When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[josie_L]

Honorius did espouse and promote heresy. It is heresy because the Church has defined heresy. When an individual departs from the teaching of the Church, no matter who it is, they have fallen into heresy.

Well, not actually promote as he silenced both the one operation and two operation (concerning the divine and human will of Jesus) as per Sergius’s request/policy, that being said, he was pronounced heretical in the sense that he failed to act as head shepherd whose role it is to stop heresy.

p.s. There are some who say that his comments in his letter to Sergius may have been misunderstood (and therefore not heretical) because Sergius was not being honest about what monothelism was (Saint Maximus as well as Honorius’s secretary at the time the letter was written believed Honorius not to be guilty).

 

[GKC]

i got sidetracked with the non-infallibe statements by the papal magisterium, but i stand corrected.

No, i’m particularly worried why some people seem determined (edwin) to make me believe that what was being affirmed in the bull is that leo x taught burning heretics was according to the will of the spirit. Moreover, it is difficult to assent to something that isn’t concise, in fact, i do not see the logic in that. I did however have a chance to research more on the matter and as a result i found this (a history/religion professor from duke university hans hillerbrand):

"an additional weakness of the document was that it refrained from identifying the specific censures for the forty-one propositions. The quotations from luther simply received the label "respective haereticos aut scandalosos aut falsos aut piarum aurium offensos vel simplicium mentium seductivos et ventati catholicae obviantes."4 this vagueness was especially significant in light of the absence of any explicit verdict as to which sentences were outrightly “heretical.”

ts.mu.edu/content/30/30.1/30.1.6.pdf

fine, but guesses don’t really help in this instance.

ok.

Gkc

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So the Church can basically do whatever she wants as long as she doesn’t put it into the Catechism and make it official. Gotcha…

Anecdotal evidence of papal actions that represented the Church aren’t enough for you. That’s ok. You have it in your head that the Church can do no wrong so our exchange it fruitless and a waste of keyboard strokes. There is no discussing the topic with someone of that mindset that will excuse away dastardly actions in the name of it not being ‘official’ even when the Chair of Peter in writing on many many occasions made the pronouncement to allow and condone slavery.

I’m pretty blown away that you are willing to let slavery slide because you’re not sure of the motivation behind the popes permitting it? Wow!? I thought the ends never justify the means with Catholic thinking? What happened to something being intrinsically evil? If I had a dollar for every time I heard something being rejected and condemned in here for being “intrinsically evil” I’d be The Donald! Slavery is evil and you and I should not dismiss away their condoning it just because we’re not sure what they were thinking?

Quotations and examples aren’t enough in discourse with you on this topic so I’m not sure what else to say. Putting slavery in canon law is pretty official to me. But from your vantage point it must be in the catechism or else it’s carte blanche for the popes to do what they want.

And you say that I should never surrender my mind and reason to the Church and yet John Paul II says just that in Lumen Gentium in Anna Scott’s citation earlier? You also told Anna and I in previous posts that we should just submit our minds and wills to the popes because they are “wiser and holier and more learned men” than we are? So you’re losing me here. Catholics talk about the importance of reason but I see it only as reason informed by their reason in line with their reason and a full submission to their will making my reason not reason at all but blindly jumping off the proverbial intellectual precipice with no questions asked. I just don’t concur.

We’ll just agree to disagree as we’re not getting anywhere. God bless.

If you wish to strenuously assert, such as you have, that the Catholic church teaches and supports slavery, then it seems to me that you will be able to produce some evidence to support your assertion.

Yes, it is a strategy that I have learned since I came here to CAF, and discovered all the preposterous allegations that are made against Catholicism that are based upon prejudice and ignorance.

If the official teaching on this is so “obscure” that it cannot be found, what makes you think it even exists?

If you believe the Church teaches this, why can’t you just locate the salient reference in the searchable online Catholic Catechism?

That is because an historical decree by a pope does not necessarily equate to Church teaching. Popes have done many things that are contrary to Church teaching, starting from Peter not associating with the Gentiles after “certain men” came from Jerusalem to Antioch.

I have a clarity that the sins of men do not taint the teaching of Christ, and that He has preserved His Truth infallibly in the Church, in spite of the failings of those in positions of authority that have not followed them.

I don’t equate the identity of the Church founded by Christ with the actions of men who have departed from her Truth.

I don’t believe I indicated any such thing. On the contrary, I think it would be a very dangerous thing for you, in particular, to do.

I think you are missing the point here, Gurney. Catholics believe that the Pope is the successor of Peter, and that Jesus gave Peter the care and feeding of the flock. The reason to submit is because Jesus has appointed him to shepherd us. Although I will say that, for the last century, we have been blessed to have shepherds who are holy and learned men.

I am not sure what you mean by a “divergent praxis in their approach to faith”. Divergent from what? Are you saying that my practice of separating the acts of sinful men from the Holy and infallible Bride of Christ makes a discussion with me fruitless?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

GKC, You seriously need to start exercising some brevity in your responses. Honestly, this is so wordy that I get lost in all your verbage. Please, let’s get some control over ourselves here!

P.S. Just finished OHMSS time for DAF (decode that one!)

ok.

Gkc

 

[GKC]

gkc, you seriously need to start exercising some brevity in your responses. Honestly, this is so wordy that i get lost in all your verbage. Please, let’s get some control over ourselves here!

P.s. Just finished ohmss time for daf (decode that one!)

?

Gkc

 

[PRmerger]

Yep. Bad things.

Any particular kind of bad thing, that might be concluded, from the wording of #33?

GKC

Yes, GKC. Bad things like burning can happen when someone does bad things… Just like Ananias and Sapphira experienced. And Korah. And Pharoah.

 

[guanophore]

So the Church can basically do whatever she wants as long as she doesn’t put it into the Catechism and make it official. Gotcha…

I am curious what your mean by your use of the word “Church” here.

Of course, God has given humans free will, and they can (and do) sin however they want. And you can be certain that these sinful acts will not be held up in the Catechism as teachings of the Church.

If you think that corrupt officials cannot use their offices to purport sins, you are mistaken.

Infallibility is a gift that only protects those who adhere to the Teaching of the Apostles. When one chooses to depart from it, then one is no longer protected by it.

Anecdotal evidence of papal actions that represented the Church aren't enough for you. That's ok.

No, they are not. The reason for this is that Church teaching is not based upon anecdotes, but upon Jesus. People who misrepresent Jesus, like Judas, are not the model that we are given to follow.

And clearly this position is not “ok” for you, since you seem to be having this sarcastic response.

You have it in your head that the Church can do no wrong so our exchange it fruitless and a waste of keyboard strokes.

You still have not answered my query about why it is so important for you to “prove” that the Church is wrong?

There is no discussing the topic with someone of that mindset that will excuse away dastardly actions in the name of it not being 'official' even when the Chair of Peter in writing on many many occasions made the pronouncement to allow and condone slavery.

Well, I agree with you here. Clearly many officials have used their official channels to perpetrate wrongdoing. It would be wrong to excuse their actions, especially BECAUSE they do not represent the teaching of the Church.

As to the complex social problem of slavery, you still have not explained why Paul did not write against it in the NT. This is a fundamental aspect of understanding subsequent actions to the successors of the Apostles.

You also have not explained how it is that you think the Pope has the authority to abrogate social institutions like slavery. The Pope does not have the power to “allow” or disallow such things. That is like saying the Pope can “allow” the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. It is something outside of his purview.

I'm pretty blown away that you are willing to let slavery slide because you're not sure of the motivation behind the popes permitting it?

I don’t think I said that. You don’t know me at all, but I can assure you that I have done nothing in my lifetime to “let slavery slide”. I will affirm, though, that I am not in a position to judge the souls of those in history, such as St. Paul, who appeared to support the institution of slavery as a matter of social reality.

Wow!?  I thought the ends never justify the means with Catholic thinking?  What happened to something being intrinsically evil?

If slavery were intrinsically evil, Jesus would not have come to earth in the form of one, or commanded that we take the role of a slave toward one another.

 

[guanophore]

If I had a dollar for every time I heard something being rejected and condemned in here for being “intrinsically evil” I’d be The Donald! Slavery is evil and you and I should not dismiss away their condoning it just because we’re not sure what they were thinking?

I don’t think you can show that slavery is intrinsically evil. I don’t think this can be supported scripturally.

Quotations and examples aren't enough in discourse with you on this topic so I'm not sure what else to say.

You could provide the Church Teaching that proves your assertion that slavery is condoned and encouraged by the Catholic Church.

 Putting slavery in canon law is pretty official to me.

I agree. I look forward to seeing the reference for this.

But from your vantage point it must be in the catechism or else it’s carte blanche for the popes to do what they want.

You seem to be getting quite frustrated and accusatory here. You have not been able to provide the references to support your claim. You balked when I asked you to produce them, saying that they were “obscure” and that only one in ten people could find them. I suggested that the Teachings of the Church are readily available in a searchable catechism online, and should be easy to locate. I happen to know that there are no teachings in there that condone slavery, but I invited you to find them there.

What you WILL find in the catechism is that popes, along with the rest of Catholics, do not have “carte blanche” to do what they want. On the contrary, when a pope, as well s any other Catholic falls into mortal sin, they separate themselves from the grace of God, and good standing in the Church.

And you say that I should never surrender my mind and reason to the Church and yet John Paul II says just that in Lumen Gentium in Anna Scott's citation earlier?

You should not surrender yours.

You also told Anna and I in previous posts that we should just submit our minds and wills to the popes because they are “wiser and holier and more learned men” than we are?

No. I said that about myself, but no one else.

So you're losing me here.  Catholics talk about the importance of reason but I see it only as reason informed by their reason in line with their reason and a full submission to their will making my reason not reason at all but blindly jumping off the proverbial intellectual precipice with no questions asked.  I just don't concur.

And that precisely, (as confused as it sounds) is why you are not ready to surrender to the sheperding of the successor of Peter.

We’ll just agree to disagree as we’re not getting anywhere. God bless.

You are correct that you will get nowhere with me whenever you make baseless accusations against the catholic Church. You will also find yourself getting more frustrated when I ask you to produce evidence that does not exist. It is definitely a road to nowhere.

 

[GKC]

Yes, GKC. Bad things like burning can happen when someone does bad things… Just like Ananias and Sapphira experienced. And Korah. And Pharoah.

Who would do the burning? Would the earth open up?

GKC

 

[PRmerger]

Who would do the burning? Would the earth open up?

GKC

Ok. GKC. I can play this silly game.

People would do the burning.

No, the earth would not open up.

Now it’s your turn: Do you know who slaughtered the Midianites? Edit: was this a command of God? Would you have disobeyed God if you had been given this command?

 

[PRmerger]

You seem to be invested in laying the deeds of wickedness at the feet of the Church, rather than the hearts of the persons who birthed them. I am not sure why it is so important for you to blame the Church for people’s sins.

Yes. It is indeed peculiar.

Especially since as a Christian, the Church that gurney objects to is his church as well, as there was no other Church except the Christian (Catholic) church until the 16th century.

One wonders if it is Christianity’s history in general that gurney finds distasteful?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I find your distorted and nasty characterization of me to be that which is distasteful. Keep wondering because you don’t know me from adam PR and you have no right to say something like that. I don’t assassinate your character or intentions with Christ, don’t sit here and do so with mine. And if you seriously think I would not appreciate the awesome contributions of Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, Ignatius of Antioch, so many popes, Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Athanasius, and a legion of other great Christians and the councils, the many contributions the Catholic and Orthodox churches have made to civilization in Europe and the Mediterranean, Africa, the Middle East, and the new world, you really haven’t read all my posts and like to caricature someone without the slightest idea how demeaning it is. You think because I can point out some bad moments and decisions by the Catholic Church in history that I’m the enemy, hate all Christendom, and think only the 16th century onward has been fruitful? Give me a break. Talk about drawing some broad and insulting conclusions…

Such speculation with your crony here is unworthy of a Catholic. Your gossip in an open forum and speculation about my heart is unworthy of a Christian in general. Please put me on ignore if you feel me to be this way.

Yes. It is indeed peculiar.

Especially since as a Christian, the Church that gurney objects to is his church as well, as there was no other Church except the Christian (Catholic) church until the 16th century.

One wonders if it is Christianity’s history in general that gurney finds distasteful?

 

[GKC]

Ok. GKC. I can play this silly game.

People would do the burning.

No, the earth would not open up.

Now it’s your turn: Do you know who slaughtered the Midianites? Edit: was this a command of God? Would you have disobeyed God if you had been given this command?

Just wondering if the will of the Holy Spirit would be as unambiguous, as it was in those cases. Rather direct, that is, no intervening, implementing agency

As to the Midianites, I’m not sure. I think it would depend on how clear and unambiguous to me it was that God had so spoken.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think you can show that slavery is intrinsically evil. I don’t think this can be supported scripturally.

I think we need to distinguish between variations of slavery though: Chattel slavery is intrinsically evil, indentured servititude not necessarily.

p.s. There is an article I posted to greypilgrim in this thread that you’d like.

 

[guanophore]

Yes. It is indeed peculiar.

Especially since as a Christian, the Church that gurney objects to is his church as well, as there was no other Church except the Christian (Catholic) church until the 16th century.

One wonders if it is Christianity’s history in general that gurney finds distasteful?

It must be admitted that there are distasteful deeds in the history of Christianity that are beyond count. Even in just the history of the Reformation, the wanton slaughter of those on both sides. Or, look at the bloodbath in Ireland, perpetrated among those who all claim to call upon the name of the Lord?

I find your distorted and nasty characterization of me to be that which is distasteful. Keep wondering because you don’t know me from adam PR and you have no right to say something like that. I don’t assassinate your character or intentions with Christ, don’t sit here and do so with mine.

I don’t find your blame of the clergy and the Church to be much of a distortion. In fact, it is not an uncommon phenomenon among those who have been disappointed by Catholicism in some form or another. I used to do quite a bit of it myself. PR is right, it is like shooting oneself in the foot. Or, as Paul says “shall the hand say to the eye, I have no need of you?”. When I tear at the Body, I end up tearing at myself.

And if you seriously think I would not appreciate the awesome contributions of Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, Ignatius of Antioch, so many popes, Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Athanasius, and a legion of other great Christians and the councils, the many contributions the Catholic and Orthodox churches have made to civilization in Europe and the Mediterranean, Africa, the Middle East, and the new world,

I have to admit, your appreciation for them was not evident in your recent posts.

you really haven’t read all my posts and like to caricature someone without the slightest idea how demeaning it is. You think because I can point out some bad moments and decisions by the Catholic Church in history that I’m the enemy, hate all Christendom, and think only the 16th century onward has been fruitful? Give me a break.

Well, it was kinda sounding that way…

Talk about drawing some broad and insulting conclusions…

Such speculation with your crony here is unworthy of a Catholic. Your gossip in an open forum and speculation about my heart is unworthy of a Christian in general. Please put me on ignore if you feel me to be this way.

You never did explain why it is is so important for you to lay the blame upon the Church for some bad moments and decisions made by corrupt individuals. how is it that these self centered actions by some have overshadowed the contributions of that long list you cited here? How is it that they cannot be “Church” for you, and you can let those that have departed from the faith you share with them go to their own place?

 

[guanophore]

I think we need to distinguish between variations of slavery though: Chattel slavery is intrinsically evil, indentured servititude not necessarily.

p.s. There is an article I posted to greypilgrim in this thread that you’d like.

You are right, of course. I just was not sure if he was painting with a broad brush. St. Paul wrote that, if a person could acquire their freedom, they should do so. However, when He wrote to Philemon, he did not indicate that slavery was intrinsically evil.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Honestly guano, I’m tired of having to explain myself under the lightbulb in the basement, man. I don’t have to keep explaining my faith and rationale. I’m too tired anyway…

It must be admitted that there are distasteful deeds in the history of Christianity that are beyond count. Even in just the history of the Reformation, the wanton slaughter of those on both sides. Or, look at the bloodbath in Ireland, perpetrated among those who all claim to call upon the name of the Lord?

I don’t find your blame of the clergy and the Church to be much of a distortion. In fact, it is not an uncommon phenomenon among those who have been disappointed by Catholicism in some form or another. I used to do quite a bit of it myself. PR is right, it is like shooting oneself in the foot. Or, as Paul says “shall the hand say to the eye, I have no need of you?”. When I tear at the Body, I end up tearing at myself.

I have to admit, your appreciation for them was not evident in your recent posts.

Well, it was kinda sounding that way…

You never did explain why it is is so important for you to lay the blame upon the Church for some bad moments and decisions made by corrupt individuals. how is it that these self centered actions by some have overshadowed the contributions of that long list you cited here? How is it that they cannot be “Church” for you, and you can let those that have departed from the faith you share with them go to their own place?

 

[verum_peto_1]

I’m interested in the historical approach Protestants take to when and where the Roman Church ceased to be the Church of Christ. I often hear Protestants say the early Church was pure, but later corrupted by false teachings. For this to be true, there has to a point that Protestant historians can point to where it can be said, “Now the Catholic Church has broken with the true faith.”

When, and by what particular heresy (or general heresies), do Protestants believe that the Catholic Church broke away from the true Church. In the meantime, what happened to the true Church? Where is its history … its central teachings, its leaders?

“Rome” never went wrong. It has been extremely successful in accumulating wealth and power, more than any other religion.

 

[PRmerger]

I apologize, gurney. No insult intended.

I was just saying that *my *church is *your *church, at that time period.

I find your distorted and nasty characterization of me to be that which is distasteful. Keep wondering because you don’t know me from adam PR and you have no right to say something like that. I don’t assassinate your character or intentions with Christ, don’t sit here and do so with mine. And if you seriously think I would not appreciate the awesome contributions of Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, Ignatius of Antioch, so many popes, Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Athanasius, and a legion of other great Christians and the councils, the many contributions the Catholic and Orthodox churches have made to civilization in Europe and the Mediterranean, Africa, the Middle East, and the new world, you really haven’t read all my posts and like to caricature someone without the slightest idea how demeaning it is. You think because I can point out some bad moments and decisions by the Catholic Church in history that I’m the enemy, hate all Christendom, and think only the 16th century onward has been fruitful? Give me a break. Talk about drawing some broad and insulting conclusions…

Such speculation with your crony here is unworthy of a Catholic. Your gossip in an open forum and speculation about my heart is unworthy of a Christian in general. Please put me on ignore if you feel me to be this way.

 

[PRmerger]

Just wondering if the will of the Holy Spirit would be as unambiguous, as it was in those cases. Rather direct, that is, no intervening, implementing agency

Who could doubt that the will of the Spirit can be ambiguous?