Replies

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.

Thanks. Of course I am not offering Irenaeus as "proof". It is a bit of evidence--a piece in the puzzle. And by "infallibility" I am admittedly imposing Vatican I language on the idea. Nonetheless, it seems clear to me that the doctrine in essence is there--namely, that the Bishop of Rome forms a sort of touchstone of orthodoxy against which the other Churches are to be measured and are to conform.

I must admit, though, you take a tack I wasn't expecting. Usually, people demand someone to trace the doctrine back to the Apostles--the assumption being that it is a novelty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem ok with the idea that the Roman Primacy is no novelty and the See may well have inherited this privilege from Apostolic times.

You only object that the privilege may not be a perpetual one. Rome was the seat of orthodoxy, but she is no longer (and she had presumably forfeited that title by the time of the Reformation). Am I stating your position accurately?