When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re thinking of Gavin McCleod of Mary Tyler Moore fame (Murray), not Darren McGavin. But there is a “gavin” somewhere in both!

And wasn’t he one heck of a Love Boat captain?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yep, GKC is on a quote trip tonight…what is this from?

“Angels and ministers of grace, defend us!”

---

It’s an allusion to an e.e. cummings line, dredged from my memory.

I gave gurney an e. e. quote, too.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Yep, GKC is on a quote trip tonight…what is this from?

“Angels and ministers of grace, defend us!”

---

That, of course, is Dr. McCoy.

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

You’re thinking of Gavin McCleod of Mary Tyler Moore fame (Murray), not Darren McGavin. But there is a “gavin” somewhere in both!

I know.

It was a joke.

Sheesh. You boys were indeed “born old”!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ha ha ha ha! I can actually get YOU for once, sir! It was actually Hamlet before McCoy quoted it! At last! I got him! [doing a Leprachaun dance to the theme of Darby O’Gill]

That, of course, is Dr. McCoy.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yeah, no kiddin’ we were. I was born in 1975 but mentally about 1945. Jim was probably born in 45 and mentally was 1885 LOL

I know.

It was a joke.

Sheesh. You boys were indeed “born old”!

 

[GKC]

Ha ha ha ha! I can actually get YOU for once, sir! It was actually Hamlet before McCoy quoted it! At last! I got him! [doing a Leprachaun dance to the theme of Darby O’Gill]

If you say so.

But I was assuming everyone knew that (Act I, Scene IV) and that you were going for the esoteric answer, not the obvious one.

GKC,

my dear, my darling one, my smiling and beguiling one

 

[GKC]

I know.

It was a joke.

Sheesh. You boys were indeed “born old”!

True. And it’s only gotten worse, since.

And I suspected some humor. Which is why I didn’t post the “correction”.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh don’t! Thanks a lot, man! Now I’ll hear Sean Connery singin’ that tune ALL NIGHT! My kids just love watching that at St. Patrick’s Day each year. They love the scene where Darby goes into the underground lair of King Brian Connors and the leprachauns all dance to and fro. It’s so fun to watch a 2, 3, and 4 year old bust up laughing at stuff like that. But then when they start dancing like that themselves all over the house the rest of the night, wow, that’s different LOL

If you say so.

But I was assuming everyone knew that (Act I, Scene IV) and that you were going for the esoteric answer, not the obvious one.

GKC,

my dear, my darling one, my smiling and beguiling one

 

[GKC]

Oh don’t! Thanks a lot, man! Now I’ll hear Sean Connery singin’ that tune ALL NIGHT! My kids just love watching that at St. Patrick’s Day each year. They love the scene where Darby goes into the underground lair of King Brian Connors and the leprachauns all dance to and fro. It’s so fun to watch a 2, 3, and 4 year old bust up laughing at stuff like that. But then when they start dancing like that themselves all over the house the rest of the night, wow, that’s different LOL

I liked the movie, too.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve had a lot of people trying to put the “come hither” on me in CAF lately! I need King Brian Connors! And I’d never, I repeat never, ask for a fourth wish!

I liked the movie, too.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

If this were an official teaching of the Church then how pray tell would you explain prior statements contradicting Leo X?

I will cross that bridge when you show me some. I can’t myself think of an official Church teaching before the modern era saying that heretics should not be executed. However, it’s true that both Hilary of Poitiers and Augustine rejected the death penalty for heresy. Anyway, if you do find such a statement before the 13th century, I would explain it as the prior position of the Church, which was changed in the High Middle Ages. What would contradict my claims would be such a statement from any point between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries.

If you find such a statement from the High or Late Middle Ages, I will admit that my argument does not hold water. And believe me or not, I will be very, very happy. But I am quite sure, unfortunately, that you will find no such thing.

And if Leo X did believe that burning heretics was in accordance with the will of Holy Spirit, how is this official church teaching rather than a testament of his own wickedness/ignorance

Because he’s issuing a bull as Pope, condemning heresy. That’s pretty official. (Note: I’m not claiming that it meets the requirement for infallibility.) Furthermore, as I have pointed out over and over, the statement does not exist in isolation–he’s only affirming the validity of the practice of Western Christendom since the 12th century, upheld by theological luminaries such as Aquinas.

(moreover the bull in question is not an ex-cathedra statement)?

I know. That’s irrelevant for the point I’m making, unless you are prepared to claim that only ex cathedra papal statements are official.

The Church (ecclesiastics) throughout the ages has exhibitied anti-judaism and/or anti-semitism in some form or another, yet it never officially taught anti-semitism and/or anti judaism

You have not established this. It’s a highly dubious claim at best.

You would be more than annoyed, if, for example, I made it a habit of posting my criticism of Protestants everytime I was speaking to one . . . . “You know you Protestants . . . .”, i.e., it’s downright rude.

I would certainly object to being lumped with Protestants as a whole, since I am no more accountable for the actions of, say, Baptists than for those of Catholics. However, if/when I observe Episcopalians saying things I consider indefensible on this forum, I find it prudent to make my disagreement known. I understand that folks on this forum have a certain stereotype of Episcopalians, and that this stereotype is based in things that Episcopalians really do and say. So I have a certain responsibility to distance myself from that stereotype. (I do object to being lumped with liberal Episcopalians even when I have said explicitly that I differ from them!)

Certainly there are a lot more Catholics than Episcopalians here (naturally!), and I don’t expect you all to police each other. But it’s nice when a Catholic is willing to say to a fellow Catholic, “You’re just embarrassing Catholicism here.” It makes for a much better discussion and strengthens the credibility of the Catholics as a whole.

Now I need to go off and put my money where my mouth is–I came out of my week-long lurk largely because I noticed an Episcopalian saying some very silly things, and wanted to register my protest. But I may go back to lurking for a while, so if I don’t respond right away please understand that that’s the reason why.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps. But I would be surprised if you told me that you had never used “special pleading” or “logic-chopping” in any theological discussions–perhaps with atheists in providing apologia on hard sayings of the OT?

When I have caught myself doing so, I have tried to find a better approach. This is a bad way to defend one’s faith, period.

I do not believe that the divinely inspired meaning of Scripture is necessarily what the original human authors intended or what the original audience took it to mean.

If you want to say the same thing about the statements we’re discussing, I’m fine with it. Just don’t do a “bait and switch” between the historically discernible meaning and the theological meaning.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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?

Quite possibly because the Eastern Church remained faithful to Holy Tradition, and the Western Church did not!

Note: there has been persecution of heretics among the Orthodox on a number of occasions, but the Church did not play quite the same active and official role, just as it did not play the same role in the West before the 12th century. Something changed in the West in the 12th century. This strengthens my suspicion (going back to the OP at last!) that “Rome” may have gone wrong at the beginning of the second millennium.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes, it did use the word “burned”, just like God used the word “execute” in Numbers 25

The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the LORD, (E)so that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.”

It’s a hard thing to read, isn’t it?

As to what Pope Leo meant to teach, to that day and age and circumstance, in that 11 word sentence was: Luther, you are wrong. Heretics need to be stopped!

No, he meant to say that heretics should be stopped by burning. There no reasonable historical ground for thinking otherwise.

If you were to say that what God meant to say through Leo was that heretics should be stopped, that would be a different matter.

Similarly, I do not think that what the human author(s) of Numbers intended to say, in their historical context (much less whatever it is that the ancient Hebrews thought God was commanding–being relatively conservative, I assume that there was some historical incident that lay behind this, though one could reasonably argue that the story as we have it is primarily a response to post-exilic conditions such as those described in Ezra and Nehemiah) is necessarily identical to what God was saying through them.

I recognize that this is probably a horrifically liberal view of Scripture to you (and no doubt to GKC). But there you have it–I am at least consistent.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I understand what you are saying, and in fact posed a similar question on the CAFs a while back, regarding embryonic stem cell research, homosexual unions, etc.

Itjustdave1988 gave a lengthy but trenchant response: (see here for full discussion)

"I understand that they are my superior, not because they are always right, but because they were commission and appointed by lawful authority.** I often suffer to submit to the will of another, even though I believe they are wrong. **Being wrong is not the same as being contrary to God’s will.

I appreciate this honest response. I have often been told by Catholics that only an infallible authority is worth submitting to in religious matters. I know you don’t like my generalizing, but I need to figure out whether you and itsjustdave are saying something different, or if I am misunderstanding you.

I, for instance, submit to the authority of the Episcopal Church even when I believe it is wrong

I do question the distinction between being wrong and being contrary to God’s will. In questions of Christian faith and morals, I am not sure how that would work. Surely God does not will error? I can see how on prudential matters one might make such a distinction.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

No, he meant to say that heretics should be stopped by burning. There no reasonable historical ground for thinking otherwise.

If you were to say that what God meant to say through Leo was that heretics should be stopped, that would be a different matter.

Similarly, I do not think that what the human author(s) of Numbers intended to say, in their historical context (much less whatever it is that the ancient Hebrews thought God was commanding–being relatively conservative, I assume that there was some historical incident that lay behind this, though one could reasonably argue that the story as we have it is primarily a response to post-exilic conditions such as those described in Ezra and Nehemiah) is necessarily identical to what God was saying through them.

I recognize that this is probably a horrifically liberal view of Scripture to you (and no doubt to GKC). But there you have it–I am at least consistent.

Edwin

Really? You think I’d think that?

GKC

 

[Contarini]

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?

I do not believe that God ever commands the killing of children, period.

Phineas is a less clear-cut case, since it involves adults. But I read that passage in Hebrew the other day, and discovered that the word translated “belly” can refer specifically to the female genitals. That sick joke was the last straw, opening my eyes to just what a monstrous act was being described. So I stand by my claim: I don’t think that this kind of murderous response to a man having a sexual relationship with a woman of another nation (there’s no reference to the man in question actually worshiping idols, just the assumption that the woman would influence him to do so) is pleasing to God. If it is, I have no good reason to say that Osama bin Laden’s actions are not pleasing to God as well.

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

I do not believe that God literally throws people into a lake of fire, no.

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

That’s certainly harsh, but not obviously contrary to the goodness of God. As Stanley Hauerwas says, “God is God–God can kill whoever the h–l God wants to.” (To be fair, that was his response to the question of ancient Hebrew “genocide”–he’s actually more conservative on that one than I am.) God gave life and can take it away. But the message of Numbers 25 is that human beings should hurry up and kill the offenders so God doesn’t kill us all. I can’t accept that as an accurate understanding of God. It points to something true about God–but the truth to which it points is the Cross, in which God Himself takes on the consequences of our sins and demonstrates His holiness not by killing sinners but by redeeming them.

. 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.

Yes, but your point is valid that the two issues are connected.

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.

But as I pointed out much earlier in this thread, the Christological parallel doesn’t hold at all. We don’t believe that Jesus’ humanity is sinful. We don’t believe that Jesus’ humanity does things that Jesus’ divinity doesn’t do. That would be a kind of hyper-Nestorianism!

this is where we differ, as Catholics see the Church as the Body of Christ, with Himself as the Head.

I do too!

The company of people become members of the Church, but when they sin, they separate themselves from unity with her.

So no one except a saint is fully a member of the Church?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Really? You think I’d think that?

GKC

I wasn’t sure, so I should have said “perhaps” instead of “no doubt.”

Edwin

 

[GKC]

I wasn’t sure, so I should have said “perhaps” instead of “no doubt.”

Edwin

Ok.

Actually, I’m more in line with you.

GKC