POPE FRANCIS AS HISTORIAN

First Things ^ | March 23, 2017 | Bronwen Catherine McShea

[ebb tide]

One counsel I take from this is that we (Bergoglio, et al?) ought to learn better to honor the dead, their legacy, and the history they lived and made, by not trying to exact from them things they cannot give us—whether clear verifications of a particular Christian doctrine, or triumphal cheerleading for this or that item on a papal agenda.

[livius]

“Confused, inaccurate knowledge is no knowledge. “. Bergoglio is a shallow mind that has wound up with power beyond its wildest dreams and he tailors every word to keeping that power. He has decided that it is the world that will enable him to keep that power (he’s being called the new head of the EU) and the Church was useful only as a stepping stone...which use was possible only because the clergy and heriarchy were too intimidated to do anything when Francis started clawing his way to the top.

BTW, he once said (as Pope) that “theology makes my head ache,” and he has often boasted about his ignorance of it.

[ebb tide]

Francis also is fond of misquoting the Bible or taking verses out of context to his own liking.

I don’t think “ignorance” is a legitimate excuse for this man.

[Slyfox]

I just returned from a lecture on natural law given by a Jesuit professor. I sorta sat up and took notice when he made two backhanded remarks about this pope. One I will share.

He said that encyclicals have always been vetted and sent to experts for their consideration and edited so that it is a solid piece before it is published and disseminated. But that has not happened in the last four years.

And Francis wonders why there is questioning of his writing and why there is a dubia hanging out there like a huge matzo ball.

[ebb tide]

It’s good to see that there are still a few good Jesuits out there.

[Savonarola]

You are quite right. There are some truly sound Jesuits out there (quasi-retired but occasionally writing), there are some lightweights (on the Rolodexes, as they say, available for shallow comment on everything related to the Church), and then there are the atrociously bad Jesuits (e.g., at America magazine). The old orthodoxy is gone and the new “General” is dubious.

[boatbums]

Why did you think this should be a “Catholic Caucus” thread when the article discusses the Reformation, Martin Luther, Luther’s motives and modern Lutherans? It should be an OPEN thread so that others may add their relevant comments.

[Salvation]

Historian?

LOL! I laughed and laughed when I saw the title.

[boatbums]

Such concerns may help explain the appeal that Martin Luther, with his stark emphasis on the preached Word and a radically spiritualized, ahistorical view of the Church, holds for Pope Francis. So let us turn to the historical claims of the Holy Father with which we began, about Martin Luther and the causes over time of deep divisions between Lutherans and Catholics. (They are remarks that, coming from a Pope of Rome, I cannot help but think would be eye-popping to the reformer himself.)

I disagree that Luther was "ahistorical" in his view of the church. The "deep divisions" were precisely because the Catholic church at the time of the Reformation had LOST its connection to what was the historically "catholic" faith. From The Trajectory of Church History:

One individual who had a thorough knowledge of the Reformation was Jaroslav Pelikan. It was Pelikan who edited and catalogued Luther's Works in English. [And yes, I know that Pelikan converted to Eastern Orthodoxy at the end of his life. That will be another discussion.] Pelikan said: "Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity," said Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Roman Catholicism," New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, pg 46. But he goes even further than this:
That generalization applies particularly to Luther and to some of the Anglican reformers somewhat less to Calvin, still less to Zwingli, least of all to the Anabaptists. But even Zwingli, who occupies the left wing among the classical reformers, retained a surprising amount of catholic substance in his thought, while the breadth and depth of Calvin's depth to the heritage of the catholic centuries is only now beginning to emerge.

It is important to make clear what we mean by "the heritage of the catholic centuries." The reformers were catholic because they were spokesmen for an evangelical tradition in medieval catholicism, what Luther called "the succession of the faithful." The fountainhead of that tradition was Augustine (d. 430). His complex and far-reaching system of thought incorporated the catholic ideal of identity plus universality, and by its emphasis upon sin and grace it became the ancestor of Reformation theology. … All the reformers relied heavily upon Augustine. They pitted his evangelical theology against the authority of later church fathers and scholastics, and they used him to prove that they were not introducing novelties into the church, but defending the true faith of the church.

Not only Augustine could serve to substantiate the claim of the reformers to be truly catholic. Throughout the centuries they found substantiation. Although they spoke of the "fall of the church" in the post-apostolic era, they seized upon individuals and groups in every epoch of Christian history who had opposed Roman domination or who had taught evangelical doctrine. (Pelikan, 46-47).

I think it's important to note at this point that "opposition to Roman domination" is as important as having "taught evangelical doctrine." There is a two-fold need: (a) kick the supports out from underneath the domineering Roman behemoth, and (b) understand evangelical -- Biblical -- doctrine as it appeared throughout the centuries. Continuing with Pelikan:

Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) was practically canonized by the reformers for his opposition to Rome. They also managed to find more obscure figures in medieval history. To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.

Additional support for this insistence comes from the attitude of the reformers toward the creeds and dogmas of the ancient catholic church. The reformers retained and cherished the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the two natures in Christ which had developed in the first five centuries of the church….

If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. With men like Augustine and Bernard on their side, the reformers could well protest against the usurpation of the name "catholic church" by their opponents" (47-48)

Probably nowhere was this "claim to catholicity" more apparent than when the Reformers cited "the Gospel." This was not a new "Gospel," it is one that Christ and the Apostles preached. Based on work that I've cited from T.F. Torrance and others, the admixture of the necessity of "works" into the gospel was not biblical, but a later accretion. The truest conformity to the Apostolic preaching was held by the Reformers. "Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable". (Pelikan 48-49).

In the end, the Council of Trent ended up (in true Roman fashion) condemning the true heritage, and canonizing its own path. In its decrees, Trent "selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification [found] in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone -- a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers-- Rome reacted by canonizing one trend [the wrong one] in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had been previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned [the better part of] its own catholic tradition" (Pelikan 51-52, Pelikan's comments (in parentheses), my own comments in [square brackets]).

[ebb tide]

The heretic, Luther, was baptized a Catholic, raised as a Catholic and ordained as as Catholic priest. He wrestled with the devil, and the devil won. Luther apostatized from the One, True, Faith.

Perversion of Scripture

[ebb tide]

And yes, I know that Pelikan converted to Eastern Orthodoxy at the end of his life. That will be another discussion.

Why wait for another discussion? Let's discuss now. Why did Pelikan convert?

[boatbums]

You are welcome to your own opinion.

IF you get to heaven, expect Martin Luther as a neighbor for eternity!

[boatbums]

I don’t know nor do I care. He had his reasons. Besides diverting the topic of the thread, why do you think Pelican DIDN’T convert to Roman Catholicism?

[ebb tide]

IF you get to heaven, expect Martin Luther as a neighbor for eternity!

I shuddered when I read the above. If I ever meet Luther, I'll know I'm in Hell.

[boatbums]

Who died and made you God???

[ebb tide]

Who died and made you God???

Too much rum tonight?

[boatbums]

BTW..I looked at your CFN link and the author does nothing more than spout the same drivel against Luther that I read MANY Catholics aping on these threads from time to time. Don't y'all ever do research to see if what you are being fed is true rather than jacked up diatribes based on out of context "quotes" and RC propaganda? The man has been dead for five hundred years! Get over it!

I do find it curious how you seem to hate your own Pope as much or more than you do Martin Luther. How do you square your condemnation of him - the leader of your own church to whom you are SUPPOSED to be in submission - with your criticism of Luther who actually DID something about the corruption within the Roman Catholic church?

[boatbums]

Do you imagine you will be the judge over who goes to heaven or hell? Last time I checked, that’s God’s job - one that you ought to leave to Him. He alone knows a man’s heart.

[Religion Moderator]

Stop the personal attacks in the Religion Forum.

Study the guidelines at my profile page by clicking on my name at the bottom of this post BEFORE posting again in the RF.

A thread of yours was recently pulled because you took it to a personal level instead of staying on topic.

Putting a question mark at the end of a personal attack does not make it allowable.