Marcus, in a gracious comment on my earlier post here, alleged that he'd found a fallacy in an item in one of my earlier comments on another site. In short, he claims that this comment holds up "cafeteria Catholics" as a major problem with the Roman church.
Simply put, I did NOT cite "cafeteria Catholics" as the problem with Catholicism; my post addressed the problems in the Magesterium, not in the flock (the only time I mentioned the flock, I made it quite clear that the problem was the same with Protestant churches; my intent was to point out that Rome's alleged infallibility had not protected it from the problems Protestants admittedly suffer under). One might justly paraphrase that I wanted to cite "cafeteria Popes and Priests" as the problem.
I admit that I used a list that wound up being very unclear; in particular, when I mentioned "the run-of-the-mill Catholic who listens to and obeys his teaching priest." I should have made it clear that the problems arise when the priest goes beyond established doctrine, as happened with Liberation Theology (I know of one entire convent of nuns that was disciplined for teaching one of the more extreme variants). Again, the mere teaching doesn't disprove the entire church -- but it entirely defeats the argument that merely being in the church removes the need for discernment.
Let me give one specific example of a cafeteria Pope.
Pope Honorius I erred into heresy around 634 (by failing to condemn the heresy of monothelitism, and in fact approving an argument that the monothelitists used); it took until 649 for the heresy to be condemned in council. In that time, a number of people relied on and defended Honorius, and some of them were anathematized by the same council. From 634 to 649, innocent people in the congregations of those pastors of Christ's flock were deceived and divided, because they heard the Pope speak at a time and place when all agreed that he should speak ex cathedra, and at least some of them thought that he WAS speaking ex cathedra, but the church later decided that he was NOT doing so. He was personally fallible, and in fact personally failed. The Church infallibly contests none of this, and it fits with the council's and later Pope's decree (although some notable apologists within the Church have fallibly disputed the details).
So here's the problem. Pope Honorious was speaking for a cause on which he should have spoken infallibly. He was truly a Pope. His letter, according to a site called "The Catholic Encyclopedia" (linked above, I don't know its credentials), met the formal definition of "ex cathedra". In other words, no observer at the time could have decided that he was not speaking ex cathedra without first deciding (by what Roman Catholics mock as "private interpretation") that he was actually wrong. So the Ecumenical church admits that in this case, and I claim in many others, the Pope led people into actual heresy; he personally failed in office, and those who depended on his infallibility found that it failed.
Thankfully, the council, like the Protestant Reformers after them, were not afraid to declare a Pope to be anathema. I'm not claiming that the specific judgement of the council or the Reformers was right or wrong. But I am claiming that to the extent that the Pope and the council and the Reformers (respectively) were seeking and declaring God's truth rather than man's word, they were to be praised and imitated; and to the extent that they were adding man's word to the Gospel of Christ, anathema sint.
-Wm
This is an interesting episode indeed, which I had never heard about before. I looked up Pope Honorius in the Catholic Encyclopedia to read up about the pertinent facts (it's a bulwark of solid history; kudos for picking it up).
ReplyDeleteFirst, some points in principle that are independent of the actual facts of this case. Adherence to Church authority does not entail a commitment to the thesis that one must no longer "discern" - or that one must turn one's brain off entirely - the basis of that discernment could be completely individualistic per the full-blown Protestant model, but that may neither be necessary nor sufficient to avoid falling into heresy. In fact, in the case you cite, it was Church authority as a whole that brought closure to the matter, and not people schisming off into various directions based on what they concluded was best.
Now, as to the facts of this actual case: the CE article indicates that even IF Pope Honorius explicitly taught monothelitism (actually, it says that "there was indeed no difficulty in showing that Honorius was probably not a Monothelite"), it is far from established that he was defining any doctrine ex cathedra, and nor indeed was Honorius condemned expressly for teaching Monothelitism.
Most importantly, no historical facts, nor in-principle facts about the structure and foundation of the RCC, entails anything like the view that the RCC is not a sufficient guide for doctrine and daily practice, which I believe is more or less the conclusion that you earlier stated you were arguing for, and presumably think that this case helps establish. But that's very far from being the case. Consider: Is there more than one remotely plausible contender for even *being* the Catholic Church? (as opposed to competitors such as, some guy in Montana who thinks he's Pope, or some "Catholic" cult in Spain whose name escapes me, or the "Sedavacantists" who inexplicably claim to be Catholic while holding that there has not been a real Pope for at least the last 50 years) There isn't, and that's no accident. Indeed, it's by design, as was Jesus' intention from the beginning.
Micah, are you listening via RSS? I kinda "fell off the surface of the earth" (on my own blog!), and having re-discovered it, I find that your reply is very interesting and worthy of discussion.
DeleteI'll just make some quick notes.
Delete1. Calling total individualism "the full-blown Protestant model" is as false as calling collectivism "the full-blown Roman Catholic model". The Protestants did not claim or use the individual as their ultimate authority any more than the Roman Catholics claim "the collective".
2. I cited that example BECAUSE Church authority brought closure to it. It's carefully picked in order to force you to admit that Church authority, to all appearances, got this wrong, and taught it wrong, and bound peoples' consciences to error -- for at least a time. If I brought up an issue that "Church authority" had NOT brought closure to, you would reject my claim that the Pope had been wrong.
3. Of course the Roman Church will claim that he was not defining doctrine ex cathedra; this is one of the nice things about using ambiguous definitions. He was condemned for teaching false doctrine at a point where he SHOULD have been teaching ex cathedra, and doing so in a manner that appeared to be ex cathedra. In short, there was no objective way to tell that he wasn't speaking ex cathedra, except for appealing to a higher authority.
4. This is the absolute proof by example that the "RCC" is not a sufficient guide -- because it WAS NOT in that case for those people.
5. Finally, you ask me whether there's any other contender for being the Catholic Church. That's EASY. You offer me a sectarian, local church whose pontiff is seated in Rome and claims a huge list of personal prerogatives and powers, most especially that his word be believed to the utmost; and you claim that you're offering me the Church Catholic, the Universal Church. Your contender not only doesn't meet any possible definition found in the written teachings of the apostles; it doesn't even meet the definition of the words it claims as its own name. The Church Catholic is the Church Universal, not the Church of Rome. The Church Catholic is the flock of the Good Shepherd, which is not the same thing as the flock of the current Pope.
May the Lord bring the day when the Pope will join his brothers in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the OPC, the LCMS, the Southern Baptists... and all bow the knee to the Holy Spirit, the God-Breathing Author of the Scripture. THEN the Earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD. Then we will all eat the supper of the Lamb at one table.