We Catholics Are Dead Sure The Church Is The One Church Of Christ And That All Others Are Mistaken

[O.S.Luke]

Excuse me but there are **tens of thousands of competing denominations each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere BUT MISLED Christians. Just open up your yellow pages of your phone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the “Bible alone”, BUT NO TWO OF THEM AGREEING ON EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE MEANS. The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor 14:33).
God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs because His truth is one.
**Try again.

Excuse you.

You obviously didn’t read your own posts, much less mine, or you wouldn’t have said what you did above. I think you just want to set up Strawmen and “win” arguments at all costs, OTCA.

In looking in the yellow pages here, I did not see one church or denominational listing that said it went by “Bible alone.” I think you’ve been caught at hyperbole. Again.

Instead of “trying again”, why don’t you simply read what I said instead of spinning it? Just a suggestion toward some honest and helpful apologetics.

Pax,

O+

 

[Louie1983]

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin: Jon

Thankyou Jon, now to really drive my point home. What is this passage referring to? what the church teaches or the conduct of certain people? It refers to the conduct of men and also the fact that luther could not accept church teaching on certain areas. \

The last sentence "."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:"
Who was the one that broke from the church because he did not accept it’s teachings? Was it not luther? he excommunicated himself by rejecting church teachings and therefore church authority, He removed certain books from the bible etc. Who is the heretic here in this instance? the church certainly wasn’t (it was sticking to what it taught).
It was Luther’s sin here that lead to this break from the church. Yes there were church members who were not acting correctly, god will judge them. But it’s not for anyone else o judge let alone start your own church.

I pray all the more harder that christians everywhere will come home to his holy catholic church!

 

[O.S.Luke]

Well out of 1.5 BILLION Catholics, I am sure a few go astray.

Better revise that number again.
Catholic News Agency:

Vatican City, Feb 12, 2007 / 05:22 pm (CNA).

Monday morning, Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B. presented the Holy Father with the 2007 edition of the “Annuario Pontificio,” or pontifical yearbook. According to the stats compiled in the new book, the percentage of the world which is Catholic remained unchanged, while the number of priests slightly increased.

According to the yearbook’s newly compiled stats for the years between 2004 and 2005, the number of Catholics increasing in the world from 1,098 million to 1,115 million, a growth of 1.5 percent. However, because this growth is very similar to that of the population of the planet (1.2 percent), the percentage of Catholics in the world remained substantially unchanged at 17.2 percent.

In other words, that would be 1.1 billion… a difference of 400 million people. That’s a pretty big exaggeration, since the United States only has 304 million people.

For full article click here.

ADDENDUM: I found the 2008 Pontifical Yearbook, which stated the following: “Between 2005 and 2006, the number of Catholics in the world increased from 1,115 million to 1,131 million, a growth of 1.4 percent.”

That would be 1.11 billion to 1.13 billion. Still a far cry from 1.5 billion.

Facts are facts, OTCA.

 

[motstraumen]

who is junia??

what does Jerome (etc) have to do with what we were discussing?
I’m not a Mr.
In the beginning Luther had some good ideas… but his ego got the best of him (my opinion). And he did not try to bring the Church back from man-made errors… only those IN the Church.,… only a non-Catholic would say this…
what isn’t? you don’t post my remark so i don’t know…
yes i am… but not about what you think…

again, you don’t post what comments i made… so i have no idea how to answer…

Look up Junia in Romans. And you never really know how to answer. I listed some Church Fathers, Jerome and Chrysotom, have you heard of them, they point to Junia as a female apostle. You said it was clear cut that Jesus didn’t chose women apostles or therefore the earliest church, ie Jerusalem. The New Testament has Junia, sometimes spelled in some manuscripts, Julia as a fellow apostle to Paul, whom he greets. Jerome and Chrysotom are witness to this Catholic Tradition. I posted your comments and commented thus on them. You said in your statement that Lutherans don’t really want this dialogue. They do as does your church. But it seems that you do not. The dialogue has been sanctioned by your Bishops, if you are not obedient to them, then according to what you and many others of your ilk have thrown at other Roman Catholics on here, is that you are not a Catholic, perhaps a Cafeteria Catholic, but not a true one. Distracted if you are going to go around and declare “tradition, nothing has changed, we’ve been around for 2000 years”, then you should understand and study that tradition. You do your cause no good, and you sully your church and its teaching of hoped for reconciliation with both the Eastern Church and the Protestant Churches. If you are a true Catholic you would, again, be obedient to the teachings of your church, and follow, yes, follow the apostolic leaders of your church, the Pope, the cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops, and the priests. That is the fundamental teaching of your church.

 

[motstraumen]

I have to take issue with this statement that there was “nothing wrong” with Catholicism at the time. Whether folks want to admit it or not, there was rampant corruption. There was the selling of indulgences, money for salvation. I’ve heard several of my fellow Catholics claim that indulgences were not “sold” but rather donations were optional. Reading about guys like Tetzel and history you’ll see that this was often not the case. Indulgences were corrupt.

Also the lay people generally only took communion once per year and the laity had little role in the Mass.

Bishoprics were often bought and sold, many priests and some bishops were not even really literate in scripture. Benefices were expected and purchased, etc.

Some popes in the middle ages, especially the Medici popes, lived debauched personal lives and were not a good example. I know many would say that their personal lives are not their official ex cathedra lives but it still matters. Living by example is crucial.

Martin Luther himself was horrified when he went to Rome if you read his memoirs. He saw priests taking up with prostitutes, his fellow priests from Rome criticized him for saying Mass too slowly and with too much care, and people climbed up stone steps on their knees saying pater nosters thinking they could get indulgences.

The culture of relics got out of hand in the middle ages. You can read about people claiming they had everything from splinters of Christ’s Cross to St. Mary’s girdle to Jesus’s swaddling blanket.

The quality of overall clergy and corruption was high. As Catholics, we should be able to admit this and realize that these things happen. Look at our own clerical pedaphilia issues in the last several years.

Martin Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Cranmer and company lived during these times. Protestantism broke off seeking to reform the Church. We Catholics tend to believe that some of them threw out the baby with the bath water and some Catholics believe that nothing whatsoever was wrong with our Church at the time. Some believe that the whole thing was unfortunate and it was just a product of the move toward nationalism. Others feel that these men had good consciences, meant well, and truly loved Christ, feeling they were doing the right thing breaking off.

It’s just oversimplification to say that nothing was wrong. I think it’s like saying, “as a Republican, I supported the Iraq War but think it wasn’t well-prosecuted” vs. saying “the war war perfect from day one and not one mistake was made, flawless.” One can be a good Republican and admit faults and stumbling.

It is because of members like you that I have come to learn from my Catholic brothers and sister. Thank you. I am sure that we disagree on many points because of our different churches and teachings, but at least you (as well as I try to) look at history objectively. The Lutherans on here know that Luther was not perfect, as would I am sure a Calvinist or an Anglican say the same thing about their particular Reformer. Today you will find a great deal of us viewing the dialogues with great anticipation and hope for unity.

 

[Louie1983]

Look up Junia in Romans. And you never really know how to answer. I listed some Church Fathers, Jerome and Chrysotom, have you heard of them, they point to Junia as a female apostle. You said it was clear cut that Jesus didn’t chose women apostles or therefore the earliest church, ie Jerusalem. The New Testament has Junia, sometimes spelled in some manuscripts, Julia as a fellow apostle to Paul, whom he greets. Jerome and Chrysotom are witness to this Catholic Tradition. I posted your comments and commented thus on them. You said in your statement that Lutherans don’t really want this dialogue. They do as does your church. But it seems that you do not. The dialogue has been sanctioned by your Bishops, if you are not obedient to them, then according to what you and many others of your ilk have thrown at other Roman Catholics on here, is that you are not a Catholic, perhaps a Cafeteria Catholic, but not a true one. Distracted if you are going to go around and declare “tradition, nothing has changed, we’ve been around for 2000 years”, then you should understand and study that tradition. You do your cause no good, and you sully your church and its teaching of hoped for reconciliation with both the Eastern Church and the Protestant Churches. If you are a true Catholic you would, again, be obedient to the teachings of your church, and follow, yes, follow the apostolic leaders of your church, the Pope, the cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops, and the priests. That is the fundamental teaching of your church.

Who said she doesn’t follow the church and it’s teachings? it’s just her opinion that she believes Lutherans don’t want dialogue. If this troubles you then you will find this website a bit too much too handle because people share their personal opinions here to as well as their faith.

I don’t believe you are in any position to tell people how to follow their faith or calling them “cafeteria catholics”. By defending her faith she is actually following the magisterium by “teaching the faith in season and out”. The church and Christ commands us to preach his Gospel and his message.
If you can’t understand this (which may be the case) then don’t accuse people of not being true catholics" given you are not one yourself.

I’m all for dialogue and unity, i couldn;t agree with you more here. But the unity i seek (and the church for that matter) is the return of all christians to the holy catholic church.

 

[motstraumen]

Ok fair enough if he had a problem with certain church members behaviour, but why then remove certain books from the bible? he didn;t only have a problem with the behaviour of some but also with what the church taught on certain subjects.

Yes the church has had some bad times but that is no excuse to let go of the faith and then start your own church.

This goes around and around. He was sent by his Augustinian order to teach the Bible at the new university in Wittenberg. As he studied the original languages of the Bible and even better manuscripts that they had obtained by this time, not just the Latin Vulgate, he came to realizations that the Vulgate wasn’t always the best translation. He never threw out any books. If you look at his translation all the books are there, even the books from deutro-canonical Old Testament. These books were not in the Hebrew canon which according to many on here, since they, the Jews, have been around for so much longer than the Roman Church, was more authoritative. He urged though that the deutro-canonical books be studied with due diligence. And yes he did have a problem with some church teachings, as did Erasmus, and we could go back to the earliest church fathers, why do you think we have the three ecumenical creeds? He never let go of the faith, he never started a new church, he reformed those man-made things that had crept into the apostolic faith and church. When one says well the “Bishops or Priests or even Pope went to confession…therefore…” is great on a human level but when there lifestyle and quest for power leads people astray then it would have been better that a millstone be placed around…etc as we hear Jesus proclaim. As parish priest Luther saw too many people take their religion for granted and not really learn what the Gospel teaches about faith, hope, and love. I would hope any priest, pastor, bishop or layman would do the same if they saw the Gospel being trampled by the world. And through our dialogue we have discovered many gifts our various denominations have and through Christ alone will be one again someday, this is my ardent prayer.

 

[Louie1983]

This goes around and around. He was sent by his Augustinian order to teach the Bible at the new university in Wittenberg. As he studied the original languages of the Bible and even better manuscripts that they had obtained by this time, not just the Latin Vulgate, he came to realizations that the Vulgate wasn’t always the best translation. He never threw out any books. If you look at his translation all the books are there, even the books from deutro-canonical Old Testament. These books were not in the Hebrew canon which according to many on here, since they, the Jews, have been around for so much longer than the Roman Church, was more authoritative. He urged though that the deutro-canonical books be studied with due diligence. And yes he did have a problem with some church teachings, as did Erasmus, and we could go back to the earliest church fathers, why do you think we have the three ecumenical creeds? He never let go of the faith, he never started a new church, he reformed those man-made things that had crept into the apostolic faith and church. When one says well the “Bishops or Priests or even Pope went to confession…therefore…” is great on a human level but when there lifestyle and quest for power leads people astray then it would have been better that a millstone be placed around…etc as we hear Jesus proclaim. As parish priest Luther saw too many people take their religion for granted and not really learn what the Gospel teaches about faith, hope, and love. I would hope any priest, pastor, bishop or layman would do the same if they saw the Gospel being trampled by the world. And through our dialogue we have discovered many gifts our various denominations have and through Christ alone will be one again someday, this is my ardent prayer.

Yes we could go back to the earliest church fathers but that’s why there is a magisterium and why they hac ouncils! To decipher truth from error, For just as many bishops etc that did not agree with the catholic church there are just as many if not more bishops etc that agreed with church teaching!

He never threw out any book - then why does the bible that lutherans use have 7 books missing? If he never lost the faith then why couldn’t he accept church teaching? he commiteed the sin of pride, he thought he knew better then the church. The church up unitl that point had been around for 1500 years! Who was he to challenge the teachings of the church?

Man-made things? Are you suggesting that some teachings were man-made?I really hope not. As jesus promised that he would be with his church until the end of time, the church is guided by the holy spirit - it cannot be wrong! If luther believed that some teachings were man made and that the church is not guided by the holy spirit then he wasn’t thrown out, he threw himself out.

Your comment about bishops, popes and confession - what has this got to do with anything? This confirms the fact the church has sinners. Even the pope and the structure are sinners. St peter was a sinner! But the church was given the authority to preach to all nations and forgive sins, through the apostolic succession to this day you can see that the church has not broken the succession. But unfortunately the lutheran church has broken from this. It cannot claim to have apostolic succession, all because Luther could not accept that he may have been wrong.

 

[motstraumen]

Hitler converted to Protestanism as he got older.

Where do you have this proof?

If I brought up the fact that Goebbels, Hitler, and Himmler were all raised Catholic what good would that do? The fact is the majority of Christians in Germany didn’t stand up to this terrible regime and quell it from the get go…therefore we have nuts like today who go around and spout their hatred and venom and even kill. OTCA you need to think, please. It serves no one, especially our Lord and Savior.

 

[motstraumen]

Yes we could go back to the earliest church fathers but that’s why there is a magisterium and why they hac ouncils! To decipher truth from error, For just as many bishops etc that did not agree with the catholic church there are just as many if not more bishops etc that agreed with church teaching!

Luther and the princes begged for a council, but the Popes of that era were deathly afraid of them

He never threw out any book - then why does the bible that lutherans use have 7 books missing? If he never lost the faith then why couldn’t he accept church teaching? he commiteed the sin of pride, he thought he knew better then the church. The church up unitl that point had been around for 1500 years! Who was he to challenge the teachings of the church?

Leo, Adrian and Clement and the curia were the prideful ones, in my opinion. Come and look at my Bible, look at the original that he Translated all the books are there. Yes, many Lutherans today do not have the seven books because as our Church melded into the English calvinist culture they disappeared. The sad thing is that many Bibles of these Lutheran countries our without the beautiful books of the “apocrypha” or deutro-canonical books, but it is untrue to say Luther threw them out. He could accept church teaching, just not false teaching by a papal system that only thought of raw earthly power. There had been other reformations throughout those 1500 years. Remember the circumcision party and Paul, James the Just, Pope Gregory the Great, Augustine,. et al…If there is rampant abuse of power and authority by my Bishop and I see faithful falling away because his/her error, whether I am Lay or Clergy, I have every right, actually a duty, to speak up and challenge. Again, he wasn’t challenging church teaching, he was challenging church abuse and error that had crept into the blessed church.

Man-made things? Are you suggesting that some teachings were man-made?I really hope not. As jesus promised that he would be with his church until the end of time, the church is guided by the holy spirit - it cannot be wrong! If luther believed that some teachings were man made and that the church is not guided by the holy spirit then he wasn’t thrown out, he threw himself out.

Yes, Man-made things like (and I know you don’t believe this) purgatory, penance vs. penitential, the use of indulgences, celibacy, and to varying degrees mariology, and the thought that Peter could be the first bishop of Rome, when the Church was founded there years before his arrival. If anything Rome should still defer to Jerusalem’s patriarch.

Your comment about bishops, popes and confession - what has this got to do with anything? This confirms the fact the church has sinners. Even the pope and the structure are sinners. St peter was a sinner! But the church was given the authority to preach to all nations and forgive sins, through the apostolic succession to this day you can see that the church has not broken the succession. But unfortunately the lutheran church has broken from this. It cannot claim to have apostolic succession, all because Luther could not accept that he may have been wrong.

*Apostolic Succession means little when at the time the very leaders of the Church had lost all semblance to faith except perfunctory rituals. And wasn’t it broken a bit when you (I perhaps should say we here) had up to three popes at one time, or what about the woman pope, Joan. There are Lutheran Churches that have maintained it: Sweden, Finland, Tanzania, and it is being restored in our communion, and yes, I know you don’t believe this. Although it doesn’t negate the fact that we define Apostolic Succession as maintaining the true (full) faith.

Luther could accept that he was wrong, he asked the Church to show him. They simply refused on the grounds that they didn’t have to, it was more important to get the bishopric of Mainz paid for and St. Peter’s Basilica built. Beyond that he listened to his colleagues like Melancthon and even his wife Katy, and was more than willing to say “I made a mistake!”*

 

[motstraumen]

7 And wasn’t it broken a bit when you (I perhaps should say we here) had up to three popes at one time, or what about the woman pope, Joan.

The quoting of a legend of Pope Joan was not fair on my part. I apologize.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Better revise that number again.

In other words, that would be 1.1 billion… a difference of 400 million people. That’s a pretty big exaggeration, since the United States only has 304 million people.

For full article click here.

ADDENDUM: I found the 2008 Pontifical Yearbook, which stated the following: “Between 2005 and 2006, the number of Catholics in the world increased from 1,115 million to 1,131 million, a growth of 1.4 percent.”

That would be 1.11 billion to 1.13 billion. Still a far cry from 1.5 billion.

Facts are facts, OTCA.

Doesn’t matter sir, over a Billion members is what matters. You are trying to pick apart things that don’t matter. Over a Billion members sir. That’s it, end of story.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Doesn’t matter sir, over a Billion members is what matters. You are trying to pick apart things that don’t matter. Over a Billion members sir. That’s it, end of story.

Facts DO matter, ma’am - and you handled this just as I thought you would. No integrity, OTCA. If you can’t be honest in a little, how will you be honest in much?

Again, I have the greatest respect for Catholicism and the wonderful things it stands for in the Kingdom of God. However, you do your faith a disservice.

As far as numbers - God rejoices over even one that is lost and now found.

You’re not too good with numbers, OTCA.

 

[rinnie]

Excuse me but there are **tens of thousands of competing denominations each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere BUT MISLED Christians. Just open up your yellow pages of your phone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the “Bible alone”, BUT NO TWO OF THEM AGREEING ON EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE MEANS. The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor 14:33).
God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs because His truth is one.
**Try again.

And in order for his truth to be one, his Church must be one. And that is why the Apostles Creed states. I believe IN ONE HCAC. Many claim to agree with the Apostles teachings, but deny the creed. Because how could you deny the Catholic Church. And divide it into many. There is but one. They must be in communion with the Pope. If they are in communion with the Pope there is one teaching.

 

[rinnie]

As far as Hitler I do not know what he was. In my opinion Catholic nor Protestant. Because Catholic’s and Protestant’s agree with the ten commandments. And we all fear God. We never want to disobey him. Hitler KILLED. Actually there were very few if any ten commandments he missed. To say you are a Catholic is one thing. To live like a Catholic is completely another.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes there were was fault and blame on both sides but there was no fault in regards to what the church taught. This is the key issue here, if luther couldn’t bring himself to accept what the church taught and see past the misconduct of certain church members (hey i can do it, i’m sure he could as well!) then that showed his weakness and pride. He couldn;t accept that the church was right on certain issue?

Also where does the catechism specifically say that there was fault and blame on both sides?

So do i Jon, but i pray for all christians to return home to the catholic church. This is the unity i seek.

We hear the same refrain from some RCs here. The RCC never errors, but there is “misconduct” on the part of “some” members. Members (clergy) are in error, but never the Church as a whole. My question is, how do you keep the two separate? Under this definition, no church of any denomination need ever be in error. It simply has members who err from time to time. Therefore the RCC did not err with regard to Galileo, but only a few men in the church at that time. It seems a wispy definition, one that can be used at will to “prevent the Church from error.”

 

[motstraumen]

Who said she doesn’t follow the church and it’s teachings? it’s just her opinion that she believes Lutherans don’t want dialogue. If this troubles you then you will find this website a bit too much too handle because people share their personal opinions here to as well as their faith.

I don’t believe you are in any position to tell people how to follow their faith or calling them “cafeteria catholics”. By defending her faith she is actually following the magisterium by “teaching the faith in season and out”. The church and Christ commands us to preach his Gospel and his message.
If you can’t understand this (which may be the case) then don’t accuse people of not being true catholics" given you are not one yourself.

I’m all for dialogue and unity, i couldn;t agree with you more here. But the unity i seek (and the church for that matter) is the return of all christians to the holy catholic church.

When the many Protestants who come here out of a real desire to learn more are accused over and over again by people like this of various things, with no proof to back it up, it gives me every right to do the same. Her faith is not following her leaders, which as I understand from all the Catholic members on here one must do! Why can’t I call her or you a cafeteria catholic when you so often do the same to many of your own members, and apparently feel that way about your superiors ie the Pontiff, the Bishops, Priests who have called all faithful to dialogue. By saying the Lutherans don’t want it, that is selling not only us short, but your superiors. And if that is your attitude about dialogue that we all just give up on our tenets of faith without fully fleshing them out in ernest dialogue then we can also go back to the 1950s and before and say, unless those heathen papists return to the Word of God, Jesus Christ and his pure teaching of the Confessions and reinstated purity that the Lutheran Confessions brought back then we won’t talk to them. This is not the attitude of the majority of Lutherans or protestants today, they do truly long for a unity in our one source of unity Jesus Christ. If you can’t understand that then you too are out of step with what has been going on these many years between the Catholic hiearchy and their Protestant counterparts.

When it comes to personal opinions I am fine with it, but I have seen all too often, it is just great for the catholic (the truly catholic, not the cafeteria catholic) to voice their fine opinion, but let someone disagree with them and then we have the response like yours. I can handle it, but it seems you or distracted cannot.

 

[motstraumen]

As far as Hitler I do not know what he was. In my opinion Catholic nor Protestant. Because Catholic’s and Protestant’s agree with the ten commandments. And we all fear God. We never want to disobey him. Hitler KILLED. Actually there were very few if any ten commandments he missed. To say you are a Catholic is one thing. To live like a Catholic is completely another.

I agree with you, rinnie. I just don’t understand why Protestant and Catholic didn’t stand up to this evil man and his regime. It was shown that it was effective in Scandinavia. When the clergy arose almost in toto and laid down their offices instead of declaring Nazi filth from the pulpit the Nazis did not know what to do. They backed off and an amazing amount of people, especially Jews, were saved. It is like the bully on the playground, everything is great when they have the upper hand, but turn the tables and they are lost.

 

[JonNC]

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin: Jon

]

"."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

"
Who was the one that broke from the church because he did not accept it’s teachings? Was it not luther? he excommunicated himself by rejecting church teachings and therefore church authority, He removed certain books from the bible etc. Who is the heretic here in this instance? the church certainly wasn’t (it was sticking to what it taught).
It was Luther’s sin here that lead to this break from the church. Yes there were church members who were not acting correctly, god will judge them. But it’s not for anyone else o judge let alone start your own church.

I pray all the more harder that christians everywhere will come home to his holy catholic church!

I think by laying blame at men of both sides, your Church clearly is saying that Luther was not alone in the sad events of the 1500’s. If you will recall, Luther’s initial complaints did not deal with Church doctrine, per se, but with Church practice even up to the highest levels in Rome. There was plenty of error to go around, and to simplify this into “what Luther did” does not reveal the entire story.

For example: Luther removed books from the Bible. Aside that the statement is factually not true - Luther’s Bible contained all the books (except for the ones that the Orthodox claim Rome has removed ). Luther’s take on the canon was similar to many of his era and before, and his Bible was pre-Trent. My understanding that his position was not considered heresy at his time.

I could simplify what the Church was doing by saying they were selling indulgences, but even that improperly simplifies the times and events.

So, when the Catholic Catechism lays blame at men on both sides, I don’t believe they mean just Luther.

Finally, one must read further into 818 and 819:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

I find the last sentence remarkable: ‘All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity”.’

I believe the call to catholic unity (a redundancy, but no matter) requires a reaching out by Christians of good will on both sides. With the Holy Spirit, I believe the differences between us can be overcome.

Jon

 

[rinnie]

We hear the same refrain from some RCs here. The RCC never errors, but there is “misconduct” on the part of “some” members. Members (clergy) are in error, but never the Church as a whole. My question is, how do you keep the two separate? Under this definition, no church of any denomination need ever be in error. It simply has members who err from time to time. Therefore the RCC did not err with regard to Galileo, but only a few men in the church at that time. It seems a wispy definition, one that can be used at will to “prevent the Church from error.”

No Spring Meadow you do not understand what the magisterium is. It is the teaching office. Only God can make known to us the truths we most need to know. God’s Son continues to speak to who he chooses to send in his name. Jn. 15:16. They must not be SELF-APPOINTED they must BE CALLED in HIS NAME Jer 23:13-28. Jesus did not leave us orphans. He anointed in the Holy Spirit who he chose to continue to teach everything he made know to them in his name. It was by the will of Jesus Christ that the Apostles would speak in his name and with his authority they taught on matters of the faith.

You have a really big problem with this teaching and try to turn it around any time you can. It is Jesus Christ that promised that not us.

He assured them the assistance of the Spirit who would guard them in all truth in speaking. John 14:16.

All the bishops form a college in the same way the Apostles formed an apostolic college. With Peter as head and the Pope today. Not a thing has changed.

Now could you please show me in the bible where the Apostles were not human and did not have human minds and human sin when it came to speaking on their own authority? not on the authority of Jesus Christ? You do you best to turn around these teachings but as I showed you true scripture. The anointing that the Priest’s get with Holy Orders does not mean that they are not human and cannot make mistakes when like us are giving their own opinion. The same with the Pope and Bishops. But when they are speaking with the authority of Christ it is not possible to make a mistake.

No Catholic has ever asked you or anyone to go by the personal opinions of any Priest, Pope, Bishop etc. The only time any Catholic has ever said there can be no mistake is when they speak with the Authority OF Christ, and when their teachings are within dogma of the Church. That is only when their word is infallible.

So again please do not accuse us of something that it is plain that you do not understand. When it is CLEARLY NOTED that any specific teaching is proclaimed as held by the whole Church at all times as part of her ordinary teaching, then it is assumed that all faithful must hold that teaching in a definitive way. ALL SUCH TEACHING IS INFALLIBLY TAUGHT.