When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[Pat_De]

Now Jesus promised that he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. At his ascension when he ceased to be visibly present to is disciples the promise was renewed.

Now the CCC reminds us that before Christ’s second comming the Church must pas trhough a final trial and will shake the faith of many belivers.

As the Church makes its pilgrim way it will always face persecution. In one form or another there will alway be attacks on the Church just like there were on Christ. His NEW BODY the CHURCH made up of members united in him as head will endure persecution, suffering, treachery and abandonment. But it will ENDURE, GROW, and CONTINUE its ministry by bearing witness to the truth of everything Jesus taught…

The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through the final passover when she will follow her Lord in his death and his resurrection. The Kingdom will be fulfilled then. Not by a historic truimph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy but only by Gods victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his bride to come down from heaven. Gods triumph will take the form of the last judgment after the final cosmic upheaval that brings the universe as we know it to an end.

10 `Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

Pity the ones that must endure the tribulation for the ones that have come to a true repentance have already passed from the wrath to come through the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord and Savior. Christ said to look and keep watch for Him, not keep and look out for the anti-Christ along with all the other bad stuff and He said He could come at anytime. For the Chastened bride, the church, is different from the redeemed Israel yet to come which described as His wife acting as a Harlot a stark contrast to the chastened virgin, His bride, which is the true church of Jesus yet to be revealed according to God. So there is a distinction of the Israel yet to be redeemed and the church of the redeemed.

Consider also the words of the Holy Spirit through the apostle Paul:
9 For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, 10 and ***to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, {that is} Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come. ***

Notice two things; we are to “wait for His Son from heaven” and anytime other places God states it could happen and are commanded to be ready and secondly He rescues the Christian from the “wrath to come”, which is what? The tribulation.

The post-Tribulation position states this, perhaps not exactly how the “Church” views it. That at the end of the of the seven years, there is a quick Rapture or gathering in the air to meet the Lord, which means there has to be a quick return. You go through the Tribulation, then up and back. Which makes little sense. There’s a big problem with that, and it’s this. If all the regenerate people go up and come back, then how come, when Christ comes back, the first thing He does is divide the sheep from the goats? Who are the sheep? Did He not already identify them? See? It can’t be Christians, because there aren’t any left. Christians have all been gathered together in the air or raptured. But if you move the rapture to the beginning of the seven years, then you have a seven-year period where people come to the Lord to be saved and these will represent the sheep/Christians at the end of the tribulation. Understand? So if you cram it all at the end, I see that as the major problem of a post-Tribulation-view.

The is takes away from the basic fact that we are told to look for His return, not look for the anti-Christ and look for all the bad things that happen during the tribulation we are always to look for Him.

another thing to notice as you read through your Bibles, when the phrase the “day of the Lord” is used it always is in reference to wrath and when phrases like “the day of the Lord Jesus” or “the day of Christ Jesus” etc; it refers to Christians and rewards and heavenly things.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard I will ask you again, Do you feel Jesus Christ is a false God? Yes or no.

Second what does the Old Law have to do with the New Law. It has nothing to do with the ten commandments.

How do you feel that us believing that the Jesus Christ is leading the Catholic Church through the power of the Holy Spirit worshiping a false God? Unless of course you claim that Jesus Christ is a false god. Which is it?

rinnie it is you who said that you worship the church. That would be a false god.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

But I would never say it is because of their sin that they cannot see it, or they are sinners because they cannot see it. that is crazy. I understand this as the Pope understands it. That all Salvation comes from the CC. In one form or another. And I admire them for the truth that they have and it is by the truth that they have that makes us one in Christ.

You may believe that salvation comes from the CC, but it does not. It comes from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

I mean if you think for one second that I think that if someone does not belong to the RCC they are going to hell or something you have misunderstood me COMPLETELY.

If you believe that salvation comes through the church, why wouldn’t you believe this?

Yes I know in my heart that the RCC is the fullness of the truth and yes it works for me. But I am not here by any means to accuse anyone for not seeing it, or refusing to see it. I am here to use the Grace that has been given to me from God to help in anyway that I can to help them see what I see.

Jesus Christ is the fullness of Truth.
Jn.14
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

I know very very few will see. But there may be ONE in a million that can see it though my eyes and that would make it all worth it.

So you are the only one that sees the truth. Sounds rather arrogant to me.

How can our sin be forgiven here on earth without Christ here on Earth in the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit to do this? Does scripture not say go to the Church and make it right with the Church if you are in sin.

Scripture says to go to God for forgiveness.

Psalm 51
1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
16For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Jesus tells us

Matt.6
9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
**12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. **

Matthew 6:14
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

Luke 5:21
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

Acts5:31
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 8:22
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee

Acts 13:38
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Ephesians 4:32
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

James 5:15
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 2:12
I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.

Notice non of these say that we need to tell our sins to another sinner, but only confess to God.

 

[Pat_De]

JL: Well if that evidence is found in the bible present that evidence. You wont because you can’t. You constantly make statements without evidence and that is evidence the statement is false. Show me how I was uncharitable. By the way that accusing others of being uncharitable is one of Calvary tactics. Do you deny you are Calvary Chapel or Vinyard Outreach?

Since you have no evidence about judgments you make concerning me, then as you would say you have no evidence and it is false. All I did was give an answer to the question concerning the topic and because you did not like the answer you figured you could just be uncharitable and say well you lack evidence and you are therefore false. A charitable person would ask "can you please elaborate why you believe so and so and is there something specific you base it on? That is a charitable response. I hope you see the difference and learn from it in a spirit of charity as we are commanded to by Jesus.

 

[Pat_De]

It is easy to see that after Constantine legalized Christianity and began to favor it (he did not “force it together with paganism as the national religion”–it didn’t become the imperial religion until later under Theodosius), and larger numbers of people came into the Church, the practice of asking for the prayers of the saints (especially the Blessed Virgin) increased in popularity. However, we have at least one example of this from before Constantine (the prayer “Sub Tuum Praesidium” addressed to the Virgin). It’s certainly true that over time (I don’t see obvious examples of this in the fourth century itself), particularly as Christianity spread to rural areas, devotions to the saints developed that had close parallels with the worship of particular pagan gods. I do not, however, think this was a bad thing.

No he forced or decreed Christianity as the official religion; meaning you will be a Christian like or not, somewhat different than legalizing it and it was the beginning of the infiltration.

Jews, after all, would say that the fusion with paganism began with the story of the Virgin Birth and the idea of Jesus’ divinity. And while we’re on that topic, you do not deal with the fact that Jesus’ full divinity (i.e., full equality with the Father) was clearly and authoritatively articulated at a Council called by Constantine. So why don’t you regard that as part of the paganization of Christianity, as the JWs do?

It did not occur to me to address nor does it make a difference since men and councils do not decide what God has meant by what He has stated; God uses men that work hard at preaching and teaching through the Holy Spirit to bring glory to himself. Keep in mind almost all of this thread is based on opinion since we are speaking of 1700 plus years ago.

Not only doesn’t this work as a historical explanation of early Christianity, it isn’t true with regard to Israel as well. The rituals and ceremonies of Israel came from God and were not “added . . . in order to be saved.” (Jews do not generally worry too much about “being saved” in the sense you mean. Admittedly I’m speaking of modern Jews there, but scholars seem increasingly to think that the same thing was true, by and large, of Jews in Jesus’ day–and perhaps of the early Christians as well!) And similarly, the ritual and ceremony of the early Church grew from a New Testament core and became more elaborate over time before Constantine.

Jesus gave his greatest and fiercest condemnation to the Jewish authorities of His day because they had added traditions to the point where it negated the truth resulting in even greater condemnation of souls. Back to the NT I’m sure it began before Constantine, we can read all the warnings from Jesus, Peter and Paul and see infiltration of Jewish law into the gospel of grace, but it accelerated from Constantine onward, which is my point.

Read Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition, from about 200, and compare to the much simpler Didache from about a century earlier. Constantine had nothing to do with it. But again, this process was certainly accelerated once Christians could worship publicly and enjoyed imperial favor.

You underestimate the influence of Constantine in my opinion.

Depends on what you think the Reformation was. Sola fide was Luther’s peculiar invention. But there were certainly movements throughout Christian history that thought the mainstream Church had become corrupt or too lax or whatever.

You cannot invent something that already has been stated or given by God, but based on diligent study and obedience, God will use preacher-teachers to His glory as He obviously did with Luther by revealing truths of Sola Fide in a way that is understood by Christians in through that understanding God is exalted and glorified. When it is denied then the Glory God deserves is diminished and given to the sinner, which is laughable if not so serious the consequences.

Well, that’s a straw man if you ever heard one! *All *Christian theologies of the Eucharist that do not flatly deny that it’s the Body and Blood of Christ are consistent with 1 Corinthians 11. All theologies of the Eucharist that do not deny that the Eucharist is a sharing in the Body and Blood of Christ are compatible with 1 Corinthians 10. Of course Irenaeus’s view is consistent with 1 Cor. 11: the question is, is yours? And is yours consistent with Irenaeus (not the same thing, since Irenaeus is much more explicit about the Real Presence).{/quote] You misunderstand what Ireneaeus says and what Paul says, but that is because you do not understand the spiritual sense in which Jesus spoke in John 6, as most Orthodox types seem to prefer the carnal over the spiritual from what I have seen despite the clarity of the analogy of using a carnal example to make a spiritual truth and the clarity of what both Paul and Jesus both stated in that context. I do not know how you get all theologies, since the one that counts stated to do this in remembrance of me, what was He speaking of, the bearing of the sins of the sinners by perfectly fulfilling the law as the God-man; so whenever you break the bread or drink the cup remember what I did for you and examine yourselves to see if you are indeed in the faith. Scripture does not implicitly or explicitly teach transubstantiation of the bread and the wine and the twisting of the early church fathers words is no different than the twisting of Gods words except one has eternal consequences as most will find out after it is too late.

continued

 

[Pat_De]

You make vague statements but no specifics. Deal with the fact that Irenaeus calls the Eucharist a sacrifice. Deal with the fact that he condemns the Gnostics in part because their view that matter is evil left them unable to say that the physical bread and wine were the Body and Blood of Jesus.

I provided a very good source with his exact words; can’t do anymore than that for you concerning Irenaeus and just because you believe it to be true doesn’t make it true. What God says it the only truth on this topic we will get and it is clear to the ones that have received the Holy Spirit and impossible to those that have not according to God.

Again, vague. I look at the texts from Irenaeus and I see an essentially Catholic view of the Eucharist. Of course it’s less developed than later theories, and relatively more compatible with a symbolic interpretation–but you have to torture it quite a bit to get it to yield a purely “memorialist” view (probably what you mean by “what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11”). Personally, I don’t see how it can be done with any plausibility. But you are welcome to try, instead of making vague accusations.

I can read and understand Scripture as others are able to as well that agree with my position; so it is a matter of whose opinion of what God has said is correct and I’m sure it is mine otherwise Jesus would have taken a knife of sharp object when He had the chance and cut a little flesh and squeezed a little blood and given it to them at the last supper in the literal sense, but that is not what He did because it was not His intent; he is telling us to remember what He did for sinners on the cross the sacrifice of His body on the Christians behalf. It isn’t even complicated but transubstantiation miracle makes for good reenactment and imagination, the transubstantiation theory that is.

 

[Pat_De]

I remember that you think this. Depends on what you mean by “all the rituals.” But again, you like being vague, don’t you?

Because the Church has not been given that kind of detailed understanding by God. Some RC’s speak of the authority of the Church in a manner that might lead you to think this–I won’t defend them on that score. But what the Church has received from God is the Rule of Faith and the promise that there will always be a community believing in and worshiping God according to that rule, led by bishops in apostolic succession. If the RC’s are right, the Church has also received the promise that the bishop of Rome and those Christians in communion with him will not distort the Rule of Faith. I don’t know whether this is true or not–but I see no conclusive proof to the contrary.

I understand that you don’t want to *call *yourself a Protestant. But your ideas clearly fit what most of us mean when we use that word. So I’m afraid I’m going to have to go on using it, just as I sometimes have to call Christians in communion with Rome “Roman Catholics” even when it annoys them. Clear use of language trumps respect for people’s desire to label themselves in self-flattering ways–although of course we should respect people’s wishes in this regard when at all possible.

With all due respect, that is clear from what you have written.

Perhaps you might be willing to listen to those who have studied the matter a bit more than you have? I don’t claim that studying church history inevitably leads one to become Catholic or Anglican or Orthodox (it led me in that general direction, but there are others who know more about church history than I do who are none of the above). But I think a serious study of church history does conflict with the picture you’ve painted above.

I understand where you are coming from. I have heard this story many times–indeed, before I was about 20 or so, it was almost the only narrative about Catholicism that I heard (from living people, that is). And clearly there’s some basis for it. My own posts on this thread have been may way of trying to grapple with the fact. I don’t think the RC’s are right that people have bad experiences with the Church just because there are sinful human beings there. There are sinful human beings everywhere, but their sinfulness takes different forms dictated by the shape of specific religious traditions. There’s something about the way Christians in communion with Rome define the Church that leads to an undue emphasis on the institutional, legal aspect of the Church.

But I don’t think your simple “Constantinian Fall” narrative is adequate to explain this, and I think that you have overreacted to the flaws of Rome, adopting a new “system” (even if you don’t call it that) which has far more flaws–just flaws of a different kind.

In Christ,

Edwin

You charity has ended dialogue; you have the “God complex” and I am familiar with your type and my heart goes out to you and may the wind of the Spirit blow your way sometime very soon…God bless and somewhat nice speaking with you.

 

[Pat_De]

You may believe that salvation comes from the CC, but it does not. It comes from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

If you believe that salvation comes through the church, why wouldn’t you believe this?

Jesus Christ is the fullness of Truth.
Jn.14
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So you are the only one that sees the truth. Sounds rather arrogant to me.

Scripture says to go to God for forgiveness.

Psalm 51
1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
16For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Jesus tells us

Matt.6
9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
**12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. **

Matthew 6:14
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

Luke 5:21
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

Acts5:31
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 8:22
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee

Acts 13:38
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Ephesians 4:32
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

James 5:15
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 2:12
I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.

Notice non of these say that we need to tell our sins to another sinner, but only confess to God.

Add some more:
John 1:15-18
15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has F13 a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ " 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.

If people fully understood grace upon grace, for that He is for the sinner saved by the blood of the spotless lamb of God…amen!

Ephesians 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of ***Him who fills all in all. ***

Appears there was no Job opening in Rome to be filled according to verse 22. Verse 23, what a statement we can’t even begin to grasp the full meaning of that statement, but sovereignty and grace to the elect come to mind. Praise the Lord Jesus!!

 

[seamusmohr]

Can’t do, seamus. You’re confusing the children.

BTW, who was Aristobulus’ son -in-law?

GKC

Was it one of the Roman / Court Gentry, Pudens ?

 

[GKC]

Was it one of the Roman / Court Gentry, Pudens ?

No. But the answer depends on what version of the legend you follow. According to Harvey/TO THE ISLES AFAR OFF, it was St. Peter.

Who consecrated him a bishop?

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

No. But the answer depends on what version of the legend you follow. According to Harvey/TO THE ISLES AFAR OFF, it was St. Peter.

Who consecrated him a bishop?

GKC

According my source which is Orthodox it was defintely S.Paul!
And o one who is anyone claims it was Peter!

 

[GKC]

According my source which is Orthodox it was defintely S.Paul!
And o one who is anyone claims it was Peter!

So say the Orthodox legends, yes, vide Nicephorus or Dorotheus, as cited by Gray.

Who is supposed to have been his brother?

GKC

 

[rinnie]

rinnie it is you who said that you worship the church. That would be a false god.

Well Richard who should I listen to your or St Paul. I am told in Colossians that I am rooted in him and built upon him and established in the faith as I was taught abounding in thanksgiving. I am told to see that no one captivates me with an empty seductive philosophy according to human traditions according to elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

Col, 1: 18 He is the head of the body THE CHURCH.

1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake and in the flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of HIS BODY, which IS THE CHURCH. of which I am a minister in accordance with Gods stewardship given to me to bring to completion for YOU the WORD OF GOD. The MYSTERY hidden form ages and generations of the past . But now it has been MANIFESTED to HIS HOLY ONES. To whom God chose to make known the riches of the GLORY OF THIS MYSTERY among the GENTILES it is Christ IN YOU the HOPE for Glory.

Now who am I going to listen to Richard you or St Paul. St Paul’s teaching is the Teaching of the RCC. So do I stick with the teachings of St Paul which has been held true through Jesus Christ though his Body the Church here on earth by the Power of the Holy Spirt, or am I to be captivated by empty philosophy of human Traditions of this world.

I think I will take my chances with the teachings of St Paul instead of yours Richard!

 

[rinnie]

You may believe that salvation comes from the CC, but it does not. It comes from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

If you believe that salvation comes through the church, why wouldn’t you believe this?

Jesus Christ is the fullness of Truth.
Jn.14
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So you are the only one that sees the truth. Sounds rather arrogant to me.

Scripture says to go to God for forgiveness.

Psalm 51
1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
16For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Jesus tells us

Matt.6
9After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11Give us this day our daily bread.
**12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. **

Matthew 6:14
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

Luke 5:21
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

Acts5:31
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 8:22
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee

Acts 13:38
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Ephesians 4:32
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

James 5:15
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 2:12
I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.

Notice non of these say that we need to tell our sins to another sinner, but only confess to God.

Um Richard, we would not have Jesus Christ as the CC if it was not for his sacrfice on the cross. Richard Jesus sent the Advocate the Holy Spirit after his Sacrifice on the Cross not before. It was after his death and ress. that he came back remember Richard. There was no Church before Christ. He is the Church Richard.

Tell me Richard how does Jesus sending the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead us here on earth take away his sacrifice on the Cross? You really lost me there? But then Richard you always do. But I can’t wait to hear how Jesus sending the HS to lead us has to do with us denying the cross for our salvation But I am sure you will have a good one for me. you always do

 

[guanophore]

I want you to say that the Church *is *a visible body of people rather than just some kind of mystical reality that occasionally speaks through the people.

It may be that our understanding of Church is incompatble. While it is true that the concept taught by the Apostles of “church” does, indeed, include a visible body of people with a hierarchical structure, this is only part of the Church. This same Church also has Jesus as her Head, and the HS as her soul. It is these divine elements that make her infallible, not the “visible body of people”, who are prone to fallibility.

 The point is: is only the formal teaching the act of the Church, or is everything that the visible body of Catholics does an act of the Church?

I can see how you want to ascribe the actions of the visible body of Catholics to the Church. Can you give a NT example of how you see this operating?

The point is that when, say, the Jerusalem Council made decisions on behalf of the whole Christian community, that was an act *of the Church. *

Yes, but it is so defined because it was made in unity with the HS. when they decided, they were able to announce “it seemed right to the HS, and to us”. Only decisions of hit kind belong to an act of the Church.

And it would have been an act of the Church even if they had made the wrong decision.

According to the Apostolic definitiion of Church, this is not possible. The HS cannot make a “mistake”.

If there was a wrong decision, then the leadership was not acting in unity with the HS, and by definition, it was not an act of the Church.

With all due respect, I still don’t think you have grasped what my criticism is. I’m not saying that the sins of Popes prove Catholicism false.

No, I got that rather early. What I am hung up on is our different definitions of “church”.

I’m saying that when Popes or Councils took either doctrinal or disciplinary decisions on behalf of the visible body of Catholic Christians, *or *when certain beliefs or practices were tacitly accepted throughout that body even without a formal decision, these actions or beliefs must be ascribed to the Church whether they were good or bad.

I see your point. I also understand how you come to it. It reminds me of the situation the USA was in when the majority of the population wanted the country out of Viet Nam, but the gov’t seemed to think we needed to win that “war”. The actions of our gov’t. Viet Nam, just like currently in Iraq and Afganistan, are laid at the feet of the USA, whether they are legal or not, whether they are approved by the populace or not, we all get blamed for them.

I think I disagree with your conclusion.
The actions, beliefs and practices of those who depart from the Apostolic faith do not have to ba ascribed to the Church.

To this extent, Rinnie is right. You are trying to lay the sins of Judas at the feet of Jesus.

I’m talking about collective, official actions and/or commonly accepted beliefs and practices.

Edwin

Can you give an example?

Just because a believe is commonly accepted or practiced does not make it right. Just because the people practicing it call themselves Catholic, does not make it Catholic.

By definitiion, collective official actions must be in unity with the HS, or they are not Teachings of the Church. It is the HS part of that equation that makes the Church infallible.

 

[guanophore]

And this is where I think Catholics are dodging. If the Pope can issue an encyclical saying that a certain view cannot be contradicted by anyone who wants to remain in communion with the Catholic Church, then as far as I’m concerned that is what the Catholic Church was teaching at that point.

It is possible that a Pope could do such a thing, and be in error. In order for something to qualify as a Teaching of the Church, it must “seem right to the HS and to us”. I think that this particular encyclical meets that criteria, so I would stipulate that it is a teaching of the Church. Why does it bother you that it would be? What is it about it that you think is improper?

What makes you think that Luther was more qualified to determine the will of the HS than the successors of the Apostles?

    And if you so define things that this isn't *really* Church teaching, even though people at the time would have assumed that it was, then as far as I'm concerned your position is "dying the death of a thousand qualifications."

I’m fine with you saying that it isn’t infallible Church teaching–but it follows from that that certain things on which conservative Catholics insist today, like the impossibility of women’s ordination, might turn out not to be infallible either!

Edwin

I can see your point. Infallible Church teachings cannot be changed. Disciplines can change, but the infallible teachings come from the once for all deposit of faith, which is why they are immutable.

 

[guanophore]

One cannot have the Word of God alone,minus His Church. That is heretical. Both go hand-in-hand not apart from each other. One cannot say: Well I only follow the Bible and do not need any church. False premise.

Yes, this is a good point. It is also one of the main reasons for the excommunications of the Reformers. They insisted they be “proved wrong from the Bible”, which means they refused to submit to the Apostolic Teaching and authority in the Church, and wanted their own perceptions of the Scriptures to be the final rule and authority.

 

[guanophore]

, 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

God bless you and your complicated brain, Edwin.

 

[rinnie]

You know Guan, I think I figured this whole thing out now. I was thinking about this all day yesterday and it came to me.

Edwin wants the RCC to step down from the authority that it has. And here is why. I see it now because of the abuses that have happend in the past.

He wants the RCC to say that they are sorry for what happened, which lord knows we are all sorry for goodness sakes. It is unacceptable what was done, And we are all sitting on this blister together in the Name Of Jesus Christ.

What those Priests did hiding in Gods name, there is NO excuse for. And no one has ever excused them for it. But it will never be good enough for Edwin, I can see it now.

He wants us to say that we are not the True Living Christ as the CC because of what some leaders have done IN GODS NAME. Thats what it is. I know it is now. Nothing else makes sense.

And he knows it is impossible. The CC can never say that they are not the Living Christ because it is, There is no way the Church can ever deny Christ as the Church. And thats what he wants. Its never going to happen.

I may be way off but I do believe now thats where Edwin is going with this.

There is nothing we can ever do to make up for what happened. Only Jesus can help all who were involved. And unfortunately we are also in the mess. Because no matter what mistakes were made it will never change the fact that it happened and we are the true Church,

So what Edwin really wants is for us to explain how Jesus could have let this happen in his name, because in a way thats how it went down. And we can never explain that. Because it boils down to why does Jesus let people sin and hurt him, and us, and the inocent. So then like you see people deny the existance of God because of this, it would be the same to deny his existance in the CC. Because what Edwin cannot see is it would be the same to say if God exists people would not kill, steal. rape, etc.

 

[Australis]

Interesting.

I’m getting the impression here from a couple of Baptists that it was actually the Marian teachings of the Eastern Churches that started Rome down that slippery slope of unbiblical teachings.

I thought I read somewhere that Calvin and Luther weren’t even against Marian teachings. Correct me if I’m wrong.