How would you fix the Catholic church?

[Francis of Assisi]

The Church does NOT need to change it's doctrines in order to be fixed.  There is no Catholic doctrine or ritual that is preventing Catholics from following Christ.   If anything, Protestants should closely study Early Church history and realize that prayers for the deceased and prayers to the saints for intercession were widespread in the Early Church and that the celebration of the Eucharist was the focus of worship every single Lord's Day.  However, if the Church is to truly be fixed, to be a more shining example of the life of Christ and of His will to the world, it does need to purify itself and how does it do that?

I remember a banner that was hung in a St. Anthony of Padua parish long ago during Lent.  It read "turn away from sin and follow the Gospel".  The real meaning of that banner was a call for repentance.  This is what the Church needs to do more than anything else.  The Church needs to repent, not just in a general way, as John Paul II attempted to do, but in a very specific way.  The most single horrific sin committed by Popes and sons of the Church during the 2,000 years of Christendom was the use of torture against human beings during the Middle Ages.  There is no possible way to ever justify the use of torture on a a human being - never!  Looking at the words of the Lord in the Gospels, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, and look at how He was tortured Himself and how the Christian martrys were tortured in the Roman Arena.  It should be a given that Jesus would never look with favor upon torture.  The Pope should issue an encyclical, ex cathedra, with the aura of infallibility, teaching that the use of torture against a human being is a grave/mortal sin. 

If eating meat on Friday during Lent is a grave sin or the use of artificial contraception is a grave sin, surely torture is a grave sin.   The Pope should acknowledge in the same document that every Pope that authorized torture during the Inquisition and every Inquisitor that used torture committed a terrible sin against God and man.  We should not expect the Church to decree now that the authorization and use of torture was a grave/mortal sin during the Middle Ages, since such was not taught back then and thus those involved did not believe that such was the case.  Hence, this lessens their culpability.  However, the Church can certainly acknowledge with specificity that such acts were "terrible" sins.

Such a dramatic move by the Church would probably do more to heal the rift between the Church and Protestantism than any change in a single doctrine could ever do!   Perhaps such a move might well encourage Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike to follow the example of the Church itself and to truly repent and follow the Gospel of Christ.

[kensington]

Terrible sins? Grave sin?  Mortal sin?...  Jesus never said that, Sin is sin.  It's all punishable by death, Jesus died to save us from that death, and that is the gospel we should follow.  It matters what religion one practices or be they a layman or a Pope, if they did not follow that gospel, they will go to Hell.

[Francis of Assisi]

Not only is it illogical to say that God views all sins equally, but this thesis is not what was believed by the Early Church.  The Early Church felt that certain sins were so serious, that they required some form of penance for a period of time before one could be fully restored and able to receive the Eucharist once again. (Ex: murder, adultery, etc.)

[kensington]

If that were true... then God would not have put "Killing" and "lying" in the same 10 commandments.   You speak of the early church....  they got off track from what Jesus taught pretty quickly didn't they.

[chosenone]

Not only is it illogical to say that God views all sins equally, but this thesis is not what was believed by the Early Church.  The Early Church felt that certain sins were so serious, that they required some form of penance for a period of time before one could be fully restored and able to receive the Eucharist once again. (Ex: murder, adultery, etc.)

 

We hear a lot about the early church and what they did or didnt do but we are supposed to go by the bible . It sounds as kensington said that the early church must have quickly got off track, and added things that they were never meant to do. We should never follow something just becuase it has been done for many many years, but only what The Bible says.
The Bible gives no instructions for extra penances for certain sins or praying for the dead as far as I am aware. All we have to do is to be truly repentant, confess our sins to God and we are forgiven. Full stop.................... ...no penence required.

[CDHealy]

I John 5:16-17 makes a distinction between sin that does not lead to death and sin that leads to death.  Sin that leads to death is mortal sin.

The Catholic Church is simply teaching the Bible when it makes a distinction between "venial" (sins that do not lead to death) and "mortal" (sins that lead to death).

[kensington]

The difference in sin that does not and sin that does lead to death is "repentance"...  the unrepentant sin leads to death.  It does not speak of which sins are and aren't... all sins leads to death if not repented.

[CDHealy]

Where do you see any discussion of repentance in 1 John 5:16-17?  It's about our praying for persons caught up in either of those two sins.

And St. John says there is a sin that does not lead to death, so what are *you* talking about?

Methinks you need to read your Bible a little more carefully.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

If that were true... then God would not have put "Killing" and "lying" in the same 10 commandments.   You speak of the early church....  they got off track from what Jesus taught pretty quickly didn't they.

Actually, there is no commandment against lying.  Only against "bearing false witness" - that's perjury, not fibbing.

Edit:  don't read that wrong.  I'm not saying lying is ok.  Just that it isn't one of the 10 commandments.

[kensington]

Where do you see any discussion of repentance in 1 John 5:16-17?  It's about our praying for persons caught up in either of those two sins.

And St. John says there is a sin that does not lead to death, so what are *you* talking about?

Methinks you need to read your Bible a little more carefully.

Sin repented is sin that does not lead to death.  If you see someone in sin, and they repent, pray for them.  If they are not repentant, that sin leads to death. 

[CDHealy]

Once again, kensington, that's *not* what St John says.  You are not confronting the text, but simply reasserting your opinion.

Now, as to your opinion, if we follow the logical conclusion of your assertion, tying it of course to St. John since you are asserting this is what St. John is saying, we come to some rather strange notions.

So, if your opinion about what St. John says is correct, *only* if we see that someone is repenting (how would we measure that) should we pray for them.  If someone is sinning and isn't repenting (how would we measure that) we should *not* pray for them.

So, by the logic of your position, we should never pray for someone to repent unless they are already repenting.  Which basically means we should never pray for someone's salvation unless they are already saved.

Curious prayer formula if you ask me.

[kensington]

But, I did not ask you...  And we know I won't. 

[trudge]

separation of church and state.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

separation of church and state.

I think that's the best answer yet.  Thanks.

[papist1]

Sorry, but none of what was happening at the time of the reformation had anything to do with the Catholic Church, but with sinners inside of the Catholic Church.


The weeds will grow amongst the wheat until harvest. The church is self cleansing, always has been always will be.

There will always be great saints and great sinners in the church.

peace, papist