The Church As Harlot--in Her Own Tradition

[4588686]

A handful of saints who erred in calling our Mother a whore does not rise to the level of Tradition. I've read the Holy Bible many times, I've never read anything in it where it states the bride of Christ is a whore. But if you can offer a verse I'd like to see it.

Obviously you've never seen her when she's tipsy!

[Evangetholic]

There's no way to say this and not have it sound bad, but I'm assuming there's not many here who have taken University level theology courses? Or who are deep into Patristics?

[Socrates]

There's no way to say this and not have it sound bad, but I'm assuming there's not many here who have taken University level theology courses? Or who are deep into Patristics?

Actually I have, not that it's particularly relevant.

 

 

[Evangetholic]

And also, Socrates, the idea of the Church as harlot, as whore, as Whore House that you see in the Fathers isn't in response to "Church History," the history of the Church as a bearer of swords and slayer of heretics hadn't started yet. Also, I do not think that history is one to be ashamed of. It saved the world from Pelgianism, Donatism, Arianism, Catharism, etc. Would only to God that it had worked when used against the Protestant heresy (which in my opinion very nearly sent me to Hell).

Actually I have, not that it's particularly relevant.

 

I don't think it matters. Christianity is not some intellectual exercise (and daily I beg God that He never let it become such for me), I was just curious. Normally people who are very learned and very Orthodox do not come out the gate swinging at statements that have been said in one shape or form for 2000 years. I admire a hand on the sword hilt ready to defend the Church, just make sure you defend her against her enemies, not against people who would gladly die for her.

[KnightofChrist]

There's no way to say this and not have it sound bad, but I'm assuming there's not many here who have taken University level theology courses? Or who are deep into Patristics?

Only well seasoned and experienced theologians should read Von Balthasar. Many of the things he wrote are at best confusing if not out right error. Some of his theology was condemn by the Church. His thought that Christ descended into the hell of the dàmned and freed the dàmned are two examples. There are more, you should I humbly suggest stay away from his works.

[Evangetholic]

I think Balthasar was off about Hell (tbh I do not think his Hell is the Church's hell); but I'm not exactly a theological neophyte. Thank you for the concern, honestly. :)

[KnightofChrist]

You won't find the Church herself called a whore. You'll find Old Israel called a whore. And at least Augustine read the Church Herself as being, in part, Babylon the Great from revelations.

Israel of old wasn't a bride of Christ and they were under the Old Law. Augustine wasn't perfect calling our Mother a whore wasn't the only mistake he made. Don't get me wrong though he was a very wise father. But our Mother isn't a whore, never has been, never will be! Edited February 23, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[EmilyAnn]

Just because a saint said something doesn't make it infallible. I believe Thomas Aquinas did not believe that life beings at conception. He was wrong. Saints though they may be, they were as capable of error as anyone else. 

[Slappo]

There's no way to say this and not have it sound bad, but I'm assuming there's not many here who have taken University level theology courses? Or who are deep into Patristics?

 

 

There are many many people on this board who have not only taken univeristy level theology courses, but have a bachelor's degree or above in theology from well respected Catholic institutions.

[Evangetholic]

No one is imputing inerrant teaching to the Saints. The only reason for mentioning them is that this isn't blasphemous. It is possibly inaccurate (I don't think it is, but possibly); but not blasphemous. Not evil. Not spitting on sacred things or even denying the Church as spotless, holy, beloved of God, and utterly blameless. The idea is presented by the Fathers as a paradox. It stands uncondemned by the Church. And even tacitly condoned by the popes (at least the last two, but I'd say all of them). No one, least of all I, rescued as I was from schism, heresy, relativism, and sin so black and dirty that Heaven's vengeance was mine by right is attempting to take from the Church Her holiness, the fact that she is the Ark of Salvation, and the Pillar of Truth. The Church is infallible. The Church is holy. But as long as she holds me (an unchaste bride a faithless lover who ever goes after "the ways of Egypt") to her breast then she's also the other things she's been described by some of her saints as.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Evangetholic

[Slappo]

St. Thomas Aquinas actually rejected the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, although many thomists will argue that he did not.

 

 

 

Eastern Catholic's will say that the Immaculate Conception is not a dogma and that it is an attempt of those darned Romans to develop doctrine :). But that's a whole nother argument..

No one is imputing inerrant teaching to the Saints. The only reason for mentioning them is that this isn't blasphemous. It is possibly inaccurate (I don't think it is, but possibly); but not blasphemous. Not evil. Not spitting on sacred things or even denying the Church as spotless, holy, beloved of God, and utterly blameless. The idea is presented by the Fathers as a paradox. It stands uncondemned by the Church. And even tacitly condoned by the popes (at least the last two, but I'd say all of them). No one, least of all I, rescued as I was from schism, heresy, relativism, and sin so black and dirty that Heaven's vengeance was mine by right is attempting to take from the Church Her holiness, the fact that she is the Ark of Salvation, and the Pillar of Truth. The Church is infallible. The Church is holy. But as long as she holds me (an unchaste bride a faithless lover who ever goes after "the ways of Egypt") to her breast then she's also the other things she's been described by some of her saints as.

Christ held the beloved disciple to his breast yet I do not see us calling Christ a whore, harlot, drunkard, and sinner...

[Evangetholic]

I do however see a failure in the decision to publicly post this. Scripture says that we may not scandalize even with that which is licit--I just didn't expect this to be scandalous. Silly in retrospect.

St. Thomas Aquinas actually rejected the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, although many thomists will argue that he did not.

 

 

 

Eastern Catholic's will say that the Immaculate Conception is not a dogma and that it is an attempt of those darned Romans to develop doctrine :). But that's a whole nother argument..

Christ held the beloved disciple to his breast yet I do not see us calling Christ a whore, harlot, drunkard, and sinner...

 

Avery Cardinal Dulles says it best, but I can't find the exact quote: God's holiness and the holiness of God's church might be of the same species, but they are not the same thing.
 

And he was made a Cardinal after that statement (by John Paul II).

[Evangetholic]

I have actually found a couple of massive Biblical holes in this idea. I still defend it as a Patristic concept and as not blasphemous--but still not correct. Something Knight said "Israel of old wasn't a bride of Christ and they were under the Old Law." I'll post more in a bit.

[Evangetholic]

Galatian 4:30-31 "But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with
the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman."

 

Much of the patristic attitude that makes them comfortable calling the Church a harlot is based on Old Testament statements about Israel. But The Church, the New Israel is something different. If the first Israel could be called a harlot it's because she constantly runs away from the faith, she insists on her right to be idolatrous, her right to "be like the nations," but the Church is the fulfillment, the completion, the "heir to the promises" and has a "new and better covenant." She never forgets her vows. She never forgets the one that ransomed her. If the first "bride" went "whoring after the ways of the gentiles" then the New Bride, the Free Woman we have as a Mother (the Church) does keep her garment clean. She remembers Him with the "daily sacrifice" and has always been obedient to Him, loving of Him, a helpmeet to Him. I wish I had the time to reference all of the Scripture nehind this, Scripture I never saw as a Protestant, but it's so rich that it's really mind blowing. Even the metaphor of the former Israel as a slave woman ("slaves to sin") and the Church as a FREE Woman ("free from sin," not free in sin, not free too sin, but "from"). 

 

She, the Church, takes that which was glorious about the First Israel, but she leaves the sin and indifference, she leaves "forgetting" of God and chasing after Baal.  I kings 18:21 says "Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God,
follow him." But the people said nothing." Well the Old Israel might have said nothing, but the new says "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" and what's more, she says it everyday. She says it as the World disdains her beliefs (contraception, homosexuality, the saints, etc.) and blames her for the evil actions of her very worst member and pastors.

 

Whether or not accusing the Church of harlotry is blasphemous, I think it's a poor reading of the relationship between the two covenants. And thank you all for your outraged sensus Catholicus; without it I might have kept misreading and misunderstanding "such a great salvation...confirmed to us by those who heard him." Hebrews 2:3

 

This is particularly a message to KnightofChrist who lives up to the name and who I hope will read these ramblings and check them for error.