John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

John Cassian was a zealous monk whose theology (unfortunately, one might say) has been massively influential on the church’s understanding of the whole of the gospel since the fifth century. His particular theology (commonly known as semi-Pelagianism), which was developed largely in response to Augustine’s doctrines of predestination, grace, and free will, has been adopted by many Christians—academics, clergy and lay people alike—throughout the centuries.Two major influences were at work in Cassian’s life and teachings. First, Greek neo-platonic philosophical theology shaped his understanding of anthropology in a way that prevented him from being able to engage Augustine on the level that he should have. And second, his intense devotion to the ascetic chastity of the monastery created a platform upon which his theology could develop, yet in a way that was almost entirely sub-biblical. The result of Cassian’s theological contributions to the church has been the obscuring of the God of the Bible in the vision of His people.

Cassianus was born (probably in Provence) around 360 A.D., and most likely assumed the name “Iohannes” (John) at his baptism or admittance to the monastic life. [1] He died in Massilia of Gaul (present-day Marseilles, France), where he had spent his most productive years as a monk, in 435. [2] His birthplace is uncertain, and little is known about his parents, education, or childhood, primarily because of his own silence regarding these in his writings.

It is known, however, that he had a rigorous education, as evidenced by his fluent bilingualism and familiarity with church fathers. Western-born, Latin was probably his native tongue; yet much of his thought is influenced by Greek writers, and much of his life was spent in the East, where he derived his perspective on monasticism. “[H]is entire achievement was built on” his bilingualism, [3] as it offered him access to all major writers, and undoubtedly enabled him to address any major audience. Much exposure to Greek philosophical theology, together with his zeal for ascetic chastity, would figure prominently in Cassian’s response to Augustine, as shall be discussed later.

Cassian spent many years as a monk with his companion, Germanus, in Bethlehem of Palestine and various places in Egypt with the desert fathers before they went to Constantinople. There Cassian studied under Bishop Chrysostom, until the teacher was banished from Constantinople. Cassian and Germanus then carried a petition on his behalf from the clergy of Constantinople to Pope Innocent in Rome, where Cassian made the acquaintance of one Archdeacon Leo, later to become Pope Leo the Great. [4] Eventually Cassian removed to Massilia, where monastic life had become increasingly popular during more recent years, in order to develop monasticism—he established two new monasteries—and to write. [5]

In Massilia Cassian, now an abbot, wrote his three major works: 1) his Institutes (De Institutis Coenobiorum et de Octo Principalium Vitiorum Remediis Libri XII), which detail rules for the monastic life; 2) his Conferences (Collationes XXIV), which record conversations with abbots during his time in Egypt; [6] and 3) On the Incarnation against Nestorius (De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium), a work of seven books written at the request of Pope Leo. [7] In this last writing Cassian is the first to point out similarities between Nestorianism and Pelagianism. Of certain Nestorians he writes, “in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked.” [8] The high estimation of man’s sufficiency and strength of will that is pervasive in Pelagian writings is applied to the Jesus of Nestorianism, who was supposed to have overcome sin by the sheer power of His merely human will, becoming Christ only at His baptism. [9] This section of De Incarnatione clearly indicates Cassian’s desire to distance himself from “the teaching or rather the evil deeds of Pelagius.” [10]

Augustine’s influence and authority had been growing since the official defeat of Pelagianism, which was condemned in 418 at the 16th Council of Carthage. [11] The ‘initial spark’ was provided for the Cassian controversy when one of Augustine’s letters, concerning predestination and prevenient (and therefore irresistible) grace, came into the possession of monks at Adrumetum. Dispute arose among them over these doctrines, and they eventually sent a dispatch to Hippo to ask Augustine about the fuller meaning of his writings. [12] So Augustine wrote De Gratia et Libero Arbitrii (On Grace and Free Will) and De Correptione et Gratia (On Rebuke and Grace) in 426, with the hope of clarifying the matter. [13]

Of course, though this may have settled the matter for the monks at Adrumetum, the doctrines were not so easily incorporated into the life of thought at Massilia. The monks there, of whom Cassian can be considered chief, agreed with Augustine on many issues—even against Pelagianism. But they distrusted his teachings on predestination, grace and free will as a result of his letters to the monks at Adrumetum. [14] “They said that what Augustine taught as to the calling of God’s elect according to His own purpose was tantamount to fatalism, was contrary to the teaching of the fathers and the true Church doctrine, and, even if true, should not be preached, because of its tendency to drive men into indifference or despair.” [15]

Augustine taught that original sin had left humanity in a state of death (not just weakness), which necessitated the symmetrical actual giving of life in salvation by God. The will is alive and free, but its only function is to manifest the desire of a corrupt heart in a choice. So, in a sense, the will is utterly bound to sin, since men always and without exception love the darkness rather than the light, and this is death for them. The life came as God—of His own good pleasure, not motivated by anything He saw in sinners—regenerated the hearts of sinners, causing them to love God more than sin, by His Spirit (c.f. Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:22-28; Jer. 31:33-34; 32:38-41; 1 John 4:19). “This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart.” [16] Augustine explained that God did this for some and not for others by referring to Romans 9, where God says that He is willing to exert His wrath, yet has patience in order to display the glory of His grace toward His elect. [17] These are the doctrines of predestination, grace and free will that Cassian felt jeopardized important truth about God and humanity. And though Augustine wrote convincing treatises on these doctrines in response to the complaint of the Massilians (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae; On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance [18] ), they would not be persuaded, and continued in their efforts to correct the doctrines they perceived as a threat to the life of the church.

Most of Cassian’s relevant arguments are laid out in the 13th book of his Conferences, which is a record of a conversation with Abbot Chaeremon entitled “On the Protection of God,” though he does touch upon the same doctrines, to lesser extents, in several other places. Methodologically, it must be said—to his commendation—that he uses Scripture with great frequency. For Cassian, and others in opposition to strong Augustinianism, it seems there were two factors of primary concern in the debate. First, being a monk whose daily life consisted of disciplined asceticism for the sake of chastity (moral purity), Cassian feared that Augustine’s doctrines would give an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and despondence in such pursuits. This, in turn, might lead to ethical irresponsibility (the lack of the feeling of accountability). [19]

It is of utmost importance to note that Cassian “positions his analyses of grace and free will within his discussions of chastity.” [20] The crucial issue for him was the empowerment for the pursuit of holiness. So great was his concern for chastity, in fact, that earlier in his life Cassian gave up the solitary life of an Anchorite monk in Egypt for that of a Coenobite in community with other monks, “in order that he might have the opportunity of practicing the virtues of obedience and subjection, which seemed out of the reach of the solitary.” [21] Quite unlike Pelagius, however, Cassian insisted that divine grace was absolutely necessary for spiritual progress. “How foolish and wicked then it is to attribute any good action to our own diligence and not to God’s grace and assistance, is clearly shown by the Lord’s saying, which lays down that no one can show forth the fruits of the Spirit without His inspiration and co-operation.” [22] Instead, he sought some middle ground of cooperation between man’s willful initiative and God’s enabling grace (libero arbitrio semper co-operatur).

In order to maintain his position that man must be capable of some motion toward God, he proposed that the will was not dead in sin. Instead, the free will was only severely weakened (infirmitas liberi arbitrii) as a result of the fall. Man was indeed capable of generating a small spark of initiative toward the good by the power of his own will, which must be then strengthened and aided by God to produce any actual good. Having a decidedly Eastern anthropology, it is understandable that Cassian would be more open to “natural possibility” than the Western Augustine. [23] Strangely enough, Cassian saw examples in Scripture of both monergistic (i.e. Matthew and Paul) and synergistic (i.e. Zacchaeus) beginnings of faith without any apparent difficulty. This is interesting, since, as R. C. Sproul observes, “The difference between Augustine and Cassian is the difference between monergism and synergism at the beginning of salvation.” [24] Nevertheless, Cassian was able to write, “when He sees in us some beginnings of a good will, He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on towards salvation, increasing that which He Himself implanted or which He sees to have arisen from our own efforts.” [25] This kind of assertion is common in his Conferences, and betrays his lack of understanding, at some level, of the issues at hand.

Second, and to a lesser degree, Cassian was concerned that the Augustinian view of particular (electing) grace stood in blatant opposition to the “clear” biblical truth of the universal availability of salvation. [26] He saw God’s love being extended to all in the universal offering of salvation, and could not stand the idea that God’s love would be so arbitrarily selective. “For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved?” [27]

As a result, Cassian’s theology of God’s love required something of a fair chance for all people. If God really loved people (in the way Cassian thought), He would not permit the unfairness of a completely disabled will while demanding moral perfection. So original sin could not really have had the effect that Augustine claimed. Concordantly, prevenient grace would really be quite unnecessary, if people had the ability to initiate their own faith. And if prevenient grace were not a reality, then neither would be an Augustinian understanding of predestination. If people could really turn themselves toward God by their own will (as they must be able to do, if God is really fair and wants all to be saved), then God would only have to see (or foresee) who would create in themselves the spark of faith, and predestine them to eternal life on that basis.

Having ascertained Cassian’s main reasons for disagreeing with Augustine in these matters, a few presuppositions or foundations of his perspective become evident which warrant critique. First, it is most apparent from his great concern for the advance of disciplined chastity that Cassian’s view of salvation is more sanctification-oriented than justification- or reconciliation-oriented. Whereas Augustine is generally arguing for a specific soteriological position (i.e., who makes the first move to restore relationship between God and men?), Cassian seems not to be able to think in the same category. Columba Stewart attributes this to the fact that Western skills were honed by the Pelagian controversy, while Cassian—being an Eastern thinker—has simply not been so influenced. [28] Thinking so much as he does about chastity, he almost seems to treat God as a means to the end of the perfection of holiness. This is a major fault, as it fosters a fundamentally more anthropocentric view of salvation than theocentric.

Second, and closely related to the first, is the weak view of sin and grace in Cassian. Sin for him seems to be only a violation of command and conscience. For Augustine, and in Scripture, the essence of sin is more than this—it is a rejection of the supremacy of the glory of God for delight in things of infinitely less worth… and therefore much more dishonoring to God. Accordingly, Cassian’s view of grace is more Pelagian than Augustinian. For him grace is merely an agent of enabling unto holiness (seeing Christ more as an instructor than a savior). He would likely have a low view of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

Third, there seems to be in Cassian the attempt to maintain some level of autonomy from God in the process of salvation. This is perhaps the point where Augustine sees Cassianism “as necessarily implying the basal idea of Pelagianism,” [29] thereby referring to it as “semi-Pelagianism.” Indeed, prior to regeneration we are all born Pelagians, [30] at our religious “best” hoping to commend ourselves to God by some means other than Christ and the total reliance upon the sovereign grace of God.

Fourth, and more commonly ignored among historical and systematic theologians than the other points, is the pernicious error of an unexamined, confused, unbiblical anthropology. It is obvious from Cassian’s Conferences that he sees the will as self-moved, self-initiated, and able to incline itself (albeit only slightly and weakly) toward the good. Also, he muddles the functions of the faculties of the soul in various places, not demonstrating any clear understanding of the will as a function of the heart, or of the desires as determining the direction of the will. For him, a man’s being and doing are reversed from the biblical perspective: “for each man must incline to one side or the other in accordance with the character of his actions.”

Prosper of Aquitaine, lay friend of Augustine, took up the defense of monergism against Cassian’s synergism from the beginning. He had alerted Augustine to the trouble in Massilia, motivating the bishop to write the two last works of his life against semi-Pelagianism (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae). And shortly after Augustine’s death he, with his (otherwise unknown) companion, Hilary, petitioned Pope Celestine to condemn Cassian’s teachings. However, they encountered difficulty in

Semi-Pelagianism experienced some small official successes in Gaul at the Synods of Arles and Lyons in 472, but in 496 “Pope Gelasius I sanctioned the writings of Augustine and Prosper and condemned those of Cassian….” [33] Eventually, at the Council of Arausiacum (Orange: 529) semi-Pelagianism was officially condemned, and the church adopted a mostly-Augustinian stance. [34]

Tragically for the church, Augustinianism was being softened by the bishop’s successors before semi-Pelagianism was even officially condemned. [35] It was not held to strongly enough for the fundamental tenets of Augustine’s theology to take deeper root in the church. The resulting influence of Cassian has been widespread and long lasting. For, while it is true that the Council of Orange was a triumph over the “semi-Pelagian denial of the necessity of prevenient grace for salvation,” Robert L. Reymond observes,

And so the more complete majesty of God’s work in saving a people for Himself out of sin has gone through the centuries half-veiled, until the Day when the last vestiges of our self-reliance are stripped away, and all the earth trembles at the total sovereignty of the God whose pleasure it was to save some, sola gratia.

[1] Edgar C. S. Gibson, preface to The Works of John Cassian, by John Cassian, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 375. [2] The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954), s.v. “Cassianus Johannus,” http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc02&page=435&view= [3] Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 5. [4] Gibson, 383. [5] Stewart, 5. [6] The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 ed., s.v. “John Cassian,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03404a.htm [7] Gibson, 383. [8] John Cassian, On the Incarnation against Nestorius, in The Works of John Cassian, trans. with preface Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 1:3. [9] Gibson., 387. [10] Cassian., Against Nestorius, 1:4. [11] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2d ed. rev. & updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 468-9. [12] B. B. Warfield, introduction to Saint Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, by St. Augustine, trans. Peter Holmes & Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. B. B. Warfield, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 89-90. [13] Gibson, 388. [14] Ibid., 389. [15] Warfield, 97-8. [16] St. Augustine, The Predestination of the Saints, in Saint Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, by St. Augustine, trans. Peter Holmes & Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. with intro. B. B. Warfield, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), ch. 13, emphasis mine. [17] Ibid., ch. 14. See Rom. 9:22-23. For an excellent treatment of the righteousness of God in His sovereign election based on this passage, see John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), especially pp. 183-216. [18] Gibson, 389 [19] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, 3rd ed. rev. & expanded (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 132. [20] Stewart, 76. [21] Gibson, 378. [22] Cassian, The Conferences of John Cassian, in The Works of John Cassian, 3:16. [23] Stewart, 19. [24] R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 73. [25] Cassian, Conferences, 13:8. [26] Sproul, 70. [27] Cassian, Conferences, 13:7. [28] Stewart, 78. [29] Warfield, 93. [30] Reymond, 469. [31] Stewart, 20-21. [32] Gibson, 390-391. [33] Sproul, 75. [34] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978), 371-2. [35] Sproul, 75. [36] Reymond, 469

You might note post 13 where Dion disagrees with Augustine on Original Sin. I happen to agree with Augustine on Original Sin. To me the follow text:

Rom 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
Rom 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
Rom 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
Rom 3:12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
Rom 3:13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
Rom 3:14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
Rom 3:15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
Rom 3:16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
Rom 3:17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
Rom 3:18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."

or....

Mat 5:44-45 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on {the} evil and {the} good, and sends rain on {the} righteous and {the} unrighteous.

or...

Mat 7:11 "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!

To me these and many other verses means more than simply we have a lack of God's grace. Our Lord stated that men were evil. Who am I to disagree? I think to say that we simply "lack God's grace" is to minimize our fallen situation and not truthfully address our sinfulness.

BTW-Both Dion and Kolo have state this to be "Western" thinking as opposed to "Eastern" thinking. From as much research as I have so far done on this I would say the Reformed view is neither western nor eastern thinking but it is historical theocratic thinking coming from the Old Testament Jews. They always held that God was fully in control of their lives (see 1 Sam 3, Esther 6, Dan 4 or Job 42 for examples on this.)

All other thinking whether they be "western" or "eastern" thinking is Greek thinking, anthropocentric in nature, stemming from Greek philosophy. Man's free will is "Greek" philosophy and has no root in the Jewish theocentric thought process. It should be noted John Cassian was heavily into Greek philosophy. There may be subtle differences between western and eastern Greek philosophy which I have not yet traced down; however it is essentially built from the same foundation of man's will. The Reformed view is not based upon Greek philosophy; western or eastern.

From the Greek anthropocentric philosophy original sin and man's depravity is a falacy. But from a historical Jewish theocentric view original sin and man's depravity is fully recognized. Thus man cannot be "evil" for the Greek view but man is "evil" from the historical Jewish view.

The reason is the T.U.L.I.P. garden thinks Augustine is a Crypto-Calvinist

Augustine was no "Crypto-Calvinist". Rather, Augustine was a Proto-Calvinist -- that is, he correctly maintained the Orthodox Doctrine of the Christian Church long before it was utterly corrupted by the Papal Supremacists of Rome.

As I have previously said:

Given that the Eastern Orthodox Missionary Academy of Scottish Iona was Founded by Asia-Minor Greek Orthodox Predestinarians; and...
Given that the (Eastern Orthodox) Ecclesial Organization, (Eastern Orthodox) Baptismal and Infant-Baptismal Rites, and (Augustinian) Predestinarian Doctrines of Orthodox Iona were preserved for a thousand years throughout the long dark centuries of bitter Roman Catholic suppression and domination until eventually reinforced and re-established by Knoxian Scottish Calvinism; and...
Given that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, that supreme Orthodox Martyr-Patriot Cyril Lukaris, did publish in 1629 a Confession of the Orthodox Faith which is almost-entirely acceptable to me as a High-Church Calvinist Protestant: Confessions of a Byzantine-Rite Calvinist. (Given his Confession, I am willing to submit to Lukaris' definition of the Father-Processional Filioque, the Covenantal Baptism of Infants, the Mystical Eucharist, and the Veneration of Icons; In Turn, you Eastern Orthodox would only have to accept our Western Congregational-Elected Presbyters as Genuine Bishops, according to our Western Protestant Custom)...

AT THE END OF THE DAY, it is the heretical Roman Catholic Papal Supremacists who are attempting a False Anti-Protestant Alliance with the Eastern Orthodox; Never mind the fact that important Patriarchal Confessions within Eastern Orthodoxy have acknowledged hard-core Augustinian Theology as being acceptable to the Orthodox, whereas NO Orthodox nor Protestant has ever accepted the foundationally-Romanistic Dogma of Papal Supremacy and Infallibility.

Whatever our disagreements (and here, we Magisterial Protestants are willing to appeal to Orthodox Patristics and Orthodox Patriarchs and Orthodox Tradition in defense of our Theology), we Calvinists and Orthodox do at least agree upon the God-Ordained Organization of the Church: the Conciliar Form of Church Government.

Whether an Orthodox Council presided over by an Ecumenical Patriarch, or a Presbyterian Assembly presided over by a General Moderator, at least the Orthodox and the Calvinist Churches have the Biblical Modesty to Obey the Biblical Form of Government for the Church:

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner...

Against this Biblical Model is contrasted the Satanic Organization of the Church of Rome:

"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls."

Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, #937

LUKE 4:5-7
And the Devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

Satan offered Jesus absolute, Totalitarian Power.

Jesus chose instead to establish a Conciliar Church.

Apparently, the Pope of Rome didn't like the deal, and decided instead that the whole "Absolute Power" thing sounded pretty cool.

Sorry, Rome.... while I may have my disagreements with the Eastern Orthodox as to their particular Theology (and not even so much disagreement at all, if Cyril Lukaris is my Ecumenical Patriarch), I think I'll tell the Papal Supremacists "Get thee behind me, Satan", and stick to the Conciliar Form of Church Government established by the Apostles and Jesus Christ.

Best, OP

I see you have made some progress on icons since we last shared thoughts...

I'm not sure I have "made progress" (grin).

I've said for a long time ago that if we Protestants can have velcro-board figurine-stories for our children's-outreach Vacation Bible Schools (for that matter, I loved my four-color "Bible Comics" as a kid), I can hardly begrudge the 10th Century Greeks their Icons for converting and educating illiterate pagan Russians.

I still disapprove of "worshipping" Icons (and "praying" to Deified Saints, for that matter -- beyond the Old Testament "don't talk to dead people" Command, it seems to me that it would be, well, rude to interrupt a Saint's heavenly worship: "Pardon me, would you STOP worshipping Jesus for a while and instead listen to my petty terrestrial concerns? Even though I know full well that Jesus can hear me perfectly well on His Own?" Whether it violates the Old Testament Command against Divination or nor, it still seems rude... at least to me).

BUT, while reserving my objections towards the Worship and Prayer of Icons, I decided long ago that it would be hypocritical of me not to admit their potential use for Education and Contemplation.

But, all that said, I pinged you mainly to say "Hi." :-)

It's nice to see you too.

First off, let me greet my friend OrthodoxPresbyterian. It's been too long since he's been here; and we've missed him terribly.

Now, to your comment Pyro:
The line you quote from the Catechism shows that the Pope's pastoral responsibility is for all human souls. This is contrasted with the Devil's offer to the Lord to give Him power over all human temporal/political affairs, which is something the Devil couldn't give to Him, since He already has it (the Catholic Church believes in the Social Reign of Christ). The Pope's power isn't unlimited, since he is a steward for Christ, who is the real King. The Pope is responsibile for preserving and propagating the Apostolic teachings passed on over the centuries.

This may well be the modern Catholic interpretation of the scope of the Pope's power (that he is the head of the Church instituted by Christ), but that certainly is not the historical claim of the Catholic church. Ever since Unam Sanctum, the Roman Church claimed unlimited temporal power for the Pope, even over the affairs of the emerging secular states.

I am gratified to see that Roman Catholicism no longer claims complete temporal authority for the Pope. Such claims are the fodder from which anti-Catholic demagogues like Jack Chick drew their sustenance.

Nonetheless, we are faced with a Pope who still claims to be the Shepherd responsible for all the souls of Christendom. This was neither Biblically based (Mt. 16:19 notwithstanding) nor the product of an ecumenical council. "First among equals" I could live with. "Universal power in the care of souls" I cannot.

OP correctly recongized that Papal Authority is the major point which still divides Protestants - magesterial Protestants, anyway - from Rome.

It's not just Mt. 16 but particularly Lk 22:32 and Jn 21 that apply here. Jesus seems pretty clear that he is giving pastoral care responsibilities to Peter in unique way that that at the same time does not exclude a whole lot of other pastoring going on.

"Feed my lambs" (= shepherd, pastor)and "confirm your brethren" and keys to the household (read the Isaiah passage to which Mt 16 refers and you'll see it's the position of chief steward of the royal household) far surpass any similar authority given to Paul (Damascus Road). No other apostle is given the equivalent of even one of these passages' attention.

To have all three of them directed at Peter would be truly striking, if it were not for the water under the dam that gives people presuppositions that make them unable to see how much these passages stand out.

And then, when you combine this with the striking way that Peter actually acts as head of the apostolic college throughout the book of Acts: if a Martian who knew nothing about the Protestant-Catholic-Orthodox disputes happened upon the Bible and read it analytically, the inordinate attention given to Peter would jump out immediately.

It all seems obvious to me now but there was a time when I read right past all these passages and did not notice how they together build up to a crushing case for Petrine primacy. (And yes, I know all the relativizng arguments, about Paul arguing with Peter to his face etc--fine--no one says one cannot disagree with Peter's successor--the debates are about under which circumstances and how. The relativizing arguments are compelling to those who don't accept Petrine primacy but my question is whether a Martian would see them as canceling out the truly striking coalescing of Mt 16, Lk 22, Jn 21 with all the narrative of Acts.)

But you and others are not Martians and neither am I. I was blind to these passages once and now they seem so obvious. I don't think that can be explained simply because I am now a Catholic because it was dropping of my blinders and opening of my mind to these passages that made me a Catholic rather than the other way around.

Does anyone know a good Martian who could give us an unbiased reading of this Scriptural data?

I would have to say that Roman Catholicism never did claim "complete temporal autority for the pope." Your source to the contrary, please? And please don't offer Unam Sanctam. It doesn't claim complete temporal authority. Such temporal authority as it does claim is by way of pastoral spiritual authority. We can debate its merits, but the first step is accurately to portray its claims. No pope ever claimed complete temporal authority. Claiming that popes did so is too close to Chickian propaganda for comfort.

And please, don't excuse Jack Chick by saying that his Catholic victims are to blame for his lies. Jack Chick (whoever he is or was) has no excuse whatsoever for his vile calumnies. Whatever sins and errors Catholics are guilty of, they do not excuse the dishonest excrement that Chick comics purvey. It's like saying that a rape victim is to blame for her being raped. And I mean that. Jack Chick comics are a form of intellectual/spiritual rape.

I'm sure you didn't mean to excuse him (or them or whoever produces this filth) and I don't mean to be offensive to you, whom I respect very much, here. I do however feel rather strongly about liars like the producers of Jack Chick comics. There are no words for my contempt for them.

And please, don't excuse Jack Chick by saying that his Catholic victims are to blame for his lies.... I'm sure you didn't mean to excuse him....I do however feel rather strongly about liars like the producers of Jack Chick comics. There are no words for my contempt for them.

As do I. I have nothing but loathing and contempt for him too. I do not excuse him. Instead, what I meant by that was that claims like Unam Sanctum (if I understood it correctly; I'll read the rest your arguments later) lent plausibility to Jack Chick's ludicrous claims. That doesn't say that that man - and others like him - aren't misrepresenting the Catholic faith. He certainly is, and he will be called to account for it. It does mean, however, that there were things that intemperate Popes and others have said in the past may have helped lent credence.

It's like saying that a rape victim is to blame for her being raped. And I mean that. Jack Chick comics are a form of intellectual/spiritual rape.

Actually, that's a very good example. The blame for rape lies solely on the rapist, and nothing a young woman does mitigates that blame. But, only a naive girl would walk alone down a deserted street at night dressed in a mini-skirt and a revealing blouse. None of those things change the fact that the rapist is the one who bears sole responsibility for his actions - but a girl would be stupid to act so irresponsibly.

My argument is not that anything the Catholics say justifies the over-the-top distortions of Jack Chick. My argument is that, if I understand Unam Sanctum correctly (and I will re-read it tonite, and your arguments), the statements contained therein were dumb and lent credence to a man who should have none whatsoever.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.