A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[Xeno.of.athens]

Have you heard that there are Catholics, including clergy, who say that Pope Francis isn't even Catholic?

Such persons are not in communion with the Catholic Church because they have either separated from her or by their denial have excommunicated themselves. There are groups, called sedi vacantist because they regard the seat of saint Peter to be vacant, who teach what you say, but they are excommunicate.

And that there are Catholics who say that Pope Pius XII was the last legitimate Pope? That there are Catholics who reject Vatican II?

These are the doctrines of the schismatics I mentioned above.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

When someone, the OP I think, was pointing out divisions among Protestants

I do not think I have made a point of the divisions among the protestant denominations, except to notice that they exist, and except to say that they started within the first generation of protestants.

 

[fhansen]

When someone, the OP I think, was pointing out divisions among Protestants, I pointed out that I've seen divisions among Catholics as well. But that was shot down. It seems like basically anything I say about Catholicism amounts to Protestant ignorance and lies and hatred of Catholics, according to some.

But you should be shot down on that IMO . Because individual humans are the problem when it comes to Truth-that's why God must reveal the truth to us to begin with. But His revelation, itself, part of which is recorded in Scripture, becomes the source of disagreement when individuals are interpreting it privately-and as Scripture is the sole accepted source of revelation for Protestants, disagreement is inevitable. But in Catholicism, the church is the authority on interpreting revelation, not the individual. In this case there's a place where the doctrinal buck can stop, guided by the same Holy Spirit, the same God, who established the church to begin with for that purpose. God revealed Himself-and yet humans disagree on that revelation. Or they ignore it, carrying on the family tradition that Adam initiated, of failing to heed God and then going their own way, rooted in ignorance and pride.

So, it's the official teachings of the church, the church that received those teachings, whether in written form or orally, at the beginning, that accurately reflect God's nature and will for man. When Catholics disagree with that, then they're not being very Catholic; they're disagreeing with Catholicism. So, whether or not you agree with the notion that the church has that kind of unique authority and is Spirit-led, you can see that there's a difference in kind in comparing disagreements among individuals with that of such an entity.

OTOH, the church is just one more opinion in the whole scheme of things and not unlike, say, Lutheranism, in that manner. But it’s an opinion that has a much more solid basis for validity IMO, because it doesn’t come centuries after the fact, fueled almost exclusively by private interpretation of Scripture alone. And the RCC unashamedly claims that the authority to correctly interpret God’s Word, again, both written and unwritten, is the role she was given to play. Incidentally, everyone who picks up the bible and claims to understand and interpret it correctly, regardless of how much they may disagree with the next guy on its interpretation, is implicitly claiming the same infallibility whether they acknowledge that fact or not.

Are there differing interpretations of what the catechism says?

That’s a good and valid question. But the catechism has that very purpose, to clarify and explain God’s word whereas the bible was never intended to serve as an exhaustive, systematic, and clearly stated catechism. So, misinterpretations are much more likely with the bible. I find that people as often as not simply ignore the catechism when they disagree with it. However, again, being in the hands of us weak and limited vessels certainly means that misinterpretations can still occur.

 

[ozso]

But you should be shot down on that IMO . Because individual humans are the problem when it comes to Truth-that's why God must reveal the truth to us to begin with. But His revelation, itself, part of which is recorded in Scripture, becomes the source of disagreement when individuals are interpreting it privately-and as Scripture is the sole accepted source of revelation for Protestants, disagreement is inevitable. But in Catholicism, the church is the authority on interpreting revelation, not the individual. In this case there's a place where the doctrinal buck can stop, guided by the same Holy Spirit, the same God, who established the church to begin with for that purpose. God revealed Himself-and yet humans disagree on that revelation. Or they ignore it, carrying on the family tradition that Adam initiated, of failing to heed God and then going their own way, rooted in ignorance and pride.

So, it's the official teachings of the church, the church that received those teachings, whether in written form or orally, at the beginning, that accurately reflect God's nature and will for man. When Catholics disagree with that, then they're not being very Catholic; they're disagreeing with Catholicism. So, whether or not you agree with the notion that the church has that kind of unique authority and is Spirit-led, you can see that there's a difference in kind in comparing disagreements among individuals with that of such an entity.

OTOH, the church is just one more opinion in the whole scheme of things and not unlike, say, Lutheranism, in that manner. But it’s an opinion that has a much more solid basis for validity IMO, because it doesn’t come centuries after the fact, fueled almost exclusively by private interpretation of Scripture alone. And the RCC unashamedly claims that the authority to correctly interpret God’s Word, again, both written and unwritten, is the role she was given to play. Incidentally, everyone who picks up the bible and claims to understand and interpret it correctly, regardless of how much they may disagree with the next guy on its interpretation, is implicitly claiming the same infallibility whether they acknowledge that fact or not.

That’s a good and valid question. But the catechism has that very purpose, to clarify and explain God’s word whereas the bible was never intended to serve as an exhaustive, systematic, and clearly stated catechism. So, misinterpretations are much more likely with the bible. I find that people as often as not simply ignore the catechism when they disagree with it. However, again, being in the hands of us weak and limited vessels certainly means that misinterpretations can still occur.

Most Protestant denominations recognize that there is orthodox Christianity. When someone comes out with something foreign to that, it's rejected by most. Someone having their own personal unique interpretation of the Bible is frowned upon. Denominations that have unorthodox doctrine are either frowned upon or called cults. So the idea that if there's a billion protestants, then there's a billion individual interpretations of the bible and Christianity, is a complete misnomer. Most Protestants are on the same page for the most part regarding what's considered orthodox and unorthodox.

 

[fhansen]

So the idea that if there's a billion protestants, then there's a billion individual interpretations of the bible and Christianity, is a complete misnomer.

I didn't say otherwise. The differences between the early Reformers alone were significant enough. And I already disagree, along with the historical church, with Protestants on the main reason for separation: justification. But separation would go on to virtually become the norm- acceptable- with new denominations spinning off of older ones most often due to varying interpretations of Scripture. What I'm saying is that everyone effectively becomes their own pope with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And that if one studies history they'll stop doing that.

Sure, some will agree on many things. And, in fact, most will agree with the church, without knowing it, that the new testament canon is the correct one, and that the doctrine of the Trinity is correct even though Arianism held sway for centuries, until the church finally managed to defeat it. But even today the JW and Oneness Pentecostal arguments for the non-deity of Christ can be persuasive, going by, or "reasoning with", Scripture alone.

 

[ozso]

I didn't say otherwise. The differences between the early Reformers alone were significant enough. And I already disagree, along with the historical church, with Protestants on the main reason for separation: justification. But separation would go on to virtually become the norm- acceptable- with new denominations spinning off of older ones most often due to varying interpretations of Scripture. What I'm saying is that everyone effectively becomes their own pope with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And that if one studies history they'll stop doing that.

Sure, some will agree on many things. And, in fact, most will agree with the church, without knowing it, that the new testament canon is the correct one, and that the doctrine of the Trinity is correct even though Arianism held sway for centuries, until the church finally managed to defeat it. But even today the JW and Oneness Pentecostal arguments for the non-deity of Christ can be persuasive, going by, or "reasoning with", Scripture alone.

Most Protestants (who weren't Catholics before) who studied history remained Protestant. It would be one thing if the Papacy and the Vatican had a perfect interpretation of scripture and had stuck to it, but that's not the case. Instead the RCC ended up with their updated changing version of Christianity that in some cases eschewed scripture in favor of catechisms. Just as the Jews ended up favoring the Talmud they created. So the problem of Sola Scriptura for Catholicism is that it doesn't allow for the extrabiblical dictates the RCC came up with over the centuries. The RCC like most others decided to do it their way. Otherwise the RCC would be the same now as the early church up to the 4th century, but it clearly isn't. The RCC morphed into something different. The RCC seems to be currently morphing into accepting and promoting LGBTQQIP2SAA+ and transgenderism. Lots of Catholics and apparently the Pope is onboard with that. There's just too much wrong with the RCC and Catholicism past and present to make the claim of being the one and only true infallible church. Really the Eastern Orthodox Church is closer to that than the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So the problem of Sola Scriptura for Catholicism is ...

The problem is that sola scriptura led to the division of Protestantism into hundreds of splinter groups which made it virtually impossible to restore unity in the fractured churches of the protestants.

 

[Valletta]

Most Protestants (who weren't Catholics before) who studied history remained Protestant. It would be one thing if the Papacy and the Vatican had a perfect interpretation of scripture and had stuck to it, but that's not the case. Instead the RCC ended up with their updated changing version of Christianity that in some cases eschewed scripture in favor of catechisms. Just as the Jews ended up favoring the Talmud they created. So the problem of Sola Scriptura for Catholicism is that it doesn't allow for the extrabiblical dictates the RCC came up with over the centuries. The RCC like most others decided to do it their way. Otherwise the RCC would be the same now as the early church up to the 4th century, but it clearly isn't. The RCC morphed into something different. The RCC seems to be currently morphing into accepting and promoting LGBTQQIP2SAA+ and transgenderism. Lots of Catholics and apparently the Pope is onboard with that. There's just too much wrong with the RCC and Catholicism past and present to make the claim of being the one and only true infallible church. Really the Eastern Orthodox Church is closer to that than the Roman Catholic Church.

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible, never was there even a hint that all authority would be turned over the Bible. Had that been the case the Church would have put in some kind of note saying so. It wasn't until roughly a thousand years later that the idea caught fire, apparently after two Christians followed an Arab theologian who preached the Quran was the authority. Indeed, the idea goes against what is in the Bible. The Word of God, passed down through the Apostles, does not change. However, the Catholic Church understanding deepens with time. A Catechism became necessary, heavily footnoted with Bible passages, even before the Church reached a billion members spread throughout the world. With people using Bible text in order to promote their personal differing views it is obviously necessary. Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, our New Covenant or New Testament, remains the source and summit of the Catholic Church, now for almost 2000 years. The Church is expected to change over time but never reject any dogma that has been previously established. Whether it be LGTBQ or something else, the Church has been continually attacked by Satan, but we have the promise of God that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A Catechism became necessary, heavily footnoted with Bible passages, even before the Church reached a billion members spread throughout the world. With people using Bible text in order to promote their personal views it is obviously necessary.

When every individual feels fully qualified to interpret the bible according to their best wits we really do desperately need an authority to divide the dross from the precious metal in all those interpretations.

 

[ozso]

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible, never was there even a hint that all authority would be turned over the Bible. Had that been the case the Church would have put in some kind of note saying so. It wasn't until roughly a thousand years later that the idea caught fire, apparently after two Christians followed an Arab theologian who preached the Quran was the authority.

I've heard that several times before. Yet Catholocism is based on scripture. The Pope? Scripture. Bishops? Scripture. Confessing sins? Scripture. The Eucharist? Scripture. Baptism? Scripture. The church being the pillar and foundation of the truth? Scripture.

Indeed, the idea goes against what is in the Bible. The Word of God, passed down through the Apostles, does not change. However, the Catholic Church understanding deepens with time. A Catechism became necessary, heavily footnoted with Bible passages, even before the Church reached a billion members spread throughout the world. With people using Bible text in order to promote their personal differing views it is obviously necessary. Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, our New Covenant or New Testament, remains the source and summit of the Catholic Church, now for almost 2000 years. The Church is expected to change over time but never reject any dogma that has been previously established. Whether it be LGTBQ or something else, the Church has been continually attacked by Satan, but we have the promise of God that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

The RCC for the last 1600 years is not the church of the first 400 years. It strayed away from the original church and morphed into a different church. Still a church of Christ, but clearly not the same as the original. Most likely because of the Roman Empire merging with the Church.

 

[Valletta]

I've heard that several times before. Yet Catholocism is based on scripture. The Pope? Scripture. Bishops? Scripture. Confessing sins? Scripture. The Eucharist? Scripture. Baptism? Scripture. The church being the pillar and foundation of the truth? Scripture.

The RCC for the last 1600 years is not the church of the first 400 years. It strayed away from the original church and morphed into a different church. Still a church of Christ, but clearly not the same as the original. Most likely because of the Roman Empire merging with the Church.

The Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written. Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is our New Covenant, or New Testament, and as the new books were chosen by the Catholic Church those books began to be known as "books of the New Testament." That the written Word of God corresponds fully to the teachings of the Catholic Church is no coincidence--any text that was not 100% in keeping with Catholic teaching was rejected. Never was the Bible intended to include all that God has taught us, it is a collection of holy words from God, but God cannot be confined to a book. The canon of the Bible itself is not part of Holy Scripture, it was not part of the Catholic Church until the latter 300s, so yes the Church changed. Your religion has probably adopted the same order of books chosen by Catholics and kept most of the books as part of your tradition. That is not part of Holy Scripture, it is from the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit. That the Catholic Church "merged" with some other religion is just an anti-Catholic slur.

 

[ozso]

The Catholic Church existed before one word of the New Testament was written. Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is our New Covenant, or New Testament, and as the new books were chosen by the Catholic Church those books began to be known as "books of the New Testament." That the written Word of God corresponds fully to the teachings of the Catholic Church is no coincidence--any text that was not 100% in keeping with Catholic teaching was rejected. Never was the Bible intended to include all that God has taught us, it is a collection of holy words from God, but God cannot be confined to a book. The canon of the Bible itself is not part of Holy Scripture, it was not part of the Catholic Church until the latter 300s, so yes the Church changed.

The gospel and epistles were written by the apostles and that's when they came into existence. They were already known as manuscripts actually written by the apostles from the beginning. That's why they ended up being preserved throughout the centuries before being compiled into a book. Church teaching and practice up to the 5th century was based on what was taught by the apostles. It was made clear by the apostles in their epistles not to accept anything other than what they taught and not to add to their teaching. And the Church adhered to that for centuries.

Your religion has probably adopted the same order of books chosen by Catholics and kept most of the books as part of your tradition. That is not part of Holy Scripture, it is from the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit. That the Catholic Church "merged" with some other religion is just an anti-Catholic slur.

My religion is Christianity as defined by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Those who compiled their centuries old manuscripts into book form had absolutely nothing to do with them being written. Nor did they make them legitimate manuscripts written by the apostles, as they already were that from the time they were written. The Roman Empire wasn't a religion. But the merging of the Empire with the Church brought about changes in the Church. That's easily seen in how the Church started changing after that time.

 

[Valletta]

The gospel and epistles were written by the apostles and that's when they came into existence. They were already known as manuscripts actually written by the apostles from the beginning. That's why they ended up being preserved throughout the centuries before being compiled into a book. Church teaching and practice up to the 5th century was based on what was taught by the apostles. It was made clear by the apostles in their epistles not to accept anything other than what they taught and not to add to their teaching. And the Church adhered to that for centuries.

My religion is Christianity as defined by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. Those who compiled their centuries old manuscripts into book form had absolutely nothing to do with them being written. Nor did they make them legitimate manuscripts written by the apostles, as they already were that from the time they were written. The Roman Empire wasn't a religion. But the merging of the Empire with the Church brought about changes in the Church. That's easily seen in how the Church started changing after that time.

​

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. RSVCE

The process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries. Only some of the books of the Bible were written by the Apostles. Although the Gospels were read at masses throughout the Catholic Church, there were some differences in the other books read at mass from region to region. The Church set out to create the canon and only the Word of God would be allowed at mass readings. Please stop spreading the falsehood that the Roman Empire merged with the Church. I told you it was an anti-Catholic slur. The Romans persecuted Catholics up until the time of Constantine, later, as many government do, they adopted Catholicism as their state religion. Many governments in later centuries adopted Protestant religions as their state religions. In fact the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church, and has guided our Church for almost 2000 years.

 

[ozso]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. RSVCE

Some religions did actually drop books from the 73 books chosen by the Catholic Church

Taught BY US.

The apostles did not write Baruch, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit and Wisdom.

Nor did the Apostles teach by word of mouth nor by letter the traditions that came into existence centuries later.

 

[dzheremi]

The problem is not with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, because that's just good theology and ecclesiology working together in what should be a relatively obvious and unproblematic way. The problem is with the Roman Catholic Church's attempted usurpation of the term "Catholic", such that it can write things like CCC 846 in its catechism, and because of its audience, people who read it will read the words "Catholic Church" and think that this means the Church of Rome and those under the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, when that is not and has never been what "Catholic" means to anyone outside of that communion and that sphere of influence (meaning other western Christians and those of the eastern and oriental churches that Rome carved out of preexisting populations of Christians in various places beyond western Europe).

Heck, in the common language of my particular Church's homeland, we even use different words for these two concepts. If we are talking about being "catholic" in the original sense of the word, as in the Creed, we use the term جامعة (gama'a), whereas the 'denominational' term (for a lack of a better way to put it, in this particular context; I can't say "communal" here, as I usually would, since we and the Eastern Orthodox also form distinct communions) is an obvious loan word, كاثوليك (kathulik).

None of this is to say that Roman Catholicism is anything other than Christian (lest anyone go there; I don't put up with that kind of talk, so I'll thank anyone who wants to trash the RCC to not use my post as a springboard for doing so), but "Catholic"...ehhh...by virtue of the number of different churches of diverse rites it has gathered under Rome, sure (if we are using the semantically-related but ultimately secondary definition of "found everywhere geographically", then I don't see how it couldn't be; we Orthodox certainly did not and do not accept those coming from the Nestorians who still venerate Nestorius and have a liturgy attributed to him, for instance, so if that's the only criteria, then they're more 'catholic' than any of us can be!), but if that is meant in the original sense of "whole", then I don't see that this is exclusive to or even best embodied by the Roman communion.

To put it another way that will hopefully not seem so inflammatory, if we were to step back through time to a very early era in our religion, where we could conceive of maybe having only a handful of churches in a given territory (this will be easier for some of us than others...), such that there was only one parish for many hundreds of miles in any direction, then we could say that that parish would be "the catholic church" in whatever location it was in, not by its relation to Rome or any other far off bishop, by virtue of the presiding bishop of that territory overseeing it, and his presidency over the administration of the sacraments that are celebrated in that parish. This is indeed the early model for what it meant to be a member of the catholic church (and please note here I am not keeping those c's lowercase to show any disrespect, but because I don't like people who try to play typographical games with being "catholic" versus being "Catholic", nor "orthodox" versus "Orthodox" or whatever...Arabic doesn't have such a distinction, and neither does Syriac, and Coptic did not originally, just like Greek and Latin did not originally, either), as that is what is found in the seven authentic epistles of our holy father Ignatius of Antioch, who is the earliest Christian bishop that we know of to have used the term "the catholic church" in his writings (in the early 2nd century). It is as St. Ignatius tells us, then as now: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ, there is the catholic church." Not found: "Roman", "Rome", let alone "bishop of Rome", all of which makes sense, as St. Ignatius himself was bishop of Antioch, which is notable for how not-Rome it is. To get anything close to modern RCC ecclesiology out of this, you have to already have said ecclesiology in mind, but since Rome herself did not even have anything like its present ecclesiology until arguably the fifth century at the earliest (and in some ways, it was even then still missing much of what would be considered mandatory in later eras, such as "universal jurisdiction"; in the 5th century, it was more like "other churches should conform their practices to what we do in Rome so that we can be together in praxis in addition to faith -- see here Leo I's 445 epistle to the then-still-universally-recognized Pope of Alexandria, HH St. Dioscorus), that's a tough sell to anyone not already within the Roman sphere of influence and accompanying historical bubble, to put it very, very lightly.

 

[ozso]

The process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries. Only some of the books of the Bible were written by the Apostles. Although the Gospels were read at masses throughout the Catholic Church, there were some differences in the other books read at mass from region to region. The Church set out to create the canon and only the Word of God would be allowed at mass readings. Please stop spreading the falsehood that the Roman Empire merged with the Church. I told you it was an anti-Catholic slur. The Romans persecuted Catholics up until the time of Constantine, later, as many government do, they adopted Catholicism as their state religion. Many governments in later centuries adopted Protestant religions as their state religions. In fact the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church, and has guided our Church for almost 2000 years.

The epistles written by the Apostles came into existence at the time they were written. What was done with them after that time didn't make them any more authentically written by the Apostles than they already were. The Roman Empire becoming part of the Church, which evolved into the Holy Roman Empire, is a very well established historic fact, not a slur. It's also an historical fact that new traditions that were not taught by the Apostles by word of mouth or letter, started coming into existence after that time. If facts are considered a slur by the RCC, I'd say that doesn't look particularly good. The RCC has a history of corruption that obviously wasn't guided by the Holy Spirit, meaning not everything that comes out of the RCC is by way of the HS. And there's no evidence, other than the RCC's say-so, that other churches of Christ aren't also guided by the Holy Spirit. Calling other churches of Christ another religion is a slur though. Saying that I a Christian belong to another religion is tantamount to saying I'm not really a Christian, which is a slur, and a violation of CF rules.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I've heard that several times before. Yet Catholocism is based on scripture. The Pope? Scripture. Bishops? Scripture. Confessing sins? Scripture. The Eucharist? Scripture. Baptism? Scripture. The church being the pillar and foundation of the truth? Scripture.

There is scripture for all of these, yet you act as if there isn't and as if one NEEDS scripture to believe something.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The RCC for the last 1600 years is not the church of the first 400 years. It strayed away from the original church and morphed into a different church. Still a church of Christ, but clearly not the same as the original. Most likely because of the Roman Empire merging with the Church.

The story you tell is a fancy invented after the protestant revolt. The continuity of Catholicism is rather easy to establish; consider the church buildings that the Catholic Church has owned since 313 AD.

 

[ozso]

The story you tell is a fancy invented after the protestant revolt. The continuity of Catholicism is rather easy to establish; consider the church buildings that the Catholic Church has owned since 313 AD.

Nope in the past I've looked up when various traditions were established. Now when a tradition was started, doesn't necessarily negate it. But any tradition started after the lifetime of the apostles, especially ones that started centuries after their lifetime, obviously were not taught by them by word of mouth or by letter per 2 Thessalonians 2:15

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

any tradition started after the lifetime of the apostles, especially ones that started centuries after their lifetime, obviously were not taught by them by word of mouth or by letter

Which certainly applies to each and every Protestant tradition without exception. Not one of them has historical continuity back to the first century, but the Catholic Church does have that continuity.