Posted on 01/23/2008 12:25:36 PM PST by Gamecock
In a videotape titled "The Pope: The Holy Father," Catholic apologist Scott Hahn claims the proliferation of Protestant denominations proves the Reformers' principle of sola Scriptura is a huge mistake:
Do you suppose that Jesus would say, "Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible." Oh, really? In just 500 years, there are literally thousands and thousands of denominations that are becoming ever more numerous continuously because they only go with the Bible. It points to the fact that we need an infallible interpretation of this infallible book, don't we[?]
A tract titled "Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth" (published by Catholic Answers) makes a similar charge:
The "Bible alone" theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among "Bible-believing" religions. Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians. Just open up the Yellow Pages of your telephone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the "Bible alone," but no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means.
That is a favorite argument of Catholic apologists. They are convinced that the unity Christ prayed for in John 17:21 is an organizational solidarity that is incompatible with both denominationalism and independency. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the only way true Christian unity will be fully and finally achieved is when "separated brethren"—non-Catholic Christians—reunite with Rome under the authority of the Pope.
Keith Fournier, Catholic author and Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice, sums up the typical Roman Catholic perspective:
Throughout Christian history, what was once intended to be an all-inclusive (catholic) body of disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ has been fractured over and over. These fractures threaten to sever us from our common historical and doctrinal roots. I do not believe that such divisions were ever part of the Lord's intention, no matter how sincere or important the issues that undergirded the breaking of unity. [Keith A. Fournier, A House United? (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), 37.]
Fournier says he is "not advocating a false non-denominationalism or superficial irenicism that denies distinctives of doctrine or practice." [Ibid.] But he is suggesting that doctrinal differences, "no matter how . . . important," should not cause organizational divisions. Moreover, fewer than five pages earlier, he had berated those who "fight over theology." [Ibid., 25.] And (ironically) just a few pages before that, he had expressed outrage at John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and Jim McCarthy for saying they believe Roman Catholicism's rejection of justification by faith alone is "doctrinal error" [Ibid., 21-22.]
Notice carefully, then, what Fournier is saying: He claims he wants unity without "superficial irenicism," and yet he objects when anyone contends for sound doctrine or (worse still) labels Roman Catholic doctrine "error." It seems the "unity" Fournier envisions is merely the same kind of unity the Roman Catholic Church has sought for hundreds of years: a unity where all who profess to be Christians yield implicit obedience to Papal authority, and where even individual conscience is ultimately subject to the Roman Catholic Church.
Although Fournier politely declines to state who he believes is to blame for fracturing the organizational unity of Christianity, [Ibid., 29.] it is quite clear he would not be predisposed to blame a Church whose spiritual authority he regards as infallible. And since the Catholic Church herself officially regards Protestantism as ipso facto schismatic, Fournier's own position is not difficult to deduce. Although Fournier manages to sound sympathetic and amiable toward evangelicals, it is clear he believes that as long as they remain outside the Church of Rome, they are guilty of sins that thwart the unity Christ prayed for.
Of course, every cult and every denomination that claims to be the One True Church ultimately takes a similar approach to "unity." Jehovah's Witnesses believe they represent the only legitimate church and that all others who claim to be Christians are schismatics. They believe the unity of the visible church was shattered by the Nicene Council.
Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims the Church of Rome was being schismatic when Rome asserted papal supremacy. To this day, Orthodox Christians insist that Eastern Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicism, is the Church Christ founded—and that would make Roman Catholicism schismatic in the same sense Rome accuses Protestants of being schismatic. One typical Orthodox Web site says, "The Orthodox Church is the Christian Church. The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination. We are the family of Christian communities established by the Apostles and disciples Jesus sent out to proclaim the Good News to the world, and by their successors through the ages."
All these groups regard the church primarily as a visible, earthly organization. Therefore they cannot conceive of a true spiritual unity that might exist across denominational lines. They regard all other denominations as schismatic rifts in the church's organizational unity. And if organizational unity were what Christ was praying for, then the very existence of denominations would indeed be a sin and a shame. That's why the Orthodox Web site insists, "The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination."
Furthermore, if their understanding of the principle of unity is correct, then whichever organization can legitimately claim to be the church founded by Christ and the apostles is the One True Church, and all others are guilty of schism—regardless of any other doctrinal or biblical considerations.
That is precisely why many Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have focused their rhetoric on "unity." Both sincerely believe if they can establish the claim that they, and no one else, are the One True Church instituted by Christ, then all other Protestant complaints about doctrine, church polity, and ecclesiastical abuses become moot. If they can successfully sell their notion that the "unity" of John 17:21 is primarily an organizational unity, they should in effect be able to convince members of denominational and independent churches to reunite with the Mother Church regardless of whether she is right or wrong on other matters.
The plea for unity may at first may sound magnanimous and charitable to Protestant ears (especially coming from a Church with a long history of enforcing her will by Inquisition). But when the overture is being made by someone who claims to represent the One True Church, the call for "unity" turns out to be nothing but a kinder, gentler way of demanding submission to the Mother Church's doctrine and ecclesiastical authority.
Nonetheless, in recent years many gullible Protestants have been drawn into either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy by the claim that one or the other represents the only church Christ founded. Having bought the notion that the unity Christ prayed for starts with organizational unity, these unsuspecting proselytes naturally conclude that whichever church has the most convincing pedigree must be the only church capable of achieving the unity Christ sought, and so they join up. Many recent converts from evangelicalism will testify that the proliferation and fragmentation of so many Protestant denominations is what first convinced them that Protestant principles must be wrong.
In a series of posts over the next couple of weeks, I want to examine the topics of like-mindedness, disagreement, and divisiveness; the culpability of popes, feuding bishops, and differing denominations when it comes to causing schism; and the kind of unity Christ prayed for.
An excellent post.
Something tells me that you do not in your house need an infallible interpreter to exercise your authority. You no doubt try to clarify issues as much as possible for your children (I’m assuming you have children), and if doubts arise about what you meant, you settle those as they come up: I meant this and not this.
Likewise the Church. Peter rules, and if a question arises about that ruling, Peter rules again. And again. And again. The authority is always there, always in the same place, and always capable of providing firm and sure guidance.
Only if the authority in a house goes away, does it become a question of people scrambling to interpret what that authority meant. And I think that is exactly the situation we see in the Reformed churches.
AS A SAINT,THE LORD LED FROM ROME I WOULD DISAGREE THAT TRADITIONAL EVANGELICALS MOVED FOR THIS REASON. ARMINIAN TYPES ARE PRONE TO CROSS THE TIBER.
TOPLADY SAID IT BEST: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/RHNarmin.htm
5 SOLAS!
***Only if the authority in a house goes away, does it become a question of people scrambling to interpret what that authority meant. And I think that is exactly the situation we see in the Reformed churches.***
Over on another thread a Calvinist gentleman was waxing lyrical about the distinct advantage of the Reformation in that it granted democracy to the theology of the individual.
I didn’t know that God was democratic. I stand corrected.
Ah...the winds of ecumenicalism. Actually I think this is more than the Catholics trying to bring people under their roof, although that is without a doubt their hope. I think a lot of Christians have bought into this "doctrine doesn't matter" syndrome. Protestants can't understand what's the problem with Catholic theology. Orthodox don't see anything too bad about the Catholics. Catholics think the Muslims are worshiping the same God. And everyone believes that God is blessing the Jews-well almost all Christians.
There is much truth in this author's statement. We're heading to a universal church built on organization and not on doctrine.
Peter doesn't rule my church, Christ does. And His (Christ's) authority is always there.) Peter's is in fact in the same place, Peter is DEAD and therefore can not provide any guidance, or anything else for that matter.
In Christ...Alone!
But The RC argument is that an individual is — contrary to the testimony of the Word of God itself — incapable of understanding the Word of God. He needs the Magisterium.
But can he understand the Magisterium?
It’s very simple, though I could draw it out if there’d be a point to it.
If the Magisterium can speak so as to be understood by a common person, then it succeeds where God failed.
There really is no honest way around that.
““So the Pope is capable of speaking in an infallibly perspicuous way...”
My wife does, so I don’t see why the Pope can’t. In fact, it’s kind of like maternal succession; infallibility passes from mother to wife which causes her to become a mother and passes it on to another wife etc.”
I’ve had the exact same experience with She Who Must Be Obeyed, bd!
>2. The Orthodox churches throughout the early days of the church CONSTANTLY REFERRED TO THE POPE to settle issues and abided by them, even if the deny that today.
Actually when the whole church was teaching Arianism, even the infallible Pope, Athenasius stood against this infallible magisterium with truth on his side. And Athenasius got excommunicated and exiled for his troubles.
For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another” [Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5:565, “The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian”]
Would an anathema be considered tyrannical terror?
Council of Chalcedon Canon 28:
“FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him. “
“For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.”
So privileges given to Rome were POLITICALLY and TRADITIONALLY motivated, not due to any spiritual superiority.
Jerome: “Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles.”
This is where Jerome is showing deference to Rome???
Gregory I:”Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself or desires to be called Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others” and compares the man who chooses the title “universal bishop” to Satan. [Gregory I of Rome, Book V, Epistle 18, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, 12:166]
Yeah, sounds like the early church all bowed to the Pope as the premere CATHOLIC or (universal) priest. What was that about the ANTICHRIST? Was this an infallible teaching by Pope Gregory I? Or was that just his view as a private theologian?
That is a favorite argument of Catholic apologists. They are convinced that the unity Christ prayed for in John 17:21 is an organizational solidarity that is incompatible with both denominationalism and independency. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the only way true Christian unity will be fully and finally achieved is when "separated brethren"—non-Catholic Christians—reunite with Rome under the authority of the Pope.
Jesus' idea of christian unity ...Luke 9:49 John answered and said, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us."
50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you."
YOU:
Christ never ordained Peter to be infallible. That was a misintrepretation. The reason for Christ’s coming was that having appointed Men lead the faithful had failed throughout the entire OT. Christ the Messiah is the Rock.
“Through Christ all things are possible.” <— Many Christians believe this.
“From Christ, through the Pope, all things are possible.” <— Catholic version.
Do you think it’s possible for a person, working with Christ, to accurately interpret the Word? Obviously you do, and so does the Catechism.
ME: where do you get:
“From Christ, through the Pope, all things are possible.” <— Catholic version.
That is nowhere in the church’s teaching....
YOU:
Christ never ordained Peter to be infallible. That was a misintrepretation. The reason for Christ’s coming was that having appointed Men lead the faithful had failed throughout the entire OT. Christ the Messiah is the Rock.
ME: no one has ever taught that peter was ordained to be infallible..again, you are reading into the what you believe, in error, about what His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church truly teaches.
YOU:
Tradition has value, but has proven to run afoul of the Word. Why some folks place tradition above Word, I’ll never know.
There is no truth that isn’t fully reconciled to the Word.
ME: your either willfully twisting catholic teaching, or, and i hope this is the truth, you are woefully misinformed of catholic teaching.
the church teaches the word and tradition as equal, as the word was given the to apostles by Christ, as were the sacred traditions from ‘day 1’, as any perusal of the earliest christian historical writings show.
It seems to me that the early Christian churches were united in their belief in The Gospel and faith in Jesus Christ. However, the leaders of the churches were selected by the congregation, usually from the congregation. The centralized hierarchy only emerged later.
Interesting post and topic.
YOU:
Something tells me that you do not in your house need an infallible interpreter to exercise your authority. You no doubt try to clarify issues as much as possible for your children (I’m assuming you have children), and if doubts arise about what you meant, you settle those as they come up: I meant this and not this.
Likewise the Church. Peter rules, and if a question arises about that ruling, Peter rules again. And again. And again. The authority is always there, always in the same place, and always capable of providing firm and sure guidance.
Only if the authority in a house goes away, does it become a question of people scrambling to interpret what that authority meant. And I think that is exactly the situation we see in the Reformed churches.
ME: right on claud.
So you build a wall between the Reformed folks and the modern evangelicals? And where do you put the Bible Church preacher I ran across s few years ago who was otherwise a straight premil dispensationalist, but who otherwise believed in infant baptism?
congrats for cherry picking a few phrases...do you want me to play that game too?
YOU:
Having bought the notion that the unity Christ prayed for starts with organizational unity, these unsuspecting proselytes naturally conclude that whichever church has the most convincing pedigree must be the only church capable of achieving the unity Christ sought, and so they join up.
It seems to me that the early Christian churches were united in their belief in The Gospel and faith in Jesus Christ. However, the leaders of the churches were selected by the congregation, usually from the congregation. The centralized hierarchy only emerged later.
Interesting post and topic.
ME: that is simply not true, the sucessors to the orginal apostles were the bishops APPOINTED BY THE APOSTLES THEMSELVes...AND SO ON DOWN THE LINE. The church hieararchy was there from the beginning.
I think if you reread Acts, especially the Jerusalem Council you might revise your thinking. Also, you might note that the Apostles were missionaries and did not dictate who would lead which church. The centralized hierarchy that attempted to control all of Christianity only emerged later.
I love your quote of Jerome, but you neglect the good stuff, here, try this on for size, and see Jerome and his deference to the Pope:
Jerome
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
THEN YOU QUOTED FROM THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEON, BUT, AGAIN, YOU LEAVE OUT THE FOLLOWING:
“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’” (ibid., session 2).
“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).
SEE, THE DIFFERENCE????
SHALL I GO ON?
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.