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

[Contarini]

This reasoning could just as easily be used to discredit the infallibility of an ecumenical council as well.

Did you miss my explicit statement that I was *not *trying to discredit infallibility, but only the flawed notion that infallibility provides certainty? And certainly ecumenical Councils don’t provide such certainty either. That never was their task. As George Florovsky said, they were “charismatic” events–means through which the Holy Spirit chose to act. So, I believe, is papal infallibility a charismatic gift. One can’t provide precise juridical conditions under which it operates. All attempts by members of your Communion to provide such conditions (at least the ones I’ve seen) are unconvincing and result in practical contradictions, as the issue of Unam Sanctam shows.

At the end of it, it seems that you end up discrediting entirely any concept of infallibility at all, scriptural, magisterial, papal, even Apostolic, which ends up resembling agnosticism more than anything.

Well, certainly not agnosticism in the classic Huxley sense. In fact, you and other advocates of “certainty” are the ones who agree with Huxley’s basic premise that if one can’t have absolute rational certainty of something, one is acting immorally to believe it.

I disagree with that premise–as St. Thomas Aquinas did. Was he an agnostic too, by your definition?

Yes they are! And they can have it in the Catholic Church!

I do not disagree with you here.

Edwin

 

[Marybeloved]

Did you miss my explicit statement that I was *not *trying to discredit infallibility, but only the flawed notion that infallibility provides certainty? And certainly ecumenical Councils don’t provide such certainty either. That never was their task. As George Florovsky said, they were “charismatic” events–means through which the Holy Spirit chose to act. So, I believe, is papal infallibility a charismatic gift. One can’t provide precise juridical conditions under which it operates. All attempts by members of your Communion to provide such conditions (at least the ones I’ve seen) are unconvincing and result in practical contradictions, as the issue of Unam Sanctam shows.

My friend, I confess I’m a bit confused as to what exactly your positions are? You accept both episcopal and papal infallibility- but you feel they need to be better defined? I suppose that’s reasonable.

But as to certainty, I think that it’s the purpose of infallible teaching to provide certainty to the faithful in matters of faith and morals, otherwise what’s the point? What you’re talking about is absolute certainty which leaves no room for faith- And I agree that you cannot have that in any capacity this side of life. Not even about God’s existence! We can be reasonably certain of it, but not absolutely- Only the Saints and Angels now beholding him nakedly and ruptured in his eternal embrace can know this absolutely! There would be no faith otherwise and no choice, which is why God is purposely hidden. Same as the truth of Christ’s claims- We can be reasonably certain that they are true, but not absolutely so. I hold that we can be reasonably certain of the truths proclaimed infallibly by the Church as well.

Peace!

 

[Contarini]

My friend, I confess I’m a bit confused as to what exactly your positions are? You accept both episcopal and papal infallibility- but you feel they need to be better defined?

I’m not sure what you mean–that’s certainly not the language I used. I think that modern Catholics have tried to use ecclesial infallibility to answer epistemological questions, just as Protestants have used Scripture, and I think neither tactic works.

But as to certainty, I think that it’s the purpose of infallible teaching to provide certainty to the faithful in matters of faith and morals, otherwise what’s the point?

Well, we may be speaking at cross-purposes when it comes to “certainty.” I agree *if *by “provides certainty” you simply mean that once one is convinced that the Church has the charism of infallibility, and that doctrine X meets the criteria for infallibility, then one is convinced that doctrine X is true and doesn’t need to continue discerning the question. But a Protestant can equally argue that once one is convinced both that Scripture is infallible (Catholics seem to prefer the term “inerrant,” but this often has a narrower meaning in Protestantism) and that Scripture teaches doctrine X, that doctrine is true. One can argue that it’s relatively easier to be sure that a doctrine is infallibly taught by the Church than that it’s truly found in Scripture, but that’s a somewhat debatable point, and at most it shows a difference of degree, not kind.

I think it’s fair to say that infallibility provides greater certainty, but not that it provides a kind of certainty that wasn’t possible before, *except *in the sense of my previous statement: it gives the believer the certainty that this particular ecclesial community will not be one from which it is necessary to separate.

In other words, I think Fr. Kung was right to argue that the key notion is “indefectibility,” but wrong to suggest that indefectibility and infallibility are competing notions–rather, infallibility is important in order to safeguard indefectibility.

What you’re talking about is absolute certainty which leaves no room for faith- And I agree that you cannot have that in any capacity this side of life. Not even about God’s existence!

Actually Vatican I says otherwise. The existence of God, according to Aquinas’s view which was endorsed at Vatican I, does not have to be a matter of faith. Ironically, that is a view which I (and many others) could only accept by faith. I have been assured that this is not a problem–one doesn’t have to have this certainty oneself, only to accept that it is possible!

I hold that we can be reasonably certain of the truths proclaimed infallibly by the Church as well.

But we can be reasonably certain of all sorts of things without infallibility. You don’t need infallibility for that kind of “certainty.”

Edwin

 

[tskrobacz]

But we can be reasonably certain of all sorts of things without infallibility. You don’t need infallibility for that kind of “certainty.”

Edwin

Certainty is in many ways the opposite of Faith. Unless we can dispose ourself’s to trust and a knowing that we do not fully know or understand we place our self will before God’s will and fail to allow the Spirit room to operate in our daily affairs.

 

[Marybeloved]

But we can be reasonably certain of all sorts of things without infallibility. You don’t need infallibility for that kind of “certainty.”

Not all those things of which I can be reasonably certain, make a demand of the free assent of faith on me though. And of course we don’t need infallibility for certainty of everything, just truths of faith!

Peace!

 

[AmateurPianist]

Infallibility is not something that endows a pope with divine powers, but rather it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from the human frailties of a Bishop of Rome. If we believed half the cray stuff out there on the big ol’ internet about the Pope, and it turned out to be true, none of us would even belong to the CC. LOL…

All Christians believe that God used sinful fallible men (apostles and successors such as Luke etc.) - to infallibly teach and write Scripture. Why then is it so hard to believe that God would continue to work through their sinful fallible successors until Jesus’ return, in order to to protect doctrinal truth from corruption and ensure the preservation of it, just as God did with the 1st century apostles for the 1st century Christians.

Aren’t the 16th century or the 21st century Christians just as entitled to the same certainty regarding doctrinal truth as the 1st century Christians were, who were taught by nothing more than sinful, fallible leaders via the guidance of God, just as is the case today?

Wouldn’t the HS continue to guide the church leaders that succeeded the apostles and the church leaders that succeeded them…in perpetuity?

Surely such a protection was implied when Jesus said to His chosen leaders:

“He who hears you hears me.”

“I will be with you forever.”

“He will guide you into all truth.”

The definition of “infallible” is incapable of being incorrect, correct.

Then it is not the same as being correct or being correct a repeated number of times.

It is the difference between scoring 100% on 100 straight math tests and being assured 100% that on the next 101st math test one is incapable of getting anything less than 100% because one is unable to be incorrect.

Furthermore, at least in the Catholic context there is a repeatable process that limits this infallability (the pope speaking ex-cathedra on a moral or doctrinal teaching). But infallability by definition means that no matter what, the next time the pope speaks, it is guaranteed to be error free.

Is this correct.

Also you use the phrase “gift of the Holy Spirit” with this idea.

So here are my disagreements, but first my agreement.

I agree that the gift of “being correct” (for lack of a better phrase) is a gift of the Holy Spirit that has precedence in Scripture (Acts 15) and history (the canon of Scripture for one.

I disagree that there exists a gift of the Holy Spirit called “being unable to be incorrect”. Or that there is a process that when followed is guaranteed to produce this output.

My best comparison would be the gift of the Holy Spirit of healing. I agree that there is Scriptural and historical precedents for the gift of healing and that it is (cessationalists notwithstanding) still in operation today. I disagree that there is a process that if followed (word-of-faith folks not withstanding) guarantees that one would be unable to not receive this Spiritual gift.

 

[joe370]

Cavaradossi
If it is infallible, then why…

…If so, why is it taught today that those who do not submit to the pope are still in an imperfect union with the Church as Christians?

Until the Catholic Church officially releases some sort of list of infallible statements, I don’t think it will be easy for us to judge what exactly papal infallibility is

A list, released by the CC, would be helpful. One thing is for sure, these ideas were nothing new. This was the traditional view of his predecessors as well. Also, the necessity of belonging to Jesus’ Mystical Body, the Church, in order to be saved is quite scriptural. Even Jesus said:

“I tell you the truth, **no one can enter the kingdom of God **unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”

Unam Sanctum has nothing to say about Protestants who do not submit to the pope still being in an imperfect union with the Church as Christians, because protestantism did not exist at the time.

Unam Sanctum was a response to king Philip who had told the French bishops that they could no not attend a council, called by Boniface; temporal vs the spiritual so to speak. Philip went so far as to denounce the Pope Boniface and accuse him of demanding to be temporal feudal overlord of France; turned out it was a forgery. Philip however, still refused to permit the French bishops to attend the Pope’s council in Rome and when the council did finally meet less than half of the bishops showed up and and nothing was resolved. It was then that Boniface issued the Bull Unam Sanctam because his right to intervene on behalf of the bishops was being challenged. The king even went so far as to denounced Boniface who, up to that point, had universal jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. Boniface responded with:

“We declare that in no way do we wish to usurp the jurisdiction of the King…And yet, neither the King nor anyone else of the faithful can deny that he is subject to us where a question of sin is involved.”

Unam Sanctam simply reminds us that all human beings (belonging to the CC) - must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation and it is, in my opinion, wrong to attempt to retroject back into Unam Sanctam and then apply it to all Protestants or those through no fault of their own…which was why Pius IX, years later, said what he said regarding invincible ignorance.

These leaders agreed the Bull:

Ignatius of Antioch, pupil of John:

" Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion." (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:2-3)

Origen:

“Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: outside this house, that is, outside the Church, no one is saved. For if anyone go outside, he shall be guilty of his own death.” (Homilies on Josue 3:5)

Cyprian:

" Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church; nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worlding, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother. If anyone outside the ark of Noah was able to escape, then perhaps someone outside the pale of the Church may escape…

“Does anyone believe that in the Church this unity which proceeds from the divine stability and which is welded together after the heavenly patterns, can be divided, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? Whoever holds not fast to this unity holds not to the law of God; neither does he keep faith with the Father and the Son, nor does he have life and salvation.” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6)

“If the Baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church, how much the more worthless is it for him, in secret places and in the caves of robbers, dipped in the contagion of adulterous water, not merely not to have put off his former sins, but even to have added new and greater ones!” (Letters 73:21, c. 255 AD)

Lactantius:

“It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from here, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation…Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known: that is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance, and which takes a salubrious care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject.”

Jerome:

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the Rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah [the Church] will perish when the flood prevails…”

Augustine:

“By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the Catholic Church.”

“A man cannot have salvation, except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church he can have everything except salvation. He can have honor, he can have Sacraments, he can sing Alleluia, he can answer Amen, he can possess the Gospel, he can have and preach faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but never except in the Catholic Church will he be able to find salvation.”

 

[joe370]

Hi Edwin…

QUOTE=Contarini;8525386] All attempts by members of your Communion to provide such conditions (at least the ones I’ve seen) are unconvincing and result in practical contradictions, as the issue of Unam Sanctam shows.

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 ?

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.

Now, if protestantism had existed in 1302 and Boniface had infallibly declared the following, then you would have a point:

“We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins for schismatics and Protestants.”

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.

 

[joe370]

Hey Edwin…

I don’t think it is. I think the question is whether God has in fact chosen this particular means, not whether He could! (I think He probably did–but many learned Protestants and Orthodox differ with me!)

I think that when you make the “certainty” argument you discredit your entire position. Nothing is more certain than that papal infallibility does not lead to certainty.

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

Someone in the 14th century who accepted Unam Sanctam as infallible would probably not dream that a document like Lumen Gentium was remotely possible as an expression of the Catholic Magisterium.

Ergo the Magisterium as opposed to the teaching office of each and every Christian, teaching, as he/she is moved by the HS.

Note that I’m not claiming that infallibility is wrong or self-contradictory.

I’m simply pointing out that whatever it does, it certainly does not provide certainty–not a solid basis for certainty, anyway…many Protestants have that their interpretation of Scripture is the only possible one.

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

I would phrase the question thus: Aren’t modern Christians just as entitled as early Christians to a Church to which they can commit themselves unconditionally without fearing that this commitment may conflict with loyalty to the Word of God?

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?

I think that it’s generally presumptuous to make assumptions about what the Holy Spirit “would” do.

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

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?

But you are making certain assumptions about what those passages mean and who the addressees are. These assumptions, however well-justified, clearly are not absolutely certain. Therefore, no view based on them can be absolutely certain.

Exactly my friend, and that is why Jesus left us with His church leadership, so that people like me won’t make certain assumptions about what those passages mean and who the addressees are!!!

I think making assumptions is fine and normal, but in the end we need to defer to Jesus’ church leadership, if in fact God is still guiding and persevering doctrinal truth from within His Mystical Body, the Church. 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?

 

[joe370]

Do they? Do all Christians really believe that scripture was infallibly written and is infallibly taught? I don’t, but then I’m not even baptized, so I don’t count.

Why does anyone believe this?

Faith… Why does anyone believe anything that happened thousands of years ago? I guess faith…

 

[dingodile]

Faith… Why does anyone believe anything that happened thousands of years ago? I guess faith…

I suppose. I guess I’m faith-impaired.

 

[joe370]

Contarini
But we can be reasonably certain of all sorts of things without infallibility. You don’t need infallibility for that kind of “certainty.”

I guess, in the end it all comes down to faith that the HS guided and continues to guide Jesus’ church into all truth. John 16:13

Either the holy spirit has guided the CC to do things such as infallibly selecting which books should and shouldn’t be in the bible, as well as guiding the CC to define critical dogma’s that were being challenged by some, such as the Trinity, Theotokos etc, or, there is no certainty regarding scripture and dogma.

If infallibility vis-a-vis the doctrinal truths of Christian faith cannot be known with certainty (not that I am suggesting that you are making that claim) - then no one should ever claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God, or that the Trinity is an infallible teaching - right?

 

[dingodile]

Either the holy spirit has guided the CC to do things such as infallibly selecting which books should and shouldn’t be in the bible, as well as guiding the CC to define critical dogma’s that were being challenged by some, such as the Trinity, Theotokos etc, or, there is no certainty regarding scripture and dogma.

Well put. The second disjunct is more believable.

 

[joe370]

I suppose. I guess I’m faith-impaired.

I am 44 years old and I was faith-impaired until 20002. Don’t give up friend.

The alternative to God is atheism and it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist in my opinion.

You are in my prayers brother…

 

[dingodile]

I am 44 years old and I was faith-impaired until 20002. Don’t give up friend.

The alternative to God is atheism and it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist in my opinion.

You are in my prayers brother…

I’ve pretty much won the battle with atheism, although I suppose that at 58 it’d be easy to backslide. But I don’t trust infallibility for a New York minute. I think it’s a very bad idea.

 

[joe370]

I’ve pretty much won the battle with atheism, although I suppose that at 58 it’d be easy to backslide. But I don’t trust infallibility for a New York minute. I think it’s a very bad idea.

I understand. I think the whole infallibility thing is tied to verses such as:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

I struggled with it too until it occurred to me that God could easily, albeit ineffably, safeguard doctrinal truth from within His church. Of course I cannot prove it.

But Christianity isn’t about empirical evidence; it’s about faith:

"Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[BrianH]

I guess, in the end it all comes down to faith that the HS guided and continues to guide Jesus’ church into all truth. John 16:13

Either the holy spirit has guided the CC to do things such as infallibly selecting which books should and shouldn’t be in the bible, as well as guiding the CC to define critical dogma’s that were being challenged by some, such as the Trinity, Theotokos etc, or, there is no certainty regarding scripture and dogma.

If infallibility vis-a-vis the doctrinal truths of Christian faith cannot be known with certainty (not that I am suggesting that you are making that claim) - then no one should ever claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God, or that the Trinity is an infallible teaching - right?

I guess I agree with you. It is not a comfortable place to be but at least it is honest. You cannot lie to yourself. I do not believe in anything infallible.

 

[tskrobacz]

I guess I agree with you. It is not a comfortable place to be but at least it is honest. You cannot lie to yourself. I do not believe in anything infallible.

Either God exists and provides guidance as Jesus promised or he doesn’t. Either we believe that the Holy Spirit guides us in achieving God’s will or we take it upon ourself, without the rock of the Church to decide on the pressing issues of our day. We all need a source to turn to for ultimate truth.

John 16:12 - “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, (R)the Spirit of truth, comes, He will (S)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. 14 He will (T)glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 (U)All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

In the Catholic tradition, the truth as articulated in John’s Gospel is not from the Pope, but from the guiding Spirit through the Pope. The Pope as Vicar or Christ articulates the truth that we might understand. This is not hard to understand and easier to accept than reject. If you reject the Spirit working through the Catholic Church…then where does it work through?

 

[BrianH]

Either God exists and provides guidance as Jesus promised or he doesn’t. Either we believe that the Holy Spirit guides us in achieving God’s will or we take it upon ourself, without the rock of the Church to decide on the pressing issues of our day. We all need a source to turn to for ultimate truth.

John 16:12 - “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, (R)the Spirit of truth, comes, He will (S)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. 14 He will (T)glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 (U)All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

In the Catholic tradition, the truth as articulated in John’s Gospel is not from the Pope, but from the guiding Spirit through the Pope. The Pope as Vicar or Christ articulates the truth that we might understand. This is not hard to understand and easier to accept than reject. If you reject the Spirit working through the Catholic Church…then where does it work through?

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.

 

[Contarini]

Not all those things of which I can be reasonably certain, make a demand of the free assent of faith on me though.

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.

Edwin