Did Luther claim for himself that infallibility, which he would not allow to the Church of Christ?

[Wannano]

Yes, He did. And that is nothing to disagree about. He also set up “leaders” “rulers” on whom their predecessors laid their hands on.
2 Timothy 1
Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands
Why did He say “follow Me” and then give us leaders? And why does Paul reference Laying On Hands to Timothy?
I will take your point, and agree that a “transformed life” or a “new life” or “conversion” is crucial and the outcome of believing on Him.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Jesus was quite clear, “I am the Vine, you are the branches”…

And he also was clear that on this Rock he will build his Church(singular) .

 

[alwayswill]

Also, Wannano, if you’re referring to Unam Sanctum (1302) the short answer is: we don’t know whether it was an ex cathedra statement, and we also don’t know what the correct interpretation of it is.

you stated you don’t know if it is an ex cathedra statement:
do you know if it is infallible?

is the line
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
from Unam Sanctam considered to be an infallible statement?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

It doesn’t sound quite right to say He doesn’t care about those things however it seems Jesus’ emphasis was relational. He said “follow me” not “follow this new religion I am starting.” To believe that a series of statements about a person are true is quite different from believing in the person. To believe in Christ leads to a transformed life. To place our faith in orthodoxy and doctrine leads to an emphasis on correct belief and on believing the right things.

Wan,

Before the world was educated and everybody knew how to read and had their own bibles, how did Christians get to know Christ for well over a thousand years?

Thanks

 

[rcwitness]

To believe that a series of statements about a person are true is quite different from believing in the person. To believe in Christ leads to a transformed life. To place our faith in orthodoxy and doctrine leads to an emphasis on correct belief and on believing the right things.

Also… this aspect kinda is a difference in “personal faith” and Church Teaching. They shouldn’t be opposed to one another, but they have distinction. The Church can’t make someone “transform” or Convert their life.

 

[goout]

It doesn’t sound quite right to say He doesn’t care about those things however it seems Jesus’ emphasis was relational. He said “follow me” not “follow this new religion I am starting.” To believe that a series of statements about a person are true is quite different from believing in the person. To believe in Christ leads to a transformed life. To place our faith in orthodoxy and doctrine leads to an emphasis on correct belief and on believing the right things.

It’s not “quite different”, it’s part of following the same person.
Faith and reason are very compatible in the unity of faith, if we allow it.
Normally, when I hear this kind of thing it is in justification of an individualist point of view at odds with some truth. The person doesn’t really believe that doctrines are unimportant, they simply have their own version of the truth, and are trying to relativize the various versions, so that their own doctrine becomes equally valid. (I’m not saying that is you personally)

It seems you are claiming that Christ did not present concrete and objective truths leading to his very person.
That can’t hold water in light of the Gospels. There are many statements of truth from Christ himself.

 

[Wannano]

Also… this aspect kinda is a difference in “personal faith” and Church Teaching. They shouldn’t be opposed to one another, but they have distinction. The Church can’t make someone “transform” or Convert their life.

My answer to you here may not be appreciated by many and could take me further than I had planned to go but I agree so much with your statement above that I will skate out onto thin ice.

I believe the message of John the Baptist was “repent and be baptised” was also the message Jesus gave. First a personal faith then baptism. Somehow baptism evolved into “what makes you a Christian” and hence the very truth of your last sentence has affected Christianity for centuries.

Peace.

 

[goout]

My answer to you here may not be appreciated by many and could take me further than I had planned to go but I agree so much with your statement above that I will skate out onto thin ice.

I believe the message of John the Baptist was “repent and be baptised” was also the message Jesus gave. First a personal faith then baptism. Somehow baptism evolved into “what makes you a Christian” and hence the very truth of your last sentence has affected Christianity for centuries.

Peace.

It’s worthwhile to ponder:
Christ needs absolutely nothing, and is in perfect relationship with God the Father in the love of the Holy Spirit.
And he presents himself to John the Baptist for baptism.

Christ is in perfect relationship, and shows us the way with concrete actions.
Relationship is a real thing, looks like something, it walks, talks, breathes, acts.
Relationship is Incarnate.

 

[Wannano]

Wan,

Before the world was educated and everybody knew how to read and had their own bibles, how did Christians get to know Christ for well over a thousand years?

Thanks

From what I can gather it seems like the early Christians lived changed lives that were evidence of an inside change. While they did not have their own buildings they worshipped in homes and faith, fellowship and brotherhood was the format. The Apostles sent letters to the churches so obviously there was some written understanding. It seems like there is a God shaped vacuum inside the heart of a human being and even in recent centuries missionaries that live an example among the illiterate have a way of truly communicating successfully by love and example.

 

[rcwitness]

My answer to you here may not be appreciated by many and could take me further than I had planned to go but I agree so much with your statement above that I will skate out onto thin ice.

I believe the message of John the Baptist was “repent and be baptised” was also the message Jesus gave. First a personal faith then baptism. Somehow baptism evolved into “what makes you a Christian” and hence the very truth of your last sentence has affected Christianity for centuries.

Peace.

Why would that not be appreciated?

The Baptist also said to bear fruits of repentance. It is how we understand Faith and Works harmonizing in order to be justified in our walk.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, He did. And that is nothing to disagree about. He also set up “leaders” “rulers” on whom their predecessors laid their hands on.
2 Timothy 1
Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands

I agree about nothing to disagree about. Another verse is “Be imitators of me as I am of Crhist.”

 

[Lenten_ashes]

From what I can gather it seems like the early Christians lived changed lives that were evidence of an inside change. While they did not have their own buildings they worshipped in homes and faith, fellowship and brotherhood was the format. The Apostles sent letters to the churches so obviously there was some written understanding. It seems like there is a God shaped vacuum inside the heart of a human being and even in recent centuries missionaries that live an example among the illiterate have a way of truly communicating successfully by love and example.

That’s well stated and all truth.

But after the early church and prior to the reformation we did have churches and a bible that was read in service. And people got to know Christ through the Church, through sacrament and Word/church teaching.

I see some anti-establishment sentiment from non-Catholic Christians who seem to imply that doctrine and catechesis is a bad thing that makes the Church sort of Pharisee-ick and unregenerate as a result. The NT let’s us know just how intimate Jesus plans on being with the Church Acts 9:4 and 1 Tim 3:15. So if you cling to the Church, you cling to Jesus Himself.

 

[Peter_J]

you stated you don’t know if it is an ex cathedra statement:
do you know if it is infallible?

is the line
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
from Unam Sanctam considered to be an infallible statement?

I’ve known some Catholics who believe it was an infallible statement. They have a right to their opinion, but it doesn’t change anything.

 

[Wannano]

That’s well stated and all truth.

But after the early church and prior to the reformation we did have churches and a bible that was read in service. And people got to know Christ through the Church, through sacrament and Word/church teaching.

I see some anti-establishment sentiment from non-Catholic Christians who seem to imply that doctrine and catechesis is a bad thing that makes the Church sort of Pharisee-ick and unregenerate as a result. The NT let’s us know just how intimate Jesus plans on being with the Church Acts 9:4 and 1 Tim 3:15. So if you cling to the Church, you cling to Jesus Himself.

I have been away all day. Thank you to all you who responded…you have very kind in the responses.

 

[alwayswill]

I’ve known some Catholics who believe it was an infallible statement. They have a right to their opinion, but it doesn’t change anything.

This is a thread about infallibility:
how can it just be a matter of opinion on whether a teaching is infallible or not?
How can it not matter?

 

[rcwitness]

This is a thread about infallibility:
how can it just be a matter of opinion on whether a teaching is infallible or not?
How can it not matter?

I agree. My knowledge of the document could be wrong, but it’s my opinion, if it is genuinely reliable, that it is infallible. It’s interpretation is very important. That’s why I said that when the Catechism recognizes Non-Catholic Christians as able to attain salvation, it means that those Christian do indeed have a sufficient submission to the declarations of the pope, yet through no fault of their own (in general) they do not assent fully to the whole faith. And the example of those who have strayed gravely away from sufficient submission to the declarations of the pope are Mormons and Jehova Witness.

 

[alwayswill]

I agree. My knowledge of the document could be wrong, but it’s my opinion, if it is genuinely reliable, that it is infallible. It’s interpretation is very important. That’s why I said that when the Catechism recognizes Non-Catholic Christians as able to attain salvation, it means that those Christian do indeed have a sufficient submission to the declarations of the pope, yet through no fault of their own (in general) they do not assent fully to the whole faith. And the example of those who have strayed gravely away from sufficient submission to the declarations of the pope are Mormons and Jehova Witness.

my focus was not on the content of Unam Sanctam (or any RC Church teaching for that matter)
but rather my point was the “not knowing” if a teaching is infallible.
When discussing the infallibility of certain teachings isn’t the “not knowing” an issue?

 

[rcwitness]

my focus was not on the content of Unam Sanctam (or any RC Church teaching for that matter)
but rather my point was the “not knowing” if a teaching is infallible.
When discussing the infallibility of the certain teachings isn’t the “not knowing” an issue?

The whole of Teaching is represented in the Catechism. It considered and applied all infallible Teachings into its expression. It does not contradict Unam Sanctam.

I am not sure if the Church officially and specifically addressed whether or not Unam Sanctam is infallible. I would imagine it is, and that it’s interpretation was applied to Teachings in the Catechism.

 

[rcwitness]

This is a thread about infallibility:

Now my friend…
This thread is also about whether Luther, and subsequently many Protestants, Teach a certain and without possibility of error, Doctrine that the Catholic Church (strengthened through the Bishop of Rome) in fact officially Teaches some error, and does not posses the keys of the Kingdom.

Do you believe and spread this teaching? If so, are you absolutely certain, without the possibility of error, it is Truth, and have the authority to teach believers in Christian this?

 

[alwayswill]

The whole of Teaching is represented in the Catechism. It considered and applied all infallible Teachings into its expression. It does not contradict Unam Sanctam.

I am not sure if the Church officially and specifically addressed whether or not Unam Sanctam is infallible. I would imagine it is, and that it’s interpretation was applied to Teachings in the Catechism.

When Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) interprets the the Constitution,
are their rulings authoritative?
yes!
…are their rulings binding?
yes!
…are their rulings infallible? (defined as incapable of error)
I’m sure you would say “no”

when Jesus says something like “…you have heard said that…but I tell you that…”
Is Jesus speaking with authoritative, binding, infallibility?
Of course He is!

Are Unam Sanctam and the CCC authoritative and binding?
(I’m sure you will say “yes” )

Are Unam Sanctam and the CCC infallible?