The Dialogue Continues
Here's Jacob Copper's response to this post about Roman Catholicism. I'll blockquote his statements and italicize a blurb about what he was referencing.
I'll admit to not being an expert on this matter. Was the practice condoned and/or ignored by the Holy See? If I remember correctly, Luther first soured on this on a pilgrimage to Rome. So, either the practice was accepted within the Roman Catholic sphere of influence, or it wasn't and the Vatican was either unable or unwilling to stop it. Either way, Roman Catholic clergy were bilking Roman Catholic laity using fabricated doctrines. It was unacceptable, and there was zero accountability until Martin Luther picked up his hammer. The administrative structure of the Roman Catholic Church has experienced negligible change since then, and is only accountable through two factors: the expansion of independent media, and the establishment of competition (Protestantism). Prior to Martin Luther, the Roman Catholic Church was not fundamentally different than Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel: it had a complete and total monopoly on the Christian religion in Western Europe, and was operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct.
I can agree with that, completely. That's why I don't put strong faith in any denomination, though I judge some to be in better shape than others. If the church is composed of and dominated by fallible human beings (including the pontiffs, two of the less reputable I cited earlier), then how can the Roman Catholic Church claim papal infallibility or an overarching holy mandate? The organization, just like pretty much any organization, is corrupt; and the larger it is, and the more powerful it is, the more potential for corruption exists, particularly with claims of ultimate temporal authority. I don't feel I'm condemning the organization; I feel I'm pointing out that the claim by Roman Catholics to have a divine mandate, and to be the church, is poorly conceived, and negated by blatant evidence of sin being institutionally perpetuated during various incidents throughout history.
I would not expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to approach HRH Queen Elizabeth II, or the Right Honourable Tony Blair and say "We must go to war with so-and-so", particularly publically. I don't believe in a separation of church and state; I believe that leaders should follow their conscience and moral code when making their decisions. If that means seeking the counsel of religious leaders, be it Billy Graham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Rome, so be it. Even if one of those religious leaders petitioned political leaders in private, I'd have no problem with it. Urban II campaigned for war. I don't think that the Roman Pontiff, or any other high ranking religious leader, should be chanting "pace, pace, pace" all the time; but can you imagine if Benedict XVI cam to the window and gave an impassioned speech for an invasion of Gaza to wrest it from the hands of the infidel Muslims? I'll be the first to admit that this is somewhat anachronistic, but you get my point. There is a proper relationship between the church and the state, and it doesn't include the Bishop of Rome declaring war.
The next one's a long one.
I realize that papal infallibility has not been used as carte blanche for the pontiff to say and do whatever he likes, and I've acknowledged that I've grown to appreciate the office and personality of the papacy in recent years. However, I think you've somewhat proved my point.
Okay, let's take the instance of Mary. Now, the two examples you gave (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) aren't what I want to focus on. What I'd like to focus on is the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, another contribution of the venerated Roman Catholic tradition. As you'll see from this site, the only way that this doctrine can be harmonized with the Bible is by taking the the word "adelphos" completely out of context. It's very simple: Jesus had siblings, and Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus' birth. However, Roman Catholic tradition states that Mary remained a virgin, Roman Catholic dogma maintains her perpetual innocence and a special status. The Bishops of Rome have backed it up. Done deal, signed sealed, delivered, end of story? Sorry, I can't get onboard with that. As I posted here, I have reason to trust the text and historical veracity of the Bible; I don't have the same benefit when it comes to Roman Catholic tradition, and if that tradition contradicts the Bible that I can trust, then it gives me reaso to dispute and discard Roman Catholic tradition as authoritative, particularly in cases of direct contradiction.
And your statement that issues of the invocation of papal infallibility essentially reinforce standing Catholic morals and doctrines doesn't hold much water, because Protestants already don't accept standing Catholic morals and doctrines; well, doctrines at least. There are a few differences on morals, but most legitimate Protestants and most rational Roman Catholics are pretty close on morals. Anyway, the real issue is that if the Roman Catholic Church has something doctrinally wrong to begin with, then the Bishop of Rome reinforcing that with a declaration of papal infallibility reinforces what's wrong with this picture, not how it's consistent.
Let me turn this around on you. I am not a Democrat because I have seen a history of corruption and a complete lack of integrity associated with names like Clinton, Kennedy, and even Roosevelt; and incompetence in names like Johnson (LBJ) and Carter. I saw President Clinton say on television when I was in high school that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and then when the tests came back and confirmed that it was his semen on her dress (by the way... Nasty!), his excuse could be summed up with a phrase coined by Lewis Black to describe the gist of his defense: "Beejays don't count." Now, I'll not directly poke fun at Democrats, because there are Dems who post and read here, and there are a lot of Dems who are great, patriotic, moral people, just like there are a lot of Catholics who are great, faithful, moral people. The point, though, is this: because President Clinton's statement is consistent with the liberal sexual morality that was a hallmark of his youth, does that make it true? Of course not. He had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky (and apparently a number of other women aside from his wife), and even assuming that intercourse didn't occur, does that mean that he didn't commit adultery? Of course he committed adultery, and of course his relationship was a sexual one.
Am I saying that the Bishops of Rome are like President Clinton? Of course not (well, maybe Rodrigo Borgia), but the allegory fits: just because President Clinton's statement was consistent with liberal sexual morality doesn't make it right, and just because the statements of the popes made under the auspices of papal infallibility are consistent with Roman Catholic theology, that doesn't make them legitimately orthodox.
Oh, come on! I didn't even mention Pius XII, and I totally could have. (Actually, I don't really buy into the accusations that Pius XII sided with Hitler, but you get the idea.) Just as discussions of German politics during World War II necessitates discussion of Hitler and the Nazis, discussion of the complete lack of Roman Catholic accountability legitimizes citations of the sex scandal. I'm not blaming the RCC for it, I'm just saying the truth: it took decades for the church to be held accountable, the Holy See was evidently either powerless to stop it, or complicit, and it's evidence of a persisting institutional insulation that prevents priests who commit sinful or criminal acts from being punished.
Anyway, ENV has posted an initial response. I need to do a few things and then head to work, so I may address his entry later this evening. I welcome comments, and if anyone wants to continue this discussion, whether it's Jacob or anyone else, Roman Catholic, Protestant, or none-of-the-above, I encourage it.
[regarding Martin Luther/sale of indulgences] You will have to note that certain individuals were selling indulgences, but that it was not the standard practice of the entire Church.
I'll admit to not being an expert on this matter. Was the practice condoned and/or ignored by the Holy See? If I remember correctly, Luther first soured on this on a pilgrimage to Rome. So, either the practice was accepted within the Roman Catholic sphere of influence, or it wasn't and the Vatican was either unable or unwilling to stop it. Either way, Roman Catholic clergy were bilking Roman Catholic laity using fabricated doctrines. It was unacceptable, and there was zero accountability until Martin Luther picked up his hammer. The administrative structure of the Roman Catholic Church has experienced negligible change since then, and is only accountable through two factors: the expansion of independent media, and the establishment of competition (Protestantism). Prior to Martin Luther, the Roman Catholic Church was not fundamentally different than Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel: it had a complete and total monopoly on the Christian religion in Western Europe, and was operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct.
[regarding papal corruption] So you're condemning the entire organization for the sins of a few men? I hate to break it to you, but the Church is made of human beings who in their everyday lives are as prone to sinning as everyone else.
I can agree with that, completely. That's why I don't put strong faith in any denomination, though I judge some to be in better shape than others. If the church is composed of and dominated by fallible human beings (including the pontiffs, two of the less reputable I cited earlier), then how can the Roman Catholic Church claim papal infallibility or an overarching holy mandate? The organization, just like pretty much any organization, is corrupt; and the larger it is, and the more powerful it is, the more potential for corruption exists, particularly with claims of ultimate temporal authority. I don't feel I'm condemning the organization; I feel I'm pointing out that the claim by Roman Catholics to have a divine mandate, and to be the church, is poorly conceived, and negated by blatant evidence of sin being institutionally perpetuated during various incidents throughout history.
[regarding Urban II and the First Crusade] Put aside all your ideas of the separation of Church and state and consider what we know of history and the political development of Christendom. Charlemagne and various other monarchs after him were crowned by the Pope. The Pope was nominally /the/ top of the feudal pyramid. Urban II made his dramatic call to restore the Holy Land to Christian hands and halt the spread of Islam that was threatening the periphery of Europe.
I'm just curious on what grounds you object to the Bishop of Rome 'inciting' a war?
I would not expect the Archbishop of Canterbury to approach HRH Queen Elizabeth II, or the Right Honourable Tony Blair and say "We must go to war with so-and-so", particularly publically. I don't believe in a separation of church and state; I believe that leaders should follow their conscience and moral code when making their decisions. If that means seeking the counsel of religious leaders, be it Billy Graham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Rome, so be it. Even if one of those religious leaders petitioned political leaders in private, I'd have no problem with it. Urban II campaigned for war. I don't think that the Roman Pontiff, or any other high ranking religious leader, should be chanting "pace, pace, pace" all the time; but can you imagine if Benedict XVI cam to the window and gave an impassioned speech for an invasion of Gaza to wrest it from the hands of the infidel Muslims? I'll be the first to admit that this is somewhat anachronistic, but you get my point. There is a proper relationship between the church and the state, and it doesn't include the Bishop of Rome declaring war.
The next one's a long one.
[regarding papal infallibility] In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that the Pope, when he solemnly defines a matter of faith and morals ex cathedra (that is, officially and as pastor of the universal Church), is correct, and thus does not have the possibility of error. This doctrine has a long history, but was not defined dogmatically until the First Vatican Council of 1870.
-from Wikipedia
Let's look at an analogy. If the Pope were to invoke infallibility, it would not be contrary to accepted standards. Just as jurisprudence has the concept of stare decisis, where matters that have been decided are precedents and cannot be easily overturned, the Pope's infallibility is not something that is going to be contrary to Catholic faith and morals.
For instance:
Nearly all Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII 's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.
-from Wikipedia
The two pretty much undisputed instances of papal infallibility involve the Virgin Mary and both those instances were long-standing Catholic traditions. Infallibility is an extension of the Church's Magisterium, not a vehicle for the Pope to say whatever he wishes and by invoking infallibility declare that his words are 'without error'.
I realize that papal infallibility has not been used as carte blanche for the pontiff to say and do whatever he likes, and I've acknowledged that I've grown to appreciate the office and personality of the papacy in recent years. However, I think you've somewhat proved my point.
Okay, let's take the instance of Mary. Now, the two examples you gave (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) aren't what I want to focus on. What I'd like to focus on is the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, another contribution of the venerated Roman Catholic tradition. As you'll see from this site, the only way that this doctrine can be harmonized with the Bible is by taking the the word "adelphos" completely out of context. It's very simple: Jesus had siblings, and Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus' birth. However, Roman Catholic tradition states that Mary remained a virgin, Roman Catholic dogma maintains her perpetual innocence and a special status. The Bishops of Rome have backed it up. Done deal, signed sealed, delivered, end of story? Sorry, I can't get onboard with that. As I posted here, I have reason to trust the text and historical veracity of the Bible; I don't have the same benefit when it comes to Roman Catholic tradition, and if that tradition contradicts the Bible that I can trust, then it gives me reaso to dispute and discard Roman Catholic tradition as authoritative, particularly in cases of direct contradiction.
And your statement that issues of the invocation of papal infallibility essentially reinforce standing Catholic morals and doctrines doesn't hold much water, because Protestants already don't accept standing Catholic morals and doctrines; well, doctrines at least. There are a few differences on morals, but most legitimate Protestants and most rational Roman Catholics are pretty close on morals. Anyway, the real issue is that if the Roman Catholic Church has something doctrinally wrong to begin with, then the Bishop of Rome reinforcing that with a declaration of papal infallibility reinforces what's wrong with this picture, not how it's consistent.
Let me turn this around on you. I am not a Democrat because I have seen a history of corruption and a complete lack of integrity associated with names like Clinton, Kennedy, and even Roosevelt; and incompetence in names like Johnson (LBJ) and Carter. I saw President Clinton say on television when I was in high school that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, and then when the tests came back and confirmed that it was his semen on her dress (by the way... Nasty!), his excuse could be summed up with a phrase coined by Lewis Black to describe the gist of his defense: "Beejays don't count." Now, I'll not directly poke fun at Democrats, because there are Dems who post and read here, and there are a lot of Dems who are great, patriotic, moral people, just like there are a lot of Catholics who are great, faithful, moral people. The point, though, is this: because President Clinton's statement is consistent with the liberal sexual morality that was a hallmark of his youth, does that make it true? Of course not. He had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky (and apparently a number of other women aside from his wife), and even assuming that intercourse didn't occur, does that mean that he didn't commit adultery? Of course he committed adultery, and of course his relationship was a sexual one.
Am I saying that the Bishops of Rome are like President Clinton? Of course not (well, maybe Rodrigo Borgia), but the allegory fits: just because President Clinton's statement was consistent with liberal sexual morality doesn't make it right, and just because the statements of the popes made under the auspices of papal infallibility are consistent with Roman Catholic theology, that doesn't make them legitimately orthodox.
>[regarding the RCC sex scandal] Sorry, Fly, but the sex abuse scandal is the Godwin's Law of the Catholic Church. You just disqualified your entire argument. :)
Oh, come on! I didn't even mention Pius XII, and I totally could have. (Actually, I don't really buy into the accusations that Pius XII sided with Hitler, but you get the idea.) Just as discussions of German politics during World War II necessitates discussion of Hitler and the Nazis, discussion of the complete lack of Roman Catholic accountability legitimizes citations of the sex scandal. I'm not blaming the RCC for it, I'm just saying the truth: it took decades for the church to be held accountable, the Holy See was evidently either powerless to stop it, or complicit, and it's evidence of a persisting institutional insulation that prevents priests who commit sinful or criminal acts from being punished.
Anyway, ENV has posted an initial response. I need to do a few things and then head to work, so I may address his entry later this evening. I welcome comments, and if anyone wants to continue this discussion, whether it's Jacob or anyone else, Roman Catholic, Protestant, or none-of-the-above, I encourage it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home