Ecclesial Deism

Jul 6th, 2009 | By Bryan Cross | Category: Featured Articles

St. Irenaeus and St. Clement of Alexandria, who both lived during the second century, tell us that after the Apostle John returned from exile on Patmos, he remained at Ephesus “till Trajan’s time.” Trajan became emperor in AD 98. According to the tradition, St. John was the last of the twelve Apostles to die. When the angels carried his soul into Heaven, was the Church then left to fall into heresy and apostasy?

Assumption of St John the Evangelist

Assumption of St. John the Evangelist
Taddeo Gaddi (1348-1353)
Collezione Vittorio Cini, Venice

Contents:

I. A Dilemma
II. Ecclesial Deism
III. Ecclesial Faith
IV. Indefectibility of the Mystical Body
V. An Objection
VI. Conclusion

I. A Dilemma

A few weeks after I graduated from seminary, some Mormon missionaries came to our door. My wife invited them in, and we started talking. But we were just getting into the important questions when we ran out of time. So we agreed to meet with them the following week. They ended up coming weekly for the rest of the summer. Since I had just completed four years of training in biblical theology, Greek and Hebrew, I was quite confident that I could persuade these teenage missionaries by exegetical arguments from Scripture, that Mormonism is false and that the Gospel, as we understood it then, is true.

Over the course of our discussions with these Mormon missionaries, when I argued that their teachings were contrary to Scripture, they would counter by appealing to the Book of Mormon, and I would respond by saying that the Book of Mormon is contrary to Scripture. But they viewed Scripture through the Book of Mormon, that is, in light of the Book of Mormon. They claimed that very shortly after the death of the Apostles (or maybe even before the death of the last Apostle) the Church fell into utter apostasy, and that the true Gospel had been preserved in North America where Jesus had come to preach to certain peoples living here at that time. For that reason, according to the Mormons, the Bible had to be interpreted and understood in light of this additional revelation that Joseph Smith had recovered, and not according to the teachings and practices of the early Church fathers. That was because in their view the early Church Fathers had corrupted Christ’s teaching by incorporating into it both Greek philosophy and pagan rites in syncretistic fashion. So our conversation at some point reached fundamental questions such as: “Why should we believe the Book of Mormon over the early Church fathers?”, and “How do you know that the Church fathers corrupted Christ’s teaching?”

I realized at the time that I too, as a Protestant, could not appeal to the early Church Fathers or the councils in a principled way to support my position against that of the Mormons. Of course, at that time I agreed with Nicene Trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology, but like the Mormons I too believed that shortly after the death of the Apostles the Church had begun to fall into various errors, minor at first but progressively more serious. So in my mind, everything any Church Father said had to be tested against [my own interpretation of] Scripture.

Where did I think the early Church had gone wrong? I agreed with the Mormons that the early Church had been influenced by Greek philosophy. The Church had made use of Greek philosophy with terms such as homoousious, hypostasis, and physis to explain and defend the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Of course, I believed those doctrines to be true, but the use of such Greek notions worried me because it suggested an implicit syncretism. Protestants I respected had told me that they questioned or rejected parts of the Nicene Creed (e.g., saying that Christ was “eternally begotten”) as being both extra-biblical and based on Greek philosophy. I knew that Greek philosophy had been quite influential in Alexandria, and I believed that this is where the allegorical method of interpretation was introduced. This was a method, in my mind, that was responsible for the Church’s departure from the Gospel, and the subsequent need for the Reformation. From my sola scriptura point of view, there was no difference between bishop and elder, no basis for the papacy or even Roman primacy, not even a real distinction between clergy and laymen. So the whole hierarchical organization of the early Catholic Church seemed to me to be a corruption, a departure from what was taught in the New Testament.

Similarly, I believed that the Catholic liturgy, holy days, almost everything in the liturgical calendar, vestments for clergy, veneration of saints and their relics and icons, prayers for the dead, and prayers to departed saints were all accretions from pagan holidays and practices. Even the idea that some Christians are saints in some greater way (with a capital ‘S’) than that in which all Christians are saints was, in my opinion, a corruption, since I thought egalitarianism followed from our being saved by grace. This was epitomized, in my view, by the Catholic Church’s veneration of Mary, treating her as “Mother of God,” and claiming that she remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, as though marriage and sexual intercourse were evil.

From my point of view at that time, the early Church had somehow been led astray from the finished work of Christ and come to believe in what I thought was a magical conception of the sacraments, presumably also imported from paganism. This magical way of conceiving of the sacraments explained why the Bishops who wrote the Creeds treated baptism as forgiving sins, why at some point they came to believe that the bread and wine really became the Body and Blood of Christ, and why they transformed the agape love-feast into the “Eucharistic sacrifice.” That, along with their failure to adhere to sola scriptura, explained why they treated things like confirmation, marriage, penance, and ordination as sacraments. From the sola scriptura point of view, all these ‘additions,’ like purgatory, the exaltation of celibacy, mysticism, monasticism, and asceticism, had to have come from paganism, and were therefore a corruption of the purity of the Church and the Gospel, just as Israel of the Old Testament had played the harlot with the gods of the other nations. As I saw it, the Church had started to deviate from orthodoxy by the second century, and the pace of that deviation only accelerated when Constantine made Christianity the official state religion. Christ had said that His Kingdom was not of this world, but in my mind the Catholic Church had tried to turn it into an earthly kingdom, with bishops and popes assuming monarchical prerogatives.

ClipSM

So when the Mormons claimed that a great apostasy had overcome the Church by the time of the death of the last Apostle, I had no ground to stand on by which to refute that claim. The Mormons believed that the true gospel was recovered in the early nineteenth century by Joseph Smith. I believed, as a Reformed Protestant, that the true gospel was recovered in the early sixteenth century by Martin Luther. But we both agreed (to my frustration) that the early Church fathers and the councils were suspect and not authoritative in their own right. Over the course of our meetings with the Mormon missionaries that summer I realized that, with respect to our treatment of the early Church fathers and ecumenical councils, there was no principled difference between myself and the two young Mormon missionaries sitting in my living room.¹

This same problem can be seen clearly in a debate hosted by Beliefnet.com in 2007 between Orson Scott Card, who is a Mormon, and Albert Mohler, who is a Reformed Baptist and also the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The debate centered on the question, “Are Mormons Christian?” Mohler rightly claims that Mormonism is incompatible with “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” He writes:

According to Mormon teaching, the church was corrupted after the death of the apostles and became the “Church of the Devil.” Mormonism then claims that the true church was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith in the 1820s. This restored church was, Mormon theology claims, given the keys to the kingdom and the authority of the only true priesthood.

[W]e do have an objective standard by which to judge what is and is not Christianity, and that is the very “traditional Christian orthodoxy” that Mr. Card and Mormonism reject.²

According to Mohler:

Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity. . . . Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself – that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false. In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.³

Mohler claims that we have an “objective standard” by which to define what is and what is not Christianity. That objective standard is “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” But this subtly pushes back the question: What is the objective standard for what counts as “traditional Christian orthodoxy”? Mohler appeals to the early creeds, and the first four ecumenical councils. He seems to think that the end of the fifth century is roughly the cutoff for “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” But picking the fifth century as the cutoff for “traditional Christian orthodoxy” is no less ad hoc than picking the first century. If one thinks that the Church fell into heresy or apostasy, there is no more principled reason to think the ‘apostasy of the Church’ did not begin for five hundred years than there is to think it began in the first century.

Moreover, the first five centuries of Christian tradition are replete with beliefs and practices that Mohler rejects. I described some of them above, in laying out those points concerning which I, as a Protestant, believed that the Church had been corrupted. The bishops who wrote the Nicene Creed, which Mohler treats as part of the orthodox tradition, were the bishops at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in AD 325 and at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in AD 381. But Baptists such as Mohler reject both the doctrine of apostolic succession and the episcopal form of Church polity which all those bishops believed and practiced.⁴

Baptists reject what all those bishops believed and taught as being essential to the Christian faith regarding baptismal regeneration: “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”⁵ Many of the canons of the Council of Nicea (AD 325) do not even make sense from a Baptist point of view. Mohler is critical of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (AD 431) in its declaration of Mary as the ‘Theotokos,’ claiming that doing so “brought ill effects upon the Catholic Church.”⁶ He accepts the Christology taught by the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, AD 451), but rejects the teaching of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 553 AD) which affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary,⁷ claiming that it “moved Roman Catholic theology and devotion increasingly away from the Holy Scriptures and toward human innovation.”⁸ And he rejects the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea, AD 787) in its condemnation of iconoclasm.

The problem here is that Mohler’s position faces a very serious dilemma regarding the tradition to which he is appealing as the basis for “Christian orthodoxy.” On the one hand, Mohler cannot reject the tradition of the early Church, because that would make his own position fail to count as “traditional Christian orthodoxy,” and thus fail to count as “Christian,” by the very same argument he uses to claim that Mormonism is not Christian. On the other hand, Mohler cannot embrace the tradition of the early Church, because, as shown above, in many important ways that tradition is incompatible with his own Baptist theology.

How does Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in "traditional Christian orthodoxy"] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

The problem with the pick-and-choose approach is that it is entirely ad hoc insofar as one picks and chooses from among Church Fathers and councils only those statements one agrees with, to be ‘authoritative.’ In this way Mohler is engaging in special pleading: he criticizes Mormonism for selectively rejecting the Christian tradition, while he himself selectively rejects the Christian tradition. So in order to serve as the standard for “Christian orthodoxy,” the distinction between what counts as tradition, and what does not, must be principled. Yet Mohler’s theology has no conceptual space for a principled basis for this distinction. The result is that Mohler identifies tradition in the same way that an archer might paint a target around an arrow he has already shot into a wall.

So the dilemma is this: either he makes an ad hoc appeal to tradition, and thus commits the fallacy of special pleading, or he gives up his appeal to tradition, and thereby loses that by which he tries to draw a principled distinction between the methodologies whereby Baptists and Mormons determine whether particular traditions are in line with Scripture or are ungodly accretions.

A further and particularly significant implication of this ad hoc approach to the tradition is that it undermines the basis for believing the canon of the Bible to be correct. If the Church erred in so many doctrines and practices, then we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right. It would be ad hoc to trust that the Church got the canon right while believing that the Church got so many other things wrong during that same period of time.⁹

In that case we cannot justifiably use our interpretation of Scripture to determine which traditions agree with our interpretation and which traditions do not, because we do not know which books are Scripture. Nor, for the same reason, can we use our interpretation of Scripture to determine which books of the Bible belong there, because that would be to assume at the outset precisely what we do not know, i.e., the canon. As a result, those who claim that the Church deviated from orthodoxy at an early point in history, and use Scripture to show this, undermine the very basis for their assurance that the book they hold in their hand is canonically inerrant. They must either turn to critical scholarship, or resort to some internal voice that they perceive to be from the Holy Spirit, in order to verify the canon, before they can use the canon to evaluate the tradition of the early Church.

II. Ecclesial Deism

My point in considering Mohler’s example is not to pick on Mohler or Baptists. This particular dilemma is not unique to Baptists; it follows from the very nature of Protestantism, because Protestantism, like Mormonism, presupposes ecclesial deism. Deism refers to a belief that God made the world, and then left it to run on its own. It is sometimes compared to “a clockmaker” winding up a clock and then “letting it run.” Deism is distinct from theism in that theism affirms not only that God created the world, but also that God continually sustains and governs all of creation. Ecclesial deism is the notion that Christ founded His Church, but then withdrew, not protecting His Church’s Magisterium (i.e., the Apostles and/or their successors) from falling into heresy or apostasy. Ecclesial deism is not the belief that individual members of the Magisterium could fall into heresy or apostasy. It is the belief that the Magisterium of the Church could lose or corrupt some essential of the deposit of faith, or add something to the deposit of faith.

Why is ecclesial deism intrinsic to Protestantism and Mormonism? Because any person who chooses to leave the Catholic Church or remain separated from her, while intending to remain a Christian, has to claim that the Catholic Church has fallen into heresy or apostasy, so that separating from her is justified. We can find this idea throughout the history of the Catholic Church. The Gnostics of the second century justified being separated from the Catholic Church by claiming that even the Apostles had perverted Christ’s teachings. St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.¹⁰

Of course ecclesial deists typically do not describe their own position as a form of deism, nor do they see it as such. One very significant factor preventing ecclesial deists from seeing their own ecclesial deism as such is an implicit Gnosticism (anti-sacramentalism) regarding the nature of the Church. The Church, according to this conception, is not a unified body with a visible hierarchy, but something in itself purely spiritual in nature, visible only in the sense that one can see and touch embodied Christians (and their children) who are, by their faith alone, presently joined to it.¹¹ Conceiving of the Church as in itself spiritual and invisible allows a person to believe that Christ has always faithfully preserved His [invisible] Church, even while allowing the leaders of the Catholic Church to fall into heresy, apostasy, or perversion of the Gospel.¹²

This conception of the Church makes it conceptually impossible for the gates of Hades to prevail over the Church, no matter what happens to the visible hierarchy of the Church. According to this notion, even if at some point in history there were no [embodied] believers, this would not entail that the gates of Hades had prevailed over the Church, because the Church is a spiritual entity existing in the spiritual realm. Yet most people holding this conception of the Church as invisible believe that there has always been at least some remnant of Christians who believed the true faith, the true faith that was rediscovered by some later figure such as Martin Luther 1,500 years later or Joseph Smith 1,800 years later.

Given the Gnostic (anti-sacramental) conception of the Church, none of the biblical promises concerning the Church apply to the Catholic Church. These include not only Christ’s aforementioned promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church,¹³ but also that He will be with her even to the end of the age,¹⁴ that the Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth,¹⁵ and that the Church is built upon a rock and cannot be washed away.¹⁶. In the Old Testament the prophets looked forward to the Church age. From their writings we see that the Church enjoys an everlasting covenant that cannot be revoked,¹⁷ that the Church is everlasting and indestructible,¹⁸ and that David’s throne will exist for all time.¹⁹ For all these reasons, the Apostle Paul teaches that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”²⁰ But given the gnostic conception of the Church, these promises do not apply to the Church in relation to her visible unified hierarchy; they apply instead to some invisible entity to which all Christians are spiritually joined through faith.

Furthermore, given this conception of the Church as something in itself invisible, being excommunicated from the Catholic Church is no more reason to believe that you have been separated from the Church Christ founded than it is to believe that you are the continuation of the Church Christ founded, and that the Catholic Church is the apostate ‘schism from’ the Church Christ founded. This is why heresies and schisms must either maintain that the Church Christ founded is invisible, or, if they acknowledge that the Church is essentially a visibly unified hierarchical body, they must claim to have more ecclesial authority than does the episcopal successor of St. Peter.

Ecclesial deism tends to see the changes over the first fifteen hundred years of Church history as corruptions, not developments. That is why it seeks to jettison all these ‘accretions’ and return to the “purity of the Scriptures.” In combination with a sola scriptura approach, it is inclined to view anything in the Christian tradition that is not explicitly stated in Scripture or does not necessarily follow from it as a corruption or paganization of the Church. In that respect it is fundamentally pessimistic, skeptical of the possibility of a providentially-guided deepening of the Church’s understanding of the deposit of faith, until some later restoration is initiated. We find this notion of ecclesial deism quite clearly in the Restorationist movement that arose in nineteenth century North America. This includes the Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and the Latter Day Saints.²¹ The Restorationists are unequivocal about what they believe to have been an early apostasy and a long spiritual ‘dark age’ followed by a restoration to the true and primitive Christian faith in their own group in the nineteenth century. That idea epitomizes ecclesial deism.

But it is not only self-described Restorationists who hold this position. Contemporary Presbyterian theologian Robert Reymond, for example, writes, “[T]he church in many areas of the then known world rather quickly departed from the pure gospel and teaching of the apostles and began to espouse defective views of the Trinity and the person and work of Christ, and to advocate Pelagian and sacerdotalistic version of salvation.”²² Calvinist theologian Louis Berkhof writes, “Some of [Gnosticism's] peculiarities were absorbed by the Church and in course of time came to fruition in the Roman Catholic Church with its peculiar conception of the sacraments, its philosophy of a hidden God, who should be approached through intermediaries (saints, angels, Mary), its divisions of men into higher and lower orders, and its emphasis on asceticism.”²³

Some Protestants try to distance themselves from the foundational assumption of the Restorationists.²⁴ These Protestants seek to avoid claiming that the Church fell into apostasy, while also claiming that the Gospel was recovered by the Reformers in the sixteenth century. For example, Charles Hodge, the principle of Princeton Theological Seminary in the middle of the nineteenth century, wrote:

We do not hold to an entire apostasy of even the outward Church before the Reformation. It is an historical fact that (excepting the Arian heresy), the inspiration of the Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity, the true divinity and humanity of the Savior, the fall of man, redemption by the blood of Christ, and regeneration and sanctification by his Spirit were held by the Church universal. These are not the doctrines of Romanism as distinguished from Protestantism. These are not the points against which the Reformers protested, and as to which they proclaimed Rome apostate and anti-Christian.²⁵

Notice that Hodge is making two distinctions here. One is between “the outward Church” and [presumably] the “inward Church,” which for him is the invisible Church. The “outward Church” can suffer at least ‘partial apostasy’ while the ‘inward Church’ cannot suffer any apostasy. This division of the Church into an outward Church and an inward Church is an ecclesial Nestorianism which necessarily collapses into ecclesial Docetism for the following reason. The error of Nestorianism was treating Christ’s human nature as a complete or whole created being that was united to a divine Person. The notion that Christ’s human nature (which is a rational nature) was a complete created being entails that there was a created person. And so the ontological result of this error is two persons, one created and one uncreated, united by an extrinsic union. The human being is not divine, but closely united to the divine. That is why Nestorius refused to acknowledge that Mary is the Mother of God, preferring instead to designate her the mother of Jesus. But since it had already been established at Nicea in AD 325 and Constantinople in AD 381 that God is a Trinity of Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then if Jesus is a human being closely connected to God, but not God, what follows is some form of Docetism — the Son only seemed to be Jesus. That is why the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) had to condemn Nestorianism.

Likewise, and for the same reason, ecclesial Nestorianism necessarily collapses into ecclesial Docetism. Here is why: given that Christ is the Head of the Mystical Body, then treating the Mystical Body as something distinct from, even if extrinsically united to, the Catholic Church, reduces the Catholic Church to a merely human institution, just as Nestorianism reduces Jesus to a mere human being. The real Church (i.e., the one that Christ founded), given ecclesial Nestorianism, is the invisible Church that may or may not be in some way related to the Catholic Church. That is ecclesial Docetism.²⁶ The real Church, for Hodge, is the inward or invisible Church; there is no “visible Church” per se, nor do the promises of Christ apply to it. There are many visible churches, but no universal visible Church.

The second distinction Hodges tries to make here is between partial apostasy and “entire apostasy.” Entire apostasy would be the loss of all true doctrines of the deposit of the faith, while partial apostasy [apparently] would be the loss of only some part of the deposit of faith, and/or the wrongful addition of something to the deposit of faith.²⁷ Given that definition of “entire apostasy,” any Restorationists who shared even one common point of doctrine with the Catholic Church would agree with Hodge. But then with respect to the “apostasy gap” assumed by Restorationists, there is no principled difference between Restorationist Protestants and Protestants who distance themselves from Restorationists. The difference is only a matter of degree with regard to what percentage of the deposit of faith was lost, and the rate at which that loss occurred.

If the Catholic Church did not apostatize, then Protestants would not be justified in separating from her. So in order to justify separating from the Catholic Church, Protestants must hold that the Catholic Church apostatized, either earlier in her history, or later. Hodge seeks to distinguish his position from the Restorationists by delaying and diminishing the degree of apostasy. But he faces the following dilemma. The first horn of the dilemma is this: if he claims that the Church apostatized early on, then his position is equivalent to that of the Restorationists. The second horn of the dilemma is this: if he claims that the Church faithfully maintained orthodoxy for 1,500 years, then there is a much greater likelihood that (a) the Church has continued to preserve orthodoxy and he is mistaken than (b) that he is correct and that the Church, after a millennium and a half, has finally fallen into apostasy. The second horn of the dilemma is not open to Hodge, because his theology would be unchanged if he claimed that the Church fell into utter apostasy by AD 500. That is because his theology is for the most part not formed and shaped by the rulings of the ecumenical councils between AD 500 through AD 1,500. So that leaves him on the first horn, with no principled difference between his position and that of the Restorationists.

Because there is no principled difference between Hodge’s position and that of the Restorationists’ with respect to the apostasy of the Church, Hodge faces the very same dilemma described above regarding Mohler. He can only appeal to tradition in an ad hoc manner, picking and choosing what he thinks is orthodox, and passing over what he thinks is not, according to his own interpretation of Scripture. And like Mohler, that completely undermines his ability to appeal to “traditional Christian orthodoxy” when responding to Mormons and other self-described Restorationists.

III. Ecclesial Faith

How did I come to recognize my ecclesial deism for what it was? I first began to see it when taking a graduate seminar on St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas continually appeals to the tradition of the Church, and to the Fathers. I found myself frustrated by his theological method. I wanted him to be doing exegesis from Scripture when making theological arguments, not appealing to the Church Fathers. The professor teaching the seminar responded to my objections by explaining that Aquinas believed that divine providence guided the Church Fathers and the development of the Church. This professor pointed out that Aquinas was not a deist about the Church. That short answer provoked me to do a great deal of reflecting, because I realized then that I did not share Aquinas’s non-deistic way of conceiving of the development of the Church.

Of course I firmly believed in divine providence, but I distrusted all the Fathers to which Aquinas appealed. That is why, in my mind, appeals to the Fathers did not establish anything at all, because if the Church were being corrupted and falling away from the purity of the Gospel, then appealing to the Fathers was like appealing to heretics. But for Aquinas, if the Church Fathers taught something, especially if they were Doctors of the Church or if the claim in question was held and taught widely by the Fathers, that showed it to be authoritative for us as a kind of patrimony, precisely because the Holy Spirit was unfailingly guiding the development of the Church into all truth. On this point I discovered a very deep difference between myself and Aquinas. The more I studied his writings, the more the difference was noticeable to me. Aquinas believed that faith in Christ necessarily involves trusting the Church, because Christ cannot fail to guide and protect the development of His Church.

I came to see that I did not fully trust Christ, not because I thought Him untrustworthy, but because I had not understood that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head, and which He has promised to protect and preserve until He returns. I had not apprehended the ecclesial organ Christ established through which the members of His Body are to trust Him. I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”²⁸ This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church, the basis for the priest speaking in persona Christi.

As I began to grasp that, I began to grasp that my Church-less faith was too small. Apart from the Church, I had conceived of faith in Christ as something entirely inward. But upon coming to understand that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head and which He promised to preserve, I came to see that the way to trust Christ is to trust His Church of which He is the Head, just as the early Christians trusted Christ precisely by trusting the teaching of the Apostles. Trusting the Apostles did not subtract from (or compete with) their trust in Christ. On the contrary, when Jesus tells the Apostle Thomas, “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,”²⁹ He implies that greater faith is required and shown in those who trust in Christ not by seeing Him, but by believing the testimony of the Apostles. Jesus refers to this way of believing when He prays, “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”³⁰

The difference between these two ways of understanding faith can be seen in this quotation from the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus:

[T]here are two kinds of Christians: those whom I would call ecclesiological Christians, and those for whom being a Christian is primarily, if not exclusively, a matter of individual decision. There are those for whom the act of faith in Christ and the act of faith in the Church is one act of faith. And those for whom the act of faith in Christ is the act of faith, and the act of faith in the Church, if there is one, is secondary, or tertiary, or somewhere down the line.³¹

The distinction between these two kinds of faith follows from the distinction between the Gnostic conception of the Church and the biblical conception of the Church as a living and hierarchically unified Body. When we come to see “the act of faith in Christ and the act of faith in the Church [as] one act of faith,” then we have to let go of ecclesial deism. In that respect ecclesial deism is a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion,’ a form of unbelief, a stance of doubt, and hence a defect in faith. But that does not mean that everyone holding some form of ecclesial deism is doing so because he or she consciously or culpably distrusts Christ. It may simply be because this person does not recognize or grasp what it is that Christ founded when He founded His Church. In the history of the Church, we can find this stance of doubt in the early heresies, including the Montanists, Novatians, and Donatists. Their distrust expressed itself as distrusting the legitimate shepherds whom Christ had appointed to feed and govern His flock. But the Catholic exercises faith in Christ by trusting and serving those shepherds whom Christ has appointed and authorized to govern in His name. In doing so, the Catholic is not replacing faith in Christ with faith in the Church, but trusting in Christ precisely by and through trusting Christ’s Church.

Does this mean that we do not need to have a relationship with Christ Himself? Not at all. There are two possible errors here, like two vices in relation to a virtue. These two errors are possible with any sacrament, because every sacrament has both a material and formal principle, and either one can become the focus to the exclusion of the other. One error is the one discussed above, the Gnostic or Montanist error of disregarding the Church, as though Christ did not establish the Church precisely to be that through which we come to Him and receive grace from Him in the sacraments. The other error is the rationalistic or ritualistic error of disregarding who it is that is the Head of the Church, and whose Life is given to us through the sacraments, and whose fellowship and comfort we enjoy in prayerful communion with Him. In both errors, the eyes of faith are lost, but in a different way: one by losing sight of the matter through which we receive the Life of Christ, and the other by losing sight of the Life of Christ offered to us in this matter.

IV. Indefectibility of the Mystical Body

What is the alternative to ecclesial deism? How would the integrity of the Gospel be preserved while it was taken to all the world over hundreds and now thousands of years? God graciously arranged that the things He had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.32 He did this by entrusting them to the Church, and providing the Church with a gift or charism by which she would be protected from losing or corrupting any part of the deposit of faith. St. Irenaeus speaks of this charism when he writes:

They [the bishops] have received the certain charism of the truth [i.e., gift of truth] according to the pleasure of the Father, with the succession in the office of bishop.³³

The Church has this charism because the Church is the Body of Christ, and He, the Truth, is the Head of the Body. That ontological reality underlies Christ’s promise that the gates of Hades will never prevail against His Church,³⁴ that His Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth,³⁵ and that He will be with her to the end of the age,³⁶. It underlies the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.³⁷

The indefectibility of the Church is a gift from Christ to the Church by which she is preserved to the end of the age as the “institution of salvation.” She can neither perish from the world nor depart from “her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy.”³⁸ The gift of indefectibility does not imply that the members of the Church, even members of the Magisterium, cannot sin or err. But it does entail that the Magisterium of the Church can never lose or corrupt any part of the revelation of Christ, which includes both matters theological and moral. This gift of indefectibility is essential to Christ’s purpose in establishing His Church as the means of continuing His saving work to all the nations and peoples of the world until the end of the age. Regarding this purpose, Pope Leo XIII wrote, “What did Christ the Lord achieve by the foundation of the Church; what did He wish? This: He wished to delegate to the Church the same office and the same mandate which He had Himself received from the Father in order to continue them.”³⁹

The commission Christ gave to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 did not end with the death of the last Apostle, because this commission was given not only to the Apostles, but to their successors and the whole Church. The task of taking the Gospel to all nations and the ends of the earth goes beyond what the Apostles could accomplish in their own lifetime. In the same way, the promises of Christ do not extend only to the Apostles, but to their successors and all in union with them. This understanding of Christ’s promise to the Church provided a basis of assurance for the Fathers that Christ would preserve and guide the Church through apostolic succession. The pattern revealed through Christ’s relation to the Father is the pattern that is to endure until Christ returns.

St. Clement of Rome (d. circa AD 100) wrote:

The apostles have been dispatched to us by the Lord Jesus Christ like the bearers of good-tidings. Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ, therefore, comes from God, and the apostles from Christ; these two acts result fittingly from God’s will.⁴⁰

St. Ignatius (d. 107 AD) wrote:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.⁴¹

Not only is succession the rule for appointing leaders in the Church, it is also the rule and pattern for accepting Church leaders. The second century Church faced this very challenge from Gnostics who claimed to have the true knowledge of the gospel. But the Church responded to this challenge by appealing to apostolic succession. St. Irenaeus refers to the Apostolic Tradition which is preserved by apostolic succession.⁴² These heretics, says St. Irenaeus, consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. St. Irenaeus explains how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserved:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.⁴³

According to St. Irenaeus, the faith of the Church is preserved by trusting the Apostles and those whom they ordained to succeed them. The particular Church having the preeminent authority is the Church at Rome, because its successors have their authority from the Apostles Peter and Paul. This appeal to apostolic succession would make no sense as a standard for orthodoxy unless it carried with it the implicit belief that Christ would surely protect the successors from corrupting or losing the deposit of faith. The greatest authority regarding the faith is located where there is the greatest divine assurance of preserving the faith, namely, with the episcopal successor of St. Peter.

The Catechism expounds on this when, drawing from Dei Verbum, it writes:

In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”⁴⁴

The indefectibility of the Church follows from the nature of the union of Christ with the Church, His Body. Because of this union of Christ with the Church, the Church is indefectible. St. Augustine shows this when he says:

The Church will totter when her foundation totters. But how shall Christ totter? . . . . [A]s long as Christ does not totter, neither shall the Church totter in eternity.⁴⁵

And in his Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed, St. Augustine writes:

The same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholic Church, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can; be fought down, it cannot. As for heresies, they all went out of it, like unprofitable branches pruned from the vine: but itself abides in its root, in its Vine, in its charity.⁴⁶

And elsewhere he writes:

There are many other things that most justly keep me in her [i.e. the Catholic Church's] bosom. . . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.⁴⁷

In these quotations we see the indefectibility of the Church grounded in the Church’s ontological union with Christ as His Mystical Body. Because the life of Christ is indefectible, and because the life of the Church is the life of Christ, therefore the Church is indefectible. Those who deny the indefectibility of the Church are denying that this union of Christ with His Church is anything more than extrinsic. They imply that Christ’s Mystical Body can become corrupted such that He may abandon His Body and take on a different body. By their denial of the indefectibility of the Church they imply that Christ can abandon the Bride with which He is “one flesh,”⁴⁸ and find a different bride. But such claims are contrary to the intimate and ontological union of Christ with His Body, which is also His Bride. In virtue of this union She can be neither defeated nor corrupted nor destroyed, since the risen Christ Himself can neither be defeated nor corrupted nor destroyed, and since His Spirit lives within her as her Soul.⁴⁹.

V. An Objection

One possible objection to my argument against ecclesial deism is that God in His providence might allow the Church to fall into heresy or apostasy in order to bring about a greater good. According to this objection, by letting the Church fall into heresy or apostasy God could be teaching the Church a lesson. This is a good objection, but it does not undermine the fundamental reason why ecclesial deism must be false. It presupposes some form of ecclesial Docetism, as though the Church is a merely human institution to which Christ is related extrinsically. The Church is not a merely human institution; it is the Body of Christ, who is divine. He is the greatest good, the good than which there can be none greater. So God could never separate Christ from the Church in order to lead the Church to something greater than Christ. The promises of Christ to the Church are not accidentally tacked on to the Church; they flow from the very identity of the Church as the Body of Christ. The Church cannot fall into heresy because she is the Body of Christ, and Christ cannot fall into heresy or apostasy. The Holy Spirit, who is the very Soul of the Church, cannot be led into heresy or apostasy. The essential holiness (i.e. purity of doctrine) and unity of the visible hierarchy of the Church⁵⁰ entail that God will never allow the Church to fall into heresy or apostasy. The four marks of the Church are not accidents that can be variously gained or lost; they are intrinsic to the very nature of the Church.

VI. Conclusion

When I began to recognize my ecclesial deism for what it was, I found myself taking a much greater interest in the early Church Fathers. If they were not corrupting the faith, but being guided by the Holy Spirit to preserve and expound it, then I wanted both to know what they said and to understand Scripture through their eyes. The beliefs and practices of the early Church that had seemed to me to be accretions or corruptions I came to see in a whole different light, as the blossoming of the deposit of faith guided by the all-powerful Holy Spirit who is the Soul of the Mystical Body.⁵¹ As I studied the Fathers, I did not find evidence of apostasy; I found evidence of a faith and devotion committed to preserve the faith once for all handed over to the saints.⁵² Over time, by a process of tracing that visible Body through history up to the present, I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church today is the same Body as the Catholic Church of the first five centuries. As a result, I was received into full communion with the Catholic Church in 2006.

The more deeply we understand the mystery of Christ’s incarnation, the more clearly we see that God comes to us human beings as human, through our own humanity, even through the very matter of which we are composed. That is why the grace of Christ comes to us through the matter of sacraments. But the Son of God did not become a human being; rather, the Son of God took on a human nature. Yet human nature is not merely the nature of human individuals as individuals; human nature is fully manifested only in society, because man is a social animal. Thus in entering our human society as human, Christ not only became a human individual, He became the Head and Life of a truly human society. For this reason, in His incarnation He took on not only a physical body, but also a Mystical Body, i.e., a truly human society which is the Church. This truly human society is not something essentially invisible or spiritual; it is the family of the New Covenant, the Kingdom of God on earth here and now in its present stage. Christ is not only the second Adam, He is also the Second Moses, who leads the New Covenant people through the desert of this age into the promised land. But the Second Moses is not just leading His people; He is one with them. They are incorporated into His Body and share in His divine Life, which He feeds them through the sacraments. Because this is a human society, it is a visible body with a unified visible hierarchy and a visible head.⁵³

The Church Christ founded can never be defeated, because the unconquerable Christ is Her Cornerstone; He is the Head of this Body. Members of His Mystical Body may commit grave sins or fall away into heresy or even apostasy. But the Church Christ founded can never apostatize or fall into heresy, because the Truth Himself is the Life in which the Church lives. The whole history of the Church is God’s providential preparation of a Bride for His Son, formed from the water and blood that flowed from His side while ‘asleep’ on the cross. Through His Mystical Body Christ remains here with us, as He promised. Just as men looked upon Christ’s physical body and doubted that this physical body was truly God, so throughout the history of the Church men have looked upon the Catholic Church and doubted that this is truly the Mystical Body of Christ. And then, having construed Her as a mere human society, their lack of faith begot further doubt, and they succumbed to ecclesial deism, and the confusion and blindness that is the result of not recognizing the Church.

While the angels came to carry the soul of St. John the Evangelist to Heaven around AD 98, the Church all over the world carried on with the same faith, the same gifts, the same life and the same promises it possessed under the Apostles. The bishops who succeeded the Apostles understood that Christ’s divine promise to be “with you always, even to the end of the age”⁵⁴ makes sense only if the promise extends to the successors of the Apostles. Pope Pius XI shows just how much trust we can put in this divine promise:

Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head, with an authority teaching by word of mouth, and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace; for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom, to a house, to a sheepfold, and to a flock. This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: ‘Going therefore, teach ye all nations.’ In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: ‘Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?’ It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.⁵⁵

Christ our Light has come into the world to bring Light to the whole world⁵⁶, for He is not a God of confusion.⁵⁷ For this purpose He established His universal Church on a man He named ‘Rock,’⁵⁸ and promised that the gates of Hades would never prevail against it. This Catholic Church is the household of faith, the family of God, the pillar and bulwark of truth. He did not abandon it or let it see decay, as ecclesial deism suggests.⁵⁹ Rather, His sure and unbreakable promise finds its fulfillment in His Church to whom He says “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”⁶⁰

Of course there are very important theological differences between Protestantism and Mormonism. And for this reason Protestantism is much closer to Catholicism than is Mormonism, and has much more common ground with regard to our shared understanding of Scripture, common doctrines and common baptism. The doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Protestantism are significant enough that the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptisms as valid baptisms, though it does recognize Protestant baptisms as valid. See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Reponse to a ‘Dubium’ on the validity of baptism conferred by The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, called Mormons,” June 5, 2001. [↩]
R. Albert Mohler, Jr., The “Church of the Devil”?, beliefnet (July 5, 2007), available here. [↩]
R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Mormonism Is Not Christianity, beliefnet (June 28, 2007), available here. [↩]
One might object that Catholics too are not bound by what was not explicitly contained in the conciliar decrees, and thus that Mohler’s position is in this respect no different from that of Catholics. But Catholics are not only bound by the formal definitions of popes and ecumenical councils. Catholics are also bound by what is called the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Pope John Paul II stated that the ordinary and universal Magisterium is the “normal expression of the infallibility of the Church.” Discourse to the Bishops of the 2nd Ecclesiastical Region of the United States, in L’Osservatore Romano, p. 18 (54) (Jan. 22, 1989). The teaching of the Church was infallible prior to the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea in AD 325 by way of the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Lumen Gentium speaks of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as follows:

They [the bishops] nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. ( Lumen Gentium, 25. )

Doctrines such as apostolic succession and episcopal government were not merely held by all the bishops. Those doctrines were universally taught by the bishops as definitively to be held by all the faithful. And therefore the doctrines of apostolic succession and episcopal government fall under the ordinary and universal Magisterium, and are therefore both infallible and binding on all Catholics. And thus Mohler’s selective approach to the doctrines held by the bishops of the council of Nicea is not equivalent to that of Catholics. [↩]
Nicene Creed. [↩]
R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Blessed Art Thou Among Women: The New Debate Over Mary, www.AlbertMohler.com, available here. [↩]
Cf. capitula 2. [↩]
Mohler, supra note 6. [↩]
One would be left trying to establish the inerrancy of the canon by way of critical scholarship. That seems quite impossible, because it would require establishing both a clear and objective standard for canonicity and discovering clear objective criteria within each canonical book for its own canonicity. For principled reasons both of those seem impossible to attain for every book of the Protestant canon, and would seemingly lead to a smaller canon than the Protestant canon. [↩]
Adv. haer. III.2.2. [↩]
For an explanation of the distinction between the Catholic understanding of the Church as something visible per se, and the Protestant conception of the Church as something invisible per se, see our previous article titled “Christ Founded a Visible Church.” [↩]
The Gnostic conception of the Church treats the “holy catholic Church” of the Apostles Creed and the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” of the Nicene Creed as something in itself invisible and spiritual, and not as referring to the actual Catholic Church whose visible head is the episcopal successor of St. Peter in the Apostolic See. [↩]
Matthew 16:18 [↩]
Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 28:20 [↩]
John 16:13 [↩]
Matthew 7:24-25 [↩]
Isaiah 55:3; 61:8; Jer. 32:40 [↩]
Isaiah 9:7; Dan 2:44; 7:14 [↩]
Psalm 88:37 [which is Psalm 89:37 in Protestant Bibles] [↩]
1 Timothy 3:15 [↩]
See Wikipedia, “Restorationism,” available here. [↩]
A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p.838 (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2nd ed., 1998). [↩]
The History of Christian Doctrines, p.49 (Banner of Truth, 1937). This quotation raises a question about how Berkhof distinguishes “the Church” from “the Roman Catholic Church.” Exploring that question is beyond the scope of this present paper. [↩]
See Neal Judisch’s recent argument here, regarding the implication of a “disappearing Church” for Martin Luther and R.C. Sproul on account of their positions on the doctrine of justification. [↩]
“Dr. Schaff’s Apostolic Church,” 26 Princeton Review p.191 (1854). [↩]
Ecclesial Docetism is equivalent to the ecclesial Gnosticism I discussed above. [↩]
The deposit of faith is such that no part can be subtracted from it without the loss of the whole, because each part is essential. Hence if the Catholic Church were to deny even one part of the deposit of faith, she would by that very act have apostatized from the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3.) So the very concept of ‘partial apostasy’ is a misnomer. [↩]
Luke 10:16. [↩]
John 20:29. [↩]
John 17:20. [↩]
“That They May Be One,” Touchstone (July/Aug. 2003), available here. [↩]
Dei Verbum 7. [↩]
Adv. haer. IV 26.2. [↩]
Matthew 16:18 [↩]
John 16:13 [↩]
Matthew 28:20 [↩]
1 Tim 3:15 [↩]
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 296 (TAN, 1955) [↩]
Satis cognitum 4. [↩]
Epist. I ad Cor. 42.1-2. [↩]
Epist. ad Magn. 7. [↩]
It would not make sense to appeal to apostolic succession as preserving the Apostolic Tradition if ‘apostolic succession’ simply meant ‘agreement with the Apostles.’ [↩]
Adv. haer. III.3. [↩]
Catechism of the Catholic Church 77, drawn from Dei Verbum, 8. [↩]
Enarr. in Ps. 103 [104], 2, 5. [↩]
Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed, 1.6. [↩]
Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, 4. [↩]
Eph 5:31-32; Mt 19:6 [↩]
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 797, 809. [↩]
see Bryan Cross & Thomas Brown, Christ Founded a Visible Church, Called to Communion (June 7, 2009), available here. [↩]
“What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church.” Catechism of the Catholic Church 797. [↩]
Patrick Madrid provides a helpful article on this subject titled In Search of ‘The Great Apostasy.’ [↩]
Bryan Cross and Thomas Brown, Christ Founded a Visible Church, Called to Communion (June 7, 2009), available here. [↩]
Matthew 28:20 [↩]
Mortalium Animos 6. [↩]
John 12:46 [↩]
1 Corinthians 14:33 [↩]
Matthew 16:18 [↩]
Ecclesial deism comes not from faith but fear. [↩]
Hebrews 13:5 [↩]

216 comments
Leave a comment »

Dave Hodges July 6th, 2009 10:59 am :
Excellent! I noticed that you made the Mormon analogy, which I have found particularly useful in conversations with Protestants. But the nomenclature of Ecclesial Deism is simply dynamite. I have not had a chance to finish this (it’s pretty long! – I’ll likely come back to it after work) but what I did read was excellent. To distinguish between mainstream Protestantism and the more blatant forms of Restorationism is a merely academic exercise. All forms of Restorationism are equal in merit. If I have to reevaluate my religion every time a new sect comes out, I will never increase in faith. Only doubt can follow. Good work, as usual guys.
Michael Liccione July 6th, 2009 11:38 am :
Very good, Bryan. I especially like this:

As a result, those who claim that the Church deviated from orthodoxy at an early point in history, and use Scripture to show this, undermine the very basis for their assurance that the book they hold in their hand is canonically inerrant. They must either turn to critical scholarship, or resort to some internal voice that they perceive to be from the Holy Spirit, in order to verify the canon, before they can use the canon to evaluate the tradition of the early Church.

The problem of verifying the Scriptural canon is just one more reason why Protestants cannot consistently maintain sola Scriptura for the sake of identifying a unique and supreme criterion of orthodoxy. To verify the canon, the alternatives for Protestants are either (a) a scholarly magisterium; (b) “bosom-burning”; or (c) reliance on the tradition of the Church. The more “rationalistic” Protestants adopt (a); the more “charismatic,” (b); the more “high-church,” (c). But none of that permits sola Scriptura, and it all remains just a matter of opinion.

Best,
Mike
Devin Rose July 6th, 2009 2:01 pm :
These are formidable arguments and challenges. I hope that Mormon and Protestant readers will engage in a discussion; I have sent an email to several friends to invite them to read this article.

I made a post on my blog a few days ago that posed a related question regarding the canon, except toward Mormons rather than Protestants:

A thought experiment for our Mormon readers is to ask themselves on what basis they accept the [Protestant] canon of Scripture, that is, the 66-book Bible and reject the 7 deuterocanonicals. To do so requires the strange logic that, during the Great Apostasy (that is, during the time when allegedly Christ’s Church had apostasized) in 400 AD the bishops of the Catholic Church mostly got the Bible right then 1100 years later in the 1500s, still during the Great Apostasy, the Protestant Reformers then corrected the (pre-Book of Mormon) Bible to the accurate 66 books. During the Great Apostasy, Mormons believe that the priesthood–the authority–had left Christ’s Church, so by what authority did the Catholic bishops and Protestant Reformers discern which books were inspired and which were not, and why should any Mormon believe them?

I hope this might add some more food for thought for Mormon readers of this article.
Zach Brissett July 6th, 2009 2:17 pm :
Nice work, Bryan. This is worth more than one read.

God Bless,

Zach
Bryan Cross July 7th, 2009 12:15 am :
Dave,

Thanks very much for your comments. I didn’t put it in future-oriented terms as you did, but that kind of present uncertainty would follow from ecclesial deism. If the Church of the past fell away and didn’t know it, then how do I know that the present Church hasn’t fallen away and doesn’t know it?

Michael, I agree those are the only three options. Option (a) doesn’t have the resources to determine the authoritative criteria for canonicity, as I argued in a footnote in the article. Option (b) is just “private judgment.” And option (c) is Catholicism, unless one picks-and-chooses from tradition, in which case it is ad hoc.

Devin, that seems to me to be a very formidable objection to Mormonism. I’d like to see how Mormons reply to that.

Zach, thanks very much for your compliment. I started thinking about ecclesial deism about ten years ago, so the idea for this article has been in the back of my mind for a quite a while.

I also want to say that the other members of the CTC team gave me many helpful comments, criticisms and suggestions. The rest of the team was a significant part of this article, and deserves to share in the credit.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train » Blog Archive » A Call to Engage in the Discussion July 9th, 2009 2:12 pm :
[...] am encouraging the contributors of Boar’s Head Tavern to engage in the discussion in this post at Called to Communion to refute Bryan’s arguments and answer the questions he poses rather than cavalierly [...]
Nathan Kingsley July 9th, 2009 4:07 pm :
This is an excellent article and thanks to Devin Rose for pointing it out to me. It is nice to get a better understanding of Catholic beliefs.

There are several clarifications that I would make about Mormon doctrines. I would like to make it clear that I am in no way an expert in Catholic doctrine and I make every attempt to not make assumptions. I also present my beliefs as a Mormon with no desire to offend or start an argument but to be understood.

1- The infallibility of the church of Christ
You offered the following definition:
‘Deism refers to a belief that God made the world, and then left it to run on its own. It is sometimes compared to “a clockmaker” winding up a clock and then “letting it run.”’
You also indicated that this term as defined was implicit to Mormon beliefs.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the majority of our faith, doctrines, and behavior are founded on the knowledge that man can receive revelation directly from our Heavenly Father through the Holy Spirit. The church of Jesus Christ cannot be run by any other means than direct guidance from Him. In fact Mormonism is often differentiated from other faiths, in particular Protestant, by our belief in modern miracles and revelations. We directly rely on God’s involvement in our missionary work. No effective missionary will ever attempt to convince someone that Joseph Smith was called as a prophet or that The Book Of Mormon is inspired scripture. We present that information and invite the listeners to pray to the Lord with an open heart to find out for themselves whether it is true.

You indicated that Mormons must implicitly believe in an uninvolved God because we believe that the church of Christ fell into error. This is a misrepresentation of our beliefs. It was not because of God’s unwillingness to intervene that the church fell into error. We do not believe that anyone, save Jesus Christ, is infallible. We also believe strongly that a defining characteristic of God’s plan for His children is that we have freedom to make our own choices. God will never force man to be obedient.

God never failed to lead His church. The Apostles were rejected and killed, their authority was not conferred. The Bishops had only a subset of that authority necessary to serve in their own area and not to lead the church as a whole. Without the authority and revelation necessary to receive revelation for the whole church from Christ, doctrines were lost or altered. It was man, not God, who failed. God did not fail to lead His church and when the time was right He restored all that had been lost.

I understand that my last paragraph might seem inflammatory to Catholic readers. Again my intent is not to offend but to try and communicate the difference in our beliefs.

2- Mormons view the Bible through the lens of The Book of Mormon
This statement is slightly semantically inaccurate. Our interpretation of the truth in the Bible is viewed through the lens of modern revelation not the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was also obtained through that revelation. Thus, it is through revelation through modern prophets that we interpret both the Bible and The Book of Mormon.

3- The authority of the compilers of the Bible
The letters and records that were compiled into the Bible were written under the inspiration of God. This is, of course, what makes them scripture. It is not necessary to believe in the authority or infallibility of the compilers of the Bible to recognize the truth in the Bible. Obviously we do not recognize the authority of the compilers to declare the Bible as canon. However we do believe that they researched well the authenticity of the writings that they had and were undoubtedly led by the Spirit in the books that they chose. I am grateful for the work of those faithful men because there is so much truth in their compilation. It is because of their efforts that we have the record of the life of The Savior. Their work, however, was not infallible and does not imply that the Catholic church as a whole maintained the authority to act in the name of God. It is through modern revelation and personal revelation through the Holy Ghost, that we understand truth in the Bible or any other scripture.

Again thank you for your article. I appreciate the frank and un-hostile tone in which it was written as well as for the insight that it gives me in understanding the beliefs of my Catholic friends. I apologize for the excessive length of this post- I was unable to say it all in fewer words.
Bryan Cross July 9th, 2009 4:54 pm :
Nathan,

Thanks for your comments. I only have a few minutes at the moment, so I’ll try to respond in more detail to your comments a bit later. For now, I’d like to understand your own position better. For example, you say that “the church fell into error” and that “the Apostles were rejected”. Do you mean that the Apostles were rejected by their successors (e.g. St. Linus of Rome, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, etc.)? If so, how do you know this? How do you know, for example, from the writings of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, that he has rejected the Apostles, and not faithfully preserved the teaching of the Apostles? You say also that “their authority was not conferred.” How do you know this? You also say, “doctrines were lost or altered.” Again, how do you know this?

I think you have misunderstood my thesis regarding ecclesial deism. In order to understand the ecclesial deism paper, it is essential to understand what it means that Christ founded a visible Church. (See the previous article, titled “Christ Founded a Visible Church.) The position you seem to be advocating is very similar to Gnostic Montanism. The Montanists claimed that the Holy Spirit spoke directly to them, and in this way they did not need the visible hierarchical Church. God did not come to them through matter; in this way they were denying the incarnation. The work of the Spirit, for them, bypassed the visible Church, as though the ordinary means of grace were invisible (non-sacramental) channels of the Spirit running straight from Heaven to each individual, rather than coming sacramentally through the [visible] Church, through the physical succession from the Apostles, and through the sacraments. As I said in the article, no one claims to be an ecclesial deist. Ecclesial deists hide their deism from themselves by resorting to a ‘dematerialized’, invisible, conception of the Church. It is the invisible Church that has been constantly preserved, in their view, no matter how many “men” fell into error. That’s what the Gnostics of the second century argued against St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon. And in response the bishops pointed back to apostolic succession. See Tertullian and St. Irenaeus. It is precisely the visible Church that God has preserved. Denying the preservation of the visible Church is ecclesial deism.

I have to run at the moment. We’ll talk more later. Hopefully this gives you some initial thoughts regarding your comments. Thanks again for posting it.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Nathan Kingsley July 9th, 2009 6:59 pm :
Thanks for the clarification. I apologize if I misunderstood your thesis.

My response was not to the term, ecclesial deism, in general but only to the short definition that I posted as an excerpt. I agree that a visible church is vital. I agree that the sacraments must be administered within a church with a real hierarchy of authority. I agree whole heartedly that an actual physical succession from the Apostles is essential. I do not deny the importance of a visible church. I do not believe, however, in the preservation of the ancient visible church through the Bishops without Apostles. If you say that this is called ecclesial deism then I’m happy to take your word for it. I feel it may simply have been misleading to attribute Mormon beliefs to the short definition that I excerpted because it was the opposite of what I personally believe.

You asked how I know various things. My faith stems from a personal witness from the Lord as an answer to my prayer that Joseph Smith was truly called as a prophet and that the things he taught truly were scripture because they came from God Himself. Everything else that I believe has to be understood in that context.

I can comment on matters of faith or to what I believe but I’m afraid I have to leave historical discussions to those more educated than myself.

Thank you again for your enlightening discussion.
Jonathan Brumley July 10th, 2009 12:13 am :
Hi guys!

I’ll post as a someone who grew up and was baptized in the Church of Christ and most recently attended a Quaker meeting here in Austin. My wife and I are now “homeless” Christians and we desire desperately to enter back into the Body of Christ, if the idea of that even makes sense given the fractured mess of the Christian Church today.

I know Devin Rose and Nathan Kingsley from work. I found Nathan’s post particularly relevant to me. When I attended the Church of Christ, I was taught that prophecy had indeed “ceased” as fortold in the Bible.

However, when I joined in worship with the Quakers after college, one thing I was really attracted to was the idea of “waiting on the Lord” and the idea that “Christ had come to teach His people Himself”. It made a lot of sense that the Holy Spirit would be my own personal Counselor. I hoped I could have a personal relationship with Christ. It seemed like so much of a fuller, more personal, more true faith than what I had believed in the Church of Christ.

After feeling like being in church was like watching TV, worshipping with the Quakers was what I needed. It was quiet but intense. No one planned a sermon. No one sang songs that they didn’t believe. Worship was about sitting before the throne of God and just waiting.

There were so many times when God spoke to me through someone else (usually someone I didn’t know) who felt called to speak. And there were times when I felt called to speak too. Prophecies were revealed. People came to tears and their lives were changed.

For a while, when I was a Quaker, I really felt the Light of Christ had finally illuminated my life. God had finally shown me the True Faith and how I could follow Him. My life was changed. I tried to live a Holy, righteous life not just during worship, but also throughout the day. I tried to make my life a constant prayer to God.

But it wasn’t all good. I had a lot of trouble with the Bible. On the one hand, it said God was Love, and on the other hand, it condemned gay people to death. It may have been God’s inspired word – but it had obvious errors – it said in one place that 600 men were at a battle – in another place, it said 800 men were at the same battle. I concluded the the Bible had some good parts, but it certainly can’t be “authoritative” with those kinds of contradictions. The claim that the Bible is “obviously” true seems ridiculous to me.

There are different branches of Quakerism, but in liberal unprogrammed Quakerism, the only authority comes from the Light of Christ, or the Holy Spirit. And God says radically different things to different Quakers. I pretty quickly found out that Quakers believe all sorts of things. Everyone was a true seeker, but some are Christian, many are Buddhist, you could say most were Unitarian. Many were anti-Christian. Some believed Christ was resurrected – some believed he was a good teacher (mostly).

If God truly speaks to all of us, then God works in mysterious ways indeed. But if we are being misled, that leads to a different question. How can a God who is supposedly good, allow different people, who are truly seeking Him, to be misled and just “think” we hear His voice speaking?

George Fox (the founder of the Quakers) heard a voice talking to him saying ‘There is one, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition’. After that moment in his life, he became of preacher of sorts, God continued to speak and work miracles through him for the rest of his life.

Juan Diego not only heard, but _saw_ the Virgin Mary (our Lady of Guadelupe) in Mexico. Mary showed him some miraculous flowers and asked him to build a church.

Nathan Kingsley heard God say that Joseph Smith’s teachings are true.

I have to say that all these things sound good. They all sound like the way that God should be – to be there for us when we come to Him. But I am really disillusioned.

I want to pray like Nathan Kingsley did and ask God what is True. How can Amy and I can find the Church that is the True Body of Christ? In fact, I have asked God that very question. But how can I believe the result? Will it be from God or am I being deceived? What can I really believe?

I have to say I really like the idea that God protected His Church from error. Maybe he let some pretty immoral people lead his Church at times, but even if what they taught by example was wrong, at least what they taught “from the chair” was true. But really, isn’t this just hopeful thinking, just like my hopeful thinking that Christ will teach us all Himself, without misleading us?

I’m hope you guys have answers to these questions. I would really like to hear Bryan and Nathan’s response. Sorry if this is a bit off topic.

——

PS Bryan, I really like your blog.
Jonathan Brumley July 10th, 2009 12:31 am :
One more thing, while I’m at it.

The Orthodox Church makes a pretty bold claim, that it is a continuation of the Church founded by the Apostles and that the bishops have inherited the authority of the Apostles.

The Orthodox say that the Catholics went awry with the “Filioque clause”, which was added to the original Nicene Creed – which was previously declared dogmatic and unchangeable in a council of the Magisterium.

The Orthodox critique of the folks who added Filioque sounds a lot like your critique of Martin Luther, who thought he had the authority to remove 7(?) books from the Bible.

What is the Catholic position on the Filoque? Both of these events split the Church. How are they different?
Bryan Cross July 10th, 2009 2:32 am :
Nathan,

Thanks for your reply. Just a couple thoughts. You wrote:

My response was not to the term, ecclesial deism, in general but only to the short definition that I posted as an excerpt. I agree that a visible church is vital. I agree that the sacraments must be administered within a church with a real hierarchy of authority. I agree whole heartedly that an actual physical succession from the Apostles is essential. I do not deny the importance of a visible church.

I’m glad to find we have this much common ground. Next you wrote:

I do not believe, however, in the preservation of the ancient visible church through the Bishops without Apostles.

I think by “through the Bishops without Apostles” you are referring to the bishops who succeeded the Apostles. In order for us to come to agreement (and thus come to full communion as Jesus prays in John 17 that we show to the world), we’ll need to examine together the evidence for the fidelity (or lack thereof) of the early Church Fathers.

Next you wrote:

You asked how I know various things. My faith stems from a personal witness from the Lord as an answer to my prayer that Joseph Smith was truly called as a prophet and that the things he taught truly were scripture because they came from God Himself. Everything else that I believe has to be understood in that context.

I agree that this is the fundamental building block in the whole Mormon system. I was raised Pentecostal, and I saw a lot of people do crazy things, always claiming to be led by the voice of the Holy Spirit. Of course, none of them were Mormon. But it is rather strange, don’t you think, that the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth) tells contradictory things to different people. Of course, as Pentecostals, when the Mormons would come to our door and claim to be following the Spirit burning in their bosom, we always knew that they were following a deceiving spirit. But, the odd thing is, when my Pentecostal relatives would tell the Mormons that the Spirit was telling them [i.e. my relatives] to be Pentecostal and not Mormon, I’m sure the Mormons were thinking that my Pentecostal relatives were following a deceiving spirit. So the bosom-burning system works like this: Everyone whose bosom-burning agrees with mine is [by definition] hearing from God. Everyone whose bosom-burning does not agree with mine is [by definition] either not hearing from God or is hearing from a deceptive spirit. The system is set up to be entirely unfalsifiable, and capable of simultaneously supporting multiple and contradictory claims in different persons. You can see that by examining the case of the poor Pentecostal, whom you believe to be in error. Notice that because of his epistemology, he can’t get out of his error. His bosom-burning continues to testify that Pentecostalism is true and that anyone who denies it is of the devil. (I’m not kidding; I won’t name names, but I’ve known Pentecostals who think like this.) So he is trapped in his error because his epistemology doesn’t allow him to see that he is actually mistaken. But the Mormon bosom-burning epistemology is no different. Yet the fact that both of them have the same methodology, and one them believes false beliefs (according to you), should raise a major red flag in your mind concerning the reliability of the method in your own case. If it is clear that the method is not reliable when others use it, then it would be ad hoc to assume that it is reliable when you (and those who agree with you) use it.

So the preliminary question is this: Why should we think that bosom-burning is a reliable way of determining truth? We can’t use bosom-burning to answer this question, because that would just beg the question (i.e. assume precisely what it is we are trying to determine). The evidence suggests that bosom-burning is affected greatly by the power of suggestion. When Mormons come to the door and suggest bosom-burning as a means of determining whether Mormonism is true, a higher percentage of persons will bosom-burn in the Mormon direction. But when other sects come to the door and use the same method (even if not the same terminology), a higher percentage of person will ‘feel led by God’ to join those other [non-Mormon] sects. All this implies that the method itself is a not a reliable way of determining truth, but is a psychological tool to get people to follow their own feelings while making them believe that it is not their own feelings that they are following but the leading of the Spirit. (They don’t stop to ask, “If this were just my feelings, and not the Spirit, how would I know?” They can’t answer that question, because the method prevents the person using it from discovering his error.)

This bosom-burning methodology (and the Gnostic philosophy behind it) is what led many people out of the Catholic Church and into the heresy of Montanism in the late second-century. It is strange, isn’t it, that when they used this method, they didn’t become Mormons. Perhaps you would just conclude (quite conveniently) that they must not have been hearing from the Spirit. But you’re using the very same methodology, so how do you know that you (unlike them) are truly hearing from the Holy Spirit, and not a deceiving spirit, or your own feelings?

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Ben July 10th, 2009 3:06 am :
Dear Bryan,

What exactly do you mean when you say that Christ’s body was God? “Just as men looked upon Christ’s physical body and doubted that this physical body was truly God…” I have an orthodox Catholic Christology, I’m just somewhat confused by this. I’m only asking because I read St. John of Damascus say the same thing in his First Treatise on the Divine Images: “I am not speaking of the flesh of the incarnate Son of God; for that is called God immutably by hypostatic union and participation in the divine nature” (19). Is it called God because it is attached to the divine nature in one person, but not because it has been converted into the divinity in essence? Or in the same way that all saints are “God” by virtue of participating in God’s energies?

God bless,

Ben.
Bryan Cross July 10th, 2009 11:02 am :
Jonathan,

Thanks very much for your comments, and your account of your religious history and present situation. What you describe is quite familiar to me, and much of it is very common. It is another example of the unreliability of the bosom-burning approach to following and finding the truth about God. Your first question is:

How can a God who is supposedly good, allow different people, who are truly seeking Him, to be misled and just “think” we hear His voice speaking?

Christ has established a way for us to know Him. That way is not through bosom-burning. It is through the Church that He established, the very same Church that He will be with to the end of the age. Where did Mary and Joseph find the 12 year-old Jesus? In the Temple. And likewise, all peoples of the world can find Jesus in the household of God, the New Covenant temple, which is the Church that He founded, and which is His Mystical Body. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. (1 Tim 3:15) Jesus said to His Apostles, “He who listens to you listens to me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me.” (Luke 10:16) If we use another method than the one He prescribed, then He is not responsible for our resulting confusion; we are (and/or others who misled us).

Christ’s sheep hear His voice, but how? Not by following a burning in the bosom, but by following the shepherds Christ appointed. That doesn’t mean that God cannot or does not speak to some people in a miraculous way. But that is extraordinary, and it never contradicts what He has already given through the ordinary means. The ordinary way for us to hear Christ is through the shepherds that He has appointed.

How do we find these shepherds? We follow the succession. We do not follow those who have not been sent by the Apostles or by those whom the Apostles sent. The notion that one could send oneself, appealing directly to the Holy Spirit and bypassing the authority of the Apostles or those whom the Apostles had appointed, is a form of Montanistic Gnosticism; it is a Gnostic revision of ‘apostolicity’. That’s why St. Paul says, “How shall they preach unless they are sent?” (Rom 10:15) The question wouldn’t make sense if being sent out by the Church wasn’t required to preach with legitimate apostolic authority and mandate. Those who preach without having been sent by the Church are the thieves and robbers who do not enter by the door. (John 10)

St. Francis De Sales, who came to Geneva at the end of the 16th century, and became its bishop, began his response to the Protestants by saying the following:

First, then, your ministers had not the conditions required for the position which they sought to maintain, and the enterprise which they undertook. … The office they claimed was that of ambassadors of Jesus Christ our Lord; the affair they undertook was to declare a formal divorce between Our Lord and the ancient Church his Spouse; to arrange and conclude by words of present consent, as lawful procurators, a second and new marriage with this young madam, of better grace, said they, and more seemly than the other. … To be legates and ambassadors they should have been sent, they should have had letters of credit from him whom they boasted of being sent by. … Tell me, what business had you to hear them and believe them without having any assurance of their commission and of the approval of Our Lord, whose legates they called themselves? In a word, you have no justification for having quitted that ancient Church in which you were baptized, on the faith of preachers who had no legitimate mission from the Master. (The Catholic Controvery, I.1)

Jesus warns of Gnostic attempts to subvert apostolicity when He says, “yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him.” (John 5:43) To come “in his own name” means to come without being sent by Jesus, but being sent by oneself. It also applies to the ‘thieves’ and ‘robbers’ Jesus describes in John 10:1-5.

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber. But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has driven out all his own, he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice. But they will not follow a stranger; they will turn away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of a stranger.

Jesus goes on to say that He Himself is the gate (vs. 7) and the good shepherd (vs. 11). The Church, as the Body of Christ, images Christ in this respect, especially the bishops and presbyters (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2,4) and most especially the successor of Peter (cf. John 21:15-17). They are not only the shepherds; they are also the gate, because they are His representatives on earth. So ministers must come with the authorization and commission and blessing of the Church. That is why apostolic succession is essential.

St. Francis de Sales writes:

We bring forward the express practice of the whole Church, which from all time has been to ordain the pastors by the imposition of the hands of the other pastors and bishops. Thus was Timothy ordained; and the seven deacons themselves, though proposed by the Christian people, were ordained by the imposition of the Apostles’ hands. Thus have the Apostles appointed in their Constitutions; and the great Council of Nice (which methinks one will not despise) and that of Carthage – the second, and then immediately the third, and the fourth, at which S. Augustine assisted. If then they [the original Protestant ministers] have been sent by the laity, they are not sent in Apostolic fashion, nor legitimately, and their mission is null. … How shall they [the laity] communicate the authority which they have not? (The Catholic Controvery, I.2)

Christ appointed and authorized the Apostles. These Apostles authorized successors. The Christians in the generation after the Apostles were not to follow self-appointed ministers. Christians recognized false teaches (thieves and robbers) precisely by their not having been authorized by the Church. Christians were to follow only those whom the Apostles had authorized and commissioned to lead the Church. These were men such as St. Timothy and St. Titus, St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch. And, again, in the third generation, Christians were still to follow only those shepherds whom the authentic second-generation bishops authorized and appointed. This was the practice of the early Church. This apostolic succession is not only what set apart the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church from all the other heresies and sects; it was one of the four marks of the Church by which Christians could determine where is the Church that Christ founded. As St. Augustine says:

There are many other things that most justly keep me in her [the Catholic Church] bosom. … The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.

Your last question was:

I have to say I really like the idea that God protected His Church from error. Maybe he let some pretty immoral people lead his Church at times, but even if what they taught by example was wrong, at least what they taught “from the chair” was true. But really, isn’t this just hopeful thinking, just like my hopeful thinking that Christ will teach us all Himself, without misleading us?

There is a difference between wishful thinking, and hope that is grounded on a divine promise. God has not promised that bosom-burning will infallibly lead us to truth. But He has promised that the gates of Hades will not prevail against His Church. We can do more than merely hope that God has preserved His Church; we can bank our eternal life on it, because nothing is more certain and sure than God’s promises.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

P.S. Thanks for your comment about my blog!
Bryan Cross July 10th, 2009 4:48 pm :
Jonathan,

Regarding your question on the Filioque, it is important to understand that no definitive Magisterial ruling has declared the Filioque to be part of the Creed. Eastern Rite Catholics, in full communion with the bishop of Rome, do not include the Filioque in the Creed. Last year Pope Benedict recited the Creed in Greek with Patriarch Bartholomew, without the Filioque. And, on the other hand, at times in the past, the Orthodox have come very close to agreeing that, properly understood, it could be affirmed. So, it is important not to magnify the point of disagreement on this subject. The Nicene Creed that resulted from Nicea in 325 is not the same one that came out of Constantinople in 381. There were additions. But the faith taught is exactly the same. So the unchangeability must be understood in a way that allows development, but never corruption or denial of what has already been declared and established. So, from a Catholic point of view, the Filioque is in keeping with the requirement not to change the Faith that was defined at Nicea in 325. Regarding the comparison to Luther, Luther was not the pope. He was a monk, not even a bishop. The successor of St. Peter has an ecclesial authority that a monk does not have. So the comparison breaks down. Moreover, the Filioque did not “split the Church.” It was appealed to later, as a justification for splitting. We can hope and pray that the resolution of the disagreement concerning the Filioque will take place through the ongoing Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Bryan Cross July 10th, 2009 6:22 pm :
Ben,

If you had lived in Galilee in AD 31, and gone down by the Lake and seen a crowd, and pushed your way through to the source of the attention, what exactly would you be looking at? A body? Yes, but more than a body. A man? Yes, but more than a man. A nature? Yes, but more than a nature. You would be looking at God. Jesus was not a human nature extrinsically connected to God. Nor was He a human being or human person extrinsically connected to God. Both of those are Nestorianism. They fail to recognize that what came forth from the womb of the virgin Mary was not a nature, but a divine Person in two natures. Jesus is the Logos. The ‘is’ is not one of extrinsic unity. A greater unity takes up within itself lesser unities. The divine Person (i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity) took human nature upon Himself, such that its act of being was His Person.

To touch Jesus, was to touch God, just as to give birth to Jesus was to give birth to God (Theotokos). And it is equally true that God suffered and died on the cross, even though God in His divine nature cannot suffer or die. Yet Christ in His human nature can and did suffer and die. To touch Jesus was to touch something eternal. But wasn’t the matter composing His body created? Yes. But what is in front of you (on the shore of Galilee) is not merely matter. Nor is it merely matter and a soul (both of which were created). What is in front of you is the eternal Second Person of the Trinity. That is because the act of being, i.e. the act of existence, in which those created things (body and soul) have been taken up into, is the Eternal Logos. Just as when you eat an apple, and it becomes you, so the body and soul of Christ (though they didn’t exist before the moment of conception) were taken up into the Logos such that their identity and act of being is the identity and Being of the Logos.

Your other question is:

Is it called God because it is attached to the divine nature in one person, but not because it has been converted into the divinity in essence? Or in the same way that all saints are “God” by virtue of participating in God’s energies?

I wouldn’t use the word ‘attached, because that it is an extrinsic union. The hypostatic union is not one of attachment. It is not extrinsic. Attachment would entail Docetism or Nestorianism. The hypostatic union is an intrinsic union, as explained above. It is not that God has a human nature. (He has the whole world.) God is this man, though He is not merely a man. Human nature and divine nature are not identical, and never can be. That would be monophysitism. Either grace would destroy nature (wipe out human nature), or there would be no divine nature, only human nature (which is metaphysically impossible).

As regards our deification, we never become identical to the divine nature. That would, again, mean that grace destroys nature. We participate in the divine nature. How we do so is a mystery. Christ took on human nature, in such a way that this man (Jesus) is God. We are deified by sharing in the divine life, particularly in the life of Christ. But we are not hypostatically united to God in the sense that I (the human person) become [identical to] one of the three Persons of the Trinity. That would make grace destroy nature. We are deified by way of participation, not absolute identification. There is an ontological asymmetry between God and man, so that the hypostatic union is not the same as our participation in the divine nature. When Christ became man, that human nature was given not created being, but His Being, as explained above. However, when we are deified, we do not give being to God, but are elevated to participate in His inner Being. Christ has divine nature by ontological necessity, and human nature by a free choice of humble self-giving love. In the deified state, we have human nature by creation, as a gift from God in the natural order, and we participate in the divine nature as a glorious gift of love from God in the supernatural order.

There are not two acts of being in Christ (i.e. the existence of His human nature, and the existence of His Person). His Person is the act of existence of His human nature. But participation involves two acts of being: the being of the participant, and the being of that in which he is participating. So the hypostatic union is not human nature participating in God. But since in the deified state we participate in the divine nature, therefore our act of being is not identical to the divine act of Being (for then grace would destroy nature). We remain always creature, even while divinized through participation in the divine nature. So our participation is not equivalent to the hypostatic union. Rather, our union with Christ in His divine Life is a participation in the divine life through His hypostatic union, not through a hypostatic union of our own.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Jonathan Brumley July 12th, 2009 8:48 am :
Hi Bryan,

Thanks for your responses. You said:

“Regarding your question on the Filioque, it is important to understand that no definitive Magisterial ruling has declared the Filioque to be part of the Creed.”

According to what I have read, the Council of Florence agreed on the filioque (with the exception of a famous Orthodox bishop did not sign), and Pope Eugene IV decreed the filioque through a papal bull:

http://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

(hopefully this is an accurate source)

I don’t claim to be an expert on what Catholics declare is infallible or dogma but doesn’t a papal bull meet the criteria?

It seems to me that for the Orthodox to come back into communion with the Catholics, they would have to believe the Filioque clause, if not say it.
Bryan Cross July 12th, 2009 5:22 pm :
Jonathan,

The procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son was taught by the Council of Toledo in AD 447, but that council was not ecumenical. The Athanasian Creed likewise includes the claim that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Creed of the Council of Toledo in AD 672 also taught that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son. But that council was not ecumenical. The Fourth Lateran Council (which is the Twelfth Ecumenical Council) in AD 1215 taught that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The Second General Council of Lyons (1274) [the one that Aquinas was supposed to intend, but he fell sick on the way], which was also the Fourteenth Ecumenical Council, taught that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle and by one spiration. The Council of Florence (AD 1439), which is the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, taught that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son as from one principle and one spiration. And the Bull Cantata Domino, in 1442, taught likewise that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. (And yes, that meets the conditions for infallibility.)

So, the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, is infallible and irrevocable dogma. It will be the Church’s dogma when Christ returns on the clouds in glory. And reunion with the Orthodox will require the Orthodox to affirm it in the sense according to which it is binding, and not in any other sense, but not necessarily to recite it in the Creed. I say “in the sense according to which it is binding” because it should not be understood as implying that there are two Fathers, i.e. that the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as the Son proceeds from the Father, half from each, or that the Spirit is a double-Person. The Filioque shows why there are not two Sons, i.e. that it is not the case that the Spirit proceeds from the Father just as the Son proceeds from the Father. Nothing would differentiate two Sons, and so there could only be one Son, and hence there would be no Trinity. What is necessary in accepting Catholic dogma is to affirm the provenance of the Son in the eternal procession of the Spirit. The Orthodox accept the notion that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. So the disagreement is, in part, about what concept of ‘proceed’ is intended, whether the Filioque means that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son in the very same way, and what degree of precision (or imprecision) is allowable in the credal description of the Spirit’s procession. When those three factors are considered, it is possible to conceive (theoretically) of reaching an agreement that addresses the concerns of the Orthodox while maintaining the truth of the Filioque according to the sense in which it is binding. The Orthodox have no dogma denying the Filioque, since no ecumenical council has denied it. So the only possible direction for movement is from denying it to affirming it, as it is properly understood. In other words, it is possible for the Orthodox to come to accept it, without violating any Orthodox dogma. But it is not possible for Catholics to come to deny it, without denying Catholic dogma.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Devin Rose July 12th, 2009 7:06 pm :
Bryan,

Just for a small clarification: My understanding is that a papal bull is generally any missive from the Pope and so not every bull even covers matters of faith and morals; therefore, not every papal bull contains a teaching which would be considered infallible. So, a bull is not the equivalent of the Pope speaking ex cathedra. for example. Is this an accurate understanding?
Michael Liccione July 12th, 2009 7:40 pm :
Bryan,

Thanks for that good capsule summary of the filioque’s dogmatic history. It is of course true that the Orthodox have no defined dogma denying the filioque. But it doesn’t follow from that fact alone that “it is possible for the Orthodox to come to accept it.” That would only follow if “the sense in which the filioque is binding”, i.e. that of Lyons and Florence, is logically compatible with doctrine that the Orthodox consider irreformable even though not formally defined.

We Catholics have such a category of doctrine ourselves: that which is infallibly taught by the “ordinary and universal magisterium.” According to the present pope when he was head of the CDF, the teaching that the Church is not authorized to confer priestly ordination on women is an example of such a doctrine. There are of course others; but few have been explicitly identified as such by the Magisterium itself, and I don’t want to invite here and now a discussion of what the others are. My point is that the Orthodox have a similar category of irreformable doctrine, even though they hate using the term ‘infallible’ for reasons it would take too long to explain. Many of those doctrines are set forth in the Divine Liturgy or in the Synodikon. Most pertinently, adult converts to Orthodoxy are generally expected to forswear, formally and in detail, “the errors of Rome,” one of which is said to be the filioque. The question whether Orthodoxy could come to accept the filioque, then, hinges on that of whether the sense in which they reject the filioque is logically equivalent to the sense in which we consider it binding.

I’ve done a lot of work on the filioque, and I’m still not sure how to answer that latter question. My tentative opinion is this: it would be logically compatible with the Lyons-Florence definition to say that the Father breathes forth or “spirates” the Holy Spirit as something analogous to the Spirit’s sole efficient cause, yet only as the Father of the Son. The Son would be “equally” a cause of the Spirit inasmuch as he is, as Son of the Father, something analogous to the final cause of the Spirit. That would yield a workable sense of ‘through the Son’ acceptable to both sides. And I think that’s about as far as we can go, ecumenically speaking. The Orthodox will never accept any account of the Trinitarian interrelations according to which the Son is also something like an efficient cause of the Son; nor will they ever accept the common Western belief that the Holy Spirit just is the love between the Father and the Son. To them, the former would be incompatible with the doctrine of the “monarchy of the Father,” which is certainly irreformable for them; and the latter would be incompatible with their doctrine that no divine Person can be identical with any “energetic” operation within the Godhead, as distinct from contributing to such operations.

Of course that leaves open the question whether my ecumenical reformulation of the filioque is logically compatible with the rejection of the filioque in the non-dogmatic but irreformable sphere. I see no consensual answer to that question in Orthodoxy. Some Orthodox, like the Patriarch Photios who first made this an issue, are monopatrists. They believe that the Son has nothing to do as “cause” with the spiration, but at most as occasion. Others would be more amenable to my proposal, but would reject setting it forth as dogmatically binding. So we’ll probably just have to wait on the intercession of the Theotokos to see this thing resolved.

Best,
Mike
Bryan Cross July 13th, 2009 12:39 am :
Devin,

When the pope speaks definitively (and that is essential) on a matter of faith and morals, as universal pastor, then it is infallible. The key word here is ‘definitively.’ So, in a given papal encyclical, or bull, much of it may not be definitive (and hence isn’t infallible, even though it requires religious consent of intellect and will), yet one paragraph or even one sentence in it may be definitive, in which case that paragraph or statement meets the conditions for infallibility, and thus is infallible.

So it is not true that all papal encyclicals or bulls are infallible, or that all papal encyclicals and bulls are fallible. We have to look at the contents of each one, and find out whether and where they meet the required conditions for infallibility, by teaching something definitively to be held by all the faithful, on a matter of faith or morals.

Many people think that the pope has spoken infallibly only two times (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) but that’s not true, because the conditions for papal infallibility have been met in many other cases.

Mike,

Thanks for your very helpful comments. I should have added the “irreformable even though not formally defined” qualification. But the only principled basis for irreformability, for something not formally defined, is longstanding consensus. And there’s the rub. Consensus is only achieved on this question by defining Rome (and the West) out. Toledo already was affirming “and from the Son” before Chalcedon. So the basis for the claim that the denial of the Filioque is irreformable is ad hoc. And that leaves theoretical space for Orthodox movement on this point. The problem manifest in the anti-Magisterial appeal to “all the faithful” (where ‘faithful’ is defined in an ad hoc way) is the same problem with appeals to the sensus fidelium regarding not formally defined matters, when there is an ad hoc pre-selection regarding who gets to count as among the faithful.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Joy H. July 13th, 2009 1:27 am :
Mr. Cross,
Thank you for writing an excellent article. Your rich descriptions of various Christian heresies and terminology of ‘ecclesial deism’ for me conjure up allusions to the similar argumentation of Voeglin and his unique terming of Calvin’s Institutes as a “Gnostic Koran”*. I believe Pope Benedict XVI has spoken in this way as well (I can’t recall where), although gnosticism is a very broad topic so perhaps not with the same intention.

I’ve read some of Called to Communion (the book), and this post strikes me implying an ideology behind the Reformer’s theology and reading of scripture. In CTC, Benedict writes “the chief exegetical models are borrowed from the thought pattern of the respective period.” Did the exegesis of Luther and Calvin borrow from the ideologies of the Enlightenment? Or did ‘eccelsial deism’ support Enlightenment deism? I suppose heresies do not spring from their surrounds (or do they?). It is a very interesting topic to research, nonetheless.

Another comment I would add are references to common Reformed objections to the assertion of Apostolic succession. I’m not going to re-write all the arguments out here, but they are based on Ephesians 2:19-20:
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ himself being the cornerstone”
(See Richard Gaffin’s recent Modern Reformation article, “Where Have all the Spiritual Gifts Gone?” –free online)

Also, this article seems to adequately rebut many of the apostolic succession arguments made: http://www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/tim3.html

And more rebuttal by giving an answer to what defines a true church for a Protestant (interestingly, it employs a comparison of Rome to Mormons’ and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claims to a true church. For a more indepth comparison, see James White, AOmin.org):
http://www.monergism.com/RomanCatholicism.htm

Please forgive me if this is too long. I attempted to show the arguments that came to mind (a Reformed, protestant mind) when I read this article.

Thanks again for your charity and concern for Truth.
-Joy
Tim A. Troutman July 13th, 2009 10:23 am :
Joy,

Thanks for stopping by and for your comments. You might be interested in Dr. Judisch’s recent post that deals with the issue Dr. White brought up in the second link you posted.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/how-might-luther-say-the-church-never-disappeared/

Also, we will be dealing with apostolic succession in depth before very long and we already have a post scheduled for tomorrow that will address it.
Bryan Cross July 13th, 2009 10:24 am :
Joy,

Thanks for your comments. If you think that the Church immediately fell into the ‘error’ of apostolic succession, then how does your position avoid ecclesial deism? Do you posit the continual existence of an unknown remnant, preserved for 1500 years, that didn’t believe in apostolic succession, but simply preserved the apostles’ doctrine, and then finally handed it on to Luther? Why wasn’t there some great controversy or debate, as the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries, and swallowed up the original notion that ecclesial leadership was based entirely on agreement with the Apostles’ doctrine? Or do you posit that there was such a great controversy, and that the winners later blotted out all records of it from Church history? Or did the Apostles so poorly transmit to the churches their instructions regarding the basis for Church authority, that nobody made a peep as the ‘heresy’ of apostolic succession swept over the entire Church, because no one even realized that it was wrong?

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Jeremy Tate July 14th, 2009 1:54 pm :
Bryan,

Awesome article. This term, “Ecclesial deism” nails it. I’ve often been perplexed at how our own tradition, which so highly affirms God’s sovereignty, can essentailly suggest that God failed to preserve the Church from heresy. Great post.

Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Joy H. July 14th, 2009 8:13 pm :
Bryan,

These are unanswerable questions, for several reasons.

–You said, “If you think that the Church immediately fell into the ‘error’ of apostolic succession”

No, I don’t think this. I’m sorry if I gave that impression.

–You said, “Do you posit the continual existence of an unknown remnant”

No, I don’t. Actually, the authors you provided can be argued for as known supporters of apostolicity. The link I provided above covers some popular Catholic apologetics passages, as well as sections of Against Heresies.

–“the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries”

Can you prove or substantiate this claim? Can you provide a list of unbroken apostolic successors for that time period as well?

–“the winners later blotted out all records of it from Church history”

The records are for everyone to see. I’ve read some of them, and they’re quite fascinating and edifying.

–You said, “nobody made a peep as the ‘heresy’ of apostolic succession swept over the entire Church”

I don’t claim omniscience, do you? Would you like to substantiate this claim?

–You said, “how does your position avoid ecclesial deism?”

(“Ecclesial deism is the notion that Christ founded His Church, but then withdrew, not protecting His Church’s Magisterium (i.e., the Apostles and/or their successors) from falling into heresy or apostasy.”)

You haven’t proved or substantiated apostolic succession. You quoted some early church fathers, imposed Roman doctrine on them. I provided alternative views.

I provided a link to Richard Gaffin’s article on cessationism and this provides argumentation from scripture for our position. The aforementioned link covers the scripture you covered.

You’ve then defined heresy/apostasy incorrectly, based on an inflated view of common heresies and a false understanding of church history.

I suppose this is akin to Alice calling your position Madhatterism. That term may have sway with people who believe in Wonderland, but it doesn’t make any sense to you. (However, the explanation makes for a fascinating, imaginative story.)

There are many other erroneous (or unproven) assumptions in this article, but I don’t want to dialogue on this in any great depth. (I go to a Catholic university, my pastor has a Ph.D in ecclesiology, etc.) The questions are just there, and probably will be answered or accounted for in the future.

I really did like the article, though, and this website in general. If you would like to, I’m sure James White would love to debate you.

Sincerely,
Joy
Bryan Cross July 14th, 2009 9:09 pm :
Joy,

Thanks again for your reply. I’m assuming you’ve read the epistles of St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies and Tertullian’s The Prescription Against Heretics. If so, you’ve seen that the Church Fathers at the end of the second century speak and write as though apostolic succession is the universal belief and practice of the Church, and has been so since the Apostles. (The whole idea of apostolic succession wouldn’t even make sense unless it went back to the Apostles.) And of course this was the universal practice of the Church at Nicea in AD 325, as we can see in the canons of that council. And it can be seen in Eusebius’ Church History as well.

Can you provide a list of unbroken apostolic successors for that time period as well?

St. Irenaeus does just that in his Against Heresies. And Eusebius does as well. Each of the Apostolic churches preserved the list of their bishops, as Rome has done, where Peter and Paul are buried.

My argument was that if a person denies apostolic succession, then he or she faces a difficulty. The difficulty is that the record of the Fathers at the end of the second century indicates apostolic succession to be universal, and of course it wasn’t an issue at Nicea in 325, precisely because it was universal. So, if a person denies apostolic succession, he or she must believe that the Church not only universally fell into error on this point by the end of the second century, and clearly by 325, but that this universal falling into error was entirely silent. Either that, or we must posit that the history books were scrubbed by the victors. Now, a person might still wish to claim that apostolic succession wasn’t present yet, even at Nicea in 325. But again, that just pushes back the problem. Because there is no denying that at the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church universally believed and practiced apostolic succession. (Otherwise the Protestants wouldn’t have argued against it.) So, then, at some point, between AD 325 and AD 1517, in a silent way such that there was no protest (or the record books were scrubbed by the victors) the whole entire Catholic Church (East and West) adopted the belief and practice of apostolic succession. And the problem is that this is just an incredible hypothesis, because there is no historical evidence for either a universal transition from ‘mere apostolicity’ to the doctrine of apostolic succesion, or any scrubbing of the history books, or of any protest that this was contrary to the teaching and practice of the Apostles. Do you see the problem that I’m raising?

You’ve then defined heresy/apostasy incorrectly, based on an inflated view of common heresies and a false understanding of church history.

Why exactly do you think I have defined heresy/apostasy incorrectly? What is the correct definition, in your opinion, and why?

There are many other erroneous (or unproven) assumptions in this article, but I don’t want to dialogue on this in any great depth.

Here’s my policy on that sort of thing. I think it is only fair that if you are going to tell someone he is in error on something, you have to be willing to say where. It is uncharitable to do anything less. And, I’m all ears. :-)

I’m glad you like the website. So do I. (I didn’t design it, so I can say that without boasting!) As for debate, I prefer to *discuss* things with people, not debate, because debates tend to be (though aren’t necessarily) about winning. And I prefer to pursue the truth together in a mutual way with people, not in a competitive way, if you understand what I mean.

Thanks again for your comments.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Jonathan Brumley July 15th, 2009 10:39 pm :
Hi Bryan,

When you say “biblical promises regarding the Church”, it seems to me that you are presupposing a particular interpretation of these scripture verses.

When you read that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, you are interpolating this promise to mean that the Church will not fall into heresy.

When you read in Timothy that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, it seems like you are proposing this means that the infallible truth will _eventually_ be revealed to the Church in a particular way. (council of magisterium, ex cathedra by pope, etc)

When you read about the promise of the Holy Spirit in John 14, it seems to me that you are interpreting that to mean that the Holy Spirit will lead these men (and their successors) into infallible truth, when they meet and discern in a particular way.

Above all, I think you are presupposing Biblical infallibility. If Biblical infallibility comes from Church infallibility, like you are saying, then if you try to prove Church infallibility from Biblical infallibility, that’s circular. (but I’ll give you it would be a good argument if you can prove that all other possibilities are inconsistent).

I can see how it’s possible that these scriptures mean what you are saying, but I don’t think it’s obvious (at least not to a Protestant) that your interpretation is correct. From my point of view, your point of view could be true or it could be wishful thinking.

Jonathan
Devin Rose July 16th, 2009 12:34 am :
Hey Jonathan,

I’m not sure if you are speaking of John 14 or John 16:13 about the Holy Spirit leading the Apostles into all truth, but regarding John 16:13, I made a comment on another post on this site a few weeks back about some different possible interpretations and my take on them: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/play-church/#comment-1306

You might find that a short but interesting exploration. I will leave the other questions to Bryan.
Bryan Cross July 16th, 2009 9:02 am :
Jonathan,

When you say …. , it seems to me that you are presupposing a particular interpretation of these scripture verses.

Yes, because I’m building on our previous article: “Christ Founded a Visible Church.” The order of the articles was planned back in February or March, and so each successive article does not need to start from scratch. So if you want to see the argument for understanding these promises in this way, then I recommend carefully reading that post.

Regarding Biblical infallibility, my article presupposes it, because the primary purpose of this website is to reconcile Reformed Protestants and Catholics. So, we’re starting from shared common ground about the infallibility of Scripture, which has God (who cannot lie or err) as its divine author.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
K. Doran July 17th, 2009 10:37 am :
Protestants always say to Catholics, “Tell us, by what authority does your Church interpret the scriptures? Who is it who gave you this authority?” The Church replies, “I will also ask you a question, and you tell me: do you condemn other interpretations of scripture because your own interpretations come from heaven, or because they come from human origin?” The Protestants discuss with one another, saying “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ the Church will say, ‘Why do you then criticize others for claiming such teaching can be from heaven?’ But if we say, “Of human origin”, then the Church will say, ‘then why do you shut your ears to those who ask you to give them up?’” So the Protestants answer that they don’t know the authority of their own scriptural teachings. Then the Church says to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

The only way that they can come to see the Church’s authority is for them to open up their souls to the reality of what the Church really is. Your article, Bryan, may help begin that opening. We must all pray more fervently, and offer up sacrifices to God for the conversion of our hearts.
K. Doran July 17th, 2009 4:06 pm :
Bryan, you said: “As a result, those who claim that the Church deviated from orthodoxy at an early point in history, and use Scripture to show this, undermine the very basis for their assurance that the book they hold in their hand is canonically inerrant.”

This reminds me of the great response from Saint Augustine when the heretical Manichæans tried to convince him that the Catholic Church’s own scriptures pointed to Manichæus — even though the Catholic Church’s own Magisterium had rejected Manichæus. Augustine says the same thing you do but spills a little more ink:

“Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too.”

The key to this whole passage for me is that Augustine sees two choices: believe in the gospel and the Catholic Church, or reject both. The picking and choosing performed by our separated brethren today was obviously self-contradictory to him back in the fifth century. But what did he know — he was just a participant in the great apostasy, wasn’t he?
Joy H. July 17th, 2009 9:10 pm :
Bryan,
Here are some claims you’ve made:
(1) “The difficulty is that the record of the Fathers at the end of the second century indicates apostolic succession to be universal”
(2) “there is no historical evidence for either a universal transition from ‘mere apostolicity’ to the doctrine of apostolic succesion[sic], or any scrubbing of the history books, or of any protest that this was contrary to the teaching and practice of the Apostles.”
(3) “there is no denying that at the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church universally believed and practiced apostolic succession”

I’ve read Against Heresies and sat through several catholic university history classes and I contest (1) and (2)’s factuality and assumptions, and many protestant church historians do too. I also reject the three choices you’ve set up in (2). Consider R. Scott Clark’s view of church history stated briefly here: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/on-perspicuity-and-the-power-of-the-word/#comments —or in his book, Recovering the Reformed Confessions.
I’m fine with (3). The reformers recovered and fully developed the Gospel during that time as well. I suggest replying to Dr. Clark’s post or taking up this issue with another protestant church historian.
You said, “Why exactly do you think I have defined heresy/apostasy incorrectly? What is the correct definition, in your opinion, and why?”

My opinion doesn’t matter. What the Word of God and the church community have spoken matters. I suggest you refer to the Westminster Standards or the myriad of references to the presence of heretics and antichrists made in Scripture. *(It also has to do with your assumed definition of the church, which is too large of an issue to address here.)

I’m sorry if you perceived my comment as uncharitable. I reject the Catholicism’s dogma of the visible church, which is assumed in your article, but this is not a personal or willful deception on your part. The reason I don’t want to get into dissecting it is that I see it a virtue not to re-hash arguments that have been made by ministers of the Word gifted and called to defend such things. I suppose I was slightly annoyed that this and other articles on this website ignore or present shallow examples on protestant scholarship and views of church history.

Anyways, thanks for replying. Have a good weekend, and take heart — God is sovereign and truth will reign.
Joy
Andrew Preslar July 17th, 2009 10:13 pm :
Joy,

You say that your opinion doesn’t matter. But all you do in these comments is to assert your opinions. When asked to back up your opinions with evidence and arguments, you say “I do not want to do that here.” So it seems that your only purpose is to register your personal disapproval of the Catholic Faith and your personal approval of the opinions of certain Reformed scholars. Noted.

In your last comment you also asserted, without argument, that we ignore Protestant scholarship or present shallow examples of Protestant historical scholarship. It might make you feel good to say things like that, and this may be your sole reason for commenting here, but it is not a very productive thing to do.

We want to engage in dialogue, not just make assertions. So, when and if you are ready to move beyond the latter, we will be most pleased. Otherwise, well, if it makes you happy….
Joy H. July 17th, 2009 11:42 pm :
Andrew,

I’m happy you’ve read my comment. You’ve also noted that I’m having a hard time answering questions that have premises I don’t agree with. I’m also asking for historical evidence for the claims Bryan is making and I’m not satisfied with the answers (and assertions) hes presented.

I’ve provided links that do address some of the factual parts, but you’re right, not exhaustively at all. I wanted to point to men that would speak clearer than I do, and I assumed that Bryan has a knowledge of Reformed perspectives on heresy, and the Westminster Standards.

I’m sorry you’ve gotten hung up on that comment I made. “Shallow” was a poor choice of words;
“popular” or “informal” would have been better.

I’m sorry I didn’t understand rules for commenting on the article. I assumed that you wanted feedback/suggestions from your target audience. I guess I’m still also having a hard time understanding what exactly the problem with the Reformed doctrine of the visible church/apostolicity is from a historical perspective.

Thanks for replying. I’m not going to be commenting anymore, so if anyone wants to have at my statements, go ahead, its alright with me.

Joy
Andrew Preslar July 18th, 2009 1:29 am :
Joy,

Feedback is great, and I don’t mind the all the links. But if you are not going to set out arguments for your own position, then it might be better to simply ask questions about our own questions, statements and arguments rather than just positing your disagreement and asserting the contrary.

Admittedly, many of our posts have been “big picture” kind of jobs, in the sense of laying out some alternative answers to important questions and arguing for what seems to be the overall best answer. One of our over-arching goals is to cover a lot of ground. Admittedly, this approach might offer breadth at the expense of nuance and detail. But be patient–it is a work in progress.

One of the reasons that we have comment boxes and a blog in addition to the articles is that it gives us a forum were we can take up “feedback” in a considered, if not an exhaustive, way. Sometimes a satisfying answer is ready to hand, sometimes not. This is the thing about good questions (and you have raised several), especially when they are of a historical nature: they do not always admit of pat answers.
Neal Judisch July 18th, 2009 1:36 am :
Dear Joy,

I hope you don’t feel driven off. And I do think it’s acceptable to support your claims by referencing other, available work, that you believe to provide support for your claims (or misgivings, etc.). It is interesting to me that you’ve isolated the problem as one that centrally concerns the “premises” with which Bryan’s article begins, and not necessarily with the inferences derived from them. At the same time, those premises are not without their support, and have not (I think) entirely been appropriated and deployed without any attempt at justifying them in various ways.

I thoroughly understand and appreciate the presuppositionalist strategy which beckons us to look for the assumptions and guiding principles at work. That’s in fact vital, as you know. I do notice, though, that very often (in my own experience) Reformed Christians will more or less just point to the undeniable presence of “premises” or “assumptions” or “presuppositions,” and then move on from there to reject criticisms of various Reformed positions, without feeling the need to engage directly with the offending presuppositions. (I say this, I should add, not exactly from the outside looking in, or at least not merely in that capacity; it was something that I noticed, and something that much bothered me, back when I was quite happily Reformed without a nice thing in the world to say about Catholicism.)

As long as you’re willing to move back a step and give some fresh thought to those “presuppositions” — as no doubt we all need to do from time to time — then I think everyone here will be happy to admit that we haven’t yet produced on this site the kind of rigorous historical work you especially (and rightly) wish to see. So this is just an appeal: please be patient with us! The site is kind of new, and we haven’t written up everything that we think can be written on these issues. Your overall criticism, though, is duly noted.

Thanks for chiming in, and peace to you.

Neal
Bryan Cross July 18th, 2009 1:48 am :
Hello Joy,

Thanks for your comment. It is late, so I’ll keep this short. You suggested that I reply to Scott Clark’s post “On Perspicuity and the Power of the Word”. You can find my reply here.

I do look forward to your future comments here. The hope of Protestants and Catholics being reconciled in full communion rests in large part in our humble willingness to continue ecumenical dialogue.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
K. Doran July 18th, 2009 8:13 am :
To Joy and others:

I would like to see the historical evidence suggesting that any of the following three possibilities actually occurred:

(1) “a universal transition from ‘mere apostolicity’ to the doctrine of apostolic succession”
(2) “any scrubbing of the history books”
(3) “any protest that the apostolic succession was contrary to the teaching and practice of the Apostles”

I haven’t seen any evidence for this in the Didache, in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, in the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, or in Irenaeus. I haven’t heard that such evidence is present in the the Shephard of Hermas or in the fragments of Papias. I don’t want to dismiss your claims, Joy, but I think your claims would be more reasonable to me if you could produce some evidence for any of the three possibilities above. Do you see why I would find your claims to be more reasonable if you could produce evidence for any of the above?
Joy H. July 22nd, 2009 12:45 am :
K. Doran,

I wasn’t going to comment again, but God must want you to know something because two ministers of the Word have independently confirmed Irenaus on what true apostolic succession is (–and Clement, and I’m sure if you took some time to look, Ignatius of Antioch).

http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3394
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/irenaeus-on-apostolic-succession/

“Do you see why I would find your claims to be more reasonable if you could produce evidence for any of the above?”

No, I don’t think I do. Its obvious you haven’t read what I’ve linked to, or what I’ve said concerning those statements. Let me say it again: the Reformed make no such claims.

Thanks,
Joy
Ralph W. Davis July 28th, 2009 4:10 pm :
Hi guys,

It’s interesting here to see a bunch of ex-Presbyterians equating Baptists with Mormons…. but seriously, I’m about 1/3 of the way through and see a straw-man or two here–(having to do with SOLO-Scriptura confused with Sola-Scriptura…), but I’m going to read the whole thing, and venture some comments.

FYI, I’m a recent RTS graduate, who is Presbyterian-going-Anglican (yes, the conservative non-Episcopal Church ones) who has sat under Richard Pratt, Doug Kelly, John Frame, H.O.J. Brown, Bob Cara, & etc., if those guys mean anything to you)

The true peace of Christ to you,

Ralph
Bryan Cross July 28th, 2009 4:28 pm :
Ralph,

Thanks for your comments. A couple years ago I wrote a post on Mathison’s book, so we’re not unaware of the solo/sola distinction. The article after our next one will be on that very subject.

I do look forward to your thoughts on this article.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Tom Riello July 28th, 2009 5:27 pm :
Ralph,

Welcome! I gather from the professors you listed (Dr. Kelly, Dr. Cara, and the late Dr. Brown) you attended RTS Charlotte, which, if you did, I attended, as well. Are you considering going AMiA?
Ralph W. Davis July 28th, 2009 6:13 pm :
OK, finished. I followed your arguments however, in classical reasoning, I don’t believe your conclusion follows: That the visible Roman Church is the only gauranteur of truth.

First off, a few straw men: While Mormons, and perhaps a few fringe Protestants (who haven’t really thought about it) believe that the light of the gospel, the Holy Spirit and orthodoxy departed the universal Church after the Apostles (or more typically, after Constantine & the state-mingled-politically powerful & wealthy Church) this is by no means a typical Protestant understanding. Luther and Calvin too were serious students of the Church Fathers, and depended on them greatly for their attempts at reform. They saw the Fathers as serious, though fallible, authorities–men who acknowledged the supreme authority of the Apostles–as communicated in their writings, the New Testament.

What I see throughout this paper is what I call “digital thinking.” (I have an avatar elsewhere I call “AnalogReigns”). This is a kind of false dichotomy. Either the Church universal (under Rome) is indefectable…or…it’s completely degraded. Either it’s Christ’ Body….OR…nothing but a whore (no offense….using 16th Century language). Either you buy into what Rome has claimed for itself–including its own version of history…OR its NOTHING but a human (and totally fallible and fouled) organization. This is a bit like saying the command, “Honor your father and your mother” means you treat them as if they are God Himself….or else you pay them no attention at all.

Of course we humans don’t live that way. We honor our parents–they are AN authority for us–even as adults–but, we know they are also fallible, and as adults too, they don’t always have to be obeyed now…since, indeed, we are adults responsible for ourselves. However, “honor” always means respect–and a recognition of them as provisional authorities–under God’s authority. They have SOME authority in our life–derivative from God, as shown in His word in the Commandments–but they don’t have absolute authority–as God is the highest authority.

We treat other authorities in our lives like this; our employers, our government officials, a policeman or a judge. Romans 13 makes clear these are appointed by God as our overseers in certain realms–but–these authorities power is not absolute–they do not have rightful authority to command us to disobey God in His word. At the birth of the Church, in Acts 4, St. Peter made this clear when he asked the (legitimate, God appointed, religious) authorities a rhetorical question, “”Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:19b, 20)

My point is this: The idea that Protestants as a whole are like Mormons–and see a large time period (either 1800 years or 1500) when God the Holy Spirit left the Church alone in error, is simply a straw man–and is not taught or believed by classical conservative Protestants. Some backwoods types (as Joseph Smith and many of the 19th C. reconstructionists were) may have taught this, but, this is fringe, not classical Protestant teaching.

The idea that gives this power—that the Church visible is either indefectable (and therefore absolutely authoritative) — or — wholly corrupt (and so to be ignored–as it was HS abandoned) is also a false dilemma. Do Mahler, and other classical Protestants pick and choose which beliefs of the Fathers to accept? Yes of course–and so does (and did) the Roman (and Eastern Orthodox) churches. There are no Churches that I know of which accept the whole theology of Origen for example (in the extreme) or even that of a Turtullian as authoritative–this is why councils were adopted. OK, so now individuals can be corrupted, but not the whole institution (guided by ecumenical councils…right?) of a visible Church.

Poppycock! Councils too have been overturned and edited. St. Athanasius himself was excommunicated by THE VISIBLE CHURCH (yes, yes, under political pressure) at least once…and banished several other times. But hey, the Church universal is indefectable–only individuals in it (even leaders) can err…. (hmmm, last I checked the Church visible IS made up of erring people).

You’re a Roman Catholic? So do you believe every word and phrase of the Council of Trent documents? So all your Protestant family members and friends from seminary are forever cursed…..because they accept the Pauline teaching of justification by faith alone? Wait….that’s not what Vatican II said, is it? So which is authoritative, Trent or V2?

Oh, wait, the Church can make errors…just not on issues of faith and morals. So who decides whether a previous action or decision of the Church was about faith and morals–and therefore a part of sacred Tradition? Well umm, errr, the current leadership of the Church. So authoritative and sacred Tradition is only what the curia says it is…. (doesn’t sound too solid to me). Is there an authoritative list of sacred Tradition?

Hmmmm, Pope Benedict is now saying Luther was correct about justification by faith alone (I read it myself, from a sermon he preached last November). So the clear assertions of Trent on this subject are not no longer considered wholly valid? I’m confused….

I’ll challenge you with another assertion: If the Church is not a spiritual (but very real–not “Gnostic” as you assert) invisible organization, with Jesus Christ as its one Head, but rather the visible organization of the Roman Catholic Church with a pope as its head, then logically, all Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians–who do not accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome–are damned to the Hell (since we are not part of your “visible Church.”). Trent follows that logic very clearly.

Are you willing to make that assertion?
Ralph W. Davis July 28th, 2009 6:24 pm :
Tom and Bryan,
Thank you for your welcome. Yes indeed I went to Charlotte RTS. And yes, I’m prayerfully looking at AMiA (and CANA too).

Please forgive in advance my pugnacious argumentative style–I’m a student of the 16th Century, after all. Because of that, (and I studied with Dr. Brown 3 summers in a row in Wittenberg) I find it hard to conceive of Reformed types swimming the Tiber.

I would like to hear your replies. Matthison’s book “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” I found masterful, btw–and a big reason why I’m going Anglican. Hierarchies of authority make total sense to me.
Michael Liccione July 28th, 2009 6:48 pm :
Mr Davis:

Bryan and the authors of this blog are quite capable of speaking for themselves; but I hope to spare them a bit of trouble by replying to your last few paragraphs.

First, as to what B16 said about Luther, which can be found here. The Pope was not rescinding or contradicting any of the dogmatic canons of Trent, which named nobody in particular. He was saying that Luther’s claim that Christians are justified ‘by faith alone’ can be understood in an orthodox sense. Thus:

The wall — so says the Letter to the Ephesians — between Israel and the pagans was no longer necessary,” he said. “It is Christ who protects us against polytheism and all its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.”

And it is because of this, the Bishop of Rome continued, that Luther’s expression “by faith alone” is true “if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love.”

“Paul knows,” he added, “that in the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity. We are just when we enter into communion with Christ, who is love.”

All of that is logically quite compatible with the dogmatic canons of Trent. So, one of the difficulties you cite as such is not a difficulty.

You also write:

I’ll challenge you with another assertion: If the Church is not a spiritual (but very real–not “Gnostic” as you assert) invisible organization, with Jesus Christ as its one Head, but rather the visible organization of the Roman Catholic Church with a pope as its head, then logically, all Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians–who do not accept the authority of the Bishop of Rome–are damned to the Hell (since we are not part of your “visible Church.”). Trent follows that logic very clearly.

Such a hermeneutic of Catholicism instances the very sort of “digital thinking” for which you criticize Bryan.

First, the Catholic Church has never taught that all non-Catholic Christians are damned to hell. The Council of Florence, which Trent reaffirmed, taught infallibly that non-Catholics must attain unity with the Catholic Church “before death” in order to be saved. That’s because previous general councils had dogmatized the Cyprianic doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But the question what is necessary and sufficient for union with the Church was not clearly and irreformably addressed by Florence or any other instrument of the extrarordinary magisterium. Therefore, there was some room for development of doctrine on that question—and Rome used that room in subsequent centuries.

Like most ecclesiastics since Augustine, the Fathers of Florence believed that formal membership in the Catholic Church is generally necessary for salvation. But in addition to the usual means of water baptism and a confession of faith either by the baptisand or their proxies, the tradition accepted baptism by “explicit desire” (Aquinas’ phrase) as sufficient in the case of catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die before baptism. Also accepted as sufficient was baptism by “blood,” which meant martyrdom for adults; but the case of the Holy Innocents indicated that such baptism need not be accompanied by any sort of desire in those who were not guilty of actual sin; and the case of the OT “righteous,” liberated by Christ from the underworld, indicates that the desire itself need not have been explicit in life even among those who had sinned but somehow repented. That permitted the question, broached explicitly by Catholic theologians after the discovery of the “New World,” whether some people who had never heard the Gospel could be “baptized” by “implicit” desire, and thus joined to the Church before death, rather than having to suffer the bad moral luck of going to hell just because they had never heard the Gospel. Note well: that question was broached before, during, and after the Council of Trent.

By the mid-19th century, Rome recognized that “invincible ignorance” of the Gospel was exculpatory, so that the invincibly ignorant who nonetheless sought and loved truth by grace could be saved; by the time of Vatican II, it was recognized that such ignorance could obtain in the case of pagans, Jews and schismatics. To be sure, that is not entirely compatible with the prevailing view of the Fathers of Florence. But since that view had itself had neither been held and taught with diachronic consensus from the Church’s beginning, nor been formally defined, it could not be considered irreformable doctrine and, in fact, has never been presented as such by the Church. Hence, Rome’s development of doctrine on this question, culminating in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio, does not negate any irreformable doctrine.

For reasons I lack time to explore here, what it does logically negate is the underlying view, also generally prevalent between Augustine and Trent, that original sin involves personal fault. But that view was never irreformable either, as I’ve shown here; and CCC §405 now repudiates it.

Second, the Catholic Church teaches that the Church is both spiritual and visible. The Church not only contains the blessed in heaven or the “Church Triumphant”, which is not as yet visible; there are also people who can be salvifically joined to her without anybody but God knowing as much. If Vatican II’s account of “imperfect communion” with the Church is correct, that probably includes an appreciable number of Orthodox and Protestants.
Ben July 28th, 2009 7:08 pm :
Hi Ralph,

Just to correct one aspect of your criticism of Bryan’s (in my opinion) excellent article…

You write: “So do you believe every word and phrase of the Council of Trent documents? So all your Protestant family members and friends from seminary are forever cursed…..because they accept the Pauline teaching of justification by faith alone?” The Council of Trent anathematised heretics, which means, not that it forever damns them (this is God’s responsibility), but that they are to be cut off from the community of the faithful (the Catholic Church). Don’t confuse the two things. For a good article explaining what “let him be anathema!” means, read this by Jimmy Akin: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

We, of course, don’t agree that extrinsic forensic justification of man by Christ’s alien merits, applied by faith alone, is the Biblical (or Pauline), or traditional, teaching. Because that could turn into a massive debate in itself, best to leave it alone here. :)

It is, nevertheless, a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (there is no salvation outside the Church). It has been defined at the Fourth Lateran Council, by Boniface VIII in “Unam Sanctam”, and by Eugene IV in “Cantate Domino”. Bl. Pius IX also condemned the error that “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ”. Therefore, sorry to say, we do believe that all Protestants, in ordinary circumstances, are considered highly likely to be damned for schism and heresy. I’m not trying to be polemical, but yes, we would be willing to make such an assertion.

You imply that Vatican II backtracked and reversed this dogma. Not true. It merely clarified other aspects of it. The logic goes like this: (1) there is no salvation outside the Church (dogma); (2) all outside the Church are damned (dogma); (3) however, someone can be invisibly within the soul of the Church by spiritual union, if not within her physical body; (4) it is therefore possible for such a person to be saved. Think, for example, of a Buddhist monk who has never heard the name of Jesus, yet rises to a high level of holiness by God’s grace and obeys his commands as much as he is aware of them. Such a man could be saved: not because he is outside the Church, but because, seen with God’s eyes, he is actually within it. He is saved not by Buddhism, but by the seeds of Catholicism implanted in his soul; not by Buddha, but by Christ.

In fact, Vatican II has quite a strong repetition of the traditional dogma. Read Article 14 of Lumen Gentium, which I will copy here for you: “14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

So, I would respectfully submit, that your argument that the Church contradicted herself and is therefore fallible in faith and morals, is based on bad examples, and therefore fails.

I’ll leave it to Bryan to criticise other aspects of your criticism.

God bless you and yours,

Ben Gordon.

P.S. I’m close to 100% certain that Benedict XVI did not accept Luther’s teaching. Please point me towards the sermon/speech/whatever where he does so. In fact, I know that he had to correct the Joint Declaration on Justification (Lutheran/Catholic) because it didn’t reflect Catholic teaching enough.
Ben July 28th, 2009 7:10 pm :
Sorry Mr. Liccione. You answered the same thing while I was typing! And also answered my question.
Tim A. Troutman July 28th, 2009 7:15 pm :
Ralph,

As Dr. Liccione said, Bryan is more than capable of speaking for himself here but I’ll say at least one thing that he wont: he is a philosophy professor and a Thomist; it will be hard for you to catch him making an error in “classical reasoning.”

It’s also helpful for these types of conversations to be careful about tossing out straw men accusations unless you’re sure that one exists.

On the false dichotomy: I understand where you’re coming from but there’s an important part of the puzzle missing in your analysis. First, no one here believes the dichotomy as you stated it. It is conceivable that a body could be fallible and not be completely degraded. The Mormon “church” is an example of that. It is fallible and yet not completely degraded. The question at hand is, even if she was fallible, how could the visible Church that Christ founded lose her authority to individuals?

When we talk about visible Church, we mean something quite different than what Calvin meant. Just because the Calvinist tradition also uses the phrase “visible Church”, it doesn’t mean that they believe the same thing. Here’s what we mean. So given that definition, Calvin establish a new community outside the visible Church. What he and Luther thought they were doing is irrelevant. What actually happened is something else.

So there is no false dichotomy in the paper nor a straw man argument. There is no principled reason to trust Calvin rather than Joseph Smith.
Ralph W. Davis July 28th, 2009 7:37 pm :
Mr. Liccione,

A very erudite and concise reply, I thank you.

The point in the article about the absolute necessity of one visible Church (which is naturally assumed must be Rome) seems to be severely weakened, if not eviscerated by your explanation in the last paragraph:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Second, the Catholic Church teaches that the Church is both spiritual and visible. The Church not only contains the blessed in heaven or the “Church Triumphant”, which is not as yet visible; there are also people who can be salvifically joined to her without anybody but God knowing as much. If Vatican II’s account of “imperfect communion” with the Church is correct, that probably includes an appreciable number of Orthodox and Protestants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My understanding of the the classical distinction between the Church visible and invisible is more involved than simply those who have died and are hence invisible in Purgatory or Heaven, and those who are visibly within the Roman Church today (or who are in “imperfect communion” with it as with myself and many others). Rather, it includes those who only appear to be in the Church—from our outward, human capacity to know—as distinct from those who both appear to be in the Church, AND whom Christ Jesus knows as His own—that is sincere Christians.

Even the twelve had one whom the Evangelists make clear was “not of us,” (and never was) (I Jn 2:19) hence of the visible twelve, only the invisible eleven were His true disciples.

I think you would admit that not all baptized Roman Catholics are (now, or will be) a part of Christ’ eternal Church. Whether or not one says some lose their place in the Church—or they never really had it—is not the point, the point is, the present-day organization—no matter how pure, holy, or well taught—is not synonymous to the eventual complete Church Triumphant. This is the distinction we classical Protestants make, that the human organization of the visible Church—while it overlaps, and contains the invisible Church, is not the same as that eternal Church Triumphant. To say that is not to be Gnostic, or to spiritualize things into non-reality—its simply to be realistic. Your, and the Roman Church’s, admittance that many are a part of the Church who don’t know they are (even though the admittance of Jews, pagans, (and agnostics or atheists?) would seem to make Rome officially Universalist now) seems very much like a tacit understanding of the present day reality of an invisible Church…crossing denominational lines.
Tim A. Troutman July 28th, 2009 7:39 pm :
I forgot the other thing I was going to mention…

So given the visible Church as Catholics believe it, remember that she taught Transubstantiation and had been explicitly for a long time by the time Calvin came around. So the body of the visible Church was openly teaching not just heresy but idolatry. That’s pretty serious. So if Calvin is right, it’s not that the visible Church is just fallible and made a few mistakes along the way and he helped her see the light; she had become an instrument of destruction for God’s word and a catalyst for idolatry.
K. Doran July 28th, 2009 7:45 pm :
Dear Joy,

I have looked at the documents you linked to. Indeed, you don’t make the claim that there was a great apostasy, or a scrubbing of the history books. You make the claim that the church fathers taught that the scriptures themselves required no authoritative and irreformable interpretation. Thus, you claim that no great apostasy is necessary for you to believe that the apostles and their immediate successors knew that scripture does not require an authoritative and irreformable interpretation.

The people who run this blog could probably do a much better job than I could responding to this claim. But suffice it to say that I am happy to present evidence that puts beyond all doubt that the Church Fathers did not believe that it was impossible for the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to make authoritative and irreformable interpretations of the truths of revelation that had been passed down to them through the scriptures and the liturgy. Maybe you should email me at KBDh02@yahoo.com. But, as I said, the people who run this blog would do a much better job than I, and they seem to be eager to engage with you and with all the visitors here. So why don’t you email them? We can talk about each of the fathers in turn, and read translations by protestants that show that the fathers did not believe what White and Webster et al. have claimed.

Saint Augustine loved scripture as much as you do, and said so using adjectives that, interpreted by themselves, would make him sound like a protestant today. But he also claimed, in his letter against one of the Manicheans, that if anyone used the scriptures to present an argument that contradicted an interpretation of the scriptures that had been authoritatively taught to him by the Catholic Church, then he would stop believing in both the scriptures and the Catholic Church — he wouldn’t believe in the scriptures without the authority of the Church. . .that wasn’t even one of the options. He goes through each step of the logic here, to make it unambiguous what he means. It is much easier to interpret his logic in such an argument than it is to interpret his use of certain adjectives to describe scripture. And hence, it is clear that the best description of his attitude towards authoritative interpretation of scripture is that he did not believe in the lack of authoritative interpretation that you believe in.

The same can be said for many church fathers, and I would be very happy to go through them one by one with you. Don’t be afraid to read good translations yourself rather than relying on arguments of others that piece together quotations. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ has a good set of translations. But better yet, contact the people here! They will do a great job, I am sure.

Sincerely,

K. Doran
Tim A. Troutman July 28th, 2009 7:47 pm :
I think you would admit that not all baptized Roman Catholics are (now, or will be) a part of Christ’ eternal Church.

There is certainly a sum total of people who will end up in Heaven. We don’ t know who they are but that’s not what we mean by “Church.” That is the Protestant model of an essentially invisible Church having visible manifestations. Do we believe all baptized Catholics are part of the Church? Yes we do. Will they all end up in heaven? No. Those are two separate things. In the apostles Creed we confess faith in the Communion of Saints and the Catholic Church as separate things for a reason. I think you should read the visible Church article I linked to above so you can understand where we’re coming from. This article is built on the premises of that one.
Ralph W. Davis July 28th, 2009 8:01 pm :
Tim,

I don’t have any idea who Bryan is, how much education he has, or that somehow he is my authority……or that somehow Thomists are incapable of logical mistakes. I don’t mean any disrepect here, but I stand by my claim of a straw men argument.

If you want discussion however, I will call things as I see them, and you haven’t addressed the straw men I saw: Namely that classical Protestants regard Roman Catholicism as corrupt in essentials for long periods of time (they don’t, and never have) and secondly, that a visible body must be indefectable in essentials in order for Jesus promises not to leave His Church alone to be true.

If by “principled” argument Bryan and you mean some universal outside of God’s word, then yes of course–Calvin is no better than Joseph Smith–but that’s the point. For Calvin, and all classical Protestants, the final and full authority is the holy Scriptures–NOT because Rome (and the Eastern Orthodox Churches…) canonized them, but, simply because God’s Word needs no other authority to give it authority…..recognized by the Churches, yes, but not given it’s authority by their lessor authority.
Ralph W. Davis July 28th, 2009 8:24 pm :
For Mohler and other Protestant bible scholars to look at the teachings of the Fathers–and the various accretions added by (often by very corrupt and powerful politician/businessmen popes–in the high middle ages at least) Tradition, and to reasonably weigh and judge them by an objective standard–God’s holy Word–is not the same as a Joseph Smith coming along with a new (and quite evidently bogus) “revelation” which very clearly–in the judgment of Christians all over the denominational spectrum–contradicts that holy Scripture.

Mohler is FAR from painting a target around an arrow he’s already shot in the wall… On the contrary, when a body takes upon its current leadership the same status as the founders (the Apostles) as expressed in the New Testament, this makes it much easier for it to innovate–according to the spirit of the age. It is Rome that paints a target of biblical-weighted authority around its decisions–even if these have not one iota of connection or support in the sacred Word.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Baptist–and I have trouble with “bible alone” evangelical Christianity–because of it’s inevitable individualistic interpretations–this is why I choose to be part of a confessional Church body. Protestant confessions–some of the earliest things they did, by the way, show as fallacy the notion that all Protestants reject any authority other than scripture, including that of a Church body. The best understanding is that of a hierarchy of authority–with the holy Sciptures unrivaled at the top–not a divided authority of present Church AND scripture–where in that visible church, the visible authorities always win…
Bryan Cross July 28th, 2009 8:25 pm :
Ralph,

I’ll write a longer reply a bit later, but at the moment I have a quick question. You wrote:

Namely that classical Protestants regard Roman Catholicism as corrupt in essentials for long periods of time (they don’t, and never have)

How many years (approximately) prior to 1517 was the Catholic Church “corrupt in essentials,” according to “classical Protestants”?

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Tim A. Troutman July 28th, 2009 8:38 pm :
I don’t have any idea who Bryan is, how much education he has

If I thought you knew who he was, why would I tell you about him?

or that somehow he is my authority…

This sort of thing doesn’t advance the dialogue. I never said or implied that he was your authority.

As for the first straw man accusation, Bryan’s question, and where that leads, will demonstrate its falsity. As for the second:

that a visible body must be indefectable in essentials in order for Jesus promises not to leave His Church alone to be true.

Do you agree with Augustine?

The Church will totter when her foundation totters. But how shall Christ totter? . . . . [A]s long as Christ does not totter, neither shall the Church totter in eternity.45 (footnote above)

If you say you agree with Augustine, then you’ll have to deny the visibility of the Church since you believe that the visible Church has tottered.

Protestant confessions–some of the earliest things they did, by the way, show as fallacy the notion that all Protestants reject any authority other than scripture, including that of a Church body.

No one claims that Protestants don’t believe in any authority. They certainly did believe in their own authority to interpret the Scriptures. But this is the problem: they were never given that authority. It was given to the visible Church – the one they defected from.
Bryan Cross July 29th, 2009 12:54 am :
Ben,

In #47, you wrote:

Therefore, sorry to say, we do believe that all Protestants, in ordinary circumstances, are considered highly likely to be damned for schism and heresy. I’m not trying to be polemical, but yes, we would be willing to make such an assertion.

The Church does not put a likelihood (“highly likely”) of damnation on any particular person or any particular groups of persons. It is a defined dogma that those persons who die in a state of mortal sin, cannot be saved. And schism and heresy are objectively grave sins. But, the Church does not speculate concerning who died in a state of mortal sin, or which particular person or particular groups of persons are likely to die in a state of mortal sin. So it is not the teaching or belief of the Catholic Church that “all Protestants, in ordinary circumstances, are considered highly likely to be damned for schism and heresy.” The Church recognizes the possibility of invincible ignorance, which removes culpability, as Michael carefully explained above. Those who through no fault of their own do not know that Christ established His Church as necessary for all men to be saved, are not culpable for not entering her or from not conforming to her doctrine.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Ben July 29th, 2009 2:05 am :
Of course I agree with invincible ignorance etc. And I also agree that you can’t judge any particular person, with the possible exceptions of Judas and Stalin :-) That’s why I said that it’s “highly likely” that Protestants are damned. It is far from certain that any particular Protestant is damned, it is nevertheless also likely that, given that schism and heresy are mortal sins, and that Protestants are guilty of both, they are likely to be damned. It is equally impossible to say to what extent any particular Protestant man/woman, or any Protestant denomination in general, is guilty of these sins. We leave that up to the Almighty. I don’t really think we’re disagreeing in this.

St. Alphonsus Liguori taught: “How many countries there are in which there are scarcely any Catholics, and all the rest either infidels or heretics! And all of them are certainly on the way to being lost.” He also said: “All infidels and heretics are surely on the way to being lost. What an obligation we owe God! for causing us to be born not only after the coming of Jesus Christ, but also in countries where the true faith reigns! I thank Thee, O Lord, for this. Woe to me if, after so many transgressions, it had been my fate to live in the midst of infidels or heretics!” Or St. Teresa: “I had the greatest sorrow for the many souls that condemned themselves to Hell, especially those Lutherans.”

I think I am in agreement with these saints and the Church in general to say both (1) it is not my task to say that any person or group is damned, (2) nevertheless, it is likely that one in mortal sin (e.g. heresy) is, in principle, likely to be damned.

God bless.
Bryan Cross July 29th, 2009 2:33 am :
Ben,

The Catholic Church nowhere teaches that Protestants are “highly likely” to be damned. The quotations from St. Liguori and St. Teresa do not establish it, not only because of their fallibility, but also because those statements could include an unstated but assumed qualifier regarding invincible ignorance. These saints weren’t ignorant of Romans 2.

When you say that “schism and heresy are mortal sins”, that needs to be qualified, because strictly speaking, they are “grave matter”. Only when committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent do they become mortal sins. Otherwise, you blur the distinction between formal heresy and material heresy. (See here.)

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Ben July 29th, 2009 3:35 am :
Yes, as I said, I agree that heresy and schism are mortal sins only when they are both objective and subjectively acted on; i.e. the will must freely and knowingly consent to remain separated from the Catholic Church. Therefore it is obvious that when committed in invincible ignorance, it is not a sin. If that it is what you are trying to get me to agree with, I can say unreservedly: yes, invincible ignorance is an “assumed qualifier”. What it seems to me that you’re trying to say (forgive me if I’m wrong) is that we should assume invincible ignorance as the usual condition of most people, when in fact it is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Take a 4th century Arian. Because he adheres to a heresy, even if he does so for noble and “biblical” reasons, it is more correct to assume that he is in a state of damnation, rather than to assume that his invincible ignorance. It is a rather difficult thing to be invincibly ignorant: it must be “unconquerable”, i.e. ignorance which cannot be reasonably overcome in any normal way (as in a Maori tribe before European colonisation). Are most Protestants today in such a situation? Hardly. There are Catholic Churches all over the world. Most have heard of her and what she teaches. At the same time, invincible ignorance undoubtedly does apply to at least some Protestants.

That’s why Bl. Pius IX solemnly (infallibly) condemned the heresy that “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (17, Syllabus of Errors). Clearly Protestants are not at all in the true Church. Therefore, we cannot maintain good hope of their salvation. This is the same thing as saying that we should assume that (most of them) are damned, with the exception of the invincibly ignorant.

God bless,

Ben.
Tim A. Troutman July 29th, 2009 8:52 am :
Ben, it’s not that we should assume that most Protestants are saved or damned – we simply shouldn’t be making speculations about things we don’t know about and have not been revealed. Protestants, and all men without the sacraments, are at a disadvantage when it comes to salvation. But we don’t know what that means in precise statistical terms and it’s best not to speculate.
Bryan Cross July 29th, 2009 10:02 am :
Ben,

What it seems to me that you’re trying to say (forgive me if I’m wrong) is that we should assume invincible ignorance as the usual condition of most people, when in fact it is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

I’m not saying that we should assume invincible ignorance as the usual condition. I am saying that we should not assume that Protestants are “highly likely to be damned.” I could ask you how you know that the majority of Bible-believing Protestants are so culpable for not being Catholic that they are in a state of mortal sin, but there is no point asking you that question, because you have no way of knowing the answer. You don’t know that the majority of Bible-believing Protestants are so culpable for not being Catholic that they are in a state of mortal sin, and therefore you don’t know that Bible-believing Protestants are “highly likely to be damned.” Nor does the Catholic Church teach that “Protestants are highly likely to be damned.”

Pope Pius IX’s statement in the Syllabus of Errors, “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” needs to be interpreted in light of Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of Feeneyism, where he shows that there are two ways of being “in” the true Church of Christ, making reference to Mystici Corporis Christi. Therefore, the statement in the Syllabus of Errors does not properly apply to baptized Protestants, because it is not true of them that they are “not at all in the true Church of Christ.”

You write:

It is a rather difficult thing to be invincibly ignorant: it must be “unconquerable”, i.e. ignorance which cannot be reasonably overcome in any normal way (as in a Maori tribe before European colonisation). Are most Protestants today in such a situation? Hardly.

This is too fast, because you are making unjustified assumptions about what is “reasonable.” Jimmy Akin points out:

Feeneyites sometimes assert that there are no individuals who are invincibly ignorant of the necessities of baptism and embracing the Catholic faith. This position reflects a misunderstanding concerning what constitutes reasonable deliberation for many in the non-Catholic world. If someone has never heard of the Christian faith, or if he has been taught all his life that the Catholic Church is evil, then it could well be that he would not discover the truth of the Christian faith or the Catholic Church merely by exercising reasonable diligence in weighing the various religious options presented to him.

A Protestant who has no idea that there is such a thing as “the Church Christ founded,” and no idea that the Church Christ founded is a visible unity, is in a completely different conceptual paradigm, as I explain here. The very notion of such a thing may have never entered into his mind. You cannot search for what you do not in some sense know, as Plato points out. Just because there are Catholic churches all over the world, that doesn’t mean that most Protestants know what she teaches, and understand the paradigm difference between the invisible Church and the visible Church. In fact, just from my own experience, I would say that most Protestants do not understand the paradigm difference. Most would think of the Catholic Church as simply another denomination. And they have no reason (of which they are aware) to think otherwise. And of that small percentage who do know that the Catholic Church claims to be the Church Christ founded, many, if not most, would have been taught (by people they trusted, who taught them the Bible and introduced them to Christ) that the Catholic Church is an apostate institution that has abandoned the gospel and corrupted the truth. A person who has been taught such a thing by those he has good reason to trust, may not see any reason to investigate the Catholic Church and her claims. And so his ignorance is not invincible in the “unconquerable” sense, but in the sense of exceeding what counts as reasonable deliberation given his epistemic situation.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Devin Rose July 29th, 2009 10:06 am :
Ralph,

I would like to reply to this statement you made:
“My point is this: The idea that Protestants as a whole are like Mormons–and see a large time period (either 1800 years or 1500) when God the Holy Spirit left the Church alone in error, is simply a straw man–and is not taught or believed by classical conservative Protestants. Some backwoods types (as Joseph Smith and many of the 19th C. reconstructionists were) may have taught this, but, this is fringe, not classical Protestant teaching.”

Whether it is “classical Protestant teaching” or not, every Evangelical Protestant I have met believes that the Church fell into error in her teachings (became “corrupted”) sometime between 300 AD and the Reformation (usually they choose sometime between 300 AD and 500 AD).

On my blog last week, a Reformed Baptist apologist named James White dismissed my mention of the communion of saints being believed and practiced in the 7th century because “by the 7th century all manner of unbiblical traditions” were being taught and practiced.

The people who believe in this corruption theory are not “fringe” groups; they probably represent tens of millions (even hundreds of millions) of Protestant Christians.
Ben July 29th, 2009 3:58 pm :
Dear Bryan,

That’s an interesting point re. Pius XII. We cannot maintain good hope for those not in the Church, but we are also not certain who is “in” the Church invisibly and who is not. Yes, I think I agree now that “it’s best not to speculate.” Perhaps I should rephrase my original statements: good hope shouldn’t be maintained for the salvation of Protestants in their present condition, but not hoping isn’t the same as positively asserting that they are damned.

God bless.
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 8:56 am :
I’ve replied for Joy regarding the claim that there is no evidence for a “great controversy or debate, as the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries”.
reply to Ecclesial Deism. I think this argument is taking advantage of the fact that most Protestants are ignorant of early church history.

I did the reply on my blog because I find this blog too rude for discussion of issues, it is far to focused on personal attacks.
Sean Patrick July 30th, 2009 9:29 am :
CD Host.

I’ll go ahead and copy the substance of your reply here:

CD Host’s reply -

Let me first quote the comment directed at a woman Joy which is repeated several times:

Joy,

Thanks for your comments. If you think that the Church immediately fell into the ‘error’ of apostolic succession, then how does your position avoid ecclesial deism? Do you posit the continual existence of an unknown remnant, preserved for 1500 years, that didn’t believe in apostolic succession, but simply preserved the apostles’ doctrine, and then finally handed it on to Luther? Why wasn’t there some great controversy or debate, as the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries, and swallowed up the original notion that ecclesial leadership was based entirely on agreement with the Apostles’ doctrine? Or do you posit that there was such a great controversy, and that the winners later blotted out all records of it from Church history? Or did the Apostles so poorly transmit to the churches their instructions regarding the basis for Church authority, that nobody made a peep as the ‘heresy’ of apostolic succession swept over the entire Church, because no one even realized that it was wrong?

Of course a great controversy is precisely what we do see in Church history. From the earliest writing we see attacks on the notion that the apostles are the source of doctrine and that authority should come from priests. A good example is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, where Mary presents pages of the actual teachings of Jesus while Andrew and Peter (representing the Catholic church) reject the real teachings because they only accept the things the savior said to them. This theme gets developed even further in Pistis Sophia again apostolic succession rather than revelation is attacked as being contrary to the instruction of Jesus.

I’m going to make a short list of 10 documents that demonstrate this very war that is being claimed never occurred did in fact occur. There was a widespread attack in the early church on apostolic authority. I think I could likely do 50-100 and that is just from what survives.

1. Gospel of Mary Magdalene — discussed above
2. Pistis Sophia — Peter’s rejectionism is expanded to the whole doctrine of hyclic, psychic and pneumatic Christians.
3. Dialogue of the Savior — likely authored about 120 where the Jesus himself attacks the notion of spiritual authorities of any sort.
4. Mark where the apostles are constantly denigrated as being essentially idiots. They reject the savior as he dies. There is no appointment of the apostles.
5. Gospel of the Ebonites somewhere between 140-200 rejects the supposed apostolic church (pre-Catholic Church) as being the church founded by the apostles is falsifying their bible.
6. The Gospel of Thomas rejects that there are a distinguished group of people called “apostles” everyone is a disciple.
7. In the Book of John the Baptizer is essentially a counter to Luke/Acts which builds the case for the construction of the church as John -> Jesus -> Peter -> Paul -> Church.
8. The Great Declaration of Simon Magus argues that just as thought and soul are invisible the true church equally invisible, the visible church, apostolic church, is corrupted like the body.
9. The Apocryphon of John argues against those who claim you need to follow their rites to be saved.
10. The Sayings of Jesus (Sufi) attacks the apostolic church as a financial scam designed to rip people off by selling them a false message of Jesus.

This website is guided by posting rules which seek to foster respect and genuine dialog. Personal attacks are strictly banned.
Sean Patrick July 30th, 2009 10:07 am :
CD,

Specific to your comment…

The claim is not being made that there was never controversy in the early church or that there were never those that sought to challenge the authority of the church.

One only needs to read a work like Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” to know that the early church faced heresies and usurpers.

The question for us is how did the early church respond to these issues?

Let us look at Irenaeus himself. From Chapter 10 of “Against Heresies”, The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith…As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.

You listed 10 different episodes of people claiming to have the true faith against the church. Irenaeus was specifically preaching against many of them. His prescription is to flee to the faith which is rightly preached by the successors of the apostles and detest the innovators who flee from the Church.
Bryan Cross July 30th, 2009 11:10 am :
CD,

In a previous thread, you showed that as a result of having rejected the authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church in the determination of the canon, many people are now looking to the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas as something that [in their view] quite possibly should have been included in the canon.

Here you do something quite similar. You point to the second-century opposition between the successors of the Apostles on the one hand, and the Gnostics on the other hand, as evidence that Apostolic succession was a novel doctrine/practice that caused great controversy when it swept through the Catholic Church, displacing the primitive Gnostic Christianity that Christ had originally taught. The true Church, you are claiming, was not that of St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, or St. Irenaeus, or St. Hippolytus, or St. Cyprian, or St. Athanasius. Those were men who had co-opted the Church by smuggling in this doctrine of Apostolic succession. The real second-century Church can be seen, in your view, in those who rejected Apostolic succession, namely, the Gnostics. The historic precedent for the 16th century Protestant rejection of Apostolic succession is found, in your view, in the second century Gnostics, such as Cerinthus, Valentinus, Marcion and Cerdo. (See here.) They are the real ‘Church fathers,’ in your view. Your claim thus creates the following dilemma for Joy: Either the real ‘Church fathers’ were the second-century Gnostics, in which case the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon and the canon of Scripture were all products of a heretical sect, and we should all embrace the Gnostic writings to which you refer, or the real ‘Church fathers’ were those who possessed authorization by succession from the Apostles, in which case the great second-century controversy to which you refer was between the Church on the one hand, and Gnostic heretics on the other. So you have offered Joy the choice between Catholicism and Gnosticism. And that indeed is the choice.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 11:33 am :
Sean –

I’ll take it by your comment about personal attacks you intend to stay civil so, I’ll give it a shot here. It has not been my experience that Called to Communion bans personal attacks, however.

The original claim was that there was no record of Christians denying apostolic succession in the early church. I’m contending that there is such a record a large and substantial one. And these are examples. And I certainly will agree there were people on both sides of the issue, and that in the end Irenaeus’ “One God one Bishop” faction won the power struggle. To put this in contemporary terms consider the two statements:
1) There is no one who disagreed with 2009 stimulus package.
2) There were a large number of people who disagreed with the 2009 stimulus package, they had many elected officials who voted their way, they held large protests but still lost the vote and the stimulus became law.

These are very different claims, not at all the same. What I’m saying is that these 2 ideas were being conflated. Now if you agree that there were lots of Christians and whole schools that rejected the notion of apostolic succession and/or rejected the Catholic system as actually teaching what the apostles taught then it just comes down to who you believe. But the question was one of existence not correctness. Which leads to…

If you, CD Host, lived under the Bishopric of Irenaeus in A.D. 180-199 how would you have determined the true faith?

Before we start going down this path you’ve switched from a question of history (did these people exist) to one of theology (were they right). So lets make clear my comment was one about history not about theology.

Since you picked Irenaeus lets pick the Valentinians as our counter group who were worshipping in the same churches. These Valentinians would reject the very notion of a single true faith. Let me give you an analogy from math.

The purpose in math instruction is not that you memorize
13 x 4 = 52, 17 x 11 = 187…. but rather that you have mastered a system such that faced with any problem you know how to resolve it. “Learning multiplication” is not about learning some particular facts, a deposit of faith but rather understanding a system for deriving truth by yourself. A really really thick book of correctly answered multiplication problems might allow you to answer many problems well but it might just as well hinder you from ever learning to multiply yourself. Teaching or books are an assist not a replacement for saving knowledge. That is to say if you are still wondering which book has the best list of multiplication problems you don’t know how to multiply at all; and once you know how to multiply which book you learned it from is irrelevant.

So the way you are asking the question in terms of a single “true faith” is essentially begging the question about which one is right. It presupposes that winning the game is about picking the right book to teach you how to multiply, and the big question is how do you make sure you have the right book. Once that becomes the question, sure then you have the Reformed Protestant vs. Catholic debate. Which is what this form is about, so I get that. I’ll end with a quote from Valentinus himself (Gospel of Truth) on this point:

This ignorance of the Father brought about terror and fear. And terror became dense like a fog, that no one was able to see. Because of this, error became strong. But it worked on its hylic substance vainly, because it did not know the truth. It was in a fashioned form while it was preparing, in power and in beauty, the equivalent of truth. This then, was not a humiliation for him, that illimitable, inconceivable one. For they were as nothing, this terror and this forgetfulness and this figure of falsehood, whereas this established truth is unchanging, unperturbed and completely beautiful.

For this reason, do not take error too seriously. Thus, since it had no root, it was in a fog as regards the Father, engaged in preparing works and forgetfulnesses and fears in order, by these means, to beguile those of the middle and to make them captive. The forgetfulness of error was not revealed. It did not become light beside the Father. Forgetfulness did not exist with the Father, although it existed because of him. What exists in him is knowledge, which was revealed so that forgetfulness might be destroyed and that they might know the Father, Since forgetfulness existed because they did not know the Father, if they then come to know the Father, from that moment on forgetfulness will cease to exist.
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 12:02 pm :
Bryan –

Lets stop here. Your claim to Joy was these people didn’t exist and there was no debate. If you now agree there was an active debate and you just like one side better that’s fine but it is a totally different position. Again I’ll refer back to my analogy about the 2009 stimulus package. Even though Republicans lost the vote Republicans do exist.

As to my beliefs I appreciate the link to the conversation which is accurate and I’ll stand behind. You are putting some words in my mouth here. I can see where you are making this mistake but:

1) displacing the primitive Gnostic Christianity that Christ had originally taught.
2) The real second-century Church can be seen, in your view, in those who rejected Apostolic succession, namely, the Gnostics
3) [Cerinthus, Valentinus, Marcion and Cerdo] are the real ‘Church fathers,’ in your view.

Are all statement I would reject or heavily qualify. But ultimately who cares what my theology is?

What is more interesting is a revised version of (2)

There was an active debate during the 2nd century of whether scripture (defined loosely), personal inspiration and revelation or teaching of recently alive great teachers would be authoritative for the Christian religion. And if it was to be based on scripture then which scriptures. If to be based on recently alive great teachers, collecting their works and determining which ones became important. The key outlines of this debate formed during the 2nd century but it there was no resolution. The literature of the 2nd century displays a rapid hardening into schools and a deterioration of the wide open amorphous definitions that the century opens with.
Bryan Cross July 30th, 2009 12:18 pm :
CD,

Your claim to Joy was these people didn’t exist and there was no debate.

My claim to Joy, if you wish to know, was that there was no debate within the Church regarding Apostolic succession, where those preserving orthodoxy stood up and protested the sweeping importation of this novel doctrine “apostolic succession” over the whole Church. Of course there was debate between the Church and the heretics outside the Church, such as the Gnostics. But if your evidence against Apostolic succession is to point to the Gnostics as the true heirs of the Apostles, then I rest my case, and greatly appreciate your help in making my case.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Devin Rose July 30th, 2009 12:30 pm :
CD-Host,

Firstly, I appreciate your recent comment over on my blog.

My experience here with Called to Communion has been that, unlike most other sites discussing ecumenical issues (or apologetics), personal attacks have not occurred nor are they accepted. Even when a Catholic commenter began making more polemical statements, he was quickly corrected and encouraged to avoid such statements. I have read every blog post and article thus far on the site and most of the comments, and I have not witnessed personal attacks in any of them. That is not to say that no one has gotten frustrated with the discussion or made some imprudent remarks potentially, but no one has resorted to “you’re a dishonest liar and do not even believe in Jesus!” type statements.
Tom Riello July 30th, 2009 12:40 pm :
CD,

I think our Reformed and Evangelical friends do not appreciate this kind of help for their position but you do make the point, better than I can, that, as Bryan pointed out, the choice is between the Church established by Christ and intended by Him, and gnosticism, or as Bart Eerhman might say, “Christianities”.

Today, on the radio, I was challenged to prove Catholic doctrine on the Bible alone, (a hard task to do on a radio show where one has about 45 seconds to answer a question). The caller then preceded to attack the Trinity as a Catholic innovation. Which was helpful to me, unintended by him to be sure, to prove the necessity of the Church and her infallibility or you end up down the slipper slope of, what Pope Benedict has called, theological relativism. As was stated some time ago, after the Reformation, heresy becomes, “Heresy according to Whom?”
Tim A. Troutman July 30th, 2009 1:20 pm :
Devin – thanks for the vote of confidence. One of our goals from the beginning was to avoid any kind of ad hominem attacks and or discourteous dialogue. If anyone ever thinks we are not enforcing that, they are welcome to contact us and demonstrate the violation. CD-Host is, to date, the first to accuse us of that.
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 1:20 pm :
Bryan –

Epiphanius distinctly states that Valentinus was regarded as orthodox so long as he was at Rome. Tertullian places his excommunication at 175 (he left for Cyprus around 160 and most scholars believe he died in 161). Which means that even the church fathers agree when he was preaching the message I just quoted he was in the church and part of the church. They were subsequently booted out of the church, which was primary point of Irenaeus mission to get them out. If they had already been outside the church Irenaeus and Tertullian wouldn’t have had to fought to get them expelled.

It is very much like the SSPX today. Are members of SSPX inside or outside the church? Are catholics who identify with “traditionalism” inside or outside the church? Clearly there are some the church considers outside like the SSPV, some like the SSPX that are considered inside but near the border and some like the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales that are sympathetic to these ideas but not quite outside the church.

Now there are right now in the church and have been for a generation people who want to exacerbate the fight. If they were successful and ended up pushing everyone out from the Latin Mass Society it would not have been the case that in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s that the “traditionalist Catholics” were outside the church.
Tim A. Troutman July 30th, 2009 1:34 pm :
CD a person is not “orthodox” or “heretical” by their nature only by what they believe. Even after excommunication, Valentinus retained some orthodox beliefs. When someone is excommunicated for heretical beliefs, it’s not valid to turn around and say, after the fact, that those beliefs, for which he was excommunicated, were potentially orthodox or that the orthodox Church herself at one time wrestled with the question. Persons within the orthodox Church may debate questions of particular doctrine but the Church qua Church never wonders whether something is orthodox or heretical – she knows because it is her business to know.

A person today may believe in women priestesses and eventually get excommunicated for his obstinate persistence or participation in an invalid ‘ordination’, but that wouldn’t indicate to future generations where there was a time when the orthodox Church wrestled with the question.
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 2:29 pm :
Tom –

Ref #74. I’d agree that Protestants have the same problem. Yesterday with a fundamentalist protestant I was discussing the 19th century Arianist movement. In many ways an easier case to talk about since:

1) The literature is in English not Greek, Coptic….
2) The literature is mostly intact
3) The underlying philosophy are 19th century American not 1st century Alexandrian

And on the other hand it happened to/within Protestant church the movement (to the best of the my knowledge) had no influence within the Catholic church. Right now there is a big debate on “The Shack” which hints at modalism. Lots of evangelicals are asking: if modalism makes more sense and is biblical than why can’t I believe in it? At the same time KJVonlyism is starting to get called a heresy.

And this gets to the real power of heresy. A heresy is a belief rejected by the membership of the church as being incompatible with the church. In other words heresies become relative not absolute. And if you familiar with Ehrmann, I’d consider myself part of the same movement as Ehrmann (New School. Walter Bauer). I think the Arminian Baptists are moving in the right direction here. The Emerging Church is a good example which doesn’t have to consider their to have been a great apostasy, or identify the RCC with the whore of Babylon to justify itself. Rob Bell just gave a great speech quoting docetic fathers and pulling their wisdom. It allows one to embrace parts of rituals, parts of doctrines and consider Augustine and Justin Martyr and Marcion to all be church fathers.

In 2008 we successfully reconstructed Galatians from the Apostolicon (Marcion’s bible). This is an early textual witness. There are going to be brackets in the NA28 based on it, those brackets most likely will make their way into bibles based on the NA28 (say the ESV or whatever they call it in 2020). Roll a few centuries and Ehrmann’s ideas will be accepted throughout protestantism. The daVinici code has a blockbuster movie and sold almost 100 million copies, 5 years ago. Pagels wrote Gnostic Gospels 30 years ago. Braur wrote Orthodox and Heresy 70 years ago. Mead wrote Fragments of a Faith forgotten 100 years ago. Look at the speed at which this idea is traveling one huge step forward per generation.
Tim A. Troutman July 30th, 2009 2:39 pm :
Cd – Your definition of heresy presupposes the Protestant notion of an invisible Church which we reject. But if the definition of Church is the visible body in union with the See of Peter then heresy is that which has been formally rejected by the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 2:51 pm :
Tim –

Your essentially mixing a historical with a theological position. If you want to assert that the church in some absolute sense never had a debate, fine. Under the definition you are giving Arianism was never a debate, because there can’t be a debate.

I’m going to keep this very material when we talk about the church. There were lots of people, including people in positions of leadership attending the same churches you want to consider to have been part of the historical catholic church that held these views. Those people and the people they were arguing with believed they were taking part in a debate and believed the outcome was uncertain, that their actions were effectual. I would assert you can go back further a huge percentage of the New Testament is debate against different views. Galatians, Hebrews, Colossians, I would call those debates. And in the Gospels we ever see debate against Pharisaic Judaism.

So if you want to say the church didn’t actually debate in some supernatural sense, just the people in it I’ll let other people argue that. When I say “congress debated” I mean the people in Congress debated each other.
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 2:56 pm :
Tim –

My 80 was written before I read your #79 I was in 80 responding to #77. In response to #79, I agree with you on , “Your definition of heresy presupposes the Protestant notion of an invisible Church “. You are absolutely right I see that definition of the church as begging the question. We can’t ask what is the doctrine of apostolic succession in the early church by assuming the consequences of it. In particular a perfect church unified via. apostolic succession.

Let me clarify though that I don’t actually don’t need the Protestant definition. I can talk about the church the same way I would about any organization, I don’t need to presuppose anything supernatural.
Tim A. Troutman July 30th, 2009 3:19 pm :
Your essentially mixing a historical with a theological position. If you want to assert that the church in some absolute sense never had a debate, fine. Under the definition you are giving Arianism was never a debate, because there can’t be a debate.

Arianism was an issue of less clarity than the issues which separated the Gnostics from the Christians. e.g. it was less clear that Arius was wrong than it was that Valentinus was wrong. So the debate was much longer, perhaps more heated, and definitely left better records. But from a Catholic standpoint, the same thing was happened in both: an individual split from the orthodox Church via heretical beliefs (regardless of how long that process took or how many people were involved).

This presupposes:

1. an objective apostolic faith (which I assume you believe in but I’m not sure)
2. the potentiality of that deposit to be reliably passed to succeeding generations
3. the reasonable assumption following from 2 that it was in fact passed on to someone.. i.e. someone in the second generation faithfully retained the truth from the first generation.
4. that the available means of determining who that was all point to sources which we now call orthodox
5. that that body continued organically, canonizing the Scriptures which testify of the existence of that body, its principle of unity (Matt. 16:18-19) etc…
6. following from 1-6, this is the visible church
7. its visibility does not imply or entail that it is not supernatural
8. as a supernatural body, this church never, as itself, in the absolute sense, ‘wrestled with heresy’ only its members have.

Thats what I meant and I know you don’t share all of my presuppositions and that we could debate those points until infinity. So yes my claim is theological but it is also historical because it fits with what we see in history.
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 4:11 pm :
Tim –

This presupposes:

1. an objective apostolic faith (which I assume you believe in but I’m not sure)
2. the potentiality of that deposit to be reliably passed to succeeding generations
3. the reasonable assumption following from 2 that it was in fact passed on to someone.. i.e. someone in the second generation faithfully retained the truth from the first generation.
4. that the available means of determining who that was all point to sources which we now call orthodox
5. that that body continued organically, canonizing the Scriptures which testify of the existence of that body, its principle of unity (Matt. 16:18-19) etc…
6. following from 1-6, this is the visible church
7. its visibility does not imply or entail that it is not supernatural
8. as a supernatural body, this church never, as itself, in the absolute sense, ‘wrestled with heresy’ only its members have.

I don’t know how we can assume #1 if we are discussing the Gnostics. One of the few things that gnostics and the orthodox agreed on was that some of the writings from the apostles were fraudulent.

1) Was Simon Magus an apostle (or a peer) to Jesus? What is the status of his revelations?
2) What about the secret teaching of Mary?
3) What’s Paul’s status? Did he get this special revelation or is he a fake apostle?
4) What about all the books attributed to James by the Ebionites? Are his teachings part of the apostolic tradition at all, only the book of James or all of them?
5) What about John the Baptist? What are the status of his teachings?
6) And as long as we are on Apostles what about other people had direct revelations like Enoch and Seth?
etc…

I see no evidence at all that the people we call apostles agreed on much of anything. Nor were people in general even agreed on who were apostles. Nor were 2nd century people agreed on which writings were authentic to these apostles. If Paul is an apostle is 1Tim one of his books? And if so why didn’t Marcion or Valentinus know about it? Is Hebrews one of his books?

We don’t have much from the 1st century, but what we do have is a mess which makes the 2nd century look comparatively vastly more unified. There were some points of agreement: the crucifixion, the eucharist, focus on salvation but beyond that; the apostles, at least what we know of them are AFAICT on different sides of the issues. All the 2nd century sides seem to be able to point to first century (or earlier) figures as having been their intellectual fathers.

And just as an aside Jesus doesn’t make this better. There is dispute whether there are any teachings. For those who believe there are, the teachings of Jesus / the Savior are incredibly divided So I don’t know if you want to consider that disagreement with #1 or #4.

The most I would be willing to say is (following your pattern):
1) There were a collection of faiths which were authentic in what merged to become Christianity
2) Succeeding generations evolved these faiths
3) Most of these sects died out but some passed their faiths on or gave birth to multiple other sects
4) As these sects dialogued with one another their views got closer together. Starting in the late 2nd century and continuing until the 5th century there was a huge fight to draw hard boundaries, that was not just accrete new groups but to also exclude those too far from the center. This power struggle is called “orthodoxy”.
5) As part of the inclusion / exclusion process status were given to various religious texts; including the canon.

and I can’t follow your pattern for 6-8.

Arianism is a better example to work than gnosticism because there is clearly a Catholic church responding to Arianism. But even here I don’t see any evidence for their being a knowledge of what the right answer was. They look like they are figuring it out not reaching back into an apostolic tradition.
Bryan Cross July 30th, 2009 4:13 pm :
CD,

Regarding #76, I’m not denying that these Gnostics were at one time in the Church. Almost all heretics were at one time in the Church. I ‘m saying that there was no debate among the leaders of the early Church regarding whether what the Gnostics were claiming was true. There were no synods or councils held to determine whether Gnosticism was orthodox or heretical. Local dioceses excommunicated these heretics without needing to call a council, precisely because the error of Gnosticism was already known to be an error by all the [particular] Churches. That’s what I mean in saying that there was no debate within the Church regarding Apostolic succession. Even while the Apostle John was still alive, the heretical nature of Gnosticism was known to the Church. This is why St. John would have nothing to do with Cerinthus, and may even have written the fourth Gospel in response to the errors of Cerinthus. (See here.) “They went out from us,” says John, “because they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:19) This is why Eusebius, in chapter 14 of Book 4 of his History of the Church, writes:

To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those who, down to the present time, have succeeded Polycarp, who was a much more trustworthy and certain witness of the truth than Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of the heretics. He also was in Rome in the time of Anicetus and caused many to turn away from the above-mentioned heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received from the apostles this one and only system of truth which has been transmitted by the Church.

And there are those that heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe in Ephesus and seeing Cerinthus within, ran out of the bath-house without bathing, crying, ‘Let us flee, lest even the bath fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.’

And Polycarp himself, when Marcion once met him and said, ‘Do you know us? replied, ‘I know the first born of Satan.’ Such caution did the apostles and their disciples exercise that they might not even converse with any of those who perverted the truth; as Paul also said, ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself.’

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Tim A. Troutman July 30th, 2009 4:22 pm :
CD – 6-8 aren’t in logical sequence, just points I wanted to make.

Well our disagreement is definitely on #1 but I meant it in a more abstract sense. I don’t mean, as an absolute starting point, that what we now call orthodox is the original apostolic truth. You are right that would beg the question (at least between you and I). But what I mean is that there was something that was true and someone possessed it. First we know Jesus did, (modern scholars quibbling about it is irrelevant). We know that what Jesus said was true whether or not we know for certain what that was. We know that the apostolic truth exists or Christianity itself is patently false. That’s what point 1 was.

So if you don’t agree that there is any apostolic truth at all, then this conversation is began at the wrong starting point and will not get anywhere.
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 6:04 pm :
Tim –

I’m hesitant about being this flippant about the notion of apostolic. I’d also like to put a bow on Joy’s question since I’m not sure clearly even what the thesis of discussion is at this point. You seem to have something in mind but I’m not sure what it is.

But to keep moving forward lets pick one “truth” I agree with the Eucharist ritual. Develops first apparently around 100 BCE in a few of the sects that will become Christian. As they contact one another they all seem to agree this is “true”. To this day it is a defining characteristic of the Christian faith. OK so we have an example of an original truth that meets criteria 1-4. But note that both the heretics and the orthodox agree on it. They all disagree about what it means but they all agree that it is a central Christian rite.

Then lets take someone who is out of bounds on the Eucharist, like the Collyridians. They believe that because male priests do it in honor of Jesus, female priestess should do it in honor of Mary and hence the trinity is Allah, Jesus and Mary. They believe in the Christian scriptures (Diatessaron) as well as other holy books. They last for a few hundred years and burn out. OK so at their high point, how do I determine their understanding is heretical? Unless I assume there is a lot of apostolic truth then I don’t see how it helps. And I’m picking what is very much a worst case example.
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 6:39 pm :
Bryan –

I ‘m saying that there was no debate among the leaders of the early Church regarding whether what the Gnostics were claiming was true.

The gnostics were leaders of the early church. That’s the point, large number of people followed them. We’ve been talking about Valentinus and even Tertullian (not his biggest fan) says in 136 he almost became Pope (Valentinianos, iv,) which would mean he came in second to Pope Telesphorus. Coming in 2nd for Pope makes you a Catholic leader in my book.

Cerinthus has followers among the Druze and the Ishmaili even today. And quite a few Muslim scholars would argue that Cerinthus influenced Montanus then Mani then Muhammed on the doctrine of the Paraclete which is one of the core doctrines of Islam, Shia Islam in particular.

As far as my personal opinion of the actual history I don’t think we know enough about the relationship between John ben Zebedee (hero of the Sepher Refu’ot), Cerinthus, Polycarp, Marcion (who was arguably John’s secretary for his Gospel), Paul (to whom this gospel was attributed), Montanus (later), Papias. When the canon was being argued but revelations and Gospel of John has associations with Cerinthus. But given John (14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7) I have trouble seeing this as countering Cerinthus. So again (IMO) Cerinthus is a reasonable candidate for the author of the Signs Gospel, that is far from being the target of John he wrote the earlier version.

IMHO Eusebius is a terrible source of this. He is writing a very non historical apologetic after the fact. Oversimplifying greatly. Pretending that lines that were clear in the 4th century were clear in the 1st and 2nd. A catholic source that I think is very good on this is Raymond Brown’s The Epistles of John. That’s a fair starting point IMHO, Catholic but historically accurate.
CD-Host July 30th, 2009 7:01 pm :
Wow rereading that, I was writing in fragments. Let me try and break that out a little more logically on Cerinthus..

1) He is amazingly influential even today. The idea that he was not a leader is refuted by his influence.
2) We don’t have a clear understanding of the whole group of people that were leaders from that region
3) The authorship of the 4th gospel is very uncertain.
3a) The dating makes it unlikely that John was written to counter Cerinthus.
3b) Cerinthus has been claimed as a possible author for Revelations and John
3c) There are some modern writers who seem him as a possible author for Signs (earlier version of John).
4) In terms of 1John
4a) There are problems with the phrasing of 1John 5:6 if it is aiming at Cerinthus. It is contradicting a heresy he didn’t preach.
4b) The issue of sinless perfection is a major theme but not a theme of Cerinthus.

This group is really really complicated. 1st century is a messy and we have little to go on. Which is what I was saying to Tim. However bad the 2nd century is, the 1st century is worse.

Sorry for the mangled language I was writing what I was thinking, which is pieces of an argument.
Ben July 31st, 2009 3:19 am :
CD-Host,

The answer for determining what is apostolic and who were Church leaders, who were saints, which was the authentic canon, etc. is very simple: whatever the Church of Rome believes is the truth. This is so based on Jesus’ promises to Peter and his successors that their faith cannot fail, thus standing out as a clear light when everything is a mess and there are heretics everywhere. Yes, Cerinthus, the Gnostics etc. were all influential and in that sense could be considered part of the early church. But did they agree with the apostolic teaching of Rome? No. Ergo, they were heretics outside of the Church. Is it certain that John wrote the Gospel attributed to him? Yes, because Rome teaches so. Everyone in communion with Apostolic See and believing in her faith is per se orthodox. Is this a sola ecclesia position? No, because what Rome teaches doesn’t come from herself, but from Scripture as commonly accepted by the majority (who were the “orthodox”) and from apostolic Tradition, as passed down to her. Both of these are historically verifiable, and it can be seen that Gnosticism was being castigated as a heresy, by those who faith matched what can be found in the very earliest sources.

Just my opinion,

Ben.
Bryan Cross July 31st, 2009 7:02 am :
CD,

In comment #87, you wrote:

The gnostics were leaders of the early church. That’s the point, large number of people followed them.

That’s not careful reasoning or a justified conclusion. Just because a significant number of people followed them, it does not follow that they were “leaders of the early church”. St. Irenaeus, in the Preface to his Against Heresies, writes of the Valentinians:

They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.

As St. Irenaeus shows, it is possible to draw many people away from the true faith, without being a leader of the true Church, simply by means of alluring and beguiling words, not with any legitimate authority from the Apostles.

You then wrote:

We’ve been talking about Valentinus and even Tertullian (not his biggest fan) says in 136 he almost became Pope (Valentinianos, iv,)

Actually, Tertullian does not say that Valentinus almost became Pope. Tertullian writes:

Valentinus had expected to become a bishop, because he was an able man both in genius and eloquence. Being indignant, however, that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship had given him, he broke with the church of the true faith. Just like those (restless) spirits which, when roused by ambition, are usually inflamed with the desire of revenge, he applied himself with all his might to exterminate the truth; and finding the clue of a certain old opinion, he marked out a path for himself with the subtlety of a serpent.

Valentinus was an Egyptian who taught philosophy in Alexandria, and came from Egypt to Rome, hoping to be elected bishop. He arrived in Rome during the pontificate of Pope St. Hyginus (c. 136-140) and remained in Rome until the pontificate of Pope St. Anicetus (155-166). The Catholic encyclopedia article says of Valentinus:

During a sojourn of perhaps fifteen years, though he had in the beginning allied himself with the orthodox community in Rome, he was guilty of attempting to establish his heretical system. His errors led to his excommunication, after which he repaired to Cyprus where he resumed his activities as a teacher and where he died probably about 160 or 161. Valentinus professed to have derived his ideas from Theodas or Theudas, a disciple of St. Paul, but his system is obviously an attempt to amalgamate Greek and Oriental speculations of the most fantastic kind with Christian ideas. He was especially indebted to Plato. From him was derived the parallel between the ideal world (the pleroma) and the lower world of phenomena (the kenoma). Valentinus drew freely on some books of the New Testament, but used a strange system of interpretation by which the sacred authors were made responsible for his own cosmological and pantheistic views. In working out his system he was thoroughly dominated by dualistic fancies.

And St. Ireneaus (c. 130-200), bishop of Lyon, who himself had sat at the feet of St. Polycarp (AD 69-155), who was an auditor of the Apostle John, wrote the following concerning St. Polycarp and Valentinus:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. (Against Heresies III.3.4)

St. Polycarp refuted the errors of Valentinus and Marcion. So did St. Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165), as Tertullian points out in Against the Valentinians, 5. There is no evidence that Valentinus was a leader of the Church in Rome. He was, as a teacher of philosophy, well-educated and eloquent, as Tertullian points out. And that was the basis for his hope, upon leaving Alexandria and coming to Rome, to become the bishop of the Church at Rome. But there is no evidence that he was even ordained a priest or deacon, let alone bishop. Due to his continual efforts to bring his heretical system into the Church, he was, in fact, eventually excommunicated from the Catholic Church, by the successor of St. Peter, to whom Christ had promised, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

You then write:

which would mean he came in second to Pope Telesphorus. Coming in 2nd for Pope makes you a Catholic leader in my book.

There is no evidence that he “came in second.” So the premise from which you are deducing that he was a “Catholic leader” is based on mere speculation.

Investigating and debating the nature of early Gnosticism is outside the scope and purpose of this particular article on ecclesial deism, and hence outside the scope of this thread. But the contemporary enamorization with Gnosticism, and what “could have been” (had the Gnostics won over the Church) is precisely an expression of ecclesial deism. It presumes that in the second century Christ did not guide the Church into truth and away from falsehood, but rather allowed the Church to fall into the ‘falsehood’ of apostolic succession and Catholic orthodoxy, and a rejection of the ‘truth’ of Gnosticism. Mormonism posits a first century apostasy of the Church from “Mormon orthodoxy” to the “error of Catholicism”; contemporary Gnosticism posits a second century apostasy from “Gnostic orthodoxy” to the “error of Catholicism.” What Mormonism and contemporary Gnosticism have in common is ecclesial deism, and that is why they both reject apostolic succession. And once one rejects apostolic succession, then in principle, everything is up for grabs, nothing has been definitively established, and hence the truth about Christ and the gospel becomes a cloud of confusion and uncertainty.

That’s precisely what Satan intends. But that’s not what Christ the Good Shepherd, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, intends.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
CD-Host July 31st, 2009 11:22 am :
Bryan –

Investigating and debating the nature of early Gnosticism is outside the scope and purpose of this particular article on ecclesial deism, and hence outside the scope of this thread.

You are absolutely correct this isn’t the right thread nor likely the right board for an extended discussion of gnostic history. The point was originally a much simpler one that we do see a debate about apostolic succession. It seems like we have agreement that:

1) This debate was happening during the 2nd century (and to some extent the 1st)
2) The people who did not believe in it had large followings inside the church (in terms of bodies)
3) The people who did not believe in it were thought by lots of people inside the church to be Catholic leaders

There is some argument about whether they are really “in the church” whether they are really “leaders” but 1-3 seems to me to be enough to address Joy’s point. When the church began asserting apostolic succession, “Why wasn’t there some great controversy or debate, as the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries, and swallowed up the original notion that ecclesial leadership was based entirely on agreement with the Apostles’ doctrine?” My point was that there was a great debate. In other words we do see precisely what Joy was positing. So if we stick to the basic point, this debate about apostolic succession happened historically. And you seem to be willing to grant that 1st century figures like Cerinthus and Simon Magus were rejecting it then there is a tradition going all the way back of rejecting apostolic succession, and just to add to that we can point to the Mandaeans which (if you accept their base history) gets us back to at least John the Baptist. In other words we can’t argue it is historically improbable that there never was a doctrine of apostolic succession because we don’t see any evidence of the ripples caused by its introduction. We see ripples.

As for Joy’s (and mine certainly) being ecclesial deism, I’m in 90% agreement, which is to say I’ll disagree with some of the details but agree with the general thrust. I absolutely agree that there was nothing particular about 16th century “abuses” like indulgences. The church of the 16th century is not engaging in activities that are in a fundamental way any different than the church of the 5th century. If a revolution was justified against the 16th century church than it was justified against the 5th century church. And in general the form of the 5th century church was determined by history and which factions won in the fight for dominance in the 2nd century. So if you going to posit a great turning away its either in the 1st or 2nd century. Far more of the edifice collapses than your typical conservative Reformed Protestant wants to admit. And I agree that what you call “Restorationist”. I agree that if you look at the Protestant masses they are by huge margins restorationist in their philosophy. Just to pick an example, since you used the example of Mormons when asked if Mormon’s are christian Protestants answer:
52% = yes; 31% = no; 17% = don’t know
which is a pretty clear rejection of the Nicene creed as a minimal definition of Christian.

I can respond if you want to the gnosticism stuff in detail. But this is going to get very lengthy and ultimately I’m not sure terribly relevant to the main theme, and I agree it basically takes the thread down a path of which is irrelevant for Reformed Protestants. ,So lets refocus a bit to the main theme and away from biography (though again I disagree with the presentation of the biography).

Take Origin’s commentary on John which quotes Hereacleon’s as an important Catholic work. Heracleon is a student of Valentinus writing 160-180. If Valentinus is expelled, his ideas completely rejected, then why is one of the foremost commentaries on John written openly using his ideas? Ptolemy (Ptolemaeans) founds an entire school, Theodotus , Marcus (marcosians) are all very important. Also we have a 3rd generation: Alexander, Secundus, Theotimus, Florinus, Axionicus. If you look at Eusebius V.20 where he talks about this problem he’s talking about multiple books having to be written to attack a problem within the Roman church. I think you are trying to have it both ways in asserting that people like Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian should be believed and that Valentinus was a minor problem of no serious consequence completely unlike the debate with Arianism. This debate seems to have started early in the 1st century and not really been resolved completely until about 476. Lets not forget the Nag Hammadi Library was preserved by Catholic monks in 326. Was Irenaeus right that Valentinians were the greatest danger facing the church or was he of not a leader at all?

As St. Irenaeus shows, it is possible to draw many people away from the true faith, without being a leader of the true Church, simply by means of alluring and beguiling words, not with any legitimate authority from the Apostles.

If you agreeing that he is drawing Catholics into his camp then he is a Catholic leader. I understand that you don’t like his cause. I don’t like Wayne Grudem but that doesn’t mean he’s not a leader among reformed protestants. Or to pick one from your team I didn’t like Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, that certainly doesn’t mean he didn’t get promoted. Legitimate authority from the apostles is begging the question, Valentinus rejected the notion of authority and apostolic succession. He never claimed nor asserted authority. I think you are begging the question when the debating the legitimacy (or existence) of these people as leaders to assume their teaching false and their opponents teachings true. This is a “presuppositional apologetic”, to use reformed language.
CD-Host July 31st, 2009 2:06 pm :
Ben –

Both of these are historically verifiable, and it can be seen that Gnosticism was being castigated as a heresy, by those who faith matched what can be found in the very earliest sources.

I don’t know how much of that response was tongue in cheek, but it is not clear what the very earliest sources are. You can make pretty strong case for early Sethian stuff like: Apocryphon of John, Apocalypse of Adam, Hypostasis of the Archons and Gospel of the Egyptians being 1st century or earlier.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Messiah of Heaven and Earth, 4Q521
The Pierced Messiah text, 4Q285
Habakkuk Commentary
etc…

And then if you want to talk the canonical stuff don’t forget the earliest bible we have is Marcion’s Apostolicon. You can make a good case for Epistle to the Hebrews. The Orthodox Odes to Solomon works well here.

Gospels? That’s been well discussed for 150 so I won’t rehash this topic.
Ben July 31st, 2009 6:15 pm :
Well, you didn’t address my main point that apostolic tradition is visibly defined by the authority of the foremost See, and those in communion with her. That was the main thing I wanted to point out, that even when heretics are many and it is very difficult to see where the truth and the original Gospel lies, here you have the clear belief. This is based on our Lord’s promise to Peter and his successors.

Anyway, in regards to the Sethian Gnostic material, it can be seen by historical-critical methods that these could not have come from a 1st century Jewish milieu. Their dualism, their belief in divine emanations (aeons), the Pleroma, the evilness of matter and the lesser god who created it, etc. etc. do not come from Judaism at all. In fact, they would have been anathema to Jews in the Old Testament. In contrast, the Gospels of Matthew to John are deeply Jewish–in theology, in practice, in social background, etc. Jesus and the Gospels continually present him as the perfect fulfillment of everything in the OT: the Temple, Moses, Joseph, etc. In contrast, e.g. in the Apocryphon of John, we have Jesus discoursing extensively and semi-coherently on Barbelo:
“The Holy Spirit
Brought his and Barbelo’s divine autogenes Son to completion
In order that he could stand before the great Invisible Virgin Spirit
As the divine autogenes Christ
And honor Him with a mighty voice.”

It’s clear, as Irenaeus says, that these works are forgeries freely created by Gnostics in the 2nd century. They didn’t have the least concern for historicity–only invisible spiritual ideas. That’s how they could do this. It didn’t matter what Jesus really taught. Likewise the Hypostasis of the Archons. It’s freely mythological, and bears no comparison with the historicity or sheer Jewishness of the 4 orthodox gospels.

Just because there are powerful heretics in the Church doesn’t put them in the same level as the orthodox leaders, and it doesn’t mean we have to be pessimistic about the fact that it was St. Polycarp (et al) who maintained the faith of the apostles.
CD-Host July 31st, 2009 10:28 pm :
(Not sure what’s happening with the submit button I’m going to break into 2 posts):

(submitting a 2nd time since it didn’t seem to go through)
Hi Ben.

Well, you didn’t address my main point that apostolic tradition is visibly defined by the authority of the foremost See, and those in communion with her. That was the main thing I wanted to point out, that even when heretics are many and it is very difficult to see where the truth and the original Gospel lies, here you have the clear belief. This is based on our Lord’s promise to Peter and his successors.

The problem is whether such a promise was made to Peter, is one of the points in question. Again the “heretics” would have denied it. Lets pick a passage that is a bit later from the Gospel of Mary:

9-3 Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.
He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?
Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?
Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.
Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.
But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

Who got the real revelation is one of the points in question. This passage, is meant symbolically and literally with Peter representing “orthodoxy” which “lays down rules and other laws beyond what the Savior said” and Mary representing secret revelations (5:7 What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you). Even Protestants reject the notion that Peter got this protection from error or that his church has it.

Anyway, in regards to the Sethian Gnostic material, it can be seen by historical-critical methods that these could not have come from a 1st century Jewish milieu. Their dualism, their belief in divine emanations (aeons), the Pleroma, the evilness of matter and the lesser god who created it, etc. etc. do not come from Judaism at all. In fact, they would have been anathema to Jews in the Old Testament.

First let me recommend an excellent book Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity By Birger A. Pearson about 1/3rd of it is online. It is on precisely this topic and it how Pearson made his reputation. The first essay is (Friedlander Revisited) is all online at that link. Historical critical methods would say the opposite.
CD-Host July 31st, 2009 10:35 pm :
EDITED BY MODERATOR

In contrast, the Gospels of Matthew to John are deeply Jewish–in theology,

The issue there is different. Matthew is ranging against the Pharisees not the Jewish God. There is strong sectarian frustration and a sense of breaking free: the temple curtain torn, his blood be on us and are children. …

John is already at least proto-Christian. This community has a more mature relationship to Judaism. That’s not a sign of John being an early Gospel but rather a late one. In the same way Wicca’s much more subdued anti-Christianity indicates its maturity relative to the black mass movement. 3 weeks after a divorce people don’t have a mature subdued feeling about their X.

Look at the Apocryphon of John again:
And it happened one day, when John, the brother of James – who are the sons of Zebedee – had come up to the temple, that a Pharisee named Arimanius approached him and said to him, “Where is your master whom you followed?” And he said to him, “He has gone to the place from which he came.” The Pharisee said to him, “With deception did this Nazarene deceive you (pl.), and he filled your ears with lies, and closed your hearts (and) turned you from the traditions of your fathers.”

So you see exactly what you are seeing in Matthew. A debate with the Pharisees. In Matthew it is about the proper interpretation of the law, while in Apocryphon of John it is about, “ that you may know the things which are not revealed and those which are revealed, and to teach you concerning the unwavering race of the perfect Man. ” salvation. Who is loved by God still. Exactly the sort of book one might expect from people watching their community slip. The language about aions sounds a great deal like a Hellenized Essence Judaism. I don’t see anything non Jewish about it at all.

It’s clear, as Irenaeus says, that these works are forgeries freely created by Gnostics in the 2nd century. They didn’t have the least concern for historicity–only invisible spiritual ideas. That’s how they could do this. It didn’t matter what Jesus really taught. Likewise the Hypostasis of the Archons. It’s freely mythological, and bears no comparison with the historicity or sheer Jewishness of the 4 orthodox gospels.

The lack of historical awareness is what we see in most of the 1st century work. Look at Paul. Paul is either incredibly ignorant or incredibly disinterested in the historical Jesus. There is almost no historical detail even when the text is screaming for it.
1 Thessalonians 4:9 — Why not mention this teaching came from Jesus?
1 Thessalonians 2:2 — Why the gospel of God and not the gospel of Jesus Christ?
1 Corinthians 15:12-16 — Why not mention of Jesus having risen or Lazarus
Romans 6:2-4 — How can he not mention Jesus’ baptism

Same thing with Hebrews.
Hebrews 9:19-20 — The Eucharist is being initiated by Moses
(Incidentally the 9th chapter of the Didache has a similar silence)

Same thing with all the Epistles. Same thing with the other books that are likely early. We don’t see much discussion of Christianity as a faith based on a historical revelation until the 2nd century.
James 5:15 — How could he not mention Mark 2:1-12?

This is taking us very afield of Joy’s question. So lets bring it back. Take a look at 1 John 4:1-3 and the Didache 11 neither of which corresponds to a fixed apostolic teaching having come from Jesus. You can make a fairly good case that when confronting teachings in the 1st century Christians didn’t feel they could rely on some apostolic teachings. That faith seems to be 2nd century, for the orthodox.

So when you point to the early books as ahistorical, bunch of ahistorical philosophy is what we see in 1st century texts. In the first century (and earlier) the gospel is a revelation os scripture. In the 2nd century among the orthodox the gospel is becoming a revelation in history.

Just because there are powerful heretics in the Church doesn’t put them in the same level as the orthodox leaders, and it doesn’t mean we have to be pessimistic about the fact that it was St. Polycarp (et al) who maintained the faith of the apostles.

Which apostles? Which faith? Maintained from where? You have to stop assuming Catholicism when trying to prove Catholicism. You are assuming there was an obvious orthodoxy passed down, which is begging the question.

We have a gospel of Thomas which claims to be from Thomas? Is it? Should I believe it?
I’ve quoted to you from the Gospel of Mary. Was she an apostle should I believe her revelations?
Ben July 31st, 2009 11:47 pm :
Can I ask Bryan, Tim, or anyone else to respond to these posts? I’m not really sure what CD-Host is actually claiming because his writing is not very clear, or, if it isn’t too much of a personal attack, not entirely coherent. From your points that I think I did understand, let me respond:
(1) Of course Paul’s writings are not historical (and the others’ Epistles). Not because they are ahistorical, but because they are addressing Church problems, not writing history. That’s obvious. Gospels are history, Epistles are not history. Nor are the gnostic gospels history. Their authors wouldn’t have claimed they were.
(2) “We don’t see much discussion of Christianity as a faith based on a historical revelation until the 2nd century.” Only if you beg the question by assuming that the Gospels aren’t history and they aren’t intending to give a historical revelation. But they are.
(3) How can you demand that these authors mention certain historical details? Can you get into their minds? Can you discover their intentions, their thought processes, and their intended audience? After 2,000 years? Obviously not. Therefore, it is fallacious to claim that they “should have” metioned x or y. Maybe you would have. Since you don’t know what Paul (et al) were thinking, so it’s only question begging to assume they had little interest in history.

I hope Bryan will defend his essay from your other attacks (whatever they are).
Bryan Cross August 1st, 2009 12:52 am :
Ben,

In 36 hours, CD has posted over 6300 words in 15 comments on this thread. I simply don’t have that kind of time. We CTC authors have jobs and families and other responsibilities; today, for example, was my younger daughter’s birthday.

I’ll try to get to it, but it might be a while, or never. Given that the purpose of this website is to host a dialogue between Reformed Protestants and Catholics with the aim of reconciliation in full communion, defending the Catholic tradition from the criticisms of a follower of the second-century Gnostics is not at the top of the priority list. On the contrary, CD’s comments constitute “Exhibit A” for Protestants as a depiction of the wider implications of rejecting apostolic succession. And if the Church’s conflict with the second-century Gnostics is the best evidence against apostolic succession, that only makes the Catholic Church’s claim that much stronger. In that respect CD has made my case to Joy far better than I could have.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Ben August 1st, 2009 1:31 am :
Of course. Thanks and God bless. A happy birthday to your daughter.
K. Doran August 1st, 2009 7:17 am :
CD-Host,

I don’t think you realize that Joy has rejected the claim that there was necessarily argument within the Church about the apostolic succession. She is basing her claims on a continuous early teaching of sola scriptura that was eventually recovered during the Protestant Reformation.

Also, I think that your claims are very interesting, but I am wary because:

(1) This isn’t the right thread for them, which makes it hard for people to have the conversation that they wished to have (and no, you’re not helping Joy, so that is not a sufficient reason).

and,

(2) You haven’t responded to Bryan’s point that you were exaggerating regarding Valentinus being second in the running to become Pope.

and,

(3) A little internet research of my own is suggesting that you are going to need to place some of these gnostic teaching specifically in the context of Samaritan Judaism, not more central forms of Judaism — and furthermore, you are going to have to place some of their writings more firmly in the 2nd century, as opposed to Paul’s which were we have good reason were from the first.

(4) Finally, I think you can reconstruct most of the important points of orthodox Christianity directly from Paul’s letters (I bet Joy would agree with me!) and that these letters are definitely earlier witnesses that the majority of gnostic christian writings.

In light of these facts, I bet your claims would work better being published in another context than this thread, to a group of people who have a chance to check each of your statements one at a time. Sorry, but I sense some exaggeration in your posts, and exaggeration needs time to uncover.

But, as a loyal reader of this blog, I do appreciate your input — it is quite interesting. I didn’t even know any of you guys were still around, at least in English-speaking countries.

Sincerely,

K. Doran
Sean Patrick August 1st, 2009 8:18 am :
CD.

CD-Host, this discussion is not what CtC is about. Contributors to this site are agreed: 1. Christ came in the flesh and is the second Person of the Trinity 2. That the Church has a role to play in the communication of that message 3. The four Gospels are inspired by God, as well as the Old and New Testaments (while there is disagreement upon the extent of the Old Testament canon) 4. There is such a thing as heresy.

We are not kicking you out. Just letting you know that further posts on this topic may not be accepted.

I also direct you to the posting guidelines.
Devin Rose August 1st, 2009 8:28 am :
CD-Host,

If you are right in you beliefs, then it seems that all of Christianity is wrong and has been wrong (and deceived) for 1900 years. In other words, 99.99% of people who consider and considered themselves Christian believed in twisted misrepresentations of who Christ really was and what he really taught. At this point, why not completely ditch Christianity (our version or your version) and become a Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim, since Christ isn’t who Christians said he was anyway?
K. Doran August 1st, 2009 9:53 am :
Dear Readers,

One more point — and this is not an attack on CD-host or on the scholars he/she admires, but simply a warning to faithful Christians who may have been scandalized by CD-host’s posts. . .

I have found that both Pagels and Bart Ehrman are unreliable. An excellent piece that suggests this strongly was recently published in the Chronicle of higher education:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Betrayal-of-Judas/14746

I was at Princeton for five years (Princeton is Pagel’s teaching post and her home town), and while I was there the Aquinas Institute invited Luke Timothy Johnson to come and present a more balanced view on Early Christianity. My wife tells me that Pagels showed up to the event (I did not, so this is second hand through her) and most emphatically did not succeed in rebutting his claims. Thus, I suggest that a first source for evaluating the Pagels claims should be Johnson’s work. Judge for yourselves who is more reliable.

For a shorter written critique of her work that is freely available on the internet, check out the work of the esteemed Father Paul Mankowski, SJ:

“Re-reading Pagels’s putative quotation, you may have noticed that the word “unspiritual” corresponds to nothing in the Latin. It too was supplied by Pagels’s imagination. The reason for the interpolation will be plain from the comment that immediately follows (page 44 in The Gnostic Gospels). Remember that she wants to argue that Irenaeus was interested in authority and the Valentinians in the life of the spirit:

[Pagels writes:] ‘ Irenaeus was outraged at their claim that they, being spiritual, were released from the ethical restraints that he, as a mere servant of the demiurge, ignorantly sought to foist upon them.’

Put simply, Irenaeus did not write what Prof. Pagels wished he would have written, so she made good the defect by silently changing the text. Creativity, when applied to one’s sources, is not a compliment. She is a very naughty historian.

Or she would be, were she judged by the conventional canons of scholarship. At the post-graduate institute where I teach, and at any university with which I am familiar, for a professor or a grad student intentionally to falsify a source is a career-ending offense. Among professional scholars, witness tampering is no joke: once the charge is proven, the miscreant is dismissed from the guild and not re-admitted.

The Gnostic Gospels, like those portions of Pagels’s later work with which I am familiar, is chock-full of tendentious readings and instances where counter-evidence is suppressed. The example of “creativity” here discussed may fairly be called a representative specimen of her methodology, and was singled out not because it’s the worst example of its kind but because it’s among the most unambiguous. No one who consults the source texts could give Pagels a pass, and that means she forfeits the claim to reliability as a scholar. Attractive as her ideological sympathies may be to many persons — including many academics — she does not deserve to be ranked with serious textual scholars like Claremont’s James Robinson, and her testimony on the accuracy of inventions such as Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code cannot be solicited without irony.

I am not calling for academic sanctions but, more simply, for clarification. Pagels should be billed accurately — not as an expert on Gnosticism or Coptic Christianity but as what she is: a lady novelist. Her oeuvre is that of fiction — in fact, historical romance.”

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=43736

I have to add that none of my friends and colleagues at Princeton seemed convinced that the administration cared one whit that there were serious problems with reliability in her work. As Mankowski suggests above, she seemed to have been hired for another purpose, which she fulfilled admirably — to defend a particular political and theological viewpoint through historical “poetry.”

Sincerely,

K. Doran
CD-Host August 1st, 2009 10:34 am :
This started as a discussion about a historical fact if there was or was not a debate in the early church about apostolic succession. And to do that you need to read what the church was writing about the battles at the time. If someone argued that the Revolutionary war never happened, one way I would disprove it would be to quote literature from the 1770s, British and American participating in the war.

As an American I have no problem saying there were a group of people called “the British” and they had a different vision for how America should look. I have no problem as a patriotic American admitting that the revolution had weak support in 1776 Americans were:
1/3rd in favor of independence and most of those not strongly
1/3rd indifferent
1/3rd in favor of remaining a colony
Which is very different than the situation today.

In no way do I cease to be an American or patriotic to admit that political debates in the past really happened and there really were 2 sides and there were good reasons that people supported remaining a colony. And even, that it was not inevitable that the Washington’s forces won the war. Now take this metaphor to the 2nd century battles. Most everything you see above is of 3 types:
1) The British really existed
2) The were a lot of people in England
3) It was unclear to people in 1776 which was the better path

EDITED BY MODERATOR AS PORTION OF POST WAS NOT RELATED TO TOPIC
Sean Patrick August 1st, 2009 10:51 am :
Nobody claimed that Gnosticism didn’t exist. We are very aware of heresies in the early church as were the church fathers.

Any further comments about Gnosticism will be deleted.

You are welcome to participate here as long as you abide by the posting guidelines which include: keeping comments as short as possible and not deviating from the subject.
Ralph W. Davis August 2nd, 2009 12:29 am :
Devin, and anyone else who has read my posts,

Of course there are many Protestants–particularly American evangelical ones–who have little or no serious knowledge of Church history, and have a simplistic understanding of it. It’s helpful to discern from the educated and informed from those who are not.

However, I like most if not all of people who have studied Church history know that it is a complicated story–and not any more pure–than the Christians are of any particular generation. Yes, I agree with the idea that along with growth and clarity in orthodoxy, corruptions and wrong innovations also came along–the good and the bad came along together–and the good was never extinguished, even if for a time it was (and still is) oppressed.

The logic of the article is though that:

1) Protestants, like Mormons say Rome has been corrupt for a long time.

2) a visible Church (based in Rome, of course) indefectable in essentials is the only kind that is legitimate.

Therefore:
3) Protestants must logically conclude God left the Church alone before Luther & Calvin et al.

If either 1) or 2) is wrong, 3) simply does not follow.

My understanding of the Church is like that of an individual Christian: It’s a collection of sinners saved by grace…(and that special salvation covenant, makes them set apart…hence, we as a body are called saints). Therefore every generation has its errors, its sins, its heresies, because Christians as a whole body are not perfect, just like no individual Christian is perfect. Some of these errors were much more serious than others–and some true things, like the doctrine of the Trinity, were worked out and clarified over time too. Even a few of the popes, particularly in the Renaissance era–by any measure of Christian morality and charity–were not righteous men, who appeared not to actually be sincerly Christian, in any normal sense of the word. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit left the Church alone? No, of course not—any history of the Middle Ages is filled with reform movements–and practically every monastic order started as a reformation attempt. So God raised people up to reform….and up to Luther these were either made into orders, or, like Jan Hus, they were killed.

Reformers like Calvin (and especially Luther) were extremely polemic. They had to be hard nosed men because of the horrible opposition they underwent. In Calvin’s lifetime for example, somewhere between 5, 000 and 30,000 (possibly 100,000) Calvinist civilians were killed by the Medici King, Charles IX in France (in a period of a few weeks) –for which action he received a medal from the Roman pope Gregory XIII. This is not legend, this is history.

Luther, like all the leading Lutherans, had a death warrant on his head from his excommunication on…if he were caught in Roman Catholic controlled lands. If you choose to think these things done with the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church, were that of an indefectable Church body….go ahead, but I think you’re having faith in the absurd.

People tend to get all excited about transubstantiation for example. Rome claims (revisionist history defined) that it taught transubstantiation all along. It did not—the Church unified East and West taught the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist all along….but it took Aristotelian categories–not fully introduced to Europe until the 12th Century–to distinguish between substance and accidents–an essential part the doctrine of transubstantiation. So to accept the post- 4th Lateran Council (1215…that is just 300 years before Luther) article of faith of transubstantiation, one must accept–in a limited but very important way–a pagan philosopher’s speculations on reality. Luther interestingly enough considered an individual believing in transubstantiation as acceptable–as long as the Church did not require it–since the Apostles who wrote the New Testament did not require it.

Yes, yes, your Baptists, and 90% of American evangelicals will claim that holy Communion is only symbolic–and Jesus is not in any real way present. However only Zwingli and to the left believed that amidst the Reformers. Both Luther and Calvin believed in a form of the Real Presence–as the Church everywhere had taught from the beginning–and as supported in holy Scripture.

Do I think a misunderstanding of Jesus’ Presence in holy Communion is damning? No. Would I agree with Calvin that transubstantiation is by definition idolatry? No. However, when Latin American villagers have festivals carrying around the host and bowing down to it, and very obviously treating it–bread and wine–as a god….that does seem to cross the line of “you shall not make a graven image….you shall not bow down to it…” doesn’t it? Such practices are rare amidst North American Roman Catholics–but not so in other parts of the world, and not so in 16th Century Europe either. So that was the context of early Protestant objections to transubstantiation.

Back to the first points though: If one makes Roman Catholic assumptions on the nature of the Church only then can point 3) make sense. I know of no thoughtful scholarly Protestant who thinks the Holy Spirit left His Church during any generation since Jesus. Right doctrine doesn’t save, Jesus in His mercy does–so there is no reason to say, if a Church body has error, it cannot be a Church…It all depends if the error rises to the level of heresy. The Holy Spirit is continually renewing, teaching, rebuking and reforming all bodies of believers the world over. His primary tool in that is His word understood in the assembly.

In another 1000 years I have no doubt people will look on this generation and say about some things, “Why couldn’t they see how wrong that was? Were they that ignorant?”

I still maintain that the only objective and fully and finally authoritative standard we have, is that of the words of the Apostles, recorded in Holy Scripture. Should we weigh and listen to generations past in Tradition? Yes, most definitely–by that we can avoid a lot of mistakes– but scripture alone is supreme–all other authorities must submit to the Word of the Lord.

Shalom,

Ralph
Ralph W. Davis August 2nd, 2009 12:40 am :
Correction: The Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre occured in 1572, 8 years AFTER Calvin’s death, not during his lifetime. Still….many (many) Protestants were burned to death during Calvin (and Luther’s) lifetimes–and everyone was well aware of that–it was a very tough, bitter time.
Bryan Cross August 2nd, 2009 2:13 am :
Ralph,

The argument in the article is more accurately summarized as follows:

(1) In order to justify separating from the Catholic Church, Protestantism, like Mormonism, must claim that Catholic Church corrupted certain essentials.

(2) Claiming that the Catholic Church is defectible in essentials presupposes ecclesial deism.

(3) Therefore, Protestantism, like Mormonism, presupposes, ecclesial deism.

So to accept the post- 4th Lateran Council (1215…that is just 300 years before Luther) article of faith of transubstantiation, one must accept–in a limited but very important way–a pagan philosopher’s speculations on reality.

Likewise, to accept the fourth and fifth century doctrines of Nicea and Chalcedon, one must accept the pagan philosophical concepts of ousious, physis, hypostasis. Once affirmed by the Councils, they are no longer merely a “pagan philosopher’s speculation,” but have been given the Holy Spirit’s seal of approval, at least in that particular theological application. (I’m assuming you don’t think the Church was corrupted in essentials by AD 325.) For more on theology’s dependence’s on philosophy see Diogenes Allen’s book Philosophy for Understanding Theology (which we read in Esther Meek’s class at CTS), or to see a Mormon point of view of the same subject see Richard Hopkin’s just published book How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God (2009). From an Evangelical point of view read Viola and Barna’s Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of our Church Practices (2002). I don’t recommend that book, but it does provide a clear example of the fleshing out of ecclesial deism. For a Catholic point of view, see Fides et Ratio, and Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address, especially the section on dehellenizing Christianity.

Right doctrine doesn’t save, Jesus in His mercy does–so there is no reason to say, if a Church body has error, it cannot be a Church…It all depends if the error rises to the level of heresy

In my article, I’m talking about the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the Bride of Christ, the one Church of Christ that He promised to build upon “this rock” and which the gates of hell would not overcome. (Matt 16) (Our article on the visible Church is an essential prerequisite for rightly understanding this article.) The only way Protestantism can justify separating from (and remaining separated from) the Catholic Church is by claiming that she is corrupted in one or more essentials, i.e. the error rises to the level of heresy. Otherwise, there would be no justification for the schism. Protestantism must claim that at some point prior to the Reformation, the Catholic Church fell into apostasy, and hence Protestantism must presuppose ecclesial deism. As soon as Protestants retract the claim that the Catholic Church fell into apostasy, they then lose justification for separating from (and remaining separated from) the Catholic Church. Hence, ecclesial deism is intrinsic to Protestantism.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
Tim A. Troutman August 2nd, 2009 9:12 am :
Ralph, a couple of additional items… The Catholic Church wasn’t using the term Transubstantiation but the teaching can clearly be seen in the West from an early date. See St. Ambrose, Augustine’s mentor, for some of the clearest examples. Further, the term “transubstantiation” was in use before the re-introduction of Aristolte to the West.

Further, you said Calvin was wrong on one of the things he was right about – transubstantiation certainly does amount to idolatry if it’s wrong. And you mentioned the Eucharistic procession being something some crazy latin folks do… all Western Catholics do that and have done it since the middle ages.. You still in Charlotte? Sept 25th & 26th if you want to see some “idolatry” in your own town.
Devin Rose August 2nd, 2009 2:01 pm :
Ralph,

Thank you for your reply; I only want to address a few points you brought up: that Catholics killed Protestants during the Reformation. On balance, I also bring up a fact of history, that untold numbers of Catholics were killed by Protestants during and after the Reformation. I would assume that you knew that, but perhaps you did not since you didn’t mention it, as it seems to be much more rarely talked about.

You followed up with “If you choose to think these things done with the blessing of the Roman Catholic Church, were that of an indefectable Church body….go ahead, but I think you’re having faith in the absurd.”

I also assume you also know that “indefectible” does not mean that members of the Church won’t do evil things or wrong things. You could list a million sins of a million Catholics and yet not have said anything against Christ’s gift of indefectibility to His Church. My faith in Christ’s Church is not that her members won’t commit sins, make bad decisions, do stupid things even, but that the gates of Hell will not prevail against her and that she will never teach error as truth with respect to faith and morals, and that Christ will never abandon her.

I would also point out that heretical groups today do not pose the same level of threat to the entire society that they once did (for example, that the Cathar heretics posed to Christendom circa 1200 AD in France). Reading history through our modern understanding and sensibilities can do injustice to those–both Protestant and Catholic–who lived hundreds of years before, in a society markedly different and even unrecognizable in many ways to what we have today.

“Yes, yes, your Baptists, and 90% of American evangelicals will claim that holy Communion is only symbolic–and Jesus is not in any real way present. However only Zwingli and to the left believed that amidst the Reformers. Both Luther and Calvin believed in a form of the Real Presence–as the Church everywhere had taught from the beginning–and as supported in holy Scripture.”

So who is right, Zwingli and his symbolic teaching, Calvin’s teaching, or Luther and his sacramental union teaching? You call upon the witness of “the Church” from the beginning as supported in Scripture, but baptismal regeneration was also universally witnessed to by the Church from the beginning and is supported in Scripture, yet I bet you don’t believe in baptismal regeneration (or do you?). So how do we know whether baptism regenerates or not?
Joy H. August 2nd, 2009 6:50 pm :
http://www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/tim3.html#5
From the link I provided:
It is very important that we follow Irenaeus’ progression of thought, for it impacts not only the idea of apostolic succession, but of the authority of the Scriptures as well. In this section of Against Heresies (Book 3) Irenaeus tells us his reasons for speaking of an unbroken line of successors to the apostles. In Chapter 1, he writes, “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (emphasis mine). In Chapter 2, he shows us how the Gnostics devalue those Scriptures: “When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce…”. (emphasis mine). Finally, in Chapters 2 and 3, he begins his argument from a succession of bishops. I note with some irony that the Scriptures appear first in Irenaeus’ line of reasoning and the institution of successive bishops second. In Roman Catholic apologetics, the order is generally reversed. 5

5-
Indeed, the Catholic argument for the interpretive authority of the Church almost exactly mirrors that which Irenaeus said the Gnostics used: “When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce…” (emphasis mine). Church historian Ellen Flessman-van Leer expands on this idea:

For Irenaeus, the church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought…If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is (Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Van Gorcum, 1953, pp. 184, 133, 144).

Earlier, the author states:
“the key question is, “What authority is being transmitted?” Does this passage give us any reason to believe that the succession of teachers it is speaking of would themselves in their persons possess the same kind of authority as did the Apostles? ”

Soli Deo Gloria,
Joy
Michael Liccione August 3rd, 2009 8:24 pm :
Joy:

The question with which you close your comment, which presumably comes from Ellen Flessman-van Leer, is indeed the right question. But before I get to it, I want to point out an error in her characterization of “the Catholic argument for the interpretive authority of the Church.”

Unlike the 2nd-century Gnostics, the Catholic Church has never claimed that the Scriptures can only be correctly interpreted in terms of a esoteric tradition which contradicts the interpretation of the Scriptures prevalent in the “universal” Church. According to Irenaeus, the bishops in apostolic succession during his time interpreted the Scriptures in terms of a public “rule of faith” whose content itself developed over time, from the simple trinitarian profession recorded in the NT to a version, introduced at Rome in the mid-2nd century and defended by Irenaeus, that later came to be called “the Apostles’ Creed.” Hence, the way the bishops in apostolic succession interpreted the Scriptures coincided with a “tradition” that was just as accessible to ordinary believers as the Scriptures themselves.

With that in mind, the Catholic doctrine of the interpretive authority of the Church is stated by Vatican II in Dei Verbum §10:

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort.

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission; and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Whether or not that doctrine is true, it is decidedly not the doctrine of the Gnostics, either of Irenaeus’ day or our own, such as one finds in the works of Elaine Pagels of The Gnostic Gospels fame, with whom I studied New Testament.

Now note the following statement from Irenaeus; Against the Heresies III, 3, 1:

For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men…

So the question really is, as Flessman-van Leer suggests, whether the bishops as successors of the Apostles, referred to as such by Irenaeus, had the same kind of teaching authority as the Apostles themselves. For our purposes, her question actually bifurcates into two: (1) Did Irenaeus himself claim that the successors of the Apostles in the bishoprics had the same kind of authority as did the Apostles? (2) Whether or not Irenaeus himself claimed as much, is that what he would have had to claim in order to successfully make the case he strove to make against the Gnostics?

Given what I’ve quoted from Ireneaus, I believe the answer to (1) is yes. So does the Catholic Church, which is why Dei Verbum §7 footnoted the same passage from Irenaeus that I’ve just quoted. But even if the answer is no, what about (2)?

If Irenaeus would not have ventured to claim that the bishops in apostolic succession, taken collectively, enjoyed the same teaching authority as the Apostles, then his argument against the Gnostics would reduce to an argument that, given the publicity of the the sources endorsed and utilized by the bishops, it is more reasonable to accept their version of tradition than that of the Gnostics. But that would have been to beg the question totally against the Gnostics. For the Gnostics argued that the tradition handed on by the bishops, in both written and oral form, was internally inconsistent, inasmuch as the loving Father of Jesus Christ could not, logically speaking, have been identical with the vengeful God of the Old Testament. If that charge were valid, then the complete publicity and universality of the Tradition and Scriptures of the Church would irrelevant to the question of their truth. For no set of doctrines which is internally inconsistent can all be true, whereas that which was handed on from Christ himself was taken by all sides to be completely true. But how could the Gnostics’ charge be rebutted?

Part of the rebuttal would have had to consist in showing that the Church’s way of reconciling the God of the Old with the God of the New Covenant was in fact internally consistent. Indeed we find that Irenaeus undertook just that task, though with debatable results. But even if he had done a better job than he did, that would not have sufficed; for the Gnostics too had an internally consistent “hermeneutic” that they argued was necessary for overcoming the difficulties of the standard hermeneutic. The only way to rebut the Gnostics decisively would have been to show that the standard hermeneutic was propounded by the same kind of authority as that of the Apostles, so that whatever hermeneutical difficulties it might present, it had to be the correct one. And the only way to achieve that result would have been to argue that the successors of the Apostles had the same kind of authority as the Apostles. If that were not the case, then the question what the deposit of faith actually was would have been left to mere opinion; and that in turn would have been incompatible with presenting it as an object for the assent of faith as distinct from opinion.

In sum, even if Irenaeus was not actually claiming that the bishops had the same kind of authority as the Apostles—even though Vatican II believed he was claiming as much—that’s what he would have had to claim in order to achieve his aim.
TOm August 14th, 2009 7:58 am :
Hello all!
My Catholic friend is planning a post on his blog inspired by Bryan’s essay. Today I followed his link and found much great discussion so I thought I might provide some of my thoughts. I hope my lateness to this thread is not offensive. BTW, I am a LDS.
Also, now that I have gotten though most of the comments, it seems that the first few comments were the ones that most interested me. If the return to dialogue from 1 month ago is not wanted, I am fine with deleting what I wrote (part of what I was doing was trying to get some of my thoughts together for the other thread).

From the initial essay:
I was ready to offer as an objection the objection discussed by Bryan in his initial essay under the header, “An Objection.” I believe there is some truth to the accusation that LDS (this LDS) and Protestants embrace some form of invisible church concepts. I am unsure how becoming a Catholic would rid me of embracing a form of invisible church though.
Vatican II was the clarification of many years of tradition that taught that there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church and yet there were things like “Baptism of Desire.” As I understand the developed Vatican II position, salvation is in and through the Catholic Church, but Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians may be part of the Catholic Church.
In response to me, I think you have and/or would say that the invisible church and the visible church are simply the same thing. To bifurcate them is to succumb to heretical thinking.

In addition to this, as a LDS I would say the visible church is the principle of unity in a far more concrete way than I see within Catholicism. James White could die, be saved, and learn that he really was a Roman Catholic united to the Body of Christ. This is how I read Vatican II and “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” As a LDS I would say that James White may be a sincere seeker of Christ. During his time on earth he may have fought against Christ’s Church, but he became a sincere seeker of Christ and a lover of God. After death his person will continue to seek the truth and find that it was the CoJCoLDS. This post mortal education will unite White with Christ’s church (outside of which there is no salvation). I also think the principle of orthopraxy (I think LDS are orthopraxic) is a more visible way of defining communion than orthodoxy.
Charity, TOm
TOm August 14th, 2009 8:01 am :
To Devin Rose 6Jul09 1401:
I believe the LDS canon (open canon) is an effective collection of profitable books inspired by the Holy Spirit. I believe the selection of the KJV of the Bible was done via revelation and through Common Consent, but not because the KJV of the Bible is inerrant. I believe that the KJV of the Bible OR the Book of Mormon contains the gospel fully such that one can become united with Christ through studying the principles taught within these scriptures. I do not believe the Catholic Church when it compiled the scriptures selected perfectly the only inspired books or perhaps even the best inspired books. The Catholic Church merely sufficiently selected inspired books. I OF COURSE do not believe that King James’ scholars perfectly produced an inerrant Bible. The KJV of the Bible is simply the best bible available to the CoJCoLDS (in 1830’s). The purpose of the KJV of the Bible was to edify the saints and to provide common ground from which to convert OR lift up non-LDS Christians.
BTW, I hope the above does not lead you to believe that I do not have a “high view of the Bible.” As a LDS, I believe the Bible is “functionally inerrant.” This means that I take no passage of the Bible and say, “this is where the Bible was not ‘translated correctly.’” Instead, I read the Bible through the “tradition” of the CoJCoLDS. In many places I think the LDS view of Biblical truth is a better Sola Scriptura read of the Bible than Catholic or Protestant orthodoxy, but in some places I think it is not. Nowhere to I believe the LDS view of Biblical truth is in contradiction with the Bible.
Charity, TOm

If I am not discouraged from doing so, I might post a few more things later today. Then I will wait to see if everyone has moved on or not. I will try to post a link to the blog post my Catholic friend is going to put up when he does.
Bryan Cross August 14th, 2009 10:25 am :
Tom,

Welcome to Called to Communion. I’ll try to address some of your points.

I am unsure how becoming a Catholic would rid me of embracing a form of invisible church though.

I recommend carefully reading our article titled “Christ Founded a Visible Church.”

In addition to this, as a LDS I would say the visible church is the principle of unity in a far more concrete way than I see within Catholicism.

What exactly are you referring to by “visible church”?

After death his person will continue to seek the truth and find that it was the CoJCoLDS.

How do you know that CoJCoLDS is not a heretical schism from the true Church that Christ founded?

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
TOm August 14th, 2009 1:32 pm :
Bryan,
Thank you very much for your welcome.
I read most of the linked essay. Let me comment on it and what a “visible church” is within the CoJCoLDS as I see it together.
The ordinary means one becomes a member of Christ’s church (assuming that His church is the CoJCoLDS) is through Baptism and Confirmation (which LDS call “receiving the ‘Gift of the Holy Ghost,’” but the similarities are too significant to not see the parallel). We also have a hierarchical structure like the Catholic Church.
Now, as a LDS we respond to the query about the fate of the unbaptized Ghandi follower by appealing to a post mortal education process and proxy baptism/confirmation. I personally suggest that our salvation is generally predicated upon our mortal time (based on some passages in the BOM and the Bible), but that this post mortal education process enables those who have become God’s people to embrace Christ and His Church when they did not have a perfect opportunity to do so in mortal life.
I see the recognition that some become ones who will accept the fullness of the gospel post mortally during there time on earth as an acceptance of a form of invisible church. The Ghandi follower has become saved, but we cannot see it.
I think the Catholic concept of “Baptism of Desire” when extended the way that it is most commonly extended post VII is a very similar acceptance of a form of invisible church.

The essay you linked to did not comment on “Baptism of Desire” or unbaptized babies or …. It seems that one might say those special circumstances are not really about what a visible church is or is not when dialoguing with a Protestant because the Protestant denies there is any visible church to be connected to or separated from at all. If so, the LDS and Catholics are in substantial agreement concerning the presence and importance of a visible church.

I will try to respond to your question in bit.
Charity, TOm
TOm August 14th, 2009 3:41 pm :
Bryan,
You asked:
“How do you know that CoJCoLDS is not a heretical schism from the true Church that Christ founded?”
My intellectual conclusion and my spiritual witness both point to the CoJCoLDS as the most likely solution to the question of where is the fullest expression of Christ’s church on earth found.
In response to your comments to Nathan and Jonathon, I already wrote most of a post. Since I anticipate your response to the question, “How do you know that the Catholic Church is Christ’s church?” will involve much that I already wrote, I will include it here.

You in response to Nathan and Jonathon commented about looking to the visible church handed down from the apostles to bishops and to the Pope.
I came to expect something from the ECF as I read books like Jesus, Peter & the Keys by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess AND read tracts from Catholic Answers AND …. When I read the ECF I simply did not find what I thought these folks claimed would be there. What I found is best summarized in three books (2 by Catholics and one by a LDS).
Father Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops argues that the Apostles ordained co-workers and local leaders. The groups of local leaders coalesced/copied Jerusalem and monoepiscopal Bishops emerged. Robert Eno The Rise of the Papacy tracks the development of the primacy of Rome over other apostolic seas. Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity by Hugh Nibley has two sections that present some of the same evidence discussed by the two Catholic authors, but argues that this is the apostasy of authority (as opposed to the development of the authority structure in/for Christ’s Church).
When I first discover that it looks like Peter would be shocked to hear that he was “Bishop of Rome” and it looks like Clement of Rome would be shocked to hear that he was Pope, I thought surely this was the end of any truth claims for Catholicism. Of course Newman’s essay on development provides a way to understand the facts. Still, Newman’s essay though almost always praised by Catholics (I have a Sedavacantist friend who condemns Newman) seems to be so far from Catholic self understanding that most Catholic apologist refuse to acknowledge development when it is so clearly present.

(LDS deny development in our thought too, but usually from pulpit or pew rather than from our version of Catholic Answers. Most LDS scholars possess a self understanding of Mormonism that would not deny development, but without an emphasis upon “Tradition” even the pulpit and pew folks would not be too scandalized by most of the development ideas.)

So, when you suggest that instead of the “burning in the bosom” one should look to the continuity of church from the apostles to today, I say I do not see it. The doctrine of the Trinity developed from a subordinationism. The Papal office and the Bishops as apostolic successors developed from no clear primacy for Rome and from groups of leaders in local churches.
Though it is probably too complex to defend here, I would say that the movement from apostles to bishops appears far more human than does the Book of Mormon (both its coming forth and its content). I find it much easier to believe that humans guided the doctrine and hierarchical developments within Catholicism than I do that humans (or a human) produced the BOM. So, before my burning in the bosom, I was a LDS (both literally and figuratively BTW).

None of the above should be construed as denying the toughest question I still see for the LDS about the apostasy. Why did Christ establish a church with Apostles who selected co-workers and then Episcopes/Presbyters and then let the Apostolic office cease to be at the head of the church? I do not believe this is a simple question, and I am not 100% satisfied with the answers I have found. The book Early Christians in Disarray (online here: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=42 ) presents some ideas and is a jumping off point, but we LDS have more work to do. (I offer this because the intellectual case for the apostasy and the restoration is not IMO a simple slam dunk and I do not want to suggest that it is. I find it compelling however).

The above should also not be read as saying that I deny the value of a Spiritual Witness. I recognize the fact that many claim spiritual witnesses that seem to contradict the one (ones) I have received. I have never received the spiritual witness communicated from God to another. I also cannot share my spiritual witness with anyone else. It is simply mine and I feel obligated to God to act upon it. That being said, my spiritual witness is not of the strength necessary to lead me to do something like Abraham was asked to do in the Bible. If such a command came to me with clarity and strength similar to my spiritual witness from God, I would not be able to overcome all of my preconceptions about God and about right and wrong such that I could act upon this revelation. This does not mean that I do not believe God communicated with me clearly and forcefully such that there is doubt that His communication was from Him to me. Instead, I believe there is a very human component in the communication of God to man. I lean generally toward the view that God’s communication to us while being 100% true is specifically for us as individuals. I am completely convinced that the human that received communication from God can lay there own human preconceptions over the top of the divine communication and produce individual interpretation even if God’s message was absolutely identical (to two or many individuals). Surely God could if He chose communicate in a way that humans absolutely understood Him in a single divine way, but I suspect that is not done in order to allow us to exercise faith (and grow in our ability to “hear” God). God could have prevented the Reformation, the Inquisition, Mountain Meadows Massacre, or … too.

That is enough for now (prolly too much).
Charity, TOm
Devin Rose August 15th, 2009 8:04 am :
Hi TOm,

I think it would be interesting if you would consider taking a shot at answering the questions Bryan Cross posed to (my Mormon friend) Nathan Kingsley way up in comments 8 and 12. (Nathan did not answer many of these questions.)

Thank you also for responding about the questions about the canon of Scripture. I may reply later on that.
TOm August 15th, 2009 12:45 pm :
Devin Rose,
I anticipated a need to respond to 8,12, and 14. I included my general thoughts in my post in response to the question from Bryan, “How do you know that CoJCoLDS is not a heretical schism from the true Church that Christ founded?”
My post is presently in some moderator queue. I suspect this is a product of my newness to this site (and not because my arguments are so powerful ). When my post emerges from the queue, I would be happy to respond more directly to queries from you or Bryan.
I have also produced something on Deification born of reading post #16 and something on my thoughts on Infallibility in response to post #18 and #21.
Thanks for reading.
Charity, TOm
TOm August 15th, 2009 1:44 pm :
Somewhat emboldened by my last post appearing immediately, I am going to try to re-post this post. If it appears immediately, then perhaps my other post didn’t appear because I do not know what I am doing. If not, then hopefully whatever moderator action occurs will result in only one of these long posts appearing. Here goes:

Bryan,
You asked:
“How do you know that CoJCoLDS is not a heretical schism from the true Church that Christ founded?”
My intellectual conclusion and my spiritual witness both point to the CoJCoLDS as the most likely solution to the question of where is the fullest expression of Christ’s church on earth found.
In response to your comments to Nathan and Jonathon, I already wrote most of a post. Since I anticipate your response to the question, “How do you know that the Catholic Church is Christ’s church?” will involve much that I already wrote, I will include it here.

You in response to Nathan and Jonathon commented about looking to the visible church handed down from the apostles to bishops and to the Pope.
I came to expect something from the ECF as I read books like Jesus, Peter & the Keys by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess AND read tracts from Catholic Answers AND …. When I read the ECF I simply did not find what I thought these folks claimed would be there. What I found is best summarized in three books (2 by Catholics and one by a LDS).
Father Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops argues that the Apostles ordained co-workers and local leaders. The groups of local leaders coalesced/copied Jerusalem and monoepiscopal Bishops emerged. Robert Eno The Rise of the Papacy tracks the development of the primacy of Rome over other apostolic seas. Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity by Hugh Nibley has two sections that present some of the same evidence discussed by the two Catholic authors, but argues that this is the apostasy of authority (as opposed to the development of the authority structure in/for Christ’s Church).
When I first discover that it looks like Peter would be shocked to hear that he was “Bishop of Rome” and it looks like Clement of Rome would be shocked to hear that he was Pope, I thought surely this was the end of any truth claims for Catholicism. Of course Newman’s essay on development provides a way to understand the facts. Still, Newman’s essay though almost always praised by Catholics (I have a Sedavacantist friend who condemns Newman) seems to be so far from Catholic self understanding that most Catholic apologist refuse to acknowledge development when it is so clearly present.

(LDS deny development in our thought too, but usually from pulpit or pew rather than from our version of Catholic Answers. Most LDS scholars possess a self understanding of Mormonism that would not deny development, but without an emphasis upon “Tradition” even the pulpit and pew folks would not be too scandalized by most of the development ideas.)

So, when you suggest that instead of the “burning in the bosom” one should look to the continuity of church from the apostles to today, I say I do not see it. The doctrine of the Trinity developed from a subordinationism. The Papal office and the Bishops as apostolic successors developed from no clear primacy for Rome and from groups of leaders in local churches.
Though it is probably too complex to defend here, I would say that the movement from apostles to bishops appears far more human than does the Book of Mormon (both its coming forth and its content). I find it much easier to believe that humans guided the doctrine and hierarchical developments within Catholicism than I do that humans (or a human) produced the BOM. So, before my burning in the bosom, I was a LDS (both literally and figuratively BTW).

None of the above should be construed as denying the toughest question I still see for the LDS about the apostasy. Why did Christ establish a church with Apostles who selected co-workers and then Episcopes/Presbyters and then let the Apostolic office cease to be at the head of the church? I do not believe this is a simple question, and I am not 100% satisfied with the answers I have found. The book Early Christians in Disarray (online here: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=42 ) presents some ideas and is a jumping off point, but we LDS have more work to do. (I offer this because the intellectual case for the apostasy and the restoration is not IMO a simple slam dunk and I do not want to suggest that it is. I find it compelling however).

The above should also not be read as saying that I deny the value of a Spiritual Witness. I recognize the fact that many claim spiritual witnesses that seem to contradict the one (ones) I have received. I have never received the spiritual witness communicated from God to another. I also cannot share my spiritual witness with anyone else. It is simply mine and I feel obligated to God to act upon it. That being said, my spiritual witness is not of the strength necessary to lead me to do something like Abraham was asked to do in the Bible. If such a command came to me with clarity and strength similar to my spiritual witness from God, I would not be able to overcome all of my preconceptions about God and about right and wrong such that I could act upon this revelation. This does not mean that I do not believe God communicated with me clearly and forcefully such that there is doubt that His communication was from Him to me. Instead, I believe there is a very human component in the communication of God to man. I lean generally toward the view that God’s communication to us while being 100% true is specifically for us as individuals. I am completely convinced that the human that received communication from God can lay there own human preconceptions over the top of the divine communication and produce individual interpretation even if God’s message was absolutely identical (to two or many individuals). Surely God could if He chose communicate in a way that humans absolutely understood Him in a single divine way, but I suspect that is not done in order to allow us to exercise faith (and grow in our ability to “hear” God). God could have prevented the Reformation, the Inquisition, Mountain Meadows Massacre, or … too.

That is enough for now (prolly too much).
Charity, TOm
TOm August 15th, 2009 4:52 pm :
BTW, Post #118 included the word “grin” in this parenthetical, “(and not because my arguments are so powerful)” unfortunately I set apart the word grin with greater/less than marks which probably designated it as HTML and it was thus not recognized. This omission makes it appear that I take myself way to seriously.
Sorry, TOm
Devin Rose August 16th, 2009 12:59 am :
Hi TOm,

You wrote: I do not believe the Catholic Church when it compiled the scriptures selected perfectly the only inspired books or perhaps even the best inspired books. The Catholic Church merely sufficiently selected inspired books.

Narrowing the focus to the New Testament (NT) canon of Scripture, the Catholic Church in the 300s discerned that 27 books were inspired by God, and those 27 are in every Bible I am aware of (Catholic and Protestant as well as Mormon). If the Catholic Church did not select these 27 books “perfectly”–in other words, there were some in the set that were not inspired or were not the “best” inspired (whatever that might mean), then I would be surprised if God (directly or through an angel) would not have pointed that out to Joseph Smith when he was being given the revelation of the Book of Mormon. Is it correct that you still have these exact 27 books in your New Testament?

The Catholic Church during that same century (the 300s) also dogmatically defined the Father and the Son to be “one in being” with each other, consubstantial, which is of course a core tenet in the understanding of the Holy Trinity as three Persons, one God. Mormons deny this doctrine. If the Catholic Church, two hundred years deep in the Great Apostasy, made such a grievous error in this crucially important decision (concerning the nature of God in the Trinity), why should you give any credence at all, let alone completely accept, the 27 books of the NT that she chose around the same time period?

(NB: I only listed one of the doctrines that the Catholic Church taught by this time–there are many others which Mormons reject as well, but this one is example enough to make my argument.)
TOm August 16th, 2009 2:47 am :
Hello Devin,
Let me see if I can offer some things from my perspective that respond to what I think you are suggesting. First, I guess it would be important for me to try to outline the position you are espousing.
As I read your post, you suggest that LDS, Protestants, and Catholics all use the 27 books (and only those books) for their New Testament. You respond to my earlier point that the 27 books are not used by LDS because they are inerrant, complete, or perfect (in a de fide way) by saying that if this was the case Joseph Smith guided by God would have corrected the errors. Then you proceed to suggest that since the 27 books were defined at a period of time when the Trinity was defined, surely this must be a problem for all Trinity rejecters (in particular and I would extend such to all rejecters of the authority through which such declarations were offered). I hope I have understood your point and please correct anything I might have missed.
It is clear that you read my post about not declaring the New Testament to be divine perfection in either its compellation or transmission to today. It is my perception that you tried to continue with your point rather than deal fully with my view of what the Bible is within a LDS paradigm (it is vitally important that you do not import Catholic paradigms into the CoJCoLDS when you attempt to conclude that there are inconsistencies within the CoJCoLDS) . You did say, “I would be surprised if God (directly or through an angel) would not have pointed that out to Joseph Smith when he was being given the revelation of the Book of Mormon.”
I would respond that it seems to me that we can err when we try too hard to anticipate what God would or would not do in such a case. As I indicated in my post, God could have recognized the value of the New Testament books as scripture AND as common ground with the rest of Christianity. If the LDS rejected various books of the New Testament it would be far more difficult to dialogue with folks who claim to be Sola Scriptura Christians. As a LDS the Bible is only one of our books of scripture. In addition to this, scripture is only one of the ways through which God communicates His will for His church and for the individuals in His church. Like Moses and Peter and … of old, LDS believe that God can present REVELATION to our earthly church leaders. So, I disagree that it is obvious that God would have corrected an imperfect canon when He revealed truths to Joseph Smith. And even were I to think it was likely God would …, I would think it concerning to put too much weight upon what “God (directly or through and angel) would” do (God simply doesn’t do things the same way I would were I Him –Thank God!!!).

In addition to the above, it seems that God has not ensured that the Bible has been preserved with the degree of perfection Christians once thought He did. The Comma Johanneum was long believed to be part of the original apostolic writings, but virtually ALL Biblical scholars today view it as a scribal addition. I would suggest that if God is as concerned about scripture being absolutely perfect rather than merely gloriously sufficient for His divine purposes, God would have prevented the Comma Johanneum from being added to the Bible by an over zealous scribe (I might add a Trinitarian Scribe).

So, if I can reasonably believe (and believe I do) that the 27 books were not chosen via an infallible authority, then I would suggest that I can also reasonably believe that the Nicene/Constantinople definition of the Trinity was not an infallible definition.
If it is important I could also quibble about the idea that the Trinity was firmly established doctrine “during the same century (the 300’s).” The Trinity finally overcame the semi-arians in the later half of the 300’s (which truth be told was the timeframe of the defining of the Canon in a fairly dogmatic way). There was a time (after Nicea) when virtually all of Christianity was semi-arian (you know Athanasius against the whole world and all).
Now, I myself am a Social Trinitarian. Here is a bit about this in the journal Modern Reformation:
Are Mormons Trinitarian?
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=236&var3=issuedisplay&var4=IssRead&var5=24
I think Nicea was an attempt by good men to explain how a number of very difficult things were simultaneously true. I think much of the difficulty grew from embracing a number of things that I do not consider Biblical. Still three person who are one God is my view and IMO a good one. We can leave this here, focus on our similarities, or delve into our differences.

So, I think you suggested that there was an inconsistency within the CoJCoLDS in that the vitally important 27 books of the NT were selected by the same folks who defined the Trinity.
I respond that I think there is much room for a LDS to revere the 27 books of the New Testament without believing them to be absolutely inerrant, complete, and perfect (they exist as part of a collection of scriptures and along side continuing revelation). As such, I think there is much room for the LDS to reject the authority that defined those books. Rejecting this authority, I see no reason to embrace an ontological oneness as the unifying principle that leads to three persons being one God.
Charity, TOm
Devin Rose August 16th, 2009 9:05 pm :
TOm,

I plan to respond to a subset of the things you mentioned:

I would suggest that if God is as concerned about scripture being absolutely perfect rather than merely gloriously sufficient for His divine purposes, God would have prevented the Comma Johanneum from being added to the Bible by an over zealous scribe (I might add a Trinitarian Scribe).

It is my understanding that Catholics do not hold that the Scriptures are “absolutely perfect” nor would we say that they are “gloriously sufficient”, both of those phrases being vague in meaning. What does “absolutely perfect” mean exactly? We hold that the Scriptures are “materially sufficient” to build the doctrines that the Church teaches but not “formally sufficient”, as most Protestants believe (see this article http://www.mark-shea.com/tradition.html).

So, if I can reasonably believe (and believe I do) that the 27 books were not chosen via an infallible authority, then I would suggest that I can also reasonably believe that the Nicene/Constantinople definition of the Trinity was not an infallible definition.

I agree with you there. Once you believe that the Great Apostasy began around the time of the death of the Apostles, anything and everything is fair game.

But you set yourself up for a problem here, because you later stated (regarding Nicaea and the Trinity) that:
I think much of the difficulty grew from embracing a number of things that I do not consider Biblical.

But how do you know what is “Biblical”? You just conceded that you don’t believe that the New Testament of the Bible, the 27 books primarily in which the Trinity is revealed, were chosen infallibly, which means that they could all be wrong and full of errors because God did not inspire them. You do not know what is Biblical and what is not until you know what books make up the Bible.

I respond that I think there is much room for a LDS to revere the 27 books of the New Testament without believing them to be absolutely inerrant, complete, and perfect (they exist as part of a collection of scriptures and along side continuing revelation).

Why revere books which weren’t inspired by God, that is, which are not God-breathed? I suppose I could revere my copy of the Lord of the Rings, but I don’t because I don’t believe it to be inspired. I certainly enjoy reading it and think it is good literature, but it is not the revelation of God Himself to us, as the sacred Scriptures are. It doesn’t make sense to add even one book that is not “Scripture” to the “collection of Scriptures”. And books which God did not inspire are not Scripture.

What is the principle by which you believe that any of these 27 books should be revered?

The Church teaches that: “107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”"

We believe that the Scriptures are inerrant within the constraints mentioned above, but we would not say they are “absolutely inerrant and perfect” in an unqualified sense, since one could claim to find some small typist error and declare the Bible imperfect.
TOm August 16th, 2009 10:52 pm :
Devin,
I am not sure how familiar you might be with various scholarly assessments of LDS doctrine and practice. Some of your questions screamed their answers to me, but I am rather immersed in this. In addition to that, I am quite convinced that if somehow the CoJCoLDS were eradicated (didn’t exist and never had) that I would be a Catholic (in fact I would be at confession as fast as possible and partaking of the Eucharist immediately following). So, I hope I can relate some of my LDS thought to the Catholic paradigms with which you are more familiar.

I am familiar with the formally vs. materially sufficient distinction that you offer. I would not however suggest that the material sufficiency of the scriptures within a Catholic paradigm is directly related to inerrancy or non-inerrancy. I would say, the Catholic believes the scriptures are inerrant and materially sufficient. The Protestant believes the scriptures are inerrant and formally sufficient. This actually well illustrates one of my points to you. Somewhere in the history of dialogue surely a Protestant has accused a Catholic of rejecting Biblical inerrancy merely because the Catholic believed scripture was not formally sufficient. To the Protestant, this likely sounded like a denigration of scripture. But, the Catholic was just recognizing (from their Catholic paradigm) that God’s purpose in bringing forth the Bible was not to provide a formally sufficient book, but to provide a materially sufficient book. Similarly, as a LDS, I believe that 27 books of the New Testament are sufficient for use by God’s Church (the CoJCoLDS in my opinion). The fact that I do not believe the New Testament is dogmatically inerrant does not mean that it is not profitable and revered within the LDS paradigm.

Now, you asked how I KNOW that we as LDS should be using the 27 books of the New Testament. God restored the apostolic charism of Peter to Joseph Smith (through Peter, James, and John). Joseph Smith as the head of God’s restored church taught principles one of which was the idea of Common Consent. After the canon of scripture was approved via revelation by those with divine authority over the church (the whole world actually as General Authorities), it was presented to the body of the church and accepted by Common Consent. This formal and we believe Holy Spirit guided action lets all LDS know that our scriptures are profitable “for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.” LDS believe the Bible is inspired by God. The authors were inspired men who wrote under the direction of God. I would merely suggest that such does not produce an absolute inerrancy AND that there were other inspired utterances and writings that we may not have from Christ’s ministry (in fact the Bible tells us that this is the case).

Now, you suggested that for a LDS who embraces the great apostasy, “anything and everything is fair game.” That is not quite fair. LDS on occasion suggest that Catholics are the ones who believe “anything and everything is fair game” because the rite of reconciliation wipes away sins so readily. But that is not fair either.
We as LDS believe Joseph Smith was ordained by Peter to lead God’s Church on earth. We believe that God called Joseph Smith to this position. We also believe that Peter’s authority is held by the prophet, President Thomas Monson. So we like Catholics look to President Monson and the other General Authorities (world-wide authorities as opposed to local authorities) to guide God’s Church. I actually believe that our scriptures (the larger canon of LDS scriptures) are materially but not formally sufficient (though it might be noted that orthodoxy is not the same type of principle within the CoJCoLDS as it is within the Catholic Church. We have no Catechism of the Catholic Church and do not seem to feel the need for one).

There are many similarities between the LDS concept of “The Prophet” and the Catholic concept of “The Pope.” Likewise, there are many similarities between LDS teachings from a General Authority and Catholic teachings from the Magisterium. The biggest difference IMO is that there is no principle of infallibility within LDS paradigm. Another interesting similarity and difference concerns Common Consent. Eastern Orthodox have a somewhat developed idea of Common Consent. Catholics are not completely absent this idea (Cardinal Newman appealed to it –two or more occasion I think- by quoting Augustine, “Securus judicat orbis terrarum” – The secure judgement of the whole world). But among LDS scholars I think Common Consent has more force than in either EO or Catholic thought. In the LDS pew this might not be fully recognized, but I think it is still present.

I will close here and put up a few of the words I prepared on infallibility. I would like to get a better grasp on this concept within Catholic thought and Bryan Cross and I do not agree perfectly on this so hopefully I can be enlightened (by either of you BTW).
Charity, TOm
TOm August 16th, 2009 11:07 pm :
Bryan (and Devin),
I am among the many people who think that the Pope has only definitely used the Charism of Infallibility outside the confines of an Ecumenical Council two times (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption).
Fairly recently Pope John Paul II said,
“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
It would seem by your words the above would be an exercise of the Charism of Infallibility by then Pope John Paul II. (BTW, the liberals have said or may have said that perhaps this was not concerning faith and morals, but since the Priest is “in persona Christi” during the mass, my understanding is that this is concerning faith and morals and not merely practice –like celibate priests).

To be honest, I cannot figure out exactly what would and would not constitute a perfect test to determine when the Pope is using the Charism of infallibly. My best idea currently is that Catholics must find room for authoritative declarations from the Pope. Over years it is possible to discover that this authoritative declaration was in fact infallible. This process may be very quick if the self-understanding of the Church has already adopted the Pope’s position and all that is left is the formal declaration (this seems to be the case for the two Marian statements).
Cardinal Newman quotes a phrase from an untranslated (as of about 3 years ago, but ???) work by Augustine that I do not think has absolutely zero Catholic application (and if very important within Mormonism). “Securus judicat orbis terrarum” – The secure judgement of the whole world.

According to Vatican I, the Pope speaks infallibly when he speaks:
1. Concerning faith and morals.
2. From the Chair of Peter
3. In alignment with sacred Tradition
The difficulty I see is knowing when “from the chair of Peter” is the case. Did Honorious think he was speaking from the chair of Peter. John Paul II knowing Vatican I and the charism he held uttered the above words I captured. It is interesting to me that he could have chosen his words as he did and not clarified that he was not exercising his charism of infallibility. But my understanding is that he wasn’t.

I have come to be a minimalist when it comes to assigning infallibility and irreformablity to various Catholic teachings (from a Catholic paradigm, I am a LDS so I do not accept the authority of councils or the Pope, but if I where Catholic …). If you can convince me it is inappropriate for a Catholic to be such a minimalist, then it will open up a whole new bucket of worms, but I am listening.

Charity, TOm
Devin Rose August 17th, 2009 3:47 pm :
Tom,

After the canon of scripture was approved via revelation by those with divine authority over the church (the whole world actually as General Authorities), it was presented to the body of the church and accepted by Common Consent.

When you say “the church’ here, I assume you are referring to the Mormon church in the 1800s and not to the Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity. Is that correct?

If so, then I don’t think there is much more to talk about with regard to the canon, since you believe on faith that Joseph Smith was given divine revelation in the 1820s to know what the canon was, without reference to the historical Church.

The only comment I would make would be to point out that it is “interesting” that it was revealed to him that the Protestant OT canon was correct, that is, that the 7 deuterocanonical books–accepted by the Church since the 300s until the Reformation removed them from their Bibles in the 1500s–were not inspired. He was, after all, surrounded by a Protestant milieu in his place and time in American society, so this is perhaps not so surprising from my Catholic perspective. It is additionally interesting that all of the particular 27 NT books were confirmed by the revelation given to him, since there was much debate over many books of the NT, with even Luther questioning several in his first Bible edition. Ultimately of course, the Protestants kept all 27 (and the Mormons did too by what you believe to be revelation.)

It seems that we need to back further and discuss the reasons for the Mormon claim that the Church immediately fell into Apostasy after the deaths of the original Apostles. But I do not wish to do that in this forum, since it is beyond the scope of this site. So, if we meet again on the internet or otherwise, perhaps we can discuss it then. May God bless you!
TOm August 17th, 2009 4:43 pm :
Devin,
First, I wanted to thank you for the link to the Mark Shea article. It was very good. I have been searching for a way to express what “Tradition” is within the Catholic paradigm and Shea’s way was very good.

Yes, I am/was referring to the CoJCoLDS in the 1800 and 1900’s when I speak of accepting the scriptures.

In response to your “interesting” comment I only want to remind you what I already said. I believe the selection of the LDS Biblical canon was specifically a bow to the Protestant canon and the Christian milieu present when Christ’s Church was restored. Many Protestants (and LDS) find it “interesting” that Catholics have adopted numerous Pagan aspects into their worship. I find Cardinal Newman’s explanation of this satisfying. I merely suggest that the Protestant Canon (shared by the Catholic Church with the exception of a few books that I generally agree with Catholics were removed by Protestants) was sufficient as scripture AND beneficial for providing common ground. So this point of contact is not an interesting coincidence, but an important feature for the LDS Canon. Certainly there was non-LDS debate, but the Biblical canon while important within a LDS paradigm is not the lynchpin upon which Christ’s true gospel can either shine through or wither away as it is for Protestants and to a lesser extent for Catholics.
I agree that the apostasy is a big deal. If you didn’t read my post (#116 or #119 they are identical) to Bryan about finding the church through unbroken succession, then it briefly outlines my thoughts on this matter.
Anyway, thank you for the discussion and may God bless you too!
Charity, TOm
Jonathan Brumley August 17th, 2009 6:38 pm :
Does anyone know why Luther said this?

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”

As I haven’t read any of his writings, I clearly don’t know what he was talking about. Did he have some evidence for the Magisterium having “often erred or contradicted themselves”? Did he elsewhere write down what were some of those errors or contradictions?

If Luther had some sure knowledge of the corruption of the teachings of the Church, (and if that corruption happened after the canon was established), then it would be easier to forgive his invention of sola scriptura.
TOm August 18th, 2009 2:13 am :
Jonathan,
Luther believed what he said to be true. There were also a number of Catholic Bishops opposed to the definition of Papal infallibility at Vatican I that believed that Popes had taught error and contradicted each other.
Cardinal Newman was opposed to the pressing to a decision on Papal infallibility but was happy with what he viewed to be an appropriately nuanced position. (It should be noted that Cardinal Newman seemed to always believe that the Pope was infallible in some sense, it was just that he thought the church was not read yet for the formal declaration yet).
My post #125 is actually built upon my belief that it is essential to be a minimalist when defining what Papal infallibility is and when it has been exercised. I think Luther has a point, but that there is likely a consistent way to get through the SEEMING contradictions and problems.
BTW, I am not a Catholic, but a minimalistic view of Papal Infallibility would not be a big issue for me as a Catholic.
Charity, TOm
Tim A. Troutman August 18th, 2009 8:40 am :
When Vatican 1 set up a committee to conduct a thorough investigation the historicity of the papal infallibility claim, the committee found only two incidents requiring such investigation. That is significant. Protestants and other detractors from the Catholic claim of Papal infallibility often insist that the definition extend far beyond what the Church herself has claimed thereby setting up a straw-man to knock down.

Tom, we appreciate your fairness as a non-Catholic. We don’t get this often, especially not on the issue of papal infallibility!
K. Doran August 18th, 2009 9:23 am :
Tom,

I’ll do this in parts.

Part I:

Can you check out what I wrote about Clement in the comments section to the “Commentaries not included” article on this website?

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/commentaries-not-included/

Remember that Clement acted in this authoritative manner regarding the interior affairs of a Church that was much closer to the Apostle John’s residence than it was to Rome — at a time when the Apostle John was likely still alive! This tells us that the transfer of authority from the apostles to their successors was much cleaner than we would expect if there had been an immediate apostasy.

Since you are willing to read Catholic stuff, may I suggest that you read someone other than Eno on the early papacy. I would recommend work by Dom John Chapman. I have links in the comments section to the article above to excerpts from his book “Studies on the Early Papacy.”

I also recommend his work: “Bishop Gore and the Catholic Claims” which can be read for free at the following link (just look in google books if this link to google books doesn’t work):

http://books.google.com/books?id=pSkQAAAAIAAJ&dq=bishop+gore+and+the+catholic+claims&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=pdT2YLjKEe&sig=pDvCxx3kFB-aVKaET9gOW_0BFLA&hl=en&ei=MZiKSqq7GYq-MIruwMAP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Regarding Honorius, I don’t think he did think that he was making a definitive teaching. There already was a formula of sorts for definitive papal teaching in the early church. I suspect that the reason Chapman didn’t think that Honorius had made a definitive teaching according to the standards of the early church will be sufficiently explained in his work “The Condemnation of Pope Honorius” found at the following link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=O1b2PhfrUpQC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=dom+john+chapman+%22condemnation+of+pope+honorius%22&source=bl&ots=IKG60RHBDL&sig=EtupFGfa83rj8yTof05-EKfbNcg&hl=en&ei=iqmKSrrKOoGTtgfeveUl&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Sincerely,

K. Doran
K. Doran August 18th, 2009 9:26 am :
Part II:

A thing to remember about Newman and development: he made an argument that explained how it was legitimate for later periods to teach refined versions of earlier teaching that would not have been recognized as needed refinements in those earlier periods. He did not make an argument that allowed for, presupposed, or proved any contradictions in definitive teachings over time in the Church.

A few final points:

(1) The Catholic Church has a large body of definitive teaching on both theology and morals.

(2) This definitive teaching can be recognized reasonably surely by specific formulas.

(3) It is a historical fact that if you use the formulas in (2) to obtain the teaching in (1), you receive a set of doctrines that have never contradicted each other. Catholics believe this to be miraculous.

(4) The formulas in (2) were only in part developed ex post in order to obtain the non-contradiction result in (3). Much of the formulas developed through scriptural witness and the witness of the early Church.

(5) It is an existential fact that if you live the doctrines in (1), you will become a better man who is closer to his neighbor and closer to his God. This existential fact can be witnessed historically by a constant stream of saints and martyrs from the time of the apostles, without any break, until the present day.

(6) This constant stream of saints and martyrs were connected intimately to the hierarchical Church from the beginning until now.

(7) This hierarchical Church is connected through _overlapping_ generations (that was my attempt at emphasis) to the hierarchical Church today.

So I close with the invitation to read more reliably Catholic sources (rather than Eno) on the history of the Church. You will definitely find that there was no great apostasy, but that there was a holy Catholic Church from the beginning until now. I believe that God wants you to be a Catholic. When you do, it will be a day of celebration for all of us!

Sincerely,

K. Doran
Devin Rose August 18th, 2009 3:53 pm :
Jonathan,

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Martin Luther is extensive and I think a pretty balanced account of the events, including the context of the exact statement you reference: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

You wrote If Luther had some sure knowledge of the corruption of the teachings of the Church, (and if that corruption happened after the canon was established), then it would be easier to forgive his invention of sola scriptura.

I do not understand what you mean by “after the canon was established”. Do you mean in the 300s when the Church defined the canon (but not dogmatically) or at the Council of Trent when it made it dogmatic? If Trent, that was decades after Luther’s statement was made.
TOm August 19th, 2009 12:34 am :
Tim (and K. Doran),
I want very much to be fair.
I have a Catholic friend who when exploring the various options before him he adopted a methodology where he placed himself in the shoes of the adherent to any given religion so as best he could he would be able to evaluate it from that perspective. My imperfect version of this leads me to a few conclusions.
First, Catholicism is clearly my second choice by it seems a large margin (relative to 3rd and probably relative to 1st BTW). With the exception of liberal Protestantism (which I still do not know exactly what to do with), I would have a much easier time embracing the problems with Catholicism than I would the problems with various stripes of Conservative Protestantism. I have even given some thought to the Bahai faith and very minimal thought to Judaism and Islam. Perhaps I am too Christian for them.
Second, the problems I have with Catholicism are not sufficient to make me a “Restorationist in waiting.” I do not believe the case for the apostasy that I presently embrace is a slam dunk. I do not believe the philosophical problems I have with various dogmas are so solid, so concrete, so certain in my non-divine (indeed in my deeply flawed) mind that I can out of hand reject Catholicism for them. This means that I would embrace the church it seems most likely is Christ’s original and current church (if I didn’t have the CoJCoLDS to embrace).
Third, there are IMO adequate reasons to reject any form of Christianity. I would like to believe that I could better illustrate why one should not be a LDS than could James White. At least my list would be based upon what LDS can (and IMO should upon study and prayer) believe rather than upon certain gotcha things. I probably cannot do quite as well illustrating the reasons not to be a Catholic as some of you here, but I have thoughts on these.
Finally, I once thought I might be moving toward a return to Catholicism and I am still somewhat flattered when a Catholic suggests that this is the path I am on. However, I do not believe I am on this path and I do not want to deceive anyone here. Part of me wants to be fair, part of me wants to truly let the best of Catholicism lure me with all of its greatness, and part of me wants to be the person who having done this continues to embrace Mormonism. And all of me wants to align my life to God’s will for me.
Charity, TOm
Bryan Cross August 19th, 2009 1:04 am :
Tom,

So, when you suggest that instead of the “burning in the bosom” one should look to the continuity of church from the apostles to today, I say I do not see it.

Are you saying you see no continuity? Or are you saying that you see development?

The doctrine of the Trinity developed from a subordinationism.

How do you know? Which of the Church fathers taught subordinationism, and in which of their works did they teach it?

The Papal office and the Bishops as apostolic successors developed from no clear primacy for Rome and from groups of leaders in local churches.

How do you know?

Though it is probably too complex to defend here, I would say that the movement from apostles to bishops appears far more human than does the Book of Mormon (both its coming forth and its content).

Here, we’re interested in truth, not mere appearances. How do you know that the establishment of bishops was not from the Apostles? Do you think the NT references to bishops are mere second-century interpolations? If so, what evidence do you have for this?

I find it much easier to believe that humans guided the doctrine and hierarchical developments within Catholicism than I do that humans (or a human) produced the BOM.

The relevant issue when pursuing truth, is not what you find it easier to believe, but where the evidence points, even when it is difficult to believe. As St. Helena by faith found the true cross, so may you find the true Church.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
TOm August 19th, 2009 3:29 pm :
Bryan (and K. Doran),
It seems likely it will take me a while to get through (read his posts and look through the books on google books –I love google books!) K. Doran’s reading list. I am going to try to do this so I can respond with my thoughts.
I thought I would leave a more detailed response to Bryan for later. However, if possible I wanted to ask for clarifications concerning the questions Bryan asked me.
I was left with a few possible impressions based upon the form of some of the questions vs. the form of others of the questions vs. the context of the discussion we were having.

How do I know XYZ?
1. Is this a question about KNOWING? The process through which we as humans come to know things. This process is certainly interesting and in context of saying that to know via burning in the bosom is unreliable may be what you had in mind (though I was trying to suggest that “I know” things independent of direct communication with God).
2. Do you question that there is reason for one to believe XYZ such that you think nobody should believe XYZ. I guess this would mean that you have either seen little reason to believe XYZ (which I doubt is the case) or you think that you possess a greater volume of information that makes believing XYZ unwise.
3. Do you recognize that rational Protestant, Catholic, and LDS scholars (and educated folks) believe XYZ, but wonder if my reasons for believe XYZ are easy to respond to and/or should be more nuanced than I seem to have presented them (even though I think I have said that I do not consider them to be “slam dunk” reasons).

Or some combination of 2 &3 or 1,2&3 or ….

I regularly find folks who have read various apologetic sources but have not read much scholarly sources or ECF documents who believe I am out to lunch when I say the things I did. And I also believe it is quite possible to read the ECF as if they are 21st century Catholics or 21st century Mormons and they were neither. I doubt very seriously that you or many of the folks here have not explored the ECF beyond some of the more simple reads. K. Doran is familiar with Eno. Eno presents a lot of information. Has everyone read his book? BTW, I came upon Eno because Father Sullivan (the author of From Apostles to Bishops ) recommended him to me. I was later disappointed to find that James White is a big “fan” of Eno.

Charity, TOm
Bryan Cross August 19th, 2009 3:38 pm :
Tom,

My questions to you are not about epistemology, but about evidence. They are asking you to provide the evidence substantiating the statements you made (which I quoted in #134).

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan
TOm August 28th, 2009 2:04 pm :
K. Doran (with a little for Bryan),
I will try to respond to what you have said. I am sorry for the delay. I was working then traveling and now back to working, but …. Also, I hope posting shorter bits in a row is an acceptable practice.

After reading your post on Clement’s exercise of Papal Primacy, I am not far moved. Eno and Sullivan both negatively assess 1st Clement when the question is “was this an exercise of Roman primacy?” Sullivan tells us that the majority of scholars, including Catholic scholars, agree that 1st Clement is not the first exercise of Roman Primacy. Nibley references a Dutch Benedictine (a Catholic), R. Van Cauwelaert who has done a lot of research on the relationship between Corinth and Rome and claims that it would only be natural for Corinth and Rome to enjoy a linkage. Cauwelaert also concludes that 1st Clement is not an exercise of Roman Primacy.
There are many reasons that 1st Clement has been judged by most scholars as not being an exercise of Papal primacy.
The fact that Clement did not even mention himself but wrote from the Roman Church has been mentioned.
When I was reading 1st Clement I was struck in two places by Clement’s omission of his responsibility. In Chapt 53&54 Clement (who sits in the chair of Moses) claims someone in the Corinthian Church must act like Moses. Clement is not the guilty who must accept responsibility, but it was an usual appeal coming from the person with Moses’s authority on earth. In Chapt 42 the “Order of Ministers in the Church” is outlined, but there is no mention of the Pope or a “bishop of bishops.”
Finally, if First Clement is believed to be an exercise of Papal Primacy what happened for the next 200+ years were we find some reasons to not believe there is a Roman Primacy (I can offer some of these if you like), but virtually no reason to believe there is.

Continued …
TOm August 28th, 2009 2:07 pm :
Where I to start from the position that Clement of Rome was in fact the Pope in a way similar to the way Benidict XVI is the Pope, I would very likely point to the passages you mentioned in your posts and call them evidence that Clement spoke as the Pope (and knew he was the Pope). It is my opinion that it is far over reaching the data to draw this conclusion if you try to look at Clement in the history that we have from the surrounding couple hundred years. You might disagree with me, but many Catholic scholars do not. It is certainly possible that there are other examples that more clearly show Papal prerogative in the first, second, or third centuries that we have lost, but what we have does not show a primacy exercised by Rome.

In response to Father Sullivan, I read a Catholic scholar that said as Catholics one cannot just look at the historical documents from a completely neutral reference. To be Catholic is to know things about the history of the church. To the knower, these things are obvious in the historical record. I am not Catholic and I do not think these things are obvious. I however will readily admit that I am biased by my own presuppositions. Surely if I could be perfectly neutral, the break in authority from Peter to the Bishop of Rome would not be so “obvious” to me.

The primacy of Rome seems to me to have been sealed by the blood of Peter and Paul. While most modern Catholics speak of Peter as prime and the first Pope / Bishop of Rome, many of the earliest sources that place Rome in an important position site Peter and Paul. Antioch traditionally was Peter’s first see. Jerusalem seemed to hold a prime position in the eyes of some, early in the church. The Psuedo-Clementine literature appeals to the importance of the Jerusalem Bishop even while trying to establish the Peter to Clement succession (which in itself is unusual because supposedly Peter’s authority went to Linus after Peter’s death).

Continued …
TOm August 28th, 2009 2:11 pm :
One more Papacy thing. Peter possesses an apostolic Charism that the Pope even in Catholic thought does not. Peter wrote scripture. Peter received revelation (visions about clean and unclean food and …). The Pope cannot write scripture and does not receive PUBLIC Revelation (at least not like Peter did). This is an important point for a LDS. Many LDS cannot leave their paradigm of the Apostles and Prophets receiving revelation from God and the Pope’s inability to do this is a simplistic game over. IMO it is not so clear, but it is worth noting.

On to more stuff

The books you linked to were about later history. I am not married to the idea that Pope Honorius simply must have been a heretic. Certainly some of his successors believed ultimately that he was. It seems unlikely to me that earlier Popes knew they possessed the Charism of Infallibility and that this is a development. As I said before I very much liked the Mark Shae article. I believe that one simply must understand Tradition as a way of addressing / responding / developing answers to vexing questions that while faithful to the past (“if it is new it is not true” being a small force in this view / use of Tradition) is ultimately the ordained authorities of God’s church working with the Holy Spirit to determine eternal truth previously not expressly defined.

Newman’s seven characteristics of true developments are potentially a very powerful apologetic. The argument as I understand it is that when you look at heresy and development you can trace the valid development through the seven characteristics and see how the heresy does not align and therefore must not be part of the “deposit of the faith.” I have not been able to evaluate how well delineated this true path is by the seven characteristics and thus how powerful this apologetic is. It seems to me this is the gist of your 18Aug 0926 post.

I do however see a great deal of anti-Newman in Catholic thought especially popular apologetics. Orestas Bronson I think well represented the scholarly Catholic position on the idea of development before it became so clear that one MUST embrace development (I can link to a couple of his essays if you like). I have a Sedavacantist friend who is openly anti-Newman (and anti-Vatican II and …). The reason he is a radically misinformed Catholic is because one cannot view Tradition as he does and get to Vatican I, through Vatican I, or to Vatican II. He may be deep in Vatican II history, but I think he is lacking in his pre-20th century history. The general Catholic self understanding is not one in which development is embraced openly. There seems to be a need to see the developed (might I say co-equal) Trinity in Tertullian or Irenaeus or the New Testament, but I do not think it is there. There is a need to see First Clement as an exercise of Papal Primacy, but I do not think it is there. Without a robust Newman theory of development, there is IMO no Catholicism.

Charity, TOm
TOm August 28th, 2009 4:19 pm :
Bryan asked:
Are you saying you see no continuity? Or are you saying that you see development?

TOm:
I am not saying that there is “no continuity.” I believe that Apostles ordained co-workers and likely some local leaders. I believe co-workers ordained local leaders. In this way I believe Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and … were apostolic. I think history shows us that Apostles and local leaders existed side by side in the early church. I do not adopt some of the more radical Protestant views that there is no such thing as ordained leaders in the early church. I merely suggest that there is a hole in the data. I think the development from local leaders into Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and the Pope is a type of human development where gifted (and in religious pursuits often good and honorable) men gravitate to positions of greater responsibility and influence. So the Peterine charism to lead the world wide church was not passed formally/directly/clearly to the Bishop of Rome (the Psuedo-Clementine documents attempt to fill this absence as it was felt very early in church history more acutely than it is now). Perhaps John had this charism or perhaps he didn’t. The idea that the Bishop of Rome possesses this is a development. It may be a divinely ordained development for the purpose of preserving Christ’s authority on earth (in which case I should be a Catholic) or it may be a human development. But, it is a development.

Bryan asked:
How do you know? Which of the Church fathers taught subordinationism, and in which of their works did they teach it?

TOm:
“Subordinationism was pre-Nicene orthodoxy.” – Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers
I know of a few other scholars who say similar things, but I doubt that is what you want.
The term deutero-theos certainly implies a subordinationism. In the “second place” implies a subordinationism.
Are you denying that pre-Nicene orthodoxy involved much greater subordination of Christ to the Father than did post-Constantinople (post-Augustine) orthodoxy?
The tension between monotheism and a divine Jesus was not resolved for quite some time, but generally while speaking of a divine Jesus pre-Nicene ECF subordinated (in a stronger way than Augustine or Athanasius) Christ to the Father.
The Bible and the ECF speak of “the one God” who is the Father. Jesus is never referred to as “the one God” unless the “one God” reference includes the Father (and perhaps the Holy Spirit and perhaps the deified). This is not quite as close as what I was thinking, but here it is:
Irenaeus – Adv. Her. 4.Pref.4/ 4.1.1 …there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption. Since, therefore, this is sure and steadfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except Him who, as God, rules over all, together with His Word, and those who receive the Spirit of adoption.(ANF 1.463).

Continued …
TOm August 28th, 2009 4:20 pm :
Bryan asked:
Here, we’re interested in truth, not mere appearances. How do you know that the establishment of bishops was not from the Apostles? Do you think the NT references to bishops are mere second-century interpolations? If so, what evidence do you have for this?

TOm:
The NT reference Bishops because the first century church had Bishops and Apostles. The Bishops were established by the Apostles. This is just like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does today. The Catholic Church is the church that no longer has a separate Bishoprick and Apostolate.
I hope in my response to K. Duran I have offered evidence that does not indicate I am interested in “mere appearances.” Can you see how evidence might incline me towards “knowing” something different than what you know?
But, how do you know that Bishops are the successors of the Apostles such that they have more than just the authority to lead local congregations? Apostles were traveling authorities with responsibilities for the world-wide church. Bishops were local authorities with local responsibility (see the Didache).

Bryan asked:
The relevant issue when pursuing truth, is not what you find it easier to believe, but where the evidence points, even when it is difficult to believe. As St. Helena by faith found the true cross, so may you find the true Church.

TOm:
Perhaps we are having difficulty communicating because our word choice is foreign to one another. When I said that I “find it easier to believe,” I was saying that the EVIDENCE better aligns with a human guided Papal development than does the EVIDENCE align with a human produced Book of Mormon.
As an engineer I find the evidence for miracles and divine intervention in my work life to be less than compelling. Generally electrons flow from low potential to high and depletion regions form in ways governed by physics.
When I seek contact with God and when I look for evidence of divine contact with others, I find the case for the supernatural to be far more compelling. Do I think the evidence suggests I should believe that the development of the Papacy was God’s plan for His church? No, I do not. Do I think the evidence suggest God was integral to the production of the Book of Mormon? Yes, I do. Is my KNOWING of these two things a product of my spiritual witness of the truth of the CoJCoLDS? As best I can tell no, it is as objective of a weighing of the evidence I am capable of producing.
Now, perhaps you are certain that no reasonable person could look at the evidence for the Papacy and not KNOW what you KNOW. I no longer believe that all reasonable persons who look at the evidence for the Papacy will simply come to KNOW what I KNOW. Thus, I speak in ways that acknowledge such limitations present in the evidence. If you know that reasonable folks will KNOW what you do, then I suspect my lack

Ecclesial Deism

216 comments Leave a comment »

216 comments
Leave a comment »