On this matter of contrasting Protestant and Roman Catholic paradigms of authority, I like Jeremy Tate’s analogy of a school room. Protestants in class have no teacher, only a book. Wrong, but let’s go with it for now. Roman Catholics have a teacher and a book. Therefore, Rome has a teacher to instruct and determine the right answer.
The problem with the analogy for the folks at Called to Communion is the failure to notice that post-Vatican II Roman Catholics seem to ignore their teacher as much as Protestants behave when no classroom authority is present. Granted, a time existed, and Quebec between 1900 and 1960 is an example of that era, when Roman Catholics did heed with deference the church hierarchy. But just as Quebec secularized in the 1960s to become one of the least observant places in the West, so Roman Catholicism in the West has shown a marked hostility to the teaching authority that CTCers tout. According to Mark Noll in what is one of his best essays:
As a final element in Canada’s recent ecclesiastical history, it is important to highlight the significance of the Second Vatican Council. The role of the Council was obviously important for Canada’s Catholics, but may have been almost as significant for its Protestants. In Quebec, but also for Canadian Catholics in general, the Council was destabilizing because it rapidly altered the liturgy, the language, the music, the tone, the disciplines, and the calendrical observances that for a great part of the faithful had simply constituted the meaning of the faith. In this sense, Canada resembled Western European Catholicism, which was also disconcerted by the Council, rather than Eastern European, African, and Asian Catholicism, which was energized by its work.
The lack of compliance among Roman Catholics is a huge problem for those who celebrate Rome’s superiority as a communion with a teacher who can instill order and discipline in this imaginary classroom. If Rome has it, and I don’t doubt that Rome claims it, why won’t it use that authority to make the students sit down and be quiet? Why won’t it teach those students what they are supposed to learn? Well, one big reason is Vatican II (more on that at another time).
Another reason is that no communion since the late 18th century has the school principal to back up its teachers (Protestants do actually believe they have ministers with authority who exercise the keys of the kingdom). Since the separation of church and state in the West, all of us inside the classroom don’t have the fellow with the big stick at the end of the hall who will spank the bottoms of unruly students. That means that Protestant teachers and Roman Catholic popes are left with the same amount of authority — it’s all spiritual. We can exhort, cajole, excommunicate. But at the end of the day, without the state to back up our rulings, the unrepentant sinner is free to walk down the street and attend another church, and over time join and become a member in good standing.
Even so, I wonder what good the CTCers promotion of infallibility does. It seems, given the state of North American and European Roman Catholicism, the main effect is to remind Protestants what we don’t have. Great. I got it. Rome has authoritative authority. Protestants don’t. That may make Rome more orderly and coherent. But then why does the classroom with a teacher look so much like the classroom without one? It sure seems to me this is a question that the serious minded folks at CTC could ponder.
132 Comments
It’s ok Andrew we have these same problems in our own camp with the rational-biblical types extending themselves rationally beyond what the scriptures say. Something about drawing circles on a chalkboard. Of course between sacred tradition and historical fideism much less ‘maturation’ of the deposit you have a lot more breathing room on that side of the river than we have stomach for on this side. BTW, as you rationalize you guys need to tighten up on the false dichotomies you erect at different times between apostolic authority and apostolic succession vis a vis the magisterium. The former we affirm the later we deny. Try harder to paint us arightly.
Andrew says: “That passage of Scripture is beautiful. What you infer from it, i.e., that we are saved in spite of the truth, is wrong-headed. What God declares to be so, is so. God cannot lie.”
That is a statement of faith (as opposed to a statement that flows naturally from evidence that has just been presented) if I have ever heard one.
It’s like me saying “the moon is made of green cheese. Have a nice day.”
D.G.,
The sense of St. Ignatius’ statement is explained by Ed Feser here. In short, its hyperbole.
Erik,
The claim that God cannot lie is true by definition. One need only understand the terms. It is also a thing that has been divinely revealed (cf. Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2), but of course depending upon such revelation in the way that we do presupposes that God cannot lie. So my statement is a statement of faith, but it is grounded in reason.
That God exists can be know from the things that appear. (Ed Feser rounds up some of the arguments on this page.) In so knowing that God exists, we discover that God is an infinite being–having no limitations. But a lie implies a limitation with respect to goodness. Therefore, God cannot lie.
The claim that “God cannot lie” is therefore not analogous to “the moon is made of green cheese.” I am inclined to think that you should seek out some basic sources of Christian theology proper, and read these carefully. On the other hand, if you do have some grasp of basic theology, then you need to work harder on your would-be witticisms.
Andrew
Andrew, thanks for the link but Edward Feser’s explanation is hardly clarifying:
So when the church pronounces it’s infallible but the range of pronouncements are narrow except when they are wide. Huh?
Andrew, agreed that unity only works when accompanied by truth. But the trouble I’m having is that on top of your explaining away Trent’s anathemas on us, your church, by way of V2, has embraced us as brethren. I’m left wondering what gives with the call to communion. All I can think is that you fellows haven’t shaken off all the Protestantism yet, with its idea that unless one is formally situated within the institutional church there remains the work of witness on the parts of the faithful. That’s fairly Protestant for such sold out Catholics.
D.G.,
Keep reading. Here is another excerpt from Feser’s article:
“It should be clear, then, that the Church – and Loyola, in summarizing the Church’s view of her own authority – are not saying ‘tradition trumps sense perception,’ nor, contrary to what skeptics suppose, are they advocating a shrill fideism. The claim, stripped of hyperbole, is rather: ‘Given the Catholic understanding of revelation – an understanding the Church herself insists is and must be in harmony with reason – we are obliged to assent to the Church’s formal pronouncements on matters of faith and morals rather than to any private interpretation that might conflict with those pronouncements.’ Whether or not one agrees with this claim, it is hardly the jarring call to irrationalist dogmatism skeptics make it out to be.”
Zrim,
Explaining Trent is not explaining it away. The anathemas are still there, they just don’t apply to you–never have.
To be precise, Vatican II accepts Protestants as *separated* brethren. The call to communion is intended as a step towards overcoming the separation. I don’t understand what you are saying after “All I can think of….” But let that be. I’ve just explained “what gives.”
Andrew
Andrew, maybe it’s just me, but “brother” trumps “separated.” And so it seems to me that where the RCC puts the accent on “brother” (at least when I read its Decree on Ecumenism), CtC is putting the accent on “separated.” As a Prot, I get putting the accent on our division. What is curious is how a faction within the RCC doesn’t follow the apparent accenting of the church it claims is infallible. In other words, it sure seems like the RCC is saying the Reformation is mainly over. I don’t agree (there goes that pesky private judgment again), but my point is to wonder why CtC acts like it isn’t…because that sure seems like a Protestant-y thing to do in light of V2′s overwhelming ecumenism.
Andrew: The anathemas are still there, they just don’t apply to you–never have.
It’s a little hard for me to grasp why Catholics and Protestants slit each others’ throats from 1525 to 1648 over anathemas that didn’t apply.
My read of history is perhaps limited, but it seems that Catholics and Protestants really did regard one another as damnable heretics during that time period, and that Trent reflects this view.
And anyways, if grace is dispensed through sacraments and Zrim and I are not receiving sacraments from the Roman Church, then aren’t we pretty much devoid of grace? If you are correct, the anathemas might not apply formally, but our separation from the sacraments of the church accomplishes the same thing pragmatically.
Andrew, I read that. It still seems like infallibility dies the death of a thousand qualifications, most of which seem to come from the interpretations of minds that haven’t been told what to think.
I asked Bryan. I’ll ask you. Is there an index of Rome’s dogma that goes through all the councils, encyclicals, catechisms. It would be handy for clarity. Then again, it might be like publishing a phone book.
Andrew – Maybe I misunderstood you. What did you mean by “in spite of the truth”?
Zrim,
I’ve read the documents of Vatican II, and did not see any accents. As for the rest of your glosses: If you interpret Sacred Scripture in the same manner that you interpret these documents, then I can better understand your own theological position. You get out what you put in. Its Zrim all the way through.
Among the things that I did see in the Council documents is this:
“This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”
Thus, when we appeal to you as brothers, even as St. Augustine appealed to the Donatists as brothers, we are appealing for you to enter into the catholic unity to which the Council fathers referred, which is the one Church that Christ founded. We are not at all denying those elements of sanctification and truth that are found among you. In fact, we deeply appreciate them, both as Catholics, per the teaching of the Council, and as former Reformed Protestants, per our experiences in various P & R denominations. I wrote briefly about my own (short) experience in a Presbyterian Church in the very first lead article posted as Called to Communion: “Remember the Sabbath: A Catholic Appreciation of Reformed Christianity.”
Jeff,
If you have been baptized, then you are not cut off from the sacramental life of the Church. You are, however, estranged from the fullness of that life, including its source and summit in the Holy Eucharist.
D.G.,
If you reread the quotes from one of your recent articles, you will find that the qualifications are somewhat less than a thousand, something more like five.
Yes, there is such an index. It was compiled by Heinrich Denzinger, and is entitled, Enchiridion Symbolorum: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations of the Catholic Church.
Erik,
By “in spite of the truth” I meant in spite of the fact that in (traditional) Protestant theology, God declares us to be righteous even though the truth is that we are not righteous.
Andrew
Andrew: Your offer of a “Catholic-Convert” document and the McGuckian piece is an extraordinarily lame response to Sullivan’s work, which has been confirmed by many other. Look at the phrase from the abstract, for example, “a most basic [question] regards whether or not the conclusion reached by the book fits with the faith of the Catholic Church”. This is the point in question, and of course, Sullivan’s conclusion does fit with the facts of the documents he looks at. The real question is why the current Roman dogma has “apparent inconsistencies” with these documents. This telegraphs McGuckian’s “method”, which I’m sure will be very much like the CTC “method”, which, when offered “an apparent contradiction”, will be to explain it away by suggesting some “sense” which may exist (but which really isn’t there) by which you can equivocate on some word or phrase, and say, “we use this word in a different way, and if you ignore the author’s original meaning in the text, we can get away with reconciling these documents”.
we are appealing for you to enter into the catholic unity to which the Council fathers referred, which is the one Church that Christ founded.
How is this phrase not “begging the question” at this discussion board?
The anathemas are still there, they just don’t apply to you–never have.
Of course CCC 846 applies fully to someone like me: Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
Some have told me, “you were not properly catechized”, but after being a cradle Catholic, contemplating a “vocation to the priesthood” for a number of years, and spending another several years attending Opus Dei “evenings of recollection”, I hardly think that is the case.
Of course I count this and “all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”
Yes, there is such an index. It was compiled by Heinrich Denzinger, and is entitled, Enchiridion Symbolorum: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations of the Catholic Church.
I was still told [by Bryan] that this was only “Sources” … it still needed to go through the magisterial meat grinder because, still, some “apparent contradictions” lurk in the pages there.
Andrew – So why does God declare us to be righteous if we are not?
Andrew, if as you say I have eternal life through baptism then pleas that I am “estranged from the fullness of that life” seem wanting. To be honest, applying Trent to me would actually be more compelling than telling me they don’t. And that’s because eternal life is the point. The way you are putting it, we Prots have a share in the riches of eternal life but just aren’t relishing in it enough in the here and now. Sorry, but that’s just not incentive. You need to tell me my eternal riches are at stake. Until then, I’m just a lazy rich man without much to lose.
John,
Your guesses about what those documents might say doesn’t count as a response to the authors’ arguments concerning Sullivan’s (et al) faulty reasoning on these points. You’ll have to do better than that, if you want to do more than bang the pulpit. (I could not find my comment featuring the links to those articles on this thread. It might be on another thread.)
If you did indeed know that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded, and left her anyway (in this knowledge, and with full consent), then, yes, the condemnation mentioned by Vatican II (cannot be saved) would apply to you.
Erik,
God declares us to be righteous “because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost who is given to us.”
Zrim,
You must be thinking of Heaven as if it were a high-level amusement park, and eternal life as if it were a ticket to get in. In reality, Heaven is the consummation of our union with God in Christ Jesus, and eternal life is our sharing in God’s life, by grace through faith. If there were a greater means of participation in that life (greater than you currently make use of), and if it were ordinarily necessary for all Christians to make use of these means, and if you found that to be not enough incentive, because, well, you simply prefer to keep on doing what you are doing, then you have chosen some created thing over God, and cannot be saved, so long as you persist in that choice. Additionally, for that and any other mortal sin committed after Baptism, you do not have recourse to the sacramental means appointed for forgiveness and reconciliation, which places you and all Protestants in a very dangerous situation, re eternal salvation. But that consideration will remain secondary so long as you maintain your current line of thinking about Heaven and eternal life.
Andrew
Andrew, I see that you believe me to be innocent of any mortal sin. I appreciate the compliment, but having perused the list of mortal sins, I doubt it.
For how else could you believe me to be connected to the church by baptism alone, without subsequent penances?
Jeff,
I don’t know whether or not you have committed any mortal sins, and nothing that I’ve written implies that you haven’t. But if you have been baptized, then you are in any case still connected to the Church by virtue of the sacramental character. This makes it possible to participate in the sacramental life, including the sacrament of reconciliation, whereby those who have fallen into mortal sin are forgiven and restored to a state of grace.
Andrew
Andrew: Your guesses about what those documents might say doesn’t count as a response to the authors’ arguments concerning Sullivan’s (et al) faulty reasoning on these points.
Your mere linking to those documents, the substance of whose arguments you don’t recount here, don’t count as a response to the elaborate work of Roman Catholic individuals such as Raymond Brown, Francis Sullivan, Klaus Schatz, and other Roman Catholic Biblical Scholars who all have come to the same conclusion. You’ll have to do better than that, if you want to do more come here and demagogue about it.
If you did indeed know that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded, and left her anyway (in this knowledge, and with full consent), then, yes, the condemnation mentioned by Vatican II (cannot be saved) would apply to you.
I knew and believed everything that one could be taught in the places where I was taught them, and with full consent, I reject to the uttermost extreme that I can reject them the unique Roman Catholic teachings as well as the anathema that I cited from CCC 846.
I say this just so you know where I’m coming from.
Andrew Preslar said to Zrim: If there were a greater means of participation in that life (greater than you currently make use of), and if it were ordinarily necessary for all Christians to make use of these means, and if you found that to be not enough incentive…, then you have chosen some created thing over God, and cannot be saved, so long as you persist in that choice. Additionally, for that and any other mortal sin committed after Baptism, you do not have recourse to the sacramental means appointed for forgiveness and reconciliation, which places you and all Protestants in a very dangerous situation, re eternal salvation.
From a Protestant point of view, it may be helpful to consider two different paradigms here regarding what it means to receive grace from God. Call one the spigot paradigm, and call the other the Ephesians paradigm.
Under the spigot paradigm, the Roman Catholic Church has authority over the Sacraments, which means you can only get God’s grace when an authorized official of the Roman Catholic Church opens the spigot and lets dribs and drabs of grace out. This is evidenced in the source and summit of God’s Grace in the Holy Eucharist, (to which Andrew helpfully has pointed us). However, as James White has noted, “the effect of the Mass is limited, and … a person can draw near to the Mass over and over again” and still die in mortal sin. And yet, this ineffective “re-presentation” of supposedly the “source and summit” of Christ’s grace is enough for the less-than-totally-committed Roman Catholic to have to constantly be worrying for his or her salvation.
Under the Ephesians paradigm, God, is far more generous with his grace. “He chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us….”
So, if you make use of the Roman Catholic “spigot” paradigm of grace, you necessarily exclude yourself from the Ephesians paradigm of grace.
We confessed Heidelberg #60 this morning:
Question: How are thou righteous before God?
Answer: Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me, that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ; even so, as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me; inasmuch as I embrace such benefit with a believing heart.
John,
Sobrino’s article can be dowloaded by clicking this link: http://www.catholic-convert.com/documents/PeterInRome.doc.
I have read the men to whom you refer. And I have read the above article. When you can say the same, get back to me.
Regarding the comments you interjected into my exchange with Zrim:
Our Lord Jesus also makes use of the spigot paradigm of grace: “Jesus answered and said to her: Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again: but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him shall not thirst for ever. But the water that I will give him shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting.”
Also: “Then Jesus said to them: “Amen, amen, I say unto you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers ate manna and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live for ever.”
Likewise, St. Paul: “For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.”
“Neglect not the grace that is in you, which was given you by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.”
Likewise, St. James: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man. And the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”
And, for good measure, St. John: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar: and his word is not in us.”
However, you err when you claim that the Catholic doctrine of the sacraments “means you can only get God’s grace when an authorized official of the Roman Catholic Church opens the spigot…..” The Catholic Church teaches that there are are extraordinary means of grace, such that even those who are not formally a part of the Church, or who have never heard the Gospel, can be saved (CCC 847).
Andrew
Andrew Preslar, regarding your citation of Christ’s words in John 4, this is more in line with the freely flowing fountain of grace given in Ephesians – that which is “freely given” and “lavished on us”, than the choke-hold, “drip-drip-drip” of grace admitted by the Roman sacraments, which, once given, must be given again, and again, and again, and even so, the practical result of this is that one must always fear that it is never enough.
Andrew Preslar, your use of Scripture to somehow support the Roman sacraments is a prime example of the anachronistic use of Scripture – reading modern Roman dogma back into verses that have nothing to do with Roman dogma – that I have related many times, Roman Catholic Hermeneutic. This is a dishonest use of Scripture.
Andrew Preslar, regarding the Peter in Rome document, it is fascinating to see Sobrino citing Raymond Brown with such approval. I hope you did not show that article to Sean Patrick.
Nevertheless, the author takes disjointed snippets from what Brown says about the use of the words episcope and episkopos, and comes to conclusions that are very much at odds with the things that Brown actually said. And Sullivan actually cites Brown’s conclusions approvingly and pretty much verbatim, precisely to the effect that [as “most Catholic scholars agree”] that “the episcopate is the fruit of a post-New Testament development” (230).
Your author’s overall argument is roughly, “Peter was a “pre-eminent” apostle, the word episcopos means bishop; the word is used of Peter, Peter was in Rome, there is no reason to deny early Church tradition about all of this, therefore Peter was the first and founding bishop of Rome”.
All of this has been strenuously challenged every step of the way, and in fact, there is good reason to deny what your writer says here.
Along the way, he makes an effort to look at “all five occurrences of episkopos, whether singular or plural, to derive a first century definition of bishop”. He says “The challenge is to compose a first century definition of a bishop, his office, and his function by considering all of these occurrences. This approach is quite different from the hyperanalytical method of much scholarly discussion. In other words, we are trying to construct a definition, not deconstruct the text into unrelated pieces.”
The problem is, there is no singular “definition” of “a bishop, his office, and his function”, neither in the New Testament, nor within the “tradition” which you cite. There are three things to consider when coming up with anything approaching a “definition of a bishop, his office, and his function”.
The first is to study the historical backgrounds of the terms. How they were used culturally. To do that, I’ve relied heavily on F.F. Bruce (“New Testament History”) and Roger Beckwith (“Elders in Every City”) to trace the backgrounds and development of “elders” (“presbyters”) and “overseers” (“bishops”) in first century Palestine, both in Jewish usage and in Christian usage. This is given here:
The New Testament data on the meaning of the word “bishop” is much broader than simply how that particular word is used. You must also take into account contexts, functions of the individuals who hold those “offices”, etc. Thus the meanings and functions of “overseers” and “elders” is interchangeable in New Testament usage, and “leadership” and “oversight” and “shepherding” are used in different ways.
This lack of a precise definition, especially in second century Rome, is clearly seen in two of the extant documents we have from that city, from that time period.
First Clement presupposes presbyterial governance:
There is no “bishop” in the church of Corinth. It is the “presbyters” who exercise “oversight”:
The words ἐπισκοπῆς and πρεσβυτέροι are used here interchangeably, and the presbyters (“πρεσβυτέροι”) exercise oversight (“ἐπισκοπῆ”)
Some time during the first half of the second century as well, maybe as many as 50 years later, in the “Shepherd of Hermas”, it is still presybters (“πρεσβυτέροις”) who preside (“προισταμένων”) – plural leadership) over the church (Vis 2.4)
There are more citations that I could provide, along these same lines, but these should be enough to show you the confusion, in Rome, among the concepts of “overseers”, “elders”, and “leadership”. To say that there was one “bishop” over all of this is to introduce a concept that is foreign to all these texts.
Finally, confirming this, are the two letters, spread some 50 years apart (Paul’s letter to the Romans and Ignatius’s letter to the Romans), neither of which can identify an individual who is leading the church at Rome. This is despite the fact that Paul names 23 separate people, with the intention of providing formal greetings to them, and Ignatius both identifies the concept of “bishop” and also names a number of other “bishops” in other cities.
All of these factors considered together should provide a picture of the leadership structure of the church at Rome that is totally at odds with the picture that your author (Sobrino) provides (“there could still have been the role of head bishop”).
Many years after the apostles appeared in Rome, there was confusion as to the leadership there.
John, when Andrew tells me there remains “a sacramental means appointed for forgiveness and reconciliation,” I’m partial to the Hebrews 10 paradigm:
“For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’”
When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”
then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For,
“Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”
But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.”
I’m sure there is a way to conform this text to the Catholic construal of matters. But when I read it, it sure sounds like Jesus is the once for all sacrifice for sins of whatever variety.
Andrew Preslar: I have responded here to the Sobrino article that you posted. It is somewhat long, with some links, and may have gotten caught in a spam filter.
Zrim, I appreciate your clarification
Zrim,
There is no need “to confirm this text to the Catholic construal of matters.” It is already so confirmed as it stands, as are the texts that I cited.
John,
You did not address Sobrino’s main criticism of Brown, Sullivan, Duffy, et al, which is their anachronistic definition of the term “bishop,” which confuses that which is accidental to the office with that which is essential, so to conclude that there were no bishops in the first century church.
Interchangable use of the terms “presbeuteros” and “episkopos” in the New Testament is exactly what we would expect to find if (a) every bishop is also a presbyter and (b) these terms are used both descriptively (of the ministry performed) and to denote a kind of office. The Catholic doctrine of Holy Orders is compatible with both (a) and (b), so the New Testament and some of the early patristic descriptive or interchangeable uses of these terms is not evidence against the Catholic doctrine.
The fact that St. Paul does not include a greeting to St. Peter in his Epistle to the Romans does not show that Peter had not already established his episcopal chair in that city (cf. Romans 15:20). It could have been that Peter was known to be away from Rome at the time that Paul wrote the Epistle. George Edmundson argues to that effect in The Church in Rome in the First Century, where he also argues that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
It is remarkable that you would call Ignatius to witness while arguing against the Catholic understanding of the episcopacy. Here are some excerpts from his writings:
“Let the bishop preside in God’s place, and presbyters take the place of the apostolic council, and let the deacons…be entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ” (Epistle to the Magnesians 6.1).
“Pay heed to the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons…. Do nothing apart from the bishop; keep your bodies as if they were God’s temple; value unity; flee schism; imitate Jesus Christ as he imitated his Father” (Epistle to the Philippians 7.1-2)
“Flee from schism as the source of mischief… Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval…. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid” (Epistle to the Smynaeans, 6-9).
Given Ignatius’ ecclesiology as expressed in these statements, he could not plausibly have written to a “church” in Rome that did not have episcopal leadership.
Tim Troutman goes into more detail on the distinction between Orders in his article, “Holy Orders and the Sacrificial Priesthood.” See especially Section III on the distinction between the orders of bishop and presbyter.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar:
You did not address Sobrino’s main criticism of Brown, Sullivan, Duffy, et al, which is their anachronistic definition of the term “bishop,” which confuses that which is accidental to the office with that which is essential, so to conclude that there were no bishops in the first century church.
Your use of the word “anachronism” would be funny if I didn’t know how seriously you take all this. I certainly did address it, in the grammatical-historical way.
How in the world do you know what was “essential” to the office of bishop in the first century? I sincerely want to hear it from you. Because you can’t know this except for two things: 1. a study of the history and linguistics, or 2. a ride in Bryan’s magic phone booth. I’m convinced that for you, it’s the latter.
And of course, you are here in all seriousness, reporting your fiction as if it were 100% historical fact.
This is a cautionary warning for any Reformed folks who may not be aware of this type of anachronistic usage among Andrew and his friends. Roman Catholics generally, but CTC folks particularly, are guilty of using contemporary concepts [for example, "that which is essential" to the bishop's office], and simply assuming that today’s meaning of the word in Roman dogma was “in essence” the same as it was in the first century.
And here is the secret to their success: gullible people believe them.
It could have been that Peter was known to be away from Rome at the time that Paul wrote the Epistle. George Edmundson argues to that effect in The Church in Rome in the First Century, where he also argues that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
Edmundson wrote in 1913; imagine going to a medical doctor who’s most recent training was in 1913. He may get a few things right, but he’s not going to be able to give you an x-ray or do a modern lab test. He has no antibiotics to prescribe.
It is remarkable that you would call Ignatius to witness while arguing against the Catholic understanding of the episcopacy.
I can do this because Ignatius doesn’t mean the same thing by the word that you do; I am able to study this and know this and as a result, I do not have to be afraid of a single moment of history in the church. I do not need to look for reasons why contractictions may be “apparent” instead of “actual”. I don’t need to obediently submit my intellect to nonsensical, non-historical, non-Biblical dogmas like the Assumption of Mary.
I may embrace all of church history as my own.
Given Ignatius’ ecclesiology as expressed in these statements, he could not plausibly have written to a “church” in Rome that did not have episcopal leadership.
Given the unsettled leadership in Rome during those years, (evidence provided from Clement and Hermas, above, which you ignored), it doesn’t surprise me at all that Ignatius didn’t know who to write to over there.
Tim Troutman goes into more detail on the distinction between Orders in his article, “Holy Orders and the Sacrificial Priesthood.”
I go into more detail on the distinction between various orders in my article, Roman Bait-And-Switch on Orders.
Ignatius on the “visible church” and other topics:
It is possible for a church to be without a bishop: “Remember in your prayers the church in Syria [Ignatius's home church], which has God for its shepherd in my place. Jesus Christ alone will be its bishop–as will your love.” (9.1)
But while Rome’s “bishop” is not in view at all, the political connections of the church at Rome are repeatedly in view; this (rather than any other reason) is why the church at Rome “presides over love”.
1.1 For I am afraid of your love, in that it may do me wrong; for it is easy for you to do what you want, but it is difficult for me to reach God, unless you spare me. [There's that "love" that is, through its political connections, going to either save his life, or, if it holds its tongue, and fails to pull its political strings, along with Christ, going to be "bishop" of Antioch in his absence. So the place of love," has a reference to Rome's political connections.]
2.1 For I will never again have an opportunity such as this to reach God, nor can you, if you remain silent, be credited with a greater accomplishment. For if you remain silent and leave me alone, I will be a word of God, but if you love my flesh [and spare my life], then I will again be a mere voice. [There's Roman "love" again.]
2.2 Grant me nothing more than to be poured out as an offering to God while there is still an altar ready, so that in love you may form a chorus and sing to the Father in Jesus Christ, because God has judged the bishop from Syria worthy to be found in the west, having summoned from the east.
3.1-2 You have never envied anyone; you taught others. [Many believe this is a reference to 1 Clement.] And my wish is that those instructions that you issue when teaching disciples will remain in force. Just pray that I will have strength both outwardly and inwardly so that I may not just talk about it but want to do it, so that I may not merely be called a Christian but actually prove to be one. [That is, "teach self-sacrifice," and in doing so, "my death will confirm your "teaching" "in force"?]
3.3 Nothing that is visible is good. [Did Ignatius believe in a "visible church"?] For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father. The work is not a matter of persuasive rhetoric [1 Clement?]; rather, Christianity is greatest when it is hated by the world.
4.1 I am writing to all the churches and insisting to everyone that I die for God of my own free will–unless you hinder me [through your political connections]. I implore you; do not be unseasonably kind to me. Let me be food for the wild beasts; through whom I can reach God.
4.3 I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am even now still a slave. [It is important to note that here, as in other places, Ignatius does not see any kind of "succession" of apostolic authority. He acknowledges himself -- he has repeatedly said he is a bishop -- to be far, far less, in every way, than Peter and Paul.]
6.1 It is better for me to die for Jesus Christ than to rule over the ends of the earth. [Of course, the Roman government currently rules over the ends of the earth.]
6.2 Bear with me brothers and sisters: do not keep me from living; do not desire my death. Do not give to the world one who wants to belong to God or tempt him with material things.
7.1 The ruler of this age wants to take me captive and corrupt my godly intentions. Therefore none of you who are present must help him. [That is, you at Rome are eminently capable of doing the wrong thing.]
In this letter to the church at Rome, does Ignatius see even a bishop, much less someone who might be “the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth?
When a bishop is mentioned here, that bishop is Christ. And the “love” of the Romans involves political connections that could either spare him the martyrdom he so desires, or confirm it.
When a “visible church” is in view, “nothing that is visible is good.” When “teaching” is in view, he fears the Romans will teach wrongly. When “apostles” are in view, there is no succession, but a great gulf between apostle and bishop.
John,
Your first comment is very sad. Instead of a substantive response, you offer red herrings, para-rational dismissiveness, and braggadocio. By this routine, you might deceive some; but genuine truth-seekers will not be impressed or persuaded by your antics.
Your second comment is an improvement, but it still features poor exegesis (built up of non sequiturs, featured in the bracketed material) which offers conclusions incompatible with what St. Ignatius says elsewhere about the place of the bishop in the church.
Regarding Syria without a bishop, St. Ignatius can very well be referring to the fact that they will be without his own ministry of oversight in the church in that region. This would be perfectly compatible with there being other bishops who had served with Ignatius, but did not exercise the same jurisdiction.
Yes, Ignatius did believe in the visible church, which is why he wrote to visible churches, telling them that the bishop presides in the place of God, and to the visible Roman church, which we says “presides in love.”
I recommend to you (or at least to others who might be willing to read carefully, without prejudice and rancor) Bryan’s post on the ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar: I’m sure the folks here understand that you are the one shoveling the “red herrings, para-rational dismissiveness, and braggadocio.”