When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[wisdomseeker]

Oh Richard you are talking to me again. Usually you ignore me. When I ask you a hard question you never answer me. But I will do the Christian thing and turn the Other Cheek.

Yep I do and here is the scripture, which I have shown you at least a thousand times now. But since its one of my favorite I will show you again.

Acts 9:4 Saul Saul why are you persecuting ME? Who are you sir? The reply came JESUS the one you are persecuting.

Now you tell me Richard who was Saul persecuting the CC wasn’t he. Who did Jesus say the Catholic Church is Richard? He said ME JESUS did he not.

Now do I believe the CC is Jesus yes I do. Why? As the song says because the bible tells me so

Non Catholics cannot understand this rinnie because they are not in the Church, they cannot conceive the love we have for the Church. since they are not in the Church, they cannot love her. how can one love the Head and not love the Body. protestants separates the Head from the Body. Catholics dont. Catholics love the Church because they know what the Church is. protestants dont. just the Truth, nothing but the Truth.

 

[Contarini]

Well, we are getting warm. There are certain specific conditions must be met by the Teaching Authoirty appointed by Christ for infallibility to exist. You are correct that individuals can, and do, err. But, when the HS is working through the Magesterium, as in Acts (council of Jerusalem) we can say “it seemed right to the HS and to us”…

I’m not sure how this is relevant to the point under discussion. Rinnie appears to be arguing that “the Church” is simply Jesus, and that when Jesus speaks through the leaders of the Church (and apparently only then) the Church can be said to do or to teach something. That’s the position I’m disagreeing with. The broader issue, from which this sub-discussion developed, concerns when it is proper to say “the Church did thus and so” and when we must say “the members of the Church did thus and so.” It seems to me that Rinnie’s position is a reductio in absurdum (though Rinnie doesn’t seem to see the absurdity) of the Catholic view. If, as the Catholic Church claims, the Church never sins but only members sin, then the only times we can really say with confidence that the Church is acting is when leaders of the Church speak infallibly with the authority of Christ. The rest of the time, the Church is as invisible as the most spiritualizing Protestant could claim. (The individual whom I have in mind when I use that phrase is my grandmother, but you didn’t have the privilege, delight, and terror of knowing my grandmother)

No. I don;t think that passage demonstrates this “often” happened.

Sorry–that’s not what I meant. I meant that this is evident from experience. Rinnie brought up this text, presumably as an example of another way (alongside authoritative teaching) in which leaders of the Church act with the authority of Christ and hence can be understood to be acting as the Church. But since Catholics do not claim that leaders of the Church are infallible in their pastoral decisions, and since Catholic bishops (and any other leaders of any church you care to name) have made horrible pastoral decisions over and over, I thought that this passage was rather unfortunate for Rinnie’s position.

However, I agree with yoiur point that individuals can and do err, including those in positions of authority. This still does not equate the Church sinning, though.

Yes, you and every other Catholic on this thread keep repeating that. But when you try to substantiate it you run yourselves into all kinds of difficulties.

No, Edwin, this is not the case. Jesus is not a liar, and has ALWAYS provided leading. However, I think we are in agreement that the leadership does not always FOLLOW the leading of the HS.

And that’s what I meant–and what nearly anyone would mean, I’d think–by saying “the bishops are not always led by the Holy Spirit.” The failure is not on the part of the Holy Spirit, but on the part of humans–as it always is, of course. The fact that you leap so quickly to attributing a silly straw man (which no sane person would ever say) to me demonstrates how much difficulty someone as intelligent and reasonable as yourself has in defending this particular part of Catholic teaching.

So back to the point: the bishops are not always acting in accordance with the Holy Spirit’s leading, which according to Rinnie means that at those times they are not the Church.

A just question. But, by definition, when one sins, whether it is a leader or not , they depart from the unity of the faith in the Church.

It seems that perhaps your defiinition of “church” may be too small.

I don’t care about small or big. I care about real vs. invisible, abstract, idealized. And it’s becoming clearer and clearer (in spite of all your denials) that the position you and rinnie and the other Catholics are defending is an invisible-church position, distinguished from Protestant invisible-church theology only by your belief that on rare occasions the Holy Spirit speaks through leaders of the Church, and at those brief moments, in that one limited way, the Church is visible.

Most people are sinning, at least venially, most of the time. So by your definition the Church barely exists at all.

Some “incarnational” ecclesiology this!

It seems that you are frustrated because we believe the promises o fChrist that He would lead the Church into all truth.

No, I’m frustrated because you keep repeating comfortable boiler-plate cliches like this, worthy of Protestant fundamentalists but unworthy of the spiritual heirs of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Edwin

 

[Bill_Pick]

I could never say that the Catholic Church ceased to be the Church of Christ. 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.

To say that any Church “has broken with the true faith” would seem to me to mean, at the very least, the rejection of core doctrines – the Trinity, the virgin birth, the two natures of Christ, and the resurrection, among others. It could be evidenced by rejection of any of the three ecumenical creeds.

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.

THANK YOU for a very good post

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

King Henry did not leave the Catholic Church, he had a personal quarrel with the primate of the West. The Catholic Church in England pointed out that according to the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils no bishop may enter or interfere in another see!
has Rome abandoned the teachings of the Councils!

Interesting! Just where did the English go wrong? What part of the faith did they abandon?

Being a member of the Roman Catholic Church as you are, I should agree with you. [SIGN]yourBut Church is not the Catholic Church[/SIGN]! It is no other than the Suburbicarian Church of Rome /Italy grown large with an influx of members after the Council of Trent!

Okay tell me this. If the RCC is not the CC then how can the Pope have a direct link to Peter. Is the Pope’s Church not the exact same Church that was led by Peter. So then if you deny that the RCC is part of the True Catholic Church then Peter’s Church was not the CC either correct?

 

[Contarini]

Okay tell me this. If the RCC is not the CC then how can the Pope have a direct link to Peter. Is the Pope’s Church not the exact same Church that was led by Peter.

What do you mean by the “exact same”? There is certainly historical continuity, but there are a lot of differences.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Edwin let me make something perfectly clear. I never said that the Pope or Bishop cannot sin or do not sin. The Pope has a daily confession for goodness sakes. But let me try to explain this even clearer yet.

But in the years to come a discipline can be changed by another Pope. Disciplines change with the times, and the Pope has the authority from God to do this.

But now if the Pope reveals it as a Teaching thats it, its in stone. No Pope can change it. Do you understand what I am saying.

Christ did set up a Visible Church. I do not deny this. But he provided for its means to continue. Jesus promised the gift of INFALLIBILITY of the church as a whole but mainly through its Christ-Appointed leaders, the bishops as a whole and the Pope as an individual.

IT is the Holy Spirit who PREVENTS the Pope form OFFICIALLY TEACHING ERROR.

Christ PROMISED the Church will be shielded from the gates of hell, then it has to be protected form falling into error or we will fall away from Christ.

But that does not guarantee that any pope wont neglect ot teach the truth, or be a great example (which I agree he should at all times, but he is human) and that DOES NOT guarantee that Disciplinary decision will be intelligently made all the tme.

But what we are promised is that the CHURCH which is the living Christ CANNOT TEACH Heresy. Why? Because its God teaching. Not the Pope, not the Bishops.

St Paul said the Church is the pillar and bulward of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

IF the Church if the Foundation of Religious truth then It GODS OWN SPOKESMAN. God told the Apostles He who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me. Luke10:16.

Now Edwin WHO is the pillar and bulward of Truth. Jesus Christ do you not agree. Do you see the connection here?

Jesus IS the Church, he is leading the Church, he is there. He is present there. He is present in the Eucharist.

John 17:17 Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world so I sent them into the world. And consecrate MYSELF in THEM.

 

[rinnie]

What do you mean by the “exact same”? There is certainly historical continuity, but there are a lot of differences.

Edwin

What. Show me one Teaching of the RCC that goes against the word of God. One difference?

 

[Contarini]

What. Show me one Teaching of the RCC that goes against the word of God. One difference?

Difference and contradiction are not the same thing.

It would be hard to find a teaching of most Trinitarian Christian traditions that clearly contradicts the Word of God.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin let me make something perfectly clear. I never said that the Pope or Bishop cannot sin or do not sin.

I know. That isn’t the point.

Christ PROMISED the Church will be shielded from the gates of hell, then it has to be protected form falling into error or we will fall away from Christ.

But you seem to be saying that the Church only exists in those brief moments when its leaders teach infallibly. That’s what we are arguing about. Most of what you say isn’t irrelevant to the point I’m making.

It isn’t much to say “the Church will be shielded from error,” if on those many occasions when what appears to be the Church teaches error you can say, “Well, it wasn’t really the Church.” It’s the same kind of dodge as the Calvinist/Baptist “no believer falls away, because anyone who falls away was never a believer.”

Now Edwin WHO is the pillar and bulward of Truth. Jesus Christ do you not agree. Do you see the connection here?

Jesus IS the Church, he is leading the Church, he is there.

If Jesus simply IS the Church, then it is kind of pointless to say that He is leading the Church. But if the Church is His Body, still in need of much guidance and purification, then it means a lot to say that he is leading us and will never abandon us.

Edwin

 

[wisdomseeker]

I know. That isn’t the point.

But you seem to be saying that the Church only exists in those brief moments when its leaders teach infallibly. That’s what we are arguing about. Most of what you say isn’t irrelevant to the point I’m making.

It isn’t much to say “the Church will be shielded from error,” if on those many occasions when what appears to be the Church teaches error you can say, “Well, it wasn’t really the Church.” It’s the same kind of dodge as the Calvinist/Baptist “no believer falls away, because anyone who falls away was never a believer.”

**If Jesus simply IS the Church, then it is kind of pointless to say that He is leading the Church. But if the Church is His Body, still in need of much guidance and purification, then it means a lot to say that he is leading us and will never abandon us.**Edwin

you have included yourself in the Church. but the Church says you are not in teh Church. us who? there is but one Church and not many. that is where the problem lies.
Jesus only found one Church and not many. if you are not in agreement wiht the 2000 year old Church you are not in agreement with Christ. when Jesus said. whoever hears you, hears me and the One who sent me, He was not speaking to an Anglican church 1500 years later. He was speaking to the Church that started with the Apostles. if you say that this Church has no authority to determine who is and who is not in obedience to Christ, then who is? anyone? you must know that your church broke away from the CC. if you are outside of the One Church, you are in error. just like the heretics from the past that broke away from the Church in the past, so it is today. nothing has changed. you know the CC, yet you reject here. know what the Catechism says about those who knows the Church and refuse to enter in her. you are not in the category of invencible ignorance. are you? i dont care if you can see it or not. it is not about seeing, it is about obedience.

 

[rinnie]

I know. That isn’t the point.

But you seem to be saying that the Church only exists in those brief moments when its leaders teach infallibly. That’s what we are arguing about. Most of what you say isn’t irrelevant to the point I’m making.

It isn’t much to say “the Church will be shielded from error,” if on those many occasions when what appears to be the Church teaches error you can say, “Well, it wasn’t really the Church.” It’s the same kind of dodge as the Calvinist/Baptist “no believer falls away, because anyone who falls away was never a believer.”

If Jesus simply IS the Church, then it is kind of pointless to say that He is leading the Church. But if the Church is His Body, still in need of much guidance and purification, then it means a lot to say that he is leading us and will never abandon us.

Edwin

Okay Edwin then let me say it One way and One way Only. Jesus Christ is the Church.

Jesus is always the Church. He is the Church that is why we can be guaranteed we will be told the truth. Because he speaks through the Apostles today the same as he did yesterday. The Apostles are still here Edwin. They are still walking this earth proclaiming the truth in Gods name the way he promised us.

What is the CHurch Edwin, The Church is a Mystery Edwin. The Church is many things just like God. The Church is a Sacrament. It is a communion with us and is rooted in our union with God.

As a Sacrament the Church is Gods instrument she is taken up By him also as the instrument for salvation for all. the Church is manifested in Christ, it is his visual plan of Gods love for us.

The word Church mean convocation. IT is a place where we gather together and form the People of God and nourised by the Body of CHrist become the Body of Christ.

The Church is a mystery, it has been manifested as the mystery of salvation by the pouring of the Holy Spirit.

The Church is both visible and spiritual and hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She is ONE yet formed of Two components HUMAN and DIVINE. That is her MYSTERY. Which only FAITH Can accept.

We are called to build up the body of Christ. We are baptised in him, In his body the Church. throught his spriit and his action that takes place in the Sacraments. The most important the Eucharist.

The Church is the body of which Christ is the head, she lives FROM him, IN him and FOR him he lives with her and IN HER.

The Church is the bride of Christ. His had made her pure by his blood and made her the fruitful mother of all Gods Children.

The Church is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the HS is the soul of the Mystical Body the source of ITS LIFE.

Just like Jesus is human and divine so is the Church. Few can see this.

 

[tomarin]

It isn’t much to say “the Church will be shielded from error,” if on those many occasions when what appears to be the Church teaches error you can say, “Well, it wasn’t really the Church.” It’s the same kind of dodge as the Calvinist/Baptist “no believer falls away, because anyone who falls away was never a believer.”

Ah, the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

 

[rinnie]

No Edwin the Church is always in existance. The Church has never left nor will ever leave because the Church is no different today then when Jesus was walking this earth.

The only difference between God today and yesterday is he reveals himself in different ways. In the O.T he revealed himself through Abraham.

In the N.T though Jesus CHrist.

Today through the Church by the Holy Spirit.

3 persons ONE IN BEING. Same God, Same Teaching, Through him, with him, and In him, One In BEING with the Holy Spirit One God forever and ever. Amen.

We say it every Sunday.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I know. That isn’t the point.

But you seem to be saying that the Church only exists in those brief moments when its leaders teach infallibly. That’s what we are arguing about. Most of what you say isn’t irrelevant to the point I’m making.

It isn’t much to say “the Church will be shielded from error,” if on those many occasions when what appears to be the Church teaches error you can say, “Well, it wasn’t really the Church.” It’s the same kind of dodge as the Calvinist/Baptist “no believer falls away, because anyone who falls away was never a believer.”

If Jesus simply IS the Church, then it is kind of pointless to say that He is leading the Church. But if the Church is His Body, still in need of much guidance and purification, then it means a lot to say that he is leading us and will never abandon us.

Edwin

here is what Cardinal arinze says if you care to hear.

youtube.com/watch?v=-4qyL4pR0Rk&feature=related

 

[wisdomseeker]

here is another video on what happens to those who picks up the Bible and think they dont need the Church.

youtube.com/watch?v=Tw6TCu6LwAE

 

[Contarini]

here is what Cardinal arinze says if you care to hear.

youtube.com/watch?v=-4qyL4pR0Rk&feature=related

I can’t see that that’s remotely relevant to the present discussion, but it’s very disappointing anyway. It contradicts the impression I get from Vatican II and the Catechism. And it makes no sense. Why all this fear of “giving the impression that one form of worship is as good as another”? It looks like a confession of weakness. Why can’t Catholicism shine forth in the beauty of holiness without needing incessantly to put other churches down? In the past few decades Catholics have by and large taken the positive approach, and I admire you for it. But that seems to be changing, unfortunately. Admittedly, your worship practices have not done a good job of shining forth in the beauty of holiness–but why not renew your worship so that people can *see *the fullness of the Faith, even if they also attend other churches?

In other words, you put too much energy into insisting loudly that you are better, instead of trying to *be *better. It isn’t very convincing.

Edwin

 

[wisdomseeker]

I can’t see that that’s remotely relevant to the present discussion, but it’s very disappointing anyway. It contradicts the impression I get from Vatican II and the Catechism. And it makes no sense. Why all this fear of “giving the impression that one form of worship is as good as another”? It looks like a confession of weakness. Why can’t Catholicism shine forth in the beauty of holiness without needing incessantly to put other churches down? In the past few decades Catholics have by and large taken the positive approach, and I admire you for it. But that seems to be changing, unfortunately. Admittedly, your worship practices have not done a good job of shining forth in the beauty of holiness–but why not renew your worship so that people can *see *the fullness of the Faith, even if they also attend other churches?

In other words, you put too much energy into insisting loudly that you are better, instead of trying to *be *better. It isn’t very convincing.

Edwin

your impression about the VII is given by modernist and ecumaniacs who did not understand the teachings of VII. the Truth remains. we are not to mix Faith. it gives the impression that we approve their worship, but the CC doesnt. we are not all one like protestants wants to believe. there is one True Faith. it is not ok to be where you are. all are invited to come into the Church.

the sign of weakness is when we dissobey God and want to accept all kinds of untruths which we know. when Israel did this, they always got punished for it. so, it is with the Church. Jesus said: if he doesnt listen to the Church, treat him as a tax collector, a heretic. that is Jesus speaking. who am i to go against what Jesus said.

 

[rinnie]

I can’t see that that’s remotely relevant to the present discussion, but it’s very disappointing anyway. It contradicts the impression I get from Vatican II and the Catechism. And it makes no sense. Why all this fear of “giving the impression that one form of worship is as good as another”? It looks like a confession of weakness. Why can’t Catholicism shine forth in the beauty of holiness without needing incessantly to put other churches down? In the past few decades Catholics have by and large taken the positive approach, and I admire you for it. But that seems to be changing, unfortunately. Admittedly, your worship practices have not done a good job of shining forth in the beauty of holiness–but why not renew your worship so that people can *see *the fullness of the Faith, even if they also attend other churches?

In other words, you put too much energy into insisting loudly that you are better, instead of trying to *be *better. It isn’t very convincing.

Edwin

Well Edwin let me ask you this. How can you say that we are not trying to be better. Because I know speaking for myself and our RCC we are.

We are being called to answer our call personally from the Holy Spirit. We are now praying and asking the HS to guide us in Our Plan that God set out for us. How many will answer that call? I do not know.

I have answered it and have no idea if I will fail or succeed. But God know’s I personally have accepted the call asked of me. And I am scared to death but I am going to do it.

I am just not seeing myself as the one God choose to do his work this way. I do not feel good enough, Holy enough, I feel I am too hot headed, selfish, and too much of a sinner. But I will do what was asked of me. The Priest thinks I can and should so we will see. I would have never volunteered for this, thats for sure.

But my point is Edwin I AM trying to build up the Body Of Christ and let God use me now as he see’s fit. I will be putting my plan in to action soon actually.

I will be a changed person I am sure and ask for all of your prayers. Trust me I need them.
I will be attending retreats to establish an even more Spiritual relationship with God.

And you are right we did lose sight of the commn Priesthood of the Faithful. But thanks to Vatican II not No More

We are now asked to assume our proper roles in the Church again.

I mean, don’t get me wrong I know we are all called to do Gods work. I just did not realize we all had our role in the Church. Well here is how I see it. If God has a job for me, he has a job for others in the Church also. I am going to help them find their special calling too What do you think

 

[wisdomseeker]

I can’t see that that’s remotely relevant to the present discussion, but it’s very disappointing anyway. It contradicts the impression I get from Vatican II and the Catechism. And it makes no sense. Why all this fear of “giving the impression that one form of worship is as good as another”? It looks like a confession of weakness. Why can’t Catholicism shine forth in the beauty of holiness without needing incessantly to put other churches down? In the past few decades Catholics have by and large taken the positive approach, and I admire you for it. But that seems to be changing, unfortunately. Admittedly, your worship practices have not done a good job of shining forth in the beauty of holiness–but why not renew your worship so that people can *see *the fullness of the Faith, even if they also attend other churches?

**In other words, you put too much energy into insisting loudly that you are better, instead of trying to *be ***better. It isn’t very convincing.
Edwin

this is not about being better. it is a matter of authority. Jesus gives authority to One Church, but you want this authority to be gone. can the Church go against what God stablish? no, she cant. you think because you decide to make a church for yourselves, that the One Church no longer has authority.His Church will go until the end of times. which came first, your church or the CC? which ever came first is the one found by Christ and has authority in the world to speak for God. God is not going to change because somebody left the Church to build their own. God dosnt follow man, man follow God.
see if martin luther has authority to go out of hte Church and form his own theology, he put himself in authority, God didnt. this is not what God commanded. see, if henry the VIII have authority to go out of the CC and be the head of the Church. he made himself the head of the church in england. this is not what God has done. if the someone doesnt listen to the CC, he is no longer part of the Church.

there is a new evangelization. do you know what that means? i know that the Church doesnt call protestants today heretics, because they dont know they are being tought heresies. but Catholics are called to evangelize and speak the Truth to them.

 

[Contarini]

Well Edwin let me ask you this. How can you say that we are not trying to be better. Because I know speaking for myself and our RCC we are.

I apologize. That was an unfair and uncharitable remark on my part.

And in response to wisdomseeker–as a matter of fact I was building too much on the reference to “prayer in common” in the CCC. I went back and checked the passage from Unitatis Redintegratio which the CCC was citing, and it clearly envisions such public prayer together as an occasional practice dedicated specifically to prayer for unity, not as a regular participation in each other’s worship.

I continue to think that this attitude makes a mockery of the official recognition by the Catholic Church that we are imperfectly united to the Church, and of passages like this one, from UR 1.3:

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

Edwin