I would like to ask a Serious Question to a Protestant about the Reformation

[JWH123]

Either way… If you admit that the Catholic Church was not all wrong… Then I think it is wrong some protestants condemn vehemently her until today, either way a protestant could not say she is wrong, unchristian and things like that.

In the past 500 years, “Protestantism” has mutated. Most of the denominations who are adamant that the Catholic Church is totally wrong and not Christian would say the same things about Martin Luther’s teachings. PURE Protestantism (Lutheranism) disagrees with the Catholic Church on very specific dogmas, doctrines, and teachings. Luther’s 95 Theses were 95 specific objections, not a complete condemnation of the Catholic Church. The Church has actually backtracked on several of the problems that Luther raised; for example, the Catholic Church no longer says that we can buy our way out of Purgatory by purchasing indulgences. (#27 says that it is NONSENSE to teach that a dead soul in Purgatory can be saved by money.) At that time, this was a rampant practice, which happened because a few corrupt human beings became leaders of the Church, and they were definitely not “holy” people.

 

[guanophore]

No.  The Constantine argument is favored mostly by empty headed conspiracy nuts.  No he just called a council to unit the church and the empire.  He didn't add anything to the church.  And he didn't really care much beyond unity since he remained a pagan even afterward.

Well, I am glad we can agree on SOMETHING!

No, there were seeds of errant teaching going on even then,

From the very beginning.

“But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. 11 Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion. 12 These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever.” (Jude 10–13)

but the Roman church was still orthodox up to the period of Byzantine domination from about 500 to 750 where the papacy was beholden to the emperor and patriarch. Certainly after that period when the papacy was under Frankish domination did serious error began to be vigorously taught, as Photios demonstrated.

I think you lost me here.

To what Photius are you referring?

 

[guanophore]

Yes. Thankfully I don’t have to rely on my private interpretation much. The confessions address most beliefs and doctrines. In that I defer my own judgement to that of the church on such issues.

This is what those of Apostolic faiths do, except that we defer to what was handed down, rather than to what was innovated 1500 years after the fact.

Christ was not refering to the RC or any denomination.

Yes, we agree on this too. Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH. Denominations did not exist until the reformaiton.

 

[SteveVH]

No. The Constantine argument is favored mostly by empty headed conspiracy nuts. No he just called a council to unit the church and the empire. He didn’t add anything to the church. And he didn’t really care much beyond unity since he remained a pagan even afterward. No, there were seeds of errant teaching going on even then, but the Roman church was still orthodox up to the period of Byzantine domination from about 500 to 750 where the papacy was beholden to the emperor and patriarch. Certainly after that period when the papacy was under Frankish domination did serious error began to be vigorously taught, as Photios demonstrated.

Why don’t you name some of these errors and we can discuss.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

How? The only part that is at all controversial in what he said is the “Frankish domination of the papacy,” which uses pejorative ethnic labeling from Orthodox polemic. But there’s no dispute that between the ninth and eleventh centuries the papacy became more thoroughly “western” and cut off from the Eastern Church, and that this influenced the eventual adoption of the Filioque and the general insensitivity of the papacy to Eastern issues.

I don’t think any Catholic scholar would deny this.

Ediwn

You don’t need a scholar to see all the pitfalls and contradictions from your commentary regarding the filioque, and an imaginary "cut off from the Eastern Church? Not to mention when viewing secular kings such as the Franks etc… throughout history, the Popes have always vied to obey Jesus command to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God.

What your Frankish view of history places Caesar with what belongs to God, and miss the history of when all Popes under persecution and freed have all vied to keep the Caesars from infecting what is holy before God.

Peace be with you

 

[Memaw]

In the past 500 years, “Protestantism” has mutated. Most of the denominations who are adamant that the Catholic Church is totally wrong and not Christian would say the same things about Martin Luther’s teachings. PURE Protestantism (Lutheranism) disagrees with the Catholic Church on very specific dogmas, doctrines, and teachings. Luther’s 95 Theses were 95 specific objections, not a complete condemnation of the Catholic Church. The Church has actually backtracked on several of the problems that Luther raised; for example, the Catholic Church no longer says that we can buy our way out of Purgatory by purchasing indulgences. (#27 says that it is NONSENSE to teach that a dead soul in Purgatory can be saved by money.) At that time, this was a rampant practice, which happened because a few corrupt human beings became leaders of the Church, and they were definitely not “holy” people.

The Church never did teach that we could "buy " our way out of Purgatory. Some greedy Bishops might have but the Church didn’t. God Bless, Memaw

 

[House_Harkonnen]

You don’t need a scholar to see all the pitfalls and contradictions from your commentary regarding the filioque, and an imaginary "cut off from the Eastern Church? Not to mention when viewing secular kings such as the Franks etc… throughout history, the Popes have always vied to obey Jesus command to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God.

What your Frankish view of history places Caesar with what belongs to God, and miss the history of when all Popes under persecution and freed have all vied to keep the Caesars from infecting what is holy before God.

Peace be with you

Popes for hundreds of years where appointed and deposed by the Byzantine emperor and Patriarch. Afterwards they were closely aligned with the Frankish kingdom. And later they were secular rulers themselves, claiming total secular authority to crown and depose kings and emperors, and they were their own secular ruler of the Papal States, even leading armies into battle and campaigning. For a majority of RC history, popes have had little respect for the command to give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

 

[guanophore]

For a majority of RC history, popes have had little respect for the command to give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

I am not so sure I agree with this, because there certainly has been a conflation of religious and secular power. But I would lean more to the other side, and say that there has been a failure to give unto God what is God’s!

Whatever involvement Christians have in secular affairs, as long as one renders unto God what is His, there will not be an imbalance.

But your point is the basis for why Catholic clergy are no longer allowed to serve in secular political offices, so as to prevent the conflation of the two. Recently a priest was suspended for accepting a political office.

Had this practice been active in the middle ages, I don’t think there would have been a reformation at all.

 

[Contarini]

You don’t need a scholar to see all the pitfalls and contradictions from your commentary regarding the filioque, and an imaginary "cut off from the Eastern Church?

Then perhaps you can point me to the sources where I can see all the ways in which West and East remained in fruitful contact throughout the tenth century.

Not to mention when viewing secular kings such as the Franks etc… throughout history, the Popes have always vied to obey Jesus command to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God.

What your Frankish view of history places Caesar with what belongs to God, and miss the history of when all Popes under persecution and freed have all vied to keep the Caesars from infecting what is holy before God.

I actually objected to the “Frankish” language in the original statement.

However, the papacy of the tenth century was pretty much under the thumb, not of the “Franks” (a somewhat anachronistic claim from any but an Eastern perspective by the tenth century, which is why I have a problem with the original statement) but of the local Roman aristocracy.

The Holy Roman Empire asserted control over Rome and undertook a reform of the papacy, which backfired when the reformed papacy began asserting its independence. But in the course of all of this, the papacy had come to be a thoroughly Westward-looking institution, which it had not been even in Charlemagne’s day. (Again, one of the reasons I disagree with House Harkonnen’s original statement is that in fact the papacy at the height of the Frankish Empire was a moderating influence on the schismatic tendencies of the Carolingian bishops, who were under the emperor’s thumb. House Harkonnen is quite right, however, to point out that one sign of that moderating influence was the Pope’s refusal to put the Filioque in the Creed as used in Rome.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Historical Evidence please that there was ever a Church before the XVI century apart the Orthodox Church who was not subdued to the pope, or the dogmas of the Catholic Church as the Veneration of Mary, the Eucharist, the Auricular Confession, etc.

Well, that’s a pretty good “except.” Any good historical survey will acquaint you of the existence of the “monophysite” and “Nestorian” churches (more politely called the “Oriental Orthodox” and the “Church of the East”). Or you could find a local Coptic or Armenian church (those are generally the easiest examples to find) and visit.

Other churches accepting basic creedal orthodoxy that existed before the sixteenth century were the Montanists, the Donatists, the Novatians, the Waldenses, the Lollards, and the Hussites. The Waldenses and the more radical Hussites both aligned themselves with Protestantism after the Reformation and still exist in some form today. The other groups became extinct. That’s without counting the more blatantly heretical groups such as the Marcionites, Valentinians, Arians, etc.

And I know for long this story that protestants tell that Constantine Created the Catholic Church in the 300s, but I did not grasp it, although I did not see any historical evidence whatsoever that supported this idea, Constantine never claimed to create a new Church, in fact there are evidence of a “Catholic Church” before that, in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch.

It’s not a mainstream Protestant idea. It’s a radical Protestant idea, originally put forward by the Anabaptists.

Either way… If you admit that the Catholic Church was not all wrong… Then I think it is wrong some protestants condemn vehemently her until today, either way a protestant could not say she is wrong, unchristian and things like that.

Indeed. And most Protestants today don’t do that. The original Reformers, who did say this about the Catholic Church of their era, put the corruption (at least in its most serious form) somewhere in the High Middle Ages.

You still have not responded to, or shown any grasp of, the basic Protestant idea that all churches have some degree of error and thus the presence of error doesn’t make a church false. Moderate Protestants just don’t freak out about doctrinal purity in the way that fundamentalist or strict confessional Protestants and conservative Catholics and Orthodox do. They see it as in the same boat as moral flaws. Catholics can accept that the Church can still exist even if there are sinful popes and bishops. Protestants can accept that the Church can still exist even if its leaders teach some doctrinal error. Most Protestants see the two problems as analogous, and expect that both will persist until Jesus returns.

As long as you don’t grasp this basic point, you can’t have a meaningful dialogue with Protestants.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

For a majority of RC history, popes have had little respect for the command to give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

They have quite rightly, at their best, disregarded the idolatrous and blasphemous misinterpretation of that passage which you seem to espouse.

No major Christian body has ever erred through too little respect for secular power. The error has always been the other way round.

As you note, the Church has often erred through acting too much like a secular power. But that’s quite a different thing.

On second thoughts, I suppose I would agree that the Church has failed to “give Caesar what is Caesar’s.” I subscribe to the interpretation that Jesus was telling faithful Jews to fling away Caesar’s idolatrous trash and give themselves wholly to God. Christians of all stripes have indeed failed to do that. But I take you to be saying that the Church has failed to show proper respect and deference to the secular power, and it is impossible to find a more disastrous misinterpretation of both Scripture and history than that.

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

… basic Protestant idea that all churches have some degree of error and thus the presence of error doesn’t make a church false. Moderate Protestants just don’t freak out about doctrinal purity in the way that fundamentalist or strict confessional Protestants and conservative Catholics and Orthodox do. They see it as in the same boat as moral flaws. Catholics can accept that the Church can still exist even if there are sinful popes and bishops. Protestants can accept that the Church can still exist even if its leaders teach some doctrinal error. Most Protestants see the two problems as analogous, and expect that both will persist until Jesus returns.

As long as you don’t grasp this basic point, you can’t have a meaningful dialogue with Protestants.

Edwin

Great point. A distinction that is easy to miss but all important.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

They have quite rightly, at their best, disregarded the idolatrous and blasphemous misinterpretation of that passage which you seem to espouse.

No major Christian body has ever erred through too little respect for secular power. The error has always been the other way round.

As you note, the Church has often erred through acting too much like a secular power. But that’s quite a different thing.

On second thoughts, I suppose I would agree that the Church has failed to “give Caesar what is Caesar’s.” I subscribe to the interpretation that Jesus was telling faithful Jews to fling away Caesar’s idolatrous trash and give themselves wholly to God. Christians of all stripes have indeed failed to do that. But I take you to be saying that the Church has failed to show proper respect and deference to the secular power, and it is impossible to find a more disastrous misinterpretation of both Scripture and history than that.

Edwin

They have quite rightly, at their best, disregarded the idolatrous and blasphemous misinterpretation of that passage which you seem to espouse.

How is my interpretation idolatrous and blasphemous? Accusing a person of blasphemy and idolatry is seriously insulting unless clear evidence is presented.

As you note, the Church has often erred through acting too much like a secular power. But that’s quite a different thing.

On second thoughts, I suppose I would agree that the Church has failed to “give Caesar what is Caesar’s.” I subscribe to the interpretation that Jesus was telling faithful Jews to fling away Caesar’s idolatrous trash and give themselves wholly to God. Christians of all stripes have indeed failed to do that. But I take you to be saying that the Church has failed to show proper respect and deference to the secular power, and it is impossible to find a more disastrous misinterpretation of both Scripture and history than that.

Popes in the Middle Ages claimed to be above secular power, and have the right to judge both secular and religious authority, itself being the highest earthly secular and religious authority. This is seriously wrong and the reason why the papacy got so corrupt over the centuries. Thankfully the Roman Catholic Church has reigned in such teaching, this is to their credit.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I am not so sure I agree with this, because there certainly has been a conflation of religious and secular power. But I would lean more to the other side, and say that there has been a failure to give unto God what is God’s!

Whatever involvement Christians have in secular affairs, as long as one renders unto God what is His, there will not be an imbalance.

But your point is the basis for why Catholic clergy are no longer allowed to serve in secular political offices, so as to prevent the conflation of the two. Recently a priest was suspended for accepting a political office.

Had this practice been active in the middle ages, I don’t think there would have been a reformation at all.

Or a much more tame and tempered reformation. In this I agree. Bishops and popes used to lead armies into battle for lords and kings. Wearing armor and everything. Even most Catholics IIRC understood this was seriously wrong. The Catholic Church fixed it, this is to their credit.

 

[JWH123]

The Church never did teach that we could "buy " our way out of Purgatory. Some greedy Bishops might have but the Church didn’t. God Bless, Memaw

Unfortunately, one of the most notorious sellers of indulgences (aka a way to buy your way out of purgatory) was Johann Tetzel, a German at the time of Luther. Whether the Church ever officially taught it is not the point; the point is it was being done by people of “authority” in the Church, who as I said were not holy men.

If a bunch of greedy Bishops teach something, it becomes de facto Church teaching (at least locally) even though it never came from the Pope. Luther started what became the biggest mutation of Christianity of all time, which is getting worse and worse by the day, primarily because somebody in an authority position in the Church was teaching that indulgences were for sale. 500 years later, members of denominations which have mutated so far from the truth are out there claiming that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, a satanic cult, the Pope is the antichrist, and that we worship a false Jesus, and getting others to actually believe that drivel. This all started because Luther objected to the sale of indulgences by somebody.

 

[guanophore]

Popes in the Middle Ages claimed to be above secular power, and have the right to judge both secular and religious authority, itself being the highest earthly secular and religious authority.

Yes. Jesus taught that His disciples would sit on thrones and judge the world. It was also understood that the Church contained the Authority of Christ.

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16)

The successors of the Apostles (Bishops) were sent with the authority of Christ.

This is seriously wrong and the reason why the papacy got so corrupt over the centuries.

There is nothing inherently wrong with those appointed by Christ serving in secualar leadership. The problem arises when those leaders fail to render unto God what is God’s.

No, I don’t think the reason the papacy got corrupt has to do with having secular authority. Secular authority was understood to have come from God, and to serve justice.

13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Pe 2:13–17).

How much better if the human institutions were Christian, and loyal to the successor of Peter?

It would not be a problem for the Bishops to install and pray over/for secular rulers. what causes corruption is living in the flesh, and not by the Spirit. Had the Bishops preserved a Holiness of life, recognizing that the Kingdom of God is not of this world, then having the respect of all the secular rulers would not be a problem.

Thankfully the Roman Catholic Church has reigned in such teaching, this is to their credit.

Where do you find this in the Church teaching?

 

[Starrsmother]

Just my personal opinion here: yes there were some horrible popes in the middle ages. There were popes who engaged in every vice out there, homosexuality, bribery and even had children by many different women and then pressured the secular authorities to give those children positions of authority. I have long suspected from my history reading, that some of the popes were chosen more by the will of secular kings than the Holy Spiriit in a true conclave of cardinals… There were popes, in my opinion, who were, far too involved in secular matters and seemed to feel that just being pope was enough–that God would never throw a pope into hell. I hope they were right for their sakes.

There were popes who wanted to and did live as kings wile the populace starved. There were popes who led troops into battle–though I must point out that then, as now, most of whom they were fighting were Ottomans (muslims) who were just as crazy then as now and who invaded first. There were popes who sold indulgences. There are some popes who should and do make me ashamed that they led our church. But here is the thing:

If this had occurred in any other church over 2000 years old, would that church still exist intact or would it have been caste aside many years ago? Jesus said that His church would last forever. He never said that only saints would lead it. I imagine that Jesus cringed at times too–but the Catholic Church and our sacraments remain intact today!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

House Harkonnen;12301181]Popes for hundreds of years where appointed and deposed by the Byzantine emperor and Patriarch.

Unbelievable! You have both a Byzantine emperor and a Patriarch for hundreds of years appointing and deposing Popes?

A Byzantine Emperor nor a Patriarch never has the power to appoint nor depose a Pope.
Do you know what it takes to elect or appoint a Pope in the Catholic Church?

Appointing and deposing a Pope from secular matters is never the same as appointing and deposing a Pope in Church matters.

It is in these two distinct matters secular and religious that most readers of history tend to mix the facts. When you magnify Church history is this way, truth reveals the Popes fighting to protect, (tend and feed the flock of Jesus) from secular powers from infecting the faithful lambs, by what ever means at his disposal in every age.

Many focus on Popes who personally lapsed in discipline with “optima corruptima pesima” = ultimate power corrupts, yet the Popes who became Martyrs and Saints who were instrumental in civilizing pagan, barbaric nations and tribes seem to be forgotten. It is from these faithful Popes that God has placed in our history to chart the course of Christendom through history and keeping the faith fully intact.

Afterwards they were closely aligned with the Frankish kingdom. And later they were secular rulers themselves, claiming total secular authority to crown and depose kings and emperors, and they were their own secular ruler of the Papal States, even leading armies into battle and campaigning

.

Whoo slow down there, you jumped into many different Church histories and are falsely generalizing that paints a wrong history.

When the West was being civilized and Christianized by the Popes and the Catholic Church while under persecution by both secular powers and the Patriarch’s of Constantinople who presided in the new Rome who appointed her Patriarch’s of Constantinople, never assisted the persecuted Catholic Church in the West was being persecuted by barbaric rulers.

Long story short, the Pope did crown a new Christian Emperor in the West, because the Popes never take it upon themselves to rule the World as a secular power combined with a religious power (your historical view is false). He gave to Caesar what belonged to Caesar and gave to God what belongs to God.

It is from this history, when the West develops from an infancy stage, finding herself in a new era that learns the lessons of “optima corruptima pesima”.

It appears to be your view from distinct events from Church history that judges the whole Catholic faith and Church. I only ask that you look into these difficult times when Christianity as a whole comes under the threats of extinction and infection from secular and pagan powers existing at the time.

This history continued into and from the Frankish rule, You will find the Popes vied to keep the peace among Catholic Kings and keep secular powers from infecting the office of bishops. Did the Popes fail at times of convincing secular powers to leave the things of God alone? Yes, because the lambs (populace) followed their Shepherd’s, and the secular powers sought to gain the faith and support of the populace by purchasing bishop seats. Here is a proven history when the gates of hell came against the Catholic church and Peter, but by the promise of God, these gates of hell never prevailed.

Interesting your historical view contradicts God’s promise, when you have the gates of hell prevailed over the body of Christ His Catholic Church.

I ask you to look at today; The Popes are free again just like Peter was during the first century from secular powers, yet the Popes remain under persecution from secular powers. The Catholic Church has not changed. Does she suffer persecution and battle the Caesars from infecting the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ? Yes she has and remains while all those secular Kingdoms and powers from your history who persecuted her no longer exist today. While the Catholic faith of Jesus Christ was abused and persecuted, the faithful Popes and saints chartered the boat of Peter through the storms fully intact today.

For a majority of RC history, popes have had little respect for the command to give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Every Pope remains faithful to the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ. The small history you point out here, is a history when barbaric and pagan rulers become Christian, when the Popes are teaching and revealing to these rulers to rule under God’s providence, while the Pope’s continue to tend and feed the flock of Jesus Christ. The battle between God’s Church and the secular powers being kept from infecting the divine authority of the Church and her teachings reveals “war is hell” and these gates of hell have never prevailed the Catholic Church.

Introducing particular events from this war from hell in Church history, should not judge the whole Church, but judge the outcome and some of these historical events such as the schism still haunts the Church, but we know they will not prevail.

Peace be with you

 

[Memaw]

Just my personal opinion here: yes there were some horrible popes in the middle ages. There were popes who engaged in every vice out there, homosexuality, bribery and even had children by many different women and then pressured the secular authorities to give those children positions of authority. I have long suspected from my history reading, that some of the popes were chosen more by the will of secular kings than the Holy Spiriit in a true conclave of cardinals… There were popes, in my opinion, who were, far too involved in secular matters and seemed to feel that just being pope was enough–that God would never throw a pope into hell. I hope they were right for their sakes.

There were popes who wanted to and did live as kings wile the populace starved. There were popes who led troops into battle–though I must point out that then, as now, most of whom they were fighting were Ottomans (muslims) who were just as crazy then as now and who invaded first. There were popes who sold indulgences. There are some popes who should and do make me ashamed that they led our church. But here is the thing:

If this had occurred in any other church over 2000 years old, would that church still exist intact or would it have been caste aside many years ago? Jesus said that His church would last forever. He never said that only saints would lead it. I imagine that Jesus cringed at times too–but the Catholic Church and our sacraments remain intact today!

I suggest you read “Pope Fiction” by Patrick Madrid. Don’t know where you got your Church History but it’s sure different than mine!! Also glad you noted it is “just your personal opinion.” God Bless, Memaw

 

[Godspells]

Just my personal opinion here: yes there were some horrible popes in the middle ages. There were popes who engaged in every vice out there, homosexuality, bribery and even had children by many different women and then pressured the secular authorities to give those children positions of authority. I have long suspected from my history reading, that some of the popes were chosen more by the will of secular kings than the Holy Spiriit in a true conclave of cardinals… There were popes, in my opinion, who were, far too involved in secular matters and seemed to feel that just being pope was enough–that God would never throw a pope into hell. I hope they were right for their sakes.

There were popes who wanted to and did live as kings wile the populace starved. There were popes who led troops into battle–though I must point out that then, as now, most of whom they were fighting were Ottomans (muslims) who were just as crazy then as now and who invaded first. There were popes who sold indulgences. There are some popes who should and do make me ashamed that they led our church. But here is the thing:

If this had occurred in any other church over 2000 years old, would that church still exist intact or would it have been caste aside many years ago? Jesus said that His church would last forever. He never said that only saints would lead it. I imagine that Jesus cringed at times too–but the Catholic Church and our sacraments remain intact today!

I have to say I think your post was well thought out but your leaving out a lot of considerations.

The Catholic Church has changed its tune a bit from medieval times but back in the day being outside of communion meant going to hell. A pope in fact could and had excommunicated an entire country. The fear of enernal damnation was a powerful motivator especially midevial depictions of it.

That said it was thrown out by many because of the evils that were being fostered in it. Notably the Eastern Schism and the Western schism.

Now, I’m not one to judge The Catholic Church because I think it has so many great things about it, but unfortunately the Church has made it difficult for itself to admit the sins of individuals because they have historically taught that such people are appointed by God.

As I see it, the Pope is a man, nothing more and can make mistakes and can in fact choose to abdicate his honor by choosing to serve sin instead of God.

As a protestant I believe that the gates of hades does not mean that the pope is infallible, but that the apostolic faith will never die.