Bible Boom

Bibles are becoming as much personal statements as fashion statements. "What people are saying is 'I want to find a Bible that is really me," noted Rodney Hatfield, a vice president of marketing at Thomas Nelson. "It's no different than with anything else in our culture."

This is from Joanne Kaufmann in Bibles Are Booming in today's WSJ.com's Opinion Journal. Bible sales are up. Curiously,

General-interest bookstores, while declining to give figures, have also seen increasingly strong sales. "Bibles are a growth area for us and we're giving them more space in our stores," said Jane Love, religion buyer for Barnes & Noble. "It's partly because of the way they've evolved over the last three or four years."

I don't know why figures would be declined, but maybe they don't want to give estimates or bad numbers if they don't really know (does that really stop most business spokesmen?) Cynically, I think maybe some people don't want to share any good news about more Bibles being sold lest it encourage the wrong sorts of people.

Anyway, Bibles are shapeshifted, repackaged, retranslated, niche-targeted, gender-neuteralized and so on to suit the market. Illustrated manuscripts go back some centuries, of course, but I don't think that that "packaging" was to push sales or respond to the market.

But, hey, if more people are really reading the Word, then at least we're a step closer to more people doing the Word, as St. James writes in his Epistle. But if we're looking for a Word to make us feel good about ourselves, then we can stand in line with the folks in the Old Testament who looked for prophets to tell them what they wanted to hear.

We do see a picture of ourselves, per James, in the Word, but it's meant to show us our errors and what we are to be like in Christ. The Word burns and purifies. If more people want that, we can give thanks.

Comments

[coco]

Individualised bibles: The worst of the many good and bad things the revolution/German civil war called the Reformation brought

we Christians have always needed the Church that Christ founded to maintain the culture and civilisation (I claim no less) out of which the Bible grew. Then she was needed to interpret it authoritatively.

[Nick]

Load out on the shelves might indicate prime movers. If that's the case KJV and NIV copies are in high demand especially when they come with footnotes. NKJV probably gets some demand based on the name. RSV is not, probably many have never heard of it. There are a few NRSV. Of course you can always deform the figures by standing next to the case and making recommendations to those there :)

[Bill R]

Here's how I can make my million: I'll market a niche version of the Bible in which at every point where the Bible says "you," my version will insert the purchaser's name. Truly an individual version of the Scriptures!

(Problem is: someone may really be working on this, for all I know.)

[Brandon Rhodes]

While the press is doubtless being helpful by bringing this issue up as "news" every few years, by leading us to reflect on how publishers package and market the Bible, in fact the "news" is really about a hundred and fifty years old, and dates to the American Bible Society's decision to mass-produce cut-rate Bibles "without note or comment" — which has ever since then been a thorn and a spur to publishers, who must always produce something beyond the plain product of the ABS in order to induce the public to pay for more than the simple text of the Bible.

See Paul Gutjahr's An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States, 1777-1880 for early examples of how publishers distinguished their Bibles from each other; the Mars Hill Audio Journal did an interview with the author several months ago.

[Ethan Cordray]

My college roommate and I came up with another great Bible marketing scheme: scented Bibles, targeted to various demographics. Pine for the "Wild at Heart" guys, floral for the church ladies, fruity for the Christian "Cosmo" crowd, crowd, and of course old pipe smoke for the "Touchstone" types.

[Bill R]

"My college roommate and I came up with another great Bible marketing scheme: scented Bibles, targeted to various demographics. Pine for the "Wild at Heart" guys, floral for the church ladies, fruity for the Christian "Cosmo" crowd, crowd, and of course old pipe smoke for the "Touchstone" types."

And raspberry for cranky bloggers!

[Brian John Schuettler]

Here's how I can make my million: I'll market a niche version of the Bible in which at every point where the Bible says "you," my version will insert the purchaser's name. Truly an individual version of the Scriptures!

(Problem is: someone may really be working on this, for all I know.)

That might be a problem when you get to Jesus chastising the Pharasees....Woe to you (Brian & family) you brood of vipers! Brian,you whited sepulcher! You are all a den of thieves!...oh,oh....I'm in trouble

[Bill R]

"...oh,oh....I'm in trouble."

Brian, you'll need the custom version (extra cost, of course): "insert someone else's name here!" Guaranteed to make you feel better (or at least superior to other sinners...).

[Reid]

As Lazarus Long once observed, the best place to hide a needle is not a haystack but a needle factory. If Babylon cannot keep the Bible out of a man's hands, she will put a thousand different Bibles in his hands with the same result. Darkness and fog equally blind.

[Gene Godbold]

Reid, that's probably true. Still...I doubt the Devil can really feel happy and comfortable with that many copies of the Word of God being produced where anybody could be led of the Spirit to actually read it.

[mairnéalach]

I was recently intrigued to hear notices of the St. John Bible. When I finally saw a copy in a bookstore last week, I was disappointed. The calligraphy is indeed beautiful, but the artistic inserts seem meaninglessly abstract to my eyes. It felt like a bible for mere aesthetes.

On the other hand, Barry Moser's Pennyroyal Caxton bible has sometimes been a good devotional aid for me. The text is less florid but the engravings are mesmerizing, lending a certain imaginative weight to the readings which feel in accord with the Holy Spirit's messages to me.

My favorite bible to date is my pastor, when he pronounces the forgiveness of my sins for Christ's sake. No chapter annotations or study notes there, but it's remarkably effective.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>One pastor I know uses some paraphrase I can't even recognise as Scripture; if he didn't have chapter and verse citations I'd be lost. When it gets to that point I tune out.<<<

Much of <\it>The Message affects me that way.

[John Peterson]

It kind of bothers me to hear stuff like "if more people are really reading the Word," and "copies of the Word of God."

The Word of God is not a book. It is the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Amen?

[coco]

Yup, amen!

[Bill R]

"The Word of God is not a book. It is the Son of God, Jesus Christ."

And the Scriptures are the Word of...whom?

[coco]

nuh-uh, Bill, they're not the Koran...ue a small 'w' at least.

[coco]

...which is another way of saying that the sacred authors, though often anonymous, were never puppets.

[coco]

and, of course, had to be selected by mother Church. Quite a few contenders didn't make the grade. Imagine that happening to the Word of God!!!

[Bill R]

"nuh-uh, Bill, they're not the Koran...ue a small 'w' at least."

No, the Bible is not the Koran (I assume you are referring indirectly to a dictation theory of Scripture), but the Word of God is both Christ and His Scriptures. I fail to see what point you're trying to raise.

[Bill R]

"and, of course, had to be selected by mother Church. Quite a few contenders didn't make the grade. Imagine that happening to the Word of God!!!"

Though our comments "crossed" (so to speak), I still don't follow your point. What was selected is still the Word (not just the "word") of God, is it not? The "dictation" theory need not be asserted to affirm that the Scriptures are indeed the Word of God.

[coco]

the Scriptures are indeed the Word of God

Who has the right to affirm this, Bill?

And does not the affirmer have final authority over the interpretation of that which is affirmed?

[coco]

Plus, as was said above J. Peterson, I'm still objecting to the 'W'. That's the second person of the Holy Trinity, Who is not to be identified with the Bible.

[Bill R]

"Who has the right to affirm this, Bill?
And does not the affirmer have final authority over the interpretation of that which is affirmed?"

You're pursuing a point, Coco, that's not under attack here. No one is talking about interpretation of the Scriptures.

"Plus, as was said above J. Peterson, I'm still objecting to the 'W'. That's the second person of the Holy Trinity, Who is not to be identified with the Bible."

Of course not. "Word of God" is a true title of Christ. But the Scriptures themselves refer to the Holy Writings as the Word of God. You seem to be raising a rather arcane point that is off the subject.

[zozo]

No, Bill, it's always the elephant in the room here. It's the 'C' word. write it, Bill, write it! :)

[zozo]

I rebooted and my id changed. I was coco. imago before. Apologies!

[John P]

I was of course, referring to the Gospel of John for the meaning of God's "Word." Of course, that the Word is incarnate, becomes flesh, means that many aspects of our world, the incarnate, can be godly. The Bible is one of those things, part of Holy Tradition, fulfulled in the lives of the saints, in the Church, etc. The Bible, because it is in written language, is the word of God in a certain sense independent of the proper title Word of God. The confusion is of course understandable. But the Bible does not partake of the incarnate Word any more than St. Ambrose of Milan. Both are of God because of the Holy Spirit.

[coco]

Without the Church, the bible is just a bunch of words ready to be "individualized" by professors, pundits and booksellers. Am I becoming less arcane?

[coco]

Another crossed post. I have to chew on what you just wrote, Bill, it's very interesting!

[John Peterson]

I was of course, referring to the Gospel of John for the meaning of God's "Word." That the Word is incarnate, becomes flesh, means that many aspects of our world, the incarnate, can be godly. The Bible is one of those things, part of Holy Tradition, fulfulled in the lives of the saints, in the Church, etc. The Bible, because it is in written language, is the word of God in a certain sense independent of the proper title Word of God. The confusion is of course understandable. But the Bible does not partake of the incarnate Word any more than St. Ambrose of Milan. Both are of God because of the Holy Spirit.

[coco]

Woops! No wonder I thought it was interesting, coming from Bill! Apologies for not reading the signature, John P. No offense intended, of course, Bill.

[John Peterson]

It's OK. I'm still confused, though. Sorry about the double post.

[coco]

Hmmm, I have that effect all right. With me, it's more a question of occasional lucidity than lapses therefrom. Would it help if I re-emphasised my preference for lower-case 'w' in scripture as 'word of God'? Let's reserve 'W' for Himself.

[coco]

And the rest of my blitherings were an attempt to set the ecclesial cat among the scriptural pigeons...in the interests of mere Christianity, of course!

[Isamashii Yuubi]

I have been following the comments on this blog for about a month now (I followed a link on our assistant rector's blog), and think I am finally ready to introduce myself. This particular discussion reminded me of my first bible.

My grandfather (we affectionately called him "Opa")bought my sister and I each a bible for Christmas when I was six. My version was an "International Children's Bible: New Century Version". Opa passed away of a heart attack a couple of weeks before Christmas that year, and I can still remember how I felt when I opened that package on Christmas morning to find, of all things, a precious bible from my beloved deceased Opa. It is pink, and has many illustrations and maps. I treasured and used that Bible for years.

When I graduated from high school, my pastor gave me a KJV with my name embossed on the cover. I have since learned to appreciate the more beautiful flowing language of the KJV more than any other, but that little pink children's bible will always hold a special place on my bookshelf.

I find it sad that some see this precious book as a "personal statement". To me the only "statement" to be made is God's. The thing that makes my Bible tailored to me is the same thing that makes it tailored to everyone else who knows it for what it truly is, that it is God's message for our salvation. And it makes a pretty good instruction manual for life.

I hope my ramblings make some sense, and I look forward to future discussions. I've read about 80% of the comments to this blog for the posts from the last year, I work my way through the archives at work.

Blessings!

[Pr. David Poedel]

At the end of the pericope read in the Divine Service each week in my congregation, the Lector proclaims "This is the Word of the Lord" to which the congregation responds "Thanks be to God". Close enough for me.

As a former professor in a secular college teaching science and "religious studies", I taught the Holy Scripture from a canonical approach, in isolated contrast to the other profs in the department. My sections filled first every semester until my retirement.

Interesting aside: when I arrived at the congregation I currently serve, the Bibles present in the pew and classrooms were NIV. I preach and teach from the ESV...within 2 weeks, the folks raised enough money to purchase enough ESV Bibles (just the Scripture, no desigener editions) to serve the classes. My own encouragement is, and remains only an encouragement and not a result, is to have each member have and bring their OWN Bible, but that would make them look Baptist, I guess (I am LCMS Lutheran). Interesting...

[Bill R]

"And the rest of my blitherings were an attempt to set the ecclesial cat among the scriptural pigeons...in the interests of mere Christianity, of course!"

I suspected as much, Zozo (or Coco--no doubt the "C" word...) But I'm not biting!

[Bobby Winters]

I have a special Bible myself. It is a KJV, which I love, but it is also a Scofield shudder addition. It was a gift from a now departed Sunday School teacher.

[Gene Godbold]

John Petterson wrote:
>>The Bible, because it is in written language, is the word of God in a certain sense independent of the proper title Word of God. The confusion is of course understandable. But the Bible does not partake of the incarnate Word any more than St. Ambrose of Milan. Both are of God because of the Holy Spirit.<<

I'm not sure this distinction can be maintained. God is the author of both the Scriptures and St. Ambrose.

The Word of God proceeds from the Father and the word of God comes forth from the Son. (I always figure the two edged sword in the mouth of Jesus in the Apocalypse is His irresistable word before whom no one can stand.) It seems related to Paul's mention (in Ephesians) that the only offensive weapon we have is the "word of God".

It seems that the Word of God is present in the scriptures in some strange way. Perhaps as strange as the way the Word of God is present in the Eucharist. There is plenty of evidence for this from the Fathers as well as internal evidence in Scripture.

Incidentally, if St. Ambrose was partaking of the Eucharist, then he was partaking of the Word of God...as he was also when he was baptized..and when he was ordained.

Also, Peter indicates that when we were given "exceeding great and precious promises" that by these we have the opportunity (presumably if we accept them) to "be partakers of the divine nature". At that point, he's writing (2 Peter 1) to folks who had received these promises verbally, but now we have the opportunity to believe the promises as we read them in the word of God. Therefore, it seems to me to follow that the Scriptures can be a medium by which we can become "partakers of the divine nature". The Reformers (among others) put a lot of stress on Word and Sacrament and I think the conjunction is something we should maintain. (Not that anybody is arguing against that, I'm just emphasizing that the presence of the Word of God isn't to be limited. He's present in the Scriptures as well as in the Eucharist.)

[coco]

Bill, Bill,

the 'C' word is 'Church'!

Fish that bite that one get on to the bark of salvation...

God Bless.

[Gene Godbold]

If Bill has been baptized, he's in Her. If you disagree, you can (one day) take it up with the only One whose opinion counts in this matter.

[coco]

Glad to hear from you Gene. Now let's find out where this Church is. For starters, I think it should be a church that claims to be that Church. Also, the one that claims to be the final authority on the meaning of scripture. That's the church worth belonging to. The rest are only playing, even if it's with bibles they're playing.

[John Peterson]

Gene... so you're agreeing with me, right?

Is there a contradiction between

me: "the Bible does not partake of the incarnate Word any more than St. Ambrose of Milan. Both are of God because of the Holy Spirit."

you: "God is the author of both the Scriptures and St. Ambrose."...?

No. Anyway, my Bible is "The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox," edited by Johanna Manley. It's great because it is organized according to the Church year, containing the readings for each day along with commentary from the fathers, mostly St. John Chrysostom. Really beats it into one that the Church is the only authoratative source of Scriptural interpretation (not that a Holy Father can't be wrong).

[James A. Altena]

"Now let's find out where this Church is. For starters, I think it should be a church that claims to be that Church. Also, the one that claims to be the final authority on the meaning of scripture. That's the church worth belonging to. The rest are only playing, even if it's with bibles they're playing."

Or, the claim could also be a sign of extreme hubris. That is not to sanction a principle of either private interpretation of Scripture or ecclesial relativism. Rather, it is to recognize that in a fallen and sinful world, where man has breached the church into schism, it may be the case that no one visible institutional expression of the church can make such a claim to the exclusion of all others.

Perhaps, at best, a visible ecclesial body may claim in humility to be the best of a broken lot, the least sick of all the invalids, rather than asserting itself to be the one true Church and all others to be "false" churches (a subject I raised in another blog here some months back). The assertion that a given visible ecclesial body is the one true church to the exclusion of all others embraces a failure to distinguish between what the Church is ontologically, and what it shall be eschatologically, on the one hand, and what it is now in time between those two antipodes of the other. It also commits the logical fallacy of conflating the "Church" as the Body of Christ with one particular institutional manifestation of the Church.

Likewise, a such a body could claim to be essentially faithful to Scripture without declaring itself to be the final authority over Scripture to the exclusion of all other such bodies. It could recognize other bodies as being more or less faithful accorrding to received criteria such as the Vincetian canon and Nicene Creed.

Since we are not Christians apart from the Church, the Body of Christ, the necessariy logical (and, I hold, uncharitable) end of such a position is to assert that members of (false) "churches" other than his own are also false "Christians". In which case there is no real point in such a person being a Touchstone subscriber or Mere Comments blogger.

I am a member of a particular ecclesial communion. If asked, I am willing to explain why I believe it is correct and another communion is not on a given issue. But I simply would never dream on that basis of asserting my church to be ipso facto superior to another. I simply do not understand the constant itch certain Christians have to criticize and denigrate churches other than their own, instead of binding up the wounds of their own sin-wrached ecclesial bodies. It is simply a monstrous sin of pride.

To put a key point here a bit differently, here is a question I have raised several time in various venues, but to which I've not had a real answer (or even a real debate): Is schism by definition necessarily only *from* the Church, or is there also such a thing as schism *within* the church? On the basis of the "factions" in I Cor. and the "many flocks" in John's Gospel, I would argue the latter. Does anyone have at hand citations from the fathers one way or another on this specific point?

[Bill R]

Thanks, James. Per usual I knew if I waited, you'd state it better than I could.

And yes, Coco, I knew what "C" word you were referring to. But I do what I can to avoid intramural fights. "Contentious" is also a "C" word, one which I hope to avoid.

[William Tighe]

James,

You asked:

"To put a key point here a bit differently, here is a question I have raised several time in various venues, but to which I've not had a real answer (or even a real debate): Is schism by definition necessarily only *from* the Church, or is there also such a thing as schism *within* the church?"

I will give a bibliographical answer and refer you to three books. They are:

*Schism in the Early Church* by S. L. Greenslade (London, 1953: SCM Press)

*The Idea of the Church* by B. C. Butler (1961)

*The Church and Unity* by B. C. Butler (1979)

Greenslade, a liberalish Anglican Evangelical and later Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, argued that all the Fathers believed, some more clearly than others, that all schism was from the Church (except those that concerned neither doctrine nor discipline, but simply over matters such as, e.g., disputed episcopal elections -- but that even these, if they proved inveterate, risked outting the wrong faction outside of the Church) and not within the Church. However, he goes on to argue that the Fathers were mistaken: they based their arguments on bad Scriptural exegesis and an intolerant and narrow-minded attitude towards dissent and disagremeent.

Butler, educated an Anglican and briefly a priest in the Church of England before "poping" and become a Benedictine monk and later an auxiliary bishop in the Westminster Archdiocese, wrote the earlier of his two books as a direct response to Greenslade (and some other Anglicans). In it he argued that the testimony of the Fathers was clearly that all schism was from the Church and that as a result an Anglican (or Protestant) ecclesiology of a "divisible church" had no claim to be Catholic and that the only "qualified claimants" to be "the Church of the Fathers" were the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and he argued in favor of the Catholic Church.

(continued)

[Gene Godbold]

Dear John P,
Yes, I was just seeking clarity, not disagreeing. In my rambling fashion, I was trying to point out how I thought that the Word of God--the Son of the Father--could be present in a person (St. Ambrose), a sacrament (the Eucharist) and a text (the scriptures). How He is present I cannot begin to tell you, but we seem to have assurances from many sources generally regarded to be authoritative by Christians of all stripes, that He is. Of course, He is pre-eminently present in the person of Jesus Christ, but not (obviously) to the exclusion of other, uh, venues.

[Gene Godbold]

Dear Prof. Tighe,
If one thinks that the Roman Church *is* the Catholic church then I agree that, to be reasonable, one must become Roman Catholic. In such cases Anglicans such as Newman, Chesterton, Butler, etc. do the honorable thing.

I happened to go the other way for the same question answered differently (not that I'm in the class of the first two--I've never heard of Butler until today, but he was probably smarter than me, too. Not that it takes much, you understand. :-)

In any case, the Fathers were writing before the big split when it was pretty obvious (among the contenders) who was the universal church. Even when it didn't look like she might survive (like in Athanasius contra mundum) she was still there.

[William Tighe]

(con't'd)

In his second book listed here, *The Church and Unity* (London, 1979: Geoffrey Chapman) Butler wished to discuss how Vatican II and its decrees had affected the controversy. He was at great concern to controvert the widespread view, among both Catholics and non-Catholics, that Vatican II had seen the Catholic church abandon its claim to be "the one true Church." Rather, he insisted, that the one "shift" that Vatican II had seen was that whereas since at least St. Augustine the dominant Western view had been that while "valid" sacraments could exist outside the Catholic Church those sacraments were not "efficacious" the Catholic church had come to believe that they could be "efficacious" as well as "valid" if the non-Catholic body in which they were celebrated had "valid orders" (for those sacraments in which Orders were necessary for their celebration); he also gave a much more nuanced account of the status of the Orthodox Church vis-a-vis the Catholic Church than he had given in his earlier book (in which he had described it as "schismatic" -- no more and no less).

No doubt there are other books that treat particular aspects of this question in much more historical and theological detail than these three, but they do offer clear and contrasting views of the question, based on both historical and theological considerations.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If one thinks that the Roman Church *is* the Catholic church then I agree that, to be reasonable, one must become Roman Catholic. In such cases Anglicans such as Newman, Chesterton, Butler, etc. do the honorable thing.<<<

At the time that Newman, Chesterton and Butler converted, this was the self-understanding of the Latin Church: there was one true Church, the Church of Rome, coterminous with the Church of God, outside of which was undifferentiated darkness. This exclusivist ecclesiology, however, was a relatively new development for the Latins, since it was not present at the Council of Florence in 1439, but had become the accepted norm by the Council of Trent in 1565. What happened in the interim? The Protestant Reformation, which postulated a very different, "non-institutional" definition of Church. In the crossfire, the older ecclesiology that saw the Church as a communion of particular Churches was lost--for four hundred years.

Thus, when a group of Orthodox bishops in the Kyivan Church sought to enter communion with the Church of Rome in order to avoid persecution by the (Catholic) rulers of Austria and Hungary, they did so on the assumption that the rules of Florence applied, that they would be treated as a distinct Church with all the rights and prerogatives applying thereto, including the right to their own theology, spirituality and canonical discipline.

They were very much put out to discover that the terms written into the Treaty of Brest, by which they entered communion with Rome, were no longer acceptable to Rome, because, as a papal bull of the time put it, since Rome was the one true Church, nobody could negotiate or dictate terms to it; moreover, because Rome was the one true Church, there could be no others, so the "Ruteni" as they were called, were only a group of repentent schismatics, who might be allowed to retain some of their liturgical usages by dispensation. In other words, they were "rites" of the Roman Catholic Church, not true Churches in their own right.

This situation persisted until the Second Vatican Council, where Lumen Gentium first stated that the Church of God "subsistit in" (as opposed to "est") the Catholic Church. This in turn allowed the Decree on the Oriental Churches to recognize the ecclesial reality of the Eastern Catholic Churches--that they are "true Churches" equal in grace and dignity to the Church of Rome. It also allowed the Decree on Ecumenism to recognize the ecclesial reality of the Orthodox Churches (Eastern and Oriental) and the Church of the East, thereby opening the door to a reconciliation that was not merely submission.

Contrary to what many believe, these changes were not innovations, but a restoration of the status quo prior to Trent. In both the first and second millennia, there had been many ruptures of communion between the Latin and the Eastern Churches. However, in all of these, there was never any question that the Eastern Churches were anything other than "true Churches", even if not in communion with Rome. Vatican II restored that understanding by setting aside the exclusivist ecclesiology of Trent, which WAS an innovation. That it perdured for 400 years does not mitigate the fact that Trent was a discontinuity with the past, one that was acceptable only within the context of the Reformation, and which had no real interest in or concerns about the Eastern Churches.

This opens up an interesting possibility, based on what we know, e.g., of the theological positions of many of the English intellectual converts of the 19th and early 20th centuries: if the post-conciliar ecclesiology had been in effect, and if Orthodoxy had been established in Britain in a manner that made it more than merely the property of small and socially marginal immigrant communities, would it have attracted discontented Anglicans in the same manner that Orthodoxy has been attracting English intellectuals since the second half of the 20th century? There was much that Newman believed and professed that did not fit well with the Vatican I Catholic Church, but which might have been congruent with Orthodoxy.

Conversely, Vatican II accepted much of what Newman believed that was controversial in his day, yet the Catholic Church does not seem to be attracting as many high-caliber converts as it once did. Could it be that, due to the Latin Church's fixation with novelty and innovation since Vatican II, the very real reforms and restorations of the Council have been buried underneath what appears, to many Anglicans, anyway, a situation of liturgical and theological chaos not too different than that which they face in their own ecclesial communities?

[Gene Godbold]

Stuart,
I wouldn't be *that* hard on them. :-) I don't think their theology is chaotic--it just seems like their liturgy is in a state of flux. Also (sorry folks) it's ugly.

(Of course in several instances I disagree with the theology, but that's beside the point. At least it's clear. Much better than the mush that issues forth from my own communion.)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Is schism by definition necessarily only *from* the Church, or is there also such a thing as schism *within* the church?"<<<

In the patristic era, schism was not an "all-or-nothing" situation. Rather, the Church recognized different degrees of schism with different degrees of severity.

The worst form of schism is one that results from heresy. In this case, because one or more bishops hold a position contrary to Tradition, it is not possible to maintain communion with them, nor are their sacraments and orders considered to be valid. This is a schism FROM the Church--those who hold these beliefs and follow those bishops have placed themselves OUTSIDE the Body of Christ.

Next down the scale are ruptures in communion between Churches caused by ecclesiastical disputes involving discipline or prerogatives. Such disputes are seen as sinful and need to be healed as quickly as possible, but the opposing sides do not (as a rule) see the other as being "outside" the Church. They are considered separated bretheren with whom reconciliation is possible without the need for a new profession of faith.

Finally, there are separations caused by personal disputes between bishops. These are always sinful and should not be tolerated, and all members of the Church should bring their good offices to bear on healing the breach as quickly as possible. Needless to say, in such situations, the faithful under the jurisdiction of both bishops remain members in good standing of the Church, even while communion is ruptured between them.

Because the two most common causes of schism do not involve heresy, the patristic Church recognized the possibility of "mediate communion": A is in communion with B, and B is in communion with C, but A and C are not in direct communion with each other. Nonetheless, ecclesial ties remain because A and C are in communion with each other through B.

This is the situation that pertained in 1054, when the Antiochian Patriarch Peter III remained in communion with both Rome and Constantinople even after they had broken with each other. He saw the dispute as being one primarily concerned with ecclesiastical governance and discipline, rather than with fundamentals of doctrine, and therefore he saw no difficulty in maintaining communion with both and attempting to use his office to heal the breach. His irenic outlook was rare in that day, and so it should not surprise us that he failed.

Examples of double communion were common from 1054 through 1724. Various Metropolitans of Kiyv were in communion with both Rome and Constantinople, as were several Patriarchs of Antioch. Only when the Antiochian Patriarchate split in 1724 (over an unacceptable Greek candidate put forth by Constantinople) did the split become more formal. Even then, informal ties remained open in both the Middle East and Eastern Europe--witness the repeated injunctions by both sides against intercommunion. Intercommunion remained common in Eastern Europe up to the suppression of the Greek Catholics in 1947-48. It remains common between Melkites and Antiochian Orthodox to this day (mainly in the Middle East, where the Antiochians are not corrupted by legal-minded Protestant converts). Intercommunion is becoming more common in Eastern Europe again, because most Eastern Christians see themselves in the same boat against a rising secular tide.

When my daughter was in Romania this summer helping at an Orthodox orphanage, she asked the local priest if she could receive communion, and he asked her why not. She said she was a Greek Catholic, and he said, "So? They are the same thing as Orthodox". When she told him that Orthodox bishops in the U.S. frown on giving communion to Greek Catholics (some, anyway), he said, "That is stupidest thing I have ever heard".

Apparently, old habits die hard in the Carpathians.

[William Tighe]

Mr. Gobbold,

You wrote:

"In any case, the Fathers were writing before the big split when it was pretty obvious (among the contenders) who was the universal church. Even when it didn't look like she might survive (like in Athanasius contra mundum) she was still there."

I doubt that this was the case; in fact, I would go further and dent that it is or was in any sense "obvious." Even before Constantine, schismatic churches such as the Novatianist Church (founded 251) and the Donatist Church (313) claimed to be the "true Church" in a strong and exclusive fashion, with as much insistence as the orthodox made the same claim over against them, and in both cases the initial schism was based on purely disciplinary considerations (the Novatianists, in fact, adopted the theology and creed of the Council of Nicaea with enthusiasm, even though the one Novatianist bishop who turned up at the council was ejected as soon as it was relaized that he was a Novatianist: but despite this they were still treated as "outside the Church" by the orthodox Fathers). And later on, if one looks at the matter without theological parti pris, the claim of the East Syriac Mesopotamian Church (so-called "Nestorian") after its definitive separation from the Church in the Roman Empire in 484 to be "the true Church," or that of the communion of Churches (today called the Oriental Orthodox) in Armenia, Syria, Egypt and Ethiopia that rejected the Council of Chalcedon of 451 (and which by 566 at the latest had become completely separated from the imperial "Chalcedonian Church") is no less strong or compelling, historically speaking, than that of the Catholic West or Orthodox East after the date (whether 1054 or 1484 or some other in between) of their definite separation.

It is telling, I think, that those who would want to argue along the lines of your argument, against the virtually unanimous consensus of the Fathers, that the Church is divisible and that schism can be within as well as from the Church, have to invoke historical arguments that, on a closer acquaintance with the facts and a surer feel for long-gone realities, cannot be sustained.

[coco]

Guys, I just Love this site! Bill, 'C' for contention is wonderful in the cause of our common, beautiful faith.

[Gene Godbold]

Stuart wrote:
>>Finally, there are separations caused by personal disputes between bishops. These are always sinful and should not be tolerated, and all members of the Church should bring their good offices to bear on healing the breach as quickly as possible.<<

Well there goes the whole alphabet soup of the Anglican continuum. Help us! Please, help us!!
:-)

[Gene Godbold]

Is Gobbold supposed to be some sort of commentary on how I treat my food? Sheesh...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Also (sorry folks) it's ugly.<<<

In Latin, it still has a certain austere beauty, especially when chanted. And I AM talking about the Novus Ordo. My problem is I can never find a priest and a choir willing to celebrate it that way at one of my Orientale Lumen Conferences.

Eventually, we stopped having Western liturgies, mainly because feedback from the Roman Catholics, who told us we were making them look bad.

[Bill R]

"Bill, 'C' for contention is wonderful in the cause of our common, beautiful faith."

Coco, I believe we are called to contend for the faith but not to be contentious people. Peace to all who love the Scriptures.

[coco]

And peace to those who love the Church for giving us (among other things) the scriptures. Why miss the party by concentrating on the invite?

[coco]

I've just finished getting through all the recent (and all great) comments.

James A,
I don't buy the 'logical fallacy' bit. The Church's self-description is a synthetic, not analytic, statement.

Stuart, "subsistit" is stronger than "est". Vatican II didn't water down any claims.

Regards to all.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, "subsistit" is stronger than "est". Vatican II didn't water down any claims.<<<

"The Church of God subsists in the Catholic Church" is certainly a different statement from "the Church of God is the Catholic Church", and there was considerable debate at Vatican II concerning the use of the term "subsistet in", particularly in the context of the existing ecclesiology of the Catholic Church at that time. A substantial number of the bishop in attendance did in fact object to the phrase as a "dilution" of the Church of Rome's traditional teaching and self-image (at least insofar as it was since Trent. So, perhaps they missed something.

In any case, I never said that "subsistit in" was a watering down. Rather, it was a recovery of something that had been lost--the understanding of Church as communion, and for that I think you can thank the Melkite delegation, which brought Afanasiev's theory of Eucharistic ecclesiology to the forefront, along with the Orthodox concept of sobornicity.

[coco]

Stronger because defensible in a way that "est" isn't. (Note that I don't deny "est"). "Est" isn't patently obvious to many christians and non-christians and doesn't take cognizance of the tragic division that exists. Even St. Paul had to ask rhetorically if Christ was divided. He cannot be, nor can his Body be in James A's eschatological sense. However, only a church with a self-understanding consistent with that sense can possibly be considered.

[Bill R]

"Why miss the party by concentrating on the invite?"

I like that, Coco. Thanks for the invite, but I'm already at the party!

[coco]

Good stuff, Bill! They've been handing out CCC cocktails at the party recently, together with a less stiff CCCC for those with weak stomachs...always a good companion to the Bible, they come highly recommended. More C's for you to ponder on!

Mine's a CCCC (obviously). Cheers!

[coco]

And don't forget, the main event: Eucharist and Real Presence, not to be missed!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Even St. Paul had to ask rhetorically if Christ was divided. He cannot be, nor can his Body be in James A's eschatological sense. However, only a church with a self-understanding consistent with that sense can possibly be considered.<<<

That is part of the import of the susbsistit. The other was the recognition that the Church could at any moment be both one and many, in the same sense that the Eucharist is both one and many.

[coco]

The Church avoids the word 'denomination' in referring to itself. That would be a bad way of being 'many'. James A's reference to local churches (way back when I was imago) would be a good way. It's a tricky One!

[James A. Altena]

Dear Prof. Tighe, Stuart, and Gene,

Thanks for your respective posts. I'll read the books Prof. Tighe has listed before offering further comment, though I'm obviously inclined to agree with Stuart and Gene.

Dear Coco,

Actually the statement is both synthetic and analytic. But the logical fallacy still applies either way. Of course, you do recall our previous discussion of the issue of the identiity and senses of "church" under a prior blog, when you went by the moniker of "Imago," so I won't rehash that.

[coco]

James A,

If I put it as 'church X describes herself as "the Church"', can that statement be said to be analytic or merely analytic? I ask purely out of ignorance.

[coco]

Having looked some more (bless the internet, my soul) I discover the analytic/synthetic distinction is from Kant. I'm now disinclined to draw any further conclusions from it!

[coco]

Another approach: can't one claim that one can attempt to defend the statement on historical grounds ? This would seem to me to negate an a priori assertion of logical fallacy.

[mairnéalach]

quoth Stuart: "the Catholic Church does not seem to be attracting as many high-caliber converts as it once did"

Peter Kreeft, Jay Budziszewski--just two which spring immediately to mind. Okay, perhaps they're not Chesterton, but neither have they had the benefit of time and posterity to accrue yet. They certainly impress the heck outta me! (disclosure: I'm not Roman Catholic)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Peter Kreeft, Jay Budziszewski--just two which spring immediately to mind. Okay, perhaps they're not Chesterton, but neither have they had the benefit of time and posterity to accrue yet. They certainly impress the heck outta me! (disclosure: I'm not Roman Catholic)<<<

Budziszewski consistently impresses me through his articles in First Things and elsewhere. Kreeft not so much. I've never gotten over the disillusionment that accompanied "Ecumenical Jihad". But I suppose everyone has his blind spots.

[Bill R]

"quoth Stuart: "the Catholic Church does not seem to be attracting as many high-caliber converts as it once did""

Robert Louis Wilken, R.R. Reno, Thomas Howard....(More will pop into my head once I hit "post.")

Heck, Stuart, they got you, didn't they? ;-)

[Gene Godbold]

Stuart is Barely Catholic, so he hardly counts.
:-)

[coco]

Barely Catholic

In his Irish Notes (1919) Chesterton commented astutely about Belfast, where he invariably heard Protestants say "I am a good Protestant" and Catholics (as all around the world) say "I am a bad Catholic".

...from which I draw a high compliment from Gene for Stuart! :)

[Gene Godbold]

Ah, but the phrase "good Catholic girl" was often used in my (Catholic) high school about girls who were, alas, engaging in behaviors that were not good. Granted, this was 20+ years ago, and I don't know how much has changed since then. I do note that--in my alumni bulletins--the girls and boys now wear uniforms.

[coco]

Used sarcastically in the 3rd person? Did they describe themselves that way? And how the heck did I manage to derail the comments to this extent?? :)

[Bill R]

"And how the heck did I manage to derail the comments to this extent?? :)"

By the "C" word, Coco, by the "C" word! ;-)

[coco]

I guess, on a serious note, the Catechism (CCC) or the Compendium (CCCC) just wasn't available to them back then, by which they might have measured just how not good they might have been...nor was there (as I recollect from 20+ years ago) anything like (C)CCC being used in schools...

[coco]

In times like that, I'd've been happy to stuff whatever bible was available into school sacks all round--regardless whether they were missing Maccabees, Tobit, Sirach, etc :)

[Bill R]

"In times like that, I'd've been happy to stuff whatever bible was available into school sacks all round--regardless whether they were missing Maccabees, Tobit, Sirach, etc :)"

Ah, Coco--the "P" word! Welcome to the "P"arty!

[coco]

naaah, that was another 'C' rant...on the Canon of scripture! :)

[Bill R]

"Stuart is Barely Catholic, so he hardly counts.
:-)"

Careful, Gene--incoming!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Careful, Gene--incoming<<<

Oh, no, Gene's quite right. Byzantine Catholic = BC = Barely Catholic. Roman Catholic = RC = Really Catholic. One of the first things you learn when you sign up as BC. After about the sixth or seventh time that some Irish or Italian guy askes, "Are you SURE you guys are Catholic?" you take it for granted.

A man from our parish, a dentist, married a nice Irish-Catholic girl, an oral surgeon. According to canon law, the wedding should take place in his parish, according to his rite. The mother of the bride wouldn't stand for it. She had her heart set on a "real" Catholic wedding in St. Matthews Cathedral in Washington. She also wanted an organ processional (a no-no from our perspective) and for an Irish Tenor to sing Schubert's Ave Maria at halftime.

Finally, a compromise (entirely uncanonical) was reached: the organ would play the processional until the couple were halfway down the aisle, at which point we would switch to the Wedding Psalms of the Byzantine rite. Our priest would preside, using the Byzantine rite. Her priest would give the homily. After the crowning and before the dismissal, they would make an offering at the Ladychapel. Ave Maria was sung after the homily, don't ask me why.

Through it all, the mother of the bride maintained a grumpy and skeptical face. Only at the very end, when our assistant pastor presented the bride and groom with an autographed portrait of John Paul II and a rosary personally blessed by him was this obdurate woman willing to concede that we just "might" be Catholics after all.

[coco]

My point, like Chesterton's, was that being Barely Catholic is a veeeery good thing. Otherwise put: to be trying is to be succeeding, which is true for all Christians.

[Isamashii Yuubi]

Oh dear, I did not mean to imply defensiveness with my comments (concerning my first bible). I was merely sharing a fond memory and my agreement with Mr. Kushiner's post.

[Clark Coleman]

nuh-uh, Bill, they're not the Koran...ue a small 'w' at least.

Yes, we must remember to use the lower-case "w" and the upper-case "W" in exactly the same manner as the author of the gospel of John used them.

(I hope my sarcasm is not too subtle for anyone.)

Why must we invent points over which to disagree? Are the old disagreements not good enough any more? ;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>y point, like Chesterton's, was that being Barely Catholic is a veeeery good thing. Otherwise put: to be trying is to be succeeding, which is true for all Christians.<<<

The reason we are practicing Christians is that we haven't gotten it right, yet.

[coco]

Clark,

I believe Bill and I have different takes on 'sola scriptura'. I'm just trying to smoke him out! All in the interest of mere Christianity, as I said already...

Seriously, though, the first comment on this thread (mine) was pretty snarly and would richly deserve Bill's 'cranky blogger' comment which may or may not have been directed to me.

One last thing: I do think John would have had problems with a capitalisation that made his writings (though of course inspired) the equal of the Logos. But that's old hat, I'm not trying to start another tussle (this time).

[Bill R]

"Seriously, though, the first comment on this thread (mine) was pretty snarly and would richly deserve Bill's 'cranky blogger' comment which may or may not have been directed to me."

It wasn't, Coco, nor did I have any other MC commenter in mind. I simply thought you changed the subject unnecessarily. In any event, we've been through the "sola Scriptura" debate before, and I'm not sure that any of us has anything new to say on the issue. But I'm sure one of these days a blog on the issue will get the pot boiling again!