When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[Joshua27]

Joshua 27

*When did this occur? When Rome replaced all Messianic Jewish Bishops (original law-keepers) with Gentile Bishops (who then began to remove anything “Jewish” from the New Religion) well after the persecutions of 60AD, as Christianity was eventually funded by the Roman Empire to become the State Religion; 1st century AD (or CE). *

The difficulty here is that you have to rewind the time line to the Council of Jerusalem, when all the bishops were Jews and began the process of revising the requirements of the OT to accommodate the Gentiles, specifically in the matter of circumcision. See Acts 15.

So were the apostles also undermining true Christianity from the start?

Truly, the difficulty in understanding the Council of Jerusalem, Paul and his defence of the Gentiles, is found in Christians’ lack of the foundation of Israel (from the Old Testament)…which is why it’s SO HARD to understand the point of view of much of the New Testament.

The New testament does not replace the Old Testament as many have promoted. The original context of the New Testament is “(Re)New(ed) Testament”, as in "this is a ‘renewal’ of the ‘old’ covenant - through Christ - which had been corrupted through sin.

[FYI - The same words that’s used for “New” (in context of Testament) is the same word that’s used for the moon. Of course, there isn’t a brand “new” moon each month…the light of the moon is “renewed”.]

There was the Law (as established by God), and then there were “Jewish traditions and customs” (established by Man) in honor of the Laws of God…but Christians can’t understand this difference without making the Old testament a part of our foundation (instead of considering it “done-away-with History”).

The Council of Jerusalem, (recorded in the book of Acts, for those who want to follow the discussion) was assembled to discuss the necessity of “Jewish traditions and customs” (established by Man) in honor of the Laws of God…they were not debating the necessity of the Law (as established by God).

So were the apostles also undermining Christianity [as defined by The ETERNAL Law] from the start?

No. Not in the slightest way did the apostles undermine Christianity (Messianic Judaism) [as defined by the ETERNAL law].

…Which brings us back to Rome and everything I stated in my last post.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The Council of Jerusalem, (recorded in the book of Acts, for those who want to follow the discussion) was assembled to discuss the necessity of “Jewish traditions and customs” (established by Man) in honor of the Laws of God…they were not debating the necessity of the Law (as established by God).

I’m puzzled by this remark. As the following passage from Genesis 17 indicates, circumcision was not a law or tradition of man. It was a command of God.

9
God also said to Abraham: "On your part, you and your descendants after you must keep my covenant throughout the ages.
10
This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you that you must keep: every male among you shall be circumcised.
11
Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the mark of the covenant between you and me.

The apostles at Jerusalem took it upon their own authority (without looking to scripture for approval) to change the law, in fact to abrogate it for the Gentiles. This is one of the earliest instances of proof that the authority of the Church hierarchy is over the authority of the Scriptures.

The second and more dramatic instance is when the Church assembled the books of the New Testament and gave them their imprimatur and nihil obstat.

Clearly it is the Church hierarchy in both instances that is exercising an authority over the Scriptures, and not the Scriptures that are exercising an authority over the Church.

 

[Contarini]

What “practices” would those be? (that they have given up)

Didn’t mean to sound nasty but I’m getting sick of hearing how evil Rome is at church on Sunday-not your fault I know.

You go to to an Anglican church where you hear how evil Rome is? I’m very sorry and appalled to hear this. From your reference to rainy weather in your profile, I wonder if you’re in Britain? I can see this happening in England, and of course even more in Ireland. One very liberal retired priest who filled in in my parish in NJ used to make critical remarks about Rome from the pulpit, and of course Episcopal clergy will sometimes go out of their way to point out that we don’t agree with Rome’s interpretation of Matt. 16 or something, but what you appear to be describing doesn’t sound like the Episcopal Church I know. Perhaps some of the conservative, low-church Anglican groups in North America engage in this. And as I said, the C of E (and still more the Church of Ireland) is a whole different story!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I embraced which doctrine usually rejected by Catholics? Sola Scriptura? How do you get that out of what I said?

First you said that when Christians differ it is because they are rejecting apostolic teaching, which implied that apostolic teaching is “perspicuous,” to use that traditional Protestant term. Then, in the post to which I was responding, you specifically identified “apostolic teaching” with Scripture and claimed that “virtually all” Catholic teaching can be substantiated from Scripture. I admit that the “virtually” saves you from being a true adherent of Sola Scriptura. But the claim that apostolic teaching is perspicuous is, in my opinion, the basic error of Sola Scriptura Protestantism, and it’s one of the points that most often leads Protestants to question Sola Scriptura and start taking Catholicism or Orthodoxy seriously. So it seems extremely odd that you would take the Protestant line on this. It’s not only incorrect in my opinion, it’s pragmatically very unwise (of course if it were true you should say it even if it hindered Protestants from becoming Catholic). You’re depriving yourself of one of your best arguments, which is that obviously people of good will read Scripture and come to very different conclusions.

Are you being deliberately irritating?

No, I’m stating it as I see it. I’m not going out of my way not to be irritating. I waste far too much time on these forums as it is. If I tried to be polite and pastoral all the time I really *would *have no life

Can you back up abortion from Scripture?

First of all, given that Scripture is silent on abortion, the problem is much more that sola scriptura prolife folks can’t very easily back up *their *position from Scripture. Silence gives consent, so the silence of Scripture is the main point argued by prochoice folks. However, Exodus 21:22 is most often understood to refer to a miscarriage, and it clearly distinguishes between the miscarriage and “serious injury” (obviously to the woman, if this is a miscarriage), with the latter being much more grave. It is possible that the passage is referring to premature birth and that the “serious injury” includes injury to the child. But this is a passage that I have heard used to argue that the Torah does not regard abortion as murder. And certainly post-Biblical Jewish law, while forbidding abortion in most circumstances, does not consider it murder and positively mandates it if the mother’s life is in danger.

In fact, I have often seen Catholics point to the inability of *prolifers *to prove their position from Scripture alone (in contrast to the very clear condemnation of abortion we find in one of the very first non-canonical Christian texts, the Didache) as an argument for Catholicism.

Can you back up gay marriage from Scripture?

Certainly. Start with Galatians 3:28 and interpret Ephesians 5:22-33 in the light of that passage, and then put the whole in the context of the story of the inclusion of the Gentiles as described in Acts 10-15 and the general theme in Scripture of God embracing the outcasts, lepers, etc.

Note: I don’t agree with this argument. But it is a powerful one and genuinely rooted in some important Scriptural themes.

The plain truth of the matter is that when you say everyone has a right to interpret doctrine according to his own taste

But I don’t say anything of the kind. I’m simply saying, as Catholic apologists generally say (you’re extremely weird in this regard, not that weird is bad), that Scripture is not perspicuous and that you need the continuing guidance of the Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

To the OP,

I ask my husband this one all the time in our “I want to be Catholic…oh no you’re not” arguments. (I want to be Catholic he’s a hard core prod-Anglican.)

His response is 325 A.D. or just before that when the church “sold itself out” to Constantine. He believes in the whole organic church theory, loves very Catholic liturgies, hates the Pope/Marian Dogmas.

It seems very odd that an Anglican would say this about Constantine. Granted, I said above that I have issues with what happened in Constantine’s time, but I don’t for a minute think that this is an argument for Anglicanism against Catholicism.

In fact, Anglicanism was a return to a purer Constantinianism than had existed in the West since the time of the Gregorian Reforms of the 11th century–as sixteenth-century Anglicans would be happy to tell you. Richard Hooker claimed (and I think he got this from Cranmer, which may weigh more with your husband than Hooker if he’s a low-church Anglican) that the Church wasn’t properly organized *until *Constantine!

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_II]

First you said that when Christians differ it is because they are rejecting apostolic teaching, which implied that apostolic teaching is “perspicuous,” to use that traditional Protestant term. Then, in the post to which I was responding, you specifically identified “apostolic teaching” with Scripture and claimed that “virtually all” Catholic teaching can be substantiated from Scripture. I admit that the “virtually” saves you from being a true adherent of Sola Scriptura. But the claim that apostolic teaching is perspicuous is, in my opinion, the basic error of Sola Scriptura Protestantism, and it’s one of the points that most often leads Protestants to question Sola Scriptura and start taking Catholicism or Orthodoxy seriously. So it seems extremely odd that you would take the Protestant line on this. It’s not only incorrect in my opinion, it’s pragmatically very unwise (of course if it were true you should say it even if it hindered Protestants from becoming Catholic). You’re depriving yourself of one of your best arguments, which is that obviously people of good will read Scripture and come to very different conclusions.

I am certainly not taking the* sola scriptura *line, and if you have read any of my recent posts you would know that. A misunderstanding has occurred, so let’s just drop it. O.K.?

First of all, given that Scripture is silent on abortion, the problem is much more that sola scriptura prolife folks can’t very easily back up their position from Scripture.

In fact, I have often seen Catholics point to the inability of prolifers to prove their position from Scripture alone (in contrast to the very clear condemnation of abortion we find in one of the very first non-canonical Christian texts, the Didache) as an argument for Catholicism.

“Thou shalt not kill.” Is that scriptural enough?

Does Paul back up gay marriage?

Romans 1

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

But I don’t say anything of the kind. I’m simply saying, as Catholic apologists generally say (you’re extremely weird in this regard, not that weird is bad), that Scripture is not perspicuous and that you need the continuing guidance of the Church.

I guess you’ve missed a lot of my recent posts, which argue that the authority of the Church is prior to the authority of Scripture. You need to stop thinking of me as a weird Catholic advocate of sola scriptura. Go back to my most recent post!

Earlier, when I was arguing that Catholic theology is scriptural, I was not arguing for sola scriptura. That was an unjustified leap on your part. I was only trying to point out that most Catholic doctrine is consistent with scriptural exegesis.

So I’ll ask you again to stop insisting that I take a position I do not take.

 

[Joshua27]

The Council of Jerusalem, (recorded in the book of Acts, for those who want to follow the discussion) was assembled to discuss the necessity of “Jewish traditions and customs” (established by Man) in honor of the Laws of God…they were not debating the necessity of the Law (as established by God).

I’m puzzled by this remark. As the following passage from Genesis 17 indicates, circumcision was not a law or tradition of man. It was a command of God.

9
God also said to Abraham: "On your part, you and your descendants after you must keep my covenant throughout the ages.
10
This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you that you must keep: every male among you shall be circumcised.
11
Circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the mark of the covenant between you and me.

The apostles at Jerusalem took it upon their own authority (without looking to scripture for approval) to change the law, in fact to abrogate it for the Gentiles. This is one of the earliest instances of proof that the authority of the Church hierarchy is over the authority of the Scriptures.

The second and more dramatic instance is when the Church assembled the books of the New Testament and gave them their imprimatur and nihil obstat.

Clearly it is the Church hierarchy in both instances that is exercising an authority over the Scriptures, and not the Scriptures that are exercising an authority over the Church.

Here’s an example why making a distinction is difficult because we haven’t the foundation of biblical history (I’ll try to be brief in my explanation, although we’d probably need to talk over a better medium):

---

Question: What was the Tabernacle for? God also commanded that the Israelites build a tabernacle to specification during their time in the wilderness, and again once they reached their land (as a temple).

Answer: The physical tabernacle was an earthly representation of the spiritual. “What’s in heaven so much be on earth”] as well as a prophetic forshadowing of the truer fulfillment/version to come.

Paul even corroborates how the earthly temple (made with hands) is “a figure/copy of the true” [heavenly] [Hebrews 9:24].

This Commandment never went away…It never dissappeared, but it was indeed fulfilled (first) in Christ - as he became the firstfruit; the first living tabernacle - and then fulfilled in His disciples as they received the Holy Spirit and also became living temples (“don’t you know you body is the temple of the Holy Spirit…”[1 Cor.6:19-20]). Again, the commandment never dissappeared but it was fulfilled in a truer form as it was always intended to be.

God also commanded that Israel provide sacrifices to the alter…again this was a prophetic foreshadowing of the truer version to come…again Christ helps us to fulfill this eternal commandment. Did this commandment dissappear? No. It still exists and Christ’s personal sacrifice as the Lamb is eternally present for us to offer if we believe in it.

---

Now let’s return to your reference of Genesis 17…a time before Christ…a time before the eternal Law (of God) was given to the Israelites…a time before there were Israelites.

Paraphrasing: “Abraham this will be the mark of our covenant: you are to circumcise yourself and every male in your camp.” God then goes on the detail the physical (earthly) representation of following this eternal law.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever; His M.O. is the same. So this act; this physical act was again an earthly representation of the spiritual and a prophetic foreshadowing of the truer fulfillment to come…but don’t take my word for it…

Deuteronomy 30:6 - “And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.”

---

Notice that this passage is generations AFTER Abraham, but still many generations before Christ or Paul’s reiteration of this verse in his letter.

---

Here we read that God will circumcise the heart of his faithful. Now I’m sure we can agree that if a chunk of flesh was cut from our physical hearts we would die, so I hope you can agree that in this instance there is a spiritual fulfillment of this law [whenever words like “heart” or “mind” are used they represent “spiritual”]…specifically “to love God with all thine heart” IS the true circumcision…but where do we read this phrase spoken again?

Matthew 22:37 - “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”

Once again Christ helps us to fulfill this eternal commandment of God in it’s true version. In this passage Christ gives the first of his two Greatest Commandments. Notice that they’re the SAME words! So to follow the first greatest commandment IS to perfectly follow God’s commandment on circumcision.

---

God’s commandments are God’s Eternal Laws. They never dissappear. The apostles did NOT take it upon their own authority to change the Law. Actually, what they did was they discussed if the physical act (tradition) of circumcision - that honored the Eternal Law of God - was necessary if Christ shared with them the true way to fulfill Circumcision spiritually.

Gentiles who love God with all their hearts WERE indeed circumcised and - coupled with the fact that Gentiles didn’t have the hygienic means to perform the physical act safely - they did not need to follow the physical tradition to still honor the Law.

Again, there is a distinction between traditions that honor the Eternal Laws of God and the Eternal Laws of God.

 

[seamusmohr]

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.”
its history … its central teachings, its leaders?

**There’s no question of the Catholic Church breaking faith, it is impossible,the Church being the Body of Christ! **But it is not impossible for faithful to go astray and add to the Deposit of faith. Where this leaves them is not for me to say.

McCulloch, the Church Historian in his writings on the Reformation in Europe "**points out that there were no Roman Catholics in Europe in 1500 with the sole exception of the **Kingdom of Bohemia where there were Churches loyal to the pope operating under an establishment which traced its origin to the Hussite Movement. The Roman Church recast itself at the Council of of Trent. [Faith & Worship. No 66. PBS.]
Certainly in the later Reformation it was understood that the Church of Rome had widened its parameters to take within a large section of the northern European Catholic Church. It was a Common argument between traditionalists and the ,‘Trentists,’ "Where was your Church before Trent? " The argument was that the followers of the papacy had abandoned Holy Tradition in their slavish following of the papal teaching at that Council, so much that they had set up a New Church of Trent! [See Evelyn’s Diary, Jan. 1686] It was here that the Catholic Bishops at the instigation of the papacy and the European
Monarchies abandoned catholic teaching and increasingly,“The guidance of the Church was assumed in an exclusive and increasingly direct fashion by the Bishop of Rome,”.
As Thorndyke the Interregnum theologian put it,
“The Counter Reformation was not so much the mending of the old church, but the making of a new one!”

At the time any people Catholic and Reformers together talked about the ,“Anti-Christ,” it was the Anglican Catholics who insisted that the Pope and is adherents were Catholics in that inspite of their additions, at Trent, they were still retained the basic tenets of the faith!

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat

*FWIW, the Catholic Church no longer follows those practices that caused such difficulties, and I would suggest that it is because they realized they were a bad idea. *

If you really believe that, then why aren’t you Catholic instead of Anglican?

In the sense that they are no longer involved in the political activities that caused rulers throughout Europe to work against them with the Reformers.

THere are lots of other theological issues which I don’t see as resolved.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bluegoat

n the sense that they are no longer involved in the political activities that caused rulers throughout Europe to work against them with the Reformers.

A good deal of the lining up of princes with reformers was attributable to the seizing of lands and properties belonging to Catholic princes and placing them in the hands of Protestants.

England and Germany are classic examples of fratricide over money and power as much as religious differences. The religious differences were an excuse for the savagery. That is one of the sad things to be noted about the history of Christianity … that it has devoured itself time and again. Early on with the Donatists and Arians attacking the Catholics, later on with the Lutherans and Anglicans attacking the Catholics.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Joshua

*Again, there is a distinction between traditions that honor the Eternal Laws of God and the Eternal Laws of God. *

All very interesting, but you have yet to answer the point I was making about the Council of Jerusalem being an occasion during which the apostles reversed scriptural commands on their authority, rather than on the authority of scripture. In Genesis God does not say to Abraham, “You must be circumcised until the coming of the Messiah.” Since the Jewish Christians believed circumcision was still in force, there had to be lodged somewhere the authority to overcome the requirement for the Gentiles. The Apostles, after listening to Paul and the judgment of Peter, did away with the requirement.

Again, this shows that the Church hierarchy, not Scripture (the Old Testament) prevailed. There was no New Testament yet in force (the gospels and Acts had not yet been written, and certainly not all of Paul’s letters. The ultimate teaching authority then rested with the apostles and what they agreed to teach as the Word. It would be several more centuries before the successors of the apostles, a later hierarchy, would rule on what books would constitute the New Testament. This was certainly the work of the Catholic Church. The translation of that Testament into Latin (the universal language then) was the work of Saint Jerome. He and Saint Augustine were the chief Catholic scholars of their day. Both acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as the ultimate Church authority.

 

[seamusmohr]

Bluegoat

Anglicans attacking the Catholics.

Nicely put, but can you substantiate this claim?

 

[Mickey]

From an Orthodox perspective—I would say about 1054AD–give or take about two hundred years.

 

[Joshua27]

Joshua

*Again, there is a distinction between traditions that honor the Eternal Laws of God and the Eternal Laws of God. *

All very interesting, but you have yet to answer the point I was making about the Council of Jerusalem being an occasion during which the apostles reversed scriptural commands on their authority, rather than on the authority of scripture. In Genesis God does not say to Abraham, “You must be circumcised until the coming of the Messiah.” Since the Jewish Christians believed circumcision was still in force, there had to be lodged somewhere the authority to overcome the requirement for the Gentiles. The Apostles, after listening to Paul and the judgment of Peter, did away with the requirement.

Again, this shows that the Church hierarchy, not Scripture (the Old Testament) prevailed. There was no New Testament yet in force (the gospels and Acts had not yet been written, and certainly not all of Paul’s letters. The ultimate teaching authority then rested with the apostles and what they agreed to teach as the Word. It would be several more centuries before the successors of the apostles, a later hierarchy, would rule on what books would constitute the New Testament. This was certainly the work of the Catholic Church. The translation of that Testament into Latin (the universal language then) was the work of Saint Jerome. He and Saint Augustine were the chief Catholic scholars of their day. Both acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as the ultimate Church authority.

I thought I was quite clear…but let’s try this again…

“Old Testament” does not meant “the first half of the recorded bible”. “Old Testament” means “original covenant agreement based on the Eternal Law”, which is then described in the Hebew Scriptures.

“New Testament” does not mean “the second (greek) half of the assembled bible”. “New Testament” (once again) means “Renewed covenant agreement based on the Eternal Law”, which is then described in the assembled Greek Scriptures.

We can not know what was “renewed” without understanding what was “broken”, based on the Eternal Law.

---

You Said: Council of Jerusalem being an occasion during which the apostles reversed scriptural commands on their authority, rather than on the authority of scripture.

The Council of Jerusalem did not reverse the scriptural command to be Circumcised. The physical act (“a figure of the true”) was not necessary to do because they were indeed doing it (Circumcising) spiritually (“The true”) if they followed the greatest commandment. They are STILL following the Law exactly. They did not reverse this command from God.

You Said: In Genesis God does not say to Abraham, “You must be circumcised until the coming of the Messiah.”

You are exactly right! God says, “you must be circumcised.” Then in Deutoronomy - well before Christ - God says “I will circumcise your hearts”. But are you suggesting that Christ was not the fulfillment of the Circumcision Law as well? Generally speaking, we all believe Christ fufilled “The Law”…but your comment suggests that Christ only came to fulfill “the Law of Sacrifice” and not any other Law?

You Said: Since the Jewish Christians believed circumcision was still in force, there had to be lodged somewhere the authority to overcome the requirement for the Gentiles.

The Jewish Pharisees (during Christ’s ministry) also believed that one could not pick up something off of the ground on the Sabbath because it was a form of physical labor (and were enraged when the bed-ridden man was healed, took up his bed and walked). Christ was trying to explain that there was a deeper spiritual obedience to the Law of which the physical act was only “a figure of the true” version.

Truly Circumcision IS still in force (even today). But during the time of the council, Jewish Christian still could not get past the “carnal” (“fleshy”) understanding of the truer meaning to honor the Eternal Laws, like Circumcision. In fact, this is the greatest problem Christ faced in his ministry; helping people to get past their “carnal” thinking.

You Said: There was no New Testament yet in force (the gospels and Acts had not yet been written, and certainly not all of Paul’s letters.

The rest of your rebuttal rests on the foundation of what “The New Testament” is. But you must agree that “Yes it was in force”, if we remember and understand what Christ said:

Mark 14:24 - “And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament (also coined as “new and everlasting covenant”), which is shed for many.”

The moment Christ died for us, the (re)New(ed) Testament (“the Renewed Covenant”) was active and in force regardless of which books were recorded about it. Again, get past the thought that “New Testament” means “the second (greek) half of the assembled bible”.

We are to only follow the Word of God, and not the word of man. What is the Word of God?

“In the beginning was the Word…and the word was made paperback?” No! The word was made flesh and he dwelled with us and showed us how to truly fulfill the Eternal Laws of God spiritually (in heart, mind, soul) because - remember - “God is a spirit and we must worship God in spirit and in truth.”

Once again, The Eternal Laws were NEVER changed, reversed or undone by the Council of Jerusalem.

They were never changed, reversed or undone until Rome.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Nicely put, but can you substantiate this claim?

Henry VIII executed about 72,000 people according to Hollinshed. Some sources estimate this number higher. Most of these were political or religious offenders. St. Thomas Moore is probably the most famous of his Catholic victims (see “A Man for All Seasons”).

Almost all of them were Catholic. Elizabeth continued the persecution but with less ferocity after she finished off Mary of Scotland. Shakespeare dared not advertise his membership in the Catholic Church for fear of losing his patronage, but his parents were both Catholic and he was educated by Jesuits, I believe. Sometime during the last hundred years the Shakespeare home was undergoing repairs and a document was found hidden in the attic that attested to Shakespeare’s father’s loyalty to the Church. Decades after his death an Anglican bishop referred to the famous playwright as a papist, which in those days was certainly a sneer word, as it still is.

I won’t go into any of this in any depth as I don’t want to derail the topic of this thread.

 

[Metamorphoo]

One could read this history entirely differently. Protestantism in all it’s variations is not the result of Lutheranism, but the result of Catholicism. The non-Lutheran reformation groups that broke off were not doing it primarily because Luther had shown it could be done. He was simply the first in a series of groups that broke away, largely because of conditions created by the Catholic Church - many of them political conditions that made political change identical with religious schism. Such an interpretation fits the historical facts much better I think. People put way too much on Luther’s shoulders.

I would agree that the conditions that existed within the Catholic Church–not only in the decades, but in the centuries prior to Luther–set the stage for the Protestant Reformation. The mixing of Christianity with political power had a really, really negative impact on the Church. Although most Protestants consider the period just prior to the Reformation to be the worst in the history of the RCC, I think the period around roughly 900 AD was even worse–with the papacy being gained through murder. That period was at least as bad as anything that occurred just before the Reformation.

As others have stated, the process was a gradual drift, not anything overnight. I think that the purposeful severing of the Church from its Jewish heritage–and replacing the void with Greek philosophical ideas–contributed to some of the problems. I believe that Emperor Constantine, however, began the mixing of Christianity with the state, which set in motion a very bad course for Christendom. When political advantage could be gained by becoming a Christian (or later, by entering the clergy), the Church lost much.

 

[Nicea325]

I would agree that the conditions that existed within the Catholic Church–not only in the decades, but in the centuries prior to Luther–set the stage for the Protestant Reformation. The mixing of Christianity with political power had a really, really negative impact on the Church. Although most Protestants consider the period just prior to the Reformation to be the worst in the history of the RCC, I think the period around roughly 900 AD was even worse–with the papacy being gained through murder. That period was at least as bad as anything that occurred just before the Reformation.

As others have stated, the process was a gradual drift, not anything overnight. I think that the purposeful severing of the Church from its Jewish heritage–and replacing the void with Greek philosophical ideas–contributed to some of the problems. I believe that Emperor Constantine, however, began the mixing of Christianity with the state, which set in motion a very bad course for Christendom. When political advantage could be gained by becoming a Christian (or later, by entering the clergy), the Church lost much.

Yes as a Catholic I know the church had its share of ‘dark’ times. However,let us not believe or think Protestant churches were free of political involvements.

 

[Metamorphoo]

Yes as a Catholic I know the church had its share of ‘dark’ times. However,let us not believe or think Protestant churches were free of political involvements.

I am not saying that Protestantism was free of political involvements … but I don’t believe that it was ever close to the degree found within the RCC. Certainly, no Protestant denomination was ever a political state.

It’s not rocket science to understand how scandal negatively impacts Christianity, regardless of the branch of Christendom in which it is found. All we have to do is look at modern-day examples to know the disgust that it causes among both Christians and non-Christians to see hypocrisy among people who are supposed to be followers of Christ (and even moreso among spiritual leaders). When moral corruption was going on in the RCC at its highest levels of spiritual leadership for centuries–especially with all the political stuff connected with it–is it that much of a surprise that people would think that the Catholic Church had strayed from its biblical moorings and question its teachings?

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat

n the sense that they are no longer involved in the political activities that caused rulers throughout Europe to work against them with the Reformers.

A good deal of the lining up of princes with reformers was attributable to the seizing of lands and properties belonging to Catholic princes and placing them in the hands of Protestants.

England and Germany are classic examples of fratricide over money and power as much as religious differences. The religious differences were an excuse for the savagery. That is one of the sad things to be noted about the history of Christianity … that it has devoured itself time and again. Early on with the Donatists and Arians attacking the Catholics, later on with the Lutherans and Anglicans attacking the Catholics.

That is not why the various leaders decided to side with the Reformers, though I am sure it the possibility of this kind of enrichment was attractive. Rome was using their spiritual power to try to wield political power. No sovereign leader can afford to have another power dictating policy to them in this way, especially policy against their own best interests.

Rome’s desire to wield these powers was a disaster from the time it began - the East failed to go along with it from the beginning, and the Western princes broke way as soon as the were able to.

I’m sure you can imagine the outcry among nations today in a similar situation, and the political difficulties it would cause.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bluegoat

*I’m sure you can imagine the outcry among nations today in a similar situation, and the political difficulties it would cause. *

When Roe v Wade was decided, there were 8 Protestant Justices on the Supreme court and 1 Catholic. Today there are 6 Catholic Justices and most likely in a few weeks three Jews. Would there be a great Protestant outcry if the Supreme Court, without a single Protestant participating, reversed Roe v Wade?

Rome’s desire to wield these powers was a disaster from the time it began - the East failed to go along with it from the beginning, and the Western princes broke way as soon as the were able to.

I don’t follow this. The Roman Church didn’t usurp the power of the state. The Roman Empire was in a virtual state of collapse and the only central power strong enough to keep things together was the Church. Several popes during this period saved the Empire from complete collapse and overrun by various barbarian tribes, especially Leo I and Gregory the Great. The advance of Islam into the West was also resisted by the Church, and if it hadn’t been, all you holier-than-thou Protestants would be Muslims today.

Yes, the Church inevitably was sucked into politics and corruption on a grand scale. Protestants did that too as soon as they got the chance. The founder of the Anglican church was a wife murderer. Anglicans plundered the Catholic Church. The slave trade in North America was largely a Protestant phenomenon. When in the 1930s fifteen bishops and thousands of priests, brothers, and nuns were slaughtered by the Spanish government (alongside a persecution of the Church in Mexico) you have to really exercise yourself to find many Protestants offering moral support to their Christian brothers and sisters. Hitler’s rise to power was helped by the German Lutherans’ votes a good deal more so than the German Catholics, and when in power the German Catholics resisted sooner and a lot more than the Protestants (with a few exceptions).

So can we now cut the mud slinging contest and get back to the topic of the thread: which should be confined to when, if at all, the Catholic Church entered heresy (false teachings)?

I still have not heard one person in this thread make any such case.