Replies

At best, only Claud's post #67 even attempts to engage the thesis, and then IMO only indirectly.

Let me be more direct then. :)

McBrien stumbled into a point backwards..but I think he really hasn't done anything more than state the obvious. A true critic of the papacy (modernist, Protestant, whatever) would make more substantive points even than he did: forget Popes who resigned....I want to get to the nub of what happened during the whole Honorius controversy.

I actually agree (and I suspect Benedict XVI would as well) with certain aspects of McBrien's thesis here...that aspects of the Papacy have changed. Anyone who says otherwise is being foolish--and I personally have no patience for that kind of blind ultramontanism.

But the real question to you, Alex, and anyone else is have these changes in any way affected the essence of the office? And there I'd argue, on the basis of Clement's letter, the Ignatian epistle to the Romans, and the very clear statements of Irenaeus, the answer is a very clear no.

Let me be more direct then. :)

Much appreciated :D

McBrien stumbled into a point backwards..but I think he really hasn't done anything more than state the obvious....I actually agree (and I suspect Benedict XVI would as well) with certain aspects of McBrien's thesis here...that aspects of the Papacy have changed. Anyone who says otherwise is being foolish--and I personally have no patience for that kind of blind ultramontanism.

Thanks for the honesty.

But the real question to you, Alex, and anyone else is have these changes in any way affected the essence of the office?

Your second century quote (taken from St Irenaeus's Against Heresies, vol III written in 180 a.d.) deals specifically with preservation of apostolic tradition, and with hierarchical authority, as of 180 a.d.. But (as one example) it does not address or argue in favor of papal infallibility. I would argue that, at best, the former cannot be "proved" by the latter, only vise versa. I would argue that your quote doesn't prove the "essence" of the office of Pope, at least not as it's understood and advanced in its entirety by Catholic theology today. It's one thing to "prove" that tradition has been preserved up until now. It's quite another to "prove" that tradition will be preserved forever. Irenaeus can only "prove" the case up until 180 a.d.