This is an extremely good discussion

I'm not sure I'm totally getting his point but it seems to me that he is combating the idea that faith is born out by history (i.e. we develop our faith out of what has happened in the past) which I think everyone can agree is a bad idea and that in actuality "the faith was revealed and taught before history, fact or antiquity existed" just as he stated.

I think he misinterpreted what the real argument against certain catholic dogmas was. I think it really is this: that the catholic dogmas don't agree with what has actually happened. What the catholic church is saying today doesn't agree with how history panned out.

I remember Dave Schmelzer's sermon from the midwest regional conference. He was talking to a modern conservative christian (Dave is post-modern and liberal) about the inerrancy of the word. In this discussion, the conservative brought up the fact that what the bible teaches and what we see happening in the world are not always congruent. He even went so far as to say that even if we never saw any biblical truth happening in the world (our experiences did not match what the bible taught) that we would still have to believe the bible whole heartedly and if you didn't agree with that statement you weren't saved. Dave thought it was total crap and said up front that if his experiences and biblical truth didn't match he wouldn't be a christian. This was very profound to me because I never stopped to think about it in such a way. It was constantly beat into my head that the bible was inerrant so I never questioned it.

This helped a lot for my quest for truth in the bible and my walk here on this earth. It let me come to good conclusions about learning from the bible. Namely, that if I wasn't seeing the biblical truth around me then one of two things were wrong: one ,my view of the world is skewed in some wrong direction or two, my interpretation of the bible is incorrect. Obviously, Dave does believe in the bible and so does these things too, but in part because he saw enough of the truth in the scripture to begin with to start trusting in it.

So why do I mention all these? Because in the last few days I've been researching topics like papal infallibility and applying this very method to my studies. I've concluded the same things that protestants have for years: that on certain issues the rubber just doesn't meet the road. What the catholic church teaches now is not confirmed in what has happened in the past.

Sorry I cluttered up your lj, but this is a subject I've been studying a lot lately so everything is still fresh in my mind.

I wouldn't consider any contribution clutter.

What you have done is evaluated theology through the lens of history, which is exactly what you agreed is a bad thing to do. As I've said before, sure there have been bad popes and they've done fairly stupid things (in hindsight can we say this). Does that impact the doctrine of the Church in the matter?

This is the example that was brought up in the discussion of this post over at Pontifications. These historical items helped inform the final formulation of papal infallibility. The example brought up was Honorius. He wrote some heretical items in some letters and the like that helped show that not everything a pope does or says can be considered dogmatic. Looking at that history helped develop all the nuances that were needed to understand papal infallibility. For something that has been invoked all of 2 times in the history of the Church, and then only after it was fully understood, I'm not sure where any of us can go and conclude it's wrong.

I had this discussion on another LJ community about the two papal dogmatic declarations. The one in contention was Mary's assumption into heaven. Is there evidence to the contrary? Can anyone prove that it didn't happen? The only witnesses to the event were the Apostles and disciples of the time and that's exactly what we base the doctrine on, the witness of Apostolic Tradition on the matter.

I think both Schmelzer and whoever he was responding to got it subtly wrong. I would say, rather, that Scripture, of itself, is true because it's the Word of God. Knowing that, I shouldn't have to rely on my experiences to uphold it. That my experiences do attest to it helps me believe it's veracity, but it would still be true if I didn't believe in it.

The way you relate Schmelzer's comments point out his Post-modern influences. He is saying that, "it's true because I experience it to be true." The classical view of truth is that it is true whether I experience it or not. PoMo thinking confuses evidence for a thing with proof of that thing (at least that's one of the hallmarks in my mind).

As for how history has panned out, I'm not sure how history hasn't worked out for the Church? From my view, it's still journeying on through time for almost 2000 years now, far longer than any other institution and carrying on the mission that was entrusted to it by Jesus. That it survives external attacks AND some of the worst internal attacks is just all the more evidence in my mind.

Try to give a Protestant church some of the characters that have come and gone in the Catholic Church and think about how long it would take that denomination to split and/or die. Something more than leadership and fidelity is holding the Church together after 20 centuries.

Perhaps I wasn't totally clear about what I meant by looking at things historically. What I meant is when reading scripture it is often good to see what others have written on the subject both in catholic and protestant tradition. This isn't to say that I automatically assume that these people were correct, but they certainly might have some ideas on the subject that I didn't think of. That's why its useful.

As far as Schmelzer's comments:
I was trying to point out the fact that scripture has to be backed up by experiences because scripture is the truth. My point was that if our experiences and our interpretation of scripture don't agree then either our view of our experience is wrong or our interpretation of scripture is wrong. I would totally agree that scripture is true because it's the word of God, not because of experience. But when they are incongruent something is not right and we need to seek out what is wrong.

The same is true when we examine history. If we examine history and it is incongruent with our scriptural views then either we are seeing history in some false light or our scriptural views are incorrect. An example of this would probably be best.

The Church has taught for many years that the pope (and the magesterium) is infallible and that certain proclamations are taken to be infallible truth. One such infallible truth is that those outside the Roman Catholic faith and have not given their allegence to the Pontiff are doomed to hell. Instances of these proclamations are given below.

1. "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." [IV Lateran Council, A.D. 1215]
2. "The Holy, Roman Church .... firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will 'go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels', unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." [Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at the Oecumenical Union Council of Florence]
3. "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." [Pope Boniface VIII, A.D. 1294-1303, "Unam Sanctam"]

Now I could argue from scripture how this is incorrect but instead I will use the Decree of the Second Vatican Council on Ecumenism.
" 1. All who have been "justified by faith in baptism" are members of the Body of Christ; they all have the right to be called Christian; the children of the Catholic Church accept them as brothers."

"2. The Catholic Church believes that the separated Churches and communities "are efficient in some respects." But the Holy Ghost makes use of these Churches; they are means of salvation to their members."

So according to this proclamation people of other denomination can and are saved. The Roman Church has reversed it view on this issue. (btw I'm very glad they did) So in light of these historical events we must conclude one of two things. Either our view of history is incorrect and one or both of these view were not actually proclamated by a pope or the pope is not infallible. I'm sure many catholics accept that one of the proclamations is not infallible, but I fail to see how an authoritative proclamation could not be considered infallible by the Church.

So, the pope must fallible not just in cases of doing stupid things, but in actually pronouncing and teaching doctrine that is incorrect. I hope that I've explained myself much better. I'm looking forward to your reply.

aaaaaawwwwwwwww SNAP!

That one was pretty good Dirk.

But the Catholic response to it will be this:

That is a council decree, and not a Papal edict. Councils have been shown to be wrong. Such as Trent which did a lot to clean the Catholic church internally but also condemned all of protestantism. Later, as you pointed out, at Vatican 2 they took a much more eccumenical style. The Pope also appologized for not condemning Nazi Germany (or agreeing to not condemn it or something like that...I'm a little fuzzy in the particulars).

Good smart Catholics will always say the Pope is a man, and subsequently if fallible, but when he declares a Papal Edict that is delivered directly from the HS.

Now, looking at this through the lense of history could create quite a mess if you look at certain Popes and what they decreed before the chruch made official doctorine on what was and was not an official infallible decree. But somehow, I'm not sure 100% how, Mike and all the other well-read Catholics have a way around it. I can't answer for that part though.

Yeah its true that two of these are from councils, but one of them is Pope Boniface the 8th. Also, if you research this more this is actually what the church taught for a really long time. So not only did it get decreed it was taught by the whole of the church, now it is not.

I'm interested to know what counts as an infallible decree and which ones are considered so. I also here what the magesterium teaches is supposed to be infallible but again I don't know the rules. Maybe our resident Catholic would like to inform us?

Adversus Dreum Prima Pars

Allow me to boil down your argument as I read it:

You argue that the Church is fallible, and by extension, not who she says she is.
You prove this by saying the Church has reversed position on the matter of salvation beyond the Church (as in, lack thereof).
Your evidence to this effect are the following:
1. A declaration by the 4th Lateran Council (Ecumenical 1215)
2. A deceleration by the council of Florence (Ecumenical 1447)
3. The papal bull, "Unam Sanctam" (1302)
To establish the doctrine of the necessity to be a member of the Catholic Church in union with the Roman Pontiff.
Then, you utilize:
4. the Second Vatican Council's decree on Ecumenism which details that baptism in other Christian Churches and communities are efficient in some respects.
Therefore: By switching what the Church teaches from one pole to its opposite, it is admitting error and therefore refuting itself.

I think that about sums it up.

It is a good argument, but there are several problems with it and none of them are the ones that Ben pointed out (I'll post those problems to him directly after I'm done with this).
These problems can be enumerated as follows: (1) Evidential items 1-3 cited above predate the Reformation and direct application to present time is not straightforward, (2) A tacit assumption is made that the Church perfectly understands herself from the beginning and needs no additional exposition, and (3) the Church has not, in fact, reversed any position here.

Dealing, in order, with these items...
The idea of salvation only to be found within the Church is, in a word, ancient. It was a saying coined by St. Cyprian who lived about 250 A.D. It is, important, however, to note what these citations are saying. In order to be saved, one must be a member of the universal Church, the Body of Christ. This is the gist of item 1. Item 2 states that "those who are outside the catholic Church... heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life" and that one must be "in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." Item 2 follows item 1 by trying to determine and clarify who, exactly, is outside the Church. The list specifically states heretics and schismatics but it does not qualify or describe the unity it speaks of. Finally, the Roman Pontiff is named as a necessity, but this follows from the necessity of being in unity with the universal Church. Since the Bishop of Rome is the visible head of the universal Church, to be a member of the Church also makes the people subject to necessity to belong to the Church also subject to the Roman Pontiff. In all three cases, the main argument is that it is necessary to be a part of the Church and all that this entails. These all, however, predate the Reformation by about 100 years. An event outside the experience of the people who have formulated these statements, even more so than the situation we can describe in the present.

It is necessary to point this out because it is not true that the Church understands herself perfectly and has explicitly stated all things in their fullness since the beginning. This is rather easy to show if one considers any doctrine that has enjoyed development of any sort (that is, all of them). For example, the divine and human character of Jesus Christ were not fully articulated by the Church of 100 A.D. Did they believe differently than today because they didn't have our understanding? The point of the Magisterium of the Church is to preserve that faith (Scripture and Tradition) given to the Apostles by Jesus Christ, because of this, I can say that I share the one-same faith of St. Irenaeus or St. Augustine or St. John who wrote the gospel, or St. Paul. I believe the same things, except that I have a bit more vocabulary to describe those things. This necessarily means, however, that as we come to a better understanding of the faith Jesus Christ handed to us, we need additional exposition and clarification. We will never finish clarifying, however, because these things are divine mysteries that surpass human language and understanding. We will never understand the Trinity fully (except perhaps in heaven) and so doctrine is formulated in the negative. From the council of Nicea we read:

Adversus Dreum Secunda Pars

And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (en pote hote ouk en), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

They are statements of what we know isn't right, not statements of what we know to be right, because the truth is a divine mystery that will forever exhaust human language and understanding. We develop our understanding of the faith given by Jesus to us, we don't make it up.

All that said, the Church has not reversed it's position on the necessity of being a member of the Church. Since the Catechism is a condensed package of the faith that largely quotes the second Vatican council, I'll give you a chunk and a link (this page in the CCC):

846 "Outside the Church there is no salvation"
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]

[335] Cf. Cyprian, Ep.73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.
[336] LG 14; cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5

No change of position has occurred since the founding of the Church on this item. What has changed is the understanding of what, exactly, the Church is and how we know who is in it. Obviously, visible union is an easy item to see and those who are members of Churches in union with the Bishop of Rome fall within the category of plain-sight visible unity. However, it's hard to say who isn't. There's an Orthodox saying: "We know where the Church is, we don't know where it isn't." What the Catholic Church teaches on the matter is this:

from 838 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see above link)

"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."[322] Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."[323]

[322] LG 15
[323] UR 3

In essence and using blunter language than someone trained in the matters, you are already a member of the Catholic Church, but you are in imperfect communion with her. We share a common baptism in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the holy Spirit, and so, we are brothers in Christ - in the Body of Christ. Our unity, however, is incomplete because of the differences between us and so, we do not share communion together. Nevertheless, we are still members of the same universal Church which was handed to the Apostles by Jesus under the authority of the seat of Peter, the Roman Pontiff. And now, perhaps, you see why the Catholic Church does and must always engage in ecumenical discussions to bring back the unity we once had - because we are already united but that unity is marred. Fr. Victor described it as if one of Christ's arms, or a leg had been chopped off. Sure, we're still alive, but we're not functioning like we should.

LG stands for Lumen Gentium and UR for Unitatis redintegratio, both Vatican II documents.

Re: Adversus Dreum Secunda Pars

I thank you for posting all of this. It is very informative. I totally agree that we are continually growing as a church body in our wisdom of Christ. I believe Paul wrote that we should write down everything we learn so that our children will learn what we have gained in the faith during our lifetime. Unfortunately, I can't find that scripture passage. Maybe you know of it. Anyways, I didn't want you to think that I felt exposition as unnecessary. It is very necessary, because through this exposition we can more clearly define meanings and nuances. Plus it has the added benefits of keeping ideas fresh in our minds and in modern language. To not do this would make it extremely difficult to study at times and probably lead to the same mistake the Muslims have made; which is that you must study the holy scriptures in the original language.

That covers your second point. For the first point, I want to thank you for bringing this to my attention. I didn't realize that these proclamations were before the reformation. So indeed, that must be taken into consideration. The explaination you give (that it is only our perception of what the church is that has changed, not the Catholic Church's teaching on it) is satisfactory in some respects. It still feels like a reinterpretation of the truth though mostly due to the third article I posted. This bull clearly states that you must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to receive salvation. You describe this as a necessity of being in unity with the universal Church, but the second Vatican council has said that it is not a necessity. So a view that states "it was once necessary and now is not" seems to be a reversed position.

Your view that we now have a better or fuller understanding of these issues is incorrect. It is indeed a switch from one view to another and a rewrite of the true meaning behind this papal bull. Think about it in this way: If you asked Bontiface VIII if he thought you could be a part of the universal church without being subject to the pontiff he would have said no. Not because he lacked the fuller understanding that we now enjoy but because he fully believed that you had to and would always have to.

I also wanted to state how happy I am to learn that Catholic Church accepts that the rest of us are indeed Christians. It warms my heart to have communion with all churches even if it is an imperfect union. My perception of the Catholic church had been a negative one for a long time, but I feel now it was only due to my own ignorance and the negative "gossip" about Catholic teachings. Too often we make wrongful judgements without all the facts and if I contributed to any of that I am truly sorry. The Devil makes easy work of ignorance to promote disunity in the church and I hope that we can continue to make his work all the more harder for him.

Love in Christ,
Dirk

Re: Adversus Dreum Secunda Pars

I don't think we'll ever get away from a need to have people who can read and understand the Scripture in it's original language. They can only be considered innerrant in their original form. We still need to read it ourselves, so that necessitates vernacular translations and it's a balancing act between those needs.

The necessity of the Pope wasn't reversed either. He's still the visible head of the Church on earth. This kind of hits on the difference between objective truths and subjective thinking that I pointed out with Schmelzer. It all flows from Jesus founding the Church on Peter and giving Him the keys of the kingdom ( read Matthew 16:18-19 ). That the pope is the visible head of the Church doesn't change whether or not you recognize it. There is one Body of Christ, one universal Church. That one universal Church was given Peter as it's head and the office remains as such to this day. To be a member of the Church (visible or invisible) is to have the Bishop of Rome as your leader.

That's why I brushed over the papacy argument, it's the self-same thing as being a member of the Church, of the Body of Christ.

As you say, if we asked Boniface VIII if we need to be subject to the Bishop of Rome, he'd say yes. If you asked the bishops who wrote the Vatican II documents the same question, they'd say the same thing.

Again, no reversal.

Re: Adversus Dreum Secunda Pars

Ah I see. So your point was that I am subject to the pope whether I recognize it or not?

If I agreed with the authority of the pope coming from succession then I would agree that I am subject to him. The Pope would be the leader of the church both seen and unseen. But as of yet I haven't seen an argument that persuades me to accept that. I see the pope as an elected leader of one denomination.

Therefore, when I read Boniface's bull I read it to mean I have to submit to the Pope and his rule (i.e. agree to do and believe what he says); not that I just admit I am a part of the universal church (something that I would obviously admit too). To me the language seems pretty clear that he meant the former in a more strict sense. A lot of this bull is talking about government authorities submitting to the Pope in this respect so I'm pretty sure this is what he meant. This is of course my opinion of the document; since we can't talk to Boniface we'll never know for sure in this lifetime.

Re: Adversus Dreum Secunda Pars

You assume that the Catholic Church is just another denomination. Big assumption and I'm not going to discuss it right now, but I wanted to point that out.

Honestly, I haven't read the entire papal bull. The brief overview I did read was discussing the thinking that the Spirit, through the Church, wields two "swords" or instruments. One sword is the spiritual one wielded by the clergy, the other is a secular one wielded by governments. The authority is Divine in origin and not human and the primary symbol of the authority of the Church (and also the symbol of unity) is the Pope.

The overview points out that the bull is intentioned for its historical context, and this is well before the reformation, before any notion of a "denomination" was conjured up. I'll have to actually read it to better discuss it with you.

But, I think I see two things already worth more discussion: Apostolic succession and the idea that the Catholic Church is a "denomination". Modern papal authority only stems from apostolic succession and thinking of the Church as a denomination is a rather erroneous way of thinking, in my mind.

Re: Adversus Dreum Secunda Pars

of course you don't think it's a denomination! it's perfectly clear to me that you would think that way. If I believed in apostolic succession I would think the same thing (probably). I would love to have a discussion on it some time. Since this lj post is getting rather cluttered so we should probably start a new one.

Addenda

If I remember the article correctly, the point was to listen to what the Church was saying today as it is a unity of what it said yesterday on through time. Not only that, but what it says today is a fuller understanding of what it said yesterday.

That aside, I think it would be more illuminating to discuss the actual doctrine of the necessity of baptism (i.e. entrance into the Body of Christ - the Church) as necessary for salvation. I would have thought we were on the same page with that one. ;)

JOhanna just read my reply and said it was really difficult for her to follow. I tend to get wordy at times, and lose my track. So, if there are points where you have questions and need me to clarify, do not hesitate to ask. Since she's usually right, please point out what I'm not clear on if you have issues.

Also, what have you been studying lately? I wouldn't think that if you were, in general, curious about Catholicism, you'd have been led to the 4th Lateran Council, Florence, and Unam Sanctam. I'd just as soon send you to the Catechism to see what the Church says.

You have given me a lot to read in one day! My literature review is going to be seriously lacking because of this ;P I will respond when I can of course. As for what I've been reading it includes numerous articles from New Advent as well as few random articles I found through google.

and I forgot this...

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html

you dropped your rubber band

Actually, ecumenical councils are infallible too. I'll quote some Catechism for you:

890
The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:


891
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.[418] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"[419] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."[420] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[421]

emphasis mine

[418] LG 25; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3074.
[419] DV 10 sect. 2.
[420] LG 25 sect. 2.
[421] Cf. LG 25.

LG stands for Lumen Gentium and DV stands for Dei Verbum, both are Vatican II documents.

How exactly do you prove the council of Trent incorrect in condemning those who schismed from the Church at the time of the Reformation?

"Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,[19] which the Apostle strongly condemned.[20] " -Unitatis Redintegratio 3 Sect. 1.
[19] Cf. 1 Cor. 11:18-19; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Jn. 2:18-19.
[20] Cf. 1 Cor. 1:11 sqq; 11:22.

St. Paul laid out a pretty convincing example for telling people not to be divided in the Church. The council was going by the example the Apostles gave us, and in particular, that given by St. Paul in Sacred Scripture.

But before more error is continued on, let me quote some more Catechism action:

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 . . . . [272]

[272] UR 3 Sect. 1

You are not actively separating the Church, you are not a schismatic. Neither could I ever call you a heretic as you are not in visible union with the Church. In fact, you have never been exposed to a true representation of the Catholic Church until you started talked and reading my journal. You are not at fault for the separation that occured 400+ years ago and the Church would never think to hold you accountable for such a thing.

I don't know where you get the notion that the Church "condemned all of protestantism".

The "good smart Catholics" don't know their faith if they repeat what you said about the Pope. Also, we were getting out of the lense of history in favor of actually discussing what is taught and whether it is true or not. If you examine the documents of the Popes throughout history, you won't find a problem squaring anything they did with papal infallibility. You're welcome to try, though. I'm sure the people who have been trying for a couple hundred years will help you with a head start.

Re: you dropped your rubber band

I didn't know I had a rubber band to drop....

1 Cor. 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Sounds like a good call to me! I would certainly like to have more unity in the church, but first I would we would need to reconcil those disagreements we have, which is partly the reason I spend so much time discussing things with you.

"I don't know where you get the notion that the Church "condemned all of protestantism"."

I stated above that my incorrect views come from my own ignorance and the idle chat of those who don't know what they're talking about (both Catholics and Protestants are guilty of this).

I'm not sure I'm qualified to prove the council of Trent incorrect, but I would like to point out that the Ninety-Five Theses were indeed good arguements. It was once pointed out to me that the Ninety-Five Theses are well supported by what the Catholic Church teaches. It just so happens that the Catholic Church wasn't following its own rules. But I haven't researched this topic fully yet, so I'll leave it up to you to do decide if Luther was incorrect in nailing it to the church door.

I would say that the Church was incorrect in how they handled matters at the time. i.e. executing those who went against the church. This forced Luther to hide in Bavaria (I think, it could have been another Germanic State) to avoid prosecution. This ultimately led to Luther further spliting the church, since he had surrounded himself with people who would benefit from such an action.

Perhaps, if the church had accepted that it's practices were wrong by their own design the split wouldn't have happend. But again, I have to state I don't know enough to make a proper decision about the matter. Maybe when I've researched it further we can talk about the reformation?

Re: you dropped your rubber band

Well, I said all that stuff Dirk, not you.

Everything I've read about the council of Trent had little to say that was as positive as you paint it.

In fact, I've seen it interpreted as a council that set out to do little more than completely condem the reformation.

Now, you read Catholic sources that say otherwise which is fine, but I'm just telling you the history as I read it from a protestant source. I tend to find the protestant source more appealing, and I'm sure you find the catholic encyclopedia a more appealing source. So to each his own, but understand until you look at it through the protestant lense you aren't getting a complete historical picture, the same as I am not by avoiding the Catholic lense. I have a book on my shelf that details historical reasons for each part of the catechism, but I have many books in a stack waiting to be read ahead of that one, so at some point I do plan on addressing this error in my approach.

On a different note, I can actually point out things I believe to be in complete error that Popes did / said prior to the current understanding / doctorine of Papal infallibility off of the top of my head. But that would lead to a largely fruitless arguement about what is infallible and what isn't, and what bad Popes made mistakes where and how they are still the mack daddy even though they screwed stuff up.

Your going to have to elaborate on how the Pope isn't fallible in his actions as a man. That is the way I have understood what I've read from my history books and heard from friends of mine.

Cuz if the Pope can declare, as Innocent III did, that he is higher than man but less than God without being in gross error, I'd like to hear an explanation for that.

As usual, this is about to go off my friends page...so i may or may not read and respond further.

Re: you dropped your rubber band

Again, the point of the initial post was talking about getting out of viewing everything through history and looking at what is actually taught and whether that is true or not.

You're right that it would be a largely fruitless argument because the 1st Vatican Council too all of this into account when defining papal infallibility. They looked at history and said, "clearly, not everything the pope does is infallible, but how are we to understand those times when he is?" That is why if you actually look at the definition for infallibility and compare it to history, it withstands the test.

The pope can sin, and err, and all the like, he is still human. No one said he wasn't and that's not what papal infallibility means. Papal infallibility means that the holy Spirit will prevent the pope (even by killing him if necessary) when speaking with severity as the pope and fulfilling all the requirements for being infallible from teaching something in error.

It's not that he's all that great, it's that the holy Spirit is the one that protects the Church. I trust God in the matter and it's as simple as that.

Re: you dropped your rubber band

Sorry, that was directed at Ben, it was late when I posted and I must have clicked the wrong link.

The Church did figure out what was wrong and fixed it, as Trent proved. Luther did have a lot of very legitimate complaints about clerical abuses and the like. They were fixed.

In fact, the Protestant leaders were all invited and guaranteed safe passage to attend Trent in the hopes that they would end the split then and come back. As you pointed out, Luther had surrounded himself with people who would benefit from a split and he never did attend.

Actually, Reformation history is not my strong suit. I haven't read a lot about it, just some aspects of some Protestant teaching. And again, I'd just as soon discuss the theology because history will only illuminate human sinfulness. Let me know what you decide to read for it and I'll go over it as well and we can discuss it if you like. It'd be good for me to learn anyways.

John 17 (pretty much the entire chapter) is this awesome prayer that Jesus says so that his disciples may be one as He is one with the Father. I don't know if there is a stronger call to unity than that.

Re: you dropped your rubber band

actually you did hit the right link, I didn't realize it now that there are so many posts between this comment and the one that this is in reply to. I don't really have the time to read as of now, but I will try to get to it after I finish my thesis (if that ever happens).

Be careful throwing "liberal" around in a theological discussion.

Schmelzer may be somewhat socially liberal, but he is also an evangelical. That is an important distinction to make.