3 ms·

> He could have simply agreed with them. Ha. That's the most brilliant joke in this whole write-up. Of course he could not agree with them. Just as Luther simp

> He could have simply agreed with them. Ha. That's the most brilliant joke in this whole write-up. Of course he could not agree with them. Just as Luther simply could not stop himself from raising his 95 questions. > No reasonable human, then or now, believes that there's any institution, made up of fallible humans, that's never wrong. One of the basic tenets of (both Orthodox and Catholic) Christian theology is that the Church, as the whole, can't be wrong because it is explicitly guided by the Christ himself through the Holy Ghost. That's why ecumenical councils were (and are, in the Orthodox branch) considered so important: if the brightest and most pious would come together and, while praying for the divine guidance, try to resolve a theological matter, then they will come to the correct answer. The Catholic church, as I understand it, has largely decided that this approach is overly cautious and expensive since a decision of a single person (by the virtue of being the pope of Rome) is already guaranteed to be correct.

bombcar 2y ago
That was basically my reaction to the whole thing - I was expecting some amazing exposé of More but it was ... More being More. And 1+ billion Catholics believe that the specific institution of The Church, which is made up of fallible humans, is never wrong on matters of doctrine and morals - because it is the Body of Christ and cannot be wrong. They may get into major arguments and quibbles about exactly what that means but the concept of infallibility is pretty well cemented. Wait until the author digs deeper and learns that many, many intelligent people of the time and before thought burning at the stake was the best option for the burned - and really, truly believed that, and had deep arguments for why. Also I have to love the recency bias, clearly Henry VIII can only be understood through the lens of a recent and current president! To further confuse our friend, he can visit the Church of England's website: https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/common-worship/churchs-year/calendar https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-t... and search "Thomas More" finding July 6th.
- Juliate 2y ago
  > And 1+ billion Catholics believe that [...] The Church [...] is never wrong on matters of doctrine and morals It's a bit exaggerated to say that. Not all Catholics believe in the infallibility, neither in every single dogma, which are not articles of faith (and not believing in them, discussing them doesn't make one less Catholic than an other). Even wondering what proportion of Catholics know about all of them.
  - michaelsbradley 2y ago
    It’s not a monumental task, just read the two great catechisms of the Catholic Church, or even sound compendiums/summaries of them, and you’ll know it all[+]. 1997 Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm 1566 Catechism: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015038914233;view=2up;seq=6 http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015038914233;vie... You could read just the 1997 Catechism and not miss out on a dogma/doctrine, but the 1566 is these days an under appreciated masterpiece, a work of art really, while the 1997 has a “beads on a string” and committee-cooked feel in many sections, while still being great. I’d guess at least a few million Catholics alive today have fully read or otherwise are fully informed about the Catechisms’ contents. Hopefully the number continues to increase over the years. [+] As a result you won’t know all of Catholic philosophy, theology, history, and particular rulings re: moral theology, but you don’t need to in order to be informed re: Catholic doctrine.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      I am not saying it’s a monumental task. I did (the 1997). I am saying that reading these is an intellectual aside, overly complex at times, not a requirement, to having the faith and acting like a Christian Catholic. Being Catholic doesn’t require to be an historian, philosopher or theologian, although that’s not contradictory. Some dogmas, apart from being terribly contextual to when they were thought and proclaimed (by men, again), are totally irrelevant to the mystery of the Revelation and the faith related to it. But they are more relevant in the context of a controlling institution. Which is a totally different, non-spiritual matter.
zdragnar 2y ago
There is a rather important distinction, in that Papal infallibility and the patriarchs and ecumenical councils all apply to very narrow circumstances. The Church is a duality that mirrors Christ's dual nature: as both mortal man and God the son, so too is the Church made up of mortal people and God the holy Spirit. The divine part is infallible, the mortal part is still very much human. All of which is to say that yes, Catholics and Orthodox Christians both agree that the institutions can get things wrong, most especially when people in power fail. After all, the Pope was once one of the patriarchs of what is now the Orthodox Church. It is impossible for the two to be in schism if the institution was infallible prior to the schism itself.
- achierius 2y ago
  > After all, the Pope was once one of the patriarchs of what is now the Orthodox Church This isn't true: the formal institution of the Pentarchy (ordering the Church under five patriarchs -- Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch) was only introduced by the decrees of the Quintisext Council (692), which the Pope notably refused to ratify. In essence, the eastern patriarchs declared there to be a Pentarchy with the Pope as 'first among equals' (a "prerogative of honour"), while the Pope continued to claim a position of pre-eminence over all other bishops. > It is impossible for the two to be in schism if the institution was infallible prior to the schism itself The Catholic position is essentially that ratification by the Bishop of Rome is a pre-condition for the Church to make a declaration on matters of faith or doctrine. With that in mind, divergences like the Quintisext Council or the Iconoclast Crisis are at best local policies, at worst heresies, but certainly not "teachings of the Church" which later had to be "reverted". The later schism is also just that -- the Patriarchs in the East choosing to break off from the "primary body" of the Church, moving from a state of union to a state of disunion, but leaving the Church itself still secure. While I'm not quite as well-versed as with Catholic doctrine, my understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox position is symmetrical, though less strictly defined since the Orthodox tend towards a less legalistic expression of Church hierarchy. They believe that the Church speaks through a consensus of its patriarchs, and therefore that the Pope has simply broken off of the Church by declaring otherwise. In their case, cases like the Council of Hieria (the council which instituted Iconoclasm) are invalid because neither the patriarchs nor their representatives were present at the council -- so heresy was never professed by the Church.
vessenes 2y ago
Hmm. I think Neal is aware of the ins and outs of this portion of Christian religious culture and history. The question of infallibility was not open then or now to most ‘thinkers’ in the church: that is while it was a matter of public doctrine and thus a rule for the parish, in private elites debated and discussed. More was a contemporary of Erasmus, and the church had an entire concept of anti popes for goodness sake, popes that had deceived the church. These are frameworks for acknowledging precisely this point - mistakes are made, new things happen. Modern Catholicism (to this outsider’s eye) has many vigorous sects and differences of opinion carried out regionally and locally. Perhaps on those terms More was correct - if you stop burning people at the stake they tend to disagree more volubly. What Neal sketches and I think is intriguing is that More seems to have had the bad taste to have been a hard hard ideologue, principled in that he died for his ideology, but not someone who say wanted to stick around to be father to his daughter or husband to his wife if it meant turning a blind eye to Henry VIII’s marriage plans.
- bombcar 2y ago
  I think part of it is that most people can agree that someone could believe in something so strongly that they wouldn't compromise it, even if it meant death. The hard part is understanding someone doing that about something YOU wouldn't care about.
- achierius 2y ago
  I don't know if he is. A lot of people, even historians, do not understand traditional medieval Christian (i.e. what is today Catholic and Orthodox) dogma, and so are often surprised when people historically act in ways that "don't make sense". I suspect the reason is because in today's America-centric world, the most visible strain of Christianity is Protestantism, which functions very differently.
- mvieira38 2y ago
  You misunderstand what an Antipope is. It is not "a pope who deceived the Church", it is someone claiming to be a pope while he is not. And that notion is in no way abandoned, there have been a number of antipopes in contemporary history, see Peter II, Gregory XVIII and Peter III of the Palmarian Church as the most notable examples.
QuarterReptile 2y ago
>The Catholic church, as I understand it, has largely decided that this approach is overly cautious and expensive since a decision of a single person (by the virtue of being the pope of Rome) is already guaranteed to be correct. Vatican 2 (and 1, for that matter) would like a word. Putting aside your conceptions of councils, though, you're trying to give the pope too much power. This infallibility is limited to faith and morals, and it must follow from what the church has already been doing: stating what previously didn't need to be stated. E.g. the pope could not invoke infallibility to declare the death penalty impermissible.
skybrian 2y ago
Based on a book about the eastern Roman empire that I read recently, early Christians certainly cared a lot about unity, particularly after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire. But it didn't put a stop to bitter theological disputes between the bishops of different cities and instead fueled them. The religious councils were a fairly ineffectual attempt to solve them. These were disputes over power, with the bishops of Rome in particular attempting to achieve dominance over the others, even though by then, Rome was a backwater compared to Constantinople. Earlier polytheistic religions didn't pretend to be universal and therefore had more built-in tolerance, even though religious tolerance hadn't been invented yet. Rome could demand sacrifices to their gods but it was accepted that people in different cities had their own gods.

bombcar 2y ago

That was basically my reaction to the whole thing - I was expecting some amazing exposé of More but it was ... More being More. And 1+ billion Catholics believe that the specific institution of The Church, which is made up of fallible humans, is never wrong on matters of doctrine and morals - because it is the Body of Christ and cannot be wrong. They may get into major arguments and quibbles about exactly what that means but the concept of infallibility is pretty well cemented. Wait until the author digs deeper and learns that many, many intelligent people of the time and before thought burning at the stake was the best option for the burned - and really, truly believed that, and had deep arguments for why. Also I have to love the recency bias, clearly Henry VIII can only be understood through the lens of a recent and current president! To further confuse our friend, he can visit the Church of England's website: https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/common-worship/churchs-year/calendar https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-t... and search "Thomas More" finding July 6th.

Juliate 2y ago
> And 1+ billion Catholics believe that [...] The Church [...] is never wrong on matters of doctrine and morals It's a bit exaggerated to say that. Not all Catholics believe in the infallibility, neither in every single dogma, which are not articles of faith (and not believing in them, discussing them doesn't make one less Catholic than an other). Even wondering what proportion of Catholics know about all of them.
- michaelsbradley 2y ago
  It’s not a monumental task, just read the two great catechisms of the Catholic Church, or even sound compendiums/summaries of them, and you’ll know it all[+]. 1997 Catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm 1566 Catechism: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015038914233;view=2up;seq=6 http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015038914233;vie... You could read just the 1997 Catechism and not miss out on a dogma/doctrine, but the 1566 is these days an under appreciated masterpiece, a work of art really, while the 1997 has a “beads on a string” and committee-cooked feel in many sections, while still being great. I’d guess at least a few million Catholics alive today have fully read or otherwise are fully informed about the Catechisms’ contents. Hopefully the number continues to increase over the years. [+] As a result you won’t know all of Catholic philosophy, theology, history, and particular rulings re: moral theology, but you don’t need to in order to be informed re: Catholic doctrine.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    I am not saying it’s a monumental task. I did (the 1997). I am saying that reading these is an intellectual aside, overly complex at times, not a requirement, to having the faith and acting like a Christian Catholic. Being Catholic doesn’t require to be an historian, philosopher or theologian, although that’s not contradictory. Some dogmas, apart from being terribly contextual to when they were thought and proclaimed (by men, again), are totally irrelevant to the mystery of the Revelation and the faith related to it. But they are more relevant in the context of a controlling institution. Which is a totally different, non-spiritual matter.

zdragnar 2y ago

There is a rather important distinction, in that Papal infallibility and the patriarchs and ecumenical councils all apply to very narrow circumstances. The Church is a duality that mirrors Christ's dual nature: as both mortal man and God the son, so too is the Church made up of mortal people and God the holy Spirit. The divine part is infallible, the mortal part is still very much human. All of which is to say that yes, Catholics and Orthodox Christians both agree that the institutions can get things wrong, most especially when people in power fail. After all, the Pope was once one of the patriarchs of what is now the Orthodox Church. It is impossible for the two to be in schism if the institution was infallible prior to the schism itself.

achierius 2y ago
> After all, the Pope was once one of the patriarchs of what is now the Orthodox Church This isn't true: the formal institution of the Pentarchy (ordering the Church under five patriarchs -- Rome, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch) was only introduced by the decrees of the Quintisext Council (692), which the Pope notably refused to ratify. In essence, the eastern patriarchs declared there to be a Pentarchy with the Pope as 'first among equals' (a "prerogative of honour"), while the Pope continued to claim a position of pre-eminence over all other bishops. > It is impossible for the two to be in schism if the institution was infallible prior to the schism itself The Catholic position is essentially that ratification by the Bishop of Rome is a pre-condition for the Church to make a declaration on matters of faith or doctrine. With that in mind, divergences like the Quintisext Council or the Iconoclast Crisis are at best local policies, at worst heresies, but certainly not "teachings of the Church" which later had to be "reverted". The later schism is also just that -- the Patriarchs in the East choosing to break off from the "primary body" of the Church, moving from a state of union to a state of disunion, but leaving the Church itself still secure. While I'm not quite as well-versed as with Catholic doctrine, my understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox position is symmetrical, though less strictly defined since the Orthodox tend towards a less legalistic expression of Church hierarchy. They believe that the Church speaks through a consensus of its patriarchs, and therefore that the Pope has simply broken off of the Church by declaring otherwise. In their case, cases like the Council of Hieria (the council which instituted Iconoclasm) are invalid because neither the patriarchs nor their representatives were present at the council -- so heresy was never professed by the Church.

vessenes 2y ago

Hmm. I think Neal is aware of the ins and outs of this portion of Christian religious culture and history. The question of infallibility was not open then or now to most ‘thinkers’ in the church: that is while it was a matter of public doctrine and thus a rule for the parish, in private elites debated and discussed. More was a contemporary of Erasmus, and the church had an entire concept of anti popes for goodness sake, popes that had deceived the church. These are frameworks for acknowledging precisely this point - mistakes are made, new things happen. Modern Catholicism (to this outsider’s eye) has many vigorous sects and differences of opinion carried out regionally and locally. Perhaps on those terms More was correct - if you stop burning people at the stake they tend to disagree more volubly. What Neal sketches and I think is intriguing is that More seems to have had the bad taste to have been a hard hard ideologue, principled in that he died for his ideology, but not someone who say wanted to stick around to be father to his daughter or husband to his wife if it meant turning a blind eye to Henry VIII’s marriage plans.

bombcar 2y ago
I think part of it is that most people can agree that someone could believe in something so strongly that they wouldn't compromise it, even if it meant death. The hard part is understanding someone doing that about something YOU wouldn't care about.
achierius 2y ago
I don't know if he is. A lot of people, even historians, do not understand traditional medieval Christian (i.e. what is today Catholic and Orthodox) dogma, and so are often surprised when people historically act in ways that "don't make sense". I suspect the reason is because in today's America-centric world, the most visible strain of Christianity is Protestantism, which functions very differently.
mvieira38 2y ago
You misunderstand what an Antipope is. It is not "a pope who deceived the Church", it is someone claiming to be a pope while he is not. And that notion is in no way abandoned, there have been a number of antipopes in contemporary history, see Peter II, Gregory XVIII and Peter III of the Palmarian Church as the most notable examples.

QuarterReptile 2y ago

>The Catholic church, as I understand it, has largely decided that this approach is overly cautious and expensive since a decision of a single person (by the virtue of being the pope of Rome) is already guaranteed to be correct. Vatican 2 (and 1, for that matter) would like a word. Putting aside your conceptions of councils, though, you're trying to give the pope too much power. This infallibility is limited to faith and morals, and it must follow from what the church has already been doing: stating what previously didn't need to be stated. E.g. the pope could not invoke infallibility to declare the death penalty impermissible.

skybrian 2y ago

Based on a book about the eastern Roman empire that I read recently, early Christians certainly cared a lot about unity, particularly after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire. But it didn't put a stop to bitter theological disputes between the bishops of different cities and instead fueled them. The religious councils were a fairly ineffectual attempt to solve them. These were disputes over power, with the bishops of Rome in particular attempting to achieve dominance over the others, even though by then, Rome was a backwater compared to Constantinople. Earlier polytheistic religions didn't pretend to be universal and therefore had more built-in tolerance, even though religious tolerance hadn't been invented yet. Rome could demand sacrifices to their gods but it was accepted that people in different cities had their own gods.