Posted on 07/10/2007 8:10:26 AM PDT by topcat54
The death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI have drawn great attention to the papacy in recent months. Such intense interest is remarkable. Much of it relates to the personality and accomplishments of John Paul II. He was a man of great courage and contributed significantly to the collapse of communism in eastern Europe.
Part of the interest also results from the powerful images that Rome can offer television cameras. Some of the greatest art and architecture of western civilization serve as a backdrop for elaborate rituals performed by gloriously clad clerics.
Part of the appeal for many—including non-Roman Catholics—is the sense of continuity and certainty provided by the institution of the papacy. The office of the pope connects us with the past, with a time of greater Christian presence and influence at all levels of society and culture in the west. It also speaks of certain moral standards defended against the relativism of our times.
All of these elements of appeal for the papacy went largely unexamined by the media. I heard few authentically Protestant voices challenging the papacy on historical or theological terms. A few Protestant leaders briefly provided words of praise for John Paul II, but the only criticism of papal theological positions came from more liberal Roman Catholics.
Perhaps the nature of the event (and of the media) made it unlikely that much Protestant opinion would be expressed. But in America—with many more Protestants than Roman Catholics—one might have expected some media exploration of why Protestants do not acknowledge the pope as the head of the church. The repeated claims that the pope is the successor of Peter and that the papacy is a 2000 year old institution went unexplored and unchallenged.
This Protestant silence says much about the state of Protestantism today. After observing the postponement of a royal wedding and the presence of the Prince of Wales, the prime minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury at the papal funeral, one Oxford historian declared, “Protestant England is dead.” Similarly, in America the reaction to the death of John Paul II was surprising. Our president, a Methodist, ordered American flags flown at half-staff—an honor not even accorded Winston Churchill. And while Mrs. Lillian Carter headed the American delegation to the funeral of John Paul I, the president and two former presidents represented the United States at this funeral. Does the American response indicate that Protestant America is more interested in religious toleration or a Christian united front than it once was?
Historic Protestant View of the Pope
Historically Protestants have been very critical of the papacy as an institution. They have rejected the papacy for its theological claims and for its tyrannical exercise of power over the churches.
Rome’s Claim #1: The Bishop of Rome is the earthly head of the whole church. Protestants have wanted to show historically and theologically that this claim is invalid. They have argued that the papacy is not a 2000 year old institution. Even if Peter did minister and die in Rome, it can not be demonstrated that he was bishop there in the Roman Catholic sense of that word. For Rome a bishop is a separate office in the church superior to the ministers (or priests) who serve under him. If Peter was a bishop in Rome, he was bishop in a New Testament sense where bishop is simply another term for minister or elder (see Titus 1:5-7). In I Peter 5:1 Peter simply refers to himself as a “fellow elder.”
Certainly many churches in the first five hundred years of the history of the church did not recognize a sovereign authority in the bishop of Rome. The churches of Eastern Orthodoxy have never recognized such a claim, and many churches in the western part of the Roman empire during those early centuries did not recognize them either.
Rome’s Claim #2: Peter is the rock on which the whole church is built. Roman Catholics have argued that Jesus indicated that the church is built on Peter as its rock, appealing to Matthew 16:18, 19. Peter (Petros) confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and Jesus responds that on this rock (petra) he will build his church. Most Protestants have insisted that Jesus the Christ is the rock on which the church is built. (Some argued that Peter as the confessor and believer in Christ stood for the faith of the church and in that sense was the rock.) Peter in his first epistle sees Jesus as the rock, calling Jesus the rock of offense (I Pet. 2:8). Also the keys of the kingdom given to Peter in Matthew 16 are not uniquely given to him, for Matthew 18:18 shows that they are given to all the disciples.
Even if Peter were the head of the entire church and the rock on which the church is built as the leading apostle, that fact would not demonstrate that Peter’s power could be passed on to anyone else. Only Jesus makes apostles, and even Rome grants that the office of apostle does not continue in the church beyond the first century.
The Pope as Antichrist: In Europe during the Middles Ages voices were raised against the claims of the Bishop of Rome. Some medieval Christians—notably radical followers of St. Francis of Assisi and of John Hus—argued that the pope was in fact the Antichrist because of his power, wealth and corruption. The pope’s use of military power, his accumulation of vast wealth and various moral scandals in the Vatican all seemed to support this belief.
The conviction that the pope was the Antichrist was held by almost all Protestants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. When the pope refused to support reformation in the church and began to use the power of his office to persecute the advocates of reform, Luther concluded that the pope was Antichrist. Most other Protestants followed Luther in that belief.
Historic Protestant View: Biblical Basis
These early Protestants appealed to various texts of the Bible to support their contention. They cited 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4,9,10: “Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God….The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” Those Protestants noted that the Pope opposed the truth and claimed miracles to support his unbiblical teaching. They argued that he seated himself in the heart of the church which is the temple of God and took divine prerogative to himself, especially in changing the Gospel of grace.
They also applied Revelation 13:6,7 about the beast to the pope: “It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them….” (See also Daniel 7:25.) Protestants claimed that Rome’s rejection of the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone was a blasphemy against God and his grace in Christ. This doctrine was anathematized, or denounced as accursed, at the Council of Trent (1545-1563), a council which Rome believes is an official ecumenical council of the church. Trent’s anathemas were approved by the popes and remain a condemnation of that doctrine to this day. Further, many Protestant believed that because the popes supported the persecution of Protestants, leading to the martyrdom of tens of thousands of them in the sixteenth century, the papacy was revealed as the Antichrist.
Historic Protestant View: The Confessions
So strong was this Protestant conviction about the Pope that it was incorporated into several Protestant confessions. Philip Melanchthon in the official Lutheran “Apology of the Augsburg Confession,” (1531), Article 15, wrote: “If our opponents defend the notion that these human rites merit justification, grace, and the forgiveness of sins, they are simply establishing the kingdom of Antichrist. The kingdom of Antichrist is a new kind of worship of God, devised by human authority in opposition to Christ….So the papacy will also be a part of the kingdom of Antichrist if it maintains that human rites justify.”
Martin Luther wrote even more strongly in the Lutheran confessional document, the Smalcald Articles (1537), Part 2, Article 4, “The Papacy,” “this is a powerful demonstration that the pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ, for the pope will not permit Christians to be saved except by his own power, which amounts to nothing since it is neither established or commanded by God.”
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), chapter 25, section 6 declared: “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God.”
While confessional Lutherans have not changed their confessional statements, most American Presbyterian churches have removed the declaration that the pope is Antichrist from their confession.
Conclusion
If many Protestants today are not persuaded that the pope is the Antichrist, what should we say of him? Has the theology of the Roman Catholic Church about the pope and about the Gospel changed? The Roman Catholic Church has changed some of its claims about being the only institution in which one can find salvation. It is willing to call Protestants in some sense separated brothers. There does seem to be more toleration and less commitment to coercion on the part of the bishop of Rome. We should be glad for these changes.
Still the basic teaching about the authority of the pope has not changed and the teaching about the Gospel also has not changed. The Roman Catholic Church still anathematizes the Protestant and biblical doctrine of justification.
The most important criterion by which any minister must be evaluated is this: did he preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ? As Paul taught clearly: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). By that standard we must conclude that Pope John Paul II was no more a success than his predecessors since the time of the Reformation. Let us pray that Pope Benedict XVI, a very learned man, may come to see the truth as it is in Christ and teach it faithfully.
(c)2005 Westminster Seminary California All rights reserved
Valiant effort posting all of those links, but I wouldn’t expect Protestants to study them. Not unless you bound them in a leather binder and wrote “KJV” on the outside :)
As I said above there are scripture references on all the specific titles. One never knows who is thinking about joining the Catholic Church, do they? All I can do is put the information out there in a non-threatening way.
May God continue to bless you in your beliefs.
Hear hear to that. May God bless your efforts!
Well, not from our point of view. Giving alms to a parish to remember our loved ones in prayer is the only reasonable thing. Our Priests don’t make a ton of money (neither does any denominations religious) We, in our hearts, are not paying for the prayer, but rather for the means to say that prayer.
We had a homily this weekend by my favorite African Priest. He pulls no punches and some are uncomfortable with what he says, but I don’t care. He really smacks one down about what we should be doing, like standing for Life and evangilization about Christ. He is not fluffy and I love it. This Sunday was about the hard things that need to be done to be Christlike. (and let me tell you, sexual sins were on the top of his list)
Anyway, at the end, he told a story about a parish north of us who called him on a Sunday morning and said that their priest was sick so could he come. He drove 45 minutes, said three masses and got nothing, not even a thank you. His message was, part of your job as the faithful is to take care of your leaders. Invite them to dinner, slip them a 5 if you’ve asked a favor. They only have so much so help out.
Some, I’m sure, were offended by this. I was not at all. It’s only reasonable to think that a church needs extras when you ask for extras. Giving a dollar or giving 100 makes no difference. It’s the intent of the prayer and the intent of the giving.
If I go to my priest and ask for a mass for one of my loved ones, and not a penny was given, he would say that mass. It’s really not the money at all. It’s the prayers. I don’t know of a single parish that has a set price for their mass intentions. The price of a card being a minimum donation, but not, “Get out of Purgatory free for 100”.
That was the mistake in the past.
I don’t consider giving alms to the poor to be a payment for something and alms to my priest for his time and effort is not payment either.
That may not help, but it’s the way we think. When you read some of our documents, please understand that they are written for Catholics. We know what we mean so read it differently than you do. Our Bishops need to make things clearer for everyone and that would help.
Check the papers for July 11. It was on the front page of two papers I saw: The catholic church has somehow declared all other denominations to be invalid, insufficient.
From whose point of view? I'm quoting RC documents are you are giving your personal, sentimental opinion.
Personal opinion aside, if you pay a priest for a mass card to say a number of masses for a dead person to shorten their time in purgatory, that’s called buying an indulgence. It’s still the norm amongst the "faithful".
To get back to the subject, a good (consistent) Catholic would be out buying up mass cards for aunty Methodist.
No, my FRiend, you are reading into the intentions of the person buying the Mass Card. You are reading what you want into the above document.
I can understand where this could be easily confused, but you can’t say what is in someone’s heart. You are accusing a Catholic of something that is untrue. As I stated, we get the same mass said whether there is an exchange of cash or not. How can that be buying?
Intentions of the person are irrelevant. The fact is that according to RC theology when the mass is said the person for whom the mass was purchased gets their sentence reduced by x number of years. The more money spent, the more masses said, the greater the reduction in sentence. It’s quite simple.
In former days selling indulgences got a bad rap cuz they were being sold for everything and anything, including to build the Papa new dig at the Vatican.
The number of things that can be purchased to help lighten the burden of a soul now adays, at least here in America, has been reduced, but the fundamental practice of buying and selling still exists.
BTW, I have no doubt that mass cards are a custom for many people and they have no idea about their origin or intention. But the priest celebrating the mass knows the purpose related to the soul in purgatory.
Okay, disregard the intention of the person getting the mass card. Personally, I don’t pay for the mass, I tip the priest. Every other Catholic I know does the same. If the Vatican had a price list, I could see your point.
We do it for weddings and baptisms too. Therefore by your theory, we are buying sacraments. That doesn’t make sense in that everything can be obtained for free, with no cash exchanged.
But what about the whole thing without the cash? Are we still buying indulgences without buying?
Actually, according to RC canon law, a locale may establish a "price list" for masses.
"If a sum of money is offered for the application of Masses without an indication of the number of Masses to be celebrated, the number is to be computed on the basis of the offering established in the place where the donor resides, unless the intention of the donor must be presumed legitimately to have been different." (Can. 950)
You can only compute the number of masses if you know the per mass price in advance. It is a business after all, the buying and selling of masses.
Therefore by your theory, we are buying sacraments.
Not my theory. What do you think the phrase “special intentions” is meant to convey. The “intention” is that God would pour out an extra measure of grace on the soul of the person for whom the mass was purchased, either living or dead, thus reducing their time spent in purgatory.
That doesn’t make sense in that everything can be obtained for free, with no cash exchanged.
Can be, but practically speaking those with means are expected to kick in their fair share.
“It is recommended earnestly to priests that they celebrate Mass for the intention of the Christian faithful, especially the needy, even if they have not received an offering.” (Can. 945)
Note this is only “recommended”. And then it is only really recommended for the “needy” however that is defined.
You have proven my point!
“If a sum of money.......” That big “IF” means no money is expected.
With as many priests and a Bishop in my family, let me tell ya FRiend, they expect NOTHING for their masses and most of the time that is exactly what they get.
In fact, they are surprised to be invited to the wedding reception after the wedding! LOLOL!!
Sorry, but I think you stopped at the wrong place in the sence.
It reads, " If a sum of money is offered for the application of Masses without an indication of the number of Masses to be celebrated ..."
Meaning, if a sum of money is given and there is no indication on the number of masses.
The expectation is that when the money is given it also specifies how many masses are to be celebrated. If this is not true then the formula kicks in based on the standard price for a mass in that locale.
Canon law can be a tricky thing to interpret at times. You have to read the entire sentence.
I was always taught that Catholics have an easier way to heaven but Protestants have just as much of a chance as we do. It's the relationship with Our Lord that matters, not the card you carry.
By reading the catechism of the RCC we see the RCC does not believe anyone outside the confines of the church in Rome has "just as much of a chance" at salvation as those inside its gates.
In order to be saved, one must adhere specifically to certain RC doctrines (unless you're Muslim in which case you get some kind of "go to the head of the line" pass.)
819 - Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity." 834 - Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity." "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord" (St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres, 3,3,2:PG 7/1,849; cf. Vatican Council I: DS 3057). 820 - Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose ... The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit. 841 - The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. (Note here the catechism puts Muslims ahead of Protestants - lol. If Muslims are supposedly saved while still denying Christ, how are we to take this document seriously?) 882 - The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." 891 - The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith -- he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. ... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. ... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself. (Here we have the RCC teaching the pope is equal to Holy Scripture!) 1263 - By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. 1265 - Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.
980 - It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church: "Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers `a laborious kind of baptism.´ This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn" (Council of Trent (1551): DS 1672; cf. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39, 17: PG 36,356). 982 - There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive ... Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin. 1129 - The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation...
And for final emphasis, we have the RC catechism reiterating the Council of Trent which as you must know anathematized me and all Bible-believing Christians who kneel to none but Christ.
1376 - The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring...
So from these few examples among the massive RCC catechism we see that those who do not perform, acknowledge nor believe in the above rites are outside of those who are saved, and that those who believe in salvation by faith alone through the justification of Jesus Christ alone are still "accursed."
As for me, I prefer Scripture.
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
It clearly states this...
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator” before the part about the Muslims. So if you acknowledge the Creator, you are on the plan of salvation.
Good enough for me!
>>Canon law can be a tricky thing to interpret at times. You have to read the entire sentence<<
And understanding that neither you nor I are cannon lawyers, we’re going to need a reference from one to support your claim.
Sorry, been too long in the church to read that sentance they way that you want it to read. I’ve had too many masses said without giving a dime. You can’t claim to buy something that is free.
That part of the RCC catechism is inconsistent with Scripture and antithetical to the words of Christ.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." -- John 17:9-10"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture... Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one." -- John 10:7-9;25-30"Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
The catechism of the RCC makes a point of extending salvation to the muslims, while at the same time affirming that Trent "summarizes the Catholic faith," which as you know, anathematizes all Christians who believe in justification by faith in Jesus Christ alone.
I appreciate your ecumenical sentiments, but they are not affirmed in the catechism of your church, nor in these recent remarks by Benedict.
Well I guess it’s kind of like Pepsi and Coke. One would not expect Pepsico to sing the praises of Coca Cola products but they sure wouldn’t say that drinking a Diet Coke won’t quench your thirst!
I would not say that you won’t make it to heaven. Personally, no matter what you make of the CCC, I have to say that by not rejecting the Creator and bringing so many to Christ, I’d bet donuts to dollars, you’re there. I’m not sure that you would say the same about me but if I get up there and Our Lord counts the time I’ve reflected on the Passion by saying a Rosary or the hours I’ve put in praying the Stations against me, then I’m wrong and you’re right. Personally, I’m not sure He minds. Like a mom who gets a card from a child far away, He likes when we say Hi!
I know that you’re a good person and won’t gloat while holding that blue popsicle!
So then is your Creator's name "Allah"???
>>So then is your Creator’s name “Allah”???<<
Well, I’m not Chaldean Catholic but if I was....
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.