A lot of Catholic epologists seem to think that all they need to do to prove apostolic succession is to prove the idea of apostolic succession in the church fathers. It doesn’t occur to them that proving the existence of an abstract idea is not the same thing as proving the concrete existence of what that idea purports. Even if you could prove the idea of apostolic succession in the church fathers, that doesn’t begin to prove the reality of apostolic succession. Apostolic succession posits a series of interlocking events. Cause and effect. But a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Apostolic succession involves a historical claim regarding a series of historical events. Therefore, one needs some form of historical evidence commensurate with the scope of the claim to verify the claim.
And this isn’t just my Protestant opinion. Take a classic example: the way in which Leo XIII denies the apostolic succession of the Anglican church. For Leo XII, apostolic succession is contingent on valid ordination. And the validity or invalidity of ordination is a historical question which must be subjected to detailed historical investigation to verify or falsify the claim.
I apply to Catholicism the same standard that Leo XIII applies to Anglicanism. If the Church of England must verify every step of the process, so much the Church of Rome.
I’ll reproduce the text of Leo’s Encyclical so that you can see the type of historical reasoning that feeds into his conclusions. The very same requirements would apply, perforce, to the claims of Rome.
******************************************************************
Apostolicae Curae
Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII
In Perpetual Remembrance
1. We have dedicated to the welfare of the noble English nation no small portion of the Apostolic care and charity by which, helped by His grace, we endeavor to fulfill the office and follow in the footsteps of "the Great Pastor of the sheep," Our Lord Jesus Christ. The letter which last year we sent to the English seeking the Kingdom of Christ in the unity of the faith is a special witness of our good will towards England. In it we recalled the memory of the ancient union of the people with Mother Church, and we strove to hasten the day of a happy reconciliation by stirring up men's hearts to offer diligent prayer to God. And, again, more recently, when it seemed good to Us to treat more fully the unity of the Church in a General Letter, England had not the last place in our mind, in the hope that our teaching might both strengthen Catholics and bring the saving light to those divided from us. It is pleasing to acknowledge the generous way in which our zeal and plainness of speech, inspired by no mere human motives, have met the approval of the English people, and this testifies not less to their courtesy than to the solicitude of many for their eternal salvation.
2. With the same mind and intention, we have now determined to turn our consideration to a matter of no less importance, which is closely connected with the same subject and with our desires.
3. For an opinion already prevalent, confirmed more than once by the action and constant practice of the Church, maintained that when in England, shortly after it was rent from the center of Christian Unity, a new rite for conferring Holy Orders was publicly introduced under Edward VI, the true Sacrament of Order as instituted by Christ lapsed, and with it the hierarchical succession. For some time, however, and in these last years especially, a controversy has sprung up as to whether the Sacred Orders conferred according to the Edwardine Ordinal possessed the nature and effect of a Sacrament, those in favor of the absolute validity, or of a doubtful validity, being not only certain Anglican writers, but some few Catholics, chiefly non-English. The consideration of the excellency of the Christian priesthood moved Anglican writers in this matter, desirous as they were that their own people should not lack the twofold power over the Body of Christ. Catholic writers were impelled by a wish to smooth the way for the return of Anglicans to holy unity. Both, indeed, thought that in view of studies brought up to the level of recent research, and of new documents rescued from oblivion, it was not inopportune to reexamine the question by our authority.
4. And we, not disregarding such desires and opinions, above all, obeying the dictates of apostolic charity, have considered that nothing should be left untried that might in any way tend to preserve souls from injury or procure their advantage. It has, therefore, pleased Us to graciously permit the cause to be reexamined, so that, through the extreme care taken in the new examination, all doubt, or even shadow of doubt, should be removed for the future.
5. To this end we commissioned a certain number of men noted for their learning and ability, whose opinions in this matter were known to be divergent, to state the grounds of their judgment in writing. We then, having summoned them to our person, directed them to interchange writings, and further to investigate and discuss all that was necessary for a full knowledge of the matter. We were careful, also, that they should be able to reexamine all documents bearing on this question which were known to exist in the Vatican archives, to search for new ones, and even to have at their disposal all acts relating to this subject which are preserved by the Holy Office or, as it is called, the Supreme Council and to consider whatever had up to this time been adduced by learned men on both sides. We ordered them, when prepared in this way, to meet together in special sessions. These to the number of twelve were held under the presidency of one of the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, appointed by ourself, and all were invited to free discussion. Finally, we directed that the acts of these meetings, together with all other documents, should be submitted to our venerable brethren, the Cardinals of the same Council, so that when all had studied the whole subject, and discussed it in our presence, each might give his own opinion.
6. This order for discussing the matter having been determined upon, it was necessary, with a view to forming a true estimate of the real state of the question, to enter upon it, after careful inquiry as to how the matter stood in relation to the prescription and settled custom of the Apostolic See, the origin and force of which custom it was undoubtedly of great importance to determine.
7. For this reason, in the first place, the principal documents in which our predecessors, at the request of Queen Mary, exercised their special care for the reconciliation of the English Church were considered. Thus Julius III sent Cardinal Reginald Pole, an Englishman, and illustrious in many ways, to be his Legate a latere for the purpose, "as his angel of peace and love," and gave him extraordinary and unusual mandates or faculties and directions for his guidance. These Paul IV confirmed and explained.
8. And here, to interpret rightly the force of these documents, it is necessary to lay it down as a fundamental principle that they were certainly not intended to deal with an abstract state of things, but with a specific and concrete issue. For since the faculties given by these pontiffs to the Apostolic Legate had reference to England only, and to the state of religion therein, and since the rules of action were laid down by them at the request of the said Legate, they could not have been mere directions for determining the necessary conditions for the validity of ordinations in general. They must pertain directly to providing for Holy Orders in the said kingdom, as the recognized condition of the circumstances and times demanded. This, besides being clear from the nature and form of the said documents, is also obvious from the fact that it would have been altogether irrelevant thus to instruct the Legate one whose learning had been conspicuous in the Council of Trent as to the conditions necessary for the bestowal of the Sacrament of Order.
9. To all rightly estimating these matters it will not be difficult to understand why, in the Letters of Julius m, issued to the Apostolic Legate on 8 March 1554, there is a distinct mention, first of those who, "rightly and lawfully promoted," might be maintained in their orders: and then of others who, "not promoted to Holy Orders" might "be promoted if they were found to be worthy and fitting subjects". For it is clearly and definitely noted, as indeed was the case, that there were two classes of men; the first of those who had really received Holy Orders, either before the secession of Henry VIII, or, if after it, and by ministers infected by error and schism, still according to the accustomed Catholic rite; the second, those who were initiated according to the Edwardine Ordinal, who on that account could not be "promoted", since they had received an ordination which was null.
10. And that the mind of the Pope was this, and nothing else, is clearly confirmed by the letter of the said Legate (29 January 1555), sub-delegating his faculties to the Bishop of Norwich. Moreover, what the letters of Julius m themselves say about freely using the pontifical faculties, even on behalf of those who had received their consecration "irregularly (minus rite) and not according to the accustomed form of the Church," is to be especially noted. By this expression those only could be meant who had been consecrated according to the Edwardine rite, since besides it and the Catholic form there was then no other in England.
11. This becomes even still clearer when we consider the Legation which, on the advice of Cardinal Pole, the Sovereign Princes, Philip and Mary, sent to the Pope in Rome in the month of February, 1555. The Royal Ambassadors three men "most illustrious and endowed with every virtue," of whom one was Thomas Thirlby, Bishop of Ely were charged to inform the Pope more fully as to the religious condition of the country, and especially to beg that he would ratify and confirm what the Legate had been at pains to effect, and had succeeded in effecting, towards the reconciliation of the Kingdom with the Church. For this purpose, all the necessary written evidence and the pertinent parts of the new Ordinal were submitted to the Pope. The Legation having been splendidly received, and their evidence having been "diligently discussed," by several of the Cardinals, "after mature deliberation," Paul IV issued his Bull Praeclara Charissimi on June 20 of that same year. In this, whilst giving full force and approbation to what Pole had done, it is ordered in the matter of the Ordinations as follows:
Those who have been promoted to ecclesiastical Orders . . . by any one but a Bishop validly and lawfully ordained are bound to receive those Orders again.
12. But who those Bishops not "validly and lawfully ordained" were had been made sufficiently clear by the foregoing documents and the faculties used in the said matter by the Legate; those, namely, who have been promoted to the Episcopate, as others to other Orders, "not according to the accustomed form of the Church," or, as the Legate himself wrote to the Bishop of Norwich, "the form and intention of the Church," not having been observed. These were certainly those promoted according to the new form of rite, to the examination of which the Cardinals specially deputed had given their careful attention. Neither should the passage much to the point in the same Pontifical Letter be overlooked, where, together with others needing dispensation are enumerated those "who had obtained both Orders as well as benefices nulliter et de facto." For to obtain orders nulliter means the same as by act null and void, that is invalid, as the very meaning of the word and as common parlance require. This is specially clear when the word is used in the same way about Orders as about "ecclesiastical benefices". These, by the undoubted teaching of the sacred canons, were clearly null if given with any vitiating defect. 13 Moreover, when some doubted as to who, according to the mind of the pontiff, could be called and considered bishops "validly and lawfully ordained," the said Pope shortly after, on October 30, issued a further letter in the form of a brief and said:
"we, desiring to wholly remove such doubt, and to opportunely provide for the peace of conscience of those who during the aforementioned schism were promoted to Holy Orders, by clearly stating the meaning and intention which we had in our said letters, declare that it is only those bishops and archbishops who were not ordained and consecrated in the form of the Church that can not be said to be duly and rightly ordained..."
14. Unless this declaration had applied to the actual case in England, that is to say, to the Edwardine Ordinal, the Pope would certainly have done nothing by this last letter for the removal of doubt and the restoration of peace of conscience. Further, it was in this sense that the Legate understood the documents and commands of the Apostolic See, and duly and conscientiously obeyed them; and the same was done by Queen Mary and the rest who helped to restore Catholicism to its former state.
15. The authority of Julius m, and of Paul IV, which we have quoted, clearly shows the origin of that practice which has been observed without interruption for more than three centuries, that Ordinations conferred according to the Edwardine rite should be considered null and void. This practice is fully proved by the numerous cases of absolute re-ordination according to the Catholic rite even in Rome.
16. In the observance of this practice we have a proof directly affecting the matter in hand. For if by any chance doubt should remain as to the true sense in which these pontifical documents are to be understood, the principle holds good that "Custom is the best interpreter of law." Since in the Church it has ever been a constant and established rule that it is sacrilegious to repeat the Sacrarnent of Order, it never could have come to pass that the Apostolic See should have silently acquiesced in and tolerated such a custom. But not only did the Apostolic See tolerate this practice, but approved and sanctioned it as often as any particular case arose which called for its judgment in the matter.
17. We adduce two cases of this kind out of many which have from time to time been submitted to the Supreme Council of the Holy Office. The first was (in 1684) of a certain French Calvinist, and the other (in 1704) of John Clement Gordon, both of whom had received their orders according to the Edwardine ritual.
18. In the first case, after a searching investigation, the Consultors, not a few in number, gave in writing their answers or as they call it, their vota and the rest unanimously agreed with their conclusion, "for the invalidity of the Ordination," and only on account of reasons of opportuneness did the Cardinals deem it well to answer with a dilata (viz., not to formulate the conclusion at the moment).
19. The same documents were called into use and considered again in the examination of the second case, and additional written statements of opinion were also obtained from Consultors, and the most eminent doctors of the Sorbonne and of Douai were likewise asked for their opinion. No safeguard which wisdom and prudence could suggest to ensure the thorough sifting of the question was neglected.
20. And here it is important to observe that, although Gordon himself, whose case it was, and some of the Consultors, had adduced amongst the reasons which went to prove the invalidity, the Ordination of Parker, according to their own ideas about it, in the delivery of the decision this reason was altogether set aside, as documents of incontestable authenticity prove. Nor, in pronouncing the decision, was weight given to any other reason than the "defect of form and intention"; and in order that the judgment concerning this form might be more certain and complete, precaution was taken that a copy of the Anglican Ordinal should be submitted to examination, and that with it should be collated the ordination forms gathered together from the various Eastern and Western rites. Then Clement XI himself, with the unanimous vote of the Cardinals concerned, on Thursday 17 April 1704, decreed:
"John Clement Gordon shall be ordained from the beginning and unconditionally to all the orders, even Holy Orders, and chiefly of Priesthood, and in case he has not been confirmed, he shall first receive the Sacrament of Confirmation."
21. It is important to bear in mind that this judgment was in no wise determined by the omission of the tradition of instruments, for in such a case, according to the established custom, the direction would have been to repeat the ordination conditionally, and still more important is it to note that the judgment of the pontiff applies universally to all Anglican ordinations, because, although it refers to a particular case, it is not based upon any reason special to that case, but upon the defect of form, which defect equally affects all these ordinations, so much so, that when similar cases subsequently came up for decision, the same decree of Clement XI was quoted as the norm.
22. Hence it must be clear to everyone that the controversy lately revived had already been definitely settled by the Apostolic See, and that it is to the insufficient knowledge of these documents that we must, perhaps, attribute the fact that any Catholic writer should have considered it still an open question.
23. But, as we stated at the beginning, there is nothing we so deeply and ardently desire as to be of help to men of good will by showing them the greatest consideration and charity. Wherefore, we ordered that the Anglican Ordinal, which is the essential point of the whole matter, should be once more most carefully examined.
24. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the "matter and form". All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the "matter and form", it still pertains chiefly to the "form"; since the "matter" is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the "form". And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Order, the "matter" of which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confiirmation.
25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no "bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross" (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).
26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
27. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.
28. The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", not only were the words "for the office and work of a bishop", etc. added at a later period, but even these, as we shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, "Almighty God", since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium .
29. It is not relevant to examine here whether the episcopate be a completion of the priesthood, or an order distinct from it; or whether, when bestowed, as they say per saltum , on one who is not a priest, it has or has not its effect. But the episcopate undoubtedly, by the institution of Christ, most truly belongs to the Sacrament of Order and constitutes the sacerdotium in the highest degree, namely, that which by the teaching of the Holy Fathers and our liturgical customs is called the Summum sacerdotium sacri ministerii summa . So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Order and the true sacerdotium of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it, and this the more so because among the first duties of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.
30. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.
31. In this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
32. Many of the more shrewd Anglican interpreters of the Ordinal have perceived the force of this argument, and they openly urge it against those who take the Ordinal in a new sense, and vainly attach to the Orders conferred thereby a value and efficacy which they do not possess. By this same argument is refuted the contention of those who think that the prayer, "Almighty God, giver of all good Things", which is found at the beginning of the ritual action, might suffice as a legitimate "form" of Orders, even in the hypothesis that it might be held to be sufficient in a Catholic rite approved by the Church.
33. With this inherent defect of "form" is joined the defect of "intention" which is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.
34. All these matters have been long and carefully considered by ourselves and by our venerable brethren, the Judges of the Supreme Council, of whom it has pleased Us to call a special meeting upon the 16th day of July last, the solemnity of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. They with one accord agreed that the question laid before them had been already adjudicated upon with full knowledge of the Apostolic See, and that this renewed discussion and examination of the issues had only served to bring out more clearly the wisdom and accuracy with which that decision had been made. Nevertheless, we deemed it well to postpone a decision in order to afford time both to consider whether it would be fitting or expedient that we should make a fresh authoritative declaration upon the matter, and to humbly pray for a fuller measure of divine guidance.
35. Then, considering that this matter, although already decided, had been by certain persons for whatever reason recalled into discussion, and that thence it might follow that a pernicious error would be fostered in the minds of many who might suppose that they possessed the Sacrament and effects of Orders, where these are nowise to be found, it seemed good to Us in the Lord to pronounce our judgment.
36. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.
37. It remains for Us to say that, even as we have entered upon the elucidation of this grave question in the name and in the love of the Great Shepherd, in the same we appeal to those who desire and seek with a sincere heart the possession of a hierarchy and of Holy Orders. 38. Perhaps until now aiming at the greater perfection of Christian virtue, and searching more devoutly the divine Scriptures, and redoubling the fervor of their prayers, they have, nevertheless, hesitated in doubt and anxiety to follow the voice of Christ, which so long has interiorly admonished them. Now they see clearly whither He in His goodness invites them and wills them to come. In returning to His one only fold, they will obtain the blessings which they seek, and the consequent helps to salvation, of which He has made the Church the dispenser, and, as it were, the constant guardian and promoter of His redemption amongst the nations. Then, indeed, "They shall draw waters in joy from the fountains of the Savior", His wondrous Sacraments, whereby His faithful souls have their sins truly remitted, and are restored to the friendship of God, are nourished and strengthened by the heavenly Bread, and abound with the most powerful aids for their eternal salvation. May the God of peace, the God of all consolation, in His infinite tenderness, enrich and fill with all these blessings those who truly yearn for them.
39. We wish to direct our exhortation and our desires in a special way to those who are ministers of religion in their respective communities. They are men who from their very office take precedence in learning and authority, and who have at heart the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Let them be the first in joyfully submitting to the divine call and obey it, and furnish a glorious example to others. Assuredly, with an exceeding great joy, their Mother, the Church, will welcome them, and will cherish with all her love and care those whom the strength of their generous souls has, amidst many trials and difficulties, led back to her bosom. Nor could words express the recognition which this devoted courage will win for them from the assemblies of the brethren throughout the Catholic world, or what hope or confidence it will merit for them before Christ as their Judge, or what reward it will obtain from Him in the heavenly kingdom! And we, ourselves, in every lawful way, shall continue to promote their reconciliation with the Church in which individuals and masses, as we ardently desire, may find so much for their imitation. In the meantime, by the tender mercy of the Lord our God, we ask and beseech all to strive faithfully to follow in the path of divine grace and truth.
40. We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
41. We will that there shall be given to copies of these letters, even printed, provided that they be signed by a notary and sealed by a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, the same credence that would be given to the expression of our will by the showing of these presents.
Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, in the year of the Incarnation of Our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, on the Ides of September, in the nineteenth year of our pontificate.
-- Leo PP. XIII
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
Very interesting. I was unaware of Pope Leo XIII's writings on this matter. This will be quite useful in future discussions with Catholics.
ReplyDeleteI once asked on the CARM discussion boards how Catholics can verify their denomination's claims to apostolic succession over and against competing succession claims and I received vague, "look at history" type answers. Of approximately 10 Catholic respondents, I don't believe one provided a specific, detailed historical defense:
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=4069406
The above thread is representative of my experience with lay-Catholics on this matter. I suspect others have had similar experiences as well.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteBy verifying AS, do you mean to refer to verifying the succession of acts of one or more men ordaining thru the laying on of hands some other men (tactual succession) or do you mean verifying the intention via the form?
Leo was concerned about the sacerdotal form and intention which is verified by an examination of the specific ordinal. This is why the Edwardine ordinal was crucial for both sides. So the answer to your question would be to look at the ordinals and rites employed by Catholic bishops through the centuries to meet the criteria expressed by Leo 13th. Do you think you will find some serious evidence of defective form and intention in such texts?
If the idea of an actual tactual succession of one ordaining another this not in question in Leo's Bull. Rome to my knowledge never denied that to the church of England. To verify that though requires an exmination of ordination lists, of which there are many.
The best works on the Anglican side were Lowdnes' massive two volume, A Vindication of Anglican Orders, and Felix Cirlot's, Apostolic Succession and Anglicanism. The most serious Catholic work remains Francis Clark's (S.J.) Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation.
I’m saying several things:
ReplyDeletei) To begin with, however you define the terms of valid ordination, he did see the need to conduct a historical investigation. One needed documentary evidence covering the relevant periods. Point #5, &c.
ii) Under point #33, he also distinguishes between defective form and defective intent. He says of the latter that it’s “equally essential to the Sacrament,” although “The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, insofar as it is something by its nature internal.”
So the right intent (both on the part of the officiate and the ordinand) is a necessary condition of valid ordination. Yet, by his own admission, that’s unverifiable.
At best, he can only offer “presumptive” grounds for right intent.
And, to my knowledge, it’s quite possible in Catholic sacramentology to use a proper rite with a wrongful intent. Take simoniacal transactions, which–as you know–have been widespread in different periods of church history.
iii) Finally, I’m not venturing an opinion on whether Leo’s historical analysis is correct. I don’t have a dog in that fight.
Perry,
ReplyDeleteAs long as you’re here, I have a question for you. Your Jedi brother (Dan, a.k.a. Photios is welcome to answer it as well):
When Orthodox writers say they acknowledge the pope as the first among equals, is that acknowledgement actual or hypothetical?
Does the Orthodox church take the position that the Roman succession is unbroken? Does the Orthodox church regard any particular pontiff as a legitimate successor to St. Peter?
Or is this acknowledgement an abstract acknowledgement of the office, whether or not any particular incumbent is a valid officeholder?
In other words, is there an Orthodox equivalent to sedevacantism in reference to the papacy?
To summarise a very long document, the Pope says that the Anglican orders are invalid because they were not intending to pass on the priesthood as understood by the tradition.
ReplyDeleteThe Anglican priests and bishops I have met do not even claim to believe in an apostolic succession. You can't be passing on what you don't even claim to be passing on. That's common sense.
As to "historical evidence commensurate with the scope of the claim", the lists of the succession of bishops is better documented than the provenance of the New Testament documents. We have a list of of the succession of bishops, we don't have a list of who passed on the epistles from the apostles down to the present. If both of them were paintings, it is the apostolic succession that Christie's or Sothebys would be getting top dollar for by virtue of documented provenance, and the New Testament would have to be knocked down at discount as the provenance of passing on from the hands of the apostles down to the present has too many undocumented gaps.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAs for intent, we don’t have the same doctrine as Rome so I think we can do better than they do on that score.
As to Daniel, make no mistake, he is a Sith, like his father before him. (Seeing that we have energies that *some* would consider unnatural...) ;)
We did acknowledge the Pope as first among equals, but without the right teaching, there can be no guarantee of sacramental grace or divine life. So we receive Romans like other schismatics and heterodox, either by baptism or by chrismation, where the latter renders “valid” the schismatic/heterodox baptism and not before per Augustine and other fathers. So to be considered a successor to Peter, he would have to profess Peter’s faith, which the pope doesn’t and hasn’t for a thousand years. So yes, I suppose it’s a form of sedevecantism.
Primacy of honor entails some form of the right of appeal, but it is not absolute, and some other privileges, but not the stuff you find in Satis Cognitum and other Roman documents. It has always been legitimate to be able to charge a pope with heresy for example.
David,
ReplyDeleteWell that depends on whom you meet I suppose. I was raised Anglican and spent a good amount of time in a continuing body. Most mainliners now are Unitarians or at best moderate liberals with a few exceptions of moderate conservatives like Bp. Iker in Texas.. But in the continuing bodies, they very staunchly defend the claim to Apostolic Succession. A great horde of literature exists from the time of the English Reformation, and particularly from the periods of the Caroline Divines against the Puritans, later reprinted during the Oxford Movement defending in quite detail the Anglican claim to Apostolic Succession. In fact a number of continental bodies attempted to secure episcopal ordination from the English during the English Reformation. In any case, much of that literature can be found in the hundred volume or so series, the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, published in 1845.
DAVID SAID:
ReplyDelete“To summarise a very long document, the Pope says that the Anglican orders are invalid because they were not intending to pass on the priesthood as understood by the tradition.”
No, that’s not what he says. His primary objection is that Anglican orders are invalid, not due to their defective intent, but due to their defective rite.
But in the course of that analysis he does draw an important distinction between the two, each of which can invalidate ordination.
“As to ‘historical evidence commensurate with the scope of the claim’, the lists of the succession of bishops is better documented than the provenance of the New Testament documents.”
A list of succession fails to document the intent of the officiate or ordinand.
Leo admits, on the one hand, that right intent is a necessary condition of valid ordination. Leo admits, on the other hand, that right intent is unverifiable. Therefore, by his own standards, apostolic succession is unverifiable.
And I happen to think that Leo XIII is a more impressive spokesman for Catholic theology than you are.
“We have a list of of the succession of bishops, we don't have a list of who passed on the epistles from the apostles down to the present.”
Standard evangelical commentaries, monographs, and NT introductions discuss the provenance of the NT documents. Do you have a specific objection to raise?
Acolyte: without the right teaching
ReplyDeleteWhat is the standard for judging "right teaching"?
David: "We have a list of of the succession of bishops, we don't have a list of who passed on the epistles from the apostles down to the present."
ReplyDeleteIf it's on the internet, could you provide a link to it?
Even if you could prove the idea of apostolic succession in the church fathers, that doesn’t begin to prove the reality of apostolic succession.If the doctrine is true, the truth of the fact necessarily follows. If apostolic succession is an essential attribute of the true Church of Christ, then the true Church of Christ has valid apostolic succession. Hence Catholics derive their certainty regarding the validity of our bishops' apostolic succession from its being passed down lawfully within the true Church under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. Claims to orders only become a matter of doubt, requiring historical and documentary investigation and verification, when these orders are conferred outside of the fold.
ReplyDeleteAnd, to my knowledge, it’s quite possible in Catholic sacramentology to use a proper rite with a wrongful intent. Take simoniacal transactions, which–as you know–have been widespread in different periods of church history.You misunderstand the requirement of right intent. It does not mean that one must have pure motives, just that one must intend to confer the sacrament, as the Church does (as opposed to play acting, or conferring something other than the Catholic sacrament, or conferring nothing out of unbelief or spite).
TUAD,
I'm not sure if these lists are on the internet, but I've seen the big yellowed volumes in the Catholic University of America library. Unfortunately, they relate who succeeded whom in the possession of various sees, but not necessarily who ordained whom. There's a serious difficulty in tracing the chain of episcopal ordination itself because so many bishops' orders derive from Cardinal Rebiba and it's not certain who consecrated him.
BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
ReplyDelete“If the doctrine is true, the truth of the fact necessarily follows.”
A tautology. That ducks the question of how you prove the tautology.
“If apostolic succession is an essential attribute of the true Church of Christ, then the true Church of Christ has valid apostolic succession.”
Two basic problems:
i) That’s a hypothetical syllogism. How do you prove the conditional premise?
ii) If, for the sake of argument, we grant the truth of apostolic succession, that abstract doctrine doesn’t select for any particular ecclesiastical claimant. You still have to prove, at a concrete level, which rival claimant has a valid claim.
“Hence Catholics derive their certainty regarding the validity of our bishops' apostolic succession from its being passed down lawfully within the true Church under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.”
Ben, that’s viciously circular. Since apostolic succession is a criterion for the true church, you can’t very well invoke the auspices of the true church to validate succession of its bishops. You need some independent evidence, apart from the self-serving claims of your denomination, to validate your episcopal succession.
“Claims to orders only become a matter of doubt, requiring historical and documentary investigation and verification, when these orders are conferred outside of the fold.”
What about simoniacal transactions? What about antipopes?
“You misunderstand the requirement of right intent. It does not mean that one must have pure motives…”
I never said he did.
“Just that one must intend to confer the sacrament, as the Church does (as opposed to play acting, or conferring something other than the Catholic sacrament, or conferring nothing out of unbelief or spite).”
Once more, what about simoniacal transactions (to take one prominent example)?
"That’s a hypothetical syllogism. How do you prove the conditional premise?"
ReplyDeleteBiblical arguments, patristic testimony, arguments from fittingness, etc.
"If, for the sake of argument, we grant the truth of apostolic succession, that abstract doctrine doesn’t select for any particular ecclesiastical claimant. You still have to prove, at a concrete level, which rival claimant has a valid claim."
I agree that proving Apostolic Succession in the abstract does not narrow the candidates for the true Church down to just Catholicism. But it does narrow the field to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, or the church catholic of high Anglican ecclesiology. One can proceed from there by process of elimination.
The Catholic Church claims to be the only church which meets all the criteria for the true Church, while admitting that other societies may meet some of the criteria.
"You need some independent evidence, apart from the self-serving claims of your denomination, to validate your episcopal succession."
And all the historical evidence which exists is consistent with Catholic claims of episcopal succession. My point in bringing up the superintendence of the Holy Spirit is to explain why we can maintain our certainty of holding valid apostolic succession in spite of gaps in the historical record and our inability to read men's minds as they consecrate.
"Once more, what about simoniacal transactions (to take one prominent example)?"
A bishop who sells his services is perfectly capable of intending to confer orders when he performs the rite. What relevance does simony have to this discussion?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteWithout correct doctrine, there is no apostolic succession, and without it succession is ruptured. Apostolic succession involves not only right sacramental form, but also passing down paradosis : scripture and the apostolic hermeneutic. That would also commit us to a certain manuscript tradition.
"When Orthodox writers say they acknowledge the pope as the first among equals, is that acknowledgement actual or hypothetical?"
That would be a hypothetical based on a confession of Orthodoxy and continuance. He's the first See based on the legacy of both Peter and Paul.
"Does the Orthodox church take the position that the Roman succession is unbroken? Does the Orthodox church regard any particular pontiff as a legitimate successor to St. Peter?"
It's hard to tell these days in the age of Ecumenism since Athenagoras of unhappy memory lifted the anathemas against Rome. It really depends on who you talk to today that consider themselves "Orthodox." The authentic Orthodox position would be no they don't have apostolic succession since the sacramental form is not sufficient in and of itself to grant the ordination, you must also pass on right doctrine.
Photios
BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Biblical arguments, patristic testimony, arguments from fittingness, etc.”
i) Ben, you’re running in place. In your opening move you posited a tautology. When challenged, you bolster your tautology with a string of IOUs.
ii) Moreover, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept patristic authority for apostolic succession, didn’t the church fathers lay down certain qualifications for episcopal office?
“I agree that proving Apostolic Succession in the abstract does not narrow the candidates for the true Church down to just Catholicism. But it does narrow the field to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, or the church catholic of high Anglican ecclesiology. One can proceed from there by process of elimination.”
Well, let’s compare that with what you originally said:
“Claims to orders only become a matter of doubt, requiring historical and documentary investigation and verification, when these orders are conferred outside of the fold.”
But if there are three different claimants to the “fold,” then each claimant regards the rival claimant as “outside the fold.” Therefore, each claimant would have to verify its episcopal succession through historical and documentary investigation. Each claimant is outside the fold relative to every other claimant.
And that’s even after we grant your tendentious tautology about apostolic succession.
“The Catholic Church claims to be the only church which meets all the criteria for the true Church, while admitting that other societies may meet some of the criteria.”
i) In which case the stray sheep have, at best, one hoof inside the fold and one hoof outside the fold.
ii) And, of course, the rival claimants make the same self-serving claims about themselves, to the detriment of their rivals.
“And all the historical evidence which exists is consistent with Catholic claims of episcopal succession.”
i) Really? In the Great Schism, tell me which claimant was the true successor to St. Peter, and which claimants were usurpers to the papal throne? (To take one example.)
ii) What about rigged papal elections? Catholic historians admit the existence of rigged papal elections. Is a rigged election a valid election?
“My point in bringing up the superintendence of the Holy Spirit is to explain why we can maintain our certainty of holding valid apostolic succession in spite of gaps in the historical record and our inability to read men's minds as they consecrate.”
Which assumes the Holy Spirit signed an exclusive contract with the Vatican. Why should we accept your monopolistic claim on the superintendence of the Holy Spirit?
“A bishop who sells his services is perfectly capable of intending to confer orders when he performs the rite. What relevance does simony have to this discussion?”
Well, that raises several issues:
i) Didn’t Julius II declare simoniacal papal elections null and void? Yet simoniacal papal electors intended to elect a pope. And simoniacal candidates intended to be elected pope.
ii) Apropos (i), isn’t the underlying objection to simoniacal papal elections that the candidate only wants the job for the fringe benefits? There’s no good faith intention to discharge the duties of the papal office. Rather, he’s in it for the perks of high office.
And the same reasoning would logically apply to other simoniacal transactions, would it not?
iii) To take another example,
“The lawful reception of Orders demands outstanding and habitual goodness of life, especially perfect chastity. Solid possession of this latter virtue is an indispensable condition of a clerical vocation and its presence must be positively evident," New Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:89a.
That requirement is more expansive than the bare intent to become a priest. The ordinand must be properly motivated in other respects as well.
iv) Leo XIII admitted that, due to the unverifiable condition of right intent, the validity of ordination was presumptive rather than demonstrable.
"If it's on the internet, could you provide a link to it?"
ReplyDeleteVisit a web site of any of the major patriarchates and they will give succession lists.
"His primary objection is that Anglican orders are invalid, not due to their defective intent, but due to their defective rite."
ReplyDeleteBut the stated defect with the rite is the intent expressed in the rite. Not the mere fact of change of rite.
"A list of succession fails to document the intent of the officiate or ordinand. "
The intent of the officiate and ordinand is not the issue. The issue is the intent of the church instituting the rite.
"Standard evangelical commentaries, monographs, and NT introductions discuss the provenance of the NT documents. Do you have a specific objection to raise?"
Yes, give me a list of all the people the docuements passed through to get to you today.
"In your opening move you posited a tautology. When challenged, you bolster your tautology with a string of IOUs."
ReplyDeleteI'm just responding to the logic of your arguments. If you want biblical and patristic studies from me in defense of the doctrine of apostolic succession, that will have to wait. Right now I need prayer and sleep.
"didn’t the church fathers lay down certain qualifications for episcopal office?"
Yes, what's your point?
"But if there are three different claimants to the 'fold,' then each claimant regards the rival claimant as 'outside the fold.'"
Which is why one should pare the field down to one by process of elimination. This need not involve exhaustive historical demonstration of any claimant's episcopal succession. I'm perfectly willing to grant that all three have valid episcopal succession, in spite of gaps in the historical record. Claimant Churches can be invalidated as candidates for the true Church of Christ on other grounds. For example, I would argue that Eastern Orthodoxy has compromised essential Christian sexual morality, that the Eastern Fathers accepted the papal supremacy prior to the Schism, that the circumstances of their rupture with the papacy are indefensible, that the Filioque is logically necessary, that the essence/energies distinction is false, etc.
"In the Great Schism, tell me which claimant was the true successor to St. Peter, and which claimants were usurpers to the papal throne?"
Well, this is a bit off the topic of apostolic succession (given that all the papal claimants were validly consecrated bishops), but here's the answer: http://www.popechart.com/
Do you want a justification of any particular point?
"Catholic historians admit the existence of rigged papal elections. Is a rigged election a valid election?"
I need more particulars to answer this question.
"Why should we accept your monopolistic claim on the superintendence of the Holy Spirit?"
Good grief, you're firing buckshot. There are many arguments for the Catholic Church being the true Church of Christ, many of which you are doubtless aware of.
"Didn’t Julius II declare simoniacal papal elections null and void? Yet simoniacal papal electors intended to elect a pope. And simoniacal candidates intended to be elected pope."
A papal election is not a Sacrament. Sacraments can be conferred validly but illicitly. On the other hand, papal elections confer jurisdiction, and jurisdiction (i.e., lawful right to rule) by nature can only be conferred licitly. Hence illegal papal elections are null and void.
"That requirement is more expansive than the bare intent to become a priest."
That passage from the encyclopedia describes the requirements for "lawful" (licit) reception of orders. One who failed these requirements could still meet the criteria for bare validity.
"Leo XIII admitted that, due to the unverifiable condition of right intent, the validity of ordination was presumptive rather than demonstrable."
Hence it is hypothetically possible that some Catholic "priests" and "bishops" have been invalidly ordained. I remember, for example, either reading or hearing about a racist Spanish bishop in South America who withheld his intent whenever he "ordained" native clergy. He fessed up on his deathbed, and the situation was rectified. A Catholic would again appeal to the general superintendence of the Holy Spirit to assure that such aberrations would remain aberrations.
"I would argue that Eastern Orthodoxy has compromised essential Christian sexual morality, that the Eastern Fathers accepted the papal supremacy prior to the Schism, that the circumstances of their rupture with the papacy are indefensible, that the Filioque is logically necessary, that the essence/energies distinction is false, etc."
ReplyDeleteFilioque logical necessity and essence/energy distinction false?
Of course, the Romanists don't seem to fair very well when they come argue with us. They are akin to the big infallible church that acts tough behind your back, but when confronted and showed their error they put on their ecumenist hat.
Care to take a walk through Eunomianism? Care to make a refutation of my paper on Gregory of Nyssa? We'd really love to see that.
Photios
BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Yes, what's your point?”
You said “Claims to orders only become a matter of doubt, requiring historical and documentary investigation and verification, when these orders are conferred outside of the fold.”
But if the church fathers lay down certain conditions for office-holders, then you’d need to confirm, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not those conditions were met. That would be inside the fold.
“Which is why one should pare the field down to one by process of elimination. This need not involve exhaustive historical demonstration of any claimant's episcopal succession. I'm perfectly willing to grant that all three have valid episcopal succession, in spite of gaps in the historical record.”
i) Why should we grant that despite gaps in the record?
ii) Moreover, even if we had exhaustive records, such records can’t record the mind or intent of the interested parties. They only record the external action. What rite was used. Who was ordained by whom according to said rite.
While that’s a necessary condition to verify succession, it’s hardly a sufficient condition.
“Well, this is a bit off the topic of apostolic succession (given that all the papal claimants were validly consecrated bishops)”
i) To begin with, how do you know that they were validly consecrated? At best, you can verify the rite, but not the mind or intent of the officiate or ordinand.
ii) Moreover, papal succession is a subset of apostolic succession, is it not? Aren’t there parallel arguments regarding the legitimacy of papal elections (e.g. simoniacal papal elections)?
“I need more particulars to answer this question.”
Meaning what? Specific examples–or the abstract principle of whether a rigged papal election is valid?
“There are many arguments for the Catholic Church being the true Church of Christ, many of which you are doubtless aware of.”
That’s the problem. I’ve heard all the arguments.
“A papal election is not a Sacrament. Sacraments can be conferred validly but illicitly. On the other hand, papal elections confer jurisdiction, and jurisdiction (i.e., lawful right to rule) by nature can only be conferred licitly. Hence illegal papal elections are null and void.”
i) When Catholicism asserts apostolic succession, there are different elements that go into that claim. The valid ordination of a priest. The valid consecration of a bishop. The valid election of a pope. Validity (or the lack thereof) operates at different levels.
ii) This is also bound up with the issue of whether the priesthood, episcopate, and papacy represent variations on one office, or three distinct offices.
iii) Isn’t there a sacramental dimension to papal office, according to which the office confers certain graces on the incumbent to which an ordinary priest or bishop isn’t privy?
Put another way, isn’t there a transference of distinctive graces and prerogatives from a papal predecessor to his successor?
“Hence it is hypothetically possible that some Catholic ‘priests’ and ‘bishops’ have been invalidly ordained.”
Over the past 2000 years, given the sheer number of sacerdotal ordinations, episcopal consecrations, and papal elections, there are plenty of opportunities for the lines of succession to break down.
“That passage from the encyclopedia describes the requirements for "lawful" (licit) reception of orders. One who failed these requirements could still meet the criteria for bare validity.”
As I recall, the article is discussing canonical impediments to the right reception of holy orders.
“A Catholic would again appeal to the general superintendence of the Holy Spirit to assure that such aberrations would remain aberrations.”
Again, aren’t you moving in a circle. The Holy Spirit superintends the true church. The true church is superintended by the Holy Spirit. How do you break into circular to verify the claim?
It’s not as if Catholics can make a direct appeal to the Holy Spirit to validate their system.
For one thing, isn’t the providential action of the Holy Spirit supposed to be expressed through the church itself? Mediated by the organs of the church?
For another thing, if Catholics can make direct appeals to the Holy Spirit, so can other Christians.
David said...
ReplyDelete“But the stated defect with the rite is the intent expressed in the rite. Not the mere fact of change of rite.”
i) That’s not the issue. On Catholic grounds, it’s possible to verify a defective rite.
ii) But it’s not possible, as Leo himself admits, to directly and unmistakably verify defective intent.
iii) Leo can try to infer a defective intent from a defective rite, although even that is precarious since many or most Anglican ordinands seriously intend the rite to confer holy orders.
iv) Moreover, even if a defective rite casts doubt on the intent, there’s the additional fact that one can use the correct right with the wrong intent.
v) This is Leo’s argument under #33:
a) Right intent is a prerequisite of valid ordination.
b) Since right intent is an essentially private affair, the Church cannot directly or unmistakable verify right intent.
c) At best, the Church can only render a probable judgment (presumption) based on the rite. To the extent that the intent is expressed through the rite, then to that extent, and that extent only, the church can render a probable judgment.
d) But, according to Leo, the intent of the ordinand or officiate is not conterminous with the particular rite.
Therefore, by Leo’s own argument, valid orders are unverifiable.
And if valid orders are unverifiable, then succession is unverifiable.
vi) Indeed, that’s the larger point which Leo is getting at. The Church of England cannot lay claim to apostolic succession.
“The intent of the officiate and ordinand is not the issue. The issue is the intent of the church instituting the rite.”
No, that is not what Leo says. Leo, under #33, singles out the mind or intent of the “person” who presents himself for ordination.
So the issue of intent is personal and individual. Not merely institutional.
You are misrepresenting Leo’s stated position to salvage your own position.
“Yes, give me a list of all the people the docuements passed through to get to you today.”
An ignorant request, since textual criticism doesn’t require on a succession of scribes or succession of MSS.
John Bugay,
ReplyDeleteThe standard for right teaching is of course right teaching itself, namely revelation, which will include Scripture.
So here is my question for you, if scripture is the only infallible rule, who is the judge to apply the rule?
Ben,
ReplyDeleteIf the Filioque is logically necessary, then it’s a piece of natural theology and not revelation, which contradicts just about every advocate of it in Rome.
As for sexual mores, I think you refer to the comments of a few bishops about contraception. The opinion of a few bishops does not amount to an alteration of teaching either on Orthodox or Catholic polity. And furthermore, the earlier patristic opposition to barrier methods was predicated on the belief that the child was a whole already from the male and simply given to the female, which is false. A barrier would materially contribute to an abortion. If the Eastern Fathers accepted papal supremacy, then perhaps you can explain their expression that no apostle needed the help of another in the carrying out of their ministry, and by extension, no bishop does either, in the synodal horos of the fifth council. And if the essence/energy distinction is false, then Christ can’t have two natural energies, in which case you reject the Sixth council, not to mention the Nicene and Cappadocian Trinitarian theology of Nicea and 1st Constantinople.
Acolyte -- what, specifically, is "revealed" outside of Scripture?
ReplyDeleteAs far as "who is the judge to apply the infallible rule," God has given us individuals with minds to "search the Scriptures" (not to be their masters), pastors and teachers, textual scholars who devote their lives to this understanding. I praise God for such gifts.
I am with you, by the way, on the notion that no papal supremacy of any kind was accepted in the east.
ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
ReplyDelete"So here is my question for you, if scripture is the only infallible rule, who is the judge to apply the rule?"
Perry,
As you know, Jesus conducted public debates with members of the religious establishment. So did John the Baptist. So did the Apostles.
Bystanders overheard the debates. Who was to judge which side got the better of the argument?
Clearly the religious establishment was not the final arbiter, for Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostles were challenging the religious establishment.
As a practical matter, every man (or woman) in the crowd had to judge for himself. Some judged rightly and some judged wrongly.
That's a leading theme in the Gospel of John (to take one example).
"Clearly the religious establishment was not the final arbiter, for Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostles were challenging the religious establishment."
ReplyDeleteSteve, in Orthodoxy, authority is predicated on the spiritual life such that the prophets, apostles, and saints in seeing the glory of the Lord have this authority.
Christ is the sovereign King of all Creation and the many rational principles in which it was created. He is in the strict sense the Bishop of Creation. What God does in Creation, He does in Redemption, to echo the recapitulatory theme.
What you say proves a perfect example though, anytime the church's cultural autonomy was compromised or viewed as being surrendered, it was severely challenged. The Monothelite case is a perfect example (the first ecumenism), or in the case of St. Justinian closing the Academy (in recognizing Hellenistic philosophy as the root paradigm of all heresy). That cultural autonomy allows Orthodoxy to be particular, vernacular, and liturgical. So much so that the Byzantine empire was allowed to die to the Turks to maintain that cultural autonomy of Orthodoxy. This in an of itself allows Orthodoxy to be transplanted into any culture. The prize won being Russia who never had or knew of a "classical" culture like the Greeks did.
Those who know and are of God are the final arbiter. Like the men you quote. The Religious establishment was compromised and subverted.
"Bystanders overheard the debates. Who was to judge which side got the better of the argument?"
The prophets, Christ, and the apostles held men accountable to their testemony whether some judged it true or not. The fact that you wish to be a good Berean in testing all things should never be a part of an Orthodox rebuff to you. Except for Mark of Ephesus and George Scholarius, the laity held the patriarchal representatives as bringing back heresy after Florence.
Where we differ and what we see is inadequate is the 'Augustinism' you have inherited which we believe operates as both a distorted and distorting principle.
Photios
"Care to take a walk through Eunomianism? Care to make a refutation of my paper on Gregory of Nyssa? We'd really love to see that."
ReplyDeleteI'll put it on my list of projects. I may not get to it between now and September, when I plan on losing access to the internet for several months.
"If the Filioque is logically necessary, then it’s a piece of natural theology and not revelation, which contradicts just about every advocate of it in Rome."
Logically necessary from the premises of the Trinitarian revelation, not from premises accessible to reason alone.
"As for sexual mores, I think you refer to the comments of a few bishops about contraception."
If you maintain that contraception is sinful (even barrier methods), congratulations. Do you also affirm the indissolubility of valid Christian marriage?
"And if the essence/energy distinction is false, then Christ can’t have two natural energies"
Christ has a divine will and a created human will. There is no distinction of essence and energies within the godhead.
Why should we grant that despite gaps in the record?To repeat myself, because we can know that apostolic succession is a necessary characteristic of the true Church in the abstract. Hence the true Church will have apostolic succession. If we can eliminate all but one of the claimants to apostolic succession as candidates for the true Church on other grounds, then the one remaining Church must have apostolic succession.
ReplyDelete"Meaning what? Specific examples–or the abstract principle of whether a rigged papal election is valid?"
I need to know what you mean by "rigged."
"This is also bound up with the issue of whether the priesthood, episcopate, and papacy represent variations on one office, or three distinct offices."
Diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy are the only sacramental ordinations in the Catholic Church. There are indeed certain distinct graces associated with being the bishop of Rome, but one is not ordained to the position.
"As I recall, the article is discussing canonical impediments to the right reception of holy orders."
In that case I'd have to see the article for myself.
"How do you break into [the circle] to verify the claim?"
See above, and other independent arguments for the Catholic Church being the true Church.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteI think you are confused on the supposed logical necessity of the filioque. It is not a truth of logic. What I think you mean is that given certain other revealed things, it is deducible. If so, you’d need to give a deductive proof. Good luck with that. Secondly, advocates of it historically claim not that it is deducible but rather that it can be shown to be consistent, which is all we can ask of reveled doctrines. Consistency is much weaker than the necessity of truth preservation in deduction. And on that score, you’d have to show that it was reveled first. Good luck finding it in Scripture. Third, if it were reveled, then it seems odd that the Platonists were using the same arguments to prove the procession of Spirit or the Wold Soul from the joint activity of the One and Nous. The Middle and Late Platonists weren’t reading the NT.
I maintain that abortive contraceptives are intrinsically immoral and that non-abortive methods employed with the intention never to have children are immoral as well. But I don’t think that Stoic and Aristotelian faulty biology which saw in the spermatikos the whole child is something I am bound by.
If validity were a concept translatable to Orthodox theology you might have a coherent question. As for marriage, I agree with Jesus that it can be dissolved via adultery. (matt 5:32) Besides, ecclesiastical divorce has a long pre-schism history in the canons.
Christ not only has two wills according to the Sixth council, but also two natural energies, which shows that there is a distinction of essence and energy in God. I’d strongly suggest you study the theology of the Sixth Council, its architect Maximus and the teaching of John of Damascus.
“We hold, further, that there are two energies in our Lord Jesus Christ. For He possesses on the one hand, as God and being of like essence with the Father, the divine energy, and, likewise, since He became man and of like essence to us, the energy proper to human nature .But observe that energy and capacity for energy, and the product of energy, and the agent of energy, are all different. Energy is the efficient (δραστική) and essential activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature from which proceeds energy: the product of energy is that which is effected by energy: and the agent of energy is the person or subsistence which uses the energy. Further, sometimes energy is used in the sense of the product of energy, and the product of energy in that of energy, just as the terms creation and creature are sometimes transposed. For we say all creation, meaning creatures.” On the Orthodox Faith, 3.15. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iii.xv.html
John Bugay,
ReplyDeleteAs for not having masters, that brings to mind Hebrews 13:7. When I read 2 Tim 3:17 it seems to me that Paul has in mind “the man of God.” Is the “man of God” there a “textual critic?” I don’t think so. How does Scripture apply the phrase “the man of God.” Just it apply it to just anyone?
How odd, you are with me with denying papal supremacy but with the papists on the insertion of the filioque into the creed by papal perogatives. Seems like you have more protesting to do. :)
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYour example of Jesus and the Jewish leadership would be germane if all things were equal, but all things are not equal so it is not an apt comparison. Jesus has a commissioning superior to theirs. Jesus’s commissioning is attested to by the miracles and prophecy. (Jn 10:38) In a similar fashion the prophets had a commissioning superior to the ordinary commissioning of the Levitical priests, which is why they could correct them. The judgment in both cases is that of a superior degree of normativity.
Further, when you ask among the bystanders, who was to judge, there is an equivocation on the term , judge. For the question is not, who is to ascertain the truth of the matter for their own conscience, but who can settle the matter with a normativity that goes beyond in application their own conscience to that of others. The judgment of the prophets and Jesus was not on a normative par with the ordinarily commissioned Hebrew/Jewish leadership. At best they can claim Abraham and Moses, since they have no miracles and prophecy since they were ordinarily commissioned, through a succession. (Neh 7:64) Jesus clearly one-ups them through an appeal to the Father directly with attesting miracles.
Jesus and the prophets by virtue of their superior commissioning and attestation with miracle and prophecy were in a position to challenge those lower down on the commissioned and normative ladder.
So the question is, in the church, who is to act as the judge in terms of normatively settling a matter or dispute in applying the rule or is there to be as many judges applying the rule as there are readers of the rule? In which case, there is no judge which can settle a matter with the normativity to bind the conscience of any man other than himself and all ecclesiastical judgments are in principle revisable. Clear problems arise in say cases of excommunication.
In 2 Tim 3, Paul seems to indicate the Scripture is the rule to be employed by the “man of God” and the way that Scripture uses that term doesn’t seem to indicate that the “man of God” is just any believer. The Scriptures are a rule to be employed by those appropriately sent and commissioned such that the question becomes, who sent these ministers? For how will they preach, unless they have been sent? Who commissioned the Reformers and with what commissioning, ordinary or extraordinary?
Acolyte -- you asked about "not having masters," and then you cited a couple of Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteLook at Hebrews 13:7: Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
Also 2 Tim 3:17 in greater context: "10You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Consider this in light of the Bereans: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
This is a judgment on character by Luke, who traveled with Paul. Luke himself "carefully investigated everything from the beginning."
I clearly stated "God has given us individuals with minds to "search the Scriptures" (not to be their masters), pastors and teachers, textual scholars who devote their lives to this understanding. I praise God for such gifts." I understand their need to work together. I also understand the need to "carefully investigate" things.
The Catholics, in Practice, view themselves as the masters of Scripture, being the "interpreter." The Orthodox, too, make "Holy Scripture" only one part of "Holy Tradition." Neither gives Scripture its due as the sole source of God's revelation that we have today.
As for the filioque, how do you know that I stand with the papists on that?
"But I don’t think that Stoic and Aristotelian faulty biology which saw in the spermatikos the whole child is something I am bound by."
ReplyDeleteNo one said you were. There are other reasons for opposing barrier methods of contraception (whether to have no children at all, or just to decrease the number).
"As for marriage, I agree with Jesus that it can be dissolved via adultery. (matt 5:32)"
Matthew 5:32 reads, "Everyone who divorces his wife, except for reason of porneia (often translated unchastity), makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Gordon Wenham comments, "Matthew 5:32 is unusual in that it says the act of divorce causes the woman to commit adultery. How can divorce by itself cause adultery? The most likely explanation is that the woman will be forced by economic or social pressure to remarry. The husband who initiates the divorce has thereby himself caused her to break the seventh commandment… Within this context, the exception clause simply notes that should a wife have already committed adultery – one type of sexual immorality – her husband can hardly be said to have made her commit adultery. There is no suggestion here that a husband gains the right to marry again." Another interpretation of this passage is that porneia refers to incest, which would render the marriage unlawful and invalid from the beginning. Hence, Jesus’ prohibition of divorce remains absolute as regards validly (or actually, however you want to put it) contracted marriages.