The RC church: it has come to this

[Joe Zollars]

I know of at least two here who would say that it did not split the Church, but split one party from the Church. That is how history paints the issue of hte filioque.

Joe Zollars

[尼古拉前执事]

Joe, what are those 2 times? When Pius IX declared he was tradition on top of the table at your Latin Council of Vatican I and when else?

[Joe Zollars]

one: Vatican I was never formally closed. however the definition of Papal Infallability was published with the rest of the writing by vatican council I not by HH Pius IX himself.

two: the two times it has been used were to proclaim the Immaculate Conception in the 1850's and the Assumption in the 1950's.

Joe Zollars

[尼古拉前执事]

If it was a power forever then why was it not used for over 1800 years and then twice in a century?

So then you admit that the Pope had no power to change the Creed decreed by an Ecumenical Council?

[Joe Zollars]

no. Its really only used to proclaim a specific dogma. Teh Filioque was already a longstanding, even preschism (by several hundred years) custom in someparts fo the west. It was merely decreed to be used everywhere to combat a heresy. Similar to the papal bull Quo Primum which caries a varient of the charism of Infallability delegated to the whole of the teaching body of the Church, or rather to Tradition. neither would be considered Papal Infallable pronouncements under the specific charism reserved to hte occupant of the throne of peter.

Joe Zollars

[尼古拉前执事]

It was also papally condemned before the schism of the West.

[Mor Ephrem]

Some time ago, I was discussing the issue of papal infallibility with a Roman Catholic, who insisted I read a transcribed lecture of Dr. Scott Hahn, Professor of Biblical Theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio, and because he is a well-respected scholar in the American Catholic scene, and presumably knows his stuff enough to only teach what the Roman Catholics actually teach, I read it. In doing so, I jotted down some notes in which I took issue with certain claims of the article. It is not thorough, and it's been so long since I read either that I'm not sure if I picked and chose quotes (although I was in the habit then and now of trying not to take things out of context), but I offer it for what it's worth, and welcome criticism.

The original lecture: http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

+++

I don’t pretend that this is in any way comprehensive, but it is all I can really say about this text, which seems to be a transcripted talk given by Dr. Scott Hahn on the papacy. Where I have quoted him, I have italicised his remarks, and my remarks follow. The entire text can be found at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

No, the Church has never insisted upon the fact that the Pope will always say the best thing at the right time. Rather, the teaching of the Church would allow for the Pope perhaps to postpone out of cowardice, a right thing. Or when he says the truth, when he teaches the truth, he might do so in a way that includes an ambiguity.

How can something dogmatic (as I presume an infallible declaration would be) be at the same time ambiguous? That’s like defining confusion. Wouldn’t an infallible declaration have to be clear?

First of all, can we prove Papal Primacy, that is, that the Pope is not just the first among equals but that he has a certain primacy, a unique supremacy in relation to all of the Bishops.

So Catholics teach that Primacy and Supremacy are one and the same. That’s not the case, even in the English language.

Then thirdly, we have to establish evidence for Papal infallibility, that is that God grants a gift to the successors of Peter for them, not to give new revelations. The Church insists that no Popes have ever given new revelation. Revelation has been, once and for all deposited by Christ through His Apostles and with the death of the last Apostle came the close of all public revelation. The Popes, in a sense are given the task of preserving and of transmitting, explaining and enforcing that revelation, but not giving new revelation. So that third doctrine is the doctrine of Papal infallibility, that when they transmit, when they explain, when they enforce it, they are granted a charism or a special spiritual gift preserving them from error.

So Catholics believe that papal infallibility is not a new revelation, but a part of the deposit of faith, even though the fact remains that until the First Vatican Council in 1869-70, one could disagree with it and still be a faithful Catholic since it wasn’t officially defined?

That’s what I find so inconsistent with the Roman Catholic position. If something is not defined, you can conscientiously object and still be a faithful Catholic with no danger to your salvation. So when Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans did not believe in the Immaculate Conception while Blessed John Duns Scotus and the Franciscans believed in it, both sides were being completely faithful and their salvation was not in danger because it hadn’t been defined. But, as soon as the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854, no one could deny it without endangering their eternal soul because it was a defined dogma. Now since the Pope obviously cannot create new doctrine, it must be that the Immaculate Conception is a part of the Apostolic Faith, part of the deposit of faith. How then do you allow for the fact that one could deny it prior to 1854 and still be a faithful Catholic? Either you accept the Apostolic Faith, or you don’t. If you know the Apostolic Faith and reject it, your soul is in great peril. If you know the Apostolic Faith and accept it, you still have a chance. How can you deny parts of it and be OK as long as you didn’t reach the date of the infallible definition before you died?

And they draw lots and they choose Matthias. No debate, no novelty. The other ten don't say, "Huh, what are you talking about, Simon? This is weird." No, they understand, but even more, they submit. There's no debate, no discussion.

This is pure conjecture. It reads “submission” into the situation, among other things. If they understood the reason for the election of a successor to the place of Judas, then there would be no need for “submitting”, as they could very well agree with Peter. Agreement is not submission. Secondly, notice how Peter recommends drawing lots - an election - in order to choose the successor to the place of Judas. If he was really “supreme”, and his decisions would’ve been submitted to, he could’ve just appointed someone to the post, much like how the Pope appoints bishops now. But, he recommends - and the apostles follow through with - an election. Very conciliar of them.

Notice also in Acts 2, Peter's responsibility, not just over the ten, but over all of Jerusalem. He is the one who preaches the first sermon, that Pentecost, verse 14. He is the spokesman for the Church to the world at Pentecost.

Read the text for the context. All the apostles are there. Peter speaks for them. Does this imply supremacy (primacy “over” anyone/thing is supremacy, and it is this authority “over” to which Hahn refers)? No. It just means that it’s better for one person to preach than for twelve to preach at the same time and possibly sound like a lot of noise.

Then in chapter 4, we see Peter's pre-eminence emerging even further as he exercises his teaching authority over the Jewish senate, the Sanhedrin. He's put on trial, so you think he's going to be defensive. He's going to come to His own defense saying, "Oh gosh, guys, you know, please don't do these things." But no. He puts the Sanhedrin on trial for crucifying the Lord. He exercises supreme authority over the Jewish senate. It left them flabbergasted! Who does this fisherman think he is? The vicar of Christ over the family of God. And so they're set free. They are astounded at his boldness.

So if I know you did something wrong, and you come after me for doing something you think is wrong, and I throw your wrong deed back in your face, I am exercising my teaching authority over you? Hardly. The very notion that Peter is exercising supreme authority over the Sanhedrin sounds silly in context, to me. They put him on trial for spreading the Way, and Peter accused them of killing Jesus.

Then in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira, two wealthy members of the Church, sell some land and then lie about how much money they gave to the Church. Peter said to Ananias, "What are you doing?" Ananias says, "Well I gave you all the money." And Peter says, "You are lying to the Holy Spirit." Ananias said, "No, I'm just lying to you, Peter." But no. In lying to Peter, Ananias was lying to the Holy Spirit and to the Church. He's struck dead! A few hours later his wife Sapphira comes along. Peter says, "What happened?" "Oh, we sold the land for this amount, and we gave you all the money." And, "Hark, the footsteps of the men who just carried out your husband are coming for you." She drops dead! "And great fear came upon all those who heard of it," in verse 5.

First of all, Hahn reads into the story more than is there. The passage from Acts:

“But a man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died.”/b

Ananias says nothing. Furthermore, note that Ananias laid the money at the feet of the apostles (plural). Yes, Peter speaks up, but Hahn doesn’t mention the others: the implication seems to be that the money was laid at Peter’s feet, the lie to Peter is equivalent to lying to the Holy Spirit, and Ananias is taken by death. Hahn doesn’t mention the other apostles. Of course, to mention them would be very synodal…hardly something you want to deal with when attempting to establish the supremacy of one as lord over all. Why does Hahn, arguably one of the best Catholic scriptural scholars the Church in America has produced in recent days, omit the mention of the other apostles? Why does he presume to put words into Ananias’ mouth when there are none in Scripture?

No wonder. Petrine promise was rather apparent here. I mean Peter's pre-eminence was on display for the whole Church and the whole world and all the Jews to see and to behold. And it goes on and on and on. We see Peter, for instance, in Acts 11 and 12 -- even before that -- Acts 8, the first time non-Jewish half-breeds, Samaritans are brought into the Church. They are baptized. Word reaches Jerusalem that these non-Jewish half-breeds, the Samaritans are coming into the Church. Immediately, what do they do? Send Peter and John. They go down there and what do they do? Well, a Confirmation action, here. "They lay the hand," verse 14, "When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed they might receive the Holy Spirit." They were baptized but they hadn't received this additional grace that we often associate with Confirmation. Then the laying on of hands; they received the Holy Spirit and then Simon Magus tried to buy the gift and Peter rebukes him.

“Immediately, what do THEY do? Send Peter and John. (my emphasis)”. Who is “they”? We get the answer… “Verse 14, ‘When the APOSTLES in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, THEY sent Peter and John to them. (my emphasis)” Obviously, the “they” is the “Apostles” in Jerusalem. If Peter is supreme over the Apostles, why does he have to be sent anywhere? In essence, he is taking orders from subordinates. But the Scriptural text is clear. The Apostles send Peter and John. Very conciliar…

So then he goes ahead, preaches the gospel, baptizes these Gentiles and admits the first non-Jewish believers into the Church. And I mean, this could have been the greatest crisis of all, but there isn't even a fizzle, practically. But look at chapter 11, verse 2, "When Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, 'You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.'" And he explained exactly what happened and said, "Hey, God told me." It's Peter and they stopped.

“It’s Peter and they stopped” makes it sound like because Peter said so, they had no problem with it at all. In that case, why did the circumcised believers even bother to question him? Shouldn’t some rudimentary concept akin to “No man may judge the Roman Pontiff” have come into effect? This cannot be explained by supremacy.

But the crisis reaches an even higher point in chapter 15. We have the famous Council of Jerusalem where there's a huge debate tearing apart the Church. These Gentile believers, do we circumcise them or not? Well you might say, "How important is that?" Well, gentlemen, if you were in your twenties, thirties and forties and you were considering conversion and along with conversion, you had to get circumcised, you might end up considering conversion a lot longer than if all you needed was baptism, right? There was sort of a strategic purpose behind all of this. But notice, as the debate is raging, all of a sudden it stops. When? Verse 6 and 7, "The Apostles and elders met together. After much debate Peter stood up and addressed them," and he basically says the Holy Spirit purified their hearts through Baptism, circumcision isn't needed; end all debate! The only thing that follows is that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, adds the kind of qualifying proviso so that the Jews are not needlessly scandalized in Gentile lands. But Peter's word was final and absolute. The debate ended. Peter had spoken.

Hahn doesn’t do James justice. Read the text:

6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." 12 And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brethren, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, 16 'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up, 17 that the rest of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, 18 says the Lord, who has made these things known from of old.' 19 Therefore MY JUDGEMENT IS that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from early generations Moses has had in every city those who preach him, for he is read every sabbath in the synagogues." 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 with the following letter: "The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili'cia, greeting. 24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

Obviously, James didn’t just add a “qualifying proviso”, but made a judgement on what was to be done. But if Peter is supreme, why does James dare to say that he is making the judgement? Because he is the bishop of Jerusalem, probably by then the only diocese of the Church. As the problem is one proper to his particular Church, the Church of Jerusalem, James makes the judgement. Peter speaks in support of the idea behind it. But James actually does it. Peter does not. Very conciliar of Peter to do…

Now Hahn gets into Patristic quotes, which I will not attempt to mention because I don’t have the resources at hand (nor the time) to get into them. Suffice it to say that there is no general consensus among the Fathers on the “supremacy” of Peter. For every writer who says something supportive of it, there is another who says something against it. “Prooftexting” does not work here. One must read the Fathers with Scripture, with Tradition, with history, to get an accurate look at what the true teaching and the actual reality is.

Another Objection: Why Wasn't Papal Infallibility Defined Until the 1800's? The Bible Never Mentions Papal Infallibility.
Now, we could go on and on. Somebody could say, "Now, wait a second. Why wasn't Papal infallibility defined until the 1800s? The Bible never says Papal infallibility." No it doesn't. But the Bible never says Trinity, either. And all non-Catholic Christians affirm the Trinity. Why wasn't the word "Trinity" used? Well, because the word Trinity wasn't necessary until heresies arose that forced the Church to formulate and to defend the doctrine of God, one God in Three Persons adequately and sufficiently. At that point, they came up with a very helpful term, "Tri-unity" or Trinity to do so.

Hahn raises a legitimate question, and then does not answer it at all.

Likewise, in looking at Matthew 16 and the unconditional guarantee that Jesus gives to Peter, the recipient of the keys, the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church which is built upon the Rock. The gates of Hades will not prevail against Peter and his successors.

The text says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Not Peter. Hahn’s statement seems to equate the Church with Peter, and Peter with the Church.

+++

I've only skimmed over the above notes in order to present them here in proper format. I think they could be much better, but I'm too fried right now to try to improve on it.

Finally, the article "Vatican Dogma" by Father Sergius Bulgakov makes for an interesting read:

http://orthodoxchristianity.net/texts/B ... Dogma.html