Posted on 02/28/2013 6:52:42 AM PST by Gamecock
Taken from the highest ranks of the clergy, popes should be among the best living pastors, biblical scholars, and theologians. That this has often not been the case is obvious enough throughout history, as any well-informed Roman Catholic will concede. (More than a few instances of corruption and heresy may be found on the Protestant side as well.)
However, Benedict XVI has regularly been impressive on these counts. Living alongside Protestants in Germany, he often engages Reformation views with more sympathy and knowledge than most—especially more than many Protestants who convert to Rome and trade on caricatures of the evangelical faith based on the worst of evangelicalism.
One example of Pope Benedict’s judicious engagement is the way he explains the context that helped to provoke the Reformation. Though he realizes that there was more to it, he refers to the Great Western Schism (1309-1417). Not many people know about this today, so it’s worth considering.
Often called the “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” the Schism was provoked by the election of rival popes and the removal of the papacy from Rome to Avignon, France. Before becoming pope, Benedict explained,
For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987), 196)
Throughout the Middle Ages there had been a running feud between popes and kings, leading to excommunication from the one and imprisonment by the other. However, the disruption of the papal succession provoked widespread anxiety within the church—and indeed, the whole of Christendom. Between 1305 and 1377, the pope was French and so were most of his cardinals. The schism was consummated when Pope Urban VI in Rome and Pope Clement VII in Avignon excommunicated each other—and therefore all of those under each other’s respective sees. They continued this division by appointed their own successors.
Who would resolve this stand-off? Some leading theologians had argued for a while that church councils always had priority over the pope until fairly recently. The early ecumenical councils were a prime example.
However, in this case councils it became clear that councils, too, were fallible. The Council of Pisa (1409) elected a third pope to replace the two rivals. At the Council of Constance (1414-18), where the reformer Jan Hus was condemned to the flames, the two rival popes and the third pope were replaced now by a fourth, Martin V. It came at a cost to the papacy: the Council declared its sovereignty over the pope. Pope Martin, who could not attend, declared its position on this matter null. As a binding council, some Roman Catholic theologians today invoke its memory for a new conciliar movement.
Between the 14th and 16th centuries, leading theologians defended the authority of Scripture over councils and of councils over the pope, drawing on the example of the ancient church. Arguing that Scripture is above the whole church, William of Ockham (d. 1349) argued that the whole church (including laity) should hold a council to elect the pope and limit his authority. It is this whole church that is the communion of saints, not the Roman church. If a pope falls into heresy, a council can judge him without his approval. Marsilius of Padua agreed (Defensor Pacis, 1324): the church consists of all the faithful, not just priests. Christ is the only head of the church. More conservative reformists defended the principle of Scripture’s magisterial authority and the priority of councils over the papacy. These included the leading Sorbonne theologian Jean Gerson, as well as Pierre d’Ailly, Francesco Zabarella, and Nicholas of Cusa.
The last gasp of the conciliar movement came at the Council of Basel (1431-49). Papalists formed Council of Florence, while conciliar party in Basel elected another pope. Martin called it but died before it met. Eugenius IV succeeded him and was prevented by health from presiding. He couldn’t have done so in any case, as the fathers declared (on the basis of Constance) that the Council was superior to the pope. Eugenius made concession after concession until he finally submitted. His papal legates could only attend if they accepted this as well, though they were duplicitous afterwards.
Finally, on the eve of the Reformation, Pope Julius II reasserted papal primacy and packed the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) with cardinals who supported him. Thomas Cajetan, famous (among other things) as Luther’s curial opponent, staunchly defended papal primacy. In condemning the Reformation, the Council of Trent also condemned positions that had been argued by theologians well within its pale for centuries.
With the First Vatican Council in the 1850s, papal infallibility became binding dogma—necessary for salvation. In spite of a few statements in Lumen Gentium exploited by more liberal theologians, Vatican II and the latest Catholic Catechism reaffirm that there is no full and perfect communion with Christ apart from obedience to the pope. Before becoming Benedict XVI, and since, Cardinal Ratzinger defended these views with great energy and skill. I have no doubt that he will continue to do so.
But this tale does clear our eyes from the foggy mists of sentimentalism. Is the Roman Catholic Church united by an unbroken succession from St. Peter? Roman Catholic theologians—and especially historians—know that an uncomplicated “yes” will not do. Are the church’s decisions irreformable? Then what about the Council of Constance? Even the Council of Basel was a duly constituted synod. Whose conclusions are binding? At the very least, Rome has compromised its claim of an unbroken unity—not only between councils and popes, but within the papal line itself. It can invent theories of “anti-popes” to preserve its claim to valid succession. But even if one were to accept the idea in principle, history has already provided too much contrary evidence. Romantic glances across the Tiber are thwarted by the reality. At the end of the day, this story provides one more reminder that the church that is created by the Word and stands under that Word, with all of its besetting sins and errors, is still the safest place to be in a fallen world and imperfect church.
Further Reading:
•C. M. D. Crowder, Unity, Heresy, and Reform, 1378-1460: The Conciliar Response to the Great Schism (New York : St. Martin’s Press, 1977).
•Oakley, Francis. The Conciliarist Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all the Reformation churches are supersessionist. It is the Christian Churches that were never apart of the Church-State system that recognize that GOD is not done with Israel and that the covenants made with Israel have not been transferred to Christians.
It’s not biblical, and no Christian held this belief prior to Luther.
I've heard this comment so many times that when I began to examine Sola Scriptura for myself it was one of the first things I looked at. Did Sola Scriptura exist in practice prior to Luther? The answer is clearly YES!
In March 744AD, Clement of the Scotch Church was condemned as a heretic by a council at Soissons because he believed "no councils, writings, decisions of the church that are contrary to Scripture have authority over Christians".
Apparently the institutional church was so afraid of this belief that Boniface called a synod at Soissons 2 March 744.
Millers Church History has the details if you wish to examine this on your own.
Interesting way of putting it, and accurate as far as I’m able to decipher. I can’t think of a denomination that has been a State Church that doesn’t believe this, or one that hasn’t that does.
Being a State Church breeds hubris in more ways than one, it would seem. The Founders were more right than they ever knew.
I believe what gets missed when this point is brought up is what the common point is among those with different views. If all parties believe in Sola Scriptura they start with the same source, the Bible. It's pretty easy to have a real discussion and understanding when we use the same source.
Right on the money. Good post.
Thanks for your reply.
It helps to have the same source, yes; however, it’s not a source like math book.
This is why we have variations on what Scriptures mean in terms of doctrine and dogma. Using the same source does not mean the same interpretation of the meaning that source.
Let me try and clarify it a little more. I could be wrong and I am happy to look at any serious input on the idea. I believe the Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran churches are all supersessionist. These churches are similar to the Roman Catholic Church in that they were protected entities of the state and to varying degrees had influence or control over their respective states.
Other churches that existed prior to the Reformation, or emerged after it, that were always separate from the state are not usually supersessionist; for example the Waldensian, Anabaptist, Methodist among others.
Being a State Church breeds hubris in more ways than one, it would seem. The Founders were more right than they ever knew.
I couldn't aree more!
Where do I keep adding to Scripture ? Show me the posts where you claim that I've added something to Scripture.
The Christian church during the Apostolic Era and generations immediately following had this problem and yet they muddled through without the use of coercive force to impose their understanding. It was with the rise of the belief that there must be one interpretation that everyone adheres to that led to a hierarchy in which tradition, creeds and confessions began to supersede Scripture.
To an extent, yes and to an extent no.
I doubt many of those in the NT early church or those to whom Jesus taught and preached and healed, had a clear understanding of who He was. And yet their faith in Him saved them, according to HIS own words in Scripture.
Not only that, no human being is perfectly capable of perfectly understanding who Jesus is and was.
The criteria is that you believe the Jesus of the NT. Any other Jesus can't save.
For example, this could open a can of worms, but the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus presented in Scripture. Putting faith in that one, cannot save. If someone knowingly puts their trust in that Jesus, the half-brother of Lucifer (Satan), that Jesus cannot save because that is not the Jesus presented in Scripture.
So, just because some group of men get together and explain what they think Jesus is the best they can express it, doesn't mean they're right.
So, I'll trust in the Jesus of Scripture. If someone wants to trust in the Jesus of the creeds, they are free to do so, but should not be surprised if it doesn't turn out so well in the end.
I didn’t say adding to scripture. You said scripture is all we need - yet it wasn’t all you needed to describe your position, make your argument, etc. Scripture wasn’t all you needed.
Let's simplify then. Does it matter if Christ is God? Does the Most Holy Trinity matter? Does it matter whether Christ rose from the dead? Does it matter whether Christ is of one substance with God the father, or human only, or divine only? Does it matter whether Christ equal to the Father or subsidiary? Whether He was incarnate God or became divine later...
Using the same source, Holy Scripture, there have been different interpretations on these questions.
Whatever answers/interpretation you have, this comprises a large portion of your personal creed.
Thanks for your reply.
They muddled through to the faith we have today by the councils of the Church, beginning with the one in Jerusalem.
Without this, we would have something similar to what we have today - a wide variety of doctrine and dogma based on the same source. And each claiming the meaning of that source based on their authority. We even see it claimed on each individual's authority.
However you feel about it, this has not resulted in "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." It fails in practice.
Thanks for your reply.
And there is a hierarchy in the early Church. Without a hierarchy and authority, we have what St. Paul corrected in his epistles. Each his own authority is not how the Church was established.
The criteria is that you believe the Jesus of the NT. Any other Jesus can't save.
Throughout history up until today, the "Jesus of the NT" has been 'determined' to be many different things. A major concern of the creeds is to describe what is correct and what is not.
Your own determination is your own creed. If it varies from that of the creed, then you are outside the belief of the Church.
But it's not that simple. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have different canons.
So which canon is correct? That requires an authority outside of Scripture.
In March 744AD, Clement of the Scotch Church was condemned as a heretic by a council at Soissons
I don't have any reason not to believe you.
But in 1400 years of Church history, that makes Luther and this guy.
How do you get the Bible alone as the sole rule of faith out of this?
It seems to me that you, among most other Protestants, read the doctrine into these various passages.
Which highlights another problem with Luther's doctrine.
Scripture is the final authority. It is all we need. We don’t need creeds or councils, doctrinal statements or magisteriums.
As far as what I say, I state my position and appeal to Scripture as the final authority to back it up. Considering the difficulty some people have understanding the clear teachings of Scripture, sometimes other words are necessary, but they are not creeds or councils nor am I demanding adherence to them. They are just a matter of clarification for those with reading comprehension issues.
Anything outside of Scripture used to determine who Jesus is, is meaningless.
Your own determination is your own creed.
Baloney......
If it varies from that of the creed, then you are outside the belief of the Church.
I don't care if I am outside the Catholic church. I am in the body of Christ by faith in Him, not part of any denomination by adherence to any creed.
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.