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).
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?
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.
It’s rather simple really. If we have to do something to obtain salvation it’s no longer grace is it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
AMEN, CB. AMEN.
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.
You can do whatever you wish as far as creeds of course. The great majority of Christians use them to differentiate their beliefs from others.
The original creeds were to define the Christian faith regarding who Christ is and the Most Holy Trinity - as differentiated from the various heresies. Some of these beliefs concerning Christ and the Trinity crop up again, even today. Those who hold them have problems with the creed; those that don’t, don’t.
Ironically, Sola scriptura is a man-made creed.
It’s not biblical, and no Christian held this belief prior to Luther.
On top of that, a fallible Church makes the Scriptures Luther inherited dubious.
The doctrine is completely incoherent.
OK. Print it out. The Nicene Creed and Apostles Creed can be found by a google search. Show us the Sola Scriptura Creed.
Jesus established it when He said *It is written......*.
John 8:47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
John 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.
John 14:23-24 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
2 Corinthians 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.
Ephesians 6:17 .. and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,...
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
God's word is truth. Why isn't the very words of God enough that Catholics feel the need to add to them and to disparage and down play them and say they aren't good enough?
God's very words to us aren't good enough? Really?
I realize that you probably desperately want that to be tied together and true. It’s amazing isn’t it that so many were proclaimed saved during Jesus and the Apostles times long before any of the so called “creeds” were thought of?
So making scripture the sole source for the truth of what someone is teaching started with Luther you say?
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Is there no common agreement on what sola scriptura means? Different individuals adhere to sola scripture in individual ways?
The faith in the creeds was known and taught by Jesus and the Apostles before they were written in the councils. That’s what makes ‘em creeds.
The majority of non-Catholics have followed them since their beginning; others rephrase them in their own particular confession.
You’re welcome to have your own creed of course.
Why on earth, then, are you adding to them in your post?
So; if we can get enough folks voting on it; the MAJORITY says it becomes the TRUTH forever...
(And now we have Obama...)
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.