When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[PRmerger]

IApparently you and I are on the same side here. That being the case, you owe me an apology for your hasty judgment and your words about my being like a “dwarf,” when in fact you agreed with me all along!

Apologize? I thought you considered it a compliment.

But, yes, I do apologize for calling you a dwarf if that was offensive to you. :flowers:

I’m pointing out that a pope, a Council, and a Doctor of the Church all explicitly taught that this *should be done. *This does pertain to orthodoxy and not just “orthopraxy.”

In Christ,

Edwin

Doctors of the Church have said many things which were wrong theologically.

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” but not a teaching of the faith. Not orthodoxy.

And I’m missing the Council reference.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Suddenly you’re a literalist, again?

I think that I have given you examples of Catholics saying the Church has done wrong.

More from itsjustdave (soure cited earlier)

For example, wasn’t Moses often going the “wrong” direction, away from the promised land while wandering in the desert? There were many who didn’t want to submit to him anymore (Korah, cf. Num 16). Yet, even though Moses was headed the wrong way, he was being navigated by God every step of the way. We cannot always understand why God navigates his holy people in divergent directions. But the response of the faithful is the “obedience of faith” spoken of by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, even if we can’t understand why.

 

[guanophore]

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–

No, she has fallen for the erroneous use of Scripture, and believes that the CC should produce volumes that “infallibly interpret every verse of the Bible”.

She does not believe that the CC produced the Bible, or that everything in it is Catholic.

  So the "church" is God?

The Head of the Church is Christ, and her Soul is the HS. These aspects of the Church are Divine, yes.

 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.

Good. We are in agreement on this point. Peter then passed on the responsibilities given to him by Christ to his successor, the bishop of Rome.

What Rome has done is more like a corporation, which is the problem with religion of men in my opinion.

Can you explain this? I do not understand what this means.

Now you go putting words and thoughts into my mouth.  I never said, stated or implied Catholics cannot be saved;

You have just stated above that, in your opinion, the Roman Catholic Church is a “corporation” that is created by a “religion of men”. How on earth could anyone be saved under such circumstances?

Perhaps you beleive some may be saved “in spite of being Catholic” and they would be better served to “come out of her” (Babylon)?

why would a Christian make such a false accusation unless perhaps they are not a Christian at all? Please explain.

For the same reason you have been making false accusations toward the Church since you got here, I suppose. You do not believe your assertions are false. Since you did not come to Christ until you left the CC, you consider it a “religion of men” and unable to present salvation to people. You believe it was created by Constantine.

The more important question each should be asking “am I saved”?

Where do you find such a position in Scripture?

What I see as most important is how we love our neighbor.

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

I would run for cover too, if I had embarrassed myself as much as you have on this thread!

 

[guanophore]

For that to be true, then the “church” would have to be God,

No, Pat. The Church can produce the Scripture without “being God”. The Church, like Christ, is incarnational. She has divine aspects, and human aspects.

The HS works through people to do infallible things. This does not make the people “God”.

2 Pet 1 [20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
[21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

In the case of the NT, these “men moved by the HS” are Catholics. Those Catholics wrote, preserved, promulgated and canonized the Bible. The HS enabled these infallible actions through divine intervention.

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!!

Maybe you are getting overwhelmed. Maybe you did not expect to encounter knowledgeable Christians here who are able to defend their faith?

Your response here has nothing to do with the fact that the Bible was produced by the Church.

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

It seems like what you are saying is that when you were Catholic, you were wearing a veil of blindness.

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.

Dear woman, please read up about the nature of the straw arguement. My observations about your hostility toward Catholicism does not qualify. Why are you so sensitive about this? Do you have unresolved feelings about having been Catholic?

I have a love for the truth of God’s word, which has nothing to do with the Catholic faith, whatever that actually means.

I am glad that you are able to admit that you really have no idea what the Catholic faith is all about. This is a good beginning. At least when you realize that you are ignorant, knowledge can be gained.

I know it must be very hard for you to accept that the CC produced the Bible. It does not seem that you were able to receive anything of value from the Church, including Jesus, and His Holy Word. I do agree that God’s Word has little to do with what you IMAGINE is Catholic. Fortunately, what lives in your imagination is a far cry from what Catholic really is.

Can you define the Catholic faith in its fullness as all Catholics would understand and agree?

This was already done by the Apostles. But I do embrace what they taught and defined, and that faith that was committed to their successors.

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.

That, and the fact that not all persons calling themselves Catholic actually embrace the Catholic faith. There are plenty that were like you, who practice a form of godliness without the power thereof, poorly catechized, and weak in faith.

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.

I thank you for defining my problem for me Pat. I know my therapist will be pleased to have a week off.

Indeed, I would have no need to separate God’s perspecive of authority from it’s human expression. All authority was given to Jesus, and He sent His Apostles in His Own authoirty. They, in turn, passed this authority on to their successors.

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.

We are in agreement, Pat, except that I don’t see that a chain of command is contradictory to the gift of service.

  So the "church" is God?

The Head of the Church is Christ, and her Soul is the HS. These aspects of the Church are Divine, yes.

 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.

Good. We are in agreement on this point. Peter then passed on the responsibilities given to him by Christ to his successor, the bishop of Rome.

What Rome has done is more like a corporation, which is the problem with religion of men in my opinion.

Can you explain this? I do not understand what this means.

 

[guanophore]

Now you go putting words and thoughts into my mouth.  I never said, stated or implied Catholics cannot be saved;

You have just stated above that, in your opinion, the Roman Catholic Church is a “corporation” that is created by a “religion of men”. How on earth could anyone be saved under such circumstances?

Perhaps you beleive some may be saved “in spite of being Catholic” and they would be better served to “come out of her” (Babylon)?

why would a Christian make such a false accusation unless perhaps they are not a Christian at all? Please explain.

For the same reason you have been making false accusations toward the Church since you got here, I suppose. You do not believe your assertions are false. Since you did not come to Christ until you left the CC, you consider it a “religion of men” and unable to present salvation to people. You believe it was created by Constantine.

The more important question each should be asking “am I saved”?

Where do you find such a position in Scripture?

What I see as most important is how we love our neighbor.

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

I would run for cover too, if I had embarrassed myself as much as you have on this thread!

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes, many atrocities have been committed in the name of God, and of “religion”. However, the problem is the atrocities of men, not that by which they try to justify their fallen behavior. Many atrocities have been committed and justified by Scripture, also, but you are not saying that Scripture is corrupt because people misuse it.

Also, Jesus did not condemn the 'religion of the Jews". Jesus completely embodied the religion of the Jew, and was the most faithful Jew that ever lived, following every bit of the Law of Moses.

What He condemned was, as you say, those who perverted the Truth of that religion for their own ends. Again, it was not the religion that was the problem, but the perversion of men.

Scripture affirms religion:

1Tim.3
[16] Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the Spirit,
seen by angels,
preached among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

1Tim.2
[10] but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion.

Jas.1
[26] If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain.
[27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Religion can be pure and undefiled if the person practicing it has a pure and undefiled heart.

It appears that you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, Pat.

 

[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

I think Pat has fallen for that myth that the Catholic Church was created by Constantine. I don’t think she considers the Church Jesus founded as Catholic. It is interesting that the successors of the Apostles thought it was…

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

Have you considered that the context of your thinking is erroneous? Jesus founded a “church”, not a religion. The Church He founded was called Catholic by those who were members of it. The church He founded is visible, and has authority.

 

[rinnie]

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.

He Didn’t Yes he did:yup: Why Don’t you take a look Rom 5:12 IF that aint’t original sin nothing is. What do you call the sin of Adam? A boo boo

 

[rinnie]

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

The Church is the people.

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.

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).

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.

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

Edwin

No Edwin that does not go against my teaching. What you said goes against my teaching When we sin even venial we still have a partial loss of Gods Grace. So sorry Charlie you lose again on that Edwin my Man. Even venial sin, any kind of sin separates us from God. You cannot be in sin and be in the complete Graces of God. Even venial sin you must confess. But venial sin you do not have to confess to Christ through his Priest you can confess venial sin on our own. Got it!

 

[rinnie]

Sorry Edwin but the Church has been perfected.

CCC 808 The Church is the Bride of Christ he loved her and handed himself over for her. He has purified her By HIS BLOOD and made her the Fruitful Mother of All Gods Children.

Now Edwin how can it be any more perfect then that.

805 The CHurch is the Bod of Christ. Through the Spriit and his action in the sacraments above all the Eucharist, Chirst who was once dead and is now risen establishes the community of believers as his own body.

The Church is the Temple of the Holy Spriit. The Spirit is the soul as it were of the Mystical Body the source of its life of its unity in diversity and the riches of its gifts and charisims.

810 Hence the universal Church IS SEEN to be a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

What the soul is to the human body the Holy Spirit is to the BODY OF CHRIST WHICH IS THE CHURCH. It is the Holy Spirit that makes the CHURCH the Temple of the LIving God.

WHy can you not see Edwin that Jesus gave HIMSELF for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own. How do you feel he does this Edwin. SImple from a visible Church. Remember upon this rock I will build my Church and …

We are all called to God by faith and Baptism. It is through the CHurch that the Holy Spirit works and puts into action the sacraments that make us one in Christ. SO what is the Holy Spirit really working through a CHurch or CHrist?

Oh Edwin. forget it. You just will not see this mystery now. Its no use.:banghead: Maybe someday:newidea: Who knows.

Peace Bro!

 

[Contarini]

Suddenly you’re a literalist, again?

It has nothing to do with literalism. Rinnie and guanophore have repeatedly insisted that “the Church” can never be said to do wrong. If you want to accuse anyone of literalism, accuse them, not me.

Furthermore, you have accused me of being a “dwarf in the Stable” for refusing to “see” this distinction. Now suddenly I’m a “literalist” for respecting it?

The problem appears to be that you’re making one distinction (orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy) and they’re making another one (Church vs. “members of the Church acting together as an institution”). You need to stop accusing *me *of being the one who is confused or stubborn when I’m simply responding to what your fellow Catholics are saying.

I think that I have given you examples of Catholics saying the Church has done wrong.

Rinnie and guanophore (and apparently Pope JPII as well, given how he worded his famous statements of repentance) think that it’s very important not to ascribe wrongdoing or wrong teaching (the latter, of course, not meeting the requirements for infallibility) to “the Church.” In that light, it’s worth noting that itsjustdave never used the phrase “the Church has done wrong.” Please let’s ask him whether he would use it. I’m not trying to be a literalist–but this distinction is clearly very important to some of your fellow Catholics, and I want to respect that.

I don’t disagree with the quotes you have cited from itsjustdave. I disagree with the view hotly defended for some time now by rinnie and guanophore, that when leaders of the Church make wrong decisions “the Church” cannot be said to be making those wrong decisions.

That is what this argument is about. Please respect the fact and do not accuse me of stubbornness or start taking “cleansing breaths” because I am seriously engaging with ideas expressed by your fellow Catholics.

I am happy to hear that you reject this view. I would love to discuss with you the alternative distinction you make between “orthodoxy” and “orthopraxy.” I would pose to you the same challenge I pose to them: when popes and Councils and Doctors of the Church not only *practice *persecution but explicitly teach that it is correct, is *that *teaching to be ascribed to the Church or not? And if it is, what becomes of the orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction?

But please don’t confuse this discussion any longer by getting mad at me when I’m simply responding to the explicit statements made by your fellow Catholics. Take it up with them, not me.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No Edwin that does not go against my teaching. What you said goes against my teaching When we sin even venial we still have a partial loss of Gods Grace. So sorry Charlie you lose again on that Edwin my Man. Even venial sin, any kind of sin separates us from God. You cannot be in sin and be in the complete Graces of God. Even venial sin you must confess. But venial sin you do not have to confess to Christ through his Priest you can confess venial sin on our own. Got it!

I would like to hear some support for this idea from other Catholics, to be sure that it isn’t an idiosyncratic idea of your own.

As I understand it, venial sin is compatible with the possession of sanctifying grace, and no amount of venial sin will, in itself, separate us from God (though venial sin does dispose us toward more serious sin and thus should not be disregarded).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sorry Edwin but the Church has been perfected.

If the Church is Jesus, when did it need to be perfected?
Given your other statements, you seem to be saying that the Church is indeed made up of baptized Christians, but only insofar as those Christians are free from sin. So the Church is basically made up of saints and saints alone.

I am increasingly skeptical as to whether you are expressing orthodox Catholicism. (Of course, it would help if your fellow Catholics would correct you, instead of automatically siding with you out of loyalty.) Whether your view is the official teaching of your Church or not, it certainly has a remarkable resemblance to the “invisible Church” of my childhood.

I originally became interested in Catholicism in the hope that Catholicism might hold the answers to the fatal problems I found with the “invisible Church” view. Catholics typically ridicule the “invisible Church” teaching. And yet, some years ago I began to realize that Catholics have their own version of the “invisible Church.” Your position is a particularly extreme version, which is why I’m continuing this discussion. I’m hoping that your fellow Catholics can clarify the extent to which what you are saying is really orthodox by Catholic standards.

CCC 808 The Church is the Bride of Christ he loved her and handed himself over for her. He has purified her By HIS BLOOD and made her the Fruitful Mother of All Gods Children.

Now Edwin how can it be any more perfect then that.

But this isn’t any comfort, according to you, to anyone who isn’t already a saint! The rest of us don’t belong to the Church!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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.

No, the texts I cited taught that heretics should be persecuted.

Furthermore, the distinction that I refused to recognize (not that I refused to see in the sense that I knew rinnie and guanophore were making it) was not between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but between things both done and taught by leaders of the Church in the Church’s name, and things taught by “the Church.” I have pointed this out to you before, but you insist on accusing me of not “seeing” this distinction, even though that’s not the distinction I was talking about, and does not apply to the evidence I have repeatedly cited.

I can accept the view that the true Church always teaches the right things even if (as an institution) it doesn’t always follow its own teachings. That appears to be your position, and you keep inserting it into the discussion, assuming (falsely) that it’s the distinction your fellow Catholics are making, and accusing me of not “seeing” it.

My only problem with the orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction is that if we find that the Church ends to fall into certain particular kinds of bad actions more often than others, we need to ask why. And from the standpoint of someone not convinced of the truth of your Church, it is at least possible that a failure in orthopraxy may stem from a failure in orthodoxy. But the distinction itself is clear and solid, and was not the distinction that I said I “couldn’t make.”

You misinterpreted what I meant by “couldn’t make” as well, but that’s a less serious issue. (I didn’t mean that I couldn’t see the distinction, but that I disagreed with it.)

So back to IV Lateran, Aquinas, and Leo. They are all teaching, not just doing. So while I grant the validity of the orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction in principle, you are wrong in thinking that it gives you any help here.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Furthermore, you have accused me of being a “dwarf in the Stable” for refusing to “see” this distinction. Now suddenly I’m a “literalist” for respecting it?

Again, I thought you enjoyed that little Narnian reference. Apparently it hit a nerve?

The problem appears to be that you’re making one distinction (orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy) and they’re making another one (Church vs. “members of the Church acting together as an institution”).

Edwin, picture a Venn diagram. The authors of the orthodoxy (i.e. teachings) of the Church and the practitioners of this teaching are like 2 overlapping circles. . In one area they are protected from erring. In the other, they are not.

 

[Contarini]

Again, I thought you enjoyed that little Narnian reference. Apparently it hit a nerve?

Yes, it was extraordinarily rude and insulting. Note: I don’t have a problem with rudeness and insults when deserved. But later posts have shown that your remark was not deserved, and that in fact you are the one who doesn’t understand what your fellow Catholics are saying.

Edwin, picture a Venn diagram. The authors of the orthodoxy (i.e. teachings) of the Church and the practitioners of this teaching are like 2 overlapping circles. . In one area they are protected from erring. In the other, they are not.

I find that extremely confusing. In what area? When the authors and the practitioners overlap, they (which–the authors or the practitioners?) are protected from erring? It makes no sense.

I repeat: you are making one distinction, and your fellow Catholics are making another. Yet you criticize *me *for responding to *their *flawed arguments, instead of criticizing them for making them!

I have given my reasons several times for believing that the orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction doesn’t help in the case of persecution, since I have documented teaching saying that heretics should be persecuted (not just that “the Church is at war with heresy”).

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Rinnie and guanophore (and apparently Pope JPII as well, given how he worded his famous statements of repentance) think that it’s very important not to ascribe wrongdoing or wrong teaching (the latter, of course, not meeting the requirements for infallibility) to “the Church.” In that light, it’s worth noting that itsjustdave never used the phrase “the Church has done wrong.”

What about Mark Shea? Did you miss (again) my post in which I cited him?

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 **

Sheesh!

(Note to self: Must. Not. Make. Reference. To. Dwarves.)

 

[rinnie]

I would like to hear some support for this idea from other Catholics, to be sure that it isn’t an idiosyncratic idea of your own.

As I understand it, venial sin is compatible with the possession of sanctifying grace, and no amount of venial sin will, in itself, separate us from God (though venial sin does dispose us toward more serious sin and thus should not be disregarded).

Edwin

Go for it Edwin. They will agree with me. When you are in Mortal sin you have destoyed your charity with God and have separated yourself completely with him. You must have the Power of the Holy Spirit given to a Priest by God to help repair this damage.

In Venial SIn you have offended God and wounded your relationship with God but can repair it on your own by asking for forgiveness without the help of a Priest.

Either way you still always separate yourself from God anytime you sin. And you must repent that sin. Anytime you sin you have a loss of grace. Having a loss of Gods grace and total loss of Gods grace are two different things.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it was extraordinarily rude and insulting.

Perhaps you should report it to the Mods? “I was called a dwarf and that hurt my feelings!”



And, again, I apologize for calling you a dwarf.

 

[Contarini]

What about Mark Shea? Did you miss (again) my post in which I cited him?

I admit that I saw “infallibility” and ignored the rest, because I thought you were just assuming that I was misunderstanding the teaching on infallibility. This discussion hasn’t had anything to do with infallibility per se. It has had to do with those very non-infallible teachings and actions in which we all agree that Popes and Councils can err. And the question has been: are those teachings and actions the teachings and actions of the Church?

Furthermore, I note that Shea says “the Pope and the rest of the Church”–he still avoids saying simply “the Church.” I may be overly suspicious there, but given how careful many Catholics are never to say “the Church sins” or “the Church errs,” I think my linguistic exactitude is warranted.

But it may well be that Shea would agree with me. Perhaps you actually agree with me too, but you’ve done a good job of disguising the fact, what with your Narnian parallels and your cleansing breaths.

Edwin