When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[rinnie]

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

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.)

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

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

No Edwin but you are close REAL CLOSE. Here is what it is. If you are saying that your Pope or Bishops have made some really bad calls in the past and you want us to say pure and simple they screwed up. OKAY you got us.

But what we are saying when they say this is a TEACHING, IT is FORMAL. IT came from the Holy Spirit that’s it. It is forever.

Teaching Edwin, Discipline. Very different things. Tell me Edwin do you think that St Paul or St Peter ever screwed up? Do you think that they made bad decisions or perfect ones all of thier life. If they did we have another problem because that means when they became Apostles they became sinless and perfect.

It is when they stated IN GODS NAME they were perfect. And God said when it come to MY WORD. That is his teachings. He never said that there would not be bad decisions made, or bad leaders in the Church. He actually warned us it would happen. But he also said do not worry it will not bring down the CHurch. Which means God will always prevail from it. ANd look at the proof. No matter what people can say about HUMAN mistakes not one Person can say that when it comes to matters of teaching GODS word that Scripture is not taught correctly. Because you can never get one piece of scripture that was taught in God’s name which means a teaching and say it was interpreted incorrect to you. Thats what we are saying.

The CC has the FULLNESS OF THE TRUTH. That does not mean just because we as people who are part of Christ in this world DO IT. We fall from Grace at times. We all do,

But that is why I used Judas, Do you feel that because Judas fell from grace any teaching of CHrist he said made it less true. That is where you have to put your thinking when you think of Popes in the Pasts or bishops. Then you must look at Peter vs Judas. Peter fell also, But he confessed and what did Jesus do. Why did he give the CHurch to Peter. WOuld you have picked the one that betrayed you not once THREE times. But God did.

 

[Contarini]

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?

First of all, I am very glad to hear that you think Muslims worship our God. Many folks on this forum don’t agree!

I mean lets face it Edwin Islam shares the OT and the NT

Actually no. They believe that the OT and NT are both based on true divine revelation, but that in the form we use them they have been corrupted. Some Muslims emphasize the corruption, and some the essential truth, but all would hold to some form of this view.

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.

Rinnie,

You keep raising this issue of “blaming God.” But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that when people who appear to be sincere and devout practitioners of a religion do bad things in the name of that religion, the religion itself bears some of the blame. There is something wrong with it as it has been taught. Saying that I’m blaming God is a straw man.

And yes, I would apply this to Islam. I would say, with some qualifications, that someone like Osama bin Laden appears to be doing what he is doing because he is a good Muslim. He is a good Muslim of a particular, rather sectarian kind–the Hanbali school of Islamic law interpreted by Ibn Taymiyyah and then mutated into a murderous fundamentalism by Ibn Wahhab, further filtered through the prism of a troubled young Saudi’s reaction to the corruption of his society and what he perceives as infidel aggression, and influenced by other versions of “Salafi” Islam, the Shi’ite radicalism of Khomeini’s Iran, etc. In other words, contrary to what some of our local anti-Muslims claim, the Muslims who oppose Bin Laden are also doing so because they are good Muslims! But while Bin Laden is clearly going against certain aspects of mainstream Sunni teaching, and in that sense is a “bad Muslim,” it’s clear that he’s drawing on themes and teachings that *are *in the Qur’an and Islamic tradition. Muslims and pro-Muslim apologists who claim that what he is doing has nothing to do with Islam are just talking through their hats.

Another example: Mark Noll’s book America’s God shows how difficult it was for American Protestants in the 19th century to make a case against slavery from the Bible, given their literalist, sola scriptura hermeneutics. While we can all agree that slaveholders had personal sinful reasons for trying to find slavery in the Bible, we can’t just reduce their position to that. Given a literalist hermeneutic and an absence of any sense of development or trajectory in how we read the Bible, or any room for the Church to grow in its understanding of the original revelation, we do wind up with some difficulties in making a case for slavery as intrinsically evil. And that is a flaw, if not in the Bible then certainly in the way American Protestants of the 19th century were reading the Bible. (I’m liberal enough in my view of Scripture to say that when ancient Hebrews recorded that God said it was OK to treat non-Hebrews like property, that was a flaw in their understanding of God’s will. But I know that’s controversial, and it has taken me a long while to come to the point where I was willing to admit that.)

Or another example: the liberals who currently dominate my denomination argue that they are following Anglican principles. My conservative brothers and sisters scoff at this, and certainly the liberals are taking one strand of Anglicanism (generally not the healthiest strand, in my opinion) and absolutizing it. But they are, again, drawing on things that are actually in the tradition. They aren’t just being sinful human beings. They aren’t necessarily any more sinful, personally, than the rest of us. They are sincerely following what their particular theological tradition leads them to think is good.

This is a distinction we need to make consistently. We need to avoid saying that whenever people of *our *tradition goof up it’s just because they are sinful people, instead of facing the fact that there may be something in our tradition that is causing them to do so. If anything, we should be *more *inclined to take the “personal sin” approach when looking at the errors of people in other religious traditions, just as in interpersonal relations we should be more generous in our assumptions about other people’s motives than about our own.

But I applaud you for being consistent and giving Muslims the same out you claim for yourself. You are a generous and charitable person and I wish I were more like you!

God bless,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well you are involved aren’t you?

I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean, but it appears to be a sneer at GKC’s concern for accuracy.

No wonder, if you despise accuracy, that your posts bear little resemblance to reality and are hardly worth engaging seriously.

What’s the point of talking to someone who doesn’t care to get his facts straight?

Edwin

 

[seamusmohr]

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?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I don’t believe noting a distinction between removing “heresy” and “heretics” is feeble at all.

As I’m sure you know, Professor, choice of words/syntaxt/context etc are quite important indeed.

Saying:“The church is at war with* poverty*” is quite different than saying “The church is at war with the poor.”

Clearly, it was tragic indeed that in More’s time getting rid of heresy resulted in the killing of heretics.

 

[seamusmohr]

I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean, but it appears to be a sneer at GKC’s concern for accuracy.

No wonder, if you despise accuracy, that your posts bear little resemblance to reality and are hardly worth engaging seriously.

What’s the point of talking to someone who doesn’t care to get his facts straight?

Edwin

Edwin,

I note your comments.I care little for them however! I would rather yourself and the other poster continue playing your games on your own and leave me out of them!

 

[Contarini]

No Edwin but you are close REAL CLOSE. Here is what it is. If you are saying that your Pope or Bishops have made some really bad calls in the past and you want us to say pure and simple they screwed up.

No, I want you to say that the Church screwed up. I want you to say that the Church *is *a visible body of people rather than just some kind of mystical reality that occasionally speaks through the people.

But what we are saying when they say this is a TEACHING, IT is FORMAL. IT came from the Holy Spirit that’s it. It is forever.

That’s fine, but that’s not the point. The point is: is only the formal teaching the act of the Church, or is everything that the visible body of Catholics does an act of the Church?

Teaching Edwin, Discipline. Very different things. Tell me Edwin do you think that St Paul or St Peter ever screwed up? Do you think that they made bad decisions or perfect ones all of thier life.

Again, not the point. The point is that when, say, the Jerusalem Council made decisions on behalf of the whole Christian community, that was an act *of the Church. *And it would have been an act of the Church even if they had made the wrong decision.

No matter what people can say about HUMAN mistakes not one Person can say that when it comes to matters of teaching GODS word that Scripture is not taught correctly.

Yes, that’s what you claim.

The CC has the FULLNESS OF THE TRUTH. That does not mean just because we as people who are part of Christ in this world DO IT.

But you don’t *teach it, *either. Exsurge Domine does *not *express the fullness of the truth about how Catholics should treat heretics.

With all due respect, I still don’t think you have grasped what my criticism is. I’m not saying that the sins of Popes prove Catholicism false. I’m saying that when Popes or Councils took either doctrinal or disciplinary decisions on behalf of the visible body of Catholic Christians, *or *when certain beliefs or practices were tacitly accepted throughout that body even without a formal decision, these actions or beliefs must be ascribed to the Church whether they were good or bad.

Please, if you’re going to respond to me, respond to this. I’m not talking about a Pope getting drunk or having a mistress. I’m talking about collective, official actions and/or commonly accepted beliefs and practices.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

I note your comments.I care little for them however! I would rather yourself and the other poster continue playing your games on your own and leave me out of them!

Then just with whom do you think you are communicating? GKC and I are probably more sympathetic to your position than most of the folks on this forum! (GKC much more than I am, in fact.)

If GKC, a traditional Anglo-Catholic, finds what you are saying bogus, then who do you think will believe you?

You’re basically talking to yourself. Except that you are giving the RC’s a very bad example of Anglicanism, and that concerns both of us.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I am indeed aghast that proposition 33 states that Luther must recant his “error”: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

That being said, I don’t see anywhere in the papal bull where it says, “It is our teaching of the faith that heretics be burned at the stake.” I believe it was a “terrible decision” (see quote below) but not a teaching of the faith. Not orthodoxy.

I find this from Mark Shea (bold mine) quite helpful:

The basic point is that infallibility is actually a very modest claim, despite appearances. It essentially means that the Catholic Church is populated by nothing but screwups and without the special action of the Holy Spirit, the revelation of Christ would have been lost a half an hour after Pentecost. All it guarantees is that the revelation will not be lost, that the Church will not define as essential Catholic teaching something that is not true. It leaves the Pope and the rest of the Church free to sin, to screwup,* to make terrible decisions,** and to majorly blow it in huge ways, including persecution of Jews, forged Donations of Constantine, dumb liturgical changes, corrupt political alliances and all the rest of the parade of bad things done by Catholics*

 

[Contarini]

I am indeed aghast that proposition 33 states that Luther must recant his “error”: That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

That being said, I don’t see anywhere in the papal bull where it says, “It is our teaching of the faith that heretics be burned at the stake.” I believe it was a “terrible decision” (see quote below) but not a teaching of the faith. Not orthodoxy.

And this is where I think Catholics are dodging. If the Pope can issue an encyclical saying that a certain view cannot be contradicted by anyone who wants to remain in communion with the Catholic Church, then as far as I’m concerned that is what the Catholic Church was teaching at that point. And if you so define things that this isn’t really Church teaching, even though people at the time would have assumed that it was, then as far as I’m concerned your position is “dying the death of a thousand qualifications.”

I’m fine with you saying that it isn’t infallible Church teaching–but it follows from that that certain things on which conservative Catholics insist today, like the impossibility of women’s ordination, might turn out not to be infallible either!

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

And this is where I think Catholics are dodging. If the Pope can issue an encyclical saying that a certain view cannot be contradicted by anyone who wants to remain in communion with the Catholic Church, then as far as I’m concerned that is what the Catholic Church was teaching at that point. And if you so define things that this isn’t really Church teaching, even though people at the time would have assumed that it was, then as far as I’m concerned your position is “dying the death of a thousand qualifications.”

I’m fine with you saying that it isn’t infallible Church teaching–but it follows from that that certain things on which conservative Catholics insist today, like the impossibility of women’s ordination, might turn out not to be infallible either!

Edwin

I’m not saying “it’s not infallible Church teaching.” I’m saying it’s not even a *teaching, *at all, Edwin.

I find it curious that you are professing an inability to see the nuance in this discussion. There is no “dodging” going on here. I feel like I’m having a discussion with a Muslim who’s telling me “You SAY that you believe in only one God, but your Church teaches that there’s actually 3 persons.”

 

[Contarini]

I’m not saying “it’s not infallible Church teaching.” I’m saying it’s not even a *teaching, *at all, Edwin.

I find it curious that you are professing an inability to see the nuance in this discussion. There is no “dodging” going on here. I feel like I’m having a discussion with a Muslim who’s telling me “You SAY that you believe in only one God, but your Church teaches that there’s actually 3 persons.”

But it would be legitimate for the Muslim to say, “I recognize that *you *think you can believe in three persons and one God, but I reject that distinction.”

I see the nuance fine. Frankly, you are the one who keeps ignoring my nuance by speaking as if I were claiming that the teaching is infallible. I know you don’t think it’s infallible. I know that the issue between us is whether it is a teaching of the Church at all. And I’m saying that for you to say that a condemnation in a papal encyclical, backed by centuries of theological opinion and the decrees of councils, and reflecting what was universally considered to be Catholic teaching at the time, is “not Catholic teaching” is a dodge pure and simple.

You can’t just create a distinction and then demand that everyone recognize it. We have the right to say “we don’t think this is a valid distinction, because you are just making it up to get yourself out of an untenable position.” It is up to you to convince me that the distinction makes sense.

I find Catholic apologists frequently making this mistake. They accuse Protestants of “misinterpreting” Catholicism with regard to dulia and latria, for instance, and that’s no doubt true in many cases–but there are Protestants, especially of the Reformed tradition, who understand the distinction quite well but simply don’t think it’s a valid one. One of the big flaws in contemporary Catholic apologetics is the dogged insistence that most Protestant objections to Catholicism are just “misunderstandings.” This is an understandable mistake given how many Protestants *do *misunderstand Catholicism. But it’s frustrating when you keep insisting this against someone like myself who has spent years trying to understand Catholicism and *still *thinks some of the distinctions just don’t work.

(Note: the dulia/latria one is not one of those–I accept that distinction but used this as an example.)

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

No, I want you to say that the Church screwed up. I want you to say that the Church *is *a visible body of people rather than just some kind of mystical reality that occasionally speaks through the people.

That’s fine, but that’s not the point. The point is: is only the formal teaching the act of the Church, or is everything that the visible body of Catholics does an act of the Church?

Again, not the point. The point is that when, say, the Jerusalem Council made decisions on behalf of the whole Christian community, that was an act *of the Church. *And it would have been an act of the Church even if they had made the wrong decision.

Yes, that’s what you claim.

But you don’t *teach it, *either. Exsurge Domine does *not *express the fullness of the truth about how Catholics should treat heretics.

With all due respect, I still don’t think you have grasped what my criticism is. I’m not saying that the sins of Popes prove Catholicism false. I’m saying that when Popes or Councils took either doctrinal or disciplinary decisions on behalf of the visible body of Catholic Christians, *or *when certain beliefs or practices were tacitly accepted throughout that body even without a formal decision, these actions or beliefs must be ascribed to the Church whether they were good or bad.

Please, if you’re going to respond to me, respond to this. I’m not talking about a Pope getting drunk or having a mistress. I’m talking about collective, official actions and/or commonly accepted beliefs and practices.

Edwin

Okay Edwin then I CAN"t. See you are asking me to say that I do not believe that the RCC is The Real Jesus Christ on this earth. I can’t do it. If I believed that I could not be a RC.

I believe that Jesus never left. I know he is here and alive and well in the Eucharist. That another MAIN reason I am Catholic. Because I know when that Priest breaks the bread and wine it becomes the living Christ. I know I need that body and bread to gain eternal life.

I yes I believe all of the Teaching’s of the CC. Every single one of them. And if the Pope said today this was revealed to me by the Power of the Holy Spirit then so be it. He cannot lie about that Jesus promised,

So to make it simple for the Pope or Bishop’s who speak in his name (which as I said is the RCC) say something in God’s name and it is not true, then they overpowered God. And that is not possible. Jesus said I will give you the words, I will be with you until the end of time.

If the Pope teaches something in Gods name, and he lied, then the devil took over and beat God. ITs as simple as that. It is not possible!!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

[SIGN]But it would be legitimate [/SIGN]for the Muslim to say, “I recognize that *you *think you can believe in three persons and one God, but I reject that distinction.”

I see the nuance fine. Frankly, you are the one who keeps ignoring my nuance by speaking as if I were claiming that the teaching is infallible. I know you don’t think it’s infallible. I know that the issue between us is whether it is a teaching of the Church at all. And I’m saying that for you to say that a condemnation in a papal encyclical, backed by centuries of theological opinion and the decrees of councils, and reflecting what was universally considered to be Catholic teaching at the time, is “not Catholic teaching” is a dodge pure and simple.

You can’t just create a distinction and then demand that everyone recognize it. We have the right to say “we don’t think this is a valid distinction, because you are just making it up to get yourself out of an untenable position.” It is up to you to convince me that the distinction makes sense.

I find Catholic apologists frequently making this mistake. They accuse Protestants of “misinterpreting” Catholicism with regard to dulia and latria, for instance, and that’s no doubt true in many cases–but there are Protestants, especially of the Reformed tradition, who understand the distinction quite well but simply don’t think it’s a valid one. One of the big flaws in contemporary Catholic apologetics is the dogged insistence that most Protestant objections to Catholicism are just “misunderstandings.” This is an understandable mistake given how many Protestants *do *misunderstand Catholicism. But it’s frustrating when you keep insisting this against someone like myself who has spent years trying to understand Catholicism and *still *thinks some of the distinctions just don’t work.

(Note: the dulia/latria one is not one of those–I accept that distinction but used this as an example.)

Edwin

No Edwin it would not. Because that is not what Jesus said. That is what they are saying. It is not Gods words that are spoken it is their words. In order for them to back it up they would have to have Tradtion and SS. They don’t. Thats how we know it is not true.

If it were true it would be a OFFICIAL TEACHING of the RCC. Its not!

 

[Contarini]

Okay Edwin then I CAN"t.

You can’t what? You can’t respond to what I am actually saying?

See you are asking me to say that I do not believe that the RCC is The Real Jesus Christ on this earth.

No, I’m asking you to defend your belief against what I am actually saying instead of something quite different!

I can’t do it. If I believed that I could not be a RC.

I’m not at all sure that your Church requires you to believe that the Church is simply to be identified with Jesus. I think there’s room for more nuance than that. But don’t take my word for it.

I believe that Jesus never left. I know he is here and alive and well in the Eucharist. That another MAIN reason I am Catholic. Because I know when that Priest breaks the bread and wine it becomes the living Christ. I know I need that body and bread to gain eternal life.

And just to keep things clear–I entirely agree with what you say in this paragraph!

Indeed, one of the reasons I do not become Catholic is that I believe the same thing about Anglicanism, for all its flaws. (Not that I have to be Anglican to enjoy the Real Presence, but that I am in fact receiving Jesus in the sacraments I receive in the Episcopal Church.)

You really don’t seem that interested in addressing the point I’m trying to make. Which is fine

God bless,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

No Edwin it would not. Because that is not what Jesus said. That is what they are saying. It is not Gods words that are spoken it is their words. In order for them to back it up they would have to have Tradtion and SS. They don’t. Thats how we know it is not true.

So you’re saying that the leaders of the Catholic Church teach various things, and you check them against Tradition and Scripture to see if they are true. If your own judgment leads you to believe that they are true, then you accept that they are teachings of the Church. If it doesn’t, then you don’t?

I don’t necessarily have a problem with this, but it’s much more “Protestant” than what I usually hear from the Catholics on these forums, and I want to make sure that it’s what you are actually saying.

Edwin

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

When it comes to the Church there is no WE here. Do you see what I am saying.

To an extent, yes–it seems to me you are invoking a formula along the lines of “not me, but Christ in me.” But this formula is much more complex than you give it credit for–and one of the things it does not say is that we are obliterated in our relationship with Christ. If you’re seeking obliteration as the summit of Christian hope, you may actually want to consider becoming a Buddhist.

“Not me, but Christ in me” is (among other things!) a recognition of the emptiness of the self without God, the emptiness of the energies of the passions that have not been converted by grace into virtue, and our need to rely utterly on God if we are to “do” anything worthy. It is a confession that we are refusing to mutilate the image of God in us, that we are refusing to assert ourselves over Christ in us, that we are welcoming the work of the Spirit to conform us to what God has actually made us to be. It is the confession of the Spirit of adoption which, perhaps more succinctly, cries out “Abba! Father!”

So I’m still a bit perplexed by your argument. The Mystical Body of Christ implies that we are called to be Christ in the world–that becoming part of this body, becoming Church, is an acceptance of this high calling which will be accomplished in us as our false, socially constructed and fallen selves diminish and Christ increases. Being Church is not a black/white proposition, but a movement of becoming. It is not: “here are sinners, and there is Christ who also happens to be the Church who sometimes speaks through sinners at which point they are the Church, too.” It is: “Here are sinners being sanctified by the grace of the Spirit and here is Christ, their hope, and these sinners and this savior are one by grace in Christ’s own mystical body through the power of the Spirit–and this is the Church.” The reality of the Church is not only the reality of Christ*,* but is the reality of Christ in us. We are the healing hands of Christ in the world. The reality of the Church speaks to the Mystery of the Incarnation–two natures joined in one person. The Church is this great mystery writ large over the whole of creation, revealing that the Church is the fulfillment of that creation which, at the end of all things, is fully revealed as the Bride of God.

In other words, the Church is not Christ with an earthly mouthpiece or with many mouthpieces, nor is it Christ in the form of an institution, canon law, or culture. Which is, essentially, what I hear you saying. An institution, canon law, or a culture are not worthy of worship, however noble they might be and however much they are part of what it means to be Church here in the Church Militant. The Church is, as the post-communion prayer says, “…the mystical body of thy Son, the blessed company of all faithful people…heirs through hope of thy everlasting kingdom.” If we are to worship the Church as Christ, or, if I might rephrase your intention, Christ in the Church, you must worship Christ in your fellow Christians (this is also what Paul means when he speaks of recognizing the Body at the Mass)! Not as an institution, a culture, or a law. We are the body of Christ. By the loving grace of God, we *can, *in fact, speak of a we here. At the risk of sounding insulting, an ecclesiology which denies the we in the Church is a bankrupt ecclesiology. And I daresay, that sort of bankrupt ecclesiology is not in fact the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church or any other Christian Church or Communion in this world.

Which means that, by the gift of free will, we are in fact free to cooperate with grace or to obstruct it. We are, in fact, empowered by grace to do God’s will or to reject it. We can be co-creators (as the naming of the animals in paradise and the healing works of the apostles show), we can also attempt to be destroyers. As members of the Body of Christ, it is possible for us to fail in our high calling and so to wound the Body or obstruct the work of the Body. When this happens, does the Church fail? I.e. does the Reality into which we are living fail? No. But do we fail as Church? Yes. Is it possible to institutionally, culturally, or legislatively fail as Church? I.e., is it possible for Anglican policy to fail to fully embody the gospel? Yes. Is it possible for Roman Catholic law to fail to embody the gospel? Yes. Can the Church here on earth fail in its administration of the Sacraments? Yes. When these failures occur, we, as Church, are responsible for failing to live into the Reality to which we are called. This failure is possible because we are in a state of becoming–our being is in becoming. Which is, in fact, what the phrase “Church Militant” implies. It’s a complex point–but in short, does the Church Triumphant fail? No. Does the Church Militant fail? Yes. Does the Church in Purgatory fail? It has, but does not. But all three are ONE CHURCH, ONE BODY. Can, then, the Church fail? Yes! But asked a different way : can the Church fail? No!

So, to me, the formula, “Not me, but Christ in me” to which you seem to be referring is slightly more involved than what you have written suggests.

Under the Mercy!
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

But it would be legitimate for the Muslim to say, “I recognize that *you *think you can believe in three persons and one God, but I reject that distinction.”

I see the nuance fine. Frankly, you are the one who keeps ignoring my nuance by speaking as if I were claiming that the teaching is infallible. I know you don’t think it’s infallible. I know that the issue between us is whether it is a teaching of the Church at all. And I’m saying that for you to say that a condemnation in a papal encyclical, backed by centuries of theological opinion and the decrees of councils, and reflecting what was universally considered to be Catholic teaching at the time, is “not Catholic teaching” is a dodge pure and simple.

You can’t just create a distinction and then demand that everyone recognize it. We have the right to say “we don’t think this is a valid distinction, because you are just making it up to get yourself out of an untenable position.” It is up to you to convince me that the distinction makes sense.

I[SIGN] find Catholic apologists frequently making this mistake. They accuse Protestants of “misinterpreting” Catholicism with regard to dulia and latria,[/SIGN] for instance, and that’s no doubt true in many cases–but there are Protestants, especially of the Reformed tradition, who understand the distinction quite well but simply don’t think it’s a valid one. One of the big flaws in contemporary Catholic apologetics is the dogged insistence that most Protestant objections to Catholicism are just “misunderstandings.” This is an understandable mistake given how many Protestants *do *misunderstand Catholicism. But it’s frustrating when you keep insisting this against someone like myself who has spent years trying to understand Catholicism and *still *thinks some of the distinctions just don’t work.

(Note: the dulia/latria one is not one of those–I accept that distinction but used this as an example.)

Edwin

There you go. You are again blaming the Church, (GOD) for what Catholic apologists do. It it an official teaching that we said, and claimed is from God and is his infallible word you disagree with? If so state it!

 

[Contarini]

There you go. You are again blaming the Church, (GOD) for what Catholic apologists do. It it an official teaching that we said, and claimed is from God and is his infallible word you disagree with? If so state it!

Actually I did not do that in that case. I did not say that “the Church” did this, because I know that these apologists are acting on their own initiative.

Please do respond to what I am actually saying. I respect your sincerity and zeal, but the conversation becomes a lot longer and more involved than it needs to be because you keep responding to things that I never said.

I do think that this tendency on the part of Catholic apologists stems from the things that the Catholic Church *does *teach about itself. In short: because I see the Church as an actual, visible body of people, I don’t make the absolute, ontological distinction between the Church and its members that Catholics appear to do.

Edwin

 

[wisdomseeker]

So you’re saying that the leaders of the Catholic Church teach various things, and you check them against Tradition and Scripture to see if they are true. If your own judgment leads you to believe that they are true, then you accept that they are teachings of the Church. If it doesn’t, then you don’t?

I don’t necessarily have a problem with this, but it’s much more “Protestant” than what I usually hear from the Catholics on these forums, and I want to make sure that it’s what you are actually saying.

Edwin

the problem here is that you see the Church through the eyes of anglicanism. it is not so with us. we know the Church and what she is, and you dont.

it is fruitless discussion trying to make someone who is a not a Catholic to view the Church as we see.

your church has no authority, the CC does. she is been here for 2000 and your church is split from the CC. it is silly to think that your church have authority to determine what the CC is and what she is not.

you defend individualism, separated churches all over the place. it is not so. it has always been one Church. that is why Jesus said: if thy does not hear you, take it to the Church. what Church? obviously the One He found. One Truth and not many.

there is no Eucharist in protestant churches. they are not valid ordained.