Where to begin?

[Solus_Christus]

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.

I am not sure I would use the word “boundaries” (maybe I am not understanding your point completely). As Joseph hinted, however, our new discussion could focus on church structure (i.e. is it a visible and hierarchical church), though that is a slightly different (but related) discussion than church authority.

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.

Do you intend to make a distinction between church authority and civil authority? I am asking because I assume you do not believe that to disagree with civil authorities is to disagree with God, but I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Okay. Is your ultimate “why I’ll never be Catholic” issue infallibility or authority?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

It sounds like we agree that God has given real authority to His Church, but there may be some difference of opinion over exactly what the scope of that authority is.

So, what you really want to discuss is the issue of infallibility; however, in the case of the Church, I think authority and infallibility are so closely bound together that it would almost be like describing two sides of the same coin.

The Church has authority because God gave it to her, and because of the enormity of her responsibility, she must be protected from teaching error by God Himself.

If we agree on the first part of that statement, then it is the latter portion that we need to discuss. A premise might read:

Because God has given His own authority to the Catholic Church, He must prevent her from teaching error through the charism of infallibility.

Then the question is whether we are arguing over the logic of that necessity or whether, in fact, this is what has actually happened.

 

[Solus_Christus]

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.

I am sure if we went down that road we would churn through a discussion that has been aired on this forum countless times before. But then again, do we really expect to come up with something novel here? Randy said there were no RCC teachings that give him pause. There are many teachings that give me pause, but that is expected, right? Likewise, you and Randy do not see any inconsistencies or errors in RCC teaching whereas there are a number of items I find troubling. If we did go down this path, we would probably need to start with some very clear and concise definitions in order to prevent any red herrings or straw men arguments, as you indicated could happen.

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.

I would like to preface my response by acknowledging I am certain I am not smarter than the Pope (as I am sure you would all agree ). I would also like to add the disclaimer that I do believe there can be great value in scholarship. I absolutely do not disagree. At the same time, however, it is worthwhile to temper that fact with another fact:

Jesus said: “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” (Matthew 11:25)

And then we have this: “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;” (1 Corinthians 1:27)

My point is simply this: We should not confuse “learned” for “impeccable in knowledge” (we probably all know of someone who came out of college more confused than they went in).

Secondly, it probably will come as no surprise that our understanding is different concerning what God sees when he looks at man. You call the Pope “very very holy,” but I would counter that “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.” (Isaiah 64:4) If there is any holiness at all, I would argue it is the holiness of Christ: “And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God,** righteousness **and sanctification and redemption,” (1 Corinthians 1:30)

Lastly, in response to your question (“And if so, how would you know that he was in fact doing that?”), I would answer that if God says, “Do not do x” and someone else comes along and says, “It’s actually okay to do x because of z” you do not need to be exceptionally intelligent to identify that a conflict may exist.

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

Your Response:

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.

I am not really sure how this answers my question.

 

[jmcrae]

I am not sure I would use the word “boundaries” (maybe I am not understanding your point completely).

By “boundaries” I am just referring to the areas of jurisdiction. To give a prosaic example of jurisdiction, or boundaries, with regard to authority - there is an American comedian who came to live in Canada some years ago, and he tells this joke - he was bootlegging or something (I don’t know what he was doing, but anyway, some kind of minor criminal offense) - an RCMP officer spotted him, and so he took off in his car with the RCMP in pursuit behind him. Well, apparently in the USA, if you reach a state border, the police can’t follow you across, because they only have jurisdiction in their own state. In Canada, though, the police can follow you until they catch you - they don’t have to stop for borders, because they have jurisdiction in the whole country. Anyway, so according to the joke, the comedian got to the BC/Alberta border, and thought he was safe - much to his astonishment, the RCMP just kept coming after him; they didn’t stop for the border.

It’s kind of the same thing with the Catholic Church - the Catholic Church has been given by God way more authority than Protestant churches have been given by their congregations (since Protestant authority comes from the members of the congregation; not from God) so Protestants are often surprised by what is allowed.

Do you intend to make a distinction between church authority and civil authority? I am asking because I assume you do not believe that to disagree with civil authorities is to disagree with God, but I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

Certainly there is a distinction, since the civil authority isn’t directly established by God; rather, it is the citizens of a country who establish their government (here in Canada, it is done by means of a Parliamentary Democracy, which means that the people select their representatives, and then their representatives select the leaders, according to regulations established by the Crown).

In the case of the Church, it is God who established the Church (governments are established by groups of people coming together to form a nation - usually as the end result of some kind of war) and it is God who calls men to the priesthood, and from there, according to their interests and abilities, they succeed to various offices in the Church that at one time were held by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, and they receive all of the benefits and authority that were given to those offices by Jesus Christ while He was on the earth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am sure if we went down that road we would churn through a discussion that has been aired on this forum countless times before. But then again, do we really expect to come up with something novel here? Randy said there were no RCC teachings that give him pause. There are many teachings that give me pause, but that is expected, right? Likewise, you and Randy do not see any inconsistencies or errors in RCC teaching whereas there are a number of items I find troubling. If we did go down this path, we would probably need to start with some very clear and concise definitions in order to prevent any red herrings or straw men arguments, as you indicated could happen.

I think it could be very profitable to do this in order to make sure there are no misunderstandings or misconceptions that are causing your concern. I won’t mind if you continue to disagree, but at least we’ll both know that you do so with full knowledge. As Bishop Fulton Sheen famously stated (and I’ll give you the full context):

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned.

Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth.

Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. … the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness…"

--Bishop Fulton Sheen

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus said: “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” (Matthew 11:25)

Solus-

Do you think the pope loves God?

Do you think the pope is doing everything he can to love, to follow, and to serve God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength?

Do you think the pope is saved - or at least, do you think it is possible that he might be saved?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Secondly, it probably will come as no surprise that our understanding is different concerning what God sees when he looks at man. You call the Pope “very very holy,” but I would counter that “We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.” (Isaiah 64:4)

And here you are in error. Paul called himself an apostle:

[1 Corinthians 9:1](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+9:1&version=NIV)
Paul’s Rights as an Apostle ] Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?

He also declared that the apostles were holy:

Ephesians 3:4-5
4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

Paul also wrote that the children of believers were made holy through their parents’ faith:

[1 Corinthians 7:14](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+7:14&version=NIV)
For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Consequently, I think it is fair and reasonable to call the Pope, “Your Holiness”.

 

[jmcrae]

I joined CAF 15 days after jmcrae, and he has 19,000 more posts than I do. One of us has some serious soul-searching to do…

It’s definitely jmcrae, who spends way too much time on the game threads making one-word posts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s definitely jmcrae, who spends way too much time on the game threads making one-word posts.

Oh.

 

[Prieldedi]

I think it could be very profitable to do this in order to make sure there are no misunderstandings or misconceptions that are causing your concern. I won’t mind if you continue to disagree, but at least we’ll both know that you do so with full knowledge. As Bishop Fulton Sheen famously stated (and I’ll give you the full context):

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned.

Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth.

Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. … the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness…"

--Bishop Fulton Sheen

Interesting that you posted this from Bishop Fulton Sheen, as I posted it too in a Spanish forum a couple of days ago. That forum is run by protestants though. The posters I had been discussing with have remained silent after I posted it, with the exception of a new debater who wrote a brief reply, which I answered right away and he also has been silent since.

If you read Spanish you can read it here.

 

[guanophore]

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

Ok. Yes, you are correct. Since Jesus is the Head of the Church, and her Soul is the Holy Spirit, if she is teaching us something it is, by definition, infallible (the Divne cannot err). So yes, you are correct. If God is asking me to do something and I don’t understand, the appropriate thing for me to do is to obey, and pray that understanding will come.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Can you explain this some more?

I think you are postulating this with regard to authority, but not sure.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I agree with you, but your premise is in error. You see, Jesus never promised to keep all the shepherds from falling into sin, or anyone that is in a position of authority, or “governance” (not sure what you mean by that).

The Teaching of the Church is not identical to the governance, which can be easily demonstrted by the fact that so many persons in positions of leadership throughout history have acted in a manner inconsistent with the Teachings of Christ. It is the Teaching that is protected by infallibilty, not the “gnoverment” (whatever that means).

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?

If the people were not subject to falliblity and error, there would be no NEED for the gift of infallibility.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Certainly there is a distinction, since the civil authority isn’t directly established by God; rather, it is the citizens of a country who establish their government (here in Canada, it is done by means of a Parliamentary Democracy, which means that the people select their representatives, and then their representatives select the leaders, according to regulations established by the Crown).

So, just to be clear, you are taking issue with Daniel 2:21? ("…he [God] deposes kings and raises up others.")

What about Romans 13:1-6? I will have to strenuously disagree with you here. “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Paul clearly had civil authorities in-view here.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Solus-

Do you think the pope loves God?

Do you think the pope is doing everything he can to love, to follow, and to serve God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength?

Do you think the pope is saved - or at least, do you think it is possible that he might be saved?

I would hope the pope loves God, yes. I am certainly willing to believe the best about him.

The second question is a bit more difficult. Can any of us even really say this about ourselves? I mean, stop and think about what it would mean if we really loved God with ALL of our heart, soul, and mind. If any of us thinks we have the capacity to achieve this, then I am afraid we severely underestimate what is required to truly fulfill this command.

For the third question, yes, I think it is possible.

 

[Solus_Christus]

And here you are in error. Paul called himself an apostle:

[1 Corinthians 9:1](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+9:1&version=NIV)
Paul’s Rights as an Apostle ] Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?

He also declared that the apostles were holy:

Ephesians 3:4-5
4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets.

Paul also wrote that the children of believers were made holy through their parents’ faith:

[1 Corinthians 7:14](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/passage/?search=1 Corinthians+7:14&version=NIV)
For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Consequently, I think it is fair and reasonable to call the Pope, “Your Holiness”.

We are entering into hotly contested territory here. In fact, this line of debate is at the center of the Reformation. In response to the passages you supplied, I think it is worthwhile to point out that the word “holy” can include two different connotations. The first usage is synonymous with consecrated or set apart for a specific use. The second usage is more closely aligned with righteous. I assumed jmcrae had the second usage in mind, but I should have checked. The passage from 1 Corinthians 7:14 clearly has the first usage in view. The passage from Ephesians could have both usages in view, I will grant, but the question, then, is how the apostles and prophets became or were made righteous. The answer to that question is where you and I will sharply disagree.

 

[jmcrae]

So, just to be clear, you are taking issue with Daniel 2:21? ("…he [God] deposes kings and raises up others.")

In the Old Testament Church, the King of Israel held the role of leadership, and was indeed directly chosen by God, just as the Pope is chosen by God, today.

In modern government, kings and queens hold hereditary titles, but they are not directly chosen by God in the same way that Saul or David were chosen by God.

Saul and David were chosen by God to be the leaders of the Old Testament Church, which was the nation of Israel.

Today, the Church is administered by the Pope in Rome, who is the key-holder of David, (“David” being Christ Himself).

What about Romans 13:1-6? I will have to strenuously disagree with you here. “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” Paul clearly had civil authorities in-view here.

Do you believe that God elected President Obama, or would you say that He allowed the people to elect President Obama? But if God was appointing him directly, then what need was there of an election?

God permits there to be civil authorities, but He does not appoint them directly in the same way that He gives us Popes, Bishops, Deacons and priests.

 

[Solus_Christus]

By “boundaries” I am just referring to the areas of jurisdiction.

In that case, no, I don’t think we disagree on boundaries or jurisdiction because we both realize that the jurisdiction of church authority is the church. (uh oh, we disagree about what we disagree on. Yikes! )

 

[Solus_Christus]

In the Old Testament Church, the King of Israel held the role of leadership, and was indeed directly chosen by God, just as the Pope is chosen by God, today.

In modern government, kings and queens hold hereditary titles, but they are not directly chosen by God in the same way that Saul or David were chosen by God.

Saul and David were chosen by God to be the leaders of the Old Testament Church, which was the nation of Israel.

Today, the Church is administered by the Pope in Rome, who is the key-holder of David, (“David” being Christ Himself).

Interesting, except the passage in Daniel is not speaking about Israel, but rather Babylon.

Do you believe that God elected President Obama, or would you say that He allowed the people to elect President Obama? But if God was appointing him directly, then what need was there of an election?

God permits there to be civil authorities, but He does not appoint them directly in the same way that He gives us Popes, Bishops, Deacons and priests.

I’ll take that as a yes; you do disagree with Daniel and Jesus. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, however, so please explain why in your response you directly contradict the words of Christ. You are beginning to sound like a deist to me.