"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[Peter_J]

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church is involved in “unionism and syncretism” by dialogging with Lutherans?

Heck no.

If I thought that, then I wouldn’t support the dialogues – I regard unionism as something to be avoided.

 

[SteveVH]

While it’s certainly true we Lutherans have been rather wayward over the last 500 years, and I will say that only a few of our churches could rightly be called ‘catholic’.

But, It’s here where I get to poke our Catholic friends and remind them of their novel dogma that have been promulgated over the last few years. That if the Catholic church were to also remain unchanged, our ecumenical dialog would be much more fruitful. I daresay the Orthodox probably also object to the new Catholic dogma as well.

Ok, I am very confused. New Catholic dogma? Dogma is an article of faith revealed by God. What is the “new Catholic dogma” of which you speak?

 

[benjohnson]

Ok, I am very confused. New Catholic dogma? Dogma is an article of faith revealed by God. What is the “new Catholic dogma” of which you speak?

Papal infalibilty provably the primary one - its only a few hundred years old.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Papal infalibilty provably the primary one - its only a few hundred years old.

The declaration is not the dogma.

It’s like saying that the Trinity was created in the fourth century. No it existed since the beginning but was clarified and declared later.

 

[SteveVH]

The declaration is not the dogma.

It’s like saying that the Trinity was created in the fourth century. No it existed since the beginning but was clarified and declared later.

Yep.

 

[benjohnson]

The declaration is not the dogma.

It’s like saying that the Trinity was created in the fourth century. No it existed since the beginning but was clarified and declared later.

The trouble is that the church never acted like the Bishop of Rome was infallible in it’s early history - there were plenty of ecumenical councils that need not have taken place had the Bishop of Rome been able to declare what was dogma/doctrine.

 

[Peter_J]

The trouble is that the church never acted like the Bishop of Rome was infallible in it’s early history - there were plenty of ecumenical councils that need not have taken place had the Bishop of Rome been able to declare what was dogma/doctrine.

I’ve heard these arguments before, and probably will again (not that there’s anything wrong with that ). But that aside, permit me to clarify what the Catholic Church’s position is regarding the phrase you used (post #196) “new Catholic dogma”: namely, she agrees with you that teaching wasn’t a dogma until (in this case) the First Vatican Council, but maintains that the teaching was always part of the Deposit of Faith. (There’s a good quote from Cardinal Newman on that subject.)

 

[JamesTheJust]

The trouble is that the church never acted like the Bishop of Rome was infallible in it’s early history - there were plenty of ecumenical councils that need not have taken place had the Bishop of Rome been able to declare what was dogma/doctrine.

Really?

Robert Sugenis, as Rad-Trad leaning as he may sometimes be, excellently defends papal infallibility here:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=avL6vJw5ZBE

 

[benjohnson]

Really?

For my Catholic friends, I’m curious - is there any new dogma declared infallible by the Bishop of Rome in the early church history? And if so, was there understanding at the time that it was because the Bishop of Rome made these pronouncement that there were considered infallible.

 

[benjohnson]

But that aside, permit me to clarify what the Catholic Church’s position is regarding the phrase you used (post #196) “new Catholic dogma”: namely, she agrees with you that teaching wasn’t a dogma until (in this case) the First Vatican Council, but maintains that the teaching was always part of the Deposit of Faith.

Historically, I don’t think you can find referencec for Papal Infallibility before the 14th century though.

That said…

As I understand it, the dogma such as Papal Infallibility came with some rather strong consequences for non-assent. For me, the main problem is that it the church is creating new stumbling blocks to salvation.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I direct the reader to the quote below from the Dialogue that points out how the Orthodox also do not accept papal infallibility and at least one of the dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary that are considered infallible by Catholics. But eucharistic sharing is allowed nonetheless [at least by Catholics]. The Dialogue suggests eucharistic sharing with Lutherans could also be extended by the Catholic Church since not all Catholics fully embrace infallibility. There is also discussion of how papal infallibility could be explored together with Lutherans and re-framed. Interesting stuff.

LUTHERAN—ROMAN CATHOLIC DIALOGUE

TEACHING AUTHORITY AND INFALLIBILITY IN THE CHURCH

1. A step in this direction was taken by Vatican II, which permitted limited Eucharistie sharing between Catholics and Orthodox,122 even though the latter do not normally accept (and even at times explicitly reject at least one or more of) the dogmas in question. The situation of the Orthodox and Lutherans, though different in many ways, is similar at least in the following: both find themselves for the most part unable to accept one or more of these teachings as part of the deposit of faith. If this inability on the part of the Orthodox does not preclude all Eucharistie sharing with Catholics, the same inability on the part of Lutherans should not of itself do so either. Lack of Christian faith would and should so preclude. But the operative presumption is that Christian faith sufficient for Eucharistie sharing exists in the case of Catholics and Orthodox despite the inability of the latter to accept all these particular dogmas. We believe that this presumption regarding Christian faith should be extended also to Lutherans. If so, it would not thereby follow that limited Eucharistie sharing was justified in their case too. But it would follow that such sharing ought not to be ruled out because of Lutheran failure to accept these three teachings.
   ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/40/40.1/40.1.5.pdf

 

[JamesTheJust]

I direct the reader to the quote below from the Dialogue that points out how the Orthodox also do not accept papal infallibility and at least one of the dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary that are considered infallible by Catholics. But eucharistic sharing is allowed nonetheless [at least by Catholics]. The Dialogue suggests eucharistic sharing with Lutherans could also be extended by the Catholic Church since not all Catholics fully embrace infallibility. There is also discussion of how papal infallibility could be explored together with Lutherans and re-framed. Interesting stuff.

Where does it say that the dogma can be redefined or changed?

 

[JamesTheJust]

Ben, did you watch the video? It provides lots of Early Church support for papal infallibility.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Historically, I don’t think you can find referencec for Papal Infallibility before the 14th century though.

That said…

As I understand it, the dogma such as Papal Infallibility came with some rather strong consequences for non-assent. For me, the main problem is that it the church is creating new stumbling blocks to salvation.

I think you will find the idea present well before that even if it is not framed in terms of “infallibility.” To make our task easier, let’s consider instead the basically equivalent idea that the pope is the final judge in matters of faith and that all the faithful are bound by his decisions. How could the pope have this authority apart from some guarantee of infallibility. We see this idea clearly present throughout the history of the Church. For instance, in his Contra Errores Graecorum (written 1263), Thomas Aquinas writes,

It is also demonstrated that to the aforesaid Pontiff belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith. For Cyril in his Thesaurus says: “Let us remain as members in our head on the apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs, from whom it is our duty to seek what we must believe and what we must hold.” Footnote And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: “All the ends of the earth which have sincerely received the Lord and Catholics everywhere professing the true faith look to the Church of the Romans as to the sun, and receive from it the light of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” Footnote Rightly so, for Peter is recorded as the first to have, while the Lord was enlightening him, confessed the faith perfectly when he said to him (Matt. 16:16): You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And hence the Lord also said to him (Lk. 22:32): I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail.”
dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b36

We can see this same principle earlier on. For example, Peter Chrysologus writes to Eutyches (Fifth Century),

In all matters, we urge you, honorable brother, attend obediently to the things which are written by the most blessed pope of Rome: for blessed Peter, who in his own seat both lives and presides, provides to those seeking the truth of the faith. Indeed, for the pursuit of peace and faith, we cannot decide cases of faith apart from the agreement of the bishop of Rome.
(Letters of St. Leo the Great, 25.2)
www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/01p/0440-0461,_SS_Leo_I._Magnus,_Epistolae,_MLT.pdf

The fact that people did not always “attend obediently” to the rulings of the pope does not mean that it was not believed.

Even earlier Irenaeus writes (Second Century) that all Churches must agree with the Church of Rome on account of its preeminent authority.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
(Against Heresies 3.3.2)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

As for “strong consequences for non-assent,” isn’t that the idea? What purpose is it for the pope to have the prerogative to define matters of faith if we don’t want to assent to it?

For my Catholic friends, I’m curious - is there any new dogma declared infallible by the Bishop of Rome in the early church history? And if so, was there understanding at the time that it was because the Bishop of Rome made these pronouncement that there were considered infallible.

I think the mistake is to assume that the pope defines doctrine independent of the rest of the Church. The better question that we should ask first would simply be whether the pope decided matters of dogma, and the answer is that he did. Then we can ask the question whether it was understood that the pope’s decisions in matters of faith were binding on account of his office. I think it is clear from the quotations I provided above and others that it was understood that the bishop of Rome possessed that authority as the highest judge in matters of faith. Now, we could also look at those who dissented from the pope and say that this shows that the pope was not infallible (Cyprian would make a good example). The problem with the historical record is that we only have what little was preserved and we we only have a limited idea of the context. Nevertheless, at the very least, it appears that many did have the basic idea of papal infallibility.

 

[Peter_J]

I direct the reader to the quote below from the Dialogue that points out how the Orthodox also do not accept papal infallibility and at least one of the dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary that are considered infallible by Catholics.

I read the quote to be polite, but I don’t see the need to do so since it’s common knowledge that the Orthodox disagree with a couple of our dogmas.

 

[Peter_J]

As I understand it, the dogma such as Papal Infallibility came with some rather strong consequences for non-assent. For me, the main problem is that it the church is creating new stumbling blocks to salvation.

However, I believe that the requirement to believe those dogmas is seen and presented differently be recent popes than you might be understanding it. The quote EC gave is actually a striking illustration of this:

But the operative presumption is that Christian faith sufficient for Eucharistic sharing exists in the case of Catholics and Orthodox despite the inability of the latter to accept all these particular dogmas.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I read the quote to be polite, but I don’t see the need to do so since it’s common knowledge that the Orthodox disagree with a couple of our dogmas.

You may have politely missed the point that Catholics extend eucharistic hospitality to Orthodox Christians. The Dialogue is suggesting the same for Lutherans.

 

[Peter_J]

For my Catholic friends, I’m curious - is there any new dogma declared infallible by the Bishop of Rome in the early church history? And if so, was there understanding at the time that it was because the Bishop of Rome made these pronouncement that there were considered infallible.

What about the Tome of Leo? (Of course, the Oriental Orthodox have a *very *different take on it than Catholics and Eastern Orthodox; but you can see my point anyhow.)

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Where does it say that the dogma can be redefined or changed?

As with all the different subjects of the Dialogue, the issue of papal primacy and infallibility is somewhat lengthy. Here is one quote among several that suggests “re-thinking” of the dogma among both Catholics and Lutherans:

Yet Lutherans need not exclude the possibility that papal primacy and teaching authority might be acceptable developments, at least in certain respects.10 The Lutheran Reformers accepted the legitimacy of developments in the Church except where these denied or subverted the teaching of Scripture. Thus, they retained the liturgy of the Latin rite, making revisions where they judged its formulations to be contrary to the gospel; and they tried to preserve the episcopal structure of the Church and the traditional ecclesiastical discipline.

11 Theoretically, some aspects of the papacy could have been accepted in the same way. For while Lutherans see papal primacy as emerging over a long period of time, rather than something taught in the Scriptures, this function could, under proper conditions, be acknowledged as a legitimate development, maintaining unity, mediating disputes, and defending the Church’s spiritual freedom.

This theoretical possibility of seeing papal teaching authority in a more favorable light is now being actualized. Roman Catholics are rethinking their position, and this suggests that Lutherans may well ask themselves whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility, even if not something which they would be able to affirm for themselves, need continue to be regarded by them as anti-Christian and therefore as a barrier to the unity of the churches**. Catholics, on the other hand, must ask themselves whether their view of the papal teaching office and its infallibility can be so understood and presented as to meet the legitimate concerns of those Christians who have traditionally opposed the doctrine.**ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/40/40.1/40.1.5.pdf

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Point of clarity on the issue of infallibility. The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue identify 3 dogmas related to papal infallibility including the Immaculate Conception (1854) and that of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (1950) and, of-course Papal Infallibility (1869) in light of Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.

Lutherans view the papal pronouncements on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary as non-dogmatic and leave it up to each Christian if they believe these or not.

The Orthodox Church also rejects papal infallibility and, I believe they have concerns about the dogma on the Assumption.

The Catholic Commission on Unity suggests that these different opinions should not preclude Lutherans from receiving holy Communion in Catholic churches just like the eucharistic hospitality afforded Orthodox Christians.