G
GloriousOrder
Guest
My friends,
Please consider the facts of history with regards to popes. I am not at all convinced that infallibility is a sensible doctrine on the part of Rome. How can a man call himself the Vicar of Christ, when Christ is the eternal vicar of humanity, the shepherd who leads us to the Father? If the answer to this question is negative, one risks throwing all authority, dignity, and uniformity out; however, if the answer is positive and popes are legitimate, they still have a dangerous capability to fall into autocratic villainy (thanks to Sin). I suppose the real bulk of my problem can be fit into one question: “how can any one pope, speaking ex cathedra with all the bishops, infallibly declare something to be true, while remaining a mere sinful human being?” This question plagues me.
It is the singular attraction to (classical) Protestantism: popes are human, and thus may err, so we cannot call them special. After all, why should it logically be true that a new pope is suddenly imbued with the ability to speak infallibly upon the official cathedra, whereas the day before he was a mere cardinal with opinions? The argument is that the blessed, wondrous Holy Ghost descends peculiarly on this man when he is ‘crowned’; however, I see problems with this. Since Catholic Tradition is a retrograde experience (Vatican II became real Tradition in 1965), it seems reasonable to assume that popes before 1870 were infallible, if popes were infallible after 1870. The problem with this is simply the fact that popes have been in obvious contradiction to each other in the past, with all sorts of historical heresies believed by popes and anti-popes.
There is the infamous “Pornocracy” of the 10th century which represents the most ridiculous outgrowth of Papism. What of whores and princedoms being granted entirely to popes, supposedly the poor vicars of Christ? There is no logical contradiction in saying that a mere sinful man is prone to error, and if popes were considered to be regular men, then we could accept that some had prostitutes and land because they were sinners. The problem I’m having is … honestly, we don’t seem to confirm popes as sinners! Of course, we want to avoid pessimism and cynicism, but how can we really call a man “Your Holiness”, “His Holiness”, and such, unless we consider him to lack sin? The first condition of Holiness is to be dead to sin as best you can, after all - God is dead to sin; therefore, He is truly the Holy One. Naturally, titles don’t matter much (we can call princes "your highness, even though God is Most High, so never mind that), but there is a certain killjoy beneath the titles: a radical authority appears to be accorded to popes which men simply don’t have.
I have come to be a firm believer that the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ instituted real transubstantiation in the Eucharist, that He appointed Simon Peter as His rock, and I do believe Protestantism has not just the potentiality to fall into massive error, but the tendency, to fall into the same. These things combine to make me utterly suspicious of the Reformed Tradition; a similar aversion to weak-kneed, mystical autocracy makes me suspicious of joining Eastern Orthodoxy. Only the logical, majestic faith of Rome calls me, and only the Roman Catholic Church gives me true pause to contemplate my God truly. I want to be convinced of its core tenets, but this is presenting a huge stumbling block for me.
Whoever can help with ideas and arguments (especially from history) that force me to forfeit my suspicion of the papacy shall have my gratitude.
Do not be afraid
Please consider the facts of history with regards to popes. I am not at all convinced that infallibility is a sensible doctrine on the part of Rome. How can a man call himself the Vicar of Christ, when Christ is the eternal vicar of humanity, the shepherd who leads us to the Father? If the answer to this question is negative, one risks throwing all authority, dignity, and uniformity out; however, if the answer is positive and popes are legitimate, they still have a dangerous capability to fall into autocratic villainy (thanks to Sin). I suppose the real bulk of my problem can be fit into one question: “how can any one pope, speaking ex cathedra with all the bishops, infallibly declare something to be true, while remaining a mere sinful human being?” This question plagues me.
It is the singular attraction to (classical) Protestantism: popes are human, and thus may err, so we cannot call them special. After all, why should it logically be true that a new pope is suddenly imbued with the ability to speak infallibly upon the official cathedra, whereas the day before he was a mere cardinal with opinions? The argument is that the blessed, wondrous Holy Ghost descends peculiarly on this man when he is ‘crowned’; however, I see problems with this. Since Catholic Tradition is a retrograde experience (Vatican II became real Tradition in 1965), it seems reasonable to assume that popes before 1870 were infallible, if popes were infallible after 1870. The problem with this is simply the fact that popes have been in obvious contradiction to each other in the past, with all sorts of historical heresies believed by popes and anti-popes.
There is the infamous “Pornocracy” of the 10th century which represents the most ridiculous outgrowth of Papism. What of whores and princedoms being granted entirely to popes, supposedly the poor vicars of Christ? There is no logical contradiction in saying that a mere sinful man is prone to error, and if popes were considered to be regular men, then we could accept that some had prostitutes and land because they were sinners. The problem I’m having is … honestly, we don’t seem to confirm popes as sinners! Of course, we want to avoid pessimism and cynicism, but how can we really call a man “Your Holiness”, “His Holiness”, and such, unless we consider him to lack sin? The first condition of Holiness is to be dead to sin as best you can, after all - God is dead to sin; therefore, He is truly the Holy One. Naturally, titles don’t matter much (we can call princes "your highness, even though God is Most High, so never mind that), but there is a certain killjoy beneath the titles: a radical authority appears to be accorded to popes which men simply don’t have.
I have come to be a firm believer that the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ instituted real transubstantiation in the Eucharist, that He appointed Simon Peter as His rock, and I do believe Protestantism has not just the potentiality to fall into massive error, but the tendency, to fall into the same. These things combine to make me utterly suspicious of the Reformed Tradition; a similar aversion to weak-kneed, mystical autocracy makes me suspicious of joining Eastern Orthodoxy. Only the logical, majestic faith of Rome calls me, and only the Roman Catholic Church gives me true pause to contemplate my God truly. I want to be convinced of its core tenets, but this is presenting a huge stumbling block for me.
Whoever can help with ideas and arguments (especially from history) that force me to forfeit my suspicion of the papacy shall have my gratitude.
Do not be afraid
Please don’t think that I ever believed a sacrament invalid!
I am not someone who must know everything at once. My instinct/inclination is to join the Roman Catholic Church despite my qualms, and to learn in it and with it as my earthly life progresses. So long as I merit a place with our Lord by having glorified Him all my life, everything will be alright in the end. This is the joy of faith: calm optimism for the distant future, despite all evils. Thank God for your prayers!