Saturday, January 07, 2006

From Heretics to Separated Brethren (Part II)

I certainly agree with all mainstream Catholics that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils and they are all authoritatively on a par with one another, in terms of their universal decrees. But, it is certainly true that up to and including Vatican Council I the use of the anathema was common. One sees it at many times in the history of the Church, especially in Trent and Vatican I. However, Vatican II shows a conspicuous absence of this process, and in fact no one is anathematized in this Council. As well, it clearly has a pastoral focus unknown to the previous 2 Councils.

But how do I view Protestants, through the lense of Trent or Vatican II? My answer would be that I think Vatican II ushered in what many 20th century Catholics had suspected for some time, and in so doing it brought a genuine progression of view. That is, contemporary Protestants may not be anathematized in the same way and with the same ease that Luther et al were. For Luther (a Catholic when he began, and quite a knowledgeable one at that, with a doctorate and professorship before the age of 30), there can be no excuse. He is no victim of anyone but himself, so it's sensible for all the reasons given by the Council of Trent to condemn him as a heretic and anathematize in that situation. However, 400+ years removed from that whole Renaissance environment, a contemporary Protestant could hardly be held to the same standard as Luther.

Moreover, a sharing of the same view of the Trinity, Christology, the same New Testament, and a common sacramental baptism, all of this (and more) taken together lends itself toward a view of Protestant Christians as, in the words of the Decree on Ecumenism, "separated brethren." Here are some words of the Council, in this regard:


22. Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: "You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again-through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead".(40)
Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.


I think Vatican II hasn't mention of heresy and anathemas with reference to Protestants because now they are viewed with compassion; or, perhaps more accurately, with pity. All those who have had the misfortune of being products of an original heretical group are not to be easily condemned anymore than it would be legitimate to readily condemn anyone who has been victimized by anything. The Catholic Church argues that a person is held responsible for what he has been in a position to know. And it just is the case that for most Protestants (myself included) unless someone just places the Catholic/Protestant issue squarely in your face, you simply don't give it the treatment you should, because it doesn't occur to you that you ought to. So many recent converts have attested to this fact (e.g., Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, Peter Kreeft, etc.), and it was certainly my experience too. From friends to professors (and especially) to myself, Protestants in my circle of connections were almost wholly unfamiliar with the actual teaching, life, and worship of the Catholic Church, to say nothing of its history. In such a situation, it seems much more reasonable to approach contemporary Protestants in exactly the same way in which Vatican Council II does. And anyway, Lumen Gentium places a knowledge qualifier on the issue of salvation, which gives it a (albeit conservative) inclusivism, so it seems to me. The quote (with my emphasis added) goes like this:


14. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.


So, I'd have to say I'm both, and this is the way I reconcile the different 'tones,' as it were, of the 2 great Councils. Yes, the original Protestants were condemned and rightly so. For they would have had no excuse for such open and blatant rejection of teachings and practices long held by the Church. But, today the same could hardly be said of contemporary Protestants. It seems to me that the Church views them more like a man might view a wayward nephew who, through no fault of his own but rather due to neglect and poor teaching of his parents, has ended up rejecting all kinds of good things which that man's family had long practiced and held to be true.

{Of course, this is a blogspot treatment of this issue. Much much more could be said and developed, but I'd have to be getting paid before I could do that.}

28 Comments:

Blogger Douglas Beaumont said...

So which of your previous seminary professors would you say are still saved?

Mon Jan 09, 09:57:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Oh, great. You did have to make it a good question you asked, didn't you?!

Scott Hahn relates several stories in his own conversion experience regarding his interactions with former professors of his at Gordon-Conwell, as well as with fellow (former) students. Although his story would be quite a bit different from my own (e.g., he primarily came in contact with Catholicism via the covenant concept and the liturgy), there is some overlap. A telling overlap that I indicated in the post here is the general sense in which the former professors and students you could name had really never given Catholicism the adequate time of day. Not that the professors and students thought this; they often thought they had considered Catholicism well enough to justifiably reject it. But, when one's own (and those around him) rejections of Catholicism are found later to have been based on serious misunderstandings of the thing rejected, this is certainly cause for caution in respect to your question.

I know what you might be thinking here. I'm in an damned if I do, damned if I don't position. If I can say with reasonable assurance that my former professors have rejected that actual Church such as it is, then they would be condemned. (And that wouldn't be a nice thing to think.) Yet, on the other hand, if I say that I don't know if they are or even could be condemned, since I am by no means assured that they have actually rejected the whole "teaching, life, and worship" of the Church, then this seems to belittle them and their academic backgrounds. And that's not very nice either, I'm afraid. So, rather than throw my hands up and cry "I dunno!" I'll say that I have good reason to believe that my story overlaps significantly with that of Hahn, Kreeft, and many many others.

But, I think my escape hatch from the difficulty this proposes for me can be found in the fact that it does not impugn my former professors personally and singularly. It rather impugns Evangelicalism in general. If it just is the case (as I think it is) that Evangelicals generally have at best a scratch-the-surface understanding of what Catholicism is and does (intermingled with significant misunderstanding), then the fact that this or that particular Evangelical is like the rest in his group is not precisely a fault of his own. In some sense, he has been victimized as well.

Am I getting at the answer to your question? Let me know if not.

But, as you know, as it is separate from the issue of salvation, I've not wholly answered your question because, as a Catholic, I could hardly answer that question for myself (let alone anyone else), since on the Catholic view salvation is worked out with fear and trembling and, as St. Thomas Aquinas argued, presumption in this regard is an actual sin, whether the presumption of salvation is for oneself or any other.

Tue Jan 10, 12:03:00 PM EST  
Blogger Douglas Beaumont said...

I like to keep things interesting. :) PLus I know you are a considerate thinker so I did not think you'd mind. (FYI: what prompted this question was actually the big guy's experience talking to some RC apologists after writing a certain well-known book on the subject).

OK, let me remove some of the difficulty. First, I realize that I was asking for a positive conclusion to a negative argument. That is, the principle you put forth serves to show who is NOT saved but not necessarily who IS saved. Further, although I was not trying to trap you, I'll try to keep it more hypothetical so that you are not speaking against former mentors.

OK, so let's try another one if you don't mind. I believe that "anathema" in the classic sense is not simply removal from the RC church but a pronouncement of condemnation. In other words, if the RC church says you're out, you are out of heaven as well. If this is no longer the case let me know (perhaps it is one of those misunderstandings). In either case, the language you use seems to indicate that is what you mean.

Provided that this assumption is correct, let's take a hypothetical situation. OK, two evangelicals ("walk into a bar . . ." hahaha, sorry couldn't resist!). OK, starting over: take two evangelicals, both are full believers in the gospel as presented in 1 Cor. 15:1-8 by which Paul says we are saved (cf. Rom. 1:16). Further, neither of them is importing some heretical notion of God or Christ into the terms.

Evangelical #1 is your "typical Evangelical" - pretty much ignorant when it comes to RC and so rejects RC by default. Evangelical #2 has studied as much as you have and has an accurate understanding of what he is doing when he rejects RC.

So the only difference between these two RC-rejecting believers in the gospel that Paul says is God's power to save all who believe, is their level of understanding regarding their denial of RC.

Does RC teach that Evangelical #1 gets into heaven and Evangelical #2 is sent to hell?

Wed Jan 11, 08:18:00 AM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Thanks for the 'sensitive' reply.

I think you pretty well have it right with the anathema. It carries the same sense in which St. Paul seems to use it in the opening of Galatians. So, yes, it's more powerful than excommunication, which is the putting of oneself outside the bounds of the sacramental life of the Church. Anathema is more the putting oneself outside the bounds of the Church itself and of the Faith. Historically for the anathema, either apostasy, heresy, or even some type of severe sin has been the cause for the putting outside of the bounds of the body of Christ of somebody who engaged in these sorts of things. Whether this severing of oneself from the body of Christ necessarily entails condemnation to Hell (which would not be an unreasonable assumption), is hard to say, I think. Only God can be so just as to determine Heaven or Hell. It would seem to me equally presumptuous to assume Hell of someone as to assume Heaven. So, I'm not exactly sure about the condemnation connection.

Although the formal process of anathema has been stopped at least since the Second Vatican Council, since the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils are irreformable, I can only assume that the associated anathemas occuring in them are irreformable too.

The key is that they are always contingent: "If any man asserts [or denies] that [X]...let him be anathema." As it was with St. Paul too: the contingency was "if" someone teaches another Gospel, let him be anathema.

And this Lumen Gentium quote too "14. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved," apart from merely adding the knowledge qualifier, seems to me also to add a conscience qualifier. Or at least, if it isn't entailed by it, it could certainly be interpreted in that light. Since God is the one who initially shows grace toward man (as all Christians believe), and makes possible the awakening of the consience to the divine light of the Gospel, then it would seem that this is presupposed in the quote. That is, not only have I academically come to see the Church for what she is, but I have also had my conscience "pricked" by God to recognize the same. So, whatever rebellion toward the reality of the one body of Christ there is would be twofold: (1) an intellectual rebellion & (2) a moral rebellion. So, it seems to me that if these two things are there with Evangelical #2 such that he is rebelling against both his reason and his conscience, then yes, he could not be saved. So too, the quote goes, is this true for the Catholic even who does the same. The "refusal" is to either (1) enter the Church or (2) remain in it.

But, I like your presentation of the 2 guys as responding to the same Gospel. I cannot help agreeing with an Evangelical friend of mine with whom I recently spoke on the issue of N.T. Wright's recent writings on the apostle Paul. Essentially, so my friend was saying, a problem many Christians engage in is to confuse the Gospel (like you said, from 1 Cor. 15:1-8) with its assimilation into a believer's life (which gets into discussions of justification and sanctification). It could not be said that Catholics and Protestants disagree on the Gospel (or even the formal cause of justification), but rather on its entailments or application or linking-up with the life of the believer. Not that you were saying all that. Just 'throwing another monkey into the wrench,' as Dr. R. Howe would say.

Wed Jan 11, 11:18:00 AM EST  
Blogger Douglas Beaumont said...

This sounds more like a Catholic version of the Lordship Salvation argument: "We're not saying works are necessary for salvation, but if you don't have them you're not saved" (replacing "works" with "membership in the RC church"). Some say the problem with Lordship theology is that it confuses justification and sanctification (or they say their detractors do, or think that they think they do, or something). So is that it? If one is truly saved they will eventually be led by Gid into the RC church? Or is this not something God necessarily does for everyone?

BTW, and I am saying all this with a smile :) - I'm not going to let you off with the "only God knows" response. The RC church does not seem to have trouble with who is anathema and who is not! And what good is infallibility if one cannot pronounce (at least theoretically) salvation assurance? Isn't that what those keys are for? Your issue over authority was inspired by the problem of being able to know that one's explanation of Scripture meaning was really accurate or not. But what good is this authoritative teaching if it cannot even deal with salvation? "Yeah, we got the body/bread thing and the contraception issue down 100%, but heaven and hell . . . well, we're still a bit fuzzy." ;) hahaha.

Wed Jan 11, 10:58:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Ouch! Are you actually trying to hurt my feelings?! Take it easy, I'm a recent convert. You wouldn't want me to fall from grace, would you? ;-) Although the point is a bit ancillary, it should be noted that the Lordship view is very close to the Catholic. They feel the inexorable tug towards having the true and the good as allies. The two simply cannot be so easily divided. But, the superiority of the Catholic view is in its ability to not seem disengenuous where the Lordship crowd does. The Catholic avoids it by admitting, where the Reformed crowd cannot, that a person really can sever himself from God's grace and can be reunited with it again later.

But no, it isn't like the mild exclusivism of Geisler. It's rather an inclusivism view, I think. Such that, the amount of divine "light" one has access to is all that person can be held responsible for. And that's it. It's not like Geisler's view where he thinks if one is really searching after God, He'll find a way of dropping a Bible from the sky or some similar situation. That's not to say that this sort of thing doesn't happen. It's just to say that for salvation God is not confined to creating situations like Geisler envisions. Hence, the knowledge qualifier. You are responsible for what you can possibly know; not for what is impossible for you to know except by Bibles falling from the sky.

And I don't mean to make too much of the moral tugging. I think all that amounts to basically is what all Christians would confess--that in salvation there is a moral tug, since it is God who calls someone in the first place. And the call is to Christ, who cannot be divided from his body, which is the Church. And just as there is only one body, there can only be one Church.

I'm not downplaying the anathematizing situation. Quite the contrary, I indicated that it seems to me that both the canons from the Councils and their attending anathemas are irreformable. What I was trying to downplay was the positions of (say) Martin Luther and Barry Leventhal. It just isn't conceivable that they would be in the same place epistemically with regard to the whole "teaching, life, and worship" of the Church. And as the epistemic issues precede the moral (naturally), if one doesn't come in contact with what the Church actually is (by virtue of being in a heretical tradition which long ago denied all sorts of things universally believed and practiced) one could hardly expect the moral tuggedness :-) I'm speaking of.

The Church doesn't have problems saying who is outside her bounds here on Earth. And she does seem to pronounce, as you say 'theoretically,' who may not be saved. But, salvation assurance? They would contend with you that you get no such picture from the Scriptures or from the Tradition of the Church (or from Her General Councils-even the early ones you might accept). Presumption of being in God's grace, like I said, is sin, according to Catholics (and everyone prior to Luther). No one presumes anything of God. For all Judas knew, being one of the 12, more than merely getting into Heaven, he would be one of the most honored of all men ever (both here and in Heaven).

I understand the natural connection between a sola fide view and presumption of one's salvation. You should read St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments on this if you haven't ever. I think you'll find them interesting.

Thu Jan 12, 10:14:00 AM EST  
Blogger Douglas Beaumont said...

I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, jerk. ;) Hahaha!

The distinction you made with Geisler's view helps me see your position a bit clearer. And coupled with one's inability to know if they are saved or not in RC seems to excuse your lack of a straight answer. If one's position is that no one can know something then he can hardly be expected to say that he knows it! This just seems like a pretty basic thing one ought to be able to know for any religion. I'll check out our hero Thomas for more.

Anyway, I won't be a Blog Hog. :) Till later my friend!

Thu Jan 12, 09:37:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

No blog-hogging going on here. But, thanks for the exchange. It forced me to see what some of my positions really amounted to (ie, whether they're any different in some regards from what any Christian would say).

If you go here (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/302102.htm) you can read a bit from old Aquinas on this issue. And then you can jump around to other relevant portions of the Summa. I think his reply to the 3rd objection sums up what I was trying to say (and the Catholic position generally). He writes:

"Reply to Objection 3. To sin with the intention of persevering in sin and through the hope of being pardoned, is presumptuous, and this does not diminish, but increases sin. To sin, however, with the hope of obtaining pardon some time, and with the intention of refraining from sin and of repenting of it, is not presumptuous, but diminishes sin, because this seems to indicate a will less hardened in sin."

And as regards the "keys" and the point of them, this opens up the issue of infallibility within the Church itself. The point of having the keys would not be to say "this person is saved, that one is not, that other one is..." Rather, it's to ensure beyond any reasonable (theological) doubt that the content of the sacred deposit of the faith given by Christ to his apostles is the actual content I hear. That is, it's to ensure that heresy cannot be intermingled with these sacred truths in faith and morals, such that if I have a Church as a guarantor of that truth, I will know with unshaken faith how I'm to live my life now, how I'm to worship God now, and finally how I'm to spend eternity with Him.

Just thought that was important to clarify. Later, duderostome!

Fri Jan 13, 10:56:00 AM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Well, look who it is! How nice to hear from you, after such a long time. I hope you and yours are all very well.

I must express my relief that we are not covering a subject of philosophy, for I am sure I could not even enter into a philosophical conversation with you now, given your SLU training.

But, on to your questions. For Luther, the only option was to have broken away from the one Church, since there was not another church in the West. And this he did. What occurs today is simply the imbibbing of present generations in Protestant traditions, not a dramatic break from the only thing that's around.

Luther having taken vows, having been a priest, having celebrated the mass for the people, this is quite different from the accidental reasons that usually accompany someone becoming an Evangelical. That was the main point I was trying to make.

And yes, the amount of things that Luther *denied* which were already long-held by the Church was enormous. The very statement "sola fides, non fides formata charitate, justificare" is a view unknown prior to him, at least insofar as the ramifications of this view were taken into account and affecting other doctrines as well (e.g., original sin, sanctification). Not to mention the rejection of papal authority, clerical celibacy (and authority), transubstantiation, questioning books of the canon, and on and on it goes. Sure, what is common among Catholics and Protestants is ever so important. No one would deny this. However, as SES has a venerable tradition of doing, one cannot overlook the gravely important distinctions between them, which consist much more in what is *denied* by Protestants than in what is *affirmed* by them.

It's not so much in "Rome" that I have found the Church, but rather in the ancient Church (e.g., all that is common to Catholics and Orthodox). If one wishes to know what the ancient Church was like, he needs only look so far as the Orthodox, who, though they severed themselves from the progress of dogma seen in the Catholic communion, have not thereby rejected things long believed and practiced in the one Church.

As has been the practice of the one Church since the beginning, She holds solemn Councils when solemn issues arise (e.g., questions on the canon of the Scriptures or heresies regarding the nature of Christ, etc.). If one wishes to know the sacred deposit of the faith, he must follow the advice of St. Vincent of Lerins (see my previous posts on this) who simultaneously held to two ostensibly opposed beliefs: one must follow the ancient Fathers and Councils for the one faith and yet progress of dogma is not to be despised. In fact, it is to be assumed since the Church is an organic body and like all bodies it grows and matures over time.

The issue is more basic than what you ask, for the prior question which underlies it has not been answered. Namely, where does one go to learn more about Christ and his body (the Church) after one has come to place his trust in Him? Until that question is answered, it hardly seems plausible to address an issue of future salvation, for how could one be sure the source telling you how to acquire it is reliable (i.e., infallible)?

I hope you get that moderate realism blogspot going soon. I'd very much like to see what you will post there. Take care, and again, it's great to hear from you.

Sat Jan 14, 12:39:00 PM EST  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Mon Jan 16, 09:35:00 PM EST  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Jeremiah states:

"But, I like your presentation of the 2 guys as responding to the same Gospel. I cannot help agreeing with an Evangelical friend of mine with whom I recently spoke on the issue of N.T. Wright's recent writings on the apostle Paul. Essentially, so my friend was saying, a problem many Christians engage in is to confuse the Gospel (like you said, from 1 Cor. 15:1-8) with its assimilation into a believer's life (which gets into discussions of justification and sanctification). It could not be said that Catholics and Protestants disagree on the Gospel (or even the formal cause of justification), but rather on its entailments or application or linking-up with the life of the believer. Not that you were saying all that. Just 'throwing another monkey into the wrench,' as Dr. R. Howe would say."

Jeremiah, was the above the conversation you and I had on the phone the other night? Because I am of the same opinion as your "friend" (if that is not me), I think there is a confusion between the actual gospel and how it is applied (i.e. infusion or imputed) in a believer's life.

The big question for me at this point is just how important is this distinction?

Also . . .

Above, in a reply to Jason, Jeremiah states:

“For Luther, the only option was to have broken away from the one Church, since there was not another church in the West. And this he did.”


Jeremiah, first, let me point out that Luther did not break away or off from the Church, he was excommunicated (for shoddy reasons I think and due to an incompetent Pope – Leo X). Luther never intended to break fellowship with the RCC until they forced him out and from that point I think all issues were reactionary between the two parties (at least to a certain degree).

Second, you declare, “The very statement "sola fides, non fides formata charitate, justificare" is a view unknown prior to him.” I beg to differ. If you will go back to the early Church Fathers and read Crysostom he had a very well developed doctrine of sola fide but the RCC did not anathematize him. Why not?

Mon Jan 16, 10:26:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

T. Vick,

Yes, that certainly was a reference to you and our recent conversation.

As to Luther, I would certainly have to be careful. He was excommunicated after time and again refusing to submit (first to the head of his order, then to Cardinals, then to the pope). True, Pope Leo X did not take him as seriously as he probably should have. But, on the other hand, he did bend over backwards to let Luther come back as a Catholic. But, Luther refused. Whatever the reasons were and whoever much incompetency there was to deal with them, at the end of the day, he broke away from the one Church. What it was to be a Christian back then was to submit to those over you. To submit to the authority of the judgments of bishops acting in Councils and to popes. To refuse to do so would have been most un-Christian of him. Burning his letter of excommunication from the pope is hardly a gesture offered by a true "reformer." It's more what one would do in a state of obstinate rebellion.

And for the issue of faith alone and my comment on it, I was careful to try to qualify it. Go back and read the qualification and see if you can live with it. Perhaps, even with the qualification, it's still too strongly stated. Let me know what you think. The Church's thought on justification over time from her beginnings is certainly not an area of strength for me.

Tue Jan 17, 12:00:00 PM EST  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

"sola fides, non fides formata charitate [caritate], justificare"

"Justification by faith alone and not a faith informed by charity"

That is the translation of the Latin phrase Luther used, albiet you left out a portion, but I see what you are getting at.

Well, this is what I was getting at in the confusion of how the gospel is worked out in the believer's life, since this phrase boils down to the difference of "sanctification" and "justification."

So, I guess I am missing your qualification. . . what do you mean "qualification?"

Tue Jan 17, 02:10:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Yes, and actually since I was drawing from memory, the verb conjugation was wrong as well: justificare needs to be "justificat." I tend to think the literal transliteration serves just as powerfully, "Faith alone, not faith formed by charity, justifies." And, I left out the following portion, which only states his case stronger: "sola fides, antes et sine charitate, justificat" (Of course, this is likely not entirely correct Latin either, since I'm still drawing from memory.) But the translation is telling: "faith alone, prior to and without charity, justifies" Those are pretty strong words, and I'm not sure one can find a ready reference prior to Luther who would have stated "faith alone" so strongly as being something almost in opposition to charity (rather than inextricably bound up with charity, which would be the Catholic position). However, I'll look into St. John Chrysostom, as you said. And yes, I think my comments were in line with the spirit of your comments on Wright, as you shared them with me.

As to the qualification, my quote above in full is this: "The very statement 'sola fides, non fides formata charitate, justificare [sic]' is a view unknown prior to him, at least insofar as the ramifications of this view were taken into account and affecting other doctrines as well (e.g., original sin, sanctification)." You snipped my quote without the ending qualifier, so I wondered whether with this attending qualification you'd approve it.

Tue Jan 17, 03:15:00 PM EST  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Well, I can say that sola fide as a doctrine of how one is justified is not new since Crysostom certainly espoused his view of that very doctrine - as it stands alone.

When you add Luther's intentions, then yes, I would agree, no one prior to Luther applied sola fide in the same way (i.e. imputation, prior to/without charity, etc.). However, this does not make a strong argument against the doctrine per se.

If you use this argument to falsify Luther's doctrine, then what you are doing is arguing that a majority is needed in order for a doctrine to be sound or correct.

If that is the case, then you would certainly have to reject Athanasius' view on the deity of Christ, since the larger majority of the Church at the time was Arian (and I do mean the majority in a HUGE since). And yet, we know that as Athanasius (who was pratically alone in his assertions) prevailed and the Church, eventually adopted the doctrine (much later after the council of Nicaea and after many battles and deaths over the issue).

So to say that no one prior to Luther held to or taught the doctrine is grounds for rejecting it, is unconvincing for me.

Tue Jan 17, 05:36:00 PM EST  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Typo correction - I stated "(and I do mean the majority in a HUGE since)."

It should have read . . . in a Huge sense . . .

Tue Jan 17, 05:38:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Ah, very good comments. Since you grant the point with the qualifications, I won't touch that again.

I am aware of the Arian controversy and its widespread nature, even among bishops of all things. The canon would be seen like this too, since it's not until the same individual that we get the full (all and only) list of the 27 NT books. I would simply direct you at this point to read my previous post on "St. Vincent and Staying in the One True Faith." There could be no place for flippancy with regard to majority opinion on a doctrine. For one could point out multitude other areas which clearly do have majority support for belief from the early Fathers. So, yes, it is the case that we can "take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty."

It seems to me, however, that as a Catholic has another tool to help him stay on the straight path, he has no problem, whereas the non-Catholic does. For the non-Catholic has no binding and infallible Councils. (Or, I'll be charitable and say he hasn't any after the first 6.)

So, the problem for knowing whether sola fide in the sense Luther meant it is true cannot be reduced merely to a who-else-taught-it-previously type problem. For even if you can find a referent, you still have two further problems: (1) No one severed it from charity as he did & (2) if you believe God no longer keeps the Church in the One Faith through Her Councils, how are you to know whether sola fide is correct, with the same assurance that you know Christ is fully God and Man or that 27 books actually belong in the NT?

So, yes, its near absence from anyone prior to Luther is at least grounds for holding it highly suspect. But, as you know, a Catholic has other grounds - namely, an infallible Church which can pronounce once for all the truth on the matter. So, your poignant question seems to only open up the infallibility issue once again.

Tue Jan 17, 06:24:00 PM EST  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Hey Jason,

I see your point in calling Jeremiah's dilemma a false one, but to fall back on the Word of God is no different than a Catholic claiming Tradition as infallible.

A Catholic would not rule out the Word of God as an infallible measure for correct doctrine or teaching.

The problem, it seems, with claiming the Word (and that only) leaves the Protestant with the problem of this question:

How did we get the Word of God as it is collected in what is called the Bible? In other words, the question of its being assembled comes from Tradition (i.e. councils).

I'm not trying to support Jeremiah's case, and I have my ideas/thoughts regarding this problem . . . but I do agree with you, Catholics tend to use Tradition over and against the Scriptures and thus end up with doctrines that are unwarranted by virtue of Tradition alone.

So the opposite of sola scriptura, namely sola traditione is the same problem I see Catholics run into, and that is why one reason I am still Protestant.

There must be a balance between both and neither Catholics nor Protestants tend to balance them, it would seem.

Wed Jan 18, 10:44:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Greetings Jason!

I'm glad to see you've replied and are still concerned with this issue. It is paramount.

You write: "However, why is Infallible Rome necessary?" This question has an historic answer. One could ask the same question for all the early Councils. Why convene the Council of Nicaea? Isn't it easy enough to debunk Arianism from the Bible alone? Historically, the answer was no. It wasn't enough. And that's just the point. Look, for a moment as the following brief synopsis of some of these Councils of the one Church, all of which have teaching Protestants would claim are infallible.

Nicaea (325) – Condemned Arius and issued the Nicene Creed which we recite on most Sundays in mass.

Constantinople I (381) – Reaffirmed the Nicene Creed and condemned Apollinaris

Ephesus (431) – Condemned Nestorius and approved Cyril’s letters; Mary is said to be theotokos (the “God bearer”) in this council

Chalcedon (451) – Condemned Euthyches, approved Leo’s Tome, and issued a formula of Christological faith

Constantinople III (680-1) - Condemned Monotholitism (belief that Christ had only one will) and affirmed a will corresponding to each of the 2 natures.

One needs to bear in mind that the Council of Trent is the *19th* Ecumenical Council of the Church. That is to say, for 18 prior instances the Church had relied upon convening Councils to settle disputes that had arisen on a major doctrinal issue or matter of Church gov't. (To say nothing of the numerous local Councils She has held.)

St. Vincent of Lerins {see my previous post on this} was able to give a laundry list of the early heretics that the Councils had dealt with by his time: "Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another."

So, the big problem is this. It was never the case prior to the 16th century that for an issue which started to cause division and unsettling in Christendom, one merely relied upon the Bible to settle the matter. There is no way to deny this historical reality. But, more importantly, there is no way to downplay the significance of it.

Which of the heretics listed above didn't also rely upon the Bible for their views? Every single one of them (or their followers) appealed to this or that portion of the Scriptures for support for their views. Hence, it seems quite clear that the Bible alone simply does not settle the issues. Hence, the need for some sort of Sacred Tradition and Magistra in the Church.

It would be nice if things were as simple as you would like them to be. However, what you suggest (appealing to the Bible alone) has not been the experience of the one Church at any time in her history. And, moreover, the question could easily be put back to you: has a sola scriptura approach led to widespread unity? Clearly not. The groups that advocate it are more divided today than ever. Even neotheism, an impossibility for Catholics, encroaches upon Evangelicalism. And if we broaden past Evangelicals to include general Protestants (Bultmann, Barth, etc.), it is easy to see the fruit of your suggestion. It hardly settles questions in such a way that it keeps the body politic unified.

I appreciate the suggestion. I cannot think of a better one. It's just historically not apropos. If one begins his Christianity at the 16th century (an actual impossibility, bot often tried), I can see why he'd make such a suggestion. But the reality of the Church's history in this regard is enough to refute the idea (to say nothing of the actual slippery slope created by sola scriptura in the last 4 centuries).

Thu Jan 19, 07:36:00 AM EST  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Jason,

Yes, I see your point and its a very valid one, and I agree with it.

I guess I was throwing my thoughts out there because I have been chewing on this issue for some time now. However, I would point out that strong support for your case lies in the opposite of sola scriptura. Catholics do in fact, place way more emphasis on Tradition than the written word of God, and thus they are "guilty" of the very accusation they make against Protestants who they claim to do that with the Bible.

The problems I see in Trent is the fact that it seems way to reactionary - not so much ad hoc since it lasted several years but certainly reavctionary to Luther and the other Reformers, and now the RCC cannot backpaddle and say, hey maybe we said a few things wrong here due to our reactions against such and such.

I have read Trent a hundred times and every time I see this as being the case. There is scant biblical support for certain claims in Trent, and Trent is the one document that has divided Protestants and Catholics the most.

btw, GO LONGHORNS!!! That was an awesome game!

Thu Jan 19, 09:32:00 AM EST  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

Jason,

BTW, Congratulations on completing your course work at St. Louis. I bet your happy to get all that behind you.

How is the dissertation coming along?

Thu Jan 19, 10:13:00 AM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

I have just one other quick comment to make, which I'll develop in more detail in a forthcoming post on the general infallibility (or "indefectibility") of the Church as a theological necessity. It is on an issue raised between you two (Reed & Vick) above. I want to add a clarification, so that no one is mistaken on the Catholic position, and this pertains to the phrase the "Word of God."

If you ask and Evangelical what is the Word of God, he'll tell you the phrase pertains to either the Son of God, inasmuch as He is the Eternal Word, or it refers to the Sacred Scriptures.

If you ask a Catholic the same question, he'll reply with the same as the Evangelical, only as regards the second portion (ie, the Scriptures), he'll say that the Word of God communicated by Christ to his apostles and thereafter passed on from generation to generation includes both the written (inscripturated) Word and that which was not written down in the collection of the 27 books of the Bible. Usually, this is said to be that which is part and parcel of Sacred Tradition--> that which pertains to the whole "teaching, life, and worship" of the Church, which the NT itself never claims to exhaust, nor would it even be reasonable to suppose that it does. (At this point, I direct you over to the link on the sidebar here to the Vatican II documents, and there you can read more about this in both Dei Verbum {especially} and Lumen Gentium.)

So, there is a real risk that a Catholic and Evangelical could be speaking past each other on this issue - ships passing in the night. If, as an Evangelical, you say "the Word of God" and you merely take it for granted that the Catholic will understand by that phrase the same thing you do, you would be mistaken. You need to bear in mind that the Catholic understands by that phrase the one sacred deposit of faith, which is comprised of both the Scriptures and Tradition.

Just thought that was important to point out for any future discussion on this issue and attempts to employ that phrase.

Thu Jan 19, 10:41:00 AM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Thanks for the continued interaction. Much of the ground we're covering I hope to cover in more detail in a future post.

As regards St. Athanasius and the point you make, I think the question would rather be just the opposite. Why is it, if the Bible (+ reason, if that makes you happy) is so easily discernable on the question of Arianism and Christ being "one in being with the Father," that Arianism would have been as widespread as it was? And why, as you've not answered the question, would the Church have thought it necessary to convene the great Council at Nicaea, if the problem were so easily resolvable with reference to Scripture. Citing a lone source, such as St. Athanasius, merely sidesteps the problem. For the question would still be, why would anyone after St. Athanasius agree with *him.* Who says he's right? The Catholic will reply, the Council said he's right, and that's that. But, what's your reply? (Let me guess, the Bible + reason, right?) And further, the inclusion of infallible Councils does not preclude the reality of Sacred Tradition and the Holy Spirit really working through this tradition to maintain the truth in the one Church.

I did not claim to be arguing for infallibility (you might recall I've indicated that's the subject for a future post). If the historical reality has always been for Christians (and it has always been such) that it relies on General Councils to settle matters of grave dispute finally, then what good reason would anyone have for believing that all of the sudden in the 16th century, this was no longer the case? Rather than being an argument for infallibility, my point was that your general thrust was historically naive. It does not represent what the Church has always done to say "what about settling it by using the Word of God."

*Sola* scriptura is literally simpler than scriptura + tradition + magistra, since it negates the last two and leaves the person with one and only one divine reference point. Your comment about revelation + reason seems almost silly, since the context of my comments was juxtaposing the Bible alone with Bible + Tradition. Would it really need to be said that Catholics also believe that one ought to use reason?! I don't know of anyone who's ever denied this. It's rather assumed in all these discussions.

And no, the fact that sola scriptura does not settle matters of dispute isn't a red herring. It's the pointing out of an historical slippery slope as a consequence of the adoption of sola scriptura. But, if you wish to leave the point alone, since it was originally a "moreover" by me, and not my central point, that's fine by me.

Since the Christian communion you're a part of bears absolutely no resemblance to Orthodoxy, nor do the reasons pertaining to the Great Schism have anything to do with our current discussion, it would seem wise to leave this for another time.

Catholicism has no division bearing any resemblance to that of the current Evangelical debates on the nature of God, unless of course you'd like to try to point them out. Arguing about nuances of predestination is one thing. To argue about the very reality of predestination or the nature of God is quite another. Clearly you see the difference between Neotheism and the nuances of predestination, or would you really say they amount to basically the same thing?

Although it's probably not wise for me to engage in this point-by-point, I thought I'd do so here, in case you might think I'm choosing to not answer you ought of convenience for myself.

What you have not done is answered the simple and singular question raised by my post. If the Church needs no Councils to settle matters of great dispute which threaten to cause great division in the one body of Christ, why did she think she did for 18 prior Councils and 12 prior centuries? What is it that you (or Luther) knows that the Church didn't know for all that time?

As to the canon, I have no idea why you'd raise the issue to me. Apart from the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage and relying on their judgments as infallibile, you have no assurance of the NT canon. Unless, again, you'd like to show how... Regarding the OT canon in particular, there have been innumerable Councils to deal with the issue (inlcuding Florence and Trent), and they have settled the matter.

If you think there was not such a thing as a Jewish magistra, I wonder how you account for Our Lord's words in Mathew 23, the opening lines?

Also, here's a question for you, since you are so freely raising new questions for me here. If the early Councils are not infallible, how do you infallibly know that Christ is fully God and fully Man, one hypostasis, yet two natures, each nature possessing a corresponding will. You inherit the view from the first 6 Councils. If the view is true (which you cannot know with certainty unless you claim the Councils were infallible), how is it that they got it right? Luck?

Thu Jan 19, 11:45:00 AM EST  
Blogger T.B. Vick said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thu Jan 19, 04:04:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Hey there Jason,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate some of the insights you have to offer. But, let me lay some ground rules for further interaction between us on this weblog.

First, I don't engage in point-by-point interactions like we're starting to slip into here. I indicated in my last post why I did it in that instance. But, I personally don't do this sort of thing for several reasons, chief of which are (1) it tends to reduce serious discussion to looking like little more than nit-picking trivialities and (2) it gives the exchange a debate feel, which is far a field from my intentions behind this modest blogspot.

Second, I don't reply to short quips or cries of "fallacy!" If, on the other hand, one wishes to engage my comments seriously and use argument for its ancient purpose (i.e., the attempt to unify two minds, as much as possible, by employing various reasons and objects of persuasion), then I gladly engage in such. Mostly, you do this latter, so no biggie.

I also retain the right (as you do) to redirect the exchange when it seems to be getting esoteric and/or away from the original discussion. This comment section is not an online posting board, after all.

Now, having said all that, on to your comments.

Regarding your initial inclinations to believe that St. Athanasius would be able to consider himself right prior to any Council saying so, I grant the point to an extent. But, the sense in which I grant it will lead into a place which, perhaps, you have no desire to go into. Namely, to a discussion of the relalationship between theologians and the Magisterium. It is a fascinating (internal to Catholicism) debate, to be sure. And if you want my personal view, I do tend to agree with Cardinal Ratzinger, Yves Congar, Francis Sullivan, et al. that the Magisterium is the authoritative interpreter of the one sacred deposit of faith found in Tradition and the Scriptures. However, being the authoritative interpreter doesn't necessarily entail being the "authentic" interpreter. In other words, and to keep this short in case you don't care, I have the personal opinion that theologians, not bishops, lead the way in the progress of dogma. I don't know if that exactly makes me liberal in this regard, but whatever it makes me, that's my judgment considering the debate in itself and the history of the Church. St. Athanasius would be a good example supporting, so I think, my view. That is, it's an example of a theologian leading the way. Many others have made this point strongly (e.g., Rahner, Congar) and have pointed to this very instance as support for the view that although the bishops are the authoritative interpreters of the sacred deposit, they do not typically lead the way in theology and the progress of dogma-theologians do. So, this is the sense in which I would agree with you. However, if you deny the existence of Sacred Tradition, then you personally as a Protestant are in no position to affirm that he was "right" (ie, orthodox), for how would you know that he and not Arius was right? This continues to be the central question for you to answer. Mediately, of course, you say he's right because the Christian tradition in which you find yourself accepts all the decrees and creeds from Nicaea I. But, ultimately if you reject both Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, you have no way of knowing beyond that. No Bible passages, no reason, and no hermeneutics can settle the question. At least, that's what all the great Fathers of the Church agreed to--a General Council was necessary. Are you more clever or knowledgeable than they? Surely not.

And this leads to an attending point. The General Councils of the Church typically have arisen at times when great crises had come on the scene. I can only assume you know this. They weren't willy-nilly. They happened in a reactive way, in order to clarify the Church's teaching, and lay aside error, regarding matters of faith. That was the point of giving you the synopsis of the early Councils. They were all about handling crises in the Church when (we now see in hindsight) heretics were causing great division and tension among the body politic. This is the plain and undeniable history of the Church and Her Councils.

Now, fast forward to Trent. Again, the question I posed for you has gone unanswered. You do the easy thing of crying fallacy. But, if you take a look at the challenge, and reflect for a moment on the nature of the Orthodox Church, there is no fallacy involved. The Orthodox do not dispute the Catholics on the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils, nor do they deny the apostolic succession of their bishops (ie, patriarchs). They merely dispute the number on the Councils. Orthodox say 7 have occurred. Catholics, 21. But, this does nothing to compromise the Orthodox belief in apostolic succession and the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils.

If the Protestant is the one who, unlike anyone previously, begins to deny that there really are Ecumenical Councils out of which come infallible pronouncements, then I'm afraid the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. What is was to be a Christian, for a millennium and a half, was to believe in God guiding His Church in times of crises and keeping Her indefectibly in the One Faith, especially through the Ecumenical Councils. Saying "begging the question" presupposes equal terms befor the parties, but this just isn't the case. The one who denies that which has been received truth from time immemorial, everyone would agree, has the greater burden. Therefore, the question I posed still stands: "If the historical reality has always been for Christians (and it has always been such) that it relies on General Councils to settle matters of grave dispute finally, then what good reason would anyone have for believing that all of the sudden in the 16th century, this was no longer the case?"

Luther refused to submit to the head of his order, Cardinal Cajetan, and, on more than one occasion, to the pope himself. I have made this point before, but I'll make it again. What it was to be a Christian in his day, and especially a priest, was to believe in God guiding his Church through the bishops. What is worse is that whereas St. Athanasius' arguments and eventual inclusion into the overall Christian dogma can be seen as legitimate progression and unfolding of the truth. He denies nothing of what had been previously received truth in the Church. However, Luther's phrase "faith alone, not faith formed by charity, justifies; faith justifies, apart from and prior to charity," is, prima facie, a denial of that which was universally held prior to his time. The intimated connection between faith and charity had been held by the Church from time immemorial. So, again, prima facie, it seems that Luther violates St. Vincent of Lerins' dictum on the progress of dogma:

"But some will say perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress...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."

And then there is the transformation of the doctrine of the Eucharist, which had been settled at the 4th Lateran Council (1215) as "transubstantiation." The line from the Ecumenical Council goes: "transsubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in sanguinem." "The bread is transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into blood." Clearly, Luther denied this view. And so clearly, this is alteration of the Faith, not progressively unfolding it, whatever rescuing might be attempted by other regarding his notion of sola fide.

But, this is all a bit beside the point. The question simply stated was this: does God work through the General Councils of the Church, such that their universal decrees are infallible, or doesn't He. For centuries, all Christians had believed that He had, so what changed?

The good news about your professors at SLU is that Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (of First Things magazine) has called for Jesuit-Catholic dialogue. ;-) Yes, I'm aware of some of the "Process" tendencies of some Catholic theologians, but this often involves the impassibility of God (since the Church has never infallibly pronounced that God is impassible), though you and I would likely argue together that if Vatican I says that God is "one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable [lat. immensum], incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world," it probably follows that He is impassible. I can't really say I understand an attempt to marry Process tendencies with the above, which all Catholics are obliged to believe, so I can't speak intelligently about Process tendencies among some theologians at Catholic universities.

A few more minor points to address. I see now your reason for raising the OT canon issue, though I'm not sure you fully appreciate its intricate history. I like the article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm. There seem to only be further issues that arise from your brining this up though. First, the history of its formation is not as simple as you make out. It is probable that the Septuagint contained all the books now in the Catholic OT canon. This would have been the OT Christ and the apostles used. Second, the later canon, argued for by Protestants, occurs after the founding of the Church. Which canon is the right one? Third, the OT is inherited from Judaism prior to the formation of a Christian Magistra. Fourth, though it was inherited, the Church still did consider it adviseable to settle the matter of the canon (OT & NT) in Her Councils. And this latter point addresses the final thing I want to touch. It is not so clear, first of all, that the scribes and the Pharisees of the Jewish court (and seated in Moses' seat) were not infallible. I honestly don't know what else "therefore whatsoever they tell you to do and observe, you are to do and observe" amounts to other than infallibility. Or, if the concept makes you uncomfortable, then let's just switch to saying that they were "authoritative and binding" on the consciences and behaviors of the people. But, as the Church sees herself as a perfection and modification of the good in Judaism, then there is no necessity of finding one to one correspondence between her Magistra and theirs. Theirs is, if you like, a proto-Magistra.

However, all that aside, you still have no way of knowing which books belong in the NT except by belief in the infallibility of the Church, especially expressed by in Her Councils. Yes, I'm fully aware that there is infallibility resting in more than one place. In fact, the whole chain must be unbroken, otherwise there is no theological knowledge. The infallible God infallibly communicates His truth to His apostles, who infallibly receive it and in turn infallibly communicate it to the Church, generally. And that Church, to provide the final link, infallibly receives that truth. So, which link in that chain would you like to dispose of and still say you have *knowledge* (and not just wishful thinking) of, say, your Christology or your agreement with the Church who bequeathed you your NT that there are, in fact, only 27 books that belong there and they are the ones presently comprising it?

As I said in the beginning, you offer good insights, but you still have a long way to go before you are justified in your 'Protesting.' The issue of general infallibility in the Church will never go away, no matter what you wish to think of the specific infallibility of the pope or the bishops. And you have no answer to the epistemic problem of the canon, and the most likely reason for this is that there is no answer to this problem in your Protestant framework. No one is asking how the canon metaphysically came to be. To that question, all Christians are unified on the answer: God inspired men. The epistemic question, however, is how does one *know* which, of all the possible writings for inclusion in the canon, ought to be there? Unfortunately for Protestants, there is only a Catholic/Orthodox answer to this epistemic question. The whole process of canonicity, from the God-breathed writings to the decision of which books comprise the canon has to be God-ordained; otherwise, it's just anybody's educated guess which books are actually canonical.

Thu Jan 19, 08:40:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Greetings Jason!

Thanks for the continued exchange. One really good result that has come out of our back and forth (and really this entire comment section for this post) is that I see now how important it will be for me to get together a post on the general infallibility of the Church. Clearly, not enough has been made widely available to non-Catholics, while perhaps too much has been made of the specific infallibility of the bishops.

I very much appreciate the interaction and I'll try to give some good food for thought in reply to your most recent comment here.

(And BTW, no apologies are necessary. I didn't know if you enjoyed the kind of tit-for-tat exchanges, and I simply wanted to make it clear that I don't.)

I must say at the outset that I am a little shy to speak to this specific issue of Orthdoxy vs. Catholicism. That's not to say that I'm a know-nothing on it. It's only to admit that I have done little reading on it (from both sides) and probably less personal reflecting on the central issues involved. However, since I have done some, I'll offer some modest comments in reply.

Let me deal with the last bit of your comments first, as they seem to be the easiest for me to handle. Any Catholic (Eastern or Western) is obliged to assent to P3: There are 21 ecumenical councils, so as a Catholic I naturally do the same. (Notice this affirms 'more than,' not a 'less than' the Orthodox position.) And, I would agree with P5: The Roman Pope is right to reject the East's view of the Papacy, inasmuch as one can find a consistent view among all Orthodox, which does not exist across the board for Orthodox. So, owing the diversity of Orthodox views in this regard, my assent to your P5 is qualified.

That is to say, if you read my short post here on the weblog entitled "(Then) Cardinal Ratzinger on East/West unity" I can say now that I agree with Pope Benedict's statements when he originally gave them as a Catholic theologian in that book. A desire for the reunion of all Christians everywhere is imperative. However, two things are true today, in this regard. (1) Rome must be reasonable in her expectations of other communions to come back to full communion with Her, and yet simultaneously (2) Rome cannot relax certain restrictions presently making reunion a thing not yet had. Ratzinger says in that short bit that the East (i.e., the Orthodox) must not continue to hold to a view that the Western Church is heretical in certain respects (e.g., its claims of specific infallibility of certain ecclesiastical roles). So, any Orthodox communion that holds that view of the papacy, I would have to reject. But, as I said, it's unclear to me that all Orthodox communions view Rome as heterodox. Rather, it seems that some view Rome as Rome views them--> as legitimate successors of the apostles who, although presently in schism, are not a heretical community and are still really united with the one Church of Christ, having a valid liturgy, valid sacraments, valid priests and bishops, the same Scriptures, united with Sacred Tradition, &c.

I appreciate your comments that we are all in the same basic position in terms of arriving at the truth. I could certainly not deny this. Let me explain a bit of my own personal journey because I think it will help steer this discussion. What I came to first was an acknowledgement that the Church herself must be infallible. That is, it is a theological necessity that She be infallible (or "indefectible") in the one Faith. There are many reasons why I came to this judgment, and we have explored some here (e.g., the canon issue, the epistemic necessity regarding theological truth, the ecclesial (ie, conciliar) necessity giving rise to the ability of one Church to remain truly one in times of grave dispute among her members, &c.). So, the punch line is that I came to this judgment prior to any judgment on the specific infallibility of any one Christian communion. And when this happened, ipso facto, any Christian communion (e.g., all Protestant ones) were ruled out as options. This would leave Catholic, Orthodox, and (perhaps) Traditional Anglican.

So, when it came down to the decision of which of these, a lot was decided by the oddity of the Orthodox claim that there have been only 7 Ecumenical Councils and that's it. The last one was Nicaea II in 787. That struck me as an odd position for them to be in. I can see if they had further convened Ecumenical Councils (w/o Rome), such that they looked a lot like Rome who has continued her major Councils on into today. That would be a different situation, and make the decision much more difficult, if not arbitrary, as to where to go: Rome or Orthodoxy. But, this isn't what happened. Rather, the Councils stopped.

So, my argument against this would essentially be the same as I've put to you--> if you allow for infallible Councils at one time, is it coherent to claim that they stopped? Why would they stop? I understand their reply--because Rome is in schism (or heresy). Still, it is odd to think that God would have worked through the first few Councils such that their universal decrees on everything from Christ to icons were infallible (which is the Orthodox belief), and then all of the sudden in the 9th century and thereafter all of that comes to a stop. To my mind, if Ecumenical Councils were ever necessary to finally settle grave disputes and keep the whole Church in the truth, then they remain necessary.

But, there is an enormous amount of historical arguments that could be explored here. Did you know that many of the Councils between Nicaea II and Trent dealt directly with ending this schism between Orthodox and Catholic? It's fascinating, and I think there is much hope for future reunion between Catholic, Orthodox, and Traditional Anglican, but it would likely look like the present role of Rome with respect to the Eastern Catholic communions, who, though they are really united to Rome, yet have a great degree of self-government.

You ask, "If there is a position for seeing whether Rome is right, then why is there not a position for seeing whether St. Athanasius was right?"

(Back then, of course, the question wouldn't have been "Is Rome right" But rather "Are all the Sees acting in communion in Ecumenical Council right?") My reply is that there is such a position, but there is only one. And it involves the acknowledgement of the theological necessity of the indefectibility of the Church--> the Church of Christ can never defect from the one Faith given to her. And it just has been the case, historically, that that one Church has universally acknowledged several occasions (ie, the Councils) as times when her successors to the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have undergone their divine obligation to keep the one Church in the one Faith when grave issues have arisen, threatening to tear that one Church apart. The apostles knew very well that "Christ is not divided," though His Body is certainly prone to division. The successors to the apostles (ie, bishops and patriarchs) have ever known the same reality.

I hope to deal with this general issue of the indefectibility of the Church in a future post. Unfortunately, in order to do so, I'm going to need to slow down these lengthy exchanges, as least for a time. Thanks a lot for the continued interaction. And you certainly raise some good thoughts. I hope you think I've done the same.

Fri Jan 20, 02:52:00 PM EST  
Blogger David said...

aaaaaaaaaargggghhhhhhh. My head hurts! Too many details to account for!

However, Jeremiah, I think the summary of your journey is a helpful framework insofar as it arranges some of the issues in an epistemic heirarchy, or rather, chronology. This is helpful for others (such as myself) who are considering some of the same matters that you have already made judgments on. (I don't have the prescience to know whether our journeys will have similar conclusions with regard to Catholicism.)

I think you are right to point out infallibility as the linchpin. I have suspected for a while now that this would have to be the next issue for me to look into. This is the notion I keep getting hung up on, and, apparently, this was the clincher for you. I'll look forward to your post on the subject.

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion. It is impossible for me to tell how recent the discussion in this comment page is, since only the times are noted, and not the days. It would be incredibly helpful to see the dates that each particular comment was posted. If you'd never considered this before, it's easy to change in Blogger's settings. If you have considered it, and rejected the idea..., well then nevermind.

Thanks,
-Dave

Mon Jan 23, 06:09:00 PM EST  
Blogger Jeremiah Kier Cowart said...

Hey David,

Excellent suggestion on including the dates with the times. How silly of my that I wouldn't have had that--especially because the same thing has annoyed me about other sites! I have made the change. I honestly didn't know it was available to be changed. Hopefully, it's to everyone's satisfaction. I do like these details as well.

But, I know how you feel about all these theological/historical details. When you start getting into exploring these issues of ancient Christian churches and their various reasons for themselves...my goodness. It seems like you've just waded into an infinite sea. And you're hesitant to get too far from the shore. The shore is familiar ground and makes you feel safe.

Yes, I would agree that authority is an ultimate issue, alongside history of course. The various arguments for general infallibility really are supported by historical considerations, as is seeing the divine liturgy as a paramount part of what it is to be a Christian. I certainly began the journey in the area of authority (aka "general infallibility")--and to an Evangelical who (like myself) has little good acquaintance with the Church's history prior to the Renaissance or with liturgy, dealing with a "heady" object like authority is palatable. It's a good and sensible intro into other areas which, if a conversion takes place, one sees later are equally paramount--like the divine liturgy, history, councils, creeds, sensus fidelium, Tradition itself, etc.

Tue Jan 24, 04:26:00 PM EST  

Post a Comment

<< Home