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).
Go back to Scripture. The Catholic church has WAY overstepped what the early church and the Holy Spirit deemed was necessary for Christians to follow.
This is what the Council at Jerusalem decreed for the early church
Acts 15:22-29 22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23 with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Romans 14:1-23
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” 12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
The long and short of it is that there are things that matter and things that don't. There doesn't have to be total conformance to one particular set of beliefs. God allows leeway in areas that are not critical for salvation. So people can be saved even if they disagree on things.
Imagine that.
And I think it illustrates how it can lead to some pretty absurd results (not talking here about you other sola scriptura folks!).
I think we've pretty well made our arguments. At least as much as I have time and energy for tonight.
I wish you all the best CB; may God richly bless you and yours...
G'nite all.
It’s the same double speak we contend with each time we debate Catholics, Mormons or any other religion which relies on some other writings than scripture alone.
How about nothing?
You want to put yourself under the authority of a church like the Catholic church, that's your prerogative. CB doesn't want to put himself under the authority of a church like the Catholic church, that's his prerogative, too.
What difference does it make to you or him if he chooses to not do what you do?
Good night. Sleep peacefully and restfully.
Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
If Scripture is the work of the Catholic church, then it only has whatever authority the Catholic church deems it has. It has no inherent authority in itself as the God breathed, Spirit inspired Word of God.
That places the Catholic church over Scripture in authority and makes Scripture subservient to Catholicism.
Therefore, there can be no appeal to Scripture as authoritative to give the Catholic church it's authority because at that point, the Catholic church is basically pulling itself up by its bootstraps.
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.
Which is what exactly? And why is it objectionable?
How?
And I think it illustrates how it can lead to some pretty absurd results (not talking here about you other sola scriptura folks!).
God did not establish either Easter nor Christmas and they both contain pagan elements. There is no Scriptural support for either holiday.
There is historical evidence for the pagan elements.
In what way does CB's stand on Easter and Christmas qualify as an example of sola Scriptura?
When you can autocratically define what Scripture means, of fails to contradict, then there can be no problem with conformity to the canon as far you are concerned .
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? :)
Well yes, i do. These are questions regarding the reasoning behind the assertion that it is the Roman Catholic church is to be submitted to as infallible. Why do you avoid answer these reasonable questions?
Yet, you previously said:
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.
What you just defined in the above statement really IS the genuine meaning of sola Scriptura. Nobody argues that JUST the Bible is the only source of all truth or that no one can write about theological issues and explain Biblical truth. As St. Athanasius said, "the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth" (Athanasius, Against the Heathen, part 1, 1, 3). He also said concerning those who professed to use Holy Scripture for their doctrines:
For not only in outward form did those wicked men dissemble, putting on as the Lord says sheep's clothing, and appearing like unto whited sepulchres; but they took those divine words in their mouth, while they inwardly cherished evil intentions. And the first to put on this appearance was the serpent, the inventor of wickedness from the beginning-the devil,-who, in disguise, conversed with Eve, and forthwith deceived her. But after him and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians [1 Cor 11:2] , because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, `Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions.' For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, `If any man preach to you aught else than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Athanasius, Festal Letters, Easter, Letter 2. For 330)
My question, then would be, in light of the contention that the Roman Catholic Church, alone, is THE church Christ established and the above views of early church fathers, how could someone two thousand years later recognize this church? It HAS to be more than just what a church claims it is and the name it uses. What have the Apostles and Almighty God given to us so that we could know who is genuine and the buttress and support of the truth? How could anyone do that unless there was an OBJECTIVE source of the truth somewhere by which such truth claims could be measured?
Athanasius, a few hundred years removed from the Apostles, understood that it was the Scriptures which formed the basis of all doctrines. Even those canons and creeds that came later were based on Scripture, or started out that way, I should say. It wasn't until many years after that these creeds and canons started being given equal standing in authority with Scripture. Something I do not think Athanasius would have approved of. If ANY church today claims to be a genuine Christian church, it must STILL have to prove its statement of faith by Scripture for the genuine Christian to know it and trust it enough to worship there.
If you say that all doctrines of the church should not be "contrary" to Scripture which is the authority, then we have to ask if the church, any church, can prove their "interpretation" of Scripture? It puts the ball back in the court of not who claims to be the right interpreter but who proves it by scripture. That's just what Athanasius did in his disputes with the Arians - he made the better argument from Scripture. Did everyone get convinced and reject Arius? No. But those who respected the Scriptures ABOVE their leaders recognized the truth when they heard it and they WERE convinced.
What the argument seems to be is that Rome alone is the infallible steward of Divine revelation, and who thus gives authority to Tradition, from whence she gives us Scripture (this effectively being a 3rd class authority), and thus all must submit to her.
But I cannot get it affirmed that being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of Divine promises, and having historical decent makes them the infallible interpreter of Scripture, and without whose sanction one cannot have authority.
:)
It was in affect, in the earliest years. Much as I just spoke about and roughly outlined. Used to put down heresies...the very ones you bring up while trying to put down "sola scriptura". Claiming otherwise while grinning doesn't help make the truth of the matter go away.
The corollary from David's time? What a misuse of scripture!
Bathsheba as David's queen, right? Better check again as to all the particulars for that queen. How she became queen, for starters. Egads! That's the model for queen of Heaven? She was a looker alright, real hot stuff and David just had to have her. For that sin, DEATH was to never leave the house of David. Not because Bathsheba was so desireable (she was born that way we can assume) or for reason David found her so irrestibly attractive (he was born that way too...I'm a man and can definetly as the slang goes, "relate") but for reason she was married to another man, and that man she was married to David purposely sent to his death by his own explicit orders for reason he could then sweep up that fine woman, that he himself had made a widow.
...what kind of king did her son Solomon became? During the course of his reign, he did the very things he was explicitly instructed by God not to do. But we are basing this later arising "doctrine" on THOSE scriptures??? What horrid models, if Mary be model also for the church.
Queen of heaven...
that's a perfect example of a heresy 'based on scripture' but utilizing faulty exegesis, and reliant upon "tradition" right fat in the middle of present-day RCC apologetic.
But it's not based on the Bathsheba model, or those scriptural pretexts really, for that sort of talk is just the later scriptural excuse for how Marionism actually got it's start.
The symbolism and types appearing in the scriptures pointed towards now to justify it are ill-directional; from sin towards death, not from obedience towards life //// should be sign, hey wait a minute, there's something seriously wrong here...
I'm not impressed. I have met a number of PhDs who couldn't tie their shoelaces. All one has to do is look at all the PhDs in economics ruining our country to understand how worthless degrees have become and how stupid people of learning have become. No common sense. And I've known plumbers and electricians without degrees that make about 4-5 times what a PhD is making. IMO-degrees are just about like Nobel Peace Prizes these days. They know the right people or punch the right tickets and -POOF- they're qualified. Sorry, degrees don't mean a whole heck of a lot.
If you believe Wikipedia to be in error, I'm sure they would be happy to hear from you. After all, you seem to have the credentials.
Sigh...
The ONLY things P's an C's 'interpret' differently, mainly conbsist of an atlas of maps of various molehills.
The C's want to claim SO many of their rituals are SO important to a persons soulish destination, and the P's show scripture that knocks those claims down.
I'm sorry you guys have to choose a new pope to quide you; but we Protestants still have a Leader that's in charge.
PS I'd bet the that Catholicism would keep going just fine withOUT a pope!
Try it and see for a couple of years. The money could be used to advance Christ's kingdom on Earth.
And it CHANGES!!!
What is the RCC take on THESE few verses?
Adequate or not?
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
And yet the 'church' is failing to holds it's members to a unified interpretation.
Seems that YOUR flock needs to led back into the sheepfold and leave the REST of us heretics to founder our way into Hell.
Well; isn't THAT interesting!
I'm glad your church has taught you that; for it is NOT mentioned in Scripture.
You HEARD something?
I saw a question.
Twelve million (give or take) folks KNOW that ONLY Thomas Monson is the ONLY one through whom GOD speaks.
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.