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).
Paul used the OT as the foretelling of Christ. This is what the Bereans recognized.
But no, I don’t see this as proof for the doctrine of sola scriptura.
I think you are conflating sola scriptura with the final authority of scripture - nothing contrary to scripture. If this is what you mean by sola scriptura then your belief is the same as the Church.
And under the alternative, sola ecclesia, churches effectively or formally infallibly say tradition and or Scripture and or history says this or that. Whether it be the EOs, Rome or the LDS, etc.
Rome for her part has infallibly declared that she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which thus renders her declaration that she is infallible to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Thus Tradition, Scripture and history mean what ever she infallibly says they mean, as it is impossible that she could be wrong. If she does say so herself.
So how is assurance of truth realized? Are you arguing that being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of Divine promises, and having historical decent makes you the infallible interpreter of Scripture, and without whose sanction one cannot have authority?
No, but dueling verses is poor exegesis. The whole of the epistles and Acts show an organized visible Church with hierarchy and authority. E.g., Paul writes to correct the Church in Rome, which did not die with Paul. He had authority, he corrected those in authority at the congregation of the Church which existed in time and place and continues to this day.
Sola ecclesia is not the only alternative. The Church recognizes the authority of Scripture, scripture is the work product of the Church. But without any authority to both determine the canon or interpret it according to the faith given by Christ to His Apostles, you end up with.. well what we have outside the Church.
So how is assurance of truth realized?
As Christ determined: by the Church He established as His body guided by the Holy Spirit to be the pillar and foundation.
When Christ returns to set up His Kingdom, where will that be? Rome? Jerusalem?
Welcome, smvoice. Always happy to hear the Dispensationalist view.
Thank you. Now, where will Jesus Christ return to set up His Kingdom? Rome? Jerusalem?
I have a feeling you’re gonna tell us where. And why and how.
:)
I know what I believe. I’m asking you what Rome teaches. ROme? Or Jerusalem? ANd if I do tell you, you can bet it will be according to the Scriptures.:)
I think I remember David Koresh claiming something like that...
:)
If I haven't made my point yet, I'm not gonna. I really appreciate your patience and discussion. My sincere thanks. May God bless you and yours.
There is nothing in scripture that puts Mary as a queen. There is however in paganism the belief of a “queen of heaven” and condemned by God.
Honesty, I dunno. And, I’m a bit too tired to look at eschatology right now.
I am concerned with personal judgement and I do, with prayers for His mercy, look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Blessings to you.
Still don’t dare answer the question ey?
If we believe Mary were God there’d be a problem. We don’t so there’s not. It’s a title given the mother of our Lord, the king of Heaven.
Rome may provide her teaching with some Scripture references, but the only authoritative meaning these have is that which she gives them, based upon her premise of authority. Thus as regards what is the only supreme authority, Sola ecclesia is the alternative and the reality under Rome.
But without any authority to both determine the canon or interpret it according to the faith given by Christ to His Apostles, you end up with.. well what we have outside the Church.
So your premise is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is required for truth to be preserved, and writings to be established as Scripture, and for souls have assurance that men of God really are?
So how is assurance of truth realized? As Christ determined: by the Church He established as His body guided by the Holy Spirit to be the pillar and foundation.
And which is (conditionally) infallible. Asserting Rome is the answer avoids the problem of its basis. Most argue that being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of Divine promises, and having historical decent makes you the infallible interpreter of Scripture, and without whose sanction one cannot have authority. Is that your position?
I answered it further down: no, it’s not proof for sola scriptura unless your version of sola scriptura is the same as the Church’s position on scripture.
Do you think the Church would have a canon that disagrees with the Church? :) This is tautology.
So your premise is that an assuredly infallible magisterium
My premise is the Church established by Christ with Him as the head and guided by the Holy Spirit to be the pillar and foundation of truth. You want something more? :)
Is that your position?
See above. It's also in Holy Scripture.
Are you of the belief, via the pagans, that Easter is verboten?
Easter is a pagan practice and holiday. Show from scripture that is was instituted by Christ or the apostles. I can show where it was practiced by pagans as far back as the Babylonian feast of Easter and the 40 day period of maurning for Tamuz.
Ironically (hypocritically) the whole support for tradition is appeal to Scripture.
It is by default, recognition of the final and absolute authority of Scripture.
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.