It is of
note that when modern Protestants go about belittling the Holy Father they will
often overestimate the constraints that Peter operates his ministry under. Now, Catholics are bound to adhere to the
teachings and disciplines spoken of by the Pope because Christ reminds us that
“He who hears you hears me” and that “whatever you bind on Earth will be bound
in Heaven.” Peter was given the same
offices that Christ had taken on including his role as chief Shepard, the
steward (vicar) of the house of David and to be a strengthener of his brethren
once converted (among many others). These examples are sufficient to show a
primacy, and the guarantee that the gates of hell shall not prevail, and that
Christ would be with this same group until the end of the age give perspective
to the perpetual nature of the Church without interruption.
Enter
Martin Luther, the self-styled, self-proclaimed, and self-determined monk from
Germany. In order to belittle the Pope
of his own day it became necessary to introduce novelties into the Church’s
tradition to justify his new religion.
One of the
most stunning novelties is his insistence that all the apostles were given the
Keys for loosing and binding:
“…But not to fight them
with mere words, we will quote the Scriptures. St. Paul says in I Corinthians
14:30: "If to anyone something better is revealed, though he be sitting
and listening to another in God's Word, then the first, who is speaking, shall hold
his peace and give place." What would be the use of this commandment, if
we were only to believe him who does the talking or who has the highest seat? Christ also says in John 6:45 that all
Christians shall be taught of God. Thus it may well happen that the pope and
his followers are wicked men, and no true Christians, not taught of God, not
having true understanding. On the other hand, an ordinary man may have true
understanding; why then should we not follow him? Has not the pope
erred many times? Who would help Christendom when the pope errs, if we were not
to believe another, who had the Scriptures on his side, more than the pope?
Therefore
it is a wickedly invented fable and they cannot produce a letter in defense of
it, that the interpretation of Scripture or the confirmation of its
interpretation belongs to the pope alone. They have themselves usurped this
power; and although they allege that this power was given to Peter when the
keys were given to him, it is plain
enough that the keys were not given to Peter alone, but to the whole community.
Moreover, the keys were not ordained for doctrine or government, but only for
the binding and loosing of they arrogate to themselves is mere
invention But Christ's word to Peter,
Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fall not," cannot
be applied to the pope, since the majority of the popes have been without
faith, as they must themselves confess. Besides, it is not only for
Peter that Christ prayed, but also for all Apostles and Christians, as he says
in John 17:9, 20: "Father, I pray for those whom Thou hast given Me, and
not for these only, but for all who believe on Me through their word." Is not this clear enough? …”
Again, so
as not to take the fellow out of context the whole quote is given above. A line by line critique is necessary to draw
out just how full of it Mr. Luther was.
“Christ also says in
John 6:45 that all Christians shall be taught of God.”
Sure they
will be taught of God, but that supposes a teacher. Now the Lutheran might say
that God speaks to the heart and man knows its God speaking to him. After all Christ also says that “"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will
snatch them out of My hand.” But one has to ask if this is true why would God
also say that when your brother offends the, take it first to him privately,
then to another with him, and finally if that fails to tell it to the Church (a
tangible, identifiable authority). Luther
did not think the God spoke to Calvin, but Calvin was convinced of it. What is the Lutheran to say to the devout
Mormon when they say they get a warm feeling in their bosom when they read the
Mormon texts; therefore they are inspired because that’s how God speaks to
them. All Christian’s will be taught of God indeed, but a student requires a
teaching which they submit their minds to, identifiable and necessarily
infallible teachers because God can neither deceive nor be deceived.
“Thus it may well
happen that the pope and his followers are wicked men, and no true Christians,
not taught of God, not having true understanding.”
Even if the
Pope was the most evil fellow on the faith of the planet it would not follow
that his authority to teach had been stripped.
To make such a claim is to overestimate the papal office, and would lack
a basic understanding of authority which even Christ recognized the corrupt Pharisees
exorcising in his day, telling the Jew’s to do what they said, but not what
they did. So to even by Luther’s standards Christians are wicked and cannot not
sin, so these too could never have true understanding being wicked themselves
even if they had the Gospel set before them because they would twist the words
as the Devil would if we go according to Luther’s thinking.
On the other hand, an
ordinary man may have true understanding; why then should we not follow him?
This is not
well thought out by Mr. Luther. It opens
the door to denominationalism, which he strictly opposed. There is no objective rule to be applied in
coming to how this would be applied in real life. Who is to say that Joseph Smith was wrong, or
Calvin? Why not follow them if they
display charismatic gifts? What is being
appealed to in saying that person A has a right to speak for God? Was Luther a prophet? If so let him stand in judgment as to his
prophecies as the Old Testament puts forth.
But he can’t, and no signs and wonders to attest to his authority could
be found so he along with the other revolutionaries of his age made it clear
that miracles no longer took place (never mind the Tilma was given at this very
time).
“Therefore it is a
wickedly invented fable, and they cannot produce a letter in defense of it,
that the interpretation of Scripture or the confirmation of its interpretation
belongs to the pope alone.”
It is clear
alone from the Old Testament that in the Davidic Kingdom there was only One
King who when he was not present physically in his kingdom gave his one key to
his one steward who had the ability to not just speak for the King but to open
and close the Kingdom to all things that might enter and leave. The fable is that there is no letter of
defense. This is pure rhetoric without
any basis in why it was spoken. In all
of the scriptures (which the protestants got from us) it only says that Jesus
gave Peter the Keys, he never speaks again of the keys, only of the power to
loose and bind which though part of the keys is not the whole of it as stated
before.
“…it is plain enough
that the keys were not given to Peter alone, but to the whole community.”
It’s not
plain at all to see such. You would have
to insert your own thinking as to what loosing and binding means in relation to
the keys then impose this thinking on others to get them to arrive at such thinking
which presupposes that you had the God given authority to begin with to arrive
at that interpretation, of which you can show no, not one shred of evidence to
objectively arrive at this conclusion.
“Moreover, the keys
were not ordained for doctrine or government, but only for the binding and
loosing”
Again what
objective authority can he point to make this statement? He can say “look at the bible” because that
presupposes that the Bible is authoritative.
Of course we must then ask why is the bible and the books therein
authoritative to begin with in an objective way? How do you know book X belongs in there and
not book Z? The scriptures did not fall
out of the sky, but were compiled and recognized by the Church as
scripture. Peter can say Paul’s writings
are scripture but how do you objectively know Peter himself wrote that
scripture outside of a granting authority that says it is indeed scripture that
Peter wrote that affirmed Paul.
But Christ's word to
Peter, Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fall not,"
cannot be applied to the pope, since the majority of the popes have been
without faith, as they must themselves confess.
How can he
say that the majority of the Popes have been without faith? Who is he to stand in judgment of anyone? The protestant understanding of faith is a
trusting in what God has done for them.
The Catholic, on the other hand, understands faith as follows:
“Faith is a grace
153 When St. Peter confessed
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that
this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood,” but from “my Father who is
in heaven.”24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue
infused by him. “Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of
God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit,
who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and
‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’”25 (552, 1814, 1996, 2606)
Faith is a human act
154 Believing is possible only
by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that
believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the
truths he has revealed are contrary neither to human freedom nor to human
reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe
what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions or to trust
their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion
of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our
dignity to “yield by faith the full submission of... intellect and will to God
who reveals,”26 and to share in an interior communion with
him. (1749, 2126)
155 In faith, the human
intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the
intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God
through grace.”27
The
protestant religion posits that man cannot cooperate with God because he
ultimately has no free will, thus all works are useless, even teaching others
about the faith to bring them to Christ. The difference is that even if a Pope
failed to live up to the faith he possessed he was not unable to change his
ways and affect real change. The office
of the Pope is not dependent on the person therein, but the perpetual promise
of Christ to Peter until the ending of the age to loose and bind over the
heavens and the earth (the heavens part also not given to the others). Plus who
are the bad Popes that bound objectively bad doctrine on the Church? Pray tell?
And by what authority have you come to the conclusion that the teaching is
wrong to begin with?
“Besides, it is not
only for Peter that Christ prayed, but also for all Apostles and Christians, as
he says in John 17:9, 20: "Father, I pray for those whom Thou hast given
Me, and not for these only, but for all who believe on Me through their
word."
Of course
Our Lord prayed to the Father for all Christians, he is our one mediator. This, however, says nothing about why Christ
would pray specifically for Peter (solely) that when he was specifically
converted he would strengthen his brethren.
This makes no sense if you consider that St. John never left Christ and
so would not have to be converted, but could immediately strengthen the brethren. Christ makes the whole apostolic college wait
upon Peter for his strengthening. Why because Peter acts for Christ (not
against him). Consider that when Christ
was confronted because he had yet to pay the tax he did not abstain from payment
but had Peter act for him (act in his place, even while he was on Earth).
Now, having
related all that take a look at this quote from Mr. Luther:
“I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I
am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this
teaching (as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my
teaching may not be saved - for it is God’s teaching and not mine.”
And people
say papal infallibility is impossibility, yet the Pope is constrained. Luther however speaks on God’s behalf? What objective authority has he to point to
for this?
