Portrait of Young John Calvin
Unknown Flemish artist
Espace Ami Lullin of the Bibliothèque de Genève
Posted on 06/04/2010 5:43:13 AM PDT by markomalley
This is a guest post by Dr. David Anders. David and his wife completed their undergraduate degrees at Wheaton College in 1992. He subsequently earned an M.A. from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1995, and a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa in 2002, in Reformation history and historical theology. He was received into the Catholic Church in 2003. He will be on EWTN Live on June 23rd, 7:00 pm Central (8 EST), and may be discussing some of the material from this article.
Portrait of Young John Calvin
Unknown Flemish artist
Espace Ami Lullin of the Bibliothèque de Genève
I once heard a Protestant pastor preach a “Church History” sermon. He began with Christ and the apostles, dashed through the book of Acts, skipped over the Catholic Middle Ages and leaped directly to Wittenberg, 1517. From Luther he hopped to the English revivalist John Wesley, crossed the Atlantic to the American revivals and slid home to his own Church, Birmingham, Alabama, early 1990s. Cheers and singing followed him to the plate. The congregation loved it.
I loved it, too. I grew up in an Evangelical Church in the 1970s immersed in the myth of the Reformation. I was sure that my Church preached the gospel, which we received, unsullied, from the Reformers. After college, I earned a doctorate in Church history so I could flesh out the story and prove to all the poor Catholics that they were in the wrong Church. I never imagined my own founder, the Protestant Reformer John Calvin, would point me to the Catholic faith.
I was raised a Presbyterian, the Church that prides itself on Calvinist origins, but I didn’t care much about denominations. My Church practiced a pared-down, Bible-focused, born-again spirituality shared by most Evangelicals. I went to a Christian college and then a seminary where I found the same attitude. Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Charismatics worshiped and studied side-by-side, all committed to the Bible but at odds on how to interpret it. But our differences didn’t bother us. Disagreements over sacraments, Church structures, and authority were less important to us than a personal relationship with Christ and fighting the Catholic Church. This is how we understood our common debt to the Reformation.
When I finished seminary, I moved on to Ph.D. studies in Reformation history. My focus was on John Calvin (1509-1564), the French Reformer who made Geneva, Switzerland into a model Protestant city. I chose Calvin not just because of my Presbyterian background, but because most American Protestants have some relationship to him. The English Puritans, the Pilgrim Fathers, Jonathan Edwards and the “Great Awakening” – all drew on Calvin and then strongly influenced American religion. My college and seminary professors portrayed Calvin as a master theologian, our theologian. I thought that if I could master Calvin, I would really know the faith.
Strangely, mastering Calvin didn’t lead me anywhere I expected. To begin with, I decided that I really didn’t like Calvin. I found him proud, judgmental and unyielding. But more importantly, I discovered that Calvin upset my Evangelical view of history. I had always assumed a perfect continuity between the Early Church, the Reformation and my Church. The more I studied Calvin, however, the more foreign he seemed, the less like Protestants today. This, in turn, caused me to question the whole Evangelical storyline: Early Church – Reformation – Evangelical Christianity, with one seamless thread running straight from one to the other. But what if Evangelicals really weren’t faithful to Calvin and the Reformation? The seamless thread breaks. And if it could break once, between the Reformation and today, why not sooner, between the Early Church and the Reformation? Was I really sure the thread had held even that far?
Calvin shocked me by rejecting key elements of my Evangelical tradition. Born-again spirituality, private interpretation of Scripture, a broad-minded approach to denominations – Calvin opposed them all. I discovered that his concerns were vastly different, more institutional, even more Catholic. Although he rejected the authority of Rome, there were things about the Catholic faith he never thought about leaving. He took for granted that the Church should have an interpretive authority, a sacramental liturgy and a single, unified faith.
These discoveries faced me with important questions. Why should Calvin treat these “Catholic things” with such seriousness? Was he right in thinking them so important? And if so, was he justified in leaving the Catholic Church? What did these discoveries teach me about Protestantism? How could my Church claim Calvin as a founder, and yet stray so far from his views? Was the whole Protestant way of doing theology doomed to confusion and inconsistency?
Understanding the Calvinist Reformation
Calvin was a second-generation Reformer, twenty-six years younger than Martin Luther (1483-1546). This meant that by the time he encountered the Reformation, it had already split into factions. In Calvin’s native France, there was no royal support for Protestantism and no unified leadership. Lawyers, humanists, intellectuals, artisans and craftsman read Luther’s writings, as well as the Scriptures, and adapted whatever they liked.
This variety struck Calvin as a recipe for disaster. He was a lawyer by training, and always hated any kind of social disorder. In 1549, he wrote a short work (Advertissement contre l’astrologie) in which he complained about this Protestant diversity:
Every state [of life] has its own Gospel, which they forge for themselves according to their appetites, so that there is as great a diversity between the Gospel of the court, and the Gospel of the justices and lawyers, and the Gospel of merchants, as there is between coins of different denominations.
I began to grasp the difference between Calvin and his descendants when I discovered his hatred of this theological diversity. Calvin was drawn to Luther’s theology, but he complained about the “crass multitude” and the “vulgar plebs” who turned Luther’s doctrine into an excuse for disorder. He wrote his first major work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), in part to address this problem.
Calvin got an opportunity to put his plans into action when he moved to Geneva, Switzerland. He first joined the Reformation in Geneva in 1537, when the city had only recently embraced Protestantism. Calvin, who had already begun to write and publish on theology, was unsatisfied with their work. Geneva had abolished the Mass, kicked out the Catholic clergy, and professed loyalty to the Bible, but Calvin wanted to go further. His first request to the city council was to impose a common confession of faith (written by Calvin) and to force all citizens to affirm it.
Calvin’s most important contribution to Geneva was the establishment of the Consistory – a sort of ecclesiastical court- to judge the moral and theological purity of his parishioners. He also persuaded the council to enforce a set of “Ecclesiastical Ordinances” that defined the authority of the Church, stated the religious obligations of the laity, and imposed an official liturgy. Church attendance was mandatory. Contradicting the ministers was outlawed as blasphemy. Calvin’s Institutes would eventually be declared official doctrine.
Calvin’s lifelong goal was to gain the right to excommunicate “unworthy” Church members. The city council finally granted this power in 1555 when French immigration and local scandal tipped the electorate in his favor. Calvin wielded it frequently. According to historian William Monter, one in fifteen citizens was summoned before the Consistory between 1559 and 1569, and up to one in twenty five was actually excommunicated.1 Calvin used this power to enforce his single vision of Christianity and to punish dissent.
A Calvinist Discovers John Calvin
I studied Calvin for years before the real significance of what I was learning began to sink in. But I finally realized that Calvin, with his passion for order and authority, was fundamentally at odds with the individualist spirit of my Evangelical tradition. Nothing brought this home to me with more clarity than his fight with the former Carmelite monk, Jerome Bolsec.
In 1551, Bolsec, a physician and convert to Protestantism, entered Geneva and attended a lecture on theology. The topic was Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, the teaching that God predetermines the eternal fate of every soul. Bolsec, who believed firmly in “Scripture alone” and “faith alone,” did not like what he heard. He thought it made God into a tyrant. When he stood up to challenge Calvin’s views, he was arrested and imprisoned.
What makes Bolsec’s case interesting is that it quickly evolved into a referendum on Church authority and the interpretation of Scripture. Bolsec, just like most Evangelicals today, argued that he was a Christian, that he had the Holy Spirit and that, therefore, he had as much right as Calvin to interpret the Bible. He promised to recant if Calvin would only prove his doctrine from the Scriptures. But Calvin would have none of it. He ridiculed Bolsec as a trouble maker (Bolsec generated a fair amount of public sympathy), rejected his appeal to Scripture, and called on the council to be harsh. He wrote privately to a friend that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”2
What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.”3
Calvin took very seriously the obligation of the laity to submit and obey. “Contradicting the ministers” was one of the most common reasons to be called before the Consistory and penalties could be severe. One image in particular sticks in my mind. April, 1546. Pierre Ameaux, a citizen of Geneva, was forced to crawl to the door of the Bishop’s residence, with his head uncovered and a torch in his hand. He begged the forgiveness of God, of the ministers and of the city council. His crime? He contradicted the preaching of Calvin. The council, at Calvin’s urging, had decreed Ameaux’s public humiliation as punishment.
Ameaux was not alone. Throughout the 1540s and 1550s, Geneva’s city council repeatedly outlawed speaking against the ministers or their theology. Furthermore, when Calvin gained the right to excommunicate, he did not hesitate to use it against this “blasphemy.” Evangelicals today, unaccustomed to the use of excommunication, may underestimate the severity of the penalty, but Calvin understood it in the most severe terms. He repeatedly taught that the excommunicated were “estranged from the Church, and thus, from Christ.”4
If Calvin’s ideas on Church authority were a surprise to me, his thoughts on the sacraments were shocking. Unlike Evangelicals, who treat the theology of the sacraments as one of the “non-essentials,” Calvin thought they were of the utmost importance. In fact, he taught that a proper understanding of the Eucharist was necessary for salvation. This was the thesis of his very first theological treatise in French (Petit traicté de la Sainte Cène, 1541). Frustrated by Protestant disagreement over the Eucharist, Calvin wrote the text in an attempt to unify the movement around one single doctrine.
Evangelicals are used to finding assurance in their “personal relationship with Christ,” and not through membership in any Church or participation in any ritual. Calvin, however, taught that the Eucharist provides “undoubted assurance of eternal life.”5 And while Calvin stopped short of the Catholic, or even the Lutheran, understanding of the Eucharist, he still retained a doctrine of the Real Presence. He taught that the Eucharist provides a “true and substantial partaking of the body and blood of the Lord” and he rejected the notion that communicants receive “the Spirit only, omitting flesh and blood.”6.
Calvin understood baptism in much the same way. He never taught the Evangelical doctrine that one is “born again” through personal conversion. Instead, he associated regeneration with baptism and taught that to neglect baptism was to refuse salvation. He also allowed no diversity over the manner of its reception. Anabaptists in Geneva (those who practiced adult baptism) were jailed and forced to repent. Calvin taught that Anabaptists, by refusing the sacrament to their children, had placed themselves outside the faith.
Calvin once persuaded an Anabaptist named Herman to enter the Reformed Church. His description of the event leaves no doubt about the difference between Calvin and the modern Evangelical. Calvin wrote:
Herman has, if I am not mistaken, in good faith returned to the fellowship of the Church. He has confessed that outside the Church there is no salvation, and that the true Church is with us. Therefore, it was defection when he belonged to a sect separated from it.7
Evangelicals don’t understand this type of language. They are accustomed to treating “the Church” as a purely spiritual reality, represented across denominations or wherever “true believers” are gathered. This was not Calvin’s view. His was “the true Church,” marked off by infant baptism, outside of which there was no salvation.
Making Sense of Evangelicalism
Studying Calvin raised important questions about my Evangelical identity. How could I reject as unimportant issues that my own founder considered essential? I had blithely and confidently dismissed baptism, Eucharist, and the Church itself as “merely symbolic,” “purely spiritual” or, ultimately, unnecessary. In seminary, too, I found an environment where professors disagreed entirely over these issues and no one cared! With no final court of appeal, we had devolved into a “lowest common denominator” theology.
Church history taught me that this attitude was a recent development. John Calvin had high expectations for the unity and catholicity of the faith, and for the centrality of Church and sacrament. But Calvinism couldn’t deliver it. Outside of Geneva, without the force of the state to impose one version, Calvinism itself splintered into factions. In her book Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism, historian Janice Knight details how the process unfolded very early in American Calvinism. 8
It is not surprising that by the eighteenth century, leading Calvinist Churchmen on both sides of the Atlantic had given up on the quest for complete unity. One new approach was to stress the subjective experience of “new birth” (itself a novel doctrine of Puritan origins) as the only necessary concern. The famous revivalist George Whitefield typified this view, going so far as to insist that Christ did not want agreement in other matters. He said:
It was best to preach the new birth, and the power of godliness, and not to insist so much on the form: for people would never be brought to one mind as to that; nor did Jesus Christ ever intend it.9
Since the eighteenth century, Calvinism has devolved more and more into a narrow set of questions about the nature of salvation. Indeed, in most people’s minds the word Calvinism implies only the doctrine of predestination. Calvin himself has become mainly a shadowy symbol, a myth that Evangelicals call upon only to support a spurious claim to historical continuity.
The greatest irony in my historical research was realizing that Evangelicalism, far from being the direct descendant of Calvin, actually represents the failure of Calvinism. Whereas Calvin spent his life in the quest for doctrinal unity, modern Evangelicalism is rooted in the rejection of that quest. Historian Alister McGrath notes that the term “Evangelical,” which has circulated in Christianity for centuries, took on its peculiar modern sense only in the twentieth century, with the founding of the National Association of Evangelicals (1942). This society was formed to allow coordinated public action on the part of disparate groups that agreed on “the new birth,” but disagreed on just about everything else.10
A Calvinist Discovers Catholicism
I grew up believing that Evangelicalism was “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” I learned from Protestant Church history that it was hardly older than Whitefield, and certainly not the faith of the Protestant Reformers. What to do? Should I go back to the sixteenth century and become an authentic Calvinist? I already knew that Calvin himself, for all his insistence on unity and authority, had been unable to deliver the goods. His own followers descended into anarchy and individualism.
I realized instead that Calvin was part of the problem. He had insisted on the importance of unity and authority, but had rejected any rational or consistent basis for that authority. He knew that Scripture totally alone, Scripture interpreted by each individual conscience, was a recipe for disaster. But his own claim to authority was perfectly arbitrary. Whenever he was challenged, he simply appealed to his own conscience, or to his subjective experience, but he denied that right to Bolsec and others. As a result, Calvin became proud and censorious, brutal with his enemies, and intolerant of dissent. In all my reading of Calvin, I don’t recall him ever apologizing for a mistake or admitting an error.
It eventually occurred to me that Calvin’s attitude contrasted sharply with what I had found in the greatest Catholic theologians. Many of them were saints, recognized for their heroic charity and humility. Furthermore, I knew from reading them, especially St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Francis de Sales, that they denied any personal authority to define doctrine. They deferred willingly, even joyfully, to the authority of Pope and council. They could maintain the biblical ideal of doctrinal unity (1 Corinthians 1:10), without claiming to be the source of that unity.
These saints also challenged the stereotypes about Catholics that I had grown up with. Evangelicals frequently assert that they are the only ones to have “a personal relationship with Christ.” Catholics, with their rituals and institutions, are supposed to be alienated from Christ and Scripture. I found instead men and women who were single-minded in their devotion to Christ and inebriated with His grace.
The Catholic theologian who had the greatest impact on me was undoubtedly St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430). All of my life, I heard the claim that “the Early Church” had been Protestant and Evangelical. My seminary professors and even Calvin and Luther always pointed to St. Augustine as their great Early Church hero. When I finally dug into Augustine, however, I discovered a thorough-going Catholicism. Augustine loved Scripture and spoke profoundly about God’s grace, but he understood these in the fully Catholic sense. Augustine destroyed the final piece of my Evangelical view of history.
In the end, I began to see that everything good about Evangelicalism was already present in the Catholic Church – the warmth and devotion of Evangelical spirituality, the love of Scripture and even, to some extent, the Evangelical tolerance for diversity. Catholicism has always tolerated schools of thought, various theologies and different liturgies. But unlike Evangelicalism, the Catholic Church has a logical and consistent way to distinguish the essential from the non-essential. The Church’s Magisterium, established by Christ (Matthew 16:18; Matthew 28:18-20), has provided that source of unity that Calvin sought to replace.
One of the most satisfying things about my discovery of the Catholic Church is that it fully satisfied my desire for historical rootedness. I began to study history believing in that continuity of faith and trying desperately to find it. Even when I thought I had found it in the Reformation, I still had to contend with the enormous gulf of the Catholic Middle Ages. Now, thanks to what Calvin taught me, there are no more missing links. On November 16, 2003 I finally embraced the faith “once for all delivered to the Saints.” I entered the Catholic Church.
Ah, Rome -- always pointing its wagging finger at race and nationality.
Repent.
lol
Being a Calvinist myself, I agree with you.
What is the VRS church?
If you look at my posting here, or on other pages, I have never claimed the Church under the Bishop of Rome is the root of all evil. I also don’t accept that it is Christ Church Catholic, as logically you must too, if you accept your Church’s teaching that there are Christians separated from Rome, but, still Christians. If the universal Church is identical to the Roman Catholic Church in totality, than there cannot possibly be Christians outside of Rome...the argument which up until the 20th Century, was standard dogma in the Roman Church. Logically speaking, once you accept as Christians, persons NOT affiliated with Rome, you prove you believe in some sort of invisible Church, known fully only to her Lord Jesus.
As long as civilizations recognize religious freedom...there simply will be no one organizational Church. It is human nature to fracture—and the only reason the Roman Catholic Church was unified for over 1000 years (even then it wasn’t...Eastern Orthdoxy’s Great Schism of 1054, after all) was due to government coercion, and one state recognized Church...i.e. a lack of religious freedom.
After having taken time to grapple with the original text posted, I also take issue with you writing it off as a “rant.” I simply find his argument that “modern evangelicalism is not what Calvin envisioned, therefore Rome must be right” a deficient one.
"There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else” -- Charles Spurgeon
That's a bit of an oversimplification. The Byzantine emperors held onto various heresies, such as iconoclasm, and exiled and punished those who stood up for the truth. The popes had to intervene a few times to support the persecuted clerics and monastics.
I don't think I'd ever go this far. Arminianism, taken to its natural conclusion, ends in Rome. But there's a long road before it gets there.
Arminians worship free will, as does Rome. But at least Arminians do not bow down to and pray to dead people and call Mary their "co-redeemer" and believe their pastors to be "another Christ" - (an "alter Christus.")
There's more hope for Arminians than for RCs because their strong delusions aren't as deadening and thoroughly anti-Scriptural as those of the papacy.
JMHO. 8~)
As long as civilizations recognize religious freedom...there simply will be no one organizational Church. It is human nature to fracture—and the only reason the Roman Catholic Church was unified for over 1000 years (even then it wasn’t...Eastern Orthdoxy’s Great Schism of 1054, after all) was due to government coercion, and one state recognized Church...i.e. a lack of religious freedom.
Amen. Thanks for continuing to keep those papist toes to the fire of logic and reason.
Amen! Great and Godly advice.
I'm not alone. The Lord guides me through the power of the Holy Spirit. The Lord speaks through his Word whether I read it or a Pastor reads it to me. His Word is active and alive. When I listen and He wishes to speak, the truth is not frustrated, I receive it.
AMEN! The word of God becomes alive within you and all believers by the inerrant work of the Holy Spirit through God's free and merciful gifts of ears to hear and eyes to see and a renewed mind to understand and a heart of flesh to believe the truth of Christ risen.
I was a Catholic for 37 years. I would not say that all of Catholicism was wrong. I would say that Christ was not alive to me, until I picked up the Bible myself and began attending a Church where the majority of the service was spent reading and interpreting scripture. While the Catholic Mass has the power of ritual (the robes, the incense, the sanctuary) I would say still, for all of that, there was no voice speaking to me.
Post tenebrux lux. Mercy and not debt.
lol. More double-speak from the double-minded.
This is one of the reasons why I decided to leave the Church and consider all things religious as man-made agenda.
"Religious" isn't necessarily a bad word. Man can possess faith in Christ or faith in himself. They're worlds apart, but they're both still faith.
I wish I could be around when you become a Calvinist. 8~)
Its more likely that you just weren't listening.
On the contrary, it was the Holy Spirit that lead him to the Catholic Church.
I have met several former Catholic in my (Charismatic) church. People that turned away from their previous church as adults, bringing their whole families with them. All for the same reason too. It’s wierd.
I wonder, how does he know that! I don't think it's double-speak. It's what he believes, and apparemtly what his Church teaches. No different than someone who tells me the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
"Religious" isn't necessarily a bad word. Man can possess faith in Christ or faith in himself. They're worlds apart, but they're both still faith
That faith in Christ is based on man-made tales, so here again we have man-made agenda.
I wish I could be around when you become a Calvinist. 8~)
Why on earth would I want to?!? You don't think Calvinism is a man-made "church," like the rest of them?
It's called hyperbole. Actually there are only a couple of FReepers that I know of who post as if they literally believe that.
I also don’t accept that it is Christ Church Catholic, as logically you must too, if you accept your Church’s teaching that there are Christians separated from Rome, but, still Christians. If the universal Church is identical to the Roman Catholic Church in totality, than there cannot possibly be Christians outside of Rome...the argument which up until the 20th Century, was standard dogma in the Roman Church.
Actually, that is not exactly true.
I do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ instituted, with direct lineage from the apostles (note: this definition also innately includes any EO or OO Church that has apostolic succession, as well).
And I believe that those who have been validly baptized (i.e., baptised with valid form -- the Trinitarian formula -- and matter -- water) are part of the Church.
Having said that, I do have some personal doubts on that subject: a strict interpretation of the teachings surrounding baptism indicate that anybody may, in an emergency, baptize an individual provided they use proper form and matter and that the intent is to do what the Church does when she baptizes (CCC 1256: In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.). I, personally, am not convinced that ecclesial communities that practice "believer's baptism" as an ordinance, vice a sacramental baptism, have the proper intent (the difference is, so far as I know, that those who participate in the "believer's baptism" do so out of obedience and do not believe that the act of baptizing itself washes away original and personal sin, while those who practice baptism as a sacrament do believe that it has those effects). But I will defer to the judgment of the Church on this in application. The Church pretty much accepts any baptism that uses the Trinitarian formula, so I'll live with that.
Pardon the aside, but I believed it to be pertinent. Anyway, my belief is that anybody who is validly baptized is baptized into Christ and, therefore, into the Church. Of course, the visibility of that connection is tenuous at best in most cases, but that does not change the ontological reality of this. Frankly, if we believed as you claim we historically did up to the 20th Century, we would rebaptize ALL converts. And the Church has never done that. You can even look at documents from the ecumenical councils from the first millenium that back that up.
What you have commented on, though, are the historic penalties for heresy, apostasy, and schism. Those even go back as far as apostolic times, as documented by St. Paul a number of places in his writings.
In fact, as early as 1868, Pope Pius IX used the term "Christians from whom We are separated" (Apos. Let. Iam vos omnes, to all Protestants and other Non-Catholics, 13 Sep 1868, Acta Sanctae Sedis 4 p 133). He wrote those words because he recognized that none of them who were alive at that time were guilty of that heresy and schism from centuries before. In fact, in another encyclical letter, he made the following statement: It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. (from Quanto conficiamur moerore DS 1677)
In other words, one can both express the confidence that the Church has the fullness of the revelation given by Christ to the apostles and passed on faithfully...while at the same time, one can believe that God will judge men based upon what they know (see Rom 2:11ff).
Continuing on with your post:
As long as civilizations recognize religious freedom...there simply will be no one organizational Church. It is human nature to fracture—and the only reason the Roman Catholic Church was unified for over 1000 years (even then it wasn’t...Eastern Orthdoxy’s Great Schism of 1054, after all) was due to government coercion, and one state recognized Church...i.e. a lack of religious freedom.
Yes, there will always be schism when men have the freedom to do so. You are absolutely right. But, perhaps we should ask if that is a good thing? Did God give us freedom to do whatever we want...or did He give us the freedom to do the right thing? Or, to put it in another way, is the freedom to endlessly fracture a Biblical concept or is that the construct of man?
A couple of examples from the past: should Marcion been allowed to continue? Arius? Nestor? Pelagius?
Whether or not you concur with the Catholic Church, you should be able to answer strictly from the Bible whether divisions (schisms) are deemed to be a good thing or not.
The so-called Orthodox are heretics and schismatics, they are in no way part of the Catholic Church.
DOGMA
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
CATECHISM
from : MY CATHOLIC FAITH
71. Schism and Heresy
What is schism; and what is heresy? --Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope; heresy is the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith.
What were the most important schisms and heresies that have tried to destroy the Church? ......
The greatest schism suffered by the Christian Church was that of the East, resulting in the establishment of the Orthodox Eastern Church. The Eastern emperors, desiring more power in the Church, tried to make the patriarchs of Constantinople independent of Rome. Finally, Photius, with the support of the emperor, held a council of Eastern bishops in the year 867, and broke from Rome.
The cause of the schism was not doctrinal, but rather political and material,-jealousy between the East and the West. It has resulted in the separation from Rome of 145 million people with valid priesthood and sacraments. In the United States there are a number of schismatical churches, among them the Greek Orthodox, and the Russian Church.
After minor schisms and misunderstandings between East and West in 1054 there was a final break by Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, continuing today.
Today the Orthodox Eastern Church remains in schism, but does not spread. It is a withered branch, having cut itself off from the parent tree.
The Orthodox Eastern Church denies the Catholic dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. It also teaches that the souls of the just will not attain complete happiness till the end of the world, when they will be joined to their bodies; and that the souls of the wicked will not suffer complete torture in hell until that last day. These are heresies against the doctrines of the Church.
Thus it can be seen that today the Orthodox Eastern Church is not merely schismatical, but truly heretical; for it holds primary doctrines in a different light. But it has valid orders. (See Chapter 55 on The Catholic Eastern Church; Rites) END
It is not correct to say, as Markomalley implies, that all of the doctrines of the so-called Orthodox Church are in agreement with Catholic doctrine. There are major divergences, since the “Orthodox” Church denies the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, which is a dogma Catholics profess in the Creed. It also denies the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, as well as the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Besides these dogmas, there are still many other doctrinal points, such the monarchical structure of the Catholic Church,the role of the Sovereign Pontiff in this monarchy that it rejects, Limbo, purgatory, andthe indissolubility of marriage, to name but a few. These mentioned differences are more than enough to show that the “Orthodox” are not orthodox at all, but normally should be called heretics, since they deny at least three Catholic dogmas.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of all the heretical and schismatic clergy with proper apostolic succession, ..Eastern Orthodox ..also has valid clergy and sacraments," (that means ALL the sacraments, which includes baptism, are valid)
"however, other than valid baptism...(WHICH IS EFFICACIOUS ONLY FOR) ..children below the age of reason (because they do not reject the Catholic Church, it is not possible, they have not reached the age of reason, they are babies. Therefore, the ONLY sacrament of the orthodox which is efficacious is baptism, BUT only for those who have not reached the age of reason), ALL the sacraments are of no efficacy to someone who is outside the Catholic Church because of heresy and schism. The sacraments are real (and valid), but the recipient is in a state of sin, in his heresy and schism, ....adulterous 3rd marriage, therefore, in a manner of speaking, one could say that the very next second, the state of sin returns. This is why Cantate Domino says "only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards".
"In short, a dying Catholic can (in an emergency)receive the sacraments of an Eastern Orthodox priest and they have the same efficacy as if he had received them from a Catholic priest. If a heretic receives the same, and is steadfast in his denial of the authority of the pope, and steadfast in all the heresies, and other sins, the sacraments have no efficacy. To be blunt, like giving vitamins to a corpse!"
FATHERS OF CHURCH
Here's pre-1054 Saints that concur with all that I have said:
If anyone condemns the dogmas or decrees promulgated for the Catholic faith and the correction of the faithful by one presiding in the Apostolic See, let him be anathema. (Pope St. Nicholas the Great)
Blessed Peter received the keys of the kingdom in such a way that all may understand that whosoever shall cut themselves off in any way cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. Peter is the doorkeeper whom I will not contradict lest, when I come to the gates of Heaven, there should be no one to open them, since he will be my adversary who is proven to have the keys. (St. Bede the Venerable)
Hold most firmly, and never doubt in the least, that outside the Catholic Church the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be of any profit; nay, just as within the Church salvation is conferred through the Sacrament of Baptism upon those who believe rightly, so too, outside the Catholic Church, ruin is heaped up for those who were baptized by that same Baptism, if they do not return to the Church. (St Fulgentius)
There is no salvation outside the Church, and therefore whatever things of the Church are had outside the Church do not avail unto salvation. (St Augustine)
Anyone who receives the Sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic church, receives the whole Sacrament; however, he will not have salvation if he has that Sacrament outside the Catholic Church. Eternal life can never in any way be obtained by anyone who, with the Sacrament of Baptism, remains a stranger to the Catholic Church. Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that no person baptized outside the Catholic Church can become a partaker of eternal life if, before the end of this earthly life, he has not returned, and been incorporated into the Catholic Church. (St. Fulgentius)
Some men can receive Baptism outside the Church, but no one can either receive or possess salvation outside the Church. For the water of the Church is salutary and holy for those who use it well, but outside the Church no one can use it well. (St. Augustine)
There are many heresies which utilize the words of Baptism, but not in a proper sense, nor with sound faith; and, in consequence, the water which they pour is unprofitable, so that he who is sprinkled by them is polluted rather than redeemed. (St. Athanasius)
Although among heretics and schismatics there is the same Baptism, nevertheless, remission of sins is not operative among them because of the rottenness of discord and wickedness of dissension. (St. Augustine)
Baptism does not profit a man outside unity with the Church, for many heretics also possess this Sacrament, but not the fruits of salvation. Children baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church when, after reaching the age of reason,they make formal profession of heresy, as, for example, by receiving communion in a non Catholic church. (St. Augustine)
The so-called Orthodox are heretics and schismatics, they are in no way part of the Catholic Church.
DOGMA
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
CATECHISM
from : MY CATHOLIC FAITH
71. Schism and Heresy
What is schism; and what is heresy? --Schism is the refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope; heresy is the formal denial or doubt by a baptized person of any revealed truth of the Catholic Faith.
What were the most important schisms and heresies that have tried to destroy the Church? ......
The greatest schism suffered by the Christian Church was that of the East, resulting in the establishment of the Orthodox Eastern Church. The Eastern emperors, desiring more power in the Church, tried to make the patriarchs of Constantinople independent of Rome. Finally, Photius, with the support of the emperor, held a council of Eastern bishops in the year 867, and broke from Rome.
The cause of the schism was not doctrinal, but rather political and material,-jealousy between the East and the West. It has resulted in the separation from Rome of 145 million people with valid priesthood and sacraments. In the United States there are a number of schismatical churches, among them the Greek Orthodox, and the Russian Church.
After minor schisms and misunderstandings between East and West in 1054 there was a final break by Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, continuing today.
Today the Orthodox Eastern Church remains in schism, but does not spread. It is a withered branch, having cut itself off from the parent tree.
The Orthodox Eastern Church denies the Catholic dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. It also teaches that the souls of the just will not attain complete happiness till the end of the world, when they will be joined to their bodies; and that the souls of the wicked will not suffer complete torture in hell until that last day. These are heresies against the doctrines of the Church.
Thus it can be seen that today the Orthodox Eastern Church is not merely schismatical, but truly heretical; for it holds primary doctrines in a different light. But it has valid orders. (See Chapter 55 on The Catholic Eastern Church; Rites) END
It is not correct to say, as Markomalley implies, that all of the doctrines of the so-called Orthodox Church are in agreement with Catholic doctrine. There are major divergences, since the “Orthodox” Church denies the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, which is a dogma Catholics profess in the Creed. It also denies the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, as well as the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Besides these dogmas, there are still many other doctrinal points, such the monarchical structure of the Catholic Church,the role of the Sovereign Pontiff in this monarchy that it rejects, Limbo, purgatory, andthe indissolubility of marriage, to name but a few. These mentioned differences are more than enough to show that the “Orthodox” are not orthodox at all, but normally should be called heretics, since they deny at least three Catholic dogmas.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of all the heretical and schismatic clergy with proper apostolic succession, ..Eastern Orthodox ..also has valid clergy and sacraments," (that means ALL the sacraments, which includes baptism, are valid)
"however, other than valid baptism...(WHICH IS EFFICACIOUS ONLY FOR) ..children below the age of reason (because they do not reject the Catholic Church, it is not possible, they have not reached the age of reason, they are babies. Therefore, the ONLY sacrament of the orthodox which is efficacious is baptism, BUT only for those who have not reached the age of reason), ALL the sacraments are of no efficacy to someone who is outside the Catholic Church because of heresy and schism. The sacraments are real (and valid), but the recipient is in a state of sin, in his heresy and schism, ....adulterous 3rd marriage, therefore, in a manner of speaking, one could say that the very next second, the state of sin returns. This is why Cantate Domino says "only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards".
"In short, a dying Catholic can (in an emergency)receive the sacraments of an Eastern Orthodox priest and they have the same efficacy as if he had received them from a Catholic priest. If a heretic receives the same, and is steadfast in his denial of the authority of the pope, and steadfast in all the heresies, and other sins, the sacraments have no efficacy. To be blunt, like giving vitamins to a corpse!"
FATHERS OF CHURCH
Here's pre-1054 Saints that concur with all that I have said:
If anyone condemns the dogmas or decrees promulgated for the Catholic faith and the correction of the faithful by one presiding in the Apostolic See, let him be anathema. (Pope St. Nicholas the Great)
Blessed Peter received the keys of the kingdom in such a way that all may understand that whosoever shall cut themselves off in any way cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. Peter is the doorkeeper whom I will not contradict lest, when I come to the gates of Heaven, there should be no one to open them, since he will be my adversary who is proven to have the keys. (St. Bede the Venerable)
Hold most firmly, and never doubt in the least, that outside the Catholic Church the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be of any profit; nay, just as within the Church salvation is conferred through the Sacrament of Baptism upon those who believe rightly, so too, outside the Catholic Church, ruin is heaped up for those who were baptized by that same Baptism, if they do not return to the Church. (St Fulgentius)
There is no salvation outside the Church, and therefore whatever things of the Church are had outside the Church do not avail unto salvation. (St Augustine)
Anyone who receives the Sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic church, receives the whole Sacrament; however, he will not have salvation if he has that Sacrament outside the Catholic Church. Eternal life can never in any way be obtained by anyone who, with the Sacrament of Baptism, remains a stranger to the Catholic Church. Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that no person baptized outside the Catholic Church can become a partaker of eternal life if, before the end of this earthly life, he has not returned, and been incorporated into the Catholic Church. (St. Fulgentius)
Some men can receive Baptism outside the Church, but no one can either receive or possess salvation outside the Church. For the water of the Church is salutary and holy for those who use it well, but outside the Church no one can use it well. (St. Augustine)
There are many heresies which utilize the words of Baptism, but not in a proper sense, nor with sound faith; and, in consequence, the water which they pour is unprofitable, so that he who is sprinkled by them is polluted rather than redeemed. (St. Athanasius)
Although among heretics and schismatics there is the same Baptism, nevertheless, remission of sins is not operative among them because of the rottenness of discord and wickedness of dissension. (St. Augustine)
Baptism does not profit a man outside unity with the Church, for many heretics also possess this Sacrament, but not the fruits of salvation. Children baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church when, after reaching the age of reason,they make formal profession of heresy, as, for example, by receiving communion in a non Catholic church. (St. Augustine)
That’s nice. Here’s one from William Webster
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.