Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Some Romanists obviously need to brush up on a few points...
1. Rome acknowledges the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy.
2. Rome acknowledges the New Testament texts offer no explicit record of a transmission of Peter's leadership.
(See, Authority in the Church II, ARCIC).
3. Claims of the authority of the pope were but post-Apostolic assertions, not based upon Scripture, of the Roman bishop.
(See Jerome, writing in the fourth century, Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders. Jerome also notes "bishop" as a title for some separate group above presbyters was more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord. In Called to Communion, Ratzinger agrees that presbyter and episcipos are interchangeably used in the NT and by the earliest churches.
4. There is no question that special recognition was given by the Eastern church leaders to the "bishop" of Rome. What folks ignore is that the East considered any "bishop's" claim of supremacy an act of schism. The Western church also rejected such a claim, e.g., Gregory I. In fact, Gregory I (the last good pope--Calvin) was offended by the label universal pope, noting a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest
5. Yet history tells us that Gregory I was ignored as Leo I and Galsius led the way to later bishops of Rome laying claim to this proud address. At Reims in 1049, the Latin Church made it clear that the pope is pontifex universalis, assuming upon itself what Gregory claimed as identification of the one who in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor…. Which pope is correct? :AMR:
6. With the pretentious claims made at Reims signaling its slide into apostasy, the Great Schism of 1054 came, with the Eastern church excommunicating the Church of Rome, and the pope in Rome doing the same. Now prior to the schism, Christendom comprised and was governed into five geographic regions, with church leaders in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. But as the years passed the Roman papacy started laying claim to more and more power and authority. The Bishop of Rome claimed more and more right over the governance of all of Christendom, not just his own area. The papacy we see today really was not even present until Gregory VII (1073 AD).
7. At one point three popes set about excommunicating each other and their respective sees. This followed the Avignon papacy and Western Schism. Again, Ratzinger notes, For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution
8. Scotus and others, e.g., D'Ailly argued for sola scriptura in the Medieval debates over final authority--popes, councils, or Scripture. It was at Trent that papalists "won" the debate against those that pointed out the frequent contradictory papal pronouncements that forced schisms.
9. It was the Reformation that led the papists to add to their claims, even including infallibility (First Vatican Council in 1870), with the infamous I am tradition of Pius IX.
10. To the outsider, Rome's claims to be unified seem reasonable. But to the knowledgeable, this is far from the reality of Catholicism. Rome is more confusing today than ever. Its magisterium tolerates all manner of views in opposition to its teachings. The latitudinism since Vatican II is palpable. "Faithful" Catholics need not adhere strictly to the magisterial doctrine as embodied in the conciliar pronouncements or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The result is many competing schools, sects, South American animism, North American protestant individualism, indeed a spectrum ranging from fundamentalist to liberal--just as in Protestantism. Those wanting to read a thorough dismantling of the claims of the papacy should download a copy of Edward Denny's, Papalism, wherein he deconstructs Leo XIII's papal encyclical, Satis cognitum, here.
11. Again, the word “catholic” is from Latin and was derived from the Greek katholikos, which simply meant “universal”. We need to dispute the Papist claims that Rome is the catholic church. Actually, Roman Catholic is nothing but an oxymoron, since the RCC is not catholic at all, but now apostate, certainly since its condemnation of the gospel at the Council of Trent (Session 7, 1547).
AMR
1. Rome acknowledges the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy.
2. Rome acknowledges the New Testament texts offer no explicit record of a transmission of Peter's leadership.
(See, Authority in the Church II, ARCIC).
3. Claims of the authority of the pope were but post-Apostolic assertions, not based upon Scripture, of the Roman bishop.
(See Jerome, writing in the fourth century, Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders. Jerome also notes "bishop" as a title for some separate group above presbyters was more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord. In Called to Communion, Ratzinger agrees that presbyter and episcipos are interchangeably used in the NT and by the earliest churches.
4. There is no question that special recognition was given by the Eastern church leaders to the "bishop" of Rome. What folks ignore is that the East considered any "bishop's" claim of supremacy an act of schism. The Western church also rejected such a claim, e.g., Gregory I. In fact, Gregory I (the last good pope--Calvin) was offended by the label universal pope, noting a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest
5. Yet history tells us that Gregory I was ignored as Leo I and Galsius led the way to later bishops of Rome laying claim to this proud address. At Reims in 1049, the Latin Church made it clear that the pope is pontifex universalis, assuming upon itself what Gregory claimed as identification of the one who in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor…. Which pope is correct? :AMR:
6. With the pretentious claims made at Reims signaling its slide into apostasy, the Great Schism of 1054 came, with the Eastern church excommunicating the Church of Rome, and the pope in Rome doing the same. Now prior to the schism, Christendom comprised and was governed into five geographic regions, with church leaders in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. But as the years passed the Roman papacy started laying claim to more and more power and authority. The Bishop of Rome claimed more and more right over the governance of all of Christendom, not just his own area. The papacy we see today really was not even present until Gregory VII (1073 AD).
7. At one point three popes set about excommunicating each other and their respective sees. This followed the Avignon papacy and Western Schism. Again, Ratzinger notes, For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution
8. Scotus and others, e.g., D'Ailly argued for sola scriptura in the Medieval debates over final authority--popes, councils, or Scripture. It was at Trent that papalists "won" the debate against those that pointed out the frequent contradictory papal pronouncements that forced schisms.
9. It was the Reformation that led the papists to add to their claims, even including infallibility (First Vatican Council in 1870), with the infamous I am tradition of Pius IX.
10. To the outsider, Rome's claims to be unified seem reasonable. But to the knowledgeable, this is far from the reality of Catholicism. Rome is more confusing today than ever. Its magisterium tolerates all manner of views in opposition to its teachings. The latitudinism since Vatican II is palpable. "Faithful" Catholics need not adhere strictly to the magisterial doctrine as embodied in the conciliar pronouncements or the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The result is many competing schools, sects, South American animism, North American protestant individualism, indeed a spectrum ranging from fundamentalist to liberal--just as in Protestantism. Those wanting to read a thorough dismantling of the claims of the papacy should download a copy of Edward Denny's, Papalism, wherein he deconstructs Leo XIII's papal encyclical, Satis cognitum, here.
11. Again, the word “catholic” is from Latin and was derived from the Greek katholikos, which simply meant “universal”. We need to dispute the Papist claims that Rome is the catholic church. Actually, Roman Catholic is nothing but an oxymoron, since the RCC is not catholic at all, but now apostate, certainly since its condemnation of the gospel at the Council of Trent (Session 7, 1547).
AMR