J
jinc1019
Guest
Dear Cathoholic,
First, I commend you for at least putting up reasonable arguments in comparison to some others here.
Second, I don’t disagree with you that Mardukm needs to address the situations you presented more clearly. He did somewhat address the issue already by essentially agreeing with SOME of your position. I certainly don’t want to speak FOR Mardukm, and I am sure he will correct me if am wrong when he returns, but I believe where Mardukm is leading me (well, everyone, but he was addressing me specifically) was down the following road: Historically, when the Pope and the bishops (any number of them, even a minority) agree on an issue and present a unified doctrine, the Pope and bishops have eventually won the day and been recognized as having authority (at least prior to the Great Schism, which he deliberately left out of the equation with the intention of addressing it later). So, assuming I understand him correctly, I would say that he agrees with you that the Pope with any group of bishops is held authoritative over even a majority of dissenting bishops. I could be wrong about that, but I don’t think I am. Even so, I hope he will address it.
Third, where you and Mardukm absolutely disagree is with the last third or so of your position, which states that the Pope alone can be the Magisterium even if every other bishop in the world disagrees. Mardukm would argue (I think) and I would agree that such a scenario is impossible because it would violate Jesus’ teaching that the “gates of hades shall not prevail.” If the entire Church abandons the Pope, the Church ceases to exist and the promise has been broken. It has never happened and it will never happen. That, I think, is his position on that issue.
However, you make a strong point: At what point then do we argue that enough bishops have left the Pope for the Church to fail and for the Magisterium to fall? That’s a fair question. Is it 15%, 10%, 1%? Is it a number? At least 5 bishops must be in communion? 11? 20?
I am interested to see how Mardukm would answer this, but given his prior answers, I would guess it would be similar to the answer I just gave you about 1 Pope with the rest of the dissenting bishops against him. Although there is no specific number, percentage etc., Jesus promised that the Church would be protected from the “gates of Hades,” which leads everyone to understand that there must clearly ALWAYS be a Church with which Christians can identify and know exists. In other words, Jesus not only promises that the Church will prevail; he must also be promising that in the case of dissention, we will all be able to know who the Church really is. In other words, how can the Church prevail if the Church has been so torn apart and broken that no one can actually identify what the Church looks like and who is in/out of it? You would say, “Well yeah, it’s always easy to see because it’s wherever the Pope is,” but I think that denies the reality of what the Church was for the first 1,000 years of its existence.
Prior to mass media, television, the Internet, print publications, etc…the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world for hundreds upon hundreds of years probably had absolutely no understanding of the Pope and were well out of reach of his influence. They would never in this environment identify the Church as ONLY that which is in communion with Peter…and history has shown that they didn’t. Many different Christian churches broke away from communion with Rome or were forced out at one time or another. Some Christians cared but most did not since the only leader who really mattered to them was the local bishop. This, regardless of theology, is practically true and absolutely a fact. The Pope had very little direct influence on the average Christian for much of the first 1,000 years at least (especially outside of Italy). It’s also a fact that many of the other bishops and patriarchs routinely dismissed the Pope or ignored him…In some cases, they even forced him to change his position. These are historical facts, and they show that the kind of power and authority many of you on here are claiming for the Pope simply didn’t exist in the Early Church. You could argue it should have, but you can’t argue it actually did exist.
Personally, I don’t know if I can accept the idea that the Pope and a small minority of bishops could actually be guaranteed to proclaim the true faith. Why? Because if the 85% of the bishops have fallen away from the “true” faith, that means that the Church has basically been corrupted and the “gates of Hades” have essentially prevailed. I don’t know how you could argue otherwise. If you are going to say the “gates of Hades” have not prevailed until ALL, including the Pope, have fallen away, then that totally undermines your argument that the Pope MUST teach infallibly at all times or else the “gates of Hades” have prevailed. You can’t argue that one lie by the Pope is the “gates of Hades” prevailing but 4,000 bishops falling away EXCEPT one Pope is not.
Not to mention, how could you possibly reconcile your belief with the promise Jesus made that “when two or three speak in my name, I am there”? Think about it…Jesus promised all of the Apostles together that he would be there for them when they spoke in his name…It’s impossible then that they could all fall away and leave behind one Pope.
I understand and appreciate your arguments, but I just don’t see how you reconcile the historical treatment of the Pope in the first 800 years of the Church by many, and in some cases most, other bishops. They didn’t, clearly, have the kind of view of his authority that you do today. I also don’t understand how you reconcile your position with Jesus’ promise that “when two or three speak in my name, I am there…”
First, I commend you for at least putting up reasonable arguments in comparison to some others here.
Second, I don’t disagree with you that Mardukm needs to address the situations you presented more clearly. He did somewhat address the issue already by essentially agreeing with SOME of your position. I certainly don’t want to speak FOR Mardukm, and I am sure he will correct me if am wrong when he returns, but I believe where Mardukm is leading me (well, everyone, but he was addressing me specifically) was down the following road: Historically, when the Pope and the bishops (any number of them, even a minority) agree on an issue and present a unified doctrine, the Pope and bishops have eventually won the day and been recognized as having authority (at least prior to the Great Schism, which he deliberately left out of the equation with the intention of addressing it later). So, assuming I understand him correctly, I would say that he agrees with you that the Pope with any group of bishops is held authoritative over even a majority of dissenting bishops. I could be wrong about that, but I don’t think I am. Even so, I hope he will address it.
Third, where you and Mardukm absolutely disagree is with the last third or so of your position, which states that the Pope alone can be the Magisterium even if every other bishop in the world disagrees. Mardukm would argue (I think) and I would agree that such a scenario is impossible because it would violate Jesus’ teaching that the “gates of hades shall not prevail.” If the entire Church abandons the Pope, the Church ceases to exist and the promise has been broken. It has never happened and it will never happen. That, I think, is his position on that issue.
However, you make a strong point: At what point then do we argue that enough bishops have left the Pope for the Church to fail and for the Magisterium to fall? That’s a fair question. Is it 15%, 10%, 1%? Is it a number? At least 5 bishops must be in communion? 11? 20?
I am interested to see how Mardukm would answer this, but given his prior answers, I would guess it would be similar to the answer I just gave you about 1 Pope with the rest of the dissenting bishops against him. Although there is no specific number, percentage etc., Jesus promised that the Church would be protected from the “gates of Hades,” which leads everyone to understand that there must clearly ALWAYS be a Church with which Christians can identify and know exists. In other words, Jesus not only promises that the Church will prevail; he must also be promising that in the case of dissention, we will all be able to know who the Church really is. In other words, how can the Church prevail if the Church has been so torn apart and broken that no one can actually identify what the Church looks like and who is in/out of it? You would say, “Well yeah, it’s always easy to see because it’s wherever the Pope is,” but I think that denies the reality of what the Church was for the first 1,000 years of its existence.
Prior to mass media, television, the Internet, print publications, etc…the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world for hundreds upon hundreds of years probably had absolutely no understanding of the Pope and were well out of reach of his influence. They would never in this environment identify the Church as ONLY that which is in communion with Peter…and history has shown that they didn’t. Many different Christian churches broke away from communion with Rome or were forced out at one time or another. Some Christians cared but most did not since the only leader who really mattered to them was the local bishop. This, regardless of theology, is practically true and absolutely a fact. The Pope had very little direct influence on the average Christian for much of the first 1,000 years at least (especially outside of Italy). It’s also a fact that many of the other bishops and patriarchs routinely dismissed the Pope or ignored him…In some cases, they even forced him to change his position. These are historical facts, and they show that the kind of power and authority many of you on here are claiming for the Pope simply didn’t exist in the Early Church. You could argue it should have, but you can’t argue it actually did exist.
Personally, I don’t know if I can accept the idea that the Pope and a small minority of bishops could actually be guaranteed to proclaim the true faith. Why? Because if the 85% of the bishops have fallen away from the “true” faith, that means that the Church has basically been corrupted and the “gates of Hades” have essentially prevailed. I don’t know how you could argue otherwise. If you are going to say the “gates of Hades” have not prevailed until ALL, including the Pope, have fallen away, then that totally undermines your argument that the Pope MUST teach infallibly at all times or else the “gates of Hades” have prevailed. You can’t argue that one lie by the Pope is the “gates of Hades” prevailing but 4,000 bishops falling away EXCEPT one Pope is not.
Not to mention, how could you possibly reconcile your belief with the promise Jesus made that “when two or three speak in my name, I am there”? Think about it…Jesus promised all of the Apostles together that he would be there for them when they spoke in his name…It’s impossible then that they could all fall away and leave behind one Pope.
I understand and appreciate your arguments, but I just don’t see how you reconcile the historical treatment of the Pope in the first 800 years of the Church by many, and in some cases most, other bishops. They didn’t, clearly, have the kind of view of his authority that you do today. I also don’t understand how you reconcile your position with Jesus’ promise that “when two or three speak in my name, I am there…”
