Infallibility of Church?

[steve-b]

goout:

Gorgias:

Glenn:

So you’re saying that as a Protestant, not belonging to Church of Rome, I serve Satan and am thus not saved?

No… we’d say that those who separated are the ones who bear responsibility. You never separated from the Catholic Church, so we wouldn’t make that claim about you. We would say that we’re in imperfect communion with you, but we share certain graces and gifts of the Spirit.

Who was Paul writing to in that letter mentioned? To the Church of Rome.

Right: so, he’s talking to people who are part of the (Catholic) Church, not people who were never initiated into it.

Just to clarify the bolded: Gorgias is referring to those who were Catholic, and left the faith, not those who inherited a faith tradition.
And that is the official magisterial thought on the issue.
You as a protestant who were born into a tradition are not charged with the sin of separation, although you have a duty to pursue the truth in good faith like anyone else.

And the second point is that Paul is speaking to everyone. It is not only non-Catholics who cause division. Catholics cause plenty of it also, and it could be said that Catholics are given much and have a correspondingly higher threshold of accountability. “to whom much is given…”

So is it fair then to say that those Catholics who are causing division are serving Satan?

It wasn’t clarified so I ask

what would be an example of Catholics causing division?

 

[Gorgias]

Honestly I do not follow your thought as to why that is an odd thought.

Because you seem to be conflating “requirements for entry into the Church” with “requirements for remaining in communion with the Church”.

What other requirements were there?

We see many, even in just the first decades of the Church as recorded in the Bible:

• Paul speaks to those who have created division through invalid doctrine, and urges them to return to the faith which they first accepted.
• The Corinthian man who commits incest is literally disfellowshipped until he repents and returns.
  *Ananias and Sapphira lie and cheat the Holy Spirit… and die because of it.
  *Paul warns against ‘backsliding’ and losing the Spirit which was received.

Even in the very beginnings of the Church, there are standards that must be maintained in order to remain in fellowship.

 

[goout]

So is it fair then to say that those Catholics who are causing division are serving Satan?

I think it is fair to say that St Paul’s writings apply to everyone, and Catholics are part of “everyone”.
Why do you even ask this question?

 

[steve-b]

Gorgias:

Glenn:

Second best would be if the Catholic Church would permit Protestants to receive the Eucharist, based upon the fact that they are also members of the mystical body of Christ. I understand that Orthodox believers are permitted that right.

Actually, since the Orthodox believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and since they have a valid priesthood, the Catholic Church sees them as a valid Church*. Therefore, we would allow them to receive. However, the Orthodox Church does not allow its members to receive at Catholic Churches, so we ask Orthodox Christians to follow their Church’s guidance and not receive at Catholic Masses.

*The Catholic Church sees Protestant denominations as “ecclesial communities”, not “churches” (in a strict sense) because they do not have a valid apostolic priesthood and the sacraments that such a priesthood is able to convey.

When I read the account of the early Church after Pentecost I can only derive that the requirement for participation in the Breaking of Bread was to repent and be baptized. Is there any evidence that proves differently?

Repent indicates one has knowledge of sin and the faith and all that goes with the faith. That can cover a big area.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

goout:

Gorgias:

Glenn:

So you’re saying that as a Protestant, not belonging to Church of Rome, I serve Satan and am thus not saved?

No… we’d say that those who separated are the ones who bear responsibility. You never separated from the Catholic Church, so we wouldn’t make that claim about you. We would say that we’re in imperfect communion with you, but we share certain graces and gifts of the Spirit.

Who was Paul writing to in that letter mentioned? To the Church of Rome.

Right: so, he’s talking to people who are part of the (Catholic) Church, not people who were never initiated into it.

Just to clarify the bolded: Gorgias is referring to those who were Catholic, and left the faith, not those who inherited a faith tradition.
And that is the official magisterial thought on the issue.
You as a protestant who were born into a tradition are not charged with the sin of separation, although you have a duty to pursue the truth in good faith like anyone else.

And the second point is that Paul is speaking to everyone. It is not only non-Catholics who cause division. Catholics cause plenty of it also, and it could be said that Catholics are given much and have a correspondingly higher threshold of accountability. “to whom much is given…”

So is it fair then to say that those Catholics who are causing division are serving Satan?

It wasn’t clarified so I ask

what would be an example of Catholics causing division?

That would be a question for Goout as he was the one who stated that Catholics cause division as well.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Honestly I do not follow your thought as to why that is an odd thought.

Because you seem to be conflating “requirements for entry into the Church” with “requirements for remaining in communion with the Church”.

What other requirements were there?

We see many, even in just the first decades of the Church as recorded in the Bible:

• Paul speaks to those who have created division through invalid doctrine, and urges them to return to the faith which they first accepted.
• The Corinthian man who commits incest is literally disfellowshipped until he repents and returns.
  *Ananias and Sapphira lie and cheat the Holy Spirit… and die because of it.
  *Paul warns against ‘backsliding’ and losing the Spirit which was received.

Even in the very beginnings of the Church, there are standards that must be maintained in order to remain in fellowship.

Of course and as you pointed out it had to do with the behavior/fruit of the individual .

 

[Wannano]

Because it was stated earlier that those who cause division are serving Satan and it did not seem to be inclusive.

 

[goout]

Because it was stated earlier that those who cause division are serving Satan.

And…?
What? What are you trying to ask? or say?

 

[steve-b]

No of course not, no one said that.

I put that addition

Just in case someone reading that post, was thinking what I addressed

That’s all it was

 

[steve-b]

Wannano:

Because it was stated earlier that those who cause division are serving Satan.

And…?
What? What are you trying to ask? or say?

In context, Paul in Rom 16:17-20 identified Satan as the cause of division.

So in following that context

I think The question then is coming from HERE

When you said

“It is not only non-Catholics who cause division. Catholics cause plenty of it also, and it could be said that Catholics are given much and have a correspondingly higher threshold of accountability. “to whom much is given…”

So my question is

Could you give examples where Catholics cause plenty of division

 

[mcq72]

from Acts, 9:31, the Church was called

From the Greek Study Bible
Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
Translation:
ἐκκλησία = church ,
καθ’ = according to ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Churc

Yes have seen this before, the church universal, as the gospel spread throughout the land

Only one place he could have learned that from, the apostles. And the name has been there since the apostles.

Maybe, maybe not. The church was described several different ways at first. Ignatius used the term universal for sure, does not mean it was used by apostles. Pure conjecture. No one has a problem with the universal church descriptor historically speaking anyways.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

from Acts, 9:31, the Church was called

From the Greek Study Bible
Ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
Translation:
ἐκκλησία = church ,
καθ’ = according to ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Churc

Yes have seen this before, the church universal, as the gospel spread throughout the land

AND

They (the apostles) are in this ONE Church they are writing to and for. Meaning this Church wrote the NT scriptures, collected only certain NT books, and canonized those books as scripture. Without which there would be no NT. This ONE Church had a name. The Catholic Church

Only one place he could have learned that from, the apostles. And the name has been there since the apostles.

mcq72:

Maybe, maybe not.

Not even maybe, but actually. It is the Catholic Church from the first century.

mcq72:

The church was described several different ways at first. Ignatius used the term universal for sure, does not mean it was used by apostles. Pure conjecture. No one has a problem with the universal church descriptor historically speaking anyways.

Keep in mind, when letters and epistles are written, that is NOT the first time terms in those docs are used.

AND

considering Ignatius knew the apostles, and even better he wrote things down. He didn’t invent the offices he wrote about, (priest bishop deacons,) anymore than he invented the name Catholic Church. Nor did anyone take exception to the name as being strange and never heard before by anyone…

Bp Polycarp, also a direct disciple of John used the name Catholic Church.

Bp Irenaeus, learned from Polycarp, also used the name Catholic Church in addressing the heresies of the Gnostics.

If you want links to their works just ask.

 

[mcq72]

To be deep in history is to be Catholic.

Well, that history is varied. It is full of “saints” on both sides, (P’s, C’s and O’s) brandishing the truth, brandishing scripture to persecute, condemn others…oh not personally but quite piously thru (their understanding of) scripture, and for much of that history, thru civil forces.

Paul says ultimately division comes from who? Satan. In context of the passage, that is who Paul says people who divide are serving

I speak in regards to your reply to Glenn. Quite harsh and hard line, like the old days, to say the message from scripture is that others are serving Satan if they are not in agreement with Rome. As I have shared before, I don’t mind, and understand. Just be understanding that what goes around comes around (remember history?) unfortunately, that what you portray of scripture against others they can do the same, if their hearts are likewise inclined.

I hate sectarianism! It is uncatholic.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

To be deep in history is to be Catholic.

Well, that history is varied. It is full of "saints" on both sides, brandishing the truth, brandishing scripture to persercute, condemn others…oh not personally but quite piously thru (their understanding of) scripture, and for much of that hostory, thru civil forces.

both sides? both sides of what?

I don’t persecute anyone. Is my name on any of the documents I quote from?

mcq72:

I speak in regards to your reply to Glenn. Quite harsh and hard line, like the old days, to say the message from scripture is that

I quote copiously. What did you take exception to?

 

[steve-b]

I hate sectarianism! It is uncatholic.

My sources I quoted so far are all Catholic. And since Catholics should be passionate about their faith, one should expect to find such Catholics on a Catholic web site

Isn’t that what Peter taught?

Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;

 

[MT1926]

It wasn’t clarified so I ask

what would be an example of Catholics causing division?

That would be a question for Goout as he was the one who stated that Catholics cause division as well.

If I’m following along correctly I would guess the answer to this question would be some of the great heresies.

Montanus in the second century was a Catholic who caused division by claiming he spoke for the Holy Spirit thus his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia.

Arius in the 4th century was a Catholic who caused division by teaching Christ was a creature made by God.

Nestorius was a Bishop in the 5th century who caused division by teaching Mary was only the mother of Christ’s human nature which fractured Christ into two separate persons.

The list goes on century after century all the way up to Luther who was a Catholic monk who caused division with his religious revolt of the 16th century.

Yep human beings are self centered individuals well equipped at causing division, history is quite evident of that fact.

Is this what you guys were asking or am I way off on this?

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It wasn’t clarified so I ask

what would be an example of Catholics causing division?

That would be a question for Goout as he was the one who stated that Catholics cause division as well.

If I’m following along correctly I would guess the answer to this question would be some of the great heresies.

Montanus in the second century was a Catholic who caused division by claiming he spoke for the Holy Spirit thus his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia.

Arius in the 4th century was a Catholic who caused division by teaching Christ was a creature made by God.

Nestorius was a Bishop in the 5th century who caused division by teaching Mary was only the mother of Christ’s human nature which fractured Christ into two separate persons.

The list goes on century after century all the way up to Luther who was a Catholic monk who caused division with his religious revolt of the 16th century.

Yep human beings are self centered individuals well equipped at causing division, history is quite evident of that fact.

Is this what you guys were asking or am I way off on this?

God Bless

That works

I’ve used that link many times myself
Great Heresies

 

[goout]

Could you give examples where Catholics cause plenty of division

The examples are endless. Pro choice “Catholic” politicians come to mind.
In the early days of the Church, all the well known heresies.
Whoever Paul was addressing…

The list is truly endless. And even though Paul’s writings were addressed to a specific people at a specific time, because scripture is the living word of God it is also addressed to everyone who reads it. In that pastoral sense Paul’s writing can address anyone who leads others astray, and we can all look at our words and behavior with an eye to repentance. We all get our chances to work for unity or division.

 

[goout]

I believe this discussion will arrive at the point where we must admit that individual Catholics do not merit the term “infallibility”, and the behavior of Catholic persons must be distinguished from the deposit of faith as revealed by God through and in the Church. Infallibility has nothing to do with the behavior of individual Catholics.

Yes, God asks us to give our assent to his faith, which is passed on through flawed human beings forming One Church.
If not, no need for the Incarnation. He could have just given us a book and been done with us.

 

[steve-b]

I don’t believe the statement that there are 40,000 Protestant denominations.

It seems to come from 2 sources.

• World Christian Encyclopedia (David A. Barrett; Oxford University Press, 1982) apparently estimated almost 21,000 denominations, and the updated World Christian Encyclopedia (Barrett, Kurian, Johnson; Oxford Univ Press, 2nd edition, 2001) estimated at least 33,000. “Denomination” is defined as “an organised christian group within a country”.
• The Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary estimated 34,000 denominations in 2000, rising to an estimated 43,000 in 2012. These numbers have exploded from 1,600 in the year 1900.

Whatever the real number is, it’s probably a lot.