Confused Protestant Has Questions

[steve_b]

Hi Sam. Sorry for the late follow up.

You are entirely correct concerning the history. Let us add more context, shall we?

When Pope Urban II called for the crusades with the stated goal of restoring the holy land to the Christians, he called the knights and leaders which were available to him. It had been several centuries since the fall of empirical Rome, and even under the Holy Roman Empire, knights and other leaders were feudal warlords. Any attempt to unify them was fruitless. These men were accustomed to fighting for their own benefit. They sacked Constantinople.

Pope Innocent was very distressed when he heard about the outrages in Constantinople. He denounced the perpetrators harshly, and excommunicated most of them. The pope was unaware that, before the attack, his legate had absolved the Crusaders from their original vows. Later, when confronted with the possibility that he might have a unified church on his hands, Innocent acquiesced and went along with the reality that what was done was done. He did nothing to stop the flow of desecrated wealth into Latin cathedrals and churches.

The point I am trying to make is that people will always do what is in their own best interest and nothing the Pope did or could have done would change that. But, the Pope never sanctioned the unjust violence committed by the knights.

True the pope never sanctioned what the Crusaders did in 1204.

A bit of history to give perspective on the sacking of Constantinople in 1204.( Pope Innocent III ) but how many people ever hear of what happened 22 years earlier 1182, in Constantinople to the Latin Catholics there? It’s suggested, that hard feelings brewed over this event and finally bubbled over in 1204. http://archive.is/81CV
S:

Saint Pope John Paul II apologized to the Patriarch and returned some relics to Constantinople in a gesture of repentance.

And one should ask, where was the reciprocal apology from the Orthodox for what happened 22 years earlier in Constantinople when Byzantines murdered 50,000 Latin Catholics and sold their children off as slaves to the Muslims?

Not a peep from the Orthodox. Notice Orthodox Bp Kallistos Ware (from the archived link above) thinks they should apologise

Bottomline the Crusaders never should have gotten caught up in the intrigue’s of Alexius trying to be reinstated as emperor. The Crusaders sacked Constantinople killing ~2000 Greeks in 1204. Compare that however, to 50,000 Latin Catholics killed by Byzantines in 1182. The sense of disproportion is astounding. Yet which event do we ALWAYS hear about? 1204.
S:

One other thing…Indulgences are not a get-out-of-jail-free card. There are always conditions attached to receiving them. The actions of the knights would have negated them.

Subrosa

true

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just to clarify where I am coming from - I am a Protestant, and I’ve bounced from not knowing anything about Catholicism to hating Catholicism to knowing more than I used to know and suspecting that Catholics have many things right that we have wrong.

I do still have two things that I really have trouble with, and so I’m curious if anyone has good answers to these questions I have. I’m going to be blunt, but I hope no offence is taken! I respect my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.

The first is Papal Infallibility. I know it is limited to statements made about a matter of faith and morals ex cathedra. I understand it on a practical level like Fr. Robert Baron explains in his Catholicism series, where the Pope functions as a sort of umpire for the Church. I have difficulty with it being actually true, though. Certainly prior Popes have made mistakes, and I have difficulty believing that Pope Urban II would not have infallibly endorsed the Crusades, for instance, given the opportunity.

What reasons (from scripture, tradition, plain reason, etc) can be given in support of this?

Infallibility Explained by Reasoning from the Scriptures
Excerpted from an article by Jeffrey Mirus, PhD
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith – indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed “my” (Christ’s) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ’s absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master’s return is very much to the point.

Just as clearly, Peter’s authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means – eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. This authority was exercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ’s will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).

Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation – that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ’s own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.

**Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error – else the powers of hell would prevail.

This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.**

Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible – the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable”.

 

[steve_b]

Infallibility Explained by Reasoning from the Scriptures
Excerpted from an article by Jeffrey Mirus, PhD
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

It is clear even from Scripture that Peter had a special commission and special powers from Christ to care for the flock of Christ, to bind and loose, and to confirm his brothers in faith – indeed he had the very powers of the keys to the Kingdom. Obviously, these powers were essential to the Church as constituted by Christ. And Christ promised to be with the Church always to the end of time, and said that the powers of hell would not prevail against it.

Now, clearly Christ knew that Peter would not live until the end of time, so he must have intended that the power he gave to Peter would be carried on until His return. After all, Peter was to feed “my” (Christ’s) sheep, and so was serving as the vicar of Christ in Christ’s absence. When Peter died, a new vicar would take his place, and so on, until Christ returned to claim his own. The parable of the steward awaiting his Master’s return is very much to the point.

Just as clearly, Peter’s authority also enabled himself (and his successors) to set forth the manner in which their successors would be selected, either by choosing the successor personally before death, or by setting forth some other means – eventually, election by the college of cardinals.

Moroever, if these special and essential powers were to pass out of existence, it would be proof that Christ was no longer with his Church and that the powers of Hell had indeed prevailed. Therefore, again, Christ must have intended successors to Peter.

For this reason, we are not at all surprised that subsequent popes claimed to have the Petrine power and that the early Christian community accepted it without question. This authority was exercised by the fourth Pope, Clement, while St. John the Evangelist was still alive. The earliest Christians were in a position to know Christ’s will from other sources than Scripture (just as we today, under the guidance of the Church, are able to learn from Tradition).

Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation – that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ’s own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.

Therefore, the logic of the situation demands that the Petrine power of confirming the brethren must be an infallible power. When the Pope intends by virtue of his supreme authority to teach on a matter of faith and morals to the entire Church, he MUST be protected by the Holy Spirit from error – else the powers of hell would prevail.

This is the logic behind infallibility. But, of course, it is not based solely on logic, since it is attested in Scripture and was held by the earliest Christians and the Fathers and, indeed, by the vast majority of Christians from the beginning.

Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible – the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable”.

Thanks for that

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks for that

:tiphat:

 

[SPH1]

Certainly prior Popes have made mistakes, and I have difficulty believing that Pope Urban II would not have infallibly endorsed the Crusades, for instance, given the opportunity.

What’s wrong with the Crusades, especially the first?

What about the so-called last crusade at the Battle of Lepanto?

What about endorsing the allies during WW2?

Would all of the above “endorsements” be inherently wrong?

 

[Sam43232]

To all who have questions for me like the following:

What’s wrong with the Crusades, especially the first?

What about the so-called last crusade at the Battle of Lepanto?

What about endorsing the allies during WW2?

Would all of the above “endorsements” be inherently wrong?

I must apologize for being a little abrupt but here goes:

As I’ve said earlier in this thread, I didn’t come here to discuss the Crusades. I made the very wrong assumption that the Crusades are pretty much universally seen as serious mistakes and mentioned them in passing only to try to make a point about my fears regarding Papal infallibility. As I’ve admitted earlier, that was not a good choice on my part. Also as I pointed out earlier, I’ve no interest in discussing the Crusades here. If you are interested in my views on the Crusades and the Battle of Lepanto and WW2, you are welcome to PM me or start another thread. Or you can read my explanation of some of my problems with the Crusades in an earlier post in this thread.

I’m a little shocked that people are so ready to defend the Crusades that they’re jumping into a thread where I’m trying to respectfully find out more about Catholic Christian dogma. I know this thread got moved to the apologetics forum, but let me state clearly: I am not here to start a debate on the Crusades. I’m here to find out more about the Catholic Church.

Sorry if I have overstepped my bounds here. Even though I quoted you SPH1, I am not trying to single you out - this is meant to be a polite but more importantly firm “no thanks” to everyone who is trying to turn this into a discussion of the Crusades.

To all:
Thank you for your patient, kind answers to my questions. I’ve read most of the articles you gave me, and a very generous member of this forum PM’d me and even bought me two of Scott Hahn’s books! After reading his Hail Holy Queen I have a much better understanding of Mary’s role in scripture, and I’m willing to eat my metaphorical Protestant hat on the issue. Papal infallibility is something I am still batting around in my head. I probably don’t need more reading on the issue (just more time to think,) but if you think somethings been left out, let me know!

Thank you all and God bless you all.

 

[Abu]

Infallibility is not involved unless the Pope is teaching doctrine or dogma on faith or morals to the whole Church as the Vicar of Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

Infallibility is not involved unless the Pope is teaching doctrine or dogma on faith or morals to the whole Church as the Vicar of Christ.

Exactly - which means that it would be physically impossible for him to “rule infallibly” on specific acts of war, although he can certainly give a moral teaching about what constitutes “national defense,” and then encourage participants in a particular war to discern within their own conscience whether they are the “aggressor” or the “defender”.

Even such a moral teaching would not be considered “infallible” unless it were equally applicable to all wars in all times and in all places.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Papal infallibility is something I am still batting around in my head. I probably don’t need more reading on the issue (just more time to think,) but if you think somethings been left out, let me know!

I haven’t had a chance to read through this entire thread, but I don’t think this has been mentioned. I think the following excerpt from David Currie’s Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic offers good anecdotal evidence of how the doctrine of Papal infallibility has played out in history:

As an Evangelical, I had always thought that the claim of papal infallibility was a power grab on the part of the pope. It would give any pope the power to fashion things just to his liking. What I came to see, however, is that the truth could not be more opposite. Infallibility is an entirely conservative doctrine. It means taht no present or future pope can change (contradict) any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout her history. The teaching regarding the infallibility of the popes in faith and morals really gives the most power to the first pope, where it belongs. Each succeeding pope has slightly less latitude than his immediate predecessor. In an era when people have come to desire change for its own sake, this teaching assures us that the original dogma of the Church will be protected through the ages.

When we look for confirmation of this doctrine in history, we find it. Rome emerges as the only bishopric of the ancient sees that never taught heresy.

[He then gives a list of popes and patriarchs from the ancient sees covering a period roughly from the fourth century to the seventh century, which shows that at one point or another during that time all of the ancient sees except for Rome were headed by a bishop that taught heresy.]

. . .

There are many interesting historical illustrations of this protection [papal infallibility] to the Church provided by Christ through his Spirit. Once again, we must keep in mind that we are merely looking for confirmation, not proof. God has always protected the bishop of Rome from heresy, but sometimes it has been in spite of the actual man in office, and sometimes the margin of safety has been very slim. In many cases, the protection of God seems to be the only posible explanation. For my money, the most interesting story is taht of Vigilius in the sixth century.

Theodora was the empress of the realm, ruling from Constantinople. She was a Monophysite, an adherent of a heresy that declared Jesus has only one nature, the divine. This heresy denies the human nature of Jesus, which Catholics and modern-day Evangelicals teach. Theodora determined to impose her thinking on the Pope, to bring him into line with the bishops of the East. Pope Agapitus, however, would not budge. While in Constantinople to remove a heretical Eastern bishop, he died. It seems likely that he was poisoned.

Vigilius, who very much wanted to be pope himself, was an assistant to Pope Agapitus. He met in secret with the empress and struck a deal with her. He agreed to enforce her heretical views regarding theology if she would force the Church to accept him as pope. After he was installed as pope, he would restore the bishop who had just been deposed by Pope Agapitus, even though that bishop had been dismissed as a Monophysite heretic. (It is extremely interesting that neither empress, emperor, Church, nor bishop questioned the authority of a pope to dismiss an Eastern bishop, as Agapitus had just done. They might poison the man, but they still did not dare to question the authority of the papal office.)

Before Vigilius could get back to Rome, however, Silverius was elected and installed pope after Agapitus. Silverius stood just as firm for orthodoxy as had Agapitus. He was subsequently accused (falsely) of treason and unlawfully stripped of his office by a secular general of Theodora’s. Vigilius was present at the confrontation. Silverius would not resign, so he was banished to exile.

Vigilius took Silverius’ place as though he were pope, although he could not be pope until the office was vacant. Vigilius was, in fact, an antipope. In spite of this, he promptly started to fulfill his promis, writing letters promoting the heresy of Monophysitism. The obvious problem he had, however, was that he could not be pope until Silverius was dead or had resigned. Vigilius seems to have made certain Pope Silverius did die, of starvation, about fifteen months after he had helped to exile him.

Reluctantly, the Church of Rome installed Vigilius as pope. To do anything else would have meant death or exile to those involved. Theodora waited for her new pope to reinstate her heretical bishop and to preach her heresy. He had done just such preaching as antipope only a few short months before. Now that he was recognized as pope, her plans could come to fruition.

continued in next post

 

[SoMissCatholic]

continued from previous post

But God the Holy Spirit was working a most amazing change in Vigilius. Whereas, as antipope, he had been enthusiastically defending Monophysite heresy, he now wrote the empress a letter stating that he could never teach Monophysitism or support those who did, now that he was pope. Vigilius then refused to approve a compromise solution advanced by the emperor himself. He must have known what this could mean to him. Vigilius had participated in the murder of at least one poper over just this type of refusal to compromise with heresy. His moral character had been anything but exemplary up to this point. He was guilty of both simony and murder, yet God forgave him and provided him the grace to endure his own martyrdom. While saying Mass in Rome, Vigilius was arrested by the emperor’s men and deported to Constantinople. He never saw Rome again before his death, ten exceedingly difficult years later. At no point after becfoming pope, however, did Vigilius teach the heresy embraced by the empress and most of the Eastern Church. Jesus had kept his promise. The gates of hell skulked away empty handed–the trophy had eluded it again.

(Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic pp. 91, 94-96) I would highly recommend this book to you. I found it very interesting and a good read.

 

[Sam43232]

continued from previous post
(Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic pp. 91, 94-96) I would highly recommend this book to you. I found it very interesting and a good read.

Sounds good, I will have to look into that one. Thank you for sharing that story about Vigilius, it was very interesting.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Sounds good, I will have to look into that one. Thank you for sharing that story about Vigilius, it was very interesting.

you’re quite welcome!

 

[AggieCatholic86]

Allow me to try and simplify it. If the Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ himself and he said that he will send his spirit, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, then why would he allow the Church to teach a heresy?

You seem to have no problem saying that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, which the Bible doesn’t even say, that’s a held tradition. But you ignore the fact that fallible men wrote it. Which is easier, for a fallible man to write an infallible book, or a fallible man to interpret an infallible book infallibly? The fact is that the Church is the only consistent authority on interpreting the Bible for 2k years, either that or Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to create 40k protestant churches who are their own popes. St Paul talks about the importance

If you are going to follow ANY church, why would you NOT believe they’re infallible? If you thought they MIGHT be wrong, then you shouldn’t be there or you should investigate completely to make sure. Baptists believe they’re “right” so do Muslims… fact is the Church is what she claims to be and has the history and authority and evidence to back it up.

Additionally, there is a passage in the Bible where Jesus, who’s notorious for slandering the Pharisees, STILL says to the people to follow what the Pharisees teach not what they do. Matthew 23:3. Jesus through his own words has laid out how we are supposed to follow fallible men, but through his teachings.