Is Eastern Orthodoxy's view of the Church tearing them apart? (Autocephaly & Patriarchate)

As many probably know, there was a schism within Eastern Orthodoxy in 2018/2019, when the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) held a synod which decided to sever ties with the Patriarchate of Constantinople (Ecumenical Patriarchate). The cause was that the EP believed it had the authority to grant "Autocephaly" to the churches in Ukraine (which the MP claims is Russian territory), while the MP said the EP did not have such unilateral authority. While we shouldn't be happy about such events, it does provide for some Catholic apologetics material when dealing with Eastern Orthodox. Here are some things to ponder.

A quickie apologetic on Papal Infallibility

I was in a discussion with a Protestant who was arguing that Catholic converts have a mental disorder because they seek a level of certainty that only God is capable of. His goal was to show that seeking after a Infallible Magisterium is nonsense because nobody can know the Bible the way God knows the Bible. Admittedly, that's a bizarre way of objecting to the idea of Infallibility, but it led me to show him how his claim was bogus. I asked him if Peter was infallible when he interpreted various OT passages in his epistles 1 & 2 Peter. He was forced to admit Yes, Peter was infallible when interpreting the OT. I then explained that he just refuted his main thesis, because Peter was able to infallibly interpret the OT on behalf of others.

This Protestant got very embarrassed and to save face kept bringing up that Peter acted sinfully and followed false authority (Judaizers) in the incident at Antioch when Paul rebuked Peter (recorded in Galatians 2). I merely had to reaffirm that Peter acting sinfully in one circumstance doesn't mean he couldn't be infallible in other circumstances, as was already proven. I then pointed out that the Peter example actually supports the Catholic claim on infallibility, whereby we see in the example of Peter that acting sinfully in certain circumstances does not preclude a person from being infallible in other circumstances. The Catholic claim has always been the Pope is only infallible under certain circumstances, never under all circumstances! 

I'll hopefully have another post this month in a week or two.

Monepiscopacy in Rev 1:20 (one Bishop per city)

The past several years some Protestants have been claiming that during the Apostolic era of the Church, each congregation was run by a group of Elders, rather than a single head Pastor/Bishop. They typically claim that the 'one bishop per city/congregation' model, known as the "monepiscopacy," was a 'later' development, appearing around the year 175AD. The goal of their argument is to show that the Catholic understanding of Church leadership, led particularly by a single Bishop in Rome, was never part of the original Apostolic Church, and thus the Papacy must be a later historical invention. Much has be written about this over the past several years, but for some reason one of the chief proof-texts has not gotten much attention, so I think it's worth sharing what I've found on this matter.

Revelation 1:20. "As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."

In Revelation 2-3, Jesus tells John what he is to tell these "angels," with each "angel" ruling over a major city church (including Ephesus), in which Jesus gives warnings to most of these "angels" leading the churches. While at first it might look like these "angels" are the spirit creatures we are all used to thinking of, the fact is the Greek/Hebrew word for "angel" is a more generic term for "messenger" (usually appointed by God). In fact, the term "angel" is sometimes another Biblical way of referring to God's priests (e.g. "for the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger [Hebrew: angel] of the Lord of hosts" Mal 2:7). Moreover, in Revelation, Jesus is referred to a Angel-Messenger, and in the Old Testament, the consensus among the Church Fathers is that the pre-incarnate Son is who is meant by the "Angel of the Lord" appearing to various OT figures (see HERE).

Looking at the key text in question, Revelation 1:20 and the references to these "angels" throughout ch2-3, it makes little sense for Jesus to be issuing warnings to Spirit-Angels, given that the Spirit-Angels have already been tested before the time of Adam. This means they are all already categorized as either permanently fallen or glorified. Rather, it makes more sense if these "angels" are Bishops, who certainly have the power to correct the abuses going on in these seven congregations.

Did the claims of Jesus shock anyone? If Yes, then so should the claims of His Church!

This is a "Quickie Apologetics" post.

Someone recently showed me a fascinating comment from the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on "Antichrist," where Saint John Henry Newman made the argument: 

If the Church must suffer like Christ, and if Christ was called Beelzebub, the true Church must expect a similar reproach; thus, the Papal-Antichrist theory becomes an argument in favor of the Roman Church.

Isn't it interesting how only the Catholic Church ever seems to be the target of such insults and charges by both the secular world and Protestantism and even Eastern Orthodox? It's not surprising though, given that the size, history, and influence of Catholicism means some major superpower is behind it all. The only options on the table are either God or Satan. There's no middle ground. And yet given the many saints (e.g. St Therese of Lisieux, Francis of Assisi) and firm commitment to morals (e.g. the only institution which teaches contraception is sinful), it is highly unlikely that Satan is behind it all. In fact, what we see among Protestants is far more the marks of Satan, if we are being honest (e.g. divisions, no unity on doctrine, no infant baptism, Eucharist is optional/symbolic, there are no saints that stand out, caved in on various moral issues, once saved always saved).

A friend noted that Peter Kreeft makes a similar point about the claims of Christ. If the claims of Christ were shocking to his audience, then the claims of his church also must be: One True Church, Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, ability to forgive or retain sins, indulgences, canonization, anathemas, etc. Such "arrogance" by Jesus should also be no surprise coming from Jesus' true Church. And yet, which of the many Protestants are 'brave enough' to make such claims about themselves? Few, if any.

I wrote an apologetics article (HERE) about the Antichrist charge by the Calvinist/Reformed camp, but I've also recently found that the Confessional Lutherans make the same claims, so the arguments work also against them. 

Why Protestants reject the Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Nicaea is a very useful apologetics tool beyond just discussing matters of the Trinity. What most people don't realize is that Nicaea produced more than just a Creed, it also issued 20 canonical laws which were binding on all Christians living at that time. The information contained in these Canons is just as useful (if not more so) as any Church Father when it comes to evaluating Protestantism against the bar of Church history. Below, I will mention why each of the 20 Canons are incompatible with all Protestantism in one way or another. This leaves Protestantism in a significant bind, because virtually all Protestants wholeheartedly affirm the Creed and deem the Council to be an orthodox testimony in early Christianity. After reading these Canons, the Protestant must recognize that they cannot embrace the Creed without also embracing the Canons, because if the Canons teach heresy and error, then the Protestant has no business at all embracing the Creed which this same Council produced. Protestants have no problem affirming the Catholic Church is correct on a lot of things, but they say the Catholic Church is false and cannot be trusted because it also teaches many errors. By this same logic, a Protestant must reject Nicaea as well, for Nicaea teaches many "errors" in its Canons and binds all Christians to these "errors" as well.

Was the 'one bishop per city' model of church leadership an unbiblical corruption by Catholicism? (A brief look at the monespiscopate)

One anti-Catholic argument I'm seeing come up more and more frequently is the claim that Scripture describes church governance (polity) as done by a plurality of elders/bishops who are co-ruling over a city/church, whereas the notion of authority concentrated into the hands of one elder/bishop ruling over a city/church is a later invention. The goal of this anti-Catholic argument is to suggest the office of Papacy grew out from this earlier one-bishop (monepiscopacy) corruption of true Biblical polity.

The Protestant/Liberal argument is basically this: in the New Testament, the term "bishop" ("elder") is always used in the plural, and that it wasn't until AD150 that the monepiscopate (i.e. one bishop per city) model arose in some places. At first, this claim seems to have some plausibility, but looking at it with the right glasses on will reveal the desperation of these Protestant/Liberal folks to do whatever they can to smear Jesus' one and only Catholic Church.

The first thing I noticed about this anti-Catholic argument is that it claims this major heresy arose as "late" as 75 years after the Apostles died, around AD150. It is unlikely that such a significant error would arise that early on, only to be universally embraced by even the great Church Fathers, and nobody to oppose it. Further, this small window of time doesn't leave much room for a fair look at the evidence, since the early Christian writings for this period are minimal. This kind of argument is essentially based on the Liberal/Protestant notion that Christianity as we know it was invented over the centuries by the workings of men, who corrupted Christ's simple teachings early on and invented basically every doctrine we now affirm. If it can be argued that Christianity is a series of inventions, like the monespiscopate, then this leaves Christianity with little credibility before the world. It's sad that Protestants would want to go there, but Liberalism is quite literally an outworking of this kind of Protestant thought. Just looking at the Council of Nicaea in AD325, which historically Protestants pretend to accept when Catholics aren't looking, in Canon 6 it explains there is a head bishop in Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome - the three biggest Christian metro areas. Are these Protestants seriously going to say Nicaea espoused both orthodoxy and heresy? Sadly, many Protestants would rather throw out Nicaea than grant any points to Catholicism. I call this the ABC mindset - Anything But Catholic - wherein an opponent of Catholicism would rather accept the most absurd conclusions (e.g. throwing out Nicaea) rather than admit Catholicism got something right.

Was there really no Bible until the year AD381?

I'm writing on an urgent matter that I think needs to be addressed within Catholic apologetics, namely the widespread Catholic claim that there was no Bible until Pope Damasus gave us the canon of Scripture in AD381. At best, this is a half truth, and at worst this is an implicit heresy and undermines Christianity. While it might score points against Protestants during a Sola Scriptura discussion, it's a bad argument that does far more harm than good. 

The problem with the "no Bible until 381" claim is that those who make the claim typically have in their mind that in the early Church - sometime after the Apostles died (~AD80) and up to 300 years later (~AD380) - there was mass confusion as to what books were Scripture and what weren't, such that the Pope had to call a Council to settle the matter by sifting through a massive pile of books, some which were inspired and some which were uninspired, and the "result" was the canon of Scripture. This mindset suggests that the Bible wasn't something passed onto us by Tradition, but rather something that was basically invented. The Pope most certainly did not walk into a library and start reading random books and try to "detect" if this or that book should be in the Bible.  In fact, this false 'personally feel out if this book is inspired' method is closer to the Protestant and Mormon approach to the canon of Scripture.

Why Head Coverings blind Protestants.

I think I've formulated a new apologetics argument that should prove fun and (hopefully) fruitful when talking with Protestants. Basically, the way Protestants view the Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist is similar to how Paul describes the reason for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. The result of this line of thinking would not only force Protestants to make Baptism indistinguishable from Eucharist, but also to 'raise' Head Coverings up to the level of a new Sacrament in itself. Let's see where this goes. 

The ultimate and most effective Catholic apologetics argument against Protestantism.

I have come to the conclusion that the most powerful apologetics argument that a Catholic can make against Protestantism is that their Sunday Liturgy is actually man-made and thus blatant idolatry. Let me explain this more.

The most important duty a human has, regardless even of whether they are a Christian or not, is to worship God. This should be - without a doubt - an obvious truth that everyone can agree upon. Given this, a person must not only worship God, they must do so properly, i.e., they must worship as God has instructed them to do. This means that Liturgy requires divine revelation, because otherwise the person is "worshiping" God based on what sounds good to their human mind...but there is a word for worshiping according to what sounds good to you: it's called idolatry. So the only way to escape idolatry is to worship according to how God has divinely revealed it. Which leads us to the key problem which all Protestants face.

A clear prophecy of the Catholic Church in the Old Testament?

I had this post as a guest post on another blog that was shut down, so I will just repost it here:

Daniel 2 contains a fascinating prophecy which speaks of God’s plan to set up a Kingdom upon earth that is not of human origin and will come to cover the whole earth. Christians as far back as the Early Church Fathers have interpreted this prophecy as referring to the Catholic Church being established by Christ, expanding all over the world, and lasting forever. After reflecting upon the prophecy, I see no other plausible interpretation. Let me explain my thoughts.

Back at the Babylonian Exile, God caused the Emperor Nebuchadnezzar to have a mysterious dream which only the Prophet Daniel could explain. In verses 2:31-45, Daniel interprets the dream in some pretty plain terms.

Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was of a large statue that was divided into Five Sections: the statue’s Head was made of Gold, the Chest was made of Silver, the Lower Torso was made of Bronze, the Legs were made of Iron, and the Feet were made of an Iron-Clay mix (2:31-33). Then he saw “a stone not cut by human hands” was hurled down from the sky and struck the statue at the Feet, reducing it to pieces, and this stone went on to become “a great mountain that filled the whole earth” (2:34-35).

That was the dream which Daniel was then given the task to explain.

Daniel begins by telling King Nebuchadnezzar that he and his Babylonian Empire are the Head made of Gold (2:37-38). Then Daniel says another Empire will arise, not as fancy as Gold (i.e. Silver), and this second Empire will take over and become the new world super power. After that, a third Empire, the Kingdom of Bronze will succeed the Kingdom of Silver. This third Empire will be succeeded by a Kingdom of Iron, followed lastly by a Kingdom of Iron-Clay, which signifies “a divided kingdom” (2:41), partly strong and partly weak (2:42). And it will be in the time of this Iron-Clay divided Empire that God will set up His Kingdom which will never be destroyed, and in fact will shatter all kingdoms that stand in its way (2:43-45).

It really isn’t difficult to make a coherent interpretation of what Daniel is talking about. We know from the text that the sections of the Body represent a succession of world Empires and that the clock starts with the Babylonian Empire. We also know from other parts of the Bible as well as undisputed world history that the Persian Empire came in and replaced Babylon, and after that Alexander the Great came in and replaced the Persian Empire with his Greek Empire. The next big Empire to immediately come along was the Roman Empire, which we all know was the big dog at the time of Christ. As the Roman Empire began to erode, it eventually broke into two Empires, an Eastern (Byzantine) and a Western (Latin), starting around the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. It was about this time that Christianity began making huge growth in the public sphere such that we see Christianity as a force to be reckoned with among the pagan remnants. And as we know, Christianity ended up long outlasting the Roman Empire(s) and that Christianity grew and grew to spread all over the world.

For apologetics purposes, we should note that the only “candidate” that fits this prophecy/interpretation is the Catholic Church. We see how the Catholic Church was around at this time and that this is the time when the Catholic Church began to grow in influence. There is no Protestant denomination that really fits as even a possible candidate. No Protestant denomination was around at the time frame of AD300-400, and Protestantism usually explains the Reformation was necessary because the Gospel started to become more and more lost over the centuries as Catholicism grew — despite the fact this Prophecy says these “dark ages” were going to be the time when the Church really begins to spread its wings!

The only ways I see a Protestant not being indicted by this Prophecy is to try and claim a different timeline or different Empires, but this is too tall of an order to fill. For example, what succession of Empires comes close to fitting the Five that were just mentioned? And the way the timeline goes, if you start the Kingdom of God too late down the centuries, e.g. starting at the time of the Reformation, then you have to both explain away the influence of Christianity during the “dark ages” of AD400-1400, as well as explain which Protestant denomination really comes close to modeling an united heavenly Kingdom that spreads all over the world. For those Protestants who say the Church went underground all this time, that certainly doesn’t fit the description that this Kingdom would be like a huge mountain that covers the earth, an image impossible for anyone to not see!

In conclusion, any attempts to get around the plain, straightforward traditional Catholic interpretation will cause more problems than it solves, leaving the Catholic Church as the most obvious candidate of this Scriptural Prophecy.

***

END NOTE: The above apologetic also works very effectively against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who officially teach the same succession as the above, but they say the Iron-Clay Empire represents the British-American Empire, which is when the Watchtower comes on the scene. This interpretation suffers from the flaw of leaving a 1500 year gap between the last two Empires, conveniently side-stepping the disastrous implications to JW theology. To add to this, the JW interpretation has never produced a Church that fits the description of one which will cover the whole world, putting them in a similar dilemma to any given Protestant denomination.

I firmly believe this is an awesome and effective apologetics argument to use against Evangelicals.

--------------------------------------

Update 11-19-14: I have found online an article called “Interpretations of the Kingdom of God in Daneil 2:44” by Gerhard Pfandl (1996). He gives a good summary of the patristic data. The following Patristic sources he cites I was able to find online and verify the quotes:

A Reformed exegetical whopper on The Parable of the Good Samaratan (plus a bonus Papacy Proof)

From the What in the world was he thinking? File comes a link that Bryan Cross shared a little over a month ago on his blog, but I didn't have a chance to re-share it until now. The link is to a January 2014 blog post by Tullian Tchividjian, who teaches at Reformed Seminary (and is Billy Graham's grandson). In his post, Tullian "interprets" the parable of the Good Samaritan - that famous parable from Luke 10:29-37 where Jesus teaches us what it means to 'love our neighbor'. This is pretty straightforward stuff, and yet, astonishingly, Tullian ends up turning the simple lesson of Jesus on it's head. 

Here are some key excerpts (see the main article for the full story) from Tullian's article: 

This parable is perhaps the best known story Jesus ever told after the parable of The Prodigal Son. It is, however, also the most misunderstood.

Another Papacy proof from the Early Church - (Pope Hormisdas, AD519)

Here's a relatively brief apologetics argument for the Papacy that I was introduced to which I think is worth sharing. I'll start with a historical background (with lots of assistance from Wikipedia), then present the argument, and then I'll end by examining some potential objections.

Did St Paul really rebuke St Peter? ... Maybe not!

I came across a fascinating article by Catholic apologist James Likoudis which I'd like to discuss on whether or not Peter and Cephas were the same person. There appears to be strong evidence that would lead us to not make the identification of the two men, even if many people throughout Church history have. While this would not affect any dogma of the faith one way or another, it would shed a whole new light on the Incident at Antioch when Paul confronted "Cephas" (Gal 2:11-14) - which is a common text which opponents of the Papacy like to focus on. 

Pope Francis and the end of Catholicism

I'm starting to get sick to my stomach with the non-stop slew of posts with gloomy-themed comments regarding Pope Francis. Why are so many Catholics, especially among traditionalists, so worried about Pope Francis? Ever since the election of Francis a storm of radically disappointed gloom-filled traditionalists has surged, and it's really soured my experience at certain blogs. Now before I go onto make any further comments, I don't want people fallaciously accusing me of blindly supporting anything and everything the Pope does and treat it as pure gold. I don't do that, but more importantly, that's not the point. The point is that people are blowing things way out of proportion, and I fear it's leading them to the brink of apostasy. That's what's more concerning, and I'm surprised more people aren't alarmed by that eminent danger. 

A Catholic Grand Slam against Protestantism

In baseball, a Grand Slam is when the batter hits a home run while the bases are loaded, resulting in an instant score of 4 home runs. Using that analogy, have come across 4 devastating quotes against Protestantism (and even Eastern Orthodoxy) coming from the Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus (431AD). As I present the quotes, it will become clear from the significance of the things taught that one must take a stand and conclude either this Council was orthodox and Catholic or heterodox and untrustworthy.

Quote #1 - 

Forasmuch as the divinely inspired Scripture says, “Do all things with advice,” it is especially their duty who have had the priestly ministry allotted to them to examine with all diligence whatever matters are to be transacted. (Letter to the Synod in Pamphylia)

First off, credit goes to Joe and his excellent Catholic apologetics blog for finding this quote. The quote "Do all things with advice" comes directly from the deutero-canonical book of Sirach 32:19, and the footnote on this text quotes famous Protestant historian Philip Schaff who agrees that this Ecumenical Council plainly saw this book as divinely inspired Scripture. But Protestants say that this book is for sure not inspired Scripture and they threw out this book.

Quote #2 -

Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the Only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the Unbloody Sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his Holy Flesh and the Precious Blood of Christ the Saviour of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the Life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the Life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his Flesh, he made it also to be Life-giving, as also he said to us: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood. (Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)

This quote contains three powerful statements that should make any good Protestant cringe. First, St Cyril describes the Mass as the "Unbloody Sacrifice," meaning the Mass is a Sacrifice and re-presents the same sacrifice of Calvary but only in an 'unbloody' manner, the very thing Catholic Dogma teaches. Second, St Cyril says that the Eucharist is Christ's actual flesh and blood, not mere bread symbolizing Christ's flesh. Third, at the end of this quote Cyril quotes John 6:52-53, saying that this refers to the Eucharist. But Protestants cannot affirm any of these things, and in fact hold them as hallmarks of a false church. 

Quote #3 - 

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors.  The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time (Session III)

This quote plainly says that there is no doubt and that it is known by all that Peter was the prince and head of the apostles and leader of the Church, and that Pope Celestine was Peter's successor and rules in his place. This quote is an abomination for both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox for obvious reasons: if the Papacy is true, both of those groups are in deep trouble! Eastern Orthodox love to espouse that the Papacy is the worst heresy ever, even worse than Arianism and Nestorianism. And yet nobody at this Council noticed the worst heresy ever being spouted right off in front of them! They must pick whether this Council taught heresy here or whether the Catholic Church is right. The truth is plain for those who want to see it.

Quote #4 - 

If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh let him be anathema. (Anathema #1 against Nestorius)

If anyone does not agree that in a real sense that Mary is the "Mother of God," then they are embracing heresy. Of course, this dogma has been widely misunderstood to mean Mary created/produced the Trinity, but all it means is that Mary bore and gave birth to the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son. There are many Protestants who disagree with this dogmatic teaching and do not believe Mary is "Mother of God" and consider this a major heresy and blasphemy.

In the end, the Protestant really has to decide whether the Church went completely in heresy this early on in Church history or not. These teachings are too significant to sweep them under the rug or cherry pick the Council's teachings. This Council provided a benchmark for all Christianity at the time as to what was orthodox and what wasn't, so to claim heresy effectively entails the whole visible Church went apostate. I know many Protestants will try all kinds of fancy tricks to get around this, but really this isn't a hard issue to address. Catholics have no problem taking these things at face value as they're plainly taught, and we affirm these things even today. 

Either take Christian history seriously or don't. I would just hope that Protestant seminaries would be honest enough to admit that this Council sounds nothing like what any Protestant denomination would ever teach.

What's stopping you?

One question all Protestants need to ask themselves is what is stopping them or any other Protestant they know from going off and independently starting their own denomination. Most Protestants simply don't think about it, but every Protestant who has gone off and started his own church obviously has pondered this question and recognized their 'right' to do this. Ultimately, it reveals a fatal flaw in their system, and that flaw is that ultimately nobody is subject to anyone else. In fact, a well-informed Calvinist I spoke to recently came right out and said he doesn't submit to anyone but Scripture. But how is another Protestant going to stop him from believing this? I don't see a principled way out of this dilemma. And how can a Protestant truly accept texts like Acts 16:4 and Hebrews 13:17, along with the Pastoral Epistles, I truly don't know. I don't think they can. (So much for Protestantism being Biblical.)

This is one of those issues that the more informed Protestants like to keep hushed because it would completely expose the absurdity of their system. A lot of them know that they cannot challenge the 'pastorship' of even their most bitter enemies, because they know what would happen to their own claims to authority. And so they parade around as if their most bitter enemy with even less 'credentials' than themself is still entitled to be regarded as a pastor. When I've confronted Protestants on this issue, they'll often try to get around it by claiming their pastor was ordained by some board of elders or at a Protestant seminary, as if this sufficiently answered the question. But all they're doing is taking the question one step back to who authorized the board of elders or who authorized the seminary. Ultimately, it will always come down to a group of self-appointed pastors who made themselves into a board of elders or who founded the seminary, and acted as if their self-appointed authority was true authority. It's no different than a random dude starting his own mega church. It happens all the time. But the Catholic sees right through all this. The Catholic sees that this is one of the biggest hoaxes foisted upon the world.

In the end, this Protestant mindset ultimately says the visible Church isn't held together by anything concrete, since a person can break off into schism or heresy and be just as much part of the visible Church as anyone else. With this moral, doctrinal, and ecclesial relativism in full swing, the "visible Church" thus goes from something concrete to something abstract, and thus a self-refuting concept (since an abstract thing cannot be visible). And by this point you can realize that just thinking about such a world-wide hoax like this is exhausting. No wonder our society is so much in shambles when this kind of "logic" is running rampant.

Protestants are #1! (They can't be #2.)

A common rebuttal Protestants give to Catholics when accused of engaging in "Private Interpretation" of Scripture is that Catholics engage in "Private Interpretation" as of Scripture as well, particularly when it comes to a Catholic deciding for themself that the Catholic Church is the church to join. The Protestant envisions that he and the Catholic both are fallibly interpreting Scripture and each are coming to their own fallible conclusions. Given this, the Protestant sees any arguments given for submitting to Rome as not only unnecessary, but even engaging in the same fallible private judgment that Catholics clobber Protestants for doing. In short, the Protestant sees the Catholic engaging in circular reasoning and special pleading. 

When I encountered this for the zillionth time, here is the response I gave to one Protestant Blogger (slightly modified for this blog post):

The problem with that claim is there is a misunderstanding (even equivocation) going on with the term "interpret". Really, there are two distinct things going on:

(1) Studying the Evidence and coming to a fallible but plausible conclusion.

(2) Authoritatively teaching a binding doctrine, including authoritatively interpreting a text of Scripture.

Everyone must engage in category #1. That's not the issue. The issue is category #2. When it comes to addressing category #2, one must see that there either is an authoritative teaching body ("Magisterium") or there is not. If there is no Magisterium, then there are no definitive doctrines, only fallible but plausible opinions. That's basically the state of Protestantism and why fewer and fewer doctrines are seen as "essential". If there is a Magisterium, one must engage in #1 to locate and eventually submit to which Magisterium is the most credible.

Let me give an example of the problem with Protestantism. Let's say that St Paul came down from Heaven into your denomination and told your pastor that your pastor was teaching incorrect doctrines and rather your pastor should be teaching these other doctrines. In the Protestant view, your pastor could theoretically disagree with St Paul if your pastor felt Paul's comments did not align with your pastor's interpretation of Scripture. In the Protestant mind, both your pastor and St Paul were in the category #1 above: they were both fallible men doing their best to discern what the Spirit was telling them through Scripture. Neither could or were teaching authoritatively.

The problem with the above example is obviously that we know St Paul is not on par with your pastor, and in fact St Paul was entrusted by God with the role of #2 above. This means your pastor and his congregation, who are all in category #1, are not free to overturn Paul's teaching should they come to a different interpretation of the Bible. They'd be in the wrong and Paul would be in the right.

What you and other Protestants do is think that a Christian in category #1 has the (optional) duty of locating a denomination and pastor also in category #1. And since everyone is in category #1, then it's possible there could come a time when you disagree with your pastor's fallible but plausible interpretation of Scripture on a doctrine you plausibly but fallibly believe is important, and at that point you could leave to find another denomination or start your own. All the Protestant is doing is shifting between denominations of category #1, completely oblivious to or denying the existence of someone of category #2.

Unless Catholics and Protestants can differentiate and understand these two categories, they will continue to talk past eachother. The good folks at Called to Communion have written extensively about this, but I thought it should be repeated in a more concise form.

Why the Protestant Petros/petra argument is a joke.

A Catholic apologist named Sean showed me some good insights about the Petros-petra debate from Matthew 16:18. If you have never heard the Protestant claim, it's basically that when Jesus says "You are Peter [Petros] and upon this Rock [petra]" the Greek word Petros means "little pebble" while petra means "big rock". Thus, the Protestant is arguing that Jesus was not identifying Peter with "Rock," but rather contrasting Peter's littleness with the bigness of the Rock (i.e. Jesus). But this argument is simply ridiculous and desperate, and many Protestant scholars have rightly rejected it as well. 

Modern Medicine and Pope Benedict's Resignation

Everyone has heard the news of Pope Benedict's sudden resignation today. I wont spend time with all the details because you can get that information elsewhere in abundance. I think one chief factor to take into consideration of the modern day Papacy is the advances in modern medicine. This day and age people can be kept alive a lot longer than nature might have intended. I'm not saying this to suggest euthanasia is a good thing, but rather that nature should be allowed to take its course and our modern technology has in many ways gone against nature.

It is quite ironic that we have the most amazing medicine and yet we abort a significant percentage of our children, along with not really curing most ills but rather just killing the pain. So what's this life saving technology and medicine all about then? Well, it seems as if it's been used to keep people alive a lot longer with a greater quality of life as long as possible. But the problem here is that medicine is no longer something to restore someone to health, but rather to artificially inflate the quality of life, particularly with a mentality that this life is all there is so let's make the most of it. Modern medicine really isn't about helping people, but rather about making money. If it were about helping people, then we'd have all kinds of diseases (especially in Africa) eradicated. Modern medicine looks less and less to God, to the Cross, (redemptive) suffering, and the afterlife. These are all things that were traditionally kept front and center of traditional medicine.

In the case of Pope Benedict, and maybe even future Popes, the resignation is due to decline in health, particularly at such an elderly age. If modern medicine had it's way, the Pope Benedict would not decline as nature intended, with a period of preparing oneself for death, but rather it could have the potential of basically keeping our Pope on life support in an incapacitated state for possibly a few years. The bad part about this is that it would be like not having a Pope, with the bad guys in the Church having more or less free reign to go about their dirty work, all under the overall good reputation of Benedict. A similar thing happened with Pope John Paul II, where his bad health left him more or less incapacitated towards fulfilling his pastoral duties.

I'm not saying any of this to be heartless or to in any way suggest the contraceptive/euthanasia mindset - just the opposite. I think more details will come out in the next month or so as to why Benedict made this decision, but I trust his judgement here and think the conditions were right for him to make this choice (e.g. no scandals). I have high hopes we will get a good more traditional minded Pope and think liberal minded candidates will have no chance.

The Papacy in the Parable of the Faithful Servant.

I don't remember where I first heard about this argument, but I was surprised that not many Catholics have quoted it when discussing the Scriptural proofs for the Papacy. The argument comes from the Parable found in Matthew 24:45-51 and also in Luke 12:

35 “Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, 36 and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. 38 If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! 39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. 40 You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

41 Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45 But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. 47 And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.

On the 'ordinary level' of this analogy, Jesus is explaining that a Master can put a chief servant in charge to the Master's place while the Master is away. This only makes sense to our everyday experiences, for it would be ridiculous to suggest a wealthy land owner would not put anyone in charge of his workers. But even more than this, the natural mind knows that it makes the most sense to delegate one person as the chief steward, as this hierarchy will be the best way to preserve order and unity. In this parable, Jesus is responding to Peter, who clearly is the spokesman for the rest of the Apostles, and Jesus responds with this Parable speaking of a singular chief steward. This chief steward is even said to have the task of delegating food to the household. This is a beautiful description of the duty and role of the Pope. This is an obvious proof that Jesus entrusted Peter with "more responsibility" that others, and in turn demands those who fill the Papal office have have "more demanded" from them. 

The Eastern Orthodox might say that Jesus was saying all 12 Apostles are signified by the chief steward, but I do not see this as plausible by the fact Jesus is speaking in the singular when He could (and does elsewhere) speak of servants in the plural in the parable just before this (Luke 12:35-40). Plus, it would not correspond to any actual real-life example, for there is no such thing as "master of the house" in plural, since in the real world this structure devolves into factions.

I see no other coherent or plausible alternative interpretation than what I've just given. Sure you can say every Christian can be inserted into this parable, and that's true to an extent, but any attempts to downplay or eliminate the overtones of hierarchy is simply doing violence to the text. The parable is saying Peter is the "master of the house," the chief steward, to which the other 11 are immediately under him, and collectively they run the Lord's House, the Church.


Update: January 26, 2013. 
While I do not have the tools to easily search through what verses the Fathers have commented upon, I found that most of the Fathers who comment upon the Faithful Servant parable speak in general terms about it. But I did find this quote from St Ambrose from the mid 300s:

1. “Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.” Not worthless is this servant: some great one ought he to be. Let us think who he may be.
2. It is Peter, chosen by the Lord Himself to feed His flock, who merits thrice to hear the words: “Feed My little lambs; feed My lambs; feed My sheep.” And so, by feeding well the flock of Christ with the food of faith, he effaced the sin of his former fall. For this reason is he thrice admonished to feed the flock; thrice is he asked whether he loves the Lord, in order that he may thrice confess Him, Whom he had thrice denied before His Crucifixion.

St Ambrose says the ideal figure for the Faithful Servant who feeds the household is St Peter, leader of the Church and given the duty to "Feed Christ's Sheep". This confirms the argument I originally made that this Parable especially applies to Peter.