When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[TriuneUnity]

It is precisely because Luther got away with it that Henry could see himself getting away with it. No? And when Luther and Henry both got away with it, the floodgates were opened. They are still open.

While I agree with you that Luther’s actions emboldened many others to challenge Roman authority, this does not mean that Luther’s actions were the cause of those disputes. Again, it is simply historical fact that the Swiss and Radical reformers would have taught what they were teaching regardless of Luther. You haven’t provided any argument to the contrary. You paint the Reformation with far too simplistic a brush.

I doubt you are going to blame the Catholic Church for all the present divisions in Christianity.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Using the simplistic form of argumentation that you make above, I could very easily say that the schism into hundreds of denominations began when Rome schismed from the undivided church in 1054, which led to Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anabaptism, etc. It’s not an argument I would make, but using the same ideas you’re putting forward, I could.

 

[TriuneUnity]

1. More traditional conservative Protestants will often claim that the Roman Communion formally apostasized at the Council of Trent. Before that time you had a long process of increasing error and corruption, but the true Church still existed in communion with Rome in spite of this. When God raised up the Reformers to correct the problems, and Rome rejected their teaching, then and only then did the Roman Communion cease to be a true Church, replaced by confessional Protestantism. This is probably the traditional, mainstream Protestant view insofar as there is such a thing, but these days it’s hard to find–most Protestants have moved to a more ecumenical view of modern Roman Catholicism, and most of those who haven’t are fundamentalists who hold to some form of “Trail of Blood” theory.

Edwin

I would say that that is a fair summation of the Lutheran view, Edwin. Although I would add that we see the term true church restricted specifically to all believers in Christ, regardless of what church they associate with. We would say that the true church manifests itself in the visible by the marks of the word of God preached purely and the sacraments administered as Christ instituted them. It is this visible communion that Rome broke continuity officially with at the Council of Trent (though, as you mentioned, the errors had been building). These marks would be most visible in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, as her confessions teach God’s word rightly and the sacraments are given as Christ gave them. Rome mixes error in with the marks of the visible church. She still has them, however, and to that extent, the true church will be present within it. This would probably represent the historical Lutheran view of the situation.

I am not sure that we have become more ecumenical; but we do see through less polemically stained glasses than we used to and so we can dialogue more openly now with Rome than was ever possible before. I am a big fan of dialogue, but will the tensions ever be resolved before Christ returns? I don’t know, what are the options?

1. The Lutherans can agree that they were wrong and that Rome was right. This is the path that Neuhaus apparently took, and seemingly what he was urging us all to do. In order for this path to be the right one, Roman Catholics would have to show that, in all disagreements between Lutherans and Catholics, the Lutherans were and are wrong.
2. The Catholics can agree that they were wrong and that Lutherans are right. Oddly, this path never seems to come up much from Rome when it comes to actual theology.
3. The Lutherans and Catholics can agree that what they were disagreeing about doesn’t actually matter, accepting two opposing views as equally valid (the JDDJ path?). This is what ecumenism almost always actually looks like. If this path were to be carried out by all Christian denominations, I’m not sure we’d have any truth left at the end.

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmateurPianist

So in my humble opinion charity would lead me to assume that all Christian organizations I see today are a part of the true Church unless a preponderance of evidence leads me to an informed opinion otherwise.

Are you then willing to argue that churches teaching opposing doctrines (one or more of which must be false) are all part of the same true Church?

Unless you can show me where God has clearly spoken (not your personal opinion opinion), I see no reason why I should assume otherwise.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Prove that a church that teaches any error is apostate, and you have disproved Anglicanism, since I believe that the 39 Articles contain some error.

Why would a church that teaches error not be apostate? Why does it have to be proven that a church teaching error is apostate?

Paul told the churches not to receive anyone who preaches contrary to what the apostles have preached. Isn’t he saying that false teachings are grounds for apostasy?

And what would be your interpretation of Christ wanting us all to be one, as He is One with the Father, if not that we must all be one in the truth? If all the denominations are teaching contrary doctrines, how can we be one in the truth?

Are we supposed to believe that Christ wanted us to be one in spirit but not one in truth?

“I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AmateurPianist

*Unless you can show me where God has clearly spoken (not your personal opinion opinion), I see no reason why I should assume otherwise. *

Not my personal opinion. I have cited Christ and Paul.

Whom do you cite?

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmateurPianist

*Unless you can show me where God has clearly spoken (not your personal opinion opinion), I see no reason why I should assume otherwise. *

Not my personal opinion. I have cited Christ and Paul.

Whom do you cite?

Please provide citation. I must have missed it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Please provide citation. I must have missed it. *

Gospel of John 17:18 Christ praying to the Father:

“As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.
20
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

Protestantism is not one. Protestantism is legion.

Paul’s epistle to Ephesians 4:11

“And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12
to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, 5 for building up the body of Christ,
13
until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, 6 to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14
so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.”

Protestantism is not unity. Protestant protest each other as much as they protest Catholicism. Their main principle of unity is in protesting something or other.

Thus Christianity is divided and made easy prey for Satan’s strategy: divide and conquer.

Christianity will never be strong again until there is real unity among Christians, not just in spirit, but in the truth.

 

[Bluegoat]

*Please provide citation. I must have missed it. *

Gospel of John 17:18 Christ praying to the Father:

“As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.
20
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

Protestantism is not one. Protestantism is legion.

Paul’s epistle to Ephesians 4:11

“And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12
to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, 5 for building up the body of Christ,
13
until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, 6 to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14
so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.”

Protestantism is not unity. Protestant protest each other as much as they protest Catholicism. Their main principle of unity is in protesting something or other.

Thus Christianity is divided and made easy prey for Satan’s strategy: divide and conquer.

Christianity will never be strong again until there is real unity among Christians, not just in spirit, but in the truth.

Yes. Protestants are not in unity with Catholics. Catholics are not in unity with Protestants. None are in unity with Orthodoxy. There is no visible unity.
O GOD the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace: Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all enmity and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly union and concord; that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may henceforth be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.*

 

[AmateurPianist]

*Please provide citation. I must have missed it. *

Gospel of John 17:18 Christ praying to the Father:

“As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19
And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.
20
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21
so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

Protestantism is not one. Protestantism is legion.

Paul’s epistle to Ephesians 4:11

“And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12
to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, 5 for building up the body of Christ,
13
until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, 6 to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14
so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.”

Protestantism is not unity. Protestant protest each other as much as they protest Catholicism. Their main principle of unity is in protesting something or other.

Thus Christianity is divided and made easy prey for Satan’s strategy: divide and conquer.

Christianity will never be strong again until there is real unity among Christians, not just in spirit, but in the truth.

Yes the church of Jesus Christ today exists in multiple competing organizations (your organization being one of them and mine being another). If I read this Scripture correctly, this does not seem to be God’s design.

However, “is not God’s design” is not the same as “impossible to exist”. TV evangelist scandals, priest sex abuse scandals, inquisitions (unless you are like one guy here who called it a Holy inquisition), and witch hunts are also outside of God’s design yet they clearly existed. So this Scripture does not meet the benchmark “God clearly saying” versus “You claiming this is what God clearly says”. One is the word of God, the second is the opinion of man.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AmateurPianist

*So this Scripture does not meet the benchmark “God clearly saying” versus “You claiming this is what God clearly says”. One is the word of God, the second is the opinion of man. *

If what Jesus and Paul say doesn’t meet your benchmark, what does?

Why do you think the council of Jerusalem was convened as recorded in Acts?

The apostles were concerned because division was rampant among the churches as to how to deal with the Gentiles. For the sake of unity, the council was held and clearly Peter claims authority to settle matters. He is supported by James. Paul’s case for the Gentiles is satisfied. Had this unity not been established by the authority of the apostles (as yet there was no New Testament to invoke) the churches may well have been scattered to the winds, each a law unto itself as the situation is today among thousands of Protestant denominations.

 

[BILL_PICK53]

Easy:

The date that the original one organization split into multiple organizations became the date that one organization was not the exclusive Church of Jesus Christ in the sight of God.

This would be no later than the date that the Oriental Orthodox split which was in the 400s I believe. It might be earlier if God viewed some other organizations like perhaps the Donatists as also part of the true church.

I can’t of course speak for God in this matter, but that would be at least the methodology I would use.

 

[BILL_PICK53]

BILL_PICK53:
Just thinking how many spilts did the baptize have???

 

[Charlemagne_II]

More from Paul emphasizing unity:

“if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:8-9).

Also Peter warns, “There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them— bringing swift destruction on themselves” (2 Pet. 2:1).

 

[Contarini]

Why would a church that teaches error not be apostate? Why does it have to be proven that a church teaching error is apostate?

Apostasy is a denial of the faith as a whole. You are claiming that to fall into sincere error with regard to any part of the faith is to deny the faith as a whole. This is not self-evident, and since it is not self-evident it needs to be proved.

Paul told the churches not to receive anyone who preaches contrary to what the apostles have preached. Isn’t he saying that false teachings are grounds for apostasy?

No, for two reasons:

Saying that someone should not be received is not the same thing as saying that they are apostate, and more importantly

Contradicting explicitly what the apostles have preached is not the same thing as making an error in the development and application of apostolic preaching. Practically all disagreements among Christians in subsequent centuries concern the latter and not the former.

And what would be your interpretation of Christ wanting us all to be one, as He is One with the Father, if not that we must all be one in the truth? If all the denominations are teaching contrary doctrines, how can we be one in the truth?

You haven’t dealt with the example of the Thomist-Molinist controversy, which I cited above. Catholicism allows for theological differences.

Furthermore, I am not arguing that it is a good thing for the denominations to teach contrary doctrines. But there are two ways in which this problem can be overcome:

1. Some of us (conceivably all of us, but of course you don’t think that’s a possibility) can repent and recognize that we are wrong;
2. We can agree that the differences among us do not need to divide us from one another, whether because they are simply different ways of expressing the same truth (this seems to be the conclusion of most theologians concerning the Christological issues that have divided Eastern Christians for centuries) or because divine revelation is not clear on the matter (this appears to be the case with the predestination issue, though of course one can argue that the former is true as well).

You simply assume that the first is the only possible one (and furthermore that one group of Christians must be entirely correct and all the others wrong insofar as they differ) if unity is to occur. As a matter of fact the latter is by far the more promising approach practically, if the goal is for all who name the name of Christ to be one (or at least for as many as possible to be). That doesn’t make it the right one–as you say, unity must be unity in the truth, so we can’t compromise truth for the sake of unity. But if unity is to occur, it’s far more likely to occur in those cases where the second method is possible (as seems to be the case with regard to the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches) than where the first is required.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

1. The Lutherans and Catholics can agree that what they were disagreeing about doesn’t actually matter, accepting two opposing views as equally valid (the JDDJ path?). This is what ecumenism almost always actually looks like. If this path were to be carried out by all Christian denominations, I’m not sure we’d have any truth left at the end.

Depends on what you mean by Christian, doesn’t it? If you mean “all denominations claiming the name of Christ,” such as the Mormons, then I would agree. (And indeed, there are many churches that are unquestionably Christian with whom I would not want to practice this method of ecumenism, although in those cases I wouldn’t say that the result would be the loss of all revealed truth–only of some.) But this method applies in those cases where each side discerns that the other has in fact preserved the substance of the Faith intact. It would be unwise to rule out the possibility of this just because there are many cases where this approach wouldn’t be appropriate.

Edwin

 

[AmateurPianist]

AmateurPianist

*So this Scripture does not meet the benchmark “God clearly saying” versus “You claiming this is what God clearly says”. One is the word of God, the second is the opinion of man. *

If what Jesus and Paul say doesn’t meet your benchmark, what does?

Oh Jesus and Paul as recorded in Scripture have divine authority.

Your opinions, while nice, do not.

Why do you think the council of Jerusalem was convened as recorded in Acts?

The apostles were concerned because division was rampant among the churches as to how to deal with the Gentiles. For the sake of unity, the council was held and clearly Peter claims authority to settle matters. He is supported by James. Paul’s case for the Gentiles is satisfied. Had this unity not been established by the authority of the apostles (as yet there was no New Testament to invoke) the churches may well have been scattered to the winds, each a law unto itself as the situation is today among thousands of Protestant denominations.

Again, there should be no controversy on the point that the church existing in multiple competing organizations with contrary doctrines and dogmas is outside of God’s design.

I agree that is what these Scriptures teach.

But you are equating “outside of God’s design” with “impossible to exist”.

These are two separate concepts. They are not the same thing.

Unless I am severely reading comprehension challenged these Scriptures do not teach 'impossible to exist". Yes, I know that 'impossible to exist" is your opinion. Now I have opinions too, but unlike you I will not equate my opinions with God clearly speaking.

Killing other Christians for Jesus Christ is outside of God’s design also, but the judgement of history is that this phenomenon did exist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Your opinions, while nice, do not.

I guess I will have to return the compliment.

I have presented you with passages from Christ and Paul. You have presented me with nothing from Christ or Paul.

So which of us is following his own opinions as opposed to Christ and Paul?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Contarini

Contradicting explicitly what the apostles have preached is not the same thing as making an error in the development and application of apostolic preaching. Practically all disagreements among Christians in subsequent centuries concern the latter and not the former.

This is not at all true. The Catholic Church is very much a biblical Church. It is the Biblical Church because it assembled the writings of the New Testament and testified to their veracity.

Virtually all Catholic dogma finds substantiation in the Scriptures. It is a fallacy to argue that Protestants only object to later developments in Catholic doctrine. They also object to earlier dogmas and practices. I know of a priest in Amarillo, Father David Dunn, who, about a hundred years ago, used to invite Protestants to his church, and asked them to bring their bibles with them. In discussions that followed, using their Bible, he showed them where to find passages that supported every Catholic teaching they wanted to discuss.

When he died, the whole town of Amarillo closed shop during the celebration of his funeral Mass. There were more Protestants at his Mass than Catholics.

I suppose most of them remained Protestants, but I think they opened their eyes a bit to understand that they had somewhat misunderstood the extent to which Catholicism had invented new doctrines.

 

[Contarini]

This is not at all true. The Catholic Church is very much a biblical Church. It is the Biblical Church because it assembled the writings of the New Testament and testified to their veracity.

Even granting that the “Catholic Church” that put the canon together is identical in all relevant respects to the Roman Communion as it exists today, it in no way follows that every teaching of your Communion is simply and obviously derived from Scripture. What’s particularly bizarre is that not only does your Communion not teach Sola Scriptura, but I wasn’t just talking about Scripture either–I was talking about apostolic preaching in general, however transmitted. You go out of your way to embrace a doctrine usually rejected by Catholics. . . . but I guess that’s your choice.

Virtually all Catholic dogma finds substantiation in the Scriptures.

Of course you can back up all Catholic teaching from Scripture. You can back up nearly anything from Scripture if you are clever enough. But the fact remains that Christians disagree among themselves almost invariably over points where the evidence is not clear concerning what the apostles taught. Otherwise Christians would not disagree. With the exception of some very liberal Christians and perhaps a few who are just nuts, it really is as simple as that.

I think it’s astounding that a Catholic would disagree with me on this, since this is usually one of the main talking points of Catholic apologists!

It is a fallacy to argue that Protestants only object to later developments in Catholic doctrine. They also object to earlier dogmas and practices.

But not to dogmas practices which are indisputably apostolic. (Note: I said “indisputably,” not “most likely.”)

I know of a priest in Amarillo, Father David Dunn, who, about a hundred years ago, used to invite Protestants to his church, and asked them to bring their bibles with them. In discussions that followed, using their Bible, he showed them where to find passages that supported every Catholic teaching they wanted to discuss.

When he died, the whole town of Amarillo closed shop during the celebration of his funeral Mass. There were more Protestants at his Mass than Catholics.

I suppose most of them remained Protestants, but I think they opened their eyes a bit to understand that they had somewhat misunderstood the extent to which Catholicism had invented new doctrines.

Sure. But that’s very different from claiming that he gave rock-solid, convincing proof that no reasonable person could deny, demonstrating beyond a doubt that the apostles taught the doctrines in question. That kind of proof just isn’t there on the issues on which Christians disagree. Which, again, is why Christians disagree.

Edwin

 

[AmateurPianist]

Your opinions, while nice, do not.

I guess I will have to return the compliment.

I have presented you with passages from Christ and Paul. You have presented me with nothing from Christ or Paul.

So which of us is following his own opinions?

At least I will admit my opinions are my opinions and I will not equate my opinions with the word of God.

Anybody can quote Scripture. Good grief the devil can.

If you want, I can quote Scripture that “proves” the Catholic church is cursed by God. In fact in some corners I can quote this Scripture with my proof and get a room full of amens in agreement.

But what you must do in my hypothetical case, and I must do in your case is (1) determine what logical conclusions necessarily must follow from the Scripture (2) determine what conclusions you or I are claiming follow from the Scripture. The difference is your or my opinion.

So (again repeating myself) in your case a good and necessary conclusion from the Scripture you quoted is that it is outside of God’s design for the church to exist in multiple organizations proclaiming contradictory dogmas. But you are claiming the text also teaches that it is impossible for the church of Jesus Christ to exist in multiple organizations. I am sorry, but despite your claims, the text just doesn’t say that.

But you can believe it if you want. I will let you. Just like I will let the folks who quote my Scripture that “proves” the Catholic church is cursed of God believe it. Far be it for me to argue y’all out of your interesting interpretations. Bus as for me in both cases I will not reach those conclusions unless convinced they must be necessary from the text of Scripture which I know is the Word of God.