Code:
On another thread PRmerger asked me "what teaching do you object to?" in reference to the Catholic Church. The question was sort of off topic, but I did want to provide an answer so I started this thread.
Thanks Itwin. I appreciate you very much.
Off the top of my head, I told PRmerger that I disagree with papal infallibility and the exclusivist claims of the CC. He then responded:
(“He” is a “She”)
We agree that the writers of Scripture were protected from error under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Though, I would not say that they were always and at every moment protected from error, though they definitely were inspired when writing scripture.
this is exactly how we understand “papal infallibility”. When he is teaching under the inspiration of the HS to guide the flock of God, the HS protects him from error. This is how we understand 1) the HS will guide the Church into “all Truth” and 2) The gates of hell will not prevail.
We believe that error paves the way through the gates of hell, so in order to keep His flock on the straight and narrow way, Jesus continues to guide His flock into all Truth with the same gift He gave to the writers of the NT.
As a Pentecostal, I continue to believe that God continues to speak to and inspire people. John 16:13 says, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
Yes, and we will agree that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Holy Scriptures, to the councils, or to papal ex cathedra statements, however, we recognize that the HS has, and does, speak and lead in these ways to keep the Church on track.
Code:
While the canon is closed, revelation continues because the need to be guided into all truth did not end with the closing of the canon. Some Christians have the unfortunate habit of limiting what the Spirit can speak to the church today. They basically reduce the Holy Spirit to repeating the Bible and in the process they unintentionally raise the Bible above the Spirit who inspired it. But the Spirit existed before the Bible, and the proper hierarchy is Spirit, Scripture, Church. All that the Spirit speaks will be scriptural, but it will not always be in scripture.
Itwin, sometimes you sound so Catholic it is scary!
Code:
The problem comes when we want to know how to test revelation. For Pentecostals, we discern what the Spirit is saying to the Church by referring to what the Spirit has always been saying to the Church as contained in Holy Scripture.
Yes, of course, this is very Catholic. The HS will not guide the Church in a direction that contradicts what He has already said. This is the very reason that we cannot approve of interpretations of Scripture that depart from what the Early Father’s believed and taught.
There is no warrant in Scripture for ascribing infallibility to any office. I have no doubt that the Lord has used many Popes, and I’m sure that at times they have spoken prophetically to the benefit of their flock.
Well, we understand what is written differently.
When Jesus gave Peter special and particular responsibility to feed and care for the flock, we understand that He was given certain gifts consistent with this charge.
Code:
However, I find it odd that when some of the less reputable Popes in history are brought up, Catholics say things like "Yes, this person was immoral and corrupt but the office of the Pope is divinely protected so anything they said ex cathedra can be trusted." How can anyone make such blanket statements like that?
Because we believe the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. The Petrine gifts (office) have been passed on to his successors, and we believe the promises of God to transcend the fallible nature of man. In reading Paul’s letters, we can see that he had a temper, and even descibes himself as “the least of all the Apostles”, and a “chief sinner”. He was a fallible man, who wrote infallibly. So too there have been corrupt popes, but God has made sure that they did not lead the Church into error. Unfortunately, some of them lacked sanctity to the extent that they fomented the divisions now present in the Church.
So, one issue I have is the assigning of infallibility to an office irrespective of the spiritual state of the person holding that office.
That is the nature of an office. Judas still occupied the “office” of Apostle, though he did not distinguish himself in that role. The President may distinguish himself in his office, or make a mockery out of it, but he is no less president.
Code:
The other problem I have is the lack of accountability. The Scriptures say that the spirits should be tested. When Popes make definitive rulings on matters of faith and claim that they are divinely protected from error where is the accountability and the discernment? And how should accountability be measured? By Scripture or a vague and undefined sacred tradition?
I think this is a just question, and may be easily answered by some informed history in how infallible proclamations are made. There is an incredible degree of accountablity, in ex cathedra, as well as councilar declarations.
Sacred Tradition is not vague and undefined. As much has been written about the word of God at work in the believers as there has on the Scriptures. It is more of a framework, a perspective, that helps us understand the scripture from the point of view of those who wrote it.
