Who is My Brother?

[Eden_of_Mind]

Mickey:

You have been mostly polite and respectful as a non-Catholic on this Catholic forum. That is greatly appreciated. I personally believe that you have posed this question with your mind already made up.

You can believe that as you like. I did, of course, come to this forum inclined toward a certain view or else the question would obviously have not been quite so vexing for me. I had, however, expected that the answers forthcoming would have been stronger, closer in proximity to what Eden and Shiann so fairly tried to demonstrate to me. Their patience is appreciated immensely.

Nevertheless, when I stated my conclusion, it was ONLY meant to be a conclusion in the context of this present discussion. In other words, so far I believe that the victims of the Roman church’s judgments demonstrate it to be a false church. Do I think that the discussion is over, that the debate is finished? If I did, I would be both illogical and unfair. I don’t presume that the best answers that Rome can give will all be found here in this forum.

Mickey:

There are subtle overtones throughout your posts that point to your disdain for the Catholic Church. Please forgive me ahead of time if I have completey misinterpreted your motives, but I am ususally quite astute at reading between the lines.

Oh, no… I imagine that there are “overtones,” as you say. I’m trying to be fair but I do have feelings about what happened to people I admire (like Tyndale) or to people I believe to have been brothers and sisters of my spiritual family, including certain children that perished with their parents. It would be impossible to lack emotion about this and, of course, as I think I made rather clear from the start, the argument at least seems strong to me.

Nevertheless, I was and still am most willing to hear “the other side” fairly. If I disagree, it is a personal principle of mine always to give a fair reason and explanation as to where I think the other argument, properly understood, has failed. I hope to have lived up to that here. It is one method of keeping emotional bias to a minimum. If I can’t render a reason, so to speak, offer an explanation as to where the other argument has gone wrong, then I cannot rightly be confident that it has. Even then, I must be cautious.

Mickey:

Catholics believe that Christ instituted the Catholic Church 2000 years ago and He said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. If as you say, the Catholic Church fell into error at any point in time on matters of faith and morals, then you have accused Jesus of being a liar.

Sigh. Please, sir, I think I understand your feelings, but that really is a bit too much. This is precisely why I take the time to offer explanations as to where an argument has gone wrong *. If I were to simply say to you, “Nope, you can’t possibly have a good reason for what Rome did because that would mean my beliefs would be wrong,” well, then I would have said nothing and violated the principle I try to follow to safeguard myself from overly biased reasoning.

I know that all the Roman Catholics on this board believe Rome to be the true Church for reasons that have nothing to do with this issue. There are other questions, fundamental questions, on history and authority and Scripture and this question I’m asking is only one of many.

At the same time, to deny that Rome is the true Church is obviously not in itself to call Christ a liar. It is merely to suggest that Christ founded another Church and that, perhaps, the arguments in other areas for Rome’s supremacy are invalid. I may, instead, have missed something here… but I am trying to be fair. I have seen some of the possible strength to answers given by Eden and Shiann. They ultimately fail, as I see it, because they overlook one aspect or another of the problem.

Mickey:

This is one of many reasons that I am steadfast and confident in the validity of the One True Church–The Catholic Church.

I understand. I simply do not assume that Rome is the true church and the argument I have given, so far, seems to deny this. There’s still a great deal more work to do in other areas.

Mickey:

I do not expect you to convert according to what we say here.

Then perhaps you are not giving GOD much credit.

(Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

An excellent passage from Ignatius on the nature of the universal Christian Church. I’m making my way through the early fathers and they are fascinating, although their language is not like ours, often by their own admission. They require very careful study.

Thank you for offering me your thoughts. I realize that nothing I say could ever demand anyone’s time or attention and so it is a favor to me that you’ve come and shared your time. I hope it hasn’t proven fruitless to anyone here.*

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

there’s no such thing as the “Protestant church,” as though there were an umbrella instituion under which all Protestant churches fit.

How convenient!
Perhaps you can tell us what your affiliation is? Did your ancestors murder any Catholic women and children? I’m sorry, but your inquiry begs the question that mercygate posed in reference to the absence of Christ’s True Church–period–due to the multiple sins of sinners within the Church.

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

Sigh. Please, sir, I think I understand your feelings, but that really is a bit too much.

I’m sorry that this disturbs you. It was not meant to offend.
Eden of Mind:

I simply do not assume that Rome is the true church and the argument I have given, so far, seems to deny this.

I have not seen a convincing basis for the arrival at your supposed conclusions.
Eden of Mind:

Then perhaps you are not giving GOD much credit.

If you would so kindly re-read my post, I said “I do not expect you to convert according to what we say here”.
It’s entirely up to God’s grace. Nothing that I or anyone else can say will move you towards conversion.

Peace to you,
Mickey

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Mickey:

How convenient!
Perhaps you can tell us what your affiliation is? Did your ancestors murder any Catholic women and children? I’m sorry, but your inquiry begs the question that mercygate posed in reference to the absence of Christ’s True Church–period–due to the multiple sins of sinners within the Church.

No, Mickey, I haven’t avoided it. If I have missed something, it is by mistake. You might try pointing it out helpfully and at least pretend that I am not trying to lie to you or hide everything. I find it strange that Roman Catholics wish to tout the unity of their church and point at the disunity of Protestants (at least on an institutional level), and yet now I am being greeted by mock surprise that I have suggested that there is no central institution which all Protestants are a part of. I thought this was well-known.

If you have not yet understood the core of my argument, which has nothing whatsoever to do with reflecting back upon a church the deeds done by a few individual members, then I encourage you to return and read through the exchanges below. I haven’t argued even once solely on the basis of the actions of a few Roman Catholics and yet, for some reason, you think that it is somehow a valid counter-argument to point at a few Protestant individuals who are not even of my denomination (or never would have been) or to point at the history of a church I don’t belong to.

If I denied that the church of England could be found guilty of the same argumentation I’ve laid at the feet of Rome, then yes, I would be a hypocrite for requiring of one institution what I am unwilling to require of another. But I don’t belong to either, partly for the reasons I’m giving here in this thread.

It would certainly be off the subject and a distraction to debate the issue of the nature of the Church, so I won’t here. That would be for another forum. Suffice it to say, I don’t belong to any Church with a bloody history.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Eden of Mind:

Suffice it to say, I don’t belong to any Church with a bloody history.

Then I guess you don’t belong to a Church born from the side of Christ.

(I am sorry, I couldn’t help myself )

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Mickey:

I have not seen a convincing basis for the arrival at your supposed conclusions.

This is an illustration between the difference in our approach to these questions. You say, “None of this is convincing.” That’s fine, but it doesn’t even reach the respectable level of a reason for disagreement. It’s almost little more than a statement of feeling. I am not convinced anyone has answered me, yet rather than leave it at this, I have provided you with my reasons for disagreeing with you (and others)… In this, I open myself to being corrected and give you something to work with. Just stating that you aren’t “convinced” (whatever that may mean to you) opens you to nothing.

Christ Himself never erred in his argumentation, never failed to be clear when He wanted to be, never placed the wrong emphasis upon anything He said or misjudged the words or predilections of others. Nevertheless, there were many He left “unconvinced.”

That says more about them than it does His arguments, don’t you think?

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

No, Mickey, I haven’t avoided it. If I have missed something, it is by mistake. You might try pointing it out helpfully and at least pretend that I am not trying to lie to you or hide everything. I find it strange that Roman Catholics wish to tout the unity of their church and point at the disunity of Protestants (at least on an instiutional level), and yet now I am being greeted by mock surprise that I have suggested that there is no central institution which all Protestants are a part of. I thought this was well-known.

If you have not yet understood the core of my argument, which has nothing whatsoever to do with reflecting back upon a church the deeds done by a few individual members, then I encourage you to return and read through the exchanges below. I haven’t argued even once solely on the basis of the actions of a few Roman Catholics and yet, for some reason, you think that it is somehow a valid counter-argument to point at a few Protestant individuals who are not even of my denomination (or never would have been) or to point at the history of a church I don’t belong to.

If I denied that the church of England could be found guilty of the same argumentation I’ve laid at the feet of Rome, then yes, I would be a hypocrite for requiring of one institution what I am unwilling to require of another. But I don’t belong to either, partly for the reasons I’m giving here in this thread.

It would certainly be off the subject and a distraction to debate the issue of the nature of the Church, so I won’t here. That would be for another forum. Suffice it to say, I don’t belong to any Church with a bloody history.

Then I will take that to mean that you pray by yourself at home, because even non-denominationalists have a mostly baptist theology. But your ancestors must have been affiliated with some group that was persecuted.
But I digress. This is my point exactly. You are attempting to convict the entire Church. You are attempting to accuse the 2000 year old Catholic Church–the Church that Christ founded–of being a false Church. It just won’t fly.
People sin. Doctrine does not. The doctrine stays pure and protected by the Holy Spirit. The history of Christianity is riddled with henious crimes against humanity from all affiliations. We are sinners my friend! The premise that you have decided to prove here, could possibly lead you to buddhism! I’ve read every post here, and I still don’t see the core of your dilemma!

Glory To Jesus Christ!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Eden of Mind:

I would like to greet all generous Roman Catholics who take the time to read this and respond in kind. I am here neither to condescend nor to stir deep cauldrons of anger nor even necessarily to pin an accusation upon the lapel of the Church you hold dear. That will, as it should, come only as the result of responsible research. At the moment, I am willing and interested to listen to what Roman Catholics themselves have to say on the matter of the following in order to understand their view in their own words…

I admit that, having some familiarity with the history of Christendom, I have been confused in the treatment I have received by Roman Catholics and in the words I have read penned by Roman Catholic authorities. Protestants, are now deemed “separated brethren” and, at the same time, known as “heretics.” I don’t know precisely how this works itself out, though I’m sure someone here could tell me. In either case, this is not the root of the problem I seek to resolve.

In I John 3:13-17 (ESV), the following is revealed:

Four things I wish to bring to the reader’s attention (to anyone who wishes to be patient with me). First, John explains that it is “the world” that hates those who are of Christ. Second, one important basis of knowing that “we have passed out of death into life” is that “we love the brothers.” Third, those that hate the brethren are counted as murderers and “no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” It is easy, from that, to make the simple logical step to the fact that those who murder the brethren have no eternal life abiding in them, are not of GOD, or any number of phrases which John uses to speak of those who are lost and of “the world” who hates the “brothers.”

Now, I am assuming that, if Protestants are “separated brethren,” today, then we always were so, for however long we’ve existed.

That need not follow, however​

That is to say, those men and women of the past who shared the beliefs that distinguish Protestants today were also “separated brethren.” I think it is also clear that many of these “separated brethren” were tortured and/or, finally, murdered by Roman Catholic authorities (Wycliffe, Hus, Tyndale and Cranmer come to mind).

If these men acted with the utter sanction and backing of the Roman Catholic church or its doctrines concerning the proper treatment of heretics–in other words, they were not acting purely on their own–then the Roman Catholic church itself murdered or at least sanctioned the murder of “the brothers” as part of her teaching. Is it not, then, fair to judge that the Roman Catholic church itself, at that time in its history, was not of GOD but of “the world” which hates “the brothers,” according to the Apostle John?

It might also be said that those who leave, never were in the Church except in appearance - that their leaving is proof of their non-election, and of their being under God’s wrath.​

Those executed, were treated as delinquents - so those who executed them, were taking part in a police operation, & dealing with criminals. Far from being separated brethren, they can be viewed as false brethren, whom the Church was suppressing much a one might suppress Communists, drug-smugglers or terrorists. IOW - they weren’t martyrs for truth, but enemies of God’s Church who had the gall to imagine that they were wiser than the God from Whom the Church’s teaching came. IOW - they deserved all they got. If anything, the Church should have been far more severe. The Church is not a persecutor, because her severities were reserved for evil Catholics, which is what heretics are.

That’s one POV. OTOH:

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

With regard to those named - leaving aside Wycliffe, who died in his bed - there is the question of how far the Church is entitled to go in enforcing discipline.

I see no point in trying to defend or to condemn the Church for burning heretics without a much fuller discussion of what the Church’s activity in doing so implied; legally, theologically, historically, morally. It’s the kind of issue which is spectacular - it is a rather drastic thing to do - but that does not mean that the issues are straightfoward. This doesn’t mean that burning heretics is right - it means only that the issues involved are not straightforward. ##

And is it not also a part of Roman Catholic teaching, that the true Church can never fail, even for a moment, even if certain members within it are not followers of Christ?

Correct. There is a logical problem: if sinners do not represent the Church, or her teaching, and all are sinners: who is left to represent the Church & her teaching ? That’s why one can’t ignore Bulls which legislate for the use of torture - the Popes who issued them were legitimate Popes acting as Popes and lawgivers. Ignore them - and the Church’s history begins to spring gaps.​

The Church cannot cease to be the Church, even for a moment. The Church, even what we might call the institution of the Church, cannot disappear and become part of “the world” only to later reappear at some other time.

At any rate, my point is simply that it seems that the true church cannot be, as a whole, involved in sanctioning atrocities which even the Bible declares to be the clear mark of the unbelieving world.

To clear away any possible confusion, this difficulty which has pressed itself home within me does not hinge upon the separation of the actions of individuals from the Church itself. The difficulty lies not in individuals but in the sanction of the Church as a whole.

I often wonder about this - given the purpose & Source of the Church, I think this worry is entirely proper; it does need to be considered - not brushed away.​

Thank you very much for your patience with me here. I am sincerely seeking to know what Roman Catholics have to say on this and to do the best that I am capable of in fairly evaluating what is given to me.

Jesus seems to be saying that our brothers, are those in need of our help.​

As to the problem described - what is to stop the Church being as evil as as possible, provided only that God does not desert her ? Anything ?

The holiness of the Church is from Christ - not from us. The holiness of the Saints is Christ’s, bring forth fruit in them. Not man’s - not unless God should grant it. It always remains His - and occasionally, it is present in creatures.

The Church is capable of almost boundless wickedness - the only curb on the sinfulness of Christians, is that God says to the forces of chaos and destruction in the Church, “Thus far shall you come - and no further”. There is no reason in human nature to stop us doing even worse than we have done - only God can save us from the evil that is in us. ##

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

It’s almost little more than a statement of feeling.

Exactly. I don’t need to do cerebral gymnastics. My heart tells me that you are mistaken.
Eden of Mind:

Just stating that you aren’t “convinced” (whatever that may mean to you) opens you to nothing.

My goal is not to play word games with an angry protestant. My goal is to pray more and more everyday–to receive the Eucharist as much as possible–and to open myself to the Holy Spirit.
Eden of Mind:

Christ Himself never erred in his argumentation, never failed to be clear when He wanted to be, never placed the wrong emphasis upon anything He said or misjudged the words or predilections of others. Nevertheless, there were many He left “unconvinced.”

Yes. Here we agree. Now go and meditate upon the Gospel of John chapter 6 and you just may find yourself converting to the Catholic Church. His disciples walked away. Will you?

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Mickey:

Then I will take that to mean that you pray by yourself at home, because even non-denominationalists have a mostly baptist theology. But your ancestors must have been affiliated with some group that was persecuted.

My group is not the issue here and it is a logical fallacy to avoid the issue by using a tu qoque argument (“You do it, too!”). More importantly, my Church has indeed been persecuted, however, it has never (as a whole) advocated the death of others because of their beliefs and has never been accused of such bloodshed. If it is too hard for you to accept that the Church I know is not guilty of this, I cannot help your feelings.

The true Church of Christ does not murder the people of Christ. That is clearly Biblical.

But I digress. This is my point exactly. You are attempting to convict the entire Church. You are attempting to accuse the 2000 year old Catholic Church–the Church that Christ founded–of being a false Church. It just won’t fly.

No, Mickey, I am not convicting Christ’s Church, I am suggesting that the Roman Catholic church is not the “2000 year old Catholic Church” that you keep referring to. If the Roman Catholic church is guilty of that which the Scriptures declare Christ’s true Church can never be, then Rome is not the true Church.

People sin. Doctrine does not.

And if my point was simply about what “people” do, you would have a strong case. My issue is with your church, an institution, that is supposed to be infallible. Nevertheless, she taught and sanctioned the “capital punishment” of Christ’s people solely for what they believed or what translation they carried (translations that are now accepted by Rome).

The doctrine stays pure and protected by the Holy Spirit. The history of Christianity is riddled with henious crimes against humanity from all affiliations. We are sinners my friend!

Indeed, we are and I have never denied this. But there is a rather important difference between what a handful of people can do and what Christ’s Church herself can do (or teach or sanction). I encourage you to read the Scriptures where it speaks of what the Church is like and how it treats Christ’s brethren. You will find that the murder of the brethren (because of their beliefs) is a sure sign of damnation (I John 3:13-17).

The premise that you have decided to prove here, could possibly lead you to buddhism! I’ve read every post here, and I still don’t see the core of your dilemma!

Well, then I hope this post helps to clear that up. I think most of your peers see what I’m talking about quite clearly and many of them have offered responses which show that they understand the difficulty, even though they disagree with me.

May the LORD sharpen His people for His service, for the sake of His Name and may that Name be honey in our mouths, forever.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Mickey:

Exactly. I don’t need to do cerebral gymnastics. My heart tells me that you are mistaken.

Well, thank you for being honest with me about the basis of your disagreement. I suppose discussion between us is futile.

My goal is not to play word games with an angry protestant.

Where did you receive the impression that I am “angry”? Do you imagine that I am provoked to anger by your responses? I assure you I am entirely calm.

 

[Eden]

I understand. I simply do not assume that Rome is the true church and the argument I have given, so far, seems to deny this.

If you are saying that the Catholic Church was *never *the true Church, right here we have a problem. Firstly, the whole premise of the Reformation was that the true Church *had become corrupt *and needed to be reformed. Protestants during the Reformation never denied that the Church was *at one time *true. The question then becomes did the true Church become doctrinally corrupt and go into apostasy or did the Church need internal reform but is it still the true Church today. Obviously, being a Catholic I believe the latter.

Why? Mickey has already said it, but I’ll state it again. If the Catholic Church (which Protestants admit was the true Church of Jesus Christ before Luther’s revolt) became doctrinally corrupt as alleged, it would mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed against it–it would mean that Christ had deceived His followers.

Catholics refuse to concede such a thing out of faith in Jesus Christ. Christ solemnly pledged that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), and He solemnly promised that after His Ascension into Heaven He would send His Church another Paraclete . . . the spirit of truth,'' to dwell with it forever (John 14:16-17), and He inspired the Apostle Paul to describe His Church as the pillar and ground of the truth.’’ (I Tim. 3:15).

Believing Christ to be the very essence of truth and integrity, Catholics cannot in conscience believe that He could be guilty of such deception.

The so-called bloody Inquisitions from which of our Inquisition imagery comes today were initiated by the civil governments of France and Spain for the purpose of ferreting out Moslems and Jews who were causing social havoc by posing as faithful Catholic citizens–even as priests and bishops–were indeed approved by the Church. (Non-Catholics who admitted they were non-Catholics were left alone by the Inquisition .) And the vast majority of those questioned by the Inquisition (including St. Teresa of Avila) were completely cleared. Nevertheless, the popes roundly condemned the proceedings when they saw justice giving way to cruel abuses, and it was this insistent condemnation by the popes which finally put an end to the Inquisitions.

It should be obvious that the Catholic Church did not fall into error during the Middle Ages as some people allege, for if she had, she could not have produced those hundreds of medieval saints–saints the calibre of St. Francis, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Clare, St. Anthony, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Elizabeth and St. Vincent Ferrer (who performed an estimated 40,000 miracles).

In the end, the Church believed they were dealing with the devil here. If you felt that the devil had a stronghold on the Church and on truth, would you hand the devil over to secular authorities to be dealt with even if that meant extinguishing the devil by fire?

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

More importantly, my Church has indeed been persecuted, however, it has never (as a whole) advocated the death of others because of their beliefs and has never been accused of such bloodshed. If it is too hard for you to accept that the Church I know is not guilty of this, I cannot help your feelings.

I suppose we’ll never know because you won’t divulge it.
Eden of Mind:

The true Church of Christ does not murder the people of Christ.

Only people can commit murder–doctrine cannot.
Eden of Mind:

No, Mickey, I am not convicting Christ’s Church

Oh but you are!
Eden of Mind:

I am suggesting that the Roman Catholic church is not the “2000 year old Catholic Church” that you keep referring to.

Keep praying and studying Church history and this will be revealed to you.
Eden of Mind:

If the Roman Catholic church is guilty of that which the Scriptures declare Christ’s true Church can never be, then Rome is not the true Church.

Christ’s visible Church, the Catholic Church, is not guilty. People sin, doctrine cannot. And so Rome is the True Church!
Eden of Mind:

And if my point was simply about what “people” do, you would have a strong case.

That is the point. People sin.
Eden of Mind:

My issue is with your church, an institution, that is supposed to be infallible. Nevertheless, she taught and sanctioned the “capital punishment” of Christ’s people solely for what they believed or what translation they carried (translations that are now accepted by Rome).

Wow! This is really getting redundant.
Eden of Mind:

I encourage you to read the Scriptures where it speaks of what the Church is like and how it treats Christ’s brethren. You will find that the murder of the brethren (because of their beliefs) is a sure sign of damnation (I John 3:13-17).

You don’t have to encourage me to read the Scriptures. And I am well aware that murder is a mortal sin.
Eden of Mind:

I think most of your peers see what I’m talking about quite clearly and many of them have offered responses which show that they understand the difficulty, even though they disagree with me.

I will let my peers chime in on this from now on. I am weary of this circular accusatory argumentation.

Do not condemn, even if you see with your eyes, for they are often deceived.
St. John Climacus, “The Ladder of Divine Ascent,”

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

Where did you receive the impression that I am “angry”? Do you imagine that I am provoked to anger by your responses? I assure you I am entirely calm.

My purpose is not to provoke you. Anyone who relentlessly accuses Christ’s Church of being a false Church, is surely angry. Perhaps it is repressed anger.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Gottle of Geer:

I see no point in trying to defend or to condemn the Church for burning heretics without a much fuller discussion of what the Church’s activity in doing so implied; legally, theologically, historically, morally. It’s the kind of issue which is spectacular - it is a rather drastic thing to do - but that does not mean that the issues are straightfoward. This doesn’t mean that burning heretics is right - it means only that the issues involved are not straightforward.

Thank you, first of all, “Gottle of Geer,” for contributing all that you have. There is a lot in what you say that I would like to consider carefully. You’ve brought up good points and also taken the time to appreciate the difficulty of the issue.

As for what you say above, I agree. The issue is not quite straightforward. I could have spent a lot longer preparing quotations and analyzing Scripture and connecting all the dots. I think you see the issue a bit more clearly and I understand that there are many matters to consider. That is why I think there is more work to do. But, nevertheless, the question is a serious one, as you have said.

Correct. There is a logical problem: if sinners do not represent the Church, or her teaching, and all are sinners: who is left to represent the Church & her teaching ? That’s why one can’t ignore Bulls which legislate for the use of torture - the Popes who issued them were legitimate Popes acting as Popes and lawgivers. Ignore them - and the Church’s history begins to spring gaps.

Agreed. I purposefully have not quoted Papal bulls and the like because I had not wanted to confuse anyone into thinking that I was arguing on the basis of the actions of a single individual rather than arguing about the actions and teachings of an institution. Still, I failed to get that across as often as I would have liked.

I am glad that you understand that these teachings and actions are not just those of an individual or group but of the Roman Catholic church. Perhaps you could clarify that better than I can.

pquote]I often wonder about this - given the purpose & Source of the Church, I think this worry is entirely proper; it does need to be considered - not brushed away.

Thank you…

Jesus seems to be saying that our brothers, are those in need of our help.

I am assuming that would include those who were burned for reasons thought absurd today… as well as the children that were killed with their parents. There are many examples that could be given.

As to the problem described - what is to stop the Church being as evil as as possible, provided only that God does not desert her ? Anything ?

Well, this would render the Roman Catholic church self-refuting for one of its central tenets is that the Church is infallible and incorruptible (as a Church). By its own teachings, the Roman Catholic church would not be the true Church.

I also think that the Scriptures are rather clear that this cannot happen to Christ’s church, guided by the Holy Spirit and of which the gates of hell cannot prevail.

The Church is capable of almost boundless wickedness - the only curb on the sinfulness of Christians, is that God says to the forces of chaos and destruction in the Church, “Thus far shall you come - and no further”. There is no reason in human nature to stop us doing even worse than we have done - only God can save us from the evil that is in us./quote

While that may be true on an individual basis (and concerning Christians, that is debatable), it cannot be true of the true Bride herself. She is not a whore.

 

[Eden_of_Mind]

Mickey:

Only people can commit murder–doctrine cannot.

This is in need of clarification. “Doctrine” may not be able to lift a torch and light a pile of faggots to burn a brother of Christ and his or her children alive. “Doctrine” may not be able to sentence an innocent person to death or deliver a person bought with Christ’s blood over to be sentenced to the flames.

But… “doctrine” certainly can provide the basis for all this and “doctrine” certainly can sanction and provide allowances for these horrible acts. Even if “doctrine” does not carry it out, it is “doctrine” that can and has rendered a load of excuses for the grossest of sins.

Such “doctrine” is damnable if it does these things. Such “doctrine” is not of Christ. And the “Church” which teaches this “doctrine” and sanctions this “doctrine” and defends this “doctrine” is also false and not of Christ.

I hope this makes the subject of my argument a bit clearer.

 

[Mickey]

Eden of Mind:

This is in need of clarification. “Doctrine” may not be able to lift a torch and light a pile of faggots to burn a brother of Christ and his or her children alive. “Doctrine” may not be able to sentence an innocent person to death or deliver a person bought with Christ’s blood over to be sentenced to the flames.

But… “doctrine” certainly can provide the basis for all this and “doctrine” certainly can sanction and provide allowances for these horrible acts. Even if “doctrine” does not carry it out, it is “doctrine” that can and has rendered a load of excuses for the grossest of sins.

Such “doctrine” is damnable if it does these things. Such “doctrine” is not of Christ. And the “Church” which teaches this “doctrine” and sanctions this “doctrine” and defends this “doctrine” is also false and not of Christ.

I completely agree with this. Can you tell me which church has such evil doctrine?

 

[Shiann]

Eden of Mind:

And you and others here, like Shiann (but also others), are why I, too, hope for Roman Catholics and care deeply about them and so much less about their church. I pray that we may eat together as brothers and sisters at the table of the precious LORD and the Father in the sweetest knowledge of each other and fellowship… as I know you pray of me.

Shiann has helped me greatly to understand her church… so much so that I have to keep reminding myself to offer others the fair opportunity to give their own answers to my question and receive fresh and strong impressions of the Roman Catholic faith in all its facets. Thank you, Shiann, for helping me. I will let this issue go, for now, and I have enough now to know which direction to explore further on my own. To be fair to those of you who helped me so much, I will tell you what conclusions I have carefully and personally reached, thus far, which will direct my future study (I am not finished, I know).

I understand your desire to quiet our discussion and take this and study on your own. I think that is an honest tact to take. But I could not, in good conscience, let these conclusions prevail- especially when they seemed to be derived from many of my comments. Please allow me to speak to them- at the very least to attempt to clarify some of them.

Our words mean things- and when in these types of discussions- words begin to take on very real, very specific meanings. It was my inexperience which allowed the easy exchange of the words ‘heretic’ and ‘seperated brethren’. I believe others have done a superb job of differentiating between these terms- and given them very specific meaning for the discussion.

1. I know that the Roman Catholic church teaches that the church is itself infallible on matters of faith and morals and that, if the true Church could err “in any point” (see the quote on the infallibility of the Church below), then we would all be doomed to ignorance and a lack of guidance in the world on such essential matters.

This is true- and more specifically it is Scriptural, for the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from fallible instruction.

1. I know that, at least according to some, the Roman Catholic church erred on a matter of grave significance whcih would be categorized as a moral issue (the improper killing of the brethren on, ultimately, false grounds) concerning which the true Church ought to be incapable of erring in any point.

Here is where we differ, and where the words we use have very specific meanings. The Roman Catholic Church never erred on any matter of grave significance. There WERE officials in the Church who made personal choices of who to condem as heretic- including the small children you mentioned above. They used their positions of authority to deliver these punishments for the good of the Church.

I hope I have been clear on the distinction here. The Church defines what constitutes a heresy- the fallible Church officials work to judge wether or not a person is a heretic or not. They were obviously not always correct in their judgement. But this truth does not make the definition of heresy any less of a truth. No more so than a false judgement by our courts would invalidate the law.

1. I know that the Roman Catholic church was, in part, moved to the former error because it also erred on a matter of faith, regarding the nature and extent of the Body of Christ, His Church, which in part are those who make up the Church at large, including I assume the separated brethren (see the quote at the bottom of this post).

Please see my post above. This would be worded more correctly if you took out Roman Catholic Church, and replaced it with “fallible Roman Catholic Church officials”.

 

[Shiann]

The answer to my initial question, “Who is my brother?” is a crucial and fundamental doctrine and matter of faith. Here the Roman church failed and for that many good people whom Christ purchased with His blood and were His perished. Also, because of this, the Name of Christ before the world was slandered (and still is today) and the cause of Christ was hindered.

I agree, the question you pose is a crucial and fundamental doctrine and matter of faith. But I respectfully disagree with your assertion that it was the infallible Church which failed. Again, it was fallible Church officials who- for whatever reason- failed those good children of Christ.

I especially disagree that the Name of Christ was slandered because of this. If this were the case, then the very Church that Christ swore would be protected by Him was not, and Christ becomes less than God.

1. I know that, if the true Church of Christ cannot err “in any point” on matters of faith and morals and, if the Roman Catholic church has grievously erred in both, then the Roman Catholic church cannot be the true Church.

This is a logical progression, but the second premise is incorrect- which makes the whole progression incorrect.

The true Church of Christ cannot err in “any point” on matters instructing faith and morals.

And

The Roman Catholic Church has remained infallible, even though many of Her flock have sinned, and committed attrocities in Her name.

Then

The Roman Catholic Church must be the True Church.

1. I cannot, therefore, accept the Roman Catholic church as the true Church. Thus far, it has been shown to me that the true Church must be found elsewhere.

I do not see, thus far, what other conclusion to draw from what I’ve been given. If anyone wishes to address what I’ve written here, I assure you that I will return and read carefully and thoughtfully whatever you have to say in defense of a different conclusion.

Again, I apologize for jumping in again, after you quieted our discussion, but I just wished to clarify a few points which seemed to be derived from our discussion.

God speed to you on your intellectual journeys…