When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[PRmerger]

Fair enough.

What was he doing, specifically? Must a RC affirm any/all of the 41 points he made?

GKC

I don’t believe a RC must do anything with any/all of the 41 points he made.

Recently I learned that there’s an encylical on Dante Alighieri. Really.

As a good, devout Catholic I could have gone my entire life without ever knowing what the Magisterial position is on Dante.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And how could you go to sleep at night or live with yourself without knowing that information!!? LOL :shrug:

Recently I learned that there’s an encylical on Dante Alighieri. Really.

As a good, devout Catholic I could have gone my entire life without ever knowing what the Magisterial position is on Dante.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You only must affirm the first 39 of them.

Fair enough.

What was he doing, specifically? Must a RC affirm any/all of the 41 points he made?

GKC

 

[GKC]

I don’t believe a RC must do anything with any/all of the 41 points he made.

Recently I learned that there’s an encylical on Dante Alighieri. Really.

As a good, devout Catholic I could have gone my entire life without ever knowing what the Magisterial position is on Dante.

I can well imagine. But now that you know…

I think I’ll look that up. One of my favorite Anglican writers was a Dante specialist.

As to the errors Leo lists, you would not think you were required to acknowledge they are errors? Or that he was teaching that they were errors, by identifying them?

GKC

 

[GKC]

You only must affirm the first 39 of them.

Now cut that out.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

Fair enough.

What was he doing, specifically?

GKC

Telling Luther he was a HERETIC!

 

[GKC]

Telling Luther he was a HERETIC!

And was that a teaching function?

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

And was that a teaching function?

GKC

Yes, it was a teaching to the entire Church about the heresies promulgated by Luther.

I condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.

Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[GKC]

Yes, it was a teaching to the entire Church about the heresies promulgated by Luther.

I condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Good.

I was pretty sure it was. And as faithful RCs, you affirm the truth of the teaching.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

On Exsurge Domine, I agree that the burden of proof lies in this matter Jimmy said. And as he said Canon Law provides that NO DOCTRINES is UNDERSTOOD to be INFALLIBLY defined unless it is CLEARLY Established as such.

I would like to define it myself, but for what its worth who cares. But may I?

Is it the will of the Spirit to put heretics ot death? I say yes. Now let me answer this in a Catholic view which I know Edwin you will not agree but its my call.

To put heretics to death would be to excommunicate them from the CC. Okay now how is that putting them to death. Simple, You are cutting them off from the Living Church Christ and cutting them off food. The bread of eternal life. Without the bread from heaven you will starve the soul. What is worse death of the Soul or death of the body?

There is no need to excommunicate a heretic, as by the decision to embrace heretical doctrine,one has already excommunicated oneself. Even that does not equal to death, either temporal, or eternal. therefore, your notion of the phrase “putting them to death” as equivalent to excommunication has no historical validity.

On the contrary, in the days Exsurge Domine was written, a heretic was also considered a traiter from a political point of view, and they were exiled, imprisoned, and put to death because of their damage to temporal society, or the potential thereof.

Excommunication does not put anyone to death in any way.

 

[guanophore]

This strikes me as more than a little disingenuous. Jan Hus was burnt at the stake during the Council of Constance, and I find it hard to believe that part of the motivation wasn’t to make an example of him, and I have no reason to believe that there wasn’t a solid consensus among the church hierarchy that this was “a good thing” to do. Doesn’t taking an act like that constitute a form of teaching – saying this is what happens to people who teach heresy publicly? If it doesn’t then how do we regard it? Just a bit of light entertainment?

No, an act such as that does not constitute a form of teaching. On the contrary, it is more like the bad example of Peter in the book of Acts, where Paul castigated Peter for his hypocritical behavior.

Acting in opposition to the teaching of Christ (to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us) does is hypocritical no matter how many people do it, including “the solid consensus of church hierarchy”. Even if all those leaders involved in the trial of Hus agreed (which they did not), this is still not a Teaching of the Church.

Bear in mind that 80% of the bishops around the world had fallen into Arianism by the time Athanasius came on the scene.

I think it must be regarded as an execution, without doubt. I am sure they believed they were doing what God intended.

By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith,
[20] among them Hymenae’us and Alexander, whom I have delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. I Tim 1:19

I am sure they believed Hus had made a shipwreck of his own faith, and would do the same to others, and that he needed to be “delivered to Satan”.

The rationale for all temporal and capital punishments for heresy were based upon the notion that a person might be saved by them.

1Cor.5
[5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

I can’t say that I understood what the Apsotle meant here. It seems clear that "deliver to Satan means that the flesh is to be destroyed, and that the goal is that the person might learn and be saved.

 

[guanophore]

But Leo’s condemnation of Luther’s statement is an affirmation of the practice. And the more you and other Catholics try to deny this, the more evident you make it that you’ve painted yourselves into an impossible position.

I agree. The Church is obligated to embrace and defend the Teachings of the Apostles, and it is clear that there were cases where the HS seemed to want people put to death. To say that the HS does not “will” this is beyond our purview as humans. Our lives belong to God, and He can take them if He so desires.

How is this relevant? Kamen does not deny that the Church sanctioned and approved of the execution of heretics–he just argues that the Spanish Inquisition in particular executed “only” a couple thousand people. The Lea quote is not, in my opinion, fair to the Catholic Church, so I’m not sure why you use it. I see no reason to think that the Catholic Church had not previously defended heretics’ right to a fair trial.

If the inquisition had not been created, they would have been summarily put to death on the basis of an accusation only. They also were given no chance to recant of heresy, as the inquisition later required.

You keep laying such accusations at the feet of the “Church”, presumably because you equate the actions of certain leaders in a small geographical area with “the Church”. This is not the case. The majority of the Catholic Church was not even aware of these events, and never were such actions part of the teaching of the Magesterium. None of the Eastern Rites practiced such activities, because there was not a conflation of temporal with religious authority. This is peculiar to the Latin Rite, and specifically in small areas of Europe.

One of the most frustrating things about discussing this issue is that Catholics will cite any statement that makes the Church's record look relatively better than its critics claim as if this simply dismissed all possible criticisms.

Edwin

Well, for the record, I think it was horrendous to put heretics to death, and to classify them as traitors, requiring the death penalty by civil authorities or banishment from their homes.

However, these activities are not part of the doctrine of the faith, and objecting to the Catholic faith because people implemented the tenents of the faith in a manner we find abhorrent does not seem to make sense to me.

 

[guanophore]

This is an excellent point--perhaps the most insightful thing anyone has said in this discussion so far! My own view of the "hard sayings of the OT" is much more liberal than probably you or Akin would be happy with. I do not and cannot believe that God ever commanded the slaughter of whole nations, including women and children. I do not believe that God actually approved of Phineas sticking a javelin into two people while they were having sex, just because the woman was a Midianite (and to be fair, the text assumes that having a relationship with a Midianite woman automatically means worshiping her gods, which of course is the point of the passage,

Why would you not believe these things? Do they not fit with your concept of a loving God?

Do you think that God will not annihilate sin, and sinners in this way?

Do you not believe in the Lake of Fire, either?

What about the two people that died in the book of Acts, for lying to the HS?

 just as for you the point of IV Lateran and Exsurge Domine is "the Church is at war with heresy"). I believe that these passages reflect what the ancient Hebrews believed God wanted, and that their divinely inspired meaning can be determined only by looking at Scripture as a whole in light of the analogy of faith and the tradition of the Church.

I often read the texts this way as well. However, how does one reconcile that they are inspired by God, yet represent the point of view of fallible men? That is grist for another thread, for sure.

I have absolutely no problem with your taking the same approach to the "hard sayings of the Church." And I ought to be more patient with Catholic unwillingness to say simply "the Church erred," since I'm unwilling to say simply, "The Bible erred" or "The Bible commanded genocide." However, I am also unwilling to say simply "the Bible does not err" or "the Bible did not command genocide." Rather, I would distinguish between the Bible as a collection of historical documents to be read in their original context and the Bible as the inspired Word of God. The two things are not independent of each other. But one is not reducible to the other.

I appreciate your careful reasoning, Edwin. You are right, one is not reducible to the other. However, I think it is our different concepts of “church” that make it possible for us to do this. We conceive of the Church as incarnational, just like Christ. It has a divine nature, and a human nature. The human nature of it is fallible, while the divine is not.

I would agree that a similar distinction has to be made with regard to the Church, between "the Church as the company of baptized people, full of sin and error as all people are" and "the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ." Nor would I disagree with the Catholic claim that the Church in the second sense speaks authoritatively in and through the leaders of the Church in the first sense.

Neither of these definitions seem to encompass the divine elements.

But there is a big difference between the Bible and the Church. The Bible is, as Catholic apologists are fond of pointing out, a book–a set of words containing ideas. It is not a person, although the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Bible and speaks through it, is a Person. But the Church in the first sense *is *a company of people.

this is where we differ, as Catholics see the Church as the Body of Christ, with Himself as the Head. The HS is the soul of the Church. It is these divine elements that prevent error. The company of people become members of the Church, but when they sin, they separate themselves from unity with her.

And I worry that the official/conservative/'orthodox" Catholic definition of the Church makes actual people almost irrelevant.

I can see your point here. But the individuals do not make the Teaching. It comes from Christ, through the Apostles. It is also not right to blame the Church for the sinful actions of those individuals who are attached to her, however, imperfectly. When sin separates them from the unity of the Church, they no longer walk in the doctrines of the faith. No matter how many of them there are, or how high they may be in the hierarchy, they do not act and teach the Truth, and therefore, do not represent the Church.

So distinguish all you like between what is eternally and infallibly taught by the Holy Spirit working in the Mystical Body and what is fallibly and temporally decreed and done by the mixed-up people who constitute the Church on earth. But don't tell me that we can't speak of the company of people as "the Church."

The company of people do not define the Teaching of the Church. And when people in that company sin, they no longer act in accordance with the teachings of the Church. It may be you who are making the people “irrelevant”. You want to charge their wrongs to the pure bride of Christ, rather than letting them accept responsibility for their own wrongdoing.

 

[guanophore]

You continue to try to push something Edwin that does not exist.

I agree that he does push a definition of the Church that is incomplete, and tries to define what the leadership says and does in one area as authoritative. He does not seem to be able to separate leaders who go astray from the Magesterium.

But because you cannot understand the difference between a teaching and a discipline you do you best to make a impossible situation for everyone.

It seems to me that the trouble he is having is observing those placed in positions of authority by the Church engaging in unchristlike behaviors in the name of the Church.

We try to explain to you that mistakes made by humans cannot be blamed on the Holy Spirit in defining scripture. But you cannot see this. No one can help you see something Edwin that you refuse to open your eyes to.

It may be that he genuinely cannot see the incarnational nature of the Church, and it is not a refusal at all.

We know that the Pope can make mistakes.   It must be so hard for you to accept human beings do human things.

I don’t see this as the problem at all, Rinnie. I think he can clearly accept that human beings make mistakes. I think the problem he is having is that Catholics claim the Church is infallible, and since he sees those people who are making mistakes as “Church” it does not seem to him that they are infallible.

Well get over it Edwin he gave him that authority and Power to act with his own conscience on things also.  Just because you cannot comprehend this does not give you the right to judge us because we can.

I dont’ think this is fair or respectful to Edwin. I think he is genuinely trying to work out these issues he has with Catholicism. It is not helpful to tell a person struggling so hard to reason things out “get over it”. It is true that there comes a point where reason fails to reach, and one must take a step of faith. However, Edwin’s convictions and objections are valid, especially given his point of view (church = fallible humans). I dont’ think he is being judgmental, either.

Why do you want us to say? It is what it is Edwin. We did not call the shots God did. He is the one who put these leaders to lead the Church and gave them times that they could make thier own calls also in a human way. So for goodness sakes we forgive you for being human Edwin, why can’t you forgive anyone else.

I think part of the issue here is that those people did not ask for forgiveness, and did not appear to think that their actions were wrong in any way.

I am honestly beginning to believe that you think that the Leaders of the Perfect Church should be perfect also. Well its not going to happen Edwin. There is, and will always be, ONLY ONE GOD. So forget it, no leader of the CC or any other Church will ever please you Edwin because they are human, and humans can fail.

Yes, I think this is the crux of the problem, or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the claim that the Church is infallible is the problem, since it is clear that the men are imperfect.

 

[josie_L]

Good.

I was pretty sure it was. And as faithful RCs, you affirm the truth of the teaching.

GKC

And are we as faithful Catholics sure of what Leo X meant or was supposedly “teaching” with regard to #33, i.e., did he delineate in what way Luther had erred so we can understand what we are to affirm?

 

[GKC]

And are we as faithful Catholics sure of what Leo X meant or was supposedly “teaching” with regard to #33, i.e., did he delineate in what way Luther had erred so we can understand what we are to affirm?

As far as I can tell, Leo was teaching that Luther was in error to assert that the burning of heretics was not in accordance with the will of the Holy Spirit. What that implied is an open question.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

I think that we should use language clearly and consistently.

I can’t disagree with you here, but this is a practical impossiblity. Our notions of what “church” is come from Gk, Aramaic, and Latin. Your application of the modern Anglican meaning just can’t fit in the space. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the space is still unfilled by the deficient definition.

And I think that Catholic insistence that "the Church is perfect" and that imperfect leaders are to be identified with the Church in some circumstances but not in others creates confusion and impedes responsibility.

I can see how it does, indeed, create confusion. However, this is the nature of the beast. The reason Paul got onto Peter was because of this very dynamic. Peter’s behavior, contrary to his Teaching, was giving the wrong message. He clearly understood that the HS was poured out on Gentiles as well as Jews, but when the Jews came, he started acting different. This is the dichotomy of infallible teaching and fallible behavior. I think responsibility is not “impeded”. Peter was still responsible for his wrong actions.

Maybe what is impeded is your opportunity to lay blame at the foot of the Catholic Church?

So basically I'm saying that it should be one way or the other. Either admit that "the Perfect Church" is something quite distinct from the visible organization, or admit that the Church isn't perfect.

I can understand why it is difficult to function within such an ambiguity. However, Rinnie is right about this point, both things are true. I am not sure “suck it up” is the best response, but indeed, we are in a position to accept the things we cannot change.

The church, however, never claims to be “perfect”. The gift of infallibility applies to the Teaching, not to the persons who claim to embrace it.

 But you want to have things both ways, and become extremely annoyed when someone calls you on it, as this discussion has shown.

No, it is not a matter of what we “want”. It is a matter of what “is”. Jesus created the Church using the same incarnational principle that resides in His Own Person. She is comprised of both divine and human elements. The human elements are imperfect, but the divine elements make the Church infallible.

All the accusations of having a “chip” or a “grudge” simply amount to a tacit admission that I’m making valid points and you don’t want to deal with them.

I think you do have a chip. I think you have many valid points. I think that there is no way to “deal” with your deficient definition of “church”, except to say that it is deficient. We are not at liberty to relinquish that which has been passed on to us from the Apostles. That means we cannot accept your definition of Church, because it is inconsistent with what they believed and taught.

 

[guanophore]

admit that people at the time thought that the Church taught that heretics should be persecuted.

Edwin

I will stipulate to this, at the very least, for the sake of discussion. Let’s say that they all believed that the heretics’ body should be delivered to Satan so that his soul might be saved.

Does their thinking this actually make it Church Teaching?

If so, then why is this Teaching not found in any other parts of the world?

Why was there no persecution of heretics in the Eastern Rites, or the Orthodox Churches?

Why, if this is a Church Teaching, was it only present in the Latin Rite, in Europe?

 

[josie_L]

As far as I can tell, Leo was teaching that Luther was in error to assert that the burning of heretics was not in accordance with the will of the Holy Spirit. What that implied is an open question.

GKC

But we have no way of knowing this, correct? In fact, we have nothing prior (or post) to Leo’s bull that can state unequivocally that the Church officially taught that burning heretics was according to the will of the H.S.?

 

[GKC]

But we have no way of knowing this, correct? In fact, we have nothing prior (or post) to Leo’s bull that can state unequivocally that the Church officially taught that burning heretics was according to the will of the H.S.?

No, and I haven’t said otherwise. But it is a logical deduction from the condemnation of the contrary, considering the actual history of the time. But if Leo was teaching, in the Bull, whatever he was teaching, he was teaching officially.

OTOH, IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM doesn’t seem to be teaching anything.

GKC