Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Reformed Farewell to Benedict XVI
Out Of The Horses Mouth ^ | 28 Feb 2013 | Michael Horton

Posted on 02/28/2013 6:52:42 AM PST by Gamecock

Taken from the highest ranks of the clergy, popes should be among the best living pastors, biblical scholars, and theologians. That this has often not been the case is obvious enough throughout history, as any well-informed Roman Catholic will concede. (More than a few instances of corruption and heresy may be found on the Protestant side as well.)

However, Benedict XVI has regularly been impressive on these counts. Living alongside Protestants in Germany, he often engages Reformation views with more sympathy and knowledge than most—especially more than many Protestants who convert to Rome and trade on caricatures of the evangelical faith based on the worst of evangelicalism.

One example of Pope Benedict’s judicious engagement is the way he explains the context that helped to provoke the Reformation. Though he realizes that there was more to it, he refers to the Great Western Schism (1309-1417). Not many people know about this today, so it’s worth considering.

Often called the “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” the Schism was provoked by the election of rival popes and the removal of the papacy from Rome to Avignon, France. Before becoming pope, Benedict explained,

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. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987), 196)

Throughout the Middle Ages there had been a running feud between popes and kings, leading to excommunication from the one and imprisonment by the other. However, the disruption of the papal succession provoked widespread anxiety within the church—and indeed, the whole of Christendom. Between 1305 and 1377, the pope was French and so were most of his cardinals. The schism was consummated when Pope Urban VI in Rome and Pope Clement VII in Avignon excommunicated each other—and therefore all of those under each other’s respective sees. They continued this division by appointed their own successors.

Who would resolve this stand-off? Some leading theologians had argued for a while that church councils always had priority over the pope until fairly recently. The early ecumenical councils were a prime example.

However, in this case councils it became clear that councils, too, were fallible. The Council of Pisa (1409) elected a third pope to replace the two rivals. At the Council of Constance (1414-18), where the reformer Jan Hus was condemned to the flames, the two rival popes and the third pope were replaced now by a fourth, Martin V. It came at a cost to the papacy: the Council declared its sovereignty over the pope. Pope Martin, who could not attend, declared its position on this matter null. As a binding council, some Roman Catholic theologians today invoke its memory for a new conciliar movement.

Between the 14th and 16th centuries, leading theologians defended the authority of Scripture over councils and of councils over the pope, drawing on the example of the ancient church. Arguing that Scripture is above the whole church, William of Ockham (d. 1349) argued that the whole church (including laity) should hold a council to elect the pope and limit his authority. It is this whole church that is the communion of saints, not the Roman church. If a pope falls into heresy, a council can judge him without his approval. Marsilius of Padua agreed (Defensor Pacis, 1324): the church consists of all the faithful, not just priests. Christ is the only head of the church. More conservative reformists defended the principle of Scripture’s magisterial authority and the priority of councils over the papacy. These included the leading Sorbonne theologian Jean Gerson, as well as Pierre d’Ailly, Francesco Zabarella, and Nicholas of Cusa.

The last gasp of the conciliar movement came at the Council of Basel (1431-49). Papalists formed Council of Florence, while conciliar party in Basel elected another pope. Martin called it but died before it met. Eugenius IV succeeded him and was prevented by health from presiding. He couldn’t have done so in any case, as the fathers declared (on the basis of Constance) that the Council was superior to the pope. Eugenius made concession after concession until he finally submitted. His papal legates could only attend if they accepted this as well, though they were duplicitous afterwards.

Finally, on the eve of the Reformation, Pope Julius II reasserted papal primacy and packed the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) with cardinals who supported him. Thomas Cajetan, famous (among other things) as Luther’s curial opponent, staunchly defended papal primacy. In condemning the Reformation, the Council of Trent also condemned positions that had been argued by theologians well within its pale for centuries.

With the First Vatican Council in the 1850s, papal infallibility became binding dogma—necessary for salvation. In spite of a few statements in Lumen Gentium exploited by more liberal theologians, Vatican II and the latest Catholic Catechism reaffirm that there is no full and perfect communion with Christ apart from obedience to the pope. Before becoming Benedict XVI, and since, Cardinal Ratzinger defended these views with great energy and skill. I have no doubt that he will continue to do so.

But this tale does clear our eyes from the foggy mists of sentimentalism. Is the Roman Catholic Church united by an unbroken succession from St. Peter? Roman Catholic theologians—and especially historians—know that an uncomplicated “yes” will not do. Are the church’s decisions irreformable? Then what about the Council of Constance? Even the Council of Basel was a duly constituted synod. Whose conclusions are binding? At the very least, Rome has compromised its claim of an unbroken unity—not only between councils and popes, but within the papal line itself. It can invent theories of “anti-popes” to preserve its claim to valid succession. But even if one were to accept the idea in principle, history has already provided too much contrary evidence. Romantic glances across the Tiber are thwarted by the reality. At the end of the day, this story provides one more reminder that the church that is created by the Word and stands under that Word, with all of its besetting sins and errors, is still the safest place to be in a fallen world and imperfect church.

Further Reading:
•C. M. D. Crowder, Unity, Heresy, and Reform, 1378-1460: The Conciliar Response to the Great Schism (New York : St. Martin’s Press, 1977).
•Oakley, Francis. The Conciliarist Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).


TOPICS: Current Events; General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: benedict; farewell; theend; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-419 next last

1 posted on 02/28/2013 6:52:47 AM PST by Gamecock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; Wrigley; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; jboot; AZhardliner; ...
GRPL Ping


2 posted on 02/28/2013 6:56:21 AM PST by Gamecock ( If we distort the gospel, that distortion will influence and affect everything else that we believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins; metmom

For your consideration


3 posted on 02/28/2013 6:57:59 AM PST by Gamecock ( If we distort the gospel, that distortion will influence and affect everything else that we believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Oh, mayhaps the next pope will be a Calvinist who would move the church back to Trent and then resign so there could be a great debate again.

Nah, let the lavender smoke arise for a PC Koran kissin pope.

*sigh*


4 posted on 02/28/2013 6:59:55 AM PST by polkajello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

“....the Great Western Schism (1309-1417).”

And

“Often called the “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” the Schism was provoked by the election of rival popes and the removal of the papacy from Rome to Avignon, France.”

Perhaps Horton is a moron, or maybe he’s just not careful here. There was no schism lasting all the way from 1309 to 1417. He is conflating the Avignon Papacy (when there was no schism) with the Great Schism of the West which came AFTERWARD and lasted from 1378 to 1417.

He’s a Protestant. I don’t expect him to know history very well.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3407700985/avignon-papacy.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm


5 posted on 02/28/2013 7:02:36 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: polkajello

Just the attitutde, but it’s an open thread.

The Pope never kissed a Koran, he kissed a book of the Gospels of the Eastern Catholic Church.


6 posted on 02/28/2013 7:11:33 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

The pope is a human.

He has the ‘right’ to quit any time he wants.


7 posted on 02/28/2013 7:16:18 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (The monsters are due on Maple Street)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Ah, I guess he was just sniffing the Koran, then. Love that Corinthian leather.


8 posted on 02/28/2013 7:17:12 AM PST by polkajello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: polkajello

Did you even read my post — the Book was the Eastern Catholic Book of the Gospels which is usually green.

Get over it.


9 posted on 02/28/2013 7:34:35 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: polkajello
I think you need to read this story about Pope John Paul II.

The Confession of Blessed John Paul II


This is an article from several months ago, but it seems timely to repost it on the eve of the Beatification.  Blessed John Paul II, ora pro nobis!

I listened the to
Lighthouse Media CD of Dr. Scott Hahn delivering an address on the beauty and nature of the Sacrament of Confession. In his talk, Dr. Hahn relayed one of the grandest stories I have heard in quite some time. Please forgive my own recollection of it. The facts are accurate, but the manner in which I relay it could never rival Dr. Hahn’s own oration. To hear him deliver the story, check out the Lighthouse Media CD.

A priest friend of Scott Hahn's had returned from Rome and told Mr. Hahn this story. The priest was on his way to a private audience with the Pope but was running early. He thus decided to stop in a church to pray before his meeting. On the steps of the church were a number of beggars, something fairly common in Rome. As he approached the church, the priest thought that he recognized one of the beggars. After entering the sanctuary he knelt down to pray, whereupon he remembered how he knew the man. The priest immediately rushed out and approached the familiar beggar exclaiming, “I know you. Didn’t we go to seminary together?”
The man gave a humble affirmative.
“So you are a priest then?” he said to the beggar.
The man replied, “Not anymore. I fell off the deep end. Leave me alone.”
The priest mindful of his approaching appointment with the Holy Father, said nothing more than, “I’ll pray for you.”
The familiar man replied, “A lot of good that will do.”
With that, the priest left the man on the steps and departed for his meeting. These sorts of meetings with the Pope are typically very formal. There are any number of people who have been granted a private audience at the same time, and when the Holy Father makes his way around to you, his secretary hands him a blessed rosary, and he in turn hands it to you. At this point, one would probably kiss the Pope’s ring and say something heartfelt, yet almost generic, such as asking him to pray for you, telling him you are praying for him, or thanking him for his service to the Church. However, when Pope John Paul II approached, the priest couldn’t help himself and blurted out, “Please pray for my friend.” Not only this, but the priest continued to blurt out the entire story. The Holy Father, looking concerned, assured the priest that he would pray for his friend.
Later that day, the priest received a letter from the Vatican. Excited and curious, he rushed with the letter back to the church where he last saw his classmate. Only a few beggars were left, and as luck (or grace) would have it, his friend was among the few. He approached the man and said, “I have been to see the Pope, and he said he would pray for you as well.”
The man listened.
“There’s more. He has invited you and me to his private residence for dinner.”
“Impossible,” said the man, “Look at me. I am a mess. I haven’t showered in God knows how long, and my clothes ...”
Sensing the gravity of the situation (and understanding that this man was his admission ticket to have dinner with the Pope), the priest said, “I have a hotel room across the street where you can shower and shave, and I have clothes that will fit you.”
By the grace of God, the man agreed, and so the two of them were off to have dinner with Pope John Paul II.
The hospitality was wondrous. Near the close of dinner, just before dessert, the Holy Father motioned to the priest who didn’t understand what the Pope was trying to say. Finally, the secretary explained, “He want us to leave,” at which point the priest and the secretary left the Holy Father alone with the beggar.
After fifteen minutes, the man emerged from the room in tears.
“What happened in there?” asked the priest.
The most remarkable and unexpected reply came.
“He asked me to hear his confession,” choked the beggar.
After regaining composure, the man continued, “I told him, ‘Your Holiness, look at me. I am a beggar. I am not a priest.’
“The Pope looked at me and said, ‘My son, once a priest always a priest, and who among us is not a beggar. I too come before the Lord as a beggar asking for forgiveness of my sins.’ I told him I was not in good standing with the Church, and he assured me that as the Bishop of Rome he could reinstate me then and there.”
The man then relayed that it had been so long since he had heard a confession that the Pope had to help him through the words of absolution.
The priest asked, “But you were in there for fifteen minutes. Surely the Pope’s confession did not last that long.”
“No,” said his friend, “But after I heard his confession, I asked him to hear mine.”
The final words spoken by Pope John Paul II to this prodigal son came in the form of a commission. The Holy Father gave the newly-reconciled priest his first assignment: to go and minister to the homeless and the beggars on the steps of the very church from where he just came.
The only words I can add to the incredible story are this: what a humble example we have in Pope John Paul the Great. Here is a man that was able to see not only Jesus Christ, but also the Priesthood of Christ, in the eyes of a fallen-away beggar. Not only that, but he bowed before the beggar in humility with full awareness of his own sinfulness. In doing so, the Pope gave the man the opportunity to perform the only priestly act that was immediately available to him.
As a closing remark, it is said that Pope John Paul II went to confession every week. Would that we follow this example, how many of us would be saints.

10 posted on 02/28/2013 7:36:27 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Jimmy Akin says:
However, the former Chaldean patriarch–Raphael Bidawid–was present at the meeting where the event occurred, and in an interview with the press service FIDES, he said the following:

On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi’ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope, because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim.

At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu’ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html


11 posted on 02/28/2013 8:05:22 AM PST by polkajello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Jimmy Akin says:
However, the former Chaldean patriarch–Raphael Bidawid–was present at the meeting where the event occurred, and in an interview with the press service FIDES, he said the following:

On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi’ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope, because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim.

At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu’ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/jp2_and_the_qur.html


12 posted on 02/28/2013 8:06:02 AM PST by polkajello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

The writer’s historical analysis notwithstanding, it is truly miraculous that through all this, after two thousand years, the Church Christ established is still with us and among us and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


13 posted on 02/28/2013 9:06:35 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock; P-Marlowe; xzins; metmom
Finally, on the eve of the Reformation, Pope Julius II reasserted papal primacy and packed the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17) with cardinals who supported him. Thomas Cajetan, famous (among other things) as Luther’s curial opponent, staunchly defended papal primacy. In condemning the Reformation, the Council of Trent also condemned positions that had been argued by theologians well within its pale for centuries.

If Julius had been smarter he would have kept the Reformed churches under his control?

If the above were true I would still find myself looking at the Reformed/Roman Catholics from the outside. While I do believe Calvin has a great deal right during the current Church Age, I do not believe his systematic theology fits all dispensations. Also, unlike my Reformed friends as an Evangelical Christian I don't believe Creeds, or Councils, are binding.

Thanks for posting this Gamecock. It is thought provoking how institutional Christianity could be so different today based on the political calculations of it's leaders.

14 posted on 02/28/2013 10:57:19 AM PST by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
...and this despite the best efforts of many to make themselves into the sole font of Christ's grace & forgiveness.

The true Church extends far beyond the self-proclaimed authority of that clown-crew, with members (recognized by the Lord as His own) being spread far and wide. Some of them are even part of the "clowns" (funny hat wearers), despite their own misapplied assumptions concerning themselves, and the limits to their own reach.

Yes, the Lord is truly marvelous, in keeping His own promises.

The Church is far bigger than that which a Latin bishop (or that bishop's promoters?) may claim. Here more of late (some fifty years ago) there was a "clarification" pronounced by the clown crew. They had to admit, contrary to other previous statements, that there was portions of this church which Christ established, somewhat beyond them...even as they simultaneously claimed themselves to be the ultimate head of those other congregations, too. As "Alter Christus"...

Thank God, for God. His Holy Spirit takes no direction from the clowns, not limiting Himself to their proclamations, even as He does at times entertain their own personal requests, supplying to them in their needs, offering His presence to be found within and among them.

But let us not confuse Him with "them".

God will not be mocked, nor bested. The clowns have shown themselves time and again, to not be beyond the need of correction. The same can be said for those whom wear simpler hats...or hardly any hat at all.

15 posted on 02/28/2013 12:40:53 PM PST by BlueDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

RE: I don’t believe Creeds, or Councils, are binding.

Surely you don’t have any objections to either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed.


16 posted on 02/28/2013 12:45:03 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

We have different ideas of Church. We see it as one, holy, universal and apostolic. There is both a visible, as we see in Acts and St. Paul’s epistles, and invisible Church. On this we differ.

Best wishes and thanks for your reply.


17 posted on 02/28/2013 3:54:59 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; polkajello; metmom; Elsie; boatbums; CynicalBear

You have made this defensive unsubstantiated assertion before, which is contrary to even catholic sources: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2975555/posts?page=983#983


18 posted on 02/28/2013 6:46:15 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
An autocratic org has the right to redefine what it meant so that what it meant is what it now means. .

Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and Roman Pontiff." Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (On The Care Of The Churches), Encyclical promulgated on April 8, 1862, # 3. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P9AMANT2.HTM

• Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856):
There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

"The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life..unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." — Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), proclaimed “ex cathedra” (infallible).

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1 
 
"subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful..." Fifth Lateran Council Session 11, 19 December 1516

19 posted on 02/28/2013 6:56:03 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

With the exception of “one baptism for the remission of sins,” as it is the faith that baptism confesses that appropriates forgiveness. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) And “ holy catholic and apostolic Church” as in small “c” with the apostolic foundation. (Eph. 2:20)


20 posted on 02/28/2013 7:05:17 PM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Salvation; polkajello; metmom; Elsie; boatbums

It’s been well enough established by several sources that the Pope was indeed kissing the Quran. While I’m sure that’s rather embarrassing to Catholics at large as is the declaration by the Catholic Church that the Muslims serve the same god as they do at some point they will understand the significance of both of those statements and gestures.


21 posted on 03/01/2013 3:25:28 AM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
He’s a Protestant. I don’t expect him to know history very well.

At least you ain't wishy-washy about your belief.

22 posted on 03/01/2013 3:52:07 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Surely you don’t have any objections to either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed.

Well MY followers sure do! (Even though I wrote one of our own for them...)



23 posted on 03/01/2013 3:59:13 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

That was over a month ago. Folks have forgotten since then...


24 posted on 03/01/2013 4:00:54 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
An autocratic org has the right to redefine what it meant so that what it meant is what it now means.

Of COURSE!!

Where do you think I got the idea??




25 posted on 03/01/2013 4:03:54 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
It’s been well enough established by several sources that the Pope was indeed kissing the Quran.

It sure appears that way!

The question that remains is WHY!!!

26 posted on 03/01/2013 4:05:30 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

bttt


27 posted on 03/01/2013 4:30:02 AM PST by TNMountainMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TNMountainMan

Pope-less Friday is Here...
Is Christ Vicar-less?


28 posted on 03/01/2013 6:02:33 AM PST by polkajello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

You often see a knee jerk reaction by RCs when faced with any thing negative against their object of devotion, which includes repeated unsubstantiated denials to even calling the poster a liar. Yet others actually charge that Rome is unfaithful, and thus belong to another class of RCs.

And while some want to canonize JP2 and defend him against any attacks, other RCs engage in the latter to different degrees, which was the subject of this post:

One example of this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2966953/posts?page=3876#3876


29 posted on 03/01/2013 6:48:38 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Surely you don’t have any objections to either the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed.

Let's start with the Nicene Creed because it best illustrates my point about institutional Christianity and the hubris of it's leadership. The first question you have to ask is which Nicene Creed do you look at as the rule of your faith. The creed that was created by theologians brought together and led by a pagan in 325 AD, or the creed that was adopted by a state-church coalition in 381 AD.

I think in either case a we see a statement that "all right minded Christians" are expected to revere as equal to Scripture. Additionally, in both cases we have a statement being created by men who are driven by a political agenda and the belief that they alone can define what is truth and all 'right minded Christians" must blindly adhere to it.

30 posted on 03/01/2013 7:35:23 AM PST by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

The creeds came because some get quite different meanings from the same Scripture, Arius for example.

Saying one reveres Scripture can means they revere their version and interpretation of it.

You cannot have one Lord, one faith, one baptism when the Church is comprised of individuals with their own theology.


31 posted on 03/01/2013 9:09:59 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Facts are such inconvenient things.


32 posted on 03/01/2013 12:19:24 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; wmfights
Saying one reveres Scripture can means they revere their version and interpretation of it.

The charge that the different translations are different in their content simply does not hold water.

If you check Scripture on a verse by verse basis and compare versions, you'll see that there's essentially no difference between the interpretations.

Here's a link for your convenience which shows many versions of the same verse.

http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm

And you can use it for any verse by entering it in the white field at the top of the page.

Additionally, there are not all that many different interpretations of those verses. Usually there's just one, but there may be two or at the most three, but that is pretty rare.

So both arguments fall flat.

Nor does that mean that any one organization's interpretation is the right one. Just because there is consensus by the leadership of an organization, denomination, or church, does not mean that that interpretation is by default correct.

Truth is not decided by consensus. It stands on its own whether anyone believes it or not or agrees with it or not. It stands outside man's existence or acknowledgement because it is based on God's nature, not man's interpretation.

Truth is truth because God is true, not because people believe it.

33 posted on 03/01/2013 12:36:37 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; wmfights; daniel1212; CynicalBear; boatbums
You cannot have one Lord, one faith, one baptism when the Church is comprised of individuals with their own theology.

Sure you can. Show me where Scripture states that someone's theology has to be *perfect* to be saved or part of the body of Christ.

And besides, the Catholic church itself allows for plenty of leeway amongst it's adherents.

Teddy Kennedy still got a Catholic funeral.

34 posted on 03/01/2013 12:39:28 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
Thank you for posting this, Gamecock.

I have objections to Dr. Horton’s views on “Two Kingdoms” theology as applied to politics, but he does understand the importance of making sure Protestants understand where we differ from Rome.

Those of us who believe political cooperation with Roman Catholics is appropriate or even necessary must keep in mind that we have very important differences on doctrine. The Reformation happened for a reason.

35 posted on 03/01/2013 1:31:12 PM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
You cannot have one Lord, one faith, one baptism when the Church is comprised of individuals with their own theology.

What has gotten lost in the quest to find a human ruler is the role of the Holy Spirit.

If you look at the Apostolic Era churches and the churches of the generations immediately following you will not find a man made hierarchy, that emerged later. What you will find is churches united by their faith in Jesus Christ guided by the Holy Spirit. Our Scriptures were filtered by these Holy Spirit led Christians. The variety in theological beliefs didn't hamper the Holy Spirit at all and Christianity grew at an incredible rate.

36 posted on 03/01/2013 1:43:36 PM PST by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Sure you can. [ have one Lord, one faith, one baptism when the Church is comprised of individuals with their own theology.]

For one example: the one Lord according to sola scriptura Oneness Pentecostalism is not the same as other sola scriptura interpretations.

Another example would be salvation by grace through faith vs. salvation by election in the sola scriptura Arminianism vs. Calvinism schools.

And "one baptism" varies among various sola scriptura adherents - and for some it can even be more than one baptism.

37 posted on 03/01/2013 1:48:34 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: metmom
I should have pinged you to my #36 for variations of interpretations.

Truth is not decided by consensus.

I heartily agree. Neither is it decided by each individual. Even the Reformers realized this very early on - it's why they created their various Confessions, Principles of Faith and so on. They even split from each other numerous times over disagreements on who's interpretation of scripture, via sola scriptura, was correct.

38 posted on 03/01/2013 1:53:37 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: metmom; D-fendr; wmfights; daniel1212; CynicalBear; boatbums
Truth is not decided by consensus.

Beautifully said!

This is my main problem with the over emphasis in institutional churches that is placed on creeds and confessions. It is one of the few areas I find myself in conflict with my Reformed Protestant FRiends. They often don't recognize it, but they can be just as guilty as the Roman Catholics of relying on man made statements as equal to God's Word.

If we are going to truly hold to Sola Scriptura as the rule of our faith we need to diminish the status of these creeds and confessions.

39 posted on 03/01/2013 1:57:26 PM PST by wmfights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; metmom; CynicalBear; daniel1212; mitch5501; boatbums; Dutchboy88
While we are discussing creeds, principles of faith, confessions, interpretation of scripture, who's on first, etc., I would like to ask a question. DOes anyone here know why circumcision was required? What it represented? ANd water baptism. Why was it required? ANd what did it represent? Without knowing the answer to these two questions, there can be NO UNITY OF THE SPIRIT, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, or ONE BODY that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 4:4-6.

If you don't know WHY they existed, then you don't know IF they are STILL required today. Rightly dividing God's WOrd of truth works when it's actually tried....2 Tim 2:15. Either GOd meant what He said when He said ONE, or He forgot there were more.

40 posted on 03/01/2013 2:30:35 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
"I would like to ask a question. DOes anyone here know why circumcision was required? What it represented? ANd water baptism. Why was it required? ANd what did it represent? Without knowing the answer to these two questions, there can be NO UNITY OF THE SPIRIT, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, or ONE BODY that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 4:4-6.

I count four question marks (and it appears there should be a fifth), yet you mentioned "a question" and "two questions". What is your concern exactly?

41 posted on 03/01/2013 2:56:51 PM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
"I think you need to read this story about Pope John Paul II."

Tragic that no one ever explained the Gospel to pJPII. Sentimental stories such as this don't comport with the Scriptural message. As such, we continue to call to the RCs who believe Rome's error to come out of her, into the light of Jesus, alone. Swim the Tiber (the other direction) and find rescue...if He permits.

42 posted on 03/01/2013 3:02:57 PM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

It’s rather simple really. If we have to do something to obtain salvation it’s no longer grace is it.


43 posted on 03/01/2013 3:15:37 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; metmom; D-fendr; daniel1212; boatbums
>> If we are going to truly hold to Sola Scriptura as the rule of our faith we need to diminish the status of these creeds and confessions.<<

Amen to that. It’s amazing to me that the organized religions that resulted from the split with Rome are still making some of the same mistakes as the RCC.

44 posted on 03/01/2013 3:19:07 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: metmom
>>Sure you can. Show me where Scripture states that someone's theology has to be *perfect* to be saved or part of the body of Christ.<<

LOL Isn’t it interesting that even one step away from “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved – and your house” begins to risk error?

45 posted on 03/01/2013 3:21:09 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88; metmom; CynicalBear; boatbums; mitch5501
lol..I DID go beyond the one question, didn't I...My concern here is that all the "rules" and "regulations" that keep us all arguing can ALL be found in the BIble. And answered with Scripture. But it all depends on WHO said it, WHEN they said it, and WHO they were saying it to. There truly IS ONE BAPTISM in this dispensation. ANd it has nothing to do with water. Just like there is a circumcision in this dispensation. But before Israel was blinded and set aside, there were more than one baptism. By fire, by water, with the Holy Spirit, etc. And they ALL have to do with covenants God made with Israel. Not the Church, the Body of Christ, which we are apart of now. "TIme Past", "But Now", and "The Ages to Come" of Ephesians, CHapter 2.

The Gospel of the kingdom and the Gospel of the Circumcision are based on covenants GOd made with the Jews. Both were bound up with ordinances and signs. Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic COvenant (Gen. 17:11). And water baptism was the sign of the Davidic Covenant (Ex. 29:4, cf. Ex. 19:5,6, Isa. 61:6, Matt. 3:1-6). But WE are gentiles, STRANGERS FROM THE COVENANTS. (Eph. 2:12). We are in the "But NOW" of GOd's plan. If we are strangers from the covenants, are we supposed to keep them? Whether it be circumcision, water baptism, dietary rules, etc. Water baptism can NOT be the One Baptism Paul writes of for us today. "For BY ONE SPIRIT are we all baptized INTO ONE BODY.,.."1 Cor. 12:13. Not physically, Spiritually. Just like we are circumcised by the Holy Spirit. Not physically, Spiritually. THAT is the One Baptism of the dispensation of the grace of God.

Unless a person still desires to be Israel today. WHereby he would be circumsised in fullfillment of the Davidic Covenant and water baptized in fullfullment of the Abrahamic COvenant. Of course, it would do no good, since Israel is now blinded and set aside and God is dealing with individuals, not nations, on an equal basis.

46 posted on 03/01/2013 3:28:27 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
>>The question that remains is WHY!!! <<

Because when they believe they serve the same god as the Muslims and the Holy Spirit isn’t within to guide there is only human understanding. The Pope doesn’t even understand the evil contained in the Quran.

47 posted on 03/01/2013 3:30:35 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
>>Unless a person still desires to be Israel today.<<

Therein lies part of the problem. The RCC believes Christians have replaced Israel. Many of the organized religions since the split with Rome have followed that line of thinking. I doubt seriously if many of the organized religions of today understand the difference.

48 posted on 03/01/2013 3:35:50 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 1 Corinthians 2:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

AMEN, CB. AMEN.


49 posted on 03/01/2013 3:38:50 PM PST by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; daniel1212; CynicalBear; boatbums; smvoice
It is one of the few areas I find myself in conflict with my Reformed Protestant FRiends. They often don't recognize it, but they can be just as guilty as the Roman Catholics of relying on man made statements as equal to God's Word.

If we are going to truly hold to Sola Scriptura as the rule of our faith we need to diminish the status of these creeds and confessions.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

Salvation is by faith in Christ and one's spiritual growth and maturity are the work of the Holy Spirit evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit being displayed in one's life, not evidenced by adherence to confessions, creeds, tongues, or any other man established criteria.

50 posted on 03/01/2013 4:16:27 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-419 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson