A Proposal to My Fellow Lutherans...

[TriuneUnity]

Yea, and should the Pope/Papacy turn out to not be anti-Christ, will an apology be forthcoming?

Well, even though I do not believe that a Pope will be THE anti-Christ, I still believe the papacy to be anti-Christ. I won’t apologize for that…anymore than you could apologize for believing Protestants are lacking.

 

[TriuneUnity]

If I might editorialize a little, it seems to me the from an ecumenical p.o.v. the Roman Catholic hierarchy has cleaned up their act over the last few centuries, whereas the LCMS is still stuck in the 16th century.

P.S. Before anyone can use this to argue against me, let me add that I don’t see any contradiction between what I just said and what I said recently to vineyardgirl:

Ha! Actually, we’re both still stuck in the 16th century. Rome still upholds the decrees of Trent, after all. Besides, in many ways the 16th century was better. Less Baptists.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Basically all you’re saying here is Scripture is inspired… a non-issue because we agree… but you seem to be skipping over the fact that MEN were involved in deciding which “texts” were actually the ones that would be included in the Bible…

No, here is my point: Regardless of whether men chose which books to recognize as canon, the texts would still be the Word of God.

No these men didn’t rewrite, re-inspire, or reauthorize these writings, but they did have to decide if the writings they mulled over were actually inspired or not…you do realize there were some writings that didn’t make it in there don’t you?

Yes and they were very few. The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Epistle of Clement of Rome were serious contenders. The rest were so recently written or contradictory to the “main” texts of Scripture (such as the 4 gospels, and the epistles of Paul) as to really be apparently inauthentic.

Do you honestly believe there were no decisions made by men regarding which books (or text) would be included in the Bible? I would sincerely appreciate an answer to this question as it would definitely help me realize your point of view… perhaps I’ve been confused on your stance all along???

I do not deny that the early councils were incredibly important to the modern canon we have today. The discussion I was having with another poster was not involving the issue of whether the Church recognized a canon. I do apologize if that is the impression I was giving. The issue was revolving around whether we need an infallible decree in order to have a canon of Scripture. My point is that the canon of the NT was written by God, dispersed throughout the Churches, and because God’s sheep hear His voice, a canon was recognized very early. In fact, if anything witnesses to the divine authority of Scripture, if it just how quickly a canon was recognized. This wouldn’t have happened with uninspired text.

Ultimately, my confidence in the canon of Scripture we possess today to be God’s Word does not rely on a Church body proclaiming it to be Scripture, but in God’s ability to insure His people have His divine Word.

I think if you could answer this one yes or no I would leave the thread alone as we’ve already stole it from JonNC.

SD

He’s Lutheran, too. Just give him some coffee and liturgically colored jello and he’ll be fine.

 

[TriuneUnity]

BTW, thanks, TU for posting this originally.

Jon

Welcome!

 

[SCALCO]

Ultimately, my confidence in the canon of Scripture we possess today to be God’s Word does not rely on a Church body proclaiming it to be Scripture, but in God’s ability to insure His people have His divine Word.

Why be confident in God’s ability to insure His people have His divine Word, but not confident in God’s ability to insure His people have an infallible Church?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Why be confident in God’s ability to insure His people have His divine Word, but not confident in God’s ability to insure His people have an infallible Church?

Because by its nature as God’s breath, we can be confident that since God is infallible, His Word is also infallible. I do not believe He has promised an infallible Church; and if it can be demonstrated that the Church has not always been infallible in its decisions, then the evidence would show that we have no reason to have confidence in an infallible hierarchy.

 

[SCALCO]

Because by its nature as God’s breath, we can be confident that since God is infallible, His Word is also infallible. I do not believe He has promised an infallible Church; and if it can be demonstrated that the Church has not always been infallible in its decisions, then the evidence would show that we have no reason to have confidence in an infallible hierarchy.

The operative word or phrase here is “I do not believe”. I would say “I do believe”.
Ok, I’ll bite, where can it be demonstrated that the Church has not always been infallible?

 

[Peter_J]

Ha! Actually, we’re both still stuck in the 16th century. Rome still upholds the decrees of Trent, after all. Besides, in many ways the 16th century was better. Less Baptists.

We (Roman Catholics) have gotten rid of most of the corruption and ultra-montanism of the “bad old days”, so I would hardly say we are “stuck in the 16th century” just because we still uphold the Council of Trent.

In the same way, if a Lutheran (such as yourself) describes the Pope as anti-Christ but not as “the anti-Christ”, I would not see that as a reason to say he/she was “stuck in the 16th century”.

 

[TriuneUnity]

We (Roman Catholics) have gotten rid of most of the corruption and ultra-montanism of the “bad old days”, so I would hardly say we are “stuck in the 16th century” just because we still uphold the Council of Trent.

In the same way, if a Lutheran (such as yourself) describes the Pope as anti-Christ but not as “the anti-Christ”, I would not see that as a reason to say he/she was “stuck in the 16th century”.

Well the reason primarily from our perspective to reject Trent is its bad theology and lack of a rediscovered scholarship in Greek NT language Having said that, surprising as it may seem some of the canons of Trent I can agree with, such as its rejection of double-predestination.

As for the anti-Christ thing, I don’t believe Benedict is going to emerge as the Dark Lord of the Sith or anything. So I don’t worry about it too much now

 

[Peter_J]

As long as we’re comparing Roman Catholic and Lutheran ideas of infallibility, I thought I might also throw in this excerpt from The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware:

At a true Ecumenical Council the bishops recognize what the truth is and proclaim it; this proclamation is then verified by the assent of the whole Christian people, an assent which is not, a rule, expressed formally and explicitly, but lived.

It is not merely the numbers or the distribution of its members which determines the ecumenicity of a council: ‘An ‘Ecumenical’ Council is such, not because accredited representatives of all the Autocephalous Churches have taken part in it, but because it has borne witness to the faith of the Ecumenical Church’ (Metropolitan Seraphim, L’Église orthodoxe, p. 51).

The ecumenicity of a council cannot be decided by outward criteria alone: ‘Truth can have no external criterion, for it is manifest of itself and made inwardly plain’ (V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 188). The infallibility of the Church must not be ‘exteriorized,’ nor understood in too ‘material’ a sense: ‘It is not the ‘ecumenicity’ but the truth of the councils which makes their decisions obligatory for us. We touch here upon the fundamental mystery of the Orthodox doctrine of the Church: the Church is the miracle of the presence of God among men, beyond all formal ‘criteria,’ all formal ‘infallibility.’ It is not enough to summon an ‘Ecumenical Council’ … it is also necessary that in the midst of those so assembled there should be present He who said: “I am the Way, the Truth, the Life.” Without this presence, however numerous and representative the assembly may be, it will not be in the truth. Protestants and Catholics usually fail to understand this fundamental truth of Orthodoxy: both materialize the presence of God in the Church — the one party in the letter of Scripture, the other in the person of the Pope — though they do not thereby avoid the miracle, but clothe it in a concrete form. For Orthodoxy, the sole ‘criterion of truth’ remains God Himself, living mysteriously in the Church, leading it in the way of the Truth’ (J. Meyendorff, quoted by M. J. le Guillou, Missio et Unité, Paris, 1960, vol. 2, p. 313).

 

[TriuneUnity]

The operative word or phrase here is “I do not believe”. I would say “I do believe”.
Ok, I’ll bite, where can it be demonstrated that the Church has not always been infallible?

I won’t use examples that many Protestants here and elsewhere have, I am sure, referred to, such as Pope Liberius, Pope Zosimus, Pope Vigilius, and Pope Honorius.

However, I will mention Pope Boniface VIII, who stated the following in his Bull Unam Sanctam: “Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Vatican II teaches the exact opposite of this declaration. According to the documents of Vatican II, Christians of other denominations may be saved. Non-Christians, specifically Jews and Muslims, may be saved. Pagans may be saved. Even those who do not explicitly know of the existence of God may be saved. It is logically possible that either Vatican II or *Unam Sanctam *are correct. It is also logically possible that neither Vatican II or *Unam Sanctam *are correct. It is not logically possible, however, that both Vatican II and *Unam Sanctam *are correct. According to Pope Boniface VIII “it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” But if non-Roman Catholics, non-Christians, pagans, and atheists may attain salvation, as Vatican II asserts, then it is not altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. According to Vatican II, some who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff may be saved.

In addition to Pope Boniface’s statements in his Bull, the Council of Florence (an ecumenical, hence, “infallible” council) also asserted much the same thing when it stated: “It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Again, this would be a blatant contradiction of Vatican II documents such as Lumen Gentium.

 

[Peter_J]

However, I will mention Pope Boniface VIII, who stated the following in his Bull Unam Sanctam: “Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Have you ever really thought about what that means? It means that everyone who is being saved is subject to the Roman Pontiff. Catholics still believe that, although now we usually express it by simple saying the Pope has “universal jurisdiction”. (In fact, since Vatican I the statement is slightly stronger: Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction.)

 

[SCALCO]

I won’t use examples that many Protestants here and elsewhere have, I am sure, referred to, such as Pope Liberius, Pope Zosimus, Pope Vigilius, and Pope Honorius.

I have heard of these examples and there are some threads that talk about them. I recommend reading through some of those threads if you want to see the other side.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Have you ever really thought about what that means? It means that everyone who is being saved is subject to the Roman Pontiff. Catholics still believe that, although now we usually express it by simple saying the Pope has “universal jurisdiction”. (In fact, since Vatican I the statement is slightly stronger: Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction.)

That would be a novel interpretation of Boniface’s words. There is no doubt what he meant by it. I highly doubt he considered himself to be universal bishop of Muslims and Jews! Up until the emphasis in Christianity shifted to ecumenical niceties, Catholicism always maintained it was the only Church in which men could be saved. Read the Baltimore Catechism on these points.

Bear in mind, I am not criticizing Boniface’s statement here. Only the fact that it, and the Council of Florence, directly contradicts modern Roman teaching.

 

[Peter_J]

That would be a novel interpretation of Boniface’s words. There is no doubt what he meant by it. I highly doubt he considered himself to be universal bishop of Muslims and Jews! Up until the emphasis in Christianity shifted to ecumenical niceties, Catholicism always maintained it was the only Church in which men could be saved. Read the Baltimore Catechism on these points.

Bear in mind, I am not criticizing Boniface’s statement here. Only the fact that it, and the Council of Florence, directly contradicts modern Roman teaching.

His thoughts may very well have contradicted “modern Roman teaching”, but his statement (which some regard as an ex cathedra statement, btw, but we needn’t go into that) does not. He did not say “Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and must be in full communion with him, and must acknowledge that they are subject to him” etc.

 

[TriuneUnity]

His thoughts may very well have contradicted “modern Roman teaching”, but his statement (which some regard as an ex cathedra statement, btw, but we needn’t go into that) does not. He did not say “Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, and must be in full communion with him, and must acknowledge that they are subject to him” etc.

But that is exactly how it was interpreted in Catholic theology for over 700 years. The Council of Florence, which was over a hundred years after this papal encyclical certainly interprets the Bull to be saying this. Did the Council of Florence also misinterpret what his statement meant? If so, of what value is an infallible Council? Did the Council of Trent also misinterpret that one must be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation when it issued its anathemas?

The contradictions here cannot be resolved without a severe stretch of intellectual honesty.

 

[blossom02]

The Baltimore Catechism (1891 version)

Q. 509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.

The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism No. 2

Q.168 How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?

A. Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in the way they are connected with the Chruch by desire.

 

[Peter_J]

But that is exactly how it was interpreted in Catholic theology for over 700 years.

Well then it was interpreted incorrectly.

But in a way, that’s life right? People make mistakes. Catholics make mistakes. Even Popes make mistakes. Cardinal Newman points out that even when a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement, he might also make a false statement somewhere else in the same document:

But since the process of defining truth is human, it is open to the chance of error; what Providence has guaranteed is only this, that there should be no error in the final step, in the resulting definition or dogma.

1. Accordingly, all that a Council, and all that the Pope, is infallible in, is the direct answer to the {329} special question which he happens to be considering; his prerogative does not extend beyond a power, when in his Cathedra , of giving that very answer truly. “Nothing,” says Perrone, “but the objects of dogmatic definitions of Councils are immutable, for in these are Councils infallible, not in their reasons ,” &c.— ibid .

1. This rule is so strictly to be observed that, though dogmatic statements are found from time to time in a Pope’s Apostolic Letters, &c., yet they are not accounted to be exercises of his infallibility if they are said only obiter —by the way, and without direct intention to define. A striking instance of this sine qua non condition is afforded by Nicholas I., who, in a letter to the Bulgarians, spoke as if baptism were valid, when administered simply in our Lord’s Name, without distinct mention of the Three Persons; but he is not teaching and speaking ex cathedrâ , because no question on this matter was in any sense the occasion of his writing. The question asked of him was concerning the minister of baptism—viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could validly baptize; in answering in the affirmative, he added obiter , as a private doctor, says Bellarmine, “that the baptism was valid, whether administered in the name of the three Persons or in the name of Christ only.” ( De Rom. Pont ., iv. 12.)

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well then it was interpreted incorrectly.

If it was interpreted incorrectly by later ecumenical Councils, how can those Councils be infallible?

But in a way, that’s life right? People make mistakes. Catholics make mistakes. Even Popes make mistakes. Cardinal Newman points out that even when a Pope makes an ex cathedra statement, he might also make a false statement somewhere else in the same document:

I agree everyone makes mistakes. Catholics, Protestants, any religion has and will make statements that are false. Which is why we, as Protestants, maintain that Scripture must be the sole source of infallible revelation for the Church. Only Scripture can be attested to be infallible in all that it teaches. The Church cannot be. This doesn’t mean that anyone can interpret it properly, that it should be removed from an ecclesiastical setting, and that we ignore how the Church has always interpreted it. What it does mean is that the Church must make pronouncements in accord with it and that the Church cannot stand on its own declarations as an infallible teaching authority but must be subject to that which is her master, the Word of God.

As an aside; if a Pope can make an error in an ex cathedra statement, how do we differentiate between the mistakes and the infallible parts?

 

[Peter_J]

As an aside; if a Pope can make an error in an ex cathedra statement, how do we differentiate between the mistakes and the infallible parts?

The Pope can’t make an error in an ex cathedra statement. Rather, he can make an error in a letter/document which also contains an ex cathedra statement.

For example, you quoted the ex cathedra statement from the Bull Unam Sanctam (or at least, the statement from Unam Sanctam that is considered by many to be ex cathedra). But the whole of Unam Sanctam is not an ex cathedra statement.