Posted on 05/20/2008 7:45:05 AM PDT by NYer
From Christianity’s beginnings, the Church has been attacked by those introducing false teachings, or heresies.
The Bible warned us this would happen. Paul told his young protégé, Timothy, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3–4).
What Is Heresy?
Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).
To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.
A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.
Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).
It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius X—the "Lefebvrists" or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—who separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.
With this in mind, let’s look at some of the major heresies of Church history and when they began.
The Circumcisers (1st Century)
The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"
Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.
But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit).
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality.
Arianism (4th Century)
Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.
Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God’s grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.
Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").
There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).
Catharism (11th Century)
Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.
The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty.
Protestantism (16th Century)
Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"— the idea that we are justified by faith only).
The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.
The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.
Jansenism (17th Century)
Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.
Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul’s words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
You posted one of the most excellent explanations of an important doctrine that I’ve seen on the AlGore Internet.
Praise be to God! For He has revealed Himself to us, as He has chosen, by the prophets of old, the apostles, His Son, and His Word. Let God be true and all men be liars.
Nice job. I hope to be able to respond later on but I wanted to say nice job right now.
Hi Colofornian--sorry for the delay in replying, I was away from FR for a while.
Yes, to answer your question, it *might* be possible because Satan knows how to pervert every good thing. And any such Catholic ought to get straightened out on that score posthaste. If it were the case in a particular person's life that they put the Virgin before Christ, that would be not only insane but heretical and (I might add) contrary to what I think the Virgin would want of us--"do whatever he tells you."
However, I really don't even know how Mariolatry could happen in the Church. Keep in mind here that our religion is very formal--it's not just somebody reading the Bible every day and going to hear preaching and sing hymns on Sunday. Catholicism has a calendar and has sacraments and rituals which are to be followed very precisely.
The person who follows that calendar and those rituals knows immediately who is most important--to the point where I think there is little possibility of confusion. We go to Mass where we offer Christ and receive Christ. Eucharistic adoration--again, Christ. Christ's life is the whole focus of the liturgical year. So while I wouldn't say that it is impossible that someone could become a Mariolater, the Catholic faith tends to mitigate against it, because its very bones, its structure, is *so* very focused on the person of Jesus. A person wanting to worship Mary above Christ would have to gut and completely change the entire Catholic faith to do so: they would have to construct a Mass offered to Mary, a Eucharist of Mary, a completely Marian liturgical year.
If that happened, I could honestly say of that person: "s/he has become a Mariolater" and I would be right with you in condemning it as rank heresy. But a person pouring out devotions to Mary in private never reaches that level. Even if they were inclined to Mariolatry, they simply could not avoid all the adoration of Christ that takes place at Mass and everywhere else. Even the very Sign of the Cross that the person makes to begin his or her prayers would be a continual reminder of the Divinity of the Son. So the putative Mariolater would face a stark choice--either be a Catholic, and put Jesus first where He belongs, or leave the Church entirely.
Claud, while you say the language of love is "effusive" and "abundant" I would say that while the spirit might be "willing" to exercise such broader devotion, the "flesh" is weak...Jesus knew our heart
Ah, indeed! If it were up to us we couldn't do it. That's why we need God's free gift of grace.
By the way, thank you for the very reasonable and cordial discussion! You make good points and you respond to mine very candidly.
Though there is one 1983 Code Of Canon Law it was reprinted in 1993 and again in 1999 with English language "corrections" in each version.
Far be it from me to make an attempt to correctly interpret the original Latin version. I must have faith that the English language version I am working with is a faithful translation and I have no intention of "correcting" the translators.
I did find the following which may shed a little light on the subject.
A little bit about canon law translations. All four English translations bear the appropriate approvals, but the 1993 and 1999 translations are the most current and commonly used today. There will be differences in translations, as your friend noted in the email. Aside from checking the credits to see what edition is being used, one can quickly go to Canon 750. If that canon only has one paragraph, it is an older and outdated translation. If it has two paragraphs, it reflects the additions to law made in the second Latin edition. The Latin official document came out in 1983 and was revised to clear up printing errors in the early 90's, but used the same copyright date of 1983. There were also some changes/additions to the law (eg: Canon 750) reflected in the later Latin version. There are several English translations that reflect these two different Latin originals. The Vatican website uses the Canon Law Society of America's (CLSA) 1999 translation. There is also the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland's (CLSGBI) 1983 translation, the CLSA 1984 translation, and the CLSGBI 1993 translation (this is used in the Navarre commentary with some edits, and is also used in all the English speaking countries "under the Crown".
1983 Code Of Canon Law - (Several Versions)
It still seems the word is "If the Pope or the Bishops speak it is better to simply submit your will and intellect and just go along."
A woman is on her knees before an image of the Virgin, saying her Rosary.
Suddenly our Lord appears before her, and says,"My child."
She mumbles, "... among women, and blessed is..."
He says, a little louder, "My child, because of your great faith and piety I am appearing to you."
She continues, "...Mother of God, pray for us sinners..."
He says, louder still, "My Child, it is I. Can not you hear me?"
She looks up, irritated, and says, "Be quiet. Can't you see I'm talking to your mother?"
So, yeah, I think Catholics, or some of them, are aware of the perils.
Blue-Duncan:
Thanks for the post and I want to say you have been civil and charitable throughout which is no small accomplishment given how some of these threads can be.
The notion that the first generations of Christians had a NT is untenable. If we just look at Christ’s paschal mystery (passion, death, resurrection, and ascension) at around 30 AD, we know that the first generation (20 year period) of Christians had no NT writing at all as Biblical scholarship indicates that St. Paul’s First letter to the Thessalonians was the first NT work written in around 49 AD. The Gospel of Mark was written around 64 AD, while the Gospels of MT and Luke were written between 70-80 AD, and the Gospel of John at around 90-95 AD. So from this basic outline provided above, the first 3 generations of Christians did not have the Gospel of John.
Here is a detailed link on the development of the NT Canon from Newadvent.org (a Catholic site), but one that is well researched in all aspects of the NT canon.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
The following is my “readers digest” summary of the NT canon formation. The formation of the Canon becomes an issue during the 2nd century when the Catholic Church and those with orthodox doctrine had doctrinal conflicts with the Gnostics. Marcion, a leader of the Gnostics, proposed that the NT should be defined as only St. Luke’s Gospel and 10 of St. Paul’s 13 letters and he wanted the OT rejected all together. The Church of Rome rejected Marcion’s canon and as the Anglican Patristic and Church History Scholar Henry Chadwick notes he was excommunicated there in 144 AD (The Penguin History of the Early Church, Revised Edition, page 39). Jaroslav Pelikan in Volume 1 of his 5 Volume work “The Christian Tradition describes Marcion’s Gnostic doctrines and how the Church dealt with it. He concluded by stating “this makes Marcion an important figure not only in the history of the development of doctrine, but also the history of both the text and the canon of the New Testament” (p. 79).
So, it is clear that around the time of Marcion’s excommunication by the Church of Rome in 144 AD, the idea of a complete NT, as we know it today, is not present. On the other hand, we see the Church of Rome exercising the Primacy in defending the Apostolic Tradition from Gnosticism (Marcionism) and starting to more formally define the NT canon. Thus, the authority of the Church would thus become important in formulating the Canon. Again, Chadwick writes (p. 42)
“The second weapon of the orthodox defense was the gradual formation of the New Testament canon. In the first century, the Christian Bible had simply been the Old Testament (read in the Septuagint version). Authority resided in this scripture and in oral traditions, as in apparent in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.”
Chadwick notes that oral tradition was viewed as an authority that had not yet been merged into a written document (i.e. the Scripture). However, he notes that the Maricion and other Gnostic controversies provided an impetus for the Church to recognize which written documents contained authentic apostolic tradition. Thus, St. Justin Martyr, who died circa 155 AD. provided an orthodox Church father who attested to MT, MK, and LK. These gospels seemed to be recognized much earlier than John, which was met with resistance. It wasn’t until Irenaeus (185 AD) that John became recognized. Chadwick points out that “strict application of apostolic authority” by the Church of Rome led to the exclusion of the book of Hebrews, which would not be admitted until the 4th century. Chadwick cites the Muratorian fragment, written in 200 AD as the first canonical list of the early Church, which was published by the Church of Rome. The Muratorian fragment lists 23 of the 27 books in the NT (1 and 2 Peter, Hebrews, James are not listed). In addition, he lists the Revelation of John, but states it should not be read in Church.
Over the next 200 years, the formation of the Canon would continue. Origen gives a description of the canon in the 3rd century from the Church of Alexandria, and we see that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude, all which would become part of the NT, and Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews, were all disputed. The evidence here suggests that some books that would eventually not be recognized were in fact viewed as canonical as late as the time of Origen. In his history of the Church Eusebius, written between 300 and 325 AD, he gives us a clear picture of the state of the Biblical canon. He points out that Peter’s first epistle, in which Mark is mentioned, was composed in Rome itself and Peter indicates this himself referring to Rome figuratively as Babylon. Thus, Eusebius indicates that 1 Peter is agreed upon while 2 Peter is not canonical, but it is studies with other scriptures. The fourteen of Paul are obvious and certain, but he notes that Hebrews is disputed saying that it was rejected by the Church at Rome as not being Paul. Eusebius goes on to point out that the 4 gospels should be put in first place, followed by the Acts of the Apostles then the epistles of Paul, 1 John and then 1 Peter. After those, if it is desirable, then perhaps Revelations can be put in.
However, Eusebius then goes on to show that there are several disputed books. He lists James, Jude, and once again 2 Peter. He also points out that 2 John and 3 John are disputed. Finally, he goes back and points out that Revelation (the Apocalypse of John) are rejected by some, while others include it as canonical. In summary, Eusebius’s account gives us a clear picture that the New Testament canon was not completely formed by 325 AD.
Of course, over the next 75 years the process was completed. St. Athanasius’ 39th Easter letter lists the 27 New Testament books and 40 of the 46 Old Testament books that would be in the Catholic Canon (Baruch was included, the other 6 deuterocanonical books are admitted there use as devotional reading. The Council in Rome in 382 led by Pope Damasus, along with St. Jerome, listed the 46 books of the OT and 27 NT that are in the Catholic Bible today. While there is some historical disputes as to what was actually in Pope Damasus’s Decree, as most of the details of Pope Damasus and the Synod in Rome in 382 comes from a 6th century writing, although there are 4th and 5th century writings in the 6th century text, it is also clear that Jerome’s completed Latin Vulgate Translation consisted of all the books that are in the Catholic Canon today. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage, 393 and 397 AD, respectively are consistent with Rome in 382. The Council of Trent, (1534 to 1565), in response to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc, reaffirmed the Catholic Canon of the 4th century. Thus, it is accurate to state that the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, protected and defended the orthodox Catholic faith and canonized the scriptures that were in conformity with apostolic tradition.
In closing, as one Catholic theologian put it, the relationship among the Church, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, is like a 3-legged chair/stool, you take 1 away, and the thing falls. So, from the Catholic perspective, pitting the Church against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Scripture is a false dichotomy. Finally, this thread is now over 1,100 posts and I have been in it since the 100’s. Hopefull, I can retire from this one, but I am sure I will see you around in other threads.
Have a great day
It still seems the word is "If the Pope or the Bishops speak it is better to simply submit your will and intellect and just go along."When my toddler daughter was sick unto death, I submitted my will and my intellect to the docs at JHU. Even then though, when I became alert to her particular signs, I would administer small amounts of orange juice to address hypoglycaemia which I discerned by watching her mood and taking her pulse. They weren't pleased with me, but they admitted that I was calling it properly.
And when she got totally stressed and was so acidotic that she was hyperventilating, it was I who called it to the docs attention.
But even in that case I had been taking first aid cases since I was 10 and had observed a lot when I was a hospital chaplain and I knew some stuff.
But while I would comment on other people's attempts at the use of the ketogenic diet to cure epilepsy I would not pose as a doctor or presume to run their case. But with my little bit of knowledge I was prepared justly to question some small particulars of my daughter's treatment plan.
Always remember, 100 IQ is AVERAGE! ( It DO give one pause, don't it?) And as is evident here, not everyone has a theological bent of mind. (I believe "bent" is the right word.) Remember the vast numbers of people who believe that it doesn't matter what you believe or do as long as you're sincere. Remember Olivia in Spencer's mountain who on hearing about what her son's Jewish girlfriend (or something, maybe fiancee?) believes says that sounds just like the Baptist Church!
Also, think just a little about filial submission. It's not a matter of snapping to attention and saying< "Yes Sir Father Sir!" If that actually happened in a family we'd think something was wrong.
Filial submission would involve almost necessarily questioning, testing, thinking, examining, questioning some more. In fact a little thoughtful questioning here would solve the problem of the frequent misrepresentation of what Catholics actually teach.
Over in the Transubstantiation discussion, where once again the use of "literally" and "actually" betray a misunderstanding of what a sacrament is, there is a story of George Gamow saying that he began his trek to atheism when he took home a piece of consecrated bread, examined it under a microscope, and saw no change. His error was not that he questioned what he was told he should believe but that he didn't question it enough.
To return to my first analogy, I suppose everyone has a right to think whatever he wants about medicine, including that it is in essence impious and faithless. Just yesterday I heard of a Protestant minister AND his wife who both dropped dead (two years apart) because, despite family histories of early death secondary to heart problems, they wouldn't consult a cardiologist.
The occasional bit of filial submission can prolong and even save lives.
And, of course, finally it comes down to what one thinks IHS promised to the Church and whether one can look at the bozos in charge and believe that God is stronger than they when it comes to His will about proclaiming the Gospel. After hearing and seeing what the OTHER bozos proclaim I'll go with my bozos, thanks.
The untruth cloaked within the metaphor is that there are no clear prescriptions in the Catholic Church. But this is not so. They're very clear and simple. Believe the Creeds, read the Bible (indulgence for half an hour reading), say your prayers, go to Church, do good stuff, avoid bad stuff, believe your leaders (but count your change) and pray for them, love God, love your neighbor, etc. For many people that's clear enough.
Theology is the effort to make words congruent to something that is simple beyond words, to wrap our minds around that which is wrapped around our minds. To anyone who persists in it, it's going to get tough and seem murky.
If anyone approaches the Catholic Church as a bunch of rules to follow and a bunch of articles of religion to believe, he's starting out by going the wrong way and he will never "get" it, unless God intervenes. But then to complain because following his own path away from the Church he finds the details hard to discern, that doesn't seem like it's going to prosper.
For example: A, now dead, deacon taught "fundamental option". I was there. It sure sounded wrong to me AND it sounded like someone trying to give Catholics permission to use artificial birth control.
But I did not say, "Hmm, I have mastered all the rules and dicta and declarations and definitions and so I know that's wrong." I said, "Hmm, that sounds WAY off-kilter." And I went and talked to a friend and finally we went on line and found in Veritatis Splendor where J2P2 says it's wrong and where he says WHY it's wrong. And what he said made sense. If the full Gospel of God, with all that it is, is to be understood in this or that particular, I suppose some outside observer would think that people are just making up stuff out of their heads. I see no order in it.
A million years ago I used to fence (foils, not cattle). When you start, and you watch others fencing, you can't see or understand what's going on. Then, after a while, you "get your eye in", and what seemed a vague motion is understood.
That’s a delightful old chestnut, and it hits the issue between the eyes. :)
The conversation was strictly limited to the subject of "infallibility". I stand by my claim. There is no "official" list. There is no clear cut single definition understood, without argument, among any Catholic authorities.
While my oft repeated charge "There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear that it cannot be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required." is admitted hyperbole, it applies to "infallibility" without question.
Catch a handful of smoke from your cookout, put it in your pocket, carry it home with you, reach into your pocket, take the smoke out and let the delightful odor waft throughout your house.
That, my friend, is easier than explaining the conviction of Honorius for Heresy by the 6th Ecumenical Council and explaining why and how "infallibility" didn't come into play.
For the record; I believe there are many clear "prescriptions" the Catholic Church. Thousands of clear "prescriptions". Infallibility is not among them.
This violates the role of the Church as the final arbiter in disputes in Matthew 18. The church always had Scripture.
The Jews had Moses before they had the Pentateuch, and they had centuries of development before the other books were added to the Hebrew Canon. The Church always had the Old Testament Scripture, including the Deuterocanon, but it had decades go by before what we now call the New Testament was written. Further, it took centuries before the New Testament Canon was established; then the Reformers -- part of the "church", you think, -- took it upon themeselves to conform the Christian New Testament Canon to the Hebrew anti-Christian Canon of Jamnia. It is true that the Church always had some scripture to rely on, of course, but it is not true that the scripture in a complete canonical form was always with the Church. The Church produced the Bible as a definitive Christian inspired book, and the Reformers mangled it. In both cases, one salutary, the other scandalous, the relationship is from the community of faith to the scripture, not the other way around.
The canon of Scripture is established by the Scripture itself, because the canonical books are self-authenticating
No it is not, and they are not. The quotes you put forward as an argument do not say so. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 calls the "man of God", not the scripture "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works". James 1:4 refers to the reader of the letter as "perfect". Matthew 19:21 refers to the young man's desire to be perfect. Colossians 1:28 refers to every man's perfection in Jesus; Col. 4:12 refers to the readers of the letter. We discussed the 2 Timothy passage at length, -- it does not teach sola scriptura, and the rest have nothing to do with the scripture whatsoever.
All we can do is explain Honorius to them. We cannot understand it FOR them.
"metaphor"
It wasn't a metaphor? You think the Church is an ice hockey rink?
Once again we have the gambit of taking a response to one statement and saying, "But it doesn't apply to this other statement," while ignoring how it responds to the statement to which it was addressed.
It's like building a house and having the buyer complain while you lay the foundation that the roof isn't up yet.
Post #1049 (Alamo-Girl)
The doctrine of "papal infallibility" is confusing to me. Perhaps you can help me understand?
Evidently "papal infallibility" became dogma in 1870 at the First Vatican Council. But obviously, by then, many "papal bulls" and such had already been written.
And it is apparent that some of those would be considered infallible whereas others would not be considered infallible.
The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions that, in order to be considered infallibile, whatever it is must be a definitive statement.
Elsewhere in the same source (though I have lost the url) it mentioned that the use of the term "anathema" in the writings of the councils was a determining factor in what is to be considered infallible. But it did not indicate that such a word usage was conclusive in reference to papal infallibility.
Also, now that the term "anathema" no longer is used since Vatican II - it raises the question anew as to how one knows what is or is not infallible from the documents which may proceed in the future from such councils.
In short, is there any source out there which presents a thorough and official review of all the historical manuscripts to itemize what is included/excluded as infallible doctrine and the reasoning behind it and lays out for the interested observer (e.g. me) the means whereby such infallible doctrine will be conveyed in the future?
Any question? Is her post "general" or "specific"?
Once again we have the gambit of taking a response to one statement and saying, "But it doesn't apply to this other statement," while ignoring how it responds to the statement to which it was addressed.
Maybe you should make a concerted effort to stay on one topic at a time. Address that topic and move on.
I can multi-task to a limited extent but I cannot read your mind when you "mentally" change the topic.
I invite you to follow the individual posts back to #1049 and then tell me where I went off topic.
“This violates the role of the Church as the final arbiter in disputes in Matthew 18.”
How does “the word “church” as referring to the body of the faithful” violate Matthew 18? The passage deals with a personal disagreement between two people. The complainer is told to go, one on one, to resolve it. If the other party is intransigent then take a couple of witnesses. If that does not work then take the matter to the congregation to which both parties belong. If he is still obstinate them have the assembly put him out. He is an outcast of the assembly. The assembly’s judgment is binding.
There was no New Testament” church in existence when Jesus was speaking here. The only assembly was the Temple or synagogue congregation and to be an outcast there was to be no longer a religious Jew.
However, the “binding” principle is similar to Paul’s admonition to the church at Corinth where he advises the congregation to put the incestuous man out. The “loosing” principle comes in when in 2 Corinthians he tells the congregation to let the man back into fellowship. In neither case could “church” mean mean the “infallible teaching authority of councils, magesterium and popes” since they weren’t in existence at the time.
Jesus’ statement “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” defines His assembly, “the body of the faithful”.
“The quotes you put forward as an argument do not say so. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 calls the “man of God”, not the scripture “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works”.”
I said that the scriptures are,
“able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
The word Paul uses for perfect vs. 17 is “exartizo”, which has to do with being fitted for a task. In the passages you cite use the Greek word “teleios” is used for perfect, (James 1:4, Matthew 19:21, or Colossians 1:28 and 4:12) which has reference to maturity or having reached a desired end.
Further in 1069 you wrote:
There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.
I would characterize that as pretty much going astray from the particular issue of papal or conciliar infallibility. I doesn't advance the argument but it seems to be a restatement and a generalization of the thesis. It seems to me that to lash out in what pretends to be a discussion and then claim that that's not what you were talking about will tend to lead to misunderstanding.
This led to, and I think justified, my perception that you were attacking on two fronts, one limited to the question of infallibility and the other a general slam on a purportedly intentional ambiguity in catholic teaching.I understood the hockey rink metaphor as pertaining to the general assault.
I guess there is some rhetorical benefit in attacking on two fronts (if the goal is winning) because if an argument is addressed on one front one can claim it was intended for the other.
Shall we now go poison some more wells?
In neither case could “church” mean mean the “infallible teaching authority of councils, magesterium and popes” since they weren’t in existence at the time.
Well, we'd say that there were all three, if only "in germ". Ww see a council in Jerusalem making what seems to be accepted by many as an authoritative decision about circumcision. Ww got old Peter. And we don't have a whole cunk of magisterial teaching — they hadn't had time yet, but there seems to me a notion of the REAL Gospel and a bunch of bogus ones and the need, at least in one instance, for Paul to go to Jerusalem to has stuff out.
“Well, we’d say that there were all three, if only “in germ”. Ww see a council in Jerusalem making what seems to be accepted by many as an authoritative decision about circumcision”
Not so fast there big fellow. See, Acts 15:4, “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.”
vs. 22, “Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:”
It was to the whole church at Jerusalem, out of which the problem arose, that the matter came to be resolved. They, along with the Apostles and Elders who were affected, resolved the problem by creating another denomination with a different liturgy and ritual.
The Scripture defines the Church as the mystical body of Christ, with a single head in Christ. With that in mind, Matthew 18 cannot establish solely the authority of the local congregation, but not a hierarchical authority of the complete body of Christ. Naturally, the precise organizational structure of the Church was not in existence when Christ spoke. However, the principle of the Church as final universal authority is established in Matthew 18. Surely you are not suggesting that the man anathemized in one local church per Mt 18:17 should just go find another local church and be welcomed there. Is the "heaven" in Mt 18:18 also a local heaven?
The word Paul uses for perfect vs. 17 is “exartizo”, which has to do with being fitted for a task
Ah, OK. You post look an awful lot like a claim of the Biblical character of the Sola Scriptura superstition. So you agree that it is the "man of God" that is fitted for every task and not the Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.