I believe you have demonstrated in your own article that its premise is false. Your example for a historical claim was the Resurrection of Jesus. This can be disproven if the historical evidence could demonstrate with sufficient probability that Jesus’ body remained in the tomb or was stolen. However, the only way to do this with certainty would be for someone trustworthy to attest to the location of the body from the 1st century. But, in the historical section on the Papacy being unfalsifiable, you say “with the near-impossible exception of the discovery of some early second century undisputed historical text which boldly states ‘by the way, there has never been a bishop in Rome,’” This is exactly the same type of evidence we would currently need to disprove the Resurrection. So if the Resurrection is currently falsifiable, then so is the Papacy.
Both Resurrection and Papacy, therefore, could have been disproven. They were not. This is an argument for the validity of both claims, not their falsity, but now, neither can be proven or disproven by means of arguments. They are axioms of the faith, not theorems.
This is the whole distinction between the Catholic and Protestant ways of thinking. We Catholics (and the Orthodox with us) are fundamentally focused on our ritual practices and manners of worship. The dogmas built around that came after to defend the method of worship. Anyone, even if he be the pope, who says something incompatible with the method of worship passed down from our fathers is therefore wrong. That’s why our theology can sometimes look like post facto justification; because it is. What we believe has been handed down to us through our mode of worship. Specific logical justifications for it were not, and so theologians can strive to sort it out and thread the needle into a cohesive whole, but so long as you worship the way we do, we don’t really care how you thread that needle.
Interesting perspective. Is the author still right then that no argument could make you abandon that method of worship? Or could the right historical evidence persuade you?
When we get into practices rather than arguments, the standards change. You aren’t speaking with the speculative reason anymore, but the practical reason.
I cannot imagine an argument sufficient to convince me to abandon the cultus of my ancestors, but that is because of a habit of soul, not an intellectual conviction. If the choice is all of my ancestors being wrong, or me being wrong, I would err far on the side of me being wrong.
If an argument were to convince me to abandon the cultus, then it would also convince me to abandon the faith entirely, because that would violate Our Lord’s promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail (by allowing Him to be worshiped falsely for at least 1000 years). What earlier generations held sacred, remains sacred for us today.
I can see how the doctrine of the Papacy is a hard one to believe, especially in such times. However, I don’t think as Christians we should be using the principle of falsifiability to examine every principle of our faith.
The principle of falsifiability is an empirical philosophical principle that comes from Karl Popper an atheist, to be used in Science. Faith claims are very different from scientific claims.
This principle is not Platonic and almost never used by Christian philosophers, unless they are Humian/empiricist. Lots of faith claims can not be falsifiable. (This is all over CS Lewis’s Narnia btw) The very principle of falsifiability can’t itself be falsifiable. There is so much knowledge that is not propositional and can’t be falsifiable.
The Authority of the Bishop of Rome relies on an understanding of the Role the is historical, typological, theological, etc. It’s also a mystery of the faith.
Of course, there can be more or less evidence for historical claims. When Catholics look to tradition to support the Papacy, they look to the authority of the bishop of Rome in the early church. I think it’s pretty clear that ex Cathedral statements are incredibly rare.
See Danielou: God and Ways of Knowing
You do make some good arguments about what exactly the Church means by the authority of the Papacy. It’s something that can be summarized super pithily, but lots of truths of the faith can’t be.
John Henry Newman’s Pro Vita Sua is one of the best theological arguments for the papacy that I’ve seen.
Was very helped by this, Dr Cooper. But I'm wondering what sets the circulatory of sola scriptura apart from the one you've highlighted above. Or is there a degree of circulatory any way you go, and the protestant one is best? :-)
"For men who wished to be built upon men, said, 'I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas', who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, But I am of Christ. And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, 'Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter." -Augustine, Sermon 26
For me it’ll always be the statues.(same goes for EO icons) I just can’t imagine any kinship between Moses, the Prophets, the Lord, or His Apostles and the ‘veneration of images’. To all of my RC friends: Try Christianity without the images it might not be what you think it is.
3But our God is in heaven;He does whatever He pleases.4 Their idols are silver and gold,The work of men’s hands.5 They have mouths, but they do not speak;Eyes they have, but they do not see;6 They have ears, but they do not hear;Noses they have, but they do not smell;7 They have hands, but they do not handle;Feet they have, but they do not walk;Nor do they mutter through their throat.8 Those who make them are like them;So is everyone who trusts in them. Psalm 115
And tell me if it seems like a council of Christian bishops discussing an issue or of men under fear of the emperor and empress arriving at a predetermined conclusion. There is no discussion of theology or reason of right and wrong only of whether the bishops will bow down and submit. The fear for their lives still shines through 1300 years later.
Listen to Hefele and John of Damascus talk as if removing images from the churches is the destruction of all true religion and ask yourself if anything can be essential to religion which is not commanded in divine Scripture. Note that no ancient father can be quoted in support of veneration of images and it is very possible that the venerable Council of Elvira intended to pronounce against it.
Why no. And now a question for you from History of the Arians. Why when Athanasius relates so minutely the damage to the church, the furniture, the episcopal throne, the insults and threats to Christians, their chastity and purity, and their personal property does he not mention any damage or insult to icons and statues? I can think of 3 possibilities.
1 The Arians and officers of Constantius who despised the Christians and the church respected and protected the images and statues.
2 They were damaged but Athanasius viewed this as insignificant and unworthy to relate.
3 There were neither images nor statues present.
I’m curious which you think is the true answer. I’m also curious what the non-literal interpretation of Scripture might be. Did Moses and the Prophets preach against metaphorical idols? Did they pull them down figuratively? Help me to see what you see.
(Made two snips to meet character limit. Available upon request)‘54. Constantius gives up the Alexandrian Churches to the heretics. Accordingly he banished, as I said before the genuine Bishops, because they would not profess impious doctrines, to suit his own pleasure; and so he now sent Count Heraclius to proceed against Athanasius, who has publicly made known his decrees, and announced the command of the Emperor to be, that unless they complied with the instructions contained in his letters, their bread1686 should be taken away, their idols overthrown, and the persons of many of the city-magistrates and people delivered over to certain slavery. After threatening them in this manner, he was not ashamed to declare publicly with a loud voice, ‘The Emperor disclaims Athanasius, and has commanded that the Churches be given up to the Arians.’ And when all wondered to hear this, and made signs to one another, exclaiming, ‘What! has Constantius become a heretic?’ instead of blushing as he ought, the man all the more obliged the senators and heathen magistrates and wardens1687 of the idol temples to subscribe to these conditions, and to agree to receive as their Bishop whomsoever1688 the Emperor should send them…. 55. Irruption into the great Church. The Gentiles accordingly, as purchasing by their compliance the safety of their idols, and certain of the trades1689, subscribed, though unwillingly, from fear of the threats which he had held out to them; just as if the matter had been the appointment of a general, or other magistrate. Indeed what as heathen, were they likely to do, except whatever was pleasing to the Emperor? But the people having assembled in the great Church (for it was the fourth day of the week), Count Heraclius on the following day1690 takes with him Cataphronius the Prefect of Egypt, and Faustinus the Receiver-General1691, and Bithynus a heretic; and together they stir up the younger men of the common multitude1692 who worshipped idols, to attack the Church, and stone the people, saying that such was the Emperor’s command. As the time of dismissal however had arrived, the greater part had already left the Church, but there being a few women still remaining, they did as the men had charged them, whereupon a piteous spectacle ensued. The few women had just risen from prayer and had sat down when the youths suddenly came upon them naked with stones and clubs. Some of them the godless wretches stoned to death; they scourged with stripes the holy persons of the Virgins, tore off their veils and exposed their heads, and when they resisted the insult, the cowards kicked them with their feet. This was dreadful, exceedingly dreadful; but what ensued was worse, and more intolerable than any outrage. Knowing the holy character of the virgins, and that their ears were unaccustomed to pollution, and that they were better able to bear stones and swords than expressions of obscenity, they assailed them with such language. This the Arians suggested to the young men, and laughed at all they said and did; while the holy Virgins and other godly women fled from such words as they would from the bite of asps, but the enemies of Christ assisted them in the work, nay even, it may be, gave utterance to the same; for they were well-pleased with the obscenities which the youths vented upon them. 56. The great Church pillaged. After this, that they might fully execute the orders they had received (for this was what they earnestly desired, and what the Count and the Receiver-General instructed them to do), they seized upon the seats, the throne, and the table which was of wood1693, and the curtains1694 of the Church, and whatever else they were able, and carrying them out burnt them before the doors in the great street, and cast frankincense upon the flame. Alas! who will not weep to hear of these things, and, it may be, close his ears, that he may not have to endure the recital, esteeming it hurtful merely to listen to the account of such enormities? Moreover they sang the praises of their idols, and said, ‘Constantius hath become a heathen, and the Arians have acknowledged our customs;’ for indeed they scruple not even to pretend heathenism, if only their heresy may be established. They even were ready to sacrifice a heifer which drew the water for the gardens in the Cæsareum1695; and would have sacrificed it, had it not been a female1696; for they said that it was unlawful for such to be offered among them. 57. Thus acted the impious1697 Arians in conjunction with the heathens, thinking that these things tended to our dishonour. But Divine justice reproved their iniquity, and wrought a great and remarkable sign, thereby plainly shewing to all men, that as in their acts of impiety they had dared to attack none other but the Lord, so in these proceedings also they were again attempting to do dishonour unto Him. This was more manifestly proved by the marvellous event which now came to pass. One of these licentious youths ran into the Church, and ventured to sit down upon the throne; and as he sat there the wretched man uttered with a nasal sound some lascivious song. Then rising up he attempted to pull away the throne, and to drag it towards him; he knew not that he was drawing down vengeance upon himself. For as of old the inhabitants of Azotus, when they ventured to touch1698 the Ark, which it was not lawful for them even to look upon, were immediately destroyed by it, being first grievously tormented by emerods; so this unhappy person who presumed to drag the throne, drew it upon himself, and, as if Divine justice had sent the wood to punish him, he struck it into his own bowels; and instead of carrying out the throne, he brought out by his blow his own entrails; so that the throne took away his life, instead of his taking it away. For, as it is1699 written of Judas, his bowels gushed out; and he fell down and was carried away, and the day after he died. Another also entered the Church with boughs of trees1700 and, as in the Gentile manner he waved them in his hands and mocked, he was immediately struck with blindness, so as straightway to lose his sight, and to know no longer where he was; but as he was about to fall, he was taken by the hand and supported by his companions out of the place, and when on the following day he was with difficulty brought to his senses, he knew not either what he had done or suffered in consequence of his audacity….What they did through the instrumentality of others I described above; the enormities they committed themselves surpass the bounds of all wickedness; and they exceed the malice of any hangman. Where is there a house which they did not ravage? where is there a family they did not plunder on pretence of searching for their opponents? where is there a garden they did not trample under foot? what tomb1703 did they not open, pretending they were seeking for Athanasius, though their sole object was to plunder and spoil all that came in their way? How many men’s houses were sealed up1704! The contents of how many persons’ lodgings did they give away to the soldiers who assisted them! Who had not experience of their wickedness? Who that met them but was obliged to hide himself in the market-place? Did not many an one leave his house from fear of them, and pass the night in the desert? Did not many an one, while anxious to preserve his property from them, lose the greater part of it? And who, however inexperienced of the sea, did not choose rather to commit himself to it, and to risk all its dangers, than to witness their threatenings? Many also changed their residences, and removed from street to street, and from the city to the suburbs. And many submitted to severe fines, and when they were unable to pay, borrowed of others, merely that they might escape their machinations. 59. Violence of Sebastianus. For they made themselves formidable to all men, and treated all with great arrogance, using the name of the Emperor, and threatening them with his displeasure. They had to assist them in their wickedness the Duke Sebastianus, a Manichee, and a profligate young man; the1705 Prefect, the Count, and the Receiver-General as a dissembler. Many Virgins who condemned their impiety, and professed the truth, they brought out from the houses; others they insulted as they walked along the streets, and caused their heads to be uncovered by their young men. They also gave permission to the females of their party to insult whom they chose; and although the holy and faithful women withdrew on one side, and gave them the way, yet they gathered round them like Bacchanals and Furies1706, and esteemed it a misfortune if they found no means to injure them, and spent that day sorrowfully on which they were unable to do them some mischief. In a word, so cruel and bitter were they against all, that all men called them hangmen, murderers, lawless, intruders, evil-doers, and by any other name rather than that of Christians.’ from Athanasius’ History of the Arians
This may be useful. A lot of it isn't to do with the usual claims. It is to do with St. Paul's early leadership. If you read all of them below you will spot it.
PETER & PAPACY
Peter, the first Pope, is named 195 times in the New Testament –
more than all the other Apostles combined.
Mt 16:18 – on this rock (Peter) I will build my Church
Mt 16:19 – I will give you the keys of the kingdom…whatever
you bind on earth is bound in heaven
Lk 22:32 – Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Lk 24:34 – Peter is first apostle to see resurrected Christ
Jn 21:17 – Peter is Christ’s chief shepherd who “feeds the
sheep”
Mk 16:7 – angel sent to announce resurrection to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 – Peter oversees election of Matthias
Acts 2:14 – Peter preaches first apostolic sermon
Acts 3:6-7 – Peter performs first apostolic miracle
Acts 8:21 – Peter excommunicates first heretic
Acts 10:44-46 – Peter baptizes first Gentile
Acts 15:7 – Peter presides over first apostolic council
Acts 15:19 – Peter pronounces first apostolic dogma
This is an important point: "And thus, the magisterium becomes its own defense. And that is simply not compelling." Everything you wrote in this article can be questioned in exactly the same way: "And thus, in his post titled 'Why I Have Not Gone to Rome,' Mr. Jordan Cooper's becomes its own defense. And this is simply not compelling." I assure you: much less compelling. Why? Because in this way anyone can say anything. Hence the terrible fragmentation - in thousands of communities - sustained by pseudo-religious leaders who, all of them, become their own self-defense.
There is a contradiction in the very name "Roman Catholic Church," since what is catholic is universal, whereas what is Roman is particular. From the earliest days, as indicated in the letters of Paul, the church lacked a central administration and leadership (though there were multiple important leaders, including Paul himself, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, etc).
Given the far-flung reach of the burgeoning church, reaching from Spain to Syria to Ethiopia, and the lack of modern transportation and communication technologies, it was impossible and impractical anyway to recognize a single leader. There was no single successor of Peter. The church was 'catholic' in the sense that it was bound together by the lordship of Christ, bound in cosmic unity to Him and with each other, and united practically in mission.
I too appreciate many aspects of Catholic thought and tradition, the writings of John Paul II and Benedict, etc, yet I cannot agree that the papacy is a divine institution that is meant to have primacy over all Christians.
You might be interested in this article that describes the journey of a prominent Finnish-Iraqi Catholic theologian away from the view of papal infallibility (while remaining Catholic, and a fairly traditional one):
“Starting from triumphalist and infallibilist assumptions, pre-conciliar papal encyclicals lead the way to dogmatic trouble: Vatican II has changed Catholic ecclesiology and soteriology.”
I think it lays down quite effectively the problems of the view from inside Catholic theology, Anton holding originally a Vatican I-type stance, but effectively rejecting it in the end.
the papal doctrine is at least plausible if it eludes falsifiability as you say. sola scriptura is impossible. as scripture itself cannot establish what is scripture. this expectation applied to the authoritative basis of prot life is more devastating to the prot claims. how can one verify whether a 66 book or 73 book canon is inspired scripture from scripture itself? its impossible.
Hello Dr. Cooper. Just some brief comments (not here to write an essay). First of all, these are legitimate questions. I do think some have potential answers you may not have explored. On the succession issues, I suggest the work of Francis Sullivan. I may not agree with every position he takes but he has a worthwhile book analyzing Apostolic Succession and the Episcopate (and several on the functioning of the Magisterium in general). As for Development of Doctrine, it can be and has been abused, but I think Newman set some guardrails that can mitigate that. I assume you have read his book, but, on the off chance that you haven’t, it is highly recommended to get it straight from the source(and Papal Supremacy is one of the “cases” he analyzes).
But my main comment is to suggest one way that I think the Papacy could be falsified. I have thought about that myself as a Catholic, when I ask myself, what would it take for me to view the Papacy and Catholicism as falsified. This was as a result of wanting to address some internal catholic debates about falsifiability and questions that raised for me. So what I think your article is missing is that Papal infallibility could be falsified if he ex cathedra taught something that flatly contradicted a prior teaching, not only of a prior Pope (as you have noted) but of a prior Council which clearly met the criteria of a teaching protected by infallibility. So if he positively taught ex-cathedra any of the anathematized Christological propositions from the early Councils that would falsify the Papacy/Roman Catholicism . Such as if he taught the Son wasn’t consubstantial with the Father. Or even if he taught that it was a permissible although minority viewpoint that the Son has a “like substance”. Or if he taught that it wasn’t appropriate to call Mary the God-Bearer. I can go further into later centuries and pick out only other clear instances of irreformable teaching of Councils likewise clearly protected by the charism of infallibility. Could you give counter-examples that aren’t so clear and raise thorny questions? – sure. But I am just saying that I can envision situations in the future that I think could clearly falsify the Papacy/Roman Catholicism.
Did you ever read Pope Francis’ first encyclical? It’s about evangelism. When I read it I paused for a moment wondering, “is the Reformation over? Have I lost my reason to protest?” He said some things in there about the bishops and faith that made me wonder.
Alas, my hope was unfounded. There’s still a reason to be a protesting Protestant- but maybe one day…
I believe you have demonstrated in your own article that its premise is false. Your example for a historical claim was the Resurrection of Jesus. This can be disproven if the historical evidence could demonstrate with sufficient probability that Jesus’ body remained in the tomb or was stolen. However, the only way to do this with certainty would be for someone trustworthy to attest to the location of the body from the 1st century. But, in the historical section on the Papacy being unfalsifiable, you say “with the near-impossible exception of the discovery of some early second century undisputed historical text which boldly states ‘by the way, there has never been a bishop in Rome,’” This is exactly the same type of evidence we would currently need to disprove the Resurrection. So if the Resurrection is currently falsifiable, then so is the Papacy.
Both Resurrection and Papacy, therefore, could have been disproven. They were not. This is an argument for the validity of both claims, not their falsity, but now, neither can be proven or disproven by means of arguments. They are axioms of the faith, not theorems.
This is the whole distinction between the Catholic and Protestant ways of thinking. We Catholics (and the Orthodox with us) are fundamentally focused on our ritual practices and manners of worship. The dogmas built around that came after to defend the method of worship. Anyone, even if he be the pope, who says something incompatible with the method of worship passed down from our fathers is therefore wrong. That’s why our theology can sometimes look like post facto justification; because it is. What we believe has been handed down to us through our mode of worship. Specific logical justifications for it were not, and so theologians can strive to sort it out and thread the needle into a cohesive whole, but so long as you worship the way we do, we don’t really care how you thread that needle.
Interesting perspective. Is the author still right then that no argument could make you abandon that method of worship? Or could the right historical evidence persuade you?
When we get into practices rather than arguments, the standards change. You aren’t speaking with the speculative reason anymore, but the practical reason.
I cannot imagine an argument sufficient to convince me to abandon the cultus of my ancestors, but that is because of a habit of soul, not an intellectual conviction. If the choice is all of my ancestors being wrong, or me being wrong, I would err far on the side of me being wrong.
If an argument were to convince me to abandon the cultus, then it would also convince me to abandon the faith entirely, because that would violate Our Lord’s promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail (by allowing Him to be worshiped falsely for at least 1000 years). What earlier generations held sacred, remains sacred for us today.
I can see how the doctrine of the Papacy is a hard one to believe, especially in such times. However, I don’t think as Christians we should be using the principle of falsifiability to examine every principle of our faith.
The principle of falsifiability is an empirical philosophical principle that comes from Karl Popper an atheist, to be used in Science. Faith claims are very different from scientific claims.
This principle is not Platonic and almost never used by Christian philosophers, unless they are Humian/empiricist. Lots of faith claims can not be falsifiable. (This is all over CS Lewis’s Narnia btw) The very principle of falsifiability can’t itself be falsifiable. There is so much knowledge that is not propositional and can’t be falsifiable.
The Authority of the Bishop of Rome relies on an understanding of the Role the is historical, typological, theological, etc. It’s also a mystery of the faith.
Of course, there can be more or less evidence for historical claims. When Catholics look to tradition to support the Papacy, they look to the authority of the bishop of Rome in the early church. I think it’s pretty clear that ex Cathedral statements are incredibly rare.
See Danielou: God and Ways of Knowing
You do make some good arguments about what exactly the Church means by the authority of the Papacy. It’s something that can be summarized super pithily, but lots of truths of the faith can’t be.
John Henry Newman’s Pro Vita Sua is one of the best theological arguments for the papacy that I’ve seen.
You’re always welcome in the Dollar Store Thomist even if you don’t recognise the Pope as the successor of the first Bishop of Rome, St. Peter.
Was very helped by this, Dr Cooper. But I'm wondering what sets the circulatory of sola scriptura apart from the one you've highlighted above. Or is there a degree of circulatory any way you go, and the protestant one is best? :-)
Would you say the Scriptures are unfalsifiable in the Lutheran System?
Where you say “circular” I would say “mutually supporting.”
"For men who wished to be built upon men, said, 'I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas', who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, But I am of Christ. And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, 'Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter." -Augustine, Sermon 26
Nicely said. You put a lot of my own concerns into a concise format.
“RC arguments do not actually resolve the issue of private interpretation, but merely push it back a step”
For me it’ll always be the statues.(same goes for EO icons) I just can’t imagine any kinship between Moses, the Prophets, the Lord, or His Apostles and the ‘veneration of images’. To all of my RC friends: Try Christianity without the images it might not be what you think it is.
3But our God is in heaven;He does whatever He pleases.4 Their idols are silver and gold,The work of men’s hands.5 They have mouths, but they do not speak;Eyes they have, but they do not see;6 They have ears, but they do not hear;Noses they have, but they do not smell;7 They have hands, but they do not handle;Feet they have, but they do not walk;Nor do they mutter through their throat.8 Those who make them are like them;So is everyone who trusts in them. Psalm 115
I invite you to read, “Three Treatises on the Divine Image” by St. John of Damascus. If nothing else it’ll help you hone your theology of iconoclasm.
I will. I would invite you to read the record and acts of the so called 7th Ecumenical Council https://www.elpenor.org/ecumenical-councils/seventh.asp
And tell me if it seems like a council of Christian bishops discussing an issue or of men under fear of the emperor and empress arriving at a predetermined conclusion. There is no discussion of theology or reason of right and wrong only of whether the bishops will bow down and submit. The fear for their lives still shines through 1300 years later.
I include what remains of the acts of the Council of Hereia, no less genuine a statement of the sense of the church. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/icono-cncl754.asp
Listen to Hefele and John of Damascus talk as if removing images from the churches is the destruction of all true religion and ask yourself if anything can be essential to religion which is not commanded in divine Scripture. Note that no ancient father can be quoted in support of veneration of images and it is very possible that the venerable Council of Elvira intended to pronounce against it.
Why no. And now a question for you from History of the Arians. Why when Athanasius relates so minutely the damage to the church, the furniture, the episcopal throne, the insults and threats to Christians, their chastity and purity, and their personal property does he not mention any damage or insult to icons and statues? I can think of 3 possibilities.
1 The Arians and officers of Constantius who despised the Christians and the church respected and protected the images and statues.
2 They were damaged but Athanasius viewed this as insignificant and unworthy to relate.
3 There were neither images nor statues present.
I’m curious which you think is the true answer. I’m also curious what the non-literal interpretation of Scripture might be. Did Moses and the Prophets preach against metaphorical idols? Did they pull them down figuratively? Help me to see what you see.
(Made two snips to meet character limit. Available upon request)‘54. Constantius gives up the Alexandrian Churches to the heretics. Accordingly he banished, as I said before the genuine Bishops, because they would not profess impious doctrines, to suit his own pleasure; and so he now sent Count Heraclius to proceed against Athanasius, who has publicly made known his decrees, and announced the command of the Emperor to be, that unless they complied with the instructions contained in his letters, their bread1686 should be taken away, their idols overthrown, and the persons of many of the city-magistrates and people delivered over to certain slavery. After threatening them in this manner, he was not ashamed to declare publicly with a loud voice, ‘The Emperor disclaims Athanasius, and has commanded that the Churches be given up to the Arians.’ And when all wondered to hear this, and made signs to one another, exclaiming, ‘What! has Constantius become a heretic?’ instead of blushing as he ought, the man all the more obliged the senators and heathen magistrates and wardens1687 of the idol temples to subscribe to these conditions, and to agree to receive as their Bishop whomsoever1688 the Emperor should send them…. 55. Irruption into the great Church. The Gentiles accordingly, as purchasing by their compliance the safety of their idols, and certain of the trades1689, subscribed, though unwillingly, from fear of the threats which he had held out to them; just as if the matter had been the appointment of a general, or other magistrate. Indeed what as heathen, were they likely to do, except whatever was pleasing to the Emperor? But the people having assembled in the great Church (for it was the fourth day of the week), Count Heraclius on the following day1690 takes with him Cataphronius the Prefect of Egypt, and Faustinus the Receiver-General1691, and Bithynus a heretic; and together they stir up the younger men of the common multitude1692 who worshipped idols, to attack the Church, and stone the people, saying that such was the Emperor’s command. As the time of dismissal however had arrived, the greater part had already left the Church, but there being a few women still remaining, they did as the men had charged them, whereupon a piteous spectacle ensued. The few women had just risen from prayer and had sat down when the youths suddenly came upon them naked with stones and clubs. Some of them the godless wretches stoned to death; they scourged with stripes the holy persons of the Virgins, tore off their veils and exposed their heads, and when they resisted the insult, the cowards kicked them with their feet. This was dreadful, exceedingly dreadful; but what ensued was worse, and more intolerable than any outrage. Knowing the holy character of the virgins, and that their ears were unaccustomed to pollution, and that they were better able to bear stones and swords than expressions of obscenity, they assailed them with such language. This the Arians suggested to the young men, and laughed at all they said and did; while the holy Virgins and other godly women fled from such words as they would from the bite of asps, but the enemies of Christ assisted them in the work, nay even, it may be, gave utterance to the same; for they were well-pleased with the obscenities which the youths vented upon them. 56. The great Church pillaged. After this, that they might fully execute the orders they had received (for this was what they earnestly desired, and what the Count and the Receiver-General instructed them to do), they seized upon the seats, the throne, and the table which was of wood1693, and the curtains1694 of the Church, and whatever else they were able, and carrying them out burnt them before the doors in the great street, and cast frankincense upon the flame. Alas! who will not weep to hear of these things, and, it may be, close his ears, that he may not have to endure the recital, esteeming it hurtful merely to listen to the account of such enormities? Moreover they sang the praises of their idols, and said, ‘Constantius hath become a heathen, and the Arians have acknowledged our customs;’ for indeed they scruple not even to pretend heathenism, if only their heresy may be established. They even were ready to sacrifice a heifer which drew the water for the gardens in the Cæsareum1695; and would have sacrificed it, had it not been a female1696; for they said that it was unlawful for such to be offered among them. 57. Thus acted the impious1697 Arians in conjunction with the heathens, thinking that these things tended to our dishonour. But Divine justice reproved their iniquity, and wrought a great and remarkable sign, thereby plainly shewing to all men, that as in their acts of impiety they had dared to attack none other but the Lord, so in these proceedings also they were again attempting to do dishonour unto Him. This was more manifestly proved by the marvellous event which now came to pass. One of these licentious youths ran into the Church, and ventured to sit down upon the throne; and as he sat there the wretched man uttered with a nasal sound some lascivious song. Then rising up he attempted to pull away the throne, and to drag it towards him; he knew not that he was drawing down vengeance upon himself. For as of old the inhabitants of Azotus, when they ventured to touch1698 the Ark, which it was not lawful for them even to look upon, were immediately destroyed by it, being first grievously tormented by emerods; so this unhappy person who presumed to drag the throne, drew it upon himself, and, as if Divine justice had sent the wood to punish him, he struck it into his own bowels; and instead of carrying out the throne, he brought out by his blow his own entrails; so that the throne took away his life, instead of his taking it away. For, as it is1699 written of Judas, his bowels gushed out; and he fell down and was carried away, and the day after he died. Another also entered the Church with boughs of trees1700 and, as in the Gentile manner he waved them in his hands and mocked, he was immediately struck with blindness, so as straightway to lose his sight, and to know no longer where he was; but as he was about to fall, he was taken by the hand and supported by his companions out of the place, and when on the following day he was with difficulty brought to his senses, he knew not either what he had done or suffered in consequence of his audacity….What they did through the instrumentality of others I described above; the enormities they committed themselves surpass the bounds of all wickedness; and they exceed the malice of any hangman. Where is there a house which they did not ravage? where is there a family they did not plunder on pretence of searching for their opponents? where is there a garden they did not trample under foot? what tomb1703 did they not open, pretending they were seeking for Athanasius, though their sole object was to plunder and spoil all that came in their way? How many men’s houses were sealed up1704! The contents of how many persons’ lodgings did they give away to the soldiers who assisted them! Who had not experience of their wickedness? Who that met them but was obliged to hide himself in the market-place? Did not many an one leave his house from fear of them, and pass the night in the desert? Did not many an one, while anxious to preserve his property from them, lose the greater part of it? And who, however inexperienced of the sea, did not choose rather to commit himself to it, and to risk all its dangers, than to witness their threatenings? Many also changed their residences, and removed from street to street, and from the city to the suburbs. And many submitted to severe fines, and when they were unable to pay, borrowed of others, merely that they might escape their machinations. 59. Violence of Sebastianus. For they made themselves formidable to all men, and treated all with great arrogance, using the name of the Emperor, and threatening them with his displeasure. They had to assist them in their wickedness the Duke Sebastianus, a Manichee, and a profligate young man; the1705 Prefect, the Count, and the Receiver-General as a dissembler. Many Virgins who condemned their impiety, and professed the truth, they brought out from the houses; others they insulted as they walked along the streets, and caused their heads to be uncovered by their young men. They also gave permission to the females of their party to insult whom they chose; and although the holy and faithful women withdrew on one side, and gave them the way, yet they gathered round them like Bacchanals and Furies1706, and esteemed it a misfortune if they found no means to injure them, and spent that day sorrowfully on which they were unable to do them some mischief. In a word, so cruel and bitter were they against all, that all men called them hangmen, murderers, lawless, intruders, evil-doers, and by any other name rather than that of Christians.’ from Athanasius’ History of the Arians
This may be useful. A lot of it isn't to do with the usual claims. It is to do with St. Paul's early leadership. If you read all of them below you will spot it.
PETER & PAPACY
Peter, the first Pope, is named 195 times in the New Testament –
more than all the other Apostles combined.
Mt 16:18 – on this rock (Peter) I will build my Church
Mt 16:19 – I will give you the keys of the kingdom…whatever
you bind on earth is bound in heaven
Lk 22:32 – Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Lk 24:34 – Peter is first apostle to see resurrected Christ
Jn 21:17 – Peter is Christ’s chief shepherd who “feeds the
sheep”
Mk 16:7 – angel sent to announce resurrection to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 – Peter oversees election of Matthias
Acts 2:14 – Peter preaches first apostolic sermon
Acts 3:6-7 – Peter performs first apostolic miracle
Acts 8:21 – Peter excommunicates first heretic
Acts 10:44-46 – Peter baptizes first Gentile
Acts 15:7 – Peter presides over first apostolic council
Acts 15:19 – Peter pronounces first apostolic dogma
Gal 1:18 – Paul visits Peter after his conversion
This is an important point: "And thus, the magisterium becomes its own defense. And that is simply not compelling." Everything you wrote in this article can be questioned in exactly the same way: "And thus, in his post titled 'Why I Have Not Gone to Rome,' Mr. Jordan Cooper's becomes its own defense. And this is simply not compelling." I assure you: much less compelling. Why? Because in this way anyone can say anything. Hence the terrible fragmentation - in thousands of communities - sustained by pseudo-religious leaders who, all of them, become their own self-defense.
There is a contradiction in the very name "Roman Catholic Church," since what is catholic is universal, whereas what is Roman is particular. From the earliest days, as indicated in the letters of Paul, the church lacked a central administration and leadership (though there were multiple important leaders, including Paul himself, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, etc).
Given the far-flung reach of the burgeoning church, reaching from Spain to Syria to Ethiopia, and the lack of modern transportation and communication technologies, it was impossible and impractical anyway to recognize a single leader. There was no single successor of Peter. The church was 'catholic' in the sense that it was bound together by the lordship of Christ, bound in cosmic unity to Him and with each other, and united practically in mission.
I too appreciate many aspects of Catholic thought and tradition, the writings of John Paul II and Benedict, etc, yet I cannot agree that the papacy is a divine institution that is meant to have primacy over all Christians.
You might be interested in this article that describes the journey of a prominent Finnish-Iraqi Catholic theologian away from the view of papal infallibility (while remaining Catholic, and a fairly traditional one):
“Starting from triumphalist and infallibilist assumptions, pre-conciliar papal encyclicals lead the way to dogmatic trouble: Vatican II has changed Catholic ecclesiology and soteriology.”
I think it lays down quite effectively the problems of the view from inside Catholic theology, Anton holding originally a Vatican I-type stance, but effectively rejecting it in the end.
https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?id=3290778&url=article
the papal doctrine is at least plausible if it eludes falsifiability as you say. sola scriptura is impossible. as scripture itself cannot establish what is scripture. this expectation applied to the authoritative basis of prot life is more devastating to the prot claims. how can one verify whether a 66 book or 73 book canon is inspired scripture from scripture itself? its impossible.
Hello Dr. Cooper. Just some brief comments (not here to write an essay). First of all, these are legitimate questions. I do think some have potential answers you may not have explored. On the succession issues, I suggest the work of Francis Sullivan. I may not agree with every position he takes but he has a worthwhile book analyzing Apostolic Succession and the Episcopate (and several on the functioning of the Magisterium in general). As for Development of Doctrine, it can be and has been abused, but I think Newman set some guardrails that can mitigate that. I assume you have read his book, but, on the off chance that you haven’t, it is highly recommended to get it straight from the source(and Papal Supremacy is one of the “cases” he analyzes).
But my main comment is to suggest one way that I think the Papacy could be falsified. I have thought about that myself as a Catholic, when I ask myself, what would it take for me to view the Papacy and Catholicism as falsified. This was as a result of wanting to address some internal catholic debates about falsifiability and questions that raised for me. So what I think your article is missing is that Papal infallibility could be falsified if he ex cathedra taught something that flatly contradicted a prior teaching, not only of a prior Pope (as you have noted) but of a prior Council which clearly met the criteria of a teaching protected by infallibility. So if he positively taught ex-cathedra any of the anathematized Christological propositions from the early Councils that would falsify the Papacy/Roman Catholicism . Such as if he taught the Son wasn’t consubstantial with the Father. Or even if he taught that it was a permissible although minority viewpoint that the Son has a “like substance”. Or if he taught that it wasn’t appropriate to call Mary the God-Bearer. I can go further into later centuries and pick out only other clear instances of irreformable teaching of Councils likewise clearly protected by the charism of infallibility. Could you give counter-examples that aren’t so clear and raise thorny questions? – sure. But I am just saying that I can envision situations in the future that I think could clearly falsify the Papacy/Roman Catholicism.
Did you ever read Pope Francis’ first encyclical? It’s about evangelism. When I read it I paused for a moment wondering, “is the Reformation over? Have I lost my reason to protest?” He said some things in there about the bishops and faith that made me wonder.
Alas, my hope was unfounded. There’s still a reason to be a protesting Protestant- but maybe one day…