Did Christ found a “visible church”? Let’s look at some of the exegetical evidence.Joseph Ratzinger, destined to be pope, in an essay entitled “Primacy, Episcopacy, and Successio Apostolica,” in the work “God’s Word: Scripture-Tradition-Office” (San Francisco: Ignatius Press ©2008; Libreria Editrice Vaticana edition ©2005), says “The concept of [apostolic] succession was clearly formulated, as von Campenhausen has impressively demonstrated, in the anti-Gnostic polemics of the second century; [and not, as some Roman Catholic writers assert, in the first century] its purpose was to contrast the true apostolic tradition of the Church with the pseudo-apostolic tradition of Gnosis” (pgs 22-23).
<---------------- Yes, that’s Pope Joseph Ratzinger’s picture over there, on the book cover, stating for all the world to see, “The concept of Apostolic Succession was clearly formulated in the second century.” (Even though he wasn’t yet pope when he wrote that, some enterprising publisher put his picture, and name as pope! on the cover, with the hope that more people would buy it!)
The work he is referring to is Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, trans. J. A. Baker (London: Black, 1969), pgs 149-177. Hmm. And look at that recommendation from Ratzinger, who was still only a “brialliant theologian” when he wrote that endorsement. “Clearly formulated … impressively demonstrated…” That’s a very fine endorsement indeed.
We look now at what von Campenhausen says:
The position of elder in the Church was, as we saw, not established for the sake of the tradition or of the teaching ministry. At first it was simply a matter of following the Jewish model and general necessity. In many cases, though not in all, the liturgical function of the elders was also felt to be especially important. But so soon as the danger that believers would be led astray by false teachers became acute, the natural consequence was that these men were called upon and put forward to act as guardians and witnesses of the genuine tradition. The crucial question in this situation is this: in what relationship is the authority of the office placed to that of the tradition? In the early stages, however, the question is neither posed nor answered in this form. This much alone is clear, that there is as yet no official monopoly of the task of representing and safeguarding true doctrine and the apostolic witness—any more than there is the opposite, anti-clerical emphasis on ‘the priesthood of all believers’ (152).The most that we can derive from this statement is that there clearly were “elders” and “lay folk” in the New Testament church, as well as “free”, itinerant preachers. There is “no official monopoly” of church leadership.
Luke adheres sympathetically [to the view that “the Twelve” are “a judicial body”] for a time, since it corresponds to his ideal picture of the peace an order of the earliest period.; but then he goes on to show how God, in guiding the Church, goes too fast for these Apostles by himself calling preachers and prophets and by bestowing his Spirit where the Apostles least expect it. Again and again there is nothing for the latter to do but recognize what the spirit has already done, and to confirm it with praise and thanksgiving, while the newly won Christians gratefully join the community. Then Paul moves the mission into completely new areas and situations. Whatever the piety which he displays in his dealings with the primitive community, he is not subject to it. The later, historically untenable conception of the central government of the whole Church by the Apostles is thus not supported by Luke (153).This is confirmed at an exegetical level by, among others, I. Howard Marshall, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, in his work, “Luke, Historian & Theologian”, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, ©1970, 1979, 1988. Marshall, a leading New Testament exegetical scholar, was also the founder and general editor of the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC) series, which is devoted to exploring the Greek text of the New Testament in detail. Marshall says:
Is it true that as a theologian Luke “can only be understood from his doctrine as a legitimate church”? [quoting Ernst Kasemann]. The general pattern of the answer should be clear from the previous discussion. We have seen that all the way through Luke thinks of the disciples as being constituted into the church.By “disciples” he means ordinary, everyday “believers”. Earlier he defines the term: “The response of those who accept the word is described as belief. From one point of view, it is belief in the message (Acts 8:12); from another it is belief in Jesus Christ. The latter expression is used to describe the act of commitment to Him. It means accepting that He is the Saviour, the Messiah and the Lord, but such acceptance of the message about Him obviously implies personal commitment to the One who is the Lord. … The personal character of this relationship is further indicated by the Lucan use of the word “disciple” to indicate the believer. This word is not found outside Acts to designate believers in the post-Easter situation; apart from Acts its use is confined to the Gospels where it describes the followers of the earthly Jesus who stood in a personal relationship to him” – pgs 192-193. Marshall continues with his exposition of “how Luke regards the church”:
He [Luke] is as much concerned with the fate of the church as with that of the individual. He knows next to nothing of a solitary religion, although the case of the Ethiopian eunuch proves that such may exist.More to follow on this topic, Lord willing.
Nevertheless, there is no special stress on the church as an institution. Men became believers through hearing the word and responding to it. What matters here is not the activity of the church but the truth of the message. It is continuity with the apostolic teaching that is of supreme significance. For Luke this is preserved by a continuity within the church. The church sends out its missionaries and confirms the work of those already engaged in preaching the word. Thus the mission in Samaria is legitimated by the apostles, and the work in Antioch is confirmed by Barnabas (Acts 11:22f.), who was not one of the Twelve but was an apostle in the same sense as Paul (Acts 14:4). The church at Jerusalem is represented as having authority over the missionary churches to whom it sent its decree (Acts 15:22-29; 16:4), but it is not clear how Luke conceived of this authority in detail; it is noteworthy that the council at Jerusalem was held at the instigation of the church in Antioch, and that its purpose was to correct the false impression given by unauthorized men claiming to represent the church at Jerusalem (212).
… Luke reflects the early period when Jerusalem was thought of at the centre of the church. Later the mission churches became increasingly independent. What matters for Luke is not so much the church itself as the apostles who were guardians of its doctrine.
The church of Luke cannot be said to dispense salvation by means of the sacraments. The Lord’s Supper is not in Luke a means of salvation but a fellowship meal in which the Lord’s death was remembered. Baptism is the outward sign of receiving the Spirit and becoming a Christian, but Luke demonstrates plainly that the reception of the Spirit was not rigidly tied to baptism …
It is also of course true that Luke assumes converts will join the church. The function of water-baptism is precisely this. But again there is nothing that smacks of “early Catholicism” in this, for there is no evidence that in the apostolic period any other understanding was ever entertained. To be a Christian was to be a member of the church. What matters for Luke is that Christians come together and share in the common life of the church – in fellowship, in prayer and in mission. Consequently, the term “the Way” which he has taken over as his characteristic description of the church appears to refer both to the teaching of the church and to the members. These are the two things which are important for Luke. It is the apostolic teaching which constitutes the church. And if there is no salvation extra ecclesiam it is not because the church possesses the gospel but because salvation is through Christ and His word is committed to the apostles. …
Thus in the end Acts is the story of the growth of the church because it is the story of the spread of salvation. In Acts salvation becomes a reality. The work of Jesus is continued by His disciples and embraces men and women of every nation. If Luke has restricted his story to the movement of the gospel to Rome, he nevertheless hints at its wider spread in the Pentecost narrative (Acts 2:5-11, 39). Luke’s task was to show what men everywhere must do in order to be saved. Thus the Book of Acts is itself a means of salvation to those who hear the gospel in it and make the same response as the Philippian jailer and many another: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.” (212-215).
Are you suggesting that Pope Benedict denies that apostolic succession was given by Christ to the Church?
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, are you suggesting that Campenhausen denied that apostolic succession was given by Christ to the Church?
I don't believe either says that the fathers in their writing against the Gnostics invented succession wholesale. Ratzinger's point is that the early anti-Gnostic writers pointed to succession that was there to show that there was no 'secret knowledge' outside the church Catholic.
Steven -- Campenhausen's account is fascinating -- and it's endorsed! So you can take it for what it's worth, and I'm sure you can and will fit it into Ratzinger's personal beliefs any way you see fit.
ReplyDeleteRemember, all of this history really falls into the category of "wax nose", to be used by any given Roman Catholic apologist, any way he sees fit, in defense of the infallible dogmas of Mother Church.
Further from 'Primacy, Episcopy, and Successio Apostolica.'
ReplyDelete"Episcopy and primacy, according to Catholic belief, are divinely given factors of the Church..."
He goes on to discuss the successio of the Pope and the successio of the bishops.
"The office, the succession of the apostles, is founded on the word - that is true today as it was then."
He then goes on to describe what I said in my first comment - that the early anti-Gnostic church used the reality of apostolic succession as an apologetic against the Gnostics.
He says, "We can see quite clearly here how in fact succession is equal to tradition; succession is holding fast to the apostolic word."
He then argues that the canon itself was viewed by the early church as 'existing in tradition and guaranteed by the successio.'
"Summarizing what has been said thus far, we may say that the Church opposes the Gnostic notion of secret unwritten traditions, not in the first place with Scripture, but with the principle of succession. Apostolic succession is by its nature a living presence of the word in the personal form of the witness.
He then goes in greater detail about the succession of the see of Rome and the particular function it carries.
In summary – I don’t think it is quite fair to have titled your entry “Christ did not found a visible church” and seek to paint Ratzinger as confirming that notion.
I don't know if you noticed Steven, but I wasn't giving Ratzinger's view of things, except his endorsement of Campenhausen. I was giving Campenhausen's reporting of the history.
ReplyDeleteWhat Ratzinger is doing is going on and applying his "theological interpretation" to what the history was. This is what I mean by "wax nose". I've found that, no matter what the actual history is (i.e., that Campenhausen would say "The later, historically untenable conception of the central government of the whole Church by the Apostles is thus not supported by Luke") it is just simply set aside and the "theological interpretation" becomes whatever the Roman Catholic du jour (in this case, Ratzinger) needs it to be.
It is clear that Ratzinger does not endorse every idea of Campenhausen. Campenhausen was Lutheran.
ReplyDeleteIn the text from von Campenhausen that you cite, he is not even giving any kind of historical analysis but rather an obviously Lutheran tainted exegesis of Luke and Acts.
The Lord’s Supper is not in Luke a means of salvation but a fellowship meal in which the Lord’s death was remembered. Baptism is the outward sign of receiving the Spirit and becoming a Christian, but Luke demonstrates plainly that the reception of the Spirit was not rigidly tied to baptism …
That is a Lutheran exegesis, not history. That is not even historical analysis.
This is not the section that Ratzinger approved of von Campenhausen. Ratzinger merely stated that van Campenhausen demonstrated that the anti-Gnostic fathers were the first to use apostolic succession as an apologetic. You cannot expect any theologian to cite only those scholars whom they agree with 100%. That would not be any fun : o )
William Tighe discusses van Campenhausen: "von Campenhausen[...]is a great scholar, but as is ever the cause their scholarship is not uninfluenced by the confessional commitments, and von Campenhausen is just as skeptical about claims for the apostolic origin of the episcopate as he is about the Petrine origins of the Roman papacy."
I would not hold any Catholic lay person or pope to be forced to frame the doctrines of the Catholic faith towards the scholarship and exegesis that is fashionable at any given moment, especially from Lutheran biblical exegesis.
When you read scholarship do you sometimes disagree with certain conclusions and theories?
In the text from von Campenhausen that you cite, he is not even giving any kind of historical analysis but rather an obviously Lutheran tainted exegesis of Luke and Acts.
ReplyDeleteThen why the hearty endorsement from Ratzinger? Are you suggesting that his hearty endorsement was not genuine?
I don't write for Roman Catholics. I write for a largely Reformed audience. So I gave a couple of paragraphs from Campenhausen, within the pages (149-177) that Ratzinger is endorsing, and then I showed, exegetically (and I consider Marshall to be a sound exegete) that what Campenhausen is saying has exegetical justification.
Now, I purposely didn't cite the paragraph from Campenhausen that you cited, because it really isn't relevant to what I'm saying.
And my hope is to continue to use Campenhausen's (Ratzinger-approved) historical analysis, and validate what he is saying from other sources, and eventually show a whole bunch of strands of scholarship that are all showing essentially the same things: that the traditional Roman Catholic understanding of how "apostolic succession" came about is flawed; that the understanding of "succession" that is currently dogmatically enshrined in Roman Catholic dogma has no basis in actual history, that the understanding of "the papacy" that "developed" in the fifth century, and was in force until about 1958, really has no basis in early church history and exegesis, and that the Reformers were justified in throwing all of that out.
I can agree or disagree with scholars -- not based on my own tastes, or dogmatic precommitments, but based on facts, and sound understandings of historical and exegetical methods.
In this case, there is a tremendous amount of historical and exegetical agreement, and, surprise, it agrees that the stories that I grew up with as a Roman Catholic (and maybe you too) were more based on myth than on reality.
You know, I'm not going to make my entire point in one post. I've got a lot more of Ratzinger-approved Campenhausen to get through. At the end of that, I'll tell the story, and it'll have historical and exegetical support. And THEN we can go back and look at how the Roman Catholic dogmas stack up.
Is apostolic succession a visible phenomenon? Isn't holy orders supposed to convey or confer certain "charisms" necessary for valid priestly actions? But the "charisms" are invisible rather than visible. So their transmission is invisible.
ReplyDeleteWhere does a Catholic actually find the visible church? Both popes and anti-popes are visible. Visibility is not the criterion.
You say, "Now, I purposely didn't cite the paragraph from Campenhausen that you cited, because it really isn't relevant to what I'm saying."
ReplyDeleteYou did cite the paragraph from Capenhausen that I cited. It is the third paragraph from the bottom. I copy/pasted it directly from your blog post.
But that is kind of beside the point. The paragraph merely illustrated that the portions you cited were mostly von Campenhausen's exegesis of Luke and Acts. Unless you want to demonstrate that Ratzinger was giving approval of that exegesis and not merely the conclusion of von Campenhausen about the anti-Gnostic early church than your attempt to get Ratzinger via 'guilt by association' falls flat.
But, as you promise more, I am happy to read more.
"Is apostolic succession a visible phenomenon?" - Yes.
Laying on of hands is as visible today as it was visible when Paul laid his hands on Timothy.
"Where does a Catholic actually find the visible church?"
By locating churches that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome who is the successor to St. Peter.
There is actually a very good article on the topic related to your question's, Steve, here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/
You did cite the paragraph from Capenhausen that I cited. It is the third paragraph from the bottom. I copy/pasted it directly from your blog post.
ReplyDeleteThat paragraph wasn't Campenhausen. It's what Marshall was saying -- and that wasn't Lutheran -- he was deriving that directly from his reading of Luke and Acts.
There is actually a very good article on the topic related to your question's, Steve, here:
ReplyDeleteThe title of my post was intended to be a direct reference to that article.
"That paragraph wasn't Campenhausen. It's what Marshall was saying..."
ReplyDeleteAh, ok. Mea culpa. So that is Methodist exegesis : ) His wiki also says he is Arminian. Does your citing him force you to accept his Arminian bent?
Kidding! I don't see how you impugn Ratzinger for narrowly citing a Lutheran theologian on a particular question by shifting that theologian to yet another theologian who writes a bunch of stuff that is contrary to Catholicism, however.
STEVEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Laying on of hands is as visible today as it was visible when Paul laid his hands on Timothy."
That's not a sufficient condition for the valid administration of holy orders. Valid ordination also requires invisible conditions such as right intent on the part of the officiant and the ordinand alike.
"By locating churches that are in communion with the Bishop of Rome who is the successor to St. Peter."
In what sense is "communion" with Rome "visible."
Steven -- I have read enough of Marshall to know he is honest with the text and the facts. And here, he is honestly reporting what is in Luke's text.
ReplyDeleteAn essay of Howard Marshall's called 'Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles' appears in a book called 'The Grace of God, the will of man: a case for Arminianism' By Clark H. Pinnock.
ReplyDeleteIs Howard Marshall honest with the text and facts in that essay?
I've not read that essay, but what would make you think that Marshall is being dishonest in any way?
ReplyDeleteAside from that, what has that got to do with the topic of the historical development of apostolic succession?
Sorry, that last comment was me. My son Nate had been signed into gmail.
ReplyDeleteSTEVEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"Laying on of hands is as visible today as it was visible when Paul laid his hands on Timothy."
Now you're qualifying visibility as a thing of the past. The past is invisible to the future, while the future is invisible to the past. Only the present is visible.
"I've not read that essay, but what would make you think that Marshall is being dishonest in any way?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think Marshall is being dishonest. I think he may be wrong as I suspect that you may think he is wrong in places.
This is the point. You cite Marshall approvingly, yet you think he is wrong in places. (Unless you want to side with his pro-arminian essay)
Ratzinger cited von Campenhausen, yet Ratzinger no doubt thinks von Campenhausen is wrong in places.
Ergo, the 'wax nose' charge really is not given in a balanced way.
Almost any person engaged in scholarly inquiry will taken almost any given scholar and leave aside various ideas and conclusions. This is not looking at things with a 'wax nose' unless you want to impugn yourself for the same.
"Now you're qualifying visibility as a thing of the past...."
I am not following your argument.
A marriage is a one time sacrament. Do you ask married persons how they know they are married because their wedding day was 10 years ago?
How does an outsider know that a sacrament is valid? Right intentions are invisible. Only the officiant and/or recipient are privy to their unobservable intentions.
ReplyDeleteSteven, from your comment yesterday: In summary – I don’t think it is quite fair to have titled your entry “Christ did not found a visible church” and seek to paint Ratzinger as confirming that notion.
ReplyDeleteRatzinger's "endorsement" of Campenhausen is rather paradigmatic for how Roman Catholicism in general makes the claim that it "engages" anything else at all -- especially history -- and in the light of what I said in my "definition of the word "church" post this morning, does it not seem rather less "fair" for Ratzinger to have painted Campenausen's account in such glowing terms, only to have really ignored the very real consequences of the history that Campenhausen has outlined?
This is the point. You cite Marshall approvingly, yet you think he is wrong in places. (Unless you want to side with his pro-arminian essay) Ratzinger cited von Campenhausen, yet Ratzinger no doubt thinks von Campenhausen is wrong in places. Ergo, the 'wax nose' charge really is not given in a balanced way.
That's not true. Ratzinger did treat Campenhausen as a "wax nose" -- nothing that Campenhausen said, really saw the light of day in Ratzinger's exposition. And yet, still, Ratzinger gets credit for "engagement" of this Protestant thinker, when nothing could be more true.
The "endorsement" that Ratzinger gives of Campenhausen's historical presentation, is just then simply swept away with the "theological interpretation". It doesn't matter in the least.
On the other hand, Marshall's writings on 1 Timothy, on the specific topic he was writing about, do not at all touch on what he was saying about Luke/Acts on a historical matter. I can agree with Marshall on Luke/Acts and still interact with him on a point-by-point basis on 1 Timothy.
Ratzinger simply "cited Campenhausen approvingly", then simply ignored everything he had to say [to the effect that "the concept of succession was changed in the second century", in favor of his own "theological interpretation" of it.
The purpose of Ratzinger's essay was not to give a full point by point engagement of von Campenhausen's body of work. The essay in question is 26 pages long. He made no claim to be 'engaging it' in any real sense. He merely tipped his hat to something that von Campenhausen had demonstrated about the anti-Gnostic fathers. This does not prove that he is trying to ‘take credit’ for engaging Protestant thought in an attempt to show the world that he engages Protestant thinkers.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, in the essay you cited, Ratzinger tipped his hand somewhat about not agreeing with everything von Campenhausen had claimed. He writes further down, "However, if by this von Campenhausen meant to show that biblical theology takes precedence over a later, and thus secondary, theology of succession-tradition, then we must regard this as an error."
Do you have any idea how much scholarship then Cardinal Ratzinger had read in his lifetime? Is he compelled to give a full on engagement with every one of those scholars with point by point engagements of disagreement? Is he not allowed to cite a scholar unless he agrees with him 100% or else in the same breath gives an accounting of all his disagreements with that scholar?
"And yet, still, Ratzinger gets credit for "engagement" of this Protestant thinker, when nothing could be more true."
Show us where Ratzinger tries to take credit for engaging this Protestant thinker.
It seems that you approach Benedict with an almost unwavering suspicion. This clouds your ability to approach him honestly.
"I can agree with Marshall on Luke/Acts and still interact with him on a point-by-point basis on 1 Timothy."
Ratzinger can agree with Campenhausen on the anti-Gnostic fathers and still interact with him on a point by point basis on points of disagreement. It seems that your only beef is that Ratzinger did not interact with Campenhausen to a measure of your liking.
I will tip my hat to you for an original idea. If you google 'Ratzinger' and "Campenhausen' you seem to be the only person in the world who has ever taken offense at Ratzinger's citing of Campenhausen. Nobody else has seen that as an attempt for Ratzinger to show off with his engaging a Protestant thinker.
Steven, I've written quite extensively about Ratzinger, and it appears as if I'm destined to do more, Lord willing.
ReplyDeleteAnd while I'm sure he's read quite a bit, from what I've seen of his work, I've come to regard him as a snake, speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
If this idea is original with me, it just seems to me that no one else is really paying attention, preferring rather to fawn all over him as a "brilliant theologian" and a high-ranking cleric.
If I do have a high Google ranking on this topic, I thank you for your clicks, which no doubt contributed.
"I've come to regard him as a snake, speaking out of both sides of his mouth."
ReplyDeleteThis explains a lot. However, if the rest of your issues with Pope Benedict are anything like what you've tried to show in this thread, I can't help but conclude that there is some strained thinking involved with your assessment.
If Pope Benedict is a snake because he cites an occasional Protestant thinker than there is little hope for any of us.
God bless.
If you think that I think he is a snake "because he cites an occasional Protestant thinker", then you are missing a whole lot.
ReplyDeleteIn the links in my previous comment, I have cited more than a few examples of him "talking out of both sides of his mouth".
If that is just standard fare for you, then I'll concede that there is very little hope for you.
I'll make a deal with you.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I have time today to read every one of those posts. Which one is the single most damning proof of Benedict 'talking out of both sides of his mouth.' What is your piece de resistance?
I'll read it carefully and see if it adds up better than this one.
This was probably first:
ReplyDeletehttp://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/looking-at-ratzingers-called-to-communion/
Followed closely by this one:
http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/not-called-to-communion-dishonest-about-%E2%80%9Cexegesis%E2%80%9D/
Steven said:
ReplyDeleteI will tip my hat to you for an original idea. If you google 'Ratzinger' and "Campenhausen' you seem to be the only person in the world who has ever taken offense at Ratzinger's citing of Campenhausen. Nobody else has seen that as an attempt for Ratzinger to show off with his engaging a Protestant thinker.
As if a Google search in the English language allows you to properly evaluate the full range of opinions given "in the world" on the relationship between Benedict and Campenhausen.
I'm not really sure what your point is here, other than dull, thinly veiled mockery. It certainly doesn't follow from this that John Bugay's material is false or suspect or some such thing.
Sorry to jump in on this discussion late, but I've been following the conversation. Steven, I'm not really following your line of argument. That people selectively cite scholars to bolster their positions is not really in dispute. It is not necessary to agree with a scholar whom you cite on every point.
ReplyDeleteI think what John was getting at is the irony of a pope approvingly citing a scholar who has a difference of opinion with the RCC on this particular point, that of apostolic succession. The "wax nose" comment comes in precisely because Ratzinger then apparently discards everything von Campenhausen has to say on the subject. Ratzinger is to be commended for his honesty in recognizing that apostolic succession was not clearly formulated until the second century, yet he forces that piece of evidence into the RCC conception of apostolic succession. This is quite evident in the quotation which you provided:
"However, if by this von Campenhausen meant to show that biblical theology takes precedence over a later, and thus secondary, theology of succession-tradition, then we must regard this as an error."
Why is it an error? Because it diverges from that later "theology of succession-tradition", e.g. it diverges from Roman Catholic dogma. This quotation proves John's very point! The citation for Ratzinger served no purpose in his discussion.
I also think you have to take all this in the context that John is arguing for the Protestant position. He's pulling on a thread he sees as an inconsistency on Ratzinger's part. He's making the case that the RCC concept of apostolic succession is not quite as airtight as many RCC apologists might want people to believe, and he's showing that the current pope is fully aware of this. Of course if you accept the doctrine of apostolic succession a priori, you are going to regard von Campenhausen's conclusions as in error. The point is, ought Catholics to be accepting the doctrine of apostolic succession when it wasn't even clearly formulated until the second century (as acknowledged by Ratzinger)? Does Ratzinger even broach that question?
"This was probably first..."
ReplyDeleteI read this and the second you posted several times.
In the first piece you are offended that Pope Benedict would cite 1 Cor 15:1-11 as evidence for the papacy. His citation was that Peter (Cephas) is named as a witness whereas Paul did not name every one of the twelve.
You suggest that Benedict 'misses the genuine significance of the passage.'
You call it an 'extremely weak' observation and claim that by citing this passage in this respect Benedict 'usurped' the passage.
What I see in your 'piece de resistance' is not proof that Benedict is a 'snake' who 'speaks with both side of his mouth.' All you have illustrated is that the Pope cites a passage in defense of the primacy of Peter and you disagree with that citation.
Many biblical passages have layers of significance and meaning. That Peter is mentioned uniquely here is simply one layer of the passage.
You said, "In actuality there are other elements to this text that are still more important than the 'Petrine' component.” I don't think we have any disagreement. And, there is no indication that Benedict 'misses' the meaning of the text either.
Your issue in that post is similar to your issue in this post. You are upset about what Benedict did not say and what you think he should have said. This, in your mind, makes him a double mouthed snake. But this is not the case. You regard the fact that Peter is often mentioned first among the twelve as ‘weak’ and ‘impertinent.’ This Pope, and many others before him, find significance in this fact. There is nothing ‘double mouthed’ or ‘snake like’ in that. One is not ‘double mouthed’ because their exegesis of a passage departs from your exegesis of a passage.
The second post you cited is more of the same. You take offense that the Pope would basically argue that scripture is only properly understood by reading scripture with the Church; through Her traditions, councils and dogmatic teaching. The fact is that there are multiple exegetical conclusions that contradict one another. All he is saying is that the Church guards the deposit of faith and it is through the church that we make sense of exegesis. That is the Catholic faith. Benedict’s affirming of this position is not new and certainly is not ‘double mouthed snake speak.’ He is not lying. He is not being dishonest. He is articulating what the Church has always believed about scripture and the Church.
ReplyDeleteYou juxtapose the Catholic understanding of the relationship between exegesis and the teaching authority of the church with what you call the ‘genuine’ process of exegesis. It should not surprise you that the Catholic approach to exegesis is not that of the Protestant approach which starts outside the Church and looks for a church that fits one’s exegesis. The Catholic locates the Church and then learns exegesis. Those are different paradigms. The existence of those paradigms and Benedict’s embracing of the Catholic paradigm does not make him a lying snake. It only confirms what all should know:
The Pope is Catholic.
Neal, it is not the case that Benedict believes that apostolic succession was only formulated in the 2nd century. He says, in that very essay, that succession of the apostles is 'divinely given.' He only says that the anti-Gnostic fathers were the first to use apostolic succession as a proof for the Catholic faith. There is a huge difference. And, therefore, the attempt to make Benedict complicit in the statement, "Christ did NOT found a visible church" is somewhat malicious.
Hi Neal, thanks for your comment. I think you are exactly right.
ReplyDeleteSteven -- you are missing the point. The point is not that the pope is quoting Catholic doctrine, and it disagrees with me, so I think he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
The point is the misdirection he sets up: he pays lip service to the thing he is citing, then, he doesn't even analyze it or interact with it. He just ignores it, in favor of citing whatever Catholic doctrine he wants to voice at that moment.
So yes, he's just being Catholic if 'being Catholic' means simply ignoring what is actually said while nevertheless hypocritically citing it favorably, and then putting forth the standard Catholic doctrine.
In other parts of the world, this practice is called "bait-and-switch", and if there aren't laws against it, it's certainly regarded as immoral and dishonest.
John, I am confident I am not missing the point. Rather, I don't find the point persuasive in demonstrating anything malicious on Benedict 16th account.
ReplyDeleteI won't lose any sleep over your thinking that another man is a snake because you don't like his exegesis or that he cites scholarship in a manner that you don't approve.
I do think that it is unfortunate. I often read and benefit from non-Catholic pastors and while at times I think they 'miss the significance' of a passage in their exegesis I don't accuse them of being snakes. I often see Protestants cite a church father glowingly in one respect while passing over that same father’s more Catholic oriented arguments. I don’t consider that dishonest.
Does every pastor who exegetes something different than the way you exegete something earn the reptilian moniker? If you listen to a Baptist sermon and it has an Arminian bent and the pastor cites a passage and you feel he missed the Calvinist significance do you call him a snake?
Steven -- You don't find it "malicious", and I can't look into his heart and "prove" "malicious intent", but he has done it repeatedly, and it is not just "I don't like his exegesis" and it is not "he cites scholarship in a manner I don't approve".
ReplyDeleteIt's no wonder you have no problem with Ratzinger. You, too, are repeatedly mischaracterizing what I am saying.
When a man says with one breath, "impressively demonstrated" yet "we must regard this as an error" ...
When he says with one breath ... "we are going to do exegesis" and then later decides to set all exegesis aside in favor of "new confidence in the internal continuity of the Church’s memory" ...
And as was reported in an old Heidelblog post, when he says "Martin Luther was correct about 'faith alone' ... and later says "if that faith alone is not really alone ...
There is clearly misdirection going on. He is purposely leading his audience to believe one thing is true, when in reality, he is headed in an opposite direction.
You may appreciate being led around like that, but I certainly don't.
Steven:
ReplyDelete"it is not the case that Benedict believes that apostolic succession was only formulated in the 2nd century. He says, in that very essay, that succession of the apostles is 'divinely given.'" "
I don't see how your first statement here follows from the second. It is possible for him to believe that succession of the apostles is 'divinely given' while at the same time acknowledging that it wasn't clearly formulated until the second century. That would raise the question of why he believes it is 'divinely given'.
He may well believe that some concept of apostolic succession existed prior to the second century. Perhaps he even states that elsewhere. The point was never to draw out what he believes about apostolic succession, except that he knows it was not clearly formulated until the second century. The point is that he is fully aware of the weakness of the historical arguments supporting it, but doesn't address that weakness, and instead falls back on RCC dogma.
Neal, it is like saying, "The doctrine of the Trinity was clearly formulated at the council of Nicea."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3284
So that we can put aside any doubt, above is an English translation of one of Benedict's addresses which he dedicated to explain apostolic succession. There is no question that the Pope is Catholic, after all : o )
I might further add that there is no reason to believe that Benedict sees any 'weakness' in the claims of apostolic succession. The Catholic Church dogmatically proclaims (and has proclaimed for thousands of years) that Linus succeeded Peter….and Benedict succeeded John Paul II. That is not going to change. There is no weakness in that.
John, you said, "It is not just "I don't like his exegesis" and it is not "he cites scholarship in a manner I don't approve"."
But this is all you have done in the three posts in question. You attacked his exegesis and then you complained that he cited a Protestant scholar and then did not interact with that scholar's other conclusions in the text.
"You, too, are repeatedly mischaracterizing what I am saying."
I apologize if it appears this way, it is not my intention.
"He is purposely leading his audience to believe one thing is true, when in reality, he is headed in an opposite direction."
I think you see what you want to see.
The Pope is merely doing what he is supposed to do as Pope: Teach the Catholic faith.
Steven,
ReplyDelete"Neal, it is like saying, "The doctrine of the Trinity was clearly formulated at the council of Nicea."
I agree with you. The statements are similar. However, the doctrine of the trinity also has strong exegetical support and arises from scripture. Without scriptural support, the doctrine of the trinity would be on just as weak a footing as apostolic succession.
"So that we can put aside any doubt, above is an English translation of one of Benedict's addresses which he dedicated to explain apostolic succession. There is no question that the Pope is Catholic, after all : o )"
See, this is what makes us think you are missing the point. There never was any doubt that the pope holds to apostolic succession. What pope wouldn't? And I think if you go back and read all the posts, you will see that this is indeed the case. You are seeing an argument that was never made.
I might further add that there is no reason to believe that Benedict sees any 'weakness' in the claims of apostolic succession.
This statement is somewhat vague. The argument was a bit more precise, in that John offered evidence that there is reason to believe that Pope Benedict is aware of the weakness of the historical arguments supporting the official RCC dogma. Neither John nor I am saying that Benedict doubts the claims to apostolic succession. He may or may not, but that is beside the point.
The Catholic Church dogmatically proclaims (and has proclaimed for thousands of years) that Linus succeeded Peter….and Benedict succeeded John Paul II. That is not going to change. There is no weakness in that.
I'm not sure you are getting just what I meant by "weakness". It was in specific reference to the historical arguments, not the doctrine itself. Restating what the church has dogmatically proclaimed doesn't address the historical question. Adding the tag "for thousands of years" doesn't address the historical weakness if the doctrine is not traceable back to the apostolic era.