A Proposal to My Fellow Lutherans...

[Peter_J]

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.

Did you read what I quoted from Bishop Kallistos?

 

[anthony022071]

[TriuneUnity]

It was given to us by God because God is its author. The Church always had Scripture prior to its canonization.

The Church existed before the books of the New Testament were written.

Having said that, the Church did receive the text and place it in a “list.” This does not, however, require an infallible decision.

It was members of the Church that wrote the New Testament texts. It did require an infallible decision to determine the canon of scripture,because there were Gnostic texts which passed as sacred scripture,and there was much argumentation over which books should be included in the canon.

catholicdestination.com/article_info.php?articles_id=222
< Disputes in the Church over which books were inspired and thus canonical were not restricted to the Old Testament. Prior to the Church councils of the late 300s, there was a wide range of disagreement over some of the books of the New Testament. Certain books, such as the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and most of the epistles of Saint Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained disputed until the canon was finally settled. These are, in effect, New Testament “deuterocanonicals” books. Other books often cited by early Christian writers and sometimes even thought inspired included the Didache, 1 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Letter to Barnabas. Their non-canonical status was eventually established but they were still recognized as morally edifying to read. They are thus more properly classified as early ecclesiastical writings.

As well as entire books of the New Testament being contested so were some individual passages. For example, in the Gospels Mark 16:9-20; Luke 22:43-44; John 5:4 and John 8:1-11 are not found in every ancient manuscript. Yet how many Christians today worry about the inspiration of these verses which tell us about the woman caught in adultery, of Jesus’ sweat dripping like blood during the Agony in the Garden, of an angel that stirred the pool of Siloam, or describing Christ’s appearance to Mary Magdelene? Why would one accept such deuterocanonical New Testament books and passages while rejecting deuterocanonical Old Testament books and passages? If the Popes and the Church councils can be wrong on the Old Testament, logic dictates they can be wrong on the New Testament. If the Church is not infallible in its universal decisions, including its decisions about the canon of Scripture, then how can anyone be certain that they have a true canon of Scripture? >

Requiring members of the Church to hold those doctrines as articles of faith which are neither scriptural nor historic.

The early Church did not believe that everything that pertained to the faith was contained in scripture.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a23.htm
ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. 370)

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the Tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery (i.e., Sacrament; the Liturgy of the Mass). . In respect to piety both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term.” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html#tradition-I

 

[TriuneUnity]

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.

Okay…thanks for the clarification. How do we know when, in a statement that contains an ex cathedra pronouncement, the ex cathedra section begins and ends?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Did you read what I quoted from Bishop Kallistos?

Briefly. I’ll look back over it!

 

[rinnie]

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 Church is infallible because the RCC is not only the word of Christ it is Christ. He tells us like a bride and bridegroom are united so our Christ and his Church, they are one. you cannot seperate them. Yes man has made human mistakes concerning Christs Church but it has nothing to do with the CHurchs teachings themselves. Any problem with the Church has nothing to do with the teachings of scripture, Jesus promised us the Church would prevail, and I will give you the words. Well look at it this way the Catholic Church is still here and never changed. Anything that has been changed is ways of going about things, but the main and important thing is the word of Christ, and how we are to learn the bible, and that is where the Pope is infallible again Jesus promised us I WILL GIVE YOU THE WORDS. And we still have a Pope today and will just as Jesus promised until he comes again in Glory. And the Pope is still ahead of the Church today the same as when Jesus left. And he still has that same power promised by Christ from the Holy Spirit, Jesus promised us he would not leave us orphans, and he also kept that promise. So look at it this way the Pope is still running the RCC, He is still lead by the HS, And the RCC is still here today. That is proof right there. And look how many years, and nothing has really changed.

 

[Peter_J]

Okay…thanks for the clarification. How do we know when, in a statement that contains an ex cathedra pronouncement, the ex cathedra section begins and ends?

Let me start with the short answer: there’s only one place in Unam Sanctum that even uses the word “define”, namely the sentence “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. (In Munificentissimus Deus (1950), which defined the Assumption, the word “define” is used several times; but there’s really no confusion because all but one of the uses are things like “They have resulted in many more petitions, begging and urging the Apostolic See that this truth be solemnly defined.”)

(Here’s what Vatican I said: “When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines with his supreme apostolic authority that a doctrine on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, he enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining a doctrine on faith and morals.”)

Now, having given the short answer, there are two points I’d like to clarify:

1. It’s a common misconception that the Orthodox response to “Ex cathedra statements are infallible” is “No. Ex cathedra statements are fallible.” But actually, I believe it would be more accurate to say that the Orthodox don’t believe the Pope can define dogma; hence, from their point of view, the question “Are ex cathedra statements infallible?” doesn’t make any sense (it’s like asking “Can green unicorns talk?”). I trust Orthodox posters will correct me if I’m wrong on this.
2. The Catholic Church has never said “Catholics must believe that there have been such-and-such many ex cathedra statements.” In fact there isn’t even a “general agreement” among Catholics about how many ex cathedra statement there have been. (For some reason, in “popular Catholicism”, it is very commonly said that there have been only 2 ex cathedra statements – the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and the Assumption in 1950.)

 

[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.

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.

I am satisified that it is not a contradiction, but I am not satisfied enough with my understanding to attempt an answer. I know the U.S. is a democracy, but I could not give you all the ins and outs of the constitution. In other words, I should study it more myself. That is why I pointed you to the various threads on this issue yesterday, plus I didn’t have a lot of time.

Just some food for thought.

John 6:53
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

Do we interpret this to mean that Hindus, Muslims, or Budhists can never be saved since they do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ?

 

[Peter_J]

I am satisified that it is not a contradiction, but I am not satisfied enough with my understanding to attempt an answer. I know the U.S. is a democracy, but I could not give you all the ins and outs of the constitution. In other words, I should study it more myself. That is why I pointed you to the various threads on this issue yesterday, plus I didn’t have a lot of time.

Just some food for thought.

John 6:53
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

Do we interpret this to mean that Hindus, Muslims, or Budhists can never be saved since they do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ?

Good point.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I am satisified that it is not a contradiction, but I am not satisfied enough with my understanding to attempt an answer. I know the U.S. is a democracy, but I could not give you all the ins and outs of the constitution. In other words, I should study it more myself. That is why I pointed you to the various threads on this issue yesterday, plus I didn’t have a lot of time.

I don’t know how you resolve the contradiction, but that’s okay. I understand about the time thing. I have 5 kids. Not a lot of time here, either

Just some food for thought.

John 6:53
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

Do we interpret this to mean that Hindus, Muslims, or Budhists can never be saved since they do not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ?

Well, I believe in the Real Presence of the Sacrament but I don’t interpret this passage sacramentally. I do interpret it to mean that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ here to refer to faith in Him. So, yes; Hindu’s, Jews, Muslims, et al. do not have faith in Christ, so no they will not be saved from the wrath of God and have no life in them.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Let me start with the short answer: there’s only one place in Unam Sanctum that even uses the word “define”, namely the sentence “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. (In Munificentissimus Deus (1950), which defined the Assumption, the word “define” is used several times; but there’s really no confusion because all but one of the uses are things like “They have resulted in many more petitions, begging and urging the Apostolic See that this truth be solemnly defined.”)

The problem here, I suppose, from my perspective is that it may be clearly stated in the document where the ex cathedra begins and ends, however, since it now seems to be open to interpretation on exactly what the statement means, what good is the infallible pronouncement? Vatican II seems to apply his words in a totally different way than any earlier Councils that addressed salvation have. I am not sure how that clarifies the faith or gives greater assurance to its adherents.

While certainly less subjective than many Protestant sects, the Catholic Church does not seem to avoid subjectivity entirely simply by claiming to have an infallible teaching office.

1. It’s a common misconception that the Orthodox response to “Ex cathedra statements are infallible” is “No. Ex cathedra statements are fallible.” But actually, I believe it would be more accurate to say that the Orthodox don’t believe the Pope can define dogma; hence, from their point of view, the question “Are ex cathedra statements infallible?” doesn’t make any sense (it’s like asking “Can green unicorns talk?”). I trust Orthodox posters will correct me if I’m wrong on this.

While I tend to agree much more with the Orthodox concept of church polity and the bishopric… their doctrine of the infallibility of Councils runs in to the same problems as the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

1. The Catholic Church has never said “Catholics must believe that there have been such-and-such many ex cathedra statements.” In fact there isn’t even a “general agreement” among Catholics about how many ex cathedra statement there have been. (For some reason, in “popular Catholicism”, it is very commonly said that there have been only 2 ex cathedra statements – the Immaculate Conception in 1854, and the Assumption in 1950.)

See above. What is the point of having ex cathedra statements if we cannot even definitively see which ones exist?

 

[SCALCO]

Well, I believe in the Real Presence of the Sacrament but I don’t interpret this passage sacramentally. I do interpret it to mean that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ here to refer to faith in Him. So, yes; Hindu’s, Jews, Muslims, et al. do not have faith in Christ, so no they will not be saved from the wrath of God and have no life in them.

Even if they have never heard of Christ?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Even if they have never heard of Christ?

Yes; Scripture makes it clear that unbelievers are under condemnation already, before they ever hear of Christ. The rejection of Christ is not what condemns unbelievers. Sin does. The proclamation of Christ crucified for their sins is what rescues them from the condemnation they are already under.

 

[KingAlfred]

TriuneUnity,

I see a large problem with what you’re saying: the Lutheran documents you’re talking about don’t just the Pope “is anti-Christ” or “is an anti-Christ”. Rather, they the call him “the anti-Christ”, and even “the very anti-Christ”.

Scary stuff. This is what fundamentalism, of nearly every stripe, produces. If we really *have to nominate *someone for ‘Anti-Christ’, I nominate Osama Bin Laden.

 

[SCALCO]

Yes; Scripture makes it clear that unbelievers are under condemnation already, before they ever hear of Christ. The rejection of Christ is not what condemns unbelievers. Sin does. The proclamation of Christ crucified for their sins is what rescues them from the condemnation they are already under.

Well, I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re saying, so I’m not sure I agree. I’ll come back to this a little later.

 

[SCALCO]

Yes; Scripture makes it clear that unbelievers are under condemnation already, before they ever hear of Christ. The rejection of Christ is not what condemns unbelievers. Sin does. The proclamation of Christ crucified for their sins is what rescues them from the condemnation they are already under.

Well, I’m not sure I understand exactly what you’re saying, so I’m not sure I agree. I’ll come back to this a little later.

Ok, I’ll ask a slightly different question and maybe it will help me understand. I certainly agree that sin condemns unless we repent…

If Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists live a virtuous life without recognizing the truth of the Gospel, will God turn them away? Not that they rejected it, but were ignorant of it and still lived a life of virtue the best way they knew how.

 

[SCALCO]

Good point.

Thanks

 

[rinnie]

Ok, I’ll ask a slightly different question and maybe it will help me understand. I certainly agree that sin condemns unless we repent…

If Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists live a virtuous life without recognizing the truth of the Gospel, will God turn them away?

I guess no one can answer for God, But what I was taught is if you are taught the Catholic Faith, and then turn away from it you turned away from God. So if they dont understand the faith,and are not taught it they are ok. But if they know and understand the faith and still turn away their soul is in grave danger.

 

[SCALCO]

I guess no one can answer for God, But what I was taught is if you are taught the Catholic Faith, and then turn away from it you turned away from God. So if they dont understand the faith,and are not taught it they are ok. But if they know and understand the faith and still turn away their soul is in grave danger.

I agree, this was the way I understood it.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ok, I’ll ask a slightly different question and maybe it will help me understand. I certainly agree that sin condemns unless we repent…

If Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists live a virtuous life without recognizing the truth of the Gospel, will God turn them away? Not that they rejected it, but were ignorant of it and still lived a life of virtue the best way they knew how.

I think the difficulty here is one’s presuppositions. Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists cannot live a virtuous life. No one is ignorant of the truth of God. This is the way St. Paul puts it in the first chapter of Romans:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

What is Paul saying here? That unbelievers, by looking at the world around them can plainly see that there is a God, specifically the God of Scripture. In their conscience they know this to be true. But what do they do with that general knowledge? They suppress it, reject it, and turn away from it. Instead of worshipping the one, true, living God, they turn to idols, gods of their own imaginations and inventions.

Since they are sinners who are dead in their trespasses, they are in the flesh. Those in the flesh cannot please God. Their seemingly virtuous actions, by God’s holy standard, are not virtuous at all, but rather, corrupt and offensive to the Lord. Since they do not have faith in Christ, nor honor Him as God, they will die in those sins and face eternal judgment. If they could make it to heaven by following their own invented moral codes, then Christ died in vain. And we are patently foolish for preaching the Gospel to them, since they apparently don’t need it.

 

[Erich]

From The Antichrist:

…

The Antichrist is mentioned by name in only four verses of Scripture: 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3, and 2 John 7. There are other verses that many people link to the Antichrist, but since he isn’t named in them, the connection is not certain. The four Johanine verses must serve as the core of our knowledge before trying to link other verses to them.

In 1 John 2:18–19, we read, “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.”

This passage appears to speak of a major individual Antichrist, as well as many minor individual Antichrists, who apparently are apostate Christians for “they went out from us.” The appearance of the individual Antichrist is yet future (“Antichrist is coming”), but the presence of the many Antichrists is a signal that “it is the last hour.”

In 1 John 2:22–23, we read, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.”

This is consistent with the apostate nature of the many Antichrists, for they have “deny[ied] that Jesus is the Christ” and, in denying the Son, they have implicitly denied the Father. Presumably the same would be true of the individual Antichrist.

1 John 4:1–6 gives practical tests for discerning which spirits bearing revelation are from God and which are not. In John 4:3, we read that “every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of Antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.”

This shows that the Antichrist movement is inspired by spirits bearing false revelation and that refuse to confess Jesus. This movement had begun in John’s day but would grow afterward.

Finally, in 2 John 7, we read, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

…

Nothing there about the pope (any pope!) or the papacy.