When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[guanophore]

Always a very complicating factor, Edwin. I know the feeling quite well on a number of topics not limited to faith.

Jon

It is independence day here, by brothers. Reading your posts makes me smile.

Happy independence to you both!

 

[guanophore]

This is very long-winded, but I wasn’t sure exactly what sort of information you were after, and my “cultural background” is rather complicated.

Edwin

Not even an lengthly post from you is “long winded” Edwin!

Thank you for sharing all this. Yes, you do come from a very complex cultural and religious heritage. It is amazing that you turned out so traditional with so many modern influences.

 

[Contarini]

Christianity is the biggest.

But with regard to the discussion with Contarini he’s claiming that Catholicism is the biggest therefore we ought not complain about being persecuted.

We are actually a minority. :sad_yes:

You are the biggest single religious organization.

I did not mean that you couldn’t complain about being persecuted when you really are. I recognize that Catholics are a minority of the total population (not that minorities can’t persecute majorities under certain circumstances). My point is that getting the preponderance of negative media attention does not constitute persecution and is not a sign that “Satan hates you”–it’s the natural result of being the biggest single religious organization out there.

I see where the confusion has arisen–people mistakenly thought I was saying that Catholics are not a minority of the total population.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But certainly the largest body of Christians, which is what Edwin is saying. Though, at this point, I THINK Islam recently surpassed the Church in number of adherents, but I’d have to look it up.

I thought of that–but Islam isn’t a single religious organization. Even if it turned out that Sunni Islam alone had more adherents than Catholicism, it would be questionable whether we could call Sunni Islam a single organization.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes. Exactly. Between members of the Church and the Church as a Teacher. Surely you can make a look at an issue and make a distinction between the orthodox teaching and the sinful action that resulted from separating oneself from this teaching.

Indeed. But to the eyes of someone not already committed to the teaching, it appears that frequently the sinful actions have resulted from the teaching, not from separating oneself from it. That’s where the Catholic position starts to look rather shifty. You can never be held accountable, because all the stuff that we can judge by normal human standards is ascribed to the “members of the Church.” And for me at least this backfires. It looks like an admission that if we defined the Catholic Church in such a way that we could really evaluate its claims, those claims wouldn’t hold up.

Catholics persecuted people because of their sincere belief in the truth of Catholicism, not just because they were individually nasty people (indeed, some persecutors seem to have been people of excellent moral character).

And more controversially, it looks to a lot of us as if Catholic bishops frequently chose mercy to abusive priests over concern for the safety of underage laypeople because of the clerical ethos formed by Catholic teaching about the priesthood. Bishops were put by the teaching and structures of their Church in a position where their best impulses–toward charity and mercy and forgiveness–worked to make them do very bad things.

I have no argument with you, Edwin, that some members of the Church often espouse bad theology.

But when you have a Pope condemning someone as a heretic in part for believing something that nearly all Catholics now believe, we have to question whether “members of the Church espousing bad theology” is really the best way to put it!

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

I can’t make that distinction. I think it’s a self-serving and dishonest one. This is perhaps the single decisive point on which I cannot accept Catholicism.

I am glad to hear this, because it means, when you get past it…

  I think that Catholicism plays a "bait and switch" with the definition of the Church, claiming authority for the Church's leaders while denying responsibility.

I used to think this too, but it was because I was suffering from a deficient understanding of the nature of Church. The Church, like Christ, is incarnational. There are divine elments, and human elements. That is why such situations are not “either/or” but both/and. The Head of the Church is Christ, and the Soul of the Church is the HS. The perfected saints in heaven are also free from sin, and responsibility for wrongdoing. So responsibility for sin cannot be laid at the feet of these elements of the Church.

Those of us who are members of the church and are still here on earth are prone to sin, and are responsible for wrongdoing, most especially in the name of God. It is not right, however, to lay these sins at the feet of Jesus. They belong to the corrupted persons who committed them.

With regard to the authority issue, whenever a person departs from the infallible teaching of Jesus preserved in the Church by the HS, then one has also departed from the authority to teach. Teaching falsehood is a sin, and is not supported by the Church. Those who engage in it have left the protection of Holy Mother Church.

It must work both ways. You can’t say that the leaders are the Church when they teach but not when they sin.

Why not? If they teach error, they are in sin. If they behave in a corrupt manner, they are in sin. If they teach what Jesus committed to the Church and live holy lives, they are good shepherds. They are human. They can choose to be good shepherds, or wolves.

Either the Church is something ineffable, above and beyond the human structures that embody it (in which case you can’t automatically say “the Church teaches” because a Pope or Council has said thus-and-so), or the Church can really be identified with the people and the concrete structures in which they operate, which means that when the people sin the Church sins.

I think it is just your “either/or” attitude that has you hung up. In fact, both things are true. Just as Jesus, since He was incarnate, became hungry and thirsty, and yet, nothing could make the Eternal Son of God hunger and thirst, both realities exist together. The Church is immutable (in her divine elements) and yet, some of the persons connected to her sin. Sin separates us from God, and from one another. When a member of the Church sins, he separates himself from the Divine elements of the Church.

Also, you assumed that persecuting people is always sinful. Catholics did not think so for a very long time. So this is a huge change in teaching that needs to be addressed, as your traditionalist friends will point out if you have any!

The Church never taught that it is right to persecute people. You are right, Catholics thought so for a long time, and some of them still do. This does not equate to a teaching of the Church, though. I think they were contaminated by their culture. Jesus made it clear that the weeds should be allowed to grow with the wheat.

I think the conflation of secular political power with the office of the Roman Bishop was one of the most devastating events for the Church in human history.

The Catholic Church explicitly taught in several places that the state should support the true religion, that error should be repressed, and even (during the late medieval and early modern periods) that heretics should be handed over to the secular power for execution.

Perhaps we should examine these documents?

People in authority teaching such things does not necesarily equate to Church teaching. the behavior of corrupt popes should not be blamed on Christ either.

The fact that you can now claim with a straight face that “the Church” never did this shows just how slippery and convenient your definition of “the Church” is.

I don’t think "slippery’, but certainly incarnational.

 

[guanophore]

But that isn’t the distinction we are talking about. The distinction we are talking about is between members of the Church and the Church. If “the Church” is simply an abstract body of teaching, then your identification of the two distinctions has some merit.

Yes, except that the Teaching Authority is not 'abstract". It is the college of cardinals in union with the successor of Peter, operating together under the HS. In this way ONLY can they arrive at the type of decisions recounted in the book of Acts such that “it seemed right to the HS and to us…” It is the Divine element of this incarnational Church that makes her infallible, not the human.

I'm not sure you want to maintain this, though. And even if you do, the fact is that members of the Church often espouse bad theology, sometimes in the name of the Church. Again, the well-documented Church support for the execution of heretics is perhaps the most notorious example.

Such actions cannot be considered as emanating from the HS, do you think? they are also not part of the infallibly preserved Teaching of Jesus deposited Once for All to the Saints.

You are absolutley right, members of the Church do sin, and even persons in authority espouse bad theology, and bad behavior, sometimes in name of the church. Paul writes about this in relation to joining the members of Christ with a prostitute. Such actions belong to the sinners who engage in them, not to the infallible Teaching.

Pope Leo X explicitly listed Luther’s opposition to the execution of heretics as one of Luther’s errors. According to Catholics today, that wasn’t the Church speaking. This is more than just a distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

Many popes have made mistakes, and Leo X is not exempt from it.

 

[guanophore]

My own uneducated opinion is that the Church of Rome went wrong at around the time of the Council of Trent. I do believe that the Council of Trent was good in some ways but not in all. I particularly dislike the way the Catholic Church seemed to outright condemn the Protestant Reformers.

the Church has not now, nor ever has, outright condemned anyone. what the councils have done, since the beginning, is identify heresy,and warn the faithful that, should they embrace it, they are in danger of losing their souls. The councils use the same language used in the NT. It is the duty of the Church to shepherd the faithful, and protect them from getting lost.

That said, I realize that the Vatican is not necessarily representative of the beliefs of all Catholics and therefore, I do not judge any or all Catholics.

The Vatican is not 'representative" at all. The Church of God is not a democracy, but a theocracy. It is the duty of the successors of the Apostles to preserve and teach the faith. those persons calling themselves “catholic” who do not conform to the faith that was handed down to us by the Apostles do place themselves under judgement.

 

[guanophore]

Indeed. But to the eyes of someone not already committed to the teaching, it appears that frequently the sinful actions have resulted from the teaching, not from separating oneself from it.

Yes, I think this is well stated. I suffered from it myself for a long time. I did not discern the nature of the Church.

That's where the Catholic position starts to look rather shifty. You can never be held accountable, because all the stuff that we can judge by normal human standards is ascribed to the "members of the Church."

I guess you lost me there. How is it that individuals who sin are not to be held accountable? It seems to me, that, if we avoid laying their sins at the feet of Christ, then they will be even more visible in wrongdoing.

And for me at least this backfires. It looks like an admission that if we defined the Catholic Church in such a way that we could really evaluate its claims, those claims wouldn't hold up.

Yes, I can see where you get that. However, Jesus founded the Church this way, and individual members attaching themselves to sin, though it does wound the Body, does not subtract from the Divine elements that make her holy, any more than Jesus wounds and suffering in His physical body subtracted from His Divinity.

Catholics persecuted people because of their sincere belief in the truth of Catholicism, not just because they were individually nasty people (indeed, some persecutors seem to have been people of excellent moral character).

Yes, albeit misguided.

And more controversially, it looks to a lot of us as if Catholic bishops frequently chose mercy to abusive priests over concern for the safety of underage laypeople because of the clerical ethos formed by Catholic teaching about the priesthood.

I think it is more the perception of the teaching, rather than the teaching itself. Clearly, the Apostles did not think those in positions of ordained service should be excused from sins. It reminds me of the errors of Jansenism, not part of the teaching of the church, but a strong social ethos among Catholic clerics that resulted in poor spiritual formation for the entire church.

Bishops were put by the teaching and structures of their Church in a position where their best impulses–toward charity and mercy and forgiveness–worked to make them do very bad things.

No, I don’t think so. The Teaching of the Church does not support persecution. I don’t think the structure of the Church does, either. I think it is more a matter of the Church leadership getting conflated with secular politics. Once the Holy Roman Catholic Church slipped into the role of “Holy Roman Empire”, the contamination from secular politics ensued.

But when you have a Pope condemning someone as a heretic in part for believing something that nearly all Catholics now believe, we have to question whether “members of the Church espousing bad theology” is really the best way to put it!

Yes, but one must also take such statements in context. Many of these anathemas were stated when there WERE no “separated brethren”. They were made to Catholics, about Catholics.

Thanks for your incisive insights.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Great video on EO and Catholic Church

youtube.com/watch?v=S3_96J5Spi8

 

[PRmerger]

My point is that getting the preponderance of negative media attention does not constitute persecution and is not a sign that “Satan hates you”–it’s the natural result of being the biggest single religious organization out there.

Then we are agreed.

 

[Doxiemom]

Rome went wrong when it began to make addtional requirements ( doing penence, buying indulgences) other than what Scripture requires.

Forgivenss of sin came by the Cross and the gates of heaven were opened. The rightous were led from paradise to Heaven.

The Judgement Seat of Christ is a place where, while sin has been forgiven and forgotten, your deeds(works) will be purged by fire. What you did not for God are burned up, those remaining are purified. it is a place where you are rewarded, given crowns and jewels for your white robe. Your soul is not burned or punished. Your 'works" become symbolized as wood, hay, stubble, gold, silver and jewels. These are burned up or purifed, just as a goldsmith purifies gold by fire ans the scum rises and is cleansed away, leaving behind perfection.

Why this magnificent event had to become a place of fire burning a soul is an error of catholic teaching and was ill used to make money and have control over people. The judgement became Purgatory.

 

[guanophore]

Rome went wrong when it began to make addtional requirements ( doing penence, buying indulgences) other than what Scripture requires.

There are a couple problems with this Doxie. One is that penance was not “added”. It has always been part of the Gospel. Even John the Baptist preached that we should bear works that befit repentance. That is what pennance means.

It is not theologically possible to “buy” an indulgence. the appearance of it was an abuse of the Teaching. But, even so, indulgences and pennance are not "additional requirments’ for salvation. both can benefit ourselves and others spritually, but are not required.

 Forgivenss of sin came by the Cross and the gates of heaven were opened. The rightous were led from paradise to Heaven.

The Judgement Seat of Christ is a place where, while sin has been forgiven and forgotten, your deeds(works) will be purged by fire.

It sometimes does not wait that long. Some of us are being purged right now!

What you did not for God are burned up, those remaining are purified. it is a place where you are rewarded, given crowns and jewels for your white robe. Your soul is not burned or punished.Your 'works" become symbolized as wood, hay, stubble, gold, silver and jewels. These are burned up or purifed, just as a goldsmith purifies gold  by fire ans the scum rises and is cleansed away, leaving behind perfection.

This is the Catholic description of purgatory. It is described as painful suffering.

**

Why this magnificent event had to become a place of fire burning a soul is an error of catholic teaching **

I don’t known how you happened to come to this conclusion. Purgatory comes from the word “purgation” and it describes being purified by fire. The soul is made pure and all that a person was clinging to that is not of God is burned away.

The reason it is described as painful you will understand well if God has ever found it necessary to separate you in this life to someone or something to which you were attached that was interfering with your relationship with Him. If you have never had this painful purification then it might be difficult to understand why it would be a situation of suffering. I would think that anyone who had ever experienced a great loss would understand that it is painful. Glorious in goal, I agree, but painful.

Doxiemom:

and was ill used to make money and have control over people. The judgement became Purgatory.

Yes, I agree that abuses were used to make money and have control over people. Purgatory has always been the same, but some have used the concept to take advantage of the faithful. Wolves among the sheep.

 

[Contarini]

I used to think this too, but it was because I was suffering from a deficient understanding of the nature of Church. The Church, like Christ, is incarnational. There are divine elments, and human elements. That is why such situations are not “either/or” but both/and. The Head of the Church is Christ, and the Soul of the Church is the HS. The perfected saints in heaven are also free from sin, and responsibility for wrongdoing. So responsibility for sin cannot be laid at the feet of these elements of the Church.

I wrote a response to this and lost it. Here goes again:

I think the Christology here is unorthodox. Christ doesn’t have “divine” and “human” “elements.” Christ is one unified Person with divine and human *natures. *Everything Christ does is done by the whole Christ. To say that some things are only done by Jesus the human being and others by the Divine Logos would be Nestorianism. Indeed, it would be worse than the position Nestorius actually held. Nestorius didn’t think we could say that Mary was the mother of God, but he had no problem saying that Mary was the mother of the whole Christ. Yet by your analogy, we would have to say not only that God can’t be born, die, get tired, hungry, etc. (even that would be Nestorian heresy), but that Christ can’t do these things.

So by this analogy, Catholic ecclesiology isn’t incarnational at all–and that’s precisely what is wrong with it.

Granted, sin is in a different category from these other things. But you’re the one who brought up the analogy.

My own view is that the analogy holds, because while Christ cannot sin in His own person, He has chosen to unite Himself to us sinners as members of His Body. We are in pilgrimage toward the fullness of union with Christ, in which the Church will be sinless and free from error. But in via the Church *is *subject to sin, error, and division. I would argue that this is a genuinely incarnational ecclesiology. Yours is beyond Nestorianism–it’s more like those forms of Gnosticism which held that “Christ” descended on Jesus at the baptism and left him at the Cross.

With regard to the authority issue, whenever a person departs from the infallible teaching of Jesus preserved in the Church by the HS, then one has also departed from the authority to teach. Teaching falsehood is a sin, and is not supported by the Church. Those who engage in it have left the protection of Holy Mother Church.

But since this error was at the time indistinguishable from what you would see as the genuine teaching of the Church, it follows that one really can’t know at any given time what the Church is “really” teaching, and what members of the Church (who happen to be Popes or bishops) are teaching out of their own sin and error.

Perhaps this is true, and I should just make up my mind to be one of those despised “liberal Catholics.” That’s basically what I am anyway–but I’m in a Communion where my “liberalism” is uncontroversial, and indeed where I’m generally regarded as a conservative!

The Church never taught that it is right to persecute people.

But it certainly appeared at one time that it did. So perhaps in a few hundred years someone will be saying, “The Church never taught that women couldn’t be ordained.” I don’t see, on your own principles, how you could rule out this possibility.

I think the conflation of secular political power with the office of the Roman Bishop was one of the most devastating events for the Church in human history.

I’m inclined to agree–I have sometimes compared it to Gandalf putting on the Ring!

Perhaps we should examine these documents?

Sure. We could start here, for probably the most authoritative statement on the subject (IV Lateran). This document doesn’t explicitly specify the death penalty, but it’s beyond question that this was the penalty commonly imposed by civil authorities at the time, and the Council explicitly tells both civil rulers and bishops to eradicate heresy from their territories, which implies either the death penalty or banishment. Further confirmation that the death penalty was meant can be found here (see Article 3). Of course, Aquinas isn’t the Magisterium–so for the final piece in the puzzle, enter good old Pope Leo (condemned proposition no. 33 is the relevant one).

There are of course many other pieces of evidence, but these are three basic ones that adequately establish the point.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, except that the Teaching Authority is not 'abstract". It is the college of cardinals in union with the successor of Peter, operating together under the HS.

I think you mean the college of bishops. I don’t think that your Church generally teaches that the cardinals have any particular teaching authority–as I understand it the college of cardinals is a purely ecclesiastical body with no theological standing.

Indeed this is not abstract. But we have already established that you are willing to dismiss some things taught by the pope and bishops as not *really *the teaching of “the Church.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Y

I guess you lost me there. How is it that individuals who sin are not to be held accountable?

I meant primarily that the Church is not held accountable–its claims cannot be brought into question no matter how regularly its teaching seems to create favorable conditions for particular kinds of sin and error. But individual Church leaders are also often put beyond accountability, or at least held less accountable than they would be otherwise, or given the benefit of the doubt long after they should have been. This is most evident right now in the recent scandals concerning abusive priests (and more seriously concerning the way bishops handled the cases of clerical abuse), but it has been evident in a number of different ways historically.

I think it is more the perception of the teaching, rather than the teaching itself. Clearly, the Apostles did not think those in positions of ordained service should be excused from sins.

That’s not my point exactly. Rather, my point was that bishops saw the cases of clerical abuse primarily in terms of restoring sinful priests, which was a noble goal but seems to have almost totally eclipsed concern for the protection of potential future victims. The clericalism fostered by Catholic teaching created an environment favorable to this distortion of charity.

It reminds me of the errors of Jansenism, not part of the teaching of the church, but a strong social ethos among Catholic clerics that resulted in poor spiritual formation for the entire church.

Poor old Jansenism gets blamed for everything

No, I don’t think so. The Teaching of the Church does not support persecution. I don’t think the structure of the Church does, either. I think it is more a matter of the Church leadership getting conflated with secular politics. Once the Holy Roman Catholic Church slipped into the role of “Holy Roman Empire”, the contamination from secular politics ensued.

But the papal claims over against the Empire were enshrined in Catholic teaching–and indeed I don’t regard this as entirely a bad thing, at least in its motivation. (Gandalf would only have put on the Ring in a situation of dire need!)

Yes, but one must also take such statements in context. Many of these anathemas were stated when there WERE no “separated brethren”. They were made to Catholics, about Catholics.

I don’t follow this. If there were no heretics, then such a statement would be pointless. If you mean that there were no established communities existing for generations in separation from Rome, that isn’t true either. For one thing, there were the Eastern churches (condemned as heretics doomed to hell by the Council of Florence, which is another issue we could take up!). And even in the West there were the Hussites, who were very much on everyone’s mind during the early stages of the Lutheran controversy, and the more obscure Waldensians (admittedly with a rather complex relationship to the Catholic Church), and the Lollards in England (though these had been driven underground by Luther’s time).

Thanks for your incisive insights.

Thanks for yours! I appreciate the substantive dialogue very much.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

 I think you mean the college of bishops. I don't think that your Church generally teaches that the cardinals have any particular teaching authority--as I understand it the college of cardinals is a purely ecclesiastical body with no theological standing.

Yes. Technically, they are all bishops first.

 Indeed this is not abstract. But we have already established that you are willing to dismiss some things taught by the pope and bishops as not *really *the teaching of "the Church."

Edwin

The gift of infallibility was given to the church, individuals can only benefit from it when they are in unity with the Church.

It does not prevent peccability, either. This is how it is that Peter can make an infallible statement of Divine origin, then moments later fall to temptation.

 

[Doxiemom]

There are a couple problems with this Doxie. One is that penance was not “added”. It has always been part of the Gospel. Even John the Baptist preached that we should bear works that befit repentance. That is what pennance means.

I will respectfully disagree. The repentance come prior to a valid confession of sin. Otherwise it is just one more useless self-serving "work to be burned up in that fire like a piece of straw.

It is not theologically possible to “buy” an indulgence. the appearance of it was an abuse of the Teaching. But, even so, indulgences and pennance are not "additional requirments’ for salvation. both can benefit ourselves and others spritually, but are not required.

I see from Scripture that this is an event of purging the “works” and you see it as a place of pain for the consequences of “works”. What I do for Christ after I am forgiven is done for Him . Anything done to balance what harm my sins caused others is done for His Glory.

It sometimes does not wait that long. Some of us are being purged right now!

How very very true. God does have this way of smacking up on the side of the head and guilt washes over.

This is the Catholic description of purgatory. It is described as painful suffering.

**I know. But I read scripture that points to these 'deeds" or “works” not the soul being purged by fire. Nothing worthy remains. But what is left is to shown on ourself for His glory.

I don’t known how you happened to come to this conclusion. Purgatory comes from the word “purgation” and it describes being purified by fire. The soul is made pure and all that a person was clinging to that is not of God is burned away.

Actually in catholic teaching it is described as being under the loving eyes of Jesus. Again, the fire purges the deeds, which are shown as the various elements. We will have to disgree. If I am wrong,I am humble enough to submit my soul to whatever and whereever the judgement will be. I am eager to get to the point of where I am perfected so that i can see the Face of God.

The reason it is described as painful you will understand well if God has ever found it necessary to separate you in this life to someone or something to which you were attached that was interfering with your relationship with Him. If you have never had this painful purification then it might be difficult to understand why it would be a situation of suffering. I would think that anyone who had ever experienced a great loss would understand that it is painful. Glorious in goal, I agree, but painful.

Yes, the spirit can cry. Because on that level, all this earthly pain of sickness, and death, was never supposed to be. If it hurts that much when we lose a loved one, how much more will my spirit hurt if i am separated forever from God.

Yes, I agree that abuses were used to make money and have control over people. Purgatory has always been the same, but some have used the concept to take advantage of the faithful. Wolves among the sheep.**

Just let me add, that there are other “churhces” too out there who do much damage with their message as to how to gain salvation and just what it means to be a Chrsitian. they, too, went wrong.

me did the qotes wrong. They got in the box. Dumb ignorant fingers,

 

[guanophore]

I will respectfully disagree. The repentance come prior to a valid confession of sin. Otherwise it is just one more useless self-serving "work to be burned up in that fire like a piece of straw.

I think you have misunderstood repentance, confession and pennance. There can be no valid confession of sin without prior repentance. Penance is the actions of a person after confession.

I see from Scripture that this is an event of purging the “works” and you see it as a place of pain for the consequences of “works”. What I do for Christ after I am forgiven is done for Him . Anything done to balance what harm my sins caused others is done for His Glory.

Both things are true. We just understand that any of our “works” that are not from him cause us pain. What you have described here as making reparation for sins (to balance harm caused) is the definition of penance.

I know. But I read scripture that points to these 'deeds" or “works” not the soul being purged by fire. Nothing worthy remains. But what is left is to shown on ourself for His glory.

Both things are true. The soul is purged of the deeds and their effects that are not from Him. Like gold that is purified in the fire, the gold gets heated so the dross and impurities burn out. I think you mispoke yourself when you said “nothing worthy remains”, since the soul remains, and the soul has been made worthy by Christ.

Actually in catholic teaching it is described as being under the loving eyes of Jesus. Again, the fire purges the deeds, which are shown as the various elements. We will have to disgree. If I am wrong,I am humble enough to submit my soul to whatever and whereever the judgement will be. I am eager to get to the point of where I am perfected so that i can see the Face of God.

The soul is attached to the deeds. If they are not of God, they have to go. Yes, the fire reveals the deeds, and purifies the soul from them. I am not sure anyone can understand this who has not suffered loss. It is painful to be purged of something to which one is attached, even if one knows it needs to go.

Yes, the spirit can cry. Because on that level, all this earthly pain of sickness, and death, was never supposed to be. If it hurts that much when we lose a loved one, how much more will my spirit hurt if i am separated forever from God.

Yes, but this purgation is only available to those who will be with Him forever. All those deeds that are not of God separate us from Him - that is why they have to be burned away.

me did the qotes wrong. They got in the box. Dumb ignorant fingers,

Have you tried the quote tutorial?

 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Yes. Technically, they are all bishops first.

The gift of infallibility was given to the church, individuals can only benefit from it when they are in unity with the Church.

It does not prevent peccability, either. This is how it is that Peter can make an infallible statement of Divine origin, then moments later fall to temptation.

That is PROVIDED you are the church. For our note the church is spiritual and not physical in nature. There’s alot of churches these days saying they are THE church and are therefore infallible. I guess that’s why crimes are rising faster than the global temperature.