Drawn to Catholicism...but have reservations.

[Serafin]

twf:

Serafin:
*Honorious and the Borgia Popes, Theodora and Marozia Theophylact were not mythical figures! *I assume you realize that impeccability is a very different thing from infallibility; that popes can be heretics (unlikely, but possible) and the worst sinners on earth—but the Spirit will prevent them from officially teaching, as binding on the Universal Church, false doctrine. So then, if you are suggesting that these popes officially taught heresy, you are incorrect. No one has been able to demonstrate that any pope officially taught heresy. Please find any heretical quotes from the officially ‘ex catedra’ statements of these popes.

I understand well the diference beween impecability and infalibility, a distinction you conveniently make in the face of clearly less than honorable characters occupying the highest office in your church. As far as quotes…you first from the Bible guaranteing any bishop freedom from error…ex-cathedra or otherwise
.
*

Popular catholicism is a different breed from the catechism kind. … talk with an average Hispanic catholic about their faith and pious practices…try to keep a straight face

The beliefs of individuals within the Church has no bearing on the truth of the official teachings. The Anglican Church has 70 000 000 members, but that’s assuming that the majority of the English nation are Anglican Christians. Do you think that the average Joe in England actually believes everything your church teaches? England is quite a secular nation, in reality. I don’t remember exact numbers, but isn’t it something like 80% of the English are baptized Anglicans, yet only 5 or 9% attend church on a regular basis?*
Such with many Catholic countries as well…including Italy and Spain! That’s the point!

The Pope , the Magisterium, Tradition and Scripture sound great for converts to the RCC…a little overated if you ask me. The Orthodox have managed to stay Christian without the fist two as have many Anglicans and a myriad of others. "

Perhaps stayed Christian, but why are the Anglican bishops still undecided over the issue of same-sex marriages and the like? There is no supreme authority to ensure the faithful maintaining of the deposit of faith. (And even with the Orthodox, some of them now support contraception).*
Supreme authority without checks and balances can be as evil as no authority at all. As far as Anglicans go the one bright note is that they can change institutionalized error should they awaken and God will it so. In contrast, you seem to be stuck with dogmas not of your generation’s making… that you have no choice but to accept, defend even against common sense and call it the deposit of faith!

Before you join, ask some former Roman Catholics why they left(and are still leaving at a rate of 20,000 a month in Latin America).

Before you dismiss the Catholic Church, ask the tens of thousands of Protestants who have come home to Rome why they have done so. The Church is losing members, true…but there are millions of nominal Catholics, in some ways a faithful remnant is better than a mass of lukewarm Christians (I’m not saying all who leave were lukewarm, I’m making a point)…as well many of these Hispanics do not properly understand their own faith. In Latin America, it is part of the culture. *
People will change churches for a variety of reasons, Catholics there Protestants here! I wonder how true the proverb is about “the grass on the other side of the hill…seeming greener”.

Blessings

Serafin

 

[VociMike]

Serafin:

I understand well the diference beween impecability and infalibility, a distinction you conveniently make in the face of clearly less than honorable characters occupying the highest office in your church.

Why the snide reference to “conveniently”? You may have decided that the Pope must be impeccable in office, but the Church has never taught that, because Christ never taught that. So knock off the dismissive language, how about?

 

[Serafin]

VociMike:

Why the snide reference to “conveniently”? You may have decided that the Pope must be impeccable in office, but the Church has never taught that, because Christ never taught that. So knock off the dismissive language, how about?

Christ did not teach a thing about “ex-cathedra” infalibility for Peter or any other Apostle, much less about the later pontiffs of the city of Rome, as the RCC does.

I do not believe that any man , even if an example of holiness as is the present Holy Father, has any absolute guarantee of infalibility. For scoundrels who have occupied that sacred office I find it even less reasonable to believe. It is convenient that the Church has a teaching to explain how a person in mortal sin can convey a grace their soul is devoid of, otherwise where would we all be!

Blessings

Serafin +

 

[ZoeTheodora]

Serafin:

Christ did not teach a thing about “ex-cathedra” infalibility for Peter or any other Apostle, much less about the later pontiffs of the city of Rome, as the RCC does.

Jesus did not mention the words “ex cathedra infallibility”–just as He didn’t mention the words “Trinity” and “Hypostatic Union.” That doesn’t mean He didn’t teach those things. Surely you do not expect to find every Christian doctrine specifically mentioned by name in the New Testament? Even fundamentalists dare not claim such a thing, and I take it you are not a fundamentalist.

You say you are Anglican; that must mean you recognize apostolic succession, right? Well, OK: Where do you find the term “apostolic succession” in the New Testament? Did Jesus explicitly mention it?

For that matter, where in the New Testament do you find the doctrine that the New Testament writings are infallible God-inspired Scripture? (II Timothy 3:16 refers to the OT, so it doesn’t help you out here. )

Bottom line: Christian doctrines–including those accepted by all orthodox Christians, such as the Trinity and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit–are not always found explicitly on the face of Scripture or in the mouth of Jesus. So what? So what does that prove? (Besides the untenability of Sola Scriptura, I mean. )

But back to the question at hand. Does the Bible provide any basis for papal infallibility? Yep.

When Jesus predicted Peter’s triple betrayal, if you recall, He indicated that Peter would later convert: “When thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren.” At the same time, He revealed, “I have prayed for thee that thy faith would not fail.”

Well, when Jesus prays for something, it happens. His Word does not return to Him void. If He prayed that the converted (post-betrayal) Peter would have unfailing faith–which by definition is true faith–then, by gum, that’s what would happen. And since Our Lord was establishing His Church upon Peter the Rock for all time, not just for one generation, we can readily infer that this charism of “unfailing faith” would be passed down to Peter’s successors. (If you believe in apostolic succession, then I assume you recognize that Peter, too, had successors–which means any prerogatives of his office would be passed down to them.)

The Church Fathers interpreted Out Lord’s words exactly as I have indicated. Again and again, they refer to Peter’s successor as the one “whose faith fails not.” Again and again, they point out that no heresy taints the Roman See as it so often does the other sees. Occasionally they even use language that seems to anticipate the very language of Vatican I–most uncannily in fact. (I’m thinking of one particular quote from Maximos the Confessor, I believe; will dig it up tonight.)

Scripture and Tradition together form the basis for the doctrine of papal infallibility.

(continued next post)

 

[ZoeTheodora]

I do not believe that any man , even if an example of holiness as is the present Holy Father, has any absolute guarantee of infalibility.

Oh? NO man? So the four evangelists had “no absolute guarantee of infallibility” when they wrote the Gospels? St. Paul had no “absolute guarantee of infallibility” when he wrote his canonical epistles? That would be news to the advocates of Sola Scriptura.

For scoundrels who have occupied that sacred office I find it even less reasonable to believe. It is convenient that the Church has a teaching to explain how a person in mortal sin can convey a grace their soul is devoid of, otherwise where would we all be!

You’ve lost me here. I thought you said you understood the distinction between infallibility and impeccability.

Infallibility refers to doctrine (re Faith and Morals), not to behavior. When the Holy Father teaches formally ex cathedra, He is not “conveying the grace” of his godly behavior. He is “conveying the grace” of docrtrinal truth. One doesn’t have to be a good person to convey doctrinal truth. The Bible says that even Caiaphas, without realizing it, conveyed doctrinal truth when he inadvertently prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation.

This touches on a great truth about papal infallibility which you seem to be missing: It is the Holy Spirit’s doing. It is the Holy Spirit who calls the shots, the Holy Spirit who does the major work, when the pope makes an infallible pronouncement.

Infallibility is a purely negative protection. It does not guarantee that the pope will proactively make a formal dogmatic definition each time one is needed. It merely guarantees that, on those relatively rare occasions when he does make a formal dogmatic pronouncement “ex cathedra,” he will be protected from uttering error.

This is the Holy Spirit’s doing. He protects the pope under these circumstances because He is protecting the papal office–not the papal person. And He (the Holy Spirit) protects the pope under these strictly defined circumstances because He wishes to protect us, the People of God. We need to be protected from doctrinal error. We must not be “blown about by every wind of doctrine.” We have to know what to believe. The Bible Alone doesn’t give us definitive answers–that’s why there are 30,000 bickering denominations, all claiming the Bible Alone as their infallible guide. Even the Bible and Sacred Tradition together do not fully answer every doctrinal question: That’s why Eastern Orthodoxy, which relies on Bible and Tradition alone, cannot agree on certain key issues such as what happens immediately after death or whether God’s essence is separate from His energies. Nope: The People of God need more than this. In addition to Scripture and Tradition, they need the Pope and Magisterium–an authoritative, infallible Teaching Church helmed by a leader whose faith doesn’t fail.

And that’s where the charism of papal infallibility comes in. It is rarely exercised, of course. Just as the evangelists enjoyed the protection of infallibility only when they were writing the Gospels, so the pope enjoys the protection of infallibility only when he is making formal, solemn dogmatic pronouncements re Faith or Morals “ex cathedra.” But on those rare occasions, we laypeople need to be protected from error. That’s why the Holy Spirit inspired the evangelists. And that’s why He keeps the pope from uttering error during ex cathedra pronouncements.

Blessings,

ZT

P.S. To clarify: I used the analogy with the evangelists, but of course the pope and the evangelists represent two different cases. The Holy Spirit inspired the evangelists. He doesn’t inspire the pope; He simply keeps him from uttering error under certain strictly defined circumstances. It’s a much more modest form of infallibility–a purely negative protection, as I mentioned before. Gotta run.

Blessings

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thepeug,

John Henry Newman was still an Anglican when he wrote the following:

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
by John Henry Newman
newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

Other works of Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman can be found online here:
newmanreader.org/

I highly recommend Newman’s works. Another Anglican convert to Catholicism you might look into is G.K. Chesterton.

Online Books by G.K. Chesteron can be found here:
onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/search?author=chesterton+g+k&amode=start

“[Catholicism] is the only thing that talks as if it were the truth; as if it were a real messenger refusing to tamper with a real message.” – G.K. Chesterton

God bless,

Dave

 

[Thepeug]

Thanks for the Newman links, Dave. I’ll be sure to check them out. ZT, you quoted Jesus’ words to Peter when he says, “When thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren… I have prayed for thee that thy faith would not fail.” Where is the quote located? I looked in Matthew (where I thought it would be) but I couldn’t find it. Any ideas?

God bless,

Chris

 

[ZoeTheodora]

Thepeug:

Thanks for the Newman links, Dave. I’ll be sure to check them out. ZT, you quoted Jesus’ words to Peter when he says, “When thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren… I have prayed for thee that thy faith would not fail.” Where is the quote located? I looked in Matthew (where I thought it would be) but I couldn’t find it. Any ideas?

God bless,

Chris

Hi, Chris! It’s in Luke. Luke 22: 31-32. The context is the Last Supper.

"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you [the Greek is plural] as wheat. But I have prayed for you [singular], Simon, that your [singular] faith may not fail. And when you [singular] have turned back, strengthen your brothers." – from Bible Gateway

Peter and his successors are the confirmers and strengtheners of the bishops (his apostolic brethren).

God bless,

Diane

 

[Thepeug]

Thanks for the verse. I have never even noticed it before!

God bless,

Chris

 

[prodromos]

ZoeTheodora:

When the Holy Father teaches formally ex cathedra, He is not “conveying the grace” of his godly behavior. He is “conveying the grace” of docrtrinal truth. One doesn’t have to be a good person to convey doctrinal truth.

I personally don’t believe the two can be separated. As St Francis of Assisi is believed to have said;

"Preach the gospel always. If necessary, use words."

 

[Serafin]

Hi:

Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you [the Greek is plural] as wheat. But I have prayed for you [singular], Simon, that your [singular] faith may not fail. And when you [singular] have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

“…we can readily infer that this charism of “unfailing faith” would be passed down to Peter’s successors…”

That is an inference you can make if you choose…rather arbitrarily! These comments of Jesus are directed to Peter (singular), nothing in the text demands that it is a special grace that will pass on to his sucessors.

Rome is not the only apostolic see which claims Peter as founder as the Orthodox are quick to point out.

“Antioch received its first bishop at the hands of Peter, as did the great Greek City of Alexandria (through Peter’s assistant, Mark the Evangelist). Peter also consecrated a bishop for Old Rome where Christians had lived for some time before his coming there.It was Pope St Gregory I who first referred to the “Petrine See” as the collective Sees of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria”

Does this “charism of unfailing faith” which you infer to mean “infalibility” apply also to Peter’s sucessors there?

Blessings

Serafin +

 

[ZoeTheodora]

prodromos:

I personally don’t believe the two can be separated. As St Francis of Assisi is believed to have said;

"Preach the gospel always. If necessary, use words."

Jesus seems to disagree with you. He told His disciples to obey the teaching of the Jewish authorities because they “sat in Moses’ chair”–not because they were exemplary people.

IOW, their authority stemmed from their God-given office, not from their persons. “Do what they say, not what they do,” Jesus urged.

Similarly, St. John tells us explicitly that the Holy Spirit spoke through Caiaphas when the latter declared, “It is more expedient that one man should die than that the whole nation should perish.” History tells us Caiaphas wasn’t a particularly nice person, yet God chose to speak the truth through him because of his office (i.e., “because he was high priest that year”).

The great majority of popes have been saintly men. Many were martyrs. Many are canonized saints.

The few “bad apples,” though, do not obviate the doctrine of papal infallibility–any more than Caiaphas’s moral failings obviated his authority and ability to speak the truth (however unconsciously and inadvertently) about Our Lord’s saving role.

Impeccability and infallibility are two different words, two different concepts, and two different realities. Catholic theology has always distinguished them. Non-Catholic attempts to conflate them do not “make it so.”

Besides which–there’s a very real sense in which it’s not appropriate for a non-Catholic to tell us Catholics how we should define our own theological terms.

Blessings,

ZT

 

[Serafin]

Hi :

Well, when Jesus prays for something, it happens. His Word does not return to Him void

.

Well, that is true except not always as we expect! Jeus did pray “that they may all be one” and such does not appear to be the case this millenium! However, “by gum”, that’s what will happen.

Scripture and Tradition together form the basis for the doctrine of papal infallibility.

The tradition of the Roman see maybe, other Apostolic Churches deny this categorically as you well know.

 

[ZoeTheodora]

Serafin:

Hi :

.

Well, that is true except not always as we expect! Jeus did pray “that they may all be one” and such does not appear to be the case this millenium! However, “by gum”, that’s what will happen.

Yep, by gum, it will–and before the eschaton, too.

It is already true in the Catholic Church. See Dominus Iesus, “On the Uninicity and Unity of the Catholic Church.”

The tradition of the Roman see maybe, other Apostolic Churches deny this categorically as you well know.

No, dear. I meant patristic Tradition. The fact that some people deny it, ignore it, dismiss it, or try to explain it away doesn’t alter the fact that it’s there…or that it says what it says.

God bless,

ZT

 

[Serafin]

It is already true in the Catholic Church. See Dominus Iesus, "On the Uninicity and Unity of the Catholic Church

."

[No, dear. I meant *patristic

Tradition. The fact that some people deny it, ignore it, dismiss it, or try to explain it away doesn’t alter the fact that it’s there…or that it says what it says.
The fragmentation of the Catholic Church into separate church bodies, several of which claim to be “The One”, is an undeniable historical reality.The content of Dominus Iesus published by one of its fragments, the RCC, does not alter that… even if minimized, ignored, or explained away

As far as “patristic tradition”, infalibility as defined by Vatican I, is conspicuouly absent dear… as it is from the Bible!

Of course we can choose to see the world through rose colored glasses…

Rome is not the only apostolic see which claims Peter as founder …this is from an Orthodox site:

"Antioch received its first bishop at the hands of Peter, as did the great Greek City of Alexandria (through Peter’s assistant, Mark the Evangelist). Peter also consecrated a bishop for Old Rome where Christians had lived for some time before his coming there.I**t was Pope St Gregory I who first referred to the “Petrine See” as the collective Sees of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria"

Does this “charism of unfailing faith” which you infer to mean “infalibility” apply also to Peter’s sucessors there?

What of this question? Why should Protestants believe your version of the story?

Blessings

Serafin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Bishops appointed by Peter are not successors of Peter.

God bless,

Dave

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I find the testimony of the early Church prior to the revisionist claims of Protestantism and Greek/Oriental Orthodoxy more compelling …

From the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, AD 431:

“No one doubts, nay it is a thing known now for centuries, that the holy and most blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and the foundation on which the Catholic Church is built, received from Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, the keys of the kingdom, and that to him there was given the power of binding and of loosing from sin; who, down to this day, and for evermore, lives and exercises judgment in his successors.” (Dz 112)

Don’t you suppose that if this testimony were a novel and erroneous claim, that the Bishops assembled at the Council of Ephesus would have disputed it? Why was there no dispute? After all, the early Church passionately argued over such things as the date to celebrate Easter. You’d think that the claim above, if untrue and unaccepted by the Bishops assembled at Ephesus would have been aggressively challenged this claim. It was not, was it? Why is that? It seems clear to me, they accepted the testimony as part of the orthodox faith that had been “known now for centuries.”

Over a decade later, the testimony of the Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his letter to Pope Leo I (AD 449) is also noteworthy:

I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness …

I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference … issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached … both Eastern and Western. (Letter from Flavian to Pope Leo I)

God bless,

Dave

 

[Serafin]

Hi:

No one is disputing the importance of the Bishop of Rome and his primacy in the Church… from there to infallibility is the “leap of faith” the rest of Christendom has not been willing to take!

So sorry I did find a reference to an infallible fisherman in the writings of the Fathers…I apologize for doubting, here it is:

Not so this fisherman; for all he saith is infallible; and standing as it were upon a rock, he never shifts his ground. For since he has been thought worthy to be in the most secret places, and has the Lord of all speaking within him, he is subject to nothing that is human. …[4.] But this unlettered man, the ignorant, the native of Bethsaida, the son of Zebedee … the more he seems removed from Grecian discipline, so much the brighter does what we have with us appear… but besides this, affords another and a stronger proof that what he says is divinely inspired, namely, the convincing all his hearers through all time; who will not wonder at the power that dwells in him? This barbarian then, with his writing of the Gospel, has occupied all the habitable world. With his body he has taken possession of the center of Asiashining forth in the midst of his foes, dispersing11

their darkness, and breaking down the stronghold of devils: but in soul he has retired to that place which is fit for one who has done such things.

Blessings

Serafin *

 

[fogie]

This might not fit in with the very theological debate but please bear with me. When my wife converted from Assemblies of God, the infallability issue became a non-issue when she realized that the current pope is bound by the doctrine of every previous pope. To her, that meant he had LESS power.

I still find this reasoning strange because I don’t understand why the magisterium would every want to contradict itself on matters of faith and morals. She, however, found the idea very comforting.

I’ll keep you in my prayers. Please keep me in yours (I’m a father of four and could use all the prayers I can get).

Pax Christi

 

[ZoeTheodora]

Serafin wrote:

The fragmentation of the Catholic Church into separate church bodies, several of which claim to be “The One”, is an undeniable historical reality.The content of Dominus Iesus published by one of its fragments, the RCC, does not alter that… even if minimized, ignored, or explained away

Could you clarify, please? Are you referring to the Latin Church vis-a-vis the various Eastern Churches faithful to Rome? Are you honestly arguing that this constitutes “fragmentation”? :ehh: Ever hear of “unity in diversity”?

America consists of 50 states. Does that mean it’s not one unified nation? Nope. Well, same with the Catholic Church. Dominus Iesus was produced and published by the Magisterium, to which all Catholics are united. We are One Church in communion with the Pope. One Body, many members, and a diversity of gifts…but still One Body. All Christians in union with the successor of Peter comprise the Catholic Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

As far as “patristic tradition”, infalibility as defined by Vatican I, is conspicuouly absent dear… as it is from the Bible!

Sez you.

I assume you’ve read the entire extant patristic corpus?

No? Well, then, perhaps you shouldn’t make such sweeping assertions. Ya think?

As various contributors to this thread have already painstakingly pointed out, the fact that the term “papal infallibility” doesn’t occur in Scripture or in the earliest patristic writings does not mean the doctrine isn’t there. (The terms “Trinity,” “Hypostatic Union,” and “Divinity of the Holy Spirit” also don’t appear in Scripture or the earliest patristic writings. Yet I assume you wouldn’t reject those doctrines merely because they are not explicit in the earliest Christian writings. )

But even though the term “papal infallibility” isn’t present in the Bible or early Fathers, the concept is. (Just as with the Trinity, Hypostatic Union, etc.)

The Vatican I formulation of the dogma is more crystallized, more explicit, more precise than earlier formulations found in Scripture and the Fathers. But it is still the same doctrine, with the same DNA, as it were. (Teeny mustard seed grows into large bush…looks different, but it’s the same organism with the same DNA…hmmm, where have I seen that analogy before? )

BTW, there are key patristic passages that almost seem to anticipate Vatican I in the remarkable explicitness of their testimony to papal infallibility. I’m at work right now, but I will try to find 'em for you later. IIRC, St. Cyprian is the author of one such passage; Maximos the Confessor of another; and there are others as well.

God bless,

ZT