When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[guanophore]

I believe that you are wrong. I have seen idolatry with my own eyes.

Idolatyr, Crammer, is something that has to be done by an individual. It is a mortal sin. The Church cannot commit idolatry, because her Head is Christ Himself. When people fall into adultery, their sin separates them from the Holy Bride of Christ, and they endanger their motral souls.

  I have seen folks who are so poor catechized that it is possible that they don't even realize that Salvation comes from Christ alone.

I certainly can’t agrue with this, having been one of them myself at one time. However, my misunderstanding was caused by my own lack of study of my faith, the infiltration of modernism in the local diocese, and catechists who were not properly prepared for their task. It is not proper to lay these shortcomings at the feet of Christ. that is like saying “well, Judas didn’t “get” it, so Jesus was a poor example/teacher”.

The Catholic church being supposedly preserved in Holiness is nowhere to be proven.

I can’t argue with this either. The Teachings we have from the apostles attesting to this are received by faith. They are quite beyond the puny customs of humans to “prove” scientifically.

Churches throught the NT were reformed due to errors.

This statement is false on two counts. There is only ONE CHURH written about in the NT. People, living in different communities, espousing the ONE FAITH were continually in need of reform. The Church, however, cannot fall into sin, because she has the mind of Christ.

The entire equation for Rome to never go wrong just doesn't add up.  You cannot ignore the atrocities that have taken place in the Catholic church from the middle ages through the inquisitions up through the recent child sex abuse.  Call it mens sins, call it whatever you wish, but it only exemplifies that everyone needs reform whether they are too stubborn to admit it or not.

I have no such stubborness, and I think if you look at the post to which you are responding, I have clearly stated that men are always in need of reform. You don’t seem to understand that when people commit atrocities, they have left the path of Christ, and the way of love. This is what separates them from the Holy Bride which He has sanctified by His own blood.

In the book of Acts, we see the Apostles gathering in Jerusalem to consider the problem of the Judiazers. At the conclusion of the council, they wrote the faithful a letter that starts “it seemed right to the Holy Spirit, and to us”. This statement represents the unity and holiness of the Church. Those who adhere to her Teachings are kept in holiness by the power of the HS, who is the soul of the Church. Those who commit such atrocities and sins as you describe have quenched the HS in themselves, and by their sins, separated themselves from Christ and His Holy Bride.

 

[Soldier_X]

I gotta get in on this.

GKC

It’s great. It’s a well-kept Motley Crew secret.

 

[Contarini]

Idolatyr, Crammer, is something that has to be done by an individual.

So if an Episcopal parish, say, were to use a liturgy calling on the mother goddess (there was such a liturgy on the website of the Episcopal Church’s women’s division for a while, drawn up by two clergy who practiced neo-paganism along with Anglican Christianity, and have now left the Episcopal Church and Christianity as a whole if I’m not mistaken), that would be the act of an individual? If the Episcopal Church as a whole were to endorse such a liturgy, that would be the act of an individual? Or wouldn’t such an act be idolatrous, in your view? (Those who engage in such a practice typically claim that they are calling on the true God under a feminine name, and I’m probably more open to considering such an argument than you are.)

I do not believe that your Communion has fallen into idolatry. But I don’t think you are making a convincing case when you rule out the possibility of a Christian church falling into idolatry on general principles.

Edwin

 

[Richard_Kastner]

“According to the Church the Pope can not be wrong.”

Are there any limits or stipulations placed on this? Or could the Pope correctly pick the Kentucky Derby winners, each year?

GKC

This is actually a good point. Not about the Derby winners, but about infallability. I would like to know where this idea of ex-cathedra came from. If you subscribe to the idea of papal infallability (which I do not) How can you take some things that he says call them ex-cathedra and binding as a matter of faith, and take other things and say they are not ex-cathedra and therefore not infallable. The CC uses Matt.16:19 to affirm it’s doctrine of papal infallabitity. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and **whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ** Does not this say “whatsoever”. Doesn’t that mean everything he says. So, does the pope say things that he doesn’t expect people to believe as the truth or worse that he himself does not believe to be the truth (a lie).

 

[GKC]

This is actually a good point. Not about the Derby winners, but about infallability. I would like to know where this idea of ex-cathedra came from. If you subscribe to the idea of papal infallability (which I do not) How can you take some things that he says call them ex-cathedra and binding as a matter of faith, and take other things and say they are not ex-cathedra and therefore not infallable. The CC uses Matt.16:19 to affirm it’s doctrine of papal infallabitity. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and **whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ** Does not this say “whatsoever”. Doesn’t that mean everything he says. So, does the pope say things that he doesn’t expect people to believe as the truth or worse that he himself does not believe to be the truth (a lie).

There is an answer to this, but it is not my place to speak for the RCC. I’ll bet someone will. The question is, if the Pope possesses a personal charism of infallibility, how is this defined, and in what circumstances is it said to be exercised?

However, I should note that the Pope need not speak ex cathedra, for his teaching to be considered infallible.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

So if an Episcopal parish, say, were to use a liturgy calling on the mother goddess (there was such a liturgy on the website of the Episcopal Church’s women’s division for a while, drawn up by two clergy who practiced neo-paganism along with Anglican Christianity, and have now left the Episcopal Church and Christianity as a whole if I’m not mistaken), that would be the act of an individual?

From the letters in Revelation, it is clear that the majority of a community can fall into sin and idolatry. When this happens, all of those involved have left the faith of the Church. I think the NT is also clear that wolves among the sheep who lead the flock astray in such a manner will be judged with greater strictness.

You would not say that the Episcopal Church has sinned (that the doctrine of the faith is in error). One would say that the practices of those who claim to belong to the faith have strayed from the truth. The standard is not defined by those who depart from it.

If the Episcopal Church as a whole were to endorse such a liturgy, that would be the act of an individual? Or wouldn’t such an act be idolatrous, in your view? (Those who engage in such a practice typically claim that they are calling on the true God under a feminine name, and I’m probably more open to considering such an argument than you are.)

Don’t be too sure about that! When God made humans in His own image, male and female He created them, meaning that both represent equal aspects of the divine.

What is meant by “Episcopal Church as a whole”?

I think the community and it’s leadership can all fall into heresy or sin. This does not change the true faith.

I do not believe that your Communion has fallen into idolatry. But I don’t think you are making a convincing case when you rule out the possibility of a Christian church falling into idolatry on general principles.

A local parish yes, and there have been many, beginning with the evidence in the book of Revelation. Yet these are individuals that are called into repentance. Communities of individuals are called into repentance. They are admonished to abandon sin, and return to the Church, the faith.

 

[guanophore]

This is actually a good point. Not about the Derby winners, but about infallability. I would like to know where this idea of ex-cathedra came from. If you subscribe to the idea of papal infallability (which I do not) How can you take some things that he says call them ex-cathedra and binding as a matter of faith, and take other things and say they are not ex-cathedra and therefore not infallable. The CC uses Matt.16:19 to affirm it’s doctrine of papal infallabitity. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and **whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ** Does not this say “whatsoever”. Doesn’t that mean everything he says. So, does the pope say things that he doesn’t expect people to believe as the truth or worse that he himself does not believe to be the truth (a lie).

Actually, the power to bind and loose is a legislative power that relates to ruling and governing.

Although connected to the authority established by Christ, it is His promise that the gates of hell will not prevail that maintains infallibility. It is a negative gift, which means it prevents the Church from teaching error.

No, infallibility does not apply to "everything he says’. Otherwise, how could Peter make an infallible proclamation about the nature of Christ one minute, and be getting called “Satan” by Jesus in the next?

 

[guanophore]

However, I should note that the Pope need not speak ex cathedra, for his teaching to be considered infallible.

GKC

Indeed, all those who embrace the infallible Teachings of the Apostles can benefit from this gift.

 

[Contarini]

You would not say that the Episcopal Church has sinned (that the doctrine of the faith is in error).

Yes, I would. I would say that the Episcopal Church sinned and erred last year when it adopted two resolutions that contradicted the mind of the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church as a whole.

Don’t be too sure about that! When God made humans in His own image, male and female He created them, meaning that both represent equal aspects of the divine.

What is meant by “Episcopal Church as a whole”?

In our case, it means an action by General Convention, particularly an action which is approved over several successive General Conventions and thus passes into our permanent canons, books of liturgy, etc.

A local parish yes, and there have been many, beginning with the evidence in the book of Revelation. Yet these are individuals that are called into repentance. Communities of individuals are called into repentance.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “communities of individuals.” In the Old Testament, it is common for individuals to take responsibility for the actions of the community, even though they had clearly opposed those actions.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Indeed, all those who embrace the infallible Teachings of the Apostles can benefit from this gift.

I knew there was a catch.

GKC

 

[Richard_Kastner]

This statement is false on two counts. There is only ONE CHURH written about in the NT. People, living in different communities, espousing the ONE FAITH were continually in need of reform. The Church, however, cannot fall into sin, because she has the mind of Christ.

The book of Revelations seems to disagree with you. In chapters 1-3 it talks about seven churches. Now these are all Christian churches which means Christ is the head. And indeed we see Christ, who is the light of the world Jn.1:4, amongst the candlesicks.
Rev. 1:12And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

These churches were actual churches in John’s time, But it is generally considered by most Christians, I’m not sure how the CC views this, that these churches are symbolic of the true church down through the two thousand years from Christ to the present.

Now it is clear from the rebukes given, by Christ Himself, That all but two of these churches, Smyna and Philadelphia, can and do sin.

Lets look at two. First the church at Ephesus, which by the way is parallel to the Apostolic church.

Rev.2:4Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

A church that does not sin has no need of repentance.

Second the church of Laodicea, Which is the last church and parallels the church in the end times, which I believe is now.

Rev.3
14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

The Lord has nothing good to say about this church. Only rebukes and warnings to repent and buy Gold tried in the fire. What’s that?

1 Peter 1:7
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

The church absolutely can and does sin and needs to be brought back by faith “though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:”

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Actually, the power to bind and loose is a legislative power that relates to ruling and governing.

Although connected to the authority established by Christ, it is His promise that the gates of hell will not prevail that maintains infallibility. It is a negative gift, which means it prevents the Church from teaching error.

No, infallibility does not apply to "everything he says’. Otherwise, how could Peter make an infallible proclamation about the nature of Christ one minute, and be getting called “Satan” by Jesus in the next?

So, according to you or your church or both. “The power to bind and loose is a legislative power that relates to ruling and governing.” Would you say that this power is infallible? And since hell in the bible is equated wih death. It seems to me that Jesus is saying that His church would not die rather than be infallible.

 

[area52]

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

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

For me, I believed when Constantine effort to unify Rome with one religion brought about the corruption of the body of Christ. At the time, Christians are growing rapidly and are being persecuted. To unify Rome, Constantine selected that Christianity be the religion for Rome. All Rome are now “christians” eventhough they have not believed in Christ Jesus.
Rome still has pagan beliefs and practices during this time. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism. Some pagan beliefs has evolve to the new christian religion. You can google - Cult of Isis and you would find similarity in the adoration of Mary. Search on Mithraism and would read similarity on sacramental observance. Wiki search on Religion of Rome for its history. This is where the start of Roman Catholicism

Anyway, you can’t make anyone a “Christian” without that persons heart believed in what Christ Jesus did on the cross. Also, just because you were brought up Catholic religion, observing all of its tradition, does not make you Christian if your FAITH and BELIEF in Christ Jesus are based on “your work” and NOT on the FINISHED work of Jesus on the cross.

 

[hizstory]

As a former Evangelical Fundamentalist (my parents are Southern Baptist), I always heard from pastors that it was around the time that Constantine became converted that all the “pagan” practices and beliefs crept in. Of course, now that I’ve read some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, I realize that was just wishful thinking on their part.

 

[PRmerger]

So, according to you or your church or both. “The power to bind and loose is a legislative power that relates to ruling and governing.” Would you say that this power is infallible?

This represents a common understanding of infallibility. Firstly, “power” cannot be fallible or infallible.

Infalliblity, as it applies to the CC, is a negative charism. That is, the Holy Spirit prevents the teaching authority of the Church from teaching error.

Infalliblity is NOT power; it is not impeccability; it is not omniscience.

And since hell in the bible is equated wih death. It seems to me that Jesus is saying that His church would not die rather than be infallible.

Perhaps it’s not either/or but both/and.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
So, according to you or your church or both. “The power to bind and loose is a legislative power that relates to ruling and governing.” Would you say that this power is infallible?

This represents a common understanding of infallibility. Firstly, “power” cannot be fallible or infallible.
Infalliblity, as it applies to the CC, is a negative charism. That is, the Holy Spirit prevents the teaching authority of the Church from teaching error.

Would not the Holy Spirit preventing the teaching authority from teaching error make it infallible?

:
And since hell in the bible is equated wih death. It seems to me that Jesus is saying that His church would not die rather than be infallible.

Perhaps it’s not either/or

Here’s matt.16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I’m sorry but I don’t see how this verse even hints at infallability

Guanophore also said

Indeed, all those who embrace the infallible Teachings of the Apostles can benefit from this gift.

Apparently this “gift” of infalability is not limited to the pope. I would like to know how far down the hierarchial chain of command this “gift” reaches. Are you infallable? Are parish priests infallable? Bishops? Cardinals? I mean where’s the cutoff? Or is everyone infallable?

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I would. I would say that the Episcopal Church sinned and erred last year when it adopted two resolutions that contradicted the mind of the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church as a whole.

Well, it is still certain persons falling into error, even though they seem to be a group of people acting on behalf of the whole.

But this confirms one of the reasons that Catholics believe these types of ecclesial communities are not true churches. They lack the four marks of the Church, and they do such things, which are in opposition to the will of the HS. The Church CANNOT act in opposition to the will of the HS, because “church” is defined by what “seemed right to us, and to the HS”.

These people did what seemed right to them (I am sure) but not with the HS, resulting in separation from the Church.

In our case, it means an action by General Convention, particularly an action which is approved over several successive General Conventions and thus passes into our permanent canons, books of liturgy, etc.

Does the decision they made qualify?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "communities of individuals." In the Old Testament, it is common for individuals to take responsibility for the actions of the community, even though they had clearly opposed those actions.

Edwin

In the book of Rev, Jesus is chastizing individuals. He says if they do not repent, He will take away their lampstand. The lampstand belongs to the Church. When people sin, they separate themselves from the Church. The Church, however, glows eternally with the light of the HS, and cannot sin.

 

[guanophore]

The book of Revelations seems to disagree with you. In chapters 1-3 it talks about seven churches. Now these are all Christian churches which means Christ is the head. And indeed we see Christ, who is the light of the world Jn.1:4, amongst the candlesicks.

No. Individuals who fall into sin become separated from the Head. Sin always separates humans from God. The nature of sin has not changed.

Books cannot “disagree”.

Rev. 1:12And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

These churches were actual churches in John’s time, But it is generally considered by most Christians, I’m not sure how the CC views this, that these churches are symbolic of the true church down through the two thousand years from Christ to the present.

There is only one Church. All of these communities were members of the One Church.

Now it is clear from the rebukes given, by Christ Himself, That all but two of these churches, Smyna and Philadelphia, can and do sin.

No, Richard. The HS is the Soul of the Church. The HS cannot sin. When members of the Church sin, they sever their relationship with the HS. They are at emnity with God. Sin separates people from God.

The letters were written to the Churches (the called out ones). The sins belong to the individuals who commit them.

Lets look at two. First the church at Ephesus, which by the way is parallel to the Apostolic church.

Rev.2:4Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
5Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

A church that does not sin has no need of repentance.

A “church” cannot repent. Only individuals can repent. They can, as a community of individuals, repent together. However, the Church is much more than the community of believers.

Second the church of Laodicea, Which is the last church and parallels the church in the end times, which I believe is now.

Rev.3
14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write;

Do you see how this is addressed? This is directed to the individuals in the region of Laodicea that had departed from the Apostolic faith.

15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Works are done by people. Individuals.

Individuals. Persons.

The Lord has nothing good to say about this church. Only rebukes and warnings to repent and buy Gold tried in the fire. What’s that?

That is His challenge to them to return to the One Faith.

1 Peter 1:7
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

No, Richard. This is also addressed to individuals. Your efforts to use the holy scriptures to support your deficient view of the Church has failed.

The church absolutely can and does sin and needs to be brought back by faith “though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:”

Perhaps your ecclesial community, not meeting the definition of a Church, does sin and needs to be brought back, just as the Episcopalians do who have departed from the faith.

The Church founded by Christ cannot sin because her soul is the HS. The HS does not sin. If the HS leaves, then there is no longer a Church.

[/QUOTE]

 

[guanophore]

So, according to you or your church or both. “The power to bind and loose is a legislative power that relates to ruling and governing.” Would you say that this power is infallible?

You have misunderstood the gift of infallibility. No, the "power’ to bind and loose is not infallible. Infallibility does not apply to “power”.

And since hell in the bible is equated wih death. It seems to me that Jesus is saying that His church would not die rather than be infallible.

I am sorry, Richard, but I cannot make any sense out of this statement. Teaching error causes the flock to pass through the gates of hell.

 

[guanophore]

For me, I believed when Constantine effort to unify Rome with one religion brought about the corruption of the body of Christ. At the time, Christians are growing rapidly and are being persecuted. To unify Rome, Constantine selected that Christianity be the religion for Rome. All Rome are now “christians” eventhough they have not believed in Christ Jesus.

Did you make this fable up yourself or was it taught to you by someone else who also believes in fabrications about history?

I am reading the Clan of the Cave Bear. It is a great historical fiction about how life might have been in prehistoric times. The author did a great deal of research about the paleolithic period. What documents do you have to support your story?

Rome still has pagan beliefs and practices during this time.

Can you provide any documentation to support this assertion?

Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Perhaps you can explain how you see this.

Some pagan beliefs has evolve to the new christian religion. You can google - Cult of Isis and you would find similarity in the adoration of Mary. Search on Mithraism and would read similarity on sacramental observance. Wiki search on Religion of Rome for its history. This is where the start of Roman Catholicism

My dear misinformed brother. The prior existence of shadows of the Gospel does not invalidate the gospel. There were many Pagan myths about a son of god that died and rose, too.

If you are getting your facts from google, it is no wonder that you have so many wrong ideas.

I think you will find that sacramental observance was practiced by the nation of Israel long before Mithraism ever came along.

 Anyway, you can't make anyone a "Christian" without that persons heart believed in what Christ Jesus did on the cross.

I agree, which is why it is so curious that you wrote above that Constantine made all of Rome Christian!

Your fable does not even have internal consistency!

Also, just because you were brought up Catholic religion, observing all of its tradition, does not make you Christian if your FAITH and BELIEF in Christ Jesus are based on “your work” and NOT on the FINISHED work of Jesus on the cross.

I agree. But then this is what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, which is why you know about it.

I pray that you will come to know the truth about the Catholic Church, and that God will give you the grace to abandon these fantasies in favor of the Truth.