Recently Mr. Hayes has presented a short series on "Popessa Priscilla" claiming Pricilla and Aquila, since they were in Rome prior to Sts. Peter and Paul - that they were the first bishops there - or even the first pope(s). I hope he wasn't being serious, but in his articles he give no indication of not being so in the allegations.
Who were Aquila and Priscilla? They have been thought by some to be part of the 70 apostles "sent out" and while they were in Rome for a time, they left when Claudius kicked out all the Jews (and the Romans saw the early Christians as a sect of Judaism). Some claim that they were converted by St. Paul when he visited them during their exile to Corinth. Later, after Claudius' death, they returned - but again only for a short time, for then they were sent to Asia - where they both died as martyrs (some sources state they may have returned to Rome again and were martyred there about the same time as Sts. Peter and Paul). The precise timing of their conversion is not known, but the fact that they served the early Christian Church as a couple is not disputed, it is that fact which is typically most centered upon - their devotion to Christ, as a couple, to be an example to Christian couples everywhere. There is no mention of them being "bishops" in the early Church.
I also find it somewhat amusing to see folks like Mr. Hays talking about apostolic succession, which Catholics (and Orthodox) clearly have - and Mr. Hays cannot possibly have without reliance upon Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) for valid connection back to the Apostles and Christ Himself.
Several sources to consider:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=531
http://pontosworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1010&Itemid=98
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_and_Aquila
http://carolyncholland.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/aquila-and-priscilla-a-script-on-their-marriage/
http://www.lifeandland.org/2010/09/aquila-and-priscilla-a-godly-marriage-for-ministry/
Qui Locutus - Formerly The CathApol Blog - a Catholic Apologetics Blog Defending the Faith and keeping Catholics Catholic! Scott Windsor, MEd. - aka: CathApol
1934 Letter from Rome on Celibacy
To Bishop Basil Takach
Sacred Oriental Congregation.
Prot. No. 572-30
Rome, July 23, 1934
(Borgo, Nuovo, 76.)
Your Excellency:
It is certainly not without profound pain that the Holy See has had to realize that, among the Catholics of the Greek Ruthenian Rite in the United States of America, and in particular among the clergy and faithful of the Pod-Carpathian Ruthenian Ordinariate, grave agitations and deplorable rebellions are being intensified and expanded on the pretext that this Sacred Congregation had threatened the rights and privileges of the Ruthenian Church.
But your Excellency knows well how, under the appearance of vast questions, there lies prevalently that much more restricted question, which has its origin in the regulation of article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit of March 1,1929, and by which was again decreed what had already been prescribed since 1890; that is to say, "that Greek Ruthenian priests who desire to betake themselves to the United States of America and to remain there must be celibates." This regulation indeed was not and is not a "lex de coelibatu apud clerum graecoruthenum," as some have wanted to affirm. By it, nothing has been modified or changed in that particular Ruthenian ecclesiastical discipline, to which, in so far as it concerns the privilege of a married clergy, the Holy See has consented and still does consent. This regulation arose not now, but anew, from the peculiar conditions of the Ruthenian population in the United States of America. There it represents an immigrant element and a minority, and it could not, therefore, pretend to maintain there its own customs and traditions which are in contrast with those which are the legitimate customs and traditions of Catholicism in the United States, and much less to have there a clergy which could be a source of painful perplexity or scandal to the majority of American Catholics.
And, moreover, when the Holy See recognized the peculiarities of the Greek Ruthenian Church and guaranteed them, it intended principally - as is evident from the Decree of Union of 1596, during the Pontificate of Clement VII, and of the Brief of Paul V of 1615 - to recognize and guarantee the ritual traditions of the Ruthenians.
As regards their particular canonical discipline, the Holy See could not have affirmed its integral application at all times and in all places without taking into account the different exigencies and circumstances. Thus one can well understand how a married clergy, permitted in those places where the Greek Ruthenian Rite originated and constitutes a predominant element, could hardly be advisable in places where the same Rite has been imported and finds an environment and mentality altogether different.
Let it not be said that the regulation of Cum Data Fuerit was new legislation, since the preceding Decree Cum Episcopo (August 17, 1914) - issued as a modification of the Constitution Ea Semper (June 14, 1907) - did not make any mention of it.
The fact that no mention was made of it in the Decree Cum Episcopo was not due in any way to a revocation of the regulation, adopted since 1890 and solemnly called to mind on several occasions; on the contrary, it was due to an indulgent attitude of the Holy See taken in view of the statements of the Ruthenian Bishops in Europe to the effect that the number of unmarried priests in their dioceses was still too few and that they could not very well reduce that number by aligning some of them to the spiritual assistance of the Ruthenian faithful in America. And that this was so is proven clearly by the fact that in the years from 1914 to 1929 - that is during the period in which the regulation in question did not appear - the Holy See upheld in practice the same regulation, which continued to be known to the entire Ruthenian hierarchy and clergy so much so that when the Ordinary of the Pod-Carpathian Ruthenians in the United States of America deemed it necessary in 1925 to ordain some married clerics, he asked the Holy See to permit him, by way of exception to do so. The Holy See in acceding to the request, took care to emphasize the exceptional nature of the permission and to add "exclausa quavis spe futurarum ordinationum."
As the situtation changed for the better, it seemed well that the decree of March 1, 1929, should state again, explicitly, that which in fact had never been abrogated. And so much the more so, because the regulation in question does not concern exclusively the Ruthenian clergy, but applies without exception to priests of all Rites.
But the Decree was accompanied on the part of the Holy See by an attitude of the greatest discretion and indulgence; so that even after it, no action was taken to send away from the United States those married Ruthenian priests who had already immigrated there in opposition to the regulation which would have forbidden them to do so; and these priests were not disturbed even when some of them showed themselves to be partisans of an altogether deplorable movement of hostility against their bishop and against the Holy See itself.
In the face of the simplicity and the logic of what article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit disposes, it seemed immediately evident that some sought to bemuddle the situation, deceiving the ingenuous minds of the faithful by a misleading and a malign interpretation of every act emanating from the Holy See and put into effect by the Ordinary, Bishop Takach. And if there would have been any doubt about this, it would have been dissipated at lengths by what happened in the Convention, promoted by the KOVO and held in Pittsburgh from July 26 to 28, 1933 a meeting of intents and manifestations clearly schismatic, even to the extent of threatening the Holy See that unless it had - within sixty days - granted what was requested in the resolutions of the convention, the delegates at Pittsburgh and the people whom they represented would declare themselves "independent of Rome." A tremendous statement, which, however, was not surprising because it revealed without possiblity of further doubt, the true motives of a complete campaign of the press, of meetings, of protestations, of rebellions, of schisms, which under the cloak of the defense of the privileges of the Ruthenian Church had already grievously offended against the spirit of reverence and obedience to the Ordinary - even to the extent of depriving him of almost every means of substinence - and weakened the very attachment to the Catholic Faith . . .
Therefore, let every dissension and - every suspicion by banished, so that there may be reestablished, in the pride of the common Catholic faith and in fraternal sentiments inspired by a common origin and membership in the same Rite, that mutual charity which should bind closely together all the Ruthenian people in America with their Bishop and clergy, and make of them, even in that land far distant from their native county, a magnificent appeal to dissidents to return to the unity of the Catholic faith.
Your Excellency, who by reason of long practice of office and of affection, has closely at heart the spiritual welfare of the Ruthenian people in the United States, will convey to all the good people, and first of all to Bishop Takach - so sorely and unjustly tried - the trustful word of the Holy Father, who, the guardian of ecclesiastical discipline by reasons of his apostolic ministry, desires that the exact observance of whatever regulations this Sacred Congregation has issued be, on the part of the Ruthenian Church in the United States of America, the most worthy proof of its Catholic faith and of its willingness to live, increase and flourish in works of holiness.
May there descend upon Bishop Takach, his clergy, his faithful - and among them, upon also those who are sorry for their transgressions and return to the proper disposition, the comforting and vivifying blessing of Almighty God, which the Holy Father, through the intercession of the most glorious Virgin Mother, invokes generously and with a fervent prayer that it may be abundant in heavenly graces.
With sentiments of esteem and best wishes, I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Luigi Cardinal Sincero
Bishop of Palestrina, Sicily
G. Cesarini, Assessor
(Source)
Sacred Oriental Congregation.
Prot. No. 572-30
Rome, July 23, 1934
(Borgo, Nuovo, 76.)
Your Excellency:
It is certainly not without profound pain that the Holy See has had to realize that, among the Catholics of the Greek Ruthenian Rite in the United States of America, and in particular among the clergy and faithful of the Pod-Carpathian Ruthenian Ordinariate, grave agitations and deplorable rebellions are being intensified and expanded on the pretext that this Sacred Congregation had threatened the rights and privileges of the Ruthenian Church.
But your Excellency knows well how, under the appearance of vast questions, there lies prevalently that much more restricted question, which has its origin in the regulation of article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit of March 1,1929, and by which was again decreed what had already been prescribed since 1890; that is to say, "that Greek Ruthenian priests who desire to betake themselves to the United States of America and to remain there must be celibates." This regulation indeed was not and is not a "lex de coelibatu apud clerum graecoruthenum," as some have wanted to affirm. By it, nothing has been modified or changed in that particular Ruthenian ecclesiastical discipline, to which, in so far as it concerns the privilege of a married clergy, the Holy See has consented and still does consent. This regulation arose not now, but anew, from the peculiar conditions of the Ruthenian population in the United States of America. There it represents an immigrant element and a minority, and it could not, therefore, pretend to maintain there its own customs and traditions which are in contrast with those which are the legitimate customs and traditions of Catholicism in the United States, and much less to have there a clergy which could be a source of painful perplexity or scandal to the majority of American Catholics.
And, moreover, when the Holy See recognized the peculiarities of the Greek Ruthenian Church and guaranteed them, it intended principally - as is evident from the Decree of Union of 1596, during the Pontificate of Clement VII, and of the Brief of Paul V of 1615 - to recognize and guarantee the ritual traditions of the Ruthenians.
As regards their particular canonical discipline, the Holy See could not have affirmed its integral application at all times and in all places without taking into account the different exigencies and circumstances. Thus one can well understand how a married clergy, permitted in those places where the Greek Ruthenian Rite originated and constitutes a predominant element, could hardly be advisable in places where the same Rite has been imported and finds an environment and mentality altogether different.
Let it not be said that the regulation of Cum Data Fuerit was new legislation, since the preceding Decree Cum Episcopo (August 17, 1914) - issued as a modification of the Constitution Ea Semper (June 14, 1907) - did not make any mention of it.
The fact that no mention was made of it in the Decree Cum Episcopo was not due in any way to a revocation of the regulation, adopted since 1890 and solemnly called to mind on several occasions; on the contrary, it was due to an indulgent attitude of the Holy See taken in view of the statements of the Ruthenian Bishops in Europe to the effect that the number of unmarried priests in their dioceses was still too few and that they could not very well reduce that number by aligning some of them to the spiritual assistance of the Ruthenian faithful in America. And that this was so is proven clearly by the fact that in the years from 1914 to 1929 - that is during the period in which the regulation in question did not appear - the Holy See upheld in practice the same regulation, which continued to be known to the entire Ruthenian hierarchy and clergy so much so that when the Ordinary of the Pod-Carpathian Ruthenians in the United States of America deemed it necessary in 1925 to ordain some married clerics, he asked the Holy See to permit him, by way of exception to do so. The Holy See in acceding to the request, took care to emphasize the exceptional nature of the permission and to add "exclausa quavis spe futurarum ordinationum."
As the situtation changed for the better, it seemed well that the decree of March 1, 1929, should state again, explicitly, that which in fact had never been abrogated. And so much the more so, because the regulation in question does not concern exclusively the Ruthenian clergy, but applies without exception to priests of all Rites.
But the Decree was accompanied on the part of the Holy See by an attitude of the greatest discretion and indulgence; so that even after it, no action was taken to send away from the United States those married Ruthenian priests who had already immigrated there in opposition to the regulation which would have forbidden them to do so; and these priests were not disturbed even when some of them showed themselves to be partisans of an altogether deplorable movement of hostility against their bishop and against the Holy See itself.
In the face of the simplicity and the logic of what article XII of the Decree Cum Data Fuerit disposes, it seemed immediately evident that some sought to bemuddle the situation, deceiving the ingenuous minds of the faithful by a misleading and a malign interpretation of every act emanating from the Holy See and put into effect by the Ordinary, Bishop Takach. And if there would have been any doubt about this, it would have been dissipated at lengths by what happened in the Convention, promoted by the KOVO and held in Pittsburgh from July 26 to 28, 1933 a meeting of intents and manifestations clearly schismatic, even to the extent of threatening the Holy See that unless it had - within sixty days - granted what was requested in the resolutions of the convention, the delegates at Pittsburgh and the people whom they represented would declare themselves "independent of Rome." A tremendous statement, which, however, was not surprising because it revealed without possiblity of further doubt, the true motives of a complete campaign of the press, of meetings, of protestations, of rebellions, of schisms, which under the cloak of the defense of the privileges of the Ruthenian Church had already grievously offended against the spirit of reverence and obedience to the Ordinary - even to the extent of depriving him of almost every means of substinence - and weakened the very attachment to the Catholic Faith . . .
Therefore, let every dissension and - every suspicion by banished, so that there may be reestablished, in the pride of the common Catholic faith and in fraternal sentiments inspired by a common origin and membership in the same Rite, that mutual charity which should bind closely together all the Ruthenian people in America with their Bishop and clergy, and make of them, even in that land far distant from their native county, a magnificent appeal to dissidents to return to the unity of the Catholic faith.
Your Excellency, who by reason of long practice of office and of affection, has closely at heart the spiritual welfare of the Ruthenian people in the United States, will convey to all the good people, and first of all to Bishop Takach - so sorely and unjustly tried - the trustful word of the Holy Father, who, the guardian of ecclesiastical discipline by reasons of his apostolic ministry, desires that the exact observance of whatever regulations this Sacred Congregation has issued be, on the part of the Ruthenian Church in the United States of America, the most worthy proof of its Catholic faith and of its willingness to live, increase and flourish in works of holiness.
May there descend upon Bishop Takach, his clergy, his faithful - and among them, upon also those who are sorry for their transgressions and return to the proper disposition, the comforting and vivifying blessing of Almighty God, which the Holy Father, through the intercession of the most glorious Virgin Mother, invokes generously and with a fervent prayer that it may be abundant in heavenly graces.
With sentiments of esteem and best wishes, I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Luigi Cardinal Sincero
Bishop of Palestrina, Sicily
G. Cesarini, Assessor
(Source)
East and West and Married v Unmarried Priests
A friend of mine, actually a very GOOD friend, posts this blog article earlier this year.
http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests
I have left a few comments there, but I think a fuller response is merited...
For an example of a Latin Rite practice (one which I personally oppose and do not participate in) is communion in the hand. What would the Eastern Rite priest think if a Latin Rite person were to reach for the spoon? Of course that would be expressly forbidden! I have witnessed some Latin Rite Catholics who "self-intinct" by taking communion in the hand and then approaching the Chalice they take the Host and dip it - this practice is expressly denied in the GIRM (#287). It is possible for a Latin Rite priest to practice intinction, but it would be quite illicit for a communicant to self-intinct.
Vatican II issued the Decree of the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite wherein it states:
The Council of Trullo, 692ad (though arguments are made that this council was a continuation of the Sixth Synod, it was not represented by the Latin Church at all and when the decrees were sent to the Pope, he would have nothing to do with them) in Canon 13 states:
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/10/21/139404/
Catholic Exchange presents this article which echoes the sentiments of my friend.
Now while echoing my friend's sentiments, it also brings out the point I have made:
Note, if "an Eastern Catholic hierarchy" is established - then it is possible for the Eastern bishop to practice the traditions of their homeland without hindrance. Again, this makes sense! If there are enough of a given Eastern ethnicity in a given region, then an Eastern Catholic hierarchy can be and even should be set up. Then proper and due respect is owed to both hierarchies within a given region.
We must also point out that the practice of the celibate priesthood in the West is a discipline, not a dogma, and one that is even observed by some Eastern Rites. The discipline COULD be changed allowing for married clergy from any rite. At present the Latin Rite chooses to adhere to St. Paul's recommendation in 1 Corinthians 7:28 and especially Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 19:11-12:
Jesus Himself recommends celibacy for those who are called to it, and in the Latin Church, those who are called to celibacy are also called to serve Him in His Church. There are places for the married too, up to and including the deaconate, so married individuals are not forbidden from serving Him through His Church - they would just do a different role within the Church.
So, to answer my friend's question, "Can East and West co-exist with married and unmarried priests?" The answer is YES! So long as the local ordinary and the disciplines for each jurisdiction are respected on BOTH sides, then most certainly we can co-exist. It seems to me that those bringing up married v. unmarried clergy are actually either deliberately or subconsciously throwing up road blocks, or attempted ones at least, in an attempt to thwart reconciliation between the East and the West. Again I wish to emphasize that if proper respect is given on BOTH sides - this is really a non-issue, or a mountain from a molehill.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/can-east-west-coexist-with-married-priests
I have left a few comments there, but I think a fuller response is merited...
The Problem:My answer to this was, and remains, SURE! A bishop has jurisdiction over his diocese and everything which takes place, as it relates to the Church comes under his authority within his jurisdiction. Eastern Catholics who have migrated to Western territories have to understand that the bishop of the territory they have moved to has the authority over that diocese.
The normative Roman Catholic position is that only single men can be ordained to the priesthood. Likewise, the Orthodox have celibate clergy, but they are usually required to take monastic orders, to fill the family void. However, Orthodox Bishops will also ordain married men to the priesthood. (Neither Church allows single men who have been ordained to later marry.) In a reunited Church, could Orthodox and Catholic parishes live side by side with people possibly transferring between parishes, one ordaining married men to the priesthood and one limiting it only to unmarried, single men?
Another reason the Eastern Catholic discipline of a married priesthood is relatively unknown is because it is generally restricted to the traditional homelands of these Eastern Catholic Churches.And one would expect that the traditions of the homeland remain in the homeland! Why would an Eastern Catholic presume that just because they had traditions back home that these traditions are to be automatically accepted by Western Catholics? Likewise, the Sacraments of Marriage, Confession and Confirmation are all under the auspices of the local ordinary (bishop) and a Western bishop in an Eastern jurisdiction should not presume to authorize these without consent of the Eastern bishop.
For an example of a Latin Rite practice (one which I personally oppose and do not participate in) is communion in the hand. What would the Eastern Rite priest think if a Latin Rite person were to reach for the spoon? Of course that would be expressly forbidden! I have witnessed some Latin Rite Catholics who "self-intinct" by taking communion in the hand and then approaching the Chalice they take the Host and dip it - this practice is expressly denied in the GIRM (#287). It is possible for a Latin Rite priest to practice intinction, but it would be quite illicit for a communicant to self-intinct.
Vatican II issued the Decree of the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite wherein it states:
The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church.It must be noted, BOTH traditions are seen as apostolic in nature - and must be respected by each rite.
The Council of Trullo, 692ad (though arguments are made that this council was a continuation of the Sixth Synod, it was not represented by the Latin Church at all and when the decrees were sent to the Pope, he would have nothing to do with them) in Canon 13 states:
Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time.My friend is not alone here:
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/10/21/139404/
Catholic Exchange presents this article which echoes the sentiments of my friend.
“My request is that the patriarch be granted personal jurisdiction over the faithful of his church wherever they might be,” he said (Coptic Bishop Antonios Aziz Mina of Guizeh, Egypt).
Now while echoing my friend's sentiments, it also brings out the point I have made:
With all due respect to Bishop Aziz Mina, it makes sense that a Catholic living outside their homeland to expect to be under the local jurisdiction of the bishop under whom they are living.At present, many Eastern Catholics living outside of their home territories are under the care of Latin Rite Bishops unless an Eastern Catholic hierarchy has been set up.
Note, if "an Eastern Catholic hierarchy" is established - then it is possible for the Eastern bishop to practice the traditions of their homeland without hindrance. Again, this makes sense! If there are enough of a given Eastern ethnicity in a given region, then an Eastern Catholic hierarchy can be and even should be set up. Then proper and due respect is owed to both hierarchies within a given region.
We must also point out that the practice of the celibate priesthood in the West is a discipline, not a dogma, and one that is even observed by some Eastern Rites. The discipline COULD be changed allowing for married clergy from any rite. At present the Latin Rite chooses to adhere to St. Paul's recommendation in 1 Corinthians 7:28 and especially Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 19:11-12:
- He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."
- Footnotes:
8 [11] [This] word: probably the disciples' "it is better not to marry" (Matthew 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God. 9 [12] Incapable of marriage: literally, "eunuchs." Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, "have made themselves eunuchs") for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can . . . ought to accept it.
Jesus Himself recommends celibacy for those who are called to it, and in the Latin Church, those who are called to celibacy are also called to serve Him in His Church. There are places for the married too, up to and including the deaconate, so married individuals are not forbidden from serving Him through His Church - they would just do a different role within the Church.
So, to answer my friend's question, "Can East and West co-exist with married and unmarried priests?" The answer is YES! So long as the local ordinary and the disciplines for each jurisdiction are respected on BOTH sides, then most certainly we can co-exist. It seems to me that those bringing up married v. unmarried clergy are actually either deliberately or subconsciously throwing up road blocks, or attempted ones at least, in an attempt to thwart reconciliation between the East and the West. Again I wish to emphasize that if proper respect is given on BOTH sides - this is really a non-issue, or a mountain from a molehill.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
Dear CathApol
NEW FEATURE!
Periodically we will post this "Dear CathApol" topic for anyone who wishes to ask a question. Questions may be answered in the same combox (below this post) or if an in-depth answer is merited, then we'll make a whole new blog entry to answer it. So, give it a shot! Maybe you have a question you'd like someone else's opinion on - or perhaps you'd just like to play "Stump the Apologist!" CathApol and cathmom5 are the resident apologists - but others may join in to provide their answers to the combox too.
So, ask away!
Periodically we will post this "Dear CathApol" topic for anyone who wishes to ask a question. Questions may be answered in the same combox (below this post) or if an in-depth answer is merited, then we'll make a whole new blog entry to answer it. So, give it a shot! Maybe you have a question you'd like someone else's opinion on - or perhaps you'd just like to play "Stump the Apologist!" CathApol and cathmom5 are the resident apologists - but others may join in to provide their answers to the combox too.
So, ask away!
Not Possible to be a Practicing Catholic
“Not possible to be a practicing Catholic”
Archbishop Burke says public repentance required for pro-abortion politicians
By John-Henry Westen
ROME, October 12, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking at the Human Life International World Prayer Congress Saturday, Archbishop Raymond Burke received sustained applause when he noted that Catholic politicians who support abortion are required to repent publicly.
Speaking to pro-life leaders from 45 nations, the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the highest Vatican court) also noted that those who recognize the scandal caused by such public, dissident Catholics assist the Church in repairing a serious breach, but are nevertheless often ridiculed for it.
(Read the complete talk - in PDF format - here)
Achibishop Burke stressed that “both bishops and the faithful” must be obedient to the Magisterium – which he described as the teaching of Christ as handed down through the successor of Peter and the bishops in union with him. “When the shepherds of the flock are obedient to the Magisterium, entrusted to their exercise, then surely the members of the flock grow in obedience and proceed with Christ along the way of salvation,” he said. “If the shepherd is not obedient the flock easily gives way to confusion and error.”Burke, who is also a member of the Congregation for Bishops added: “A most tragic example of the lack of obedience of faith, also on the part of certain Bishops, was the response of many to the Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae of Pope Paul VI, published on July 25, 1968. The confusion which resulted has led many Catholics into habits of sin in what pertains to the procreation and education of human life.”
Humanae Vitae reiterated age-old Christian teaching on the immorality of the use of artificial contraception. However, after its publication the encyclical was repudiated by many within the Catholic Church, including priests and bishops, who had believed that the Church would changes its views on contraception.
Turning to the issue of scandal within the Church, the archbishop said, “We find self-professed Catholics, for example, who sustain and support the right of a woman to procure the death of the infant in her womb, or the right of two persons of the same sex to the recognition which the State gives to a man and a woman who have entered into marriage. It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself publicly in this manner.”
To resounding applause Burke said, “When a person has publicly espoused and cooperated in gravely sinful acts, leading many into confusion and error about fundamental questions of respect for human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, his repentance of such actions must also be public.”
The Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura then voiced a concern that struck a deep chord with many of the Catholic pro-life activists present at the conference. “One of the ironies of the present situation is that the person who experiences scandal at the gravely sinful public actions of a fellow Catholic is accused of a lack of charity and of causing division within the unity of the Church,” he said. “One sees the hand of the Father of Lies at work in the disregard for the situation of scandal or in the ridicule and even censure of those who experience scandal.”
The Vatican prelate concluded the point stating:
Lying or failing to tell the truth, however, is never a sign of charity. A unity which is not founded on the truth of the moral law is not the unity of the Church. The Church’s unity is founded on speaking the truth with love. The person who experiences scandal at public actions of Catholics, which are gravely contrary to the moral law, not only does not destroy unity but invites the Church to repair what is clearly a serious breach in Her life. Were he not to experience scandal at the public support of attacks on human life and the family, his conscience would be uninformed or dulled about the most sacred realities.
Free Will and Calvinism
What is the first thing a man must give up when he yields to God? He surrenders his own will for the Will of God!
We live in a life governed by our nature, this is true, but our life is not without choices. When I get up in the morning, one of the first things I must do is use the restroom and I am not "free" to do otherwise - or am I? Well "nature" says I have to relieve myself, but "nature" does not dictate where! We are so conditioned (and rightly so!) to use the "proper facilities," but I could "choose" to use the sink, the tub - or step outside to the flower garden, but I choose the toilet. Or, like a baby or an incontinent adult, I may have no real "choice" in when or where. The point is, we are given the ability to reason and make choices based upon the reasoning we choose to use. We are then rightly judged based upon those choices. We all begin as babies, physically and spiritually; but there comes a time when we must put aside childish things.
Society is the "judge" when it comes to the example above. Society would frown upon us using a sink, the tub or even the flower garden; and would judge us accordingly. Now, on a bit higher level - when we are young and unable to reason, all we think about is our self. As we interact with others we "learn" how to share and please others - at least some of us do. Some do not "learn" these social interaction skills, perhaps never taught these skills by their parents, and continue to "learn" how to please themselves. Such is where bullies come from - a child who never learned to yield his/her own will in concern/caring for or about others.
Likewise, moving to the spiritual realm it is not much different! Left to our own devices, we would seek the hedonist path of pleasing our self. We must be taught about God in order to know, love and serve Him. The more we learn about God brings us to choices in our lives where we choose to either give up our will to His, or reject His Will and pursue self satisfaction in life. Each of us makes such choices all the time!
Just being raised in a "good home" does not mean every child in that home will make "good choices," or the choices which his/her parents would have liked to see them make. Children are influenced by parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, bullies, teachers, pastors and even physical/genetic things. Now "naturally" they would have no control over a physical or genetic trait which may affect their will, but for most of us - the influences are not so "natural." We can choose to be influenced by good or bad people in our lives. Sometimes a "bad" person can have a "good" influence too.
In my own experience, it took me standing up to a bully which dramatically changed the way I was treated by just about everyone else. That's a long story, but the point is I CHOSE to stop being picked on, I took a chance (which could have resulted in me getting beat up), grabbed that bully by his shirt collar, slammed him up against a wall and said, "LEAVE ME ALONE!" Instead of fighting me, he yielded - and from that day forward I was no longer picked on by any of the bullies at my school. What if I had "chose" to not stand up against that bully? I'm confident that my entire life would be quite different than it is today.
On a similar note, my family moved in the middle of my sophomore year of high school. At the new school the first group of people I started "hanging" with was what most parents would call "the wrong crowd." I saw myself actually becoming "one of them," but my mother had instilled upon me a true love for God and what is right - so one day I prayed, "God please get me out of this group of people I have been associating with." That weekend, my best "friend's" dad died and his mom packed up and moved to another part of town moving him to another school. Suddenly my contact with "the wrong crowd" was gone. I seized upon this as a new start - and I found new friends, leaving that culture behind forever. I can only imagine if I had not willed to get out of that culture and remained in it. I've seen others in my family affected by their choice to not get out of that culture and how it has ruined their lives and relationship with God too.
I hope you're seeing the point I'm making. Our lives are governed by our choices. God, in His sovereignty, GIVES us the ability to make these choices because we are made in His image and likeness. Determinists, primarily Calvinists, will argue that no one can choose God unless God first chooses and draws them. They will cite a few verses from Scripture which seem to bolster their position - while ignoring the main thrust of Scripture. So let me deal with these points.
First off, the "main thrust of Scripture" and especially the Gospel, is that God is LOVE and He wants us to know, love and serve Him with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind and all our strength (Mark 12:30; Matt 22:37). Jesus Himself refers to this as the "first," or "foremost," or "greatest" commandment. When Jesus was asked what one must DO to inherit eternal life, well the story goes:
When you love your wife, you aren't giving her something she already has, you are giving of yourself. The same is true of love given to God, we give of ourselves and likewise when He loves us, He is giving of Himself for God is love.
Back to the Determinist stating God must first draw one in order for them to respond to Him and love Him. This is truth! John 6:44 tells us that no man can come to Jesus unless he is first drawn to Him; so when does this drawing occur? Plainly stated by the same Gospel writer in John 12:32, when He is lifted up ALL MEN will be drawn to Him! The Determinist who equivocates the drawing with the coming errs here, for the two are wholly separate actions! Not ALL who are drawn WILL come to Him! As Matthew 22:14 tells us, "Many are called, but few are chosen." There is a difference between those called/drawn and those who actually heed the call and come to Him. Along with the context of Matthew 22:14 we see that even some who heed the call and go in to the Wedding Feast, if you do not put on the Wedding Garment (which was traditionally given by the Wedding Host, so there is no excuse not to be wearing it), even if you "show up" you are not guaranteed a spot in Heaven, for the one who showed up without the Wedding Garment was cast out into the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth!
The point is clear... if "many are called, but few are chosen," then it is not God who fails - for that would be impossible - but man who fails to heed the calling AND properly prepare himself for the Wedding Feast.
The Determinist may cry out, "but St. Paul says we're predestined, even before our birth - even before the creation of the universe!" However, we must point out to the Determinist that this predestining is not done in a vacuum! In the "Golden Chain of Redemption" (which includes the statement of predestination) they tend to overlook and/or minimize the first "link" in that "chain." Let us look at it:
Strive then to know, love and serve God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength - for that is what He wills for us to do.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
We live in a life governed by our nature, this is true, but our life is not without choices. When I get up in the morning, one of the first things I must do is use the restroom and I am not "free" to do otherwise - or am I? Well "nature" says I have to relieve myself, but "nature" does not dictate where! We are so conditioned (and rightly so!) to use the "proper facilities," but I could "choose" to use the sink, the tub - or step outside to the flower garden, but I choose the toilet. Or, like a baby or an incontinent adult, I may have no real "choice" in when or where. The point is, we are given the ability to reason and make choices based upon the reasoning we choose to use. We are then rightly judged based upon those choices. We all begin as babies, physically and spiritually; but there comes a time when we must put aside childish things.
Society is the "judge" when it comes to the example above. Society would frown upon us using a sink, the tub or even the flower garden; and would judge us accordingly. Now, on a bit higher level - when we are young and unable to reason, all we think about is our self. As we interact with others we "learn" how to share and please others - at least some of us do. Some do not "learn" these social interaction skills, perhaps never taught these skills by their parents, and continue to "learn" how to please themselves. Such is where bullies come from - a child who never learned to yield his/her own will in concern/caring for or about others.
Likewise, moving to the spiritual realm it is not much different! Left to our own devices, we would seek the hedonist path of pleasing our self. We must be taught about God in order to know, love and serve Him. The more we learn about God brings us to choices in our lives where we choose to either give up our will to His, or reject His Will and pursue self satisfaction in life. Each of us makes such choices all the time!
Just being raised in a "good home" does not mean every child in that home will make "good choices," or the choices which his/her parents would have liked to see them make. Children are influenced by parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, bullies, teachers, pastors and even physical/genetic things. Now "naturally" they would have no control over a physical or genetic trait which may affect their will, but for most of us - the influences are not so "natural." We can choose to be influenced by good or bad people in our lives. Sometimes a "bad" person can have a "good" influence too.
In my own experience, it took me standing up to a bully which dramatically changed the way I was treated by just about everyone else. That's a long story, but the point is I CHOSE to stop being picked on, I took a chance (which could have resulted in me getting beat up), grabbed that bully by his shirt collar, slammed him up against a wall and said, "LEAVE ME ALONE!" Instead of fighting me, he yielded - and from that day forward I was no longer picked on by any of the bullies at my school. What if I had "chose" to not stand up against that bully? I'm confident that my entire life would be quite different than it is today.
On a similar note, my family moved in the middle of my sophomore year of high school. At the new school the first group of people I started "hanging" with was what most parents would call "the wrong crowd." I saw myself actually becoming "one of them," but my mother had instilled upon me a true love for God and what is right - so one day I prayed, "God please get me out of this group of people I have been associating with." That weekend, my best "friend's" dad died and his mom packed up and moved to another part of town moving him to another school. Suddenly my contact with "the wrong crowd" was gone. I seized upon this as a new start - and I found new friends, leaving that culture behind forever. I can only imagine if I had not willed to get out of that culture and remained in it. I've seen others in my family affected by their choice to not get out of that culture and how it has ruined their lives and relationship with God too.
I hope you're seeing the point I'm making. Our lives are governed by our choices. God, in His sovereignty, GIVES us the ability to make these choices because we are made in His image and likeness. Determinists, primarily Calvinists, will argue that no one can choose God unless God first chooses and draws them. They will cite a few verses from Scripture which seem to bolster their position - while ignoring the main thrust of Scripture. So let me deal with these points.
First off, the "main thrust of Scripture" and especially the Gospel, is that God is LOVE and He wants us to know, love and serve Him with all our heart, all our soul, all our mind and all our strength (Mark 12:30; Matt 22:37). Jesus Himself refers to this as the "first," or "foremost," or "greatest" commandment. When Jesus was asked what one must DO to inherit eternal life, well the story goes:
And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" And He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE." (Luke 10:25-28 NASB).According to Jesus Himself, salvation is based in LOVE. And what IS love?
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love (1 Cor. 13 NASB, emphasis mine).
When you love your wife, you aren't giving her something she already has, you are giving of yourself. The same is true of love given to God, we give of ourselves and likewise when He loves us, He is giving of Himself for God is love.
Back to the Determinist stating God must first draw one in order for them to respond to Him and love Him. This is truth! John 6:44 tells us that no man can come to Jesus unless he is first drawn to Him; so when does this drawing occur? Plainly stated by the same Gospel writer in John 12:32, when He is lifted up ALL MEN will be drawn to Him! The Determinist who equivocates the drawing with the coming errs here, for the two are wholly separate actions! Not ALL who are drawn WILL come to Him! As Matthew 22:14 tells us, "Many are called, but few are chosen." There is a difference between those called/drawn and those who actually heed the call and come to Him. Along with the context of Matthew 22:14 we see that even some who heed the call and go in to the Wedding Feast, if you do not put on the Wedding Garment (which was traditionally given by the Wedding Host, so there is no excuse not to be wearing it), even if you "show up" you are not guaranteed a spot in Heaven, for the one who showed up without the Wedding Garment was cast out into the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth!
The point is clear... if "many are called, but few are chosen," then it is not God who fails - for that would be impossible - but man who fails to heed the calling AND properly prepare himself for the Wedding Feast.
The Determinist may cry out, "but St. Paul says we're predestined, even before our birth - even before the creation of the universe!" However, we must point out to the Determinist that this predestining is not done in a vacuum! In the "Golden Chain of Redemption" (which includes the statement of predestination) they tend to overlook and/or minimize the first "link" in that "chain." Let us look at it:
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30 NASB).The first "link" in that chain is God's FOREKNOWLEDGE. God is not limited by our linear view of time - He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) and therefore He KNOWS us, even before we're born. He KNOWS what decisions we will make in this linear path of time - and based upon this FOREKNOWLEDGE ("for those whom He foreknew...") He also predestined. Predestination cannot, therefore, be viewed outside of His foreknowledge of us.
Strive then to know, love and serve God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength - for that is what He wills for us to do.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
Did St. Peter Violate OT Dietary Laws?
Did St. Peter violate OT Jewish dietary laws?
This question was raised on CDF, but the participant who raised the issue refused to abide by the rules of CDF and had to be removed. That's neither here nor there now though. Let us examine the matter objectively.
Challenger: Peter explicitly states: "For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean." (Acts 10:14) Therefore, Peter never did.
Moderator: Please document anywhere AFTER Acts 10 where Scripture records that St. Peter continued to observe the OT Jewish dietary laws.
There we hit our impasse - the challenger merely asserts I am wrong to say St. Peter ever partook of "unclean foods." It must be noted, I did not make that assertion! I simply required the challenger to submit valid documentation, from Scripture, which states St. Peter continued to observe the OT Jewish dietary laws AFTER Acts 10. The responsibility to document or retract remained with the challenger, not with the moderator.
Now, if we objectively look at the context, let's recap what happens in Acts 10:
If we're going to rationalize at all here - then logic demands that we come to the conclusion that St. Peter AFTER Acts 10 no longer observed the Old Testament Jewish dietary laws. To conclude he remained in compliance with the OT laws after this point is illogical/irrational for he would actually now be in violation of what God told him through the messenger/angel. Is the proof absolute? Well, based on Acts 11:3, it's pretty close to absolute - the logical conclusion is that since he was dining with Gentiles in their household that no matter what was served, it would be "unclean" unless these Gentiles had gone through the ritual cleansing process of the Jews - which is even more unlikely. His action also brought the criticism of the "circumcised believers" indicating that they felt he had violated their customs. Again, for him NOT to partake in these foods would also mean that St. Peter directly violated the command from God which came to him through the vision of Acts 10 and clarified through the "messenger" (angel) of the Lord.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
This question was raised on CDF, but the participant who raised the issue refused to abide by the rules of CDF and had to be removed. That's neither here nor there now though. Let us examine the matter objectively.
Challenger: Peter explicitly states: "For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean." (Acts 10:14) Therefore, Peter never did.
Moderator: Please document anywhere AFTER Acts 10 where Scripture records that St. Peter continued to observe the OT Jewish dietary laws.
There we hit our impasse - the challenger merely asserts I am wrong to say St. Peter ever partook of "unclean foods." It must be noted, I did not make that assertion! I simply required the challenger to submit valid documentation, from Scripture, which states St. Peter continued to observe the OT Jewish dietary laws AFTER Acts 10. The responsibility to document or retract remained with the challenger, not with the moderator.
Now, if we objectively look at the context, let's recap what happens in Acts 10:
- St. Peter goes up on the rooftop to pray, and is brought into a trance (v. 10).
- Peter receives a vision of a large sheet containing all the four-legged creatures of the Earth, plus reptiles and birds of the sky (v. 11-12)
- St. Peter is told to "kill and eat." (v. 13)
- St. Peter responds that he cannot, for he has "never eaten anything profane or unclean." (v. 14)
- The voice speaks to him: ""What God has made clean, you are not to call profane." (v. 15)
- This happens three times and then the sheet is drawn back into Heaven.
- Three servants of the God-fearing Gentile, Cornelius, come to St. Peter and say: "Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, respected by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to summon you to his house and to hear what you have to say."
- OT Jewish law forbade Jews from even visiting Gentile households (implied in Acts 11:3), much less eat their food, but what does St. Peter do? He immediately goes with them to Cornelius' house!
- St. Peter not only visits the household of the Gentile Cornelius, but he eats with him!
- In Acts 11 the "circumcised believers" confront St. Peter and challenge him precisely over the visit and the eating amongst Gentiles. (11:2-3)
- St. Peter explains the vision he received and why he went to Cornelius' household and ate with them (v. 4-18).
- The "circumcised believers" then accepted what St. Peter said and rejoiced that God had sent His redemption to the Gentiles too! (v. 18).
If we're going to rationalize at all here - then logic demands that we come to the conclusion that St. Peter AFTER Acts 10 no longer observed the Old Testament Jewish dietary laws. To conclude he remained in compliance with the OT laws after this point is illogical/irrational for he would actually now be in violation of what God told him through the messenger/angel. Is the proof absolute? Well, based on Acts 11:3, it's pretty close to absolute - the logical conclusion is that since he was dining with Gentiles in their household that no matter what was served, it would be "unclean" unless these Gentiles had gone through the ritual cleansing process of the Jews - which is even more unlikely. His action also brought the criticism of the "circumcised believers" indicating that they felt he had violated their customs. Again, for him NOT to partake in these foods would also mean that St. Peter directly violated the command from God which came to him through the vision of Acts 10 and clarified through the "messenger" (angel) of the Lord.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
PART 5 - Response to Engwer on the Papacy
PART 5 - Response to Engwer on the Papacy
Engwer continues:
Well, two things to consider here: 1) Mr. Engwer’s assertion that “it is what Jesus said” does not detract from the FACT that St. John was recalling this some 60 years after the events transpired. 2) For the sake of argument, let’s say Jesus gave Simon Bar Jonah the name “Peter” earlier than Matthew 16, this does not detract from the FACT that Jesus opens Matthew 16:18 calling him “Simon” and finishes calling him “Peter” (or Cephas). Mr. Engwer’s objection is moot at this point.
Engwer continues:
Getting back to Matthew 16, Engwer continues:
There is nothing irrational about pointing out the FACT that while Jesus uses nearly the same words in Matthew 18 as He did in Matthew 16 - He makes absolutely no mention of “the keys to the kingdom of Heaven” in chapter 19! Certainly there are other references to “keys” - but NOT to the “keys to the kingdom of Heaven.” Mr. Engwer goes off on tangents of wholly unrelated verses in an attempt to minimize the importance of Jesus’ words in Matthew 16. Therein lies the folly of Mr. Engwer’s argumentation, minimizing the words of Christ.
Engwer continues:
Engwer continues:
Well, I can’t help Mr. Engwer much further here. He simply dismisses the explanation as a matter of my own ecclesiology - yet what I explained is that it IS TRUE that ALL bishops share in responsibility and authority. The matter, which 1 Cor. 12:28 does not get into, of unity however is given to St. Peter’s successor. The numerous times in which St. Peter was singled out, but especially in John 21:15-17 where in the presence of the rest of the Apostles/bishops, St. Peter is given a special three-fold command to “Feed My lambs... tend My sheep... feed My sheep...” Peter (and the office he held) was given, by Divine Authority, a special leadership here - it was the Good Shepherd (Jesus) passing on His Own Authority to St. Peter to become His stand-in or “vicar” - just before He ascended into Heaven.
Engwer continues:
Engwer seems to think that because Epiphanius apparently gives equal status to both Sts. Peter and Paul as bishops in Rome that this is problematic for Catholicism. It is not. St. Peter was still selected prior to St. Paul, and thus has primacy. It would seem that Mr. Engwer is making a mountain from a molehill here in his attempt to dismiss the CLEAR reference to apostolic succession in the Early Church Fathers, specifically Epiphanius in this case. The POINT REMAINS that St. Clement IS listed as third in succession from St. Peter by Epiphanius, and Mr. Engwer has said/written nothing to counter that.
It must be noted here, I am not the one who is a sola scripturist - yet I supported my statement from Scripture and Mr. Engwer goes off on tangents of allegedly conflicting men, and when it comes to the papacy, all three whom he names SUPPORT the papacy!
Tertulian:
Engwer continues:
I will say that Firmilian is quite critical of Pope Stephen. Firmilian speaks of Pope Stephen’s boasting, but does not deny that which he boasts! THAT was all I was getting at. While being critical of Pope Stephen’s position on baptism of heretics - he still lauded the position of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome and acknowledges Pope Stephen’s claim to the valid succession. Clearly he’s not happy with Pope Stephen but that does not equate to a denial of the papacy. There were things Pope John Paul II did which did not please me, and I even spoke out about them, but I did not and do not deny his papacy!
Engwer continues:
Engwer continues:
It would appear that Mr. Engwer has not studied the period in which the “experiment” of concilliarism took place. Yes, indeed there were those in the Church who sought to diminish the authority of the Pope and did so through this “concilliarist” movement - WITH the sitting pope’s approval! It could be argued that he was relatively forced into the decision, but the fact remains it was a decision left to him to make. After this “experiment” was found to be lacking in practicality as well as Sacred Tradition - it was scrapped and condemned. One thing this episode does show is that the Catholic Church is not so rigid as some think her to be. Changes CAN happen, and changes HAVE happened! Not all change is good, likewise, not all change is bad. In the case of concilliarism - the change was deemed to be “bad” and it was rejected. I’m not real sure why Mr. Engwer thinks he’s making any headway with this argument for as I pointed out, the approval of the sitting pope was still necessary for the “experiment” to even be tried, so it still points to papal authority.
Engwer concludes:
Again, I have explained how I ended up on the “wrong series” - since the immediate subject matter was that of the papacy and St. Augustine, not Catholicism in general. I do concur, Mr. Engwer named the correct series, my attention was drawn to the other series (actually more appropriate series for the discussion at hand) so I responded to that one first. I have, since then, responded to series Engwer initially intended and I have now responded to this, at times uncharitable response from Mr. Engwer.
I assure the objective reader, my belief in the papacy is not based in studying a tangential series on the papacy! Jesus Christ Himself established our first leader, the one He chose to be His stand-in, or vicar, after He ascended into Heaven. The apostolic office is deliberately referred to in Scripture as an OFFICE and one which, of necessity, needed to be filled when vacated. The Early Church Fathers are full of references to the valid succession from St. Peter’s office, AND the necessity of being in communion with THAT see. It is my hope and prayer, especially for anyone who has taken the time and effort to read through these series between myself and Mr. Engwer, that the Lord our God guides them to all truth.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
Engwer continues:
I had mentioned that Peter is given his second name prior to the events of Matthew 16, as we see in John 1:42. Scott responded:
And as for John 1:42 referring to Simon as Peter allegedly before Matthew 16, the objective reader must note that John’s Gospel was written perhaps 60 years after the events recorded in Matthew 16! John knew Simon BarJonah as Peter, so it is no special surprise that he calls him “Peter” in the first chapter of his Gospel.
Does John 1:42 merely refer to what John thought sixty years later? No, it refers to what Jesus said. Jesus was calling Simon by his second name in that passage, even though the events of Matthew 16 hadn't occurred yet. Why does Scott keep failing to even understand the arguments he's supposed to be responding to?
Well, two things to consider here: 1) Mr. Engwer’s assertion that “it is what Jesus said” does not detract from the FACT that St. John was recalling this some 60 years after the events transpired. 2) For the sake of argument, let’s say Jesus gave Simon Bar Jonah the name “Peter” earlier than Matthew 16, this does not detract from the FACT that Jesus opens Matthew 16:18 calling him “Simon” and finishes calling him “Peter” (or Cephas). Mr. Engwer’s objection is moot at this point.
Engwer continues:
He gives us the usual abuse of Acts 1:
When an “office” was vacated it had to be filled, as we saw even in the vacating of Judas’ office/bishoprick in Acts 1.
Well, allow me to quote the pertinent section here and now and save the reader from having to follow more rabbit trails:One of the passages of scripture most often abused by Catholics when discussing this subject is Acts 1:16-26. Dave (Armstrong) appeals to it:
"Later in the chapter [Acts 1] we see explicit proof of apostolic succession (as discussed in my linked paper above): Judas was replaced by Matthias (1:17-26), and an OT passage is cited: 'His office let another take' (1:20)."
Judas was being punished by having another man take his office. Judas is replaced as a unique fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 1:16), and his being replaced is seen as something negative (Acts 1:20), not something positive. He's replaced by one man (Acts 1:20, 1:22), not by multiple men all claiming to be his successors. The requirements that Judas' replacement had to meet can't possibly be met by people alive today (Acts 1:21-22). And when people like James (Acts 12:2), Paul, and Peter are killed or are nearing death, the events of Acts 1 aren't repeated. People are told to remember what Jesus and the apostles had taught (Acts 20:28-35, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2), not to expect all apostolic teaching to be infallibly maintained in unbroken succession throughout church history.
How is it that Judas was “punished” by having another take his office? Judas was DEAD by this time! Clearly Mr. Engwer is objecting to apostolic succession here - but this is so obvious through even a casual reading of the ECFs that denial of apostolic succession is simply a laughable position to take. I suppose it could be an ignorant position, but Mr. Engwer has been around apologetics long enough to not be ignorant of all the evidence for apostolic succession. The fact remains, the Apostles held the office of bishop - they were our first bishops! Clearly that “office” continued in the Church after the Apostles died. My point was, and remains, that when St. Peter died - his office too needed to be filled.Getting back to Matthew 16, Engwer continues:
Scott writes:
Except that Matthew 23 and Luke 11 do not make any reference to “keys,” and both Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 do!
Keys are associated with binding and loosing and opening and shutting (Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 3:7, 9:1-2, 20:1-2), and that's what an actual key does (Judges 3:25), so separating the keys in Matthew 16:19 from the power of binding and loosing is contrary to the context of the rest of scripture. It goes without saying that if you have the keys, you can bind and loose (or open and shut). And if you can bind and loose (or open and shut), it goes without saying that you have the keys. These things are all part of the same imagery. Some passages mention one, some mention the other, and some mention both. Matthew 23 and Luke 11 are parallel passages. One refers to opening and shutting without referring to any keys (Matthew 23:13). The other does refer to a key (Luke 11:52). Similarly, Revelation 20:1-2 mentions binding just after mentioning a key, whereas verse 7 mentions releasing without mentioning the key. But the use of the key in verse 7 is implied. To try to separate the keys of Matthew 16:19 from the power of binding and loosing that all the disciples had (Matthew 18:18), then assume that the keys represent papal authority, is irrational and speculative.
There is nothing irrational about pointing out the FACT that while Jesus uses nearly the same words in Matthew 18 as He did in Matthew 16 - He makes absolutely no mention of “the keys to the kingdom of Heaven” in chapter 19! Certainly there are other references to “keys” - but NOT to the “keys to the kingdom of Heaven.” Mr. Engwer goes off on tangents of wholly unrelated verses in an attempt to minimize the importance of Jesus’ words in Matthew 16. Therein lies the folly of Mr. Engwer’s argumentation, minimizing the words of Christ.
Engwer continues:
If Scott is saying that Matthew 23 and Luke 11 don't use the plural "keys", whereas Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 do, then he's mistaken. Isaiah uses the singular. And these passages don't have to be referring to the same keys in order to have some relevance to each other. Similar themes suggest some similarities in meaning.
Well, I am not making an issue of plural verses singular use of the word “key.” Mr. Engwer has attempted to predict my argument or read my mind - and has failed.Engwer continues:
I had pointed out that the recipient of the key in Isaiah 22:22 is a prime minister who's under the authority of a king. If Peter is to be paralleled to the prime minister, then who in the church should be paralleled to the king? God gives the key in Isaiah 22, and Jesus gives the keys in Matthew 16, so Jesus would be parallel to God rather than to the king. Who, then, is the king? A church leader with more authority than Peter? Scott responded:
Who said anything about a prime minister? God gives the key to the king in Isaiah and God gives the key(s) to Peter in Matthew.
Scott needs to read Isaiah 22 more carefully. Eliakim isn't a king. He's in a lower office that's often referred to as that of a prime minister or steward (John Oswalt, The Book Of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1986], pp. 418, 422).
I missed something the first go-round with Engwer here. Let me recap, using the analogy Engwer proposed, again, he is using an analogy I have not proposed or ever used prior to this encounter. Now, if the key in Isaiah 22:22 is being given by the king to the prime minister, and St. Peter is to be paralleled to the prime minister, then who in the Church should be paralleled to the king? Therein lies Mr. Engwer’s flaw - the giver of the keys in Matthew 16 is Jesus Christ who is God. Engwer continues “God gives the key in Isaiah 22, and Jesus gives the keys in Matthew 16...” RIGHT! Continuing: “...so Jesus would be parallel to God rather than to the king.” Again, HERE is where Mr. Engwer falters. God IS the parallel to the king! So, while I missed the “king” aspect in my first response - my answer was clear and remains the same. It is the voice of God, speaking through Isaiah the Prophet, who gives the key to the (prime minister) and it is God Himself speaking in Matthew 16 promising to give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to St. Peter (His prime minister). Like I said, I’ve never used this comparison before, but now that Mr. Engwer has pointed it out to me, I may use it in the future! Thanks Jason! I had pointed out that 1 Corinthians 12:28 refers to apostles, not Peter or a papacy, as the first rank in the church. Scott replied:
First off, yes - all the Apostles were bishops! All of them shared a responsibility and authority, just as every bishop to this day shares. It is not as though Cephas was made a king and the rest were princes, no! They were all bishops! The office of the bishop is the highest in the Church. Each bishop is essentially the “pope” of his jurisdiction. The Bishop of Rome has fundamental jurisdiction over Rome itself, but also a jurisdiction of unity which extends to all the jurisdictions of the world.
But 1 Corinthians 12:28 doesn't mention "bishops" as the highest rank. And if the bishop of Rome has authority over all other bishops, then why should we think that the highest rank belongs to all bishops? Scott isn't explaining 1 Corinthians 12:28. Rather, he's explaining his own ecclesiology, which is something different.
Well, I can’t help Mr. Engwer much further here. He simply dismisses the explanation as a matter of my own ecclesiology - yet what I explained is that it IS TRUE that ALL bishops share in responsibility and authority. The matter, which 1 Cor. 12:28 does not get into, of unity however is given to St. Peter’s successor. The numerous times in which St. Peter was singled out, but especially in John 21:15-17 where in the presence of the rest of the Apostles/bishops, St. Peter is given a special three-fold command to “Feed My lambs... tend My sheep... feed My sheep...” Peter (and the office he held) was given, by Divine Authority, a special leadership here - it was the Good Shepherd (Jesus) passing on His Own Authority to St. Peter to become His stand-in or “vicar” - just before He ascended into Heaven.
Engwer continues:
Scott writes:
Pope Clement clearly speaks to the need of successors to the office of the bishop, and he himself is named by other ECFs as the third in succession from St. Peter as the Bishop of Rome, Epiphanius writes in the latter half of the fourth century
Engwer seems to think that because Epiphanius apparently gives equal status to both Sts. Peter and Paul as bishops in Rome that this is problematic for Catholicism. It is not. St. Peter was still selected prior to St. Paul, and thus has primacy. It would seem that Mr. Engwer is making a mountain from a molehill here in his attempt to dismiss the CLEAR reference to apostolic succession in the Early Church Fathers, specifically Epiphanius in this case. The POINT REMAINS that St. Clement IS listed as third in succession from St. Peter by Epiphanius, and Mr. Engwer has said/written nothing to counter that.
Scott continues:
The “keys” are given ONLY to Peter. Keys are a symbol of authority, and the keys are given to ONE. The “power” to bind and loose is another issue, and even here - Peter is given this authority alone (Matt. 16:18-19) whereas the rest of the bishops are given this authority as a group (Matt. 18:18).
I've already explained why it's erroneous to separate the keys from the binding and loosing. At this point, I'll add that the church fathers repeatedly contradicted Scott on this issue. Tertullian commented that ""For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him." (Scorpiace, 10) Origen said that all Christians possess the keys (Commentary On Matthew, 12:10). John Chrysostom said that the apostle John possessed the keys (Homilies On The Gospel Of John, 1:2).
It must be noted here, I am not the one who is a sola scripturist - yet I supported my statement from Scripture and Mr. Engwer goes off on tangents of allegedly conflicting men, and when it comes to the papacy, all three whom he names SUPPORT the papacy!
Tertulian:
"…that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed. " [Modesty, qtd in Jurgens 387]
Origen: "Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail..." [Commentaries on John, qtd in Jurgens 479a]
Chrysostom:And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren ...and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,' this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world. (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called, and the First who obeyed he was guilty ...even denying the Lord." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)
So what I have quote above negates what Mr. Engwer is attempting to say. Tertullian specifically answers to those who wish to “subvert and change the manifest intent of the Lord” in regard to giving the authority of the keys to all when that was specifically given to Peter, alone. The piece from Origen is contextually referring to the epistles written by St. Peter, but noteworthy is the title he gives to St. Peter. The words from St. John Chrysostom speak for themselves.Engwer continues:
Scott goes on:
So again, this letter of Firmilian to Pope Stephen is NOT a denial of the papacy, as Mr. Engwer falsely asserts, it expresses his frustration in Pope Stephen’s “folly” and “defaming” of the papacy.
He's referring to Firmilian's comments recorded in Cyprian's Letter 74. Scott assumes that Firmilian believed in a papacy, but he doesn't demonstrate it.
I suggest that people read Firmilian's letter for themselves. Note that he refers to how the Roman Christians "vainly pretend the authority of the apostles" (74:6). He refers to how the Roman bishop Stephen "boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter" (74:17). Speaking to Stephen, Firmilian says, "while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all" (74:24). It doesn't seem that Firmilian agreed with the claims the Romans and Stephen were making. Yet, Scott suggests that Firmilian not only didn't oppose the papacy, but even believed in it. Where's his evidence?
I will say that Firmilian is quite critical of Pope Stephen. Firmilian speaks of Pope Stephen’s boasting, but does not deny that which he boasts! THAT was all I was getting at. While being critical of Pope Stephen’s position on baptism of heretics - he still lauded the position of Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome and acknowledges Pope Stephen’s claim to the valid succession. Clearly he’s not happy with Pope Stephen but that does not equate to a denial of the papacy. There were things Pope John Paul II did which did not please me, and I even spoke out about them, but I did not and do not deny his papacy!
Engwer continues:
He writes:
The first 15 popes were all martyred (into the 3rd century) and several others after that too.
The (anti-Catholic) historian Philip Schaff commented:
"Irenaeus recognizes among the Roman bishops from Clement to Eleutherus (177), all of whom he mentions by name, only one martyr, to wit, Telesphorus...So Eusebius, H. E. V. 6. From this we must judge of the value of the Roman Catholic tradition on this point. It is so remote from the time in question as to be utterly unworthy of credit." (History Of The Christian Church, 2:4, n. 225)
As Schaff notes, Irenaeus refers to the Roman bishop Telesphorus as a martyr without making any such comment about the other Roman bishops he names in the surrounding context (Against Heresies, 3:3:3).
The patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly wrote of Telesphorus, "he is the only 2nd-cent. pope whose martyrdom is reliably attested" (Oxford Dictionary Of Popes [New York: Oxford University Press, 1996], p. 9).
It seems that what Scott is referring to is a late, unhistorical tradition. He seems to believe a lot of late, unhistorical traditions about the papacy.
First off, Schaff is quite the anti-Catholic, as one can easily see in the commentary he adds to his rendition of the ECFs. Likewise, J.N.D. Kelly is no supporter of Catholicism! Mr. Engwer does not present actual EVIDENCE to counter what I said, he provides non- or anti-Catholic commentary. That’s not valid scholarship. Would I grant that at least some of the tradition of the martyred popes is tradition? Yes, I would - but certainly not “late tradition.” Engwer continues:
Scott goes on to make some nonsensical comments about conciliarism. He admits that conciliarism is inconsistent with his beliefs and has been condemned by Roman Catholicism. Yet, he says that it was acceptable for church leaders to "experiment" with it. He writes:
However, it [conciliarism] was still a movement which required papal approval to take root - which it got for a while - and the system was eventually brought back to the original structure and conciliarism was condemned....
The problem, again, which Mr. Engwer has is the fact that the pope consented to the alleged conciliarism of the day....The only way any form of conciliarism has “worked” was under the blessing of the sitting pope....
Modern Catholics need not worry about this papal approved conciliarism for again, since it was approved by the papacy - it is not a system superior to the papacy.
Since conciliarism denies the view of papal authority Scott is advocating, is he saying that its contradiction of his view had "papal approval" and "the blessing of the sitting pope"? If a papacy with authority over councils was a concept always understood and believed by the church, as the First Vatican Council suggested, then why would Christians, and even church leaders, have been supporting a system that contradicted that concept?
Scott seems to think that if a Pope went along with conciliarism, or if a council advocating conciliarism tried to coordinate its efforts with a Pope, then conciliarism must be consistent with papal authority over councils. But how does Scott's conclusion follow? Papal cooperation doesn't prove papal supremacy. The conciliarists in question were denying papal supremacy. Pointing to their cooperation with Popes doesn't change that fact.
It would appear that Mr. Engwer has not studied the period in which the “experiment” of concilliarism took place. Yes, indeed there were those in the Church who sought to diminish the authority of the Pope and did so through this “concilliarist” movement - WITH the sitting pope’s approval! It could be argued that he was relatively forced into the decision, but the fact remains it was a decision left to him to make. After this “experiment” was found to be lacking in practicality as well as Sacred Tradition - it was scrapped and condemned. One thing this episode does show is that the Catholic Church is not so rigid as some think her to be. Changes CAN happen, and changes HAVE happened! Not all change is good, likewise, not all change is bad. In the case of concilliarism - the change was deemed to be “bad” and it was rejected. I’m not real sure why Mr. Engwer thinks he’s making any headway with this argument for as I pointed out, the approval of the sitting pope was still necessary for the “experiment” to even be tried, so it still points to papal authority.
Engwer concludes:
Scott writes:
After going through “all (Engwer’s) 6000 words of the papacy entries” (which is actually 4814 words, but who’s counting?) and demonstrating either their lack of applicability, contextuality, and outright validity, perhaps it is Mr. Schultz’ reading comprehension skills which suggest some needed improvement?...It would seem that Mr. Schultz’ agreement with Mr. Engwer has clouded his objectivity - or perhaps Mr. Schultz has not even fully read all 4814 words from Mr. Engwer for himself?
Scott makes those comments after having replied to the wrong series of posts. I had directed readers to the correct series by name, I described some of the contents of that series, and Matthew Schultz did the same. Matthew even quoted part of what I wrote in the series. Yet, Scott misinterpreted all of that information and replied to the wrong posts. I suspect that a similar methodology has led him to his belief in the papacy.
Again, I have explained how I ended up on the “wrong series” - since the immediate subject matter was that of the papacy and St. Augustine, not Catholicism in general. I do concur, Mr. Engwer named the correct series, my attention was drawn to the other series (actually more appropriate series for the discussion at hand) so I responded to that one first. I have, since then, responded to series Engwer initially intended and I have now responded to this, at times uncharitable response from Mr. Engwer.
I assure the objective reader, my belief in the papacy is not based in studying a tangential series on the papacy! Jesus Christ Himself established our first leader, the one He chose to be His stand-in, or vicar, after He ascended into Heaven. The apostolic office is deliberately referred to in Scripture as an OFFICE and one which, of necessity, needed to be filled when vacated. The Early Church Fathers are full of references to the valid succession from St. Peter’s office, AND the necessity of being in communion with THAT see. It is my hope and prayer, especially for anyone who has taken the time and effort to read through these series between myself and Mr. Engwer, that the Lord our God guides them to all truth.
AMDG,
Scott<<<
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Feast of the Assumption
The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...
-
Is Sola Scriptura Self Refuting? So goes the title of an article by Steve Hays on Triablogue. The real problem with defining sola scrip... -
In a recent post from Alan/Rhology on Beggars All , he said: >> sw: So you're confirming (again) that your local >> churc...
-
This is a continuing discussion from http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/pope-working-toward-unity-with-eo.html >> sw: "Um, t...