Transubstantiation and the Eucharist

We have started catechism classes at my parish in preparation for adult baptisms and confirmations over Easter. As part of the classes, the Rector and his wife have started a mini Anglo-Catholic series for the next few weeks and opened up the invitation to anyone in the parish who wanted a refresher. Last night we focused on the physical aspects of the church building herself (the naive, the sanctuary, the narthex, etc). One of our soon-to-be Christian sisters, asked what physically happened to the water when it is blessed by a Priest. It was a good question and one of those innocent questions whose answer is usually overlooked and taken for granted by cradle Catholics. This opened up into what happens to the bread and wine when the Priest blesses it.

It is important to note that it is not official Anglican theology (haha official Anglican theology, as if that is even a thing) that the bread and wine literally turn into the Body and Blood of Jesus. In fact, transubstantiation is seen more as a doctrine that falls short of the meaning and grace inherent in the Eucharist (which was news to me when I started attending an Anglo-Catholic parish but an idea that I have come to embrace). Father Travis pointed out something that he said came from a theologian whom he respected greatly (he didn’t mention who it was and I didn’t ask after to follow up but the way it sounds I am pinning it on Alexander Schmemann for now). When the Priest consecrates the bread and wine which come from the people as physical gifts that represent what nurtures and sustains us, they are essentially making the bread and wine into more of what it is supposed to be. Because in our secular world bread and wine are commodities, to be bought and traded and sold and what drives those economies in our physical need for sustenance. But when the faithful  conduct the offertory and bring up these items to the altar to offer to God, they are transformed by the Priest into that which they were meant to be, a gift from God, a part of God that was given to us to sustain us and bring us to everlasting life with Him. I thought that was a beautiful and very interesting aspect of the Eucharist. In that sense it does become the Body and Blood of Christ because that is the food required for salvation (as Jesus says very clearly in the Gospels, “unless you eat of my flesh and drink of my blood you will not have eternal life.”

Personally, I’ve always maintained the literal interpretation of the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ. And I probably always will subscribe to this understanding because it makes sense to me. But what Father Travis shared is certainly not in contradiction to that doctrine, rather it compliments and enriches it. It also allows a person who struggles personally with the doctrine of transubstantiation to come to the alter with reverence, and worship filled hearts. It is very Anglican in that sense and for that reason I am drawn to it.

As a side note, my favourite part of the evening was when we started to dip into devotions to Mary (a very contentious issue within Anglo-Catholicism). People shared their thoughts and opinions (which were varied). I explained that the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception is actually a new innovation in the Roman Church that was brought about via a new tool the Pope was given after Vatican I, namely, ex cathedra powers to declare matters of faith and morals without concurrence in synod. But at the end, amid all of the hanging tension from the discussion, Father Travis says, “well this seems like a good time for tea, let’s have tea.” And I immediately realized how Anglicanism is able to keep such a large tent erect without major issues, we always break for tea when things get heated.

WordPress #Catholic Tag

Do anyone else find the #Catholic hashtag on WordPress to be insanely depressing? It is loaded with blogs with titles like “True Catholic” and “Authentic Church” that rail on the present day pontificate of Pope Francis, the status of the church on a range of social issues and the ecumenism with fellow protestant Christians. It is depressing and sad and it hurts my heart to see the Church and Body of Christ do divided among the faithful here. It especially troubles me that seemingly thoughtful and devout Catholics are turning on their fellow church members in a blanket condemnation of the so-called Culture of Death.

When I read the posts in the #Catholic hashtag in WordPress, it reminds me of what Jerusalem must have been like at the time of Jesus. If the pharisees had WordPress their #Jewish hashtag would look a like like what the #Catholic one has been made to look like by a handful of modern faithful. The fact that these people do not see the connection in what they are doing today to the Body of Christ and what the Jewish leaders at Jesus’ time were doing with the law is deeply troubling for me. When I read through the hashtag, I see a self-proclaimed Church-militant that is obsessed with minor liturgical movements like whether to take the Eucharist on the hand or mouth (never minding the fact that we are in a crisis worldwide because people are not receiving the Eucharist at all), I see a supposed Church-militant that is more obsessed with sex and homosexuality than the secular world they are so quick to condemn and I see nothing but hate, division, vitriol and disgust and there is nothing Christ-like about any of those things. Worst of all, they are doing it all in the name of Christ, which saddens me to no end.

My prayer today is that the Spirit moves and helps these people to see that they are scourging the Body of Christ when they write these posts and continue down these divisive and dangerous paths. I pray that the Holy Spirit give them wisdom and grace to see the error in their ways and to come to know Christ who said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.”

Lent 2019

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways. 1 Corinthians 13:11

A non-Christian friend of mine asked me what I was planning on giving up for Lent this year. I sighed and explained that the idea of giving something up for Lent was a childish expression of our faith. I went on to explain that as an adult, we are called to focus on three main aspects of Lent; almsgiving, prayer and fasting. The problem with approaching Lent as a period of 40 days when we give something up is that more often than not what we are giving up is something we shouldn’t be engaging in anyway, and Lent is not supposed to be a time to work at eradicating bad habits or creating new ones, rather it is about preparing ourselves to be witnesses to Resurrection of Jesus Christ. In an adult faith, Lent is more about adding and enriching than it is about taking away and giving up. Fasting is but one aspect of the Lenten season.

I have three spiritual goals in mind for this Lenten season in order to prepare myself to witness the Resurrection of my Lord and Saviour.

First, I will be setting up the electronic collection plate service with my church. At present, I donate to the church on an ad hoc basis and usually directly into the collection plate each Sunday with whatever change or cash I have in my pocket at the time. Same for my donation for parish events. Part of my Lent this year will be budgeting a percentage of my income to be donated to the church on a bi-monthly basis. This will extend outside of Lent obviously, but I am using my Lenten obligation of almsgiving to establish the rate and the transfers so that I can ensure a steady donation stream into the future.

Second, I will be making a serious effort to pray Morning, Evening and Night prayer from the Roman breviary each day during Lent (including the Sunday feast days, which traditionally are not subject to your Lenten fast). This plays directly into the prayer aspect of Lent and my hope is that I can develop better habits for prayer and making time for more structure prayer in my life. I am drawn particularly to the Liturgy of the Hours for many reasons but the strongest is that the prayer as the breath of the church is tied to the seasons and the mass readings. It really is a wonderful way of sanctifying time, which is a core of the Christian faith (especially in comparison to Eastern faiths).

Third, I will observe specific fast days where I will avoid eating from sunrise to sundown. I would love to go a full day without eating but with my kidney disease, it is not recommended. However, a breakfast in the morning before the sun rises (and after my Morning Prayer) and a late supper once the sun has set will do the trick. I know friends who avoid alcohol and other types of vices, but these are the sort of things that I mentioned earlier should be avoided anyway, so their place during the Lenten season is questionable. Plus I do not drink that much anyway, so it wouldn’t be much of a thing to give up. Avoiding coffee on the days when I fast will be the hardest I would imagine.

I also plan on attending the Stations of the Cross liturgy at my church which adds to the prayer aspect of Lent.

What are your plans for Lent this year?

New Death Penalty Teaching

The big news out of the Vatican today (not a phrase you see often), is that the Pope has approved a reworded portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, specifically paragraph 2267 which will now read:

Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. (emphasis added)

This news is not entirely new because Pope Francis spoke last October about wanting to review the Church teachings on the death penalty and it was a topic during the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization that took place that same month. This English text is the fruitful effort of that council as well as the work of Cardinal Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The new text was introduced with a letter from Cardinal Ladaria where he explains that this is not a new doctrine or a contradiction from previous teaching, but is a natural evolution of our understanding of the dignity of humans:

If, in fact the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good, today the increasing understanding that the dignity of a person is not lost even after committing the most serious crimes.

Personally, I have never supported the death penalty. I went to a Roman catholic school and I remember very clearly in grade 9 watching Dead Man Walking about Sister Helen Prejean and her work with Matthew Poncelet during his time on death row. I consider the greatest sin of a state to be the murder of innocent citizens, and the fact that we are incapable of knowing for fact the guilt of any person (even in seemingly clear cut murder cases) means that there is always a risk of the state murdering an innocent person and thus the death penalty is immoral. That is the logic that I am able to use to justify my position. And it is rooted in the dignity of the body, being a creation of God that we have no right to extinguish (even with seemingly good reason). I am therefore certainly not upset that the Pope and the church have taken this position on the death penalty, but my catholic spider senses are tingling here…Cardinal Ladaria is stretched to explain that this is not new doctrine, and he does it by saying that it is our secular understanding of the dignity of the body that has informed the church’s refined position on the matter. The problem with that thinking is that the source of the dignity of the body does not come from our secular understanding– no university professor or philosopher has articulated any powerful message as to why I should care about my brother– it comes from our understanding of our relationship with God and the fact that each and every one of us are created uniquely by God. We therefore all have certain rights and dignity that comes from that fact. This is the source of western human rights. We do not have rights because we are a collection of atoms, we have rights because we are creatures of God. Nothing new has been revealed recently about the dignity of the body. It is part of the Deposit of Faith and has been present since Christ’s Resurrection when the body was glorified. It is a core teaching of the faith that stretches back to the Jews in exile and their understanding of how the world was made– man being made in the image of God and all. So I am personally at a loss to understand where the good Cardinal is coming from when he asserts that this is not new doctrine.

And this is where I am going to depart from the Roman church. They were wrong, and have been wrong on the death penalty for a long time. Their understanding of the dignity of the body is sound, but they made the error long ago of caving to secular and temporal political opinions against the Will of God which was clear in the Deposit of Faith. We know why the church endorsed the death penalty, it had been done for centuries around the world and was being done within advanced western societies (hello United States of America) and the church was not willing to go down into a fight with the state about the issue. It was political and the Roman church failed her faithful in this teaching. And today they are continuing the sin because of their own pride, they cannot admit that they were wrong and are now making a course correction, instead we get a very smart Cardinal contorting himself into all sorts of wild positions in order to justify what is essentially a new or rather corrected doctrine because of the fact that the Roman church puts more emphasis on an appearance of never being wrong rather than just admitting it is not how the church works at all– it is not how the Body of Christ works at all. This is yet another example of Roman church leaders using weak logic to paper over a major sin of the church of the whole, the sin of pride believing that somehow they are incapable of impressing their own human sin and error onto the church that very much exists within the world and is influenced by the broken and sinful humans.

It is good news that the Roman church is finally teaching proper catholic doctrine as present in the Deposit of Faith concerning the death penalty. But it is a sad that they continue to try and fool the faithful in thinking they were not wrong to teach acceptance before, or that this is not a new or complete change in teaching on the subject. I suppose I can chalk up not being made to feel like a fool when Cardinals and the like try to sells these illogical lies to another reason why I am happy to have left the Roman church.

Image credit.

Authority of Rome: A Catholic Perspective

This post is the third and final instalment on a series concerning the authority of Rome and the infallibility/supremacy of the pope. We will explore the doctrine of papal infallibility from the lens of Christians who still call themselves catholic despite no longer being in official communion with Rome. For some, this is because they do not see Rome has holding the monopoly over what is and is not catholic. For others, this is because they believe that the Roman Catholic church has departed from true catholic teaching or “that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all” (Fr. Vincent of Lérins). This post will examine those positions specifically from the Old Catholic Church and the Anglican Catholic Church. For the purpose of this post Roman and catholic will be distinguished terms; it shall not be assumed when one reads catholic that this means Roman.

The only place to start when we discuss the position of non-Roman catholics on papal infallibility and supremacy is the First and Second Vatican Councils– more so the First Vatican Council. As we learned in the Roman perspective on the issue, the doctrine of papal infallibility/supremacy that we understand today is relatively a very new concept within the Roman Catholic Church having been defined clearly in the 1870s and then further refined in the 1960s. When speaking of papal authority within the church there is a definite pre- and post- Vatican Councils era that any honest observer should take into account when reflecting on a supposed catholic position on the doctrine itself. A period before the doctrine was defined where there today exists a dispute between Romans and catholics as to whether said authority was exercised without resistance (and hence not requiring definition) or was not exercised and hence didn’t require any resisting. And a period after the doctrine was defined when a portion of the Roman Catholic church broke away on the issue itself and many Roman catholics now attend Sunday services in Anglo-Catholic churches– and the established Roman Catholic church insists that the doctrine makes up a core component of the catholic faith requiring strict obedience.

There is no dispute that in the pre-Vatican I council period of the church there was no definitive (let’s say written down, at least) definition of the the doctrine of papal supremacy. Today, proponents of papal supremacy (the Roman Catholic church as a whole) maintain that the doctrine existed during this period but, as Cardinal Newman said, did not require defining because it was held to the evident by the church and her faithful. However, there is a segment of those who call themselves catholic (but not Roman), who would maintain that the doctrine was not defined because it did not exist and was never truly held to be evident by any single person. These faithful point to catholic textbooks and catechisms such as the one I quoted in the previous post that clearly stated there was no authority granted to the pope of that kind.

(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?

(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.

Another good example from history is that of the use of oaths of office, especially throughout England, Scotland, Whales and Ireland (and even into Quebec and Canada) because of the historical religious tension between catholics and protestants in those regions. In the early 1800s during the reign of the King George III, a catholic who wished to take public office in any form had to swear an oath that protected against a (now defined false, and therefore heretical) claim by popes that they could forgive regicide and directly guide state affairs through their office (what was in the pre-Vatican councils period, the fundamental question of papal supremacy, it was not about faith or morals at this point). Part of the oath stated, “it is not an article of the Catholic Faith, neither am I thereby required to believe or profess that the Pope is infallible.” And this was supported by the Irish bishops in 1826 when they stated in a pastoral letter to the faithful:

[t]he Catholics of Ireland not only do not believe, but they declare upon oath … that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they required to believe, that the Pope is infallible, and that they do not hold themselves ‘bound to obey any order in its own nature immoral’, though the Pope or any ecclesiastical power should issue or direct such an order; but, on the contrary, that it would be sinful in them to pay any respect or obedience thereto. (Pastoral letter, 25 January 1826)

Contrary to what the Roman church and her theological authorities continue to repeat, it does not appear that there was a clear definition or understanding of papal supremacy/infallibility in the early church, nor was there indications of a consensus among Bishops, clergy and faithful. This is the position of many catholics who fall outside of the Roman church. They do not see a legitimate claim that the doctrine of papal infallibility/supremacy has existed clearly through-out the history of the church– and some consider this to be new doctrine.

Along the same lines of there being no clear consensus on the authority of the pope through-out the bulk of the history of the Roman church, Old Catholics specifically charge the Roman church with the error of adding doctrine to the faith. This point was touched on in the post on the protestant position on Roman authority as well. The premise is that the whole collection of what has been revealed to mankind concerning God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as well as the mission and intention of the Church has been handed down in what is called the Deposit of Faith, this Deposit can be accessed by the church and she does regularly as a source of her teaching and preaching of the Good News around the whole world. However, she cannot add to this Deposit, because what has been revealed has been done by God and cannot be altered or added to by the church– not even the pope. And the Roman church does hold to this belief as well. It is without question a catholic doctrine which is professed in the Apostle’s Creed when we say that we believe in One Holy Catholic Church– meaning whole and complete as well as united and together. However, the Roman church does not consider the doctrine of papal infallibility– first defined in the 1870s and again in the 1960s– to be new doctrine because it is a fruit on the tree of faith which has grown over time– or, as Cardinal Newman pointed out, it has existed the whole time (which as we explored earlier, is not entirely conclusive). Old Catholics maintain that what has been taught within the faith throughout the ages and for all time was altered during the course of the First Vatican Council and then again during the Second Vatican Council. Admittedly, there has been some significant controversy within the Old Catholic movement (the “leader” who I quoted in the opening of this post never even associated himself directly with the break from the Roman church) and today the Old Catholic church permits the ordination of married male Priests.

The fallout of not adhering to the authority of Rome but still holding catholic value (or attempting to), is clear in the Anglican Catholic church of today. Members of this church often see themselves as catholic, and would even consider themselves as individuals to be in communion with Rome and still catholics despite the official position from Rome being that they are not in communion. They take issue with certain non-essential elements of the Roman faith which within the Roman church are taken very seriously. These are the trivial cultural practices that although very important, are often presented within the Roman church as being on an equal footing with tenant of the Creeds, for example. This is often because of the zero-sum-game that is created an organization is establish along the blind adherence to how a single man does something in a specific part of the world. Anything you do, regardless of where it falls along the hierarchy of importance within the faith, becomes taboo when it is not in line with what Rome does, it puts the actions and will of the pope on equal, if not very, very near footing with the Will of God for His Church. That is a problem to many Anglican Catholics who have left the Roman church as a result.

A summarizing sentence for the catholic position on papal infallibility/supremacy and the authority of Rome could be: it was never part of the catholic faith to profess the infallibility/supremacy of the pope, that is a new doctrine and it is an error of the Roman church to continue to teach it.

Image credit.

 

Feeding the Five Thousand

In the Gospel reading for this Sunday we hear the account from John of Jesus feeding five thousand people with bread and fish who had gathered to hear him preach near Passover along the shores of the Sea of Galilee (called Tiberias in the reading).

After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiber’i-as. And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased. Jesus went up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples. Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, “How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little.” One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?” Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.” So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten. When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!” Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself. (John 6:1-15, RSV)

The miracle of Christ feeding the five thousand– aside from the Resurrection– is the only one mentioned in all four gospels. The miracle is important within the context of the Gospel of John because it forms the co-foundation, along with the miracle of turning water into wine at the Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), of John’s emphasis on Jesus as the “bread of life” (John 6:35-59). This idea forms the backbone of our catholic liturgy where Christ gives Himself in the bread and wine forming the Body and Blood and feeding the multitude of His faithful (CCC 1335).

The passover is mentioned three times in the Gospel of John (supporting a three year public ministry of Jesus). It was an annual Jewish celebration to commemorate Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. It involves gathering for a liturgical feast called a seder in which the story of Exodus is retold, unleavened bread with dressed lamb is served and psalms are sung. The importance of passover in this story from John’s gospel is an undercurrent of the on-going narrative as Jesus’ coming to be that of the true “Lamb of God” (John 1:29), whose redeeming work would accomplish a new deliverance from sin (John 8:31-36). The connection between our liturgy and the liturgical meal inherent in the seder is made evident in John 6:53-58:

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.

And further expanded on by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 bringing the seder feast, Christ and the Lamb of God together (no doubt strongly inspired by the Holy Spirit):

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Jesus gives thanks to the bread and fish before distributing it to the people. The Greek word used in the original translation of the gospel account is eucharisteo which is where the English word Eucharist derives from. This miracle is a clear foreshadow of the institution of the Last Supper and has a direct link to the celebration of Mass that we catholics gather for on Sunday (and everyday for that matter, all around the world).

God be praised!

Image credit.

Authority of Rome: A Protestant Perspective

This post is the second installment of a series on papal supremacy/infallibility and the authority of Rome. The first installment on the authority of Rome from a Roman Catholic perspective can be found here. The series was the product of fruitful discussion on a post concerning the 185th anniversary of Anglo-Catholicism. Please feel free to comment on any post in the series, or offer your opinion on this callout post for ideas, theories and opinions on the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Before we begin this post on the protestant perspective of papal authority, it is important to define the boundaries of protestant theology within the context of this post. Dissent among protestants regarding the pope and the Roman Catholic church in general range from opposition to a handful of doctrines to complete rejection of everything catholic all of the way to ascribing a heinous mission for the Roman church as the whore of Babylon spoken about in the Book of Revelations. Before I can begin a discussion outlining the various protestant positions, I would like to make it clear that we will not be concerning ourselves with outlandish, ill-founded and flat out unChristian ideas about the catholic church. This post will specifically focus on the theological positions of the Anglican Communion (disregarding the Anglican Catholic movement in this particular series for now), and Reformed Christian churches. Note that the position of the  Eastern Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches will not be covered in this series, those will be part of the third and final installment on the authority of Rome from a catholic perspective. If you want some information on extreme positions against the catholic church (if not for curiosity sake), I encourage you to check out Are You Drinking From The Babylon Cup who has a very respectful blog with a lot of information (even if I do not agree with his opinions at all).

Another important item to keep in mind when reading about the various protestant positions on the supremacy of the pope is that historically opposition to the pope did not fall along the lines of how we understand the doctrine today. Given that the formalization of the supremacy/infallibility of the pope was first defined in 1870 at the First Vatican Council and then further defined at the Second Vatican council during the 1960s, we have to remind ourselves when reading about bold statements of opposition to the pope from history, that those dissenters were not writing about the doctrine as defined today, in fact in most cases what they were historically opposing was concurred by the church during the First and Second Vatican councils (more on that below). In history, traditional opposition to the bishop of Rome, rested on his temporal ability to make or end monarchs through out Christian Europe, to forgive regicide and to control the public decisions of catholic secular leaders– all items which were defined by the First and Second Vatican councils as in fact falling outside of the authority of the bishop of Rome.

Protestants the world over generally disregard the doctrine of papal infallibility based on a few common points:

  1. The Roman church relies on a overly literal reading of Matthew 16:18 (when Jesus apparently called Peter the Rock upon which He will build His church). James Robert White points out that in the passage Peter is the second person “you” but that “this rock” (being in the third person), refers to Christ. Protestants read Matthew 16:18 as Christ telling Peter that He is the Rock and Peter (along with the other apostles) is laid upon it to build the church
  2. Protestants point out that this interpretation of Scripture was supported by Saint Augustine of Hippo when he wrote, “on this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (petra) is Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built.” (On the Gospel of John Tractate 12435)
  3. Protestants understand “the keys” mentioned by Christ in Matthew 16:19 to be the Word of God which ties in with instructions given to Timothy by Saint Paul regarding the defense of the true gospel accounts by apostles
  4. Reading Luke 22:32 when Jesus prays for Peter’s faith to be returned and strengthened, Protestants assert that infallibility cannot possibility rest with Peter as that would make the prayers of Christ regarding his faith redundant and pointless
  5. Protestants maintain that Peter’s prominence in the Book of Acts is overplayed by Roman Catholics. A reading of Acts as a whole together with the epistles presents a division within the church between Peter and Paul over the admission of Gentiles. During the First Council of Jerusalem, Protestants agree that it appears Peter rose to make final judgement, but the debate leading up to the council played out between Peter and Paul in their letters. Many times Paul rebukes Peter for not accepting Gentiles into the Christian faith as Christ directed. Protestants assert that it is Paul who takes center stage during the Acts of the Apostles and any inclusion of Peter is done to justify Paul’s position of authority among the Christians (many times Paul appeals to how he has the same powers and Spirit as Peter despite not being a direct witness of the life of Jesus Christ)
  6. Protestants point out that no formal Jewish magisterium existed and yet the faith endured for over a thousand years before Christ, Protestants use this historical fact to point out that the Roman Catholic teaching is a new doctrine (more on ‘new doctrines’ will come in the third installment, in this argument Protestants are pulling from the catholic playbook, and it gets a little awkward because of that)
  7. Protestants sift through history and point out several occasions when popes have spoke heresy (as recognized by the Roman church herself today, see mention above about temporal authorities of the pope) and use this to refute the claim that the pope alone is infallible. Specifically, Protestants will ascribe little weight to a pope stepping in to avoid heresy on the grounds that heresy was avoided because the opinion of the pope prevailed, Protestants consider this to be a cyclical argument that is illogical and has absolutely no direct Scripture to back it up
  8. Protestants point out that the Roman claim that monarchical leadership by an infallible pope as being inevitable within the universal church (or the more secular argument that any large organization needs decisive and clear leadership) as being directly contrary to Scripture where the church hierarchy is explained in a more local manner with deacons, priests and bishops (Titus 1:5-7, see also Saint Ignatius of Antioch quote in previous series posts)
  9. Protestants argue that over the entire history of the church, papal infallibility/supremacy lacked universal or widespread acceptance in the Christian world (even within the Roman church herself) which supports the claim that there is a lack of scriptural and historical basis for the doctrine itself. This was the issue addressed by Cardinal Newman in his quote about doctrine not being defined until it has been violated, but a historical review of how the First Vatican Council came to discuss papal authority will reveal that it was on the suspicion by church authorities that Pope Pius IX had overstepped his own authority in unilaterally ruling in favour of the Franciscan view of the Immaculate Conception of Mary over the Dominican view within the church which makes Newman’s casual observation about the defining pre-existing doctrine a little rich, considering the subject was the potential violator in this instance

A simple statement to capture the Protestant position concerning the Roman doctrine of supremacy of the pope can be summed up thus: it is not supported in Scripture or the historical record. They claim that the Roman church relies on a overly literal reading of certain passages of the gospels in order to justify a position of leadership for Peter above the others. Furthermore, they assert that claims to papal supremacy have more to do with secular issues than any ecclesiastical ones (this is supported historically, in that no pope has ever had to exercise papal authority to keep bishops from erring against the Creeds, it has always been done when theological questions fell along potentially new doctrine development, for example asserting the Immaculate Conception of Mary).

Individual Protestant churches have articulated their position on papal authority via various statements of faith or articles of faith. Again, we have to keep in mind that more often than not however, these articles were composed well before 1870 and therefore are not direct objections to how we view the papacy today, but to the clear abuses of papal authority that even the Roman church acknowledges today (no reasonable catholic argues that the pope has the authority to make or break world leaders or demand that a catholic government official does something).

The Anglican Church articulates her position against papal authority in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (which according to Anglo-Catholics contains nothing which is contrary to true catholic teaching):

XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils. General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Note how the Anglican Church acknowledges that councils and the faithful are subject to err and that they have erred in the past but that the metric for determining the error was not a secular office, but the Word of God itself.

John Wesley amended the Anglican Articles of Faith for use by Methodists. The Methodist Articles of Faith are similar to the Thirty-Nine Articles but omit the lamenting about councils being in error in the past, or capable of error in general:

V. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation..

Reformed churches and Presbyterian churches reject papal infallibility outright. The Westminster Confession of Faith, which was meant to replace the Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith in 1646, outright call the pope the ‘anti-Christ’:

(Chapter one) IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

(Chapter one) X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

(Chapter Twenty-Five) VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Evangelical and Pentecostal churches all reject the authority of the Pope. As does the Church of Latter Day Saints and the Jehovah’s Witness. These churches tend to oppose the pope along the same theological lines as the Methodists (going so far as to call the pope the anti-Christ and ascribe heinous intentions regarding its formation).

The next installment of our series will cover the authority of Rome from the catholic perspective. It will require the reader to divorce the concepts of Roman and catholic and to understand them as two separate things. We will cover the position of the Orthodox churches, the Old Catholics and the Anglican Catholic perspective. To get the brain working before that installment is released, I leave you with this article from the 1860 edition of Keenan’s Catechism which was widely in use across England, Scotland and Wales within Roman Catholic schools (it was approved for use after being found to contain no catholic doctrinal error):

(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?

(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church.

Image credit.

Authority of Rome: A Roman Perspective

A very interesting discussion has unfolded on this blog concerning the authority of Rome and whether such authority is legitimate and catholic. It started with a post I had written on the 185th anniversary of Anglo-Catholicism with a historic sermon delivered by John Keble at the University Church of St Mary’s in Oxford. Ben (Politics for Catholics) and Must Follow If I Can both added substantial comments on the subject of the supremacy/infallibility of the pope. I also added a callout for opinions on the authority of Rome (that was where Must Follow If I Can jumped into the discussion) I would be remiss not to admit that this topic appears to have dominated by intended summer series on the catholic liturgy– but clearly the Spirit is alive and well around here and there is a need to explore this topic.

In this post we will examine the authority of the Bishop of Rome from the perspective of the Roman church. We will dive into the teachings of the Roman Catholic church concerning the supremacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome and how this manifests itself in the day to day workings of the church as a whole. We will specifically focus on the articulation of the doctrine during the First and Second Vatican councils.

The Roman Catholic church teaches that the Bishop of Rome is the “true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians” (Pastor aeternus Chapter 4, para 2, First Vatican Council from the Council of Florence). This authority stems from a link between Peter the Apostle to the bishop of Rome which was articulated during the Council of Lyons, “[s]he truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power.” The Roman Catholic church relies on nine sources of scripture to defend the link:

  1. Peter is listed on the top of the ‘apostolic list’ when Jesus calls His followers together (Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14)
  2. Peter is often singled out among the other apostles (MK 1:36, 16:7, Lk 9:32)
  3. When the temple tax collectors approach Jesus’ followers to collect the required taxes, they approach Peter which signifies his eminent position of leadership within the group (Mk 17:24-27)
  4. Peter often spoke to Jesus on behalf of the twelve apostles (Mk 8:29, Lk 12:41, Jn 6:66-69)
  5. Peter is one of the three apostles who is given special attention by Jesus; when Jairus’ daughter is raised from the dead (Mk 5:37), during the Transfiguration (Mk 9:2), witness to the Agony in the Garden (Mk 14:33) and Peter is renamed by Jesus as well from Simon to Peter meaning ‘rock’ (Mk 3:16)
  6. Jesus told Peter that He prayed for him personally at the Last Supper that Peter would turn again and steady the faith of his brother apostles (Lk 22:31-32)
  7. When the tomb is found empty and Peter and John find out, John races ahead of Peter but waits at the entrance for Peter to enter first (or with him), signifying the esteem the other apostles held Peter in (Jn 20:3-8)
  8. Jesus appears privately to Peter after the Resurrection and Peter is the first of the twelve apostles to witness the Risen Christ (Lk 24:34, 1 Cor 15:5)
  9. Jesus promised that He would build His church on Peter (Mk 16:18), make him the keeper of the keys to the Gates of Heaven (Mk 16:19) and put Peter in charge of His sheep (Jn 21:15-17)

The Council of Florence articulated the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic church with the Bishop of Rome at the top, followed by the Bishops, followed by the Priests and then the laity. The Council spoke of the “pre-eminence” of Rome which was made clear in previous historical events in which Rome rules on heresies within the church (as pointed out in the comments, the overruling of Pope Leo the Great following the Council of Chalcedon).

The First Vatican Council formalized and crystallized the authority of the Bishop of Rome in the dogmatic constitution, Pastor aeternus. That document states clearly that the Pope has supreme authority over:

…matters of faith and morals … and … discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

And furthermore, the constitution called on all members of the church to obedience on the doctrine at hand:

…clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, … bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience.

The Second Vatican Council continued to see the fruit of the doctrine of Papal supremacy and infallibility grow on the tree of faith. In the dogmatic constitution on the church (Lumen gentium), the manifestation of the articles contained within Pastor aeternus were explored further, especially in regard to how the Roman Pontiff worked with fellow bishops from around the world. What arose was an ecumenical concept that called for “bishops [to be] joined with one another, and the Bishop of Rome, by bonds of unity, charity, and peace.” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. Ecc.). How we understand the Pope today in the modern church is the function of the articulation of the doctrine during the First and Second Vatican councils. A lot of scholarly reading that I did over the weekend on Lumen gentium spoke with a hopeful tone of how the new concept of the Bishops working together with the Bishop of Rome would materialize in the church. Today we see this with national, regional and topical synods that produce rich and thoughtful theology and dogma to inform the vicar of Christ and indeed the whole church. It is because of this careful balance between supremacy and ecumenism that was developed from the First and Second Vatican councils that we can say today that a unilateral action of the Bishop of Rome has not happened in modern times, and most likely will not happen in modern times– that is not to say he lacks the authority to do this. But it speaks to the secular practicality of the governance of the church as a whole, when the system  which has been developed (or inspired) eases historical tensions.

Furthermore, Lumen gentium explained the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and his fellow bishops thusly:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.

The Roman Catholic Church maintains that the authority of the bishop of Rome was present in Peter from the start of the early church. For this it largely relies on nine moments from the Acts of the Apostles:

  1. Peter initiated and oversaw the replacement of Judas following the Ascension of Jesus (Acts 1:15-26)
  2. When the Spirit rained down on the apostles during Pentecost, it was Peter who delivered the inaugural sermon (Acts 2:37-41)
  3. When crowds accepted the testimony of the apostles, it was Peter who urged them to repent and be Baptized (Acts 2:37-41)
  4. It was Peter who recorded the first healing within the church (Acts 3:1-10)
  5. When Peter and John were arrested and asked to account for their actions, it was Peter who spoke on their behalf (Acts 4:5-12)
  6. Peter handled the first case of ecclesial discipline within the church (Acts 5:1-11)
  7. It was Peter who brought the Spirit to endorse the new missionary as the church spread beyond Judea and into Samaria (Acts 8:14-17)
  8. When God had arranged for the first Gentile conversations, He sent Peter to preach and administer the Baptisms (Acts 10:1-48)
  9. When the first recorded council in church history took place in Jerusalem, it was Peter who stood up and ended the debate with a solemn proclamation of Christian doctrine (Acts 15:6-11)

The Roman Catholic church maintains that this authority has developed over time within the church. Cardinal John Henry Newman (thanks to Must Follow If I Can for the quote) provides one the best explanations for the development of the papacy when we look through the historical record in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine:

When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated.

And, in like manner, it was natural for Christians to direct their course in matters of doctrine by the guidance of mere floating, and, as it were, endemic tradition, while it was fresh and strong; but in proportion as it languished, or was broken in particular places, did it become necessary to fall back upon its special homes, first the Apostolic Sees, and then the See of St. Peter.

The Second Council of Lyons I think sums up the authority of the Bishop of Rome from the Roman perspective in one simple line: the Bishop of Rome is the head of the “Holy Roman church [with] … supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole catholic church.”

Image credit.

When Father Bradford Goes Away — Congregation of St. Athanasius

An essay written by Fr. Joseph F. Wilson in 2001. Every once in a while, my friend Father Bradford will … Continue reading →

via When Father Bradford Goes Away … — Congregation of St. Athanasius

A large part of what drew me to the Anglican Catholic church away from the Roman Catholic church was the liturgy. My first High Mass experience at my local Anglo-Catholic parish was intense and I had walked into it without any clue as to what I was getting myself into. The choir was amazing and sang the entire hymns, there were beautiful vestments, and incense, the Priest faced east with the people (one of the Priests was female! and the other I am pretty sure just mentioned his family sitting in the pews!!) and the booklet for the service had all of the text the Priest would say, what I was required to say and little notes to make sure I understood what was happening (I went to RC school from kindergarten to grade 12 and there was more liturgical information in that little booklet than I had been exposed to in my whole Catholic formation). The mass lasted an hour and a half, starting at 1030 and going all of the way to 1200 and when I looked around at about the hour mark it didn’t seem like people were squirming in their pews ready to jump out at the words, “the mass has ended.” Also, everyone was welcomed to the hall for a light lunch and socializing together afterward, which I have come to learn is a regular occurrence and a staple at most Anglican parishes.

At any rate, I want to share this particular post with you by a Priest who is reflecting on spending time in a Roman Catholic designated Anglican Use parish (a little different than the Anglo-Catholicism that I find a home in under the Church of England, but not by much). Hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

Definitions — The Soporific Sycophant

I promise that this is not a petty junior high school girl question; I have a larger philosophical question in mind. So do me a favor and follow this dumb scenario for a second. There is a guy and a girl who are seemingly friends. The girl has a crush on the guy but we […]

via Definitions — The Soporific Sycophant

Editor’s Note: She doesn’t have commenting up on her blog but I wanted to respond directly to the questions raised in this post because they are very interesting.

To kick off, intent does matter. And it matters in our government too. In order for any act to be deemed criminal in our justice system it requires that two elements be present actus reus (the criminal act) and mens rea (a criminal mind, or criminal intent). Mens rea specifically can have an objective or subjective analysis. For example, first degree murder requires a subjective analysis of mens rea, that is that the individual themselves were intent on killing the victim. Manslaughter on the other hand requires an objective analysis of the mens rea, regardless of what the individual intended would a reasonable person in the same situation conclude that the action could cause death. And the way you approached what is essentially a division of objective and subjective reality with your dating question in your post is exactly where you should be starting in these lines of questions. You asked whether an act between two people going out could be objectively a date but subjectively not. And you dove further, and questioned whether it was possible that one person could concur with the objective reality while the other did not– and I wager once I am done this comment you’re going to realize you already do know the answer.

Suppose you and I are standing in a room facing each other with a large wooden table between us. The room is completely bare, save for a large window directly behind you. From where I stand the table is light brown because the sun is shining directly on it. From where you stand the table is dark down because the sun is not shining directly on it. We are asked what colour the table objectively is and I say “light brown” and you say “dark brown” … who could be correct? Objectively the table must be a colour but subjectively, how we individually see the table, there are literally hundreds of millions of different colour combinations that the table could be called. Does it mean that the table in fact has no objective colour? That there is no objective truth? We can use a better example to dive into this question. What makes a fork a fork? You might say well a device that can be used to pick food and transport it in pieces to the mouth. Well I can do that with a screwdriver, so can a screwdriver be a fork? There must be something, some essence, that makes the fork a fork. For early philosophers like Plato that essence was the concept of the perfect fork that existed on some other plane but which we were aware of in this imperfect world (he used the analogy of a perfect circle which although easily conceived by humans, can never actually be physically made here on earth). Schopenhauer (who I love) went a little further and said that objects have a thing-in-themselves that usually manifests in utility, so a fork is a fork because, when I look at it, I imagine using it to pick and eat food and I do this because the thing-in-itself for a fork is a device used to pick and eat food. Schopenhauer also added that the thing-in-itself could never fully be perceived or understood either, for once it manifested itself materially it would become imperfect and therefore would cease to be a thing-in-itself. But I digressed in the philosophical history lesson.

To commit an act of sin requires both a sinful act and sinful intention. Sometimes this intention is subjective (i.e. did the person themselves knowingly intend this sin) and sometimes it is objective (i.e. would a reasonable person in the same position conclude it would be a sin before doing it).  It is not much different than our criminal system (probably because the criminal system was modelled after our understanding of sin at first). The difference between the criminal system and how God distributes justice is that a judge from the courts of the land cannot read into your heart and soul and know what you were thinking and knowing at the time. God really doesn’t require the objective reality because He is the objective reality and because He knows your subjective self objectively, that is what makes Him God. He does not have to compare your actions to a concept of a reasonable person because He can just know what you were thinking and what motivated your actions. He also knows what defences you might have before you even need to make them. A great Priest once told me something very insightful in high school when I was struggling with the same questions about sin because I do not consider it a sin to have sex outside of marriage in a monogamous and loving relationship. And I racked myself over this because objectively it can be said to be a sin but subjectively it did not feel that way to me and not just feel but logically it seems the spirit of the sinful act was a lack of monogamy and a depreciation of sexual acts. So he summed it all up for me,

“You know, come Judgement Day it will be just you and God, not me, not the Pope, no lawyer, no advocate, just you and Him. And you won’t need to speak or even defend yourself, He knows. And He will pass judgment. So if you’re comfortable in your decision, like really deep down comfortable and can say to yourself, knowing that God knows if you’re doubting or if there is a place inside saying it is not right that you are ignoring, that you are not sinning, than you are ready for Judgement Day.”

And I think considering the nature of God and the realities of objective and subjective truths in the world, that this is a pretty good approach and one that is certainly evident in the Christian faith.