The “Necessity” of Being Catholic (Ecumenical Caucus)

One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull is the following infallible pronouncement: "Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it Is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."

This doctrine is extraordinarily controversial. Some Catholic extremists claim (contrary to further Church teaching, including a further infallible definition) that this means everyone who is not a full fledged, professing Catholic is damned. Non Catholics find the claim offensive, sectarian, and anti Christian in sentiment.

Most Catholics who are aware of the definition find it embarrassing, especially in today's ecumenical age, and many try to ignore or dismiss it, though even liberal Catholic theologians admit it is a genuine doctrinal definition and must in some sense be true.

Its truth was reinforced by Vatican II, which stated: "This holy Council ... [b]asing itself on Scripture and Tradition ... teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation.... [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium 14).

Many modems explain this doctrine in a way that robs it of its content. In the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, who admitted the possibility of salvation for non Catholics, lamented that some Catholic theologians were "reducs an exclusivist view of salvation, this teaching does not mean that anyone who is not a full fledged Catholic is damned. As further Church teaching has made clear, including a further doctrinal definition, it is entirely possible for a person to be saved without being a professing Catholic. Formally belonging to the Church and formally being subject to the Roman Pontiff are normative rather than absolute necessities,

An absolute necessity is a necessity which holds in all cases with no exceptions. A normative necessity is usually required, though there are exceptions. An example of normative necessity in everyday American life is the practice of driving on the right hand side of the road. This is normally required, but there are exceptions, such as emergency situations. For example, if a small child darts out from behind parked cars, it may be necessary (and legally permitted) to swerve into the left hand lane to avoid hitting him. Thus the necessity of driving on the right hand side of the road is a normative rather than an absolute necessity.

Whether it is a normative or an absolute necessity to be united to the Catholic Church depends on what kind of unity with the Church one has in mind, because there are different ways of being associated with the Catholic Church.

A person who has been baptized or received into the Church is fully and formally a Catholic. Vatican II states: "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops" (Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 837).

But it is also possible to be “associated" with or "partially incorporated" into the Catholic Church without being a fully and formally incorporated into it. Vatican II states: "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium 15). Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838).

Those who have not been baptized are also put in an imperfect communion with the Church, even if they do not realize it, if they possess the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Pope Plus XII explains that the "juridical bonds [of the Church] in themselves far surpass those of any other human society, however exalted; and yet another principle of union must be added to them in those three virtues, Christian faith, hope, and charity, which link us so closely to each other and to God.... [I]f the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in his Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so.... Charity ... more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ" (Mystici Corporis 70, 73).

Understanding this distinction between perfect and imperfect communion with the Church is essential to understanding the necessity of being a Catholic. It is an absolute necessity no exceptions at all to be joined to the Church in some manner, at least through the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. However, it is only normatively necessary to be fully incorporated into or in perfect communion with the Catholic Church. There are exceptions to that requirement, as the Council of Trent taught (see below), though it is still a normative necessary.

In our discussion below, the word "necessary" will mean "normatively necessary," not "absolutely necessary."

When it comes to the question of being a Catholic, that is both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. It is a necessity of precept because God commands it, for "the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ," Lumen Gentium 14 (CCC 846). It is a necessity of means because the Catholic Church is the sacrament of salvation for mankind, containing all the means of grace. "As sacrament, the Church is Christ's instrument. 'She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, ''the universal sacrament of salvation, 'by which Christ is' at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God's love for men... (CCC 776, citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium 9:2, 48:2, and Gaudiam et Spes 45: 1).

To many this teaching sounds extremely offensive, sectarian, and anti Christian. But is it really? While non-Catholic Christians balk at the claim one must be a Catholic to be saved, many do not balk when it is said that one be a Christian to be saved. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are well known for claiming precisely this. Many say it is an absolute necessity no exceptions allowed and are critical of Catholics for saying some non-Christians may make it into heaven. They claim that in allowing this possibility the Church has compromised the gospel.

(For a scriptural rebuttal to this, see Acts 10:34 35, in which Peter declares that anyone who fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to the Lord. See also Acts 17:23, in which Paul says some Greeks worshipped the true God in ignorance. And see Rom. 2:13 16, in which Paul states that some gentiles who do not have the law of Moses meaning non Christian gentiles, since they do have the law of Moses may be excused by their consciences and declared righteous on the day of judgment.)

Vatican II stated: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life . . . . But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasoning, having exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (c.f Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord’s commands, ‘preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mark 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions” Lumen Gentium 16).

We would cite the works of any number of popes prior to Vatican II to show this (for example, Pius IX’s allocution, Singulari Quadem, given the day after he defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854, or his 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, or Plus XII's 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis), but to make short work of the matter, let us look at an infallible definition from the Council of Trent, whose teachings were formulated in one of the most bitterly polemical and least ecumenical periods in history, and which to radical traditionalists is an absolutely unimpeachable source.

Canon four of Trent's "Canons on the Sacraments in General" states, "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them ... men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema [excommunicated]." This is an infallible statement because anathemas pronounced by ecumenical councils are recognized as infallibly defining the doctrine under discussion.

Trent teaches that although not all the sacraments are necessary for salvation, the sacraments in general are necessary. Without them or the desire of them men cannot obtain the grace of justification, but with them or the desire of them men can be justified. The sacrament through which we initially receive justification is baptism. But since the canon teaches that we can be justified with the desire of the sacraments rather than the sacraments themselves, we can be justified with the desire for baptism rather than baptism itself.

This is confirmed in chapter four of Trent's Decree on Justification. This chapter defines justification as "a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the sons' of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior." Justification thus includes the state of grace (salvation). The chapter then states that "this translation, after the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' [John 3:5]. " Justification, and thus the state of grace, can be effected through the desire for baptism (for scriptural examples of baptism of desire, see Acts 10:44 48, also Luke 23:42 43).

Only actual baptism makes one a formal member of the Church; baptism of desire does not do so. Since justification can be received by desire for baptism, as Trent states, justification and thus received without formal membership in the Church. The desire for baptism is sufficient.

Later Catholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.

How does implicit desire work? Consider the following analogy: Suppose there is a person who is sick and needs a shot of penicillin to make him better. He tells his physician, "Doc, you've got to give me something to help me get well!" The doctor looks at his chart and says, "Oh, what you want is penicillin. That's the right drug for you." In this case the man had an explicit desire for a drug to make him better whatever that drug might be and the appropriate one was penicillin. He thus had an implicit desire for penicillin even if he had not heard of it before. Thus the doctor said: "What you want is penicillin." This shows that it is possible to want something without knowing what it Is.

A person who has a desire to be saved and come to the truth, regardless of what that truth turns out to be, has an implicit desire for Catholicism and for the Catholic Church, because that is where truth and salvation are obtained. By resolving to pursue salvation and truth, he resolves to pursue the Catholic Church, even though he does not know that is what he is seeking. He thus implicitly longs to be a Catholic by explicitly longing and resolving to seek salvation and truth.

Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified that those who are consciously non Catholic in their theology may still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for Catholicism. Pope Plus XII stated that concerning some of "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis 103).

How does this work? Consider our example of the sick man who needs penicillin. Suppose that he thinks that a sulfa drug will cure him and he explicitly desires it. So he tells the doctor, "Doc, I'm real sick, and you've got to give me that sulfa drug to make me better." But the doctor notices on his chart that he has an allergy to sulfa drugs, and says, "No, you don't want that; what you really want is penicillin." In this case the person's primary desire is to get well; he has simply mistaken what will bring that about. Since his primary desire to be well, he implicitly desires whatever will cause that to happen. He thus implicitly desires the correct drug and will explicitly desire that drug as soon as he realizes the sulfa would not work.

As papal and conciliar writings have indicated, the same thing is possible in religion. If a person's primary desire is for salvation and truth then he implicitly desires Catholicism even if he is consciously mistaken about what will bring him salvation and truth. He might be a member of some other church, yet desire salvation and truth so much that he would instantly become a Catholic if he knew the truth concerning it. In this case, his primary desire would be for salvation and truth wherever that might be found rather than his primary desire being membership in a non Catholic church.

However, the situation could be reversed. It is possible for a person to have a stronger desire not to be a Catholic than to come to the truth. This would be the case when people resist evidence for the truth of Catholicism out of a desire to remain non Catholic. In this case their primary desire would not be for the truth but for remaining a non-Catholic. Thus their ignorance of the truth would not be innocent (because they desired something else more than the truth), and it would constitute mortal sin.

Even though some radical traditionalists are disobedient to the papal and conciliar documents which teach the possibility of implicit desire sufficing for salvation, the Church has still taught for centuries that formal membership in the Church is not an absolute necessity for salvation. This was the point made by Trent when it spoke of desire for baptism bringing justification. The issue of whether desire for baptism saves and the issue of whether that desire can be explicit or implicit are two separate subjects which radical traditionalists often confuse. If we keep them separate, it is extremely clear from the Church's historic documents that formal membership in the Church is not necessary for salvation.

To avoid this, some radical traditionalists have tried to drive a wedge between justification and salvation, arguing that while desire for baptism might justify one, it would not save one if one died without baptism. But this is shown to be false by numerous passages in Trent.

In the same chapter that it states that desire for baptism Justifies, Trent defines Justification as "a translation ... to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God" (Decree on Justification 4). Since whoever is in a state of grace and adopted by God is In a state of salvation, desire for baptism saves. If one dies in the state of grace, one goes to heaven and receives eternal life.

As Trent also states: "Justification ... is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unrighteous man becomes a righteous man, and from being an enemy [of God] becomes a friend, that he may be 'an heir according to the hope of life everlasting' [Titus 3:7]" (Decree on Justification 7). Thus desire for baptism brings justification and justification makes one an heir of life everlasting. If one dies in a state of justification, one will inherit eternal life. Period. This question of whether formal membership is necessary for salvation is thus definitively settled by Trent. It is not. Informal membership, the kind had by one with desire for baptism, suffices.

This was also the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. He stated that those who have no desire for baptism "cannot obtain salvation, since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained. Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate; but he did not lose the grace he prayed for... (Summa Theologiae 111:68:2, citing Ambrose, Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

The question of whether desire for baptism needs to be explicit or implicit is a separate issue which was not raised by Trent, but which has been dealt with repeatedly by popes and councils since that time. Still, Trent alone shows that the statement in Unam Sanctam teaches a normative necessity for formal membership, not an absolute one. Those who desire but do not have baptism are not formally members of the Church, yet they are linked to the Church by their desire and can be saved.

What is absolutely necessary for salvation is a salvific link to the body of Christ, not full incorporation into it. To use the terms Catholic theology has classically used, one can be a member of the Church by desire (in voto) rather than in actuality (in actu).

In A.D. 400, Augustine said, "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body ... All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39).

And in the thirteenth century, Aquinas stated a person can obtain salvation if they are "sacramentally [or] mentally. . . incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained," and that "a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly" (ST 111:68:2).

What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger "Bible," but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,

The same is true of those who misuse papal and conciliar statements on the other side, privately interpreting them in a way contrary to what they explicitly state that all religions are equal, that every religion leads one to God, and that there is no need for evangelism. The Church teaches the exact opposite!

While elements of truth may be found in other religions (for example, the truth that there is a supernatural world), elements of truth do not make equality in truth.

In fact, it can be the presence of elements of truth which make a counterfeit believable and lead one away from God. A lie is not credible if it bears no resemblance to reality, as illustrated by the serpent's lie to Eve, which most definitely contained elements of truth Adam and Eve did become "as God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5, 22) but it was the believability of the serpent's lie that led Adam and Eve away from God.

So though it is possible for a person to be led toward God by elements of truth that are found in a false religion, this does nothing to diminish the need for evangelism.

Vatican II may teach that it is possible for "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church" to receive salvation, but it immediately follows it up by stating that, despite that fact, "very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord’s command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:15) takes zealous care to foster the missions" (Lumen Gentium 16).

And Pope Pius XII stated concerning "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church ... we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love" (Mystici Corporis 103).

These quotes show the Church's insistence on people's need to receive evangelization to hear the good news but most fundamentally evangelism is necessary because Christ calls us to dispel all ignorance concerning him and the means of salvation he has established (including the Church), for Christ commands, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19 20). We are to dispel all ignorance, including innocent ignorance, for we are to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15).

Those who represent, even through silence, the Magisterium as not requiring and stressing the urgent need for world wide evangelism are distorting the teaching of the magisterium as much as those who represent it as saying absolutely no one who is not formally a Catholic can be saved.

(For a look at what the early Church Fathers believed, and how they supported both the necessity of being Catholic and the possibility of salvation for non Catholics in some circumstances, see "The Fathers Know Best: Who Can Be Saved? ", This Rock, Nov. 94.)

Under the circumstances, you have no business telling me to “Make your argument”.

What circumstances? You pontificate worse than a Protestant. After introducing a fatuous dodge pitting Alexandria against Jerusalem to mangle one of Jude's three examples of apostasy, you expect me to follow a direction as spare as "go west" to find a line of reasoning you won't even describe in the broadest of terms, after condescending to me over "Greek lessons?"

I pray such hauteur is not your habit, and if it is, that you repent before it is too late.

***I have every business, however, to suggest to you that you, a subject of +BXVI, the most patristic pope in at least 1000 years, perhaps even the first Father of The Church to appear in that same 1000 years, to read the Fathers if you want to seriously discuss these issues! Tell us what you find about Jude 11 and then you’ll be taken seriously.***

Interesting. We have had that ravaged street preacher posting among other things, Jude 11. Many Latin Catholics do not realize strongly enough that we are a Church of the Fathers, and not a church of whatever falls out of Scripture today depending on our alcohol intake. This is a continuous Church, one in which the Consensus Patrum holds sway, and not any individual who happens to take the reins or the imagination of others.

***At our best, and frankly there has been plenty of “best” here, we have lived up to the charge that the first two hierarchs of Christendom have laid upon us. At other times, thankfully mostly in the past, we have come to verbal blows...and then usually come to recognize each other as fully members of The Church and so brothers and sisters, albeit separated and with differing opinions, our bishops no longer in communion.***

It is our bishops, full of pride and hubris, that have kept us at arms’ length for a millennium. The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. It was true when this was coined; it is true now.

We are one Church, we are not legion. Else we are no better than the children of the Reformation, believing on the whims of the day, the contents of our stomachs, and the opinions of our wives.

I have been following the back-and-forth between Kolo and papertyger with some amusement, I must admit. First to give Jude any such crucial importance is novel, as Kolo says, because this book was either soundly rejected or listed as questionable (too short) to be accepted as scripture well into the 3rd century. Most of the earlier Fathers (Polycarp, Igantius, Justin Martyr, etc.) do not quote from it and apparently seem unaware of its existence.

Even Irenaeus' repertoire of books does not include Philemon, II Peter, III John, or Jude! Origen includes it but then he also includes Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Hebrews, Acts of Paul (that's the one in which Paul revives a fried fish!), I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas and Didache as 'divinely inspired,' while rejecting James, II Peter, II John and III John, so his inclusion o Jude cannot be taken seriously.

No early Father who acknowledged it used Jude to interpret verse 11 as papertyger does. Such interpretation is UNKNOWN to the Church.

According to Metzger (Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1987), Tertullian comments on Jude 14 but not 11.

As for Numbers 16, what can I say...when I read that Moses is telling God what not to do (v. 15) I bite my lip and move on...otherwise I would be on the floor laughing.

Sadly, it is, but what can you expect from the greatest of sinners, +John Chrysostomos notwithstanding.

Would to God you were that self-effacing in practice and not just principle.

That doesn’t change the fact, however, that you need a Greek lesson.

You have GOT to be kidding! Are you seriously trying to float the idea one must know Greek to be an (small o) orthodox Christian?

Still haven’t read the Fathers, have you! There’s really no excuse not to, you know.

Would you please estimate for any lurking readers the volume of text I would have to review to find what the Church Fathers had to say about Jude 11...bearing in mind you have given me no more direction beyond "the Fathers?"

I'm beginning to believe I've fallen victim to "Job's friends" practicing that peculiar form of studied ignorance characterized by the charge of "darbyism." That is: "We don't know what those scriptures mean, but we know they don't mean what they say."

“Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it Is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”

Statements like the above occur in most religions in one form or another. That’s why “organized” religion is such a problem for millions of people. Too much “I’m right - you’re wrong. My interpretation/translation is right - yours is wrong. I’m going to heaven - you’re not because you don’t believe the “right” way etc.”

Why do so many religious people not get this?

“You have GOT to be kidding! Are you seriously trying to float the idea one must know Greek to be an (small o) orthodox Christian?”

No, right now just you.

“Would you please estimate for any lurking readers the volume of text I would have to review to find what the Church Fathers had to say about Jude 11...bearing in mind you have given me no more direction beyond “the Fathers?””

I gave you a link to a collection of the Fathers’ writings in English that even has a search engine. I gave you the names of several of the Fathers who have written on the topic. It seems to me that you’ve been given sufficient direction to find what you need with a minimum of effort. If you deal with the actual bound volumes, well the Ante Nicene, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers collection is around 40 volumes.

“We don’t know what those scriptures mean, but we know they don’t mean what they say.”

Says the fellow who believes, contrary to anything the Fathers have written, that Jude 11 refers to +Peter. LOL!

Says the fellow who believes, contrary to anything the Fathers have written, that Jude 11 refers to +Peter. LOL!

It is difficult for me to believe such obtuseness is not deliberate. My assertion was that Jude 11 could find no more worthy application than to the papacy and the authority thereof. That is not a claim to exclusivity, as I'm confident you are aware.

You are the one who introduced a specious geographical component into the interpretation for which there is zero evidence. Furthermore, you have completely ignored how Alexandria and Jerusalem might be pitted against each other in a manner that could be called "gainsaying."

Forgive me if I have trouble taking your mocking seriously.

You would be wrong.

I followed your link only to find a pathetic twelve comments relating to Jude 11, and none of that commentary was by the Fathers you name...they were almost exclusively protestant.

No, right now just you.

Please tell me the point of insisting I learn Greek besides absolving you of the responsibility to "put up, or shut up."

“My assertion was that Jude 11 could find no more worthy application than to the papacy and the authority thereof. That is not a claim to exclusivity, as I’m confident you are aware.”

Your claim is nonsense, exclusively nonsense.

“You are the one who introduced a specious geographical component into the interpretation for which there is zero evidence.”

If you knew what presvyia meant you’d understand. Like I said, its a common theological word. The Pope uses it.

“Forgive me if I have trouble taking your mocking seriously.”

I am seriously mocking you.

“You would be wrong.”

That’s a shame. Its apparent that you don’t need English lessons. I can’t imagine why you can’t find what is otherwise there to be found...in the writings of the Fathers I cited to you, none of whom were protestants. Now, try searching what I suggested you search, which, if you remember, was not Jude 11, but rather the verse from Numbers whence it comes. But you have learned one thing, pt, and that is that The Fathers never, ever, made the absurd connection you have made between +Peter and Jude 11. The Fathers knew what happened to Korah and his cabal and commented upon it drawing parallels to a number of people and situations current in their time, but never to +Peter or any of this successors at Rome.

Do the research. If you can’t find the passages, perhaps your parish library has a searchable disk of the Fathers. Most well stocked parish libraries do.

As for “”put up, or shut up.””, you, pt, are the one who showed up on this thread spouting a personal interpretation of Jude 11 unknown to The Fathers and thus The Church. You are for the most part a stranger to these discussions. We regularly have strangers show up on these threads. Many of them, even among the Protestants, quickly establish their bona fides as people who think deeply about theology and can support their positions with references to established theological commentary. We don’t always agree, but that isn’t the point. We do virtually always agree that each others points are sincerely presented, with a proper foundation and not nonsense. But that’s because we respect each others ability to lay an arguable theological foundation for comments.

You’ve shown no ability to lay a proper foundation for your assertion. I’m surprised. I’m used to better from Latin Rite Christians. Consequently, it’s not for you to tell me to “put up or shut up.”

Your claim is nonsense, exclusively nonsense.

Well there's a response worthy of study and celebration down through the ages!

What's your next gem, "I know you are but what am I?"

If you knew what presvyia meant you’d understand. Like I said, its a common theological word.

And if you weren't acting the petulant child playing "I've got a secret" I might be able to tell if you have some actual insight, or are stonewalling to save face.

Either way, you've played this card far longer than any kind of virtue would permit.

Furthermore, as I don't normally carry a priest, and google only produces four hits for "presvyia," how does any person of goodwill classify the term as common...even with the "theological" qualifier?

This is disingenuousness at best.

That’s a shame. Its apparent that you don’t need English lessons. I can’t imagine why you can’t find what is otherwise there to be found...

I should think a person of your learning would fairly trip over that answer: because you grossly misrepresent the difficulty of the task.

Now, try searching what I suggested you search, which, if you remember, was not Jude 11, but rather the verse from Numbers whence it comes.

That statement is as asinine as protestants directing us to other scriptures to "understand" Matthew 16:18. Jude 11 gives us the Holy Spirit's authentication that the sin of Korah was gainsaying Moses. The story in Numbers is a NARRATIVE, and carries no such explict conclusion. Or do you suppose I should draw inferences from the Fathers on writings tangential to Jude 11 instead of what The Holy Spirit concludes explicitly?

Furthermore, as I don't normally carry a priest, and google only produces four hits for "presvyia," how does any person of goodwill classify the term as common...even with the "theological" qualifier?

Well, try presbeia (the way it was pronounced back then in the 1st century). Presevyia is a modern-Greek pronunciation, but the spelling is the same in either case — πρεσβεια. That's why fundamental knowledge of Greek helps when discussing concepts developed in Greek, so as to avoid transliterational confusion.

Presbeia gives 43,000 hits.

For anyone else reading who is confused about what this debate entails, here is the passage in Jude, as translated by in the ESV:

” 8Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. 11Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion. 12These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.”

Now, while a child of the Reformation, and thus one who “...believ[es] on the whims of the day, the contents of our stomachs, and the opinions of our wives”, I haven’t had any alcohol for a month or more, just ate some pizza, and my wife is at work - she was hired a couple of weeks ago at St Mary’s Hospital in Tucson - so take all this into account and give my thoughts the lack of respect they undoubtedly deserve...

No one doubted Moses was the single authority for Israel, and rebellion against him was rebellion against God. However, citing that as evidence that the Pope is the undoubted single authority for all Christianity is an impressive stretch.

It isn’t found in Scripture, and no, one verse in Matthew with disputable meaning is NOT the way God ordains a perpetual office...look at the care God took in setting up the priesthood in the OT.

Nor did ‘church fathers’ consider the Bishop of Rome supreme over them. I believe - and those of you whose opinions are NOT being influenced by pizza & Diet Coke can tell me if I’m wrong - that the Vicar of Christ was, in the early church, the Holy Spirit.

I probably shouldn’t stick my nose into the ecumenical thread discussion, particularly one where all agree I’m an alcoholic, wife-obeying (aren’t we all?), unstable pepperoni pizza-demon, but it seems odd that someone would use Jude to show rebellion against the Pope is dangerous when the same NT doesn’t show Papal supremacy in the first place.

Just FWIW, which probably isn’t much, given the audience. Still, it reads more like a passage on Rome than on the Orthodox...

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.