Apologetics, The Papacy, And Eastern Orthodoxy

Homiletic and Pastoral Review ^ | James Likoudis

[Polycarp]

 

Apologetics, The Papacy, And Eastern Orthodoxy

By James Likoudis

A sizeable religious literature in Apologetics has grown in past decades as the Catholic Church has continued to be attacked by those Protestants (Fundamentalists, evangelicals, and those belonging to minor sects) who remain influenced by the older Protestant polemics of the Reformation period filled with gross misunderstandings of Catholic doctrines. In an age which in large measure has appeared to have abandoned reason, it is desirable that Catholics restore the proper role of reason and to appeal to reason to establish the credibility of Christianity and the claims of the Catholic Church to be the visible embodiment in this world of the Church Christ Himself founded to be the "Pillar and Ground of the truth" (1Tim. 3:15).

In the opinion of this writer, much of the force of Catholic doctrinal debate with Protestants is rendered ineffective unless a major premise is established first - namely that the Church mentioned throughout the pages of the New Testament is a visible entity, a visible society, a visible body which can be clearly and without difficulty identified as the true Church established by the Savior. Most Protestants do not, in fact, hold the "one Church and one Church only" (Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism, 1) to be a visible body at all but to be invisible in nature- a Church of the elect, or of the predestined, or of the "saved" who are known only to God, or perhaps- according to some modern ecumenists- are made up of all the baptized who possess a sort of vague spiritual unity sufficient to identify them all as members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Consequently, unless the grace of God intervenes to make a Protestant realize that a visible authority (in the form of an authoritative Church) actually exists in this world to teach unerringly and to judge and settle religious disputes, there is no way to avoid the kind of religious anarchy we see manifested among the 28,000 Protestant denominations listed in religious encyclopedias. Protestantism ends in absolute religious subjectivism and in the tragic spread of religious indifferentism and skepticism. The great Catholic Counter-Reformation Apologists were quite perceptive in judging that Protestantism logically led to infidelity or unbelief.

The teaching of the 2^nd Vatican Council with regards to the nature of the Church constitutes the most magnificent Magisterial expression of ecclesiology in the 2,000 years of Catholic Christianity. The central document of Vatican II, its "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" (Lumen Gentium), set forth Catholic teaching on the nature of the Catholic Church as a visible social body built on the Rock of Peter which was at the same time the mysterious Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Its "Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches" noted that "The holy Catholic Church, which IS the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government." And "Lumen Gentium" had indeed much to say concerning "the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one (visible) head"(L.G. 22) — namely the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter. Concerning that "supreme authority" in the College of Bishops which was established by the historical Christ for His "one and only Church" , Lumen Gentium noted, "The Holy Spirit preserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up by Christ the Lord in His Church." (L.G. 27)

The Primacy of supreme authority and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in the Church and the authority of the other Bishops who make up the College of Bishops are therefore both essential elements in the divine constitution of the Church, and this has been the verdict of ecclesiastical history during the Church's 2,000 years. The teaching on Catholic Unity found in Vatican I's "First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ" and Vatican II's "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" bear ample witness to this verdict.

It is to be emphasized that the position of the Eastern Orthodox churches (whose called- for- Unity with the Catholic Church is one of the highest priorities in Pope John Paul II's pontificate) is quite different than that of most Protestants. They believe that the Church is indeed visible and that their communion is, in fact, the "one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church" noted in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Primacy of the Pope as defined by the Councils of Florence, Vatican I and Vatican II is the "rock of contradiction" that now clearly serves as the biggest obstacle to the union of the Churches, though in the Middle Ages, curiously enough, it was the dogmatic issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist which identified for Byzantine dissidents the Pope and those in communion with him as "heretical".

The inability of Eastern Orthodox theologians and hierarchs to understand the proper relationship between Primacy and Collegiality (or Conciliarity) lies at the heart of their doctrinal resistance to the Papacy's Petrine Ministry. As some of them have said- in tune, interestingly enough, with some Protestants- the only Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit. In this statement lies the profound error concerning the visible government of the Church that has resulted in what we see among the 16 or so autocephalous (i.e., independent) churches making up the Eastern Orthodox communion - namely, a truncated hierarchy that cannot speak with one voice on doctrinal issues. A Catholic writer some years ago wrote beautifully that "From Christ the Apostles received the Holy Spirit who made them One". Concerning the episcopate in the Church (i.e., the corporate body of Bishops ruling the Church), he noted further :

"The Spirit of Christ present in the episcopal body is the source of its unity. It is He who assists the college in its teaching and prevents it from any substantial error in the matter of faith. He inspires, moves and helps the college in its activity. The one Holy Spirit is holding together the many members of the episcopal body.

The supernatural power of the Spirit is the common possession of the episcopal body, although the head and members do not share it in the same degree. The Successor of Peter posseses it in a way that makes him the principle of unity for the many members. The members possess it in a way that makes them able to act in a corporate manner when the head calls upon them to do so. The Spirit of Christ, says Lumen Gentium 'strengthens the organic structure of the college and its harmony'. The body, of course remains one : one theological subject of this mysterious power, of which the practical or legal manifestation is twofold- either through an act of the head of the college of bishops or through the action of the whole college [as in an Ecumenical Council]." (Fr. Ladislas M. Orsy, S.J., "Collegiality: Its Meaning" in America, May 15, 1965)

Clarifying further the relation between the Pope and the Bishops of the Church, he observed :

"Peter remains the Rock on which the Church is built. On this Rock rests even the college of bishops- not as a foreign body added to it, but as a structure that God has united to the Rock to help carry the weight of the whole edifice of the Universal Church."

And what a weight and burden the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of the Rock-man carries in his Petrine Office as Primate of the Universal Church. This was noted by John of Salisbury in the 12^th century writing in his famous political treatise "Policraticus" of Pope Hadrian IV :

"The cathedra of the Roman Pontiff is a bed of thorns, his mantle, trimmed with the sharpest points all over, is so heavy that it weighs down, bruises, and crushes the strongest shoulders, and the tiara with its crown may well seem bright because it is made of fire."(VI, 24)

Though the Pope no longer wears a tiara, he, as the Chief Bishop of the Church, continues to image his Crucified Master in that Way of the Cross which constitutes the Church's pilgrimage through history. G.K.Chesterton once referred to "the halo of hatred that surrounds the Church of God" in that pilgrimage. In the past centuries of violent Protestant and Eastern Orthodox polemics directed against the Papacy as a, if not the, "Antichrist", we can see, in fact, that "halo of hatred" most glaringly manifested. We may recall the words of that astute 19^th c. Catholic thinker Joseph de Maistre who observed that "the hatred of Rome is the only but universal tie between all the separated Churches." (Du Pape, Book IV, Chapter I)

Though ecumenical dialogue and contacts have greatly softened the polemics of the past regarding the role of the Pope in the Church- and God is to be thanked for that-, serious difficulties remain with regards to both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox coming to a better understanding and appreciation of the role of the Pope in the Church. Moreover, with some Catholics defecting to the Eastern Orthodox communion because of the doctrinal and liturgical disorders of the post-conciliar period, Catholic Apologists can not ignore the renewed intransigence of some Eastern Orthodox towards the "heresy" of the Papacy.

The Eastern Orthodox continue to profess the ancient belief of the "undivided Church" that the Episcopacy continues the apostolic mission of the original Apostolic College. They fail to acknowledge, however, the illogicality of rejecting the communion of the one Bishop, who is the heir of the one Apostle chosen by Christ to be the Rock-foundation, Holder of the Keys of the Kingdom, Confirmer of the brethren, and Chief Pastor of the entire flock (cf. Matt. 16:18ff; Lk. 22:31; Jn. 21:15-17), and thereby given the awesome responsibility to safeguard the visible unity of the one Church Christ had founded for the salvation of all men. As Vatican I and Vatican II have insisted :

"In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided, Christ put Peter at the head of the other Apostles, and in him He set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and of communion." (Lumen Gentium, 18)

Catholic tradition has always seen clearly that if the Gates of Hell ( heresies, schisms, and persecutions, etc.) are not to prevail against the Church built on the Rock-foundation of Peter, Christ's authoritative Invisible headship of the Church must be reflected in the hierarchical order of the Church itself. It is the Primacy of Christ (1 Coloss.1:18) that is manifested in the Primacy of Peter's Successor in the hierarchy of the Church. It is Christ's headship that is reflected in the Bishop of Rome being constituted the. visible head and indivisible center of unity for all the local churches (East and West) making up the Catholic communion.

A recent polemic that is worth the atttention of Catholic Apologists is that of Mr. Clark Carlton, a former Southern Baptist minister who has converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. In his "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church" (Regina Orthodox Press, 1999; 270 pp.), he purports to give a "theological analysis of the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy, not a critique of the reforms of Vatican II". This does not keep him from alleging that "the Roman Catholic Church has become highly protestantized in the wake of Vatican II" and from attempting to dissuade "Evangelical Protestants who are considering converting to the Roman Catholic Church" (pages 8-9). He devotes an entire Chapter to criticize especially Catholic convert Scott Hahn for his "appalling ignorance of history", particularly with regards to the crippling influence of the Byzantine Greek and Russian Emperors who dominated the life of the dissident Greco-Slav churches for centuries. Following the lead of the Russian Orthodox Jean Meyendorff, Clark's attempt to discount a "caesaropapism which did not in fact exist" is not convincing.

Interestingly, Mr. Carlton earned an M.A. in Early Christian Studies from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. His recent book attacking the Catholic Church and the Papacy represents the sorry revival of the worst kind of polemics launched by dissident Byzantines before and after the Reunion Council of Florence (1439). This is evidenced by the author's inclusion of documents expressive of the bitterness and violent invective often hurled against "heretical Rome":

• the 1285 Tome against the "Filioque" of the Council of Blachernae;
• the 1848 Encyclical Reply by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem to Pius IX's invitation to them to attend Vatican I;
• the 1993 Letter of Mt. Athos Monks taking to task the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, for his ecumenical overtures to "the Pope, the man-god and idol of Western humanism".

Mr. Carlton will have no part of Eastern Orthodox ecumenical efforts. [To him] Ecumenism is simply another "heresy". In fact, [he states that:]

• "the Orthodox Church considers the Roman Catholic Church to be in heresy" (page 9)...
• The doctrine of the papacy...is heresy", as representing a radical departure from the ecclesiology of the early Church (page 18).
• "The Orthodox [have] rejected the 'Filioque' [i.e., the words "and the Son" added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in the Latin Church] because it was heretical" (page 62).
• "It must be recognized as a heresy and formally repudiated" (page 75).
• "Orthodoxy" rejects Roman Catholic doctrines such as: "Papal supremacy and infallibility"; "changing the Creed (the 'Filioque')"; "worrying about going to a non-existent place (purgatory), paying money to stay out of said non-existent place (indulgences)"; and "the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception".

This last doctrine is accused of "turning the Virgin Mary into some sort of super-human" (an immaculately conceived Co-redemptrix).

For Mr. Carlton, "Orthodoxy" also rejects the Catholic doctrine of salvation based upon concepts of satisfaction and merit. "To put it bluntly", he pontificates, Eastern Orthodoxy "knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church" (page 187). "We simply do not confess the same faith".

Space does not permit here to deal adequately with the many doctrinal misconceptions, erroneous theological arguments, and distortions of historical fact found in this anti-ecumenical work. Its familiar charges and allegations have often been refuted by Catholic scholars, and are very similar in nature and import to another recent book published by the same Press (Michael Whelton's "Two Paths: Papal Monarchy or Collegiality" ) which is similarly directed against the "heretical" Papacy. Not surprisingly, both of these books clearly evidence the results of schism from the See of Peter, namely, doctrinal variations and contradictions among the Eastern Orthodox and consequent confusion as to what (in the absence of any Ecumenical Council since the 8^th c.) constitutes their "official teaching".

Mr. Carlton says he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy rather than to the Catholic Church because he saw in the former's theology and life " a pure witness" to the religion of the early Church. Yet he is forced to acknowledge with the monks of Mt. Athos an "already disunited body of Orthodoxy"- one racked with the heresy of "phyletism" (a heresy condemned as such in an l872 Council at Constantinople). Phyletism is defined as "the theory that the Church should be organized according to ethnic make-up rather than according to territorial dioceses"- an innovation quite contrary to the ancient canons. The sorry result has been - in the words of the Mt. Athos monks- "ensuing chaos", now strikingly manifest in multiple Orthodox jurisdictions, a number of which are declared "uncanonical" by some and "schismatical" or "heretical" by others. Whereas Carlton insists that each of his "national churches" professes "one and the same Orthodox faith", he fails to see the flagrant contradictions into which he falls. The Church's ecclesiology, he declares, is "not subject to change". Yet he admits that Rome's claims to a primacy of universal jurisdiction is already found in the 5^th century when the orthodox Eastern churches were in full communion with Rome. The 'Filioque", he charges 'ad nauseam' is "heretical", but he admits the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from (or through) the Son was already widespread in the Western Church since the 5^th century (and when the orthodox Eastern churches were in full communion with it). In claiming that the Eastern Orthodox profess "one and the same Orthodox faith", he ignores the brute fact that theologians (both past and present) are found who believe that the 'Filioque' is not heretical; who have expressed belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God so venerated among them; who believe in a "purification or cleansing of the soul "in the after-life (with its pains and torments)- a teaching practically indistinguishable from our Catholic doctrine of purgatory ; and who believe that Papal supremacy has deep historical roots in the early Church being clearly admitted in the East long before the 11^th century estrangement between Rome and Constantinople.

Fortunately, Mr. Carlton does not speak for all Eastern Orthodox bishops, theologians, and Laity; some will surely find his views quite extremist and strident, and will be embarrassed by his and fellow zealots' denunciation of ecumenism as "heresy". Also, readers of his book may find quite questionable his elevating the 14^th century theologian Gregory Palamas' controversial teaching on the essence and energies of God to the status of dogma (and this without benefit of an Ecumenical Council !). Nor do his views on the nature of the Church find approval with a writer of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
Reviewing an earlier book by Mr. Carlton ("The Faith : Understanding Orthodox Christianity- An Orthodox Catechism", 1997), Fr.Alexey Young (himself a former Catholic) observed:

"The author says that 'the Orthodox Church has faithfully maintained the apostolic faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), neither adding to nor subtracting from it.' A fine statement, but one which is, in this context, at best an optimistic generalization, for some Orthodox jurisdictions have in fact departed significantly from the Faith 'once delivered to the saints', as even a cursory study will reveal."("Orthodox America", 1997)

Mr. Carlton must also be said to live in quite another theological world than that of the late Panteleimon, Metropolitan of Chios, who observed many years ago (in words that have been echoed by other Eastern Orthodox prelates) that:

"Between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, it is fanaticism alone, that has emphasized the insignificant differences, differences that were never serious, that existed in former times without bringing on a schism." (Le Monde, January 26,1952)

Then, too, it can be perceived that behind many of the author's erroneous statements lies a residue of centuries of old Protestant prejudices and fanatical animus against "Romanism" and "Mariolatry". A number of Eastern Orthodox theologians he quotes (such as the 19^th c. lay theologian Khomjakov) were undeniably influenced by Protestant negations of Catholic doctrines.

In conclusion, Mr. Carlton has rehashed old doctrinal grievances and complaints against the Catholic Church by Byzantine dissidents who have misunderstood and misinterpreted the Tradition of their own Eastern Fathers on those dogmatic matters where they choose to find themselves at odds with Catholic teaching. Ironically, his book has served to highlight the irreconcilable doctrinal divisions, disputes, and schisms currently found in the 16 or so autocephalous (jurisdictionally independent) churches making up the Eastern Orthodox communion.

Though by the grace of God, the Eastern Orthodox have kept in almost complete measure the Catholic faith as defined in the first seven Ecumenical Councils, they have departed from the fullness of that faith in sadly separating themselves from the communion of the Rock-foundation of the Church, Peter and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs. Readers will recall Cardinal Newman's famous aphorism : "To go deep into history is to cease to be a Protestant". It is also true that for those who seek integral orthodoxy, love the Catholic unity of the Church, and meditate seriously upon the role of the Papacy in the First Millenium, "To go deep into history is to cease to be Eastern Orthodox."

(c) James Likoudis. All Rights Reserved. This article was originally published in "Homiletic and Pastoral Review" issue of January 2001

_________________

Today's Catholic Reflections (c)

www.tcrnews.com

TCR Home</center

[MarMema]

"It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism - the primacy of the Pope exalting himself equal to God."

St. Mark the Evgenikos (of Ephesus)

"The papacy is included among the heretical weeds forever appearing in the church of God which is very often plagued and continues to plague the salvation of mankind in Christ; in being bad seeds and rotten members they are justly cut off from the healthy body and the Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ."

Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos 1895

"Through the dogma of "Infallibility" the Western church lost its spiritual freedom. It lost its beauty and balance, and was deprived of the wealth of the grace of the Holy Spirit, the presence of Christ- from spirit and soul ended up a dead body. We are truly grieved for the injustice done to the church and we pray from the bottom of our hearts that the Holy Spirit illumine the mind and the heart of the Most Blessed Pontiff to have him return to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH that which he took from her, something that should never have taken place."

St. Nektarios of Aegina

[MarMema]

One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church
Should the Orthodox church be in dialogue with the Roman Catholic one? Yes. Will we reunite? It would take a miracle

By Fr. Patrick Reardon

Were I to list the thousand reasons why Rome is my favorite place in all the world, most of them would have to do the Eternal City's long association with Christian history. On those all too rare occasions when I am able to get back to Rome, most of my time is spent visiting the catacombs, the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul, the Circus Maximus, the Colosseum, and other sites precious to Christian memory. My personal sentiments about Rome were well summarized by St. Abercius, the second-century Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who had made a pilgrimage to the Eternal City. Later, in the inscription that he crafted for his own tomb, he referred to the church at Rome as "the queen with the golden robe and golden shoes." Starting with the blood of the Neronic martyrs, there is no city on earth, I think, more deeply saturated in Christian memory.

Surely, then, any Orthodox heart must be saddened when remembering the long and deep estrangement between ourselves and that venerable institution described by St. Irenaeus of Lyons as "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul."

Should the Orthodox Church be dialoguing with the ancient See of Rome with a view to our eventual reconciliation and reunion? Yes, most emphatically. Such a dialogue, for such a purpose, constitutes a most strict moral imperative, imposed by the will and mandate of Christ for the unity of His church and, for that reason, neglected at the absolute peril of our souls. The reunion of believers in Christ is not a concern that the Orthodox conscience can simply "write off."

I suggest that the proper model for such an Orthodox dialogue with Rome was provided by St. Mark of Ephesus, the most unforgettable of the Eastern delegates to the Council of Florence back in the 15th century. St. Mark is best remembered because of his casting the sole dissenting vote against the reunion of the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church. At the end, he became convinced that the effort for reunion at Florence would be successful only by an infidelity to the ancient tradition, so he conscientiously voted against it.

Still, St. Mark did not refuse to dialogue and discuss the matter. His fidelity to the true faith did not prevent his taking part in serious theological dialogue with those with whom he disagreed. Even though the Roman Catholic Church was at that time in circumstances indicating great spiritual and moral decline, a decline that would soon lead to its massive dismembering during the Protestant Reformation, St. Mark did not despise Rome or refuse to join his voice to a dialogue summoned to make real that prayer of Christ that we all might be one. Those Orthodox who, like myself, believe that continued dialogue with Rome is a moral imperative, would do well to take St. Mark of Ephesus as their model.

At the same time, we should be under no illusions about the difficulties of such dialogue. Because Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have followed progressively divergent paths for nearly a thousand years, arguably we are right now further apart than we have ever been. For example, it should be obvious that the Roman papacy is the major obstacle to our reunion. Make no mistake--we Orthodox do not miss the papacy, not in the least, because we never had it. Not for a minute did the pope of Rome ever exercise over the church of the East the level of centralized authority he has grown, over the past thousand years, to exercise over the Roman Catholic Church.

In the East, the pope of Rome was simply the senior among his brother bishops, all of whom taught, pastored, and governed the church through local synods and other exercises of consensual adherence, most of them without the slightest reference or attention to Rome except in extraordinary circumstances, and never outside of Rome's relationship to the Eastern patriarchates.

The current Roman teaching that all doctrinal questions can be definitively answered and settled by an appeal to Rome is not, the Orthodox insist, the ancient and traditional teaching and practice of the apostolic and patristic church. If the ancient Catholic Church really did believe in any doctrine even faintly resembling the current doctrine of papal infallibility, there would never have been any need for those early ecumenical councils, all of them held in the East, which laboriously hammered out the creedal formulations, canons, and policies of the church.

The current papal claims, standard doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church since the defining of papal infallibility in 1870 and repeated most recently by Cardinal Ratzinger's official Vatican declaration "Dominus Iesus" (released on September 5, 2000), represent an ecclesiastical development radically at odds with the Orthodox understanding of the very nature of the Christian Church as manifest in her ancient life.

The Orthodox "solution" to this problem would be, of course, simply for the pope of Rome to foreswear these recent claims and go back to the humbler status that he enjoyed for the first thousand years of Christian history. Namely, the "first among equals," the chief and foremost of his brother bishops, within a church taught and governed by the broad consensual understanding of an authoritative tradition.

That is to say, the Orthodox would be delighted for His Holiness of Rome, repudiating what we regard as the errors attendant on his recent understanding of his ministry, to take once again his rightful place as the ranking spiritual leader of the Orthodox Church (a position that the patriarch of Constantinople has held since the separation of Rome from Orthodoxy in the 11th century).

To Orthodox Christians, such a "solution" to the problem would seem very attractive. In fact, however, one fears that it would be no solution at all. Such a weakening of the papacy would be an utter disaster for the Roman Catholic Church as it is currently constituted. To many of us outside that institution, it appears that the single entity holding the Roman Catholic Church together right now is probably the strong and centralized office of the pope.

The Roman Catholic Church for nearly a thousand years has moved toward ever greater centralized authority, and it is no longer clear that she would thrive, or even survive intact, without that authority maintained at full strength. If Rome did not occasionally censure the heretics in that church, just who in the world would do it? Can anyone really remember the last time a Roman Catholic bishop in the United States called to account a pro-gay activist priest, or a pro-abortion nun, or a professor in a Catholic college who denied the resurrection? No, take away the centralized doctrinal authority of Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church today would be without rudder or sail in a raging sea.

If an Orthodox Christian, then, loves his Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, he will not wish for a diminished papacy. Indeed, he will devoutly pray for a very strong papacy. Otherwise he may be failing in proper Christian love for those whose spiritual well-being requires this strong papacy. It is a singular irony that our prayers for an effective and vibrant papacy, though motivated by a loving concern for our Roman Catholic brethren, would hardly seem, on the face of it, to further the healing of our ecclesiastical division. However we got into this mess, only God can get us out.

So, let us Orthodox, by all means, engage in dialogue with Holy Rome. But let us also not deceive ourselves respecting the enormous difficulties of the task. The reunion of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism seems so utterly impossible right now that it will require a great and stupendous miracle, something at least on the scale of water transformed into wine. Then again, you know, the example itself may give us hope.

[Woodkirk]

Doesn't it seem strange to you that a Christian bishop would take upon himself the pagan title of "Pontiff" unless he was the continuation of the ancient pagan priesthood of Rome?

Also "Cephas" was the nickname for Peter but not the usual name for Peter. It was only used a few times in the NT, while Peter is called Peter by the writers dozens of times. "Peter" was the name given to him by Jesus, and it does not mean "rock". It means "the first, the firstling" -- since he was the first apostle and the first to confess Jesus as Christ, the firstling born of the Rock -- not the Rock himself.

"Cephas" on the other hand does mean "rock", but from the Hebrew. Interestingly it means a "hollow rock" -- not likely something that someone would want to build anything upon, much less a church. And --- Jesus did not say "thou art Cephas . . . . ", He said: "Thou art Peter [the firstling born of the Rock} and upon this Rock [of which you are the first] I will build my church."

Simon Magus left behind in Rome a priesthood known as Simonians, many of whose practices were institutionalized by the later Church of Rome. One of these came to bear his name -- SIMONY, the buying and selling of church offices.

The new Catholic Encyclopedia does its best to try to downplay Simon Magus's 25 years in Rome for obvious reasons, but Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Jerome [all respected Church fathers who are quoted at length as part of Roman Catholic Tradition] knew better. Simon Magus's 25 years in Rome had more attestations than any supposed visit by Peter there.

That Simon Magus was in Rome for 25 years and not Simon Peter is something that all Catholic faithful are going to have to deal with and Catholic apologists are going to have to admit -- the sooner the better, because there are a lot of thiings that plague the RCC today that came out of the priesthood that Simon Magus left behind. If the faithful only knew . . . . .

[RobbyS]

Pontifex maximus was primarily a civil title. Julius Caesar held the title as a step up on the politcal lladder that ultimately led him dictatorship. It represents the civil role that the bishop of Rome played in the city after Constantinope became the imperial capital, and it of course showed that Christianity has supplanted paganism in the old capital. To bandy around the term "pagan," by the way, is to imply that classical paganism, which is better characterized, I think, as the religions of the gentiles was unmitigated evil. Both the disapora Jews had the attitude that there was much good in classical culture, with Plato and others owing much to Moses and the Prophets but that the Scriptures offered a superior way. Paul and other Christians, of course, taught that the Gospel was greater than the law , completing/supplanting the law and assimilating gentiles by purging them of the evils that result from the worship of false gods.

So far as your speculation,it depends too much on a play on words. The tradition calls the man "Peter" not "Simon." As you imply, Simon Magus represents gnosticism, both in the form of Christian heresy and in its non-Christian forms, remained a chief rival of Christianity for centuries. Simon must have been a widely known figure, otherwise "Acts" would never have mentioned him. "Peter."however, was cerebrated in the 2nd century as a symbol of orthodoxy--the antithesis of gnosticism. If you were correct, then it would be a great irony that Simon Magnus were instrumental in establishing orthodoxy in Rome.

[Matchett-PI]

"Which sovereign God? God as seen through whose eyes?"

According to orthodox biblical Christianity:

The sovereign God can only be seen through the eyes of those who have the mind of Christ:

Paul: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we (the regenerate brethren) have the mind of Christ [1 Cor.2:16]

Jesus: "... for ONE is your Master, [even] Christ; and you are ALL brethren." [Matt. 23:8]

Paul: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man (one of "the brethren" in whom is the Holy Spirit) makes judgements about all things, but he, himself is not subject to __ANY__ man's judgement". [1 Cor.2:14]

[FormerLib]

Call No Man Father
By Fr. Richard Ballew

Several decades have passed since Bing Crosby donned clerical garb and portrayed on the screen a role which would endear him to many even to this day-Father O'Malley. Somewhat earlier in our century, one of the great humanitarians of our time, Father Flanagan, founded Boys Town in Nebraska. The home became a nationally known refuge for homeless boys. In many ways, Mother Teresa of India is his contemporary female counterpart in caring for the poor and downtrodden of her adopted land. But what are we to make of these titles? We admire the work and character of these people, but does not the Bible issue the command to call no man "father"? Certain statements made by Jesus have often been the basis of great controversy, both inside and outside the Church. His saying, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven,"' has proven to be no exception.

AT ISSUE IS INTERPRETATION
Some Protestant interpreters are sure that Jesus is warning here against addressing Church leaders as "father." They, of course, are interpreting "father" in this Scripture to mean, "spiritual father." Therefore, they refuse to call their clergymen "father," preferring instead such titles as "pastor," "reverend," or perhaps even "brother." At the outset, therefore, let me point out that "spiritual father" is an interpretation of the Lord's statement rather than what He actually said. Mind you, I am not denying the need for interpretation of Scripture. Instead, I am pointing out that the Lord said "father," not "spiritual father." What is at issue here? Simply this: taken at face value, Jesus' warning against calling any man "father" would not only seem to rule out calling a clergyman "father," it would also keep us from using that title for earthly fathers and grandfathers, ancient Church fathers, or even city fathers, would it not? For in reality, the Lord's statement, as it appears in the text, is that only one Person is ever to be called "father," namely, our Father who is in heaven. But is Christ's saying to be taken at face value? If so, several other passages in the Bible are immediately in conflict, including some statements by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. To the church at Corinth he wrote, "For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."2 Does not Paul claim to be the spiritual father of the Corinthians--"Father Paul," if you please? Furthermore, he boldly refers to his spiritual ancestry as "our fathers."3 And he did address earthly fathers in Colosse in this way: "Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged."4 It would appear the Apostle Paul certainly did not interpret the Lord Jesus Christ's words to mean only One was to be called "father," that is, the heavenly Father. In addition to this, when the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in his bosom, and addressed him as "Father Abraham," Abraham's response was not, "Do you not realize that only God the Father is to be called `father'?" Rather, he replied, "Son, remember..."5 Instances like the above could be multiplied from Scripture to show that a great many people are acknowledged to be "fathers."

OTHER TITLES
But let us not stop here. For after saying only "One is your Father," Jesus proceeded to declare, "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ."6 Yet He Himself acknowledged Nicodemus to be a "teacher of Israel."7 And in the church at Antioch certain men were called "prophets and teachers."8 Then again, the Apostle Paul not only recognized teachers as gifts of God to the Church,9 but he also did not hesitate to call himself "a teacher of the Gentiles."10 Furthermore, in this present day, almost all of us have at one time or another called certain people Sunday School teachers. The discussion thus goes far beyond any Protestant-Catholic lines. Therefore, in saying we should call no one "father" and "teacher," except God the Father and Christ Himself, the Lord Jesus appears not to be taking issue with the use of these particular titles in and of themselves. The context of the passage gives us the interpretive key we are looking for. In this "call no man father" passage, our Lord is contending with certain rabbis of His day who were using these specific titles to accomplish their own ends. And had these same apostate rabbis been using other titles, such as "reverend" and "pastor," Jesus, it seems to me, would have said of these as well, "Call no one reverend or pastor."

WHAT DID THE RABBIS MEAN?
To what ends, therefore, were the rabbis using the titles "father" and "teacher"? The answer revolves around at least two critical areas of leadership: teaching and personal character. Consider first the teaching of these particular rabbis. They had begun their teaching at the right place, the Law of Moses. Said Jesus, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat."11 Moses' Law was the true tradition. God had given it to Israel through Moses. The rabbis' responsibility was to preserve that tradition and faithfully pass it on to the next generation. All too often, however, a rabbi would add his own grain of wisdom to the true tradition, thereby clouding it. Instead of passing down the sacred deposit along with the true interpretations of that deposit, he would add his own private interpretation. In turn his disciples, like their teacher, would, after becoming rabbis, do the same thing. (Some things never change, do they!) The final outcome of all this was a tradition of men that made the true Mosaic tradition of no effect. To these very rabbis Jesus said, "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men,"12 and again, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition . . . making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down."13 The summation of their private interpretations did in fact "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men."14

JESUS' CASE FOR TRUE TRADITION
In order to cut through all this tradition of men that had made the Mosaic tradition of no effect, and to bring people back to the truth, Jesus told His disciples, "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi.'"15 In other words, He was telling them not to use their positions as fathers and teachers as an opportunity to build disciples around their own private opinions. For to do so would only serve to "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men."16 Instead, with the coming of Christ, these rabbis-and indeed all who would teach God's Word-are to hand down faithfully the true tradition of only one Rabbi: Christ Himself. The Bible, through the pen of the Apostle John, calls this particular tradition "the doctrine of Christ."17 In fact, this is why the specific teaching of the Twelve became known as "the apostles' doctrine."18 Since their time, successive generations of fathers and teachers in the Church have handed down and guarded the apostolic doctrine concerning Christ very carefully, for it represents the true interpretation of Holy Scripture. This faithfulness to true Christian doctrine, by the way, can especially be seen in the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, held between the fourth and eighth centuries. It behooves anyone who claims to be a teacher of Christ's doctrine to be faithful to the apostles' doctrine handed down in those Councils. Otherwise he runs the risk of inserting his own "private interpretation."19 While it is true that all teachers of Christ's doctrine must begin at the right place, namely, the Holy Scriptures, it is also true that they should give the correct and true interpretation of Holy Scripture as passed down by holy and godly teachers and fathers of the Church, especially in the Seven Councils. Why are the Seven Ecumenical Councils so important? Because they point out what the Church universally held to be the true teaching concerning the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. They are faithful to what the Holy Scriptures teach concerning the one true Rabbi and Teacher, Jesus Christ. Teachers and fathers who teach private interpretations contrary to the doctrine of Christ as taught in the Seven Ecumenical Councils should not, I believe, be recognized as true teachers and fathers.

THE RABBIS AND PERSONAL CHARACTER
A second critical area of rabbinic leadership with which Jesus was concerned was personal character. He had detected a major flaw in the character of the scribes and Pharisees, a sin that might be called self-exaltation. They were using their position as fathers and teachers among God's people to exalt themselves. They wanted to be sure they received appropriate recognition. In light of this lack of character, Jesus said, "But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."20 Their self-exalting spirit had manifested itself in several ways. First, in hypocrisy: "for they say," said Jesus, "and do not do."21 All talk and no walk. Their talk was cheap because it was totally contradicted by their behavior. In pretense they would make long prayers, but in behavior devour widows' houses.22 They would make oaths, swearing by the gold of the temple rather than by the temple that sanctified the gold, thereby revealing their secret love of money.23 Although they paid tithes of mint, anise, and cummin, which they should have done gladly, they neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith.24 Because they were hypocrites in these and numerous other ways, the Lord summed up His critique by saying, "Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.25 Plainly, their "insides" did not match their "outsides" because they were filled up with a self-exalting and self-serving spirit. A second manifestation of their selfexalting spirit was the noticeable lack of actual service on their part. "For," said Jesus, "they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."26 No dirt was to be found under their fingernails. They were simply a group of lazy leaders who wanted to be served rather than to serve. No wonder, then, Jesus said not to be like them, for from God's standpoint, "he who is greatest among you shall be your servant."27 A third manifestation of their self-exalting spirit was self-love, demonstrated by a desire to be seen by men,28 by their love for the best seats at the feasts and in the synagogues,29 and by their love of greetings in the marketplaces, being called by men, "Rabbi, Rabbi."30 This self-love was a clear transgression of the Mosaic Law, which they professed to be keeping. For Moses' entire law could be summed up in the two great commandments, the greatest of which is, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind."31 The second greatest is, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."32 Thus, these fathers and teachers were not leading their people into the love of God and neighbor. Quite to the contrary, they were exhibiting a self-exalting, self-serving spirit, filled up with a love for self.

THE VERDICT OF CHRIST
In the face of the stench and shame of the apostasy of these religious leaders, therefore, Jesus commanded His disciples, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."33 While Father Abraham by his faithfulness deserved the title, as did others of Israel's greats in history, these men had forfeited their role as fathers. They were to cease and desist in their use of the term and, in turn, bow to God Himself as the fountainhead of all fatherhood. And in issuing His warning, Jesus addresses us today with the greatest of all commandments, pointing the fathers and teachers in His Church and those they lead to a primacy of love for God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, and to a love for one's neighbor.

AND WHAT ARE WE TO DO?
From the beginning of Church history, as was true throughout Israel, those anointed by God for service were called by certain names: "prophet," "teacher" (rabbi in Israel), and "father." In that same spirit, other titles have emerged, such as "reverend," "pastor," "professor" (teacher), or "brother" (for some evangelical pastors and Catholic monks). These designations speak of both warmth and dignity. Just as in our family units there is one who with love is called "father," so in God's household we have honored and will continue to honor those who have brought us to the new birth through our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, what better term for them than "father"? Jesus warned against calling men "father" or "teacher" in order that the leadership of His holy nation would remain pure. Whether bishop, father, teacher, deacon, or pastor, all leaders must remain faithful to the true doctrine of Christ and manifest a personal character befitting godly humility, a humility that leads the Church into the love of God the Holy Trinity and of one's neighbor.

May the Lord have mercy on all of us who lead the flock, regardless of the title we are given.

FOOTNOTES
(All Scripture references, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the New King James Version.)
1. Matthew 23:9
2. 1 Corinthians 4:15 (New American Standard Version)
3. 1 Corinthians 10:1
4. Colossians 3:21
5. Luke 16:24, 25
6. Matthew 23:10
7. John 3:10
8. Acts 13:1
9. 1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11
10. 2 Timothy 1:11
11. Matthew 23:2
12. Mark 7:8
13. Mark 7:9, 13
14. Matthew 23:13
15. Matthew 23:8
16. Matthew 23:13
17. 2 John 9
18. Acts 2:42
19. 2 Peter 1:20
20. Matthew 23:11, 12
21. Matthew 23:3
22. Matthew 23:14
23. Matthew 23:16, 17
24. Matthew 23:23
25. Matthew 23:28
26. Matthew 23:4
27. Matthew 23:11
28. Matthew 23:5
29. Matthew 23:6
30. Matthew 23:7
31. Matthew 22:37
32. Matthew 22:39
33. Matthew 23:9

[Polycarp]

The doc is not your enemy, nor is Matchett-PI! You are consorting with the enemy when you fraternalize with the so-called Dr. Steve and RnMomof 7, the lately-come Mormon.

Anyone who attacks Christ's Church is, to a greater or lesser degree, my enemy. Some have extended the hand of friendship and fellowship, despite theological differences, and some have extended only demonic scorn for me and my Church. I have eyes to see and ears to hear. I will not be deceived, by you or any other here. And I will fight, to the death if necessary, defending that Church Christ instituted on the Rock of Peter.

[Matchett-PI]

"... But is Christ's saying to be taken at face value? If so, several other passages in the Bible are immediately in conflict, including some statements by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. To the church at Corinth he wrote, "For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

I showed in #33 that there are no passages "in conflict" regarding that subject.

As I explained in post #33, Arminians (Eve) view man as sovereign / equal to God.. We shouldn't be surprised to see some of them insisting that there are two who are worthy of the lofty title, "Holy Father".

Nor should we be surprised to see some of them insisting that in *addition* to Jesus man should also have a role as "mediator" between God in heaven and man.

Roman Catholics revere two "Holy Fathers" which they are "obliged to obey" -- one living on earth in Italy and one in heaven.

St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of (1 Co. 4:15; Phil. 10); but he pretends to no dominion OVER them, and uses that title "father" to denote, not authority, but affection: therefore he calls them not his *obliged*, but his *beloved*, sons. [1 Co. 4:14]

The apostles had the *UNIQUE AUTHORITY* to found and govern the early church, and they could speak and write the words of God*. Many of their written words became the NT Scripture.

In order *to qualify as an apostle someone had to have seen Christ with his own eyes after he rose from the dead* **AND** *had to have been specifically installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle.*

In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT.

Those *New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.* *Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical descent" from the apostles.

**Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical descent" from the apostles.

***Because of that ..."

But those who belong to Eve's "First Church of the Sovereign Man" (Arminians) aren't interested in embracing any doctrine that doesn't have man at its center.

Nevertheless, Paul writes: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?

But we (the regenerate "brethren") have the mind of Christ [1 Cor.2:16]

And Jesus backs him up: "... for ONE is your Master, [even] Christ; and you are ALL brethren." [Matt. 23:8] And Paul agrees: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man (one of "the brethren" in whom is the Holy Spirit) makes judgements about all things, but he, himself is not subject to __ANY__ man's judgement". [1 Cor.2:14]

[RnMomof7]

And I will fight, to the death if necessary, defending that Church Christ instituted on the Rock of Peter.

I hope first you would fight to the death for the name of Christ.

I know you love your church. But loving Christ and being faithful to Him has to be our 1st priority. (I assume that is what you meant...but I wanted to put words in your mouth:>)

[FormerLib]

Obviously, you are much more impressed with your opinions as expressed in #33 than are the rest of us.

[Matchett-PI]

"Obviously, you are much more impressed with your opinions as expressed in #33 than are the rest of us."

No doubt they are foolishness to you, since my opinion agrees with the closed canon of Scripture. Among other things, I know that there are NOT *two* who are worthy of the lofty spiritual title, "Holy Father". I also know that there is only ONE worthy of the lofty spiritual title, "Mediator", and that is Jesus Christ.

[drstevej]

R.I.P. Razorwreck Ted. Here yesterday, gone today. Back tomorrow? Stay tuned....

[FormerLib]

...since my opinion agrees with the closed canon of Scripture.

No, it does not but Fr. Richard Ballew's does.

[RobbyS]

According to orthodox biblical Christianity:

Since there are many versions of this, which one is true?

The sovereign God can only be seen through the eyes of those who have the mind of Christ:

Who, pray tell?

[RobbyS]

Good.

[Matchett-PI]

"No, it does not but Fr. Richard Ballew's does."

He believes in the "closed canon of Scripture"??? Now that is a riot!!!

[RnMomof7]

Razor was too chicken to unstick her wings and get a la$tminutepardon..I had her pegged.

I like to play ..but intentional spamming and disruption is worthy of a ban

[RobbyS]

You will find this interesting

http://www.newadvent.org/docs/ df86ho.htm

[RobbyS]

Did you ever read this? It sure doesn't fit the stuff the gay ministry people are putting out.

http://www.newadvent.org/docs/ df86ho.htm

[RobbyS]

Closed by whom, I ask? The Jews who after the destruction of the temple, excluded Christians?