Posted on 10/08/2013 7:21:16 AM PDT by Gamecock
For vast numbers of people, Roman Catholicism is the religion of choice. Rome can be attractive for a wide variety of reasons. The most significant is familial, people born into and persevering in the Roman Church. But other attractions of various sorts can be readily found: theological, philosophical, liturgical, moral, psychological, and historical.
Defenders of Protestantism over the centuries have entered the lists, confronting at great length all of Rome's attractions. Understandably, the discussions have often focused particularly on biblical and theological arguments. But historical arguments are of great importance as well. Rome often claims that it represents two thousand years of unbroken apostolic succession and practice. The implication is that no fundamental changes have taken place in the church, but only a legitimate development of principles found at the beginning. I believe that this historical claim is profoundly false, and that in the interests of truth and biblical religion it must be challenged.
The Roman Catholic Church today is at least the fourth or fifth iteration of that organization, each in basic ways different from the others. There is the ancient form, the medieval form, the Tridentine form (formed at the time of the Council of Trent, 1545–1563), and then at least two post-Tridentine forms shaped by two very different councils: Vatican I (1868–1870) and Vatican II (1962–1965). In its ancient form, Rome was in fellowship with the other Christian churches and held to Nicene orthodoxy. In its medieval form, it separated from other Christian churches insisting on absolute Roman supremacy, defining certain doctrines such as transubstantiation, but leaving many other doctrines (such as justification and the authority of tradition) open to discussion. In its Tridentine form, it defined many more doctrines, cutting itself off from its medieval form by condemning views it had then tolerated. In its post-Tridentine forms, it theoretically upholds the decisions of Trent, but in practice moves beyond and contrary to Trent. As the Tridentine church claimed to supplement the Bible with tradition, but in fact used its traditions to contradict the Bible, so the post-Tridentine church has claimed to supplement Trent with other teachings, but in fact has used those other teachings to contradict Trent.
The extensive claims of the previous paragraph cannot be elaborated or substantiated in the space of this article. My purpose is simply to present some of the statements of the sixteenth-century Council of Trent and the nineteenth-century First Vatican Council in which historical claims for the Roman church are made, and then evaluate those claims in light of history.
In the sixteenth century, the Reformers taught that the Bible alone was the church's ultimate authority, while the Roman Catholics responded that tradition along with Scripture were the authority for the church. The Council of Trent defined this Roman position in these terms:
Seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand. (1)
This position continued to characterize the Tridentine church as it was reiterated in almost identical language by the First Vatican Council (1870). (2) In the decrees of these two councils, we read nothing of evolving or developing traditions. Instead, the historical claim made by each is crystal clear: the authoritative traditions of the Roman Church were taught by the apostles in the first century. Such a claim is entirely untenable, as any informed Roman Catholic must acknowledge today. And so many Roman apologists now seek to show how current Roman teachings and practices, supposedly based on tradition, have progressed and grown from a kernel of truth found in the time of the apostles, and thereby justify contemporary practice. The problem with such an apologetic is that it contradicts what Trent and the First Vatican Council declared.
John Calvin, in one of the most trenchant early criticisms of Trent, remarkably turned the table on Rome saying, in effect, that he would accept the authority of apostolic tradition as defined by Trent if the Romanists could offer historical proof for their claims of tradition. Calvin recognized already in the sixteenth century that such proof could not be presented. (3) Historical studies since then have made Trent's claims even more impossible to demonstrate.
As we examine the decisions of Trent carefully, we find various places in which it claims the authority of tradition as the foundation of its teaching, particularly with respect to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
Transubstantiation
Trent teaches that its doctrine of transubstantiation is not only a perpetual, but also a sincere and firm commitment of the church even in ancient times:
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which he offered under the species of bread to be truly his own body, therefore, has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. (4)
Adoration of the Host
Trent also teaches that worshipping the consecrated bread and wine of the Lord's Supper is an apostolic tradition going back to the earliest days of the church:
Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. (5)
Sacrifice of the Mass
Remarkably, Trent also declares both that the Mass was an unbloody, propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, and that this was the consensus of the apostolic tradition:
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory....Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreeably to a tradition of the apostles. (6)
Suffice it to say, no reputable church historian would confirm any of these historical claims of the Council of Trent. Even if some very ancient support for some of these teachings were found, it would not substantiate Trent's claims of clear and broad acceptance of them in the early period of the ancient church.
In addition to its decisions on tradition, Trent further decreed that only the church could properly interpret the meaning of the Bible, and further claimed that this position was the unanimous teaching of the church fathers:
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,—wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (7)
The position articulated by Trent against sola scriptura has rightly sometimes been called sola ecclesia (by the church alone). It is not so much the Bible and tradition that determine the truth as the decisions of the church as to the meaning of the Bible and tradition. Here too, however, Rome's claim is not that its teachings have evolved, but that it teaches what the whole church and the fathers of the church have always taught. Calvin saw that in fact Rome did not give any real authority to the Bible. Rather, Rome made the Bible into a wax nose that would be reshaped to mean whatever Rome wanted it to mean. (8)
Calvin indeed recognized an important role for the church in interpreting the Bible, but has a very different notion of what the church is. For Rome, the church is the authoritative hierarchy that by its power decides the meaning of the Bible. For Calvin, the interpretation of the Bible in difficult matters should be given to learned members of the church to study the meaning of the Bible humbly and submissively. (9)
The question remains, of course, as to who exactly determines the meaning of the Bible and tradition for the Roman Catholic Church. Some in the sixteenth century looked to the great theological faculties in the universities. Many believed that only the pope and ecumenical councils could speak for the whole church. That is the view enshrined in the Tridentine Profession of Faith of 1564, issued by Pope Pius IV after the Council of Trent had adjourned and made binding on all who taught in the Roman Church. (10) This profession declared the necessity of following the pope and the ecumenical councils:
X. I acknowledge the holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
XI. I likewise undoubtingly receive and profess all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons and General Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent. (11)
The point to take note of here is that the Tridentine Profession of Faith assumes the authority of the ecumenical councils as well as popes, and further, assumes the agreement of popes and councils. In fact, the historical reality is quite the contrary to Rome's claims, for the pope historically rejected what ecumenical councils said about Rome.
Consider the famous sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325):
The ancient custom, which has obtained in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, shall continue in force, viz.: that the bishop of Alexandria have rule over all these [provinces], since this also is customary with the bishop of Rome. Likewise also at Antioch and in the other eparchies, the churches shall retain their prerogatives. (12)
Clearly the Council of Nicaea knew nothing of the notion that the bishop of Rome ruled over all the churches. Obstinately, Rome has not submitted to this canon of an ecumenical council, thus challenging the notion of pope-and-council harmony.
A second and more surprising example can be taken from the second ecumenical council of Constantinople (381). At that time, the bishop of Constantinople was declared to have "the precedence in honor, next to the bishop of Rome." (13) The meaning of this statement is explained more fully in the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth ecumenical council, the Council of Chalcedon (451). After expressing its agreement with the Council of Constantinople on the bishop of Constantinople, the canon continued:
For with reason did the fathers confer prerogatives...on the throne [the episcopal chair] of ancient Rome, on account of her character as the imperial city...; and, moved by the same consideration, the hundred and fifty bishops [at the Council of Constantinople] recognized the same prerogatives...also in the most holy throne of New Rome [Constantinople]; and with good reason judging, that the city, which is honored with the imperial dignity and the senate [i.e., where the emperor and senate reside], and enjoys the same [municipal] privileges as the ancient imperial Rome, should also be equally elevated in ecclesiastical respects, and be the second after her. (14)
The papal legates at the council protested this canon, but the council passed it anyway. Clearly the great ecumenical council did not acknowledge the right of the pope to determine its actions. Important to note is that for the council the discussion of the honor accorded to the bishop of Rome was purely a matter of its relation to the imperial system. No mention is made of Christ or Peter in this matter. This canon is also rejected by Rome, again challenging the notion that popes and councils have always agreed.
In many ways, the logical culmination of Rome's claims for itself was the declaration of the First Vatican Council (1870) regarding the authority and infallibility of the pope. This council reiterated that what it taught about the pope was "in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church." (15) Further, it insisted that the doctrine of papal authority over the whole church is necessary for salvation: "Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of the Lord the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other churches....This is the teaching of the Catholic faith, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation." (16)
The irony and historical inaccuracy of this statement is outrageous. To abide by this teaching, the Eastern churches and many Western churches of the ancient period are read out of the true church without a moment's hesitation. The absolute authority of the bishop of Rome is not only ancient and universal, one most held to be Roman Catholic, but it is also necessary for salvation for everyone.
The council goes beyond asserting the authority of the pope over all churches. It also declares that he is infallible in his official teaching. The more familiar section of the declaration is as follows: "Adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith...we teach and define...that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra...is possessed of that infallibility." (17) In context, the assertion about the pope is actually even stronger: "This See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error." (18) Has anyone ever believed that?
The pope who called and directed the First Vatican Council was Pius IX. In perfect harmony with the sentiments of the statements, when it was suggested to him that he at least seek the advice of bishops and the tradition of the church in matters of doctrine, Pius IX answered, "Tradition, I am tradition." (19) For the Tridentine Roman Church, its authority truly is sola papa (by the pope alone). The arrogance of Pius IX and his council is truly staggering. Few Roman Catholic scholars in the post-Tridentine church accept these sweeping claims as being either historical or binding.
Since Calvin's time, Rome has continued its defense of itself through complicated arguments full of distinctions made after the fact. I have quoted at length from two of Rome's own ecumenical councils to show how great is the distance between what the documents say and how Rome treats them. Rome's historical arguments are simply not credible, though most Roman Catholics either do not know them or do not think about them. Those that do know them in the end follow the founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola, who wrote: "If we wish to proceed securely in all things, we must hold fast to the following principle: What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines." (20) Such a position is not worthy of a Christian or of biblical religion. (21)
How does Canon 6 of Orange differ from Canon 3 of Trent?
***CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema. ***
Of course grace is a prerequisite! It’s always a prerequisite. That’s not where we disagree with Calvin. Where we (and Augustine) disagree is that free will is not therefore annihilated.
Soteriology is not my strong point. Dumb it down nice and good for me.
The priestly duty of intercession:
“Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25).
Orange: Soverign Grace.
Trent: Semi-Pelagian
“If the sacrifice is finished, isn’t Christ’s priesthood finished?”
No, why would it be? This is just a conclusion drawn from fallacious thinking. Let me lay out your argument and try to highlight the error:
A) A priesthood must make offerings in order to be valid.
B) Christ has His own priesthood.
C) If Christ’s priesthood is valid, they must make offerings.
D) The offering of Christ’s priesthood must be Christ’s sacrifice.
E) Christ’s sacrifice must never be finished, or His priesthood would become invalid.
First, you assume A without establishing it, but let’s assume that is a correct premise, just for expediency. The main error is in premise D, since you assume that the offering is Christ’s sacrifice, without actually establishing it. Without establishing that, your conclusion E is unsupported.
You are saying that you have nothing to learn from a man who was a disciple of Saint John.
I do not lean on the writings of man. Rabbinism esteems the Talmud I seek the face of YHvH in His WORD.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
(writing of man) above the Torah.
Trent is not semi-Pelagianism. It does not say the human will cooperates in it’s own salvation, but prepares the path. The salvation is still totally up to God. The person can cooperate to prepare the path, and still not end up being saved. It is logically necessary, since salvation could be refused, which we know to be true. If salvation were irresitable, then we are only meat puppets - machines. If so, then salvation has lost its value. Salvation only has value if the one saved has a free will to reject it.
I never said Christianity wasn’t at the top of the list. I said that arguing over which brand is better is not at the top of the list. Your bickering about Protestantism vs. Catholicism while all these things are happening is like the Senate debating and holding a vote over Pepsi vs. Coke. If somebody decides to convert from one to the other is is not because of the petty comments made on FR, scriptural quotes or not.
Is not the basis of all forms of Christianity the following:
Man is with sin
Jesus Christ, the Son of God and saviour, was crucified, died, and was resurrected
Through this sacrifice man’s sins are forgiven
Faith in this lends man eternal life
I know it’s more complex and complicated than that after all who are we to be able to understand the Maker. Still we get caught in the details and trivials when in essence we just need to trust in Him... with each other
“I never said Christianity wasn’t at the top of the list. I said that arguing over which brand is better is not at the top of the list.”
Oh yes, I realize that. However, what you see as “bickering”, others may see as essential matters of faith. Just because such things are not important to YOU, does not make them unimportant.
“If somebody decides to convert from one to the other is is not because of the petty comments made on FR, scriptural quotes or not.”
Well, actually, that’s not an accurate assessment. Quite a few people have changed their religious beliefs, over the years, precisely because of the discussions we have on the Religion Forum.
There's no point in an *unbloody* sacrifice.
Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
A sacrifice without the blood ineffectual. It can't and won't take away sin.
Romans 14:1-12 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”
So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.
He is now interceding for us before the Father, as a priest.
Hebrews 9:24-26 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Romans 8:34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
There is no free will when we are born slaves to sin.
The Holy Spirit needs to do a work in us to bring us to a place where we can make that decision to follow Christ.
How can you reference Ignatius when his alleged writings are known forgeries???
You bend it any more, it's going to break...
So you don't really believe 'once' for ALL...
When the civil war was fought, it was fought til one side won...They don't have to keep fighting the war every day to get the same results...It's done...It's over...
Jesus isn't living a 'Ground Hog Day'...
The Sacrifice was given 'once'...For all time, for all people...
An eternal priesthood means an eternal offering...
You are making that up...
Because that's what a "priest" does, is it? Intercede?
And he intercedes...according to the order of Melchizedek?
Semipelagianism taught that man can make the first move toward God without grace, and then grace takes over the rest. Augustine and Orange teach that no, even the *initial* conversion must be preceded by grace. Trent taught exactly the same thing:
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God
What is Christ’s priesthood, then?
And remember before you answer: Romans doesn’t just say he has a priesthood...he has a priesthood *of the order of Melchizedek*.
EXACTLY. But HOW is he offering? HOW is he interceding? "Thou art a priest forever...according to the order of Melchizedek".
You practically have to go out of your way to not see it.
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.