When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[PRmerger]

Not barn. A Stable. Crucial concept. Manure was not mentioned, the flowers were referred to as filthy stable litter, and a thistle.

I know, I know. But I like details. And Edwin is not a dwarf, refusing to be taken in.

GKC, Lewis collector

Ok. I’m very urban.

What’s the diff between a barn and a stable?

What’s filthy stable litter if not manure?

Edwin is very much a dwarf. A Black dwarf at that!

 

[GKC]

Ok. I’m very urban.

What’s the diff between a barn and a stable?

What’s filthy stable litter if not manure?

Edwin is very much a dwarf. A Black dwarf at that!

The point in the book was a connection between the Stable and another stable, on Earth, one that, as Lucy said, once contained something was bigger than our whole world. The Stable is a parallel.

Filthy stable litter may include manure. But the dwarf said filthy stable litter. Precision.

As to Edwin, are you sure?

GKC

 

[Contarini]

What you’re saying is that if “leaders of the Church do in their official capacity, or that most members of the Church do over a long period of time with the explicit or implicit acquiescence of those in authority”, make a bad decision, it is a reason not to become Catholic. Bad Catholics = Bad Church and you don’t want to join it.

Actually no, I’m not saying that.

First of all, I am not talking about “bad Catholics,” but about a mistaken definition (whether official or tacit) of what it means to be a good Catholic. According to IV Lateran, *not *reporting heretics to the authorities (which in practice meant that if they didn’t repent they would be burned at the stake) made you a bad Catholic. Informing on your friends and neighbors, leading to their possible torture and death, made you a good Catholic. I have already requested you not to introduce the “bad Catholics” argument, because frankly it makes a mockery of the issue. The distinction I’m making is between someone doing a bad thing because they give in to temptation in spite of knowing that the Church says it is bad, and someone doing a bad thing (or more broadly, something that does not contribute to the expression and enjoyment of the Fullness of the Faith and its manifestation to the world) because they believe that it is a good thing. I am arguing that this distinction makes a real difference in terms of whether the action in question is an action of the Church or not, and that the distinction you are making does not.

The difference between us is that I recognize the distinction you are making, and argue against it. But you fail to recognize the distinction I am making, and insist on ascribing to me a distinction that I have told you over and over I am not making!

So which of us is obdurate?

Of course, from your perspective the distinction between the distinction I’m making and the one you say I’m making it itself a distinction that makes no difference

Confused yet?

Furthermore, I am not saying that we should not join any Communion where such faults exist–if that were true I would certainly not be an Anglican another minute! I have no objection to being in communion with Rome. I have an objection to leaving my present Communion for yours under the conditions that you require. If I were already a member of your Communion, my present views would not require me to leave you.

Sometimes we suffer the wrongs imposed upon us by authority, out of charity. Jesus did that, right? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples to do as the fallible Pharisees taught, but not to do what they did? Even though the Pharisees were not infallible, they sat upon the seat of Moses (cf. Matt 23:2). Thus, by that authority, they were to be obeyed, until such time that God established his eternal Church upon the rock of Peter (cf. Matt 16:18)

Indeed. And since I am not convinced that Rome has the authority you claim, I remain in the same boat as the disciples–obeying fallible ecclesiastical superiors except when they command things contrary to the law of Christ.

Thus, we are bound to the lawful commands of lawful superiors, so long as they act in accord with their God-given authority, whether we agree with them or not.

But this is an argument for remaining in our present affiliations, rather than leaving them for some supposedly more perfect Communion!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin is very much a dwarf. A Black dwarf at that!

Thimbles and thunderstorms! Can’t I at least be a Red Dwarf? One who has no use for talking lions that don’t talk, and friendly lions that don’t do us any good, and visible churches that nobody can see?

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Thimbles and thunderstorms! Can’t I at least be a Red Dwarf? One who has no use for talking lions that don’t talk, and friendly lions that don’t do us any good, and visible churches that nobody can see?

Edwin

Soup and celery! Trumpkin, in the flesh.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

Thimbles and thunderstorms! Can’t I at least be a Red Dwarf? One who has no use for talking lions that don’t talk, and friendly lions that don’t do us any good, and visible churches that nobody can see?

Edwin

Oooh! I get to play!

I’m Lucy and I get the best line, quite apropos:
*
“But it isn’t dark, you poor stupid dwarfs!”*

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

You are welcome to that opinion. But unless you are willing to take what I am saying seriously, you really can’t help me out. And I would like to be helped out. I’d like to have more clarity on these issues than I have–though after 15 years I’m increasingly despairing about the possibility of this.

And your position doesn’t seem simple to me at all.

None of what you say addresses what I am saying. We’ve been round this often enough. Unless you are willing actually to address the objection that I have, instead of telling me that I’m making things too hard and trying to substitute all sorts of simpler objections that don’t bother me at all.

I don’t want to sound patronizing, but it seems to me that you have a very simple and beautiful faith and you can’t see why it isn’t as simple to everyone as it is to you. Well, God didn’t make us all alike–He gave me the kind of brain that sees the complications in things. And I have to honor Him by using that brain as faithfully as I can.

God bless,

Edwin

I know Edwin and I can’t help it. God gave me a brain too. Believe it or not but it is so simple to me. I just can’t understand what your missing and what I am not addressing. I thought I was:blush:

But to me the complications in Gods word is not understanding it, its doing it. Maybe because for me its simple because its been a teaching from birth. And when People tried to call me on it they never had success.

I tired to explain everything to you as simple as I could. Maybe someone needs to make it hard for you to understand it. I don’t know.

See its real Easy, but I guess its like God said many great scholars will never see what I see, I don’t know. Just remember everything I said to you. Give it a chance sink in. And trust me it will. Maybe not today or tommorow but I promise it will.

Maybe give your brain the night off and let you heart take over for a night! For now just think about what I said and pray on it.

I just am not the best of teachers Edwin, but I do know what I am saying. Sooner or later Edwin something is going to click for you. But somehow you are going to become a RC. Laugh at me now, but someday its going to happen. I don’t say this about many people. but there are some I feel it about. And sorry you are on the list!

 

[GKC]

Oooh! I get to play!

I’m Lucy and I get the best line, quite apropos:
*
“But it isn’t dark, you poor stupid dwarfs!”*

Good line. Apropos, depends on who gets to define the dwarfs. I doubt the author had Edwin in mind.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

Good line.

:curtsey:

Apropos, depends on who gets to define the dwarfs. I doubt the author had Edwin in mind.

GKC

Yep. I know Edwin is not a stupid dwarf. Just an obdurate one who’s been shown flowers and continues to insist it’s litter or manure or whatever dirty things are on stable floors.

 

[GKC]

:curtsey:

Yep. I know Edwin is not a stupid dwarf. Just an obdurate one who’s been shown flowers and continues to insist it’s litter or manure or whatever dirty things are on stable floors.

In a discussion like this, nothing, save civility, or an understanding that the literary image is a two-edged sword, prohibits either side from declaring the other to be dwarfs, and that they are prisoners in their minds. You refuse to see! No, you refuse to see. You are a prisoner in your mind. No, you are.

Pointless.

GKC

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Not to detract from the main point of the discussion, but I think it would be kind of refreshing if a Catholic would say, “Yes, the Church used to say executing obstinate heretics was the right thing to do, and more power to them. We’ve gone soft, and the world has suffered for it.”

Not a very popular thing to say, perhaps, but I think I would prefer it to the weak attempts to explain away everything in Church history that does not match the modern consensus of what is acceptable behavior.

 

[Rocky]

Not to detract from the main point of the discussion, but I think it would be kind of refreshing if a Catholic would say, "Yes, the Church used to say executing obstinate heretics was the right thing to do, and more power to them. We’ve gone soft, and the world has suffered for it."

Not a very popular thing to say, perhaps, but I think I would prefer it to the weak attempts to explain away everything in Church history that does not match the modern consensus of what is acceptable behavior.

Instead, we have had a recent Pope (or two) express sorrow for where Catholics as Church have sinned against others. But my human nature wants to agree with your quote that I’ve bolded.

 

[PRmerger]

In a discussion like this, nothing, save civility, or an understanding that the literary image is a two-edged sword, prohibits either side from declaring the other to be dwarfs, and that they are prisoners in their minds. You refuse to see! No, you refuse to see. You are a prisoner in your mind. No, you are.

Pointless.

GKC

Fair enough, GKC.

However, I enjoy the dialogue and the rebuttals, the exchanges and the refutations that have been proferred.

In the end, as I cited earlier, if there is no ultimate truth, then I see how this discussion could be pointless–a wild goose chase without the golden goose.

Good thing everyone here understands that there is an Ultimate Truth, and that some of us are proclaiming this truth!

 

[GKC]

Fair enough, GKC.

However, I enjoy the dialogue and the rebuttals, the exchanges and the refutations that have been proferred.

In the end, as I cited earlier, if there is no ultimate truth, then I see how this discussion could be pointless–a wild goose chase without the golden goose.

Good thing everyone here understands that there is an Ultimate Truth, and that some of us are proclaiming this truth!

I agree.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

I agree.

GKC

Ok. But I thought you said the discussion was “pointless”.

If you’re agreeing with me (and it seems you are! ) I said most decidedly that ths discussion is NOT pointless, because there is a truth that will ultimately be discerned.

 

[GKC]

Ok. But I thought you said the discussion was “pointless”.

If you’re agreeing with me (and it seems you are! ) I said most decidedly that ths discussion is NOT pointless, because there is a truth that will ultimately be discerned.

No. I said that to point a finger and say that your opponent is a dwarf who refuses to see, which lays you open to a rejoinder that no, you are dwarf and refusing to see, is pointless.

Discussions are fine. I do them a lot, myself.

GKC

 

[Pat_De]

I’m interested in the historical approach Protestants take to when and where the Roman Church ceased to be the Church of Christ. I often hear Protestants say the early Church was pure, but later corrupted by false teachings. For this to be true, there has to a point that Protestant historians can point to where it can be said, “Now the Catholic Church has broken with the true faith.”

When, and by what particular heresy (or general heresies), do Protestants believe that the Catholic Church broke away from the true Church. In the meantime, what happened to the true Church? Where is its history … its central teachings, its leaders?

It is easy to see historical that when Emperor Constantine forced Christianity together with paganism as the national religion, this is when you see the pagan gods become mythological saints. So somewhere between 324-337 is where the traditions of men outside of Scripture infiltrate the Church and and just like Israel, they kept adding ritual and ceremonies to please “God” in order to be saved. That is why the reformation started well before Martin Luther nailed his 95 thesis, God has always and will always keep a remnant for Himself until the fullness of the gentiles has been fulfilled and he did all that time, which no one knows the day or the hour, but we do know based on current events that the end of the end is coming very soon.

Once this happened then there is a period of time where the “Church” had to go back and fill in the blanks, which is why Pope doesn’t appear to centuries later and why the Vicar of Christ, known by the early church fathers as the Holy Spirit, became Bishops, then Bishops of Rome and them finally the Pontiff. Thus the Vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit went from being God to man. It is also why when looking for and at early “Christian” literature it is difficult to find a lot with credibility, but after 337A.D. you see much more emerge.

If you look at what Irenaeus of Lyons France wrote concerning the Eucharist, it is consistent with Pauls account in 1 Corinthians 11, but when one is forced to revise history you must be somewhat creative and how easy to rewrite history when someone and all others who may have known them are dead? A small change in semantics of the dead saint and add a lot of extraneous material it becomes so overwhelming you just accept things by faith (in men) rather than be like the Bereans and test to see if these things are true against Truth (Scripture) Remember Irenaeus wrote in and around 180 AD before all the rituals and extra saving traditions were invented.

Ask yourself why if the Church is the only interpreter of Scripture why they do not put together a commentary verse by verse and book by book of the entire Bible so we can all understand. Also ask why there is not a Book or volume of Books where Catholics and non-Catholics can read what is binding on the entire church (ecumenical)? The answer should be obvious and that is it would be a great undertaking and because you have to make sure you leave out or change or cover the contradictions that would appear and they would be numerous. I am sure and any such commentary on the entire Bible would really be revealing; so you will never see such an animal.

This is the opinion from a former and now a Christian, not a Protestant. It is my attempt to answer the topics question, so it is one persons opinion. I am no expert on history, I have no PHD or even that smart in general, but I did come out of a religious system and come into the arms of a loving Savior and Lord.

Before anyone decides they want to rant on me; remember I am answering the question to the topic as I see and understand it; it is only my own opinion whether it is right or wrong is for each discerning individual to decide.

 

[guanophore]

At the time of the Reformation , the Church in England had been a Catholic Church for some 1530 years. She was never under Rome, as you do say, she accepted the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils that gave the Bishop of Rome, a primacy of place and honour because the City was the capital city of the Empire and the Bishop of Rome was the Emperor’s parish priest!

I think if the Church in England was not “under Rome”, then the schism would never have happened. The Pope tried to assert the teaching of the Church over the King. The King rebelled, and it was all downhill from there.

As far as the primacy of Rome, it is true that Rome used to be the capital city of the Empire, but that had long since fallen. The Empire had been transferred to Constantinople in the 600’s. It is true that secular authority was left with the Bishop of Rome, but that was because there was no other structure left that could conduct the affairs of the city.

Be that as it may, the primacy of Rome with regard to the doctrine of the faith had nothing to do with either of these events. It was considered to have primacy because of the ministries of Peter and Paul prior to their martyrdom there.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.”

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

The unity with, and primacy of the Church in Rome is based upon the Apostolic foundation laid by Peter and Paul.

If you read history you would find that the Church, throughout its existence either east or west, was always under the authority of Kings.

No. The Church has one King, who is Christ. I will concede that many secular rulers have attempted to pressure the church, and exercise authority over her, but she answers to a higher King.

Indeed the monarch was seen as God’s Vice Regent on a par with the Pope only] in the political sphere whilst the papacy looked after the religious side.

I think this construct is where “Rome went wrong”. Involving the church in secular affairs has produced nothing but problems throughout history.

Henry was Head of the Church only so far as the law of God allows. This had been the state of things in Britain, at least since the Anglo Saxon Heptarchy! {App.700.} The pope was also head of the Church in his capacity of Civil Ruler of large swathes of Northern Italy, this was down to 1870! What is the difference?

Either ruler, if they depart from the teachings of the Apostles, is out of order. To that extent, there is no difference. However, the Pope was not out of order refusing to allow a divorce. He was insisting that the teaching of Jesus be followed.

They are Catholics now, by baptism. What they are about to do is become poor quality Roman Catholics because they have accepted false teachings. I should imagine many of the members of the Church of Rome have been taught these error s from birth, they know no better. But the apostate Anglicans should know and understand the Catholic faith of the Undivided Church, they should know the truth and will be judged on their behaviour, apostacy?

What false teaching is that?

If you are speaking of infallibility, I am curious to know what you think that means. Was there another that you already mentioned?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

It is easy to see historical that when Emperor Constantine forced Christianity together with paganism as the national religion, this is when you see the pagan gods become mythological saints.

Which is why I keep a relic of St. Zeus next to my icon of St. Ra on my desk.

 

[MartinJordan]

{If you look at what Irenaeus of Lyons France wrote concerning the Eucharist, it is consistent with Pauls account in 1 Corinthians 11, but when one is forced to revise history you must be somewhat creative and how easy to rewrite history when someone and all others who may have known them are dead? A small change in semantics of the dead saint and add a lot of extraneous material it becomes so overwhelming you just accept things by faith (in men) rather than be like the Bereans and test to see if these things are true against Truth (Scripture) Remember Irenaeus wrote in and around 180 AD before all the rituals and extra saving traditions were invented}.

I have decided you are wrong.

Church swears by it’s allegiance to our Loving Savior. Besides they gave you the Bible