The "Church", the Catholic Church, and the infaliable formation of the New Testament.

Zombrex

Expanded out from the tread on the blood and flesh of Jesus

Wicknight wrote:

The crazy thing about this discussion is that you guys believe exactly the same type of things as Kelly, he just believes them about a group you don't accept.

JimiTime wrote:

Mad as a box of frogs isn't it.

Wicknight wrote:

Do you believe that the men of the early Church, working under the inspiration of God, wrote down in the form of the books of the New Testament, an accurate, truthful, and more importantly correct according to God, account of not only Jesus' life and his teaching, but also how the early Church, mainly under Paul, later determined correctly how these teachings would be expanded to other areas not covered directly by Jesus? Not only that but they also determined what wasn't to be considered correct according to God, and therefore excluded from the Bible and Christian teaching.

What is the difference between believing in this and what Kelly believes about the Catholic Church?

I should point out I'm not asking why you guys don't accept the RCC, I know the story about the bad fruit from bad trees and all that.

I raised the issue because RTDH was attacking Kelly because the idea of Catholic teaching isn't found in the Bible, which is a bit silly in my view because the Bible was determined by the members of a church, a church that Kelly believes continues in the form of the Roman Catholic Church under the Pope the spiritual descendant of Peter, a member of the original Church that determined the Bible was correct in the first place.

While you guys may not believe the RCC receives the same inspiration as the early Church does, attacking Kelly because its not in the Bible is rather silly.

What is the difference between how you view those who determined the New Testament that you accept completely, and how Kelly views the RCC? Where the men of the early Church not flawed sinful people just like everyone else, including the Popes that came after them? Were they not all capable of corruption and sin? To communicate his message God had to leave it in the hands of humans, flawed sinful humans. Why was that grand 1950 years ago, but ridiculous now? Why do you accept with open arms the idea that humans could compile the New Testament yet reject completely the idea that the RCC can also be inspired by God in similar way?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

What is the difference between how you view those who determined the New Testament that you accept completely, and how Kelly views the RCC?

Well, if it could be determined, that Paul, Peter, Luke, John etc, after they recieved holy spirit, continued in inful behaviour, such as fornication, murder etc, then I'd query it similarly. As there is no such evidence, but rather these were righteous faithful men, who took hurt in sin, and loved the lord, I'd trust them to relay the truth. They also displayed gifts of the spirit, healing, prophecy, tongues etc. That is a biggie.

Where the men of the early Church not flawed sinful people just like everyone else, including the Popes that came after them?

First of all, what was the make up of the early 'church'. And who are the men you are talking about?

Were they not all capable of corruption and sin?

Yes, they were. In fact Paul was one of those who helped kill christians, though I'm sure you are aware of that. However, after they were bestowed with Gods Holy Spirit, they were righteous men. Not a fornicator to be seen amongst them. They were capable of sin, and surely were tested, and at times tempted, but the difference is, they loved righteousness more than sin. They lived their message. They were not like the hypocrites Jesus regularly reprimanded.

To communicate his message God had to leave it in the hands of humans, flawed sinful humans. Why was that grand 1950 years ago, but ridiculous now?

Its not ridiculous now. Its just ridiculous when the people claiming such authority, act against it so vehemently, like the hypocrites Jesus so often reprimanded.

Why do you accept with open arms the idea that humans could compile the New Testament yet reject completely the idea that the RCC can also be inspired by God in similar way?

I don't reject that people can be inspired by God neither back then or now. I reject that such people would be hypocrites and unrighteous.

If a man claims to be a representative of God, then he should have the fruitage that such a claim merits. If someone claims it today, then he shall be put to such scrutiny. Be it a person, or a whole institution.

philologos

Wicknight, it shouldn't be an issue of accepting or not accepting the Roman Catholic Church. It should be believers looking for accuracy in the Biblical texts and applying that to their faith. I personally find Anglicanism as the main means for me to do this, however many others may find Catholicism the way. I don't however feel any compulsion to attend a Catholic church over my own local Anglican one.

TravelJunkie

+1

Christians go to different churches because of what suits theire personality. I think a RC can be equally as spiritual as a charismatic for example, but this may be expressed in different ways. Also, what people are like in their own time with God and at church could differ. Maybe some RCs jump up and down with praise in the privacy of their own home!

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, if it could be determined, that Paul, Peter, Luke, John etc, after they recieved holy spirit, continued in inful behaviour, such as fornication, murder etc, then I'd query it similarly. As there is no such evidence, but rather these were righteous faithful men, who took hurt in sin, and loved the lord, I'd trust them to relay the truth.

Are you saying that you believe none of the early church who decided things like the gospels or the doctrine of the early church, ever committed a sin after the formation of the church?

JimiTime wrote: »

They also displayed gifts of the spirit, healing, prophecy, tongues etc. That is a biggie.

As have many of the Popes. A large number of Popes have been canonized (Kelly can help me with the exact number), which means that to Catholics at least, they demonstrated significant holiness and ability to display miracles.

Since the time of St Augustine the church as carried out investigation into the worthiness of a person to be canonized.

If the Popes who were canonized were not being inspired by the holy spirit how can you explain these miracles?

JimiTime wrote: »

First of all, what was the make up of the early 'church'. And who are the men you are talking about?

Well Paul for a start, the apostles, the early followers that Paul communicated with, those who later determined which of the writings would be included in the formal Bible etc.

JimiTime wrote: »

However, after they were bestowed with Gods Holy Spirit, they were righteous men. Not a fornicator to be seen amongst them.

Well, that you know about. Again are you seriously suggesting that none of them ever sinned ever again?

BTW you seem to mention fornicator a bit.

Which Pope are you thinking about?

JimiTime wrote: »

They were capable of sin, and surely were tested, and at times tempted, but the difference is, they loved righteousness more than sin. They lived their message. They were not like the hypocrites Jesus regularly reprimanded.

Ah now Jimi you are getting a bit silly here. They "loved righteousness more than sin"?

I'm not sure you would get any Catholic saying that any Pope, as flawed and tempted and fallen as all humans are, loved sin more than righteousness.

But this is also working on the assumption that once God inspires you you won't ever fall from grace. But the Bible is full of examples of people chosen by God for a purpose who later fell into sin and wickedness. God doesn't appear to limit who he inspires to people who never commit sin or fall into bad things in later life, so I'm not sure why you would use this as a criteria for assessment. That is certainly not in the Bible. Look at someone like King Solomon.

I don't think a Catholic such as Kelly would ever expect that it would be impossible than someone like a Pope would ever give into sin and wickedness, or that if they did that would some how mean that God wasn't inspiring Popes.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't reject that people can be inspired by God neither back then or now. I reject that such people would be hypocrites and unrighteous.

Why?

Do you also reject all the examples of just such people described in the Bible itself?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, it shouldn't be an issue of accepting or not accepting the Roman Catholic Church. It should be believers looking for accuracy in the Biblical texts and applying that to their faith.

Why?

Would you equally accept if someone said something like

"It shouldn't be about reading or studying Paul's letters, it should be about looking at what Jesus himself actually said and apply that to their faith"

How many of you would accept rejecting Paul and ignoring as totally irrelevant half the New Testament?

That is the point Kelly is making, that the revelation included all of the New Testament but didn't stop at it, it continued.

philologos

Wicknight, if Paul hadn't been witness to Jesus Himself, the case would be much different. I see the Apostles as having divine authority as they were selected by Jesus to spread the Word, and Paul was selected by the Apostles and the Holy Spirit. Therefore if you are to honour Jesus, you are to honour the authority that He gave to the disciples, and that was passed onto Paul. It's not an either or situation.

As for Catholicism, and the texts of other Christian writers. I found that interesting. I look to the writings of other Christians, but the Bible is the primary and authoritative text. I wouldn't form doctrine from reading C.S Lewis for example, but I would form doctrine of belief and faith from the Bible. Jesus and the disciples would lay down the way that this was to be. Otherwise all we would be doing is adding or changing what was laid down if we took much later texts into the Laws of the faith.

Edit: if you don't treat the Bible as the primary source, the Church will no longer be the Church it will have shifted so far away from the Gospel that it will need to be reeled back in. This is what happened during the Reformation. Catholicism in the 1500's had become something quite distorted from the Christianity of the Gospels. Brave figures such as Luther, Tyndall, Calvin, etc had to point to these and reel the people back to the true meaning of what Jesus had said. The Bible is key as it brings us back to the vision and ideals of Jesus every time we read it. To be Christian means taking up Jesus' example, and applying it to your daily life. It does not mean to take up the example of people who can be far removed from Jesus. When reading secondary texts, I would look to see if they could point out something to me from the Biblical text, and if it holds up. However if this text introduces something completely alien to the Bible that's when alarm bells need to ring of distortion.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you saying that you believe none of the early church who decided things like the gospels or the doctrine of the early church, ever committed a sin after the formation of the church?

firstly, 'early church' is a very loose term. If you are talking about the early congregations, the ones that Paul etc wrote to, then this is where I take my example from. If you mean 'early RC church' hen that means little to me, as I believe the corruption which Paul warned about had already started to take hold. I believe that there was sin in the early congragations of course. I believe that the messangers of god however, were righteous, upstanding men. The term 'blameless' as used in the bible when referring to certain people. Does this mean that they were perfect? Obviously not. If a man said that he was from god, and I seen him get annoyed with a guy giving him hassle, would I think, 'no he's not from God'? No, I wouldn't. If this man lay rented prostitutes etc, would 'I think he's not from God'? Yes I would. God also gave his messangers the power to perform signs for a reason. It was to display the power of the living God.

As have many of the Popes. A large number of Popes have been canonized (Kelly can help me with the exact number), which means that to Catholics at least, they demonstrated significant holiness and ability to display miracles.

Ok, what gifts of the spirit did they display? I'm unaware of any pope displaying the gifts of the spirit.

Since the time of St Augustine the church as carried out investigation into the worthiness of a person to be canonized.

Again, a rather worthless endeavour!

If the Popes who were canonized were not being inspired by the holy spirit how can you explain these miracles?

Give me the examples of the gifts of spirit, and I'll see if I can.

Well Paul for a start, the apostles, the early followers that Paul communicated with, those who later determined which of the writings would be included in the formal Bible etc.

Well, Paul etc, were a bit before the ones who decided on what went in the new testament. Even in Pauls time, he was warning about those who were taking Christianity, and corrupting it. he even mentioned a congregation where the righteous ones had to leave, due to the false doctrines that were creeping in.

Well, that you know about. Again are you seriously suggesting that none of them ever sinned ever again?

I believe that they were blameless men. Could still be in error etc, but hated sin.

BTW you seem to mention fornicator a bit.

Which Pope are you thinking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes

Ah now Jimi you are getting a bit silly here. They "loved righteousness more than sin"?
I'm not sure you would get any Catholic saying that any Pope, as flawed and tempted and fallen as all humans are, loved sin more than righteousness.

I agree a catholic probably wouldn't say that. If a man knowing what is right, chooses to do what is wrong, he is doing exactly as I said, 'loving the sin over the righteousness'. Words expressed mean little, if the actions are in contradiction.

But this is also working on the assumption that once God inspires you you won't ever fall from grace. But the Bible is full of examples of people chosen by God for a purpose who later fell into sin and wickedness. God doesn't appear to limit who he inspires to people who never commit sin or fall into bad things in later life, so I'm not sure why you would use this as a criteria for assessment. That is certainly not in the Bible. Look at someone like King Solomon.

I don't use it as a criteria. Of course one can fall. however, after that one has fallen, they are no longer trustworthy. We're not talking about a one off moment of weakness here, we are talking about systemic sin. David sinned with bathsheeba. Peter sinned denying Christ. They did not fall though. They repented.

I don't think a Catholic such as Kelly would ever expect that it would be impossible than someone like a Pope would ever give into sin and wickedness, or that if they did that would some how mean that God wasn't inspiring Popes.

I'm not saying its impossible. I'm saying, if its so obvious that there's a sinful nature present, then its not godly.

Why?

Do you also reject all the examples of just such people described in the Bible itself?

Was David an unrighteous man? was Peter? No. Did they ever commit sin? Yes. Davids was a doozy! was this systemic in their charachter? No.

the RCC does not resemble the Christian church at all. From the lavish palace, golden ornaments, silly costumes etc. the striving for political power. The violence etc. If such things were isolated, and not part of the character of the institution, you'd have a point. Put such things are the very nature of it.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the point Kelly is making, that the revelation included all of the New Testament but didn't stop at it, it continued.

Not really. So-called public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. But scripture is not the whole picture. Sacred Tradition is also equally valid:-

2 Thes. 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word
of mouth or by letter.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (not the bible)

That's not to say that the bible isn't true. Of course it is but the Church is the ultimate authority, not a book. That would be the tail wagging the dog...

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

Not really. So-called public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. But scripture is not the whole picture. Sacred Tradition is also equally valid:-

So you consider writings by Augustine and Aquinas for example to be on the same level as the Bible? What happens when Church Fathers differ or contradict each other on things?

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

So you consider writings by Augustine and Aquinas for example to be on the same level as the Bible? What happens when Church Fathers differ or contradict each other on things?

No, I don't consider them to be on the same level. Their writings weren't infallible and they weren't popes are weren't trying to define dogma. They worked within the framework of already defined articles of faith.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I don't consider them to be on the same level. Their writings weren't infallible and they weren't popes are weren't trying to define dogma. They worked within the framework of already defined articles of faith.

Well then we are on the same page.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicknight
Do you believe that the men of the early Church, working under the inspiration of God, wrote down in the form of the books of the New Testament, an accurate, truthful, and more importantly correct according to God, account of not only Jesus' life and his teaching, but also how the early Church, mainly under Paul, later determined correctly how these teachings would be expanded to other areas not covered directly by Jesus? Not only that but they also determined what wasn't to be considered correct according to God, and therefore excluded from the Bible and Christian teaching.

What is the difference between believing in this and what Kelly believes about the Catholic Church?

I should point out I'm not asking why you guys don't accept the RCC, I know the story about the bad fruit from bad trees and all that.

I raised the issue because RTDH was attacking Kelly because the idea of Catholic teaching isn't found in the Bible, which is a bit silly in my view because the Bible was determined by the members of a church, a church that Kelly believes continues in the form of the Roman Catholic Church under the Pope the spiritual descendant of Peter, a member of the original Church that determined the Bible was correct in the first place.

While you guys may not believe the RCC receives the same inspiration as the early Church does, attacking Kelly because its not in the Bible is rather silly.

What is the difference between how you view those who determined the New Testament that you accept completely, and how Kelly views the RCC? Where the men of the early Church not flawed sinful people just like everyone else, including the Popes that came after them? Were they not all capable of corruption and sin? To communicate his message God had to leave it in the hands of humans, flawed sinful humans. Why was that grand 1950 years ago, but ridiculous now? Why do you accept with open arms the idea that humans could compile the New Testament yet reject completely the idea that the RCC can also be inspired by God in similar way?

Good questions.

The difference between how you view those who determined the New Testament that you accept completely, and how Kelly views the RCC is this:
The apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to infallibly teach God's truth. They had the unique position of revealing the final truth God wanted the Church to believe and live by. The New Testament is the record of that. The Church did not manufacture the New Testament, they only recognised it. God delivered it through the apostles, without error.

After the apostles, no man had the gift of apostleship - none were gifted to reveal further truth or even to give infallible interpretation of the existing truth. Instead, infallibility rests solely with the Word itself. The Church's job is to study with the help of the Spirit so that it will come to a fuller understanding of that Word.

We fail in many instances to see all the truth, but God has promised that the Church will not be drowned by error, so He keeps reforming - purifying - it down the ages. The Spirit continues to stir His people to know more of His Word and live closer to His will.

The RCC claims to have a man in each generation able to give infallible pronouncements. Strangely, these 'infallible' words are hard for them to identify. If one points to seemingly absolutely dogmatic pronouncements that are later shown to be false or contradicted, it seems the pope was not in 'infallible' mode on that occasion.

The apostles however did not suffer from that disability: if asked about a pressing moral issue, they gave an infallible pronouncement - eg.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%207;&version=50;

Everything the apostles wrote about any issue was infallibly correct. That was their claim and the historic claim of the Church. But the RCC has men, claiming to be the successors of the apostles, who seldom speak 'infallibly' and just as seldomly can such pronouncements be identified as such. And all the rest of their teaching is just as fallible as yours or mine.

The RCC, if its claims to occasional infallible directives are true, is practically in no better position than the Reformed Churches. If one can't tell what is infallible from what is not, how does that help anyone? I've asked for a list of infallible pronouncements from Noel, but don't recall getting one. I'd be glad to see it.

Is the current papal ban on contraception based on infallible pronouncement? Is there an infallible word from a pope on creation/evolution? On women as pastors? On homosexuality? On the moment of conception and new life? On the eternal state of those dying while denying any of the dogmas of the RCC? Surely identifying any of these infallibly would stop all debate about them among Catholics.

So, the apostles were unique, foundational to the Church, and infallible in ALL they taught. They were not sinless in practice, but they were kept by God as exceptionally holy examples for the Church to follow. They lived holy, self-sacrificing lives, and most were executed for their faith. None of them could be compared to the great number of moral degenerates who have occupied the Papal office.

Hope that clarifies the non-RCC position. But glad to come back on it.

Slav

Jakkass wrote: »

if you don't treat the Bible as the primary source, the Church will no longer be the Church it will have shifted so far away from the Gospel that it will need to be reeled back in. This is what happened during the Reformation. Catholicism in the 1500's had become something quite distorted from the Christianity of the Gospels.

I don't see how, for instance, Armenian Church, Coptic Church and all Orthodox Churches fit into this picture. They shared the same views on the role of Scripture and Tradition as RCC did and the authority of the Bible was the same for all these churches. Between them there were no (or very little) disagreements on their interpretation of the Scripture; all the differences between them were in what each of them considered being the Tradition.

Now which of the following is true?

1. AC, CC and OC did not really shift that far away from the Gospel. However in this case it means that if a church doesn't treat the Bible as the primary source it does not necessarily shift it away.

2. AC, CC and OC were as far from the Gospel as RCC was. In this case it's not clear why Reformation had absolutely no influence on them and still there is no sign of a similar movement within these churches that would reel them back.

(I assume that we all agree that by "don't treat the Bible as the primary source" one means that the Bible is a product of Tradition that at certain historical points needed to be verbalised and written down. It's not that the authority of the Bible is somehow less then authority of any other source).

philologos

Every church has had inner reform movements even if it wasn't with the Reformers as in the case in Western Christianity. Even Vatican II could be considered a reform movement in Catholicism. However I will admit I have a very limited knowledge of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Church, or Orthodoxy.

Slav

Jakkass wrote: »

if you don't treat the Bible as the primary source, the Church will no longer be the Church it will have shifted so far away from the Gospel that it will need to be reeled back in. This is what happened during the Reformation. Catholicism in the 1500's had become something quite distorted from the Christianity of the Gospels.

I don't see how, for instance, Armenian Church, Coptic Church and all Orthodox Churches fit into this picture. They shared the same views on the role of Scripture and Tradition as RCC did and the authority of the Bible was the same for all these churches. Between them there were no (or very little) disagreements on their interpretation of the Scripture; all the differences between them were in what each of them considered being the Tradition.

Now which of the following is true?

1. AC, CC and OC did not really shift that far away from the Gospel. However in this case it means that if a church doesn't treat the Bible as the primary source it does not necessarily shift it away.

2. AC, CC and OC were as far from the Gospel as RCC was. In this case it's not clear why Reformation had absolutely no influence on them and still there is no sign of a similar movement within these churches that would reel them back.

(I assume that we all agree that by "don't treat the Bible as the primary source" one means that the Bible is a product of Tradition that at certain historical points needed to be verbalised and written down. It's not that the authority of the Bible is somehow less then authority of any other source).

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

After the apostles, no man had the gift of apostleship - none were gifted to reveal further truth or even to give infallible interpretation of the existing truth.

I agree that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (John I think). But it's not true to say that infallible interpretation isn't possible. It makes no sense that God would leave us without a means to arrive at the truth e.g. does Purgatory exist. Infallible interpretation of scripture is within the competency of the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church).

wolfsbane wrote: »

The Church's job is to study with the help of the Spirit so that it will come to a fuller understanding of that Word.

We fail in many instances to see all the truth, but God has promised that the Church will not be drowned by error, so He keeps reforming - purifying - it down the ages. The Spirit continues to stir His people to know more of His Word and live closer to His will.

If you think about it, it's pretty clear that private interpretation of scripture leads to division between Christians. The bible can't speak so there has to be a living divinely appointed body which has the authority to interpret scritpure. God wouldn't leave us in a rudderless ship without a compass!!

wolfsbane wrote: »

The RCC claims to have a man in each generation able to give infallible pronouncements.

Not just the pope but also the Magisterium collectively.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Strangely, these 'infallible' words are hard for them to identify. If one points to seemingly absolutely dogmatic pronouncements that are later shown to be false or contradicted, it seems the pope was not in 'infallible' mode on that occasion.

That is totally groundless hogwash! Give me one example of a dogmatic teaching that was later shown to be false!

wolfsbane wrote: »

The RCC, if its claims to occasional infallible directives are true, is practically in no better position than the Reformed Churches. If one can't tell what is infallible from what is not, how does that help anyone? I've asked for a list of infallible pronouncements from Noel, but don't recall getting one. I'd be glad to see it.

Here you go: http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

I don't believe there is a single document containing all dogmatic teachings but they are contained in the documents of ecumenical councils e.g Nicea and Trent.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Is the current papal ban on contraception based on infallible pronouncement?
>>> Yes
Is there an infallible word from a pope on creation/evolution? >>> No

On women as pastors? >>> Don't know. I think this is covered by Tradition.

On homosexuality? >>> Yes

On the moment of conception and new life? >>> Don't think so.

On the eternal state of those dying while denying any of the dogmas of the RCC? >>> Yes afaik.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Surely identifying any of these infallibly would stop all debate about them among Catholics.

The Church can't define any new truths, I can only develop doctrine based on Scripture and Tradition (oral teachings passed from Christ to the Apostles).

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

After the apostles, no man had the gift of apostleship - none were gifted to reveal further truth or even to give infallible interpretation of the existing truth.

Where was it decided that only apostles of Jesus could be infallible?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The apostles however did not suffer from that disability: if asked about a pressing moral issue, they gave an infallible pronouncement - eg.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

You appear to be quoting Paul, who wasn't an apostle, and who's writings (such as his letters to the Corinthians) I imagine you wouldn't considered infallible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If one can't tell what is infallible from what is not, how does that help anyone?

Well, how can you tell that what the apostles said were infallible?

(please don't say because its in the New Testament, which you consider infallible, because the apostles wrote it, least we get into another one of these famous cyclical arguments you guys love so much)

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Where was it decided that only apostles of Jesus could be infallible?

That's also news to me. Although Paul was selected for a divine role, he had made a huge mistake in his life before Jesus of Nazareth came to him in a vision.

In a sermon at my church, the priest was going through all the Apostles, on Fathers Day to suggest that although fathers make mistakes, that God had chosen people with mistakes in their lives to be Apostles of the Church.

Peter denied Jesus 3 times, Judas betrayed Jesus, Simon the Zealot was well a terrorist, Thomas doubted Jesus and lacked faith, and the list goes on. However God honoured these people even with their flaws, in the same way that God honours and loves those who have crucial flaws in their lives today.

Unless the claim is that the Apostles were sinless after they became Apostles. However Paul in Romans 7 seems to suggest not.

Romans 7:18-20 wrote:

18For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

This is Paul speaking from personal experience. Would he speak in the present tense if it had ended upon accepting his Apostleship?

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
After the apostles, no man had the gift of apostleship - none were gifted to reveal further truth or even to give infallible interpretation of the existing truth.

I agree that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle (John I think). But it's not true to say that infallible interpretation isn't possible. It makes no sense that God would leave us without a means to arrive at the truth e.g. does Purgatory exist. Infallible interpretation of scripture is within the competency of the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church).

OK. Then we can expect to find infallible answers to all the pressing issues. Is man descended from other creatures? Are there alien lifeforms beyond earth? Do the unbaptised go to heaven or hell? Etc. Just remind us again of Rome's infallible teaching on these.

If you think about it, it's pretty clear that private interpretation of scripture leads to division between Christians.

It often does, but it is not necessarily so. Sometimes the truth is evident, but the hearer doesn't like it.

The bible can't speak so there has to be a living divinely appointed body which has the authority to interpret scritpure. God wouldn't leave us in a rudderless ship without a compass!!

Quite so. The choice is between the Holy Spirit (the Reformed position) and the Pope (RCC position).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The RCC claims to have a man in each generation able to give infallible pronouncements.
Not just the pope but also the Magisterium collectively.

Hmm. Do their decisions not require the pope's final say-so? Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS). Ecumenical councils http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#III

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Strangely, these 'infallible' words are hard for them to identify. If one points to seemingly absolutely dogmatic pronouncements that are later shown to be false or contradicted, it seems the pope was not in 'infallible' mode on that occasion.
That is totally groundless hogwash! Give me one example of a dogmatic teaching that was later shown to be false!

Well, I may be confused, but for example was not Limbo dogma? Was it not dogma that man's created condition was bodily immortal and free from suffering? Is it not now the RCC position that the state of unbaptised infants who die is unknown? That evolution [with all its necessary suffering and death] was man's origin? Please set me right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The RCC, if its claims to occasional infallible directives are true, is practically in no better position than the Reformed Churches. If one can't tell what is infallible from what is not, how does that help anyone? I've asked for a list of infallible pronouncements from Noel, but don't recall getting one. I'd be glad to see it.
Here you go: http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefait...nts/dogmas.cfm

I don't believe there is a single document containing all dogmatic teachings but they are contained in the documents of ecumenical councils e.g Nicea and Trent.

Thanks for clarifying that, Noel. So all dogmas are infallibly true. I didn't get that at first. I just thought Catholics had to believe them because they came from the pope/magisterium, even if they turned out to be mistaken.

That does indeed leave us with a massive amount of 'infallible' truth. But how do you account for the changes I asked about above? Is the present leadership of Rome in error when they accept evolution as a valid explanation of man's origin? What is all the papal talk of 'separated brethren' (the Reformed and Orthodox churches) when dogma states that they will be in hell if they die believing as they do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Is the current papal ban on contraception based on infallible pronouncement?>>> Yes

Why do so many Catholics seek to change this, seeing it is infallibly true and can't be changed?

Is there an infallible word from a pope on creation/evolution? >>> No

See above on creation/evolution.

On women as pastors? >>> Don't know. I think this is covered by Tradition.

Scripture forbids it, but I wondered if it was specified in Roman dogma.

On homosexuality? >>> Yes

Good.

On the moment of conception and new life? >>> Don't think so.

How then do they oppose abortion in every stage?

On the eternal state of those dying while denying any of the dogmas of the RCC? >>> Yes afaik.

Are you comfortable that all Protestants, Orthodox and many Catholics are damned on this basis?

The Church can't define any new truths, I can only develop doctrine based on Scripture and Tradition (oral teachings passed from Christ to the Apostles).

I understood Rome to teach that Tradition is the oral teachings passed from the Apostles to the elders of the churches. That is, teachings not contained in the Bible, but alleged by Rome to come from the Apostles.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
After the apostles, no man had the gift of apostleship - none were gifted to reveal further truth or even to give infallible interpretation of the existing truth.
Where was it decided that only apostles of Jesus could be infallible?

To the apostles He said:
John 14:25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

Rome alleges that the ability to pronounce infallibly passed on to the Bishop of Rome, but not the other apostolic abilities like new revelation of truth from God, nor signs and wonders. There is no indication in Scripture for this - only Rome's word.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The apostles however did not suffer from that disability: if asked about a pressing moral issue, they gave an infallible pronouncement - eg.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

You appear to be quoting Paul, who wasn't an apostle,

Of course he was an apostle! Where ever did you get the impression he was not?

and who's writings (such as his letters to the Corinthians) I imagine you wouldn't considered infallible.

You imagine wrong. Paul's writings were Holy Scripture, just like Peter's or John's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If one can't tell what is infallible from what is not, how does that help anyone?
Well, how can you tell that what the apostles said were infallible?

(please don't say because its in the New Testament, which you consider infallible, because the apostles wrote it, least we get into another one of these famous cyclical arguments you guys love so much)

I believe the apostles were infallible because God has convinced me His word is absolutely true. Yes, the apostles wrote it, but God the Holy Spirit confirms it to those who have hears to hear.

wolfsbane

Jakkass said:

Unless the claim is that the Apostles were sinless after they became Apostles. However Paul in Romans 7 seems to suggest not.

The claim is that the apostles taught infallibly, not that they were sinless. After their conversion, they did live generally godly lives, but not perfect ones.

Some even fell into public sin and had to be publically rebuked:
Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

Jakkass said:

The claim is that the apostles taught infallibly, not that they were sinless. After their conversion, they did live generally godly lives, but not perfect ones.

Some even fell into public sin and had to be publically rebuked:
Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

Precisely! It was hardly sleeping around, or murder. It sounded like peer pressure:) Even when Jesus saved Mary Magdelene, he said 'Go, and sin no more'. Now i would imagine she had her moments, but left her sinful life behind, and certainly wasn't a harlot any more.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

kelly1 said:

OK. Then we can expect to find infallible answers to all the pressing issues. Is man descended from other creatures? Are there alien lifeforms beyond earth? Do the unbaptised go to heaven or hell? Etc. Just remind us again of Rome's infallible teaching on these.

Wolfsbane, the Pope doesn't have God's telephone number!! The Church can only work within the framework of Revelation i.e. what the Apostles taught by word or letter.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quite so. The choice is between the Holy Spirit (the Reformed position) and the Pope (RCC position).

No! The Pope's infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit!

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm. Do their decisions not require the pope's final say-so?

Yes, afaik.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well, I may be confused, but for example was not Limbo dogma? Was it not dogma that man's created condition was bodily immortal and free from suffering? Is it not now the RCC position that the state of unbaptised infants who die is unknown? That evolution [with all its necessary suffering and death] was man's origin? Please set me right.

As I've said heaps of times on this forum, Limbo was never dogma but was a theory put forward by Thomas Aquinas. It may have been generally believe, but was never defined officially. "man's created condition was bodily immortal and free from suffering" only applied to Adam before the fall. And yes the fate of unbaptized infants is unknown and was never dogma. There's no dogma on evolution, that was never revealed to us. The Church can only operate within the framework of apostolic Revelation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But how do you account for the changes I asked about above? Is the present leadership of Rome in error when they accept evolution as a valid explanation of man's origin?

No dogma has ever been changed or revoked.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What is all the papal talk of 'separated brethren' (the Reformed and Orthodox churches) when dogma states that they will be in hell if they die believing as they do?

The Church has always taught that outside the Church there is no salvation. It was the definition of Church that was discussed by Vatican II. I'm not very clear on this point but I think the Church allows for the possibility that non-Catholics can be "mysteriously joined" to the Church by virtue of a common baptism. There is also baptism of desire and blood which could hugely increase the number saved.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why do so many Catholics seek to change this, seeing it is infallibly true and can't be changed?

Why do people want to sin?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are you comfortable that all Protestants, Orthodox and many Catholics are damned on this basis?

I'm not comfortable with anyone being damned. I'm sure God would take ignorance into account.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I understood Rome to teach that Tradition is the oral teachings passed from the Apostles to the elders of the churches. That is, teachings not contained in the Bible, but alleged by Rome to come from the Apostles.

Yes, agreed. Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me?

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

Precisely! It was hardly sleeping around, or murder. It sounded like peer pressure:) Even when Jesus saved Mary Magdelene, he said 'Go, and sin no more'. Now i would imagine she had her moments, but left her sinful life behind, and certainly wasn't a harlot any more.

There's no factual basis behind that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute apart from Pope Gregory saying so in a Papal speech in 500AD. In the Orthodox tradition they say that she was the Apostle to the Apostles as she told the other disciples what had happened at the tomb.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

There's no factual basis behind that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute apart from Pope Gregory saying so in a Papal speech in 500AD. In the Orthodox tradition they say that she was the Apostle to the Apostles as she told the other disciples what had happened at the tomb.

:oIndeed, I stand corrected! Apologies. Always just thought it was so, but don't actually know why now.
Thats another bit of ignorance gone thanks to the online congregation:) Cheers Jackass.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK. Then we can expect to find infallible answers to all the pressing issues. Is man descended from other creatures? Are there alien lifeforms beyond earth? Do the unbaptised go to heaven or hell? Etc. Just remind us again of Rome's infallible teaching on these.
Wolfsbane, the Pope doesn't have God's telephone number!! The Church can only work within the framework of Revelation i.e. what the Apostles taught by word or letter.

The pope seems able to speak about contraception, something the apostles never mentioned. Obviously the pope is working from first principles concerning the purpose of sex, and applying them to the issue of contraception. How come he can't do that for the issues above?

Even more, the pope declared the immaculate conception of Mary, her assumption into heaven, and her mediatorial role in man's salvation - none of which are mentioned by the apostles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Quite so. The choice is between the Holy Spirit (the Reformed position) and the Pope (RCC position).
No! The Pope's infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit!

Ok, that should be easy enough to check. Just find all the popes have ever taught and see if there are any contradictions. Hmm, maybe not so simple: it appears that the popes accept that not all of their teaching is infallible.

How are we to tell which is which? I could claim to be infallible in some of my teaching, and you would not be able to prove otherwise.

However, you gave me a list of dogmas which I believe you claim are official infallible teachings. Did I understand you right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Hmm. Do their decisions not require the pope's final say-so?
Yes, afaik.

So the Councils of the Church are not indepentent sources of infallible teaching. The pope is THE man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Well, I may be confused, but for example was not Limbo dogma? Was it not dogma that man's created condition was bodily immortal and free from suffering? Is it not now the RCC position that the state of unbaptised infants who die is unknown? That evolution [with all its necessary suffering and death] was man's origin? Please set me right.
As I've said heaps of times on this forum, Limbo was never dogma but was a theory put forward by Thomas Aquinas. It may have been generally believe, but was never defined officially. "man's created condition was bodily immortal and free from suffering" only applied to Adam before the fall. And yes the fate of unbaptized infants is unknown and was never dogma. There's no dogma on evolution, that was never revealed to us. The Church can only operate within the framework of apostolic Revelation.

Thanks for the clarification on Limbo. But if the fate of unbaptized infants is unknown, how come the status of Mary at her birth and now in heaven is infallible dogma, despite never being revealed by the apostles? For example:
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.
...
[Note: By promulgating the Bull Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Likewise, the Second Vatican Council taught in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium that "the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things (n. 59)."]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Infallible dogma based neither on Scripture nor Tradition, just the pope's say-so. And one pope, Benedict XIV, says it is only a probable opinion while another one, Pius XII, declares it infallible truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But how do you account for the changes I asked about above? Is the present leadership of Rome in error when they accept evolution as a valid explanation of man's origin?
No dogma has ever been changed or revoked.

RCC infallible dogma says man did not evolve. The present RCC says it seems he did. Can you clarify?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What is all the papal talk of 'separated brethren' (the Reformed and Orthodox churches) when dogma states that they will be in hell if they die believing as they do?
The Church has always taught that outside the Church there is no salvation. It was the definition of Church that was discussed by Vatican II. I'm not very clear on this point but I think the Church allows for the possibility that non-Catholics can be "mysteriously joined" to the Church by virtue of a common baptism. There is also baptism of desire and blood which could hugely increase the number saved.

The more simple of us might take the RCC's historic claim to mean all pagans, heathens (Wickie, Robin, etc.) and heretics (JC, PDN, me, etc.) are for the eternal flames. But since Vatican II it seems that all of us - except lapsed Catholics - might get to heaven after all, based on our social enviroment. Had we been given the chance of being good Catholics - raised in a Catholic State, taught in a Catholic school, etc., what we would have done with those opportunities is counted as our true condition.

This salvation for practising Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, Atheists, etc., is all by the grace dispensed by the RCC. I'm not sure how that fits in with the current Interfaith Dialogue, but I'm sure they will work it out. The pope as the head of THE world Religion may not be far off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Why do so many Catholics seek to change this, seeing it is infallibly true and can't be changed?
Why do people want to sin?

Yes, that is logical. You agree then that they are also not just sinners, but apostate, seeing they oppose RCC dogma? That they will be in hell if they die believing as they do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I understood Rome to teach that Tradition is the oral teachings passed from the Apostles to the elders of the churches. That is, teachings not contained in the Bible, but alleged by Rome to come from the Apostles.
Yes, agreed. Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me?

I agree that anything taught by the apostles is infallibly true. My problem is accepting the word of non-apostles that they have something of it that was not recorded in Scripture, nor even written about in the next generation of the Church. The above example of Mary's alleged assumption is a case in point.

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally find Anglicanism as the main means for me to do this, however many others may find Catholicism the way. I don't however feel any compulsion to attend a Catholic church over my own local Anglican one.

.....there is little theological difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholocism......the Anglican Chuch was formed by the Catholic Church IN England becoming the Catholic Church OF England......
,,,,,,,i.e. 99% of the (Roman) Catholic Church in England....including ALL of it's Bishops, except John Fisher.....and a few high-placed lay people, like the Dukes of Norfolk...... moved over 'lock stock and barrell' to become the (Anglican) Catholic Church of England under the authority of the English Monarchy (instead of the Pope)......so the theology remained largely the same, the church services remained largely the same....the episcopal and diocesan governance remained largely the same.......and therefore most of the changes were political in nature!!!

Nowadays, the Anglican and Roman Churches have exchanged priests several times and both ways.....
......and they are largely united, at this stage, with cordial relations between the Vatican and the top people in Anglicanism.
Equally, on the ground, members of both chuches attend (and some take commumion at) each others services......so it really has become a matter of convenience which church (if any) that many Anglicans and Roman Catholics attend.

Jakkass wrote: »

"בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ"
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

......HAVE you become a Creationist?????:)

PDN

Slav wrote: »

I don't see how, for instance, Armenian Church, Coptic Church and all Orthodox Churches fit into this picture. They shared the same views on the role of Scripture and Tradition as RCC did and the authority of the Bible was the same for all these churches. Between them there were no (or very little) disagreements on their interpretation of the Scripture; all the differences between them were in what each of them considered being the Tradition.

Now which of the following is true?

1. AC, CC and OC did not really shift that far away from the Gospel. However in this case it means that if a church doesn't treat the Bible as the primary source it does not necessarily shift it away.

2. AC, CC and OC were as far from the Gospel as RCC was. In this case it's not clear why Reformation had absolutely no influence on them and still there is no sign of a similar movement within these churches that would reel them back.

(I assume that we all agree that by "don't treat the Bible as the primary source" one means that the Bible is a product of Tradition that at certain historical points needed to be verbalised and written down. It's not that the authority of the Bible is somehow less then authority of any other source).

The AC, CC and OC were all still inextricably linked with Rome up to at least 451AD, much longer in the case of the Orthodox Church. By this stage the departure from the Gospel was well under way, so all these churches necessarily accompanied Rome in that departure from the primacy of Scripture.

So why did the Reformation have much less impact upon these other churches than upon catholicism? That is a subject that, I believe would merit further study. I would suggest some possible reasons.

a) At the time of the Reformation the Copts and Armenians were surrounded by Islamic influence. A movement that is under external attack gives less priority to internal dissent if it is to survive.

b) The printing press was crucial to the spread of the Reformation in Europe. This was more limited in other regions (eg Russia) where literacy rates were much lower at the time.

c) The Roman Catholic Church had adopted more unScriptural practices than the OC, AC or CC. Therefore the sense of scandal was greater, prompting the Reformers to action.

d) the Roman Catholic Church was much more brutal in its persecution of 'heretics'. Such suppression is almost always counter-productive.

J C

kelly1 wrote: »

Not really. So-called public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. But scripture is not the whole picture. Sacred Tradition is also equally valid:-

..this is what Jesus Christ thought about 'tradition'.....as distinct from His infallible Word:-
MK 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

....and this is what Paul had to say on the same subject:-
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

kelly1 wrote: »

Quote:
2 Thes. 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word
of mouth or by letter.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (not the bible)

....the 'traditions' mentioned by Paul in 2 Thes 2:15 are the Word of God as taught and written by this divinely inspired APOSTLE.......
.....and in 1 Tim 3:15 there is no indication that the 'church of the living God' was grounded in anything but the Word of the living God.

kelly1 wrote: »

That's not to say that the bible isn't true. Of course it is but the Church is the ultimate authority, not a book. That would be the tail wagging the dog...

.......are you seriously suggesting that any church can be superior to God and His Word????

Slav

PDN wrote: »

The AC, CC and OC were all still inextricably linked with Rome up to at least 451AD, much longer in the case of the Orthodox Church. By this stage the departure from the Gospel was well under way, so all these churches necessarily accompanied Rome in that departure from the primacy of Scripture.

Point taken. However it's worth mentioning that neither Eastern nor Orient Churches were ever under the Roman rule. They certainly respected the Roman Church, they recognised a certain authority of Rome (same as they recognised the one of Constantinople) but the practices and theological doctrines developed within the Roman Church were rarely adopted by them.

a) At the time of the Reformation the Copts and Armenians were surrounded by Islamic influence. A movement that is under external attack gives less priority to internal dissent if it is to survive.

Copts and Armenians were relatively small in numbers. The vast majority of Eastern Christianity did not suffer any external attacks.

b) The printing press was crucial to the spread of the Reformation in Europe. This was more limited in other regions (eg Russia) where literacy rates were much lower at the time.

Interesting observation but I guess you'll be struggling to prove it as this simply was not the case. Moreover in Western Europe the translations of the Bible were practically unavailable until at least mid XVI century as distinct from the East where people had greater and much easier access to Scripture thanks to the custom of giving new converts the Bible and liturgy in their native language as soon as possible.

c) The Roman Catholic Church had adopted more unScriptural practices than the OC, AC or CC. Therefore the sense of scandal was greater, prompting the Reformers to action.

That raises a couple of questions:

1. As you are saying that the sense of scandal was greater in Rome I would assume that it did take place in Eastern and Orient Churches though it was somehow less then in the West. Would you mind to name any signs of it?

2. I still have to go back to my original question: if those "unScriptural practices" of Rome were caused by not treating the Bible as the primary source (as Jakkass suggested) then why didn't Orient and Eastern Churches go that far so there were no signs of Reformation movements? After all theologically they are very close with RCC (and were even closer back to XVI); surely the fact that they consider Purgatory a heresy would not save them from Reformation, would it?

d) the Roman Catholic Church was much more brutal in its persecution of 'heretics'. Such suppression is almost always counter-productive.

So it was somehow less brutal in Spain then in Germany?

By the XVI century the Roman Church accumulated too much administrative and financial power in Europe. Reformation arose and succeeded in those regions where there were conflicts of interests between Rome and the local elites and where local elites were strong enough to oppose Rome.

Now let's face it. The 3 major schisms in Christianity: in V-VI centuries (Orient -- Constantinople), in XI century (Constantinople -- Rome) and in XVI century (Rome -- Reformation) were all caused and driven by political reasons.