Let us all be quite clear about the 1870 Vatican I definition of Papal Infallibility: when the Sacred Council defined Papal Infallibility, it was a restrictive definition. The Fathers were not creating some new dogma from thin air, but rather clarifying an already held belief. It is essential that we understand this point.
I suppose that one could understand the basic motivation: the Pope in 1870 was the last hold-out of old-time monarchy. Those monarchs ruled by the theory of "divine right", in which it was believed that kings, by God's providence, had the right to sovereignty. This allowed kings to create a stigma about them, a cult of personality. This cult only existed in their country. Now imagine the pope, the head of the Church on Earth, the leader of most Christians in Europe, the conqueror of Napoleon, the conqueror of Bismarck (in each case, the Supreme Pontiff stood up to the politician, and in the end, the politician backed down). The Pope was loved in France, Italy, Spain, and Austria. The adulation that people doled out to the Pontiff led many to believe that the Holy Father was inerrant. Obviously, this is heresy. On the other hand, the increasing secular powers sought to denigrate the authority of the Church, through the relativist heresy. The definition of Papal Infallibility puts a stop to both heresies: know we know that the pope is only infallible in specific cases, and we know that Truth is, at the least, represented by the office of the Pope.
This restrictive quality about infallibility is based on four criteria. The first is the role the pope chooses to address the topic: he must be speaking as the Successor of Peter, the Supreme Pontiff, and Vicar of Christ. Second, he must be speaking to all Christians. Third, he must be speaking on a matter of faith and/or morals (not discipline, not prudential matters--like policy preferences). Fourth, his statement must be definitive, or final (not keeping the door open to future debate).
It is easy to see how these 4 criteria apply in the case of, say the definition of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. In each case, especially Ineffabilis Deus, all four criteria are made pretty clear by the Holy Father. Some have claimed that these two declarations are the only two infallible proclamations by a pope. This is a sort of "formulaic" approach to infallibility, that unless the Holy Father uses the exact formula that Pius IX used in 1854, it is not infallible. This approach is very convenient. It allows Catholics to play "Simon Peter Says" (stealing that one from Mark Shea...at least he's got a sense of humor), and cherry pick what they like from everything that Simon Peter's successor hasn't defined. Minimizing the extent of infallibility allows Catholics like Nancy Pelosi (supporter of abortion) and Sean Hannity (supporter of contraception) to claim that they are "ardent, practicing Catholics", yet reject a teaching of the Church. Their rationale is simple: "Simon Peter hasn't defined it, so I'm good!"
However, it isn't that simple. Nowhere in Pastor Aeturnus, Lumen Gentium, or even The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an exact formula spelled out. There are no magic words that guarantee infallibility. This means that any number of papal writings, speeches, or pronouncements can include infallible statements on faith and morals. A simple brush through history will identify several papal pronouncements that have each of the four criteria listed above.
1) Pope St. Leo I's Tome to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Flavius. In the Tome Leo definitivel and with finality declared that Jesus was fully God and fully Man, with two natures united, but not merged. When the Council of Chalcedon (called secretly by the Emperor to get Monophysitism approved) heard the letter, they immediately accepted it as the authentic Catholic faith, because it was presented to them by the Successor of Peter. Clearly, Leo was asserting his authority as Successor of Peter, defining a dogma with finality, for all Christians to believe as part of the deposit of faith. Hence, it is infallible.
2) Pope Agatho's letter to the Third Council of Constantinople. In this letter, Agatho defines the Catholic faith in regards to monothelitism to finally end the monothelite heresy. Here, the Pope writes as the Successor of Peter to definitely establish a doctrine of the Deposit of Faith for all Christians to believe. All four criteria are met: infallible.
3) Pope Paul VI's Humanae vitae. Fr. Brian Harrison, O.P. does a good job illustrating how Paul VI was clear that his decision on contraception (and abortion and sterilization) was to be taken as definitive and infallible.
4) Pope John Paul II's Evangelium vitae. In Paragraph 62, the Holy Father clearly references his role as the Successor of Peter, and declares that all acts of willful abortion are always gravely evil. This is due to Divine law and natural moral law, and it applies to all people. Can't get much more clear than that, can you.
The last two documents are rather interesting. You cannot make the claim that every declaration or statement in Humanae vitae or Evangelium vitae are infallible, and so you cannot make the claim that Papal Encyclicals are infallible. You can, however, claim that certain declarations in those encyclicals are.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Papal Supremacy: Pope Honorius I
Behind Liberius as the poster-child "disproving" papal infallibility and papal supremacy is Pope Honorius, the only Successor of Peter to be condemned by an Ecumenical Council as a heretic.
In all honesty, the case against Honorius is cut and dry: in a written response to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Honorius said that when discussing the operations of Christ, it would be best not to say one Operation (that would hint at Monophysitism), or two Operations (that would hint at Nestorianism). In addition he mentions the one Will of Christ (which is a phrase Monophysites liked to use). His fault is obvious: in using the phrase "one Will" he permitted the heresy of Monophysitism to continue, and his failure to condemn the idea of one Operation also allowed the heresy to continue, no matter how you cut it. For this, the Council of Constantinople in 670AD anathemitized him.
From this simple summary, it is easy to say that if the supposed defender of Christian Faith can slip into error like this and promote (if not blatantly teach) heresy, then the office he holds cannot be free from error. But there is much more than meets the eye in this example. To start, we will look at the issue of Papal Supremacy, as reflected in the case of Honorius and what is debatably the effect of his error, the Third Council of Constantinople, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
The idea of Papal Supremacy is simple: the Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his office being the Office of Peter (whom Christ chose to be the rock His Church was founded on, and whom Christ called to "feed My sheep"), is the supreme teacher of faith and morals for the Church. This means that when issues of faith and morals arise, the pope has the last say (being the chief teacher). This, of course does not leave out Scripture or Tradition, because it should be obvious to many that neither is crystal clear, and there will be matters that need clarification. When these situations arise, the Church turns to the chief teacher, the Successor of Peter, and whatever he says goes. That, in a nutshell, is what Papal Supremacy means.
In the case of Honorius and the Third Council of Constantinople, we see numerous events that scream "Papal Supremacy". First, we have the issue of Honorius' letter. In the east, Monophysitism was strong, and the Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril, attempted to bring the Monophysites into the Church by using the phrase "one operation" (which the emperor Heraclius had used in defense of the Catholic Faith). This won over scores of Monophysites, and Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople was pleased, especially since the phrase was used in a forged letter from pope Vigilius to Mennas, Sergius predecessor (Sergius believed the letter to be authentic). However, a monk named Sophronius, with no justification from the Fathers or Tradition, warned against the phrase. Disquieted, Sergius referred the matter to Honorius, the Bishop of Rome. Why? Because there was no where else to turn. The Bishop of Rome had, at the Council of Chalcedon, defined that there were two Natures and Two Wills in the single Person of Christ: Divine and Human. The Bishop of Rome had defended the use of images in sacred worship (which was part of the Tradition of the Apostles). In short, when it mattered, the Successor of Peter needed to decide the matter. The mere fact that Sergius went to Rome (not Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Ephesus, or any other See or Metropolitan) reflects the attitude of Papal Supremacy. But that is not all.
Honorius' letter reaches Sergius, and this is where it gets interesting. While Honorius never defined anything, just advised against certain word usages, his opinion was treated as authoritative, so much so that both Sergius and the emperor, Heraclius, promulgate a credo known to history as the Ecthesis. This Ecthesis uses not only the suggestion of Honorius, but the phrase "one operation". After this was sent throughout the East (as a matter of state, because Emperors can do that), Heraclius sent the Ecthesis to Rome for Honorius' approval. Here again, we have a deference to Rome to ensure that the Catholic Faith is completely and accurately taught, which is what Papal Supremacy refers to. But the situation doesn't end there. When the Ecthesis reached Rome, it was condemned by Honorius' successor, Severinus (who reigned only two months) and his successor, John IV. Heraclius not only blamed Sergius for the Ecthesis (which is partially accurate, Sergius wrote it, Heraclius promulgated it), but he recanted from it. In short, when Rome spoke, he listened. But wait, there is more!
When Sergius died, Pyrrhus was elevated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but he was condemned at Rome for failure to remove the Ecthesis. He was removed by Heraclius, and his successor, Paul sent a confession of faith to Rome. Rome condemned the confession of faith, because it didn't use the phrase "two Wills". So, if the Bishop of Rome isn't really the chief teacher of the Church, nor is he the chief bishop, why was he sent a confession of faith by the newly elevated Patriarch of Constantinople? If the Bishop of Rome has no authority, then why did he see fit to condemn said confession for a lack of orthodox phraseology? It doesn't end there.
At the request of Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside over what became the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. His legates were given a letter, written by Agatho, which solemnly defined the Catholic Faith, and all the East needed to do to reunify with the Catholic Church (since because of Paul and Pyrrhus, almost the entire East was in schism) was to accept the dogmatic proclamation by the Successor of Peter. Almost to a man, the Council agreed.
In regards to Papal Supremacy, what more needs to be said about the case of Honorius? It seems clear that from the beginning, the bishops of the East sought the approval of Rome in defeating Monophysitism (and later Monothelitism). If anything, the case of Pope Honorius I only secures Papal Supremacy.
In all honesty, the case against Honorius is cut and dry: in a written response to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Honorius said that when discussing the operations of Christ, it would be best not to say one Operation (that would hint at Monophysitism), or two Operations (that would hint at Nestorianism). In addition he mentions the one Will of Christ (which is a phrase Monophysites liked to use). His fault is obvious: in using the phrase "one Will" he permitted the heresy of Monophysitism to continue, and his failure to condemn the idea of one Operation also allowed the heresy to continue, no matter how you cut it. For this, the Council of Constantinople in 670AD anathemitized him.
From this simple summary, it is easy to say that if the supposed defender of Christian Faith can slip into error like this and promote (if not blatantly teach) heresy, then the office he holds cannot be free from error. But there is much more than meets the eye in this example. To start, we will look at the issue of Papal Supremacy, as reflected in the case of Honorius and what is debatably the effect of his error, the Third Council of Constantinople, and the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
The idea of Papal Supremacy is simple: the Bishop of Rome, by virtue of his office being the Office of Peter (whom Christ chose to be the rock His Church was founded on, and whom Christ called to "feed My sheep"), is the supreme teacher of faith and morals for the Church. This means that when issues of faith and morals arise, the pope has the last say (being the chief teacher). This, of course does not leave out Scripture or Tradition, because it should be obvious to many that neither is crystal clear, and there will be matters that need clarification. When these situations arise, the Church turns to the chief teacher, the Successor of Peter, and whatever he says goes. That, in a nutshell, is what Papal Supremacy means.
In the case of Honorius and the Third Council of Constantinople, we see numerous events that scream "Papal Supremacy". First, we have the issue of Honorius' letter. In the east, Monophysitism was strong, and the Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril, attempted to bring the Monophysites into the Church by using the phrase "one operation" (which the emperor Heraclius had used in defense of the Catholic Faith). This won over scores of Monophysites, and Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople was pleased, especially since the phrase was used in a forged letter from pope Vigilius to Mennas, Sergius predecessor (Sergius believed the letter to be authentic). However, a monk named Sophronius, with no justification from the Fathers or Tradition, warned against the phrase. Disquieted, Sergius referred the matter to Honorius, the Bishop of Rome. Why? Because there was no where else to turn. The Bishop of Rome had, at the Council of Chalcedon, defined that there were two Natures and Two Wills in the single Person of Christ: Divine and Human. The Bishop of Rome had defended the use of images in sacred worship (which was part of the Tradition of the Apostles). In short, when it mattered, the Successor of Peter needed to decide the matter. The mere fact that Sergius went to Rome (not Jerusalem, or Antioch, or Ephesus, or any other See or Metropolitan) reflects the attitude of Papal Supremacy. But that is not all.
Honorius' letter reaches Sergius, and this is where it gets interesting. While Honorius never defined anything, just advised against certain word usages, his opinion was treated as authoritative, so much so that both Sergius and the emperor, Heraclius, promulgate a credo known to history as the Ecthesis. This Ecthesis uses not only the suggestion of Honorius, but the phrase "one operation". After this was sent throughout the East (as a matter of state, because Emperors can do that), Heraclius sent the Ecthesis to Rome for Honorius' approval. Here again, we have a deference to Rome to ensure that the Catholic Faith is completely and accurately taught, which is what Papal Supremacy refers to. But the situation doesn't end there. When the Ecthesis reached Rome, it was condemned by Honorius' successor, Severinus (who reigned only two months) and his successor, John IV. Heraclius not only blamed Sergius for the Ecthesis (which is partially accurate, Sergius wrote it, Heraclius promulgated it), but he recanted from it. In short, when Rome spoke, he listened. But wait, there is more!
When Sergius died, Pyrrhus was elevated to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but he was condemned at Rome for failure to remove the Ecthesis. He was removed by Heraclius, and his successor, Paul sent a confession of faith to Rome. Rome condemned the confession of faith, because it didn't use the phrase "two Wills". So, if the Bishop of Rome isn't really the chief teacher of the Church, nor is he the chief bishop, why was he sent a confession of faith by the newly elevated Patriarch of Constantinople? If the Bishop of Rome has no authority, then why did he see fit to condemn said confession for a lack of orthodox phraseology? It doesn't end there.
At the request of Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, Pope St. Agatho sent legates to preside over what became the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. His legates were given a letter, written by Agatho, which solemnly defined the Catholic Faith, and all the East needed to do to reunify with the Catholic Church (since because of Paul and Pyrrhus, almost the entire East was in schism) was to accept the dogmatic proclamation by the Successor of Peter. Almost to a man, the Council agreed.
In regards to Papal Supremacy, what more needs to be said about the case of Honorius? It seems clear that from the beginning, the bishops of the East sought the approval of Rome in defeating Monophysitism (and later Monothelitism). If anything, the case of Pope Honorius I only secures Papal Supremacy.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Papal Infallibility and Supremacy: Pope Liberius
The concepts of papal infallibility and papal supremacy, rooted in the primacy of Peter promised by Christ in Matthew 16 and elsewhere in the Gospels, have extensive and important historical roots. Currently, in an effort to reunify the Eastern Churches and the Western Church, Orthodox and Catholic theologians and clerics have begun talks concerning the role of the Bishop of Rome in the early Church. This is important for the reasons I mentioned here. The Orthodox hope to show that the Catholic perception of the Pope is not part of Tradition, while the Catholics hope to show that while the modern practice of papal supremacy is certainly not what it was in the Early Church, the roots for modern supremacy are clearly laid out, and thus the Catholic perception of supremacy is part of Tradition.
Protestants like to look at history as well, but their vision is a bit different. While Orthodox theologians and historians recognize the Petrine Supremacy (but differ on what that means), Protestant historians reject that notion. Instead, they look to the Early Church as evidence against popishness and Romish beliefs. Two examples that anti-Catholics like to trumpet before the uneducated are Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius, whose pontificates happened to fall during times of tremendous ecclesial upheaval.
Pope Liberius was elected to the See of Rome in the midst of the Arian heresy. Arius denied that Christ was Divine, or consubstantial with the Father. In political terms, this theology actually supported an all-powerful emperor, while a Divine Christ gives power to the Church (because the Church is Divinely Inspired, where the emperor is not). Arianism grew in strength, supported by the Emperor in the East, until over 80% of bishops in the world were Arian. The great defender of orthodoxy, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, was even banished from his see by the Arians. The Arian emperor sought to make the entire empire Arian by force. Numerous times, he sought to influence the Bishop of Rome, Liberius. In the end, Liberius made some concessions to the Arian emperor (under pain of death), to which he later recanted. Protestants use this example to show that the Church adopted the idea of papal infallibility (that when the Pope speaks as the successor of Peter--and thus the head of all Christians--on a specific matter of faith and morals, than he can never speak error), it was not an initial doctrine.
On the surface, the bare minimum facts support the Protestant view: a pope, who previously defended orthodox belief, jumped ship when his life was in danger, and embraced heresy. How can you say that his definitions were infallible (and therefore unchanging) when he changed his position? Looking at the scenario from this perspective, the Catholic doctrine of infallibility seems to be undercut. However, why don't we dig deeper, and look at the whole picture?
Athanasius, the staunch defender of Christ's Divinity and the archenemy of Arius, wrote about Liberius' affair in his Historia Arianorum (History of the Arians), Part V. Firstly, it must be known that with imperial support, Arians came to power in the East, so that in a short time, orthodox bishops were in the minority. Athanasius was a vocal opponent to the heretics. In punishment for his vociferous opposition, he was deposed from his see. What did he do in response? He appealed to the pope, who reinstated him. This upset the Arians immensely. How did they respond? They attempted to woo the pope to their side: according to Athanasius, their modus operandi was that if the pope falls, all of Christendom will fall: "These impious men reasoned thus with themselves: 'If we can persuade Liberius, we shall soon prevail over all.'" (Historia Arianorum, V, 35). Athanasius recounts that Liberius, citing not only his authority as the successor of Peter, but likewise Tradition (handed down by the Apostle Peter), and the Council of Nicaea which defined the Faith and anathematized Arianism, refused the exhortation of the Emperor (HA, PtV, 36).
The Emperor was livid, and contrived his governors, Counts, and other officials to somehow lure Liberius away from the See of Rome and capture him. In Paragraph 38 of Pt V of the Historia, Athanasius recounts how teh letters of the emperor to the politicians in Rome created immense turmoil for the Eternal City. The emperor, according to Athanasius, promised many things to the politicians in Rome, and such was their response, that it was hard for orthodox people to visit the Holy Father in support. The emperor succeed eventually in torturing the Pope's emissaries to the court, and banishing the Holy Father. According to Athanasius, after two years of banishment and the threat of death, Liberius consented to sign a document that condemned Athanasius (and in a circular way, approve Arianism). This is where Protestant apologists go nuts. "See, see! He gave in, he changed his tune. He taught error! There is no infallibility!!"
However, Athanasius, who is the brunt of the document Liberius signed, sees it differently: "Yet even this only shows their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors." Where modern day Protestants see a lapse of faith, a changing of teaching, or the teaching of error, contemporaries (including one who sought the Bishop of Rome's help over his peers) see a man who was tortured into submission, and see not an admission of error, or a changing of teaching, but the will of his torturers being forced on him, and further evidence of Liberius' hatred of the heresy.
In the end, those who point to Liberius as evidence against papal infallibility or papal supremacy miss the mark completely. In the beginning, the Emperor sought to buy off the Pope, hoping that with the Successor of Peter under his influence, the rest of the bishops, including Athanasius, would fall. Clearly, then, even the emperor and his minions understood the authority of the Roman Pontiff. When Liberius, after being tortured and threatened with death, eventually signed an ambiguously worded document, it was not seen as a racanting of the orthodox position, or an official declaration of Christian doctrine. It was seen as evidence of the violent methods the Arians would resort to inorder to ensure they had their way. The authority of the Bishop of Rome is not marked by this event, as we will see when we analyze the case of pope Honorius I.
Protestants like to look at history as well, but their vision is a bit different. While Orthodox theologians and historians recognize the Petrine Supremacy (but differ on what that means), Protestant historians reject that notion. Instead, they look to the Early Church as evidence against popishness and Romish beliefs. Two examples that anti-Catholics like to trumpet before the uneducated are Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius, whose pontificates happened to fall during times of tremendous ecclesial upheaval.
Pope Liberius was elected to the See of Rome in the midst of the Arian heresy. Arius denied that Christ was Divine, or consubstantial with the Father. In political terms, this theology actually supported an all-powerful emperor, while a Divine Christ gives power to the Church (because the Church is Divinely Inspired, where the emperor is not). Arianism grew in strength, supported by the Emperor in the East, until over 80% of bishops in the world were Arian. The great defender of orthodoxy, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, was even banished from his see by the Arians. The Arian emperor sought to make the entire empire Arian by force. Numerous times, he sought to influence the Bishop of Rome, Liberius. In the end, Liberius made some concessions to the Arian emperor (under pain of death), to which he later recanted. Protestants use this example to show that the Church adopted the idea of papal infallibility (that when the Pope speaks as the successor of Peter--and thus the head of all Christians--on a specific matter of faith and morals, than he can never speak error), it was not an initial doctrine.
On the surface, the bare minimum facts support the Protestant view: a pope, who previously defended orthodox belief, jumped ship when his life was in danger, and embraced heresy. How can you say that his definitions were infallible (and therefore unchanging) when he changed his position? Looking at the scenario from this perspective, the Catholic doctrine of infallibility seems to be undercut. However, why don't we dig deeper, and look at the whole picture?
Athanasius, the staunch defender of Christ's Divinity and the archenemy of Arius, wrote about Liberius' affair in his Historia Arianorum (History of the Arians), Part V. Firstly, it must be known that with imperial support, Arians came to power in the East, so that in a short time, orthodox bishops were in the minority. Athanasius was a vocal opponent to the heretics. In punishment for his vociferous opposition, he was deposed from his see. What did he do in response? He appealed to the pope, who reinstated him. This upset the Arians immensely. How did they respond? They attempted to woo the pope to their side: according to Athanasius, their modus operandi was that if the pope falls, all of Christendom will fall: "These impious men reasoned thus with themselves: 'If we can persuade Liberius, we shall soon prevail over all.'" (Historia Arianorum, V, 35). Athanasius recounts that Liberius, citing not only his authority as the successor of Peter, but likewise Tradition (handed down by the Apostle Peter), and the Council of Nicaea which defined the Faith and anathematized Arianism, refused the exhortation of the Emperor (HA, PtV, 36).
The Emperor was livid, and contrived his governors, Counts, and other officials to somehow lure Liberius away from the See of Rome and capture him. In Paragraph 38 of Pt V of the Historia, Athanasius recounts how teh letters of the emperor to the politicians in Rome created immense turmoil for the Eternal City. The emperor, according to Athanasius, promised many things to the politicians in Rome, and such was their response, that it was hard for orthodox people to visit the Holy Father in support. The emperor succeed eventually in torturing the Pope's emissaries to the court, and banishing the Holy Father. According to Athanasius, after two years of banishment and the threat of death, Liberius consented to sign a document that condemned Athanasius (and in a circular way, approve Arianism). This is where Protestant apologists go nuts. "See, see! He gave in, he changed his tune. He taught error! There is no infallibility!!"
However, Athanasius, who is the brunt of the document Liberius signed, sees it differently: "Yet even this only shows their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors." Where modern day Protestants see a lapse of faith, a changing of teaching, or the teaching of error, contemporaries (including one who sought the Bishop of Rome's help over his peers) see a man who was tortured into submission, and see not an admission of error, or a changing of teaching, but the will of his torturers being forced on him, and further evidence of Liberius' hatred of the heresy.
In the end, those who point to Liberius as evidence against papal infallibility or papal supremacy miss the mark completely. In the beginning, the Emperor sought to buy off the Pope, hoping that with the Successor of Peter under his influence, the rest of the bishops, including Athanasius, would fall. Clearly, then, even the emperor and his minions understood the authority of the Roman Pontiff. When Liberius, after being tortured and threatened with death, eventually signed an ambiguously worded document, it was not seen as a racanting of the orthodox position, or an official declaration of Christian doctrine. It was seen as evidence of the violent methods the Arians would resort to inorder to ensure they had their way. The authority of the Bishop of Rome is not marked by this event, as we will see when we analyze the case of pope Honorius I.
History: A Cathlic Apologist's Second Best Friend
As a former Protestant, I can tell you that when discussing theology with Protestants, your primary arsenal should be Scripture, because, essentially, Protestants adhere to sola Scriptura. This means that other sources of information (the Church Fathers, etc) are secondary. However, as pointed out here, we Catholics use Tradition to help us interpret Scripture, because Tradition is the evidence of what Christians have always believed. Thus, good apologists, in my humble opinion, need to have a good grasp of historical Tradition when discussing issues with Protestants.
This is where History becomes important. Tradition isn't simply evident in the writings of the Fathers. Tradition includes the way in which the Early Church acted. Tradition includes the sacramentaries of early dioceses, the architecture of early churches, and the manner in which the faith was lived. Thus, if Catholics maintain that a particular doctrine is part of Tradition, you would expect o find it buried in the sources of Tradition...including history.
For example, if Catholics claim that the Pope, the bishop of Rome, has supremacy, you'd expect not only to see it in documents, but likewise in reality, in the way people act. If an apologist can prove that Christian history either does or doesn't relfect a certain belief (for example, Christians have always forbid contraception--until 1951, that is--but they have not alway forbid the death penalty), they can thusly provide evidence for a more, shall we say, authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture (because Tradition and Scripture, being both Divinely Inspired, cannot contradict each other).
This is why Bl. John Henry Newman, the famous Anglican cleric whose forays into history made him realize the Truth behind Catholicism, once said "To study history is to cease to be Protestant."
This is where History becomes important. Tradition isn't simply evident in the writings of the Fathers. Tradition includes the way in which the Early Church acted. Tradition includes the sacramentaries of early dioceses, the architecture of early churches, and the manner in which the faith was lived. Thus, if Catholics maintain that a particular doctrine is part of Tradition, you would expect o find it buried in the sources of Tradition...including history.
For example, if Catholics claim that the Pope, the bishop of Rome, has supremacy, you'd expect not only to see it in documents, but likewise in reality, in the way people act. If an apologist can prove that Christian history either does or doesn't relfect a certain belief (for example, Christians have always forbid contraception--until 1951, that is--but they have not alway forbid the death penalty), they can thusly provide evidence for a more, shall we say, authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture (because Tradition and Scripture, being both Divinely Inspired, cannot contradict each other).
This is why Bl. John Henry Newman, the famous Anglican cleric whose forays into history made him realize the Truth behind Catholicism, once said "To study history is to cease to be Protestant."
Monday, November 1, 2010
Authority, Summary
We have looked at the essential difference between Protestants and Catholics as I see it: the issue of authority. In sum, we see that for the Protestants, while they claim that the Bible is the sole authority, what actually happens is that the individual's interpretation is the sole authority (for example, the Church maintains, and Christian tradition maintains that Onan is Genesis 39 was struck down by God because of contraceptive sex--withdrawal. Ask anyone who is in favor of contraception, and they will say Onan's sin was violate the levirite law). Catholics use not only Sacred Scripture, but also the testimony of 2000 years of Christianity as well as the teaching authority of the Magesterium.
The former view has led to a number of innovative doctrines, especially moral, in the several hundred years since Martin Luther declared himself an heretic by nailing the 95 Theses to the church door. The latter view has preserved the teachings of the Lord, as passed down by the Apostles.
The former view has led to a number of innovative doctrines, especially moral, in the several hundred years since Martin Luther declared himself an heretic by nailing the 95 Theses to the church door. The latter view has preserved the teachings of the Lord, as passed down by the Apostles.
Authority, Part III
We've seen the how the Catholic and UMC approaches to the abortion issue were handled, but lets look at a less cut-and-dry case in this installment.
In the last installment, we saw how the it was really a no-brainer for the Catholic Church to uphold the Divine principle of the sacredness of life from conception to natural death. In the case of contraception, we have a slightly more difficult situation.
In the later part of the 1950s, more effective means of artificially preventing conception were developed. In addition, modern economic systems made traditionally large families difficult to maintain. The question was presented to Christians: is contraception really that wrong? In 1951, the Anglicans, and their Lambeth Conference, decided that it rare cases, contraception among married couples was ok (which makes no sense to say, because even the Anglicans in the 1950s still maintained that no couple that wasn't married should be having sex...oh well). By 1962, every Christian denomination had followed suit. These ecclesial groups used the feelings of their faithful to judge their morality. Lets be honest here. When faced with the possibility of having sex whenever and long periods of abstinence, whats a guy/girl to do? Walk the narrow road? Heck no! In addition, while still knowing that killing an unborn baby is evil, it is simple to say that preventing that baby to be born is not (plus, you get sex whenever you want it). Thus, Protestant groups, using their emphasis on conregations' feelings, gave in to the allure of contraception.
The same dilemma was presented to the Catholic Church. Dedicated to solving the dilemma in a responsible way, the Church didn't put it up for a vote. Rather, Blessed Pope John XXIII called for a commission to study the theology, morality and logistics of both sides of the dilemma (maintaining what the Church had alway taught, or doing what the Protestants did). Six years later, the commission presented their findings to the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI. Anyone who was alive at that time heard that the Church was going to change Her teaching on contraception. (The reason they heard this was because someone sympathetic to changing the doctrine had let slip to the media that the majority opinion in the commission was that it should be changed.) In 1968, Humanae vitae was issued, which upheld the Traditional doctrine of the evil of contraception. The principal author of Hv, Karol Wjtyla, the future John Paul II, argued that changing the doctrine would be a huge, huge error. The Church had always taught the evil of contraception (Augustine, Jerome, and even Calvin equated contracepted sex as murder). To change it now would be to ignore the Tradition of the Church, and to cause the Magesterium to lose all credibility. Wojtyla and others in the minority (including, as I understand it, Joseph Ratzinger), used the consistent teaching of the Magesterium against contraception in its arguement. Thus, the Magesterium ruled decisively.
In the last installment, we saw how the it was really a no-brainer for the Catholic Church to uphold the Divine principle of the sacredness of life from conception to natural death. In the case of contraception, we have a slightly more difficult situation.
In the later part of the 1950s, more effective means of artificially preventing conception were developed. In addition, modern economic systems made traditionally large families difficult to maintain. The question was presented to Christians: is contraception really that wrong? In 1951, the Anglicans, and their Lambeth Conference, decided that it rare cases, contraception among married couples was ok (which makes no sense to say, because even the Anglicans in the 1950s still maintained that no couple that wasn't married should be having sex...oh well). By 1962, every Christian denomination had followed suit. These ecclesial groups used the feelings of their faithful to judge their morality. Lets be honest here. When faced with the possibility of having sex whenever and long periods of abstinence, whats a guy/girl to do? Walk the narrow road? Heck no! In addition, while still knowing that killing an unborn baby is evil, it is simple to say that preventing that baby to be born is not (plus, you get sex whenever you want it). Thus, Protestant groups, using their emphasis on conregations' feelings, gave in to the allure of contraception.
The same dilemma was presented to the Catholic Church. Dedicated to solving the dilemma in a responsible way, the Church didn't put it up for a vote. Rather, Blessed Pope John XXIII called for a commission to study the theology, morality and logistics of both sides of the dilemma (maintaining what the Church had alway taught, or doing what the Protestants did). Six years later, the commission presented their findings to the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI. Anyone who was alive at that time heard that the Church was going to change Her teaching on contraception. (The reason they heard this was because someone sympathetic to changing the doctrine had let slip to the media that the majority opinion in the commission was that it should be changed.) In 1968, Humanae vitae was issued, which upheld the Traditional doctrine of the evil of contraception. The principal author of Hv, Karol Wjtyla, the future John Paul II, argued that changing the doctrine would be a huge, huge error. The Church had always taught the evil of contraception (Augustine, Jerome, and even Calvin equated contracepted sex as murder). To change it now would be to ignore the Tradition of the Church, and to cause the Magesterium to lose all credibility. Wojtyla and others in the minority (including, as I understand it, Joseph Ratzinger), used the consistent teaching of the Magesterium against contraception in its arguement. Thus, the Magesterium ruled decisively.
Authority, Part II
Unlike the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is available online, the United Methodist's Book of Discipline needs to be purchased, and I don't have the money to buy it. However, I do know of one interesting item that it discusses: abortion. I don't really know the exact place but the Book says that abortion is not an easy decision, and should be approached with much counsel and prayer. This essentially means that if you want to kill your kid, talk to your pastor about, pray about, then your good. This actually contrasts the consistent teaching of Christianity.
Now, abortion has only been a societal issue since the late 60s, when procedures became safer (which is why the Supreme Court legalized it...even "back-alley abortions" were considered extremely safe). Prior to that, abortion was taboo, and it had been since Theophorus I made Catholicism the state religion of the Roman Empire. During the Greek and Roman eras, it was common for non-Christians and non-Jews to take measures to ensure their unborn children weren't born, thus aborting them. Christians condemned this practice, as is seen in the 1st Century work the Didache. Christians always and everywhere condemned abortion, from the Didache, to Augustine, to Jerome, to Aquinas, all the way to the 20th Century.
Sometime after Roe v. Wade, the UMC made the change that removed the sinful nature of abortion, despite the constant teaching that abortion is evil. Using what I said previously, it is easy to see why. Rather than use the example of almost 2000 years of Christian teaching, or have their bishops exercise the authority given to bishops by the apostles, the UMC relied on the feelings of their congregation to settle the issue. What did the Catholic Church do? First of all, the Church never put the matter up for a vote, because of the reliance of the Church on Tradition. The Tradition is clear: abortion is always and everywhere evil. That didn't stop some Catholics from weaseling their way into moral mo-mans-land and supporting abortion rights (like the Kennedys, Pelosis, Bob Casey, Jrs and Bidens of the world). Because of that, certain bishops exercised their God-given authority to pronounce that such support excommunicated said Catholic from the Church. In addition, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of the Apostle Peter (to whom the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven were bestowed, and upon which Christ's Church was built), declared in Evangelium vitae that all acts of willful abortion were intrinsically evil. That settled it. Essentially, every Catholic who believes otherwise (like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and others) is a heretic, then.
Now, abortion has only been a societal issue since the late 60s, when procedures became safer (which is why the Supreme Court legalized it...even "back-alley abortions" were considered extremely safe). Prior to that, abortion was taboo, and it had been since Theophorus I made Catholicism the state religion of the Roman Empire. During the Greek and Roman eras, it was common for non-Christians and non-Jews to take measures to ensure their unborn children weren't born, thus aborting them. Christians condemned this practice, as is seen in the 1st Century work the Didache. Christians always and everywhere condemned abortion, from the Didache, to Augustine, to Jerome, to Aquinas, all the way to the 20th Century.
Sometime after Roe v. Wade, the UMC made the change that removed the sinful nature of abortion, despite the constant teaching that abortion is evil. Using what I said previously, it is easy to see why. Rather than use the example of almost 2000 years of Christian teaching, or have their bishops exercise the authority given to bishops by the apostles, the UMC relied on the feelings of their congregation to settle the issue. What did the Catholic Church do? First of all, the Church never put the matter up for a vote, because of the reliance of the Church on Tradition. The Tradition is clear: abortion is always and everywhere evil. That didn't stop some Catholics from weaseling their way into moral mo-mans-land and supporting abortion rights (like the Kennedys, Pelosis, Bob Casey, Jrs and Bidens of the world). Because of that, certain bishops exercised their God-given authority to pronounce that such support excommunicated said Catholic from the Church. In addition, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of the Apostle Peter (to whom the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven were bestowed, and upon which Christ's Church was built), declared in Evangelium vitae that all acts of willful abortion were intrinsically evil. That settled it. Essentially, every Catholic who believes otherwise (like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and others) is a heretic, then.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
As I see it...the issue of authority
What separates Protestants and Catholics? While there are a host of various doctrinal issues that one party or the next will parade before us, the key issue is that of authority. Having been on both sides of the Tiber, I can attest to this being the key issue that divides Catholics and Protestants. It is a simple situation really. A few conversations I've had lead us to see this:
1) I asked my sister, an ordained Methodist Minister, about the ecclesial structure of the United Methodist Church. She divulged to me that on matters of faith (i.e. changing the Book of Discipline), there must be a vote by the General Council, and if the vote is in favor of a certain resolution, that vote is put before all the faithful for a vote, because, you see, the Holy Spirit will guide everyone in all truth. In this instance, the onus on authority is the people. It goes beyond that, however. You see, first, individual congregations nominate lay and clergy to their regional council. At the regional councils, various issues are discussed, and representatives of the regions are elected to the general council. Those elected representatives then decide issues at the general council, and those issues, if they involve changing the Book of Discipline, are brought before the entire body of the faithful.
2) While in high school, I sat on our UMC congregation's Pastor-Parish Relations Committee. There were some discussions about our then-pastor, and his side-job, especially pertaining to its appropriateness. As I learned in that experience, the congregation has the authority to pick the pastors they want, within reason. You see, in the UMC, the "parish" is given a choice between the candidates that the District Superintendent chooses. In the end, its a mesh of congregational versus heirarchical systems.
3) My parents were in the process of determining which ecclesial group they should attend, having left their former group due to administrative differences (to be fair, they stayed to support their pastor, who was at times given a bumpy ride). They started attending a Christian Reformed congregation. Being a descdendent of Calvin, this congregation was throughly congregationalist. When they started attending, the congregation was in the midst of finding a new pastor (the old one, whose sons I attended school with, retired). Each week, there would be a new candidate to conduct the service. The congregation's leadership (I'm guessing elected representatives) would choose who they thought was the best.
4) I was attempting to honestly explain to my parents why it was not so easy for me to simply blow off Mass to attend my uncle's church where he is a "lay pastor". Sure it was supportive of my family, but I had to explain to them the re-offering of Christ's Sacrifice that happens at Mass is more important. In the end (about two hours later), my simply stated, "Thats good, but it is not what I believe."
5) I was talking to my pastor who let slip that a mutual friend of ours would be relocating sometime soon. Apparently, he told his congregation (he, too, is a pastor) that, in defense of marriage and Christian tradition, the parish should take a firm stand on the side of traditional marriage (as opposed to the "official" stance of supporting gay marriage). The parish leadership didn't want to alienate anyone with such a move (they preferred sitting on the fence), so they told their bishop they need another pastor.
So, lets muddle through this. In all examples, save #4, we see a situation in which a Protestant ecclesial group places an extreme amout of authority in the whims of the congregations. From setting established doctrine to choosing a new pastor, there is considerable clout held by congregations. Look at it from a different perspective: in each case, the individual gets to vote on what person or idea best matches what they believe. I witnessed it first hand. Related to #2, members of the PPRC would continually use their personal beliefs to promote or bash the sitting pastor. In #3, my parents would hint that they would like or dislike a pastoral candidate based on their personal theology: did the individual talk enough about humility for my dad? Were they too Catholic (unknowing of course)? Regardless of how well said candidate illuminated Scripture or brought the congregation closer to true worship of ALMIGHTY GOD, the main issue was squaring them with an individual's personal belief.
This same line of thinking is at the fore with the UMC's pattern for setting doctrine. Sure, there are a series of steps involved, but ultimately it comes down to what you as an individual believe. In the end, as it was described to me, each individual would vote on the proposed change, according to his/her belief...not according to Scripture or Tradition, but individual belief. This is an awful risky proposition, for people's feelings change like the wind.
When we compare these experiences with the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura, we see a logical growth of the former from the latter. When we remove any other authority outside of the written word, even if it be Scripture, we open ourselves for serious discrepencies. Scripture numerous times mentions that it is not perspicuous (see 2 Peter 3:16). What is left, then, is for the individual, without a guide, to determine what the Bible means on their own. Now, we are drawn outside the actual text of Scripture, and are left to the individual whims of faithful.
For the Protestant, then, the idea of an authoritative Church is foreign. Authority rests not in any organization, but in the individual's view of Scripture, or at the very most, your pastor (and even that is pushing it). Even hierarchical groups like Anglicans reflect this. For the past decade or so, every Lambeth Conference has voted on either women or active homosexuals to be ordained...and the debate rages on, despite the fact that such a debate is breaking up the Anglican Communion.
Let us contrast, then, with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. A common way of understanding the authoritative structure of the Church is a three-legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium. If you stand on only one leg, you will topple over in almost any direction, if you use only two, you will fall forward or backwards, but if you use all three, you are steady. Here's how it works: Scripture provides us with at the minimum a written understanding of the Apostolic Faith, and the presuppositions early Christians had. For the history buffs out there, it is the primary source material of early Christian beliefs. It is not only "God-breathed" but inerrant and unchanging: what is written is written. In light of this, there is also that body of knowledge that was not written down, yet preached by the Apostles and then passed down by their successors, the bishops: we call this Tradition. To simplify Tradition, we consider Tradition to be the way that the Apostles understood the Gospel (not a secret Gospel, or an alternate Gospel, or even a second Gospel). This is likewise God-breathed, as it was revealed to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit. It is always in light of Tradition that we interpret Scripture. Finally, we have the Magesterium, or the teaching office of the Church. The Church, being Divinely instituted, is gifted with the charism of infallibility (when it teaches definitively on faith and morals, it cannot teach error). The role of the Church is to ensure that Scripture and Tradition are accurately interpreted. In this regard, any novel idea or interpretation is subject to a Scriptural analysis, then it is compared with Tradition, and finally, it is looked at by the Church's Magesterium.
In the next post, we'll look at how the Catholic model of authority played itself out in two examples.
1) I asked my sister, an ordained Methodist Minister, about the ecclesial structure of the United Methodist Church. She divulged to me that on matters of faith (i.e. changing the Book of Discipline), there must be a vote by the General Council, and if the vote is in favor of a certain resolution, that vote is put before all the faithful for a vote, because, you see, the Holy Spirit will guide everyone in all truth. In this instance, the onus on authority is the people. It goes beyond that, however. You see, first, individual congregations nominate lay and clergy to their regional council. At the regional councils, various issues are discussed, and representatives of the regions are elected to the general council. Those elected representatives then decide issues at the general council, and those issues, if they involve changing the Book of Discipline, are brought before the entire body of the faithful.
2) While in high school, I sat on our UMC congregation's Pastor-Parish Relations Committee. There were some discussions about our then-pastor, and his side-job, especially pertaining to its appropriateness. As I learned in that experience, the congregation has the authority to pick the pastors they want, within reason. You see, in the UMC, the "parish" is given a choice between the candidates that the District Superintendent chooses. In the end, its a mesh of congregational versus heirarchical systems.
3) My parents were in the process of determining which ecclesial group they should attend, having left their former group due to administrative differences (to be fair, they stayed to support their pastor, who was at times given a bumpy ride). They started attending a Christian Reformed congregation. Being a descdendent of Calvin, this congregation was throughly congregationalist. When they started attending, the congregation was in the midst of finding a new pastor (the old one, whose sons I attended school with, retired). Each week, there would be a new candidate to conduct the service. The congregation's leadership (I'm guessing elected representatives) would choose who they thought was the best.
4) I was attempting to honestly explain to my parents why it was not so easy for me to simply blow off Mass to attend my uncle's church where he is a "lay pastor". Sure it was supportive of my family, but I had to explain to them the re-offering of Christ's Sacrifice that happens at Mass is more important. In the end (about two hours later), my simply stated, "Thats good, but it is not what I believe."
5) I was talking to my pastor who let slip that a mutual friend of ours would be relocating sometime soon. Apparently, he told his congregation (he, too, is a pastor) that, in defense of marriage and Christian tradition, the parish should take a firm stand on the side of traditional marriage (as opposed to the "official" stance of supporting gay marriage). The parish leadership didn't want to alienate anyone with such a move (they preferred sitting on the fence), so they told their bishop they need another pastor.
So, lets muddle through this. In all examples, save #4, we see a situation in which a Protestant ecclesial group places an extreme amout of authority in the whims of the congregations. From setting established doctrine to choosing a new pastor, there is considerable clout held by congregations. Look at it from a different perspective: in each case, the individual gets to vote on what person or idea best matches what they believe. I witnessed it first hand. Related to #2, members of the PPRC would continually use their personal beliefs to promote or bash the sitting pastor. In #3, my parents would hint that they would like or dislike a pastoral candidate based on their personal theology: did the individual talk enough about humility for my dad? Were they too Catholic (unknowing of course)? Regardless of how well said candidate illuminated Scripture or brought the congregation closer to true worship of ALMIGHTY GOD, the main issue was squaring them with an individual's personal belief.
This same line of thinking is at the fore with the UMC's pattern for setting doctrine. Sure, there are a series of steps involved, but ultimately it comes down to what you as an individual believe. In the end, as it was described to me, each individual would vote on the proposed change, according to his/her belief...not according to Scripture or Tradition, but individual belief. This is an awful risky proposition, for people's feelings change like the wind.
When we compare these experiences with the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura, we see a logical growth of the former from the latter. When we remove any other authority outside of the written word, even if it be Scripture, we open ourselves for serious discrepencies. Scripture numerous times mentions that it is not perspicuous (see 2 Peter 3:16). What is left, then, is for the individual, without a guide, to determine what the Bible means on their own. Now, we are drawn outside the actual text of Scripture, and are left to the individual whims of faithful.
For the Protestant, then, the idea of an authoritative Church is foreign. Authority rests not in any organization, but in the individual's view of Scripture, or at the very most, your pastor (and even that is pushing it). Even hierarchical groups like Anglicans reflect this. For the past decade or so, every Lambeth Conference has voted on either women or active homosexuals to be ordained...and the debate rages on, despite the fact that such a debate is breaking up the Anglican Communion.
Let us contrast, then, with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. A common way of understanding the authoritative structure of the Church is a three-legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium. If you stand on only one leg, you will topple over in almost any direction, if you use only two, you will fall forward or backwards, but if you use all three, you are steady. Here's how it works: Scripture provides us with at the minimum a written understanding of the Apostolic Faith, and the presuppositions early Christians had. For the history buffs out there, it is the primary source material of early Christian beliefs. It is not only "God-breathed" but inerrant and unchanging: what is written is written. In light of this, there is also that body of knowledge that was not written down, yet preached by the Apostles and then passed down by their successors, the bishops: we call this Tradition. To simplify Tradition, we consider Tradition to be the way that the Apostles understood the Gospel (not a secret Gospel, or an alternate Gospel, or even a second Gospel). This is likewise God-breathed, as it was revealed to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit. It is always in light of Tradition that we interpret Scripture. Finally, we have the Magesterium, or the teaching office of the Church. The Church, being Divinely instituted, is gifted with the charism of infallibility (when it teaches definitively on faith and morals, it cannot teach error). The role of the Church is to ensure that Scripture and Tradition are accurately interpreted. In this regard, any novel idea or interpretation is subject to a Scriptural analysis, then it is compared with Tradition, and finally, it is looked at by the Church's Magesterium.
In the next post, we'll look at how the Catholic model of authority played itself out in two examples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)