I just learned that Pope Benedict XVI has announced his resignation, the first pope in 600 years to do so.
Pretty stunning, and now we must brace ourselves for all the usual speculation, analysis, and drama that accompanies the election of any new pope.
I don’t have a lot to say; while I was a huge fan of the man when he was a cardinal, I have had decidedly mixed reactions to his pontificate; I thought him very good on social doctrine, making clear what had been ambiguous before he took office, and making it much more difficult for libertarians and neocons to pose as faithful adherents of Catholic Social Teaching.
And I thought him very good on liturgy, making the old Mass more available and overseeing a much-needed translation of the new.
But I found his speech at Regensburg, which so offended Muslims, a huge misstep, as well as a missed opportunity for a long overdue examination of our own violent history.
And I thought that when he basically redefined “subsists” to mean “exists in its fullness” it was a setback in relations with the Orthodox. It was a far cry from his proposals for reunion when he was cardinal, and to my mind a step back.
But right now all we can do is pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance as the Church prepares for a new pope….
I for one am praying for a non-European Pope.
God may well say no to that concept, but in my mind, the RCC is now a worldwide faith, and our leadership should reflect that.
Here’s to a pope with a permanent tan. Maybe if we’re lucky, even one that was born South of the Equator.
Interesting. I count Regengsburg as one of Pope Benedict’s high points. But it sounds as if we are each reading it very differently.
I am a bit stunned myself. I know that he is mortal, but I had hoped God would grant a few more years of work from him.
peace,
Zach
Prayers for His All Holiness and the entirety of the RCC. May the Holy Spirit guide you in the selection of a new Pontif and grant the peace that passes all understanding .
Viva la Papa! (Which Pope will we have next?? I am hoping for Africa…;))
I think he was a remarkable Pope who did a lot for this chapter in the Church…. and it gives me great joy thinking of him spending the rest of his days in prayer in a monastery. In all of this, in this year of Faith, the Holy Spirit is at work, and I am sure that this will be a very exciting time!
I’ve now seen Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria and the Congregation on Divine Worship put forth as a potential successor. If so, he would continue the reformation of the reformation of the liturgy, including preserving the EF.
“And I thought that when he basically redefined “subsists” to mean “exists in its fullness” it was a setback in relations with the Orthodox.”
Well, it would be hard for the Church to explain it in any other way – unless she were to abandon what have been her claims since the beginning. In which case, why bother anymore? And by the way, I think the Eastern Orthodox churches haven’t given up their claim to be the one true Church of Christ, and if that’s what they believe, then of course they should say it. But so should we say it about ourselves if that’s what we believe. Christian unity achieved by watering down doctrine is a unity not worth achieving.
Yeah, it’s pretty hard for two One True Churches to dialogue on that point…
I think the Lord is is beginning to show us what lack of unity will ultimately do, and that is … the spirit of secularism creeps in, and quenches the flame of the Holy Spirit, where churches begin knuckling under to every spirit of the time. Luckily for the Orthodox they have the Patriarchal Bishopric. But eventually secularism will erode that as well. It is easier to stand up to secularism when everyone is of one mind, one body, one spirit. What does the devil do? Divide and Conquer? I’m hoping for a solid, orthodox pope, who also is charismatic And from what I’ve seen in Cardinal Peter Turkson, we might just have one there. And better yet, it might validate St. Malachy’s prophecy of the next pope being “Peter the Roman” (yuk yuk).
Well, the only honest solution, is to look at Scripture and the Fathers and the praxis of the early Church to see where and how authority was exercised.
And I have found that record to be not at all as simple as Catholic apologists make out. Certainly the Protestant critique is laughable, but the Orthodox viewpoint -and I mean the responsible one, not the one of internet polemicists- is not so easily dismissed. “How authority was exercised”? Well, a case can certainly be made that it was not so simple as it is now and that the Roman idea about what primacy entailed evolved, and that rather rapidly after the division that culminated in the 11th century…
And, while the dialogue on authority goes on, to what or whom do we look for magisterial authority? To suggest that “subsists in” does not mean that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, is basically to say that the Catholic Church has been in error about her own nature for over 1000 years. And if she can in error about that, then she can be in error about everything else (including social doctirine). If that is so, then the last authoritative magisterial utterance we possess is from the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Of course, Oriental Orthodox may have something to say about that…
“And I have found that record to be not at all as simple as Catholic apologists make out.” Well, how so? Certainly the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was undefined, i.e., its limits and exact authority were not clear, for centuries, but it certainly appears to me that there was a clear witness both in the writings of the Fathers and their contemporaries and in the praxis of the Church that Rome had some sort of undefined headship. The texts that support this are rather numerous. Of course, administratively it didn’t function as it does today, and in that area there is of course much room for adjustment. E.g., there is no divine law that says that Rome must appoint every bishop. But based on my knowledge, it appears undeniable that union with Rome was looked upon as a sine qua non in the Church and Rome was regarded as the court of last resort.
I’m aware that the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 was not always interpreted as meaning Peter himself, though it often was, and the change of Cephas’s name to Peter by our Lord is surely significant. But sometimes the rock was understood as Peter’s faith or as his confession of faith, and it’s my understanding that often the same writer could use all three interpretations. But this did not mean that it did not apply to Peter personally at the same time. Moreover, and this is a point that it seems to me the Orthodox tend to ignore, it’s not just Matthew 16:18 that witness to Peter’s being head of the Apostles or to Rome’s place in the Church.
An “undefined headship” that did not function that “didn’t function as it did today”? Precisely.
While the Orthodox are all over the place on Petrine and papal primacy they pretty universally would reject the notion that this primacy includes universal jurisdiction. And the texts supporting this objection are also “numerous” and claims to the contrary quite late..
And of course they also react to popular Catholicism, which inclines toward a sort of papal absolute monarchy.
The authority of the Bishop of Rome in the first Millennium was certainly more than the Orthodox give at present. Here’s a pretty good short, concise presentation of the bits and pieces we still have:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/lesson_plans/lp0008.html
So, who is right? The Eastern Orthodox? The Catholic Church? Neither? We can’t tell? And, if the last two, mustn’t we conclude that the Church (whatever it is) has no discernible magisterial authority?
Who is right? That is the problem for me, as I don’t find either narrative completely convincing. I do, though, think that Petrine -and papal- primacy are pretty clear…
“I count Regengsburg as one of Pope Benedict’s high points.” Agreed
I count the *actual* Regaensburg address as one of Pope Benedict’s high points. I count what happened when the Arab Press got hold of *one* line in what was otherwise an excellent speech, and took it out of context, to be Papa Benedict’s version of the Doctor Who Episode “When a Good Man Goes To War”:
Demons run when a good man goes to war
Night will fall and drown the sun
When a good man goes to war
Friendship dies and true love lies
Night will fall and the dark will rise
When a good man goes to war
Demons run, but count the cost
The battle’s won, but the child is lost
Or in the case of Regensburg- several children in Africa and the Middle East.
The Battle was indeed won- the Regensburg Address is THE argument for rational religion against irrational fundamentalism and evidence-denying secularism. But at what cost?
My objection to Regensburg lies not only in the isolated (and unfortunate) line about Islam but in ignoring what is in fact the far bloodier record of the Old Testament, of the Crusades and “just wars” blessed by the Church (often by Catholic bishops on opposing sides!). That whole question is, I believe, unresolved and highly problematic. The Quran, whatever the practice of certain Muslims, forbade war against civilians; the OT celebrates genocide as “God’s will”. Indeed, those passages -the slaughter of the Amelikites, eg- were invoked by popes and crusaders to justify slaughter. If you don’t find that problematic I’m afraid I don’t know what to say. Regensburg was a failure in not addressing the Jewish and Christian forms of jihad.
There is good reason for that, however- western rational Christianinty and Judaism has largely abandoned jihad. In fact, what is left is all wgaed by secular princes.
The call at Regensburg was for irrational fundamentalism to give up Jihad, not keep it going and feed the never ending fued.
Actually, the idea is far from dead among Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who are growing in numbers as secularists have fewer babies. Inside Israel, and in the West Bank settlements, these guys are every bit as fundamentalist and prone to violence as the Islamist jihadists. And there is no dearth of militant right wing Catholics, (think TFP) though they are unlikely to do more than spout rhetoric….not to mention fundamentalist Christians, who have absolutely no tools to sort these things out; I have had folks use those genocidal verses from the OT to justify Hiroshima (and I use that word as shorthand for “killing civilians in warfare”)…
This is in response to Dan’s response to me above – I didn’t see a Reply option at the message itself.
“An “undefined headship” that did not function that “didn’t function as it did today”?”
Well, yes. As you know, dogmas often become more defined as time goes on. And speaking of mere administration, even within the Latin church papal administrative authority hasn’t always functioned the same. There is much room for difference of opinion on how the pope’s universal jurisdiction should be administratively exercised. The pope does not have to directly exercise every power that he has; not everything that is doctrinally possible is necessarily wise or suited to every age. Certainly before modern methods of communication, much had to be done on the local level that today is centralized. Was this centralization always to the good? Very likely not, and thus is open to rethinking, so long as the powers of the papacy as dogmatically defined are not touched.
“the Orthodox…pretty universally would reject the notion that this primacy includes universal jurisdiction. And the texts supporting this objection are also “numerous” and claims to the contrary quite late..”
Well, Pope Clement intervened in the 1st century in the internal affairs of the Corinthian church and Gregory the Great simply quashed the decisions of a synod at Constantinople – the popes have been exercising universal jurisdiction for quite a few centuries now.
“And of course they also react to popular Catholicism, which inclines toward a sort of papal absolute monarchy.”
Yes, the figure of a pope as larger than life, almost the only public face of the Church, is unfortunate. Perhaps that reached its high point in the pontificate of John Paul II, since Benedict took steps to reduce that role. But if the Orthodox honestly accepted papal authority as that is dogmatically defined, perhaps they could do much to eliminate the abuses in popular understanding.
But Tom, one could also make a very good case for the universal juridical power of the emperor! He also, and more frequently, interfered with the local churches, invoked ecumenical councils, etc.
What grates, for the Orthodox, is the fact that the defiintion of papal authority “developed” in isolation, just as they object -rightly, I think- to the West “developing” the doctrine of the filioque independently.
It’s true that emperors often did the sorts of things you mention, and quite often, after Constantine, on behalf of Arianism, which was resisted most often by the Bishops of Rome. But I’m sure that all the bishops, east and west, would have said that no emperor has any direct power over spiritual matters, whatever he may have done with regard to ecclesiastical matters, which was basically a concession on the part of the Church.
There’s a difference of opinion or interpretation on the role of the See of Rome prior to 1054. It appears to me that all the later developments of papal power and jurisdiction were there in essence, and actually quite a number in actual practice. That fact that the later developments did come after the schism is of course unfortunate, but if one accepts that the Church gathered around Christ’s vicar is the Church of Christ, then those later developments were not against the Faith, evenif some of them were unwise and could be revisited. See also my reponse to your message below.
“… it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the general means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained,”
-Vatican Council II: Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, 3; Const. Decr. Decl., p. 250.
In this light, I do not think this was an example of Pope Benedict’s redefinition of “subsists” but rather an explanation of what the Council already taught.
But if we consider the Orthodox and other apostolic Churches to be real Churches, possessing all the means of sanctification, then “Christ’s Catholic Church” would include them.
In fact, “subsists” has always had the philosophical definition of “exists in”; Benedict revised the meaning to “exists in its fullness”. As the Orthodox and other churches lack juridical union with Rome they are eliminated…
The Orthodox churches are true particular churches, yes, but particular churches can be separated from the center of unity, Rome. Recall the HPR article I wrote a few years ago that looks into the various distinctions between the Church and particular churches, and points out that even if the language in Lumen Gentium is unclear, there are two or three other places in the conciliar documents that state plainly that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
“The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen Gentium”.
– Declaration Dominus Iesus, n. 6, August 2000
There’s appears to be a pre-Benedictine stream of thought here.
I agree with Daniel on this. It is surely not as simple as Catholic apologists make out.
This is a question I have been wrestling with for the past 6 or 7 years. After 30 some years as a devoted Evangelical, the Lord made it clear to me I needed to be in communion with the “one holy, catholic and apostolic church” and to hold to that which has been believed “everywhere, always, by all.” This, of course, led me to the ancient churches but to this day I’m finding it impossible to say with absolute confidence whether this is the Catholic or Orthodox Church.
3 yrs ago I was pretty confident it was the Catholic Church. I think that was due largely to the fact that information from a Catholic perspective (books in the library, EWTN, Catholic Churches and church members) is much more abundant than information from an Orthodox perspective. Plus I grew up Catholic, although I quit going to church as soon as i was old enough to drive myself. It has been more difficult to understand Orthodoxy. It is much less familiar. I’ve had a difficult time wrapping my western mind around an eastern perspective. But as I’ve continued to try and understand the Orthodox perspective I find it more difficult to know for sure which holds the fulness of the truth.
As it stands now I’ve become quite comfortable with those things the churches hold in common – the veneration of saints, the Theotokos, the first 7 Councils, liturgy and the Eucharist etc. but less so with the differences, particularly the understanding of papal primacy.
steve h,
Perhaps you would set forth why you don’t think the Catholic position is correct?
Thomas,
I will try.
Basically it is not clear to me that the understanding of the papacy as held by Catholics today is the same as that of the early church. Certainly Peter held a place of preeminence among the apostles and Rome held a place of prominence among the 4 major sees/patriarchates. But did the early church understand this primacy as giving the bishop of Rome a position of authority above all the bishops or was he the first among equals as the Orthodox believe ? Did they see the church as conciliar, that is, as. being guided by the college of bishops acting together through councils as in Acts 15. Or did they see the church as more monarchical, with one bishop above the others ? And he being infallible at that.
I understand that the church and her doctrine developed over time but did this development eventually lead to innovation ?
Anyway I hope this gives you some idea of the issues I have yet to resolve.
Steve, thank you. This is perhaps not the place to engage in any detailed discussion of this issue, so I’ll just briefly state how this matters seem to me.
However, if you’re interested in following up on this, maybe we can arrange some way to do so.
Just as on many points, e.g., the Trinity or the Incarnation, the doctrine on the place of the Bishop of Rome in the Church was vague at first. But as in the case of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Church gradually defined and made more precise what was less definite before. This was generally done by general councils, which is exactly how it was done in the case of the papacy. While it is true that these definitions regarding papal authority were done by councils without the participation of most of the Christian East, does that mean they were not true ecumenical councils? No more, it seems to me, than the fact that after a certain date the Nestorians or Monophysites stopped participating in councils. (I showed last year that before Vatican I, by the way, Pius IX invited the Orthodox bishops to attend the council not simply as observers but as participants.) Moreover, I think there are some clear examples in the early Church of popes exercising authority that goes far beyond the idea of a first among equals. Of course, as I said before, this was rarer, partly because of the state of communications and partly because such exercise of jurisdiction had not become embodied in any institutionalized procedures, much as the selection of bishops (including of the bishops of Rome) was done in a haphazard manner as compared with today.
,
Thomas,
Sorry that it has taken so long to reply, things have been a little hectic lately.
Councils held without groups, like the Nestorians or Monophysites, who had already rejected the decisions of earlier councils, and were thus heretical, hardly seems analogous to councils held without (small o) orthodox bishops from the east including 4 of the most important patriarchates in the church. I admit that I don’t know that much about the later councils but when I first began to investigate the councils it struck me as arrogant that the west continued holding councils without the eastern bishops being in attendance. Were they true ecumenical councils ? It seems to me that depends on if the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ with the pope as His Vicar. But then that is the question at issue.
In regard to “some clear examples in the early Church of popes exercising authority that goes far beyond the idea of a first among equals.” I would be interested in investigating this further. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction.
I’m afraid I may be giving you the wrong impression. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and the Pope and trying through Gods grace to live that way. It’s just that I’ve had alot to learn and think about these last few years and there are still unresolved issues.
Steve,
Thank you for your response. I’m thinking of the intervention of Pope Clement I (in the 1st century) in the church of Corinth. We tend to think of this as somehow not exceptional, but on the Orthodox view of the equality in authority of all the patriarchs, it certainly would seem strange. Greece was not part of the Western patriarchate.
Also, have you investigated the controversy surrounding the strictures of Gregory the Great when the patriarch of Constantinople tried to assume the title of “universal bishop”? This is an interesting example because it’s sometimes used by non-Catholic writers to argue against the definitions of Vatican I. In fact, most of the facts on this controversy I drew from a book by a very anti-Catholic 19th century writer. But he quoted enough of the original source material to demonstrate that Gregory the Great had no hesitation in annuling decisions of synods at Constantinople, telling the patriarch what to do, etc. Also, the pretty constant practice of Eastern prelates appealing to Rome as a court of last resort when their own bishops or metropolitans were infected with some heresy – or even the appeal by heretics who hoped to get a better hearing at Rome than they’d had at home.
If you google “Eastern fathers on the pope” you will get a catena of quotations from Eastern fathers on the primacy and authority of the bishop of Rome. I won’t put the link here since that will delay getting this posted, I think.
You said above, “Councils held without groups, like the Nestorians or Monophysites, who had already rejected the decisions of earlier councils, and were thus heretical, hardly seems analogous to councils held without (small o) orthodox bishops from the east including 4 of the most important patriarchates in the church.” But if the Church consists of those bishops grouped around the center of unity, then what is the Church to do if certain bishops don’t want to come to councils? Actually councils are a not unproblemetic touchstone of orthodoxy unless you know which councils to cite. There were numerous councils in the early centuries, sometimes with many bishops in attendance, which were later stigmatized as heretical. But on the Catholic view a council’s decisions are ecumenical when they are accepted by Rome.
Tom; can you document your contention that Pius IX invited the Orthodox to participate in Vatican I? Sorry, as they were only invited to observe VII that seems unlikely, given the far less ecumenical spirit of the time…
Dan,
You don’t remember when this subject came up before and I pasted the text of the letter Pius IX sent to the Orthodox bishops together with a translation? I don’t remember exactly when this was, 2011 or 2012 I think. I tried googling it but didn’t find it. If perhaps that archive doesn’t exist anymore, I’ll find the letter again and translate it.
I remember you saying that before, but don’t remember seeing the evidence; sorry. It just seems counterintuitive on so many levels, not least as Pius was convening the council to define papal infallibility, which the Orthodox would certainly oppose.
Hurray, I found it, and I even forgot to ask St. Anthony’s help. I posted it on Caelum et Terra on March 5, 2012, under a thread called Not Rivals, but Allies: Metropolitan Hilarion on Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church.
At the very end I am putting something new, an excerpt from a book by Cardinal Manning in which he relates the same thing and mentions that it was done at Trent too. So first here is what I wrote last year:
“OK, I found the Latin text of Pius IX’s brief or encyclical. I translated the relevant paragraph which I give also in Latin. It was addressed to all bishops of the churches of the eastern rite not having communion with the apostolic see. It was clearly not sent to only to the non-Chalcedonian bishops. The use of the word “Oriental” in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia did not have the same sense as it does today. In any case, the reference to the councils of Lyons II and Florence makes this clear.
I want to state though, that the fact that the Orthodox bishops were invited and did not come is not what makes Vatican I an ecumenical council. It was ecumenical because it was accepted as such by the Apostolic See. This is what makes a council ecumenical. I post this because Dan denied first that they were invited, and when I proved they were, said surely it was in the capacity of observers only.
I also second Ochlophobist’s statement that the only way forward for unity with separated Byzantine Christians is “to go the way of uniate churches.”
The relevant paragraph runs:
Now since lately by the council of the Our Venerable Brothers, Cardinals of the Sacred Romen Church, we have announced and called together an ecumenical synod in the next year to be celebrated at Rome beginning on the 8th day of the month of December, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, we direct our voice to you again and with a greater urgency of Our mind, as we are able, we entreat, we urge, and implore, that you would wish to come to this general synod, as Your Ancestors came to the Second Council of Lyons…and to the Council of Florence..
SANCTISSIMI DOMINI NOSTRI PH DIVINA PROVIDENTIA
PAPAE IX. LITTERAE APOSTOLICAE AD OMNES EPISCOPOS ECCLESIARUM RITUS ORIENTALIS COMMUNIONEM CUM APOSTOLICA SEDE NON HABENTES.
Jam vero cum nuper de Venerabilium Fratrum Nostrorum S. R. E.
Cardinalium consilio Oecumenicam Synodum futuro anno Romae celebran-
dam, ac die octavo mensis decembris Immaculatae Deiparae Virginis Mariae
Conceptioni sacro incipiendam indixerimus et convocaverimus , vocem No-
stram ad vos rursus dirigimus, et majore, qua possumus, animi Nostri
contentione Vos obsecramus, monemus et obtestamur, ut ad eamdem ge-
neralem Synodum convenire velitis, quemadmodum Majores Vestri conve-
nerunt ad Concilium Lugdunense II….et ad Florentinum Concilium…”
This I’m adding as new material and is an excerpt from a book of Cardinal Manning’s that I found quoted in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record.
“A letter of earnest and affectionate invitation was then written ” to all bishops of the Churches of the Oriental Rite who are not in communion with the Apostolic See.” This letter was presented to the patriarch of the Orthodox Greek Church, but he did not see fit so much as to open it. It was on that day, we are told, that four millions of Bulgarians notified to the same patriarch their withdrawal from his jurisdiction.
A letter was also written to all Protestants and other non-Catholics.
At the Council of Trent the same invitation was given, but with no happier result. Julius the Second published the condition on which they were invited namely, a recognition of the divine authority of the Church. On no other condition could the Church invite them without abdicating its divine commission. ”
QED.
The Holy Father recently gave an interesting reflection on the Petrine Primacy as manifested in 1 Peter:
On the ḥērem against the Amalekites there is a fascinating piece by James Chastek:
this comment is especially interesting: http://thomism.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/the-amalekite-massacre-as-a-failure-of-israels-obligation/#comment-6188
I’ve seen a lot of attempts to deal with OT genocide. This is decidedly the weirdest…
I know I’m a bit late to this conversation. However, I thought I might add a few things.
First, this is a weird solution. However, I would suggest it is supported by some Jewish analogues. In the Apocalypse of Ezra, Ezra is given a vision of Hell and is repulsed by the torture of the damned. Ezra pleads with God, even obstinately refusing to be glorified until he understands what is going on. This theme also occurs in some Early Christian Apocalypses, too, such as the Apocalypse of Peter. Medieval rabbis chastised Noah as being inferior in righteousness to Abraham because he did not plead with God for those killed in the Flood. Honi the Circle-Drawer challenged God that he will stand in an earthen circle and not move until God sends rain to alleviate a drought.
Second, regarding herem warfare in Deuteronomy 20, I would concur with Maimonides on this issue. We know from the Book of Judges that God permitted the Canaanites to continue so they could not have all have been wiped out. Maimonides suggested that the Jews were obligated to offer peace before entering a siege. If the peace was rejected, only the males/warrior class in “distant” cities – i.e., those not part of the Abrahamic inheritance – were allowed to be killed. If the peace was rejected within the inheritance, then those cities were to be placed under herem warfare. In both cases, peace was to be offered.
Third, Scott Hahn and John Sailhamer both suggested – plausibly, I think, based on Rashi and Paul’s emphasis on the Law for Jews (and pagan religions for pagans) acting as a pedagogue – that Torah Law was a tutelary action rather than God’s original intention. Originally, they were to follow a patriarchal religion but through a series of three crises – failure to ascend Mt. Sinai, the Golden Calf, the idolatry of the goats – Israel surrendered its inheritance of being a priesthood for the world. So, by the time they entered Canaan – putting aside for a moment historical-critical analysis of Deuteronomy and looking at the Pentateuch in the way Paul’s contemporaries might, Israel entered the Land already cursed under the Covenant and imperfect. They had re-enacted on a microcosmic level a kind of Fall. In that sense, the Torah should not be seen as the ideals of God. Indeed, Israel progressively seems to fall. For example, each of the Judges becomes progressively worse until Gideon practically makes himself a king in all but name. Samuel’s sons exemplify the failure of the priesthood. While the kings are praised, the sacred writer seems to criticize them back-handedly and ironically, including David (a man of war being ritually unclean to build a Temple, for example).
Scott Hahn’s website has a couple of articles on this: “Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?” and, for a more academic approach, “What Laws were Not Good” and “A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death” (on the Epistle of the Hebrews). Regarding the failures of the kings, I found a website called “Peace Theology” which concerns the viewpoint of John Howard Yoder to be helpful but not entirely convincing on all accounts.
Another piece of evidence that the Canaanites were offered terms of peace is Joshua 11:19 which states: “No city submitted to the Israelites, save the Hivites who lived in Gibeon.” This suggests the opportunity had been given. This position was taken by the Jerusalem Talmud Shevi’it 6:1.
Peace.
Pius IX letter “To all Bishops of Churches of the Eastern Rite not in Communion with the Apostolic See” can be read in English and Latin here: http://archive.org/stream/a615815600vauguoft#page/46/mode/2up
It is actually quite typical of Bl. Pius IX, and not “ecumenical” in the modern sense…
Thanks, Tom and sancrucensis. The language, triumphalistic as it is, and the presuppositions -in one passage the pope attributes the schism to the Orthodox being under the sway of Satan- could not have seemed very inviting to the Orthodox…methinks this is posturing.
And what would be the point of the posturing? Whom did the pope want to impress? Actually, the pope merely says the schism resulted from the machinations of Satan. Who could deny that? Moreover, the language was no different — indeed probably far milder — than what a Greek bishop would have written to Rome. Recall, the Greek Orthodox Church at the time did not even acknowledge the validity of Catholic baptisms.
I wonder what sort of invitation would be acceptable? Would the pope have to expressly state in it that everything the Catholic Church has taught about papal authority, to which the Orthodox have not agreed, is now open for discussion and revision? That what Rome has said is certain is now open to question and even rejection because there has been no valid magisterial voice from the 8th century to our time? In other words, the pope would have to admit that the Orthodox have basically been in the right on the Church authority question.
No, one would not expect that, but for an Orthodox bishop to accept an invitation in which the pope refers to himself as “the Supreme Pontiff” would more or less conceed everything disputed, wouldn’t you think?
Who was he posturing for? Well, for Catholics, obviously. And for history.
If the prerequisite for accepting the invitation were that the bishop acknowledge the supreme authority of the pope, as taught by Rome, then the bishop would be conceding the doctrine. To respond to a letter so signed would not be a conceding of anything. It would be merely accepting an invitation.
I quite doubt that many Catholics at all knew about this letter, so it is unlikely Pius was using it as a publicity stunt. And it is your contention that he wrote the letter (which he knew would be a wash) so that history would judge him a lovely fellow? It astounds me, quite frankly, that your judgment of the pope’s motives in this is immediately so disdainful — as if Pius IX was nothing but triumphalism and frippery.
There is a lovely story about Bl. Pius IX riding in a carriage through Rome shortly after his coronation. He comes upon a crippled beggar, and full of confidence he says to the beggar “in the name of Jesus Christ, get up and walk.” The beggar does nothing, and one of the Holy Father’s attendants says “if only you could have said the first part: Gold and silver I have not…” Se non è vero, è ben trovato. The story captures the blessed man’s character quite well. I expect that he fully trusted in God to end the schism during the council.
Are you sure this story was told about Pius IX? I’d head a very similar one told about one of the Renaissance popes?
I thought the Regensburg address was great. And, “subsists in” is the teaching of the faith. Vatican II taught it as well. If it isn’t, just let me know and I’ll be the first one to eat, drink and be merry.
VII used “subsists” without defining it. The traditional definition is simply “exists in”. Benedict narrowed this.
And the essence of the Regensberg address is very good; a rejection of irrational and violent religion. But by seeming to focus his criticism on Islam, instead of -as John Paul would likely have done- on our own tradition, which as I said has lots of problematic stuff, and not only in the past, he did a lot of damage.
“The traditional definition is simply `exists in’.” I thought the traditional definition was that the Catholic Church simply is the Church of Christ. Or am I misunderstanding the force of your remark?
It might be good to quote the passage from Dominus Iesus from which Daniel dissents:
“The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that ‘they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church’.”
I shall add that this is not simply Cardinal Ratzinger’s opinion but Pope John Paul II’s as well. Dominus Iesus closes thus:
“The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication.”
There is a distinction between “exists in” and “only exists in”, which is what Benedict’s distinction implies, just as there is a difference between a Church possessing in its nature all that is needed for salvation and sanctification and possessing “many elements” thereof, and these deriving their efficacy from the Church of Rome. I would suggest that the Eastern and so-called Oriental Orthodox churches are churches because they are apostolic in origin and lack nothing except juridical unity with Rome. They make saints, and God has blessed them with miracles as proof.
Neither does Lumen Gentium, or any other Church document, say the Church of Christ subsists anywhere else than in the Catholic Church. It does say that elements of the Church of Christ are present in other churches and ecclesial groups — which would account for the many instances of holiness and miracles in the Orthodox Churches. Moreover, the Church has said for centuries that the Church of Christ is identified with the Catholic Church. Further, Vatican II in Orientalium Ecclesiarum says, “The holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government” — thus using the traditional language concerning the Church and the Mystical Body. (Orientailium Ecclesiarum, by the way, was promulgated the very same day as Lumen Gentium.)
So, basically, the popes over centuries, councils, the sensus fidelium, Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI have all gotten it wrong. Your interpretation (and, I emphasize *your* interpretation) of Lumen Gentium is the only thing that has gotten it right. As far as I know, your ecclesiology does not agree with any Orthodox ecclesiology or any traditional ecclesiology — except for the Anglican branch theory, but with the Anglican branch lopped off.
My ecclesiology? Huh?
Not so long ago I would have agreed 100% with everything you write. I had drunk deeply from Catholic writings on the subject. All I can say is that reading the Orthodox version of things, not to mention non-Catholic historians, it does not seem so black and white. At any rate, at this point in my life I am not much interested in arguing, nor in mere propositional truth, let alone in polemics.
“My ecclesiology? Huh?”
Let me rephrase it. Your account of the nature of the Church and its structure.
Again, your *account of the nature of the Church and its structure* is neither Catholic nor Orthodox or Oriental nor Coptic. From this fact it follows that you must deny the magisterial authority of any of these groups, for you have tacitly, at least, asserted that they are all wrong. Actually, you have clearly asserted that the Catholic Church is wrong, though not is so many words.
“At any rate, at this point in my life I am not much interested in arguing, nor in mere propositional truth, let alone in polemics.”
No, you are interested in asserting your own opinions and then retreating when you are challenged.
No, I am just not up for a long drawn-out argument, and my thinking is all tentative. My “account” of church structure is more like a sketchbook, trying to get a likeness. Reading other than Catholic sources I can’t help see that it is not so clear-cut as I was taught.
Please note again that I believe in Petrine and papal primacy; my questions have more to do with how this is stated and how it is applied, and how it evolved.
“I would suggest that the Eastern and so-called Oriental Orthodox churches are churches because they are apostolic in origin and lack nothing except juridical unity with Rome.”
Of course these are true churches, but true particular churches, i.e., dioceses or groups of dioceses, but unfortunately, cut off from the center of unity. Also, in some cases at least, there exist defects in their faith.
May I remind readers of this blog of my article, “What is the Church of Jesus Christ?.” published in Homiletic & Pastoral Review in March 2008 and originally inspired by a discussion on this blog? I try to make all the necessary distinctions among the various meanings of “church” and so on.
It is available here:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8181&CFID=47309823&CFTOKEN=95283257
and was posted on this blog on April 27, 2008.
One does not need to drink deeply from Catholic writings to knpw the Church is in freefall. One only needs to read the BIBLE, even the Catholic versions of the Bible. The Popes in my lifetime, and I mean ALL of therm, have been heretical. For a decade the priests ahve been GAY and abusive of the boys of the Church. The scriptures have been torn apart and its time for honesty. However, honesty will not make the Catholic Church the Lord’s Church. For THAT the Church needed AUTHORITY and you cannot buy that out of the proceeds of candle and prayer books.
One only needs to read the BIBLE, even the Catholic versions of the Bible.
That’s why you have thousands of Protestant sects. They all say the same as you do, but come to radically different conclusions. That’s why a Teaching Authority is needed.
The Popes in my lifetime, and I mean ALL of therm, have been heretical.
How so?
However, honesty will not make the Catholic Church the Lord’s Church. For THAT the Church needed AUTHORITY and you cannot buy that out of the proceeds of candle and prayer books.
You’re not Joseph D’Hippolito writing under another name, are you?
For a decade the priests have been GAY and abusive of the boys of the Church.
The vast majority of priests I’ve known are not child-molesters, whatever their other faults might be,