The Evangelicals & the Fathers

"To me, tradition is very important, and it's something we should use," says Prof. Bryan Litfin of Moody Bible Institute, interviewed by Christianity Today in A higher ecclesiology for Evangelicals. But

It's not something to be equated with Scripture as a second source . . . . [T]radition is rather a friend and a guide. It is a witness and it does not stand over Scripture, but it can serve Christians by helping us to understand what Scripture means.

He is being interviewed on his new book Getting To Know the Church Fathers, and in the interview gives what seems, to an outsider, a helpful explanation of the conservative Evangelical's understanding of the Fathers and their place for Christians today.

Comments

[bonobo]

The Traditio is what has been handed down (tradere)from the apostles--"from" meaning by the apostles and their successors. In that sense, it includes the scriptures.

We don't need to view it as another, amorphous text from which to fight doctrinal battles. Placing it in opposition to the scriptues is an error. But I do look forward to many rediscovering the need for the Church to be apostolic. An interest in Patristics is a first, useful step.

For the Patres to have been close in time to Christ is some guarantee of right teaching. Where they were also successors to the apostles, the guarantee is qualitatively far superior.

It's interesting that Tertullian is mentioned in the article. That he was not in the latter category (not being a bishop) and is considered a teacher of heretical views (I'm not calling him a heretic BTW) dovetails with the point I'm making here.

It's about the apostles...they haven't gone away, you know. Even if many are of very mixed quality.

[David Gray]

It is good to see more evangelicals returning to the right and proper understanding of the fathers fostered by the magisterial reformers. It would be a preventative to some of the more novel errors embraced by some sectors of modern evangelicalism.

[bonobo]

David, how did the magisterial reformers assume the apostolic mantle that enabled them to give the right and proper understanding of the fathers? How can one definitively judge of anything if the apostolic age passed with the apostles chosen personally by Christ?

The apostolic age continues only if the apostles designated successors...I submit that it's still and always a question of authority, which verifies both scripture and tradition.

[David Gray]

Bonobo?

Aren't you the chimp in the old Reagan film? Bedtime for Bonobo?

[bonobo]

Who knows? Maybe. Powerful argument, BTW.

[bonobo]

Apparently, there was a first age of the apostles which lasted until the death of John. Then there was a second age ushered in by the "magisterial" reformers. Any text from either of these (say) 100-year slices of history is acceptable.

Anything else is mere accretion, propounding works-righteousness (Mt 25) or something else equally disastrous to the faith.

No matter what anyone did in the meantime: laying on of hands, preaching the gospel, spreading the Church: it's the official (read: KJV) text and its magisterial interpreters that count.

And we know the magisterial interpreters how? Not by sacramental ordination to the role, not by spreading the gospel or founding churches, but by the mere fact that they lived either between 1AD and 100AD or 1501 and 1600AD, preferably in Palestine, Scotland, Northern Germany or Switzerland.

Good stuff!

[David Gray]

>Apparently, there was a first age of the apostles which lasted until the death of John. Then there was a second age ushered in by the "magisterial" reformers. Any text from either of these (say) 100-year slices of history is acceptable.

If you wish to throw out rubbish like that you should identify yourself.

[bonobo]

If you wish to throw out rubbish

Critique it, please!

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Bonobo,

One doesn't critique rubbish. One simply throws it out. ;-)

You've presented a caricature that doesn't accurately represent David's views. That isn't an argument, and thus does not obligate him to argue back.

[bonobo]

I'll admit the charge of caricature. If I didn't object strongly to the viewpoint, I wouldn't caricature it.

Now, what is the defense? I'll pose the question again so that it can be answered: "How did the magisterial reformers assume the apostolic mantle"?

Discuss!

[labrialumn]

Since God is assumed to be unable to communicate effectively in language, how much more so were mere humans. Without an infinite regression of magesteria, we are lost, and certainly cannot understand one another.

[bonobo]

Sounds a bit like the "who designed the designer?" argument.

God did more than just communicate in language. He communicated Himself: His body, the Church. There is no other magisterial source and no infinite regression to worry about.

[Rob G]

A little late to this, and I don't really want to throw myself into the fray. I'll just say that to me the difference between the Protestant approach to the Fathers vs. the EO and RC approach is that the former views them as advisory but not ultimately authoritative, while the latter sees them as both. To oversimplify a bit, I've heard it said that to the Catholic and the Orthodox if something's not in the Fathers, then it's not in the Bible. Protestants, I think, would have a difficult time agreeing with that statement.

In short, Protestants believe that the consensus fidelium, which is expressed in the consensus patria, can be wrong. RCs and EOs don't.

[bonobo]

Both the consensus fidelium (in theory at least) and the fathers (in fact) can be 100% wrong, in the RC view. The fathers do not constitute the Magisterium. Nor, I would submit, do the "magisterial" reformers.

[Rob G]

"Both the consensus fidelium (in theory at least) and the fathers (in fact) can be 100% wrong, in the RC view."

That's news to me. I'd like to hear some verification of that from another Catholic. Stuart? DGP?

[Rob G]

"Both the consensus fidelium (in theory at least) and the fathers (in fact) can be 100% wrong, in the RC view."

That's news to me. I'd like to hear some verification of that from another Catholic. Stuart? DGP?

[GL]

As an evangelical, I agree with Rob. I view Scripture as mandatory authority and the Fathers as persuasive authority as to how the mandatory authority is to be understood. The fathers could and did err: Origen held views which are now seen as heretical and Eastern Christians and many Western Christians (e.g., Arminians) have problems with Augustine. Stuart, an Eastern Catholic, has critiqued Jerome on this very blog. With that said, however, I put greater trust in the early Fathers than I do those who came later, even the Reformers, but, as David indicated, the early Reformers gave great weight to the early Fathers. What we are seeing is a healthy recognition in evangelicalism that something has gone terrible wrong within our own house and that a return to the early Fathers is needed to correct what has gone wrong. While we are not prepared to treat tradition with a capital "T," that we are once again giving it great deference should be a cause for joy, not recriminations, from our RC, EC and Orthodox brothers.

[GL]

By saying I agree with Rob, I meant that I agreed with his understanding of the evangelical approach to the Fathers. I understand that he rejects that approach.

[Rob G]

"I view Scripture as mandatory authority and the Fathers as persuasive authority as to how the mandatory authority is to be understood. The fathers could and did err."

Individual fathers can and do err. The EOC, though, would hold the consensus to be infallible, since it expresses the mind of the infallible Church. Protestants wouldn't accept this, and thus their appeal to and reading of the Fathers is going to look different than that of the EO and the RCs.

'While we are not prepared to treat tradition with a capital "T," that we are once again giving it great deference should be a cause for joy, not recriminations, from our RC, EC and Orthodox brothers.'

Indeed. Anytime anyone increases their study of the Fathers, it's a good thing.

[Bill R]

"Indeed. Anytime anyone increases their study of the Fathers, it's a good thing." - Rob G

Agreed. As I've mentioned before, one of the best recent books I've read was Robert Louis Wilken's "The Spirit of Early Christian Thought," a very well-written review of the early Fathers. Wilken, of course, is a Roman Catholic. I thought as I put the book down: now, what could I possibly disagree with? Answer: nothing so far as I could tell.

[DGP]

ROB G >>"Both the consensus fidelium (in theory at least) and the fathers (in fact) can be 100% wrong, in the RC view." That's news to me. I'd like to hear some verification of that from another Catholic. Stuart? DGP?

You're right: Bonobo's off base. The "faithful" and the "fathers" are each understood by the RCC in a universal sense, so that for either to descend into mortal error would mean a loss of the Gospel to the world, the failure of the Church, and the infidelity of Christ. Perish the thought!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That's news to me. I'd like to hear some verification of that from another Catholic. Stuart? DGP?<<<

Bonobo seems prone to fits of ultramontanist enthusiasm. But as a corrective, see the following statement by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger from 2004:

It seems to me most important that the Catechism, in mentioning the limitation of the powers of the supreme authority in the Church with regard to reform, recalls to mind what is the essence of the primacy as outlined by the First and Second Vatican Councils: The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law, but is the guardian of the authentic Tradition, and thereby the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and is thereby able to oppose those people who for their part want to do what has come into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile....

I should like just briefly to comment on two more perceptions which appear in Dom Alcuin Reid's book. Archaeological enthusiasm and pastoral pragmatism --which is in any case often a pastoral form of rationalism - are both equally wrong....

These two might be described as unholy twins. The first generation of liturgists were for the most part historians. Thus they were inclined to archaeological enthusiasm: They were trying to unearth the oldest form in its original purity; they regarded the liturgical books in current use, with the rites they offered, as the expression of the rampant proliferation through history of secondary growths which were the product of misunderstandings and of ignorance of the past...

The judgements made about these questions by intellectual professors were often influenced by their rationalist presuppositions, and not infrequently missed the point of what really supports the life of the faithful...

[bonobo]

It certainly would be ultramontanism to identify the Magisterium exclusively and always with the teaching office of the successor of St. Peter. I didn't do that.

Neither did I suggest (DGP) that not to have magisterial authority to teach on a matter of faith (as in the case of the fideles of sensus fidelium fame) is to be in mortal error.

It's a good thing that one can be plain wrong and not have to suffer consequences. Even for the likes of St. Augustine teaching damnation for unbaptized babies.

The fathers are not to be confused with the bishops, though there is considerable overlap in persons: the overlap doesn't necessarily even cover the exercise of a teaching office, as in the expression of a private opinion.

[DGP]

>>Neither did I suggest (DGP) that not to have magisterial authority to teach on a matter of faith (as in the case of the fideles of sensus fidelium fame) is to be in mortal error.

Bonobo,

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You said the faithful and the Fathers can be "100% wrong, in the RC view." I was clarifying for Rob G that this is not the RC view.

[bonobo]

Happy to clarify, DGP.

I never claimed it was the RC view that the faithful were ever in mortal error. Being unenlightened about a particular issue which has been taught on is not the same as being in mortal error.

The "faithful" per se do not have a teaching office. It's not so much "woe unto [them] if [they] do not preach the gospel" as it would have been for St. Paul and is for a bishop.

[DGP]

Bonobo,

Okay, if you insist. You have a rather, er, *gentle* definition for "100% wrong."

[bonobo]

I'm a gentle kind of guy! :)

[DGP]

>>I'm a gentle kind of guy! :)

But sexually promiscuous -- or so I hear.

http://merecomments.typepad.com/merecomments/2007/07/the-hippy-bonob.html

[Rob G]

'The "faithful" and the "fathers" are each understood by the RCC in a universal sense, so that for either to descend into mortal error would mean a loss of the Gospel to the world, the failure of the Church, and the infidelity of Christ.'

That's what I thought -- the EOC would accept the same. I still don't get what Bonobo's trying to say, however! How can they be "100% wrong" yet not be in "mortal error"? This sounds like SSPX-type loopholing to me.

[bonobo]

Not sexually promiscuous, DGP, I assure you: just promiscuously anonymous!

I erred in terminology above when I said "consensus fidelium": it is of corse "sensus fidelium". The fideles is too varied and amorphous a concept to poll for a consensus. Therefore they can be neither 100% wrong (a rhetorical flourish) nor 'in mortal error' (a rather harsh description for not having much of an opinion, nor being both entitled and obliged to teach).

A 'consensus patrum' implies by definition that there can be disagreement. Again, no problem, it's not a universal: they, as a group of teachers, are a useful guide. The RCs and (I believe, in a different way) the EOs rely on the magisterial office of bishop, episkopos. The RCs take it one step further (very scripturally) by giving the college a head.

[Rob G]

I think you're wrong here, Bonobo. It sounds like you're reducing or condensing the 'magisterium' into the episcopacy. Orthodoxy does no such thing, and neither, as far as I can tell, does the RC church.

And the EOC doesn't view the Fathers as merely a group of teachers who are a useful guide. We believe that when they speak with one voice, they are infallible. Catholics, I'd argue, would say the same. Sounds to me like you're trying to maintain the fiction that the magisterium can trump the Fathers.

[Seth R.]

This discussion reminds me of an article written by Anglican(?) theologian Paul Owen defending some sort of "Reformed Catholicism" project he was a part of. He makes the point that modern Evangelicals have lost some vital points of the Reformation. One excerpt:

"For modern Evangelicals, justification by faith alone means without the aid of the sacraments, and that is simply not what the early Reformers meant by sola fide. Sola fide, in the integrity of its original meaning, means that justification is received prior to the activation of those righteous works which are produced by the sanctifying gift of the Spirit. It does not mean that justification is received by faith alone, without the instrumental assistance of the sacraments, which are not works of man, but simply God’s instruments in the bestowing of salvation upon the believer."

Link here:

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/?p=434

It seems a good question: Has modern Evangelism gone too far astray in jettisoning the authority and ordinances part of the Body of Christ?

[Seth R.]

That wasn't very clear....

The reason I thought of that quote is that it seemed another example of where modern Christianity is "forgetting the fathers." In this instance, not the patristic fathers per se, but the "fathers" of the Reformation movement.

[David Gray]

>Has modern Evangelism gone too far astray in jettisoning the authority and ordinances part of the Body of Christ?

Yes.

[Michael]

>>Has modern Evangelicalism gone too far astray in jettisoning the authority and ordinances part of the Body of Christ?<<

As a Protestant: yes.

But not entirely because of the Fathers as an "authority," but as rejecting them as even worthwhile reading material, places from which to glean truth. Reminds of a conversation (argument?) I was having with a Baptist youth minister last weekend. He fervently rejected anything that wasn't Scripture as a teaching text because "the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation." Never mind that you need cultural context with which to present the Gospel.

[Seth R.]

Yeah, I can see that. My own religion has the same problem - people who refuse to countenance anything that isn't the prophets and scripture. The result is that some scriptures can be a-contextualized. Others are simply ignored because the meaning of them isn't immediately plain upon looking at the bare text.

The problem is, a lot of these people got into religion on the theory that it would actually simplify their lives. Not make them more complex. So one can hardly blame them for wanting bright-line tests when it comes to scripture.

[bonobo]

It sounds like you're reducing or condensing the 'magisterium' into the episcopacy. Orthodoxy does no such thing, and neither, as far as I can tell, does the RC church.

I'll accept whatever you say about Orthodoxy on this score, Rob G. I can't agree about the RC.

We believe that when they speak with one voice, they are infallible. Catholics, I'd argue, would say the same. Sounds to me like you're trying to maintain the fiction that the magisterium can trump the Fathers.

If one father (for example) denied the assumption, he's been trumped, on the RC view. Papal infallibility (at the very least) is one example of an RC trump card. I can't see how any other view of the RC position can be consistent.

[DGP]

>>If one father (for example) denied the assumption, he's been trumped, on the RC view. Papal infallibility (at the very least) is one example of an RC trump card. I can't see how any other view of the RC position can be consistent.

Individually, any Father may be "trumped." But collectively, no. The Pope's infallibility is not revelatory but interpretive; he can offer at most inspired interpretations of the Scriptures and Tradition.

Thus he cannot "trump" the Fathers collectively. Their hypothetical universal error would mean a disruption in the tradition, a failure to hand on to the next generation what had been received. That Tradition would therefore be inaccessible to a subsequent Pope as such.

Taking it from the Pope's side, any infallible statement must be offered to the Church as a clarification of what has been received. Had the Fathers universally rejected it, the Pope could hardly claim to have received it unambiguously, and he would be unable to render a definitive judgment.

[Steve Nicoloso]

I think that's right DGP, and recent popes have exercised their office in very much that way. The dogma of papal infallibility has its authentic interpretation via papal humility. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, JPII made no new definition, but instead humbly stated that neither he nor the Church, in view of the universal consensus of the Church, had the authority to ordain women. Period. In essence, it was already unalterable teaching. The ultramontanist in me wanted a dogmatic definition, but such a definition would arguably have created more problems than it purported to solve.

[bonobo]

Well, the sensus fidelium has dropped out of the ring, leaving the bishops and the fathers to slug it out.

My money's on the bishops, in part because many of the fathers were bishops. Plus, many of the bishops are still alive and a significant proportion of them can be trusted to say something useful to a pressing question of the day :)

As for the fathers collectively where unanimous, I still don't see that as being magisterially constitutive (all, again, on the RC view). Perhaps I should dip into the CCC (written by bishops, will I get a biased answer?)...

[bonobo]

BTW, DGP,I agree with what you and Steve have written about Papal infallibility. My intention here has been to argue against the evocation of multiple independent magisteria. The Magisterium is an organic whole (like the Church) which this useful exchange has broadened my perspective on.

It does have some key elements and (of course, I argue) a central locus of authority.

[labrialumn]

However, didaskalia is teaching, especially when it is first-hand, not passed on orally from generation to generation. And in keeping with Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth, it is now written down.

GL, I haven't noticed the Calvinists following Augustine very closely on the sacrament of the altar.

Rob, and how do I know what the consensus is? Athanasios contra mundum! How do I know what the magisterial teaching -is-?

And contrary to our pithicene friend, who will help us understand the language of the magisterium accurately (as we cannot understand the language of the Bible, apparently) And who will help us understand -them- and on it goes in infinite regression (our quasi-bipedal friend didn't understand what I was saying, but then, that fits the whole 'language can't be accurately understood' position.

Not multiple independent, but infinitely recursive.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Rob, and how do I know what the consensus is?<<<

The consensus is the Tradition. You live it, every day, and it permeates your being. The Tradition has spoken definitively on almost every important theological issue, and these are settled. There was remarkable unanimity among the Fathers on these issues. Those where there were significant differences among them fall into two categories: those which are not essential to the faith, and in which divergent opinions are permitted; and those in which are essential in the Church has not yet made up its mind by speaking definitively. These are remarkably few in number, but when they have to be addressed, the Church (particularly the Eastern Church) compares what the Fathers had to say about them, weighs their arguments on the merits and against other elements of the Tradition, and eventially reaches a consensus.

The fact that the Eastern Churches consider relatively few issues to be "essential" is extremely helpful in arriving at consensus, for the more one dogmatizes, the more one has to dogmatize.

[Rob G]

Bonobo, you on the one hand, and DGP and Steve on the other can't both be right when it comes to the magisterium vis a vis the Fathers. The only Catholics that I know that look at it the way you do are some of the Traditionalist, SSPX types. They tend to be almost-but-not-quite Ultramontanists.

"However, didaskalia is teaching, especially when it is first-hand, not passed on orally from generation to generation. And in keeping with Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the apostles into all truth, it is now written down."

This begs the question. From whence comes the assumption that 'all truth' is or need be written down? Was there any promise given that it would all be written down? And where was 'all truth' before it was written down?

"Rob, and how do I know what the consensus is?"

This is actually quite simple. What did the pre-schism, undivided, one holy catholic apostolic Church hold universally in common? There's your starting point. Be prepared to jettison anything that's not part of that consensus.

"who will help us understand -them- and on it goes in infinite regression"

The infinite regress argument is a red herring. It assumes that the Tradition is a dead thing of the past, like an old library that one consults from time to time for guidance or advice. On the contrary, the Tradition is "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church" (V. Lossky) and is present and 'accessible' in the day-to-day life of the Christian believer through Liturgy (Word and Sacrament) and the ascetical life of prayer, Scripture reading, fasting, almsgiving, etc. The 'consensus,' then, is what the Church has always taught and what it still teaches. You gain hold of this not so much by rational study but by humble obedience. We believe in order to understand, not the other way around.

[bonobo]

And contrary to our pithicene friend, who will help us understand the language of the magisterium accurately (as we cannot understand the language of the Bible, apparently) And who will help us understand -them- and on it goes in infinite regression (our quasi-bipedal friend didn't understand what I was saying, but then, that fits the whole 'language can't be accurately understood' position.

Not multiple independent, but infinitely recursive.

When there is a collegiate and personal (both ex officio) authority, that's when the buck stops. I don't see where a recursion arises.

Rob, I can assure you I have no interest in what SSPXers do or think. If I have heard aright, some of them tend to sedevacantism. That would be quite the opposite of what I have been arguing here.

In Jesus' time, the scribes and pharisees occupied the chair of Moses. We have something quite similar in the new dispensation: no empty chairs (though a few could do with being emptied...oh LA, LA!).

[Rob G]

"Rob, I can assure you I have no interest in what SSPXers do or think."

Which is fine, but you do sorta sound like one; not the sedevacantist-type, but rather, as I said above, the "almost-but-not-quite Ultramontanist." DGP & Steve seem to be taking the more standard Catholic view of the thing.

[DGP]

>>As for the fathers collectively where unanimous, I still don't see that as being magisterially constitutive (all, again, on the RC view).

Yes, they are "constitutive," because collectively the Fathers are an essential stage in the Tradition. The RCC speaks of the "two fonts" of revelation, Scripture and Tradition. The Magisterium is not ranked as a font, but exists as a guarantee of the Holy Spirit against deadly error in the reception and transmission of these other two. The Magisterium serves Scripture and Tradition, and consequently must also serve the Fathers as they are closer to the trunk from which revelation comes.

That is not to say the Magisterium is separate from either Scripture or Tradition. On the contrary, it is their product. This is manifestly true in the case of Tradition as received by the RCC. The conversation with EOs might shed some important light on this in generations to come.

Despite the protestations of Protestants, one may also make a decent case for the Magisterium based on "Scripture alone." Whatever other faults they have, mainline Protestants have at least confronted this issue and taken their own stands. I am frequently disappointed by self-identified Evangelicals who seem to avoid the problem simply by not looking to closely at the foundations of their own faith. (I write this not to start another fight with Evangelicals, but simply to clarify how I see the Magisterium in relation to Scripture.)

[bonobo]

DGP, what I've been driving at in a circuitous way is that the Magisterium, to be magisterial, has to be 'official' and therefore 'personal'. It's like the apostlic charism, it can't be exercised by a dead person or collection of unanimous corpses.

I agree with the concept that the Magisterium is broader than the episcopate, not least because the latter is not free to contradict what has gone before. But in each each generation, magisterial authority is vested in the successors of the apostles.

Again, the Magisterium cannot therefore be treated as a text: a Koran of the fathers (or any other available texts) to be read from (however plain the language) to settle all questions. The council of Jerusalem, the canonizing of scripture: numerous examples make clear that apostolic authority has to take precedence over texts.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It's like the apostlic charism, it can't be exercised by a dead person or collection of unanimous corpses.<<<

That's a rather cramped view of "magisterium"--the teaching ministry of the Church--being conflated with an individual or group of individuals. But let's take you at face value, and say that this is a personal charism. Such a charism cannot be habitually delegated, and yet the Holy See habitually delegates its magisterial authority to the dicasteries of the Curia Romana, an anonymous group of faceless ecclesiocrats whose interests, far too often, lie not with the best interests of the Church but their own institutional prerogatives. If there is a special magisterial charism that resides in the Bishop of Rome, it should only be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, and not by others in his name.

That said, Eastern Christians--including Eastern Catholics (see the various remarks by Patriarchs Lyubomir and Gregorios III, among others) do not accept that such a charism can be exercised in anything other than a charismatic function. In other words, it is a spiritual and not a jurisdictional ministry.

Morover, as a certain German Cardinal who has since moved on to another job remarked in 1994, the Bishop of Rome is not an absolute monarch, is not free to do what he wants, but must live within the Tradition (yes, he expressed it in those terms). He cannot override the consensus patri nor the consensus fidei, but his authority is limited to expressing that which the Church ALREADY believes and teaches, and has ALWAYS believed and taught.

Even then, he must distinguish carefully to that which is integral to the faith, and thus is truly the Apostolic Tradition, from that which is merely the doctrinal expression of one particular Church, and both from that which is just the "proper usage" of a particular Church. Inability to distinguish between these categories has, in the past, been a source of great mischief. If the Bishop of Rome were not to delegate habitually his magisterial charism to curial dicasteries with narrow parochial interests, this would be avoided, mainly because without the need to keep idle curial hands employed, there would be less intervention; but also because without bureaucratic support, the Bishop of Rome would have to limit his interventions only to those matters that truly affect unity in the faith.

[Rob G]

"That said, Eastern Christians--including Eastern Catholics (see the various remarks by Patriarchs Lyubomir and Gregorios III, among others) do not accept that such a charism can be exercised in anything other than a charismatic function. In other words, it is a spiritual and not a jurisdictional ministry."

Right, Stuart. As Fr. Reardon and others have remarked, the very notion of a "universal jurisdiction" is problematic (in both terms, the adjective and the noun) to the East, whether Orthodox or Catholic.

I think one can see this very thing functioning among the apostles. Was Peter in some sense their leader? Yes. One might say even that he had 'authority' over the others, but if he did it was exercised spiritually, by leading, not jurisdictionally, by commanding. I see nowhere in the NT where Peter exercised authority over the other apostles; i.e., he wasn't in a position to tell them what to do or where to go. He certainly was a leader, but he was no ruler.

[Steve Nicoloso]

At risk of fanning the flames of a far older and more substantive debate than Rome could possibly have with protestants, why does the authority of the See of Peter have to be either leading (spiritual authority) or commanding (jurisdictional authority). Isn't is quite naturally both, and? Leading works great until followers fail to follow, especially when that failure to follow is cloaked in a jurisdictional dispute.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Isn't is quite naturally both, and? Leading works great until followers fail to follow, especially when that failure to follow is cloaked in a jurisdictional dispute.<<<

Until the second millennium, the jurisidiction of the Bishop of Rome--that is, the territory over which he could exercise his direct canonical control--was quite circumscribed, consisting of the Metropolitan Province of Rome and the Suburbianian dioceses of Corsica, Sardinia, and Illyria. He didn't even have direct jurisdiction over southern Italy, which was an exarchate of Constantinople. He did not exercise jurisdiction over the Church of Africa (every African prelate from Cyprian of Carthage to Augustine of Hippo rejected the notion that Rome could issue marching orders to them), nor over Gaul, Britannia or Iberia. Rome did not appoint the bishops of those territories, nor could it discipline the clergy therein. Rome had immense influence and authority in those regions, true--but Rome had to convince people to go along with it, it could not rule by fiat.

[David Gray]

>At risk of fanning the flames of a far older and more substantive debate than Rome could possibly have with protestants, why does the authority of the See of Peter have to be either leading (spiritual authority) or commanding (jurisdictional authority). Isn't is quite naturally both, and?

Older at any rate...

[Bobby Winters]

>>(every African prelate from Cyprian of Carthage to Augustine of Hippo rejected the notion that Rome could issue marching orders to them)<<

Does this mean that Rome tried from time to time?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Does this mean that Rome tried from time to time?<<<

Only in months ending with the letter 'r".

Cyprian's "On the Unity of the Church" is built around the idea that Peter accepted the Keys (and with it the power to bind and loose) on behalf of all the Disciples, who shared in a single Apostolic charism; their successors, the bishops, likewise share in one episcopal charism and are equal in grace and dignity.

[DGP]

Mr. Nicoloso: >>At risk of fanning the flames of a far older and more substantive debate than Rome could possibly have with protestants....

Mr. Gray: >>Older at any rate...

Ah, disputation envy? :-)

[bonobo]

Such a charism cannot be habitually delegated, and yet the Holy See habitually delegates its magisterial authority to the dicasteries of the Curia Romana, an anonymous group of faceless ecclesiocrats whose interests, far too often, lie not with the best interests of the Church but their own institutional prerogatives.

I guess you mean ought not to be delegated. I wonder. Isn't the apostolic succession a delegation to the younger and fitter or less imprisoned, like Paul to Timothy or Linus?

Anyway, I agree that the Curia might be dispensed with...provided a better alternative could be found. It's like a civil service (as far as the Vatican city state is concerned, it is that exactly) with all the typical problems of bureaucracy, empire-building, jealousy and laziness. What about that guy with the 10 commandments for drivers? Pretty scandalous waste of a red hat...

I'm reminded of two quotes. John XXIII on how many work at the Vatican: "about half of them", and Churchill's comment about democracy (IIRC): "the worst form of government, except for every other form of government".

[bonobo]

Indeed, I ought to have been consistent with the personalist nature of my argument. It's not the Holy See that may delegate but (perhaps) the person sitting on it. Obviously, one cannot delegate a teaching office. But then episcopal ordination is another matter...too many curial bishops, I guess? Too few might even be worse.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I guess you mean ought not to be delegated. I wonder. Isn't the apostolic succession a delegation to the younger and fitter or less imprisoned, like Paul to Timothy or Linus?<<<

So, are you claiming here that the Apostolic charism was given to all the Apostles and their successors in the episcopate? If so, I agree--that is what the Eastern Churches have always believed, so we can kiss off the Papal prerogatives which have been more devisive than unitive for the last millennium or so.

On the other hand, are you insinuating that the Petrine ministry should actually be the Pauline ministry?

>>>Indeed, I ought to have been consistent with the personalist nature of my argument. It's not the Holy See that may delegate but (perhaps) the person sitting on it. <<<

Actually, no. The logic of the Apostolic argument for papal supremacy has always been based on the belief that Christ gave the keys to Peter--and Peter alone (contra Cyprian of Carthage). The Pope claims to be the successor of Peter, and his primacy rests on that foundation (as opposed to the other, and more historical bases for papal primacy, including the principle of accommodation and the double-apostolic foundation of the Church of Rome). Since that is a personal charism, it can only be exercised by the person to whom it is given. This is different, say, than the habitual delegation of some episcopal functions, notably to preside at the Eucharist, which are "ecclesial" in nature: presiding over the Liturgy, the bishop acts in the name of the Church; in delegating that responsibility to his presbyters, he is not ceding a personal but an ecclesial function.

On the other hand, the Pope and the Pope alone claims to be the sucessor of Peter, and when he speaks as Peter, it must be HIS words and the work of HIS hands, not something written FOR him by others.

Of course, I would be perfectly happy to see the Bishop of Rome renounce the Apostolic argument for his primacy, along with all the baggage that has accrued over the centuries. It would make the life of the Church much easier and remove an unecessary stumbling block to unity in the Body of Christ.

[Seth R.]

It seems to me that at least some of the original Apostles were primarily concerned with spreading the Gospel of Christ as far and wide as possible, and only secondarily, if at all, with establishing an actual working church.

Perhaps this was just inevitable, given the geography, inexperience, and newness of the movement. Perhaps the apostles fully expected Christ to return within the next century and therefore didn't feel any pressing need to organize a church structure that would last 2 millennia.

Who knows? But I see little evidence that there was ever a highly successful or pervasive effort to create an organized Church outside of Jerusalem. That task fell to later bishops and councils.

But neither do I see the lack of such church as evidence against the biblical validity of an ecclesiarchy.

[Ethan C.]

>>But I see little evidence that there was ever a highly successful or pervasive effort to create an organized Church outside of Jerusalem.<<

What exactly was Paul doing, then, in all those letters he wrote back the the churches he had founded? And how about those odd little notes in Revelation?

Frankly, I think your interpretation of the apostles' objectives only holds true if you stop reading the New Testament at about the end of Acts.

Now, if by "organized" you mean the concept of a worldwide organization that formally unifies all the particular churches into an institution, you may be more accurate. However, it's not at all difficult to see the institutionalizing motivation of later bishops as naturally following from the earlier apostolic efforts to unify the individual churches' doctrine and practice through the epistles. And note that there were two very different approaches to this taken in the West and East, but both can reasonably be seen as extensions of the apostolic model of doctrinal and pastoral unity.

[DGP]

When it says they sent Barnabas to oversee Antioch, it means Peter appointed him Cardinal-Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches. :-)

[Ethan C.]

>>When it says they sent Barnabas to oversee Antioch, it means Peter appointed him Cardinal-Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches. :-)<<

And I'll bet he got a cool hat, too! :-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>When it says they sent Barnabas to oversee Antioch, it means Peter appointed him Cardinal-Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches. :-)<<<

Or, as we know it, the "Colonial Office". During the reign of Cardinal Murasan, so many of the drones in the Congregation hailed from the Syro-Malabarese Church that it was known as the "Bureau of Indian Affairs".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It seems to me that at least some of the original Apostles were primarily concerned with spreading the Gospel of Christ as far and wide as possible, and only secondarily, if at all, with establishing an actual working church.<<<

Well, despite the many hagiographical references to Apostles founding this Church and that, and the tendency of many Churches to claim an Apostolic founder, the truth is we don't know all that much.

Thanks to Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline and Johannine Epistles, we know pretty clearly where Peter, Paul and John went, and when (I belong to the school that says Paul was released from house arrest in AD 62, made another missionary journey to Spain and possibly to Greece, and was finally executed in Rome ca. AD 66-68).

Beyond that, all is darkness. The Church of Alexandria claims foundation by John Mark, but we have few records of Egypt in the first and second centuries, and stories of Markan establishment don't spring up until the early thirds century.

Constantinople claims foundation by St. Andrew the First-Called, but this is a pretty transparent attempt to counter the claim by Rome to Petrine foundation. We don't even hear of this one until the late fifth century.

We don't know anything at all about the rest of the gang, with the possible exception of St. Thomas, who is alleged to have founded the Christian Church in India. This was long derided as nonsense, but archaeological evidence of a Christian presence in India in the second half of the first century give it some real credence. In any case, they were calling themselves Mar Thoma Christians long before the Portuguese arrived in the 16th century.

The Church of Edessa claims foundation not by any of the Twelve, but by the deacon Thaddeus, known to the Assyrians as Mar Addai. Given the great antiquity of Edessene Christianity, there may be some merit to this story as well.

Of the rest, I suspect many of them never left Jerusalem. James bar-Zebedee we know was executed by Herod Agrippa I around AD 49. Others may have been swept up in various persecutions. Most probably remained part of the Church together with James the Just, until they either died or went into exile with the rest of the Jerusalem Church. Remember that the Crucifixion took place in AD 33, and that in the subsequent 30 Years, we see Peter in Galilee, Samaria, Antioch (possibly Corinth) and Rome. By the time of his death, he would have been in his middle or late sixties, an old man for his day. The others were probably older than Peter, and given the life expectancy of the times, most probably died of natural causes. That's what made John so spectacular: being the youngest of the Twelve (let's say between 18 and 20 at the time of the crucifixion), he lived on into the reign of Domitian, dying sometime around AD 96, putting him in his early-to-mid-eighties. No wonder some thought that the "Beloved Disciple" (yes, I think it refers to John, and not to some other guy named John) would live forever.

But John was an itinerant evangelist only up to a point, and the same seems true of Peter, and possibly of Mark and Thomas, if you believe those stories are true. Eventually all settled down, due to the need to administer their Churches and the wear and tear of travel as age crept up on them. Only Paul, who was perhaps slightly older than John, and who did not seem to have any real family ties to hold him to one place, was a true peripathetic Apostle. And even he spent the better part of a decade in arrest of one sort or another.

[DGP]

>>Only Paul, who was perhaps slightly older than John, and who did not seem to have any real family ties to hold him to one place, was a true peripathetic Apostle.

"Peripathetic" -- another Freudian slip?

[Judy Warner]

Good catch, DGP. I just read Tony Esolen's editorial on pilgrims and wanderers in the new Touchstone. Perhaps the wanderers can be described as peripathetic.

[Ethan C.]

I haven't gotten my new issue yet. Waaah!

[Michael]

In the interest of expanding my vocabulary, what should Stuart have spelled and what does it mean? I get the "pathetic" slip...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>In the interest of expanding my vocabulary, what should Stuart have spelled and what does it mean? I get the "pathetic" slip...<<<

Peripatetic, a word used to describe IOWA--Idiots Out Wandering Around.

[bonobo]

>>>Indeed, I ought to have been consistent with the personalist nature of my argument. It's not the Holy See that may delegate but (perhaps) the person sitting on it. <<<

Actually, no.

Stuart, unless I misunderstand you, I think we're talking at cross purposes. By consentrating on the person (successor of Peter, of any apostle or what have you) I'm indicating that the "Holy See" is a construct that serves a particular(ly important) bishop: helping to guarantee independence from political interference, for example. Just like any other diocesan arrangement, it could in theory (but not without chaos in practice) cease to exist.

The Holy See per se has no rights, duties or prerogatives. The occupant has. Therefore I think your argument about delegation to dicasteries etc. doesn't impact his authority in an essential or irreformable way.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The occupant has.<<<

I disagree, but then, i disagree with the apostolic argument for papal primacy. The authority of the Bishop of Rome derives from his position at the head of the Church of Rome, which is the Church with priority, the "Church that Presides in Love". The reasons Rome came to be regarded as such are complex, but one must note that the "Petrine" argument arises fairly late in the day, and only when Rome's priority on the basis of its position at the capital of the Empire was challenged by the emergence of Milan and Constantinople as alternative capitals.

Regardless, the fact remains that it is the Roman Church that has priority, and the would be nothing save through the status of the Roman Church. For that reason, I find serious problems with the habit of choosing the successor of Peter from among all the bishops of the Latin Church (I dismiss out of hand that an Eastern Catholic could or should become Pope--so much for the Shoes of the Fisherman scenario), which makes him into some sort of Catholic Dalai Lama. He should be chosen from among the clergy of the Metroplitan Church of Rome, and his first duty (NOT to be delegated to an Apostolic Vicar) should be Bishop of the City and Province of Rome. His next duty is Patriarch of the Western Church, with pastoral oversight of the Latin Church generally. Only last is he the Pope of Rome, with an ecumenical responsibility to "strengthen the brethren in faith and unity".

[bonobo]

I can't imagine that Christ would put the strengthening role in last place if he foresaw a role of servant leadership modeled on his own example. That one is a bishop of a particular place, or that an argument was based on such specious grounds, doesn't detract from the importance of the role in question. It's seems plain to me that authority can only be if it is personal.

A protestant would surely have more time for the "strengthening" role (which is scriptural by any definition) than for the notion of a particular Church presiding in love (which is a patristic gloss, taking us back to the kernel of the debate I tried to start about making of the Patres an alternative canon).