Is the Eucharist only a symbol of Christ's body?

In Biblical typology, the authors of the New Testament often relate things of the NT in light of the Old Testament. This is called typology. You see Paul speak of this in Romans 5 when he identifies Jesus as the superior antitype of Adam. You see the Pauline tradition in Hebrews (ch 8) speak of this when he compares the sacrifices of the OT to the corresponding superior sacrifice of Christ. You also see Jesus speak of this earlier in the John 6 discourse when he spoke of the bread, the manna, that fell from heaven. One consistent characteristic in the order of typology is that the New Testament antitypes are superior to their Old Testament types. Jesus is superior to Adam. Christ's sacrifice is superior to the OT sacrifices. And the Bread of Life in the NT is superior to the manna that fell from heaven.

Catholics believe the Bread of Life, of which Christ spoke in John 6, is the Eucharist, the true body and blood of Christ in sacrament (cf. CCC#1374). Some faith traditions believe that the Eucharist is symbolic-only.¹ They believe the bread is ordinary bread, and participating in the Eucharist is a memorial in the sense of "calling to memory" Christ's sacrifice (not in the sense of the re-presentation of the event according to the Jewish understanding of anamnesis²).

Now, if we apply a "symbolic-only" understanding to John 6, we cause a fatal problem in the order of Biblical typology. The NT Bread suddenly becomes inferior to the OT manna. After all, the OT manna was 1) of supernatural origin and 2) of benefit for physical life. When we insist the Bread in John 6 is symbolic-only, we make it inferior to the OT manna because we say its origin is less-than-supernatural, while denying that it is of benefit for eternal life.

It is Christ himself who made the typological comparison between the Bread of Life and the OT manna in John 6:49-51. And therefore, the symbol-only interpretation must be rejected, among other reasons, on the grounds that it violates the superior nature of NT antitypes over their OT types.

¹For example, the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 endorsed the following: "The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming." In Catholic theology, the Eucharist does have symbolic attributes, but not only symbolic. For examples see Council of Trent 13.3; Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei, et al.

²See for example, Rabbi Dr. Stuart Dauermann's explanation of the Jewish idea of anamnesis in the article Seeds, Weeds, and Walking the High Wire: The Role of the Remnant - Embodying Israel’s Destiny. He writes in one example: "The holy past is no mere collection of data to be recalled, but a continuing reality to be honored or desecrated."

The Parable of the Two Sons

The Parable of the Two Sons

²⁸"What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, `Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' <sup>29</sup>And he answered, `I will not'; but afterward he repented and went. ³⁰And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, `I go, sir,' but did not go. ³¹Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. ³²For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe him. (Matthew 21: 28-32)

When I've thought of this parable in the past, I used to wonder why Jesus is critical of the chief priests and Pharisees to whom the parable was stated. After all, they give the right answer. The first son indeed was the one who did his father's will. With his lips he may have denied the master, but what counted was what he actually did. The second son was the adverse––his lips indicated obedience to the master, yet his actions did not.

Although the chief priests give the correct answer, Jesus still condemns them as lesser than "tax collectors and harlots." What made the tax collectors and harlots different than the chief priests was their reaction to the teaching of John the Baptist. Although they were sinners they paid heed and became followers of the "way of righteousness." The chief priest did not do this.

On this passage, the Navarre Bible Commentary states:

The scribes and Pharisees would not believe [John the Baptist], yet they boasted of their faithfulness to God's teaching. They were like the son who says "I will go" and then does not go.¹

With their lips the chief priests and Pharisees speak of righteousness, but in their actions they remain obstinate and refuse to follow.

Verse 45 goes on to say: "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them."

You see how in the chart, it's the last column that ultimately counts in Jesus' parable.

I submit that the parable ties in to James chapter 2:

¹⁹You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder. ²⁰Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? ²¹Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? ²²You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, ²³and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. ²⁴You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:19-24)

James points out that the demons can recognize the glory of God. Yet, this kind of "belief" is no belief at all without what he calls "works." These "works," James says, are with faith like a body and spirit (v. 26) which when separated are "dead." To him, faith-works is thus a singular concept, just as a "body and spirit" make up a single person. It is this single concept that James says "justifies" a person.

Getting back to Matthew's Gospel, we see the same thing in the parable, especially when we understand Matthew's teaching on God's will. At the end of the parable, Jesus' question is simply to ask which son "did the will of his father?" This is a salvific idea in Matthew's Gospel which parallels James' later epistle:

"Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21)

You see in the above verse the same paraphrase as in the parable of the two sons: "he who does the will of my Father." True salvific faith is indivisibly entwined with "doing the will of the Father." Matthew 7:21 is an extension of the Parable of the Two Sons: one cannot merely take for granted that one has "faith" and therefore not worry about whether he has "works."

Thus, when Jesus criticized the chief priests, he was pointing out how they were less than tax collectors and harlots who actually did the will of the Father by following John the Baptist's lead in the "way of righteousness." The tax collectors and harlots could not have merely said, "We believe your message, John" unless they changed, followed, and acted on that message. They represented the first son who had not previously acknowledged the father's will, but turned from their way. The second son remained smug in his confession and did not follow through. And so the chief priests and Pharisees remained outside the will of the Father as did the second son.

¹Navarre Bible Commentary: Matthew. Scepter Publishers, New York. 2005. p. 142-143.

Why did blood & water flow from Christ's side?

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.

Like much of Scripture, the above Johannine verse is fraught with various levels of meaning. Why did blood and water flow from Christ's side? Below are a few meanings as derived from the Church's historical interpretations of the text.

To fulfill prophecyJohn offers an explanation in the immediate context of the verse. In verse 37, he writes: "And again another scripture says, 'They shall look on him whom they have pierced.'" This is a quotation from Zechariah 12:10, a lengthy verse which reads:

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born. (Zechariah 12:10)

John is thus identifying Jesus as the prophesied one. He fits the characteristics of the Zechariah verse: He was pierced, He was from the lineage of David, and He was a firstborn, only child. Zechariah even went on a few verses later, describing the day that this man was pierced as the day

there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanliness." (Zech. 13:1)

John's description of the blood and water pouring out Christ's side remind us of the cleansing fountain that would be opened when the victim was pierced.

By identifying Christ as the anticipated Savior, John includes in his otherwise tragic account the good news that life in the form of freedom from sin had come.

To highlight his death/suffering

There is a literal, physical dimension to the idea of blood and water flowing from a dead man's side. Studious theologians and medical professionals alike have offered varying opinions. The Navarre Bible Commentary suggests the mixture of water with the blood could indicate "an accumulation of liquid in the lungs due to Jesus' intense sufferings."¹ Understanding this can have tremendous theological depth. It also identifies Christ as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. And it can help us cope with suffering if, even without full understanding, we see our leader and divine Savior innocently accept tremendous suffering.

Many physicians such as those at the Mayo Clinic posit that the water was the fluid located in the pericardial sac surrounding the heart:

Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. (On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ by William D. Edwards, MD, et al)

A diagram of the pericardial wall, sac, and heart, shows a possible point of penetration into the heart that would result in an outpouring of blood and pericardial fluid that John described as water.

If the spear pierced through the outer pericardium wall and into the heart, then the watery fluid and blood could have poured out through the wound. It emphasizes the reality of Christ's death and His very humanity. The idea of the Resurrection was very important to the early Christian community. Paul specifically wrote: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:17) Christ truly died and therefore those who saw Him walking about after that saw the Resurrected Christ.

John earlier quoted Jesus eluding to the very idea of the piercing of his heart with an outpouring of water: "He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, 'Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.'" (John 7:38) John also sees in this outpouring prophecy a foreshadowing of the outpouring of the Spirit: "Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive." (7:39) And again in his epistle, he says that the blood and water give the same witness as the Spirit: "There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree." (1 John 5:8)

To signify the waters of Baptism
On John 19:34, St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

Another reason why this happened was to show that by the passion of Christ we acquire a complete cleansing from our sins and stains. We are cleansed from our sins by his blood, which is the price of our redemption: "You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things, such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Pet 1:18). And we are cleansed from our stains by the water, which is the bath of our rebirth: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses" (Ez 36:25); "On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness" (Zech 13:1). And so it is these two things which are especially associated with two sacraments: water with the sacrament of baptism, and blood with the Eucharist. (St. Thomas Aquinas, commenting on John 19)

You see how St. Thomas understands both blood and water as agents of cleanliness. Though he does not mention it in the immediate paragraph above, the idea of blood as a means of cleansing is very Biblical and very Johannine. For instance, John, who also wrote Revelation says: "[T]hey have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (Revelation 7:14) and John again: "[T]he blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7)

And of course, water reminds us of cleansing more obviously: "Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet." (John 13:5)

St. Thomas, writing in the 13th century, follows other Early Church Fathers on the baptismal (and Eucharistic) character of John 19:34. For example:

A suggestive word was made use of by the evangelist, in not saying pierced, or wounded His side, or anything else, but opened; that thereby, in a sense, the gate of life might be thrown open, from whence have flowed forth the sacraments of the Church, without which there is no entrance to the life which is the true life. That blood was shed for the remission of sins; that water it is that makes up the health-giving cup, and supplies at once the laver of baptism and water for drinking.² (St. Augustine, Tractates on John 120.2, ca. 406 A.D.)

For there came forth water and blood. Not without a purpose, or by chance, did those founts come forth, but because by means of these two together the Church consists. And the initiated know it, being by water indeed regenerate, and nourished by the Blood and the Flesh. Hence the Mysteries take their beginning; that when you approach to that awful cup, you may so approach, as drinking from the very side. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 85 on the Gospel of John, ca. 395 A.D.)

These understandings all reflect the confluence of revelation on the flow of water from Christ's side. Going back to the Zechariah prophecy, we are told of the fountain that would wash away sins. St. John Chrysostom speaks of the cleansing of sins as a regeneration. In concert with this understanding of the early Church, the theology of the Apostle Paul identifies regeneration with baptism:

Titus 3:5-6 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.

The Greek term there translated as regeneration by the RSV-CE is paliggenesiav. Strong's Concordance defines this as a new birth, regeneration, or renewal. In Paul's understanding, a person is "born again" at baptism, for he says:

Romans 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

If we read Romans 6:4 and Titus 3:5-6 in light of our study of John 19:34, we see many parallels. Paul speaks of this washing "poured out" through Christ just as was the blood and water from the Cross. He also refers to our union with Christ's death at baptism. And we have studied how the outpouring of water from the Cross is signal of Christ's death. Thus, to receive the life-giving waters of baptism is to receive from Christ.

To signify the Eucharist

You see St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and St. John Chysostom all reference the blood as a reference to the Eucharist. The most obvious tie-in to this comes from the Gospel accounts. For instance:

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27-28)

And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." (Mark 14:24)

And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." (Luke 22:20)

Paul likewise recognizes the blood of Christ as that which is in the Eucharistic cup:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? (1 Corinthians 10:16)

And incidentally, when a priest prepares the wine during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, he pours water into the cup as well reflecting the same mixture flowing from Christ's side! (cf. General Instruction of the Roman Missal, #142)

To signify the birth of the ChurchThe idea that life and salvation poured out from Christ's side in the form of blood and water also communicates the birth of Christ's Church. This truth can be seen when we focus on the location of the outpouring––Christ's side.

In the Old Testament, life was often derived from the "side" of a type of Christ. For instance:

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:21-22)

Paul teaches us explicitly that Adam is a type of Christ. (cf. Rom. 5:14) So you see the significance of the "sleeping man" (also an ancient figure of someone deceased, e.g. Matt. 27:52) whose side was opened, and how life came from it. From Adam's side came Eve. And from Christ's side came life for all the Church.

Another example is Noah's Ark.

Genesis 6:16 Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.

The ark itself was a "vessel of salvation" from the flood. All the creatures and Noah's family entered and exited by this portal in the ark's "side." When we view the ark as a type of Christ, we can even more clearly see how the Church is availed of the true "vessel of salvation" by participating in Christ's side––which again is the blood and water representing the Eucharist and the Baptism.

The Apostle Peter explicitly ties the episode of Noah's ark to baptism:

1 Peter 3:20-21 God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

St. Thomas Aquinas identifies these same figures in Scripture. We see his identification of the Church in John 19:34 if we expand his earlier quote:

That blood was shed for the remission of sins; that water it is that makes up the health-giving cup, and supplies at once the laver of baptism and water for drinking. This was announced beforehand, when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, Genesis 6:16 whereby the animals might enter which were not destined to perish in the flood, and by which the Church was prefigured. Because of this, the first woman was formed from the side of the man when asleep, Genesis 2:22 and was called Life, and the mother of all living. Genesis 3:20 Truly it pointed to a great good, prior to the great evil of the transgression (in the guise of one thus lying asleep). This second Adam bowed His head and fell asleep on the cross, that a spouse might be formed for Him from that which flowed from the sleeper's side.

And so we see that in death there is birth. Through John's mention of the "blood and water" we are able to understand so much of what was foretold, and how we, too, participate in Christ's death so that we might be "cleansed from sin."

¹The Navarre Bible: St. John, Four Courts Press, Dublin; Scepter Publishers, New York, 2005, p. 190.

²The "laver of baptism" is more accurately a "bath" which is one of the "sacraments" Augustine describes here. A very literal translation of the Latin in the last sentence is: "He tempers (duly mingles) the cup with the saving water; this affords both a bath, and a drink."

Jesus teaches the disciples how to serve

Click image for magnified view.

The scope of Christ's sacrifice for "all"

In Catholicism, the fruits of Christ's work on the cross are considered to have been made available to all mankind. The Catechism reads:

CCC#616 It is love "to the end" that confers on Christ's sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life. Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died." No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

In other words, Christ died for all persons.

Many followers of the Reformed Christian tradition and others who share their sentiment on atonement do not believe Christ died for all, but only for a specific group of people. For instance:

Jesus Made Atonement for the Elect Alone

In doing the will of the Father by atoning for the sins of His people, Jesus Christ death was on behalf of a specific people group. ... It is primarily for this reason that atonement within the Reformed Tradition has been dubbed limited, because Christ’s atonement was limited to the elect alone. (ReformedAndReforming.org)

In one sense, Christ's atonement is "limited" in that it is not finally appropriated to all souls since some go to hell. The difference between the Catholic and "limited atonement" position is this: a Catholic insists Christ's work on the cross is made available to all. He rightly can be said to have "died for all men." No one is deprived of the graces poured out by Christ's work, and thus it is possible for anyone to go to heaven. (For an apologetic treatment by a former Protestant, see James Akin's A Tiptoe Through TULIP.) The "limited atonement" tradition says the graces poured out by Christ's sacrifice are limited in that they are never made available to a certain group of people, but only made available to the elect.

I think there are a number of ways to support the Catholic position over the "limited atonement" position. This post is to show one of them.

From the Apostle Paul:

Romans 5:12-19 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -- sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Notice a few things stated in this text:

• Adam is a type of Christ.
• Adam's trespass brought death to all men.
• Jesus' obedience brought life to all men.

Notice the symmetry. Notice how Christ is a reversal of Adam. The "limited atonement" interpretation reads the "all/many" pertaining to Adam's half of the equation as literally "all mankind." The "limited atonement" interpretation of Jesus' half of the equation is read as "only all the elect." (See the Editor's note #169 in John Calvin's commentary on Romans for an example reflecting this interpretation.)

However, this interpretation violates a basic Biblical principle: New Covenant types are better and more glorious and perfect than their Old Testament antetypes. As I have written prior on this blog, the Old Testament is fraught with imagery that foreshadows counterparts in the New Testament. The OT manna that brought only physical life represents the NT bread of eternal life (John 6:31-35); Noah preserved physical life through the waters of the flood which represents the superior spiritual life conferred through the waters of baptism (1 Pet. 3:20-21); the book of Hebrews has numerous examples of the superior types in the NT including a "better covenant" (Heb. 7:22), "better promises" (Heb. 8:6), "better sacrifices" (Heb. 9:23); etc. Paul teaches that the new is much more splendorous than the Old (2 Cor. 3:11) as was prophesied by Haggai (Hag. 2:9).

So a key principle in typology is to recognize the superior qualities of the New Testament types over their Old Testament antetypes. But what happens when one attempts to say Christ's sacrifice was only for some? Consider the following illustration:

So we ask, does the "limited atonement" interpretation remain faithful to the superiority of New Testament types? The answer is no. The "limited atonement" interpretation considers the scope of Christ's work to be weaker than Adam's. Adam's work is actually seen to be the more powerful of the two. Thus, the idea of a limited atonement not only departs from the balance and symmetry of the text in Romans 5, but does not give proper justice to the Biblical concept of typology. Christ, as the superior New Testament type, cannot be made the less powerful agent of the two. The Catholic interpretation recognizes that the scope of Christ's work is the overturning of Adam's. Adam's path of death for all mankind is turned by Christ into a path of life for all mankind.

Were there 3 Popes at the same time?

The short answer is "no." But! For more details, the following is reproduced from a paper (with minor clarification/typo edits) I did in my Church history master's class originally submitted December 30, 2008. I hope it gives a basic summary of the incident.

The Great Schism of the Popes: Causes and Solution
This paper will examine the dilemma surrounding the Great Schism of the Popes (1378-1417), the causes, the main characters involved, and its resolution.

Prelude
The papacy of the Catholic Church had traditionally resided in Rome for centuries since the time of St. Peter. In 1305, the office took its residence to Avignon, France during the pontificate of Clement V. Clement was the archbishop of the French city of Bordeaux.

[Clement] moved to Avignon to escape the political pressures of Italy, including the warring Roman families. King Philip of France promised peace and protection in return for a certain measure of influence on the policies of the pope.¹

Not only did King Philip IV make this invitation, but Avignon itself provided a “peaceful refuge, since its neighboring constat, Venaissin, already belonged to the Holy See; it was strongly fortified and close to Italy.”²

Clement’s election had come “after an eleven-month deadlock between pro-Boniface VIII cardinals opposed to King Philip IV…and the pro-French, anti-Boniface cardinals…”³ Boniface was the second-to-last pope prior to Clement. His predecessor Benedict XI died less than a year into his pontificate.

Clement had “never set foot in Rome.”⁴ “King Philip IV insisted that the new pope be crowned at Lyons, and Clement’s yielding to this insistence set the tone for the rest of the reign.”⁵ After his crowning, he “surrounded himself with French cardinals.”⁶ King Philip also induced Clement to “suppress” the Knights Templar, who had “rendered valuable service to the Christian cause”⁷ as fighters for the Church during the Crusades.

A March 2, 1312 letter from Philip to Clement read:

Your Beatitude is aware that I have been informed by trustworthy people of the results of inquiries into the brethren and Order of Knights Templar. These revealed such great heresies and other dreadful, detestable rimes that for this reason the order should justifiably be suppressed…I…humbly beg Your Holiness to be pleased to suppress the aforesaid order.⁸

The king’s concerned words belied another motive.

[The Knights Templar’s] wealth excited the cupidity of [King Philip]. He trumped up charges of heresy against them, persuaded Pope Clement V to suppress them, burned the last Grand Master at the stake (1312), and appropriated a large share of their property.⁹

The siege against the Templars was carried out by French officials. This was “made to appear, at the request of the ecclesiastical inquisitors, but in reality without their co-operation.”¹⁰

Such were the seeds of the Avignon period of the papacy. All this fueled controversy, leading “the rest of the world [to suspect] that these popes [during the Avignon period] had become the spokesmen of French interests.”¹¹ Even “noted saints…St. Bridget of Sweden and St. Catherine of Siena”¹² opposed the move, and during the Avignon period, did their part in convincing the popes to return to Rome.

Toward the end of the Avignon papacy, which exceeded 70 years, the papal “Curia was…largely French. [Then Pope] Gregory [XI] had been ready to go back to Rome with his court, but the opposition of the French cardinals had deterred him.”¹³

St. Catherine wrote to Pope Gregory to restore the papacy’s residence at Rome:

Be valiant and not fearful: answer God who calls you to come and to fill and defend the place of the glorious Pastor St. Peter, whose successor you are…But take courage and come, O Father; let not the servants of God, whose hearts are heavy with longing, have still to wait for you.¹⁴

Having tried to escape Roman politics, the papacy wound up in French politics, and apart from St. Peter’s original chair. As St. Catherine’s letter demonstrates, the faithful were scandalized by the Avignon departure. Pope Gregory returned to Rome in 1376.¹⁵ The Roman versus French struggle had not ended. And the stage for the Great Schism was set.

The Schism
Pope Gregory XI died in 1378. This brought “intense dismay [to] the Roman populace”¹⁶ who recognized him as the pope who returned to Rome in answer to their prayers. The cardinal-electors numbered sixteen: “four Italian cardinals, five French, and seven belonging to the [French] Limoges faction.”¹⁷ Many of these cardinals believed it was better to return to Avignon “where there were no…ruined palaces, no tumultuous Roman mobs and deadly Roman fevers.”¹⁸ There was thus a fear among the faithful that “a French pope might well be elected who would once more move the papacy back to Avignon”¹⁹ after just two years back in Rome. As the new pope was to be chosen, “[t]he Roman people gathered outside the Vatican Palace demanding a Roman, or at least an Italian, pope. … The heads of the city’s regions…also visited the palace to warn…against ignoring the will of the people.”²⁰ After only a day, the archbishop of the Italian city of Bari, Bartolomeo Prignano, was elected by “all but one of the cardinals. … [He was the] last noncardinal elected to the papacy,” taking the name Urban VI.²¹

Urban was a bridge of sorts, whose experience connected him both to Avignon and Rome. He had been a “leading figure in the Curia in Avignon and then as regent of the papal chancery after Gregory IX returned to Rome.”²² He was “mild-mannered”²³ and “[p]ersonally austere and learned in canon law.”²⁴ Early on he was embraced, “public opinion was in the beginning favourable to him, and not only the cardinals in Rome, but also the six who remained at Avignon submitted to him.”²⁵ As well, “in [the cardinals’] correspondence at the time [they] spoke of having ‘freely and unanimously’ elected him Pope.”²⁶

However, he told the cardinals to “reform the Papal court and break down the luxury of its life, [which] gave deep offense to the cardinals.” Urban’s personality took a stern turn. He became a “violent-tempered Pontiff,”²⁷ subjecting the cardinals to “insults and arrogance.”²⁸ The French cardinals quickly reversed their alliance and fled from Rome. They declared Urban invalidly elected “on the ground that the Roman mob had surrounded the conclave and threatened the cardinals with death unless they should elect a Roman or an Italian Pope.”²⁹ From the city of Agnani, to the southeast of Rome, the cardinals “sent out a notice to the Christian world that the pope had been deposed as incompetent and as an intruder.”³⁰ They later moved to Fondi.

The French cardinals were not without support in the secular world.

Onorato Caetani, count of Fondi, became a military member of the [French cardinals’] secession, offering the cardinals his protection in Anagni, where he continued to act as rector even after Urban VI appointed Tommaso di Sanseverino senator of Rome and then rector of the Campagna in Caetani’s place.³¹

On September 20, 1378, the French cardinals held a new election of their own, electing Cardinal Robert of Geneva as Clement VII, ultimately, an antipope.³² Cardinal Robert was also the “French King’s cousin.”³³ They announced this to “the European courts.”³⁴

“Urban had more supporters among the nations than did Clement,”³⁵ including the “Empire of England, with the northern and eastern nations and most of the Italian republics…”³⁶ Clement had the support of “France, Scotland, Naples,”³⁷ and later “Luxembourg and Austria.”³⁸ Clement took refuge in Avignon. “Each pope attempted to collect all the ecclesiastical revenues, and each excommunicated the other with all his adherents.”³⁹ There were episodes of violence, including a fight over Naples. Both Urban and Clement appointed their own successor to the Naples throne. Clement’s appointee eventually acquired power since no longer did “Urban [have] money to pay troops to relieve it.”⁴⁰

The war between them was ugly and scandalous to the Church. And the great dilemma was upon Her. Who was the authentic pope?

The Schism is perpetuated in successors
Urban VI died in 1389, and “the Roman cardinals elected Boniface IX to succeed him. Five years later, Clement VII died at Avignon…[and] the French cardinals chose…Benedict XIII.”⁴¹ Two lines, the Roman and the French, continued making claims to the papacy.

Upon Clement’s death, the French king Charles VI had sent a letter to the cardinals at Avignon “not to elect a successor to Clement VII.”⁴² But they had already elected Benedict XIII “before opening the king’s letter.”⁴³ Afterward, Charles still “[urged] Benedict to abdicate.”⁴⁴ Prior to the Avignon election, all the cardinals had taken “an oath…to abdicate if and when the majority judged it proper to do so.” Benedict refused, which resulted in loss of support from “the rest of France”⁴⁵ including the king who “withdrew recognition from the Avignon claimant to the papacy from 1398 to 1403.”⁴⁶

Boniface would not discuss unity unless the Avignon line desisted. Before Clement had died:

[Boniface offered] to make the antipope Clement VII a legate for France and Spain and to allow him and his cardinals to retain their cardinalatial rank—in return for Clement’s abdication.⁴⁷

No resolution was apparent. “This rupture of the Church’s unity was a terrible trial for believing Catholics…”⁴⁸

Saints, intellectuals, and bishops on both sides, realizing that recourse to arms was a false avenue, offered several alternatives: arbitration, a general council, or resignation of both Popes.⁴⁹

In the meanwhile, the Roman pontiff Boniface IX had died, and was succeeded by Innocent VII in 1404. Gregory XII then succeeded him in 1406. But “[n]one of the competing popes offered to resign..”⁵⁰ Finally, the two colleges of cardinals, Roman and French, agreed to call a General Council, held “at Pisa in 1409.”⁵¹ Neither of the papal claimants Innocent or Benedict “recognized its authority, and neither obeyed its summons.”⁵² The generations of schism resulted in “desperate remedies…in the shape of the new conciliar theories.”⁵³ A conciliar, or conciliary theory is the idea that “a general council is above the pope.”⁵⁴ These events also come not long after Pope Boniface VIII’s 1302 papal bull, Unam Sanctum, in which he stated “that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is for every human creature a necessity of salvation.” As well, the authority of the Pope had developed as a source of unity and authority from the first centuries.⁵⁵

Since both Innocent and Benedict rejected the Pisa council, the cardinals there went ahead and with another election:

The cardinals [at Pisa]…elected another Pope, Alexander V, fondly hoping that they had achieved the union of Christendom. But the scandal only increased, for neither of the Popes yielded. There were now three Popes, and three Colleges of Cardinals, in some dioceses three rival bishops, and in some Religious Orders three rival superiors.⁵⁶

Gregory opened his own council in 1409 at Cividale. At that council he “excommunicated both Benedict XIII and Alexander V.”⁵⁷ The others neither embraced this action. Alexander died after a year, and “John XXIII,” another antipope, replaced him.⁵⁸ Gregory had troubles of his own, with hostilities from the “archbishop of Aquileia,” causing him to flee to Naples. Alexander in turn got the cooperation of Naples authorities, and had Gregory banished from there in 1411. After Pisa, only five years passed with these three “popes,” Gregory, Benedict, and John before another council was called.

Resolution
Resolution finally came at the ecumenical Council of Constance. It began in 1414 at the suggestion of such Church figures as the French theologian Jean Gerson, who believed the “authority of an ecumenical council was greater than that of a pope.”⁵⁹

John had confidence in the council “because he hoped that it would confirm him”⁶⁰ and also because he “had deliberately stacked the episcopate with his supporters.”⁶¹ Some “[e]ighteen thousand ecclesiastics of all ranks took part in the”⁶² Council of Constance. The “right to vote was extended to doctors of theology and law and even to some laymen…each nation, acting as a unit, would cast its one vote. John saw that he had been outmaneuvered....and…under cover of night, John, disguised as a groom, escaped from Constance…”⁶³ He was eventually found and brought “back to Constance, tried by the council, found guilty of numerous crimes, and deposed.”⁶⁴

Gregory had then agreed to attend the council and abdicate on the condition that “he would be allowed to formally convoke the council, since he did not recognize the authority of John. … [T]he request was agreed to.”⁶⁵ On July 4, 1415, Gregory officially “convok[ed] the council and resign[ed]...”⁶⁶

Benedict “still refused to abdicate, but the council declared him a heretic and deprived him of all rights to the papacy.”⁶⁷ His deposition was finally declared on July 16, 1417.⁶⁸

The council elected Martin V in 1417, which effectively ended the Great Schism of the Popes.

One of the statements from this international council came from the decree Sacrosancta of April 6, 1415 in which was stated of such an ecumenical council: “…all persons of whatever rank or dignity, even Pope, are bound to obey it in matters relating to faith and the end of the Schism…” With the voluntary resignation of the authentic Pope Gregory XII, the question did remain as to whether a valid pope could be subject to the authority of a council. Martin’s comments soon afterward suggest the Council was not correct:

The new Pope approved “all that the Council had resolved as a Council in matters of faith,” expressly rejecting the decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions, which had declared that the Council held its authority immediately from God, and that even the Pope was subject to it.⁶⁹

A later council in 1449 that had convened without the pope (who had died before it began its sessions) ultimately “yielded to Pope Nicholas V and dissolved itself.”⁷⁰ Dr. Ludwig Ott says it is a matter “de fide” that “[T]he pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.”⁷¹ He cites the first Vatican Council of 1870 from which this language comes. He also specifically says this is “against…Conciliary Theory.”⁷²

Today, the Church recognizes the authentic papal succession to have gone through the Roman line of the validly elected Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII.


___________________________________
FOOTNOTES

1 Schreck, Dr. Alan. The Compact History of the Catholic Church. Servant Books, Ann Arbor, MI. 1987. p 55-56.
2 Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Doubleday, New York. 2004. p 182.
3 McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes. HarperSanFrancisco. 1997. p 233.
4 Maxwell-Stuart, P.G. Chronicle of the Popes. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London. 1997. p 125.
5 Maxwell-Stuart. p 125.
6 Laux, Fr. John. Church History. Tan Books and Publishers. Rockford, Illinois. p 396.
7 Laux. p 317.
8 King Philip IV, Letter to Pope Clement V. March 2, 1312. Quoted in Maxwell-Stuart. p 127.
9 Laux. p 317.
10 Moeller, Charles. "The Knights Templars." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1912. Accessed December 30, 2008.
11 Shreck. p 56.
12 Schreck. p 56.
13 Lives of Saints, Published by John J. Crawley & Co., Inc. Quoted in “SAINT CATHERINE OF SIENA VIRGIN.” Accessed December 30, 2008.
14 St. Catherine of Siena. Letter to Gregory XI. ca. 1376. Quoted in Laux. p 403.
15 Schreck. p 56.
16 Bokenkotter. p 186.
17 Mulder, William. "Pope Urban VI." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 30 Dec. 2008 Accessed December 30, 2008.
18 Laux. p 404.
19 Bokenkotter. p 186.
20 McBrien. p 247.
21 McBrien. p 247.
22 McBrien. p 247.
23 Schreck. p 56.
24 Maxwell-Stuart. p 139.
25 Mulder. "Pope Urban VI."
26 Bokenkotter. p 186.
27 Laux. p 404.
28 Maxwell-Stuart. p 139.
29 Laux. p 404.
30 McBrien. p 248.
31 Williman, Daniel. “Schism within the Curia : The Twin Papal Elections of 1378.” Jnl of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 59, No. 1, January 2008. Cambridge University Press.
32 McBrien. p 248.
33 McBrien. p 248.
34 Laux. p 404.
35 Maxwell-Stuart. p 139.
36 Laux. p 404.
37 Maxwell. p 139.
38 Bokenkotter. p 187.
39 Laux. p 405.
40 Maxwell-Stuart. p 139.
41 Laux. p 405.
42 McBrien. p 250.
43 McBrien. p 250.
44 Maxwell-Stuart. p 138.
45 Bokenkotter. p 188.
46 McBrien. p 250.
47 McBrien. p 250.
48 Bokenkotter. p 187.
49 Bokenkotter. p 187.
50 Schreck. p 57.
51 Laux. p 405.
52 Laux. p 405.
53 Hughes, Philip. A History of the Church: To the Eve of the Reformation. Vol. 3. Chapt. 3.5.i. Accessed December 30, 2008.
54 Ott, Michael. "Jacob of Jüterbogk." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. Accessed December 30, 2008.
55 See for example Irenaeus' Against Heresies, ca. 170: "it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [at Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority..." Or Cyprian's letter to Cornelius, ca. 252: "the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source...” et al.
56 Laux. p 405.
57 McBrien. p 253.
58 Maxwell-Stuart. p 141.
59 Schreck. p 57.
60 Laux. p 407.
61 Berkenkotter. p 190.
62 Laux. p 407.
63 Bokenkotter. p 191.
64 Bokenkotter. p 191-192.
65 McBrien. p 253.
66 McBrien. p 253.
67 McBrien. p 253.
68 Laux. p 408.
69 Laux. p 408.
70 Laux. p 409.
71 Ott, Dr. Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Tan Books and Publishers. Rockford, Illinois. 1960. p 285.
72 Ott. p 285.

__________________________________________________
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. Doubleday, New York. 2004.
Laux, Fr. John. Church History. Tan Books and Publishers. Rockford, Illinois.

Hughes, Philip. A History of the Church: To the Eve of the Reformation. Vol. 3.

Lives of Saints, Published by John J. Crawley & Co., Inc. Quoted in “SAINT CATHERINE OF SIENA VIRGIN.”

Maxwell-Stuart, P.G. Chronicle of the Popes. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London. 1997.

McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes. HarperSanFrancisco. 1997.

Moeller, Charles. "The Knights Templars." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1912.

Mulder, William. "Pope Urban VI." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 30 Dec. 2008

Ott, Dr. Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Tan Books and Publishers. Rockford, Illinois. 1960.

Ott, Michael. "Jacob of Jüterbogk." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910.

Schreck, Dr. Alan. The Compact History of the Catholic Church. Servant Books, Ann Arbor, MI. 1987.

Williman, Daniel. “Schism within the Curia : The Twin Papal Elections of 1378.” Jnl of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 59, No. 1, January 2008. Cambridge University Press.

Praying to Saints: A Visual Aid

Suppose you are a non-Catholic Christian and you have trouble with the Catholic (or Orthodox or some other church) teaching that Catholics "pray to angels or saints." You may say there is only one mediator between God and men, and that's Jesus. Or you may say prayer is due to God alone. Or perhaps you are a Catholic who has been confronted with these responses to the concept of prayer to saints. So let's take a brief look with a visual aid.

When a Catholic says he is "praying" to an angel or saint he is using the term prayer in the sense "to ask." It means to petition someone for something. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) words it simply to "ask them to intercede."

CCC#2683 When they entered into the joy of their Master, they were "put in charge of many things." (cf. Mt 25:21) Their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world.

This example is seen in Scripture many times when someone asks an angel or another member of the Body of Christ for intercession.

• The Psalmist asks the angels to join him in prayer (Ps 103:20-21, Ps 148:1-2).
• The Israelites consult the angel who intercedes to God for them, and God responds to the angel's intercession (Zec 1:11-16).
• Paul asks other members of the Body of Christ to intercede in prayer for him (Rm 15:30, Col 4:3, 1 Thes 5:25, 2 Thes 3:1).
• The elders and angels in heaven are seen passing on the "prayers of the saints" (Rv 5:8, Rv 8:4).

This interaction between members of the Body of Christ is a testament to the unity of the Body of Christ. Both the members in heaven and earth are a part of the same family in Christ (Eph 3:14-15). Whether it's an angel in heaven or our neighbor next door, we can ask them for intercessory prayer.

So the principle is set forth in Scripture: We can ask for the intercession of another member of the Body of Christ without violating the singular mediation of Jesus Christ, nor granting the saint the worship due to God alone. The principle finds no qualification in Scripture that asking members of the Body of Christ in heaven is off-limits. In fact, Scripture tells us the prayer of a righteous person is most powerful (Jm 5:16). All the more should we then want the intercession of those fully united with Christ!

Graphically, praying to saints (or angels) looks like this:

Notice how the ends of intercessory prayer is always "God." When we pray (i.e. ask) a heavenly member of the Body of Christ for intercession, we are not going to them "instead of" God. Certainly we would not have considered Paul to have gone to the Romans "instead of" God when he asked them to pray for him, no? The same holds true for asking a heavenly member of the Body of Christ to pray for us.

Therefore, intercessory prayer neither violates the unique salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, nor applies worship to a creature.

Another concern that may come to mind is "How can the dead hear us?" Doesn't Scripture say the dead "know nothing"? (Ecc 9:5)

First, we see in Scripture a number of examples of the conscious awareness of angels or those who have undergone physical death.

• Tabitha, who was dead, rises at the prompt of Peter telling her to rise (Act 9:36-40).
• Jesus speaks with "dead" OT saints Moses and Elijah (Mt 17:3, Mk 9:4, Lk 9:30) (Granted someone could say Elijah didn't die but was assumed, but going by Scripture the same cannot be said of Moses, cf. Josh 1:1).
• The angels are fully aware of what we say and do, and they even rejoice when a sinner repents (Lk 15:10, 1 Cor 4:9, Ps 91:11).
• I would also reiterate the vision in heaven of angels and elders passing on prayers mentioned above from the book of Revelation. And even in the Old Testament, although done in a sinful way, a witch summons a manifestation of the deceased Samuel, which she could not do if the dead could not respond to her (1 Sam 28:7-14).

So what does the "dead know nothing" mean in Ecclesiastes? The very book can be confusing and one should not jump to form doctrine from contextless verses therein. The book itself opens with most non-doctrinal words: "All is vanity!" Ecclesiastes 9:5, which says the dead know nothing, also says there is no memory of them, which of course could be disproved simply by remembering someone dead. In verse 7, the speaker says "Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart..." This concept is one Paul actually condemns when writing to the Corinthians: "If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Cor 15:12). But of course the dead are raised as Paul argues, which suggests the writer of Ecclesiastes could only be correct (if he was ever correct) if there was no Resurrection.

Furthermore, the speaker in Ecclesiastes goes on to say that these "dead" are going to "Sheol" (Eccl 9:10). This is commonly held to be the "abode of the dead" (Strong's Concordance #H7585 , CCC#633, etc...) where Jesus visited and preached to "the spirits in prison" (1 Pt 3:19). If one wishes to consider the dead in Ecclesiastes to have been in this "abode of the dead" or whether he wishes to consider Sheol by it's only other definition of "hell," neither applies to the heavenly members of the Body of Christ in the New Covenant. Therefore, one cannot use Ecclesiastes to say the heavenly members of the Body of Christ "know nothing."

Finally, let's say one were to jettison all of the above and still insist he is not comfortable asking anything from anyone in heaven except for God. A solution for such a person would be to ask God to pass on his request for intercessory prayer. For example one could say: "Dear God, please ask Elijah to pray for my illness." In doing so, one addresses only God, yet still follows Paul's example of prompting other members of the Body of Christ to pray for him!

EDIT: September 6, 2010

Supporting the idea that Ecclesiastes 9:5 refers to those in Sheol is:

Psalm 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in Sheol who can give thee praise.