Chapter 3

Two Great Divisions

Structure

Among the Christian world, the two great divisions are Catholic and Protestant. In some ways they seem alike and in other ways they are very very different. I am not a Catholic so I hope my Catholic friends will find my description of them accurate. I will do my best.

Perhaps the biggest difference is structure. The Catholic church is VERY structured at every level. The various churches are connected to a diocese which in turn is linked to the "mother church" in an intricate web covering the entire world. There are local priests and nuns who report to superiors of various titles connected to cardinals who report to the Pope. He in turn wears a triple crown and claims the three part title of "King of Heaven, King of Earth, and King of the Underworld". In short it is very much a hierarchy with the Pope claiming the very top.

Protestants on the other hand are anything but structured. They are divided into so many splinters, factions, and bewildering groups that to categorize them can be challenging. I will attempt that eventually, but first lets take another look at Catholics to see how they differ from protestants in general. This will help in our later attempts to analyze protestants.

Infallibility

The Catholic position on authority is linked closely to the issue of structure. They claim that when the Pope speaks "ex-cathedra", literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman Pontiff or Pope, he is infallible.

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv

Additionally, when certain councils make pronouncements they too can speak ex-cathedra and the number of those instances actually exceed the number of times the Pope has done so. It is less widely understood, but even the local priest, when speaking during mass, is also I believe speaking ex-cathedra and is infallible. The ramifications of this in light of certain scandals of late, I leave to the reader to ponder.

Popes Hadrian VI, Innocent III, Clement IV, Gregory XI, Paul IV and several others have rejected the notion of infallibility. Can someone have infallibility and not know it? And what about the famous trial of Pope Formosus by Pope Steven. The most astonishing thing about the trial was that the trial was not held in absentia, and that Formosus had been dead for eight months. His rotting corps was dressed in splendid robes, crowned and placed on a chair with his staff in hand. He was then questioned closely by Pope Steven while the smell of his corps filled the hall. Since he was unable to make any defense in this condition, the outcome of the trial was never in doubt. Ultimately they had the fingers he had used to make the apostolic blessing hacked off, then he was stripped of his clothes and jewelry, dragged through the streets of Rome, and finally tossed into the Tiber river.

These items of historical record only lightly highlight the problems of infallibility. History is filled with other cases of Popes apposing each other. Modern Catholics in response are quick to narrow the meaning of ex-cathedra to the point that it almost never happens. It must always involve doctrine. Yet how can a man be so very fallible in every other area of life and infallible when it comes to doctrine? Pope Honorious I was declared a heretic after his death by the sixth council in 680 A.D. and this was later confirmed by Pope Leo. Pope Vigilius condemned certain books and their teachings, later retracted his condemnation, condemned them again, retracted his condemnation again, and ultimately finally condemned them. Perhaps had he lived longer we would have seen another round in this "infallible" circus.

Curiously, the church does not seem to keep record of the number of infallible statements however, and perhaps for good reason. Many beliefs of the past such as a flat earth, the question of the sun orbiting the earth or vice versa, resulted in terrible controversy. The experience of Galileo who was forced to recant some of his discoveries or face ex-communication, torture, and death come to mind.

These types of abuses of the concept of infallibility were made self evident with the dawn of science. In the cold light of truth backed up by experiment with observable, reproducible proofs, science proved conclusively to most reasonable people that some of these beliefs needed to be adjusted in the very least. The question of whether the sun orbited the earth or vice versa seems silly to us today but it was so deeply embedded at the time that the Pope must have felt he was on very safe ground to make "infallible" statements about it then. This is one "infallible" positions the church would have liked to forget but it received far too much notoriety. Eventually the church to maintain any credibility at all was forced recently to issue a statement reversing there position on Galileo and effectively apologizing for the whole affair.

At least one modern pope, John XXIII, while not renouncing infallibility, refused to make any ex-cathedra statements. Protestants in general make no claims of infallibility and therefor neatly avoid the issue completely.

Authority

Closely linked to the concept of infallibility is the belief in authority. Who is the final arbiter of doctrinal disputes? To whom does one turn to for explanation of belief? If the person at the top is infallible, the simple answer is that no matter what the belief is, the man at the top defines it. Catholics are not supposed to read the Bible and derive beliefs from it on their own.

During the middle ages there were times when Bibles were chained to the buildings and only certain priests were allowed to read them at all. The church would argue that at the time, prior to the printing press, Bibles were hand copied and very valuable. Theft prevention alone was the reason for chains. This excuse sounds somewhat hollow in the face of later instances of mass burnings of confiscated scriptures, and the restrictions on who could read them.

With the onset of the printing press, Bibles became so widespread that eventually the church could not stop people from owning one even though they had tried. In the face of widespread availability, the church has steadfastly maintained the position of supreme authority to interpret what the Bible teaches.

The Role of the Priest

Another central belief is the role of the priest. I know of no other Christian denomination where the power of the priest or pastor has so much power,(although Lutherans and Episcopalians come close). In Roman Catholicism the priests possess extraordinary power. He sits in confessional and has the power to forgive sins. Without his authority no marriage is considered valid. (Although Pope Hadrian II 867 A.D. – 872 A.D. taught that civil marriages were legitimate, this was reversed by the "infallible" teaching of Pope Pius VII 1800-1823).

The priest also has the god-like power to create his Creator when during the mass when he says "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM" With these words spoken by the priest, the Catholic is taught the wafer of bread turns into the true body of Jesus. When he says "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI" these words, the Catholic is taught that the wine turns into the true blood of Jesus Christ. So Catholics are actually taught that the priest has it in his power to transform bread and wine into God! No where that I know of in Protestantism is this held as true. An anonymous poem from the middle ages skewers this belief. I have included it in Appendix A

The Role of Law

Closely linked to these main beliefs, Hierarchy, Infallibility, Authority, and the absolute power of the priest, is another very important belief, the ability to change God's Law. We have a phrase in English "graven in stone" to indicate an unchangeable position. If you open the Bible to Exodus 20 and read the entire list of commandments as originally written with God's own finger, and then compare it to the list of commandments written in a Catholic Catechism, you will find marked differences. If you lack a Catechism but have an internet connection, simply go the Vatican website:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/css/archive/catechism/command.htm

and read their list of the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, they provide a side by side comparison between what is listed in the Bible and how they have changed it. No attempt is made to minimize the glaring omissions and outright changes.

Careful examination and comparison with Ex.20, will reveal that originally there was a complete prohibition on graven images in Commandment #2. This command was so unambiguously stated that it defies church interpretation in any other way than complete prohibition. In the Catechism it is completely removed. To maintain the number, the tenth commandment forbidding covetousness was split and an artificial distinction made between coveting the neighbors wife, and coveting anything else.

Another marked change in the law is the alteration of the commandment regarding worship and time. The original commandment defined a very specific time when God wanted worship and rest with His people. It also defined this time as "Holy". Who has the right to make anything holy is a very important question.

Although the protestant world in general objects to the wholesale removal of a commandment, as in the case of the second, in general they have not appeared to mind the changes in the 4^th. As far as the Catholic church is concerned these changes have been made and she makes no apology for doing so. As a mark of her authority she points to the nearly universal acceptance of the tampering with the 4^th to justify the removal of the second and the splitting of the 10^th. The prediction of Daniel in Dan.7:25 of a beast power who would "think to change times and laws" is ignored by Catholics and most Protestants alike.

The Role of Mary

Perhaps the most recent evolution in Catholic doctrine over the last 2000 years is the concept of the role of Mary as the "co-redemptrix". The Marian Dogmas as they are known, elevate the station of Mary to "Mediatrix" and finally to "Co-redemptrix".

"Can we add to the title Mediatrix that of co-redemptrix? In the light of the above, the answer is affirmative."

To see the above quote in context at their own website, click on this link on the internet, Papal Theologian Affirms Mary To Be Co-redeemer! , or type it in (http://zenit.org/article-17236?l=english)

The current Pope, Benedict XVI, as recent as August 15th, 2007 in his Angelus message made the following assertion:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Today, we are celebrating the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is an ancient feast deeply rooted in Sacred Scripture: indeed, it presents the Virgin Mary closely united to her divine Son and ever supportive of him.

Mother and Son appear closely bound in the fight against the infernal enemy until they completely defeat him. This victory is expressed in particular in overcoming sin and death, that is, in triumphing over the enemies which St Paul always presents as connected (cf. Rom 5: 12, 15-21; I Cor 15: 21-26).

Therefore, just as Christ's glorious Resurrection was the definitive sign of this victory, so Mary's glorification in her virginal body is the ultimate confirmation of her total solidarity with the Son, both in the conflict and in victory. ...

The Scriptures make absolutely NO mention about the end of Mary's life, her death or burial, much less her alleged glorious assumption into heaven. Yet we are told that this infallible de fide doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is "deeply rooted in Sacred Scripture: ...", O.K. where? And where is Mary "closely bound [with her Son] in the fight against the infernal enemy until they completely defeat him." How can scripture be silent on such teaching, yet be "infallibly" declared the "ultimate confirmation", asserted to be "deeply rooted in Sacred Scripture"? Most protestants will quickly counter with the scripture :

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12 KJV

Scripture also never elevated Mary to Divinity status. It DID predict a power that would arise who would teach men of "a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. Dan. 11:38"

Tradition

The Catholic church places much emphasis on "Holy Tradition". I have seen banners on Catholic hospitals with bold letters three feet tall, telling the world the importance of "Holy Tradition". Given the previous stance on authority, infallibility, etc. that we have just outlined, and given also the apparent acceptance of at least some of that across the Christian world for thousands of years now, they might appear to be on safe ground. However the true test of time sometimes takes a long time to play out and the Bible is chock full of stories about people certain of their beliefs who later were proven to be tragically wrong. Perhaps this is why Protestants came to reject the safety of the fold so to speak, and set out to find another path.