Posted on 05/24/2015 1:57:09 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Serious evangelical dialogue with Roman Catholicism finds it virtually impossible to avoid the issues raised by the institution of the papacy. These issues were central in the sixteenth-century division, and they remain problematic for modern discussion as well. It is hard for many Catholics in the West to understand the serious concerns evangelicals have regarding the papacy, since they often think of John Paul II as a benevolent and kind gentleman who warmly radiates love for Christ and non-Catholics.
In a special commentary on the Feast Day (1971) honoring St. Peter and St. Paul, the Vatican radio declared, “The Church does not exist without the Pope. The Pope does not exist without the Church. He who believes in the Church believes in the Pope. He who believes in the Pope believes in the Church. Pope and Church are inseparable realities.” This understanding, which sounds so completely foreign to the evangelical mind, is perfectly natural to Catholic teaching, with its fully developed doctrine of ecclesiastical authority.
THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE
The teaching of papal authority grew out of the church’s early relationship to society around it. Linear historical succession to Peter (believed to be the first pope by Roman Catholics) is a matter that may well be debated till the end of the age. What is beyond serious debate is the clear influence early Roman law and cultural practice had on the church. This background helps us understand something of the development of papal authority over the centuries.
What can be seen, and this considerably prior to the Middle Ages, is an increasingly unified institutional church organized along lines both juridical (that is, pertaining to the law, in this case Roman law) and monarchical (that is, following the pattern of a single head, or monarch). An evolution was going on during these centuries that led, by the ninth century, to a church directed by the human authority of a single leader — a pope. The dogma of the papacy gradually developed until it reached its apex in Vatican Council I (1870). This dogma added to the rupture that took place between the churches of the East (Orthodox Church) and the West (Roman Catholic Church) on July 16, 1054.
This division, described by the Catholic Encyclopedia, happened “when Cardinal Humbert, the head of a papal delegation in Constantinople, placed a document of excommunication on the altar of Hagia Sophia, the cathedral church of Constantinople.” Why was this done? “The official reasons for this were the removal of the filioque [a word meaning “from the Son,” which was used to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeded equally from both the Father and the Son] from the Creed; the practice of married clergy and some liturgical errors (for example, the use of leavened bread instead of unleavened bread for the Eucharist)” (Stravinskas 1991, 707).
This division, existing down to our time, has been addressed by recent ecumenical dialogue, especially since 1966 when anathemas were lifted by Pope Paul VI and Athenagoras I. One of the perennial problems, however, that remains between East and West is the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church.
The same problem existed with regard to the division of the sixteenth century. Luther began his reforming efforts as a loyal subject of the Pope, but in time he concluded that the whole papal system was unsound. His language, often harsh and offensive to modern readers, must be understood against the backdrop of his times and the way the papacy responded to him. Neither Catholic nor Protestant should be proud of some of the language hurled about in the sixteenth century, and hopefully these vital doctrinal differences can be considered by us without the invectives of the past.
What exactly is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the pope? The Catholic Encyclopedia once again helps us:
The Bishop of Rome . . . exercises universal jurisdiction over the whole Church as the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of St. Peter. The term “pope” derives from the Latin for “father.” . . . In Western Christianity this term refers to the Roman Pontiff, called His Holiness the Pope, who governs the universal Church as the successor to St. Peter. . . who possesses, “by virtue of his office, . . . supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary jurisdiction power in the Church (Canon 331). (Stravinskas 1991, 761)
This supreme head of the Christian church is said to carry out his pontificate through the office of bishops, cardinals, and various other offices of the Roman Curia (a body of official agencies that assists the pope).
WHAT IS THE BIBLICAL BASIS FOR THE PAPACY?
Roman Catholic apologists never tire of quoting Matthew 16:18-19 when asked to defend the papacy. In this passage, Jesus asked Simon Peter who people said He was. Peter answered that “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets” (v. 14). Then our Lord asked the disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” After Peter answered, seemingly for the whole group, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (v. 16), Jesus told Peter that the Father had revealed this truth to him. Then Jesus added the oft-quoted words: “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (vv. 18-19).
The Catholic argument goes essentially like this: Peter is the rock in this passage. Christ promises to build His church on the rock. Thus, Peter is the first head, or rock, of the church, and the popes (more than 260 historically) who have followed him (supposedly in unbroken succession) are the heirs of this promise to Peter.
Protestants often try to interpret the reference to the rock in a way that shows why Peter could not be the rock in this passage. Personally, I am in agreement with evangelical scholar D. A. Carson when he writes, “If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter” (Carson 1986, 368). What, then, can we say about Roman Catholic reference to this text in establishing the doctrine of the papacy through Peter as the first pope?
Catholic conclusions from this text suffer from what Carson refers to “as insuperable exegetical and historical problems” (Carson 1986, 368). For example, after Peter’s death his so-called successor would have had authority over a living apostle, John, a prospect that simply cannot be demonstrated. What is actually said in Scripture is that Peter was the first disciple to confess Jesus in this manner, and by this confession his prominence continued into the early years of the church (Acts 1-12). He, along with John, is sent by the other apostles to Samaria (8:14), he is held accountable for his actions by the church in Jerusalem (11:1-18), and he is rebuked by Paul face-to-face (Galatians 2:11-14). Peter is, concludes Carson, first among equals; “and on the foundation of such men (Eph. 2:20), Jesus built his church. This is precisely why Jesus, toward the close of his earthly ministry, spent so much time with them. The honor was not earned but stemmed from divine revelation (v. 17) and Jesus’ building work (v. 18)” (Carson 1986, 368-69).
Though modern Catholics will point out that the pope does not speak infallibly on all occasions, and the pope must himself confess sin and be redeemed as a sinner, the truth is that the doctrine of papal authority succession, and infallibility is still a major roadblock to meaningful agreement regarding the teaching of the New Testament.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in speaking of the episcopal college of bishops and the pope, says,
When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another”
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (Ratzinger, 233-34)
Here it is stated plainly: Authority was conferred by Christ upon His apostles, Peter being the prince, or supreme head of them all. From the apostles this same authority is given to the bishops of the church in an unbroken line of succession, with supreme authority vested in the Roman Pontiff chosen as a successor to Peter since the first century. But a number of nagging questions remain:
WHAT ABOUT INFALLIBILITY?
Most Roman Catholics are not aware of their own history in terms of theological development and doctrinal formulations. It comes as a surprise, therefore, when they discover that the doctrine of “Papal Infallibility” came as late as 1870 at Vatican Council I. Here Pius IX accomplished what he had earlier begun — the strengthening of his leadership over the church. At Vatican Council I it was stated that the Pope’s decisions, when he spoke ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals, were “unchangeable in themselves and not because of the consent of the church” (Session 4.4; Denzinger, 3073-75).
Vatican Council II (1962-1965) sought to modify this doctrine by saying that the college of bishops assists the pope. Whereas the earlier Council had taken a more anti-Protestant stance, Vatican II seems to address dangers within the Catholic Church itself and to seek to reform modern practice. The fact is, collegiality (the idea that bishops collectively share authority) is still to be interpreted in the light of papal supremacy. De Ecclesia, a Vatican II reformist document, states this clearly:
The college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is simultaneously conceived of in terms of its head, the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and without any lessening of his power of primacy over all, pastors as well as the general faithful. For in virtue of his office, that is, as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the Church. And he can always exercise this power freely. (p. 22)
This same document on the church, which comes from a section dealing with ecumenism and the church’s relationship to Protestant churches, adds, “Thus religious submission of the will and mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” (p. 25).
THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF AUTHORITY
All Catholic teaching regarding authority in the church and in the life of the faithful individual centers in the previously mentioned triad — Bible, tradition, and the magisterium. This is often not understood by evangelicals who speak of “cooperation” with Roman Catholic ministries, priests, or churches.
The Catholic concept of tradition is vital to understanding how the Bible is used and understood. The word tradition (from the Latin word for “handing over”) refers to the teachings and practices handed down, whether in written or oral form, separately but not independently of Scripture.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “Tradition is divided into two areas: (1) Scripture, the essential doctrines of the Church, the major writings and teachings of the Fathers, the liturgical life of the Church, and the living and lived faith of the whole Church down through the centuries; (2) customs, institutions, practices which express the Christian Faith” (Stravinskas 1991, 939). It goes on to say that
the Council of Trent (1546), in distinct opposition to evangelical faith and practice, affirmed “both the Bible and Tradition as divine sources of Christian doctrine.” Vatican II states, “It is clear . . . that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand alone without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (Stravinskas 1991, 939)
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the magisterium is “the teaching office of the church.” It was established, according to Catholic belief, in order “to safeguard the substance of faith in Jesus Christ” and to prevent the individual from “being left entirely on his own” (Stravinskas 1991, 615).
It is believed, very simply, that Christ established an apostolic college in His disciples who, unified with Peter as their head, became the teaching magisterium of the first church. The understanding of this magisterium and its limits, role, and work were ironed out in the centuries that followed, especially at the Council of Trent and Vatican I. The magisterium proclaims the teachings of Christ “infallibly, irreformably and without error” when it follows principles that assure its faithfulness (as defined, of course, by the church).
What this means, practically, is that Rome may alter matters that will change how Catholics perceive and experience the life of their church, but fundamental doctrines (such as those we have considered in this book) do not and cannot change. This is what has been meant by the oft-quoted phrase semper idem (Latin, “always the same”).
In practice the typical Catholic never experiences the magisterium directly. He reads and hears of its deliberations and actions. Where he actually experiences the authority of the church is in the priesthood of his parish. Here the chain of command comes down to the level of how he or she must actually live and act to be a devout Catholic. Here the person receives the sacraments, receives forgiveness for sin, and seeks to know God through his church.
Even at the level of the local parish priest there is powerful connection to the structure of the Roman Catholic Church internationally. That is why we can speak of an American Catholic Church, but ultimately it too is intimately related to the Roman Catholic Church. American Catholics are prone to almost loose sight of this reality.
Further, all that is believed and taught at the local parish level is to be ultimately related to tradition, the magisterium, and the pope. That is precisely why the idea is utterly impossible that one priest, or one parish, can be evangelical and still be properly related to the Roman Catholic Church, as defined in its own creeds and practices!
SUMMING UP
There is more serious appeal to modern Christian minds in this doctrine than many evangelicals realize. We live in an age of independence and, often, the spirit of anarchy. Ours is the age of “personal rights.” Christians who observe the spirit of our times might well find attractive a church with a supreme pastor who has authority over all matters and to whom we can submit ourselves.
Indeed, in every age the tension has existed between submission to one (or several) who has authority over me and my personal responsibility to exercise discernment and make personal decisions based on an authority that is above all present human and ecclesiastical structure. Many Protestants often have church leaders who have become virtual popes in this sense.
My reason for opposing the Catholic doctrine of authority in the papacy and the magisterium, and the more recently developed doctrine of infallibility is not because I desire to foster rebellion, much less willful independence. It is because this very doctrine, like so many others we have observed, is simply not grounded in the New Testament. In fact, I would suggest that it runs counter to the teaching and spirit of the Scriptures.
Martin Luther opposed “Enthusiasts” (visionaries, prophets, and so on) in the sixteenth century in much the same way that he countered the papacy. Both, Luther maintained, sought to exercise an authority above and beyond the written Scriptures. Their independence from God’s Word was the primary problem. The church does not give us “new birth,” rather it is by the Word of God that we are begotten by the Holy Spirit (see 1 Peter 1:13; James 1:18). Further, we have but one true Supreme Head and Chief Shepherd of our souls — Jesus Christ the Lord! His infallible teaching is not found in the human creeds and decisions of a fallible church but in the Word of the living God. This is precisely why every great recovery and spiritual awakening in the history of the church has broken forth upon rediscovery of the power of God in the written Scriptures, not in ecclesiastical structures and meetings.
We can honestly discuss how we might accept churches with a papacy on equal footing with churches that do not, but ultimately the faithful evangelical must allow Scripture to rule the discussion. Catholicism’s position will not allow for a middle ground either. Perhaps Catholicism will change this doctrine in the future, but there is no evidence at all that she will. For the evangelical who remains faithful to the New Testament there is no middle ground either. Truth and unity are not served by covering over this major difference. Truth is best served by recognizing the supreme headship of Jesus Christ (alone) over the entire universal church.
All human leaders — pastors, deacons, elders, whatever — must govern and lead only in a distinctly subservient role as “fellow priests” (see Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) with the whole people of God. They are to serve in a spirit of gentleness that honors Christ the true Head of the church. And they must serve with derived authority, living totally under the written Scripture and its final authority.
Good grief.....so many errors in one post.
Catholics love to repeat their made up claims. Too bad they’re not based in facts.
How much scripture does your church read weekly? Ours is daily.
I'd make a couple points, well three.
I don't think you meant this post for me. Those are not MY words at the opening of your post.
The first sentence is not a question but it ends with a question mark. Could you clarify?
Re. vvs. 34 and 35- I'd say, "Red herring." I can give you the circumstances, the context, and the historical perspective that led Paul to write the letter but it's not relevant to the discussion.
"the word of truth" refers to all of Scripture in general (John 17:17), and the gospel message in particular (Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5).
The thought is that the minister of the gospel is to present the truth rightly, not abridging it, not handling it as a charlatan (see on 2 Corinthians 2:17), not making it a matter of wordy strife verse 14), but treating it honestly and fully, in a straightforward manner. (copied directly from Vincent's Word Study)
Is it your claim that you are ONLY to rightly divide the OT?
For me, I study ALL of the scripture because it is His Word. The Old Testament SCREAMS OUT our need for a Savior... And declares God's plan for mankind. (Even to include salvation by grace - not works - to put a fine point on the matter.)
I'd say MOST times when articles like this are posted it is because someone hates the accursed and perverted gospel that became associated with Roman Catholicism over the centuries. But, Catholicism is certainly not alone in this as there are numerous cults and false religions out there.
Sometimes, too, people have to attack the motives of the one posting such an article because they cannot dispute what the article says. RnMomof7 as well as many of us left the false religion called Roman Catholicism because our hearts were illuminated by the Holy Spirit to the true gospel of the grace of God and the assurance He gives to all those who place their trust in Christ of eternal salvation NOT on the basis of our merits, works or deeds, but by faith. There is no need to rationalize or justify such a decision by falsely attacking our former religion because we KNOW we have eternal life and we want to share this GOOD NEWS with all those God gives us a chance to share it with.
Catholicism - which was NOT founded by Christ - proves itself wrong on many fronts and those who are diligently seeking to know the truth will recognize this and be rewarded. Like this article explains, much of what RCs claim to be their eternal, exclusive heritage is nothing more than rationalization and justification based on errors, lies, misinformation and deception which is easily proven by the word of God, facts and history.
Then why say such things as this;
in regards to OT?
Alexandrian canon you say?
Philo, from Alexandria, (20 BC to 50 AD) never once quoted from what Jerome called Apocrypha.
Throw Jerome under the bus, along with Athanasius who was bishop of Alexandria, since his listing (prior to Jerome) does not include OT Apocrypha, which term (Apocrypha) Jerome used in regards to these books in dispute.
The one mention of Baruch in Athanasius' listing can as well be interpreted to possibly be in regards to Lamentations (of Jeremiah), being as Baruch was allegedly something of a secretary to that prophet (Jeremiah).
Flavius Josephus pretty much settled the argument in 70 AD. There are hosts of others...with the evidence being bulletproof that there were disputes from early on.
The evidence which can be presumed of Philo, and then a bit later by the documented experience of Melito of Sardis (as that comes to us through Origen and Eusebius) does not indicate that there was anything like an "Alexandrian canon" of OT which differed from what the Jews of Jerusalem (you know, the VERY JEWS whom Christ presented Himself before as sacrifice to beat all?) knew as their own corpus of Holy Writ.
You make lots of statements, presenting incredibly weak arguments, then say such as;
The "beauty of the Catholic faith" as you put it --- I understand perfectly what you mean by that, but if it is not delusional (in those parts which Reformers rejected) then at the least the parts regarding devotions and prayers directed towards "Mary", along with the office of singular papacy itself (for Rome, Alone) are most certainly NOT Apostolic.
I've seen all the arguments, thousands of times by now. The Roman Catholic apologetic for such things as Marionism and the papacy, sucks eggs (generally speaking) more often than not. I could provide examples...
It looks 'good' perhaps to those blinded by confirmation bias, but otherwise rides the short bus (scholarly speaking).
As for those two items of theological consideration, a passage which you just quoted,
Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.
does well apply -- to yourself, and every single other [Roman] Catholic here at FR who preaches the RCC instead of the Gospel of Christ.
So yes, I do hope that other 'Catholics' do as you said;
BECAUSE I'M FED UP to the gills with Roman Catholic, man-garbage theology. The commentary engaged in effort to support the tangled up messes (mistaken for "beauty") are EVEN WORSE!!!
Oh, and "have a nice day".
The mute.
You literally took the words out of my mouth.
I firmly agree with your entire post! Excellent! Praise God!
Amen!
...and “Amen!”
That wasn't what you claimed. Are you really so unfamiliar with the Bible that you thought you were hearing all of it? How much of "just about completely" is 27.5%?
Indeed, but which refers to general revelation, not special express revelation, which the second half of Ps. 19 refers to:
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:7-11)
The word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Actually, you have entire RC groups who interpret RC teaching as meaning they must ignore the papacy of certain years, while those who obey "the one duty of the multitude," which is "to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," are mostly liberals.
In addition, EO Catholics (some RCs will not even call them Catholics) significantly differ with Rome. And what doctrinal unity she has is largely on paper and quite limited. Thus while claiming unity, Catholicism exists in schisms and sects,
For the problem with the cultic Roman model for authority, in which souls are induced into looking to leaders and giving assent to them above unchanging Scripture, is that when they go South, or deviate from Scripture or RC past teaching, then so do most of the people.
Thus obedience to the pope during past centuries included exterminating all Prots, which were excluded from salvation, while today the pope gives even evangelicals the embrace of brethren, based on V2. (
Some examples of contrasting teaching .)
Thus conservative RCs tend to be of the SSPX or SSPV variety, yet which are charged with being like Prots in principal, since they determine what true teaching is by interpretive examination of the evidences for it. But a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of current or any RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the self-proclaimed veracity of Rome.
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” (Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org /Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
..in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html
St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that.
prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. This doctrine is conformable to Holy Scripture: Behold, says the Lord, as clay is in the potter s hands.' Religious must leave themselves in the hands of the Superior to be moulded as she wills. St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf
Everyone becomes their own pope and interprets the same scriptures by their own partial understanding, leading to massive disputes and misunderstandings.
Actually, no one can presume personal or magisterial protection from error as popes and Rome does, while RCs either give implicit submission of mind and will to what popes and Rome does or they differ with them, and which Rome implicitly sanctions.
In addition, both what magisterial level teachings fall under (unless one provides implicit assent to all Rome says, and which is cultic, not Christian, then) , and their meanings are subject to varying degrees of interpretation, This is esp. manifest among those who take doctrine most seriously, and thus they pick and choose from V2 and modern teaching what is to be obeyed, even though they disagree among themselves over things (including whether Francis is a valid pope).
And having lost her unholy power of the sword of men, then the fruit of Rome is largely liberal, with even proabortion/sodomite pols being treated as members in life and in death.
And unlike evangelicals, RCs cannot obey the Biblical injunction to be separate from such, (2Cor. 6:14-18) but must be yoked with unless they become part of schisms or sects, while those who hold most strongly to the primary evangelical distinctive in holding Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate, basically literal word of God are the most unified in conservative basic beliefs.
Moreover, consider what your sola ecclesia model can lead to, and which further warranted the Reformation.
"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. "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/) As for comparing Rome with Prot divisions, this is an invalid comparison, as it compares one body (if quite varied in reality despite having the same theater daily/weekly) with a many which includes multitudes who do not even hold to the most primary aspect of the Reformation, while those who hold most strongly to holding Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate, basically literal word of God are the most unified in conservative basic beliefs. Meanwhile, having lost her unholy power of the sword of men, then the fruit of Rome is largely liberal, with even proabortion/sodomite pols being treated as members in life and in death. Meanwhile those who hold most strongly to the primary evangelical distinctive in holding Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate, basically literal word of God are the most unified in conservative basic beliefs. Instead of the Roman model for assurance of Truth claims, which rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). the NT church began because souls followed itinerant preachers whom the magisterium rejected, and whom their itinerant Leader reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) What is lacking today is the manner of manifest men of God who treated Scripture as the supreme authority, in word and deed. And thus could say, ...in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
These leaders did not resort to claiming ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) Under which the NT church saw its degree of limited unity of heart and basic Truths. The Biblical model has not been tried and found wanted, but wanting to be tried. Thus lacking such leadership which directed souls to Scripture as supreme, then divisions are a fitting judgment, while Rome's alternative of sola ecclesia is foreign to the NT church, and is what major cults rely on.. Every human organization requires an accountable leader. But the pope is not, as he is an autocratic head, with "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered," (CCC 882) and who is judged by no one. Dictatus papae [1075] : That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it. That he himself may be judged by no one. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp Only he [the Pope] can summon universal councils No synod can be called valid without the pope's agreement. Thus it is said, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first... it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. — http://www.fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html In his dissent, Dollinger summed up what papal infalliblity made the pope into: “The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, pp. 119 120
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.