When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[GKC]

yes, she used to be a Catholic Church under Rome authority. but then, henry VIII decided to be the head of the Church so he could mary whomever he wanted to. so he took over the Catholic Church, killed his wife a devout Catholic, married another, took over the monasteries and killed any Catholic who did not submit to them. that has been quite awhile ago. but very much alive still. after that it became the church of england under the authority of the kings. do you see now what i am talking about. i am glad that so many anglicans are seeing the light and are coming back to what it once was.
i mean they are becoming Catholic again.

Nonono. Henry didn’t kill Catherine.

GKC

 

[agent_grey]

wrong question. You should be asking why Rome went wrong. We all know Rome has gone wrong. When is a pointless discussion. When can not be determined as you probabley weren’t even alive yet.

Why Rome went wrong is simple. Deviation from organic tradition. The day Rome began to practice the protestant religion is the day Rome went wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

The point I have been trying to make for a lot of posts now, with apparently no success (because you force everything back into your paradigm of “true Church/bad Catholics”), is that the problems in your Communion go way beyond individual “bad Catholics,” even Popes.

Ah. So you’re saying that the CC has not just had bad people in it, but it’s taught bad things? Like, “It’s good to persecute heretics!”

Can you cite a source for this? (Apologies if you’ve already done so, but I am busy at work and can only join in sporadically here.)

St. Thomas More didn’t persecute heretics because he was a “bad Catholic,” but because he was a good Catholic. If he had *not *persecuted heretics, he would have thought himself to be a bad Catholic.

Edwin

*What? * This example of St. Thomas More seems to prove exactly OUR point!! Because of the CC’s teaching–its orthodoxy–he did NOT persecute heretics–is that what you’re saying?

 

[guanophore]

Bear in mind that by definition, those of us who do not belong to the Roman Communion do not think that your Communion simply is the Catholic Church.

Do you feel that you are in communion with the other 22 Rites of the CC?

There’s no arguing with this kind of triumphalism, because of course you start with the premise that anything not found within your Communion is bad.

I know what you mean about the triumphalism. Many of us start with this premise because of our concept of Church. We believe in the infallibility of the Church because of her Divine Elements. Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the HS. Also there are the saints who are perfected forever, and kept thereby from sins.

Now, your phrase “within your Communion” I think refers to the portion of the Church that is here on earth. Clearly there are failures within our earthly communion. How can this be denied?

However, many of your fellow Catholics recognize that they have much to learn from other Christians, and even from non-Christians.

Indeed, had it not been for my separated brethren, I don’t think I would have learned to read the Scripture. It was at the Protestant Seminary that I first studied historical theology, discovered the Church fathers, and returned to the Apostolic Faith.

You could certainly learn something about liturgy from us. But of course you can make a distinction between liturgy and "Truth"--which just shows how inadequate your conception of truth is.

I confess that I have never been to one of your liturgies,but I can attest that I have witnessed a great deal of liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo. I have heard many Catholics say that they attended a Mass and did not even realize it was not “Roman” Catholic.

We certainly do not hold to the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

This is one of the factors that makes it seem like unification is imminent.

The discussion on this thread has demonstrated that you guys are the ones who believe in an invisible Church. I'm the one insisting that whatever the members of the Church do corporately is done by the Church. You are the ones saying that "the Church" is this ineffable reality that only acts on those rare occasions when leaders of the Church get it exactly right.

Well, we believe both - there is a visible church with a heirarchy and the power to legislate. Then there is the mystical body of Christ the composition of which none of us knows, only God.

 

[guanophore]

Ex.20
2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Or do you think that these laws were done away with (fulfilled?) in Christ. and now it’s OK to worship false gods like a church.

Do you believe Catholics “worship” the church?

 

[guanophore]

What is Protestantism?

Various levels of rejection of the Apostolic Teaching.

 

[seamusmohr]

If it’s so self-evident that England has always had its own independent church then why was the Reformation such a big deal in terms of bloody wars, civil conflicts, confiscation of property, and tumultuous social upheaval generally? If one didn’t know better one would think there had been something revolutionary about it.

The reformation in England was approx, 132 years long at least! There was a Civil War of some 11 years continuation, when the Anglican Church fought to defend the Church in England and the Apostolic Faith against Calvinism! It was a war of religion and the idea of the Separatists was to convert England in to a Presbyterian State similar to the one in Scotland. In the end the Anglicans and their Roman Catholic allies were beaten, the Church was banned, all were forbidden to practice its rites and its buildings and wealth were confiscated. The King was offered his life and wealth and throne back if he signed the Act, he was told this was the last discussion, he refused and some four months suffered execution on the 30th, Jan.1648/9. Being canonised on the return of the Church 1662. S. Charles the Martyr!
The Archbishop of Canterbury was also executed and a bishop kicked to death, whilst others were imprisoned, Bishop Wren refusing to take clemency from the enemies of Christ suffered 20yrs incarceration! One priest was hanged from the Church rafters whilst others , according to sources were sent as slaves to the Indies!

There was nothing of a social struggle about the conflict, it was a religious struggle.

 

[seamusmohr]

yes, she used to be a Catholic Church under Rome authority. but then, henry VIII decided to be the head of the Church so he could mary whomever he wanted to.

At the time of the Reformation , the Church in England had been a Catholic Church for some 1530 years. She was never under Rome, as you do say, she accepted the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils that gave the Bishop of Rome, a primacy of place and honour because the City was the capital city of the Empire and the Bishop of Rome was the Emperor’s parish priest!

so he took over the Catholic Church, killed his wife a devout Catholic, married another, took over the monasteries and killed any Catholic who did not submit to them. that has been quite awhile ago.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but both the French and the Germans confiscated religious houses, henry’s crime seems to be that he was thorough about the business. What you don’t mention is that most of the nobility and the gentry, Anglican, Roman Catholic and Calvinist enjoyed the proceeds and there was no queue to return them. Indeed the pope gave Mary permission to allow them to remain in private hands. In otherwords he colluded with the Tudor Monarchy!

after that it became the church of england under the authority of the kings. do you see now what i am talking about. i am glad that so many anglicans are seeing the light and are coming back to what it once was.
i mean they are becoming Catholic again.

If you read history you would find that the Church, throughout its existence either east or west, was always under the authority of Kings. Indeed the monarch was seen as God’s Vice Regent on a par with the Pope only] in the political sphere whilst the papacy looked after the religious side. Henry was Head of the Church only so far as the law of God allows. This had been the state of things in Britain, at least since the Anglo Saxon Heptarchy! {App.700.} The pope was also head of the Church in his capacity of Civil Ruler of large swathes of Northern Italy, this was down to 1870! What is the difference?

That many Anglicans ‘are seeing the light’ , as you put it, remains to be seen, but as for becoming," Catholic?" They are Catholics now, by baptism. What they are about to do is become poor quality Roman Catholics because they have accepted false teachings. I should imagine many of the members of the Church of Rome have been taught these error s from birth, they know no better. But the apostate Anglicans should know and understand the Catholic faith of the Undivided Church, they should know the truth and will be judged on their behaviour, apostacy?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Do you feel that you are in communion with the other 22 Rites of the CC?

I know what you mean about the triumphalism. Many of us start with this premise because of our concept of Church. We believe in the infallibility of the Church because of her Divine Elements. Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the HS. Also there are the saints who are perfected forever, and kept thereby from sins.

Now, your phrase “within your Communion” I think refers to the portion of the Church that is here on earth. Clearly there are failures within our earthly communion. How can this be denied?

Indeed, had it not been for my separated brethren, I don’t think I would have learned to read the Scripture. It was at the Protestant Seminary that I first studied historical theology, discovered the Church fathers, and returned to the Apostolic Faith.

I confess that I have never been to one of your liturgies,but I can attest that I have witnessed a great deal of liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo. I have heard many Catholics say that they attended a Mass and did not even realize it was not “Roman” Catholic.

This is one of the factors that makes it seem like unification is imminent.

Well, we believe both - there is a visible church with a heirarchy and the power to legislate. Then there is the mystical body of Christ the composition of which none of us knows, only God.

the Mystical body is the Catholic Church. all Catholics in communion with the pope.

 

[wisdomseeker]

At the time of the Reformation , the Church in England had been a Catholic Church for some 1530 years. She was never under Rome, as you do say, she accepted the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils that gave the Bishop of Rome, a primacy of place and honour because the City was the capital city of the Empire and the Bishop of Rome was the Emperor’s parish priest!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but both the French and the Germans confiscated religious houses, henry’s crime seems to be that he was thorough about the business. What you don’t mention is that most of the nobility and the gentry, Anglican, Roman Catholic and Calvinist enjoyed the proceeds and there was no queue to return them. Indeed the pope gave Mary permission to allow them to remain in private hands. In otherwords he colluded with the Tudor Monarchy!

If you read history you would find that the Church, throughout its existence either east or west, was always under the authority of Kings. Indeed the monarch was seen as God’s Vice Regent on a par with the Pope only] in the political sphere whilst the papacy looked after the religious side. Henry was Head of the Church only so far as the law of God allows. This had been the state of things in Britain, at least since the Anglo Saxon Heptarchy! {App.700.} The pope was also head of the Church in his capacity of Civil Ruler of large swathes of Northern Italy, this was down to 1870! What is the difference?

That many Anglicans ‘are seeing the light’ , as you put it, remains to be seen, but as for becoming," Catholic?" They are Catholics now, by baptism. What they are about to do is become poor quality Roman Catholics because they have accepted false teachings. I should imagine many of the members of the Church of Rome have been taught these error s from birth, they know no better. But the apostate Anglicans should know and understand the Catholic faith of the Undivided Church, they should know the truth and will be judged on their behaviour, apostacy?

no, what you are doing here is telling us that the Church is divided among many sects. not true. who do you think ordained bishops and priest and sent them to England? who evangelized england? just because the CC send bishops and priests to other parts of the world, they dont become separated sects of Christianity. Jesus said go into the whole world and teach all that i tought you. do you see? there is no divided Church. those who separated themselves from the CC, can no longer be called Catholics.
of course the situation in england is delicate one, since they had no choice but to embrace the heresies of the king under the penalty of death.

 

[GKC]

At the time of the Reformation , the Church in England had been a Catholic Church for some 1530 years. She was never under Rome, as you do say, she accepted the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils that gave the Bishop of Rome, a primacy of place and honour because the City was the capital city of the Empire and the Bishop of Rome was the Emperor’s parish priest!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but both the French and the Germans confiscated religious houses, henry’s crime seems to be that he was thorough about the business. What you don’t mention is that most of the nobility and the gentry, Anglican, Roman Catholic and Calvinist enjoyed the proceeds and there was no queue to return them. Indeed the pope gave Mary permission to allow them to remain in private hands. In otherwords he colluded with the Tudor Monarchy!

If you read history you would find that the Church, throughout its existence either east or west, was always under the authority of Kings. Indeed the monarch was seen as God’s Vice Regent on a par with the Pope only] in the political sphere whilst the papacy looked after the religious side. Henry was Head of the Church only so far as the law of God allows. This had been the state of things in Britain, at least since the Anglo Saxon Heptarchy! {App.700.} The pope was also head of the Church in his capacity of Civil Ruler of large swathes of Northern Italy, this was down to 1870! What is the difference?

That many Anglicans ‘are seeing the light’ , as you put it, remains to be seen, but as for becoming," Catholic?" They are Catholics now, by baptism. What they are about to do is become poor quality Roman Catholics because they have accepted false teachings. I should imagine many of the members of the Church of Rome have been taught these error s from birth, they know no better. But the apostate Anglicans should know and understand the Catholic faith of the Undivided Church, they should know the truth and will be judged on their behaviour, apostacy?

Not only do you keep saying that, incorrectly, re: Henry, but you get the phrase itself wrong. The words Convocation agreed to were “law of Christ.”. As I quoted above.

GKC

 

[rinnie]

rinnie, Remember I asked you whether you worshiped the CC to which you replied.

Now surely you can see that Jesus is saying basically the same thing here in Matt 25 that He said in Acts 9

Only this time instead of the church He identifies Himself as the least of the brethren. So, it would follow that you would also worship the least of the brethren right? So, I asked

Let me ask you rinnie do you believe the ten commandments are still valid? For instance.

Ex.20
2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Or do you think that these laws were done away with (fulfilled?) in Christ. and now it’s OK to worship false gods like a church.

---

In Christ Richard

Doing something for one another has nothing to do with breaking the commandments. Worshiping something in the place of God whether it be a church or the least of the brethren does.

I have heard Catholics say that the commandments were fulfilled in Christ and are no longer valid. Is this what you believe?

No. I said the church is a false god. If you worship it.

You said that you worshiped the CC rinnie. This is a false god.

What do you mean by the “old law”? Do you mean the ten commandments? And if you do. Do you think that the law to not worship other gods has been done away with?

Richard I will ask you again, Do you feel Jesus Christ is a false God? Yes or no.

Second what does the Old Law have to do with the New Law. It has nothing to do with the ten commandments.

How do you feel that us believing that the Jesus Christ is leading the Catholic Church through the power of the Holy Spirit worshiping a false God? Unless of course you claim that Jesus Christ is a false god. Which is it?

 

[JonNC]

Where do these 2 differ in their interpretation of Scripture, Jon?

There must be something, as they are not in full communion.
Jon

 

[rinnie]

He is not just saying to himself, as the present successor of Peter, but an unfailing practice of the Church from the beginning. Who is turning anything around? What people seem to want is for the successor of Peter to change that which was committed once for all to the Church.

He is saying that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women. And that if there were ever a woman that ought to be ordained, it was His Mother.

I don’t see how. It seems pretty plain…

However, this does also happen with the Scriptures, so I can see your point.

Your passion for the faith makes up a lot of ground.

It seems unlikely that this practice will change.

It is interesting that we get a lot of grief about the ordination of women, birth control, etc. when we appeal to this principle, but when we point out that we cannot add new doctrine for the same reason, we are told we are not following it.

He says pretty strongly that it has not happened, will not happen under himself, and that it does not appear that the Church has this authority (will ever happen)

Hi Quan, Sorry I was talking through you more then at you. I was agreeing 100% but what I was saying exactly what you were saying. But what my point is that quote that you wrote is exactly what they were talking about. They were acusing the Pope of Changing the teaching’s of the RCC. Trying to make him say something he never said.

What I was trying to show them is that in that quote the Pope never said that it WOULD not ever change, just that as far as he can see it won"t. Anotherwards from what he can see by ST and SS it will stay as it is. He cannot change thing’s on his own. And you are correct and I would like to elaborate on the word Church for a moment for Richard.

See Richard when we say the Church has the authority we mean that the Pope and Bishops speaking for the CHurch do not have the authority. If the Pope and Bishops speak with the authority of the CHURCH that mean with the authority of the Holy Spirit. Do you see it more clear now Richard? Thats another way of saying authority of God.

Richard thinks I worship the Church itself now because I call the CC The Living Christ. I am breaking a commandment now and making the Church a false God:shrug:

 

[PRmerger]

There must be something, as they are not in full communion.
Jon

It is my understanding that they are in essential agreement in all dogma/doctrine, save the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. (As far as the filioque–whatever. I mean, really, if that’s what we are not agreed upon, then…)

Didn’t Pope JPII speak of the “2 lungs–Eastern and Western” in the Body of Christ?

So the 30,000 different interpretations of Scripture comment still stands? The EOC and CC are in agreement, yes?

 

[Contarini]

Ah. So you’re saying that the CC has not just had bad people in it, but it’s taught bad things? Like, “It’s good to persecute heretics!”

Can you cite a source for this?

Sure. See condemned proposition 33 (bear in mind that these are things Luther taught which Leo is officially condemning). If you want to say that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, one can only say that it’s too bad no one explained this to Luther, who found himself threatened with official separation from the Church if he did not recant these errors.

For further confirmation, see the Acts of IV Lateran, Canon 3. For the theological basis for this, see Aquinas, ST II/II, Question 11, Art. 3. I think that these three texts together cover the bases. If you have any evidence showing that IV Lateran differed from the later opinions of Aquinas and Pope Leo in rejecting the death penalty, or that Aquinas’s view was non-representative of the later Middle Ages, or that Pope Leo’s encyclical should somehow be seen as just his private opinion–by all means let me know!

*What? * This example of St. Thomas More seems to prove exactly OUR point!! Because of the CC’s teaching–its orthodoxy–he did NOT persecute heretics–is that what you’re saying?

No. Sorry for the syntactical ambiguity. What I meant to say was: “It was not because St. Thomas More was a ‘bad Catholic,’ but because he was a ‘good Catholic,’ that he persecuted heretics.”

Here is an admission that More defended the persecution of heretics and in fact engaged in such persecution. Note the feeble effort to excuse him by saying that he wanted to get rid of “heresy” and not “heretics.” When you are getting rid of heresy by killing heretics–which the article admits is what More did as a government official–there isn’t any difference.

Again: while I have heard a liberal Catholic scholar accuse More of being a nasty, “inquisitorial” person (and feel bad to this day that I didn’t come up with a good response), the evidence of his character that we have indicates that he was personally very humane. This is my point: More’s reason for persecuting heretics was not that he was some kind of cruel, sadistic person, but that both the laws of England *and *the teaching of the Church as he understood it required him to behave this way.

The same is true of St. Thomas Aquinas, though unlike More Aquinas did not have a position that required him to take active part in persecution. Aquinas defended the killing of heretics, not surely because he was an uncharitable person but because that was what he understood the teaching of the Church to be.

All the mitigating factors that Catholic apologists often cite–the general moderation and restraint of the Inquisitorial courts, etc.,–actually work against you on this point. It just won’t do to say that More and Aquinas and Jacques Fournier (aka Pope Benedict XII) were “bad Catholics.” Pope Leo I’ll give you. Torquemada maybe we could argue about

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Do you feel that you are in communion with the other 22 Rites of the CC?

What you call the “Catholic Church,” we call the “Roman Communion.” It is a communion of particular churches within the Catholic Church. By your own admission, the Orthodox have apostolic succession and thus (we would say) are also in the Catholic Church.

I admit that our own case is different. For myself, I have said many times on this forum that I will join a united Catholic-Orthodox Church as soon as such an entity exists. I would gladly unite with the Orthodox Church if I could do so without breaking my relationship with the Christians with whom I presently worship, and I would willingly submit to Rome if (in addition to the previous condition) I could do so without signing on to those dogmas that divide you from the Orthodox.

I confess that I have never been to one of your liturgies,

I’m mixing you up with someone else, then. I thought you were an ex-Anglican!

but I can attest that I have witnessed a great deal of liturgical abuse in the Novus Ordo.

This mattered a lot when I was initially exploring Catholicism. I don’t know if “liturgical abuse” is the term I would use–I would just say that the local RC parish (I say “RC” deliberately because there was a wonderful Byzantine parish about a 45-minute drive away) did not express the Catholic Faith in certain respects as well as the local Episcopal church did. (Ironically, the rector of that Episcopal parish is no longer Episcopalian–he was in the ACA the last time I saw him.)

This is one of the factors that makes it seem like unification is imminent.

I wish you were right, but I’m afraid you are way too optimistic!

Well, we believe both - there is a visible church with a heirarchy and the power to legislate. Then there is the mystical body of Christ the composition of which none of us knows, only God.

But the point I’ve been making is that you guys aren’t willing to speak of the hierarchy as “the Church” consistently. In an extreme view (rinnie’s), it appears that the hierarchical institution is only the Church when it teaches infallibly (though I may have misunderstood rinnie). Most of you don’t go that far, but you still have a “bait-and-switch” situation in which the hierarchical institution *is *the Church when it teaches (except when the teaching is later recognized as erroneous, in which case I guess people thought it was the Church at the time but it really wasn’t), and perhaps when it makes wise pastoral decisions (something that, to be fair, was also suggested by rinnie), but not when it goofs up.

That is not really a “visible Church” by my definition. It’s a kind of transporter-malfunction church that phases in and out while Chief O’Brien (or Scotty if you’re an original-series purist) desperately punches at the controls.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

The point I have been trying to make for a lot of posts now, with apparently no success (because you force everything back into your paradigm of “true Church/bad Catholics”), is that the problems in your Communion go way beyond individual “bad Catholics,” even Popes.

Just to stick with the persecution issue, because it’s the obvious one: a lot of Catholics on this forum seem to want to believe (quite desperately) that there were these bad, power-hungry people (mostly in the government) who engaged in persecution, but “the Church” never taught that it was right. But that just won’t fly. St. Thomas More didn’t persecute heretics because he was a “bad Catholic,” but because he was a good Catholic. If he had *not *persecuted heretics, he would have thought himself to be a bad Catholic.

So please cut out the “bad Catholics” argument. That’s not what I’m talking about. I understand that my remark about the “gap” lent itself to that interpretation, but I was talking about things that are much more structural and corporate than some individual bad Catholics running around.

Edwin

But Edwin this has to fly because you have to realize what we are saying. Let me say this another way, in the world today right this minute. We have these nuts making bombs and killing us everywhere in the name of God. The God of Abraham Edwin. Thats our God too , We are blaming many Islams for this also, but many are very good quiet people. But lets get back to the God that Islam worships. ITs our God Edwin, and they feel its in his name do they not?

I mean lets face it Edwin Islam shares the OT and the NT and admits theoretically the same prophets as Judaism and Christianity but do not always agree with the same messages to them.

The Qur’an has great respect for Jesus and the Blessed Mother. They even actually believe the same as the Catholic faith that they were both never had original sin. But they do not understand the doctrine of Original sin they say Mary and Jesus alone have been preserved from unclean touch.

But back to my Point their God IS OUR GOD. SO who do we blame? The confused corrupted leaders of the Faith or do we blame their God. Do you see my point now. Our God is Jesus Christ the Catholic Church. Their God is The God of Abraham our Jesus CHrist the CC. So who do we blame them or God. What I am saying is THEY are saying GOD is telling them to do this. We know that God is not telling them this. Do we blame the leaders of Islam or their God? If we blame their God we are in more trouble then them.

 

[seamusmohr]

Not only do you keep saying that, incorrectly, re: Henry, but you get the phrase itself wrong. The words Convocation agreed to were “law of Christ.”. As I quoted above.

GKC

Well you are involved aren’t you?

 

[tomarin]

There was nothing of a social struggle about the conflict, it was a religious struggle.

I would say that’s an artificial distinction to make in dealing with this time period. When a king declares his own national church and confiscates the international church’s property and makes all the bishops sign an oath of loyalty to him, of course it’s supremely social and political as well as religious.

It seems you’re maintaining that Canterbury was never (or only occasionally) in communion with Rome prior to the Reformation. If so that’s a completely unhistorical fanatsy barring some vast conspiracy among professional historians.