Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

That is not Newman meant by the analogy of the acorn to the oak tree. He even said that you can’t see the doctrine antecedently, but only retrospectively.

I was addressing evidence for the claims of Roman Catholicism, a subject that isn’t limited to the opinions of Cardinal Newman. But even if we limit ourselves to Newman’s views, what’s the relevance of saying that “you can’t see the doctrine antecedently, but only retrospectively”? You made that comment in response to me asking for the evidence that leads to the conclusion of the Immaculate Conception. Asking for the evidence that leads to the conclusion isn’t equivalent to saying that we have to see the conclusion before examining the evidence.

Did you read what I wrote earlier to AugustineH354, before you entered the discussion, regarding deriving the Assumption of Mary from passages of scripture such as Psalm 132:8 and Revelation 11:19? We were discussing the historical depth of Roman Catholicism, and I distinguished between doctrines that can possibly be derived from what the apostles taught and doctrines that are probable or certain conclusions to apostolic teaching. What you’re saying now is that the Immaculate Conception need only be a possible conclusion to apostolic teaching. That’s my point. Such a form of doctrinal development is not historically deep. It could be used to justify not only a bodily assumption of Mary, but also a bodily assumption of John, not only an immaculate conception of Mary, but also an immaculate conception of Joseph. One group can develop private confession of sins to a priest from James 5:16, and another group can develop public confession of sins to a deacon from the same passage. The sort of development you’re arguing for isn’t historically deep. It’s historically shallow.

JPrejean:

It is accepted not because it necessarily had to grow from the deposit of faith (although it infallibly would do so through God’s providential guidance), but because it in fact DID grow from that deposit.

In other words, if the RCC was to gradually develop the practice of confessing all sins publicly to a deacon, and a Pope 500 years from now was to bind the practice upon all Roman Catholics, you would argue that it’s accurate to say that the practice of publicly confessing all sins to a deacon is an apostolic tradition always held and practiced by the church. After all, James 5:16 could possibly be seen as a seed form of the practice, and the practice did eventually develop in the Roman Catholic denomination. It doesn’t matter if the practice is neither a probable nor a certain conclusion to what James 5:16 says. It doesn’t matter that church fathers, theologians, etc. for hundreds of years denied that all sins must be publicly confessed to a deacon. It doesn’t matter that there’s no logical way to trace the practice back to the apostles as a probable or certain conclusion to apostolic teaching, as an oak tree inevitably grows from an acorn. All that matters, in your system, is that the practice eventually developed within your denomination and that your denomination chooses to see a seed form of the practice in James 5:16, even though the text itself doesn’t lead us to such a practice. That, again, is not historical depth. It’s historical shallowness.

JPrejean:

Quoth Newman, “Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicaea and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John.”

I’m not ignoring the era between Nicaea and Trent. To the contrary, I’ve cited Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, and other sources who lived within that timeframe, and I haven’t said anything that suggests “scarcely recognizing” that period.

continued in next post

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

You want to take all of that medieval theological development (except what you find convenient, of course, like the butchered Protestant version of Anselm’s theory of atonement) and consign it to the realm of “error” and “fallible men” and “apostate Israel.” By ignoring that history, you persist in this hopelessly naive nonsense that the Pope is simply making doctrines up to suit his fancy and handing them down from on high.

I don’t deny that people held the Immaculate Conception prior to Pope Pius IX. Again, I would ask, did you read my responses to AugustineH354 before you entered this discussion? If you’ve read what I wrote to him, you would know that I was addressing the concept that Roman Catholicism has historical depth. I was explaining that tracing a doctrine back to the thirteenth century, the eighth century, the fourth century, etc. doesn’t prove that it’s historically deep enough. Gnosticism and Arianism can be traced back even further than the Immaculate Conception, but we don’t conclude that they’re therefore sufficiently deep in history. Anybody who follows the Biblical view of Jesus is deeper in history than a Gnostic or an Arian.

JPrejean:

There is nothing the least bit “speculative and unverifiable” about tracing the theological development of the papacy from Leo the Great through the Middle Ages.

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding my position. I don’t deny that a development occurred. The issue I was addressing was the nature of that development. How historically deep is it? Can the papacy be traced back to the apostles as something that inevitably grows from their teachings as an oak tree inevitably grows from an acorn? Since Leo the Great lived hundreds of years after the time of the apostles, tracing the development of a papacy from him doesn’t prove the sort of historical depth I was addressing. If we’re going to accept the development of the Immaculate Conception on the basis of the authority of the papacy, then we need to be able to trace the authority of the papacy back to the apostles, not just back to Leo the Great.

You still haven’t explained what I cited from Pope Pius IX. The fact that the Pope used an argument of Duns Scotus doesn’t change the fact that he refers to the Immaculate Conception always being held and taught by the church. Using an argument of Duns Scotus does not, by itself, prove that the Pope was acknowledging that the Immaculate Conception can’t logically be traced back to the apostles and was absent and widely contradicted for hundreds of years. Perhaps the Pope thought the opposition to the doctrine was insignificant. Perhaps he thought the church was always teaching the doctrine, despite it’s being contradicted by some sources. The fact that the Pope used an argument of Duns Scotus doesn’t prove that everything he said in the rest of the decree must be consistent with the history of the doctrine.

JPrejean:

It is not a case of either/or; it is a case of not blindly dismissing a millennium of Christian theology as erroneous when determining whether a doctrine is supported. The fact that you make no reference to what happened in the 1400 intervening years makes it quite clear who is deeper in history.

You’re mistaken in claiming that I “make no reference” to what happened during those 1400 years. I quoted the historian Philip Schaff on the subject, and I made reference to Roman bishops who denied that Mary was immaculately conceived. But since I was addressing whether the doctrine is historically deep enough to be considered apostolic, the earlier centuries are more significant than the later centuries. If a doctrine can be traced back 500, 800, or 1500 years, but can’t be traced back to the apostles, what’s the significance of referring to it having historical depth? Many groups could claim to be “deep in history” if they only need to trace their beliefs back to some earlier period after the time of the apostles. If the sinlessness of Mary can’t be traced back to the apostles, and church fathers were denying the concept from the second century on, why should anybody think that belief in the sinlessness of Mary is deeper in history because it became more popular later?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

My initial perusal also indicates that the Pope means that, if no where else, the doctrine was always held by the Church at Rome, and, a la Irenaeus, “For such dignity and authority belong to the Church that she alone is the center of truth and of Catholic unity. It is the Church in which alone religion has been inviolably preserved and from which all other Churches must receive the tradition of the Faith.[3]”

We apparently have no evidence of any Pope, at any time, contradicting the Immaculate Conception?

The Pope doesn’t limit his comments to Rome. He refers to the doctrine being known everywhere, including in ancient times. Even if the doctrine had only been taught in Rome at first, how could people like John Chrysostom and Augustine be ignorant of it in the fourth century and beyond? If the Roman church had been teaching the doctrine all along, yet church leaders in so many different parts of the world were unaware of it and contradicting it, what would such a situation suggest about the influence of Rome? They must not have cared much for what Rome was teaching. But, to answer your question about Roman bishops, yes, we do have evidence of them denying that Mary was immaculately conceived.

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff counted seven different Roman bishops who denied the sinlessness of Mary (The Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], Vol. I, p. 123). That isn’t to say that only seven Roman bishops opposed the doctrine, though even one opposing it would be problematic for your argument. There were many Roman bishops who didn’t write any documents that are extant. And among those who did, not all of them commented on the subject of whether Mary was sinless. But among those who did, Philip Schaff counted seven who were opposed to the modern Roman Catholic view.

The Roman Catholic scholar Michael O’Carroll comments that, even as late as the second millennium, Pope Innocent III describes Mary as “begotten in guilt”, and the Pope states that Mary needed “cleansing of the flesh from the root of sin” (Theotokos [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1988], p. 185).

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[Detroit_Sue]

Adam Janke:

I would ask what the point is?

The Roman rite is merely a label distingushing it from other rites, but does not imply any change in doctrine or morals.

I’ll play the semantics game!

We are Roman Catholic, but most of us are of the **Latin **rite.

 

[CathAnFanatical]

youch alot of misconceptions on this thread…how many Catholics responded to this??

The Word ‘Roman’ Catholic is only to be used to describe a certain Rite within the WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

This Rite is also called the 'Latin' Rite.

 Usually its the protestants that want to label the whole Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church and its not. The official Title of the Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

  Mind you these are not 'Denominations' within the Church as some have said but rather different 'Rites' who believe 100% the same Teachings and Doctrines. They may have different ways of doing things, but they are faithful to the Holy See in Rome and to the teachings and history and most importantly Sacraments.


    For your enjoyment I have included the Rites of the Catholic Church of the West below.

LATIN(Roman)
ALEXANDRIAN
ANTIOCHENE
ARMENIAN
CHALDEAN
BYZANTINE (also known as Constantinopolitan Rite)

JasonTE:
That isn’t to say that only seven Roman bishops opposed the doctrine, though even one opposing it would be problematic for your argument

no one said that a Bishop cannot disagree, but since they are not the Roman Pontiff it wouldnt matter and was probably corrected at an up coming Council that was held.
Just as today there are Bishops that probably dont agree totally with John Paul II, but does that really change the Churchs Teachings? No, just causes problems for that Bishop that fails to be in full Union with the Vicar of Christ.

This is my limited perspective anyway, but wouldnt think it would take away from the Teachings at that time based off of just a few Bishops.

 

[JPrejean]

I’m not quite sure how I managed to obscure my point quite so well, but evidently, I didn’t get it across at all. I’ll beg your indulgence and try again. My entire point was exactly that Catholics reject your notion of historical depth as how far back you can trace it back explicitly. From the Catholic perspective, the notion that a fully-formed doctrine would exist in totality in the early church is virtually the definition of anachronism. The early church was almost entirely orthopraxis: a handed-down Tradition and liturgical practice. Formal doctrines would not be espoused until years later. It would be absurd to attribute anything like formal theology to early Christians.

Instead, the test we apply to show lack of historical depth is lack of intermediate steps. We expect things to logically develop: lots of theological interpretations are initially put out into the field of discussion; debate and even conflict serves as a tool to identify the correct ones; the debate then ends in a certain theological resolution. It may take centuries for theological explanations to arise and even longer to reach theological certainty, but that hardly defeats the Apostolic origin of the belief. Remember, the fundamental tenet of the Catholic faith is preservation of the Apostolic deposit, so the fact that a particular investigation starts later is irrelevant as long as it starts from the examination of ancient sources. We know that things like Gnosticism and Arianism are false because they have been conclusively rejected. We know that Mormonism is false because it lacks historical roots.

JasonTE:

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding my position. I don’t deny that a development occurred. The issue I was addressing was the nature of that development. How historically deep is it? Can the papacy be traced back to the apostles as something that inevitably grows from their teachings as an oak tree inevitably grows from an acorn?

Now maybe you can see that we mean different things. We would agree that the papacy can’t be traced back in that way, but disagree that such a concept is remotely relevant to historical depth.

Since Leo the Great lived hundreds of years after the time of the apostles, tracing the development of a papacy from him doesn’t prove the sort of historical depth I was addressing. If we’re going to accept the development of the Immaculate Conception on the basis of the authority of the papacy, then we need to be able to trace the authority of the papacy back to the apostles, not just back to Leo the Great.

I agree that we have to trace it back to the Apostles, but only implicity. And yes, I agree that all sorts of things could be traced back implicitly IF one skips the intervening centuries. But brand new “recoveries” of doctrines are almost certain to contradict an intervening development, so we know they’re nonsense. They lack historical depth.

[Argument re: Pope Pius]

You’re right that it doesn’t conclusively display it; it just makes the contrary incredibly implausible. If you studied the theological credentials of Pope Pius, it would be clear that what you are saying is analogous to suggesting that Einstein was unaware of Newton’s classical mechanics.

You’re mistaken in claiming that I “make no reference” to what happened during those 1400 years. I quoted the historian Philip Schaff on the subject, and I made reference to Roman bishops who denied that Mary was immaculately conceived.

Yes, but the historical methodology there wouldn’t be relevant to what I was discussing.

But since I was addressing whether the doctrine is historically deep enough to be considered apostolic, the earlier centuries are more significant than the later centuries. If a doctrine can be traced back 500, 800, or 1500 years, but can’t be traced back to the apostles, what’s the significance of referring to it having historical depth? Many groups could claim to be “deep in history” if they only need to trace their beliefs back to some earlier period after the time of the apostles. If the sinlessness of Mary can’t be traced back to the apostles, and church fathers were denying the concept from the second century on, why should anybody think that belief in the sinlessness of Mary is deeper in history because it became more popular later?

You shouldn’t think that is is deeper simply because it became more popular. But a Catholic would go further and determine the process by which it became popular and among whom it became popular. In essence, the later acceptance can get read back in to the original sources, not to say that they held the same belief (which would be anachronistic) but to identify the part of revelation where the doctrine was hidden.

 

[Dolly]

I have some questions for JPrejean and I apologize if I am interfering with your conversation with JasonTE. In your argumentation on the subject of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception you stated that after Dun Scotus the issue was settled among theologians if I understood you correctly. I do not have the knowledge of that point in history to confirm or deny, but would appreciate any information you can point me to that would confirm that for me. I’ve not heard that specific comment before (which means absolutely nothing) but would appreciate being able to do some research on the topic.

Also, it seems to me that the issue of the Eastern church and their theology of original sin, beginning with the patristic fathers through the middles ages before division and to the present could also be something that should be considered. Both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology is western in thought through the periods being discussed. The Eastern church reads the Fathers differently and seemed to develop their theology of orginal sin and Mary’s role differently. I have more of a general knowledge, but wonder why the western/scholastic theological answer is the only answer. Do you believe that we cannot understand or receive salvation through Christ and in His Church without submitting to the Roman understanding and definition of the IC? (I know what the Roman church teaches regarding that. I would like to know, not whether you believe the teaching or submit to it, but do you believe we can understand the Incarnation without the doctrine of the IC? Does the defined doctrine, or lack thereof, change the meaning and efficacy of the Incarnation and our salvation?)

 

[Irish_Melkite]

CathAnFanatical:

youch alot of misconceptions on this thread…how many Catholics responded to this??

The Word ‘Roman’ Catholic is only to be used to describe a certain Rite within the WHOLE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

This Rite is also called the ‘Latin’ Rite.

Mind you these are not ‘Denominations’ within the Church as some have said but rather different ‘Rites’ who believe 100% the same Teachings and Doctrines. They may have different ways of doing things, but they are faithful to the Holy See in Rome and to the teachings and history and most importantly Sacraments.

For your enjoyment I have included the Rites of the Catholic Church of the West below.

LATIN(Roman)
ALEXANDRIAN
ANTIOCHENE
ARMENIAN
CHALDEAN
BYZANTINE (also known as Constantinopolitan Rite)

CathAnFanatical,

You contradict yourself. Actually, only the Latin Rite is of the Western Church. The Alexandrean, Antiochene, Armenian, and Byzantine Rites are of the Eastern Church, as is the Maronite Rite (which you overlooked). There is not a “Chaldean Rite” - the Chaldean Catholic Church sui iuris is of the East Syrian Tradition of the Antiochene Rite.

Many years,

Neil

 

[JPrejean]

Dolly:
Not a problem at all. The really famous Scotus disputation on the Immaculate Conception was at the University of Paris, which had previously been opposed to the Immaculate Conception. At the time, there was an extremely heated argument between Dominicans, who believe that Aquinas absolutely ruled out the Immaculate Conception, and Franciscans, who defended the popular observance of the feast of the Immaculate Conception. After Scotus defended his case at the University of Paris, against the arguments of some such as John of Pouilly who accused him of heresy for holding the belief, the Synod of Basle affirmed the dogma. This did not silence the controversy, but it was a sign of that the Church (and particularly the Magisterium) had reached theological acceptance of the dogma. Pope Sixtus IV later confirmed the feast, and when that did not silence the Dominicans, he issued an Apostolic Constitution (the most serious form of papal document) called “Grave Nimis” excommunicatimg those who denied the doctrine, which pretty much made it certain.

There aren’t many good websites on the subject, but here are a couple:
roman-catholic.com/Roman/Articles/ImmaculateOne.htm
philipresheph.com/a424/gallery/concept/doctrine.htm

Dolly:

Both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology is western in thought through the periods being discussed.

That’s true. You have to make a decision on which methodology in the method for God’s delivery of truth: the Eastern or the Western. My own view, as described above, is that the Western model has provided increased theological certainty over time, and is the historical method through which God has made his deposit of faith more clear over time. It happens that the Western view of original sin and semi-Pelagianism is more persuasive to me as well, but if I am correct about those subjects, it is only by grace. The Eastern view would say that we are over-defining, and being less than omniscient, I cannot say that they are wrong. I think this process of increased definition in the West is the action of God in the Church, and only Heaven knows which of us is right. Based on this understanding, though, I realistically could never be Protestant, because they believe that this process of theological development can lead to wrong conclusions. If I believed that, I would no longer have any reason to believe the Western model at all, and I would be compelled to be Eastern myself.

Note that none of this has a thing to do with salvation, which is not determined by absolute compliance with objective revelation, but by the individual’s capacity to conform to it and by whether their nonconformance is sinful. My point is only that I think the Western model of theological inquiry is the accurate method by which God provides us with ever-more-certain knowledge of His revelation, viz., I think it is the objective truth to which people should conform themselves.

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

Formal doctrines would not be espoused until years later.

I didn’t say that the fully-formed doctrine must be present all along in the sense of all of the terminology, implications, etc. being understood from the beginning. But the essence does have to be present from the start. According to Roman Catholic documents such as Ineffabilis Deus, there was development in terminology, arguments for the doctrine, finding Marian typology in the Old Testament, etc., but the concept of Mary being immaculately conceived was held and taught by the church from the time of the apostles onward. If the concept that Mary was immaculately conceived wasn’t always held by the church, then why say that the concept that Mary was immaculately conceived was always held by the church? If the Pope meant to say that the church always taught concepts that later generations would associate with the Immaculate Conception, even though the concepts themselves don’t logically lead to the doctrine, then why didn’t the Pope say that?

JPrejean:

Catholics reject your notion of historical depth as how far back you can trace it back explicitly.

And you went on to say:

JPrejean:

the fact that a particular investigation starts later is irrelevant as long as it starts from the examination of ancient sources…

We would agree that the papacy can’t be traced back in that way [oak from an acorn], but disagree that such a concept is remotely relevant to historical depth…

And yes, I agree that all sorts of things could be traced back implicitly IF one skips the intervening centuries…

But a Catholic would go further and determine the process by which it became popular and among whom it became popular. In essence, the later acceptance can get read back in to the original sources, not to say that they held the same belief (which would be anachronistic) but to identify the part of revelation where the doctrine was hidden.

You tell us that there must be intermediate steps leading to a doctrinal development. But you also tell us that it doesn’t matter if a process of development doesn’t start until later in history, as long as it begins with the examination of ancient sources. My example regarding publicly confessing all sins to a deacon is correct, then. Even if the process of developing that doctrine doesn’t begin until about two thousand years after the time of the apostles, and even if the doctrine isn’t a probable or certain conclusion to what the ancient documents state, all that matters is that your community (Roman Catholicism) eventually develops that doctrine and decides to “read it back in to the original sources”, namely James 5:16. And that’s what you call historical depth.

I still call it historical shallowness. You tell us that we should look to “the process by which [the doctrine] became popular and among whom it became popular”. But if the doctrine need not be traced back to the apostles in the sense of being shown to grow from their teachings as an oak would from an acorn, then what “process by which it became popular” are you referring to? Any doctrine that becomes popular in any community is going to do so by means of a historical process. There was a process that led to the Eastern Orthodox view of church government. There was a process that led to the Protestant view of justification. Etc. Just as there’s a historical process that leads to Roman Catholic doctrines, there’s also a historical process that leads to other doctrines in other communities.

When you refer to the significance of “among whom [the doctrine] became popular”, you’re acknowledging what I said earlier about the significance of the doctrine of the papacy. In order to distinguish between doctrinal developments in Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, Anglicanism, etc. and the developments that occur in Roman Catholicism, you have to argue that the identity of your community makes a distinction. Supposedly, the RCC has authority that these other groups don’t have. Do you understand now why I referred earlier to accepting the Immaculate Conception because of church and papal authority? But how do you know that the RCC has this authority? If the papacy is a development along the lines of the Immaculate Conception, as you’ve acknowledged, then how can you accept the Immaculate Conception on the basis of the authority of the papacy? The RCC claims that the papacy is the foundation of the church. It derives its unique authority claims from that office. If you accept the development of the Immaculate Conception because it occurred in the community that has the authority of the RCC, then on what basis do you accept the development of the concept that the RCC has such authority?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

JPrejean:

I think this process of increased definition in the West is the action of God in the Church, and only Heaven knows which of us is right.

Your denomination’s hierarchy has disagreed with you. The First Vatican Council speaks of the papacy as a “clear” doctrine of scripture “ever” understood by the church, one which is “known to all ages” and which “none can doubt”:

“At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister…For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome” (session 4, chapters 1-2)

JPrejean:

Based on this understanding, though, I realistically could never be Protestant, because they believe that this process of theological development can lead to wrong conclusions. If I believed that, I would no longer have any reason to believe the Western model at all, and I would be compelled to be Eastern myself.

Would you explain what makes a Protestant view inherently unacceptable, so that an Eastern view would be your only alternative? If a Protestant argues that some people are wrong in the doctrines they’ve developed, and he appeals to the scriptures to correct the errant development, why is that inherently unacceptable? If people like Augustine and Aquinas could be wrong about the Immaculate Conception for centuries, only to later have the correctly developed view replace their view, then why couldn’t the same occur with the correctly developed Protestant doctrines replacing errant Roman Catholic doctrines?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JPrejean]

Much to my chagrin, I don’t have time to respond immediately, but you have provided an excellent framework for discussing Pope Pius IX and modernity in the context of the Catholic understanding of history. I will get back to this just as soon as I can.

 

[matthewa]

Catholics being called “Roman Catholics” is actually a slang term used by the Protestants during the Protestant Revolution. To Protestants, being associated with “Rome” was not a compliment.

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE,

Thanks for the clairfication. I immediately knew I probably over reached with my comment on the Roman Church, went to edit it, but the edit button didn’t appear.

JasonTE:

He refers to the doctrine being known everywhere, including in ancient times.

It’d be helpful if you used some quotes.

Here’s what I have: “this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors…”

I stand by my main point that you create a straw-man with your statement of the Immaculate Conception “being always held and taught by the church.” The pope said it always “existed in the Church”, but he doesn’t necessarily say it was always universal.

I believe you are using it in the sense of universal.

 

[SPH1]

JasonTE:

Would you explain what makes a Protestant view inherently unacceptable, so that an Eastern view would be your only alternative? If a Protestant argues that some people are wrong in the doctrines they’ve developed, and he appeals to the scriptures to correct the errant development, why is that inherently unacceptable?

The “Eastern view” is unacceptable. You’d just be trading the papacy in Rome for that in Constantinople: caesaropapism.

The “Protestant view” is also unacceptable. It exists only as anarchy and chaos and uncertainty.

 

[Contarini]

:You’d just be trading the papacy in Rome for that in Constantinople: caesaropapism.:

That would be difficult, given that there is no emperor in Constantinople.

I know it’s hard for some Catholics to admit, but some of us really do manage without a pope of any kind. We may not manage as well as we might, but contrary to a shallow Catholic-apologist cliche, we do not necessarily set up some alternative kind of “pope” for ourselves.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[SPH1]

Edwin:

That would be difficult, given that there is no emperor in Constantinople.

There was an emperor, that’s what I meant and you know it.

Eastern Orthodoxy is that of Constantinople. If you’ve managed without a pope of any kind, it’s either because you’ve stagnated or moved in various errors.

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

I stand by my main point that you create a straw-man with your statement of the Immaculate Conception “being always held and taught by the church.” The pope said it always “existed in the Church”, but he doesn’t necessarily say it was always universal.

You’ve retracted your suggestion that the doctrine was maintained by the Roman church. If it wasn’t maintained by Rome, then where was it maintained? We have no record of anybody advocating the concept in the earliest generations of Christianity.

You say that I’m creating a straw man by referring to the Pope claiming that the doctrine was always held and taught by the church. Again, here’s what the Pope wrote:

“The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth and has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin – a doctrine which is so perfectly in harmony with her wonderful sanctity and preeminent dignity as Mother of God – and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.” (Ineffabilis Deus)

The Pope refers elsewhere, in the same document, to the doctrine being recorded in scripture and being understood and expressed by “the Fathers and writers of the Church”. He writes that “this doctrine always existed in the Church as a doctrine that has been received from our ancestors, and that has been stamped with the character of revealed doctrine”.

If you want to argue that all of these things the Pope refers to occurred without any historical documents being extant to support his assertions, then I would ask what historical depth such a claim has. We were, after all, discussing the claim that Roman Catholicism is historically deep, whereas Protestantism allegedly isn’t. If the Pope’s claims can’t be defended from the historical record, but instead must be defended by claiming that he didn’t mean to say that the doctrine was always held by the church, that his claims might be true without any corroboration from the historical record, etc., then who is truly deeper in history? If the RCC’s alleged apostolic traditions can’t be traced back to the apostles by the normal historical standards that we apply to other matters, then why should we think that Roman Catholicism is historically deep?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[JasonTE]

SPH1:

The “Protestant view” is also unacceptable. It exists only as anarchy and chaos and uncertainty.

I’m confident about the deity of Christ, His resurrection, the Divine inspiration of the Bible, etc. without accepting the authority claims of your denomination. I don’t have “anarchy and chaos and uncertainty”. Yes, my conclusions are a result of my own fallible judgment, but your conclusions are likewise a result of your fallible judgment. Your choice to trust the RCC is just that: your choice. And it’s an erroneous choice that’s contrary to the evidence.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org

 

[Contarini]

:There was an emperor, that’s what I meant and you know it.:

But that makes no sense. Someone becoming Orthodox today is not exchanging the authority of the Pope for that of the emperor.

:Eastern Orthodoxy is that of Constantinople. If you’ve managed without a pope of any kind, it’s either because you’ve stagnated or moved in various errors.:

I’m not Orthodox, I’m Anglican. I think that the Catholic accusation of “stagnation” against the Orthodox is stunningly silly (and one that wiser Catholics, like the Pope, would no longer make–it’s left to would-be lay Defenders of the Faith to perpetuate that particular bit of 19th-century Western European bigotry). Anyway, as I explicitly said, my point was simply that Christians not in communion with Rome don’t necessarily have an analog to papal authority. You may think that this has bad effects, but it’s true nonetheless.

In Christ,

Edwin