Posted on 01/23/2008 12:25:36 PM PST by Gamecock
In a videotape titled "The Pope: The Holy Father," Catholic apologist Scott Hahn claims the proliferation of Protestant denominations proves the Reformers' principle of sola Scriptura is a huge mistake:
Do you suppose that Jesus would say, "Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible." Oh, really? In just 500 years, there are literally thousands and thousands of denominations that are becoming ever more numerous continuously because they only go with the Bible. It points to the fact that we need an infallible interpretation of this infallible book, don't we[?]
A tract titled "Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth" (published by Catholic Answers) makes a similar charge:
The "Bible alone" theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among "Bible-believing" religions. Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians. Just open up the Yellow Pages of your telephone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the "Bible alone," but no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means.
That is a favorite argument of Catholic apologists. They are convinced that the unity Christ prayed for in John 17:21 is an organizational solidarity that is incompatible with both denominationalism and independency. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the only way true Christian unity will be fully and finally achieved is when "separated brethren"—non-Catholic Christians—reunite with Rome under the authority of the Pope.
Keith Fournier, Catholic author and Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice, sums up the typical Roman Catholic perspective:
Throughout Christian history, what was once intended to be an all-inclusive (catholic) body of disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ has been fractured over and over. These fractures threaten to sever us from our common historical and doctrinal roots. I do not believe that such divisions were ever part of the Lord's intention, no matter how sincere or important the issues that undergirded the breaking of unity. [Keith A. Fournier, A House United? (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), 37.]
Fournier says he is "not advocating a false non-denominationalism or superficial irenicism that denies distinctives of doctrine or practice." [Ibid.] But he is suggesting that doctrinal differences, "no matter how . . . important," should not cause organizational divisions. Moreover, fewer than five pages earlier, he had berated those who "fight over theology." [Ibid., 25.] And (ironically) just a few pages before that, he had expressed outrage at John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and Jim McCarthy for saying they believe Roman Catholicism's rejection of justification by faith alone is "doctrinal error" [Ibid., 21-22.]
Notice carefully, then, what Fournier is saying: He claims he wants unity without "superficial irenicism," and yet he objects when anyone contends for sound doctrine or (worse still) labels Roman Catholic doctrine "error." It seems the "unity" Fournier envisions is merely the same kind of unity the Roman Catholic Church has sought for hundreds of years: a unity where all who profess to be Christians yield implicit obedience to Papal authority, and where even individual conscience is ultimately subject to the Roman Catholic Church.
Although Fournier politely declines to state who he believes is to blame for fracturing the organizational unity of Christianity, [Ibid., 29.] it is quite clear he would not be predisposed to blame a Church whose spiritual authority he regards as infallible. And since the Catholic Church herself officially regards Protestantism as ipso facto schismatic, Fournier's own position is not difficult to deduce. Although Fournier manages to sound sympathetic and amiable toward evangelicals, it is clear he believes that as long as they remain outside the Church of Rome, they are guilty of sins that thwart the unity Christ prayed for.
Of course, every cult and every denomination that claims to be the One True Church ultimately takes a similar approach to "unity." Jehovah's Witnesses believe they represent the only legitimate church and that all others who claim to be Christians are schismatics. They believe the unity of the visible church was shattered by the Nicene Council.
Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims the Church of Rome was being schismatic when Rome asserted papal supremacy. To this day, Orthodox Christians insist that Eastern Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicism, is the Church Christ founded—and that would make Roman Catholicism schismatic in the same sense Rome accuses Protestants of being schismatic. One typical Orthodox Web site says, "The Orthodox Church is the Christian Church. The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination. We are the family of Christian communities established by the Apostles and disciples Jesus sent out to proclaim the Good News to the world, and by their successors through the ages."
All these groups regard the church primarily as a visible, earthly organization. Therefore they cannot conceive of a true spiritual unity that might exist across denominational lines. They regard all other denominations as schismatic rifts in the church's organizational unity. And if organizational unity were what Christ was praying for, then the very existence of denominations would indeed be a sin and a shame. That's why the Orthodox Web site insists, "The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination."
Furthermore, if their understanding of the principle of unity is correct, then whichever organization can legitimately claim to be the church founded by Christ and the apostles is the One True Church, and all others are guilty of schism—regardless of any other doctrinal or biblical considerations.
That is precisely why many Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have focused their rhetoric on "unity." Both sincerely believe if they can establish the claim that they, and no one else, are the One True Church instituted by Christ, then all other Protestant complaints about doctrine, church polity, and ecclesiastical abuses become moot. If they can successfully sell their notion that the "unity" of John 17:21 is primarily an organizational unity, they should in effect be able to convince members of denominational and independent churches to reunite with the Mother Church regardless of whether she is right or wrong on other matters.
The plea for unity may at first may sound magnanimous and charitable to Protestant ears (especially coming from a Church with a long history of enforcing her will by Inquisition). But when the overture is being made by someone who claims to represent the One True Church, the call for "unity" turns out to be nothing but a kinder, gentler way of demanding submission to the Mother Church's doctrine and ecclesiastical authority.
Nonetheless, in recent years many gullible Protestants have been drawn into either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy by the claim that one or the other represents the only church Christ founded. Having bought the notion that the unity Christ prayed for starts with organizational unity, these unsuspecting proselytes naturally conclude that whichever church has the most convincing pedigree must be the only church capable of achieving the unity Christ sought, and so they join up. Many recent converts from evangelicalism will testify that the proliferation and fragmentation of so many Protestant denominations is what first convinced them that Protestant principles must be wrong.
In a series of posts over the next couple of weeks, I want to examine the topics of like-mindedness, disagreement, and divisiveness; the culpability of popes, feuding bishops, and differing denominations when it comes to causing schism; and the kind of unity Christ prayed for.
You are correct, I did misunderstand in its context.
But, Jesus didn't leave Peter and the apostles "in charge". He left the Holy Spirit...
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
The only thing the apostles do is "bear witness" of Jesus. (John 15:27)
In Christ...Alone!
At best, that is misconstrued.
“From Christ, through the Pope, all things are possible.” <— Catholic version.
Which bible is that in?
Are you a Nestorian? Do you believe that Mary isn’t the Mother of God?
That’s what you need the magisterium for...
Clearly you need to go and do some reading about infallibility and Popes. You seem to think that infallibility cloaks everything they say or do. A Pope’s infallibility as a charism of the Holy Spirit is quite limited and negative.
Um, not quite. To whom did Paul go to seek confirmation of his charism and communion? Peter.
IOW, I don’t need it.
Which — thank God, given the anti-Biblical poison it’s manufactured.
Interesting, although that is not how it is explained by the writings that we have of the time... You make it sound as if the synods acted on their own and merely INFORMED the Pope of their actions. Hardly...
The new acquittal of Pelagius did not fail to cause excitement and alarm in North Africa, whither Orosius had hastened in 416 with letters from Bishops Heros and Lazarus. To parry the blow, something decisive had to be done. In autumn, 416, 67 bishops from Proconsular Africa assembled in a synod at Carthage, which was presided over by Aurelius, while fifty-nine bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Numidia, to which the See of Hippo, St. Augustine's see belonged, held a synod in Mileve. In both places the doctrines of Pelagius and Caelestius were again rejected as contradictory to the Catholic faith. However, in order to secure for their decisions "the authority of the Apostolic See", both synods wrote to Innocent I, requesting his supreme sanction. And in order to impress upon him more strongly the seriousness of the situation, five bishops (Augustine, Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius) forwarded to him a joint letter, in which they detailed the doctrine of original sin, infant baptism, and Christian grace (St. Augustine, "Epp. clxxv-vii"). In three separate epistles, dated 27 Jan., 417, the pope answered the synodal letters of Carthage and Mileve as well as that of the five bishops (Jaffé, "Regest.", 2nd ed., nn. 321-323, Leipzig, 1885). Starting from the principle that the resolutions of provincial synods have no binding force until they are confirmed by the supreme authority of the Apostolic See, the pope developed the Catholic teaching on original sin and grace, and excluded Pelagius and Caelestius, who were reported to have rejected these doctrines, form communion with the Church until they should come to their senses (donec resipiscant). In Africa, where the decision was received with unfeigned joy, the whole controversy was now regarded as closed, and Augustine, on 23 September, 417, announced from the pulpit (Serm., cxxxi, 10 in P. L., XXXVIII, 734), "Jam de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est". (Two synods having written to the Apostolic See about this matter; the replies have come back; the question is settled.)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm
Apparently, the good "Roman catholic scholar" has not given us the entire story. Yes, the actual words are a "paraphrase - but they say the same thing. By examing these letters, one can conclude that the synods desired the "force of an Apostolic See" to settle the matter - as two synods before Mileve proved unsuccessful in routing out the heresy. The good people of Africa responded with JOY at the decision from the See. Augustine himself notes that the matter is settled.
The words attributed to St. Augustine are shown above, and in context. What can we learn from this? That Roman Catholic scholars are not infallible. And that people of the 400's highly regarded the position of the Pope and his decisions.
Regards
I was referencing Galatians 2:7b - “...just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.”
Reading the first few books of Acts shows that Peter was the “spokesman” of the early Jerusalem church, and was reluctant to associate w/ Gentiles.
Christ did indeed bestow a royal priesthood upon all. So tell me....if you are a priest....what is your sacrifice? What do you offer? What do you place before the Almighty in atonement for your sins?
That passage from Hebrews has the answer. Christ is a priest FOREVER...and one of the order of Melchizedek. I.e., Christ had the same kind of priesthood that Melchizedek had--which was one of offering bread and wine.
You accuse us of not understanding the priesthood of all believers--yet who understands it better than the poor Catholic who unites himself body and soul with the immolation of the Divine Victim up on the altar? As a layman he sees, participates in, and offers Christ Crucified upon the altar--he consumes the Passover Lamb, the sacred species as our Lord commanded.
What priestly act have you in your temples of Calvinism that can compare? I'm sorry, but your "priesthood of all believers" seems wispy and insubstantial compared to the reality that is the Christian liturgical act.
Interesting isn't it, you're left with pitting scripture against scripture: either Paul or Mathias was not an actual apostle, or the 12 was symbolic of the 12 Tribes of Israel demonstrating the continuity of convenient between old and new testament. The fact that the apostolic office number changes with the need of the Church has nothing to do with Revelation numerology. Or did Christ lie when he told the apostles "who hears you hears Me"? When they elevated Mathias to the office, were we hearing other than Christ in their actions?
Sure, but does one exclude the other? Almost every church I think has a pastor out there who is in charge--so does that mean that people are following him and not the Holy Ghost? Does the pastor's authority evacuate the authority of Spirit?
Of course not--the Spirit often works through that pastor to act in the world. That's all that we're saying here. We're not putting Peter and the Apostles *over* the Holy Spirit...but we are saying that the Holy Spirit chose to use them in a unique way which he didn't choose for everyone else:
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.".."What you bound on earth will be bound in heaven"..."whoever hears you, hears me"...etc.
***Why emphasize the discontinuity between the priesthood of the old covenant, when God took such care in his establishment of it and the priesthood of the new. Why claim that the old order was repudiated when the Gospel says that it was fulfilled? That it never pass away? Christians see the New Covenant foreshadowed in the Old, and since the New Convenent was established fifty days after the New Passover, by the assent of the people, then we see Peter as the new Moses, revaling the new Torah to the nations gathers in Zion.***
Only in Catholic dreams.
There is NO longer an Aaronic priesthood or a Levitical priesthood. There is the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ.
Hebrews:
Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies:
“ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”
For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is thebringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
Y’all can have your dream of Peter as the new Moses.
I’ll take Christ as the “new Moses.”
Y’all can have your neo-Levitical order or whatever you think you have.
I’ll take Christ and the Melchizedek priesthood, of which I AM of that order.
For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.
Where does that Pope sit, exactly????
***Christ did indeed bestow a royal priesthood upon all. So tell me....if you are a priest....what is your sacrifice? What do you offer? What do you place before the Almighty in atonement for your sins?***
You STILL don’t understand, do you. The royal generation and priesthood of the believer is not about atonement. That is the Catholic sin. It is by ONE offering that Christ perfected forever those who are being sanctified. There is NO MORE offering for sin. (THIS IS GOSPEL TRUTH!!!)
Keep your inferior priesthood if you must. I am of the order of Christ, a part of a royal priesthood. If you think that some invented Petrine order is the OT fulfillment, then I won’t try to stop you.
>Clearly you need to go and do some reading about infallibility and Popes. You seem to think that infallibility cloaks everything they say or do. A Pope’s infallibility as a charism of the Holy Spirit is quite limited and negative.
Funny that! Lets look at the Scriptural basis for Papal infallibility, and guess what? Using the argument of the Catholic Church, WHATEVER is mentioned twice, but not a big lawyerly bunch of provisos, limitations or whatnot that was added 1800 years after Jesus made the pronouncement.
Authority is shouted from the Cathedral! And now, once one Pope is clearly contradicting another, well, we need to back up the semi and turn it around. The gates of Hades might not be able to stand against it, but another Pope will be able to loosen what one Pope has bound and bind what another has loosened.
It is funny what happens when man starts trying to write laws and claim they are from God. They tend to get all kinds of outs and lawyerly language, when God, sovereign Master of all, sets things in stone.
No. It's half the truth. Christ is a priest forever. Forever. That doesn't mean one-time over and done with..it means the condition of his priesthood lasts for all time--once for all.
The bloody part of the sacrifice is what is over and done with never to be repeated. But Christ nevertheless remains a priest forever because he offers that one sacrifice in perpetuity....according to the order of Melchizedek.
And what did Melchizedek offer? Bread and wine.
>Interesting, although that is not how it is explained by the writings that we have of the time... You make it sound as if the synods acted on their own and merely INFORMED the Pope of their actions. Hardly...
But you will note that the Austinian quote is totally wrong. That was my main point. I have seen it flow from many even big name Catholic Apologists without a response. It is wrong and needs to be taken from the apologia, lest you be accused of knowingly throwing out falsehoods. And no, Rome has spoken the matter is closed is not the same as two councils have deliberated it and suggest that the Pope get on board. That is like saying that “Bill Clinton has spoken on welfare reform, the matter is closed.”
The exact quote “In this matter, two councils have already sent letters to the apostolic see, and from thence rescripts have come back. the matter is settled (causa finita est); if only the heresy would cease!” Rome is not an active part of the decision and is only the recipient of the rescripts. The Pope is just a rubber stamp, with nothing being said about his decision, just the councils.
As for the New Advent site, hey I can rewrite history to spin things any way I want to also. Does this mean anything? No it does not. Look to the original sources and stick with them. Thus erroneous traditions will not accumulate and you will stop misquoting poor Augustine.
Please, would you look up the good ‘Catholic scholar” for me and see how good he really is? All I find is praise in the Catholic spheres and I may not be able to tell if these are liberal sources or not...
>The words attributed to St. Augustine are shown above, and in context. What can we learn from this? That Roman Catholic scholars are not infallible. And that people of the 400’s highly regarded the position of the Pope and his decisions.
Scholars indeed are not infallible. Look to many of the Catholic writings on Luther, you will find people willing to fabricate things from whole cloth, and then they are echoed from the 1500’s until now, and quoted as near scripture! Not saying that any side is worse than the others, but that is why we stick to the original sources as much as we possibly can.
As for 4th century position of the Pope, that is still sitting on the basis of the old Imperial seat of power (Chalcedon canon 28). What has happened is the accumulation of more erroneous traditions piled on top of ceremony and pomp. All that is required for something to be messed up is time and people.
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.