ETS Statement on Beckwith, Roman Catholicism

The executive committee of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) has released a statement noting Francis Beckwith's resignation as President and as a member of the society. The release sets the Beckwith conversion in the context of a larger discussion about Roman Catholicism and evangelical identity. The statement reads:

The members of the Executive Committee wish Dr. Beckwith well in his ongoing professional work. We have come to appreciate him as a scholar and a friend. On behalf of the Society, we want to express our gratitude for his work organizing and coordinating the 2006 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., with the theme, “Evangelicals in the Public Square.” No one, perhaps, appreciates how much labor is involved in such a task, except those who have undertaken it in the past, as is the case with most of the members of the Executive Committee. And so, we thank Dr. Beckwith for his service to the Society.

At the same time, the Executive Committee recognizes Dr. Beckwith’s resignation as President and subsequent withdrawal from membership as appropriate in light of the purpose and doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Theological Society and in light of the requirements of wholehearted confessional agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.

The work of the Evangelical Theological Society as a scholarly forum proceeds on the basis that “the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” This affirmation, together with the statement on the Trinity, forms the basis for membership in the ETS to which all members annually subscribe in writing. Confessional Catholicism, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church’s declarations from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, sets forth a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation.

Specifically, it posits a larger canon of Scripture than that recognized by evangelical Protestants, including in its canon several writings from the Apocrypha. It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church), as well as certain pronouncements of the pope, which are delivered ex cathedra, such as doctrines about the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary.

We recognize the right of Roman Catholic theologians to do their theological work on the basis of all the authorities they consider to be revelatory and infallible, even as we wholeheartedly affirm the distinctive contribution and convictional necessity of the work of the Evangelical Theological Society on the basis of the “Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety” as “the Word of God written and . . . inerrant.”

In recent years, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have often labored together in common cause addressing some of the critical social and moral issues of our contemporary culture. We welcome this and fully expect it to continue. A number of publications have appeared comparing Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism. Certainly, the two traditions share many common Christian doctrines. However there are important theological differences as well. We expect that the events of these days will bring a renewed discussion of these matters. We welcome and encourage this as well.

HT: Justin Taylor

Comments

[GL]

In light of this statement, how can Scott Hahn remain a member of the ETS?

[Bill R]

"In light of this statement, how can Scott Hahn remain a member of the ETS?"

The irony is that in his autobiography, "Rome Sweet Rome," Hahn makes a point of stressing that his rejection of the evangelical understanding of Scripture, and in particular of sola scriptura, lead him out of evangelicalism and into Rome.

[DGP]

Even though it's not in ETS' foundational documents, the phrase "Bible alone" would be a deal-killer. No doubt they;re telling the truth when they say they "proceed on this basis," but still one wonders why they don't come out of the closet and make *sola Scriptura* their declared affirmation.

Then again, they'd consequently have that pesky retorsional problem. :-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>“the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”<<<

Does anybody actually claim to have the autographs?

[Bill R]

"Does anybody actually claim to have the autographs?"

Only on Beckwith's resignation papers! ;-)

[GL]

DGP,

I would agree that the ETS could have been more precise in their doctrinal basis so as to remove any doubt about the question we have discussed on the earlier thread. (Defining precisely the canon would, for example, eliminate any doubt as to whether a Catholic or Orthodox could in honesty subscribe to the doctrinal basis.) Sloppy draftsmanship has, without a doubt, contributed to the problem. Nonetheless, in such cases, the issue is whether one should parse the words to achieve a meaning which permits one to act against the known intent of the authors, however poorly expressed. I applaud Dr. Beckwith from refraining from such an exercise. It proves his high character.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This affirmation, together with the statement on the Trinity<<<

It is good to see that we Eastern Christians aren't the only ones who like to hold contradictory affirmations in dynamic tension.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>In light of this statement, how can Scott Hahn remain a member of the ETS?<<<

He pays his dues in advance?

[JohnH]

It would seem that that ETS statement is confusing infallible with inerrant. They don't mean the same thing, and Catholics believe (as stated in Dei Verbum) that the bible is inerrant, and the magisterium is infallible. A Catholic could, without any issues, agree with the ETS statement.

[DGP]

>>Sloppy draftsmanship has, without a doubt, contributed to the problem. Nonetheless, in such cases, the issue is whether one should parse the words to achieve a meaning which permits one to act against the known intent of the authors, however poorly expressed.<<

What you describe so pejoratively as word-parsing happens to be my faith. One break to the left or the right on this issue would in my judgment be a matter of heterodoxy.

I also observe that you turn a blind eye to any fault of the ETS. Inadvertent, "sloppy draftsmanship?" Please. They knew exactly what they were writing, and why they wrote it that way. Had they included *sola Scriptura* as a matter of their faith, they'd have had to answer that five-century-old question, "By what authority do you assert that the Scriptures are the only authority, if the Scriptures themselves do not so attest?"

[GL]

A Catholic could, without any issues, agree with the ETS statement.

As written, yes, but not if he followed the interpretive instruction that the executive board referred to its members, tying the meaning of the first sentence of the doctrinal basis the the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.

[Bill R]

"Please. They knew exactly what they were writing, and why they wrote it that way."

The ETS was founded in 1949. This was long before the theological wars of the 1970s over Biblical inerrancy. If the founding statement had been from a later date, your point would have more force. I think it's fair to say that in 1949 no one would have possibly imagined that a Roman Catholic would even try to join the ETS!

[David Gray]

>Had they included *sola Scriptura* as a matter of their faith, they'd have had to answer that five-century-old question, "By what authority do you assert that the Scriptures are the only authority, if the Scriptures themselves do not so attest?"

Of course sola scripture does not theologically mean scriptures are the only authority. Consequently the question doesn't really have much impact.

[GL]

DGP,

You misunderstood the target of my remarks. I am speaking of parsing the word of the ETS's doctrinal basis, not the documents of the Catholic Church. And it is the doctrinal basis which I consider to be sloppily drafted. I am not commenting on any Catholic documents. Indeed, I find the official documents drafted by the Catholic Church to be very precise in their wording.

This is not a contract case in which the parties are litigating over a business matter; this is about how to understand the prerequisite for membership in a voluntary association which organized for the purpose of scholarship among Evangelical Protestants. One can certainly read the doctrinal basis in such a way as to permit a confessional Catholic to subscribe to it, but is that acting in good faith? I think not. This is not about winning a dispute about whether one may, looking merely at the words of the doctrinal statement, subscribe to the statement so as to remain a member. It is about whether one is acting in good faith in applying such an understanding to such words when the authors of the statement did not intend such an understanding and such an understanding is not accepted by the other members of the society.

Again, Dr. Beckwith has done the right thing. Rather than parse the doctrinal statement to reach a meaning he desired, he acted on the understanding he most certainly must have understood was intended by the authors and understood by most of the current members of the ETS.

[Bill R]

"Again, Dr. Beckwith has done the right thing. "

Very true, GL. But why in the world would Scott Hahn WANT to be a part of ETS? It's just a little bizarre.

[DGP]

>>Evangelical Protestants.<<

Ah, well, if you stipulate the term "Protestant," that settles the matter. But it also settles other, hitherto disputed matters -- the meaning of the term "evangelical," and the relationship of the Evangelical movement to Church history. Many Evangelicals will be frustrated to learn that they are by definition aligned strictly with one side in the Reformation controversies, when they thought they were "mere Christians."

[DGP]

>>If the founding statement had been from a later date, your point would have more force.<<

The Chicago statement cited by GL was from 1978.

[Bill R]

"Many Evangelicals will be frustrated to learn that they are by definition aligned strictly with one side in the Reformation controversies, when they thought they were "mere Christians.""

Whereas those on the OTHER side in those controversies WERE "mere Christians"? Hmmm...

[GL]

DGP,

I am little curious about your position on this. Do you believe Dr. Beckwith should have insisted that he retain his membership and his offices in the ETS even though he had reverted to Catholicism. Were the tables turned and the society at issue were the Catholic Theological Society, whose president converted during the middle of his term to become a Southern Baptist, would you support his insistence that he could still subscribe to a poorly drafted membership statement intended to limit membership to Catholics and so should retain both his membership and his office? Would you consider such a man to be acting in good faith?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Were the tables turned and the society at issue were the Catholic Theological Society, whose president converted during the middle of his term to become a Southern Baptist, would you support his insistence that he could still subscribe to a poorly drafted membership statement intended to limit membership to Catholics and so should retain both his membership and his office?<<<

I might actually prefer an orthodox Southern Baptist to some of the notional Catholics who make up the ranks of Catholic "theologians".

[DGP]

>>...[W]ould you support his insistence that he could still subscribe to a poorly drafted membership statement intended to limit membership to Catholics and so should retain both his membership and his office?<<

I am on record as supporting Dr. Beckwith's decision to resign, and also on record as considering this a judgment on ETS, which by implication is no longer truly evangelical (in the purely Christian sense of that word) but has become strictly Evangelical (in the sectarian sense).

I also maintain that the issue exposes a truth-in-advertising issue for ETS and perhaps for other Evangelicals. That is, if you're going to be a denomination, then you should have the honesty to admit it. It seems many Evangelicals want to claim "mere Christianity" and deny that they set ecclesiological boundaries, but then go ahead and rule out classes of people not on the basis of the faith they profess, but on the basis of the communion they publicly share.

And therein lies the answer to the question about a Catholic organization. We don't have that problem of poorly worded drafts. If we intend something to be only for Catholics, we say so, because we profess that public affliation with the visible Church in communion with Rome is part of the Christian life.

[GL]

>Had they included *sola Scriptura* as a matter of their faith, they'd have had to answer that five-century-old question, "By what authority do you assert that the Scriptures are the only authority, if the Scriptures themselves do not so attest?"

Of course sola scripture does not theologically mean scriptures are the only authority. Consequently the question doesn't really have much impact.

I like how the 39 Articles put it, in Article VI:

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 the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

I take sola Scriptura to many nothing more nor nothing less than that. Following that statement, the drafters defined the canon so that all knew precisely what they considered to be Holy Scripture.

[GL]

That should have read: I take sola Scriptura to mean nothing more nor nothing less than that.

[DGP]

>>Whereas those on the OTHER side in those controversies WERE "mere Christians"? <<

Not at all, but we don't pretend to be. Indeed, one might construe "mere Christianity" to mean precisely "Christianity without the visible Church." It's often very attractive, but definitely not a Catholic approach.

[GL]

I also maintain that the issue exposes a truth-in-advertising issue for ETS and perhaps for other Evangelicals. That is, if you're going to be a denomination, then you should have the honesty to admit it. It seems many Evangelicals want to claim "mere Christianity" and deny that they set ecclesiological boundaries, but then go ahead and rule out classes of people not on the basis of the faith they profess, but on the basis of the communion they publicly share.

It is not "a truth-in-advertising issue for ETS" which is exposed, but poor draftsmanship of its doctrinal basis. But on this point, I am sure Bill R. is correct, they never dreamed that any Catholic would want to be a member of the ETS. I will readily admit, however, that many (not all) Evangelicals have poorly defined their distinctive beliefs, but then we haven't been at it for as long as the Catholic have.

ETS is decidely not seeking to be a denomination, but to have its membership span Protestant denominations. To paraphrase that great philosopher, Barbara Mandrell, tt was parachurch before parachurch was cool.

And it is not merely the communion to which Dr. Beckwith belongs that excludes him but the distinctives of the faith of that communion which make if different from any Protestant tradition or denomination which excludes him. I would not at all be offended were my hypothetical Catholic Theological Society insist on the resignation of a member and officer who converted to a Protestant church. I would be offended if it did not. Not defending the distinctives of one's faith is a liberal approach, not a conservative one.

As to "mere Christianity," I readily accept my orthodox Catholic and Orthodox brothers to be "mere Christians." But as Lewis described it, while we may share that common hall, we have separated into many rooms which are distinct from each other. Indeed, Lewis wrote that staying in the hall of "mere Christianity" was not a viable option. Some Evangelicals may deny this, but I doubt many members of the ETS would. We may have "mere Christianity" in common, but we are not merely "mere Christians." We are Catholic or Orthodox or Presbyterian or Southern Baptist or Lutheran or Methodist, etc. in addition to being "mere Christians."

[David Gray]

>considering this a judgment on ETS, which by implication is no longer truly evangelical (in the purely Christian sense of that word) but has become strictly Evangelical (in the sectarian sense)

Presumably your church then is no longer truly catholic (in the purely Christian sense of that word) but has become strictly Catholic (in the sectarian sense).

[Bill R]

"We may have "mere Christianity" in common, but we are not merely "mere Christians.""

Well said, GL. (Let's just hope no one establishes a denomination called the "Mere Christians.")

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>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 the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.<<<

Oh, well, that's problematic, isn't it? You really can't get to the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople through Scripture alone. That was, in fact, Arius' argument--homoousios is not "scriptural". Nor, for that matter, is the term "ekpoureosis". So, you can say a lot of things about the Trinity just from Scripture, but you have a hard time saying that the Trinity is consubstantial, or that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Even those who discount everything but Scripture actually rely on a body of Tradition that transcends the bounds of Scripture.

[GL]

but you have a hard time saying . . . that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

John 15:26

[DGP]

>>Of course sola scripture does not theologically mean scriptures are the only authority. ...[W]hatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man.... I take sola Scriptura to many nothing more nor nothing less than that.<<

Now who's parsing? :-)

But seriously, I don't see how that solves the problem. Dr. Beckwith may not subscribe to the principle of *sola Scriptura* as you defined it, but if I understand it your definition does not prevent him from believing other things not found in Scripture; it merely prevents him from requiring others to believe them. It seems very unlikely that as an officer of ETS Dr. Beckwith would have violated this principle -- certainly not more than some Evangelical leaders, who frequently require such things of their subjects (e.g., a stricter interpretation of *sola Scriptura*).

This becomes a kind of catch-22, akin to that faced by the Jewish leaders when Jesus asked them the same question about John. If one adopts a strict interpretation of *sola Scriptura,* then this position is itself not warranted by Scripture. If one adopts a looser interpretation, then one has forfeited the right to exclude those who acknowledge the authority of Scripture but who may also acknowledge other authority.

>>ETS is decidely not seeking to be a denomination, but to have its membership span Protestant denominations.<<

That was no doubt originally true, but not at all clear in the 1970s, when the Chicago statement was written. Why Protestant? To me, it seems the implicit answer to that question is that there are other beliefs that Evangelicals share, that they are not willing to articulate, because they know them to be without biblical foundation.

>>But as Lewis described it, while we may share that common hall, we have separated into many rooms which are distinct from each other. Indeed, Lewis wrote that staying in the hall of "mere Christianity" was not a viable option. <<

This implies, however, that the precise room is by itself an indifferent matter. What exactly is the point of an organization that holds such a view, and then proposes to include people from all rooms on the left side of the hall, but not the right? Is there not some other principle at work here?

>>Presumably your church then is no longer truly catholic (in the purely Christian sense of that word) but has become strictly Catholic (in the sectarian sense).<<

[Sigh.] My abiding point is that RCs approach the concept of Church from a substantially different viewpoint. Visible membership in the institutional Church and the maintenance of communion with Rome were never considered purely optional in the first place.

I am not here arguing that everyone should agree with me (though indeed they should [grin]). Rather, I am trying to discern the self-understanding of Evangelicals: What makes you who you are? Is it a shared faith in the Scriptures? In *sola Scriptura?* In not being Roman Catholic? If Protestantism is a part of it, how or why does the shared-faith part fit in with the rest? Where are the connections and convictions? Particularly, where applicable, how is Scripture going to be used to determine the unacceptability of Catholics?

If Protestantism is not a part of it, why this distaste for Dr. Beckwith? Wouldn't a Christian community's more typical reaction be to welcome someone who shared their core beliefs?

So far it all sounds to me like, "Drs. Beckwith and Hahn shouldn't be members because they're Catholic and Catholics don't believe what we believe," and "We're not sure what we believe except that we're not Catholics."

[Nick]

Stuart beat me to it.

[GL]

By the way, here is an Orthodox web site which provides Scriptural citations for the clauses of the Nicene Creed:

http://handmaidleah.wordpress.com/nicene-creed/

I am not a theologican, but I am sure that there are Protestant pastors and scholar out there who can defend the Nicene Creed from Scripture. Until one or more of them want to come forward to do so, I'll have to rely on this Orthodox Christian to do so.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>but you have a hard time saying . . . that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

John 15:26<<<

Good for a start, but doesn't get you all the way there:

"But when the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of Me."

What you have here is the beginning of the Tradition of the Church, but not the fullness of the Tradition. The Creed makes certain pneumatological claims that go far beyond this: the Spirit who proceeds from the Father is also the Lord and Creator of Life, is also consubstantial with the Father, and who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, and spoke through the Prophets. This was an integral part of the Church's profession of faith, but it was not derived wholly from Scripture--and in fact, could not be, which is why there were viscious pneumatological disputes in the East resulting in the inclusion of the Spirit in the revised Creed of Constantinople. It is why the Eastern liturgies are so heavily trinitarian and pneumatological, while in the West, where these conflicts were unknown, the liturgy remained christocentric. It is why the Eastern liturgies all have an explicit Epiklesis, while the Roman Canon does not. When you cannot, through Scripture, come to a broad consensus within the Church, you get divisive controversies, at which point the Church resolves it by calling upon the very Paraclete whom Christ sent to us. Which is to say, the Church knows what it truly believes, knows what Scripture says, and when Scripture is insufficient to provide a definitive explanaton or proof of what the Church knows it believes, the Church synthesizes an answer. Which is why to say you can derive everything in the Creed from Scripture, and ONLY from Scripture, is just plain wrong.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>http://handmaidleah.wordpress.com/nicene-creed/<<<

It's an interesting apologetics site, largely directed towards Protestant critics of Orthodoxy, or Protestants leaning towards Orthodoxy. I've seen others like it, but in fact this is not really the way the Orthodox "do" theology, and if truth be told, even reading all the cites in the commentary, it still doesn't get you to the Creed through Scripture alone. It merely shows you some of the potential Scriptural passages one could use to support the Creed. It does not cite the passages used by others against both the consubstantiality of the Son and the deity of the Spirit. That's why we have ecumenical councils, you know. And on some issues, we've had quite a few.

[JRM]

This article suggests that inerrancy has has a wide variety of meanings even among Evangelicals. Many of these views are at least as expansive as any Catholic view of inerrancy.

http://www.quodlibet.net/perry-inerrancy.shtml

There appears to be a meaningful difference between inerrancy (accepted by the Catholic Church) and literalism (rejected by the vast majority of, but not all, Catholics.)

[David Gray]

>Rather, I am trying to discern the self-understanding of Evangelicals: What makes you who you are? Is it a shared faith in the Scriptures? In *sola Scriptura?* In not being Roman Catholic? If Protestantism is a part of it, how or why does the shared-faith part fit in with the rest? Where are the connections and convictions? Particularly, where applicable, how is Scripture going to be used to determine the unacceptability of Catholics?

Some good questions. Upper case Evangelicalism has problems, possibly fatal. Essentially it is a Protestant Touchstonian concept. It is not attached to an ecclesiastical structure. It doesn't have creeds or confessions per se although a commitment to the authority of scripture would be one in fact if not in name. If you look at the fathers of modern Evanglicalism like Carl Henry there is no doubt it was understood to be Protestant. Amongst the reasons for this was the commitment to the authority of scripture. Sola scriptura does not theologically mean scripture alone but rather the preeminence of the authority of scripture in a way that is not shared by the Roman Catholic church.

Is that enough? Arguably not, particularly in light of where Evangelicalism is headed these days. It looks well aimed at a liberal future, either via the emergent movement or a more conventional social gospel approach as we see with the NAE. It has lost the reformational understanding of sola scriptura more often than not and has degenerated too often into "scripture alone." A position which can potentially give you David Koresh. It has no eccesiastical structure which give it ballast or discipline. It does not have a confessional basis with which to wrestle with sola scriptura. It feels little sense of attachment to the historic church which opens up a whole new range of ways to interpret scripture. As such perhaps death would not be all bad even though its fathers were exceptional men with very good intentions.

The Reformed defined a true church as one where the Word was rightly preached, the sacraments properly administered and church discipline was practiced. Evangelicalism as a broad movement doesn't really have that much relationship to that.

Having said that what Evanglicalism has understood itself to be in the past is clear enough and adopting a Roman Catholic understanding of scripture and authority would not allow an honest man to say he conformed to their statement, given its context and origins. Credit to Mr. Beckwith, he appears to be an honest man.

[DGP]

>>Sola scriptura does not theologically mean scripture alone but rather the preeminence of the authority of scripture in a way that is not shared by the Roman Catholic church.<<

But there it is again: "Not Catholic" seems always to reappear not merely as a feature but as a definition of Evangelicalism, if you squeeze long enough. Defining "sola Scriptura" as "not a Catholic understanding of Scripture" is to beg the questions I asked.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Sola scriptura does not theologically mean scripture alone but rather the preeminence of the authority of scripture in a way that is not shared by the Roman Catholic church.<<<

"The preeminence of Scripture"--what does this mean, and how is this NOT a belief of the Catholic Church?

"In a way that is not shared by the Roman Catholic Church"--what does this mean, other than a disagreement with the exegetical techniques employed by Roman Catholic theologians? Why is one way legitimate, and the other way not?

[Bill R]

We’re sliding into old-fashioned polemics. I’d like to take a different approach. I’d like to use a Roman Catholic—a traditional Roman Catholic, Robert Louis Wilkin. Specifically his most recent book, “The Spirit of Early Christian Thought.” I highly recommend it. For example:

“In contrast to modern theological writings in which the Bible is cited in support of theological ideas, and hence usually relegated to the footnotes, in the early church the words of the Bible were the linguistic skeleton for the exposition of ideas. … The liturgy provided a kind of grammar of Christian speech, a key to how the words of the Bible are to be used.” (43)

“Yet when they [the church fathers] took the Bible in hand they were overwhelmed.” (53)

“When he [Clement] cites the Scriptures there is a sense of discovery, that something extraordinary is to be learned in its pages, that it is not one book among many.” (57)

“And though they found the style of the Scriptures plain and inelegant, the words of the Bible were radiant with light, incandescent, and bursting with a power so palpable, said Augustine, that they ‘pummeled’ his heart.” (69)

We are never beyond the Bible, for it is ever new. I uphold the right of any group to limit those to whom it is available. But it may well be time to make our theological societies open to all Christians who affirm the Nicene Creed. We need to open and learn from the Book together. We hold the oracles of God. Ad fontes!

[David Gray]

>"In a way that is not shared by the Roman Catholic Church"--what does this mean, other than a disagreement with the exegetical techniques employed by Roman Catholic theologians? Why is one way legitimate, and the other way not?

Perhaps you can explain why Roman Catholic theologians find their approach legitimate and the other not?

>Defining "sola Scriptura" as "not a Catholic understanding of Scripture" is to beg the questions I asked.

Except I didn't do that. Are you really suggesting that the Roman Catholic and Protestant approaches to the authority of Scripture and its interpretation are the same?

Protestants derive their certainty about revealed truths from Scripture preeminently. Roman Catholicism does not, at least not according to its catechism:

>>As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We’re sliding into old-fashioned polemics. I’d like to take a different approach. I’d like to use a Roman Catholic—a traditional Roman Catholic, Robert Louis Wilkin. Specifically his most recent book, “The Spirit of Early Christian Thought.” I highly recommend it.<<<

Me, too. Great teacher, great book. Makes me proud of the UVA religion department.

>>>“In contrast to modern theological writings in which the Bible is cited in support of theological ideas, and hence usually relegated to the footnotes, in the early church the words of the Bible were the linguistic skeleton for the exposition of ideas. … The liturgy provided a kind of grammar of Christian speech, a key to how the words of the Bible are to be used.” (43)<<<

Just so. What happens, then, when one abandons liturgy? How does one do theology without the grammar, the inspiration, and the touchstone?

>>>“Yet when they [the church fathers] took the Bible in hand they were overwhelmed.” (53)

“When he [Clement] cites the Scriptures there is a sense of discovery, that something extraordinary is to be learned in its pages, that it is not one book among many.” (57)

“And though they found the style of the Scriptures plain and inelegant, the words of the Bible were radiant with light, incandescent, and bursting with a power so palpable, said Augustine, that they ‘pummeled’ his heart.” (69)<<<

And because there was always something new (as, indeed, there must be in any true Mystery), there were also an infinity of possible interpretations. So how did they determine whether a given interpretation was correct? Look back to the Liturgy, the living manifestation of the Church's rule of faith. And when no guidance was given from that source, to call upon the Holy Spirit present through all the bishops in council together, and the reception of their teaching in the Body of Christ.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Perhaps you can explain why Roman Catholic theologians find their approach legitimate and the other not?<<<

For starters, it's closer to the way in which theology was practiced in the early Church. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church does not a priori declare other methods of theologizing to be illegitimate: the Church takes truth where it finds it, regardless of the source. Thus, in recent decades, Catholic theology has been influenced by both Orthodox and Protestant theologians. It is precisely this openness that makes dialogue between the Catholic Church and other Christian confessions possible.

>>>Protestants derive their certainty about revealed truths from Scripture preeminently. Roman Catholicism does not, at least not according to its catechism:

>>As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."<<<

The problem here is nobody actually does what David claims Protestants do. All Protestants read the Bible in accordance with varying exegetical traditions and in light of their experience of their denomination's tradition, indeed, the tradition of the entire Reformation behind it. Books don't read themselves, but are interpreted by the reader in light of the reader's own intellectual, cultural and even spiritual formation. In other words, we read as much into the Bible as we take out of the Bible.

[Rob Grano]

>>>“the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”<<<

'Does anybody actually claim to have the autographs?'

Good point, Stuart. Even when I was an Evangelical I could never understand how the "inerrancy of the autographs" meant anything one way or the other. How does the inerrancy of the autographs signify if they're nonexistent?

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

Your criticism of Article VI from the 39 Articles suggests an insufficient knowledge and understanding regarding them.

First, unlike the Protestant continental confessions or the collected pronouncements of the RC Magisterium or the totality of EO Tradition, the Articles do not pretend or attempt to be comprehensive or exhaustive domatic statements. They are basic guidelines that broadly define certain parameters on specific topics. It is unfair to demand more of them than they intended to provide.

Second, none of the framers of the Articles would have had any difficulty in believeing that the Creed in its totality could be proven from Scripture, precisely because they did not read the Scriptures in the manner of e.g. modern Evangelicals, but much more in the manner of the patristic Church. Indeed, in 1571 a synod of the C. of E. made a declaration that, to my knowledge, is unique to it in contrast to the continental Reformation churches. It stated that the interpretation of any clause in the Articles should be conformed to the consensus of the patristic Church. This reverses the position of the continental Reformers that the patristic fathers would be judged as correct or incorrect against a confessional document founded upon sola Scriptura. It was the explicit basis upon which John Newman wrote his celebrated "Tract 90" catholic interpretation of the 39 Articles.

Third, Article VI does not say that belief is limited to things directly stated in or provable from Scripture. It says that things not conforming to that criteria should "be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" and in that sense "be required of any man, that it should be beleived as an article of the Faith." Its intention is to set limits on reckless demands from sectarians that salvation hinges upon an almost gnostic requirement of a certain precise understanding of some subsidiary doctrinal point or theologeumenon. It has to be read and understood against the historical context of sectarian upheaval during which it was written. As I quoted elsewhere recently, "There are doctrines of salvation, but there are no saving doctrines." That is part of the point of Article VI.

Certainly, the Anglican way of doing theology is not identical to the Orthodox way (or the RC way). But I believe that they all strive to be faithful to various aspects of the riches of patristic exegesis, and that none of them has a monopoly on being the sole "right" way. We all have much to learn from one anoteher here.

[DGP]

>> >>Defining "sola Scriptura" as "not a Catholic understanding of Scripture" is to beg the questions I asked.<<

Except I didn't do that. Are you really suggesting that the Roman Catholic and Protestant approaches to the authority of Scripture and its interpretation are the same?<<

No, I'm not suggesting they're the same. I haven't really been trying to explain Catholicism at all, except to point out that the RCC quite unabashedly insists that membership does matter -- not membership in any community of your choosing, but membership of a Church in communion with Rome. MC isn't really the place for me to argue for this position, but there are plenty of apologetics texts out there if you want to read them.

Again, I come at this topic because I am trying to understand Evangelicalism. I want to know what constellation of ideas or propositions make up the Evangelical spectrum of faith. I realize that not all Evangelicals will agree, but I would still suspect that there is a kind of vague outline. The Chicago Statement comes close, but (as I've argued above) doesn't seem to include some key articles.

For example, when I try to penetrate your understanding of *sola Scriptura,* you respond with, "Sola scriptura does not theologically mean scripture alone but rather the preeminence of the authority of scripture in a way that is not shared by the Roman Catholic church." To me that looks as if "not Catholic" is in the definition: I.e., "we can't affirm what *sola Scriptura* means, except that we reject a Catholic understanding."

I suppose it is perfectly consistent or appropriate simply to say, "not being Catholic is one mark of being Evangelical." It's a free country, and all that. But if that's where the discussion ends, then I infer that Evangelicalism is at root far more like Roman Catholicism than Evangelicals are usually willing to admit: "Whatever your theological perspective, you have to be a member of our club in order to be considered a proper Christian." I have called it a truth-in-advertising problem because RCs and some other Christians make this claim openly, but the Evangelicals seem to want to sneak it into the fine print.

[James A. Altena]

"And therein lies the answer to the question about a Catholic organization. We don't have that problem of poorly worded drafts."

Oh, really? Apparently, Fr. DGP, you don't read any statements issued by the USCCB. [Of course, not doing so may be a wise decision to help you keep your sanity :-)]

Instead, the RC Church just has a problem with making infinite and endless hair-splitting (and sometimes thoroughly unconvincing) technical "clarifications" and "reinteprpretations", once it finds that on some point it has painted itself into a corner from which it wishes to escape.

[DGP]

>>Oh, really? Apparently, Fr. DGP, you don't read any statements issued by the USCCB.<<

Mr. Altena, your gratuitous insults are painful because they are accurate. However, in the quote you pulled from my comments, I was referring exclusively to setting good standing in the RCC as a criterion for membership or office in an organization. If you are very familiar with life in the RCC, you know that's one problem we *don't* have.

[Stuart Koehl]

On the subject of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, I want to add that both the Protestant and Roman Catholic positions are relative innovations, and that both depart to some degree from the patristic understanding.

Roman Catholics hold Scripture AND Tradition as equal components of the Deposit of Faith. Protestants hold that Scripture is superior to Tradition (when they recognize Tradition as having any authority at all). Both are flip sides of the same coin: when the Reformers began waving the banner of "Scripture not Tradition", the Latins responded by saying "Scripture and Tradition".

But both positions would have puzzled the Fathers, who believed in "Scripture WITHIN Tradition". That is, Scripture is one of many sources of inspiration within the Church, although one granted priority among them. Other threads of Tradition include liturgy (cf. Wilkins), the acts of the Councils, the writings of the Fathers, and the ancient canons of the Church. Scripture inspires all of these, and in turn, Scripture can only be rightly understood within the total matrix of Tradition. Removing Scripture from Tradition diminishes both and creates a false dichotomy: since all Tradition, rightly understood, is a manifestation of the Word of God, and since Christ the Word is one and indivisible, all elements of Tradition are consistent with one another.

Of the Roman Catholic and Protestant approaches to Scripture and Tradition, zealots on both sides would be shocked to discover how much they owe to one another. Both, for example, were informed by medieval scholasticism. Though the Reformers rejected the scholastic philosophical method, they inherited the understanding of theology as a "science" or academic disipline in which abstract propositions are decomposed and analyzed. Thus, Latins and Protestants share much of the same mindset, albeit they disagree on some fundamental assumptions and conclusions.

Of the two approaches, the Reformers were more radical, since their denial of the authority of Tradition represented a radical discontinuity with the past, albeit, for various reasons, many of the Reformers believed that they were in fact returning TO the past--hence their self-understanding as "reformers" rather than innovators.

The Catholic counter-Reformation saw more continuity than discountinuity, though reflexive opposition to the reformers resulted in a certain mirror-imaging of arguments and methodology. Roman Catholic theology thus became, for a time, LESS rather than MORE biblically oriented, though both Catholic and Protestant polemicists engaged in some creative proof texting.

What is interesting in both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology today is a convergence towards a more patristically oriented understanding of theology and theological methodology. Scholasticism is essentially dead in the Latin Church, and even neo-Thomists are in a minority. There has been a real revival in patristics since the 1960s, which has led to a greater appreciation of the diversity of patristic opinion, the centrality of liturgy as the font of theology, and the need to take a more holistic approach to theology and Scripture. On the Protestant side, there is much deeper appreciation for the Fathers, particularly for their profound biblical commentaries and homilies, which are giving new insights into the origins and practices of the early Church, and thus a more historical foundation for Protestant theological inquiry.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Mr. Altena, your gratuitous insults are painful because they are accurate. However, in the quote you pulled from my comments, I was referring exclusively to setting good standing in the RCC as a criterion for membership or office in an organization. If you are very familiar with life in the RCC, you know that's one problem we *don't* have.<<<

Actually, I tend to agree with Jame's assessment: the Latin Church does engage in hair-splitting (what the rabbis would call "pilpul"), and does show a preference to clarifications that attempt to demonstrate that A equals NOT-A, rather than to make a simple admission of error. As I said, "We may not always be right, but we are never wrong".

As to whether or not the RCC has criteria for membership, the existence of the criteria are meaningless absent the will to enforce them.

[Rob Grano]

Correct, Stuart. The Patristic idea is that of one fount, Holy Tradition, with Scripture as its epitome. The scholastic idea posits two separate but related founts, Scripture and Tradition.

[James A. Altena]

Sorry if you are offended, Fr. DGP, but you didn't clearly specify such a restriction in the statement I quoted. Your response in that regard is therefore a "clarification." :-)

And it was not a "gratuitous insult", but a painfully accurate assessment of reality on the ground in response to your gratuitous sweeping criticisms of and simplistic statements about Protestants. If you object to the defects of your own communion being pointed out, you might be more reticent about pointing out those you allege of others.

Certainly, far worse things than USCCB statements are being perpetrated within my own Anglican communion. At least the documents issued by the USCCB, unlike those of a typical TEC HOB meeting, have *some* genuine theological content.

Finally, since you raise the point of "gratuitous", how about also not gratuitously mis-reading the posts of my good friend GL?

[DGP]

>>And it was not a "gratuitous insult", but a painfully accurate assessment of reality on the ground in response to your gratuitous sweeping criticisms of and simplistic statements about Protestants. If you object to the defects of your own communion being pointed out, you might be more reticent about pointing out those you allege of others.<<

Did I sound reticent about it? I believe I already acknowledged your accuracy. I say "gratuitous" here because it's off topic. As I understood it, the topic was Dr. Beckwith's move into the RCC, and out of office with the ETS, and what connection those two moves might have. RCC and Evangelical understanding of Scripture is a part of that conection. You and others seem determined to take this to various and sundry faults of Rome, or back to the superiority of the East.

>> ...[S]implistic statements about Protestants.<<

Then please enlighten me. That's what I'm after.

>>Finally, since you raise the point of "gratuitous", how about also not gratuitously mis-reading the posts of my good friend GL?<<

I was trying not to do this. If I have, I'm sorry, and once again I'm eager to be corrected.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Certainly, far worse things than USCCB statements are being perpetrated within my own Anglican communion. <<<

Now here, James is speaking not of the attempts of Curia Romana to rectify past errors while maintaining the myth of ecclesial infallibility, but rather of the (generally successful) efforts of the U.S. Council of Bishops to circumvent the direct instructions of the Holy See while simultaneously professing its absolute obedience to the Pope. One of the most recent examples had to do with the letter sent by John Paul II to the American bishops directing them to correct, publicly, those American Catholic politicians who persist in the error of supporting abortion, up to and including excluding them from Communion. Cardinal Keeler, then Archbishop of Baltimore and head of the Bishop's Council, deliberately omitted several paragraphs from the letter that Cardinal Ratzinger had written while reading it to the Council. The effect of the omission was to create the impression that the bishops had more discretion in this matter than the Vatican intended. It is interesting that when he became Pope, Ratzinger saw fit to reiterate the instruction, this time in an Encyclical Letter, thereby upping the ante and preventing the kind of end run that Keeler had used the last time. This put the bishops in the position either of accepting the instruction, or of openly rejecting it for "pastoral" reasons. The bishops folded, but that is not to say that they are going out of their way to implement the Pope's instructions; rather, they seem to be operating on the "see no evil, hear no evil" principle.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Correct, Stuart. The Patristic idea is that of one fount, Holy Tradition, with Scripture as its epitome. The scholastic idea posits two separate but related founts, Scripture and Tradition.<<<

As Schmemann pointed out in "Introduction to Liturgical Theology", both East and West did theology the same way in the first millennum. They may have come to different conclusions, but their methodology was essentially similar. In the Second Millennium, East and West begin to diverge, gradually dragging most of the Orthodox Church into its orbit after the fall of Constantinople (through the end of the 19th century, most Orthodox theologians, being trained in Western schools used Western methods to defend Orthodox propositions, a phenomenon that has variously been called the "Western Captivity of the Orthodox Mind", or simply, the "pseudomorphosis"). A revival of Orthodox theology that began in late 19th century Russia gradually spread into the West, exercising great influence on Roman Catholic theologians in the middle of the 20th century. Now, it seems, the cross-pollination of Evangelical and Orthodox is bringing patristic theology into the Protestant orbit (while the Orthodox are benefiting from the evangelical fervor of Evangelical coonverts).

[GL]

As to James A. Altena's post at May 9, 2007 6:41:10 AM:

Exactly my point. DGP is correct that some (perhaps most) modern Evangelicals understand sola Scriptura as "me and my Bible," but that is not what the Reformers understood it to mean.

I will give you an analogy (admittedly imperfect, as all analogies are) to my area, the law. The Constitution is the primary source. Court decisions interpreting and applying the terms of the Constitution are a secondary source, in some cases mandatory in their future application and in other cases only persuasive. In understanding the meaning of the Constitution, one should carefully consider the secondary sources and must, if he is litigating before a court bound by a decision, either persuade the court in which he is litigating that the mandatory decision applies to his case in a favorable manner or the the mandatory decision is wrong and should be overturned. Sometimes, in fact, even mandatory decisions of the Supreme Court (the equivalent of the Sacred Magisterium, if you will) misinterprets the Constitution. The Dred Scott decision is an example with which everyone (or practially everyone) that the Court got it wrong. Most MCers would hold the same was true of the Court's "discovery" in Griswold of a "right to privacy" contained within the penumbra emanating from the Bill of Rights. Indeed, many Catholics here have in the past openly condemned the justices who have abandoned the original intent of the framers in cases such as Roe v. Wade.

By analogy, this is what the is what the Reformers were doing. They were treating the text of the Holy Scriptures as advocates of original intent treat the Constitution. They were treating Church councils and declarations as secondary authority, worthy of a high degree of deference, but not to the point that it overturned the plain meaning of the text of Scripture. When such secondary sources were consistent with Holy Scripture, they were to be followed (e.g., the Nicene Creed), when not, they were to be rejected (e.g., the declarations of the Seventh Ecumenical Council relating to the veneration of icons) or at least held not to be requisite for salvation. (I use these as examples, understanding the Catholics and Orthodox disagree that the declarations of the Seventh Ecumenical Counicl are inconsistent with Scripture.)

Thus, if I apply Article VI to the ex cathedra declaration of the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I would hold that "it is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" because it "is not read [in Scripture], nor may be proved thereby." This does not mean that the Virgin Mary was not assumed; she may have been. Yet, though that may be an historic fact, it is no more "requisite or necessary to salvation" than is belief that George W. Bush is the present President of the United States. Back to my analogy, a Protestant, applying the principles of sola Scripture as defined by Article VI would hold that the dogma is not mandatory authority at a minimum. He might conclude that it is outright incorrect, but he would no more insist that affirmation of it being an error "is . . . to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" than would the affirmation of its accuracy because neither position "is . . . read [in Scripture], [or] may be proved thereby."

That many Evangelicals in fact treat sola Scriptura as "me and my Bible," then, does not mean that this is a correct understanding of that doctrine.

[GL]

By the way, as to the veneration of icons, which James A., Bill R. and I debated some time ago, I believe that neither the rejection nor the affirmation of the declarations of the Seventh Ecumenical Council "is . . . to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" because veneration of icons or refusal to venerate icons "is not read [in Scripture], nor may be proved thereby." I have simply stated that I believe that it would be dangerous for me (and likely many others) to venerate icons because we, like the ancient Israelites, might move overtime from veneration of a created object to its worship. For those of you who can avoid that sin, I have no objections to your venerating icons, just don't insist that we, your weaker brothers, do so.

I post this because I really am not interested in reopening that can of worms.

[dilys]

Wow. Can't say how much I appreciate GL's comment 9:43. In theory, we shouldn't be "shoppers" in religion. But in modern fact, perhaps the most sensible thing we can do is attentively and responsibly regulate our worship patterns according to our best lights. He gives me courage to post my own comment. Well, here goes.

Discussing baptism over at Pontifications, the interesting, erudite, and articulate Guy Davies, wry Welsh preacher associated with the Protestant Truth Society, in passing explains it all simply enough for me: "baptism does not justify, it is a symbol."

It might be honest and even illuminating to admit that, helping (apart from donor relations) to drive the Catholics-keep-your-distance application of  statements such as Wheaton's and ETS', beyond the interpretive and creedal, there lurks on the sidelines of  even the best-behaved modern line-drawing and controversies between the Reformed/Protestant and the Sacramental/Apostolic, the Shade of the Dinner Guest, Flannery O'Connor.

It is not easy to paper over or difficult to empathize with the unvoiced rational fear of falling into superficial materialist-mechanical religious practice and "magic" in the sacraments. Without centuries of the testimony of the Church, who -- not I! -- could possibly tell oneself (s)he would have walked the right way into the worse-than-scandal that echoes Jesus' outrageous demands in John 6.

I do not say this to be provocative or proof-texting, or even in the Welsh stereotype perpetually creating totally uncalled for difficulties, but to suggest a weighty emotional psycho-anthropological factor in the divide around which there is an incentive to skate until any discussion freezes over.

Appreciation to GL, courteous non-skater!

[Michael 2]

Stuart writes:

"It is interesting that when he became Pope, Ratzinger saw fit to reiterate the instruction, this time in an Encyclical Letter, thereby upping the ante and preventing the kind of end run that Keeler had used the last time. This put the bishops in the position either of accepting the instruction, or of openly rejecting it for "pastoral" reasons. The bishops folded, but that is not to say that they are going out of their way to implement the Pope's instructions; rather, they seem to be operating on the "see no evil, hear no evil" principle."

Well bishops have a very tough job. Almost impossible to hold things together in our time without a gift of discernment. True, too many want to be like debate moderators, managing the 50-yard line of opinion. Maybe the floor of hell is paved "with the skulls of bishops" as the saying goes.

Still, they all have a very tough job. It is no longer an enviable position, or at least it should not be sought after.

[Rob Grano]

'That many Evangelicals in fact treat sola Scriptura as "me and my Bible," then, does not mean that this is a correct understanding of that doctrine.'

But it does ultimately devolve to that. Supposing that

'...a Protestant, applying the principles of sola Scripture as defined by Article VI would hold that the dogma is not mandatory authority at a minimum. He might conclude that it is outright incorrect, but he would no more insist that affirmation of it being an error "is . . . to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" than would the affirmation of its accuracy because neither position "is . . . read [in Scripture], [or] may be proved thereby,"

it still falls to the individual Protestant to make this determination based on his reading of the Bible. Despite all the helps, aids, influences, interpretations, etc., etc. that the Protestant brings to his reading of Scripture, it still falls back on him and his lights to determine meaning. The Tradition functions in a merely advisory capacity, not an authoritative one.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>By analogy, this is what the is what the Reformers were doing. They were treating the text of the Holy Scriptures as advocates of original intent treat the Constitution. They were treating Church councils and declarations as secondary authority, worthy of a high degree of deference, but not to the point that it overturned the plain meaning of the text of Scripture. When such secondary sources were consistent with Holy Scripture, they were to be followed (e.g., the Nicene Creed), when not, they were to be rejected (e.g., the declarations of the Seventh Ecumenical Council relating to the veneration of icons) or at least held not to be requisite for salvation. (I use these as examples, understanding the Catholics and Orthodox disagree that the declarations of the Seventh Ecumenical Counicl are inconsistent with Scripture.)<<<

I accept you analogy, but feel impelled to note the logical fallacy here.

First, the Scriptures to which Christ refers in the Gospels, and Paul, James, Peter, Jude and John in their Epistles, is the Old Testament. Scripture, in the sense of the New Testament, did not yet exist, and in fact would not come into existence until the second half of the first century AD. Moreover, it was the Church which determined that the Old Testament was indeed Holy Scripture and should have a normative authority within the Church.

Second, the early Church, predating the definition of Scripture, essentially identified the canon of Scripture and the role of Scripture within the Church. The analogy of American law therefore fails, because the role of Scripture is not analogous to the role of the Constitution. In fact, the analogy of American law doesn't really hold because the Church never considered itself governed by a definitive written constitution (the analogy works better for Judaism and Islam than it does for Christianity). Rather, the Church seems to have viewed itself from the beginning as a commonwealth governed by a variety of sources, but first and foremost among these was the action of the Holy Spirit within all its members--hence the importance of chrismation as the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit and a precondition for Communion.

Working first from the witness of the Apostles and others who had known the Lord, the rule of faith was something passed down (traditio, paradosein) from them to their chosen successors. The rule of faith was embedded in the Church's form of worship (lex orandi, lex credendi), which itself was largely something "passed down". This rule of faith in its turn was used by the Church to evaluate the many works (Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Apocalypses) competing for the status of Scripture--a status itself manifested by the use of those works inside the liturgy of the Church.

So, in the end, the Church itself is the source of the authority of Scripture, which means that the Church has always been the ultimate arbiter of what Scripture means, by making that meaning consistent with that which the Church has always done. Any understanding of Scripture which contradicts that which the Church has always done cannot be a correct interpretation of Scripture. This is why the Muslim characterization of Christians as "People of the Book" is wrong: we are not People of the Book, but Children of the Living God, as St. John of Damascus put it in the 8th century.

That being the case, while much of what the Reformers advocated was in fact a return to Tradition, in the most fundamental sense the very act of elevating Scripture over Tradition itself was a repudiation of Tradition as the Fathers understood it, and thus, at some level, a repudiation of the proper role of Scripture itself.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Still, they all have a very tough job. It is no longer an enviable position, or at least it should not be sought after.<<<

Not for nothing did John Chrysostom write, "I fear that not many bishops will be saved".

[GL]

Rob,

Did the Supreme Court correctly interpret the Constitution when it found a "right to privacy" emanating from the penumbras of the Bill of Rights and use that right to then strike down all laws restricting a woman's "right" to have an abortion?

Catholics believe the Sacred Magisterium is infallible; I do not. You believe the Supreme Court is fallible; I agree. Just as you reject the decisions of the Supreme Court which you believe violate the expressed terms of the Constitution, I reject the decisions of the Sacred Magisterium which I believe violate the expressed terms of Holy Scripture. If Catholics are correct about the Sacred Magisterium being infallible, then I am wrong to reject its decisions; if am correct that it is fallible, then Catholics are wrong to accept its decisions when they truly believe its declarations violate the expressed terms of Sacred Scripture.

So as to Catholics and Protestants, it all comes down to whether the Sacred Magisterium is infallible. I do not believe that such infallibility "is . . . read [in Scripture], [or] may be proved thereby." Catholics do.

That brings us to Orthodox Christians, of which you are one. You reject the infallibility of the Sacred Magisterium (or at least at to the Pope). How do Orthodox decide which teachings are "required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" and which are not? That is an honest question. I have no idea what the answer is. I have read Bishop Ware's books, but it has been awhile and I honestly cannot recall how (or if) he addressed that question.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Thus, if I apply Article VI to the ex cathedra declaration of the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I would hold that "it is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" because it "is not read [in Scripture], nor may be proved thereby." <<<

This is an interesting example because of the shear superfluousness of the ex Cathdra declaration. The doctrine of the Dormition and Assumption of Mary had been an integral part of the life of the Church at least from the 4th century, when the Feast was being celebrated throughout the Christian East (it was adopted in Rome slightly later). All Eastern Christians believe in the Dormition (at least, I have never met one who did not). The event is commemorated as one of the Great Feasts of the Church, which is preceded by a two-week fast; for this reason, it is an integral part of our life of faith, even though no Council ever "dogmatized" it. I suppose that one could reject it if one wished, but the matrix of Tradition is such a close-woven net that to do so would be extremely difficult. Rejection of something like the Dormition would be a good clue that one was on one's way out of the Church.

In the West, the Dormition never held such an important place as it did in the East, but it was still an important feast, still had theological significance (i.e., that Mary by virtue of her perfect discipleship, being assumed bodily into heaven, stands as confirmation of our bodily resurrection, that Christ's resurrection was no fluke, but a future open to all of us) from a Christological and resurrectional perspective. It was, for all intents and purposes, universally believed and accepted in the Latin Church as well as in the Eastern Churches. This, more than any ex Cathedra definition, made it a living part of the Tradition, or the Depositum Fidei, as the Romans would have it. Universally accepted, it therefore did not require any "infallible declaration", which makes one wonder why Pius XII did it--except, perhaps, to prove that he could (nobody believes you have The Bomb, unless you set one off).

In the long term, then, whatever benefit might have come from his act was offset by the reaction of Orthodox and Protestant Christians to the act itself. I have been told by several Orthodox priests and bishops that immediately after the declaration, a number of Orthodox polemicists came out with arguments regarding why the Assumption was heretical (from a theological perspective, not because of how it was declared). Which goes to show that a reactive approach to theology can lead to bizarre results.

[GL]

Ah, but Stuart, you agree that the Scriptures were in fact completed by the end of the first century. It may be true that the canon (i.e., the table of contents) was not yet agreed upon, but the "Constitution" was already written and in force. You surely wouldn't argue that the Scriptures did not become the binding Word of God until the Church declared them so. If they are now the Word of God, were they not the Word of God while the ink was still wet and, if so, were they not then as binding as they are to day and have been everyday in between their writing and today?

Thus, they were as binding on the bishops at Nicea as they are on us today. It was not the declaration of any council that made them binding, such declarations were merely a formal recognition of an already existing fact.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Catholics believe the Sacred Magisterium is infallible<<<

Guess I'm not a Catholic, if by "Sacred Magisterium" you mean a discrete set of individuals, as opposed to the teaching charism of the Church as a whole.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Ah, but Stuart, you agree that the Scriptures were in fact completed by the end of the first century. It may be true that the canon (i.e., the table of contents) was not yet agreed upon, but the "Constitution" was already written and in force.<<<

The earliest canonical book of the New Testament is believed to be Ephesians, dating from the late 40s or early 50s. Even I, a proponent of the early dating of the Gospels, cannot place Matthew or Mark any earlier than the middle or late 60s.

Christ was crucified on or about 6 April 33. By the reckoning of the Eastern Churches, the Church itself was established 50 days later on the Feast of Pentecost, when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit as tongues of fire. We have, then a gap of twenty or more years before the first of the canonical books of the New Testament was composed. What was the Church doing in the interim?

[GL]

The earliest canonical book of the New Testament is believed to be Ephesians, dating from the late 40s or early 50s. Even I, a proponent of the early dating of the Gospels, cannot place Matthew or Mark any earlier than the middle or late 60s.

Christ was crucified on or about 6 April 33. By the reckoning of the Eastern Churches, the Church itself was established 50 days later on the Feast of Pentecost, when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit as tongues of fire. We have, then a gap of twenty or more years before the first of the canonical books of the New Testament was composed. What was the Church doing in the interim?

Well, first, most (if not all) of the dogmas to which the Roman Catholic Church seeks to "require[] of [men], that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" were declared well after the first century, so the issue of the source of authority during that time is irrelevant to subsequent eras unless their is evidence from Scripture for a continuation of that early authority into later generations, yet another area of dispute between Catholics and Protestants.

Second, to answer your question, the source of authority was the Apostles, who were exercising that authority in a variety of ways, including, in the case of the New Testament, leaving us a permanent record to which to refer. As to the Old Testament, it was already recognized as a binding authority as it obvious in the New Testament writings.

I see no evidence in Scripture that the Apostles passed on their unique authority to their successors (whose existence I do not deny). Even Orthodox and Catholics reject as canonical any works, however edifying they might be, written by authors who lived after the first century, even if those writers were successors of the Apostles. The Apostles are recognized by all, then, as having an unique position and authority. The only issue is how much of their position and authority was unique and how much was passed on. On that we disagree and no amount of argument will resolve the issue which much brighter minds than yours and mine have debated without resolution.

[GL]

By the way, this returns us to the analogy of the Constitution. The framers were analogous to the Apostles. Other than via the amendment provisions, subsequent generations are not free to modify or expand the Constitution, but only to apply it. Judges who in fact do modify the Constitution by judicial fiat are, in fact, acting outside their Constitutionally granted lawful authority. Likewise, successors to the Apostles have no authority in Scripture to modify or expand on the revelation contained in the Scripture. Doing so by ecclesial fiat exceeds their Scripturally granted authority. Judges who do this speak of a living Constitution. Bishops who do this speak of doctrinal development.

[Rob Grano]

"The Apostles are recognized by all, then, as having an unique position and authority. The only issue is how much of their position and authority was unique and how much was passed on."

True. But RCs and EO trust the Holy Spirit's guidance in the early Church for the continuance of the Apostles' teaching, as did the early Church itself.

I don't disagree with anything Stuart's said so far. I'll simply add that the best Orthodox work I know on this subject is Fr. George Florovsky's BIBLE, CHURCH, AND TRADITION. It's out of print, unfortunately, but well worth getting from the library or inter-library loan.

[Rob Grano]

As far as the Constitution goes, the framers were not given a divinely inspired word that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, or that their 'body' was the pillar and ground of the truth. The Apostles were.

[GL]

As far as the Constitution goes, the framers were not given a divinely inspired word that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, or that their 'body' was the pillar and ground of the truth. The Apostles were.

I understand your point and the following does not change the point you are making, but to be clear, in my analogy:

Apostles = Framers
Church = Supreme Court

So in your above remarks, it would have had to be the Supreme Court to which the promise that "the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, or that their 'body' was the pillar and ground of the truth" would apply, not the framers.

Of course, the issue then goes back to one of DGP's concerns: what is the Church? Is it the Church made up of those in full communion with the Bishop of Rome? Or is it the Church made up of those in full communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople? Or is it the body of those elected by God from the foundation of the world?

At this point, your disagreement is not just with me and other Protestants, but with Stuart and other Catholics. Either one of your two communions is wrong in defining itself as the Church or you are both wrong. You cannot both be correct. When Rome and Constantinople have come to an agreement, you can get back to me. Based on the Weigel thread, I suspect I am in for a long wait. I'll now go to lunch and see it you all have resolved it by the time I get back. ;-)

[Rob Grano]

"Either one of your two communions is wrong in defining itself as the Church or you are both wrong. You cannot both be correct. When Rome and Constantinople have come to an agreement, you can get back to me."

Suppose, however, that one of us (the EOC or the RCC) is correct. If that's the case, then A) although it may be difficult, it can't be an impossible task for a person to determine which one is correct, and B) once a person determines which communion is correct, it behooves said person to get his/her arse into it (as it was rather indelicately put to me one time.) In other words, endless deferral of the question solves nothing.

[Bill R]

It's sometimes a blessing to be three hours behind most of you folks in the Eastern Time Zone. You've already recapitulated most of the arguments by the time I've had my morning coffee.

Well done, especially GL and Stuart.

[GL]

You've already recapitulated most of the arguments by the time I've had my morning coffee.

And I believe we could consider the game to be a stalemate. That is of no surprise as the same game has been played almost continually since the 16th century and the result as always been the same: stalemate.

[James A. Altena]

"I say 'gratuitous' here because it's off topic."

Sorry, Fr. DGP, but when you stated

"And therein lies the answer to the question about a Catholic organization. We don't have that problem of poorly worded drafts."

you were the one who left the topic of Dr. Beckwith per se and made a more general issue out of RCs vs. Protestants. So you can't simply recuse yourself in this manner. It's quite on topic becasue you made it so first.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

I didn't have in mind any of the things you attributed to me about the USCCB. The thrust of the comment you quoted was simply that the SCCB does try to deal with theology, however poor a job it sometimes does. The TEC HOB is simply a bad joke, and I wish Rome would do the Christian world a favor and set a wholesome example by breaking off all relations with it.

I will try to deal with the issue of the 39 Articles again later if time allows. Back to alligator-wrestling with taxpayers on the phone!

[Bobby Winters]

>>>We have, then a gap of twenty or more years before the first of the canonical books of the New Testament was composed. What was the Church doing in the interim?<<<

When was the Didache written?

[DGP]

>>Sorry, Fr. DGP, but when you stated "And therein lies the answer to the question about a Catholic organization. We don't have that problem of poorly worded drafts." you were the one who left the topic of Dr. Beckwith per se and made a more general issue out of RCs vs. Protestants. So you can't simply recuse yourself in this manner. It's quite on topic becasue you made it so first.<<

Mr. Altena,

Perhaps I'm beating a dead horse, but GL first made reference to sloppy draftmanship. My remark about poorly worded drafts was in response to his claim that the (alleged) lacuna in the Chicago Statement reflected just such sloppiness. You chose to ignore the larger stream of thought (including the cue you might have received from the demonstrative pronoun "that"), take my words out of context, make my claim seem universal with respect the RCC, and indignantly accuse me both of sweeping and simplistic statements about Protestantism and of deliberately misreading GL's explanations.

If I am guilty of the former, I would like an opportunity to understand and apologize. I'm reasonably sure I'm not guilty of the latter, though of course I may have inadvertently misread anything or everything.

[DGP]

In my most recent post, I should have cited specific references. See GL's posts from May 8 at 4:51 and 5:30.

[Bill R]

"When was the Didache written?"

"J.-P. Audet in La Didache, Instructions des Apôtres argues for a date of 70, of which J.B. Lightfoot et al., Apostolic Fathers, say "he is not likely to be off by more than a decade in either direction"." -- Wikipedia

[GL]

Fr. DGP,

I will avoid getting between you and James A. (I grew up on a farm and saw bulls fight each other. Not getting in between them increases one's longevity. ;-)) However, the target of my sloppy draftsmanship remarks were the doctrinal basis of the ETS, not any Catholic documents (as I noted earlier) nor the Chicago Statement.

I believe David Gray accurately addressed the problems defining the meaning of "Evangelical." If I had to define an Evangelical, I would do so as follows (with the understanding that others who consider themselves Evangelicals would dispute my definition):

Acceptance of Articles I, II, IV, V, VI, XI, XII, XV, XVIII, XX of the 39 Articles in their entirety.

While I accept other of the 39 Articles as well, I believe the concept of Evangelical encompasses Christians who reject some of those other articles. I do not believe that such a definition is one based entirely on negation (i.e., we are not Catholic), but speaks primarily to what we believe, not what we do not believe. Nonetheless, I don't believe an orthodox Catholic (or Orthodox) could affirm all those articles and so would be excluded by such a definition.

[Christopher]

Rob says:

"it still falls to the individual Protestant to make this determination based on his reading of the Bible. Despite all the helps, aids, influences, interpretations, etc., etc. that the Protestant brings to his reading of Scripture, it still falls back on him and his lights to determine meaning. The Tradition functions in a merely advisory capacity, not an authoritative one."

I understood most Evangelicals to hold that the aid of the Holy Spirit, operating individually as well as collectively in the "Church invisible" (not to be confused with RC Church visible) prevents (God willing) just this sort of introversion - this deciding for oneself. GL, would you agree with this statement?

[A]

>>>the attempts of Curia Romana to rectify past errors while maintaining the myth of ecclesial infallibility, <<<

Stuart, I understood that you were a Byzantine rite Catholic, meaning you are in full communion with the Church of Rome. How then do you disbelieve her claims?

[The Recusant]

A,

Reread his comments. I think you misunderstood.

[Christopher]

Stuart says

"Rather, the Church seems to have viewed itself from the beginning as a commonwealth governed by a variety of sources, but first and foremost among these was the action of the Holy Spirit within all its members--hence the importance of chrismation as the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit and a precondition for Communion."

Again, I don't think this conflicts with Evangelical self understanding of the action of the Spirit - except the rejection of the "visible" sacrament, in favor of an "invisible" action and church. Perhaps GL or another Evangelical can correct or confirm this reading…

[DGP]

>>I will avoid getting between you and James A. (I grew up on a farm and saw bulls fight each other. Not getting in between them increases one's longevity. ;-)) <<

I understand. Mr. Altena evidently believed, correctly or not, that he was defending you; I hope you at least appreciate his sentiment.

>>However, the target of my sloppy draftsmanship remarks were the doctrinal basis of the ETS, not any Catholic documents (as I noted earlier) nor the Chicago Statement.<<

I think I understood this, except that in the earlier post on this subject I thought you had cited the Chicago Statement as an explanation of the perspective of the ETS. In any case, you asked a specific question about the possibility of a poor RC draft intending but failing to exclude non-Catholics. (Despite all the problems of the RCC, I've never heard of this particular oversight, and I think it's no accident. There seems to be a genuine non-parallelism here.) As far as I can tell, it was my response to this rather narrow question that got me in trouble with Mr. Altena.

>>I believe David Gray accurately addressed the problems defining the meaning of "Evangelical." If I had to define an Evangelical, I would do so as follows (with the understanding that others who consider themselves Evangelicals would dispute my definition): Acceptance of Articles I, II, IV, V, VI, XI, XII, XV, XVIII, XX of the 39 Articles in their entirety. <<

Okay. I'm almost out of time for the day, so I won't attempt right now to match up the correct articles and think about them. Nevertheless, I appreciate the effort at defining Evangelicalism.

Because I was sincerely interested in such a definition, I was not ready simply to accept either negative definitions or definitions that seemed inconsistent with my previous encounters with Evangelicals. If in pressing this point I somehow made an erroneous claim about Evangelical self-understanding, please forgive me.

[Christopher]

DGP

"Because I was sincerely interested in such a definition, I was not ready simply to accept either negative definitions or definitions that seemed inconsistent with my previous encounters with Evangelicals. If in pressing this point I somehow made an erroneous claim about Evangelical self-understanding, please forgive me."

Someone mentioned up stream (perhaps it was yourself DGP) that the definition of Evangelical, which to a RC might necessarily seem negative because it does exclude certain contents of RC, is related to "mere Christianity". Do RC's often feel excluded from "Mere Christianity" because other Christian's might exclude them from something called "Evangelical"?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Well, first, most (if not all) of the dogmas to which the Roman Catholic Church seeks to "require[] of [men], that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" were declared well after the first century, so the issue of the source of authority during that time is irrelevant to subsequent eras unless their is evidence from Scripture for a continuation of that early authority into later generations, yet another area of dispute between Catholics and Protestants.<<<

We need to clarify a few matters. First, most of the doctrines believed by ALL Christians were "defined" (bad word, since it implies a precision that does not exist--received is a better term) after the first century precisely because Scripture in and of itself was not sufficient to answer all questions or deal with all the contingencies faced by the Church over the centuries as it performed its mission of proclaiming the Gospel to all nations. That in fact, is why Christ had the Father send the Paraclete to us. In so doing, the Church took into account not merely what was said in Scripture, but what the Church did, how it lived. As I said, the Church grants authority to Scripture by recognizing it as the inspired Word, and the Church sets the bounds on acceptable interpretation of Scripture by comparing different interpretations against its rule of faith, the way in which it lived out that fath. That's why the Church rejected Marcion and all subsequent heretics who also used Scripture as the mandate for their beliefs.

>>>As to the Old Testament, it was already recognized as a binding authority as it obvious in the New Testament writings.<<<

Yet you aren't using the Old Testament that the Apostles used. Explain. Moreover, the Old Testament was NOT universally recognized as Scripture in the early Church, which is why Marcion and the gnostics were able to garner such a following. Note that Marcionism and gnosticism both remain strong temptations for the Church to this day.

>>>I see no evidence in Scripture that the Apostles passed on their unique authority to their successors (whose existence I do not deny). Even Orthodox and Catholics reject as canonical any works, however edifying they might be, written by authors who lived after the first century, even if those writers were successors of the Apostles.<<<

You are mixing apples and oranges here. The apple is the criterion for determining a book canonical. This was two-fold: Apostolic origin, and consistency with the rule of faith (and exceptions were made for the Gospels of Mark and Luke, as they were close associates of two Apostles). As to how quickly this rule of thumb came into existence, consider that various local Churches considered such books as the First Epistle of Clement, the Apostolic Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas to be "Scripture", and included them in canonical lists of sacred books. Only well into the second century do these begin to fade and rule of apostolicity come into play (and even then, some works conceded NOT to be Apostolic, such as the Epistle to the Hebrews, were given a pass because Paul would have written something like this, if he had had the chance). As I said, it took some four centuries for the canon to close. I don't believe in the preexistence of souls, and I don't believe in the preexistence of Scripture.

The orange is Apostolic Succession, which may not have an explicit mandate in Scripture, was accepted by the Church from its inception. When an Apostle left a successor in his place, such as Timothy or Titus, that man, acting as Episkopos or overseer of the local Church, carried with him all the authority of the Apostles, because in the ancient world, the agent was the visible symbol of the one who sent him. Thus as the Apostles were the visible symbols of Christ who sent them out into the world, so the bishops are the visible symbol of the Apostles who conferred upon them the power to bind and loose through the laying on of hand (ordinatio, cheirotoneia). That authority, that charism, continues to this day through the unbroken succession of rightly ordained bishops.

The Church held this position before the end of the first century--before the death of the last Apostle, in fact. Already, as witnessed in the letters of Ignatios of Antioch, the bishop is the visible center of unity within the Church, given the responsibility and charism for passing on the entire deposit of faith. The Church itself is defined as a Eucharistic community, headed by the bishop celebrating the Eucharist, assisted by his presbyters and deacons, surrounded by his people. This was the "Ekklesia Katholike", the "Catholic Church", the Church in its fullness, earthly manifestation of the Kingdom of God. And it is for this reason that Ignatios of Antioch could write, "Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church".

In the middle of the second century, persecuted by the pagans and beset with heresies within, Irenaeus of Lyons further refined this understanding of Church. He noted that every heretical sect traced its origins to a founding heresiarch, but those who held the true faith could trace their Tradition back through their bishop in an unbroken line to one of the Apostles, who, of course, was commissioned by Christ himself. Thus, says Irenaeus, the Apostolic Succession stands as a guarantee that what the Church teaches is true. Confronted by one who claims another truth, he demands of them, "Who are your bishops, and who ordained them?" And this has remained the cornerstone of the Apostolic Churches from then until the present day.

>>>On that we disagree and no amount of argument will resolve the issue which much brighter minds than yours and mine have debated without resolution.<<<

No, there is a way of resolving the issue objectively. And that is to look at what the early Church believed and did. One of the characteristics of Protestantism (and the key reason, I think, why Protestantism never appealed to me) is its attempt either to suspend or rewrite history, while at the same time trying to justify its own innovations by wrapping itself in the mantle of the early Church. But that just is not possible, at least not for the historian. The early Church looked far more like the Catholic or Orthodox Church (or to be absolutely honest, like one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches or the Church of the East) than it does any one of the reformed denominations. Which is fine, for those who belong to them, if they feel that their denomination is sufficient to bring them to Christ. But they will have to find some other means of justifying what they do, because they cannot claim that it is "apostolic".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, I understood that you were a Byzantine rite Catholic, meaning you are in full communion with the Church of Rome. How then do you disbelieve her claims?<<<

Just because something barks and wags its tail doesn't make it a dogma.

[David Gray]

>What was the Church doing in the interim?

Presumably doing as the Bereans?

Consider another aspect of the problem of what is an Evangelical. The intent was to cover churches that practice infant baptism and those that don't. Churches that believe in the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper and those that don't. Etc. That still left some Reformational content but it is a thin gruel. I think on balance I'd prefer that the term went away and that I have honest agreements and disagreements with my Baptist neighbor down the street, much as I would with my Catholic neighbor with the caveat that my disagreements with the Baptist would be less far reaching. One of the things that the term has done is give top cover to churches that answer to nobody but themselves. In a way for some it provides the emotional comfort of being part of a larger church without the discipline and doctrinal rigour that the church should provide to its local manifestations.

[Rob Grano]

Christopher, when I was an Evangelical I looked at it this way (although I probably wouldn't have been able to elucidate it clearly): the Holy Spirit works primarily individually through those persons who constitute the Church. That is, the Church is more or less an aggregate of (ideally) Spirit-led individuals, "the blessed company of all faithful people."

The EO and RC understanding is that the Church is an actual body, an organism of sorts, not primarily a collection of individual believers. The Holy Spirit's work is primarily through the entire body as a whole, of which each individual partakes of the Spirit's gifts. In other words the Church is always, by definition, more than the sum of its parts. It is a sacramental structure by which, through which, and in which grace comes to those individual persons who make up its body.

[David Gray]

>Christopher, when I was an Evangelical I looked at it this way (although I probably wouldn't have been able to elucidate it clearly): the Holy Spirit works primarily individually through those persons who constitute the Church. That is, the Church is more or less an aggregate of (ideally) Spirit-led individuals, "the blessed company of all faithful people."

And it is a tragedy that many modern protestants think that way which is quite at odds with the understanding of the reformers and the historic protestant confessions.

[GL]

Thus, says Irenaeus, the Apostolic Succession stands as a guarantee that what the Church teaches is true. Confronted by one who claims another truth, he demands of them, "Who are your bishops, and who ordained them?" And this has remained the cornerstone of the Apostolic Churches from then until the present day.

And what of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church? Both are composed of bishops who claim Apostolic Succession, yet each disagree as to some "truths" taught by the other to such an extent that they refuse to be in full communion with each other. That is, each believes the other teaches doctrines that are not true (maybe close, but as the saying goes, close counts only in horseshoes and hand grenades), yet neither (as I understand it) deny the validity of the Apostolic Succession of the other. In light of that fact, how has Irenaeus' test panned out?

[GL]

The early Church looked far more like the Catholic or Orthodox Church (or to be absolutely honest, like one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches or the Church of the East) than it does any one of the reformed denominations.

The early Church, as best I can tell, did not "require[] of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived, or that she was bodily assumed, or that the Bishop of Rome was infalliable when teaching ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Orthodox Christians deny each of these dogmas. I suspect Christians who are Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East also deny them. Orthodox Christians reject the doctrine of purgatory, considering it a Roman innovation. Orthodox Christians reject the Filioque, again considering it a Roman innovation. These are just a few of the differences.

To which of these churches claiming Apostolic Succession should I turn to discover the true Chruch. If I turn to the Church of the East, I find a church which has not been in communion with the other three since the Council of Ephesus in 431 because the other three considered their teachings to be heretical. If I turn to the Oriental Orthodox, I find a church which has not been in communion with the other three since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 because the other two considered their teachings heretical. In both cases, these two Churches have, as I understand it, valid Apostolic Succession, yet that did not protect them from error, at least as believed by the ancestors of those who are now Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Irenaeus had a nice theory, but it hasn't appeared to work.

[Rob Grano]

GL, do what I did. Put aside your Protestant presuppositions THEN look at the history. When you come to the conclusion that you can't in good conscience remain a Protestant any longer, that's when you should start studying the differences between E & W. In the mean time, stick to the pre-schism Church and what it believed. There's enough there to change your mind.

[GB]

Just FYI: Scott Hahn refers to himself as a "former member" of the ETS here: http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/statement_of_th.html#comment-50444

[Bill R]

"Scott Hahn refers to himself as a "former member" of the ETS."

If that referred to his pre-Catholic conversion days, then we've just had a tempest in a teapot here!

[GL]

GB,

How dare you try to get us back on topic? ;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The early Church, as best I can tell, did not "require[] of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation" that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived, or that she was bodily assumed, or that the Bishop of Rome was infalliable when teaching ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Orthodox Christians deny each of these dogmas. I suspect Christians who are Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East also deny them. Orthodox Christians reject the doctrine of purgatory, considering it a Roman innovation. Orthodox Christians reject the Filioque, again considering it a Roman innovation. These are just a few of the differences.<<<

Do not create difficulties where none exist. The Catholic Church does not, in reality, teach that any of these beliefs are required for salvation. In fact, the Catholic Church has stated in writing that each of the Apostolic Churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East) is truly the Church and fully sufficient to provide for the salvation of their respective members. Which is why, of course, the Catholic Church does not proselytize them, allows them to receive communion in the Catholic Church, and allows members of the Catholic Church to receive communion in those other Churches.

Leaving all the peripheral issues aside, the early Church was Eucharistic, sacramental, hierarchical and liturgical. The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches are all Eucharistic, sacramental, hiearchical and liturgical. QED

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Who decided that the other Apostles could be downgraded ( for all practical purposes) to zero?<<<

Nobody, actually. Certainly Cyprian of Carthage stood for the essential equality in grace of all the Apostles, who shared a single charism. I think that the reason Rome does not recognize the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada goes beyond the mere mechanics of Apostolic Succession (which is not a mechanical process, in any case, witness the existance of vagante bishops of the Orthodox variety. As for the necessity of communion with the See of Peter, apparently Rome puts less stock in it than you do, since it recognizes as Sister Churches a slew of Churches which are NOT in communon with Rome. Of course, that situation has only pertained since the Second Vatican Council. It did not pertain from the 13th through the first half of the 20th century, but in the first millennium, communion with Rome was considered desirable but not essential.