Posted on 02/28/2013 6:52:42 AM PST by Gamecock
Taken from the highest ranks of the clergy, popes should be among the best living pastors, biblical scholars, and theologians. That this has often not been the case is obvious enough throughout history, as any well-informed Roman Catholic will concede. (More than a few instances of corruption and heresy may be found on the Protestant side as well.)
However, Benedict XVI has regularly been impressive on these counts. Living alongside Protestants in Germany, he often engages Reformation views with more sympathy and knowledge than most—especially more than many Protestants who convert to Rome and trade on caricatures of the evangelical faith based on the worst of evangelicalism.
One example of Pope Benedict’s judicious engagement is the way he explains the context that helped to provoke the Reformation. Though he realizes that there was more to it, he refers to the Great Western Schism (1309-1417). Not many people know about this today, so it’s worth considering.
Often called the “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” the Schism was provoked by the election of rival popes and the removal of the papacy from Rome to Avignon, France. Before becoming pope, Benedict explained,
For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987), 196)
Throughout the Middle Ages there had been a running feud between popes and kings, leading to excommunication from the one and imprisonment by the other. However, the disruption of the papal succession provoked widespread anxiety within the church—and indeed, the whole of Christendom. Between 1305 and 1377, the pope was French and so were most of his cardinals. The schism was consummated when Pope Urban VI in Rome and Pope Clement VII in Avignon excommunicated each other—and therefore all of those under each other’s respective sees. They continued this division by appointed their own successors.
Who would resolve this stand-off? Some leading theologians had argued for a while that church councils always had priority over the pope until fairly recently. The early ecumenical councils were a prime example.
However, in this case councils it became clear that councils, too, were fallible. The Council of Pisa (1409) elected a third pope to replace the two rivals. At the Council of Constance (1414-18), where the reformer Jan Hus was condemned to the flames, the two rival popes and the third pope were replaced now by a fourth, Martin V. It came at a cost to the papacy: the Council declared its sovereignty over the pope. Pope Martin, who could not attend, declared its position on this matter null. As a binding council, some Roman Catholic theologians today invoke its memory for a new conciliar movement.
Between the 14th and 16th centuries, leading theologians defended the authority of Scripture over councils and of councils over the pope, drawing on the example of the ancient church. Arguing that Scripture is above the whole church, William of Ockham (d. 1349) argued that the whole church (including laity) should hold a council to elect the pope and limit his authority. It is this whole church that is the communion of saints, not the Roman church. If a pope falls into heresy, a council can judge him without his approval. Marsilius of Padua agreed (Defensor Pacis, 1324): the church consists of all the faithful, not just priests. Christ is the only head of the church. More conservative reformists defended the principle of Scripture’s magisterial authority and the priority of councils over the papacy. These included the leading Sorbonne theologian Jean Gerson, as well as Pierre d’Ailly, Francesco Zabarella, and Nicholas of Cusa.
The last gasp of the conciliar movement came at the Council of Basel (1431-49). Papalists formed Council of Florence, while conciliar party in Basel elected another pope. Martin called it but died before it met. Eugenius IV succeeded him and was prevented by health from presiding. He couldn’t have done so in any case, as the fathers declared (on the basis of Constance) that the Council was superior to the pope. Eugenius made concession after concession until he finally submitted. His papal legates could only attend if they accepted this as well, though they were duplicitous afterwards.
Finally, on the eve of the Reformation, Pope Julius II reasserted papal primacy and packed the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) with cardinals who supported him. Thomas Cajetan, famous (among other things) as Luther’s curial opponent, staunchly defended papal primacy. In condemning the Reformation, the Council of Trent also condemned positions that had been argued by theologians well within its pale for centuries.
With the First Vatican Council in the 1850s, papal infallibility became binding dogma—necessary for salvation. In spite of a few statements in Lumen Gentium exploited by more liberal theologians, Vatican II and the latest Catholic Catechism reaffirm that there is no full and perfect communion with Christ apart from obedience to the pope. Before becoming Benedict XVI, and since, Cardinal Ratzinger defended these views with great energy and skill. I have no doubt that he will continue to do so.
But this tale does clear our eyes from the foggy mists of sentimentalism. Is the Roman Catholic Church united by an unbroken succession from St. Peter? Roman Catholic theologians—and especially historians—know that an uncomplicated “yes” will not do. Are the church’s decisions irreformable? Then what about the Council of Constance? Even the Council of Basel was a duly constituted synod. Whose conclusions are binding? At the very least, Rome has compromised its claim of an unbroken unity—not only between councils and popes, but within the papal line itself. It can invent theories of “anti-popes” to preserve its claim to valid succession. But even if one were to accept the idea in principle, history has already provided too much contrary evidence. Romantic glances across the Tiber are thwarted by the reality. At the end of the day, this story provides one more reminder that the church that is created by the Word and stands under that Word, with all of its besetting sins and errors, is still the safest place to be in a fallen world and imperfect church.
Further Reading:
•C. M. D. Crowder, Unity, Heresy, and Reform, 1378-1460: The Conciliar Response to the Great Schism (New York : St. Martin’s Press, 1977).
•Oakley, Francis. The Conciliarist Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
And then the RCC usurped for themselves and their followers a different belief system. But then, I'm not sure you will ever "see how that worked". I will pray you do however.
Like CB requested, give us specifics.
General accusations are easy to make. Verify them.
LOL Common, let’s get down to ONE example of a belief and see what scripture says about that.
No one *church* has been given authority. There’s no need for it.
What would any church or denomination need authority for?
If you think only as an individual it doesn't matter. If you think of the Church as a teaching authority responsible for transmitting the faith through thousands of years, then it matters. This is why Christ established His Church and gave it authority.
I realize that authority is a bad word in some circles, but without it we wouldn't have what we have today.
Thanks for your reply...
It's all there in Holy Scripture.
See how this works? :)
Yeah, I see how it works....
The Catholic church is appealing to the authority of Scripture to give itself authority when it doesn't recognize that same authority of Scripture..
It's called hypocrisy.
The *need* is to settle these kind of arguments and to determine - with authority - whose version of what scripture says is correct according the teaching of Christ through His Apostles. For one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
My point here is that sola scriptura fails in practice. It is also not scriptural.
I suspect that this is one reason Christ established His Church and gave it authority: to prevent such as this. But for whatever reason, whether need or otherwise, this is what He clearly did.
All the various heresies are labeled heresies not because they deviate from Scripture but rather because they deviate from Catholicism.
And if they deviate from Catholicism, who cares? It's meaningless because Catholicism is not Scripture.
Imagine for a moment, that they do not say, "Oh my, CB has us here, his interpretation is correct!"
That doesn't happen in many cases. You're left with opposing views each claiming scriptural support.
All individual believers are given the mandate to go and make disciples.
All individual believers are ambassadors of Christ carrying to the world the message of reconciliation.
It is not the responsibility of *the church* as in a denomination, but rather the responsibility of the church, which is the Bride of Christ, comprised of individual believers.
And that's also where Scripture comes in. A person does not even have to be told about Jesus by a *church*. All that person has to do is pick up and read a Bible and they can learn everything they need to to become saved because the Holy Spirit is the teaching authority.
Yes, that is why their beliefs are heresy. They deviate from the Catholic faith and teaching.
Do they deviate from your faith and teaching? Are you ok with these beliefs because they deviate from Catholicism?
Tradition fails in practice as it is not Scriptural and it is not reliable. And it was soundly condemned by Jesus.
Jesus' criteria for determining error or not was not tradition but rather Scripture.
Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
And when those individuals disagree?
All that person has to do is pick up and read a Bible and they can learn everything they need to to become saved because the Holy Spirit is the teaching authority.
The Apostles and the Church could have saved themselves a lot of work, toil and torture if only they had become publishers. :)
Give us specifics. If you are making that argument, you surely have to have something in mind.
Since CB is not a mind reader, he cannot possibly have any idea to what you are referring.
If you fail to provide any concrete examples, we can rightly conclude that your contention is not valid and has been ceded.
Was Jesus referring to Romans or Mark or... ?
:)
I could trade verses of Paul on tradition, but the point remains, we disagree on the interpretation of scripture.
I do not know and I do not care because salvation is by faith in Christ, not adherence to doctrine.
I am not interested in labeling people and condemning them, the very thing that Catholics do that they condemn others for doing.
It doesn’t take a mind reader to know, or learn, the various Christian heresies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies
The point is not the particular heresy, but that they argue from scripture. They say scripture says.. You say scripture says...
Sola scriptura fails because individuals can claim different meanings from the same scripture.
Disagree about what?
I don't think that there's anyone on this planet with whom I agree on everything. So what?
If they have accepted Christ by faith and are trusting Him for salvation, they are saved and my brother or sister in Christ. It doesn't matter if they agree with me on every detail.
Other than your own doctrine.
You have a set of beliefs of who Christ is and what faith in Christ means and what is required for salvation. That comprises your doctrine.
Now there is a belief we can take as an example of error of thinking according to scripture.
The church I belong to is much older than the RCC. It was started by the apostles.
Romans 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
Colossians 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Philemon 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:
We see the RCC which was established thousands of years later this way.
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
The self aggrandizing leadership in many organized religions today is not what God ordained.
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.