Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[PRmerger]

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.

God doesn’t have to pre-empt someone’s free will to prevent a bad pope from making a change in doctrine.

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that illustrates how this could be.

Apparently, there was a pope in long ago times who was of the opinion that certain books of the Bible needed to be removed from the canon. Just before he was to sign this declaration…

he was struck dead.

So, no interference with this pope’s free will. :nope:

Also, if we Catholics believe that God used Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Moses, David, etc etc etc to write inspired Scripture without superceding their free will, then, clearly, God can also use popes and bishops to continue to be consonant with His Will without usurping their free will.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for your work, GKC. That’s all helpful information.

PRmerger–please see GKC’s two posts.

I saw Steven Spielberg in April of this year has signed on to produce a movie on Edgardo Mortara based on Kretzer’s book. If that movie does materialize, it may behoove Catholics to be familiar enough with the story to do some Catholic apologetics for the friends and acquaintances who may ask about it.

I myself apologize for dropping out of this thread. I know I owe several replies to PRmerger from way back, Guanophore, and FathersKnowBest; I’m sorry for being an absentee discussion partner. I have some elderly-mom-still-living-alone responsibilities that came up; she is such a lovely person that I’ve been too heavy-hearted and preoccupied to focus my attention on the internet.

But, this has been an interesting thread, as far as I’ve read it.

Could you please summarize? What magisterial teaching was the pope obeying when he sanctioned this little boy’s kidnapping?

Also, still waiting for the verses which state that divorce and re-marriage is not adultery and therefore permitted. Something which your church does, yes?

 

[Tomyris]

God doesn’t have to pre-empt someone’s free will to prevent a bad pope from making a change in doctrine.

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that illustrates how this could be.

Apparently, there was a pope in long ago times who was of the opinion that certain books of the Bible needed to be removed from the canon. Just before he was to sign this declaration…

he was struck dead.

So, no interference with this pope’s free will. :nope:

Hi, PR!

Killing him so what he wanted to happen would not happen was not interfering with his free will?

Strange idea.

But I understand this situation arose when a pope was going to sign off on the Thomist-Molinist controversy, having written a document, intending to sign it in the morning, and died during the night. Perhaps you are familiar with that? Is it merely an anecdote?

Also, if we Catholics believe that God used Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Moses, David, etc etc etc to write inspired Scripture without superceding their free will,
then, clearly, God can also use popes and bishops to continue to be consonant with His Will without usurping their free will.

CAN and DOES are two separate things, no? I still have not seen that unconditional promise of a Catholic-style papacy unto the end of the ages. I recognize Christ will be with us, and He will guide us, but that is a long way from the idea of a pope in Rome with absolute and immediate authority over every Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PR!

Killing him so what he wanted to happen would not happen was not interfering with his free will?

Strange idea.

Perhaps.

But It does sound strangely Biblical, though, does it not?

God killed someone who touched his Holy Ark. God killed people who made fun of His prophet.

Why would it be any less strange for God to strike someone dead so as to not proclaim a truth which would be a lie?

I wouldn’t say that God killed someone so as to not interfere with his free will. Rather, God used a particular method to prevent the transmission of a lie.

 

[PRmerger]

CAN and DOES are two separate things, no? I still have not seen that unconditional promise of a Catholic-style papacy unto the end of the ages. I recognize Christ will be with us, and He will guide us, but that is a long way from the idea of a pope in Rome with absolute and immediate authority over every Catholic.

So we are in agreement, then, that it is possible for God to transmit His Will without interfering with our will.

Yes?

 

[Tomyris]

Perhaps.

But It does sound strangely Biblical, though, does it not?

God killed someone who touched his Holy Ark. God killed people who made fun of His prophet.

Why would it be any less strange for God to strike someone dead so as to not proclaim a truth which would be a lie?

I wouldn’t say that God killed someone so as to not interfere with his free will. Rather, God used a particular method to prevent the transmission of a lie.

The Reformed are big on thinking about free will and the sovereignty of God, and how they interact, so there is no objection from me on the immediate circumstance, or that God can actually guide a pope or bishop. We are debating the significance of that guidance.

That significance would come in an unconditional promise of God related to the episcopal structure as currently practiced by the church headquartered in Rome.

 

[Tomyris]

So we are in agreement, then, that it is possible for God to transmit His Will without interfering with our will.

Yes?

I think it was Aquinas who said God moves at a deeper level than we do so that our wills are not impinged. There is both the free will of man and the sovereignty of God, and God has arranged things such that both are true. God saves whom He will, and those He saves will to be saved.

 

[PRmerger]

I think it was Aquinas who said God moves at a deeper level than we do so that our wills are not impinged. There is both the free will of man and the sovereignty of God, and God has arranged things such that both are true. God saves whom He will, and those He saves will to be saved.

I think this is a “yes” to my question.

So simply apply it to the pope. God can move a man, through the office of the papacy, to declare what is true, without impinging on his free will.

That is the answer to your question posed here:

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.

 

[PRmerger]

The Reformed are big on thinking about free will and the sovereignty of God, and how they interact, so there is no objection from me on the immediate circumstance, or that God can actually guide a pope or bishop. We are debating the significance of that guidance.

Okey dokey.

I thought you were questioning how God could guide a pope or bishop if God is a gentleman and doesn’t interfere with our freedom.

 

[Tomyris]

Okey dokey.

I thought you were questioning how God could guide a pope or bishop if God is a gentleman and doesn’t interfere with our freedom.

So,You adopt Reformed theology in order to defend the papacy? :whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

So,You adopt Reformed theology in order to defend the papacy? :whacky:

Well, since the CC came first, I would have to propose that Reformed theology has not departed from the Faith, given once for all, to the saints, in this regard.

 

[SteveVH]

You argue that all men, including popes, have free will.

Yes.

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.

I would not make that argument as it is not a matter of preventing a pope from exercising his free will. I don’t know of a pope, even the “bad ones”, who even tried or desired to change Catholic doctrine. That is part of the charism of infallibility that goes with the office. The pope’s job is to protect and gaurd that which has been handed down to him, even if he fails to live according to the truth himself. It has never been the will of any pope to change doctrine (that I know of), therefore God has not gone against pope’s will in protecting the deposit of faith. How the Holy Spirit works in the Church and in the pope and magisterium to prevent error is certainly beyond me. But the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Not a single doctrine has been changed.

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.

Well, as you have already been told, if you wish to believe that the authority given exclusively to Peter was not meant to continue in his successors then you must ask why it was given at all. As for Scripture, it cannot be denied that Peter was given a special role, unique among the rest of the Apostles. But we do not rely on Scripture for our faith or our Tradition. There were popes long before there was a Bible. We also don’t measure the validity of the Chair of Peter by those who reject it.

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, Tomi, this is not what is being said. Free will means that people can choose to walk according to the flesh, or according to the Spirit. If a Pope, bishop, or any other person in Holy Orders chooses to believe or act against the Teachings of Christ, that person is no longer under the protection of infallibility. Infallibilty is a gift given to the Church. It prevents the Church from teaching error. If a Pope is determined to teach error, then the Holy Spirit will prevent it.

And there is no unconditional promise of the continuance of the papacy until Christ’s return.

I think, in your definition of “the papacy” this is true. The unconditional promise pertains to Peter, and His successors until the Church is taken up to heaven. If there were any conditions, then the office Judas held would have ended when he did.

The modern concept of “the papacy” did not exist when the promise was given, and has changed a great deal over time. During medieval times, it was considered more of a political office than a spiritual one. I am not defending this, only stating it as a fact.

It is difficult enough to find the Catholic concept of the papacy in Scripture, let alone an unconditional promise of it.

I agree. Whatever warped prejudices you have that are contained in your term “the papacy” will not be found in Scripture or in the Teaching of the CC.

But if you can find any conditions that were placed upon the Apostles and their successors, the Bishops that invalidate the gifts and call of God, please bring them forward. Or any conditions on the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedech would be applicable, since all Holy Orders in the Church emanate from that.

The Orthodox reject the Catholic concept of the papacy,

Since your concept of “the Catholic papacy” is skewed, it is hard to know whether the Orthodox agree with it or not. Certainly they affirm the ongoing Petrine gifts and call of God that persist to the end of the age, so again, we are much closer to one another than either of us are with others.

which means the deposit of faith (big T) does not contain the concept, correct? Otherwise you would be in agreement.

We are in agreement about the role of the Bishop, and the gift of infallibility that was given to the Church to “the end of he age”.

Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith, so yes, the irrevocable gifts and call given to Peter for the care and feeding of the Church are part of it.

 

[guanophore]

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

At least we are in agreeement on that point. However, the New Covenant was established differently, and He did not give authority to the Church in a conditional way. Individuals can fall away from the faith, but the Church cannot fall, because He is her Head.

Those who fall from grace pay a terrible and eternal price, but the office that they occupy remains. “Until the end of the Age” means the Church age. Those structures that were put in place by Christ will remain until there is no longer a need for the pilgrim Chuch on earth, because she has been taken up to heaven.

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?

They forfeited the deposit for themselves. We are not able to judge anyone’s soul, but we can certainly judge them by their fruits, and it does not appear that many of them were in a position to be united with the imperishable inheritance kept undefiled for them in heaven.

But their lack of adherance to the deposit of faith does not invalidate that deposit any more that Judas forfeiting his calling invalidated his office. The deposit of faith was made to the Church, and it is held infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit. This was Christ"s promise, and He has kept it.

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.

I think it is quite clear that they lost their credibility to rule authoritatively. Because they did not walk the walk, a huge rebellion occured which has fractured the Church (and is still doing so).

What was not lost was the gifts and call of God, which are irevocable. Their refusal to participate in His plan does not invalidate the plan. Jesus created an authorative structure for His Church. Those who rebel against it cannot make that which is immutable go away.

What is wrong with this picture?

That you are unable to separate the fallible people from the infallible Church.

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

I guess we read the New Testament very differently.

But I do understand why you cannot accept what is written from the point of view of those who wrote it. If one acknowledged that Jesus was clear about the how, when, and through whom, one could not, in good conscience, remain separated from what He put into place.

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

There are two problems with this. One is that it is no longer a choice between “God and man”, since we have had a century of holy popes, so the conditions that existed cannot validly be used to continue the sin of separation.

Second, one of the unfortunate sequalae of the Reformation is that the nature of the Church was redefined, and the Apostolic understanding of it was lost to our separated brethren. Faithful Catholics always choose the Church founded by Christ, because despite however many Judases have come and gone, we know that there is no salvation outside of her, His most holy bride.

 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.

The reference is about the gifts and the call of God. Besides, in saying this principle only applies to “the Jews” then you are invalidtating your own argument. You are trying to compare the CC to faithless Jewish leaders whose authority was removed from them for corruption and disobedience, and yet you affirm that the promises that God made to the Jews as a people are still valid?

Either you believe Jesus meant what He said, or you don’t. It appears that you do not.

Matt 28:18-20
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Whenever we see “therefore” in Scripture it is important to look and see what it is there for. In this case, it references the authority in which Jesus is sending the Apostles. He gives them authority to adminster sacraments and to teach. He promises to be with them until the end of the age.

You are free to reject the Apostolic faith, commited once for all to the Church.

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Jesus’ Word, and the authority of the Father, are not changed by the actions of those who throw away the duties to which they were appointed.

 

[guanophore]

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

It was not major prior to the great Schism, which was largely a result of linguistic and cultural misunderstanding. I am not sayiing the issues that separate are not important, only that there is much less that separates us that what separates either of usfrom our separated brethren.

 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.

I suppose this is true. But what you are saying is that you really don’t trust Jesus to keep His promises, and that you are making your decisions based on the bad behavior of Judas, instead of the infallible promises He made to His Church.

Killing him so what he wanted to happen would not happen was not interfering with his free will?

No, those are the consequences of his free will choices. For example, the Corinthians can partake of the Body and Blood in an unworthy manner. It is one’s free will choice to commit a sacrilege. But there are consequences to such free will choices:

1 Cor 11:27-31
"Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. "

Strange idea.

The wages of sin is death. One who rejects the Teaching of the Apostles has incurred such a judgment. They anathematize themselves. What is so strange about that? You have been promoting that the consequences of the bad behavior of a Pope ought to result in the loss of his authority, so you must believe there are consequences for one’s choices.

CAN and DOES are two separate things, no? I still have not seen that unconditional promise of a Catholic-style papacy unto the end of the ages.

Such things are hard to see with ones blinders applied tightly. It is also impossible to get an accurate conception of history and documents when one is projecting their own prejudices into them.

I recognize Christ will be with us, and He will guide us, but that is a long way from the idea of a pope in Rome with absolute and immediate authority over every Catholic.

Well, we don’t see it that way, but basically you are rejecting Christ, and the institution of His Church.

 

[PRmerger]

That you are unable to separate the fallible people from the infallible Church.

Indeed.

There are many who seem to be unable to separate these 2 concepts…

yet, curiously, seem able to do this at other times.

They see the very, very fallible Peter (what could be worse than denying Him–3 times!–at His time of greatest suffering and sorrow?) as perfectly capable of writing, teaching and proclaiming Truth without error.

That is, a fallible man was able to be infallible. Something accepted by almost all of Christendom.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that illustrates how this could be.

Apparently, there was a pope in long ago times who was of the opinion that certain books of the Bible needed to be removed from the canon. Just before he was to sign this declaration…

he was struck dead.

I believe you’re referring to the case of Pope Sixtus V.
He didn’t go so far as wanting to remove books from the canon. (Heaven forbid; who would go so far as to do such a thing? )
Rather, he was about to promulgate a “botched version” of the Latin Vulgate.

Quoting from Papal Infallibility, which in turn quotes from Pat Madrid’s book Pope Fiction:

“What about when Pope Sixtus V issued a botched revision of the Latin Vulgate Bible. This edition was so filled with errors, omissions and deformities of the text, that it was hastily recalled after his death by embarrassed Roman cardinals. But the damage was done. Sixtus V had formally taught that the defective edition was to be the only Bible used for the entire Church. If that isn’t a perfect example of a pope fulfilling all the necessary ingredients for teaching ‘infallibly’, nothing else in papal history is. The pope clearly taught error.” (Madrid, p. 242, Pope Fiction)

 Sixtus V reigned as pope from 1585-1590. He has been described as a "brilliant leader in political and ecclesiastical arenas, a tireless innovator in agriculture, engineering and law, he effectively enacted and enforced laws, created an impressive aqueduct system, reformed clergy and the Church’s liturgical customs, tackled building projects, drained the swamps near Rome to eliminate the siege of malaria, spent large amounts of money on charitable works and missions, and oversaw the completion of the St. Peter’s Basilica."  Unfortunately he had an ego to match and this got him into serious trouble when a revision of the Latin Vulgate edition of the holy Bible was begun.  "Historian Francis Gasquet explains the background of the Vulgate: ‘The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity.’ The translators were unknown to St. Augustine and St. Jerome; but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come ‘from the first days of the Faith’, and the latter that it ‘ had helped strengthen the Faith of the infant Church.’ Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful."

Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments.  He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others.  They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."

Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.

Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [Sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . "  **If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching**.  But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stop the Pope from releasing it.  Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him." ** But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness**.  The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again.  "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).

 

[guanophore]

The Reformed are big on thinking about free will and the sovereignty of God, and how they interact, so there is no objection from me on the immediate circumstance, or that God can actually guide a pope or bishop.  We are debating the significance of that guidance.

This is an interesting thought. So, you may acknowlege that God is guiding the Popes but it has no relevance to you?

That significance would come in an unconditional promise of God related to the episcopal structure as currently practiced by the church headquartered in Rome.

I don’t think this is true. Clearly we agree that Jesus founded only one church, but regardless of what is going on in Rome now, you do not acknowledge that

1. The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable
   2 That the Church founded by Christ was visible and authorative
2. That the Office of the overseer was passed from the Apostles to the Bishops, and that the gifts and responsibilities belong to the successors who were ordained by them.

Not only that, but you also acknowledge that what is currently going on in Rome is different than what occured at the time of the Reformation, so your statement that significance lies in it is somewhat disingenuous. You issues lie just as much at the root or birth of the Church, and the entire 1500 years in between.

I think it was Aquinas who said God moves at a deeper level than we do so that our wills are not impinged. There is both the free will of man and the sovereignty of God, and God has arranged things such that both are true. God saves whom He will, and those He saves will to be saved.

Yes, the TULIP notwithstanding.

So,You adopt Reformed theology in order to defend the papacy? :whacky:

No, Tomi, Aquinas is not a Protestant. Besides, you are confused between the gift of infallibility, which is given to the Church, and “the Papacy” (which represents some mental construct of yours).

Jesus promised to lead His Church into “all Truth”. If those in authority attempt to move away from the Truth, He will intervene to prevent it. The Teaching of error would cause the Church to pass through the gates of hell.

The defence that is being offered is a defence of how the Gift of Infallibility actually works. If you read the letters of Revelation, it is clear that Jesus will do whatever is necessary to preserve the purity of His Church.

 

[rfournier103]

I recognize Christ will be with us, and He will guide us, but that is a long way from the idea of a pope in Rome with absolute and immediate authority over every Catholic.

Christ is ALWAYS with us, as are His Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Trinity enduring and eternal.

However, Jesus Christ for some reason felt the need to leave someone behind to “mind the store” until His Glorious return.

Post-Crucifixion and Pre-Ascension; Christ addressed St. Peter in John Chapter 21 verses 15-18~

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Jesus did not single out ANYONE else this vehemently anywhere else in the Gospel. Why single out Peter? Because he ALREADY had the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (oddly, given to no one else…)?

WHY did Jesus command Peter (the future BISHOP OF ROME) to feed and tend His lambs and sheep? You say there’s no need for a VISABLE teacher/leader… but Christ seems to think so.

~The primacy of Peter among the Apostles/disciples.
~Apostolic Succession.
~A VISIBLE Church with a DIVINE TEACHING OFFICE.

These are three things rejected by Protestants following the Reformation. The rejection of these divine tenets (there exists Biblical support for all three) prevents ALL Christians from being united.

How might YOU interpret John 21:15-18?

 

[guanophore]

~The primacy of Peter among the Apostles/disciples.
~Apostolic Succession.
~A VISIBLE Church with a DIVINE TEACHING OFFICE.

These are three things rejected by Protestants following the Reformation. The rejection of these divine tenets (there exists Biblical support for all three) prevents ALL Christians from being united.

How might YOU interpret John 21:15-18?

I think the Reformers did believe that there was a visible church with a divine teaching office, and that it was torn away from the “Papists” and given into the hands of those who would teach the Word more faithfully. Lutherans and Anglicans today both affirm a visible Church. Presbyterians did originally or at least Calvin did because he created religious rule of secular affairs that had the weight of legal consequences (including excommunication and death) for those who did not comply.