Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[spina1953]

I just want to point out that in an earlier post it was said that the patriarch of Constantinople was a successor of St. Andrew. However, this is not true as for one thing St. Andrew the Apostles dies long before there was a Constantinople as it was built in the 300’sAD by the emperor Constantine. The reason it was said to be so was to elevate the Patriarch to the status equal to that of Rome because of the political thinking that Constantinople was considered the new Rome. Instead the patriarch was given second status to Rome.

I will have something on what the OP asked in the morning.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I just want to point out that in an earlier post it was said that the patriarch of Constantinople was a successor of St. Andrew. However, this is not true as for one thing St. Andrew the Apostles dies long before there was a Constantinople as it was built in the 300’sAD by the emperor Constantine. The reason it was said to be so was to elevate the Patriarch to the status equal to that of Rome because of the political thinking that Constantinople was considered the new Rome. Instead the patriarch was given second status to Rome.

That’s a fair point, Spina. However, Christianity was active in the Byzantium region in the first century, and it is from this ancient see (founded ostensibly by St Andrew) on which the patriarch of Constantinople bases his episcopacy.

 

[pablope]

Jonathan,

Excellent post. I really enjoyed reading it and greatly respect your argument!

 

[steve_b]

That’s a fair point, Spina. However, Christianity was active in the Byzantium region in the first century, and it is from this ancient see (founded ostensibly by St Andrew) on which the patriarch of Constantinople bases his episcopacy.

It maybe legend not fact concerning Andrew. catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

 

[pablope]

Thanks for this…However, the problem with all of these arguments is that it assumes the authority of Peter gets passed down to his successors. Why? Why can’t Peter have been the chief apostle without that role passing to his successors?

Well…for one thing…from this passage…1 John 4:6

6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

How would you apply this passage today? How would you sort out from the many “us” who would should speak singularly for the Church?

If there is no one who succeeded the chief…If all the “us” claimed to be the equal to the chief…or were all chiefs…what do you think would happen?

 

[DavidFilmer]

First of all, congratulations on your 5,000th post

Thank you.

But, to be fair…I think there are many logical reasons for rejecting papal authority. First, popes have and will likely in the future abuse their power.

Popes in history HAVE abused the power of their office. Google the phrase, “reign of harlots” or Alexander-4 for some really good examples. No informed Catholic would deny this charge. ALL Popes are sinners. Some of their sins have been more public than others. I am confident in stating that John Paul the Great was a sinner, and he would not have denied it. But his sin is known only to his Confessor (by tradition, a Dominican priest), who will not disclose it. All Popes, and all Saints (excepting the Blessed Virgin) are sinners.

But, did ANY of these publicly sinful Popes attempt to enshrine his sin into Catholic Doctrine? No.

Second, if the pope doesn’t have supreme authority, then the question must be asked: Who does and how can they express that authority?

The question is based on the assumption that the Pope does not have supreme authority. If the (Roman) Catholic Church is correct, then your question is nonsense. If the Greek Orthodox (among others) is correct, then it is a very good question indeed. Buy it warrens its own post (which has been posted here at least a hundred times).

Third, for the same reasons I don’t support monarchial forms of government, it’s reasonable NOT to support monarchial forms of church structure.

But your reasons for not supporting monarchical forms of government cannot apply to the Catholic Church. We agree that the Pope is an absolute monarch (according to the definition presented in the CIA World FactBook), but the Pope is an ELECTED monarch. Can you cite ANY other monarchy in the world in which the monarch is ELECTED by the people he would rule?

Those (and there are many more) are logical reasons for rejecting papal authority.

Logic is just another word for philosophy.

Your reasons fall short of philosophical analysis.

Let me be clear though…these logical reasons do not make it right. Surely one could imagine all sorts of logical reasons why God in the Old Testament should have done one thing or another that we fallible humans can’t understand. Just because something has certain logical points against it, doesn’t mean there are not logical reasons for it as well. I fully admit that are many advantages to having a Pope (just like there are many advantages to having a king).

You seem to make my own case for me. Upon which points do we disagree?

 

[jinc1019]

Jinc1019,

I think you have received many good responses to answer your question so rather than reiterate the excellent points others have made to answer you I would like to add this. In Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Galatians, 1 and 2 Peter and Acts Peter’s name (Peter, Simon, Cephas all referring to the same person) is mentioned about 195 times. John is the next most often mentioned at about 48 times. Add this to all the other points and it seems a logical conclusion that Jesus meant Peter to have a unique role. Look to Jesus words at what that role is and we see even further that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and as such so too are the valid Popes who succeeded him in the office.

Great argument…However, it assumes that Peter’s authority gets handed down…Assuming Peter had a unique authority over the other Apostles, why would that mean his successors also had that authority?

 

[jinc1019]

Dear Justin,

A more basic question is what do YOU think “papal authority” means or entails?

There are two competing views in Catholicism:
(1) The Absolutist Petrine view, which places the Pope above and beyond his brother bishops and councils, to the point of pretending that the Pope can UNILATERALLY decide matters for the Church.

(2) The High Petrine view, which places the Pope’s authority squarely within, and only within, the context of the divinely-instituted College of hierarchs. This is the ACTUAL teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter.

There is no logical nor patristic support for the Absolutist Petrine view. Probably 95% of the time, non-Catholics will be arguing against the Absolutist Petrine view. And, frankly, I, and many Catholics. support many of their arguments ----- on the other hand, there are also non-Catholic Low Petrine advocates who go the opposite extreme, and are just as illogical and unpatristic in their opinions.

The High Petrine view is, as the name suggests, the middle ground between the extremes of the Absolutist and Low Petrine views.

If you have questions about these three positions, here is a primer:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=833565&highlight=Petrine+views

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,
You bring up a wonderful point, and I need to examine the issue more carefully before responding.

 

[jinc1019]

Anglicanism

1. it is imploding so I’m not sure how you could possibly even consider them.
2. they have taught contradictory truths on morality. They can’t have been right to denounce birth control and gay marriage and have been right to support those same things. Thus, they have taught error.
3. But Christ’s Church can never teach error.
4. Therefore, Anglicanism cannot be Christ’s Church.

Eastern Orthodoxy

1. Which EO Church do you think is the ONE founded by Christ? Why that one instead of the others?
2. Why isn’t the “Robber Council” an Ecumenical Council?

Hi PietroPaolo,

First, your view of Anglicanism is very limited to only one wing of the church. Many Anglicans are orthodox.

Secondly, who says a singular EO church must be the ONE church? Why can’t the world’s collective bishops or even Christians be the ONE church? There is only ONE America but there are many different political views within it.

 

[pablope]

Great argument…However, it assumes that Peter’s authority gets handed down…Assuming Peter had a unique authority over the other Apostles, why would that mean his successors also had that authority?

Can you cite the reason or reasons that the successor of Peter would not have the same authority of Peter

Even Orthodox bishops who succeeded their predeseccors have the same authority as the prior bishop…and a metropolitan succeeding a metropolitan would have the same authority as the preceeding metropolitan…so why not the same for the bishop of Rome?

 

[jinc1019]

Yes. Binding and Loosing WAS granted to ALL the Apostles. No problems there. Here’s where it can get tricky for some people; the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN were given to St. Peter ALONE. (please see Matthew 16:18-19)

The KEYS are a very Biblical symbol of authority. If Jesus Christ is indeed the King of the Universe (Amen! Hail to Christ the King!), then for Him to give the Keys to a mere mortal is a huge moment in Salvation History. There are two other instances of keys being mentioned in the Bible that I know of… Here they are;

1. Isaiah 22:19-24: I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family; On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.
2. Revelation 3:7-8: "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this: " 'The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this: '"I know your works (behold, I have left an open door before you, which no one can close). You have limited strength, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.

Both passages discuss authority. The Old Testament passage is indicative of an OFFICE, and TRANSFERRABLE AUTHORITY. The Old Testament foreshadows the New, and the New Testament fulfills the Old. The passage from Revelation speaks of the Key of David, which is the Key to the City of David, which is the New Jerusalem, which is the Kingdom of Heaven, over which Jesus Christ has SUPREME Authority.

For Christ to delegate some of this authority to someone as lowly as Peter, is nothing short of remarkable. Mind you, Jesus does NOT RELINQUISH His Authority; but rather commissions St. Peter to oversee the Church on Earth. What kind of a King would leave His Earthly Kingdom completely unattended while He went to His Heavenly Kingdom?

In John 21:15-17, Jesus speaks to Peter, commanding him to feed and tend His sheep and lambs. Yet ANOTHER indication of authority being given by Jesus. I think this evidence is both logical and Biblical.

Because that’s where Peter (the Original Vicar of Christ) ended up. He was martyred there, and the Bishops who succeeded him stayed. It is not the CITY that matters… it is the OFFICE. I suppose if Francis decided to take up residence somewhere else, that doesn’t mean he’s not the successor of Peter, does it? The Supreme Pontiff has TWO jobs; first and foremost, he is the Vicar of Christ. Second; he is the Bishop of Rome.

The capital of the United States was at one time located in New York City, and shortly after in Philadelphia. The Cities never mattered. What mattered was that Congress sat and the President’s Office in those cities. If Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court all moved to Topeka next week; one would think that Topeka would be the new Capital of the United States, no?

I don’t know what else could convince you. I would like to recommend John Salza’s “The Biblical Basis for the Papacy”. It’s a good apologetics book. Somewhat legalistic, but VERY sound.

I greatly appreciate the response.

I am well aware of the “keys” theory that links the Old Testament passage in Isaiah to Jesus’ promise of authority to Peter. The issue for me isn’t whether PETER had that authority, the issue is whether it was transferable. You say that it is, as does Scott Hahn and many others, because the “keys” signal a dynastic office. This, however, is really a stretch. You mean to tell me that I should believe Peter’s successors (only the ones in Rome) should have absolute authority over the Christian church because Jesus said Peter, not his successors, had the “keys” and that these “keys” MUST represent dynastic authority? I have never found that argument tenable. First of all, Catholics pick and choose the parts of the passage in Isaiah to apply to this situation. If you read the passage carefully, you will see that the previous holder of the keys was REMOVED from office because of his conduct. Catholics, however, would NOT say that the Bishop of Rome should no longer have its place of power DESPITE the many very terrible things the papacy has done throughout history. Further, the office that is referenced in Isaiah 22 did eventually disappear. It didn’t forever! At the time of Jesus, it no longer existed. Third, if tradition clearly teaches that the early church accepted the authority of the pope, why did 11 of the 12 apostolic seats eventually say “NO, we never believed that about the pope”? Shouldn’t at least one agree with your position? Didn’t they too receive the teachings of the apostles and practice apostolic succession? There are 12 lines that go directly back to apostles and all but one, the one with the most to gain, teach that the Bishop of Rome does not have the authority it claims for itself. This alone is really damaging evidence. I know you will say that this occurred because of political differences or whatever, but how do I know the same isn’t true for Rome?

Finally, you suggest that Jesus MUST leave behind a single authoritative person to rule over the whole church. But why? Why can’t the bishops, ruling together, make the decisions?

 

[jinc1019]

Here’s why I think the primacy is logical, looking how the Orthodox system, which lacks it, is incoherent:

Let’s say there’s some doctrinal dispute and I am confused as to the orthodox answer. So I await the judgment of the Church as to which side of the dispute is professing the true doctrine. A Council gets together and gives a definitive answer, anathemitizing all who disagree.

So, is this the authoritative answer? Not yet according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine, it must first be accepted by the whole Church. Who is the whole Church according to Eastern Orthodox doctrine? All orthodox believers. But who are the orthodox believers? The one’s that believe the true doctrine. But what is the true doctrine?

With that last question we’re back at square one. The Council was called to definitively settle the debate as to what the true doctrine is–but it must first be accepted by all those that already believe the true doctrine. But since I don’t know the true doctrine, I can’t tell if the people doing the accepting are the group I should look to. What about those that don’t accept it? How do I know they aren’t the ones who are right?

It seems historically this principle of requiring universal acceptance was not adhered to. A lot of people didn’t accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Was their lack of acceptance taken into account? Nope, they were excommunicated forthwith. Obviously there will be universal acceptance when you kick out anyone who doesn’t accept it!

It seems this theory was only practiced to reject the “reunion” Councils and certain things taught in some pan-Orthodox Councils in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries which were repudiated as Latin corruptions during their period of anti-Latin purging, their “Exodus from Western Captivity,” of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The point is that there is no way to determine whose judgment is right–those that accept the Council or those that don’t?–other than for each individual to figure out every issue on his own. But that defeats the whole purpose of the decision of the Council which was convened to judge the issue for all of us and threatened us with anathema if we didn’t receive its decision.

There must be a fixed (like a rock) and externally verifiable authority for this system to make coherent sense. That authority is and always has been the Apostolic See of Rome.

Here’s another explanation of this idea in the context of a conversion story:
rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison

First of all, thank you for your response. Your points are very well developed. However, to be perfectly honest, I am not sure your understanding of the Orthodox decision making process is accurate. From my studies, the council would be considered enough. I can’t really comment further until an Orthodox expert is able to weigh in on your point.

Second, your entire argument hinges on the assumption that every single question MUST BE DEFINITIVELY ANSWERED. How do you know this to be true? Perhaps the Christian community isn’t supposed to agree on everything. Where does it say that good Christians must always agree on every single doctrine? The Early Church Fathers certainly didn’t! They disagreed about all sorts of doctrines.

 

[jinc1019]

When you said, (emphasis mine)

I have visited every single denomination, read the Early Church Fathers, and have really taken the time to study scripture carefully. Having done all of that for countless hours, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and orthodox Anglicans are closest the apostolic faith.

My response was directed at what is the apostolic faith, and then what is it that maintains the apostolic faith?

Said another way, the Catholic Church is the one Church established by Jesus. It is the Church of the creed.

Are the Orthodox the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church? No
Are the Anglicans the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church? No

Why are they NOT? Neither is in union with Peter nor those who are in union with Peter. Look at the links that follow.

From an Eastern Catholic point of view looking at E Orthodoxy

Bp John, Answering various questions
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j…ited-with-rome

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j…n-the-melkites

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-j…of-indulgences

When even Judas office is replaced with another, Acts 1:24-26 so then is Peter’s. And we have multiple examples from the ECF’s as evidence. But of course you already know that because as you’ve said you’ve read the ECF’s

Okay okay, here’s a few quotes catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors

Rome = Peter’s last see. He is buried in Rome under the altar of St Peter’s.

Well in my opinion your opinion doesn’t count. Sorry I couldn’t help myself.

Joking aside, the point is, one’s personal opinions obviously don’t count in such a subject matter.

catholic.com/quickquestions/did-st-peter-view-his-authority-as-equal-to-other-church-leaders And historically, not all bishops are equal. You said you looked into Orthodoxy. They have ranks within the boshopric, as in lesser and greater authority…

He’s the one who received the keys. Do you know what that means?

Hi Steve,
Who says the ONE church must be in communion with the successors of Peter? Where do you find that ANYWHERE in God’s Word? You won’t. You can find SOME church fathers who seem to have thought that, but there are many that didn’t…as EO sources are quick to point out.

The argument you make about Judas is one of the more compelling arguments. Yes, Judas had an office and it was filled by another. Thus, if Peter had an office, his too should be filled by another. The problem is…Peter passed his office of bishop off to MULTIPLE people in MULTIPLE cities. What makes you think that because Peter died in Rome, that is his true successor? Doesn’t it make more sense that his successor should be the one he appointed himself while still alive? The only response to this argument you can make is to say that Peter’s office as head of the church, NOT Bishop of Rome, is the office that got filled and that could only be filled upon his death or removal from that office. That would be a fair point…But why then does the pope have to be the Bishop of Rome!!! Why can’t he be the Bishop of New York? Why does the head of the church office and the Bishop of Rome have to be one and the same? It doesn’t. Even I were to accept every other argument you make, the idea that the Bishop of Rome must be the Pope is still completely illogical.

 

[jinc1019]

Hello Justin.

Mardukm has many good insights concerning our faith but I do disagree with his low view (“The High Petrine view”) of the authority of the office of the Papacy (Mardukm knows that–we’ve discussed it elsewhere).

Mardukm stated:

But I will state:

After all, that’s what you want to analyze. That’s what your whole question surrounds.

What difference does it make what “you think” if you are pondering or “thinking” about a straw man papacy paradigm that does not exist?

Mardukm stated (bold and ul mine):

Quote:

There are two competing views in Catholicism:

These two Petrine views are only partial truths concerning historical factions concerning a high and low Petrine Office view (although there are people who do hold these views). Incidentally, the Pope CAN unilaterally decide matters for the Church . . . . and this is not “pretend”.

There is more . . . much more but I won’t get into it here unless it is necessary.

M. L. Cozens in her A Handbook of Heresies Copyright 1928 has a good explanation of some the historical factions on this issue and I will include an appropriate excerpt below.

One historical low Petrine view was the heresy of Gallicanism (Conciliarism).

Vatican I dealt extensively with defining what authentic and inauthentic Petrine office views are (high and low).

Vatican II deepened our understanding even more. The Catechism of the Catholic Church takes us even deeper into that understanding.

These definitions were necessary at these times in history to meet the challenges at those times in history (just like many Ecclesial definitions were; like the hypostatic union, the Trinity, etc.).

Incidentally, I am sure A Handbook of Heresies is in the public domain and if you use good search techniques, you can probably find a free E-copy of the whole book somewhere out there or just buy a used hard copy like I did. It is the best book I know of for a small, reliable encapsulation of the major heresies throughout Christian history.

It has sections on other relevant heresies too.

Unfortunately the abridged version omits the sections on The Illuminati, Fideism, Gallicanism, and “The Old Catholics” so try to get a full non-abridged version.

Here is the section on the heresy of the low Petrine view of the Papacy concerning the heresy of Gallicanism (Conciliarism).

GALLICANISM

The Church has always claimed to be the Messenger from God; the Infallible Guardian of Christ’s Revelation. She has always taught, moreover, that the Pope as successor of St. Peter is the Supreme Pastor over the whole Flock - Christ’s Vicar upon earth. The exact relation between these two truths, however, was left undefined.

In France and the countries on her eastern borders a school of thought arose which minimised the Papal prerogatives in the interest of the State. Nominally it stood also for the dignity and independence of bishops and Councils, but as usual, independence of the Pope means for bishops dependence on the State.

This Gallican School held (1) that the Pope’s definitions, were not Infallible in themselves but only after acceptance by the Universal Church; (2) that a General Council’s authority was above that of a Pope. Some French ecclesiastics also claimed that the king had the right to forbid the publication in France of Papal Bulls, that no act done by the king’s agent on his authority could involve excommunication, and that the king could prevent any bishop’s recourse to Rome even if the Pope commanded his presence.

In opposition to this disloyal minimising school another party went to the opposite extreme and in its zeal for Catholic Unity stretched Papal prerogatives so far that scarcely any room was left for Political and National Liberty, for Episcopal Jurisdiction, or for Theological Study. While this controversy was at its height the Vatican Council met in 1870. Against those who minimised the Papal claims, it defined that the Pope is gifted with that Infallibility with which Christ willed His Church should be endowed; while contrary to the wishes of those who exaggerated the Council’s definition, it declared this Infallibility limited to those occasions when the Pope (1) speaks as Supreme Teacher; (2) defines a doctrine of Faith or Morals; (3) declares the definition binding on all the Faithful.

Excerpt from M. L. Cozens, A Handbook of Heresies
Copyright 1928
Nihil obstat George Smith, Censor.
Imprimatur Edward Surmount, Vicar General, Westminster, 4 June 1928.
Printed in Great Britain for Sheed & Ward.

Also ironically enough, today we are seeing some people who think the Pope needs to be subject not to the Bishops, but be subject to the laity!

I’m not making this up. I have an audio of a radio show where a “Catholic” guy with an advanced theology degree from a major university gets on the radio and makes (up) these claims.
​

I have read all of your views on this, and while I obviously can’t comment, I think you make many good points about the Catholic position. I think you are right that the teachings of the Church make clear that the Pope has the authority by himself to make decisions for the whole church.​

 

[jinc1019]

Thanks for the response, Jinc. I think your points are considered, and would suggest the following:

I think it’s important to distinguish between the method (or practice) of church government and the doctrine of papal authority. I think church government can change considerably depending on circumstances, although there are some biblical guidelines. For instance, a persecuted underground church is obviously going to be run differently to a degree compared to a legalised church with some form of political power. So, I think there is scope of movement here (what you could consider either progress or regress).

However, papal authority is doctrinal, and consequently can only develop. To repeal a doctrinal development - i.e. say papal infallibility is “wrong” - is to evidence that the Catholic Church is not in fact inspired by God. Since it can develop, layers of non-contradictory understanding can be added to a doctrine.

We also need to consider the application of the doctrine to the real world situation. Papal authority does not necessitate that the Pope “lords it over” other bishops. In fact, he may decide to give bishops a free reign to a great degree. At other times, he may not. I believe many people are afraid of papal authority because they presume the Pope will basically bully everyone because he has the authority to do this; yet, the Pope must follow the example of Christ - leading as a servant (hence his title: “servus servorum Dei”, “servant of the servants of God”).

Hope that makes sense.

I don’t think the pope’s authority has increased in principle, only in practice because of historical events, and other things. We can see this in the way the Pope’s authority was weilded in the first and second centuries when the church was persecuted (very little directly, mostly indirectly through epistles), in the fourth and fifth centuries (much more directly, even more evident through church councils), in the years leading to the schism and the separation of the West and East (when this authority was challenged), and today. Doctrinally, the pope has always had this authority.

Third, if the authority of the pope can expand legitimately, then isn’t it possible that other theological doctrines could expand? Doesn’t this lead us away from the Apostolic church? \QUOTE]

 

[jinc1019]

Hi Justin, can you tell us how you will know when you have found the truth?

Peace!!!

Short of Divine revelation, I am not sure it can ever be absolute…unfortunately.

 

[jinc1019]

Well…Jinc…what reason can you think of the authority to regress? Can you think of an occasion for the authority to regress?

 

[jinc1019]

Can you cite the reason or reasons that the successor of Peter would not have the same authority of Peter

Even Orthodox bishops who succeeded their predeseccors have the same authority as the prior bishop…and a metropolitan succeeding a metropolitan would have the same authority as the preceeding metropolitan…so why not the same for the bishop of Rome?

The reason I would say I don’t believe this is because no where does Jesus promise that Peter’s successors would have this power. We don’t see that anywhere (which doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, only that there is no evidence of it attributed directly to Jesus).

Second, you make a fantastic point about metropolitans. I would say…I don’t think Metropolitans should have authority over bishops…I don’t agree with that system. Even if I did though, the major difference would be that Metropolitans are acknowledged to be apart of a man-made church structure. No one claims Metropolitans were established by God and are REQUIRED to exist. If the Catholic position on the Pope was: “We have chosen to have a Pope as a part of our church structure, but we don’t have to have one and we are not saying he has some sort of special God-given authority which no person can revoke,” then I would be willing to accept it. The issue isn’t that the office of Pope exists…it’s that it is a required teaching that must be accepted and that the claim is made that it comes directly from God rather than apart of a man-made governing structure.

 

[Cathoholic]

jinc1019. Take any doctrinal issue in your mind to settle, whatever you want.

Go through the method I outlined for you in post 4 (here). I am not asking you to believe it (yet). I am just asking you to go through it in your mind with the help of the post.

Protestant Paradigm
Go through the disagreement cascade for whatever theoretical doctrinal disagreement issue you have, using a Protestant paradigm.

You cannot get a definitive conclusion.

Eastern Orthodox Paradigm
Now go through the disagreement cascade for whatever theoretical doctrinal disagreement issue you have, using an Eastern Orthodox paradigm. Include two Eastern Orthodox Bishops at odds (or two factions of an Orthodox Bishops synod if you want).

You cannot get a definitive conclusion.

Catholic Paradigm
Go through the disagreement cascade for whatever theoretical doctrinal disagreement issue you have, using a Catholic paradigm.

You DO get a conclusion (if the Pope intervenes).

This is the “logical case” pattern you asked for.

• The Protestants don’t even CLAIM they can settle doctrinal issues with infallible authoritative precision that is ratified in Heaven.
• The Orthodox likewise don’t even CLAIM they can settle doctrinal issues with infallible authoritative precision that is ratified in Heaven.
• The Catholics DO CLAIM they can settle doctrinal issues with infallible authoritative precision that is ratified in Heaven.

So now you are left with . . .

1- Are the Catholics correct?
2- If not, WHERE IS this authority found in the world?
3- If not, do you even want his kind of authority or care about it?

Even if you discount the Catholic Church . . . . don’t discount the Catholic position on the authority issue.

Why?

Two reasons.

One is without this position you will not be able to definitively settle an issue, any issue, with authority.

Two is Sacred Scripture gives us this paradigm very explicitly (for those who want to hear and have the humility to submit).

We’ll look at a Biblical paradigm of all of this in the next post.

If you do an honest prayerful search for this magnitude of authority, you will find it.

If you do not, the ability to settle a doctrinal dispute with absolute certainty still will exist (whether you diligently search for it or not. And whether you affirm it or not), but you will have neglected this gift at least in its fullness.

 

[jonathan_hili]

It maybe legend not fact concerning Andrew. catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Oh, that may very well be true, Steve, but that is the Orthodox claim, and don’t think it’s particularly relevant (whether true or not) to this discussion.