I see some very strong misconceptions about what the Catholic Church teaches. It appears to me that you believe that the Catholic Church does not teach Jesus alone is our savior (if I misunderstand, please let me know :) ) - I take this from your commnet:
"1. Jesus is the only mediator we need."
If by this you mean that Jesus and Jesus alone is our savior, then this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church indeed teaches that Jesus is the ONE Mediator of the New Covenant yes. He and He alone is our savior.
If you mean that Jesus and Jesus alone is our only mediator in every possible manner of mediation, then this the Church does not teach, for it is not supportable by scripture or the historical teachings of the Church from the time of the Apostles on forwards.
The Cathollic Church teaches that while Christ and Christ alone is the One Mediator of the New Covenant, our Savior, we as christians participate with Him in His mediation but in a subordinate manner - such as in prayer for one another.
If Jesus was the only mediator, then we couldn't pray for one another. But the bible commands that we do. Obvously the bible is not going to contradict itself in a matter of doctrine, so obviously Jesus being the ONE mediator doesn't mean no one else participates in mediation between God and man.
When we intercede for one another, we are coming before God on behalf of another, we are inded mediating.
It is by virtue of
who Christ is that He is the One Mediator between God and man.
It is because of who Christ is, and
who we are in Christ, that we
participate in His ONE Mediation as members of His Body.
Can the head of a body can function by itself? Does not the head need the body to carry out its desires?
To say that Christ is the only mediator ever is to propose that Christ is a bodiless head. Can you imagine a head without a body accomplishing anything? No, it ineeds its hands and feet, etc.
I would ask you to consider this - Paul tells us that in his own sufferings, he was making up for what was LACKING in the sufferings of Christ on behalf of the body of Christ.
Colossians 1:24:
I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,
Now, obviously the scriptures do not lie, so Paul was doing exactly what he stated he was doing.
How could Paul do so if what is claimed above is true? How could this be true if Jesus is the
only mediator? Jesus is not the
only mediator, but he is
the ONE Mediator without which all our mediation would be worthless. It is
HIS Mediation we participate in. It is
His Mediation Paul participated in, not his own.
As far as the cause of the Reformation goes, I see a very slanted view of history being presented.
The reason I say this is because Luther did not demonstrate he had a proper grasp of the Catholic Church's teaching regarding Indulgences, which he attacked. So what he started attacking was not even truly what the Catholic Church taught.
It was Luther's faulty grasp of Church teaching that created a false image of the Church, and it was this false idea that he revolted against.
That is not true reformation.
As a result, the reformation he began could not reform the Church. Instead it caused a revolt against the Church. The true reformation which followed is known as the Counter Reformation in which thousands who became disillusioned with Luther and the Reformation returned to the Catholic Church.
As far as the person of Pope Alexander VI goes, and the attacks leveled against him, sources are in disagreement as to even what the accusations of incest are . some say his daughter . some say his sisters . . some say there is no evidece for such an accusation at all.
Regardless, the personal failings of any Pope do not make or change Church teaching, or break the Church or the Office of the Chair of Peter. Just as someone sitting in the office of the president of the United States might be a criminal, that does not invalidate the Office of President itself. It means someone corrupt is occupying it at that moment.
We do not hide from the scandals that have from time to time overtaken those in position of leadership. The fact that we are scandalized by such exceptions to the normal rule of the holiness of those who occupy such an office, stands witness to the spiritual ideal the Church presents to us:
The same good principle is set forth by Leo XIII in his Letter of 8 September, 1889, to Cardinals De Luca, Pitra, and Hergenroether on the study of Church History: "The historian of the Church has the duty to dissimulate none of the trials that the Church has had to suffer from the faults of her children, and even at times from those of her own ministers." Long ago Leo the Great (440-461) declared, in his third homily for Christmas Day, that "the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor" (cujus dignitas etiam in indigno haerede non deficit). The very indignation that the evil life of a great ecclesiastic rouses at all times (nobly expressed by Pius II in the above-mentioned letter to Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia) is itself a tribute to the high spiritual ideal which for so long and on so broad a scale the Church has presented to the world in so many holy examples, and has therefore accustomed the latter to demand from priests. "The latter are forgiven nothing", says De Maistre in his great work, "Du Pape", "because everything is expected from them, wherefore the vices lightly passed over in a Louis XIV become most offensive and scandalous in an Alexander VI" (II, c. xiv).
JAMES F. LOUGHLIN
Transcribed by Gerard Haffner
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I
Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company
As far as what saved the Church, i can't agree with your conclusion. The Church did not need being saved. The Church did need reformation, and this came from within in the form of the Counter Reformation.
The Church as a whole does not forsake the faith just because some of its members, even leaders, sin, even if they sin badly.
I saw a signature in a post once:
Don't leave Jesus because of Judas
Judas was one of the original twelve - Jesus did not abandon the rest of the twelve and start over because of Judas. . Jesus did not abandon Judas' successor Mattias, because of Judas.
In comparison I would say this:
Don't reject the Catholic Church because of some bad popes . . .
Judas was an apostle . .. you can't get much higher in God's chain of command than that . .. so priests, bishops, even popes who sin or lead sinful lives are not enuogh reason to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.
If anything, they are reasons to press in more strongly, hold on more tightly to the historic faith of the Church, given to us by the Apostles themselves.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by stpatrick
