Diablog: On Authority (Papal and otherwise)

This is my sixth post in a diablog with Weekend Fisher. She wrote (emphasis mine):

Allegorical Arguments
Japhy posts more of the pope's decree here. The decree contains Scriptural interpretations such as arguing from the spouse in Song of Songs, or from the flood and the ark to the necessity of subjection to Peter and his successor as if to Noah. From the outside looking in, the reasoning on those points is a chain of loose and fanciful interpretation and presumption of key points. I know that Song of Songs is often interpreted allegorically as love betweeen God and his people. Still, that is a long way from identifying God's one and only beloved with Rome to the exclusion of all others. There is a certain presumption on Rome's part that God does not see us as one on the basis of "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" but only on the basis of submission to Peter's successor. Or again, where does Scripture compare the Ark to the church? Where does Scripture make a point of Noah being the captain? Where does Scripture compare Peter to Noah? Allegorical interpretations are not in the mind of the original author but in the mind of the interpreter. Fanciful and allegorical interpretations of Scripture could easily have been interpreted otherwise; all it would take is for someone else's fancy to envision the allegory that suited them.

It is not that the Catholic Church thinks "God does not see us as one" vis-a-vis one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5) -- as the Pope himself quoted in the Bull -- but that it believes this "one faith" includes the establishment of actual authority found in the episcopate and par excellence in the papacy. This is why the churches being established had visible leadership (in the form of bishops and presbyters). As for comparing Noah and Peter, I don't see it as a great leap of interpretation (but perhaps because I'm on the "inside"). There was one ark which survived the flood, built by Noah at God's command; likewise, there is one Church, built on Peter at the word of Christ.

Continuing...

Feeding the Sheep
Again the papal bull reviews Jesus' conversation with Peter, "feed my sheep", and interprets that as if an appointment to office, as if Peter alone was given charge to feed the sheep, as if the care of the whole church were given to Peter alone by that. It is difficult to imagine that Jesus did not intend for all the disciples to feed his sheep, as the Great Commission entrusted all of them with that; the question is whether special status was intended for Peter. During Peter's life, there is no sign that Peter or any of the rest of the church took it that way. In the first church council as recorded in Acts 15, Peter is not in charge and submits his case to James, with Peter answering to James as if to his superior. Neither is there any record that the others who had studied under Christ felt the need to run their teachings past Peter, having themselves been taught by Christ. When Paul submitted to review of his teachings, he spoke with Peter, James, and John -- and makes no mention of any special status adhering to Peter alone. If Christ had meant to confer unique headship on Peter on behalf of the church, there is no sign that Peter or the rest of the church while he was alive had understood that. That alone makes a powerful case against Peter's unique status: Peter didn't seem to know he had it, and neither did those who knew him.

The Greek of John 21:15 reveals that Jesus is asking Peter if Peter loves Jesus more than the other disciples love Jesus; in other words, yes, Jesus is setting Peter apart from them. Not even "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is given such a distinction in the Gospels.

As for Paul, he first visited Peter three years after his conversion and stayed with him for two weeks; the only other Apostle he saw at that time was James (cf. Gal 1:18-19). As for what he says of James and Peter and John, regarding his second visit (cf. Gal 2:1-10), he says they were "those who were of repute", "those who were reputed to be something", and those "who were reputed to be pillars". Now, he also says it made no difference to him "because God shows no partiality" and that they "added nothing to [him]". This should not be generalized to apply to all of us, for who among us has been privileged as Paul was? The Apostles did not seek to correct Paul because he had received his mission (and the same Gospel) directly from Jesus Christ. Yet, even though Paul preached the same Gospel, he had to check up on certain churches to make sure they were not deviating. Paul oversaw several churches, then, though we don't know if he was any of their bishops -- perhaps Paul was the founding member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? ;)

Back to the matter of Peter, though. It was for his strength that Jesus prayed (cf. Luke 22:31-32). Peter initiated the replacement of Judas (cf. Acts 1:15ff), he preached on Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:14ff)... indeed, the first half of Acts focuses on his ministry. At the Council of Jerusalem (where James was most likely the "bishop"), there is a period of debating after which he stands up and reminds them that God chose him to begin the conversion of the Gentiles (Cornelius, cf. Acts 10). Then he asks them why the Pharisaic Christians would wish to place a yoke upon the Gentile Christians. It is to this that James ends up responding; his judgment isn't out of the blue, but based upon what Peter has put forth.

Continuing...

Whatsoever you bind on earth ...
This next part of the decree is the most difficult for me to read without becoming outright angry because of the way Scripture is handled:

This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven" etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [cf. Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [cf. Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Take careful note of what is quoted here from Matthew as the Scriptural support for Peter's uniqueness. Jesus was speaking directly to Peter on the occasion of his confession that Jesus was in fact the Christ: "Whatsoever you (singular, i.e. Peter) shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). The biggest problem I have with that argument is that it completely ignores that Jesus quickly thereafter grants the same thing to the other apostles. Jesus soon after says to all the apostles together, "Whatsoever you (plural, i.e. all of them) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 18:18). What the pope quoted here as having been said to Peter -- and the pope cites it as proof of Peter's uniqueness -- is exactly what Jesus also said soon after to all of the apostles. In context, the second passage granting the same authority to all the apostles is immediately followed by the need for agreement and fellowship among them: "if two of you shall agree on earth ... if two or three are gathered in my name". Peter cannot stand alone; no disciple is placed above the other, and the greatest is to be servant of all. The pope's decree has a pointedly partial reading of Scripture, quoting the one passage as proving Peter is unique without even acknowledging the existence the other passage where the same authority is given to all the apostles. Here is why it makes me so angry: when someone makes such a one-sided case, ignores contrary evidence, and does this to his own advantage and about his own authority, it can hardly help coming across badly.

That Jesus granted unto the rest of the Apostles the same privilege given to Peter does not diminish Peter, but all the more establishes Peter's primacy among the Apostles. Jesus gives the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to Peter alone (Matt 16:19); the binding and loosing is given first to Peter and then to the other Apostles at a later date. As to Peter not acting alone, the Council of Jerusalem is a testament to that, as are the various councils held throughout the history of the Church. Even motu proprio documents are preceded by collaboration! Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII did not act alone in their solemn definitions of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary; on the contrary, they asked the clergy to do research on the matter (Ubi Primum in 1849 preceded Ineffabilis Deus in 1854, and Deiparae Virginis Mariae in 1946 preceded Munificentissimus Deus in 1950).

Apostolic Authority: the Roman model and the Protestant model
Japhy talking now:

If you reject the ones Jesus sent, you reject Jesus. This is why the Church is so darn stubborn about Apostolic succession. If some random preacher shows up tomorrow, how can I be sure following his teachings about Jesus will lead to my salvation?

What church rejects those who Jesus sent? He sent the apostles, and I am not aware of any church today rejecting any of them. So on to the next question: how can you be sure that someone's teachings are true? You can be sure by comparing those teachings with what Christ and the apostles taught. There was a time in church history when the main guarantee of hearing what the apostles taught was belonging to a church where the bishop was taught by the apostles. But the time came when the churches that traced back to the apostles started teaching things that the apostles had never taught. At that time there became two varieties of "apostolic authority": the Roman variety, where tracing your leadership back to the apostles was seen as a guarantee of true teaching, and the Protestant variety, where tracing the contents of your teachings back to the apostles was seen as a guarantee of true teaching. That's why Protestants are so darn stubborn about what Scripture says: those are the teachings that we are sure trace to the apostles. If I had to choose between a church that can trace its leadership to successors of the apostles but cannot trace its teachings to the apostles on the one hand, and a church that can trace its teachings to the apostles but not its leadership to successors of the apostles, I am glad to stick with the teachings I know trace back to the apostles. Of course, more than that I wish it were not an either/or kind of decision.

I should have been more specific; the matter of Apostolic succession comes into play here because our bishops trace their commission back to the Apostles. That is, we recognize the choosing of Paul by Jesus Christ as something extraordinary, not as the norm. We do not reject the Apostles, nor those whom the Apostles sent. The problem with reducing Christianity to simply what is recorded in Scripture is that you are only recognizing that which the Holy Spirit moved men to write, for various audiences and for various reasons. If there is something of the faith which they believed that was not written down, it is essentially lost and gone forever. The New Testament describes a persecuted and fledgling Church, which is why there are no God-to-Solomonesque instructions regarding the building of cathedrals and decorations of tabernacles; does this mean that the celebration of a liturgy in a grandiose church is contrary to the Tradition of the Apostles?

The Catholic Church firmly believes that it has not and will not ever "produce" or "invent" doctrines or beliefs that are not Apostolic in origin. As such, we hold that the privileges given to Mary by God are true, and our belief in them (which has matured through the ages) is certainly the same faith held by the Apostles. Just because Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle does not necessarily mean that only what was recorded as Scripture through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is the totality of Revelation. St. John admits Jesus did many other signs and wonders. Days, weeks, months of the ministry of Jesus are missing from our Bible. Those elements of the faith not consigned to Scripture were retained through the oral tradition of the Church, which the Catholic Church claims witness to. We don't claim it to be "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" as the Mormons consider their book to be; rather, the written tradition and the oral tradition come from the one deposit of faith.

Diablog: On Doctrine and Salvation

This is my fifth post in a diablog with Weekend Fisher. She wrote:

Q. Which Lutheran denomination retains the proper doctrine?
A. The one(s) still holding to the original Tradition of the church, that handed down by Christ through the apostles.

Q. What is necessary for salvation?
A. Christ is necessary for salvation. Doctrine, in its best sense, is a full life-giving knowledge of God and his kingdom. Unfortunately, "doctrine" often becomes a set of propositions to be memorized whose content (in theory) could convey some knowledge of God and his kingdom if only people weren't so busy mistaking doctrine for salvation. It would be like mistaking the nutrition label on the can for a nourishing meal. (See, it says right there, "100% iron, 100% calcium ... and I already read the label so I'm set! I read it twice, so I'm more nourished than you!") What Christ said about Scriptures could easily be said about doctrine: You eagerly search them because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are they that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me and have life.

There are all kinds of things that are true (Lutheran doctrines, Roman Catholic doctrines, doctrines of all kinds of other groups too numerous to name) that are not "necessary for salvation". There are things that are true about God, but knowing them is not "necessary for salvation". If doctrine isn't necessary for salvation, then what is the purpose of doctrine? To bless us through knowledge of the Holy One. I have often asked myself, "Is there really any other blessing besides God?" To know God is to have peace and patience and perseverance. To know God is to have the fullness of love. To know God is to have complete freedom from fear. To know God is to have all wisdom. To know God is to be joyful. What good thing is outside of him? That is what doctrine is about: there is no higher blessing than God.

I'm going to ask (yes, in the face of the Catholic-Orthodox split) why there would be multiple Lutheran churches with the same "original Tradition of the church". What is it which divides them into multiple churches then? Issues not pertaining to salvation, if I read you correctly. But if that is the case, why must they divide? Why cannot they remain united as one church abiding by that famed motto of the Reformation coined by German Lutheran theologian Peter Meiderlin (or Rupertus Meldenius), "in necesariis Unitatem, in non-necessariis Libertatem, in utrisque Charitatem"? AND are there any non-Lutheran churches which possess this same "original Tradition of the church"? If there are, why are they separate from the Lutheran church(es)? If there are not, then are there churches that contain enough of the "original Tradition" to still have hope for salvation?

I certainly agree that "Christ is necessary for salvation" and that through doctrines we are "bless[ed] through knowledge of the Holy One", who is God in Three Persons, one of Whom is Jesus Christ. But the Word is a living Word, and as such I also agree that mere knowledge of these doctrines will not suffice, any more than living among ten thousand Bibles will bring you salvation. These doctrines are to be known and lived by. As a Catholic, I don't hope to be saved because I believe Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, but I have hope of my own salvation (and resurrection) because of what has been revealed about Mary. Likewise, I don't hope to be saved because I believe the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but I have hope for the continuing strength and perseverance in my life of faith because I am nourished by that same Eucharist I believe in.

Diablog: "Having Christ", Meriting Eternal Life

This is my fourth post in a diablog with Weekend Fisher. She wrote (emphasis mine):

The only way to fill the need for Christ is to have Christ; I'd question whether "having Christ" needs to be interpreted at all. I think that "having Christ" ought to be seen as self-explanatory. Let me use an analogy; since you're a newlywed I'll use marriage as an example. What does it mean to have a wife? Does it mean wearing a ring (what happens if you take it off to do the dishes)? Does it mean showing kindness to someone you love (what happens if you're a grump for a day)? Does it mean sharing a bed (what if you're on a business trip or in the doghouse for a couple of days)? Or maybe "having a wife" just means having a wife, and all those things are pretty darn likely to follow but shouldn't be mistaken for having a wife. Maybe 50 different answers about what it means to "have a wife" are all legitimate if you're making a list of what follows, but are all an exercise in missing the point if they're mistaken for the thing itself. Having a wife (for you) means that a kind-hearted and friendly girl named Kristin is forever part of who you are: having Kristin means having Kristin; the rest follows. Back to "having Christ". Having Christ means having Christ; if we ask "what it really means" we have to be careful. Are we asking what follows? Then there are lots things that follow, none of which should be mistaken for the thing itself. Are we asking if "having Christ" really means something else and we can look somewhere besides Christ (maybe a Bible study regime or participation in charity or attendance at church) for whether we really "have Christ"? Then we've missed the point very badly. I've known people who wear rings and are not married; I've known people who attend church and do charity work and do Bible studies and write theology, and nothing is further from their minds than Christ. So on this one, I want to go back and underline where we started: having Christ means having Christ, just as (in your case) marriage is not primarily about rings but about Kristin.

I agree with the analogy to an extent. But if Kristin is "forever part of who [I am]", that means who I am has changed, and I would expect that change would manifest itself (in ways both visible and invisible). If I "have Christ", I have changed: indeed, whoever is baptized into Christ has "put on Christ" (Gal 3:27), and whoever is in Christ "is a new creation" (2 Cor 5:17). This change manifests itself in various ways. The manifestation is not the "having Christ" any more than the rings and the affection and the gifts are "having Kristin": Christ is Christ (and Kristin is Kristin). And it's the same way with faith and works: works cannot ever equal faith or replace it, but works are a visible manifestation of faith.

In other words, if I have Christ, that reality should manifest itself. If it does not manifest itself, it calls into question whether or not I actually do have Christ. Having Jesus as my Savior and Lord means certain things follow: those things that follow are evidence of "having Christ". And not only are they evidence, but some of them grant me the grace to continue in Christ despite hardships and my sinful nature. (This is why I find the notion of "going to church" absolutely preposterous to anyone who adheres to "once saved, always saved", by the way. In fact, once you're saved, you don't technically need Jesus anymore either, since he's "already" saved you... unless you think there's the possibility you weren't saved, and that calls into question the "eternal assurance".) For a Catholic, receiving the Eucharist is having Christ. Reception of the sacraments is having Christ. Not only do they follow having Christ, they are participation in his divine mission.

She also wrote (emphasis mine):

The question comes when we get to whether believers have "fully satisfied the divine law" by such works, whether believers have "truly merited eternal life" by such works. It's difficult to explain to you just how wild I think those assertions are, made by the Council of Trent, that our human efforts could "fully satisfy the divine law". Where is the acknowledgment that we still sin daily in thought, word, action, and omission, and primarily in lack of love? {note: see chapter XI of Trent Session VI -- japhy} How could anyone possibly imagine that, just because by the grace of God we sometimes do the good works he lays before us, we have somehow "fully satisfied the divine law"? "Be holy" and "be perfect" are divine law. Not to hate is divine law. Not to lust in our hearts is divine law. If the one without sin were to throw the first stone, even in a church today or a convention of supposed saints, the wrongdoer would still walk away without a scratch. Nobody "fully satisfies the divine law". Nobody gets through without forgiveness and mercy, neither before nor after the gifts by which we slowly learn to love God's will.

(In addition to my answer, check out vivator's post on the matter on his blog, Viva Catholic.)

It's not "human efforts", it's the strength of Christ permeating ourselves and everything we do. And as for "the divine law", it is qualified by "according to the state of this life", meaning, as I show below, the avoidance of those behaviors which disqualify one from inheriting the kingdom of heaven. Of course we all need forgiveness and mercy, but the kindness of God is meant to lead you to repentance (Rom 2:4). But if we do not continue in His kindness, [we] too will be cut off (Rom 11:22).

Clearly none of us hopes to go the grave as an adulterer or a thief. The commandments of God are not burdensome: the yoke of Jesus is easy and his burden is light (cf. 1 John 5:3; Matt 11:30). As Trent (Session VI, Chapter XI) said: "no one should use that rash statement [...] that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified". It goes on:

For though during this mortal life, men, however holy and just, fall at times into at least light and daily sins, which are also called venial, they do not on that account cease to be just, for that petition of the just, "forgive us our trespasses" (Matthew 6:12), is both humble and true; for which reason the just ought to feel themselves the more obliged to walk in the way of justice, for being now freed from sin and made servants of God (cf. Rom 6:18, 22), they are able, living soberly, justly and godly (Titus 2:12), to proceed onward through Jesus Christ, by whom they have access unto this grace (Rom 5:1-2)

I think it is clear that God wishes those who have accepted His free gift to, in turn, be worthy of it (after the fact, and only through His grace). Here is a smattering of Scripture (emphasis added) with comments where I think are needed...

"He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37-38) Unless Jesus is being coy, we can reason that to be worthy of Jesus we must love him more than father, mother, son, and daughter, and take up our cross and follow him.

"But his master answered him, `You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'" (Matthew 25:26-30) This is the end of the parable of the talents. The servant who received a talent and did not invest it is deemed worthless: his talent is taken from him and he is cast out. We can recognize the other two servants as worthy of the gift they were given, not beforehand, but only afterwards.

This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. (1 Cor 4:1-2) Paul is saying that the stewards of the Gospel must be found trustworthy; what is the consequence for unworthiness? See Matthew 25; see 1 Cor 9:27, where Paul admits to his need to subdue his flesh lest he be disqualified.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Cor 11:27) It is then possible to eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in a worthy manner, and if this "meal" is really more than just a symbol or memorial, but an actual partaking of the sacrificial Lamb, and food which endures to eternal life (John 6:27), then by the grace of God we can be worthy to receive it!

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Eph 4:1-3) Here begins a series of admonitions to the various churches to be "worthy of the call".

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel... (Phil 1:27) We are asked to live in a manner worthy of the Gospel.

And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. (Col 1:9-10) We can lead a worthy life and be fully pleasing to the Lord not by any strength of our own, but by being filled with the knowledge of the will of God in all spiritual wisdom and understanding. Thus the common versicle of many Catholic prayers, "Pray for us, N. / that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ".

You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our behavior to you believers; for you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. (1 Thess 2:10-12) Paul and his companions showed by their example holy behavior, so that the church in Thessaly might know how to lead worthy lives.

To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thess 1:11-12) Again, Paul prays that the church be made worthy of the call they have answered.

(These next two excerpts of Scripture were added after I responded to preacherman in the comments below.)

We must not indulge in immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put the Lord to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents; nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. (1 Cor 10:8-10) Paul tells the Corinthians not to indulge in immorality, not to put the Lord to the test. This testing of the Lord includes living on in sin under the presumption that God will forgive you because you claim to believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Forget not Paul's words to the church in Rome: What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? (Rom 6:1)

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? -- unless indeed you fail to meet the test! (2 Cor 13:5) How brazen of Paul is that? To tell a church to examine themselves to see if they are holding to the faith! And then to tell them that Jesus Christ is only in them -- baptized Christians! -- if they meet the test! This holding to the faith does not simply mean believing the right things, it includes behaving the right way as he continues: But we pray God that you may not do wrong -- not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. [...] What we pray for is your improvement. [...] Mend your ways, heed my appeal, agree with one another, live in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you. (2 Cor 13:7, 9, 11)

Why all this concern with being made worthy? Because there's a whole laundry list of people who won't inherit the kingdom of heaven (idolaters, thieves, fornicators, etc.). Such behavior is not found in a life worthy of God. Of course, we are sinners, so we must repent and ask forgiveness often. Trent doesn't say that these good deeds which merit eternal life make up for our sins. What it does say is that the gift of eternal life, granted to us on the merits of Jesus, also becomes our reward and inheritance by a life that is lived in a manner worthy to the call of God. Our shortcomings and sins which sully this "worthiness" are only able to be forgiven because we cling to our faith in Jesus Christ, not because of or through our good works.

Diablog: Subject to Christ or to the Pope?

This is my third post in a diablog with Weekend Fisher. She wrote:

Or again, in the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, the church of Rome states

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Now I know Roman Catholics are honor-bound to say that's right, but from the outside looking in, that statement looks like proof that Rome has lost the plot about what is really necessary for salvation. It looks like Rome has forgotten what Christ said about the greatest of the apostles: He shall be servant of all, and "The lords of the gentiles lord it over them, but not so with you." Even for someone who grants in principle that Rome had a place of honor among the ancient sees of the united church (pre-Chalcedon), this papal bull demonstrates "lording it over", the opposite of what Christ taught would be the hallmark of Christian leadership. "Absolutely necessary for salvation" to be subject to the Roman Pontiff? That is why the Protest looks at Rome and sees "Jesus plus something else" in a place where it should be Christ alone.

Somewhere in my lifetime, I knew I'd have to give a response and defense of this statement made by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. But I think in order to do this, I must treat the entire document (linked above). I've added my own emphasis (bold) and made sure all scripture is formatted nicely and referenced properly.

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8 (or 6:9)] proclaims: "One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her", and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [cf. 1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog. [Ps 21:21 (or 22:20)] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: "Feed my sheep" [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John "there is one sheepfold and one shepherd." [Jn 10:16] We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: "Behold, here are two swords" [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: "Put up thy sword into thy scabbard" [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: "Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms" [Jer 1:10] and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven" etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [cf. Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [cf. Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

So now you have seen the entirety of the Pope's statement, and one of the Church's arguments for the truth of the office of the Papacy. It is the antitype of Noah piloting the ark (outside of which none were saved). It is imaged by the tunic which was not split. It is specified by Jesus to Peter in John 21, where Jesus tells Peter to "tend my sheep" (John 21:16). The "my" here refers to Jesus: he is telling Peter that the sheep of Jesus are all Peter's, even the "other sheep that are not of this fold" (i.e. the Gentiles): there is to be "one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). One would then have to be under Peter to be under Jesus.

So then, Christ is the head of the (one) Church. But unlike the Davidic kings, he is not visible to us. The visible head of the Church is the man to whom "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19) have been given (cf. CCC 882, 936). The office of the Papacy, started with Peter, is perpetuated through his successors.

But why must we be subject to him? Why not subject to Christ?

Ah, but we are subject to Christ. But how can we know we are? How are we to know what is the truth about Jesus Christ when there are at least a hundred denominations of Christianity which do not agree with each other on various points of doctrine? We can be sure if we are within the one Church founded by Jesus which has been promised to be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, and against which the gates of Hell will not prevail. And how can we know if we are in this one Church? If we acknowledge its head, the successor of Peter, the Pope, the one to whom Jesus entrusted all his sheep.

To know you have the right doctrine, the right beliefs, the right faith, you must have the right teacher. The Catholic Church says that, if you adhere to the Catholic faith, you adhere to the fullness of faith and revelation, including the authority of the Church, specifically that of Peter and his successors. If you reject the ones Jesus sent, you reject Jesus. This is why the Church is so darn stubborn about Apostolic succession. If some random preacher shows up tomorrow, how can I be sure following his teachings about Jesus will lead to my salvation?

Luther himself made some rather bold statements about his understanding of the true revelation from God. He claimed that whoever did not accept his doctrine (which was God's doctrine) could not be saved:

For inasmuch as I know for certain that I am right, I will be judge above you and above all the angels, as St. Paul says, that whoever does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved. For it is the doctrine of God, and not my doctrine.

(Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 vols., tr. A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910; orig. 1891, vol. 3, 269-272 / Against the Falsely So-Called Spiritual Estate of the Pope and Bishops, July 1522)

I do not admit that my doctrine can be judged by anyone, even by the angels. He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved.

(in Will Durant, The Reformation, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957, 422, from Werke {Erlangen}, XXVIII, 144; also in Jacques Maritain, Three Reformers: Luther-Descartes-Rousseau, London, 1950, 15 - obviously also from Against the Falsely So-Called Spiritual Estate of the Pope and Bishops, July 1522, though Durant doesn't mention it in his footnotes)

[Source]

Is adherence to Lutheran doctrine necessary for salvation? If so, by whose authority? Luther's (or his successors')? And if Lutheran doctrine is not necessary for salvation, what is its purpose? I do not mean to sound inflammatory, but I am curious what Lutheranism holds as true that may or may not be necessary for salvation. And which Lutheran denomination retains the proper doctrine...?

Diablog: Trent on the Merits of Good Works

This is my second post in a diablog with Weekend Fisher. She wrote:

The "Christ Alone" of the Protest [...] was a reminder that Christ alone is our savior, and that nothing else is needed for salvation except Christ alone.

But Rome goes further and states that such works merit the attainment of eternal life (Council of Trent). That is cause for protest; something has been added where Christ alone belongs. [...] It is through Christ that we have eternal life, not through our merits.

I do not think any Catholic disagrees that "Christ alone is our Savior". Where Catholic theology does differ, though, is what "nothing else is needed for salvation except Christ alone" means. What does it mean to "have Christ" (that is, to fill the need for Christ)? Does it mean...

• saying the sinner's prayer?
• being baptized?
• going to church on a regular basis?
• loving your neighbor and your enemy?
• doing corporal and spiritual works of mercy?
• reading the Bible often?
• evangelizing?
  

I could ask 50 different Christian communities and get 50 different sets of answers! Some might say that a person who professes to believe in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior (that is, to "have Christ") yet who does not do some of the things I have mentioned doesn't really have Christ (or is in danger of losing Christ).

And what is "Christ alone"? Does it exclude the Church, which is his body, and of which he is the head? How can you have the head without the body?

As for the Council of Trent, I believe you are referring specifically to Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 16. Let's take a look at it (emphasis mine):

Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58); For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name (Heb 6:10); and, Do not lose your confidence, which hath a great reward (Heb 10:35).

Hence, to those who work well unto the end (Matt 10:22) and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits (cf. Rom 6:22).

For this is the crown of justice which after his fight and course the Apostle declared was laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming (cf. 2 Tim 4:8).

For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches (cf. John 15:1-8), continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace (cf. Rev 14:12), since Christ our Savior says: If anyone shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst forever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up into life everlasting (John 4:13-14).

Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own from ourselves (cf. Rom 10:3; 2 Cor 3:5) nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated, for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inherence in us, that same is [the justice] of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ.

Nor must this be omitted, that although in the sacred writings so much is attributed to good works, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, Christ promises, shall not lose his reward (cf. Matt 10:42; Mark 9:40) and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory (2 Cor 4:17); nevertheless, far be it that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord (cf. 1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17), whose bounty toward all men is so great that He wishes the things that are His gifts to be their merits.

And since in many things we all offend (James 3:2), each one ought to have before his eyes not only the mercy and goodness but also the severity and judgment [of God]; neither ought anyone to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself of anything (cf. 1 Cor 4:3-4); because the whole life of man is to be examined and judged not by the judgment of man but of God, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise from God (cf. 1 Cor 4:5), who, as it is written, will render to every man according to his works (cf. Matt. 16:27; Rom 2:6; Rev 22:12).

In addition to this are a few of the canons defined thereafter:

Canon 26. If anyone says that the just ought not for the good works done in God (see above) to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and by keeping the divine commandments they persevere to the end, (cf. Matt 24:13) let him be anathema.

Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

There is much said here that I think both parties can agree on. For one, the paragraph quoting the letter of James says that "neither ought anyone to judge himself, even though he be not conscious to himself of anything". Surely, despite all our good works, we are not to judge ourselves as worthy or good or clean; judging is God's and His alone. However, as Paul writes in Romans 2, God will repay us according to our works, so while we are not to determine our fate based on our good works, we cannot ignore that God does take them into account and does so accurately and justly.

So then, let me deal with what I believe are the worrisome statements of Trent.

Eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself.

This does not say that you can attain eternal life by either grace or good works, it is saying that eternal life is offered to as as both a grace (a totally unmerited gift through faith in Jesus Christ) and as a reward (for the virtuous work we do in Christ). I understand this to mean we are to unite ourselves to the work of Jesus Christ, and in doing so -- forsaking family and possessions if necessary -- be rewarded with so much more in return, including eternal life (cf. Luke 18:28-30). This reward would not exist if it were not for our faith in Jesus Christ.

Christ ... continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life.

This is probably misinterpreted in much the same way, but it is qualified by the fact that the good works in question are the fruit of the strength infused into us (the justified) by Christ. Those who are justified by Christ receive strength that is found before, during, and after their virtuous works. That strength is necessary for them to found pleasing to God, but it doesn't stop there. They can be seen as meritorious because of that strength working through them. I think Trent missed the boat when they neglected to refer to the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30). The three servants received coins from their master, but one of them did not invest it. This servant was cast out! And to the one who had received the most coins, more was given! It was not enough for the master that the servant received the coins -- he did nothing with them. It was not enough that the servant returned the coins inviolate -- he had to fruit to show. The master knows he would not have received ten talents from his servant had he not given him five to start with! It is not that the servant who received five talents was worthy to receive greater responsibility then: it was proven to be so by the fruits of the investment made in him.

I believe it is the same idea found in Paul's first letter to Timothy (6:12) when he says take hold of the eternal life to which you were called. Don't let the investment of the Lord in you -- this grace -- be stagnant. Take hold of it! You can't earn it -- we know that much -- but you can show that you can earn and merit even more graces by what you have done with the graces you first received. You will show that eternal life is not just your promise but your reward as well. Paul writes about this in Romans 2 of all places! But it's important to remember that this meriting is never without the foundation of the merit of Christ which we could never earn.

Nor must this be omitted, that although in the sacred writings so much is attributed to good works ... nevertheless, far be it that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord.

Here it is. The Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, affirms we are not to glory in our good works done in Christ nor in ourselves, but we are to glorify only the Lord. We are not even to trust in our good works, because there could never be enough of them to merit what we have received by grace, and they exist only through the strength of Christ in us. Do not worship the creature, worship the Creator!

Canon 26 says that "the just" -- that is, those who are justified in Christ -- can "expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ" provided they persevere as Jesus said they must, and they are virtuous ("doing well") as Jesus taught them to be. It says they can expect this reward "for the good works done in God"; it does not say "through their good works", but "through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ".

Canon 32 says that "the good works of the one justified" are not only gifts of God but also meritorious and produce an increase of grace. This hearkens back to Matt 25:14-30 again. The five talents the servant received was an initial grace, the investment which produced five more is a "good work", and the five additional talents exist for two reasons: because the master gave him the first five and because the servant invested them. He has five more talents because he co-operated with the gift given to him. The investment was meritorious: the servant received additional talents from his master, not because he received five, but because through the five he produced five more -- not of his own power, but through the power endowed him by his master.

It is, of course, an imperfect analogy (if one can accuse Christ of teaching imperfectly) but it is the one through which we understand the need to co-operate with the graces we receive, the true source of the fruits those graces produce, and the reward we receive for this co-operation.

Diablog: Jesus + X? No. Jesus, therefore X.

(Update: This post came from a thread on the Coming Home Network forum, as Tiber Jumper indicated in his comment below. The specific post in the thread is here.)

I'll keep this short and sweet, because my wife is already in bed (sleeping, no doubt) and my sister (visiting for the weekend) is trying to sleep on the couch downstairs, and I'm sure this typing isn't helping.

A lot of non-Catholics argue that the Catholic Church "adds" things to Jesus. It's not just faith in Jesus Christ, it's faith, and works, and the sacraments, and the Pope, and Mary, and this and that...

I disagree. Because of our faith in Jesus Christ, it therefore follows that there are works, and sacraments, and a visible leadership (the Pope), and role models (like Paul and Mary).

They say Catholics add to Jesus. No: Catholics get more out of Jesus.

Update: Weekend Fisher posted a response on her blog. This is the beginning of a diablog.