When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[rinnie]

:extrahappy:

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

Going on a cruise, Mastercard, renting a room Mastercard . Picking on another Brother and Sister in the faith, No Never Priceless!!

For the Rest is Master Card!! :extrahappy::dancing::egyptian: I just feel the Love!!

Thanks Love!! You just Made my evening!!:hug1::flowers:

 

[GKC]

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.

If it is not declared ex cathedra, it’s not a teaching?

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

:extrahappy:

Going on a cruise, Mastercard, renting a room Mastercard . Picking on another Brother and Sister in the faith, No Never Priceless!!

For the Rest is Master Card!! :extrahappy::dancing::egyptian: I just feel the Love!!

Thanks Love!! You just Made my evening!!:hug1::flowers:

Oh, p-shaw, rinnie! shaw:

 

[PRmerger]

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

The orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction.

Incidentally, if you agree with Mark Shea on this issue, and I agree wtih Mark Shea on this issue, then by the transitive property we are agreed. :extrahappy:

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)

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I am unable to dialogue with you without your getting offended by my “uncharity.” I apologize for doubting your sincerity.

I will gracefully bow out of our discourse while we are still friendly. :bighanky:

 

[PRmerger]

Otherwise it would not have been taught by a Pope, a Council, and a Doctor and practiced by countless faithful people.

Is this the statement from the Council that you’re referring to, Mark?

“Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and be strengthened by the same holy privilege as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy land” (Constitution 3).

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?

It’s the same authority that can “correctly [sort] people out on actual unorthodoxy of the teaching” on, say, abortion today.

Sadly, we can see how “powerful” this authority is. Nancy Pelosi is a clear portrayal of this. That is, the CC can’t even stop an educated public figue from proclaiming a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. She claimed the Catholic Church only recently came to the conclusion that human life begins at conception.

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

We are not in agreement that this authority was prevented from acting.

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

See my above example.

N.B. Clearly the parallel I’m offering to the modern day dissension from Catholic teaching on abortion and birth control fails in some respect, in that there can be no doubt, today, of what the CC teaches. One would be reasonably dubious if one of our contemporaries said, “Oh, I didn’t know that the CC is against abortion.”

The same could not be said for our 13th century brethren. One would be reasonably dubious if a 13th century peasant went around bragging about reading the documents from the Lateran Council, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Yes.

But you must know that teaching is accomplished through word and example.

Indeed.

And as such, you must also understand that there are repercussions to excluding our example from the ways in which truth is taught.

:sad_yes:

No one here who knows me will deny that I am a vociferous opponent to the catechesis we’ve been given today by our shepherds. The CC has done an abysmal job in providing us with instructions on the Faith.

While History makes my eyes glaze over, I don’t think I am going out on a limb in assuming that there were times in the past when the Church failed miserably in its catechesis.

 

[PRmerger]

No one here who knows me will deny that I am a vociferous opponent to the catechesis we’ve been given today by our shepherds. The CC has done an abysmal job in providing us with instructions on the Faith

This was poorly written.

What I should have said was: I have been a vocal opponent to the manner in which our shepherds have provided catechesis. It did not feed us.

I am not an opponent to the catechesis.

 

[rinnie]

If it is not declared ex cathedra, it’s not a teaching?

GKC

Yes you are right. That is not the right way to say it either. Sorry Edwin my bad, I don’t want to confuse you either.

I am trying to find an easy way to show Edwin the difference between a teaching and mistakes that have been made in the past.

The first thing that came to my mind we ex-cathedra is immune from error. But you are correct we believe all of the Popes teachings are infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

:extrahappy:

Going on a cruise, Mastercard, renting a room Mastercard . Picking on another Brother and Sister in the faith, No Never Priceless!!

For the Rest is Master Card!! :extrahappy::dancing::egyptian: I just feel the Love!!

Thanks Love!! You just Made my evening!!:hug1::flowers:

Just to be clear, Edwin did acknowledge he was “out of line”.

 

[rinnie]

Just to be clear, Edwin did acknowledge he was “out of line”.

Oh thats okay. I am cool with it. Edwin is my buddy. Although we do not agree with eachother much and may discuss things it is all done in the Name of God and with Love.

Sometimes we can all get a little heated in what we say, but we eventually cool down and become closer to eachother by Gods Love.

But it never bothered me! Actually I thought is was kinda funny

 

[Contarini]

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?

Not quite. My desire to cover all the bases has betrayed me again!

PRMerger made the sweeping statement that common practice by Catholics was no evidence that something was orthodox Church teaching. I just pointed out that even in cases where the hierarchy didn’t say anything explicitly one way or the other, the fact that something was commonly believed, practiced, taught in sermons and popular catechesis, etc., is good reason for ascribing it to the Church as a whole in some sense. A good example would be limbo. But of course that’s not as clear-cut a case as something actually taught by authoritative figures. And persecution is in that last case. I keep saying it–you and PRMerger can’t deny it, so you just keep ignoring it or talking around it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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?

No, I’m saying exactly the opposite. That when Paul was persecuting the Church, he was persecuting imperfect people. And those imperfect people were the Church. When Jesus said, “you are persecuting me,” he was identifying those very imperfect people with Himself.

You’re identifying the Church with Jesus in such a way as to say that the imperfect people who belong to the Church aren’t really the Church. That defeats the thoroughly orthodox point you want to make, which is that the Church unites us to Jesus as His Body.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction.

Well, I don’t understand why you keep claiming that this is the distinction I don’t “see,” when I have pointed out repeatedly that that wasn’t what I was talking about.

Let’s see if I can pull all this together. I invite you, rinnie, and other Catholics on the thread to tell me if this is a fair statement of your position:

1. The Church never teaches error, because “the Church” can only be said to “teach” something when either the Extraordinary or Ordinary Magisterium is articulating and defending the faith once delivered to the saints.
2. Any doctrinal statements made by popes, councils, theologians, or other Catholics which do not turn out to be authentic affirmations and developments of the faith once delivered to the saints (the Word of God handed down through Scripture and Tradition), are therefore not the teaching of the Church but only views expressed by its members, even if those members hold office in the Church and are speaking in that capacity (Exsurge Domine, for instance).
3. The Church can be said to sin or err inasmuch as in terms of practical action “the Church” can legitimately be said to be identical with its members acting collectively, which is not the case when it comes to doctrine. Thus, one can say that the Church persecuted heretics, but not that the Church taught heretics should be persecuted, even though we have statements from popes, councils, and Doctors saying that heretics should be persecuted. [This is my tortuous attempt to make sense of what you have been saying, and of your insistence that the relevant distinction is orthodoxy/orthopraxy.]
4. However, such language is not true in the strictest sense, since “the Church” most properly denotes the perfect, mystical reality which cannot sin or err in any sense. Rather, it is an appropriate manner of speaking, since the Church is known on earth under the form of a concrete body of sinful people. [Here I’m trying to make sense of what rinnie has been saying–and rinnie is far from alone in denying that the Church sins or errs in any sense.]

Am I off target? If so, where?

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

No, I’m saying exactly the opposite. That when Paul was persecuting the Church, he was persecuting imperfect people. And those imperfect people were the Church. When Jesus said, “you are persecuting me,” he was identifying those very imperfect people with Himself.

You’re identifying the Church with Jesus in such a way as to say that the imperfect people who belong to the Church aren’t really the Church. That defeats the thoroughly orthodox point you want to make, which is that the Church unites us to Jesus as His Body.

Edwin

Not if you look at it the right way. We become one in Christ through his perfect Body which is the Church. TO become one in CHrist is to become Christ Like. THe CHurch which is CHrist is here to help us to become CHrist like, and it is with his help thru his body the CHurch that we can achieve that.

Now not many People achieve this, but that is not to say it is not possible. Because all is Possible through CHrist which I think we can agree on.

We are all called to be Saints are we not? How can we become Saints through CHrist through his living Church. Unfortunately not many of us become perfected in Christ in this world. But that is not to say that it is not possible, because Christ said it is. But unfortunately we cannnot seem to let go of our Love for this world and just have total love for Christ.

BUt it is possible. That is how there are Saints in this world that have showed us it can be done.

Look at Mother T, she is proof that we can indeed let go of the material things of this world and become Christ like. Would you not agree that she is a good example. And JPII is another great example.

But it is so hard, that is why we have the Church because we fail, so many times. But because CHrist shows us alot of mercy and knew we would need alot of Help he left us the Church with the Sacarments. And he lives through the CHurch to help us gain back our good graces we lose when we sin and fail. But if we keep trying and praying and the closer we stay to him in his Church is the best way we can win the battle of sin.

For some it will happen in this world. But not many. But we do have Saints to prove its possible.

And again I disagree with you, Jesus did not say why are you persecuting my People, he said you are persecuting ME. Because without the Church we could not become one in CHrist with Christ. It is there that he gave us a visible Place to go to so we can become what he wants us to become. And there are many visible Sacraments to make this possible.

That is why The Church is Authoritive, because Christ is authoritive, That is why the Church is infallible because Christ is infallible. That is why the Church is Perpetual, because Christ is perpetual.

The Church an the Extension of Chrits incarnation and that extension takes place through the Sacraments.

That is why the CHurch is both human and divine. Because Christ uses the Human means to accomplish extra-ordinary things. That is why the sacraments are the heart of our Catholic faith and worship.

 

[GKC]

Yes you are right. That is not the right way to say it either. Sorry Edwin my bad, I don’t want to confuse you either.

I am trying to find an easy way to show Edwin the difference between a teaching and mistakes that have been made in the past.

The first thing that came to my mind we ex-cathedra is immune from error. But you are correct we believe all of the Popes teachings are infallible.

I thought perhaps you might want to reword that. But don’t be too sure that Edwin doesn’t understand the difference between teaching and a mistake.

Was Exsurge Domine a teaching?

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

Was Exsurge Domine a teaching?

GKC

I think the best answer to that can be found here, in an article by Jimmy Akin.

Quote from the article (although I encourage reading the entire thing)
“The most fundamental way of resolving the alleged dilemma is to examine the question of whether or not Exsurge Domine involves an infallible exercise of papal teaching. The answer is that it does not.”

 

[GKC]

I think the best answer to that can be found here, in an article by Jimmy Akin.

Quote from the article (although I encourage reading the entire thing)
“The most fundamental way of resolving the alleged dilemma is to examine the question of whether or not Exsurge Domine involves an infallible exercise of papal teaching. The answer is that it does not.”

I tend to agree. How was it to be received at the time?

GKC

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Is this the statement from the Council that you’re referring to, Mark?

“Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and be strengthened by the same holy privilege as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy land” (Constitution 3).

Hi PR,

Yes, that’s part of it. The other part is (from the same Canon):

“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.”

And while I mentioned previously the anti-semitism of Canons 68 and 69, I won’t go there here.

It’s the same authority that can “correctly [sort] people out on actual unorthodoxy of the teaching” on, say, abortion today.

Sadly, we can see how “powerful” this authority is. Nancy Pelosi is a clear portrayal of this. That is, the CC can’t even stop an educated public figue from proclaiming a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. She claimed the Catholic Church only recently came to the conclusion that human life begins at conception.

We are not in agreement that this authority was prevented from acting.

One would be reasonably dubious if a 13th century peasant went around bragging about reading the documents from the Lateran Council, eh?

I guess that where I and others may be struggling here concerns this issue. You say that the authority to correct the unorthodox teaching (that was presented as orthodoxy) on the persecution of heretics was present at the time and was not prevented from acting. Did it act, then?

While it would be dubious of a peasant to run around quoting from the Council, they would at least be quoting what was taken by the Church at the time to be orthodox teaching even though it is now recognized to be unorthodox. If a peasant ran around saying that we should treat heretics with more kindness–less burnings at the stake, less banshiment, for instance–articulating a position that we know now is actually orthodox, the chances of them having been seen as a heretic themselves are considerably high. And given that Martin Luther appeared in the role of said peasant a few years later and the “let’s treat heretics more fairly” line was counted against his orthodoxy and contributed to the case for his excommunication, I think we can safely say that someone articulating what we know now to be the *actual orthodox *position would not have been particularly well-received.

So who was in a position to authoritatively articulate the actual orthodox position, and why is there no evidence of them acting? For me, the various reform movements which culminated in the Reformation represent the exercise of this authority and the movement of the Spirit, but I would be very surprised if you agreed with me in this regard.

Now, to be fair, I am conscious that our treatment of heretics does not (at least not in the abstract) relate directly to the core dogmas of the faith as articulated in the Creeds, etc. But our treatment of heretics *does, in reality, *relate to how we imagine God and his relationship with his people and has a lot to do, moreover, with articulating in-groups and out-groups over against the witness of Jesus who, in his life and in the crucifixion, identifies himself with those who are “on the outs” in more ways than one. So to officially teach as orthodoxy that the persecution of heretics is appropriate is, in fact, to make a very powerful theological statement which, of course, has very real consequences.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been on the CAFs for a long time, first as a lurker, then only posing questions and responding solely to threads I’d started, now as a rabid participant, and I have often seen this objection: * “Many quote _____ (fill in the blank with ECFs, Chesterton, papal encyclicals, etc) yet have not actually read ________. They only have read a tract on Catholic Answers about ___ .”*

While this objection in one sense may be warranted, I wonder if the objector has ever said, “The capital of the Philippines is Manila”, yet has not actually ever set foot in the Philippines. Howe does he know this if he’s never actually been there? I suppose because he trusts the sources which have told him that “The capital of the Philippines is Manila.” It may give him some credibility if he’s actually been there, but it does not change the truth of his statement, yes?

Similarly, one need not have read *Ex Surge Domine *in its entirety in order to comment on it.

I say this only in anticipation of objectors who may sniff, “Well, so many people are commenting on this document yet not a single one of them has actually read it. Just Catholic Answers tracts on it.”

If this is their objection I would hope that they will hold themselves up to the same standard and not make comments like, “They speak Urdu in India” unless they have actually been to India and heard Urdu spoken there.

Just my :twocents:

 

[GKC]

I’ve been on the CAFs for a long time, first as a lurker, then only posing questions and responding solely to threads I’d started, now as a rabid participant, and I have often seen this objection: * “Many quote _____ (fill in the blank with ECFs, Chesterton, papal encyclicals, etc) yet have not actually read ________. They only have read a tract on Catholic Answers about ___ .”*

While this objection in one sense may be warranted, I wonder if the objector has ever said, “The capital of the Philippines is Manila”, yet has not actually ever set foot in the Philippines. Howe does he know this if he’s never actually been there? I suppose because he trusts the sources which have told him that “The capital of the Philippines is Manila.” It may give him some credibility if he’s actually been there, but it does not change the truth of his statement, yes?

Similarly, one need not have read *Ex Surge Domine *in its entirety in order to comment on it.

I say this only in anticipation of objectors who may sniff, “Well, so many people are commenting on this document yet not a single one of them has actually read it. Just Catholic Answers tracts on it.”

If this is their objection I would hope that they will hold themselves up to the same standard and not make comments like, “They speak Urdu in India” unless they have actually been to India and heard Urdu spoken there.

Just my :twocents:

I’ve read it.

Read Chesterton, for around 46 years, too. Your point is sort of like Chesterton’s opening sentence in chap. 1 of the AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

GKC