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).
The OT.
But I'm going to guess that you knew that already.
I could trade verses of Paul on tradition, but the point remains, we disagree on the interpretation of scripture.
What tradition was it that Paul said to follow and how do you know that?
Nor does that mean that tradition is authoritative.
The debate is not really on the interpretation of Scripture although Catholics like to make it seem like that, but rather on the absolute authority of Scripture.
True believers recognize the authority of God speaking. Those who reject the words of God and the Word of God reject His authority and have nothing but tradition to fall back on.
Um, what we're talking about? :)
Who Christ is, what He taught, what is Truth, what is salvation, who is saved, why, how...
The semi-orthodoxy we have today was not arrived at without much argument and heresy. And it will not be maintained by "Here's a Bible, whatever you think it means, kewl!"
:)
I showed you from scripture that it is indeed scriptural but you denied it. See how that works?
I just did. It’s the one where the Catholic Church claims to be the one true church that Christ instituted. Christ didn’t institute an organized religion like the RCC.
Those who believe God are going to believe His Word and will recognize its authority over their lives.
Those who reject God’s word as authoritative will use the argument of uncertain interpretation as an excuse to do so.
If one tries to argue "tradition", then that involves a carrying forward from before...and in that "before" it was scriptural proofs taken all together -- that carried the day in proving the error of flights of fancy which may have began in scripture, but then erred by adding too much imagination or conjecture while not being "checked" by the fuller Word.
What other sense were the Early Church using? The Holy Spirit...? Well ok, but what is still the ultimate check or judgement upon what someone says or believes is the leading of the Spirit, but the Word itself? If it conflicts too much with scripture...it can be shown clear enough to all --- that it is wrong, for scriptue itself is inspired by what --- except the Holy Spirit? The Lord does not refute Himself, nor have conflicting, opposing purposes within himself
If Jesus was the Word made flesh...then how can church tradition (even if one uses capital letters to write) be elevated even on par with the Word, much less transcend it?
It is unavaidable the picture emerges that scripture foremost was the original measure.
Still, in puttting down errors... it seems that at least occasionally the stage was set for later development of other error. Like --- elevating Mary as being "Queen of Heaven".
I’ve seen you post scripture, but not anything that proves the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Yes it was. As were the heresies.
There it would have stayed if not for an authority to decide whom was correct.
And who was he speaking to?
God's word according to whom?
I read scripture quite clearly to show a visible organized Church with authority. Ah, we disagree on scripture? What shall we do?
:)
So commending the Bereans for checking with scripture to see if what someone teaches isn’t an indication that scripture is the final authority in your mind? Really?
Book, chapter and verse please.
The epistles of Paul and Acts.
Is this your scriptural proof for sola scriptura?
Along with miraculous attestation of the kind Scripture affirms being given to truth. I have not been following this but this seems fitting:
*Partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, substantiating the claim that as they were written, the written word became the standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims. In full, the New Testament is stated to have approximately 250 express Old Testament quotations (including repetitions I believe), and more than 1,000 if one includes indirect or partial quotations, while another counts 275 direct quotes and at least 600 allusions to the Old (view many of both here. The following list does not include all of the former, and rarely includes simple allusions to Scripture (versus clear references such as to the law), but supplies a multiplicity of viewable (place mouse over reference, and if you cannot see them use a different browser, like Firefox) references to what was written or quotes thereof, including internal references within each Testament to Scripture (not just the New referencing the Old): Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; 33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet interestingly, a study of the the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” shows that revelation that is referred to as being that normally was subsequently written down. Nor was the oral truth referred to in 2Thes. 2:15 that of nebulous ancient traditions (which can also result in different interpretations, such as the Roman Catholics and EOs example), but what Paul referred to was known instruction by a manifestly Divinely inspired apostle, whose manner was to reason out of the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2) and whose words were examined for veracity by Scripture. (Acts 17:11) And there is no proof that this truth also was not subsequently written down.
Note also that (reiterating what was prior expressed) Scripture reveals the Truth of God being established by testimony in both in text and in power, by way of textual conformity to what had been prior established as written Truth (God first confirming the faith of men like Abraham and Moses in virtue and power, and the latter providing the Law as the standard by which further revelation was tested by), and by conformity in Heavenly qualities and manifest effects, and often by the manner of supernatural attestation by the power of God given to it and to the intruments thereof (and most overtly to the authority of those who progressively added conflationary, complimentary new teachings to Scripture). Thus writings called Scripture were themselves progressively established as being the assured Word of God (though they were such before men recogized them as being so), to the glory of God their author. However, while the references above provide abundant evidence to the textual aspect, the many that could be provided to the testimony to Truth in power are not, such as 2Ki. 5:15; Josh. 3:7 (cf. Is. 63:12); 2Ki. 18:6,7; Jer. 15:16; Ps. 19:7-11; Ps. 119; Mk. 16:20; Jn. 5:36; 14:11,12; Acts 4:33; 15:7-18; Rm. 15:19; 1Cor. 4:20; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; Gal. 4:6; 1Thes. 1:3-10, Heb. 2:3,4).
Tradition, Apostolic tradition, in this sense is what allowed the Church to decide between competing arguments from scripture.
And in a corollary to David’s time, the Mother of the King is the Queen.
You should also bear in mind that sola scriptura is not a Catholic doctrine.
:)
Doing your best to stay away from specific references are ya? Are you afraid of starting with a book, chapter and verse?
You do realize that the scripture referred to here is not the New Testament, yes?
You’ve been shown others. I asked a specific question which you didn’t answer. Here’s the question again.
So commending the Bereans for checking with scripture to see if what someone teaches isn’t an indication that scripture is the final authority in your mind? Really?
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.