Question about Catholicism and the Pope

[12th Doctor]

So, let me start again, as I always try to, by setting the scene.

The basics of the early church structure were firmly established by Paul, as I demonstrated.  This would have probably been sometime around 50 AD that he was writing.  So we know that, by 50 AD, there were Deacons, Presbyters and Bishops already in place.

There is some debate as to exactly what form each of these offices took at the time,and there is some evidence that, in the very large cities, particularly Rome, there would have actually have been more than one bishop up until the 2nd century.  This is fine, no one really disputes this.  Some more pious Catholic sources rage against it, but it is really besides the point, because we know, for a fact, that by 90 AD (perhaps earlier, but we can establish 90 AD as a certain date) there was one bishop, in every city, who spoke for, and was granted authority over, the other bishops.  So, even if there wasn’t a Bishop of Rome, there was a High Bishop of Rome.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, the question comes up “Why Rome”.  In otherwords, wouldn’t it make more sense for Christ to establish his primary see in Jerusalem?  Isn’t this Rome thing just based on the accident of Rome being the capital?  Therefore, doesn’t that make it obvious that this claim is bogus and this authority is accidental?

Well, yes, the choice of Rome is, in fact, fairly arbitrary.  Remember what I said earlier, that the Pope is the successor to Peter, and thus, the authority of the Pope does not extend from him being Bishop of Rome, per se, that’s just his See, but rather that this line includes the unbroken succession to the Chief Steward of the House of the New David, and the High Priest of Christ’s Church.

Peter went to Rome, “pious” sources tell us sometime in the 50’s AD, but the dates aren’t firmly established, in order to assist with the spread of the faith there.  In otherwords, he was not the originator of the Roman Church, as some contest, but rather he went there to help it get its footing, as it were.  Based off of what we know, he was probably only there for but a few years before he was martyred in the 60’s (perhaps as early as the 50’s) AD.  Given his position in the Church though, he almost immediately would have become the leader of the church in Rome upon his arrival, but that actually isn’t that important.  What is important is that he would have brought with him, and acquired new disciples while he was in Rome.  As Catholics, we believe, but also historically, it is completely plausible, that one of those close disciples was either chosen by Peter, or amongst the disciples of Peter, to carry on his mission and his office.  That is where the Papacy, as an institution really begins, and that is why it is in Rome.

I agree with the critics, in that Rome is accidental, at this stage in history, and so does the Church.  In fact, the Church had this controversy sprout up in the first millennium and thus drafted a document firmly stating that, “wherever the Pope is, that is Rome”… in otherwords, the Pope is not confined in his mission and office by geography, because that is accidental.

So, we have successors to Peter after his death.  First there was Linus, then Anacletus (often times just called “Cletus”) and then Clement I.

Clements Epistle to the Corinthians is probably the most significant, post-first generation, first century Christian writing.  Clement was writing around 95 AD, so we are talking just 60 years after the crucifixion and only 30 years after the deaths of Peter and Paul.  John was likely still alive, or had only just passed.  Corinth was a city, made famous by Paul’s letters, that was in Greece.  It sat on the Italian side of the Greek coast, but otherwise, it was fairly well outside of Rome’s area of immediate attention.

Corinth was a constant pain in the neck for the Church Fathers. There was always something going wrong there, and in this case, the people of the city had deposed their appointed Church authorities, for personal and theological reasons, and Clement is writing for that reason, in order to chastise them for following their own whims and removing the ordained. (To further bolster one of my previous points)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1_Clement_(Roberts-Donaldson_translation)

There is a decent text of the letter.  The Chapter/Verse here is somewhat ambiguous, as this letter doesn’t have an established formula like canonical texts, but I will be basing my own citations off of this.  There won’t be many, as the issues specifically addressed are not so important to my point.  The letter is very long, twice as long as Hebrews, and covers a wide swath of points.

First, we know from Clements writings that he is writing just after a persecution (Chapter 1) and thus his writing on the issue has been delayed, but lets look at how he says this, because there are two very important points to glean from it:


Chapter I.—The salutation. Praise of the Corinthians before the breaking forth of schism among them.
THE Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury. For who ever dwelt even for a short time among you, and did not find your faith to be as fruitful of virtue as it was firmly established? Who did not admire the sobriety and moderation of your godliness in Christ? Who did not proclaim the magnificence of your habitual hospitality? And who did not rejoice over your perfect and well-grounded knowledge? For ye did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you. Ye enjoined young men to be of a sober and serious mind; ye instructed your wives to do all things with a blameless, becoming, and pure conscience, loving their husbands as in duty bound; and ye taught them that, living in the rule of obedience, they should manage their household affairs becomingly, and be in every respect marked by discretion.




So, does anyone here get the sense that Clement is communicating that it is not only out of desire that he wishes to respond to this problem, but also out of obligation?  The text would seem to communicate as much.  In fact, Clement makes the point that he would have addressed this issue much sooner, had not another persecution broken out.  More over, they consulted Rome about their problem.  Why not any of the other bishops, of which there were several around the area?
But notice something else, also, in that Clement, though the head of the Church in Rome, does not use the word “I” anywhere in this letter, and you can go down through the line, while referring to right teaching.  Instead, he says “We” and “Us”.  This is because Clement is not speaking for himself; he is speaking for the Church.

There is so much a person could say about this letter; he talks about the need for faith and good works, he talks about the structure of the Church, he talks about our duties as Christians, about our role in creation, and on and on.  But I will visit just one more point before we leave it, and that is that Clement cites repeatedly from both the Jewish writings, the known letters of Paul, and various sayings of Jesus.
I don’t have the exact citations on me, since those were with my “materials” as mentioned in my previous post, but I trust you guys to just trust me on my next point that what I say is there, and its true.
When Clement quotes from the OT, he calls it “scripture”.  He doesn’t do this when he quotes Paul, or Jesus, etc.
I’ll revisit that point in a bit, but first let me say that Clement’s letter was so profound, and so fundamental, and seen as so authoritative, that it was included in dozens of canonical indexes that were assembled in the early centuries.  There was no surviving copy of Clement’s letter in Rome, but we have this letter today, because the Corinthians read this letter to their community on occasions for hundreds of years, and they copied it again and again and again, and it was distributed through all the Christian word.  This is how a number of papal letters, far less profound than Clement’s, survive, because getting a letter from a Pope was just that big a deal.
Clement was shut out of the canon for reasons that are unknown.  Usually, for things like this, it was questionable authorship that did it.  Today, 90% of scholars agree that 1 Clement is authentic.  The problem is, in early times, it was often bundled with “2 Clement” which was a writing from the 2nd century, that was highly questionable, and that might have been the reason 1 Clement was left out.  We know it was close, eitherway.  We also know that Revelations was close as well.

[12th Doctor]

Also, and this is not a trivial thing, some Protestants portray the decision to close the Canon as meaning that the books of the Bible were the only inspired works.  Not true.  We know from the writings of Church Fathers that they deemed there to be other inspired works outside the Canon, but the Canon was seen as the “essentials” if you will.
And this brings me to my final, closing point.  Clement doesn’t call writings of Paul “scripture” because there was no definitive Christian scripture at the time, and there wouldn’t be for another 250 year (in fact, the canon wasn’t totally closed until the Council of Trent).  But, it is clear that in the late 4th century, definitive lists, on what the Church Fathers believed should be in the canon, had started to appear, based on the decisions of Nicea.
And, as much as Protestants object to the authority of bishops, they cannot escape the fact that they use essentially the same scripture that was professed by these men that they claim had no special authority or inspiration.  The fact is, Church structure predated, and was essential to the formation of the Christian canon that all Christian use.  Bottom line.  As a historical fact, that is not debatable.  And while Protestants are often fastest to run behind the utter infallibility of the Bible, they then turn around and say that there is nothing inspired or infallible about the Church that produced it.
Another common attack that I will address is that “how can you claim Papal Authority when the Pope wasn’t even at Nicea?”  Well, it is true that he wasn’t there… but he didn’t need to be there.  Contrary to the history proposed by Dan Brown, the council only seriously contended on minor issues (there were only a handful of figures, of the 350 assembled bishops, who brought questions about the fundamental theology), and the decrees, including the creed, were approved of by the Pope.
For the next 700 years, when fundamental questions were brought forward by or about Nicea, it was the Popes who were turned to to explain and defend the decisions of the council. And during the Arian crisis, when it is estimated that as many as 80% of the Bishops supported Arianism, and thus became manifest heretics, it was the Popes who stood as a bulwark to bolster support for orthodox Christianity.
And thus, this Church structure not only made decisions about Church teaching all along, but saved orthodox teaching, and served as a rallying point against the teaching of the heretics, as early as the earliest of days.

Well, I expect questions and criticisms, so let fly.

[12th Doctor]

So, am I really that good, or just that uninteresting?

[Torie]

OK Chris, I'll bite just to bump the thread up. Vis a vis the words that some writers put in Jesus's mouth (which may or may not be what he actually said), I don't see any clarion text that Jesus viewed his ministry as requiring some organized and hierarchical religious structure, nor that such structure was necessary in order to follow him.

[12th Doctor]

OK Chris, I'll bite just to bump the thread up. Vis a vis the words that some writers put in Jesus's mouth (which may or may not be what he actually said), I don't see any clarion text that Jesus viewed his ministry as requiring some organized and hierarchical religious structure, nor that such structure was necessary in order to follow him.

Many things are implied in our daily lives that remain unsaid in a direct manner, but in the face of overwhelming evidence and experience, we can deduce what is meant.

Many things that are believed by an 95% of all Christians come from tradition, and are not directly stated in the scripture, such as trinitarian doctrine.

In the case of Matthew, the notion that there is some connection between what Jesus says to Peter, and what is said of the High Steward is highly credible, because we know that Matthew wrote his gospel to the Jews, to give proof of Jesus as the Messiah, and so this connection would have been immediately understood by a Jewish reader... but which is also why the text doesn't appear again and again... Mark, Luke and John's target audiences simply would not have understood the reference.

Tradition has always taught that this was the intent of Christ anyway, and as I pointed out, those who look most disdainfully on tradition have trouble coming to terms with how much they rely on it simply to get the Bible that they have to pound while they proclaim Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).  Is what I say going to convert the non-believer?  Hardly, since my defenses would require a belief in Christ first, nor are the aimed to do so.  For the non-Christian, I would merely seek to demonstrate that, contrary to popular belief, there is a basis for these claims.

[Jeff from NC]

Supersoulty, that was a fine discussion of a lot of issues.  You certainly know your stuff.

For the sake of discussion it is my understanding that the supremacy of Rome evolved over time.  It was regarded as the prime see in early Christianity, but in 451 at Chalcedon the Pope still felt compelled to remind the 4th ecumenical council that his word was binding and that this may have stirred some controversy.  Is this the case?

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty, that was a fine discussion of a lot of issues.  You certainly know your stuff.

For the sake of discussion it is my understanding that the supremacy of Rome evolved over time.  It was regarded as the prime see in early Christianity, but in 451 at Chalcedon the Pope still felt compelled to remind the 4th ecumenical council that his word was binding and that this may have stirred some controversy.  Is this the case?

Certainly, and it happened quite a number of times over the centuries, right up through the schism with the Church of England.  The odd thing about these arguments, however, is that the primary antagonist usually represents some temporal power.  So, for instance, I mentioned that in the first 600 years, or so, that power was usually the Emperors in Constantinople.  At Chalcedon in particular, the theology that was in vogue with the emperors, in various forms, was monophysistism.  This group claimed that Jesus had only one nature, not the dual nature (as both man and God) that the majority, if not all preachers of mainstream Christianity now accept.  It was a flavor of the month theology, that centered around controversies that continually flared up in the East over the true nature of Christ, that almost always ended up with the Bishop of Constantinople (always closely tied with the Emperors) getting his lunch money taken from him, and the case at Chalcedon was no exception.  The Eastern Bishops, mostly backing the emperors, stood opposed to Rome, and were eventually forced to recant.  This is why the Pope felt compelled to remind them of his primacy.

This carried over in the West in the 9th-11th centuries, most notably France and the Holy Roman Empire with contraversies like the Lay Investiture Crisis, which was really less about Lay Investiture, per se than about who had the Heavenly authority to do what, but it was fairly minor league compared to the struggles between the East and West.

So did it happen?  Yes.  But I think the fact that the popes felt confident asserting their primacy so early in the game is telling, more so than objections to it, which were largely due to political struggles than anything else, and as I said before, generally featured the Pope taking on some king, emperor, etc, who I think most people would agree today should be viewed as having little-to-no real spiritual authority.

Does that answer your question?

[Jeff from NC]

Yes!  Thanks for the info.  I'm actually working my way through the Confessions of Augustine right now, so it's interesting to read his rebuttals of all these different heresies, though so far he's focused on Manichaeism - less so Arianism or Monophytism.

Supersoulty, can you recommend a concise and *readable* history of the Church that would talk about the development of theology over the years (and the institution too)?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Tradition has always taught that this was the intent of Christ anyway, and as I pointed out, those who look most disdainfully on tradition have trouble coming to terms with how much they rely on it simply to get the Bible that they have to pound while they proclaim Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

Huh?

I follow a lot of “traditions” that are NOT listed in scripture.  For example: I like to eat mustard on my hotdog, which is the tradition of many Americans, yet is not listed in scripture.

The only time I have “disdain” for tradition is when a tradition directly contradicts scripture, or when people attempt to place tradition on the same level as scripture in order to make the tradition a religious requirement.

[Jeff from NC]

Isn't it tradition that determines what is taken as scripture and what is not?

[12th Doctor]

Isn't it tradition that determines what is taken as scripture and what is not?

That was exactly my point, yes.  We needed some tradition just to get the scripture in the first place, and tradition predates the Bible as we know it as a form of teaching.

[12th Doctor]

Yes!  Thanks for the info.  I'm actually working my way through the Confessions of Augustine right now, so it's interesting to read his rebuttals of all these different heresies, though so far he's focused on Manichaeism - less so Arianism or Monophytism.

Supersoulty, can you recommend a concise and *readable* history of the Church that would talk about the development of theology over the years (and the institution too)?

Let me get back to you on that one.  To be honest, I have never really found a book that really does a good job of encapsulating it all.

[7,052,770]

Thanks for speaking up in defense of the faith, Soulty.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Isn't it tradition that determines what is taken as scripture and what is not?

Well, let's examine the historical biblical precedent.

Where not the leaders of the Jewish religion, originally trusted with the written word of God? ( Romans 3:1-2 1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.)

Therefore, it was the leadership of the Old Testament Church, the legitimate successors of Moses, the Sanhedrin, who were entrusted with the keeping and tabulation of scripture.

Now, just because that church’s leadership were correct in some areas (e.g. identifying the books of scripture), were they correct in all their judgments?  Was their doctrine flawless?

NOT AT ALL!  Rather they placed their own Messiah, Jesus Christ, on trial and officially rejected him, labeling him a blasphemer and judged him worthy of death.

And they did ALL of this while their leadership was still legitimate, before the death of Christ that ended their reign and the covenant made at Mount Sinai.

So, as for the doctrine of “infallibility of the successors of church leadership”, there is no scripture that supports that doctrine, but there is a cut-and-dry case where the scriptural precedent contradicts the doctrine.

 

[12th Doctor]

Isn't it tradition that determines what is taken as scripture and what is not?

Well, let's examine the historical biblical precedent.

Where not the leaders of the Jewish religion, originally trusted with the written word of God? ( Romans 3:1-2 1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.)

Therefore, it was the leadership of the Old Testament Church, the legitimate successors of Moses, the Sanhedrin, who were entrusted with the keeping and tabulation of scripture.

Now, just because that church’s leadership were correct in some areas (e.g. identifying the books of scripture), were they correct in all their judgments?  Was their doctrine flawless?

NOT AT ALL!  Rather they placed their own Messiah, Jesus Christ, on trial and officially rejected him, labeling him a blasphemer and judged him worthy of death.

And they did ALL of this while their leadership was still legitimate, before the death of Christ that ended their reign and the covenant made at Mount Sinai.

So, as for the doctrine of “infallibility of the successors of church leadership”, there is no scripture that supports that doctrine, but there is a cut-and-dry case where the scriptural precedent contradicts the doctrine.

 

That's nice, but the problem you seem to be having here is that Paul isn't talking about Christians, he is obviously talking about the Jewish leaders, and the Jewish leaders at the time were not Christ's Church.  God never told placed any guarantee of inerrantcy in the hands of the Jewish leadership.  The reason he did not was because he new that, some day, the Jewish Church would error... they had to to bring about the Messiah. 

Juxtapose those states that you just made, that pertained to the Jewish figures only, to the words of Paul when talking to the Christians and Paul praises tradition and tells his followers to stand fast to it.

That's what happens when you just pull verses out of context.

Certainly, there are many times in the scriptures that the words of God are at least somewhat circumstantial.  For instance, the Protestant second commandment is "Make no engraven image."  For Catholics, this commandment is taken as being part of the first (keep in mind, the numbering order of the commandments is completely arbitrary, in and of itself).  If it were the intent of God to suggest that the Israelites should indeed make no religious imagery what-so-ever, then why does he then turn around and contradict himself a short time later when he orders that two cherubim be placed on the Arc, the greatest symbol of God at the time?  Its because the Israelite were God's people, and the prohibition was meant to be against imagery worshiping other gods.  That is why Catholics include this with the first commandment; "I am the Lord your God...."

If you don't think that the Authorities of Jesus' Church are inerrant in matters of dogmatic teaching, then fine, but then I must ask you, why do you read their Bible that they put together, containing the readings they believed to be divinely inspired and inerrant?  Even if you don't accept the Protestant OT Apocrypha, then you still read a Bible that contains the basic outline of what the Church Fathers, 400 years after Christ, thought was inspired.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That's nice, but the problem you seem to be having here is that Paul isn't talking about Christians, he is obviously talking about the Jewish leaders, and the Jewish leaders at the time were not Christ's Church. 

Paul is simply looking at history in General and made the statement that Jews have an advantage over Gentiles and used the fact that the Jews had been entrusted with scripture…my point was those same fallible men were given scripture to compile and maintain:

Romans 3:1-2 1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

As Jesus himself stated, "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews." John 4:22

But, you're playing semantics and ignoring the clear precedent of the biblical historical record:  church leadership, the very ones entrusted with compiling and maintaining scripture,  can fall into heresy.

---

God never told placed any guarantee of inerrancy in the hands of the Jewish leadership...

If you don't think that the Authorities of Jesus' Church are inerrant in matters of dogmatic teaching, then fine, but then I must ask you, why do you read their Bible that they put together, containing the readings they believed to be divinely inspired and inerrant?  Even if you don't accept the Protestant OT Apocrypha, then you still read a Bible that contains the basic outline of what the Church Fathers, 400 years after Christ, thought was inspired.

Please read and reread what you have just wrote:

First, you state the Old Testament church, WHICH COMPILED AND MAINTAINED SCRIPTURE, had a succession of leaders that were fallible to the point of heresy in some matters (but not all matters).

Then you turn right around and ask why I read the same scripture that I believe was compiled and maintained by fallible New Testament church successors.

So, instead of asking me the question, you need to turn the question around on yourself and take Supersoulty back in time to 100 B.C.  There you will find yourself being led by a fallible church leadership that is responsible with compiling and maintaining the written words of God (scripture).  And you will discover that salvation has everything to do with trusting and living your life according to scripture and NOT blind obedience to the decrees of the church leadership.

The Catholic doctrine of the need for the infallibility of succession in order to be able to know the path of salvation is self-contradictory, for as a Christian, you must face the fact that the entire historical record written in your own scriptures is full of examples of church leadership leading the masses astray, yet those very same masses were held accountable to God. 

All that is required for salvation is the word of God, which God gave to fallible men through revelation to have it recorded and maintained.   So, as long the translation is not polluted the point of heresy (which is extremely hard to do since God couched his requirements in simple everyday terminology so that it can be understood by every nation and culture on earth), we can know the will of God in our lives and find salvation.

God has also provided a lot of latitude in interpretation (e.g. differing beliefs about the unfolding of events surrounding the endtimes), and God even allows at least some amount of legalism (in Romans ch 14 we learn that those who don’t believe they have to God-given right to eat meat are saved along with those who understand they do have the right to eat meat).

So, does the 100 B.C. era Supersoulty follow the church leadership into heresy and condemn himself by believing every judgment they make is infallible, or does the 100 B.C. era Supersoulty guard his salvation by testing everything and holding to the good while at the same time rejecting the bad…sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing with the leadership of his religion?

[12th Doctor]

Sigh

Would someone who did the readings like to allow jmf to look at their homework?

Had he done the readings, then he would know that it is not the Church leaders who are infallible, but rather the Church, as it is Christ's Church, guided by the Spirit, and as such cannot error.

Perhaps you would like to acquaint yourself with what the Catholic Church really says and then get back to me.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Sigh

Would someone who did the readings like to allow jmf to look at their homework?

Had he done the readings, then he would know that it is not the Church leaders who are infallible, but rather the Church, as it is Christ's Church, guided by the Spirit, and as such cannot error.

Perhaps you would like to acquaint yourself with what the Catholic Church really says and then get back to me.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with what the Catholic Church really says, that way you could come explain it in your own words without referring me to someone else. 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to accuse you of lying.  I know you really believe in what you say.  And I must admit that the idea of a church that can teach no error sounds like a great idea and would sure makes things easier and put a lot of minds to ease.  But I also believe the idea of no one goes to hell so that every one goes to heaven sounds like a great idea also. 

But, unfortunately, I can’t make a scriptural case for an error free church.  The biblical precedent of the old testament church is one of a diverse body of believers divided into different sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, etc, etc).  Some of the old testament sects had different ideas of what scriptures belonged in the canon and they had differing beliefs, doctrines, and practices.  All of the old testament sects had their doctrinal errors, though they did teach a lot of truth.

And, as I read through the books of the New Testament, most of which were originally letters to individual churches, I see a lot of the same problems of the old testament church being repeated.   Correcting these errors of the New Testament church was a constant battle and spawned the need to write the letters to the churches.

And even though members within the New Testament had differing beliefs (e.g. some believed they could eat meat, others believed they couldn’t eat meat), they were urged to accept each other and be of one spirit.

So, unless you feel that one’s salvation hinges on believing the “Authorities of Jesus' Church are inerrant in matters of dogmatic teaching”, why make a fuss over it?

---

As to your previous question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I answered by pointed out to you that there is over a thousand years of the historical biblical record where "the church" compiled and maintained scripture while at the same time teaching and practicing error, and it was the responsibility of the laity to distinguish truth from error by using the very scriptures the errant church leadership had compiled and maintained.

[12th Doctor]

Jmf... you post only reinforces the suspicion I had that you didn't bother to read my points made earlier in this thread, so why don't you just read those, and stop bothering me.  I was referring you to me, not someone else, so why don't you go back and read what I said.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmf... you post only reinforces the suspicion I had that you didn't bother to read my points made earlier in this thread, so why don't you just read those, and stop bothering me.  I was referring you to me, not someone else, so why don't you go back and read what I said.

I have it read and totally disagree with it...here's why:

But first, Catholics believe that Jesus promised us an inerrant Church.  As he tells us (and I will source this passage in a second), the gates of Hell will not prevail over His Church.  If the Church were ever to dogmatically teach heresy, then effectively the gates of Hell would have prevailed over it.  Thus, it is the belief of Catholics that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from heresy.

 

1)You entire statement is based entirely on the assumption that the Church ONLY functions as a unit and whatever is believed in one corner is universally believed in every corner.  Obliviously, the last 2000 years of history has shown this NOT to be the case since there is a vast array of beliefs.  In fact, your assumption is even contrary to the biblical record of the early New Testament church, where each individual church had it’s own doctrinal problems, and some, like the church of Galatians, had even fallen from grace. You can’t say the complete Church body is protected from heresy if individual parts of the body are preaching heresy.  Our whole statement treats the body as a uniform whole without consideration for the diversity of beliefs among the individual parts.

2)As long as there are pockets of the Church teaching a form of the Gospel that is not in error on salvation issues, believers have the power to “storm the gates of Hell” and save people from damnation.  As the 14 chapter of Romans points out, there is allowance for error on non-salvation issues (what we’re allowed to eat and drink, what days if any should we hold sacred, etc, etc).

3)The assumptions of your statement, which are the products of extrapolation of an interpretation and are NOT explicitly stated in scripture, totally ignore the fact that New Testament EXPLICITLY states that the history of Israel, the old testament “church” were written down in the bible and given to us “as warnings” for the New Testament church to heed.  So, OBVIOUSLY, we have the potential to have the same types of errors that the old testament church had.  And if you’ll bother to look around at the last 2000 years of church history, you’ll see that the problems the new testament church has had are a carbon copy of the problems the old testament church had.  So, if you want to get a picture of the problems within the Christian church, you simply need to read about the problems Israel developed in the old testament, for we are still human and are still capable of error, just as they were.

4)There is no mention of an inerrant Church in the bible.

---

Now the important part, Because the Pope is the only person who can speak for the Universal Church, he is prevented from dogmatically preaching error to the Universal flock.  There is nothing magical, or special about the Pope… it is all the work of the Holy Spirit.

None of this is biblical.  In fact, the New Testament demonstrates that Paul believed he had the authority to go off, and did go off, and preached the Gospel without consulting with Peter or any of the other apostles.  Paul went out and presented himself as having authority as an ambassador sent from God and stated “if anyone is preaching a gospel other than the one I preached to you, let him be eternally condemned. Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” (Gal 1:9-10)

The idea that Peter, whom you believe was the first Pope, was the only person who could speak for the Universal Church, would certainly come as news to Paul.  For Paul thought ANYONE could fall into error, even himself:  “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal 1:

---

Obviously, none of this will change your mind.  The changing of minds is extremely rare on this forum, as you know.  I’ll simply end by saying that though I disagree with you, I don’t view your belief as rising to the level of heresy so I accept you as a brother in Christ.

[12th Doctor]

1)You entire statement is based entirely on the assumption that the Church ONLY functions as a unit and whatever is believed in one corner is universally believed in every corner.  Obliviously, the last 2000 years of history has shown this NOT to be the case since there is a vast array of beliefs.  In fact, your assumption is even contrary to the biblical record of the early New Testament church, where each individual church had it’s own doctrinal problems, and some, like the church of Galatians, had even fallen from grace. You can’t say the complete Church body is protected from heresy if individual parts of the body are preaching heresy.  Our whole statement treats the body as a uniform whole without consideration for the diversity of beliefs among the individual parts.

Those are individual churches, not The Church as a Universal body.  And the entire reason Paul, and James, and Peter and Clement wrote to those Churches was to right their path, because there was a clearly marked correct path, and there were people who were recognized to be the guardians of that path.  Your argument implodes under the weight of its own unspoken conclusions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and neither I, nor the Catholic Church claims any kind of freedom from fallacy on non-dogmatic issues.  All of your points are moot by the fact that you, like many people, are setting up a scarecrow position that is not held by Catholics and, in fact, the Catholic Church has spoken out in opposition to the position you claim it holds.

You can pretend anything you want, that won't make it true.

3)The assumptions of your statement, which are the products of extrapolation of an interpretation and are NOT explicitly stated in scripture, totally ignore the fact that New Testament EXPLICITLY states that the history of Israel, the old testament “church” were written down in the bible and given to us “as warnings” for the New Testament church to heed.  So, OBVIOUSLY, we have the potential to have the same types of errors that the old testament church had.  And if you’ll bother to look around at the last 2000 years of church history, you’ll see that the problems the new testament church has had are a carbon copy of the problems the old testament church had.  So, if you want to get a picture of the problems within the Christian church, you simply need to read about the problems Israel developed in the old testament, for we are still human and are still capable of error, just as they were.

4)There is no mention of an inerrant Church in the bible.

John 13:16 tells us that the Church is guided by the Spirit.  Is the Spirit fallible?  Luke 10:16 tells us that the Church speaks with the voice of Christ.  Is the voice of Christ fallible?  1 John 2:27 tells us that the anointing of the Spirit remains in the reader, most likely one who did not see Jesus in life, so this gift lives on.

Based off of this, St. Irenaeus, speaking in around 200 AD had no trouble concluding "For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church is every grace.  The Spirit is truth."  And that was in his writing Against Herecies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You almost tripped me up in your clever web there.  Allow me to reiterate.  Yes, anyone can speak on issues of faith.  Otherwise, Aquinas, Augustine, Paul, et al would be condemned by the Church.  But when the Church runs across new dogmatic matters, the Pope, as the leader of the Church, speaks for the Church.  Again, you assume much more than is being said in order to make a mockery of reality.

And the fact that Paul believed he could error is not conclusive.  Nor is the fact that he believed men could and would error.  That's not the point.  But I don't assume that I could convince you, since you have some fairly unorthodox beliefs as is.  And so I ask you this, why do you have such a low regard for tradition as a source of teaching when Paul himself says that that is condemnable?

2 Thessalonians

 5
    May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ.
6
    We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.
7
    For you know how one must imitate us. For we did not act in a disorderly way among you,

But, I give you the benefit of the doubt, my brother, for as Paul says:

Acts 20

 35
    In every way I have shown you that by hard work of that sort we must help the weak, and keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

Huh... funny, this saying of Jesus is not recorded in the Gospels... I wonder how he would have known of this saying, especially since he was not there to here it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Those are individual churches, not The Church as a Universal body.  And the entire reason Paul, and James, and Peter and Clement wrote to those Churches was to right their path, because there was a clearly marked correct path, and there were people who were recognized to be the guardians of that path.  Your argument implodes under the weight of its own unspoken conclusions.

Then if there was intended to be leadership council of successors to the Apostles to keep the church from error, then why was Paul so concerned for individual churches?:

Acts 20:29-30 "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears."

And to correct the future problems mentioned by Paul, why didn’t Paul commit them to keep in step with whatever the future leadership council of successors to the Apostles instructed?  Why did Paul instead commit them to God and to SCRIPTURE?:

Acts 20:32 "Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified."

Maybe Paul thought that scripture was the best protection against false teaching:

1Cor 4:6  "Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?”

Or, as the KJV puts it the same passage:  “Do not to think of men above that which is written.”

Which is EXACTLY what you are doing – you’re thinking of your church leadership as if they possessed some needed knowledge beyond what scripture teaches.

Instead, Paul gave his successors this charge:

2Timothy 3:15-17 “Know the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Notice Paul did NOT say that the “leadership council of successors to the Apostles” is able to make you wise for salvation, nor did he say that the “leadership council of successors to the Apostles” is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


---

Yes, and neither I, nor the Catholic Church claims any kind of freedom from fallacy on non-dogmatic issues

There is NO scripture that says the Church will be free from error on dogmatic issues but not on non-dogmatic issues.  In fact, the scripture gives no one any right to preach something that isn’t true, whether it be dogmatic or non-dogmatic.


---

4)There is no mention of an inerrant Church in the bible.

John 13:16 tells us that the Church is guided by the Spirit.  Is the Spirit fallible?

The scripture also says that INDIVIDUALS are also led by the Spirit, yet that doesn’t guarantee the individual will be infallible.

---

when the Church runs across new dogmatic matters, the Pope, as the leader of the Church, speaks for the Church.

There should no “new” dogmatic matters, period.  The Christian faith was delivered to the body of first generation believers in its completeness:

Jude 1:3 ”I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

Nothing can be added to a covenant once it is established:

Gal 3:15 “Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.”

---

And so I ask you this, why do you have such a low regard for tradition as a source of teaching when Paul himself says that that is condemnable?

2 Thessalonians

 5
    May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ.
6
    We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.
7
    For you know how one must imitate us. For we did not act in a disorderly way among you,

Tradition simply means “teaching”…and as I have stated before:  I have no problem with teaching or tradition as long as it doesn’t violate with scripture or attempt to add salvational requires to the requirements found in scripture.

Also, notice in verse 6 that t” received from us” is past tense and means the radition had already been fully taught to the Thessalonians, so there was no need for additional teachings.

---

But, I give you the benefit of the doubt, my brother, for as Paul says:

Acts 20

 35
    In every way I have shown you that by hard work of that sort we must help the weak, and keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"

Huh... funny, this saying of Jesus is not recorded in the Gospels... I wonder how he would have known of this saying, especially since he was not there to here it.

You shouldn’t even have to ask that question, for the answer to that question is plainly given:

Gal 1:11-12 “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

Also, notice the statement by Jesus,  'It is more blessed to give than to receive', in regard to helping the weak, is completely in line with the rest of scripture’s instructions to help the needy – so even Jesus didn’t teach anything contrary to scritpure.

What is more, Jesus’ statement that 'It is more blessed to give than to receive' is NOT an instruction, rather it is an observation based on common sense, for who wouldn’t rather be in a position of excess capable of helping others rather than a position of needing help?

---

Also, notice that using scripture to verify everything that is taught is considered “noble” and leads to belief:

Acts 17:11-12These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed.

So, unless you think God talks out of both sides of his mouth, why wouldn’t scripture be your litmus test?  Do you think scripture lacks instruction for salvation? 

[12th Doctor]

Then if there was intended to be leadership council of successors to the Apostles to keep the church from error, then why was Paul so concerned for individual churches?:

Acts 20:29-30 "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears."

And to correct the future problems mentioned by Paul, why didn’t Paul commit them to keep in step with whatever the future leadership council of successors to the Apostles instructed?  Why did Paul instead commit them to God and to SCRIPTURE?:

Acts 20:32 "Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified."

Maybe Paul thought that scripture was the best protection against false teaching:

1Cor 4:6  "Do not go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?”

Or, as the KJV puts it the same passage:  “Do not to think of men above that which is written.”

Which is EXACTLY what you are doing – you’re thinking of your church leadership as if they possessed some needed knowledge beyond what scripture teaches.

Instead, Paul gave his successors this charge:

2Timothy 3:15-17 “Know the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Notice Paul did NOT say that the “leadership council of successors to the Apostles” is able to make you wise for salvation, nor did he say that the “leadership council of successors to the Apostles” is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


---

And yet all Paul has said is that it is "useful".  If Paul wanted to say that scripture is it, then why didn't he just say that?  Because Paul advises multiple times about the roles of the Church and the people inside it.

You can continue to fling "the word" me all you want, and still fail to address the point that Christian scripture, as such, had not been written when Paul was writing his letters.  It certainly hadn't been decided on.  It would be centuries before any kind of definitive canon would be written.  When Paul is talking about "the word" he is talking about the spoken tradition.

Whatever the chronological order of writings of the NT scripture, in terms of when they were written, we know that the Galatians probably didn't read Corinthians until a couple generations after Paul wrote it, and the Corinthians probably didn't know of Matthew, and certainly none of them knew of all of what we would call NT canon for a couple centuries.

So, when Paul talks about following only what is written, you need to put that into context and realize that he is talking about this letter, that you are reading, right now.

Again, your arguments seem sound on the face of them, but the flaws become obvious when you place them into context.

Future leadership council?  Luke, while writing Acts, after the death of Paul, makes it very clear that what you call this "future leadership council" predated the conversion of Paul.  I'm starting to wonder how well you know scripture, to make such an obvious mistake.

Indeed, this council was making decisions on matters of faith long before Paul ever took up a pen.  Or do you deny that Acts is true?  Is Luke making it up?

But you know, and I know, that the simple reading of scripture by the individual can be hazardous.

You can quote Paul until you are blue in the face, but you, like most Protestants, tend to forget that there are writings after Paul and before Revelation that you people largely ignore.

And in that vain, Peter tells us two things that feed into this argument:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, this might seem to flow more with your points, but then Peter spends the entire second chapter railing against the false teachers, who teach outside of Church teaching and then says later:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In otherwords, read Paul's letters, but know that they are not self-explanatory, in many ways.  you need guidance.  There is something more you need to know to understand the writings of Paul, even back then.  So, you notion that simply reading scripture is enough would seem to clash with scripture, not my ideas of tradition being important.

There is NO scripture that says the Church will be free from error on dogmatic issues but not on non-dogmatic issues.  In fact, the scripture gives no one any right to preach something that isn’t true, whether it be dogmatic or non-dogmatic.

Well, I beg to differ, and as I grow tired of repeating myself, I will simply refer you to my earlier points.  The Holy Spirit is with the Church, guiding the Church; if you think the Holy Spirit is fallible, then I suppose that's fine, if more than a little odd.  Jesus told us the gates of Hell would never prevail over His Church.  If you think Jesus was a false prophet, then that's fine, but I would strongly suggest you seek out other religious traditions.


---

There should no “new” dogmatic matters, period.  The Christian faith was delivered to the body of first generation believers in its completeness:

Jude 1:3 ”I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

Nothing can be added to a covenant once it is established:

Gal 3:15 “Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case.”

Acts is replete with new issues that the Apostles had to deal with.  In fact, all of scripture contains the teachings of the Apostles on matters of dogma, that either were not fully addressed in the oral teachings of Christ that were passed on, or were issues that came up as a result of the spread of the Church into new cultures and communities.  Does the covenant change; no.  I could argue that that's what you believe by rejecting the Church, but I won't get into that.  But new circumstances do come up, and that requires finer, more definitive temporal definitions of dogma to assure correct teaching.

I could quote Bible verses out of context all day too, but that wouldn't make me any more correct.

For what must be the 20th times since we started this conversation, the only reason you have that complete book in front of you, which Christians believe to be inerrant teaching is because the Church decided, through their traditions, and the guidance of the Spirit, what books to be placed inside it.

You are applying two dimensional thinking to a three dimensional situation.  As much as you try to quote things out of context and use them to prove your argument, you have failed to address the fundamental road block to what you say, which is that the Bible did not simply fall out of the sky one day, into your lap, so that you could interpret it as you will.

---

[12th Doctor]

Tradition simply means “teaching”…and as I have stated before:  I have no problem with teaching or tradition as long as it doesn’t violate with scripture or attempt to add salvational requires to the requirements found in scripture.

Also, notice in verse 6 that t” received from us” is past tense and means the radition had already been fully taught to the Thessalonians, so there was no need for additional teachings.

Ha... you are trying to use grammar now, in one passage, to prove a point.  Even you know that argument is full of holes.

I am glad that, with the first part of your argument, we have come to some agreement, though, even though you wouldn't see it as such.  Tradition is only used as a way to explain what was meant in scripture, not to make things up.  But, as I said, all Christian teaching, including what we now call the New Testament, started out as "merely" a tradition.

---

You shouldn’t even have to ask that question, for the answer to that question is plainly given:

Gal 1:11-12 “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

Also, notice the statement by Jesus,  'It is more blessed to give than to receive', in regard to helping the weak, is completely in line with the rest of scripture’s instructions to help the needy – so even Jesus didn’t teach anything contrary to scripture.

What is more, Jesus’ statement that 'It is more blessed to give than to receive' is NOT an instruction, rather it is an observation based on common sense, for who wouldn’t rather be in a position of excess capable of helping others rather than a position of needing help?

That was a cheap parting shot, I admit, and a poorly executed one, but since we are on the subject, let's discuss.

First, and foremost, let's put this passage into context.  What Paul is doing is refuting the heretics, who have already begun to crop up at this time period, with false teachings.  Specifically, as Paul tells us, the community in Galatia has turned away from the gospel preached by the true Apostles and towards that preached by others.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And so Paul is contrasting his gospel, from Jesus, from the gospel specifically being preached by these men who, as Peter wrote, "follow cleverly devised myths" and corrupted teachings.  So, is this to say that Paul never picked up any teaching from anywhere else.  Well, that very well could be, but I don't think that is the point Paul is trying to make.  So again, here, as with all things, context is king.

I mean, write after this, Paul tells us about how he went to Jerusalem to speak to Peter, so I am sure there was some exchange of ideas, or else if would have been a really boring two weeks.

The point I was trying to make, though clumsily, is that we know there where real teachings and acts of Jesus floating around that were not specifically recorded in the gospels.  The record is not 100% complete.  And, as I have said, all of this is, in fact, based on tradition.

Also, notice that using scripture to verify everything that is taught is considered “noble” and leads to belief:

Acts 17:11-12These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 12Therefore many of them believed.

So, unless you think God talks out of both sides of his mouth, why wouldn’t scripture be your litmus test?  Do you think scripture lacks instruction for salvation? 

The people in Thessalonica would have had to have been searching the Hebrew scriptures, as no Christian Scripture, as such, would have existed yet.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The point I was trying to make, though clumsily, is that we know there where real teachings of Jesus floating around that were not specifically recorded in the gospels.  The record is not 100% complete.  And, as I have said, all of this is, in fact, based on tradition.

If the New Testament is lacking teaching required for salvation, would you say the same of the Old Testament?  Surely God didn't give us less perfect scripture than he gave Moses and Prophets prior to Christ.

So, (unless you say the Old Testament is more complete in its salvational teachings under the old covenant than the New Testament is under the new covenant) who filled in the gaps for those living during old covenant times?  You've already agreed the teachings of the Old Testament church leadership were not infallible, yet there there were still many who were saved.

So, how did people of the old testament lead righteous lives if necessary teachings were missing from Old Testament scripture?