After Vatican I, communion with the successor of Peter requires belief in infallibility.
I would suggest this has always been a connection.
C:
And this is the problem. Make communion with any one See essential, and you short-circuit discussion of any of the specific things taught by that See.
The communion was required from the beginning. As you know, Ignatius said Rome held the presidency. Irenaeus says all must agree with Rome becuse it’s what has been taught by the apostles and those bishops who were in their succession. That was a focus in “Against heresies”. If these 2 were Western bishops one could sarcastically infer this is a Western overreach. But these bishops were from the East. Ignatius didn’t refer to his Church in Antioch as the one presiding. And Irenaeus didn’t say all must agree with Antioch
C:
I have mixed feelings about this. In the past I have justified this by saying that personal communion is more important than abstract doctrine. But however often I come back to this issue, and however much longing for union with Rome I feel, I can’t accept the idea that all the problematic developments of second-millennium Western Christianity have to be swallowed on faith just because of Matt. 16 and similar passages.
Abstract = things apart from concrete realities, that are obtuse, & speculative
Every doctrine the CC teaches, is explained. No one is asked to believe without explanation.
C:
I think that Catholic apologists are going for an “easy out” when they use this argument, and I think it actually makes their position appear weak.
It’s not easy condensing 2000 years of history into a short answer or 2. So I would agree, there are times when someone might go for an easy out answer.
But even Jesus going face to face, couldn’t convince everyone He taught. {Jn 6:66]Some people, even His own followers won’t budge, and they leave.
C:
Because every “smoking gun” can be explained away, given that naturally you guys get to define what is “infallibility” and what sort of error would “count.”
Infallibility is defined very specifically. It is not a broad general understanding. Those who attack the doctrine want it to be broad and general. That’s NOT how the Church defines it. Therefore, opponants end up building a strawman.
C:
The Pope has taught a number of things that are pretty hard to defend theologically, like the doctrine of indulgences (not talking about the corruptions here but about the basic teaching regarding the treasury of merit, and the whole idea of a judicial “temporal punishment” that can be remitted by the Church, as opposed to purgation as an extension of the sanctification process). Of course one can’t “prove” that they are errors. But their fruit doesn’t look good, and they don’t seem well justified by Scripture and Tradition. What more can one say?
Indulgences are easy to explain.
But let me ask you, why pray for the dead? Think about it. Do souls in heaven need our prayers? No. They have EVERYTHING!!! Do souls in hell need our prayers? What for? They’re damned and never getting out. So why pray for the dead? Why does scripture teach pray for the dead? Maybe we should start there
C:
And if you look more broadly at the Pope’s role in “strengthening the brethren,” it seems clear that Popes have often failed.
Absolutely. Did Jesus take the keys of the kingdom away from Peter after HE fell? No. Did Jesus say I’m no longer going to build my Church on you Peter? No. Jesus said I’m praying specifically for you Peter, NOT that you wouldn’t fall, but that when you fall, after you regain yourself, turn and strengthen THEM (the apostles) after THEY fall.
C:
My point is that Orthodox and Protestants have no obligation to examine this on your own terms.
Sure they do. If one isn’t united to Peter, can they even presume to be in the Church? (Cyprian on unity, paraphrased )
C:
That’s why I’m happy, with you, to set aside the infallibility issue. Of course it can’t be disproven.
The fact it can’t be disproven after 2000 years, with all the documents there are to study, doesn’t that tell you something?
C:
But when considering whether the history of the Church bears out the idea that communion with Rome is the one essential mark of the true Church, I think there are plenty of reasons to doubt.
This was an early and explicit instruction in history by Irenaeus. If you weren’t united to Rome you were the one Irenaeus was writing against in “Against Heresies”
C:
That isn’t needed to make my case, which is simply that *if *Rome has in fact erred, it does not follow that Jesus lied.
That’s too broad. The doctrine isn’t broad in scope it’s tight. The restrictions are clear.
C:
There are plenty of claims that I can’t easily prove wrong. If Elwood P. Dowd tells me that a six-foot invisible rabbit (who is also intangible and inaudible, etc.) who follows him everywhere, then I can’t prove him wrong.
The CC doesn’t teach doctrine to the entire Church without clearly explaining what is to be believed.
C:
I’m an Anglican by default, not because I think that Anglicanism is the true Church (actually no one thinks that) or a fully functional branch of the Church. At best, Anglicanism may not be qualitatively more defective than any other church, but I find even that hard to maintain.
Edwin
No disrespect, but to reduce something so important, that has eternal consequences, to mere default, is hugely unrealistic from one who obviously has much study under their belt.
***
