When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[wisdomseeker]

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

Edwin

what do you mean He isnt finished yet?

i know that Jesus said: I will be with you until the end of times. i know when you read the Bible today, you will see these words in there. dont you?
you dont think He is with His Church until the end of times?

 

[egodat]

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

But we do know that Jesus is the way and the Truth, Therefore certainty exists and the New Testament with saints then guide us. This is where I put the 100% faith.

 

[wisdomseeker]

But we do know that Jesus is the way and the Truth, Therefore certainty exists and the New Testament with saints then guide us. This is where I put the 100% faith.

and just how is Jesus the Way and the Truth?

 

[Contarini]

what do you mean He isnt finished yet?

I mean exactly what I say. The Church is not yet in possession of all truth.

Isn’t that what Catholics mean by development of doctrine–the Church is being led into a fuller and fuller understanding of the truth? The difference is that you are less willing to see actual error as part of the learning process than I am

i know that Jesus said: I will be with you until the end of times. i know when you read the Bible today, you will see these words in there. dont you?
you dont think He is with His Church until the end of times?

Of course–guiding us into all truth!

Edwin

 

[wisdomseeker]

I mean exactly what I say. The Church is not yet in possession of all truth.

Isn’t that what Catholics mean by development of doctrine–the Church is being led into a fuller and fuller understanding of the truth? The difference is that you are less willing to see actual error as part of the learning process than I am

**
Of course–guiding us into all truth!**

Edwin

you see Jesus promised His Church the Truth. do you see anywhere in the Bible where Jesus promised the Spirit of Truth to those outside the Church?

 

[Contarini]

you see Jesus promised His Church the Truth. do you see anywhere in the Bible where Jesus promised the Spirit of Truth to those outside the Church?

The promise in John is given specifically to the Church. But of course we know that it is only through the Holy Spirit moving over the face of the abyss that anything exists at all!

At any rate, we are both talking about the Church. (Of course I define the Church more broadly than you do–I believe that all the baptized are part of the Church, which indeed your Communion admits with some qualifications and reluctance.)

Edwin

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

you see Jesus promised His Church the Truth. do you see anywhere in the Bible where Jesus promised the Spirit of Truth to those outside the Church?

Forgive me for jumping in and providing a gloss, perhaps unbidden, but there is precedent for those on the “outside” receiving the Spirit–take Moses and the 72, for example: everyone was called to the tabernacle to receive a portion of the Spirit, some were left outside in the camp, but the Spirit came upon those outside as well. When Moses was asked by those on the inside to shut up those on the outside, he refused.

An example from Acts is the conversion of the centurion and his household and the Spirit’s warning to Peter not to call unclean what God has made clean.

Finally, the Orthodox have a wonderful way of looking at this question–as far as I’ve read, their attitude is: we know where the Spirit is, but we do not know and cannot say where the Spirit is not.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Richard_Kastner]

and just how is Jesus the Way and the Truth?

Jn.14
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[rinnie]

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

No its not. And that is my point. What is the Catholic Church? Who is the Catholic Church. Plain and simple it is Jesus Christ himself. Now to say that the actions that a Pope or leader of the Church do is the action of Jesus himself is not true. Jesus said when it comes to the teaching of his word it will come from the CC which in turn means from God own voice. So yes if a Pope teaches us something that is from the Holy Spirit its a done deal. It can never ever change. No Pope can ever change it because they cannot trump God. And its never been done either.

Now what I am saying is Jesus gave us the gospel did he not? Now Judas was a Apostle was he not? But he fell from grace didn’t he. But here is the thing, Judas falling from grace never changed or made any of the teaching;s of Christ untrue did it?

There you go. It does not matter what sins or sin a Pope could possibly have or do, When he speaks with the authority given to him by God and with the Power of the Holy Spirit he cannot be wrong. Its impossible God told us that.

Luke 10:16 Whoever hears YOU hears ME!

Acts 20:28 The Holy Sprit appointed you overseers to tend to the needs of the Church.

Now think about it, if the Holy Spirit appointed them overseers and is leading them how can they sin when they are doing what the Holy Spirit tells them.

I can be the best Catholic in the world and then go off the deep end and start killing people. And I can blame God and say it was the Holy Spirit who told me to kill! But who you gonna blame the Holy Spirit which is CC or are you going to tell it how it is.

A. I am a nut and went off the deep end.
B. I am possessed by the devil.
C. Whatever else you want to say.

Or are you going to blame God because I was a Catholic?

Now back to the sins of Pope’s Bishops, etc and back to my point. When did any of them say that the sins they commited were the makings of the Holy Spirit?

 

[rinnie]

Now Edwin where did the RCC ever say that a discipline of the CHurch which means the Pope can run it as he sees fit for the times as saying that the Holy Spirit has led the Pope to make it a teaching instead of a discipline??

What I am saying is this. Have you ever heard the Pope state that according to the Holy Spirit a Women WILL never be ordained into the Priesthood?

If you did guess what? Its never going to happen, If it came from the Holy Spriit which has not yet, or may, or may not. But anyway to date it is a discipline. If the Holy Spirit reveals it to the Pope and Bishops guess what? Its over, it a official teaching and it will never change.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

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.

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

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

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.)

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.

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).

Of course not.

Certainly not. Nor have I claimed that the sins of Popes or bishops or anyone else have made Catholic teachings a lie–[SIGN]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.”[/SIGN]
Edwin

Sacred Scripture refers to the Church as the Body of Christ as a sheepfold as the kingdom of God and as the Kingdom of Heaven. How could this be flawed or overly spiritualized?

Do you not see that the CC is indeed Jesus Christ alive and well in the Eucharist. He never left. He is still there as much alive in the Eucharist as he was when he was present at the last supper. There is NO Difference. He is as much present today as then.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

[SIGN][/SIGN]
Do you not see that the CC is indeed Jesus Christ alive and well in the Eucharist.

Do you worship the CC rinnie?

 

[Contarini]

No its not. And that is my point. What is the Catholic Church? Who is the Catholic Church. Plain and simple it is Jesus Christ himself.

I don’t think this is a theologically defensible position, if you really mean it “plain and simple.” The Church is the Body of Christ–that is not the same thing as saying that it is “plain and simple” Jesus.

Luke 10:16 Whoever hears YOU hears ME!

Acts 20:28 The Holy Sprit appointed you overseers to tend to the needs of the Church.

Now think about it, if the Holy Spirit appointed them overseers and is leading them how can they sin when they are doing what the Holy Spirit tells them.

That’s tautological. But these passages prove too much if you take them in the way you’re arguing. We’ve already established (I think) that leaders of the Church can sometimes speak in ways that are not from the Holy Spirit. So Luke 10:16 is obviously not saying that whenever the apostles or their successors speak Christ is speaking.You appear to be arguing that only when Christ speaks through the bishops is the Church speaking. But that’s making some big assumptions about what “you” means in the passage you’re quoting.

Acts 20:28 is really damaging to your case. It is clear that the overseers (bishops/presbyters) have often failed to tend to the needs of the Church. They are not always led by the Holy Spirit. (This is true in every church without exception, of course.)

So I don’t see where you are going with this. You keep repeating things that are tautological (that is, true by definition), like “the leaders of the Church can’t do wrong when they are guided by the Holy Spirit.” Fine–but what about when they are not guided by the Holy Spirit? The point at issue between us is whether they are still, at those times, “the Church.” By your definition it appears that “the Church” is mostly a purely spiritual reality that occasionally pops out of hiding whenever the Pope or a Council says something official. Where is the Church the rest of the time? This is worse than most Protestant definitions of the Church I’ve heard. Give me Calvin any day if this is the “Catholic” alternative–he has a much more robust doctrine of the visible Church than you and many of the others on this board seem to have.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Sacred Scripture refers to the Church as the Body of Christ as a sheepfold as the kingdom of God and as the Kingdom of Heaven. How could this be flawed or overly spiritualized?

It’s not. You persist in arguing about things I’m not talking about, instead of addressing what I am saying.

What is “overly spiritualized” is this idea that the Church is “Jesus plain and simple” and that the Church acts only on those rare occasions when the leaders of the Church speak infallibly.

Do you not see that the CC is indeed Jesus Christ alive and well in the Eucharist. He never left. He is still there as much alive in the Eucharist as he was when he was present at the last supper. There is NO Difference. He is as much present today as then.

So the Church simply is the Eucharist? The believers who receive the Eucharist are not the Church?

That’s where we differ. And I believe that I have the Catholic Tradition of the first millennium at least on my side–longer than that, but I’m trying to speak conservatively!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Now Edwin where did the RCC ever say that a discipline of the CHurch which means the Pope can run it as he sees fit for the times as saying that the Holy Spirit has led the Pope to make it a teaching instead of a discipline??

What I am saying is this. Have you ever heard the Pope state that according to the Holy Spirit a Women WILL never be ordained into the Priesthood?

That’s what I thought Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was supposed to be saying. But it’s very confusing.

If you did guess what? Its never going to happen, If it came from the Holy Spriit which has not yet, or may, or may not. But anyway to date it is a discipline. If the Holy Spirit reveals it to the Pope and Bishops guess what? Its over, it a official teaching and it will never change.

I think you are wrong there–the official position of your Church (or should I say “of the leaders of your Church”?) is that it is a matter of doctrine, not just discipline.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

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

I find no peculiarity in wanting a “final arbiter”. Else what we are doing in our theological discussions is chasing after wind. Paraphrasing Peter Kreeft, we are merely grasping at shadows, having a wild goose chase, without the wild goose.

I certainly would find no satisfaction, if after having discussed an issue on the CAFs for 60 pages and not come out with a “final” decision.

At least, because of my “final arbiter”, I know that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired but that the Gospel of Mark is. I know, because of my “final arbiter”, that my my sins are forgiven when I hear the words from the priest in the confessional. I know, because of my “final arbiter” that Jesus and I are One Flesh for a divine, blessed moment.

What’s peculiar to me is that anyone wouldn’t want this

 

[Contarini]

I find no peculiarity in wanting a “final arbiter”. Else what we are doing in our theological discussions is chasing after wind.

The Orthodox do not appear to me to be chasing after wind, however earnestly members of your Communion claim that they are supposed to be.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit really is up to the task after all?

At least, because of my “final arbiter”, I know that the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired but that the Gospel of Mark is. I know, because of my “final arbiter”, that my my sins are forgiven when I hear the words from the priest in the confessional. I know, because of my “final arbiter” that Jesus and I are One Flesh for a divine, blessed moment.

And yet the Orthodox reject your “final arbiter” and know all of these things

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

The Orthodox do not appear to me to be chasing after wind, however earnestly members of your Communion claim that they are supposed to be.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit really is up to the task after all?

And yet the Orthodox reject your “final arbiter” and know all of these things

Edwin

Do the Orthodox believe that the Gospel of Thomas is inspired? Or that their sins aren’t forgiven by the priest in the confessional? Or that there is no One Flesh Union?



As I said, I’m abysmally ignorant about EO doctrine, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure they agree with our final arbiter on this issue.

That is, there is a goose in this debate and he has be caught and slaughtered!

 

[PRmerger]

Fine–but what about when they are not guided by the Holy Spirit?

Are you a father, Edwin?

If so, do you expect your children to obey you only when you are “infallible”, or should they obey you even when you’re capable of being in error?

 

[PRmerger]

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

The “rule” is that to be considered Catholic you must be in union with the Magisterium and have valid Apostolic succession.

Someone is sticking his foot in the circle but hasn’t submitted to the final arbiter–the Ref.