Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[Gamecock]

Full Title: Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

In the field of Reformation studies, Professor Brad Gregory is somebody for whom I have immense respect.  Those outside the discipline of history are possibly unaware of the ravages which postmodernism brought in its wake, making all narratives negotiable and fuelling a rise in interest in all manner of trivia and marginal weirdness.  Dr. Gregory is trained in both philosophy and history and has done much to place the self-understanding of human agents back at the centre of historical analysis.  Thus, for those of us interested in the Reformation, he has also played an important role in placing religion back into the discussion.  For that, I and many others owe him a great debt of gratitude.

I therefore find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of writing a very critical review of his latest book, The Unintended Reformation (Belknap Harvard, 2011). The book itself is undoubtedly well-written and deeply learned, with nearly a third of the text devoted to endnotes.  It is brilliant in its scope and execution, addressing issues of philosophy, politics and economics.  Anyone wanting a panoramic view of the individuals, the institutions and the forces which shaped early modern Europe should read this work. Yet for all of its brilliance, the book does not demonstrate its central thesis, that Protestantism must shoulder most of the responsibility for the various things which Dr. Gregory dislikes about modern Western society, from its exaltation of the scientific paradigm to its consumerism to its secular view of knowledge and even to global warming. I am sympathetic with many of Dr. Gregory's gripes about the world of today; but in naming Protestantism as the primary culprit he engages in a rather arbitrary blame game.

Dr. Gregory's book contains arguments about both metaphysics and what we might call empirical social realities. On the grounds that debates about metaphysics, like games of chess, can be great fun for the participants but less than thrilling for the spectators, I will post my thoughts on that aspect of the book in a separate blog entry. In this article, I will focus on the Papacy, persecution and the role of the printing press.  This piece is more of a medieval jousting tournament than a chess game and will, I trust, provide the audience with better spectator sport.

One final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific. In what follows, however, I am deliberately combative.  This is not because I wish to show disrespect to Dr. Gregory or to his Church or to his beliefs; but he has set the tone by writing a very combative book. I like that. I like writers who believe and care about the big questions of life. But here is the rub: those who write in such a way must allow those who respond to them to believe with equal passion in their chosen cause and to care about it deeply and thus to be equally combative in their rejoinders.

A key part of the book's argument is the apparent anarchy created by the Protestant emphasis on the perspicuity of scripture. In this, Dr. Gregory stands with his Notre Dame colleague, Christian Smith, as seeing this as perhaps the single weakest point of Protestantism. He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation). This creates a very diverse and indeed chaotic picture of Protestantism such that no unifying doctrinal synthesis is possible as a means of categorizing the whole.  

I wonder if I am alone in finding the more stridently confident comments of some Roman Catholics over the issue of perspicuity to be somewhat tiresome and rather overblown. Perspicuity was, after all, a response to a position that had proved to be a failure: the Papacy.  Thus, to criticize it while proposing nothing better than a return to that which had proved so inadequate is scarcely a compelling argument.

Yes, it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.  The ability to ignore or simply dismiss as irrelevant the empirical facts of papal history is quite an impressive feat of historical and theological selectivity. Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries. 

Never mind.  Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say  - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams. 

Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.  

Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority.  After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.  

Forget it.  Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.  

Perhaps it is somewhat aggressive to pose these points in such a blunt form. Again, I intend no disrespect but am simply responding with the same forthrightness with which certain writers speak of Protestantism. The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.  These are all empirical facts and they are all routinely excused, dismissed or simply ignored by Roman Catholic writers. Perspicuity was not the original problem; it was intended as the answer.   One can believe it to be an incorrect, incoherent, inadequate answer; but then one must come up with something better - not simply act as if shouting the original problem louder will make everything all right. Such an approach to history and theology is what I call the Emerald City protocol: when defending the great and powerful Oz, one must simply pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.  

Given the above empirical facts, the medieval Papacy surely has chronological priority over any of the alleged shortcomings of scriptural perspicuity in the history of abject ecclesiastical and theological disasters. To be fair, Dr. Gregory does acknowledge that 'medieval Christendom' was a failure (p. 365) but in choosing such a term he sidesteps the significance of the events of the late medieval period for papal authority. The failure of medieval Christendom was the failure of the Papacy. To say medieval Christendom failed but then to allow such a statement no real ecclesiastical significance is merely an act of throat-clearing before going after the people, the Protestants, who frankly are in the crosshairs simply because it appears one finds them and their sects distasteful. Again, to be fair, one cannot blame Roman Catholics for disliking Protestants: our very existence bears testimony to Roman Catholicism's failure. But that Roman Catholics who know their history apparently believe the Papacy now works just fine seems as arbitrary and selective a theological and historical move as any confessionally driven restriction of what is and is not legitimate Protestantism.  

As Dr. Gregory brings his narrative up to the present, I will do the same. There are things which can be conveniently ignored by North American Roman Catholic intellectuals because they take place in distant lands. Yet many of these are emblematic of contemporary Roman Catholicism in the wider world. Such, for example, are the bits of the real cross and vials of Jesus' blood which continue to be displayed in certain churches, the cult of Padre Pio and the relics of Anthony of Padua and the like (both of whom edged out Jesus and the Virgin Mary in a poll as to who was the most prayed to figure in Italian Catholicism). We Protestants may appear hopelessly confused to the latest generation of North American Roman Catholic polemicists, but at least my own little group of Presbyterian schismatics does not promote the veneration of mountebank stigmatics or the virtues of snake-oil.

Still, for the sake of argument let us accept the fideistic notion that the events of the later Middle Ages do not shatter the theology underlying the Papacy.  What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid.  The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching. Such a Church is as chaotic and anarchic as anything Protestantism has thrown up. 

Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture, then it seems reasonable to insist in response that discussions of Roman Catholicism include not simply the Newmans, Ratzingers and Wotjylas but also the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter.  And why stop there?  We should also throw in the sedevacantists and Lefebvrists for good measure.  They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work.  At least Protestantism has the integrity to wear its chaotic divisions on its sleeve.

Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions. Certainly, the bloodshed along confessional lines in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was terrible, but doctrinal disagreements did not begin with the Reformation. The New Testament makes it clear that serious doctrinal conflict existed within the church even during apostolic times (I hope I am allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that the New Testament is perspicuous enough for me to state that with a degree of confidence); and the link between church and state which provided the context for bloodshed over matters of theological deviancy was established from at least the time of Priscillian in the late fourth century. It was hardly a Protestant or even a Reformation innovation.

When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages. No doubt the Spanish Jews and Muslims, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites and many other religious deviants living before the establishment of any Protestant state might have wished that their sufferings had received a more substantial role in the narrative and more significance in the general thesis. Sure, Protestantism broke the Roman Catholic monopoly on persecution and thus played a shameful and ignominious part in its escalation; but it did not establish the precedents, legally, culturally or practically.

Finally, the great lacuna in this book is the printing press. Dr. Gregory has, as I noted above, done brilliant work in putting self-understanding back on the historical agenda and thus of grounding the history of ideas in historical realities rather than metaphysical abstractions. The danger with this, however, is that material factors can come to be somewhat neglected. His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print. The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion. I suspect there is a very plausible alternative, or at least supplementary, narrative to the 'Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge' thesis: the printing press did it because it made impossible the Church's control of the nature, range, flow and availability of knowledge.

Ironically, the printing press is one of the great success stories of pre-Reformation Catholic Europe. One might argue that it was a technological innovation and thus not particularly 'Catholic' in that sense. That is true; but for some years after it was invented it was unclear whether it would be successful enough to replace medieval book production. In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans. In other words, it was the vibrancy of late medieval Catholic piety, of which Dr. Gregory makes much, that ensured the future of the printing press and thereby the shipwrecking of the old, stable forms of knowledge.

The Roman Catholic Church knew the danger presented by the easy transmission of, and access to, knowledge which the printing press provided. That is why it was so assiduous in burning books in the sixteenth century and why the Index of Prohibited Books remained in place until the 1960s. I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought. Women in Britain had the vote, Elvis (in my humble opinion) had already done his best work and The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were starting to churn out hits before Roman Catholics were free to read David Hume without specific permission from the Church.   

Of course, Dr. Gregory knows about the Index; but he seems to see it as a response to Protestantism, not as an extension of the Church's typical manner of handling deviation from its central tenets and practices which stretched back well before the Reformation. And therein lies the ironic, tragic, perplexing flaw of this brilliant and learned book: Dr. Gregory sets out to prove that Protestantism is the source of all, or at least many, of the modern world's ills; but what he actually does is demonstrate in painstaking and compelling detail that medieval Catholicism and the Papacy with which it was inextricably bound up were ultimately inadequate to the task which they set - which they claimed! - for themselves.  Reformation Protestantism, if I can use the singular, was one response to this failure, as conciliarism had been a hundred years before.  One can dispute the adequacy of such responses; but only by an act of historical denial can one dispute the fact that it was the Papacy which failed.

Thanks to the death of medieval Christendom and to the havoc caused by the Reformation and beyond, Dr Gregory is today free to believe (or not) that Protestantism is an utter failure.  Thanks to the printing press, he is also free to express this in a public form. Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.

[daniel1212]

You are very correct that the text of Luke 1:28 does not necessitate the Catholic doctrine on Mary; it witnesses to it. This is the case with all Catholic doctrine: the Church discerns the doctrine from its sacred tradition by looking at available historical knowledge of the life of the Church.

Which is selectively done, as such things as the IC lack unanimous consent of the fathers, and the Assumption lacks weight of early testimony , and in other things Rome differs with the EOs on what Tradition teaches, even as in the case of universal papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility, among other things.

The reading that since the fullness of grace preceded the arrival of the angel...

That this grace was perpetual sinlessness is presumed, versus that grace being that this evidently holy Spirit-filled soul had "found grace with God" as the text states, (Lk. 1:30) in being chosen to be the God-bearer.

God has the power to raise any kind of Mary He wants for His own mother, and probably would not want a sinner in that role

One could argue that God would not want the instruments out of whom flowed God-breathed Scripture to be sinners either, or Mary's parents, etc.

But doctrine is not based on what God may or could have done, or silence, but what the evidence testifies He did do. Lacking that, all that is warranted is speculation. Notable exceptions to the norm (excess fingers, long age, celibacy, absence of parents, sinlessness, etc) are characteristically provided in Scripture, even of lesser characters, and the sinlessness of Christ is stated at least thrice. Marian lifelong sinlessness and virginity are not, but are read into the text based upon the fallacious idea of necessity, or possibility.

In contrast to all that attributed to her, the mention of Mary is relatively marginal in Scripture, while the Holy Spirit gives far more description of Paul's sacrificial labor of love in birthing spiritual children and churches, and working toward their maturity. And the Holy Spirit never manifestly attributes sin to him after his conversion, but to say that he was sinless would be presumptuous.

The Church does not do what the Protestants do, read the scripture and in it find the doctrine.

That is rare admission, as too many RCs try to argue as if they were evangelicals in trying to wrest support for Rome's traditions as if their veracity rested upon the weight of Scriptural warrant.

But by making her amorphous oral tradition equal with Scripture, selectively channeling ancient stories into binding doctrines, then Catholicism (sometimes in conflict), has perpetuated mere traditions that developed over time.

The oral "traditions" Paul wrote of were not that of ancient tales, but known contemporary preaching which we rightfully can expect were subsequently written, as is seen elsewhere with revelation called "the word of God/the Lord."

Details hitherto unknown as recorded could be revealed (cf. 2Tim. 3:8) but which we know by Scripture, which is the assured word of God and supreme standard for testing and establishing Truth claims. Making the church autocratically supreme is contrary to its basis of establishment, that of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and making her oral tradition as equal with Scripture is essentially adding to the canon.

[annalex]

You are just making an assertion. The apocrypha were only considered "canonical" for the purposes of edification of morals

No Bible, since the Bible became available as a single book, was printed without the Deuterocanon. Deuterocanon is not "apocrypha"; let's not switch topics. Aquinas uses a deuterocanonical book (Sirach 15:14), for example, to show that the Holy Scripture teaches free will: Article 1. Whether man has free-will?. So, no, I am not "just making assertions". That one can find much said also against the Deuterocanon no one has disputed.

"full conversion occurs before death" certainly does not appear to be part of that catechism of yours

Is speaks of an effective conversion prompted by good works does it not? Dead people don't do works.

[annalex]

John tells us that what he wrote was so that one could believe on Jesus

Naturally since this is a gospel that he writes. However he does say that once one believes he is automatically saved. Faith is what we do.

[annalex]

There is no question that μενουνγε indicates a contrast. The question is, does it liken those "who hear the word of God, and keep it" to Mary or not; and does it condemn the act of veneration as such.

It does liken the faithful to Mary, because to "keep the word" is a double meaning since Christ is the Word, and Mary indeed kept the Word in her womb. Surely Jesus is not pointing to any defect of Mary since we know of none. Therefore Jesus says in effect: as you admire Mary as my physiological mother, so admire my disciples who keep my teachings also.

Secondly, we have already seen the reason for the contrasting word μενουνγε: it contrasts veneration for the physiological proximity to Christ with spiritual proximity. But the woman in the crowd is not stopped by Jesus; rather, her veneration is deepened and redirected by Jesus' remark.

[Springfield Reformer]

LOL. I am running off to work now. Lord willing and the creek don’t rise, I will get back to this. Short version: Wow. I haven’t seen gymnastics like this since Nadia whats-her-name. Catch ya later ...

[daniel1212]

Once we understand that He is the Creator of the universe and He humbled Himself to enter into our experience of being a human being so that He could redeem us from eternal damnation separated from Him, how could we possibly imagine that our lives could ever be the same again?

And it is the very system that boasts, "you believe in faith alone; we believe in faith and works" that comes in about last in commitment and unity in basic moral beliefs, due to a lack of that regeneration and relationship with the Lord, with Scripture being the supreme authority as the wholly inspired Word of God.

[annalex]

SS does not hold that all that can be known/revealed is in the canonized scriptures, and only what is explicitly taught can be doctrine, and all that is needed for growth unto perfection is formally provided in Scripture, and that Scripture is all that is to be used in understanding God's will, that thus it was and is to be read by itself, without reference to historical doctrines or writings that can make it more comprehensible (elucidate it).

Wonderful. So next time someone thinks he defeated the Catholic doctrine by "'purgatory' is not in the scripture" or "where is praying to saints in the scripture" or "where is the word 'catholic' in the scripture" you will be with me explaining such primitive and legalistic approach to be without merit?

Next question: does "the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:26) say that the Church will continue to be inspired by the Holy Ghost to the extent that whatever is on the mind of the Church is as good as if Christ is saying it? Or is it the case where a Protestant must reach somewhere in the "traditions" of Luther and the rest of the charlatans to avoid taking this scripture as written?

a faith that effects the "obedience of faith,"

Great again; as I like to point out, "faith is what we do". So again, when someone tells me that "baptism does not save because to baptize is to work", or that "good works do not save because it is like purchasing salvation" you will see through the cheap illusion that these "objections" construct?

[Springfield Reformer]

I heard that somebody else heard that the RM thought we were in a flame-war. And since it’s double-hearsay, it must be twice as true as normal true things, right?!

[annalex]

The Church operates through the people of the Church. In the eunuch story that was Philip.

[annalex]

why don’t you venerate me?

I don't see an example of Christian faith in you, sorry.

[annalex]

There WAS no need for a "sinless" mother in order for the Christ to be born and be without sin so that He can make atonement for the sins of the world

There is a difference between where Christ is from and whom He saves. That He mingled with sinners is very true; but His sinless mother indicated that He Himself is from where there is no sin.

Catholicism decides what is doctrine

As simple as that. True.

[annalex]

Grace is ONLY for sinners

LOL. Where you get your ideas from? Grace is presence of God, regardless of who is or is not around it. For example, before the Fall Adam and Eve were in grace.

[Elsie]

Yeah, those stinking sinners. Who needs them? They're just not good enough for God. Or for God to even use.

THIS, in #1107, has been COMPLETELY ignored!

 

HMMMmmm that ol' Matthew includes a HOOKER and an ADULTERER in the lineage!!

[Elsie]

That this grace was perpetual sinlessness is presumed, versus that grace being that this evidently holy Spirit-filled soul had "found grace with God" as the text states, (Lk. 1:30) in being chosen to be the God-bearer.

'presumption and assumption are closely related.

I've experienced what it is to assume....

[Elsie]

Dead people don't do works.

There ya go.

There are NO saints in Heaven; helping Jesus.

Jesus is

GOD!

He needs no assistance from Dead people.

[Elsie]

So again, when someone tells me that "baptism does not save because to baptize is to work", or that "good works do not save because it is like purchasing salvation" you will see through the cheap illusion that these "objections" construct?

Thanks; RCC; for giving me a BIBLE with THIS in it!!

---

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

 ¹ Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” ² This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³ The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. ⁴ When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

 ⁵ Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

 ⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

 ¹² The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon^[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

 ¹⁶ “‘After this I will return
   and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’^[b]—
 ¹⁸ things known from long ago.^[c]

 ¹⁹ “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers

 ²² Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

   The apostles and elders, your brothers,

   To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

   Greetings.

 ²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

   Farewell.

 ³⁰ So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. ³² Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. ³³ After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. ^{[34] [d] 35} But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas

 ³⁶ Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” ³⁷ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, ³⁸ but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. ³⁹ They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. ⁴¹ He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

[Elsie]

I hear ya; Brother!

[Elsie]

I don't see an example of Christian faith in you, sorry.

And yet...

---

Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.^[1]

Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy

Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy

Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.^[2]

Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.^[3]

Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony^[4]

Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

[Elsie]

The Catholic Encyclopedia, compiled during the reign of Pope St. Pius X, states very plainly: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void" (s.v. "Papal Elections").

 http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/the-bad-popes-argument.htm

 

I've been told, by a Catholic, to ignore the following...

 

 

Fair Use Notice:
This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human, religious, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[Elsie]

That He mingled with sinners is very true; but His sinless mother indicated that He Himself is from where there is no sin.

There you go yet again: presuming FACTS no in evidence.

The sentence above was written by a poor example of Christian faith.