Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism’s Infallibility Problem

[Peter_J]

unconditional recipient ? like the Holy Spirit is ?

PS your points are always welcome.

I mean that he exercised infallibility when he wrote First and Second Peter.

I welcome your points as well. Indeed I consider you a real blessing to this forum – probably a lot more so than I would be on a Protestant forum.

 

[Abu]

steido01 #8
Every Catholic argument boils down to the same tired essence: you don’t have a pope, so what did you replace him with? But that’s such a Romo-centric view of the church, that it doesn’t take into account that it is possible to hold to an ecclesiology that does not require a fallible, sinful, human being to determine doctrine. Your question asks the same thing. I’m no pope. Lutheranism has no pope. Lutheranism needs no pope.

The poster has confused the Christo-centric mandate with his warped “view”.

The Christ didn’t prevaricate nor speculate – Jesus is God, and as God gave us His own Church when He proclaimed:
All four promises to Peter alone
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].
**
Sole authority**
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

So no one else was given this supreme authority given to Christ’s Supreme Vicar – “a sinful, human being to determine doctrine” by Christ’s personal explicit command. So if “Lutheranism needs no pope” it’s errors naturally follow without God’s guarantee of truth in dogma and doctrine.

Benhur #15
The presumption is on the CC’s part, that they are right with the missing link to the problem, the infallible papacy, which in turn justifies the very church that proclaimed the office in the first place. That is circular.

There is no “missing link” except in the imagination, since God guaranteed the infallibility of His Catholic Church (see above) when teaching dogma and doctrine to the whole Church, so there is no “circular” “presumption”.

Benhur #16
only God is infallible on this side of life.

Since the infallible God gave us His [MY] Catholic Church (see above) guaranteeing Her binding and loosing, who are you to presume that He promulgated a monstrous lie?

 

[benhur]

Since the infallible God gave us His [MY] Catholic Church (see above) guaranteeing Her binding and loosing, who are you to presume that He promulgated a monstrous lie?

Hi A’

The only guarantee is that what is bound in heaven we may bind on earth, and not the other way around . The guarantee is therefore conditional.

There is no “missing link” except in the imagination, since God guaranteed the infallibility of His Catholic Church (see above) when teaching dogma and doctrine to the whole Church, so there is no “circular” “presumption”.

True, but only in your paradigm, where there are no other legit churches.

Blessings

 

[steido01]

You must only read certain Catholic arguments, because I have seen plenty that do not boil down to that, right here on this forum.

When Catholic vs. “Protestant,” that is almost exclusively the argument, when distilled to the common denominator.

Of course it’s possible to hold such an ecclesiology, and Protestantism shows this. And nowhere has the author of that article ever stated that it was impossible,

It’s also ‘possible’ that dolphins are secretly running the world and using us for our fish reserves. You know what I meant, and if you’re going to be so pedantic about the exact words I’ve used, we’re going to have a very brief conversation.

Protestantism, and Orthodoxy for that matter show that it is possible to hold that view.

And many brilliant theologians have held to those beliefs to the very end. As those in the article’s comments have noted (yes, I finished it), the “issue” of authority is only an issue to Roman Catholics; Orthodox and “Protestants” don’t see it that way.

I think everyone should hold the view that we don’t need fallible people making doctrines, if the Holy Spirit is not guiding them. But since the parameters you set did not include the Holy Spirit, your statement in no way address, or disproves the Catholic view on Papal infallibility, or the infallibility of ecumenical councils.

I wasn’t setting out to do so. But you can safely assume that the Holy Spirit is involved in the leading if the church.

Without this charism of infallibility, we are truly left with blindly determining what we ourselves think at the moment is correct. We can pick and choose what doctrines we want to follow (truly the sheep in charge).

And we’ve reverted to that common denominator. That didn’t take too long. Straw man the “Protestant” view, because all “Protestants” simply allow personal interpretation to rule, entirely apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because they don’t have a pope.

But you did make a blanket statement for all of Protestantism about that article, one which I called into question. And that statement prompted my question if you spoke for all of Protestantism when you made that statement.

You’ll note that I’ve been careful to place “Protestantism” in quotes, as I wish the writer of this sorry article would’ve done. Since he addressed all of “Protestantism” as if it were one monolithic body and blamed Luther (and implicitly Lutherans) for doctrines that belonged to neither the man nor the tradition, it only made sense that I’d respond as I did. “Protestantism” does not and never has existed; it’s a meaningless catch-all term useful for Roman Catholics seeking a clever “Gotcha!” attack. And that fact superfluous to this thread

 

[Duane1966]

YEP, only God is infallible on this side of life.

Since you are a fallible person, there maybe error in that statement. Unless of course, fallible people can make statements that are infallible some of the time. Otherwise, you can never trust any statement by anyone.

 

[Abu]

“Protestantism” does not and never has existed; it’s a meaningless catch-all term useful for Roman Catholics seeking a clever “Gotcha!” attack. And that fact superfluous to this thread.

Now for the reality.

PROTESTANTISM. The system of faith, worship, and practice derived from the principles of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. As a name, it comes from the Protestatio of the Reformers at the Diet of Speyer (1529) against the decisions of the Catholic majority that no further religious innovations were to be introduced. Although now divided into hundreds of denominations, the original families of Protestantism were only five: the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Zwinglian on the Continent, and the Anglican and Free Church or Congregational in Great Britain. Three premises of Protestantism have remained fairly constant, namely, the Bible as the only rule of faith, excluding tradition and Church authority; justification by faith alone, excluding supernatural merit and good works; and the universal priesthood of believers, excluding a distinct episcopacy or priesthood divinely empowered through ordination to teach, govern, and sanctify the people of God. (Etym. Latin protestari, to profess one’s belief in or against something, to witness to.)
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

**270. Was the Diet of Spires held under Catholic or Protestant auspices?
**Under Catholic auspices. It was convened by Charles V., a Catholic sovereign, chiefly to secure temporal peace. In 1517 Luther had broken into open revolt against the Catholic Church, preaching new and heretical doctrines. Charles V. became Emperor in 1520. Many German states, anxious to revolt politically against Charles, followed the new religious revolt of Luther. Chaos reigned in Germany. The Emperor was anxious for political peace; the Pope was anxious to stop the corruption of Catholicism by the preaching of these new doctrines. Charles, therefore, called a Diet or general assembly of all the lesser German princes at Spires in 1529. Pope Clement VII. urged Charles to take up the cause of the Catholic religion at the same time, and in reference to religion, the Diet made three main propositions. The celebration of Mass was to be permitted in those states where Protestants had forbidden it. The reformers were to be free to practice their new religion in those states where it had already been accepted, but it was not to be propagated beyond those states. No sect which denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist could be tolerated. The vast majority of Protestants at the Diet approved these laws, **but the evangelical minority, whilst accepting the third law, refused to permit Mass, and to refrain from preaching Protestantism to still Catholic peoples. They formally protested that the religion of the people in a given place must be the religion of the temporal ruler of the country, and it is from this protest at the Diet of Spires in 1529 that the word Protestant is derived. It was a protest against freedom of conscience, and against the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church, as well as against the temporal authority of Charles V.
**[My emphasis].
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Protestantism&db=1

 

[steido01]

Now for the reality.

PROTESTANTISM. The [various] system of faith, worship, and practice derived from the [various and not necessarily common] principles of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. As a name, it comes from the Protestatio of the Reformers at the Diet of Speyer [Lutherans, generally, to be specific] (1529) against the decisions of the Catholic majority that -]no further religious innovations were to be introduced/-] [people could read, print and even believe Lutheran works without fear of death or confiscation of all property]. -]Although now divided into hundreds of denominations,/-] the original families of Protestantism were -]only five-] many: the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Zwinglian on the Continent, and the Anglican and Free Church or Congregational in Great Britain.

There, fixed. And thanks for proving my point. “Protestantism,” used as Fr. Hardon does here and how the author of the article does in the OP, does not exist. It’s a blanket term used to describe very different communions of Christians. Try as Roman Catholic polemicists might to paint it as a single entity that has splintered into pieces, the fact is that even Fr. Hardon must admit the label is only a shade away from arbitrary, as it includes almost every non-Roman Catholic, Western Christian or Christianity-based cult. Blanket terms are utterly useless when discussing ecclesial matters like church structure, governance and authority - things that are specific to an individual tradition or communion. For example, Lutherans have much more in common with Roman Catholics than Anabaptists. Does that mean Roman Catholics should be in an arbitrary group with Lutherans?

 

[Abu]

As we saw, it is from this protest at the Diet of Spires in 1529 that the word Protestant is derived. It was a protest against freedom of conscience, and against the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church, as well as against the temporal authority of Charles V.

Blithely ignored also, for idle chatter, is the stark warning of Jesus Himself: “For false Christ’s and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” (Mk 13:22). Just as Christ founding His Church on St Peter, and giving him His authority is ignored.

The great Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote of Luther’s contempt for the Sacrament of Holy Orders: “all the bitterness of the young reformer against the existing priesthood in such shocking exclamations” as the following; “O you princes, not of the Catholic Church, but of the synagogue of Satan, yes of darkness.” [Cited in *Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius, 1987, p 261, from Luther’s Babylonian Captivity].

The rejection by Martin Luther of the treasures of Catholicism for his own feelings is evidence enough of the wisdom of Christ in establishing St Peter and His Magisterium to teach, sanctify and rule.

The faithful are trying to follow the Christ who taught and expressed and emphasized exactly the same truth:
“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in Me through their word, that they all may be one as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee…. That the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me (Jn 17:20-21).

 

[steido01]

As we saw, it is from this protest at the Diet of Spires in 1529 that the word Protestant is derived. It was a protest against freedom of conscience, and against the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church, as well as against the temporal authority of Charles V.

I’m not going to respond to your partial quote of Ratzinger or your general Luther-bashing.

But I will respond to a misstatement of history. The Diet of Speyer was precisely for freedom of conscience; without its decision to legalize “Protestantism,” princes, priests and common folk were bound to side with the pope regardless of whether it went against their conscience. And, as one wise monk once said, “To stand against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

 

[Duane1966]

Hi Duane,

One thing is the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit (to which we all agree), another is to suggest an infallible recipient (council, or office) . He is unconditionally right, not an office or council or individual.Yet it is possible, and He is glorified when we do ‘get it right’.

Hi Ben,

Can you prove, that under the parameters that the Catholic Church has established for papal infallibility, that the charism could not exist? Are you saying that, one man, guided by the Holy Spirit, should not be allowed to establish doctrine binding on the faithful, under the strict parameters that the Church has set forth? Can you show me where that dogma of papal infallibility goes against scripture?

We do not need our infallibility to “see”. A broken and contrite heart seeking Him is not put to shame.

Without infallibility, are you seeing a true picture?

Blessings

Back at ya

 

[Duane1966]

And many brilliant theologians have held to those beliefs to the very end. As those in the article’s comments have noted (yes, I finished it), the “issue” of authority is only an issue to Roman Catholics; Orthodox and “Protestants” don’t see it that way.

Actually, those brilliant theologians differ on what makes a council ecumenical. The main thrust of that article stands. What is the set criteria for Orthodox, and Protestants who believe that some of the councils are ecumenical, for determining what makes a council ecumenical in their eyes?

And we’ve reverted to that common denominator. That didn’t take too long. Straw man the “Protestant” view, because all “Protestants” simply allow personal interpretation to rule, entirely apart from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because they don’t have a pope.

I was quite clear that I was talking about the infallibility of an ecumenical council. You seem to have a papal obsession.

You’ll note that I’ve been careful to place “Protestantism” in quotes, as I wish the writer of this sorry article would’ve done. Since he addressed all of “Protestantism” as if it were one monolithic body and blamed Luther (and implicitly Lutherans) for doctrines that belonged to neither the man nor the tradition, it only made sense that I’d respond as I did. “Protestantism” does not and never has existed; it’s a meaningless catch-all term useful for Roman Catholics seeking a clever “Gotcha!” attack. And that fact superfluous to this thread

Again, was the author of this article supposed to ferret out what every Protestant denomination believes about ecumenical councils, and address them separately? Perhaps he should have said “some Protestants hold this view about councils, and some Protestants hold that view”. There are Protestant readers of that blog, who did not seem to take offense the way that you did.

For all your trashing of the article, you still have not answered it’s main question.

All in all a thought provoking article to my mind.

 

[Peter_J]

I was somewhat “drifting” w.r.t. interest in this thread, but I perked up a tad when I saw your mention of Fr. Hardon (bit of a change from the “This blogger said this … That blogger said that.” conversations that we all know and love ).

There, fixed. And thanks for proving my point. “Protestantism,” used as Fr. Hardon does here and how the author of the article does in the OP, does not exist. It’s a blanket term used to describe very different communions of Christians. Try as Roman Catholic polemicists might to paint it as a single entity that has splintered into pieces, the fact is that even Fr. Hardon must admit the label is only a shade away from arbitrary, as it includes almost every non-Roman Catholic, Western Christian or Christianity-based cult. Blanket terms are utterly useless when discussing ecclesial matters like church structure, governance and authority - things that are specific to an individual tradition or communion. For example, Lutherans have much more in common with Roman Catholics than Anabaptists. Does that mean Roman Catholics should be in an arbitrary group with Lutherans?

Does your question indicate that you want us to stop including Lutherans (and Anglicans) along with Orthodox and Catholics in the term “catholics”?

 

[steido01]

Actually, those brilliant theologians differ on what makes a council ecumenical. The main thrust of that article stands. What is the set criteria for Orthodox, and Protestants who believe that some of the councils are ecumenical, for determining what makes a council ecumenical in their eyes?

Obviously it differs. That’s why it’s absurd to lump them all together, as the author does, simply because they don’t share communion with the Pope of Rome. Each group would have its own reasoning. It is illogical to expect, say, Jews and Hindus to agree on the nature of God simply because they are not Christians. Why demand something from a group that doesn’t exist? Or, more foolishly, expect me to answer for those I do not represent?

Again, was the author of this article supposed to ferret out what every Protestant denomination believes about ecumenical councils, and address them separately? Perhaps he should have said “some Protestants hold this view about councils, and some Protestants hold that view”. There are Protestant readers of that blog, who did not seem to take offense the way that you did.

Perhaps he could have picked a given “Protestant” denomination or specific Orthodox communion, and engaged fairly with their actual beliefs. Instead, he fought windmills of his own invention. Always easier to debate a non-exists enemy. This ‘Intentional Quixotism’ would be comical, if it weren’t taken so seriously.

For all your trashing of the article, you still have not answered it’s main question.

Nor can I. Nor can anyone, for that matter – because the question is a lie predicated on a fabrication.

 

[steido01]

Does your question indicate that you want us to stop including Lutherans (and Anglicans) along with Orthodox and Catholics in the term “catholics”?

Why would I deny the use of a descriptive and useful term? That term is useful to distinguish from those Christian communities who do not understand the church catholic to contain four historic marks or to exist even outside of their specific communion (even if heterodox or in a less-complete way).

“Protestant,” on the other hand, is used to cover everything from Anglo-Catholic to the First United Church of Mr. Popper’s Penguins. It’s a meaningless word.

 

[benhur]

Can you prove, that under the parameters that the Catholic Church has established for papal infallibility, that the charism could not exist?

Hi Duane,

No.

But faith is not proof but substance of evidence, of things not seen.

“Let us not suppose that because God can, that He did”, from a patristic writing.

Are you saying that, one man, guided by the Holy Spirit, should not be allowed to establish doctrine binding on the faithful, under the strict parameters that the Church has set forth?

Yes.

It would be nice, however. The Israelites wanted things nice, like their neighbors, and adopted a king rulership. I guess God appointing judges, and prophets, and teachers, (or twelve apostles ?), or even Himself (or the Paraclete ?), wasn’t enough.

Can you show me where that dogma of papal infallibility goes against scripture?

Well, that would require an extensive reply. But suffice it to say both our views are not explicit, but implicit thru out respective interpretations. And that not only of scripture, but history itself, and patristic writings.

Without infallibility, are you seeing a true picture?

I don’t know about you but I am between two realities. John in his epistle says we “have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things”. On the other hand, the blessed Paul says we now “see thru a glass darkly”.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

Why would I deny the use of a descriptive and useful term? That term is useful to distinguish from those Christian communities who do not understand the church catholic to contain four historic marks or to exist even outside of their specific communion (even if heterodox or in a less-complete way).

“Protestant,” on the other hand, is used to cover everything from Anglo-Catholic to the First United Church of Mr. Popper’s Penguins. It’s a meaningless word.

You have a point, but I don’t think it’s very strong.

The real problem is not the word “Protestant” itself, but the fact that many people get carried away using it.

Also, note that the word “catholic” includes: Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman-Rite Catholics, Eastern Catholics, SSPX (arguably already included in the category of [traditionalist] Roman-Rite Catholics), sedevacantists, conclavists … and may include Methodists, depending whom you ask.

(Of course to be consistent I should write “protestant”, but the convention to capitalize it seems so strong that I generally don’t bother going against it.)

 

[benhur]

I mean that he exercised infallibility when he wrote First and Second Peter.

I welcome your points as well. Indeed I consider you a real blessing to this forum – probably a lot more so than I would be on a Protestant forum.

Lol, I am slow. Did not get that. Absolutely at least twice then.

And thank you for your kind comment

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Since you are a fallible person, there maybe error in that statement. Unless of course, fallible people can make statements that are infallible some of the time. Otherwise, you can never trust any statement by anyone.

Hi D,

Absolutely. That is why it is best to proclaim somebody else’s Word who is more qualified to be infallible.

Blessings

 

[Augustine]

All four promises to Peter alone
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].
**
Sole authority**
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Honestly, to other Christians, who don’t read with Catholic glasses, such quotes make a very strong case for St. Peter’s primacy, a strong case for the primacy of his successors, a feeble case for his authority and a very weak case for his supremacy.

Methinks that recognizing our Catholic bias is less irritating to other Christians and thus more fruitful.

Pax Christi

 

[Abu]

Augustine #39
Honestly, to other Christians, who don’t read with Catholic glasses, such quotes make a very strong case for St. Peter’s primacy, a strong case for the primacy of his successors, a feeble case for his authority and a very weak case for his supremacy.

“a feeble case for his authority and a very weak case for his supremacy.” (?)

Who else has the authority conferred on Peter By Christ?

Who has the supremacy that Christ conferred on St Peter?

“Catholic glasses” are not required, but assenting to Jesus is.