What does 'Church no, Jesus yes' mean?

[jmcrae]

I think in simplistic terms it means that the Bible defines the church, not the church that defines the bible.

How can the Bible define the Church? Since the Bible was given by the Church, in 405 AD. There was no Bible for the Church to “come out of” - it did not exist yet when Christ was establishing the Church. (Christ established the Church, but He did not write even one word of Scripture. That was done by the Apostles and their followers.)

The Church IS very important but it is not any final authority and is subject to corruption like any other institution.

There may be man-made churches that fit that description, but that which Christ established upon Peter and his successors (the Popes of the Catholic Church) is “pure and undefiled, a Bride arrayed in white garments.”

 

[RTully]

This is begging the question, Tully. “I believe the NT is uncorrupted because the NT is uncorrupted.”

That’s not what I said, I clearly stated “we don’t other than faith”. Looking at the history we have it seems, in my opinion that the early churches were for the most part clean. It wasn’t until the Church started getting massive political power that it became corrupted. If it means anything to you I do not believe the current Roman Catholic Church is corrupt. It’s just hard to look at history and claim the Roman Catholic Church and Pope of past centuries were not corrupt.

I mean seriously, selling indulgences, starting holy wars for occupation of lands, Popes claiming non Catholics can not be saved. These are historical events that Catholics have to defend if they still want to claim infailability.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not what I said, I clearly stated “we don’t other than faith”. Looking at the history we have it seems, in my opinion that the early churches were for the most part clean. It wasn’t until the Church started getting massive political power that it became corrupted. If it means anything to you I do not believe the current Roman Catholic Church is corrupt. It’s just hard to look at history and claim the Roman Catholic Church and Pope of past centuries were not corrupt.

Fair enough.

If this is your position, then as a Lutheran, this corrupt historical Church was also *your *corrupt Church.

All the abuses you cite (which are, BTW, examples of misuse of orthopraxy, not of orthdoxy) are part of your history as well, for did not the Crusades, selling of indulgences etc occur prior to the Reformation?

 

[PRmerger]

I mean seriously, selling indulgences, starting holy wars for occupation of lands, Popes claiming non Catholics can not be saved. These are historical events that Catholics have to defend if they still want to claim infailability.

First you’ll have to provide Church teaching that declares one must start holy wars and sell indulgences.

As far as* Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus* is this not an extension of your belief that outside of Christ there is no salvation? Or do you not believe that as a Lutheran?

And, truly, outside of Christ, the Head, and Christ’s Body, the Church, there* is* no salvation. This has been the constant teaching of the Church and is an infallible statement.

 

[RTully]

Fair enough.

If this is your position, then as a Lutheran, this corrupt historical Church was also *your *corrupt Church.

Correct, I do not deny that and even in the day of the Church corruptness I would still imagine the vast majority of Catholics were not. The problem was the corrupt at the time seem to be in leadership positions.

First you’ll have to provide Church teaching that declares one must start holy wars and sell indulgences.

And, truly, outside of Christ, the Head, and Christ’s Body, the Church, there is no salvation. This has been the constant teaching of the Church and is an infallible statement.

These were things that were declared by the Pope {infailable leader} of the Church.

Notice the change of position on Salvation:

Then:
—We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her.----

Now:
LUMEN GENTIUM(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

Again I want to say I do not believe the Catholic Church is corrupted now, I have great respect and love for Catholics. My Dad was raised Catholic and the majority of my family on his side are Catholics. My only problem is the idea of the Roman Catholic Church and its Popes are somehow infailable. There is too much historical evidence to the contrary for me to believe this.

 

[Esdra]

Esdra:

The Bible is the Word of God and thus ALL verses are essential.

PRmerger:

'zactly!

Esdra:

What are these for strange verses? - I mean, are they only examples and you have chosen them randomly or did you want to tell me something with them?

PRmerger:

I like them. This one in Malachi describes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I’m pretty sure your church does not fulfill this verse. For you church does not offer any “pure offering”, yes?

Malachi 1:11

11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

One note: I don’t think that this verse is talking about the sacrifice of the Eucharist in mass, but of the one and only acceptable sacrifice for God - the death and resurrection of His Son Christ Jesus. A man 'though without sin had to die for us as a pure offering and since then we have been reconciled with God if we have taken this gift of God and have believed that Jesus, the Son of God, has come in the flesh and has died for us and has risen from the dead again.
That’s, how I would interpret that verse.

Esdra:

1 Peter 3:21

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
(both KJV)

PRmerger:

And I like this one because it speaks of baptism, just as Catholics speak of baptism: it “doth save you”!

PRmerger:

Right back at cha!

 

[jmcrae]

These were things that were declared by the Pope {infailable leader} of the Church.

Can you give the dates of these declarations? Remember that in order to be infallible, the Pope must be speaking to the whole Church (like, not just Spain alone), and he must say, "I declare and define … " with respect to the selling of Indulgences, and with respect to defending Spain from the Islamic conquerors.

Notice the change of position on Salvation:

Then:
—We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her.----

Now:
LUMEN GENTIUM(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

If they are indeed doing this, then (per Unam Sanctum) God will certainly join them with His Church before they die.

Again I want to say I do not believe the Catholic Church is corrupted now, I have great respect and love for Catholics. My Dad was raised Catholic and the majority of my family on his side are Catholics. My only problem is the idea of the Roman Catholic Church and its Popes are somehow infailable. There is too much historical evidence to the contrary for me to believe this.

If a banana goes bad, it stays bad. How can the Church have been corrupted at one time (became a bad fruit) but then somehow it isn’t, today?

Unless it was not the Church itself that went bad, but only certain individuals who were associated with the Church back in those days.

I wonder if that’s what actually happened.

 

[RTully]

Can you give the dates of these declarations? Remember that in order to be infallible, the Pope must be speaking to the whole Church (like, not just Spain alone), and he must say, "I declare and define … "

If a banana goes bad, it stays bad. How can the Church have been corrupted at one time (became a bad fruit) but then somehow it isn’t, today?

You can google/wikipedia all you want on Indulgence sales and the Crusades from that period, the info is readily available. I have trouble agreeing that the Pope doesn’t use “infailability” on such topics as Salvation and War though. To me that’s a copout when things that were clearly bad that has been done by the Pope/Church on such issues to say “he wasn’t using infailability in that case”. Why would he not use it on the most important issues?

To the 2nd point I disagree, the Church is a collection of Humans. Humans can change, especially over generations. The church changed {for the good} when they lost their political power.

 

[PRmerger]

Correct, I do not deny that and even in the day of the Church corruptness I would still imagine the vast majority of Catholics were not. The problem was the corrupt at the time seem to be in leadership positions.

You’ll have no argument from any knowledgeable Catholic here on this point. It is a sad truth that there will always be wolves among the sheep. Jesus predicted as much, did he not?

These were things that were declared by the Pope {infailable leader} of the Church.

First let’s deal with the Crusades and the selling of indulgences. Please provide anything by a Pope that was a matter of doctrine or dogma on this.

And, of course, please provide your sources.

 

[PRmerger]

Notice the change of position on Salvation:

There has been no change of position, Tully. You are misinformed.

Then:
—We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her.----

Amen!

Now:
LUMEN GENTIUM(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

Again, Catholics respond with a hearty amen!

Now, the concept of EENS has been discussed, ad nauseum, on this forum on multiple threads. I suggest you do a search here to join one.

Suffice it here to say that the above does not demonstrate any change in teaching.

Outside the Church, just like outside of Christ, there is no salvation.

My only problem is the idea of the Roman Catholic Church and its Popes are somehow infailable. There is too much historical evidence to the contrary for me to believe this.

They are not infailable. In its office as the pillar and foundation of truth the Magisterium is prevented from teaching error in the areas of faith and morals.

And, you believe this, too, otherwise you would be telling us what errors the Church made in discerning the canon of Scripture. If you want to argue that the Church should have excluded Revelation and the epistle of James, say, or argue for the inclusion of the Shepherd of Hermas, please provide your arguments here.

 

[PRmerger]

One note: I don’t think that this verse is talking about the sacrifice of the Eucharist in mass, but of the one and only acceptable sacrifice for God - the death and resurrection of His Son Christ Jesus. A man 'though without sin had to die for us as a pure offering and since then we have been reconciled with God if we have taken this gift of God and have believed that Jesus, the Son of God, has come in the flesh and has died for us and has risen from the dead again.
That’s, how I would interpret that verse.

And you would be very Catholic in your interpretation of that verse, Esdra!

However, if your church is not offering this pure sacrifice, “from the rising of the sun to its setting”, then you are not part of the Church that fulfills this.

Now, can you please provide that list of “essentials” to which you referred?

Originally Posted by Esdra
Because in their essentials ALL of those Churches in this tree (which is of course by far not complete, but I think one gets the idea!) are the same.

 

[RTully]

Now, the concept of EENS has been discussed, ad nauseum, on this forum on multiple threads. I suggest you do a search here to join one.

I’ll do a search, thanks. However it seems to me they are polar opposite views.

As for the Crusades and Indulgence Sales and the Popes infailablity in such you can refer to my last post to jmcrae.

I entered this conversation to make a quick point that in general when people talk about the initial idea of the thread it was they put scripture ahead of the church. Wasn’t looking to get into a 3 day theological discussions on 10-16th century Catholic history. I’m about to head out fishing and don’t want to argue these types of things on a Sunday.

Take care.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ll do a search, thanks. However it seems to me they are polar opposite views.

Not at all. Anyone who remains a heretic until the day of his death will certainly go to Hell.

Any heretic who is sincerely seeking the Truth will certainly come to the Truth, leave his heresies, and become at least invisibly (if not visibly) joined to the Church, and thus, go to Heaven.

As for the Crusades and Indulgence Sales and the Popes infailablity in such you can refer to my last post to jmcrae.

If it were not for the Crusades we would all be worshipping either Baal or Allah - certainly not Jesus.

And there was only one guy who was selling Indulgences, and he was never the Pope - he was only a local German priest, who had no power to make Infallible declarations on anything.

 

[PRmerger]

As for the Crusades and Indulgence Sales and the Popes infailablity in such you can refer to my last post to jmcrae.

No, Tully. Wikipedia is not the Magisterium.

I challenge you to back up what you said.

If you’re going to propose that Popes made infallible declarations about the selling of indulgences or invading other countries then you’ll have to provide documentation of said popes doing this.

Otherwise, you will look as if you’re speaking from ignorance and only repeating something you read on someone’s Facebook page.

 

[RTully]

If it were not for the Crusades we would all be worshipping either Baal or Allah - certainly not Jesus.

And there was only one guy who was selling Indulgences, and he was never the Pope - he was only a local German priest, who had no power to make Infallible declarations on anything.

If your first point were true we would be now, as the Roman church lost the effort and did not reclaim the holy lands.

To the 2nd:
In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The aggressive marketing practices of Johann Tetzel in promoting this cause provoked Martin Luther to write his Ninety-Five Theses, condemning what he saw as the purchase and sale of salvation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

 

[jmcrae]

If your first point were true we would be now, as the Roman church lost the effort and did not reclaim the holy lands.

They did save Spain (and thus, the rest of Europe, since Spain is the gateway to Europe from that part of the world) from Muslim and pagan invasion, though.

To the 2nd:
In 1517, Pope Leo X offered indulgences for those who gave alms to rebuild St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

To give alms is not to “buy” anything.

Today, even with no indulgences attached to the giving of alms, people still do it. The Indulgence was always free of charge - the alms were going to whatever charitable works the Pope was supporting at the time. And you could always (as you still can today) gain Indulgences for things that don’t cost anything - saying your prayers, reading your Bible, etc.

 

[PRmerger]

I entered this conversation to make a quick point that in general when people talk about the initial idea of the thread it was they put scripture ahead of the church. Wasn’t looking to get into a 3 day theological discussions on 10-16th century Catholic history. I’m about to head out fishing and don’t want to argue these types of things on a Sunday.

Take care.

As you wish.

However, what you are doing is the equivalent of a playground bully yelling, “Your mama used to be fat and ugly! (Well, now I think she’s hot, and my mom’s best friends with her, so we’re good, right?)”

You must know if you insult our Mama we will rush to defend her.

And we will demand that you show us pictures (here, read Magisterial proclamations) of her being fat and ugly.

This playground bully responds with, *“Sheesh! I really didn’t wish to discuss your fat, ugly mama. I just wanted to play on the swings!” *

'kay. But don’t come to our playground, say mean things about our Mama, and then run away.

 

[RTully]

And we will demand that you show us pictures (here, read Magisterial proclamations) of her being fat and ugly.

LOL, that is funny.

I’ve learned over the years, especially on the internet I don’t always need the last word and in this case we’re off topic, but since you are basically calling me out I will respond. I believe I did in part give my opinion on this in the post I referred you to:

I have trouble agreeing that the Pope doesn’t use “infailability” on such topics as Salvation and War.

It seems rather odd that he wouldn’t use these abilities on some of the biggest moral questions like War and Salvation. It seems to me, and feel free to correct me if there is an example but the Pope only formally claims infailability on subjective issues no one could ever prove he’s wrong.

 

[jmcrae]

It seems rather odd that he wouldn’t use these abilities on some of the biggest moral questions like War and Salvation. It seems to me, and feel free to correct me if there is an example but the Pope only formally claims infailability on subjective issues no one could ever prove he’s wrong.

Infallibility isn’t a superpower.

All it means is that God will not allow the Pope to ever proclaim anything as necessary for belief, that isn’t actually true. It’s pretty much the same as what the Apostles were given when they were writing the New Testament - they were not able to write anything that was not true. It doesn’t mean that they could write whatever they wanted, and then suddenly it would become true.

In most cases, all it means is that the Pope says nothing at all. He can’t just declare and define anything he wants - it has to actually already be true.

 

[RTully]

All it means is that God will not allow the Pope to ever proclaim anything as necessary for belief, that isn’t actually true.

Salvation would still fit in that category. The morallity of Holy War also, but for the sake of argument let’s say those do not qualify. Then the question is why would God stop there?

Edit: At this point you can both have the last word in your defense and we can move on.