Notes on “Questions on the Doctrine of the Church”

In 2000 the Vatican promulgated the declaration Dominus Iesus, which, to the consternation of a good many ecumenists, officially directed Catholic bishops not to use the term “sister churches” in referring to Protestant denominations. This document, in continuity with Lumen Gentium, the Second Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution of the Church, made it clear that according to Catholic doctrine these churches lack a valid episcopate, hence the integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, and are therefore not churches in the true sense of the term. Rather, they are “ecclesial communities” ambiguously related to the Church of Rome. In response the Touchstone editors, by my hand, noted,

The teachings articulated in these recent Vatican documents are constitutional. Any ecumenical approach to Rome must take full and honest cognizance of them. Protestants may think them wrong but are ill advised to treat them as un-Catholic, no matter how much they are encouraged to do so by Catholic revisionists, still brandishing their officially discredited interpretations of Vatican II. Nor can they be made to abate by moaning about how badly ecumenical feelings have been hurt by Cardinal Ratzinger [who, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, promulgated the declaration], who speaks here not only for [Pope John Paul II], but from the heart of the Roman Catholic understanding of the character and identity of the Church.

The editors of Touchstone have no desire for Rome to surrender the integrity of its beliefs on the terms required by mainline ecumenism, for we cannot imagine it could, in that frame of mind, stand against the “progressive” Catholics who are trying with all their might to baptize their church in the same wallow of confusion, heresy, and immorality into which their Protestant counterparts have already introduced their own. It is this integrity from which Dominus Iesus issued. We hail the magisterium for not settling for worse, pray, with faithful Catholics, that the next papal administration be like the present one—or more so—and insist, as we always have in these pages, that progress toward unity must be progress in truth, no matter how hard or unwelcome the truth may be.

Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. In concert with Dominus Iesus, and once again to the consternation of many, he has recently ratified a document entitled Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.   Here it is vigorously reasserted that the Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change the traditional Catholic teachings on either the Eastern churches or Protestantism. Briefly put, the document states that the Eastern churches (meaning for the most part Eastern Orthodoxy), having a valid sacramental priesthood, thus valid sacraments, while defective in regard of lacking full communion with the See of Peter, are to be considered churches, while the Christian communities born of the Reformation, lacking a valid sacramental priesthood, cannot be called “churches” in the proper sense.

As I interpret these documents, language used of the Orthodox churches indicates a communion that is, if we may use the term, quantitatively greater, for their apostolic episcopate and validity of their Eucharist is added to recognition of the baptism which is granted to Protestants—all as “impelling toward Catholic Unity.”  But the communion is still "imperfect"--that is, qualitatively the same as that of Protestants in that it is “defective.” 

If this is so, John Paul II's analogy of the Roman and Eastern Catholic churches as the two lungs of the body of Christ is untenable.  It was a generous thing to say, and the sentiment behind it should be remembered and treasured, but it implies an equality between Rome and Orthodoxy that official Catholic dogma does not appear to support. Orthodoxy, like Protestantism, "derives its efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the [Roman] Catholic Church,” and so whatever about either of them is the Church, and—if being “Christian” implies membership in the Church, as I believe the Vatican documents do, whatever makes their members Christians—is derived from the Roman congregation in which the Catholic Church subsists.

The concept of subsistence as put forward here allows that Orthodoxy, with its sacramentally valid priesthood, has sufficient connection for its churches to be called churches and their members to be called Christians in a qualified but true sense, while the connection of Protestant churches does not suffice, properly speaking, for either. Protestant “churches” can in fact only be reckoned “ecclesial communities,” “honored with the name of Christian” (Lumen Gentium), whose members, when referred to as Christians in Catholic documents, are such only in the honorary sense that befits the status of their communities.

With regard to the communion that is the Church, Orthodoxy is deficient, but not so deficient as to withdraw the title of Church from its communions or Christian from its members. Protestant churches, measured by the same rod, are severely deficient, so much so that these religious communities are not churches properly speaking, and their members are only Christians (we must assume) to the degree that their churches are churches. If I read Lumen Gentium aright, no Catholic is obliged to call a Protestant a Christian, although he may, to do him honor—which I believe John Paul II consistently did. I will note that in general, Protestants have historically taken pretty much the same view of Catholics. Which is to say that nothing has changed--the whole point of the new Vatican document, which was clearly meant only to clarify something that should have been clear to any careful student of the matter in the first place.   

It is futile, I believe, to be offended by this, for as paltry a gift as this may seem to Protestants (who, when they have an honest look at Protestantism, taken as a whole, must admit they have little to boast about), from the context of Catholic belief it is not an ungenerous offering—the Catholics are giving all they can give and still be Catholics, and making the point clear. The exclusion of others from full communion who profess to believe in Christ, and yet who will not profess belief in the developed Petrine constitution of the Roman Church, accords with the deep logic of that Church, a logic resting on the office of Peter that makes what is constitutively Roman and Christian “official.”

What is not required of that logic, I suggest, is the inclusion that Rome grants to those who are estranged from full participation in that wholeness—the grace of any inclusion at all. That is why there remains submerged in that Church an ineradicable resistance to the ecumenical stance of Lumen Gentium, based firmly upon that deep, constitutive logic, similar to analogous logics within Protestantism and Orthodoxy (the former is common in the stronger strains of Protestant confessionalism, and I have seen the latter associated with certain influential monasteries) that would refuse to grant those who are not fully Roman any status as Christians whatever.   

Comments

[smh]

What is posted above is the first part of a longer piece, which I finish here as the First Comment. I do this to set apart material that is much more personal and controversial from my comment as a Touchstone editor.

--smh

___________

In the present state of division the churches tend toward one of two minds—the minds born of necessity, I believe, with the divisions themselves. The first is founded upon the deep logic of identity, in which as an article of faith a church understands itself to be the one true Church--and to which all evidence must perforce point. The necessary logic of that identification excludes those do not meet its criteria of membership.

The other is the terrible recognition that there are others outside that communion who appear to bear the same spirit and substantially the same confession whom to exclude (once they become known and loved) seems intolerable. These minds cannot reconcile by allowing that these people and their churches are Christians in a qualified way, for the exotic logic, contrary to that of identity, set in motion by this recognizance cannot recognize a part-Christian. It sees in the other just what it sees in itself, or perhaps even a greater measure of it. It finds no biblical example of a part-Christian, or a system of degrees in Christian identity—Christian accomplishment or sanctification, yes, but not Christian identity. One is saved or one is not; one is a member of Christ and hence of the Church, or one is not. There is no body which began as another body but is becoming the body of Christ, and those who are being sanctified are not of different statuses in their mode of sanctification, but are saints becoming saints in the same way. The Church is an integral Unity, and one is either inside it or outside it, so that all language that indicates that one can only be a kind of honorary Christian, or partly in communion, or Christian to some degree, or in a manner of speaking, cannot correspond to any possible reality.

So far as “Christian” or the status of being saved or final qualification for membership in the body of Christ or the one true Church is an eschatological designation, to be determined and confirmed in the Judgment that has not as yet taken place, nearly all churches teach that those in formal membership are in the same situation—that whether an individual (or a congregation of individuals) is among the good wheat or the tares, is a matter for the judgment of the Lord, and still in this recognizes no half-wheat or half-tare, or a tare that is honored with the name of wheat. This is the Pauline impossibility of Christ divided.

Those conservative elements within the various churches that recognize what the hard concept of wholeness-in-identity demands are correct in recognizing the truth in the logic of identity of the one Church, while those who are forced by a vision of reality that sees a Christian brother standing outside the boundaries of that Church and would cast to him the attenuated but saving line of impaired communion, are captive to a perception that contradicts the logic of identity, to which his rigorists, understanding the integral unity of the Church, rightly hold him. They cannot at the same time believe their own communion to be the True Church and others outside its official bounds in any way as “Christians” in any sense. But the penetrating, inexorable recognition of the face of Christ in the man outside these bounds holds him in a certain terror from executing the demands of his ecclesial logic.

So he obfuscates in some way, so as to hold to both. The Catholic grants him the impaired communion (in Christianity, a contradiction in terms) of Lumen Gentium; the Protestant in the same situation creates an ecumenical environment that softens or ignores the old doctrines of identity often found in the constitution of his own communion—thus the dominance of the softening variety of Protestant in official ecumenism. The Orthodox, declaring that they know where the Church is, but not where it is not, honor Mount Athos, but send delegates.

What makes me a Protestant is that there is a place to stand here where it is not required that I identify any particular communion as the one, true Church. I was not raised in that part of Protestantism, but in a part where Athonic logic was fully operational—Catholics were not Christians (the majority opinion) unless they (minority opinion, analogous to Lumen Gentium) tended toward, in some sense, the full Catholicity of belief in justification by faith alone and a personal conversion experience as its sacrament. The latter view was the functional equivalent of the ambiguity of impaired communion: the Catholic might be a Christian, but could only be to the degree that he was a Protestant, and Catholicism could only be true to the extent (very dubious) that it was tributary to us.

But there were places to stand within Protestantism that did not require this, where the Church was perceived as C. S. Lewis perceived it (a perception, I must insist, not by any means peculiar to him), as a single thing that transcends the impossibility of church division--a creation of the Holy Spirit that was like him in both its reality and its invisibility—that one could perceive, “hearing the sound thereof,” but could not grasp fully in any ecclesial office or institution, no matter how excellent its constitution. It has seemed to me good to give up a kind of belonging that is offered by divided churches that are secure in their identities for an undivided church that I can (very imperfectly) perceive touching all of them—but which God and God alone sees clearly, just as I see Christ touching those who profess him, while only God can see our hearts and perfectly know our ends. This seems to me to do full justice to both the logic of identity—only this way can one reasonably perceive the Church as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic--and the reality that comes down to the judgment of Christ, to individuals as to whether he knows them or not, and to churches, with respect to their final end on his lampstand.

[Bill R]

“But there were places to stand within Protestantism that did not require this, where the Church was perceived as C. S. Lewis perceived it (a perception, I must insist, not by any means peculiar to him), as a single thing that transcends the impossibility of church division--a creation of the Holy Spirit that was like him in both its reality and its invisibility—that one could perceive, “hearing the sound thereof,” but could not grasp fully in any ecclesial office or institution, no matter how excellent its constitution.”

I agree, Dr. Hutchens. But, as you note, you describe a particularly Protestant understanding of the Church, permissible only because we Protestants have a doctrine of the Church that is, by the standards of our brothers in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox camps, rather attenuated. These RC and EO brothers, however, would seem to have a much more acute problem that you or I would have in holding such a position. So in one sense it is likely that conservative ecumenism, such as that represented by Touchstone Magazine and the Fellowship of St. James, will almost always originate with Protestants (even if, ironically, the originators do not always remain Protestant!)

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

Since I belong to a communion that resolutely insists it is not "the one true church," much along the lines that Mr. Hutchins lays out above, I cannot but concur with his last segment of this commentary. There is a Church of Jesus Christ, and its members will be revealed on the great and terrible Day of the Lord.

Our job is to pray – and work – to be counted among the sheep, not among the goats, and to join in this life with those who carry on the Cause of Christ, no matter what their insignia. The True Ecumenicism of which Touchstone is a part is set against the False Ecumenicism of those who hold too tightly to their denominational boundaries to join with other Christians in doing the Lord's work, and also with those to whom the basic truths of the Faith are negotiable and the way to unity is to eliminate the distinctives of each ecclesial body so that we can all be mush together.

[DGus]

Mr. Hutchens's post is quite correct in asserting (1) that real ecumenism--indeed, any meaningful religious dialogue whatsoever--must proceed from candor and clarity, even where that may be painful, and (2) that, by authentic RC lights, this recent statement (like "Dominus Iesus" and "Lumen Gentium" before it) is probably as generous and open as real RC doctrine will permit. As an evangelical non-Catholic, I thank the RCC for its clarity, and take no offense.

However, Mr. Hutchens's following comment is also correct in emphasizing the result that seems "intolerable": Even the extremely liberal RC parish (open to same-sex unions, tolerant of abortion, universalistic, indifferent to Christological error, etc.) is deemed a "proper church" and its dissident priest is deemed authentically Christian because they are believed to possess apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, while the non-Catholic minister and congregation that affirm the Nicene Creed without reservation, acknowledge the authority of the Scriptures, confess the Lord Jesus as fully God and fully Man, crucified, risen, and coming again, and preach a Gospel of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ--these are mere honorary "Christians" in a non-church "ecclesial community."

So my first question in the ensuing dialogue is this: Does the RC Christian acknowledge any dissonance in this disparity? Is he comfortable that mere apostolic pedigree seems to count for so much, and that believing and preaching the apostolic message seems to count for so little? Is it no trouble to him that this disparate treatment is so difficult to defend from the text of the New Testament?

[GL]

On this topic, listen to parts of the first two hours of Issues, etc. from Wednesday, July 11, available at http://www.kfuoam.org/IE_Main.htm, to which I am listening as I type this. I may post on this after I have had time to digest this a little more.

I await Seth R.'s reply to this, as he notes SMH's discussion of who may be considered Christian as that term is related to this latest document released by the CDF and our discussion of whether Mormoms are Christian.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

I've written the following elsewhere:

Dr. Albert Mohler, a staunch Southern Baptist, says he’s not at all offended by the Pope upholding Catholic doctrine that the Catholic Church is the One True Church.

This raises the question of putting the shoe on the other foot. Would the Pope and other Catholics not be offended at all by non-Catholics who say that the Catholic Church is NOT the One True Church?

To me, it only seems fair that Catholics not be offended either when the converse is posited."

So far I've heard from a small sample of Catholics that they aren't offended either when they're informed that they are NOT the one True Church.

I find this to be a positive development.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>But the communion is still "imperfect"--that is, qualitatively the same as that of Protestants in that it is “defective.” <<<

I think Dr. Hutchens has this entirely backwards: there is an essential QUALITATIVE difference in the relationship between the Orthodox and Catholic Church on the one hand, and the Catholic Church and the Protestant "ecclesial communities" on the other--hence the distinction in terminology. This can be confirmed by the manner in which the Catholic Church treats communion between the Orthodox on the one hand, and Protestants on the other. Intercommunion between Orthodox and Catholics is not only allowed as a matter of economy, but is relatively common, particularly between the Eastern Catholics and their Orthodox counterparts.

This communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches never entirely closed down, not after 1054, not after 1204, not after Flornce or Trent, nor even after the Melkite schism that some mark as being the point of no return (it was after this that Constantinople briefly endorsed the rebaptism of Catholics, something which it has since consistently denounced). In fact, as long as Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have been living in close proximity, there has been intercommunion, and probably always will be.

In the case of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, matters have been taken a step further, to the establishment of a formal "communicatio in Sacris", whereby the faithful of one Church can receive all the sacraments from the other Church, without prejudice or precondition. The only thing which marks the continued separation of those two Churches is the lack of formal communion among the clergy.

However, by allowing the Orthodox to receive from Catholic ministers, and Catholics to receive from Orthodox ministers, to say nothing of establishing communicatio in sacris between Assyrians and Chaldeans, Rome has implicitly recognized not only the ecclesial status of the Orthodox Church and the Church of the East, but has conceded that in fact there is no objective impediment to restoration of communion.

Being Church is like being pregnant--you either are or aren't. You cannot be "a little bit Church" any more than you can be "a little bit pregnant". Once the Catholic Church recognized the ecclesial status of the separated Eastern Churches and allowed intercommunion as licit between them, it admitted that there IS in fact communion between them. Communion cannot be turned on and off like a light switch--it's OK under these particular circumstances and not under those--but exists as a sacramental reality simply because the Body of Christ cannot be divided.

If Rome somehow or other believed--truly believed--that the Petrine prerogatives as it defines them are in fact divinely ordained, and that denial of those prerogatives constituted objective heresy, then it could not in good faith allow the Orthodox to receive in the Catholic Church, let alone send the Catholic faithful to receive from heretics. Ergo, the logic of Rome's position dictates that in reality the Petrine prerogatives are a matter of the pastoral care of the Church, and not dogmatic at all.

Or, as Richard John Neuhaus put it, "All that prevents full communion is the absence of full communion". Whatever it is that keeps us apart, it is not a matter of faith.

This stands in marked contrast to the relationship that both Orthodox and Catholics alike have with the Protestant communities, which neither recognizes as true Churches (even most Orthodox will admit that Rome and the Eastern Catholics are indeed true Churches, albeit "heterodox", an ambiguous term that can mean anything from truly heretical to wearing the wrong color vestments in Lent). Thus, intercommunion with Protestants is extremely rare--and in the Catholic Church requires formal dispensation (usually because the person in question has been determined to hold to the Catholic faith but is prevented from openly becoming Catholic due to legal or social disabilities; e.g., Tony Blair). Since the Protestant communities have all, to a greater or lesser extent, abandoned large chunks of the Apostolic Tradition, it is not possible to share communion with them, because we are not of one heart and mind with them.

To sum up, then, talk of Orthodox "defectiveness" begs the question of whether communion with Rome is a prerequisite for the fullness of the Church, particularly in light of the "ecclesiology of communion" adopted by the Catholic Church in Vatican II. It is the Eucharist that imparts the fullness (katholikon) of the Church, not communion with any one particular bishop. One might just as well say that Rome is defective because it is not in formal communion with Constantinople, Moscow, Antioch or Alexandria. Among the true Churches, whatever "defects" exist are mutual and derive from the unnatural separation that perdures as the result not of real differencs in faith but simply the sinfulness of men. Thus, all defects will be healed through the descent of the Holy Spirit when all celebrate the Eucharist as one.

On the other hand, the "defects" of the Protestant communities are of a more substantial nature. All have abandoned, de jure or de facto, the apostolic succession of bishops; some do not recognize the sacramental nature of the ordained ministry, others do not recognize the need for the sacraments of reconciliation, healing, chrismation or even baptism. Many have diverse and often minimalist views of the Eucharist. These are thus of an entirely different order from disagreements over the status and jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

It is precisely because there are no substantive theological issues between Rome and the separated Eastern Churches that Rome has given priority to Catholic-Orthodox reconciliation. In some ways, this is the most difficult to acheive because the two are so close in most areas. But once all the apostolic Churches are in formal ecclesial communion with each other, rapprochement with the Protestants will become much easier because of the unified witness of the Churches in communion.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This raises the question of putting the shoe on the other foot. Would the Pope and other Catholics not be offended at all by non-Catholics who say that the Catholic Church is NOT the One True Church?<<<

I think the Whore of Babylon has gotten quite used to having her harlotry held up before her eyes by various and sundry for the last 500-odd years.

[Ethan Cordray]

I too notice the seeming dissonance that DGUS indicates. Even between the two types of "logic of identity" detailed by Dr. Hutchens there is a mojor difference. The Catholic doctrine seems to depend on apostolic succession, whereas the Protestant variety seems to depend on fidelity to a certain doctrine.

Along with Dr. Hutchens, I believe that both approaches seem to be detrimental to any ecumenical projects. However, let me propose that this is for a different reason for each of the two.

The Catholic type is problematic for the reason DGUS states. By its nature, it establishes an objective basis of identity separate from doctrinal agreement. This means that two bodies or individuals separated by vast doctrinal distances can be considered more unified than two that agree on nearly every point but lack institutional connnection.

I believe the Protestant type, however, is problematic only because it is an inappropriate overextension of a proper distinguishing criterion. A certain doctrine, such as the Lutheran one Dr. Hutchens presents, is made a shibboleth by which to establish a boundary to the group. This use is not in itself inappropriate, but it can lead to the inappropriate step of identifying the group with the Church, and thus the doctrine with the fullness of the Gospel.

The Protestant form of the barrier, then, is a distortion of a proper measure of group identity. The Catholic form, on the other hand, seems to me fundamentally misguided, prioritizing de jure institutional unity over de facto doctrinal unity. I think this difference would diminish to the degree that communion with Rome, or having a valid Episcopate, were identical with having a certain doctrinal position. This would require much greater unity in belief than currently exists within the Catholic communion.

Put another way, the Protestant approach only becomes problematic when a church is taken as the One True Church. The Catholic approach is instead dependent on the pre-understanding of Roman Catholicism as the One True Church, which allows it to think of its institutional connections as of primary importance.

This, I think, will continue to be a barrier to ecumenical progress between Protestants and Catholics for as long as the Catholic understanding remains as it is. However, unlike some others, I do not see this as being an intractible problem. It seems to me that the Roman Catholic Church could shift its understanding of the nature of union in the Protestant direction--being doctrinally based, and finally being recognized as contingent rather than absolute--without necessarily losing its theological distinctives or its self-understanding as the fullness of the Church on earth.

But this is only the opinion of one very young Protestant. I submit it humbly.

[Thomas Dunbar]

"John Paul II's analogy of the Roman and Eastern Catholic churches as the two lungs of the body of Christ is untenable."

Eastern Catholic is NOT THE SAME as Eastern Orthodox!

[Dcn. Michael D. Harmon]

Ethan: So, you think humility carries some weight here, do you? ;-)

More seriously, I think we are going to find out -- and sooner rather than later -- that all these "distinctives" we are so finely parsing here are going to be seen as rather unimportant by the powers that be when they come around to throw in jail people who insist that marriage is between one man and one woman, or who insist quoted the Bible about homosexuality, or who protest cloning, or oppose any other cultural imperative.

The persecutors won't really give a flying hoot about the things we're discussing. They will see what we do and judge (and sentence) us thereby.

Hope the Lutherans and Presbyterians don't mind sharing cells with Catholics. Both sides of the Tiber may learn something thereby.

[GL]

Hope the Lutherans and Presbyterians don't mind sharing cells with Catholics.

Not at all, but we will still be separated brethern, part of "'ecclesial communities' ambiguously related to the Church of Rome." Hopefully, our Catholic brethern won't mind sharing cells with those of us in "imperfect communion" with what they take to the be the one, true Church of Christ.

And, of course, the most important question is not whether "all these 'distinctives' we are so finely parsing here are going to be seen as rather unimportant by the powers that be," but whether they "are going to be seen as rather unimportant by the" All Powerful One, Who was and is and is to come. If so, we must maintain them; if not, we must repent of them. If only we knew for certain which it was.

[GL]

Given the first sentence in the final paragraph of my immediately previous post, the penultimate sentence should have read: "If so, we must repent of them; if not, we must maintain them."

[Peter Gardner]

"The persecutors won't really give a flying hoot about the things we're discussing. They will see what we do and judge (and sentence) us thereby."

This reminds me of what I've heard Jews refer to as "Rabbi Hitler" -- namely, the complaint of "I don't care if you don't think I'm Jewish; Hitler would have sent me to a concentration camp too!"

While there is some consideration due to this, it's probably better not to leave our self-definition in the hands of our persecutors.

[coco]

With regard to the communion that is the Church, Orthodoxy is deficient, but not so deficient as to withdraw the title of Church from its communions or Christian from its members. Protestant churches, measured by the same rod, are severely deficient, so much so that these religious communities are not churches properly speaking, and their members are only Christians (we must assume) to the degree that their churches are churches

I missed where the recent documents suggested that Protestants are not Christians. Particularly the last part quoted appears to me to be reaching well beyond the essential message of the document: to state the fact that there is one Church that Jesus founded is not to deny the status of Christian to a follower of His. Rather, what is generally missing is that Christian's recognition of the one Church's authority. Where such recognition is found on an individual basis, intercommunion has been allowed.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Blogs that I visit had the following stories recently:

(1) "Pink" Seminaries: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2518

(2) L.A. Archdiocese's Settlement: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070715/D8QD0BDO0.html

Conclusion: All churches have their spiritual challenges.

[Katherine Philips]

Ethan, I think your hope for a Catholic shift in its "understanding of the nature of union" is interesting. However, its fulfillment seems unlikely as long as the Catholic Church retains its emphasis on the relationship between ecclesial authority and articulation of doctrine. I don't wish to disparage the Catholic Church’s insistence on its authority, since this is arguably what’s kept its core doctrine from deliquescing into the many-branched tangles we find in most Protestant denominations. Nonetheless, I think many ecumenically hopeful Protestants would join me in saying that it’s not so much the differences of opinion between Catholic and Protestant teaching on lesser doctrines that bother us as the arguably heavy-handed manner in which the Catholic Church has declared certain teachings dogma. (I’m thinking of a few specific examples, but I think it might be distracting to bring them up here.)

In other words, as Coco has pointed out, even if I agreed point-for-point with every scrap of Catholic teaching, as a Protestant I wouldn't be amenable to accepting that teaching based on the authority of the "one true Church," and that does - sadly - impair communion between Protestants and Catholics, looked at from both vantage points.

[coco]

TUAD,

You bring out my point nicely. Pink seminaries and Card. Mahoney's archdiocese well illustrate the negative effects of failing to follow the constitued authority. Where the authority has acted to root out problems, it's stymied by a failure of obedience.

To make the connection with the documents: authority is constitutive of "the" Church. Just as there cannot be many final authorities, there cannot be many "churches" except in the local/particular sense.

[coco]

I should have said "a plurality" rather than "many".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Eastern Catholic is NOT THE SAME as Eastern Orthodox!<<<

Says you.

[GL]

If salvation = Christian, then perhaps we could use the Athanasian Creed for a definition of what it means to be Christian, which begins:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this . . . .

(Query for our Orthodox posters. Do Orthodox accept the substance of the Athanasian Creed, even if you do not profess it?)

If salvation does not equal Christian, then the logically conclusion must be that one can be a Christian and yet not saved. If that is the case, how is the term Christian defined?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Catholic doctrine seems to depend on apostolic succession, whereas the Protestant variety seems to depend on fidelity to a certain doctrine.<<<

This misconstrues apostolic succession, which is not a purely "mechanical" or "legalistic' concept (meet criteria A, B and C, and you are a bishop in the apostolic succession); rather, it implies not only continuity but also fidelity to an unbroken chain of Tradition, that which has been passed down (paradosis). A bishop can meet all of the canonical requirements for a valid ordination, yet not be within the Apostolic Succesion if he does not conform to the mind of the Church, which is the manifestation of the Tradition received from the Apostles.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this . . . .<<<

I think not. There is only one ecumenically binding symbol of faith, which is the uninterpolated Creed promulgated at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I don't wish to disparage the Catholic Church’s insistence on its authority, since this is arguably what’s kept its core doctrine from deliquescing into the many-branched tangles we find in most Protestant denominations. <<<

How ever did the Orthodox manage without the benefit of an extrinsic magesterium to reconcile the irreconcilable differences that one incurs once theology is separated from liturgy and spirituality, and is reduced to a mere academic discipline. The Protestants are no different from Roman Catholics in that regard, save that, without an ostensibly infallible supreme magisterium, the did disintegrate due to the lack of a center to counteract its centrifugal impulses.

[Scott Pennington]

Once again I find an article too juicy to pass up commenting on. It has been entertaining to some extent to see the various reactions to the recent statement on what is and is not the "church". I actually took the statement as a solidification of a liberalizing trend, oddly enough. It seems that Rome has decided to adopt a sort of branch theory regarding the Orthodox Church, although they consider us "defective" branches.
Of course, it should be irrelevant to all of us who aren't Roman Catholic. Orthodoxy, traditionally is not so inclusive toward Roman Catholicism as the RCC seems to be becoming toward us - - and rightly so. As I have said before, by opening up communion to Orthodox who apply for it, Rome is sacrificing theological integrity.
The observation has been made that a reassertion of a more conservative Roman Catholic position is healthier for ecumenical relations between Christians. I agree. Using the liberal "can't we all just get along and sweep the differences under the rug" is dishonest and utterly unTraditional. I wish that the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics could agree, as we did in previous generations, that the Church is one visible institutional entity within which there can be no schism. If the Pope can't go that far then I suppose I'll defer to the interpretations of others and look at this as a step in the right direction (if it matters at all).

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>>> Just as there cannot be a plurality of final authorities ... <<< - Coco

Interesting.

Holy Scripture as final authority vs. Scripture/Church/Tradition as final authority.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"John Paul II's analogy of the Roman and Eastern Catholic churches as the two lungs of the body of Christ is untenable."<<<

He actually didn't say that. He said that the two lungs of the Church are the Western and Eastern Traditions. The Eastern Catholic Churches represent those Traditions within the Catholic Communion, but in fact we are not the legtimate representatives of those Traditions, but rather the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches whence we came--and to which, some day, we shall return.

The Western Tradition is most fully represented in the Latin Church, which is to say the Church of Rome; all Protestant denominations derive from that Church by various routes, and all manifest different aspects of the Western Tradition. But only the Church of Rome represents that Tradition in its fullness.

The close relationship between Roman Catholics and Protestants is probably not apparent in their eyes, but to us of the Eastern Churches, it is so glaringly obvious. You share so many of the same assumptions, and have been arguing so long, that the questions of your debate have long been frozen in amber. We, on the other hand, think you are both asking the wrong questions.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As I have said before, by opening up communion to Orthodox who apply for it, Rome is sacrificing theological integrity.<<<

You've said it many times, Scott, but never managed to prove the point, and in the process, shown a blinding ignorance of Church history.

[GL]

I think not. There is only one ecumenically binding symbol of faith, which is the uninterpolated Creed promulgated at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Stuart,

I expected that answer. If I may follow-up: In your opinion, must one hold to the Nicene Creed to be saved?

[Bill R]

">>>Eastern Catholic is NOT THE SAME as Eastern Orthodox!<<<

Says you." - Stuart Koehl

Or, one assumes, any Eastern Orthodox. There is that little matter of the Petrine Office.

[coco]

TUAD,

We've had all this before. Holy scripture is authoritative in a derivative sense. The Church is the source of both scripture and tradition. She is indeed the final authority.

What's the bottom line on authority? It's the "binding and loosing" thing.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

This misconstrues apostolic succession, which is not a purely "mechanical" or "legalistic' concept (meet criteria A, B and C, and you are a bishop in the apostolic succession); rather, it implies not only continuity but also fidelity to an unbroken chain of Tradition, that which has been passed down (paradosis). A bishop can meet all of the canonical requirements for a valid ordination, yet not be within the Apostolic Succesion if he does not conform to the mind of the Church, which is the manifestation of the Tradition received from the Apostles.

Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 16, 2007 4:31:49 PM

Previously:

Apostolic Succession is an excellent example of a "true myth".

Posted by: Stuart Koehl | May 29, 2007 6:37:55 PM

Conclusion: There's a lot to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I expected that answer. If I may follow-up: In your opinion, must one hold to the Nicene Creed to be saved?<<<

Not the right question, since one is saved through divine grace alone. To be considered Christian, though, one must believe the content of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, whether one acknowledges the formula or not:

--One God the Father, Creator of all things
--One Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, consubstantial with the Father
--One Holy Spirit, Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father
--One holy, catholic and Apostolic Church
--One baptism for the remission of sins
--Anticipation of the resurrection of the dead and the life of the Kingdom of God.

[Scott Pennington]

Stuart, I'd hoped that the Pope's latest comments would have thrown a wet blanket on your idea about the great misunderstanding, alas, no such luck. Communion, according to tradition, equals agreement in faith. Previously the RCC held to that position. Now they talk about "celebrating the liturgy with great love . . . ", etc. and apostolic succession. Have they not opened up communion to members of other eastern churches whose doctrines separated them before the Great Schism? In what sense is this not a sacrifice of theological integrity? It is axiomatic.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Or, one assumes, any Eastern Orthodox. There is that little matter of the Petrine Office.<<<

I'm glad you recognize how little and insignificant it truly is.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>>> Holy scripture is authoritative in a derivative sense. The Church is the source of both scripture and tradition. She is indeed the final authority. <<<

Do all Catholics agree with this assertion?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, I'd hoped that the Pope's latest comments would have thrown a wet blanket on your idea about the great misunderstanding, alas, no such luck. <<<

Scott, you have no clue as to what I believe, and I will not be drawn into a fruitless discussion with you about it. Suffice to say that no less an authority than Father John Meyendorff, in the final chapter of his book "Imperial Unity", acknowledges explicitly the extent to which current divisions are not based on substantive differences of faith but of terminological misunderstanding, cultural differences and political posturing. Kind of like your political posturing.

[David Gray]

>If salvation does not equal Christian, then the logically conclusion must be that one can be a Christian and yet not saved. If that is the case, how is the term Christian defined?

If one bears the mark of the covenant (aka baptism). Just as before Christ Israelites all bore the mark of the covenant (aka circumcision) but not all were regenerate.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Do all Catholics agree with this assertion?<<<

Only the ones who do more than dust the pews with their butts.

[Scott Pennington]

>>>Or, one assumes, any Eastern Orthodox. There is that little matter of the Petrine Office.<<<

I'm glad you recognize how little and insignificant it truly is.

Your Supreme Pontiff seems to hold a different definition of Catholicism than you.

[Margaret]

Amen, Dcn. Harmon. Richard Wurmbrand, who knew well the inside of a prison, discovered that our cherished constructs and distinctives are mere chaff when the burning love of Christ is all that remains to a man's soul.

When that happens, your brother is the stranger whose devotion to Jesus has led him to the place of suffering with you; and your unity as you multiply His love under terrific provocation ascends to God like a sweet-smelling sacrifice.

[GL]

TUAD and Coco,

Can we not reopen this debate? I think everyone's position on this has been discussed ad nauseum and opinions are unlikely to change. This horse is dead on this blog site; let's stop beating the poor, dead beast.

[GL]

David,

Seth R. told us that Mormon's are baptized using a trinitarian formula. Are they therefore Christian?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Your Supreme Pontiff seems to hold a different definition of Catholicism than you.<<<

As with most people, you have very little understanding of the mind of Joseph Ratzinger.

[Scott Pennington]

"Scott, you have no clue as to what I believe"

Stuart, I recall exhanges on a related topic, "the big misunderstanding" discussion. If your beliefs have changed, I commend you.

I am aware that throughout history the RCC and sometimes the Orthodox have behaved badly according to their own respective traditions. I pray for greater commitment to principle, however.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>When that happens, your brother is the stranger whose devotion to Jesus has led him to the place of suffering with you; and your unity as you multiply His love under terrific provocation ascends to God like a sweet-smelling sacrifice.<<<

In the GULAG, there were no Orthodox, Catholics or Protestants. There were only those who believed and bore witness to their belief through their suffering. As martyrs and confessors of the faith, they are more fully united to God than any theologian through his understanding of doctrine.

[Little Gidding]

Stuart,

I'm with you on this one, buddy. Maybe you and I could meet in a bar sometime soon and work out this whole Roman Catholic--Orthodox thing, between you and me, along the lines you've outlined. We could send to Rome and Contantinople, etc. a draft press release with "your name" here lines on the bottom for signatures of the appropriate ecclasial authorites East and West.

[GL]

Stuart,

Thanks.

Is it possible for someone to "believe the content of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, whether one acknowledges the formula or not" and yet not be saved?

Is it possible for someone to be saved who does not "believe the content of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, whether one acknowledges the formula or not"?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, I recall exhanges on a related topic, "the big misunderstanding" discussion. If your beliefs have changed, I commend you.<<<

You were clueless then, you are clueless now. Regarding "Orthodox Behaving Badly", take a look in the mirror right now.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Is it possible for someone to be saved who does not "believe the content of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, whether one acknowledges the formula or not"?<<<

All salvation is the result of divine grace. God, I believe, is more concerned with the state of our hearts than with our doctrinal purity. A Muslim who loves God and his neighbor as himself is more likely to be saved than a Christian whose doctrine is pure but whose heart is flint.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>.I'm with you on this one, buddy. Maybe you and I could meet in a bar sometime soon and work out this whole Roman Catholic--Orthodox thing, between you and me, along the lines you've outlined. We could send to Rome and Contantinople, etc. a draft press release with "your name" here lines on the bottom for signatures of the appropriate ecclasial authorites East and West.<<<

Cardinal Cassidy, former Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity, said something very much along those lines at one of the Orientale Lumen conferences.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

o Holy scripture is authoritative in a derivative sense. The Church is the source of both scripture and tradition. She is indeed the final authority.

o Do all Catholics agree with this assertion?

o Only the ones who do more than dust the pews with their butts.

I appreciate the doctrinal clarity. It's only a sample size of two however.

Catholics hold that the Church is the Final Authority. Protestants hold that the Word of God is the Final Authority.

Always good to know where the boundaries are. After all, I think that's one of the benefits of the CDF.

[Bill R]

"This horse is dead on this blog site; let's stop beating the poor, dead beast." -GL

Nice try, GL. Unfortunately, dead-horse-beating seems to be our specialty! ;-)

[GL]

Stuart,

I take your response to be a "yes" and "yes" to my questions. Am I correct?

So, are you saying that a Muslim who does not believe in Jesus as the Christ nor in His divinity (though, of course, he believes in the human Jesus as He is mentioned in the Koran) and who has not been baptized may nonetheless be saved?

[coco]

The Church is a single, unique, living thing, not a dead horse. I'll continue to "flog" it (in the sense of sell) from time to time.

Also flog it literally by my uncharity!

However, I'm just sharing my understanding, it's all I can do.

[GL]

Coco,

I adopt here, by reference, my refutation of your position on this matter from a couple of months ago. Now that that is out of the way, back to the topic at hand. . . .

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

David Mills writes: "What can we do, knowing that we are not all going to join a single Christian body? What can the Baptist who thinks the “Hail Mary” idolatrous and the Catholic who thinks sola scriptura an unbiblical idea do with each other?"

Excellent observation, simply excellent.

I highly commend the following essay by David Mills on "Ecumenical Exclusion":

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-003-e

[Bill R]

"I'll continue to "flog" it (in the sense of sell) from time to time."

So we're all (b)logging a dead horse?

[Scott Pennington]

"As with most people, you have very little understanding of the mind of Joseph Ratzinger."

If you can seriously assert that the Petrine office means so little, as you did above, at the same time as Pope Benedict asserts that it is foundational and absent communion with it, a church is defective, then I don't think you know nearly as much about the mind of this Pope as you might think. In fact, I really don't understand your positions at all. The RCC in its catechism and recent statements seems to be firmly entrenched in the Pope having supremacy over the Church, other churches being defective by lack of communion with Rome, etc. Do you still believe after recent events that Rome only asserts the authority of the Pope and RCC Councils over the Western church? It would seem to be an untenable position now.

[Michael]

Stuart,

What would you say to the Lutherans of the Porvoo Communion, whose Apostolic Succession is recognized and deemed complete by the RC Magisterium? Clearly, in this case, they are not bereft of Apostolic Succession, and yet, unlike the Orthodox, they are not a "Church," merely an "ecclesial community," not being in communion with the RCC like the Anglican, Scots, Welsh and Irish churches are. Clearly not all Protestants reject apostolic succession, have recognized teaching authority and yet...aren't churches. What good is a Bishop to me if he isn't part of the OTC. That's some serious cognitive dissonance to work around.

So, here I am...the LCMS isn't a church of the apostolic succession, having kicked out their only apostolic bishop when Walther decided church government should be congegational (for all the doctrines of the LCMS being right, I am piqued by LCMS thoughts on church goverment)...but Lutherans, as a rule, don't consider church governmental organization salvific. The LCMS is in communion ("fellowship," as we lamely enjoy calling it) with a number of apostolic churches, including a few of the Roman-recognized Porvoo Communion...so what? Our doctrine is in enough alignment with the apostolic churches that they don't consider us outside the church, but we don't have an apostolic bishop--unfortunately--so we don't qualify as a church, and even if we did, because we're Protestants, we would be an "ecclesial community," and instead we're just some bizarre sect...

Not that I object to denominational distinctives, but I think the RCC has a few kinks to pound out in their chain if they really want to make it clear what they mean by "one catholic and Apostolic Church" as per your post regarding the salvific substance of the Nicene Creed. Most Protestants would hold to that formulaically, but in a completely different "substance" than you.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Coco,

I adopt here, by reference, my refutation of your position on this matter from a couple of months ago."

D'Oh!! May I see the refutation to see if it is indeed a sound refutation?

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"So we're all (b)logging a dead horse?"

Bill R, don't give up your day job while you're aspiring to be a comedian. ;-)

[Scott Pennington]

"In the GULAG, there were no Orthodox, Catholics or Protestants. There were only those who believed and bore witness to their belief through their suffering. As martyrs and confessors of the faith, they are more fully united to God than any theologian through his understanding of doctrine."

Perhaps so, but that does not mean that the victim is always right. Too many victims of various persuasions with contradictory beliefs. Of course, perhaps you're asserting that it doesn't matter what they believed. I'm sure there were Jews in the Gulag as well. What exactly was your point?

[GL]

D'Oh!! May I see the refutation to see if it is indeed a sound refutation?

You seemed to think so at the time, as you quoted some of it and endorsed in your posts. Frankly, I don't recall what thread this was all discussed on or I would link you to it. I haven't the time or interest necessary to dig it back out.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Frankly, I don't recall what thread this was all discussed on or I would link you to it. I haven't the time or interest necessary to dig it back out."

Geez, I forgot too.

Hence the need to continually beat dead horses. ;-)

[Gina]

Even the extremely liberal RC parish (open to same-sex unions, tolerant of abortion, universalistic, indifferent to Christological error, etc.) is deemed a "proper church" and its dissident priest is deemed authentically Christian because they are believed to possess apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist...

I haven't read through all the comments so forgive me if this has been addressed. I also realize that "validity" has a different meaning to the Catholics than the Orthodox, so I hope and expect correction if I misstate. However, this comparison (between a "valid" but illegitimate priest and an "invalid" but "Nicene" Protestant pastor) strikes me as apples and oranges. The first case is wanting church discipline. For the second, by what means is there to address the disunity? Your example actually illustrates, to my mind, the qualitative difference between a church that recognizes and holds apostolic succession and one that does not.

The argument also assumes that the errors and lapses given as examples (laxity in moral teaching, etc.) are more important than errors in ecclesiology and lapses in the sacraments. Here we must ask whose priorities make such a judgment. It is true of Protestant confessions that christology is heavily emphasized as a point of unity and a litmus test for true churches, almost to the exclusion of other doctrines at times, but that is not the case for the Catholics and Orthodox. What I see is people being offended that the Catholics do not share their sense of what the gospel means, their priorities, and see the Pope as "majoring on minors." As always, this begs the question of what constitutes a "minor."

[coco]

I, too, have no recollection of being refuted...:)

[Gina]

the non-Catholic minister and congregation that affirm the Nicene Creed without reservation...

A second comment to DGUS's post, if I may: I read the Catholic statement as recognizing that in fact those who do not affirm apostolic succession don't affirm the Nicene Creed fully, because they cannot recite "one holy catholic and apostolic church" with the same understanding as do Catholics and (arguably here) Orthodox.

[David Gray]

>Seth R. told us that Mormon's are baptized using a trinitarian formula. Are they therefore Christian?

I would say not on the basis that they are invoking a different trinity (in the sense of who/what constitutes the members) than does a Protestant, RC or EO minister.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"I, too, have no recollection of being refuted... :) "

Coco, be that as it may, would you take it on faith by GL's good word that he refuted your position on this matter from a couple of months ago?

;-)

[Scott Pennington]

It is a strange truth, but a truth nonetheless: So long as Catholics remain Catholic, Orthodox remain Orthodox and Protestants of various sorts remain Protestant, i.e, that they actually hold to the traditional doctrines that define them, there can be no institutional unity. Mr. Mohler is just pointing out the obvious factual nature of that statement. The answer to Christian disunity is in conversion, not ecumenical discussion. However, to the extent that the discussion serves to further the flow of converts from one church to another, it is rational to some extent. Officially, that has been the attitude of the Orthodox. It appears to be the attitude of the RCC vis a vis certain groups such as Anglo-Catholics.

It is really the best we can do and retain our integrity. Of course, it doesn't preclude cooperation on certain matters (moral/political movements, fighting poverty, etc.)

[TonyC]

"The Western Tradition is most fully represented in the Latin Church, which is to say the Church of Rome; all Protestant denominations derive from that Church by various routes, and all manifest different aspects of the Western Tradition. But only the Church of Rome represents that Tradition in its fullness."
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Jul 16, 2007 4:44:55 PM

I would assert that the argument could be sustained that Western Rite Orthodoxy best represents the "Western tradition" of the one Church rather than the Church of Rome.

[GL]

TUAD and Coco,

See http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2007/05/the_more_things.html. As I recall it, Coco, you were having some problems seeing that your arguments had been refuted back then as well. ;-) By now, the scavengers have eaten away the flesh and all that is left of the poor old nag is her bones.

Enough on that topic, I look forward to a discussion of who is a Christian and where is the Church.

[GL]

I would say not on the basis that they are invoking a different trinity (in the sense of who/what constitutes the members) than does a Protestant, RC or EO minister.

Which brings us back round to the Nicene and/or Athanasian Creed (and/or Apostle's Creed). Based on your answer, baptism is not enough, even if the correct form is used, if the right meanings are not intended when the words are recited.

In the Mohler on Mormonism blog, we were told that Arian baptisms were accepted as Christian, even though they had defective views of the trinity (heretical views of the nature and relationship of God the Father and our Lord Jesus). Do you accept that view and, if so, why wouldn't Mormon's be treated in the same fashion, heretical Christians, but Christians nonetheless?

[Scott Pennington]

Michael's point above on the Porvoo Communion Lutherans, if he is accurate, shows the problem with using apostolic succession as the thing that makes an institution a "church". Is not the Pope, in extending the term "churches" to the Orthodox, betraying its traditional commitment to the visible unity of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church? You can see why I'm not sure that the Congregation's statement is quite so conservative.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Part of the Scripture predates the Church and was recognized as Scripture before the Church came into existence. The remainder predates any official recognition of its canonicity by centuries. It did not become Scripture only when it was recognized as such. The declaration of the canon was a recognition of a preexisting fact.

Posted by: GL | May 22, 2007 10:43:07 AM
------------------------

Followed by:

Coco: "How do you know that "the Church as the pillar and foundation of all truth?"

The apostle declared it. The successors of the apostles, by virtue of their authority, ordered this statement to be transmitted as part of the patrimony of the Church."

Coco,

Are you saying that until the "successors of the apostles, by virtue of their authority, ordered this statement to be transmitted as part of the patrimony of the Church," it was not the inspired word of God? So when Timothy first read Paul's letter, was he not reading the inspired word of God? If so, when did it become the inspired word of God?

In reality, you are engaging in circular reasoning: the Scriptures gets its authority from the Church, which gets its authority from the Scriptures. In reality, any authority which either has comes from God and neither the Church nor the Scriptures derive their authority from the other.

Posted by: GL | May 22, 2007 12:23:04 PM
---------------

That was a very long thread with many subtopics.

If Coco accepts his refutation, then yes, by all means let's stop beating this dead horse.

If Coco doesn't accept it, then this horse has resurrected, and needs to be beaten and whipped on again.

[David Gray]

>Which brings us back round to the Nicene and/or Athanasian Creed (and/or Apostle's Creed). Based on your answer, baptism is not enough, even if the correct form is used, if the right meanings are not intended when the words are recited.

That is my understanding. God is not a vending machine. Invoking Christ's name as a talisman, when by it you mean something radically different from the understanding of the creeds, is not guaranteed a mechanistic response.

>In the Mohler on Mormonism blog, we were told that Arian baptisms were accepted as Christian, even though they had defective views of the trinity (heretical views of the nature and relationship of God the Father and our Lord Jesus). Do you accept that view and, if so, why wouldn't Mormon's be treated in the same fashion, heretical Christians, but Christians nonetheless?

What was the authority cited for the reference to Arian baptisms? I think that as flawed as the Arian understanding of the Trinity was the Mormonistic understanding is even more grievously flawed. And I'm not at all sure I'd be comfortable accepting Arian baptism. Must confess haven't spent much time wrestling with that one though as I've never encountered an Arian baptism in my life.

[Bill R]

"I look forward to a discussion of who is a Christian and where is the Church." - GL

A Christian is a person who confesses with his mouth, and believe in his heart, the Christ proclaimed by the Apostles, which is to say, the Christ described in the Gospels and explicated in the New Testament.

The Church is the assembly of all true Christians: past, present, and future. The tougher question is how one recognizes the Church militant.

[David Gray]

>A Christian is a person who confesses with his mouth, and believe in his heart, the Christ proclaimed by the Apostles, which is to say, the Christ described in the Gospels and explicated in the New Testament.

So nobody knows who is a Christian...

dave

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>>> The Church is the assembly of all true Christians: past, present, and future. <<<

Is this the *invisible* Church?

>>> The tougher question is how one recognizes the Church militant. <<<

Isn't the Catholic Church militant enough to be recognized?

[Bill R]

"So nobody knows who is a Christian..."

If you mean definitively, God only knows. If you mean presumptively, then one must accept a profession as valid until there is good cause to reject it.

[Bill R]

"Is this the *invisible* Church?" -TUAD

No, when we posted our pictures online a few months back, you saw that I wasn't invisible. I look just like Elvis...

"Isn't the Catholic Church militant enough to be recognized?"

Onward, Christian soldiers...

[David Gray]

>If you mean presumptively, then one must accept a profession as valid until there is good cause to reject it.

So you would not believe small children to be Christians nor people of limited intellectual capacity?

dave

[Scott Pennington]

The Scripturalist side of the chicken or the egg argument about Scripture and the Church seems to assume that the validation of the Church comes from Scripture. While, in part, that is so, ultimately the validation of the Church is personal. That is really the heart of the division between Catholics and Orthodox on one side and Protestants on the other. The authority for we Orthodox and Catholics is ultimately personal. Christ commissioned his Apostles and and they consecrated their successors. We know that this or that book of scripture actually is inspired only because of its acceptance by this organic personal phenomenon called the Church and governed by her bishops, the successors of the apostles. Where Protestants place the means by which Christ is known by His followers as the Bible, Orthodoxy and Catholicism insist that knowledge of Christ comes through his Church as a whole, including the writings she has accepted (and reserves the right to interpret within her Tradition) as a part of that whole.

[David Gray]

>We know that this or that book of scripture actually is inspired only because of its acceptance by this organic personal phenomenon called the Church and governed by her bishops, the successors of the apostles.

Of course while the canon does not predate the existence of the church, scripture predates the establishment of the canon and the church.

[Bill R]

"So you would not believe small children to be Christians nor people of limited intellectual capacity?" - David Gray

Trick question, Dave--no fair! But seriously, I treat the children of Christians as Christians--again, until there is good cause not to do so. That is, I treat their parents as sponsors of their faith (regardless, I might add, of whether the child is baptized).

As to people of limited capacity, I also treat them as Christians, since I entrust their spiritual care to the Ulimate Sponsor, likely the only One who is able to hear their profession.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Hut, hut.. Hike!

I'm calling a Touchstone play: It's called the Nicene Creed.

Wide receivers can freelance on their route and interpret apostolic as they deem necessary. We're all Christians and we all belong to the called out assembly of true Christians: Past, Present, and Future.

Touchdown for Touchstone Commenters!!!!

Let's all celebrate in the endzone by interlocking arms and belting out a raucous rendition of Kum-bay-yah!!

[David Gray]

>Trick question, Dave--no fair! But seriously, I treat the children of Christians as Christians--again, until there is good cause not to do so. That is, I treat their parents as sponsors of their faith (regardless, I might add, of whether the child is baptized).

Good answer.

[Scott Pennington]

It is for the above reason, the personal nature of authority, that we Orthodox and Catholics get so persnickity about the definition of what is "The Church". If someone was trying to change the books of the Bible, you might expect a similar reaction from Protestants. I believe in the Christian faith, ultimately, because it came to me through the body of Christ, the Church. I learned to trust that Church, personally, by means of dialogue with its priests, ordained by bishops, and with its laity. She used her books to teach me, yet ultimately, I would not believe in Christ or the Bible were it not for the fact that they were conveyed to me by the Church. (Here I'm paraphrasing a Church Father, which, I forget).

[Scott Pennington]

Well, Dave, the scriptures of the New Testament do not predate the Church, that much is certain.

[David Gray]

>Well, Dave, the scriptures of the New Testament do not predate the Church, that much is certain.

Which is not the entirety of scripture.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"I learned to trust that Church, personally, by means of dialogue with its priests, ordained by bishops, and with its laity."

Would everyone have the same experience as you. But unfortunately, that's NOT the case.

Soooooo, let's consider other options.....

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I would assert that the argument could be sustained that Western Rite Orthodoxy best represents the "Western tradition" of the one Church rather than the Church of Rome.<<<

Except for the byzantinizations and the utterly non-canonical status of the WRV, you might have a point. Perhaps the Eastern uniates and the Western uniates should get together and settle this like civilized people.

[Bill R]

"And I'm not at all sure I'd be comfortable accepting Arian baptism."

I wouldn't accept them today. (There really are still a few Arians about.) But things looked different in the fourth century. Up to a point, God would permit us to treat the issue as one of charity. That day is long past. (It probably disappeared sometime in the fifth century, if not sooner.) No such grace period exists for Mormons post-Nicea, unfortunately for them.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Michael's point above on the Porvoo Communion Lutherans, if he is accurate, shows the problem with using apostolic succession as the thing that makes an institution a "church". Is not the Pope, in extending the term "churches" to the Orthodox, betraying its traditional commitment to the visible unity of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church? You can see why I'm not sure that the Congregation's statement is quite so conservative.<<<

Only for those who, like Scott, have absolutely no knowledge of Church history, including the development of the papacy. His statement betrays ignorance not only of Catholic, but also of Orthodox souces. Of course, to understand the history of relations between the Churches from the first millennium onward would be to deprive one's self of the opportunity to pick at old scabs unencumbered by any obligation to the truth.

[coco]

TUAD and GL,

we have a fundamental disagreement here, to be sure, on the nature of the Church how the scriptures relate to it as having their source in it.

I saw no circular reasoning in stating that the Church was right to confirm the apostle's statement as to the role of the Church (pillar and foundation of all truth) as being the true belief of the Church.

When it did so (canonizing that and other scriptures), it was continuing its apostolic role in history.

The Church's present restatement of its unicity (in the documents referred to above) is entirely in line with this.

Now what was that refutation, again?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That is my understanding. God is not a vending machine. Invoking Christ's name as a talisman, when by it you mean something radically different from the understanding of the creeds, is not guaranteed a mechanistic response.<<<

David,

This comes very close to the concept of "synergia" so prominent in Eastern theology--the necessity of cooperation between free human will and the divine grace in order for sacraments to be efficacious. Keep this up, you'll be way beyond Arminian and into "Semi-Pelagian" like St. John Cassian.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If someone was trying to change the books of the Bible, you might expect a similar reaction from Protestants. <<<

You mean like Martin Luther. . . Oh. Never mind.

[David Gray]

>This comes very close to the concept of "synergia" so prominent in Eastern theology--the necessity of cooperation between free human will and the divine grace in order for sacraments to be efficacious.

It also sounds a lot like Calvin.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Now what was that refutation, again?" writes Coco.

C'mon GL! It's like riding a bike. Once you know how, you never forget.

Same thing with your refutation. And beating a dead horse. You've did it before. And you can do it again.

Yessireee GL, beat, flog, whip, and blog on that dead horse you rode in on.

;-)