I don't recall my fingers stuttering. I don't recall mentioning the laity. That was not my point. The point I was responding to was that the Bishops--AND PARTICULARLY THE !!!LEADING, TOP, [POLITICALLY SUCCESSFUL] ROMAN!!! BISHOP et al decided orthodoxy flawlessly . . . particularly compared to the 20,000 Protestant idiot groups.
WHEN that clearly has not been the case at many times in the Roman group's history. I think the points below reiterated will affirm that.
Absolute power corrupting absolutely has been exemplified worst in RELIGIOUS organizations up until probably Hitler.
First, neither the Pope nor the bishops have "absolute power".
Methinks that the folks on the racks during the Inquisition would beg to differ. There were other similar periods when the power to declare Church law and have it faithfully carried out was rather more absolute than it often appears in our era.
Seemingly, on your view, Christ should not have ordained Apostles and bishops.
HOGWASH. God ordained/anointed SPIRITUAL leaders throughout history. AND, HE TOOK THEM OUT OR REMOVED THE ANOINTING from every remotely long line of them sooner or later because they failed to walk intimately with HIM and do HIS THINGS vs their own stuff.
The fact that secular political authorities sometimes abuse their authority does not imply that we should rebel against the bishops, or that orthodoxy is not determined by them.
I'm not talking about SECULAR POLITICAL authorities. I'm talking about RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION POLITICAL authorities. The Pope and Cardinals have been plenty abusive 100's of tiems, conservatively--more likely thousands--over the course of history. This is common knowledge. Better scholars than I on the topic can rub faces in such historical facts if it's demanded. Not my preference. The Inquisition is but one period of such.
Or, your anti-institutional bias is blinding you. Which is more likely, that you are blinded, or that the great saint Augustine (and all the fathers, since they all agreed with him) were blinded?
I think God and Augustine himself will answer that in the direction I've posted . . . in due course.
it is not the Roman Hierarchy per se that determines orthdoxy--as 20,000+ different John SKERRIAN FLIPFLOPS
Please name one 'flipflop' in Catholic *dogma*. Just one.
I think eggregious indulgences would be one. Papal philandering outside of marriage could be construed as another. I'm sure other folks with a better memory for such could list dozens if not 100's of such cases. There were variouis pollitical land grabs at various points in history that were not at all Christ-like--or even remotely moral.
Quix: The history of the human Roman organization is full of blazing brazen examples to the opposite.
A8: Name one example in the history of the Catholic Church of orthodoxy being determined by the laity instead of the bishops.
Quix: I don't recall my fingers stuttering. I don't recall mentioning the laity. That was not my point. The point I was responding to was that the Bishops--AND PARTICULARLY THE !!!LEADING, TOP, [POLITICALLY SUCCESSFUL] ROMAN!!! BISHOP et al decided orthodoxy flawlessly . . . particularly compared to the 20,000 Protestant idiot groups. WHEN that clearly has not been the case at many times in the Roman group's history. I think the points below reiterated will affirm that.
A8: If your point was that the bishops and the pope "decided orthodoxy flawlessly", then you and agree. (I suspect that you intended to include a "not".) My original point was that orthodoxy is determined by the bishops, not the laity. So your objection seemed to suggest that you think that the laity should get to determine for the Church what is or is not orthodoxy.
Quix: Methinks that the folks on the racks during the Inquisition would beg to differ.
A8: A person "begging to differ" does not refute the point in question. Yes, the Pope has the highest authority (under Christ) in the Catholic Church. But, that does not mean that the Pope has absolute or unqualified authority. Abuses of authority are not indications of the extent or range of authority.
Quix: AND, HE TOOK THEM OUT OR REMOVED THE ANOINTING from every remotely long line of them sooner or later
A8: And how do you know this? This is the sort of deism we see in Mormonism.
Quix: I'm not talking about SECULAR POLITICAL authorities.
A8: Your mentioning of Hitler is what suggested to me that you *were* also talking about secular political authorities.
Quix: The Pope and Cardinals have been plenty abusive 100's of times
A8: Catholics agree. Perhaps this can be a point of common ground. We agree that Catholic leaders have abused their authority. But Catholics believe that when a Catholic leader abuses his authority, this does not eliminate or nullify his God-given authority through ordination. That is what become clear through the Donatist controvesy. And we can thank St. Augustine for helping to clear this up. We don't have to worry whether our baptism was invalid due to some secret and serious sin in the life of the one who administered our baptism. And the same is true of all the sacraments. The gifts and calling are irrevocable. If we fall away from the faith, we do not have to be re-baptized when we return. Why? Because baptism (like confirmation and ordination) leaves an indelible character in the soul.
A8: Please name one 'flipflop' in Catholic *dogma*. Just one.
Quix: I think eggregious indulgences would be one. Papal philandering outside of marriage could be construed as another. ... There were variouis pollitical land grabs at various points in history that were not at all Christ-like--or even remotely moral.
None of those are Catholic dogma.
-A8