But the more I [Jason Stellman] read and wrestled, the more I began to see that Geneva was not being “confused with” Saddleback at all; the two were just different sides of the same coin (or to be more precise with the metaphor, they were sister-cities in the same Protestant county). Readers of this site have no need for the arguments to be rehearsed here, so suffice it to say that, philosophically speaking, it became clear to me that Sola Scriptura could not provide a way to speak meaningfully about the necessary distinction between orthodoxy and heresy (or even between essentials and non-essentials) [From his mysteriously deleted post at Called to Communion]
Jason (539), you say that claims for the papacy are based on the Bible and history. So let’s say you’re living in Italy in 1390. You have a pope in Rome and one in Avignon (where seven legitimate popes had ministered for almost eight decades). So how does the Bible or history help you decide which pope to follow?
That’s a question better suited for a historian.
On the one hand Stellman says the papacy is necessary to be able to distinguish heresy from orthodoxy. On the other hand, Stellman says it’s unnecessary to be able to distinguish a true pope from an antipope. We can relegate that determination to the fallible judgment of church historians. (And for the record, even Catholic church historians admit that they can’t always say which claimant was the true claimant.)
That’s like saying it’s necessary to have an accurate ruler to make measurements, but unnecessary to know which ruler is accurate. The papacy is a necessity in the abstract, but the concrete question of knowing whether any particular claimant is the true successor to Peter is not necessary.
If a person was born and lived during the approximate 50 year Arian Ascendancy (which occurred after Nicaea), which Church council's decisions should he live by? My limited understanding is that there was Nicaea and the many Arian ones. All of these councils had bishops rightfully claiming succession that reached back to the apostles.
ReplyDeleteIf such a person were to make a decision based on modern Catholic methods, it seems to me that he should side with and hold to Arianism.
Since:
1. there were many more Councils that affirmed an Arian Christology as opposed to ones that affirmed the full and proper deity of Christ and;
2. the majority of the Church was officially Arian. Arians having the high offices in the Church. During that period, those who held to Nicaean doctrine (like Athanasius) were in the minority.
Finally, how does Stellman know that Sedevacantism is false? On what basis does he reject it? Especially since many Sedevacantists make a persuasive case that Vatican II and other latter Papal documents stray from historic Catholic teachings and are infected with heretical ecumenical teaching.
ReplyDeleteCompare them with former (older) Ex cathedra statements:
"It [Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."- The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445 A.D.) from Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV
Or
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."- from the Bull Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII 1302 A.D.
If a person lived under a pope, that later was confirmed by historians as an anti-pope, why did God allow this man to live under deception, with no means of telling the difference? How cruel that God would do that to somebody. That's like saying I have to give my mortgage payment to somebody who may or may not be taking it to my lender. I won't know until I either get my property deed or get my house foreclosed, and I can't question him. But historians will eventually know if that person was dishonest or not.
ReplyDeleteMrk said:
Delete"If a person lived under a pope, that later was confirmed by historians as an anti-pope, why did God allow this man to live under deception, with no means of telling the difference? How cruel that God would do that to somebody. That's like saying I have to give my mortgage payment to somebody who may or may not be taking it to my lender. I won't know until I either get my property deed or get my house foreclosed, and I can't question him. But historians will eventually know if that person was dishonest or not."
1. Why should historians be the arbiters of truth here?
2. Anyway, this is a subset of a broader topic. Why does God save some people but not others? One response is God is not obligated to save anyone at all since everyone is a sinner and justice would demand every single person's condemnation to hell. Therefore the fact that God saves any person at all is wondrously and amazingly gracious of God. In short, we could just as well ask: Why does God save anyone? Why is God so gracious? How gracious of God to save somebody, anybody!
3. Imagine the kindest of all landlords allows people to live rent free in the most exquisite mansion of all. A mansion which would put a place like Hearst Castle to shame.
Yet the tenants trash the mansion. Shatter windows. Graffiti obscenities everywhere. Pee in the pool. Burn down the beautiful gardens and trees. Invite anyone and everyone including perfect strangers and violent gangs and other miscreants to party and get drunk and have orgies and so on and so forth on the grounds.
The landlord's son shows up on behalf of the landlord and asks the tenants to please stop. The tenants refuse. In fact, the tenants laugh at and hurl ridicule at the landlord's son. They grab the landlord's son and toss him out the door of his own mansion, telling him to go away and cry to daddy.
As the landlord's son walks away with his tail tucked between his legs, the tenants decide this isn't so wickedly fun as something else they have in mind. The tenants grab the landlord's son, strip him of all his clothes, tie him up, and throw him into the deepest end of the pool, dunking him over and over again in the pool until he finally drowns. What's more, instead of feeling even the slightest hint of remorse for their actions, the tenants and all their friends laugh hysterically at the entire ordeal, thinking what a gratifying night they've all had.
Why shouldn't the landlord seek the utmost just penalty against the tenants?
There are three dogmas operative here - which most Catholics do not even consider; or, they only consider one, or two - but not all three.
DeleteThe first is the infallibility of the universal Church - which should have been fully operative at the Second Vatican Council: why then is there moral certitude of error in these documents in vast areas of the Church?
The second is the indefectibility of the universal Church: the Holy Ghost would not allow an ecumenical Council to legislate the destruction of the Church: but all we see is universal apostasy, in doctrine, liturgy, and discipline.
The third is God's Divine Providence over His Church - which is even broader than the first two: can we believe that God would allow the Holy Mass and the Holy Eucharist to be profaned in a universal and daily manner by the overwhelming majority of His ministers?
If one answers these questions honestly, one can only be a sedevacantist. No other solution is possible...