Friend and neighbor Father Andrew Greeley, sociologist, novelist, and columnist, reminded me in a recent e-mail that he liked to be called a "Catholic," not a "Roman Catholic."
In his January 2nd Chicago Sun-Times column, he elaborates: "My crowd has been calling themselves 'Catholic' for 17 centuries. The adjective "Roman" added in the American context is a slur, sometimes unintentionally conveyed in the tone of the one using it. It hints that we are somehow foreign and perhaps subversive. It came into use when the 'publics' started to recite the Nicene Creed and their leaders had to explain that the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic church' of the creed wasn't us." He then goes on to comment on how the media have allowed some "Evangelicals" to preempt the space once labeled "Christian."
There is no question that Protestant meanies in America once spit out variants such as "Roman" (without "Catholic") or "Romish" or "Romanist" or, worse, "Papist" or "Jesuitical," with purely pejorative intent. Turn over a plank and you may still find some creepy-crawly critters, anti-Catholic to the core, who speak or write that way.
But I would argue that today, "Roman" is used neutrally or even positively. First, it is not an "American" usage; as shown in almost all ecumenical documents involving Roman—oops!—Catholics with the World Council of Churches. There, "Roman Catholic Church" is standard, as it is when there is dealing with the distinct Eastern Catholic Churches. (There are also "Anglo-Catholics," and others who have some sort of identifier.) "Roman" also appears in some papal and conciliar documents issued from Rome. And we "publics" did not "start" using the Nicene Creed in recent America. "My crowd," Evangelical Lutherans, have recited, professed, and I hope lived the Nicene Creed with the "catholic" phrase in it for centuries.
Names are important, as I had to remind a friend who thought discussion of names was insignificant compared to cosmic events like " Iowa" and "New Hampshire." Wars start over pejorative and sometimes even innocently used labels. "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are not the only complexities these days.
More urgent, most urgent, is the task of dealing in a fair way with the many, many brands of Christians who get lumped together as "Evangelicals," especially in political discourse, where they get miscast simply as "the Christian right." More examples: Luther and Lutherans did not choose their name. None of us liked being label "ecclesial communities" instead of "churches" by Pope Benedict XVI, but we'll live with it. "Mainline Protestants" didn't and don't like their name, which is usually used pejoratively by non-Protestants, most of whom never liked and few ever use the accidentally applied term "Protestant" itself.
But hang around inter-faith and Christian ecumenical crowds and you will find that today "Roman" before the word "Catholic Church" is used mainly by its friends. You can tell by the tone, which is never condescending or motivated by suspicion of another crowd.
_______________________________________________
Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, upcoming events, publications, and contact information can be found at www.illuminos.com.
Comments
Irenaeus,
You also have presented your case well; I appreciate your candor and mature dialogue. I am sure we both we be chatting again in the near future. I too may have to chime in on that one. Take care.
O4H,
I agree, and you have presented your position well and very diplomatically. So I will presume that we are done here for now. This was the first thread that I posted on. I am following the Pro-Gay Booklet's thread, and it is amazing the convoluted rationalizations going on over there. I finally had to chime in.
Irenaeus,
So why does having a chief bishop do so?
Scripture is absolutely silent about a chief bishop; as a matter of fact, this passage indicates that Christ is our true bishop –
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls – 1Peter 2:25.
The Holy Spirit was sent to be our guide and teacher. It is He who lives within God’s people; -
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God – Romans 8:14.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you – John 14:26.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you – John 16:7.
The Word of God explicitly declares the will of God and the Holy Spirit is the one who empowers us to walk in harmony with its teachings. A chief bishop is not necessary for salvation nor is this office mentioned in the list of church structure –
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues – 1Corinthians 12:28.
Most first century believers worshipped in many house churches and were led by the Spirit of God to proclaim the gospel. My point is; the Holy Spirit is the one who internally guides and leads the people of God.
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth – Acts 1:8.
I guess we can continue to discuss this topic as long as you want to but it seems that we have expounded and elaborated our positions extensively.
O4H,
That there were more than one claimant to the office at a given time does not invalidate apostolic succession. In fact, right now, there are several rival claimants to the office. Pope Michael supposedly lives somewhere in Kansas. And Pope Pius XIII is somewhere in Washington state or Montana. Both of these men have websites explaining the validity of their claims.
Neither does the vacancy of an office invalidate apostolic succession. Remember that that point was made previously regarding the office and the office holder. Often, dioceses have been vacant for a couple of years before a successor bishop has been appointed; this is no different with the bishop of Rome, whether the office is vacant for several years or only several weeks.
O4H,
Regarding whether other bishops were called pope or ‘papa’ is irrelevant because even during those times it was understood who had the primacy of honor and jurisdiction. Similarly, it wouldn’t matter if the bishop of Rome were no longer called pope; he would still be the chief bishop of the Church.
Regarding Christ being the Head of His body, the church, a hearty Amen! I agree. Local congregations have a senior pastor (i.e., chief shepherd, local head, etc), but this does not mean that they are usurping the prerogative of Christ’s headship. So why does having a chief bishop do so? The Catholic Church whole-heartedly agrees that Jesus Christ is the ultimate and absolute Head of the Church. But just as King Hezekiah had a chief steward (i.e., vizier, prime minister, etc) who was in charge of the kingdom, especially in the king’s absence, so was Peter delegated authority to him by the King as chief steward. As chief steward, he had authority over the kingdom, especially during the King’s physical absence. Notice that King Hezekiah never relinquished his authority. The ultimate and absolute authority always remains with the king. Similarly, Jesus never relinquishes His authority; He merely delegates it to another (Peter) in His absence until He returns. Secondly, the office of prime minister, or chief steward, was a successive office and would REMAIN SO as long as the Davidic Kingdom continued. Therefore, Peter’s office, that of being chief steward or prime minister, would be one of succession. The king’s office was successive by virtue of lineage; the prime minister’s office was successive by appointment. Since Jesus resumes the kingship of the Davidic kingdom, then Jesus is allowed to delegate authority to a prime minister in his absence (as was the prerogative of the Davidic kings).
With regard to the faithful succession of apostolic teaching, again I would agree with you. Where we would disagree is where the apostolic teaching solely resides, which is why I believe we moved over to the canon of scripture earlier in this thread. I do not believe that the complete deposit of faith is contained explicitly in the NT scriptures. That was not the purpose of authors, and scripture never makes this claim for itself. For example, how do we as Christian’s know with absolute certitude (i.e., infallibly) that abortion is wrong? The scriptures never address the subject.
And yes, “our faith is in the things that are ‘not seen’” yet this did not help Paul, Barnabas, and others settle the dispute in the early church over circumcision of Gentile converts to Christianity. They did not appeal to the invisible headship of Christ for their clarification. They appealed to visible leadership.
Simply stated, neither is Rome's bishop today linked to Peter by any unbroken chain of successors. The supposed lineage has been often and irretrievably broken. There have been numerous times when multiple claimants to the papacy were seated in opposition one to another (antipopes). This office has also been sold to the highest bidder. Only looking back with the benefit of hindsight does Rome now pick one of them as the 'true pope'. There have also been many times when there was no bishop of Rome for years at a time (e.g. 304-308, 638-640, 1085-86, 1241-43, 1269-71, 1292-94, 1314-16, 1415-17).
Former Jesuit Peter De Rosa writes in Vicars of Christ, speaking of John Paul II:
In the Vatican's lists he is called the 263rd pontiff, but the number is not certain. There have been times when no one knew who was the rightful pope of several claimants. Moreover, it was only in the year 1073 that Pope Gregory VI forbade Catholics to call anyone pope except the Bishop of Rome. Before then, many bishops were fondly addressed as 'pope' or 'papa'.
Irenaeus,
As I mentioned earlier; to share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth.
The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching. This is what is most important; the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church as the scriptures reveal.
To begin with, the Scriptures tell us clearly, repeatedly, and thoroughly that Christ Himself is the Head of His Church (Colossians 1.18; 2.8-10, 18-19; I Corinthians 11.3; Ephesians 1.19-23; 4.14-16; 5.23). He Himself is the Head of His Body, and the Source of its unity. All of these Scriptures were written after Jesus had ascended to the right hand of the Father, and His Church remained on the earth. He was at that time the Head of His Church, and nothing has occurred to change that. He remains the Head of His Church today. Nowhere in the New Testament (or the Old) is there any indication that there is a second, "visible"—as Rome claims—head of the Body.
Christ is all sufficient. When He ascended to the right hand of the Father, the Holy Spirit came as His Vicar on the Earth (John 14.16-17, 26; 15.26; 16.7-13). The Church doesn't have a "visible head". Our faith is in the things that are "not seen" (see e.g., II Corinthians 4.18; 5.7; Hebrews 11.1) Peter wrote of Christ, "Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." Paul wrote to the Colossians, "If ye then were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Jesus is fully capable of fulfilling His office as Head of His Church while seated at the Father's right hand. He has not relegated that office to anyone else.
O4H,
I agree that I too have strayed off topic.
Yes, the Catholic Church (Latin rite and all eastern rites) claim apostolic succession as well as the various Orthodox churches. Whether there are certain Orthodox churches that teach “every bishop is a successor of Saint Peter and holds 'the Chair of Peter', whereas presbyters can be considered successors to the apostles” I do not know. Remember, the primacy of Peter is a special case of apostolic succession.
The following came from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website:
Apostolic Succession: The direct, continuous, and unbroken line of succession transmitted to the bishops of the Church by the Apostles. The bishops, who form a collective body (that is the leadership of the Church), are considered to be successors of the Apostles; and, consequently, the duties and powers given to the Apostles by Christ are transmitted through "the laying-on-of-hands" to the bishops and priests who succeeded them by ordination (cheirotonia) to priesthood.
Bishop: (Gr. Episkopos, Archiereas). A clergyman who has received the highest of the sacred orders. A bishop must be ordained by at least three other bishops and is considered a successor of the Apostles.
Nothing is said of the bishops specifically being successors of Peter.
Also, the succession of bishops and the handing on of apostolic teaching is not necessarily mutually exclusive. Both are true. In fact, in combating various heretical teachings, Tertullian states as much in the two statements below; the first speaking of the former while the second speaks to the latter…
“Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (Tertullian - Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 [A.D. 200]).
"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.)
Irenaeus,
Sorry for getting back to you so late; I have been very busy. Thank God, the weekend has finally arrived.
I have not been alone with introducing or talking about different subjects during the course of our discussions. Directly or indirectly; we both have touched upon the subjects of tradition, scripture, the church, the role of bishops, infallibility, etc.
"Okay, let’s please stick to a narrower focus"
Apostolic Succession –
In pre Protestant Churches (Chaldean Church of Babylon, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church), Apostolic Succession is claimed as having been passed through unbroken lines of bishops beginning with the original Apostles. The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally been the most vocal in claiming unique legitimacy in terms of Apostolic Succession based on the assertion that Saint Peter, believed to be the rightful leader of the Church, was the first Bishop of Rome. Other communions such as Anglican and Oriental Orthodoxy claim legitimacy on a similar basis Western Christian groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, hold that bishops are successors of the apostles. The Roman Catholic Church further teaches that the unique successor of the apostle Peter is the bishop (pope) of Rome. Is this not the point that you are trying to make?
However, strict Eastern Orthodox theology and ecclesiology teaches that every bishop is a successor of Saint Peter and holds 'the Chair of Peter', whereas presbyters can be considered successors to the apostles. Most Protestant Churches would deny that the apostolicity of the Church rests on an unbroken episcopacy. They generally hold that one important qualification of the apostles was that they were chosen directly by Jesus and that they witnessed the resurrected Christ. According to this understanding, the work of these twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth.
The most meaningful apostolic succession for most Protestants, then, is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching. This is what is most important; the importance of doctrinal continuity in the Church as the scriptures reveal.
O4H,
Okay, let’s please stick to a narrower focus, because I cannot possibly address in a timely fashion every new concern that you are bringing up. I would gladly do so, but I just don’t have the time. Until now, I have attempted to narrow the scope to apostolic succession and the early church prior to about 300 A.D in order to not be spread so thin, then we can move to another topic. We somehow then drifted off to the canon of scripture and the Church’s discernment of which early Christian writings were considered canonical. As soon as the term ‘infallible’ was brought up with regard to the Church’s discernment, instead of addressing the immediate point that was brought up, a list of cases throughout the history of the church supposedly demonstrating how the Catholic Church cannot possibly be infallible is then brought up.
So, getting back to the topic at hand, as stated prior, whether or not you want to call the ‘church’ of the first couple hundred years the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is irrelevant. It has already been demonstrated that this early ‘church’ (call it the ‘xyz’ Church or the Christian Church, it doesn’t matter) whatever its name clearly taught apostolic succession. But based on your response about miracles and such, perhaps we are talking passed one another regarding what an apostolic successor means. I never claimed that the successors to the apostles were themselves ‘apostles’ in the sense that the Twelve were. Obviously, the witness of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the eyewitness testimony to having seen the risen Christ would eventually no longer be able to be fulfilled as the criteria as time progressed further away from when these events occurred. By apostolic successor is meant a person who has been discerned as a leader and been appointed and ordained as a presbyter or bishop by either an apostle or a bishop. There is not one example in the NT where a church leader (whether presbyters or a bishop) assumes the role for themselves; rather, they are appointed and ordained by the apostles and other already-appointed leaders. This is apostolic succession.
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Clement's Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 90]).
In direct contrast to these “infallible” declarations, the Roman Catholic church is now saying the following regarding Muslims. Their contradiction is:
“The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ “(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p. 223).
Question: If Muslims can be saved on the basis of professing to hold to the faith of Abraham, why can’t the Jews?
Infallible; I think not. Only God has infinite understanding and makes no mistakes. That is why His Word is infallible (John 10:35) – it comes straight from him 2Timothy 3:16. Scripture never promised that there would be successors to Peter who would be divinely protected from error when speaking ex-cathedra. That is a man-made doctrine.
Another example would be Pope Liberius (352-366) who acquiesced to Arian demands by signing an Arianizing confession and agreeing to the excommunication of Athanasius.
Pope Zosimus (417-418) in an encyclical letter rebuked Augustine and the North African Church for their condemnation of Pelagius and his teachings. The North Africans then assembled a general synod of their own at Carthage in 418 A. D., at which some two hundred bishops were present. They passed a number of cannons specifically condemning the teachings of Pelagius. This was done in defiance of the decrees of Zosimus, giving clear evidence that the early Church did not believe the bishops of Rome were infallible. As a result of their opposition, Pope Zosimus reversed his position and condemned the Pelagian heresy.
Pope Honorius I (A.D. 625-638), who was soundly condemned by the Sixth General Council (680-681) for teaching the monothelite heresy in which he was also condemned by every pope until the eleventh century.
Pope Eugenius IV (1431-1447) facing the possibility of a renewed schism and a crises in his own authority, Eugenius IV finally accepted and fully approved the Council of Basel, which had reaffirmed the decrees of the Council of Constance revoking his previous bulls in opposition to it. The legates appointed by the pope swore to accept and defend its decrees. In this bull Pope Eugenius IV affirmed the Council’s teaching of the superiority of General Councils.
I might also mention the sad reality of “antipopes” in Roman Catholicism’s history. This refers to the fact that there have been times in Catholic history in which there has been more than one pope at a time. (Those interested in this aspect of Roman Catholic history should consult historical works on the Great Schism between A.D. 1378 and 1417 when there were rival popes at Avignon and Rome.) Scholars tell us that there have been about 35 antipopes in the history of the church.
Finally, the RCC teaches that there is no salvation outside of its church; “not only pagans, but Jews, heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil, and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church;” – (Mansi, Concilia, XXXi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441). This goes hand in hand with Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctum, 1302 in which he state, “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”.
Scripture indicates that the church is built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:20). Of course, once a foundation is built, no further foundation is needed. And because no further foundation is needed, there is no need for apostolic successors. The Bible clearly teaches that the apostles and prophets were foundational gifts, and there is not a shred of biblical proof that there were to be successors to the apostles in the RCC.
"Second, the Christian church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, they discover what is already authentic. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me..." (John 10:27)."
The same Holy Spirit who moved upon men to pen down the inspiration of God’s Word was the same agent who caused the Church to discern and recognize which books were inspired and accepted. The general consensus had already been made by the divine content of the books themselves – again the church recognized the inspiration of the God’s Words. The contents of the apocryphal and many Gnostic gospels were never widely accepted by the Jews or early Christians because they “discerned” the lack of inspiration that these books required in order to be included with the rest of Scripture. The Old Testament scriptures were already accepted by the early church and most of the NT writers quoted from its pages.
Never made the claim that the NT writings became authentic by virtue of an ecclesiastical declaration.
This has been my point all along; God has preserved his word from the beginning –
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven – Psalm 119:89.
You continuously used the word ‘infallibly’ – this term is used to prove that the RCC does not error when speaking in matters of the faith. I beg to differ; history proves otherwise – the Galileo debacle – when Galileo, using a telescope, posited the theory that the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system, this rocked the boat with the pope and the RCC, which held to the theological position of an earth-centered system. Galileo was promptly summoned by an Inquisition in 1632, was tried, and was pronounced “vehemently suspected of heresy.” From that point forward, he was forced to repeat the seven penitential psalms once a week for three years, and was held under house arrest until his death in 1642.
Irenaeus,
Sounds like you had a good time this past weekend; I was kind of curious as to what happened to you. I did not think that you would just vanish without commenting on my last post. Sorry, for my delay; I am getting over the flu this past week.
"And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another – 1Corinthians 4:6."
I am citing from the KJV.
We have covered this already; it is a known fact that the early church was NOT the RCC as many would like it to be. At any rate; the apostles themselves were unique, the uniqueness of the apostles is seen in the unique miraculous powers they possessed. The apostles were handpicked by God and were given special, unmistakable “signs of an apostles” (2Corinthians 12:12). These signs gifts included the ability to raise people from the dead on command (Matthew 10:8), heal incurable diseases (Matthew 10:8, John 9:1-7). On one occasion an apostle pronounced a supernatural death sentence on two people who had “lied to the Holy Spirit,” and they immediately dropped over dead (Acts 51-11).
Significantly, these miraculous powers ceased during the lives of the apostles. We read in Hebrews 2:3, 4, -
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? The supposed successors did not demonstrate these signs.
While the apostles and their miraculous confirmations have passed away, their authoritative teachings remain in authority in the pages of Holy Scripture. “The authority of apostolic writings has replaced the authority of the first-century apostolic writers. Jude 3 states, “Contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” “The faith” refers to the apostolic body of truth that became regulative upon the church (see Acts 6:7, Galatians 1:23, 1Timothy 4:1).
“The faith” refers to “that which is believed, a body of faith or belief, a doctrine which was “once” delivered for “all” and handed down to the saints by the unique apostles of God. The “once for all” refers to something that has been done for all time, something that never needs repeating.
O4H,
I stated, “THE REVELATION THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS THIS SAME CHRIST that was spoken of in the OT that was being made known through the apostles. THAT was the NEW revelation being preached.”
You responded, "I agree with your point. My point is, the apostles messages were and always have been in harmony with the scriptures."
And I would say the same thing regarding the teaching of apostolic succession.