Forty-eight rubies, seventy-two sapphires, forty-five emeralds, sixty-six large pearls–according to reports, this was the papal crown that Pope Boniface the VIII wore on his head. It was the start of the 14th century and the (earthly) power of the church and the pope were at its height. In 1300, Boniface proclaimed a Holy Year, a Jubilee. The Pope offered a plenary indulgence–a full pardon for sins–for all who made the pilgrimage to the churches of St. Peter or St. Paul in Rome. The Jubilee was a huge commercial success.
But all was not well in the Empire. King Edward I of England and Philip IV of France were at odds with one another over a land dispute. To finance their war efforts, both kings considered taxing the clergy within their kingdoms. In the pope’s mind, however, only the church could tax the clergy. Philip persisted that he had the authority to tax Boniface’s church. The pope replied, in 1302, by issuing the papal bull Unam Sanctam. The word “bull” comes from the Latin word bulla which referred to the boiled seal that would be placed on official papal documents. Papal bull’s are always titled by the first words of the document. This one was called Unam Sanctam (“The One Holy”) as in “the only holy catholic church.” Unam Sanctam represented the farthest reaching power the Pope has ever claimed for the church.
Although Catholic historians and theologians debate the continuing significance of certain portions of the bull (especially the part about the church wielding the physical sword and temporal authority being subject to spiritual authority), there is no doubt that Unam Sanctam sowed the seeds for a Reformation revolt two centuries later. Anyone wanting to protect the final authority of the Bible and wary of entrusting absolute authority in any human office or human institution will want to protest the claim made in Unam Sanctam:
For this [spiritual] authority, although given to a man and exercised by a man, is not human, but rather divine, given at God’s mouth to Peter and established on a rock for him and his successors in Him whom he confessed. . . .Whoever therefore resists this power thus ordained of God, resists the ordinance of God. . . .Furthermore, we declare, state, and define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.
Our baptismal liturgy in the RCA has the minister baptize “in the name of Jesus Christ, the only King and Head of his Church.” I love that line, not least of all because it rightly professes that there is only one head of Christ’s Church. There are many shepherds, but only one papa (the Latin word from which pope is derived). The church’s authority is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, and her servants wield apostolic authority only in so far as they remain true to the apostolic deposit. God rules by his word and where that word is compromised or denied, obedience is not only not required, it must not be given.
While we can affirm many things about each other and enjoy warm relationships with those on the other side of the Protestant-Catholic divide, the deepest cleavage still remains. The Reformation happened, and continues to this day, because millions of Christians like me believe sola scriptura not Unam Sanctam.
A few points of clarification:
“The Pope offered a plenary indulgence–a full pardon for sins [. . .].” Not exactly. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org), a plenary indulgence is “the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory.” In Catholic theology, penance, not indulgences, does away with the guilt incurred by sin — and penance “is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ.” Not the Pope. Obviously there’s still plenty to disagree with here, if you’re a Protestant, but saying that “the Pope offered a full pardon for sins” leaves out important details and makes Catholics sound prima facie unbiblical when in fact they’re not.
“Anyone [. . .] wary of entrusting absolute authority in any human office or human institution [. . .].” Although obviously from the Protestant perspective the Catholic Church is a human institution, its own claim is that it is not. So when Protestants object to it and say, “But it’s bad to entrust absolute authority in a human institution,” Catholics would completely agree, and say, “That’s why we need the divine institution of the Church with infallible authority to define dogma.” Unlike, perhaps, some Protestant denominations, whose confessions are often treated as if they’re infallible in practice, even if they’re not in theory.
Also, I don’t know if it’s quite fair to justify a continued split from the Catholic Church based on a model of the papacy which is no longer current (Benedict isn’t exactly trying to rule Europe these days) and by referencing the practice of indulgences, the abuses of which the Church recognized and corrected. The Catholic Church of 1300 is not the same as the Catholic Church after Trent or as the Catholic Church of today. (I do know the title says “one reason,” not “the only reason” or “primary reason.”)
Disclaimer: I’m a Protestant and a regular reader here, not a Catholic.
The bottom line is the is a real difference in the understanding of how one is saved. The current Pope may not be the same as the one mentioned but nether has he reputed any of the major differences that divide the those who are reformed adherents and those who are Catholic. I had a lovely Catholic woman tell me point blank that regardless of my faith in Christ , her priest told her apart from the Church there is no salvation . Then there is the mass,the treasury of merit , Marian dogma etc… No the reformation is as valid as it was when it began.
Kevin –
it always fills up my heart to glory in our One sovereign Lord over all, Jesus Christ. I wonder, in light of this, could you (or have you already) speak to what some have dubbed ‘crossing over the Tiber’ by which they mean evangelicals either going back to or converting to RC? I have no doubt at all that we have many brothers and sisters in the RC church, but surely, only so far as they rightly understand Christ’s work on their behalf. Have you seen this trend at all or heard of it? Apparently, Mike Horton has already commented on the issue, but it seems relevant to this posting in light of Scriptures like say Hebrews 6:4-8. Love to know your thoughts.
God’s peace.
We sometimes hear of high profile evangelicals becoming Roman Catholic. Though I strongly disagree with the conversion/defection, I don’t question the salvation of those I’ve heard of who have made this move. It seems to me they retain (inconsistently perhaps) much of their evangelical heritage. We should note, however, that overall the Catholic church loses far more of its members to evangelical churches than the other way around. Most evangelical churches, especially larger congregations, have dozens or hundreds of members who grew up Catholic.
I’ve been reading a lot of Catholic apologetics sites lately. There are some valid points made by these apologists against some of the bedrock principles of the Reformation, namely, sola scriptura and the question of interpretive authority.
Now, I’m not quite ready to sign the dotted line, so to speak, but I have yet to come across any substantive response to their charges, most notably, that sola scriptura is not a doctrine taught in scripture or by any of the early church fathers, many of whom were thoroughly Catholic (i’m thinking of St. Augustine, here, and his ‘Roma locuta est, causa finita est’).
Anyhow, I enjoy your blog, Kevin.
Is the reformation over???
Here’s another reason
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/us-diocese-asked-to-rehabilitate-pelagius-the-church-of-england-newspaper-oct-28-2011-p-7/
Slight correction. In the RCA we do not baptize in the name of Jesus, the king and head of the church. We baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in obedience to the Lord’s command. Rather, in the name of Jesus, we declare the baptized one to be a member of the church, engaged to confess the faith of Christ to his/ her life’s end. Might seem small to some, but those who prize orthodoxy would not baptize in Jesus’ name.
When all have been baptized, the minister may make the following declaration:
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
the only King and Head of the Church,
this child/these children of God is/are now
received into the visible membership of the holy catholic Church,
engaged to confess the faith of Christ, and
to be God’s faithful servant/s until life’s end.
Here is an interesting quote from Spurgeon, below. I am not saying I totally agree with secondary seperation, but it is something to think soberly about. After all, God tells us “And have no FELLOWSHIP with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them (Eph 5:11).”
“Complicity with error will take from the best of men the power to enter any successful protest against it. It is our solemn conviction that where there can be no real spiritual communion there should be no pretense of fellowship. FELLOWSHIP WITH KNOWN AND VITAL ERROR IS PARTICIPATION IN SIN. As soon as I saw, or thought I saw, that error had become firmly established, I did not deliberate, but quitted the body at once. Since then my counsel has been ‘Come out from among them.’ I have felt that no protest could be equal to that of distinct separation from known evil. That I might not stultify my testimony I HAVE CUT MYSELF CLEAR OF THOSE WHO ERR FROM THE FAITH, AND EVEN FROM THOSE WHO ASSOCIATE WITH THEM.”
I just heard the most amazing teaching on the last days. I have been a Christian for over 30 years and I am blown away by the way this preacher proves the Bible, by NO DOUBT, to be true using Biblical Scripture alone. I also loved the knowledge he had on biblical and secular history. People are always saying they want a modern day prophet, they don’t need it. All we need is someone who can teach the Bible correctly. I am so glad I stumbled upon this ministry. If any of you are interested on the what is going on in the world and how it ties in to the last days and scripture you should definitely check out http://www.teachingfaith.com. I am glad I did!!
Ok, I’ll bite..
“God rules by his word and where that word is compromised or denied, obedience is not only not required, it must not be given.”
Where is this in scripture?
Rider of Rohan, that Augustine quote is a paraphrase and probably does not have all the weight commonly attributed to it: http://vintage.aomin.org/Sermo131.html
Here’s another point though: even though this pronouncement is extreme, what happened later on was even more extreme: i.e. the idea that the Pope was really above Scripture (which this pronouncment does not say directly).
Just wrote on this:
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/reformation-history-what-would-you-have-done/
Rider of Rohan,
This might help you out a bit: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/my-reply-to-rc-apologist-dave-armstrong-regarding-his-examination-of-martin-chemnitzs-examination/
Dave responded to me on his site and I just released my second response to him, which he has said he will answer as well:
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/round-2-with-rc-apologist-dave-armstrong-the-unattractive-body-of-christ/