When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[Contarini]

Oh. my. GOSHHHH! <deep cleansing breath…ahhh…>
**
For the third time,** here it is, a quote from itsjustdave1988:

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)

---

That statement does not say that “the Church” does wrong.

Again, I’m happy to hear Catholics admit this. But the discussion for some time now has focused on the insistence by several Catholic posters, notably Rinnie, that we cannot possibly speak of the Church either doing or teaching wrong.

And as I keep saying, the question of persecution was a question of teaching, not just practice.

Rinnie,

I have given you the evidence: a papal encyclical, a Church Council, and a Doctor of the Church. There’s really nothing I can do if you simply refuse to address the evidence.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

What about Abraham Edwin, Was he with sin. DId he do thing’s wrong.

What about all of the Leaders of the early days of God. Were they perfect without sin? But do you blame their sin On God too?

But you turn around and blame the RCC that Christ promised to lead on the sins of the leaders.

Jesus promised us a perfect Church on earth because he was that perfect Church.

 

[rinnie]

That statement does not say that “the Church” does wrong.

Again, I’m happy to hear Catholics admit this. But the discussion for some time now has focused on the insistence by several Catholic posters, notably Rinnie, that we cannot possibly speak of the Church either doing or teaching wrong.

And as I keep saying, the question of persecution was a question of teaching, not just practice.

Rinnie,

I have given you the evidence: a papal encyclical, a Church Council, and a Doctor of the Church. There’s really nothing I can do if you simply refuse to address the evidence.

Edwin

Because you refuse to see the Church as it really is. The living Christ. You refuse to see that the RCC is led by Jesus not the Pope. You refuse to see that when the Pope speaks with authority in the name of Christ the RCC he cannot err.

 

[Contarini]

What about Abraham Edwin, Was he with sin. DId he do thing’s wrong.

What about all of the Leaders of the early days of God. Were they perfect without sin? But do you blame their sin On God too?

But you turn around and blame the RCC that Christ promised to lead on the sins of the leaders.

Rinnie,

You’re setting up a straw man when you say that I’m “blaming sin on God.” As Cardinal Newman said, the problem of sin in the Church is a subset of the problem of evil generally. That’s not the issue. The issue is your refusal (which is by no means unique to you, though I’m avoiding the phrase “a teaching of the Catholic Church” because that’s the very phrase in dispute!) to say that sin and error are characteristic of the Church itself. Because you think that the Church is simply to be identified with Christ (a position on which a number of people have challenged you), you find this blasphemous. But from my perspective the Church is the Body and Bride of Christ, continually being cleansed and forgiven and led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, but still in pilgrimage in this world and by no means at the end of the journey yet! That’s the issue between us.

I don’t quite know what PRMerger’s issue is, except that cleansing breaths are involved.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You refuse to see that when the Pope speaks with authority in the name of Christ the RCC he cannot err.

I have no way of knowing whether that is true or not. That is to say, there may be certain formulas and conditions that make it impossible for the Pope to err. But since these are clearly dubious and difficult to define, I don’t think that the question is a very useful one. It isn’t so much that I reject it, as that I don’t see the point. (I see the point from your perspective, but I think that your “Church” is so spiritualized and so disconnected from the real body of people existing in this world that there’s no reason whatever to believe in it.)

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

If the statement “the Catholic Church has done wrong in the past” has been made on this thread so far by a Catholic, could you please point me to the post?

And! Here’s another previous posting (bold new)

That being said, I don’t see anywhere in the papal bull where it says, “It is our teaching of the faith that heretics be burned at the stake.” **I believe it was a “terrible decision” **(see quote below) but not a teaching of the faith. Not orthodoxy.

I find this from Mark Shea (bold mine) quite helpful:

The basic point is that infallibility is actually a very modest claim, despite appearances. It essentially means that the Catholic Church is populated by nothing but screwups and without the special action of the Holy Spirit, the revelation of Christ would have been lost a half an hour after Pentecost. All it guarantees is that the revelation will not be lost, that the Church will not define as essential Catholic teaching something that is not true. It leaves the Pope and the rest of the Church free to sin, to screwup,** to make terrible decisions,** and to majorly blow it in huge ways, including persecution of Jews, forged Donations of Constantine, dumb liturgical changes, corrupt political alliances and all the rest of the parade of bad things done by Catholics

Methinks that another thistle has been offered that has been refused as manure.

 

[Bluegoat]

That statement does not say that “the Church” does wrong.

Again, I’m happy to hear Catholics admit this. But the discussion for some time now has focused on the insistence by several Catholic posters, notably Rinnie, that we cannot possibly speak of the Church either doing or teaching wrong.

And as I keep saying, the question of persecution was a question of teaching, not just practice.

Rinnie,

I have given you the evidence: a papal encyclical, a Church Council, and a Doctor of the Church. There’s really nothing I can do if you simply refuse to address the evidence.

Edwin

Rinnie is a fundamentalist who became a Catholic fundamentalist. I think that about sums it up.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

You’re setting up a straw man when you say that I’m “blaming sin on God.” As Cardinal Newman said, the problem of sin in the Church is a subset of the problem of evil generally. That’s not the issue. The issue is your refusal (which is by no means unique to you, though I’m avoiding the phrase “a teaching of the Catholic Church” because that’s the very phrase in dispute!) to say that sin and error are characteristic of the Church itself. Because you think that the Church is simply to be identified with Christ (a position on which a number of people have challenged you), you find this blasphemous. But from my perspective the Church is the Body and Bride of Christ, continually being cleansed and forgiven and led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, but still in pilgrimage in this world and by no means at the end of the journey yet! That’s the issue between us.

I don’t quite know what PRMerger’s issue is, except that cleansing breaths are involved.

Edwin

And if you saw the Church as the REAL Body and Bride of CHrist you would not see a need for it to be cleansed. IT would have nothing to be cleansed and forgiven for. Because Christ is Perfect. And sinless. But what you seem to claim as the Body of CHrist is not the Church but the People who want to unite themself with Christ through his Church. You seem to think that once we become united in Christ through the Eucharist and become part of him, that if we sin he is part of our sin. You refuse to see that once we sin we are no longer one in Christ we fall from this Grace that is given and must repent and be re-united with him by the sacraments.

So in part you see that we can be one in Christ but still not be in a state of Grace. That is impossible. In order to be one in Christ and with him we must be free from sin and in a state of Grace.

If we are in a state of Grace we cannot sin. Because you cannot be in a state of grace and a state of sin at the same time. But I can see that this is too complicated for you to understand Edwin at this time. When we sin we become separated from Christ. And are no longer one with him.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t quite know what PRMerger’s issue is, except that cleansing breaths are involved.

Edwin

LOL!

And thank goodness for those deep cleansing breaths, eh?

Else you’d be receiving the virtual :manvspc: from me.)

(kidding, Edwin, I really love you! :kiss4you

 

[PRmerger]

I do not think that any of my posts have given any reasonable ground for you to assume that I’m unaware of that distinction and am speaking of heretics rather than heresy by inadvertence.

Fair enough.

But can you see why we would think that you are claiming you can’t make that distinction, 'cause you, um…**say **that you can’t make that distinction right here:

(bold mine)

Rinnie,

I can’t make that distinction. I think it’s a self-serving and dishonest one. This is perhaps the single decisive point on which I cannot accept Catholicism. I think that Catholicism plays a “bait and switch” with the definition of the Church, claiming authority for the Church’s leaders while denying responsibility.

It must work both ways. You can’t say that the leaders are the Church when they teach but not when they sin. Either the Church is something ineffable, above and beyond the human structures that embody it (in which case you can’t automatically say “the Church teaches” because a Pope or Council has said thus-and-so), or the Church can really be identified with the people and the concrete structures in which they operate, which means that when the people sin the Church sins.

Also, you assumed that persecuting people is always sinful. Catholics did not think so for a very long time. So this is a huge change in teaching that needs to be addressed, as your traditionalist friends will point out if you have any!

The Catholic Church explicitly taught in several places that the state should support the true religion, that error should be repressed, and even (during the late medieval and early modern periods) that heretics should be handed over to the secular power for execution. The fact that you can now claim with a straight face that “the Church” never did this shows just how slippery and convenient your definition of “the Church” is.

Edwin

 

[Pat_De]

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.

For that to be true, then the “church” would have to be God, which explains many of your many errors. It was committed to Christ as Scripture tells us, which is why a Christian is a new creation in Christ Jesus. Which is why it is by faith alone in Christ alone. Read the Scriptures!!

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.

I know that the only saved ones are Christians. Only one avenue to where it is committed as John 3:16 among many other places.

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

I use to until Jesus removed the veil of blindness as the Scripture states.

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.

More of your straw being thrown around; do you happen to live on a horse or cow farm; you seem to have an excess of straw. I have a love for the truth of God’s word, which has nothing to do with the Catholic faith, whatever that actually means. Can you define the Catholic faith in its fullness as all Catholics would understand and agree? Should be easy based on the unity everyone here brags about despite the fact that they often contradict each other, but that can be accounted for by the fact that each person is at a different place in their walk of faith.

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.

For what it is worth; your problem is your inability to separate “authority” from God’s perspective as compared to distributing “authority” in human terms. For the human it is a chain of command to be followed and for God’s perspective it is a privileged given to the creature for the purpose of servitude and the end is for His glory. Totally unlike men’s ideas of a structure where one is elevated above another; God doesn’t work that way concerning men He puts into leadership roles. For God always maintains authority in the elevated manner and He allows/gifts certain men to oversee His little flocks on earth in order to equip others for the work of the great commission and to build up the body in order to give Himself all the glory.

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.

So the “church” is God?

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?

He was to serve the others by guiding and strengthening them just as Jesus told Him; he was put in leadership role to serve by equipping and strengthening the other disciples; which is my point above and exactly what Peter accomplished, as in past tense. What Rome has done is more like a corporation, which is the problem with religion of men in my opinion.

My view is in the Bible too!
Do you really think that Catholics cannot be saved?

Now you go putting words and thoughts into my mouth. I never said, stated or implied Catholics cannot be saved; why would a Christian make such a false accusation unless perhaps they are not a Christian at all? Please explain. I am certain there will be individuals in heaven that were part of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, JW’s, Mormons, even a few Protestants. God is sovereign in all things; including salvation. The more important question each should be asking “am I saved”?

Nice talking with you; but I’m moving onto something different, perhaps well meet again.

 

[Pat_De]

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.

I agree except Paul never mentioned anything about original sin or implied it. God doesn’t love everyone, Jacob I loved but Esau I hated for example among quite a few. But I see your general points and agree.

 

[Pat_De]

One ought to not disparage religion as a whole.

Religion comes from the Latin word, religiare, which means “relationship”. So to say “religion is bad” but “a relationship with Christ is good” is a nonsensical paradigm.

No it is not; look at what has been done in the name of God under the religion umbrella; that speaks for itself. Jesus gave His greatest condemnation on the religion of the Jews that perverted His truth as another example.

 

[Contarini]

Fair enough.

But can you see why we would think that you are claiming you can’t make that distinction, 'cause you, um…**say **that you can’t make that distinction right here:

No, I was not talking about the distinction between heresy and heretics. Are you suggesting that these two distinctions are really the same?

Anyway, there’s a difference between failing to recognize a distinction and recognizing but rejecting it. I recognize the distinction between opposing heresy and persecuting heretics, and I accept it, but I point out that late medieval Christians in fact did both and taught that both were Christian duties. I recognize the distinction you guys are making between the Church and “the members of the Church acting collectively and institutionally” (though in recent posts you seem frustrated with me for even saying that you guys are making that distinction, which has me really, really confused), but I don’t accept it as legitimate. Or rather, I accept your right to make it, but I cannot accept any ecclesiology that depends on it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And if you saw the Church as the REAL Body and Bride of CHrist you would not see a need for it to be cleansed. IT would have nothing to be cleansed and forgiven for. Because Christ is Perfect. And sinless.

Yes, but Christ’s Body is not yet perfect–that’s for the Eschaton!

But what you seem to claim as the Body of CHrist is not the Church but the People who want to unite themself with Christ through his Church.

The Church is the people.

You seem to think that once we become united in Christ through the Eucharist and become part of him, that if we sin he is part of our sin.

No–I think that once we are united in Christ through baptism we are part of His visible Body on earth unless and until we openly apostasize.

Of course there is a distinction between those who are visibly part of the Body and those who are in the Mystical Body through grace. But in the absence of excommunication or open apostasy, that is not a distinction we have any business making.

You refuse to see that once we sin we are no longer one in Christ we fall from this Grace that is given and must repent and be re-united with him by the sacraments.

First of all, aren’t you distorting your own Church’s teaching here? Your Church does not teach that all sin cuts us off from grace–only mortal sin, that is, serious sin committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. (I accept that distinction, by the way, though I might define it differently in places.) Furthermore, your Church makes a distinction between faith and charity such that one can have supernatural faith without that faith being enlivened by charity. I believe that in your Church’s teaching a believer who is not in a state of grace (not a condition which I believe can exist, but I’m describing your Church’s teaching here) is still a member of the Church in some sense. I am happy to be shown wrong from an authoritative source (in other words, with all due respect, I won’t just accept your say-so).

So in part you see that we can be one in Christ but still not be in a state of Grace. That is impossible. In order to be one in Christ and with him we must be free from sin and in a state of Grace.

I think you mean free from *mortal *sin. Would you admit that the Church might sin venially? And after all, the main point of disagreement is doctrinal error, which doesn’t necessarily involve sin at all.

And you don’t seem to be distinguishing between the visible Church and the invisible body of the elect at all. (Please, no digressions on election–it’s a perfectly traditional Catholic term.) Again: this discussion concerns the *visible *Church, which according to you doesn’t appear to exist.

But I can see that this is too complicated for you to understand Edwin at this time.

No. Complicated isn’t the problem. Distorted and oversimplified is the problem!

Edwin

 

[Pat_De]

Enjoy the rest of your evening and I may talk with some or all of you in another thread - Blessings to all of you!!

 

[guanophore]

Sorry that it never worked out for you.

What gave you the impression it did not work out, Pat? I grew progressively closer to the Lord, and learned that the Church founded by Christ was Catholic.

Do you think that, because I came out of seminary more Catholic than I went in, that “it never worked out”?

Are you assuming that, since your experience as a Catholic did not lead you to Jesus, that everyone else has the same experience.

Perhaps we should through out Romans 10 according to Guanaphore

I am afraid this will not be possible, because such a thing does not exist.

There may be a Romans 10 “according to Pat”, but I don’t read the scriptures the way you do.

because Romans 10 rebukes your assertion.

Rebuking, Pat, is an activity of persons, not writings, however Holy. The Scripture does not “rebuke” anyone.

  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?

And these were only done to refute heresies. It is proof that the manner in which you are reading scripture is contrary to what the Apostles believed and taught.

which is why there has been a consorted effort to try to destroy Sola Scriptura;

NO, the reason there has been such an effort to destroy SS is because it is a heresy, and is the foundation of many other heresies.

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.

Jesus authoriatively commissioned His Apostles to teach all that He commanded. Scripture is profitable in these duties. Scripture is understood best in the hands of those who embrace the beliefs of those who wrote it. SS is not one of these beliefs.

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.

The test of the Truth is the standard of sound doctrine, which comes from those to whom it was committed. This sound doctrine is reflected in the NT, but it’s Source is Christ. When the Scripture is separated from the Apostolic Tradition, all kinds of errors result, SS being one of the most damaging.

If the "Church" stands upon the Word of God or Jesus, then they should welcome the opportunity, but they refuse. Why?

The Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth, but the Church is not built from the Bible. It stands upon the Truth of Scripture, but the church came from Christ, not from the Bible.

strawman to the nth degree.

No, Pat, it is not. YOu are asking why the Church does not interpret the Scripture verse by verse. I am telling you that this is not necessary, since the Church embodies the doctrine of the faith. There is no need for a verse by verse interpretation. The Catholic Church does not come from the Bible, but the Bible from the Church. The doctrines were whole and entire before a word of them were ever written down in what became the NT.

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.

You seem to wonder why the doctrine of the faith is not found in “many volumes”. My response to you is that this is not necessary, because it is handed down through the successors of the Apostles. We have a summary of those doctrines in the CCC. It is not a 'distraction" but the answer to your question.

Why do you pose such questions, when you really don’t want the answers?

It is 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.

No, Pat, no straw men, and no false statements. You really do perceive contradictions that do not exist.

There cannot be any dichotomy between the Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scripture because both come from God, and He does not contradict Himself. The contradictions only exist in your mind.

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

How is the burden of proof on me? I have received the faith that was committed to the Apostles. You have received “a different gospel” that was invented 1500 years after the events.

Scripture was never intended to be used as “proof text”. It exists to support the teachings of the church.

But, for the record, I will stipulate that I do not see that the Immaculate Conception can be “proved” from Scripture. I don’t think the list of books that belong in the scripure can either.

 

[guanophore]

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

I think it might be instructive for you to read up on the nature of the straw man arguement. My observation that the contradictions you assert are only in your mind, and not in the Catholic faith is not a straw man arguement. If anything, it would be ad hominem, but since that is the case for anyone who perceives a contradiction, it is nothing personal. It applies to me as well.

More false accusations and attacks a common tactic used by people like yourself.

What kind of person am I?

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.

Do you honestly believe that you were properly catechised as a Catholic?

Give an example of a strange and erroneous idea I have asserted about the Catholic faith.

Here is one, about which you have been asked repeatedly by posters on this thread to provide evidence, but have not.

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.

It is not surprising that you cannot support sucy a silly myth with any historical evidence. One would think that you would at least refrain from posting such drivel, to keep from embarrassing yourself.

 More attacks and I am a Christian, not a Protestant.

This is not an attack, Pat, just an observation.Since you are so anti-Catholic, I would think you would take this as a compliment. You are a very loud and bigoted Protestant. Don’t be ashamed. You stand in a long tradition of those Christians.

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.

No, I have met even more bigoted and hateful Protestants than you on CAF. However, I do evaluate a person’s posts to understand their theology. Your theology is Protestant.

 Must have taken you quite some time to do this, I don't know; maybe you can elaborate as to why.    cause????

Yes, I did. I did a search to locate all your posts, and read each one of them carefully.

I believe that you are writing the ideas and sentiments that many people have who are too shy to write them here. I used to share them myself. I think it is very important to have a response to your assertions.

  More personal attacks, insults and straw; there must be some limit on the straw.    More personal attacks and an useless tactics to avoid substance.

You have misunderstood that straw arguement, Pat. My observations that you never understood or practiced the Catholic faith are not a straw arguement. Perhaps you would like to think they can, since you cannot refute them?

You testified that

I did come out of a religious system and come into the arms of a loving Savior and Lord.

That sounds like you were practicing a form of godliness, without the power thereof. It is not a personal attack, Pat. I did the same thing myself. If you did not think it was an empty religion, why did you need to “come out” of it? I would think this part of your testimony would be something to have pride in, rather than feeling hurt when someone accepts your testimony. Do you have unresolved feelings about Catholicism?

   It has no capacity only people can.

Do you think the CC does not contain any people? Do you think the people who are in the CC do not swear allegiance to Christ?

   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.

This is a common misunderstanding, Pat. Your logic is seriously flawed. The CC did, indeed, produce the Bible. The NT was created by, for, and about Catholics. In 382, the Catholic Church bound 27 books (called the NT) together with the Alexandrian Septuagint and closed the canon of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I was not talking about the distinction between heresy and heretics. Are you suggesting that these two distinctions are really the same?

Suddenly you’re a literalist.

Let me clarify:
The distinction that you are both claiming not to understand yet also claiming you do understand is between the principle of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

The Catholic teaching has always been the same: we are at war with heresy.

The practice of it has been, unfortunately: we are at war with heretics.

So in one post you’re claiming you can’t see a distinction between what we teach and what we practice.

Then in another post you’re saying, with I’m imagining a straight face, “why would you think that I’m unaware of a distinction” between orthopraxy and orthodoxy, as applied in this dialogue dealing with the CC’s teaching on heresy.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s good to hear you say this. Rinnie and guanophore have both insisted that one cannot speak of the Church doing wrong

Do you think that they meant the CC cannot DO wrong or that the CC cannot TEACH wrong? Or are you unaware of this distinction?