Thursday, April 05, 2012

Reclaiming the Church

A recent CTC comment:

"Sigh. Oh the extremes Protestants go to in order to justify their schism." [source]

This comment begin with the assumption that some group split from the Roman church, and Rome is the (or "a") true church. What happens if this assumption, that schismatic groups split from the true church, if it is denied that Rome is the (or "a") true church?

"In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring."

2 comments:

Constantine said...

One of the most enjoyable parts of watching RC's self-gratifying exercises, like this one, is how ironic they tend to be! And the irony is that the modern Roman Catholic church is the church in schism!

Forgive this lengthy quote, but John Calvin puts the matter better than can I:

"But if they (the Roman Catholics) are sincere, let them answer me in good faith,--in what place, and among whom, do they think the Church resided, after the Council of Basle degraded and deposed Eugenius from the popedom, and substituted Amadeus in his place? Do their utmost, they cannot deny that that Council was legitimate as far as regards external forms, and was summoned not only by one Pontiff, but by two. Eugenius, with the whole herd of cardinals and bishops who had joined him in plotting the dissolution of the Council, was there condemned of contumacy, rebellion, and schism. Afterwards, however, aided by the favour of princes, he got back his popedom safe.

The election of Amadeus, duly made by the authority of a general holy synod, went to smoke; only he himself was appeased with a cardinal's cap, like a piece of offal thrown to a barking dog.

Out of the lap of these rebellious and contumacious schismatics proceeded all future popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots, and presbyters. Here they are
caught, and cannot escape.


For, on which party will they bestow the name of Church? Will they deny it to have been a general Council, though it lacked nothing as regards external majesty, having been solemnly called by two bulls, consecrated by the legate of the Roman See as its president, constituted regularly in all respects,
and continuing in possession of all its honours to the last?


Will they admit that Eugenius, and his whole train, through whom they have all been consecrated, were schismatical? Let them, then, either define the form of the Church differently, or, however numerous they are, we will hold them all to be schismatics in having knowingly and willingly received ordination from heretics.


But had it never been discovered before that the Church is not tied to external pomp, we are furnished
with a lengthened proof in their own conduct, in proudly vending themselves to the world under the specious title of Church, notwithstanding that they are the deadly pests of the Church. I speak not of their manners and of those tragical atrocities with which their whole life teems, since it is said that they are Pharisees who should be heard, not imitated. By devoting some portion of your leisure to our writings, you will see, not obscurely, that their doctrine--the very doctrine to which they say it is owing that they are the Church--is a deadly murderer of souls, the firebrand, ruin, and destruction of the Church.


Have a very blessed Easter, James!

Peace.

PeaceByJesus said...

And of course, the OTC is its own authority, infallibly declaring she is infallible.

The RC will argue that her claims are based on the promises of Christ to the church, out which are extrapolated assured infallibility and perpetuated Petrine papacy, but it is not the weight of evidence - "manifestation of the Truth" (2Cor. 4:2) - that provides assurance of the veracity of this claim, but the infallible authority of Rome.

In condescending to appeal to us on the basis of evidence, RCAs will appeal to historical decent to support their claim of being the OTC.

However, besides the variance in historical support, and completion from other sola ecclesia churches, this premise (historical authority=veracity) effectively nukes the church.

The premise of the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders was like that of Romes, but which had actual affiormation. Yet while histrical decent had its place, and ordination is provided for by Scripture, yet this does not provide more assurance of veracity or infallibility or perpetuation of office over one whose authority is establshed by conformity to Scriptrue in text and in power.

The Lord Jesus Himself was “rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes” (Lk. 9:22) who, like as a true Roman Catholic would do, challenged His authority (and those of John the Baptist) as it did not come from them (as the historical heavyweight), saying, “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (see Mk., 11:27-33)

But in contrast to them, the Lord Jesus established His on Scripture and the power of God it affirms, as did the apostles and early church. ( Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)

And reproved by Scripture their presumption in making the mere “tradition of the elders” (Mk. 6:2-16) to be as weighty as Scripture which it contradicted (though some Catholics actually argue it did not).

Nothing new here.