Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[pablope]

Porknpie;12188119:

as pointed out by earlier post by Tomi, if it is numbers game yes but if it is narrow gate no. Certainly anything protestant was way before 1500

just not the status quo by then.

What do you mean?

calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/

St. Optatus writes:

But schism, after the bond of peace has been broken, is brought into existence through passion, is nourished by hatred, is strengthened by envy and dissensions, so that the Catholic Mother is abandoned, whilst her unfilial children go forth outside and separate themselves (as you have done) from the root of Mother Church — cut off by the shears of their hatred — and wickedly depart in rebellion.11

St. Optatus writes to Parmenian:

But you allege that you too have some sort of a party in the City of Rome. It is a branch of your error growing out of a lie, not from the root of truth. In a word, were Macrobius to be asked where he sits in the City, will he be able to say on Peter’s Cathedra? I doubt whether he has even set eyes upon it, and schismatic that he is, he has not drawn nigh to Peter’s Shrine…. Behold, in Rome are the Shrines of the two Apostles *. Will you tell me whether he * has been able to approach them, or has offered Sacrifice in those places, where as is certain are these Shrines of the Saints.21

According to St. Optatus, anyone who sets up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra of St. Peter in Rome, is by that very fact “a schismatic and a sinner.” Of course in addition to the bishops ordained by the other Apostles, there were many lines of bishops extending down from St. Peter. And though all bishops receive equally the sacramental office of bishop, only one line of bishops succeeding from St. Peter receives, in addition, the charism Christ bestowed uniquely on St. Peter, namely, stewardship of the Keys of the Kingdom. Only that line of bishops occupying the unique Cathedra established in Rome by St. Peter possesses this charism. And hence to set up another Cathedra in opposition to this unique Cathedra, is ipso facto to become a schismatic, because such an act takes to oneself an authority that none except the rightful occupant of that unique Cathedra possesses.**

 

[FathersKnowBest]

But NOT easy to interpret and understand.

If it were, there would not be tens of thousands of different denominations.

That, and he would be contradicting Pope St. Peter!!!

(2Peter 3:16)

 

[Contarini]

Okey dokey, then.

However, it certainly does sound like, when I say it came from Mark Shea, you’re pointing out that it’s really Chesterton.

And when I say it came from Chesterton, you’re pointing out that it’s really Mark Shea.

I see why you are feeling persecuted! I had forgotten about the earlier statement. It’s both, so I suppose nothing would satisfy me but to have both authors named. But I didn’t mean it as a criticism.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

But I do not think Augustine said…apart from or in separation from the Church.

Yes but he also said the preacher and the church can teach all they want but it is zilcho unless the spirit, Jesus himself, affirms and illumines the hearer/reader. So if you want to say Jesus won’t have the church teach anything wrong I would say Jesus won’t teach anything wrong despite the "bendings of the teacher/hearer. The safety net is in Jesus and His gracious works in a man not to bend what he says or hears and understands. That is as institutional as I should get.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes but he also said the preacher and the church can teach all they want but it is zilcho unless the spirit, Jesus himself, affirms and illumines the hearer/reader. So if you want to say Jesus won’t have the church teach anything wrong I would say Jesus won’t teach anything wrong despite the "bendings of the teacher/hearer. The safety net is in Jesus and His gracious works in a man not to bend what he says or hears and understands. That is as institutional as I should get.

This is very Catholic of you to say!

 

[pablope]

Yes but he also said the preacher and the church can teach all they want but it is zilcho unless the spirit, Jesus himself, affirms and illumines the hearer/reader.

The example of St. Paul:Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Right…Jesus will illuminate and affirm by directing you back to the Church…as the revelation to St. Paul by the HS told him to do.

So if you want to say Jesus won’t have the church teach anything wrong I would say Jesus won’t teach anything wrong despite the "bendings of the teacher/hearer. The safety net is in Jesus and His gracious works in a man not to bend what he says or hears and understands. That is as institutional as I should get

 

[PRmerger]

I see why you are feeling persecuted! I had forgotten about the earlier statement. It’s both, so I suppose nothing would satisfy me but to have both authors named. But I didn’t mean it as a criticism.

Edwin

 

[benhur]

But NOT easy to interpret and understand.

Yes, he says writ has broad appeal yet “safeguarded the dignity of their hidden truth within a deeper meaning by words completely clear and by a lowly style of speech making it accessible to all men and drawing attention to those that are not light of heart” and "by narrow passages lead you on to a small number of them(that find deeper meaning).So broad appeal but narrow is the way.

If it were, there would not be tens of thousands of different denominations

Yes that is a problem, just as an institutional, top down heirarchy church has ugly problems also…Yet His truth marches on, here and there, by Peter and by Paul (my church your church)

 

[PRmerger]

But NOT easy to interpret and understand.

If it were, there would not be tens of thousands of different denominations.

Yes that is a problem,

Annnnnndddddd there you have it!

To all you naysayers and nattering nabobs of negativity!

The reason why it is oh-so-important to keep bringing up the tens of thousands of different denominations.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes that is a problem, just as an institutional, top down heirarchy church has ugly problems also…Yet His truth marches on, here and there, by Peter and by Paul (my church your church)

So here’s the problem with your “just as”.

The hierarchy’s ugly problems (of which there are many) are an example of men who are NOT FOLLOWING the rules. They are not taking the medicine offered by the Church. Rather, they have dismissed the teachings of the Church and “protested”, or, went on their own and decided to…cheat, lie, steal, and [fill in the blank with whatever sin you like].

The tens of thousands of differing denominations, however, are merely following the rules. They are saying, “We have the right to divorce ourselves from the branch upon which we hang.”

And thus, when they follow that paradigm, you have the obscenity of tens of thousands of denominations.

 

[benhur]

The example of St. Paul:Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
Right…Jesus will illuminate and affirm by directing you back to the Church…as the revelation to St. Paul by the HS told him to do.

The illumination was that to solve the problem of Judaizers, who could have destroyed the work of the spirit in “paul’s” churches making his work “vain”, to go to the source of the problem and counter it with church leaders at the “source” (Jerusalem). Hence the “private” meeting. Paul did not need affirmation but strategic help against the judaizers.

By golly…you just defined “infallibility”…Presto.

yes but of whom ?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, he says writ has broad appeal yet “safeguarded the dignity of their hidden truth within a deeper meaning by words completely clear and by a lowly style of speech making it accessible to all men and drawing attention to those that are not light of heart” and "by narrow passages lead you on to a small number of them(that find deeper meaning).So broad appeal but narrow is the way.

I’m pretty sure that Holy Scripture trumps St. Augustine.

And the inspired writers say that Scripture is NOT easy to understand and that it can be twisted to our destruction.

 

[PRmerger]

yes but of whom ?

What you gave above is a perfect definition of the infallibility of the Church.

 

[benhur]

Annnnnndddddd there you have it!

To all you naysayers and nattering nabobs of negativity!

The reason why it is oh-so-important to keep bringing up the tens of thousands of different denominations.

QED.

I thought only men had selective hearing (reading). Is it as important then to also keep bringing up the faults of your definition of “church” ? Perhaps Tomi is right in bringing up the those faults. Yes nothing like balanced negativity and maybe appease the nabobs

 

[benhur]

What you gave above is a perfect definition of the infallibility of the Church.

As Augustine says my words are in plain sight and can be seen by some more deeply even differently than what you think they mean.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I’m pretty sure that Holy Scripture trumps St. Augustine.

This is very Lutheran of you to say!!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is very Lutheran of you to say!!

I’m the Smart Aleck!?

 

[Per_Crucem]

I’m the Smart Aleck!?

 

[joe371]

Tomyris

Another problem is that what I have written has been reactive against a perception that Catholics here are requiring someone to believe something ONLY because the Catholic Church teaches it as true. Unless a priest or bishop is involved, it’s suspicious. God is not allowed to move without permission from the Church Authorities? That is my impression of what some people are saying: I am not allowed to trust the Scriptures unless the Church tells me these are trustworthy. This endorsement they seem to require shifts the authority to that of the Catholic Church being greater than the authority of God: He is theirs, not in the sense that they are dependent on Him, but rather they trot Him out at times to do things for them. I see this reversal in the statement that ‘I only believe the Scriptures because the Catholic Church tells me they are trustworthy’. Not because God can talk to me - He is no longer allowed to, He can only speak through the Church - but the Church thrusts itself so completely between the believer and God that there is no longer any relationship between the believer and God. If I want to talk to God, I should talk to the priest, and the priest will talk to God and come back with an answer? That’s Mosaic, not New Testament, where we are all now priests and the veil has been torn.

No one expects you to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. The CC only expects those who belong to the CC to believe… The idea that “God is not allowed to move without permission from the Church Authorities” is silly; if you do not belong to the CC, or even if you do belong to the CC, Christians belonging to the CC are given a lot of leeway to teach and preach. However, it does seem reasonable to expect people within the CC to steer clear of teaching something that is contrary to the teachings of the Church; it’s no different in any other church. When it comes to resolving differences, once an impasse has be reached, scripture reminds us to take it to the church, so that is exactly what everyone should do, regardless of denomination - right?

The authority of the Catholic Church is not greater than the authority of God. All authority comes from God, and God ineffably guides His church and preserves doctrinal church via His Church, comprised of all fallible sinners.

If you want to talk to God, then talk to God, privately. You do not need a priest or pastor. If you want to become a Catholic and go to Mass then you need to go to Confession where God wipes away sin, renewing your baptismal state, so that you can properly receive Jesus in the Eucharist. If you want to remain a non-Catholic then the teachings of the CC can be ignored. Simply defer to which ever church you belong to once an impasse, regarding doctrinal differences, occurs, as per scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought only men had selective hearing (reading). Is it as important then to also keep bringing up the faults of your definition of “church” ? Perhaps Tomi is right in bringing up the those faults. Yes nothing like balanced negativity and maybe appease the nabobs

I’m not sure where you thought anyone here has said: you ought not bring up the faults of the Catholic Church.

But I have certainly never read a single Catholic saying that on this thread.

And I know that this is nothing that I have ever posited.

In fact, I am quite wont* to say: the Catholic Church is imperfect, and acknowledges such here:

“The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect.” CCC 825
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8678940&postcount=32
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8752956&postcount=888
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8757617&postcount=26
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8949960&postcount=245
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6904051&postcount=742
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8977339&postcount=540