When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[wisdomseeker]

It is, but that is their problem not ours! We, as Anglicans, are members of the Catholic Church, the Body of Christ. The Church is the source of the faith, it isn’t something we should put out to tender amongst liberals, Neo Anglicans!.It is the Revelation of Christ, enclosed in Scripture and interpreted and explained by the Holy Councils through the Holy Ghost! [The Seven Councils!] Far to many people look upon the Church as something we join an as long as it suits us to remain members. If we don’t agree we either try to change it or leave! But in fact, the Church being the Body of Christ we are members, good, bad or indifferent for life!
But for us who are lucky and have been taught we have little choice. It just makes the struggle, just that much more interesting!

and that is exactly what happened in England. king henry did not like the teachings of the CC and left the Church to make his own church. that my friend shows that this new religion is not Catholic. the england church is not Catholic anymore because they no longer abind by the authority of the Church built by Christ. there is a reason why the Church is called Catholic. it is to differenciate from the false ones being formed by those who did not like the teachings of the Church built by Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Anglicans believe that they are a Communion within the Catholic Church, not the whole Church but simply a manifestation of the Body of Christ !
We do then,attend a Church that is infallible, the problem is that many of our members lack the faith through inadequate teaching!

Wow. I’ve never heard that before.

As I’m trying to ponder and digest this info, the first thought that comes to my mind is, “Cheeky!” And I mean that with no disrespect. But it is rather cheeky to put your foot in the game when you’ve said you’re not playing by the rules.

Who does the Anglican church believe is the final authority in the CC? That is, when disgreements arise as to faith and morals, who is the infallible final arbiter?(“Who” as in what person or group of persons).

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

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 think that Catholicism plays a “bait and switch” with the definition of the Church, claiming authority for the Church’s leaders while denying responsibility.

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

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 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. 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.

Edwin

But see Edwin that’s just it. The leader’s are NOT the Catholic Church, Never were, never will be. Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. So to say that the CC persecuted others is saying that Jesus himself did it. Which he did not.

No Catholic that really understands the faith will ever deny that the Pope and the Bishops etc have sinned and made bad decisions in the past. Who hasn’t. Do you really and truly think that St Peter did not screw up once in awhile. He was human Edwin just like the Pope today.

But JESUS promised St Peter that when it comes to the WORD OF GOD, I WILL GIVE YOU THE WORDS TO SPEAK IN MY NAME. And he meant it. Jesus never said I will make you perfect from this day forward and you will never sin again. St Paul told you himself he knew he was going to be judged by God and would not know until he met God if he would be deemed worthy.

Where did any Pope ever in the past to present ever say that the decision that was made by human choices were of God’s doing’s. The Church have never claimed this. Because Jesus did not promise this. He actually said to be honest there will be many disquised in MY CLOTHES. He told us there will be bad choices made, but he said no matter what those choices made by the ones pretending to be his Sheep will not bring down the CC. Which is God himself, and the true word of God. He actually said it is better for them that they not be born.

So if you are getting me to say that everything the Pope does comes from God, I cannot do that. He has sins to make up for just like us. He is unfortunately human. If he was pefect then the ones who were not TRUE Priests, etc would not have existed. Look at Judas. Does that not show you a good example. But did Judas bring down Jesus, or his truth? See what I mean. Was Judas not a devil disquised as a Apostle?

But did the sin of Judas make any of the teachings or words of Jesus a Lie?

 

[rinnie]

P.S. Edwin if you cannot accept Catholicism for the works of a Pope, how can you accept Jesus Christ for the works of Judas? Same think buddy!

 

[Loboto-Me]

Rinnie, I’m copying and pasting into my “special folder” your reply to Edwin. I already knew that the Pope is human and is not THE Church, and I you are simply explaining what I already knew, but here in your post, it’s explained very eloquently and is easily understood. Thank you!

Sometimes it’s so difficult to explain how things work and the reasons behind it for me, so this is a good little gem to keep.

 

[guanophore]

and that is exactly what happened in England. king henry did not like the teachings of the CC and left the Church to make his own church. that my friend shows that this new religion is not Catholic. the england church is not Catholic anymore because they no longer abind by the authority of the Church built by Christ. there is a reason why the Church is called Catholic. it is to differenciate from the false ones being formed by those who did not like the teachings of the Church built by Christ.

With respect, one must keep in mind that the laity did not choose this. The vast majority of English Catholics continued to believe and worship with catholicity during this time. Later, when it became an act of treason (to remain loyal to the successor of Peter), most complied to prevent being exterminated by the State. Whether the laity approved of what the King did, or not, they were in a position to either comply, or be martyrd.

The Vatican is working very hard to restore this fracture, and to heal the divisions caused by politics. Theologically, there are not any more differences than we have with the Orthodox, which is why whole communities are being reunited.

 

[seamusmohr]

and that is exactly what happened in England. king henry did not like the teachings of the CC and left the Church to make his own church. that my friend shows that this new religion is not Catholic. the england church is not Catholic anymore because they no longer abind by the authority of the Church built by Christ. there is a reason why the Church is called Catholic. it is to differenciate from the false ones being formed by those who did not like the teachings of the Church built by Christ.

Very interesting! Which of the two One Holy Catholic Churches do you agree with?

It’s quite gracious of you to give me this information but where’s your proofs?

king henry did not like the teachings of the CC and left the Church to make his own church

Was this before or after Trent? Just tell me why the Roman Catholics put any separation in England at the time of Henry? It was Elizabeth’s time and the occasion was amixture of Trent and Pius’s political adventues

the england church is not Catholic anymore because they no longer abind by the authority of the Church built by Christ!

The English Church or, the Church in England, did not at anytime break away from the Catholic Church! It simply enforced what the Councils told us, that no bishop should invade another bishop’s see! If only other Churches did as well!

 

[egodat]

, I might argue that it has no monopoly on being the Church of Christ and that non-Catholic Christians are also the Church of Christ. I might even be so bold as to say that members – even high – officials of the Catholic Church have, on occasion, acted in ways that were not exactly in accordance with our Lord’s example or commands. Of course, I would have to say the same things about Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, etc.
…
Bottom line – I don’t believe that the Catholic Church ever “broke away.” This doesn’t mean that everything has always been perfect within the Church, but it has not departed from Christianity.

I concur, The only guarrantee is that no one group has it 100% correct. Is it fair to say only when Jesus establishes his kingdom in the second coming will all truth be known? In the meantime I would think common sense and prayerful devotion/biblical study will allow God to have each of us reach our individually assigned paths.

 

[jbelokur]

To be fair, most intelligent Protestants I think would say the Church slowly went away from biblical teaching (i.e. there was no secret true church) and the reformation brought back the correct theology

I always love it when people way the Church was brought back by Luther. Where was it brought back from. Truth doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

 

[PRmerger]

In the meantime I would think common sense and prayerful devotion/biblical study will allow God to have each of us reach our individually assigned paths.

In your paradigm we have no certainty of truth. Thus, we don’t know whether

• baptism saves or is just an outward profession
• the pope is the vicar of Christ or the anti-christ
• the Eucharist is the body/blood/soul and divinity or just a symbol
• the Lord’s day is celebrated on Sunday or on Saturday
• we have eternal life or annihilation after death
• etc etc etc

 

[wisdomseeker]

I concur, The only guarrantee is that no one group has it 100% correct. Is it fair to say only when Jesus establishes his kingdom in the second coming will all truth be known? In the meantime I would think common sense and prayerful devotion/biblical study will allow God to have each of us reach our individually assigned paths.

really! so when Jesus said: that the Spirit would come and lead the Church into all Truth, He didnt really do it?

 

[rinnie]

I am admittedly abysmally ignorant of Anglican/Episcopalian/Lutheran/Orthodox doctrine and how they diverge from Catholic teaching.**

So I have no idea what you mean by “my Communion”.

The CC is not Roman. There are 23 rites, one being the Latin or Roman rite.

But I am certain that you know this already, so I am not following your comment above and the point you are making.

**Just to explain why I am participating in a discussion that touches on Anglican issues …I stumbled onto this thread following some posters I like to follow (guanophore being one of my faves!). Usually discussions about justification, sanctification, regeneration, the filioque, make me eyes glaze over. So I’m just sayin’

I am glad this came up PR because I also have a problem with this. Here is my point I would like to make if I may.

The RCC is the Church that is led by the Pope who can be traced directly to Peter. That is a FACT! Now the Church that is LED by the Pope is LABELED ROMAN.

So the Church founded by Christ and built upon Peter that is led by the Pope is labeled the ROMAN Catholic Church. So be it!

The RCC is called that because it shows that it is the Catholic Church that is run by the Pope. He is the leader. So what!

Rather it is ROMAN or not does not matter. What matters is what that ROMAN means to people today. And what the Roman means is ran by the Pope. Its quite simple.

 

[rinnie]

really! so when Jesus said: that the Spirit would come and lead the Church into all Truth, He didnt really do it?

Exactly Wisdomdeeker and when he said it he gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter to guard until he comes again in glory. It is what it is. That is the words of Christ. And as my Dad always said you are either hot or cold. Do you believe that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter as the word of Christ says. You either do or you don’t,

So bottom line you either accept those words or you don’t. I just never understood how anyone could get around them:shrug:

 

[rinnie]

Anglicans believe that they are a Communion within the Catholic Church, not the whole Church but simply a manifestation of the Body of Christ !
We do then,attend a Church that is infallible, the problem is that many of our members lack the faith through inadequate teaching!

But think what you are saying here. Not the WHOLE CHURCH. We must come together to be a WHOLE CHURCH again. We are not that apart, think about it. We can become WHOLE AGAIN.

 

[guanophore]

I am glad this came up PR because I also have a problem with this. Here is my point I would like to make if I may.

The RCC is the Church that is led by the Pope who can be traced directly to Peter. That is a FACT! Now the Church that is LED by the Pope is LABELED ROMAN.

So the Church founded by Christ and built upon Peter that is led by the Pope is labeled the ROMAN Catholic Church. So be it!

The RCC is called that because it shows that it is the Catholic Church that is run by the Pope. He is the leader. So what!

Rather it is ROMAN or not does not matter. What matters is what that ROMAN means to people today. And what the Roman means is ran by the Pope. Its quite simple.

Riinie, you KNOW how I get about that Roman thing!

I think it is important, when conversing with our separated brethren,that we emphasize that Jesus is the Head of the Church, and that the Catholic chuch is “ran by Jesus”. Of course I am in agreement with you that Jesus left Peter in charge, and that Peter is the visible sign of unity among the believers.

I have always found it interesting what when Satan wanted to 'sift" the Apostles, Jesus only prayed for Peter. His response “I have prayed for you, that you may not fail” is singular. That means, anyone who wants to be kept from falling better get in on the prayer for Peter! This was not a problem with the Aposltes, who never did anything in separation from Peter. But nowadays, when there are so many generations of people separated from unity with Peter, they forget that Peter was placed in charge of feeding and caring for the flock, and that he was given the special gift to “strengthen the brethren”.

These responsibilities given to Peter were passed on to his successor, and so on until the present day. Unity with the successor of Peter is the visible sign of unity on earth of the Church founded by Christ.

when he said it he gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter to guard until he comes again in glory. It is what it is. That is the words of Christ. And as my Dad always said you are either hot or cold. Do you believe that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter as the word of Christ says. You either do or you don’t,

So bottom line you either accept those words or you don’t. I just never understood how anyone could get around them:shrug:

They just change what the meaning of the “keys” may be, or assert that any authority Christ gave to the Apsotles went into the grave with them. This charge is substantiated by the fact that the shadow of the modern successor of Peter does not have any healing effect for those he passes (or that he must not be authentic because he wears fancy robes and rides in a Popemobile.)

 

[Contarini]

Wow. I’ve never heard that before.

As I’m trying to ponder and digest this info, the first thought that comes to my mind is, “Cheeky!” And I mean that with no disrespect. But it is rather cheeky to put your foot in the game when you’ve said you’re not playing by the rules.

I’m not sure I disagree with you, but I’d like to hear just what you think the “rules” are by which we are not playing!

Who does the Anglican church believe is the final authority in the CC? That is, when disgreements arise as to faith and morals, who is the infallible final arbiter?(“Who” as in what person or group of persons).

This obsession with a “final arbiter” is one of the peculiarities of your Communion which distinguishes it from the rest of the Church (by your own standard, that means the Eastern Churches, since you don’t recognize us as having true particular churches in the strict sense). The East does not define Catholicity in terms of a “final arbiter,” and this concern seems to stem from particular Western conflicts which have led all of us to be overly obsessed with the question of authority. (Protestant Biblicism is of the same stamp, but even less tenable.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

P.S. Edwin if you cannot accept Catholicism for the works of a Pope, how can you accept Jesus Christ for the works of Judas? Same think buddy!

I am really not sure what you mean.

I don’t think anyone believes that Judas’s actions should be ascribed to Jesus. And furthermore, the point I’m making is precisely that the bad actions of popes (and other members of the Church, but obviously this is most clearly true of people who lead the Church) *are *actions of the Catholic Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

But see Edwin that’s just it. The leader’s are NOT the Catholic Church, Never were, never will be.

But when they teach they are, according to your Communion. People go around this forum saying that “the Church has clearly ruled that women can’t be ordained,” and their most authoritative basis for saying so is a statement of JPII. This is what I mean by the “bait and switch” which lessens accountability.

Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.

Isn’t it more correct to say that Jesus is the Head of the Church?

So to say that the CC persecuted others is saying that Jesus himself did it. Which he did not.

Not in his own natural body, certainly. But His mystical body did this and many other bad things, and continues to do so.

No Catholic that really understands the faith will ever deny that the Pope and the Bishops etc have sinned and made bad decisions in the past.

Of course. This isn’t a point of dispute. What we disagree on is how to describe these actions. (And I don’t want to make it seem as if I’m beating up on your Communion–all churches have sinned, by my definition, and Western churches that separated from Rome at the time of the Reformation have unquestionably committed doctrinal errors as well–whether either you or the Orthodox have done so is a matter more open to debate.)

But JESUS promised St Peter that when it comes to the WORD OF GOD, I WILL GIVE YOU THE WORDS TO SPEAK IN MY NAME.

I do not recall any place where this was specifically promised to Peter. The passage you seem to have in mind (Mark 13/Matt.24) is one in which Jesus is promising His disciples in general that he will be with them when they stand before their persecutors. You appear to be taking it quite violently out of context.

Where did any Pope ever in the past to present ever say that the decision that was made by human choices were of God’s doing’s.

First of all, I think your definition is a bit flawed here (too Calvinist for my taste), because you don’t recognize that when God works through us it is our action as well as God’s (synergy rather than monergy).

But more to the point: of course the Pope didn’t say “the decision that was made by purely human choice was God’s doing.” Rather, there have been a number of Popes who presented as the word of God ideas that Catholics now generally ascribe solely to human agency. Again, Pope Leo’s condemnation of Luther’s rejection of the idea of executing heretics is a good example. Some other such cases seem clear to me, but Catholics bend themselves into pretzels to claim that the Pope didn’t really mean what he appears to have meant (Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam is an excellent example of this, and the similar decree of the Council of Florence about the salvation of non-Catholics is another one).

So if you are getting me to say that everything the Pope does comes from God,

Of course not.

But did the sin of Judas make any of the teachings or words of Jesus a Lie?

Certainly not. Nor have I claimed that the sins of Popes or bishops or anyone else have made Catholic teachings a lie–except for the particular teaching that says that the Church does not sin. And even that isn’t a lie, so much as what I consider to be a flawed and overly spiritualized definition of “Church.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

really! so when Jesus said: that the Spirit would come and lead the Church into all Truth, He didnt really do it?

He just isn’t finished yet. It may take thousands or millions or billions of years.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Riinie, you KNOW how I get about that Roman thing!

I think it is important, when conversing with our separated brethren,that we emphasize that Jesus is the Head of the Church, and that the Catholic chuch is “ran by Jesus”. Of course I am in agreement with you that Jesus left Peter in charge, and that Peter is the visible sign of unity among the believers.

I have always found it interesting what when Satan wanted to 'sift" the Apostles, Jesus only prayed for Peter. His response “I have prayed for you, that you may not fail” is singular. That means, anyone who wants to be kept from falling better get in on the prayer for Peter! This was not a problem with the Aposltes, who never did anything in separation from Peter. But nowadays, when there are so many generations of people separated from unity with Peter, they forget that Peter was placed in charge of feeding and caring for the flock, and that he was given the special gift to “strengthen the brethren”.

These responsibilities given to Peter were passed on to his successor, and so on until the present day. Unity with the successor of Peter is the visible sign of unity on earth of the Church founded by Christ.

They just change what the meaning of the “keys” may be, or assert that any authority Christ gave to the Apsotles went into the grave with them. This charge is substantiated by the fact that the shadow of the modern successor of Peter does not have any healing effect for those he passes (or that he must not be authentic because he wears fancy robes and rides in a Popemobile.)

I KNOW Love And you know we are getting closer everday on our agreement but have not got to the exact place we need to be yet. But its all cool.

But my point is that the RCC is called that to show that it is run by the Pope and his Church is headed in Rome.

And the point is exactly what you said unity and we ARE ALL ONE. That is why you and I agree on the word of God. WE ARE ONE.

Now lets talk on what effect the Pope today or in the past has had on healing anyone. No one knows but God. He has healed thousands but does not have to prove it. Just like St Peter never did.

Did you happen to hear the latest though. The man who has been I can’t remember but some kind of cripple. He could not walk I believe he had a horrible illness and limp I think. Anyway it will not be hard to find. Because here is what is going on.

His favorite was John Paul ll he prayed everyday and asked for his assistance. Now he is older, much older and has not one bit of pain and is now considered a miracle. Whatever bone disease, etc, can’t remember there was NO CURE for, he was told by the Dr a cure was IMPOSSIBLE. Now he has proof he is completely cured. Check it out. You know I love you and would never lie to ya