Infallibility of Church?

[John_Martin]

Remember the early defectors such ad Huss and Luther were very well catechized.

I don’t know about Huss, but Luther may not have been as “well catechized” as you suggest. His 95 Theses, Bondage of the Will, and his encounters with Jesus as an Angry Judge, show that he did not study, nor was he taught from, St. Thomas Aquinas. He studied and rebelled against somewhat questionable teachers, who sort of “perverted” Scholasticism and the Scholastic theologians. But anyone being a student of Thomas Aquinas by directly reading his works, especially his Summa Theologica, will know God, and know his Christ as a dear and intimate friend who does not bring into judgement, but infuses justice, righteousness, goodness into the soul along with the Holy Spirit to enlighten one to use the infused gifts.

Jesus as a Harsh Judge can only be seen by one looking at a distance at a specific definition of God that is not the Catholic definition. The Catholic definition is known in the intimacy of mutual indwelling, Christ in me and I in Him.

Luther did not know this; his father, who despaired of the real presence and transubstantiation of the Sacrament (“bread thou art, and bread thou shalt remain”) was not a right minded teacher in his upbringing, and his superstition about St. Anne and thunderstorms show he knew all but nothing about the real God from his youth.

John Martin

 

[mcq72]

Ok. Thank you. You may know much more on this than I. Still not a very good picture of the Catholic church from teachers / priests/ monk standpoint or the status of some of the lay people. Was Luther atypical of young Catholics at the time? Was not society somwhat superstitious at the time? I am thinking there is the good, the bad, and the ugly ? I have read some of Ignatius and his counter reformation, and it seems the standards were not very high for clergy.

I will still be careful to judge Luther, as to poor catechesis or that indeed he had not a gracious encounter with the Lord (as Aquinas had?) that regardless of catechesis or not, he did not fully understand grace, until his “enlightenment”.

 

[mcq72]

How is telling someone they are born again and bring them up in the faith so darn dangerous.

It is only dangerous if they are not born again. It may also be dangerous if the growing child thinks they are a child of God specifically because they have been baptized, maybe not knowing the theology , and the personal love and sacrifice of Christ for them, and finally , if they personally do not come to know Jesus in spirit. A bit like the OT where indeed you circumcise your child, and you pray that when they grow up, their hearts are indeed also circumcised.

I think telling someone if you haven’t done all of this stuff then you are “not there yet” is a far more dangerous position.

Again, I believe it is the person themselves upon self examination who needs both options instead of just one to face, if they feel they are not there yet. For sure it requires discernment for any "counselor’’ in the matter. Sometimes they may need encouragement in the faith to pursue holiness, but sometimes they may have to start at the beginning with new birth in Christ. Both ways need an encounter with Christ. But one must be careful not to suggest going to second base if indeed they are not even at first base. Those who believe in regenerational baptism only have one option with which to counsel a seeking sick soul, to go to second or third base etc. We know that in Jesus’s time, both options were available, not just one.

 

[mcq72]

Sounds like it’s my fault, but not really my fault.

well, like folks like to say, it is not either/ or but both/and. No one is operating in a vacuum

Actually I think they ARE OBLIVIOUS to what the Catholic Church teaches. I mean no disrespect to anyone who left the Catholic Church but it sure seems like most of those who leave blame it on the Church didn’t feed them or didn’t help them become born again or never preached the Gospel.

Ok it is possible for some. But my point was they are not oblivious to differences in practice and doctrine. That while they cite their responsibility in the matter, they do acknowledge the different doctrinal approaches to this new life in Christ.

I am one of those who is of the opinion that the Catholic Church is very good in planting deep seeds in some folks, and the other churches are good in reaping that seed to new life. Again, for some folk this is true. You may argue the reasons or why (lazy, poor catechesis, misunderstanding ) but in the end immaterial, and the fact is they are born again now according to their testimony, and praise God right ?

Also perhaps it goes vice versa sometimes, that other church folk find new life in CC, although most would say they found a deeper or more fulfilling life, but not “new” life…and i just reread you post and you say the same thing.( been reading and responding one paragraph at a time…bad habit, but cool we see the same thing)

I would think only God truly knows the heart. So if your going to claim the only basis for one being born again is because they can see the evidence. Then I would say they THINK they recognize who is and isn’t born again. Because someone can show evidence all day long and still not be born again.

My point was one of universalism, or ecumincalism, that indeed there may be saints in all Christian churches, that this is the attitude of most of these x Catholics.

I do think that kindred spirits are just that, that we are spiritually connected , and as such can be discerned. Of course I also agree that that one can be fooled, but we are hopeful aren’t we ?

Again, not “either or”, but “both and”.

I was an altar boy for 12 years and honestly can say I knew very little of my faith back then. If it wasn’t sports, girls or video games I didn’t give it the time of day.

Ok, then something or Someone happened to you for this change to happen. Perhaps you matured , or repented from backsliding etc. I am just saying people also change when they realize they are dead in the spirit and need regeneration.

Like I said, from personal experience, Catholics who leave the Church do so most like because they were to lazy, just as I was, to pay attention and learn what the Church actually teaches.

God Bless

Ok. One must be careful however not to attach to others ones own personal story and box all others in it. I have had to not do that here, though difficult.

 

[LoyalViews]

And it ought to be said that even our break-offs retain the Deuterocanon in their liturgical schedule. The Anglicans and Methodists, at least in the English/Irish/Canadian world still contain Baruch, Maccabees, etc… in the lectionary.

The Orthodox have an even more expansive Deuterocanon/Apocrypha. What I notice between the fathers and the Church and the Protestant reformers, is that the Fathers of the Church actually wrote in dialogue either between each other, different characters, and to God, to sort out their understanding of theological ideas to pursue the truth. St Thomas Aquinas would say that the end of intellect is truth, and the end of truth is to commune with the mind of God and understand it to our limited ability until we reach Heaven. With the reformers, it’s just “my idea is right, everyone is wrong, here’s why, but now how.” This makes my faith in the Church stronger and to know she is always right in doctrine and dogma.

 

[MT1926]

maybe not knowing the theology ,

Last time I checked I don’t recall hearing there was going to be a theological entrance exam before entering heaven.

Like I said the more and more you defend your position you keep bringing up stuff someone needs to do before they can be born again.

A bit like the OT where indeed you circumcise your child, and you pray that when they grow up, their hearts are indeed also circumcised.

In the OT circumcision was the sign of the covenant. At that point that baby was a member of God’s covenant family. You are trying to make a connection that isn’t there. Even if the child grows up and their “heart wasn’t indeed circumcised that doesn’t mean they were never a member of God’s covenant family. Same goes with Baptism. Just because someone is born again they can still walk away from the faith. Being born again isn’t a guarantee that you will be saved 40 years from now.

if they feel they are not there yet.

Once again don’t agree, being born again isn’t based on your emotional feelings. It is a work of Christ not a work of man’s emotions.

But one must be careful not to suggest going to second base if indeed they are not even at first base.

Sorry not following the baseball analogy, who’s on first?

Those who believe in regenerational baptism only have one option with which to counsel a seeking sick soul, to go to second or third base etc

Still not following you. What’s the one option? What is second and third base?

We know that in Jesus’s time, both options were available, not just one.

What 2 options are you talking about?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

well, like folks like to say, it is not either/ or but both/and.

I prefer the saying the buck stops here. I was raised to take hold of my mistakes and learn from them. After all mistakes are what help us learn and grow. If you pass the blame onto others you will never better yourself.

That while they cite their responsibility in the matter, they do acknowledge the different doctrinal approaches to this new life in Christ.

Never said they were oblivious to the different doctrine I said they were oblivious to the doctrine they were raised in.

the fact is they are born again now according to their testimony

Once again don’t agree that being born again is based on someone’s testimony. Just because some testifies(an outward sign) that they are born again this isn’t a guarantee that their hearts are born again. Sorry but Testimony just seems like more stuff.

would say they found a deeper or more fulfilling life, but not “new” life

Not sure why you are stressing the word new. Does a person need to see a 180 degree change in their life to experience being born again?

My point was one of universalism, or ecumincalism, that indeed there may be saints in all Christian churches, that this is the attitude of most of these x Catholics.

I have no problem with there may be saints in all Christian churches I just have a problem with someone claiming they know who is and isn’t born again based on their testimony or actions. I have a problem with someone thinking they are capable of telling someone “not yet”.

I am just saying people also change when they realize they are dead in the spirit and need regeneration.

The altar boy response was about you claiming the excatholics understand the Sacraments because they were altar boys or went to Catholic School. It was about laziness Had nothing to do with being dead in the spirit.

Ok. One must be careful however not to attach to others ones own personal story and box all others in it. I have had to not do that here, though difficult.

Agreed. I didn’t mean to box all others here, if you look back at my other posts I said “not all” several times, just missed it here.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Once again don’t agree, being born again isn’t based on your emotional feelings. It is a work of Christ not a work of man’s emotions.

Agree, but is James wrong…a dead faith can’t be several things, including not being born of the spirit?

 

[Francis]

I would also add that when Paul wrote this verse not sure how much more scripture was yet to be written, and if or how many gospels had been written. Why else would Barnabus, a companion of Paul, much, much later write, “Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”, as if scripture had been completed and misunderstandings of “tradition”, even variations, had arisen, making Writ more reliable.

Jn 17:17 Word of God is very clear what is traditions ,as in 2Thess 2:15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 Pet 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen

Mt 16:18 – upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
1Tim 3:15 – Church called “pillar and foundation of truth”
Mt 16:19 – give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose . **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.**2Tim 2:2 and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

75 ;Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• orally ;by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit;33

Philippians 3:1 To write the same things to you is not troublesome to me, and for you it is a safeguard.

 

[MT1926]

Agree, but is James wrong…a dead faith can’t be several things, including not being born of the spirit?

I wasn’t arguing that one can have true faith without being born of the spirit.

What I am comparing is being born again through Baptism vs being born again according to your own testimony or your own confession of faith or because you have shown evidence of it.

Do you honestly not see that what you were taught, about being born again, is all man centered.

Unless there is something I am missing here, you stated “you aren’t there yet” unless you testify you are there and have a perfect confession of faith (which it seems you say is based on theological knowledge) and unless others can see your evidence of being there. Everything you state here is based on man’s actions.

Just seems to me to make so much more sense that Jesus would say here is the Sacrament of Baptism. You go out an Baptize people, basically go out an perform this religious ceremony or ritual and I will imparting on them divine grace.

This is totally Christ centered. The person on the other end has to do nothing more than have the desire, for them and their children, to be a member of Christ’s family.

On a final note I would argue that if you read the end of John 2 and all of John 3 we can see that the disciples were with Jesus at the end of 2 and the end of 3. I would argue that the disciples witness this teaching or at least were obviously told about it by Jesus. It makes perfect sense that Jesus was teaching Nicodemus and His disciples that Baptism was necessary to be born again in verses 1-21. Then in verse 22

After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

He gave them the necessary hands on training of how they were to do it.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Never said they were oblivious to the different doctrine I said they were oblivious to the doctrine they were raised in.

Yes, that is what you said but you can’t be aware of doctrinal differences without knowing both doctrinal sides.

 

[MT1926]

Yes, that is what you said but you can’t be aware of doctrinal differences without knowing both doctrinal sides.

Disagree. One can know the doctrine of the church they are presently in and compare it to what they thought was the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

So even though they are completely oblivious to Catholic teachings they will still see the difference.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Just seems to me to make so much more sense that Jesus would say here is the Sacrament of Baptism. You go out an Baptize people, basically go out an perform this religious ceremony or ritual and I will imparting on them divine grace.

Sounds nice, but not any less problematic. I mean you have had mass baptisms of entire villages, and for many reasons, even by order of some public official. Very hard to believe they were all pricked in the heart and convicted of righteuosness and gladly ready to be baptized. I have not heard of anyone not truly believing or understanding to go under the waters to come out then believing and understanding.

I thought you go out and preach the good news, the Holy Spirit does the convicting of sin, righteousness and judgement, and quickens a soul to believe, to call out for the remedy, the spirit in them being revived, born again, and then they gladly are baptized.

 

[Wannano]

MT1926:

Just seems to me to make so much more sense that Jesus would say here is the Sacrament of Baptism. You go out an Baptize people, basically go out an perform this religious ceremony or ritual and I will imparting on them divine grace.

Sounds nice, but not any less problematic. I mean you have had mass baptisms of entire villages, and for many reasons, even by order of some public official. Very hard to believe they were all pricked in the heart and convicted of righteuosness and gladly ready to be baptized. I have not heard of anyone not truly believing or understanding to go under the waters to come out then believing and understanding.

I thought you go out and preach the good news, the Holy Spirit does the convicting of sin, righteousness and judgement, and quickens a soul to believe, to call out for the remedy, the spirit in them being revived, born again, and then they gladly are baptized.

This is certainly the model given at Pentecost!

I am quite curious why if it so simply just baptize people and they are saved why that wasn’t explained to Constantine who refused baptism until close to his dying day. Why did the man who legalized Christianity refuse to participate in a simple ceremony that would have imparted God’s grace to himself?

 

[MT1926]

I have not heard of anyone not truly believing or understanding to go under the waters to come out then believing and understanding.

I would ask why do they need to understand to be born again? Once again you are centering being born again on what the person does?

What about the mentally challenged? Do they need to truly believe and understand to be saved?

What about a person on their death bed who has the desire to believe but doesn’t fully understand?

How about children who aren’t capable of understanding yet?

All of these people being saved isn’t so problematic with Baptism. It fits right into the doctrine and makes perfect sense without having to come up with all kind of work arounds.

How do you get around this problem if you believe the person needs to understand before they can be born again?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

This is certainly the model given at Pentecost!

Only if you add to St. Peter’s word changing it from…

39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

To

39 For the promise is to you and to your children (once they truly believe and fully understand the theology) and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

This is certainly the model given at Pentecost!

Only if you add to St. Peter’s word changing it from…

39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

To

39 For the promise is to you and to your children (once they truly believe and fully understand the theology) and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

God Bless

Or if you change the basic message that Peter gave at Pentecost from “repent (doing a 180 turn around) and be baptized” to “line up here to be baptized and you will be saved.”

 

[MT1926]

Or if you change the basic message that Peter gave at Pentecost from “repent (doing a 180 turn around) and be baptized” to “line up here to be baptized and you will be saved.”

No I have no problem with repent and be baptized for adults. I do believe an adult should believe and understand first. Heck that is why the Catholic Church insists that one go through an RCIA program first. This way they understand what they are asking for first.

My only point here is St. Peter said for you and your children. Either you need to ignore the children part, say they all repented and understood or say that St. Peter meant whenever they finally repent and understand. All three conclusions add to St. Peter’s words.

I didn’t do a 180 turn around, because I am talking about children here not adults. Totally agree with what he says.

I totally agree with you in regards to adults. But you need to explain what St. Peter meant here in regards to children.

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Or if you change the basic message that Peter gave at Pentecost from “repent (doing a 180 turn around) and be baptized” to “line up here to be baptized and you will be saved.”

No I have no problem with repent and be baptized for adults. I do believe an adult should believe and understand first. Heck that is why the Catholic Church insists that one go through an RCIA program first. This way they understand what they are asking for first.

My only point here is St. Peter said for you and your children. Either you need to ignore the children part, say they all repented and understood or say that St. Peter meant whenever they finally repent and understand. All three conclusions add to St. Peter’s words.

I didn’t do a 180 turn around, because I am talking about children here not adults. Totally agree with what he says.

I totally agree with you in regards to adults. But you need to explain what St. Peter meant here in regards to children.

God Bless

An adult voluntarily repenting is " becoming as a little child" ie, clean, innocent, sins as scarlet becoming white as wool. Luke 18:16 &17…whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as ( not when) a little child shall in no wise enter therein. Children are innocent, mentally impaired people who cannot rationalize are innocent.

The promise given at Pentecost is for all people from that day to the final day not just those experiencing Pentecost in person.

 

[MT1926]

Luke 18:16 &17…whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as ( not when) a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Maybe you should quote verse 16 as well…

16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

He says do not hinder the children from coming to him. He is basically saying to not keep children from being Baptized here. He isn’t saying the little children are already with him and you need to become like them to be with him too.

Children are innocent, mentally impaired people who cannot rationalize are innocent.

Totally agree, that’s why we Baptize babies and the mentally impaired.

The Catholic Church teaches that these innocent people, who are incapable of repenting or understanding the faith, but can still be Baptized on the faith of the parents. Basically, ( back up one more verse to verse 15) we are bringing our infants to Jesus so that He can touch them in Baptism.
This allows the children and mentally impaired to be born again so that they can enter the kingdom of God. Just think about it by saying we shouldn’t bring infants to the Baptismal font you are saying we shouldn’t bring infants to Jesus.

The Catholic Church is following God’s will. He says do this and I will do that. This is totally Biblical.

Where as it seems you are saying well they are innocent so God will give them a pass and being born again doesn’t apply to them. Where is that taught in the Bible?

The promise given at Pentecost is for all people from that day to the final day not just those experiencing Pentecost in person.

Agree, not sure why you think I object to this?

God Bless