The Reformation

[jmcrae]

But this is obviously a distinction that you make only when members of the Church sin or err. You don’t say “a member of the Church defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854.” You say, “the Church defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854.”

That’s because the Church acted through the Pope, in that instance. There was a traceable sequence of things that happened, from Apostolic times up until 1854, that you can look at and see that the germ of the idea was always there, and then it bloomed in 1854 when the Pope took all of that information together, put it into one place, and told us definitively what it all meant.

However, when a Pope does something wrong, suddenly he isn’t “the Church” any more but just a “member.”

That’s because when the Pope does something wrong, there’s no history to it - it’s a one-off thing that came from the Pope himself, and not from the Tradition. (There is nothing in the Tradition that says, “Go ahead. Goof up really badly.”)

When certain members of the Church teach doctrine authoritatively (and the others go along with them), or do other things of which you retrospectively approve, they are “the Church.”

Because they are plugged into the Tradition when they are acting as spokespersons for the Church.

But when they goof up, they aren’t.

Because at that point, they have become unplugged from the Holy Tradtion.

This implies a particularly pernicious version of the doctrine of the “invisible Church.” “The Church” in this formulation is a transcendent reality which cannot be identified simply with any earthly structure (i.e., an “invisible Church”), but which acts through certain “members of the Church” at certain times and under certain conditions. So you get the best of both worlds. The pope and bishops can claim to be “the Church” when teaching doctrine, but “the Church” escapes all blame for their mistakes.

Because the Church can act through its members, but it can’t make mistakes. If people are making mistakes, the Church is not acting through them - they have become disconnected in some way from the Church when they make mistakes.

This is at the root of most of the problems in Catholicism, I think. Do priests commit horrible sins, and do bishops condone them? Sure, but that isn’t the Church. Is Catholic liturgy often lacking in any sense of the transcendent? Sure, but “the Church” isn’t really like that. And then you blame Protestants for believing in an “invisible Church”!

There just is the Church, period. It’s people. And people sin and err, so the Church does too. Anything else denies the reality of the Body of Christ.

Edwin

The Church is the spotless Bride of Christ.

 

[JRKH]

What is the distinction between “the Church” and its members?

When Christ Talked about what to do when someone “sins” against us he made a very interesting distinction between “The Church” and the members of “The Church”.

Matthew 16: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "**If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. **18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Now if “The Church” is simply a conglomeration of believers, then "telling it to The Church is accomplished in step #2 above and there is no need for a step #3. Obviously Jesus saw the Church as something more concrete, authoritative, and organized than a “group of believers”.

Further, He is telling The Church that whatever they “Bind” or “Loose” on earth will be “bound” or “Loosed” in Heaven. Surely He is not refering to every single believer having this Authority for if He was, then your brother could not “sin” against you. He could only Bind and Loose by a “different interpretation” of God’s will. Thus each person becomes an infallible church of one.

The passage above does not allow for this. It clearly defines a single, authoritative, Church to be Christ’s representative on Earth.

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

This was posted while I was writing my post.

The problem with your definition is that smells and music and qualities of silence don’t issue doctrinal definitions. They don’t excommunicate people. They don’t make rules about whether women can be ordained or not. People do that. If “the Church” is not people then the Church can’t teach anything or discipline anybody. But if “the Church” is people then it can sin and err. I think you are trying to have the best of both worlds, and I don’t think it works.

Edwin

Not only that, but if the Church is composed of people (which is obvious) and the Church is indefectible and infallible, then every member of the Church would also have to be indefectible and infallible. Also, the Church would need to prove that every single reference to “church” in the NT refers to a magisterial hierarchy (or incense, for that matter).

 

[jmcrae]

This was posted while I was writing my post.

The problem with your definition is that smells and music and qualities of silence don’t issue doctrinal definitions. They don’t excommunicate people. They don’t make rules about whether women can be ordained or not.

No, but they indicate to us what the essence of the Church is. For example, when defining the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it was not only the writings of the Early Fathers that were taken into consideration, but also songs sung by children, poems written by hermits, paintings that were found in the Catacombs and in other spaces where early Christian worship took place, the arrangements of furniture in some of these places (did they have a Lady Altar, for example, and with what was it decorated, who used it, etc.) - all of these things came together; it was not purely an intellectual exercise.

People do that. If “the Church” is not people then the Church can’t teach anything or discipline anybody. But if “the Church” is people then it can sin and err. I think you are trying to have the best of both worlds, and I don’t think it works.

I find that it works just fine. We have this kind of idea in all sorts of areas of our lives - you can tell your child when she is not behaving herself, “The Contarini family does not behave like this,” without any sense of contradiction, even though your own child, who is a member of the Contarini family, is, in fact, “doing this.”

At work, your employer can find you doing something that goes against company policy, and he can say to you, “Here at XYZ Philosophical Musings, we do not do this,” even though, obviously, you are “doing this.”

A family is nothing but the people in it, and a company is nothing but the people who work there, so, how can this be? And yet, it is.

It’s exactly the same thing, with the Church.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I’m well aware that many of you are able to throw mountains of words around. But honestly, it doesn’t do any good for someone who isn’t trained in catholic teachings.

I read through those posts and gathered very little information. Simple questions desire simple answers. Jesus didn’t use long-winded explanations to explain His teachings.

Maybe it would help if I asked specific questions:

1. Does the Catholic Church acknowledge that there were problems during the time of the Reformation?
2. If so, does the church acknowledge that some sort of reform was necessary to take care of these problems?
3. In what way(s) is the church fallible? Simple answers, please; assume I don’t even know what a dogma is.

First off, great question. I think this is something that’s confusing to a lot of people, and some Catholics get really defensive about it, and muddle the waters. I’m really sorry if I’m saying something already said. I started to read the thread, but it just got so ugly… Anyways, addressing your specific questions:

1. Yes. There have been a lot of problems in Catholic history, and the Church acknowledges it. Pope John Paul II apologized for a great many of the abuses and mistakes.

(2) Yes. Pope Benedict XVI has some great stuff on Luther (timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3492299.ece))… as a native German-speaker, he has a much better background than, say, English speakers like myself. Note: the private theology or musing of anyone, including a Pope, isn’t dogma, infallibility, etc., so the views of the Pope aren’t necessarily the views of the Catholic Church, but I think that in this case, he’s expressing a common understanding by Catholics.

(3) Sort of. This touches on a lot of complicated Catholic teachings which, frankly, confuse even Catholics. Here’s the best way I can describe it in a non-Catholic context. Galatians 2 describes Peter’s personal hypocrisy, yet Christians of all stripes acknowledge 1 Peter and 2 Peter as infallible. So we’re all able to accept that a fallible man can speak infallibly, even though he may sin and even commit heresy in his personal life (pandering to the Jewish converts at the expense of the Gentiles, and even denying Christ three times). Catholics take this basic principle, and apply it to the future popes, as well as the Church speaking collectively. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, but that it’s still made up of people. The people fail, sin, etc., but the Holy Spirit doesn’t allow the Church to teach bad doctrine.

As a related note, Dr. Peter Kreeft (a Calvinist convert to Catholicism… say that 3 times fast) uses the corrupt practices of the Church throughout its darkest periods to justify its infallibility. His reasoning: at no point during which the popes had mistresses did any of them declare that God said it was ok for popes to have mistresses, etc. It’s in sharp contrast to other religions, like the LDS Church (I’m not meaning to pick on them), where Joseph Smith gets a divine revelation after he starts an adulterous relationship that lets people have “plural marriages.” Muhammad did it, too. But not a single pope.

Or put another way: the Church has always preached what the bar is, even when those preaching it didn’t live up to it (and frankly, none of us really do meet the bar of what we’re called to be).

(4) You also mentioned the sale of indulgences. I think that (3) basically covers that, but I thought I’d add a couple things specifically. Indulgences are still something which the Church allows (Matthew 16:17-19, Matthew 18:18, and especially John 20:23 blatantly give the Pope and the corporate Church the power to forgive sins through the power of the Holy Spirit). The abuse was in the sale. Numbers 20 describes something similar: Moses had the power to bring water forth from the rock (Exodus 17), but it was still an abuse for him to strike the rock twice when he was told not to.

 

[anon52328184]

The invisible church is a term used to describe all true believers throughout space and time. The historic roots of the idea are in Augustine, who points out that many of the elect are not part of the visible Church (yet), while many people within the Church may not be elect. You can rephrase this if you like to say that many are not in a state of grace, or do not have living faith, or however your theology leads you to put it. The point remains that baptism and other signs of membership in the Church do not guarantee a seat at the marriage feast of the Lamb (i.e., salvation–but the point is that the Church is described in the NT as the bride of Christ who will be present at the marriage feast). As far as I know, the Reformers were the first ones to use the phrase “invisible Church” (though I may be wrong). However, they still insisted on the importance of the visible Church–Calvin said that the visible Church is our mother outside of whom there is no salvation.

Edwin

thank you edwin for your reply and explaining to me your interpretation of the “invisible church”. i am not sure if this is found anywhere in the catechism of the church or if Catholics use this. however, i understand your explanation of what it means.

if anyone else disagrees with his answer, please let me know.

i did not have a good Christian foundation growing up (in the episcopal church) and i guess i thought that since i was baptized and confirmed in the episcopal church i was okay in my salvation. looking back, however, i realize there were many times my life was not in a state of grace and if i would have met death during those years, i don’t know where i might have ended up.

i am a confirmed roman catholic now and know that my life is a work in progress. by that i mean, it seems that no matter how hard i try to live in a state of grace, i know that i am not 100% there. i have to be honest. i am still learning what really believing in Jesus Christ is and God’s plan for man and how man is not the center of the universe, but Jesus is.

 

[TriuneUnity]

thank you edwin for your reply and explaining to me your interpretation of the “invisible church”. i am not sure if this is found anywhere in the catechism of the church or if Catholics use this. however, i understand your explanation of what it means.

Interestingly, aside from the Scriptural support, the idea flowered within the bosom of Rome. For a good idea of it, read Augustine’s Against the Donatists.

 

[anon52328184]

triune, what is a donatist?

 

[TriuneUnity]

triune, what is a donatist?

The Donatists were a heretical group that based the validity of the sacraments on the personal character of the one giving the sacrament. Thus, if the priest were not a true Christian, the Supper would not be a valid eucharist.

 

[anon52328184]

interesting. maybe i will do a little further research on this group. thanks!

 

[valiermn]

Not if they wanna get to heaven.

One must believe in Christ to get to heaven and be a christian. Not only catholics are going to heaven. To even think such a thought is not what Jesus taught.

 

[JRKH]

One must believe in Christ to get to heaven and be a christian. Not only catholics are going to heaven. To even think such a thought is not what Jesus taught.

Jesus also taught that we should be humble and submit to Authority.
See Matthew 16: 15-18
Also Matthew 23:2-3

That Authority resides in His Church:
See Matthew 16 18:19

If one rebels agianst the Authority of Christs Steward Church, then one rebels against Christ who is King.
This is precisely what the Protestant “Reformers Did”.

Peace
James

 

[valiermn]

As a former cradle-Catholic, I can tell you that the Catholic church doesn’t teach that it is infallible. Infallibility is applied to the pope when he speaks in excathedra (faith and morals). I do not believe in this concept personally. You make a good point however to question the church and it being correct in its teachings. I believe that it can fail just as any other church can and has hence the Reformation. I believe that the Catholic church has quietly accepted much of what Luther argued for during the 16th century.

The Catholic church has quietly accepted much of what Luther argued during the 16th century. If you look at both sides of Reformation and read the 95 thies you can see that. Luther did not want to start a church. He saw coruption in the church and pointed it out. The Pope defined him as a heritic and Catholics for five hundred years have been miss informed on what luther taught.

 

[MagicKirk]

I only posted what I quickly found on the web in reaction to this post. Catholics used to hand me the Madrid book of converted Protestants to Catholicism. In return, I gave them a book of converted ex-nuns and Priests who converted to sola scriptura.

Hello Reformed.I have a question. In your opinion, are there any “important” Protestant apologists who are former nuns or priests?

 

[ralphinal]

Not only that, but if the Church is composed of people (which is obvious) and the Church is indefectible and infallible, then every member of the Church would also have to be indefectible and infallible. Also, the Church would need to prove that every single reference to “church” in the NT refers to a magisterial hierarchy (or incense, for that matter).

This would be true if we were talking in general. The protection for the Church against teaching errors is very limited and does not depend on individual piety. It only applies to matters of faith and morals and only applies to the Magisterium as a whole when in council, when teaching in union with the pope, or when the pope speaks ex cathedra.

Why would every “church” in the NT have to mean the same thing?

 

[historyb]

(I’m not trying to argue, I’m trying to get information/views on something I know very little about)

Would you [Catholics] agree that there were some very real problems during the time of the Reformation? And didn’t Luther’s ideas bring to light the corruption of the church?

Yep

If so, then doesn’t that make the Roman Catholic Church fallible? How then do you know that everything it teaches today is correct?

I don’t

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic church has quietly accepted much of what Luther argued during the 16th century. If you look at both sides of Reformation and read the 95 thies you can see that.

You are misinformed. The 95 Theses were just the beginning. Most of Luther’[s distinctive teachings are not clearly found there, though many of their roots are. Catholics do indeed have relatively few problems with the Theses today, although they would still have some. Catholics cut the Luther of the Theses a lot of slack (note that I’m talking about Catholic scholars, trained theologians, and popes and bishops, not the self-appointed Champions of the Faith you meet on this board) because they recognize that he was responding not only to corruption but to an overly legalistic way of putting Catholic doctrines. But they would still seek to reformulate rather than rejecting ideas such as the power of the keys (as applied to purgatory and indulgences), which Luther rejected in the Theses.

Luther did not want to start a church.

Of course he didn’t.

He saw coruption in the church and pointed it out.

As did lots of people. That wasn’t the issue.

The Pope defined him as a heritic

Not for pointing out corruption. Initially for denying the power of the keys, the treasury of merits, the value of seeking to escape purgatory, and other such things–later on Luther added plenty more reasons for the Pope to be mad at him. In fact, at Worms in 1521, the Emperor’s father confessor expressed the opinion (admittedly the Pope may well have disagreed) that everything Luther had taught could still be reconciled with Catholic faith except for his sacramental teaching as found in the *Babylonian Captivity. *That was what really cut him off from the Catholic Church, not his attack on indulgences. Up to the point when he wrote the *Babylonian Captivity, *he had a lot of reform-minded Catholics on his side. He was seen as a champion of humanism and true Christian piety against the stick-in-the-mud Dominicans (this is how many people saw them) and the corrupt papal bureaucracy. But with his comprehensive attack on Catholic sacramental teaching and his denunciation of the papacy as Antichrist, he set off on a new path.

and Catholics for five hundred years have been miss informed on what luther taught.

There has been plenty of misinformation on both sides. You’re adding to it, not clearing it up. We will accomplish nothing as long as we keep throwing stereotypes back and forth at each other.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

But this is obviously a distinction that you make only when members of the Church sin or err. You don’t say “a member of the Church defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854.” You say, “the Church defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854.” However, when a Pope does something wrong, suddenly he isn’t “the Church” any more but just a “member.” When certain members of the Church teach doctrine authoritatively (and the others go along with them), or do other things of which you retrospectively approve, they are “the Church.” But when they goof up, they aren’t. This implies a particularly pernicious version of the doctrine of the “invisible Church.” “The Church” in this formulation is a transcendent reality which cannot be identified simply with any earthly structure (i.e., an “invisible Church”), but which acts through certain “members of the Church” at certain times and under certain conditions. So you get the best of both worlds. The pope and bishops can claim to be “the Church” when teaching doctrine, but “the Church” escapes all blame for their mistakes.

First, I’d like to respond to 'However, when a Pope does something wrong, suddenly he isn’t “the Church” any more but just a “member.” ’

The Pope never is the Church.

Just because we say “the Church defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854” and also “the Pope defined the Immaculate Conception as dogma in 1854”, that doesn’t imply that the Pope was the Church in 1854.

In the same way, we say “St. Paul wrote the Letter to the Romans” and we also say “the Church wrote the Letter to the Romans” (and even “God wrote the Letter to the Romans”); but we’re not saying that St. Paul was the Church (much less God).

… But other than that, I think you’ve got your facts right, but are determined to see “the sinless and infallible Church” as problematic when it isn’t.

This is at the root of most of the problems in Catholicism, I think. Do priests commit horrible sins, and do bishops condone them? Sure, but that isn’t the Church. Is Catholic liturgy often lacking in any sense of the transcendent? Sure, but “the Church” isn’t really like that. And then you blame Protestants for believing in an “invisible Church”!

There just is the Church, period. It’s people. And people sin and err, so the Church does too. Anything else denies the reality of the Body of Christ.

I wouldn’t say that I blame Protestants for believing in an “invisible Church” (even though, as a Catholic, I wouldn’t use that terminology so much myself).

In fact, if it were just a choice between the Protestant (perhaps I should say Evangelical Protestant) idea of an “invisible Church” which excludes anyone who’s Christian in name only and isn’t on the path to salvation, and your (Anglican/Lutheran?) idea that “people sin and err, so the Church does too” … well, I hope your sitting down for this, I would have to go with the “invisible Church” terminology.

 

[mercygate]

One must believe in Christ to get to heaven and be a christian. Not only catholics are going to heaven. To even think such a thought is not what Jesus taught.

Hm. Do you KNOW what the Catholic Church teaches on this?

 

[mercygate]

The Catholic church has quietly accepted much of what Luther argued during the 16th century. If you look at both sides of Reformation and read the 95 thies you can see that. Luther did not want to start a church. He saw coruption in the church and pointed it out. The Pope defined him as a heritic and Catholics for five hundred years have been miss informed on what luther taught.

Luther was not a heretic for pointing out corruption. He was heretical in his soteriology.