When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[PRmerger]

Religion; certainly not man at his best and thanks for the excellent exposition of that point. What is great about Jesus is that He is just, in the most humble of ways, a one on one personal God who loves His own to the death. Who are His own?

One ought to not disparage religion as a whole.

Religion comes from the Latin word, religiare, which means “relationship”. So to say “religion is bad” but “a relationship with Christ is good” is a nonsensical paradigm.

 

[rinnie]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t quite know where you’re getting this, rinnie, but I do in fact see that we become one in Christ and with Christ in the Eucharist.

Perhaps you’re casting about for reasons why I don’t think exactly as you do because I’m very happy to believe in the paradox of a Church that is both fallible and perfect because it is comprised of fallible people and the perfect Christ. I don’t find this way of thinking problematic in the least. But it appears you do. I’ll say it again: if we are not also part of the Church, then there is no Church. A Church that is just Jesus is, by definition, not a Church to which we can belong. A Church that is just us is not a Church worth belonging to.

I see this very clearly, actually. The Spirit is at work in the Church to conform us to Christ.

Yes! It is!

Indeed! Absolutely–it is not because of us that the Church teaches anything correctly, but because of Christ. Notwithstanding, we, in all of our imperfection, are still part of the Church!

I’ve forgotten no such thing. I absolutely agree that the sacraments are the principle (though I cannot say exclusive) means of grace by which the Spirit works in the Church.

Here, I think, is where we differ most. Sin is a disease. Christ is our physician. We are all inmates in the great and holy hospital of the Church. If we come to love our illness more than our cure, then we seek to avoid the hospital, and we long to fall off the vine.

I think you’re putting words in my mouth, here. Never once did I express such a belief. Nor will I. The branch may be ill, but never the vine. This is also part of the point I’ve been making and is perhaps worth repeating: the branch may be ill, but never the vine. But because the vine cannot be ill, it does not follow that we can ignore or deny the illness of the branches!

The Church remains holy! And yet, by God’s grace, it includes a sinner like me!

People can fall from grace, indeed. And indeed, the Church is Christ teaching the Apostles through the power of the Spirit. I do not believe Christ fails in his teaching. But I believe we fail in the implementation of it, I believe we fail in the living of it, I believe we mitigate it because we don’t want to hear it sometimes. And all of these failures we have often tried to pass off as good things, as also holy things, despite the fact that they are not. And we, as a Church, have preached them and taught them as such. And insofar as a branch of the Church continues to preach and teach those things that are not good or not holy as if they were good and holy, then it is erring.

Edwin has referenced the example of the Roman Catholic teaching that it was appropriate to persecute and destroy heretics. I find it difficult to believe that this is, in fact, the teaching of Christ. But your ecclesiology would say that it is, or it would say that that’s not really church teaching. But, the fact is, it was! You explain it away by ignoring it as being evidence of anything apart from people being bad catholics, when, as Edwin has pointed out, good catholics believed that it was incumbent upon them as good catholics to persecute and destroy heretics. If the Church did not actually teach that this was good, why would these people believe it, and why would the visible Church support them in their endeavors?

Rinnie, it is no challenge to my faith in the oneness, holiness, catholicness, or apostolicness of the Church to believe that the Church is made up of Christ and us, and, because of who we are, we sometimes get it wrong. I believe that when we get it wrong, we are corrected, because the Spirit is at work in the Church. As such, I believe that the Reformation, for instance, was a work of the Holy Spirit. I realize you may not so believe. That we can get it wrong, however, does not mean that the Church is doomed. It does not mean that the Church is soiled or unholy. It means that the Church is still growing into the fullness of Christ. And there are growing pains. That’s all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

See here is where I do not understand what you are saying and how you could possible say what you are saying. First you say that yes you totally believe that the Holy Spirit is indeed alive and well and at work in the Church.

Then you turn around and say that the same SPirit that is at work in the Church will turn around and teach a different truth! How is what possible? How could the Holy Spirit possibly have been leadng the CC and then turn around and that Same Holy Spirit lead us away from the fullness of the truth.

THe Holy Spirit is either A the Holy Catholic Church. OR B then it never existed. Because the Holy Spirit either led the Church beginning at Pentecost or it didn’t. To say that the Holy Spirit leads the Church and we also lead it makes no sense to me. Jesus said he would lead the Church by the Power of the Holy Spirit until the end of time. Now if this was true with the reformation that you feel was a good thing either Jesus lied to us and the Holy SPirit led us into a lie, or The Church is led by the Holy SPirit always have been, and People left the Church not the Holy Spirit. ANd as God says it is still there as I believe until the end of age.

SO whats it gonna be?

 

[JonNC]

Which “Church” Jon? The Catholic Church or Luther or JW or Mormon? The proper term should be “religion” in the context of my thinking.

Well, Pat, the religion is Christian, though I think belief in the incarnation and Trinity are necessary to be categorized as such.
I view the Church the same way the Lutheran Confessions does:

Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

To which, I consider the Catholic Church to be a part of it. And since I believe the seven ecumenical councils of the early Church to be authoritative, I’m still wondering why you think the Church has been wrong since day 1?

Jon

 

[rinnie]

Deo, Also I do not understand how you can say that Yes you believe that we can become one in Christ through the Eucharist, then claim that if the Church is just that Jesus it is not a Church we can belong. I don’t understand. You either believe we can become one in Christ or we can’t.

Second you said that the Church is led by Us AND Christ and if I agree with that them we are doomed. Yep thats exactly what I believe. Because if the we are led by US and CHRIST then that is a direct contradiction of Scripture.

Where did Christ tell the Apostles that we will both lead the Church? I sure never found that scripture. I found the one though that said that I will sent the Advocate the Holy Spiri to guide you into all truth. I never saw this WE deal. Second if that is true why did Jesus say I WILL GIVE YOU THE WORDS? Where did he say we will both do what we feel is the right thing. How could the Church have the fullness of the truth if the Apostles did what they thought? Then how could the Church be the infallible word of God? It could not. But we know that by the promise from GOd that HE would give the Apostles the words, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to know the HE was God. And when he said I would give you the words they would indeed be infallible. So no your logic makes no sense to me whatsoever. It actually contradicts the word of God completely.

Do you not understand that when we become one in Christ through the Eucharist we cannot do this when we are in a state of sin. You seem to feel that you can be a part of the Living Christ when we are sinners. That is not what the word of God claims.

The word of God is when you are in sin you are cut off from the Church which is Christ. Then you must confess your sins and be given forgivness from Christ through the Church leaders who he apointed. Then once you are given forgiveness you can once again become a part of Christ in the Eucharist. That is why you cannot accept the Eucharist when you are in a state of Mortal sin.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][SIGN][/SIGN][/SIGN]

Grace & Peace!

I don’t quite know where you’re getting this, rinnie, but I do in fact see that we become one in Christ and with Christ in the Eucharist.

Perhaps you’re casting about for reasons why I don’t think exactly as you do because I’m very happy to believe in the paradox of a Church that is both fallible and perfect because it is comprised of fallible people and the perfect Christ. I don’t find this way of thinking problematic in the least. But it appears you do. I’ll say it again: if we are not also part of the Church, then there is no Church. A Church that is just Jesus is, by definition, not a Church to which we can belong. A Church that is just us is not a Church worth belonging to.

I see this very clearly, actually. The Spirit is at work in the Church to conform us to Christ.

Yes! It is!

Indeed! Absolutely–it is not because of us that the Church teaches anything correctly, but because of Christ. Notwithstanding, we, in all of our imperfection, are still part of the Church!

I’ve forgotten no such thing. I absolutely agree that the sacraments are the principle (though I cannot say exclusive) means of grace by which the Spirit works in the Church.

Here, I think, is where we differ most. Sin is a disease. Christ is our physician. We are all inmates in the great and holy hospital of the Church. If we come to love our illness more than our cure, then we seek to avoid the hospital, and we long to fall off the vine.

I think you’re putting words in my mouth, here. Never once did I express such a belief. Nor will I. The branch may be ill, but never the vine. This is also part of the point I’ve been making and is perhaps worth repeating: the branch may be ill, but never the vine. But because the vine cannot be ill, it does not follow that we can ignore or deny the illness of the branches!

The Church remains holy! And yet, by God’s grace, it includes a sinner like me!

People can fall from grace, indeed. And indeed, the Church is Christ teaching the Apostles through the power of the Spirit. I do not believe Christ fails in his teaching. But I believe we fail in the implementation of it, I believe we fail in the living of it, I believe we mitigate it because we don’t want to hear it sometimes. And all of these failures we have often tried to pass off as good things, as also holy things, despite the fact that they are not. And we, as a Church, have preached them and taught them as such. And insofar as a branch of the Church continues to preach and teach those things that are not good or not holy as if they were good and holy, then it is erring.

Edwin has referenced the example of the Roman Catholic teaching that it was appropriate to persecute and destroy heretics. I find it difficult to believe that this is, in fact, the teaching of Christ. But your ecclesiology would say that it is, or it would say that that’s not really church teaching. But, the fact is, it was! You explain it away by ignoring it as being evidence of anything apart from people being bad catholics, when, as Edwin has pointed out, good catholics believed that it was incumbent upon them as good catholics to persecute and destroy heretics. If[SIGN] the Church did not actually teach that this was good, why would these people believe it, and why would the visible Church support them in their endeavors?[/SIGN]
Rinnie, it is no challenge to my faith in the oneness, holiness, catholicness, or apostolicness of the Church to believe that the Church is made up of Christ and us, and, because of who we are, we sometimes get it wrong. I believe that when we get it wrong, we are corrected, because the Spirit is at work in the Church. As such, I believe that the Reformation, for instance, was a work of the Holy Spirit. I realize you may not so believe. That we can get it wrong, however, does not mean that the Church is doomed. It does not mean that the Church is soiled or unholy. It means that the Church is still growing into the fullness of Christ. And there are growing pains. That’s all.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

You tell me. And please show me where this was ever a Teaching of the Church. Now you claim that Edwin says that this is a Church teaching to persecute
and destroy heretics. Show me where this was a teaching of the Church. And remember the next sentence we have the promise any teaching of the Church is taught by God and will not error. So if this was a teaching of the Church why are there heretics today? Why are we disobeying our CHurch and not destroying and persecuting them? Are you saying we disobey the CC? Or would you have to recant and say that this indeed is not a Church teaching? Because I have been RC all of my Life and was never taught this as a teaching of Christ. Why was this not taught to me then? A teaching never changes remember? So now what?

Isa. 35"8 54:13-17 says that the Church will be taught by God and will not error. The Church has the gift of Infallibility. WHere does it state in that scriputure that the Church will have growing pains?

Matt 10:19 The gift of authority to bound on earth requires infallibility. The gift of the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the holliness of the Person receiving the gift.

Matt 18:17-18 The CHURCH not scripture is the final authority on questions of the faith.

Matt 28:20 Jesus Promises to be with the Church always. His presence assures the infallible teaching on faith and morals.

Luke 22:32 Jesus prays for Peter not to fail. Jesus’ prayers is perfectly efficacious and allows Peter to teach without error.

P.S. Rather we fail in the teachings of the Church has nothing to do with the Church failing in its teachings. You still make no sense to me. Sorry.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

See here is where I do not understand what you are saying and how you could possible say what you are saying. First you say that yes you totally believe that the Holy Spirit is indeed alive and well and at work in the Church.

Then you turn around and say that the same SPirit that is at work in the Church will turn around and teach a different truth! How is what possible? How could the Holy Spirit possibly have been leadng the CC and then turn around and that Same Holy Spirit lead us away from the fullness of the truth.

No–I do not believe the Holy Spirit teaches both truth and error. I believe that the Spirit teaches truth, and that we can pass along that teaching incorrectly,tradition it poorly, misinterpret it, or augment it, which necessitates the grace of the Spirit to constantly lead us into all truth. Which, to me, speaks to a process of correction and growth, not an already achieved state or its absence.

THe Holy Spirit is either A the Holy Catholic Church. OR B then it never existed. Because the Holy Spirit either led the Church beginning at Pentecost or it didn’t. To say that the Holy Spirit leads the Church and we also lead it makes no sense to me.

I do not say that we lead the Church. We are members of it. And our human Church leaders and we ourselves in our own ways administrate the Church to each other and to the world. We participate in the Church and are an important part of it. Christ is the sole head. The Church leads us.

BUT(!) the leadership of Christ is exercised through human means, through the various charisms of the Spirit, and through the various ways we have come up with to administrate the Church and the sacraments. That is, the leadership of Christ is something in which humans cooperate by grace. How could it be otherwise? If people could not cooperate with the grace of the Spirit, none could be saved, and none could exercise any ecclesiastical office which requires any sort of sacramental grace!

So the Holy Spirit is indeed in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And because of God’s grace, we are Church together with the Spirit who makes us Church and joins us to Christ. But because we are human, our administration of the Church and its teachings can suffer. We, as Church, are responsible for these failings. And the Holy Spirit is gracious enough to keep his promise and correct us when we fail.

Now if this was true with the reformation that you feel was a good thing either Jesus lied to us and the Holy SPirit led us into a lie, or The Church is led by the Holy SPirit always have been, and People left the Church not the Holy Spirit. ANd as God says it is still there as I believe until the end of age.

Your conclusions do not follow from the premise. If the Reformation is part of the Spirit’s work, then it doesn’t mean the Spirit led anyone into a lie–it means that the Church was in need of reformation by the grace of the Spirit because we humans are fallible creatures and needed correction.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

Deo, Also I do not understand how you can say that Yes you believe that we can become one in Christ through the Eucharist, then claim that if the Church is just that Jesus it is not a Church we can belong. I don’t understand. You either believe we can become one in Christ or we can’t.

I think you’re being very Buddhist here in your understanding of the Eucharistic union with Christ. It seems like it is your belief that we are obliterated in the Eucharist, rather than joined with Our Lord in the Mysteries. I think the difference is profound: the one is annihilation, the other is relationship.

You seem to think that something can only be united with something else by one of those things melting into the other and being annihilated in the other. I don’t think that’s how God works. As Maximus the Confessor states, we will be by grace what God is by nature. There is still a we there. If we were to become by nature what God naturally is, our humanity would vanish, what we are would vanish, who we are would vanish, and we would be no more. In the Eucharist, we participate in Christ by grace and are one with him by grace. That oneness respects our creatureliness and disdains, mercifully, to annihilate or destroy us. We are still there. Otherwise, we could not receive him. Otherwise, we could not love him and be loved by him. Because love requires lover and beloved both to be complete.

Do you see what I’m saying? Even in the Beatific Union, of which the Eucharist is a foretaste and an instance, we will not be annihilated in God, but made one with him through the union of love. Many have speculated that this union occurs at the level of the will, but none would conclude that it occurs at the level of nature.

Do you not understand that when we become one in Christ through the Eucharist we cannot do this when we are in a state of sin. You seem to feel that you can be a part of the Living Christ when we are sinners. That is not what the word of God claims.

I understand that sin impairs relationship and represents a real sickness. I also understand that Christ, even Christ in the Eucharist, wants to heal us, and that the Eucharist is a means of that healing. We cannot be part of the Living Christ when we persist in our sins. But we are sinners, and Christ makes us part of his body by grace because he loves us and desires that we grow into him by grace. You are right that we should not approach the Eucharist conscious of sins unrepented. But, conscious of our need for healing, we should not refuse to approach the Mysteries because we fear we are too unworthy. Because the fact is, we are unworthy. As the prayer says:
We do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold a great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us.
Which is more or less an expansion of this sentiment: “Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but speak the word only and my soul shall be healed.”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Contarini]

You tell me. And please show me where this was ever a Teaching of the Church. Now you claim that Edwin says that this is a Church teaching to persecute
and destroy heretics. Show me where this was a teaching of the Church.

Rinnie,

We’ve established that it’s not a teaching by your definition–but also that your definition is clearly circular, as your next sentence shows:

And remember the next sentence we have the promise any teaching of the Church is taught by God and will not error.

Exactly. Therefore you are obliged to define “teaching” to fit what you *now *believe to be true as a modern Catholic, no matter what the historical record shows that your spiritual ancestors believed.

I have several times cited a conciliar decree, a papal encyclical, and a theological explanation by one of the greatest Doctors of the Church (Aquinas), spanning a period of 300 years, and all saying that heretics should be persecuted. You and other Catholics are free to say that this doesn’t constitute “a teaching of the Church” by your definition. And those of us who are not in communion with Rome are free to say that this demonstrates your definition to be arbitrary and tailored to prove the claims of Catholicism. In other words, your Church can’t teach error because if it does you will later claim that the teaching wasn’t really a teaching of the Church. As others have pointed out, this is called the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. To anyone not already convinced of your Church’s claims, the fact that you have to resort to this kind of circular reasoning is quite a powerful argument against you.

Now please, if possible, let’s avoid all the irrelevant statements about how the bad behavior of Catholics doesn’t prove Catholicism wrong, about how Jesus can’t sin, etc., None of that is under dispute here.

So if this was a teaching of the Church why are there heretics today?

Because
a. Catholic governments did not always do their “duty” in wiping out heretics; and
b. In the sixteenth century many civil rulers decided to side with the “heretics”; and because
c. Persecution is often not 100% effective even when the government is totally on board with it.

You might as well ask why Christians survived the first few centuries, though frankly the Romans only began seriously persecuting Christians in the mid third century. Or you might ask why there are Catholics in England even though Catholics were viciously persecuted for about a century, and suffered serious disabilities for more than a century after that. Of course, in those cases you will no doubt attribute the survival of the persecuted to the work of the Holy Spirit!

Why are we disobeying our Church and not destroying and persecuting them?

Because the Church’s teaching has changed.

A teaching never changes remember?

That’s what you say. But you support that claim by defining a “teaching” as anything that has not changed. It’s circular–the “no true Scotsman” fallacy again.

Popes and Councils have said things with every appearance of meaning them, and yet Catholics have later concluded that “the Church” really didn’t teach those things. That’s clear. What is open to debate is whether the distinction between a “real teaching” and what looks like a teaching at the time is purely arbitrary, or whether there are criteria that, say, medieval people could have used to tell that “the Church” really wasn’t telling them to persecute heretics. The only such criteria really are those laid down in Vatican I as a condition for infallible teaching. (You run into trouble with the question of the salvation of non-Catholics, because Unam Sanctam appears to meet those criteria and yet also appears to teach something Catholics no longer believe. But that’s another issue, and of course as always Catholic apologists have clever explanations!) With regard to the persecution issue, one can indeed say that since the precise language of Vatican I was never used (in Exsurge Domine, for instance), and since the relevant decree of IV Lateran was disciplinary, not doctrinal, therefore the claim that this wasn’t a “teaching of the Church” is not purely arbitrary. However, since these fine distinctions hadn’t been made in the Middle Ages, medieval people could not have known that “the Church” wasn’t really teaching what it appeared to be teaching. So as far as I’m concerned the distinction remains a subterfuge.

Bottom line: if late medieval Catholics thought the Church was teaching that heretics should be persecuted (and there is no reasonable doubt that they did), then the claim that the Church wasn’t really teaching these things is a claim that undercuts the position of Catholicism. The supposed authority and stability of Catholic teaching turns out to be a mirage. What the Church appears to be teaching now may be something that hundreds of years from now will turn out to be just the mistaken idea of popes and councils and theologians.

 

[Contarini]

Isa. 35"8 54:13-17 says that the Church will be taught by God and will not error.

It can be creatively and imaginatively interpreted to mean this–but that’s not going to be convincing to anyone who doesn’t already believe it

The Church has the gift of Infallibility. WHere does it state in that scriputure that the Church will have growing pains?

There are certainly passages of Scripture (John 16:13; Ephesians 2:22, 3:11-13) which could be read in that way. More reasonably than Isaiah can be read as teaching infallibility, I think. But the bottom line is that either the Church has growing pains or there is no Church. Because the only Church that actually exists on earth has a whole lot of growing pains.

Matt 10:19 The gift of authority to bound on earth requires infallibility.

So you say. I see no reason to believe any such thing.

Matt 28:20 Jesus Promises to be with the Church always. His presence assures the infallible teaching on faith and morals.

Again, you say that. But with all due respect, saying so doesn’t make it true. The actual Scriptural passage says nothing about infallibility–that’s sheer inference.

Luke 22:32 Jesus prays for Peter not to fail. Jesus’ prayers is perfectly efficacious and allows Peter to teach without error.

You assume that “not to fail” means “teach infallibly.” In context it’s a lot more likely to mean “not fall away from faith permanently after denying Me three times–in other words, not fall into despair like Judas.”

P.S. Rather we fail in the teachings of the Church has nothing to do with the Church failing in its teachings. You still make no sense to me. Sorry.

Rinnie, I don’t really care if I make sense to you or not. You are clearly a devout person with a strong faith, and I don’t want to shake that faith. But intellectually, you are persistently and obstinately arguing in circles. You start from the assumption that the Catholic Church is true, and all your arguments assume this. That hinders your effectiveness as an apologist.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You tell me. And please show me where this was ever a Teaching of the Church. Now you claim that Edwin says that this is a Church teaching to persecute and destroy heretics. Show me where this was a teaching of the Church.

Edwin has already touched on this above, Rinnie. What he was referring to, in part, was Exsurge Domine in which Leo X listed this as an error taught by the reformers:

“33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

You can read the whole encyclical here: papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

One could also mention the Fourth Lateran Council which states in Canon 3:
“Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith.”
Canon 68 of the same Council states that Jews should dress differently from Christians and are not permitted to show themselves in public on penitential days or on Passion Sunday. Canon 69 prohibits Jews from holding public office.

These Canons, as well as *Exsurge Domine, *pose something of a problem, as they seem to teach that certain things are good (such as anti-semitism and persecution of heretics) that we know now are actually contrary to the good. You can say that, “times were different then.” But that is also to say that, “morality is relative.” Or, “things change.” All of which are very poor excuses.

Regarding the Church being the final authority, I agree with you, even in my Anglican-ness I agree with you. That this authority is given by God, I agree with you. Where we might disagree is that I believe that this authority can be abused. But that abuse is not beyond the correction of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, recognizing the nature of the authority of the Church, I am bound to assent to it insofar as I am able and conscience allows, even though I am conscious that that authority may be abused.

Regarding infallibility as understood in the Roman Communion, it is not something which I require in order to believe in the veracity of the Church or the truth of the Gospel. An absolute infallibility, as understood in the Roman Communion, requires us to play a lot of games when it becomes clear that something went wrong, or something went untaught, or something contrary to the Gospel was taught, or an example (which is a form of teaching!) was far from good, etc…(see Edwin’s excellent posts above). We do indeed teach by word and example, and if infallibility as Rome understands it means that the Church cannot actually teach by example, if it can only be relied upon to articulate error-free concepts, but cannot also be relied upon to *live them by example, *then I’m not sure that that’s a compelling infallibility. See this very good post here: haligweorc.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/thoughts-towards-infallibility-and-the-church/

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[rinnie]

Grace & Peace!

No–I do not believe the Holy Spirit teaches both truth and error. I believe that the Spirit teaches truth, and that we can pass along that teaching incorrectly,tradition it poorly, misinterpret it, or augment it, which necessitates the grace of the Spirit to constantly lead us into all truth. Which, to me, speaks to a process of correction and growth, not an already achieved state or its absence.

I do not say that we lead the Church. We are members of it. And our human Church leaders and we ourselves in our own ways administrate the Church to each other and to the world. We participate in the Church and are an important part of it. Christ is the sole head. The Church leads us.

BUT(!) the leadership of Christ is exercised through human means, through the various charisms of the Spirit, and through the various ways we have come up with to administrate the Church and the sacraments. That is, the leadership of Christ is something in which humans cooperate by grace. How could it be otherwise? If people could not cooperate with the grace of the Spirit, none could be saved, and none could exercise any ecclesiastical office which requires any sort of sacramental grace!

So the Holy Spirit is indeed in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And because of God’s grace, we are Church together with the Spirit who makes us Church and joins us to Christ. But because we are human, our administration of the Church and its teachings can suffer. We, as Church, are responsible for these failings. And the Holy Spirit is gracious enough to keep his promise and correct us when we fail.

Your conclusions do not follow from the premise. If the Reformation is part of the Spirit’s work, then it doesn’t mean the Spirit led anyone into a lie–it means that the Church was in need of reformation by the grace of the Spirit because we humans are fallible creatures and needed correction.

(CONTINUED…)

Okay you just said that the Church was in need of reformation by the grace of the Spirit because we humans are fallible creatures need correction. But what does the Holy Spirit leading the Church infallible have to do with humans failings.

Again what you are saying does not jive with scripture. You are saying that because human are fallible which I assume are the Pope and Bishops with him are fallible when speaking and teaching the word of God. Which again you have not addressed. Jesus said this would not and could not happen. He said when you teach in my name I will give you the words. Now are you saying Jesus does not give them the words. Are you in complete denial of this scripture? How do you explain Luke 12:12 and Matt 10:20. Are you saying that Jesus lied when he promosed the Apostles that he speaks and not them? Because if you believe these words then how is it possible for the Church to need reformation? Why? Now when Jesus said when You teach who was he talking to? Was it not the Apostles? THen when did Jesus say that he was planning on leaving the Church and predicting a reformation. You are saying in a round about way that the Apostles would fail because they are Human. But Jesus said that would not fail because he gives them the authority to bind on earth as in heaven. Now are you saying that to bound on earth could be done without infallibility?

 

[PRmerger]

Because the Church’s teaching has changed.

No, Edwin.

The CC’s teaching has always been “We are at war with heresy”. Unfortunately, this has sometimes been put into practice by misguided Catholics as “We are at war with heretics.”

As I stated earlier, in response to your claim that this is a feeble attempt at apologia for bad teaching, semantics are very very important in this discussion.

Clearly, there is a HUGE difference between being at war with heresy vs being at war with heretics.

The example I provided earlier illustrates the great nuance in our language:
Correct: The CC is at war with poverty.
Incorrect: The CC is at war with the poor.

See what a big difference a minor change in alphabet creates?

 

[rinnie]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)

I think you’re being very Buddhist here in your understanding of the Eucharistic union with Christ. It seems like it is your belief that we are obliterated in the Eucharist, rather than joined with Our Lord in the Mysteries. I think the difference is profound: the one is annihilation, the other is relationship.

You seem to think that something can only be united with something else by one of those things melting into the other and being annihilated in the other. I don’t think that’s how God works. As Maximus the Confessor states, we will be by grace what God is by nature. There is still a we there. If we were to become by nature what God naturally is, our humanity would vanish, what we are would vanish, who we are would vanish, and we would be no more. In the Eucharist, we participate in Christ by grace and are one with him by grace. That oneness respects our creatureliness and disdains, mercifully, to annihilate or destroy us. We are still there. Otherwise, we could not receive him. Otherwise, we could not love him and be loved by him. Because love requires lover and beloved both to be complete.

Do you see what I’m saying? Even in the Beatific Union, of which the Eucharist is a foretaste and an instance, we will not be annihilated in God, but made one with him through the union of love. Many have speculated that this union occurs at the level of the will, but none would conclude that it occurs at the level of nature.

I understand that sin impairs relationship and represents a real sickness. I also understand that Christ, even Christ in the Eucharist, wants to heal us, and that the Eucharist is a means of that healing. We cannot be part of the Living Christ when we persist in our sins. But we are sinners, and Christ makes us part of his body by grace because he loves us and desires that we grow into him by grace. You are right that we should not approach the Eucharist conscious of sins unrepented. But, conscious of our need for healing, we should not refuse to approach the Mysteries because we fear we are too unworthy. Because the fact is, we are unworthy. As the prayer says:
We do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold a great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us.
Which is more or less an expansion of this sentiment: “Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but speak the word only and my soul shall be healed.”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Feeling unworthy of this great gift and union with Christ has nothing to do with being in a state of mortal sin.

If you are in a state of mortal sin you are not only unworthy of this great gift you are separated from Christ with this sin. You CANNOT receive the body of Christ.

When we say Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed has nothing to do with being in a state of Mortal sin. IF we are in a state of Mortal sin we must receive absolution from the Priest before we can even think of aproaching the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

ANd I disagree with you completely. We must not approach the Body and Blood of Christ when we are in grave sin. In Cor 11:27-29 St Paul says eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. So in 1 cor 11:30 This verse says that if we receive the actual body and blood of CHrist in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies. Now you are saying that we are all unworthy. But do you see that if being truly worthy was what it took no one could receive Christ in the Eucharist. BUt it is his great gift to us and through the sacraments and prayer we are made worthy by him. But again that has nothing to do with Mortal sin.

Again what you are saying totally disagree’s with the word of God.

 

[Contarini]

No, Edwin.

The CC’s teaching has always been “We are at war with heresy”. Unfortunately, this has sometimes been put into practice by misguided Catholics as “We are at war with heretics.”

As I stated earlier, in response to your claim that this is a feeble attempt at apologia for bad teaching, semantics are very very important in this discussion.

Clearly, there is a HUGE difference between being at war with heresy vs being at war with heretics.

The example I provided earlier illustrates the great nuance in our language:
Correct: The CC is at war with poverty.
Incorrect: The CC is at war with the poor.

See what a big difference a minor change in alphabet creates?

The Church (as normally defined by people not committed to the view “the Catholic Church can do nothing wrong”) taught that heretics should be handed over to the civil authorities for punishment.

Pope Leo did not condemn Luther for saying “that heresies should be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” Indeed, Luther clearly had no problem burning ideas and books!

Semantics do make a big difference. That’s why it’s important to point out that the late medieval Catholic Church (again, using a normal definition of the Church as an organized body of people) taught that heretics (the people, not just the ideas) should be executed.

I agree with you entirely that the ancient and constant teaching of the Church, from which this unfortunate deviation developed, is directed against *heresy. *But the particular teaching I’m concerned with is the teaching about how heretics should be treated.

I do not think that any of my posts have given any reasonable ground for you to assume that I’m unaware of that distinction and am speaking of heretics rather than heresy by inadvertence. Nor have the texts I cited to support my point spoken merely of heresy and not of heretics. Hence, your attempt to insert this sophistical distinction is, yet again, a sad example of how subversive of common intellectual honesty the practice of Catholic apologetics can be (or any apologetics, for that matter).

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

No, Edwin.

The CC’s teaching has always been “We are at war with heresy”. Unfortunately, this has sometimes been put into practice by misguided Catholics as “We are at war with heretics.”

As I stated earlier, in response to your claim that this is a feeble attempt at apologia for bad teaching, semantics are very very important in this discussion.

Clearly, there is a HUGE difference between being at war with heresy vs being at war with heretics.

The example I provided earlier illustrates the great nuance in our language:
Correct: The CC is at war with poverty.
Incorrect: The CC is at war with the poor.

See what a big difference a minor change in alphabet creates?

Exactly he refuses to see this. We are taught to pray for our enemy’s. He cannot prove that it is a teaching in the way he wants to. ANd he refuses to accept the truth as the CC teaches it.

We were never taught in the RCC to be at war with people, we are taught to be at war with lies. We are taught that if someone refuses to accept the teaching of Christ (the RCC) we are to shake the dust off of our sandles and move on. Not to kill them or persecute them. We are taught to defend the truth not lies.

 

[PRmerger]

The Church (as normally defined by people not committed to the view “the Catholic Church can do nothing wrong”) taught that heretics should be handed over to the civil authorities for punishment.

:banghead:

I stopped reading at the above statement so if you amended your comment below I wouldn’t know…(I do intend to read your comment in its entirety but right now am incredulous at the above statement.)

Catholics here have stated quite clearly that the CC has done wrong in its past. It has made BAD DECISIONS.

To obstinately claim that some of us here are committed to some whacky paradigm is, well, to be like those stupid dwarves sitting in a stable claiming they’re smelling manure.

That’s your story and you’re stickin’ to it, aren’t ya, Edwin? Makes you feel better about not being Catholic, does it?

I REPEAT a quote I provided earlier from poster itsjustdave1988:

Sometimes we suffer the wrongs imposed upon us by authority, out of charity. Jesus did that, right? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples to do as the fallible Pharisees taught, but not to do what they did? Even though the Pharisees were not infallible, they sat upon the seat of Moses (cf. Matt 23:2). Thus, by that authority, they were to be obeyed, until such time that God established his eternal Church upon the rock of Peter (cf. Matt 16:18)

 

[Contarini]

Exactly he refuses to see this. We are taught to pray for our enemy’s. He cannot prove that it is a teaching in the way he wants to.

Rinnie,

I have given you historical documentation from a papal encyclical, a Council, and one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, all of which speak of persecuting heretics.

And praying for one’s enemies is neither here nor there. We should pray for serial killers too, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished. The attitude of the late medieval and early modern Church was that heretics–at least obstinate or relapsed heretics–were worse than serial killers. That didn’t mean that St. Thomas or the Fathers of IV Lateran or even Pope Leo personally hated heretics or were lacking in charity toward them.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

:banghead:

I stopped reading at the above statement so if you amended your comment below I wouldn’t know…(I do intend to read your comment in its entirety but right now am incredulous at the above statement.)

Catholics here have stated quite clearly that the CC has done wrong in its past. It has made BAD DECISIONS.

It’s good to hear you say this. Rinnie and guanophore have both insisted that one cannot speak of the Church doing wrong, and indeed this seems to be the general position held in your Communion–hence JPII’s careful language about “members of the Church” doing thus and so. I am not making this up. You need to take it up with your fellow Catholics. Apparently you and I are on the same side here. That being the case, you owe me an apology for your hasty judgment and your words about my being like a “dwarf,” when in fact you agreed with me all along!

If the statement “the Catholic Church has done wrong in the past” has been made on this thread so far by a Catholic, could you please point me to the post?

Furthermore, the distinction you want to make between action and teaching won’t fly in this case, as I’ve pointed out before, because I have been pointing to teachings, not simply actions. I’m not just pointing out that your Church persecuted heretics. I’m pointing out that a pope, a Council, and a Doctor of the Church all explicitly taught that this *should be done. *This does pertain to orthodoxy and not just “orthopraxy.”

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

I have given you historical documentation from a papal encyclical, a Council, and one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, all of which speak of persecuting heretics.

And praying for one’s enemies is neither here nor there. We should pray for serial killers too, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished. The attitude of the late medieval and early modern Church was that heretics–at least obstinate or relapsed heretics–were worse than serial killers. That didn’t mean that St. Thomas or the Fathers of IV Lateran or even Pope Leo personally hated heretics or were lacking in charity toward them.

Edwin

Edwin it does not matter what you say. We have admitted that leaders of the Church have made bad decisions in the past. But I am saying that it was never a teaching of Jesus CHrist. IF it was a teaching of Jesus Christ no matter what decisions, or mistakes that were made in the past could not have been bad decisions or mistakes if they were Official Church Teachings. OFT come from Jesus. But you refuse to accept this.

So what do you do with the Scripture Edwin when Jesus says he will lead the leaders who are leading his Church into all Truth. Do you ignore that scripture or what. Are you saying that he Apostles do not have that guarantee from Jesus or not?

SHow me a official ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING THAT IS TAUGHT BY THE RCC EDWIN. SHOW ME!! Just one that you can show me that is an Official Church teaching that you can prove as wrong. You can’t. If so produce it.

Then you will see it is as true today as yesterday. But you refuse to accept what is a discipline, a decision of a leader, or Pope, or Bishop is not a Teaching of Christ. No one can make you see this. Not even scripture. I will try once more for what it is worth I do not know anymore.

Matt 16:19 How can Jesus give his Apostles the gift of authority to bound on earth as in heaven if it is not a infallible teaching? Answer that Edwin. Please show us how. And then show us how when Jesus gave them that infallible authority where he said that the gift of the Holy SPirit that they would receive, had anything to do with their holiness? I will be waiting!

Where in scripture did Jesus say that he would leave the CC? Where Edwin. Please show me, where did he say that he would NOT be with us always in the CC. WHy did he say that the Church not Scripture is the final authority on questions of morals and the faith. He promised us that when it came to faith and morals that the Apostles would always lead us to the truth through the CC because he would never leave the CC.

Please explain to me where Popes making mistakes in the past have ANYTHING to do whatsoever with leading us to the truth in faith and morals. Please show me. And please show me where Jesus said that it a Pope or Bishop sins that he would indeed leave the CC. I would love to see that. Because he said he was the CC and is united to the CHurch as the bride to the bride groom. That they are one. Just like a husband is united to his bride in marriage that is how Jesus is united to the Church. As a husband and wife become one, Christ is one with his CHurch.

You are trying to blame the Church which is Christ for the mistakes of humans and you continue to do so. Please explain to me the scripture, how does your Church explain it Edwin?

Do you believe that YOUR Church is the Pilar of Truth Edwin? Is your Church perfect in every way Edwin? Has your church led you away from the Truth?

Well mine hasn’t. You have never showed me where a Teaching in My CHurch is false. You have showed mistakes, misunderstanding, anything that you could that was made on the judgement of a Pope or Bishop and tried to blame it on the Church and call it a Official Church Teaching. And by the way, you have failed in doing so.

But please produce for us a OFFICIAL CHURCH TEACHING AND we will indeed defend it. You keep saying that there is no difference from a Pope or Bishop or Priest making a decision on his own, or making a decison by the power of the Holy Spirit. Do you not understand Edwin if this decison is made by the Power of the HOLY SPRIIT it is told so, and then is a teaching.

No one has ever claimed that every single decison that has been made by a Pope or Bishop came directly from the Holy Spirit. Only YOU Edwin, Only you do this.

 

[PRmerger]

If the statement “the Catholic Church has done wrong in the past” has been made on this thread so far by a Catholic, could you please point me to the post?

Oh. my. GOSHHHH! <deep cleansing breath…ahhh…>
**
For the third time,** here it is, a quote from itsjustdave1988:

Sometimes we suffer the wrongs imposed upon us by authority, out of charity. Jesus did that, right? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples to do as the fallible Pharisees taught, but not to do what they did? Even though the Pharisees were not infallible, they sat upon the seat of Moses (cf. Matt 23:2). Thus, by that authority, they were to be obeyed, until such time that God established his eternal Church upon the rock of Peter (cf. Matt 16:18)

---