This is also a big area of contention. What you see as clarify and explain, we (non-Catholics) see as adding doctrine.
They did not obey the command, but they accepted the consequence for not doing so.
Actually, Luther’s complaints did not have much to do with salvation/justification as many abuses happening.And in fact, it has been well established that there is no dichotomy between what Luther thought about justification and what the CC teaches.
Of course, and this is why the Church needs the gift of infallibility. If error is taught, the faithful may pass through the gates of hell. Jesus will not let this happen.
Some of the best Reformers have been bishops, priests, and abbots. Men are always in need of reform. Why would anyone want to rebel against reform? I think we are having a misunderstanding because I am talking about changing doctrine and you are talking about changing men’s behavior. None of us have the right to change the doctrine of Christ. It was delivered once for all to the church. It is a seamless garment that it is our duty to preserve, not unravel.
Well there is a great difference between doctrine and practice. Practices, especially those contrary to the gospel (“selling” indulgences, for instance) need to be corrected. But that is because they are abusive practices, not doctrines. All men who are engaging in abusive practices, or those contrary to the doctrine of the faith, need reform.
1 Timothy 1:3 [ Warning against False Teachers ] As I urged you when I was going to Macedo′nia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…
ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν = heterodoxy
No “different” doctrine is permitted. What we have received from the Apostles is to be preserved without change.
The protestant reformers created heterodoxy.
Yes, but I am not sure I understand your point. Do you think people should not be excommunicated for acting as stubborn as a donkey with a nail in his head?
10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,
factious = αἱρετικὸν (heretical)
This is really more “shunning” than excommunicating, but the point is we are not to pretend like factious and persons embracing heresies are in unity when they are not.
I don’t know if “more”, but it does make clear that the Petrine gifts are not dependent upon Peter’s impeccability. Peter had a specific and unique job, and to do it, he needed to fully understand his own weaknesses. They all said they would go to Jerusalem and die with Him, but when it came down to it, they could not.
Romans 14:4 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
4 Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. **
And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.**
God upheld Peter, as He does all the successors of Peter. If not to eternal reward, then at least to preserve His One Holy Bride.
Yes, of course, and there are many ministries and delegations. All of them need to get included in the prayer for Peter, though. Unity with Peter is key.
I think this is why Peter was so appropriate for the office, as his experience humiliated him. He writes about how he is the servant. And the Popes that followed, the first 7 were martryed quickly. It would not be an office anyone would want if one had the mind of humility.
Pope Clement I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
They Keys are the keys of the chief steward.
I am not so sure this is true. People had been wanting to shed the yoke of the CC for centuries. Finally the economic, political, ans social conditions came together to make it successful. I think they were delighted to finally be free!
I think it is clear by the speed at which dissent spread that the population was more than ready for this grass fire to be lit.
They did indeed have a righteous message, and the same complaints Luther had, I have to this day. I think I would have been yearning for more purity in the Church. I certainly would have wanted to have Scripture readily at hand, and would have been as provoked as everyone else at the comparison of what I read, and what I observed. My ancestors came here to America with the Pilgrims, and it is easy to understand why.
Of course later versions would have removed it!
Can’t you see this is the final nail in the coffin for any hope of reunification ? It basically says there is nothing the orthodox nor protestants can bring to the table in areas of doctrinal or teaching contention, for it is a mute point…the CC can not err in those matters, she alone carries the true banner infallibly. The only possible motivation then for such discussions is for the first two to acquiesce disputed points of doctrine and teaching to the latter.
Of course some kind of progress can be be made towards working together despite imperfect union, but that has nothing to do with any reform of disputed points, of unifying teaching.
Not the first time retractions are made by a teacher/theologian…
Seems like hey is made either way !
“Of course” does not follow. Luther left all sorts of controversial stuff in his writings. The “epistle of straw” comments were removed during his lifetime, with his approval.
Why would it be? This gift is not one of the fundamental problems of the Reformation.
On the contrary, the variety of understandings of the doctrines of Christ is one of the strengths of the Church. There are very different ways of thinking about and describing the same concepts East, West, and Protestant. Just as there have been a recognition of this through theJDDJ, there can be in other areas as well.
There is only one deposit of faith, though we may all experience it differently. Besides, I think you are forgetting that the Gift is for the Church, and all who are in Christ are members of His One Body. We are not different 'bodies" but all members of the same One.
This is not part of the initiative toward unification. Between East and West, the factors in the split were largely linguistic and cultural. Since that time, the major issue has been the supremacy of the successor of Peter and the development of doctrine. It is not so much that we believe differently, it is that our perceptions of our faith are different.
“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
Unity results from adherence to the Truth. We will be One as we remain in Him, as He is in the Father. All of us have adhered to the Truth as we understand it. Besides, it is His Church, and His Spirit is able to make One out of the two, or the three. The Church has already faced a more difficult divide between Christian and Jew. Honestly, you sound like you really don’t trust that God wants unity, and can bring this about?
So the CC declares infallibility, making all others contending in error, and then say the others dont want unity? Sounds like your trust in God for unity is to change others but not CC, that all others become aligned with Catholic doctrine.
I do not read you as denouncing her declared infallibility, but rather defending it.
If the claim is true and others don’t accept it, is it the fault of the Church or the fault of dissenters?
The CC received the promise of Christ that the Church He founded would be led into all Truth.
It is not the gift of God that causes people to contend in error.
What I said was that you sound like you really don’t trust that God wants unity, and can bring this about. You asserted that unity cannot happen because of the gift of infallibility. Honestly, this is an absurd idea! If God promises to lead His Church into all Truth, and unity is preserved by adherence to the Truth, then the only thing preventing unity is departure from the One Faith.
The CC believes that she has the fullness of the faith. So do the Orthodox, and the Protestants, etc. God can produce alignment. We all need to work for unity, as He founded One Church, has One body, and there is only One Faith.
Only the accusation that she has taken in unto herself, rather than receiving it as a gift.
If the claim is false and others don’t accept it, is it the fault of the Church or the fault of dissenters?
The claim is true.
If the claim is false, and others don’t accept it, why would there be any fault?
Because it causes division.
Oh, I see. I think you are saying that the gift God has given to the Church causes division in the Church?
You are saying this because you do not believe God has actually given this gift to the Church, it is a false claim, and people who do not accept it reject those that do accept it, so division results?
No. I believe i asserted from the CC point of view, given her declared innerancy, the only way unity can then happen is for Os and Ps to give up points of contention and yield to the CC by God’s workings.
To me that is her declared road to ecumenicalism (unified teaching).
Well, it seems to me that you have a very narrow expectation of God’s workings. This is not how the JDDJ was developed.
It would appear that you have very little acquaintance with the Church’s teaching on ecumenism.
Well, teaching is one thing, action is another…thank you for sharing the lutheran/catholic dialogue…nice to see anathemas recinded…that is an attitude change, but still no dictrinal change…the acquaintance I have most is here on CAF…and again am being specific not to attitude or tolerance of differing views, but of coming into agreement into one teaching per individual doctrine (although the first two are a good start).
Are you acquainted with any new teaching where the Church is willing to admit an error in teaching, that reformers have pointed out?