Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[Tomyris]

Very good explanation. Still, there is a conceptual distinction which I think is unjustified. It isn’t, in my view, that the classical Protestant view is outright heretical so much as that it’s unnecessarily cumbersome. You have to introduce a lot of “epicycles” in order to avoid antinomian conclusions. This doesn’t automatically make the position false, but it does raise the question of whether all this is really necessary.

I am not convinced that the Reformed view really is irreconcilable with Catholicism. I’ve seen it disassembled with extreme prejudice - "the motor is worthless because it has no wheels’ sort of thing, when the critic removed the wheels before looking at the motor. It is a complex system and to compare it fairly with Catholic belief requires an elusive grasp on Aristotle, Aquinas, Hebrew, Greek, patristics, and the historical understandings held by both Catholics and the Reformed - in short, a better grasp on Calvin’s and the bishops of Trent’s understandings than they themselves had, and an ability to sympathetically and judiciously compare the two. A Reformed McGrath would be nice.

It’s not a myth. No one, of course, encourages such behavior, but in some Baptist circles this is the conclusion. It’s a result of tearing perseverance of the saints out of its original Reformed context. If you believe that a person can be born again by an act of the free will (free in a “libertarian” sense), and that such a person’s salvation is then assured, it seems to follow that (however deplorably) a person could then choose to live an ungodly life, die, and go to heaven. In my experience, Baptists (of the “eternal security but not Calvinism” persuasion) waver between something like the Reformed position (believers won’t want to sin) and genuine antinomianism. But some do in fact bite the bullet and say that being born again is no guarantee of a righteous life and that a person who chooses to live an unrighteous life will “lose their reward” but will still go to heaven. One claim I’ve commonly heard in fundamentalist Baptist circles is that a sinful believer will be punished by temporal death (this seems to result from OT passages about death as the consequence of sin).

Apparently there have been Calvinists who held to antinomian views–perhaps the Primitive Baptists do today, although I am not directly familiar with them. In the eighteenth century, John Fletcher charged some of his Calvinist contemporaries with antinomianism, while acknowledging that this was by no means the dominant position among evangelical Calvinists. But my experience agrees with yours that Calvinists are, by and large, very far from antinomianism. Indeed, if anything I see more antinomianism among Catholics and more works righteousness (of both the neurotically fearful and the smugly self-righteous variety) among Calvinists!

Edwin

I know a smugly self-righteous yet antinomian Presbyterian I would love to box up and send your way for leisurely examination. Just don’t send him back.

 

[Tomyris]

I think … fuss.

Before I respond to this I want your assurance that you did not simply read the OP and ignore the over 850 posts and jump to the end and post, which I consider rude, but in reading your post I wonder if you have any idea at all as to what has been said, as much of this has been discussed, and it is this that causes me to wonder if you are simply end-jumping.

 

[rfournier103]

Before I respond to this I want your assurance that you did not simply read the OP and ignore the over 850 posts and jump to the end and post, which I consider rude, but in reading your post I wonder if you have any idea at all as to what has been said, as much of this has been discussed, and it is this that causes me to wonder if you are simply end-jumping.

I am a late-comer to this discussion. I read the first couple of pages and then posted MY take on YOUR original post. I did not have the time today to read the entire thread, and for that I apologize. If you wish to disregard my post, please feel free to do so. I AM curious as to what your response may be; but if my “end-jumping” bothers you, thus prompting a non-response, I will try not to cry too much over it :crying:

I did put some time and effort into it… the ball is in YOUR court.

 

[Tomyris]

I am a late-comer to this discussion. I read the first couple of pages and then posted MY take on YOUR original post. I did not have the time today to read the entire thread, and for that I apologize. If you wish to disregard my post, please feel free to do so. I AM curious as to what your response may be; but if my “end-jumping” bothers you, thus prompting a non-response, I will try not to cry too much over it :crying:

I did put some time and effort into it… the ball is in YOUR court.

I am always over-emotional. Weep with those who weep.
:crying:

Sniff. Ok. I can handle it.

You might want to read the thread. I think I have endjumped as well at times

Much (not all) of what you posted has been discussed, and I have actually responded to some of it. I’m not going to repeat myself.

Some vague comments, repeating myself maybe (oh dear): there is anti-Protestant bigotry, as demonstrated on CAF frequently

unwashed masses

. Catholics seem to not know what the Spanish did to Calvinist Holland, or to the Hugeonot settlement at what is now St. Augustine, Florida, or what Ferdinand of Spain did to Protestants or those he suspected might go that way. You first claim the relative virtue of Catholics over Protestants in the Reformation and then furnish us with a papal apology for the behavior of Catholics towards Protestants in the Reformation. Puzzling.

Many Protestants believe Christ truly and really is in the Eucharist (ask the Reformed, the Anglicans (ignoring the quasi-separation, but I accused Augustine of prolixity, and I am attempting to outdo him, although with scant chance, as he was a master of rhetoric, and I am a poor and inarticulate girl, 'tis all), the Lutherans, etc.).

I am not sure why you provided those links. One is to an anti-Catholic forum, and there is a CAF rule against doing that. Oops. I am aware of anti-Catholic sentiments; are you as aware of anti-Protestant sentiments as you should be?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

My bubbly, happy thought is that if Leo X had been guided by the Holy Ghost and was the guardian of the unity of the Church, the very symbol of the unity, he could have held a council early on and listened to everyone. Group hugs and tears and reconciliation and we would still be one church organizationally. That in itself calls into question the ability of the papacy to effect unity - where was it when it was really needed? Off at a concert or something.

You are correct that the Church issues at the time and Luther’s proposals should have been considered on time. I agree that these issues were ignored for far too long.

However, to call into question the unity the Papacy brings to Catholicism falls on its face because we have more unity and uniformity than any other Christian Church group. That doesn’t mean that we are perfect, we still have much room for improvement. But singling out situations as a cause for disproving the [real] unity and uniformity we have, is a lost cause. Even worse if it’s being use to compare apparent disunity to the anarchy of Protestantism.

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.

 

[rfournier103]

I am always over-emotional. Weep with those who weep.
:crying:

Sniff. Ok. I can handle it.

You might want to read the thread. I think I have endjumped as well at times

Much (not all) of what you posted has been discussed, and I have actually responded to some of it. I’m not going to repeat myself.

Some vague comments, repeating myself maybe (oh dear): there is anti-Protestant bigotry, as demonstrated on CAF frequently.

Pales in comparison to much of what’s out there in Anti-Catholic sentiment.

Catholics seem to not know what the Spanish did to Calvinist Holland, or to the Hugeonot settlement at what is now St. Augustine, Florida, or what Ferdinand of Spain did to Protestants or those he suspected might go that way.You first claim the relative virtue of Catholics over Protestants in the Reformation and then furnish us with a papal apology for the behavior of Catholics towards Protestants in the Reformation. Puzzling.

I NEVER EVER EVER claimed that Catholics’ hands were clean in their dealings with the Protestants. I know that there were some serious atrocities committed on BOTH sides. The Catholic side has apologized for IT’S atrocities. Never heard of a Protestant apology for all the blood on THEIR hands… I think that in order to move past any war/dispute; BOTH sides need to acknowledge the past. One side has. When will the other?

I have NO idea how any of this can be puzzling to you.

Many Protestants believe Christ truly and really is in the Eucharist (ask the Reformed, the Anglicans (ignoring the quasi-separation, but I accused Augustine of prolixity, and I am attempting to outdo him, although with scant chance, as he was a master of rhetoric, and I am a poor and inarticulate girl, 'tis all), the Lutherans, etc.).

Do YOU believe that? Presbyterians, Baptists, and Congregationalists have ALL said to me that the Eucharist is idolatry. Doesn’t fill me with the warm-and-fuzzies.

I am not sure why you provided those links. One is to an anti-Catholic forum, and there is a CAF rule against doing that. Oops.

Germane to the topic at hand as proof that the Protestant Reformation gave birth to anti-Catholic bigotry that persists to this day, you honor. I move that these websites be admitted as evidence. Oops.

I am aware of anti-Catholic sentiments; are you as aware of anti-Protestant sentiments as you should be?

I don’t know. I have never personally encountered anyone who is “anti-Protestant”. I HAVE personally encountered numerous anti-Catholics. How may I come by this anti-Protestant awareness that you speak of?

 

[guanophore]

I find in this presumption and a bizarre twist on ‘once saved, always saved’ only at the corporate level. God took away Israel and Judah because of their sins, and he took away the Levitical priesthood. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Why do you think God would spare the papacy?

First, let us separate whatever definition you have give to “the Papacy” from the issue at hand.

God gave Peter certain gifts and responsibilities which the Church believed were passed on to his successors. These gifts, part of the establishment of His One Church, will be needed on earth until He returns to collect His bride.

The Church is founded on a different covenant, an eternal covenant, unlike that of the Levitical priesthood, this one is of the order of Melchizedch, and is eternal.

All that being said, I do not think that God will spare any unrepentant sinner, whether that person is a pope or a pauper. I am also not at all pursuaded that “the Papacy” that existed in Medieval Europe before and around the Reformation had anything to do at all with something instituted by God. I think that Jesus was quite clear that his Kindgom was not of this world, and when Popes lost sight of that fact, they lost sight of Christ.

Agreed. But this knife slices in more than one direction.

It does, which is why the Catholic Church affrims the Truth of when Aposotlic doctrine is taughe in Protestant ecclesial communities. The presenceof heresy does not invalidate the presence of true doctrine, or the work of the Holy Spirit. We are not to pull up the tares that are growing with the wheat, but to allow them to grow together until the harvest.

Secondly, much of what the Reformation discussed were matters that had not been central in earlier disputes in the Church. For example, during the Trinitarian controversy, people wrote on that, and the quotes we have to bolster whatever position are asides, presented in the course of discussing other things.

I think this is true. I don’t know that there was any precedent for the widespread and massive departures from the apostolic faith that occurred during the Reformation, and continue to occur as the fruit of it.

There is an enormous amount of overly enthusiastic eisegesis on both sides, particularly pertaining to Augustine. Methinks less of an interested in rhetoric and more of one on lucidity would have been helpful.

I must confess that I am continually amazed at how my separated brethren seem so eager to cherry pick passages of Augustine that seem to support innovative theologies, yet overlook those passages that are “too catholic” and utterly disregard that Augustine was unabashadly Catholic.

The gentle bishop rambled and was infected with prolixity.   My suspicion is that at some point the Church has endeavored to rule on what the paradosis did not contain,

Yes,and this is why such rule is necessary. We do not find the word “Trinity” or “hypostatic union” in the NT, nor do we find an inspired list of what books actually belong in that NT. And there are many other issues that have emerged (primarliy as a result of heresies) that have required the Church to make dogma. We hold, however, that these elements ARE contained in the paradosis. The Trinity did not suddenly come to exist when the word was adopted by the council. Nor did the nature of Christ’s being suddenly spring to existence when the Church endeavored to rule on the matter. Nothing is contained in dogma that was not first present in the paradosis.

This is the major difference between the Apostolic faith, and the innovations of the Reformation, which “ruled on what the paradosis did not contain”.

making the mistake that any extension from the same is as good as the original if you presume on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed yes, if the HS is part of the doctrinal development, then it is as good (valid, authorative) as the “original”. We believe that the council of Jerusalem described in the book of Acts made inspired and divinely guided decision because they were in unity with the HS. We 'believe that such councils continue today.

Like the effect on fashions in ladies’ hats? Historians have not spent much attention on this aspect, IMHO.

I can see why. I had no idea that any such thing was influenced by the Reformaiton.

 

[guanophore]

My bubbly, happy thought

I am surprised you would describe a failure in holiness and duty this way. Should not every Christian who understands that our witness to the world is rooted in our unity and love for one another be grieved when it fails?

is that if Leo X had been guided by the Holy Ghost and was the guardian of the unity of the Church, the very symbol of the unity, he could have held a council early on and listened to everyone. Group hugs and tears and reconciliation and we would still be one church organizationally. That in itself calls into question the ability of the papacy to effect unity - where was it when it was really needed? Off at a concert or something.

Indeed, there was much he could have done, and I believe whole heartedly the Reformation could have been prevented.

However, you are back to invalidating the office of Apostle by pointing to the failures of Judas. Truth is not defined by those who depart from it. Leo’s failure to exercise the gifts and responsibilities given to him does not invalidate the gifts of God. Nor is he the only Bishop or priest who was disbedient to the faith and the role of the shepherd to care for the flock. Those failures of individuals do not invalidate Christ’s eternal teaching and His intentions for that flock.

 

[Tomyris]

I am surprised you would describe a failure in holiness and duty this way. Should not every Christian who understands that our witness to the world is rooted in our unity and love for one another be grieved when it fails?

No, I was thinking of how it should have been handled. ‘Happy, bubbly’ is more concise than the dry ‘the most optimistic outcome’.

Indeed, there was much he could have done, and I believe whole heartedly the Reformation could have been prevented.

I don’t think it was preventable. I see the Reformation and Counter-Reformation as part of a long event, one that actually continues into today, but if it had been handled correctly, there would have been a Council and no split. Leo X and following popes resisted a council for a long time. Why, I do not know.

However, you are back to invalidating the office of Apostle by pointing to the failures of Judas. Truth is not defined by those who depart from it. Leo’s failure to exercise the gifts and responsibilities given to him does not invalidate the gifts of God. Nor is he the only Bishop or priest who was disbedient to the faith and the role of the shepherd to care for the flock. Those failures of individuals do not invalidate Christ’s eternal teaching and His intentions for that flock.

God is also free to sweep away the papacy and replace it with something else. The questions there are whether that statement can be ruled out, under what conditions could it happen, and then, based on the first answer, whether it has happened.

Judas lost his apostleship due to his actions. Your argument might lead one to the position that although the petrine office has been lost, the other apostolic offices remain, which suggests Orthodoxy.

 

[Tomyris]

First, let us separate whatever definition you have give to “the Papacy” from the issue at hand.

God gave Peter certain gifts and responsibilities which the Church believed were passed on to his successors. These gifts, part of the establishment of His One Church, will be needed on earth until He returns to collect His bride.

The Church is founded on a different covenant, an eternal covenant, unlike that of the Levitical priesthood, this one is of the order of Melchizedch, and is eternal.

I don’t see the petrine office as now defined by the Catholics as integral to the Covenant. Promises can be conditional.

All that being said, I do not think that God will spare any unrepentant sinner, whether that person is a pope or a pauper. ** I am also not at all pursuaded that “the Papacy” that existed in Medieval Europe before and around the Reformation had anything to do at all with something instituted by God. I think that Jesus was quite clear that his Kindgom was not of this world, and when Popes lost sight of that fact, they lost sight of Christ.**

I am very surprised to hear this from a Catholic.

It does, which is why the Catholic Church affrims the Truth of when Aposotlic doctrine is taughe in Protestant ecclesial communities. The presenceof heresy does not invalidate the presence of true doctrine, or the work of the Holy Spirit. We are not to pull up the tares that are growing with the wheat, but to allow them to grow together until the harvest.

That is fine.

I think this is true. I don’t know that there was any precedent for the widespread and massive departures from the apostolic faith that occurred during the Reformation, and continue to occur as the fruit of it.

Taking on that mindset, I would ask if you are familiar with what happened during the Arian controversies? Or some of what Augustine dealt with? QUOTE]

I must confess that I am continually amazed at how my separated brethren seem so eager to cherry pick passages of Augustine that seem to support innovative theologies, yet overlook those passages that are “too catholic” and utterly disregard that Augustine was unabashadly Catholic.
Augustine was complex.

Yes,and this is why such rule is necessary. We do not find the word “Trinity” or “hypostatic union” in the NT, nor do we find an inspired list of what books actually belong in that NT. And there are many other issues that have emerged (primarliy as a result of heresies) that have required the Church to make dogma. We hold, however, that these elements ARE contained in the paradosis. The Trinity did not suddenly come to exist when the word was adopted by the council. Nor did the nature of Christ’s being suddenly spring to existence when the Church endeavored to rule on the matter. Nothing is contained in dogma that was not first present in the paradosis.

This is the major difference between the Apostolic faith, and the innovations of the Reformation, which “ruled on what the paradosis did not contain”.

Indeed yes, if the HS is part of the doctrinal development, then it is as good (valid, authorative) as the “original”. We believe that the council of Jerusalem described in the book of Acts made inspired and divinely guided decision because they were in unity with the HS. We 'believe that such councils continue today.

The WCF would point to a Council as a way to facilitate reunion, although whether we would attend is remote. And we regard Scripture above Councilor decisions.

I can see why. I had no idea that any such thing was influenced by the Reformaiton.

I am developing a theory that history is driven by fashions in ladies’ hats, but it is not on the List.

 

[SteveVH]

I see the Reformation and Counter-Reformation as part of a long event, one that actually continues into today, but if it had been handled correctly, there would have been a Council and no split.

Just curious, Tomi, do you believe that if there had been no “reformation” that the Catholic Church would look the same today?

IOW, would you, without the “reformation”, believe in Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and other distinctly Catholic doctrines which many non-Catholic Christians reject today?

Obviously this is hypothetical but I would be interested in your thoughts.

Thanks.

 

[Tomyris]

Just curious, Tomi, do you believe that if there had been no “reformation” that the Catholic Church would look the same today?

IOW, would you, without the “reformation”, believe in Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and other distinctly Catholic doctrines which many non-Catholic Christians reject today?

Obviously this is hypothetical but I would be interested in your thoughts.

Thanks.

I think if there had been a timely Council, rather than after the horses were out of the barn, I think we might have had a different flavor to some of our understandings of these doctrines. There might have been accommodation where today there is no tolerance. Instead of emphasizing our differences and living in fear and suspicion of each other we might have found a way to walk in unity. We have spent an awful lot of time, blood, energy and treasure on fighting each other. But I can only speculate.

The Lutherans and Catholics are working towards the realization that there may be no ultimate distinction between Catholic belief and Lutheran belief. The Reformed are far more remote than that, and that is partially the history: Calvin learned that many of his friends were burned at the stake by Francis I of France. The German princes protected the Lutherans, but it was not so in Italy, France, or Spain. My reading of Trent is that they condemned what is not Reformed theology, although I have not really studied it.

I cannot of course speculate what that accommodation would have looked like. I have in mind the accommodation made between the Thomists and the Molinists. It would have been an accommodation that did not violate the doctrines and dogmas of the church or put them in second place while recognizing whatever is true in Protestant thought up to the Council.

 

[guanophore]

I don't think it was preventable.

Basically you are saying that Jesus was just blowing hot air when He commanded his discples to be One? He is too weak, or too disinterested in His one Body to keep it together? The failings of man are stronger than the Spirit of God?

I see the Reformation and Counter-Reformation as part of a long event, one that actually continues into today, but if it had been handled correctly, there would have been a Council and no split. Leo X and following popes resisted a council for a long time. Why, I do not know.

Had the successors of the Apostles not become embroiled in secular matters, I do not think the conditions would have existed that precipitated the Reformation.

God is also free to sweep away the papacy and replace it with something else. The questions there are whether that statement can be ruled out, under what conditions could it happen, and then, based on the first answer, whether it has happened.

Jesus Church and it’s structure is based upon the eternal priesthood of Melchizadech. He promised that He would guide the Church into "all truth’ and that the HS would remain with them until the end of the age.

The fiction that God will “sweep away” what He has built is one way to justify rebellion against the authority He appointed.

Judas lost his apostleship due to his actions. Your argument might lead one to the position that although the petrine office has been lost, the other apostolic offices remain, which suggests Orthodoxy.

No, Judas lost out through disobedience, but his office remained, and was filled after his death. The betrayal of individuals does not invalidate the gifts and call of God, which are irrevocable.

Yes, the Orthodox also have valid Apostolic Succession, but do not understand the Petrine Gifts the way we do.

 

[guanophore]

 I don't see the petrine office as now defined by the Catholics as integral to the Covenant.

Since you have made it clear that you do not understand the Catholic Teaching, this is not a surprise.

The question is, though,did Jesus intend for His gifts and responsibilities given to Peter to die with him, or to be passed to his successor. Is the flock still in need of feeding? Do the shepherds still need strengthening?

Promises can be conditional.

Yes, they can, but Jesus’ promises to His Church were not. They are conditioned upon His own eternal priesthood and sacrifice, not the falliblity of men.

I am very surprised to hear this from a Catholic.

Jesus charged Peter with the care and feeding of His flock. He was clear that His kingdom was not of this world. When the Bishop of Rome took on secular matters, a conflatoin developed between the roles. By teh renaissance, the Papacy was as much a poliitcal office as it was spiritual.

But, just as Judas’ office was not nullified by his failure to occupy it in faith, so has the office of the successor of Peter remained solid. We have been benefitted by very holy popes for a century.

That is fine. Taking on that mindset, I would ask if you are familiar with what happened during the Arian controversies? Or some of what Augustine dealt with?

Jesus acted through the successors of the Apostles, just as He promised, to protect His Church, and make sure the gates of hell would not prevail.

I must confess that I am continually amazed at how my separated brethren seem so eager to cherry pick passages of Augustine that seem to support innovative theologies, yet overlook those passages that are “too catholic” and utterly disregard that Augustine was unabashadly Catholic.

Augustine was complex. The WCF would point to a Council as a way to facilitate reunion, although whether we would attend is remote. And we regard Scripture above Councilor decisions.

This is the biggest part of the problem. Jesus gave specific instructions about how we should resolve our differences, and everyone’s private interpreatation of Scripture was not among them. He appointed an authority to shepherd His flock, and prominsed to remain with them till teh end of time.

I am developing a theory that history is driven by fashions in ladies’ hats, but it is not on the List.

Indeed Christiandom has been infiltrated and battered by secular forces. The Church can hold back those forces, but only if we stay in the Barque of Peter.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

“Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things”. The “ye” is all the "little children "he mentions all thru out the epistle so it is not to other elders as some try to imply.

I didn’t imply that.

Here is my quote from another thread that is appropo: "Absolutely but if we go to far with the dichotomizing (individual vs "Body’ Church) we may abrogate the dignity and newness of those middle wall of partitions being torn down and the veil being torn in two.

Still, we can’t change the meaning of the text in order to preserve some imagined dignity of some other teaching.

It does say neighbor will *not *need to teach his neighbor, that He, the Almighty, will write the law on the heart of the believer, and (as Augustine says, He, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, will teach us), even illumine every member of the ecclesia, forbearing teachers and prophets and apostles and healers, etc…

Of course that is true in one sense. On the other hand, I would not be in favor of therefore closing every seminary, stopping the publishing of every book on theology, etc. I presume you would not either.

So, it is both individual and corporate and am careful not to diminish any member of the ecclesia.

In the sense that you believe it to be individual, please explain to me how so many sincere believers could have diametrically opposed beliefs.

It is not just the church in a corporate sense if taken in context. It is “whosoever” is in the Body.

I’m sensing the possibility of a “no true Scotsman” fallacy for your definition of whosoever is in the Body.

John speaks to you and me as individuals as part of the ecclesia. He does not say the Church sets you straight . He does not say the magisterium sets you straight .

Not here. That is said elsewhere in scripture. However, I believe in all of scripture.

They could not set straight those that departed from the church and consequently I say it is not the ultimate reason for those staying in it. He says the Holy One sets you straight (again forbearing the giftings and offices we may have as indicated in other scriptures).

I don’t understand this.

 

[guanophore]

It is “whosoever” is in the Body. John speaks to you and me as individuals as part of the ecclesia. He does not say the Church sets you straight . He does not say the magisterium sets you straight . They could not set straight those that departed from the church and consequently I say it is not the ultimate reason for those staying in it. He says the Holy One sets you straight (again forbearing the giftings and offices we may have as indicated in other scriptures).

I agree with you, it is the Holy One who sets us straight, but He has chosen to work through His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to do so. He created a visible church with legistlative authority, and gave her the rule of the flock here on earth.

The Lord Teaches Truth and prevents the faithful from falling into error through The Church.

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t know. I have never personally encountered anyone who is “anti-Protestant”. I HAVE personally encountered numerous anti-Catholics. How may I come by this anti-Protestant awareness that you speak of?

Wow.

 

[Tomyris]

Basically you are saying that Jesus was just blowing hot air when He commanded his discples to be One? He is too weak, or too disinterested in His one Body to keep it together? The failings of man are stronger than the Spirit of God?

No. Neither was he blowing hot air when he warned leaders what He would do to them, or when Israel went into exile, etc.

The popes forced men to choose between God and themselve in demanding obedience in the face of their most heinous acts. They set up a system where they were unanswerable to anyone on earth, and acted it out in defiance of God and man. As you yourself said, they lost sight. The apostolic deposit is one of truth, which they abandoned. They forfeited the deposit, did they not?

Is God not free to judge them? Were they free to do good or evil, and they rejected the holy, or rather turned it to their own sordid ends? Yet you maintain they have carte blanche to commit utmost evil until the end of time and not possibly lost their authority.

What is wrong with this picture?

Had the successors of the Apostles not become embroiled in secular matters, I do not think the conditions would have existed that precipitated the Reformation.

Jesus Church and it’s structure is based upon the eternal priesthood of Melchizadech. He promised that He would guide the Church into "all truth’ and that the HS would remain with them until the end of the age.

He did not say how or when, or through whom.

The fiction that God will “sweep away” what He has built is one way to justify rebellion against the authority He appointed.

Not a fiction. Not rebellion. Being forced between God and man, we chose God. What did the Catholics choose?

No, Judas lost out through disobedience, but his office remained, and was filled after his death. The betrayal of individuals does not invalidate the gifts and call of God, which are irrevocable.

You keep saying that, but that does not make it so. The reference to Israel in Romans is to the Jews, not to the Catholic Church.

Yes, the Orthodox also have valid Apostolic Succession, but do not understand the Petrine Gifts the way we do.

Ah. But you are so close, with only minor differences! It seems fairly major to me.

This is good; I think we are getting to the core of our differences.

The last few popes and the present one have been good and holy AFAIK, but there is no guarantee the next one will not be another Alexander VI or Leo X.

 

[SteveVH]

No. Neither was he blowing hot air when he warned leaders what He would do to them, or when Israel went into exile, etc.

The popes forced men to choose between God and themselve in demanding obedience in the face of their most heinous acts. They set up a system where they were unanswerable to anyone on earth, and acted it out in defiance of God and man. As you yourself said, they lost sight. The apostolic deposit is one of truth, which they abandoned. They forfeited the deposit, did they not?

Is God not free to judge them? Were they free to do good or evil, and they rejected the holy, or rather turned it to their own sordid ends? Yet you maintain they have carte blanche to commit utmost evil until the end of time and not possibly lost their authority.

What is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong with this picture is that we are speaking of an office, not a person. A person, even the pope, may act contrary to his own faith. This does not affect the validity of the office nor the deposit of faith. Not one “bad pope” has ever changed a word of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Tomyris]

What is wrong with this picture is that we are speaking of an office, not a person. A person, even the pope, may act contrary to his own faith. This does not affect the validity of the office nor the deposit of faith. Not one “bad pope” has ever changed a word of Catholic doctrine.

You argue that all men, including popes, have free will. You would then argue that a pope who desired to change Catholic doctrine would and could, as ‘God is a gentleman and does not go against our will’ to quote friend PR. God would have to go against his free will to prevent the change in doctrine, ja? And that is something you maintain God would never do.

And there is no unconditional promise of the continuance of the papacy until Christ’s return. It is difficult enough to find the Catholic concept of the papacy in Scripture, let alone an unconditional promise of it. The Orthodox reject the Catholic concept of the papacy, which means the deposit of faith (big T) does not contain the concept, correct? Otherwise you would be in agreement.