Do all non-Catholics agree with the following about the Pope?

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin…

Would you agree that the Bull Unam Sanctam was attempting to resolve a 14th century crisis by discouraging king Phillip from trying to usurp, in some ways, Boniface’s authoritative role in the Catholic Church, which was the reason for the Unam Sanctam in the first place, and that that particular problem is no longer an issue today ?

Absolutely not. The relationship between civil and religious authority is very much an issue today.

Furthermore, the wording of the Bull is dogmatic and not simply circumstantial. He doesn’t say, “I decree that you, Philip, cannot be saved unless you give into me on this matter.”

And finally, all these discussions about the context of Unam Sanctam ignore the fact that similar if not stronger language was used more than a century later at Florence.

The Catholic Church’s position is still: no salvation outside the Church. However, anyone from another denomination who has been baptised is an implicit member of the Catholic Church since there is only one Baptism. The CC has not contradicted anything. Like, in the past, the CC had simply reacted to something new (protestantism) - that was unheard of in the 14th century.

First of all, you have not seen me say that the Catholic Church has contradicted anything. I do not make that claim.

But in the second place, while Protestantism did not exist, heretical and schismatic forms of Christianity did exist and have always existed. So that particular argument is short-sighted and irrelevant.

Of course,** if **the CC is the church founded by God almost 2000 years ago then to ignore particular aspects of Jesus’ church would be no different than ignoring particular aspects of the Bible, yet no Christian would ever do the latter.

Well, Christians often do, actually:shrug:.

And it’s far more obvious that Catholics ignore large “aspects of Jesus’ church.” In fact, discussion of church history with Catholics routinely falls into a pattern of the non-Catholic pointing out various “aspects of Jesus’ church,” and the Catholic declaring those aspects irrelevant, because they aren’t expressions of “the Magisterium.”

Again, I am not attacking infallibility. I am pointing out that the level of certainty provided by infallibility about what the Catholic Church will or will not say or do in the future is, at best, extremely low. The purpose of infallibility is, in my opinion, something entirely different.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I suppose you are right, just as one could also say: Nothing is more certain than that scriptural infallibility does not lead to certainty.

Indeed. In fact, I would agree that this is even more evident. Ecclesial infallibility does provide some help in gaining a relative certainty about the fact that a certain doctrine really is a true and essential part of the Faith. I am not denying that. But then, Scriptural infallibility is also not entirely useless, just because it doesn’t do what conservative Protestants often claim for it.

If infallibility, via the guidance of the holy spirit of course, does not provide certainty, then what does provide certainty for a Christian?

Probably we need to be clear on what you mean by “certainty.” Again, according to Aquinas, what provides certainty is faith–that is, from a purely intellectual point of view the truths of revelation are merely opinion (not meaning just a hunch, of course, but well-grounded opinion supported by evidence), but through faith we cleave to those truths with a firm assent.

Of course the answer is yes, but how can one know that their particular church teaching office is not misinterpreting or contradicting the true teachings of the Word of God?

Infallibility provides the assurance that the Catholic teaching office will not do so in a way that would make it impossible for one to continue Catholic without denying revealed truth. Clearly representatives of the Catholic teaching office–popes and bishops, acting in their capacity as pastors of God’s people–have often expressed themselves erroneously. So in that sense there is no guarantee.

Perhaps I did assume just that from reading John 16:13 and John 14:16…

That’s a legitimate interpretation, but far from the only possible one.

Is it logical and scriptural to believe that the HS would continue to guide the church leaders that succeeded the apostles and the church leaders that succeeded them…in perpetuity, or, that the HS would guide the church up to a point in time?

The second option is a straw man. The Protestant alternative is that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in perpetuity, but might do so at times through people condemned by the mainstream institutional Church as heretical, etc. The Orthodox alternative is that the Holy Spirit would guide some successors of the apostles but not necessarily the occupant of a particular See.

If the HS is not guiding and safeguarding doctrinal truth then there there are no certainties, including the Bible itself as being the authentic word of God - right?

Indeed. I see little certainty in the world, and I wonder why my fellow Christians assume that we are supposed to have certainty. This assumption seems to me to smack more of Descartes than of Jesus.

Edwin

 

[tskrobacz]

I did not say that the Holy Spirit does not work through the Catholic Church. I just want to clarify. I do not think that God’s existence hinges on these questions though. I do not think I can be talked out of believing in God.

Your previous comment was that you could not believe in anything infallible…given the guidance provided is from the Holy Spirit…how can you not believe it?!

 

[joe370]

Contarini;8529573]Indeed. In fact, I would agree that this is even more evident. Ecclesial infallibility does provide some help in gaining a relative certainty about the fact that a certain doctrine really is a true and essential part of the Faith. I am not denying that. But then, Scriptural infallibility is also not entirely useless, just because it doesn’t do what conservative Protestants often claim for it.

Probably we need to be clear on what you mean by “certainty.” Again, according to Aquinas, what provides certainty is faith–that is, from a purely intellectual point of view the truths of revelation are merely opinion (not meaning just a hunch, of course, but well-grounded opinion supported by evidence), but through faith we cleave to those truths with a firm assent.

All good, but what about the possibility that the holy spirit continues to guide Jesus’ one church into all truth? And I am not suggesting that other churches are without truth or that Jesus’ church is the CC, although I believe the CC is the church founded by God. Each individual must make that determination on their own.

Infallibility provides the assurance that the Catholic teaching office will not do so in a way that would make it impossible for one to continue Catholic without denying revealed truth. Clearly representatives of the Catholic teaching office–popes and bishops, acting in their capacity as pastors of God’s people–have often expressed themselves erroneously. So in that sense there is no guarantee.

Individuals, sure. Actually there is no guarantee that the Bible is infallible or that the HS continues to guide the church into all truth or that Jesus is God. It’s all about faith…

That’s a legitimate interpretation, but far from the only possible one.

The question remains: Did God leave us with a way to know which interpretation is correct?

The second option is a straw man.

Wasn’t my intention…Although I have been told by certain protestant friends of mine that that was in fact what happened when the CC supposedly apostatized…

The Protestant alternative is that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in perpetuity, but might do so at times through people condemned by the mainstream institutional Church as heretical, etc.

Of course that could lead to things like Martin Luther believing in the real presence and Zwingli seeing the Eucharist as a symbol only, making it impossible to know who is right or who is wrong. What that kind of guidance eventually led to:

Luther criticizes Zwingli:

Zwingli is too rationalistic ans subjective; he doesn’t really believe what the Word of God says. He has not given enough stress to God’s gift. God’s promise is to give his own Son to be a blessing to us through the use of the Supper. Zwinlgi has failed to realize there really is a “communion” that occurs in the Lord’s Supper.

Zwingli responds:

Luther is being too mystical; he is refusing to use his mind. The words of the Bible have to be interpreted in the whole context of what it says. Accusations of being a rationalist is refusing to think. For instance, Jesus said “I am the door”….well? Is he really a door? Luther has contented himself with a mystical approach to scripture. Luther has allowed his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper to become too objective.

The Orthodox alternative is that the Holy Spirit would guide some successors of the apostles but not necessarily the occupant of a particular See.

Well of course.

Indeed. I see little certainty in the world, and I wonder why my fellow Christians assume that we are supposed to have certainty. This assumption seems to me to smack more of Descartes than of Jesus.

Certainty comes from Jesus’ promise to be with His church forever, guiding His Mystical Body into all truth until the end of time, but like you said, there is more than one way to interpret those passages, and in the end, it all comes down to faith rather than fact…

 

[joe370]

Contarini;8529481]Absolutely not. The relationship between civil and religious authority is very much an issue today.

Furthermore, the wording of the Bull is dogmatic and not simply circumstantial. He doesn’t say, “I decree that you, Philip, cannot be saved unless you give into me on this matter.”

Yes it is dogmatic. I didn’t suggest otherwise. You mean in certain countries that kind of relationship between civil and religious authority is very much an issue today?

And finally, all these discussions about the context of Unam Sanctam ignore the fact that similar if not stronger language was used more than a century later at Florence.

First of all, you have not seen me say that the Catholic Church has contradicted anything. I do not make that claim.

Sorry if you thought I was suggesting that…

But in the second place, while Protestantism did not exist, heretical and schismatic forms of Christianity did exist and have always existed. So that particular argument is short-sighted and irrelevant.

And the Bull should have applied to heretical and schismatic forms of Christianity - right?

And it’s far more obvious that Catholics ignore large “aspects of Jesus’ church.”

Could you please identify Jesus’ church?

In fact, discussion of church history with Catholics routinely falls into a pattern of the non-Catholic pointing out various “aspects of Jesus’ church,” and the Catholic declaring those aspects irrelevant, because they aren’t expressions of “the Magisterium.”

Did Jesus leave us with a way to know who is wrong? The bible doesn’t resolve the preceding dispute between catholics and non-catholics.

Again, I am not attacking infallibility.

I know.

I am pointing out that the level of certainty provided by infallibility about what the Catholic Church will or will not say or do in the future is, at best, extremely low. The purpose of infallibility is, in my opinion, something entirely different.

Like I always say:

There is no proof that the holy spirit is infallibly guiding the fallible CC leaders into all truth, but I do have faith that that is so…

Peace Edwin…

 

[joe370]

I did not say that the Holy Spirit does not work through the Catholic Church. I just want to clarify. I do not think that God’s existence hinges on these questions though. I do not think I can be talked out of believing in God.

Not even faith that the infallible holy spirit guided the fallible apostles to teach and write infallibly, again thanks to the guidance of the infallible HS?

 

[tskrobacz]

Not even faith that the infallible holy spirit guided the fallible apostles to teach and write infallibly, again thanks to the guidance of the infallible HS?

Yes…fortunately the teaching came from Jesus himself. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

 

[Contarini]

All good, but what about the possibility that the holy spirit continues to guide Jesus’ one church into all truth?

I don’t rule out that possibility at all. Or more precisely, I don’t rule out the possibility that the interpretation of it held by your Communion is correct–indeed, I think it highly probable. Obviously I believe that this possibility is true in one way or another.

Actually there is no guarantee that the Bible is infallible or that the HS continues to guide the church into all truth or that Jesus is God

Again we have linguistic confusion. This time *I *came across as if I were speaking more absolutely than I intended. By “guarantee” I meant a conditional certainty, as in “if Catholic premises are correct, then we can be sure that X will happen.” My point is that even granting everything Catholics claim, there doesn’t seem to be a sure way to tell when a statement by an individual Pope or some other mouthpiece of the Magisterium is in fact an infallible statement of the Magisterium. Vatican I attempted to lay out such criteria, but the criteria seem to have caused more uncertainty rather than less, if anything. (I repeat: this indicates to me not that infallibility is wrong, but that the purpose of infallibility is probably not to “provide certainty.”)

The question remains: Did God leave us with a way to know which interpretation is correct?
I’m not quite sure where you are going with this. If you mean that infallibility offers such a way, then that obviously contradicts your original use of this passage to support infallibility. You have a circular argument at that point.

Wasn’t my intention…Although I have been told by certain protestant friends of mine that that was in fact what happened when the CC supposedly apostatized…

Are you sure they didn’t just mean that God stopped guiding the Pope and other leaders of what you call the “Catholic Church”? (Note: I’m not picking a fight over whether this really is the Catholic Church, just using precise language that is appropriate to the nature of the debate between you and your Protestant friends.)

Most Protestants believe that there has always been a true Church, whether they believe the official “Catholic Church” to have been part of that true Church or not. Hence such things as the “Trail of Blood” theory, the premise of which is that the Holy Spirit indeed would not stop guiding the Church.

Of course that could lead to things like Martin Luther believing in the real presence and Zwingli seeing the Eucharist as a symbol only

Absolutely. I wasn’t defending that point of view, just noting that it exists.

Certainty comes from Jesus’ promise to be with His church forever, guiding His Mystical Body into all truth until the end of time, but like you said, there is more than one way to interpret those passages, and in the end, it all comes down to faith rather than fact…

I remain puzzled by the way you are using the word “certainty.” Perhaps we should just stop arguing over it. We may not disagree, if you simply mean that trust in the Catholic interpretation of Jesus’ promise leads to the practical confidence that by sticking with the visible Catholic Church in communion with the See of Rome one will be part of the community guided by the Spirit. To me, that seems close to tautology, and if you take out any of the tautology I think the claim of certainty starts to fall apart. But probably it’s not worth arguing about.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Yes it is dogmatic. I didn’t suggest otherwise. You mean in certain countries that kind of relationship between civil and religious authority is very much an issue today?

I can’t think of any countries where it isn’t, actually. In the U.S. see this thread. In Ireland, check out the stories about Enda Kenny’s attack on the Vatican. Of course the specifics are different, but the basic power struggle remains.

And the Bull should have applied to heretical and schismatic forms of Christianity - right?

I’m saying that yes, it does implicitly, even if that wasn’t the main point in that particular context. And Florence makes that clear. The fact that Protestantism wasn’t around at the time doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Could you please identify Jesus’ church?

I was actually working with your definition. My point is that Catholics effectively ignore much of Catholic history when they argue about infallibility and the authority of the Church. Most things done and said by Catholics historically are clearly not infallible. Yet these are presumably still “aspects of Jesus’ Church.” Or maybe they aren’t. I find Catholics often use the word “Church” in a rather slippery way

Peace Edwin…

And also with you (or should I anticipate the First Sunday of Advent and say “and with your spirit?”).

Edwin

 

[Marybeloved]

Indeed. But according to Aquinas, the purely rational support on which the assent of faith rests is equivalent to that of opinion, not knowledge. The idea that one shouldn’t give unqualified assent to something for which one has only probable reasons is, as I said earlier, Huxley’s position and not the traditional Christian one.

This is good to know. But I know that this “idea” you speak of in the bold part represents nothing of what I have said to you here or anywhere else.

Peace!

 

[Contarini]

This is good to know. But I know that this “idea” you speak of in the bold part represents nothing of what I have said to you here or anywhere else.

Peace!

I guess I’m really having trouble with what you and others mean by “certainty.” The more we discuss it, the more elusive the concept seems. Which, I suppose, supports my point.

When I hear “certainty” I understand by it something like what Aquinas would mean by “demonstrative proof” or what Huxley would take to be a necessary criterion for honest belief (these aren’t, in fact, the same thing, since the first is deductive, like mathematical proof, and the latter is more along the lines of scientific proof–the preponderance of empirical evidence after careful and fair-minded testing).

What do you mean when you speak of religious certainty? Do you just mean a feeling of confidence? Do you mean a firm assent of the will? But of course, that brings back the question of what kind of intellectual support is necessary to justify that assent.

Do you perhaps mean what the Catholic tradition calls “moral certainty”? The kind of certainty, for instance, that one can have that one is presently in a state of grace?

Edwin

 

[Marybeloved]

What do you mean when you speak of religious certainty? Do you just mean a feeling of confidence? Do you mean a firm assent of the will? But of course, that brings back the question of what kind of intellectual support is necessary to justify that assent.

I’m not familiar with much philosophical thought/different schools of philosophy etc. So I can’t be sure if the examples you’ve provided define what I mean. I’ll attempt to explain it in my own words, and you can tell me where it falls.

I believe that the only reason to believe is truth and that the only natural means we have to attain to “truth” or reality is our common sense/natural reason. At least for me, if something is not intellectually consistent in itself and with reality as far as I can tell by my own reason, I cannot bring myself to believe/accept it, even as a child- not from my parents or teachers- assumptions that I saw were assumptions (customs) with no logical basis, I simply rejected. And when I come to see in my mind that something is true, I have to follow it or I can’t live with my conscience. So, I believe that we can know truth to the best of our ability (which is limited), and this best of our ability I think is reasonable certainty, rather than absolute certainty. This reasonable certainty is the plank from which I dive into faith. That’s the best I can do as far as defining my understanding, I hope its intelligible enough.

I should also add there is another element I’ve purposely left out of my explanation because it’s very experential and I don’t know how to communicate it to others.- but when I was studying the faith at the beginning, I was convinced of something else I discovered in the process- I believe that there’s something in us that recognizes/knows the truth when we find it. It’s not that you “knew it” before but there is still a recognition of it like remembering something from eons ago that was lost- This thing got me studying Jung’s psychology and some quite dangerous other “philosophies” to understand if we are all born with some type of internal truth map that is unconscious. I felt convinced that when I read the Catechism I “knew!” it was truth, not just that it was logical, but this “recognition” was something else- Perhaps it was just as simple as grace crowning nature, in this case reason? I’m not too curious anymore, so I can live w/out “certainty” of the knowledge of what that is exactly .

Peace!