It is well known that Rome claims that Anglicans don’t have valid “Apostolic Succession”. Take a classic example: the way in which Leo XIII denies the apostolic succession of the Anglican church.
Now, here, we have an example of a pope, up-close and personal, speaking “the language of the heart” (and this will be the “out” – it’s not official Latin, therefore, this is Bergoglio speaking in a private capacity, and thus not interfering doctrinally with any pronouncement that Rome has made in the past). He’s referring here to a Pentecostal pastor here as a “brother-bishop”.
This was part of the “Pope Francis” official embrace of Kenneth Copeland. I didn’t realize until yesterday, however, that this video was part of the show. Here’s the official “conservative Catholic” view of what happened:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1400707.htm
I have to say, the sentiment in this video is truly touching. However, until and unless this pope (or some other pope) actually confesses “the sins of The Roman Catholic Church” (and not just “the sins of the children of the Church”, or that “all of us have sinned”, or some other language that deflects responsibility from the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the historical papacy itself) – and admits the doctrinal errors perpetuated by this body – then all the “touching” in the world isn’t going to heal the rift that Bergoglio laments here.
The translation has the Pope saying, "Families who come together and families who separate themselves. We are kind of...permit me to say, separated....."That [separation] the Holy Scripture speaks of when Joseph's Brothers began to starve from hunger, they went to Egypt, to buy, so that they could eat."
ReplyDeleteFamily members don't torture other members on the rack, or lock them in Iron maidens, or force them to sit on the Judas cradle/chair.
The Pope rightly states that there has been sin on all sides.Then uses the story of Joseph and his brothers as an example how brothers should be reunited. I think we can guess who the Pope thinks is Joseph in the analogy. Almost certainty Rome herself. Interestingly, Joseph is one of the few characters in Scripture who is written of in detail but no sin seems to have ever been attributed to him (Joseph being a type of Christ). The Catholic Church needs to admit that they didn't merely "hand over" "heretics" and "schismatics" over to the secular authorities. They were complicit in the torture and murder of thousands (some say millions) of people (many of whom were believers and not just true heretics, Jews or Muslims, as bad as that is too). That "excuse" no more works for the Catholic Church than if the Jews in 1st century said the same thing about handing Jesus to the Romans for crucifixion.
The "Rome never has done, nor ever will do any wrong" schtick that even a bumbler like Bergoglio is so good at, is the main thing that needs to go. Yet that is etched into "infallible dogma".
DeleteThere are a lot of great things in the Catholic Church, but unless the Catholic Church confesses and repents of her sins (both in teaching and practice, past and present) Evangelical have no business fraternizing with Rome. IMO not even as "separated brethren". Cultural cobelligerents maybe. But we Evangelicals are so quick to mingle with Catholics because as a people we've forgotten or don't know the various evils the Catholic Church has committed. The worse offense being that of dragging the Name of Christ in the mud (cf. Rom. 2:24). The past few generations of Evangelicals haven't been told and taught the evils the Catholic Church has and continues to commit. That's why we're so friendly with them. Just because some of them might end up getting to heaven (by the skin of their teeth on account of God's grace) isn't a good reason to abandon and deny the Gospel. Many of our theological forefathers were tortured and died for the Gospel at the hands of Rome. We CAN'T forget that!
DeleteExactly! By her own confession she's irreformable because she's infallible.
DeleteAnnoyed: There are a lot of great things in the Catholic Church
DeleteI disagree with you here. Calvin commented on "the corruptions of the Papacy, by which Satan has adulterated all that God had appointed for our salvation" (4.1.1). I think the Battles translation says "polluted". It all was "polluted" in Calvin's day. After 400+ years of Trent, Vatican I and II, things have gotten worse. Trent anathematized the Gospel. Some try to excuse that by saying that "the infallible council of Trent misunderstood what the Reformers were saying". How does that help anything?
I was trying to be a gracious in my criticism. I included in the "great things"certain (mostly past) teaching, teachers, theologians, saints, books, practices, traditions (etc.) that can (to some degree or other) be incorporated into Protestantism ( or is so incorporated in some versions of Protestantism, e.g. Anglicanism, Lutheranism etc). Think of the portions of the sacred calendar (like Lent, Christmas, Easter), many of the sermons of early church fathers, some of the writings of their theologians like Aquinas, the affirmation and defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, a long tradition of sola gratia (though inconsistently in its rejection of sola fide), its rejection of many heresies like Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism, and other christological errors...... et cetera (you can add more things than I can).
DeleteI think my view is actually the same as yours. I agree with you when you say about the modern Catholic Church,
"After 400+ years of Trent, Vatican I and II, things have gotten worse. Trent anathematized the Gospel. Some try to excuse that by saying that "the infallible council of Trent misunderstood what the Reformers were saying". How does that help anything?"
Admittedly, I'm hard pressed to think of any DISTINCTIVELY Catholic tradition, teaching or practice that is "great."
Hi Annoyed, I get what you are saying. The Christian Church itself is a great work of God, and worthy to be observed and studied, but as you say, those "distinctively" "Roman" portions have diminished the church over time and in fact have ended up causing great harm.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYeah, I should have written "Roman" since "Catholic" can rightfully be claimed by other ancient sects (the largest example being Eastern Orthodoxy). And even many Evangelicals claim to be the true continuation of the "catholic/Catholic" church in that we're more faithful to the teaching of the Apostles and those things the early Church father happened to get right (in the midst of the things they got wrong). For example, we further develop and carry out their implicit (and remarkably sometimes explicit) Prima Scriptura and/or proto-Sola Scriptura practice and views.
DeleteAlso, I want to say that just because the Spanish Inquisition wasn't as bad as is normally thought in popular culture doesn't mean that the persecution perpetrated by the (Roman) Catholic Church hasn't been much more severe in different times and locations.
DeleteNot to mention that Copeland is a rank heretic. Birds of a feather...
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, the Sedes say that the new rite of Catholic ordination/the new mass are invalid because they removed from the traditional rite, features that Anglicans removed, which in the first place, caused the Anglican ordinations to be counted as invalid by Pope Leo XIII in 1890s.
ReplyDeleteThe traditionalists who are in communion with modern Rome are in a tight spot on this issue. I have seen one canon lawyer say that the New mass etc are "schismatic rites" but still asserts them to be valid.
The gang of Reformed commenters at oldlife.org call this pope "the gift that keeps on giving". Some RCs pride themselves on their "both/and" theology, but it seems in this case that they've got "both liberals and conservatives" vying for control -- Bergoglio is largely undoing much of "buttoning down" that JPII/BXVI did following VII. The longer he lives, the further in the ascendancy the liberal side will rise.
Delete"There is only one blameless. The Lord."
ReplyDeleteWa-wa-wa-whatabout Mary?
</:0)-