That's right folks, I'm totally writing this as if presuming to have the "real" answer. Well, I don't. But I think that what follows is honestly a decent (if radical) proposal to effect unity in the Church (supposing the Church exists, but while encompassing many Christian denominations, particular churches, and ecclesial communities). I don't think the Vegas odds on this ever happening are that great (don't bet your house on it... well, maybe just your mother-in-law), but I'm writin' it down anyway - just try and stop me!
And for those just tuning in: this effort is born out of a personal struggle concerning whether conversion to the Roman Catholic communion (or any other Apostolic communion, like the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox churches) is necessary to fully be in Communion with Christ and His body of disciples, or whether there is any other way for true unity to be accomplished.
14 Steps to Full Communion within the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church:
1. Have the Major Tritinarian Communions sign a joint Declaration to strive for Full Communion within 100 years, pledging all the leadership to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures in its enactment.
2. Have the major Trinitarian communions sign a joint statement praying for forgiveness for nearly 1600 years of division. After all, we are all culpable for the pitiable state of division that exists between Christ's disciples today.
3. Unite the Eastern and Western liturgical traditions by setting the date for Easter on an agreed upon astronomically-correct (as much as possible) date, and never change it again.
4. Encourage liturgical and interpratory (sure, that's a word... at least it is now) cooperation in English speaking congregations through use of the Revised Common Lectionary, use of the NRSV and ESV bible translations, and use of a hymnal that draws from each of the traditions. Use of these tools would be encouraged, but not required. Non-english equivalents would be used to bring common worship and teaching to non-English speaking congregations.
5. Each of the Credal churches would have to scrap all but the canons of the first two Ecumenical Councils and each of the non-credal churches would have to accept these two councils. The reasoning for this is that the first two are agreements the entire Church made together regarding the establishment of Scriptural canon and the Trinity (which is clearly inferred from Scripture). All orthodox, Trinitarian accept these principles today, whether credal or non-credal and whether Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or Protestant. These also happen to be the only two Councils the entire Church agreed upon together.
Also, they both took place before Theodosius made Christianity the State religion in 391 AD - thereby corrupting it with riches and lands, while also making it a political tool to be leveraged. This would also give enough guidance and interpretation to unite the Church on issues that Scripture is less clear about.
Finally, while the Apostolic Fathers especially (Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Didache etc.) and the other early Church Fathers are useful (as are many theologians into our own times), their authority should only be read in light of the Trinitarian and Canonical understanding of Scripture and the first two Ecumenical Councils.
6. The churches would have to make Scripture their primary authority for Church doctrine. This would be followed by the two Ecumenical Councils. All other Church dogma would be decided in councilliar agreement between all the bishops. However, the Church councils or synods (after the first two historically Ecumenical Councils) would not be able to enforce decisions on local congregations. In line with #5, the Apostolic and early Church Fathers would definitely guide interpretation, but only in so far as they conform to Scripture and the first two Councils.
7. The churches would have to agree that episcopal succession, from its origins in the New Testament relies not just in the Office of Bishop, but also in the Office of Presbyter. Scripture treats these (and the position of Pastor) as synonymous in Acts 20, Titus 1:5-7 and 1 Peter 5:1-2. Division of the two offices would be optional in each tradition, but ultimately those traditions which only ordain presbyters and deacons would still lie within the episcopal succession through their presbyters (in effect, making them presbyter-bishops).
8. The diaconate would be a seperate office dealing only with temporal affairs, being local and congregational in nature. Within these guidelines, and in accordance with scripture, the presbyter-bishop (or presbyter and bishop separately) and the deacon would be the only clergy. The congregation, as a corporate body, would exhibit the priesthood of all believers. Otherwise, administrative positions would be allowed locally, based on election or appointment, whatever each tradition desires.
9. The churches would have to agree that all bishops (including presbyter-bishops) are equal in authority. This would be tempered with the understanding that the Roman bishop would be first in honor among the rest, followed by the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople (in that order), then all bishops after that would be equal in honor (as well as equal in authority to all bishops).
10. Local congregations would elect their presbyter-bishops. Likewise, if groups of congregations wish to split the office of presbyter and bishop, a council of all the elected presbyters in a jurisdiction would then elect their bishops, and these bishops would attend synods based on jurisdiction or the greater Church council with other bishops and presbyter-bishops. These presbyter-bishops should conform to the teaching of Scripture in their character (each tradition would decide whether they could be married or not, though they should probably be men only), and while they would be elected locally, their ordination would be effected by the laying on of hands of other bishops - thereby maintaining both episcopal succession and the sovereignty of the local congregation.
11. Each congregation, or groups of congregations, within the Church would be free to govern their own customs and practices in regards to style of worship, veneration, architecture, liturgy, hymnody and local governance (and related issues, like speaking in tongues); as long as these conform to Scripture and the two Ecumenical Councils.
12. The communions would sign a document recognizing each other's baptisms, table fellowship and ordinations. This means locally or by tradition, each group would have the choice to follow either traditional baptism or believer's baptism, and all would need to recognize the mysterious real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
13. The communions (their general superintendents, patriarchs, popes and bishops) would have to sign an agreement, effectively conforming themselves to these principles, declaring themselves to be in Full Communion with each other. This would probably take a while, and there is no doubt congregational-polity churches would need to vote on these before sending their pastors as representatives to sign. It would be a good idea for the signing process to be available online (once identities are verified as actual representatives of congregations and communions) and then disseminated to each church.
14. The Church would be required to elect Ivan as King of All the Popes. Just kidding... I couldn't think of any more points, so this one's optional (though definately recommended).
Please note, this list is not intended to be guidelines for a new denomination, but solely to unify existing ones. Anybody that creates a new denomination based on these terms will get a swift kick to the weener from yours truly.
I'm sure there's a myriad of problems with the above steps. But I feel that they are the most orthodox steps that would still include Roman & Traditional Catholic, Eastern & Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican and Protestant (including Mainline, Anabaptist, Adventist, Messianic, Evangelical, Fundamentalist & Pentecostal/Charismatic) congregations and communions.
Since there's no doubt in my mind that Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Universalists, Mormons, New Age groups & Non-Trinitarian Pentecostals (& Anabaptists) are heretics, I don't mind not catering to them.
Anywho, I'm no prophet or apostle, so I'm sure there are better ways of goin' about this. My hope is just that this get people thinkin' & praying that we would all be one (without sacrificing or watering down the Gospel), as Jesus prayed in John 17:20-21.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Fourth Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response
Rebuttal by Edward N. Haas on a Catholic Forum
"Well, Johnny Blackpool, famous adventurer, I briefly consulted your blog. It causes me seriously to doubt you have any inclination toward joining the Catholic Church. I think you are merely using that line as a come-on to entice the guillible into your web -- a web in which you hope you can then "reason" them into quitting their Catholic affiliation. One ought not to waste one's time trying to debate with someone like yourself; but, since I'm looking for an excuse to delay cutting a quarter acre of grass and bushhoging 9 acres of weeds, I'll bother to go a brief round with you, little spider, in your web.
"Well, Johnny Blackpool, famous adventurer, I briefly consulted your blog. It causes me seriously to doubt you have any inclination toward joining the Catholic Church. I think you are merely using that line as a come-on to entice the guillible into your web -- a web in which you hope you can then "reason" them into quitting their Catholic affiliation. One ought not to waste one's time trying to debate with someone like yourself; but, since I'm looking for an excuse to delay cutting a quarter acre of grass and bushhoging 9 acres of weeds, I'll bother to go a brief round with you, little spider, in your web.
If you consult the second chapter of St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he tells us faith should be founded on seeing a demonstration of the power of God, and warns us against this business of trying to found one's faith on what, in the original Greek, he calls "sophia". This is generally translated as "wisdom"; but the Greek word "sophia" was also used by the Greeks of that day to signify shrewdness, cunning, and craftiness. As you can perhaps see for yourself, the Greek word "sophia" is the root source for the English word "sophistry", and we all know what kind of verbal rigmarole that implies. Thus, what St. Paul is here telling us is this: Faith is not to be founed on an elaborate series of clever, dialectical arguments such as people like you relish in setting forth at great length in books or blogs or what have you; rather, faith is to be founded on the simple act of staring into the face of a what obviously bespeaks divine support.
Therefore, wherever one is truly a Catholic, one's faith is not based upon an elaborate display of verbal gymnastics; rather, it is based upon seeing what obviously says: Such a level of success could not possibly be, unless God is behind it. Incarnate God Himself promotes this principle when, in verses 24 thru 27 of chapter 7 of St. Matthew's Gospel, He tells us how only an edifice built on His word can endure best of all. He again promotes this same principle when, in Matt. 13:31, Mark 4:31, and Luke 13:19, He assures us the kingdom of heaven starts as the smallest of seeds but grows to be the LARGEST of shurbs --- so large it becomes a tree.
Now then, as even the bitterest of its enemies readily admit, Catholic Doctrine has built far, far more effectively than has any other ideology known to history (One group of zealots incessantly thunders that this outstandingly outstanding succees is what proves the Catholic Church is the work of the devil.). It has built by far the largest world-class, centrally organized institution in history and the only such institution to survive for 2,000 years. That it has done despite the fact that the institution it's built (i.e.: the Catholic Church) is also the most violently and persistently attacked institution in history. The military and intellectual assaults upon the Catholic Church are legion, and the number of its martyrs boggles the mind. For all of that, the institution built by Catholic Doctrine thrives far, far more effectively than does any other institution known to history. Past versions of France, England, Germany, and Italy have all tried to destroy the Vatican and to put an end to the Papacy. The Papacy, though, remains a sovereign state, and the France, England, Germany, and Italy which tried to crush it are gone with the wind. Shades of Luke 20:18!
Like so many others, you seem to think that, by listing the foibles of this or that pope or what have you, you make points against Catholic Doctrine's claim to be THE mouthpiece of God. I'm surprised you didn't mention Galatians 2: 11 in which St. Paul recounts how he had to correct St. Peter on a point of doctrine. I'm surprised you didn't mention Pope John XXII who had to be corrected by the king of France on a point of doctrine. Contrary to what you apparently think, you do not, in listing all these foibles, make points AGAINST Catholic Doctrine's claim. On the contrary, you UPHOLD its claim. For, the more you run into the ground those responsible for spreading Catholic Doctrine, the more you exalt the power of the Catholic Doctrine able to overcome such handicaps and, in spite of the Catholics, to thrive far, far more effectively than does any other doctrine. Sixteen hundred years ago, St. John Chrysostom alluded to this principle when he at least effectively said this: If you look at the success of Catholic Doctrine and then look at how pitiful are those charged with spreading that doctrine, it's all too obvious that the latter are much too incompetent to produce the former; and so, the success of the former plainly tells you that it must be God who has done this. Yes, God works thru the incompetent in order that, when great success follows anyhow, it may be obvious that it is God who is responsible for the success. Look at the wretchedness of all too many Catholic popes, bishops, priests, religious, and laity, and it is all too obvious that Catholic Doctrine's outstanding success can't be their doing and, so, is clearly and unequivocally God's doing. Thus is one face to face with what bespeaks divine support, and thus is one presented with faith based upon seeing a demonstration of the power of God rather than upon the long, drawn-out dialetcial, lawyer-like arguments of Johnny Blackpool and company.
Because of the scale on which it has obviously built, Catholic Doctrine's claim to be THE revealed word of God is the most substantiated claim ever given to the human race. That, then, is the basis upon which I rest my unshakably fearless conviction that, in Catholic Doctrine's testimony, I have found what is, by very, very far, the most reliable testimony there is, namely: THE TESTIMONY OF INFINITELY INFORMED GOD. This is the 73 year old, white bachelor, Edward N. Haas, financially independent by birth, and living and writing up a storm (17 self-published books in print) in the middle of 27 inherited acres at 39193 Haas Road in Haaswood, La."
Note by Ivan: Mr. Haas has provided a website you can visit at this link .
"Edward N. Haas here again. Add this to my prior reply. It's from pg. 42
of the Catholic Cathechism. It's also designated as paragraph 156. Here,
then, is how the Catholic Cathecism expresses and affirms what I said in
my prior posting:
So 'that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance
with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be
joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit.' Thus the miracles of
Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and
her fruitfulness and stability 'are the most certain signs of divine
Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all'; they are 'motives of
credibility' (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of
faith is 'by no means a blind impulse of the mind.'
Even as some saw Jesus raise the dead, they turned away from the obvious
demonstration of the power of God and chose, instead, to cling to a bit
of mental gymnastics using scripture as its source of power: "Scripture
speaks of no prophet coming from Galilee. But, this man comes from
Galilee; therefore, this man is no prophet . Furthermore, this man's
acts contradict scripture when he heals on the Sabbath. But, no man of
God contradicts scripture; therefore, this man is not from God.
Therefore, we shall not believe no matter how many people he raises from
the dead. Not even if he himself rises from the dead! For, we can prove
by logical arguments drawn from scripture that he cannot be a man of God
no matter what." No matter how powerful the demonstration of Divine
support, some always have preferred, and always will prefer, the
inferences produced by the complex gyrations of their own minds ---
particularly those inferences seeming to feed off of scripture. For
them, no miracle means anything, until one can thoroughly explode every
one of the adverse inferences which their mental gymnastics can produce.
And what good does it do to explode every one of their adverse
inferences? For, if you convert them that way, then they'll wind up with
a faith based on "logic" rather than on seeing the power of God
demonstrated. Such faith shall not endure. For, somewhere down the line
they'll come upon some new bit of mental gymnastics which shall
instantly destroy their faith, unless and until, they or someone else
can explode the new inferences produced by this latest bit of mental
gymnastics. Show me, then, a man with a catalogue of inductions and
deductions which must be exploded before he can believe, and I'll show
you a man who --- as long as that is his attitude -- is inherently
incapable of GENUINE faith, which is to say faith based upon SEEING THE
POWER OF GOD DEMONSTRATED."
Ivan's Response to Mr. Haas' Rebuttal
Mr. Haas,
you bring up many good points, and i think you bring up something that i really did overlook: that we are not saved by sophia, but by the demonstration of the power of God. and clearly the power of the R.C. Church and its ability to endure for so long do show that God's grace is with it. I don't contest that and it's something I shouldn't overlook any longer (also, if it's alright with you, i'd like to put your response up - and this answer - on my blog, as it was a very good one).
i do still have a couple of questions, though. while you stated that my "real" goal is to entice catholics into my web & suck the life out of 'em (not your exact words, but i like my description better), i assure you it's not. i think if their faith is genuine and the work God is doing in their lives is genuine as well, then they should stay put. i'm only asking, why should I convert to catholicism from my current tradition (Baptist)?
and maybe a little of my personal background would help you understand why it's even an issue for me. I am a Christian and i love God with everything i am. But i felt a call to the ministry and in my study of the Church, what she teaches and her history i became convinced of the importance for unity in the Body of Christ (that this is Jesus' desire during his last prayers in John 17:20-21 is clear). in fact, because Jesus prays so fervently for unity not just for his immediate disciples, but for all "those who will believe in [Jesus] through their word;" and this became my passion.
unlike a lot of other Baptist pastors, i'm not content to see the Church split in a million pieces. i think it would show a hard heart if i were. and so that left me looking at the largest Communion of Christians, with clear apostolic succession and continuity, and left me wondering whether i should convert. but that also left me looking at all these issues of doctrine (for instance "required celibacy," i have a wife & son and that would preclude me from R.C. priesthood, but not priestood in any of the other denominations). it also made me seriously consider the actions of the Church over the ages, as James makes it clear our actions are the sole evidence of our faith and Jesus states in John that our love for one another is the standard by which others will judge the truths that we speak.
but when we look at the history of the Church (and not just on the R.C. side, but on the Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant sides as well), we see a lot of inward strife, hatred and political machinations against fellow brothers and sisters. because of all this (and the doctrinal issues that seem to contradict scripture), i ask myself "Do I need to join the Roman Catholic Church to be fully in communion with God's people?"
Can I be just as fully in communion if I become Eastern Ortothodx (as they also have a chair of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch and exhibit the same ancient apostolic succession as the R.C. Church, as does the Oriental Orthodox communion)? Or if I become a Pentecostal preacher? You said to judge by the demonstration of God's power. They still speak in tongues, prophecy and cast out demons. In fact, they're the fastest growing Christian communion (especially in areas where the Church is heavily persecuted). We can't ignore their claims either.
I want to know what makes the Roman Catholic claims unique in the face of all this? i don't think the answer is to pull a Joseph Smith and start my own religion (what a mess that would be!). but i'm also not convinced that i or anyone else needs to join the R.C. Church or that the Roman communion holds the title of One True Church solely within her institution. but if we are to become unified as the people of God, how should we tackle these issues? by the way, i for one think this exact dialogue is a great first step; but we must have dialogue, ministerial cooperation, and dogmatic decision bottom-up (through regular believers) as well as top-down (through the hierarchy).
And since Mr. Haas was kind enough to submit his real name, here's mine:
Ian Hyde, Pasadena CA (though everybody calls me "Ivan").
Third Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response
Second Rebuttal by Sambos671 on a Catholic Forum
Quoting Ivan:
Ivan's Response to Rebuttals by Silvereel and Sambose671
Quoting Silvereel:
I guess my personal concern is (and while you might not believe it, i am considering whether i should convert) as a baptist seminarian, i believe i am called to be a presbyteros (and for baptists, based on the testimony of the NT, this includes the role of episkopos as well). but i am married and have a son. so it's something i have to seriously consider. and i guess i'm really asking why i should consider the Roman Church's claims to be the One True Church as more valid than the claims of the Eastern Orthodox communion? They also have apostolic succession, they have an older bishopric of st. peter (in antioch) and disupute the immaculate conception of Mary (though they do believe her to be sinless throughout life), and they have withstood their own test of hardship.
anyway, to Sambos671, thanks for clarifying the issue about Honorius. that takes care of that
though, since i still have issues with the immaculate conception, required celibacy and the supremacy of the pope in rome, these both affect the infallibility of the pope's and the Roman Catholic Church's decisions as they are ex cathedra doctrines that seem to go counter to the Deposit of Faith (at least, if one conforms the Deposit of Faith to Scripture). for me it's an issue of figuring out whether the Roman Catholic Church = The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (meaning i should convert to fully be in communion), or whether other Christian bodies have equal claim (like the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East or the Anglican Communion - though i have doctrinal issues with the last, too).
i do think the enduring Roman Church is a living demonstration of God's power in His Church. But I also think the enduring Orthodox and Assyrian Communions exhibit this as well. Even in the Protestant Churches I can see evidence of the miraculous intervention of God's grace (especially in the Pentecostal Churches enduring in areas of heavy persecution around the world). But I do want to know if true unity can only be achieved if other communions subject themselves to Roman doctrines and supremacy.
Honestly, I wouldn't even have a problem submitting myself to the Pope (I think many of the original issues raised by the first Protestants have been resolved), but I don't think I could blindly state that ex cathedra decisions are infallible, when there seems to be evidence that they aren't (at least in the above doctrines, and maybe others that i don't know about). If the Roman, Eastern, Oriental and Assyrian Churches do ever come into full Communion, then I think a very good argument will exist that their institution constitutes the full Church. That may happen someday, and there are encouraging developments in that area. But right now it doesn't, and these Apostolic communities are at odds with each other. To me, that means the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church encompasses something greater than the Roman institution and hieararchy. To what degree, however, I just don't know for sure.
While I put all my faith in Jesus Christ and love His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with all my heart, as brothers and sisters, I think it would be remiss of me if I were to exclude elements of that Church by claiming it includes (or should submit to) only one of these communions.
Quoting Ivan:
I see your point about the distinction between infallibility and impeccability. How do we apply this in regard to the more corrupt popes listed? As James states that faith not backed up by action is no faith at all, these particular popes seemed to do everything in their power to actively oppose faith. also, what about Pope Honorius I who was declared a heratic both by the sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo II? That particular episode shows pretty clearly that the Church doesn't always quickly catch heretical decrees.I do not want to take the place of God but in my estimation and in speculation I would think by certain acts of certain Popes seem to have them condemn themselves to Christ judgement. Still a pope is not permitted to teach against the deposit. As far as Honorius we must consider that he did not defend orthodoxy against the Monothelites (nor did he openly approve it from the chair) and is condemend based on his letters saying that he followed Sergius in all things. If Sergius is condmened a Heretic so must Honorius. However, nothing was taught ex cathedra in violation of the Deposit of Faith.
Ivan's Response to Rebuttals by Silvereel and Sambose671
Quoting Silvereel:
You're not going to get anywhere by collecting a list of 'bad deeds' Popes did. We don't deny that they're sinners just like us. Some of them did some terrible deeds. But their personal lives are not infalible. This doesn't do any harm to their Infalibilty at all, it just goes to show that the Church IS protected by God - could a human institution stand through so many controversies and attacks? No, it could not. Any institution founded by men would have fallen due to our own deeds and sins. I fail to understand why Protestants always attack the celebate priesthood as well... would you attack Paul, too?It is definately not my intention to attack the nobility of celibacy or Paul's estimation of it. And it is definately not my intention to attack those presbyters who choose to be celibate (as all Roman presbyters do). But I don't agree that the Church should enforce a doctrine that seems to me, at least, to go against scripture (the forcing goes against scripture, not celibacy itself).
I guess my personal concern is (and while you might not believe it, i am considering whether i should convert) as a baptist seminarian, i believe i am called to be a presbyteros (and for baptists, based on the testimony of the NT, this includes the role of episkopos as well). but i am married and have a son. so it's something i have to seriously consider. and i guess i'm really asking why i should consider the Roman Church's claims to be the One True Church as more valid than the claims of the Eastern Orthodox communion? They also have apostolic succession, they have an older bishopric of st. peter (in antioch) and disupute the immaculate conception of Mary (though they do believe her to be sinless throughout life), and they have withstood their own test of hardship.
anyway, to Sambos671, thanks for clarifying the issue about Honorius. that takes care of that
though, since i still have issues with the immaculate conception, required celibacy and the supremacy of the pope in rome, these both affect the infallibility of the pope's and the Roman Catholic Church's decisions as they are ex cathedra doctrines that seem to go counter to the Deposit of Faith (at least, if one conforms the Deposit of Faith to Scripture). for me it's an issue of figuring out whether the Roman Catholic Church = The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (meaning i should convert to fully be in communion), or whether other Christian bodies have equal claim (like the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East or the Anglican Communion - though i have doctrinal issues with the last, too).i do think the enduring Roman Church is a living demonstration of God's power in His Church. But I also think the enduring Orthodox and Assyrian Communions exhibit this as well. Even in the Protestant Churches I can see evidence of the miraculous intervention of God's grace (especially in the Pentecostal Churches enduring in areas of heavy persecution around the world). But I do want to know if true unity can only be achieved if other communions subject themselves to Roman doctrines and supremacy.
Honestly, I wouldn't even have a problem submitting myself to the Pope (I think many of the original issues raised by the first Protestants have been resolved), but I don't think I could blindly state that ex cathedra decisions are infallible, when there seems to be evidence that they aren't (at least in the above doctrines, and maybe others that i don't know about). If the Roman, Eastern, Oriental and Assyrian Churches do ever come into full Communion, then I think a very good argument will exist that their institution constitutes the full Church. That may happen someday, and there are encouraging developments in that area. But right now it doesn't, and these Apostolic communities are at odds with each other. To me, that means the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church encompasses something greater than the Roman institution and hieararchy. To what degree, however, I just don't know for sure.
While I put all my faith in Jesus Christ and love His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with all my heart, as brothers and sisters, I think it would be remiss of me if I were to exclude elements of that Church by claiming it includes (or should submit to) only one of these communions.
Second Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response
Rebuttle by Sambos671 on the Same Catholic Forum
Quoting Ivan:
Transubstantiation: Also terms must be properly understood in order to obtain an understanding what is being said here. Read Thomas Aquinas and understand the classical understanding of what substance means. In an attempt to define what it could not be. The protestants at the time denied that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. But the deposit and writings of early Christians such as Ignatius and Justin verify that the elements are no longer just plain elements but have Mystically become the body and blood of Jesus. Therefore this doctrine cannot be taken to mean that these elements are meerly symbolic but in fact are the body and blood of this same Jesus Christ.
Immaculate conseption of Mary. The Catachism defines what it means when it says "everything we believe about Mary come about from what we believe about Jesus" Remember there is the deposit which has been passed down and we can see as early As John Chrysostom a particular view about Mary has existed throughout church history. In order to understand the Immaculate conseption you must first understand what Catholics believe about Jesus. The dual nature of Christ lends itself to Theotokos. Mother of God. The incarnation is about God becoming man. Mary did not give birth to just a man that became possesed by the Son. No she gave birth to Jesus who is man and the divine son. To say anything else lessens Jesus. Next you have to understand what Catholics mean by original sin. A quick review of St. Augustine can reveal that to you. But in order for Mary to give of herself in total obedience God's grace overshadowed her from her conseption. More can be said on this but you would have to list your particular disagreements. (I didn't read your entire article.) We See Elizabeth say of Mary "Mother of my Lord" etc...
As far as the one holy catholic and apostolic Church a quick review of Eusibius should give you insite into this consept. There are an apostolic succession of Bishops that have been passed down through the ages to this very day.
Forced Celebacy for the Chruch was devoloped initially because of abuse such as heredity in titles and land and wealth. It continues because... well there are many reasons not the least because they take Paul seriously when he says I wish you were as I. The Church wants total devotion to the lord for its clergy. Not a bad request. What are you willing to give up to do what Jesus calls you to do? I must say I never became a priest because I know I would have burned with desire an rahter have that problem I followed the Lord into sacramental marriage and raise children that honor him.
Quoting St. Anselm: For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this I believe - that unless I believe, I should not understand.
Ivan's Response to Sambos671's Rebuttle
Sambos, thank you for the clarification of terms, it's definately very helpful.
I see your point about the distinction between infallibility and impeccability. How do we apply this in regard to the more corrupt popes listed? As James states that faith not backed up by action is no faith at all, these particular popes seemed to do everything in their power to actively oppose faith. also, what about Pope Honorius I who was declared a heratic both by the sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo II? That particular episode shows pretty clearly that the Church doesn't always quickly catch heretical decrees.
On transubstantiation, I think you would be surprised at how many Protestants agree (though, I tend to appreciate the Eastern Orthodox explanation of the Mystery of the Eucharist more). For me, this wasn't so much of a "theological problem" as it was a "theological question".
In regards to the immaculate conception, I totally agree that the point is that Jesus is fully human and fully Divine. But being born to a woman guilty of sin doesn't lessen His Divinity, it fulfills His humanity, which is necessary for Him to totally identify with us (if I understand Athanasius' On the Incarnation correctly). To take the burden of our sins on His shoulders and to experience the rejection that goes along with that, He had to be born into a sinful world, to a woman guilty of sin though still given God's grace.
Finally, I agree with your assessment in regard to the value of celibacy. I just don't think it should be forced, and I think the 1 Timothy passage cited in the essay supports that assertion.
Quoting Ivan:
I raised five serious theological issues I have with the Roman Catholic Church (Immaculate Conception of Mary, Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiation, Forced Celibacy of the Clergy and the claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church)Like Archer said in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties Inerrerant is not impecable with regard to the Scriptures. We can use the same view with regard to Infallibility. Infallibility does not equal impeccability. What it does mean is that the Pope can not make a declarative teaching on Faith and morals that contradicts the Deposit of faith. The Pope is in a community and cannot go against the deposit. His teaching is reflective of that deposit of faith. community members will verify if the Pope teaches something in error. But most likely any error that may be in germ from will be weeded out before any declaration from the council of Cardinals. In other words the Pope cannot teach against the deposit of faith.
Transubstantiation: Also terms must be properly understood in order to obtain an understanding what is being said here. Read Thomas Aquinas and understand the classical understanding of what substance means. In an attempt to define what it could not be. The protestants at the time denied that it was the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. But the deposit and writings of early Christians such as Ignatius and Justin verify that the elements are no longer just plain elements but have Mystically become the body and blood of Jesus. Therefore this doctrine cannot be taken to mean that these elements are meerly symbolic but in fact are the body and blood of this same Jesus Christ.
Immaculate conseption of Mary. The Catachism defines what it means when it says "everything we believe about Mary come about from what we believe about Jesus" Remember there is the deposit which has been passed down and we can see as early As John Chrysostom a particular view about Mary has existed throughout church history. In order to understand the Immaculate conseption you must first understand what Catholics believe about Jesus. The dual nature of Christ lends itself to Theotokos. Mother of God. The incarnation is about God becoming man. Mary did not give birth to just a man that became possesed by the Son. No she gave birth to Jesus who is man and the divine son. To say anything else lessens Jesus. Next you have to understand what Catholics mean by original sin. A quick review of St. Augustine can reveal that to you. But in order for Mary to give of herself in total obedience God's grace overshadowed her from her conseption. More can be said on this but you would have to list your particular disagreements. (I didn't read your entire article.) We See Elizabeth say of Mary "Mother of my Lord" etc...
As far as the one holy catholic and apostolic Church a quick review of Eusibius should give you insite into this consept. There are an apostolic succession of Bishops that have been passed down through the ages to this very day.
Forced Celebacy for the Chruch was devoloped initially because of abuse such as heredity in titles and land and wealth. It continues because... well there are many reasons not the least because they take Paul seriously when he says I wish you were as I. The Church wants total devotion to the lord for its clergy. Not a bad request. What are you willing to give up to do what Jesus calls you to do? I must say I never became a priest because I know I would have burned with desire an rahter have that problem I followed the Lord into sacramental marriage and raise children that honor him.
Quoting St. Anselm: For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this I believe - that unless I believe, I should not understand.
Ivan's Response to Sambos671's Rebuttle
Sambos, thank you for the clarification of terms, it's definately very helpful.
I see your point about the distinction between infallibility and impeccability. How do we apply this in regard to the more corrupt popes listed? As James states that faith not backed up by action is no faith at all, these particular popes seemed to do everything in their power to actively oppose faith. also, what about Pope Honorius I who was declared a heratic both by the sixth Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo II? That particular episode shows pretty clearly that the Church doesn't always quickly catch heretical decrees.
On transubstantiation, I think you would be surprised at how many Protestants agree (though, I tend to appreciate the Eastern Orthodox explanation of the Mystery of the Eucharist more). For me, this wasn't so much of a "theological problem" as it was a "theological question".
In regards to the immaculate conception, I totally agree that the point is that Jesus is fully human and fully Divine. But being born to a woman guilty of sin doesn't lessen His Divinity, it fulfills His humanity, which is necessary for Him to totally identify with us (if I understand Athanasius' On the Incarnation correctly). To take the burden of our sins on His shoulders and to experience the rejection that goes along with that, He had to be born into a sinful world, to a woman guilty of sin though still given God's grace.
Finally, I agree with your assessment in regard to the value of celibacy. I just don't think it should be forced, and I think the 1 Timothy passage cited in the essay supports that assertion.
First Rebuttal to "A House Divided" & Ivan's Response
Rebuttal by "Ender" on a Catholic Forum
Quoting Ivan:
Your brief comment about justification by faith alone is unclear. The Catholic Church does not teach sola fide - are you saying you think she should?
Quoting Ivan:
Quoting Ivan:
Quoting Ivan:
Quoting Ivan:
Quoting Ivan:
Aside from this, the claim that apostolic succession also means doctrinal apostolic succession is a real stretch. It is fair to argue that the Catholic Church is wrong on doctrine but that has nothing whatever to do with whether she is apostolic in the sensible meaning of the term.
Ender
Ivan's Response to Ender's Rebuttal
Ender, you bring up many great points and I'll try to address each of them in order (if it's alright with you, I'd like to put your comments up on my blog along with my responses, because your responses are honestly the only decent answers I've gotten back).
First, while not on the level of the other issues, clerical celibacy hits home to me. If I am called to be a pastor (presbyteros in the Church (as I believe I am, and this is the vocation I'm currently pursuing in the Baptist church), then it's something that I personally would have to address if I am to convert to Catholicism, especially as I have a wife and son.
As for sole fide, my understanding of the doctrine is that while faith alone is what opens us up to the grace of God, real faith always pours forth into pious action. If the action is missing, then the faith is too (these views are based primarily on Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2:14-26). Where the Catholic system is one of grace born out of the merits (and meritous acts) of Christ (primarily and all encompassing) and the Saints, I think a Protestant could agree in the understanding that these merits are brought about by faith. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
You make an excellent point about the "Oneness" of the Church. The guidelines I provided were totally insufficient, though I think there is more cooperation between these groups than you realize. Those who are moved by the faith in and love of Christ find themselves working for charity in any way they can (and often with other communions). Currently the R.C. Church and most Protestant denominations use virtually the same lectionary, which means that the Gospel read in these churches on any given Sunday remains consistent. And recent documents between the R.C. Church, the ELCA, and the Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Churches (and the Assyrian Church of the East) have shown that the different sides ARE talking, though this dialogue must be bottom-up (like what we're doing right now) as well as top-down to be effective. To me this shows a desire on all sides to truly be One, but to do so, I believe the R.C. Church (and others) will have to seriously address not just why they broke apart, but what changes they've endured since then.
Anyway, I still haven't found a convincing argument that identifies the R.C. Church as THE One True Church above, say, the Eastern Orthodox Communion (as they have all the claims to apostolic succession the Roman Church has, and they also have a chair of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch).
Quoting Ember:
Though you dispute my claim that the Roman Church lost its Catholicity at least after the Great Schism, as far as I can tell the Eastern Orthodox Churches have as much a claim to that same Catholicity (based on the reasoning above).
On the next point of Apostolic Succession through both the presbyteros and the episkopos as they are arguably synonymous in the New Testament (see Acts 20, Titus 1:5-7 and 1 Peter 5:1-2), I do believe I am convinced (though only recently, and through much wrestling with the subject) based on the authority of Luke, Paul and Peter. Anyway, if they truly are synonymous from the earliest period, then the later (though still very early in the 2nd century) division of the office would still be an innovation and one that, while dividing the administrative duties of the office, cannot diminish its apostolic authority. So there, I will present it! Bwa ha ha!
Finally my appeal to Doctrinal Apostolic Succession is one of more of logic than an appeal to sola scriptura, which I agree would preclude Catholics. As Paul repeatedly lays the guidelines for appointing leaders in the Church, he emphasizes that they be taught rightly and uphold certain standards of behavior (two of which are being married only once and ruling over their children well).
Anyway, that all oughtta give us a few things to think about for a while. And, believe it or not, we did resolve a few things, namely the guidelines for the Holiness of the Church. I welcome any more comments on all this and above all I ask that whoever reads this prays for unity between the Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians (on whatever terms God wills).
Ivan
Quoting Ivan:
On my Theological Discussions blog, I raised five serious theological issues I have with the Roman Catholic Church (Immaculate Conception of Mary, Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope, Transubstantiation, Forced Celibacy of the Clergy and the claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church) in the essay "A House Divided: A Critique of Roman Claims to be the One True Church".I'll have to read the essay before commenting on it but I can make two observations now. The question of priestly celibacy is of a different type than the other four issues you raise in that, unlike the other four, the Church may at any time decide to change her position. This is not an unchangeable law of God, it a Church law and as such she may make of it what she will. I don't believe it rises to the level of a theological issue.
Your brief comment about justification by faith alone is unclear. The Catholic Church does not teach sola fide - are you saying you think she should?
Quoting Ivan:
The Church that can truly be described as One is that which spans across denominational or other dividing lines to reach those who truly believe they are sinners and that Christ's death on the Cross covers their sins and paves the way for their inclusion in the Kingdom of God.What you describe is a collection of individuals who agree on one specific, theological point. It is not the definition of a church. A random aggregation of individuals that never meets, never discusses the implications of that (one) shared belief, and does not even know who is or is not included cannot be called a church by any reasonable meaning of the term.
Quoting Ivan:
Holy? Really? If the Church is holy, it is solely by the grace won at the Cross of Christ and not by the many traditions, dogmas and institutions of the churches.The Catholic Church does not claim holiness derives from her any more than she claims that the doctrines she proclaims derive from her. "The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith." (Fides et Ratio) If she is the one true church then she would be holy by that fact alone.
Quoting Ivan:
The R.C. ceased being Catholic in a definite manner with the Great Schism of 1054This is like the complaint that God doesn't exist because there are so many people who don't believe in him. After all, if he existed, surely he would want everyone to know about him so they could believe, but because not everyone believes he obviously doesn't exist. That not everyone accepts Catholicism is no more an argument that the Church is not what she claims to be than the fact that not everyone believes in God shows that he is not who he claims to be. Her catholicity is intrinsic to her and is unaffected by the actions of those who may or may not accept her.
Quoting Ivan:
Finally, to be truly Apostolic a church must not only hold Apostolic Succession (through the laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, though Scripturally many can make the argument that those who are presbyteros are also episkopos, and therefore are able to perpetuate that line) ...You don't sound convincing on this point because you don't sound convinced yourself. If you don't take it seriously don't present it.
Quoting Ivan:
... but the church must also hold Doctrinal Apostolic Succession. Though a church retain lists of ordained bishops all the way back to the Apostles, if they don't preach the Gospel as stated in the Scriptures or hold dogmas that go against the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as stated in Scripture, then they are not Apostolic.It is not clear whether this is a merely claim for the validity of Sola Scriptura - which by definition rules out Catholicism - or (as it appears) a claim that the teachings of the Catholic Church disagree with Scripture. The latter is an interesting charge: are you claiming that the Baptist interpretation of scripture (if there is such a thing) is the true interpretation and all others are wrong? On what could such a claim be based? By what authority do you claim that only you (or only Baptists) correctly interpret scripture?
Aside from this, the claim that apostolic succession also means doctrinal apostolic succession is a real stretch. It is fair to argue that the Catholic Church is wrong on doctrine but that has nothing whatever to do with whether she is apostolic in the sensible meaning of the term.
Ender
Ivan's Response to Ender's Rebuttal
Ender, you bring up many great points and I'll try to address each of them in order (if it's alright with you, I'd like to put your comments up on my blog along with my responses, because your responses are honestly the only decent answers I've gotten back).
First, while not on the level of the other issues, clerical celibacy hits home to me. If I am called to be a pastor (presbyteros in the Church (as I believe I am, and this is the vocation I'm currently pursuing in the Baptist church), then it's something that I personally would have to address if I am to convert to Catholicism, especially as I have a wife and son.
As for sole fide, my understanding of the doctrine is that while faith alone is what opens us up to the grace of God, real faith always pours forth into pious action. If the action is missing, then the faith is too (these views are based primarily on Ephesians 2:8-9 and James 2:14-26). Where the Catholic system is one of grace born out of the merits (and meritous acts) of Christ (primarily and all encompassing) and the Saints, I think a Protestant could agree in the understanding that these merits are brought about by faith. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
You make an excellent point about the "Oneness" of the Church. The guidelines I provided were totally insufficient, though I think there is more cooperation between these groups than you realize. Those who are moved by the faith in and love of Christ find themselves working for charity in any way they can (and often with other communions). Currently the R.C. Church and most Protestant denominations use virtually the same lectionary, which means that the Gospel read in these churches on any given Sunday remains consistent. And recent documents between the R.C. Church, the ELCA, and the Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Churches (and the Assyrian Church of the East) have shown that the different sides ARE talking, though this dialogue must be bottom-up (like what we're doing right now) as well as top-down to be effective. To me this shows a desire on all sides to truly be One, but to do so, I believe the R.C. Church (and others) will have to seriously address not just why they broke apart, but what changes they've endured since then.
Anyway, I still haven't found a convincing argument that identifies the R.C. Church as THE One True Church above, say, the Eastern Orthodox Communion (as they have all the claims to apostolic succession the Roman Church has, and they also have a chair of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch).
Quoting Ember:
The Catholic Church does not claim holiness derives from her any more than she claims that the doctrines she proclaims derive from her. "The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith." (Fides et Ratio) If she is the one true church then she would be holy by that fact alone.You bring up a good point here, too and I honestly can't contest it.
Though you dispute my claim that the Roman Church lost its Catholicity at least after the Great Schism, as far as I can tell the Eastern Orthodox Churches have as much a claim to that same Catholicity (based on the reasoning above).
On the next point of Apostolic Succession through both the presbyteros and the episkopos as they are arguably synonymous in the New Testament (see Acts 20, Titus 1:5-7 and 1 Peter 5:1-2), I do believe I am convinced (though only recently, and through much wrestling with the subject) based on the authority of Luke, Paul and Peter. Anyway, if they truly are synonymous from the earliest period, then the later (though still very early in the 2nd century) division of the office would still be an innovation and one that, while dividing the administrative duties of the office, cannot diminish its apostolic authority. So there, I will present it! Bwa ha ha!
Finally my appeal to Doctrinal Apostolic Succession is one of more of logic than an appeal to sola scriptura, which I agree would preclude Catholics. As Paul repeatedly lays the guidelines for appointing leaders in the Church, he emphasizes that they be taught rightly and uphold certain standards of behavior (two of which are being married only once and ruling over their children well).
Anyway, that all oughtta give us a few things to think about for a while. And, believe it or not, we did resolve a few things, namely the guidelines for the Holiness of the Church. I welcome any more comments on all this and above all I ask that whoever reads this prays for unity between the Catholics, Orthodox and Protestant Christians (on whatever terms God wills).
Ivan
Monday, June 01, 2009
A House Divided: A Critique of Roman Claims to be the One True Church
A House Divided: A Critique of Roman Claims to be the One True Church
By Ian "Ivan" Hyde, June 01, 2009
Introduction
Below is the result of much personal wrestling over the problems that the modern Church must tackle in order to bring about true Ecumenical progress and hopefully, eventually exhibit full Communion. But this essay is really only the beginning of that process. In it, I don't focus on what brings us together, but what splits us apart. I think any real ecumenical dialogue has to begin in this place. It's a place of frustration, sometimes anger and sometimes resignation. As such, while this essay deals with theological and historical problems, it isn't written as a theological or historical essay. It is, instead, a personal (and in many ways internal) argument over whether a Protestant Baptist, such as I, should convert to another form of Christianity (to more fully commune with Christ and my brothers and sisters), or stay where I am.
We are all full of faults, and in this essay I really focus on the Roman Catholic Church, as this is the largest communion in Christendom, it is the communion around which most schisms originate and despite faithful believers being spread across many denominations it still resolutely refuses to recognize that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church encompasses something much bigger than the Roman organization.
And so, I operate from this beginning point: if anyone can satisfactorally explain away all these theological problems I have with the Roman Church's claim to be the One True Church, then I can see no other obstacle to converting and I would encourage all others that I meet to do the same.
A Quick History Lesson
I've been musing quite a bit over the idea of the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" and what that means today (specifically, whether it is necessary for me to convert to Roman Catholicism in order to be fully within the True Church). For those of ya'll who are unfamiliar with the term, it comes from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (325 AD) which was formed during the First Ecumenical Council of 318 bishops representing Christendom, finalized during the Second Ecumenical Council (of Constantinople in 381 AD by 150 bishops) and confirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council (of Ephesus in 431 AD by about 250 bishops) as the only authoritative statement of Faith.
This creed was written to clearly define the sometimes ambiguous Scriptural doctrine that became known as the Trinity. In fact, by the beginning of the fourth century, Christianity faced its biggest controversy in Arianism (named for the priest Arius, who Jolly Ole Saint Nick slapped for bein' a goober - it's true!), the belief that Jesus was only human. It threatened to tear the Church apart, and for an Emperor who had just declared Christianity legal (Constantine), that was unacceptable. So he convened the first of many councils to deal with the problem.
But splits happened anyway. Of those factions that remain today, the Assyrian Church of the East split off after the Second Ecumenical Council, the Oriental Orthodox Church split after the Third Ecumenical Council and the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches divorced in 1054 after the Pope tried to tweak the above-mentioned Creed a little bit, and barely 500 years later the Roman Church, in an arguably corrupt and bloated state, pooped out its own child-out-of-wedlock in the Protestant Reformation which has since fragmented into thousands of pieces, all claiming to have more right teaching, doctrine, practice and polity than the others (most of which, except the crazy ones, still adhere to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed).
And that's where we are today. Of the Christians belonging to the thousands of denominations that either explicitly or implicitly agree with the above Creed (about 2.1 billion), 65% (or 1.4 billion) claim to belong to a denomination that describes itself as the ONLY communion which fits the Four Marks as the description "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" has come to be called. By the way, the total of credal Christians above include Baptists, Pentecostals etc. who simultaniously claim to be "non-credal" and yet issue their own creeds (i.e. the Baptist Faith and Message), in the same way they believe in "Scripture alone" for their teaching and yet espouse doctrines like "age of accountability", "believer's baptism", and "congregationalist polity" to name a few that may be implied within Scripture, but are not explicitly stated.
Anyway, of the churches that claim to be the sole exhibitors of the Four Marks, one denomination sticks out to me: that of the Roman Catholic Church. As a Western Christian in a tradition (Baptist) which ultimately was birthed from the Church of England, which in turn came from the R.C. Church. As this denomination is the largest in the world, claims to exclusively be the One, True Church and actively seeks to convert those from other Christian communions (especially break-aways such as mine), I wanted to examine whether it really is necessary for me to join it, in order to fully be incorporated into the People of God. But as I examined this problem, I came across some major issues that must be resolved before I and my family are willing to join the R.C. Church. If anyone satisfactorily resolves these issues, as I said above, I will gladly convert and encourage all others to do likewise.
Theological Problem #1: Pope as Supreme, Infallible Vicar of Christ
Not only does this group claim to be THE (one-and-only!) One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church but this identity is deeply tied to submission to the Pope's supreme authority and infallible decisions as the Vicar of Christ (and His representative to the Faithful on Earth). This has caused a myriad of problems throughout Western Church history. First, it paved away for some of the most godless men of history to attain the Chair of St. Peter and systematically rape the Church raw. Here is a quick summary of lip-smacking depravity:
Steven VI (896-897): Convened the infamous "Cadaver Synod" where he mutilated the corpse of his predecessor, Fromosus.
John XII (937-964): An adulterer and mass murderer.
Benedict IX (1032-1044, 1045, 1047-1048): Guilty of Simony (sold the Papal office to the highest bidder).
Urban VI (1378-1389): Brutally tortured his cardinals and ushered in the advent of the Great Western Schism.
Alexander VI "the Borgia" (1492-1503): Had four children with his mistress, then elevated them to important positions (Nepotism). Arrested and murdered any rich person in sight to conviscate their properties, and yet still drove the church deep into debt.
Leo X (1513-1521): Nepotist who built the extravagant St. Peter's Basilica while the poor faithful were crushed under the burden of expensive indulgences. When Martin Luther and others rightfully called out for reformation Il Papa stubbornly refused and excommunicated them.
Clement VII (1523-1534): After trying to play all the political angles on the European scene, his scheming and machinations finally brought about the sack of Rome (though the church had already been sacked time and again by these "Holy Fathers").
The example of these men and others, to me at least, clearly nixes any claim to infallibility. In fact, I think a good argument could be made that Church infallibility doesn't exist either, based on the actions of the Crusades (against non-Christians and fellow brothers) and the burning of Protestant reformers - which were clearly driven by both political corruption and misconceived notions about the will of God. Roman Catholic teaching might make distinctions between action and doctrine, saying the latter is protected from the former, but the ink doctrines were written in during these times was still mingled with the blood of innocents.
But technically, the Papal claim to infallibility (as well as the R.C. claim to "Church infallibility") only applies to the dogmatic teaching of the Pope, ex cathedra, and not to his personal sins. And while the doctrine of P.I. was only recently fleshed out in the 20th "Ecumenical" Council (First Vatican, 1870 - in quotes because it is rejected by all other churches) as it is "Apostolic" it is also retrospective in scope. But wait! According to the Sixth Ecumenical Council (3rd Constantinople, 680) Pope Honorius I was declared a heretic and this decision was upheld by Leo II. These decisions predate - and contradict - the infallibility doctrine and are held up by the R.C. Church, the Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants. Added to this is the problematic papal bull by Leo X called Exsurge Domine which would more fittingly bear whatever Latin translation you can find for "A Pig's Gut Rot".
The title of "Vicar of Christ" is another major problem. While I would accept the apostolic tradition of the Pope as Vicar of Peter (though not exclusively, as we'll see below), to claim to solely represent the leadership and sovereignty of Christ to the Church is to usurp Christ's Holy Spirit, and to therefore set oneself up above God Himself. There is no greater Son of Perdition than the one who sets himself up above our Most Holy God.
Finally we must look to the Pope's claim of supremacy over the Church. This is what Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant Communions have most chafed under, when it comes to talks of unity: the idea that the title of Successor to the Apostle Peter solely lies with the Roman patriarch and no other. This is based on Matthew 16:17-19 when Jesus congratulates Peter's faith and tells him (or the Church, as many Protestant theologians believe) that he is the rock (a wordplay on Peter's name) on which Christ will build his church and to whom the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven are given, along with the power to bind and loose all things on Earth or in Heaven. I will not argue with the words of Christ and will work from the assumption that Peter's position over the other apostles is secure.
But here we run into a couple of problems. First, Peter was leader of the Antioch church before he was the leader of the Roman church. This means the bishop of Antioch has first claim to the chair of Peter, even before Rome. Also, at the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15 and Galatians 2, it is James and not Peter that declares the final decision of the Apostles in regard to the issues associated with Gentiles joining the Church. Peter may still have outranked James (as Peter is always listed first in lists of the Apostles in Scripture), though he seems to show deference to the fact that James is the head of the Jerusalem church (which is older than both the Antiochan and Roman churches), which seems to lead credence to Protestant ideas about congregational sovereignty and Orthodox ideas about autocephalency - i.e. the sovereignty of each bishop. And we won't even get into the issue of Antipopes (some of whom were equally as orthodox as the "legitimate" popes they were competing with, especially during the Great Western Schism). In any case, due to the above problems, while Peter's decisions may have been supreme in the Church, the Roman Pope's clearly aren't.
Theological Problem #2: The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The R.C. Church states that Mary was immaculately conceived, free from the stain of original sin, and remained sinless throughout her life. This statement is based on the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus issued by Pope Pius IX in 1854 (though was a tradition since the days of St. Anselm) and the fact that the angel Gabriel addresses her as "full of grace" in Scripture. However, Gabriel's salutation in reality addressed her pious, righteous waiting for the Messiah in the tradition of those described in Hebrews 11 and the grace she received was the gift of bearing God's Son.
As for the idea that she was sinless in life, this is clearly refuted by Romans 3:23, "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," and by Mark 10:17 where Jesus states that "no one is good, except God alone," whereby he, himself is included in that statement (attesting to his divinity).
Mary was a sinful woman who deserved eternal separation from God, just like every other human being, and just like me. After all, Sarah was a prototype for Mary and just as much a part of God's plan for our salvation. To elevate Mary above the sinful is to imply she could provide an equal sacrifice to that of Christ's, and to assign her a position retained for God alone is idolatry.
Theological Problem #3: Transubstantiation
This is more of a sticky issue, as it involves competing Scriptural views. The R.C. Church believes the bread and wine of the Eucharist actually become the body and blood of Christ (as do the Orthodox and some Protestants kinda do), based on the literal wording of Christ at his Last Supper and later tradition and councils clearly define the phenomenon. Many Protestants on the other hand hold Christ's words to be largely symbolic of His sacrifice at the Cross (as my denomination does). Both stances are dangerous: if it is not truly Body and Blood of Christ, then those who treat it as such are showing idolatrous devotion towards what is simply bread and wine. If it is truly Body and Blood, then Protestants aren't showing it the devotion it deserves which becomes its own type of idolatry.
In this case, I think it is folly to do any more than to faithfully and gratefully accept the mystery of God that is the Eucharist. We should happily contemplate the immense grace of being bound to generations of Christians inseparable by time or space and be still in the Presence of what we don't understand.
Theological Problem #4: Forced Celibacy of the Clergy
Ever since the churches began to enforce celibacy in the clergy in the 4th century, there have been massive problems. Popes and bishops throughout the middle ages were infamous for the widespread practice of concubinage, and many brought ironic meaning to the title of father and the art of husbandry. More recently, in the 20th and 21st centuries, R.C. clergy have been implicated in the sexual abuse of congregants (many of them underage boys) in the U.S., Ireland and Australia and in Ireland many have even tortured and raped the orphans they were charged to care for. God help us in the midst of this abominable corruption!
Those are just the practical problems. The practice of forced celebacy for the clergy falls apart on theological grounds as well. 1 Timothy 4:1-5 tells us, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. They forbid marriage and abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by God's word and by prayer."
On top of this, Mark 1:30 shows that Peter was married and in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul tells us that some of the other apostles were married as well. Eusebius and Martin Luther also claimed Paul was married, though Paul's own words seem to contradict this (1 Cor. 7:8, 9:5). Finally, 1 Timothy 3:2-4 gives bishops permission to be marred and have children. In fact, the following orthodox and well-respected bishops in the 3rd century had wives: Passivus of Fermo, Cassius of Narni, Aetherius of Vienne, Aquilinus of Evreux, Faron of Meaux, Magnus of Avignon, Filibaud of Aire-sur-l'Adour and Sigilaicus of Tours (the last of whom also had sons).
Scripture and tradition are clear: the hypocracy of bishops espousing forced celibacy on the clergy is not to be suffered.
Theological Problem #5: The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
This final problem is one of definitions. The R.C. Church can be described as "One" as it is a self-contained bowl of foul doctrines mixed in with good, rotted institutions mixed in with the edifying and corrupted clergy mixed in with the sains. The problem is that within that bowl, "a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough." [Galatians 5:9] The Church that can truly be described as One is that which spans across denominational or other dividing lines to reach those who truly believe they are sinners and that Christ's death on the Cross covers their sins and paves the way for their inclusion in the Kingdom of God.
Holy? Really? If the Church is holy, it is solely by the grace won at the Cross of Christ and not by the many traditions, dogmas and institutions of the churches.
The R.C. ceased being Catholic in a definite manner with the Great Schism of 1054, though many legitimate and apostolic churches (those that adhere to the Scriptures and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) split long before and many split after.
Finally, to be truly Apostolic a church must not only hold Apostolic Succession (through the laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, though Scripturally many can make the argument that those who are presbyteros are also episkopos, and therefore are able to perpetuate that line) but the church must also hold Doctrinal Apostolic Succession. Though a church retain lists of ordained bishops all the way back to the Apostles, if they don't preach the Gospel as stated in the Scriptures or hold dogmas that go against the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as stated in Scripture, then they are not Apostolic. Many dogmatic issues are worth debating and are not clearly defined in Scripture, many others are simply a Mystery of God and should be treated as such, but many others (some of those listed above) so clearly contradict the plain meaning of Scripture that they can only be described as a perversion of Apostolic teaching.
Conclusion
Though the R.C. Church exhibits the problems above, so do many particular churches and ecclesial communities. It is my fervent hope and prayer that we as Christian brothers and sisters lovingly correct each other and build each other up. My words were harsh above only because they needed to be. So many have been and continue to be hurt by our corruptions and we need the Spirit and Grace of God to purge us of these. I pray that one day, even in my lifetime, the whole Church would finally recognize itself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - bridging denominational lines and living in full, true Communion.
By Ian "Ivan" Hyde, June 01, 2009
Introduction
Below is the result of much personal wrestling over the problems that the modern Church must tackle in order to bring about true Ecumenical progress and hopefully, eventually exhibit full Communion. But this essay is really only the beginning of that process. In it, I don't focus on what brings us together, but what splits us apart. I think any real ecumenical dialogue has to begin in this place. It's a place of frustration, sometimes anger and sometimes resignation. As such, while this essay deals with theological and historical problems, it isn't written as a theological or historical essay. It is, instead, a personal (and in many ways internal) argument over whether a Protestant Baptist, such as I, should convert to another form of Christianity (to more fully commune with Christ and my brothers and sisters), or stay where I am.
We are all full of faults, and in this essay I really focus on the Roman Catholic Church, as this is the largest communion in Christendom, it is the communion around which most schisms originate and despite faithful believers being spread across many denominations it still resolutely refuses to recognize that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church encompasses something much bigger than the Roman organization.
And so, I operate from this beginning point: if anyone can satisfactorally explain away all these theological problems I have with the Roman Church's claim to be the One True Church, then I can see no other obstacle to converting and I would encourage all others that I meet to do the same.
A Quick History Lesson
I've been musing quite a bit over the idea of the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" and what that means today (specifically, whether it is necessary for me to convert to Roman Catholicism in order to be fully within the True Church). For those of ya'll who are unfamiliar with the term, it comes from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (325 AD) which was formed during the First Ecumenical Council of 318 bishops representing Christendom, finalized during the Second Ecumenical Council (of Constantinople in 381 AD by 150 bishops) and confirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council (of Ephesus in 431 AD by about 250 bishops) as the only authoritative statement of Faith.
This creed was written to clearly define the sometimes ambiguous Scriptural doctrine that became known as the Trinity. In fact, by the beginning of the fourth century, Christianity faced its biggest controversy in Arianism (named for the priest Arius, who Jolly Ole Saint Nick slapped for bein' a goober - it's true!), the belief that Jesus was only human. It threatened to tear the Church apart, and for an Emperor who had just declared Christianity legal (Constantine), that was unacceptable. So he convened the first of many councils to deal with the problem.
But splits happened anyway. Of those factions that remain today, the Assyrian Church of the East split off after the Second Ecumenical Council, the Oriental Orthodox Church split after the Third Ecumenical Council and the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches divorced in 1054 after the Pope tried to tweak the above-mentioned Creed a little bit, and barely 500 years later the Roman Church, in an arguably corrupt and bloated state, pooped out its own child-out-of-wedlock in the Protestant Reformation which has since fragmented into thousands of pieces, all claiming to have more right teaching, doctrine, practice and polity than the others (most of which, except the crazy ones, still adhere to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed).
And that's where we are today. Of the Christians belonging to the thousands of denominations that either explicitly or implicitly agree with the above Creed (about 2.1 billion), 65% (or 1.4 billion) claim to belong to a denomination that describes itself as the ONLY communion which fits the Four Marks as the description "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" has come to be called. By the way, the total of credal Christians above include Baptists, Pentecostals etc. who simultaniously claim to be "non-credal" and yet issue their own creeds (i.e. the Baptist Faith and Message), in the same way they believe in "Scripture alone" for their teaching and yet espouse doctrines like "age of accountability", "believer's baptism", and "congregationalist polity" to name a few that may be implied within Scripture, but are not explicitly stated.
Anyway, of the churches that claim to be the sole exhibitors of the Four Marks, one denomination sticks out to me: that of the Roman Catholic Church. As a Western Christian in a tradition (Baptist) which ultimately was birthed from the Church of England, which in turn came from the R.C. Church. As this denomination is the largest in the world, claims to exclusively be the One, True Church and actively seeks to convert those from other Christian communions (especially break-aways such as mine), I wanted to examine whether it really is necessary for me to join it, in order to fully be incorporated into the People of God. But as I examined this problem, I came across some major issues that must be resolved before I and my family are willing to join the R.C. Church. If anyone satisfactorily resolves these issues, as I said above, I will gladly convert and encourage all others to do likewise.
Theological Problem #1: Pope as Supreme, Infallible Vicar of Christ
Not only does this group claim to be THE (one-and-only!) One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church but this identity is deeply tied to submission to the Pope's supreme authority and infallible decisions as the Vicar of Christ (and His representative to the Faithful on Earth). This has caused a myriad of problems throughout Western Church history. First, it paved away for some of the most godless men of history to attain the Chair of St. Peter and systematically rape the Church raw. Here is a quick summary of lip-smacking depravity:
Steven VI (896-897): Convened the infamous "Cadaver Synod" where he mutilated the corpse of his predecessor, Fromosus.
John XII (937-964): An adulterer and mass murderer.
Benedict IX (1032-1044, 1045, 1047-1048): Guilty of Simony (sold the Papal office to the highest bidder).
Urban VI (1378-1389): Brutally tortured his cardinals and ushered in the advent of the Great Western Schism.
Alexander VI "the Borgia" (1492-1503): Had four children with his mistress, then elevated them to important positions (Nepotism). Arrested and murdered any rich person in sight to conviscate their properties, and yet still drove the church deep into debt.
Leo X (1513-1521): Nepotist who built the extravagant St. Peter's Basilica while the poor faithful were crushed under the burden of expensive indulgences. When Martin Luther and others rightfully called out for reformation Il Papa stubbornly refused and excommunicated them.
Clement VII (1523-1534): After trying to play all the political angles on the European scene, his scheming and machinations finally brought about the sack of Rome (though the church had already been sacked time and again by these "Holy Fathers").
The example of these men and others, to me at least, clearly nixes any claim to infallibility. In fact, I think a good argument could be made that Church infallibility doesn't exist either, based on the actions of the Crusades (against non-Christians and fellow brothers) and the burning of Protestant reformers - which were clearly driven by both political corruption and misconceived notions about the will of God. Roman Catholic teaching might make distinctions between action and doctrine, saying the latter is protected from the former, but the ink doctrines were written in during these times was still mingled with the blood of innocents.
But technically, the Papal claim to infallibility (as well as the R.C. claim to "Church infallibility") only applies to the dogmatic teaching of the Pope, ex cathedra, and not to his personal sins. And while the doctrine of P.I. was only recently fleshed out in the 20th "Ecumenical" Council (First Vatican, 1870 - in quotes because it is rejected by all other churches) as it is "Apostolic" it is also retrospective in scope. But wait! According to the Sixth Ecumenical Council (3rd Constantinople, 680) Pope Honorius I was declared a heretic and this decision was upheld by Leo II. These decisions predate - and contradict - the infallibility doctrine and are held up by the R.C. Church, the Eastern Orthodox and most Protestants. Added to this is the problematic papal bull by Leo X called Exsurge Domine which would more fittingly bear whatever Latin translation you can find for "A Pig's Gut Rot".
The title of "Vicar of Christ" is another major problem. While I would accept the apostolic tradition of the Pope as Vicar of Peter (though not exclusively, as we'll see below), to claim to solely represent the leadership and sovereignty of Christ to the Church is to usurp Christ's Holy Spirit, and to therefore set oneself up above God Himself. There is no greater Son of Perdition than the one who sets himself up above our Most Holy God.
Finally we must look to the Pope's claim of supremacy over the Church. This is what Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant Communions have most chafed under, when it comes to talks of unity: the idea that the title of Successor to the Apostle Peter solely lies with the Roman patriarch and no other. This is based on Matthew 16:17-19 when Jesus congratulates Peter's faith and tells him (or the Church, as many Protestant theologians believe) that he is the rock (a wordplay on Peter's name) on which Christ will build his church and to whom the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven are given, along with the power to bind and loose all things on Earth or in Heaven. I will not argue with the words of Christ and will work from the assumption that Peter's position over the other apostles is secure.
But here we run into a couple of problems. First, Peter was leader of the Antioch church before he was the leader of the Roman church. This means the bishop of Antioch has first claim to the chair of Peter, even before Rome. Also, at the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15 and Galatians 2, it is James and not Peter that declares the final decision of the Apostles in regard to the issues associated with Gentiles joining the Church. Peter may still have outranked James (as Peter is always listed first in lists of the Apostles in Scripture), though he seems to show deference to the fact that James is the head of the Jerusalem church (which is older than both the Antiochan and Roman churches), which seems to lead credence to Protestant ideas about congregational sovereignty and Orthodox ideas about autocephalency - i.e. the sovereignty of each bishop. And we won't even get into the issue of Antipopes (some of whom were equally as orthodox as the "legitimate" popes they were competing with, especially during the Great Western Schism). In any case, due to the above problems, while Peter's decisions may have been supreme in the Church, the Roman Pope's clearly aren't.
Theological Problem #2: The Immaculate Conception of Mary
The R.C. Church states that Mary was immaculately conceived, free from the stain of original sin, and remained sinless throughout her life. This statement is based on the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus issued by Pope Pius IX in 1854 (though was a tradition since the days of St. Anselm) and the fact that the angel Gabriel addresses her as "full of grace" in Scripture. However, Gabriel's salutation in reality addressed her pious, righteous waiting for the Messiah in the tradition of those described in Hebrews 11 and the grace she received was the gift of bearing God's Son.
As for the idea that she was sinless in life, this is clearly refuted by Romans 3:23, "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," and by Mark 10:17 where Jesus states that "no one is good, except God alone," whereby he, himself is included in that statement (attesting to his divinity).
Mary was a sinful woman who deserved eternal separation from God, just like every other human being, and just like me. After all, Sarah was a prototype for Mary and just as much a part of God's plan for our salvation. To elevate Mary above the sinful is to imply she could provide an equal sacrifice to that of Christ's, and to assign her a position retained for God alone is idolatry.
Theological Problem #3: Transubstantiation
This is more of a sticky issue, as it involves competing Scriptural views. The R.C. Church believes the bread and wine of the Eucharist actually become the body and blood of Christ (as do the Orthodox and some Protestants kinda do), based on the literal wording of Christ at his Last Supper and later tradition and councils clearly define the phenomenon. Many Protestants on the other hand hold Christ's words to be largely symbolic of His sacrifice at the Cross (as my denomination does). Both stances are dangerous: if it is not truly Body and Blood of Christ, then those who treat it as such are showing idolatrous devotion towards what is simply bread and wine. If it is truly Body and Blood, then Protestants aren't showing it the devotion it deserves which becomes its own type of idolatry.
In this case, I think it is folly to do any more than to faithfully and gratefully accept the mystery of God that is the Eucharist. We should happily contemplate the immense grace of being bound to generations of Christians inseparable by time or space and be still in the Presence of what we don't understand.
Theological Problem #4: Forced Celibacy of the Clergy
Ever since the churches began to enforce celibacy in the clergy in the 4th century, there have been massive problems. Popes and bishops throughout the middle ages were infamous for the widespread practice of concubinage, and many brought ironic meaning to the title of father and the art of husbandry. More recently, in the 20th and 21st centuries, R.C. clergy have been implicated in the sexual abuse of congregants (many of them underage boys) in the U.S., Ireland and Australia and in Ireland many have even tortured and raped the orphans they were charged to care for. God help us in the midst of this abominable corruption!
Those are just the practical problems. The practice of forced celebacy for the clergy falls apart on theological grounds as well. 1 Timothy 4:1-5 tells us, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will renounce the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. They forbid marriage and abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by God's word and by prayer."
On top of this, Mark 1:30 shows that Peter was married and in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul tells us that some of the other apostles were married as well. Eusebius and Martin Luther also claimed Paul was married, though Paul's own words seem to contradict this (1 Cor. 7:8, 9:5). Finally, 1 Timothy 3:2-4 gives bishops permission to be marred and have children. In fact, the following orthodox and well-respected bishops in the 3rd century had wives: Passivus of Fermo, Cassius of Narni, Aetherius of Vienne, Aquilinus of Evreux, Faron of Meaux, Magnus of Avignon, Filibaud of Aire-sur-l'Adour and Sigilaicus of Tours (the last of whom also had sons).
Scripture and tradition are clear: the hypocracy of bishops espousing forced celibacy on the clergy is not to be suffered.
Theological Problem #5: The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
This final problem is one of definitions. The R.C. Church can be described as "One" as it is a self-contained bowl of foul doctrines mixed in with good, rotted institutions mixed in with the edifying and corrupted clergy mixed in with the sains. The problem is that within that bowl, "a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough." [Galatians 5:9] The Church that can truly be described as One is that which spans across denominational or other dividing lines to reach those who truly believe they are sinners and that Christ's death on the Cross covers their sins and paves the way for their inclusion in the Kingdom of God.
Holy? Really? If the Church is holy, it is solely by the grace won at the Cross of Christ and not by the many traditions, dogmas and institutions of the churches.
The R.C. ceased being Catholic in a definite manner with the Great Schism of 1054, though many legitimate and apostolic churches (those that adhere to the Scriptures and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) split long before and many split after.
Finally, to be truly Apostolic a church must not only hold Apostolic Succession (through the laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, though Scripturally many can make the argument that those who are presbyteros are also episkopos, and therefore are able to perpetuate that line) but the church must also hold Doctrinal Apostolic Succession. Though a church retain lists of ordained bishops all the way back to the Apostles, if they don't preach the Gospel as stated in the Scriptures or hold dogmas that go against the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as stated in Scripture, then they are not Apostolic. Many dogmatic issues are worth debating and are not clearly defined in Scripture, many others are simply a Mystery of God and should be treated as such, but many others (some of those listed above) so clearly contradict the plain meaning of Scripture that they can only be described as a perversion of Apostolic teaching.
Conclusion
Though the R.C. Church exhibits the problems above, so do many particular churches and ecclesial communities. It is my fervent hope and prayer that we as Christian brothers and sisters lovingly correct each other and build each other up. My words were harsh above only because they needed to be. So many have been and continue to be hurt by our corruptions and we need the Spirit and Grace of God to purge us of these. I pray that one day, even in my lifetime, the whole Church would finally recognize itself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church - bridging denominational lines and living in full, true Communion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)