S
SSTeacher
Guest
Well, I’m inclined to up your mark to a B. You see from my profile that I’m a former Evangelical and that I’m now an Orthodox catechumen and yet you are trying to get me to argue against the exclusively Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility on scriptural grounds – and that, mind you, after completely ignoring my assertion that you presented a classic example of eisegesis yourself in your previous post. In fact, this is such a deft move I’m going to up your mark to an A. You deserve it.SSTeacher;5455027:
Well lets bring it up to a A. Heres how Im gonna get it.Quite good. Probably a D for effort. No, that’s a bit harsh. Make it a C.
What prohibits me from awarding a higher mark is that I do not follow how I (or anybody else who approaches the text without Catholic presuppositions) can be certain that this particular interpretation of Matthew 16:18 can be directly tied to the exclusively Catholic notion of papal infallibility.
Actually, I’m going back to a D. Sorry. This is a classic example of eisegesis.
Apologetically,
Mick
Do you believe that Jesus Christ had the authority to teach scripture? Do you believe that he had that authority to pass down the authority to teach scripture to his apostles? Do you believe that the apostles has that authority to also pass down the way Jesus Christ said? Then how can you see it any other way then the way the Catholic Church does. Now you explain to me where the authority was taken away. The balls in your court now.
Oh by the way I want scripture, Its always demanded of me, I showed you mind, you show me where Jesus Christ said authority to teach will died with hiim?, or with the apostles.I will have a nice lunch while I am waiting!
However, rather than getting bogged down in what you think I ought to think perhaps you’ll allow me instead to explain why I rejected the notion of papal infallibility during my exploration of Catholicism and subsequent comparison to Holy Orthodoxy. It has nothing to do with pulling selective quotes from the Bible and pontificating upon them (as if anyone would).
The teaching is that when the pope “speaks from the chair on a matter of faith and morals“ there can be no mistake i.e. the pope’s teaching is infallible in that instance. I reasoned that since the Catholic Church itself had proclaimed this doctrine, it was like somebody saying, “You can trust me because, in my own estimation, I’m trustworthy.” Then I reflected that the Catholic Church has taught wrongly by example and by omission. The actions and inactions of Catholics past and present, both laity and clergy, can be cited to prove the point. If the Catholic Church had made errors in matters of behavior and in matters of administration and in matters of judgment and in matters of discipline, there seemed to be no objective reason for supposing that freedom from error in matters of doctrine was a realistic proposition, either. In other words, the doctrine achieves nothing in practice since it’s not much use having an infallible pope if Catholic clergymen are telling Catholic laity that it’s OK to use contraceptives or to have an abortion. And as only one pope has dared to invoke this supposed power, why have it at all? You’ll appreciate that this is the reasoning of somebody who does not have Catholic presuppositions. Obviously, this line of thinking is impossible for a Catholic. But it’s certainly possible for Catholics to understand it – especially those who can score an A.
In short, the Orthodox understanding of authority seemed to me to make much more sense. And it still does. Orthodoxy doesn’t change so no Orthodox bishop has any material about which he could make an infallible pronouncement even if he felt such an urge. Somebody told me an Orthodox bishop did in fact feel such an urge in the thirteenth century but it turned out to be indigestion. I don’t suppose that’s a true story, though. My feeling is it was much more likely to have been hiccups.
By the way, for Orthodox Christians, Wednesdays and Fridays are fast days, which practice goes back to the Didache as perusal of chapter 8 can confirm. Orthodoxy doesn’t change, you see.
I hope you enjoyed your Friday lunch.
Cordially,
Mick
