When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[PRmerger]

You said:
**
"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. "**

In the context of the larger discussion, it sounds like you are saying the Pope is only speaking infallibly when he is correct. When he is incorrect, he is no longer speaking as Pope, but only as an individual.

Not at all. The CC teaching on infallibility is a negative charism. The Magisterium is protected from teaching “this is true” when it’s actually false.

Nothing more and nothing less.

It does not make the Church omniscient.

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by** Leo_The_Great**

I am not saying Rome fell into Heresy, but here’s how the papacy viewed itself by the 11th-12th century :

The Dictatus Papae was included in Pope’s register in the year 1075. Some argue that it was written by Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085) himself, others argues that it had a much later different origin. In 1087 Cardinal Deusdedit published a collection of the laws of the Church which he drew from any sources. The Dictatus agrees so clearly and closely with this collection that some have argued the Dictatus must have been based on it; and so must be of a later date of compilation than 1087. There is little doubt that the principals below do express the pope’s principals.

The Dictates of the Pope

1. That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
4. That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5. That the pope may depose the absent.
6. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11. That this is the only name in the world.
12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19. That he himself may be judged by no one.
20. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

translated in Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, (London: George Bell and Sons, 1910), pp. 366-367

A couple of these are ridiculous…

 

[guanophore]

You said:
**
"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. "**

In the context of the larger discussion, it sounds like you are saying the Pope is only speaking infallibly when he is correct. When he is incorrect, he is no longer speaking as Pope, but only as an individual.

Actually, I was not saying anything about the Pope. I was talking about the gift of infallibility that Jesus gave to the Church. It is for the Church, and those who depart from her leave the protection that infallibility is designed to give. They are at risk of passing through the gates of hell.

THis does actually seem to be what you have been saying, from a practical perspective. If history shows what the Pope decrees to be correct, than it is part of Tradition. If not, it isn’t.

I have said nothing about the Papal use of infallibility.

I am not sure what you mean by a “decree”.

It is more accurate the other way around. If the Pope says what is in accordance with the Sacred Tradition, then he will be kept by the gift that was given to preserve that Word of God alive in the Church.

So if a Pope willfully embraces a hetrodox idea, he can no longer speak in an authoritative fashion.

This is clearly false. Peter embraced a wrong idea by withdrawing from fellowship with Gentiles. However, that did not mean what he had authoritively spoken, before and after that event was invalid.

Anything he says, in no matter what form, holds no force, because it contradicts tradition.

It is very unlikely that a person at any level will embrace that which rejects ALL the truth. A person can make a mistake, then correct it. A person can say a wrong thing, and also say a right thing. It seems you want to see this in black and white, but it is not. You can read where Jesus affirmed that Peter spoke what he received from God, and in the next breath, Jesus calls him Satan. Will you not believe Jesus is the Son of God, because Peter did not want Jesus to go to Jerusalem? Be realistic.

But that is essentially the same as what an Orthodox or classical Anglican might say, and pretty much makes Catholic claims about the necessity for that strong central authority of the Pope useless.

My impression is that it has always been useless to you.

Jesus prayed for unity in His Church. He told the Aposltes they would be sifted. He prayed for Peter (only) that when he was restored, he would strengthen his brethren. Therefore, anyone who wants to be included in Christ’s prayer for unity better get in the prayer for Peter.

Not to mention, in all these discussions an enormous burden seems to be on the average Catholic - who may be living in a tribe in the middle of Mongolia for all we know - to be able to determine when the Pope has departed from Tradition, or when he is defining Tradition!

So it seems here that the situation is worse than the Orthodox one, the individual is put in much the same position as any Protestant finds himself!:

Well, I am sure it seems that way from where you are sitting, and I don’t blame you for feeling that way. From a Catholic perspective, we can have complete confidence, because of the great and precious promises He has made to the Church. He promised to lead her into all Truth, and we humbly and with childlike faith take Him at His word.

 

[davec66]

To be fair, most intelligent Protestants I think would say the Church slowly went away from biblical teaching (i.e. there was no secret true church) and the reformation brought back the correct theology

I agree with that. I would like to add that I believe that the reformation also fell away also and so starting in the18th century mostly in the US the Restoration movement was born. The reformation was started by Luther to reform the Church. The restoration was and is a movement to restore the original church. The Baptist, Methodist, Disciples of Christ and Mormons are just some of the denominations that have come out of that movement.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And they’ve obviously done one horrendous job of trying to re-construct the early Church. The Early Church believed in apostolic succession, episcopacy, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and they were liturgical.

These “restorationists” ignore the Didache, the writings of the Early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Irenaeus and think one can crack open the Bible and somehow re-construct it. It’s not doable. The Orthodox, Catholics, and to some degree the Anglicans are the only churches that have the proper polity or theology that resembles the early Church.

I agree with that. I would like to add that I believe that the reformation also fell away also and so starting in the18th century mostly in the US the Restoration movement was born. The reformation was started by Luther to reform the Church. The restoration was and is a movement to restore the original church. The Baptist, Methodist, Disciples of Christ and Mormons are just some of the denominations that have come out of that movement.

 

[dosdog]

Rome did not go wrong - Peter founded both Antioch & Rome

If Rome went wrong Coptics would not have thier own “POPE”
The Coptics (founded by “THE SEE” of St. Mark) use the same RITES as the Catholic Church

Protestants went wrong by following the Heretic Luther who rejected 4 New Testement books(James,Jude,Hebrews,Revelations) and forgot about Ethiopian Jews who follow the same old testement CANNON as Catholics

PS - The original King James was published with The Apocrypha - And King James the made it illegal to publish a Bible without it.

Modern Historical Ignorance still thrives

 

[Cranmer2010]

Rome did not go wrong - Peter founded both Antioch & Rome

If Rome went wrong Coptics would not have thier own “POPE”
The Coptics (founded by “THE SEE” of St. Mark) use the same RITES as the Catholic Church

Protestants went wrong by following the Heretic Luther who rejected 4 New Testement books(James,Jude,Hebrews,Revelations) and forgot about Ethiopian Jews who follow the same old testement CANNON as Catholics

PS - The original King James was published with The Apocrypha - And King James the made it illegal to publish a Bible without it.

Modern Historical Ignorance still thrives

It’s not about what Rome was founded upon, it is what has happened since the Early Church. During the middle ages, some of the popes were horrific people, molesting children, having their mistresses’ spouses executed and even trying to sell the papacy. Leading up to the Reformation, the church turned to idolotry, unbiblical practices and betraying what Christ had founded. If the Catholic church would have put pride aside and admitted that it needed to be Reformed, the Protestant Reformation may have been a minor event in history and may have not even happened.

 

[guanophore]

It’s not about what Rome was founded upon, it is what has happened since the Early Church. During the middle ages, some of the popes were horrific people, molesting children, having their mistresses’ spouses executed and even trying to sell the papacy. Leading up to the Reformation, the church turned to idolotry, unbiblical practices and betraying what Christ had founded. If the Catholic church would have put pride aside and admitted that it needed to be Reformed, the Protestant Reformation may have been a minor event in history and may have not even happened.

You are giving examples of human individuals falling into sin. The Church cannot turn to idolatry, as she has Christ as her head, and the Holy Spirit as her soul. It is the divine elements of the church that prevent her from falling into sin.

When men choose to sin, as in the examples you give, they separate themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Church did not need to be reformed, as she is preserved in Holiness by her Holy Spouse.

Men are always in need of reform.

The problem was that they thought the doctrine needed to be reformed. There was pride on both sides, but the Apostolic Teachings are never in need of reform.

 

[dosdog]

You are giving examples of human individuals falling into sin. The Church cannot turn to idolatry, as she has Christ as her head, and the Holy Spirit as her soul. It is the divine elements of the church that prevent her from falling into sin.

When men choose to sin, as in the examples you give, they separate themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Church did not need to be reformed, as she is preserved in Holiness by her Holy Spouse.

Men are always in need of reform.

The problem was that they thought the doctrine needed to be reformed. There was pride on both sides, but the Apostolic Teachings are never in need of reform.

See stop…
They need to be explained in context
St. Paul was the biggest critic of circumcision - Yet he ordered St. Timothy to be circumcised

 

[Cranmer2010]

You are giving examples of human individuals falling into sin. The Church cannot turn to idolatry, as she has Christ as her head, and the Holy Spirit as her soul. It is the divine elements of the church that prevent her from falling into sin.

When men choose to sin, as in the examples you give, they separate themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Church did not need to be reformed, as she is preserved in Holiness by her Holy Spouse.

Men are always in need of reform.

The problem was that they thought the doctrine needed to be reformed. There was pride on both sides, but the Apostolic Teachings are never in need of reform.

I believe that you are wrong. I have seen idolatry with my own eyes. I have seen folks who are so poor catechized that it is possible that they don’t even realize that Salvation comes from Christ alone. The Catholic church being supposedly preserved in Holiness is nowhere to be proven. Churches throught the NT were reformed due to errors. The entire equation for Rome to never go wrong just doesn’t add up. You cannot ignore the atrocities that have taken place in the Catholic church from the middle ages through the inquisitions up through the recent child sex abuse. Call it mens sins, call it whatever you wish, but it only exemplifies that everyone needs reform whether they are too stubborn to admit it or not.

 

[Cranmer2010]

See stop…
They need to be explained in context
St. Paul was the biggest critic of circumcision - Yet he ordered St. Timothy to be circumcised

So are you calling St. Paul a hypocrite?

 

[dosdog]

So are you calling St. Paul a hypocrite?

Paul was not a hypocrite
Fact - He made Timothy get circumsized

You may want to find out why

I thought I made it clear before (Action+Intent)
Remember the widow?

 

[Cranmer2010]

Paul was not a hypocrite
Fact - He made Timothy get circumsized

You may want to find out why

I thought I made it clear before (Action+Intent)
Remember the widow?

I’m really not that interested in discussing it. I know why he was circumsized.

 

[dosdog]

I’m really not that interested in discussing it. I know why he was circumsized.

Yea you knew - I suppose You knew Peter made the final decision that decided if Christians had to be circumsized or not

 

[davec66]

You are giving examples of human individuals falling into sin. The Church cannot turn to idolatry, as she has Christ as her head, and the Holy Spirit as her soul. It is the divine elements of the church that prevent her from falling into sin.

I must disagree. The Catholic Church practices Idolatry. The head, Jesus, is pure and healthy but, the body,the Church, has cancer and I see it, terminally ill.

When men choose to sin, as in the examples you give, they separate themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

According to the Church the Pope can not be wrong. He is a person, he is earthly head of the Church. How then can they be separated? Pope from Church?

The Church did not need to be reformed, as she is preserved in Holiness by her Holy Spouse.

The Church needed reform and still does. It is all about power and control and not God.

Men are always in need of reform.

But, they need the truth to reform.

The problem was that they thought the doctrine needed to be reformed. There was pride on both sides, but the Apostolic Teachings are never in need of reform.

The doctrine needs to be the right one in the first place. It is only a matter of pride and power on the part of the Church. I agree the Apostolic teachings do not need reform. The problem is the Church is not following the teachings in the first place.

 

[GKC]

“According to the Church the Pope can not be wrong.”

Are there any limits or stipulations placed on this? Or could the Pope correctly pick the Kentucky Derby winners, each year?

GKC

 

[Contarini]

It’s not about what Rome was founded upon, it is what has happened since the Early Church. During the middle ages, some of the popes were horrific people

Yes, mostly in the 10th century and during the Renaissance (though in both cases our sources probably engage in scurrilous overstatement on a number of occasions). In between there you had several centuries of Popes of generally high character.

But more to the point, do you really want to endorse the “Donatist” position that the truth or falsehood of a church depends on the character of its leaders? This is not a traditional Anglican position–or indeed a traditional Protestant one generally. So I respectfully suggest that you need to rethink this line of argument.

Leading up to the Reformation, the church turned to idolotry, unbiblical practices and betraying what Christ had founded.

A vague and useless claim as it stands–how about giving it some substance?

Do you consider the Seventh Ecumenical Council to be an endorsement of idolatry? Do you find the arguments of St. John of Damascus unconvincing? Do you reject St. Augustine’s distinction between dulia and latria? Do you agree with J. I. Packer’s argument that a crucifix is idolatrous? Do you believe that it is idolatrous to worship Christ in the Blessed Sacrament?

And what’s an “unbiblical” practice? Anglicans have not generally taken the view that practices need to be found explicitly in Scripture to be justified. What practices of the medieval Church are contradicted by Scripture? What hermeneutic leads you to this conclusion? What is your view of the role of Tradition in interpreting Scripture?

I know that these are huge questions, but they are some of the questions that need to be addressed in order to give substance to your claim.

If the Catholic church would have put pride aside and admitted that it needed to be Reformed, the Protestant Reformation may have been a minor event in history and may have not even happened.

That’s kind of an odd way of putting it–sort of like saying, “If the Tsars had only accepted Marx’s ideas there would have been no Russian Revolution.”

But more to the point, each side can accuse the other of “pride.” From my perspective the pride is to be found in setting up a set of sixteenth-century theories (many of which are no longer held by most Protestants) against the consensus of the historic Church and then condemning the hierarchy of the Western Church for not falling in line.

The history of the past 500 years indicates in my opinion that the Reformation’s critics were right when they predicted disunity and loss of faith as the consequence of Protestantism, and that the Reformers were wrong when they concluded that the Papacy had become “Antichrist.” Now, in the 21st century, it is clear to most Protestants that Catholicism is still solidly Christian, that the Popes are excellent spokespersons for basic Christian teaching, and that disunity is a hopeless and perennial problem within Protestantism. Protestants are the ones who need to have the humility to recognize that the “glorious Reformation” was really just a human ideological movement, with its strengths and its weaknesses. Certainly the Catholic Church could have done a better job of accepting the valid insights of the Reformers. But on the most basic issues at stake the Reformers were more wrong than right.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Call it mens sins, call it whatever you wish, but it only exemplifies that everyone needs reform whether they are too stubborn to admit it or not.

You’re confusing moral and doctrinal reform.

Edwin

 

[Soldier_X]

“According to the Church the Pope can not be wrong.”

Are there any limits or stipulations placed on this? Or could the Pope correctly pick the Kentucky Derby winners, each year?

GKC

Nope. No limits. And he does infallibly pick the winner. I always call him up beforehand.

 

[GKC]

Nope. No limits. And he does infallibly pick the winner. I always call him up beforehand.

I gotta get in on this.

GKC