A Proposal to My Fellow Lutherans...

[Peter_J]

The problem here, I suppose, from my perspective is that it may be clearly stated in the document where the ex cathedra begins and ends, however, since it now seems to be open to interpretation on exactly what the statement means, what good is the infallible pronouncement? Vatican II seems to apply his words in a totally different way than any earlier Councils that addressed salvation have. I am not sure how that clarifies the faith or gives greater assurance to its adherents.

While certainly less subjective than many Protestant sects, the Catholic Church does not seem to avoid subjectivity entirely simply by claiming to have an infallible teaching office.

While I tend to agree much more with the Orthodox concept of church polity and the bishopric… their doctrine of the infallibility of Councils runs in to the same problems as the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

See above. What is the point of having ex cathedra statements if we cannot even definitively see which ones exist?

I would say that if your biggest complaint about Papal Infallibility (as defined by Vatican I) is that it isn’t useful, then perhaps Papal Infallibility isn’t really the major obstacle to reconciliation that it is often made out to be?

You might know this already, but Cardinal Newman opposed defining Papal Infallibility as a dogma – even though he believed it to be true. I agree with him completely on this point.

 

[SCALCO]

I think the difficulty here is one’s presuppositions. Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists cannot live a virtuous life. No one is ignorant of the truth of God. This is the way St. Paul puts it in the first chapter of Romans:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

What is Paul saying here? That unbelievers, by looking at the world around them can plainly see that there is a God, specifically the God of Scripture. In their conscience they know this to be true. But what do they do with that general knowledge? They suppress it, reject it, and turn away from it. Instead of worshipping the one, true, living God, they turn to idols, gods of their own imaginations and inventions.

Since they are sinners who are dead in their trespasses, they are in the flesh. Those in the flesh cannot please God. Their seemingly virtuous actions, by God’s holy standard, are not virtuous at all, but rather, corrupt and offensive to the Lord. Since they do not have faith in Christ, nor honor Him as God, they will die in those sins and face eternal judgment. If they could make it to heaven by following their own invented moral codes, then Christ died in vain. And we are patently foolish for preaching the Gospel to them, since they apparently don’t need it.

This is something I need to take time to consider. Something still seems to be missing from your interpretation, but I can’t put my finger on it. I could be wrong

 

[TriuneUnity]

I would say that if your biggest complaint about Papal Infallibility (as defined by Vatican I) is that it isn’t useful, then perhaps Papal Infallibility isn’t really the major obstacle to reconciliation that it is often made out to be?

The office of the bishop of Rome is fine. The doctrines that crept in over time regarding that office are what prevents reconciliation (at least from a Lutheran perspective). Is that bishopric the most preeminent and honored in Christendom? Yes, I believe so. The ancient church all the way to the 7th and 8th centuries regarded it as so. The biggest complaint about papal infallibility is that it doesn’t exist. The fact that it isn’t useful is only important for demonstrating that it doesn’t exist if it can be shown to not exist.

I would suggest reading one of our Confessional documents on this; The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope here bookofconcord.org/treatise.html

 

[TriuneUnity]

This is something I need to take time to consider. Something still seems to be missing from your interpretation, but I can’t put my finger on it. I could be wrong

Take as much time as you need

 

[Peter_J]

The fact that it isn’t useful is only important for demonstrating that it doesn’t exist if it can be shown to not exist.

I’m afraid you’ll have to explain that one to me. Does the fact that the Papal Infallibility dogma isn’t useful (assuming that is a fact) prove it to be heretical?

I would suggest reading one of our Confessional documents on this; The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope here bookofconcord.org/treatise.html

Maybe I will, I haven’t decided yet. (Do you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church every time a Catholic poster tells you to? )

 

[SPH1]

Because by its nature as God’s breath, we can be confident that since God is infallible, His Word is also infallible. I do not believe He has promised an infallible Church; and if it can be demonstrated that the Church has not always been infallible in its decisions, then the evidence would show that we have no reason to have confidence in an infallible hierarchy.

Okay, so God’s “word” is infallible. Now what? What usefullness is this to us if nobody can infallibly interpret it?

Your and the entire Lutheran Church interpretation is not infallible; the Calvinists are not infallible; the Baptists are not infallible…none of Protestantism is infallible. (Self-evident, considering the widely conflicting views.)

So your view is that God gave us his “word” but with no reliable, infallible means to know the truth? Nothing but our own best-efforts … works? … doing our best to interpret scripture as best we can?

Furthermore, even if the Church is not infallible, it is still God’s Church, acting pursuant to His authority. Right or wrong, the lawful Church authorities are still our authorities.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m afraid you’ll have to explain that one to me. Does the fact that the Papal Infallibility dogma isn’t useful (assuming that is a fact) prove it to be heretical?

What I mean is that my complaint is not that it isn’t useful. It’s that it cannot be shown to be historically true due to many contradictions that have taken place with Papal and Conciliar statements. It’s lack of usefulness is because it isn’t true. It’s not that it’s useless therefore false. It’s false so it’s useless.

Maybe I will, I haven’t decided yet. (Do you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church every time a Catholic poster tells you to? )

LOL not the whole thing. That’s no excuse Peter, the treatise is a lot shorter than the Catechism!!

 

[Peter_J]

What I mean is that my complaint is not that it isn’t useful. It’s that it cannot be shown to be historically true due to many contradictions that have taken place with Papal and Conciliar statements. It’s lack of usefulness is because it isn’t true. It’s not that it’s useless therefore false. It’s false so it’s useless.

Okay, I see what you mean.

For what it’s worth, I feel that the lack (partial or total) of “usefulness” of the Papal Infallibility dogma is actually something that enables me to believe in it.

I mean, suppose someone told me that the Pope is infallible whenever he says anything about faith or morals. That would be a much more useful fact. But even if I didn’t know that it contracts certain historical cases (e.g. the Nicholas I case I mentioned before, or Pope Honorius etc.) I think I would still feel intuitively that that useful claim wasn’t right, that it goes against the whole flow of church history.

LOL not the whole thing. That’s no excuse Peter, the treatise is a lot shorter than the Catechism!!

Well … we’ll see.

A better example I could have used is a recent thread (I forgot which one) in which a Catholic poster told a non-Catholic Christian to watch the show “The Journey Home”. Needless to say, I’m rather skeptical that the person did so, simply because someone on an internet discussion forum told him/her to.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Okay, I see what you mean.

For what it’s worth, I feel that the lack (partial or total) of “usefulness” of the Papal Infallibility dogma is actually something that enables me to believe in it.

I mean, suppose someone told me that the Pope is infallible whenever he says anything about faith or morals. That would be a much more useful fact. But even if I didn’t know that it contracts certain historical cases (e.g. the Nicholas I case I mentioned before, or Pope Honorius etc.) I think I would still feel intuitively that that useful claim wasn’t right, that it goes against the whole flow of church history.

I understand what you’re trying to say; however, the issue of usefulness is only a side fact to the main problems with papal infallibility. The usefulness part is only an issue in determining when, exactly, the Pope has been infallible. If there’s a gaping hole in when the Pope has been infallible, how can one say he has ever been infallible? If the Church doesn’t have an infallible guide to when the Pope has been infallible, then aren’t the laity left to determine when he has been? In that case, how is it any different than personal interpretation?

 

[Peter_J]

I understand what you’re trying to say; however, the issue of usefulness is only a side fact to the main problems with papal infallibility. The usefulness part is only an issue in determining when, exactly, the Pope has been infallible. If there’s a gaping hole in when the Pope has been infallible, how can one say he has ever been infallible? If the Church doesn’t have an infallible guide to when the Pope has been infallible, then aren’t the laity left to determine when he has been? In that case, how is it any different than personal interpretation?

If so, then that was even more of an issue before Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined.

 

[TriuneUnity]

If so, then that was even more of an issue before Papal Infallibility was dogmatically defined.

That is very true and I am sure that it was helpful in clarifying it via a dogmatic pronouncement. However, that presupposes that prior to the Middle Ages the doctrine of papal infallibility was believed throughout the history of the Church. And of course, the problems inherent in the dogmatic pronouncement of requiring Christians to believe in it for unity with Rome.

 

[SCALCO]

I don’t know how you resolve the contradiction, but that’s okay.

TU,
how I am satisfied it is not a contradiction is because I accept the authority of the Church.

 

[SCALCO]

Yes; Scripture makes it clear that unbelievers are under condemnation already, before they ever hear of Christ.

TU, which scripture(s)?

Thanks!

 

[TriuneUnity]

TU,
how I am satisfied it is not a contradiction is because I accept the authority of the Church.

So you accept the authority of the Church even when it contradicts itself?

 

[TriuneUnity]

TU, which scripture(s)?

Thanks!

Rom. 3:10-18: as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

I Cor. 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

II Cor. 1:9: Yea, we ourselves had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead.

Eph. 2:1-3: And you did He make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom ye also all once lived in the lusts of your flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

John 3:3: Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 6:53: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have not life in yourselves.

John 3:19: And this is the judgment, that light is come unto the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil.

John 3:36: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God **remains **on him.

(note in the above the wrath of God remains on him, which means God’s wrath was there prior to rejecting Christ)

 

[SCALCO]

So you accept the authority of the Church even when it contradicts itself?

If I thought it was a contradiction, I would question my own understanding before I would question the Church. If anything, I consider the later teaching a clarification, not a contradiction. I will continue to study it because it is an important issue.

Another example is the other issue we touched on related to “invincible ignorance”. Your interpretation seems to contradict Church teaching, so I wanted to study it more. If I were to agree with you, I would first question my understanding because I believe in the authority of the Church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

If I thought it was a contradiction, I would question my own understanding before I would question the Church. If anything, I consider the later teaching a clarification, not a contradiction. I will continue to study it because it is an important issue.

Another example is the other issue we touched on related to “invincible ignorance”. Your interpretation seems to contradict Church teaching, so I wanted to study it more. If I were to agree with you, I would first question my understanding because I believe in the authority of the Church.

There’s no problem with questioning your own understanding. A clarification would be a further development along the same line of thought as the previous teaching. The papal Bull and the ecumenical Council’s statement, however, are not developed by Vatican II. They are changed. Both documents clearly state that all heretics, Jews, schismatics, Muslims, and pagans will be consigned to hell. Vatican II says they may not be. That’s not a clarification.

The Church, rightly, never made an exception for invincible ignorance. The Church has only further departed from the truth with its slide toward the slope of universalism.

 

[SCALCO]

There’s no problem with questioning your own understanding. A clarification would be a further development along the same line of thought as the previous teaching. The papal Bull and the ecumenical Council’s statement, however, are not developed by Vatican II. They are changed. Both documents clearly state that all heretics, Jews, schismatics, Muslims, and pagans will be consigned to hell. Vatican II says they may not be. That’s not a clarification.

The Church, rightly, never made an exception for invincible ignorance. The Church has only further departed from the truth with its slide toward the slope of universalism.

IMHO, the early documents do not clearly state what you said. Sorry I can’t give you a more elaborate answer than that at the moment, but I can’t agree.

On invincible ignorance, that is something I am studying more as well. Thank you for providing those verses. I have seen other verses that seem to support it, so I will have to weigh everything together and see.

 

[TriuneUnity]

IMHO, the early documents do not clearly state what you said. Sorry I can’t give you a more elaborate answer than that at the moment, but I can’t agree.

On invincible ignorance, that is something I am studying more as well. Thank you for providing those verses. I have seen other verses that seem to support it, so I will have to weigh everything together and see.

I can only point you again to the statement made by the Council of Florence. I would ask, though, in what way does it not contradict the Vatican II and Catechism position?

 

[SCALCO]

I can only point you again to the statement made by the Council of Florence. I would ask, though, in what way does it not contradict the Vatican II and Catechism position?

I am thinking the early statement did not address everything in the Vatican II position.
It might be tomorrow before I can look at it again. I am leaving for the day. God bless.