Habemus Papam - A Presbyterian reflects on the one who is the Head of the Church

Status
Not open for further replies.
The intention is good; the rhetoric is stirring; the theme is excellent; the doctrine is the infallible truth of Scripture; but the history might need a little work. Luther's break with the Papacy is generally regarded as a complex and gradual development. Puritanism is usually traced back to the Marian exile. And covenanting martyrs predate 1680 by many years.
 
The intention is good; the rhetoric is stirring; the theme is excellent; the doctrine is the infallible truth of Scripture; but the history might need a little work. Luther's break with the Papacy is generally regarded as a complex and gradual development. Puritanism is usually traced back to the Marian exile. And covenanting martyrs predate 1680 by many years.

Well, 4 out of 5 isn't too bad. :p

Regarding my history:
Luther's break - true, it was gradual. (I placed what I believed were clues to that effect in my narrative, I must not have been clear enough.) My understanding of history was that the Leipzig Debate is where it became clear that papal supremacy was "the problem" and signaled a definite turning point.
Puritanism - everything I've ever read places them after the ascension of Elizabeth I to the throne. Could you point me to something that might contradict this?
Covenanting Martyrs - true. But my point wasn't the entire period in which covenanters were martyred, I wanted to focus on "The Killing Time" of which, 1680-1688 are the generally accepted parameters. Am I off on my understanding of the parameters of The Killing Time?

Regardless, thank you for checking out my site.
 
Thankyou for your patient reply. The point about Luther relates to the statement that he "suddenly understood." I can see why it would be stated that way for rhetorical effect but I generally think it is good to let history get in the way of a good story, especially if the history is serving the purpose of highlighting the importance of biblical doctrine. I'm not sure what you have read about Puritanism, or what definition you are working with, but the Prayer Book conflict at Frankfort, otherwise known as the Knox/Coxe controversy, is regularly cited for the purpose of showing the distinct parties which would later emerge with respect to the Elizabethan Settlement. The Killing Times, technically, is '85; often times '84 is added; and sometimes it is used for a broader period, but it technically refers to the most cruel and intense persecution. The point there is that there was no "simmering" on the Presbyterians' part as they were already committed to die for their cause, and the tyrant never was "patient" since these faithful witnesses were being sentenced to death.
 
The Pope, the Vicar of Christ, is the Man of Sin.

Ben,
The Pope, the Vicar of Christ, is the Man of Sin. He has invented sin, he has taught sin, he has enticed sin, established iniquity by a law, he trades in sins and has grown rich through the sins of Christendom. Sin is the Pope’s work. Sin is the Pope’s being. Popery is the incarnation of sin as the Gospel is the incarnation of holiness. Many know I am an ex Roman catholic and am now a Reformed protestant. I am a communing member of the Presbyterian church. I Dudley Davis renounce the pope as the man of sin and Roman Catholic church as did the Protestants reformers . Only Christ Heads His church. I say Amen to your statement “Protestants celebrate that now, and forever, we have but one head of the body, that is the Church (Eph 4:15, 5:23), the risen Lord Jesus Christ (Col 1:18, 2:19).
Jesus Christ is himself reigning and ruling over his Body, working through fallible under shepherds to lead and feed his people. The purity of the faith, the peace of the church, the liberty of the conscience, and the glory of God are at stake.
Let us never forget that there is but one Head of the Church, and he reigns forever!”
 
I happen to know that the new pope, Pope Francis I, named himself for Frank Sinatra. This is too good to check, so don't. LOL
 
Thank you for your patient reply. The point about Luther relates to the statement that it was at the Leipzig debate that Luther
Ben's blog said:
"suddenly understood [the doctrine of papal authority is the linchpin that holds (Roman) Catholicism together" ].
I can see why it would be stated that way for rhetorical effect but I generally think it is good to let history get in the way of a good story, especially if the history is serving the purpose of highlighting the importance of biblical doctrine.

Can you refer us to any sources that definitely put the time that Luther came to his understanding of this point either earlier or later than this debate? Certainly the Leipzig debate forced him to reject papal and concilliar infallability, and I know that he definitely recognized that the pope was the RC linchpin by the time he wrote his 1520 pamphlet "The Babylonish Captivity of the Church." But I have never seen anything that narrows the possible timespan any further.
 
Can you refer us to any sources that definitely put the time that Luther came to his understanding of this point either earlier or later than this debate?

As far as I am aware, Luther's "realisation," with its influences and motivations, isn't revealed in his earlier writings. There are later writings in which he reflects on earlier developments, and historians like to debate the accuracy and value of these reflections. They also like to conjecture about the reformer's personal awakenings, but usually these conjectures are serving some other purpose. The idea that controversy pushed him into the realisation of sola scriptura is probably the most simplistic of explanations, but certainly does not do much to bring out his religious sincerity.
 
I went home and checked. My history is fine. Thanks for drawing my attention to possible alternative views, Matthew.
 
Thanks, Randy. But your link appears to address his belief in sola fide rather than his denunciation of papal authority. Maybe I misread something.
 
Didn't Luther come to a realisation that the Papacy was Anti-Christ soon after (1to2 years)
after the 95 thesis when he realised their total obstinate hardness against what he believed
was the simple gospel.that he thought he had been misunderstood,if only the pope understood
what he had written he thought he would not have opposed him but he came to see more &
more there non interest & opposition like when cajetan was sent to get a recantation,which
led down the road to the bull in 1520 he came to regard the pope & Papacy as the Antichrist

What we saw the other day was a continuation of the Scarlet Harlot/False Prophet making an Image of the
First Beast/Pagan Roman Caesar who's Head received the deadly wound,thus healing
the wound by making the first image speak by means of a restoration of the Roman Caesar in Papal Guise/Eight
Head of the Beast which is the Papacy. the beast that was,then wasn't,then was again that goes into Perdition.
 
Armourbearer's points are always well made, but I do like your piece, Ben. It may take the history at a gallop but sometimes that's an advantage! You end up with something good and pithy, as here :)
Only one sentence looks problematic:
Again, it seems whenever a mere mortal assumes the title “Head of the Church,” doctrinal corruption and biblical worship get suppressed.
Shouldn't that read something like "doctrinal corruption follows, and..." ?
Unless the thought is that doctrinal disagreement is suppressed?
 
Armourbearer's points are always well made, but I do like your piece, Ben. It may take the history at a gallop but sometimes that's an advantage! You end up with something good and pithy, as here :)
Only one sentence looks problematic:
Again, it seems whenever a mere mortal assumes the title “Head of the Church,” doctrinal corruption and biblical worship get suppressed.
Shouldn't that read something like "doctrinal corruption follows, and..." ?
Unless the thought is that doctrinal disagreement is suppressed?

Doh! My point was that both doctrinal corruption (occurs) AND biblical worship gets suppressed.
Thank you for pointing it out!
 
Last edited:
I can't remember who said it, but one of the Scots Presbyterians said of the Act of Supremacy that England did not so much remove Popedom as just receive a new Pope!
 
I can't remember who said it, but one of the Scots Presbyterians said of the Act of Supremacy that England did not so much remove Popedom as just receive a new Pope!

Whoever said it was not being quite fair. The Church of England has never exalted its Archbishop or any of its hierarchy in the Roman way.
Most of its troubles don't come from authoritarianism but from being too ready to welcome any and every shade of opinion. Which is just the position the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland arrived at, a little further down the line. If you read the 39 Articles, that was the C of E as it began, and if only it had continued!
 
I can't remember who said it, but one of the Scots Presbyterians said of the Act of Supremacy that England did not so much remove Popedom as just receive a new Pope!

Whoever said it was not being quite fair. The Church of England has never exalted its Archbishop or any of its hierarchy in the Roman way.
Most of its troubles don't come from authoritarianism but from being too ready to welcome any and every shade of opinion. Which is just the position the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland arrived at, a little further down the line. If you read the 39 Articles, that was the C of E as it began, and if only it had continued!

it wasn't that the archbishop of Canterbury or the hierarchy that was exalted, Henry the viii took the place of the pope
in a nutshell,so the church of England wasn't as thoroughly reformed as the scottish kirk & the reformed churches on
the continent, unfortunately this was a supreme erastian or byzantium establishment,not just the state Lording it over
the church but actually the King claiming to be head of the church & not Jesus Christ does that make Henry viii the
Anti-Christ?
 
does that make Henry viii the
Anti-Christ?
probably not, at least not THE antichrist. Henry was a pragmatist like all the Tudors. His chief interest was less in setting himself up as a spiritual authority than in establishing the principle that "the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England".
As far as that went he was good for the country! Though maybe rather as Jehu or Sennacherib were used by God than as Hezekiah or Josiah were.
I don't say he had any business to call himself "head of the church" but he was fighting fire with fire, you could say - countering the pope's overweening claims in the most effective political way. There are still Catholics around in this country who like to refer to England as "Mary's Dowry" which has all my fur bristling!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top