Regarding the term “Pontificus Magnus” as used of Christ, you may be referring to Hebrews 4:14 in the Vulgate: “habentes ergo pontificem magnum qui penetraverit caelos Iesum Filium Dei teneamus confessionem” (“Having therefore a great high priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God: let us hold fast our confession.”)

The emperor Gratian, by the advice of St. Ambrose, refused to assume the title Pontifex Maximus. This was a title that the Roman emperors had held for centuries. (See here) In the eastern part of the Roman empire, the emperor Theodosius was baptized at the age of 34. He then issued a joint edict, along with Gratian, in which he referred to Pope Damasus as “Pontiff.” So this, apparently, wasn’t a title that the Pope took upon himself. It was a title given to him by the state, as a recognition that the emperors were no longer the high priests of the state religion. Because of the Christianization of the empire, that title was understood to belong rightly to the successor of the one to whom Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom.

Some Christians find the title “Pontifex Maximus” troubling, because it was originally used in reference to pagan religion. (See here) But, here, as in many other things, grace perfects nature. The Pontifex Maximus of pagan Rome was a role in that pagan religion, that God had providentially prepared, such that in the fullness of time, the empire was prepared to receive Christianity and the notion of an divinely appointed vicar of God, to whom God had entrusted the keys of the Kingdom. The bishop of Rome, having the succession from St. Peter, is, in that respect, the visible high priest of the Church, as the vicar (i.e. deputy or representative) of Christ.

That does not put him in competition with Christ or Christ’s priesthood. We are, by our baptism, priests of God (Rev 1:6), and this is a particular kind of participation in Christ’s priesthood, one which does not compete with His priesthood, but is an extension of it, as we sacrifice and intercede for the world in Christ’s name, for His sake, and in His Life (i.e. in the grace that comes from His sacrifice and is a participation in His Life). Ministerial priests, however, participate in Christ’s priesthood not only by their baptism, but also by their ordination. By the sacrament of ordination they are granted the authority to consecrate bread and wine, and in this way to offer the sacrifice of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Just as baptismal priesthood does not compete with Christ’s priesthood, neither does ministerial priesthood compete with Christ’s priesthood. And for this same reason, there being a highest or supreme visible [ministerial] priest in Christ’s Church does not compete with Christ’s priesthood, but is again, a participation in Christ’s priesthood.

Whenever we encounter a comparative or superlative adjective or adverb, we must always keep in mind the with-respect-to-what of its intention. Otherwise, we will misunderstand it. So here, in the term “Pontifex Maximus,” as used of the Pope, the adjective “Maximus” is not intended relative to Christ, but only to other men. In other words, the intention of the adjective is to affirm that the Pope is the highest priest not in relation to Christ, but in relation to other men. The “with-respect-to-whatness” of the term is to other men, not also in relation to Christ. For this reason, the Pope’s being Pontifix Maximums is fully compatible with Christ being Pontificem Magnum.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

Thank you for your kind and thorough reply. We remain in disagreement about the Church, but I have to admit that your steadiness and consistency of thought compels me to dig deeper, and pray more. I have been fully convinced, for some time, of the fact that the Catholic Church either is the true Church or she is the Whore of Babylon. There can be no middle ground on this. As of now, I still lean towards the latter. I realize the gravity of that claim and I do not express it triumphantly or with vitriol. I know this is off topic from this thread, and may not be the appropriate place to discuss this, but what do you make of the title Pontificus Maximus. I believe Jesus is referred to as Pontificus Magnus. Maximus is even greater than Magnus. What do you make of that?
With sincerity,
jb
PS again thank you for your reply. You are clear and never needlessly offensive.

I’m glad to see your comment, even if I don’t agree with everything you said. I appreciate the fact that you’re willing to dialogue about how to reconcile Protestants and Catholics.

There is nothing wrong (in the moral law or in the Church’s canon law) with leaving the boundary of one’s geographical parish, to attend a more orthodox parish, should that be necessary. But that is altogether different from schism, which is an objective evil. We know, from the Donatist schism, that schism is not justified by the existence of unfaithful clergy. We can never justifiably start a schism, join a schism, or remain in a schism, even if we encounter heinous sin in the Church, or heresy believed and taught by priests (or even by rogue bishops) within the Church. Two wrongs never make a right. (See my comments #13 and #32 in Taylor’s “St. Paul on the Unity of the Catholic Church” thread.) There have always been tares within the Church, in every century of Church history. There have always been unfaithful priests and bishops, heretical priests and bishops, and those who caused scandal by their immorality. That’s not new. But it has never justified schism.

We have a choice. We can complain and gripe about messes within the Church, or we can roll up our sleeves, and serve the Church, and help clean up the mess. Leaving the Church sets an example for others, that schism is permissible. In other words, schism only adds to the mess to be cleaned up, by creating a separation from the Church, and by creating a scandalous example to others, that schism is ok when the going gets tough. In actuality, however, it is better to be martyred by members of the Church if it were to come to that, than to form or join or remain in a schism. If we would be willing to give up our physical life, rather than wound Christ’s physical body, then for the same reason we should be willing to give up our physical life, rather than wound Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church, through schism.

Archbishop Carlson

In order for me to speak with any credibility to the clergy (e.g. Archbishop Carlson) about problems within the Church, I would need to have the log of schism out of my own eye. You asked us to consider “directing [our] apologetical time and energy towards [our] fellow catholics.” Many of us, if not most of us, are doing just that. I help teach RCIA at the Saint Louis Cathedral Basilica, as you know. And the other CTC team members are doing similar things. So, let me ask you to consider something: If all the Protestants who are ex-Catholics returned to the Church and threw themselves into serving the Church with all their effort, praying for her daily, loving her, writing their bishops, praying and fasting for new vocations and for the fidelity of the seminaries in which those men are trained, and laying down their lives daily to build up the Church in fidelity and orthodoxy, how much of what you are complaining about wouldn’t be there? How do you know that the problems you mention are not in large part due to the abandonment of the Church by well-intentioned Catholics who love Christ but don’t want to make that kind of sacrifice for Christ’s Church? I’m not asking you to answer that question, but it is a question that I found myself faced with as a life-long Protestant. That is, what responsibility do we [Protestants] bear for the state of many Catholic parishes, by our remaining separate from the Catholic Church all these many years?

When talking about reconciling Protestants and Catholics, we cannot sidestep the question of schism. And the question of schism is not rightly answered by an internal, subjective sense, by one’s conscience, or by the kind of spiritual experiences (good or bad) one has in different Christian communities, for we cannot trust a schism to tell us whether we are in schism. (Of course, they will deny that they are in schism, and redefine the Church such that there is no visible Church.) See, for example, what St. Thomas says about schism in my “St. Thomas Aquinas on the Unity of the Church” post.

The Church has been in darker hours, but this is a dark hour. She is besieged by scandals, heretical theologians, liberal professors, lukewarm bishops, pedophile priests, ‘womyn priests’, dissident nuns, ruthless and relentless attacks from Hollywood, the news media and even some of her own members, gay marriage advocates, indifferentists/universalists, modernists, heretical seminaries, and of course the constant criticisms from a small group of Protestants that she is the ‘whore of Babylon’, that the pope is the anti-Christ, that she has abandoned the gospel and is apostate. This is a dark hour for the Church. But, it has been darker, much darker, many times. And yet still, the gates of hell will not prevail over Christ’s Church. If you want to see a glimpse of the Church’s future, let me take you to meet the current seminarians at Kenrick Seminary. These guys are solid, orthodox, and eager to serve the Church faithfully and generously. That’s the face of the future of the Catholic Church.

Catholic time moves much more slowly than American time. The Church will overcome. But in our fast-food era, we want everything to be better, right now. The Church, however, moves like an ent, very slowly, because she is ancient. We have to be prepared to live our whole lives, serving the Church in faithfulness, without seeing the changes we’d like to see. That’s because ultimately, it is not about us, or what we want, or what fulfills us. That would be the ecclesial consumerism mindset that is now undeniably explicit in much of Evangelicalism. Rather, it is about being faithful to Christ, and sacrificing for His sake, in His Kingdom, the Church.

You know the old truth taught by the Fathers: He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church as his mother. You can’t love Christ and not love His Church. If we love Him, we will love His Church. And if we love His Church we will sacrifice our own desires and ambitions and comforts and preferences, to serve His Church. That’s part of what it means to take up our cross out of love for Christ, and follow Him.

In March of 2006, Pope Benedict said the following:

Between Christ and the Church there is no opposition: They are inseparable, despite the sins of the people who make up the Church. … Moving in this direction, in the catechesis I begin today, I would like to show that precisely the light of that Face [of Christ] is reflected in the face of the Church, despite the limitations and the shadows of our fragile and sinful humanity. …. The individualist Jesus is a fantasy. We cannot find Jesus without the reality that he created and through which he communicates himself” — the Church. … Between the Son of God, made man and his Church, there is a profound, inseparable continuity, in virtue of which Christ is present today in his people.

When Christ-loving Protestants begin to understand this, as many of them already are (just watch “The Journey Home”), they will pursue reconciliation with Christ’s Church en masse. That is a win-win situation. All the skill and talent and passion and love that has been separated from the Catholic Church for almost five hundred years, will be brought back in, to serve and build up the Church in her time of need. The scene that comes to my mind, when I think of that return by Protestants, though not a perfect analogy, is this scene. May Christ help us to be fighting on the same side, my brother, shoulder-to-shoulder, for Christ and His Church.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

What I read as your request is what has been called identificational repentance, (or in this case identificational confession to Protestant) whether for the general, corporate or sins of a nation. While I cannot find, on a quick search, anything doctrinal regarding this form… it is certainly a form of what the last 2 Popes practiced heartily. I also agree on 2 other levels, 1) Both Old and New Testament contain examples of it and 2) It emulates Christs sacrifice for the sins of us all. I would summarize there is nothing to lose and plenty to gain from specifically targeted identificational repentance in the context you write.

-Dave

I think every other Catholic should join him; I might have said this wrong, but I can’t tell you how many Protestants I know who won’t look into Catholic dogma because of the disregard for sin they have seen in many Catholics. If faithful Catholics apologize on behalf of those who refuse to, I believe God will bless that.

Peace in Christ, Jeremy

I do have to differ with:

As seen in the sex scandal over the past decade, the Catholic Church continues to struggle with grave sin. For this reason, Catholics must ask Protestants for forgiveness for the sin of misrepresenting to the world the loving authority of God.

…and let me setup my approach on differing first. My intellectually absorbed concept of the “Church” wont allow it, the “Church”, to apologize for misrepresentation of the Faith, as that “Church” as a collective of believers cannot wholly be culpable for its individual members sinful acts. Thats what “I” think.

Having said that, without my permission,the “Church” already has apologized for its “mistakes” in 2000 here

And this confirms that again, what I think about that matters little…it is the Authority that follows its own leading to which I must submit. The apology itself is evidence that the One True Church need not and as preserved by fallible humans, cannot be perfect.

-Dave

Perhaps I missed the point of your comment; are you stating as a *positive* the fact that you can fellowship in the same Church (partake of the sacraments, etc.) with Rahner and Kung, but not with your brother, or are you lamenting that fact? Given that your brother is more theologically in line with you, and Rahner and Kung have both been strongly reprimanded by the Church (hasn’t Kung even been stripped of his license to teach theology?), I’m not sure that if I were a Catholic, I would *want* to fellowship with the latter two. Not saying that it would be good (i.e. obedient to the Magisterium), as a Catholic, for you to attend your brother’s church… but to me, it is a *problem* that radically dissenting Catholic theologians are often still allowed to partake of the sacraments in parishes. Again, perhaps I missed the point of your comment, in which case, this entire comment might be totally unnecessary! :-) Could you please explain a bit more what you meant? (Thanks!)