 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
MitchyMitch
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Snellville, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 81 |
| First Name: | Mitch | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Baptist and Southern Baptist...Now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 03:39 pm |
|
I am having a discussion on a protestant board about a London Times entitled "Pope May Discard Papal Infallibility"....The article is misleading on this point, but it does highlight talks going on between Orthodox and the Vatican about obstacles to Church unity.
And as a known Catholic, I am, of course, being called out to defend infallibility. I want to give the best explanation possible. Can you let me know if this s adequate and correct? Here is my response to a Calvinist's inquiry on whether Papal Infallibility is as theologically important as Jesus as God Incarnate, Trinity, Virgin Birth, and Resurrection:
...........
One of the main differences between the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches is one of Apostolic succession and Church hierarchy.
I believe that Jesus gave certain responsibilities to His Apostles - His Bishops under the New Covenant. I also believe that Jesus gave a leadership position to Peter over the Apostles and the Church in a "feed My sheep" kind of way. I believe this is biblical, given the discourse Christ gave directly to Peter-Petros-Kephas, and the early accounts of Peter in the book of Acts. Clearly, the Apostles saw Peter as their earthly head.
We also see Apostolic succession early in Acts, as the council votes Matthias in to replace the dead Judas, betrayer of Jesus.
In regards to Peter's position, he was the gatekeeper in decisions of Christian practice. Paul saw this as he he argues for not binding Gentiles to keep kosher. Paul goes to great lengths to convince Peter against keeping kosher as a Christian practice. Regardless of the language Paul used, it was still Peter's decision as guided by the Holy Spirit. Here we see a Biblical precedent for Papal Infallibility - making decisions regarding faith and morals as guided by the Holy Spirit, a decision that does not contradict Scripture (Gentiles were not under the non-kosher ban), Peter's decision was binding on the Church, he defined the Church's position on whether Gentiles had to keep kosher, and his decision was from his leadership position - ex-cathedra.
If I believe in Apostolic succession, then I must believe that the current Pope in his position has the earthly authority to bind and loose matters regarding the practices of the Church in regards to faith and morals. Would I say that the Pope's Infallibility is important and indespensible as Jesus-as-Immanuel, or the Sacrificial Lamb characterization of CHrist? Here, we are comparing things we must take on individual faith verses the established hierarchy of the Church and the responsibility of that hierarchy. It is through Christ we receive Salvation, it is through Christ we can know God. These are paramount. On a desert island, I may not have the sacraments of the Church, but I can know God through Christ. Since I am on no desert island, and a practicing member of the Church, I do submit myself to the shepherding of the Pope, the Bishops, and the Priests, and am thankful to the Church as a spiritual mother.
The Orthodox and confessional protestants in 1870 were not, I believe, concerned with the Catholic councils in the 1800's. I'm not even sure that Orthodox and Protestants were invited. I simply don't know. I know this was a Vatican Council, not an ecumenical council. Why would the Vatican, in 1870, be concerned with what the Orthodox and Protestants think? They existed in schism with the Church. Surely, Protestants would not define Papal authority in even the Biblical precedent because Protestants reject outright Apostolic succession. Orthodox describe Papal authority differently than Catholics.
Surely, if any one true Church of Jesus Christ existed, it would not keep binding councils with churches that believe differently. I believe that the True CHurch exists as Jesus had prepared and guided.
____________________
Pax,
Mitch
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 04:52 pm |
|
MitchyMitch wrote: The Orthodox and confessional protestants in 1870 were not, I believe, concerned with the Catholic councils in the 1800's. I'm not even sure that Orthodox and Protestants were invited. I simply don't know. I know this was a Vatican Council, not an ecumenical council.
Here is my interpretation:
The Catholic Church considers an ecumenical council one in which the bishops in union with Rome are represented. Councils are named for where they are held, not whether or not they are "ecumenical". In the Catholic viewpoint, both Vatican councils were ecumenical councils. The pronouncements of such a council, when promulgated and accepted by the pope, are considered infallible. The discussion between Catholic and Orthodox is not over infallibility but rather how it is to be defined in such a way that will be acceptable to both. It is more of a language issue than a doctrinal one, in my opinion.
The Orthodox agree in infallibility. However, they believe that infallibility is vested only in the body of bishops acting in unison. They believe that there have been no infallible doctrinal pronouncements since the Great Schsim of 1054, because the collegiality of bishops had been disrupted. They consider the bishop of Rome as having a primacy of honor but not jurisdiction, and do not consider him infallible in his person.
Catholics believe that infallibility continued to be vested in the Catholic Church after the Great Schism. In particular, Catholics believe that infallibility requires the consent and participation of the bishop of Rome. However, in our doctrine, even the bishop of Rome is not infallible when he acts alone.
Infallibility is vested in the bishop of Rome when he formally pronounces doctrine in union with the entire Church on matters of faith and morals. Ordinary teachings of the pope, such as those contained in encyclicals, are not of themselves infallible.
So the question to be settled is how infallibility is vested in the Church. Is it through the body of bishops acting with the pope as a brother bishop, or is it in the person of the pope supported by the college of bishops?
Catholic doctrine cannot change, but it can be explained in more acceptable language for the Orthodox. It would not be against Catholic doctrine to strengthen the language requiring participation and agreement of the bishops in infallible pronouncements. Many believe that a second section of Vatican I was scheduled to treat the powers of the body of bishops, but it was never held.
So no, it is not possible that the pope will "give up" infallibility. The power to bind and to loose is God-given, not assumed by the pope. It existed before 1870, and is evident even in scripture (as you demonstrated).
What the pope may well give up is immediate jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches. Currently, the patriarch of an Eastern Catholic Church may not name a bishop, revise the liturgy, etc., without papal approval. However, that is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. It could easily be said that jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics was assumed by the pope as patriarch of the west after the other patriarchs split, and they could rejoin as autonomous Churches not subject to the immediate jurisdiction of Rome. In this case, the patriarchs of the autonomous Churches would not kneel before the bishop of Rome, but stand with him as equals, and the pope would be first among equals in a primacy of honor.
But uniquely Catholic doctrines promulgated since 1054, such as papal infallibility, original sin, the Immaculate Conception, and others, would have to be explained in language maintaining the integrity of the doctrine but also acceptable to the Orthodox.
The road ahead is still a long one, but at least for the first time in a thousand years, we are walking in the same direction.
The rest of what you wrote is essentially correct, but the situations are quite different involving Protestants and Orthodox. The Orthodox Churches are valid, with valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments. They are in schism but not in heresy. Protestant churches are in heresy. We accept all Orthodox doctrine as valid, and Orthodox members are permitted to receive sacraments in the Catholic Church. Protestants are not so allowed except in very unique circumstances. A protestant must make a profession of faith to become Catholic; an Orthodox merely announces his intention. Protestants require catechesis; Orthodox do not. I guess you could say that Protestants "convert" while Orthodox "join" the Church, as they already profess the Catholic faith.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
BodRod
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | Apple Valley, California USA |
| Posts: | 770 |
| First Name: | Cliff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:25 pm |
|
Thanks Rick .......... Another exegesis for my RCIA reference file. 
____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
|
|
|
MitchyMitch
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Snellville, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 81 |
| First Name: | Mitch | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Baptist and Southern Baptist...Now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 08:55 pm |
|
Thanks, Rick. As the conversation keeps turning on ecumeiccal councils, I have pasted your take as "from a friend".
I have been taken to task on the "kosher" thing, though, as they bring up James having the leadership qualities, not to mention the Paul-Peter argument was over circumcision.Last edited on Sun Nov 25th, 2007 09:01 pm by MitchyMitch
____________________
Pax,
Mitch
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 09:05 pm |
|
MitchyMitch wrote: I have been taken to task on the "kosher" thing, though, as they bring up James having the leadership qualities, not to mention the Paul-Peter argument was over circumcision.
I understood your use of the term "kosher" as meaning following Jewish law, not just dietary law. Many Jews will practice circumcision even though they do not strictly follow the dietary laws, so chances are a Jew who is strictly kosher will follow most of the other laws as well.
It's sort of like not needing to say that a Catholic who attends daily mass needs to fulfill their "Easter duties".
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 06:14 pm |
|
Hi Mitch.
I think you did an excellent job of defending our beliefs. Here are some further resources I have written, if you want to offer more to your Protestant friend (the first is the most concise summary of biblical stuff):
Biblical Evidence for Papal and Church Infallibility
Reflections on the Papacy: Papal Infallibility and Concluding Postscripts
Newman on Papal Infallibility
For a more technical, in-depth treatment of infallibility itself (not just papal), see:
Vatican II: Is it Orthodox and Binding? / The Infallibility and Sublime Authority of Conciliar and Papal Decrees / Different Levels of Church Authority (vs. several "traditionalists")
Also, Peter's prerogative as the "Rock" and possessor of the "keys of the kingdom" strongly imply infallibility or at least a profound authority. See my papers:
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter the "Rock": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant)
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant) (+ Part II)
50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy
Reply to a Critique of my 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy (vs. Jason Engwer)
Second Refutation of the Reductio ad Absurdum Argument for a "Pauline Papacy"
(vs. Jason Engwer)
Last edited on Mon Nov 26th, 2007 06:15 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
MitchyMitch
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Snellville, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 81 |
| First Name: | Mitch | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Baptist and Southern Baptist...Now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 10:06 pm |
|
Rick and David,
Thanks for this. I really do appreciate it.
Rick - your take on the difference between the Orthodox and Protestant situations is dead on. I will continue using this as the discussion goes on.
David - what an awesome library you have given me. I am still checking anything out. And it will come in quite handy.
Keep me in your prayers on this. I am learning so much as I discuss. I have tried discernment - not putting my pearls before people who would mock. I even tried keeping these types of conversations on a one-on-one so the tendency to "gang up" is kept in check. However, we should always be prepared to give an answer for questions of our hope
I may call on more wisdom, as I am no canon lawyer or church historian. I am just a willing student.
God bless.
____________________
Pax,
Mitch
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1414 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 03:47 pm |
|
Glad to be of some help, Mitch. If the discussion becomes ugly and/or personal, the best thing is to just leave. Most discussion boards anymore are absurd and a waste of time, in my opinion. That's one reason I was so pleased to see that this one is "normal" and the way it should be for Christian folks.
Occasionally there is a good opportunity to discuss things intelligently online with our Protestant brethren. I love those, but am constantly frustrated myself that the chance to engage in amiable, constructive conversation is so rare. The more people that are present means that it will probably be more likely to get out of hand, too: the "pack mentality" thing.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
MitchyMitch
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Snellville, Georgia USA |
| Posts: | 81 |
| First Name: | Mitch | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Independent Baptist and Southern Baptist...Now Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 04:09 pm |
|
Thanks for the advice.
My faithful antagonist in these debates is really a good guy. He is older and much wiser than me, and he is doing the Lord's work by teaching at a Christian School. Surprisingly, we agree on much - though he is a strict Calvinist Presbyterian, he does consider himself a "small c" catholic of the creeds, and believes in the sacraments of the church as sacraments.
Though I may be the only token catholic on the board, the board itself is quite diverse. I jokingly consider myself a promoter of Christian unity because when I say something, the people do unite...though against me.
I stay on the board because some people do PM me and say that I bring up things they never thought of before, or that I explain a troublesome verse (for them) much better than they could ever hope for from their pastor. It is a balancing act - knowing when to say things, and anticipating whether it will be met with mockery, disdain, "meeting halfway" on a point, or pure acceptance.
It has been quite surprising that even the "catholic" traditions I was brought up with as a Baptist has been totally thrown aside for the notion of pleasing the Lord. Halloween, Santa Claus - these are real debate-starters of late where more energy is used for heat rather than light.
But I think I have really made some ground, there, in dispelling some of the myths about the Catholic Church. Some have even said they would check it out. I pray that God uses me.
By the way, the board itself is set up as an alumni board for a certain Fundy college - a college that refuses its students the type of anonymity and free speech the board actually allows. It is weird to see where it's students have ended up - a lot of good stories, and a lot of tragic lives. Fundamentalist education really has no more real-world effect on its students than non-fundy students. I needed to know this as I make "peace" with my history of fundamentalism.
____________________
Pax,
Mitch
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5079 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 10:20 pm |
|
MitchyMitch wrote: Surprisingly, we agree on much
Actually, it's no surprise at all. We Christians agree on 95% or more of the truth. We just tend to highlight our disagreements rather than our agreements.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 05:21 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
