Posted on 03/20/2015 6:36:17 PM PDT by Steelfish
Why I Left Protestantism for Catholicism
He is a Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Managing Editor of The Free Market.
I am no fan of "conversion" essays, which are sometimes pompous and self-serving. My purpose is to achieve a greater spirit of mutual respect. How rare are Protestant conversions to Catholicism? More rare than reverse, but I know enough cases, including my own, to make the subject worth exploring.
J.I. Packer recently wrote in Christianity Today (May 1989) that the contrast between the "zany wildness" of Protestantism and the "at-homeness" of Catholicism alone is sufficient to explain conversions to Catholicism. It is the only Church that can, and does, claim institutional continuity from the time of Christ to the present. He contrasts the "at home" motive with a more genuine longing for the truth.
But the Road to Rome is a long one, and, I submit, the choice between instability and continuity, sectarianism and universality, is not a sufficient reason for conversion. The Christian ought to be willing to be a minority of one if the truth is at stake.
It is precisely the conviction of truth that led to my conversion to Catholicism. I wrote Rev. Packer that "My conversion to Catholicism was motivated by more than a feeling of 'at-homeness.' God makes us feel at home when we have a sincere conviction of truth. There is no dichotomy between the two, as you suggested. Truth is what I sought when God led me to Rome....My plea is for you to take my conversion, and others like mine, seriously."
Anti-Catholicism
Catholic and Reformed theological discussion has matured since the Reformation, when neither side was immune from using smear tactics to score debating points. Today the inflammatory rhetoric is largely gone, yet fundamental misunderstandings persist. My own anti-Catholicism was partly a product of ethnic prejudice, growing up, as I did, as a Southern Baptist in a largely Hispanic town in West Texas. It took years before I could look at Catholicism as more than a hypocritical, anti-scriptural, even anti-Christian cult.
The Baptist culture of my childhood treated Christianity as a wholly individualized phenomenon. No man was to exercise authority over any other, in the affairs of the church, or, more importantly, in the understanding of doctrine.
There was no discussion of history, councils, creeds, saints, martyrs, or controversies. I don't think my experience was far from typical. Even in the "good-old days" when every family attended Wednesday night prayer meeting such instruction was absent. The Bible -- one's subjective interpretations of it -- was all that was necessary for individualized Christianity.
My high-school conversion to Presbyterian Church moderated my anti-Catholicism. I began to understand, for the first time, the significance of the creeds, of Church government, of liturgy (however loosely defined). But the most important thing being a Presbyterian did for me was to alert me to the meaning of Christian history. It was the overwhelming weight of 2000 years of history that finally convinced me of the truth of Catholicism.
The Devil Theory of History Presbyterians do not want to tear themselves away from church history, but rather want to be part of God's eternal covenant with His people, from its inception to eternity. At my Orthodox Presbyterian Church, we read the words of the great Reformers with respect and even veneration. We discussed their theological views. We tried to imitate their liturgical styles.
All of this is important; it helps in the maturation process. Even though Presbyterians endorse the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura (formed in opposition to Rome), they recognize that the Church has a teaching role and that pious individuals in Church history have a level of understanding that supersedes most of our own. Individual faith and conscience are the final guides, of course, but our primary earthly allegiance must be to the teaching authority of the Church.
But there was still something missing from Presbyterianism for me. It seemed to concentrate too heavily on post-Reformation Church history, and the first 1500 years of Christianity received scant attention. Do these years offer us anything that will enhance our understanding of Christianity? One easy way to answer this question is to adopt the Devil Theory of History, which says the history of the Church is the story of corruption.
The way to sound doctrine is to adopt the views of the Persecuted simply because they stand against Rome. The result of this view is intolerable: heresy becomes orthodoxy and anybody who shouts "to hell with the Pope" gets a hearing.
The Devil Theory collapses on the most superficial analysis. Christians justifiably take pride in their heritage, yet the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for at least 1500 years (leaving aside the 11th century Orthodox break). Why would Christ have allowed his Church to wallow in the mire of falsehood and heresy for so long? What kind of witness would that have provided to the world? If Christ did indeed establish a Church, wouldn't He have providentially protected her from significant error?
Partial Corruption? An alternative view is to see the Church as only partially corrupt. As I understand it, this is the Presbyterian position (the new one; not the traditional). But given the Church's own historical claims of authenticity, authority, and infallibility, this view is difficult to sustain. One cannot have it both ways: the Church was either in Christ's hands (as she claimed) or she was the anti-Christ by virtue of making such claims.
One can selectively draw from pre-Reformation doctrine and expunge from it its pro-Papacy statements. For example, Reformed thinkers are famous for quoting St. Augustine in support of predestination and election. But rarely quoted is St. Augustine's view of the Church, which anticipates ultramontanism (an extreme position on papal authority).
Yet the partial corruption thesis collapses from internal contradictions. Christendom's greatest thinkers and the most pious saints were also devoted to the Church as a divinely protected institution: its catholicity, apostilicity, infallibility, and sacraments. It is anomalous to claim the authority of a saint like Augustine without mentioning his views on the Church. It's like discussing the development of a child without mentioning the mother's role in nurturing, sustaining, and reinforcing the maturation process.
Presbyterians must decide if they were ever part of the universal Church of Catholicism. Did they ever endorse the papacy as a legitimate institution reflecting Christ's will? Was it corrupt from the beginning or just become so in the 16th century? Under what conditions would Presbyterians have been willing to be in communion with Rome? Ideally, should the papacy have been wiped out? It seems to me the correct path is to regard the Catholic church as Christ's church and to regard her claims as true.
The Role of Tradition Protestants look skeptically on the Catholic view that Christian tradition has doctrinal authority stemming from Christ and the apostles.
Yet tradition (the teaching authority of Christ and His apostles) is essential to full Christian understanding for several reasons. First, not everything concerning Christ's work is found in Scripture (Jn. 21:25) and some Christian teaching is handed down by word of mouth (II Tim. 2:2).
The Bible instructs us to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (II Thess. 2:15). Second, the early Church did not have a Bible in the sense that we do today; yet their faith was fully protected and sustained through tradition. The Bible itself is a product of the 4th century Church. Third, no single individual can fully derive the meaning of scripture by himself; it takes tradition to set up the proper framework for understanding and for asking the right questions.
Say the Bible was given to a fully competent scholar and he was asked to write a creed based upon it. Even if he had ten years to do so, who doubts that he would not get it quite right? Christ never intended him to. The Church was established to articulate and defend Christian doctrine (Mt. 16:18-19).
As a Presbyterian, I rejected the subjectivist position of Biblical understanding, and I wanted to embrace Church history. Then I had to decide which parts of the tradition to embrace and which parts to reject. It seemed to me that the doctrine of the Reformers was too much in flux to provide a sufficient grounding in the Faith. And that approach freezes Christianity in time.
The Reformers had valuable things to say; but I thought their words and liturgical practices should be weighed against the whole of Christian tradition. I settled on this: I reject the part of tradition that is contradicted by the Bible. And that is the rule the Catholic Church herself has accepted.
The consistent Christian finds that the Church is the anchor of his faith. The fair-minded historian finds that the Catholic Church is the anchor of history. In both cases, I came believe, Providence is at the helm.
My Conversion Process There were many steps in my conversion, but the most important one was the initial one: investigating what the Church has to offer. My experience accords with G.K. Chesterton's: "This process, which may be called discovering the Catholic Church, is perhaps the most pleasant and straightforward part of the business; easier than joining the Catholic Church and much easier than trying to live the Catholic life. It is like discovering a new continent full of strange flowers and fantastic animals, which is at once wild and hospitable."
There were a host of Catholic terms and objects that have meaning with Catholicism with which I was completely unfamiliar: offices, the magisterium, mortal and venial sins, confession, penance, rosary beads, the saints and martyrs, and even, yes, Marian theology. Suddenly, I found that most of the anti-Catholic ideas that I held were canards with no basis in fact (e.g., that Catholics worship Mary and statues, that they don't believe the Bible inerrant, that they cannot pray directly to God).
Even the dreaded doctrine of the infallibility sounded more reasonable considering its limits: the Pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and he must do so in communion with the Bishops.
This discovery process led me to the proverbial slippery slope of Romanism. As Chesterton describes it: "It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair."
Finally, I cannot discuss my conversion without mentioning the Eucharist, the source and sacrament of Catholic spirituality. Here lies a central difference between the Catholic and Orthodox faiths as versus Protestantism. The vast majority of Christians believe what scripture says about the Eucharist: the bread and wine is fully transformed into the body and the blood -- the doctrine of transubstantiation. The Real Presence is indeed a divine mystery (as is much else about our Faith). I was amazed to discover that both Luther and Calvin, in different degrees, taught the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
The Memorialist view--that the Eucharist is all bread and that communion is really without divine significance, done merely "in memory" of Christ--that is, the common teaching of evangelicals, wasn't believed or taught by the Reformers.
I rejected the Memorialist view, but could see no reason not to go all the way to a pure Catholic position.
From Geneva to Rome
It was in my search for a "pure" Presbyterianism that I found Catholicism. I became tired of "protesting"; I wanted a real and positive Christianity. I didn't want a liturgy and theology defined in opposition to something else; I wanted the Christian liturgy and theology that the Church throughout the ages defined and practiced. Moreover, I did not want these things because they were part of the past; I wanted them because they will be part of the future.
John Henry Cardinal Newman, among the most famous of converts from Protestantism to Catholicism, makes the point in Apologia Pro Vita Sua that the best and most orthodox elements of evangelical, Reformed, and Anglican Christian doctrine find their fullest expression and glory within Catholicism.
The bread in the Lord's supper becomes the mystery of the Real Presence; collective confession becomes private, specific, and efficacious; the claim of Church authority becomes the hard-core position of infallibility; Scripture becomes the infallible story of the covenant of God, both in content and canon; mere perseverance becomes a well-defined penance; martyrs and saints, whose lives are to be admired and emulated, become advocates on your behalf; the pastor becomes priest; the worship service becomes the Mass, with liturgy based on Scripture and imbued with holiness; the Christian "quiet time" becomes the requirement of a regular and disciplined prayer life, with litanies, memorization, and hours of intense contemplation on the Triune God.
Yet at the base, there is one reason why I converted to Catholicism. It is summarized by the line from the Apostle's Creed: "I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."
It's no wonder that Catholics have been so hysterically hated and persecuted throughout history. The Church's claim to be a fortress of truth, fully expressing the whole of Christian doctrine, makes it the single biggest threat to the forces of modernism and atheism. If a person hates God, why bother attacking Lutherans, Methodists, or the Reformed movement when he can attack Catholicism?
I am not hostile to Protestantism in general, and certainly not to Presbyterianism, to which I owe a great debt. I came to believe that Christ's Church subsists in Catholicism, which is why it has been so successful in defending orthodoxy and in standing against the tides of Christian sectarianism and atheistic modernism. Catholicism offers orthodoxy, universality, and stability.
Conversion was not an easy decision; the agonizing process lasted nearly three years. My final step was taken out of a conviction of truth, and it was a step I shall never regret.
Conversion reading material: Vatican II; The Catholic Catechism by John A. Hardon, S.J; anything by G.K Chesterton, but especially Orthodoxy and The Catholic Church and Conversion; Apologia Pro Vita Sua by J.H. Cardinal Newman, Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating (Ignatius Press, 1988); and Evangelical is Not Enough by Thomas Howard (Ignatius Press, 1989).
Good luck on this council. It cannot in any real sense be called an Ecumenical Council absent the participation of all the Churches.
The most divisive issues on the Orthodox agenda relate to the relations between the local Churches. The models of these relations are constantly evolving, reflecting global political frameworks. Understandings of the fellowship of the Orthodox Churches changes constantly, and there is no agreement on it. From what I gather the Russian Orthodox would participate but agree only if there is complete unanimity on issues. This means except for some mundane procedural matters, issues of uniform scriptural interpretation and liturgy will be left out. It will be council all right but more like the UN Security Council. The chaos of orthodoxy continue unless and until it begins the process of re-engrfating itself to the barque of Peter
A “Roman invention”
I hadn’t heard that before. And yet the Orthodox Churches until 1054 accepted this “Roman invention” and agreed to the decrees issued under Petrine authority in the first seven councils including the Catholic Nicene Creed. Those decrees were mandates, not suggestions, and were infallible on issues of dogma BECAUSE of Petrine authority.
There is nothing to talk about this subject. You make it sound as if there is only one side to it. The reason why I omitted this was its a historical irrelevancy given that Petrine authority is at the heart of any controversy.
The RCC and EOC recognize two different 8th ecumenical councils” is historically interesting.
There was a council in AD 869-70, in which Photios was condemned and Ignatius I was confirmed as the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople. Today Catholics accept this as an ecumenical council. This is what the Catholic Church called the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople or Constantinople IV, which is the eight ecumenical council, was held on AD 869-70.
In AD 879-80, there was another council, which reversed the first and declared Photios the lawful Patriarch.
The Orthodox hold this council of 879-80 as ecumenical, and declare the previous one to be a robber council. The Orthodox would like to think that this is the eight ecumenical council and that this council annulled the one held at AD 869.
Not so!
When Photius went bad, Pope John VIII, sent legates to Constantinople. A council was held there and Photius was condemned along with his errors [which he promulgated on a council in 867]. THIS IS “THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE” OR “CONSTANTINOPLE IV.”
Now after the council, Ignatius was reinstated as Patriach. A few years later Ignatius died.
To cut long story short [and an interesting story it is] Photius was then installed as the Patriach. The legates reported this to the Pope. The legates were also sent to ask the emperor’s favor for Rome was in danger. Beside reporting about the new patriach, the legates also report that the emperor was sympathetic to Rome (eventually he sent his army).
The Pope hoped that by acknowledging Photius all will ends well. All censure against Photius was removed. Then on 879 Photius asked the Pope to send legates for another council, which he said will clear up matter.
THIS IS THE INFAMOUS COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE 879.
FROM THIS POINT THERE ARE TWO SIDE OF THE STORY BELIEVED BY CATHOLIC (Story A) AND ORTHODOX (Story B).
Story A:
In that council Photius repeated his all accusation against the Latin. Including the filioque. He also wanted Bulgaria back to Byzantine (there’s a long story about this, it’s enough simply to say that both Rome and Constantinople wanted Bulgaria).
The legates were pressured and bribed. They yield. Photius sent the act of this council to Rome. Pope John VIII re-excommunicated Photius.
Story B:
During the Constantinople Council of 879, “Photius was now all that any Pope could desire” He promised to repent and back off from Bulgaria. About the filioque, he diplomatically sidestepped it. The legates crowned him with a handsome vestment complimentary from the Pope.
Catholics accept Story A and thats the end of it.
Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries | Christian Dogmatics - Orthodoxy - Papism |
---|
The 8th Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV (879/880) and the Condemnation of the Filioque Addition and Doctrine by: Fr. George Dion. Dragas Source: http://reocities.com/heartland/5654/orthodox/dragas_eighth.html |
a) Clarifications concerning the Eighth Ecumenical Council
b) The significance of the Horos of this Council for the Filioque controversy
c) a fresh look at the Horos itself of the Eighth Ecumenical Council
____________________________________________________________________________________
|
Article published in English on: 28-12-2009.
Last update: 20-8-2010.
306 The Council of Elvira decrees that Christians and Jews cannot intermarry, have sexual intercourse, or eat together.
325 Conversation and fellowship with Jews is forbidden to the clergy by the Council of Nicea.
c. 380 St. Gregory of Nyssa refers to the Jews as “murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels and detesters of God,. . . companions of the devil, race of vipers, informers, calumniators, darkeners of the mind, pharisaic leaven, Sanhedrin of demons, accursed, detested,. . . enemies of all that is beautiful”.
388 A mob of Christians, at the instigation of their bishop, looted and burned the synagogue in Callinicum, a town on the Euphrates. The Emperor Theodosius wants those responsible punished and the synagogue rebuilt at the expense of the bishop, but St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, pressures him to relent and condone the action.
400 St. Augustine writes: “the Church admits and avows the Jewish people to be cursed, because after killing Christ they continue to till the ground of an earthly circumcision, an earthly Sabbath, an earthly passover, while the hidden strength or virtue of making known Christ, which this tilling contains, is not yielded to the Jews while they continue in impiety and unbelief, for it is revealed in the New Testament. While they will not turn to God, the veil which is on their minds in reading the Old Testament is not taken away. . . the Jewish people, like Cain, continue tilling the ground, in the carnal observance of the law, which does not yield to them its strength, because they do not perceive in it the grace of Christ”.
c. 400 Calling the synagogue “brothel and theater” and “a cave of pirates and the lair of wild beasts,” St. John Chrysostom writes that “the Jews behave no better than hogs and goats in their lewd grossness and the excesses of their gluttony”.
413 A group of monks sweep through Palestine, destroying synagogues and massacring Jews at the Western Wall.
414 St. Cyril of Alexandria expels Jews from his city.
538 The Third Synod of Orléans decrees that Jews cannot show themselves in the streets during Passover Week.
681 The Synod of Toledo orders the burning of the Talmud and other books.
768 Pope Stephen IV decries ownership of hereditary estates by “the Jewish people, ever rebellious against God and derogatory of our rites”.
c. 830 Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, writes anti-Jewish pamphlets in which he refers to Jews as “sons of darkness”.
c. 937 Pope Leo VII encourages his newly appointed archbishop of Mainz to expel all Jews who refuse to be baptized.
1010-1020 In Rouen, Orléans, Limoges, Mainz, and probably also in Rome, Jews are converted by force, massacred, or expelled.
1050 The Synod of Narbonne decrees that Christians are not permitted to live in Jewish homes.
c. 1070 Pope Alexander II warns the bishops of Spain to prevent violence against the Jews because, unlike the Saracens, they “are prepared to live in servitude”.
1078 The Synod of Gerona decrees that Jews must pay the same taxes as Christians to support the church.
1081 Pope Gregory VII writes to King Alphonso of Spain telling him that if he allows Jews to be lords over Christians, he is oppressing the Church and exalting “the Synagogue of Satan”.
1096 Massacres of Jews takes place in the First Crusade, destroying entire Jewish communities in Mainz, Speyer, Worms, Cologne and other cities. The Jewish chronicler reports: “The enemies stripped them naked and dragged them off, granting quarter to none, save those few who accepted baptism. The number of the slain was eight hundred in these two days.” The chronicler Guibert de Nogent reports that the Rouen Crusaders said: “We desire to go and fight God’s enemies in the East; but we have before our eyes certain Jews, a race more inimical to God than any other”.
1182 Jews are expelled from France, all their property is confiscated, and Christians’ debts to them are cancelled with the payment of one-fifth of their value to the treasury.
1190 The Third Crusade, led by Richard the Lion-Heart, stirs anti-Jewish fervor and results in the mass suicide of the York Jews in Clifford’s Tower on March 16.
1215 The Fourth Lateran Council decrees that Jews are to wear distinctive clothing, and on the three days before Easter they are not to go out in public.
1222 The Council of Oxford prohibits the construction of new synagogues.
1227 The Council of Narbonne orders Jews to wear a round patch.
1234 The Council of Arles orders Jews to wear a round patch.
1246 The Council of Béziers orders Jews to wear a round patch.
1254 The Council of Albi orders Jews to wear a round patch.
1260 The Council of Arles orders Jews to wear a round patch, but not when traveling.
1267 The Synod of Vienna decrees that Christians cannot attend Jewish ceremonies, and Jews cannot dispute with simple Christian people about the Catholic religion.
1267 The Synod of Breslau decrees compulsory ghettos for Jews.
1279 The Synod of Ofen decrees that Christians cannot sell or rent real estate to Jews.
1284 The Council of Nîmes orders Jews to wear a round patch.
1289 The Council of Vienna orders Jews to wear a round patch.
1290 Jews are expelled from England and southern Italy.
1294 Jews in France are restricted to special quarters of the cities.
1294 Jews are expelled from Bern.
1298 The Jews of Röttingen, charged with profaning the Host, are massacred and burned down to the last one.
1320 The “Shepherds’ Crusade.” A Christian chronicler records: “The shepherds laid siege to all the Jews who had come from all sides to take refuge. . . the Jews defended themselves heroically. . . but their resistance served no purpose, for the shepherds slaughtered a great number of the besieged Jews by smoke and by fire. . . The Jews, realizing that they would not escape alive, preferred to kill themselves. . . They chose one of their number (and) this man put some five hundred of them to death, with their consent. He then descended from the castle tower with the few Jewish children who still remained alive. . . They killed him by quartering. They spared the children, whom they made Catholics by baptism”.
1326 The Council of Avignon orders Jews to wear a round patch, but not when traveling.
1347-1350 During the Black Death, Jews are accused of poisoning wells in order to overthrow Christendom, and many thousands of Jews are killed.
1394 The expulsion of Jews from France, begun in 1306, is completed with an edict promulgated on the Jewish Day of Atonement.
1420 Jews are expelled from Mainz by the archbishop.
1434 The Council of Basel decrees that Jews cannot obtain academic degrees.
1456 Pope Callistus III bans all social communication between Christians and Jews.
1462 Jews are expelled from Mainz following a conflict between two candidates for the archepiscopal seat.
1475 The entire Jewish community in Trent, northern Italy, is put to death on the allegation that it had murdered a boy for religious purposes.
1492 After forcing many Jews to be baptized and then referring to them as Marranos (swine), and after an Inquisition in which some 700 Marranos were burnt at the stake for showing signs of “Jewish” taint, Spain expels all Jews from the country.
1553 Cardinal Carafa instigates a public burning of copies of the Talmud and other Jewish religious works in a square in Rome.
This didn’t stop after Luther either....
1555-1559 Pope Paul IV restricts Jews to ghettos and decrees that they are to wear distinctive headgear.
1566-1572 Pope St. Pius V expels Jews from the Papal States, allowing some to remain in Rome’s ghettos and in Ancona for commercial reasons.
1592-1605 Pope Clement VIII includes a ban on all Jewish books in the expanded Index of Forbidden Books.
1826 Pope Leo XII decrees that Jews are to be confined to ghettos and their property is to be confiscated.
1858 Edgardo Mortara, 6-year old son of a Jewish family in Bologna, is abducted by the papal police and brought to Rome. He had been secretly baptized five years earlier by a domestic servant who thought he was about to die. The parents try to get the boy back, and there is a universal outcry, but Pope Pius IX rejects all petitions submitted to him.
1904 In an interview with Zionist leader Theodor Hertzl, Pope St. Pius X says: “I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do. . . The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. . . If you go to Palestine and your people settle there, you will find us clergy and churches ready to baptize you all”.
1919 Newly independent Poland passes a law making Sunday a compulsory day of rest in Poland. The law is intended to force Jews to observe the Christian sabbath in addition to their own.
1921 Speaking for Pope Benedict XV, a Vatican spokesman informed representatives of the Zionist Movement that they did not wish to assist “the Jewish race, which is permeated with a revolutionary and rebellious spirit” to gain control over the Holy Land.
1925 At a conference of Catholic academicians in Innsbruck, Austria, Bishop Sigismund Waitz calls the Jews an “alien people” who had corrupted England, France, Italy, and especially America.
1933 In a series of Advent sermons, Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich defends the Old Testament against Nazi attacks but emphasizes that it is not his intention to defend contemporary Jewry, saying that a distinction has to be drawn between Jews living before and after the crucifixion of Jesus.
1933 In a pastoral letter on January 23, Bishop Johannes Maria Gföllner of Linz, Austria, declares that while the radical anti-Semitism preached by Nazism is completely incompatible with Christianity, it is the right and duty of Christians to fight and break the harmful influences of Jewry in all areas of modern cultural life. The Austrian episcopate condemns the letter in December for causing racial hatred and conflict.
1933-1939 The general consensus among the Catholic papers in Poland is that Jewish influence should be reduced in all areas of life, that the Polish and Jewish communities should be separated as much as possible, and that the most desirable option is mass emigration of the Jews from Poland. St. Maximilian Kolbe is an active promoter of antisemitic literature.
1935-1936 The Polish Catholic Church gives full support to a government policy encouraging Jewish emigration from Poland.
1937 Austrian bishop Alois Hudal publishes a book defending Nazi racial ideology, supporting laws preventing a flood of Jewish immigrants, and criticizing the “Jewish” press for playing off Austrians against Germans. His book receives the support of Archbishop (later Cardinal) Theodor Innitzer of Vienna.
1939 Josef Tiso, a Catholic priest with a doctorate in theology, became president of independent Slovakia. An extremist hater of Jews, he allied Slovakia with Nazi Germany and, with strong objections from the Vatican, deported most Slovakian Jews to their deaths in the camps. He declared: “It is a Christian action to expel the Jews, because it is for the good of the people, which is thus getting rid of its pests.” Monsignor Tiso was executed after the war as a war criminal.
“Catholics accept Story A and thats the end of it.”
Those are simplistic and somewhat one sided versions of events. One of the great underlying issues was the West’s growing acceptance of a unilateral change in the Nicene Creed, the Filioque. But setting that aside, the problem remains that Rome accepted the council of 879-880 for two hundred years or so. It was confirmed by the Pope. It was only two centuries later that Rome rather quietly shifted official recognition to the earlier Council which had been annulled and condemned by the council of 880. I am certain that it was purely coincidence that this was also the point in time where Rome wanted to officially alter the Creed by adding the Filioque which was impossible if the council of 880 was legitimate.
Rome has infallibly recognized two conflicting councils at various times.
However I do give you points for stepping up and trying to address the question. Don’t feel badly if you are feeling a bit boxed. It is an issue that even very serious Catholic theologians are uncomfortable with and the explanations offered are usually pretty tortured.
The history of Christianity and its relationship with the Jews is a sad and at times scandalous one. I do find it curious that you seem focused on the Roman Church in your catalog of atrocities. I can assure you that Protestants were no more tolerant. Dreadful pogroms occurred in Protestant (and Orthodox) countries. It’s a stain on all of our history.
Lord have mercy.
Not so fast. There is serious doubt on whether Rome accepted the council of AD 879-880. The following review is instructive. Check out this scholarly review of the work of Fr. Francis Dvornik’s work. t’s a meticulous historical review.
Venance Grumels Review of
Francis Dvorniks The Photian Schism
A rough translation of the French from Revue des Études Byzantines, X, 282-283.
The author of this book has already distinguished himself with his remarkable thesis: The Slavs, Byzantium and Rome in the ninth century, Paris (1926). A later work: The legends of Constantine and Methodius in Byzantine views (Prague, 1933), focused particularly on ninth century Byzantine-Slavic history, and the history of the two great missionaries.
It was because of their relationships with Photius that Fr. Dvornik addressed the Photian issue. He has continued go deeper into the problem and we have not forgotten the article published in Byzantion:
The Second Schism of Photius: An Historical Mystification, followed by several others in connection with the same subject. This is the result of painstaking research directed by Mr. Henri Grégoire.
The book is the fruit of extensive research and of a reflective return to the whole Photian problem and new thinking. The authors erudition is considerable. This is evidenced in the first place in the remarkable list of sources scanned, books reviewed, and even manuscripts consulted.
We know the results at which the author arrived. He hypothesized that the trial of Photius was based on a fabricated dossier, that Photius was misunderstood by historians, was calumnied, and that he should be rehabilitated. It is this hypothesis that he tried to transform from a thesis to a historical certainty.
In recognizing that Photius is not as black as he was made to be in the past, one wonders if the author did not exaggerate in the opposite direction. The dissertation still maintains a tone of argument that ultimately harms the demonstration. One sees that with every opportunity, in each case doubtful, and even in cases where there is all but contrary evidence, it is the sense favorable to the hero, and without counterweight, that is selective, it gives the impression of a one-sided vision of the events, and that he has not found the right balance.
This is a simple summary in which it is not possible to expand elegantly on points that would require discussion. Let me just point out the most important on which the author is far from having made a sufficient demonstration.
The first concerns the origin of the conflict for which he insists that Photius is not responsible. I cannot understand his refusal to recognize the cause of the conflict in the ordination of Photius by Gregory Asbestas, the bishop deposed by Ignatius, still less his idea to present this outrage as an act of moderation, this is a real paradox.
The second concerns the decree on the symbol of faith, which Ive already engaged more than once. He tells me that my demonstration of its inauthenticity is not conclusive, but he does not show, and the rest he does not know of the study published in this journal in 1947, when I started on this subject; I refer to that in the meantime. However, I must respond to the new argument of which I was ignorant then, namely the testimony of Patriarch Euthymius. It would certainly be crucial if it was enacted by Euthymius I, but the manuscript is from the fifteenth century, and there is no reason to deny the possibility of an attribution to Euthymius II, quite the contrary, as I will show later. It must be said that Fr. Francis Dvornik does not seem to have thought of such a possibility.
The third question, the most important, is that which concerns the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Fr. Francis Dvornik thinks he can prove that it was abrogated by Pope John VIII. He uses, to that end, the documents transmitted by Ivo of Chartes, without taking into account that these fragments come from the Photian Council where the papal documents were altered.
He also uses the Western legal tradition of the ecumenicity of that council appearing at the end of the eleventh century. He forgets that the Council of 869, which put forth no definition of faith, had met for only personal matters and that, the Photian question having been liquidated at the Council of 899, there was no reason to call attention to it again, and the peace of the Church demanded not doing so. Hence there was far from an abrogation.
Moreover, the integral letter of Stephen V to the Emperor Basil I that I presented to International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Paris and Brussels, shows that no pope had suppressed the acts of the Eighth Council.
I leave aside for now the other minor points.
Despite the differences that separate me from Fr. Francis Dvornik, I highly appreciate the value of his work, which I consider the most important work published on the Photian Schism since Hergenröther and essential for anyone who wants to study this major historical problem.
Ah now we are getting into the tortured explanations previously mentioned. The argument advanced by Catholics (which is very controversial) is that at least some of the documents from the Council were forged. I believe the allegation centers on the Papal legates who have been accused of being in sympathy with St. Photias. I am dubious, as are most Orthodox scholars, but this probably cannot be resolved definitively. What we do know is that there was very friendly correspondence between the Photias and the Pope which casts serious doubt on the idea that the Pope was somehow duped. But even setting that aside, there remains the fact that the Roman See did clearly grant its assent to the council. It was recorded and held in the Apsotolic Archives in Rome. Indeed your own church has referenced the Council as “Conciliabulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum.”
I agree.
You make a good point. But as you rightly acknowledge examining events of a thousand years ago through a present historical lens does not lead to uniform results. Even among those who admit to the Conciliabulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum there is more than anecdotal evidence to show that Photias’ motives were not so pure as the Orthodox would like to claim.
Here’s point of view (footnotes to this research have been omitted) from a Catholic Professor of Philosophy who has carefully examined the Orthodox claims. This may come as an eye-opener to many. My apologies for this lengthy elucidation but since you have been vigorously pressing this issue, I think you are owed a reasonably comprehensive explanation.
Photius sent the Acts of his council to Rome for the Pope’s ratification, Pope John VIII (872-82)instead responded by excommunicating him, solemnly condemning him in 881, and permanently reinstating the ban on him in 882. The decrees by which John VIII struck down the earlier censures of Photius by the synod of 869 fails to omit the false pretenses under which Photius convened his council of 879-880.
Photius petitioned Pope John VIII to send legates; and he is altogether mute about John VIII’s refusal to confirm the Acts of the Photian council and excommunication of Photius after his discovery of Photius’s true intentions in the council of 879-880.
The fact that Rome later called the Photian council “Conciliabrulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum” is hardly an acknowledgement of its canonical legitimacy. What part of “Pseudo” is not clear in “Pseudooctavum”?
Photius was truly one of the most remarkable characters in all Church history; but he was also the chief architect of the great Eastern Schism.
There is far more to Photius than meets the eye in Anti-Western Orthodox accounts of him, however, and those who have not appraised themselves of “the rest of the story” would do well to investigate it for themselves.
Certainly no well-informed Christian can help remembering Photius with mixed feelings. While it is true that there is no shadow of suspicion against his private life, he is also well-known for his insatiable and unscrupulous ambition—hardly qualities one typically finds in a saint—which more than anything else was responsible for the greatest schism in Church history.
And schism, it will be recalled, was regarded by the Church Fathers as a sin worse than homicide. The conclusion of a detailed entry on “Photius of Constantinople” in the Catholic Encyclopedia reads as follows:
... His insatiable ambition, his determination to obtain and keep the patriarchal see, led him to the extreme of dishonesty. His claim was worthless. That Ignatius was the rightful patriarch as long as he lived, and Photius an intruder, cannot be denied by any one who does not conceive the Church as merely the slave of a civil government. And to keep this place Photius descended to the lowest depth of deceit. At the very time he was protesting his obedience to the Pope he was dictating to the emperor insolent letters that denied all papal jurisdiction. He misrepresented the story of Ignatius’s deposition with unblushing lies, and he at least connived at Ignatius’s ill-treatment in banishment. He proclaimed openly his entire subservience to the State in the whole question of his intrusion. He stops at nothing in his war against the Latins. He heaps up accusations against them that he must have known were lies.
His effrontery on occasions is almost incredible. For instance, as one more grievance against Rome, he never tires of inveighing against the fact that Pope Marinus I (882-84) [pictured left], John VIII’s successor, was translated from another see, instead of being ordained from the Roman clergy. He describes this as an atrocious breach of canon law, quoting against it the first and second canons of Sardica; and at the same time he himself continually transferred bishops in his patriarchate.
The whole Photian Council was an exercise in colossal bamboozlement, an art honed to masterful perfection in the Byzantine Photius.
Photius rose to prominence when the Partriarch of Constantinople, Ignatius (846-57), was deposed and banished by Emperor Michael III (842-67) in 857 for refusing communion to Bardas, a chief State official, for having incestuous relations with his daughter-in-law, and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place.
Photius was hurried through Holy Orders in six days. On Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, a bishop who had been excommunicated for insubordination, illicitly ordained Photius patriarch. The emperor tried in vain to make Ignatius resign his See. Photius also did all he could to get the Pope to ratify their expulsion of Ignatius, the legitimate occupant of the Partriarchal See.
The emperor sought to obtain from Pope Nicholas I (858-67) recognition of Photius by a letter grossly misrepresenting the facts and requesting legates to be sent to settle the issue in a synod.
The Pope sent two legates, Rodoald of Porto and Zachary of Anagni, with cautious instructions to hear both sides and report back to him. The synod occurred in St. Sophia’s in May, 861. The legates were bribed, agreed to Ignatius’s deposition and Photius’s succession, and returned to Rome with letters for the Pope. The emperor’s Secretary of State, Leo, followed the legates to Rome with further assurances and letters, in which both the emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledged Papal Primacy and categorically (and conveniently!) invoke the Pope’s jurisdiction to confirm what has happened.
Meanwhile Ignatius, in exile, sent his friend the Archimandrite Theognostus to Rome in 862 with an urgent letter setting forth his own case. Nicholas, having heard both sides, decided for Ignatius and answered the letters from Emperor Michael III and Photius by insisting that Ignatius must be restored and the usurpation of his See must cease.
Rome never wavered from this position, and this is what set the stage for the Photian schism. In 863 the Pope held a synod at the Lateran in which the two legates were tried and excommunicated. Nicholas’s decision reinstating Ignatius as lawful Patriarch of Constantinople was reiterated. Photius was to be excommunicated unless he relinquished his usurpation at once.
However, instead of obeying the Pope, to whom he had just appealed, Photius resolved, with the emperor’s backing, to deny Rome’s authority altogether. Ignatius was not restored to his See, but kept in prison, and the Pope’s letters were kept from publication.
Photius collaborated with the emperor in notifying Rome that the Eastern Patriarchs were in support of Photius, in questioning the propriety of the Pope’s excommunication of the legates, and threatening Rome with imperial military action unless the Pope altered his decision and gave his support to Photius. In 867, Photius went on the offensive by declaring his excommunication of the Pope and the Western churches.
The pretexts given were that the Latin churches (1) fast on Saturday, (2) do not begin Lent until Ash Wednesday, (3) do not allow priest to marry, (4) do not allow priests to administer confirmation, and (5) have added the filioque clause to the creed (indeed, Photius’s discovery of utility of the filioque grievance as a political weapon vastly disproportionate to its theological value seems to have been original with him).
For these reasons, Photius’s encyclical declared, the Latins are “forerunners of apostasy, servants of Antichrist who deserve a thousand deaths, liars, fighters against God.”
Later in the same year (867), Emperor Michael III was murdered, and Basil I (867-86) succeeded him. Phot
ius was ejected from the patriarchate, and Ignatius restored. Pope Adrian (867-72), who succeeded Nicholas, answered Ignatius’s appeal for legates to attend a synod designed to examine the whole matter. The legates arrived in Constantinople in September of 869, and in October the synod was convened, which Catholics recognize as the Eighth Ecumenical Council (the Fourth Council of Constantinople). This council tried Photius, confirmed his deposition, and, since he refused to renounce his claim, excommunicated him. He was banished to a monastery at Stenos on the Bosphorus, where he spent seven years, writing letters to supporters, organizing his party, and biding his time for another chance.
Photius ingratiated himself with the emperor, who recalled him in 876 to the court. He feigned reconciliation with Ignatius and ingratiated himself within the Patriarch’s circle to such an extent that when Ignatius died, a strong party demanded that Photius should succeed him. An imperial embassy was sent to Rome to explain that everyone at Constantinople wanted Photius to be patriarch. Pope John VIII, wishing to avoid provoking yet another conflict with Constantinople, agreed, absolved Photius from all censure, and acknowledged him as partriarch. A more fateful judgment cannot be imagined.
By 878 Photius had achieved lawfully the patriarchate that he had formerly usurped. Rome acknowledged him as Patriarch of Constantinople and restored him to her communion. There was no possible legitimate reason now for a fresh quarrel.
But Photius used his new position to re-open his personal long-festering political vendetta against Rome. Accordingly, he applied to Rome for legates to come to another synod. There was no legitimate reason for a synod, but he persuaded Pope John VIII that it would clear up the last remains of the earlier schism, and bring healing and restore solidarity between East and West. His real motive, in cannot be doubted, was to undo the effect of the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 869 that had deposed him.
The Pope sent three legates, Cardinal Peter of St. Chysogonus, Paul, Bishop of Ancona, and Eugene, Bishop of Ostia. The synod was opened in St. Sophia’s in November of 879. This is the the council that has come to be known to Catholics as the Pseudosynodus Photiana (Photian Pseudo-Synod) or Conciliabulum Oecumenicum Pseudooctavum (Pseudo-Eighth Ecumenical Council) which the Anti-Western Orthodox count as the Eighth Ecumnical Council.
Photius had his own way throughout the council. He altered the letters sent to him, to the Emperor Basil, and to the Byzantine Church by Pope John VIII, which were read at the Council of 879-80 convoked to clear his name (Francis Dvornik attests to this in Byzantium and the Roman Primacy.
Photius revoked the acts of the former synod (of 869), repeated all his accusations against the Western churches, focusing especially on the filioque grievance, anathematized all who added anything to the creed, and claimed Bulgaria as part of the Byzantine Pariarchate.
Photius had rigged his council. He had garnered John VIII’s support under the false pretense that he meant to heal the remains of the earlier schism by restoring Eastern dissenters to the one true fold of Rome. But the fact that there was a great majority for all of Photius’s defiant measures in the synod shows the extent to which he had prepared for the synod by building up his Anti-Western party in the East.
The legates, like their predecessors in 861, agreed to everything the majority desired, pending the ratification of the Pope. As soon as they had returned to Rome, Photius sent the Acts to the Pope for his confirmation. Instead, however, Pope John VIII naturally again excommunicated him, solemnly condemning him in 881 and reinstating the ban against him in 882. The successor of John VIII, Pope Marinus I (882-884), who had presided over the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869 as one of the legates of Adrian II, vigorously renewed John VIII’s condemnation of Photius, rescinding the Acts of the Photian Council of 879 and formally reinstating the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869 as the official Eighth Ecumenical Council of the Church.
So the Photian Schism broke out in full force for several years until the death of Emperor Basil I in 886.
Emperor Basil was succeeded by his son, Leo VI (886-912), who intensely disliked Photius, accused him of treason and embezzlement of public money, and immediately deposed him and banished him. Photius’s place as patriarch was then taken by Leo’s younger brother, Stephen (886-93). Stephen’s intrusion was no less a violation of canon law than that of Photius in 857, so Rome refused to recognize him. It was only under his successor Antony II (893-95) that a synod restored reunion for a century and a half, until the time of Michael Cerularius (1045-58).
At this point, Photius disappears from history. Not even the Armenian monastery in which he spent his last years is certainly known, although historical research shows that Photius (despite his liturgical and doctrinal quarrels with the Latin Franks in Bulgaria) died in communion with the Holy See (see James Likoudis, “History of the Byzantine Greco-Slav Schism: Basic Facts and Events Giving Rise to the Eastern Orthodox Churches”). The date of his death is generally given as February 6, 897.
But Photius had left a large and influential anti-Roman party, eager to repudiate the Pope’s primacy and embrace schism. It was this party, to which Cerularius belonged, which triumphed in Constantinople, so that Photius is rightly considered the architect of the the Great Schism—or as I prefer to call it, the Anti-Western Orthodox Schism—which still endures. A proud and obstinate Cerelarius was excommunicated by Rome in 1054, along with all the Eastern churches that followed him into Anti-Western schism. But the greatest credit for this fatal breach in Christendom must go to the brilliant and scheming Photius, who broke faith with Sacred Tradition by denying Peter in the office of his successors by means of his proud and obstinate “non serviam!”
Note:
The ecumenical status of the Fourth Council of Constantinople of 869-870 has long been contested by the Anti-Western Orthodox. During the ecumenically-charged milieu leading up to and following the Second Vatican Council, many Roman Catholic scholars and ecumenists, eager to mend relations with their Eastern Orthodox brethren, have been back-pedaling and down-playing their former criticisms of Photius, amending and revising their accounts of the Photian Schism.
In this process, some further details have been brought to light, but in some instances earlier details have been obfuscated and covered over. One of the most prominent Catholic scholars during this period has been Francis Dvornik (or Dvornic), whose books, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948; rpt. 1970) and Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York: Fordham University Press, 1966; rpt. 1979) have been viewed by Anti-Western Orthodox scholars as having come a significant way towards accommodating some of their interpretations. To their delight, Dvornik accepts, for example, their claim that the belief that the successors of John VIII—Marinus I, Stephen V, and Formosus—had broken with Photius is a legendary invention. It must be conceded, in fact, that Photius did die in communion with Rome. Dvornik’s claim that Photius never actually questioned Roman primacy seems well-attested.
However, the notion that the ecumenical status of the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869-870 is fundamentally compromised by the acts of the Photian Council of 879-880 cannot be seriously maintained.
First, the matter is ultimately a question of authority, and whether the matter was immediately settled in the ninth century or not is in the final analysis irrelevant.
Second, the Council claimed for itself an ecumenical status by calling itself the universalis octava synodus; and it had at least the necessary geographical characteristics because of the authority of all the heads of the Church who were either present or represented.
Was it recognized as ecumenical by the Holy See?
Three facts are certain and incontestable.
First, Adrian II had already approved it in his letter of Nov. 10, 871, as well as in his letter to the faithful of Salerno and Amalfi in 875; and John VIII called it sancta octava synodus, thereby formally recognizing its ecumenical status.
Second, the Council has been listed among the ecumenical councils recognized by the Roman Catholic Church since the beginning of the 12th century. Third, the Byzantine Church itself accepted the Council as ecumenical until the Photian Synod of 879-880, which is thought to have abrogated its Acts; and those portions of the Byzantine Church that reunited with Rome since that time have considered it as ecumenical.
The crux of debate is reducible to the question whether Pope John VIII, by means of his supreme power of binding and loosing, actually annulled the acts of the Council of 869-870, thus depriving it of ecumenical status.
This is of course what is claimed by Anti-Western Orthodox scholars, who have a curious (if convenient) interest at this point in the Roman primacy of John VIII.
The answer is affirmative if the Greek text of the last two sessions of the Photian Synod are considered authentic, which may be doubted, not least because of Photius’s history of altering the letters sent to him, to the Emperor Basil, and to the Byzantine Church by Pope John VIII, before having them read at the Photian Synod of 879-880.
The answer is negative if takes into consideration other documents, such as the letter of Pope Stephen V to Emperor Basil I in 885-886. This letter states, in fact, that 20 years after the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), Photius was still trying to have it annulled, a step that would be inexplicable if prior to this time John VIII had already taken the initiative in this matter.
While ecumenically-minded scholars such as Dvornik have written irenically in support of the thesis of abrogation by John VIII, others such as Venance Grumel and Martin Jugie have defended the thesis of non-abrogation and ecumenicity of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) as the Eighth Ecumenical Council of the Church. Ultimately, however, the issue is one of ecclesiastical authority, in testimony of which stands the record of decrees of the Holy See.
I have posted a link to Dvornik’s book on the Photian Schism. Incredibly it exists in free E Book form.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3271621/posts
Dvornik’s book as ha been peer-reviewed and set forth in my prior posts is full of holes.
His thesis has certainly been the subject of rigorous examination, no academic work on that subject will escape criticism, but I don’t see it being full of holes at all. On the contrary, most of the criticism has been quite measured. But the fact remains that almost 70 years after publication, it remains the go to source for those researching the issue, from both the East and West. I can’t ever recall reading anything on the subject from any reputable source who did not cite Dvornik’s work. That is itself a powerful testament.
Agree Dvornik’s contribution to that historical narrative is a major contribution but as reviewers have pointed out some of the major predicates for his conclusions are either flat wrong or debatable. More likely, there are crucial missing pieces in his narrative.
Hmmm..
So I’m NOT the only one who sees that...
No, it’s is good to know that there is someone else on FR that sees this as well. Thank you for letting me know that I am not alone.
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.