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).
But do you not teach that Mary is alive and has GOD's ear?
MORMONs evidently believe something similar about Joseph Smith:
"He (Joseph Smith) is the man through whom God has spoken... yet I would not like to call him a savior, though in a certain capacity he was a god to us, and is to the nations of the earth, and will continue to be."- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:321"You call us fools; but the day will be, gentlemen and ladies, whether you belong to this Church or not, when you will prize brother Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Living God, and look upon him as a god..."- Herber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:88"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith]"- (as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142)There is "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God; and there are many of them beside him. I tell you, if we get past those who have mingled with us, and know us best, and have a right to know us best, probably we can pass all other sentinels as far as it is necessary, or as far as we may desire. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again."- Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154-155"It is because the Lord called Joseph Smith that salvation is again available to mortal men.... If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation,"- Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 396, 670
They succeeded in killing Joseph, but he had finished his work.He was a servant of God, and gave us the Book of Mormon.He said the Bible was right in the main, but, through the translators and others, many precious portions were suppressed, and several other portions were wrongly translated; and now his testimony is in force, for he has sealed it with his blood.As I have frequently told them, no man in this dispensation will enter the courts of heaven, without the approbation of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun.Who has made this so?Have I?Have this people?Have the world?No; but the Lord Jehovah has decreed it.If I ever pass into the heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of the Prophet Joseph.If you ever pass through the gates into the Holy City, you will do so upon his certificate that you are worthy to pass.Can you pass without his inspection?No; neither can any person in this dispensation, which is the dispensation of the fulness of times.In this generation, and in all the generations that are to come, everyone will have to undergo the scrutiny of this Prophet.They say that they killed Joseph, and they will yet come with their hats under their arms and bend to him; but what good will it do them, unless they repent?They can come in a certain way and find favor, but will they?Brigham Young,--JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, vol. 8, p. 224
What is often missed is that the intercession by the mother here resulted in the death of the supplicant she was interceding for. (1Kg. 2:12-25)
Thus the only example of a Queen mother interceding to the king is a negative one.
Also, Mary now being crowned and reigning with Christ contradicts Scripture which teaches the rewarding and reigning of believers does not happen until the Lord’s return. (Rev. 11:18; 20:6; 22:12; 1Cor. 3: 8-11; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8)
JS musta been a SOLA Scripture guy; since a LOT of things in MORMONism would be called ‘tradition’ today; if they hadn’t been collected into a book called Doctrines and Covenants and given the authority of scripture.
(He knew the folks he was trying to recruit from ;^)
So you specialized in Piled higher and Deeper?
Big deal.
Yeah! That too.
No it doesn't. Scripture stands as the final authority because it's the word of God and means what it means. The fact that people interpret it differently does not affect it's inherent integrity or validity. It's not a reflection of the doctrine but a reflection of the people who are doing the interpreting.
By that standard, there is not a thing on this planet that does not fail because EVERYTHING is subject to a person's interpretation, therefore everything fails; including tradition, the magisterium, the creeds, the catechism, because ALL of it is subject to an individual's interpretation. Therefore by your standard, since different individuals misinterpret those, the doctrine of tradition etc. also fail because of that.
Anyone incapable of correctly interpreting Scripture under the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit is certainly not more capable of correctly interpreting anything else without the Holy Spirit's guidance.
Does that mean we have to read it in Aramic? Because whatever version you are reading has been translated from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English. Over a thousand years.
My issue with the argument of God’s word, is that it is defined by a bunch of guys in Rome, Constaintinoble, Berlin, and London.
Not exactly a clear route.
You wrote:
“I’m not impressed.”
You don’t have to be. Even without the degree I know the difference between 1309 and 1377. You didn’t. That says it all.
“I have met a number of PhDs who couldn’t tie their shoelaces.”
And yet you confused 1309 and 1377.
“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.”
Yeah, they struggle with numbers too. Who here struggled with the difference between the numbers 1309 and 1377 again?
“No common sense. And I’ve known plumbers and electricians without degrees that make about 4-5 times what a PhD is making.”
And I bet they know the difference between 1309 and 1377 too.
“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.”
True, but I know medieval history very well. And even if I didn’t, I would still know the difference between 1309 and 1377. And I have no reason to believe you’re knowledgable about history whether you have degrees in the study of it or not.
“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.”
I really don’t waste my time with wikipedia much. After all the people who rely on it can’t tell the difference between 1309 and 1377.
Just remember, I was right all along. I hope you learn to differentiate between numbers one day.
You wrote:
“So you specialized in Piled higher and Deeper?”
The piles of books I read were higher and my knowledge is deeper. I specialize in the history of the Church. If that bothers you, too bad.
“Big deal.”
Well, it was a big deal in the sense that it took an enormous amount of work (especially while working fulltime and handling family obligations): translating pages and pages of historical documents, reading hundreds and hundreds of books and articles, and paying the costs of the program. I was relieved to get it all done - and I thank God for His mercy and aid in getting it done and that’s why it’s dedicated to Him above all else and my dissertation says exactly that on the acknowledgments page.
I am not afraid to point out that I have the degree when someone assumes - stupidly - that I do not know history. I don’t make a “Big deal” about being a PhD. A co-worker who knew I had to have a certain education level to do my job was surprised to discover I had a PhD because I never talked about it. She said she felt bad because she had never used my title when she introduced me to people. All I could do was laugh. It didn’t matter to me.
I’m glad I got the degree. I am proud of the work I put into it and that it turned out well. I have never made a big deal of it in itself. What always amuses me is how complete sciolists who know almost nothing about history will attack me: 1) for daring to question their idiocy, 2) then they accuse me of not knowing history, and 3) then they attack me for actually having an advanced degree in it when they lack both degrees in it and knowledge about it. That makes them look small, petty, and envious - which I bet is a pretty accurate description of what they’re like as people.
It was in affect, in the earliest years.
Sola scriptura as in the Reformation? No.
Used to put down heresies...
Without an authority to determine which is correct, nothing is put down, both sides think their version is correct and go their separate ways. Same as today for those who don't recognize any authority in this but themselves.
Go to mass.
When you can autocratically define what Scripture means
No, unless by autocratic you mean the teaching of Christ as transmitted to His Apostles. Holy Scripture is integral to the Church. The beliefs are the same, that's partly how the Church chose what to include - they teach the same things.
When some take the same source to mean something contrary, like no real presence in the Eucharist, the Church holds to the truth.
the reasoning behind the assertion that it is the Roman Catholic church is to be submitted to as infallible
Your lack of specificity in this aside, my reasoning is the same: it 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.
In distinguishing between "nothing but what is in scripture" and "nothing contradicting scripture." There's no Easter in scripture but it doesn't contradict it (your interpretation may vary). So sola in that sense.
Thanks for your reply.
The Church came first and determined the canon in accordance with the teaching of Christ to His Apostles, so in that sense yes. It is the teaching authority, so in that sense yes.
Both Holy Scriptures and the Church teach the same faith so it's not an either/or. It is when you take the Scriptures outside the Church and arrive at different beliefs - Holy Eucharist for example - that you see it as a power struggle between the two and competing interpretations. When you don't separate them, they are in harmony and part of the same deposit of faith.
Thanks for your reply.
I couldn't agree more. Humans in general have that tendency; it is a miracle to me that the Church and her teaching proclaiming Christ have survived. I take this as a confirmation of my faith in Christ establishing His Church and the gates of hell not prevailing. I am extremely grateful for this in every way I can think of. I wish everyone on earth was.
Thanks for your reply.
It doesn’t have to go through all those paths. There are texts from which many translations are translated directly.
As for Latin, it is primarily the Catholic church which chooses to use that route, so that takes Latin out of the mix for many.
Pinging boatbums because of her knowledge of Bible history.
Another question. Isn’t the Catechism of the Catholic church translated into English itself? Or is it written in English and then translated into something else?
If there are issues with the different versions of the Bible because of translating from other languages, then the same holds true for the creeds, the CCC, the pronouncements of the magisterium.
There isn’t a document that people appeal to in challenge to Scripture which is free from the exact same concerns and criticisms that are used to diminish Scripture and its reliability.
What came first does not determine authority, but even if it did, since Scripture was quoted by Jesus and called Scripture long before the Catholic church existed, it would have the greater authority.
I know Catholics and the RCC like to claim responsibility for the existence of Scripture, but that is simply not the case. The Holy Spirit is responsible for it.
And with that...the Roman church makes the testimony of all the prophets of Israel into Roman Catholics, subject unto that personage, for what equates with the idea of "canon" in regards to OT, was set by the Jews themselves...with later arriving "churchmen" disagreeing among themselves for centuries over the Apochrypa. It's anything but the neat and tidy rhetorical apologetic which you present.
But it does seem like you have the circular reasoning thingy down pat, regardless of others best efforts to shed light on the inherent"circular" properties of the same.
Whenever it gets close to being accomplished...then criticisms are cast towards those that can be found to be error in regards to scripture plainly enough, that there be no need to consult the "Magisterium" to see it...served up as proof of the fuzzy infallibility's of Roman Catholicism.
Meanwhile, my own experience with the Lord, my own testimony is living refutation of the spirit by which much Romish claims had been presented historically, with the late to arrive clarifications found in Vatican II confessing that yes, salvation can be found outside the scope of their "authority" on the one hand, by extending by way of a legal fiction that same authority to the ends of the earth on the other.
That sort of thing is God's own province. Only He knows no boundaries, save for His very own, which only He himself knows perfectly.
Many too much mistake their own church for being God, but more typically not to quite the extent those of Romish persuasion appear to so often do, for such is at places enshrined in Roman church self-description, theological thought & overweening self-reverential presentation.
They recognize God's very own words and His Ways; yet, they 'use' it to create their own ways and words and add to it by creating their own doctrine?
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.
God gave us ALL (individually) His faith, not just the Apostles. And when Jesus was going to be with The Father, He sent us/apostles His Spirit (individually) to carry on HIS Work/what Jesus did here on earth.
So, what Rome has is NOT what Jesus did here on earth. They added their own ways/words. The Authority of the church started by JESUS is based on His Words/Ways ALONE. There is no other authority for it to be TRUE.
There is ONLY one Truth and that is Jesus, The Word. Those who desire Truth ALONE follow Jesus ALONE/His Word ALONE and never listen to another voice.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are MY ways higher than your ways and MY thoughts than your thoughts" Isaiah" 55:9
That is why we need the Holy Spirit (individually) to KNOW Jesus and obey HIM. Human understanding doesn't cut it - only on a surface level. God Words/Ways are higher, wider, deeper than that. It depends on how well one wants to know Jesus - what someone tells them or what The Spirit of God tells them.
Remember what Jesus said about 'knowing'. (Matt 7:23). It shows doing 'works' doesn't mean you know Jesus. Only through a 'personal' relationship with Him and that is possible only through HIS WORD alone. The very reason Jesus came - to reunite us with God - but sin stood in the way so Jesus took our sins on Him. We have no excuse now to not walk w/Him like Adam/Eve did before they succumbed to deception/'man'. Praise God!
True seekers of God never listen to another! So when Rome/RCC says 'they' are the source to understanding God's Word - they run. Or from any other 'church' for that matter as 'they' are already in defiance to God's Word.
As Christ determined: by the Church He established as His body guided by the Holy Spirit to be the pillar and foundation.
Exactly. The church Jesus established is based on HIS Holy Spirit inspired Word alone. There are NO other words but GOD'S WORDS that are TRUE. So we know what is HIS Church and what is not.
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.