christ taught and had revealed? No.

So like you these other men are fallen and are not perfect, yet God’s truth continues on unchanged in His Church.

 

[ezeekl]

This thread is not about baptism. But, it is about actions. I believe scripture clearly shows us that actions are important when it comes to seeing the fruit of the Spirit. Baptism is an action that is called for in scripture and is a direct action based upon faith that points right at Jesus. That is not the type of action the OP was asking about. If you want to ask all protestants here their views on baptism, a different thread might be in order.

This thread is about authority and the centralization of it in the church, whether it be good or bad. I bring up doctrinal truth because here is where the authority of the Catholic Church is most evident and also where the lack of authority in the protestant denominations breeds chaos. Recall that I said that there is no one in protestantism who has the authority to say, "Thus sayeth the Lord. . . . ". Baptism is as good of a doctrine as any to start with as all denominations have doctrines that address it and all use the scriptures to substantiate their doctrinal position. So if all use the scriptures and the scriptures are the truth then all these different and contradictory doctrines on Baptism are the truth. That is fine if you believe there is not just one truth. But I don’t think you do. So, back to the contradictory doctrines on Baptism, which one is the truth and which ones are not. A simple question that you should be able to give a definite answer based on your understanding of scripture. But by doing that you legitimize all the other contradictory doctrines because they arrived at their doctrines using the same authority as you did, scripture. That means that either there is more than one truth out there or there must be some other authority to determine what the one truth really is. In other words some authority to interpret scripture and say, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” The Old Testament church had prophets who did this. Jesus even acknowledges the authority of the Pharisees when He says of them as “sitting on Moses seat” and tells the people to do as they say [but not do as they did]. This despite the fact that the Jews had the written law just as we have the Bible. But the Pharisees were the one who had the authority to interpret the Law. If the New Testament is prefigured in the Old Testament and the OT perfected in the new as protestants claim then where is this perfection of the Old Testament church authority in protestantism? In Catholicism it is manifested in the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the church, But in protestantism it doesn’t exist. That is the reason there is the division and fracturing that has been going on in protestantism for the last 500 years and totalling today a myriad of denominations. In Catholicism we have one pope but in protestantism everyone is their own pope. Protestantim is like a ship wallowing in a storm with no one at the helm to steer it. No one to say, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” Now if you say that the Holy Spirit is that guiding hand on the helm of the ship of protestantism then where is he? Is the chaos we see in protestantism the work of the Holy Spirit? Because there is no doctrinal unity in protestantism. I think when the ship of protestantism left the port of Catholicism the Holy Spirit was not on board.

 

[ezeekl]

It seems like there are more than one truth. Take for example the question of capital punishment. Several hundred years ago, there were burnings at the stake as punishment for heresy or witchcraft. According to a book by Charles Lea, if a Catholic was opposed to this, his name was read out in Church as being excommunicated. Also, St. Thomas Aquinas approved of capital punishment for heresy. That was the truth then. However, today the truth is different, as we read in Catholic articles that a good Christian must oppose capital punishment.

Capital punishment has never been doctrinally defined by the church. It is among a wide rage of topics that have never been doctrinally defined. In actuality very few doctrines have been formally defined. The church’s position today is an acknowledgement that capital punishment is administered unfairly between the rich and the poor with the primary determination being the financial ability to defend oneself. Many poor innocent people have been executed and it is for this reason, among others, that the church opposes capital punishment. .

 

[Kliska]

This is off of the topic of the thread, and could be considered argumentative on my part, so I just want to clarify my position not wanting to descend into ongoing argumentation.

Well, perhaps it is because at least two of the sola’s can be proved false FROM SCRIPTURE.

I know it isn’t this easy back up, but it seems you may have a misunderstanding as to what those of us who believe in sola scriptura believe. The teaching of Sola Scriptura is akin to things like the Trinity. The concept is there, especially for backing up things taught verbally (see, I do believe the Apostles did indeed speak their message), no, you don’t find the words “sola scriptura.” However, we are not expected to accept a game of telephone when the end result contradicts something clearly written and preserved, and we are in good company when turning to the word of God to back up assertions.

1. Where does the Bible teach sola fide? Now, hang on…I know you can pull a bazillion verses which talk about faith, etc., but not one of them specifically says, “We are saved by faith alone.”

Same as the above. The concept is indeed taught, besides, as you and I both know more is contained in the Greek many times than is contained in the English translation.

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

To me, he was so clear using the Greek terms that the concept is underscored again and again and again.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Faith is accompanied by action, but it is the faith that taps into grace. I believe in the connection between good works and faith; the Spirit is wonderful Person to yield to and His work through us yields great fruit. What I don’t believe is that our works bring salvation… I also understand that many catholics are beginning to see that we aren’t so far apart on these ideas.

Ah…the Bereans…the world’s first sola scripturists. Well…maybe not.

Again, this article misconstrues the idea of sola scriptura. You and I would agree on something, I believe. IF someone preaches or teaches something that is contrary to scripture, can you know that the person is wrong? For me, if scripture says one thing, and a human is saying something contrary to it, I am bound to scripture.

 

[Kliska]

Not arguing here, sorry. For clarification on the points pertaining to the OP:

Now if you say that the Holy Spirit is that guiding hand on the helm of the ship of protestantism then where is he?

Protestantism is not a ship, if you want to use metaphor; Jesus is the ark of safety for all of us. And, we believe that each of us who puts their faith on and in Christ has the Spirit. I work out my own salvation with fear and trembling.

Is the chaos we see in protestantism the work of the Holy Spirit?

And do you ask that of the chaos we can see in the history of the RCC, or even the ongoing bickering and infighting now? It’s not necessarily institutions that are flawed but the humans running them and interpreting on behalf of others. However, in accord with the OP, when you see an institution claiming that the humans running it have a more perfect pipeline to God, then their claims and their actions need to be observed and held up to the word of God.

The invisible church is the catholic church and is fully united in Him, as we are all of the body of Christ.

I think when the ship of protestantism left the port of Catholicism the Holy Spirit was not on board.

And I think you don’t get to make that call for everyone. If that is the truth you believe the Holy Spirit has called you to, so be it; you may be right, you may be wrong. But I know we are agreed that the Holy Spirit is always right, and that humans don’t always listen to Him the way they should.

 

[adf417]

This is off of the topic of the thread, and could be considered argumentative on my part, so I just want to clarify my position not wanting to descend into ongoing argumentation.

I know it isn’t this easy back up, but it seems you may have a misunderstanding as to what those of us who believe in sola scriptura believe. The teaching of Sola Scriptura is akin to things like the Trinity. The concept is there, especially for backing up things taught verbally (see, I do believe the Apostles did indeed speak their message), no, you don’t find the words “sola scriptura.” However, we are not expected to accept a game of telephone when the end result contradicts something clearly written and preserved, and we are in good company when turning to the word of God to back up assertions.

Same as the above. The concept is indeed taught, besides, as you and I both know more is contained in the Greek many times than is contained in the English translation.

To me, he was so clear using the Greek terms that the concept is underscored again and again and again.

Faith is accompanied by action, but it is the faith that taps into grace. I believe in the connection between good works and faith; the Spirit is wonderful Person to yield to and His work through us yields great fruit. What I don’t believe is that our works bring salvation… I also understand that many catholics are beginning to see that we aren’t so far apart on these ideas.

Again, this article misconstrues the idea of sola scriptura. You and I would agree on something, I believe. IF someone preaches or teaches something that is contrary to scripture, can you know that the person is wrong? For me, if scripture says one thing, and a human is saying something contrary to it, I am bound to scripture.

Dear Kliska, the fact that you are having THIS discussion with Randy, a protestant convert to the CC speaks volumes to what I have been trying to point out previously in this thread.

At what point in time of a protestants conversion process to the CC do they no longer fit into your paradigm and you now have to explain what they once professed to know or do you automatically assume they never did actually know?

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

 

[Kliska]

Dear Kliska, the fact that you are having THIS discussion with Randy, a protestant convert to the CC speaks volumes to what I have been trying to point out previously in this thread.

At what point in time of a protestants conversion process to the CC do they no longer fit into your paradigm and you now have to explain what they once professed to know or do you automatically assume they never did actually know?

Does everyone that claims the title Roman Catholic actually understand the true teachings of their church? I’ve met many who don’t, as well as Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptists, etc… That is why it is always a discussion between individuals, despite what we may “point to” as our beliefs. Add that to the fact that I don’t know what denomination he was, or how “practicing” he was of that denom.

I guess what I take from conversations with those like Randy is that I truly believe that we are actually closer to agreeing than disagreeing. But he may feel differently.

As I teach in my comparative religions class, an individual’s beliefs go far beyond any label they may give themselves in offhanded conversation.

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Have a wonderful day! God bless!

 

[ezeekl]

This is off of the topic of the thread, and could be considered argumentative on my part, so I just want to clarify my position not wanting to descend into ongoing argumentation.

I know it isn’t this easy back up, but it seems you may have a misunderstanding as to what those of us who believe in sola scriptura believe. The teaching of Sola Scriptura is akin to things like the Trinity. The concept is there, especially for backing up things taught verbally (see, I do believe the Apostles did indeed speak their message), no, you don’t find the words “sola scriptura.” However, we are not expected to accept a game of telephone when the end result contradicts something clearly written and preserved, and we are in good company when turning to the word of God to back up assertions.

Not correct. The Trinity doctrine came not from scripture. If scripture was to be used then the Unitarians would have a justifiable claim to their modalism claim. Basicly they claim one God who appears in different modes as Father Son and Holy Spirit. That is what they derived from scripture to the point of using that oft repeated saying of Jesus that He and the Father are one.

But the Trinity doctrine came to us not from scripture but from the Catholic Church in the fifth century. The Church used Greek philosophical terms such as person, essence, nature in describing the Trinitarian relationship in the Godhead. Nowhere are these concepts found in the scriptures or in Jewish philosophical thought.

More so, the scriptures expressly condemn the concept of sola scriptura. Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold onto the tradition (teaching) they received whether it came to them by letter (written) or by word of mouth (orally) [See 2 Thess 2:15] This is particularly important as the Thessalonians were basically sola scripturists who did not believe what Paul was teaching them. Pauls words to them, which protestants embrace as the inspired word of God, told them they were wrong for their sola scripturist mentality. Pauls words, inspired by God and penned 2,000 years ago are just as valid today as then.

 

[ezeekl]

Does everyone that claims the title Roman Catholic actually understand the true teachings of their church? I’ve met many who don’t, as well as Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptists, etc… That is why it is always a discussion between individuals, despite what we may “point to” as our beliefs. Add that to the fact that I don’t know what denomination he was, or how “practicing” he was of that denom.

I guess what I take from conversations with those like Randy is that I truly believe that we are actually closer to agreeing than disagreeing. But he may feel differently.

As I teach in my comparative religions class, an individual’s beliefs go far beyond any label they may give themselves in offhanded conversation.

Have a wonderful day! God bless!

What the Catholic Church teaches and what people, for what ever reason, believe are not comparable. Free will has not been abrogated and people can believe what they want. But God is a King and heaven is a kingdom and there is no democracy nor rule by majority. Those are man made inventions. The Church received its marching orders at the Great Commission to go into the world to baptize in the Name of the Trinitarian God and to teach the nations. Students in school can learn the whole truth on a subject if they wanted to or they could be comfortable with learning only a portion. Same is true of the Church. It teaches but some people don’t want to learn the whole truth but are comfortable with a lesser amount. That is why, when protestants converts are asked why they converted to Catholicism, the invariable answer given is so they could have the whole truth. That answer is never given by those former Catholics who left the Church for protestantism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I know it isn’t this easy back up, but it seems you may have a misunderstanding as to what those of us who believe in sola scriptura believe.

And this is due in no small part to the fact that sola scripturists themselves cannot seem to agree on what the proper definition is.

Same as the above. The concept is indeed taught, besides, as you and I both know more is contained in the Greek many times than is contained in the English translation.

So, in other words, no, you don’t have a verse.

 

[Tomdstone]

1. Yes torture was allowed but only by the civil authorities.

Have you read the papal bull ad extirpandam by Pope Innocent IV which is often cited for allowing torture (under certain conditions) to extract confessions?
The truth at that time was that torture was allowed (with certain restrictions) in the Inquisition. The truth today is different and torture is not allowed according to Catholic teaching. So the truth about the morality of torture changes and is relative to the conditions and society.

 

[Brendan_64]

OK, but it doesn’t mention whether or not the crime of heresy should merit the death penalty.

But you didn’t ask that, you asked about capital punishment in general.

What is the truth concerning capital punishment. Is it something that Catholics should agree to or not?

No mention of heresy in your question.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

My story is long and very complicated (and has been discussed at length on these forums many times in the past)…so I won’t go into it.

As a brief summary, you should know that I grew up in the Catholic Church, but was never really a true Christian. My parents were “spiritual” but they went to Catholic church out of habit, not out of faith.

When I was in college (at an Evangelical school), I became a Christian for the first time (with a lot of help from my Catholic father-in-law to be) and I have been looking for a Christian home ever since.

I have spent years examining MANY different Christian denominations and I have given everyone a fair chance (at least I have tried to! I am a fallen human after all).

After making the rounds and studying all of the issues carefully, I am considering entering the Catholic Church once again (this time getting confirmed) and really becoming apart of the community there permanently.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Please don’t treat my comments harshly. I am coming here truly trying to find a way to approach these problems differently because, on my own, I haven’t been able to figure out a way to deal with them.

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated.

Justin

As many have by now pointed out, there are problems with every organization.

Would you refuse to move to America and become a full citizen because of slavery? Or because blacks and women weren’t allowed to vote until the 20th century?

Would you refuse to move to Germany because it was the chief belligerent in starting BOTH world wars? How about because of the 6,000,000 Jews killed under the Nazi regime?

Should we reject Jesus because the Bible says He comes from the line of David who was an adulterer and a murderer?

Maybe we should also through out the letters of St. Paul. After all, he was directly responsible for the martyrdom of St. Stephen mentioned in Acts of the Apostles.

Peter denied Christ three times, so there go his letters. What is left of the New Testament at this point? We’ve thrown out the Gospels because they include the teachings of a man descended from and practicing the religion of a sinful man, dispensed with all 13 letters of Paul because he also practiced that religion and persecuted Christians, and both letters of Peter. The remaining books under this logic are: Acts (which could probably be tossed because all the main characters were so sinful), Hebrews, First, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation.

So the logic of rejecting something because of it’s past is actually pretty laughable.

Yes, the Church has darkness and turmoil in 2000 years of history. But, “let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.”

 

[CatholicHockey7]

Justin and others have mentioned the Inquisition.

I strongly recommend reading this link.

As you will see, the statistics so often cited are very warped and the real conditions are not understood.

The truth about the Inquisition is not as horrific and deplorable as anti-Catholics would lead us to believe. This doesn’t excuse the actions taken, but it puts them in proper context and perspective.

 

[Kliska]

So, in other words, no, you don’t have a verse.

Actually I have… what was your phrase “a bazillion verses which talk about faith.” But it doesn’t seem as though you want me to go there, so I won’t. As I said, that is the same tactic as the people say the Trinity is not taught in scripture because the exact word “Trinity” is not there; now who sounds more like a sola scriptura advocate; you or me?

Besides, that is again off topic of the thread.

 

[adf417]

Does everyone that claims the title Roman Catholic actually understand the true teachings of their church? I’ve met many who don’t, as well as Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptists, etc… That is why it is always a discussion between individuals, despite what we may “point to” as our beliefs.

The difference is there is a mechanism in place in the CC to determine if someone is in fact understanding and/or practicing the true teachings. What is THE true teachings of the Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptists, etc… that one can look to to determine if you or the next protestant is following correctly?

Add that to the fact that I don’t know what denomination he was, or how “practicing” he was of that denom.

This should not matter if there is one truth, right?

Have a wonderful day! God bless!

It is truly a blessed day, Thanks.

 

[Kliska]

The difference is there is a mechanism in place in the CC to determine if someone is in fact understanding and/or practicing the true teachings. What is THE true teachings of the Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptists, etc… that one can look to to determine if you or the next protestant is following correctly?

I asked this up-thread; In your opinion, how does someone from an Islamic background come to the truth of Christianity? If we can get that answered from your POV, it may help further the conversation.

This should not matter if there is one truth, right?

Does it matter if a person is a practicing or non-practicing catholic? How about if someone either has studied or has not studied the catechism or the Bible? There is indeed one Truth, and it is a Person. There is one proper object of faith. How close or far away from that a person is will be dependent on a lot of things. As I’m sure you are aware just because someone labels themselves a catholic that doesn’t actually mean as much as it maybe should.

It is truly a blessed day, Thanks.

It is indeed! One turkey day meal down, one to go!

 

[Church_Militant]

Does it matter if a person is a practicing or non-practicing C

atholic? Are you joking? I mean it matters to the church and to the individual whose soul it is. Other people are less qualified to speak on that because in most cases we do not know the condition of another person’s soul. Conjecture and assumptions about them can be scandalously sinful in fact.

How about if someone either has studied or has not studied the catechism or the Bible?

You’d have to be careful with that as the early Christians…and in fact most people until the printing press came along in the 15th century were pretty much illiterate, which means that dissemination of information was mostly by word of mouth, which includes the Gospel.

There is indeed one Truth, and it is a Person. There is one proper object of faith. How close or far away from that a person is will be dependent on a lot of things. As I’m sure you are aware just because someone labels themselves a C

atholic that doesn’t actually mean as much as it maybe should.I just noticed something. Could you please show us the courtesy of capitalizing the word Catholic which is proper English? I notice that you never fail to do so with the word Christian and since we are both Catholic and Christian it would be appropriate and appreciated.

 

[Kliska]

Are you joking? I mean it matters to the church and to the individual whose soul it is.

That’s exactly my point, please review our conversation before trying to lecture me on a point. If someone calls themselves a protestant that may mean something substantive when it comes to the knowledge they possess, or it may not. It’s the same with other labels.