Catholicism And Doctrinal Changes

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Okay, I have a question about doctrine/dogma and whether it can change or be modified.

It is my understanding that your church teaches that dogma can’t actually change but can be modified. I don’t fully understand this.

The case I am thinking of is the “outside the church there is no salvation” teaching which I believe is considered to be dogmatic by your church.

I’m no expert on your faith so bare with me here but I understand the Church of a century or two ago had a very narrow understanding of this and believed that me or anyone else formally outside of your Church would be doomed.

Correct - before 1863, theologians had to come to terms with the discovery of the New World, & what it implied for the teaching of the council lof Florence in the 1440s; before the NW was discovered, it was still possible to fit the Church’s ideas about salvation outside its visible boundaries into the sort of thinking (which amounted to something a bit like the Reformed doctrine of “uncovenanted grace”) which allowed for the salvation of the unbeliever by extra-ordinary means - the CC being the ordinary means of salvation; “ordinary” not meaning “usual” in the everyday sense, but "[means] ordained to the end [of furthering salvation]"​

---

**This thinking was a bit difficult to maintain after its assumptions (e.g. that the whole world had been evangelised) became dubious: one can plausibly expect a monk on Iona in the seventh century to have heard of the Pope & the Church & its claims; to expect a Maori tribesman in a land no Christian even imagined to exist in 1600 (never mind 1440) to be acquainted with the duty of submission to the Pope, is less plausible. As for the notion that one can be damned for failing to submit to an authority one has no reason even to imagine exists - that objection did not fail to arise. **

**One solution is to go with Calvin, & conclude that all who have never heard the Gospel are ipso facto reprobate. Well, possibly. **

Now, it is also my understanding that a pope (don’t know who or when) came along and said something to the effect that those who are “invincibly ignorant” could be saved.

I think you are thinking of an address of Pius IX, made in 1863 ​

I also believe your

**Not “our” - this is bad theology from all POVs: if a Church is a church at all, it is Christ’s. If it is not - it is still subject to Christ. No such thing as an “our C/church” could exist. If I were God for a day, I would get rid of all this man-centred piffle of “our/my Church” - it is total hogwash for any mere creature to say that; because it can imply “This is the Church I can knock the stuffing out of, because it’s my Preciouss - & no one else’s”. **##​

latest church documents

They are not at all the latest now - that was all of 40 years ago​

refer to non-Catholic Christians as “serperated bretheren”.

**That was in the documents of Vatican II - they are barely even thought of as “separated” now, as far as Rome is concerned; the whole thing is a bit complicated, because every doctrine affects every other one. If you compare even the idea of a “common martyrology”, or the directions given in some Vatican documents, with the teaching of V2, I think you’ll notice a tendency to be more & more appreciative of non-Catholic Christianity: though some things are still not negotiable: “Dominus Iesus” in 1998 was a shock to many (not all) Protestants precisely because it seemed, rightly or wrongly, to be at odds with “Ut Unum Sint” (& similar indicators of Roman philo-acatholicism) a few years before. **##​

…cont’d…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…cont’d]

So, we have on the one hand the Catholic Church teaching a very narrow interpretation of the doctrine in the past and now adopting a more mild interpretation of this now.

One could argue that the Church changed its teaching. One could also argue that the Church just applies a teaching from the past differently due to the fact that the world of Christianity is much more complicated since the Reformation.

I would appreciate your comments as to whether or not you see this as a change or not a change and why.

Just so we are clear, I am not attacking or bashing but only asking.

**ISTM that 1713 is as important as 1863. In 1713 the proposition was condemned that grace could be found only in the Church. If it can be found outwith the Church - which is the teaching implied - then there is no absolute necessity of the Church for grace to be given; that being so, it may be possible for saving grace to be found outwith it. If that is so - sooner or later, these possibilities may come together in such a way that what the Church teaches explicitly at that time, will look & be different from what it used to teach explicitly. **​

**I think something like that has happened. Past ideas implied by Catholic teaching have worked out some of their consequences, & those consequences have come together as a constellation of doctrinal & theological positions - & the final result (so far) is either difficult or impossible to match to past articulations of the Church’s faith. **

**I think that Catholic ecclesiology now, has broken its old mould - much as happened in Biblical studies in the 1850s or so; Christians are still traumatised by that. So Catholics can be expected to agonise over untraditional formulations in ecclesiology for a while yet **

ISTM that a position can be faithful to the authentic tradition of the Church, while seeming erroneous - & this is what has happened to some Catholic doctrines, IMO. But that is another story.

**An example from outwith ecclesiology: there is a genuine continuity between the religion of Abraham, & the religion of the Davidic covenant. They are not alien - but they are very different. The earlier does not imply the whole theology of the latter; though if the religious development of Israel is broken up into stages, the continuities (& discontinuities) between each stage in the process that leads from Abraham to David, will be clearer. It is often only with hindsight that we can see how a particular conclusion has been reached - Second Temple Judaism does not imply Jesus Christ: no wonder Jews don’t believe in the claims made for Him - but once he is believed in, it can be seen to have been implying Him, however incompletely. **

**I think something like that has happened in Catholic doctrine & Catholic theology. To be perfectly clear - by “Cath. theology”, I mean the forms of it not even the strictest Catholics could call heterodox. But what about the Church’s duty to teach her doctrine “in the same sense” throughout her life ? Doing that, doesn’t guarantee that the results of so doing will not have consequences the Church cannot foresee; ideas not around in 1440 cannot be prevented from being taught by Popes in 1863, not because the Popes are unorthodox, but because ideas have consequences - they are living things which act & are acted upon. So unforeseen things can happen. At any one time the Church can check only the ideas it knows of or can foresee; it can’t judge of what it cannot know. Whether the Church approves of the logic of her own ideas is another story. But she can’t escape it. **

**Unfamiliar ideas, though their unfamilarity is compatible with their being taught by unfaithful men, may also be taught by men who are far from faithless - look at St. Paul. A Catholic in 1216, knowing of the Papal ban on the works of Aristotle, could hardly have foreseen that two theologians who used them would be canonised & named Doctors of the Church. Yet that is Thomas Aquinas & Albert of Cologne did & are. **

**So all we can do, ISTM, is follow the light we have at any moment. I don’t see a real problem - though I did. **

**One other thing - there is more than one way of seeing the Church. St. Cyprian saw it as an Ark - & held to “EENS”. Things get tricky, when one keeps the doctrine, but not the idea of the Church as the Ark. **

Hope that helps ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Regarding the way of salvation, Jesus said, “I am the way”

The RCC says, “We are the way.”

No man can serve two masters.

**Let us suppose someone is typing a post **​

Is it typed by:

• **that someone **
• his arm
• his hand
• his fingers
• his nervous system
• **his brain **
  - or all of these ? So with the Church. The Church the community of individual Christians - & the Bride of Christ. Not one or the other; but both equally. Not one, so that the other can safely be ignored. The Church - if we are going to be Biblical (as is surely right) is many things:
• Vine (Isa. 5 & parallels)
• Son (Deut. 8)
• Bride (Rev.)
• Holy People (Bible passim)
• living stones (St. Paul)
• Temple (do.)
• Body of Christ (1 Corinthians)
  **- to name a few. **

**Rationally, this can seem monstrous & confused - that is because the Church cannot be reduced to any one image, nor to the sum of them all: each is a God-given way of telling us about the Church, & the Church exceeds the sum of the images used to tell us about it. **

**What the Church does is not replace Christ but do His work, in no strength but His. She is a means by which He continues to be alive & active - just as He was. Only the manner differs - not the reality. **

**The sacraments are His working - not primarily the Church’s. They are far more His work than hers - He has graciously condescended to take up the limited & secondary thing that is the Church into His own Almighty & Infinite creativity. So the limited Church, made up of limited & sinful creatures (= human beings), does things which have the effects that God has - because it is God Who acts through & for & in the Church, when the Church celebrates the sacraments. **

**The same applies to Christian doctrine - it is taught by Christ, “in medio ecclesiae” - in the midst of the assembly, His assembly the Church. “The voice is the voice of Jacob” - the doctrine is the doctrine of Christ. The Apostles were not acting against, nor replacing, Christ - they were obeying their Master: not denying His efficacy, Headship, or right to total obedience. If their activity did not imply the NT Church (& not He) was the Way - why should the activity “in Christ” of the Church today imply that ? **

If the activity of the Church were to point away from Christ, or were disconnected from Christ - to follow it would be (at best) like following a parallel line which looked as though it would converge & join with Christ, but never could. But, since the only source of the Church’s activity & energy is Christ she acts from Him, in Him, to Him, for Him; never outside or against Him. Her activity, is a realisation of His own: a grace-caused realisation, because there is nothing in the Church to cause Him to choose to act through her - or (to back to her origins) to call her into existence in the first place.

So it makes no sense to oppose Christ to one of the ways in which He works - that is like saying a typist is opposed by the activity of her fingers, on the ground that the typist is not limited to her fingers. Certainly she isn’t - if she wishes to act through typing, then her fingers are doing what she requires to do - they are not opposing her; they are acting as it is her will they should. So to blame them for typing the message she intends they should, is not really fair. So it with the Church. ##

 

[Anima_Christi]

Regarding the way of salvation, Jesus said, “I am the way”

The RCC says, “We are the way.”

No man can serve two masters.

Our Lord also said, “He who hears you hears Me, and he who hears Me hears Him Who sent Me; he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me.” That should put an end to your foolish attempt to somehow separate Jesus Christ from His Mystical Body, that Apostolic Roman Catholic Church, outside of which is no salvation!

 

[buffalo]

I wasn’t trying to debate the salvation outside the church issue but trying to get a better understanding of what appears to be doctrinal changes in your church.

It is important to understand that back then there was the Catholic Church or no Church.

Only after the splits did the idea of “no salvation outside the Church” get more complicated.

 

[Nick_Jones]

It is important to understand that back then there was the Catholic Church or no Church.

Only after the splits did the idea of “no salvation outside the Church” get more complicated.

This makes it sound as though Rome’s teachings of “no salvation outside the Church” were not intended to be what they were–Rome claiming exclusive authority over all of humanity; not just all of Christianity. Remember what Jesus said:

“I am the way”

Here is what Rome says:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441

 

[Ryan_Smith]

One flock, one shepherd. (John 10:14-16)

Feed my sheep. (John 21:16)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Reformed1,

I wasn’t trying to debate the salvation outside the church issue but trying to get a better understanding of what appears to be doctrinal changes in your church.

Then, I think you ought to consider the implications of what I and others have said regarding the OT figures.

eg. Abraham was not within the Catholic church as a manifested church while he walked the earth.

Yet, his salvation was completed through the church – for he was not released from death until Jesus came to release him.

At all times, the church has recognized that Abraham was saved through faith – and his heavenly reward came through the church. His earthly salvation was completed by a later salvation from eternal evil. It is nonsense to claim that the Catholic Church’s understanding of “no salvation outside the church” was ever strictly limited to a visible institution.

Only he who descended from heaven can ascend to heaven.
This is why it is necessary that all remain members of his body for only those permanently united to him are with him in eternity.

Not even a martyr, should he have rejected an opportunity for water baptism – would be saved. Even Abraham, if he were offered an opportunity for baptism and inclusion in the Catholic Church, and he permanently rejected it – not even he would have been saved.

To argue that the doctrine has changed, you need to provide evidence that the speaker or writer of the document in question intended to exclude even the saints of the old testament.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Then, I think you ought to consider the implications of what I and others have said regarding the OT figures.

eg. Abraham was not within the Catholic church as a manifested church while he walked the earth.

Yet, his salvation was completed through the church – for he was not released from death until Jesus came to release him.

According to the written word of God, Abraham was saved by grace, through faith alone, not by any religious institution. Religion is largely the speculations of men. Salvation is only from almighty God.

At all times, the church has recognized that Abraham was saved through faith – and his heavenly reward came through the church.

Which heavenly reward came through the church? Where do we find this in the bible?

His earthly salvation was completed by a later salvation from eternal evil. It is nonsense to claim that the Catholic Church’s understanding of “no salvation outside the church” was ever strictly limited to a visible institution.

What is the difference between “earthly salvation” and “a later salvation from eternal evil”?

Only he who descended from heaven can ascend to heaven.
This is why it is necessary that all remain members of his body for only those permanently united to him are with him in eternity.

How do we become members of his body if not by our God-given faith?

Not even a martyr, should he have rejected an opportunity for water baptism – would be saved.

Does the bible agree with you here? ISTM that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Even Abraham, if he were offered an opportunity for baptism and inclusion in the Catholic Church, and he permanently rejected it – not even he would have been saved.

I respectfully disagree. If Abraham believed that his salvation was by his works of the law (by his devotion to a particular religious sect), then he would be condemned. The righteous will live by faith. No one is saved by being loyal to some particular religious system.

 

[Nick_Jones]

To argue that the doctrine has changed, you need to provide evidence that the speaker or writer of the document in question intended to exclude even the saints of the old testament.

If salvation is by grace, through faith, then it follows that it is not by works of the law… including water baptism and the submission to some religious sect, be it visible or invisible. “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3)

The CC has plainly stated that we must believe Rome and submit to Rome in order to be saved. As for me, I will trust in Jesus only.

 

[Veritas41]

If salvation is by grace, through faith, then it follows that it is not by works of the law… including water baptism and the submission to some religious sect, be it visible or invisible. “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3)

The CC has plainly stated that we must believe Rome and submit to Rome in order to be saved. As for me, I will trust in Jesus only.

Salvation is by grace through faith, and that’s what the Catholic Church teaches. The “works of law” are the Old Testament ceremonial rites (like circumcision, dietary regulations, animal sacrifices, etc.) that had no power to save. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Covenant and has nothing to do with the Old Covenant law. It is the means through which God gives the grace of regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We see this sacramental principle at work throughout Jesus’ ministry, where He heals through physical matter (saliva, touch, His garment) – Mark 7:33, 6:56, 6:13, 8:23 when He could have simply spoken a word and brought about the same effect (which He did do sometimes). We see this in the ministry of the Apostles as well – Acts 5:15 and 19:12. Why would God give something spiritual (grace) through physical means? Because of the Incarnation – God became man and joined a physical, human nature to His spiritual nature, and we are spiritual and physical beings, so God mercifully gives us His grace in ways we can recognize and experience through our physical senses. We are not disembodied spirits or angels.

Jesus’ Church is His Body --it is a visible, physical entity just like a regular human body. And just as grace flowed through Jesus’ physical body during His earthly ministry, so does grace flow through His mystical Body (from Christ, who is Head), the Church, for the salvation and healing of souls and bodies. You are holding an either/or position – Christ or the Church, rather than both/and – Christ AND the Church – both are joined together – you cannot separate them into a “me and Jesus” thing.

In Matthew 9:35, Jesus went through villages “healing every disease and sickness.” Then in Matthew 10:1, Jesus calls His disciples and “gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness” – He sent them to do the very same things He was doing in His earthly ministry. Later on in verse 40, Jesus says, “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.” This is also in Luke 10:16, “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” In Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 Jesus gives the apostles governing and teaching authority, and in John 20:23 He gives them the authority to forgive and retain sins and Matthew 28:19 He gives them the authority to baptize and preach, “teaching them to obey *everything I have commanded you.” *Jesus is leaving earth, and He must leave behind others to continue His ministry on earth, vested with His authority and power.

To Timothy Paul wrote, "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. " (1 Tim. 4:16) and Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.” Does it sound like Jesus and Paul are talking about a “me and Jesus only” faith?

“If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth because Jesus promised to lead the Church into “all truth” (John 16:13) with the gift of infallibility (Matthew 16:19). If you believe in submitting to the Bible because it is true, why would it be wrong to submit to the Church, which the Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of truth?” In submitting to the Bible, you are actually submitting to Christ, who’s Word it is, and in submitting to the Church, we are submitting to Christ who’s Body she is.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Nick,

Faith is a work.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Abraham was, therefore, saved by a particular kind of work.
It was not a work that he could demand payment for, but it was a work. And of course it was not a work of the “law” – Moses had not come yet. That, in fact, was part of my point.
The church’s statements can’t be twisted to mean what the church has never taught.

Notice, however, in the Law the very first commandment is : You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength. That is what scripture means when it says Abraham believed: Faith working through love, saves.

The book of James also comments on saving faith – which is a work.

In the story of Lazarus and the rich man, you will find the dead Abraham holding poor Lazarus. That is not heaven – it is the abode of the dead waiting for Jesus.

(more later).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

continued…

If salvation is by grace, through faith, then it follows that it is not by works of the law…

If salvation is by a gift (grace), then it follows it isn’t earned.
Because the law given by Moses was a contract with earthly payments in the promised land – then the payment for the law was earthly rewards and blessings stipulated in the contract.

What is the difference between “earthly salvation” and “a later salvation from eternal evil”?

The book of Hebrews talks about those entering the ‘promised land’ as an analogy between the Israelites entering physically and historically with Joshua (AKA Jesus!), and us entering Heaven with Jesus.

In the analogy, notice that the Israelites were saved from Egypt (an earthly salvation from an physical enemy).
Abraham, too, was delivered from his physical enemies.

On the other hand, the devil is a spiritual being. When one dies, they can be handed over to the devil – the serpant who eats the dust (remember man you are dust, and to dust you shall return). This is one of the pains of hell, an eternal evil.
One can be saved from an earthly enemy without being saved from the eternal enemy.

Salvation is not a one time event, it is a process. Many of those saved from Pharaoh died in the desert. Many of those saved from the desert died even at the battles for the promised land.

I agree with much of what you say, but I would make one important distinction. One does not earn salvation by being loyal to a religious sect, but one may loose salvation by refusing to be loyal. Salvation comes in stages, one must persevere.

The previous poster, Veritas, elucidated the rest of the issue fairly well.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Salvation is by grace through faith, and that’s what the Catholic Church teaches. The “works of law” are the Old Testament ceremonial rites (like circumcision, dietary regulations, animal sacrifices, etc.) that had no power to save. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Covenant and has nothing to do with the Old Covenant law. It is the means through which God gives the grace of regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

To me it seems that Paul, (in Rom. chapter four) was not splitting hairs over types of law or types of covenant, but instead, Paul seems to be teaching that works of the law (regardless what type of law) can do nothing to save us. If water baptism is necessary for salvation, then water baptism is law, and in that case, we are saved by works of the law… in direct contradiction to the plain teachings found in the bible. (see also Rom. 3:27-28)

 

[Nick_Jones]

Nick,

Faith is a work.

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Abraham was, therefore, saved by a particular kind of work.
It was not a work that he could demand payment for, but it was a work.

I don’t object to calling “faith” a work as long as all the credit for the “work” of trusting in God alone for salvation is given only to God, since it is only by the grace of God that the elect trust in God–and only God, for their salvation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are indeed instances in which doctrine develops over time, but the CC has actually changed some of its teachings in such a way as to contradict what it had taught earlier. The CC position on “no salvation outside of the [RC] Church” is just one example of this. To justify itself, Rome tries to say that Protestants are Catholics too! Protestants are “separated bretheran” but not really outside of the Roman Church!

This is not exactly true. We know that you have faith in Christ and deserve to be called by the name “Christian”. Therefore, in some small way, you have some communion with the Catholic Church…but it is an incomplete and imperfect communion. As a result of the communion that does exist and in light of the those portions of the true faith revealed by God through His Church to which you still adhere, it is possible you may be saved.

 

[Nick_Jones]

It is the means through which God gives the grace of regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We see this sacramental principle at work throughout Jesus’ ministry, where He heals through physical matter (saliva, touch, His garment) – Mark 7:33, 6:56, 6:13, 8:23 when He could have simply spoken a word and brought about the same effect (which He did do sometimes). We see this in the ministry of the Apostles as well – Acts 5:15 and 19:12. Why would God give something spiritual (grace) through physical means? Because of the Incarnation – God became man and joined a physical, human nature to His spiritual nature, and we are spiritual and physical beings, so God mercifully gives us His grace in ways we can recognize and experience through our physical senses. We are not disembodied spirits or angels.

Jesus’ Church is His Body --it is a visible, physical entity just like a regular human body. And just as grace flowed through Jesus’ physical body during His earthly ministry, so does grace flow through His mystical Body (from Christ, who is Head), the Church, for the salvation and healing of souls and bodies. You are holding an either/or position – Christ or the Church, rather than both/and – Christ AND the Church – both are joined together – you cannot separate them into a “me and Jesus” thing.

In Matthew 9:35, Jesus went through villages “healing every disease and sickness.” Then in Matthew 10:1, Jesus calls His disciples and “gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness” – He sent them to do the very same things He was doing in His earthly ministry. Later on in verse 40, Jesus says, “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.” This is also in Luke 10:16, “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” In Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 Jesus gives the apostles governing and teaching authority, and in John 20:23 He gives them the authority to forgive and retain sins and Matthew 28:19 He gives them the authority to baptize and preach, “teaching them to obey *everything I have commanded you.” *Jesus is leaving earth, and He must leave behind others to continue His ministry on earth, vested with His authority and power.

To Timothy Paul wrote, "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. " (1 Tim. 4:16) and Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.” Does it sound like Jesus and Paul are talking about a “me and Jesus only” faith?

“If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth because Jesus promised to lead the Church into “all truth” (John 16:13) with the gift of infallibility (Matthew 16:19). If you believe in submitting to the Bible because it is true, why would it be wrong to submit to the Church, which the Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of truth?” In submitting to the Bible, you are actually submitting to Christ, who’s Word it is, and in submitting to the Church, we are submitting to Christ who’s Body she is.

I agree with you in general here, but your definition of “the church” and the biblical definition of it might be a very different matter! ISTM that Rome has inserted itself between God and humanity and thereby made itself our mediator–the means of our salvation. The problem with that view, is that it unavoidably requires faith in your particular religious sect, and so, directly contradicts the plain teaching of the bible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do not think that Rome has inserted itself between God and humanity…I think that Jesus left Peter and the boys in charge of what He said He would call His Church. You’re familiar with the keys, of course, and the connection to Isaiah 22, I’m sure, so I won’t belabor that point. I’ll only ask you to consider WHY Jesus would make such a declaration if He didn’t actually mean it!

Additionally, you are aware that Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd.” Yet, at the end of John’s gospel, you have read the passages, “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, “Feed my sheep”. It seems to me that Jesus not only handed Peter a set of keys but His shepherd’s crook, as well.

Now, just Who has inserted who?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

I do not think that Rome has inserted itself between God and humanity…I think that Jesus left Peter and the boys in charge of what He said He would call His Church. You’re familiar with the keys, of course, and the connection to Isaiah 22, I’m sure, so I won’t belabor that point.

It might be a good idea to emphasise Isaiah 9.6 too - as applied to Christ, the words “the government shall be upon His shoulder” point to the keys which He holds.​

I’ll only ask you to consider WHY Jesus would make such a declaration if He didn’t actually mean it!

**

Additionally, you are aware that Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd.” Yet, at the end of John’s gospel, you have read the passages, “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, “Feed my sheep”. It seems to me that Jesus not only handed Peter a set of keys but His shepherd’s crook, as well.

Now, just Who has inserted who?

**## That may not quite meet the OP’s objections (or those of some Protestants, at least) as expressed in post 57 though - because even so, Jesus is not Peter. To have His authority, is not the same as to be Him. To have a legitimate calling in the Church from Christ, is not the same as to encounter Christ. Which is where the notion of mediation can cause trouble - it seems to be one of the principal issues ****between Catholics & Evangelical Protestants; partly because there is more than one way in which it can be visualised. Which is perhaps why, where we might see mediation of the activity of Christ, an Evangelical might see a usurpation of the activity of Christ. **

To put the nature of the difference between Peter & Christ beyond all doubt:

• **It was Peter who denied Jesus, not Jesus Himself. **
• **Conversely, it was not Peter who was crucified for our redemption, but Jesus. **
• **And the Church is the Body of Christ - not of Peter. **
• **We are washed in the Blood of Christ - not the blood of Peter **
• And the Father of the Saviour is not the father of Peter - but the Father of Jesus
  **I don’t think Catholics always understand what Christ is to Evangelicals. He is far more than a guarantor of the legitimacy of religious authority - He can’t be replaced by the Church, Peter, the Papacy, or succeeded or superseded by them. They are around for a while - He is the one constant in the Church, the anchor & Vine Who holds the entire thing together, without Whom it would be blown away in the wind. **

**Far from handing Peter His authority over His flock, He retains it in its totality, just as He retains the the keys. What He does do, is give to Peter a share in the authority which He retains - so Peter receives what He did not have, & He delegates to Peter a share in the exercise of that which is His in time & eternity. He alienates nothing that was His - & Peter receives a responsibility which is for ever already Another’s. **

**It isn’t enough to show that Jesus gives Peter (for example) something - it has also to be made clear that Jesus is not being replaced by Peter: that Jesus remains as He was, while Peter benefits from what He gives. Otherwise it can seem that Jesus is being shuffled aside, overshadowed, reduced. Any Protestant who knows that Jesus Christ reigns in His Father’s **Glory & lives always to intercede for His People, is not going to take kindly to the thought of a reduced Christ - & rightly so. ##

 

[Veritas41]

I agree with you in general here, but your definition of “the church” and the biblical definition of it might be a very different matter! ISTM that Rome has inserted itself between God and humanity and thereby made itself our mediator–the means of our salvation. The problem with that view, is that it unavoidably requires faith in your particular religious sect, and so, directly contradicts the plain teaching of the bible.

What do you believe is the “biblical” definition of the Church?

I think the basic question is – is the Catholic Church really the Church Jesus founded? If it is, it certainly hasn’t “inserted” itself between God and humanity. If it isn’t, it’s a most deluded church that no one should want to be a part of. Ten years ago I was an evangelical Protestant who believed the church was composed of all “true believers” across denominational lines. But I eventually came to see that the church I saw in the New Testament didn’t look much like any of the Protestant churches I had belonged to or visited. There was no real teaching authority in any of them, and no unity of belief from one church to another. I reluctantly began to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthdoxy) to see if they could be verified historically and biblically. I read Catholic, Orthodox, secular and even very anti-Catholic Protestant sources to compare and weigh all the evidence out there. That’s what I invite you to do. Investigate. Study. Pray. And be open to the guiding of the Holy Spirit wherever He leads (Proverbs 3:5-6)