Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:(complete post here)
Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries.
Never mind. Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.
Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams.
Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.
Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.
Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority. After all, it was so long ago and so far away.
Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.
Forget it. Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.
Sadly, I've seen these or similar responses myself. Moreover, we can continue a lot of these empirical facts (mutatis mutandis) down to the present time.
One other point. Trueman says:
I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific."Berated" may be a strong term, but I have been among those who have criticized him for being too soft on Rome. Thus, I was particularly happy to see this post from him.
-TurretinFan
10 comments:
"Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries."
Define "not there" and "early centuries". Such drive-by comments (without any way to contact him for clarification) ultimately help no one. And the most ironic part about it is that these types of post do the very thing Catholics are accused of doing, namely inventing information and propagating it without any recourse to clarification or even retraction.
A seeker need to look no further than the Ecumenical Councils to see that the early Church was not Protestant. That leaves only Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. There is nothing professional or learned at all about being a Church historian and ignoring or minimalizing the Ecumenical Councils.
A seeker need to look no further than the Ecumenical Councils to see that the early Church was not Protestant. That leaves only Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
A seeker need to look no further than the Ecumenical Church Fathers to see that the early Church was not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. That leaves...NOBODY.
Maybe Nick's yardstick needs adjusting. Maybe he needs to listen what we've been saying all along.
Haha, whoops, meant to change "Ecumenical" to "Early" there.
Rhology,
How can a look at the early Christians yield neither Catholics, Eastern orthodox, nor Protestants?
To say "nobody" is ridiculous.
Hi TF,
I asked about "not there" because some would say historically there was a Bishop of Rome but he was not Supreme Pontiff of the Church.
The fact is, the 6th canon of Nicaea states the Bishop of Rome has Primacy. While Protestants (and EO) would object that this was not Papal Supremacy, the fact is the Bishop of Rome is clearly a major figure in the minds of the Nicene Fathers, and even this is problematic for Protestantism. The only argument at that point is 'how authoritative' the Bishop of Rome was seen at that point. Clearly there was some significant authority there, unless you want to deny the authenticity of Canon 6, and thus Carl's statement is either blatantly false or seriously deficient.
You said that whether the early Church Councils were Protestant or not is "irrelevant" - that's quite a telling statement, considering if the early Church Councils were not Protestant then it cuts off any appeal to Protestantism being historic Christianity. To say "none of the above" leads one to ask: what kind of Christians were they then? Which "denomination" was this who set out to define major Christological teachings and The Creed and yet have disappeared off the face of the earth?
Simple - the modern notions of Prot, EO, and RC don't fit the early Christians. It's really not that hard.
They were their own people. They were what they were. We should accept that.
Problem is, RCC and EOC can't accept that, because of the claims those churches make. Since Prots don't make those same claims, Prots are in a very favorable position on this question.
Namely, our system is not proven false by the fact that early Christians were neither RC, nor EO, nor Prot.
the Bishop of Rome is clearly a major figure in the minds of the Nicene Fathers, and even this is problematic for Protestantism
Who would deny the B of R is a major figure?
Clearly it's not equivalent to papal infallibility or even papal supremacy, so...why would this bother me?
Why is it problematic?
. The only argument at that point is 'how authoritative' the Bishop of Rome was seen at that point.
And if the B o R's primacy was a primacy of respect and not of authority, then isn't your argument dead in the water?
If the B o R was authoritative, why even have the Council of Nicæa? Why not just ask him?
if the early Church Councils were not Protestant then it cuts off any appeal to Protestantism being historic Christianity. To say "none of the above" leads one to ask: what kind of Christians were they then?
That is also easy - read them. Take what they said and formulate a historical theology out of it. Boom - there you go. They were what they were.
I don't see what's so complicated about this. You seem addicted to modern notions and categories, as if you feel some sort of pressing need to press anachronisms onto historical figures.
Which "denomination" was this who set out to define major Christological teachings and The Creed and yet have disappeared off the face of the earth?
It's called "the early church".
And as far as disappearing off the face of the earth:
1) We have (some of) their writings, so they, being dead, yet speak.
2) Everyone dies; did you know that?
3) This would be a bother and a difficulty for the RC to explain, but not for the Sola Scripturist, who submits the theologies of EVERYone to the Word of God.
TF,
The Bishop of Rome was an authoritative institution by the very fact he was Bishop, and of a very important city. If you are saying he wasn't 'supreme' over the Church, that's a different argument. That distinction is important. For you to argue that there was no Bishop of Rome until the 2nd century doesn't necessarily hurt Catholicism, but I have no idea how you can even grant that much in light of Truman's insistence that the Bishop of Rome is a medieval invention and not part of the early Church. To say the Bishop of Rome came about in the 2nd century is quite within the bounds of a single generation from the Apostles.
As for your claim that Nicaea 6 is stating Rome was a Patriarchate "just like the bishop of Alexandria," again this admission is very devastating to Truman's thesis, since this entails Rome was indeed a major figure. Though I don't agree with your interpretation of Canon 6, for the sake of argument, what you're conceding is that Rome was one of the top three Bishops in the ante-Nicene and Nicene times. This puts a totally different spin on Truman's claims the Papacy has no historical roots, for top-three in the Church is pretty close to Papacy. The reason why I said Nicaea is a problem for Protestantism is because the Patriachate system totally refutes Protestant ecclesiology.
For you to say Protestantism "does not hold to the identical beliefs and practices of the council-goers" is almost worse than saying the early Church wasn't Protestant, because the Councils were benchmarks of orthodoxy, and thus to not agree with them (or cherry pick) is to say they botched orthodoxy. For you to call them simply "Nicene Era Christians" doesn't get around the original dilemma you put yourself in, which is that of finding continuity from one generation of the Church to the next. Your only options are that the early Church went apostate or that Nicene Christianity evolved/devolved doctrinally into historic Protestantism.
As I said with TF, this means early Christianity didn't carry on the true Gospel, and thus either the immediate post-Apostolic Church went apostate and didn't resurface until Luther, or it means the early Church evolved/devolved into historic Protestantism. To suggest it doesn't matter what the professing Christians from 100-1500 believed and taught is total anti-intellectualism, which isn't the approach any truth-seekers should go with.
For one, it makes one content with believing the Bible fell from the sky, rather than facing the reality that from 100-1500 some alien/apostate Christianity had been passing down the Bible the whole time. And the moment you call one of them "Christian," but neither Protestant nor Catholic, that means you're either (a) contradicting yourself, or (b) that Protestantism isn't Christian.
Nick,
While I myself an not a church historian, I can understand what Rhology and Turretinfan are saying. You have, like most Roman Catholics, rejected Sola Scriptura on the basis of the fact that there are many different interpretations of scripture. However, what you have not realized is that there are many different interpretations of Church History also. For example, over on the Puritan Board I have had discussions about this topic with a man who uses the nick DTK. He has, apparently, studied Patristics professionally, and has complied a mass of quotes arguing that the time period you are talking about did contain several writers affirming sola fide:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/there-no-evidence-sola-fide-church-clo-828/#post20911
The problem is that Rome's interpretation of history is just one of many. Not only do you have the interpretation of DTK, but you also have the interpretation of the Eastern Orthodox. You also have the interpretations of the Syrian orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox. You also have the interpretations of the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses. How do you know which interpretation is correct? No matter what your answer is, how does it not contradict the objection to Sola Scriptura that there are many different interpretations of scripture, and, therefore, we cannot know which is correct?
The only way out of this problem is to say that you know which interpretation is correct because Rome has told you which is correct. However, the Eastern Orthodox says his interpretation of history is correct because his church has said so. The Syrian Orthodox says his interpretation of church history is correct because his church tells him so. Same thing with the Coptic Orthodox, the Mormons, and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Now, all you have is postmodernism, since the local authority of the community is the ultimate determiner of meaning in language, and no one can tell which community is correct. Hence, if it comes down to a denial of objective truth in Roman Catholicism or a belief in objective truth in Protestantism, I think the decision is easy.
God Bless,
Adam
Post a Comment