The Dongola Times

(Anachronistic) Dispatches from the Kingdom of Makuria.
01st of November, 2014

Summa Contra Popishness

Look at this nonsense:

I believe in papal authority, the value of the papal office, because I think that office has played a demonstrable role in maintaining the faith’s continuity, coherence and fidelity across two thousand years of human history.
The language that I think the historical record supports is more like impressive continuity on the most important questions.

He is lucky he is talking to people who would probably presume that the alternative to the crappy record of the popes is outright Islam (or the like); or that he is talking to people who do not know that the Roman Catholics, due to their popes and their doctrine on the popes, actually do not maintain the teachings of Christ on the most-important questions. So they never denied the Trinity; so what? Neither does the illiterate Protestant down the road. But they deny the fundamental centrality of faith, even as they depend on it, and muddle the work of Jesus with their impious legalism. Papal infallibility is disproved by well-nigh every single encyclical since Exsurge Domine.

How ridiculous for him to say that the pope serves as a way to check doctrine, as though he himself need not be checked! Indeed, this is why Roman Catholics are nearly heretics, where they are still orthodox; because they explicitly (even proudly) check the teachings of mere men against other mere men. Everybody needs an infallible authority, of necessity; every reason needs axioms. For this reason Jesus settled questions with the Scriptures; for this reason we have the Scriptures. These fools, however, have the pope. "Happy heresies!"

Why do you need papal infallibility when you can have life-by-the-Spirit instead; because you are desperate to put your faith in men, and to trust in what is seen, rather than to have the faith to which you are bidden in the Bible? Wait; how would a Roman Catholic even know if the pope is infallible, since he has nothing to measure the man against?

The problem, of course, is that they reject "living by faith, not by sight," and this (among a billion other comical blunders, dangerous heresies, and ridiculous contradictions) is a direct result.
The just shall live by faith.

But here is the real madness:

One of those important questions is the nature of marriage. Unlike a lot of the issues that religious people fight about these days, and unlike many hot-button issues where the Catholic Church takes a controversial stance, the question of marriage and divorce is very specifically addressed in the red-letter portion of the New Testament — in the words of Jesus himself. His language is very strong: Divorce as permitted in the Mosaic law is dismissed as a concession to man’s hardness of heart, which under the new covenant is no longer permissible.
So if you asked me, as a secular or Protestant reader might be inclined to do, “do you believe that marriage is indissoluble because the pope is infallible and he says so?”, I might answer: “Mostly the reverse: I think the papacy might well be guided on the Holy Spirit because it has taught so consistently that marriage is indissoluble, while almost every other Christian body has succumbed to the pressures and political incentives to say otherwise.”

Why does he not stop at citing the Scriptures, as he does, and instead insists that the pope is infallible since he seems to have followed the Scriptures thus far? Why not let the unchanging word of God not rely on the say-so of a mere man, who moreover is being checked against said word of God?
Like I said, madness.