Where to begin?

[Lampo]

I think your assessment is correct. The ultimate point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants is over authority - the Church or the Bible Alone.

A new thread is probably in order, and we need to establish a single statement to be defended or denied.

Any suggestions?

“If you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, you should become Catholic.”

 

[Solus_Christus]

I think your assessment is correct. The ultimate point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants is over authority - the Church or the Bible Alone.

A new thread is probably in order, and we need to establish a single statement to be defended or denied.

Any suggestions?

Even narrowing the subject down to whether ultimate authority resides in the Church or the Bible alone can yield a very broad and wide-ranging discussion. As such, I agree distilling it down to a single statement and starting a new thread is the best way to go.

Perhaps one of the greatest contentions in relation to this topic is the RCC claim to papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Sacred Magisterium. Yet a discussion on this topic assumes a hierarchical structure and apostolic succession. I would like to focus on the main point of contention. If we do so, we will have to all be vigilant to keep the discussion from wandering into these related issues.

Assuming this is agreeable, I propose the following statement:

Papal infallibility is not an apostolic Tradition, but a subsequent innovation.

Or, if you prefer, stated from the opposite perspective - either one is fine with me:

Papal infallibility is an apostolic Tradition and not a subsequent innovation.

Thoughts?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Even narrowing the subject down to whether ultimate authority resides in the Church or the Bible alone can yield a very broad and wide-ranging discussion. As such, I agree distilling it down to a single statement and starting a new thread is the best way to go.

Perhaps one of the greatest contentions in relation to this topic is the RCC claim to papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Sacred Magisterium. Yet a discussion on this topic assumes a hierarchical structure and apostolic succession. I would like to focus on the main point of contention. If we do so, we will have to all be vigilant to keep the discussion from wandering into these related issues.

Assuming this is agreeable, I propose the following statement:

Papal infallibility is not an apostolic Tradition, but a subsequent innovation.

Or, if you prefer, stated from the opposite perspective - either one is fine with me:

Papal infallibility is an apostolic Tradition and not a subsequent innovation.

Thoughts?

But discussing papal infallibility is not the same as discussing authority.

 

[jmcrae]

But discussing papal infallibility is not the same as discussing authority.

Good point. He would still have authority, even if he were not infallible.

 

[Solus_Christus]

But discussing papal infallibility is not the same as discussing authority.

You and jmcrae are right, of course, but the two subjects are closely related. Out of curiosity, if the Pope did not have the charism of infallibility and the Sacred Magisterium were not indefectible, would you still adhere to all of the Church’s teachings without question?

 

[Lampo]

Out of curiosity, if the Pope did not have the charism of infallibility and the Sacred Magisterium were not indefectible, would you still adhere to all of the Church’s teachings without question?

I wouldn’t because that would mean God’s Church could teach error.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You and jmcrae are right, of course, but the two subjects are closely related. Out of curiosity, if the Pope did not have the charism of infallibility and the Sacred Magisterium were not indefectible, would you still adhere to all of the Church’s teachings without question?

What you’re really asking is: Is there anything the Church teaches that you go along with only because you have to and not because you actually believe it?

Is that the real question?

 

[jmcrae]

You and jmcrae are right, of course, but the two subjects are closely related. Out of curiosity, if the Pope did not have the charism of infallibility and the Sacred Magisterium were not indefectible, would you still adhere to all of the Church’s teachings without question?

I don’t adhere to them “without question” right now. My questioning, though, is not hostile “prove it to me” type of questioning, but rather, “faith seeking understanding” and “I believe, Lord; help Thou mine unbelief.”

Since I have already been a Protestant at one time, and belonged to a church that didn’t claim any kind of infallibility, I still did what I was supposed to do and believed what they told me - so, even if infallibility did not exist, I expect that in my own case, I would still believe it.

I became a Catholic when I realized for myself that the Catholic Church is what Christ established, and nothing else. Infallibility didn’t really factor into my decision - I saw in John 21:15-19 that Jesus made Peter to be the overseer of the Church, and I saw from history that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter, so I obey him because he is the guy in charge - exactly the same way that I obey my boss at work, do whatever a police officer tells me to do when the occasion arises, and do my duty for my parents at home. None of these are infallible, but they still have to be obeyed - the Pope, also, would still be the overseer of the Church established by Jesus Christ, even if he were not infallible - thus, he would still have to be obeyed, even so.

 

[Solus_Christus]

What you’re really asking is: Is there anything the Church teaches that you go along with only because you have to and not because you actually believe it?

Is that the real question?

Close, but not exactly. What I want to know is if the RCC had never claimed to be indefectible, would you still follow their teachings in all things, even if it appeared they were teaching error in some areas? In other words, I want to know whether your determination to embrace all Church teaching is in any way affected by the claim to indefectibility or whether it is predicated exclusively on the authority claimed by the RCC.

 

[Solus_Christus]

I don’t adhere to them “without question” right now. My questioning, though, is not hostile “prove it to me” type of questioning, but rather, “faith seeking understanding” and “I believe, Lord; help Thou mine unbelief.”

Since I have already been a Protestant at one time, and belonged to a church that didn’t claim any kind of infallibility, I still did what I was supposed to do and believed what they told me - so, even if infallibility did not exist, I expect that in my own case, I would still believe it.

I became a Catholic when I realized for myself that the Catholic Church is what Christ established, and nothing else. Infallibility didn’t really factor into my decision - I saw in John 21:15-19 that Jesus made Peter to be the overseer of the Church, and I saw from history that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter, so I obey him because he is the guy in charge - exactly the same way that I obey my boss at work, do whatever a police officer tells me to do when the occasion arises, and do my duty for my parents at home. None of these are infallible, but they still have to be obeyed - the Pope, also, would still be the overseer of the Church established by Jesus Christ, even if he were not infallible - thus, he would still have to be obeyed, even so.

Thank you for your candor. I hear and understand your analogy with the police officer, boss, and parents. We both agree that police officers, bosses, and parents are not infallible, and yet exercise authority over us and we are required by God to submit to their authority. It sounds to me (in fact you stated it yourself) that the RCC claim to infallibility is less of a consideration for you personally than the RCC claim to authority (in conjunction with the corroborating evidence you sited).

In this context, please allow me to pose two hypothetical questions using the analogy of the police officer:

1. If a police officer were to confront you, and demand from you that you drive across town at 20 miles above the posted speed limit, would you comply? Why or why not?
2. Suppose a new law were passed requiring citizens of your race to seek out and kill citizens of another race. One day you are walking down the street and you encounter a citizen of the condemned race and a police officer happens by at that same moment and demands of you that you act in accordance with the new law by killing that citizen, would you comply? Why or why not?

I trust that your answer is that you would not comply in both cases, but please explain the basis for your non-compliance.

 

[fbl9]

Thank you for your candor. I hear and understand your analogy with the police officer, boss, and parents. We both agree that police officers, bosses, and parents are not infallible, and yet exercise authority over us and we are required by God to submit to their authority. It sounds to me (in fact you stated it yourself) that the RCC claim to infallibility is less of a consideration for you personally than the RCC claim to authority (in conjunction with the corroborating evidence you sited).

In this context, please allow me to pose two hypothetical questions using the analogy of the police officer:

1. If a police officer were to confront you, and demand from you that you drive across town at 20 miles above the posted speed limit, would you comply? Why or why not?
2. Suppose a new law were passed requiring citizens of your race to seek out and kill citizens of another race. One day you are walking down the street and you encounter a citizen of the condemned race and a police officer happens by at that same moment and demands of you that you act in accordance with the new law by killing that citizen, would you comply? Why or why not?

I trust that your answer is that you would not comply in both cases, but please explain the basis for your non-compliance.

The way i looked at it was somebody has to have authority. And with that authority came the responsiblity of teaching correctly.
Where does the authority come from? From man or God? If the authority came from God then the authority would not be capable of teaching error, otherwise could not be true authority from God.

as to
1)why would the first question. then the decision to disregard my own saftey could be made.
Let’s have a little fun here Solus. Say the officer demanded you to drive as you stated or be apostate. What say ye?

2)No because it is an unjust law.

 

[Solus_Christus]

The way i looked at it was somebody has to have authority. And with that authority came the responsiblity of teaching correctly.
Where does the authority come from? From man or God? If the authority came from God then the authority would not be capable of teaching error, otherwise could not be true authority from God.

as to
1)why would the first question. then the decision to disregard my own saftey could be made.
Let’s have a little fun here Solus. Say the officer demanded you to drive as you stated or be apostate. What say ye?

2)No because it is an unjust law.

I posed the questions in order to further our consideration of the true nature of authority in anticipation of the new thread Randy is suggesting. I am also trying to point out why the question of infallibility plays so prominently into any discussion on church authority.

The authority wielded by police officers is derived from those who have commissioned them. In this case it may be a municipal or state government. In the first question, the police officer has stepped outside the bounds of the authority conveyed to him because he is ordering that the duly enacted laws (i.e. posted speed limits) of the government be violated. While the police officer does have authority over you, he does not have the authority to force you into violating the law because in so doing he is acting contrary to the overriding authority of the government which commissioned him. Said differently, his authority can only be rightfully exercised and is only valid when it is in accordance with the government. When he acts outside those bounds, then rather than being subject to him, you are bound by the greater authority (the government) to disobey his command. In fine, his authority is not absolute but derivative.

What about in the second scenario? This is a little different because now the police officer is acting in accordance with the government enacted laws. As you correctly pointed out, however, this is an unjust law. The clear implication here is that the authority of the government is itself derivative and not absolute. Civil governments derive their authority from God, and if they act in opposition to God’s laws, say by passing the heinous law in the example, then we are bound to the higher authority of God and thus to disobey the unjust law of the civil government. Needless to say, God’s authority is absolute. But that the authority of governments is derivative we need not philosophize because God tells us this truth Himself: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Romans 13:1-7)

With this proper understanding of authority in-place, I hope the implications for our discussion here are clearer. The authority of Church government is also derivative and not absolute (only God’s authority is absolute). If church government truly is indefectible, then there will never be an instance where Christians are justified in disobeying that authority. If, on the other hand, that government is susceptible to error, then Lampo is absolutely correct it would be wrong to accept all church teaching without question.

Randy agreed that authority is the crux of the matter. What I would like to come to an agreement on here, however, is that the nature of that authority (i.e. whether or not it is indefectible) is the “crux of the crux,” if you will. Christians are bound to accept church authority. I will not argue against that. I will also own sorrowfully, that church authority is far too often treated lightly by many Protestants. In the narrowing down of our discussion, however, it seems beneficial to all if we confront this question of whether the derivative power of church authority is indefectible.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you for your candor. I hear and understand your analogy with the police officer, boss, and parents. We both agree that police officers, bosses, and parents are not infallible, and yet exercise authority over us and we are required by God to submit to their authority. It sounds to me (in fact you stated it yourself) that the RCC claim to infallibility is less of a consideration for you personally than the RCC claim to authority (in conjunction with the corroborating evidence you sited).

In this context, please allow me to pose two hypothetical questions using the analogy of the police officer:

1. If a police officer were to confront you, and demand from you that you drive across town at 20 miles above the posted speed limit, would you comply? Why or why not?

Is a police officer likely to ask this of me? My experience is that it is not in the nature of police officers to ask such things.

1. Suppose a new law were passed requiring citizens of your race to seek out and kill citizens of another race.

Even the most despotic regimes has never had such a law.

Do you consider it likely that the Canadian government will enact such a law within my lifetime? If not, then it is not worth worrying about.

In the same way, it is not in the nature of Church officials to require believers to do things that are contrary to the will of God. It would be of no benefit or profit to them to do so, since their credibility (and job security) rests on following God’s will as it has been revealed to them, rather than making something up. They, more than anyone, understand that the ways of man are the ways of failure, and that it is only by following God’s will that lasting success can be achieved. Therefore, it is incredibly unlikely that they would ever ask me to do or to believe anything that is contrary to God’s will - it would harm them more than it would harm me, if they were ever to do so.

Which brings up another point - if you were commanded by someone with the proper authority to do something, and it was within their sphere of authority to command it, and you did it, you would not be found guilty of any sin or any crime - the whole guilt would rest on them. However, if you were to disobey them, and it turned out that they were right, then you would bear the whole guilt, since it was you who was disobedient, and not them.

 

[jmcrae]

Needless to say, God’s authority is absolute. But that the authority of governments is derivative we need not philosophize because God tells us this truth Himself: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.” (Romans 13:1-7)

With this proper understanding of authority in-place, I hope the implications for our discussion here are clearer. The authority of Church government is also derivative and not absolute (only God’s authority is absolute). If church government truly is indefectible, then there will never be an instance where Christians are justified in disobeying that authority.

Precisely. And in the Scriptures, we see Jesus (who is God the Second Person - that is to say, the Word of Creation) telling our first Pope, "whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven (meaning, any law made by the Pope is considered equal with any of the Ten Commandments) and whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven (meaning, any law that he takes away is no longer considered a commandment in Heaven).

We find all this in the 16th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Is a police officer likely to ask this of me? My experience is that it is not in the nature of police officers to ask such things.

You understand, I hope, the meaning of the word “hypothetical”? Besides is human nature corrupt? Has there never been a case of police corruption within the history of mankind? For that matter, have you been to Russia at all? Police corruption is par for the course over there.

Even the most despotic regimes has never had such a law.

My friend, you live a very sheltered life. Have you ever heard of an historical event called Kristallnacht? Or, have you read about the Rawandan massacre? Pol Pot pehaps? Mao Tse Tung maybe? Stalin?

It is going to be difficult for us to start a new and focused discussion if people insist on arguing about the very things we should agree on. Let us please save our arguments for the areas where we disagree and not just argue for argument’s sake.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Which brings up another point - if you were commanded by someone with the proper authority to do something, and it was within their sphere of authority to command it, and you did it, you would not be found guilty of any sin or any crime - the whole guilt would rest on them. However, if you were to disobey them, and it turned out that they were right, then you would bear the whole guilt, since it was you who was disobedient, and not them.

You are sadly mistaken. Do you honestly believe that Nazi soldiers who brutalized concentration camp prisoners will not be held accountable by God simply because they were following the orders of their superiors? If you believe this then I am afraid you and I will never be able to come to an agreement about much of anything.

Based on this response I take it you do not agree with my subsequent post where I attempt to distinguish between absolute and derivative types of authority?

 

[Solus_Christus]

Precisely. And in the Scriptures, we see Jesus (who is God the Second Person - that is to say, the Word of Creation) telling our first Pope, "whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven (meaning, any law made by the Pope is considered equal with any of the Ten Commandments) and whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven (meaning, any law that he takes away is no longer considered a commandment in Heaven).

We find all this in the 16th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.

We are attempting to establish an agreeable foundation for our discussion here. Why are you instead trying to put a roof on this thing? One step at a time my impatient friend.

 

[guanophore]

Even narrowing the subject down to whether ultimate authority resides in the Church or the Bible alone can yield a very broad and wide-ranging discussion. As such, I agree distilling it down to a single statement and starting a new thread is the best way to go.

If you base any discussion on such a strawman, I don’t think it will yield any useful results. The CC does not believe or teach “Church or Bible alone”. Such a position is an imaginary position that is often espoused by our separated brethren.

Perhaps one of the greatest contentions in relation to this topic is the RCC claim to papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Sacred Magisterium. Yet a discussion on this topic assumes a hierarchical structure and apostolic succession. I would like to focus on the main point of contention. If we do so, we will have to all be vigilant to keep the discussion from wandering into these related issues.

This is certainly true. Catholics believe that all authority comes from God, and any apostolic authority that remains on earth now has been passed down to us from the Apsotles.

 

[jmcrae]

You understand, I hope, the meaning of the word “hypothetical”? Besides is human nature corrupt? Has there never been a case of police corruption within the history of mankind? For that matter, have you been to Russia at all? Police corruption is par for the course over there.

If a Church official ever commands me to do something that is outside of his authority to command, you can rest assured that I won’t do it.

But this in no way means that I, or any baptized person, is not required to obey him in the areas of his competency.

Being allowed to disobey a police officer who commands you to do something that police officers have no authority to command you to do, does not mean that you can disobey him in everything else, as well - even if it is the same police officer.

My friend, you live a very sheltered life. Have you ever heard of an historical event called Kristallnacht? Or, have you read about the Rawandan massacre? Pol Pot pehaps? Mao Tse Tung maybe? Stalin?

Permission to kill people of other races is not the same thing as a requirement to kill them. And again, we have here a situation where the government is making a law that is outside of its competency - so, in that case, you don’t have to obey it, But at the same time, you would still have to pay your taxes, and register your car and your business.

It is going to be difficult for us to start a new and focused discussion if people insist on arguing about the very things we should agree on. Let us please save our arguments for the areas where we disagree and not just argue for argument’s sake.

We could also try to avoid using absurd hypotheticals - nobody in the Church is going to ever command you ,on pain of excommunication or being considered apostate, to do anything that God doesn’t want you to do.

That’s not my promise; that’s God’s promise.

 

[jmcrae]

We are attempting to establish an agreeable foundation for our discussion here. Why are you instead trying to put a roof on this thing? One step at a time my impatient friend.

I figured I’d save us all a lot of time - RCIA classes are taking registrations even as we speak.