Greek clergy circulate document on 'heresy of ecumenism'
By Jonathan Luxmoore
Warsaw, 14 July (ENI)--A group of Orthodox clergy in Greece, led by three senior archbishops, have published a manifesto pledging to resist all ecumenical ties with Roman Catholics and Protestants.
"The only way our communion with heretics can be restored is if they renounce their fallacy and repent," the group said in a "Confession of Faith against Ecumenism" that they circulated recently.
"The Orthodox church is not merely the true church; she is the only church. She alone has remained faithful to the Gospel, the synods and the fathers, and consequently she alone represents the true catholic church of Christ," says the document.
The signatories say they wish to preserve "irremovably and without alteration" the Orthodox faith that the Early Church had "demarcated and entrenched," and to shun communication "with those who innovate on matters of the faith".
The list of clerics backing the manifesto is said to include six metropolitans (Panteleimon of Antinoes, Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythira, Kosmas of Etolia and Akarnania, Seraphim of Piraeus, Jeremiah of Gortyno and Megalopolis, and Artemios of Raskas and Prizrenis, Kossovo and Metohia), as well as 49 archimandrites, 22 hieromonks, and 30 nuns and abbesses, as well as many other priests and church elders.
By Jonathan Luxmoore
Warsaw, 14 July (ENI)--A group of Orthodox clergy in Greece, led by three senior archbishops, have published a manifesto pledging to resist all ecumenical ties with Roman Catholics and Protestants.
"The only way our communion with heretics can be restored is if they renounce their fallacy and repent," the group said in a "Confession of Faith against Ecumenism" that they circulated recently.
"The Orthodox church is not merely the true church; she is the only church. She alone has remained faithful to the Gospel, the synods and the fathers, and consequently she alone represents the true catholic church of Christ," says the document.
The signatories say they wish to preserve "irremovably and without alteration" the Orthodox faith that the Early Church had "demarcated and entrenched," and to shun communication "with those who innovate on matters of the faith".
The list of clerics backing the manifesto is said to include six metropolitans (Panteleimon of Antinoes, Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythira, Kosmas of Etolia and Akarnania, Seraphim of Piraeus, Jeremiah of Gortyno and Megalopolis, and Artemios of Raskas and Prizrenis, Kossovo and Metohia), as well as 49 archimandrites, 22 hieromonks, and 30 nuns and abbesses, as well as many other priests and church elders.
Despite the old quip about Touchstone being "an ecumenical magazine for Christians who hate ecumenism," I do not suspect that any backers of this statement subscribe to Touchstone. (Do you subscribe? Do so today! We have some very good issues coming up, including one with a feature article relating the encounters of an Orthodox priest with Kosovar Muslims--our own Fr. Pat Reardon's firsthand account of his under-the-radar visit to Kosovo last fall. Don't miss it! It's coming up soon in the September issue. Subscribe today!)
Here's my test for heresy: If you can say the Nicean Creed without crossing your fingers behind your back, you're good to go.
Posted by: David Marcoe | July 14, 2009 at 04:48 PM
My Eastern Orthodox brethren frustrate me to no end.
I think, though I'll stand to be corrected, those "six metropolitans ... as well as 49 archimandrites, 22 hieromonks, and 30 nuns and abbesses, as well as many other priests and church elders" receive their paychecks largely from the Greek State. I wonder how that together with on the Biblical mandate to tithe jive with being the "true catholic church of Christ."
But I'm just a silly American convert to the Eastern Orthodox church, what do I know about these deep theological issues.
Posted by: Daniel | July 14, 2009 at 05:40 PM
"A group of Orthodox clergy in Greece, led by three senior archbishops, have published a manifesto pledging to resist all ecumenical ties with Roman Catholics and Protestants."
I'm not Eastern Orthodox and I don't have a problem with the statement.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 14, 2009 at 08:29 PM
Mr Marcoe,
I am sure these "anti-ecumenist" monks and clergy would agree with you that the Nicene Creed is the principal test of orthodoxy, with these provisos: first, that you have to say the original Creed, without the filioque; and second, that it is necessary to give the phrase "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" its full value, and not empty it of its meaning with some notion of an "invisible" Church or a baseless "branch theory." "One Church" means One Church.
In other words, it means nothing to say the Creed if you don't take it to mean what those who wrote it took it to mean. Otherwise, you are just filling up their words with your opinions.
My only problem with the anti-ecumenist Orthodox is not that they insist that the Orthodox Church is the only Church (why wouldn't they? They are Orthodox, after all). It is that they refuse even to talk to us whom they regard as heterodox. If they won't talk to us, how can we learn the truth? If they really believe that they, and they alone, have the fullness of truth, then they would be shouting it from the housetops. I should think that "all things to all men" might include honest dialogue with the heterodox.
Posted by: Chris Jones | July 14, 2009 at 10:32 PM
I frequently return to the difference between the religion of Jesus and a religion about Jesus, a difference I think enormously significant. Jesus was, we seem to need reminding, an ancient messianic Jew. Among other things, he is not Orthodox -- or Catholic or Protestant. For any of them to claim to be the one true church, indeed the only church, is simply to exclude the head from the body, or else to remake him in their own image. To have the mind of Christ on such matters, and we ought, is not the same as being, in this case, Eastern Orthodox -- as if their thought, their theology, their practice, were the same as his.
They, and others, claim to be the church led by Christ, when the Scriptural account clearly indicates he thinks and acts in ways quite different from theirs. So, unless the unchangeable has changed, I can't agree. We are tied to the historic incarnation, whether it suits some churches or not.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 15, 2009 at 06:54 AM
As a convert from Evangelicalism to Orthodoxy I too am suspicious of a certain sort of ecumenism, namely that type that argues that our differences aren't really all that important, and that we can therefore set them aside and move forward to living as one big happy family.
On the other hand, I agree with Chris Jones above when he says that there is another sort of ecumenism that is a form of witness. This seems to be the approach that brought the Orthodox into ecumenical dialogue with the other communions in the first place (see Fr. Georges Florovsky on this). Since the Orthodox Church believes itself to be the one true Church (as I do -- o/w, why be Orthodox?), a certain amount of interfaith dialogue is necessary to communicate that fact to
the other churches.
Another aspect of ecumenism that's important is the increasing need for Christians of all stripes to stand together against the advance of secularism and modernism. Dialogue between the churches is important because it helps to clear up various misunderstandings, smoothing the path to this necessary cooperation.
It's notable that the fiercest opposition to ecumenism of any sort comes usually from the hyper-traditionalists/rigorists of the various camps (those whom Fr. Seraphim Rose called the "super-correct"). While they do a small amount of good by calling our attention to the dangers of unwarranted accomodation, I'm thankful that these folks tend to be in the minority.
As to Dr. Bauman's complaint about the lack of Christlikeness evident in such pronouncements, I tend to agree. But since this is in no way a universally or officially held belief of the Orthodox Church, it does not speak to whether Orthodoxy's claims about herself are correct or not.
"For any of them to claim to be the one true church, indeed the only church, is simply to exclude the head from the body, or else to remake him in their own image."
One wonders then if prior to the modern multiplication of churches and denominations, there ever was one true Church. The authors of the Nicene Creed apparently believed there was, and the self-understanding of the early Church precluded the idea that it was some hazy, nebulous "blessed company of all believers." The
"one holy catholic apostolic Church" of the Creed either still exists today, or else it never existed.
Posted by: Rob G | July 15, 2009 at 07:45 AM
Rob G,
Thanks for your thoughtful and useful comment.
I suppose I'd say that the one true church does exist, but that it's not to be identified with any one of the churches that claim the title. I'd say it's invisible, but with visible, fallible, approximations.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 15, 2009 at 08:05 AM
"I suppose I'd say that the one true church does exist, but that it's not to be identified with any one of the churches that claim the title. I'd say it's invisible, but with visible, fallible, approximations."
Well, that's fine, as long as you realize that that belief doesn't jibe with what the early Church thought about itself. The arguments of Catholicism and Orthodoxy rest not only on theological considerations, but on a belief in historical continuity. Both of those communions look at the early undivided Church and say of themselves "You see that? That's us." Not in every detail, mind you, but in the sense of a theological, historical, and even mystical continuity.
To the Catholic and the Orthodox the early Church's self-understanding is authoritative and necessarily correct; it seems incoherent to us to argue that the undivided Church was wrong about its own nature.
Posted by: Rob G | July 15, 2009 at 08:45 AM
Rob G,
Yes, you're right. My view is not what some of the early churches thought about themselves. That's another way of saying that I think they got off on the wrong track rather early on.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 15, 2009 at 09:44 AM
Right, and that's a different (but not unrelated) debate. My objection above would be against those Protestants who say that the early Church's self-understanding was correct, but who then go on to ignore or discount the continuity arguments. IMO, that view is less consistent than yours.
Posted by: Rob G | July 15, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Of course, the issue for those of us who are not part of either communion is that the RC and EO churches can't BOTH be right about being the one true church in continuity with the past. If you are convinced one or the other is, however, you should be a part of the one you agree is right. But if you aren't convinced, then what can you do?
Unless, of course, you think are they are both right, but in a way or ways that is/are not in accordance with the claim as they each separately understand and argue it.
In which case, other churches could also be part of that one true church in the same way that the RC and EO churches are part of that one true church, due to their flawed understanding of what constitutes it and the other churches' more accurate understanding.
Or, I suppose, you could say those other churches' understanding is equally flawed, but in different ways. It would be a lot simpler if there were only one present church "in continuity" with the early church, but there are, as we have noted, at least two making that claim, and both citing the same tradition for it.
Then you get into defining "continuity," which some say is "historic existence" and others as "the same essential beliefs and practices." Then you have to define "essential...."
Posted by: Deacon Michael D. Harmon | July 15, 2009 at 10:27 AM
But if you aren't convinced, then what can you do?
You start by convincing yourself that you're almost surely wrong...
Insofar as the Catholic Church has weighed in on the matter, and she did in Vatican II, she dramatically softens her stance by suggesting:
A) Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome are nevertheless valid Churches, offer valid Sacraments, and lack only what the umpteen uptyclutch Eastern Rite Catholic Churches possess: viz., Communion with Rome;
B) the grace of God is present in ecclesial communions, i.e., Protestant Churches; and
C) all who are in fact saved are, whether they know it or not in varying degress of imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.
Now there are, of course, Catholics who are ticked off (putting it mildly) by this softening, and who would rather have put the matter much the same way as these Greek Orthodox clergy have.
I'm certain that those outside of Communion with Rome would like her to bend further, but could you really respect her the next morning?
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | July 15, 2009 at 03:49 PM
Steve: No, I have neither the expectation nor the desire that Rome "bend further," as I respect her – and the EO churches -- both equally well (and that is not a sarcastic comment, however it sounds, as I do indeed respect them). But I have no desire to be in "further communion" with the RC church, and I'm sure it has no desire to be in further communion with (unbending) me. I am perfectly happy with my own communion, which is in communion with Jesus Christ, which both it and I consider sufficient. I was only posing my questions to see if someone could comment on them in a way that would square the RC/EO circle without demanding that one become subject to the demands of the other, which I guess I knew was only subject to eschatological resolution. I do understand Rome's stand on the issue, and you digested it perfectly. Sigh.
Posted by: Deacon Michael D. Harmon | July 15, 2009 at 04:10 PM
"I am perfectly happy with my own communion, which is in communion with Jesus Christ, which both it and I consider sufficient."
Well, there's the rub. If a Protestant is fine with where he is he'll see no need to pursue either the EOC's or the RCC's claims any further. For me, however, the more church history and patristics I read, the more I became convinced that I couldn't remain a Protestant. It was then that I started taking the ancient churches' claims more seriously. As I've heard both Catholic and Orthodox priests put it, don't become RC or EO unless you have to -- that is, unless/until it becomes a matter of conscience for you.
Posted by: Rob G | July 15, 2009 at 05:29 PM
Interestingly, Rob G., my experience was the opposite. My PhD in church history (from a Catholic university) led me further and further away from Rome and from the claims it made concerning both the Bible and the early churches. The Bible and patristics "un-catholiced" me, so to speak, as it did for the Protestant reformers when, following the Renaissance ideal of going back to the sources, they went back to Scripture and the ancient church.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 15, 2009 at 06:04 PM
Deacon Michael:
My response was really in two parts: 1) irony (and attempted pith) in response to the same question I faced in deciding betwixt Constantinople and Rome; and 2) a more general comment on the topic, viz., the "fundamentalist" Greek Orthodox signatories, and how Rome in the past 50 years has inclined somewhat toward ecumenism. The latter portion may have been interpreted as a direct response to your post, which I hadn't intended but now rereading I can see may fairly be implied. I think we are mostly agreed that false ecumenism is suitable for derision in direct proportion that working towards real unity in the true faith of Christ's Church is worth our very souls if it were possible.
Yes, Rome and Constantinople cannot both be precisely right about being the One True Church in continuity with the apostles, but Rome (at least) doesn't deny that the EO are in continuity (if imperfectly) with the apostles; on the contrary, officially teaches just that. By remaining Protestant one must, I think, affirm that neither the Catholic Church (I really think RCC is an unjustly narrow term) and EO are the One, and, to be fair to our mutual Creed (with or without the filoque ;-) should propose which one is...
But that, of course, is somewhat afield from the topic of Jim's entry.
Of course the AMCatholic Church is full of people (laity, priests and even bishops) who are willing to dispense with all substantive claims to Catholic distinction. Nowhere is their power greater than at "Catholic" universities, which could easilty explain Mr. Bauman's road away from Rome and her (often presumed and caricatured) claims. In the face of such a intellectual freight train (or more properly bandwagon), most Catholics don't stand a chance. I do not mean to imply that this happened in the case of Michael Bauman... but only that "Catholic" universities are among the Church's greatest enemies. MIT, for example, couldn't do 1/10th the damage that a Georgetown or BC do.
And on the topic of selling the Catholic Birthright for a mess of bean stew... I just have to get this in... Fr. Neuhaus once pointed out...
I'm sure each of our several communions have their own unique deracinating elements suitable for pillorying, but I thought this was spectacularly well and concisely put. You'll find no group more interested in "ecumenism" than the Catholic left, but it's an ecumenism of indifference to all matters theological. Which is why, to make a short story long, no one in my (more or less mainstream liberal suburbanite parish) is the least bit interested in my conversion; they must think that I came for Marty Haugen, David Haas, limp-wristed pats on the back, and holding hands during the Our Father, which would bespeak poorly of me. But the idea that I came for actual salvation, sacramental grace, and clear proscriptions on mortal sin is simply unthinkable to most (and unutterably anachronistic to the rest).
Is the Reformation Over? Why yes, and liberal protestantism has won!
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | July 15, 2009 at 08:55 PM
Steve,
Liberal protestantism won, and Vatican 2 is proof (wink).
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 15, 2009 at 09:24 PM
Michael, just curious: in your move away from Rome, did you give the East, either Eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy, a serious look?
Also, I don't know what denomination you are, but whatever it is, what continuity with the early Church is present there that you find compelling? In all the defenses of Protestantism that I've read (and it's been quite a few) I've yet to find one that makes a believable argument for the compatibility of Protestant and Patristic thought.
In other words, I've been waiting about 18 years for a Protestant scholar to show me one of his own persuasion among the Church Fathers. So far, no joy.
Posted by: Rob G | July 16, 2009 at 07:28 AM
Rob G,
If you like, I'll be glad to send you an account off-thread. If you email me though my website, I'll forward it to you.
Best,
MB
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 16, 2009 at 08:08 AM
Rob, you'll understand that some people find arguments compelling even if you, personally, do not...
Posted by: David Gray. | July 16, 2009 at 08:21 AM
Thanks, Michael. I will do so.
"Rob, you'll understand that some people find arguments compelling even if you, personally, do not..."
Of course. Otherwise, all thinking people would be in the same church.
Posted by: Rob G | July 16, 2009 at 08:30 AM
I don't recall saying I was a Protestant.... unless you define a Protestant as "someone who is not Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic." Of course, that would make Nestorians and Coptics Protestants.
Not that I am either. Check out the ICCEC at cechome.com. No proselytizing, just information.
Posted by: Deacon Michael D. Harmon | July 16, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Protestant is as protestant does, Deacon Michael ;-)
To David, interesting choice of word: "compelling". Arguments may be compelling, but mothers even more so... i.e., only a handful of Christians, historically speaking, were ever fairly argued into (or out of) the Communion into which they were born; and it is far from obvious to me that those who were are, at least on average, better off for it.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | July 16, 2009 at 02:55 PM
I think it was I that first used the word 'compelling' above. I meant it in the sense of something less than coercive, but stronger than attractive.
Posted by: Rob G | July 16, 2009 at 03:04 PM
Sorry, Steve, you lost me. I don't do Protestant, as I'm not protesting anything. Just doing the ancient worship of the ancient church in a modern idiom in a church in apostolic succession. Or is everything not Roman just Brand X to you?
Posted by: Deacon Michael D. Harmon | July 16, 2009 at 08:50 PM
Deacon Michael, I am not trying to pick of fight. Please note the use of the winky... You are western Christian in schism with Rome. Yes, that makes you Protestant. I'm sure Henry VIII thought he was preserving the ancient Church as well, he may very well have been for all I know, but, yes, he was a Protestant too. Having been Protestant for most my life, I am well aware that there are a virtual infinitude of flavors, and not merely Brand X... but a western Christian in schism with Rome is a Protestant by any reasonable definition... I do not use the term as a synonym for sonuvabitch.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | July 16, 2009 at 10:44 PM
"A group of Orthodox clergy in Greece, led by three senior archbishops, have published a manifesto pledging to resist all ecumenical ties with Roman Catholics and Protestants.
"The only way our communion with heretics can be restored is if they renounce their fallacy and repent," the group said in a "Confession of Faith against Ecumenism" that they circulated recently.
"The Orthodox church is not merely the true church; she is the only church. She alone has remained faithful to the Gospel, the synods and the fathers, and consequently she alone represents the true catholic church of Christ," says the document."
I could be mistaken here, but does the Eastern Orthodox Church think that they alone have valid apostolic succession? The quote above lead me to that question.
Or if they believe that the RCC does have validly ordained apostolic succession, then it shows (according to their statement above) that one can be an ordained successor of the apostles and still be a heretic or apostate or both. And apostolic succession is kinda not all that it's touted to be.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 17, 2009 at 01:48 AM
TUAD, these malcontents do not speak for Orthodoxy. The EOC considers RC orders and sacraments "valid," although that latter term is one we try to avoid. An Orthodox priest can give last rites and the Eucharist to a Catholic in an extreme situation (my own parish priest has done it), and Orthodox are welcome to receive the same from a Catholic priest. Generally this applies only in extreme situations, although there are some places where intercommunion between Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics occurs more frequently.
Posted by: Rob G | July 17, 2009 at 08:45 AM
I must add, however, that the EOC's acceptance of the orders and sacraments of Rome does not mitigate her view that she is the one true Church. My RC brethren undoubtedly would say the same thing about their communion and our orders/sacraments.
Posted by: Rob G | July 17, 2009 at 08:49 AM
We would, Rob; thanks.
One thing that is perhaps not given the prominence that it should is the fact that the idea of a visible divisible church is wholly a product of the Reformation, and is purely Protestant in its origins and rationale. All pre-Reformation churches, both those that survive to this day, and others long defunct, believe (the Catholic, the Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox) or believed (the "Assyrian" Church, more properly the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church of the East and of the Assyrians" -- who seem to have taken up an idea similar to the high-church Anglican "branch theory" in the last century, perhaps due to the string Anglican influence upon them from the 1880s to the 1930s; and also such extinct bodies as the Novatianist Church, the Donatist Church, the Arian Church and possibly even the wildly heretical "Marcionite Church") that the phrase "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" of the Nicene Creed means one visible body (as opposed to other visible bodies making the same claim) united by sacramental communion -- not, variously, "the invisible church of the predestined" or "the collectivity of those whom Christ takes for his own" or "the sum total of all 'orthodox' Christian denominations and their faithful members," all of which are inventions of the Reformation or its aftermath (even if the first of these can claim some small foundation in St. Augustine). Even if one "decorates" or "festoons" this Reformation ecclesiology with Catholic feathers, as by making episcopacy-in-the-apostolic-succession an essential feature of "a true church," it does not disguise its historical origins.
Catholics, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (and until the last century, the Assyrians) all believe that their church, or communion (a word which I add only for the sale of the "decentralized" nature of the Os and even more of the OOs) is indeed "the One True Church," even if they are nuanced (as among the Latins) or reticent (as in the Eastern churches) about how Christians not of their communions relate to them, and to Christ through (or outside) them. It is interesting that in the Apostles Creed (which is not of "ecumenical" authority, as it is purely Western, and in its final shape only of the Eighth Century [but substantially of the Fourth Century in the shape of the Old Roman Creed]) we may have a "disguised" profession of this same primoridal and Patristic belief in the "unicity" of the Church in the phrase "the communion of saints." In the Latin, the ambiguity or multivalence of the phrase "communio sanctorum" has allowed this to be read, as in the past thousand years it has laregely been read, as "the fellowship of Holy (i.e., Christian) persons," but it appears, as Werner Elert demonstrated in his *Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries* (English ed., 1966) (a) that the Latin phrase is a Fourth-Century rendition of the Greek "ten koinonian tOn haghiOn" and (b) that what it means in the Greek is "the communion of the holy" ("things," i.e., the Eucharistic elements, being understood). In other words, it is a reference to the Eucharist, and it expands and explains the previous phrase of the Apostles Creed, "(I believe in) the Holy Catholic Church" as meaning "that body in which members and members alone share communion in the Sacrament." If those who produced and endorsed that creed had believed that various bodies, divided in eucharistic communion from each other, but possessing "valid orders" or "the same belief in Christian fundamentals of belief" were all parts or "denominations" or "branches" of an invisible and divisible "Church Catholic," it could easily have said "I believe in Catholic churches," in the plural, but the fact that it did not speaks volumes about the ecclesiology of the Fathers.
Elert, as a Lutheran, wants to assert that the sacramental unity of the Church is based on agreement in "the same Confession," and to use this to defend the traditional Lutheran insistence on "closed communion." So far, so good -- but at other points in his book, recognizing, as he claims, that the Novatianists and the Donatists, as well as other schismatics in the Early Church, were "orthodox" on the "fundamental points of doctrine," he claims that as a Lutheran he has to admit that the Novatianists, the Donatists and certain other schismatic groups were as much "in the Church" as "the Catholics," since Lutherans do not believe either in the visible unity of the Church, nor that Lutheran churches are the only tue churches, even if they are the only fully "orthodox" (small o) ones.
Posted by: William Tighe | July 17, 2009 at 03:21 PM
I'm not following the argument, William.
Even if one grants that the early churches were not visibly divided, it doesn't follow that they ought not be divided now. If, in the intervening centuries, the visible churches defected from the apostolic faith, then it might well be necessary for a visible division to arise in order to preserve the faith. I am one who argues that just such a thing has happened. For example, even on a doctrine as fundamental as grace, that defection can be traced, as Thomas Torrance traced it in his The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers, which convinced me that even by the second generation apostolic doctrine began seriously to fade. It seems to me that even more erosion has happened since then.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 17, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Michael, what "faith" is being preserved if it is not that expressed in the Creed? If the folks who gave us the Creed (and the NT) were already "defected from the apostolic faith" (and if Clement and Polycarp were suspect, then there is little hope for Athanasius or Augustine I guess), then what is there to be believed except perhaps for Murky Jesus Notions? Such notions prove convenient for those who wish to fashion their own faith and pretend it is the One True Faith, recently rediscovered after 1900 years or so; but such a faith seems implausibly ahistorical, made more so by the fact that such a faith wouldn't have gotten down to us at all, except by the efforts (and often martydoms) of its own supposed traitors.
What one sees as deviation from some supposed perfect (and conveniently shrouded) seminal norm, can just as easily be seen as a more complete revelation of the same. The 1st century Church might well not have condemned Arius' error, but that doesn't mean that he was right. I think we should be happy (and not embarrassed) that the 5th century Church was able to articulate the Faith clearly enough to condemn it. Nor ought we be discomfitted by the fact that fallen human agents (and not the angels Gabriel or Moroni) worked over the centuries to better articulate the Faith.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | July 18, 2009 at 04:33 AM
>Such notions prove convenient for those who wish to fashion their own faith and pretend it is the One True Faith
>only a handful of Christians, historically speaking, were ever fairly argued into (or out of) the Communion into which they were born; and it is far from obvious to me that those who were are, at least on average, better off for it
You are starting to convince me of the second point. The first statement is a cheap shot.
>Nor ought we be discomfitted by the fact that fallen human agents (and not the angels Gabriel or Moroni) worked over the centuries to better articulate the Faith.
Calvin and Luther did a fine job, good observation.
Posted by: David Gray. | July 18, 2009 at 05:55 AM
Steve,
Perhaps I've missed it - I often do! -- but it doesn't seem like your comment actually responds to Torrance's case because the creed doesn't really address the doctrine of the nature of grace. The creed articulates other things. In his book, Torrance surveys the use of the word "grace" in pagan circles before and during the time of Christ. He then explains how the New Testament uses the term, and finally how the apostolic fathers used the term after the apostles. He notes some quite theologically significant differences, not only between the apostles and the fathers, but among the fathers themselves.
His point is that on key doctrines like this one (I assume we think that grace is a key doctrine), the early church does not speak with one voice, and it doesn't speak with the apostolic voice. Careful study could tell (A) if Torrance is right about this, and (B) if such things were true regarding other theological issues. I answer both those question in the affirmative. I could be wrong. But since the nature of grace is not overtly articulated in the creed, going to the creed on this issue doesn't get us far.
As for those "who wish to fashion their own faith and pretend it is the One True Faith," the implication of Torrance's study is that that is precisely what happened early on: They fashioned their own faith rather than maintaining that of the apostles. If we want to know what the apostles themselves taught, then we must go to their writings rather than to the writings of, say, Irenaeus, Ambrose, or Gregory of Nyssa.
I wonder if the same result would occur if we studied atonement, eschatology, baptism, ecclesiology, etc. I don't know for certain, but it's clearly worth finding out.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 18, 2009 at 07:38 AM
"If we want to know what the apostles themselves taught, then we must go to their writings rather than to the writings of, say, Irenaeus, Ambrose, or Gregory of Nyssa."
But as Irenaeus argued early on, the words of the apostles themselves are subject to multiple interpretations. How do we know which among the competing interpretations is the correct one? Recourse to the text alone is insufficient since the text is not self-interpreting: in the very act of reading it, one is on one level or another doing hermeneutics, and a realization of this necessitates the corollary realization that one's hermeneutic might be wrong.
If Torrance is correct, where then is the "faith of the Apostles"? Must one concur with Luther's ridiculous implication that no one understood St. Paul until he came along?
If we grant that the Scriptures are infallible, yet we have no means by which to determine whether or not any particular interpretation of them is infallible, their infallibility becomes moot.
"I wonder if the same result would occur if we studied atonement, eschatology, baptism, ecclesiology, etc. I don't know for certain, but it's clearly worth finding out."
Post-Reformation history proves this to be a fool's errand. Give exegetes and theologians the text alone and what you end up with is a couple dozen conflicting versions of each of the above. And unless you're willing to believe that either the Holy Spirit speaks with a forked tongue, or that the principle of non-contradiction doesn't apply to theology, the result is chaos.
Posted by: Rob G | July 18, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Torrance is an author I've known only by reputation. I haven't read any of his works. This book sounds most interesting. Was he a Barthian?
Posted by: Bill R | July 18, 2009 at 12:09 PM
"But as Irenaeus argued early on, the words of the apostles themselves are subject to multiple interpretations. How do we know which among the competing interpretations is the correct one?"
(1) Yes, apostolic texts are sometimes subject to multiple interpretations. But then, the same problem holds for the texts of the fathers, not just for the apostles. Hermeneutics doesn't get easier just because we're reading Augustine rather than Luke or Peter. You don't solve the hermenuetical problem by taking recourse to other texts that require interpretation.
"If Torrance is correct, where then is the "faith of the Apostles"?
(2) The faith of the apostles is where it always was, in the things they wrote. Whether the things they wrote were read correctly by those who came after them is a question that can be answered well only by reading both sets of texts, the apostolic and post-apostolic, with care and precision.
"unless you're willing to believe that either the Holy Spirit speaks with a forked tongue, or that the principle of non-contradiction doesn't apply to theology, the result is chaos."
(3) This begs the question. We don't know if the Holy Spirit was speaking through this or that father in this or that patristic text. If the text in question contradicts the the teaching of the apostles, then I would argue that the Spirit was not speaking, and that, in such a case, there is no question of the "forked tongue."
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 18, 2009 at 01:48 PM
Bill R,
Yes, Torrance was, to a significant degree, a Barthian. Torrance was one of Barth's students and was tapped to take Barth's place at Barth's retirement, but declined the offer. He also was a student of Oscar Cullmann.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 18, 2009 at 01:52 PM
"You don't solve the hermenuetical problem by taking recourse to other texts that require interpretation."
ALL texts require interpretation. But the "hermeneutical problem" has to stop somewhere though, doesn't it? Your statement implies a sort of infinite hermeneutical regress, and if that's the case then we're pretty much stuck with depending on our own lights. It all boils down to the text and me.
"The faith of the apostles is where it always was, in the things they wrote."
Well, yes, of course. But where is it today, in the sense of being actually taught, applied, and lived out? If we can't be sure what it is, how can we have any sense of confidence in where it's located?
"If the text in question contradicts the the teaching of the apostles, then I would argue that the Spirit was not speaking, and that, in such a case, there is no question of the 'forked tongue.'"
But given the fact that the teaching of the apostles can be misinterpreted, as is evident even from the NT itself, how can you know what is really their teaching? If the NT = 'the teaching of the Apostles,' then when your final recourse is to the NT, it must be that the NT is self-interpreting. Yet if it's self-interpreting, why are there so many different interpretations?
This type of logic cannot be applied to any other document or text. The fact that the NT is inspired and infallible doesn't change that fact. It was written, received, and initially interpreted in the community of believers, and the community of believers is vital to its correct understanding.
Posted by: Rob G | July 20, 2009 at 07:42 AM
Rob G: "It was written, received, and initially interpreted in the community of believers, and the community of believers is vital to its correct understanding."
How about the community of "believers" in The Episcopal Church?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM
**How about the community of "believers" in The Episcopal Church?**
The Episcopal Church generally accepts some form of the "branch theory" -- they don't see themselves as "the" true Church. Dr. Bauman's objections wouldn't apply to them.
Posted by: Rob G | July 20, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Rob G,
I neither said nor implied that the Biblical text was self-interpreting. Indeed I deny that any text is. Nor did I say anything about an infinite regress of hermeneutics. I did say you can't solve the problem of interpreting one set of texts by taking recourse to another set of texts requiring interpretation, especially a set equally or more diverse in context, content, language, belief and purpose than the first -- as is the case when you compare the Bible with the texts of the church fathers.
We are, indeed, stuck with our own lights, even those who wish to hand Biblical hermeneutics and theologizing over to one community of believers or another, because you are going to have to chose between the competing claims to proper Biblical and theological understanding that each one of those communities makes. In light of their competing claims, and in light of the differing content they advance, you yourself must choose which one you follow; you yourself must reject the ones you don't. Adjudicating between them is something you must do because they do not agree among themselves on many issues, some of them quite important. Before you submit, you must choose. Or, put differently, submitting is choosing.
So, yes, the interpretive buck must stop somewhere. Given the inescapable choices we must make, it seems to me literally impossible that it stop somewhere other than our own doorstep. That is a daunting prospect, but, whether we like it or not, it is the one God left us. Let us get on with it, then, with all the courage, faith and wisdom we can muster. When we do, we might be surprised where we find the faith of the apostles most loyally and accurately taught today.
We can be wrong, and the stakes are high. Do very good work.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 20, 2009 at 01:43 PM
Rob G.: "The Episcopal Church generally accepts some form of the "branch theory" -- they don't see themselves as "the" true Church."
I'm thankful that TEc does not see themselves as "the" true Church.
Incidentally, I can only think of 4 churches that make the claim of being THE ONE TRUE CHURCH: The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Jehovah Witnesses, and the Mormon Church.
Maybe another one, the Boston Church of Christ who I think changed their name recently.
I suppose it's important and vital to be known as THE ONE TRUE CHURCH.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 20, 2009 at 02:33 PM
TUaD,
Add the Oriental Orthodox Church (the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, Malabari Indians amd Syriac Orthodox) to your list. Until about 75-100 years ago one would add also the Assyrian Church (the Holy Catholic Apostolic Orthodox Church of the East and of the Assyrians) as well, but that they maintain that claim today (although some of them do) is not so clear; they came under a degree of Anglican influence in the late 1800s, and especially in the 1920s and 30s, and seem to have glommed onto a kind of "stricter" version of the Anglican "branch theory" that would see churches with "real bishops" (i.e., apostolic succession) and a strong view of the Eucharist-as-sacrifice and of the "real presemce" of Christ in the Eucharist as "branches" of the Church.
Posted by: William Tighe | July 20, 2009 at 06:46 PM
"We are, indeed, stuck with our own lights, even those who wish to hand Biblical hermeneutics and theologizing over to one community of believers or another, because you are going to have to chose between the competing claims to proper Biblical and theological understanding that each one of those communities makes"
This is true, but it fails to take into consideration the fact that when one makes the decision for the RCC or the EOC, he need make it only once. The "submission as choosing" occurs one time, hopefully after the person has done very good work, as you put it. It does not have to be repeated on every subject; one ceases to be one's own pope, or theology professor, or ethical advisor.
Posted by: Rob G | July 20, 2009 at 06:59 PM
Rob,
You continue to choose every time you decide to stay where you and not to go anywhere else.
Or, from a different angle, one choice that covers a thousands issues is no different from a thousand decisions. It's like voting a straight party ticket. You cast one ballot, but it counts as a vote for 50 different elections. You voted, say, Republican fifty times all at once.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 20, 2009 at 08:35 PM
"You continue to choose every time you decide to stay where you and not to go anywhere else."
Not if you've come to the RCC or the EOC with the conviction that there is truly nowhere else to go (which is the only reason, ultimately, to come to either of them).
The straight party vote analogy doesn't hold because in the Church you still have the liberty to explore the multiple options within the parameters of the faith, those many areas where the Church has not definitively spoken. You are, for instance, 'locked into your vote' on the Trinity or the hypostatic union, but not on, say, eschatology or the relationship of theology to philosophy. There are huge areas of exploration available to you, yet the burden of having to figure everything out on your own is gone.
Posted by: Rob G | July 21, 2009 at 07:28 AM
A group of Orthodox clergy in Greece, led by three senior archbishops, have published a manifesto pledging to resist all ecumenical ties with Roman Catholics and Protestants.
"The Orthodox church is not merely the true church; she is the only church. She alone has remained faithful to the Gospel, the synods and the fathers, and consequently she alone represents the true catholic church of Christ," says the document.
I wonder if the Greek orthodox priest competing on the gameshow mentioned below signed the manifesto.
"It sounds like the beginning of a joke: what do you get when you put a Muslim imam, a Greek Orthodox priest, a rabbi, a Buddhist monk and 10 atheists in the same room?
Viewers of Turkish television will soon get the punchline when a new gameshow begins that offers a prize arguably greater than that offered by Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
Contestants will ponder whether to believe or not to believe when they pit their godless convictions against the possibilities of a new relationship with the almighty on Penitents Compete (Tovbekarlar Yarisiyor in Turkish), to be broadcast by the Kanal T station. Four spiritual guides from the different religions will seek to convert at least one of the 10 atheists in each programme to their faith.
Those persuaded will be rewarded with a pilgrimage to the spiritual home of their newly chosen creed – Mecca for Muslims, Jerusalem for Christians and Jews, and Tibet for Buddhists."
From Find God, win a trip to Mecca (or Jerusalem, or Tibet).
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 21, 2009 at 08:05 AM
Three questions occur to me here:
1) Does not the phrase "one holy catholic and apostolic church" itslef pose a hermeneutical problem?
I do not mean that we do not know whether the authors and early upholders of the creed believed in a visible church. Clearly, they all did (or all that we have evidence of). The real question is how they identified which is the One church, for there is no formula laid out in the creed. Is Rome the mark of the One church? Is Constantinople? How about the Nestorians or the Monophysites? They also believed in the One church doctrine expressed in the creed. What marks are they identify which church is true if it isn't a circular argument: “We are the true church because we say we are, and we are the only church authorized to say it” et cet.; or one based upon theological agreement: “The true church is that church which holds the true faith (the faith I recognize as true)”?
How might an objective observer find the apostolic or patristic formula for identifying the true church? Is not the absence of such a universally agreed hermeneutic on that portion of the creed a problem when those who hold to a one visible church don't agree on which church it is? How can this doctrine ever bring unity to the church? It seems that its application can only further divide the church.
2) Why do we need insist that the patristic church was infallibly led on ALL things, or that their understanding of all doctrinal matters, even in the creed, are marks of the Spirit's infallible guidance?
This brings up the admittedly Protestant question of whether the church can, fairly universally, err. Now I know that no one is arguing that the church is free from sin. The argument goes, and I admit to finding it somewhat attractive, that, although the church is full of sinners and many leaders may commit grievous sin and even deny the faith, yet on doctrinal teachings the church is preserved from error. In shorthand this may be expressed in the statement that popes may be murderers but they will never be liars when it teaching the faith.
Yet the very idea that the Holy Spirit would preserve the doctrinal purity of the church yet allow its visible leadership to fall from time to time into such moral corruption that its mark as a representative of Christ, according to the marks that He laid out, are nearly invisible, this leaves me rather troubled. I think a better argument needs to be made why the church can be allowed to participate in sin at its highest level and yet still is expected to be free from error on matters of doctrine. Jesus made a great deal on how we are to behave toward one another and how we are to be distinguished from the world based upon our moral and spiritual witness. Yet I seem to hear from the advocates of the the visible one church idea that moral witness is less important to God than doctrinal witness, so that we should trust him to guard the church in the latter but not be worried that he lets her slide in the former.
Given that practice preaches much more effectively than words I find the distinction between moral witness and doctrinal teaching dubious. Let me take but one example: The use of state power to enforce church teaching. Very few writers of the Patristic era were in disagreement with the alliance of the church with the Empire and the use of state force to back up the church against pagans, heretics and schismatics. Yet who today believe such force does not implicitly deny the way of the cross and violate the freedom of conscience that is necessary for a Christian to have? Who would argue that Christ's self-sacrificing love was not made more obscure by being clothed within the power of the state? Christ called us to deny ourselves, pick up our cross and follow him. How is it that the one church has been allowed to dress and live as princes and only pick up jewel encrusted crossed for processionals?
If the Spirit has not preserved one key facet of the spiritual witness of the church from corruption why should we believe that he has not allowed a facet of doctrine to become corrupted?
3) I have heard converts to Rome or Constantinople talk about salvation as being involved in their joining the true church. But this implies that they believe that their salvation was in peril while Protestants, or that they weren't truly saved by Christ until they joined the true church. Is this what is truly believed? If so how do converts to Rome feel now that Rome has declared that Protestants are not excluded from Christ simply by being outside the bosom of the true church? The idea that there is no salvation outside communion with the true church is much more harmonious with ancient teaching than is the idea that those visibly outside the church are still invisibly members by virtue of being in Christ. One might say that Rome's new openness to recognizing the saving faith of some Protestants has threatened to blow a hole into the argument that what the always church thought about the one church is necessarily so.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | July 21, 2009 at 08:07 AM
Christopher: good questions and observations all. It would take a fair amount of time and space to answer them in depth, but I think I can provide short answers that might point the way towards the deeper ones.
"How might an objective observer find the apostolic or patristic formula for identifying the true church?"
I don't think there is a "formula" for this; nevertheless, the answer lies in studying the Fathers and those secondary works which explain patristic/early Church ecclesiology. The goal here is to come to see, as closely as possible, how the early Church saw itself.
"Why do we need insist that the patristic church was infallibly led on ALL things, or that their understanding of all doctrinal matters, even in the creed, are marks of the Spirit's infallible guidance?"
The areas we believe that the patristic witness is infallible are those where it spoke univocally, where the patristic voice reflected or summarized the consensus of the faithful. We have the promise that the Spirit would lead the Church into all truth, and St. Paul called the Church "the pillar and ground of the truth."
If we do not at least admit the divine leading of the Spirit regarding the Creed, the councils, and the canon of Scripture, we are in quite a bind. If we don't grant the Spirit's guidance here, we find ourselves in the same position as the Mormons and the JW's. Yet if we are willing to grant the Spirit's witness in these areas, it seems inconsistent to doubt it when it touches on other areas where the Church spoke in consensus and with authority.
"I think a better argument needs to be made why the church can be allowed to participate in sin at its highest level and yet still is expected to be free from error on matters of doctrine."
If the Church is truly the body of Christ, then it transcends the failings of its individual members, whether doctrinally or morally. The Church qua Church never "participates in sin" or error; only certain of its members do. Just as we would say that the Scriptures transcend the limitations of its human authors, so the Church transcends the limitations of its human members; thus, she is not equivalent to her hierarchy.
"I have heard converts to Rome or Constantinople talk about salvation as being involved in their joining the true church. But this implies that they believe that their salvation was in peril while Protestants, or that they weren't truly saved by Christ until they joined the true church. Is this what is truly believed?"
A person is responsible only for his knowledge. As long I was a Protestant and was ignorant of the claims of the Orthodox Church, I do not believe my salvation was in jeopardy. After I came to the conclusion (after several years of study and prayer) the the EOC was the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church of the Creed, then it became a moral/spiritual, indeed, "salvation" matter for me. If I didn't join, then my salvation was truly in danger. As one person I read colorfully put it, if one comes to believe that the RCC (or EOC) is the Church, it behooves him to get his arse into it.
Posted by: Rob G | July 21, 2009 at 09:32 AM
Dr. Bauman,
I am not sure that the ballot is the best way to understand the act of choosing a church. Rather, it seems that marriage or adoption would be better analogues. In these cases, the "choice" is really a one-time thing. Properly understood and practiced, once that initial decision is made a person is committed to sticking it out, come what may. (I say this as a capital-E Evangelical who is still trying to figure out his own ecclesiology, due in no small part to the questions that Mr. Hathaway raises.)
To illustrate, when I married my wife, I was implicitly, if reluctantly, accepting the fact that I might be served mushrooms in a casserole. In one sense, you could say that I voted "yes" to eating mushrooms. But I don't think that really gets to the heart of what I was doing. My decision to marry her wasn't based on saying "yes" to that and a thousand similar choices. Rather, I chose to love her first; as a consequence I willingly deal with whatever edible fungi come my way.
Likewise, when someone chooses a church that claims to be "The Church", I think it is reasonable to understand that they are receiving the church's teaching as a consequence of that choice. For us evangelicals, its the other way around, but I'm yet not wholly convinced that that is the better way.
[BTW, it's great to see you posting here. You were one of my favorite speakers when I attended Summit '98. :-)]
Posted by: TimC | July 21, 2009 at 09:40 AM
BTW, I must say that I find it extremely heartening to have gone this far in a discussion of this subject without anyone exhibiting snark or temper. If there is anywhere we should be able to discuss such 'ecumenical' issues freely, it is on Mere Comments.
Posted by: Rob G | July 21, 2009 at 11:21 AM
So that I am clear on your position, Rob, you felt yourself personally competent to assess (1) the Bible, (2) centuries of patristic literature in at least two languages, (3) the competing claims of various ecclesiastical traditions, and, from all that, (4) to determine which church was, and which churches were not, the one true church -- and yet maintain that the protestant principle of private judgment is flawed and unreliable?
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 21, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Only as competent as the next reasonably well-educated guy. Are you implying that only those with advanced education in these areas are qualified to make such a decision? Isn't that just a tad hubristic?
Posted by: Rob G | July 21, 2009 at 12:53 PM
"BTW, I must say that I find it extremely heartening to have gone this far in a discussion of this subject without anyone exhibiting snark or temper."
Don't prove Rob wrong on this, folks. He's right, I believe. This is an extremely interesting discussion, made possible (I believe) only by the charity extended by the Fellowship of St. James.
Posted by: Bill R | July 21, 2009 at 01:34 PM
Proclaiming ones own infallibility is almost surely a [fallible] statement, unless of course, one really is infallible
This would represent well an objection to Vatican I. How can the Bishop of Rome proclaim himself infallible? Shouldn't something higher than he make that proclamation?
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | July 21, 2009 at 04:42 PM
Touchstone Contributor Peter Leithart has written an interesting essay that bears upon this discussion. It's called A Cheer for Denominations.
Here's an excerpt that shows how it pertains and then skips to the concluding paragraph:
"Thus far, I have simply been engaged in an analysis of labeling and packaging. Perhaps the Catholics or Orthodox are correct, and one or the other is indeed the true church to which every believer should seek access. Could they be right?
....
So, the question is: Which modern writer would have more likely to have written 2 Kings, Jeremiah Burroughes or Peter Gillquist? To put it more theologically: If God regards idolatrous Israel as Israel, should we not do the same with the various communions with whom we confess faith in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 21, 2009 at 04:43 PM
ha ha. I hadn't noticed your correction, and so misread what you intended.
mea maxima culpa.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | July 21, 2009 at 04:44 PM
Here's my thought on the matter. To what extent is Israel the model for the issue of the "one true church?" That is, is it fair to consider Israel and how God treated her with respect to who is, or isn't, in the one true assembly? One was considered an Israelite by the rite of circumcision (cf. the rite of baptism), if one were male, and an Israelite was expected to profess a "creed," i.e., the Shema: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God. The Lord is One." (Cf. the Apostles Creed). Otherwise Israelites went through numerous divisions, exile, deportation, and parties. But all Israelites were deemed to be of Israel. Are not we (i.e., all Christians) "the Israel of God," as St. Paul tells us? And are we not all visibly, by our baptism and by our creed, in the one, true, holy, and apostolic church?
Posted by: Bill R | July 21, 2009 at 05:21 PM
"This would represent well an objection to Vatican I. How can the Bishop of Rome proclaim himself infallible? Shouldn't something higher than he make that proclamation?"
What higher authority exists on Earth for Catholics than the papacy? Well, before 1870 some might have replied "an ecumenical council," but it was precisely an ecumenical council recognized as such by the Catholic Church that proclaimed the dogma of papal infallibility to be de Fide Catholicia. You can't get higher than that.
Posted by: William Tighe | July 22, 2009 at 07:11 AM
"are we not all visibly, by our baptism and by our creed, in the one, true, holy, and apostolic church?"
Bill, the EOC and RCC would say "no," with the qualification that ultimately only God knows who's truly in and out. This is why the Orthodox refrain from commenting on the eternal destination of individuals. Or as a Catholic might put it, a believer who's not Catholic is outside the Church objectively, but possibly inside it subjectively.
It's important to note that the assumption underlying your question is of Protestant provenance. That is the notion that the Church is foundationally or fundamentally invisible. As far as I can tell this notion had its origin in Lutheranism, if not in Luther's thought itself.
The early Church's idea was that the Church was primarily visible, but with an invisible aspect. Luther reversed this understanding, seeing the Church primarily as an aggregate of saved individuals, or as the Anglicans put it, "the blessed company of all faithful people."
The EOC and RCC would say that this is true, but that it doesn't go far enough. If the Church is truly the body of Christ on earth, then it is greater than the sum of its parts, not only in metaphorical or symbolic terms, but in a truly ontological sense.
As J.I. Packer put it, the EOC and RCC believe that what Christ instituted was a "sacramental structure" in which, by which, and through which grace comes to man. But as Kallistos Ware goes on to say, God, being the originator and sustainer of that structure, is perfectly free to work outside it. We as humans, however, are not, and thus cannot go beyond what we have received.
As an example, while the Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, God, being the institutor of that norm, is perfectly free to work outside it and save someone outside of baptism. The Church, however, is not free in that manner to "relax the standard," and thus we must insist on baptism as a norm.
Posted by: Rob G | July 22, 2009 at 09:24 AM
Excuse me for interjecting an off-topic remark, but I wanted to tell Rob G something on another subject and don't know how else to reach him. Rob, would you email me at [email protected]?
Posted by: Judy K. Warner | July 22, 2009 at 10:29 AM
"As far as I can tell this notion had its origin in Lutheranism, if not in Luther's thought itself."
That likely explains its attraction to me! ;-)
"If the Church is truly the body of Christ on earth, then it is greater than the sum of its parts, not only in metaphorical or symbolic terms, but in a truly ontological sense."
But not less than the sum of its parts, right? That is, even by RCC and EOC lights, a part is still a part. My point is that, from my reading of the Scriptures, Palestinian Jews often looked upon diasporaic (sp?) Jews as "less fully Jewish" than the natives, but still Jews for all of that. And therefore part of Israel, the assemby of the people of God. This actually appears to be close to the approach taken today by the RCC. It would not surprise me to see it gradually become the view of the EOC, but that may take another generation or two. I don't see it strictly as appealing to an "invisible church," since I pointed to two visible indicia of this membership: baptism and creedal confession. I'm obviously not offering a maximal definition, but merely the "lowest common denominator," so to speak.
Posted by: Bill R | July 22, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Christopher, it would appear the referees have inserted themselves a bit too much in the game. So neither you nor I can now verify what I said. Suffice it to say I did not mean that... and, as Dr. Tighe suggests, it's a rather crude caricature to picture the Pope proclaiming himself infallible one sunny day in 1870.
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | July 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Far be it from me to criticize theditorial policy of this most excelent site. It really is the best gathering for possitive ecumenical discussions. But Isaw nothing in your posts which would offend. At least I, was not offended. I realize that converts can be quite adamant against those who raise questions about that to which they have converted. That just goes with the territory.
I enjoy these kind of discussions and find them fruitful. Who knows but that I may be converted by them? It is intellectual difficulties with the concept ofa visible and infallible church that keeps me a Protestant. If my objections are overridden by sound argument, well, as Rob G points out, it would be a sin not to follow the logic.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | July 22, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Closing (hopefully) italics.
This page, Christopher, has some nice links to stuff that Newman had to say on papal infallibility. He, of course, famously opposed making a dogmatic definition leading up to Vatican I, but never apparently denied the doctrine, and afterward (I think) defended the actions of the council fathers. I'm curious that you say you have difficulties with the concept of a visible and infallible Church. Most protestants, myself included when I was one, seem to have more difficulty with the application of a visible and infallible Church; and that, in theory it would be just fine. That being so, however, how does one (who has conceptual difficulties with an authoritative Church) get to say a complete NT canon or a Nicene and Athanasian view of Christ without it? I ask because I'm interested... and you ought to be...
Cheers!
Posted by: Steve Nicoloso | July 22, 2009 at 11:08 PM
"It would not surprise me to see it gradually become the view of the EOC, but that may take another generation or two."
Actually, it already is the view of the EOC. Just as no one is automatically saved merely by being inside the visible Church, no one is automatically unsaved merely by being outside her. As Kallistos Ware is fond of quoting, we can say with where the Church is, but we cannot say where it is not.
Posted by: Rob G | July 23, 2009 at 08:18 AM
Rob G: "As Kallistos Ware is fond of quoting, we can say with where the Church is, but we cannot say where it is not."
"We cannot say where it is not."
Because it's not visible.
;-)
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 23, 2009 at 01:39 PM
"Because it's not visible."
Heh! Well said, TUAD.
Posted by: Bill R | July 23, 2009 at 01:56 PM
From a certain angle TUAD is correct. St. Augustine once said about the Church, "How many wolves there are within, how many lambs without."
Yet this did not stop him from being able to identify where the Church was. So while TUAD's joke is cute, it's somewhat less accurate than intended.
Posted by: Rob G | July 23, 2009 at 03:31 PM
Earlier, I provided a link and an excerpt from a Touchstone Editor, Peter Leithart. Let me do the same again, but this time with Touchstone Editor Robert Hart instead:
"The Reformers of the 16th century used the word "Protestant" to declare that they believed in the Scriptures, and that they sought to be more Catholic than the Papists who obscured the Scriptures, failed to proclaim their meaning, and hid the Gospel under centuries of superstitious rubble. The phrase "more Catholic than the pope" may sound like an unfriendly challenge, a red flag waved in the face of a bull. But, the whole purpose of being a Protestant (and I believe the English did it best, by far) was exactly that: To be more Catholic than the pope and his religion.
Today we are more polite and ecumenical, and so are the people on the other side. The current Pope, Benedict XVI, the noblest German of them all, whose works I have long respected since the days when we called him Cardinal Ratzinger, is one of the finest Protestants to be published in modern times. [!!] Clearly he favors the Gospel and the Scripture just as we do (I wish I could say the same about his rather large denomination). Because he is such a Protestant, it is not easy to be more Catholic than he is." [D'oh!]
From: Pro and Con testantism.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 23, 2009 at 04:04 PM
Robert Hart is certainly entitled to his opinion, although I don't doubt that quite a few Catholics would disagree. Steve N.? Dr. Tighe?
Posted by: Rob G | July 23, 2009 at 04:34 PM
"So while TUAD's joke is cute, it's somewhat less accurate than intended."
I can't say what TUAD's intent was, Rob, but I took his post to be a clever jibe, not a winning argument. What we see, I believe, is a general consensus that "church" must be understood on two levels: people and institution. On the first level, most Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics are in basic agreement that some persons outside their churches may in fact be Christians, but cannot acknowledge that all of the institutions within which Christians worship are part of the true church. Again as I see it, this derives, at least in part, from different concepts of what the institutional meaning of the church is. It seems that both the EO and the RC give a much greater "spiritual status" to their respective institutions than most Protestants do, so that for the latter the concept of "church" hardly encompasses more than the people who make up the assembly of all true believers, while for the former, there is a "life" to the institution itself that transcends the people who at any given time compose the assembly.
Posted by: Bill R | July 23, 2009 at 04:46 PM
**for the [Protestants] the concept of "church" hardly encompasses more than the people who make up the assembly of all true believers, while for the [RCC & EOC], there is a "life" to the institution itself that transcends the people who at any given time compose the assembly.**
Right, Bill. That's a good way to put it. The question that needs to be hashed out then, as Steve says above, is which understanding of the Church is correct?
Posted by: Rob G | July 24, 2009 at 07:48 AM
Rob G.: "The question that needs to be hashed out then, as Steve says above, is which understanding of the Church is correct?"
God's.
;-)
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 24, 2009 at 10:05 AM
"The question that needs to be hashed out then, as Steve says above, is which understanding of the Church is correct?"
Perhaps preliminarily, Rob, the issue is how we go about deriving our understanding. Most Protestants, approaching the matter by Scripture alone, find little that is "institutional" in the church of the NT. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, would approach the matter not solely from Scripture but also from the historical development of the church from a primitive organization to a complex institution, and generally would conclude that this institutional development was guided by the Holy Spirit in accordance with God's will. Thus, for the latter, the institution is itself "holy" and, if reformable, may be changed only gradually and never by repudiating its general character. The former, on the other hand, take the institutional form of the church (as opposed, say, to church offices such as bishop/pastor and deacon) to be largely a human creation, however guided by the Spirit, and therefore reformable, even radically so, if the members of the church determine that such structure is not Biblically sustainable.
But how shall the twain meet?
Posted by: Bill R | July 24, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Bill R.: But how shall the twain meet?
Do they need to meet?
Can God be glorified and the Gospel spread and disciples made without a "meeting" on ecclesiology?
Is it possible to set up a false idol about ecclesiology?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 24, 2009 at 02:13 PM
"Do they need to meet?"
If we believe Christ's High Priestly Prayer in John 17, I'd say, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean a meeting in the middle.
"Is it possible to set up a false idol about ecclesiology?"
I'm not quite sure what is meant by this. Can the church be an object of idolatry? The true church is the Body of Christ, so if pressed, I'd say, no. But you'd have to refine the question more.
Posted by: Bill R | July 24, 2009 at 03:53 PM
Bill R., we could go in circles if I respond to the points you're making.
Instead, I'd like to leave a quote by Cardinal Avery Dulles from his book "A Church to Believe In":
“According to Vatican II, the communion of the church of Christ extends far beyond the visible borders of the Roman Catholic Church. The Council's teaching on this point was not a new departure, but an assertion of a very traditional position, held by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. All who have the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, even though they be not Catholics or even Christians, are in some sense members of Christ's body, and therefore of the church.” (p. 59)
Can I get three raucous "Hip, Hip, Hooray's" for Vatican II ecclesiology?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 25, 2009 at 04:41 AM
>All who have the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, even though they be not Catholics or even Christians, are in some sense members of Christ's body, and therefore of the church.
I'm not sure I'm prepared to cheer for the notion that people who are not Christians are a part of the body of Christ.
Posted by: David Gray. | July 25, 2009 at 06:32 AM
'Can God be glorified and the Gospel spread and disciples made without a "meeting" on ecclesiology?'
Not to the Catholic or Orthodox. The nature of the Church is of the "stuff" of the faith. It doesn't occur to us to bring someone to Christ without simultaneously bringing him to the Church, since the two are (normally) inseparable. It's not like we lead a person to accept a sort of 'Christianity-in-general,' then say to him, "Now you have to pick a church. Here are the reasons we think ours is the best."
Therefore, it seems to me, the twain cannot meet because they are at a very fundamental level irreconciliable. And as Steve N. implies above, the question, as always, reverts to "By what authority...?"
This is not to say, obviously, that we cannot be co-belligerents in the culture wars, or even co-workers in softening the ground of secularism (what might be called pre-evangelism).
Posted by: Rob G | July 25, 2009 at 07:34 AM
Rob,
What's the EO take on this notion that non-Christians can be part of the body of Christ?
Posted by: David Gray. | July 25, 2009 at 09:57 AM
Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, on the other hand, would approach the matter not solely from Scripture but also from the historical development of the church from a primitive organization to a complex institution, and generally would conclude that this institutional development was guided by the Holy Spirit in accordance with God's will. Thus, for the latter, the institution is itself "holy" and, if reformable, may be changed only gradually and never by repudiating its general character. The former, on the other hand, take the institutional form of the church (as opposed, say, to church offices such as bishop/pastor and deacon) to be largely a human creation
Bill, I don't think this dichotomy between "complex institution" and essential elements is consistent with the RC viewpoint. The Nicene Creed puts it best: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. There's plenty of Scripture to base these defining characteristics on; the historical argument is very secondary (at least in my view). Your description seems like the kind of media reportage that would call a papal encyclical a "Vatican document". St. Paul dictated much of his letters: that didn't make them someone else's teaching.
Posted by: bonobo | July 25, 2009 at 01:30 PM
Instead, I'd like to leave a quote by Cardinal Avery Dulles from his book "A Church to Believe In":
“According to Vatican II,
Great a man as the late Cardinal was, I would refer back to Lumen Gentium rather than run with a simplistic reinterpretation that I fear is underway here.
Posted by: bonobo | July 25, 2009 at 01:39 PM
Cardinal Avery Dulles: "According to Vatican II, the communion of the church of Christ extends far beyond the visible borders of the Roman Catholic Church. The Council's teaching on this point was not a new departure, but an assertion of a very traditional position, held by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. All who have the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, even though they be not Catholics or even Christians, are in some sense members of Christ's body, and therefore of the church.” (p. 59)
Bonobo: "Great a man as the late Cardinal was, I would refer back to Lumen Gentium rather than run with a simplistic reinterpretation that I fear is underway here."
Michael Bauman: "Steve,
Liberal protestantism won, and Vatican 2 is proof (wink)."
Gasp!
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 25, 2009 at 11:30 PM
>Great a man as the late Cardinal was, I would refer back to Lumen Gentium rather than run with a simplistic reinterpretation that I fear is underway here.
If there was a "simplistic reinterpretation" then it was by the Cardinal. Where is your sense of deference to the church and the magisterium?
Posted by: David Gray. | July 26, 2009 at 07:49 AM
Yes, thorny complications arise when the authoritative interpretation of the faith itself requires an authoritative interpretation, and so on.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 26, 2009 at 09:34 AM
"What's the EO take on this notion that non-Christians can be part of the body of Christ?"
Orthodox believe that all humanness was assumed by Christ in the Incarnation, and that Christ died for all humanity, and that all humanity will be resurrected based on his Resurrection. Not one human being is left out of this. As it says in Chrysostom's Paschal Homily, "Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the tomb!"
Therefore, we'd say that anyone who is saved is necessarily saved in Christ. But we have to remain agnostic about those outside the faith -- we aren't given enough info to theologize on, and anything we say is just speculation, really. How God deals with each individual person in terms of faith and grace and ultimate destination is entirely up to Him.
Posted by: Rob G | July 26, 2009 at 12:02 PM
this notion that non-Christians can be part of the body of Christ?
Which came from:
even though they be not Catholics or even Christians, are in some sense members of Christ's body
The first quote is the simplistic reinterpretation of a simplifying interpretation given by Dulles, who, I'm sure you know, did not constitute the Magisterium. Lumen Gentium is a good place to start for a proper consideration of the issues. It is, after all, a magisterial document.
Posted by: bonobo | July 26, 2009 at 03:21 PM
>The first quote is the simplistic reinterpretation of a simplifying interpretation given by Dulles
Actually it is merely more narrowly focused. The problematic, at best, portion of the Cardinal's statement remains what it is.
Posted by: David Gray. | July 26, 2009 at 03:30 PM
It is, in a sense, a wonder that a statement can be "more narrowly focused" rather than changed utterly in meaning by the omission of the phrase "in a sense".
The Cardinal's statement is less problematic than your simplistic reinterpretation.
Posted by: bonobo | July 26, 2009 at 08:48 PM
>The Cardinal's statement is less problematic than your simplistic reinterpretation.
Not really.
Posted by: David Gray. | July 26, 2009 at 09:20 PM
Why?
Posted by: bonobo | July 26, 2009 at 09:42 PM
**the omission of the phrase "in a sense".**
I was thinking the same thing, Bonobo. That phrase does change things, and whether the Cardinal's teaching is acceptable or not depends a lot upon what he means by "in a sense."
Posted by: Rob G | July 27, 2009 at 06:55 AM
Rob G.: "That phrase does change things, and whether the Cardinal's teaching is acceptable or not depends a lot upon what he means by "in a sense."
Heh. Perhaps the Cardinal's phrasing was deliberate. And some people celebrate and glorify such styles of writing for precisely the reasons that cause you to wonder what is acceptable or not. And, of course, many others do not.
Here's an interesting review on a recent papal encyclical that speaks to such "strategic phrasing". Some like it, others don't. Just like some people like "Anglican Fudge", and many others do not.
Excerpt: "Now comes Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), Benedict XVI’s long-awaited and much-delayed social encyclical. It seems to be a hybrid, blending the pope’s own insightful thinking on the social order with elements of the Justice and Peace approach to Catholic social doctrine, which imagines that doctrine beginning anew at Populorum Progressio. Indeed, those with advanced degrees in Vaticanology could easily go through the text of Caritas in Veritate, highlighting those passages that are obviously Benedictine with a gold marker and those that reflect current Justice and Peace default positions with a red marker. The net result is, with respect, an encyclical that resembles a duck-billed platypus.
...
But then there are those passages to be marked in red — the passages that reflect Justice and Peace ideas and approaches that Benedict evidently believed he had to try and accommodate. Some of these are simply incomprehensible, as when the encyclical states that defeating Third World poverty and underdevelopment requires a “necessary openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion.” This may mean something interesting; it may mean something naïve or dumb. But, on its face, it is virtually impossible to know what it means."
From: Caritas in Veritate in Gold and Red.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | July 27, 2009 at 07:38 AM
>That phrase does change things, and whether the Cardinal's teaching is acceptable or not depends a lot upon what he means by "in a sense."
In what sense is a pagan part of the body of Christ?
Posted by: David Gray. | July 27, 2009 at 08:39 AM
Christ, the Logos, enlightens every person who comes into the world (John 1: 9). Therefore, when a person responds in faith to that enlightenment, that person is responding in faith to Christ Himself, which makes that person a Christian, a member of the body of Christ, even if that person has never heard the name "Jesus" and knows nothing at all of Catholicism, Protestantism, or Orthodoxy -- even if that person is what we, not the God Who saved him, would call a pagan. That is, Christ's work of reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5: 19) is not restricted to, or limited by, the ministrations of the competing visible churches.
Posted by: Michael Bauman | July 27, 2009 at 02:48 PM
By your leave, in response to David's question (and not using any intermediate interpretation however tendentiously reinterpreted), herewith three paragraphs from the end of chapter II of Lumen Gentium:
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.
17. As the Son was sent by the Father,(131) so He too sent the Apostles, saying: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world".(132) The Church has received this solemn mandate of Christ to proclaim the saving truth from the apostles and must carry it out to the very ends of the earth.(133) Wherefore she makes the words of the Apostle her own: "Woe to me, if I do not preach the Gospel",(134) and continues unceasingly to send heralds of the Gospel until such time as the infant churches are fully established and can themselves continue the work of evangelizing. For the Church is compelled by the Holy Spirit to do her part that God's plan may be fully realized, whereby He has constituted Christ as the source of salvation for the whole world. By the proclamation of the Gospel she prepares her hearers to receive and profess the faith. She gives them the dispositions necessary for baptism, snatches them from the slavery of error and of idols and incorporates them in Christ so that through charity they may grow up into full maturity in Christ. Through her work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and perfected unto the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of man. The obligation of spreading the faith is imposed on every disciple of Christ, according to his state.(21*) Although, however, all the faithful can baptize, the priest alone can complete the building up of the Body in the eucharistic sacrifice. Thus are fulfilled the words of God, spoken through His prophet: "From the rising of the sun until the going down thereof my name is great among the gentiles, and in every place a clean oblation is sacrificed and offered up in my name".(135)(22*) In this way the Church both prays and labors in order that the entire world may become the People of God, the Body of the Lord and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and that in Christ, the Head of all, all honor and glory may be rendered to the Creator and Father of the Universe.
Posted by: bonobo | July 27, 2009 at 06:20 PM
That is profoundly depressing, but clear...
Posted by: David Gray. | July 27, 2009 at 08:51 PM
That is profoundly depressing, but clear...
Thank you, David!
Clarity helps the ecumenical discussion. How can one sensibly disagree with a point of view that hasn't been correctly characterized?
Posted by: bonobo | July 27, 2009 at 11:35 PM