Monday, June 26, 2006

The Church is One

The ICCEC claims, by virtue of the apostolic succession upon which it established itself as an autocephalous patriarchate, that it is in full and licit communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church as delineated by the “undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence”.

However, do we find, in the early Church, the view that the one Church is composed of several, separate, autocephalous patriarchates, each with doctrines differing from the other—but each and all in full and licit communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church? If so, I am eager to see a case made for it from the Fathers. The Church I find delineated by the Fathers is a Church that is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic because her founder, Jesus Christ, imbued her permanently with these qualities, which, therefore, cannot be overturned by the sinfulness of capriciousness of man. The gates of hell shall not prevail. And hence the oneness of the Church today is the same as it was on the day of its founding at Pentecost. And the oneness of which the Fathers speak is not the so-called “oneness” purported to exist in a church composed of autocephalous patriarchates; I find the Fathers describing a Church that is permanently one in both government and doctrine.

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth... For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.
—St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, 1:10 (A.D. 180)

Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these heretics aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the [right] way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same ... And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world. For to her is entrusted the light of God; and therefore the “wisdom” of God, by means of which she saves all men, “is declared in [its] going forth; it uttereth [its voice] faithfully in the streets, is preached on the tops of the walls, and speaks continually in the gates of the city.” For the Church preaches the truth everywhere, and she is the seven-branched candlestick which bears the light of Christ.
—St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, 5:20 (A.D. 180)

Christ Jesus our Lord...had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.
—Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 20 (A.D. 200)

For it weighs me down and saddens me, and the intolerable grief of a smitten, almost prostrate, spirit seizes me, when I find that you there, contrary to ecclesiastical order, contrary to evangelical law, contrary to the unity of the Catholic institution, had consented that another bishop should be made. That is what is neither right nor allowable to be done; that another church should be set up; that Christ’s members should be torn asunder; that the one mind and body of the Lord’s flock should be lacerated by a divided emulation. I entreat that in you, at all events, that unlawful rending of our brotherhood may not continue; but remembering both your confession and the divine tradition, you may return to the Mother whence you have gone forth; whence you came to the glory of confession with the rejoicing of the same Mother. And think not that you are thus maintaining the Gospel of Christ when you separate yourselves from the flock of Christ, and from His peace and concord; since it is more fitting for glorious and good soldiers to sit down within their own camp, and so placed within to manage and provide for those things which are to be dealt with in common. For as our unanimity and concord ought by no means to be divided, and because we cannot forsake the Church and go outside her to come to you, we beg and entreat you with what exhortations we can, rather to return to the Church your Mother, and to our brotherhood.
—St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 43 (A.D. 250)

[T]he Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.
—St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 68, 8 (A.D. 254)

Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, “In one Holy Catholic Church,” on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge...
—St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:22-23 (A.D. 350)

“Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the Church of God which is at Corinth”... “Unto the Church of God.” Not “of this or of that man,” but of God. “Which is at Corinth.” Seest thou how at each word he puts down their swelling pride; training their thoughts in every way for heaven? He calls it, too, the Church “of God;” shewing that it ought to be united. For if it be “of God,” it is united, and it is one, not in Corinth only, but also in all the world: for the Church”s name (ecclesia: properly an assembly) is not a name of separation, but of unity and concord.
—St. John Chrysostom, Homily One on First Corinthians (A.D 392)

The ICCEC claims, on its website, to have “a high view of the Church in affirming Cyprian’s claim that, ‘he who has not the Church for his mother, has not God for his Father.’” That statement of St. Cyprian’s comes from his first treatise, On the Unity of the Church. Below are excerpts from that same document which I find to indicate that the ICCEC’s high view of the Church is irreconcilable with that of the author it quotes.

4. Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”

5. And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source.

Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,--when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.

6. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

7. This sacrament of unity, this bond of a concord inseparably cohering, is set forth where in the Gospel the coat of the Lord Jesus Christ is not at all divided nor cut, but is received as an entire garment, and is possessed as an uninjured and undivided robe by those who cast lots concerning Christ’s garment, who should rather put on Christ. Holy Scripture speaks, saying, “But of the coat, because it was not sewed, but woven from the top throughout, they said one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots whose it shall be.” That coat bore with it an unity that came down from the top, that is, that came from heaven and the Father, which was not to be at all rent by the receiver and the possessor, but without separation we obtain a whole and substantial entireness. He cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ. But because Christ’s people cannot be rent, His robe, woven and united throughout, is not divided by those who possess it; undivided, united, connected, it shows the coherent concord of our people who put on Christ. By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church.

8. Who, then, is so wicked and faithless, who is so insane with the madness of discord, that either he should believe that the unity of God can be divided, or should dare to rend it--the garment of the Lord--the Church of Christ? He Himself in His Gospel warns us, and teaches, saying, “And there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” And does any one believe that in one place there can be either many shepherds or many flocks? The Apostle Paul, moreover, urging upon us this same unity, beseeches and exhorts, saving, “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that ye be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” And again, he says, “Forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Do you think that you can stand and live if you withdraw from the Church, building for yourself other homes and a different dwelling, when it is said to Rahab, in whom was prefigured the Church, “Thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all the house of thy father, thou shalt gather unto thee into thine house; and it shall come to pass, whosoever shall go abroad beyond the door of thine house, his blood shall be upon his own head?” Also, the sacrament of the passover contains nothing else in the law of the Exodus than that the lamb which is slain in the figure of Christ should be eaten in one house. God speaks, saying, “In one house shall ye eat it; ye shall not send its flesh abroad from the house.” The flesh of Christ, and the holy of the Lord, cannot be sent abroad, nor is there any other home to believers but the one Church. This home, this household of unanimity, the Holy Spirit designates and points out in the Psalms, saying, “God, who maketh men to dwell with one mind in a house.” in the house of God, in the Church of Christ, men dwell with one mind, and continue in concord and simplicity.

23. God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one, and the faith is one, and the people is joined into a substantial unity of body by the cement of concord. Unity cannot be severed; nor can one body be separated by a division of its structure, nor torn into pieces, with its entrails wrenched asunder by laceration. Whatever has proceeded from the womb cannot live and breathe in its detached condition, but loses the substance of health.

—St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1 (On the Unity of the Church) (A.D. 251)

38 Comments:

At 8:02 AM, Blogger collin_nunis said...

Finally, something from the Fathers. Finally, some real "Catholic" sources.

 
At 8:40 AM, Anonymous Patrick said...

This is a really great post because it deals with the real issue of question: ecclesiology!

The CEC really doesn't have a unified ecclesiology. In fact, many hold to a thoroughly Protestant ecclesiology saying that the Church is made up of believers in various denominiations, communions, etc.

And this should not be surprising. For the CEC has been established on that most basic of Protestant assumptions, namely that the Church has been lost, or at least seriously marred, only to be fully recovered by this latest move of God.

The fact is that the "three streams" have never left the Church. Therefore they do not need to be recovered or restored. If we believe in Christ's promise of the Church- that the gates of hell will not prevail against it- then we could never embrace a Protestant ecclesiology, but rather work to be the Christians God has called us to be within His one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I applaud you for your extended quotes of the Fathers on this subject. They show how far the CEC is from an ecclesiology that would be truly consistent with the Fathers.

 
At 10:13 AM, Blogger The Singing Claymore said...

I am rather dissapointed that teh discourse "always leads to Rome", when in fact Rome CAUSED the great schism and divorced herself from
the very Church she claims to be head of.

Was the schism over heresy? Of course not. It was due to pride of office within the catholic church. It assumed a role that The CHurch would not grant her and because of her geographical locale and lack of attack by the Moor's and Turk's, was allowed time to breathe and perpetuate the assumption (now here is the REAL assumption!)

Was it over the Filiogue? Well, if so, it was then over a practice that developed in the Western Church around Toledo and was then copied and used in many more places in the West, but not accepted in the East by any Council. Therefore it was not catholic and nto doctrine.

So where does this place the ICCEC?

It is no better anbd certainly no worse than the Roman Church, but not in union with the Eastern church either. So in effect, all churches save the East are protestants in the truest sense in that Rome started it in 1054 by protesting that she should be "caput et mater ecclesiarum" instead of first among equals. Then to add insult to injury, the Crusades "sealed the deal".

No. I say that when Rome repents and reunites, there will be no cause or excuse for the Protestant to be "outside The Church" and then claim can be made once again to be The Church.

The drawback is that the pride of Rome will not allow her to lay anhting down for reconciliation. Too much time may have elapsed and too much ecclesiology may have been usurped by lateran councils to go back and discuss the legitimacy of doctrine Rome has established without the council of The Church.

Soin effect it really doesn't matter who claims apostolic succession or catholicity, they are all in rebellion against The Church that Jesus instituted and therefore we are all in a holding pattern until the West reconciles to the East.

Lord have mercy.

 
At 10:42 AM, Anonymous Patrick said...

My previous post was not intended to "lead to Rome." I just wanted to state what I perceive to be the fundamentals of patristic ecclesiology. That is, there is one Church. Christ has promised that this Church will prevail over heresies, schisms, and the like. This Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church is indivisble (reference the quotes from the Fathers published here).

The ICCEC claims to believe in the theology of the Fathers, that is, Apostolic Tradition. But it is plain that their ecclesiology is not that of the Fathers. Before there can be real progress in determining catholicity, these issues need to be addressed.

So for me, this is more about establishing premises than determining outcomes.

 
At 11:16 AM, Blogger collin_nunis said...

In the midst of all this, lets see what the Byzantine Christians had to say about the papacy. I for one, will not submit to Vatican documents alone for proof. Its the Bible, the Fathers, and history for me. Kyrie Eleison.

The leaders of the Church were bishops of the great cities - Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. These five leaders were known as the pentarchy. In the early 600s however, Arab expansion left only the Pope and the patriach of Constantinople free to govern the Church.

While the Byzantines generally acknowledged that the Pope had special importance, they did not accept that he had supreme authority over religious matters. Instead, they place such authorities in councils where church officials from the pentarchy would meet and settle major issues. Since there was less contact between Rome and Byzantium after 476, the patriarch of Constantinople became the sole leader of the Orthodox Church - the official Christian Church of the Byzantine Empire.


Some food for thought.

 
At 11:54 AM, Blogger David Zampino said...

Hi all,

Actually, this "pentarchy" only lasted a very brief time. The importance of Constantinople did not begin until the mid 4th century. The Council of Constantinople I AD 381 did establish Constantinople as the See of importance next to Rome. However, due to the Nestorian controversy and the Monophyisite controversy, huge swaths of churches in the East went into schism, including much of the area under the influence of Antioch, Jerusalem, and especially Alexandria. This was functionally effective by the end of the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451. Yes, there was (and still is) an "Orthodox" patriarch in Alexandria -- but the enormous majority of Christians in Alexandria would not have recognized him as such -- they looked to the Coptic church for leadership, as they do today. Likewise in Antioch. To this day, there are two patriarchs, both claiming Apostolic descent and both making the same claims to authority as they have since AD 451.

The Muslim conquest hastened the demise of these Sees -- but the schism was already there.

The idea of the great 5 Sees of Christendom really was a very short-term, temporary thing in the eyes of history.

Blessings,

 
At 4:22 PM, Blogger Fish CampMore said...

Collin and Claymore,

I don't see what this post has to do with Rome or the papacy. I mentioned neither, nor did the Fathers I quoted. The issue is the indivisible and universal oneness of the Church in worship, government, and doctrine...just as Patrick stated. You take issue with Rome, but the Orthodox Churches are on the side of Rome in this regard. Both claim that the true (and indivisible) church subsists within themselves. And both reject the view of the church postulated by the ICCEC and other so-called independent catholics. See the following Orthodox source:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.aspx

 
At 11:15 PM, Blogger The Singing Claymore said...

Fish -

You are correct. My apologies. I ignorantly attempted to fold in some of my angst concerning Rome and I was out of line.

 
At 11:17 PM, Blogger The Singing Claymore said...

Your post is very thorough and enlightening with the quotes.

Blog on!

 
At 11:30 PM, Blogger Fish CampMore said...

> You are correct. My apologies. I ignorantly attempted to fold in some of my
> angst concerning Rome and I was out of line.


No apology necessary. :-) I don't think you were "out of line"; just arguing against a straw man.

However, I think your response is telling and is indicative of my experience of those in the ICCEC who take shelter in the Orthodox when dealing with the claims of the Catholic Church to be the true Church...not realizing that the Orthodox, just as much as the Catholic Church, regard themselves as the true Church...and the ICCEC as illicit and not in full communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church as delineated by Scripture and Tradition. The Orthodox may help the ICCEC in its rejection of the papacy, but that's about as far as it goes. For the Orthodox, if you aren't Orthodox, you're outside of the fold. And I think they may even be less liberal about this than the Catholic Church.

 
At 10:12 PM, Blogger David Zampino said...

Fish makes a good point. I remember a conversation which went on when I was a student at Nashotah House (along with two other CEC seminarians). The conversation was between a CEC seminarian and a Russian Orthodox seminarian exchange student. The conversation went something like this:

Mikal: You cannot be a Christian unless you are Orthodox.

Ron: Fine. I'd like to become Orthodox.

Mikal: You cannot become Orthodox.

Ron: Why?

Mikal: Because you are not Russian!

This is a true story. I'm not claiming that it is universal -- but AM suggesting that it is far more prevelant than most Western Christians want to admit.

 
At 10:32 PM, Blogger Fish CampMore said...

David Zampino wrote:

This is a true story. I'm not claiming that it is universal -- but AM suggesting that it is far more prevalent than most Western Christians want to admit.

Yes, I think the ICCEC has a rather romantic view of the Orthodox--they are remote, mysterious, aesthetically different, and by golly, they reject the pope, too! After the infatuation with the Catholic Church came face-to-face with reality, it seems the ICCEC began to lean more heavily on the Orthodox and their view of history. I wonder how many have read the Fathers with an open mind, willing to lean toward the Catholic Church or the Orthodox depending on what they found there, and then found the Orthodox position to win out? It's my suspicion that there is a bias toward the Orthodox and against the Catholic Church and that's the lens through which the Fathers are read in the hopes of salvaging the ICCEC premises as to the nature of the Church.

The irony is that the Orthodox are on the same side as the Catholic Church in her rejection of the ICCEC as a licit apostolic Church.

 
At 10:52 PM, Blogger Fish CampMore said...

Fr. Ray Ryland has a great article on Evangelicals Who Journey East.

 
At 2:43 PM, Anonymous Patrick said...

Once one accepts the patristic evidence for the Church, the choices really do narrow. They are logically the Roman Catholic Church and the various jurisdictions of Eastern Orthodoxy. Both have apostolic foundations and unbroken successsion. Both accept the ancient views of the Creed and hold to very similar practices of it. In fact, it was this similarity that made me begin to wonder.

The break of course took place primarily over the issue of the papacy. The Orthodox are willing to concede that the bishop of Rome is first among equals and has a position of preeminence. That is somewhat undefined by them. So what's the practical difference between saying someone is first among equals or pastor of the universal Church?

The answer lies in simply allowing the Fathers to speak to the issue. I was amazed to find the Fathers bearing witness, almost to a man, to the selection of Peter as the pastor of the universal Church and this position being passed down to the bishop of Rome. The evidence is too vast to present in a format such as this one, but it is worthy to note that even that great saint of Orthodoxy, St. John Chrysostom, held this view. To me, this lends great credibility to the Roman claim.

And why should this seem so strange to us? Even Protestants hold tenaciously to the idea of one senior pastor in a given local church. Why is it surprising to think that in His divine wisdom, our Lord would do no less than provide a pastor for His Church?

I am yet a pilgrim on this path so I seek comment from those of you who may know better than I do. But this is what I see from here.

 
At 12:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus Christ is Head of the Church, not the pope of Rome. Since our Lord is risen and powerfully present in our midst, He is the Head of the Body and moves through us in the Spirit.

Rome was not the monolithic ruler of all in the early church, or there would have been no need for Councils. St. John Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome for much of his ministry, and St. Melitius of Antioch who chaired the second ecumenical council was not recognized by Rome as holding that see.

According to Cyprian, Peter is prototypical, representing the unity of the priesthood, but that priesthood has been spread throughout the episcopate of the earth. Chrysostom wrote that John (not just Peter) held the keys of the kingdom.

There are twelve thrones of the apostles mentioned by Jesus, not just one. And the New Jerusalem has 12 foundations, not just one.

The problem is that the papal office changed drastically in the eleventh century, as a result of the pseudo-Isidorian forgeries, resulting in jurisdictional claims earlier unheard of.

 
At 2:41 AM, Blogger Fish CampMore said...

I cannot help but comment on the juxtaposition of the humble, inquiring tone of Patrick, who is open to the papacy, with the dogmatic, vitriolic tone of the anonymous anti-papist.

 
At 2:47 AM, Blogger Fish CampMore said...

Patrick wrote:

Even Protestants hold tenaciously to the idea of one senior pastor in a given local church. Why is it surprising to think that in His divine wisdom, our Lord would do no less than provide a pastor for His Church?

I cast my eye over the history of mankind, and found that every association, from the most widely-spread kingdoms to the narrowest circle of friendship, was blessed with a head; that the very instincts of our nature seemed to lead to this everywhere as necessary to secure unity of purpose and action. I contemplated the Church of God; a society, not only make up of persons brought together out of all societies, but under the solemn necessity of being and remaining so perfectly joined together, as to “speak the same things, and to be of the same mind and same judgment;” thus “keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” And I asked myself, “If it be reasonable, that a society, whose unity is to be the closest in the world, should be composed of creatures of the world, and called to act in the world, and upon the world, and still be the only body in the world without a distinct, governing head?” The thing appeared to me inconsistent with the uniform wisdom and love of God, expressed in the order of His providence, and hence not to be admitted as a reality!
—L. Silliman Ives, LL. D., The Trials of a Mind In Its Progress to Catholicism

Our anti-Catholic controversialists, while admitting that the church of the parish or of the diocese needs its priest or bishop, its visible father, the human organ of the divine fatherhood, will hear nothing of a common father for the whole universal Church. The only head of the Church, they say, is Jesus Christ. And yet they see no reason why a parish or a diocese should not be governed by a visible minister; every Orthodox is ready to see in each bishop or priest a vicar of Jesus Christ, though he cries “Blasphemy!” when Catholics give this title to the first of the patriarchs, the successor of Peter.
But do these Orthodox schismatics in fact recognize Jesus Christ as head of the Church? If he were really for them the sovereign head, they would obey his words. Is it obedience to the Master that drives them into rebellion against the steward that he has himself appointed? They are ready to allow Christ to act through this minister in any given part of his visible kingdom, but they appear to think that he exceeded the limits of his power and abused his rights in give to Peter the keys of the whole kingdom.
—Vladimir Soloviev, The Russian Church and the Papacy

 
At 7:05 AM, Anonymous Patrick said...

I appreciate the comments in response to my last post. These are just the things I'm looking for in my pilgrimage to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

One thing I will say is that I am aware of changes in the papacy. That is, I see that it has developed over the ages. I believe even Rome will acknowledge this. Furthermore, I think we can all agree that not all Popes have been stellar examples of the faith. There have been those who have said and done things they ought not to have. Yet, I am of the opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ, the cornerstone of the Church, established Peter as the first rock upon which He would build His Church. I cannot believe that He would fail to preserve this first link from such gross apostasy as is essentially charged against the papacy by those who disagree with it.

If Peter is the rock that our Lord established, then I want to be with him. Apart from papal scandals and the like, it must be proven that the papacy itself is a gross departure from the faith, or that having established the papacy, the Pope has introduced doctrines and practices at odds with that Tradition held by the Church from its inception. Apart from such proof, it seems to me we should be seeking ways in which we can be reconciled to the see of St. Peter.

 
At 9:32 AM, Blogger Seraph said...

I didn't mean to be anonymous, that was my post. Dogmatic and vitriolic? Not at all, at least I didn't intend to be so.

In fact, upon reading your fine post to Patrick, I withdraw my words about an earthly head. Perhaps it is more a question of how that head was intended to function...in the early centuries, the Roman pope did not have the kind of immediate jurisdictional power claimed now. It is just different, that's all, and all-encompassing, with every detail of eucharistic presiding codified, and even decreeing it is a grave sin to eat meat on Fridays during Lent.

I am concerned that goes against the spirit of St. Paul's admonition not to let anyone burden us with a yoke of bondage, and I don't see the Latin need to codify and regulate everything.

Those things trouble me. If that is vitriolic, I am sorry.

And my comments about Chrysostom and Melitus remain.

 
At 10:25 AM, Blogger Seraph said...

Oh, and lest I be accused of being extreme and vitriolic, I should give an example of over-regulation and codification. In the Diocese of Orange, there was recently an announcement that the Catholic faithful are obliged to remain standing at a certain point of the Mass--on pain of mortal sin. In other words, danger of eternal hell if one kneels before the Blessed Sacrament. To me, that is very extreme.

If the diocesan spokesman quoted in that news report is incorrect, there still remains the problem that priests in high positions think that such a thing could be a mortal sin. That frightens me.

I worry that Rome's oneness has been purchased at the price of a sometimes-unhealthy bondage; that is why I am concerned. Otherwise I would be happy to swim the Tiber.

 
At 3:53 PM, Blogger David Zampino said...

Greetings,

I would like to address the comments that some have made about the immediate jurisdictional power claimed (or at least exercised) during the first 1000 years of Christianity. Actually, I would like to give some examples for discussion.

1) As early as the end of the 1st century, the Bishop of Rome enjoyed a position of honor and respect which was not shared by his brethren in the episcopate. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is the earliest recorded example of the intervention of the Bishop of Rome into the internal affairs of another church. The tone of the letter seems clearly to indicate that prompt obedience to the letter was expected. Clement states:

"Let us, then, be subject to His most holy and glorious name, and escape the threats which Wisdom has uttered in advance against the disobedient. Thus we shall find shelter, firmly reposing on the most holy name of His Majesty. Accept our counsel, and you shall have nothing to regret. . . .But should any disobey what has been said by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

This is the 1st century.

In the 2nd century, Victor I excercised a certain amount of universal authority when he insisted on a uniform date for the celebration of Easter; and excommunicated churches in Asia Minor who did not comply.

In the 3rd century, Dionysius at the request of a delegation from Alexandria intervened in a dispute in that city, involving questions concerning the orthodoxy of their bishop. His intervention involved three actions. First, he convened a synod to expound correctly the Church's teaching on the subject in question. Second, he send a pastoral letter to the church in Alexandria, explaining the teaching, and third, he wrote privately to the bishop asking for an explanation from him of the theological point in question. These actions not only handled the situation in such a manner that the controversy was resolved without the removal of the bishop, but the concept of the authority of the Bishop of Rome to intervene in the affairs of other churches was strengthened. It was on the basis of this decision that Julius I claimed jurisdiction over Alexandria.

The reign of Julius I provides an early 4th century example of the intervention of the Bishop of Rome in the affairs of the wider church. When Arianizing bishops in the Eastern portion of the Empire exiled Athanasius from his see, he provided full support to Athanasius in the form of a letter, sent to the Eastern bishops, in which he rebuked them from presuming in the see of Alexandria 1) without reference to the episcopate as a whole, and 2) ignoring the prerogatives over Alexandria enjoyed by the Bishop of Rome.

(Other examples available)

While I agree that scholars and historians can argue about the whys and the wherefores of the specifics in each case, the notion that a "universal jurisdiction" was a late 1st millenium "medieval" notion does not, to me, seem historically justifiable.

Blessings,

 
At 5:03 PM, Blogger Seraph said...

Thanks for your splendid examples, Fr. Zampino! They are deeply challenging and thought-provoking, and I will research them.

Just on first glance, however, the letter from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth could be considered a strong brotherly and prophetic exhortation in the Holy Spirit, and might not imply anything about jurisdiction--a Spirit-inspired prophet might well so speak in the name of the LORD in any case, particularly when Corinth was attached to Rome by ties of colonization. However I would not rule out that this was an early Petrine function.

The example of Victor is also mixed, in that Eusebius says that he "attempted" to excommunicate the believers of Asia Minor who had a different date for Easter, and that he was "strongly rebuked" for attempting to do so, by his brother bishops--including Polycrates of Asia Minor who said he was not afraid of Victor's threats.

Note that Victor "attempted" to excommunicate. This implies he tried and failed--which to me means he did not have an absolute right to do so, unlike present popes. Victor seems to have lacked the, well, irenic spirit of Irenaeus in this situation.

I will have to plead ignorance concerning the two Saints Dionysius, and will look into that, though I note you use the magic word, at the "request" of a delegation from Alexandria. In other words, the pope did not simply intervene from afar, but was invited in as a mediator.

One might also note from the Council of Sardica that the bishops agreed to "honor the memory of blessed Peter" by allowing Julius to have some appellate say in hard cases; but their words don't seem to imply that Julius or other bishops of Rome enjoyed that as a divine right.

I find it interesting to note that the several Councils of Carthage were not hesitant to counter the bishop of Rome when they thought they needed to, and even overruled him on some disciplinary matters concerning priests. They did not seem to be aware that the bishop of Rome was holding the place of Christ in matters of discipline.

What I meant by a medieval development is that the bishop of Rome takes it on himself to intervene without invitation after the 11th century. That does not, however, imply that there is not a Petrine function that should rightly be exercised; I simply question whether Rome has not overstepped its bounds.

Likewise, blessings in Christ our God! May I take it you are a son of Bishop Zampino? I honor you for your heritage, your name, and for the spirit of intense search for truth, no matter the cost. And thank you for honoring my post with such an elegant response, more than it probably deserves.

 
At 7:35 AM, Blogger Fish CampMore said...

Seraph...

I withdraw the charge of "vitriolic". I'm sorry about that. And all your comments deserve elegant responses. So deserving are they that I've been working on responses to them for weeks now.

I appreciate your input to this blog.

 
At 3:04 PM, Blogger David Zampino said...

Seraph,

Thank you for your substantive comments. Let me touch on a couple of matters.

With regard to the analysis of Clement's epistle, according to Eusebius it cannot be doubted that this letter continued to be read aloud in the Corinthian church and was consideredfor some early Fathers almost on a par with Scripture. Clement of Alexandria considered it so, as did Origen (although Origen disputed its canonicity). This says to me that the writing was held in great esteem. Proves nothing, of course, but at least suggests for a strong reading.

With regard to Victor -- even Ireneaus thought that Victor was wrong in his analysis of the situation -- but accepted his right to make the decision.

It is interesting to note that you mention the several Councils of Carthage (let's add Hippo in there as well). When the final council made its determination about what should constitute the Canon of the New Testament, the council sent their report to Boniface I for his confirmation of their deliberations.

You are quite correct, of course, to suggest a difference in function between settling doctrinal questions and matters of mere discipline. But I do hesitate to support the idea that somehow, all of a sudden, in the 11th century, Rome suddenly began doing something it had never done before!

More later,

Blessings,

 
At 3:56 PM, Blogger Seraph said...

Thank you, David Zampino!

Your remark about the letter of Rome to Corinth being read as Scripture is good -- and surely the Church of Rome was honored deeply for being the place where Saints Peter and Paul were "seized by the resurrection" (Olivier Clement's phrase).

But the fact that the Church of Corinth revered the Word received does not necessarily bear on the question of universal jurisdiction. For example, I can attest that I have received instructive prophetic words through the Holy Spirit that I continue to read with profit years later, as well, but that has
no bearing on a supposed jurisdiction of the prophet who gave me the Word. Sometimes the Word of God is just the Word of God.

Also, every example you mention could just as easily be predicated of an Orthodox view of papal primacy, and do not require the Roman Catholic understanding. The Fathers of Northern Africa, in the case you mention, could just as easily request the confirmation of their western patriarch without necessarily viewing him as having immediate, ordinary and universal jurisdiction or infallibility.

I am just guessing here and will do some more research, but perhaps eastern councils got confirmations of their decisions from their patriarchs as well?

I'm just not seeing the necessity of the RC viewpoint in the examples you mention in this, and in your earlier, post. The Orthodox view fits just as well here, doesn't it, for Orthodox have always admitted that the "presbeia" accorded Rome was great.

But I am not a historian and may be mistaken on these matters.

Blessings and joy in Christ!

 
At 4:04 PM, Blogger Seraph said...

By the way, Father Zampino, you might refer to the interesting work by Aristeides Papadakis, "The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy", as well as the works by John Meyendorff such as "Orthodoxy and Catholicism" and his book on Peter. I think there may have been a real shift in the 11th century. Certainly it was then that Rome dumped the old canons and made up their own in the Gregorian revolution.

Olivier Clement's work, "You Are Peter: An Orthodox Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy" is also helpful for gaining insight into how a French Orthodox theologian looks at these matters.

Truly yours in Jesus, dear sir!

 
At 4:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, Father Zampino, you might refer to the interesting work by

 
At 6:48 PM, Blogger Fr Matt Mirabile said...

A Shortened answer to Fish on the Claims of the CEC

The CEC does not claim “full and licit” communion with the Catholic Church. It merely claims that the apostolicity is verifiable. To quote:
“San Clemente Declaration :(1999)In earnest *anticipation of a future revelation* of the fullness of unity of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, the International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church adheres to these articles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first eleven centuries.
The level of communion you suggest we claim is untrue. We are anticipating it and, God willing, working towards it.
Fish say’s, “However, do we find, in the early Church, the view that the one Church is composed of several, separate, autocephalous patriarchates, each with doctrines differing from the other—but each and all in full and licit communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?”
No. But there is more to this than meets the eye. As I hope to explain. The organic oneness you go on to explain in this paragraph (above) describes the economy of the church catholic. Neither the Roman church nor most any other has kept un-falteringly these precepts. For Rome as well as the rest have erred from these precepts in various ways.
Your first quote —St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, 1:10 (A.D. 180) “She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.”
What do the Roman or orthodox churches believe that we, for the most part, do not? Not only do most of us accept the Real Presence of Christ, but many of us believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation – more so than many Roman clergy today. What about baptism or the sacraments, or the divinity of Christ? Is there anything that we teach that s contrary to what Iranaeus would not have taught in his day? Did Irenaeus teach the absolute primacy of the Roman see as it is taught by Rome today? You use this quote to suggest that the CEC is not uniform in belief or that it does not believe what the Roman church teaches. On the first issue the same can be said of the Roman church itself today. For it has seminaries and communities that not only vary in practice but actually preach another gospel. There are communities that are at variance and in rebellion against the Pope. The Roman church has been more tolerant than even the CEC has been with errant communities, it seems to me. Secondly, the CEC does not believe anything the Roman church does not except regarding the plenitude of power ascribed to the Roman see. This is something that Gregory the Great himself would have denounced and, I think, was foreign to the Catholic church of the first millennium. And it is something the Eastern churches still refute.
“Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.”
—Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 20 (A.D. 200)
Has not the CEC reverted from its origins in Protestantism to its original classification? Seeking to learn at the feet of the Church Fathers, seeking true and verifiable apostolic lineage? Was not this unity broken first by Rome who excommunicated the entire Eastern Church while failing to observe the ancient ecumenical and conciliatory practices?
For it weighs me down and saddens me, and the intolerable grief of a smitten, almost prostrate, spirit seizes me, when I find that you there, contrary to ecclesiastical order, contrary to evangelical law, contrary to the unity of the Catholic institution, had consented that another bishop should be made. … For as our unanimity and concord ought by no means to be divided, and because we cannot forsake the Church and go outside her to come to you, we beg and entreat you with what exhortations we can, rather to return to the Church your Mother, and to our brotherhood.
—St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 43 (A.D. 250)
This quote is against Novation who intended to set out a rival Episcopate, who was also deemed a schismatic and heretic because he would not allow the repentant back into the church. We have no such heresy in our midst. Point to the heresy? Name it specifically. We did not ordain Bishops with the intention of subverting the church as he did.
“[T]he Church, which is Catholic and one, is neither cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.”
—St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 68, 8 (A.D. 254)
And how do they cohere except by the Spirit of God? For not all who are ordained are in fact priests, and not all who are priests are in fact catholic. Neither have there been bishops who have been of one Spirit with the true church but have instead in every age acted contrary to the church catholic and have subverted her very witness. For a bishop who permits the abuse of children by failing to remove the Priest participates in that wicked mans sin and, failing to cohere to the Catholic Church by the Spirit of Christ, does the very violence against the church that he should protect it from.
“It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge...
—St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:22-23 (A.D. 350)
As we also do endeavor to do. As all the Churches endeavor to do, notwithstanding the very real differences that time, culture and opinion have created.
“Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the Church of God which is at Corinth”... “Unto the Church of God.” Not “of this or of that man,” but of God. “Which is at Corinth.” Seest thou how at each word he puts down their swelling pride; training their thoughts in every way for heaven? He calls it, too, the Church “of God;” shewing that it ought to be united. For if it be “of God,” it is united, and it is one, not in Corinth only, but also in all the world: for the Church’s name (ecclesia: properly an assembly) is not a name of separation, but of unity and concord.”
—St. John Chrysostom, Homily One on First Corinthians (A.D 392)
And so the “church at Rome” has made this very error! - THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH! Thus swelling over the years its pride! You had better be more careful how you quote the Fathers.
Fish Say’s, “That statement of St. Cyprian’s comes from his first treatise, On the Unity of the Church. Below are excerpts from that same document which I find to indicate that the ICCEC’s high view of the Church is irreconcilable with that of the author it quotes.”
Let’s see: Cyprian say’s,
“The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source.”
And from the one trunk for the tree came forth all the different branches of the tree. Some which have cut themselves off from the source have died. Those which return over and over again live because they return to the source of the stream. Doesn’t this sound a bit like convergence to you? Isn’t this the ethos of the CEC, to receive such “treasures both old and new”? And the source you presuppose exists only in the Roman church. And this supposition places your argument against the entire Eastern Church as well. You would, I have read, say that our propensity for claiming the side of the East while the East does not recognize us is futile. Perhaps, but it cuts both ways. For as long as you suggest that the entirety of the church subsists on the Roman church you are also at odds with the East who do not fully recognize you as “Orthodox”.
“She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.”
And the head is Christ, and the economy is catholic, and by it all the churches, are fed. If it were not so, how then did I find Christ while I was outside the Roman tradition? How was it that I was nurtured in the Faith from those who are separated brethren? Rather we need to understand that all the churches of God participate in the Devine Economy by degrees. The greater the degree of that participation In the Devine Economy the more the church is nourished by the Head. To the lesser degree any church participates in the more restricted the nourishment. And at times and places good churches in apostolic succession participate in the Divine and Catholic Economy to lesser degrees than others. Witness the Inquisition.
“By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church.”
And so it is the duty of all the churches diversely scattered to work towards this unity. Does the CEC deny this? Has the CEC been working towards this? I know it to be a fact. Are we encountering bumps along the way? Yes. But such is the case with all the separated brethren. We are all trying to repair what has been torn asunder centuries ago. But you cannot mandate that your opinion as to the solution and mine are the same. The ay of achieving this depends on men and where they come from.
“23. God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one, and the faith is one, and the people is joined into a substantial unity of body by the cement of concord. Unity cannot be severed; nor can one body be separated by a division of its structure, nor torn into pieces, with its entrails wrenched asunder by laceration. Whatever has proceeded from the womb cannot live and breathe in its detached condition, but loses the substance of health.”
—St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1 (On the Unity of the Church) (A.D. 251)
How then does one explain the continued existence of the Eastern churches if they are separated from the true church? For certainly, they were cut off from the body by Rome. While we all grieve at the divisions *which already exist* this does not free us from the demands of reason. Which then constitutes the true body? Truly, the CEC absolutely must reconcile itself to these words and the church catholic, and I am convinced it will do so in time. The cement is concord. And it is based upon participation in a catholic economy, not merely structure. What coheres is of the same Spirit and has as its source the same head and font. This in spite of structure.
All in all the quotes do not automatically and directly lead me to believe that we must abandon the CEC and adhere to the Roman structure. It does clearly teach that there is one church and one source of light and light for the church and that participation in that church which is a hypostatic union of spirit and structure is mandatory. Clearly it teaches that the church must be one, existentially and metaphysically. You have not, by quoting them, convinced me under whose terms this must occur.

 
At 2:47 PM, Blogger Seraph said...

I resonate with your words, Fr. Matt. Like you, I wish the ancient schism between West and East were mended -- in a catholic and evangelical spirit, complete with the fulness of the priesthood, the light of God's Word lifted up powerfully, the acceptance of the use of the charisms appointed by God, and honor given to the apostolic sees, especially Rome.

As you also said at some point, if such a mending were to take place between East and West, I would also be there in a flash. But as it now stands I cannot see any means of choosing between the two. Perhaps Christ has left us with this conundrum to keep us humble, forcing us to reach out in charity and to trust in Him even when we cannot see clearly. If it is God's will for the CEC to continue, it is no doubt to participate in that goal of a full manifestation of the Oneness that is in Him.

I pray constantly for such Oneness.

 
At 5:04 PM, Blogger David Zampino said...

My friend, there is one way of choosing between the two.

In John's Gospel, Jesus gave the power to "bind and loose" to ALL of the Apostles -- but in Matthew's Gospel, the power and authority of the "KEYS" was given to Peter alone.

More later,

Many blessings,

 
At 11:44 AM, Blogger Fr Matt Mirabile said...

David say's - "My friend, there is one way of choosing between the two.

In John's Gospel, Jesus gave the power to "bind and loose" to ALL of the Apostles -- but in Matthew's Gospel, the power and authority of the "KEYS" was given to Peter alone."

A few throughts: A redactive read of the Gospel of Matthew may suggest that Matthew was intentionally pushing for Peter's authority in the church. wich does not, admittedly negate your assumption, but it does throw it in a different light IMHO.
Cyprian on the Papacy

Treatise 1 - On the Unity of the Church

4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"

This cuts both ways. It shows that all the Apostles were *equal in honor and power* yet the unity procedes from the one. And here is the divison of East and West. The Pontif is elevated to have power over all, and the Eastern church is without a titular and unifying head. When the one recognises the equality of honor and power in his brothers, then perhaps the they will recognize his unifying presence. And as for me, I am already there in mind and heart.

 
At 11:57 AM, Anonymous Fr. Stephen said...

Fr. Mat said, "This cuts both ways. It shows that all the Apostles were *equal in honor and power* yet the unity procedes from the one. And here is the divison of East and West. The Pontif is elevated to have power over all, and the Eastern church is without a titular and unifying head. When the one recognises the equality of honor and power in his brothers, then perhaps the they will recognize his unifying presence. And as for me, I am already there in mind and heart."

I agree. We see the true Catholic development of the Church's government as it develops, attempting to keep in step with the Spirit of unity despite opposing theologies, philisophies, doctrines and practices, linguistic interpretions, politics and powers that seek to divide.

The unity has always been tenous, even among the twelve apostles, who Jesus had to lecture in the gospels regarding the divisive and destructive attitudes of both seeking or claiming lordship and position.

The Church in its historical development, when uninterfered with, developed into multiple sees of authority, Rome holding "preeminence" but not a supreme or sole jurisdiction. Some might argue this development was but a "short-lived", as though this was an anomaly and that Romes' later self-authorized papal claims are sufficient. But the same might alternatively and conveniently argue that is is looking back to earliest evidence of selective "Church father" quotes as being authoritative to prove Papal claims.

But all you have to do is go back to the first Council at Jerusalem 15 A.D. for a real live practical example of both Scripture and Tradition. Reference to the first council has ofcourse been done before, however....

A few observations:

- Peter had to defend his "theological/doctrinal position" among the other apostles and elders. No one bowed down to him.
- Peter, in his argument, stated that that God through the witness of the Holy Spirit was the ultimate decision maker. The goal was to hear what the Lord was saying. This is consensus government.
- Peter did not have the last word.
- James, not even an original apostle, who did not "receive the keys" directly, nor was he endowed directly with the other original apostles before Jesus ascension.... was the one who pronounced the judgement.
- The pronouncement put the Holy Spirit's witness first.
- The pronouncement was secondly a witness of the consenus of apostles and elders, and not Peter alone.

So where in Church history can we go back any futher to find in both Scripture and Tradition, a model of unified Catholic apostolic authority?

Peter, in 1 Peter 5:1, writes so beautifully by the Holy Spirit, the words of loving and shared authority... to paraphrase....
"my fellow elders".

The papal propoganda found in Roman Catholicism that commands supreme and sole authority neglects not only Scripture and Catholic Tradition, but the Spirit who works through them both.


Fr. Stephen

 
At 4:21 AM, Anonymous Fr. Stephen said...

Also interesting to note, that the Pope did not recognize Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea, that Constantinople would hold second place of honor behind the Rome, until the Lateran Council of 1215 when Constantinople was in the hands of the crusaders and under rule of a Latin Patriarch.

 
At 10:17 AM, Blogger David Zampino said...

Actually, Fr. Stephen,

It was the 3rd Canon of the 1st Council of Constantinople. The Canon was political in nature then -- and was political in nature in 1215 as well.

Remember, the Canons of the Early Church Councils were disciplinary in nature -- not dogmatic. What retains the force of authority are the actual dogmatic statements -- not the Canons which, in many cases, dealt with specific situations which may or may not exist any longer.

Blessings,

 
At 3:09 PM, Anonymous Fr. Stephen said...

Thank you David. My apologies. I realized my almost sinful error, mixing it up with another Council Canon, after posting at 4am without coffee. I figured I would be corrected and didn't /wouldn't mind. I see openness to correction as maintaining a virtue of "teachability". Anyway...

The distinction is understood between dogma and canon. Thank you. But then, you also have to be careful. If so, one might apply the same view to the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicea where Rome's preeminence is stated as also not having to retain any force of authority and hence also subject to change. If being political in distinction, one could argue there was also concern on the part of Rome that Constantinople, the "New Rome" and new center of the empire, might gain emperor-backed ecclesiatical power nearing, if not, equal to Rome's, thereby effecting future claims of holding supreme authority over all the Church.

There was some concern and difference in interpretaion as to whether the preposition "after" Rome designated a "subjection" to Rome, as opposed to merely second "in time". I'm sure you know this (and better than me), but to quote the 28th Canon of Chalcedon (I better be correct this time:), "For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome...

In addition to certain Pope's negative view of this Canon, Justinian of course wrote opposite the view. In the hundred and thirtieth novel of Justinian,(1) Book V of the Imperial Constitutions, title three, understands the canon otherwise. For, it says, "we decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome, according to the decrees of the holy synods is the first of all priests, and that the most blessed bishop of Constantinople and of New Rome, should have the second place after the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome, and should be superior in honour to all others. Here the emphasis is subjection, to Rome, and not "in time".

Again, there had to be some fear related to New Rome becoming the new center of the empire as per Constantine's vision and possibly gaining emperor-backed power pertaining to Church authority and recognition thereof.

The point, however, is really to bring out again the ancient and biblical view of Church government as it pertains to and effects the unity of the One Church, a unity based in presiding love and consensual authority as opposed to an alternate view of supreme Roman jurisdiction.

The 5 great sees may be considered an anomaly of Church history, but the view of a supreme Roman authority with absolute authority in both doctrine and discipline certainly was a Roman advancement. One might say Rome's excertion of supreme power was also distinctively political in nature, although covered in robes.

Another might say that it was and is a matter of Latin interpretion and desire vs. Greek interpretation and consent.

Nontheless, Fish stated at the top , "I find the Fathers describing a Church that is permanently one in both government and doctrine." But how do we interpret "one". Some might say that it is a matter of Latin interpretion (the Prisca) and desire vs. Greek interpretation and consent. Hmmm, how is God "One", and how is that oneness expressed? Jesus did pray to the Father, "that they would be one, as we are one."


Love you brother,

Fr. Stephen

 
At 2:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

what does this all have to do with the CEC?

 
At 10:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree. it sounds like we're getting away from the point: what the CEC believes, and is it really part of the Church Catholic.

 
At 10:49 AM, Blogger Fish CampMore said...

Anon, are you referring to the post or the comments?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home