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).
And the conclusion extrapolated from this is that this makes the magisterium of Rome perpetually infallible whenever and whatever it speaks universality on faith and morals, but which is a conclusion that is not warranted by its premise.
And the typical argument behind it is basically 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.
But which is not what we see in Scripture.
The Church began with Christ who established His Church, gave authority to His Apostles and commissioned them to *teach* all nations. The magisterium is the word for the teaching authority of the Church - which is prior to New Testament writing.
The conclusion is that there was established a hierarchy in the Church and authority - not each individual, not a democracy.
Christ is the head, the Holy Spirit guides His Church as the pillar and foundation of truth.
This is scriptural. Sola scriptura is not.
It is a choice btwn what is the supreme authority for Truth, Scripture or the church. Under both different interpretations are unavoidable, both as to what Scripture means to some degree and to which church's claims are best warranted, and what that church teaches to some degree. It thus cannot escape competition, and so it requires truth to be established by overcoming evil with good, by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Again, this is why souls souls believed a man in a hairy suit in the desert who ate insects, and an Itinerant Preacher, neither of whom had the sanction of the historical magisterium. And it is on that basis that it will continue.
Rather individual or Church. The point here is that individual authority for interpretation is unworkable as a means to unity of voice for the Church. I think this point is obvious by now?
I see the humor, but at the same time avoiding issues doesn't make any of them "whacked". If they be the same or similar refutation of the same tired arguments and assertions, that still does not equal "whacked". Objective truth remains, regardless.
You wrote:
“What you have offered is a boatload of denials, based on not much.”
What you have offered is a boatload of assertions, based on less than nothing.
“Oh, but many do, much for reasons I mentioned.”
Nope. And if so, then it is for the reason 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.”
I don’t believe what you write. The difference is that I am more factual than you are. You wrote: “Tourists pay money for the opportunity to line up just to gawk at all the “finery”.” Again, the most beautiful of all things in Vatican City is St. Peter’s basilica and it’s free. You don’t pay a dime. That’s a fact. You also falsely claimed: “The gold itself came much from earthly “empire”.” Not true. Donations. So, you don’t have to believe “hardly” anything I write. The problem is that what I write is factually correct. Your problem is with reality.
“Most of them incorporate a fubar element, which you’ll defend by argument of assertion. It’s a pattern. We know you here, vladi.”
And yet, you’re the one making assertions - false ones that anyone who knows about the subject would recognize.
“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.”
Nope. There were no lareg donations of gold from monarchs in regard to St. Peter’s basilica. Now, if you go to the Cathedral of Sevilla you’ll find the 42 meter tall central nave is decorated with three tons of gold leaf - and that is from the Spanish conquests and trade. That is not what happened with St. Peter’s.
“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.”
Still had nothing to do with St. Peter’s.
“An RC pope had written up where the dividing line between where those of either nation could collect slaves.”
The Treaty of Tordesillas in no way was intended to promote the slave trade. Does it even mention slavery? I just scanned the 4 main points of the treaty. In which one is slavery discussed? I might have missed it. Tell me where you saw slavery in there. Also, After Eugenius IV so strongly condemned slavery just 50 years before, no approval of slavery in the New World could ever be given or accepted by the Church. The unintended consequence of avoiding a massive war between Portugal and Spain (with the Treaty of Tordesillas) was the spread of slavery - something the Church did not want.
“You have told us you have Ph.D in history, but the memory as expressed is highly selective...”
No, actually my memory seems to be much better than yours.
“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.”
It is only by way of a priori (bigoted?) opinion that it may be safely assumed St. Peter would rebuke his Church for having some palatial estates used by clergy, pilgrims and the poor.
“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.”
Name them. Please identify all of the “lands” where “wholesale murder of those whom dared to speak or preach the Gospel differently than the” Church led to Church ownership of the property.
“How much of the gold which you may count as “donation” arrived by way of the sale of indulgences?”
Probably none. Indulgences were sold by those violating Church law. The Church never, ever supported the sale of indulgences and condemned it in canon law. Those who would violate the Church’s canon law on indulgences would not be interested in sending money from the illegal sales to support the Church. Money could be donated for some indulgences when someone fulfilled all the other requirements for it, but those lacking money were expected to give none. Thus, there were no sales by the Church.
“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?”
Nope. And neither did the Church.
“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?”
The same thing the Church has always said - priests should behave morally ALWAYS.
“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”.”
No, I’ll just tell the truth as always - and I already did.
“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...”
He can. He also knows the heart of every anti-Catholic bigot posting on the internet. Think about that.
“There is no excusing it, or denying it to God.”
There’s nothing to deny here nor would I. The gold came from donations. I wouldn’t be surprised if some small amount of it was someone’s ill-gotten gain. So is much of America if you ask the Indians. God knows, however, and anyone who did anything deserving punishment at the end of time will get it. It’s just that simple.
“He’s not swayed by ‘argument by assertion’ from puny men,”
True, but you’re being unfair to yourself. You really should call yourself puny.
“...no matter how smart they think they are, or how hard they spin, spin, spin.”
And yet you keep doing it rather than posting facts? Read the Treaty of Tordesillas. Get back to me. Let me know if I missed a passage on slavery. I might have. Maybe you’ll find it. At this point, I have to doubt that.
The vague allusion to you have read treaties is meaningless. What is recorded to have occured as result is not. The spirit displayed is self evident.
Meanwhile, all which you write is just a big broom sweeping any and all error (even gross offenses to the Spirit of the Lord) under the rug.
It's an awfully lumpy rug, that one.
You wrote:
“All came from donations?”
Feel free to prove otherwise. Remember, indulgences sanction by the Church meant donations not sales.
“How much from the sale of indungences again. Get back to us when that is fugured out.”
No, you get back to me when you find evidence for any of your claims.
“The vague allusion to you have read treaties is meaningless.”
“The vague allusion to you have read treaties is meaningless”? I have no idea what you’re saying. Try using English. Then read the Treaty of Toredillas. There is a good translation in English. I’m sure a wannabe scholar like yourself can find it. Right?
“What is recorded to have occured as result is not.”
Which in itself would be meaningless in regard to the treaty unless it was stipulated in the treaty. Was it stipulated in the treaty? If not, then your original point makes no sense whatsoever.
“The spirit displayed is self evident.”
Yes, an attempt to stop a war between two large and powerful Christian states - a very noble minded spirit is displayed.
“Meanwhile, all which you write is just a big broom sweeping any and all error (even gross offenses to the Spirit of the Lord) under the rug.”
“Meanwhile, all which you write...”? You have yet to prove any error even took place on the part of the Church.
“It’s an awfully lumpy rug, that one.”
Nope. You have yet to prove there’s even a rug let alone lumps underneath it.
The Treaty of Tordesillas - read it. Get back to me if and when you find the part on slavery. Thanks.
And as expected, in your seeming giddiness to call me ignorant a half dozen more times, you failed to properly read your own source. According to it:
On Good Friday he donned a "fiddleback" vestment dating to the Counter-Reformation era of the 16th century, and he has used a tall gilded papal throne not seen in years. And that's not to mention the ermine-trimmed red velvet mozzetta, a shoulder cape, or the matching camauro, a Santa Claus-like cap that art students will recognize from Renaissance portraiture.
So what's going on here? Church conservatives are of course ecstatic, filling the blogosphere with the kind of gushing chatter that only liturgical couture, especially of the haute variety, can inspire. <
Critics will note that placing the past 40 years in the context of a 2,000-year span can be a way of diminishing the import of recent changes that Benedict doesn't like, and that the pope tends to make his counterpoint by drawing on styles from the most sumptuous eras of church history.
Moreover, Benedict's emphasis on continuity over change is undercut by the fact that there are some longstanding traditions that even he avoids. For example, the sedia gestatoria, a litter that bore popes aloft like Roman emperors, has likely been definitively supplanted by the popemobile. And pontiffs used to be crowned with a tall, three-ringed tiara of precious metals known as the triregnum. But Paul VI was the last pope to be crowned, in 1963, and he donated his tiara to the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, where Benedict will preside at two events.
It seems as though I am not alone in my bemusement over your Popes' histories of presuming monarchical status over their "sheep" with their extravagant excesses. Are you one of those ecstatic Church conservatives filling the blogosphere with the kind of gushing chatter that only liturgical couture, especially of the haute variety, can inspire?
The more you berate me and others who voice our opinions about what we see, the more you demonstrate the reflexive hyper-defensive attitude I mentioned. Someone comments on the past debauchery that ran rampant in the Vatican and we get the excuse "the church is for sinners and no one is perfect, even popes are not sinless". But dare someone opine about what appears as excessive pomposity and "This will not be ALLOWED! You are all ignorant! He GIVES his shoes away and airlines donate their services!". Can you see the disconnect? No, you probably don't.
Jesus said the shepherd gives his life for the sheep. Sounds like those who presume to BE the chief shepherds could use some lessons in humility. Living as a king surrounded with billions in riches does not appear humble. Rant and rave all you want, it only proves how sensitive some can be about what they treasure.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I can just imagine Moses coming down off the mountain with the tablets of stone engraved by the very hand of God spelling out GOD'S commandments and, after they are read to the people, all the hands shooting up asking, "But what does it mean?"! Somehow, I don't think there was much questioning going on. It was only later that some people started quibbling about them, but, for the most part, they knew what was right and wrong. The Bible is not written in some kind of secret code. Words in context mean what they say. We even have the Holy Spirit with us to teach us all things. Excuses about "interpretations" are usually just thrown out there to assert an authority ABOVE them. It's as simple as that!
Besides the type of unity being the issue, and what really exists under sola ecclesia, what is missing is that in both cases the individual determines both which authority they will submit to as supreme, including which church, and what that authority means.
The convert to Rome makes a fallible decision to trust in a (purportedly) infallible authority, and then determines which teachings are infallible, versus those that may contain some error, or change, and the meaning of them, to varying degrees.
He can appeal for help from the general magisterium, though these are not assuredly infallible.
And he has liberty to make judgments on things the church has not spoken on or clearly taught.
The one who holds Scripture as infallible and supreme has at least as much assurance that the body of teachings he holds to are all infallible as the RC does for the body of teachings he holds to from his supreme authority, though he has no infallible list of them all.
The one under Scripture also makes judgments as to the meaning of its teachings to to varying degrees. He is to appeal for help from the general magisterium, though these are not assuredly infallible.
Thus under both Scripture as supreme and the church as supreme individuals determine which infallible authority they will hold to as supreme, and engage in interpretation of them, but not as possessing assured infallibility and superior to them.
(Note however that the magisterium is upheld, but not as assuredly infallible, though they may and will teach truths that are without error.)
The question is which is Scriptural?
Does an office making an infallible judgment mean all like judgments by its successors will be infallible?
How do we know the NT church made infallible judgments? Because Scripture records them or because for the first time an office in scripture an office possessed assured formulaic infallibility?
Did souls submit to Christ because they judged Him worthy of faith based upon Scriptural substantiation, or because they were following a magisterium as infallible?
Was an infallible magisterium necessary for writings to be established as Scripture?
Did being the instrument and steward of Divine revelation require or mean they were assuredly infallible, as Rome claims for herself?
Is unity based upon implicit trust in an office of men, which cults also example, Scriptural and superior to unity based upon the Berean heart and method, even though it allows for competition and requires truth be established by overcoming evil with good?
The point was that sola scriptura is unworkable, fails, to result in "one Lord, one faith, one baptism".. If you're conceding that and popping up another mole... :)
The question is which is Scriptural?
That's the second point, sola scriptura is unscriptural. It is incumbent upon sola scriptura to pass its own test, the Church doesn't hold this doctrine so it does not apply it. I don't see where scripture alone for all dogma and doctrine is scriptural.
Your discussion of infallibility, I find the use somewhat nonsensical. Does your Church claim its dogma and doctine is fallible?
If you are talking about papal infallibility, then we need to be clear about that; I'm not sure which you're referring to.
thanks for your reply.
The former is true, but it did not begin under the premise behind your second statement, as instead of the magisterium being superior to Scripture, and autocratically declaring itself infallible so that the validity of its teachings need not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, the NT church established itself upon the latter.
And it never proclaimed that whatever its claimed successors claimed to be teaching to all the church would be protected from error.
This was not how God passed on and preserved truth in the past, and the church began in dissent from those who effectively presumed supremacy above scripture.
Your model is justified by the unity it claims to produce, though in reality this is quite different in Catholicism, yet indeed implicit assent of faith to men does result in the most unity, but that is cultic, or socialist. In contrast, the unity that results from overcoming competition by manifestation of the truth is superior in quality, if not in quantity.
And as a former RC who remained in Rome for 6 years as a weekly attender after i was truly born again, i know the difference btwn that which of the Spirit, and that which is of a form of religion.
Again, Scripture as supreme upholds the magisterium and authority, but not as assuredly infallible, while under both models individuals must engage in interpretation, and there is division as well as unity.
The way souls came to believe on Christ is how truth and authority is established, and the magisterium must not be like the magisterium it dissented from, but look to Scripture as supreme and establishing truth thereby, not based on its claimed charism of infallibility.
That's a slightly different point. The point here is sola scriptura fails to produce "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."
From here, I would argue that a doctrine that failed to produce this and unity is not one the Apostles would or did support and not one that Our Lord would establish praying that "we be one as He and His father are one."
This was not how God passed on and preserved truth in the past…
I don't think Moses or the Rabbinical school is sola scriptura at all. In addition there is the oral torah/written torah.
And it never proclaimed that whatever its claimed successors claimed to be teaching to all the church would be protected from error.
Body of Christ, Christ as the head, guided by God the Holy Spirit, the pillar and foundation of truth that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. Sounds close enough to me. :)
Both involve human beings, the infinite through the finite; but the Church is not any one individual (cf: Council of Jerusalem again). Whereas, sola scriptua is each individual by definition, yes?
Scripture as supreme upholds the magisterium and authority
Each individual is the magisterium and authority. This is significantly different.
thanks for your reply.
By grace through faith. Our discussion is not specifically relevant to this I think.
look to Scripture as supreme and establishing truth thereby, not based on its claimed charism of infallibility.
Again does your church holds to a key teaching definitively and absolutely and then say" "but we could be wrong about this."?
I don't think it comes to this teaching based on its infallibility, that's kind of backwards isn't it?
Maybe this is a subtle difference. But I think it is heading off from the topic of sola scriptura.
And the Church most definitely looks to Scripture - in the deposit of faith - just not your, perhaps, interpretation of it, and not conforming to the doctrine of sola scriptura.
As a former Baptist...
{^_^}
I'm off to bed and hope you have a blessed sleep and morning. Thanks for your courteous discussion.
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.