Those who say Rome has no status and never did err both
theologically and historically. It's not a tenable position.
And yet those who argue Rome still has status also err.
The Confessional metanarrative which insists Rome was the Church until the Council of Trent
upon which the mantle was taken up by Magisterial Protestantism also err, a
point I will briefly touch on in the conclusion.
The Northern Kingdom Analogy is how I explain a way in which
to view Catholicism as apostate and yet not wholly divorced from Church
History. The Northern Kingdom after Rehoboam apostatised and established a
rival and counterfeit altar. Later this kingdom was additionally affected by
even more extreme forms of syncretism in the introduction of Baal worship from
Tyre. And yet even through these dark days the nation officially remained a
Yahvist or Jehovah-ite nation, though its form was so degenerate that the faithful
in both the Northern Kingdom and in Judah would not recognise it as legitimate
and also reckoned its rulers (despite their Yahvist/theophoric onomastics) as
illegitimate. They were Covenant breakers, no longer reckoned as legitimate.
Despite this the covenant was still evoked when the final destruction came at
the hand of the Assyrians in the 8th century BC.
The Southern Kingdom of Judah had its ups and downs, at times
it was apostate and in other seasons it became a viable representative of the
Holy Covenant. But in most cases the faithful were represented by a remnant.
They took the form of extreme dissidents in the North and as traditionalists in
and out of favour in the South.
This analogy is far from perfect but it approximates the
situation as it has developed throughout Church History. Rome (and by extension
Constantinople) is like the apostate northern kingdom of Israel. It's still
relevant to the Covenant but its status is that of an apostate. Southern Judah which
in terms of the analogy qualifies as Biblically oriented Protestantism retains
its status as ecclesiastically viable though it has often proven less than
faithful and those who would obey God must often denounce it and live as
nonconformists. Extending the analogy, the oracle and Holy Presence rest in the
south where Zion is located and yet even this history is clouded by episodes of
great apostasy.
Of course this analogy lives on during the Intertestamental
period with the rebuilt temple and the formation of the Samaritans.
Rome's apostasy is difficult to pin down. Historically it is
proper to speak of an Old Catholic Church apart from a fully formed Roman
Catholic Church. The confusion is found in that there is significant overlap. I
would posit that full-fledged Roman Catholicism did not appear and
begin to exert itself until the Gregorian Reforms of the 11th
century.
That said, the seed and spirit of full fledged Roman Catholicism...
centered on the Papacy.... certainly existed during the Dark Ages and was
already manifest in the days of Leo I and Gregory I. The Papacy waxed and waned
during this period and while powerful and influential it was never able to
enforce a complete uniformity within its domains and indeed the papacy almost
collapsed in the 9th and 10th centuries.
But by the 11th century a resurgent papacy formed
a powerful and coherent Roman Catholic
Church which came into conflict with both the Empire and large groups of
dissidents. Prior to this epoch a strong case can be made that there were
numerous examples and even whole regions that were not in full conformity with
the teachings and practices of Rome. There was a degree of catholicity and even
respect for the ecclesiastical hierarchy and tradition but the Catholicism that
existed was something less than fully Roman.
The 11th century Gregorian Reform extended,
concretised, ratified and established the apostasy. Contrary to the assertions
of the Magisterial Protestant 'Council of Trent' narrative I would argue it was
at this point, if a point must be selected that Rome was officially apostate.
Its continued doctrinal formulations in the Lateran Councils would only
accentuate this.
The Magisterial Reformation marked a type of Judaean reform
on the order of Jehoram, Ahaziah and Joash.... not the full reforms seen during
the days of Hezekiah and Josiah.
Of course the analogies again break down as the assessment of
Judaean kings can only be reckoned in terms of obedience to God, not in terms
of their policies which are judged by the criteria of Mosaic Law, something
qualitatively different from the imperatives of the New Covenant.
But the analogy is still helpful on a basic level and is by
no means unique to my way of thinking. If anything some of the Magisterial
Protestant leaders thought in these terms but of course viewing their own
movement as analogous to the reforms which took place under Hezekiah and
Josiah. John Knox in particular utilised this analogy during the reign of
Edward VI, another boy king.
See also: