Posted on 03/05/2008 8:13:07 PM PST by Dajjal
For the benefit of the visitors, would you kindly list them.
Shakes head, wonders how he can get a job writing fiction for major English language publication...
Since I didn't raise the issues of other errors, I'll let others list them. The biggest disagreement between Catholics and Protestants would be on the issue of justification. Protestants would hold that a person is saved by faith in the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ ALONE while Catholics would hold that a person is saved by the same faith AND good works.
I'm sure that I'm missing nuances in both positions but I think that captures the essence of the difference.
You wrote:
“And how exactly was the unity of the Church a responsibility of his?”
All Christians have the responsibility to avoid schism. Is this news to you?
“Especially a Church that was selling sin (indulgences), etc.”
1) The Church never sold indulgences. Individuals may have, but that was a violation of canon law.
2) An indulgence is not sin, nor were sins sold, nor could anyone ever buy there way out of sin.
3) Indulgences had to do with penance, not the sins themselves.
4) Why is it that Protestants always assume they know what indulgences are when they’ve enever studied the issue, or the history, etc.?
“I don’t recall Jesus making any comments about mandating unity amongst churches.”
He didn’t have to. He prayed that the Church would stay ONE. Schisms, in light of fractious human behavior, is inevitable.
There's the little matter of the Council of Trent:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.And, less dogmatically on the Orthodox side, the reply of Patriarch Jeremias to the Lutherans at Tubingen:
Following is the third section concerning justification by faith and good works, which shall be further explained. We do not merely say that those who obey the law shall be justified, but those who obey the spiritual law, which is understood spiritually and according to the inner man. Indeed, by "fulfilling the law of the spirit as much as we are able, we will be justified and we will not fall from grace because the Cleansing Word has passed into the depths of the soul.
As people have wisely pointed out on this thread, the re-evaluation of Luther as a person is entirely valid, but it does not mean the vindication of doctrines attributed to Luther which have been condemned not just in the 1500s but for all time.
In short, the Catholic Church will never and can never turn away from its repudiation of justification by faith alone, any more than the Orthodox or oriental Churches will come to accept it. Quite simply, it is alien to the doctrine of the faith as it has been passed down from the Apostles, at least insofar as it is framed in Trent's condemnation.
Now, to what degree Reformed Christians actually hold to the condemned heresies is another matter. It could well be that your average Lutheran today (or even Luther himself) does not believe what Trent condemned, in which case, there of course is room for dialogue and increased understanding.
And I also think that many Reformed Christians don't really understand what it is that the Catholic Church teaches about how grace relates to works. Trent also said this:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
Actually, yes. Please cite the scripture that supports your assertion. I'm no Biblical scholar.
You wrote:
“Actually, yes.”
Then I suggest you study.
“Please cite the scripture that supports your assertion.”
I made no assertion. Jesus prayed for unity. That is a fact.
“I’m no Biblical scholar.”
John 17:21.
Various doubtful and reprehensible methods were resorted to for raising money. He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined.
You said: 1) The Church never sold indulgences. Individuals may have, but that was a violation of canon law.
How can you say that only "individuals" sold indulgences when even the Pope, who is the very embodiment of the Church, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the man from whom Canon law proceeds, did that very thing?
You think everything a Pope says or does is infallible and beyond question?
Because I'm an orthodox Catholic, and I don't. And -- get this -- neither does the Catholic Church!
However, an article from the Times of London speculating about what the Pope is going to do according to "Vatican insiders" is fine stuff ... for training puppies or wrapping fish.
Nice try, trying to use Luther against Luther. Luther was a great man, but Luther was also a man. He didn’t always get everything right. I am sure you’d be the first to say that. Insofar as Luther’s teachings and writings are affirmed by Scripture, we accept them; as for those that do not, we would reject them. Otherwise would you have me also have to accept the later writings of a frustrated, older, weakening Luther describing how the Jews, and even some of his own German people, were stubbornly refusing conversion?
Don’t have to. They’re all out there for everyone to see. Hashed a million times on the internet and FR. Just go back through the threads.
Google: “Roman Church Doctrinal Errors”, “Roman Church Heresies”
Thanks for proving me right!
You posted:
“Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined.”
Were ALMOST degraded...
They weren’t. But they ALMOST were.
You also wrote:
“How can you say that only “individuals” sold indulgences when even the Pope, who is the very embodiment of the Church, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the man from whom Canon law proceeds, did that very thing?”
Because he didn’t. Notice the Catholic Encyclopedia does not say that the pope sold indulgences?
Thanks for proving me right.
I have researched this for years. Never once did a pope say indulgences should be sold. Never once did a council say indulgences should be sold. Never once did canon law allow that selling indulgences was permissible.
Never once.
Individuals, however, did sell indulgences - but not the pope, not the councils and not the Church.
Again, thanks for proving me right.
They’re all out there for everyone to see. Hashed a million times on the internet and FR.
Yes. Right next to "9/11 Hoax" . Are you going to regale us with substance or just throw around the same old, tired claptrap?
Protestants believe a car can’t be driven without the engine. Catholics believe the engine doesn’t matter if you never fill the tank with gas. According to James, the Catholic point of view is correct.
are you saying the Catholic faith does not embrace any scriptural truth--at all?
Were ALMOST degraded...
Please cut and paste accurately. It says, "Indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions." Common English usage dictates that this sentence means that almost all indulgences were financial transactions -- not that an individual indulgence was mostly financial but still partly spiritual.
Secondly, do you mean to imply that the Pope didn't know what was happening with indulgences? Just because the Pope wasn't out personally shoveling ducats into his coffers doesn't mean a thing. It was still done under his orders and with his full approval.
Name one!
“CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”
Interesting stuff there Claud.
Reading all comments with interest.
Good works are the natural result of a saving faith. Your good works don’t save you, they are evidence of your faith. Scripture says that if you have real faith, you WILL do good works. Those that God has prepared beforehand for you to do. It never says that it’s the act of you doing the works that saves you. It also never says you have to have others critique your good works or that you have to meet someone else’s standards or criteria of how much ‘works’ are ‘enough’ (ie legalism).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.