When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hi Deo, When you take what I wrote and use them in the context I used them they do not contradict.

Aha! We’re getting somewhere, believe it or not. So what is it about the context of what you wrote that allows you to say that the Church is Christ in one sentence and that we are also the Church in another context.

Moreover, what is it about context that allows me to pray for the salvation of the Church without praying for the salvation of Jesus Christ (which would be a bit absurd, I’m sure you’ll agree)?

Maybe I’ve not made my own ecclesiology very clear, here:

1: I believe that the Church is both Christ and his people, united to him and with him by the love and grace of the Spirit and growing into him by that same Spirit. It is therefore possible to say: The Church cannot err, and yet the Church can err. And this is so because of the dual nature of the Church (which, unsurprisingly, mirrors the dual nature of Christ) and because the perfection of Christ is something into which we are living, by grace, and not something that has already been accomplished in us.

2: I believe that the local Church, which includes that particular Church’s members and its institutions, are instances of the universal Church and that the universal Church and the local Church indwell each other as Christ is in us and we in him.

3: I believe it is possible for the local Church to fail–history proves that it has happened. When such failures occur, I believe it is incumbent upon the rest of the Church to bear the burden of that particular failure, too. We are called to bear each other’s burdens.

4: Subsequently, I do not believe it is a horrible thing to admit that the Church can fail as such an admission is an acknowledgement of the fallibility of the Church’s members and contains within it an acknowledgement of the reliance of those members on the perfection of the Church’s Head, Jesus Christ. This acknowledgement also recognizes that we are called to bear each other’s burdens. A scandal in Rome affects me because I am a Christian and belong to the body of Christ, even though I may not be a Roman Catholic. The scandal does not affect me in the sense that I believe the affected Church body or its members to have ceased to be part of my family in Christ. It effects me because they are part of my family in Christ. In other words, fallible people do not cease to be part of the Church because they are fallible.

If the Church which is Christ appears to you at times that it failed, it never failed we failed it.

Yes, of course we failed the Church, but we do not cease to be the Church in our failure. If when we fail we cease to be the Church, if the Church is only the perfect among the believers in Christ, then praying for the Church’s salvation is a moot point. Praying for the Church at all becomes somewhat redundant. Sanctification becomes not a growth in the Lord, but something that is either present or absent. If there is no we in Church, then there is no Church. If the Church is not Christ and his people, his brothers and sisters, his family, then “Church” is simply a linguistic convenience, or a misleading metaphor for a reality in which we can only participate if we’re perfect already, which would mean that it is a reality in which we cannot participate at all. There must be we in the Church. That’s been my point, Rinnie, all along.

For instance, when Paul says that we must recognize the Body in the Eucharist, he is not just referring to the transubstantiated Host, but to the Body of the Church gathered to receive the Mysteries. If I do not see Christ in that person in Church that I would rather not see to begin with, then I receive the Mysteries unworthily. If I do not see Christ in the person next to me at the altar rail, then I do not perceive the Body. If I mistreat my Lord in my brother or sister in the street, I cannot properly worship him in the tabernacle.

You in one term say yes I can see Christ is the Church, then in the next term claim you can’t see it. No which is it?

I don’t think I ever made the claim that I couldn’t see that Christ is the Church. I see Christ is the Church, and I can also see that the Church is you and me, by the grace of the Spirit.

I think what you are having a problem with is if the RCC is the true Church how can Humans fail it?

That’s not my problem, Rinnie. I do not have a problem acknowledging human frailty. My problem is that it looks as if Rome has a problem acknowledging that that frailty is part of the Church.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[JonNC]

This may seem a little late, but the title of the topic :When did Rome Go Wrong"? Doesn’t that presuppose that Rome went wrong? And for the Catholics participating, doesn’t kind give the appearance there is some agreement among you on the premise since you are engaged in the discussion as opposed to saying “Rome never went wrong-end of story-later.”

Just a thought that came to mind. No need to respond; just me thinking out loud and posting those thoughts. By responding we will then change the topic, which by my account is surprising to see on CAF and I have plenty to say, but not much more on the “When did” because **in my mind it would be day 1, whenever that was and continues through this day **and into the future as the Lord wills for it according to His purpose for the Catholic religion.

Looking past the somewhat condescending tone, Pat, I’d be interested in examples of how, in your mind, the Church has been wrong since day 1.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[guanophore]

You have it so backwards that if you do not understand where the truth comes from and where it still stands, which is solely with Christ, then you may never see the Kingdom and the Lord in all of His glory in my opinion and assessment of your spiritual errors. It is only my opinion based on the truth contained in the word of God.

I think it is quite clear from the passage that you posted above that it is not possible for the Head to be separated from the Bible.

If the “Church” is the only interpreter of the Bible

I think it is quite clear that anyone with a naval can interpret the bible.

2 Pet 315 So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, **which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. **

 given by Christ to the one holy Catholic Church, then where is the verse by verse book by book interpretation so we can all understand and have the truth for all?

Pat, I know this must be hard for you to understand and accept, but Jesus did not commit His gospel to Scripture, but to the Church. It was whole and entire before a word of Scripture was ever written. The NT is not the Source of the Church. The NT is the PRODUCT of the Church. We are to receive the faith from those to whom it was committed.

Then we can all become Catholic without any excuse because the infallible interpreter would give us all true interpretation of every jot and tittle and after all they have had 2000 years to come up with it; where is it so we can all know ?

I do believe that everyone who is saved will become Catholic. However, it will not be through the personal interpretation of Scriptures. It will happen through unity with those to whom He committed the message.

 Where are all the ecumenical statements from all the councils, Popes and other sources all in one location, such as a volume of books so we can know the extra binding revelation; are there not enough scholars and theologians to produce such a volume so we can all know?

I am not sure what your problem is, Pat. ARe you having trouble locating some of the Church documents? I have always been able to find what I am looking for in the catechism, or the Vatican website.

Seems like the Holy Spirit and the Word of God is doing the work that should have been done by the infallible interpreter from the apostolic tradition unless this is not true and it is actually from men and therefore fallible. Can you please explain to me why these things do not exist and why your premise contradicts what is know as truth. Thank you.

Have you considered that what you think is “truth” may not, in fact, be true?

You seem to have a lot of spite and hatefulness toward the Catholic faith. I am not sure why that is, but I hope you can get it worked out while you are here.

I could go more into the NT or into Isaiah or Zacharia or Psalms and show you more of your tremendous error unless the Bible doesn't contain absolute truth.  But just to make sure you do not miss the point that it is Jesus Christ, not some apostolic succession of men or a religion or a church os some sort,

You are creating a false dichotomy, Pat. There is no contradiction between Jesus, the Head, and the authority He appointed in the Apostles. The authority He gave them does not take away from Himself.

The Apostolic Succession contains the Authority that He placed in the Church. The Church, which is His Body, is not a contradiction of religion. There is no separation between His body and His Church.

But to each their own; you believe in an apostolic authority and an infallible “church” and believe Christ put a man as the Vicar of Christ on earth;

Yes. I think I may have missed your answer to my question. What do you think Jesus meant when He put Peter in charge of feeding and caring for the Lambs?

I have a different view based on what my Bible, which I believe contains the absolute truth of God and believe it is a contradiction to your belief’s and in the end if we each maintain our convictions one of us will be with God and the other separated, but we will both know which was true, something we both can agree on.

My view is in the Bible too! Isn’t that interesting…

There is no contradiction between what is in the Scripture, and what is in the Church. Since both came from God, there can be none.

I accept what you are saying though, that it is your beliefs that are contradictory.

Do you really think that Catholics cannot be saved?

 

[guanophore]

No one said it was confined you added that, and God chose one such place to give it through the Holy Spirit filled writers of the book we call the Bible less the DC’s.

You are saying that the Bible is the only reliable Rule. However, this is not the case. Jesus is not confined to the Bible, and He is a reliable Ruler.

   This is an example of error as the Bible, the Truth, has something different to say.

"The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. Does this say anything about your misconception?

---

I am sorry. I cannot see any misconception. All authority comes from God. A good rule of thumb, Pat, when you see the word "therefore’ in scripture, is to look and see what it is “there for”. It is most often a reference to a predicating factor. In this case, it is Jesus’ authority upon which the Apostles are sent.

Matt. 28 [18] And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
[19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
[20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

He sends His apostles in His authority. He commissions them to teach, preach, make disciples, baptize, and see that those disciples “observe all that I have commanded”.

This is what is preserved in the Sacred Tradition. ST is the observance of all that Jesus commanded the Apostles.
Pat De;6854779:

Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands,

as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all {people} life and breath and all things;

Are you suffering under the misunderstanding that when Catholics say that Jesus dwells in the Church, we are talking about the buildings?

Do you even know the God of the Bible? What make you believe He will allow you into His kingdom; on what basis do you think He will?

This is a great question, but it is off topic. It would make a great thread!

yet for us there is {but} one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we {exist} for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we {exist} through Him.

The God I know I owe my existence to and through Him, not some religion or a “church”; is the Scripture not contain absolute truth?

There is no contradiction between religion, church, and knowing Jesus. This contradiction only exists in your mind and heart.

**
20 Which he wrought in Christ, raising him up from the dead and setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places. 21 Above all principality and power and virtue and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. 22 And he hath subjected all things under his feet and hath made him head over all the church,** 23 Which is his body and the fullness of him who is filled all in all.

Do you have any understanding of verses 22b and 23 in relation to your erroneous statement?

Actually, I find it strange that you would use this particular verse, since it supports my position. Jesus Body, the church, is “the fulness of him who is filled all in all”. That is why we say that she contains the 'fullness of Truth", and that when people separate from her, part of that fulness is lost. It is also clear that Jesus cannot be separated from His Body.

Does the second half of verse 22 have a familiar job description to one whom you would bow down to and call Holy Father; would that being pleasing to your “God” or do you think the Bible is telling the truth?

I don’t know where you get these strange ideas about the Catholic faith, Pat. Do you really believe that Catholics worship the successor of Peter?

Of course the bible is telling the Truth. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholic. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

I’m trying to figure out where you really believe truth comes from because it appears to me that your “false premise”, that apostolic authority given by Christ to the church, can’t stand up to the truth found in the Bible,

Do you mean to say that you don’t believe that Jesus gave authority to the Apostles? If not, where did they get it? Since “all authority comes from God”, I don’t see another source.

 

[guanophore]

I believe the man in Vatican City who wears the red shoes is called and/or known as the Vicar of Christ by many people; something that the ecf’s did not recognize because it took about 1800 plus years to fully emerge in an ecumenical capacity.

I am not sure what you mean by 1800 years plus.

Do you think that the Papacy did not exist prior to that?

I don’t think there was anything “ecumencal” about it. In fact, I think it was heresies that solidified the role of the Pope.

A problem with Rome perhaps as the topic asks?

How is the duty to feed and care for the flock a “problem with Rome”? do you think it was a problem when Peter lived and died in Rome?

 Perhaps you could take you argument on that with Tim Staples; i think he would disagree with you and place it much much later; perhaps you know him personally and can ask him.  He spoke about it in a debate..hint hint.

Pat, it is probably off topic in this thread, but history is quite clear that the canon was closed by 382 AD.

Just like all other proclamations, it had to be re-interated during a period of rampant heresy in the Reformation.

   Now you are beginning to CYB and wiggling.

You appear to be faulting “Rome” with something that did not belong to “Rome”. The canon of Scripture was formed in the Church throughout the world. The documents from these other synods are available to be examined as historical evidence. "Rome’ did not form the canon, but ratified it.

  I do have a personal preference for the one on one with Jesus as opposed to people seeking religion to fill the gaps in their life with a desire to change themselves, which is not a bad thing, but just looking in places where they will be disappointed in the end if not sooner.

I am glad that you have found a personal relationship with Christ, Pat. But this does not need to be “opposed” to religion and institutions. I understand you believe it is for yourself. However, looking to the Catholic Church will not be a “disappointment” for us as it was for you.

I agree, it is a good thing to have a desire to change ourselves. This is a desire that is beyond our ability to effect. God gave us the Church to guide us into all Truth in that pursuit. The Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth, and that is why, in following her direction, we will arrive where Christ desires us to be.

   I desire all people to know and accept the Gospel whether religious or non religious; don't you?

Yes, of course. However, I don’t want them to be stuck with a truncated version of hte Gospel.

  i do like the phrase you chose "experience religion this way" and that is the issue, the seekers of an experience and not a Person; they think within the experience is the Person, but sadly that is not where the Person is or resides.

I think the expereince that people seek is an authentic encounter with the living God. This is found within the experience of the sacraments for us. Jesus resides in these means of grace that He founded, and through which, He brings us to Himself.

 Can you clarify "Jews of faith", "faith" in what or whom?

Something you said left me with the impression that you did not believe that Jews who were saved by grace, through faith could practice their religion and ritual in a way that gave them happiness with God.

 Then there will be as I said a superficial unity, which is not really unity since you will never unite on doctrine, which was the point.  We can all unite on some doctrine, but that is "partial unity", so you may achieve a partial unity based on doctrine and the appearance of full unity based on superficial basis.

Unity is found in adherance to the Truth. Truth is reflected in right doctrine. when we are united in right doctrine, we will experience spiritual unity.

 

[guanophore]

So when do you start addressing “makey-up history” - this is page 34 or 35?

I am prepared to begin as soon as you provide what I have requested. I note you have not been able to produce any historical evidence for your makey-up history, so there is nothing yet to be addressed except your bigotry.

 

[guanophore]

This has been my perception as well.

I think when Pat was Catholic, she was not Christian, and now that she found Jesus in another ecclesial community, maybe she thinks it is not possible to be Catholic and Christian because she was not.

 

[guanophore]

What Pat abhors is a figment of his own imagination–that is, a pornographized version of Catholicism.

He has gulped down the “porn” version of what the Catholic church is and bought it for the truth.

He despises something that doesn’t even exist. Just like a man who devours porn has attached himself to the image of a woman that doesn’t actually exist.

Sadly, he has no idea what the Church he was baptized into actually teaches. :sad_yes:

This is a very astute observation. Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

Looking past the somewhat condescending tone, Pat, I’d be interested in examples of how, in your mind, the Church has been wrong since day 1.

Thanks,
Jon

It was my understanding that this was the purpose of the thread, was it not?

 

[Pat_De]

Looking past the somewhat condescending tone, Pat, I’d be interested in examples of how, in your mind, the Church has been wrong since day 1.

Thanks,
Jon

Which “Church” Jon? The Catholic Church or Luther or JW or Mormon? The proper term should be “religion” in the context of my thinking.

 

[Pat_De]

You know, I did have to ask this, since my seminary training was Protestant.

I learned that the Church is NOT the ONLY interpreter of Scripture, as I took many interpretation classes in my Protestant Seminary.

Sorry that it never worked out for you.

I also learned that the faith is to be received from those to whom it was committed, not extracted from the pages of a book millenia after the fact.

Perhaps we should through out Romans 10 according to Guanaphore because Romans 10 rebukes your assertion.

The reason there is no “verse by verse” is because Catholic faith does not come from the Bible. The Catholic faith comes from Jesus Himself. It was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. In the NT, we see the faith of the Apostles reflected, but it is not the Source. Jesus is the Source.

I already gave you the reason and it has taken Rome 2000 years to dogmatically declare infallibility on about 8 verses of Scripture. Do you ever listen to the apologist debates?

They get killed by the truth of God’s word on every turn and use straw-man arguments and distractions from the core issues then claim victory, which is why there has been a consorted effort to try to destroy Sola Scriptura; because if they get people to believe that then they can easily get people buy into the claim that Rome is the interpreter although they have no Biblical basis to stand from a Scriptural stance. Unfortunately too many apologist have contradicted themselves, but since many people are poor listeners and are unable to listen and pick out core issues and listen further to see if those core issues are addressed according to the test of God, as written in His word. Those that are good listeners see right through the smoke and mirrors.

I recently, like yesterday and today listened to the 1995 debate, which wasn’t a debate because it was a radio program with calls on the Bible Answer Man, but here it is advertised as a debate and has no grounds to be called debate as any discerning listener could tell, but hey James White is willing and able to debate openly on this forum live with Karl or Tim or Jimmy, but none will do it because why? If the “Church” stands upon the Word of God or Jesus, then they should welcome the opportunity, but they refuse. Why?

Why would you want a book to tell you what is binding? Since the Church does this, what need is there to have it all written down in volumes?

Straw-man to the nth degree.

What is it about the catechism that is not meeting your needs?

Is insufficient to the core question I am speaking of and you are using the CCC as a distraction technique because you have no real answer and maybe how you have been taught.

{quote]It would be impossible to meet your need, Pat, I fear. You perceive contradictions that do not exist, and I don’t think there is any amount of “volumes” that can resolve this for you. This happens because of what is in your head and heart, not because of the Catholic volumes that are written, or yet to be writtten. More straw man - using attacks and false statements.

There is no contradiciton between the Church Teaching, and the NT, because both of them come from the same Source.

The burden of proof of that claim is on you; so prove it from Scripture. You can start with Immaculate Conception if you like.

I hear the Navarre commentary is very good. But, you are right, there is no such commentary that can resolve the contradictions that exist in the mind of Pat!

How much straw is allowed in one post; should there not be a limit?

I see now why you call yourself “former” only. In truth, you apparently were not Catholic in faith. You may have been baptized Catholic, but never learned or embraced what it means to be Catholic. this explains why you have so many strange and erroneous ideas about the Catholic faith.

More false accusations and attacks a common tactic used by people like yourself. Give an example of a strange and erroneous idea I have asserted about the Catholic faith.

You are Protestant, Pat. You are one of the most vociferous protesting voices here at CAF. Does that bother you?

More attacks and I am a Christian, not a Protestant. I can only assume you have identified every person who disagrees with you and that you have spoken to every person of that nature and then by your own standard declared me the winner. Must have taken you quite some time to do this, which of course you have not and are just spouting more personal attacks because??? It is just you? I don’t know; maybe you can elaborate as to why.

Thank you Pat. I cant’ tell that you were ever part of a religious “system”, but clearly you did not embrace Catholic faith in any “former” time in your life. It may be that you were engaged in a form of godliness, without the power thereof.

More personal attacks, insults and straw; there must be some limit on the straw.

It is refreshing to see that you have summed up your post stating that it is your opinion and that you dont; have a background in history. You might want to consider obtaining one, though, because it really does make a person look foolish posting all these silly myths as though they were facts, and being unable to bring any evidence to support baselsess assertions.

More personal attacks and an useless tactics to avoid substance.

Do you believe the CC does not swear allegiance to Christ?

It has no capacity only people can.

Do you believe the CC did not produce the Bible?

It could not have since the Bible is the word of God and God made man and therefore man did not make the mouth of God, the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures less the DC’s did he? Logic, you must use logic.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry that it never worked out for you.

Pat, sarcasm is the protest of the weak.

I beseech you to change your tone into one of gentleness and respect. Firstly, because it is what St. Peter commands; secondly because it is how a person displays that his heart and spirit are in union with Christ; and thirdly, because I want you to stick around here and you are very quickly escalating into the tone of a Banned Poster.

I already gave you the reason and it has taken Rome 2000 years to dogmatically declare infallibility on about 8 verses of Scripture.

2000 years? You’re asserting that Pope JPII or Pope B16 is the first to proclaim the dogma of infallibility? Can you please provide your source–your source is very likely to be a porn version of Catholicism, so Catholics, please be forewarned: PORN alert!

 

[GKC]

Pat, sarcasm is the protest of the weak.

I beseech you to change your tone into one of gentleness and respect. Firstly, because it is what St. Peter commands; secondly because it is how a person displays that his heart and spirit are in union with Christ; and thirdly, because I want you to stick around here and you are very quickly escalating into the tone of a Banned Poster.

2000 years? You’re asserting that Pope JPII or Pope B16 is the first to proclaim the dogma of infallibility? Can you please provide your source–your source is very likely to be a porn version of Catholicism, so Catholics, please be forewarned: PORN alert!

I believe that what Pat is looking for is a verse-by verse infallibly annotated Bible, from the Church, which has had 2000 years to appear.

GKC

 

[rinnie]

Deo I don’t think what our big problem here is you cannot see the Church as the living Christ in the Eucharist.

Oh you say you can, but then you cannot see how we we receive the Eucharist we become one IN CHRIST with CHRIST.

You cannot see how it is the Holy Spirit dwelling in those who believe that communion of the faithful that joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity.

We are all one also in faith. We are all united to the ONE sacrifice of CHrist in the Eucharist and eat of the one sacred bread that unites all in Christ.

You must realize that the Church is one because Of Jesus who is the WORD made FLESH and who came among us to RESTORE the unity of all in ONE people and ONE body.

The Church is ONE , Holy Catholic and Apostllic.

You fail to realized that it is the presence of the Holy Spirit that comes true holiness. Because of Christ’s presence the doctrine of the church teaches is holy. You seem to forget that it is from the Sacraments that it administers to the member of the Church that make it possible for every believer to live a truly Christian life. IT is the sacraments that conform us to Christ.

You see to forget that Christ is the vine and we are the branches. That when sin enters us we become broken off from the vine. It is through Christ through the sacraments through him through the CHurch where his living presence is that we can become reunited once again with him. How? Simple the sacraments.

You seem to feel that when we sin and brought ourself down and split off from the branch that the vine has died also. You are wrong. Christ is the living vine that we acquire life. How do we become one again part of the vine when we have become broken off? Simple we go back to Christ the Living CHrist alive in the CHurch and become reconnected to him through the sacraments. With the sacraments we become once again ONE IN HIM.

That is why Salvation is only possible from the Living CHrist the Church. Is it not the Church that gives us Salvation. Is not the CHurch the Pilar of Truth. It not the Church the Spiritual communion, a divine reality!

Even though the Church is a spriitual communion, a divine reality a mystical body it nonetheless is identifiable in the world through the marks or signs that distinguish it and point to it as Christ’s ONe true Church.

Just because there there are particular church’s found in diaoceses, it is still not the One True Church of CHrist and we are all united in him.

You must remember that The holiness of the Church and the unity of the HS and the Presence that manifests us in the Sacarmental life, especially because of the Eucharist continues in spite of many sins of its members.

So you think that because Christ is the Church and we are part of him when we are united to him with the sacraments that when we become broken off from him with sin that the church is somewhat Less Holy or something. IT does not work that way.

Christ is the CC and we become one in him with him by the power of the HS in the Eucharist. WHen we sin we have broken away from Christ, not Christ has broken away from himself in the Church. SO when we are with him united we become part of him. But we always pray that we can stay a part of him and not be broken off by sin. Of course we always pray for that. Why would we not?

 

[rinnie]

And again Deo the Church cannot err. Never. People can fall from Grace and sin, but the Church can never err because the Church is Christ teaching the Apostles through the power of the Holy SPirit.

So again we cannot agree on this. Any truth that is revealed from the Power of the Holy Spirit is that. THe Truth. IF we did not have the Holy Spirit leading us which is CHrist how could we possibly know truth at all?

If we did not believe it was the True Christ teaching we would have no truth. We would have nothing without the Church to guide us. Jesus set it up that way so we could know where the truth lies. It dwells within Christ the CC.

 

[Contarini]

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

It is indeed different, which is why I pointed out that he simply legalized it. Perhaps you can cite the decree of Constantine which said that people “would be Christians like it or not.” Perhaps you can further explain why the secular historian Ramsay MacMullen (The Christianization of the Roman Empire) estimates that by the end of the fourth century only half the population of the Roman Empire was Christian, and why there were still pagans in Harran when the Muslims captured it in the seventh century. Even Theodosius, who *did *make Christianity the official religion, did not coerce people into becoming Christians. He simply forbade the public practice of paganism and of heretical versions of Christianity.

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

That’s not the point. The point is that you are claiming that various “corruptions” entered Christianity with Constantine. Yet the one doctrinal development that Constantine clearly did have something to do with is one that you accept. This is surely odd. If in the one case where Constantine actually presided over a Church Council and influenced its decisions to some extent, the Council happened to be right (i.e., it managed to discern correctly “what God has meant by what He has stated”), surely you should be slow to use the fact that certain other developments accelerated after Constantine as evidence that they were bad? Doesn’t the whole theory that Constantine had some horribly corrupting influence on Christianity start to look rather questionable, if his biggest contribution was to help the Church affirm something that we both believe to be a central doctrine of the Christian Faith?

Keep in mind almost all of this thread is based on opinion since we are speaking of 1700 plus years ago.

Indeed. But there is historical evidence. It is not my fault that you do not appear to have studied it.

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.

Fair enough. An “acceleration” of certain developments (particularly the elaboration of ritual, and also the development of an ascetic movement set over against the majority of more “worldly” Christians, can’t be denied). We could argue over what those developments were–I would say, for instance, that it was in the fourth century that Scripture first came to be given an authority distinguishable from that of tradition, and I’m sure you would disagree

Another point to discuss–relevant given your claims about “Jewish law” and the “gospel of grace”–is that the theologian who most emphasized the importance of God’s sovereign grace and human inability to save ourselves (Augustine) lived after Constantine. Pre-Constantinian theology emphasizes free will and heavily focuses on good works. That’s a development that I don’t see accelerating after Constantine–if anything, the post-Constantinian developments lead to a greater emphasis on God’s grace, because the old standards of holiness are harder to maintain and there are many baptized Christians whose only hope of salvation clearly lies in God being more gracious and forgiving to baptized sinners than earlier teaching had generally portrayed Him!

You underestimate the influence of Constantine in my opinion.

You overestimate it, if you think Constantine could influence texts written a hundred years before his time! Or are you saying that the Apostolic Tradition has been falsely ascribed to Hippolytus and is actually post-Constantinian?

You cannot invent something that already has been stated or given by God

Indeed. This is another point where your dogmas and traditions lead you to distort history–you are compelled to believe, in the face of the evidence, that Sola Fide was “already stated or given by God,” because you can’t bear to consider the possibility that Luther was making it up.

When it is denied then the Glory God deserves is diminished and given to the sinner

That’s an old Protestant talking point, but it has no substance. It’s based on a false, distorted view of God’s glory, in which God is somehow in competition with us. God made us, Pat. God doesn’t need to compete with us!

 

[Contarini]

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

I don’t accept Zwingli’s interpretation of John 6, true. Zwingli was influenced by a certain kind of Renaissance Neo-Platonism which downplayed the concrete, physical aspects of the Christian Faith.

as most Orthodox types seem to prefer the carnal over the spiritual from what I have seen

I would remind you again that I am Anglican, although it’s true that my theology is quite similar to that of the Orthodox in many ways.

despite the clarity of the analogy of using a carnal example

Depends on what you mean by “carnal.” Was Jesus’ body, offered on the Cross, “carnal”? On the literal sense–yes it was a real body of flesh and blood. But that’s quite different from what the New Testament writers mean when they speak of “carnal/fleshly” things negatively–in those contexts they are speaking of human nature unregenerated by the Holy Spirit.

If you don’t make this distinction–if you think that physical “flesh” is “carnal” in the sense of being opposed to God and opposed to the Holy Spirit–then you are forced to say that Jesus’ physical body was not the means of our salvation. You are forced to deny the Incarnation itself, as the ancient Gnostics did.

to make a spiritual truth and the clarity of what both Paul and Jesus both stated in that context.

I think what they say is fairly clear, in that it excludes a purely “memorial” interpretation. But obviously you disagree with me

I do not know how you get all theologies, since the one that counts stated to do this in remembrance of me

An interesting admission. You select from the various themes in the New Testament the theme of memorial, and you declare magisterially that this is the only one that counts. Why do you do this?

what was He speaking of, the bearing of the sins of the sinners by perfectly fulfilling the law as the God-man

That’s one way of putting it–not the best way in my opinion.

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

But what Paul actually says is that people who receive unworthily are not discerning the Body of the Lord!

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.

Well, it seems to me that you are the one twisting Scripture, by ignoring Paul’s words about the bread and cup being a participation in the Body and Blood of the Lord. You spiritualize all of this based on the Zwinglian tradition to which you have been converted, and you do not seem to have considered how destructive such a spiritualizing approach is to the basic truths of the Christian Faith.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Religion; certainly not man at his best and thanks for the excellent exposition of that point. What is great about Jesus is that He is just, in the most humble of ways, a one on one personal God who loves His own to the death. Who are His own?

Simple whoever accepts him. Are we the old person in Christ or the new?

St Paul says that original sin is within us is what our struggle between the old person and the new person.

The old person is interested only in the selfish man or women who dwells within each of us. The life of the new person baptised and alive in Christ are alive in Gods Grace which is directed outward to CHrist, God and our neighbors.

SO who are his own? Only we can answer that. God gave us free will to choose. Who do we choose to be the Old Person or the New?

Just because Jesus loves each and one of us to our death, does not mean each and every one of us Love Jesus. Many refuse to accept this love and therefore separate ourself from him.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

…you cannot see the Church as the living Christ in the Eucharist.

Oh you say you can, but then you cannot see how we we receive the Eucharist we become one IN CHRIST with CHRIST.

I don’t quite know where you’re getting this, rinnie, but I do in fact see that we become one in Christ and with Christ in the Eucharist.

Perhaps you’re casting about for reasons why I don’t think exactly as you do because I’m very happy to believe in the paradox of a Church that is both fallible and perfect because it is comprised of fallible people and the perfect Christ. I don’t find this way of thinking problematic in the least. But it appears you do. I’ll say it again: if we are not also part of the Church, then there is no Church. A Church that is just Jesus is, by definition, not a Church to which we can belong. A Church that is just us is not a Church worth belonging to.

You cannot see how it is the Holy Spirit dwelling in those who believe that communion of the faithful that joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity.

I see this very clearly, actually. The Spirit is at work in the Church to conform us to Christ.

The Church is ONE , Holy Catholic and Apostllic.

Yes! It is!

You fail to realized that it is the presence of the Holy Spirit that comes true holiness. Because of Christ’s presence the doctrine of the church teaches is holy.

Indeed! Absolutely–it is not because of us that the Church teaches anything correctly, but because of Christ. Notwithstanding, we, in all of our imperfection, are still part of the Church!

You seem to forget that it is from the Sacraments that it administers to the member of the Church that make it possible for every believer to live a truly Christian life. IT is the sacraments that conform us to Christ.

I’ve forgotten no such thing. I absolutely agree that the sacraments are the principle (though I cannot say exclusive) means of grace by which the Spirit works in the Church.

You see to forget that Christ is the vine and we are the branches. That when sin enters us we become broken off from the vine.

Here, I think, is where we differ most. Sin is a disease. Christ is our physician. We are all inmates in the great and holy hospital of the Church. If we come to love our illness more than our cure, then we seek to avoid the hospital, and we long to fall off the vine.

You seem to feel that when we sin and brought ourself down and split off from the branch that the vine has died also. You are wrong.

I think you’re putting words in my mouth, here. Never once did I express such a belief. Nor will I. The branch may be ill, but never the vine. This is also part of the point I’ve been making and is perhaps worth repeating: the branch may be ill, but never the vine. But because the vine cannot be ill, it does not follow that we can ignore or deny the illness of the branches!

The Church remains holy! And yet, by God’s grace, it includes a sinner like me!

rinnie:

And again Deo the Church cannot err. Never. People can fall from Grace and sin, but the Church can never err because the Church is Christ teaching the Apostles through the power of the Holy SPirit.

People can fall from grace, indeed. And indeed, the Church is Christ teaching the Apostles through the power of the Spirit. I do not believe Christ fails in his teaching. But I believe we fail in the implementation of it, I believe we fail in the living of it, I believe we mitigate it because we don’t want to hear it sometimes. And all of these failures we have often tried to pass off as good things, as also holy things, despite the fact that they are not. And we, as a Church, have preached them and taught them as such. And insofar as a branch of the Church continues to preach and teach those things that are not good or not holy as if they were good and holy, then it is erring.

Edwin has referenced the example of the Roman Catholic teaching that it was appropriate to persecute and destroy heretics. I find it difficult to believe that this is, in fact, the teaching of Christ. But your ecclesiology would say that it is, or it would say that that’s not really church teaching. But, the fact is, it was! You explain it away by ignoring it as being evidence of anything apart from people being bad catholics, when, as Edwin has pointed out, good catholics believed that it was incumbent upon them as good catholics to persecute and destroy heretics. If the Church did not actually teach that this was good, why would these people believe it, and why would the visible Church support them in their endeavors?

Rinnie, it is no challenge to my faith in the oneness, holiness, catholicness, or apostolicness of the Church to believe that the Church is made up of Christ and us, and, because of who we are, we sometimes get it wrong. I believe that when we get it wrong, we are corrected, because the Spirit is at work in the Church. As such, I believe that the Reformation, for instance, was a work of the Holy Spirit. I realize you may not so believe. That we can get it wrong, however, does not mean that the Church is doomed. It does not mean that the Church is soiled or unholy. It means that the Church is still growing into the fullness of Christ. And there are growing pains. That’s all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[PRmerger]

I believe that what Pat is looking for is a verse-by verse infallibly annotated Bible, from the Church, which has had 2000 years to appear.

GKC

Ah. I see.

That’s a peculiar demand to make, as the CC does not make this claim for itself. Catholics are free to read the Scriptures and interpret it privately, provided it does not contradict the infallible teaching of the Apostles–that is, if I am worried about hosting a party for 40 people and then open the Bible to the story of Jesus and the Multiplication of the Loaves I am certainly free to interpret that as a private message to me from God saying, “PR, chill out! You’ll have enough food!” Or maybe the more Biblical message would be “PR, fear not!”