A Reformed Farewell to Benedict XVI

Out Of The Horses Mouth ^ | 28 Feb 2013 | Michael Horton

[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).

[boatbums]

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 disagree. Surprised? The "point" is that the truth Jesus taught to his disciples and Apostles was passed down to those who also committed their lives to following Christ and his teachings. These teachings WERE written down in what became known as the Bible - a collection of the sacred writings recognized as coming from the Holy Spirit. I think what you are trying to insist, but which is really NOT the reason, is that these writings were impossible to comprehend without someone "interpreting" them. This is what is "unworkable".

Did the writers of Scripture compose their texts using a special, secret code or did they write down the very words Jesus told them and which he had promised the Holy Spirit to bring back to their remembrance? People came to saving faith in Jesus Christ based upon the words they heard him speak and which the disciples also spoke. It was immaterial whether or not someone could read the words for themselves after the teachings were enscripturated - they heard the word of truth and they believed because the words had power - the power of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit opened their eyes and hearts and they received the truth. That exact same truth is preserved in Holy Scripture. What we have today - that God ensured we still have - is those same words of truth. Granted, they are in our own modern language (some for better, some for worse) but we CAN know the gospel of our salvation just as those in the first century did and we have the same calling to receive these words and believe the truth. Does God use other believers to preach the gospel? Absolutely! But, even if men failed to speak, the truth would still be heard. You cannot limit God.

The authority cannot be the Church ABOVE the Scriptures since they are the same words the Apostles have spoken. It would be as though the Apostles were speaking directly to them and they were to obey that which was written to them. I think it is a facade to say the Church is the supreme authority. The Church is certainly SUPPOSED to be the upholder and supporter of the truth, but the truth is truth regardless if the Church is faithful to it or not. It doesn't change. Truth is absolute. What is unworkable is presuming the authority Jesus gave directly to his Apostles was something they could transfer to successive leaders. They can certainly hand down the truth and expect those they anointed to be faithful to keep it and hand down to those they lay hands upon, but there was NOT an automatic or presumptive authority inherent in subsequent men. Without the truth, they were no more authoritative than those who taught heresy even if they were ordained by an Apostle. It is the truth that remains the authority. The truth as recorded in Holy Scripture.

[boatbums]

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.

Something the Church did not want?

The European discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus did not occur until 1492. However, two papal bulls announced several decades before that event to help ward off increasing Muslim invasions into Europe affected the New World. When Islam presented a serious military threat to Italy and Central Europe during mid-15th Century, Pope Nicholas V tried to unite Christendom against them but failed. He then granted Portugal the right to subdue and even enslave Muslims, pagans and other unbelievers in the papal bull Dum Diversas (1452).[2] The following year saw the Fall of Constantinople to Muslim invaders which left the pope as the undoubted contested leader of Christendom.[2] Several decades later, European colonizers and missionaries spread Catholicism to the Americas, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Pope Alexander VI had awarded colonial rights over most of the newly discovered lands to Spain and Portugal.[3] Under the patronato system, however, state authorities, not the Vatican, controlled all clerical appointments in the new colonies.[4] Thus, the 1455 Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex granted the Portuguese all lands behind Cape Bojador and allows to reduce pagans and other enemies of Christ to perpetual slavery.

Later, the 1481 Papal Bull Aeterni regis granted all lands south of the Canary Islands to Portugal, while in May 1493 the Spanish-born Pope Alexander VI decreed in the Bull Inter caetera that all lands west of a meridian only 100 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands should belong to Spain while new lands discovered east of that line would belong to Portugal. A further Bull, Dudum siquidem, made some more concessions to Spain, and the pope's arrangements were then amended by the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 negotiated between Spain and Portugal.

In South America, the Jesuits protected native peoples from enslavement by establishing semi-independent settlements called reductions. Pope Gregory XVI, challenging Spanish and Portuguese sovereignty, appointed his own candidates as bishops in the colonies, condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839 (papal bull In Supremo Apostolatus), and approved the ordination of native clergy in spite of government racism.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_the_Age_of_Discovery)

I guess you're going to admit to Blue Dragon that you made a mistake in your timing about by whom and when slavery was "condemned"?

As to the ways the Roman Catholic Church obtained her vast wealth, this essay gives some insight http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/vatican_billions.htm:

The successors of Peter promoted pilgrimages to his “tomb” in Rome very early, although from the start they showed a special predilection for the richest and most powerful personages of the times - that is, for individuals who could give them costly presents, land and power. To quote only one typical case, Pope Leo tells us how the Emperor Valentinian III and his family regularly performed their devotions at the tomb of St. Peter, “such practice yielding a useful respect for the Apostle’s successors” to whom they offered costly presents and the tenure of lands. Pope Gregory, on the other hand (590-604), promised Queen Brunhilda remission of her sins.

“The most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.. will cause thee to appear pure of all stain before the judge everlasting” (2) as long as she granted him, Gregory, what he asked of her, that, money, real estates, and investitures which yielded abundant revenues to the Church: a practice which became a tradition during the oncoming centuries.

Gregory went even further and sent the nobleman Dynamius a cross containing “fillings” from St. Peter’s chains, telling him to wear the cross at his throat,

“which is like as if he were wearing the chains of St. Peter himself.,” and adding “these chains, which have lain across and around the neck of the most Blessed Apostle Peter, shall unloose thee for ever from thy sins”.

The gift, of course, was not a free one. It cost money and gold. (3)

Not content with this, Gregory began to send out “the keys of St. Peter, wherein are found the precious filings and which by the same token also remit sins” - provided the recipients paid in cash or with costly presents. (4)

Once it became known that the relics of St. Peter, when combined with the spiritual power of his successors, could remit sins, it was natural that most of the Christians throughout Christendom longed to go to the tomb and thus partake of Peter’s and the pope’s spiritual treasures. The latter invariably involved earthly treasures of money, silver and gold, or deeds of real estate. And that is how the pilgrimage to Rome, called the Pardon of St. Peter, was initiated - curiously enough, mostly by Anglo-Saxons.

In addition to encouraging the belief that Peter’s tomb was in Rome and that his successors had “filings” from St. Peter’s chains, the popes encouraged the belief that by coming to the Eternal City the pilgrims could address the Blessed Peter in person. The Church, far from discouraging such dishonest humbuggery, gave her approval to it: witness for example the notable St. Gregory of Tours, who, in his De Gloria Martyrum, gave a detailed description of the ceremony that had to be performed in order to speak with the Prince of Apostles. (5)

The pilgrims had to kneel upon the tomb of St. Peter, the opening to which was covered by a trap door. Then, raising the door, he had to insert his head into the hole, after which, still remaining in that posture, he had to reveal in a loud voice the object of his visit to the saint. Offerings of money were thrown in. Then veneration and obeisance were to be offered to St. Peter’s successor, the pope.

I'll save the sordid story of the false Donation of Constantine and the unabashed usurpation of temporal power over all the known world and how the popes loudly claimed to be the feudal lords of all the islands of the ocean, and started to dispose of them according to their will for another day.

[BlueDragon]

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.

Perhaps the crucial portions of the information need be found in associated supporting documents Like from pope Martin V in regards to Dom Henrique ..ah, that rings a bell. That pope was offered by Henry captured Africans as slaves following the success of the little war against the Moors to sieze Ceuta,and is said in various historical accounting to have authorized Henrique to take slaves in disruption of that same trade which had been plied by the Saracens. There is abundant evidence Henry did so. While head of a portion of what was it "The Orders of Christ"?

Regardless of some other pronouncement by this Eugenius IV opposing slavery...for that was limited to be in regards to the taking of slaves among baptized Christians among native peoples (*possibly including no taking of Christians by Christians period, for that too had occurred on occasion as kings and kingdom squabbled.) No taking of Christian slaves by other Christians, and no sale of them. But with some mention of "regret" that natives of some islands had been taken into servitude -=-- those referred to being the ones having been already baptized.

Yet you presented that in context of conversation here as to meaning it would prohibit the taking of slaves in Africa, which it most certainly would not (unless they had been baptized as Christians) and would in fact implicitly continue allowance of the then fairly recent developing practice of taking slaves in Africa and other locales.

Then there is a (somewhat distilled but accurate enough) explicit;

"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery

from the Dum Diversas (translates as Until Different, right?) of Pope Nicholas V.

I do love how you seem to attempt to bluff and capitalize upon perceived ignorance which the googlesterium can make short work of. A fuller translation presented by an apparently honest Catholic, which can serve for now; http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html

The undeniable emerges. For a time the RC church from it's highest levels supported/endorsed slavery within some limit, but lacking limit and having explicit endorsement for the taking of unconverted of the Saracen/Muslims into slavery, by Christians (the Muslims themselves at this time having themselves been slavers of many centuries standing, taking not only Africans, but many European Christians captive into slavery). The papal bulls were much in response to the that.

I could go on, and tackle much of the rest which you have written in my direction, but it's so full of tangles and snarls as to be little worth the effort, with offerings from "opposite land" like the below, galor;

The problem is that what I write is factually correct. Your problem is with reality

Factually correct on some single plane here and there occasionally but not everywhere, while taken altogether so entirely misleading (deliberately?) to be completely incorrect in wider scope of conversation.

How much of the gold in Vatican City came from the sale of indulgences --- the Lord only knows, but I seriously doubt it be none or even "not all that much", which is just as good or better formed opinion than labeling all of it with the misleading "all donations".

You required I bring proof? Where's the accounting for the "all donations" claim beyond your own table pounding assertions? Even if from kings and other assorted nobles, it's still tainted, much of it.

Large donations from Monarchs? I covered that slightly, in pointing towards how the RC church of that time was "wedded" to the worldly kings, each deriving power or reflecting between them the subjugation and forced acceptance by all, of the powers and authority each laid claim to hold over other human beings. Wealth by subjugation. Not limited to full enslavement of others to bring the gain...for partial enslavement can be more profitable and easier to manage in the long run, but by wholesale subjugation of humans nonetheless.

Though there be reasons for everything, that sort of thing isn't exactly what the Lord had in mind, I take it, but in too many ways the RCC participated for long centuries, in such systems and profited from the participation.

The kings themselves didn't much get out there and tote barge or lift bale. No, they had serfs do pretty much all of it. And some of those "noblemen" of the time had gotten their lands through the murdering of previous owners and townsfolk for daring to preach (a form of) the Gospel without permission from the RC church, with the church itself receiving, being given some of (small) lands taken in that manner, directly, all having been conducted towards these "other than themselves" preachers with blessing from the RCC. Yes, the church blessed even murdering, said it was for the wider cause of Christ. Said it was neccassary (to stop those ignorant preachers from preaching it wrong!)

That too [the immediately above] is factual enough, with supporting links not too difficult to find.

I'm rather surprised you can't see it. Perhaps more distance from the subject matter is required for clearer appraisal. It matters little as to a "that's how they did it in those days" sort of defensive explanation. The church supported the kings and nobles (but not always and not every king and noble) and the nobles (irregularly but most typically) supported the powers of the RC church, with interplay of politics along the way. That much is undeniable by any. The little man was often (not always) all but enslaved by the system. He could scarcely speak out without risking deadly reprisal from the nobles in their own name, or from the nobles in the name of the church, of from an office of the church under the authority of a king on one level but simultaneously under the authority of the church, with "Inquisition" conducted in the name of the RC church...but still, here and there, speak out they did. Sometimes that would be tolerated, but other times that could get a guy killed. It's a mixed bag. In light of the overall oppressive practices, how could the money not be somewhat tainted in all the mix? Yet there it is, still on parade, still testimony of things other than "all by donation", still testimony of the sinfulness of man not being able to be neatly separated from "church", yet what else can be expected? That all sin or taint stop short of any church organizations walls?

I don't expect as much, nor say any church must be infallible, or "infallibly led" for who in the heck has much ever "infallibly followed?" Not the RCC, regardless of the frequently made claim, that they themselves out of all humaninty and among all other Christian organizations, has at all times been infallible. To believe otherwise is a form of sheer madness, in light of the available evidences.

Only by the grace of God and blood of Christ are any justified

[BlueDragon]

"...in your seeming giddiness to call me ignorant a half dozen more times..."

'There are things you don't know!
'There are things you don't know!
'There are things you don't know!
'There are things you don't know!
'There are things you don't know!
'There are things you don't know!

aaah. I feel so much better now my anger towards others/pride of own self has been recharged. how I love my misery.

And that's not to mention the ermine-trimmed red velvet mozzetta, a shoulder cape, or the matching camauro,

♬ Here comes Santa Claus

Here comes Santa Claus

Coming down Santa Claus Lane!♫

He has celebrated Mass using the wide cope (a cape so ample it is held up by two attendants) and high miter of Pius IX, a 19th-century pope known for his dim views

Nope, no widened fringes here...the wholedang thing is Gloriously Wide.

With increasing regularity, Benedict has been reintroducing elaborate lace garments and monarchical regalia that have not been seen around Rome in decades, even centuries

Like our friend said last we posted the red shoes topped by some lacey number layered on top of another, it was like "I saw that dress in the window and just had to have it" lol.

No extravegant excesses involved in monarchial regalia, why those two words them "selfs" are ever so humble.

St. Peter would be relieved...that nobody used the Lord's word to make a show of regaling in monarchial style. Nope, no "extravegant" in sight anywhere. The red velvet throne with gold trimmings. Nope.

Something like that would be a bit much.

Besides, why be carried around by a bunch of doofuses that might drop one, when chartering an airliner is so affordable? Well that, and the one I really like, that heavily gold plated number is far too heavy for the guys to to carry very far.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“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.”

The difference is that you’re not using facts. If you’re going to make a claim about the pope or how he lives at least try to back it up with facts. When you start using them back to me. After all you have been wrong on a number of things. Doesn’t bother you to get things wrong? To Be in accurate? To believe things which are erroneous? Apparently not.

[vladimir998]

When you read the Treaty of Tordesillas get back to me. Somehow I don’t think you’ll actually bother to read it.

[vladimir998]

you wrote:

“I don’t expect as much, nor say any church must be infallible, or “infallibly led” for who in the heck has much ever “infallibly followed?” Not the RCC, regardless of the frequently made claim, that they themselves out of all humaninty and among all other Christian organizations, has at all times been infallible. To believe otherwise is a form of sheer madness, in light of the available evidences.”

I don’t think you understand the doctrine of infallibility. What have you read about it?

[D-fendr]

Again I think this is off topic:

The convert to Rome makes a fallible decision..

I think we could list two of the possible choices: Find the true Church and follow its teaching. Decide the true teaching and follow the church that teaches them.

There are other possibilities for an individual seeker; but this is still removed from the topic of sola scriptura and whether it is workable in practice or passes its own scriptural test.

[D-fendr]

I think what you are trying to insist… is that these writings were impossible to comprehend without someone "interpreting" them. This is what is "unworkable".

No, they are unworkable in bringing about a unity of Christian doctrine: "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

[D-fendr]

Previous reply S/B: sola scriptura is unworkable..

[daniel1212]

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... :)

It should be obvious by now that rather than conceding SS being unworkable, i have argued that it is as workable as sola ecclesia, and that indeed it is abundantly evidenced to be the supreme transcendent standard under God, but which will not prevent individual persons or churches from differing.

The solution to the problem of disunity is not one that attempts to censure all others by defining itself infallible, so that it cannot be wrong, even in defining itself infallible, but by overcoming evil with good, and error by "Scriptural manifestation of the truth," (2Cor. 4:2) and thus requires the church to continually Scripturally manifest warrant for its authenticity in word and in power, which institutionalized religion does not, and persecutes those born of the Spirit. (Gal. 4:29)

Again, this is why the church began in dissent from an established magisterium, and is why the council of Acts 15 had authority, not under the premise of assured infallibility.

It is incumbent upon sola scriptura to pass its own test, the Church doesn't hold this doctrine so it does not apply it.

It is incumbent upon sola ecclesia to pass its own test, but both can show essential unity within each group, while sola ecclesia is more dangerous, which sola ecclesia cults example, and which Rome has shown by it's overall deadness of the damned and its use of the sword of men.

I don't see where scripture alone for all dogma and doctrine is scriptural.

You will not see a straw SS if that is what you have in mind. The "sola" aspect does mean only the Scriptures can be used, as SS does not hold to the sufficiency of Scripture is being strictly formal, but includes material sufficiency, so that it provides for reason, the magisterium, etc. And as i have argued, in principal for the establishment of additional writings to Scripture and its closure.

Your discussion of infallibility, I find the use somewhat nonsensical. Does your Church claim its dogma and doctine is fallible?

You lack specificity, but If you find it nonsensical then there is a problem. I affirm that magisteriums, both that of Catholics and Prots, can and have taught truths that are without error, as established by Scripture, but that none save the Lord can claim assured infallibility, that it was and will be impossible for them to err whenever and whatever they universally declare on faith and morals. This has no Scriptural example and is not validly extrapolated from instances when individuals or magisteriums have spoken pure truth, and which we know from infallible Scripture.

[D-fendr]

I’m gonna have to stop you on your first point: “will not prevent individual persons or churches from differing.”

Which means it is unworkable as we’ve been discussing. Unless I’m misunderstanding your words here.

[daniel1212]

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."

See my other comments on OLOFOB, while contrary to your thesis, sola ecclesia fails to produce the unity RCs imagine Rome effectual produces, and which is not the same unity as that of the early church, as it does not have the same basis, and Rome's gospel preaching is manifestly far different from the regeneration we see it effecting in Acts.

The Watchtower society also claims to have the unity of the early church, and in doctrinal conformity it surpasses Rome, but as in Rome, its based for unity is upon implicit submission to an infallible type of magisterium, and its authority is limited to their flock.

For Rome to claim supremacy then its basis cannot be her claim to a supreme unity that was like that of the early church, as not only did the latter unity have a different basis, but Rome also fosters much disunity, and in addition every church can teach doctrines and can require consent and claim unity under it, and which can be more conformist than Rome.

Thus the real argument for Rome as supreme is that her claim alone is warranted, based upon historical descent, stewardship of Divine revelation, and being the inheritor of Divine promises, all of which are an interpretation in competition with others. And thus my questions to you which you have yet to affirm.

I don't think Moses or the Rabbinical school is sola scriptura at all. In addition there is the oral torah/written torah.

And as in Catholicism, the mere tradition of the elders was taught in their oral tradition as doctrine, and thus the Lord reproved them by Scripture, (Mk. 7:1-16) and He established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation, and thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses.

Under the Roman model the Lord would have been rejected for so reproving them, and thus would be was opposed as not having their sanction, as Rome has done to others who corrected them.

[daniel1212]

Both involve human beings, the infinite through the finite; but the Church is not any one individual (cf: Council of Jerusalem again).

The Church is not any one individual, but whether you affirm it or not, it is made up of different individual groups, including those operating under sola ecclesia, Rome being one of them who competes with others for the title of one true church.

The early church did have a central magisterium, though with much diversity, but nowhere were they commanded, exhorted, or reminded to submit to a supreme head in Rome, including in the church epistles, or the Spirit's word to the churches in Rv. 2,3)

Nor is Peter alone listed as a pillar, though he was the first among equals, yet no apostles were provided with successors save for Judas, who was replaced due to his apostasy and death in order to maintain the original number, by lots, (Acts 1:15-26; Rv. 21:14) unlike for James, (Acts 12:1,2) while Rome has elected men like Judas as popes.

This and many other differences disallow Rome from claiming either the same kind of unity or being the NT church.

Whereas, sola scriptua is each individual by definition, yes? Each individual is the magisterium and authority. This is significantly different.

No, in both cases individuals engage in interpreting their authority, but not as themselves being the supreme infallible authority on truth. For RCs that is Rome, but for SS types that is the Scriptures. You continue to make SS into meaning every individual is as a pope, unanswerable to any church magistrate, which is not the case. Else heretics and liberal would not be driven out of many churches that who hold to Scripture as supreme as the wholly inspired word of God, and liberalism is very evident in Catholicism.

But as Christ affirmed the magisterial office of the Jews, yet not as infallible, thus the church began in dissent from it based upon Scriptural warrant instead. And thus under SS the church magisterium is upheld, but not as assuredly infallible.

In Rome, conscience is the supreme authority for the individual, but that does not make it right, but the church (though what it says allows for varying degrees of interpretation). Likewise what an individual believes is not the supreme authority, but the Scriptures, and which affirms the magisterium, but not as infallible. Thus the both SE and SS churches may punish those who, in conscience toward God, dissent from the church. The differences is that, as in Scripture, under SS it must be allowed that the magisterial office may itself be in error, and punish those who hold to truth that is Scripturally substantiated in word and in power. And that is how the church began and is how it continues as the body of Christ.

[daniel1212]

By grace through faith. Our discussion is not specifically relevant to this I think.

It is as what this means is a matter of interpretation, and pertains to "one faith." The early church is not manifest as baptizing infants, and who then are justified by an inner holiness and treated as Christians who may become perfect so as to enter Heaven through grace ritually dispensed, and then (usually) postmortem sufferings commencing at death, but as damned and destitute sinners whose faith the risen Lord to saved them by His sinless shed blood is counted for righteousness. (Rm. 3:10-5:1)

And which faith is confessed in baptism and works righteousness in following the Lord Jesus, (Acts 2:28; 10:43-47) and which works vindicate them as having true faith, (1Thes. 1:9; Heb. 6:9,10) which is rewarded, (Heb. 10:35) and who can have assurance of eternal life thereby, based upon what is written. (1Jn. 5:13)

Again does your church holds to a key teaching definitively and absolutely and then say" "but we could be wrong about this."?

As understood by RCs (http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm), there are different levels of magisterial teaching, some essential, pure basic truths without error (such as Jesus is Lord), and others allowing for some debate and disagreement, and SS type churches hold to some truths as essential, dissent from which disallows ordination and discipline if publicly known among members, while deeper aspects of which or other things can allow for a varying degree of interpretation.

I don't think it comes to this teaching based on its infallibility, that's kind of backwards isn't it?

Well, what is the basis for your assurance of faith in RC teaching?

And the Church most definitely looks to Scripture - in the deposit of faith

And again, the only meaning that has authority is that which Rome gives it, thus Scripture as an authority means little.

[D-fendr]

sola ecclesia fails

I've described the Church before, in this context it is Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. I would describe sola ecclesia as an individual using sola scriptura - the individual is the church in determining doctrine - all by him/her self.

And Jehovah's witnesses is sola scriptura or close to it. It is another example of sola scriptura not working.

[boatbums]

The difference is that you’re not using facts. If you’re going to make a claim about the pope or how he lives at least try to back it up with facts. When you start using them back to me. After all you have been wrong on a number of things. Doesn’t bother you to get things wrong? To Be in accurate? To believe things which are erroneous? Apparently not.

But I did use facts, some from the very source you cited. And, just to clarify, my comments are not exclusive to the current Pope. You have been shown to be inaccurate on a number of your own stated "facts", were you bothered by them? I didn't see an apology to Blue Dragon for your incorrect criticism of his remarks. Are you working to find just the right words?

I do not claim to know everything, unlike certain people, but I do try to back up what I say with facts that can be researched. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any online information about the budget of the Vatican so I cannot say for certain what the Pope's clothing allowance is nor how much is allotted for travel nor his various servants' salaries. All I can do, like most outside people, is voice my own observations of what is observable. And that is a right I will guard no matter how much it displeases the OCD (obsessive compulsive defenders).

[boatbums]

When you read the Treaty of Tordesillas get back to me. Somehow I don’t think you’ll actually bother to read it.

Well, it seems you didn't bother to read it either. You already admitted, "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."

[daniel1212]

I’m gonna have to stop you on your first point: “will not prevent individual persons or churches from differing.” Which means it is unworkable as we’ve been discussing. Unless I’m misunderstanding your words here.

It means under SE (sola ecclesia) and under SS you will have individual persons or individual churches differing. Both can have doctrinal unity on certain truths held by its group, each having organizational unity under its own church magisterium, and a broader doctrinal unity on more basic truths held among different groups having their own organizational unity. Yet even within each group full doctrinal unity simply does not exist, nor anything close to that within Rome, or in the corporate body of Christ outside essential salvific truths.

Rome's solution is to make one individual supreme, exercising unhindered power, and its own organization the only one true church, the veracity of this claim rests upon her claim to infallibility, and that is what what gives her claim authority. And thus whoever challenges her autocratic claims is de facto wrong as she can only be right when she says she can be.

The NT solution is to make Scriptural manifestation of the truth the basis for unity, a unity that is of the Spirit, which is not to be substituted or made equal to organizational unity which any group can have. And which requires overcoming error with truth, by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Under the SE of Rome, one can go and watch and have some perfunctory part in a weekly ritual, and imagine he is literally consuming Christ, a unique miracle to be sure but evidenced no real effects overall among those who receive it, and they can be the typical liberal RC, and like impenitent Ted Kennedy (who had a, weekly mass in his house), be treated as a member in life and in death.

Or he can hear the life giving message of the gospel that leaves him as one damned for his sins, and destitute of any merit whereby he may escape Hell and gain Heaven, as he never came to Christ that way, and his sprinkling as an infant did not leave him regenerated.

And he can hear and see a living faith in worship, testimony and preaching, as a fruit of regeneration.

It is a reality that 83% of former Catholic converts to evangelical churches say they made the change due to enjoy the services and style of worship, or (74%) felt called by God to do so. Only 1% say it was due to becoming divorced or remarried. Zero % say it was due to moral/social teachings (what RCs believe has little effect in how they are treated). 90% of Latino Catholic converts say it was a spiritual search for a more direct, personal experience with God was the main reason that drove their conversion. Negative views of Catholicism did not appear to be a major reason for their conversion. (http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf; http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=75)

This does not mean evangelical churches are on the same level or that of the prima NT church, as none are, but much less Rome, and spiritual declension is increasing in both in the latter days (while atheism increases) However, the direction to move back to is strong evangelical preaching of the gospel of repentance and direct faith in the Lord Jesus, and though that consists of a minority, esp. as compared with all those Rome treats as members, yet "to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. " (Ecclesiastes 9:4)

[boatbums]

No, they (sola scriptura) are unworkable in bringing about a unity of Christian doctrine: "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

Again, I disagree. Does Scripture bring a unity in knowing who is the "one Lord"? I think it does. Have various sects purported to use Scripture to come to a false definition of the Lord? Yes, but, as in times past, they can be refuted BY Scripture.

As to the doctrine of "one faith", does Scripture adequately define what the one faith is? It does. The problem is when people add to the Scriptures and modify what the one faith is.

Regarding "one baptism", does Scripture sufficiently define what that one baptism is? It does, but the problem is when people misapply Scripture, not using sound hermeneutics to know what this baptism is in relation to the one faith.

Did Jesus pray for unity? He did and we have every expectation that there WILL be unity and to strive towards it, though we don't always see it everywhere. What stands in the way of unity is always the human factor and NOT the Scriptures which teach the one Lord, faith and baptism. I am inclined to believe that these central truths started out simply and clearly understood and held by the first Christians. There was, of course, the immediate challenge by those who would pervert the truth and they were disputed BY the Scriptures. Did the leaders in the church have an authority by which to answer these challenges? Yes, they had the same Holy Scriptures we do today.