Why Scripture and the Facts of History Compel Me to Remain a Committed Evangelical Protestant

I’ve read with interest Francis (Frank) Beckwith’s book, Return to Rome, because like him, I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic, attending parochial schools through my primary grades and a preparatory school run by a Benedictine monastery throughout my high school years. And, like Dr. Beckwith, in my teens I turned away from the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity altogether but was converted in my early twenties and began attending a Protestant Evangelical church. And for the past thirty seven years I have been a committed Evangelical Protestant. I was also quite interested in reading Dr. Beckwith’s book because he had been President of the Evangelical Theological Society at the time of his decision to revert to the Church of Rome and I was intrigued to learn the reasons that had formed his decision. After reading his book it became clear to me that Beckwith’s decision to return to Rome was based on his conviction that the Protestant Evangelical church is deficient on two important points. He is convinced that the Roman Catholic Church can claim historical validation for being the one true church established by Christ and that the Evangelical church is therefore a schismatic movement. He believes the Roman Church is the ultimate authority established by Jesus and that her teachings are therefore authoritative. He says:

Unless I capriciously cherry-picked the Catholic tradition, I could not justifiably accept the Early Church’s recognition and fixation of the canon of scripture—and its correct determination and promulgation of the central doctrines of God and Christ (at Nicea and Chalcedon)—while rejecting the Church’s sacramental life as awell as its findings about its own apostolic nature and authority. I was boxed into a corner, with the only exit being a door to a confessional. At this point, I thought, if I reject the Catholic Church, there is good reason for me to believe I am rejecting the Church that Christ himself established. That’s not a risk I was willing to take…It occurred to me that the burden was on me, and not on the Catholic Church, to show why I should remain in the schism with the Church in which my parents baptized me, even as I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.1

And secondly, and more importantly, he believes the Protestant Evangelical faith is deficient biblically with respect to its overall teaching on the gospel, justification and salvation. It is the subject of justification and salvation that Beckwith devotes most of his attention to in his book. He says:

…it is the Reformation notion of imputed righteousness that, ironically, puts the Reformers partially in the Pelagian camp. This is because the Reformers and Pelagians agree that God’s infused grace is not necessary for justification…For me, all things considered, the Catholic view has more explanatory power than the Protestant view. This is why it made sense to me that the Early Church Fathers…were so Catholic in their teachings. They held to a view that, I believe, does the best job of accounting for all the New Testament’s passages on justification and sanctification.2

And so, being convinced that the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas can be historically validated and that Rome’s salvation teachings are fully consistent with Scripture, Beckwith has issued a challenge to Evangelicals to give serious consideration to the claims of Rome and reconsider their commitment to their Protestant faith and the legitimacy of the Reformation and to follow him into the embrace of Roman Catholicism:

Thus, there is a heavy burden on the part of Reformed writers to show that the ascendancy in the sixteenth century of a Reformation thinking that had no ecclesiastical predecessors may be attributed to a return to the true understanding of Christianity.3

Dr. Beckwith quotes approvingly from Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, from his review of Noll and Nystrom’s book, Is the Reformation Over? Frank personally italicizes his comments for emphasis, as a clear challenge to Evangelicals:

When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church…(emphasis added).4

And then in these comments, by implication, he is challenging evangelicals to consider that they have no legitimate reasons to remain in what he calls “schism” with the Church of Rome:

Professor Trueman’s reasoning would serve as a catalyst for reorienting my sense of whether the Catholic Church or I had the burden in justifying the schism in which I had remained for over thirty years…I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.5

Now, I take such a challenge seriously. I have asked myself the same questions that Beckwith himself asked and over the years through the challenge of Roman Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid and others, I have been motivated to study and research the pertinent doctrinal and historical issues related to Roman Catholicism and the Reformation covering the general subject of authority and salvation. I have sincerely sought to answer the question, Can the teachings and claims of the Roman Catholic Church be validated biblically and historically? Is this Church truly the one true Church established by Jesus Christ? That study has been going on now for more than twenty five years and I remain a committed Evangelical Protestant precisely because of the truth of Scripture and the facts of history. This study has resulted in the writing of several books on the gospel and particular historical issues related to the history of the development of doctrine and the writings of the Church fathers on subjects such as the authority of scripture, the canon, the papacy and the Marian dogmas. In this research I have been able to bring to light much information that had previously been unavailable in the English language in the writings of the church fathers. So I have approached the reading of Return to Rome with great interest indeed. After reading the book, I must say that my overall reaction was one of deep sadness and disappointment. Frank Beckwith is winsome, obviously very bright and seemingly very sincere. But his arguments historically and biblically in support of Rome and which form the basis of his decision to embrace that church are unconvincing. Historically, Beckwith demonstrates a superficial understanding of the church fathers. There are a great many historical facts that he is either ignorant of or has chosen to turn a blind eye to. Ignorance can forgiven to some degree because he himself admits that he had no training and very little exposure to the writings of the church fathers. He says he gave only about three months of study to their writings prior to his decision to revert to Rome. And from the references he gives in his book it would seem that this study was under the direction of Roman Catholic apologists who are well known for proof–texting the writings of the church fathers giving anachronistic meaning to their writings that was foreign to what they actually say. For example, Roman Catholic apologists see the term tradition in the writings of the fathers and immediately import a present day Roman Catholic understanding to the term that the church fathers did not embrace. Or they will read a church father extolling the person and position of the apostle of Peter and immediately jump to the conclusion that such appellations apply to the bishops of Rome in support of the dogma of the papacy when the fathers themselves never make such an association in their writings. This approach applies to numerous examples that Beckwith references in his book such as prayers to the dead, confession and the doctrine of the Real Presence. Beckwith titles the section on historical doctrine, I Hear the Ancient Footsteps, in which he seeks to defend distinctive Roman Catholic teachings historically. I can personally say, that after twenty five years of research, as opposed to three months, that I also hear ancient footsteps and they do not point in the direction of the present day Roman Catholic Church and its dogmatic teachings. The fact of the matter is, Rome has added dogmas to the ancient rule of faith that was supported by the unanimous consent of the fathers and which was grounded in the written Scriptures. Dogmas which can find no warrant either in Scripture or the tradition of the church, and which in some cases completely contradict the ancient tradition of the Church, and which the Roman Catholic Church declares are necessary for salvation. But the most serious problem with Dr. Beckwith’s book and the one that caused me such disappointment is his caricature of the Reformed Evangelical faith in its teachings on salvation and secondly his assertions regarding the official teachings of Roman Catholicism on justification and salvation. He claims to have a thorough understanding of the teaching of the Reformed faith. He says:

To be sure, I was fully aware how Protestant theologians made their case, and I was capable of following their reasoning. But I no longer found their case convincing.6

Throughout his book Beckwith makes confident assertions about the salvation teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and he is convinced that these teachings are much more consistent, as was pointed out above, with Scripture than those of the Protestant Evangelical and Reformed faith. As a Reformed Evangelical and former Roman Catholic I have thoroughly read and studied all the official Roman Catholic documents on salvation including the Council of Trent, Vatican One, Vatican Two, The Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as papal decrees and official catechisms and the writings of Ludwig Ott. Having read Beckwith’s book, I am appalled at the blatant misrepresentation of both the Reformed teaching as well the teaching of Roman Catholicism. His lack of knowledge on historical issues is forgivable, given his ignorance, but to misrepresent and caricature the Reformed faith and to misrepresent the salvation teachings of Rome is simply irresponsible and dishonest. In this presentation I want to deal with a number of historical issues related to doctrine and dogmas that Beckwith alludes to that impinge upon the subject of the authority and the nature of the church and then address in a summary fashion the issues related to the gospel and salvation for that subject will be taken up in much greater detail by others.

The subject of authority is foundational to an understanding of Roman Catholicism and directly impinges on the issues of the gospel and salvation in two ways. Firstly, in that the authority claims of Rome, which involve the teachings on the papacy, scripture and tradition and the canon, have been elevated to the level of dogma by Rome. What this means is that these teachings embody essential doctrines which define the meaning of saving faith. That is, unless a person fully submits to and embraces them he does not possess saving faith and he cannot be justified. Vatican I, for example, states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end.7

Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, explains the relationship of Dogmas defined by the Church and faith in these words:

By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such...All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. (Vatican I). Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma:

A) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma...i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition) B) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation by the Church may be either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemns) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops.

Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both Divine Faith (Fides Divina) and Catholic Faith (Fides Catholica); it is the object of the Divine Faith...by reason of its Divine Revelation; it is the object of Catholic Faith...on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the Church. If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici 1325, Par. 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex Iuris Canonici 2314, Par. I). As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned, the so-called fiducial faith does not suffice. What is demanded is theological or dogmatic faith (confessional faith) which consists in the firm acceptance of the Divine truths of Revelation, on the authority of God Revealing...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation (emphasis added).8

This kind of teaching should give great pause to anyone considering conversion to Roman Catholicism. This Church is claiming the authority to bind men’s souls eternally by the promulgation of doctrines such as he Assumption of Mary that have neither scriptural nor traditional support based solely on her own supposed authority. Certainly there are many, many Roman Catholics who though they have never been formally excommunicated are nonetheless informally in that state since they do doubt and even deny certain dogmas and are thereby guilty of heresy. Secondly, the authority claims of Rome impinge on the issues of the gospel and salvation because she claims to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture as the one true church established by Christ and therefore whatever she authoritatively decrees is infallible. Thus, whatever Rome teaches regarding the gospel and salvation is infallible, divine truth.

Ultimate Authority and Historical Claims to Be the One True Church Beckwith states that he is convinced that the Church of Rome is the one true church established by Jesus Christ. This, of course, is the claim of the Roman Church herself. And that claim is set forth by both allusions to and expositions of Scripture and by appeals to historical practice and the writings of the church fathers. The question is, Do the Scriptures, the facts of history and the writings of the church fathers support the Roman Catholic claims for authority in her teachings of papal rule and infallibility and her claims to the one true church? The papal teachings which are foundational for Roman Catholic authority were given dogmatic definition by the First Vatican Council in 1870 where that Council asserted its claims for papal primacy and papal infallibility. This was the first instance of the teaching of papal infallibility being dogmatically defined but the teaching of papal primacy was dogmatized many centuries previous to Vatican I in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam. So with regard to papal primacy and rule Vatican I is simply reaffirming a dogma that had been decreed by the bishop of Rome some five hundred and eighty years previous. Unam Sanctam states:

And this body he called one body, that is, the Church, because of the single bridegroom, the unity of the faith, the sacraments, and the love of the Church. She is that seamless shirt of the Lord which was not rent but was allotted by the casting of lots. Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads—for had she two heads, she would be a monster—that is, Christ and Christ’s vicar, Peter and Peter’s successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, ‘Feed my sheep.’ ‘My,’ he said, speaking generally and not particularly, ‘these and those,’ by which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’…Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.9

Vatican I set forth its teachings on the basis of the exposition of three major passages of Scripture related to the apostle Peter, Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:32. It also reconfirmed the teachings of the Council of Trent in the 16th century and the principle defined by Trent of authoritative interpretation and the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. This principle states that the Roman Church alone has the authority to interepret Scripture and that it is illegitimate to interpret Scripture that contradicts what it calls the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. Trent states:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.10

Of the three passages of Scripture used to support Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the most important is Matthew 16:16-19:

And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’

The basic Roman interpretation of this passage is that the rock refers to Peter leading to the conclusion that the Church of Christ is built upon him personally. The keys represent his authority to rule the church and to define truth. And since it says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church that she will be infallible in what she teaches and proclaims. Additionally, it is stated that in this passage Christ is establishing successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome who were given authority to rule the Church universal until He returns. Vatican One states that very the very beginning of the establishment of the Church this doctrine was understood and believed including Vatican One’s exegesis of the Petrine passages. But neither biblically nor historically in the practice of the church or in the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 does one find an affirmation of these teachings. Vatican I is in fact guilty of contradicting the very principle it reconfirmed from the Council of Trent of never interpreting Scripture in any way contrary to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. We will examine the biblical arguments and then the historical.

Yes, I think I know what you mean ...though I'll not investigate that too much further now, or go on to worship music widely (beyond briefly addressing your comment) but would like to include mention of the anointing from above, a heavenly response as it were, which can be at times and places discerned, as the Lord (His Holy Spirit) inhabits the praises and worship of his people (Gregorian chant comes to mind here, when sung in worship, much plainer fare perhaps not as much matching "tone" as it were, of the heart's own unutterable moaning and cry)...beyond this brief mention here, be it as it may perhaps not driving right towards the surface of your here reply, but more of what I do hope to be accurate in surmise, of what is the underlying reason for either liking and enjoying some types of worship music, while being underwhelmed by other.

Please forgive if you will, my own failure to reply to your previous note sooner As much as for some primary consideration (there being multiple components to the points you raised in rebuttal) but for reason also of the acrimony, falsehoods & misrepresentations so abundantly on display in the thread from that point onward (including at least one instance of that "criminal" excerpting I made mention of, and another instance of an excerpted quote used as basis of argumentation, and that argumentative contentiousness being near fully 180 degrees out of phase in light of the snippet of quote being leveraged, in a near ceaseless repetitive flow of the like, and worse) the spirit evident behind such proceedings of rhetoric & dialog, grieved my own spirit to the extent I could not gather from within myself the exactitude required to reply in turn to items you touched upon, including their further reach of implication (as such was being sought to apply?) with any hope of doing so in brevity.

Though I no have real regret for not then furthering the discussion, and speaking light of historical record, (particularly from the very beginnings) as to logical examination of various, as I am wont to say, Romish claims or positions, as they are expressed and/or propounded to be today (as frequently witnessed on this forum), I did have regret for not responding in similar tone of cordiality earlier, such as you yourself had the courtesy of extending. My thanks to you for that sort of thing, and again, my apologies for failure to provide timely, further reply.

If you will allow...(and at risk of further irritating those whom scroll through comments without there being way to exclude the RF--- for I can relate to and understand that sort of suffering, and so do beg their pardon also) there was a point you touched upon I desire to address. At risk of too harshly chopping at your own comment, which risk I'm willing to venture, for you yourself know best what idea was being expressed, this fragment isolates;

"...certainly some Catholics are under the mistaken impression that the Church’s dogmas (or to be precise, the understanding of the deposit of Faith) and/practices were the exact same as today, but this is not what the Church believes or teaches.

To this, must be reference to developmental theory(?), a proposal along the lines of Newman terming it an "unpacking" of what is claimed to have been there all along? Explanations for how things became as they are today, for things not found support for in the scripture, but even more for all else, I suppose...

Yet...for where criticism of that same be due, what is there but otherwise proclaimed so often, "as handed down by Christ to the Apostles" to which the more subtle of the Sophists will be careful to add the loophole "...Apostles, and their successors" while pointing simultaneously rather vaguely towards "oral tradition" as cover for doctrinal mindsets opening up only many centuries later, or simply "tradition" itself for basis of yet more of the same [expansions] and outright adoption of development as dogma --- with such ideas oft times in opposition to the earliest of the "Patristic Fathers" whom were much closer to anything resembling oral tradition as handed down to and from the more original capital "A" Apostles. Patristic Fathers (from the first centuries, when they are accessed in effort to reach back to beginnings) are much edited, cherry picked for *some* quotes much massaged in support of Rome (when possible) often by way of criminal ellipse from wider context, and all too often totally ignored when opposition be found there for these "unpacked" things, such as papal supremacy, when under closer examination, and/or being promoted and spoken of.

It was not for nothing I supplied link previous to a letter of (pope) Gregory the Great, for although he came along centuries later than the Apostles and their most immediate successors;

Gregory at that late date expresses clear opposition to the title Universal to being applied solely to any one bishop of the church (which in that context would much equate to repudiation of papal supremacy also).
denied such title for himself, when it was offered to him, even as himself serving as bishop of Rome, a pope, which is irrefutable evidence he did not ascribe for himself Universal bishop, with further indication that prior to himself being the bishop of Rome (to which the title "pope" had admittedly been connected, but with that descriptive title not freighted with the connotative meaning it has today, as I will touch upon a bit further down);
compared those whom would seek such approbation to the devil, that fallen Angel Lucifer himself.

spoke of those who by speech would push for or promote the idea of "singularity" as he then termed it, as "weak persons" further comparing them to both Eve, and Job's wife ...and we all know what she advised Job to do -- curse God and die.
In regards to this push for "singularity", the very idea there be one bishop-of-bishops over all others, pointedly warned; "The king of pride is near, and (awful to be said!) there is an army of priests in course of preparation for him, inasmuch as they who had been appointed to be leaders in humility enlist themselves under the neck of pride. "

In the same letter, here is yet another snippet driving the same point home, which the lengthy note did over and again, there being one central theme;

What then, dearest brother, will you say in that terrible scrutiny of the coming judgment, if you covet to be called in the world not only father, but even general father? Let, then, the bad suggestion of evil men be guarded against; let all instigation to offense be fled from. It must needs be (indeed) that offenses come; nevertheless, woe to that man by whom the offense comes [Matthew 18:7]. Lo, by reason of this execrable title of pride the Church is rent asunder, the hearts of all the brethren are provoked to offense. What! Has it escaped your memory how the Truth says, Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea (Ib. 5:6)? But it is written, Charity seeks not her own [1 Corinthians 13:4]. Lo, your Fraternity arrogates to itself even what is not its own. Again it is written, In honour preferring one another [Romans 12:10]. And you attempt to take the honour away from all which you desire unlawfully to usurp to yourself singularly. Where, dearest brother, is that which is written, Have peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord [Hebrews 12:14]? Where is that which is written, Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God [Matthew 5:9]?

Complicating things yet further when one reaches back to quote-mine ECF's, is that usage of the word "pope", it's THEN inherent meanings and thus implication, ... in more ancient catholic tradition, pretty much all bishops, wherever located were called "pope" with that title being synonymous with "bishop". Stop and think about THAT for a moment in light of excerptings, "criminal" or not. Earliest ECF, could be directly quoted, yet 'misquoted' as to what their own meanings actually were at the time which they spoke or wrote,...and this by default, due to the direction of change in the application and meaning of the word "pope", would produce positive error towards support of possibly first, papal primacy, and dependent upon context of usage (say in a column of quotes purporting to "establish" there have been always such a thing as "pope" as it is known today, but with that not being at all true. In this sort of thing, I am not speaking here of the once upon a time, three-at-a-time Latin "popes" competing for office of the Latin church, or even of literature dated centuries previous to that, speaking of popes simultaneously in Rome, North Africa, and Asia Minor, as such were addressed among others, but speaking towards as it was in the beginnings not limited to those three, and that also all [bishops] were theologically speaking, to be considered on the same level, even as at the same time human beings (Christians) did ascribe particular panache to the double Apostolicity (Peter & Paul) for the bishopric of Rome. Which through wagging tongues, and the weaknesses of men, and their failure to submit themselves one to another as Christ directed, in sundry ways led eventually to Rome asserting herself over all others, resulting in the Great Schism itself; Which leaves myself no possibility for any real acceptance of the claim there was much possibility as you put it, for;

"...(from a logical standpoint) that it was rather accepted practice even at that time (with some dissent possible at that time of course) that his office served the same function it does today."

As it does today. ??? No sir, it is far too far now expanded, to state it like that. Bringing others under subjection by force, even if today it be but force of much brow-beating (along with intimations and more open attempts of intimidation, zealously demanding that today's era Roman Pontiff be Christ's own representative on earth, (except for when or if he can be seen to not be) and that to oppose in deed or word is to oppose God (at times that may be so, depending upon what idea is being spoken of at any one time, and how that same be presented) which overstates the case for one bishop having that much invested, even if it be also true at the same time, that the whole dang crowd is said to speak for God, as if they only were prophets (as if, Ha!) and that by committee(!), yet those committee proceedings need too be carefully weighed and considered in their own little hierarchies of what can be under further debate and what cannot, etc. Say hello to the latter-day Sanhedrin? Almost...but with some significant, positive differences perhaps, it should be granted...yet with latter-day rabbinical tendencies also, as underpinnings to this religious "Court".

Leaving mankind's "by committee", long in developing "reactions" to the Lord's own sacrifice, in comparison and in mixture with man's still much fallen state for a brief moment, before again returning to that;
It was for as remedy for the sinful, fallen creature that man became at the fall of Adam, that The Creator himself, in the form of his only begotten son, placed himself upon a cross, dying in our place.

In contrast to that, it is because of the sinfulness of mankind, even those whom would be and are to this day, a part of His church, that things much are as they are, today...with this less than desired symptom certainly not limited to the Latin church and it's closest affiliates.

I contend that it was not by foreknowledge of the Lord and his own heart's desire, nor by his own direction as handed down to the Apostles, nor yet by those Apostles directions themselves, that such as office of the papacy, with all the baggage associated with it's slow, unfolding arrival upon the scene, and it's present meanings... be desired to be in existence in the first place, even if it be inevitable that such would come about, due again to the sin nature of man, and what was done with what had been received, handed down by Christ and the Apostles, for on issue and yet more, it has became changed from the original articles.

Among all of God's creatures, it does appear that man alone is the one with capacity for both; some semblance of divinity, and great depravity, with these both playing a part, being present on both sides of the aisle as it were...with the "singular" office being a reaction to man constantly "not getting it right" in regards to the Lord, and the need also for order in the church, among these same willful men. Thus this need of mankind generally for near constant correction, the sinfulness spoken of, the remedy sought by the impatient whom fantasized if it were only themselves, their own group in "control" (whom themselves as a group were less than fully enlightened, less than "spiritual" themselves, or else soon reverted to being so) their "group" being not that much more special than the ones whom they displaced or sent away) caused yet more offense in the very pushing for Latin church primacy (in the person of Peter's claimed-to-be "sole" successors, grievous divisions being the fruit.

"And with necessity, / The tyrant's plea, / excus'd his devilish deeds", John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book iv, line 393

However we look at it, again as I mentioned before, we cannot find passed down by the Apostles such office as singular papacy, nor find it in the most primitive traditions, which once understood, leaves only later development, showing that such statement as (though I concede you yourself not say this here to me);

"As instituted by Christ, handed down to his Apostles and their successors"

is seriously flawed...for there is subtle (but significant in implication) disconnect between Christ and the original Apostles, and those successors of many later centuries, with it now being pretended that this (papal supremacy) was clear intent from the very beginning, for such is simply not so ----- unless for the first few hundred years (think---as long as the United States has been in existence an then some) those earlier successors were themselves quite blinded to the Lord's own intent, with only many centuries later "successors" to the bishopric of Rome, along with an "army of priests in preparation for him" ...[ ] ..."the king of pride" who would do the deed, later [ahem] showing us all the way, which again underlines the disconnect from earliest traditions, with the disconnect making the overall statement I underlined immediately above, to be a monstrous lie from it's original onset, albeit I do not lay the formation of this lie at the feet of the present occupant of that office, the more immediate predecessors to that office, nor entirely at the feet of those presently in communion with Rome either.

John 3:8

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

If one can find the Spirit of the Lord there, in communion with the Roman church, so be it and ever moreso. Yet know this; it is not for reason of some sole perfection of doctrine or teaching found only there, but for reason of God's grace itself as personified by Christ's blood itself, that He gives grace to any of us to discern His presence. Which, if you can forgive my own opposition to some items of faith you may hold dear (or understand to be true) while I plainly do not the same for particular items, one thing I am certain we may find some agreement for, is the very blood featured so prominently in the old hymn which I included a ping to yourself towards. Or so it was hoped for...

....May the Peace of the Lord be with you.

“1. contrary to the idea that i argued celibacy was a doctrinal requirement, i specified this was only “church law “ (canon law) and changeable.”

Which is what the Catholic church teaches. Your error is not in what you assert being contrary to the Church your error is attributing to the Church what she does not teach.

“2. contrary to the assertion that that celibacy is not a requirement at all”

It’s not a requirement to ordination either in the Byzantine rite or in the Latin rite. Converted clerics don’t have to divorce their wife once regularized, even in the Latin rite.

“3. contrary to different titles for classes of pastors and titled priests, in Scripture bishops are elders and elders are bishops, the distinctive hierarchical titles being a latter development”

I would contest this. The disciples came first. The disciples being apostles and bishops came before there ever was a priest. The distinction between the two would come up at the first council in Jerusalem and well within the first century. Assertions that the ‘threefold structure’ did not exist in scripture is not only contrary to acts, but is evidence of reading into the text what is not there. You may believe this - the text does not support it.

“4. contrary to your assumption, i myself did not argue for married priests ‘so married men don’t feel excluded’.”

You go on to argue, “but they make excellent preachers”. Either you believe that the church would benefit (which is a utilitarian ethos, or that you believe the exclusion is unwarranted, which need I elaborate is a bad basis to base canon law on the self-esteem of the recipient.

5. “Rome and the EO have differences in celibacy requirements.”

It’s not a requirement. Again. It’s a discipline. Words are important because misuse of words is what is tripping you up here.

“6. contrary to your blanket assertion otherwise, the Catholic church does have celibacy requirements.”

No, it does not. The Latin Rite has a discipline. The Byzantine Rite has a different one. The Catholic church has a continence requirement which is doctrinal and does not very across the rites, and the Catholic church has a celibacy discipline which does vary across the rites.

Continence and celibacy are two different things. I can see why you are confused since you are equating two different things together, that are not the same thing. This is why words are very important. Continence requirement, celibacy discipline.

“9. contrary to your assertions, the text does not actually say “but one wife, but simply “one wife, and “mia” is not always restricted to one, nonetheless contrary to your charge that i cannot accept the interpretation that “one wife” is forbidding polygamy, i can, but that the husband requirement goes beyond this.”

Ordaining a husband requires one to be married first then ordained. If you’re asserting a marriage requirement - this would actually rule out marrying after ordination altogether.

There’s nothing in scripture that permits marriage after ordination. Nothing at all. You say this is what the Church ought to do and teach - you should be able to provide some evidence for this from scripture.

“nowhere does he see fit to detail how single men should be likewise proven to be able governors.”

Yet you argue an ordained man should be allowed to marry. This is a paradox and demonstrates that your position is logically untenable.

Either discard one or the other, and we can go from there.

“were the norm”

I asked you to prove to me where scripture uses the word ‘norm’ anywhere. Does it use the word? No? Then why are you reading into the text something that the text does not say?

“but the case of widowed pastors.”

That’s a separate question. This is an excellent question. Canon law states that a widower may become a priest, as the sacrament of marriage no longer applies. The widower may not remarry after becoming a priest. Continence is required, virginity is not.

Snips random drivel.

“Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven”

Finally the cite. Continence != celibacy.

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.