At one time, the Pope was more a leader of a party than a church

Dr. Lucas observes the grim truth about the Pope’s recent statement, at least true of the Post-reformational Church associated with the Roman Pontiff.

(Though I don’t see why this couldn’t change in principle; there is free will involved and the Pope could have embraced some change rather than resisting it).

But we should remember this was not always the case. Arguably, in fact, this was not the case when Luther began stirring up trouble. This was probably my most shocking discovery reading Roland Baintan’s Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. Here is something I wrote in a blog post that has been lost (my wordpress port skipped a month). I wrote:

one of the great things about Bainton’s book was how it shows that Luther started a furor not for saying anything new, but for simply stating what he thought was already understood as basic fact. When he pointed out that the Church had not always been ruled by a Pope, he thought he was simply pointing out what he and others had always known about history. When Eck accused him of being a Hussite, Luther was shocked and visited the local university library. There to his great alarm he found that the Council had condemned the basic Augustinian orthodoxy that he and others had been taught and taught themselves. It was a sudden revelation that these basic doctrines and undeniable facts of history [i.e. the Pope had not always had the power that he now had] were somehow controversial that shocked him and forced him into the role as Reformer. He either had to lie about what he had always known was true, or else he had to risk his life and deny Papal revisionism.

Of course, I’m not denying some form of papal authority was acknowledged. What I’m saying is that the Popes had been working to increase that authority and one of their tools were trials. “Heretics” were not threats to the church but opportunities to change the church in the name of defending it. The Pope had some prestige and power which, properly “invested” could only increase. Accuse someone of heresy, stack a committee, send out the inquisition, and set a precedent.

But, of course, in a Church covering Western Europe with limited communication and travel, the value of a precedent takes time to be felt. When Luther stood before Eck he could recite the true Catholic Faith which he fervently believed.

As for the article of Hus that “it is not necessary for salvation to believe the Roman Church superior to all others” I do not care whether this comes fro Wyclif or from Hus. I know that innumerable Greeks have been saved though they never heard this article. It is not in the power of the Roman pontiff or of the Inquisition to construct new articles of faith. No believing Christian can be coerced beyond holy writ” (Roland Baintan, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther [Nashville: Abingdon Press] p. 89).

When you hear statements from Roman Catholics like the recent one from the present Pope, you need to realize that in a sense, we have Luther to thank. Luther gave the Pope a rallying point.

On the other hand, it was gradually getting worse so Luther had to take a stand. Many people act as if we should measure the factors leading to the Reformation by looking at various heroes who taught certain things. But that may not be as significant as the ongoing quest for power on the part of Popes and their followers. The Reformation is arguably not the result of Christians refusing to submit as much as of rulers trying to increase their control over others.

It backfired, in a way, though the Papacy was left with a much more loyal remnant within its organization.

By the way, below is the original post I mentioned.

Galatians 3.8: Gospel = “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

In Augustine’s pastoral opposition to the Donatists, he made it clear that the very nature of the Gospel was at stake and he used Paul’s letter to the Galatians to prove it. He wrote to his friend Generosus:

Since you were pleased to acquaint us with the letter sent to you by a Donatist presbyter, although, with the spirit of a true Catholic, you regarded it with contempt, nevertheless, to aid you in seeking his welfare if his folly be not incurable, we beg you to forward to him the following reply. He wrote that an angel had enjoined him to declare to you the episcopal succession of the Christianity of your town; to you, forsooth, who hold the Christianity not of your own town only, nor of Africa only, but of the whole world, the Christianity which has been published, and is now published to all nations. This proves that they think it a small matter that they themselves are not ashamed of being cut off, and are taking no measures, while they may, to be engrafted anew; they are not content unless they do their utmost to cut others off, and bring them to share their own fate, as withered branches fit for the flames. Wherefore, even if you had yourself been visited by that angel whom he affirms to have appeared to him — a statement which we regard as a cunning fiction; and if the angel had said to you the very words which he, on the warrant of the alleged command, repeated to you — even in that case it would have been your duty to remember the words of the apostle: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” For to you it was proclaimed by the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, that His “gospel shall be preached unto all nations, and then shall the end come.” To you it has moreover been proclaimed by the writings of the prophets and of the apostles, that the promises were given to Abraham and to his seed, which is Christ, when God said unto him: “In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed.” Having then such promises, if an angel from heaven were to say to thee, “Let go the Christianity of the whole earth, and cling to the faction of Donatus, the episcopal succession of which is set forth in a letter of their bishop in your town,” he ought to be accursed in your estimation; because he would be endeavouring to cut you off from the whole Church, and thrust you into a small party, and make you forfeit your interest in the promises of God.

While Augustine directly quotes Galatians 1.8 and 3.16, the quotation of Genesis 15 is also anchored in Galatians as well: And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” As Augustine understands it, reducing the Church to a small sect within it is a different Gospel because the content of the Gospel preached to Abraham was a promise of redemption to all nations. The Gospel, in a significant sense, simply is the declaration that all nations are to be blessed in Christ.

While Luther may not have understood in the same way how the content of the Gospel emphasized his position, he covered substantially the same ground in his debate with Dr. Eck:

As for the article of Hus that “it is not necessary for salvation to believe the Roman Church superior to all others” I do not care whether this comes fro Wyclif or from Hus. I know that innumerable Greeks have been saved though they never heard this article. It is not in the power of the Roman pontiff or of the Inquisition to construct new articles of faith. No believing Christian can be coerced beyond holy writ” (Roland Baintan, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther [Nashville: Abingdon Press] p. 89).

Luther viewed it as simply unthinkable that salvation could be restricted only to Western churches. Such an outcome, to his mind, proved that the primacy of Rome cannot be a required belief for salvation. He goes on in his reply to Eck to (wrongly) guess that the record of the council which condemned Huss must have been corrupted. No council would really accuse someone for saying that, would they?

(By the way, one of the great things about Bainton’s book was how it shows that Luther started a furor not for saying anything new, but for simply stating what he thought was already understood as basic fact. When he pointed out that the Church had not always been ruled by a Pope, he thought he was simply pointing out what he and others had always known about history. When Eck accused him of being a Hussite, Luther was shocked and visited the local university library. There to his great alarm he found that the Council had condemned the basic Augustinian orthodoxy that he and others had been taught and taught themselves. It was a sudden revelation that these basic doctrines and undeniable facts of history [i.e. the Pope had not always had the power that he now had] were somehow controversial that shocked him and forced him into the role as Reformer. He either had to lie about what he had always known was true, or else he had to risk his life and deny Papal revisionism.)

I think it should be self-evident that claiming contradiction between Augustine and Luther would be superficial at best. Just because the Donatists had opposed the Roman Church in Augustine’s day means nothing. The Pope had become the monarchial Donatist by the fifteen hundreds. Augustine and Luther were both appealing to the same principle and both defending the Gospel.

One thought on “At one time, the Pope was more a leader of a party than a church

  1. Pingback: Mark Horne » Blog Archive » How Luther was the Father of the Tridentines; and the FV is the parent of the new PCA

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *