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.
BibChr: “If the Magisterium can speak so as to be understood by a common person, then it succeeds where God failed.”
I had never really considered this aspect of the RC priesthood. It is a very poignant statement that is hard to refute. It proves that even in the RC church that believers must have the spirit of God working in them to truly grasp God’s truth...
Having just finished studying Acts in my Catholic Bible Study class, I can only say----BALONEY. The hierarchical church WAS there from the beginning, with Bishops, Priests, and Deacons initially appointed by the Apostles, then later by the succeeding Bishops--and in EVERY case, ordained into the Apostolic Succession. Even Paul himself was so ordained.
It is true that, in many cases, the CANDIDATES to be bishops and priests were chosen by the congregations, but those candidates had to be approved by the predecessor bishops. If the bishops said "no", then the congregations simply had to suggest other candidates.
realize what christ said to John’s gospel, with Jesus—addressing himself specifically to Peter:
he tells Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” and “feed my sheep.”
The phrasing, “Tending” and “feeding” are metaphors for governing and teaching, a clear indication that Christ intended Peter to govern and teach his “sheep,” i.e., the whole Church. Peter, and through him his successors,
that is why the magisterium, the successors to the apostles, are the ones who teach the laiety....the people, as THAT IS WHAT CHRIST INSTRUCTED.
Again, that is simply not true, the council of jerusalem shows peter in charge from the beginning....for example:
Acts 15:7, during the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem...
And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them,
“Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.”
and if you try to show that James (Acts 15:13-21), held the primacy simply because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem.... Well, he may have been the Bishop of Jerusalem during this Council, but Peter was the Bishop of the whole world. See Acts 1:8, where Jerusalem was only one of many Church locations to be founded by the Apostles. The books of Acts, Revelation, and a few others, record more than 30 additional locations for the Church other than Jerusalem.
Jerusalem would certainly not even have been considered by the Apostles to be the seat of Christianity, as they had been forewarned by Jesus Himself that the city would soon be totally destroyed. This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when Roman legions did indeed destroy it.
See Matthew 24 beginning with verse 15.
>congrats for cherry picking a few phrases...do you want me to play that game too?
You were the one that made the statement that EVERYONE bowed in deference to the Throne of Peter. I just pointed out that many of the writings of those that are said to be showing deference contradict your statement. Or did someone mistranslate these writings?
Why not explain the phrases that these learned and holy men wrote. Supposedly they support and uphold your faith traditions, yet they say otherwise.
Even a Pope. Again, is this an infallible teaching by that Pope, or just something to be swept under the rug since it contradicts later teachings? Erg, that would mean that one of the Popes were NOT infallible and that is simply not acceptable. So they must be found to have a harmony. So, show the harmony of the infallible Popes. It should be a simple matter, no?
no, i said in regards to orthodox churches in the east, when they had issues, they appealed to the pope in rome.
you merely cherry picked pieces from some church fathers and councils, i responded with two of the same sources showing Jeromes allegence to the pope as well as the council supporting the papacy as the true leader of the church.
raygunfan: “that is why the magisterium, the successors to the apostles, are the ones who teach the laiety....the people, as THAT IS WHAT CHRIST INSTRUCTED.”
I have no problem with the title teacher - obviously we all can gain knowledge from others who have greater experience and training. The bigger issue is when the Magisterium trumps or twists scripture - the Word of God.
When Christ died, he tore the veil away from the temple. His spirit now dwells in the hearts of his people, not just within the heart of the Magisterium. We will never fully understand the mind of God and on earth no man or woman can claim exclusive access to God.
>no, i said in regards to orthodox churches in the east, when they had issues, they appealed to the pope in rome.
>you merely cherry picked pieces from some church fathers and councils, i responded with two of the same sources showing Jeromes allegence to the pope as well as the council supporting the papacy as the true leader of the church.
Please show me where the phrases are out of context and how it is really in support of your contention, or let the phrase stand as a show that the ones you say support your claim are really just self contradictory hacks. Or perhaps the statements mean what they say and Rome is the one cherry picking for its claim of authority.
I build no walls.
I’m every bit as home with Dutch Reformed as I am with Russian Baptist and German Mennonite and Finnish Apostolic Lutherans and Brazilian House churchers and Irish Catholics and Fundamental Independent Baptists.
Read Ephesians 4.
The thief on the cross next to Jesus wasn’t baptized, but Jesus told him, “Today thou wilt be in Paradise with me.”
Baptism is an outer sign of an inner condition.
Born-again is born-again, regardless of the doctrinal minutiae.
There are people who consider me as being destined for Hell.
Doesn’t bother me.
The only person I can know for sure is saved is me, anyway.
Doesn’t matter what anybody else thinks.
My relationship with God is personal.
And I know what it’s like to be shunned. Believe me.
My only response to that kind of treatment is Ephesians 4.
The dispute between Orthodox and Roman Catholics is an argument within the family over who is the legitimate head of the household. The Protestants have all moved into leaky tents in the yard or even across the street.
Amen!
Secondly, I thought Peter was assigned to be the apostle to the Jews, while Paul was the apostle to the gentiles?
RE: #31 - “where do you get:
“From Christ, through the Pope, all things are possible.” <— Catholic version.
That is nowhere in the church’s teaching....”
From the idea that interpretation is strictly the domain of the Church.
Through Christ in the individual, the individual can accurately interpret the Scripture. The individual can also misinterpret scripture, as man is fallible, including the Pope.
RE #32: “no one has ever taught that peter was ordained to be infallible..again, you are reading into the what you believe, in error, about what His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church truly teaches.”
In post #6 you stated: “Christ himself through Peter to be INFALLIBLE in church teaching”
A clear contradiction. Please let me know what you truly believe on Peter’s infallibility.
Also, I would like your thoughts on the Rock of the Church. As I stated, the Rock is God - Christ as the Messiah.
My comments on tradition are in no way directed singularly towards the RC Church. Many denominations are equally guilty. History has shown the dangers that emerge when tradition becomes independent of Scripture.
The Pharisees come to mind.
Your religion made this up...And you bought into it...
realize what christ said to John’s gospel, with Jesus—addressing himself specifically to Peter: he tells Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” and “feed my sheep.”
The scripture doesn't end with the book of John...
Paul tells the same thing to Elders in the church...They are not Priests...They are not Bishops...They are not Apostles and they are not popes...
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood
*******************
LOL! Aw, c'mon. :)
Really??? Then why didn't Peter judge the matter...Peter was a witness...The judge, James, proclaimed the sentence;
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
“Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe.”
That's true...But that could have been Peter was so hard headed...He really didn't want to believe it...
I don't know if you read scripture, but if you do, you certainly know that Paul was given the commission to preach to the Gentiles while Peter was restricted to the Jews...You know that, if you read the scriptures...
There must be some element within the Church that enables it to be the "pillar and foundation of the truth". Something guided by God that can give us an interpretation of the inspired Word of God, without questioning whether it is correct or not. If this Church was not infallibly protected in some manner, how could it BE the pillar and foundation of the truth?
What is important to realize is that God HAS given us a means to KNOW the truth, and it is NOT based on our own opinions.
Thus, the St. Augustine's "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed".
Regards
And yet, if you read Scriptures, you will note that Paul goes to the Jewish SYNAGOGUE to preach in the towns where he evangelizes at, while it is Peter who goes to Cornelius upon God's bidding to call the Gentiles into the Church? This commission was not absolute.
Regards
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.