To be honest, it is never a question I have ever contemplated in my christian walk. I have never been one to go around proclaiming this particular church is “the one true church” and members of any other church are going to hell. I have never been convinced that God will reject someone because they didn’t go the “right” church. I know he will judge my heart.
So then, apart from advocating sin, when teaching on issues of faith and morals, we are to defer to those “over us in the Lord”, correct?
I am not sure that it still applies as broadly as that. Over time, the role of the clergy has changed as society has developed, and their position as teachers of faith and morals has been altered by the operation of other sources: ethics is a distinct field within philosophy, and theology is an academic discipline no longer wholly bound to the Church. Priests and theologians are not the same.
Very good points. Do you believe theise developments invalidate the Scriptural instructions given above about leaders?
Yes. St. Paul’s teaching on that matter didn’t include an expiration date.
I was taught that Catholics are to be obedient to doctrine, recognizing the infallibility of individual humans. So that is why it is so important to be properly cathechised, and that is the personal responsibility of each person, to make an effort to learn the doctrine, that they will not be led astray.Yes. St. Paul’s teaching on that matter didn’t include an expiration date.
Okay…so you have taken for yourself the authority to determine what is truth and what is not…so you are then infallible when you decided what is truth and what is not…
I would say yes to both. I do not think that we agree on what the Catholic church was.
Yes, I think a group of fallible men are certainly capable of being fallible collectively.
What would make you think that?
I wonder whether the developments might simply have rendered the instructions obsolete, in the same way that the Jewish hygiene laws were. In other words, I am not certain that what is in Scripture has to be eternally right merely because it is in Scripture (which is all kinds of heretical, of course).
For some Protestants, the distrust of ecclesiastical authority runs deep, and so the conception of a divinely-headed, Spirit-guided Church is distinguished from the conception of a centralised mortal one: we do not trust any mortal(s) to wield that kind of power.
The apostles were mortal, obviously, fallible sinners. Do you trust that these fallible men, the very first leaders of Jesus’ church were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit to write infallibly?
OK, someday I’m gonna be able to use this for a chuckle or two. Thank you!I’d almost be willing to convert!
That depends.
I think that Christ certainly refutes this notion by His constant rebukes of those whose developments obscured the Word of God. But He never said the Word of God was obselete. On the contrary, He affirmed Scripture and Sacred Tradition, it was the human traditions that provoked Him, and not all of those, either, but only those that contradicted the Sacred revelation of God.
Yes, and a distrust well earned. However the conditions that existed 500 years go no longer exist. Refusal to heal and forgive is against our Lords’s wishes.
As well you should be distrustful. History has shown that any institution conceptualized and centralized by humans will inevitably fall. The only reason the Church has survived is because of her divine elements.
Jesus set up a centralized leadership, because that is what works best for humans (as our Creator, He should know). It is right that we be at least cautious about authority. The words of Lord Acton come to mind; “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.” and of course, more popular: **Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. **
Your self invented requirement for office is based upon a false premise. You seem to have confused impeccability for infallibility, which is a common mistake.
We believe that both things are true, and that just as Jesus was able to be divine within human form, so the Scriptures are a manifestation of divinity in and through the cultural understanding of those who wrote them. They are the best example of infallibilty - God’s ability to produce a perfect result through an imperfect vessel.
In that case, I reckon there is nothing more of use that can be said. You have decided that the culture of man is more powerful than God.
That is not quite true: we have (generally) decided that the voice of God is not clearly distinguishable from the voice of humanity, and so we have to work through everything on a case-by-case basis, always being aware of the probability that we are wrong in much of what we understand. It is not easy, but it is the only thing which makes sense to us.In that case, I reckon there is nothing more of use that can be said. You have decided that the culture of man is more powerful than God.
Most Protestants whom I know do not hold any animosity towards Catholicism; the forgiveness has happened. However, our idea of healing is generally that we should work happily alongside Catholics, not that we should become Catholic, whereas many Catholics seem to believe that healing should mean giving up all of the growing which we have done since we left the family home.
Actually, no, I haven’t: what would be necessary would not be someone who has not failed, but someone who cannot. Infallibility is precisely what I meant. This is the core of the problem: what we would need is something which we cannot have.
By “us” are you representing an Anglican point of view?
Where such growth has been in a direction away from what God has revealed, yes.
I agree. Your concept of impeccability/infallibility is not consistent with what Christ taught, nor what the CC believes.