"Tone of voice" in the Papacy

(I haven't done exhaustive research on this, so someone please correct me if I am wrong.)

Papal encyclicals, up until the time of Pope John XXIII (the convener of the Second Vatican Council) were addressed to the clergy of the Church, and usually specifically the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church (whose job it would be to disseminate to his flock the information contained in the Pope's missives).

However, with Pope John XXIII's last encyclical, Pacem in terris, the "tone of voice" of the Papacy changed. Here is how John addressed his encyclical on how "Peace on earth, which all men of every era have most eagerly yearned for, can be firmly established only if the order laid down by God be dutifully observed": "To our Venerable Brothers the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See; to the Clergy and Faithful of the whole world; and to all men of good will."

Not only did the Pope address the whole Church, he addressed "all men of good will".

Pope Paul VI followed this example in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, which he addressed to the whole Church "and to all men of good will". And Pope John Paul II did the same thing which his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, addressed to the whole Church and "to all men and women of good will".

I think the reason for this change in the "tone of voice" is because of the need for increased vigor in gathering all humanity into the single Church founded by Jesus Christ. These three encyclicals which inaugurated this tone of voice were about peach on earth, Christ's Church, and Christ as the Redeemer of each and every man. These are universal calls, because the Catholic Church is and must be universal. These are universal matters for each and every man.

Now, Pope Benedict's first two encyclicals were not addressed in this way. Before you leap upon this, permit me to explain.

Pope Benedict's encyclicals, Deus caritas est and Spe salvi, deal with love (charity) and hope, two of the three theological virtues (the third being faith). He is addressing the Church on these important virtues so that those who are already in the Church can be recentered on Jesus Christ and the virtues which the Holy Spirit infuses us with so that we can continue this external mission of ours, out in the world. He is not cutting off communication with the world, but is addressing those of us whose mission is in the world.

The Pope... a blogger?

It could happen. At least, it's been suggested by the president of the Catholic Biblical Association of Hong Kong.

The jokes and puns on this abound. For example, the Pope's operating system would need to be an upgrade of redhat Linux, such as whitehat Linus (named after the second bishop of Rome).

And if you want to donate to the Pope's blogging cause, remember you can send your money digitally and securely via PaPal.

[H/T: The Curt Jester]

Liturgy: The Pope's new clothes

Check out the vestments designed for the Pope to wear during World Youth Day!

(H/T to Fr. Z)

Caption: What is the Pope saying?

Fr. Z hits another home run with this caption thread.

Tradition: Dissent over the Papal Throne

Here's an excerpt from another homily [MP3] from Holy Family Parish, from the Feast of Christ the King:

One of the worst things that happened to Christianity was when Constantine made Christianity the state religion, the Church then looked at pagan Rome and said, "Well, that's the structure we should have for the Church," and they sprinkled Holy Water over a pagan system. ...

The Church has become a monarchical system. [Fr.] Richard Fragomeni told me that the last couple Popes have had just a simple chair in the Vatican... but they've restored the Papal Throne. And our Cardinals are called "Princes of the Church", and the new Cardinals today get gold rings from the Pope, and they wear purple, and they wear red: symbols of monarchy. There's the throne of Jesus Christ, right there in the center of the church. The symbols of leadership in contemporary Catholicism are in stark contrast to that throne from which he led the Church and leads the Church today, on that throne he emptied himself and allowed the power of God to fill him...

Oy vey. While Fr. Brennan makes a nice point about the altar (and therefore the cross) being the (earthly) throne of Jesus, he neglects the heavenly throne of Jesus.

News: EWTN to air Ordinary Public Consistory on Saturday at 2:00 PM EST

I don't get cable at home, but this Saturday, I'll be in Allentown visiting my parents. They do get cable, including EWTN, which means I can watch this:

ORDINARY PUBLIC CONSISTORY FOR THE
CREATION OF NEW CARDINALS LIVE (1h 30m)
From St. Peter's Square, Consistory with Pope Benedict XVI
as he elevates 23 prelates to the level of cardinal.
Sat, 11/24/07 4:30 AM Live / 2:00 PM Encore

Humor: Photo caption

I saw this photo (courtesy Chris Helgen of Reuters) at Whispers in the Loggia, and immediately these captions came to mind:

• "Oh, come on, ref! How can you not call that?!"
• "Glo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-oria..."
• "Watchoutforthatcar!"
  

Bible Study: Pope uses DTKYABS as homiletic resource?

It appears dear Pope Benedict XVI is keeping his pulse on the goings-on of the St. David the King Young Adult Bible Study! Just this past weekend, as reported by the Catholic News Agency and ZENIT, in his address to the crowd gathered for the Angelus at noon, His Holiness identified the differences between the physical healing received by all ten lepers in this Sunday's Gospel (Luke 17:11-19), and the spiritual healing received by the Samaritan leper. He also called sin the "leprosy that really disfigures man and society" (la lebbra che realmente deturpa l'uomo e la società è il peccato). These same connections were drawn last Wednesday evening at St. David the King... coincidence? I think not.

Or, perhaps, we drew from the same well of inspiration as did the Holy Father. St. Athanasius, Titus (Bishop of Bostra), and Pope St. Leo the Great seem to have rubbed off on Pope Benedict XVI just as much as they did on us.

The (original) Italian of the Pope's address (and any other translations as they appear) can be found at the Vatican's web site. Here is my attempt at an English translation, using Babelfish and my knowledge of French as guides.

The Gospel of this Sunday introduces Jesus who heals ten lepers, of which only one -- a Samaritan and thus a foreigner -- returns to give thanks (cf. Lk 17:11-19). To him, the Lord says: "Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well." (Lk 17:19). This Gospel reading invites us to a twofold reflection. In the first place we consider two degrees of healing: the superficial one regards the body; the deeper other touches the core (intimo) of the person, what the Bible calls the "heart", and from there, it irradiates to all existence. The complete and radical healing is "salvation". Everyday language, which distinguishes between between "health" and "salvation", helps us to understand that salvation is much more than health: it is in fact a new, full, definitive life. Moreover, here Jesus, like in other circumstances, speaks thus: "your faith has made you well". It is the faith that saves man, re-established him in his profound relationship with God, with himself, and with others; and faith is expressed in gratitude. Whoever, like the healed Samaritan, knows gratitude, demonstrates that he does not consider everything as due to them, but as a gift that, whether it reaches them via man or nature, comes ultimately from God. Faith then involves one's self being open to the grace of the Lord; to recognize that all is gift, all is grace. What a treasure is hidden in one small word: grazie! ("thanks!" or "thank you!")

Jesus healed these ten of their leprosy, an illness then considered a "contagious impurity" that demanded a ritual purification (cf. Lev 14:1-37). In truth, the leprosy that really disfigures man and society is sin; it is pride and selfishness that generate in the human mind indifference, hatred and violence. Of this leprosy of the spirit, that disfigures the face of the humanity, one cannot be healed except by God, Who is Love. Opening the heart to God, the person who is converted receives inner healing from evil.

"Repent and believe in the Gospel" (cf. Mk 1:15). Jesus started his public life with this, and it continues to resonate within the Church, and the Most Blessed Virgin in her apparitions especially of recent years, has always renewed this appeal. Today, we turn our attention in next to Fatima where, just 90 years ago, from 13 May to 13 October 1917, the Virgin appeared to the three shepherds: Lucia, Giacinta and Francisco. Thanks to a television connection, I was spiritually present at that Marian shrine, where Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State, presided in my name at the closing of the anniversary celebration. I warmly greet him, the other Cardinals and Bishops present, the clergymen who work in the Shrine and the pilgrims who came from every part of the world for the occasion. We ask the Blessed Virgin for the gift of true conversion for all Christians, so as to coherently and faithfully announce and testify to the perennial Gospel message, which reveals to humanity the path of authentic peace.

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: 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...?

Tradition: Pope Saint Gregory VII

Amber at This Catholic Journey has a blogger widget from PhatCatholic Apologetics; it's a quote-of-the-day. Today's quote is from Pope Saint Gregory VII († 1085): "Amavi iustiam et odivi iniquitatem; propterea, morior in exilio." ("I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile.") He said it on his deathbed, exiled in Salerno by Emperor Henry IV.

Pope Saint Gregory VII did not just die exiled because of the emperor. All Christians die in exile: Heaven is our true home (cf. 2 Cor 5:1; Phil 3:20; 1 Pet 1:4).

Liturgy: Motu Proprio on JP II's birthday?

National Catholic Reporter is reporting (as is their wont) that a top Vatican official, Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, has confirmed that Pope Benedict XVI "intends to extend to the entire church the possibility of celebrating the Mass and the sacraments according to the liturgical books promulgated by Pope John XXIII in 1962."

Tomorrow is the birthday of Pope John Paul II († 2005); perhaps tomorrow the Motu Proprio will be announced?

For more information, see What Does The Prayer Really Say? by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf.

Update (2007-05-20): this is why I'm not a prognosticator.