First, the Reformation isn't the cause of all the ills of which you complain. It's the result of the failure of the Vatican project by the end of the fifteenth century. Pretending that didn't happen
Second, the whole bit about an infallible authority sounds great, in theory. It would certainly solve a lot of problems. Of course, the very fact that we're having this conversation suggests that, in practice, things have not worked out that way. C.f. the aforementioned collapse of the Vatican project. The Eastern church never bought Rome's claims to supremacy. Hence AD 1054. But once the Avignon Papacy happened, the bloom was entirely off that rose.
That's the thing about supposedly infallible authority figures/structures. They can't afford to ever be wrong. Not even once. As soon as you've got more than one dude claiming to be the heir of St. Peter, the jig is up. Entirely. The whole premise of the project is that Rome can always be trusted. At every point in time. But it quite obviously cannot.
And sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending none of those things happened, or that an unknown but likely quite large portion of the hierarchy belong to the Pink Mafia, isn't a good faith basis for discussion.
Hi Ryan, thank you for taking the time to respond! I was Presbyterian before I became Catholic and deeply respect most Presbyterian denominations (the exception of course being the PCUSA haha).
I'll need you to be a bit more specific about the "ills" that I complain of. While the concepts I'm considering here certainly are borne out in history, this is all basically just theology. I argue that the very natures of these competing paradigms result in the Protestant understanding of the Gospel shrinking while the Catholic one expands.
If I understand your second point correctly, you agree that it would be good if there were an infallible Magisterium, but that there simply isn't one. Fair enough--my genuine question in return is what, then, is our situation? In the post, I propose three ways for Protestantism to proceed:
1. Hold opinions whose strength far exceeds their evidence.
2. Adopt a pragmatic approach like the one described.
3, Throw in the towel and let Christianity shrink to the size of whatever meager agreement may still be found.
Which do you recommend? Presumably there is some other option I didn't consider?
I will touch on the historical bit, if somewhat briefly. You are mistaken about the East, and actually seem to acknowledge it. First, it is untrue that they "never" accepted Roman authority. This for three reasons.
Second, there's no other plausible way to explain why Ephesus II was an invalid council. It had everything but papal approval, including a majority of patriarchs from the so-called "pentarchy." It was the papal legate escaping back to Rome and reporting the results that led to the council being tossed out and replaced with the much-beloved Chalcedon. Notably, when the dust settled and we were able to theologically reconcile with the Copts, their complaint wasn't so much about the teaching of Pope St. Leo, but that the legate didn't insist on reading Leo's letter at the beginning of Ephesus II, which firmly rejected miaphysitism in favor of diaphysitism. In other words, "This whole mess could have been avoided if Rome had been more assertive."
Third, there were at least two near-successes at reuniting the Churches, especially Florence in the 15th century. The problem was getting the Orthodox on the ground to agree. But the very fact that the theologians sent to represent Orthodox interests were able to reach a satisfactory point in discussions with Rome shows that they can't have been as doggedly opposed to Roman primacy orthobros today would have us believe.
But, you say, the jig is up when there's the "Three-Popes Controversy." I concede that much confusion and turmoil follows from corrupt leadership. Even Israel was sent into exile. But two things are even more amazing to me.
First, I regard it as literally miraculous that the Church was able to resolve the controversy. Presbyterianism teaches total depravity; do you honestly think that humans, unaided by divine intervention, could stitch things back together with such smashing success? Is it not a literal miracle that there aren't three equally-plausible popes running around claiming to be the true Catholic Church?
Second, in the same vein, think about how insane it is that the Church has lasted as long as it has (or had up until the Controversy, to connect to your point). I once heard a priest say something like, "Catholics have been trying to destroy the Church from the inside the whole time, and everyone else has been trying to destroy it from the outside. The only way I can see it making it this far is if it's not about human effort at all but rather about God's sovereignty."
Your problem is that you're reading post-Tridentine notions of papal authority back into pre-Tridentine times and then concluding that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Papal supremacy wasn't a fully settled doctrine until after the Reformation. Indeed, you can find pre-Reformation theologians from across Christendom articulating most of the Reformers' better ideas.
Granted, the roots of the current form of papal supremacy also run deep. But so do less ambitious notions of church authority.
The good news is that while the Holy Spirit does indeed work through the visible church, he is by no means confined to the Vatican. For which we can all be eternally grateful, as the heirs of St. Peter royally screwed the pooch.
I think it only fair that if you reject my account of our situation viz a viz Christian doctrine, you tell me which of the three listed possibilities I ought to accept instead.
I notice three problems with your argument:
1. You alleged earlier that the Great Schism was evidence that the East wouldn't accept papal authority, but now say that the notions I subscribe to are the result of Trent. But clearly if these ideas belong uniquely to Trent, they can't have been around in 1054.
2. "Settled" is the wrong word, as it implies that it really might have gone either way. But this is begging the question. It is the atheist historian who would argue that the Trinity is an invention of Nicea, and could have turned out differently. The Christian will hold that even if it wasn't explicitly articulated until then, it was always virtually contained in the deposit of faith. It was merely *defined* at Nicea, and from that point on became binding. But the Trinity was always real, always going to be the result of the Church's deliberation, since God protects her from error on matters of faith and morals. Doctrines are epistemically but not metaphysically open until they're defined.
3. A variation on #2. "Granted, the roots of the current form of papal supremacy also run deep. But so do less ambitious notions of church authority." Now try this: "Granted, the roots of the current form of Trinitarianism also run deep. But so do less ambitious notions of God's nature." No one is arguing that there were no dissenters. Indeed, going into Nicea, some estimates say about half of Christians were Arians. But if you look at the arguments from history I introduced in my last reply, I think it's pretty clear that the most reasonable explanation for how things played out is that the ancient Church recognized the unique authority of the pope, and that this wasn't what really caused the Great Schism, seeing as the Orthodox hierarchy was willing to reconcile with Rome at the Council of Florence. It was unlearned on-the-ground resistance among Orthodox that prevented reunification, not theologians. Well that, and Mark of Ephesus.
What do you think constitutes the visible Church? Presumably, it's all the visible bodies composed of real Christians. But how do you know who the real Christians are? Presumably because they adhere to "the essentials?" We're back to the De Dominis paradigm after all. As you say, the Holy Spirit *may* work anywhere He wishes. Even in the Old Testament, God is often at work among the Gentiles. But it is better by far to be where He has promised He *will* work.
Presbyterian here.
Two things.
First, the Reformation isn't the cause of all the ills of which you complain. It's the result of the failure of the Vatican project by the end of the fifteenth century. Pretending that didn't happen
Second, the whole bit about an infallible authority sounds great, in theory. It would certainly solve a lot of problems. Of course, the very fact that we're having this conversation suggests that, in practice, things have not worked out that way. C.f. the aforementioned collapse of the Vatican project. The Eastern church never bought Rome's claims to supremacy. Hence AD 1054. But once the Avignon Papacy happened, the bloom was entirely off that rose.
That's the thing about supposedly infallible authority figures/structures. They can't afford to ever be wrong. Not even once. As soon as you've got more than one dude claiming to be the heir of St. Peter, the jig is up. Entirely. The whole premise of the project is that Rome can always be trusted. At every point in time. But it quite obviously cannot.
And sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending none of those things happened, or that an unknown but likely quite large portion of the hierarchy belong to the Pink Mafia, isn't a good faith basis for discussion.
Hi Ryan, thank you for taking the time to respond! I was Presbyterian before I became Catholic and deeply respect most Presbyterian denominations (the exception of course being the PCUSA haha).
I'll need you to be a bit more specific about the "ills" that I complain of. While the concepts I'm considering here certainly are borne out in history, this is all basically just theology. I argue that the very natures of these competing paradigms result in the Protestant understanding of the Gospel shrinking while the Catholic one expands.
If I understand your second point correctly, you agree that it would be good if there were an infallible Magisterium, but that there simply isn't one. Fair enough--my genuine question in return is what, then, is our situation? In the post, I propose three ways for Protestantism to proceed:
1. Hold opinions whose strength far exceeds their evidence.
2. Adopt a pragmatic approach like the one described.
3, Throw in the towel and let Christianity shrink to the size of whatever meager agreement may still be found.
Which do you recommend? Presumably there is some other option I didn't consider?
I will touch on the historical bit, if somewhat briefly. You are mistaken about the East, and actually seem to acknowledge it. First, it is untrue that they "never" accepted Roman authority. This for three reasons.
First, Eastern Fathers acknowledged the primacy of Peter, even Ephraim the Syrian. You can read a selection of them here: https://www.churchfathers.org/origins-of-peter-as-pope
Second, there's no other plausible way to explain why Ephesus II was an invalid council. It had everything but papal approval, including a majority of patriarchs from the so-called "pentarchy." It was the papal legate escaping back to Rome and reporting the results that led to the council being tossed out and replaced with the much-beloved Chalcedon. Notably, when the dust settled and we were able to theologically reconcile with the Copts, their complaint wasn't so much about the teaching of Pope St. Leo, but that the legate didn't insist on reading Leo's letter at the beginning of Ephesus II, which firmly rejected miaphysitism in favor of diaphysitism. In other words, "This whole mess could have been avoided if Rome had been more assertive."
Third, there were at least two near-successes at reuniting the Churches, especially Florence in the 15th century. The problem was getting the Orthodox on the ground to agree. But the very fact that the theologians sent to represent Orthodox interests were able to reach a satisfactory point in discussions with Rome shows that they can't have been as doggedly opposed to Roman primacy orthobros today would have us believe.
But, you say, the jig is up when there's the "Three-Popes Controversy." I concede that much confusion and turmoil follows from corrupt leadership. Even Israel was sent into exile. But two things are even more amazing to me.
First, I regard it as literally miraculous that the Church was able to resolve the controversy. Presbyterianism teaches total depravity; do you honestly think that humans, unaided by divine intervention, could stitch things back together with such smashing success? Is it not a literal miracle that there aren't three equally-plausible popes running around claiming to be the true Catholic Church?
Second, in the same vein, think about how insane it is that the Church has lasted as long as it has (or had up until the Controversy, to connect to your point). I once heard a priest say something like, "Catholics have been trying to destroy the Church from the inside the whole time, and everyone else has been trying to destroy it from the outside. The only way I can see it making it this far is if it's not about human effort at all but rather about God's sovereignty."
Your problem is that you're reading post-Tridentine notions of papal authority back into pre-Tridentine times and then concluding that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Papal supremacy wasn't a fully settled doctrine until after the Reformation. Indeed, you can find pre-Reformation theologians from across Christendom articulating most of the Reformers' better ideas.
Granted, the roots of the current form of papal supremacy also run deep. But so do less ambitious notions of church authority.
The good news is that while the Holy Spirit does indeed work through the visible church, he is by no means confined to the Vatican. For which we can all be eternally grateful, as the heirs of St. Peter royally screwed the pooch.
I think it only fair that if you reject my account of our situation viz a viz Christian doctrine, you tell me which of the three listed possibilities I ought to accept instead.
I notice three problems with your argument:
1. You alleged earlier that the Great Schism was evidence that the East wouldn't accept papal authority, but now say that the notions I subscribe to are the result of Trent. But clearly if these ideas belong uniquely to Trent, they can't have been around in 1054.
2. "Settled" is the wrong word, as it implies that it really might have gone either way. But this is begging the question. It is the atheist historian who would argue that the Trinity is an invention of Nicea, and could have turned out differently. The Christian will hold that even if it wasn't explicitly articulated until then, it was always virtually contained in the deposit of faith. It was merely *defined* at Nicea, and from that point on became binding. But the Trinity was always real, always going to be the result of the Church's deliberation, since God protects her from error on matters of faith and morals. Doctrines are epistemically but not metaphysically open until they're defined.
3. A variation on #2. "Granted, the roots of the current form of papal supremacy also run deep. But so do less ambitious notions of church authority." Now try this: "Granted, the roots of the current form of Trinitarianism also run deep. But so do less ambitious notions of God's nature." No one is arguing that there were no dissenters. Indeed, going into Nicea, some estimates say about half of Christians were Arians. But if you look at the arguments from history I introduced in my last reply, I think it's pretty clear that the most reasonable explanation for how things played out is that the ancient Church recognized the unique authority of the pope, and that this wasn't what really caused the Great Schism, seeing as the Orthodox hierarchy was willing to reconcile with Rome at the Council of Florence. It was unlearned on-the-ground resistance among Orthodox that prevented reunification, not theologians. Well that, and Mark of Ephesus.
As you can tell from #2 and #3, I think there is a striking parallel between how you argue and how atheists argue. More on that here: https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/7-ways-protestants-act-like-atheists
What do you think constitutes the visible Church? Presumably, it's all the visible bodies composed of real Christians. But how do you know who the real Christians are? Presumably because they adhere to "the essentials?" We're back to the De Dominis paradigm after all. As you say, the Holy Spirit *may* work anywhere He wishes. Even in the Old Testament, God is often at work among the Gentiles. But it is better by far to be where He has promised He *will* work.