Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

You missed my point. Jesus said unless one is born of water and spirit he can not enter the Kingdom of God. Is this sufficient enough to tell us if we need Baptized or not? Some say yes some say no? Jesus says unless here, which is it? I’ve heard yes and no?

Interjecting again (enjoying your dialogue with Glenn).

This born of water thing, is Jesus speaking of the water of baptism, and which, of John, of the apostles, that were occurring at the time of this discourse ? Maybe, certainly the humble , even righteous were being baptized ( the religious leaders, Saducees and Pharisees, like Nicodemus, were not being baptized, and most agree that Johns baptism was for preparation or forgiveness of sins, not regenerational).

Some say it is the water of the Word, such as faith cometh by hearing, and that by the Word of God.

Others say it refers to natural birth, as Nicodemus suggested (reentering mother’s womb, which is hysterical), Jesus referring to it again by the water (amniotic fluid that we are borm out of), that this is the first birth, agreeing with Nicodemus, going with his “humor”.

Whatever the answer, Nicodemus was chided by Jesus for being a leader, and not knowing of this second spiritual birth.

That is , whatever was required for new birth ( baptism and spiritual birth, or just spiritual birth after natural birth) was an OT reality, teaching. They only way out of OT is to show that this was all NT teaching, with only prophecies of it in OT.

I don’t see Jesus chiding a rabbi for not knowing something that was new, which water baptism for spiritual rebirthis new. This was unheard of in OT…it was new.

This is where others suggest that being born again is new testament thing but I disagree. Nicodemus is chided for not knowing and having something that he should have already had, like others that did believe and were following Jesus. Being born of God, born in the spirit was indeed an OT thing.

What is born of the flesh (water) is flesh, and what is born of the spirit is spirit.

So while there are a few NT writings that suggest water baptism is coinciding with regeneration, it was unheard of orally or written up to this point of discourse with Nicodemus.

 

[Xarto]

Blockquote
There was no Catholic church then. You do not need to be “Catholic” to receive salvation. That’s simply fact!

The Catholic Church was instituted by Jesus Christ and every priest and bishop have an unbroken Apostolic Succession back to Him.

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic collegealone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christinto which all those should be fullyincorporated who belong in any way to thePeople of God."268
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM

 

[mcq72]

The Catholic Church was instituted by Jesus Christ and every priest and bishop have an unbroken Apostolic Succession back to Him.

Your Vatican quote, and thank you for it, does not say Christ instituted the Catholic church.

It really says the Lord entrusted to the apostles and Peter as head the blessings of the New Covenant to establish the Body of Christ to which we should belong if we are the people of God.

That is quite universal, and all agree that the church was built on the twelve apostles, Christ being the head and chief cornerstone. All agree Peter was the lead apostle ( unfortunately just what that means has developed into a mess).

Just being a little picky, but Vat II quote here does not explain just how and when the Catholic church came to be called such, for it certainly was not the Lord as you suggest.

But understand. Christ instituted the church, which later became to be known as the universal church, even the Catholic church. Yet even that later developed into a mess between the east and western churches, and later a division in the western church, as to just what is and was the structure of said church that Jesus instituted.

 

[Glenn]

When Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, he responded by quoting Scripture. He did not respond by saying, “according to the traditions of the Fathers,” or “according to Holy Mother Church.” He said, “It is written…” The church is built upon the “prophets and the apostles, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20).

I’ve heard this before and it doesn’t make sense, maybe you could explain further because by this analogy it seems that you are also saying that Jesus teaching is subject to the OT?

Though Jesus was fully God, he was also fully man. And as a man, he submitted to John’s baptism, not for his benefit, but for ours, “to fulfill all righteousness.” In the same way, he submitted to Scripture as the sinless Son of Man and as an example to us. After his resurrection, with the two disciples he met on the road to Emmaus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27).

In Matthew 5, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

So the Church had a functional canon in the Old Testament Scriptures, blessed by Jesus himself, from the very beginning. Also, New Testament writings were considered Scripture long before any formal recognition by a Church council. Peter, in AD 68, refers to Paul’s writings as included among the “other Scriptures.” And Paul quotes from Luke’s gospel in 1 Timothy 5:18. Early quotations taken from New Testament books and cited as authoritative can be found in the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, and others.

For the reformer John Calvin, the Bible is objectively the Word of God and derives its authority from him and not from the Church. He said, and I quote, “When the church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but acknowledging it as the truth of God, she as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. As to the question How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? It is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste.”

 

[Francis]

Can I be a Catholic if I do not believe everything the Church teaches? I understand the logic behind most of the doctrines of the Church, but there are some teachings that I’m not sure about–about which I cannot say absolutely, “Yes, I know that is true.” I don’t think I’m being obstinate here. I have studied the doctrines of the Church in detail, and there are just some things, I’m afraid to commit to, as a matter of conscience before God.

its like saying Can i keep 9 Commandment and skip the one. James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

, I’m afraid to commit to, as a matter of conscience before God.

um… i understand your conscience, well their is good conscience and bad conscience so we need to pray about it , 2 Corinthians 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

 

[Francis]

Jesus says to the thief on the cross: Luke 23:42 “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

There was no Catholic church then. You do not need to be “Catholic” to receive salvation. That’s simply fact!

Before the Death of Jesus on the Cross He has already Established in Matthew 16:16-18 7 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I say to thee **: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.**Psalm 12:6 The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure,silver refined in a furnace on the ground,purified seven times.Psalm 77:8 Has his steadfast love ceased forever?Are his promises at an end for all time? That God’s Promise to be with the Church till the end of time
1 Timothy 3:15 … which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth1 Corinthians 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 55:10 For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,and do not return there until they have watered the earth,making it bring forth and sprout,giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;it shall not return to me empty,but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

It was the Plan of God before the Foundation’s of the world to established the Church Ephesians 1:4 just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.

 

[Glenn]

You missed my point. Jesus said unless one is born of water and spirit he can not enter the Kingdom of God. Is this sufficient enough to tell us if we need Baptized or not? Some say yes some say no? Jesus says unless here, which is it? I’ve heard yes and no?

All major streams within Protestantism consider baptism to be a sacrament, and believe that all Christians should be baptized. Some, however, do not baptize infants because they believe that a person must acknowledge for himself saving faith and commitment to Jesus Christ. So I guess the question arises, “What happens to infants who have not been baptized.” But the Catholic Church recognizes the teaching of “Baptism of Desire,” that those who desire baptism, but are not baptism because of death still receive the fruits of baptism. So I would respond that all Christians, Protestants and Catholic, desire baptism for their children.

But I think there is some ambiguity here in both the Protestant and Catholic positions. God is just, and he knows us even in the womb. This is where I think we must be charitable toward various perspectives and rely upon the mercy of God. I don’t think different perspectives necessarily deny the fact that God is leading us ultimately into all truth.

It depends upon your understanding of Truth… What matters is whether you hear and follow the Truth. According to Scripture, homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” It does not matter whether they are in or not in the Catholic church.

I’m not following you here? Yes this is a true statement, but I don’t see how someone going against truth proves no need for organized unity? Or that this shows the comparison you made works?

My point was simply that truth is truth, and division is division, regardless of whether or not it exists within a single organization or between separate organizations. The divisions within the Catholic church are materially the same divisions that exist between Protestant churches. Conversely, the doctrinal unity among all trinitarian believers is a substantial unity, regardless of whether or not the believers reside in the same church denomination. It is the material or substance of the agreement or disagreement that determines the unity or disunity.

Essentially, I see no less doctrinal division within the Catholic church than I do between Protestant churches. The fact that there are conciliar documents within the Catholic church has not eliminated the disagreement, even within the church, over the interpretation or meaning of those documents. Formal unity is not material unity.

 

[Francis]

But is seems that with the Catholic Church there is no such idea. All the doctrines must be accepted.

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.

Ephesians 4: 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. 14 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

 

[Francis]

My wife has difficulty with the idea of confessing her sins to a priest. She does confess her sins–directly and sincerely to Christ.

James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective.so confessing to one-another will be difficult so we confess to the Priest whom Jesus has established the sacrament of confession John 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” Hebrew 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing—for that would be harmful to you.

2 Corentians 5:18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself,not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. Mt 18:18 – whatever you bind & loose on earth, so it is in heaven

I believe that I am joined to Christ SPIRITUALLY through the Eucharist, but don’t understand why I must consider it to be the PHYSICAL blood and body of Christ in order for that union to be effective.

Only when we believe, we can experience him 1 Corinthians 6:17 But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Jn 6:35. Luke 24:30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us? Only when we receive the Eucharist their eyes ,mind a body and soul was enlightened

 

[Francis]

I am afraid of betraying Christ if I credit any of my own good works as contributing toward my justification. I want all the glory to be his. I do believe that faith without works is a dead faith, but I see the works as the necessary FRUIT of my justification, not the CAUSE of my justification. I believe I have been sealed by the Holy Spirit, and that he gives me the power to live unto God and to grow in sanctifying grace.

What if you doing the opposite and betraying Jesus by not following the True Church You need both Faith and Good works ,and both are done by God Grace ,we are only instruments ,Isaiah 64:8 Yet, O Lord, you are our Father;we are the clay, and you are our potter;
we are all the work of your hand.

we messed it up when Adam and Eve sinned when Grace was lost, when it was given freely we didn’t know the value ,so Jesus is giving us a second chance ,now an opportunity for us to do good works,with Faith naturally by his Mercy and Grace ,so now we must toil and persevere by his Grace we can come to a point where He will take control and we will be under Grace like the saints till then we have to wait through the sacraments come closer to him and united with him we can do all things 1 Cor 6:17 **Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.**Philippians 2 12 Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

 

[John_Martin]

Some of the issues that my wife and/or I have difficulty with are as follows:

• My wife has difficulty with the idea of confessing her sins to a priest. She does confess her sins–directly and sincerely to Christ.
• I believe that I am joined to Christ SPIRITUALLY through the Eucharist, but don’t understand why I must consider it to be the PHYSICAL blood and body of Christ in order for that union to be effective.
• I am afraid of betraying Christ if I credit any of my own good works as contributing toward my justification. I want all the glory to be his. I do believe that faith without works is a dead faith, but I see the works as the necessary FRUIT of my justification, not the CAUSE of my justification. I believe I have been sealed by the Holy Spirit, and that he gives me the power to live unto God and to grow in sanctifying grace.

These are a few of my doctrinal beliefs that I don’t believe in good conscience before God that I can lay aside.

You know, Glenn is in good company; here one of the apostles stands with him and his wife in disagreeing with a teaching that his conscience could not agree with:

Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” (Matt 16)

Pay close attention to Peter and what he then did (for here he is the image of Protestant).

Also, you have seen arguments that Paul developed independent doctrines, but he did not. In the most obvious example (contra Peter) he confronted Peter directly, per Christ’s command, then in front of the church at the Jerusalem Council; finally he left the decision to the church, the decision of the council. Both he and Peter were obedient to the church in her decision.

If we do not always follow behind Jesus in his body, there will always be his voice saying, “no behind me; not in front of me.”

John Martin

 

[Francis]

Did Jesus intend one truth and if so how did He intend for us to know this one truth?

We all can be inspired by the Holy Spirit but we need the Church2Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work., Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. Thought you may be inspired by the Holy Spirit and other humble meditations, and strengthened oneself by the scriptures, we receive the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church and the Sacraments established by Jesus.

2 Peter 1:20-21 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

 

[Paytheon]

Nothing you posted says you have to be a “Catholic” for salvation. The word Christianity didn’t even come about till several years after Christ death. Too many Catholics force the bible to say what they want it to say. Plain and simple, even Pope Francis has said that “Atheist” can get to heaven. Bishop Barron explains it best: Bishop Barron: You can be saved as atheist or Jew – just follow your conscience – gloria.tv

Mind you…None of these people are “Catholic” which was the question I was answering.

 

[mcq72]

It was the Plan of God before the Foundation’s of the world to established the Church Ephesians 1:4 just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.

Amen! Quite a universal, even Catholic, statements. Trouble is, or really good news is, the Orthodox and even Protestants say amen also.

The scriptures posted do not address the history behind how that church came to be called Catholic, or Orthodox, or Protestant.

In my opinion, only Catholics think that whenever Jesus or scripture mention “church”, they mean the Catholic Church, as in the western Roman Catholic Church, excluding Orthodox and any Protestant sentiment.

 

[John_Martin]

Plain and simple, even Pope Francis has said that “Atheist” can get to heaven.

I don’t think you understand; Pope Francis says that you can get to heaven without being a Catholic because it is infallible Catholic doctrine that such as the case. He is saying what he is authorized to say and what he is required to say as an authorized official servant of the Church.
A Protestant interpretation of scripture as to who can get to heaven is not authoritative, it is only a matter of opinion in personal interpretation, even if he says the same thing as Catholic teaching, because a Protestant has decided to Define doctrine on his own rather than what was received from Jesus through his apostles and therefore carries No Authority from Jesus.

 

[mcq72]

Pay close attention to Peter and what he then did (for here he is the image of Protestant).

Fascinating. Never heard this, that when Peter was good he was Catholic and when he was bad he was an image of a Protestant. Sounds like backward projection. At least be biblical and say we are like Korah.

That’s ok. So when Peter was in the flesh, even under Satanic influence, so is a Protestant, whenever they disagree with CC, when we pay close attention, according to your post.

On the positive side, the CC does say that non Catholic Christians show Catholic unity, or are in image of Catholicism, where they agree with CC.

Quite a sectarian view, that the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, is essentially, or an image of, Catholic or Catholicism.

 

[John_Martin]

That’s ok. So when Peter was in the flesh, even under Satanic influence, so is a Protestant, whenever they disagree with CC, when we pay close attention, according to your post.

On the positive side, the CC does say that non Catholic Christians show Catholic unity, or are in image of Catholicism, where they agree with CC.

Peter was protesting against Christ’s direction; that is a Protestant, protesting against the apostolic direction of the church.

Then he listened to Jesus and got back behind (ὀπίσω) Jesus and followed behind Jesus, not in front showing Jesus the path that Jesus ought to follow if Jesus were a good Jesus, listening to the wise Peter’s opinion of what should happen.

You may wish to reread Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 5, Article 3.

 

[mcq72]

Peter was protesting against Christ’s direction; that is a Protestant, protesting against the apostolic direction of the church.

Then he listened to Jesus and got back behind (ὀπίσω) Jesus and followed behind Jesus, not in front showing Jesus the path that Jesus ought to follow if Jesus were a good Jesus, listening to the wise Peter’s opinion of what should happen.

No,you don’t have to elaborate. I understand your understanding.

By the way, “protestant” is a Catholic term applied in derision of those that protested not the Catholic church nor any specific teaching, save that which aligned itself with or influenced, encouraged the civic authorities (princes/ emperor) to rescind religious freedom recently granted the provinces of Germany.

So yes, they protested forces (satanic?) that would force people to abandon their free will and conscience and be Catholic again.

 

[Glenn]

A Protestant interpretation of scripture as to who can get to heaven is not authoritative, it is only a matter of opinion in personal interpretation, even if he says the same thing as Catholic teaching, because a Protestant has decided to Define doctrine on his own rather than what was received from Jesus through his apostles and therefore carries No Authority from Jesus.

I have already said that the chain of authority for the Protestant is like this: Christ → Apostles → Scripture → Church. The Protestant believes not in his own authority, not in private, subjective interpretation, but in the objective authority of Holy Scripture, which is founded upon the prophets and the Apostles, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone. Protestants and not moral relativists. They believe in the objective authority of the Bible.

Again, the Protestant believes in the “perspicuity” of Scripture, that fact that it is God-breathed and therefore clear and unambiguous in all matters of faith and practice. The Church must be subject to Scripture; it must not place itself over the Scripture. The Scripture is the Word of God not because the Church says it is, but because Christ says it is.

In essence, the Catholic position implies that the Scripture, in and of itself, is inadequate, that somehow, God has left us with a book that is unclear about matters of ultimate consequence. I cannot accept the idea that the written testimony of the prophets, and of the apostles who were directly commissioned by Christ, and that deals with the most important matter of human existence, that being the knowledge of God and of salvation, is so unclear that it takes a specialized class of individuals to tell us what it means.

We have Christ, we have the Apostles, and we have their written testimony. In Vatican II, the Catholic Church rejected the terms partum/partum, signifying that the revelation of God was not only partly in the Church and partly in Scripture. It is the same with the Eucharist; it is not necessary that you take both elements; in partaking of the bread or the wine, you partake of the whole body of Christ.

The “whole” Word of God is contained in Scripture. To say otherwise is to reject Vatican II’s own exclusion of the partum/partum expression from its position on divine revelation. If the Scripture is the whole Word of God, then it is totally sufficient, in and of itself, to lead one who is truly seeking, to salvation.

The knowledge of God is clear, not only in Scripture, but as Romans 1 insists, even in nature itself. “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” (Romans 1:20). We do not need an interpreter to read the message of nature. Why do we need an interpreter to read the message of Scripture? Why would God reveal himself clearly in nature and not in his perfect and infallible Holy Word? The reason men do not know God, as clearly stated by Paul in Romans 1, is not due to an intellectual problem; it is moral problem.

 

[John_Martin]

Again, the Protestant believes in the “perspicuity” of Scripture, that fact that it is God-breathed and therefore clear and unambiguous in all matters of faith and practice. The Church must be subject to Scripture; it must not place itself over the Scripture. The Scripture is the Word of God not because the Church says it is, but because Christ says it is.

Then I am sure you can show all of us, Book, Chapter, and Verse the reference in the Bible that states that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are Scripture; oh, go the whole way, show us the reference that lists all the books and defines how many chapters there are. (The table of contents does not count; that was written hundreds of years later) Show us where God says Tobit and Maccabees, et al, are not Sacred Scripture.

The fact is, the Catholic Church defined for you what is Scripture, what is inspired by God. And you are denying that the Church can do that, therefore, you have no Scripture.

Since it is unambiguous, you and your wife would have no trouble; you know you must eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and Drink his blood to have eternal life, written unambiguously and repeated, and your wife knows that if a representative of Christ forgives her sins they are forgiven, and if they retain her sins, they are retained by God.

God did not “leave us with a book” - he left a group of people with his Spirit, who had walked with Him.
They wrote and compiled and put together their remembrances; These were the Church back then, and they and their followers defined their correct writings to guarantee they would not change doctrines. And they also chose people they trusted to teach only what they taught. We have the “eye witnesses to Jesus” with us, the Pope and Magisterium are the trusted witnesses to pass to us what was actually seen and heard. The Scripture is whole, complete, and the living Magisterium is the one entrusted to give you the actual interpretation correctly, so that some “Luther” does not run off and rip Tobit and Maccabees, et al, out as it were “self evident to HIM” that they did not belong, that he is somehow a better interpreter of what belongs.

No one has to be a Catholic, but if you are, you submit to this. And if you choose to be protestant, you define some other way of getting the Bible from God, intact without the Church making it happen.