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).
Scripture is alone as the supreme standard, or rule of faith, but which does not mean it alone is to be used in understanding truth.
That scripture was the transcendent material standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims is abundantly evidenced, and which materially provided for additional writings being established as Scripture.
In contrast, the Catholic premise that being the inheritor of Divine promises of God’s presence, and preservation, and the steward of Divine revelation and under whom writings were established as Scripture and truth preserved, requires assured infallibility or renders that body to be so (unless you are God), is not what is seen in Scripture.
Again, if you disagree, say so.
Any appeal to scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture. So “scripture alone” again requires the qualifier of “according to whom”?
I don’t see how you can overcome this, there is no scripture alone without someone reading and saying what it means.
We also see the example in Holy Scripture of the Council of Jerusalem, concerning non-Jew converts, where the decision of the council was made with authority and without reference to scripture.
In case my first reply wasn’t clear, the point I’m making is:
You seem to be drawing a choice of Scripture or the Church (or Scripture alone vs the Church and Scripture.)
I’m saying that isn’t an accurate description of the two sides. It is the individual and Scripture vs. the Church and Scripture - since any recourse to scripture is recourse to an interpretation of Scripture.
I don’t see how you can overcome this, there is no scripture alone without someone reading and saying what it means.
Any appeal to scripture tradition is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture tradition.
Any appeal to scripture creeds is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture creeds.
Any appeal to scripture a magisterium is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture a magisterium.
Any appeal to scripture catechism is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture catechism .
I don’t see how you can overcome this, there is no scripture alone without someone reading and saying what it means.
There is no anything alone without someone reading and interpreting what it means. That does not invalidate the authority of Scripture. Scripture is the final authority period because of its very nature being the very words of God. Saying Scripture is not authoritative is saying the God is not authoritative.
Scripture interprets Scripture. Any interpretation of Scripture must be internally consistent with itself and within itself. THAT is how you can tell if the interpretation is correct. It must not contradict other passages of Scripture.
Again, the question: Scripture interpreted according to whom?
Scripture interprets Scripture.
You can't put Scripture in the dock and ask it to pick one interpretation or another. All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture. You have an interpretation of scripture based on another interpretation of scripture.
This difference here is whether it is each individual or the Church - and the point is the former is unworkable as regards unity, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
AMEN and may I say BEAUTIFULLY written!
I think you are reinforcing the obvious need for authority in order to have unity.
You really didn't just say that, did you?
Is Scripture silent on sexual immorality, idols, eating of blood, or things strangled?
What about *Do not lie* is too hard to understand?
What about *Do not commit adultery* is too hard to understand?
What about *Do not steal* is too hard to understand?
The only possible reason that people would say Scripture is too hard to understand and interpretations cannot be trusted is so that they can avoid having to obey it.
Scripture can be very meddlesome in a person's life. It is unyielding in it's demands and people simply do not want to submit to it.
It's far easier to say that no one can really understand it than to order one's life according to it.
That is simply not true.
What a staggering ignorance of what the body of Christ really is.
The body of Christ is an organism, not an organization. There is unity in the body by virtue of it being the body.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27 12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
The RCC does not allow for what Scripture calls *disputable matters* (Romans 14), but rather demands absolute conformance to it's doctrines and decrees and pronouncements under threat of damnation. That is not Scriptural either.
Catholicism has taken all the life out of religion with its reducing Christianity to a system of beliefs and legalistic adherence to rules and regulations.
It's possible to believe all the *correct* magisterium approved beliefs and be as lost as the most ardent atheist.
It's possible to be in relationship with Christ and not even have a Vatican approved understanding of anything except that you know you need Jesus and that He saved you when you asked.
Much of the world does look at it as extravagant. Tourists pay money for the opportunity to line up just to gawk at all the "finery". Are all whom do so "bigots"? Even historians (other than yourself) can recognize it as expression of wealth and projection of power, in the architecture itself. When we get around to the widened embroidered hems, and the gold encrusted headgear, how can the same recognition (of projection of their own claims to power and authority) not be fair view, but only bigotry?
The gold itself came much from earthly "empire", with those whom obtained it subjugating other human beings (sometimes murdering them for the gold) before laying portions at the feet of the kings whom had been granted permission by RC religious authorities to send others out to do those very things.
The finery (excessive amounts wherever one turns) may not be directly translatable to being "wealth" for it not being fungible, but all of it taken together is still echo of Rome's once vast empire as previously wedded to earthly kings own empires.
She is probably right in assuming the Apostle Peter, if returning to earth today, say after a long sleep but waking up in the square named after him, could scarcely be imagined to shout approval "yes! this is precisely what the Gospel was all about!" but rather would not a first impression of his be more as "wow...this joint reminds me of Imperial Rome"...?
But then again you didn't say anything but that he would have "no choice" (but to go along with it all presumedly without complaint?) while offering up Ratingers choice toward quiet solitude in his own retirement in comparison. Realistically, the Apostle Peter would know no constraint which you placed upon him, while the good Mr. Ratinger, all things considered, must do as indicated he will.
In this context, the point of the Council of Jerusalem was whether historically the Church has authority to decide or only in appealing to scripture as the "transcendent material standard for obedience and testing".
There was no scriptural reference at the time for what the relationship of non-Jews, (circumcision required, etc.,) was to the Church, they did not look to Scripture but decided with authority.
I understand it, but, again, you leave out that interpretation is required on both scriptures: Interpretation of scripture must not contradict another interpretation of scripture.
It's near tautology to say my interpretation of scripture doesn't contradict my interpretation of another scripture. Scripture is mute until someone reads and interprets its meaning.
Who does the Christian Church say is or isn't included in the body of Christ? What does the unified Church, body of Christ say, with one voice, determines who is in the body of Christ?
If one believes what you believe is that enough not to be lost? Or is what one believes irrelevant?
We're discussing here doctrine and dogma - beliefs. I'm not debating one belief versus another, but saying that a) beliefs matter and b) you cannot have unity of belief if each individual determines what those beliefs are. That becomes subjectivism and relativism - and a cacophony of voices proclaiming what is the Christian faith.
You wrote:
“Much of the world does look at it as extravagant.”
No, they do not regard it as “extravagant excess”.
“Tourists pay money for the opportunity to line up just to gawk at all the “finery”.”
St. Peter’s is free. It doesn’t cost a dime to visit it. The museum costs money. I would hardly call great works of art “extravagant excess”.
“Are all whom do so “bigots”?”
Many, yes. Others are just stupid.
“Even historians (other than yourself) can recognize it as expression of wealth and projection of power, in the architecture itself.”
That still doesn’t make is an “extravagant excess”.
“When we get around to the widened embroidered hems, and the gold encrusted headgear, how can the same recognition (of projection of their own claims to power and authority) not be fair view, but only bigotry?”
Because that’s what it is. There are no “widened embroidered hems”. Even the words you use show you’re likening it to Matthew 23:5. Mark 6:56 would be more appropriate!
“The gold itself came much from earthly “empire”,”
No, it came from donations.
“... with those whom obtained it subjugating other human beings (sometimes murdering them for the gold)”
No, it came from donations.
“... before laying portions at the feet of the kings whom had been granted permission by RC religious authorities to send others out to do those very things.”
Except no such thing happened.
“The finery (excessive amounts wherever one turns) may not be directly translatable to being “wealth” for it not being fungible, but all of it taken together is still echo of Rome’s once vast empire as previously wedded to earthly kings own empires.”
Nope. All of it is sign of the tremendous love and devotion of Catholic people for the Church of Christ. Remember, it’s all donations from the faithful.
“She is probably right in assuming the Apostle Peter, if returning to earth today, say after a long sleep but waking up in the square named after him, could scarcely be imagined to shout approval “yes! this is precisely what the Gospel was all about!” but rather would not a first impression of his be more as “wow...this joint reminds me of Imperial Rome”...?”
No, not at all. St. Peter would say, “Glory to God, the heart of Christ conquered pagan Rome and threw down its gods. Christians then built a house worthy of Christ’s Mass.”
“But then again you didn’t say anything but that he would have “no choice” (but to go along with it all presumedly without complaint?)”
No pope would have a choice. Popes will not destroy what people have donated to create such beauty for the the honoring of Christ and His Church.
“...while offering up Ratingers choice toward quiet solitude in his own retirement in comparison.”
And don’t you think Peter sometimes longed to live quietly in prayer? Did he have a choice? No, he knew what awaited him in any case (John 21:18-19).
“Realistically, the Apostle Peter would know no constraint which you placed upon him, while the good Mr. Ratinger, all things considered, must do as indicated he will.”
Duty to Christ and the Church both place constraints on Peter - even to his death (again John 21:18-19).
Oh, but many do, much for reasons I mentioned. But keep telling yourself those denials, maybe someday all doubt deep within may be silenced. Meanwhile...I hardly believe a sentence which you write. Most of them incorporate a fubar element, which you'll defend by argument of assertion. It's a pattern. We know you here, vladi.
Including that from kings of old...you did establish most of the gold had been there (Vatican City) for a while...with those kings I mentioned (some of the "donors") gaining such through subjection of others. Enslaving Africans for the Portugese...and enslaving South & Central American Indians for the Spanish. Enslaving involveds killing those who will not accept being chained it must be remembered. An RC pope had written up where the dividing line between where those of either nation could collect slaves. You have told us you have Ph.D in history, but the memory as expressed is highly selective...
It is only by way of a priori (bigoted?) opinion that it may be safely assumed Peter would not rebuke the RCC for having at one point, made the Church into palatial estates. Some of the methodology of how they recieved those lands (elsewhere other than Vatican City?) were anything but by way of donation, for some of them had been taken by wholesale murder of those whom dared to speak or preach the Gospel differently than the RCC.
How much of the gold which you may count as "donation" arrived by way of the sale of indulgences? Gold coinage and jewelry, melted down, ending up in some of the gold adornments seen to this very day? Would Peter have approved of the saleof indulgences? If so...that would be a good way to come up with the monies needed to pay off all the lawyers, and uhm, settlements. What would Peter say to such as that? But here's the catch...be careful how that sort of thing is answered, word it carefully, or end up telling false prophecy in the effort to make everything of the past, and that of the present, "look good".
Men may forget, but the Lord knows where every atom of the gold came from, can recall where in the earth it had all been once hidden...
There is no excusing it, or denying it to God. He's not swayed by 'argument by assertion' from puny men, no matter how smart they think they are, or how hard they spin, spin, spin.
Any appeal to the church as alone being supreme is an appeal to an interpretation of the basis for that claim, as seen in the EOs also invoking Tradition, Scripture and history as establishing them as the one true church, or most true, likewise other sola ecclesia churches.
And any appeal to the church as supreme is an appeal to an interpretation of what that church teaches. Here we see RCs interpreting Lumen Gentium 16 as requiring that any Prot must repent and convert to Rome, formally or informally, in order to be saved.
It is also an appeal to interpretation of what magisterial class each teaching or parts thereof falls under, infallible or not, and what degree or type of dissent is allowed under the latter.
That is in addition to the great liberty RCs have in interpreting Scripture within RC parameters, so that some can relegate OT historical accounts such as Balaam and the donkey and Jonah and the fish, or Joshua's long day to being fables, while others hold them as literal. Any many more examples can be given.
I don’t see how you can overcome this: there is no "church alone' as supreme without someone reading and saying what the support for it means, and what the church itself means in varying degrees.
Both Scripture and church teaching obviously each has a level of perspicuity that provides for main and plain things and reasonably limits the scope and degree of interpretation outside these, but that Rome is the supreme authority is based upon interpretation, and sets her in competition with those that interpret the "proofs" otherwise, while your assurance must rest upon the premise that Rome is infallible.
The reality that the church did not begin under the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium, but upon Scriptural substantiation which persuaded souls. Self proclaiming your church as assuredly infallible and advertising Rome in order to censure other claimants is not how the NT message established its authenticity. Instead the church of the living God must be continually established by Scriptural supernatural manifestation of the truth. And which the historical evangelical preaching of the gospel has most effected, versus its institutionalized counterpart, Catholic or Protestant.
"But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. " (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)
Again, I think you are mostly reinforcing the point that an interpretation is required. My point regarding this is that sola scriptura is unworkable for unity of doctrine of the Church because each individual has that authority. Obviously this is not the case if the Church has the authority.
So, as concerns the doctrine of sola scriptura: unworkable is one point. Unscriptural is another. We could add unhistoric as well.
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.