Protestants:concerning moral teachings, when did the Catholic Church depart from truth into error?


#1

In another thread, rr1213 posted the following question:

As Protestants, we believe that the Catholic Church errs in matters of doctrine and that the Reformation was a necessary correction of those errors. So, assuming that the Catholic Church erred, at what time did this begin? In other words, when was the Church essentially doing things right and when, exactly, did it subsequently depart into heresy?

Which brought to mind the other side of the faith/moral teachings infallibility coin.

So where and when did she err concerning moral teachings?


#2

I would very much like to respond to this in a serious fashion, but of course in such a manner that doesn’t place me in the middle of a dog fight. The Catholic church begun to run far off the tracks by the 1500’s. Selling indulgences to folks who could dispense them on loved ones to supposedly shorten their stay in Purgatory was a serious issue that the Reformers took to task. They found it not only non-biblical, but also an abuse propagated by the church to profit form those who were in a state of worry for their loved ones who had passed on. By this time in history, the mass had become something very separating between the clergy and the lay people. The clergy constantly had their backs to the members and celebrated mass in such a way that closely resembled a play being performed in front of an audience. This is certainly not something Jesus would have condoned.


#3

This late? Most Protestants say around 300-400.

Selling indulgences to folks who could dispense them on loved ones to supposedly shorten their stay in Purgatory was a serious issue that the Reformers took to task. They found it not only non-biblical, but also an abuse propagated by the church to profit form those who were in a state of worry for their loved ones who had passed on.

I agree the sale of indulgences is immoral. The Church also affirms this. So at least you, me, and the Church agree here.

By this time in history, the mass had become something very separating between the clergy and the lay people. The clergy constantly had their backs to the members and celebrated mass in such a way that closely resembled a play being performed in front of an audience. This is certainly not something Jesus would have condoned.

I don’t know of many plays (or speeches) where the actors (or speakers) keep their backs to the people. But whatever.

Anyways, I’m looking for where the Church went wrong with its moral teachings. Teachings such as no:
[LIST]
*]abortion
*]euthenasia
*]embryotic stem cell research
*]contraception[/LIST]etc., etc., etc.

Oh, and no flag burning.


#4

The Church DID go wrong with a moral teaching - the sale of indulgences! When they made the Temple a marketplace, Jesus got angry. The Church in Saxony was also in bed with the politicians and rulers of the time. Those two things, more than anything else, were the major impetus behind the Reformation. “Selling God” and “selling out” were the two most heinous crimes against Christ… and are the things that the Christians must always be the most vigilent not to repeat.

The Catholic Church is no longer guilty of the major things that provoked the Reformation. It is most unfortunate that people on both sides could not/would not reconcile.

Flag burning may be quite distasteful… but it’s not a moral teaching.

O+


#5

We

Well, respectfully speaking I’m not here to jump through hoops. I will say that during the Reformation, much was pointed out to the church and its authority that had all but abadoned the teachings of scripture. Transubstantiation- no biblical proof or link, The Cathechism’s teaching that Mary is the purest realization of faith when in fact in scripture it is Jesus Christ who is the purest realization of faith. Abortion, euthenasia and so on are all issues in which the Church has spoken on very strongly that one can agree with but still be Protestant.


#6

I suggest you read this, ecspecially myth #7

catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp


#7

Ever heard of the term Hocus Pocus? It applies here for sure.


#8

I never heard of the term before…How this apply to the page?


#9

Your beating the deadest horse there is.

Flag burning may be quite distasteful… but it’s not a moral teaching.

Neither is the sale of indulgences. But the flag burning thing was just a joke. Though I’d lighten the mood.

But whadaya say? Where and when did the Church go wrong with its moral teachings?


#10

indulgences, sexual immorality by the clergy, unbiblical teachings and practices, do we need to continue to spell it all out for you?


#11

yes, please. :smiley:


#12

AC-

Am I going to have to take you to the principal’s office?

You are confusing moral teachings with morals of individuals.

For example: My math book says 1+1=2. My math teacher told me the Earth is flat. Get it?

So could you start your own thread on hocus pocus? By the way, I know a Baptist Minister who teaches this stuff to his congragation.


#13

That’s a pretty big statement, you should try re-reading your Bible. So says the Southern Baptist who shouldn’t believe in transubstantiation but does.

I’m not Catholic, but I’m pretty sure Catholic’s place Jesus higher than Mary. I’ve only been to Mass twice, but each time I’ve gone they have only even mentioned Mary a couple of times. And yes I have read what the Catechism speaks of about Mary. This quote is some ridiculous anti-Catholic Protestant jargon (Protestants who argue this way make me ashamed sometimes to call myself Baptist). This is in line with saying Catholic’s worship Mary and the Saints and statues.


#14

In regards to Transubstantiation, I suggest you read John 6.

Remember Catholic doctrine cannot contradict Sacred Scripture. Show us where our teaching contradicts, ecspecially in regards to the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

How about contraception? Do protestants agree?


#15

As I said, I don’t believe the Church is guilty of abuse where indulgences is concerned anymore.


#16

I believe in the Real Presence of Christ - Scripture is pretty clear about that. But I don’t believe scripture formulated a dogma from 11th century Aristotelianism and Thomism.


#17

:rolleyes:

I will say that during the Reformation, much was pointed out to the church and its authority that had all but abadoned the teachings of scripture.

For example? Because this is pretty sweeping. :tsktsk: I find it incredible that anyone who calls themselves Christian would lay an accusation of this generality, & against fellow Christians at that.

Transubstantiation- no biblical proof or link,

We could argue the means by which Jesus’ Real Presence in the elements of Holy Communion occurs, but when the rubber hits the road, it is those who claim only a “symbolic presence” who are left with egg on their faces. Because, you see, the Bible says “This** is** My Body” & “This is My Blood”. Not, :rolleyes: “this is merely a symbol of Me, so don’t get bent out of shape over it, and don’t bother with it more than once or twice a year”.

The Cathechism’s teaching that Mary is the purest realization of faith when in fact in scripture it is Jesus Christ who is the purest realization of faith.

Ummm…OK. Where did you get this one??? Let me guess: Jack Chick? William Webster?:eek: Somebody-else-whose-“gospel”-isn’t-in-the-Bible??

Abortion, euthenasia and so on are all issues in which the Church has spoken on very strongly that one can agree with but still be Protestant.

Well, that’s:rolleyes: nice to know. At least you think that Catholics got something right…:cool:


#18

Like another thread which essentially asks the same question and though I’m no longer a protestant:

“Concerning moral teachings, when did the Catholic Church depart from truth into error?” is a rhetorical question with only one answer.

Answer: “It never has and never will.”

CDL


#19

The Church no longer sell indulgence. It’s teachings on morals is very Biblical and at times will resort to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Church teachings does not condone sexuality immorality. If you have not read Pope John Paul II response to those imorality, he was greatly displeased, nor did he condone such actions. Could he done more? He did, there diocese now mentally check on all current clergy members if they have homosexual tendencies, and potential candidates to the seminary. Those who failed are probably remove from their duties at the discretion of the bishop or cardinal.

You told us to stop and listen when we listen to you and we likewise ask you to stop and listen to our answers.


#20

The word transubstantiation was not written out in detail until the 13th century. But the early Church Fathers believed in it in its entirety. Here is only but a few:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).

“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world…” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).

From wikipedia: “In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council used the word transubstantiated in its profession of faith, when speaking of the change that takes place in the Eucharist.”

Also if the Catholic Church didn’t believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist until 1215, then why do ALL of the Orthodox Churches believe in it, when the Churches split in 1054?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.