Subjects:
[16/Mar/2004:21:42:48] <Father Phillip> branthamel: Hello. One
question I had was what scriptures support the idea of papal infallibility?
[16/Mar/2004:21:42:57] <Father Phillip> hey!
[16/Mar/2004:21:43:01] <Father Phillip> good question
[16/Mar/2004:21:43:29] <Father Phillip> the simple response is:
[16/Mar/2004:21:44:14] <Father Phillip> there are no Scripture
passages that specifically "support the idea of papal infallibility"
[16/Mar/2004:21:44:17] <Father Phillip> BUT
[16/Mar/2004:21:45:01] <Father Phillip> the reality underlying
your question is far more complex
[16/Mar/2004:21:45:33] <Father Phillip> as Catholics we don't really
use the Sacred Scripture to find specific passages to support any particular
doctrine or teaching of the Church
[16/Mar/2004:21:45:35] <Father Phillip> rather
[16/Mar/2004:21:46:34] <Father Phillip> we look to the Scripture
to give us general directions and tenets for our teaching
[16/Mar/2004:21:46:46] <Father Phillip> everything the Church teaches
is "consonant" with Scripture
[16/Mar/2004:21:47:43] <Father Phillip> but we don't feel the obligation
to, as it were, "proof text" our doctrinal positions with passages
from the Bible
[16/Mar/2004:21:48:15] <Father Phillip> so, about your specific
question
[16/Mar/2004:21:49:14] <Father Phillip> we believe that God loves
the community of faith so much that God wants to make sure that that community
always has the benefit of sure and certain teaching
[16/Mar/2004:21:50:34] <Father Phillip> one of the ways God does
that for us is through the teaching office of the Papacy
[16/Mar/2004:21:50:38] <Father Phillip> there are other ways as
well
[16/Mar/2004:21:50:51] <Father Phillip> but you asked about PAPAL
infallibility
[16/Mar/2004:21:51:54] <Father Phillip> the biblical basis for
that conviction of ours is in I Timothy, i believe (my memory for that kind
of stuff isn't that good, i'm afraid)
[16/Mar/2004:21:52:06] <Father Phillip> there we read that the
Church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth"
[16/Mar/2004:21:52:44] <Father Phillip> so we believe that our
teaching about the infallibility is rooted in that bibical affirmation
[16/Mar/2004:21:52:49] <Father Phillip> make sense?
[16/Mar/2004:21:53:48] <Father Phillip> branthamel: Somewhat.
[16/Mar/2004:21:53:52] <Father Phillip> that's a good answer!
[16/Mar/2004:21:53:59] <Father Phillip> nothing should be totally
clear!
[16/Mar/2004:21:54:08] <Father Phillip> that would take all the
fun out of living and learning!
[16/Mar/2004:21:54:09] <Father Phillip> :-)
[16/Mar/2004:21:54:14] <Father Phillip> branthamel: so how did
this specific doctrine develop; as it seems unique to catholicsm and obviously
not protestants or the orthodox church? ... I see you are still answering though
[16/Mar/2004:21:54:22] <Father
Phillip> branthamel: When did the church decide/discover it had this
ability?
[16/Mar/2004:21:55:13] <Father Phillip> you're certainly right
that PAPAL infallibility is unique to Catholicism
[16/Mar/2004:21:57:14] <Father Phillip> it was not finally defined
until the First Vatican Council
[16/Mar/2004:21:57:27] <Father Phillip> but in the very early days
of Christian experience
[16/Mar/2004:21:58:05] <Father Phillip> the leader/overseer of
the Christian community at rome had a special role of authority and direction
for Christians throughout the world
[16/Mar/2004:21:59:08] <Father Phillip> so our sense of God's providing
for the Church by giving us faithful, clear leadership has been one of the gifts
that God bestowed on the Church from the earliest days
[16/Mar/2004:22:00:05] <Father Phillip> it has just taken us a
long time to articulate it as fully as we needed to
[16/Mar/2004:22:00:20] <Father Phillip> but the Orthodox have a
version of infallibility
[16/Mar/2004:22:00:22] <Father Phillip> not papal
[16/Mar/2004:22:00:26] <Father Phillip> but concilar
[16/Mar/2004:22:02:40] <Father Phillip> they (as we) believe that
God gives this gift of sure teaching, the bulwark-ness of truth, so to speak
to the Church through the assemblying of all the Bishops of the Church, i.e.,
through an Ecumencial Council
[16/Mar/2004:22:02:50] <Father Phillip> branthamel: ok. I think
that makes even more sense now than it did before so I'll ask another question.
[16/Mar/2004:22:02:52] <Father Phillip> cool
[16/Mar/2004:22:02:56] <Father Phillip> go ahead
[16/Mar/2004:22:05:23] <Father Phillip> branthamel: How did verses
of the Bible such as what Jesus said in the dessert to the devil ever get recorded
if he was the only one there?
[16/Mar/2004:22:05:29] <Father Phillip> branthamel: I can understand
how people would remember and record sermons he made to large crowds... but
how could something like that be recorded accurately?
[16/Mar/2004:22:06:58] <Father Phillip> branthamel: I can understand
how people would remember and record sermons he made to large crowds... but
how could something like that be recorded accurately?
[16/Mar/2004:22:07:06] <Father Phillip> darned good question(s)!
[16/Mar/2004:22:07:21] <Father Phillip> and actually the question/s
are basically the same question
[16/Mar/2004:22:07:54] <Father Phillip> you're right, of course,
that there was no video tape running
[16/Mar/2004:22:08:00] <Father Phillip> there was no stenographer
[16/Mar/2004:22:08:05] <Father Phillip> so how do we know?
[16/Mar/2004:22:08:16] <Father Phillip> we might imagine it something
like this
[16/Mar/2004:22:11:24] <Father Phillip> what Jesus said and did
were not fully, totally recorded
[16/Mar/2004:22:11:38] <Father Phillip> that is to say, the Gospels
don't record EVERYTHING the Lord did or said
[16/Mar/2004:22:11:46] <Father Phillip> so He must have said and
done other stuff
[16/Mar/2004:22:11:50] <Father Phillip> and maybe
[16/Mar/2004:22:12:05] <Father Phillip> one of the things He did
was answer questions from the disciples/apostles
[16/Mar/2004:22:12:30] <Father Phillip> and maybe one of the kinds
of questions that they asked the Lord went something like
[16/Mar/2004:22:13:10] <Father Phillip> "Lord, did you ever
feel tempted by the counter-spirit? I/We know that you are SO good, but we have
been tempted, could you have ever experienced anything like that?"
[16/Mar/2004:22:13:27] <Father Phillip> and maybe in reply to their
questions, Jesus told them about His experience in the desert
[16/Mar/2004:22:13:48] <Father Phillip> and maybe they passed on
his response(s) to their questions to their followers
[16/Mar/2004:22:13:55] <Father Phillip> the point is
[16/Mar/2004:22:14:17] <Father Phillip> we don't KNOW POSITIVELY
FOR SURE how these stories and events came into the Scripture
[16/Mar/2004:22:14:18] <Father Phillip> BUT
[16/Mar/2004:22:14:37] <Father Phillip> we have the deepest faith
that God guided the process by which the Bible was written
[16/Mar/2004:22:14:51] <Father Phillip> and so we are confident
that everything necessary to salvation is included in the Bible
[16/Mar/2004:22:15:02] <Father Phillip> and that the Bible is result
of God's inspiration
[16/Mar/2004:22:15:58] <Father Phillip> branthamel: ok. that also
makes a lot of sense. so I'll go for another question.
[16/Mar/2004:22:16:29] <Father Phillip> go for it!
[16/Mar/2004:22:16:56] <Father Phillip> branthamel: why did God
choose the Jewish people to be "his people" in the old testament?
why would he choose just one group of people? and I'm sure he knows best, but
why this group and not some other?
[16/Mar/2004:22:18:01] <Father Phillip> again, excellent questions
[16/Mar/2004:22:18:23] <Father Phillip> this time, you're asking
two rather different questions
[16/Mar/2004:22:18:27] <Father Phillip> first
[16/Mar/2004:22:19:11] <Father Phillip> why would God choose just
one group of people?
[16/Mar/2004:22:20:08] <Father Phillip> the answer to that question
is rooted in a philosophical reality
[16/Mar/2004:22:21:38] <Father Phillip> the way God created human
beings we have to accept the fact of our finitude
[16/Mar/2004:22:21:45] <Father Phillip> our limitedness
[16/Mar/2004:22:21:48] <Father Phillip> we have limits
[16/Mar/2004:22:22:11] <Father Phillip> and those limits are gifts
from God!
[16/Mar/2004:22:22:33] <Father Phillip> (often we don't see them
that way, but they are gifts from God -- if we didn't have limits we wouldn't
'need' God!)
[16/Mar/2004:22:22:36] <Father Phillip> anyway
[16/Mar/2004:22:23:50] <Father Phillip> one of the consequences
of being finite is that we can only understand reality in parts, in bits, in
pieces
[16/Mar/2004:22:24:03] <Father Phillip> we simply cannot "get"
the whole thing at once
[16/Mar/2004:22:24:18] <Father Phillip> we have to understand stuff,
concepts, ideas, people a piece at a time
[16/Mar/2004:22:25:02] <Father Phillip> since we are limited, finite
beings we simply cannot fathom the totality of God's love
[16/Mar/2004:22:25:13] <Father Phillip> we are not constitutionally
capable of that
[16/Mar/2004:22:25:56] <Father Phillip> we have to learn to understand,
live in, experience God's love in bits and pieces
[16/Mar/2004:22:26:11]
<Father Phillip> the analogy that sort of works here is this
[16/Mar/2004:22:26:19] <Father Phillip> we can say that we understand
[16/Mar/2004:22:26:23] <Father Phillip> "love"
[16/Mar/2004:22:26:27] <Father Phillip> in general
[16/Mar/2004:22:26:32] <Father Phillip> but we really don't KNOW
LOVE
[16/Mar/2004:22:26:36] <Father Phillip> until we are in love
[16/Mar/2004:22:26:41] <Father Phillip> with a PARTICULAR PERSON
[16/Mar/2004:22:27:22] <Father Phillip> the reason that happens
in our lives is rooted in that same philosophical reality of our limitedness
[16/Mar/2004:22:27:33] <Father Phillip> so God revealed God's love
for all humanity
[16/Mar/2004:22:27:35] <Father Phillip> for all creation
[16/Mar/2004:22:27:38] <Father Phillip> for all the cosmos
[16/Mar/2004:22:27:49] <Father Phillip> by choosing one particular
people to be especially God's own
[16/Mar/2004:22:27:56] <Father Phillip> does any of that make sense?
[16/Mar/2004:22:28:36] <Father Phillip> branthamel: I"m going
to have to go with a sort of
[16/Mar/2004:22:28:47] <Father Phillip> have you ever had a "significant
other"?
[16/Mar/2004:22:29:08] <Father Phillip> branthamel: have one right
now
[16/Mar/2004:22:29:11] <Father Phillip> branthamel: got married
this summer
[16/Mar/2004:22:29:25] <Father Phillip> ok -- then we're definitely
going to go with a big time YES on that one!
[16/Mar/2004:22:30:03] <Father Phillip> when you fell in love with
him/her, didn't the meaning of "love" take on whole new dimensions?
[16/Mar/2004:22:31:55] <Father Phillip> branthamel: certainly
[16/Mar/2004:22:32:00] <Father Phillip> well: volia!
[16/Mar/2004:22:32:03] <Father Phillip> voila
[16/Mar/2004:22:32:04] <Father Phillip> sorry
[16/Mar/2004:22:32:05] <Father Phillip> :-)
[16/Mar/2004:22:32:07] <Father Phillip> anyway
[16/Mar/2004:22:32:29] <Father Phillip> that's because you and
i are not capable of feeling and knowing the fullness of love "in general"
[16/Mar/2004:22:32:43] <Father Phillip> we are most capable of
knowing and feeling love in the particular
[16/Mar/2004:22:32:51] <Father Phillip> that's because of the way
God created us
[16/Mar/2004:22:33:04] <Father Phillip> with finitude as one of
the gifts of our created-ness
[16/Mar/2004:22:33:49] <Father Phillip> so in an analogous way
[16/Mar/2004:22:34:08] <Father Phillip> God revealed the fullness
of love to you through the love you share with this particular person whom you
married
[16/Mar/2004:22:34:13] <Father Phillip> in a similar way
[16/Mar/2004:22:35:26] <Father Phillip> God revealed the fullness
of love for the world through the particular relationship of love God has for
this chosen people
[16/Mar/2004:22:35:36] <Father Phillip> it's only an analogy so
breaks down at some point
[16/Mar/2004:22:36:33] <Father Phillip> but it does get to the
essential components of the way Christians tend to understand why God chose
these people who are mothers and fathers in faith
[16/Mar/2004:22:36:36] <Father Phillip> branthamel: ok. that makes
some sense
[16/Mar/2004:22:36:44] <Father Phillip> "some sense'"
[16/Mar/2004:22:36:47] <Father Phillip> that's good!
[16/Mar/2004:22:36:48] <Father Phillip> :-)
[16/Mar/2004:22:37:41] <Father Phillip> branthamel: but it doesn't
seem so fair to the other people of the "B.C" era
[16/Mar/2004:22:37:49] <Father Phillip> well....
[16/Mar/2004:22:37:57] <Father Phillip> it's not that God didn't
love those other people
[16/Mar/2004:22:38:48] <Father Phillip> it's that God chose to
reveal most particularly and most specially through the relationship with the
Hebrews/Jewish people
[16/Mar/2004:22:39:03] <Father Phillip> my loving your spouse you
don't rule out of the possiblity of loving children
[16/Mar/2004:22:39:07] <Father Phillip> love is inclusive
[16/Mar/2004:22:39:10] <Father Phillip> not exclusive
[16/Mar/2004:22:39:57] <Father Phillip> though the expressions
of love are not all shared with everybody :-)
[16/Mar/2004:22:41:15] <Father Phillip> your other question from
above was something like, "why THIS people and not some other?"
[16/Mar/2004:22:41:22] <Father Phillip> and the answer to that
is fairly simple
[16/Mar/2004:22:41:24] <Father Phillip> no clue
[16/Mar/2004:22:41:36] <Father Phillip> God's ways are simply not
our ways
[16/Mar/2004:22:41:59] <Father Phillip> could God have chosen another
people?
[16/Mar/2004:22:42:00] <Father Phillip> sure
[16/Mar/2004:22:42:20] <Father Phillip> why did God select THIS
particular people?
[16/Mar/2004:22:42:25] <Father Phillip> we don't really know
[16/Mar/2004:22:43:12] <Father Phillip> the Scriptures suggest
that it was on account the Patriarchs and Matriarchs
[16/Mar/2004:22:43:28] <Father Phillip> and in other places the
Bible suggests that it was because of David, the beloved one
[16/Mar/2004:22:43:31] <Father Phillip> beyond that
[16/Mar/2004:22:43:43] <Father Phillip> or why the Patriarchs and
Matriarchs were so magnificent
[16/Mar/2004:22:43:48] <Father Phillip> or why David was so beloved
[16/Mar/2004:22:43:52] <Father Phillip> we really don't know
[16/Mar/2004:22:44:18] <Father Phillip> tah dah!
[16/Mar/2004:22:45:38] <Father Phillip> branthamel: Well, not knowing
is ok. Makes me feel better for not knowing so much
[16/Mar/2004:22:45:52] <Father Phillip> ignorance is one of my
favorite passtimes!
[16/Mar/2004:22:45:53] <Father Phillip> :-)
[16/Mar/2004:22:46:00]
<Father Phillip> branthamel: One last question. What is the difference
between your soul and your spirit?
[16/Mar/2004:22:46:05] <Father Phillip> ahhhh, another good one!
[16/Mar/2004:22:46:11] <Father Phillip> and the answer is
[16/Mar/2004:22:46:16] <Father Phillip> depends on who you talk
to
[16/Mar/2004:22:46:38] <Father Phillip> in some Christian systems
of thought and belief, the two terms are used almost interchangeably
[16/Mar/2004:22:46:57] <Father Phillip> whereas in others, they
have very different and specific meanings -- almost technical
[16/Mar/2004:22:47:16] <Father Phillip> "spirit" is often
used to translate a particular Hebrew word
[16/Mar/2004:22:47:20] <Father Phillip> which means something like
[16/Mar/2004:22:47:35] <Father Phillip> "breath of life which
God breathed into human beings and which makes them/us alive"
[16/Mar/2004:22:48:02] <Father Phillip> "soul" is often
used to designate a reality that comes to us more from Greek philosophy
[16/Mar/2004:22:48:40] <Father Phillip> "psyche" in Greek
-- at least in the way Christian theology has tended to use Greek philosophical
terms -- means something like
[16/Mar/2004:22:48:59] <Father Phillip> "animating principle;
that is, the principle which gives life to a being"
[16/Mar/2004:22:49:30] <Father Phillip> so, it's easy to see that
even in these more technical and somewhat arcane meanings, there is a relationship
between the two terms
[16/Mar/2004:22:49:44] <Father Phillip> but to try to say that
they are EXACTLY THE SAME THING
[16/Mar/2004:22:49:57] <Father Phillip> or to try to say that they
are RADICALLY DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT
[16/Mar/2004:22:50:05] <Father Phillip> is pushing it, i think
[16/Mar/2004:22:50:16] <Father Phillip> they are related but not
the same in my mind
[16/Mar/2004:22:50:36] <Father Phillip> they both are attempts
to point out a fundamental Christian conviction, namely
[16/Mar/2004:22:51:02] <Father Phillip> that we are "more
than" simply the result of neurons and atoms and molecules and chemical
reactions
[16/Mar/2004:22:51:11] <Father Phillip> all of those things, surely,
ARE part of what we are
[16/Mar/2004:22:51:18] <Father Phillip> but we more than the sum
of those parts
[16/Mar/2004:22:51:31] <Father Phillip> and however we want to
talk about that reality that is "more than"
[16/Mar/2004:22:51:51] <Father Phillip> we are convinced that God
is the Author, as it were, of that which makes us "more than"
[16/Mar/2004:22:52:10] <Father Phillip> we might call that "thing"
which makes us "more than the sum of our parts"
[16/Mar/2004:22:52:12] <Father Phillip> soul
[16/Mar/2004:22:52:16] <Father Phillip> we might call it
[16/Mar/2004:22:52:19] <Father Phillip> spirit
[16/Mar/2004:22:52:23] <Father Phillip> we might call it
[16/Mar/2004:22:52:26] <Father Phillip> life force
[16/Mar/2004:22:53:02] <Father Phillip> my own convication is that
this "thing" is "ineffable" -- that is, beyond the capacity
of words to articulate fully and/or completely
[16/Mar/2004:22:53:20] <Father Phillip> either "spirit"
or "soul" is an attempt to put that "thing" into a word
[16/Mar/2004:22:53:48] <Father Phillip> i am most familiar with
Plato's presentation of "soul" or "psyche"
[16/Mar/2004:22:54:06] <Father Phillip> he presents, basically,
two different pictures of "soul"
[16/Mar/2004:22:54:25] <Father Phillip> both of which got picked
up and used in Christian theology at different times in our history
[16/Mar/2004:22:54:36] <Father Phillip> but without going into
the Platonic understanding of soul
[16/Mar/2004:22:54:41] <Father Phillip> just let me say
[16/Mar/2004:22:55:01] <Father Phillip> that having studied Plato
as well as the Biblical notion of "spirit"
[16/Mar/2004:22:55:08] <Father Phillip> i belief that the terms
[16/Mar/2004:22:55:13] <Father Phillip> while not fully interchangeable
[16/Mar/2004:22:55:17] <Father Phillip> are related
[16/Mar/2004:22:55:54] <Father Phillip> and are attempts to get
at that "thing" that makes us uniquely human and uniquely who we are
[16/Mar/2004:22:55:59] <Father Phillip> branthamel: ok. I'm sure
as I read and try to understand more, I'll come to a better understanding of
thier subtle differences
[16/Mar/2004:22:56:04] <Father Phillip> i'm sure you will!!
[16/Mar/2004:22:56:21] <Father Phillip> branthamel: Thank you very
much for answering my question and I hope you have a restful night
[16/Mar/2004:22:56:25] <Father Phillip> peace!
[16/Mar/2004:22:56:53] <Father Phillip> branthamel: to you also!
[16/Mar/2004:22:56:57] <Father Phillip> and to our world!
[16/Mar/2004:22:57:03] <Father Phillip> branthamel: bye