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).

[D-fendr]

Why is them differing a problem? Why does it have to mean that it is unworkable?

I think we're agreed that it is unworkable. Or, at least you are moving to "yes, but that doesn't matter."

I appreciate your reply and discussion.

[daniel1212]

It seems you just want to repeat the same charge despite what i showed contrary to it. I appreciate your courteous discussion very much. Thank you

[D-fendr]

despite what i showed contrary to it.

I believed you were agreeing in a previous post and the one I replied to. Beginning with.. "As does.."

Honestly, I thought you had granted the point.

[daniel1212]

Honestly, I thought you had granted the point.

Go back and read again. I argued both SS (not the straw man one) and sola ecclesia had divisions, and that comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not realized, but that the kind of unity under the SE was inferior in quality if not quantity to that which SS can produce and has among surrendered souls, despite some disagreements, with SE is not immune to .

But thanks for a civil exchange.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

SS (not the straw man one)

It still seems to me that however you are defining it, you are saying it is unworkable in terms of the criteria we've been using. Would that be a correct statement?

[boatbums]

Saw this recently and thought you would be interested in it since our last discussion about the subject.

Popemobiles of the past and present

For over 80 years, Mercedes-Benz has been providing the Vatican with "popemobiles," extensively converted and customized vehicles that are used as official cars for the Holy Father.

(Think they got 'em all for free?)

[vladimir998]

I would not be surprised if every single one of them was free. I also wouldn’t worry one bit if they were not free. The pope needs a car in which he can be seen but will be safe.

[BlueDragon]

Thanks for the link. I'll confess to liking old cars. The newer version in the photo looks pretty good, too. Stylish, more nimble than past models, and with practical application, for many would wish to catch a glimpse of a pope. Unfortunately, for many it can be for the same sort reasons for wishing to catch sight of a U.S. President, the Queen of England or some lesser famed celebrity.

I don't have any problem with the vehicles, per se, nor problem that it likely(?) they have been given as gift. Donations or cash, would be perfectly acceptable as I doubt car manufacturers today use slave labor. A purpose built car, could be better than cash, in some ways.

Looking at it from a more purely business perspective, if the company chooses to pay workers to do a special one-off just to give away...since they are in the luxury car business, it could serve as an enduring form of advertising in one sense, while still be support for positive principles of ethics (which Christian Churches generally though perhaps imperfectly promote) in another sense.

Nonetheless, I still wonder what Peter would think of all the other finery.

He wouldn't have to just go along with it, for reason that the church built over his dead body "never errs" or had been kept by God totally free from any error, etc.

That latter sort of concept, if presented to him...I do think would invoke a face-palm maximus reflex in the guy.

[daniel1212]

It still seems to me that however you are defining it, you are saying it is unworkable in terms of the criteria we've been using. Would that be a correct statement?

By no means. In review, as evidenced , Scripture was the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and it was upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power that the Lord and His apostles established their claims.

The sufficiency of Scripture is no simply formal, and which is limited, but material, and provided for additional writings being recognized as Scripture, by conformity to it in quality and content.

And it was the Scriptures not tradition, that the Lord opened the confused disciples mind to. (Lk. 24:44)

Yet as Scripture says that we yet see thru a glass, darkly, due to poor reception, then due to this and other factors comprehensive doctrinal unity was never realized, but based upon this is what Scriptural unity there was and is. The fact that Scripture is misused or misunderstood does not negate its efficacy and supreme authority, as more than the misuse of miracles negates them.

The alternative is sola ecclesia, which also fails to produce comprehensive doctrinal unity. Rome's infallible teaching is quite limited, and no one can give you an infallible list of all infallible teachings. And even if they are infallible, that does not prevent them being misused and misunderstood.

And the most egregious errors and effects are seen under sola ecclesia.

Both SS and SE can produce degrees of unity, but the kind of unity that the church began on was under Scripture as supreme.

[D-fendr]

There is a doctrine sola scriptura that is named, held and adhered to by reform churches. There is no doctrine sola ecclesia. I see this as an another mole popping up. :)

The question under discussion is: Is there unity of doctrine among the sola scriptura adherents whether they be churches or individuals? I cannot imagine a positive reply to this question.

thanks for your reply.

[Salvation]

The First Words of Pope Francis

by CE Editor on March 13, 2013 ·

Brothers and sisters good evening. 

You all know that the duty of the Conclave was to give a bishop to Rome. It seems that my brother Cardinals have come almost to the ends of the earth to get him… but here we are. I thank you for the welcome that has come from the diocesan community of Rome.

First of all I would say a prayer pray for our Bishop Emeritus Benedict XVI.. Let us all pray together for him, that the Lord bless him and Our Lady protect him.

Our Father… Hail Mary… Glory to the Father…

And now let us begin this journey, the Bishop and people, this journey of the Church of Rome which presides in charity over all the Churches, a journey of brotherhood in love, of mutual trust. Let us always pray for one another. Let us pray for the whole world that there might be a great sense of brotherhood . My hope is that this journey of the Church that we begin today, together with help of my Cardinal Vicar, be fruitful for the evangelization of this beautiful city.

And now I would like to give the blessing, but first I want to ask you a favour. Before the bishop blesses the people I ask that you would pray to the Lord to bless me – the prayer of the people for their Bishop. Let us say this prayer – your prayer for me – in silence.

[The Protodeacon announced that all those who received the blessing, either in person or by radio, television or by the new means of communication receive the plenary indulgence in the form established by the Church. He prayed that Almighty God protect and guard the Pope so that he may lead the Church for many years to come, and that he would grant peace to the Church throughout the world.]

[Immediately afterwards Pope Francis gave his first blessing Urbi et Orbi – To the City and to the World.]

I will now give my blessing to you and to the whole world, to all men and women of good will.

Brothers and sisters, I am leaving you. Thank you for your welcome. Pray for me and I will be with you again soon.

We will see one another soon.

Tomorrow I want to go to pray the Madonna, that she may protect Rome.

Good night and sleep well!

[daniel1212]

There is no doctrine sola ecclesia.

Of course there is a doctrine of sola ecclesia, that the church alone is the supreme authority. You cannot claim to be the only authority to determine what Scripture consists of,

and infallibly determine its meaning, leaving all other claims as without authority,

as well as teach doctrines whose veracity does not depend upon the strength of Scriptural warrant (only that they do not contradict Scripture),

and to autocratically define what other evidences mean, and not be claiming to be the supreme authority.

CCC 85 The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form [Scripture] or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church ALONE.

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law... (Providentissimus Deus)

And the classic words of Manning in dealing with counter claims

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.

Is there unity of doctrine among the sola scriptura adherents whether they be churches or individuals?

Of course there is, otherwise how could evangelicals have historically manifest a common front against cults and traditions of men, as well as liberalism, and thus be targeted by both liberalism and Rome (the latter two being far more synonymous than with evangelicals).

As argued here , SS type churches from S. Baptists to Calvary Chapels affirm such core truths as expressed in the apostles creed, and more, including the Trinity, the atonement, supremacy of Scripture, salvation by grace appropriated by faith, versus deserved, and much more, and commonly contend against those who deny them. You typically will not get far in ministry in a conservative evangelical church church if you deny core teachings, and their members testify to a greater uniformity in certain core truths and many moral views than their Catholic counterparts.

Books such as the classic "The kingdom of the cults" by the late Walter Martin are based upon a foundational unity. As was the historical preaching of the evangelical gospel, whether is be Wesley or Whitefield, Spurgeon or Sunday, M'Cheyne or Moody (and despite differences on predestination, which exists in Rome as well), in contrast to an institutionalized gospel of either Catholicism or parts of Protestantism. The modern evangelical/fundamental class of Christianity itself was originally the result of unity in core truths against liberalism, though like as Paul warned, (Acts 20:30) the devil gets into any camp that is attacking his kingdom, and the term "evangelical" has become more much loosely applied, though it is still a class distinct from others in theological and moral views, as seen in numerous surveys . And which yet allows varying degrees of differences on other things.

Meanwhile, RCs likewise are to hold to certain core truths, though effectively broad dissent is allowed, treating even the most liberal as members in life and in death. (Kennedy, Chavez, etc.) And like SS types, Catholics can disagree on many things, and have great liberty to interpret the Bible as they see fit within the parameters of Catholic teaching.

[D-fendr]

There is no sola ecclesia doctrine in existence. Who invented this term and when?

We do have the Church established by Christ, the body of Christ with Him at the head guided by the Holy Spirit. If you wish to object to this, then we are headed off topic again.

On the workability of sola scriptura you state: “As argued here , SS type churches from S. Baptists to Calvary Chapels affirm such core truths as expressed in the apostles creed, and more, including the Trinity..”

This would ignore the 25 million or so adherents to the teaching of Oneness Pentecostals.

thanks for your reply...

[daniel1212]

There is no sola ecclesia doctrine in existence. Who invented this term and when?

Again you are ignoring reality. It is not the name but what it means that is the issue (RCs believe papal infallibility existed before it was formulated as a doctrine).

Rome invented sola ecclesia when she made herself alone the supreme authority on doctrine. Tell me how you alone can claim to be the only entity on earth that can infallibly, authoritatively define both the content and meaning of Scripture, Tradition and history, without claiming to uniquely be the supreme authority?

This would ignore the 25 million or so adherents to the teaching of Oneness Pentecostals.

Irrelevant, as the argument never was that SS will result in universal unity, nor that it results in comprehensive unity, which Catholicism doe not do either, but that it can and has resulted in a widespread strong unity on basic truths and thus a common front against those who deny them, making them a target or both Rome and liberals and cults.

And that Catholicism in its sects and division also must assent to certain truths while allowing differing degrees of dissent relative what magisterial level, a teaching falls under (this itself being a subject of disagreement).

That is the real world, but as by being convinced that an Itinerant Preacher from Galiliee was the Messiah, despite rejection from the magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, souls are to be convinced and authority established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Not that i do not think i much lack in this a compared with Scripture).

[D-fendr]

Again, we are entering more mole territory:

Rome invented sola ecclesia when she made herself alone the supreme authority on doctrine.

Christ established His Church and gave it authority guided by the Holy Spirit, the pillar and foundation of truth.

If we disagree on this, which is likely, it is a different topic than whether the doctrine of sola scriptura is unworkable, unscriptural and unhistoric.

[D-fendr]

the argument never was that SS will result in universal unity, nor that it results in comprehensive unity

That was my argument. That it does not, and cannot, result in unity of dogma and doctrine: one Lord, one Faith, one baptism. As one example, I cited sola scriptura Oneness Pentecostals.

Again, if you are conceding this point, I'm done on it. If not..

thanks for your reply.

[metmom]

That it does not, and cannot, result in unity of dogma and doctrine: one Lord, one Faith, one baptism.

The fallacy is that there is unity in doctrine in Catholicism. There is not. A cursory look at the differences between the Roman rite and the EO show that. Not to mention that there are those who accuse Vatican 2 of corrupting the church and call for a return to pre-Vatican 2 doctrine.

And those are only two examples.

[D-fendr]

Western and Eastern communions share the same creeds, the same “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

[daniel1212]

Christ established His Church and gave it authority guided by the Holy Spirit, the pillar and foundation of truth. If we disagree on this, which is likely, it is a different topic than whether the doctrine of sola scriptura is unworkable, unscriptural and unhistoric.

That topic has been dealt with, but that Rome operates under sola ecclesia is the reality, and that is also does not produce universal unity.

[daniel1212]

That was my argument. That it does not, and cannot, result in unity of dogma and doctrine: one Lord, one Faith, one baptism. As one example, I cited sola scriptura Oneness Pentecostals. Again, if you are conceding this point, I'm done on it. If not..

You need to face the reality that unity has different levels and scope, and under each model unity as to one faith one Lord, one Faith, one baptism has been realized, but not universally or as meaning a comprehensive theology.

RCs differ among themselves about deeper aspects of each, while the EOs disagree with Rome about the One Lord as some aspects, and as to what the One Faith all entails, and the practice of baptism, but in essence they can profess to agree with Rome (but who can also say they worship the same God as Muslims).

Then there are other sola ecclesia groups who, like Rome, use the premise of supreme incontestable authority to interpret all the evidence they need as supporting their church, but who radically differ with both Catholicism and historical Protestantism.

Then there are multitudes under the SS model who hold to a Trinitarian one Lord, and one Faith as salvation by faith, not earned, and one baptism as signifying that faith in that Lord, but who can differ about deeper aspects.

Thus what you need to concede is that sola ecclesia has not produced what it seems you demands SS to do, which i do not argue it did, while the issue is which means of unity is most Scriptural - assurance based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility, or Scriptural substantiation.

If you cannot concede this, then we might as well be done with this.