This is a tough and meaty question, I think. I'm not sure if anyone in this forum is equipped to answer it, but I'd love ideas.

Various early saints and popes (St. Martin, Pope Nicholas I in 866 A.D.) spoke against using torture or force to obtain conversion. And of course the Catechism of the Catholic Church decries the use of torture or force for the sake of conscience, as did Pius XII and Vatican II. It seems clear to me that the use of torture, burning of heretics, etc. are just plain wrong--and have even led to the murder of a saint (Joan of Arc).

On the other hand, Leo X in his bull against Luther, "Exsurge Domine" (1520) *teaches* in point 33 that it is not against the Spirit to burn heretics. Likewise, Pope Innocent IV in 1254 ("Ad Extirpande") and many popes following him, not only allowed torture to be used by the Roman inquisition, but also *commanded* Catholic rulers to hand over certain heretics to be burned or have their tongues ripped out, on pain of excommunication. John Hus was one example of thousands who were burned alive at the stake not because of crime or violence, but because of their beliefs.

It strikes me there is a terrible contradiction here. How do we have some popes, Vatican II and CCC clearly teaching against torture, etc., while other popes commanded this very thing? It isn't even a matter of some foolish or imprudent practice or simply popes who sinned; rather they *commanded* this practice for at least 300 years and *taught* it as being ethically correct, on pain of excommunication.

I have asked this question of others (Catholic Answers' Vincent Serpa O.P. and Robert Sungenis), and they both defended the use of torture and burning alive. My conscience is aghast at those responses.

I for one am prepared to say the Medieval popes blundered and were simply, absolutely wrong to command such a satanic mode of the death penalty, on account of heresy (i.e. wrong thinking and teaching). But does this infringe on the issue of papal infallibility?

If the popes have taught and commanded incorrectly for three centuries or more, does that call their ethical teaching cabability into question?

And for the record, I am (not yet) a Catholic. I am a Lutheran, but have never written anything on this forum than what I knew to be sound Catholic doctrine. I have an open mind and am willing to learn.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 03, 2005

Answers

-- (bump@bump.bump), January 03, 2005.

Hi Michael- Ill play the Catholic apologist

Q. Is the burning and torture of heretics wrong?

A. Yes clearly we realise this today.

Q. Why then did Catholics burn heretics?

A. Fragmentation of our past history, although convenient for formulating arguments, is perhaps not advisable in any real search for the truth. Certainly it allows us to view historical actions with little regard for past societal norms and political attitudes. Loftily judging medieval actions as so repugnant, avoids the reality of the level of factual knowledge available to those of the time.

When judging any history consider the need for integration of knowledge and actions -why did people, (well intentioned but misguided people) behave in a way that today we realise is wrong? I always go back to CS Lewis simple line “ Men judge other men on their actions, God judges men on the moral choices they make”. We must be wary not to take a position or reflect on actions of the past without first understanding the historical context of the time. I urge you read the following essay from Dave Armstrong Internet apologist who provides a excellent introduction into understanding the medieval mindset.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ366.HTM

Heres one quote from German Karl Adam from the essay

“The religion of the medieval man embraced his whole life and outlook . . . So that every revolt against the Catholic faith seemed to him to be a moral crime, a sort of murder of the soul and of God, an offence more heinous than parricide. And his outlook was logical rather than psychological. He rejoiced in the perception of truth, but he had little appreciation of the living conditions of soul by which this perception is reached . . .

In dealing with the living man we have to take account not only of the logical force of truth, but also of the particular quality of the mental and spiritual endowment with which he reacts to the truth. Because they were not alive to the infinite variety of such spiritual endowment, they were all too ready, especially when truth was impugned, to conclude at once that it was a case of "evil will" (mala fides) and to pass sentence of condemnation, even though there were insuperable intellectual obstacles (ignorantia invincibilis) in the way of the perception of the truth. This pre-eminently logical attitude of mind is characteristic of the Middle Ages. That epoch had no feeling for life as a flowing thing with its own peculiar laws, no appreciation of history, whether within us or without us. And this attitude was not to be overcome and corrected, until the spirit of the time changed, until in the course of centuries and by a long evolution a new outlook took its place. Therefore the persecutions of heretics did not proceed from the nature of Catholicism, but from the political and mental attitude of the Middle Ages . . .

The theologian(today) has by means of psychological and historical studies attained a wider understanding and become increasingly cautious in attributing an "evil will" to the heretic. He has become more alive to the thousand possibilities of invincible and therefore excusable error . . .”

Q. Did the church teach or command that heretics must be burnt or tortured?

A. Certainly not infallibly, therefore the question becomes one of “at what level and with what degree of certainty did the church “teach” , if indeed at all”? Is it possible for you to provide references for these documents you’ve read from Leo X and Pope Innocent IV as I cant find anything online.

Peace !

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 03, 2005.

Hello Kiwi!

The teaching of Luther that was condemned by Pope Leo in "Exsurge Domine" point 33 was, simply, "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit". You can read this in www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm.

Interestingly, Papal Encyclicals online does *not* have a copy of "Ad Extirpande" by Innocent IV! (Perhaps it would prove too embarrassing).

However, you can read the lengthy, exhaustive and fascinating online article "Inquisition" in the 1910 version of the Catholic Encyclopedia to get more details about the punishments and tortures used in the Medieval inquisition. I refer you to www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm.

Of course, people in the past did not think exactly as we do. Where I am grieved, is that many in the ancient Church *did* speak clearly against the use of torture and force in matters of faith; the Catholic Encyclopedia article mentions such luminaries as Cyprian, Lactantius, Augustine, Ambrose and Bernard--all of whom spoke *against* the use of torture or death penalty for heretics.

In short, the Church (at least in various Fathers) *did* have a tradition against forcing conversion or torturing heretics, as witnessed in the letter to King Boris of Bulgaria by Pope Nicholas I in 866 A.D.

Yet, we see a *reversal* of this tradition in Innocent IV and many later medieval popes who commanded magistrates to burn heretics on pain of being excommunicated themselves--and of course in danger, then, of being burnt themselves. Though Innocent IV was appealing to Imperial Law in this Bull, and commanding its implementation, it is clear that the popes had been forming the thinking of Christendom for centuries. I mean, whose world was it? Kings and princes *obeyed* popes in that period. Consider that Pope Clement *ordered* the reluctant kings of England and other nations to torture and burn the Knights Templar, even when such torture had not been customary in those lands.

And Leo X is clear that Luther was wrong to teach against the *burning* of heretics.

So my problem is, we seem to have two flip-flops of teaching on this issue. Earlier fathers and popes are against torture and killing of heretics; medieval popes and Leo X favor it; and Pius XII and Vatican II and CCC oppose it.

Mind you, these are not "ex cathedra" proclamations, but heavens, the Catholic Church asks us to follow its ordinary magisterium all the time, does it not? Or do we say, "Well, if it's not an ex cathedra pronouncement, it doesn't count"? Can you think of other papal ethical teachings on which we say, "It doesn't count, because it's not defined ex cathedra"? I would welcome such an example!

I hope you can see I'm honestly struggling here, Kiwi. Please help!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 03, 2005.

I should add, what bothers me very much is that Innocent IV and others *commanded* Catholic rulers to burn the heretics, on pain of excommunication. It is one thing to write something ill-considered or incomplete in an encyclical; it is another thing to command evil on pain of being cast out of the Church. It would be like having John Paul II command certain people to use contraception, or to own slaves, on pain of excommunication....

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 03, 2005.

Popes never commanded any barbarity. You're just repeating the many calumnies of the ''Black Legend.'' Before you come here saying baseless things like this, find the proper documentation. When (if) you do, come back. Start up again on firmer footing. You won't be given the free ride here to bash any Pope living or dead.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 03, 2005.

Dear Eugene,

I would never "bash" a pope and would never create lies about them. I honor popes and the Catholic Church. I mentioned my sources--the Catholic Encyclopedia and Papal Encyclicals online!--please read them before you accuse me.

Believe me, Eugene, I am *not* an anti-Catholic and I did not ask this question lightly or with false intent.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 03, 2005.

Popes didn't run the Office of the Holy Inquisition. Get your facts straight, Man.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 03, 2005.

Popes were not in control of the Spanish Inquisition, that is true! But they did institute the Medieval, Roman Inquisition. Again, please *read* the Catholic Encylcopedia article on "Inquisition". I am *not* making this stuff up.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 04, 2005.

Ok this looks like a serious conversation so I won't ask for 2 heretics over easy!

Michael, 1st off Great Name! As you have identified the RCC wielded tremendous Power during in those days. But you have to understand that the Church much like humanity goes through periods of evolution, sometime good sometimes not so hot.

#1 the period you mention It was common practice for the wealthy familes to obligate their oldest son to the Priesthood, to honor God for the blessing he had placed upon the families and their good fortunes. as time progressed you will note that many of the Popes were Uncles and nephews from the most powerful and wealthiest families, this is why you will see Cardinals ordained at 13 years old and becoming Popes in their 20 and 30's.

Now with the most powerful families leading the Church and because of the tremendous Power influence they had in many nations they were NOT willing to lose the Church under their watch. Because during this period you are not talking about just losing a few hundred or few thousand people to the heretic you risk losing an entire nation and if you lose one you can lose many many more nations and how would that look on your family and would YOU want to be responsible for destroying the Church of Jesus Christ?

But it must be noted that the torture and burning was more tit-for- tat because church lost more then they got. But during this same time of the crusades and such the Church was building Hospitals, churchs, orphanages and other organizations throughout the world as a result of their push.

But always remember that no matter how the Popes ruled with an Iron Fist from a Political, Power, Money and Religious structure they still had thousands and thousands of truely God loving people doing the work.

But I do think that people like Luther and Erasmus were sent as a wake-uo call to begin progressing to the next level as we continue to do today.

I know it can be hard to rationalize in this day and age but isn't slavery? Or Perhaps it was simply motivation through intimidation!

I guess in todays business climate we could simply say it was "Marketing,Marketing,Marketing!!"

Hope this offers some help, maybe not real nice but it was just part of the Churchs evolution.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 04, 2005.

Sure enough, Michael G., the Church inspired millions to faith, hope and love. Thank God for that! And I know that Christians, even holy popes like St. Pius V, are on the journey, and learn, and grow. (I mention him because on the one hand he saved western civilization by the holy Rosary and the Battle of Lepanto, yet still burned sodomites at the stake in Rome.) I guess my main concern is one of apparent reversal of teaching--what does this mean about ethical principles, and the issue of papal infallibility (and our obedience to non- infallible papal teaching)?

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 04, 2005.

Michael, These teachings weren't infallible (if they are true). I looked up Infallibility on New Advent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) and there is listed a number of conditions that must be met in order for something to be infallible. The last one reads "Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible." If the Pope were to threaten excommunication to those who didn't torture and kill heretics, that is hardly being seen as "intending to bind the Church". As you can imagine, that is quite the opposite.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

"I guess my main concern is one of apparent reversal of teaching-- what does this mean about ethical principles, and the issue of papal infallibility (and our obedience to non- infallible papal teaching)? "

You know the story of the Centurion? It is kind of the same principle, since the Pope is to be the Spiritual Centurion and we would be under his authority in this manner regarding teaching--If we followed his instructions in good faith that he is teaching in good judgement with deep honest spiritual guidance then this will prove itself out, IF he is yanking our chains and we still act in good faith and trust then HE alone bears the burden of punishment, unless what he states is so obvious like " if your neighbors wife is 5'4" 105lbs young and cute you should kill her husband and take her for your concubine" then what else needs to be said. He is not acting with any spiritual guidance what so ever.

Reversal of teaching or an acknowldgement that in hindsight previous methods did not follow in line with the Teachings of Jesus Christ but those of man during that time frame. Much like the RCC now states that the stand off between Lutherans and the RCC had more to do with the how to's instead of sharing in the fact that we both seek to do the work of Jesus but with different approachs (roughly, it's been a few years)

When you read alot of Church documents often you can spot somewhat of an out in them leaving them open for further or modified clarification at a later period of time.

The issue of papal infallibility is almost always going to be a tough one for most to accept blindly without having trust in the Pope at that time.--But as with most things your own spirit will Flag an issue for you to do some deeper reflection and prayer on your own.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 04, 2005.

Cameron,

You are right that Leo X's teaching of burning heretics, and Innocent IV's commands to do so, were not "ex cathedra". My question is more subtle than that. Namely, don't Catholics owe religious submission to even non-ex-cathedra teachings of the pope? Can you give me an example of an ethical teaching in an encyclical, or a papal command in modern times, that we could just say, "Well, that's not ex cathedra, so I don't have to agree or obey"? The question I am asking, I guess, is, when do we have the right to dissent from papal teaching or commands? Again, can you give me an example from a papal ethical teaching in an encyclical where dissent would be okay?

I thought that even ordinary teaching of the Magisterium demands our assent.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 04, 2005.

Actually, I can give you a perfect and fitting example. It may even answer your question. The death penalty. The Church says that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, as abortion is. As long as the penalty and law are applied fairly. It is up to the government to decide. I assume this is because so many judicial systems are insufficent, letting rapists and murderers go after 10 years to commit their crimes against humanity again. However, as Christians we are called upon to be compassionate. Heretics in the middle ages, for example, could probably have been seen as traitors to the crown and rebels since the Church and state were so close. Popes crowned kings, and people believed that God chose kings. As for when we are supposed to follow the Pope and when not, I'll have to do some more searching. Follow my URL on the last message and you will go to newadvent.com on infallibility. I think (and I could very well be wrong) that we are only obliged to follow the Pope when he issues an infallible statement on Faith and Morals. Or the Magisterium on scripture interpretation. Popes are allowed to give their personal opinions publically(which may have been the case with those Popes you mentioned). However, it is usually a good idea to follow the Pope because he is our visible shepherd here on earth. If the Pope tells you to kill and torture though, then I think that may be crossing the line.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

Michael,

Let us row the boat ashore...

Your stsatement that "Leo X in his bull against Luther, "Exsurge Domine" (1520) *teaches* in point 33 that it is not against the Spirit to burn heretics." is objectively false assumption unless proven.

The conclusion you presuppose in your question does not square with the document you reference and quote out of context -apparently disregarding the following two portions.

From Exsurge Domine - Bull of Pope Leo X issued 15 June 1520

"Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears, as seductive of simple minds, originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world's glory, and contrary to the Apostle's teaching, wish to be wiser than they should be. Their talkativeness, unsupported by the authority of the Scriptures, as Jerome says, would not win credence unless they appeared to support their perverse doctrine even with divine testimonies however badly interpreted. From their sight fear of God has now passed."

Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows

The document clearly is not 'teaching' the "points" as you imply - [it] is simply pointing out the errors that are classified as either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive -etcetera...

You have chose to presuppose the classification of "point 33" -then ask for evidence to disprove the unproven?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 04, 2005.

Interestingly, Papal Encyclicals online does *not* have a copy of "Ad Extirpande" by Innocent IV! (Perhaps it would prove too embarrassing).

Michael,

Interestingly you reference the content of Ad Extirpanda (correct spelling) -I assume you can point to a reference you might share? I would be interested in reading it before attempting to comment intelligently as to the content.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 04, 2005.

'I for one am prepared to say the Medieval popes blundered and were simply, absolutely wrong to command such a satanic mode of the death penalty, on account of heresy (i.e. wrong thinking and teaching). But does this infringe on the issue of papal infallibility?

If the popes have taught and commanded incorrectly for three centuries or more, does that call their ethical teaching cabability into question? '

i totally agree with you dude

there is no truth in papal infailability because this papal infailability was 'invented' by men,not god

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 04, 2005.

I don't think that's what Michael was trying to say. And if he would, he would certainly say it more respectful than you just did. You are the most close-minded person I've ever come across. We could present you all the quotes in the Bible supporting Papal Infallibility and you still would disregard them. Whenever you are proven wrong, you never post on that thread again. I think you should have some guts and say when you are wrong, even if you don't agree with what is being said. Instead, you continue on your path to self destruction and refuse to listen to anyone who tries to help you. May God give you peace.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

In this oen case, Cameon, there are no Bible verses to confirm Papal Infallability. This is a Tradition, and not a scriptural poin of reference.

it was also "Cnfirmed" in 1870, and many Non-Catholics point to this year as its inception.

Inded, many Catholics also site this as the year Papal Infallability was claimed, while many others say only that the doctorine was confirmed.

Noentheless, the ope can sin, perform greivous acts, or be mistaken, wihtout infringing ont he theory of Papal Infallability.

The Pope must speak exz Cathedra to actulaly be Infallable, and unless they are speakign Ex Cathedra, they ar enot Infallable. Thus a Pope, as a man and d vicsible head of the Orginised Chruhc, can be in error in his orders he gives, while still not infrignign on the Papl Infallability.

It woidl only disprove papal Infaallability if the Pope said smething, and taug it as doctorine, ex cathedra that proved untrue. ( For instance, if the Pope had taight ex cathedra that man widl never land on the Moon bakc in 1902, this woudl disporve Papal Infallability. This never happeendthough, just a fictional example.)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 04, 2005.

'We could present you all the quotes in the Bible supporting Papal Infallibility and you still would disregard them.'

then please prove me this cameron

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 04, 2005.

Popes have sinned by commission or ommission.

The most sound apologetic for the Catholic Church is that it has survived -- at times in spite of itself.

What Jesus said, has proven to be true.

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." NAB

And Michael -- We did understand that you are not anti-catholic in any way. May God bless you.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), January 04, 2005.

Daniel, Cameron, Zarove and John! Many, many thanks!

Do you have *any* idea what you have just done for me? I believe I am beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel! This question has burdened me and held me back from the Catholic Church for over 20 years, ever since I read a reference to the question in books by Bernhard Haring and Roland Bainton.

I have over the years asked this question of monsignors, seminary professors, and internet folks like Catholic Answers and CAI. None of them has ever given me the response that gave me peace. But you folks on Catholic Forum have, I think, offered a great breakthrough.

I will need time to reflect more on your posts, but I believe that:

1. Daniel has pointed out the word "or" in Leo's bulla, which I had before seen translated as "and". This makes a world of difference, because, as Daniel rightly says, it is not necessarily a *teaching* of burning heretics involved here, but rather Luther could be seen as being "offensive" or "scandalous"--something quite different, and *not* involving the teaching office.

2. I do not have the text of Ad Extirpanda, and am taking Catholic Encycopedia at its word. However, this could be seen as in imprudent (even sinful) command of a pope--"grievous acts" as Zarove pointed out--but not as a *teaching*.

3. Not all teaching is at the same level, as Cameron points out with his fine example of the death penalty.

4. So, as John reminds us, the promise to Peter holds up!

So, it seems I would be free to claim that the Catholic Church was and is correct in its teaching against torture and use of force or burning heretics, but that some leaders of the Church failed to understand or live up to that teaching. Does that sound right?

If so--I submit myself to the Holy Father in Rome and ask for his blessing.

Gentlemen--I am impressed at your collective wisdom. Thanks again.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 04, 2005.

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

which church??

the RCC?

jesus didn't mention this

church is supposed to be taken metaphorically and means the community of christians

and like my dear friend sdqa already said

peter was no pope and he did not establish a church

people later many years later after his death gave him the title of pope but he never called himself that way during his life,nor did he call his community of christians the RCC,people later established the RCC as a hierarchal religious institution and linked it to paul and his community so that they can call theirselves the original christian church

-- jerry(sdqa's friend,tom's brother) (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

My friends:
Peter is represented by the bishops of Rome, his ordained successors. He was called infallible, we know it by the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

God was present before Peter, the rock when he pronounced the ordination: ''Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church,'' Jesus is God the Son.

Continuing, He proclaimed and it is written: ''and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever (ALL) thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,'' (Matt 16, :19 and 20).

I may be senile and clueless, but the evangelist wasn't. He says ''whatever-- everything.'' He wrote ''on earth and in heaven: universally.'' And the Universal Church has always had for her shepherd the Prince of the apostles, Peter, duly appointed by GOD.

So, don't come here disputing the infallibility of the Popes.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 04, 2005.

To Jerry, sdqa and tom:
According to you experts, ''--people later established the people later established the RCC as a hierarchal religious institution and linked it to paul and his community so that they can call theirselves the original christian church and linked it to paul and his community so that they can call theirselves the original christian church.''

Wrong. There is no ''RCC'' We aren't the Roman church, but the Universal (Catholic) Church, founded by Jesus Christ. people later established the RCC as a hierarchal religious institution Wrong; a Church founded by Jesus is more than an institution. It's much more than ''a community of christians'' whom YOU presume to identify. The Catholic Church is the first and only Church of the holy apostles.

The apostle Paul was Catholic to the core, a priest of Christ's Church. He was spiritual director of Timothy and Titus, to whom he wrote epistles, instructing them in the CATHOLIC (universal) faith. He and Barnaby passed on the holy priesthood to these and other disciples, ordaining them in the ''laying on of hands.'' All of it is documented in scripture.

Heretics, of course, can't admit this. If they do, it makes of THEM false prophets promoting a heretical faith. Now you've come to the right place to learn the truth. Up to now you've learned NOTHING from whatever self- ordained minister you follow. What was it Paul said about the likes of self-ordained Christian ministers?

''There are some who trouble you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ; (HERETICS) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we've preached to you, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA!'' And he even REPEATS it, to the Galatians. --(Gal 1, :8). He was speaking about ''reformers''. In other words, heretical ministers.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 04, 2005.

Sacred Tradition by Sebastian R. Fama

It is often alleged that the Catholic Church focuses on tradition rather than Scripture. That is simply not so. The Church focuses on Scripture and Sacred Tradition as they both flow out of the same divine wellspring, making up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation 2:9,10). This is verified by the teaching of Scripture. Scripture speaks of two kinds of tradition. One is condemned, and the other requires belief. Paul tells us In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to "Stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." Notice how Paul ranks oral tradition with written tradition. Why does he do that? He gives us the answer in 1 Thessalonians 2:13: "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God..." So the oral traditions and the written were both the word of God. No wonder Paul was pleased when the Corinthians accepted the traditions that he passed on to them. "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2). It is sometimes claimed that the oral tradition that Paul is speaking of is what he later put into Scripture. But the Bible nowhere says this.

Bible Christians rely on Catholic Tradition. For instance, how do they know that the 27 books of the New Testament belong in the Bible? How do they know that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? His name doesn't appear in the manuscripts. How do they know that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? They know these things the same way that Catholics know them, because the Catholic Church tells us so.

So then, what type of tradition does Jesus condemn? Mark records the following statement made by Jesus to the Scribes and Pharisees:

"You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'… but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "what you would have gained from me is corban" (that is, given to God), then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition" (Mark 7:8-13).

The Scribes and Pharisees were violating one of the commandments with their own tradition (tradition of men), and Jesus corrects them with the traditional interpretation (Sacred Tradition). The Apostles taught in the same manner and, according to the Bible, apostolic teaching was the standard in the early Church: "And they devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayers" (Acts 2:42).

How can we recognize the traditions of men? Well, if they cannot be traced back to the early Church, they would have to be man-made. To believe otherwise would imply that God didn't get it right the first time. What Catholics call Sacred Tradition can be traced back to the early Church. The same cannot be said of those beliefs that are uniquely Protestant. Protestantism was the creation of men. It first appeared in the sixteenth century. We even know the names of the men who started it. Names like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. If men started it, it is a tradition of men and not of God. One could hardly argue that it was an apostolic institution.

Early Christians knew the importance of Sacred Tradition. In the year 200 AD Tertullian wrote, "Wherever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures and their explanation, and of all the Christian traditions" (The Demurrer against the heretics 19:3). A few decades later, Origen writes, "That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (Fundamental doctrines 1, preface: 2, circa 225 AD).

It is only when we embrace Scripture and Sacred Tradition that we have the complete Word of God. And as Jesus once said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4).

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 04, 2005.

sdqa, you wanted proof from scripture, you got it. From Newadvent.com.

PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE

1. In order to prevent misconception and thereby to anticipate a common popular objection which is wholly based on a misconception it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration. Even considered as purely human documents they furnish us, we maintain, with a trustworthy report of Christ's sayings and promises; and, taking it to be a fact that Christ said what is attributed to Him in the Gospels, we further maintain that Christ's promises to the Apostles and their successors in the teaching office include the promise of such guidance and assistance as clearly implies infallibility. Having thus used the Scriptures as mere historical sources to prove that Christ endowed the Church with infallible teaching authority it is no vicious circle, but a perfectly legitimate iogical procedure, to rely on the Church's authority for proof of what writings are inspired.

2. Merely remarking for the present that the texts in which Christ promised infallible guidance especially to Peter and his successors in the primacy mlght be appealed to here as possessing an a fortiori value, it will suffice to consider the classical texts usually employed in the general proof of the Church's infallibility; and of these the principal are:

Matthew 28:18-20; Matthew 16:18; John 14, 15, and 16; I Timothy 3:14-15; and Acts 15:28 sq. Matthew 28:18-20. In Matthew 28:18-20, we have Christ's solemn commission to the Apostles delivered shortly before His Ascension: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." In Mark 16:15-16, the same commission is given more briefly with the added promise of salvation to believers and the threat of damnation for unbelievers; "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned."

Now it cannot be denied by anyone who admits that Christ established a visible Church at all, and endowed it with any kind of effective teaching authority, that this commission, with all it implies, was given not only to the Apostles personally for their own lifetime, but to their successors to the end of time, "even to the consummation of the world". And assuming that it was the omniscient Son of God Who spoke these words, with a full and clear realization of the import which, in conjunction with His other promises, they were calculated to convey to the Apostles and to all simple and sincere believers to the end of time, the only reasonable interpretation to put upon them is that they contain the promise of infallible guidance in doctrinal teaching made to the Apostolic College in the first instance and then to the hierarchical college that was to succeed it.

In the first place it was not without reason that Christ prefaced His commission by appealing to the fullness of power He Himself had received: "All power is given to me", etc. This is evidently intended to emphasize the extraordinary character and extent of the authority He is communicating to His Church -- an authority, it is implied, which He could not personally communicate were not He Himself omnipotent. Hence the promise that follows cannot reasonably be understood of ordinary natural providential guidance, but must refer to a very special supernatural assistance.

In the next place there is question particularly in this passage of doctrinal authority -- of authority to teach the Gospel to all men -- if Christ's promise to be with the Apostles and their successors to the end of time in carrying out this commission means that those whom they are to teach in His name and according to the plenitude of the power He has given them are bound to receive that teaching as if it were His own; in other words they are bound to accept it as infallible. Otherwise the perennial assistance promised would not really be efficacious for its purpose, and efficacious Divine assistance is what the expression used is clearly intended to signify. Supposing, as we do, that Christ actually delivered a definite body of revealed truth, to be taught to all men in all ages, and to be guarded from change or corruption by the living voice of His visible Church, it is idle to contend that this result could be accomplished effectively -- in other words that His promise could be effectively fulfilled unless that living voice can speak infallibly to every generation on any question that may arise affecting the substance of Christ's teaching.

Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed. Take, for instance, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?

One may not appeal to the inspired authority of the Scriptures, since for the fact of their inspiration the authority of the Church must be invoked, and unless she be infallible in deciding this one would be free to question the inspiration of any of the New Testament writings. Nor, abstracting from the question of inspiration, can it be fairly maintained, in face of the facts of history, that the work of interpreting scriptural teaching regarding these mysteries and several other points of doctrine that have been identified with the substance of historical Christianity is so easy as to do away with the need of a living voice to which, as to the voice of Christ Himself, all are bound to submit.

Unity of Faith was intended by Christ to be one of the distinctive notes of His Church, and the doctrinal authority He set up was intended by His Divine guidance and assistance to be really effective in maintaining this unity; but the history of the early heresies and of the Protestant sects proves clearly, what might indeed have been anticipated a priori, that nothing less than an infallible public authority capable of acting decisively whenever the need should rise and pronouncing an absolutely final and irreformable judgment, is really efficient for this purpose. Practically speaking the only alternative to infallibility is private judgment, and this after some centuries of trial has been found to lead inevitably to utter rationalism. If the early definitions of the Church were fallible, and therefore reformable, perhaps those are right who say today that they ought to be discarded as being actually erroneous or even pernicious, or at least that they ought to be re-interpreted in a way that substantially changes their original meaning; perhaps, indeed, there is no such thing as absolute truth in matters religious! How, for example, is a Modernist who takes up this position to be met except by insisting that definitive teaching is irreversible and unchangeable; that it remains true in its original sense for all time; in other words that it is infallible? For no one can reasonably hold that fallible doctrinal teaching is irreformable or deny the right of later generations to question the correctness of earlier fallible definitions and call for their revision or correction, or even for their total abandonment.

From these considerations we are justified in concluding that if Christ really intended His promise to be with His Church to be taken seriously, and if He was truly the Son of God, omniscient and omnipotent, knowing history in advance and able to control its course, then the Church is entitled to claim infallible doctrinal authority. This conclusion is confirmed by considering the awful sanction by which the Church's authority is supported: all who refuse to assent to her teaching are threatened with eternal damnation. This proves the value Christ Himself set upon His own teaching and upon the teaching of the Church commissioned to teach in His name; religious indifferentism is here reprobated in unmistakable terms.

Nor does such a sanction lose its significance in this connection because the same penalty is threatened for disobedience to fallible disciplinary laws, or even in some cases for refusing to assent to doctrinal teaching that is admittedly fallible. Indeed, every mortal sin, according to Christ's teaching, is punishable with eternal damnation. But if one believes in the objectivity of eternal and immutable truth, he will find it difficult to reconcile with a worthy conception of the Divine attributes a command under penalty of damnation to give unqualified and irrevocable internal assent to a large body of professedly Divine doctrine the whole of which is possibly false. Nor is this difficulty satisfactorily met, as some have attempted to meet it, by calling attention to the fact that in the Catholic system internal assent is sometimes demanded, under pain of grievous sin, to doctrinal decisions that do not profess to be infallible. For, in the first place, the assent to be given in such cases is recognized as being not irrevocable and irreversible, like the assent required in the case of definitive and infallible teaching, but merely provisional; and in the next place, internal assent is obligatory only on those who can give it consistently with the claims of objective truth on their conscience -- this conscience, it is assumed, being directed by a spirit of generous loyalty to genuine Catholic principles.

To take a particular example, if Galileo who happened to be right while the ecclesiastical tribunal which condemned him was wrong, had really possessed convincing scientific evidence in favour of the heliocentric theory, he would have been justified in refusing his internal assent to the opposite theory, provided that in doing so he observed with thorough loyalty all the conditions involved in the duty of external obedience. Finally it should be observed that fallible provisional teaching, as such, derives its binding force principally from the fact that it emanates from an authority which is competent, if need be, to convert it into infallible definitive teaching. Without infallibility in the background it would be difficult to establish theoretically the obligation of yielding internal assent to the Church's provisional decisions.

Matthew 16:18. In Matthew 16:18, we have the promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church that is to be built on the rock; and this also, we maintain, implies the assurance of the Church's infallibility in the exercise of her teaching office. Such a promise, of course, must be understood with limitations according to the nature of the matter to which it is applied. As applied to sanctity, for example, which is essentially a personal and individual affair, it does not mean that every member of the Church or of her hierarchy is necessarily a saint, but merely that the Church, as whole, will be conspicuous among other things for the holiness of life of her members. As applied to doctrine, however -- always assuming, as we do, that Christ delivered a body of doctrine the preservation of which in its literal truth was to be one of the chief duties of the Church -- it would be a mockery to contend that such a promise is compatible with the supposition that the Church has possibly erred in perhaps the bulk of her dogmatic definitions, and that throughout the whole of her history she has been threatening men with eternal damnation in Christ's name for refusing to believe doctrines that are probably false and were never taught by Christ Himself. Could this be the case, would it not be clear that the gates of hell can prevail and probably have prevailed most signally against the Church?

John 14-16. In Christ's discourse to the Apostles at the Last Supper several passages occur which clearly imply the promise of infallibility: "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth . . . he shall abide with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:16, 17). "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (ibid. 26). "But when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth (John 16:13). And the same promise is renewed immediately before the Ascension (Acts 1:8). Now what does the promise of this perennial and efficacious presence and assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, mean in connection with doctrinal authority, except that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is made responsible for what the Apostles and their successors may define to be part of Christ's teaching? But insofar as the Holy Ghost is responsible for Church teaching, that teaching is necessarily infallible: what the Spirit of truth guarantees cannot be false.

I Timothy 3:15. In I Timothy 3:15, St. Paul speaks of "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"; and this description would be something worse than mere exaggeration if it had been intended to apply to a fallible Church; it would be a false and misleading description. That St. Paul, however, meant it to be taken for sober and literal truth is abundantly proved by what he insists upon so strongly elsewhere, namely, the strictly Divine authority of the Gospel which he and the other Apostles preached, and which it was the mission of their successors to go on preaching without change or corruption to the end of time. "When you had received of us", he writes to the Thessalonians, "the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed" (I Thessalonians 2:13). The Gospel, he tells the Corinthians, is intended to bring "into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (II Corinthians 10:5). Indeed, so fixed and irreformable is the doctrine that has been taught that the Galatians (1:8) are warned to anathematize any one, even an angel from heaven, who should preach to them a Gospel other than that which St. Paul had preached. Nor was this attitude -- which is intelligible only on the supposition that the Apostolic College was infallible -- peculiar to St. Paul. The other Apostles and apostolic writers were equally strong in anathematizing those who preached another Christianity than that which the Apostles had preached (cf. II Peter 2:1 sqq.; I John 4:1 sqq.; II John 7 sqq.; Jude 4); and St. Paul makes it clear that it was not to any personal or private views of his own that he claimed to make every understanding captive, but to the Gospel which Christ had delivered to the Apostolic body. When his own authority as an Apostle was challenged, his defense was that he had seen the risen Saviour and received his mission directly from Him, and that his Gospel was in complete agreement with that of the other Apostles (see, v.g., Galatians 2:2-9).

Acts 15:28. Finally, the consciousness of corporate infallibility is clearly signified in the expression used by the assembled Apostles in the decree of the Council of Jerusalem: "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you", etc. (Acts 15:28). It is true that the specific points here dealt with are chiefly disciplinary rather than dogmatic, and that no claim to infallibility is made in regard to purely disciplinary questions as such; but behind, and independent of, disciplinary details there was the broad and most important dogmatic question to be decided, whether Christians, according to Christ's teaching, were bound to observe the Old Law in its integrity, as orthodox Jews of the time observed it. This was the main issue at stake, and in deciding it the Apostles claimed to speak in the name and with the authority of the Holy Ghost. Would men who did not believe that Christ's promises assured them of an infallible Divine guidance have presumed to speak in this way? And could they, in so believing, have misunderstood the Master's meaning?

I'm sorry about posting a hefty message, but I figured sdqa wouldn't take the trouble of following a url that I posted. In fact, he probably won't even bother reading this through. But if anyone wants to know it is the same url as I posted above.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

"So, it seems I would be free to claim that the Catholic Church was and is correct in its teaching against torture and use of force or burning heretics, but that some leaders of the Church failed to understand or live up to that teaching. Does that sound right?"

Yes Michael, that sounds right to me. But in today's day and age I don't think such a gross misuse of Papal Authority could exist. If you are serious about converting, then I proudly consider you a brother in Christ! I'm glad I could help.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

Yes, Michael; and also some in the medieval age were too ready to follow excommunication by handing over to the state (the Inquisition's enforcers) official some, not all, adamant sinners. It would be a grave matter, we suppose. The feudal society of their day saw no wrong in torture and cruelty, it was the coin of their realms.

As the epistle to the Galatians states, these heretical enemies were anathema; accursed. These are words by Saint Paul. Popes tend to interpret an apostle's words quite literally.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 04, 2005.

i've red your post cameron and i start to doubt if you have red it also

all your references to the bible don't actually refer to infailability nor the catholic church at all...

and how are you so sure what the meaning of the word church was back then?

there were no things like churches back then,the jews had temples and later synagoges but nobody was speaking of churches

how are you so sure it doesn't have maybe a different meaning than we know today and maybe supposed to be interpreted more metaphorically like for example:THE community of ALL the followers of jesus

and not the church as an institution

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 04, 2005.

You cannot teach somebody who is determined not to learn from you. /i>sdqa is that ''horse''. You can lead it to water, but you can't make it drink. Ha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 04, 2005.

'Bible Christians rely on Catholic Tradition. For instance, how do they know that the 27 books of the New Testament belong in the Bible? How do they know that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? His name doesn't appear in the manuscripts. How do they know that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? They know these things the same way that Catholics know them, because the Catholic Church tells us so.'

this is true and this is why i doubt about the authenticity and the truth of the gospels,because i have million reasons why not to trust the RCC

-- jer(tom's brother,sdqa's fried,heterosexual:)) (doofykorn@hotmail.com), January 04, 2005.

Then forget about it. You choose as you please.

Don't forget how Christ was rejected by his people. (Not all, but plenty of them.) God speaks and He gives us the grace to believe. As for the Catholic Church, all the historical evidence is on her side. But you're one of the doofusses who dislike priests, so what are we supposed to do about it? Admit you're right?

No-- You're 100% wrong. --We can live with that.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 04, 2005.

The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers. Back then, there was only one way to believe, the Roman Catholic Church. They knew what to believe because the Apostles knew Jesus personally and learned from him. This knowledge remains unchanged to this day. But somewhere along the line, Pride reared its ugly head, and humans started their own “churches” with their own beliefs. You see, “church” started out meaning “The Roman Catholic Church” because it was the one instituted by Jesus, and the only one around. You can’t broaden the meaning to include all churches after the fact. Humans made their own churches and broadened the meaning of Jesus’ words to justify their new churches. If you are such a champion against “manmade-ism” then you would realize that.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), January 05, 2005.

Michael,

I am overjoyed! :)

Let me add this nugget of wisdom I evoked long ago -it is almost a 'glass half full' approach to the path of further understanding that which must be -yet, is not fully apparent...

ALWAYS begin in Faith, mind and heart wide open when seeking 'answers' -the maxim: Faith seeking Understanding should apply in every moment and every thing.

Now as to ad extirpanda... From what I have been able to research about it without still having been able to see the text is that [it] was not a Bull -[it] was a Decretal: a reply to some particular difficulty submitted to the Holy See, but having the force of precedents to rule on all analogous cases...

Thus far, my limited understanding and knowledge of this pontifical decision/decree is that decretal ad extirpanda was issued in 1252 by Pope Innocent IV in response to Inquisition abuses and Catholic lay lynch mobs that went around hunting, torturing, and punishing supposed heretics.

Further, that [b]decretal ad extirpanda[/b] sought to correct abuses in and further refine the Inquisition 'process'. [It] reasserted strongly, the Inquisition as the only competent authority in such matters, restored the Roman Law of Proofs (innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt) to Canon Law, and limited the practice of torture in proceedings.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 05, 2005.

"this is true and this is why i doubt about the authenticity and the truth of the gospels,because i have million reasons why not to trust the RCC"

jer(tom's brother,sdqa's fried,heterosexual:))-- Well it appears you have study some facts, the way that the tested it was based upon writing of other which refer back to even earlier sources of writings and quotes for verification.

But let me present you with a few problems on the logic that the Church made up or wrote these books on their own.

If the Church made these writings up, why would they acknowledge that John the Baptist and Jesus were cousins. Because on this basis alone it would leave the reader to conclude that they conspired to create a business for themselves. Wouldn't it be more believeable to have John out in the desert and then have Jesus appear prev unknown to John the Baptist and then John making his declaration, be baptized and the Voice from Heaven. So why would they leave that to be an open target for those of ill-will?

Would they have Jesus turning over the tables of the money changers or wouldn't they have Jesus telling the money changers to increase their contributions to to the temples to 15%, same with the attenders which each of them joyfully doing so.

Wouldn't they make sure that all of the pieces fit together in a bullet proof manner instead of fragmented?

Millions of Scholars and Billions of hours have been spent studing the text and related text, word and language structures and the conclusions always come up the same. Except for a few agenda driven people. How can that be?

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 05, 2005.

'The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers. Back then, there was only one way to believe, the Roman Catholic Church. They knew what to believe because the Apostles knew Jesus personally and learned from him. This knowledge remains unchanged to this day. But somewhere along the line, Pride reared its ugly head, and humans started their own “churches” with their own beliefs. You see, “church” started out meaning “The Roman Catholic Church” because it was the one instituted by Jesus, and the only one around. You can’t broaden the meaning to include all churches after the fact. Humans made their own churches and broadened the meaning of Jesus’ words to justify their new churches. If you are such a champion against “manmade-ism” then you would realize that. '

[yes church meant the body of believers,but there was no RCC in the time jesus spoke about 'his church'!!!,there were only people that believed in him,and you said it yourself that church mean the body of believers,so when jesus was talking about 'his church' (the rock upon which he would build his church=>peter) he meant church metaphorically=>the body of believers like you said;but later ppl from the RCC saw these writings(if these writings are true? but i am not going to discuss this...)and they thought he was talking about them ?or what i think just took this from the scriptures and misintrepeted it so that they can say that jesus established their church and ppl believe and attend their church

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 05, 2005.

I can't answer you right now, sdqa. I will respond when I get back to the U.S.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), January 05, 2005.

Hello sdqa!

You have a point, when Jesus uses the word "church" he means a gathering of people who believe in Him. Yet I can testify from years of critical study of church history, that very, very early on these groups of Christians gathered throughout the cities of the Roman empire looked to and respected the guidance of the bishop of Rome (later called "pope").

One example of this is as early as the year 95 A.D. Even though the Apostle John was still living in Ephesus, when the church in Corinth had controversies they wrote for guidance to Clement, bishop of Rome, who had been ordained by Simon Peter. In his reply, Clement gave them much good advice and fine examples of Christian behavior, and urged them to pay attention to the words the Lord was speaking through the Roman church. Bishop Clement's letter was read in churches for many years.

Likewise in the second century, Bishop Victor of Rome intervened in a controversy about whether Easter should be celebrated always on a Sunday, or according to Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar. Although a few other bishops in Asia Minor (Turkey) thought his intervention was high-handed, they did not argue with his authority and respected the place of the Roman church.

SDQA, many bishops of Rome have been wise and have led Christian people with goodness and holiness through the centuries. And some have been sinful and wrong-headed. But I have come to recognize that, even in spite of some bad popes, they have always been seen as successors of Peter bearing the "keys of the kingdom" (which is like being a prime minister of a king, see Isaiah 22:22). And Christ told us that some of His stewards over His household would be wise, and some would be wicked. Yet, they are still His stewards, His prime ministers, and deserve respect.

By the way, I can attest that Peter ordained Clement as bishop of Rome, Ignatius as bishop of Antioch, and Mark as bishop of Alexandria. The ancient church historians (Eusebius, Irenaeus, Hegisippus, Papias, Sozomen) list very carefully who was bishop of the major churches, and when they taught. It is a matter of public record. Peter *was* honored throughout the churches of the Roman empire, and his successors were honored also.

I have to go to work now, but would be pleased to discuss more of your concerns later.

Peace and blessings to you this day! You ask good questions.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 05, 2005.

"The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers"

A: That definition is insufficient because it is incomplete. The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ. There is no such body, for a body cannot be composed of believers in conflicting and contradictory doctrines, for such conflicts in belief divide a body and create new bodies, as we plainly see in denominational religion. Therefore, inherent in the term "the Body", or its synonym "the Church", is the necessity of uniformity of belief, without which there cannot be fullness of truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2005.

'The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ.'

[out of this definition that we all do agree on we can conclude that jesus wasen't talking about the RCC when he talked about 'his church',he was talking about the body of believers "in the truth"]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 05, 2005.

''hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ.'' ----- --That describes you. Not the Catholic Church.

Only the teachings handed down to us by Christ's apostles is the belief of a Catholic. Whereas, you believe only what pleases you. Goes to show how ignorant you remain about the Church. The Apostles' Creed, CREDO, is mandatory to our faith. Nobody can change or add to that, because we are the Church of Peter and Paul, and the first apostles called by Christ. Which apostle has ever spoken in your assembly? You change opinions about the Bible every day. One day you take this, next day that; errors. You only have a Bible because the Church provided one for you. And a Bible is mute; it doesn't dispute your errors. If you misunderstand something you read, you remain that way.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 05, 2005.

sdqa,

Jesus did not live long enough to create the name Roman Catholic Church. Its not necessary to find this name or these words on his lips.

He was put to death by Rome with the collusion of some leaders of the Sanhedrin. What became known as the RCC by many today, is a direct result of the apostolic traditions taught directly by His followers. Even named authorship of the Gospels is irrelevant. Continued revelation and greater understanding of what has always been true has continued over time, and is relevant to this discussion.

I think we are getting bogged down in semantics.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 05, 2005.

Hi again sdqa

"Roman Catholic Church" is just a label, but one that has certain meanings:

1. The word "catholic" is found in the letters of Ignatius, disciple of the Apostle John, ordained by Simon Peter to be the bishop of Antioch. It just means "universal" (i.e. for the whole world) or "complete" (i.e. the complete faith of Christ).

2. The word "Roman" is simply because the bishop of the church at Rome is seen as successor to Simon Peter, and one who acts as a kind of prime minister in Christ's kingdom. Technically, it is just "Catholic Church" but the group you call RCC is made up of people who are in full fellowship with the church and bishop of Rome.

3. And actually, *all* Christians are held to have a certain relationship with the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" on account of their trust in Christ and the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. It's just that some are not in *full* communion with Rome because they don't recognize the bishop of Rome being successor of Peter. But the bishop of Rome feels resposible for them anyway, and prays for their well being and salvation.

In one of your posts, sdqa, you pointed out a great failure of Christianity being found in division. Well, you certainly have a point! What I have come to recognize is that any group of people needs to have a common denominator, or they fall apart. Consider the United States: we have laws, which we could all "interpret" in our own way, but it really is up to the Supreme Court to make a final, binding interpretation of laws, taking into account the intention of the Congress. If we reject the authority of the Supreme Court, we'd end up hopelessly divided as a nation, and couldn't exist long.

Likewise, everyone to some degree has their own "interpretation" of Scriptures. But in order for there to be a Church that won't splinter into a thousand different, quarreling groups, there must be a central authority that is recognized as the final, binding interpretation. Catholics see the bishops and the pope as being the final arbiters of understanding in cases of disagreement.

Yeah, Jesus didn't intend us to be 10,000 quarreling groups. He wanted us to be of one heart and mind. I have come to see that over half the population of Christians on the earth have a good point: if God has revealed himself at all, there must be a living voice to help us understand the revelation, or it is pointless. From the very beginning, the apostles and the early bishops and elders were that living voice, with Peter and his successors being the focal point of agreement. So, even though some popes were sinners and flawed in major ways (even though most popes were holy men), it was still a major mistake for the protestant leaders to all rebel against the bishop of Rome. The protestant reformers had some good points, but they let all chaos loose when they rebelled: Pandora's box.

Anyway, yeah, all Christian people can be called "church" (or "ecclesial communities" in Vatican II language), but in order to be complete and worldwide--"catholic"--it is helpful to have a living voice of teaching and agreement centered in Rome. So, even though Simon Peter was an imperfect guy, he was Christ's gift to us. And even if there have been some imperfect popes, they are also meant to be a gift. Frankly, without the insights of the Catholic Church and Rome, the protestant groups would have run into the sands and perished, wandering and clueless, long ago.

Be blessed, sdqa. I pray for you too, for your health, wholeness and wellbeing.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 05, 2005.

""""'The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ.'

[out of this definition that we all do agree on we can conclude that jesus wasen't talking about the RCC when he talked about 'his church',he was talking about the body of believers "in the truth"]-sdqa """"

michael,i don't think you got what i've meant;the catholics claim the jesus established the RCC en refer mostly to the passage when jesus says simon would be the rock on which he would build his church and other passages when jesus is talking about his church

well i posted that that is a misinterpretation and that that is supposed to be taken metaphorically and that the meaning of church is 'body of believers' and everyone here agreed with that,if church means body of believers,then jesus wasen't talking about the RCC in the passages,nor he established it,in fact he wasen't talking about any church as a religious institution,he was talking about his followers,the body of believers

one other thing:

peter did not establish the catholic church,nor was he a pope

peter was the leader of the community of the early christians before the RCC even existed,later other people established the RCC which certainly is NOT the same thing as peter's community of christians

and peter was no pope,he didn't came with the title of pope,nor jesus did,the later establishers of the RCC did and gave peter the title of the first pope because he was the first leader of christians after jesus's death

and thanks for your prayers michael

greetz,

sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 06, 2005.

Hello sdqa!

Are we just talking past each other here? If you say that Peter was leader of the first Christians, how is that different from him being a pope? In other words, how would you see that playing out differently. When I read the ancient accounts, it seems that he did play a great part in the early communities; it was he who urged the entrance of first Jews, then Samaritans and finally Gentiles into the community of God's kingdom. He was honored by all. So how do you see his ministry in those times, as not being a pope? Just wondering what your picture of that is like.

Also, I guess institutionally, the Catholic Church looks a lot different than it did 2000 years ago. There were no buildings like St. Peter's cathedral, probably not the nice robes, no cardinals. But I would say there is a continuity: it is the same group of communities, but evolved and updated over the years. (And, I would allow for the guidance of the Holy Spirit here too.)

Blessings!

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 06, 2005.

'""""'The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ.'

[out of this definition that we all do agree on we can conclude that jesus wasen't talking about the RCC when he talked about 'his church',he was talking about the body of believers "in the truth"]-sdqa """"

michael,i don't think you got what i've meant;the catholics claim the jesus established the RCC en refer mostly to the passage when jesus says simon would be the rock on which he would build his church and other passages when jesus is talking about his church

well i posted that that is a misinterpretation and that that is supposed to be taken metaphorically and that the meaning of church is 'body of believers' and everyone here agreed with that,if church means body of believers,then jesus wasen't talking about the RCC in the passages,nor he established it,in fact he wasen't talking about any church as a religious institution,he was talking about his followers,the body of believers '

[michael you didn't answer to this...]-sdqa

'Are we just talking past each other here? If you say that Peter was leader of the first Christians, how is that different from him being a pope? In other words, how would you see that playing out differently. When I read the ancient accounts, it seems that he did play a great part in the early communities; it was he who urged the entrance of first Jews, then Samaritans and finally Gentiles into the community of God's kingdom. He was honored by all. So how do you see his ministry in those times, as not being a pope? Just wondering what your picture of that is like.

Also, I guess institutionally, the Catholic Church looks a lot different than it did 2000 years ago. There were no buildings like St. Peter's cathedral, probably not the nice robes, no cardinals. But I would say there is a continuity: it is the same group of communities, but evolved and updated over the years.'

[there is a big difference,because peter had NO political power,there was no politics in religion and no christian religion in politics,that's a big difference

and one other thing,if i am the leader of a nation,simply just a leader,does this make me a president or a king?

if peter is just a leader of the christians in his time,he is the leader and i don't deny that,but he was not a pope!

he never had that title,he didn't go through the whole procedure to become a pope,he was not called holy father,he didn't wear the special clothes,nor the crown]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 06, 2005.

Yes, spqa and others here are uninterested in the truth. You're talking past them, past their capacity for common sense. You'd think it was spqaq who received all revelation, not any Church at all. Who needed any church with this self-appointed referee to advise us?

There is only one ''body of believers in the truth.'' The Catholic Church. The others are free lance sheep who ditched the pastor, our Pope. They are cafeteria believers in truth: only what they choose to believe. They aren't one body, but fragments broken off the Mystical Body of Christ.

He made an analogy about that. He is the Vine; we the branches on the vine. Without Him all die.

The branches are his Church. By His life, the Church has eternal life. Branches broken off are dry fragments with no life coming to them off that Vine. They shall not have life everlasting; not without the Church. What fragmentary spiritual truth they possess only amounts to some Catholic doctrines they haven't yet cast off. They shall not come to forgiveness of sin. Not if they confess what they please and yet retain the sin of rejecting the teachings of the apostles.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.

What kind of proof would satisfy you regarding Peter and the papacy, sdqa? Scriptural, historical? Any or both of the above? If we presented writings of Christian leaders from the apostolic age and just after who recognize Peter and his successors (the popes) as the earthly head and chief shepherd of the Universal Church, would you accept it?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 06, 2005.

nobody in peter's time did recognize him as a pope,he couldn't even been recognized as a pope because there was no RCC

he was the leader

but not he had not the title of pope in his time

even paul m said this

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 06, 2005.

Christ clearly handed over to ONE person the keys of the kingdom of heaven. To bind or loose. That made Peter the first Pope. Pope merely stands for Father. It's unimportant, call him John Paul II if you wish; or Karol Wytola. He is bishop of Rome. Peter was as well. That's why we say the See of Saint Peter.

You can dispute this until the cows come home; we are certain. And YES-- the Church founded by Christ is the Catholic Church. She has always been the ONLY Church of the holy apostles with Peter as her Pope.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.

Be patient, please. sdqa has good thoughts and is trying to deal with them. He isn't at the same place that all of us are, but perhaps someday he will be.

Some of you have been strong Catholics your whole lives; but many of us have traveled a long distance to get to such a point. You wouldn't believe the number of questions I've struggled with and sweated over.

Maybe sdqa is still searching. Maybe he has some good points. Maybe he will agree fully with everyone on this forum at some later date. Maybe his time of harvest is not here yet, maybe it will come later: "God will serve no wine before it's time~!" ;-) All of this is in the gentle hands of God, who is able to send the Holy Spirit in ways we cannot imagine.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 06, 2005.

you just don't listen he?

scroll above

and look to the second latest post i made when i give MINE arguments why the RCC can't be considered as the original christian church

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 06, 2005.

OK, I've gone up, I've looked at the ''arguments''. They are all false premises.

A premise starting out false can't lead us to a conclusion that proves the premise.

Now: YOU go back; start with the 1st argument. i will show why it's a false premise. Then your 2nd argument, and so on. If your premise is closer to true, i'll make the catholic distinction. What can be more fair? One at a time; don't fire a machine-gun.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.

'The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers. Back then, there was only one way to believe, the Roman Catholic Church. They knew what to believe because the Apostles knew Jesus personally and learned from him. This knowledge remains unchanged to this day. But somewhere along the line, Pride reared its ugly head, and humans started their own “churches” with their own beliefs. You see, “church” started out meaning “The Roman Catholic Church” because it was the one instituted by Jesus, and the only one around. You can’t broaden the meaning to include all churches after the fact. Humans made their own churches and broadened the meaning of Jesus’ words to justify their new churches. If you are such a champion against “manmade-ism” then you would realize that. '

[yes church meant the body of believers,but there was no RCC in the time jesus spoke about 'his church'!!!,there were only people that believed in him,and you said it yourself that church mean the body of believers,so when jesus was talking about 'his church' (the rock upon which he would build his church=>peter) he meant church metaphorically=>the body of believers like you said;but later ppl from the RCC saw these writings(if these writings are true? but i am not going to discuss this...)and they thought he was talking about them ?or what i think just took this from the scriptures and misintrepeted it so that they can say that jesus established their church and ppl believe and attend their church]-sdqa

"The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers"

A: That definition is insufficient because it is incomplete. The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ. There is no such body, for a body cannot be composed of believers in conflicting and contradictory doctrines, for such conflicts in belief divide a body and create new bodies, as we plainly see in denominational religion. Therefore, inherent in the term "the Body", or its synonym "the Church", is the necessity of uniformity of belief, without which there cannot be fullness of truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 05, 2005.

'The word "Church" meant (and still means) the body of believers "in the truth". It doesn't mean the body of all who hold some beliefs of their own choosing about Jesus Christ.'

[out of this definition that we all do agree on we can conclude that jesus wasen't talking about the RCC when he talked about 'his church',he was talking about the body of believers "in the truth"]-sdqa

michael,i don't think you got what i've meant;the catholics claim the jesus established the RCC en refer mostly to the passage when jesus says simon would be the rock on which he would build his church and other passages when jesus is talking about his church

well i posted that that is a misinterpretation and that that is supposed to be taken metaphorically and that the meaning of church is 'body of believers' and everyone here agreed with that,if church means body of believers,then jesus wasen't talking about the RCC in the passages,nor he established it,in fact he wasen't talking about any church as a religious institution,he was talking about his followers,the body of believers

one other thing:

peter did not establish the catholic church,nor was he a pope

peter was the leader of the community of the early christians before the RCC even existed,later other people established the RCC which certainly is NOT the same thing as peter's community of christians

and peter was no pope,he didn't came with the title of pope,nor jesus did,the later establishers of the RCC did and gave peter the title of the first pope because he was the first leader of christians after jesus's death]-sdqa

THESE ARE MY ARGUMENTS----SDQA

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 06, 2005.

''But somewhere along the line, pride reared its ugly head, and humans started their own “churches” with their own beliefs.'' There was and remains just One Church. No churches which started later, after pride reared its head have been Catholic. Just the heretical sects, opponents of Christ's doctrines. That was a ''reformation'' which Christ forgot to make any mention of in His diverse prophesies.

"The word “church”meant (and still means) the body of believers" --No, it means an assembly. Purely that; and in the Catholic Church's case, ONLY assembled believers in every teaching of the holy apostles. In other words, Catholics. You reject many of these.

''We can conclude that Jesus wasen't talking about the RCC when he talked about 'his church', he was talking about the body of believers "in the truth"- sdqa / / He only founded One, that Church started by His apostles who spread out, to take the Gospel to all nations. This was the same one Peter had leadership over. Of course in that day it was a body of believers. It is today-- only we call it the Catholic Church!

Peter was the first bishop in Rome. He was martyred there, crucified with his feet pointing upward, in the Colosseum of Rome. Jesus spoke of His Church. Same Church, same Peter, same truth.

Furthermore, you aren't qualified or authorized to declare when scripture is to be interpreted ''metaphorically,'' that's just a dodge to distance yourself from the Church's legitimate claims. Go back to the history books. Better yet, speak to Christians who don't LIE to you. We here are telling you the truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.

sdqa--I fully understand your statements regarding the terminology used in the Church. But maybe looking at the progression of terminology with the definitions it will help to make sense for you and others. Kind of like Fetus to Baby to Child to Adult.

Included at the bottom are a few links which may be of interest.as well--Thank You

church--Etymology: Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master; akin to Sanskrit sura hero, warrior 1 : a building for public and especially Christian worship 2 : the clergy or officialdom of a religious body 3 : a body or organization of religious believers: as a : the whole body of Christians b : DENOMINATION c : CONGREGATION 4 : a public divine worship 5 : the clerical profession

apostle--Etymology: Middle English, from Old French & Old English; Old French apostle & Old English apostol, both from Late Latin apostolus, from Greek apostolos, from apostellein to send away, from apo- + stellein to send 1 : one sent on a mission: as a : one of an authoritative New Testament group sent out to preach the gospel and made up especially of Christ's 12 original disciples and Paul b : the first prominent Christian missionary to a region or group 2 a : a person who initiates a great moral reform or who first advocates an important belief or system b : an ardent supporter 3 : the highest ecclesiastical official in some church organizations 4 : one of a Mormon administrative council of 12 men

bishop.--Etymology: Middle English bisshop, from Old English bisceop, from Late Latin episcopus, from Greek episkopos, literally, overseer, from epi- + skeptesthai to look -- 1 : one having spiritual or ecclesiastical supervision: as a : an Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic clergyman ranking above a priest, having authority to ordain and confirm, and typically governing a diocese b : any of various Protestant clerical officials who superintend other clergy c : a Mormon high priest presiding over a ward or over all other bishops and over the Aaronic priesthood

pope--Etymology: Middle English, from Old English pApa, from Late Latin papa, from Greek pappas, papas, title of bishops, literally, papa 1 often capitalized : a prelate who as bishop of Rome is the head of the Roman Catholic Church 2 : one that resembles a pope (as in authority) 3 a : the Eastern Orthodox or Coptic patriarch of Alexandria b : a priest of an Eastern church

catholic--Etymology: Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole -- 1 a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it c capitalized : ROMAN CATHOLIC 2 : COMPREHENSIVE, UNIVERSAL especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name? http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

History of Roman Catholicism http://www.kat.gr/kat/history/Rel/Chr/RomanCatholicism.htm

The Church http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 06, 2005.

I think sdqa may only be satisfied if scriptures stated something to the effect that "You are Peter and on this rock I build the Holy Roman Catholic Church with you as its Pope."

sdqa, note I only said "may be satisfied" I don't mean to speak for you, nor do I mean any disrespect. But you are asking alot---I don't think this subject can be accurately understood from your perspective. We will go round and round.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 06, 2005.

Yes, and I also have questions; the Bible has all the answers; according to sdqua. But who can tell me a verse for instance: Do angels go to sleep sometimes?

Were there ever any musicians around to play for Our Lord? Did Jesus ever sing?

Did Jeruslem have parking lots for wagons and carts? It must say something in the Bible. The Bible tells us everything, according to some people.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 06, 2005.

Good points Eugene.

I wonder of sdqa really believes that all truth is found in the Bible. He once said (on this or another thread in this forum) that various interpretations of Scripture is why he thinks Christianity is wrong. Correct me if I'm paraphrasing incorrectly.

What say you sdqa? What's your take on the Bible? Is the Bible your sole rule of faith? Do you believe it to be the inspired Word of God? Is there truth to be found outside the Bible?

I'm trying to understand exactly what your measuring stick for truth is. I ask again, if we can provide reputable writings from leaders of the early Church (even those who were probably taught by John the Evangelist) would you accept them as evidence of Catholic assertions?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 07, 2005.

catholics claim that their church is the only right one,that jesus christ established their church and that their church is the original christian church and that she has been given full authority...etc

they base these statements on verses in the new testament where jesus spoke about 'his church'

people on the forum(paul m,cameron...)told me that church means the body of believers "in the truth" ...like i always thought

now if church means the body of believers in the truth,then jesus was talking about the body of the believers in the truth instead of the roman catholic church

this means that jesus didn't establish the catholic church,and neither was peter the rock upon the RCC would be built

this we can also see later,that peter's COMMUNITY of christians wasen't called the catholic church and wasen't even close to what the catholic church will be

peter wasen't a pope,he was a leader;he can't be the pope if that title has come to use many years after him,it doesn't mean if the pope's function is to be the leader and peter had also that same function that he's automatically a pope

now for you catholics these things don't really matter,but for us non-catholics and non-catholic christians it does matter;it is direct proof that jesus didn't establish the RCC,that he never even talked about it! he only talked about the body of the believers in the truth,and to be part of that body,you don't have to be part of the RCC;i'm not refering now to certain forms of protestantism that are in conflict with the bible,i'm just denying all the catholic statements with which i have started this post

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 07, 2005.

now if church means the body of believers in the truth,then jesus was talking about the body of the believers in the truth instead of the roman catholic church - sdqa

But the body of "believers in truth" is the Catholic Church. You haven't shown that it isn't yet. You state that it isn't and then base your rthe rest of your reasoning off this first assumption. Of course we haven't proven our assertions yet either.

When you get a chance, would you answer my questions regarding your "rule" of truth and what you believe about the Bible and early Church writings? It would aid our discussions if you laid your cards out on the table. How can we provide proof of anything unless we know what you consider to be reputable sources?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 07, 2005.

Maybe sdqa means, that since all of Jesus' first hand original followers have since physically died, there can be no connection.

Those apostles would be pehaps, the original body or "Church." They are no longer on this earth. Therefore, no RCC. This would mean that tradition really can not be passed on from generation to generation. He does not accept the connection.

Again, not sure--- just taking a stab at what his intent is.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), January 07, 2005.

"he only talked about the body of the believers in the truth,and to be part of that body,you don't have to be part of the RCC;i'm not refering now to certain forms of protestantism that are in conflict with the bible"

To be part of the body of believers in the truth you must be part of a body that has no doctrinal conflicts, but complete unity of teaching, because doctrinal conflict necessarily means untruth, since truth cannot conflict with truth. The Catholic Church alone possesses such unity of teaching and absence of doctrinal conflict. The history of Protestantism is a history of ongoing fragmentation, doctrinal conflict and therefore false teaching. Every form of Protestantism is in conflict with the Bible because the Bible stresses unity of doctrinal belief as a principle sign of Christ's Church, and Protestantism has lost that unity. The Bible specifically condemns the practice of determining what you want to believe and then finding preachers who will tell you what you want to hear - which is exactly how denominationalism came into existence. The Bible also describes the sacraments, the priesthood, the authority and infallibility of the Pope, the teaching and arbitrative authority of the Church, and many other essential elements of Christianity which Protestant tradition rejects. A tradition consisting of thousands of manmade bodies, each conflicting with the others in essential beliefs, cannot claim to be in accord with the Bible, unless the Bible conflicts with itself.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 07, 2005.

sdqa,

I think it would be more correct to say that the *fulness* of Jesus' community is found in what we nowdays call the Catholic Church, although everyone who is baptized and trusts in Christ is part of that community in some way.

You seem hung up on the *name* "Roman Catholic Church". Well, my wife's name was changed when we got married. Does that mean she is not the same person? The fact is, by and large, the same *communities* of faith that Jesus' apostles founded (e.g. in Rome, Spain, Greece) now are labeled either "Roman Catholic" or "Orthodox" (and Orthodox are recognized by Rome as being truly churches). But on the other hand, the label "catholic" was used by the original associates of the apostles, such as Ignatius of Antioch.

And even though Peter was not called "pope", that isn't the point. The point is that he was given "the keys of the kingdom of heaven", which implies great authority: in fact, the authority of a prime minister of a king. Christ is the King, and Peter was his steward.

And all the ancient Christians knew and recognized that Peter's stewardship was handed on to the bishops of Rome.

-- Michael (edwardsronning@prodigy.net), January 07, 2005.

ok i got what you guys mean...

the body of the believers in the truth doesn't equal the RCC,i know that this is very difficult for the most of you to understand,cos i assume that you all are devouted catholics

everyone who trully accepts and believes in jesus and lives by the way he taught it is part of this body,NOT everyone who is catholic

AND ONCE AGAIN I REPEAT:

JESUS DID NEVER TALK ABOUT THE RCC,NOR ABOUT ANY OTHER CHURCH IN A LITERAL WAY,SO YOU CAN'T SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO BE CATHOLIC TO HAVE TRUE FAITH

actually catholicism hasen't the true interpretations of the scriptures

because they are telling that jesus gave them the authority to make their own commands

because they are telling that jesus established their church and that they are the only true church

WHEN JESUS DID NEVER TALK ABOUT THEIR CHURCH

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 07, 2005.

because i don't want to go off-topic during this discussion,i've made a new thread about my beliefs about the bible and jesus

here's the link andy:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CfAj

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 07, 2005.

Thanks sdqa. I'll take my questions/comments to that thread.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 07, 2005.

Hello Michael (“Pastor” Michael?) sorry for the delay in reply.

I see the thread became a little sidetracked but if you’re still around Id like to offer a few thoughts in response to your tough questions which can for (my) convenience be broadly generalised into three main lines of argument. Firstly that of historical evidence, secondly papal infallibility(directly) and indirectly the divinity of the Church and finally the apparent conflict between authority of the church (and obedience to the ordinary magisterium) versus our conscience.

The historical account of a “ flip flop”, cannot be completely reconciled nor should such a white wash ever be attempted. The Church has nothing to fear from admitting her faults and asking for forgiveness as the Catholic Church has done. However the concerns you have raised are I believe at least partially explained once we gain a clearer view of history than the, with respect, “fragmented picture” of history painted by you so far.

Id like to deal with the history side of things tomorrow night as the position of the ancient fathers and the medieval church had indeed changed in regard to heretics, although not as significantly as you seem to assume- esp once we gain an understanding of the mindset, the primitive social context where capital punishment for minor crimes was common and recent modern notions of individual rights and freedoms tolerance etc were simply non existent. Of utmost importance to my mind is to gain a better understanding of the development and integration of the church and state from the third century onwards and the serious threats posed by various heretical groups not only to the Church but to the states of Europe and indeed civilisation itself and life as they knew it.

Far more of a challenge to me is to counter your other arguments starting with infallibility. For a while I took comfort in Hans Kung and “indefectibility”, being myself somewhat sceptical of many efforts from Catholic theologians to reconcile past “teachings” although in reality one cannot hold onto indefectibility alone, it simply will not do but Im digressing as usual...

Thank you for the link to Leo X, I can see exactly why people here believe the Bull doesn’t qualify, I tend to agree but with some reservations as Im simply not qualified to comment. I would like to note that whenever we take a narrow theological view of papal infallibility we can leave ourselves open all sorts of difficulties in enforcement of teachings. Bishop Gassers authoritative Relatio from Vatican I appears to broaden the scope of infallibility beyond what most theologians in the church currently submit:

In short, when the Roman Pontiff makes the decision to (quoting Gasser) "directly and conclusively pronounce his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals", he is involved in areas where he possesses a unique charism in settling controversies. He does not have to solemnly define a teaching to be speaking infallibly nor does he have to explicitly claim that he is speaking infallibly — as the teaching is not to be understood in a juridical sense. Instead, any judgment that fulfils the criteria outlined by Bishop Gasser is properly understood as set forth definitively. Bishop Gasser is properly understood as set forth definitively.

I don’t want it to sound like a cop out but what I’m getting at is, this is an extraordinarily complex area requiring a great degree of caution. The more I learn the less I know! Unless we have the theological understanding, (that I do not have) especially of Cardinal Newman’s writings on the development of doctrine (so often missing from protestant and catholic traditionalist criticisms alike) the issue of infallibility of specific documents, especially ancient documents, is best left to those who have spent many years training to determine such issues.

In saying that I would like to make one distinction though, and an important one at that . When understanding infallibility generally there are two things that we must clearly understand and not confound, namely, the two kinds of laws in the Church-those which Our Lord gave it and those which it made itself.

Our Lord left His Church free to make certain laws, just as they would be needed. It has always exercised this power, and made laws to suit the circumstances of the place or times. But the doctrines, the truths of faith or morals, the things we must believe and do to save our souls, it never changes and never can change: it may regulate some things in the application of the divine laws, but the laws themselves can never change in substance.

I didn’t get a chance to comment on authority VS conscience, it really is the only area of Catholic theology I think I’ve got a decent grasp of so I may actually have something useful for once to say for a change instead of blabbering away. Before we get onto it I must begin by ensuring you don’t have the papacy set up in your mind as some sort of monarchical dictatorship. To find such a set up we would need look no futher than “Super Popes” of the past, such as Luther or Calvin, as I’m sure you’re aware of your own church’s history, but our Holy Father does not exercise such a strict and relentless authority over his Church . Gotta go , but I will endeavour to get back online soon to finish my reply

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 17, 2005.