In what sense is Rome part of the Church?
- Thread starter Peter
- Start date
- Status
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Isn't that a reference to Rome?
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I still have yet to see how they measure up by any standard we use. 3 marks? Creeds? Simple preacing of the gospel? No matter what standard you use they fall short. The only way we could consider them a true church is if we lower the bar so much that we let the cults in as well. I understand this differs from the historic reformed view and thus am open to correction. But I just don't see yet how they fit in, especially after they have officially condemned the gospel and essentially deified Mary.
Leaving the second question aside for this post (though very important indeed), the following words of Calvin are interesting. At times he seems to be somewhat contradictory in what he concedes to Rome, while at other times speaking quite clearly that it remains, in some sense, a church. I have found the following passage from Calvin rather curious respecting this issue. I have to keep reminding myself that Muller was quite right when he spoke of the Reformer as he did in the title of his book, The Unaccommodated Calvin. Indeed, the Reformer could be very nuanced at times...
John Calvin (1509-1564): Finally, even though all these things were conceded, a brand-new conflict with them arises when we say that there is no church at Rome in which benefits of this sort can reside; when we deny that any bishop exists there to sustain these privileges of rank. Suppose all these things were true (which we have already convinced them are false): that by Christ´s word Peter was appointed head of the whole church; that he deposited in the Roman see the honor conferred upon him; that it was sanctioned by the authority of the ancient church and confirmed by long use; that the supreme power was always given to the Roman pontiff unanimously by all men; that he was the judge of all cases and of all men; and that he was subject to no man´s judgment. Let them have even more if they will. I reply with but one word: none of these things has any value unless there be a church and bishop at Rome. This they must concede to me: what is not a church cannot be the mother of churches; he who is not a bishop cannot be the prince of bishops. Do they, then, wish to have the apostolic see at Rome? Let them show me a true and lawful apostolate. Do they wish to have the supreme pontiff? Let them show me a bishop. What then? Where will they show us any semblance of the church? They call it one indeed and have it repeatedly on their lips. Surely a church is recognized by its own clear marks; and "œbishopric" is the name of an office. Here I am not speaking of the people but of government itself, which ought perpetually to shine in the church. Where in their church is there a ministry such as Christ´s institution requires? Let us remember what has already been said of the presbyters´ and bishop´s office. If we test the office of cardinals by that rule, we shall admit that they are nothing less than they are presbyters. I should like to know what one episcopal quality the pontiff himself has. The first task of the bishop´s office is to teach the people from God´s Word. The second and next is to administer the sacraments. The third is to admonish and exhort, also to correct those who sin and to keep the people under holy discipline. What of these offices does he perform? Indeed, what does he even pretend to do? Let them say, therefore, in what way they would have him regarded a bishop, who does not even in pretense touch any part of this office with his little finger. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.vii.23, pp. 1142-1143.
As I indicated above, I know that Calvin elsewhere very clearly concedes that Rome in his day remained, in some sense, a Church, but at times he wrote as if he wasn't willing even to grant that.
Blessings,
DTK
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
to Patrick!!BrianLanier
Puritan Board Freshman
This is what I was getting at in the other post on Rome's Baptism.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Would anyone care to interact with Samuel Rutherford, Francis Turretin, Richard Baxter, John Calvin, William Perkins, John Knox, Theodore Beza or Charles Hodge (all of whom acknowledged that the Pope was Antichrist but also acknowledged a place for Rome within the visible church)?
Historic Reformed Views on the Roman Catholic Church and its Ordinances
Historic Reformed Views on the Roman Catholic Church and its Ordinances
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
BrianLanier
Puritan Board Freshman
Why don't you give a summary argument for them? Then we can interact with that argument. I can just as easily post a link to an article that interacts with those arguments, however that isn't as interesting (my authority beats up your authority). I will post my argument again below:
and in regard to the aritcle's interaction with the confession...
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I already gave a summary argument in the previous thread (based on the Westminster Confession) which no one has responded to. If you are unwilling to read the Puritans and Reformers on this subject, then there is little left to discuss.
Just say it straight out. They aint of the Lord.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
As far as Rome is concerned, protestants are anathema. They will not give the grace that we are availing them in this matter.
Also, since Rome during Calvins day was not as bad as today, I'm sure that these men were reflecting upon that idea, could we grade based upon the obvious curve?
Is Romes gospel the same as the biblical gospel or is it semi-Pelagian and Arminian?
Also, since Rome during Calvins day was not as bad as today, I'm sure that these men were reflecting upon that idea, could we grade based upon the obvious curve?
Is Romes gospel the same as the biblical gospel or is it semi-Pelagian and Arminian?
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
That is another point too. Rome was not as bad then as today. Even after Trent, the Jansenists were still there preaching the gospel even up to the time of Westminster. So sure, the Divines may have some ground to argue Rome to be a church. But if they were all here today what would they say?
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
If they see us as anathema, would it not make sense that the knife must cut both ways? From their perspective, if our worlds do not meet, how can we ever come to the conclusion that we are on the same page and both are valid churches?
This may be off topic though. I don't believe Calvin et. al. were basing their positions upon whether or not Rome was a true church; it had to do with Christ baptising, not the man. This is why Luther said if the 'devil' baptised anyone, it would still be valid if it was in the trinity.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I was talking to a Roman Catholic priest (in training) several weeks ago and I asked him how he could be so ecumenical and yet believe in the anathemas of the Council of Trent. He responded that that referred to people who lived in that day.
I said: how could it only refer to the Protestants of the Reformation era since I believe the same things as they do? He didn't have much of a response after that.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Rome was not as bad during the Reformation as today?? The blood of the slaughtered saints in Paris (c. 1572) and elsewhere still cries out for justice.
Rome officially became a synagoge of Satan at the Council of Trent (in the 1540's). All of the Reformers and Puritans cited previously affirmed both 1) that the Pope was Antichrist and 2) Rome was still in some sense part of the visible church all after the Council of Trent.
Rome officially became a synagoge of Satan at the Council of Trent (in the 1540's). All of the Reformers and Puritans cited previously affirmed both 1) that the Pope was Antichrist and 2) Rome was still in some sense part of the visible church all after the Council of Trent.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Andrew, I agree. Bad is bad. However, things rot as they die. A perfect example is the rampant pedophilia in this age.
So, I know you and I are on the same page about Rome, however, it seems that you side with the reformers about the baptism issue? Am I right in this assessment?
BrianLanier
Puritan Board Freshman
I will be happy to respond to your summary argument below...
This seems somewhat disrespectful. I hope I am misunderstanding your demeanor. I have read most of the article and I am familiar with this debate, so it is not the case that I am unwilling to read the infallible Puritans and Reformers on this subject. It is just that I am not convinced that their arguments are consistent. I am sure you wouldn't take this tone with Thornwell or the rest of the American Presbyterian Assemblies until 1981. I hope that we can now get past the ad hominems.
To address the numbered points:
[1] I have address this somewhat in the other discussion. The portion of the confession that your using for this assertion is not in the revision used by american presbyterians. You could object by saying that you agree with that portion (I would probably agree with you!) and it shouldn't have been removed by the revisions. However, I still don't think that phrase in reference to the anticrhrist (pope) exalting himself "in the Chruch" says as much as you want it to say. I don't think it would make any sense to say that he exalts himself "in the syanagouge of satan" which the confession (I think) attributes to Romes apostosy.
[2] What of the true religion still resides in her? If she doen't have the gospel then she is under the condemnation of God (Gal. 1:6-9) and have fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4) Can such that are condemned and fallen from grace administer the sacraments?
[3] I don't think Judas is analogous to the issuse. Judas was, if you will, "in the true church" (with the other disciples) not part of an organization that denies the gospel. The issue is not that of donatism (the intent of the minister and whether or not he believes) but whether or not Rome is in fact a Church of Christ at all.
[4] You used the term sacraments in the plural. I don't know if that was intentional or not. The confession clearly denies Rome's supper.
If there is any other point that you think I missed in your summary argument let me know.
(BTW, should we accept the Eastern Orthodox batisms as well?)
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
That's right. I side with the Reformers and Puritans on their views about Rome.
I was thinking of the question in the light of the Jewish apostacy. Judaism was grossly corrupted by talmudic traditions and superstitions by the time of Christ's Reformation. At pentecost there was a separation of the reformed party from the corrupt church, though for a time the corrupted Jewish church I think was in some respects a true church probably until the destruction of the Temple and the final close of the Old Covenant.
One view expressed on the PB is that the Church of Rome lost whatever claim it had to be a church by denouncing the gospel at Trent. The argument is, I think, that prior to Trent the RCC abuses were not 'official' and that the gospel could survive w/in her despite being burried under superstition. But when the council codified heresy she essentially made believing the truth illegal and thus cut herself off from the body of Christ. In Joseph's and Andrew's link Beza in his catechism uses the Jewish apostacy analogy in some form and says that the corrupted Jewish church was cut off when circumcision ceased to be the sign of the covenant. And he seems to make baptism the note (essential mark?) of the church so he defends Rome as a church.
But to those of you who believe Rome is a church, the Reformers always seem to qualify their statement that Rome is a church. And the difference they distinguished between the Reformed church and the popish wasn't merely that they were both churches but the reformed was better, that the reformed had more truth and popish more error, but they seem to be saying that Rome was a true church but a different kind then the Reformed. Well, my question is what kind of church is Rome?
One view expressed on the PB is that the Church of Rome lost whatever claim it had to be a church by denouncing the gospel at Trent. The argument is, I think, that prior to Trent the RCC abuses were not 'official' and that the gospel could survive w/in her despite being burried under superstition. But when the council codified heresy she essentially made believing the truth illegal and thus cut herself off from the body of Christ. In Joseph's and Andrew's link Beza in his catechism uses the Jewish apostacy analogy in some form and says that the corrupted Jewish church was cut off when circumcision ceased to be the sign of the covenant. And he seems to make baptism the note (essential mark?) of the church so he defends Rome as a church.
But to those of you who believe Rome is a church, the Reformers always seem to qualify their statement that Rome is a church. And the difference they distinguished between the Reformed church and the popish wasn't merely that they were both churches but the reformed was better, that the reformed had more truth and popish more error, but they seem to be saying that Rome was a true church but a different kind then the Reformed. Well, my question is what kind of church is Rome?
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Please pardon my tone. It was written in some frustration given that no one so far has been willing to interact with the Reformers and Puritans. Thank you for responding graciously and for interacting with my argument.
I have read Thornwell's arguments and I have read your arguments. I will respond briefly to your points. I appreciate your courtesy very much.
My church adheres to the 1646 Confession. The fact that the majority of American Presbyterian churches have repudiated certain points in that Confession has, I think, opened the door for a mistaken view (first suggested by Thornwell as far as I know) to rejecting the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms.
Clearly the Confession says that the Pope exalts himself in the church against God. Therefore the Pope (also identified by the Confession as Antichrist) must be in the Church in some sense, according to the Westminster Assembly. In what sense? Well, I think my comparison with the Pharisees and scribes who sat in the seat of Moses and yet were called hypocrites and vipers by Jesus helps to shed light on how it is that the candlestick can be taken away from a church that has fallen, and yet that church is still considered part of God's visible church, though a very synagogue of Satan. I admit it sounds strange and there is a deep mystery here, but nevertheless, that was the view of the Reformers and Puritans, and those who prepared the Westminster Confession, and Thornwell's radical departure from that view is unpersuasive to me.
I did not mean to suggest that the Mass = the Lord's Supper in any way. It is idolatrous. I only meant to refer to the aspect of the ordination of Roman Catholic ministers and the sacrament of baptism.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Peter has raised a good point though about Judaism. Eventually, they rejected the Messiah and were cut off and are no longer considered part of the people of God (unless they beleived and joined the Church). At what point do we say that about Rome?
BrianLanier
Puritan Board Freshman
I think that is a good analogy. And I think it is telling that their cutting off turned around them rejecting the Messiah. Parallel that to Rome in the council of Trent in essence rejecting the Messiah and I think you have a good point. This is helpful contra Andrew's analogy to the Scribes and Pharisees because at the time Judaism had not been cut off for their ulitmate rejection of the Messiah.
BrianLanier
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote
My church adheres to the 1646 Confession. The fact that the majority of American Presbyterian churches have repudiated certain points in that Confession has, I think, opened the door for a mistaken view (first suggested by Thornwell as far as I know) to rejecting the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms.
Clearly the Confession says that the Pope exalts himself in the church against God. Therefore the Pope (also identified by the Confession as Antichrist) must be in the Church in some sense, according to the Westminster Assembly. In what sense? Well, I think my comparison with the Pharisees and scribes who sat in the seat of Moses and yet were called hypocrites and vipers by Jesus helps to shed light on how it is that the candlestick can be taken away from a church that has fallen, and yet that church is still considered part of God's visible church, though a very synagogue of Satan. I admit it sounds strange and there is a deep mystery here, but nevertheless, that was the view of the Reformers and Puritans, and those who prepared the Westminster Confession, and Thornwell's radical departure from that view is unpersuasive to me.
[/quote]
I think using the 1646 rendering here is not helpful to make the case that Rome is still part of the church, since as you've admitted, most american Presbyterians don't hold to that part.
I think the analogy of the Scribes and Pharisees breaks down (see my previous post to Patrick and Peter).
I also think you're equivocating on the phrase "in the church". One the one hand he (the pope) is "in the church" (locative) and on the other hand he is "in the church" (part of it). I think this is where the error is. In somewhat of the same way Antiochus Epiphanes was "in the temple" (locative) at the abomination of desolation, he was not "in the temple" (part of it).
My church adheres to the 1646 Confession. The fact that the majority of American Presbyterian churches have repudiated certain points in that Confession has, I think, opened the door for a mistaken view (first suggested by Thornwell as far as I know) to rejecting the validity of Roman Catholic baptisms.
Clearly the Confession says that the Pope exalts himself in the church against God. Therefore the Pope (also identified by the Confession as Antichrist) must be in the Church in some sense, according to the Westminster Assembly. In what sense? Well, I think my comparison with the Pharisees and scribes who sat in the seat of Moses and yet were called hypocrites and vipers by Jesus helps to shed light on how it is that the candlestick can be taken away from a church that has fallen, and yet that church is still considered part of God's visible church, though a very synagogue of Satan. I admit it sounds strange and there is a deep mystery here, but nevertheless, that was the view of the Reformers and Puritans, and those who prepared the Westminster Confession, and Thornwell's radical departure from that view is unpersuasive to me.
[/quote]
I think using the 1646 rendering here is not helpful to make the case that Rome is still part of the church, since as you've admitted, most american Presbyterians don't hold to that part.
I think the analogy of the Scribes and Pharisees breaks down (see my previous post to Patrick and Peter).
I also think you're equivocating on the phrase "in the church". One the one hand he (the pope) is "in the church" (locative) and on the other hand he is "in the church" (part of it). I think this is where the error is. In somewhat of the same way Antiochus Epiphanes was "in the temple" (locative) at the abomination of desolation, he was not "in the temple" (part of it).
R.C. Church today
It is important, nay, necessary to understand the R.C.C. today in addition to what it was like during the time of the reformers. I have to admit that I have not read much of what the reformers had to say about the R.C.C. But for those that came out of Catholicism, I can undestand if there were sympathies. I left the R.C.C. at age 18. My entire family culture identifies itself through its R.C. ties. I pray that my family members would come to faith in Christ and be liberated from Roman false teaching. Would it be that a second reformation would sweep through the R.C.C. and change it from within. But that would be wishful thinking.
The R.C.C. has its distant roots in correct biblical doctrine. It has long since abandoned that position. In my humble opinion, it is now as heretical as LDS and Jehovah's Witness theology. This being said, I cannot see how the R.C.C. can be part of the true catholic church.
It is important, nay, necessary to understand the R.C.C. today in addition to what it was like during the time of the reformers. I have to admit that I have not read much of what the reformers had to say about the R.C.C. But for those that came out of Catholicism, I can undestand if there were sympathies. I left the R.C.C. at age 18. My entire family culture identifies itself through its R.C. ties. I pray that my family members would come to faith in Christ and be liberated from Roman false teaching. Would it be that a second reformation would sweep through the R.C.C. and change it from within. But that would be wishful thinking.
The R.C.C. has its distant roots in correct biblical doctrine. It has long since abandoned that position. In my humble opinion, it is now as heretical as LDS and Jehovah's Witness theology. This being said, I cannot see how the R.C.C. can be part of the true catholic church.
Andrew,
To be honest, I believe that this is an instance of inconsistency that the Reformers and Puritans lived with (and propogated) to avoid the ugliness of either appearing to be like the anabaptists or to require baptisms of a large portion of the population.
For what it is worth, I share your frustration. Why? Because I have asked a question about Calvin, giving quotes that show a clear inconsistency on this board several times, as well as many internet fora, and never once received a response. Not just not a good response; any response.
Maybe you would be willing to try:
First, Calvin states that it is unlawful to depart from a true church:
That seems pretty clear to me. Calvin says that it is unlawful to depart from a true church. So the obvious question is, how can Calvin depart from Rome?
Calvin's answer is found when he said in regard to the Roman Church that it is not a true church and therefore departure from her is warranted:
Now that is odd, at least to me. Calvin is clearly saying that one of the two sacraments is not a sacrament when performed by Rome. What makes baptism lawful and the Supper not? For Calvin, it appears from the above that the only evidence Rome gives of being a church is baptism. Not the Supper, not preaching, not government, not authority, not any obligation to remain in communion with them. This strikes me as a bit too convenient. If the issue were merely the "true but marred church" then why is the Supper a "foulest sacrilege?"
So the problem for Calvin (in my opinion here) is that he is in the position of saying to one baptized in the Roman church that it is fine, and it is valid, but that you are under an obligation the very next moment to flee from Rome, since it has no marks of a church - preaching, discipline and sacraments (see again the first quote)
I'm sorry, but here I think the Reformers were products of their age.
BrianLanier
Puritan Board Freshman
This is exactly what I am saying. Thank you Fred!
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I think using the 1646 rendering here is not helpful to make the case that Rome is still part of the church, since as you've admitted, most american Presbyterians don't hold to that part.
I think the analogy of the Scribes and Pharisees breaks down (see my previous post to Patrick and Peter).
I also think you're equivocating on the phrase "in the church". One the one hand he (the pope) is "in the church" (locative) and on the other hand he is "in the church" (part of it). I think this is where the error is. In somewhat of the same way Antiochus Epiphanes was "in the temple" (locative) at the abomination of desolation, he was not "in the temple" (part of it). [/quote]
I fail to see how my argument is undermined by the American revisions to the Confession when I am not appealing to them in the slightest. I think they are erroneous. I am appealing to the work of the Westminster Assembly which I believe is representative of the historic Reformed teaching on the nature of the Church of Rome, not to the American Presbyterian church at large which I think has in good measure departed from the historic Reformed faith.
Moreover, if the entire American Presbyterian Church until Thornwell's day held to this view, that would seem to make your argument moot.
Antichrist -- according to Scripture -- must reside within the Church (see 2 Thess. 2.4) (this of course is based on the standard historic Reformed understanding of "temple of God" as used in this context, see this thread). I believe along with the 1646 Confession that the Pope was and is Antichrist in fulfillment of this passage (I have discussed this in numerous other threads), and thus I believe that there remains within the heart of the Papacy some vestige of the true temple of God, while the Church of Rome itself has for nearly 500 years departed from the true faith. It is said of the Jews (who all here grant to be cut off from the true church) that the "gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom. 11.29). The Jews hardened against the Messiah though they are, and outside the true church until they embrace him by faith, yet are still said to be part of God's people in some sense, and will be gathered in to the fold again in some future day. If this is true of the Jews, why should it be thought strange that the church from whence the Protestant church was born should yet though clearly apostate retain a vestige of true Christianity? Thus, though Rome is Babylon spoken of in Rev. 18, yet the voice from heaven (v. 4) tells God's people to come out of her before he destroys her, all of which is yet to take place.
- Status
