Attempt to discredit papacy uses false history

In January, in an article appearing on the Huffington Post, Christian blogger Ben Stevens claimed to produce 3 "major defeaters" of the papacy. In his own words, he defines a defeater thusly:

[A] defeater is a belief which, if true, necessarily invalidates some other belief (e.g. "Jesus was not raised from the dead" is a defeater for Christianity). These "defeaters" take aim at papal history.

So remember that definition, because he believes that his "3 major defeaters" each "invalidate" the Papacy in some "major" way. He also goes into some "minor" defeaters, but in the interest of brevity, and to demonstrate the pattern of error in his self-proclaimed "major defeaters" alone, I'll go through the 3 major ones.

BEN STEVENS' "MAJOR DEFEATER" OF THE PAPACY #1

In virtually all the early citations used to say that Peter led the church in Rome, Paul is listed as co-leader of the church (cf. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius). ... In all three letters to his disciples, Paul prescribes that there be multiple bishops (episkopoi) in every congregation. [This] is different from what papal historians might lead us to believe.

In response to this, let me first state the obvious miscalculation here. If I were to say the official leaders of the United States were once Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall, would you be able to ascertain from that statement alone if one of them was higher up the hierarchy than the other? If I were to say the United States was founded by George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, could you determine if I thought one of them was President? The answer to both is no. That is, unless you knew your history, or unless you place some favor on who I list first.

Rome has had a history of a number of auxiliary bishops, which refutes Steven's claim that "papal historians" try to lead the public to some false sense of a single bishop only in any given major city.

But let's look at the individual Church Fathers Stevens cites. The reason he mentions Peter and Paul is because Catholics believe the Pope to be the successor of the Apostle Peter. Thus, according to Stevens, if the Early Church recognized Peter and Paul as leaders of the Roman Church, they must have thought them to be equal in authority, and a papacy deriving from Peter must apparently be a fiction. This is where Stevens derails historically and logically.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (ca 110 A.D.) - There's not a significant amount of mention of Peter and Paul in Ignatius' works. He does have a more submissive tone in his letter to the Romans than he does to other cities. He writes in that letter that the Church at Rome is "presiding over the brotherhood of love." Elsewhere in his letter, he writes:

I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man.

Please note, Ignatius doesn't tell us anything about a hierarchical order or otherwise when referencing Peter and Paul. Stevens eisegetes equality into Ignatius' words even though no such qualifier exists. Ignatius merely says they were Apostles teaching in Rome, which is, of course, true, and which any good Catholic history book will describe. One thing you will notice in Ignatius' and others' early references to Peter and Paul in Rome is the order of Peter first. In studying other ECFs giving more detail, we can see this was so due to Peter's superior hierarchical rank. At any rate, Ignatius can hardly be considered a deal-breaker to support Stevens' claim.

ST. IRENAEUS (ca. 170 A.D.) - Irenaeus, like Ignatius, mentions Peter and Paul (in that order) in his texts without specifically naming a leader nor identify any equality in authority, even though Stevens reads the latter into his work. Irenaeus writes quite loftily of the office of Rome itself, consistent with Catholic theology:

...that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree — that is the faithful everywhere — in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere. ... The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. (Against Heresies, 3.3.2-3)

Notice a couple things in Irenaeus' writing. He lists Peter first in the Church he says has "superior authority" in relation to "every Church." And he establishes a singular "episcopate" flowing from this foundation. Even if one were to grant Stevens (hypothetically of course, since to do so would be incorrect) that Peter and Paul were equally authoritative cofounders of Rome, Irenaeus describes a singular bishop's office flowing from that foundation. The idea of a Papacy, therefore, would not be so much discredited as supported!

TERTULLIAN (ca 210 A.D.) - Tertullian mentions Peter and Paul a few times. For instance, he refers to both of them suffering martyrdom in Rome (Prescription Against Heretics, 36). And he mentions again their bloody sacrifice in Rome (Against Marcion, 4.5). In another place, he mentions Peter alone as having ordained Clement (Prescription Against Heretics, 32).

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.

If we refer back to Irenaeus, we see that Clement became the bishop of that superior episcopate. Though Tertullian does not specifically elevate Peter here, he does consistently mention him first when paired with Paul, and he verifies the Catholic concept of apostolic succession and a singular Roman office.

In another work (On Modesty, 21), Tertullian criticizes the Roman bishop, Pope Callistus, over the qualities of Peter passed on to successors. He admits the Pope sits "in the person of Peter," though he denies the power of the keys belonging to Peter alone. He writes:

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord.

The skeptic of the papacy will note only Tertullian's opposition to the Pope in this text. Yet notice at least two other things from this work. Tertullian freely admits that the episcopate traces back to Peter. No mention of Paul is made here, repudiating Stevens' claim that Tertullian placed Peter and Paul as authoritative equals in Rome. Secondly, notice that in Tertullian's counter to the idea of Peter passing his "keys" onto his successors, Tertullian is revealing the argument presented by the other side. For more on this issue, see Mark Bonocore's The Title Pontifex Maximus.

LACTANTIUS (ca. 305 A.D.) - I was able to find a single mention of Peter and Paul in Lactantius' writings. It reads:

But He also opened to them all things which were about to happen, which Peter and Paul preached at Rome. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 4.21, ca 305 A.D.)

There is nothing, as Stevens' claims, in this example about diluted authority between the two men, although, once again, Peter is mentioned first, lending closer to the Catholic assertion.

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (ca. 360 A.D.) - This is probably Stevens' worst example of someone who supposedly claimed Peter and Paul had equal authority in Rome. I'll let Cyril's words speak for themselves.

And when they all became silent (for the matter was too high for man to learn), Peter, the foremost of the Apostles and chief herald of the Church, neither aided by cunning invention, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but enlightened in his mind from the Father, says to Him, You are the Christ, not only so, but the Son of the living God. (Catechetical Lectures, 11.3)

As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right. ... For Peter was there, who carries the keys of heaven: and nothing wonderful, for Paul was there , who was caught up to the third heaven, and into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful far a man to utter. (Catechetical Lectures, 6.15)

In the power of the same Holy Spirit Peter also, the chief of the Apostles and the bearer of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, healed Æneas the paralytic in the Name of Christ at Lydda, which is now Diospolis, and at Joppa raised from the dead Tabitha rich in good works. (Catechetical Lectures, 17.27)

Needless to say, Cyril of Jerusalem is a terrible example for Stevens to use to dilute Peter's authority.

ST. ATHANASIUS (ca 350 A.D.) - Athanasius makes statements similar to other ECFs regarding the historicity that Peter and Paul both were martyred in Rome:

And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'You must bear witness at Rome ,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing ; the one as hastening to meet his friends, received his death with exultation; and the other shrunk not from the time when it came, but gloried in it, saying, 'For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. (Athanasius, Apologia de Fuga, 18)

In this example, as invariably consistent as other ECFs mentioning the two Apostles in tandem, Peter is listed first.

In the incident versus the Arians in the fourth century, Athanasius was a central figure in quelling the heresy that denied the eternal consubstantiality of the Son Jesus with the Father God. In more than one work, Athanasius quotes from the Pope:

"For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." ... Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Julius, Bishop of Rome. (Athanasius, Defense Against the Arians, quoting from Pope Julius' Letter, I.35.b, ca. 360 A.D.)

You see above, Athanasius quotes what the Pope had written about how what he "signified" came "from the blessed Apostle Peter." There is no objection from Athanasius along with this citation. Rather, Athanasius is using the letter as evidence for his position in his battle against the Arians. This supports the notion that Peter was the head of Rome through which the authority of the episcopate was passed.

Athanasius, quoting another Pope, shows again that the episcopate flowed through Peter:

The eunuch accordingly went to Rome, and first proposed to Liberius to subscribe against Athanasius ... But the Bishop endeavoured to convince him, reasoning with him thus: "How is it possible for me to do this against Athanasius? How can we condemn a man, whom not one Council only, but a second assembled from all parts of the world, has fairly acquitted, and whom the Church of the Romans dismissed in peace? Who will approve of our conduct, if we reject in his absence one, whose presence among us we gladly welcomed, and admitted him to our communion? This is no Ecclesiastical Canon; nor have we had transmitted to us any such tradition from the Fathers, who in their turn received from the great and blessed Apostle Peter." (Athanasius, quoting Pope Liberius, History of the Arians, V.36)¹

Again, Athanasius quotes a Pope claiming succession back to Peter with no objection or comment on the matter. One might claim that these previous two quotes are arguments from silence, which to a certain extent may be true, although he does quote the Petrine sentiment explicitly. However, Stevens' claim that Athanasius equalized Peter and Paul's authority in Rome appears entirely devoid even of such semi-silent evidence.

But that's not all from Athanasius. In his commentary on the Psalms, Athanasius writes: "For Peter also is the leader in the praxis/practice for Christ..." For my part, I was able to find the Greek of this excerpt (at line 00874 in this documentacatholicaomnia.eu PDF). I had a university Greek professor provide my translation above. Other translations, such as at fisheaters.com, have listed the interpretation of his words as "The Chief, Peter."

This, too, damages Stevens' claim to deny the unique leadership position Peter held amidst the Apostles.

MORE ON "MAJOR DEFEATER #1"

Remember, Stevens claimed that the above ECFs made claims about the equality of Peter and Paul's authority in Rome, and yet not a single one supports his assertion. This is supposed to be one of his deal-breakers, one of his "major defeaters" against the Catholic idea of a papacy. Granted, Stevens did not provide any citations from these ECFs to support his claim, so if there is something he was able to locate that I was not, I am open to reviewing those quotations. In the meantime, not only do all these ECFs consistently list Peter first when mentioned with Paul, but on many occasions, they explicitly speak to Peter's headship.

Even though Stevens listed several ECFs, he also said "virtually all the early citations" regarding Peter's authority list Paul as a "co-leader," which Stevens uses to deny Peter as head. The range of ECFs he named spans from approximately 110 A.D. – 350 A.D. Here's a sampling from that range of what Stevens calls "virtually all" the ECFs who did not consider Peter the leader:

ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (ca 195 A.D.) - St. Clement explicitly contradicts Stevens' claim:

On hearing these words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute, quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you!" (Clement of Alexandria, Homily on Mark 10:17-31 "Who is the rich man that is saved?")

ORIGEN (ca 230 A.D.) - Origen, and subsequently Cyprian below, echo the same sentiment that Peter is the foundation of the Church:

"Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however is doubtful." (Origen, Commentaries on John 5,3)

"Look upon the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? 'O you of little faith,' He says, 'why did you doubt!'" (Origen, Homilies on Exodus 5,4)

ST. CYPRIAN (ca 250 A.D.) - On the nature of unity in the Church, Cyprian writes:

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18) And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? (Cyprian, Treatise 1.4)

Above, Cyprian admits to a "like" power among all the Apostles, but he raises Peter up as the source of unity. The excerpt ends with him saying that one who does not hold to the "unity" beginning with Peter in Matt. 16:18, cannot be said to hold to the faith.

Cyprian repeats this teaching in an Epistle:

For first of all the Lord gave that power to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and whence He appointed and showed the source of unity— the power, namely, that whatsoever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven. (Cyprian, Epistle 72.7, ca 250 A.D.)

In another work, Cyprian confirms that succession in Rome proceeded through Peter.

And [Cornelius] was made bishop by very many of our colleagues who were then present in the city of Rome ... Cornelius was made bishop ... when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church. (Cyprian, Epistle 51.8)

COUNCIL OF SARDICA (344 A.D.) - The council at Sardica debunks Stevens' claim both against the idea of Roman primacy and also that Peter was not the leader from whom succession flowed in Rome:

But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure. (Council of Sardica, canon 3)

There are many other early Church writings that confirm Peter's position as leader of the Apostles and the original occupant of the chair in Rome, not Paul even though he was a revered Apostle himself.

From this sampling, I hope it is clear that Stevens' "major defeater #1" has been, itself, defeated.

BEN STEVENS' "MAJOR DEFEATER" OF THE PAPACY #2

Even though the founding of the papacy (if historical) would be the second most important event in all of history (after the Christ event itself), it has no place in the apostolic preaching (in Acts) or even in the writings of the apostolic fathers. The good news, if the papal narrative holds true, would have to be that Christ has come and that, in Peter, Christ remains. But there is not a trace or hint of this Petrine emphasis in the apostolic preaching. Nowhere do we hear it preached that "a human representative of Christ on earth will graciously continue on as Christ directs him." How could such a monumental component of the story be left out if in fact it was truly a part of the story?

The above is similar to the average atheist's challenge against God. Do a Google search sometime for phrases like: "If God is real why doesn't he show himself??" The challenger comes up with a criteria after the fact that they supposedly require before they submit to a belief. The problem is, the challenger ignores the extant evidence while coming up with some criteria for which he claims there is no evidence, and then parades that criteria as the ultimate rule.

That being said, Stevens' demands are actually met in the course of history. He simply does not acknowledge it, or perhaps has some degree of blindness, as we saw in the response to his "major defeater #1."

He says a Papacy has no place in the book of Acts. Before I provide evidence of Peter's primacy from the book of Acts, let me point out something of which Stevens indicates no knowledge or perhaps for which he has no respect. That is the doctrine of development. The books of the very Bible Stevens cites as his historical evidence had not been identified with clarity for a few hundred years following their penning. The most consistent canon began around 382 at the synod at Rome. Stevens does not seem to submit the canon of Scripture through the same gauntlet as he does the papacy, demanding evidence of the latter from the book of Acts, but not the former. Surely, Stevens considers the identification of the books of Scripture to be vitally important if they are to be a measure of other doctrines. Yet we have no such list from an Apostle. I could easily play the role of devil's advocate against his belief and demand he show me the canon of Scripture by using only the book of Acts. I could say as he did of the Papacy, "Surely such an 'important event in all of history' would be articulated by Jesus and the Apostles!" Of course, my demand would be just as specious as his demand to produce the fully developed doctrine of the papacy from the book of Acts.

Scripture itself identifies the Apostles and prophets as a foundation (Eph. 2:19-20), not as the end all, exhaustive communicators of all that will be understood by the Church in one shot. This is historically evident in the Church's behavior in discerning not only the canon of Scripture, but in understanding other widely held Christian doctrines such as the Trinity (formulated at Nicea in 325 A.D.) or the hypostatic union of the Incarnation (formulated at Chalcedon in 451 A.D.). Yet for the papacy, Stevens demands his own full blown 21st century definition from the 1st century book of Acts. But I digress.

In the book of Acts, it is Peter who assembles the Church leaders to choose a successor for Judas (Acts 1:15). It is Peter who first speaks after the Holy Spirit descends upon the Church at Pentecost (Acts 2:14). It is Peter who performs the first Apostolic miracle (Acts 3:6-7). Peter is the first to speak at the council of Jerusalem, resolving the first doctrinal conflict in the Church (Acts 15:7ff). The historical record shows James to have been the first bishop of Jerusalem (e.g. St. John Chrysostom, commentary on John 21:19, ca. 390 A.D.)––all the more significant that Peter stood and made the first pronouncement in his fellow Apostle's jurisdiction.

These are just a few examples from Acts regarding Peter's leadership. Other New Testament examples are quite common in Catholic apologetics. I won't give a lengthy treatment here since such examples are easy to find. Suffice it to say, Jesus changed Peter's name to "Rock," (Matt. 16:18) a term normally reserved in Scripture for God. The significance of that has been downplayed in occasions in history, particularly among those who attempt to discredit the papacy. But the symmetry of the passage demands Peter's himself to be called "Rock" by Christ. Peter starts with "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:17) Notice he identifies Jesus' persona, followed by His identity in relation to his father. Jesus replies, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18-19) Notice how Jesus returns the symmetry by identifying Peter's persona (as Rock) and his identity in relation to his father "Jona." An abundance of well-known Protestant scholars admit to the necessity of this interpretation. Sometimes, you will find a historical Christian identifying Peter's confession of faith as the Rock. The Church has no problem with that understanding as can be seen in CCC#424. However, the Church does not posit a false dichotomy by saying if the Rock is Peter's confession, it therefore cannot be Peter himself. No, rather the Church, historically and today, acknowledges also Peter himself as the Rock (CCC#552) consistent with the structure of the Matthean text.

Another strong verse demonstrating Peter's primacy amongst the Apostles is in Luke. Notice the tense of the Greek terms in parentheses below:

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (plural), that he might sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail; and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your (singular) brethren." (Luke 22:31-32)

You have at least two elements of the idea of the papacy here. Peter is certainly charged with oversight of the other disciples, to be strength for them. As well, Jesus makes a personal prayer here for Peter's faith, the seed of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility (which is a charism, given by the Holy Spirit, protecting the Pope from teaching error on the faith when several teaching conditions are met).

There is a plethora of other evidence from Scripture speaking to Peter's primacy, including that from Matthew to Revelation, Peter is mentioned some 155 times versus a combined total of 130 for the other Apostles. Not only that, but the idea of Roman primacy was well-recognized in the first few centuries as articulated above, and even more forcefully in the 4th century and beyond. Even a 2008 joint statement by Catholics and Orthodox acknowledges the Petrine origin of the Roman see, and it's identity as the "prima sedes." The historical record belies Stevens' claim to belittle Peter's leadership in Rome and Roman primacy.

For more Scriptural info, see such pages as my debate on the Papacy from 2008, ScriptureCatholic.com, Catholic.com tracts on the papacy, PhilVaz.com's articles on the papacy, Dave Armstrong's Biblical apologetics for the papacy, and many other sites detailing what is a plethora of Petrine primacy in the Scriptures.

I must consider Stevens' "major defeater #2" the second of two failed attempts to discredit the papacy.

BEN STEVENS' "MAJOR DEFEATER" OF THE PAPACY #3

The medieval schism and Council of Constance not only severed what link there might have been to Petrine succession but, in fact, ground the true authority of all churches in Jesus Christ alone. In the papacy's darkest hour, the line of leaders which (is supposed to have) descended from Peter himself was broken, and the leaders of the church announced in their resolution to the schism that "everyone is subject to this ruling, even the pope. We draw our authority from Jesus Christ Himself." This is, in its essence, a Protestant understanding of authority, and it undercuts the whole Petrine office.

I must first point out Stevens' admission in the first sentence referring to "what link there might have been to Petrine succession" when his first "major defeater" denies that one existed through Peter alone, calling instead for the equation of authority in Rome between Peter and Paul. Whether this is subconscious evidence from Stevens that his first "major defeater" is not all that major, I cannot say.

At any rate, Stevens strangely places the utmost authority in the Council of Constance and, perhaps inadvertently, places his authority in the Council that penned the quotation in question while simultaneously claiming to place his authority only in Jesus Christ. Catholic thought believes the papacy draws its authority from none other than Christ, yet Stevens behaves as if he is unaware that such is Catholic teaching. Still, this point only speaks to Stevens' personal inconsistencies in analysis.

Stevens leaves out an important element in the Council of Constance –– the council submitted to Pope Gregory XII's demand that he formally convoke the council himself, thus placing it in some sense under his authority, certifying it in logical advancement. The council submitted. Once he convoked the council himself, Gregory then voluntarily abdicated so as to end the confusion of who was the authentic Pope by letting the council pick his successor. The historical record does not admit to the confusion claimed by Stevens that succession was broken. For the Church then recognized Martin V in 1417, preserving the succession of Popes that Stevens claims was broken. Those from the very council in which Stevens placed so much authority to make his point acknowledged the existence of Martin V as true Pope!

For more details and source material on this historical episode, see my earlier blog post Were there 3 popes at the same time?

And thus, Stevens' "major defeater #3" can neither be considered a defeater of the papacy.

¹Sometimes, you will see among anti-Catholics the claim against the dogma of Papal Infallibility on the grounds that Pope Liberius caved in to the Arian Heresy and supposedly formally taught Arianism. However, if we read through paragraphs 36-41 of part V of his History of the Arians, we see even Athanasius defending the Pope at that time. Paragraph 41 culminates with: "But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed." Not only was Liberius under known duress and threat of death at the time, he could not reasonably be considered to have met all the criteria for the protection of Papal Infallibility to have occurred and did not teach heresy for the faithful to hold as a function of his Petrine see. This is especially evidenced by the likes of a bishop like Athanasius detailing the external threats begetting Liberius' submission.

Who speaks for Church teaching?

First, I want to point out that this article focuses on comparing dissenting Catholics and the hierarchical Church. This post is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment on the immorality of contraception. In the current public attempt the HHS is making against the Church's conscience, religious liberty is the issue. As Bishop Lori so eloquently put before Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in his "Parable of the Kosher Deli," it could have just as well been an ultimatum forcing Jews to serve pork.

And now, for the rest of the post.

So who speaks for authentic Church teaching? The bishops? Or people who call themselves Catholics who disagree with the bishops?

The correct answer is: bishops.

And those of you with short attention spans can probably stop reading at this point. :) For the rest, consider this from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church:

CCC#85 The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Unfortunately, this HHS contraception/abortifacient ultimatum has stirred up a variety of lay people identifying themselves as Catholics and decrying their own bishops. For example, Maura Casey, writing an editorial for the Hartford Courant wrote this week:

Like me, many would consider themselves irresponsible mothers if they did not tell their children to ignore the church's teaching on birth control.

Her basis for saying this is not the main point of this post––although she is wrong to have blanketly asserted contraception equals less abortions when the FDA approves drugs that cause abortions as well as other contraceptives (cf. prolife.com, Witherspoon Institute)––not to mention there have been studies, such as this one published in Contraception magazine (also quoted in PDF here at USCCB) that showed, over 10 years an increase of contraceptive use and elective abortions. She also ignores the moral dimension of contraception in itself, justifying its use earlier in her commentary on the basis that her mother once said she lived a sickly life "in hell" without it. It was not a good presentation of moral theology, but I digress.

Casey rooted her argument in the title of her piece, "Catholic women must speak out". Forget for one moment that women are speaking out quite frequently against the bishops, including Sr. Carol Keehan, as mentioned in my previous post. Casey argues that women should defend government mandated "free"¹ contraception, because otherwise:

priests, bishops...and scores of male commentators will get away with the pretense that they are speaking for us.

Forget again the scores of female commentators and religious that oppose contraception.² Search any pro-life or Catholic news site like NCRegister.com, or even your local parish for scads of women who agree with the bishops. Forget for another moment the anti-male bigotry underlying her comment, insinuating if bishops are male, they can't correctly teach the God-revealed truth on this matter.

But in one sense, I agree with her on this point:

The bishops don't speak for her.

They speak for what the Catholic Church teaches. If she chooses to "ignore" that teaching and teach her children to "ignore" that teaching, then no, the Church does not speak for her. If she wants to reject Church teaching under the guise that her medical decisions automatically equate to good morality, then no, the Church does not speak for her.

Her implication is that she, and other "Catholic" women (and men, too, I suppose, though she allies herself with none in this article), who "ignore" Church teaching are the true teachers of what is right.

That brings us to a catechetical moment. The sin of contraception³ is a plain, well-known teaching of the Church.

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity. (Vademecum for Confessors, 2.4)

CCC#2370 [E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.

Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (Gaudium et Spes, 52)

In his catechesis on Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II, echoed Paul VI's condemnation of contraception, and later stated: "contraception is not morally correct."

See here (catholic.com) or Fr. Mitch Pacwa (NCRegister.com) for examples of the consistent teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium going back to ancient times.

The list goes on and on. It is no secret that the Church has long taught contraception is sinful. And the faithful are to hold to infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. That is Catholic doctrine. Even Casey in her article admits she rejects "the church's teaching on birth control."

That being said, I want to finish with a look at canon law and the status of a person who rejects the Church's teaching on this or that matter of the faith. The Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law reads:

Can. 1364 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

"Latae sententiae" literally means "automatic." An apostate, heretic, or schismatic is automatically excommunicated from the Church without the need for some formal declaration. So what is an apostate, heretic, or schismatic?

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Now, I'm not going to speak to Casey specifically. Maybe there are factors, misunderstandings, personal struggles, etc., that may extenuate her culpability in publicly denouncing Catholic teaching. Maybe or maybe not. She is unfortunately the writer of an article that I found useful as an example on this issue. She is not specifically the issue here.

The point is, a Catholic who obstinately denies a truth of the faith is a heretic and thus incurs an automatic excommunication. Likewise, a Catholic who refuses to accept the teaching of those under the Pope, i.e. the bishops, is a schismatic, and also incurs automatic excommunication.

No doubt some who still call themselves Catholic (and even some openly ex-Catholics) have no problem rejecting Catholic teaching. But the point is, such a person, by definition, cannot be representative of Catholic teaching. Such a person's Catholic identity itself is broken. At best, the truly excommunicated could only call him/herself a representative of excommunicated Catholics.

Bottom line––keep it simple. When you want to know what is authentic Catholic teaching, go to the "teaching" authority of the Church, that is, the bishops in union with the Pope. Even when I read a lay person's or theologian's works, I always look for Magisterial backup for their work if they propose something that is Catholic teaching.

EDIT TO ADD: A commentator messaged me that appealing to documents by the bishops to defend the bishops' authority is a catch-22. If that was all there was to it, that would be correct. But if I had to explain the inspiration of Scripture and the basis for Church authority in every post I made, my posts would probably double in size. But I thought it worth mentioning a very brief rationale as to why the Church's claim to authority is not self-validating. The argument is similar as to why we accept the Scriptural quality of some books of Scripture in part because they are validated by other books of Scripture. Authority belongs properly to God. We believe that the historical Jesus Christ, the One who died and rose from the dead, was God Incarnate who gave that authority to those apostles and their successors. Scoffers render it impossible for God to have given authority to a successive hierarchical body on the basis that that body cannot claim to have authority. But the early Church testifies to such authority, the subsequent historical Church sustains that heritage, and the Scriptural texts produced by that Apostolic Tradition speaks to this reality. The first Christians consistently looked to the teaching of the bishops as a matter of historical record. Our faith holds that the Church's authority is backed by God. We believe in the authority of the bishops because they trace their appointment to Jesus Christ. It is not a "self-validating" enterprise. But like I said, that is the super-short version without getting into specifics.

See Catholic.com tract on Apostolic succession for another brief article.

¹As another aside, this business of justifying contraceptives under the guise that it will be free is absurd on its face. Someone, of course, will pay to provide these products, whether through higher premiums, fees, or directly. Proponents also argue that fewer health problems will result and pay for itself. However, as I stated in my first blog post on this HHS issue, why not hand out free shoes. Or as others have suggested, free toiletries or hygiene products. Furthermore, it remains debatable whether fostering even more sexual activity in this country is going to reduce health issues. Oral contraceptives do not prevent STDs, for instance. And finally, since when would a "cost savings" make something moral anyway? If we murdered 1000 random sickly people per day, we could save a lot of money. Saving money does not make something right.

2Recently, "free contraception" supporters parroted the idea that 98% of Catholic women used birth control. That myth was subsequently debunked. See here (catholicvote.org), for example.

³In this, I am not referring to medicinal use of contraceptives where birth control is not the intent (see Humanae Vitae under the subhead "Lawful Therapeutic means").

The Catholic Health Association does not represent Catholic beliefs

On Sunday, the White House Chief of Staff made his rounds on the Sunday morning shows. Jack Lew, attempting to defend the Obama Administration's recent "accommodation" on the Contraception/Sterilization/Abortifacient Mandate.

This comment stood out, especially since he mentioned CHA more than once in different appearances.

[O]n Friday we had a broad range of groups endorse where the president's policy is. We had the Catholic Health Association, which understands health care extremely well and is true to Catholic beliefs.

The President of the Catholic Health Association is Sr. Carol Keehan. [Edit 2/15/12 to add] Her position in support of the "accommodation" conflicts with the teaching of the official teaching body of the Church, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who disapproved of the so-called "accommodation" on Feb. 10.

So who is Sr. Keehan? In case you did not know:

Before the "accommodation" was publicly made, it was learned that the Sr. Keehan had been made privy before it became public. She had already emailed support to the Administration before the "accommodation" was announced. Her comments were then emailed to Obama supporters, including many of his Catholic supporters.

In March 2010, Sr. Keehan was given an honorary "presidential pen" given to political supporters when Obama signed the original bill.

On Monday, a donor emailed Sr. Keehan the following:

On behalf of all the women and men of Riverside for Choice I would like to thank you for protecting the rights of all women to have free access to essential health services including the contraceptives that allow us to control our own health and bodies. You have been a hero for choice in your Partnership with President Obama.

The emailer offered to send a donation to CHA, to which Sr. Keehan replied to this praise with" Thanks so much" and asked the donor to give to a poor woman in California.

In 2008, Sr. Keehan applauded then-Obama's appointment of pro-abortion Tom Daschle as secretary of HHS. See also in the previous link the Bishops' concern, now prophetic, that Catholic hospitals could be forced out of business.

Sr. Keehan received a standing ovation from a number of pro-abortion politicians last year in support of the initial Obama Health Care bill.

In June 2010, then president of the USCCB Cardinal Francis George called CHA a "so-called Catholic group." At the time Sr. Keehan insisted (despite the contrary in the bill) that Obama's health care plan wouldn't fund abortion. Of that, the Cardinal said, "Sr. Carol is mistaken in thinking that this is pro-life legislation." And he added, again, prophetically,

[T]he dispute with the CHA involves a core ecclesiological principle 'about the nature of the church itself, one that has to concern the bishops' – namely, who speaks for the church on faith and morals?

[EDIT 2/15/12 to add] Dr. Anne Hendershott at Kings College in New York argued how the Obama Administration in June 2010 was already using Sr. Keehan as a "propaganda czar."

Sr. Keehan's consistent support for pro-abortion politicians is essentially no secret. So when on the Sunday morning talk shows, Chief of Staff Lew cited Keehan's organization as an example of "Catholic" support, one must understand that Keehan's organization is consistently on the side of whoever supports abortion and/or contraception. [EDIT 2/15/12 to add] And as mentioned earlier, she contradicts the very teaching body of her own Church on the matter.

Needless to say, neither Sr. Keehan, nor CHA, is representative of the Church's beliefs.

For further reading, see

What Did CHA's Carol Keehan Know and When Did She Know It?

EDIT 3/2/12 to add: Biography of Sr. Keehan at National Catholic Register.

When state violates Church

The first amendment to the Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here's a list of recent examples of the government directly interfering with or penalizing religious institutions based on their beliefs, even though they had previously been successful in serving a societal need. Example stories follow each in parentheses, although you can find these stories in many news sites.

• Aug. 2011 - The State of Illinois defunded Catholic Charities for not placing foster children in the homes of gay couples, despite the fact that Catholic Charities deferred such couples to other charities that did provide the service. (see Chicago Tribune)

• Oct. 2011 - The Obama Administration's Dept. of HHS defunded the Migration and Refugee Services organization run by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The MRS rescued victims of human and sex trafficking, mostly women and children, but would not provide contraception and abortions. (see Catholic News Agency)

• Jan. 2012 - The Obama Administration's Dept. of EEOC attempted to argue in front of the Supreme Court that the state could tell churches what religious ministers they must hire. The Court struck down their position 9-0. (see Christianity.com)

• Jan. 2012 - The Obama Administration's Dept. of HHS gave Catholic and other religious organizations a legal ultimatum to offer abortifacients, sterilization, and contraceptives in their insurance plans against their beliefs. (see previous coverage here at The Catholic Voyager)

• Jan. 2012 - The State of Washington continues to try to force pharmacies to offer potentially abortifacient drugs against their beliefs. (see National Catholic Register)

• (EDIT 4/2/2012) 2010 - The U.S. Supreme Court supported a California law school that denied a religious group normal campus group privileges because it did not condone its own group leaders to support homosexual lifestyles. The court departed from several related precedent cases, including one in 1984 in which Justice William Brennan said: "There can be no clearer example of an intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association than a regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire." (see USA Today)

Other stories of note:

• May 2011 - Although not aggression against the Church directly, the Obama Administration threatened the state of Indiana if it did not give federal funds to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the U.S. (see previous coverage here at The Catholic Voyager)
  (UPDATE 10/23/12: An appeals court has declared that the State of Indiana must fund Planned Parenthood. ACLU lawyers on behalf of PP insist the federal dollars do not go for abortions, but that claim is not entirely forthcoming as reviewed during an audit of PP last year.)

• Feb. 2012 - It seems an Obama-appointed official within the Army attempted to prevent a Bishop's letter to be read by Catholic chaplains regarding the HHS ultimatum. (see Examiner.com)
• EDIT (3/12/12) - Mar. 2012 - The Obama Administration revoked Texas' federal funding for women's health because Texas recently excluded Planned Parenthood funding at the state level due to the numerous abortions it provides. (see Kaiser Health News for several article summaries)
• EDIT (5/3/12) - May 2012 - In SB 1172, the state of California seeks to regulate reparative therapy for persons with homosexual attraction who willingly desire to receive therapy. As part of the regulation, patients who seek such treatment would be forced to sign a statement, assenting to a number of the state's claims, including, "There is no scientific evidence that any types of therapies are effective in changing a person's sexual orientation." Minors would be forbidden to receive reparative therapy regardless of their desire to receive it, and regardless of their parents' desire. (see California Catholic Daily) For a radio discussion and interview of licensed therapist David Pickup who shared success stories and scientific studies to the contrary, download this hour MP3 from Kresta in the Afternoon radio show on 5/1/12).
• EDIT (5/4/12) - May 2012 - A Texas court overturned the state's effort to exclude Planned Parenthood from the state's "Women's Health Program." According to the court, the state cannot exclude the abortion organization from the program. (see LifeNews)
• EDIT (9/24/12) - April 2012 - In Fort Wayne, Indiana, the EEOC ruled that a Catholic diocese discriminated against a teacher who embraced a form of in vitro fertilization, a medical procedure considered intrinsically sinful by the Church for its separation of procreation with conjugal love. (see CBS News)

The articles about "defunding" one may argue are legal maneuvers by the government since they are not legally bound to fund any private organization. But when coupled with the same federal government's defense of Planned Parenthood, and the pattern of opposition to the Church at seemingly every opportunity, and the fact that those defunded organizations condemned on religious grounds the same government's advancement of contraception, sterilization, abortion, and abortifacients, it is by no means unreasonable to argue that the defunded organizations were defunded based on their religious beliefs, and therefore persecuted.

One comment I see in reaction to the Bishops' and other citizens' opposition to things like the HHS ultimatum are that it is an "attack against women" or some such. Yet in incidents like the defunding of MRS, which rescued women and children from sex trafficking, I did not see the same cries of anti-woman directed toward the government that impaired that effort, leading credence to the conclusion that cries of anti-woman directed against the Church are politically charged.

The clearest violations of religious freedom remain the federal government's (and similar story in the state of Washington) ultimatum via the HHS for Church and religious organizations to provide abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilization insurance against their moral beliefs. The federal government's attempt to interfere with what ministers a religious body must hire also was a clear violation of religious freedom, as even the Supreme Court agreed unanimously, 9-0.

UPDATE: 2/22/12 The Supreme Court of the State of Washington voted against the state trying to force pharmacies to offer drugs against their beliefs.

Correcting John MacArthur on Catholicism and works

MACARTHUR'S MAKES INCORRECT ASSUMPTION REGARDING "WORKS"

This past Wed. Jan. 25, one of John MacArthur's sermons titled "The Gospel Satisfies the Sinner’s Need" aired on the radio in two parts. Here is the first excerpt that caught my Catholic ear:

All religion, with the exception of the truth, follows one line. It is all a religious effort on the part of man to achieve a rightness with God. I call it the "Religion of Human Achievement." All of it. Doesn't matter what it is. Doesn't matter if it's the worship of Molak, which I was describing, the worship of Ba'al, the worship of Allah, it doesn't matter what it is. It doesn't matter if you're a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, a Roman Catholic. If you are a Shintoist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, doesn't matter what it is, or some minor religion unknown to most people, they are all the same. They are all purveyors of the big lie that you can make yourself right with whatever god you think exists by your own efforts. There's only one kind of false religion, and that's it, it just comes under many, many labels. The suggestions are endless, but they all involve human effort and human achievement––following certain behaviors morally, and certain behaviors ceremonially, and certain behaviors religiously––you can make yourself right with God. (quote aired 1/25/12)

First, although this is not an apologetic for Eastern philosophies, it seems MacArthur speaks erroneously about their beliefs as well. For instance, regarding Buddhism, though there are different philosophies in Buddhism, Buddhanet states: "Do Buddhist believe in god? No, we do not." The Wikipedia entry on "God in Buddhism" begins with: "The non adherence to the notion of a omnipotent creator deity or a prime mover is seen by many as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions." So without even delving into Catholicism, MacArthur's blanket, repeated mantra that "all religions," "doesn't matter what it is," advance a big lie about humans going through some motions to get "right with God" is a reckless, incorrect statement.

On his website, MacArthur gives evidence as to why he claims Catholics believe in a "make yourself right" method of justification. His article, The Doctrine of Saving Faith, part 2, reads:

The Council of Trent repeatedly repudiated the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In fact, the Council said, "Unless hope and love are added to faith, it never unites a man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body," session 6 chapter 7. You cannot be made right with God by faith alone. And the Catholic scheme, justification means God's grace is poured forth into the sinner's heart through the Sacraments, through various Masses and experiences like that, religious ceremonies, the person then receiving this grace mixes this grace with his own effort and his own works and becomes progressively more righteous. It is then the sinner's responsibility to preserve and increase that grace by various good works. You mix the works with the grace so that justification is not sola fide, by faith alone.

This is his explanation of Catholic teaching. He is wrong. Nowhere does the Council of Trent say anything about "mixing" one's "own" works with "grace." MacArthur injected these ideas into the text. (MacArthur in that article goes on to further criticize sacraments. See my prior treatment of MacArthur's misunderstanding of sacraments in the article: Sacrawhat? Misconceptions about Sacraments.)

The quote from Trent he is criticizing here is right out of 1 Corinthians 13, which states part: "[I]f I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (v. 2) Shall MacArthur initiate a diatribe against St. Paul for daring to say love must be added to faith, just as the Council of Trent reiterated? Paul's chapter ends with: "So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (v. 13)

But let's go back to MacArthur's notion that if works of love justify along with faith, those works must be something a person does apart from grace. He assumes that is what Catholics think, even though Trent says no such thing. On this point, MacArthur exhibits a double standard. Here's why.

MACARTHUR'S TWO STANDARDS: ONE FOR CATHOLICS, ONE FOR HIMSELF

The second broadcast of MacArthur's sermon aired the following day, Jan. 26. In it, he stated:

Salvation comes by faith. Back again to Romans 4:5, He justifies the ungodly because his faith is credited as righteousness. That is an amazing and magnanimous gift, isn't it? For by grace are you saved through faith, Ephesians 2:8-9, that not of yourselves, even that is a gift of God. Simply by believing, by believing. Over in verse 20 of chapter 4, again, we're still talking about Abraham, verse 20 says with respect to the promise of God he didn't waver in unbelief, grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, being fully assured that what God had promised He was able to perform, therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness. Do you understand this exchange? You give to God faith, He gives you His righteousness. That's why we say salvation is by faith alone. Sola fide. Faith alone. By believing. And even that believing is a gift of God.

First off, let me say, there's nothing I really disagree with in this excerpt, other than the notion of "credited" righteousness. But regarding faith, it is indeed a gift. For instance, CCC#162 reads: "Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man." No problem there.

In recognizing the gift of faith, MacArthur correctly does not confuse man's faith as man's effort. Even though a person exercises faith, and by it is justified, it is not man making a "human effort" of his "own" of faith, justifying "himself."

However, MacArthur does not afford the Catholic the same courtesy when it comes to man's works. He can see that faith is a gift of grace, but he fails to see that Catholics believe works are a gift of grace as well.

Above, we saw MacArthur quote from Trent 6.7 in his effort to claim Catholics believe they justify themselves with their "own" works "mixed" with "grace." But if he had only given pause a few paragraphs further, he could have avoided the error.

Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God . . . God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits. (Trent 6.16)

This unravels MacArthur's claim that Catholics teach works are something alien to grace, something he describes as the "Doctrine of Human Achievement." Just as MacArthur correctly believes of faith, Catholics believe true good works¹ are also Christ's "gifts." Trent actually gasps at the idea "that a Christian should either trust of glory in himself" even though MacArthur claims the Church teaches the opposite!

And so the teaching that Catholics believe in the power of their "human effort" to justify themselves is a fictional product of MacArthur's own design, not one of the Catholic Church.

PARABLE OF THE TALENTS ILLUSTRATES THE GIFT OF WORKS

Remember the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-28). (I'll focus on the Matthean account for the purpose of this post.) In the parable, the master gives varying measures of gifts to each of his three servants. In the parable, the gifts are talents, or degrees of money. The first two servants later return their talents to the master with a profit. The third servant, however, hid the master's talent in the ground, essentially squandering the master's gift.

Placing this parable in view of judgment, the first two servants are told, "enter into the joy of your master." (Matt. 14:21,23) The third servant is said to have been sent off where "men will weep and gnash their teeth," (Matt. 14:30) which, to Matthew, is a figure of hell. (Matt. 14:40-42)

In examining this parable, a figure of reality, what gift does man receive from God which he returns to God that affects his salvation? The clearest answer, I think, is grace (not to exclude other valid understandings of the talents in this text). Paul echoes the financial figure of grace when he says God gives "according to the riches of his grace." (Eph. 1:7) Paul also teaches that the measures of grace are not identical when he says we have "gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them." (Rom. 12:6) Grace fits with the figure of talents.

Cornelius Lapide, the 16th/17th century Catholic exegete wrote of the Parable of the Talents:

By talents understand all the gifts of God, without which we can do nothing. These gifts are, I say—1st Of grace, both making grateful, such as faith, hope, charity, virginity, and all the other virtues, as well as those of grace given gratis—such as the power of working miracles, the Apostolate, the Priesthood, the gift of tongues, prophecy, etc. (Lapide, Comment on Matthew 25)

And he goes on to acknowledge that the talents can also be seen as other gifts as well. (Notice also that Lapide, contradicting MacArthur's description of Catholicism, says "we can do nothing" without God's gifts.)

In recognizing these aspects of the parable, we see the Council of Trent's description of works. Trent says, "He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits." That is exactly what happened in the parable. The talents were the master's investment in his own servants, who could not have utilized the talents without first receiving them. The third servant received the same gift, but failed to utilize it.

Another way to look at it is this. If we are members of Christ's body, it is not against Christ for his own bodily members to work. MacArthur doesn't understand man's work in this way. He only understands man's work as something disconnected with Christ, something man "mixes" with grace rather than the extension of grace, just as he believes correctly of man's faith. In criticizing the value of works done in Christ, MacArthur unwittingly denies the efficacy of grace!

¹True good works of love and adherence to the New Covenant are not to be confused with the "works of the law" from the Old Covenant condemned by Paul: "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law." (Rom. 3:28)

The latest ultimatum by the federal government vs. the Catholic Church

U.S. GOVERNMENT MANDATES RELIGIOUS BODIES TO VIOLATE THEIR CONSCIENCES

Amidst much protest from Catholics, the University of Notre Dame in 2009 invited Barack Obama to give the commencement address. Those protestors considered him too supportive of abortion to speak at a Catholic University that is morally opposed to what it considers a grave sin. The University President, a priest, still had Obama deliver the address, and Obama obliged. During that speech, Obama stated:

Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health-care policies are grounded not only in sound science but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.

The department of Health and Human Services recently advanced an ultimatum that bears little to no resemblance to that statement. In a January 20, 2012 press release, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated:

Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. ... [W]e have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. ... This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.

First, let us be reminded, FDA-approved forms of contraception include abortifacients.

Second, it is worth noting the delusion Sebelius exhibits when she says she's giving religious bodies time to "adapt" to this demand. There's nothing to "adapt" to. There is no choice for a faithful Catholic or other religious citizen who considers abortion and contraception sinful. The soul for compliance is no trade. It is an entirely alien idea to Sebelius that someone could consider abortion and contraception objective sins. And this is the case regardless that she is a so-called "Catholic" herself.

Even though this law would demand that citizens commit what they believe are objectively grave sins, Sebelius actually considers this ultimatum to be a compromise. Amazingly, she stated:

I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.

You are not in the Twilight Zone. That is what the press release states. Of course, there is no "balance" in "respecting religious freedom" in this ultimatum. This is like telling a death row inmate, "There are people who believe you are guilty and people who believe you are innocent. As a compromise, we've decided to postpone your execution and let you live a few more days." But there is no compromise or "balance" regardless of the serpentine language claiming otherwise.

Sebelius offered the following justification to order religious bodies to violate their consciences:

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women.

Even if one completely agrees with that description, since when does the government demand insurance companies to provide payment for anything that has "health benefits," "reduces costs," and is "commonly taken." I can think of hundreds of such things, yet the government mandates none of them as part of insurance. Why do they not insist water be paid for? Why do they not insist blankets be paid for? Why not shoes? Are these not more vital than having sex? Shoes prevent chaffing, cuts, injury, and the accumulation of filth which can lead to infection. And I guarantee even more people in the United States wear shoes than take birth control. Yet, nowhere are shoes discussed in this plan.

Might it not be fair to consider there might be other motives to include anti-Church demands in this so-called "health care" mandate?

In October 2011, Sebelius spoke to NARAL, a pro-abortion organization. Defending the Administration's health care ambitions, she said:

In other words, they don’t just want to go after the last 18 months, they want to roll back the last 50 years in progress women have made in comprehensive health care in America. We’ve come a long way in women’s health over the last few decades, but we are in a war.

And lest we forget, the Obama Administration threatened the State of Indiana last year unless it funded the leading abortion organization in the U.S., Planned Parenthood.

Might we not acknowledge that this is a war with the pro-life movement? What bigger pro-life ally is there than the Catholic Church? Might we not realize that this is not about women's health but about opposing the Church? The term "women's health" in this case is just as inappropriate as "preventive care" is to forcing non-profit religious groups to pay for birth control.

ECHOES OF THE SUPREME COURT'S RULING ON JANUARY 11

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC case. At issue was a Michigan Lutheran school teacher who claimed her dismissal was discriminatory. However, the school had hired her on the grounds that she was a commissioned minister.

The Supreme Court ruled against the federal agency by a vote of 9-0. Chief Justice Roberts stated in the unanimous ruling:

“The right to freedom of association is a right enjoyed by religious and secular groups alike,” writes the Chief Justice. “It follows under the EEOC's and Perich's view that the First Amendment analysis should be the same, whether the association in question is the Lutheran Church, a labor union, or a social club. See Perich Brief 31; Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. That result is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations. We cannot accept the remarkable view that the Religion Clauses have nothing to say about a religious organization's freedom to select its own ministers.”

In other words, it is not the business of the federal government to tell religious bodies who they must and must not employ as ministers based on their own beliefs and authorities. Even more relative to the current matter of the HHS vs. the Church were concurring comments by Justices Alito and Kegan:

“Throughout our Nation's history, religious bodies have been the preeminent example of private associations that have ‘act[ed] as critical buffers between the individual and the power of the State.’ Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984). In a case like the one now before us—where the goal of the civil law in question, the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities, is so worthy—it is easy to forget that the autonomy of religious groups, both here in the United States and abroad, has often served as a shield against oppressive civil laws. To safeguard this crucial autonomy, we have long recognized that the Religion Clauses protect a private sphere within which religious bodies are free to govern themselves in accordance with their own beliefs. The Constitution guarantees religious bodies ‘independence from secular control or manipulation—in short, power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.’ Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952).”

Let me reiterate, in the case of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, the federal government's position against religious bodies was condemned by a vote of 9-0. Not to say the Court is infallible, but that might be indicative for how bad the fed position was.

Regardless of the defeat, the federal government cavalierly advanced this legally suspect ultimatum which has induced at least two lawsuits already (see bottom of post).

BISHOPS DEFEND CHURCH TEACHING

The Bishops' and other Church leaders' response to the HHS ultimatum can be read in press releases Bishops Decry HHS Rule and U.S. Bishops Vow to Fight HHS Edict. Here is a sampling following the Jan. 20 HHS ultimatum:

Never before in our US History has the Federal Government forced citizens to directly purchase what violates our beliefs. At issue here as our President of the Conference stated it this past Friday, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for conscience and religious liberty. (Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston)

In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,. To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable. It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. ... The Obama administration has now drawn an unprecedented line in the sand. The Catholic bishops are committed to working with our fellow Americans to reform the law and change this unjust regulation. We will continue to study all the implications of this troubling decision. ( Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York)

This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights. (Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, chairperson of the board at Franciscan Alliance, Inc., a system of 13 Catholic hospitals.)

MORE INFORMATION

Catholic radio host Al Kresta interviewed Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron today in the first hour of the show (download MP3 archive here).

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has filed two lawsuits against this government ultimatum.

The Thomas More Law Center has filed cases against the ongoing health care issue.

Pope Benedict XVI voiced support for the U.S. Bishops fighting for religious liberty.

Church teaching on abortion and contraception from Theology of the Body, Humana Vitae, and you can keyword search the Catechism here.

Catholic Answers apologetics on the issue of contraception.

Wallpaper: Don't Quench the Spirit

I spent a little time recently with graphics software and had the idea of what it would look like to mix graphic advertising with Church teaching. The following wallpaper was the result.

Download your free The Catholic Voyager Don't Quench the Spirit wallpaper! (Just click the size you prefer below and it will open in a new window. Right click the image and chose "save image as" to download.)

1600x1200

1440x900

1024x768

What is Sacred Tradition?

SCRIPTURE ON TRADITION

Scripture speaks both negatively and positively about the idea of "tradition." For example, negatively––

And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition (paradosis)! (Mark 7:9)

See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition (paradosis), according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. (Col. 2:8)

––and positively:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions (paradosis) even as I have delivered them to you. (1 Cor. 11:2)

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thes. 2:15)

TRADITIONS OF FAITH VS. PRACTICE

In Catholic theology, there is a distinction between traditions on matters of faith and traditions on matters of practice or custom. If a tradition is considered a matter of faith or morals, handed down from the single "deposit of faith" left by Christ and the Apostles, it is considered a divinely revealed truth, and thus cannot be recognized as a non-truth at some later point. Other traditions do not fall under this umbrella of faith or morals. For example, it can be considered "tradition" that the priest wears certain colored vestments at certain times of the year. This is not a matter of faith that one must "believe," but it is a customary practice the Church exercises. The language of the mass is another example of a "tradition" that can be altered. Recently, the translation of the American vernacular mass changed to more closely reflect the ancient Latin wording. Catechism #1202 refers to the "diverse liturgical traditions" in the Church.

In this particular blog post, I will focus on Sacred Tradition, that is considered by the Church part of the word of God in divine revelation.

DESCRIPTIONS OF TRADITION

I think the following are useful descriptions of or uses of the term "tradition" in the sense of Sacred Tradition. My comments follow each entry.

[W]hen we refer [the Gnostics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. ... It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.2.2, 3.3.1, ca. 180 A.D.)

In the above work, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, defends the Church's capacity to maintain tradition versus the Gnostics who simply assert that they have special "wisdom" (3.2.1) from God. Rather, apostolic tradition is passed through those whom were appointed by the Apostles. Irenaeus later went on to identify lists of succession for the occupants of various bishops' offices.

Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. (Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, 32.1, ca. 200 A.D.)

Tertullian, a few years after Irenaeus combats the same problem, against heretics claiming to possess the truth, but who have no apostolic roots.

The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:9, ca. 248 A.D.).

Origen's comment here is an example of what is probably the most commonly held notion of "Tradition," that which is orally transmitted. Some 150-160 years removed from the death of the last Apostle, he describes that infant baptism was something taught by the apostles.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. [St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 2.6, ca. 434 A.D.)

Note how St. Vincent describes the meaning of a "universal" belief. It does not necessarily mean a hard and fast 100% perfect unity on a doctrine. He speaks rather of a corporate voice of sorts, and that voice comes from among clergy and doctors of the Church. And if we go through time and see a teaching professed consistently, exceptions notwithstanding, then the Church can have confidence that the Spirit is guiding that voice. As we will see further down, it is ultimately the Spirit that reveals, which is what makes Sacred Tradition part of divine revelation rather than the "human" traditions that bear no such character. Notice also, that St. Vincent includes "interpretations" as part of Tradition. For example, it is quite universally held in the early Church that John 3:5, which references being "born of water and spirit" is a reference to baptism.

[The Synod recognizes the Gospel] as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. (Council of Trent, Session IV, April 8, 1546)

Notice at Trent, the notion that the Spirit ("Holy Ghost") is guiding Tradition is also mentioned. And like Irenaeus or Tertullian's ancient comment's, Trent refers to the preservation of Tradition by way of "succession."

Some of them had been originally written; others came to us orally, from father to son; or in a practical way, as through the ceremonies of the Church for instance. For this reason, Traditions are either written, oral or practical. Some Traditions are called Written Traditions because the word Tradition may be taken in its widest signification, to include whatever has been delivered to us. In this sense, even the Scriptures may be called Traditions. (Msgr. George Agius, Tradition and the Church, p.3, 1928)

Msgr. Agius' comments here demonstrate that Tradition need not take only one form. Whether they be an oral transmission, a liturgical practice, or "whatever" has been delivered, such as the Church's passing on and discernment of the Scriptures, these are all traditions.

Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. (Dei Verbum #7, 1965)

Dei Verbum, a document produced at Vatican II, echoes the diversity of methods of transmission. Sometimes on internet forums, inquisitors ask for a "list" of Sacred Tradition. This is, of course, near impossible to exhaust because the Church continues to mature in Her interpretations, understandings, and the voice of the Spirit continues to guide the Church toward "all truth" (John 16:13) revealed. Nevertheless, the Catholic lay person need not enter a state of agnosticism or confusion. The Church has produced a number of catechisms throughout the years to help the faithful. Pope John Paul II said of the current Catechism: "I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." Though the Spirit may move the Church to update the Catechism through the years, the faithful can have confidence in assenting and learning the Church's doctrines from its pages.

And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. (CCC#81)

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. (CCC#83)

The above two Catechism paragraphs fortify a couple thoughts. First, that Sacred Tradition can also be considered the "word" of God. It is divine revelation because it is the "Spirit" who reveals it. Second, the assembly and transmission of the New Testament represents Tradition as well.

SCRIPTURE AS TRADITION

There was not total agreement on what books were divinely inspired. For instance, Origen referred to "doubt" that Peter even wrote a second epistle:

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,' Matthew 16:18 has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful. (Origen, quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.8)

Eusebius himself doubted the divinely inspired nature of even more books, and claimed some of his predecessors did too:

3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25.3-4)

So these are just a couple examples. Suffice it to say, any Christian who accepts the divinely inspired quality of James, Jude, 2nd Peter, Revelation, or any book of Scripture, rely on the Church's Sacred Tradition to have identified them. These examples also show how unanimity, as described above by St. Vincent, need not be total uniformity. We believe the Spirit will guide the Church to discern such things amidst disagreement, just as the Spirit did at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (esp. v. 28).

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE

I just want to finish up with a brief word on the concept of doctrinal development. A couple historical treatments of the idea come to mind. One is St. Vincent of Lerins' Commonitorium in the section: On Development of Christian Knowledge. The other is Bl. John Henry Newman's essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

As the Catechism noted, Tradition is "living." The single deposit of faith does not remain a static list of doctrinal data that cannot be more deeply understood over time. Rather, we can see the Church's deeper understanding of text within Scripture itself. For instance, in Genesis, the serpent is never identified as the devil. Yet by the time John wrote his Apocalypse, he explictly calls the ancient serpent the devil (cf. Rev. 12:9; 20:2). The episode of the flood is later understood by Peter as a prefigurement of baptism (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18-21). Paul recognizes the lives of the persons Hagar and Sarah in the Old Testament as figures of two covenants (cf. Gal. 4). Newman's essay has its own section of Scriptural examples as well. The ancient texts didn't acquire new words, but these NT authors saw them in a new light. Rather, their understanding of the ancient texts developed.

As I earlier referenced, Christ promised that the Spirit would lead the Church to "all truth" (John 16:13). One might ask, how can this be now that the last apostle has died, and all Scripture has been written. Even the Church says all doctrine is derived "from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed." (Dei Verbum, 10b; emphasis mine) One might think of the deposit organically. Although an acorn is once small, it becomes a great tree over time. Scripture tells us that the Apostles and prophets were a "foundation." (e.g. Eph. 2:20) The concept of a foundation is, of course, to be built upon. In the same way, a doctrine cannot be formulated unless it is built upon the single deposit. In other words, novel ideas that don't build upon the existing foundation cannot stand.

Consider also Christ's "body" as the figure of the Church. On more than one occasion, Paul called the Church Christ's "body." (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:24) Throughout Ephesians, Paul has this organic idea of "growth" and references to the body of Christ. Keep that concept in mind and consider another passage regarding the young Jesus.

And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man. (Luke 2:52)

If the Church resembles the incarnate Christ, then the Church too will grow in wisdom as well as in size. The Church can be said to follow stages of life, having a youth, and maturing in wisdom over the years. I think a couple theologians support this interpretation of the Luke verse:

The word also increases in different degrees in those who receive it; and according to the measure of its increase a man appears either an infant, grown up, or a perfect man. (St. Gregory of Nyssa, comment on Luke 2:52, quoted in Catena Aura)

Tropologically, Damascene (De fide, 1 iii c. xxii.) says that Christ progresses in wisdom and grace, not in Himself, but in His members, that is, in Christians. (Cornelius Lapide, commentary on Luke 2:52)