Protestantism in about four paragraphs.

This is from my papist brother who prays that I cross the Tiber. The Circus Bergoglio is the coterie of Pope Francis: the clown is the Pope.

He accuses the Pope of being a heretic, and he’s probably correct. Welcome to the place Luther and Calvin found themselves. It was just as absurd (and probably more corrupt) in the time of the Reformation.

In the absurd days we are living, with Circus Bergoglio now dishing us a number after the other, there has also been talk of allowing the individual bishops’ conference to do with Doctrine as they please. As in these cases you always need a fashionable word to cover old heresy, the idea has been called “devolution”.

The absurdity of this is apparent.

The Church has never been run by bishops’ conferences. The church is run by bishops, led by a Pope, who may or may not choose to be helped by Cardinals. The bishops’ conference as a hierarchical level in the Church simply does not exist; nor could it ever, because Christ never appointed any. The idea that a bishops’ conference may have any right to impinge on Doctrine in any way whatsoever is just bonkers.

Nor can it be said that, if bishops’ conferences have no hierarchical authority, a bishop has; and therefore any bishop could implement those “merciful” changes he thinks fit. Even my cat knows that no bishop has, ever had or could ever have such authority. The Truth is one. Therefore, the Church can only be one. There can be no multiplicity of doctrines more than there could be multiplicity of churches. Multiple doctrines would mean just that: multiple truths and multiple churches. Bishops cannot do anything of the sort, and everyone knows it. Which is, by the way, exactly the reason why bishops’ conferences are mentioned in connection with this latest madness.

Least of all it can be said that the Pope could make such changes. Whilst the Pope can be, in limited circumstances, infallible, his infallibility is always – and cannot but be – linked to what the Church has always believed. To put it in a blunt way: if the Pope wakes up one morning and “infallibly” proclaims the “dogma” of some heretical novelty he can never be infallible, he can only be heretical.

Truth can never be manipulated. The very concept of truth demands this as a logical consequence. As there can be no manipulation, there can be no devolution. As there must be unity, there can be no multiplicity.

What can I say? The Roman church is corrupt, and the souls of many are at risk. I pray that the church will reform: I would rather it was Tridentine in theology with all the accumulated and extrabiblical theological cruft, for the gospel will still be preached.

Which is not what is happening now. The faithful children of the Romans will find it difficult elsewhere. The Anglican communion — particularly that branch, which is now based in Africa, that has remained faithful to the gospel, may help. If you live in New South Wales, for instance, you have a viable liturgical church will better music and more ritual.

For some, the Orthodox will fit.

But in the home of the Roman church — Italy, Austria, Spain — I see entryism and heresy. And the church imploding as if follows the errors of the Episcopalians: by chasing relevance they become neither salt nor light.

For where the Protestants agree is that truth is one: there is only one true doctrine: one resurrection, one form of salvation. That the church is one in Christ. The expressions of the church will vary from place to place, as will the songs, and the liturgy. But there is only one church. My worry is that the Pope has left it, and the confirmation of the old Calvinist doctrine that the Pope is the Antichrist brings me no joy. For I see my Papist brother in tears, and I grieve.