Going Crazy Over The Pope

Go read my post at Ignitum! 

(it is old-school, almost-not-catholic, apologetics)

Fake Fallibility: A Protestant Myth Worth Busting

Last Monday, I considered how everyone has a pope. Today, I want to bust a myth. However, instead of busting a myth about Catholicism, I want to bust a Protestant myth. (I'm so gosh darn warm and fuzzy).

I'm a lot like another ecumenist I know

Of course, no Protestant walks around saying that they have a Pope. Well, almost. My generous interlocutor in the comboxes of my last post was kind enough to bring to my attention that Protestants say that they are fallible. Unlike the papists who believe that their pope or Magisterium under a special grace of the Holy Spirit--at infrequent times and on important matters regarding the eternal destiny of the soul's of men on earth--can teach infallibly, the Protestants believe that on matters where one's soul could be damned to hell for believing something false, they could be all "well-golly-garsh", marbles in their mouth, caught with their theological pants down; in a word: fallible

I have two problems with this thought. (1) A tuquoque (you-too!) argument is hiding right around the corner. This argument says, "Catholics are fallible too! How can they know their pope/Magisterium or more, how can they know what their authorities teach? (at this point, the arguer looks to his crowd with delight, awaiting their applause)

The difference between the Protestant and Catholic methods for obtaining theological truth is that one (the Protestant) method cannot evidence results that warrant trusting it. We all trust our cognitive faculty to know stuff. That is beside the point. Doubting our cognitive faculty's ability to obtain truth is counterintuitive since we would also need to doubt the very premise that leads to our doubt--which would be just as rational as the doubt (in the premise) itself. Thus it is rational to dismiss this kind of doubt. What we can or should doubt is methods for obtaining truth. These methods can be more or less reliable. The results of the Protestant method for obtaining theological truth (sola or solo scriptura) do not warrant trusting that method. See here or here for evidence. (I will dedicate an entire post to this later)

However, the Catholic merely uses his cognitive faculty to identify the "Church" and then relies upon Her to authoritatively and infallibly interpret the deposit of faith. Moreover, no Protestant--I think--would try to say that "There are 7 Sacraments" is as ambiguous or "“exponentially multivocal, polysemic, and multivalent, [and] semantically indeterminate” as the Bible (see last link) under the Protestant paradigm. In other words, every Protestant sect wielding the method of sola scriptura has not arrived at anything remotely approximating the clarity of "There are 7 Sacraments". On the contrary, one group says there are no Sacraments, another 1, while another 3. Sure, each idea is clear to them. But that is not the point. No one is trying to arrive at a "true-for-me" theological truth, but rather a universal theological truth. In other words, I'm worried about a method that has objects both falling if dropped and not falling if dropped.

On a last note, it is interesting as well that many non-Catholic interlocutors will note that this or that parish is unorthodox as an attempt to evidence how poorly the Catholic paradigm works for its adherents. Ironically, it apparently works well enough that a non-Catholic can spot Catholic orthodoxy fairly easily without even personally subscribing to the paradigm.

Kids, its time to go home.

Which leads me to my second contention: (2) no Protestant confession, statement of faith, or major doctrinal position has EVER been significantly or substantively revised. In other words, what bite is there in being theologically fallible if one never comes to that "a-hah" moment where one would concede (not real quotes):

"Well guys, we totally blew it. That whole 'Once-Saved-Always-Saved' bit...yeah...not so much"-Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Denomination 

"We are here to announce that con-substantiation is kind of silly. We now see that if the God who said, "Let there be light" and it was light said "this is my body", the 'this' is probably his body (we are updating the website)"-Dr. Harrison, President of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod 

"Dear members, we will humbly announce this day that speaking in tongues is not a necessary experience for all Christians nor a necessary sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Don't be alarmed. We have been fallible all this time. I know, I know that many of you have based your entire existence on this belief. We will move past this, I promise." George Wood, General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God 

"You may use instruments in the worship service. We know many of you already were, but we just realized that Scripture doesn't teach against it. We're sorry for the confusion and hope to not make any more mistakes like this in the future. Every church will be receiving a drum kit, keyboard, and gibson guitar in the mail (some assembly required)" --Some pastor, trying to speak for the Churches of Christ

"That's taking it too far!", says quasi-pope person

Seriously, chest-bumping about "look how fallible we are" is little more than false pride or a version of the doubt-train heading toward "Mt. Solipsism". Of course, the individual Protestant, I suppose, could say that they ultimately always have the right to change ship. That per denominations, nobody acts as if they are fallible, but the individual Protestant always lives with the tension of fallibility and thus could always make the kind of about-face changes referenced above. However, I would immediately ask, if not what they just described, what in the world is Ephesians 4:14 describing if not them:

"That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" 

Moreover, I don't think any Protestant holds to any particular belief with the type of fallible tension we are suppose to believe they do (or I did!). Go to a Sunday school class or talk to a child to find out just how fallible each individual Christian is. I have respect for those who might be reading this, who aren't teaching Sunday school classes or indoctrinating children. They feel the tension of fallibility due to the unreliability of their method for obtaining theological truth. They are in a theological pregnant pause; one that will either birth a move to Rome or a fundamentalist move to one particular denomination (that is my common observation). Of course, the third option is that they live in the pregnant pause all of their lives and become emergent.

The point is that the Protestant claim to "fallibility" is a little more than stating the obvious. The Pope is fallible most of the time. So, were St. Peter and St. Paul. I am. Who cares. The point is that a lot of the time we have methods at our disposal to obtain truth with a degree of certainty correlative to the type of knowledge we are obtaining. In the case of Christian theology, everyone acts like they are infallible--eternity is at stake. There is no evidence other than church shopping to the contrary. Thus, the claim of "fallibility" is a myth or is at least an ad oculos, ad nauseam argument (irrelevant), I will not believe until I see some major denomination make a statement evidencing the contrary.


Wait a minute, I found one here. Maybe they are fallible after all...


Did you like what you read? Add me to your RSS feed or "join the journey" in the sidebar to your right. You can also follow me on Twitter or Facebook.

Papal Home-Made Brewing Kits

"To pope or not to pope, that is the question"

-unknown

So it is in our time, that the idea of the Pope goes down like spam marinated in Natural Light, smothered in swiss cheese. Those who resist the Catholic Church's pope envision in their mind there is no such a thing. We have concocted a new unicorn, they say, a leviathan lurking around in history seeking whom he may devour. To break away from its mental grip, one imagines that he or she has escaped his primal rule. They now live on an island free to dance around under the autonomous reign of the Divine Justice--no longer oppressed by the pseudo-steward of the ahistorical Catholic imagination.

What's wrong with this picture? 

In addition to the fact that the papacy is inescapable via Scripture, history, and Tradition, the papacy is also inescapable from logic and experience. Jesus didn't create committees to sit around and cast lots for the account of truth. Nor did he set up a democracy--we can thank the Greeks for that. No. One is the principle of unity. It is the denominator everything shares. It is the teleological axis point of sanity.

To be fair, there is debate to be had on the account of Scripture, history and Tradition regarding what type of papacy exists, but one cannot help but agree that the papacy is logically and experientially necessary. So much so that any Christian, of any creed, believes in the papacy. That' right. They might not believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the successor of St. Peter, but they believe in the papacy. Even the Hebrew people understood how the Seat of Moses and the Divine rule of G-d was compatible. A vacated throne will lead to anarchy and madness, and above all we will preserve the peace--at least of our mind. No anti-Catholic rhetoric can quiet the cool march of our conscience to sanity.

Instead of submitting to the successors of the Apostles in union with the Chair of St. Peter--gifted with the divine keys of prime ministership, we craft our own version. No individual or denomination acts as if there is no papal promulgations. Under the disguise of "Bible alone"(sometimes with the help of "divine revelation"), individuals--like Arius, Aldebert, Calvin, Smith or McPherson, pontificate ex cathedra like it's going out of style. Just because their writings don't look like the stuff to the right, doesn't mean they don't think their writings don't have the same effect.

No Christian community acts like their interpretation of Scripture is mere opinion. No denominational statements of faith read like "Dear Abby". Still, many Christian communities disagree on fundamental doctrines. Biblicists like to belittle the differences, but Sunday morning in America proves just the opposite. For those who reject the Catholic papacy, there can be one of only two possibilities on Sunday morning: either the person talking is the pope or the person listening.

The problem is that home-brewed papacies intoxicate the drinkers. When all you drink is what you like or what you've selected, whether you admit you prefer it or not, you will grow to prefer it. Less filling. More taste. Less filling. More taste. Less filling. More taste.

More taste?

Less Filling?

More taste?

Less Filling?

It all depends on what you want. Either way, someone will be the pope. At work you have a boss. At home, there is a father. An ant colony has a queen. Despite all our anti-Romanist tendencies, we cannot help but have a pope. We must have one or we will be one. If Christ said, "the Truth will set you free", denominationalism without micro-brewed papacies would lead to personal and private theological meltdowns. Sadly, the theological chernobyl effect is that the average "joe" or "sally" Christian in the pew is left to follow the average "joe" or "sally" preacher in the pulpit or at the denomination's headquarters. The radiation effect is theological cancer, the symptoms of which is theological "cells" warring against each other: some say baptism is necessary, others say Christ is in and with the bread and wine, some say divorce is okay, while others say you must speak in tongues to be saved.

To those that war against Christ's divinely instituted leaders--modern prophets leading Christ's Church through time and space, our Lord's words still resonate:

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! (like the Apostles and their successors) How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."- Matthew 23:37

Most people have the common sense, decency, and humility to recognize they are no good at home-brewed beer. That's why they buy it at the store. So too, most people submit to their local church or denomination as a quasi magisterium because without one, they would jump off the proverbial theological bridge to nowhere.

Like no man is an island to himself, no man is without a pope. Rest assured, no matter what church you go to, there you shall find a pope. If you don't find one, you might have to check your closet to find your personal pallium hanging around right behind your Strong's Concordance.


Did you like what you read? Add me to your RSS feed or "join the journey" in the sidebar to your right. You can also follow me on Twitter or Facebook.

(first image source)

Myth Busters: The Impeccability of the Pope

This just in: The Pope can sin.

Does this disprove the Catholic dogma that the Pope, when teaching ex cathedra, is graced by the Holy Spirit so that he cannot teach error--i.e., he can teach infallibly? 

The typical argument has two parts:

1. If the Pope can sin, he cannot be infallible.

2. There is Scriptural evidence that St. Peter (the alleged first Pope) taught error; therefore, since the first Pope taught error, the Pope is not protected from teaching error.

Infallibility is Incompatible with Sin = Bible Fail #1

You can find this argument in the "chick" tracts that were so prevalent at one time, but thank God you don't see them as much. Nonetheless, the argument still persists (because of the Internet) among the ignorant, hence me typing this.

I would agree with the claim, if infallibility had to be able to comport with man unaided by supernatural grace. However, no one is claiming that. The simple premise that by God's grace the Pope, in special moments is able--not in his own ability but through the power of God--to teach infallibly, defeats the objection sufficiently. In addition--and for the benefit of the ignorant objection, the Scriptures bare witness to a direct account of St. Peter exercising a charism that must be distinguished from inspiration and if so can only be described as infallibility. In Acts 2:16, St. Peter says:

"This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel."

(1)  In Luke 4:21, Christ starts his earthly ministry doing the same thing: infallibly interpreting Scripture.

(2) In Acts, Luke is inspired to write the record of what St. Peter says. St. Peter is not inspired. If he is not inspired, then we must ask by what charism he is interpreting the O.T.?

(3) We know he must be infallibly interpreting the O.T. because his claim is not metaphorical--baring possible other interpretations--but is concrete and literal. This (today) = that (O.T. passage).

(4) Therefore, in the Scriptures we have direct evidence of St. Peter, the first Pope, infallibly interpreting Scripture and discerning the times, teaching it to the people and beginning the ministry of the Church very much the same way the ministry of Christ began.

"But Brent," my interlocutor might say, "This passage was so obviously fulfilled in their hearing. Everyone would have interpreted Joel that way."

Not so. A careful consideration of Joel's words do not support this reading. St. Peter quotes Joel and says:

"And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapor of smoke..." (Acts 2:17-20)

If one were in the crowd that day, I would imagine they could have easily said, "Where are the dreams? The visions? What about prophecy? This man Peter is no man of God, but an opportunist who misinterprets Scripture! [Let's start our own church!]"

Because St. Peter was speaking under the charism of infallibility and because, by this time, it was clear to everyone who was following the cult of Christ that St. Peter was the mouthpiece for the Lord, no one opposed the teaching of St. Peter.

St. Peter Taught Error = Bible Fail #2

There are two parts to this claim: (1) St. Peter, through his actions, taught error regarding the essence of the Gospel and (2) St. Paul confronted him in Galatians 2:11, therefore "look" St. Peter got "punked" or something like that.

First, (1) fails Biblically. St. Peter, nowhere, teaches what is implied in the argument. What is implied, is that St. Peter taught something contrary to what the Scriptures say regarding what is necessary for salvation, but what we have evidence of is that St. Peter acted in a way worthy of confrontation (see Bible Fail #1). Second, the Bible gives direct evidence that St. Peter actually taught explicitly the exact opposite of what is claimed:

"And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up [don't miss the imagery of everyone reclined in the typical Jewish way and then one of them standing up--this is not the normal way someone talks in this setting-Matt 9:10], said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; And put no difference between us and them [Jew/Gentile], purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also."

Regarding (2), we have admitted that St. Peter can sin. St. Peter sinning is not incompatible with him being able to teach infallibly. Further, what St. Paul does in Galatians 2:11 is preceded by his concession in Galatians 1 that even upon receiving a Revelation directly from Christ he only saw St. Peter (save James), and "tarried with him 15 days" (v.18). In Galatians 2:9 (just two versus before), he admits that St. Peter is reputed as a "pillar". Therefore, we should not misinterpret or malign St. Paul's confrontation with St. Peter and imagine it more than it is. Simply put, St. Paul is apposing the hypocrisy of St. Peter's actions not correcting his teaching.

End Note:
I will admit that in this post I have not established that the Pope does, in fact, teach infallibly. That is for a different day. However, what I have demonstrated is that the testimony of Scripture and the admitted fact that Pope's sin does not make the teaching regarding the gift of infallibility per impossible.

Peace to you on your journey.