Logical Case for Papal Authority?

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu:

As Bishop Gasser clearly explains in his relatio re Vatican I:
"With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of faith, fall within the extension of infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.” [The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 82]…

Abu, if you went to the source yourself, you wouldn’t post these TENDENTIOUS quotes which appear to prove the opposite of what they are saying!

The sentence IMMEDIATELY BEFORE your quote from Gasser is: “However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible,*** these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council ***as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility.”

What this is saying is that SINCE Vatican I could not define secondary objects infallible, it would leave it at how secondary objects are treated with respect to the infallibility of the Church. So IF they are infallible with the Church, THEN they are also infallible with the Pope.

Your quote from the CCC is referring to the Church’s infallibility not the Pope’s.

However, I do believe (along with John Henry Newman) that secondary objects are included in Church (and Papal) infallibility.

 

[mardukm]

Abu, you don’t even know what you are quoting.

1) Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus Chapter 4.
“….we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **he defines a doctrine **concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

Nothing here about extending the definition of V1 beyond dogmatic matters.

As Bishop Gasser clearly explains in his relatio re Vatican I:
"With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of faith, fall within the extension of infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.” The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 1986, p 82].

Another sorry example of your cut and paste out-of-context tactic. You forgot to quote the sentence immediately preceding this excerpt you provide:
“But in those things in which it is theologically certain, though not yet certain by faith, that the Church is infallible, by this decree of the Council the Pope’s infallibility similarly is not defined to be believed as of faith.”

“Theological certitude” is not the same thing as “certitude by faith.” V1’s definition of “papal” infallibility ONLY includes those things that possess and demand “certitude by faith.” “Theological certitude” is the certitude of the theologians and the laity, which is different from the “certitude by faith” possessed of the formal definitions by the universal Magisterium.

Seriously, do you even bother to actually read these documents from which you quote, or do you have a resource that only provides little snippets, and you merely parrot these myopic snippets to others, without considering their full context?

The clarity of Ad Tuendam Fidem by Bl John Paul II is expressed in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *which apparently also is not known to mardukm – hence his continued errors.

So you earlier cite the doctrinal commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem from the CDF that clarifies it, but now that you know that the doctrinal commentary refutes your claim, you now revert back to the “clarity of Ad Tuendam Fidem.” I recall debating an Iglesia Ni Kristo person here in the Philippines who had to jump between several Bible translations to prove his point. No one translation proved his position, so he had to move from Bible translation to Bible translation, hoping to concoct some half-decent rhetoric. It was so laughable (though I did not laugh out loud out of respect for him). You are doing the same thing. It’s an amusing tactic.

Catechism Of The Catholic Church
“CCC 88: The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.”
:banghead: As mentioned earlier, “defines dogmas” is a separate category from “proposes in a definitive way.” The former is an act of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium (the kind proceeding from an Ecumenical Council or an ex cathedra decree); the latter is an act of the universal ORDINARY Magisterium. I mentioned this earlier, and you did not respond.

As others have pointed out, you are not in the habit of responding to the points made by those who contradict your claims, All you do is go off on your quoting runs, which either do not address the point, or refutes your own claims.

 

[mardukm]

Looks like brother AmbroseSJ beat me to it!!!

 

[Abu]

mardukm #420
“defines dogmas” is a separate category from “proposes in a definitive way.”

Yes.

The former is an act of the EXTRAordinary Magisterium (the kind proceeding from an Ecumenical Council or an ex cathedra decree); the latter is an act of the universal ORDINARY Magisterium.

No.

The CCC #88 in the *Profession of Faith *attests to the truth that “**The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent **when it defines dogmas, or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.”

Therefore, explicitly, the exercise of Magisterial definition occurs to the fullest extent through the Extraordinary Magisterium, and the truths so classified as connected, are doctrines “for devoutly guarding and faithfully expounding” the revealed deposit.

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

 

[jinc1019]

Cathoholic,
Thanks for contributing as always. I agree with much of your post, as always, but where I depart is precisely where you imagine it to be…I believe the papacy has an important role in Christianity to play, but I am not convinced that the papacy plus any number of bishops is a valid guarantee of infallibility. As I already stated, I find the decisions of the Fourth Lateran Council on Jews and heretics, for instance, as obvious evidence in my favor. I have heard the arguments against those claims and I just don’t buy it. The idea that Jesus, who taught a great deal about how we should treat others, would support expelling people from there homes for being “heretics” or that Jews should be prevented from holding positions in the civil government as obviously false. You, and many others, disagree.

My arguments, however, are not just limited to what I see as simplistic logic. I am also convinced by history that no such authority by the Pope was ever exercised in the East. I have seen the quotes, I have read the history, and I just don’t buy it. How can the Pope be the supreme authority in Christianity but ignored by many Eastern fathers in the first 1,000 years of Christianity? How can the Pope be considered the supreme authority when he didn’t call a single of the first great ecumenical councils? Some he had virtually no part in at all. The list goes on and on.

I understand the theological argument in favor of the supremacy of the papacy, but there are numerous examples of how much trouble this has caused.

I realize, and admit, that your argument about determining authority is valid. If the Pope isn’t the mark of authority, what is? 50% of bishops? 25%? 10%? 90%? It’s a valid criticism.

However, I don’t understand why the Christian church simply cannot look to the overwhelming consensus of the historic church and agree that those are essentials of the faith. As far as the immaculate conception (and other doctrines which were not confirmed early in Church history by a massive consensus), we can have a debate but it’s possible there are no definitive answers on that issue. Must there be? I am not sure every single thing needs to be nailed down.

Would you admit that the overwhelming majority of important Christian doctrines have been nailed down by the first great ecumenical councils and the writings of the Church fathers? If there is such a great need for the Pope, why are the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox so similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church? To me, it’s evidence that most of the Christian faith has been secured.

Now this point on its own doesn’t prove anything. Just because a papacy isn’t absolutely necessary to protect the essentials of Christianity doesn’t mean the papacy hasn’t been given the power and authority you claim. But for me, after reading the history on the matter, it seems obvious that in the West, the churches did largely look to Rome. In the East, not really-certainly not more than they did Eastern patriarchs.

And to be honest, the problem I have with the Catholic position on this issue isn’t that the papacy has the authority it does…it’s that the line between infallible teachings and fallible yet authoritative teachings is too think. It’s that the Church constantly is dancing its way out of errors and controversy by declaring decades or centuries after an error occurs that “this teaching was never infallible,” even though it was treated as absolutely necessary at the time. It just seems wildly unjust. One minute, you had certain individuals in the Church arguing in favor of abandoning Latin excommunicated…the next you had the Church abandoning Latin…and somehow we are to believe that both decisions can coexist fairly. The Church today opposes the death penalty in the United States, but the Church urged the death penalty for heresy in numerous instances. How is there any justice in that? If Jesus is the same, “now, today, and forever,” why are His Church’s teachings always changing? Yes, the essentials are the same…but there is no liberty in the non-essentials. Obedience is often demanded despite a track record of that obedience being used for evil purposes.

I sympathize with your position and I appreciate the logic you have approached the argument with, but things are not nearly as complicated as many Catholics want to make them. I don’t care what a person believes or teaches or does…burning someone at the stake is never justified, a position the Church today has basically taken when it objects to the American death penalty for crimes far worse than what many were burned to death for.

If I am wrong, I truly hope God has mercy on me. I, like you, don’t want to believe what isn’t true…and I approached this spiritual journey with a completely open mind years ago…I just wanted to go where the evidence has led me. The evidence has led me close to the Catholic Church, but not there. I agree with virtually all of their essential teachings, and I even believe the papacy is the “Head of the Church” in a global sense, but I don’t believe that he is incapable of error even when teaching on faith and morals…nor do I believe that he with a group of bishops by his side are infallible on faith and morals (although I believe they are very often correct). As absurd as it sounds to you, the Orthodox model of the whole Church deciding on these matters with a council makes far more sense to me, with the weight of the argument by the papacy and the other patriarchs holding much more sway than a single bishop.

Again, I hope God forgives me if I am wrong.

 

[mardukm]

Abu,

I’m not contending the idea that “papal” infallibility as defined by V1 CAN extend to “secondary truths.” I’m contending
(1) your claim that this is what V1 defined about “papal” infallibility, when it explicitly did NOT, but rather left it open to theological speculation;
(2) your claim that it MUST extend to “secondary truths.”

What you are insisting upon is NOT a de fide proposition of the Faith. It is a very popular theological belief. There is no censure against it, just as there is no censure to those who do not believe that “papal” infallibility extends to these “secondary truths.” There are no Magisterial documents that support your opinion that “papal” infallibility MUST extend to “secondary truths.” For example, I do not believe that canonizations are a formal act of “papal” infallibility; I believe they are a formal act of the Church’s infallibility as a whole. Though I know that perhaps the majority of Catholics believe that canonizations are acts of “papal” infallibility, there is no definition that requires such a belief is de fide, and no censure against those who believe they are not acts of “papal” infallibility.

So far in the Church’s history, there has not been a single example of the Pope defining a “secondary truth” ex cathedra, and I do not believe it will ever happen – and there is nothing wrong with that belief.

Hence, I was personally offended when you attempted to correct brother Coptsoldier’s statement way back in the beginning of the thread, as if he said anything wrong. He didn’t say anything wrong. What is wrong is your INSISTENCE that “papal” infallibility MUST extend to “secondary truths.”

No.

The CCC #88 in the *Profession of Faith *attests to the truth that “**The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent **when it defines dogmas, or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.”

Therefore, explicitly, the exercise of Magisterial definition occurs to the fullest extent through the Extraordinary Magisterium, and the truths so classified as connected, are doctrines “for devoutly guarding and faithfully expounding” the revealed deposit.

**From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

 

[Abu]

jinc1019
If there is such a great need for the Pope, why are the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox so similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church?

How could the teachings of the Orthodox Church have been essentially different when they were part of the universal Catholic Church until the start of the break occurred through Photius in 867?

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (*Lives of Illustrious Men *15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (*Letters *15:1 [A.D. 396])

**Council of Chalcedon **
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
See: The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

It’s interesting also that Sir Arnold Lunn in Now I See, Sheed & Ward, 1955, p 218, could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott, that “St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others.”

That Roman primacy of jurisdiction was widely accepted in the East at this time [5th century] is clear from the negotiations before and during the Council of Ephesus. Cyril of Alexandria appeals to Celestine of Rome to deal with Nestorius in Constantinople; and Celestine replies, delegating Cyril to excommunicate Nestorius if he fails to recant within ten days, equating his own judgment with “the divine sentence of our Christ,” and stating that he has written in similar terms to four other major Bishops. 1 In the ensuing Council of Ephesus, we find that Cyril presides in the place of Celestine, 2 and that the whole Council accepts as “suitable” 3 and worthy of confirmation by all, the words of the Roman legate Philip, in presenting for conciliar approval (not debate) Celestine’s prior condemnation of Nestorius.
rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

 

[Cathoholic]

jinc1019. You said:

Would you admit that the overwhelming majority of important Christian doctrines have been nailed down by the first great ecumenical councils and the writings of the Church fathers?

Actually; I would admit they were nailed down in Apostolic times long before the first great Ecumenical Councils.

But there was further depth and clarification at the Councils, and exercise of their (the Bishops) authority united to the Bishop of Rome (even if he wasn’t in attendance) did take place.

You also said (all caps and bold mine) . . .

If there is such a great need for the Pope, why are the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox so similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church? To me, it’s evidence that MOST of the Christian faith has been secured.

I find that problematic as far as the “gates of hades” not prevailing. That merely, “MOST of the Christian faith has been secured.”

**What parts of the Christian faith have NOT been secured? **

Now to the Capital Punishment issue. Why? Because I am trying to hijack your thread? No!

Because by what you say about it ILLUSTRATES the complexities in matters like this.

If you and many other people can be confused about what the Church teaches about capital punishment in today’s context, TODAY, . . . .how much more easy would it be for ANY of us to get it wrong about something 600 or 800 years ago (or whatever).

You said:

The Church today opposes the death penalty in the United States.

You also said:

burning someone at the stake is never justified, a position the Church today has basically taken when it objects to the American death penalty for crimes far worse than what many were burned to death for.

Change that to:

Capital punishment is never justified, a position the Church today has basically taken when it objects to the American death penalty for crimes far worse than what many were burned to death for.

This is not true in the sense of principle. It is true only on practical grounds.

In other words, we have a right (and sometimes a duty) to defend ourselves.

If the death penalty is the only way society can defend itself (not only today, but even yesterday, and tomorrow) a Government can in principle carry out capital punishment.

Today in America we can incarcerate these guys and protect society so execution of the offender being an absolute necessity is very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

But in the bush of Cameroon, this might not be reasonably possible. A murderer in a proverbial bamboo cell with his buddies itching to free him? That is a danger to society.

And EVEN in America, some of these guys still kill innocent citizens when incarcerated (i.e. innocent jail guards, medical personnel, etc.).

Society has a right to defend itself.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

You have made it pretty clear what you don’t believe (“I just don’t buy it”).

Now I await you or someone else to make it clear about what they DO believe regarding authority. There have been almost 500 posts and I still have not heard it except from the “Petrine Absolutists” (or whatever).

Incidentally, I too see the Pope as being able to give infallible teaching about someone being in Heaven or not (a Canonized Saint). But I don’t want to go down that road here as we cannot even get the Apostolic faith and moral issues agreed upon.

I am not sure every single thing needs to be nailed down.

But I am not saying EVERYTHING needs to be nailed down.

I am saying WHO has the authority to say WHAT must be “nailed down” and what doesn’t need to be “nailed down”?

It is either you. Or the Bishops apart from the Pope. Or the Magisterium.

Who is it?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

mardukm:

What you are insisting upon is NOT a de fide proposition of the Faith. It is a very popular theological belief. There is no censure against it, just as there is no censure to those who do not believe that “papal” infallibility extends to these “secondary truths.” There are no Magisterial documents that support your opinion that “papal” infallibility MUST extend to “secondary truths.” For example, I do not believe that canonizations are a formal act of “papal” infallibility; I believe they are a formal act of the Church’s infallibility as a whole. Though I know that perhaps the majority of Catholics believe that canonizations are acts of “papal” infallibility, there is no definition that requires such a belief is de fide, and no censure against those who believe they are not acts of “papal” infallibility.

I think where Abu goes off the rails is in his mistaken way of interpreting CCC88:

The CCC #88 in the Profession of Faith attests to the truth that “The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.”

He doesn’t seem to understand that the secondary objects ARE ONLY THOSE connected with the primary object of a dogmatic definition, NOT JUST ANYTHING that falls into the category of “proposed in a definitive way” This is where we get “creeping infallibility.” 1

For example, Newman considered the Dogma of the Saints to be primary, and the canonization of individual saints to be the secondary objects of this dogma, therefore also being infallible. His wording is the “facts” of a dogma. Therefore I would think you are absolutely correct in supposing that the Canonization of the Saints is an act of the Church’s infallibility, since the primary dogma of the Saints is Apostolic and from the Church, not any Pope. In fact, I would go further and say that almost ALL secondary objects of infallibility are based on Church Infallibility. Even Gasser proposed that the secondary objects of papal infallibility would be likened to the secondary objects of Church infallibility.

1 The phrase “creeping infallibility” was apparently coined by Yves Congar; cf. Dennis M. Doyle, Communion Ecclesiology: Vision and Version (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000), 48; Joseph a. Komonchak, “Humanae Vitae and its Reception: Ecclesiological Reflections,” Theological Studies 39 (1978):247, n. 82

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Oops, I forgot,
I also agree with you mardukm, that there is no dogmatic definition, either from a council or from a Pope saying that secondary objects are infallible and MUST be believed DE FIDE. Even Ad Tuendam Fidem - John Paul II - Motu Proprio (18 May 1998) does NOT dogmatically declare this. It continues the tradition of Vatican II by saying these secondary truths must be HELD (tenendam) not believed with Divine Faith (credendam)

In fact the whole drift of Ad Tuendam Fidem - John Paul II - Motu Proprio (18 May 1998) was to put in place (canon law) censures for those (particularly) in Theological schools, from actually teaching CONTRARY to the Catholic Faith, and appointed sanctions in canon law in their event. There was NO INTENT to raise the level of Secondary objects to De Fide, nor is there any wording to this effect. Abu is attempting to pull a rabbit out of a hat!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother AmbroseSJ,

I agree with your points here. I would also like to add that this:

Abu earlier cited the official Commentary of the CDF on Ad Tuendam Fidem. The only examples given of “secondary truths” that must be firmly held are ones that were not affirmed ex cathedra. Rather they were affirmed by the Pope with the infallibility of the universal ORDINARY Magisterium (not the EXTRAordinary Magisterium of an ex cathedra decree). Yet, he insists that these papal affirmations were by virtue of the ex cathedra “papal” infallibility defined by V1. The only thing he could cite was an EWTN apologist - certainly not a Magisterial source. Abu, it seems, simply cannot abide by any notion of collegial infallibility. In his thinking, it is the Pope ALONE who is infallible, separate and apart from the College.:nope:

Blessings

Oops, I forgot,
I also agree with you mardukm, that there is no dogmatic definition, either from a council or from a Pope saying that secondary objects are infallible and MUST be believed DE FIDE. Even Ad Tuendam Fidem - John Paul II - Motu Proprio (18 May 1998) does NOT dogmatically declare this. It continues the tradition of Vatican II by saying these secondary truths must be HELD (tenendam) not believed with Divine Faith (credendam)

In fact the whole drift of Ad Tuendam Fidem - John Paul II - Motu Proprio (18 May 1998) was to put in place (canon law) censures for those (particularly) in Theological schools, from actually teaching CONTRARY to the Catholic Faith, and appointed sanctions in canon law in their event. There was NO INTENT to raise the level of Secondary objects to De Fide, nor is there any wording to this effect. Abu is attempting to pull a rabbit out of a hat!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Abu earlier cited the official Commentary of the CDF on Ad Tuendam Fidem. The only examples given of “secondary truths” that must be firmly held are ones that were not affirmed ex cathedra. Rather they were affirmed by the Pope with the infallibility of the universal ORDINARY Magisterium (not the EXTRAordinary Magisterium of an ex cathedra decree).

Agreed.

The only example that they could give for Papal secondary objects would need to be somehow connected to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception or Assumption of the Virgin Mary. I can imagine certain secondary objects though. For example I believe the doctrine of the Assumption has an implicit connection to the Resurrection of Our Lady. But for now it is dormant. (pun intended. )

The CDF document has a good paragraph on certain secondary objects of Church infallibility:

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …37

I especially like how they call the canonization of saints “dogmatic facts.” It is lifted directly from Newman’s own original example!

 

[jinc1019]

How could the teachings of the Orthodox Church have been essentially different when they were part of the universal Catholic Church until the start of the break occurred through Photius in 867?

By that standard, there should be few differences between Protestant churches, nearly all of whom broke away from the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church-Yet, there obviously are! Your whole argument falls apart from there.

Further, I could cite NUMEROUS Early Church Fathers that oppose that view that you are promoting. Quotes from the fathers won’t help you either way on this topic.

 

[jinc1019]

jinc1019. You said:
Now to the Capital Punishment issue. Why? Because I am trying to hijack your thread? No!

Because by what you say about it ILLUSTRATES the complexities in matters like this.

If you and many other people can be confused about what the Church teaches about capital punishment in today’s context, TODAY, . . . .how much more easy would it be for ANY of us to get it wrong about something 600 or 800 years ago (or whatever).

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

You have made it pretty clear what you don’t believe (“I just don’t buy it”).

Now I await you or someone else to make it clear about what they DO believe regarding authority. There have been almost 500 posts and I still have not heard it except from the “Petrine Absolutists” (or whatever).

Incidentally, I too see the Pope as being able to give infallible teaching about someone being in Heaven or not (a Canonized Saint). But I don’t want to go down that road here as we cannot even get the Apostolic faith and moral issues agreed upon.

But I am not saying EVERYTHING needs to be nailed down.

I am saying WHO has the authority to say WHAT must be “nailed down” and what doesn’t need to be “nailed down”?

It is either you. Or the Bishops apart from the Pope. Or the Magisterium.

Who is it?

Hi Cathoholic,
I, as always, appreciate your responses and wisdom.

Also, as always, I don’t agree with many of your assertions!

First, you asked which Christian doctrines were not nailed down…My point was that something like the perpetual virginity of Mary was not, by any standard, a universal teaching of the early Church. There is no evidence that supports it, but the Catholic Church teaches it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true…It doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been handed on this whole time, but it’s not “nailed down” because the Church as a whole doesn’t accept it as certain. Those kinds of teachings were the ones I was referring to.

Second, and this is important…I am thankful for your official clarification of the Church’s view on the death penalty. I don’t believe I misunderstood it correctly at all, although I will admit I didn’t fully explain the Church’s position as you did.

My position on the matter stands.

Can you describe to me a single situation in which the Catholic Church, according to its own standards, felt that the death penalty was appropriate??? St. Thomas More advocated for it in four occasions under King Henry VIII. In each and every instance, the individual murdered had been imprisoned, sometimes for a very long time. They were weak, bound, and presented absolutely no physical threat to anyone! William Tyndale, for instance, was simply a theologian; he was not a violent man. How can you argue that they NEEDED to kill him? Why was it necessary? Again, can you name me an instance where someone HAD to be killed?

And if you can…

How is it different from a situation where a man walks into a movie theater and kills a dozen people? Or when a man walks into a school full of young children and kills a dozen of them? Why should they live and men like Tyndale (even if you don’t want to use him specifically) die? Do you really think there was ANY chance that those people locked in the Tower of London could have actually escaped? Come on. This is such a ridiculous argument.

An execution for heresy, by its very nature, requires that the person who is executed be captured, bound, imprisoned, tried for innocence or guilt, and then sentenced to death…How could such a process ALSO include the possibility that the victim HAD to be murdered? Think about it. If there is enough time to do all of that, and if he truly is captured and imprisoned, why must he be killed based on the Catholic standard?

I am quite convinced you can’t answer those questions, but it’s always possible that I am wrong!

 

[Abu]

My response to jinc1019’s *“

why are the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox so similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church?”

Was:

How could the teachings of the Orthodox Church have been essentially different when they were part of the universal Catholic Church until the start of the break occurred through Photius in 867?

His retort #431:
*

By that standard, there should be few differences between Protestant churches, nearly all of whom broke away from the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church-Yet, there obviously are! Your whole argument falls apart from there.

*His incomprehension and confusion cloud his understanding because:
1) Roman primacy of jurisdiction was widely accepted in the East at this time [5th century] as shown in post #425.

Further:
2) Catholic Apologetics Online
1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, “An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.”
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=139&n=1268

3) Thus what he does not know are the facts that the Orthodox broke because they wanted married priests, denied the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, adopted contraception, denied the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and permitted divorce and remarriage.

4) Similarly he seems blissfully unaware that the Orthodox do have valid priests and bishops able to celebrate the Holy Mass and sacraments which no Protestant minister can and thus they are poles apart.

The faithful Catholic scholars have the credibility with reasons, producing the realism of the great saints as well as the logic of von Harnack that others lack.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

jinc1019:

First, you asked which Christian doctrines were not nailed down…My point was that something like the perpetual virginity of Mary was not, by any standard, a universal teaching of the early Church. There is no evidence that supports it, but the Catholic Church teaches it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true…It doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been handed on this whole time, but it’s not “nailed down” because the Church as a whole doesn’t accept it as certain. Those kinds of teachings were the ones I was referring to.

jinc, I don’t know your religious background at all. But shouldn’t a religion (any religion) that claims to have Divine Revelation (and this IS what all religions claim,) be able to define what that revelation is without “proof” satisfactory to an outsider?

Catholics believe (and Faith IS essential with ANY religion,) that the Church has been safeguarding Divine Revelation since Apostolic times. Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that Divine Revelation is contained in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The sum of Divine Revelation was “deposited” by the death of the last Apostle. That deposit of Faith has NEVER changed since then. However, there have been further articulations and deeper understandings on that deposit over time.

The perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary is a part of that deposit of Faith. That means it is a part of Divine Revelation, and IS apostolic in origin. This is believed by the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. We can give “evidences” for her perpetual virginity but not “proofs.”

When you assent to a religion like the Catholic one, you believe it because, by whatever lights you have, you feel that religion DOES have Divine Revelation. Therefore you must base your Faith in that religion.

 

[MilesVitae]

3) Thus what he does not know are the facts that the Orthodox broke because they wanted married priests, denied the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, adopted contraception, denied the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and permitted divorce and remarriage.

Abu, those may be points of difference now, but to be accurate, they are hardly all reasons why the schism occurred in the first place. Contraception was not a reason for the schism…wider acceptance of it (and, from what I understand, it is not universally and definitively accepted) in the EOC is only recent, as is the case with virtually all Christian denominations in which the practice has been accepted to one extent or another.
The EOC does not deny the Immaculate Conception, although it does not hold our dogma as a matter of faith.
To be clear, the Easterners had married priests prior to the schism - from what I understand, one of the points of friction between West and East was insistence against married priests by Western missionaries, unless I’m mistaken. It wasn’t as though the East rebelled against a pre-existing universal law of priestly celibacy (not that you were necessarily implying that).
I don’t know much about the history of divorce and remarriage in the EOC, but I’ve never heard it cited as a reason for the split.

 

[Abu]

MilesVitae #435
from what I understand, one of the points of friction between West and East was insistence against married priests by Western missionaries, unless I’m mistaken. It wasn’t as though the East rebelled against a pre-existing universal law of priestly celibacy (not that you were necessarily implying that).

There was no “implication”. It is a fact that priestly celibacy is an Apostolic Norm. The Church had celibate clergy only, from the beginning.

This fact was widely disregarded, even though there was Vatican acknowledgment:
‘In more recent times, the predecessor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an instruction **in 1858 **that stated: "Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in Holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence. 9

‘That priestly celibacy is an apostolic tradition “is shown clearly and convincingly” by the work of Stickler, Cochini, Heid, and others. This is the verdict of then – Cardinal Ratzinger. 10

Cardinal Ratzinger in *The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements *(note 10), explains the unity existing with and from the apostles, including priestly celibacy.
“That priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, *The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations *(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf. also I: Cochini, Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal (Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).” (p 483 n 2)
Notes
9 Quoted by Roman Cholij, Celibacy, Married Clergy, and the Oriental Code. Eastern Churches Journal , Vol. 3, No. 3 (Autumn, 1996), p. 112.
10 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Theological Locus of Ecclesial Movements. Communio (Fall 1998), footnote 2, p. 483.
holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/guests/rayryland/thegift.asp

Contraception was not a reason for the schism. I don’t know much about the history of divorce and remarriage in the EOC, but I’ve never heard it cited as a reason for the split.

My point 3) was meant to sum up the errors into which the Orthodox have fallen, from their first error to today – divorce, remarriage and contraception, were not reasons for the schism.

The error of divorce was reinforced by Henry VIII – infamously, who formed his own church.

The firm Christian teaching against contraception was broached by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference of 1930, resulting in the definitive teaching against contraception by Pius XI in Casti Connubii 1930.

 

[MilesVitae]

There was no “implication”.

I didn’t say there was.

It is a fact that priestly celibacy is an Apostolic Norm. The Church had celibate clergy only, from the beginning…

Maybe it was, maybe not - I don’t know enough about the history of it to discuss the matter, other than the fact that clerical celibacy was not universally practiced or enforced (even if it can be argued that it was an “apostolic norm”), and that (and this was the only point I was making, for the sake of clarity and accuracy) the easterns had a tradition (sound or not) of allowing married priests which missionaries from the west opposed (justly or not).

My point 3) was meant to sum up the errors into which the Orthodox have fallen, from their first error to today – divorce, remarriage and contraception, were not reasons for the schism.

Fair enough . I commented as I did because your wording made it sound as though you were claiming these were reasons for the schism.
From what I understand, though, there are many in EOC who hold a traditional view towards contraception, and the matter has not been settled in any universal, definitive manner.

The error of divorce was reinforced by Henry VIII – infamously, who formed his own church.

Are you referencing this as being relevant to the EOC?

 

[Abu]

MilesVitae #437
Maybe it was, maybe not - I don’t know enough about the history of it to discuss the matter, other than the fact that clerical celibacy was not universally practiced or enforced (even if it can be argued that it was an “apostolic norm”), and that (and this was the only point I was making, for the sake of clarity and accuracy) the easterns had a tradition (sound or not) of allowing married priests which missionaries from the west opposed (justly or not).

What is FACT is that clerical continence was universally practiced and enforced from the beginning, as an apostolic norm.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger is very clear – Post #436:
“priestly celibacy is not a medieval invention, but goes back to the earliest period of the Church, is shown clearly and convincingly by Card. A.M. Stickler, *The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations *(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995). Cf. also I: Cochini, *Origines apostoliques du celibat sacerdotal *(Paris-Namur, 1981); S Heid, *Zolibat in der friihen Kirche *(Paderborn, 1997).” (p 483 n 2).

See the facts here also:
Priestly Celibacy Is Here to Stay – The History of Priestly Celibacy
Fr. Ray Ryland Ph.D.
From the May/Jun 2003 Issue of Lay Witness Magazine
cuf.org/2003/05/priestly-celibacy-is-here-to-stay-the-history-of-priestly-celibacy/