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).

[Gamecock]

GRPL Ping

[Gamecock]

For your consideration

[polkajello]

Oh, mayhaps the next pope will be a Calvinist who would move the church back to Trent and then resign so there could be a great debate again.

Nah, let the lavender smoke arise for a PC Koran kissin pope.

*sigh*

[vladimir998]

“....the Great Western Schism (1309-1417).”

And

“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.”

Perhaps Horton is a moron, or maybe he’s just not careful here. There was no schism lasting all the way from 1309 to 1417. He is conflating the Avignon Papacy (when there was no schism) with the Great Schism of the West which came AFTERWARD and lasted from 1378 to 1417.

He’s a Protestant. I don’t expect him to know history very well.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407700985/avignon-papacy.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

[Salvation]

Just the attitutde, but it’s an open thread.

The Pope never kissed a Koran, he kissed a book of the Gospels of the Eastern Catholic Church.

[UCANSEE2]

The pope is a human.

He has the ‘right’ to quit any time he wants.

[polkajello]

Ah, I guess he was just sniffing the Koran, then. Love that Corinthian leather.

[Salvation]

Did you even read my post — the Book was the Eastern Catholic Book of the Gospels which is usually green.

Get over it.

[Salvation]

I think you need to read this story about Pope John Paul II.

The Confession of Blessed John Paul II

This is an article from several months ago, but it seems timely to repost it on the eve of the Beatification.  Blessed John Paul II, ora pro nobis!

I listened the to Lighthouse Media CD of Dr. Scott Hahn delivering an address on the beauty and nature of the Sacrament of Confession. In his talk, Dr. Hahn relayed one of the grandest stories I have heard in quite some time. Please forgive my own recollection of it. The facts are accurate, but the manner in which I relay it could never rival Dr. Hahn’s own oration. To hear him deliver the story, check out the Lighthouse Media CD.

A priest friend of Scott Hahn's had returned from Rome and told Mr. Hahn this story. The priest was on his way to a private audience with the Pope but was running early. He thus decided to stop in a church to pray before his meeting. On the steps of the church were a number of beggars, something fairly common in Rome. As he approached the church, the priest thought that he recognized one of the beggars. After entering the sanctuary he knelt down to pray, whereupon he remembered how he knew the man. The priest immediately rushed out and approached the familiar beggar exclaiming, “I know you. Didn’t we go to seminary together?”

The man gave a humble affirmative.

“So you are a priest then?” he said to the beggar.

The man replied, “Not anymore. I fell off the deep end. Leave me alone.”

The priest mindful of his approaching appointment with the Holy Father, said nothing more than, “I’ll pray for you.”

The familiar man replied, “A lot of good that will do.”

With that, the priest left the man on the steps and departed for his meeting. These sorts of meetings with the Pope are typically very formal. There are any number of people who have been granted a private audience at the same time, and when the Holy Father makes his way around to you, his secretary hands him a blessed rosary, and he in turn hands it to you. At this point, one would probably kiss the Pope’s ring and say something heartfelt, yet almost generic, such as asking him to pray for you, telling him you are praying for him, or thanking him for his service to the Church. However, when Pope John Paul II approached, the priest couldn’t help himself and blurted out, “Please pray for my friend.” Not only this, but the priest continued to blurt out the entire story. The Holy Father, looking concerned, assured the priest that he would pray for his friend.

Later that day, the priest received a letter from the Vatican. Excited and curious, he rushed with the letter back to the church where he last saw his classmate. Only a few beggars were left, and as luck (or grace) would have it, his friend was among the few. He approached the man and said, “I have been to see the Pope, and he said he would pray for you as well.”

The man listened.

“There’s more. He has invited you and me to his private residence for dinner.”

“Impossible,” said the man, “Look at me. I am a mess. I haven’t showered in God knows how long, and my clothes ...”

Sensing the gravity of the situation (and understanding that this man was his admission ticket to have dinner with the Pope), the priest said, “I have a hotel room across the street where you can shower and shave, and I have clothes that will fit you.”

By the grace of God, the man agreed, and so the two of them were off to have dinner with Pope John Paul II.

The hospitality was wondrous. Near the close of dinner, just before dessert, the Holy Father motioned to the priest who didn’t understand what the Pope was trying to say. Finally, the secretary explained, “He want us to leave,” at which point the priest and the secretary left the Holy Father alone with the beggar.

After fifteen minutes, the man emerged from the room in tears.

“What happened in there?” asked the priest.

The most remarkable and unexpected reply came.

“He asked me to hear his confession,” choked the beggar.

After regaining composure, the man continued, “I told him, ‘Your Holiness, look at me. I am a beggar. I am not a priest.’

“The Pope looked at me and said, ‘My son, once a priest always a priest, and who among us is not a beggar. I too come before the Lord as a beggar asking for forgiveness of my sins.’ I told him I was not in good standing with the Church, and he assured me that as the Bishop of Rome he could reinstate me then and there.”

The man then relayed that it had been so long since he had heard a confession that the Pope had to help him through the words of absolution.

The priest asked, “But you were in there for fifteen minutes. Surely the Pope’s confession did not last that long.”

“No,” said his friend, “But after I heard his confession, I asked him to hear mine.”

The final words spoken by Pope John Paul II to this prodigal son came in the form of a commission. The Holy Father gave the newly-reconciled priest his first assignment: to go and minister to the homeless and the beggars on the steps of the very church from where he just came.

The only words I can add to the incredible story are this: what a humble example we have in Pope John Paul the Great. Here is a man that was able to see not only Jesus Christ, but also the Priesthood of Christ, in the eyes of a fallen-away beggar. Not only that, but he bowed before the beggar in humility with full awareness of his own sinfulness. In doing so, the Pope gave the man the opportunity to perform the only priestly act that was immediately available to him.

As a closing remark, it is said that Pope John Paul II went to confession every week. Would that we follow this example, how many of us would be saints.

[polkajello]

Jimmy Akin says:
However, the former Chaldean patriarch–Raphael Bidawid–was present at the meeting where the event occurred, and in an interview with the press service FIDES, he said the following:

On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi’ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope, because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim.

At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu’ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html

[polkajello]

Jimmy Akin says:
However, the former Chaldean patriarch–Raphael Bidawid–was present at the meeting where the event occurred, and in an interview with the press service FIDES, he said the following:

On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi’ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope, because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim.

At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu’ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html

[D-fendr]

The writer’s historical analysis notwithstanding, it is truly miraculous that through all this, after two thousand years, the Church Christ established is still with us and among us and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[wmfights]

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.

If Julius had been smarter he would have kept the Reformed churches under his control?

If the above were true I would still find myself looking at the Reformed/Roman Catholics from the outside. While I do believe Calvin has a great deal right during the current Church Age, I do not believe his systematic theology fits all dispensations. Also, unlike my Reformed friends as an Evangelical Christian I don't believe Creeds, or Councils, are binding.

Thanks for posting this Gamecock. It is thought provoking how institutional Christianity could be so different today based on the political calculations of it's leaders.

[BlueDragon]

...and this despite the best efforts of many to make themselves into the sole font of Christ's grace & forgiveness.

The true Church extends far beyond the self-proclaimed authority of that clown-crew, with members (recognized by the Lord as His own) being spread far and wide. Some of them are even part of the "clowns" (funny hat wearers), despite their own misapplied assumptions concerning themselves, and the limits to their own reach.

Yes, the Lord is truly marvelous, in keeping His own promises.

The Church is far bigger than that which a Latin bishop (or that bishop's promoters?) may claim. Here more of late (some fifty years ago) there was a "clarification" pronounced by the clown crew. They had to admit, contrary to other previous statements, that there was portions of this church which Christ established, somewhat beyond them...even as they simultaneously claimed themselves to be the ultimate head of those other congregations, too. As "Alter Christus"...

Thank God, for God. His Holy Spirit takes no direction from the clowns, not limiting Himself to their proclamations, even as He does at times entertain their own personal requests, supplying to them in their needs, offering His presence to be found within and among them.

But let us not confuse Him with "them".

God will not be mocked, nor bested. The clowns have shown themselves time and again, to not be beyond the need of correction. The same can be said for those whom wear simpler hats...or hardly any hat at all.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: I don’t believe Creeds, or Councils, are binding.

Surely you don’t have any objections to either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed.

[D-fendr]

We have different ideas of Church. We see it as one, holy, universal and apostolic. There is both a visible, as we see in Acts and St. Paul’s epistles, and invisible Church. On this we differ.

Best wishes and thanks for your reply.

[daniel1212]

You have made this defensive unsubstantiated assertion before, which is contrary to even catholic sources: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=983#983

[daniel1212]

An autocratic org has the right to redefine what it meant so that what it meant is what it now means. .

• Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM

• Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856):

“There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

• Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

• Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm

• Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

• "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life..unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." — Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), proclaimed “ex cathedra” (infallible).

• Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1 

 

• "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful..." — Fifth Lateran Council Session 11, 19 December 1516

[daniel1212]

With the exception of “one baptism for the remission of sins,” as it is the faith that baptism confesses that appropriates forgiveness. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) And “ holy catholic and apostolic Church” as in small “c” with the apostolic foundation. (Eph. 2:20)