So where should we hold the burning?

You love to misconstrue church history, don' t yoiu? It's the councils that declare certain teachings to be heresy–not Kevin Sawyer. That has been my point all along. Councils have never weighed against the RC teachings that you are regarding as “heretical.”

“Papal supremacy has, historically, been predicated on the infallibility of the pope.”

Sorry, but no. Papal infallibility is a rather recent doctrine. Papal supremacy, however, is very old–at least as the time of Pope Gregory the Great, though the claims grew over time.

“To say that someone cannot err because they are speaking from the holy spirit is heretical.”

Says Kevin Sawyer. But of course, you misconstrue the teaching. I won't elaborate further, because you obviously don't wish to try and understand it. You just want to label it heretical and leave it at that.

But I will say one thing. The pope is not infallible all the time. He's regarded as infallible only when he speaks out of his God-given authority. The term used is when he speaks ex cathedra (from the chair, i.e., the papal seat). Only then is his pronouncement regarded as infallible. And as I said, that's only happened twice. At other times, he's no more infallible than anyone else.

“And would you care to defend the elevation of Mary to the status of some sort of pseudo-deity?”

Straw man, Kevin (or should I say straw woman?). The official teaching of the RC Church does not do this. I won't say, though, that some Catholics, in their private piety, might come close to this. But that's another matter.

You just made my point.

I dismissed it because your “study” consists of a very narrow selection of anecdotes, and because the history of an ideology is not necessarily reflexive of its merits.

Kevin, that is a lie — I have even given you direct quotes from people who were involved from the beginning and you dismissed even those.

They link themselves when they compare Barack Obama to Joshua and call him our pastor-in-chief. The literal distance between the organization and the party doesn't particularly matter to me, though you overstate it.

There is something called “descriptive” writing that is a tad different from an uncritical endorsement. And besides, conservative policies have proven such a failure that anyone who offers a different path will be seen a bringing hope. Too bad that's lost on some people.

The Sojo of today is quite different, and less ideological, than the Post-American of the 1970s.

Not true, and even if that were the case it's because the evangelical church over the years has become more ideological. And you can blame the conservatives, where everything is based on ideology, for that. Recall that Jerry Falwell insulted Wallis, as quoted on this very blog, as “as evangelical as an oak tree” because he doesn't toe the conservative line.

“Then, again, why are you here (if not to take offense to disagreement)?”

To disagree.

If you're going to do that effectively, you need to come up with a different approach. The one you've consistently used doesn't work here.

Not sure how I could deliberately miss a point you had yet to make, but okay.

” As you know, I've actually studied its history — which you have dismissed because it makes it look bad”

I dismissed it because your “study” consists of a very narrow selection of anecdotes, and because the history of an ideology is not necessarily reflexive of its merits.

“and until the early 1990s even read some of its publications. “

Well, that makes you a subject matter expert, doesn't it?

“Except that Sojo has never been part of the Democratic Party
establishment, and your constant linking of the two doesn't change that
fact.”

They link themselves when they compare Barack Obama to Joshua and call him our pastor-in-chief. The literal distance between the organization and the party doesn't particularly matter to me, though you overstate it. Sojo universally tows the party line.

” It has existed since the early 1970s and has never depended on the party or any other political institution to keep it afloat. “

The Sojo of today is quite different, and less ideological, than the Post-American of the 1970s.

“Then, again, why are you here (if not to take offense to disagreement)?”

To disagree.

No, you impute what you conceive to be the conservative line (which you base solely on a series of personal anecdotes) into my defense of conservatism.

I probably know more about conservatism than you do, which is why I'm not a conservative. As you know, I've actually studied its history — which you have dismissed because it makes it look bad — and until the early 1990s even read some of its publications. The kind of pronouncement you just made is one reason I have trouble taking you seriously.

I reject that idea that any Christian organization should be as intertwined with the interests of either political party as is Sojourners. My statements, if you would bother to examine them rather than making blanket declarations about them, largely fall into this category.

Except that Sojo has never been part of the Democratic Party establishment, and your constant linking of the two doesn't change that fact. Jim Wallis will tell you that he had the ear of the Clinton White House until he passed the welfare “reform” bill. By contrast, “religious right” groups were far more intertwined with the GOP to a point that, in the eyes of the public, “conservative” and “evangelical” became synonymous.

That leads to another reason why you're dead wrong about Sojo similarly being allied with the Democrats, which apparently bears repeating: It has existed since the early 1970s and has never depended on the party or any other political institution to keep it afloat. I discovered this blog in 2004 and I'm not sure just how long it's been operating, but even if the Democratic Party's fortunes wane Wallis will keep on doing what he's been doing — because it has never depended on partisan politics.

I take no offense at disagreement.

Then, again, why are you here?

Contradicts:

“The Catholic Church is not an American institution and thus doesn't have to deal with political realities here;”

It's the official line, or it isn't.

“I have said before and will say again that, had the abortion not been
co-opted in the 1970s by the right wing, you would see a more strongly
anti-abortion focus from Sojo in particular and liberals in general. “

Pejorative terms aside, I agree with this. If the Democrats opposed legal abortion, so would Sojo. This adds nothing to the argument that Sojo is consistent in terms of social justice.

“But, in the time you've been here, you've yet to give any solid reason
for your disagreements other than maintaining the standard conservative
line, which most of us here don't accept for a number of reasons;
therefore, you bring no new insight. “

No, you impute what you conceive to be the conservative line (which you base solely on a series of personal anecdotes) into my defense of conservatism.

Moreso, I reject that idea that any Christian organization should be as intertwined with the interests of either political party as is Sojourners. My statements, if you would bother to examine them rather than making blanket declarations about them, largely fall into this category.

“And it does seem to offend you that a different view on the issues actually exists.”

I cannot defend myself against what you have decided I seem to be, but I take no offense at disagreement.

Nonsense — as the Catholic Church is by definition episcopal, what you hear actually represents the official line. There may be specific individuals and groups that deviate, but the church makes very clear that they don't speak for it.

If Sojourners were nearly as consistent as the Catholic church on these issues, I would have more respect for the organization.

The Catholic Church is not an American institution and thus doesn't have to deal with political realities here; however, Sojo, which is connected with no specific ecclesiastical body and thus has a different mission, in practice is and does. I have said before and will say again that, had the abortion not been co-opted in the 1970s by the right wing, you would see a more strongly anti-abortion focus from Sojo in particular and liberals in general. (After all, it was liberals that originally had abortion banned in the late 1800s, but only with popular support.)

Third, I have no problem with people being left leaning. I simply disagree with their politics. This has absolutely nothing to do with heresy.

But, in the time you've been here, you've yet to give any solid reason for your disagreements other than maintaining the standard conservative line, which most of us here don't accept for a number of reasons; therefore, you bring no new insight. And it does seem to offend you that a different view on the issues actually exists.

To say that someone cannot err because they are speaking from the holy spirit is heretical. You cannot be inerrant sometimes, and in error other times. That is sheer invention. This is why modern Catholics run away from the concept. Well, that, and because it's kinda crazy.

Papal supremacy has, historically, been predicated on the infallibility of the pope. But yes, the trajectory of Catholic teaching has been that popes have toggled between fallible and infallible. This one is fallible, I think, is the consensus, but supremacy cannot be taken independently of infallibility.

If it could, it still contradicts Paul's teaching on the role of leaders within the church, not to mention the appointing of twelves apostles who were to go forth and make disciples.

And would you care to defend the elevation of Mary to the status of some sort of pseudo-deity?

Heresy, which is not the same as error.

“Point it out? That's all you do on this blog (especially since
Catholic social justice teaching leans politically liberal, and we know
you feel about that).”

Well, in the face of this overwhelming case, I'll respond.

First of all, the Catholic teaching on social justice varies depending on the Catholic. Second, to the degree that Catholics call for governmental intervention, they do so to address all manner of social justice issues, including abortion. If Sojourners were nearly as consistent as the Catholic church on these issues, I would have more respect for the organization.

Third, I have no problem with people being left leaning. I simply disagree with their politics. This has absolutely nothing to do with heresy.

I just can't get away with anything on this site. You guys are on to me.

(But I did enjoy reading the “How many angels can fit on the tip of a needle” discussion below.)

And we wonder why Christians blow each other up in Northern Ireland; why Israelis hate Arabs and vice-versa.

“And we can be certain that some happy day, someone will set the powder off, and we will all be blown away.

Let's just take one example–the one I brought up. You wrote:
“Papal supremacy directly contradicts scripture.”

According to Catholic interpretation of Scripture (especially Peter's confession in Matthew 16), papal supremacy is quite compatible. Just because others read the same Scripture and arrive at a different conclusion doesn't mean the Catholic church is guilty of heresy. You are misusing the word. We're talking about doctrinal differences here, not heresy.

And papal infallibility (not the same thing as papal supremacy, by the way) is not rooted in some notion of human infallibility, a notion that Catholics would also reject. Rather, it's rooted in the very biblical belief that Christ gave the church the Holy Spirit to lead and guides the church into all truth. Therefore, when the church speaks out of its Christ-given authority, the church, and the pope as the representative of Christ to the church, cannot speak in error, simply because the Holy Spirit cannot err. And as neuro_nurse points out below, the pope last invoked papal infallibility almost sixty years ago–and that was only the second time ever.

Again, you are free to disagree with that understanding of the authority Christ gave the Christian church and how it plays out in the real world. But it is wrong to call that belief heresy. Again, we're talking about doctrinal differences here, not heretical beliefs.

That is a matter of interpretation.

As far as the Church is concerned, we're right and everyone else is wrong.

The Pope is not impeccable – the Church does not claim that he is.

The last time papal infallibility was invoked was 1950.

Then what are you complaining about?

Huh? Ignoring the category error, can you point me to an example of this in my writing?

Point it out? That's all you do on this blog (especially since Catholic social justice teaching leans politically liberal, and we know you feel about that).

There is no such thing as perfect doctrine.

“you believe that Catholic social justice teaching is itself heretical — for ideological, not theological, reasons.”

Huh? Ignoring the category error, can you point me to an example of this in my writing?