Veritas

"Libertas" by Pope Leo XIII

2011-06-05T11:31:00.000-07:00

But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, "I will not serve"; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.

The fundamental doctrine of rationalism is the supremacy of the human reason, which, refusing due submission to the divine and eternal reason, proclaims its own independence, and constitutes itself the supreme principle and source and judge of truth. Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man's individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

Monarchy - the best form of Government

2011-05-28T15:48:00.001-07:00

After finding out the reasons as to why I am not a democrat, I have been asked a couple of questions regarding governance which I think may best be answered by simply outlining what I deem to be the best form of government.

In my view, the best form of government is a mixed one:
Democracy on the lowest level, aristocracy on the regional and finally: monarchy on the national level.

One may of course raise the question as to why I even include democracy after having published a treatise against such form of government.

It must be clear that I am not against any type of participation in government or a certain level of autonomy by the people. The problem with democracy is the underlying principle that law derives its legitimacy from the arbitrary will of the majority. It is that principle which I reject.

Further, the mixed form of government prevents democracy on the local level from being absolute and thus harmful:
Local democracy is limited by the supervision of an elected aristocracy.

The power of aristocrats on the other hand is limited by the Monarch who rules by divine right.

Such a monarch may not be an absolute ruler – because he too is a subject and his power thus limited.

But by whom or by what is the Monarch’s power limited and why can he not be an absolute ruler?

A Monarch may not be an absolute ruler, because regalism – or monarchical absolutism – is like democracy just another form of human absolutism which perverts the rule of law by factually rejecting the existence of immutable principles that serve as the basis for proper governance and the legitimacy of law.

After explaining why regalism is fundamentally wrong, it is time to discuss how the Monarch’s power is limited.

The first thing to consider is the fact that the Monarch rules by divine right.
The principle of rule by divine right already shows that the Monarch is not Sovereign in and of himself, but derives all his power and authority from another source:
namely from God.

The contingent nature of monarchical authority automatically puts certain limitations on it:

Monarchical authority is only legitimate when realized in accordance to Divine Law;
acts contrary to Divine Law are per principle illegitimate since they are not warranted by God.

And in Divine Law are anchored certain immutable principles upon which proper governance and legitimate law are based.

Since these principles are transcendental and immutable, the rights derived from them too cannot be altered by any man: not by any collective of persons, nor by any individual Monarch.

Therefore, rule by divine right protects all humans against arbitrary tyranny and thus guarantees the rule of law.

It must also be noted that Divine Law is not revealed explicitly through the State, but through the Church.

The preservation and definitive and infallible teaching of divinely revealed truth – regarding faith and morals – are missions delegated by divine command unto the Church and not the State.

Thus there is necessarily a relation of dependence of the Crown on the Church, due to which a strict separation of Church and State ought to be rejected.

Such dependence becomes clear when one considers that it is the Church alone that can speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

She is the infallible mouthpiece of natural or Divine Law and thus the guardian of the knowledge regarding those immutable principles from which the Monarch’s authority is derived.

Without this infallible Church, definitive knowledge of the aforementioned immutable principles would not be given and thus are opened the gates of relativism preparing the way for any type of human absolutism and thereby of arbitrary tyranny destroying the rule of law.

It therefore follows, that for the Monarch’s governance to be the expression of the rule of law, he himself must cooperate with and subject himself to the Church.

For the temporal order to meet its proper end, it must act in accordance to and subject itself to the spiritual.

Only if such relationship between the temporal and the spiritual order is maintained, can the rule of law and thereby true liberty be guaranteed.

For as God rules His Church as her Head preserving her from destruction, so too shall the Monarch – in analogy – govern as the temporal head of the nation.

The Monarch’s rule by divine right shows that the source and end of his authority is to be found in the spiritual sphere.
Therefore, it is the State’s duty to organize society in such a manner that would enable the populace to reach its spiritual end: namely life eternal.
This is done by supporting the Church in her mission wherever necessary and possible.

In conclusion, there are two spheres that are analogous to each other: the temporal and the spiritual.
And only in their cooperation can proper governance, that is the rule of law, be guaranteed.

*** Deus - Ecclesia ; Rex – Patria***

A treatise against Democracy

2011-05-28T15:47:00.001-07:00

Watching a video on democracy some days ago, I stumbled across a statement made by a youtuber which really made me think.

It said: "Democracy is the unquestionable belief that the majority is ALWAYS right.”

Though the word itself – being a composite from the Greek words Demos and Kratos – actually means the “rule of the people”, the reality of democracy is the rule of the majority.

Thus, the underlying principle of democracy is that law receives its legitimacy from the will of the majority.

It is because of that principle that I am not a democrat.

I believe in the rule of law based on true and immutable principles – not in the arbitrary conventions of a certain portion of a country’s population.

In order to clarify what I mean, let me give an example.

Take for instance the constitution of a hypothetical country saying that man has an intrinsic dignity upon which certain inalienable rights are based –
for example the right to life.

It is well-known that many Western democracies have similar statements in their constitutions that are seen to guarantee these so-called inalienable rights.

One may now ask where the problem is?
After all, the existence of inalienable rights shows that all legislation must be made in accordance to these rights:
Thus we have the rule of law based on objective truth.

The problem arises when one goes beyond the façade of false immutability that constitutions put up.

In democracies, the legitimacy of any constitution ultimately rests upon human convention.
These constitutions may be modified or abolished and replaced.
Therefore, whatever claims they make regarding “rights” have to be seen in light of the underlying principle of democracy:
Namely, that it is the majority’s will which gives legitimacy to law.

That said, there is nothing objective about democratic legislation:
Law and rights are not based on objective truth transcending the arbitrary nature of mere human conventions.

What is claimed to be an inalienable right today, may be taken away by majority vote tomorrow.
Such an act would not be contrary to democracy.

Since law itself then is based on the will of the majority – and man’s will is not immutable -, then one can say that:
Democracy is the expression of the dictatorship of relativism.

Law is essentially normative: it does not merely describe the state of things, but tells us how things ought to be.

The idea that there is a way things ought to be suggests that there is a truth about the things subject to law and about their proper ends.
It is for this reason that we can claim certain acts to be unlawful.

Law – understood in the proper sense – thus is intrinsically tied to truth.
And it is the truth which ultimately grants any law its legitimacy.
If any law violates truth, then it is illegitimate and an abuse of the power of governance.

Democracy – which subjects the legitimacy of law to the will of the majority – destroys the essence of proper governance.

Instead of binding human society to what is true through the rule of law, the will of the majority is turned to the supreme and absolute principle by which human society must live.

Thus I conclude that Democracy – as any type of human absolutism – is a perversion of the rule of law – and as such ought to be rejected.

from God to man

2011-01-23T17:40:00.001-08:00

Let me discuss an observation I have been making whilst contemplating on the decay of faith not only outside the boundaries of the Church, but moreso within her very own walls.
We all know that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church of Christ: the holy Catholic Church. And so, the enemies from outside the Church have all failed in all centuries past. But what happens when the enemy is no longer outside, but within? What if there is a group within the Church - akin to the Trojan Horse - that has opened the doors of the Church from within to allow the forces of darkness to enter into her - to allow the smoke of hell to enter the sanctuary?

The Church is the universal sacrament of salvation and as such has the mission to lead people to God. That is her purpose on this earth. What happens when the Church reverses this principle? What happens when the Church stops teaching man to adjust to God and instead allows for a thinking in which God factually has to adapt to man's whims?

The crisis of faith does not seem to *only* be a problem of disastrously false implementation, but also one of principle. The "nouvelle theologie" which has shifted the focus from primarily being on God to man.

Where can we see this happening?

1) Liturgy:
the Traditional Latin Mass (the Gregorian Mass of the Roman Rite) "had" to be "dumbed" down for the sake of man. The most common argument for the Liturgical Reform I have heard is that it was to make easier the entrance of protestants into the Catholic Church. To that I say: Protestants who had come to sanity returned to the Holy Mother Church even before the Liturgical Reform. And the Liturgical Reform made the return of Eastern Schismatics to the Church much more difficult. And what is to think of someone who would only convert when the Liturgy - which has organically developed over the centuries - is dumbed down in order not to be "all too Catholic"???
And some say that "people could not understand" the Latin. So factually abolishing the Latin is the answer? Why can the studying of Latin not be considered as yet another practice of humility and obedience? What is the attitude behind that? One of convenience! But the Christian is never about convenience: he knows he is fallen and that he must allow Himself to be formed by God through His Church unto eternal life.
If anyone has read the book "Why Jews Become Catholics", one will not be able to hold back one's tears reading the marvellous and touching conversion testimonies of Our Lord's own people! And there was one thing that seemed to magically attract converts to the holy religion: the splendour of the Gregorian Mass! Holiness, Beauty, Reverence: these are the ingredients to true conversion.

2) Architecture:
We also see a change in terms of architecture. In the past the church was easily recognizable as one: it was different from profane architecture. The way it was built was especially for the Holy Mass: it was indeed a house of worship. One would get the impression that every single stone was itself a prayer. The form was shaped by liturgical piety!
And what do we have now? UGLY bunker-like or market-hall-like buildings! "Abstracts". I've seen churches that are far uglier than the bunkers built during World War I. And why did this happen? Since the Liturgy has been adapted to man, the traditional church architecture especially made for the Gregorian Mass no longer made sense: so too, architecture has been adapted to the modern man: it became a field of experimentation and expression of one's "abilities in the abstract". Church architecture no longer is a visible testimony to faith, it has turned to something bunker-like; but even a bunker would look better than many modern churches. Instead of leading man to God, portraying the splendour of truth, modern churches are hideously ugly: cold, empty. Why? Because it is no longer focused on God.

3) Music:
In the past we had a very distinct type of music: chant along with the organ - both being set aside primarily for the worship of God according to the principle of holiness. Music was sung worship, sung prayer, sung communication with God: with God being the one to be pleased.
What now? Now we have new songs: profane in their sound, wishy washy in their lyrics. Profane instruments like guitars, tambourines, drums and the like somehow found their way into the churches. The effect is not the "sanctification" of what is profane, the effect is quite different: the sanctuary is becoming more and more profane. The aspect of holiness is being banished by a purely human and immanent element. Music is now there to "please the people of God" instead of God. How often do we hear people complain that "young people do not like chants. That's so out-dated!". But it is holy! And that's what liturgical music is supposed to be: clearly set apart from all profane music. But then again, this is the effect of another adjustment towards man instead of God.

4) Clothing:
Yes this too expresses the change in principle: in the past all priests and religious were meant to wear either a cassock or the respective religious habit: it was not only a symbol of mortification, but also a silent means of evangelization and giving testimony to the truth - akin to the church being a symbol of the faith despite the building not talking to anyone. Religious/clerical clothing directly points anyone confronted with it to God: everyone knows automatically that the person wearing it is a servant of God's - thus, such specific clothing leads man's mind straight up to God!
And what about today? Apart from some few exceptions, we see many clerics and religious no longer wearing the cassock or their religious habits. They have abandoned a means to evangelization and testimony-giving when in the world. And anyone seeing them would not be lead to think about God: no, they would simply see the person in his/her fancy modern clothing! Instead of being lead to God, you arrive at a dead-end with the person you behold with your eyes! Instead of the cleric or religious being "transparent" to man, he/she is now having man behold himself/herself. Is this the attitude of true humility? Is this the attitude of mortification? Is this not rather the attitude of pride and vanity?

These are just a couple of aspects that seem to show a certain connection with each other in terms of principles: the connecting dot between these various expressions of the decay of truly Catholic piety is the shift of focus from God to man. Man seems to have put himself up high on a pedestal which in reality is the place of God alone. Man cannot serve two masters at the same time, we cannot have two primary focuses at the same time. The more we focus on our sinfull selves, the more we move away from God.

The solution is to be found in a re-ordering of principles. God above all else: this must be the case not only in theory, but also in all fields of practice.

those inner demons

2010-09-21T15:14:00.000-07:00

Having talked to a couple persons with faiths and worldviews incompatible with my own – namely the Catholic faith – , I have come to a rather sad realization. Now, before I continue, I would like to clarify that I am not speaking with any claim to dogmatic certainty. Everyone may read and disagree, but what I have experienced, I have experienced.

So what is this sad realization I speak of? It is the idea that many people seem to leave their traditional – i.e. that with which they were raised – faith not primarily for intellectual reasons, but for emotional ones: and in most cases, it seems that passions (/desires) are the primary motivation.

It is the same for the ex-Catholic who has become “spiritual but not religious” as it is for the ex-Catholic who has become an atheist. There is some problem with traditional doctrine that they have and are thus faced with a rather simple question: to follow the faith or to follow one's own will?

Once the decision is made that one will prefer his own will over one's traditional faith, the quest for arguments take place in order to bolster one's new position: to justify oneself against the traditional faith now being at odds with oneself, to justify oneself against others and thereby justify oneself to oneself: to silence the voice of conscience raising the question whether it is right to model the truth after one's desires instead of doing the exact opposite. But then again, what is even “truth”???

Before the fall through heresy or apostasy, one would consider those passions leading oneself to a course standing in contradiction to traditional doctrine as being one's “inner demons” that one has to fight – for the sake of truth. After the fall, it is one's conscience that becomes one's “inner demon”: the voice pushing for an honest investigation regarding one's motivations.

People seem to look for the answers everywhere. They want to examine the galaxy, the universe, theories about multiverses, etc.. They want to know everything, but not themselves. I would not be surprised if some or many people go to distant places in a futile attempt to actually run away from themselves.

It is my firm conviction that for any real “quest for truth” to take place, one has to be honest: first and foremost to oneself. This is why I think that self-reflection is vital for anyone who claims to be searching for “truth”. And this is true not only for those who are atheists, but also for those who are theists – of whatever theistic religion. Of what use is all knowledge about one's surrounding if one does not know oneself? It would not answer man's most basic questions like “who am I?”.

I also think that most people who change belief systems and ideologies do so primarily because they want to be happy in their lives. Why do many people leave Christianity? Not primarily because of intellectual reasons, but because they feel “tyrannized” or held back by the moral code and religious rules of the Christian faith. Why are so many Christians lukewarm heretics? Because they want to enjoy their lives: and Christianity demands that one ought to carry a cross, that one be ready for sacrifice for a greater good that one cannot even see on earth! Why should one even waste one's life away by following “bronze-age” rules? Just think! This life could be the only life we have! We therefore must “live life to the fullest”!

But what do such people mean when they speak of “living life to the fullest”? They simply mean they want to be happy. Is that bad? Absolutely not! It is natural for man to seek happiness.

But what is happiness? There lies the greatest problem: most people do not seek true happiness which can be demanding – as most things of value in life. Most people mistake fast pleasures with happiness. And if they do reflect upon themselves honestly, they will realize that they run from one temporary pleasure to the other: this is necessary for them to not allow the voice of conscience to be heard and to uphold the illusion that one is “happy”. It is common for man to choose the easiest way: that with the least effort necessary. So many prefer the easily attainable temporary pleasures (which fade away and do not give lasting happiness) over the strenuous life headed towards lasting happiness.

So what is happiness? Where does one find it? Why should one even seek it? Does man even have to be happy?

It seems to be a matter of honesty to oneself. Am I really happy when I realize that ever since I changed my views I have perhaps become more aggressive and easily angered? Do I feel a basic level of inner peace and satisfaction despite sufferings in life? Or am I bound to seek those temporary pleasures every now and then or else I would feel depressed?

In short:

Am I able to bear the silence in which I am confronted with my inner demons?

de Christiano

2010-06-10T09:27:00.000-07:00

on the Christian

Before we can go into depth about the Christian faith, we must first ask ourselves the question who or what a Christian even is. “A Christian is someone who strives to be Christ-like” is one of the most common answers to such a question. In light of the purpose of this essay, it is a pretty good answer. “Someone who strives to be Christ-like”! “Christ-like” in what sense though? I believe that Christ Jesus lived as the perfect example according to two norms that to my understanding sum up the Christian faith: humility and obedience. Why exactly these two? I chose to concentrate on these two qualities because they are the perfect expression of the greatest commandment (Matthew 22: 36-40): the latter being the only appropriate response to God the Father, the former realized perfectly in the Incarnation out of love for mankind. This way of seeing Christ's life is best clarified by the Holy Bible itself saying:
“But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2: 7-8)
These two qualities therefore must be seen at the very center of the Christian faith. In a way, one could say that the two beams of the Cross upon which Christ Jesus was crucified are the beams of humility and of obedience. Thus, without such divine humility and obedience, we would all be lost!
It is important to note that humility and obedience are the direct opposites of pride and disobedience; these two leading to the fall of Satan and also to the fall of Adam and Eve. One could say that pride is the beginning of one's fall, disobedience its actualization. Thus sin is born through which death has come into the world (Romans 5: 12). By Christ's perfect humility and obedience far surpassing the pride and disobedience of both Satan and Adam and Eve, death is overcome and mankind lead to life everlasting.

Now, what does this mean for “the Christian”? The Christian sees in Christ Jesus the “way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14: 6). Therefore, he who wishes to call himself a Christian must of necessity emulate Christ. He is then bound to seeking - to the best of his abilities and with the grace of God – to live a life of humility and obedience. It is also a matter of humility and obedience that one realizes that one is unable to live such a life by one's own power. Once again, we look to Christ for the answer: He being the second person of the Holy Trinity is God and thereby cannot fail. We are certainly not God, and thus fail: we are imperfect, our nature is wounded. So how can we manage to emulate Christ in such a situation? It seems impossible! Indeed, it would be impossible without Christ. But through the first three sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Communion), we are “made partakers of the divine nature” (II Peter 1: 4). Thus, St. Paul wrote to the Christians at Corinth: “Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own?”(I Corinthians 6: 19). And we know that we have been sent the Holy Ghost, “another Paraclete”, by Christ Jesus (John 14: 16). Through Christ then, God dwells within us so that it is He who worketh in us, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will (Philippians 2: 13). Were Christ not God, such a partaking of the divine nature on our part would be unimaginable and we would forever be lost.

The Christian therefore does not only look at what Christ taught by words, but also at those things He taught by action. Further, he looks at Christ Himself: His very nature. In Jesus, the divine person, the Christian sees the very ideal for his own life: he sees in Him the cause of his life, its purpose and the means by which he is enabled to fulfill this purpose (John 1: 3-4; Colossians 1: 19-20.)

A Christian is one whose life is Christ. And since it is unimaginable and even absurd to view Christ without His Cross, the Christian is thereby also necessarily tied to the Cross.
For this reason, Jesus said: “If any man will follow me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Mark 8: 34). Here we find yet another aspect crucial to the Christian faith which is also inherently linked to humility: self-denial. One may ask how denying oneself is connected to humility. To understand this, one must – again – look to Jesus for the solution to this mystery. Christ did not boast about being God, the Lord of lords and the King of kings (Revelation 17: 14), nay, He “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man” (Philippians 2: 7). Assuming man's nature, He did not insist upon the glory that is naturally and eternally His, but instead denied Himself in the world to live in the best possible exemplary manner for us. He denied Himself out of love for us, that we may be shown how one ought to live His life as a servant of the Almighty God.
Self-denial is most meaningful in times of tribulation. Christ facing death said the following:
“My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” (Matthew 26: 39). These are the words of self-denial. One seeks not to fulfill one's own wishes, but the will of God. As Christ, the Christian too must say to God: “thy will be done” (Matthew 26: 42). With these very words, we realize that self-denial is not only linked to humility, but also to obedience. Is not self-denial then nothing other than the expression of humility and obedience? It is.

Ultimately, the Christian then is someone who puts his personal desires aside and focuses first and foremost on Christ. He takes up his cross and follows Christ. In Christ, he learns to be humble and obedient to God. In Christ, he finds the answer to the mystery of salvation. In Christ, he finds the way, and the truth, and the life.

The Christian is he who finds the purpose and meaning of life not in any theory or ideology, but rather in a person, Christ Jesus.

St. Francis of Assisi was not a false ecumenist

2010-05-28T08:03:00.000-07:00

Let us consider the following words of St. Francis of Assisi in light of the false ecumenism that is overshadowing the Church in these our days:

"Also those are doomed who see the
Sacrament of the Body of Christ, which is consecrated with the words of
the Lord on the altar and by the hand of the priest in the form of
bread and wine, but do not see in it the Spirit and Divinity and have
not believed that it really is Our Lord Jesus Christ’s most holy Body
and Blood” (Admonitio prima de Corpore Christi (Quaracchi edition, p. 4))

Freemasonry

2010-05-21T09:57:00.001-07:00

Video

bezüglich der heiligen Kommunion

2010-05-01T09:17:00.000-07:00

KONGREGATION FÜR DEN GOTTESDIENST
UND DIE SAKRAMENTENORDNUNG
INSTRUKTION
Redemptionis sacramentum
über einige Dinge bezüglich der heiligsten Eucharistie

83.Es ist sicherlich am besten, wenn alle, die an der Feier der heiligen Messe teilnehmen und die notwendigen Bedingungen erfüllen, die heilige Kommunion empfangen. Es kommt aber bisweilen vor, daß die Christgläubigen massenweise und ohne Unterscheidung zum heiligen Tisch hinzutreten. Es ist Aufgabe der Hirten, diesen Mißbrauch mit Klugheit und Festigkeit zu korrigieren.

87.Der Erstkommunion der Kinder muß immer eine sakramentale Beichte und Lossprechung vorausgehen.[169] Außerdem soll die Erstkommunion immer von einem Priester gereicht werden, und zwar nie außerhalb der Meßfeier. Von Ausnahmefällen abgesehen, ist es wenig passend, die Erstkommunion bei der Messe vom Letzten Abendmahl am Gründonnerstag zu spenden. Man soll vielmehr einen anderen Tag wählen, wie etwa den 2. - 6. Sonntag in der Osterzeit oder das Hochfest des Leibes und Blutes Christi oder einen Sonntag im Jahreskreis, denn der Sonntag wird mit Recht als Tag der Eucharistie betrachtet.[170] Zum Empfang der heiligen Eucharistie sollen keine Kinder hinzutreten, «die den Vernunftgebrauch noch nicht erlangt haben» oder nach dem Urteil des Pfarrers «nicht ausreichend darauf vorbereitet sind».[171] Wenn es aber vorkommt, daß ein Kind in einer Ausnahmesituation bezüglich seines Alters für den Empfang des Sakramentes als reif erachtet wird, soll ihm die Erstkommunion nicht verwehrt werden, wenn es nur hinreichend vorbereitet ist.

92.Obwohl jeder Gläubige immer das Recht hat, nach seiner Wahl die heilige Kommunion mit dem Mund zu empfangen,[178] soll in den Gebieten, wo es die Bischofskonferenz erlaubt und der Apostolische Stuhl rekognosziert hat, auch demjenigen die heilige Hostie ausgeteilt werden, der das Sakrament mit der Hand empfangen möchte. Man soll aber sorgfältig darauf achten, daß der Kommunikant die Hostie sofort vor dem Spender konsumiert, damit niemand mit den eucharistischen Gestalten in der Hand weggeht. Wenn eine Gefahr der Profanierung besteht, darf die heilige Kommunion den Gläubigen nicht auf die Hand gegeben werden.[179]

93.Es ist notwendig, die kleine Patene für die Kommunion der Gläubigen beizuhalten, um die Gefahr zu vermeiden, daß die heilige Hostie oder einzelne Fragmente auf den Boden fallen.[180]

94.Es ist den Gläubigen nicht gestattet, die heilige Hostie oder den heiligen Kelch «selbst zu nehmen und noch weniger von Hand zu Hand unter sich weiterzugeben».[181] Außerdem ist in diesem Zusammenhang der Mißbrauch zu beseitigen, daß die Brautleute bei der Trauungsmesse sich gegenseitig die heilige Kommunion spenden.

101. Damit den christgläubigen Laien die heilige Kommunion unter beiden Gestalten gespendet werden kann, sind die Umstände entsprechend zu berücksichtigen, über die in erster Linie die Diözesanbischöfe zu urteilen haben. Diese Art der Kommunionspendung ist gänzlich auszuschließen, wenn auch nur die geringste Gefahr der Profanierung der heiligen Gestalten besteht.[187] Für eine eingehendere Regelung haben die Bischofskonferenzen Normen zu erlassen, die vom Apostolischen Stuhl durch die Kongregation für den Gottesdienst und die Sakramentenordnung rekognosziert werden müssen, vor allem im Hinblick auf «die Art, den Gläubigen die heilige Kommunion unter beiden Gestalten auszuteilen, sowie die Ausweitung dieser Befugnis».[188]

103. Die Normen des Römischen Meßbuches kennen die Regelung, daß in den Fällen, in denen die Kommunion unter beiden Gestalten ausgeteilt wird, «das Blut Christi direkt aus dem Kelch oder durch Eintauchen der Hostie oder mit einem Röhrchen oder mit einem Löffel getrunken werden kann».[191] Was die Kommunionspendung für die christgläubigen Laien betrifft, können die Bischöfe die Kommunion mit einem Röhrchen oder einem Löffel ausschließen, wo dies nicht örtlicher Brauch ist, wobei aber immer die Möglichkeit der Kommunionspendung durch Eintauchen der Hostie bestehen bleibt. Wenn diese Form zur Anwendung kommt, sollen allerdings Hostien verwendet werden, die nicht zu dünn und nicht zu klein sind, und der Kommunikant darf das Sakrament vom Priester nur mit dem Mund empfangen.[192]

104. Es ist dem Kommunikanten nicht erlaubt, selbst die Hostie in den Kelch einzutauchen oder die eingetauchte Hostie mit der Hand zu empfangen. Die Hostie, die eingetaucht wird, muß aus gültiger Materie bereitet und konsekriert sein; streng verboten ist die Verwendung von nicht konsekriertem Brot oder anderer Materie.

183. Alle haben entsprechend den Möglichkeiten in ganz besonderer Weise dafür zu sorgen, daß das heiligste Sakrament der Eucharistie vor jeder Art von Ehrfurchtslosigkeit und Mißachtung bewahrt wird und alle Mißbräuche vollständig korrigiert werden. Dies ist für alle und für jeden einzelnen eine sehr wichtige Aufgabe, und alle sind ungeachtet der Person zur Verwirklichung dieser Aufgabe gehalten.

Diese Instruktion, die im Auftrag von Papst Johannes Paul II. von der Kongregation für den Gottesdienst und die Sakramentenordnung nach gemeinsamer Beratung mit der Kongregation für die Glaubenslehre ausgearbeitet worden ist, wurde am 19. März 2004, dem Hochfest des heiligen Josef, vom Papst approbiert, der ihre Veröffentlichung und sofortige Befolgung durch alle, die es betrifft, angeordnet hat.
Rom, am Sitz der Kongregation für den Gottesdienst und die Sakramentenordnung, am 25. März 2004, dem Hochfest der Verkündigung des Herrn.

Francis Kard. Arinze
Präfekt

Quelle:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_ge.html

Lenten Reflections: Suffering

2010-03-12T06:43:00.001-08:00

Suffering – key to salvation

What is Justification? How is one saved? Eastern Christians speak of theosis, Westerners speak of deification. Both words describe the doctrine as laid out by St. Athanasius when he said the famous words: “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God”.

What are me to make of this? What is obvious here is that the orthodox doctrine of justification involves identification with Christ. Now, it is not my intention to elaborate on the traditional understanding of justification, but rather to highlight an aspect often ignored by Christians: suffering. It is evident that suffering takes a central role in the plan of salvation. We are therefore not to avoid it, but rather to embrace it. Essentially, one can say that there is no salvation without suffering. This might sound strange to fundamentally protestant ears that are accustomed to the false belief of “justification by faith alone”. But what is the deeper mystery of faith if it is not “being Christ-like” in its fullest sense? Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14: 6). Thus, we look to Him for the answers to the mystery of the plan of salvation. Christ came to die. He gave us life by His death. Therefore, we can say that justification is mortification. Mortification comes from the Latin: “mors” means death, thus mortification is the process or act of dying.

“For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.” (Romans 8: 13)

“Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is the service of idols.” (Colossians 3: 5)

It should be clear from these passages that one has to “die”, in order to live. The central message is summarized by Christ's life and words. His whole life lead to the passion, the bearing of the cross, and finally to the crucifixion. One who prays the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary is only all too familiar with this central aspect of Christ's life here on earth. When we contemplate on these mysteries, we actually are contemplating the very mystery of salvation.

Can we establish that we must suffer? Are we really expected to suffer? I would say yes, of course!

“For this is thankworthy, if for conscience towards God, a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if committing sin, and being buffeted for it, you endure? But if doing well you suffer patiently; this is thankworthy before God. For unto this are you called:
because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.” (I Peter 2: 19-21)

It is explicitly said that we are to follow in His footsteps: especially those steps He took during His passion and walk to Mount Calvary.

“Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.” (Matthew 16: 24-25)

These words are often read, but not without the proper understanding. At first Christ demands self-denial, then the taking up of one's cross, and finally that man shall lose his life for His sake. Why?
Self-denial is an expression of humility and obedience: without these two qualities, the sacrifice of the cross would have been impossible. Self-denial is then necessary for anyone to even think about carrying his own cross. Then one must carry his own cross – otherwise one cannot be deemed a follower of Christ. What does it mean to “take up his cross”? It means to do as Christ did. Christ Jesus took up His Cross and He had a destination: Mount Calvary. Thus, a Christian is expected to do the same thing: to suffer patiently carrying his own cross while approaching his own death on the cross.
His death on the cross then is the real goal of the painful journey: that one might gain life through death.

Some may argue that this is a very Catholic view of justification and thus does not necessarily apply to Non-Catholic Christians. But St. Paul teaches that those who are baptized are baptized unto death:

“Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death? ” (Romans 6: 3)

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer. For he that is dead is justified from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ: Knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him.“ (Romans 6: 6-9)

Still others may argue that this does not necessarily lead to a life of passion. But what life is that which is not one of passion? Passion is a very interesting word: it shows the deep connection between love and suffering. Did Christ not suffer and die out of love for us? Is not His Cross the symbol of the greatest love (John 15: 13) imaginable? Can we expect to be saved if we do not live in love (charity) too (I Corinthians 13)?

But why is suffering such an intrinsic part of the Christian life? Can we not have an “easy” life and still get saved “by faith alone”? This is not possible because of the discrepancy between the desires of the flesh and of the spirit.

“That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.” (Romans 8: 4)

So the fulfillment of justification is found in those who – though in the world – walk not according to the flesh. Though in the world, Christians are not of the world. This necessarily leads to tension: especially when we consider that the god of this world is the enemy who blinds the infidels (II Corinthians 4: 4). The world must be seen as fallen: it is a world ruled by sin. The way to be freed from the bondage of sin is death unto sin:

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer.” (Romans 6: 6)

Suffering is also an expression of discipline. Discipline is the art of self-denial. And as we have noted earlier, self-denial is a sine non qua of mortification. Mortification is also discipline. Thus, all things are connected to the Cross of Christ, to His passion and death.

A parent often has to discipline disobedient children for their own good. We know that we suffer from a wounded nature: concupiscence is not blotted out by baptism: it is something that we are subject to for as long as we live, and only by discipline under the grace of God can our wounded nature be healed, restored, made “at one” (the verb “atone” originally meant to “make at one”) again with the Creator. Does God chastise His children? Out of love, He surely does!

“And you have forgotten the consolation, which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord; neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him. For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons.” (Hebrews 12: 5-7)

“For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him. For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us.” (Romans 8: 16-18)

Those who are His, He disciplines. He purifies. And we should not be disheartened by the suffering we have to endure. We must suffer before we can enter into the Kingdom of God: there is no other way to life eternal than that of the cross, i.e. that of suffering and death.

“Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith: and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God.” (Acts 14: 21)

“That no man should be moved in these tribulations: for yourselves know, that we are appointed thereunto. For even when we were with you, we foretold you that we should suffer tribulations, as also it is come to pass, and you know.” (I Thessalonians 3: 3-4)

Let us never forget that the tribulations we are subjected to are there not to destroy us, but for our great gain:

“And not only so; but we glory also in tribulations, knowing that tribulation worketh patience.” (Romans 5: 3)

“And now, brethren, as you are the ancients among the people of God, and their very soul resteth upon you: comfort their hearts by your speech, that they may be mindful how our fathers were tempted that they might be proved, whether they worshipped their God truly. They must
remember how our father Abraham was tempted, and being proved by many tribulations, was made the friend of God. So Isaac, so Jacob, so Moses, and all that have pleased God, passed through many tribulations, remaining faithful. But they that did not receive the trials with the fear of the Lord, but uttered their impatience and the reproach of their murmuring against the Lord, were destroyed by the destroyer, and perished by serpents. As for us therefore let us not revenge ourselves for these things which we suffer. But esteeming these very punishments to be less than our sins deserve, let us believe that these scourges of the Lord, with which like servants we are chastised, have happened for our amendment, and not for our destruction.” (Judith 8: 21-27)

“In all things we suffer tribulation, but are not distressed; we are straitened, but are not destitute; We suffer persecution, but are not forsaken; we are cast down, but we perish not: Always bearing about in our body the mortification of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodies. For we who live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake; that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. But having the same spirit of faith, as it is written: I believed, for which cause I have spoken; we also believe, for which cause we speak also: Knowing that he who raised up Jesus, will raise us up also with Jesus, and place us with you. For all things are for your sakes; that the grace abounding through many, may abound in thanksgiving unto the glory of God.“ (II Corinthians 4: 8-15)

Let us therefore deny ourselves, take up our crosses, and lose our lives for Christ's sake!

Sedevacantism and the 1917 Pio-Benedictine CIC

2010-02-26T12:39:00.000-08:00

Sedevacantism and the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law

Sedevecantatists use the following to back up their position:

Canon 188:

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

1.° Makes religious professionwith due regard for the prescription of Canon 584 concerning benefices;

2.° Within the useful time established by law or, legal provision lacking, as determined by the Ordinary, fails to take possession of the office;

3.° Accepts another ecclesiastical office incompatible with the prior, and has obtained peaceful possession of that of [the other office];

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith

5.° Contracts marriage even, as they say, merely civilly;

6.° Against the prescription of Canon 141, § 1, freely gives his name to a secular army;

7.° Disposes of ecclesiastical habit on his own authority and without just cause, unless, having been warned by the Ordinary, he resumes [wearing it] within a month of having received the warning;

8.° Deserts illegitimately the residence to which he is bound and, having received a warning from the Ordinary and not being detained by a legitimate impediment, neither appears nor answers within an appropriate time as determined by the Ordinary.

Sedevacantists interpret this to mean that their claims to “manifest heresy” on behalf of the Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are sufficient to establish that these “Conciliar popes” are heretics, schismatics and also apostates, and thus cannot be considered to be legitimate popes.

There are two issues that the proponents of anti-Vatican II sedevacantism do not address according to the 1917 CIC (Codex Iuris Canonici):

the question regarding the authentic interpretation of ecclesiastical laws
the question as to who can authoritatively and infallibly establish a “public defect” from the Catholic faith (this is tied to point 1)
the canonical procedure regarding the vacancy of any office (especially the Papal Office)

A matter of interpretation? It seems that sedevacantists claim for themselves the right to properly interpret Canon 188, n. 4. Is this permissible though? According to the 1917 CIC, the legislator of the law or his successor or all those given by the aforementioned the authority to authentically interpret the laws are the ones to consult regarding the authentic interpretation of ecclesiastical laws:

Canon 17:

§ 1. Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator or his successor and by those whom the power of interpretation has been committed by [the legislator or his successors].

§ 2. An authentic interpretation, given our in the manner of law, has the same force as does the law itself; and if it merely declares what is certain from the words of the law, it does not require promulgation and is effective retroactively; but if it narrows or extends the law or resolves a doubt, it is not retroactive and must be promulgated.

§ 3. That [interpretation] given by means of a judicial sentence or by a rescript in a specific matter does not have the force of law and binds only those persons and affects only those matters for which it was given.

Canon 18:

Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the meaning of their own words considered in their text and context; as for those things that remain unclear or in doubt, reference should be made to parallel provisions in the Code, if there are any, to the purposes and circumstances of the law and to the mind of the legislator.

Canons 2314, 2379 and 2388 are referenced in Canon 188. These must therefore be understood as explaining the proper context of Canon 188.

Thus to better understand Canon 188, n. 4 and to address the aforementioned issues, we must look further into the 1917 CIC:

Canon 2379:

Clerics who, against the prescription of Canon 136, do not wear ecclesiastical habit and clerical tonsure are to be gravely warned; but if a month passes from the warning without result, [then] as to minor clerics the prescription of the same Canon 136, § 3, is observed; but major clerics, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 7, are suspended from the orders received, and if they notoriously go to a sort of life alien to the clerical state, [then] unless, once again being warned they recover their senses, after three months from the final warning they are deposed.

While this specific canon speaks of Canon 188, n. 7, it can be used to understand Canon 188, n. 4. This is because the preceding explanation saying “upon the fact” and “without any declaration” applies to all numbers of Canon 188., and because this Canon is referenced in Canon 188. In this case, we see that the canonical procedure intends for warnings to be pronounced by proper authorities and only if such warnings are ignored obstinately are the persons in question to be rendered as deposed.

Another example:

Canon 2388

§ 1. Clerics constituted in sacred [orders] or regulars, or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all those who presume to contract even a civil marriage with any of the aforesaid persons incur automatic excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See; clerics, moreover, having been warned, if they do not come back to their senses within a time defined by the Ordinary according to the diversity of circumstances, will be degraded, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 5.

§ 2. But for those professed of simple perpetual vows, whether to an Ordinary or to a religious Congregation, all of them, as above, receive excommunication reserved to the Ordinary.

In this case also, the degradation which sedevacantists portray to be “automatic” according to their understanding of the situation, is tied to warnings: the canonical penalty of degradation only takes place after warnings are obstinately not heeded to. That is to say that after the deadline of the warning has lapsed, the person warned is to be considered automatically deposed/degraded without any need of a public declaration. Such automatic penalty is incurred after the failure to take heed to the warning.

A sedevacantist may still argue (though fallaciously) against such understanding of Canon 188. For this purpose, I will cite a canon “On delicts against the faith and unity of the Church”:

Canon 2314

§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:

1.° Incur by that fact excommunication

2.° Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] are deposed;

3.° If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4, clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.

This canon explicitly elaborates on the canonical application of Canon 188, n. 4. It does not give any lay person the right to declare that “person X is not a pope by virtue of heresy”, instead recalls that warnings have to be given and only the obstinate refusal to heed to such warnings will result in the privation of “benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church”, and deposition/degradation.

All these examples show that only the competent ecclesiastical authorities may authoritatively and infallibly determine whether a certain person has actually “defected publicly from the Catholic faith”. The private judgement of any lay person is to be considered without any effect and irrelevant – considering such a lay person has no authority to give warnings to the persons suspected of any delict.

The third issue anti-Vatican II sedevacantism fails to address correctly would be the canonical procedures that follow the vacancy of any office. They claim that the Chair of Peter has been vacant for over 40 years. When asked when, by whom and how the next – according to their opinions – “valid pope” is going to be elected, they normally respond with the following answers:

The election of a real pope is unlikely to take place since the world is soon to end.
There exists no ecclesiastical law which limits the temporal duration of an interregnum.
God could set up a legitimate pope in a way unknown to humans.
“We don't know”.

The 1917 CIC does address the election of the Roman Pontiff:

Canon 160:

The election of the Roman Pontiff is guided solely by the constitution of [Pope] Pius X vacante Sede Apostolica of 25 Dec. 1904; in other ecclesiastical elections, the prescriptions of the canons that follow are to be observed [as well as] those special ones, if there are any that are established for individual office.

Before going to the Pope Pius X's constitution regarding papal elections, let me demonstrate that the election to other ecclesiastical offices is bound by time-limits:

Canon 161:

If a college has the right of electing to a vacant office, the election, unless established otherwise by law, is not to be deferred beyond three available months from having notice of the (vacant) office; if this time runs without action, the ecclesiastical Superior who has the right of confirming the election or of providing successively [for it] can provide for the vacant office freely.

From vacante Sede Apostolica:

Item statuimus, ut cum Pontificem de hac vita migrare contigerit, praesentes Cardinales expectare debeant absentes per decem tantummodo dies, quibus exsequiae defuncti Pontificis celebrantur; quibus elapsis, statim Conclave ingredi et ad electionis negotium procedere tenentur (30).
Si tamen Cardinales absentes supervenerint, re integra, id est antequam eidem Ecclesiae sit de Pastore provisum, in eodem negotio, in illo statu, in quo ipsum invenerint, admittantur

“per decem tantummodo dies” = for only ten days

Cardinals may wait for ten days upon the celebration of the Pontiff's death and then ought to proceed to the election.

40+ years surely are a far stretch from ten days. At this point, I should note that sedevacantists pointing to the 1917 CIC to bolster their point seems rather strange considering they themselves do not follow the said Code of Canon Law.

On the temporal duration of an interregnum according to the decrees of the Council of Basel-Florence:

"The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. Since a good shepherd is the salvation of his flock, it is the duty of this sacred synod to strive, with all the diligence that human law can contrive, that the Roman pontiff, who is first in the Lord's flock and the supreme shepherd, should be and continue to be such as to provide for the salvation of all souls and the benefit of the whole christian world and to fulfill worthily so great an office. Therefore it renews the constitutions about the election of Roman pontiffs which sacred councils and supreme pontiffs have issued and it adds to them some further salutary norms. It decrees that whenever the apostolic see falls vacant, all the cardinals of the holy Roman church who are present in the place where the election of the supreme pontiff is to be held, shall meet together on the tenth day after the see becomes vacant in some chapel or place near the conclave." Council of Basel - Florence, Session XXIII [on the election of the supreme Pontiff]

further points:

Canon 211:

§ 1. Although sacred ordination, once validly received, can never be invalidated, nevertheless, a major cleric can be returned to the lay state by a rescript of the Holy See, by a decree or sentence according to the norm of Canon 214, or finally as a penalty of degradation.

Canon 1556:

The First See is judged by no one.

Canon 2401:

Whoever persists in detaining an office, benefice, or dignity, notwithstanding legitimate privation and removal, or lest he lose it engages in illegitimate delays, having been warned, can be coerced to leave it by suspension from divine things and other penalties, not excluding deposition, if the case warrants.

Canon 2345:

Those usurping or detaining, themselves or through others, goods or rights pertaining to the Roman Church are subject to automatic excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See; and if they are clerics, they shall be deprived moreover of dignities, benefices, offices, and pensions and declared incapable of them.

A canonical problem: The CIC mentions a couple of situations which lead to “excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See”. This means that only the Apostolic See can lift such an excommunication. Given the argument presented by the sedevacantists (who still claim to be in “visible communion with the Apostolic See”), who from the Apostolic See the sedevacantists claim to be in communion with shall examine and perhaps lift such excommunication? Would this not imply that there be competent authorities within the Apostolic See with whom the sedevacantists are in communion? But there exist none: the entire apparatus of the Apostolic See is in communion with those Pontiffs sedevecantists unashamedly claim to have lost their office.

Sedevacantism revisited

2010-02-17T05:51:00.000-08:00

Due to the current - and highly unfortunate - fall of two formerly Catholic apologists on youtube to the cult of sedevacantism, the youtube Catholic community sees it as a moral obligation to respond to this situation in defense of the Catholic faith. This entry will be my humble contribution against the threat of heresy and schism - and consequently damnation - posed by sedevacantism.

In this, my objective is to show that the claim of sedevacantists that they are the "real Catholics" cannot be taken seriously at all. My argument will be based on Catholic ecclesiology (which demands visible unity), and the doctrine of Papal Supremacy as outlined by Tradition and dogmatically formulated by the First Vatican Council.

To achieve this goal, I intend to demonstrate the following points (it must be said that this exposition is not for those who reject the Catholic faith altogether):

I
communion with the Holy See, i.e. Rome, is a sine non qua for the Catholic faith

II
the communion we speak of is visible (due to the visible unity of the Catholic faith)

III
such visible communion with the Holy See necessitates the existence of a Roman Pontiff

IV
visible communion with the Roman Pontiff is essential to Christian unity

V
an interregnum is necessarily temporary

VI
problems with sedevacantism

on I:

St. Irenaeus:
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul - that church which has the traditionand the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." [Ad Haereses 3:3:2]

St. Cyprian of Carthage:
"And He says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed My sheep.' It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep feed. And although He assigns a like power to all apostles, yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly we should hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcpate itself to be one and undivided." (The Unity of the Church, 4-5 [a.D. 251-256])

Pope Boniface I:
"The institution of the universal nascent Church began from the honor bestowed on Blessed Peter, in whom its government and headship reside. For from him as its fountainhead did ecclesiastical discipline flow throughout all the churches, when now the culture of religion had begun to make progress. Nor the canons of Nicaea testify otherwise, inasmuch as they do not venture to make any regulations in his regard, seeing that nothing could be conferred that was superior to his own dignity, and knowing that all things had been given him by the words of Christ. It is certain, then, that this See stands, in relation to the churches spread over the whole world, as the Head is to its own members; from which Church whoso has cut himself off becomes an outcast from the Christian religion, since he has ceased to be in the same bonds of fellowship." (Ep. 14 to the Bishops of Thessaly)

The Hormisdan Formula:
"The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the orthodox faith and to deviate in nothing from the laws of the Fathers. And one cannot pass in silence the affirmation of Our Lord Jesus Christ who says 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church,' etc. may not be ignored is proved by the result: for it is in the Apostolic See that the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate. Not wishing therefore to separate ourselves from this hope and from this faith, following in everything the laws of the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies [such heretics as Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy the Cat, Peter Mongos, Acacius, and Peter of Antioch receive specific condemnation]...We receive and approve all the Letters written by Pope Leo I on the Christian religion, desiring to follow in everything, as we said, the Apostolic See; and proclaiming all its constitutions. I hope therefore to enter into communion with you representatives of the Apostolic See; it is there that the Christian religion finds its perfect solidity. I promise, then, that in future I will not recite in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries the names of those who have been separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is to say, those who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See."

Certainly far more examples may be provided, but since we are dealing with those claiming to be "Catholics", it seems rather unnecessary to expound more on this issue that is evidently part of Catholic tradition.

on II:
Now it is clear that according to Catholic ecclesiology, the unity of the Church is visible. This is the necessary conclusion to be drawn from the fact that we are called to be one by means of communicating with each other and being in communion with St. Peter through communion with his successors.

Session IV of the First Vatican Council:

4 In order, then, that

the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
by the union of the clergy,
the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
- faith and
- communion,
he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
their visible foundation.

St. Cyprian of Carthage:
"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare - a false bishop having been apointed for them, by heretics - to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." (To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 [a.D. 252])

Since the Church is visible, the unity of the Church must also be visible by means of being in communion with the Holy See.

St. Ambrose:
"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" (The death of Satyrus, 1:47 [a.D. 378])

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church the head of the whole Roman world and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion. " (To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 [a.D. 381])

What is schism?

from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The union of the faithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious co-operation of our members which God hath tempered "that there might be no schism in the body" (1 Corinthians 12:25). Thus understood, schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: "By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe" (On Faith and the Creed 9). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.

St. Cyprian had said: "It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not with the bishop" (Epist., lxvi, 8). Long before, St. Ignatius of Antioch laid down this principle: "Where the bishop is there is the community, even as where Christ is there is the Catholic Church" (Smyrnæans 8.2).

In this sense, we must understand that thoe who refuse to submit to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, the bishop of Rome, cannot be considered to be part of the Catholic Church. He who thus rebels against the bishop, is outside the Church.

on III:
This is a rather tricky issue, since sedevacantists claim that they are indeed "in communion with the Holy See" and thus are "real Catholics" without however pointing to any pope, since they claim to live in a state of interregnum.

Now to this I respond:

he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
their visible foundation.

This shows that in Peter, the person, is to be found the permanent princinple of the unity of the Catholic Church. Wherefore, according to Catholic ecclesiology, we may not divorce the spiritual unity of the Church from her visible unity: we cannot claim to be in communion with any episcopate without being in communion with its bishop.

Session IV of the First Vatican Council:

6 And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,

we judge it necessary,
- with the approbation of the sacred council, and
- for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
to propound the doctrine concerning the
1. institution,
2. permanence and
3. nature
of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.

Now, the sedevacantist may argue that he holds to this "permanence" of the "sacred and apostolic primacy", but this does not mean that there must be a successor to the papacy in all ages.

I respond by quoting from the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council contaning the letters of Pope Hadrian I:

For the Blessed Apostle Peter, himself the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chieftship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care to his successors who are to sit in his most holy Chair forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors... In the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the Blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world Himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and forever..."

Since we ought to interpret all things in light of the faith handed down to us, this means that the permanence of Papal Primacy means a permanence of successions. Thus an "interregnum" is by necessity a temporary matter. Further, this citation shows that the power and authority of St. Peter is transmitted to his successors. The Church cannot be visibly united when one rejects the visible principle and guarant of the visible unity of the Church. Such an idea would be an unholy mixture of protestant ecclesiology with the Catholic name.

Further, we must realize that - with regard to schism above - the only way to avoid being in schism is by being in communion with the bishops of the Church, first and foremost by being in communion with the Roman Pontiff, the Pope. We communicate though with the successor of St. Peter and not with an abstract idea; we owe the Pope obedience (in matters of faith, morals, and discipline), and not some abstract "invisible theory". Surely, this is not meant to point to ultra-montanism and to reject doctrinal unity (since doctrine is invisible), but rather to stress the theandric nature of the Church which necessitates unity on visible terms as much as on matters not seen by the eyes of man. There is no "unity" when one breaks the visible communion of the Church: such a notion is protestant, not Catholic. For this very reason, it is necessary that a Roman Pontiff permanently sits on the chair of Peter - without disregarding the temporary gaps caused by an interregnum.

This understanding can easily be bolstered by pointing to the First Vatican Council again:

Chapter 2 On the Permanence of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs

That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .
For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .
For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .
Therefore,
- if anyone says that
  - it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
  - the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
  let him be anathema.

What are we to make of this? Vatican I commands us to be in agreement with the Roman Church, that Church to whom the Saints and Fathers rightly attribute indefectibility.
Our conclusion is that we must condemn any theory which suggests that the Church is left without a Successor to St. Peter.

on IV:
This is easily demonstrated again by pointing to Vatican I:

Chapter 3 On the Power and Primacy of the Roman Pontiff

3 In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50]

It does not say "by some odd claim to unity with the Holy See without its bishop", but rather "by unity with the Roman Pontiff": this necessitates the existence of the Roman Pontiff.

Vatican I continues by saying:

4 This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

on V:
Because of all things shown above, we must therefore conclude that the Catholic faith teaches that an interregnum is but a temporary matter. The word itself already reveals this truth: "inter-regnum" which means "between the reign". This is to express the short period of the chair of Peter being vacant between the end of the reign of the deceased Pontiff and the beginning of the reign of the newly elected Pope.
This state factually made permanent would mean that the Catholic faith is false. Wherefore, this position must be condemned. Certainly sedevacantists will claim that there are no official documents showing that an interregnum can be limited to a certain time. This is false. Granted, the rules have changed over the course of history, and the longest inter-regnum the Church had was about 3 years. Such interregnum differ substantially from the sedevacantist "interregnum" though. One may ask how this is true? It is true because the interregna of the past always preserved a system by which a new pope could be elected. The sedevacantists of today are faced with the decrees of Venerable Pope Pius XII who ruled that Cardinals are the ones to elect the Roman Pontiff. Though, this is better discussed later.

Nevertheless, I will quote from the 23rd Session of the Ecumenical Council of Basel-Florence to show that the claim there are no decrees regarding papal elections is simply false:

"The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. Since a good shepherd is the salvation of his flock, it is the duty of this sacred synod to strive, with all the diligence that human law can contrive, that the Roman pontiff, who is first in the Lord's flock and the supreme shepherd, should be and continue to be such as to provide for the salvation of all souls and the benefit of the whole christian world and to fulfil worthily so great an office. Therefore it renews the constitutions about the election of Roman pontiffs which sacred councils and supreme pontiffs have issued and it adds to them some further salutary norms. It decrees that whenever the apostolic see falls vacant, all the cardinals of the holy Roman church who are present in the place where the election of the supreme pontiff is to be held, shall meet together on the tenth day after the see becomes vacant in some chapel or place near the conclave." [on the election of the supreme Pontiff]

The holy synod decrees that the person elected as pope is obliged to express his consent to the election in the manner stated below. It is fitting that this consent should be made to the cardinals, if the person elected is present in the curia, or to one of the cardinals or someone mandated by them if he is not present there, in the presence of a notary and at least ten persons. After he has been informed of the election, he is bound to act within a day of the demand. If he does not do so, his election is annulled and the cardinals must proceed in the Lord's name to another election. But if he expresses his consent, as stated above, the cardinals shall straightaway make due obeisance to him as supreme pontiff. Once the obeisance has been made by the cardinals, nobody has any right to challenge his pontificate. [On the profession of the supreme pontiff]

from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"A layman may also be elected pope, as was Celestine V (1294). Even the election of a marriedman would not be invalid (c. "Qui uxorem", 19, caus. 33, Q. 5). Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void. Immediately on the canonical election of a candidate and his acceptance, he is true pope and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole Church. A papal election, therefore, needs no confirmation, as the pontiff has no superior on earth."

on V:

Now comes the part where I will enumerate the difficulties of the sedevacantist position:

1) Sedevacantism cannot demonstrate to be in communion with the Roman Church. The Holy See is in communion with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and all Cardinals of the Catholic Church are in communion with him. Sedevacantism has no claimant to the chair of Peter with whom they can profess visibly their communion. If sedevacantism cannot even demonstrate that it is in communion with the primatial See, the source of presbyterial unity , then how can sedevacantists even claim to be "Catholic"?

2) The "Conciliar Popes" have been validly elected and accepted by the Cardinals and thus no person may challenge their pontificate by private judgement.

3) The claim that the Holy See has "defected from the faith" is condemned by the Catholic faith.

4) Sedevacantists lack unity amongst themselves. E.g.: the sedevacantist Dimond brothers have already condemned as heretics and schismatics the sedevacantist movements known as the SSPV and the CMRI. This obvious lack of unity is the consequence of their "departure from the unity of the chair of Peter".

5) They have no Pope. Vatican I understood in light of tradition shows that the permanence of the Papal Office necessitates a permanent succession of Roman Pontiffs. Sedevacantists, however, are without any "pope". Some who are better called "sede-impedists" claim that "the Holy See is occupied by an antipope and thus no real pope can be elected". This is not to be taken seriously since, Rome had already been temporarily occupied by antipopes without impeding the possibility of havign a legitimate Pope. The legitimate Pope - though not spatially in Rome - remains the Bishop of Rome despite an antipope being in the eternal city.

6) Sedevecantists only see problems everywhere without offering a solution: they oppose the Popes, nay, they even dare declare them as "manifest heretics" and thus "cannot be popes". At the same time, they have no idea whence the "new and real pope" is supposed to come from. What of the canonical procedures to the election of the Roman Pontiff?

7) Rival bishoprics. Here is presented a problem which turns out bad for the sedevacantist position regardless of which position of two is true. On the one hand, sedevacantists may have set up their own episcopates - thus rivalling the Catholic episcopate in communion with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. This would be a manifest proof of the schism that they are in. Such a step would only be consistent in their claims that the new order of ordination is invalid and that Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI are not only heretics, but also apostates and thus have no clerical office whatsoever, nay they are supposedly not even Catholics! Now, if this position were true, then the sedevacantist cult would have the obligatory burden of appointing Cardinals and then electing a new - supposedly real - "pope". But the persons who have recently fallen from the Catholic faith are sedevacantists, not conclavists (those sedevecantists who realized that they must elect a "pope" and have done so: there are various groups with their respective "popes"), wherefore they are "popeless" (this gives a new meaning to John Salza's term "capitavacantists"!). But for some unknown reason, the sedevacantists seem to refuse to actually consequently follow through their ideas, hence another possibility is raised: that they - though not formally - factually recognize the jurisdiction of the Catholic episcopate in communion with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. But this cannot be an option at all, since this would go against their claims regarding the supposedly "invalid ordination formula" and the "apostasy" of the "Conciliar Church". Either way, the sedevacantist position seems likewise absurd.

8) Finally, the question is raised as to who is now in charge of the Holy See?
The Camerlengo, the College of Cardinals, and the Roman Curia are all in communion with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Has the entire apparatus of the Catholic Church become "apostate"?

Conclusion:

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that not only is the position presented by sedevacantism highly absurd due to its lack of communion with the Holy See, but that it also is a "troublemaking" cult which leads to nothing other than division without being able to offer any real solution to the problem they claim to be confronting.

It should be noted that I am not claiming that the Catholic Church is not undergoing a certain crisis, no I would not deny that, however I would reject any time any cult arrogant enough to think it can judge the Papacy instituded by none other than Christ Himself to make us all subject to Him in charitable unity and concord. I reject any such idea especially when it is apparent the the cult promoting such heresy cannot even be considered to be part of the Catholic Church. Our unity is visible and forever tied to the Roman Pontiff. To claim otherwise is to follow in the footsteps of all schismatics of the past, present and the future.

I put up this treatise with the intention of saving Catholics from falling for the lies of this heretical and schismatic community. Let us recall the words of the Catholic Church:

Pope St. Agatho wrote the following in a letter to Emperor Constantinus Pogonatus (the first part is incorporated in the Acts of the 6th Ecumenical Council):

"Sancti quidem Doctores venerati atque secuti (Apostolicam Sedem); haeretici autem falsis criminationibus ac derogationum odiis insecuti."

"The holy Doctors have always held it (the Apostolic See) in reverence and clung to it; while heretics have ever persecuted it with their slanderous falsehoods and hateful calumnies." (Mansi, tom. xi. Col. 239)

Beware of the danger of schism!

St. Augustine of Hippo:
"There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism...There can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church...To start a schism from the unity of Christ, or to be in schism, is an immense evil." (contra Epistulam Parmeniani, II, 2; Contra Cresconium, II, 1, 5)

St. Irenaeus:
"The spiritual disciple will judge also those that work schisms; who are devoid of the love of God, considering their own advantage than the unity of the Church; and who for slight and trivial causes, rend and divide the great glorious Body of the Christ, and as far as in them lies, bring it to nothing. They speak peace, but work war; a straining indeed at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. No correction they can effect will compensate for the injury which arises from schism." (Ad Haereses 4, 33:7)

As St. Augustine of Hippo said:
"Salvation no one can have but in the Catholic Church. Out of the Catholic Church, he may have anything but salvation. He may have honor, he may have Baptism, he may have the Gospel, he may both believe and preach in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; but he can find salvation nowhere but in the Catholic Church." (Sermo ad Caesariens. De Emerit.)

And St. Iraenaeus:
The Church "is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them...we hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come...Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons." (Ad Haereses III [a.D. 202])

Thus we believe firmly:

"...It is a perfectly well-known Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. and that those who are contumacious against its authority and the definitions of that same Church, and those who are pertinaciously divided from that unity of the same Church and from Peter's Successor, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the Vineyard has been committed by the Saviour, cannot obtain salvation." (Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidam)

The answer often is very simple. To those scandalized by the fall of two formerly Catholic apologists, I would like to recall in their minds the words of St. Ambrose:

UBI PETRUS, IBI ECCLESIA

"Where Peter is, there is the Church."

May the Lord preserve you Catholics in the one true faith and in communion with His Vicar, Pope Benedict XVI; may He lead back to the Catholic Church those who have gone astray for the praise and glory of His Name, for their own salvation and the salvation of those who listen to them.

the Church is one

2010-01-20T05:11:00.000-08:00

This entry is meant for all those who are seeking the Church of Christ, His Bride, and are becoming frustrated over the large number of different Christian Churches and communities. I can understand how appealing it may be to simply suspend the search for the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" thinking that the division caused by the various groups is one that is against God's Will. I agree that division in Christianity goes against the very Will of God, and every Christian ought to be seeking to do that which is willed by God. So what is one supposed to do?

Let us begin with the very words of Christ Jesus:

"And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are." (John 17:11)

Jesus here declares that He will return to His Father in heaven, and then prays for the unity of Christians, for the unity of His Church. This prayer actually deserves a great deal of attention since Jesus also elaborates on the meaning of the unity He spoke of. He wants Christians to be one as He and the Father are one. This concept of unity stands at the very heart of ecclesiology. The Son is united to the Father in a real sense: these two persons are but one God along with the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, the unity proposed here is a real one that connects the one necessarily to the other. This unity is so perfect that Jesus said that "the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38). Though distinct persons, one is in the other and vice-versa.

We can say that anyone seeking the Church of Christ is confronted with two main ideas:

a) that the Church of Christ is visible and that her unity is also visible
b) that the Church of Christ is invisible and that her unity also is invisible

The former idea is what is taught by Apostolic Churches (the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches), while the latter is the theory that developped following the protestant "reformation" (this idea is held by protestants including Anglicans).

Now, if we understand the Church to be the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12; Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:24; Colossians 1:18), then we must understand the unity to be visible, not invisible. The reason for this is that Christ had only one Body and His Body was visibly one. In a way we can say that the answer to the question about the correct ecclesiology is not given "by Jesus", but is Jesus Himself. In this sense, we must understand His claim of being the truth (John 14:6). He does not only speak truth, but He Himself is the truth.

St. Paul asked those who had caused troubles to the visible unity of the Church the following question:

"Is Christ divided?" (1 Corinthians 1:13)

And later declared:

"For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ." (1 Corinthians 12:12)

So the Incarnation is the model for the Church. The Church must be understood as an extension of the Incarnation. Each individual Christian is part of one body - the Church - with each part being united to every other. There is not a single member that is not united to another. For this would mean that the body lost its organic unity. "So we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" (Romans 12:5).

The statement of every one member of the Church being member of another should be understood in relation to the statement that Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Him. Which ecclesiological teaching makes more sense? The one which postulates a real, visible unity in which every member of the Church is in communion with every other. Or is it the "invisible Church theory" whose members are not in communion with each other and wherein Christians may freely disagree on doctrinal matters, not being of "one mind"?

We already have the next keyword: communion. This is very important because the Church is a Eucharistic communion. The very unity of the Church as being the body of Christ Jesus is effected through the participation in the Mystery of Holy Communion. Hence St. Paul writes:

"The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are, one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread." (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)

So by participating in the communion of the blood of Christ and the partaking of the one bread which is the body of the Lord, we Christians become one body, the body of Christ. If however a person denies that the consecrated bread and wine he partakes of are not the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, then he - by his own error - must admit that he then has united himself to nothing other than bread and wine, but not to the body of Christ Jesus.
At this point let us remember that those who have broken the line of Apostolic Succession are left without valid sacraments and thus are unable to participate in the Mystery of Holy Communion: this would exclude all protestants including Anglicans from this Divine Mystery.
And if then all protestants are excluded from this, is it still then reasonable to take into account their theory about the "invisibly united Church"?

It is because of this that the members of the Church must be in communion with each other, otherwise we would be left with a schism-riddled "invisible Church". That such a notion is wrong, one can demonstrate easily. Most Anglicans will admit that prior to 1054 a.D. the Catholic Church was visibly one (for some reason, they do not include Arians, Nestorians, Donatists, Montanists, Monophysites, etc. to their theory of the invisibly united Church). Then, after the schism between East and West and after the protestant "reformation", all of the sudden, the Church of Christ consists of members that are all part of the one Church, but who need not be in communion with each other, i.e. the one Church is made up of mutually exclusive members.

Is this possible? Such a theory can be examined well by using an analogy. Let us for instance take the state of Czechoslovakia. In the past there existed a state named Czechoslovakia. However, this state was then destroyed. Out of it became the two states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Does the state of Czechoslovakia still exist? No. Likewise, the case with the Empire of Austria-Hungary. After World War I, it no longer existed. What does this mean with regards to the Church? This means that if we claim that the Church was once visibly united and this unity ended, then we are left with a Church no longer existing. And this conclusion would certainly contradict the words of Him who cannot lie, since He promied to His Church that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).

One could raise an objection though, that Christianity is no longer united. This is true, but this is true also before the schism of 1054 which was not the first schism to divide Christianity. What then is the explanation? The explanation is simple: that the division does not affect the Church: schisms do not divide the Catholic Church, but schisms separate Christians from the Church. If the Church herself is divided, then the gates of hell have overpowered her. Instead we must affirm that those who are not in communion with us, are not in communion with the Church of Christ either; they have left the communion of the Church. This is true of the Arian and the Nestorian, as it is true of the Albigensian and the Anglican, and it is also true of the Monophysite and the Eastern Orthodox and any other schismatic.

If one can agree with this, then one has already reduced the list of possible ways to only three groups: the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Since the Oriental Orthodox broke communion with the Patriarchal Sees of the Church, we can safely say that theirs is not the Church of Christ. Furthermore, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians remained in communion with each other and faithful to the Ecumenical Councils of the Church after the Orientals had broken away from the union of the Church.

This now leaves us with two possibilities: the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy. Both Churches claim to have preserved the true faith and to be the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" of Christ. So which is it? It may perhaps help to take a look at the tradition of the ancients when problems arose. What was the test to show that one was in communion with the Catholic Church? That either of these two is not in communion with the other is apparent: there is a schism. Thus, one of the two must be in grave error.

Let us recall the words of St. Cyprian:

"Do they think that Christ will be with them when they are gathered up, who are gathered outside the Church of Christ?...He is no martyr who is not in the Church....They cannot remain with God who will not be of one mind in the Church of God." (De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, 13-14 [C.S.E.L. III, 222])

So what was the test of communion? How could one know if one was actually in the Church of Christ? Ancient testimony points to the the Petrine See, that See of the Bishop of Rome. If one was in communion with this See, one was considered a Catholic; if not, one was considered to be a foreign body.

Thus St. Cyprian stated:

"And He says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed My sheep.' It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep feed. And although He assigns a like power to all apostles, yet He founded a single Chair, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly we should hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcpate itself to be one and undivided." (The Unity of the Church, 4-5 [a.D. 251-256])

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare - a false bishop having been apointed for them, by heretics - to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." (To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 [a.D. 252])

In like manner St. Optatus of Milevis wrote:

"You cannot deny that you know that the episcopal throne was set up by Peter in the city of Rome ... in which one throne the unity is kept by all, that the other apostles might not each set up his own, that he would be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another against the one throne." (Opt. Mil. II, 2 [C.S.E.L.XXVI, p. 36])

It is because of this that the Catholic Church teaches in Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium the following:

"In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided, He put Peter at the head of the other Apostles, and in him set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and of communion." (Lumen Gentium #18)

Pope Boniface I (481-422) taught:

"It is therefore certain that this Church [the Roman see] is to the Churches throughout the world as the head to its members. If anyone cut himself off from this Church, not being in union with her, he is outside the Christian religion." (Ep. XIV, episcopis per Thessaliam [PL XX, 777 B])

Because of this St. Ambrose wrote:

"He sent for the bishop, nor did he think any grace true save that of the true faith, so he asked whether he was in communion with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church." (De excessu fratris sui Satyri, I, 47 [PL XVI, 1306])

That communion with the Holy See is the test for one's Catholicity is also expressed by St. Jerome who wrote a letter to Pope St. Damasus during the Meletian troubles at Antioch:

"I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. I, who follow none but Christ as first, am joined in communion with Your Holiness, that is with the See of Peter. On this rock I know that the Church was built. Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is profane. Whoever is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the deluge comes. I know nothing of Vitalis, I defy Meletius, I care nothing for Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you scatters; for whoever does not belong to Christ is of Antichrist." (Ep XV, ad Damasum, 2 [PL XXII, 355-356])

When we consider that the Holy See was the fountain of unity and of all ecclesiastical authority, the words of St. Ambrose become easily understandable:

"Where Peter is, there is the Church; were the Church is, there is no death, but eternal life." (Enarr. in Ps. XL, no.30 [PL XIV, 1082])

All examples I have used come from the time before the schism between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Christians. There are indeed many more examples, but the ones I cited should be enough to demonstrate what special role Rome has played in the life of the Church of Christ. Of the two remaining possibilities - the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy - only one is still in communion with the Petrine See of which St. Theodore of Studium declared:

"I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter." (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

And I end this entry with a simple reminder:

Pope St. Agatho wrote the following in a letter to Emperor Constantinus Pogonatus (the first part is incorporated in the Acts of the 6th Ecumenical Council):

"Sancti quidem Doctores venerati atque secuti (Apostolicam Sedem); haeretici autem falsis criminationibus ac derogationum odiis insecuti."

"The holy Doctors have always held it (the Apostolic See) in reverence and clung to it; while heretics have ever persecuted it with their slanderous falsehoods and hateful calumnies." (Mansi, tom. xi. Col. 239)

May God enlighten the reader to find his way to His Church, the Catholic Church.
Amen.

response to Apologist117, II

2010-01-18T23:33:00.001-08:00

This entry will discuss Apologist117's second video response to my essays on orthodoxy.

my comments will be in black
Apologist117's statements in red
quotations from other sources in blue

Apologist117 claims that canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon was accepted by the Catholic Church:

"Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out--the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome -- we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him."

Rome's primacy is not based on a theological premise, but on a political situation. Roman primacy is not "de jure divino". The Councils conferred upon Rome her privileges.

with regards to the claims against the de jure divino character of the Papacy:

"Since then, beloved, we see such a protection Divinely granted to us (the Pope), reasonably and justly do we rejoice in the merits and dignity of our founder, rendering thanks to the eternal King, our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, for having given so great a power to him (Peter) whom He made Chief of the whole Church, that if anything, even in our time, be rightly done and rightly ordered by us (the Pope), it is to be ascribed to his working, to his guidance, unto who it was said, 'And thou, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren'' ....To him, therefore, let us ascribe this anniversary day of us his servant, and this festival, by whose patronage we have been thought worthy to share his Seat itself, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ sustaining us in all things, Who liveth and reigneth with God the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen." (Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 4 Gaudeo, dilectissimi)

"For the government of the Apostolic See (Rome), engaged without ceasing in the care of the whole flock of the Lord, which care was delegated to the blessed Peter by the voice of our Savior Himself, 'And thou, converted, confirm thy brethren,' we (the Pope) neither can nor ought to dissemble such things as constrain our solicitude." (Pope St. Gelasius, Epist. v. ad. Honorium Dalmat. Episc.)

With regards to the claim that the primacy of the Roman Church is rooted in Rome's being an "imperial city", I would address the readers to the videos of Theologica37 on youtube who has already refuted Apologist117's false claims.

His videos regarding Apologist117 (I highly recomment watching all three):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BXh7uK-6ZA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVw47xHGltE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2gwF1arY14

Apologist117 claims that canon 28 was kept by the Patriarch of Constantinople thus rendering the ratification of canons by the Roman Pontiff in order for these to be valid and universally binding null and void. We are confronted with the following problem:

What then makes a Council ecumenical?

Eastern Orthodox theologians have two common answers (there is no unity as to what really IS the answer in the East): receptionism and pentarchial ratification.

If Apologist117 wishes to side with receptionism theory, which teaches that the decrees of a Council must be accepted by all the faithful before it can be considered ecumenical and thus universally binding, then he is forced to admit that canon 28 is to be rendered null and void since the Westeern portion of the Church did not accept it. Furthermore, there are enough Easterners who rejected this canon as well: thus following the rightful authority of the head of the Church, the Pope (more to this later).

If, however, Apologist117 wishes to side with pentarchial ratification, which teaches that a council that is ratified and accepted by all 5 patriarchs of the Church is to be considered ecumenical and thus universally binding, then his position with regards to canon 28 still fails since the "Western Patriarch", the Roman Pontiff, rejected this particular canon.

Either way, Apologist117 cannot claim any validity to canon 28: it is - as the Pope has already taught in the past - to be rejected.

The Council itself clearly identified the Pope as the visible head of the Catholic Church:

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Especially the last quotation sounds odd when it comes to Apologist117's idea that "Rome is subject to Councils".

Let us refer to the Greek historian Socrates (I am quoting from my essays on Orthodoxy - portions which Apologist117 seemed to have ignored and which I have already stated cannot be reconciled with the schismatic ideas of Eastern Orthodoxy) who charged Arianizing bishops with "the violation of the canons, neglecting to request his attendance at a Council, seeing thast, by ecclesiastical law, no decisions of churches are valid unless sanctioned by the Bishop of Rome."

Indeed Rome is bound to the faith as much as any Catholic is. However, the authority which grants a Council its ecumenical character flows from Rome. Thus, we cannot say that a Council stands above Rome - so as to claim that Rome may be forced to accept what is against its definitive teachings by any Synod not enjoying its sanction.

Let us continue with canon 28. Pope St. Leo the Great ( a Saint greatly venerated also in the East ) said the following on the issue:

"Resolutions of bishops which are repugnant to the holy canons defined at Nicaea...we rescind and utterly annul by the authority of the blessed Apostle Peter, since in all ecclesiatical questions we defer to those laws which the Holy Ghost laid down through the three hundred and eighteen prelates, with a view to their peaceable observance by all bishops." (Epistle 105 to the Empress Pulcheria)

Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople - after hearing of the Pope's decision - wrote an apology to Pope St. Leo the Great:

"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness." -- Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

Did Apologist117 not claim that the Constantinopolitan Patriarch enforced canon 28? He admits here that the canon relies upon the ratification of the Pope.

So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon -- the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome's "line item veto." This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) -- all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.

To add more to the repudiation of Apologist117's false ideas, one ought to be reminded that papal supremacy need not even be right for Apologist117 to be wrong. He - as often pointed out by Theologica37 - clearly departed from the very tradition of his Church in order to make any case against the Papacy. He basically has promoted a canon to the level of universal validity whilst contradicting the two most common theories regarding the ecumenicity of Councils to be found in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Let us continue with yet another claim:

Canon 28 was accepted in the 2nd Council of Lyons (a.D. 1274)

II Lyons was the first of two Councils to effect a temporary reunion between the East and the West. We must remember that both unions lead to the East accepting the doctrinal teachings of the West as being truly orthodox.

I found nowhere in the Constitutions of II Lyons any evidence for the claim that canon 28 was ratified by the Pope. What one can find however is the following:

1. On the supreme Trinity and the catholic faith{5}

1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.

The Council brought about a mutual understanding on the doctrine of the Filioque (which is also contained int he Athanasian Creed that was not disputed by any orthodox Christian prior to the ramblings of Eastern polemicists).

Apologist117 then procceds by claiming that St. Meletius and St. John Chrysostom both were not in communion with Rome. This topic, I have already addressed in my first response to Apologist117's video series. One might consider the following implications of such a claim for Apologist117 though:

1) One must remember the claims of Apologist117 which include the idea that St. Cyprian was right in his rejection of the Pope's teaching with regards to "heretical baptism", i.e. the validity of baptism conferred by Non-Catholics. Thus, Apologist117 claims that only the Orthodox have the power of validly conferring any sacrament. The problem here is the fact that St. Meletius was ordained by Arians and this fact gives rise to problems not for Catholics, but for the Eastern Orthodox. I have already stated in my essays that the stubborn anti-Catholic position will inevitably lead to one that is absurd when seen as a whole.

2) Apologist117's argumentation also seems to rely upon the presupposition that the Church can be "visibly one"/"united" whilst the Pentarchial Sees are not even in communion with each other. But to be within the Church means to be in communion with the orthodox believers(in terms of belonging, not of any disciplinary measure such as excommunication placing a sinner outside the possibility of communicating). How can one then justify a claim that endorses an ecclesiology in which the members claimings to be of the same Church are not even in communion with each other? It makes even less sense when one understands the Church as being a Eucharistic Union - a teaching that we find in the epistle of St. Paul, the Apostle, to the Corinthians. Apologist117 in this case sounds more like a protestant, an Anglican, than as an Orthodox Christian. This perhaps is caused by his usage of mainly Anglican and other protestant sources.

"The Pope was neither invited, nor informed of the 2nd Ecumenical Council held in 381 a.D."

I have addressed this issue already in my first response.

When speaking of the Fathers of I Constantinople, Apologist117 stated: "they did not believe in the modern heresy of Papal Supremacy".

He forgets that what he condemns as "modern heresy" is a) not "modern", nor is it b) a "heresy". The examples cited in my two essays should suffice - eventhough they are but a small portion of the evidence available. Furthermore, if Apologist117 wishes to portray himself as someone faithful to the tradition of the living Church, then I hope we agree that the first Ecumenical Councils were held in response to heresies which were to be formally identified as such and universally condemned. With that in mind, I ask myself which Ecumenical Council has ever declared the doctrine of the Papacy to be a heresy? Who is he or any Eastern perlate to define what is universally bindung upon the people of God? Is this not actually a claim similar to infalliblity and supremacy? In fact, Eastern Orthodoxy is suffering from "arrested development", while the Catholic Church has continuously convoked Ecumenical Councils.

"The 7th Ecumenical Council was de facto presided over by Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople. It did not ask for papal confirmation."

"The convocation of the council was announced to Pope Hadrian I (772-795) in a letter of Constantine VI and Irene, dated 29 August 784. They urged him either to attend in person or to send legates. Patriarch Tarasius sent the same message in synodal letters to the pope and the three eastern patriarchs. Pope Hadrian I gave his approval for the convocation of the council, stipulating various conditions, and sent as his legates the archpriest Peter and Peter, abbot of the Greek monastery of St Sabas in Rome."

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum07.htm

Contrary to what Apologist117 postulates, the Roman Pontiff indeed was informed of the convocation of the Council which enjoyed his approval.

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) in his Great Apology:

"This Synod [the 7th Ecumenical Council which condemned the Iconoclasts in 787] possesses the highest authority...in fact, it was held in the most legitimate and regular fashion conceivable, because according to the divine rules established from the beginning it was directed and presided over by the glorious portion of the Western Church, I mean by the church of Ancient Rome. Without them [the Romans], no dogma is discussed in the Church, even sanctioned in preliminary fashion by the canons and ecclesiastical usages, can be considered to be approved or abrogated, for they are the ones, in fact, who have been endowed in order to fulfill the function of guide in the priesthood and we have given them the credit due to those among the Apostles and the Coryphaei [SS. Peter and Paul]." (James Likoudis, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church, pp. 117)

Let us consider the background story to II Nicaea:

A recommendation to summon an ecumenical council, in order to correct the iconoclast heretics, had been addressed to Empress Irene, then acting as regent for her son Emperor Constantine VI (780-797) who was still a minor, both by Patriarch Paul IV of Constantinople (who had repented of his earlier iconoclast views) before his abdication from the see in 784 and by his successor as patriarch, Tarasius. The aim was to unite the church and to condemn the decrees passed by the council of 338 bishops held at Hiereia and St Mary of Blachernae in 754.

The Pope was already informed about the synod of Hiereia beforehand. St. Theodore of Studium wrote the following to Pope Leo III:

"Since it is to great Peter that Christ our God gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and entrusted the dignity of the chief of the flock, it is to Peter, that is to say, his successor, that one ought to submit every innovation which is made in the Catholic Church by those who would turn aside from the truth. That is what we humble and lowly monks have learnt from the ancient Fathers...I borrow now the cry of the Coryphaeus of the Apostles, calling Christ to his succour whent he waves of the sea were risen up, and I say to your Blessedness who art the Representative of Christ, 'O First 'Shepherd of the Church which is under heaven', save us now, we perish. Imitate the Christ, your Master, stretch out your hand to your Church as He stretched out His hand to Peter. Peter began to sink in the waves, while our Church is still once more submerged in the depths of heresy. Emulate, we beg you, the great Pope whose name you bear [Pope St. Leo the Great], and just as he on the appearance of the Eutychian heresy, stood erect spirituallyas a lion with his dogmatic letters, so in your turn (I dare say it because of your name) roar divinely, or rather send forth your thunders against the present heresy. For, if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene an heretical Council [that of Hieria with 338 bishops]. While those who following ancient custom, have not even the right of convoking an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare say it to you, that your divine Primacy should call together a lawful Council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive away heresy and neither your Primacy may be anathematized with all the orthodox by these new voices without authority, nor that wills evilly disposed may find in this adulterous Council an excuse for being involved in sin. It is in order to obey your divine authority as Chief Pastor that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness, we the lest members of the Curch. (James Likoudis, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church, pp. 115-116)

St. Theodore the Studite notes that the Pope is the supreme Pastor of the Church, that this rank is by divine institution, i.e. de jure divino, and that it is the Pope's prerogative to grant Councils their validity.

And here a letter of St. Theodore of Studium to Emperor Michael:

"I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter." (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

To him then, the idea that Rome would "fall into heresy" and that the papacy itself would defect was unimaginable since Rome being the fountain of ecclesiastical unity was granted first and above all others the promise of indefectibility. We here have an example of tradition that is rejected by modern Eastern Orthodoxy through the postulation of an ecclesiology in which the Petrine See no longer is orthodox. How one can justify this heretical innovation is beyond my understanding.

Apologist117 continues his video by pointing to the Council of Constantinple held in 754 a.D. and stating that this Council was held without the participation of the Pope - either by himself or through legates. I am not sure what Apologist117 was planning to demonstrate here. This Council is not considered to have any authority, it is a Conciliabulum, an irregular and heretical Council, thus without any validity nor authority. Perhaps he (Apologist117) did not realize that this example does not at all speak against the Papacy.

Ending his video, he points to the Council of Frankfurt convoked and presided over by Charlemagne. I find it very difficult to see how this could serve as any argument against the Papacy. First it was wrong since it defied the canoncs of the 7th Ecumenical Council. Apologist117 concludes from Charlemagne's behaviour that Papal Primacy thus must be wrong since Charlemagne cared not about the 7th Ecumenical Council. But would not the same be true with regards to all orthodox Catholic prelates? Further we could even say that Charlemagne cared little about the authority of an Ecumenical Council. Considering this, it would be foolish to use his conciliabulim at Frankfurt as somewhat an example of "Christian orthodoxy against the false claims of the Papal Supremacy". With that said, I simply reject this "argument".

Already after the first two responses, I would like to remind those seeking the truth to not forget to examine the "overall picture" presented by either party. We cannot but notice Apologist117's arguments falling apart for a couple reasons: his arguments borrowed mainly from protestants are incompatible with Eastern Orthodox theology, he either diminishes or totally ignores evidence pointing to a clear primacy of the Roman Pontiff, he makes false claims, and last but not least: the overall picture does not work at all.

It also seems to me that Apologist117 may be implying in some of his videos that the fact that Councils were convoked by Emperors or that other prelates other than the papal legates presided over Councils have to be viewed as arguments against the divine prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue explained the matter at hand:

"What it comes to in practice is this: the Bishop of Rome is the right person to take the lead in any common action of the whole Church; particularly it is his right to summon a general council, to preside at it, either himself or by his legate, and to confirm its decisions. But this does not mean that he has always done each of these things. To say that a man has a right does not mean that he has always used his right. There have been council, afterward recognized by as ecumenical, that were not summoned by the Pope. Our point of view, in this case, is that the Pope should have been summoned, if the council were intended to be ecumenical; but then the Pope accepted what had happened and by so doing made up all irregularity in the summons." (Adrian Fortescue, fourth edition edited by Alcuin Reid, "The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451", pp 40-41)

Thus, though the Pope has the right to convoke, preside over and confirm Ecumenical Councils, he is not required to always make use of the first two rights. A Council lacking his ratification, however, cannot be considered ecumenical at all.

Here I end my second response.

God bless and peace to all.

response to Apologist117, I

2010-01-07T07:29:00.001-08:00

This will be the first of a series of entries dealing with Apologust117's critique of my two essays on Orthodoxy.

I will type in Apologist117's claims in red and then address them. Quotations from other sources will be in blue.

Bishop Hosius of Cordova was not a papal legate. He was the president of the Council. This is not to be expected if the authority of the Popes is true. Hosius did not represent the bishop of Rome.

Answer:

"When the Council of Nicæa met, Hosius presided, together with the two Roman priests Vitus and Vincent. In what capacity he presided is a matter much discussed: Gelasius of Cyzicus [5th century writer from Asia Minor] is categorical in declaring that it was in the name of the pope (Hist. Nic. Conc., Bk. II, c. v). Hefele is of the same opinion. Chapman holds that he was nominated by Constantine. Leclercq inclines to the same opinion, but leaves the question open. After the council, Hosius probably returned to Spain."

source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07475a.htm

"The actual president seems to have been Hosius of Cordova, assisted by the pope's legates, Victor and Vincentius."

Indeed it appears that Hosius of Cordova presided over the council in terms of leading it. However, the claim that a Council depends on Papal authority for its ecumenicity is not at all addressed by any of Apologist117's claims. The simple fact that papal legates attended this Ecumenical Council assisting the president speaks for this.

At the Council of Nicaea, the bishop of Rome was not even present.

"Because of his primacy, the Pontiff of Rome is not required to attend an Ecumenical Council; but without his participation, manifested by sending some subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is as non-existent, for it is he who presides over the Council." (Methodius, in N. Brianchaninov, The Russian Church (1931), 46; cited by Butler, Church and Infallibility, 210) (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999) p. 177)

Papal legates were present in this Council as admitted by Apologist117 himself.

The First Council of Constantinople was held without the knowledge of the Pope (Pope St. Damasus).

"No copy of the council's doctrinal decisions, entitled tomos kai anathematismos engraphos (record of the tome and anathemas), has survived. So what is presented here is the synodical letter of the synod of Constantinople held in 382, which expounded these doctrinal decisions, as the fathers witness, in summary form: namely, along the lines defined by the council of Nicaea, the consubstantiality and coeternity of the three divine persons against the Sabellians, Anomoeans, Arians and Pneumatomachi, who thought that the divinity was divided into several natures; and the enanthropesis (taking of humanity) of the Word, against those who supposed that the Word had in no way taken a human soul. All these matters were in close agreement with the tome that Pope Damasus and a Roman council, held probably in 378, had sent to the East."

"The ecumenical character of this council seems to date, among the Greeks, from the Council of Chalcedon (451). According to Photius (Mansi, III, 596) Pope Damasus approved it, but if any part of the council were approved by this pope it could have been only the aforesaid creed. In the latter half of the fifth century the successors of Leo the Great are silent as to this council. Its mention in the so-called "Decretum Gelasii", towards the end of the fifth century, is not original but a later insertion in that text (Hefele). Gregory the Great, following the example of Vigilius and Pelagius II, recognized it as one of the four general councils, but only in its dogmatic utterances (P.G., LXXVII, 468, 893)."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm

How could Pope St. Damasus approve of something he had no knowledge of?

And here another quite intriguing aspect about I Constantinople:

"The Acts of the council have almost entirely disappeared, and its proceedings are known chiefly through the accounts of the ecclesiastical historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret."

Let me quote these two Greek historians regarding early Church customs:

Greek historian Socrates wrote how Pope Julius (337-352) had charged Arianizing bishops with "the violation of the canons, neglecting to request his attendance at a Council, seeing thast, by ecclesiastical law, no decisions of churches are valid unless sanctioned by the Bishop of Rome."

Another Greek historian, Sozomen, noted that "he (Pope Julius) alleged that there is a sacerdotal canon, which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the judgement of the Bishop of Rome is null."

Thus both of these historians whom we owe much information about I Constantinople were aware of the claim of papal ratification being necessary with regards to ecclesiastical matters.
Are we aware of revolts from orthodox Catholic prelates?

"Saint Meletius was not in communion with Rome." (claim from Fr. Puller's "De Sacerdotio")

To this claim let us consider the following:

1) Saint Meletius was consecrated by Arians. I am not sure whether Apologist117 belongs to the Eastern Orthodox who accept the validity of sacraments conferred by those they deem to be "heretics". If I recall correctly, Apologist117 once sided with St. Cyprian's wrong opinion that baptism conferred by heretics is invalid. By the same logic, the consecration of Saint Meletius would then be invalid and this would thus harm his claim to the Patriarchal Throne of Antioch.

2) Saint Meletius and Saint John Chrysostom (ordained by the former as a deacon) were both in communion with Rome. Neither the former, nor the latter was excommunicated by the Holy See. Furthermore, I am not aware of any official decree cutting off either from communion with the Holy See. With regards to the latter, his cordial interaction with the Holy See is historically evident.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

3) Saint Meletius himself claimed to be in communion in Rome: both he and Paulinus sought to obtain the recognition of Pope St. Damasus to the exclusion of the other party. This thus is hardly evidence against the Primacy of Rome, but rather for it. (Grumel; Echos D'Orient (1922), p.291)

4) The Pope was misled and misinformed during this period of troubles in the Catholic Church. He got his information from Alexandrian sources: Alexandria with St. Athanasius also favoured Paulinus over Saint Meletius. St. Basil the Great voices his anger over such misinformation in his letter to his friend, Eusebius of Samosata (P.G. xxxii, 893. Ep. 239. But cf. Ep. 69 and 265.)

5) for more information on the so-called "Meletian schism", I suggest reading the following:

"The Eastern Churches and the Papacy" by the Rev. S. Herbert Scott

http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BasilChrysostomShort.pdf

6) We see in the example of the "Meletian Schism" a prime example of when the meddling of secular powers into ecclesiastical domain can have two effects: positive and negative. The same Constantine who banished Arius in 325 a.D. also banished the Catholic Patriarch Eustathius 5 years later: an event which stood at the beginning of the events leading to the "Meletian schism".

(Council of Ephesus) St. Cyril of Alexandria did not represent the Pope.

Indeed St. Cyril of Alexandria was not a papal legate. It was not my intention to make this claim. Rather, what I meant by "representing the Pope" was that St. Cyril of Alexandria communicated with Pope Celestine I. prior to the convocation of the Council to deal with the heresy of Nestorius. This is the letter sent by Pope Celestine I. To St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our See, and using your stead and place with power (exousia), you will deliver this sentence with the utmost severity, that within ten days counted from the day of your notice, he (Nestorius) shall condemn in a written confession his evil teaching, and promise for the future to confess the faith concerning the birth of Christ our God which both the Church of Rome and that of your Holiness and the whole Christian religion preaches, forthwith your Holiness will provide for that church. And let him know that he is altogether removed from our body. We have written the same to our brothers and fellow-bishops, John, Rufus, And Flavian, whereby our judgement concerning him, yea, rather the divine judgement of Christ our Lord, may be manifest." (The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy, James Likoudis, p. 71)

The Fathers declared their unity with the "holy head", Pope Celestine:

"...Being necessarilyimpelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy Father and colleague, Celestine, Bishop of the Roman church with many tears have arrived at the following sentence against him...this same Nestorius is deprived of the episcopal dignity and all sacerdotal intercourse."

Nestorius himself declared:

"It was the Bishop of Rome who was exercising the direction of the plotting of the Council of Ephesus against me." (Livre d'Heraclide, p. 327)

One could say that the entire Council represented the directions of Pope Celestine I.

The Council of Chalcedon was held against the expressed opinion of the Pope (Pope St. Leo the Great)

"It was the emperor Marcian who, after the "robber" council of Ephesus (449), commanded this council to meet. Pope Leo I was opposed to it. His view was that all the bishops should repent of their ways and individually sign his earlier dogmatic letter to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, and so avoid a new round of argument and debate. Moreover, the provinces of the West were being laid waste by Attila's invasions. But before the pope's view became known, the emperor Marcian had, by an edict of 17 May 451, convoked the council for 1 September 451. Although the pope was displeased, he sent legates: Paschasinus bishop of Lilybaeum, Bishop Lucentius, the priests Boniface and Basil, and Bishop Julian of Cos. No doubt Leo thought that the council would cause people to leave the church and go into schism. So he wanted it to be postponed for a time, and he implored the emperor that the faith handed down from ancient times should not become the subject of debate. The only business should be the restoration of the exiled bishops to their former positions. "

It is this same Council in which Pope St. Leo the Great refused to ratify canon 28 and without Papal ratification, it was not valid. Here is Mark J. Bonocore's exposition on canon 28: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm

The Acts of the Council also proclaim the primacy of the Roman Pontiff:

"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ' We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out." (Acts of the Council, session 1 [a.D. 451])

The Council of Chalcedon is far from being an example against Papal Supremacy. One could ask simply how the "head of all churches" might be separated from the Church: is it possible for the head to be without the body and the body without the head?

The Council had the last say on orthodoxy, not the bishop of Rome.

And the Conciliar degrees depending upon papal ratification presents papal authority as the final arbiter of orthodoxy. Pope St. Leo the Great answered the petitions of Easterners to ratify canon 28 with the following words: "Resolutions of bishops which are repugnant to the holy canons defined at Nicaea...we rescind and utterly annul by the authority of the blessed Apostle Peter, since in all ecclesiatical questions we defer to those laws which the Holy Ghost laid down through the three hundred and eighteen prelates, with a view to their peaceable observance by all bishops." (Epistle 105 to the Empress Pulcheria)

If Papal Supremacy based on divine right (de Jure Divino) was "heretical" as Apologist117 portrays it to be, then this epistle to Empress Pulcheria wherein Pope St. Leo the Great claims authority over an Ecumenical Council by virtue of being the successor of Pope St. Peter must be expected to have encoutered opposition by the "orthodox". We see none of this, instead Pope St. Leo the Great is celebrated in East and West as a champion of orthodoxy.

II Constantinople was convoked by Emperor Justinian in opposition to Pope Vigilius.

Indeed Pope Vigilius was against the ideals being followed by Pope Justinian. We must however observe the following:

1) Pope Vigilius opposed the Council due to the fact he knew that Emperor Justinian was engaged in coercion and intimidation of its bishops. (The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and modern Eastern Orthodoxy, James Likoudis, p. 129)

2) The decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council coul have no ecumenical authority without confirmation by the Roman Pontiff. (ibid.)

"His opposition [to condemning the "Three Chapters" in the vein of Justinian] had never been based on doctrinal grounds but on the decency and opportunness of the measures proposed, the wrongful Imperial violence, and a delicate fear of injury to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon." (ibid. p. 130)

Church historian Luis Duchesne judges the situation this way:

"...the Pope [Vigilius] was inopportunist, the [Fifth] Council was opportunist, and for the sake of peace the Pope gave in to the conciliar decree of condemnation. But the proof that he was in the right is shown by the fact that this very condemnation was misunderstood in the West and caused serious troubles and schisms." (Churches Separated from Rome, page 47)

Another Church historian, Philip Hughes adds, that "after a six months of bullying, of isolation, and imprisonment, Vigilius past eighty years of age, yielded.", only to die the next year in Syracuse after the Emperor Justinian had allowed him to return to Rome (after ten years of virtual house imprisonment). (The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and modern Eastern Orthodoxy, James Likoudis, p. 131)

Contrary to the contention of Protestants, Jansenists, Gallicans, and modern enemies of the Papacy, the "Case of Vigilius" fails to support their thesis that Ecumenical Councils are superior to the Pope and that Papal Infallibility is disproved. Actually, in the words of Dom John Chapman, O.S.B., (ibid.)
"No Council has more emphatically testified than the Fifth Ecumenical Council that under ordinary circumstances the Pope must preside, that his decision should be the ground of the Council's decree, and that his confirmation is a "sine qua non" if a Council is ro have ecumenical authority." (The First Eight Ecumenical Councils and Papal Infallibility, CTS, London, 3rd edition, 1928)

Let us listen to what Pope Vigilius and the 6th century Church believed in with regards to the Papacy:

"To no one well-or-ill-informed is it doubtful that the Roman Church is the foundation and the mould of the churches, from which no one of right belief is ignorant that all churches here derived their beginning. Since, though the election of the Apostles was equal, yer a preeminence over the rest was granted to Blessed Peter, when he is also called the Cephas, being the head and beginning of all the Apostles: and what has gone before in the head must follow in the members. Wherefore the holy Roman Church, through his merit consecrated by the Lord's voice, and established by the authority of the holy Fathers, holds the Primacy over all the churches, to which as well the highest concerns of bishops, their causes, and complaints, are ever to be referred, as to the head. For he who knows himself to be set over others should not object to one being placed over himself. For the Church itself, which is the first, has bestowed its authority on the rest of the churches with this condition, that they be called to a part of its solicitude, not to the fullness of its power. Whence the causes of all bishops who appeal to the Apostolic See, and the proceedings in all greater causes, are known to be reserved to that holy See; especially as in all these its decisions must always be awaited: and if any bishops attempts to resist this course, let him know that he will give account to that holy See, not without endangering his own rank." (Fragment of a letter written in 538 a.D. - Mansi, ix. 33)

Pope Honorius I was condemned and anathematized by an Ecumenical Council.

Indeed Pope Honorius was condemned by an Ecumenical Council. Let us consider the following:

1) He was condemned post-mortem, thus without being given the chance to explain his case.

2) He was not deposed, nor his papacy declared null and void. He died in communion with the Church.

"St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II, had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted." This appears to express exactly the mind of the council, only that the council avoided suggesting that Honorius disgraced the Roman Church. The last words of the quotation are given above as in the Greek of the letter, because great importance has been attached to them by a large number of Catholic apologists. Pennacchi, followed by Grisar, taught that by these words Leo II explicitly abrogated the condemnation for heresy by the council, and substituted a condemnation for negligence. Nothing, however, could be less explicit. Hefele, with many others before and after him, held that Leo II by the same words explained the sense in which the sentence of Honorius was to be understood. Such a distinction between the pope's view and the council's view is not justified by close examination of the facts. At best such a system of defence was exceedingly precarious, for the milder reading of the Latin is just as likely to be original: "but by profane treachery attempted to pollute its purity". In this form Honorius is certainly not exculpated, yet the pope declares that he did not actually succeed in polluting the immaculate Roman Church. However, in his letter to the Spanish King Erwig, he has: "And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished." To the Spanish bishops he explains his meaning: "With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence." That is, he did not insist on the "two operations", but agreed with Sergius that the whole matter should be hushed up. Pope Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenicalcouncils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: "Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions" (Liber diurnus, ii, 9). It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Further we see that e.g. Pope Agatho who addressed the issue surrounding Pope Honorius, made a distinction between the person and the papal office:

“The heretics have followed some passing expressions imprudently set down by one Pope [Honorius], who made no appeal to papal authority, nor to tradition from St. Peter. Against this I put the repeated, the continuous protest of Pope after Pope, authoritative, grave, deliberate. Their voice was intended to be, and was, the voice of the infallible Roman Church.” (Mansi, xi, 285).

The statement ends with a claim to infallibility for the Roman Church.

To those interested in a long debate on this issue, I suggest reading the following link:

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/church/larson-part2-3.htm

Here I end my responde to Apologist117's first video response to my essays.

The Church and Salvation

2009-12-07T05:09:00.000-08:00

In this entry, I would like to discuss the much debated dogma stating "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" - outside the Church there is no salvation.
Many people do not understand properly the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the salvation of Non-Catholics. My intention is to outline the Catholic teaching. If there is anything wrong in my exposition, then someone should - rather must - correct me.

Building upon my Biblical exposition on the necessity of being a formal member of the Church (to be found here: http://papsttreu.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-yes-church-no.html ), I now intend to show the traditional belief of the Church regarding the matter of salvation outside the Church:

Part I: ordinary means of salvation:

St. Irenaeus (a.D. 130 - 202):
"The Church is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them . . . . We hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come . . . . Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons."

Origen (a.D. 185 - 254):
"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).

St. Cyprian of Carthage:
"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]).

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church" (ibid., 69[70]:2 [A.D. 253]).

Lactantius:
"It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . . . Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject" (Divine Institutes 4:30:11–13 [A.D. 307]).

St. Jerome (a.D. 347 - 420):
"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church" (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]).

St. Augustine (a.D. 354 - 430):
"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

St. Fulgentius (a.D. 468 - 533):
"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Pope St. Gregory the Great (reigned a.D. 590 - 604):
"The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved."

St. Francis of Assisi (a.D. 1182 - 1226):
"All who have not believed that Jesus Christ was really the Son of God are doomed. Also, all who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and do not believe it is really the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord . . . these also are doomed!"

St. Thomas Aquinas (a.D. 1226 - 1274):
"There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church."

St. Robert Bellarmine (a.D. 1542 - 1621):
"Outside the Church there is no salvation...therefore in the symbol (Apostles Creed) we join together the Church with the remission of sins: 'I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins"...For this reason the Church is compared to the Ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church."

St. Louis Marie de Montfort (a.D. 1673 - 1716):
"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes."

St. Alphonsus Maria de Legouri (a.D. 1696 - 1787):
"All the misfortunes of unbelievers spring from too great an attachment to the things of life. This sickness of heart weakens and darkens the understanding, and leads to eternal ruin. If they would try to heal their hearts by purging them of their vices, they would soon receive light, which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church, where alone is salvation. We should constantly thank the Lord for having granted us the gift of the true Faith, by associating us with the children of the Holy Catholic Church ... How many are the infidels, heretics, and schismatics who do not enjoy the happiness of the true Faith! Earth is full of them and they are all lost!"

Let us continue with the solemn definitions - i.e. dogmatic - of the Catholic Church:

Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council (a.D. 1215):
"There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam (a.D. 1302):
"We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino (a.D. 1441):
"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

All the previous citations demonstrate the Church's teaching on the ordinary means of salvation: that it is absolutely necessary to enter into the Catholic Church in order to be saved. Thus it is taught by the Second Vatican Council that “whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved” (Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 14).

The Church is thus to be understood as the "universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774 - 776).

"The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men." (CCC 780)

Part II: extraordinary means of salvation:

Does all this therefore mean that anyone who happens to not be a Catholic is therefore certainly doomed?

The Christian dogma of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" in its traditional sense contains a provision: that those who are invincibly ignorant may be saved despite their not being formal members of the Catholic Church here on earth.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
"To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.³³⁴

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" (CCC 845)

And in CCC 846:

"How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?³³⁵ Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.^336"

And now comes the provision in CCC 847:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.³³⁷

The provision is that those who through no fault of their own know not the Gospel of Christ or His Church - i.e. the invinsibly ignorant thereof - but still try to live a God-pleasing life to the best of their abilities in accordance to their conscience , may be saved.

It is taught by the Second Vatican Council that “those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (Lumen Gentium, 16).

In the past there arose a controversy with the rigorist Father Feeney who taught that absolutely noone - regardless of his knowledge or ignorance of the Gospel and of the Church - may be saved unless he becomes a formal member of the Catholic Church.

The controversy was ended by a clarification from the Holy See:
“In the aftermath of the controversy, the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing, received a letter of clarification from the Holy Office. This letter, dated August 8, 1949, is important for its explanation of the necessity of the Church: she is necessary for salvation by divine command, not by intrinsic necessity. The Church, as Christ’s mystical body, is the sole ark of salvation, but direct, formal membership in her through the sacraments is only the ordinary means of salvation. In other words, knowledge of the Church and of her Founder is required of anyone for whom is to be considered necessary for salvation.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, p.862, Reverend Peter Stravinskas, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, Indiana, 1991)

Thus, without knowledge neither of the Gospel of Christ and of the Catholic Church, one cannot be judged to be doomed.

Examples of this teaching:

Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quidem (a.D. 1856):
"This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."

Thus the correct understand of the dogma "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" is explained by the following words:

Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamus Moerore (a.D. 1863):
"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching."

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."

Warnings:

There are those who would distort the official teaching of the Church so as to claim that all Non-Catholic Christians will be saved. This is an error since we know that these separated Christians are:
a) not ignorant of the Gospel of Christ
b) not all invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church

In a sense, one could say that this provision is more likely to apply to Non-Christians than to other Christians - who through their knowledge of the Gospel will be judged by stricter standards (ref.: Luke 12:48; James 1:22-27; 1 John 2:4).

A Non-Catholic Christian who therefore knows of the Gospel and of the necessity of the Catholic Church, but obstinately refuses to enter into her, will not be saved.

Some people have problems with such statements so as to claim that I - by making such statements - were "behaving in a heretical manner" or "being a dick". Furthermore, certain people would claim that I am not allowed to make such statements as I am "not God". Some would even go as far as to say that they would "never join the Catholic Church" because of my behaviour.

Now here is what I have to say:

1) I am fully aware of the fact that I am not God. And that Judgement is God's prerogative. While indeed I may not claim to know who specifically will be in hell - since I know not the hearts of men - we can see in Christian Tradition that it is not wrong to outline the ordinary means of salvation and that according to the dogmas of the Church, the sins of certain people may be judged as being worthy of damnation.

If one does not think this is true, then I would invite people to read e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. "

Certain sins exclude the possibility of salvation. While I cannot say that a person who has committed adultery in his life will definitely perish - since I know not if he will repent or not - I can say that those who persist in this sin and refuse to repent and be forgiven by means of the sacrament of reconciliation will perish.

Similary one can say that unless someone repents, he will perish (ref.: Luke 13:3 & 5).

2) The provision to "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" is not to be understood in terms of every Non-Christian being invincibly ignorant of the Gospel or the Church of Christ. We live in a time wherein information is very easy to gather. And I find it plausible to assume that there may only be very few people who have never heard of the Gospel of Christ or of His Church. Thus, those who say that they "just do not care" about the claims of the Gospel and of the Church are already disqualified from being invincibly ignorant.

Christ Himself did not teach that those who closed themselves to the Gospel would be saved.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matthew 10:14-15)

3) Another very harmful attitude is that of rejecting the message because of the way the message is conveyed or because of disdain towards the messenger. Such attitude is harmful because:

° the truth of a message does not depend upon its way of communication.
° the truth of a message does not depend upon our liking or disliking of the messenger
° with regards to Christian doctrine: rejecting a doctrine because of disliking the way it is conveyed or because of disliking the messenger does not excuse one's rejection of truth

Thus, those who tell me they would "never become a Catholic" because of my behaviour, are doing more harm to themselves than to anyone else.

I do admit that I do not always behave the way I should. There is no excuse. I apologize to everyone who has been offended by my "cold" way of communicating doctrine to people. However, I do not apologize for the orthodox Christian doctrine that I convey. I find it more important to adhere to orthodox doctrine than to "please" everyone I speak to. And since we are commanded to love God above all, problems will arise, and I do not value such "peace" over Divine Truth, that is Jesus Christ.
If you find such attitude to also be appalling, I address you to Matthew 10:34-37.

Furthermore, to reject the Church because one rejects the behaviour of certain people who are formally within the Church or due to disdain towards certain individuals within the Church means that one judges the Church by one's perception of the morality of those within the Church.
This is wrong because this links to the heresy of Montanism and Donatism and because even from within the Church, there will be those who will not be perfect (ref.: Acts 20:29-39).

I will try my best to follow what Pope John Paul II taught:
"The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, "especially in what concerns God and his Church",33 and adherence to truth's demands. A "being together" which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart."
(Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint §18 "The fundamental importance of doctrine")

"Even so, doctrine needs to be presented in a way that makes it understandable to those for whom God himself intends it."
(Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint §19)

Last but not least: there are those who intend to "pick and choose" what they accept as being "essential to salvation" by their own standards. Thus, while some might vehemently oppose the Christian Dogma of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", the same could be in total agreement to the teaching that there is no salvation to be found than in Christ: thus indirectly condemning all those who are not Christians.
Furthermore, while someone may think that that "belonging to Church is not necessary for salvation", the same could believe that those who claim to be Christians but are Sodomites will not inherit the Kingdom of God (ref.: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), i.e. that these will be doomed.

The pattern we can see here is that oftentimes, such people create a list of "essentials" which would make possible their own salvation and also that of the people they like. What we thus experience is the alteration not of the way one conveys Christian doctrine, but of Christian doctrine itself. Instead of being fashioned after orthodox doctrine, i.e. the Truth, one seeks to fashion doctrine according to one's own emotions or desires.

Such an attitude seems to me as a type of idolatry: placing one's desires or emotions above the truth revealed to us by God and safeguarded by His Church until the end of times. And with regards to such people, I claim that those guilty of altering the truth to fit their desires will not be saved unless they repent and turn from their wicked ways.

If you think that this is hard to believe in, then I remind you of those who placed their personal understanding above the words of the Christ:

"Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" (John 6:61)

and then:

"After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him." (John 6:67)

Thus we are taught:

"Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." (1 Timothy 4:16)

And:

"Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Timothy 4:2-3)

Jesus - yes; Church - no?

2009-12-02T07:07:00.000-08:00

"I believe in and love Jesus Christ. I do not need any 'Church' or denomination!"

While the above statement may not be an exact quotation, it does reflect upon an ideology which not few Christians believe in. This ideology is about an individualistic "Christian" life; this means that Christians who follow this ideology think that all that is necessary for them to "be saved" is to "love Jesus". The problem with their concept is that they understand this "loving of Jesus" as excluding the Church which Christ has established: it is one which excludes the visible communion of Christians.

In this text, I would like to show why one cannot truly claim to love Jesus when one rejects His Church at the same time. Now, I understand if one will object by saying he does not believe the Catholic Church to be the Church of Christ. However, such an opposition to the Catholic Church does not justify the altogether rejection of the belief that "one cannot have God as Father, who does not have the church as Mother” (St. Cyprian of Carthage; De ecclesiae unitate, 6).

Furthermore, I would like to warn against those who "profess that they know God: but in their works they deny him" (Titus 1:16). It is thus possible to claim to follow God in theory, but to do the opposite in practice.

In my exposition, I will assume the following:
1) that he who claims to love Jesus accepts the Holy Bible as being God's Word
2) that he who claims to love Jesus follows what the Bible teaches

At first let us establish that the greatest commandments consist of loving God above all else and loving one's neighbour as oneself:

from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 12:

28 And there came one of the scribes that had heard them reasoning together, and seeing that he had answered them well, asked him which was the first commandment of all. 29 And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.

But what does it mean "to love God"? How does one "love God"? My claim is that we love God by obedience. To back this claim, I will cite the following passages:

"If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (John 14:21)

"Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." (John 14:23)

"He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father's who sent me." (John 14:24)

"If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father's commandments, and do abide in his love." (John 15:10)

And to further show that such obedience is necessary for salvation:

"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 7:21)

Now, as I have said before, it is important that the Christian saying he loves Jesus accepts the Holy Bible as God's Word, i.e. what we are taught to follow in it, is what God wills. Thus, to refuse to follow a command would be an offense against the love of God.

Now, all I have to do is to demonstrate that the Christian faith is one of communion: "rugged individualism", i.e. non-affiliation to the Church, is not only unChristian, it is ANTI-Christian.

Fact 1: Christ Jesus established a visible Church and this Church is one:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

Jesus speaks of His Church in the singular. It will be built upon a visible rock: Peter (Kepha). Thus, Jesus established a visible and singular Church.

That the Church is meant to be one is expressed by the following words also:

"And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16)

The unity of the Church is also expressed by the following promise of indefectibility:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

"And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." (Matthew 12:25)

Since the Church is the "house of God" and the "pillar and ground of truth" ( 1 Timothy 3:15) , it cannot be likened unto any earthly kingdoms which will not stand.

And God cannot have willed the division amongst Christians since "God is not the God of dissension, but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33)

Fact 2: The Church is Christ's flock and one is a sheep by obedience:

We know that the Church is also called the "flock" since Christians are also termed as Christ's "sheep"; wherefore Christ calls Himself the "Good Sheperd":

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep." (John 10:11)

One is part of the flock through loving Jesus, i.e. God, by obedience:

"I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep." (John 10:14-15)

Christ died for His sheep: Christ died for those who obey Him: thus, His sheep are those who obey Him:

"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you." (John 15:13-14)

Fact 3: The Church has a visible hierarchy which we owe obedience:

Jesus Christ, the Good Sheperd, entrusted His flock, i.e. the Church, unto a visible leader, Peter:

from the Gospel of John, chapter 21:

15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

That "feeding the sheep" is an expression of supreme authority can be seen from the Old Testament wherein it is God Himself who "feeds the sheep":

"I will feed my sheep: and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God." (Ezechiel 34:15)

And promising the coming of Christ, the High Priest of the New and Eternal Covenant, God declared:

"AND I WILL SET UP ONE SHEPHERD OVER THEM, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd." (Ezechiel 34:23)

What does it therefore mean when Christ appoints Peter to "feed His sheep"? Christ Jesus makes Peter His visible Vicar: the visible head of the one flock, of the Church. To thus deny this, is to go against the very words of the Lord Jesus Christ. He who does not follow Him, does not love Him.

Further examples of hierarchy and obedience:

"Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops (elders), to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28)

"Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you." (Hebrews 13:17)

Obedience to prelates can only exist within a structured system, i.e. a Church, wherein there is a system of hierarchy. The "rugged individualist" cannot follow this Biblical command.

That disobedience to the human authorities of the Church is a grave sin is taught also in the New Testament which warns against the "the contradiction of Core" (Jude 1:7).

What did Core do?

"His sons, were Namuel and Dathan and Abiron. These are Dathan and Abiron the princes of the people, that rose against Moses and Aaron in the sedition of Core, when they rebelled against the Lord" (Numbers 26:9)

The original story is in Numbers 16:

1 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben, 2 Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name. 3 And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?

Four things are important to note:

1) The sin of these people who were so greatly punished by the Lord (Numbers 26:10) was that of disobedience. They rose up against the leadership of Moses and Aaron as instituted by the Lord.

2) This disobedience against the earthly hierarchy set up by the Lord is understood as a rebellion against God Himself (Numbers 26:9).

3) The question "why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord" denoting a certain apathy towards the hierarchy of the Church and a false understanding of equality is the exact same attitude we get from protestants nowadays who criticize and oppose the Catholic Church and from those who claim to love God, but reject His Church.

4) The obedience to the earthly authorities of God's people taught in the Old Testament IS still required by God from Christians. Otherwise, we would not see this condemnation of Core in the New Testament.

That disobedience towards the Church is a grave sin is expressed already by the following words of Jesus:

"And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." (Matthew 18:17)

That Jesus here speaks of the visible Church is clear from the following verse in which He speaks of the "binding and loosing" authority (Matthew 18:18), which He has first promised in singular manner unto Peter, the Vicar of the Good Sheperd (Matthew 16:19).

A further reference to obedience to the Church is:

"We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." ( 1 John 4:6)

Thus, if one chooses to refuse due obedience to the Church, one is to be considered as the "heathen and the publican": no longer as part of the Church, as the flock, to whom salvation is promised.

Fact 4: The Church is a Eucharistic Communion:

It is taught that "we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" (Romans 12:5). Thus, the Church is indeed one. But how is this unity effected? Some may claim that the unity of the Church is "invisible" and that even the "rugged individualist" who refuses visible membership to the Church is necessatily part of the "invisible Church".

Now, despite the fact that the aforementioned Biblical passages totally contradict such a position and that such a position cannot be Biblically defended, the unity of the Church is effected by means of the Holy Communion:

In the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 10, we read:

16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

Hence, the unity of the Church is effected by a visible sacrament: that of Holy Communion. How does a "rugged individualist" partake in this sacrament? He cannot.

But the Lord taught in the Gospel of John, chapter 6:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Obviously, some of the Jews could not accept in faith what the Lord said:

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

But Jesus, far from changing his statement, reaffirmed His teaching:

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Obviously, there were those who could not believe what Jesus said. Perhaps because it sounded "irrational". Thus, we have an example of one of the first, if not the first , schisms:

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

And as evident from the example from the New Testament, Christians have since then followed Christ's command regarding the sacrament of Holy Communion and does celebrate the Holy Mass on Sundays:
"And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7)

Tree Analogy:

"Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (John 15:2)

"If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth." (John 15:6)

Thus, he who does not "bear fruit" will be damned. Wherefore, it is necessary to remain attached to the Christ, in order to be able to even bear fruit since Jesus said "for without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)

I would like to use the "tree" since it is referenced in Matthew 13:31-32:

"Another parable he proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field. Which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof."

If we imagine the Church of Christ to be as a tree, we can imagine Christ as being the root which gives life unto the rest: it is the firm foundation of the tree. The trunk we can imagine to be Peter, whom Christ has elevated to the position of His Vicar, the visible tender of the flock. Christ as the root is invisible, Peter as the trunk is visible. The bigger branches directly attached to the trunk are all the prelates of the Church in communion with Peter and thus to Christ. As the Holy Spirit proceeds in no other way than from the Father and from/through the Son, so also the authority of the prelates of the Church proceeds from God in no other way than though Peter. The smaller branches, twigs and leaves symbolize the laity: all the members of the Church. We see that, as long as they remain attached to the bigger branches, and these to the trunk, and the trunk to the root, there will be fruit. However, if a branch is detached from the trunk, that branch will wither and die. This branch signifies all those who refuse to enter into the visible communion of the Catholic Church.

Conclusion:

With all the previous information, one cannot claim to turly love God while rejecting His Church because God wills that a Christian is obedient to His Church.
Therefore it is true to say that "one cannot have God as Father, who does not have the church as Mother".

He who rejects the Church, disobeys Jesus. He who disobeys the Christ, cannot truly love Him. And he who does not love Jesus, is damned:

"If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha." (1 Corinthians 16:22)

responding to AnglicanApologist72

2009-11-26T06:03:00.001-08:00

Anglicanapologist71 (a youtuber and Anglican apologist) whom I had addressed in my essay on the Anglican position concerning Purgatory has made a respone.
First, I would like to thank him for taking the time to read and respond to my article.

Then I will address his response. Citations from his blog will be in red.

"First, the conception of purgatory in the 39 Articles is not simply the intermediate state between death and judgment where one experiences separation of body and soul (death), but further, the intermediate state between death and judgement where one is purified/purged from sins from the past life, so that this person may enter the kingdom of God. I, as an Anglican, affirm the first conception, which is not the "fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God" that the 39 Articles speak of, and I deny the latter conception, which is the conception of Purgatory repudiated by the 39 Articles."

Thus, what Anglicanapologist72 denies is the idea that "one is purified/purged from sins from the past life, so that this person may enter the kingdom of God".

He continues:

"Not really, Blackcappa. What it means is that at some point in Church history, the doctrine was vainly invented, whether after 1054 or maybe in the 6th century AD. As we will see, throughout this article, the Romish doctine of Purgatory evolved over time. Gregory the I is the first Church leader to affirm, as an article of faith, the Romish doctrine of Purgatory. No significant leader beforehand had fully believed and accepted it as truth. Blackcappa proceeds to try and show that prayer for the dead proves the doctrine of Purgatory, yet I fully disagree with his reasoning. Let's observe his citations."

"The Romish doctrine evolved over time": It would perhaps be helpful to note that we Catholics do believe in a development of doctrine: i.e.: we do not expect what is explicitly formulated in a dogma to be explicit before such formulation. A short example would be the dogma of the hypostatic union. I doubt Anglicanapologist72 would declare any dogma until the 7th century to be "vainly invented". Why? Because he claims to follow these first 7 Ecumenical Councils: even if one could challenge every single one of them - as had been done before they were formulated. As a matter of fact: many dogmas were formulated in response to arising heresies. Praying for the dead and the belief that such prayers do help them is a Christian belief eversince.

AnglicanApologist72 then continues to analyze the citations I have provided. Instead of responding to each of his analyses, I would like to check whether his anti-Catholic interpretation does work:

"The doctrine of Purgatory is not only unbiblical, but it is repugnant to the word of God because God's words are not to be added to. Of course, I don't think the doctrine of Purgatory is heresy, but adding to God's words is most certainly repugnant and should not be done. Since Blackcappa has put forth his case for Purgatory and against the 39 Articles on the matter, I shall now put forth my case against purgatory itself and not only against his arguments. The earliest and apostolic belief was that death itself finished off the purging of sin, which hence, occurs in this life and at death. The intermediate state was not believed to be a state of purging (of course until the time of Augustine - Gregory), but rather, a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous, and a state of torture for the wicked. How else can you explain these statements made by the Fathers?"

Justin Martyr: The souls of the godly remain in a better place, the unjust and wicked in a worse, awaiting the day of judgment (Dial. p. 223 ; Conf. Quaest. et Respons. ad Orthodox. Justino Imputat. qu. 5).

Irenaeus: Each sort of Men receive, even before the judgment, their due place of abode (Lib. II 63).

Tertullian: (Paradise is described) as a place of divine pleasantness, destined to receive the spirits of the just (Apol. c. 47).

Cyprian: Do not think death the same thing to the just and the unjust. The just are called to a refereshing, the unjust are taken away into torment; speedily safety is given to the faithful, to the unfaithful, punishment (Cyp. De Mortalitate, p. 161, Oxon 1682).

Let me address the following Fathers then.

The first quote from St. Justin Martyr cannot be used against the dogma of Purgatory as Purgatory is indeed a better place than the abode of the unjust (hell). Those in Purgatory are destined to heaven.

On Tertullian:

"And if we speak of Paradise, the place of heavenly bliss appointed to receive the spirits of the saints, severed from the knowledge of this world by that fiery zone as by a sort of enclosure, the Elysian plains have taken possession of their faith. "

How does this contradict or even refute the dogma of Purgatory? We affirm that heaven indeed is the destination of the spirits of the saints.

Tertullian also made the following statements:

That allegory of the Lord [Matt. 5:25-26] . . . is extremely clear and simple in its meaning . . . [beware lest as] a transgressor of your agreement, before God the judge . . . and lest this judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation? (The Soul 35 [A.D. 210]).

"This place, the Bosom of Abraham, though not in Heaven, and yet above hell, offers the souls of the righteous an interim refreshment until the end of all things brings about the general resurrection and the final reward." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:34, before 220 A.D.)

"Indeed she [a widow] prays for his [her husband's] soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection [Heaven]. And each year, on the anniversity of his death, she offers the Sacrifice [i.e., has a Mass said for him]." (Tertullian, On Monagomy, 212 A.D.)

AnglicanApologist72 criticized the latter citation since "we see nothing of a state where sins are purified by inflicted suffering after death and before judgment in this citation. All we see is prayer for a dead person's comfort, which gives no support of Purgatory."

How can we then harmonize the above citations with the following statement?:

"The intermediate state was not believed to be a state of purging (of course until the time of Augustine - Gregory), but rather, a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous, and a state of torture for the wicked."

Why would one pray for the just? And it is not taught that we ought to pray for the damned: prayer would be useless for those in heaven: there is no need to console them. Prayer is useless for the damned:

The 1st Century Eastern Bishop, St. Dionysius the Aeropagite Martyr of Athens said:

"For the Hierarch, the expounder of the supremely Divine Justice, would never seek things, which were not most pleasing to the Almighty God, and divinely promised to be given by Him [Ap. C. viii. 43]. Wherefore, he does not offer these prayers over the unholy fallen asleep, not only because in this he would deviate from his office of expounder, and would presumptuously arrogate, on his own authority, a function of the Hierarchy, without being moved by the Supreme Legislator, but because he would both fail to obtain his abominable prayer, and he, not unnaturally, would hear from the just Oracle, "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss" [Jam 4:3]." [Ecclesiatical Hierarchy 7:3:7]

Now to quote from St. Cyprian: De Mortalitate is a treatise on the hopes for salvation of a Christian. That we need not fall into despair since we expect life everlasting. It thus contrasts the destiny of the unjust who preish unto eternal damnation with the destiny of the just which is life everlasting.

It should be noted that St. Cyprian himself taught also in a more distinguished fashion:

"It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the Day of Judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253])."

He is not speaking about the just and the unjust here: he obviously speaks of two types who will both attain the crown of eternal life. However, one receives the promised glory right away, while the other has to be "cleansed and long purged by fire". What is the just to be cleansed and purged from if he there is nothing unclean within him?

And there stands the claim:

"The intermediate state was not believed to be a state of purging (of course until the time of Augustine - Gregory), but rather, a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous, and a state of torture for the wicked."

The intermediate state is not believed to be for everyone. Thus, we will find statements concerning the contrast between the Just and the Unjust, and we will find statements describing those who are Christians but still undergo the process of purification.

It is interesting that he first claims that Purgatory is an invention, but then admits that it was around as early as the 4th century. So he admits that one can indeed find this teaching in the early Church, yet rejects it. Were then the Councils after the 4th century all false since they formulated something that was not yet "set in stone" before?

To give more evidence:

St. Epiphanius of Salamis says in 375 [Panarion 75:8], "Useful too is the prayer fashioned on their [the dead's] behalf... it is useful, because in this world we often stumble either voluntarily or involuntarily."

So the reasoning behind the prayer for the dead is found in the transgressions the dead committed before their departure. Are we then to assume that such these transgressions have thus no effect whatsoever on the souls of Christians?

Then we have St. Gregory of Nyssa who says before 394 [Sermon on the Dead], "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil."

"till the purging fire have cleansed the stains"

Is this not clear enough?

Now I ask AnglicanApologist72: How can he harmonize these citations with the ones I provide and the fact that both Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox do believe in the efficacy of prayers for the dead?

Let us examine AnglicanApologist72's criticism of my the quotes I have provided:

To the first citation he says:

"First of all, the Acts of Paul is not an authority whatsoever, but rather, a later, apocryphal text. Yet, the citation above proves nothing of purgatory from the prayer given by Falconilla, because it says nothing of a state where one is purified from the sins of the past life, only that her mother be received by God and made just. No where is the Romish conception of Purgatory found here. Let's take a look at the next citation."

My intention was to show that it was Christian practice and not a later invention. Now indeed it does not speak of a "state of purification from the sins of the past life", but it speaks of a "transfer to the place of the just". We know that the damned cannot go to heaven. And according to the explanations of AnglicanApologist72: the just go to their respectice place and the damned to theirs. Where then is Falconilla?

On to the second criticism:

"Again, we see nothing of a state where sins are purified by inflicted suffering after death and before judgment in this citation. All we see is prayer for a dead person's comfort, which gives no support of Purgatory. Let's observe his next citation."

The same situation. But we see this:
"I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. And where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and that pool which I had before seen, I saw now with its margin lowered even to the boy's navel. And one drew water from the pool incessantly, and upon its brink was a goblet filled with water; and Dinocrates drew near and began to drink from it, and the goblet did not fail. And when he was satisfied, he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment."

So we have here a story about a boy who first is seen to be suffering, then prayers are offered for him and the conclusion is that he "was translated from the place of punishment".

What state or place is this? If he were "looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous", why did he suffer? If he were already in the abode of the unjust, how could he be moved away from it?

How can AnglicanApologist72 harmonize these texts with his claims?

to continue:

"And what suggests that the purification of the believer's sins after baptism are in the intermediate state, necessarily? Nothing. The purification Clement speaks of, is death itself- the most dreaded of our torments; and after death, one is passed into a state of less suffering, not more suffering. This is what Clement is saying. Consider Blackcappa's next citation."

I can follow the idea of death being the "non plus ultra" in terms of "torment": however, I find it hard ot imagine this taking place the moment we die:
"He is tortured then still more— not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions."

On Tertullians treatise on Monogamy, AnglicanApologist72 says:

"Again, like with the first two citations, we see nothing of a state where sins are purified by inflicted suffering after death and before judgment in this citation. All we see is prayer for a dead person's comfort, which gives no support of Purgatory."

See his exposition on the Soul as quoted above. And then we must again ask ourself what to pray for when there is only but joy for the just after death?

"Indeed,she prays for his soul,and requests refreshment for him meanwhile"

Refreshment from "a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous"? This sounds a bit odd.

He proceeds to say:

"We know that God knows the future and who will be in the kingdom of God and who won't be. We don't know the future. And that is why Cyril so strongly encourages prayer for the saints. In a way, they help the saints' salvation, only in the same way that if you prayed for a friend of your's who is ill to get better, you would have helped him get better. Therefore, prayer for the saints is not how Roman Catholics have made it out to be, that is, a meritorious system. It is rather, an acknowledgment that we don't know everything and God does. In sum, the prayers for the dead in the early church do not show the Roman conception of Purgatory to be correct."

The analogy to the sick friend is quite interesting: because when we pray for someone who is sick, we assume that sickness is evil and ask God for His help to alleviate this evil. What is the "evil" that a saint must be freed from when he is already experiencing the rewards to come?
It does not make sense.

Instead the correct intrepretation of the passage is that we pray for the departed so that in case they are still stained by the effects of sin, they may be granted mercy by God. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem gives the following analogy:

"For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offence, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves."

It's crystal clear.

"What Blackcappa forgot to mention was that while Origen believed in this state of purification one must undergo before entering into the Kingdom of God, he did NOT believe this purification occurred in the intermediate state between death and judgment. Origen, as Bishop Edward Harold Browne notes, believed all must undergo the fires of purging at the day of judgment, not in the intermediate state between death and judgment. Blackcappa proceeds to cite Augustine of Hippo."

With respect to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:

While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this effect:

St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii),
St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv),
St. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37),
St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and
Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.).

See also St. Thomas, "Contra Gentes,", IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, "Die christliche Eschatologie", p. 275.

Continuing:

"Augustine is probably Blackcapp's closest companion in this fight for the validity of Purgatory. But unfortunately for Blackcappa, Augustine is not dogmatic about this doctrine of Purgatory at all. He says elsewhere, concerning the notion that there is a purging fire after death of sins committed in the first life, that "[He] will not argue against it, for perhaps it is true (De. Civit. Dei, xxi. 26, Tom. vii. p.649)". He also says at least, that "it is not incredible (Enchiridion ad. Laurent. Cap. 69, Tom. vi. p. 222)". Augustine thinks Purgatory is probable, nothing more. "He does not affirm it as an article of faith" as Bishop Browne words it. It is a probable conjecture in the eyes of Augustine, yet contains some speculation. This is why Augustine cannot be used to strictly support the Purgatorial belief as a dogma in the early church. Blackcappa comes to the era in history, around 200 years after Augustine, where Purgatory is transformed into a dogma and enforced by the Church of the West. He quotes Caesar of Arles, who is rather vague, but gives a good hint of it..."

Let us turn to another text from St. Augustine wherein he says in 413 [Faith and Works 1:1 in PL 40:197-198],
"If the baptized person fulfills the obligations demanded of a Christian, he does well. If he does not--provided he keeps the faith, without which he would perish forever--no matter in what sin or impurity remains, he will be saved, as it were, by fire; as one who has built on the foundation, which is Christ, not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood, hay straw, that is, not just and chasted works but wicked and unchaste works."

Does this sound like mere speculation?

"He quotes Caesar of Arles, who is rather vague, but gives a good hint of it..."

"If we neither give thanks to God in tribulations nor redeem our own sins by good works,we shall have to remain in that purgatorian fire as long as it takes for those above-mentioned lesser sins to be consumed like wood and straw and hay." Ceasar of Arles,Sermon 179(104):2(A.D. 542),in JUR,III:283

What is vague about this?

...and Blackcappa quotes the first to actually state the Romish doctrine of Purgatory as a dogmatic doctrine of the Church. "Each one will be presented to the Judge exactly as he was when he departed this life. Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before judgement,because of some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ,the Truth, say that if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he shall not be forgiven 'either in this world or in the world to come'(Mt. 12:32)? From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions." Gregory the Great[regn. A.D. 590-604],Dialogues,4:39(A.D. 594),in FC,39:248

Is AnglicanApologist72 then saying that the doctrine of Purgatory has been declared a dogma in a.D. 594? This is before the Great Schism! So why does he reject it?

And to his interpretation:

"I shall comment on Gregory's interpretation of Matthew 12:32 to support a purging of sin after death and judgment. Blasphemy/rejection of the Holy Spirit not being forgiven "either in this world or the world to come" is a reference to the infinite amount of time the sin will not be forgiven. That does not mean some sins will be forgiven in the world to come, but that some sins are not to be unforgiven for eternity. Let us not abuse logic here."

So you simply declare Pope St. Gregory the Great as "being mistaken" and of "abusing logic"?

Nor in the world to come... From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place.

I am not arrogant enough to declare these Saints to be wrong due to the novel teachings of the Anglican community.

"Now, Blackcappa spends a great amount of time later in his article defending the invocation of the saints. As I noted previously, the "invocation of the saints" repudiated in the 39 Articles, is not simply giving honor and adoration to the saints, as in acknowledging their good works and their nature of devotion to God, but further, a form of worship to the saints as if they are our protectors, our saviors, our strength, etc. I think Blackcappa, the 39 Articles, and I agree on this, that the saints are by all means not to be worshiped, but of course, it is permitted that they be honored in a suitable way. Near the end of his article, Blackcappa writes this."

We do not worship Saints, nor Angels, nor any other being aside from God alone.

An example of Invocation is this:

St. Gregory Nazianzen says in 379 [Orations 24:11 in PG 35:1181A], "Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring her [the Virgin Justina] assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground."

"The doctrine of Purgatory is not only unbiblical, but it is repugnant to the word of God because God's words are not to be added to. Of course, I don't think the doctrine of Purgatory is heresy, but adding to God's words is most certainly repugnant and should not be done."

It has already been established that the dogma has Scriptural basis and thus not repugnant to the Word of God.

Purgatory

2009-11-18T04:55:00.000-08:00

This extract will be about a defense of the Christian dogma of Purgatory against the false teachings of the Anglicans.

I believe that one article from the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion should suffice to demonstrate the Anglican position on Purgatory which explicitly rejects Catholic teaching. It has to be noted though that the Thirty-Nine Articles are no longer viewed as being normative for all branches of Anglicanism, wherefore this will be a treaty against those who still hold to these erroneous beliefs.

The twenty-second article states:

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

I intend to refute the following claims:
1) The Catholic doctrine concerning Purgatory is "vainly invented".
2) The Catholic doctrine concerning purgatory is "grounded upon no warranty of Scripture".
3) The Catholic doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is "vainly invented".
4) The Catholic doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is "grounded upon no warranty of Scripture".
5) The Catholic doctrines concerning Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints are "repugnant to the Word of God".

Some may notice that I did not include the part about the "worshipping and adoration of Images and Relics". I do not think I need to address lies. We venerate Images and Relics, but do not worship them. I condemn this part of the article as being indeed "repugnant to the Word of God" who declared: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20; Matthew 19:18; Luke 18:20; Marl 10:19; Romans 13:9).

Before, I proceed, I shall take the word of an Anglican apologist (AnglicanApologist72 on youtube) claiming that the "Roman Catholic Church was founded in 1054 a.D.". This claim is understandable since to claim that the Roman Catholic Church has been around since 33 a.D. would mean that the (Roman) Catholic Church IS the Church that Christ Himself had established and unto which He promised indefectibility (Matthew 16:18) and perpetual existence and His guidance until the end of times (Matthew 28:20). This would mean that the Anglicans have broken away from the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, and that there is thus no justification for their schism. Thus, it is not uncommon for Anglicans to speak of the "Anglican Catholic Church", the "Roman Catholic Church", and the "Orthodox Catholic Church": supposedly these three are "branches" or "fragments" of the once visibly united pre-1054 Catholic Church. To AnglicanApologist72 therefore, the "Roman Catholic Church", i.e. the Catholic Church in communion with the Roman Pontiff, the Pope, only came into existence after 1054 a.D. (without considering the fact that the schism between the West and East was finally consummated in the 15th century: the excommunications of 1054 were of individuals against individuals, not the Churches). This false assertion of his will be very useful in the refutation of the Anglican position.

Note: it must be observed, that I take for granted that what "AnglicanApologist72" says is indeed conform to what the Anglican community teaches. Given the fact that there are so many different branches with varying ideas, I apologize in advance is my argumentation is based upon a false exposition of the Anglican position (granted there is a normative one regarding this issue).

We can now proceed with the refutation of the Anglican claims:

in response to claim 1:

The 22nd article claims that the "Romish Catholic Doctrine" concerning Purgatory is "vainly invented."

This claim suggests that the Roman Catholic Church invented post-1054 a.D. a novel and false doctrine called "Purgatory". If this is true, we should not find anything pertaining to Purgatory prior to 1054 a.D..
Before we continue, let us first find out what the Roman Catholic Church teaches with respect to the dogma of Purgatory:

To summarize what the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically formulated regarding Purgatory, I cite an Eastern Catholic:

"In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Latin Church fully on both of these points. In practice, we routinely celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead, and offer numerous prayers on their behalf. We would not do so if we did not agree with the above two dogmatic points."

To quote even from the Ecumenical Council of Trent:

Session XXV:
DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY. "Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, [Page 233] but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ."

The presentation of the Eastern Catholic should already suffice as a refutation of the Anglican claim: since both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches agree on a transitional state of purification after death and the efficacy of prayers for the souls departed, this doctrine, this dogma, cannot be a post-1054 Roman Catholic invention.

Though, I woud like to still provide for more evidence which will demonstrate that it is indeed a Christian practice to pray for the deceased since there was a belief in such a transitional state of purification:

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again receives her. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: Mother, thou shaft have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the just."
Acts of Paul and Thecla(A.D. 160),in ANF,VIII:490

"Without delay, on that very night, this was shown to me in a vision. I saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid colour, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age? who died miserably with disease...But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then was the birth-day of Gets Caesar, and I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. And where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and that pool which I had before seen, I saw now with its margin lowered even to the boy's navel. And one drew water from the pool incessantly, and upon its brink was a goblet filled with water; and Dinocrates drew near and began to drink from it, and the goblet did not fail. And when he was satisfied, he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment."
The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitias,2:3-4(A.D. 202),in ANF,III:701-702

"Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness."
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,6:14(post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:504

"[A] woman is more bound when her husband is dead...Indeed,she prays for his soul,and requests refreshment for him meanwhie, and fellowship(with him) in the first resurrection;and she offers(her sacrifice) on the anniversary of his falling asleep."
Tertullian,On Monogamy,10(A.D. 216),in ANF,III:66-67

"Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth. And I wish to persuade you by an illustration. For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offence, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,23:9,10(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:154-155

These citations proving the Christian tradition of praying for the dead and thus the acceptance of the beliefs expressed in the dogma of Purgatory refute the Anglican claim.

in response to claim 2:

The Anglican article claims that the doctrine regarding Purgatory has no Scriptural basis.

Let me quote from the Old Testament:
"And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. ... It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."[II. Mach. xii. 43-46.]

And we have early witnesses showing that Purgatorian belief was seen in the Scriptures:

"For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones(1 Cor.,3);but also wood and hay and stubble,what do you expect when the soul shall be seperated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God;or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials;for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature,but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble.It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our trangressions and then returns to us the rewardof our great works."
Origen,Homilies on Jeremias,PG 13:445,448(A.D. 244),in CE,577

"For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,--not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment.of the world to come."
Augustine,City of God,21:13(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:464

"If we neither give thanks to God in tribulations nor redeem our own sins by good works,we shall have to remain in that purgatorian fire as long as it takes for those above-mentioned lesser sins to be consumed like wood and straw and hay."
Ceasar of Arles,Sermon 179(104):2(A.D. 542),in JUR,III:283

"Each one will be presented to the Judge exactly as he was when he departed this life. Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before judgement,because of some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ,the Truth,say that if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he shall not be forgiven 'either in this world or in the world to come'(Mt. 12:32)? From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions."
Gregory the Great[regn. A.D. 590-604],Dialogues,4:39(A.D. 594),in FC,39:248

Therefore I conclude that there is Scriptural basis for the dogma of Purgatory both in the Old and the New Testament. I thus reject the Anglican objection as being false.

in response to claim 3:

The Anglicans claim that the "Romish Doctrine" regarding the Invocation of Saints is "vainly invented".
The same procedure as in the response to claim 1 can be used here: I only need to demonstrate that this particular belief has existed prior to 1054 a.D.: this alone is sufficient to refute the Anglican claim.

"Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,23:9(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:154

"Only may that power come upon us which strengthens weakness, through the prayers of him[i.e. St. Paul] who made his own strength perfect in bodily weakness"
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,1:1(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,V:36

"As to our paying honor to the memory of the martyrs, and the accusation of Faustus, that we worship them instead of idols, I should not care to answer such a charge, were it not for the sake of showing how Faustus, in his desire to cast reproach on us, has overstepped the Manichaean inventions, and has fallen heedlessly into a popular notion found in Pagan poetry, although he is so anxious to be distinguished from the Pagans. For in saying that we have turned the idols into martyrs, be speaks of our worshipping them with similar rites, and appeasing the shades of the departed with wine and food. Do you, then, believe in shades? We never heard you speak of such things, nor have we read of them in your books. In fact, you generally oppose such ideas: for you tell us that the souls of the dead, if they are wicked, or not purified, are made to pass through various changes, or suffer punishment still more severe; while the good souls are placed in ships, and sail through heaven to that imaginary region of light which they died fighting for. According to you, then, no souls remain near the burying-place of the body; and how can there be any shades of the departed? What and where are they? Faustus' love of evil-speaking has made him forget his own creed; or perhaps he spoke in his sleep about ghosts, and did not wake up even when he saw his words in writing. It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar in the saints' burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to thee, O Peter! or O Paul! or O Cyprian! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and. love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel. There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those still combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution. For holy beings themselves, whether saints or angels, refuse to accept what they know to be due to God alone. We see this in Paul and Barnabas, when the men of Lycaonia wished to sacrifice to them as gods, on account of the miracles they performed. They rent their clothes, and restrained the people, crying out to them, and persuading them that they were not gods. We see it also in the angels, as we read in the Apocalypse that an angel would not allow himself to be worshipped, and said to his worshipper, 'I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethen.' Those who claim this worship are proud spirits, the devil and his angels, as we see in all the temples and rites of the Gentiles. Some proud men, too, have copied their example; as is related of some kings of Babylon. Thus the holy Daniel was accused and persecuted, because when the king made a decree that no petition should be made to any god, but only to the king, he was found worshipping and praying to his own God, that is, the one true God. As for those who drink to excess at the feasts of the martyrs, we of course condemn their conduct; for to do so even in their own houses would be contrary to sound doctrine. But we must try to amend what is bad as well as prescribe what is good, and must of necessity bear for a time with some things that are not according to our teaching. The rules of Christian conduct are not to be taken from the indulgences of the intemperate or the infirmities of the weak. Still, even in this, the guilt of intemperance is much less than that of impiety. To sacrifice to the martyrs, even fasting, is worse than to go home intoxicated from their feast: to sacrifice to the martyrs, I say, which is a different thing from sacrificing to God in memory of the martyrs, as we do constantly, in the manner required since the revelation of the New Testament, for this belongs to the worship or latria which is due to God alone. But it is vain to try to make these heretics understand the full meaning of these words of the Psalmist: 'He that offereth the sacrifice of praise glorifieth me, and in this way will I show him my salvation.' Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament. Between the sacrifices of the Pagans and of the Hebrews there is all the difference that there is between a false imitation and a typical anticipation. We do not despise or denounce the virginity of holy women because there were vestal virgins. And, in the same way, it is no reproach to the sacrifices of our fathers that the Gentiles also had sacrifices. The difference between the Christian and vestal virginity is great, yet it consists wholly in the being to whom the vow is made and paid; and so the difference in the being to whom the sacrifices of the Pagans and Hebrews are made and offered makes a wide difference between them. In the one case they are offered to devils, who presumptuously make this claim in order to be held as gods, because sacrifice is a divine honor. In the other case they are offered to the one true God, as a type of the true sacrifice, which also was to be offered to Him in the passion of the body and blood of Christ."
Augustine,Against Faustus,20:21(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:261-262

"The noble souls of the triumphant are sauntering around heaven, dancing in the choruses of the bodiless; and not one tomb for each conceals their bodies, but cities and villages divide them up and call them healers and preservers of souls and bodies, and venerate them a guardians and protectors of cities; and when they intervene as ambassadors before the Master of the universe the divine gifts are obtained through them; and though the body has been divided, its grace has continued undivided. And that little particle and smallest relic has the same power as the absolutely and utterly undivided martyr."
Theodoret of Cyrus,The Cure of Pagan Maladies,8:54(A.D. 449),in JUR,III:241

" Thou gainest nothing, thou prevailest nothing, O savage cruelty. His mortal frame is released from thy devices, and, when Laurentius departs to heaven, thou art vanquished. The flame of Christ's love could not be overcome by thy flames, and the fire which burnt outside was less keen than that which blazed within. Thou didst but serve the martyr in thy rage, O persecutor: thou didst but swell the reward in adding to the pain. For what did thy cunning devise, which did not redound to the conqueror's glory, when even the instruments of torture were counted as part of the triumph? Let us rejoice, then, dearly-beloved, with spiritual joy, and make our boast over the happy end of this illustrious man in the Lord, Who is 'wonderful in His saints,' in whom He has given us a support and an example, and has so spread abroad his glory throughout the world, that, from the rising of the sun to its going down, the brightness of his deacon's light doth shine, and Rome is become as famous in Laurentius as Jerusalem was ennobled by Stephen. By his prayer and intercession we trust at all times to be assisted; that, because all, as the Apostle says, 'who wish to live holily in Christ, suffer persecutions,' we may be strengthened with the spirit of love, and be fortified to overcome all temptations by the perseverance of steadfast faith. Through our LORD Jesus Christ"
Pope Leo the Great[regn. A.D. 440-461],On the Feast of Laurence the Martyr,Sermon 85:4(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:198

I believe this to be sufficient to refute the Anglican article.

in response to claim 4:

The fourth Anglican claim I plan to refute is that which states that the "Romish Catholic" teaching regarding the Invocation of the Saints is not warranted by Scripture.

It should be noted that the Catholic Church also maintains that we can invoke the intercession of Angels as well:

"May the angel that delivereth me from all evils bless these boys!"[Gen. xiviii. 16.] In this case, we see the Patriarch Jacob invoking the blessing of an angel.

"The angel Raphael, after having disclosed himself to Tobias, said to him: "When thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst leave thy dinner, I offered thy prayer to the Lord."[Tobias xii. 12.] How could the angel, if he were ignorant of these petitions, have presented to God the prayers of Tobias?"

[II Mach. xv.]
12 Now the vision was in this manner: Onias who had been high priest, a good and virtuous man, modest in his looks, gentle in his manners, and graceful in his speech, and who from a child was exercised in virtues, holding up his hands, prayed for all the people of the Jews: 13 After this there appeared also another man, admirable for age, and glory, and environed with great beauty and majesty: 14 Then Onias answering, said: This is a lover of his brethren, and of the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremias the prophet of God.

What we have here is an example of a long-deceased prophet - Jeremiah - who appears in a vision to Judas Maccabeus as a helper and intercessor for his brethren on earth.

"The four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints."[Revel. v. 8.]

In Zacharias 1, we also have an example of Angelic intercession.

Since it has been Scripturally demonstrated that indeed the dead can and do pray for the living, it is not false to ask for their intercession.

in response to claim 5:

The 5th claim extracted from the 22nd article of Religion suggests that the "Romish Catholic" teaching concerning Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints is "repugnant to the Word of God".

This claim is absolutely wrong as the pillars upon which this final claim stands, the 1st to 4th claims, have been proven to be false: not only in content, but also in the manner of formulation.

It is to be observed: it is one thing to say that a certain idea is "unbiblical" than to say it is "repugnant to the Word of God". I could e.g. make a case against the Biblical canon by saying that Scriptural canon is "not warranted by Sacred Writ". Indeed, the Bible does not contain any list of canonical Scriptures from which we derive the canon of the Holy Bible (a reason why sola scriptura fails). However, the lack of a Biblical list of canonical Scriptures does not mean that the canonization of the Holy Bible is thus "repugnant to the Word of God". It becomes quite apparent that the authors of the 39 articles were blinded by their opposition to the Catholic Church.

What then is the reason to claim that the Catholic teaching on Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints is "repugnant to the Word of God"?

Closing words:

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

I contend that this particular Anglican Article is what is repugnant to the Word of God since it is a false witness.

The article speaks against Anglicanism on the following accounts:

1) It misrepresents Roman Catholics as worshipping and adoring images and relics (false witness).

2) The ancient customs of venerating relics and images, invoking the Saints, believing in a state of purification after death and the efficacy of prayers for the dead are all condemned as "invented Romish Doctrines".
* These traditions are older than the Anglican's claim regarding the "foundation of the Roman Catholic Church" which AnglicanApologist72 erroneously dates to be at 1054 a.D. From this mistake, two possibilities arise:
- The Anglican article simply is false. (A false witness shall not be unpunished: and he that speaketh lies shall not escape. - Proverbs 19:5)
- AnglicanApologist72 and other like-minded Anglicans are wrong in claiming that the (Roman) Catholic Church was founded/established in 1054 a.D.: but existed prior to this date (if they insist that it is the Roman Catholic Church that upheld these doctrines and practices). If this is the case, then the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ and the Anglicans have schismed and thus are in a state of grave sin (since AnglicanApologist72 admits that prior to 1054, the Catholic Church - which he distinquishes from the Catholic Church in communion with the Roman Pontiff - was still visibly united).

3) The article shows a departure from the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils. I remember AnglicanApologist72 claiming to hold to the techings of the Ecumenical Councils. He also says that anyone who holds to the Nicene Creed and the decrees of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils can rightfully call himself a "catholic Christian".

This is what the 2nd Council of Nicaea says:

"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema."

The 22nd Anglican Article rejects the following:

1) the existence of a state of purification after death which we Roman Catholics call "Purgatory"
2) the efficacy of prayers and the sacrifice of the Mass for the deceased
3) the Invocation of Saints
4) the Biblical foundations for the aforementioned doctrines and practices

And now, let us turn the tables. It has occured to me that AnglicanApologist72 (on youtube) has been making a couple of videos against the Catholic Church, but has failed to even make a good cause as to why he even is an Anglican. It is never difficult to try to poke holes into another's position.
All his false allegations against the Catholic Church can be addressed. But I fail to see why we Catholics should entertain the rantings of every single person? I have maintained that it does not suffice to simply be against something, one must also advocate or be for something else. Otherwise, one's position is only destructive and will lead to nothing good. Wherefore, I would like to see first how Anglicanism can be a "real alternative" to Catholicism - or Eastern Orthodoxy.

AnglicanApologist72 claims he is an Anglican because he believes in the Nicene Creed and the Ecumenical Councils and that he also holds to the 39 Articles of Religion: this has been demonstrated to be wrong since the 39 Articles are not compatible with the Ecumenical Councils.

(He claims: "I am Anglican because I follow the ecumenical councils of the Church, proved by Holy Scripture." **00:35 in his video [Why I am Anglican]**)

It would be wise for him to first try to come up with a proper presentation of Anglicanism before he starts to argue against the Catholic Church - against which the gates of hell shall never prevail (Matthews 16:18).

Confession (Fr. Larry Richard)

2009-11-08T05:19:00.000-08:00

Can we have more sermons like this in our churches?

Sinful Knowledge

2009-09-29T06:03:00.000-07:00

This is a topic that pretty much is quite important to me. Not few Christians - especially younger ones - nowadays seem to have a great thirst for intellectual growth in regards to the Christian faith. Of course this is a good development in the sense that Christians are having a greater interest in matters of doctrine, i.e. in orthodoxy.

But the title is negative, not positive: why? The reason lies in the simple fact that knowledge of the doctrines of the Church alone is not enough: while it is good and necessary to know the orthodox faith, obedience to it automatically becomes a requirement - this is something that not few fail to realize. There are enough who study a lot and debate a lot the issues of morality, faith and Church discipline as though they were merely theoretical ideas. But what about the number of those who actually try to live according to what they learn about Sacred Truth?

In that sense, there seems to be a problem which turns the Christian faith - which is meant to captivate the whole person - to a merely theoretical construct which is "nice to discuss", but is left in the realm of abstract ideas: it is thought of, but not lived. A person who knows the Truth, but does not live accordingly will be left without excuse. It does not suffice to "know" doctrine, one must live by it.

(James 1:) 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23 For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. 24 For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. 25 But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed.

26 And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is vain. 27 Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one's self unspotted from this world.

The more a person knows, the stricter are the standards, the less the excuses. One must therefore know what the reason for such religious studies ought to be: the deepening of one's living relationship with God. If one studies these things for the sake of winning debates for vainglory, then indeed such knowledge is sin, for it does not lead to God, but away from Him: it is knowledge without wisdom.

It is of course much easier to tell others how wrong they are and what they ought to do than to correct one's own lifestyle.

But in this case, the words of the Lord apply perfectly:

"Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5)

The reason and end of one's religious studies must be God,
The reason for one's preaching must be charity, not personal fame.

Obedience to God through obedience to His Church and humility help us stay on the right path: those who are vain and prideful go astray.

Sola Fide and the hypostatic union

2009-09-03T14:50:00.001-07:00

This entry will deal with the protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, sola fide, in light of the hypostatic union of Christ.

It should be clear that Catholics reject this doctrine when it is meant in exclusion of charity (which necessitates the existence of good works, a sanctified life through the grace of God). Since not all protestants necessarily understand the same concept under the words "sola fide", it should be noted that I am not arguing against "faith alone" which is only pro forma "alone", but de facto requires good works to complete our justification: in such a case, the protestant is directed towards the correct understanding of justification - as taught by the Catholic Church - but somehow still feels the need to retain the wording of Martin Luther. Anyways, the issue is about content and not semantics.

For this blog entry, I will be addressing a more common protestant understanding of justification by faith alone as outlined in "Justification: Emphasizing the Distinction Between Protestant and Roman Catholic Thought" by Corey Keiting, Proferssor Al Glenn (ST502 Systematic Theology II; Fuller Theological Seminary, Phoenix Extension; Winter Quarter 2002).

Let me quote what is presented as the protestant doctrine:

"Justification is defined as the act of God by which he imputes the righteousness of Christ to a believer and declares that person to be forgiven of all sins, thus pronouncing the person righteous in his sight (Acts 13:38-39; Romans 4:5, 24). It is a declarative and judicial act of God (Romans 8:1; Colossians 1:22), based on the righteousness of Christ, rather than an infusion of holiness into a believer or a change in their character. It changed the position of a believer and puts them into a right standing with God, but is distinct from the dispositional change of that person's heart or the actual altering of their spiritual condition."

"Justification means that God, as the universal judge, acquits us of our guilt and declares us as righteous (Romans 5:8). The very righteousness of Jesus Christ is transferred to our account and we are seen as if we had never sinned nor been a sinner, as if we had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for us (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:18-19)."

"From our human point of view, faith in the finished work of Christ is the only thing that is required for us to be declared righteous (Romans 3:28). We receive this gracious gift of God by faith alone (Romans 3:22; 4:4; Galatians 3:24-24); we do not merit it in any way by good works, reformed behaviour, or resolutions to never sin again (Galatians 2:16)."

I have not quoted the entire essay (as the copy-and-paste mode hasn't been working for a while for my blog), but I believe to have extracted the most important statements dealing with the protestant understanding of justification by faith alone.

I will now start with the examination of justification in regards to the hypostatic union of Christ:

As in my entries on Orthodoxy expounding on the necessarily theandric nature of the Church due to it being the body of Christ (who Himself had two natures: human and divine), I also see here a necessity for a connection with the dogma of the hypostatic union. As the Church as a whole is theandric, so too must the individuals who make up the Church (1 Corinthians 12:14, 19, 27) be theandric. Why was there an Incarnation?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church - in accordance to Apostolic Tradition - teaches:
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into Communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God:79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

78: 2 Peter 1:4
79: St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80: St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81: St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

This doctine is what is called theosis in the East. It is better understood under the term "deification". Justification without it is unthinkable as it would destroy the very idea behind the Incarnation.

Faith is of the spirit, works of the body. Indeed the Bible does say that we are not justified by works (Romans 11:6). What "works" are meant though? St. Paul means works without faith and grace. He condemns the notion of working out one's own salvation without being in the state of grace - as though God owed us salvation for certain works done by ourselves. One may say that this is a "rationalization" of Catholics. But no, St. Paul himself says: "with fear and trembling work out your salvation" (Philippians 2:12). Does St. Paul thus contradict himself? Nay, he teaches the very doctrine of theosis. Man - through the grace of God - is enabled to do good.

Some may object and say that no man is able to do good for the Lord said: "None is good but God alone" (Luke 18:19).

How then can one who is not good do that which is good; and by this good deed even merit salvation? This sounds like works-based salvation. And this is precisely what not few protestants (falsely) accuse Catholics of believing.

The solution to the problem is presented by St. Paul himself who teaches that Christians are indeed capable of doing what is good and that this good deed is salvific "for it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will" (Philippians 2:13).

The key is the indwelling of God in us. This is basic to the doctrine of deification and to the theandric nature of justification. So many thoughts are now running through my mind that I hope I do justice to these thoughts.

At first, one needs to realize that the very "entrance" into the Christian faith is effected through baptism which itself is both material and spiritual. In fact, all the sacraments are theandric. I cannot think of any sacrament which is confected without material cooperatives.

Second, one needs to realize that the principle behind justification is that of obedience. Justification is - as taught by the Catholic Church - initially effected through faith and completed through works, i.e. a sanctified life: it is the subjection of the total person in obedience to Christ. We Christians are therefore children of God as as are "children of obedience" (1 Peter 1:14).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
142 By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company." 1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.
143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith".3

1: DV 2; cf. Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Ex 33:11; Jn 15:14-15; Bar 3:38 (Vulg.).
2: Cf. DV 5.
3: Cf. Rom 1:5; 16:26

We submit completely our intellect and will unto God. It should be clear that to will something does not necessarily lead to man doing it.

St. Paul teaches of the conflict between the spirit and the flesh (Romans 8:4, 7, 9; Galatians 4:29). Are we then to suppose that only our faith is required for us to be justified while our works are according to the flesh? St. Paul teaches "that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit (Romans 8:4).

So it is clear from Sacred Scripture that after we have subjected our intellect and will in obedience to Christ, we must subject our lifestyle, our "walk", our "works" unto Christ also. "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Romans 2:13).
For this very reason St. James teaches:
"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed.
And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is in vain. Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and the widows in their tribulation: and to keep oneself unspotted form this world." (James 1:22-27)

So if one thinks himself to be religious, but lives not in accordance to God's law, then this man's religion is useless. His faith is dead (James 2:20). Why is his faith dead? Because there can be no deification of a man without the subjection of his body unto God. What is then sanctification to a man who lives an ungodly life despite his claim to faith? Surely, here exists again a divorce between the two natures: spiritual and material. But the resurrection is of the body, thus it is not only our souls that ascend to heaven, but our bodies also: just as Christ Himself ascended Body and Soul to heaven (John 3:13).

I shall now examine the problems of the protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone.

1) The doctrine of imputed righteousness suggests that we are made righteous before God "on the outside" only.
Jesus teaches: "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanliness." (Matthew 23:25)
Why would God criticize an outward "imputation" of cleanliness amongst the scribes and pharisees, but use this very same method to justify men?
Furthermore, Jesus says that all evil thigs come from within (Mark 7:23), thus it would seem rather illogical for Jesus to point out the root of evil in man and give as solution an imputation of righteousness - which does not change man's real sinfulness from within. He gives a solution which does not address the root of the problem He Himself has revealed. Rather it is more plausible to believe in the infusion of grace which changes us from within to "will and to accomplish" (Philippians 2:13) that which is good, i.e. to have faith and to live according to God's will.

2) If faith alone justifies, then The Bible is wrong on a couple of occasions: Matthew 25:31-46; Psalm 62:12; Matthew 16:27; Revelation 22:12; (John 14:21-24).
All these passages suggest that God will judge us according to our deeds. If we therefore are already justified - and thus declared "not guilty" - by faith alone, then God must ignore our deeds.
And if indeed we are already declared righteous on account of our faith alone and thus are "freed" from the consequences of sin, then surely we should be able to sin all we want without having to fear any consequences: our works would be irrelevant. If our works are not related to our justification and thus to our salvation, then surely they will not be able to condemn us. If by faith alone we are justified, then only through apostasy may we lose justification. And as protestants do not believe in purgatory either, then one's immorality would be deemed "neutral" in the eyes of God. And then protestants say that to be a Christian is to "imitate Christ". Did Christ believe only? Or did He live perfectly? 1 Corinthians 11:1.

3) If God ignores the evil deeds of those who believe unto Christ as their Saviour, and thus render a life of sanctify unnecessary for salvation, then the Bible is wrong on at least these occasions: the above mentioned passages, Hebrews 13:17 in connection with Jude 1:11; Acts 5:1-10; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; Hebrews 2:2; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

4) If justification by faith alone is right, then Jesus is wrong since He teaches that "except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." (John 6:54)

5) If faith alone justifies, then one can be in God without being good, i.e. living according to Divine Law. This contradicts the following: 1 John 3:6-10; Matthew 27:21-25

Far from me be the thought that the Holy Bible may be wrong or self-contradictory! As we can see, there is perfect harmony to be found in Catholic teaching, but problems arise with the protestant doctrine - problems as serious as to make our Lord a liar!

John 6:54 is quite remarkable - especially when understood correctly: that indeed the bread is turned to Christ's Body and the wine to His Blood - in regards to the theandric nature of the Church. Our participation in Christ's divine nature is thus not only "in spirit" - as protestants suggest - but is also physical: by partaking of the one bread, Christ Jesus, we become the one Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:17). We are the "temple of the Holy Ghost" (1 Corinthians 6:19).

God became man that we might become God. In Jesus Christ we have the only Mediator of Redemption: only through Him can we be redeemed of our sinfulness, only through Him can creation be restored to union with God. And so it is that man is not only a spiritual being, but also physical.

Let us remember that the doctrine of justification by faith alone and of imputed grace not only divorce the spiritual from the material - thus dissolving our being the Mystical Body of Christ as His Church - but also tempt God insofar that they suggest God "fools" Himself into thinking that one is righteous while still retaining a heart of wickedness (let us remember that sanctification is strictly divorced from the protestant idea of justification). The latter opposes Scripture since it teaches that "there shall not enter into it [the tabernacle of God with men] anything that is defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie" (Revelation 21:27). And that "the works of the flesh are before him, and there is nothing hid from his eyes" (Sirach 39:24). Would God simply ignore one's unrighteousness on account of one's faith? This seems not to be the case.

Lest we forget: any attempt to still justify "sola fide" is to argue on basis of the rejection of one's total submission to God. I personally think that Christians ought to follow the example of Christ: He harmonized in Himself human nature with the divine; thus showing us all that we are to be sanctified, to be deified, that we may be partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), that we too may be good in body and in soul.

So in the end, we know that disobedience lead to the fall of Satan, and to the fallen nature of mankind; we also know that through obedience - of the total person, i.e. body and soul, thought and deed, faith and works - in and unto Christ we are restored to union with God.

Orthodoxy (Contra Errores Schismaticorum) II

2009-08-29T03:43:00.000-07:00

Against the Errors of Schismatics II

This will be a follow-up to my first blog entry for ST. I sense that the work I have done is not yet enough to set aside the reasons for ST's refusal to become Catholic. It has to be noted that a person is not converted by the works of man, but through the grace of God. My task is simple: to attempt to remove the reasons that may hold ST back from joining the Catholic Church and thus being fully incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ. In doing so, I also hope that others may benefit from this blog.

In this blog entry, I will try to discuss the following:

1) more evidence for the role of the Papacy in regards to Christian Orthodoxy
2) doctrinal development; also the development of Church hierarchy
3) an analysis of the Church's theandric (material and spiritual) nature and its being an icon (eikon) of the Holy Trinity
4) certain parallels between protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy; sobornost theology, Phyletism
5) argumentum clericum (clerical argument)
6) Conclusion

I more historical evidence for the Papacy

1) Theodore Abou-Qurra (c. a.D. 820), Arab bishop of Haran):

"By the grace of the Holy Spirit, in every circumstance our recourse is simply to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, who administered the six holy Councils [the Seventh Ecumenical Council was not yet received in parts of the East] which were convened by order of the Bishop of Rome, the capital of the world. Whoever is established on her throne is the one entrusted by Christ, to turn to the people of the Church his Ecumenical Council, and to confirm them, as we have established in a number of other places [in writings]." (Essay "On the Death of Christ"]

2) Either St. Methodius (9th century) or one of his followers wrote the following on the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon (which Pope St. Leo the Great rejected "by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter".:

"It is necessary to know that this decision (the 28th canon) was not accepted by Pope Leo I... And it is not true, as this canon affirms, that the holy fathers have accorded the primacy and honor to Old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire.
But it is from on high that it began; it is of grace divine that this Primacy has derived its origin. Peter the most exalted of the Apostles, heard from the mouth of Our Lord these words: 'Peter, do you love Me? Feed My sheep'. This is why he possesses among the hierarchs the pre-eminent rank and the first see. It is notorious, besides, that, although Emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravena, and their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the Primacy. For the dignity and pre-eminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favor of the civil power, but by Divine choice and by apostolic authority...

How would it be possible, because of an earthly Emperor, to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith? (note: this is precisely what happened in the East with their "caesaropapism" which further alienated the East from the Catholics Church; the founding of the Anglican "Church" of which you, ST, are a member is also a similar process: an earthly lord claims for himself authority over the Church)
Immovable, indeed, unto the end are the privileges of Old Rome. So, in far as being set over all the churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council."

3) St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, wrote in his 4th century treatise "Against the Schism of Donatists":

"You cannot deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the episcopal Cathedra (chair), on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), and that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner...
We read that Peter received the saving Keys - Peter, that is to say, the first of our line, to whom it was said by Christ, 'To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven', and these Keys 'the Gates of Hell shall not overcome.' How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter?" (Seven Books Against the Donatists, Book II, 3).

While typing this, I realized how perfectly applicable this statement to the Donatists is to our own times. Eastern Orthodox schismatics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Old "Catholics", etc. all attempt to "re-invent" the Church by setting up a new system. All these schismatics have one thing in common: they "war against the Chair of Peter". Without the Cathedra Petri, we see that the schismatic groups fall into discord for they lack the source of unity, the Chair of Peter.
There are indeed no new heresies, but simply alternate forms of old ones.

4) Pope St. Agatho wrote the following in a letter to Emperor Constantinus Pogonatus (the first part s incorporated in the Acts of the 6th Ecumenical Council):

"Sancti quidem Doctores venerati atque secuti (Apostolicam Sedem); haeretici autem falsis criminationibus ac derogationum odiis insecuti."

"The holy Doctors have always held it (the Apostolic See) in reverence and clung to it; while heretics have ever persecuted it with their slanderous falsehoods and hateful calumnies." (Mansi, tom. xi. Col. 239)

"...this his Apostolic See has never deviated from the path of truth, in the direction of any error, and its authority is that of the Prince of the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Councils have embraced with fidelity, and in all things followed, and all the venerable Fathers have clung to its apostolic doctrine; through which they, as the most approved lights of Christ's Church, have shone; and the holy and orthodox doctors have honored and followed it...
This is the rule of the true faith which this spiritual mother of your most peaceful empire, the Apostolic Church, has in prosperity as well as in adversity, ever held and protected with vigor: which it shall be shown, by Almighty God's help, has never erred from the path of Apostolic tradition, nor has she been corrupted by yielding to the innovations of heretics, but from the beginning she received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and until the end remains incorrupt, by virtue of the divine promise of the Lord and Redeemer Himself, which He spoke in the holy Gospel, to the prince of His disciples, saying: 'Peter, Peter, behold Satan has sought to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not. And thou being converted, confirm they brethren.'..."

The Fathers of the 6th Ecumenical Council (a.D. 680) submitted the following testimony to the Emperor:

"With us fought the Chief of the Apostles, for to help us, we had his imitator and successor, who showed in his letter, the mystery of theology. Rome proferred you a divinely written confession, and caused the sunlight of doctrine to rise by the document from the West. The ink shone and Peter spoke by Agatho."

5) from the Acts od the Seventh Ecumenical Council containing the Letters of Pope Hadrian I:

"...how great veneration should be shown to the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the Keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honored with this privilege, by which the Keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him...
For the Blessed Apostle Peter, himself the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chieftship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care to his successors who are to sit in his most holy Chair forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors... In the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the Blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world Himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and forever..."

It is very hard to still uphold the idea that the Roman Pontiff had a mere "primacy of honour" without any authotity or power. It is very clear from this testimony from the Acts of the 7th Ecumenical Council that the Roman Pontiff enjoyed more than a "primacy of love" or "of honor".
It is also made evident that the Successors of Peter, the Popes, are to enjoy the same privileges and power "now and forever". How then does one justify schism from the unity of the Chair of Peter?

6) Pope Hadrian I wrote the following instructions to the Patriarch of Constantinople:

"...One of the first things Your Holiness must do is to let the pious and triumphant emperors know that the pseudo-Synod [of Hieria which was supported by 338 bishops] must be anathematized in the presence of our legates. It was illegal and out of order because contrary to the tradition of the Fathers since it condemned the divine images and was held without the concurrence of the Apostolic Throne. Thus, after every weed has been uprooted from the Church, the word of our Lord Jesus Christwill be fulfilled that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; and again, 'Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build My Church. And I will give the thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven'. Peter's throne holds the primacy over the whole world and is the Head of all the churches of God. So it is that the Blessed Apostle Peter, shpherding the Church by the Lord's command, did not abandon his charge, but held and always holds, the supreme power, so if Your Holiness wishes to unite yourself to the Apostolic Throne, which is the Head of all the churches of God, he must strive to keep to the sacred and orthodox form of doctrine of the same Head. This he must do from the depth of his heart, with the utmost sincerity, and without alteration or admixture of any kind."

The Council Fathers' reply was:

"We follow them, we receive them, we accept them."

7)The pseudo-Nicene canons from the 5th century (Arabic canons attributed to the Council of Nicaea which were incorporated in the collections of the ancients Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian and Melkite Churches) state:

"It is the will of this ecumenical synod that for all things which have not been justly conducted by a metropolitan or other bishops, the patriarch has the power to decide by his own authority. For he is found above his fellows and all the bishops are the sons of his heritage. The honor of metropolitans is like that of an elder brother who finds himself among his brothers. The honor of a patriarch is thus of a father who has authority over his children. And as the patriarch has the power to do all that he wishes for good in dominion of his authority, so he of Rome will have the power over all the patriarchs like Blessed Peter over the entire community. For he has likewise the place of Peter in the Church of Rome. The transgressor ofr this canon is anathematized by the ecumenical synod."

These pseudo-Nicene canons clearly state that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is that of authority and power, not one of "mere honor". It should be noted at this point the vast amount of evidence supporting the orthodox understanding of Papal Primacy while the schismatic notion of a mere "primacy of honor" remains historically unsubstantiated.

8) John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (a.D. 575-593):

"...for us the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the Apostles, when giving him the primacy of faith for the strengthening of the churches, 'Thou art Peter, etc.',
to this same Peter He has given the Keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day, his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable See, are the successors of Peter, and according to the word of God, infallible." (to the Catholics of Georgia)

If the confirmer and strengthener of the faith is himself fallible in matters of doctrine, then of what value is his authority on doctrine? Certainly, this 6th century testimony shows that the definition of Papal infallibility in the Ecumenical Council of 1869-1870 (Vatican I) is not a "novelty" or "heretical innovation" as proposed by the enemies of the Chair of Peter and of Christian orthodoxy.

9) Stephen of Dora (c. a.D. 649). emissary of St. Sophronios, patriarch of Jerusalem, writing the to Pope St. Martin I during the struggle against Monothelite heretics, declared that the patriarch had told him::

"Traverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See, where are the foundation of the orthodox doctrines... We asked for the wings of a dove...that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair which rules and presides over all, I mean, to Yours, the head and the highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do with power from of old, because alone apart from the rest the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be entrusted with the Keys of Heaven, to open it worthily to believers, but to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace..."

It has been my task to demonstrate that the Holy See is the rule of orthodoxy; Stephen of Dora could not have stated it any better.

10) The greatest opponent of the Monothelite heresy, St. Maximus the Confessor (+662), had this to say in dealing with the heretic Pyrrhus, the patriarch of Constantinople:

"Let him hasten before all to satisfy the Roman See. That done, all will with one accord, everywhere hold him pious and orthodox. Indeed, he is talking in vain when he...does not satisfy and beg forgiveness of the Blessed Pope [Eugenius] of the most holy Roman church, that is, of the Apostolic See. This See, from the very Incarnate Word of God, and also from all holy Councils according to the sacred canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over the holy churches of God all over the world. For when this binds and looses, so also does the Word in Heaven, who rules the heavenly virtues."

Does this sound like a mere "primacy of honor"? It would be very difficult for a schismatic to twist such clear message. Why would a Saint of the East dealing with a heretic in the East seek the approval of the Roman Pontiff in the West when the Pope has no "supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and looing over the holy churches of God all over the world"?

11) St. Theodore of Studium (a.D. 795-826) wrote the following to Pope Leo III in the struggle against the Iconoclasts (Pope Leo III also defended the Filioque clause):

Since it is to the great Peter that Christ our God gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and entrusted the dignity of the chief of the flock, it is to Peter, that is to say, his successor, that one ought to submit every innovation which is made in the Catholic Church by those who would turn aside from the truth. That is what we humble and lowly monks have learnt from the ancient Fathers... I borrow now the cry of the Coryphaeus [Chief] of the Apostles, calling Christ to his succour when the waves of the sea were risen up, and I say t your Blessedness who art the Representative of Christ, 'O First 'Shepherd of the Church which is under heaven', save us now, we perish. Imitate the Christ, your Master, stretch out your hand to your Church as He stretched out His hand to Peter. Peter began to sink in the waves, while our Church is still once more submerged in the depths of heresy. Emulate, we beg you, the great Pope whose name you bear [Pope Leo the Great], and just as he on the appearance of the Eutychian heresy, stood erect spiritually as a lion with his dogmatic letters, so in your turn (I dare to say it because of your name) roar divinely, or rather send forth your thunders against the present heresy. For, if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene an heretical Council [that of Hieria with 338 bishops]. While those who following ancient custom, have not even the right of convoking an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare say it to you, that your divine Primacy should call together a lawful Council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive away heresy and neither your Primacy may be anathematized with all the orthodox by these new voices without authority, nor that wills evilly disposed may find in this adulterous Council an excuse for being involved in sin. It is in order to obey your divine authority as Chief Pastor that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness, we the least members of the Church."

St. Theodore the Studite has summed up the rule of Orthodoxy quite well. He also demonstrated whence a Council derives its confirmation: from the authority of the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter. How then may one claim to follow an Ecumenical Council whilst rejecting that very authority which alone has the power to establish a Council as ecumenical?

12) Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople (a.D. 758-828) wrote the following in his "Great Apology" after helping in the consolidation of orthodoxy in the church of Constantinople:

"This Synod [the 7th Ecumenical Council which condemned the Iconoclasts in a.D. 787] possesses the highest authority... In fact, it was held with the most legitimate and regular fashion conceivable, because according to the divine rules established from the beginning it was directed and presided over by the glorious portion of the Western Church, I mean by the church of Ancient Rome. Without them [the Romans], no dogma is discussed in the Church, even sanctioned in a preliminary fashion by the canons and ecclesiastical usages, can be considered to be approved or abrogated, for they are the ones, in fact, who have been endowed in order to fulfill the function of guide in the priesthood and we have given them the credit due to those who among the Apostles are the Cotyphaei [SS: Peter and Paul]."

No doctrine is defined definitively, nor heresies condemned without the word of the Bishop of Rome.

II legitimate doctrinal development

"The difficulties that some Eastern Orthodox [in this case, all other schismatics] have with Catholic doctrine on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Papal Infallibility, purgatory, the two Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, and in fact, even some other teachings, stem from a profound miscomprehension of the development of dogma that has taken place in the history of the Church. They interpret the immutability of Christian dogma in the sense that every defined dogma or traditional doctrine of the Church must have been explicitly believed as such by the faith ful from the beginning of its history. It is true that every dogma proclaimed by the Church for belief is true, always has been true, and its meaning cannot be alteredor changed so that it bears a different meaning than that held by the Church in previous times. But it is not true that every dogma or doctrine contained in the "deposit of faith" confided to the Apostles has been object of explicit belief in every age, and only subject to new technical language in the definitions of Ecumenical Councils. This is to deny a real dogmatic development having taken place in the history of the Church, as noted by John Henry Cardinal Newman in his epochal word The Development of Christian Doctrine (1845). (James Likoudis, The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church; pp. 150-151)

"For an authentic "development of doctrine" has taken place in the life of the Church, and it involves not only new philosophico-theological expression for revealed truths that were always explicitly believed (say, the divinity of Christ) but also the unfolding aspects of doctrine (e.g., the canon of Scripture, the number of the sacraments, the hypostatic union, the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, the particular judgment, etc.) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit leading the faithful to a greater understanding of the supernatural mysteries revealed in Jesus Christ." (ibid.; p. 151)

Let us remember that ST claims to follow the dogmatic definitions and canons of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. It is therefore clear , that ST does not reject the fact of genuine doctrinal development. However, ST - along with our separated Eastern Orthodox and protestant brethren - rejects all doctrinal development after the first seven Ecumenical Councils. It has to be noted that such position necessarily cripples the teaching office of the Church. Eversince elements of the East broke away from the unity of the Chair of Peter, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have been unable to deal with the problems of our ages by means of convoking Ecumenical Councils. This situation in the East is not something Catholics wonder about as it is the logical consequence of their schism. It should also be noted that due to this sad state of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, no one of them may declare the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church post-1054 to be "heretical". For to condemn a certain doctrine, the definitive declaration of the Pope or of an Ecumenical Council confirmed by the Roman Pontiff is necessary: such, however, is only given in the Catholic Church, not to the schismatic Eastern Churches nor to any other non-Catholic community. To claim otherwise, is not only to build upon novelties foreign to ancient practices of the Church, but also to contradict Apostolic Tradition: if one does so, then there is no basis for any claims to "orthodoxy".

St. Vincent of Lérins (died c. a.D. 445) had this to say on doctrinal development in his writing to Timothy ("priest, expositor, doctor"):

"Let that which formerly was believed, though imprefectly apprehended, as expounded by you be clearly understood. Let posterity welcome, understood through your exposition, what antiquity venerated without understanding. Yet teach them the same truths which you have learned, so that though you speak after a new fashion, what you speak may not be so new...But someone may say perhaps, Shall there be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is here, so envious of men, so full of hatred for God, who should seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration that it be transformed into something else...."
"It behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress [as growth in the same body], so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue incorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its perfect members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its dictinctive property, no variation in its limits."

"For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For, if any part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforth be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole?" (Commonitorium, chapters 22-23)

What being is there, so full of hatred of God, to forbid doctrinal progress? What being is there that should seek a state in which further authoritative safeguarding of truth and condemnation of heresies would be impossible? What being is there that seeks to destroy the very Chair of Peter that guarantees this orthodox development of doctrine unto the end of times?

The Triune God is the God of unity and harmony in diversity; discord manifest in schisms is the work of the enemy.

It is clear that "doctrinal development" is not a "novelty" or an "heretical innovation" created by "heretical Latins" or "Papists".

It should also be clear - due to the theandric nature of the Church - that we can and should expect development not only in the spiritual, i.e. doctrinal, aspect of the Church, but also in the material aspect; e.g. disciplinary and ceremonical customs.
As we come to be a deeper and better understanding of certain dogmas in time, so too the Church's hierarchy has undergone a process of unfolding. This is, however, not to mean that the current form of the Church's visible aspect is thus an "heretical innovation" or a "baseless novelty", nay, this means that the power and authority granted to the prelates of the Church by Christ have undergone progress in the sense that the implicit became explicit. The Church has matured - in time -both physically and spiritually. This is something that not few schismatics falsely use as an "argument against papism". They do not realize that legitimate progress in the Church does not contradict the unchanging and inerrant nature of dogmas.

In regards to St. Vincent's statement on those who attempt to stop doctrinal development, Dr. Adrian Fortescue had this to say about the Eastern Orthodox Churches:

"The great weakness of [Eastern] Orthodox theology and the radical affliction from which the Orthodox Church suffers is arrested development...In spite of their boast of unchanging antiquity, their theology, rites, Canon law represent not the first ages but a comparatively advanced development, that of the Byzantine Period. And they stay there, satisfying neither the need of continuous development that is the mark of a living Church, nor the rival ideal of unchanged primitive observance." (The Orthodox Eastern Church, 1920; pp.393-394)

III the Church is theandric and an eikon of the Holy Trinity

The Catholic Church, the Church Christ established upon the man-Rock Kepha (Peter), is theandric in nature: the Church is material and spiritual at the same time; she is visible and invisible.

This is something not few schismatics reject, for they prefer a type of "Hyper-Ekklesia" (to use a term from a friend of mine): a type of Church which is only "spiritual". They use this idea to justify the obvious discord and doctrinal contradictions which exist among the different Christian denominations.

It is not an easy task to convince e.g. a "non-denominational" Christian of the fact that the Church is visible and therefore the creation of more "non-denominational" groups (de facto new denominations) would be a sin against the unity desired by Christ (John 17:11; 22).

It is clear that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. This is the reason that the Lord - identifying Himself with His Church - asked Paul:
"Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" (Acts 9:4; Acts 22:7; Acts 26:14).
Furthermore He said:
"I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest." (Acts 22:8)

St. Paul himself also said that "we being many, are one body in Christ" (Romans 12:5).

So we know that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, not based upon our own opinions, but based upon Divine Revelation.

The next step is to follow the logical consequences of the Church being Christ's Mystical Body. ST accepts the decrees of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils. This, I expect ST to accept the dogma on the hypostatic union. This particular dogma explains the truth about Christ: He is one divine person with two distinct natures: human and divine.

The explanation thus goes simply:

Christ is one divine person with a human and divine nature, material and spiritual.
The Church is Christ's Mystical Body and thus is theandric: the Church is also human/material and visible - as she is made up of humans and humans have material bodies - and she is also holy/spiritual/invisible - as the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church as her soul uniting each member - as through the Holy Eucharist - one to another forming a singularity, the one Body of Christ.

Any suggestion that thus denies the theandric nature of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, is not of God since "every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world" (1 John 4:3)

Such a theandric Church is also in need of a visible Head. This may be the greatest obstacle stopping schismatics from returning to the unity of the Chair of Peter. Fortunately, St. Thomas Aquinas, O.P., addressed this very issue:

"Let one say that the one head and the one shepherd [of the Church Visible] is Christ, who is one spouse of the one Church; his answer does not suffice. For, clearly, Christ Himself perfects all the sacraments of the Church: it is He who baptizes; it is He who forgives sins; it is He, the true Proest, who offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by whose power His body is daily consecrated on the altar - nevertheless, because He was not going to be with all the faithfull in bodily presence, He chose ministers to dispense the things just mentioned to the faithful, as was said above. By the same reasoning, then, when He was going to withdraw His bodily presence from the Church, He had to commit it to one who would in His place have the care of the Universal Church. Hence it is that He said to Peter before His Ascencion: 'Feed My sheep' (Jn. 21:17); and before His Passion 'Thou being converted, confirm thy brethren' (Lk. 22:32); and to him alone did He promise: 'I will give to thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. 16:19), in order to show that the power of the Keys was to flow through him to others to preserve the Unity of the Church.
But it cannot be said, that, although He gave Peter this dignity, it does not flow on to others. For, clearly, Christ established the Church so that it was to endure to the end of the world; in the words of Isaias (9:7): 'He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon His kingdom to establish and strengthen it with the judgement and with justice from henceforth and forever.' It is clear that He so established therein those who were then in the ministry that their power was to be passed on to others even to the end of time; especially so, since He Himself said: 'Behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world' (Matt. 28:20).
By this, of course, we exclude the presumptious error of some who attempt to withdraw themselves from the obedience and the rule of Peter by not recognizing his successor, the Roman Pontiff, the Pastor of the Universal Church." (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 4, Chapter 76)

Furthermore, the Angelic Doctor teaches of the necessity of the Papacy as the visible source of unity in the Church:

"The unity of the Church requires that all the faithful agree as to the Faith. But about matters of faith, it happens that questions arise. A diversity of pronouncements, or course, would divide the Church, if it were not preserved in unity by the pronouncement of one [this should be evident in the thousands of denominations in protestantisn and the phyletism in Eastern Orthodoxy]. Therefore, the unity of the Church demands that there be one who is at the head of the Church. But manifestly, in its necessities Christ has not failed the Church which He loved and for which He shed His Blood, since even of the synagogue the Lord says, 'What is there that I ought to do more to My Vineyard that I have not done to it?' Therefore, one must not doubt that by Christ's ordering there is one who is at the head of the entire Church." (ibid., Book 4, Chapter 76)

Pope Pius XII explained perfectly the question regarding the visible head for the Church Militant in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (of the Mystical Body of Christ):

"We must not think that He [Christ] rules only in a hidden or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, venerable brethren, that after He had ruled the 'little flock' Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and to return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the Body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of His primacy is only Christ's Vicar: so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascencion into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter also, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute only one Head is the solemn teaching of Our Predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.
They, therefore, walk the path of dangerous error who think that they can embrace Christ as the Head of His Church though they do not give their loyalty to His Vicar on earth. By taking away this visible Head and by breaking these conspicuous bonds of uniy, they so obscure and deform the Mystical Body of Our Saviour that it cannot be recognized by those seeking the harbor of eternal salvation. (Mystici Corporis Christi, 40 and 41)

Another aspect of the Church is that she is an eikon (icon) of the Holy Trinity.

One could view it as follows:

Holy Trinity: Father - Son - Holy Spirit: one God

Church: Pope - other prelates - laity: one Body of Christ

The unity of the Holy Trinity mirrors the unity of the Catholic Church: in both there is one supreme principle being the Father in the Holy Trinity and the Pope in the Church. Without a supreme principle of unity, there can be no "unity in plurality".

The Father has authority over the Son who in turn also has authority over the Holy Spirit (as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son). Thus both the Son and the Holy Spirit have one principle, the Father.
Likewise, the Pope has authority over the other prelates who in turn have authority over the laity. The other prelates and the laity have one principle which keeps them all subject to Christ: the Vicar of Christ, the Pope.

Thus, while the Church mirrors the unity of the Holy Trinity in its threefold diversity, the Pope keeps the Church - as a singularity - subject to Christ as His Mystical Body.

That the Church is closely connected to Triadology can also be seen in a comparison between the Old and New Covenant:

Old Covenant:
High Priest: Aaron (Exodus 28:3)
ministerial priests: Aaron's sons (Exodus 28:40-41)
universal priests: Israel (Exodus 19:6)

New Covenant:
High Priest: Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:17)
ministerial priests (Romans 15:16; 1 Timothy 3:1,8; Titus 1:7)
universal priests (1 Peter 2:5,9

We again have the "head principle", then the ordained ministers/prelates, then the laity.

To show ST that this is not merely an "heretical innovation" created by Catholics to confuse others, I shall cite Bishop Maximos Aghiorgoussis:

"The Church is ekklesia (quahal) is a corporate reality, a unity of persons called together by God which reflects the kind of society that the Holy Trinity is. For the Church is created after the image of the Holy Trinity, in whose life it participates. As there is hierarchy in the Holy Trinity, there is hierarchy and structrue in the Church. As there is equality of persons in the Holy Trinity, there is equality of persons and personal destinies in the life of the Church." (The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. xxv, no. 4, winter 1980, p. 313)

IV parellels between protestantism and Eastern schismatic theologoumena

theologoumena: theological opinions open to debate (as most polemical statements against the Catholic Church are not doctrines confirmed by an Ecumenical Council which the Eastern schismatics claim to be necessary for the establishment of dogma and authoritative teaching bindign for the universal Church)

i) sobornost theology:

This theology was developped by Alexei S. Khomiakov who lived in the 19th century and suggests that infallibility is something that may only be exercised by the whole Church, i.e. by all the faithful agreeing on a certain issue, and not by any organ of the Church, i.e. the Episcopate which gathers in Councils.
ST must be familiar with this as one of his reasons to accept only the first Seven Ecumenical Councils was that only they were "accepted by the whole Church". Thus, instead of following the Episcopate in communion with the Roman Pontiff (it is said that we are to obey our prelates in Hebrews 3:17), doctrinal authority is diffused among all the members of the Church. In such a scenario, infallibility becomes impossible since no organ of the Church (the Magisterium) can be identified as the infallible teacher. The result is doctrinal chaos and anarchy. Some may claim otehrwise, but one can ask a simple question: when a protestant disagrees on doctrine with another protestant (based on their personal interpretations of Scripture), then who decides what is the orthodox doctrine? Or when an Eastern Orthodox contradicts another, who is right and ought to be followed?

Let me give some examples:

on purgatory:

Greek Orthodox lay theologian S. Tsirplanis writes in his book "Mark of Ephesus and the Council of Florence":

"From the Greek as well as from the Latin statements related to Purgatory, it is clear that both Churches, Greek and Latin, basically agree that there is a middle state of souls after death...it is evident particularly from Mark's own replies, that the Greeks did not consider Purgatory as an issue serious enough to divide the two Churches. As a matter of fact, even the Greek prelates at Ferrara-Florence disagreed among themselves over the question of Purgatory...One should remember that the Greek prelates in general were unprepared for the Purgatory disputes; that even today there is no official doctrine on Purgatory in the Eastern Church."

On the other hand, a neo-Palamite, the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, Hierothos S. Vlachos, had this to say in his work "Life After Death" (Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, Levadia, Greece, 1995):

"only Paradise and Hell exist and nothing in between them." (p. 166)

on the Immaculate Conception:

Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia wrote the following in the 1993 revised edition of his "The Orthodox Church":

"The Orthodox Church calls Mary "All-Holy"; it calls her 'immaculate' or 'spotless' (in Greek achrantos); and all Orthodox are agreed in believing that Our Lady was free from actual sin. But was she also free from original sin?... The Orthodox Church has never in fact made any formal and definitive pronouncement on the matter....
From the Orthodox point of view, however, the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion; and if an individual Orthodox today felt impelled to believe in the Immaculate Conception, he or she could not be termed a heretic for so doing)" (pp. 259-260)

Another Eastern Orthodox cleric, Fr. Michael Azkoul wrote in response:

"His Grace wants us to 'suspend judgement on the matter'. Whether some Orthodox Christians have (or do) 'believed' is irrelevant. No member of the Church may hold any 'opinion' contrary to the Apostolic Tradition...In truth, there is no 'original sin' as the inheritance of Adam's guil; and therefore the Immaculate Conception is just another episode in a comedy of Latin errors. It is a dogma signifying nothing." (Once Delivered to the Saints, Saint Nectarios Press, 2000; p. 173)

And yet another one, Russian Orthodox theologian Professor Vl. Iljine suggests that examination of the Marian tradition of the Byzantine Church shows it had always favored the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. (Revue des Etudes Byzantines, t.10 (1952); p. 167)

To me it seems that problems of sobornost theology are logical consequences of the rejection of the Papacy. In the words of Demetrios Kydones (14th century Byzantine convert to Catholicism) in his Apologia for his conversion:

"So when someone comes along and says the Pope is in error and everyone ought to abjure such error, we really have been given no proof for such an allegation, and it makes no sense for anyoen to pass judgement on what has first to be proven. What is more, is that we will not succeed in finding out why and by whom the Pope is to be judged, no matter how earnestly we try.

But aside from the prospect that one who has the Primacy in the Church is in error, what confidence can be placed in those of lower ranks?

If we continue to carry on like this, all shepherds of the Christian people will become suspect because what we accuse the Head Shepherd of is even more likely to befall those who are less than he. Would not every matter of faith have to end with a question mark if there indeed be no final seat of authority in the Church? There can be no certitude anywhere, if noone is worthy of credibility. Then we are no longer talking about the religion which St. Paul described as one; rather there will be as many religions as there are leaders, or better still, none at all!

Every believer will suspect everyone else and will proceed to pick and choose whatever belief suits him. Then, as in a battle fought in the dark, we will be striking at our own friends, and they at us.

How the non-believers will enjoy our antics, because we Christians are now involved in endless bickerings among ourselves, since none of us want to concede anything to anyone else. The whole missionary efforts to spread Christian beliefs will be stopped in its tracks since no one will pay any attention to those who cannot even agree among themselves.

Is this not the precise situation we find among the schismatics?

ii) Phyletism is precisely related to the Apologia of Demetrios Kydones. This is the heresy that hierarchs establish rival episcopates in one and the same territory. Modern Eastern Orthodoxy suffers from this problem especially in the Americas wherein Russians and Greeks do not agree in regards to who is to exercise authority over the mentioned areas.

for more information: http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/philioca.htm

V argumentum clericum (clerical argument)

The argumentum clericum is a simple argument based on the fact that the Church of Christ has a ministerial priesthood who acts "in persona Christi" (2 Corinthians 2:10). It is clear that as the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and as such is a communion of Eucharistic unity (1 Corinthians 10:17); "Christ is all, and in all" (Colossians 3:11) and also "the head of the Church" (Ephesians 5:23). Therefore we, the members of the Church, "are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). Christ, is thus the center of our unity. Now, one may ask what role clerics play in this argument. The role they play is:

Priests act in the person of Christ in the parish. As such, they represent the center of Christian life in a parish. This is the case because as the Church is a Eucharistic communion and we know that only validly ordained priests - in accordance to Apostolic Succession - are capable of confecting the sacraments , the priests play a central role in a Christian community. Without the priests, Eucharistic communion cannot be maintained, then one can no longer claim to be part of the Church proper which is made made into the "one body" of Christ by partaking in the "one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17) which is "the body of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:29).

In a sense then, it is the priest who guarantees the unity of the Christian people in his parish. Anyone who wants to be part of the Mystical Body of Christ has to go to Holy Mass to receive Holy Communion. It is also decreed by the Church - against the Donatists and Montanists - that the immorality of a certain priest does not invalidate the sacraments which the said priest confects in the Name of Christ Jesus. The priest then is the local representative of the Church's unity in Christ and this is the reason why we are to "obey" our "prelates and be subject to them" (Hebrews 13:27).

It is evident from history though that certain prelates of the Church have fallen into heresy. Heretics have come from within the Church (Acts 20:29). How can then the unity of the theandric Church be maintained? Analogous to the unity in the local parish in which the laity are centered around their parish priest, the priests of a certain region are centered around their bishop. For the unity of the local churches, it it necessary that all the priests in a certain region agree with their bishop. It is though also possible that bishops fall into heresy (as we see e.g. in the Iconoclast Council of Hieria). In the early Church, there were then Patriarchates ruling over a greater region than the episcopate of a bishop. It was then of necessity that the bishops - and with them the local priests (and all the clerics, religious, and the laity) - agree with their respective Patriarchs: all this for the sake of unity.

But what happens when even Patriarchs disagree with each other? Then, indeed the unity of the Church is in danger. It is for this very reason that there exists a visible head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, the Pope.

"In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided, He [Jesus] put Peter at the head of the other Apostles, and in him He set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and of communion." (Dogmatic Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, #18)

One has to always keep in mind that the refusal to identify an infallible teaching organ and supreme authority in the Church Militant leads to none other but an ecclesiology in which each man is de facto "his own pope". By this I mean that the laity are not under any moral obligation of obedience towards their prelates (which contradicts Sacred Scripture). Everyone then only accepts what he deems to be right "in his own heart" ("He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool" - Proverbs 28:26). This is why we also have a sort of "church-hopping" amongst protestants: if you do not like what "Pastor X" says, then you go to another church (by Protestant church, I mean the assembly hall, the building; since protestant communities are not "Churches"). It is then one's own desires, one's own heart, which become the final arbiter of truth in matters of doctrinal questions. This is a notion I cannot see anywhere in the history of orthodox Christian faith. Is the situation any different among the Eastern Orthodox? They also have no final authority to settle disputes amongst themselves. They do appeal to Ecumenical Councils, but they suffer from "arrested development" leaving them without the possibility to convoke an Ecumenical Council to definitively settle any doctrinal dispute after the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. What is there to say of the Anglicans? They are in a similar position: there is no final and supreme authority. And the novel idea of Anglicans that there are "many Catholic Churches" - the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Churches - is in itself a violation of Apostolic Tradition that the Church is one, i.e. she is doctrinally united. It is not necessary to discuss all other protestant communities. What then separates the schismatics from the Catholic Church? It is their refusal to admit that the reason for their schism is their attitude of treating as dogma their theological opinions - contradicting the doctrines of the Catholic Church - that do not meet the standards for "authorititative and universally binding doctrine" as evident in Church history. It is an attitude of making oneself the arbiter of truth. But we know that the Bible teaches otherwise: it teaches obedience and loyalty to the Church and not protestant individualism (Matthew 18:17; Luke 10:16; 1 John 4:6).

A Russian Orthodox theologian, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, wrote:

"The important point is... for us to see that in the light of this doctrine [of a universal Church] the need for and the reality of a universal head, i.e., the bishop of Rome, can no longer be termed an exaggeration. If the Church is a universal organism, she must have as a head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head, because Christ is her invisible head, is THEOLOGICAL NONSENSE. If applied consistently, it should also eliminate the necessity for the visible head of each local church, i.e. the bishop. Yet it is basic assumption of a "catholic" ecclesiology that the visible structure of the Church manifests and communicates its invisible nature. The invisible Christ is made present through the visible unity of the bishop and the people: the Head and the Body. To oppose the visible structure to the invisible Christ leads inescapably to the Protestant divorce between a visible and human Church which is contingent, relative and changing, and an invisible Church in heaven. We must simply admit that if the categories of organism and organizational unity are to be applied primarily to the Church universal as the sum of all its component parts (i.e., local churches), then the one, supreme, and universal power as well as its vearer becomes a self-evident necessity, because this unique visible organism must have a unique visible head. Thus the efforts of Roman Catholic theologians to justify Roman primacy not by mere historical contingencies but by divine institution appear as logical. Within a universal ecclesiology, primacy is of necessety and, by the same necessity, a divinely instituted power; we have all this in a consistent form in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Church." (The Primay of Peter, ed. by Jean Meyendorff, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992; page 151)

For the sake of honesty, it should be noted that Fr. Schmemann prefered to reject the Church's being a "universal organism" over becoming Catholic. Nevertheless, it is highly remarkable that a Russian Orthodox theologian would give Roman Catholic theology that much credit in regards to the Church being a universal communion. One may have expected him to convert after showing that the Papacy is intrinsically necessary for the Church as a "universal organism", but instead he chose to reject the universal nature of the Church. He then follows an ecclesiology not that different - but also not identical - from the protestant's rejection of the theandric nature of the Church. Instead of "divorcing" the material nature of the Church from the spiritual, he chose to divorce the local unity from the universal. His view leads to the same problems of sobornost theology and the problems spoken of by Demetrios Kydones.

VI Conclusion

After examining all four aspects in this blog entry, I hope that I have helped ST by removing some obstacles which prevent him from accepting the truth about the Church of Christ and entering into the Catholic Church.

Now, we have established that there is no Christian orthodoxy without the Papacy and that communion with the Bishop of Rome is necessary to be in the Church which Christ Himself established. Furthermore, we have established that only the Catholic Church has evidently preserved Apostolic Tradition in its entirety (indeed other Christian communities have elements of truth).

It still is possible to reject the Catholic Church after my presentation. I admit that my presentation is not good: it is quite short and lacking when one considers the vast amount of evidence which speaks for the truth in the Catholic Church. For my sloppy work, I apologize, but I can only accomplish so much as time permits me. Furthermore, I am still learning and there are still many things that I know not of and thus could not demonstrate in my blog entries.

Some protestants use a system in which they simply try to twist and distort the evidence presented to them in a manner which would not point to the Papacy in order to justify their schism. Some even go as far as to ask for every single doctrine of the Catholic Church definitive declarations from the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, or from the "first century of the Church". The errors of such thinking should be obvious: for one, it rejects legitimate doctrinal development, and the protestants and other schismatics who argue this way fail to realize that they are building up a position solely based on the negation of Catholicism while at the same time they themselves fail to meet the strict criteria they have come up with in order to reject the Catholic Church. One is left to ask: if the Catholic Church is wrong, then who is right? Where is the Rock-foundation of Kepha to be found? Is it to be found among the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Episcopalians? Is it to be found in another "Church" or community which claims to be the Church of Christ? Or is it rather to be found in any community claiming itself to be Christian and thus making doctrinal unity unnecessary after all and Christians can all claim to be "one Body" while each one believes something else?

Either there is one theandric Church and all other schismatics are mistaken and ought to seek unity with that Church; or the Church is only "spiritual" and there is thus no visible supreme and infallible teaching organ - through which Christians can know what is sound doctrine - and no one may therefore charge another of being a "heretic" and no one may rebuke heretics sharply (Titus 1:13). I hope it is clear that the latter leads to a de facto religious pluralism and the "sola scriptura" standard of protestants - which itself is subject to interpretation - is objectively useless. One only needs to open his eyes and check where one can find more doctrinal unity: in the traditional Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) or in protestant communities? It is clear that unity is best seen in the Catholic Church.

There are some protestants who claim they only believe in the "historical Church" which used to be visible but - beginning in 1054 - somehow became invisible. Then ask for "historical proofs" - not in implicit, but always in explicit manner - for the further doctrinal development in the Catholic Church (a process evident in the first centuries of the Church). At the same time, one could ask them questions such as:

1) What Ecumenical Council declared the Church to be invisible and without need for hierarchy?

2) What Ecumenical Council declared that we may pick and choose from the declarations of Ecumenical Councils what to believe?

3) What Ecumenical Council declared that the See of Peter is no longer essential to orthodoxy?

4) What Ecumenical stated that Ecumenical Councils are not binding for all Christians?

5) What Ecumenical Council declared Catholics to be heretics?

6) Where in the history of the Church do we see "orthodox Christians" who rebelled against the Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Councils confirmed by the Popes?

7) Where in the history of the Church has it been taught to be part of Apostolic Tradition (which we ought to follow according to the Bible (Acts 2:42; 1 Timothy 4:16) that we "follow the faith, not our prelates"?

8) If there is no infallible teaching organ within the Church, then who decides on what is the orthodox faith that needs to be followed by all?

A former Catholic I know who is now a protestant suggested - like ST - that he is "orthodox"/"catholic" in the sense that he follows "orthodox doctrine" and not the "Catholic Church which is fallible". "Even Ecumenical Councils are fallible", he suggested.

A man not even in his twenties now decides without recourse to the accepted authorities of the early Church, nor to the Scripturally founded hierarchy of the Church, nor the Chair of Peter what is "orthodox doctrine" and what not.

It seems to me that these people are simply rebellious in nature like those who followed Core in their rebellion against Moses and Aaron. They follow their own bellies (Romans 16:18) and follow no longer established and orthodox doctrine, but rather their own opinions, their own desires (2 Timothy 4:3). They are the people who like to "re-invent the wheel": instead of obeying their prelates in Sacred Tradition (Hebrew 13:17), that is listening to the Church which is the test of orthodoxy (1 John 4:6), and being taught by the Church how to understand the Scriptures (Acts 8:31) which can be misinterpreted unto condemnation (2 Peter 3:16), they prefer to complain against the hierarchy of the Church and follow their own desires (Jude 1:16).

They forget that it is St. Peter alone that Christ Himself entrusted His entire flock, the Church. Dare I then rebel against the will of my Lord and my God and seek another Vicar of the Good Shepherd than the one He Himself has set for us to follow? If I do so, then I cannot really claim to love my Lord Jesus Christ for He said that it is he who keeps His commandments who loves him (John 14:21), and I shall be likened unto those dishonest impostors and vain babblers who call Him "Lord, Lord" but are not of Him (Matthew 7:21). But nay, I humbly submit myself in obedience to the Vicar of Christ whom the Lord has set above all to tend and to feed His sheep among which I hope to count myself.

Let me finish with the words of St. Basil the Great:

"My task is finished. If you find that what I have said is satisfactory, let it end our discussion of these matters. If anything is unclear, do not hesitate to diligently seek an answer... The Lord will provide a full answer for any remaining questions, since He gives knowledge to those He has chosen, by the Holy Spirit."

____________________________________________________________________

Most citations presented here are taken from the works of Mr. James Likoudis. To order his excellent books, please visit:

http://credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

the Church and Modernity

2009-08-13T00:50:00.000-07:00

Here, I will attempt to dicuss what seem to me very plausible reasons for the decline of faith in our modern days. The reasons I speak of are the mode of preaching and the mode of prayer: lex praedicandi et lex orandi.

It is my firm conviction that the loss of faith can and should be blamed on us faithful also. We have a responsibility to actively spread and cultivate a culture of faith - a responsibility which many of us have compromised for the sake of modernity:

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 5:13-16)

Jesus teaches that we Christians are the salt, the light of this world: with our faith we show others the path unto righteousness - as a light shows the way in the dark; with our faith we add what is lacking for the world to be good - as salt gives taste to food.

What do we expect then when we neglect the fact that we are to be the salt and light of this world? We can expect nothing good from this - neither for ourselves nor for others.

Here, I will discuss - as said above - two areas of the Christian faith which have been affected negatively by modernism:
1) the mode of prayer
2) the mode of preaching

on the mode of prayer:

The mode of prayer includes our mode of worship and all external expressions of spiritual devotion. The way this mode has been affected by modernism is evident in almost every single parish of the Catholic world. One could point out the simple fact that many Catholics - including clerics - do not appreciate expressions of great devotion like e.g. kneeling during Holy Communion or receiving the Sacred Species on one's tongue instead of on one's hand. Likewise, we can experience that older, solemn hymns are rarely sung in the Liturgy, traditional prayers are almost totally unknown to the current generation of Catholics, the use of Latin has almost totally disappeared from our Liturgical practices, illicit "innovations" can be seen not rarely in Catholic Masses (including the mode of celebrating the Forma Ordinaria entirely versus populum, excessive use of female extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, the abandonment of the use of the talar and rochette by some altar servers, etc.), prayers and songs are sometimes "protestantized" for "ecumenism", etc. etc..
In summary, our lex orandi has been modified in a way to "fit the challenges of modern times". Most of these "innovations", however, have taken root not as something decreed or even appreciated by Rome - which is the source and rule of orthodoxy - but rather as being introduced "from below" (the Church is a hierarchy and is ruled from the top to bottom, not vice-versa); often times being contrary to the Tradition of the Church.

Now, how does this change in our prayer life affect the faith of other people and of Catholics as well? The answer is actually pretty simple: it is precisely connected to the quotation from the Gospel of St. Matthew as shown above: we are to be the salt and light of the world. This means that our way of living in and of itself should be likened to a prayer expressing also outwardly - i.e. to others; especially the non-believers - our devotion to Sacred Truth. If one prays in such a way that a spectator can easily recognize the sincerity of one's spirituality, then it is probable that the spectator - even if a non-believer - will be moved or "impressed" by such deep devotion. A prayer said with full conviction, a hymn sung with highest devotion, a Mass celebrated with utmost solemnity are akin to a song capable of touching the depths of the human soul. It is therefore not only by what we do, but also by how we do certain things that people around us will judge our deeds.
If one then - wishing not to be deemed "conservative" or "backwards" - "modernizes" his mode of prayer in such a way that it loses its "spice" (or "saltiness"), that is its outward expression of one's inner conviction, then what is to be expected of him who sees this person's mode of prayer? Certainly the spectator would not be moved by such a sight in any religiously positive manner. Instead, it seems more plausible to assume that our spectator would think that the person praying is not fully convinced of the truth he claims to believe in. His prayer is likened to "vain babbling": one says a lot, but what one says is void of meaning as it is void of sincerity.
Why then - one might ask - should a non-believer even be compelled to appreciate - much less to admire - such show of lacking faith? What is it in the showcasing of lacking trust in Sacred Truth that may permeate a spectator's soul? Nothing. On the contrary, such mode of prayer will be understood as an expression of the believer not taking his own faith seriously. If then the believer himself does not take his own faith seriously, why should the non-believer even consider it? The missionary aspect of the believer's life is then neglected. And what happens to other believers? Lex orandi, lex credendi: our mode of prayer reveals our faith. By submitting to a mode of prayer lacking full conviction, one's own faith will begin to waver: and as believers make up a communion, a community, such outward expression of lacking conviction will certainly not remain unnoticed amongst others: it will be the cause for ane eventual departure from the orthodox faith, and later - perhaps - even from the faith altogether.

All this for the sake of being "modern".

And Catholics wonder why there are not enough vocations?

I believe I have dealt enough with the mode of prayer. I shall continue to express my thoughts:

on the mode of preaching:

"Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt save thyself and them that hear thee." (1 Timothy 4:16)

There are two serious errors not few clerics of these our times are guilty of - also for the sake of modernity:

1) abandoning the mode of preaching in an eplicitly orthodox manner
2) the use of "modern language" to "better convey the Good Message" to the modern man

to 1:

The first error is one which has become pretty obvious - especially after the Second Vatican Council. Now, let it be clarified, that I am not blaming the Council for these problems, but rather the unfaithful application of its decrees rooted in a false understanding of religious liberty and of the "ecumenical" aspirations of the Council.
It is not that easy to nowadays find a Catholic priest who preaches in his sermons that which is explicitly Catholic. Often times, one will hear sermons about basic principles of the Christian faith which are shared by most other non-Catholic Christian communities, or the focus is on "being a good person". Doctrine - which divides the schismatics from the Catholic Church - is often ignored. The focus is exaggeratedly put on the similarities, while the differences are almost never pointed out.

What are the problems that arise from such a mode of preaching?

They are pretty clear to me:
The Sacred Liturgy is at the heart of the Catholic life: it is the main area where catechesis on the truths of the orthodox Christian faith takes place. So, if then orthodox preaching is neglected in the Holy Mass, what is to be expected from the church-goers? They will certainly not develop a love for orthodoxy, a desire for truth. Instead, it is more plausible to assume that these would develop an attitude of liberalism: "doctrines just divide us, what matters is that we believe in Jesus and are good people. It does not matter whether one is Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical or whatever else. To have faith in Christ is all that matters."
This is actually a very common attitude to find among protestants. One can say then, that this mode of preaching leads to a "protestantization" of the faith. Just by reading Matthew 7:21-29 and reading it in connection to Matthew 16:17-19, it ought to be clear that it is necessary - by Divine ordination - that we be in communion with the Rock, St. Peter, upon which the Church - the Catholic Church - was built by Christ Jesus. Doctrine therefore is highly relevant.
The Church is to lead us to the fullnes of truth that we may attain life eternal. Why then do certain clerics refuse to preach orthodoxy? Perhaps because it may seem "offending" to non-Catholic Christians? If that be the rule of dialogue, then conflicts may never be solved as noone would care to discuss the differing views and - based upon such discussion - to seek solutions for the problem at hand. For Christianity, this means that we wilfully and knowingly work - not actively, but passively - against the will of the Christ who prayed for Christians that "they may be one" (John 17:11). What is there to expect when one lives in a state of opposition to God's will? Certainly nothing good.

"To love is to will what is truly good for another." - St. Thomas Aquinas, O.P.

Thus, to refuse to lead people to the fulness of truth, and thus to salvation, is a sin against charity: it is a sin against the schismatics for they are left to their errors, it is a sin against the Church - the mystical Body of Christ - for the purity and orthodoxy of the faith is neither caused nor promoted nor maintained, it is a sin againt God Himself who is charity.

The other aspect of this first error, I have already mentioned above: it is the error of preaching a message primarily and solely focused on "being a good person". Now, it is without doubt, that a life of holiness should be part of Christian preaching. However, to turn this aspect to the paramount message of Christian preaching is an error. Why? Because the paramount message to be preached unto others is not a certain behaviour or lifestyle, but a person: Christ Jesus, through whom we know God. Jesus is the reason for our religion: from this flow all other aspects of Christian preaching. If one then replaces Christ, the living God, as the paramount focus of preaching, with a proposal on how to live one's life, then one may ask why one should even bother with all the religious precepts and not go directly to the essence - the core - of the message? This is precisely what is taught by the Buddha and what is promoted by secular humanism: faith in God wouldn't be the reason for our morality, but rather an unnecessary "add-on", whereas in essence the purpose of religion is to simply help a person "to live a good life".

So, while the former aspect dealing with non-orthodox preaching leads to a liberalism in the Christian faith, the latter aspect leads to apostasy, the departure from the faith.

I believe to have discussed point 1 enough, so I will move on:

to 2:

The second error in the mode of preaching is that of using "modern language to convey better to the modern man the Gospel of Christ". This error is actually what made me write this text after having watched a preacher made fun of since he used Disney figures as an analogy to explain Scriptural messages. There are those people who would claim that this style of preaching is "good", "modern", and "more easily understood by teenagers".
It seems obvious to me that this mode of preaching was conceived in the minds of older people who - thinking themselves to be young - have created a certain illusion regarding the attitude of modern-day folks of the younger generations. They probably think that teenagers would simply be bored by orthodox sermons, or by using the appropriate terminology in church. Therefore, they start using modern secular phrases and even some vulgar terms to seem "in" or "cool" in order to - so in theory - gain better access to the minds and hearts of teenagers.
It is an idea born of a good intention. However, having a good intention does not always guarantee a positive outcome of one's endeavors.

Now, observation can easily reveal the problems that arise from such a mode of preaching:
- Teenagers want to be taken seriously - both the believers and the non-believers. Thus, they want to be treated approriately by adults. They will not see themselves as being taken seriously when they see that the adults have stopped taking themselves seriously by acting in a "wannabe-teenager-like" manner when these "adults" speak to them. As a universal rule of common sense and decency, it is the younger that has to conform to the established systems of the older; it is the younger that has to show politeness and courtesy towards the older. I am not proposing the idea that adults are always right nor that they have to be followed in all they say nor that they are not required to also be respectful towards the younger. Instead, in this case, we are discussing the Christian faith: the older tend to be generally viewed as "conservative", while the younger are often considered "rebellious". Since Christianity is a religion that teaches there is Divine and Objective Truth which cannot be altered, i.e. dogma, then it is only appropriate to say that the right mode of behaviour when dealing with the Christian religion is the "conservative" style and not the "rebellious". Therefore, it is the younger that ought to go towards adulthood: it is a progressive development, not a regress which would be the case when adults act and speak like teenagers. Progress is positive, regress is negative.

Imagine a sermon by a priest who starts makes use of the stereotypical vulgar language and of typical teenage-idioms. What would?
The older people - who make up the vast majority of church-goers - would understand very little and would probably ask themselves why the priest is speaking in such an inappropriate manner in church.
The younger people would simply find the sermon a sad and pathetic attempt at evangelization. Moreover, such mode of preaching may well give rise to the notion that the priest himself does not take his own faith - of which he preaches - that seriously that he would stoop down to a level of using informal and inappropriate language.

Evangelization is an act done out of adherence to a Divine Command. When we therefore realize that the reason and end of our preaching is God, then it would be hard to use informal and vulgar language for such purpose.

However, there are people who boast of the large attendance in their "youth Masses", in their "youth churches", and in their "youth groups and events". They therefore justify the modern style of certain clerics and religious. But are these people really there because of God? Often times - and this I can say without doubt due to experience - the young people who attend such events reflect neither a proper understanding of basic Christian beliefs and much less of the orthodox Christian doctrines: what attracts them is the "hype" of the event, not God. I would claim such events to be idolatrous gatherings in which man celebrates himself rather than to worship God.

Another problem connected to "modern preaching" is the issue of indirect evangelization, indirect preaching. What do I mean by this? By this I mean specifically the religious, the Catholics who have entered into the religious life in orders, societiers or communities. In our times, one will more frequently see priests, brothers, sisters, and nuns who rarely or never wear their religious habits. Some even just use a simple cross or whatever small symbol to show - in a not directly apparent manner - their belonging to a certain religious community. Why is this problematic in my opinion?
It is problematic because of these reasons:
1) The religious takes vows to live his/her life for the greater glory of God, in His service, for the salvation of souls. The habit (the attire worn by the religious) is - akin to what I have discussed on the outward expression of prayer - an external witness or testimony to one's belonging to God. It is therefore also a means of "preaching": for it conveys a simple, yet profound message: "the person wearing this habit has consecrated himself totally to God". Now, a religious or a priest who does not wear the habit or the Roman collar (at least - since most modern priests have abandoned the cassock) seems like a person who suggests that he is ashamed of showing people his faith. It is not an explicit denial of the faith, but rather one which is sublime. I remind of the words of Jesus: "But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33).
The Christian faith is one that has to be shared, one that has to be preached: directly or indirectly. The religious attire is a means of sharing the faith with others. The visibility of habits also shows the presence of the Church in the world: we are to be the light. How can anyone follow the religious if they cannot even be recognized as such?
2) Furthermore, the habit is used to also show - in a way - that the religious are "not of this world", though they operate "in this world". It is like an outward expression of one's death to the world and total submission to God's will: the habit does away with the external differences caused by individual, secular fashion and points to a common religious testimony:
"And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me." Galatians 2:20
Thus, to reject the wearing of the habit is perhaps to insist on individualism: it is about oneself, not about God.
3) Habits make visible to people the religious. A non-religious may be compelled to study more about this way of life and consequently about the Christian faith when he sees happy people in habits; for this shows that living in accordance to God's will does not lead to "enslavement", but rather to liberty and utmost fulfillment: the Evangelion is then really understood as what it is: the GOOD message.
Not wearing habits merely points to a person, but not his religion. So occassions that may gave rise to interest in the religious life are therefore neglected.

Many religious - lay and clerics - seem to suffer under the illusion that anything pertaining to one's belonging to the Catholic Church would be like a wall which would stop others from speaking with them: as if the Catholic faith has to be "hidden" as good as possible.
A person who would refuse to talk to a priest who is visibly recognizable as such, would also not listen to an orthodox lay Catholic in "normal" clothes. The logic behind this thinking - if consequently thought out - must lead to a total refusal to even discuss or share with other the Catholic faith as this very faith would be likened to "a wall of division".
In reality - so it seems to me - the reason behind the refusal of wearing the habit or the Roman collar is either the lack of conviction or vanity.

And one may ask where modernity comes in? The modern world - especially in the West - is a relativistic, subjectivist society which is against any claims to objectivism. We live in a society of "political correctness" and of superficial unity. This modern world is not an ally of the Catholic religion: modernism is opposed to the Catholic faith. Now, this state of the world we live in today demands a lot of the Church which still has the mission to evangelize. How is the Church to evangelize in a world that stands diametrically opposed to the very truths that the Church safeguards and promotes? Certainly not by giving in bit by bit to modernism!

The solution is timeless: it was right in the ancient Church and is as perfectly right to the Church in these our modern days. The solution is to not only believe theoretically and partially, but to believe practically and totally: to live outwardly one's inner convictions. This matter of faith is can be compared to charity: it must be lived and expressed, otherwise it ceases to be.

For in the end, one can say: lex orandi et lex praedicandi = lex credendi.

Jews, Hell, Atheists, and Morality

2009-08-12T14:14:00.000-07:00

Before I start, let it be made clear that the following statements are the product of my contemplation on certain issues. I claim not to be necessarily right, and certainly do not claim infallibility in what I write. I may be wrong, I admit. If there be found anything - also in my other posts - which is not in accordance to the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, then it should be known to all that it is obviously me who would be in error - not the Church - God forbid!

Now we all know that the teaching on the existence of an eternal hell is part of the Christian faith. With Jews, the issue becomes a bit different.

I should perhaps point out that when I speak of the "Jewish" concept in this blog, I shall be speaking of what I would term as "reactionary Judaism". This term I use to describe that community of God's chosen people which - to this present day - reject their own Messiah, Jesus.
Thus I use this term to refer to Jews who believe not in the Lord Jesus Christ.

In reactionary Judaism, hell - or rather Gehenna - is not eternal. It can be understood more along the lines of purgatory: a temporal process of purification of the soul through purgation of all that is evil in one's soul (purgatory is the cleansing from venial sins). Therefore - according to reactionary Jewish thought - no one will be eternally separated from God; everyone goes to heaven in the end: whether he likes it or not.

I was told that it could not be otherwise since the "Torah teaches that all creatures shall return to the Creator".

Before I address the aforementioned statement, I shall give my thoughts on why I find hell to be of necessity:

Heaven and hell are eternal consequences which bear testimony to objective Divine Law. If there is a Law, then there is punishment for its violation. The severity of punishment often affects how seriously we take a certain law or rule.

Now, within theology we have faith in an objective standard for morality. We firmly believe that morality itself is objective - Divinely ordained - and not subjective. Violation of the divine moral code constitutes grave sins.

Just think for a moment about atheism and morality: the notion of an objective, transcendent code of moral law is dismissed. Morality is thus subject to the Zeitgeist. In the system of subjectivism then, one cannot really say that something is truly good or evil. What is deemed evil/immoral by one, could be wholeheartedly accepted and even promoted by another. As each man can create his own "moral truth", this system then renders morality objectively meaningless. As one can twist it to anything one wants, the purpose of morality - which is to uphold that which is objectively good - fades away. It is then by necessity that a moral code is transcendent and objective: we are subject to objective morality, not the creators thereof with the power to arbitrarily alter it.

If morality is subjective, then - objectively speaking - riding one's bike is on par with multiple murder. If instead there exists an absolute and objective moral code, then multiple murder would always be wrong, regardless of one's subjective opinion towards such act.

Why did I even discuss this? I discussed this in an attempt to show that an idea which tries to equate things opposed to each other is intrinsically flawed. Riding a bicycle is not on the same moral level as multiple murder.

How does this connect to the eternity of hell?

Well, let us compare the two theologies:

Christians believe that the righteous shall be with God for all eternity, while the wicked shall be eternally separated from him (by their own choosing).

Reactionary Jews, on the other hand, believe that the righteous and the wicked shall spend eternity together in the presence of God. So an Anne Frank would be in the same place/state as an Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Göring, Goebbels, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, etc. according to reactionary Jewish beliefs.

The difference should be clear here: one position proposes a clear division between what is good and evil, moral and immoral, while the other simply combines the two.

One could argue that the wicked - in the reactionary Jewish concept - are purified of all wickedness after death and thus becomes as the righteous in Paradise. One might even say that this is the same concept as in purgatory, so why even have an eternal hell? It is because of choice: only those souls free of mortal sin can be purified in purgatory for nothing unholy can be in the presence of the Divine. Those souls guilty of mortal sin - a rejection of God's love -cannot be purified in purgatory as they - unlike people guilty of venial sins (most of us are) which only wound our relationship with God - repudiate the relationship with God: a mortal sin is a rejection of God. Therefore, we can conclude that purgatory is not the same as the reactionary Jewish concept of purification; as the former entails man's freedom, while the latter totally dismisses it: all are predestined to heaven regardless of one's own choices.

It is therefore that I say that reactionary Judaism is - in a certain way - similar to Atheism:
Both propose an idea that "all will be sitting in the same boat" after death: be it utter nothingness (see Wisdom 2) or heaven.

I could actually make a list of problematic consequences that follow from the reactionary Jewish understanding of "hell":

1) If all men will eventually end up in the same place/state, then why did God even reveal Himself to mankind?
2) Why did God reveal a Law unto mankind?
3) Why is there given a "chosen people" to be "a light to the Gentiles"?
4) Why is God presented in the Old Testament as being very furious against the enemies of His plans?
5) Why does God punish those who rebel against his Divine Will?
6) Why Divine Revelation, why send prophets, why warn of dangers, why teach against "abominations" and "errors" - if these lead to no serious consequences?
7) Why religion, why faith?
8) Why morality?
9) What would happen to a Jew who one day decides to not only stop practicing his religion and observing the commandments of God, but also starts to work actively against his religion and to blaspheme God? According to reactionary Judaism, he would have to end up in heaven.
10) What of free will?
11) What is this life for when we all end up in heaven? Perverse entertainment perhaps?

I watched a video today wherein an atheist's path to apostasy from his former faith was triggered by a simple statement: "you know what you believe in, but do you also know why?"

Why would God reveal Himself and why would we believe? Neither would have any objective meaning since - in the end - all end up in heaven.

In a way, to suggest that there is no eternal hell, is to suggest a unification of that which is good with that which is evil, of that which is Divine with that which is unholy: this idea renders the concepts of "Divinity" and "unholiness", of "good" and of "evil" objectively meaningless.

In contrast, the Christian believes that we are created by God out of love, to be loved and to love eternally. God being love requires that his creation provides for the possibility of evil - without necessitating evil itself. This necessary consequence is made manifest in man's free will, his freedom to choose either good or evil. And we know that the world is not perfect: creatures - not the Creator - have introduced evil into the world: sin is born. Sin is what misses the mark according to Hebrew thought: something made void of its purpose and its meaning. So to choose evil over good, to choose not love is a sin: as God is love, to sin is to choose a path that deviates from the path of God. It is thus a choice which leads to separation from God. As per Christian understanding, this life is where we learn and then come to - by our lives - show God which path we choose eternally for ourselves: that which leads to Him, or that which leads away from Him. God then respects the choices we made using our free will and grants us what we want most for all eternity: if we have chosen anything above God, then we will be separated from God and given over to that state without love, i.e. hell, which necessarily cannot entail any happiness; if we choose God above all else, then we are eternally with love and thus also with happiness.

Note: we cannot choose to be with God without God's grace. One may understand this as the bond of love emanating from the Creator to His creation. To commit a mortal sin is to choose to oppose this love: it is not a "minor" offense, but a rejection of God Himself: since possibility is part of man's freedom, then one cannot argue that God would simply ignore such freedom all of the sudden. The moment freedom is taken away from our theology, is the moment love ceases to be; it is the moment that we have to ask ourselves about God's existence.

I also think that the material world and the happenings therein reflect aspects of the immaterial, the eternal: if then we are called to a life of holiness in this world, why then should it be totally irrelevant to the outcome of the life to come?

It makes no sense to me.

Christianity eternally separates good from evil, while reactionary Judaism and Atheism lead to an ideology which provides only for one final destination for both the good and the evil.