Catholic Church: infallible, liar or lunatic

[IgnatianPhilo]

I can see why you might think that, considering your communion. We share with you the contention that the authority the CC claims for the Bishop of Rome lacks evidence from scripture and Tradition. I’m reluctant to use that tag, however, simply because there’s plenty of conceit and pride to go around, not the least of which among we Lutherans.

Jon

Well it is a legitimate option, Lord liar or lunatic works because there are no other choices, in the case of the RCC if it claims an authoirty that it doesnt have thats conceit. The same could be said of other churches if the RCC’s claims are true in them rejecting it. We’re just waying the dichotomies here in an attempt to avoid any false ones.

 

[SteveVH]

Or it is conceited.

How many Popes in the last century would you consider conceited? Yes, there have no doubt been conceited popes; we’ve had some real characters, but the great majority have been humble, holy men. Having the authority given to the Church by Christ is not a reason to be conceited. It is an awesome responsibility upon which depends the guidance of the Holy Spirit and much prayer.

When Karol Wytola became Pope John Paul, II he could not understand why God had done this. Why was he chosen to carry the weight of this office? He had suffered through the Natzis and the Communists and was now given what he considered the weight of the world. He accepted it in all humility. This is not the thinking of a conceited man.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thanks for keeping the discussion going, folks!

I’m just dropping back in briefly.

The issue with “mistaken” or “conceited” goes back to Lewis’ Trilemma. We don’t allow these as alternatives for “liar” or “lunatic” for Jesus, and, I would like argue by similar, but not identical, reasoning, we shouldn’t allow them for the Catholic Church.

However, I don’t have that reasoning yet…

In addition, I would need to review Lewis’ Trilemma, bearing in mind that not all Christian apologists accept it. IIRC, Thomas Aquinas did once argue for the divinity of Jesus by reasoning that the apostles, as Jews, would not lie so dramatically about the the things of God. In general, I think there is strength in this line of reasoning - however the burden of proof, in this case, is with us Catholics!

Once again, A Happy and Blessed Christmas to all! (and I’m going to be trying to stay away from the computer…). For those with a traditional liturgy, I hope that it is truly beautiful for you.

~ Edmundus

 

[twoshoes]

I just want to acknowledge this post as very well researched and written.

Thankyou for this!

I agree this post was excellent. I would like to add one thought to the discussion. The Catholic Church is not only it’s leaders, Bishops, Priest, Deacons, Nuns, and Monks, but also its faithful. When you say the Church is not infallible you must remember you are speaking about a billion and a half Catholics. If leaders have fallen, that does not mean the Church has. That is why she has lasted 2000 years and will continue till the end. It is also why she is so rich in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Edmundus1581]

…
In general, I think there is strength in this line of reasoning - however the burden of proof, in this case, is with us Catholics!
…
~ Edmundus

Ooops… not “Catholics”, as it’s not a Catholic argument, but rather those of us who were sympathetic to the OP position.

 

[Slaney]

I’m just shamelessly copying a blog post by Alexander Pruss, but he describes well one of the reasons why I became a Catholic (by the way, check out his blog for more arguments for Catholicism and also for theism).

The Catholic Church: infallible, liar or lunatic

It has hit me (and no doubt I am not the first) that the Lord/liar/lunatic argument can be adapted to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church claims immense dogmatic and practical authority over Christians. She claims infallibility. She is, thus, either infallible, or liar, or lunatic.

Is she a liar? Then we have the puzzle that she has done so well at preserving early Christian doctrines in the face of heresy after heresy. In our time this is particularly clear, I think, in the case of her teachings on sexuality and the protection of human life, her unyielding insistence on the infallibility of Scripture, and the central preaching of the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Is she a lunatic? Then we have the puzzle that lunacy would be the domain of the Church of such men and women as Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Descartes, Pascal, Terese de Lisieux and John Paul II. The Church with the most intellectually seriously worked out intellectual tradition that the Christian world has known (and probably that the world has known) would then be a lunatic. That is not so plausible.

So the most plausible story is that she is infallible.

We may supplement this argument as follows. Paul talks about the Church as the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Jesus talks of the Holy Spirit’s guidance for the Church. All this at least suggests that there is a Church which is a reliable guide. But which Church has a plausible claim of being a reliable guide over the centuries? In the end, I think only the Catholic Church, though a case (I believe in the end somewhat weaker) can also be made for the Orthodox Church. But if the Catholic Church is a reliable guide, it is implausible that she is also a liar or a lunatic. And so she’s infallible.

If I am right in this post, then earlier, less ecumenical Protestants, in their condemnations of papistry, may have been onto something important: one can’t be ambivalent towards the Catholic Church, just as one can’t be ambivalent towards Christ. For if the Catholic Church is not infallible as she claims, she is a liar or a lunatic.

See also Boccaccio’s argument for the Catholic faith.

 

[vsedriver]

The reason I don’t trust the Catholic Church, or Churches in general are that they are man made institutions and fallible.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

How many Popes in the last century would you consider conceited? Yes, there have no doubt been conceited popes; we’ve had some real characters, but the great majority have been humble, holy men. Having the authority given to the Church by Christ is not a reason to be conceited. It is an awesome responsibility upon which depends the guidance of the Holy Spirit and much prayer.

When Karol Wytola became Pope John Paul, II he could not understand why God had done this. Why was he chosen to carry the weight of this office? He had suffered through the Natzis and the Communists and was now given what he considered the weight of the world. He accepted it in all humility. This is not the thinking of a conceited man.

Being nice doesn’t mean they’re not conceited. I can conceive of all the churches being (Orthodox, RCC, OO and the like) being wrong and by that merit despite the good followers and patriarches they would still be conceited. I’m just giving a plausible option, though if I were to rephrase it I would say “wrong.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy.

Obviously, we do too, that He has and will keep His word.

So, something wrongly believed on Earth by sinful men overcomes His truth in the Church Triumphant?

Doesn’t it? If a small amount of water spills over the top of a levy, the levy has failed, hasn’t it? Or do we have to get into subjective discussions about the amount of water involved?

No offense taken, Randy. The mess of Christianity, the lack of unity of His Church, is clearly not what He intends. That’s why we all pray for Christian unity of His Church Militant. But the disunity includes the Catholic Church, as the Catholic Catechism says.
And that’s my point, our misconceptions, our sinful disunity may be influenced by Satan, but that doesn’t mean Satan has stormed the gates of Heaven and destroyed the Church.

Destroyed? No. But to the degree that the Church taught error, Satan would have made some degree of headway. Catholics deny that this is possible in light of the promises of Christ. For the non-Catholic, a certain degree of disunity has to be tolerated because the Christian faith is so fractured…but not by those who are still members of the original Christian faith. Catholics believe the same core doctrines today that Christians believed in the first, fifth and fifteenth centuries. It was only after that time that the divisions began.

I’ve often said, and truly believe, that if Lutherans we become complacent, and comfortable in the separation which we as Christians now find ourselves, and accept this as normative and in keeping with Christ’s call, then the Reformation has indeed failed, and can rightly be called a “deformation”. Long term division was never the intention of the Lutheran reformers, and it cannot be for us. We can blame, in part, the leaders of the CC 500 or more years ago all we want, but even that doesn’t respond to Christ’s call. Instead, we, all of us - Catholic, protestant, Orthodox, must seek the unity He spoke of, which is more than an invisable unity. We must also recognize, that this division is not a failure of Christ or the Holy Spirit, nor is it a lie of God, but is our sin, our fault, our own fault. Lord, in your mercy, forgive us.

Jon

All good, Jon, but here’s the thing: in the five hundred years that have passed since Luther and Wittenburg, not much progress has been made in terms of “moving” the Catholic Church toward Luther’s way of thinking. If his ideas were of God, one would expect more progress under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Instead, the Catholic Church continues steadfastly on the course plotted long ago, while Anglicanism (for one) breaks up on the shoals of various doctrinal errors, and Lutheranism remains a relatively insignificant branch of Protestantism (at least in terms of numbers in the US).

Not sure what Luther expected, but I seriously doubt his objectives have been achieved. Is this what God wanted?

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;10163235] Doesn’t it? If a small amount of water spills over the top of a levy, the levy has failed, hasn’t it? Or do we have to get into subjective discussions about the amount of water involved?

No, but I think you and I agree that Christ, over the course of history to the second coming, Christ will preserve His Church.

Destroyed? No. But to the degree that the Church taught error, Satan would have made some degree of headway. Catholics deny that this is possible in light of the promises of Christ. For the non-Catholic, a certain degree of disunity has to be tolerated because the Christian faith is so fractured…but not by those who are still members of the original Christian faith. Catholics believe the same core doctrines today that Christians believed in the first, fifth and fifteenth centuries. It was only after that time that the divisions began.

Well, I think Lutheranism, properly understood, rejects denominationalism. As for the core doctrines of the early councils and creeds, Lutherans, too, concur. If we walked it all back to the 7th council, we’d be unified.

All good, Jon, but here’s the thing: in the five hundred years that have passed since Luther and Wittenburg, not much progress has been made in terms of “moving” the Catholic Church toward Luther’s way of thinking. If his ideas were of God, one would expect more progress under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Instead, the Catholic Church continues steadfastly on the course plotted long ago, while Anglicanism (for one) breaks up on the shoals of various doctrinal errors, and Lutheranism remains a relatively insignificant branch of Protestantism (at least in terms of numbers in the US).

Honestly, it won’t take much where Lutherans are concerned, but then they are rather importnat things. But I think you may underestimate the events of the last 60 years, not in terms of “who has moved toward the otehr”, but in terms of coming to mutual agreement. That’s where the Spirit is involved.

Not sure what Luther expected, but I seriously doubt his objectives have been achieved. Is this what God wanted?

I think part of his original objectives were achieved in some of the cleaning up of the CC following his death.

Jon

 

[Edmundus1581]

I think part of his original objectives were achieved in some of the cleaning up of the CC following his death.

Jon

I don’t want to either concede or dispute that Luther directly achieved good with the Reformation, however I do agree with this, ie. that his actions forced the Church to address flaws which it had been slow to address (eg. the selling of indulgences) and to clean itself up in the counter-Reformation. I recall the Catholic Church itself admitting that it was at least partly responsible for the Reformation.

Also, I believe that Luther and Protestantism did contribute to Catholicism an increased emphasis on personal study of the Word. While Catholicism certainly did not suppress scripture in the way that is sometimes represented, I believe that it did promote it more after the Reformation.

 

[Candescent]

Breaking a commandment is not the same thing as formally teaching error. Infallibility only has to do with the latter. You should do a bit of study on this.

As for the Inquisition, it’s obvious you need to do some reading.

Articles on the Inquisition

The Inquisition
catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp

An Inquisition Primer
By Robert P. Lockwood
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709tbt.asp

Just an FYI, the links to the Lockwood material are not working.
I used to love history, but now that I am seeing that so much of what I was taught was based on lies and secret agendas, I don’t enjoy reading it anymore. A non scholar like me has no way of knowing fact from wishful thinking…

 

[spbill]

Destroyed? No. But to the degree that the Church taught error, Satan would have made some degree of headway. Catholics deny that this is possible in light of the promises of Christ. For the non-Catholic, a certain degree of disunity has to be tolerated because the Christian faith is so fractured…but not by those who are still members of the original Christian faith. Catholics believe the same core doctrines today that Christians believed in the first, fifth and fifteenth centuries. It was only after that time that the divisions began.

All good, Jon, but here’s the thing: in the five hundred years that have passed since Luther and Wittenburg, not much progress has been made in terms of “moving” the Catholic Church toward Luther’s way of thinking. If his ideas were of God, one would expect more progress under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Instead, the Catholic Church continues steadfastly on the course plotted long ago, while Anglicanism (for one) breaks up on the shoals of various doctrinal errors, and Lutheranism remains a relatively insignificant branch of Protestantism (at least in terms of numbers in the US).

Not sure what Luther expected, but I seriously doubt his objectives have been achieved. Is this what God wanted?

I don’t think you can discount truth based on numbers. If that is the case, I would think atheism would be winning. The duration item is to me also not a discriminator. I try to look at the big picture, which has at least shown some loss of resonance throughout history. Even the apostles including Peter were not always in resonance with Christ. As a non-Catholic I will follow JonNC’s lead and not weigh in too heavily on how the doctrine is defined. I am here because I am married to a Catholic and desire to be engaged in some manner (hopefully edifying).