Debating Catholicism

[Eleventh Doctor]

Let me ask you this, is there a list of infallible doctrines from the Pope? Or a list of statements where he is know to be free from error?

Have any Ecumenical Councils ever been called where the Pope was not involved?

Every bishop is equal because as St. Ignatius said, where the bishop is there is the church and that each bishop is accountable to God not to the Pope.

The entire view is flawed, I don't deny that Peter contributed to the discussion at the first council. I simply don't agree that his was the only voice of authority at that council.

I never agreed that Peter is Christ's Steward and I in no way acknowledge that. He was given the keys to heaven, to hold or release sins, along with all the other Apostles. You are interpreting Christ's words to say that but that is obviously not the only conclusion one can reach. Jesus was not a bad teacher, you are a bad student.

Also you never addressed my point that 300 million, not one million, Orthodox have made do without a Pope.

[Pound Foolish]

Yes Virginia, there is a list of infallible doctrines. The Catechism is more or less a list of just that, though most of them were never actually specifically outlined by a Pope himself but have been official teachings of the Church for sometime approved by the Magisterium.

Not to my knowledge. Perhaps a council like that could be held in emergency. But I know relatively little on the subject.

And with what evidence can you support that? Citing that St. Ignatius quote yet again makes your case all but dead. You still lean on that single quote. That ONE quote. The Cyperean and Agustine quotes both indicate an ancient respect for Peter and Rome's authority. If you hold to your claim, then state your proofs.

Perhaps the entire view is indeed flawed. So why have you not shown me how? You try to refute the entire complex step-by-step case that Peter makes the decision with a counterargument. That tells me nothing. I want to understand what is wrong with my interpretation. Will you or will you not please give my a step by step refutation?

You disagree. Very well, you did not refute the point earlier on. But in that case, do you admit the fact that one who had the keys to the city, given by the king, is Biblically speaking his steward?
What then is your interpretation of Jesus' speech? So far you have said that Peter is "The First Among Equals" whatever that's supposed to mean. How exactly is it more logical to draw that conclusion, which is not directly implicated by the text, than to say that Peter is in a special position?

I am indeed a bad student. In fact, I caused my teachers' death and disobey my teacher most of the time, I'm afraid. So I definitely deserve an "F." Fortunately my teacher is very understanding.
However, is not a good teacher one who is understood? Jesus said, "... on this rock I build my Church." If you were Buddhist and the leader of Buddhism told you, "I will build Buddhism on you" would you not assume that you were now in an authoritative position in Buddhism? And that's how millions upon millions have interpreted Jesus' statement for centuries upon centuries. Jesus has been terribly misunderstood. It seems he is a poor teacher indeed.

You present me with a website saying Eastern Othodoxy consists of three hundred million, I present you with the opposite:

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question17.html
http://oca.org/questions/namerica/how-many-orthodox
I fail to see how we are going to get to the bottom of anything by presenting online info.

[Eleventh Doctor]

So no, there isn't a list of specific doctrines that the Pope himself declared to be doctrine?

The First Council of Constantinople (360) was held without the Pope present or involved. The one where the text of the Nicene Creed was decided upon, no Pope involved in that. The Second Council of Constantinople (533) took place without Pope Vigilius involved even though he was in the city of Constantinople at the time and in fact sent a letter to the bishops forbidding the council to occur, they went ahead anyway. So much for universal jurisdiction.

The Cyperean and Augustine quotes that we can't actually find. St. Ignatius was the disciple of St. John, he sat on Christ's knee as a child, are you truly saying he did not understand what Christ taught about the bishop of Rome? Also as I pointed out above, the Second Council of Constantinople occurred against the express wishes of the Pope, so yeah not seeing a lot of respect for authority there.

No I will not give you a step by step refutation. If my counter argument tells you nothing then I feel like it would be a waste of my time to go step by step.

As I've said before, all the Apostles were given the keys to the kingdom. Peter was given them individually and thus I do recognize his special place amongst the Apostles and the bishop of Rome's special place amongst bishops but not to the degree you do, I think first amongst equals is pretty straight forward.

And yet those Holy Fathers at The Second Council of Constantinople don't seem to agree with you, how odd. In fact if the See of Rome was so important why was there never an Ecumenical Council there?

The first website is specifically asking about Orthodox in America. The second website says 200-300 million. So by opposite you mean in agreement?

[Jimmy Barclay]

Wait..do we have two Catholics arguing here? *dies laughing* This is the best!!

[Eleventh Doctor]

No, I'm not Catholic. Not sure why it'd be funny if I was.

[jehoshaphat]

Doctor your are eastern orthodox, right? I think that he would find it funny if two people of the same faith were arguing about doctrines.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I am Eastern Orthodox, yes. I would find it as funny as two Protestant arguing over doctrine

[jehoshaphat]

That is different. Because basically Protestants just decide what they want to believe, where as Catholics have a hierarchy and you can't just believe whatever. I mean you can but someone is probably wrong and there is a way to check.

[GratiaDei]

You think Protestants just decide what they want to believe? Explain, please, before I get heated.

[jehoshaphat]

I mean that there are so many different Protestant denominations that they don't agree with each other all the time. Where as Catholics lay people have a set a unchanging rules regarding their religion.

[GratiaDei]

Okay, maybe, but I don't know much about Catholics. Anyway, each Protestant denomination has a set of rules, and at least in my church, we adhere to them pretty strictly.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I would dispute that each Protestant denomination has a formal set of rules. After all one of the defining doctrines of most Protestants is Sola Scriptura, which would seem to preclude a formal set of rules. Now that being said, yes, many Protestants do have a set of rules, or traditions, that do define them as a denomination. I would however say they are not as formal as the Catholic or Orthodox. But yes, things like the Westminster Confession are similar to the Councils of Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

[GratiaDei]

That is true. My church is definitely sola scriptura.

[Pound Foolish]

Well, isn't Sola Scriptora "by scripture alone"? In other words, interpreting scripture as it makes sense to you? That is, "believing whatever you want"?
@ Eleventh Dr.
First off, I'd like to say you're absolutely right about the number of Eastern Othodoxes. That was a slip of the tongue and looking back I wish I'd just seen that in the first place.
Secondly , we seem to be getting rather ensnared in these fascinating little sideroads. What do you say we do this point by point? The main argument for Roman Catholicism is that of the rock, Jesus' statement to Peter about building the church on him, and the idea the verse means Peter is in a uniquely important role. If that claim is illogical, then Catholics are wrong. If not, we're right. Simple as that. So, how about we just focus on the foundation of Catholicism for now, and see who wins. (Oooh, high stakes.) Would that be okay? If so, to quote Rhino in Bolt, "Let it begin! LET IT BEGIN!"

[GratiaDei]

Sorry, I didn't think about that. I guess you're right, and I guess that's the reason there are so many denominations. I'm not sure. I am not super well grounded in church history or basic knowledge, and I don't really want to join in on this discussion, so if you don't mind, I am going to leave now, and watch you guys debate, and maybe I'll learn something.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I will take some time and develop a refutation of that point.

I would like one point of my discussed though, how could The Second Council of Constantinople (533), which is recognized as a legitimate Council by the Roman Catholics, be a legitimate Council if it occurred against the express wishes of the Pope?

Edit: I will attach my new argument about the Church being built on Peter here, as to avoid double posting.

The Church is not built upon the Rock of Peter as an individual but on the faith of his confession of Christ. "And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession." (John Chrysostom Homily 54 on Matthew) The Church is built not on an individual and the successors of his See but on the faithful confession of Christ.

The Keys of the Kingdom given to Peter, to absolve sin, are given to all the Apostles in John 20: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” "As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ invests them with the same power." (John Chrysostom Homily 86 on the Gospel of John) Christ invests them with the same power, not the same power except for Peter but all with the same power. And in fact in Acts we see other Apostles with greater authority than Peter. "There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part." (John Chrysostom Homily XXXIII on Acts 15: 13,15)

[Pound Foolish]

Firstly, that quote is from a speech in which St. Chrysostom was appealing to Rome. Just why was he doing this if he did not believe in Roman supremacy? Secondly, nothing he says specifically rejects Church doctrine. He says that in his view, the Church is not built alone on Peer's mere humanit but on Peter's belief in Christ. As for James, Chrysostom never affirms James is of greater authority than Peter. He only says that James posses authority which Chrysostom refers to as the "chief rule." James did have authority as an apostle. As Bishop of Jerusalem as well if I'm not mistaken. How does acknowledging this lessen Peter's role?
Finally, here are some other quotes from our St. Chrysostom.

"...and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples ..." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit).

"Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church." (Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote).
and …. "Peter, ... that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession." (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)

Chrysostom also says, "If anyone should say 'Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?' I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world."

So there you are. Yet another reply to yet another historical argument against the Church. Yet, your only reply to the quotes I provided affirming the Church was we "can't actually find" them. What did that even mean? Did you think I was making them up? Or do you think that even if they weren't online (I'm not sure they're not, I simply don't know how to find an obscure letter or homily online, that is, in its entirety) that would somehow prove something? Is the web more reliable than book form? Or again, do you simply not believe I read it at all?

But in any case, all this is unimportant. Let history say what it will. There are always going to be differing opinions among historical figures. Their opinions alone prove nothing but that an individual had this opinion. St. Chrysostom didn't have any theological proofs against the church.
And that's what we need.
The plan was, I will try to be clear, for you to logically refute the idea that Peter is the head of the Church based on the verse where Jesus says he is building his Church on Peter. As I said, " If that claim is illogical, then Catholics are wrong." So, enough with this. After all, suppose a saint did deny the Church, what would it prove? Do Saints know everything? Even supposing the statements of Saints did prove something, aren't virtually all the saints Catholic?

So let's see you using reasoning alone to refute the idea of rock. Enough with historical hackneying back and forth. If you successfully can logically disprove the Catholic interpretation of the rock verse, I have failed.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I don't believe by reason or logic alone. I stand by what the Church as a whole believes. Singular Saints by themselves don't know everything but the Church as a whole is led by the Holy Spirit into Truth. I appealed to the Canons of the first Ecumenical Council that gave extra administrative authority to certain bishops, including the bishop of Rome and asked why that was necessary if he already had universal authority. By reason alone you might well conclude that Peter has universal authority, that is why we must look to how the Church lived out the Scripture and in my view they did not live it out as though they thought Rome had universal authority. What say you to the fact that one of the Ecumenical Councils took place against the express wishes of a Pope?

Edit: Let me again say with regards to the Chrysostom quotes, I in no way say that the Pope of Rome is not first amongst equals. But that is a long way from universal authority and personal infallibility.

[Pound Foolish]

I know very little about the matter of Vigilius and Constantinople, though it's a rather basic Catholic apologetics problem and I should know more. I shall simply have to look into it.
You'll remember though, earlier in this debate, I said something to the effect of the Church has been around a long time, and yet, though everyone's convinced we've contradicted ourselves a lot (how could an organization that is not infallible exist for centuries without doing so?) and there should be plenty of cases for atheists, protestants, and you orthodox to use. I pointed out,
"Instead, it's Pope Honorious, Liberius, Vigilius. Over, over, and over, the same song and dance. All skeptics can offer is a pitiful handful of three or four flawed cases."
(I originally misspelled Vigilius with an "r", my apologies.)
So, if you press this point, even if there is not a Catholic explanation, (I assure you there will be) you are proving my point.
These "proofs" against papal authority confirm papal authority.
But anyhow, about the matter of history versus reason. These cannot contest each other since reason is a way to discover reality, and history is a recording of reality. If logic says that the interpretation of the rock verse is correct, then mustn't it be correct? Or are we only to be logical some of the time? Can you prove that logically?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Funny at first you said that the only example people use is Pope Honorious, now it's three examples. You have yet to prove how the example of Pope Vigilius is flawed and to me this is the most straightforward case. He was in Constantinople at the time of the Council, literally down the block. He sent a message saying the Council was not to occur and yet it did. After the Council he said that it was not a legitimate Council yet the rest of the Church accepted it as legitimate.

These "proofs" against papal authority confirm it.

And you're arguing for the side of logic? No, you can't have it both ways. You're trying to argue that if you can't provide an explanation for Pope Vigilius that in fact supports your side! No, I refuse to debate where no matter what is said or brought up it proves your side. If we're going to be using those rules then if you say anything it only proves my point and I win! There we go all settled.

On that note, no of course we aren't suppose to be logical all the time. There are a great many mysteries of Christianity that do not use logic, the Incarnation for one, how can Christ be fully God and fully Man? That is not logical. You say it is logical to interpret the rock verse to give the See of Rome universal authority, I say it may be logical to you but if that is not how the Early Church acted then your interpretation is flawed. You're right, they do not contradict each other, the way the Church lived shows your interpretation to be flawed.