Where to begin?

[guanophore]

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?

This is another strawman, Solus, along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife”.

No one here “adheres to all the Chuch’s teaching without question”. I doubt you will find any group of Catholics anywhere that has put the faith through questions more than those on CAF.

Many of us here are converts from Protestantism, and some of us left the Church for a long time, falling prey to heresies such as Sola Scriptura. We had to question, study, and pray our way back.

There is no “blind” obedience here. We obey with our eyes wide open, having seen and experienced the consequences of failure to do so.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

If they understood that they were brutalizing innocent victims, then they will be judged accordingly - however, if they believed that they were engaged in a just war against dangerous enemies of civilization (as those in the American government who do very similar things to persons suspected of terrorism) then God will find them innocent - much as we want to demonize them and make it seem as if no one in their right mind would ever do such a thing, and certainly never us.

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?

I understand very well what authority is, and where it comes from - and what its limits are. That authority has limits does not mean that it does not exist - or that disobedience is permitted in the areas of competency.

The statement, “Catholic priests did this bad thing; therefore I don’t have to go to Mass” is a false statement. In the one instance, priests were acting outside of their competency. In the other, it is God you are disobeying - the priest is only His messenger.

 

[guanophore]

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?

The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, and the promises of Jesus to guide her into “all Truth” are divine in origin, not “Roman”.

Our faith is Peter’s faith, and that means we trust the Sourc (Jesus) even if we don’t understand every thing He says right away.

John 6:68-70
8 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

Jesus identifies Himself completely with His Holy Bride, the Church.

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.

It is predicated exclusively on the authority of Jesus, and the promises He made to His fledgling Church.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I would go a step beyond that, because even the government can enact immoral laws, as you demonstrated in your second scenario.

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).

That is just it, though, Solus. CAtholics believe that the government is upon the shoulder of Christ, and He gave the Keys to Peter. When He sent them, He did so in His Own Authority. He told them

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

This is absolute.

If church government truly is indefectible, then there will never be an instance where Christians are justified in disobeying that authority.

At least there is one correct premise in all this!

Titus 2:15-3:1

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

 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.

People are susceptible to error, and the promise of being led into “all Truth” was made to the Church. When people depart, by disbelief or wrong actions from the Church, they are no longer protected by the promise.

Besides, NONE OF US ACCEPT ALL THE CHURCH TEACHINGS WITHOUT QUESTION!!!

That one is getting old.

If you want to debate with us, why not debate about what we really believe, instead of the lies you have been fed about Catholicism?

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.

Yes. Either Jesus was telling the Truth about leading the Church into “all Truth”, or he was lying. Or He was crazy. Or He was weak, and unable to keep His promise.

 

[guanophore]

Besides is human nature corrupt?

It is likely that we have different ideas about human nature. The Apostles taught that human nature has been wounded by original sin, but that the HS enables us to overcome that corruption, and walk in holiness.

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.

This is a great idea! I think you could help a lot by not assigning us positions in the debate that don’t belong to us.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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.

By the term “competency” I understand your meaning to be that the order of the police officer to drive above the posted speed limit is beyond his purview or jurisdiction. However, your analysis is wrong because speed limits are within his competency. The problem is that he has exercised authority beyond that which was conferred upon him. If, on the other hand, a police officer demanded that you say three hail Mary’s, well then that is beyond his competency. He has now gone completely beyond the domain of civil laws to an attempt to exercise spiritual authority. Perhaps it is a subtle distinction here, but still an important one.

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.

This distinction between permission and requirement does not really alter the main idea. I am not sure why you are so resistant to the idea that God’s authority is absolute while all other authorities are derivative.

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.

My hypothetical scenarios were made for the exclusive and express purpose of drawing out the nature of authority. You are in a rush to extend them to an argument when we have not even settled on a single statement to argue about. You seem strangely fond of contention…

 

[Solus_Christus]

This is another strawman, Solus, along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife”.

No one here “adheres to all the Chuch’s teaching without question”. I doubt you will find any group of Catholics anywhere that has put the faith through questions more than those on CAF.

Many of us here are converts from Protestantism, and some of us left the Church for a long time, falling prey to heresies such as Sola Scriptura. We had to question, study, and pray our way back.

There is no “blind” obedience here. We obey with our eyes wide open, having seen and experienced the consequences of failure to do so.

Okay, thanks for the correction. Allow me to modify: “…adheres to all the Church’s teaching regardless of whether it seems right or wrong.” This is not a strawman since many Catholics have stated on this thread and others that if they disagree with RCC teaching they will acquiesce with the assumption that they just don’t fully understand the details. After all, if RCC teaching is indefectible and you disagree, then you are necessarily wrong. Still, I am not sure how this really changes things significantly

 

[Solus_Christus]

If they understood that they were brutalizing innocent victims, then they will be judged accordingly - however, if they believed that they were engaged in a just war against dangerous enemies of civilization (as those in the American government who do very similar things to persons suspected of terrorism) then God will find them innocent - much as we want to demonize them and make it seem as if no one in their right mind would ever do such a thing, and certainly never us.

I think you are right: God considers our motives. You are also wrong, however, because even if our motives are pure that does not make us blameless (i.e. God does not consider motives alone). The Nazis, for example, thought they were doing humanity a great service by cleansing the gene pool and creating a master race. Regardless of their motives, however, what they did was sinful in the eyes of God. What’s that saying? The path to Hell is paved with good intentions?

I understand very well what authority is, and where it comes from - and what its limits are. That authority has limits does not mean that it does not exist - or that disobedience is permitted in the areas of competency.

I never said authority does not exist because it has limits (not sure where that came from). As I said, however, an authority can be acting within its competency but in contradiction to the higher authority, and when it does we are obligated to the higher authority which we can trace all the way back up to the final and absolute authority of God. This really is all I am attempting to establish as a starting point. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Solus_Christus]

That is just it, though, Solus. CAtholics believe that the government is upon the shoulder of Christ, and He gave the Keys to Peter. When He sent them, He did so in His Own Authority. He told them

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

This is absolute.

I will take this as a “no” (i.e. that you do not agree). You are misunderstanding, however, what absolute means in this context. God also established civil government as I showed by the Romans 13 passage, but that does not make that authority absolute. It is still derivative because it is derived from the authority granted to it by God. Daniel 2:21 says “…he [God] deposes kings and raises up others.” If the civil authority of the king were absolute, then God would be unable to depose kings. Hopefully this clarifies things.

Yes. Either Jesus was telling the Truth about leading the Church into “all Truth”, or he was lying. Or He was crazy. Or He was weak, and unable to keep His promise.

OR the RCC misappropriated this Scripture for its own ends. If you are going to list all of the different possibilities then you might as well be honest.

 

[josephback]

Faith is to be shared, not to be argued about.

True, arguments make people defensive. Sometimes though its impossible NOT to disagree(and remain true to the Church). In these cases I wait for a better opportunity and a listening ear.

 

[Solus_Christus]

This is a great idea! I think you could help a lot by not assigning us positions in the debate that don’t belong to us.

This works both ways my friend. When there have been honest misunderstandings Randy and others have been gracious enough to explain it to me. We ought to bear with one another and not intentionally mischaracterize each other’s positions (which only betrays that our own position is weak). In the context of my quote you are referencing, there was no incorrect assignment of positions, indeed there could not be, since I was not discussing RCC beliefs in the first place.

 

[josephback]

I will take this as a “no” (i.e. that you do not agree). You are misunderstanding, however, what absolute means in this context. God also established civil government as I showed by the Romans 13 passage, but that does not make that authority absolute. It is still derivative because it is derived from the authority granted to it by God. Daniel 2:21 says “…he [God] deposes kings and raises up others.” If the civil authority of the king were absolute, then God would be unable to depose kings. Hopefully this clarifies things.

Interesting point and something to think about.

OR the RCC misappropriated this Scripture for its own ends. If you are going to list all of the different possibilities then you might as well be honest.

This goes down to how one defines “the Church”(visible or invisible). Given that Jesus said He would lead His Church in all truth and He cannot lie, how do you explain the conflicting and contradictory theology of the variousdenominations? Are they really collectively “the Church” and are they really listening to Jesus? Remember God is not the author of confusion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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-

I think in my own case, I have yet to discover anything in Church teaching that gives me pause. I can’t think of a single thing that I’m swallowing hard and going along with despite strong reservations.

The definition of indefectibility is

****1. not defectible; not liable to defect or failure.
2. not liable to fault or imperfection; faultless.

The Church is not “faultless”; but she is infallible…two different things.

So, I guess I lean more toward the idea that Jesus left behind men to whom He gave real authority, and those men are protected from teaching error.

They may not always have the right answer, but they will never teach the wrong answer.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

With you so far…just not logged in frequently over the last day or two.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

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 may be that the reason Solus is setting this up is because he wants to argue that the Catholic Church does require us to do or believe things which he thinks are contrary to the will of God as found in scripture.

Consequently, we’re disobeying God by obeying the Catholic Church.

I could be wrong about his strategy, of course.

 

[jmcrae]

This distinction between permission and requirement does not really alter the main idea. I am not sure why you are so resistant to the idea that God’s authority is absolute while all other authorities are derivative.

I do understand that. Where we disagree is where the boundaries are. Human beings did not create the Catholic Church - God did. It was God (in the person of Jesus) who set the Apostles up as Bishops, and established Peter to be the first Pope.

He said to the Pope, what you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven. Therefore, it is well within the competency of the Pope to make declarations that tell us what Doctrines God has revealed to the Church, and establish the disciplines and the practices of the Church.

Those who disagree, are disagreeing with God Himself, since God establishes these laws in Heaven at the same moment that the Pope establishes them on earth.

 

[jmcrae]

It may be that the reason Solus is setting this up is because he wants to argue that the Catholic Church does require us to do or believe things which he thinks are contrary to the will of God as found in scripture.

Consequently, we’re disobeying God by obeying the Catholic Church.

I could be wrong about his strategy, of course.

 

[jmcrae]

I never said authority does not exist because it has limits (not sure where that came from).

It seems to be where this line of discussion is headed - these discussions often wind up where some Pope back in the middle ages committed a sin (ate his meat with the salad fork or something really awful like that ) so it means that Pope Benedict XVI isn’t protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching any error.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong, of course.

As I said, however, an authority can be acting within its competency but in contradiction to the higher authority, and when it does we are obligated to the higher authority which we can trace all the way back up to the final and absolute authority of God.

Do you consider it at all likely that the Pope would, in the normal course of things, ask the Church to contradict God in some way?

And if so, how would you know that he was in fact doing that? What makes you so much smarter or holier than the Pope? Keep in mind that he has been studying theology since he was four or five years old - he is not some uneducated homeless guy doing a make-work program - they actually do have to be very smart, and very, very holy.

This really is all I am attempting to establish as a starting point. Do you agree or disagree?

If the Pope goes against the Holy Tradition or the teachings of the Church, we are certainly free to disagree with him. It has happened from time to time. Popes are human.

However, there is no instance that I am aware of where a Pope who was acting against the teachings of the Church in some way ever required anyone else to do whatever it was that he was doing, that was against the teachings, or the discipline, or the Tradition of the Church.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Solus-

I think in my own case, I have yet to discover anything in Church teaching that gives me pause. I can’t think of a single thing that I’m swallowing hard and going along with despite strong reservations.

The definition of indefectibility is

****1. not defectible; not liable to defect or failure.
2. not liable to fault or imperfection; faultless.

The Church is not “faultless”; but she is infallible…two different things.

So, I guess I lean more toward the idea that Jesus left behind men to whom He gave real authority, and those men are protected from teaching error.

They may not always have the right answer, but they will never teach the wrong answer.

Yes, sorry, I need to be more careful in how I word things. When using the word indefectible, I am thinking specifically of the Sacred Magisterium. This is the adjective I have seen applied to the Sacred Magisterium by Catholic Apologists, so I have tried to follow suite, though I did not make that clear in my repsonse. The belief that the Sacred Magisterium is prevented from teaching error or, as you said it just now, will never teach the wrong answer, is a primary point of contention between the RCC and Protestants, and that is why I offered it as the basis of the statement to defend/refute.

 

[Solus_Christus]

It may be that the reason Solus is setting this up is because he wants to argue that the Catholic Church does require us to do or believe things which he thinks are contrary to the will of God as found in scripture.

Consequently, we’re disobeying God by obeying the Catholic Church.

I could be wrong about his strategy, of course.

Strategy. I’ve never been very good at chess. Actually I have already laid my cards on the table as to the goal I am trying to achieve. To wit:

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.

Based on your (name removed by moderator)ut, I would modify the last sentence to read: “If, on the other hand, that teaching authority is susceptible to error…” I really do believe that we both agree that church authority is derivative, though we seem to be dancing around that issue. If that’s not the case let’s make that clear now. Assuming we do, however, I have already stated that I agree that God placed authority in His church. So here is another point on which we agree. What I was attempting to convey in the paragraph above is why the concepts of papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Sacred Magisterium should be the focus of our new conversation, since that is the point where our agreement ends. Thoughts?