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
i would generally expect a denomination’s beleifs to be clearly stated.
certainly the Catholic and Orthodox churches have very specific beleifs which are well articulated.
>> I believe they’ve gotten some things wrong over the years, which is why I’m not a Catholic — but I see no need to scream at them about it. I think Britain’s system of a parliamentary democracy with a figurehead monarch is stupid... but I don’t waste time trying to convince them to adopt our Constitution.<<
I admire you more than words can say.
You’ve got it right!
It is not necessarily about Proddies vs RCC vs orthos, but about the sinful nature of man. I would be willing to say that if you truly knew the beliefs of the heart of individuals and what they accepted as true of what they are taught in their "denomination", RCC and orthos included, I think we would find a pretty heft percentage that does not belief in all that is sanctioned by that particular sect. I know many hundreds of RC's and yet, I don't think that if all agreed on what they truly believe and put their trust in that you could get a congregation of more than 50 that believed the exact same things. And that includes all the priests and nuns that I know!
The point is that it doesn't matter. All are essentially the same. If you go to any church in the world and polled them, there would be very few, if any (unless it were very small) where everyone believes exactly the same thing. But to use a blown up, exaggerated number in order to try and prove (to themselves more often than not) that one "church" is holier than another is really sad and riduclous. That is not how the Lord God works. It never has been. There is even someone here on this thread who says that those who do not go to their church are not saved and do not have the Holy Spirit. I really feel sorry for them.
No offense, but I know where the numbers come from, I was asking the one who orginally posted it where he got it from. At the least, it is a very controversial number and it not one that should be thrown out as a “fact”.
Of course, that is what Protestants are “supposed” to appeal to. Most mainline Protestants are unregenerate liberals (just as many northeastern Catholics are) and thus, not consequential to this discussion.
I have to smile, since your tagline would peg you as an Orthodox Christian, but your words leave me wondering. As an LCMS Lutheran I can state that we have a synod council, president, etc, and dogma is discussed over prayer and in a democratic fashion among the most scholarly among them. Not everyone always agrees, but again, if there’s no unanimity, there’s no change. Our authority comes from via Christ Himself, via the Holy Scriptures, and not from a “representative of Christ on Earth”. You seem to deny the power and influence of the Holy Spirit over the Christian Church today, for without the Holy Spirit, our efforts are in vain. On another post someone stated that Christ must have a reason for allowing the splintering of His Church, perhaps as a more diverse front against the powers of Evil, such as radical Islam. It’s harder to take down Christianity that is not one massive group, so long as we are still united in our core beliefs.
As an aside, I spent several years in Russia and am familiar with the Orthodox faith, and have only the utmost respect for it, despite doctrinal differences, and I married a Catholic. So, despite my adherence to LCMS doctrine, I accept and respect the faith of others Brothers in Christ, but will correct those who deny the fundamentals of the faith. Isn’t that what we should all do...metal sharpening metal?
I guess we bother because it's important to preach the word as correctly as possible.
And because we get such mixed messages from various RCs on the forum. Some agree with Benedict that there is only salvation in the RCC (certainly how I've always read the RC catechism).
Yet others tell us we are all saved Christians fighting the same opponent.
I'm not sure that's true. I don't believe Rome wants our respect; I believe Rome wants our submission. 8~)
From Topcat's homepage...
"Rome has not essentially changed. Rome declared that what it said at the time of the Reformation was infallible and could not change. Declared it to be irreformible truth. Rome has not changed and precious truths of God's word are still worth upholding even at the cost of unity even at the cost of being considered "troublemakers" in the religious world. We need to guard the antithesis against the destructive error of Rome." -- Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, from a tape, THE REFORMATION, October 28, 1990. ""The Reformation is dying daily in our day when the Ecumenical Movement, and other forces like unto it, wish to soften the antithesis with Rome, today. I want to assure you that it's not my pugnacious debating nature that makes me say we must exalt that antithesis and guard it. It's my love for the Lord Jesus Christ and the purity of His word.
"Rome has not essentially changed..." It looks like Benedict has confirmed this, regardless of what the ecumenicists want us to believe.
The closer truth is found here in...
Ha.
A key tenant of protestantism is that any man can interpret God’s word infailably by reading a book.
That is not an authority.
Protestants can’t see the forest (the Holy Spirit [God folks!]) through the trees (The Bible, a physical translation of a bunch of words which are not something of themselves but representations of ideas which cannot be understood apart from the Holy Spirit which breathed them into the writers)
Then your definition of denomination can not be used to support what you have been saying. I really don’t think that you know that much about what a denomination is. You can’t seem to answer some simple questions on where your facts and opinions are coming from. If you cannot document these beliefs yourself, or cite a source that does, then how can you truthfully say that there are tens of thousands of different denominations? And I am not sure you have even really defined a denomination.
>>The point is that it doesn’t matter.<<
It does to you. You’ve asked for the information five times.
I gave you how the figure was found, and said at the beginning that I can’t argue it but did share it.
If you want to argue it, head on over to www.catholic.com and go to the forums. The writer of that explaination is now writing under JustDave1988. Ask him.
As for the differences in the people in the Catholic churches, that’s being corrected by the Vatican. After VII the liberals ran wild. Now we are getting better teachings and the young people especially are living truly Catholic.
Actually even if you coalate folks purely on congruent beleifs (rather than congruent beleifs divided amoung different administrations that may or may not be in communion with eachother) there are still thousands of denominations, and I’d wager far more than 30,000 actually.
Surely the Holy Spirit has spoken continuously through the ages to great men of position, and also the most humble. Are you denying that the Holy Spirit still speaks to us today, or that he stopped with the early Church councils? Christ said He would be with us always. Of course, to deny/lessen the importance of the Scriptures in favor of tradition and early church fathers is not necessarily wise. Satan and his minions will influence people even today, yet without the Scriptures as a baseline to judge these influences against, our faith is just a sheet blowing in the wind.
I’m definitly denying that the Holy Spirit would ever need to contradict itself, and yes I do beleif the WHOLE WORD has been delivered to the Church, and there is no need for innovation or adding to that Word. The only need for the councils in the first place was to correct misunderstandings and cast false teachings out of the church not to add to the truth.
Could you please quote the part of the Catechism that you are reading? Really, I’m asking.
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. I had an Aunt (God rest her soul) who was the best Christian I know. A Holy, Methodist Lady.
I was told by my Uncle (a Bishop) that he thought (of course there is no guarantee) that she will greet me in heaven.
I believe Rome is fighting a bigger battle right now than to earn your respect. I believe they are fighting the libs who have taken over and the devil who wants to destroy us all.
I may just say “thanks” after your reference. I’m not ignoring you, just mulling it all over....
I am sorry, but I have no desire to argue with you about this. I really don't care what the Vatican is doing to correct what they think are errors in how good little Catholics are supposed to behave. I wanted to show that the number of 20,000 is at best a controversial number. For those that will take that mountain to die on, they will see it as a valid number, no matter what anyone says, least of all me. For others, they will see it as it is.
But the bottom line is that we are all sinners and we are all in need of the grace of God working in our lives and none of us, not one of us has the handle on 100% of the truth, but pride often deceives us into thinking we do. Some groups are closer, some are not. We are each given a measure of faith and it is by faith that we are saved and it is in Christ that we live and have our being. There by the grace of God, go I.
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.