This is a great article, and it hits the problem precisely. Here is the most important point:
what makes Rome different is that it makes certain absolute claims about itself and its relationship to the rest of society. It claims that Jesus Himself gave the bishop of Rome both spiritual and temporal power, and that Jesus set the spiritual power over the temporal power. Rome has a policy, going all the way back to Thomas Beckett, of rejecting civil claims over its clergy, even in the case of criminal charges. More than this, the Roman Catholic Church requires all of its laity to be subordinate to the clergy. Indeed, saving grace itself is itself mediated through this clergy. These claims are relevant both as to why Rome prefers to cover for its clergy and to why individual catholics do not feel like they have the option to leave an abusive and dangerous church.
Thus, the “hierarchical,” “clerical,” and “ultramontane” approach church government is not some new corruption of Catholicism but is in fact received dogma. Therefore, the current situation within Roman Catholicism highlights one of its essential characteristics–can faithful Roman Catholics truly practice what their church has preached? The scandals are not exceptions to a rule but are rather extreme moments which test the rule at its core.
One may tell a tree by its fruit.
... if Rome is not what she claims to be, then this is one of the greatest tragedies in human history. Hundreds of thousands of souls are being held in spiritual bondage. They are being done a grave injustice. They are being continually abused. For those of us who believe that Rome’s claims are false–and who believe that we can demonstrate this falsity–actual compassion compels us to speak out. We must be a good neighbor. We must love our Roman Catholic brothers as ourselves. How cowardly or uncaring would we have to be to remain silent?
It's basically a short review of the New Testament for supporting claims. One claim that he misses is Luke 22:32 (31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”). But the summary is still sound:
the distinctive Roman Catholic claims about the founding of the Church are not present in the scriptures of the New Testament. In fact, certain facts which contradict those claims are present, and the overall ecclesiastical structure is quite different. Instead of a monoepiscopal hierarchy uniting the entire church, the New Testament shows a collection of regional churches existing through their connection to particular “elders” and “bishops,” some of whom were direct descendants of multiple apostles, and who possess more or less equal stature and authority, while working together.
There is a promise at least for a part 3, which will "look to the historical evidence from the following centuries to see how the New Testament material was carried on in the developing churches and if any consistent picture can be discerned".
This is a great article, and it hits the problem precisely. Here is the most important point:
ReplyDeletewhat makes Rome different is that it makes certain absolute claims about itself and its relationship to the rest of society. It claims that Jesus Himself gave the bishop of Rome both spiritual and temporal power, and that Jesus set the spiritual power over the temporal power. Rome has a policy, going all the way back to Thomas Beckett, of rejecting civil claims over its clergy, even in the case of criminal charges. More than this, the Roman Catholic Church requires all of its laity to be subordinate to the clergy. Indeed, saving grace itself is itself mediated through this clergy. These claims are relevant both as to why Rome prefers to cover for its clergy and to why individual catholics do not feel like they have the option to leave an abusive and dangerous church.
Thus, the “hierarchical,” “clerical,” and “ultramontane” approach church government is not some new corruption of Catholicism but is in fact received dogma. Therefore, the current situation within Roman Catholicism highlights one of its essential characteristics–can faithful Roman Catholics truly practice what their church has preached? The scandals are not exceptions to a rule but are rather extreme moments which test the rule at its core.
One may tell a tree by its fruit.
... if Rome is not what she claims to be, then this is one of the greatest tragedies in human history. Hundreds of thousands of souls are being held in spiritual bondage. They are being done a grave injustice. They are being continually abused. For those of us who believe that Rome’s claims are false–and who believe that we can demonstrate this falsity–actual compassion compels us to speak out. We must be a good neighbor. We must love our Roman Catholic brothers as ourselves. How cowardly or uncaring would we have to be to remain silent?
Steven has posted Part 2 here:
https://calvinistinternational.com/2018/09/06/the-leadership-of-the-catholic-church-now-vs-then-pt-2/
It's basically a short review of the New Testament for supporting claims. One claim that he misses is Luke 22:32 (31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”). But the summary is still sound:
the distinctive Roman Catholic claims about the founding of the Church are not present in the scriptures of the New Testament. In fact, certain facts which contradict those claims are present, and the overall ecclesiastical structure is quite different. Instead of a monoepiscopal hierarchy uniting the entire church, the New Testament shows a collection of regional churches existing through their connection to particular “elders” and “bishops,” some of whom were direct descendants of multiple apostles, and who possess more or less equal stature and authority, while working together.
There is a promise at least for a part 3, which will "look to the historical evidence from the following centuries to see how the New Testament material was carried on in the developing churches and if any consistent picture can be discerned".