Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[pablope]

Hi Pablope,

 

[pablope]

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).

But there is God’s word that when hands are laid upon…there is a transfer of authority:

Numbers 27:

18 So the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit of leadership,[a] and lay your hand on him. 19 Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20 Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. 21 He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the Lord. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.”

22 Moses did as the Lord commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. 23 Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the Lord instructed through Moses.

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.

 

[spina1953]

But there is God’s word that when hands are laid upon…there is a transfer of authority:

 

[Abu]

Mardukm #55
NOwhere does the Catholic Church teach that Peter nor his successors in Rome have “absolute authority” in the Church……this gross caricature of Catholic teaching on the papacy.

Such a caricature fails to quote the actual teaching of the Church:

The supreme authority of the Pope in doctrinal teaching is known explicitly from Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4, and Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25, to be that “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

The decisions of an Ecumenical Council can be infallible ONLY when approved by the Pope who needs no one, or Council, to ratify his infallible doctrinal decisions.

 

[steve_b]

I think that you have stated it quite well. I would like to add that it might take centuries before a infallible statement is made by a Pope.

Check this out

Jimmy Akin gives the following example to what language is used that triggers an infallible teaching (teach and define) be sure and read his link. btw, those internal links in green are operational as well

In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements [snip] (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

 

[MilesVitae]

Such a caricature fails to quote the actual teaching of the Church:

The supreme authority of the Pope in doctrinal teaching is known explicitly from Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4, and Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25, to be that “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

The decisions of an Ecumenical Council can be infallible ONLY when approved by the Pope who needs no one, or Council, to ratify his infallible doctrinal decisions.

Of course, but that’s a far cry from saying the Pope has “absolute authority” over the Church (as that passage does not even touch upon his power beyond his teaching authority), if by absolute we mean the power to do whatever he wills, whenever, in any part of the Church, unilaterally.

 

[Abu]

MilesVitae #66
that’s a far cry from saying the Pope has “absolute authority” over the Church (as that passage does not even touch upon his power beyond his teaching authority), if by absolute we mean the power to do whatever he wills, whenever, in any part of the Church, unilaterally.

Vatican I & II:
that “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

That expresses finality with no possibility of a contrary definition, which some try to limit to the approval of others. That’s their problem. The Holy Spirit protects His Pope, and thus His Church, from teaching error in doctrine.

 

[MilesVitae]

Vatican I & II:
that “definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

That expresses finality with no possibility of a contrary definition, which some try to limit to the approval of others. That’s their problem. The Holy Spirit protects His Pope, and thus His Church, from teaching error in doctrine.

Huh? Of course the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching as a matter of Faith what is heresy, and thus protects the head of the Church whenever he makes such definitions. How does that imply that the Pope has absolute authority?

 

[Abu]

MilesVitae #68
Of course the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching as a matter of Faith what is heresy, and thus protects the head of the Church whenever he makes such definitions. How does that imply that the Pope has absolute authority?

Who has said that the Pope has absolute authority – as though he is God?

The pope has, by Christ’s mandate, final authority in defining teaching on faith and morals, challengeable by no one.

 

[Deconi]

Who has said that the Pope has **absolute authority **– as though he is God?

The pope has, by Christ’s mandate, final authority in defining teaching on faith and morals, challengeable by no one.

Agreed!..although the use of the words underlined seem to be a ‘threat’ to some within and without Catholicism! That is a*** faith ***issue for them, for in essence they are ‘saying’ - we trust Jesus only so far!

However many corrupt, immoral Popes there have been in the past, it seems evident that SOMEHOW they were prevented from uttering nonsense drivel as doctrine for the Church to adopt! In fact, none of them has taught anyone toward Hell. What they remind us of though is that they are mortal creatures like everyone else and not divine as part of the office!

The fact is, The Pope, remains under more heat throughout his tenure, than perhaps his brother bishops. The parables of Our Lord are pretty clear as to what happens to the Key Holder when the Master of the House returns and finds his house in disorder!..and crystal clear about those servants who usurp the Key Holder!

The OP’s main contention seem to be a challenge to the status of Peter being transferrable. The fatal flaw in the challenge is that if Peter’s primacy and leadership (Papacy) ended with Peter, then there is no Christian church today! NO Bishop anywhere in the globe can claim this role - according to Scriptures!

The other 12 Apostles and Sees would ALSO be dead if their bishopric is non-transferrable.

Moreover, the church having ‘died’ with Peter, there would be NO Scriptures to measure ALL other writings against, except maybe the Torah! The result will be the Book of Mormon will be as valid as the Quran and the New York Drivel and every man MUST attain Heaven since every rule and code dreamt up by the human mind MUST necessarily be accepted by God Who didn’t leave a Guide Book!

Some excellent answers already presented in this thread…

 

[mardukm]

Who has said that the Pope has absolute authority – as though he is God?

The pope has, by Christ’s mandate, final authority in defining teaching on faith and morals, challengeable by no one.

Reread your own post #64. You challenged the statement that “the Pope does not have absolute authority.”

Thank you for correcting your statements and clarifying your intentions. You need to be more careful with your statements for they are easily misinterpreted by non-Catholics and searchers into the Catholic Faith.

Blessings

 

[gmanlq]

Cathoholic,

First of all, thank you for presenting a logical case for your beliefs. I don’t disagree with MUCH of what you had to say. However, your entire post is based on the assumption that the term “ONE” means complete unity on virtually everything. This, however, is not necessarily true. You can have ONE nation with many different groups and factions within it. Why couldn’t you have ONE Christian community of believers that does not agree on everything? You can have ONE family that obviously believes many different things. Thoughts?

Catholicism has many groups in it such as the Legionaries of Christ, Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictians etc. Each religious order still believes the same truths they just focus their service in different areas when serving others. One means one in the sense that there is one truth in regards to faith and morals. For example, all life is sacred so any attacks against the human dignity of a person are morally wrong. This would make abortion, euthanasia, racism, contraception all morally wrong. We have required beliefs such as Mary is the Mother of God and was Immaculately conceived and sinless in her life and Jesus instituted the 7 sacraments to give us grace. We have other beliefs that are optional such as private revelations such as what Our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of Lourdes professed. These are worthy of belief apparitions but are not required. We have disciplines such as praying the rosary which are not required but are helpful in our spiritual journey and the Church approves of them. So there is flexability in the Catholic Church but there are required truths we must obey even if we do not fully understand them. Hope this helps.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

Honestly, I have to admit that I am willing to accept every single point you make in this post. Obviously I have not dismissed (totally) the Catholic position, otherwise I wouldn’t be here discussing it at all.

However, while I am willing to admit that no other paradigm allows for absolutely definitive answers, that does not mean a paradigm which does is apostolic. Further, a lack of definitive answers in the areas history cannot sufficiently cover may be precisely what God intends to have. Unity is obviously very important, but that doesn’t mean we must all agree on everything. Even the very earliest Church Fathers did not share some very important theological views.

 

[jinc1019]

The other Apostles were NOT given this supreme authority given to Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

Regarding history, already Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece as the third successor of St Peter: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”
The mandate of Jesus, the Son of God is crystal clear in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
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)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Jesus warned re dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6).

.
Correct, especially regarding teaching on dogma and doctrine.

Understandably, I think you confuse my position. I am NOT arguing that Peter didn’t have the authority you suggest (although I am not sure he did). I am arguing that the authority may not have passed through apostolic succession. And if it did, I am arguing that the OTHER successors have an equal claim to Rome since they too used to be seats where Peter ruled. The only reason Catholics can give me for why Rome MUST be the successor to Peter and not Alexandria (or another ancient seat) is because Rome is where Peter died. But where does it say that has anything to do with it? Peter had successors before the second Pope was even elected…shouldn’t they be in line first? And if you are arguing, as some have, that Peter’s position was simply “head of the church,” then why must the head of the Church be in Rome? He could be anywhere!

Additionally, the evidence you present (much of it) comes by your own admission after 200 AD, which to me is not impressive at all. A lot can change in 200 years! Think about the United States of America!

 

[jinc1019]

I agree, and as you say, there have been times when popes have abused their authority, especially when grasping for temporal power. So you’re right: the fear is legitimate, but just because others (such as the Orthodox) might be afraid, it doesn’t undermine the actual authority the pope has, just as fear of a policeman doesn’t undermine the police’s authentic powers in a society.

A pope who acts in grave immorality is, like everyone else, subject to the law (both of the state and of God). A pope can’t get away with murder!

I think your understanding is incorrect on the difference between infallibility (a theological charism) and impeccability (a metaphysical one). The pope sins like everyone else and if he were, hypothetically, burning people at the stake, the state and church in general could do all sorts of things to stop him, for example, lock him up (popes have been imprisoned in the past) or remove him from a position of power. He could even be convinced or forced to abdicate. There is nothing that mandates that Catholics accept the bad behaviour of a pope. Look at St Peter, he wasn’t perfect! Catholics are not called to submit to a pope’s character, nor accept bad disciplinary directives, but rather to hold to the faith and the doctrines professed by the Church.

Again, I think the point you’ve made is a good one, but doesn’t really play out historically. Even some of the notorious popes of the Renaissance period were not bloodthirsty butchers. Yes, some were corrupt and lived quite immorally but none of them enshrined such immorality in doctrine. I mean, if you consider that there have been a good 266 or so popes, how many were thoroughly awful? A handful. Not even 10, I would contend. Compare that to a random selection of 266 monarchs or leaders. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s much, much more. More importantly, how many taught through their papal authority something contrary to the faith? 0. Now, that’s might impressive!

Lastly, I don’t see how one could escape your objection under any church structure. I mean, Christians must be under the authority of somebody. What if it was just a local bishop? Couldn’t a local bishop act immorally and do terrible things? Likewise, what about a patriarch or a council of bishops? They could all be in league together. The only real way to escape your objection is to accept no authority at all, which is very problematic.

Hi,
Thanks for posting again. First, I agree that authority doesn’t always depend on one’s actions (the policeman example is valid). However, I thoroughly disagree with you about what Popes can and cannot get away with. While I agree that Popes are subject to the law like everyone else…They can make the law! And they can make it infallibly. Thus, a Pope can determine that he has the right to wage war against Muslims and his ruling cannot be contested! Even if a Pope is forced to live within guidelines, when has any Pope ever been removed for misconduct? I don’t think it has ever happened in 2,000 years! Why? Because any attempt to remove the Pope would simply be denied by the Pope himself, who has supreme authority. It’s like saying a King is subject to the law…Well yes, but the King is also able to create the law. And unless a King steps down, a King is King forever no matter what a King does. Only a violent revolution often does the job (obviously I am not advocating for this!).

Additionally, I am well aware of infallibility and impeccability. The issue, however, is that while everyone knows Popes are not perfect, Popes can DECLARE certain actions and decisions to be perfect whenever it is convenient for them or whenever it makes sense theologically.

Finally, I am not suggesting all or even most popes were bad people. Most were incredibly holy men. but holy men can make mistakes and can be wrong…Popes, however, cannot according to Catholic theology. Again, if the Church’s position on the Pope was that he is the leader of the Church but that he could be removed by the rest of the bishops and that he is not infallible, I would have no problem with it at all. My issue is that there is no way to control the Pope’s power.

Historically speaking, this fear HAS been warranted. Popes have openly opposed the idea of separation of church and state, for instance, for centuries. When the Magna Carta was written in England, the Pope called it “shameful.” Popes have, historically speaking, opposed political liberty in numerous instances. This is a great concern for me.

 

[jinc1019]

Here is a frequent Protestant objection.

Objection: I don’t need any Church. For where two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name, there He is in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).

Answer: Let’s look carefully at the context of that objection.

MATTHEW 18:15 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

OK Jesus is giving some sort of paradigm on how a disciple (verse. 1: “At that time the disciples came to Jesus”) is to deal with a “brother” who he is in disagreement with over some issue.

But what about when they cannot reach a conclusion? Now what?

Fortunately we find out what to do in the very next verse.

MATTHEW 18:15-16 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

OK. This is insightful. Reason with this brother. Then go correct this fellow disciple with two or three witnesses. Hmmm. These are juridical commands right from the Old Testament (i.e. Leviticus 19:17 and Deuteronomy 19:15). OK.

• Reasoned with him? Check
• Gone to him with 2 or 3 witnesses? Check

What if I have no solution now?

• Well we will just respect each other’s differences and realize that’s the best you can do right? We will have to agree to disagree and all of that right? Wrong.
• Well just forget about it and not care. We should all be more lukewarm on issues of contention correct? No!

Does God give somebody, ANYBODY, a way to deal with this contentious issue that has so much authority, that the conclusion reached is even BOUND in Heaven?

Well we don’t have to wonder because God tells us the answer in the very next verse.

Let’s read on and find out.

MATTHEW 18:16-17a 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church . . . .

Listen to Jesus! Listen to this authority He is assuming for the Church.

This guy, mindless as he is, refuses to listen to you, and now he refuses to listen to two or three other disciples (how dare he?), I know this is hard to fathom, but now if he refuses to listen . . . . EVEN to the Church (!) . . . . .

Listen to how Jesus presents all of this below!

MATTHEW 18:17-20 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

The Protestant routine about I don’t need the authority of the Church because wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus’ name, there I am in the midst of them is wrong!

These very same verses ASSUME Ecclesiastical (Church) authority, not do away with it.

And they assume Ecclesiastical (Church) authority to the point where if this guy doesn’t listen, he can be excommunicated.

And these very same verses, assume Ecclesiastical authority to the point where the decision of “the Church” (if this guy doesn’t listen “EVEN to the Church” . . .) will be bound not only on earth, but likewise bound in Heaven!

This is the Ecclesiastical (Church) model you need to search for jinc1019.

Protestants don’t even claim this. Likewise Eastern Orthodox. So if you reject the Catholic Church jinc1019, this will not solve your issue.

You still need to go out and find this Church that possesses this degree of God-given authority.

• It cannot be in Protestantism, as they deny they have it.
• It cannot be in Eastern Orthodoxy, as they deny they have it.
• And rejecting the Catholic Church does not solve your dilemma.

It may give a lot of people “conscience salve” because they know deep down inside, they have rejected the Church, but it does NOT conform with what Jesus taught us jinc1019.

You need to go out and find this “Church” with that kind of authority jinc1019.

I don’t disagree that someone must have the authority…But who says the Pope is the one to have it? Only the Catholic Church. I believe the “Church” you reference in scripture is all of the bishops properly consecrated.

 

[jinc1019]

From my discussion with various Orthodox apologists, they all say it must be “accepted by the whole Church.” If the Council was enough, as you say, they would all be Catholic since their bishops assented to the disputed points at the reunion Council of Florence in the 15th century. Furthermore, they would still teach things like indulgences, the “Latin understanding” of original sin, that there are definitively seven sacraments, that transubstantiation is a legitimate word to describe the mystery of the Eucharist, etc.–all things taught in pan-Orthodox Councils, but which were later repudiated during the rabid anti-Latin movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

I didn’t say they must all be definitively answered. Even in the Catholic Church, there are some significant questions that are disputed by various sides that are not definitively answered (such as the precise relationship between grace, free-will, and predestination).

But, history shows that some debates are of a nature that a definitive judgment has been necessary and the Church’s pastors have made such definitive judgments–and never did they wait to see if their judgment was accepted by the rest of the faithful before considering them authoritative.

A fixed point of reference is needed for that system to make sense. If such a reference point does exist, there’s really no other See than Rome that could even make the claim of being that fixed See.

Again, because I don’t know enough about Orthodoxy to dispute what you are saying, I will defer to someone who does.

However, I would like to point out that the fact that there are still questions yet to be definitively answered in the Catholic Church is, to me, evidence of the fact that the church does not have this authority/infallibility. If the Church could infallibly and definitively resolve all issues, why wouldn’t it? It’s not logical, yet that is precisely what the Church has done.

 

[jinc1019]

It is a logical assumption Jinc. Jesus said he’d be with us and the Holy Sprit would guide us to all truth through all time. No other church has led us truthfully through her teachings regarding morals and faith over 2000 years since Jesus established his Church. Further many popes have come and gone (over 265), we can conclude that the office of Peter was meant to be passed down. The early church had the same understanding. The 12 apostles knew what the “keys to the kingdom” meant as we see it in Isaiah 22. Jesus would not leave us without a visible leader nor would he leave us as orphans. We have always had a pope or apostolic bishops to lead and hold fast to the truth regarding faith and morals. What global organization could exist without leadership. There has never been such a thing nor will there ever be one. This too is logical. Jesus knows what we need and he knows we need leadership. He has given us this through the pope and when there was no pope we still had the leadership of the apostolic bishops to fill that role until a new one could be elected. It is his design and history proves it to be truthful regarding faith and morals free from error as led by the Holy Spirit always.

I certainly can appreciate your position, but your assertion that the Church has faithfully led the Christians community throughout history simply is not true. The Church is the reason the Reformation even happened, and the Church has committed many grave and horrific errors over time. Catholics insist that these don’t negate the Pope’s authority and infallibility on issues of “faith and morals,” but Catholics choose what is covered within “faith and morals” deliberately so that Popes never fail on that count. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For instance, why wouldn’t choosing to burn people at the stake who disagree with you theologically be an issue of “faith and morals”?

 

[rfournier103]

I certainly can appreciate your position, but your assertion that the Church has faithfully led the Christians community throughout history simply is not true.

We’re all human, and we all make mistakes. (aside from when the Vicar of Christ makes a pronouncement ex-cathedra)

The Church is the reason the Reformation even happened,

Like Henry VIII wanting a divorce? And all the Protestant sects that sprung up from that?

Saying “the Church is the reason the Reformation happened” is like saying that fire is the reason forest fires happen. Reform WAS needed; but they LEFT the Church. They didn’t reform it.

and the Church has committed many grave and horrific errors over time.

You keep saying that. Has the Church wronged you in some way? Has the Pope, or one of his predecessors wronged you in some way? If so, we can talk about it. :console: It’ll be okay

Catholics insist that these don’t negate the Pope’s authority and infallibility on issues of “faith and morals,” but Catholics choose what is covered within “faith and morals” deliberately so that Popes never fail on that count. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Seriously? CATHOLICS choose? Trust me, buddy… nobody ever asks ME what I think about faith and morals. You seem to think that the laymen of the Faith have some kind of say in the interpretation of doctrine. I can assure you we do not.

For instance, why wouldn’t choosing to burn people at the stake who disagree with you theologically be an issue of “faith and morals”?

I think lots of Protestant sects have also burned people at the stake for various reasons. (witchcraft, etc…) But I don’t think it has ever been part of ANY Christian doctrine to burn people at the stake.

Did Judas selling out Jesus prompt the Apostles to abolish his bishopric? Tune in to Acts Chapter One and find out!

Have a splendiferous day!

~rfournier103.

 

[spina1953]

We’re all human, and we all make mistakes. (aside from when the Vicar of Christ makes a pronouncement ex-cathedra)

Like Henry VIII wanting a divorce? And all the Protestant sects that sprung up from that?

Saying “the Church is the reason the Reformation happened” is like saying that fire is the reason forest fires happen. Reform WAS needed; but they LEFT the Church. They didn’t reform it.

You keep saying that. Has the Church wronged you in some way? Has the Pope, or one of his predecessors wronged you in some way? If so, we can talk about it. :console: It’ll be okay

Seriously? CATHOLICS choose? Trust me, buddy… nobody ever asks ME what I think about faith and morals. You seem to think that the laymen of the Faith have some kind of say in the interpretation of doctrine. I can assure you we do not.

I think lots of Protestant sects have also burned people at the stake for various reasons. (witchcraft, etc…) But I don’t think it has ever been part of ANY Christian doctrine to burn people at the stake.

Did Judas selling out Jesus prompt the Apostles to abolish his bishopric? Tune in to Acts Chapter One and find out!

Have a splendiferous day!

~rfournier103.

Your post is spot on. It seems to me that during those times in history of the Middle ages, the Protestant reformation people had a much different way of thinking and of course they did not have all the information in which to be actuate in their assumptions of what Scripture means, they only saw it one way. Also, there were political aspects that also caused much in the way of thinking that was not there before as well as the beginnings of a national identity that caused new ways of thinking about themselves and religion and the beliefs they held. All these ways influenced their thinking of their times.