Well MY followers sure do! (Even though I wrote one of our own for them...)
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).
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.
At least you ain't wishy-washy about your belief.
Well MY followers sure do! (Even though I wrote one of our own for them...)
That was over a month ago. Folks have forgotten since then...
Of COURSE!!
Where do you think I got the idea??
It sure appears that way!
The question that remains is WHY!!!
bttt
Pope-less Friday is Here...
Is Christ Vicar-less?
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
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.
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.
Facts are such inconvenient things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.