John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

www.monergism.com ^ | Unknown | E. A. Costa

[RnMomof7]

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

If Catholics are correct and salvation comes through the church and the sacraments and by works, then I have no problem with a Pope.

Sola Ecclesia Romanus might one day be your signature friend

[annalex]

2 Peter 1:

13 But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. 14 Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. 15 And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things.

Peter intended his authority to transcend his death.

[annalex]

Good to see you.

[jude24]

If Catholics are correct and salvation comes through the church and the sacraments and by works, then I have no problem with a Pope

Do the Catholics say salvation comes through the sacraments? Or do they say God imparts grace through the sacraments? That's a criticial difference.

As regards justification by works, the Catholics do not teach that. They teach that works are a necessary condition for salvation, because their use of the term "salvation" is not transactional, but is a process that takes a lifetime and includes the concept of sanctification. That does not make works a necessary element to justificiation.

Sola Ecclesia Romanus might one day be your signature friend

Ex ecclesia nulla salus has a better ring to it - and the endorsement of Cyprian ;-). But you mistake me. Just because I have found greater common ground between orthodox Roman Catholics and orthodox Reformed Christianity than you have found does not mean I ever intend to convert to Roman Catholicism. There are still too many deal-breakers. But, I go where the text tells me too, I read and cite as authority the Early Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils, and I subject myself to the authority of the Church Magisterium. I am a Magesterial Protestant. I define the Church more broadly than the Catholics, but still subject myself to its authority.

You mistake me as a Magesterial Protestant as showing precursors to conversion to Catholicism. I assure you that is not likely to happen.

[jude24]

I acknowlege such a position is out of sinc with the Westminster standards...so how is it you are still OP???

I, too agree and I too adhere to the Westminster standards as a Presbyterian. But that doesn't mean I fully agree with every detail within the Westminster standards. They - until recently - said that the Pope was Antichrist. I don't believe that, nor does the OPC, BPC, or PCA. The Westminster standards are subject to interpretation and revision. Thus, if the WCF were to be interpeted as prohibiting icons as teaching-tools, than I would repudiate that interpretation.

That said, WCF 21.1 does not prohibit iconography, but rather says "[God] may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." Any Eastern Orthodox worth his salt will tell you those icons are not used to "worship God" via a "visible representation." I personally, in conjunction with the WCF, have no problem with visual representations of Christ that are not intended to be worshipped, but as teaching tools. It's when we start equating God with that crucifix on the wall, or Jim Cavaziel on The Passion of the Christ that the icon has became an idol.

(I also recognize that my position is in violation of the 2d Helvetic Confession of Faith. Too bad ;-).)

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

We don't have the faintest idea who really wrote the dictatus papae or what their intention was--we have a half dozen different speculative theories. They certainly never exercised any doctrinal or ecclesial authority. Any who claims to know that they represent the position of Gregory VII is talking through his hat. They might be a papal document, but no one knows for sure, one way or another.

Through them the "Church" is not claiming anything at all because they were never promulgated by any authoritative ecclesial office--we simply don't know whether they ever got past some papal secretary's nightstand. They stand out like a sore thumb against the entire rest of Gregory VII's assertions of papal authority, which stop short of claiming any temporal power. He claims the right to depose the emperor on the basis of spiritual power. He does not claim temporal authority or power--the whole point of the Gregorian Reform was the Church's spiritual independence from control by the temporal rulers.

Innocent III is sometimes portrayed as claiming temporal authority, but I don't think he comes close. There are a number of good discussions of this by historians, including a recent reader giving the various interpretations, ed. by James Powell, if I recall correctly.

Read current scholarship on the Gregorian Reform on the dictatus papae. The best book is the massive biography by John Cowdrey a respected professor at Oxford. IT's simply titled Gregory VII. He shows that one can't build a case for anything on the dictatus papae.

[bornacatholic]

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

Ecclus. 14 God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. (Free Will) 15 He added his commandments and precepts.

16 If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. 17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. (Free Will) 18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose ( Free Will) shall be given him: 19 For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing. 20 The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man.

21 He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man license to sin:

[bornacatholic]

*Proto? No dough.

As I have previously said:

*LOL Well, I have certainly been put in my place. I didn't know you were gonna go and cite yourself and bring out the big guns so early :)

I am somewhat cowering as I dare ask - where in the Bible do you locate your authority to definitively rule on these doctrinal disagreements?

[Kolokotronis]

At least in part, D, I was kidding; That's why I put a :) after the comment.

I appreciate the fairness of your comments, but I guess I have to disagree that the Dictatus don't represent the thinking of the likes of Gregory VII or, for that matter, of Boniface VIII and as you know, my opinion is shared by a number of Catholic writers of some note...and not particularly leftist ones at that. But whether or not they do isn't really the point, as a practical matter. The real point is that Orthodox Christians, especially theologians, believe that they do reflect a type of thinking which was perfectly acceptable in the Roman Church perhaps even to this day, certainly within the living past. I myself remember being told by one of my Sister of Mercy teachers that unless the Orthodox "submitted" to the Pope we were all bound for hell. Massive biographies by Oxford dons will do little or nothing to calm the quite justified concerns of not only Orthodox theologians, but also, and in the end more importantly, Orthodox laity.

On a micro level, by the way, I don't think the Dictatus Papae are really of much consequence. Unam Sanctam, on the other hand, has of late been subject to all sorts of revisionist writing in an attempt to make it consistent with modern Latin theology, especially in the area of the possibility of theosis outside The Church. To pretend that the likes of Boniface VIII, as some now do, was a good pope only concerned with saving souls, the role of The Church in that work and that when he spoke of submission to the pope, that meant something different in the Middle Ages, something more gentle and spiritual, than it does now is absurd. refusal to submit to Boniface VIII meant the death of 6000 people at Palestrina. Unam Sanctam was part of the pope's feud with Philip the Fair and gave a theological justification for precisely the behavior that history has condemned him for.

I must say that pretending a document like Unam Sanctam shouldn't give Orthodox Christians pause seems at best disingenuous and does the position of the Latin Church in any discussions about the proper role of the Pope no good at all.

[HarleyD]

Dan 4:35 "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'

Pro 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

Luk 1:46-48 And Mary said: "My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.

Rth 1:12-13 "Return, my daughters! Go, for I am too old to have a husband. If I said I have hope, if I should even have a husband tonight and also bear sons, would you therefore wait until they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters; for it is harder for me than for you, for the hand of the LORD has gone forth against me."

Num 16:5 and he spoke to Korah and all his company, saying, "Tomorrow morning the LORD will show who is His, and who is holy, and will bring him near to Himself; even the one whom He will choose, He will bring near to Himself.

Jos 10:8 The LORD said to Joshua, "Do not fear them, for I have given them into your hands; not one of them shall stand before you."

There's far more all showing God directs our paths. Sorry, you should know I don't consider the Apocrypha inspired. Neither did the Jews.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

I'm sorry if you understood me to be saying Unam Sanctam should give you no pause. I was insisting that it did not claim absolute temporal power (which was the way it was being portrayed) and that such temporal authority as it claimed was grounded in the pope's pastoral authority.

I do not defend Unam Sanctam as having been a wise move by Boniface. He was, however, provoked and seeking to respond to a real problem.

And Unam Sanctam does not have dogmatic authority for the West, nor could it.

So, I can understand that it gives Orthodox pause and probably greater pause than it gives me but it does give me some pause--not a lot.

And honestly, I do not think we can say that the dictatus papae represent Gregory's thinking. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

[HarleyD]

It's when we start equating God with that crucifix on the wall, or Jim Cavaziel on The Passion of the Christ that the icon has became an idol.

I would suggest you Google on "st joseph real estate" and then say that iconography aren't idols within the Church. (I will admit these are Catholic website.)

[jude24]

I would suggest you Google on "st joseph real estate" and then say that iconography aren't idols within the Church. (I will admit these are Catholic website.)

"Never judge a philosopy by its abuse," and never judge a church by the misstatements from popular piety.

[Kolokotronis]

Harley, you've gotten to "know" me fairly well here. Do you honestly think that the icons I have in my home and office are idols?

[jude24]

What kind of icons do you have? If I wanted to get icons for my apartment or office, where would I find them?

(Not that I necessarily intend to do so; I just would like to see some images.)

[Kolokotronis]

"What kind of icons do you have? If I wanted to get icons for my apartment or office, where would I find them?"

Oh, we have a number of them here, at the cottage and at the office; a number of The Theotokos; The Navitity; The Resurrection; The Visitation, +Alexios, +Athanasius, +Euphrosynos the Cook, +John Chrysostomos, ++Jude and Paisios, +Nektarios and +Patrick, that I can recall off hand. There are probably more. The best place to get them is Greece or elsewhere in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, but there are several good online sources. Here's a link to a fellow who is excellent to deal with, has a large inventory and does some wonderful ministry too.

www.comeandseeicons.com

Remember, though, these are not decorating articles!

[RnMomof7]

Do the Catholics say salvation comes through the sacraments? Or do they say God imparts grace through the sacraments? That's a criticial difference.

..all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is hisBody: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teachesthat the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation:... Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Churchwas founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

It is in the Church that `the fulness of the means of salvation' has been deposited. It is in her that `by the grace of God we acquire holiness. Verification: Pg 218, #824

In her subsists the fulness of Christ's body united with its head; this impliesthat she receives from him the fulness of the means of salvation... Verification: Pg. 220, #830 Verification: Pg. 224, #846

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. ... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism..

980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church: "Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers `a laborious kind of baptism.' This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn" (Council of Trent (1551): DS 1672; cf. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 39, 17: PG 36,356)..

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ... The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Saviour.

Ex ecclesia nulla salus has a better ring to it - and the endorsement of Cyprian ;-). But you mistake me. Just because I have found greater common ground between orthodox Roman Catholics and orthodox Reformed Christianity than you have found does not mean I ever intend to convert to Roman Catholicism. There are still too many deal-breakers. But, I go where the text tells me too, I read and cite as authority the Early Church Fathers and the ecumenical councils, and I subject myself to the authority of the Church Magisterium. I am a Magesterial Protestant. I define the Church more broadly than the Catholics, but still subject myself to its authority.
You mistake me as a Magesterial Protestant as showing precursors to conversion to Catholicism. I assure you that is not likely to happen.

Jude I am will to take all bets on that . The truth is you do not know what you believe or why. You read the words men and ignore the words of Christ. Perhaps it is your assumption that no one understands the word of God and so the "magistrum" must do it for them and you . But if you can not find the truth in the word of God, what makes you think you can discern doctrinal truths?

I submit myself to Jesus Christ and the elders of MY CHURCH as his representatives.

Sola Ecclesia Romanus

[jude24]

Why did you end the citation of the Baptism where you did? Section 1257 goes on to say that God is not bound by the sacraments, so salvation could be possible without them, but that the church is bound by them. That completely changes the meaning.

[HarleyD]

Do you honestly think that the icons I have in my home and office are idols?

No.

Do I think the distinction made within Catholic/Orthodox on veneration of saints verse veneration to God leads to idolotry? Yes, and there is ample evidence to this.

I can find only a hair-breathe difference in Catholic doctrine that distinguishes between venerating to saints and to God. Great pains are made to distance the two when there really is no substantial differences.

All the fuss and expense that goes into these manmade things is far more than history. The true mark of an idol in my mind is whether to revere an object or you don't. A case in point is the return of the Black Madonna to Polland which I believe we discussed on another thread. Heck, let mold grow in a NJ tunnel in the likeness of Mary and see the flowers and tributes.

Some people may think this is an "intellectually" correct policy of the Church to "revere" these objects. They claim it's really not worshipping them even when provided countless examples and illustrations of people bowing down to mold on a wall or even an artifact. I'm afraid I simply don't see the distinction after looking through the Church's records on this no matter how "pious" I may appear. There is only one place in scripture where someone "prayed" to the dead and that was Saul calling up Samuel to intercede for him before God. We know the outcome of that.

[bornacatholic]

Num 30: If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it.

Isaias 1:19 If you be willing, and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land. 20 But if you will not, and will provoke me to wrath: the sword shall devour you because the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.

*There are other OT verses of course. Y'all couldn't throw everything out of the Bible :)