The post-Vatican II era has created a serious problem for Roman Catholics. And that problem is precisely how to reconcile the claims of the church with the facts of history – and sometimes with the facts of its own history! It is not that this is a new problem but rather that the world and how the church relates to the world has so changed as to now lay bear the glaring contradictions that previously had been covered over by structures of authority which Vatican II has made more transparent. Perhaps the most obvious examples are the claims made by Vatican I regarding the papacy and its foundation, continuity and extent. As it turns out none of those claims is supportable in history and modern Roman Catholic scholars are now free to plumb the depths of these errors however much they are enshrined as “de fide” pronouncements.
But what is new in all this is not the errors but the fact that they can be discussed openly. We know from history that John Calvin himself cajoled the Roman Church for its false claims and showed in his famous letter to King Francis I that all ordinations after the Council of Basel were fraudulent. Calvin showed how political machinations and not “apostolic succession” had made necessary the removal of some popes and the appointment of others with little regard for ecclesiastical involvement. And that those depositions and appointments had broken whatever alleged continuity Rome claimed theretofore from the Apostles.
Read more…
Doesn't this already fail though if you argue this with a Roman Catholic due to the fact that the Council of Constance isn't viewed as a legitimate council? I want to show Roman Catholics the clear contradictions in their church, but it must be done legitimately.
ReplyDeleteThe key here, of course, is that "what is new in all this is not the errors but the fact that they can be discussed openly." It is the fact that we know more than ever about how these events occurred, and the "internal consistencies" that the RCC tried to build into the accounts of these events are looking less and less consistent.
DeleteSee also Stephen Wolfe's article on how the internal vs the external relate in terms of evidential value:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/07/how-roman-catholicism-lacks-public.html
Hi Zipper,
DeleteYou ask a good question. But please realize that that claim of illegitimacy from a Roman Catholic about Constance cuts both ways.
If the Council was indeed illegitimate then every pope, cardinal, bishop and priest since the resignation of the last Roman Pope - Gregory XII in 1415 - is also illegitimate. Gregory has no episcopal descendants so Apostolic Succession died 600 years ago.! Remember the Council anointed Martin V as the one true pope. And Martin was not of the Roman line. Therefore every priest today is also illegitimate if Constance was illegitimate. Professor Oakley does a wonderful job of explicating the issue and I hope you can read his work which I drew from.
Lastly, Constance was something of a medieval miracle. Oakley says, "In size alone, Constance was one of the most imposing of all medieval representative assemblies...it was as close as the Middle Ages came to the Congress of Vienna (1815) or to the United Nations." So the pope who convoked Constance, the Church Fathers that attended it and even the royalty (King Philip IV of France as an example) of the day thought it to be genuine.
I hope that loads your gun, Zipper! Go get 'em and let me know if I can help.
Blessings,
Hi John! Thank you for pointing out their internal struggle like in the internal vs external article. That does help build a case.
ReplyDeletePaul, maybe I didn't understand the Crisis of Authority article but can you explain further why Gregory XII is the last legitimate pope? I don't understand the reasoning there.
I know I'm asking a lot, but these are points that will come up when I discuss these issues with loved ones who are Roman Catholics.
Hi Zip.
ReplyDeleteSure. In the context of your friends and family who claim that Constance was an illegitimate council, then it follows that the pope they elevated, Martin V, is also illegitimate. Martin's predecessor (in the Roman line) was Gregory XII who resigned at Constance. Therefore, if Constance is an illegitimate council then there has not been a legitimate Roman pope since Gregory XII because all of today's priests are descended from Martin V.
I know this period gives me headaches trying to untangle it! If I've missed something please let me know. But I think that's it.
Peace.
That's a very good and interesting point to make and quire frankly, I've not seen anyone make that point before either. I will be sure to pass on the info.
ReplyDeleteA side note. I find it funny that the group of Roman Catholics that I talk to accuse me of avoiding the truth, yet I'm the only one that has been studying church history and simply reports my findings. I believe that many Roman Catholics avoid the history of their church due to the fear that they will find problems with their church. Others believe that somebody has it all figured out so they don't try. It's truly sad to me.