When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[guanophore]

Welcome to CAF hiztory. I used to live near the Hocking Hills in Athens. I am proud of you for being willing to learn about the history of your faith. Maybe one day area52 will have the courage to do this also.

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.

I think, it is as good excuse as any to reject the authority appointed by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

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

Infallibility is the Divine Gift that prevents the teaching authority from teaching error.

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

No, I should think not! It is very difficult to see anything Catholic while one is wearing their anti-Catholic blinders.

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?

All Catholics can benefit from the gift of infallible teaching When we embrace the whole Truth of God, preserved infallibly in the Church, we can have confidence that we will not fall into error, or pass through the gates of hell.

 

[Cranmer2010]

You’re confusing moral and doctrinal reform.

Edwin

Are you suggesting that doctrine never changes or shape shifts regardless of the moral character surrounding it?

 

[Cranmer2010]

]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.

Why does the church allow it to continue?

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”.

It’s the church’s responsibility ultimately.

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.

I was speaking of more specifically the Scriptures where it is not to be found.

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 point here is that the peoples which Paul preached to were not unified. Some were pretty much lock in step with faith and others were far off the beaten path. But again, Catholicism as it has looked for centuries is in no way exemplified in the NT. This is of course for another thread so I will not expound on it here.

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.

I can respect your position on this.

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.

It would be seeming appropriate if the Catholic church would deal with this in a very firm way, but it hasn’t. I have witnessed countless times Hispanics bowing numerously and kissing and praying to Our Mother of Guadeloupe petitioning for divine things, but nothing is done to stop this idolatry and the blasphemy against God. No excommunication, no disciplinary action, nothing. I’m just not convinced at all that the church is committed to the true Faith.

 

[PRmerger]

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

I am glad that you mentioned the Holy Spirit in this talk of infallibility, Richard!

Yes, because of the inspiration of the HS, the Catholic Church has been given the charism of infallibility.

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

Fair enough.

But then we are left with your fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Matthew, versus another Christian’s fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Matthew, versus another Christian’s fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Matthew, versus another Christian’s fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Matthew, versus another Christian’s fallible, non-authoritative interpretation of Matthew, versus…

The consequences of no authority in the interpretation of various verses in Scripture are: chaos and confusion.

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?

The teaching authority of the Church is preserved, by the Holy Spirit, (thank you for acknowledging that, Richard) from teaching error. So when Joe-Catholic-in-the-pew, a priest, bishop, or cardinal echoes the constant teaching of the Apostles, he is affirming infallibly the Truth of God’s revelation. He can be certain that when he says, “Jesus died on the cross for our sins” that he is making an infallible statement.

Now, when Joe-Catholic-in-the-pew says, “Mary is Divine”, he has departed from the Teaching of the Apostles and is now making a fallible statement.

I find it peculiar that you would question this, Richard.

The alternative, which you have in your church, is uncertainty about what your fallible pastor has been teaching.

And remember, fallible, by definition, means he’s going to be wrong. Going. To. Be. Wrong.



Do you really want to go to church every day and wonder, “hmmm…is this the day that my pastor is going to teach something WRONG? Since he’s not infallible, I know by reason that he’s going to present something as true that’s FALSE. Is this one of those times?”

 

[PRmerger]

Why does the church allow it to continue?

The Church does not have the power to remove the free will of the human person. I mean, really, how could the Church stop its members from sinning? It doesn’t even have the power to get the majority of its flock to stop using artificial birth control!

It would be seeming appropriate if the Catholic church would deal with this in a very firm way, but it hasn’t. I have witnessed countless times Hispanics bowing numerously and kissing and praying to Our Mother of Guadeloupe petitioning for divine things, but nothing is done to stop this idolatry and the blasphemy against God. No excommunication, no disciplinary action, nothing. I’m just not convinced at all that the church is committed to the true Faith.

Bowing down is not idolatry. In Japan bowing is a sign of respect, not worship.

Kissing? That’s idolatrous? Really? I’m going to have to share this bad news with my husband.

Praying to Our Mother of Guadalupe is no more idolatrous than your prayer chains at your church are idolatrous.

 

[GKC]

The Church does not have the power to remove the free will of the human person. I mean, really, how could the Church stop its members from sinning? It doesn’t even have the power to get the majority of its flock to stop using artificial birth control!

Bowing down is not idolatry. In Japan bowing is a sign of respect, not worship.

Kissing? That’s idolatrous? Really? I’m going to have to share this bad news with my husband.

Praying to Our Mother of Guadalupe is no more idolatrous than your prayer chains at your church are idolatrous.

I agree.

GKC

 

[Cranmer2010]

]The Church does not have the power to remove the free will of the human person. I mean, really, how could the Church stop its members from sinning? It doesn’t even have the power to get the majority of its flock to stop using artificial birth control!

If I were to do such things in my church that I afore mentioned, I would be out on my ear. The church could do something when it is happening right in front of them if they so wished, this is the whole point.

Bowing down is not idolatry. In Japan bowing is a sign of respect, not worship.

I don’t see this in a place of Christian worship to statues other than in Catholic churches.

Kissing? That’s idolatrous? Really? I’m going to have to share this bad news with my husband. Again, I’m referring to statues and the venue in which these things are taking place.

Praying to Our Mother of Guadalupe is no more idolatrous than your prayer chains at your church are idolatrous.

I don’t petition folks in my intercessory group for things that can only be granted by God. I ask them to pray for me, big difference.

 

[Cranmer2010]

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.

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

If this is so, then why didn’t infallibility become dogma in the Catholic church until the late 19th century?

 

[GKC]

I don’t petition folks in my intercessory group for things that can only be granted by God. I ask them to pray for me, big difference.

Do you ask them to pray for you, with respect to intentions that can only be granted by God?

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Tell that to Obama (and mind you, I don’t like the man) who got blasted as cow-towing and reverencing in a cowardly fashion the royals overseas LOL

I don’t want to speak for Cranmer here, but I’d say there is a difference between kissing one’s spouse and kissing an inanimate object that Protestants would see as an act of idolatry, putting reverence and feeling and channeling love or affection to a statue. Kissing a living, breathing wife is a tad different, I’m sure the Protestants would say.

Praying to the Blessed Mother to intercede for a person is by no means idolatry. I agree.

Bowing down is not idolatry. In Japan bowing is a sign of respect, not worship.

Kissing? That’s idolatrous? Really? I’m going to have to share this bad news with my husband.

Praying to Our Mother of Guadalupe is no more idolatrous than your prayer chains at your church are idolatrous.

 

[GKC]

If this is so, then why didn’t infallibility become dogma in the Catholic church until the late 19th century?

It was the definition of the Pope, as possessing a personal charism of infallibility, as narrowly defined, that was the issue, around mod 19th century. That is not the same as infallibility, generally.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And here lay the problem with Anglicanism:

In this corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have a high church Anglo-Catholic who is one step away from popery! GKC!"

And in this corner weighing in with the sympathies of the Continental Reformation with the Reformers and a touch of Calvin, Cranmer!"

I want a good clean fight, no references to the Black Rubrics, no dissing off the 39 Articles. If a cheap shot is delivered, I want you to both read Rite I of the BOCP and go to your corners…ding ding!

Do you ask them to pray for you, with respect to intentions that can only be granted by God?

GKC

 

[GKC]

And here lay the problem with Anglicanism:

In this corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have a high church Anglo-Catholic who is one step away from popery! GKC!"

And in this corner weighing in with the sympathies of the Continental Reformation with the Reformers and a touch of Calvin, Cranmer!"

I want a good clean fight, no references to the Black Rubrics, no dissing off the 39 Articles. If a cheap shot is delivered, I want you to both read Rite I of the BOCP and go to your corners…ding ding!

I win.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

If I were to do such things in my church that I afore mentioned, I would be out on my ear. The church could do something when it is happening right in front of them if they so wished, this is the whole point

Really, Cranmer? Your church turns you out on your ear when you sin?

The point here is that the CC can proclaim Truths, but each member is free to choose to conform to these truth or not. We don’t kick people out because they sin. That’s just not…Christlike. In fact, as the saying goes, the Church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for siners.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t petition folks in my intercessory group for things that can only be granted by God. I ask them to pray for me, big difference.

This is a peculiar sentiment. There’s things you pray for that are granted by God, and you pray to Him alone for this. And there’s things you ask others to pray for you that are NOT granted by God? What would those things be that you ask your intercessory group to pray for?

 

[PRmerger]

If this is so, then why didn’t infallibility become dogma in the Catholic church until the late 19th century?

What was solemnly pronounced, declared and defined a certain point of time is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that point.

It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to do certain things: hang up their backpacks, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.

Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 2-11 years every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms *and *hang them up!” )

At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “making up new rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family.

Thus, the solemn declaration of the dogma of infallibility was not newly formed in 1870. It was a constant belief held and spoken of for many years, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Perhaps in order to alleviate any doubt and to correct any wrong information, God chose 1870 as the time to pronounce, declare and define this belief and practice.

However, this dogma was ancient, dating back to the apostles themselves.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t want to speak for Cranmer here, but I’d say there is a difference between kissing one’s spouse and kissing an inanimate object that Protestants would see as an act of idolatry, putting reverence and feeling and channeling love or affection to a statue. Kissing a living, breathing wife is a tad different, I’m sure the Protestants would say.

Kissing an inanimate object is also not idolatry.

I defy any person here to look me in the eyes and tell me, when I kiss the blank check that I found, crumpled in the dirty hamper, that I’d been frantically searching for for days, at my wits’ end, that I am idolizing the check.

I’ve been known to take a picture of my babies and kiss them when I’m dusting them off, (the photos, not the babies! ) should the spirit move me. Idolizing? Nope. Blaspheming with a kiss? Not even close. Let’s leave that to Judas.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If this is so, then why didn’t infallibility become dogma in the Catholic church until the late 19th century?

You don’t think that it is the declaration of a dogma per a papal statement that ‘starts’ it, do you? Rather, the declaration of a truth which has always been known (even if not fully understood earlier) comes about as a reaction to those who are questioning the truth of the **known dogma --that is, known prior to its ‘promulgation’. **

Do you think that the various books of Scripture weren’t really ‘Scripture’ (in regard to the New Testament) until the canon of the Bible was finalized in the 4th century? So that a person reading (or listening to) the gospel of Matthew in say AD 192 wasn’t really listening to SCRIPTURE because it hadn’t become infallibly’ dogmatic scripture’ yet???

 

[GKC]

Kissing an inanimate object is also not idolatry.

I defy any person here to look me in the eyes and tell me, when I kiss the blank check that I found, crumpled in the dirty hamper, that I’d been frantically searching for for days, at my wits’ end, that I am idolizing the check.

I’ve been known to take a picture of my babies and kiss them when I’m dusting them off, should the spirit move me. Idolizing? Nope. Blaspheming with a kiss? Not even close. Let’s leave that to Judas.

It is true, though, that some Anglicans, even those accepting the common understanding re: images, seem to have more trouble with 3 dimensional things than with 2. Not all, though. For years we had a painting of the BVM and the Christ Child, in the Mary shrine. No problem at all when we changed it to a statue of OL of Walsingham.

GKC