When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[Contarini]

Perhaps you should report it to the Mods? “I was called a dwarf and that hurt my feelings!”

No, it wasn’t that bad! As I said, it wasn’t that I thought the comparison was uncharitable or intrinsically bad, but that it wasn’t justified in this particular case.

Most recently, as you can see from the post above yours, rinnie is saying that even venial sin puts you outside the Church, at least partially. Do you agree?

Instead of piling on me, how about you analyze what rinnie is saying and tell me if it’s orthodox. Here’s why I’m picking on rinnie: rinnie basically agrees with my interpretation of what the implications of the Catholic self-understanding are. From where I stand, rinnie’s posts are a reductio in absurdum of the Catholic position (its “over-realized eschatology,” to use a catchphrase). But rinnie doesn’t see the absurdity.

So instead of telling me that I’m stubborn, explain to me how rinnie is wrong. Then maybe we will get somewhere.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Edwin I think your concept of the CC is bas ackwards,

You think that Jesus put a (name removed by moderator)erfect Church on this earth for us to make perfect.

That is not the way it went down at all. Jesus put a perfect Church here to make us perfect not us make him perfect. He is already is perfect. If he were not perfect the CC could not be perfect.

Now lt me ask you this. You always call me on every single thing I say, now its my turn

How do you feel that Jesus failed in making the Church the Bride of Christ. Was his blood not enough to purify her? What do you think he failed to do?

 

[rinnie]

No, it wasn’t that bad! As I said, it wasn’t that I thought the comparison was uncharitable or intrinsically bad, but that it wasn’t justified in this particular case.

Most recently, as you can see from the post above yours, rinnie is saying that even venial sin puts you outside the Church, at least partially. Do you agree?

Instead of piling on me, how about you analyze what rinnie is saying and tell me if it’s orthodox. Here’s why I’m picking on rinnie: rinnie basically agrees with my interpretation of what the implications of the Catholic self-understanding are. From where I stand, rinnie’s posts are a reductio in absurdum of the Catholic position (its “over-realized eschatology,” to use a catchphrase). But rinnie doesn’t see the absurdity.

So instead of telling me that I’m stubborn, explain to me how rinnie is wrong. Then maybe we will get somewhere.

Edwin

Boy Edwin, Whats Today? pick on the rinster day huh. Thats cool. I can take it. Will be back this evening to see how bad I got it!

 

[PRmerger]

Instead of piling on me, how about you analyze what rinnie is saying and tell me if it’s orthodox. Here’s why I’m picking on rinnie:

I can’t imagine what would make you think that I would join you in picking on another poster.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin I think your concept of the CC is bas ackwards,

You think that Jesus put a (name removed by moderator)erfect Church on this earth for us to make perfect.

No, I think Jesus set up a Church of imperfect people and gave us the Holy Spirit to make us perfect. And I think the Holy Spirit is still at work!

That is not the way it went down at all. Jesus put a perfect Church here to make us perfect

I think that you are articulating very well one side of Catholic teaching. I remain unconvinced that the bishops and theologians of your Church would put it quite as simplistically, though. Certainly Vatican II spoke of the Church as the People of God in pilgrimage, although I know that this has often been seen as a “liberal” move. In other words, I see in Catholic teaching the idea that the Church is simultaneously a perfect mystical reality which transforms and sanctifies its members through the work of the Holy Spirit, and the community made up of those very imperfect members who still need a lot of sanctifying! Pope Benedict, long before becoming Pope, spoke of the “sinful holiness of the Church.” I have problems with how this paradox works itself out–but you seem to solve the problem by denying the paradox and using “church” only to refer to the sinless, perfect aspect.

How do you feel that Jesus failed in making the Church the Bride of Christ. Was his blood not enough to purify her? What do you think he failed to do?

He didn’t fail to do anything. He is just not done yet! You are making the same confusion Calvinists and other Protestants make between Jesus’ atoning work and the ongoing application of that work. I don’t think Jesus died for some abstract entity that was perfect from that point on. I think He died for real people, in whom His saving work is still being accomplished.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I can’t imagine what would make you think that I would join you in picking on another poster.

The fact that you have been joining these posters in “picking on” me. (I don’t think of it as “picking on,” except when you are unfair.) Your statement is hypocritical–what you really mean is that you won’t side with a non-Catholic against a Catholic.

I’m trying to figure out the truth here, not engage in a popularity contest or score points. If what rinnie is saying is what you believe to be Catholic teaching, say so. If it isn’t, say so. Be honest and stop thinking about everything as “we band of Catholics against the evil heretic.”

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Your statement is hypocritical–what you really mean is that you won’t side with a non-Catholic against a Catholic.

I have said no such thing.

You are way outside the scope of the rules of our engagement. You have no power to direct any poster whom to respond to. If someone chooses to direct comments to you, and solely you, she is quite free to do so. If someone chooses to “stalk” another poster and join every thread she’s dialoguing in, he certainly can.

It is not for you to enjoin upon us anything, Edwin, with regard to our posting choices.

And to make any inferences about one’s silence with another poster is to assign yourself an omniscience which I am certain you do not possess.

 

[Contarini]

I have said no such thing.

You are way outside the scope of the rules of our engagement. You have no power to direct any poster whom to respond to. If someone chooses to direct comments to you, and solely you, she is quite free to do so. If someone chooses to “stalk” another poster and join every thread she’s dialoguing in, he certainly can.

It is not for you to enjoin upon us anything, Edwin, with regard to our posting choices.

And to make any inferences about one’s silence with another poster is to assign yourself an omniscience which I am certain you do not possess.

Fair enough. But you have made a habit in this thread of jumping into my conversations with rinnie and guanophore and accusing me of not “seeing” distinctions that were not in fact the ones they were making. You’re right that I was out of line in asking you help me refute rinnie, and I apologize. But your tactics have been extremely frustrating, because you have repeatedly misrepresented what I was saying because of your assumption that your fellow-Catholics must be saying exactly what you are, when they clearly are not.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough. But you have made a habit in this thread of jumping into my conversations with rinnie and guanophore and accusing me of not “seeing” distinctions that were not in fact the ones they were making.

Again, Edwin, the way the CAFs work is that all posters are free to “jump into” others’ conversations and respond to whom they wish.

You are certainly free to be frustrated by members’ posting styles. I have my own pet peeve which is the Phantom Poster, who posts something–usually provocative and inflammatory–and then ne’er returns. I am left to wonder whether PP ever read my rebuttal, and this posting style defies the human need know we have been heard.

And I accept your apology.

 

[Contarini]

Again, Edwin, the way the CAFs work is that all posters are free to “jump into” others’ conversations and respond to whom they wish.

You are certainly free to be frustrated by members’ posting styles. I have my own pet peeve which is the Phantom Poster, who posts something–usually provocative and inflammatory–and then ne’er returns. I am left to wonder whether PP ever read my rebuttal, and this posting style defies the human need know we have been heard.

And I accept your apology.

Again, good points. I’m just frustrated because this issue means a lot to me and I would like to have a substantive discussion, and I feel as if you guys aren’t recognizing the difficulty of the issue. You all tell me over and over again that I lack faith or just aren’t getting it or whatever, and you don’t recognize that you are saying different things from each other. So you accuse me of not “seeing” the orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction, ignoring the fact that that’s not the distinction other Catholic posters are making.

On my part, because I get frustrated with what seems like a Catholic “bait-and-switch” on this issue, I wind up sounding a lot more hostile to Catholicism than I am, and I don’t express clearly enough that I approach this issue in the awareness that there are huge problems with my own default position as an Episcopalian. By saying that the Church can err as well as sin, I am required to apply anti-Donatism to doctrine, which answers the question many of you ask, as to why I remain Episcopalian! But this leads to huge problems, which I’m sure you can see at least as easily as I do. So I’d like to find a more satisfactory position–it’s just that the apparent simplicity and purity of the Catholic and Orthodox positions dissolves when one looks at it more carefully.

(Since I’ve been defending Orthodoxy a lot recently, here’s where I think the rubber hits the road for them: they have fewer problems admitting the failures of the hierarchical Church, probably, but they ascribe perfection to the “Tradition”–then when their own radical traditionalists find anti-Semitism and other nasty things in the Tradition, they have trouble responding.)

Edwin

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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.

I’m a bit loath to continue the discussion, Rinnie.

I’ll state again what I believe. I’ll do it in as clear a way as I can. In so stating, I’m telling you what I believe. One of the reasons why this conversation has been difficult, in part, is that you have a tendency to impute positions to me that I have not taken, or draw conclusions yourself and claim that I have, in fact, drawn them. This makes things frustrating. Here’s what I believe:

1–The Church is: Christ as Head, and People as Body. It is not an either/or sort of thing. It is a both/and thing. The Church is Christ and the People united by and in the Spirit.

2–The People are being sanctified by the Spirit to conform to the Head.

3–This sanctification is a process of becoming.

4–The perfection of this process is not something we experience now in its fullness as we are in the midst of the process ourselves. It is something we experience in the eschaton at the fulfillment of all things. The Sacraments give us a foretaste of this fullness.

4a–The Church has classically been understood as existing in a series of “states” based on the degree to which they are experiencing the fullness of sanctification: The Church Triumphant, which is in Heaven and is experiencing the reality of its hope face to face, as it were; The Church Suffering, which is the Church in Purgatory; The Church Militant, which is the Church here on earth.

5–The Spirit leads the Church into all truth and preserves the truth in the Church.

5a–The Spirit leads through the cooperation of the People.

6–The People of the Church Militant (who are still part of the Church!) can be remiss, in one way or another, in transmitting the truth received from the Holy Spirit.

7–The Spirit corrects the Church Militant when it errs and does not allow the revelation to be lost.

7a–The Spirit corrects through the cooperation of the People.

Rinnie, you accuse me of believing something contrary to scripture. Which of these items is contrary to scripture?

Here are some questions:

1–when Paul writes a letter to the Church at Ephesus and corrects it in a matter of doctrine or morals, is this not the work of the Spirit acting through Paul to correct the People of the Church who have fallen into error?

2–when we pray for the Church, for whom are we praying if we believe that only Jesus is the Church, considering that Jesus has no need of our intercessory prayer? And if we pray for the Church, do we not acknowledge (by way of lex orandi, lex credendi) that the Church is in need, particularly in need of grace and sanctification?

Regarding mortal sin and the Eucharist, you will note that I did not once say that someone consciously in a state of unrepented mortal sin should freely partake of the Eucharist. Someone who was repentant and contrite, however, will naturally want to demonstrate the signs of contrition. In the Roman Communion, that would include auricular confession to a priest. In the Anglican Communion, that may include auricular confession to a priest (following the old Anglican understanding of confession as a sacrament to which “all may, none must, and some should” resort). In either case, it would no doubt include participating in the general confession which is part of the Mass, and would likely have included various acts of contrition (including prayer) before and during Mass.

Regarding the question of authority–you do not need to be infallible to execute authority. You just need to have authority.

Regarding Jesus giving us the right words to say, I understand that those verses serve as proof texts for your belief in infallibility, but that seems a bit of a stretch when context seems to point most conclusively to giving witness of our faith before hostile worldly powers–i.e., it concerns martyrdom, not the magisterium.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[PRmerger]

Again, good points. I’m just frustrated because this issue means a lot to me and I would like to have a substantive discussion, and** I feel as if you guys aren’t recognizing the difficulty of the issue**

You are correct, Edwin. I respectfully say: I simply do not understand your difficulty with this. There’s another non-Catholic poster on the CAFs, NotTooSmart (who has since changed his name) who also claims difficulty with this distinction, claiming, (my paraphrase) “I know I’m not that smart, but I just can’t see it.”. I wonder if perhaps you both are* intentionally* obfuscating and complicating the issue, for fear of what it would mean if you understood.

If you object to my conjecture (I deny omnisicience, especially wi**th regard to your psyche ) I will defer to your more appropriate insight of why you are unable to see this distinction. (That was my verbose way to say, “If you disagree with my claim that you are doing this intentionally, I concede the point.”)

However, again, from KindredSpirit (bold mine)

*But above, I established the difference (and I believe it is easy to see) between practical and theological matters. The Church is not perfect in all practical matters, as it is made up of imperfect men who can sin, and the Holy Spirit doesn’t forcibly guard us from sinning if we defy Him. The Church is, however, guarded from derailing the Faith theologically, since the Holy Spirit does protect the Church, when She speaks in the proper capacity (Ex Cathedra) from error. This makes all the difference in the world. *

The fact that a papal bull claimed that Martin Luther was wrong to state “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit” does not equal “The CC taught that it is good to burn heretics at the stake.”

I believe it was a “terrible decision” (see Mark Shea’s quote) but not a teaching of the faith. Not orthodoxy.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Not orthodoxy.

Forgive me for butting in, but the issue is that it was understood as orthodoxy at the time. Otherwise it would not have been taught by a Pope, a Council, and a Doctor and practiced by countless faithful people.

The questions are, then:

1: Was there an authority in place at the time that could have correctly sorted people out on the actual unorthdoxy of the teaching?

2: If there was such an authority, what prevented it from acting?

3: What is to stop a similar situation from occuring today?

Let it be known that I understand the distinction between the practical and theological matters which you mention, and I would be surprised if Edwin didn’t as well. But you must know that teaching is accomplished through word and example. And as such, you must also understand that there are repercussions to excluding our example from the ways in which truth is taught. One of those repercussions is the reduction of truth to a mere category of thought rather than a reality into which we are called to live. Recognizing that we teach by word and example means that we take responsibility for both and acknowledges that we may err in either. As a Christian, however, this recognition carries with it the promise that we will be corrected when we err and that the truth will not be lost among us.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[PRmerger]

Grace & Peace!

Forgive me for butting in, but the issue is that it was understood as orthodoxy at the time. Otherwise it would not have been taught by a Pope, a Council, and a Doctor and practiced by countless faithful people.

Before I respond further, let’s “x” out the “practiced by countless faithful people”. The fact that there are millions of Catholics today who consider themselves "faithful people’ yet contracept eliminates your example above.

What “countless faithful people” do and understand is not proof of orthodoxy.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Before I respond further, let’s “x” out the “practiced by countless faithful people”. The fact that there are millions of Catholics today who consider themselves "faithful people’ yet contracept eliminates your example above.

What “countless faithful people” do and understand is not proof of orthodoxy.

I’m willing to concede the point if we also recognize that the situation of someone who is obedient to an unorthodox practice or belief that has been taught as orthodoxy and that of someone who is disobedient to an orthodox practice or teaching taught as orthodoxy are not exactly equivalent, and that the former is more entitled to be called a “faithful person” than the latter.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Contarini]

You are correct, Edwin. I respectfully say: I simply do not understand your difficulty with this.

What is “this”–the orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction, or the Church/members distinction?

I wonder if perhaps you both are* intentionally* obfuscating and complicating the issue, for fear of what it would mean if you understood.

And I have been forced to wonder in the course of this discussion whether you and other Catholics are not subconciously (I am not so uncharitable as to suggest that you’re doing it intentionally) muddling the issue (by refusing to address the actual distinctions I make but ascribing to me all sorts of other things I’m not saying), because you can’t face the fact that there are serious problems with your Church’s position here, and that in fact you don’t even agree with each other on what that position is.

But such speculations get us nowhere.

But above, I established the difference (and I believe it is easy to see) between practical and theological matters. The Church is not perfect in all practical matters,

Again, this is not the argument rinnie and guanophore have been making. It’s fine if you don’t want to join that discussion on my side–as you say, that’s your prerogative. But I can ask you not to persist in confusing these things with each other.

Now to your point: the difference isn’t easy when it applies to the example I’ve chosen–the persecution of heretics. It’s easy to see when applied to something like the abuse scandals, where the Church has always taught “this is an evil thing,” but some priests have still committed these actions, and bishops have not always acted wisely in disciplining them. (Even there, I don’t think the line is quite as sharp as Catholics want to believe–how we act is always influenced by what we believe to some extent, and the beliefs and structures of the Church may possibly have helped create the climate in which these things could happen. But that’s a much more dubious argument, and not the point I’m arguing here.)

The fact that a papal bull claimed that Martin Luther was wrong to state “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit” does not equal “The CC taught that it is good to burn heretics at the stake.”

I believe it was a “terrible decision” (see Mark Shea’s quote) but not a teaching of the faith. Not orthodoxy.

Fine. But it was a doctrinal teaching, and it was clearly taught by the “ordinary Magisterium.” If the statement “X should be done, and you are a heretic if you say it shouldn’t” isn’t a doctrinal teaching, I don’t know what a doctrinal teaching is. I can accept that it doesn’t meet your Church’s (subsequently defined) rules for infallibility. I can accept that the Church can change its position on this without proving its claims to be false. That’s not the point I’m arguing. What I’m saying (once again) is simply this: by the normal standards that people use to determine whether a religious institution teaches something, it is clearly true that the late medieval Catholic Church taught that heretics should be executed. When you say that this “wasn’t a teaching of the faith,” that is your prerogative. But what follows from this is that one cannot necessarily discern what is orthodox by looking at what Popes and Councils and Doctors of the Church teach, because sometimes they are wrong. Not just in their actions but in their teachings.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Before I respond further, let’s “x” out the “practiced by countless faithful people”. The fact that there are millions of Catholics today who consider themselves "faithful people’ yet contracept eliminates your example above.

No, it doesn’t. The “faithful people” who contracept are going against the explicit teaching of the Magisterium. The “faithful people” who persecuted heretics were doing exactly what IV Lateran and Thomas Aquinas (and later Pope Leo) said they should do.

In other words, I take the point that a common practice when clearly condemned by the Church’s teaching authority is no evidence that something is orthodox. But a common practice about which the Pope and bishops obviously knew and yet which they never bothered to condemn does have *some *claim to represent what the Catholic Church of that era believed and did. And when, as in this case, the common practice corresponds to the explicit teaching of authority figures within the Church, it constitutes solid proof that those authority figures were not just saying weird things on their own, but were acting as the “ordinary Magisterium” of the Church. In other words, even if you could explain away each of the examples I’ve given, you would have to deal with the fact that your understanding is completely different than that commonly held at the time.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

No, I think Jesus set up a Church of imperfect people and gave us the Holy Spirit to make us perfect. And I think the Holy Spirit is still at work!

I think that you are articulating very well one side of Catholic teaching. I remain unconvinced that the bishops and theologians of your Church would put it quite as simplistically, though. Certainly Vatican II spoke of the Church as the People of God in pilgrimage, although I know that this has often been seen as a “liberal” move. In other words, I see in Catholic teaching the idea that the Church is simultaneously a perfect mystical reality which transforms and sanctifies its members through the work of the Holy Spirit, and the community made up of those very imperfect members who still need a lot of sanctifying! Pope Benedict, long before becoming Pope, spoke of the “sinful holiness of the Church.” I have problems with how this paradox works itself out–but you seem to solve the problem by denying the paradox and using “church” only to refer to the sinless, perfect aspect.

He didn’t fail to do anything. He is just not done yet! You are making the same confusion Calvinists and other Protestants make between Jesus’ atoning work and the ongoing application of that work. I don’t think Jesus died for some abstract entity that was perfect from that point on. I think He died for real people, in whom His saving work is still being accomplished.

Edwin

Ah, I think I get it now. So anotherwards Edwin you are saying you do not think that when Paul was persecuting the Church, he was not persecuting the Church at all what he was persecuting was imperfect People? Right? SO then why is it when St Paul said who are you and Jesus said it is Me Jesus the one you are persecuting. That we are really Jesus (name removed by moderator)erfect people Again please explain this to me Edwin.

 

[rinnie]

No, it doesn’t. The “faithful people” who contracept are going against the explicit teaching of the Magisterium. The “faithful people” who persecuted heretics were doing exactly what IV Lateran and Thomas Aquinas (and later Pope Leo) said they should do.

In other words, I take the point that a common practice when clearly condemned by the Church’s teaching authority is no evidence that something is orthodox. But a common practice about which the Pope and bishops obviously knew and yet which they never bothered to condemn does have *some *claim to represent what the Catholic Church of that era believed and did. And when, as in this case, the common practice corresponds to the explicit teaching of authority figures within the Church, it constitutes solid proof that those authority figures were not just saying weird things on their own, but were acting as the “ordinary Magisterium” of the Church. In other words, even if you could explain away each of the examples I’ve given, you would have to deal with the fact that your understanding is completely different than that commonly held at the time.

Edwin

Huh So you are saying that what the Pope and Bishops did not say is the same as saying it and it is a Catholic Teaching of the Church?

 

[rinnie]

What is “this”–the orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction, or the Church/members distinction?

And I have been forced to wonder in the course of this discussion whether you and other Catholics are not subconciously (I am not so uncharitable as to suggest that you’re doing it intentionally) muddling the issue (by refusing to address the actual distinctions I make but ascribing to me all sorts of other things I’m not saying), because you can’t face the fact that there are serious problems with your Church’s position here, and that in fact you don’t even agree with each other on what that position is.

But such speculations get us nowhere.

Again, this is not the argument rinnie and guanophore have been making. It’s fine if you don’t want to join that discussion on my side–as you say, that’s your prerogative. But I can ask you not to persist in confusing these things with each other.

Now to your point: the difference isn’t easy when it applies to the example I’ve chosen–the persecution of heretics. It’s easy to see when applied to something like the abuse scandals, where the Church has always taught “this is an evil thing,” but some priests have still committed these actions, and bishops have not always acted wisely in disciplining them. (Even there, I don’t think the line is quite as sharp as Catholics want to believe–how we act is always influenced by what we believe to some extent, and the beliefs and structures of the Church may possibly have helped create the climate in which these things could happen. But that’s a much more dubious argument, and not the point I’m arguing here.)

Fine. But it was a doctrinal teaching, and it was clearly taught by the “ordinary Magisterium.” If the statement “X should be done, and you are a heretic if you say it shouldn’t” isn’t a doctrinal teaching, I don’t know what a doctrinal teaching is. I can accept that it doesn’t meet your Church’s (subsequently defined) rules for infallibility. I can accept that the Church can change its position on this without proving its claims to be false. That’s not the point I’m arguing. What I’m saying (once again) is simply this: by the normal standards that people use to determine whether a religious institution teaches something, it is clearly true that the late medieval Catholic Church taught that heretics should be executed. When you say that this “wasn’t a teaching of the faith,” that is your prerogative. But what follows from this is that one cannot necessarily discern what is orthodox by looking at what Popes and Councils and Doctors of the Church teach, because sometimes they are wrong. Not just in their actions but in their teachings.

Edwin

Edwin let me make it simple again okay. IF its a Teaching then it is said Ex-Cathedra its the real McCoy!! Does that make it easier.