Well, Mark! After reading Olivier Clement's superb volume, "You Are Peter" (an Orthodox understanding of the papacy), I agree with your assessment of Eastern understanding of Rome. However! That raises the thorny issue (to me) of exactly what role Christ intends Rome to play! On one hand, the pope is surely successor to Peter. On the other hand, Peter was not a dictator, but was one of Twelve apostles (even if their inspired chief). There is both a sense of leadership *and* of collegiality I see in the New Testament portrait of Peter. On one hand, Christ says, "strengthen your brethren", and clearly inspires Peter on Pentecost and in Joppa. On the other hand, Peter and John are sent by the apostles in Jerusalem to Samaria in Acts 8:14 – we don't hear of Popes being "sent" by councils of bishops nowdays.

 

Well, several things. First of all, we Catholics very much agree with you that the Pope is not supposed to be a dictator, and that Peter was one of the Twelve – an Apostle like all the others, and so not a "super apostle" (per 2 Corinth). :-) Yet, while he was merely an Apostle like the others, he was also the Apostle with primacy. In our previous discussion, I may have made the analogy to the captain of a basketball team. Peter and the Pope, properly understood, are like a team captain. The captain of a basketball team is just a player like all the other players (he is not the owner or the coach); but even though he is just a player like the rest, he is a player with the additional responsibility of leading the team, holding the team together as a cohesive unit, and maintaining all its game plans. Peter and the Pope are no different. Peter was just an Apostle like all the other Apostles, and the Pope is just a bishop like all the other bishops, but the Papacy has the additional responsibility – the additiional ministry – of maintaining the universal Church in unity and orthodoxy. For example, St. Cyprian writes (speaking of Peter, not necessarily the Pope)…

 

Also, St. John Chrysostom writes…

 

So, the two dimensions work together. Now, it is true that some Popes have acted like dictators in the past. But, this must be understood in the context of the Papacy's historical development, based on the relationship between the Pope's ecclesial authority and the temporal authority that the Pope slowly inherited (in Italy and the West) with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. On top of this, there was the historical dynamic from late Roman times until at least 1453 between the Pope and the Byzantine Emperor for canonical leadership of the Church. For, while the East did (for a long time) preserve the Apostolic Tradition of Rome's ecclesial primacy (this was especially true of the Eastern monks), the East was also a theocratic Empire (the Byzantine Empire); and in that theocratic Empire, the Emperor was seen as the legal "head of the Church" – the old Roman "Pontifex Maximus" (head of the imperial state cult), an office that Constantine himself never surrendered, and which is what gave him the authority (the imperial legal authority) to call the Council of Nicaea and to settle other ecclesial disputes. Now, in the West (in about A.D. 367), the imperial, legal office of Pontifex Maximus was surrendered by Western Emperor Gratian and given to Pope Damasus I, making the Pope, not only the Traditional Petrine leader of the Church, but also the legal and constitutional head of the Roman state-cult, which was now Catholic Christianity. This is why Popes are called "Pontiff" today.

 

However, once the East became isolated from Rome itself, this legal position of the Pope began to be less and less significant for the Byzantines, who reverted to their earlier, "constitutional" tradition (in which the Emperor was the head of the state cult). So, from the precedent set by Constantine on, the East was always torn between these two traditions – the organic, Apostolic tradition of Rome's Petrine leadership and the imperial Roman legal tradition of the Emperor as the P. Maximus, the legal head and arbiter of the imperial state cult. It is this tension between Church and theocracy that would lead directly to our Great Schism with the Eastern Orthodox. But, it also effected the Roman Papacy and the style in which the Roman Papacy conducted itself. For, in the early days, as we said, the Bishop of Rome was merely a final court of appeal. He did not try to micro-manage or dictate to the other city-churches; nor did he need to, since the Apostolic Tradition in those city-churches was sound, and the Pope only stepped in when there was a serious heresy or serious violation of canon law. For example, as late as the 600's, we have Pope St. Gregory the Great writing to Byzantine bishop John of Syracuse (in Sicily) on the topic of the new Bishop of Constantinople; and the Pope says (emphasis mine)...

 

Notice the "if." So, in the age of Pope Gregory, the Papacy simply did not get directly involved with the internal affairs of the other dioceses or dictate to them unless there was a serious problem – that is, unless the actions of other bishops effected the universal unity or orthodoxy of the Church.

 

But, this began to change in and around the time of Pope Gregory, as a succession of Byzantine Emperors began to embrace heresies (e.g. Monophysism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, etc.) and impose them on the city-churches, even replacing the native bishops with Byzantine agents who would enforce the Emperor's will. And when the Pope objected, the Byzantines would send armies into Italy to arrest and Popes for being "disobedient subjects" of the Empire. This happened to Pope Martin I, to Pope Sergius, and to several others. The elderly Pope Martin, for example, was taken to Constantinople and (at the Emperor's orders) publicly abused by the mob, dying of his injuries soon after. And all because he refused to accept the Monothelite heresy, which the Emperors had made imperial law. Both the East and the West hail Martin as a martyr today because of this.

 

But, it was because of this tension between Pope and Emperor that the Popes realized that they could not remain mere subjects of the Empire and still continue to function as head of the Church. And when even the Byzantine eparchy of Ravenna and Sicily (the Byzantine-controlled regions in Itay) rebelled against the Emperors because of the Iconoclast controversy (i.e., the Emperors had ordered the Italians to destroy all of their religious icons and they refused), the Italian Byzantines (that is, the native Romans of Italy) turned to the Pope for leadership and declared him "Duke of the Romans" – that is, the imperial leader of the Romans in the West. This was the real beginning of the Pope's temporal authority; an authority that the Papacy secured by breaking political ties with the Byzantines and looking to the Catholic Franks for protection. This is the very thing which allowed Pope Leo III to crown Charlemagne as the revised Emperor of the West (i.e., Holy Roman Emperor), thus setting up a rival Emperor in the West to counter possible heretical Byzantine Emperors in the future.

 

But, during this time in which Popes and Byzantine Emperors struggled for leadership over the Church (something that Popes would later do with Holy Roman Emperors in Germany as well! ;-), the Papacy began to take on certain "imperial trappings" – that is, to present itself as a leader in worldly ways, as opposed to the implict, humble, and thoroughly Christian style of leadership that it had exhibited in the early days. For, Christ told his Apostles, "The first will be last" and "He who would be the first among you, must become the servant of all." See also Peter's own philosophy of leadership in 1 Peter 5:1-4. Yet, this style of leadership was simply not possible during a time when supposedly "Christian" Emperors and kings would lead the Church into error unless the Pope "played on their level" and really threw his weight around. So, this is the reason that we get a very "dictatorial" style of Roman Papacy through most of the Middle Ages. It was a necessary evil; but of course not something that your Protestant forefathers found very endearing. …Nor something which they understood, since they were looking at the Bible alone (paying no heed to the Church's historical experience or the realities connected to it) and, since they did not see "this kind" of Pope in the 1st Century, the Papacy was assumed to be an invalid human tradition.

 

So, in a very real sense, the Papacy's struggle for leadership with secular forces (i.e., the Byzantine and Holy Roman/German Emperors) led directly to the Protestant reformation, which in turn (we Catholic would argue) led to secularism (the disintergration of Christendom – Christian civilization), and thus our long-overdue response to it at Vatican II, which (if you notice) rid the Papacy of a lot of its "imperial trappings" and restored it to much of what it was in the earlier centuries of the Church. The Pope is no longer carried around on an imperial-style litter, for example. :-) He no longer wears the three-crowned tiara, etc. He also (per the canons of Vatican II) permits the bishops to manage the internal affairs of their own dioceses. Of course, this has recently back-fired on us with the pedophile scandal in the priesthood, with our critics claiming that Rome itself is to blame because of the mis-management of American bishops. So, it seems we Catholics can't "win" with our critics, no matter what we do. God have mercy on us all.

 

As for your observation about the church of Jerusalem sending Peter and John to Samaria in Acts 8, two things … Firstly, one has to realize that Peter was an Apostle (one-sent); the Pope is not. The Pope of Rome does not succeed to the full ministry of the Apostle Peter, but only to the episcopal dimension of Peter's ministry. In other words, a modern Pope is clearly not an Apostle of Christ (as the Twelve were), nor can he originate any new revelation, as the Twelve were empowered to. So, when Peter is sent to Samaria, he is sent, not as Pope or as a bishop, but as an Apostle.

 

Secondly, … When Acts 8 speaks of how the Jerusalem church "sent" Peter and John, one has to appreciate the context in which it is speaking – that is, the liturgical practice of the Church at the time. For example, take a look at Acts 13:1-3, which reads:

 

This is how it would have worked for the church of Jerusalem in Acts 8 too. Hearing that Philip the deacon had converted the Samaritans, the leaders in Jerusalem would have gathered and prayed about it, and then Peter and John would have been selected by the Spirit as the ones chosen to go. It's in this sense that the church "sent them," not in an authoritative sense. One might also propose that Peter was chosen to go because he held the ultimate authority to "bind and loosen" and the Samaritans were one of the three tiers of evangelization (Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles – per Acts 1:8) which Acts recounts for us, and Peter is there (to "loosen") every time one of these new groups is brought into the Church.

 

My concern is how this dual role (shepherd and servent) is lived out.

 

Well, you're not alone in that, Michael. That's our Catholic concern too; and it is a struggle that every Pope must contend with, just as every Christian pastor, and every father in a family, must. When must a human father act as part of the family, and when must he act as the ruler of the family?? There are no easy answers for this. There is no formal "recipe" to follow. Rather, a Christian leader (whether he be the Pope of Rome or a Lutheran pastor) must submit his ministry to Christ every day and pray for the wisdom to exercise his ministry prudently and in accord with God's will.

 

a) Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate the bishops of Asia Minor in the late second century over the date of Easter. They rejected his demands, and Irenaeus and other brother bishops "sternly rebuked" Victor. The phrasing of Eusebius is interesting, he says Victor "attempted" to cut the Asiatics off from the common fellowship. The word "attempt" implies that he was unsuccessful, but how can that be if he is Vicar of Christ in an absolute sense with full jurisdiction over every diocese and church of the world?

 

:-) Well, …Please permit me to correct you here, Michael. You are quoting Eusebius of Caesara's embellishment of the story, not Ireneaus' own account (as is also quoted word-for-word by Eusebius). Eusebius was a semi-Arian, and had a few other problems; and there is nothing in the statements of Ireneaus himself that even remotely implies a 'stern rebuke.' Rather, what Ireneaus does is appeal to the authority of Victor's own predecessor, Pope Anicetus, and how Anicetus handled the problem of the Asian Easter date in the days of Polycarp. What's more, while Ireneaus (an Asian native himself) clearly opposes Victor's excommunication, he never once implies that Victor lacks the authority to do it! :-) Rather, Ireneaus' whole approach to the problem – the very reason he appeals to Victor's own Roman tradition (per Anicetus) – presumes that Victor does possess the authority to excommunicate the Asians. Indeed, don't forget, that this is the SAME Ireneaus of Lyon who wrote ...

 

And, indeed, Ireneaus' own church of Lyon, even though the vast majority of its members (like Ireneaus himself) were Johnine Greek Christians from Asia, STILL followed the Roman Easter date, not the Asian one. ...Because Rome was Lyon's immediate patriarchate. So, this was far from a "stern rebuke." Rather, Ireneaus, who was then the elderly and very venerable disciple of Polycarp used his considerable clout to persuade Pope Victor (his junior) to drop the excommunication. ...Which of course he did.

 

In addition to this, one must appreciate three things:

 

1) Pope Victor was clearly concerned about the universal unity of the Church and wanted to make sure that Easter (the most important feast of the Liturgical calendar) could be shared by all Christians together. In this, he of course turned out to be right, since the Council of Nicaea (135 years later) would adopt the Roman Easter date as a matter of canon law. This is also why Eusebius puts his "spin" on the account – because, writing in A.D. 321 (4 years before Nicaea) he favored the liberal positon that Nicaea would shoot down.

 

2) In rejecting Victor's mandate, Polycrates of Ephesus (metropolitan of all Asia) and the other Asian bishops were not pitting their own authory against the Papacy (as was the case with Luther et al), but were trying to hold fast (per 2 Thess 2:15) to their own, native Apostolic Traditions. The problem here was that the Apostles themselves had left the regional churches with opposing traditions. This was probably because Asia was heavily influenced by 1st Century Jewish Christianity, whereas Rome (and most other sees – e.g. Alexandria and Antioch) were more influened by Pauline/Gentile Christianity. So, in opposing Victor, the Asians were just trying to be faithful to Apostolic Tradition as they knew it.

 

...and ....

 

3) Ireneaus' argument in getting Pope Victor to drop the excommunication focused on the fact that the dispute was not dogmatic in nature, but merely liturgical; and the Catholic Church has always had a vast wealth of different Liturgies (Rites), each designed to communicate the Catholic Faith to a different, particular culture. In this, we Catholics do not believe that a Pope is necessarily empowered to adapt or overturn established Apostolic Rites. Rather, even today we recognize over 24 distinct Rites within the Catholic Church (e.g. Roman, Byzantine, Maronite, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, etc.) and the Pope of Rome only has direct province over the Roman Rite (the Rite to which he belongs), whereas the other rites are the province of their native patriarchs or metropolitans. So, when you refer to the "Vicar of Christ" having "full jurisdiction over every diocese and church of the world," this does not mean that he can arbitrarily change or nullify an Apostolic Rite of the Church. Rather, this would only be possible if that rite were presenting something (i.e., expressing a doctrine) that contradicted established dogma and threatened universal doctrinal unity. Other than that, a Pope has no direct province over the other rites and must permit and protect their organic existence. This is why Victor withdrew the excommunication – because the thing he was trying to change by Papal fiat was an element an Apostolic Liturgy, and because (as Ireneaus showed him) this element did not truly threaten the universal unity of the Church, since the variant had always been tolerated by Victor's predecessors.

 

You might say that the celebration of Pascha on 14 Nisan was established by St. John and therefore pulled rank over Victor. But how can an apostle pull rank over the Vicar of Christ?

 

Because the Pope is only "Vicar of Christ" in an episcopal sense, not in an Apostolic sense. The Pope is the ultimate, Spirit-protected custodian of Sacred Tradition. He may not invent or originate new Sacred Tradition, but is bound by what the Apostles left us. Rather, at the very best, he may adapt or change its form (so as to fit contemporary circumstances – i.e., "bind and loosen"), but he may never change the substance of what the Apostles established. When it comes to the Asian Easter date, the Pope did have the right to adapt the form ...which is of course what Nicaea eventually did, and what several Popes after Nicaea did (because the Easter date has been adapted several times as we have improved the math of our calendar). But, it was prudent for Victor to back off and not press his full authority in this case, since it threatened the Asians' fidelity (as they saw it) to what the Apostles had left them. This is why the issue was set aside ...as it is set aside today for several of our Eastern Catholic rites, who celebrate Easter on a date different than Rome does. In authentic Catholicism, there is room for this. One does not have to be "Roman" in order to be Catholic.

 

Besides, didn't Nicea eventually cast out the keepers of 14 Nisan: proving that a Council *can* pull rank over an apostolic custom? So if a Council did, why couldn't Pope Victor?

 

Well, 325 A.D. was a very different time than 190 A.D. :-) In 190, when Victor was Pope, the Church was an illegal, underground society persecuted by the Roman government. In 325, the Roman government was an ally of the Church; and the very nature of the Council of Nicaea (as I touched on above) was an exercise of imperial law – Constantine's initiative to straighten out some serious questions that effected his "state cult." So, in short, Nicaea could do what Victor didn't do because it had the authority of imperial law behind it. :-) What's more, by 325, most of the Asian churches had come around to Rome's way of thinking and there were not a whole lot of people in Asia who objected to the Nicene canon. So, it wasn't like it was in 190, when all of Asia would be cut off from the Church. If this were the case, Constantine never would have allowed Nicaea to address it (since the objective was to unite the Church, and thus hold his Empire together). Indeed, circumstances had changed dramatically; and most of the people who followed the Johnine date were actually living in eastern Syria and Mesopotamia at the time (A.D. 325) – that is, outside of the Roman Empire. St. Athanasius address this in detail in his writings.

 

But what really troubles me, Mark, is that Victor even "attempted" to cut off churches for such a flimsy reason. That smacks of domineering, to me.

 

Oh, not at all. His intention was to unify the Church; and Victor was by no means alone in this. Rather, what he did was call for local synods to be held from Gaul to Mesopotamia in order to discern when most of the churches celebrated Easter. The result was that the Roman custom was indeed universal, not only among the three patriarchates (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch), but among the vast majority of the metropolitanates. This being the case, the Asians were "the odd man out." It would be far easier for them to change their custom than for the rest of the Church to do so. So, Victor told them to "get in synch" with everyone else; and when they refused, it seemed to Victor (and to many other bishops throughout the Church) that the Asians were violating universal unity – that their behavior was schismatic, and that they didn't care about the Church's universality. ...Which is perhaps a valid criticism; but it doesn't address the real motivation of the Asians, which was their desire to do what John did and their feeling that they did not have the right to depart from this. But, Victor was not some kind of "lone bully" in any of this, Michael. He had most of the Church on his side. Anti-Catholic controversialists who address this event tend to leave that part out. :-)

 

So my question is, how much domineering do Christians have to simply accept or swallow? Should Polycrates and the other Asia Minor bishops have simply obeyed Victor of Rome?

 

They should have respected the intention of Victor and his allies (the universal unity of the Church) and worked with him to solve the controversy, rather than focusing on their local concerns alone. This is a recurrent problem with the East, and it has to do with the Greek idea of the "polis" (the city-state) being the be-all-end-all" of a person's identity and the limit of a persons allegiance. Yet, as we know, there is only one Body, one Church (Ephes 4:1-6), and that Church is universal, and must be concerned with all its members and their unity. The Greeks have consistently had a problem in this area. For example, the modern Greek Orthodox think that we Romans are in error in regard to the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed and a few other things. But, when have they ever sent us missionaries or reached out to us so as to "win us back to orthodoxy"??? :-) Never. Rather, their consistent request has been for us to leave them alone and not try to impose our "novelties" on them. Is this the mentality of a Catholic (universal) Christian?? :-)

 

Yet, when it comes to Polycrates and Victor, both were right in their intentions. They merely allowed their different agendas to conflict with each other needlessly.

 

As for how a Christian is to be obedient to the Roman Papacy .... I think this has to do with appropriate context. Clearly, the Papacy is the final interpreter of Apostolic doctrine and has ultimate canonical authority over us as a pastor. But, as I said above, it does not have unqualified authority over our liturgical life or own daily Christian walk. Such a view is the rash presumption of Protestants, and totally alien to Catholic experience. Rather, both I and Pope Benedict XVI hold to the same Catholic faith. We are brothers in that faith, and walk side-by-side with each other in that Faith, each holding of personal understanding of it. It is only when a serious controversy arises that Benedict can and should act as an authoritative father to me, or to any Catholic. Aside from this, we are (like you Protestants) left to our own devices and to our own pious judgments as to how to live and express the Faith as we know it to be.

 

I seem to recall that In the Dictatus Papae (spelling?), Gregory VII Hildebrand claimed that only popes could wear the imperial insignia and that all should kiss his feet. Was he correct in claiming such?

 

Well, ... A couple things. Firstly, he didn't forbid anyone else wearing the imperial insignia, since Pope Gregory VII recognized the validity of the German Holy Roman Emperor. The issue with Pope Gregory was "who trumped who" in terms of authority. You will recall how I mentioned that the Pope started out as a political subject of the Roman Empire, which he was. And, even in the Christian Roman Empire, he was still just a subject of the Emperor, even becoming the Emperor's Pontifex Maximus. In this, it was impossible for anyone to be elected Pope without the Emperor's personal endorsement; for the Emperor had to ratify the election. Yet, after the Western Empire fell, things began to changed, first practically, then legislatively. For, while from 476 until 800, the Popes of Rome were still technically the political subjects of the Emperors at Constantinople, after 476, they held a lot of practical political leadership in Italy and most of the West. Even Pope Gregory the Great took personal command of the Italian cities in the 600's during the Lombard invasions, when the local Byzantine magistrates proved to be incompetent. Then, during the Acacian Schism of 482-519 (37 years), when a series of Monophysite Byzantine Emperors led all three Eastern patriarchs (Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) and the bishop of Constantinople (Constantinople was not yet a patriarchate) to deny the Council of Chalcedon, Rome was seriously cut off from Constantinople and did not recognize its political authority at all. Thus, after the orthodox Emperor Justin I (Justinian's uncle) came to the throne in 518, he summonded Pope John to Constantinope in 526 and had the Pope re-crown him as true Emperor, thus legitimizing him as the true Emperor of Christendom. This created a very important precedent, because it meant that an Emperor's true authority as a Christian Emperor came from the recognition of Peter's successor! Thereafter, as I mentioned before, when the Romans/Byzantines of Italy rebelled against the Iconoclast Emperors, the Pope was proclaimed "Duke of the Romans" – that is, the true repesentative and commander of the Christian Empire in Italy and the West (because the Emperor was a heretic). It was this position that gave the Pope the right and duty to crown the orthodox Frankish king Charlmagne as the revised Emperor of the West, or "Holy" Roman Emperor, because he was in doctrinal accord with the faith of the Christian Empire – the faith of Rome.

 

So, from this, we see a progression of how the Pope went from a political subject of the Emperor to the Emperor's superior. ....Because, if one is going to maintain that a civilization is subject to the Church (as the Romans/Byzantines & medieval Germanic kingdoms did), it therefore follows that the successor of Peter (the earthly Vicar of the Heavenly King, Jesus Christ) is superior to the rule of secular emperors and kings who are subject to Christ, the "King of Kings." This was Hildebrands mentality, and it is a sound position ...IF one presemes a Christian Empire with political power being a matter of Divine right.

 

Now, obviously, we do not have such a political situation today, nor does it seem likely that we will in the future. Thus, we do not claim that the Pope has authority over our democratically-elected leaders, etc., or even political authority over regular Catholics. The world has changed dramatically. Perhaps for the better, perhaps not.

 

What's more, the reason that Hildebrand (Gregory VII) commanded rulers (esp. Holy Roman Emperors) to kiss his feet was to make it clear that they were his vassals and not vise-versa – that the imperial crown depended on the Papacy's authority, and that the Pope was not subject to the medieval Christian Emperor. This was especially important because the German Emperors wanted to behave like their Byzantine colleages had done (and were still doing in the East), whereby they would decide who would be named bishop, and even who would become Pope. The Papacy had to prevent this in order to keep the Church independent from the political designs of the secular rulers; for if the German Emperors had their way, churchmen would become nothing more than political agents of the Emperors and other European kings, just as they were in Constantinople. And this of course was the very reason why the Popes pulled away from Constantinople – so that a heretical king or emperor could not dictate Church doctrine. And so, that's why Pope Gregory VII acted in the dictatorial way he did. If he did otherwise, the Emperors would have walked all over him and the Papacy would have become a mere figure-head position.

 

I note further that Pius IX at Vatican I was displeased with one of the Eastern Rite Patriarchs, and, while the latter was kissing Pius' foot as customary, then placed his foot on the Patriarch's neck and berated him as being disloyal. Again, this implies a kind of immature or bossy power-mongering by Gregory and Pius that doesn't put the papal office in a very flattering light.

 

I have heard several people (usually Eastern Orthodox) recount that story, but have not been able to document it. :-) Would you happen to know the source? Also, even if the story is not apocryphal, it is just another example of what I described above – a case of the Pope having to establish his authority when it was seriously questioned. What's more, the story is not about customarily kissing the Popes foot. That is not a Roman Catholic custom (the custom is to kiss his ring). Rather, the account maintains that this Eastern patriarch was commanded to submit to the dogma of Papal infalliblity and so kissed the Pope's foot as a sign of his submission. It was then that Pius (supposedly) put his other foot on him in order to establish his surpremacy for anyone else who wanted to question the dogma. But, again, I have not been able to find a source for this story. Yet, even if it is true, one has to remember that the pre-Vatican II Church was VERY medieval in its behavior. Such an act seems very obnoxious to us today, and would never been tolerated in the modern Vatican. Yet, this was not the modern Vatican, but the 1870's. :-) If a 19th Century king or queen (e.g. Victoria of Great Britain) did something similar, no one would blink an eye. That's the nature of what we would be dealing with ...if the story is true.

 

c) I suppose the above two points raise the question, do Catholics regard the position of pope as Vicar of Christ – a kind of Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Christ – as being given absolute authority over the other bishops, and a right to micro-manage their dioceses?

 

No. Vatican II made this clear. Medieval Popes began to micro-manage other dioceses because of heresy and because of political interference (viz. the medieval kings). But, this is an extraordiary and unnatural condition for the Church. Rather, with St. Cyprian, we believe that all bishops share in the Chair of Peter – that is, the teaching authority of the Church. Rome merely holds this Chair of Peter in the ultimate sense – in the universal sphere. But, in the regional sphere, the Chair of Peter is held by a metropolitan bishop, and in the local sphere, the Chair of Peter is held by the local bishop. A local bishop has supreme authority within his own diocese unless he violates established dogma or canon law. If this is the case, his flock may appeal to his superior, the metropolitan bishop, who holds supreme authority within his metropolitanate. If this metropolitan bishop violates established dogma or canon law, then his flock can appeal to the ultimate Chair of Peter – to Peter's own, literal successor – at Rome. Rome can also, in extreme and merited cases, directly interfere with any other diocese, for the Pope is ultimately responsible for everybody and there are no limits imposed on his ministry. This is what Vatican I was concerned about – the false assertion that there are some sectors of the Church which the Pope cannot minister to. We believe otherwise. He can minister to every Catholic; he is responsible for all (the entire flock – John 21:15-19). But, this does not mean that he ordinarily intrudes into another bishop's sphere of authority. He merely can do so if he needs to – e.g. Pope Victor did possess the authority to make the Asians change their Easter date. ...even if it would not have been prudent for him to press the issue.

 

The image of Peter bossing around the other Twelve or expecting them to kiss his feet is one difficult for me to picture.

 

Well, again, that would be an anachronism, Michael ...just as it would be to try to imagine Peter as Pope during a time when the civilization itself was nominally Christian! :-) Clearly, St. Peter himself never had to deal with secular politics and the like in the context of Church discipline. Peter ruled a Church that was an illegal, underground society at odds with the secular world. Gregory VII ruled a Church that was deeply intertwined with the secular world. Big difference. :-)

 

What's more, both Peter and the other Apostles were inspired by the same Holy Spirit. All Twelve of them (plus St. Paul and others) were infallible in terms of their teaching authority. This is because they were Apostles of Jesus Christ. Now, as I said above, we do not believe that the Pope, or any other Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) bishop succeeds to the full ministy of the Apostles. Rather, we believe that they only succeed to the episcopal ministry of the Apostles. In other words, neither the Pope nor the other bishops are inspired by God in all that they teach. The Apostles of course were. Rather, the Pope's infallibility is merely a matter of the Spirit (per Christ's promise in Matt 16:19, Luke 22:31-32, etc.) preventing a Pope (or bishops teaching solemnly in union with a Pope) from leading the Church into formal error (per John 14:16-17 & 16:13). So, while Peter would never have bossed his fellow Apostles around (because they all possessed the same infallibility that he did), it is quite possible (and sometimes necessary) for the Bishop of Rome to "boss" his fellow bishops around, since his is the ministry of unity, and since these other bishops are not guaranteed infalliblity in any ultimate sense, but only Peter's episcopal successor is. See the distinction?

 

What's more, Peter himself does "boss around" quite a few people in Scripture (e.g. Ananias and Sepphira in Acts 5, Simon Magus in Acts 8, the heretics he condemns in 1 Peter) who do not share in his infallible Apostolic charism. This is precisely why Jesus gave the Church such authority in Matt 18:17-18 – that is, to maintain orthodoxy.

 

2. How far is a Christian called to obey the pope? From Innocent IV onward, certainly through Leo X and Pius V, Catholic magistrates were commanded to burn twice-convicted heretics at the stake, on pain of being excommunicated themselves.

 

Yes. But, this was all in the context of a Christian society and Christian secular government, in which heresy was a capital offense. In commanding this, the Popes were merely commanding that churchmen obey the secular law (as even Scripture says to do). We obviously cannot apply that example to our modern society. :-) Unrepentant heretics were burned because, if they were let go, they would corrupt the "little ones" with their teachings and endanger their souls (the vast majority of Christians being illiterate, easily led peasants at this time). So, that was the mentality of the day. Medieval Christian society simply could not tolerate the kind of mass confusion and heterodoxy that is rampant in society today, nor could this Christian society hold together under such conditions. It would have come apart at the seams. The Popes were protecting against this.

 

The older Catholic Encyclopedia article on Inquisition makes this quite clear.

 

Well, we don't deny it today either, Michael. :-) Yes, the Church once taught that burning heretics was a good thing. But, you have to appreciate the context in which that teaching was given and the reasons behind it. Look at Acts 15. There, the Church formally teaches that Gentile Christians are forbidden to eat meat with blood in it – that is, unkosher meat. No Christian group maintains this teaching today. So, why was it given? It was given so that Gentiles would not alienate their Jewish Christian brethren who still kept keeping kosher. But, once Judaism and Christianity formally split, there was no reason for the prohibition any more. The burning of heretics is similar to this. Once secular society itself was no longer Christian – one heteorodoxy was tolerated in secularism (as it is today), there is no point to burning a heretic, and burning a heretic is suddenly nothing short of murder. In the old days, it was "self-defense" – a defense of the Christian society.

 

Further, one of points (number 33) on which Luther was excommunicated by Leo X in "Exsurge Domine" (1520) was for teaching that "It is against the Spirit to burn heretics".

 

:-) Ah, but Luther himself later advocated the burning of "heretics." But, Luther's contradiction aside, ... Leo X was condemning Luther for violating canon law. Both secular law, and so canon law, that maintained that unrepentant heretics should be executed. In denying this, Luther was opposing the authority of the Church and undermining the structure of society.

 

An old Dominican book in my possession tells the story of Michael Ghislieri (future Pius V) rescuing a heretic from being burnt alive by convincing him of the error of his teaching. While of course I laud Pius V for saving the man's life, it is clear from the context that the poor man was slated for the stake *not* for civil insurrection or crime, but *solely* for teaching heresy.

 

But, Michael, heresy was a civil crime at the time. :-) There was no societal separation of Church and state as far as religion was concerned. What's more, you were not executed for being a heretic, you were executed for refusing to renounce your heresy. This is how the future Pope was able to save the man's life. A great many peope were saved in this way.

 

It was thought that teaching error, in and of itself, made one worthy of torture and death: against all principles of the sanctity of human conscience later taught by Vatican II and John Paul II.

 

Again, Vatican II and John Paul II are from a very different time and societal context than Pius V, for example. Here, you are of course assuming a modern American point of view. :-) But, the sensibilities of modern Americans are not the sensibilities of our ancient and medieval forefathers. To our forefathers, heresy was considered far worse than murder ...something most Christians have no trouble executing people for today. For, while murder kills the body, heresy can bring death to a soul; and our forefathers were far more concerned with souls than we modern people are. They wanted to protect "the little ones."

 

To me, this is highly problematic. When popes command Catholics to burn people at the stake for teaching false doctrine, on pain of suffering excommunication themselves, that is commanding the people of God to sin, in an official capacity.

 

Well, do you consider legally-sanctioned capital punishment a sin? Is it sinful for the state to execute an unrepentant murdered today? If not, then you should have no objection to what was legally-sanctioned capital punishment in Middle Ages, for example. For, unrepentant heretics were considered to be the worst possible criminals against society. That's simply how they looked at it. Our modern, democratic freedom of thought was simply not a reality back then.

 

Mark, what good is infallibility, if several thousands of people were burned alive for the sake of conscience?

 

Well, first of all, you are presuming freedom of conscience as a God-given right. :-) That is an American doctrine, not necessarily a Christian one. Secondly, and more to the point, we do not believe that a Pope speaks infallibly in terms of Church discipline, but only in matters relating to formal dogma. And no Pope ever formally declared that capital punishment (viz. heretics ...or otherwise) is the dogmatic position of the Church. Rather, the Popes merely advocated what was the established practice and secular law of the day. This does not rise to the level of an immutable, infallible teaching of the Church. This is an all-important distinction.

 

If the Holy Spirit didn't keep Innocent IV, Leo X and other Medieval popes from making that dreadful error of judgment, what reason do we have to suppose that they are infallible at all?

 

Again, you are not applying the dogma of Papal Infallibility correctly – that is, as Vatican I specifically defined it. In other for a Pope to speak infallibly, he must a) be teaching the entire, universal Church, b) his teaching must be in the areas of faith and morals (not science, or politics, etc.), and c) he must declare it to be an ex cathedra ("from the Chair") statement, thus making it perfectly clear that this is the Church's dogmatic position. Innocent IV, Leo X, and other medieval popes never met any of these criteria in their statements on capital punishment. Thus, we are simply not dealing with binding Church dogma. Ergo, a Catholic (if he must) is free to disagree with them. However, a Catholic would not be free to disobey the Pope's authority. It is one thing to personally disagree with that which is not dogmatically binding, and another to disobey a teaching of a Pope.

 

In other words, if Innocent IV commands me to burn people, should I obey him because he is Vicar of Christ?

 

Well, that's a pretty anachronistic analogy, don't you think? :-) Essentially, if a Pope tells you to obey the law as it is recognized by the Church (which is what Innocent IV was doing), you should do it. If a Pope tells you do something sinful, you are not obliged to do it, since that would be beyond the scope of his authority. However, you make a mistake in applying the buring of heretics to our present societal context. As I said, to burn someone for heresy in our modern, free and democratic society would be the sin of murder. To do it in the context of medieval Christendom, it would be valid capital punishment – a case in which society was protecting itself; and so not a sin.

 

If not, on what grounds do I question his command? But if Innocent IV is wrong in his command to me, why should I trust Pius XI when he says that couples who contracept "are branded with the guilt of grave sin" (Casti connubii)? (To be fair however, my wife and I do not in fact contracept; this is just an example.)

 

Okay. Well, again, the issue would be one of context. ...e.g. to take a man's life in war is not a sin; to take a man's life in a church pew is a sin. As for something like Paul VI's (not Pius XI's) Humanae Vitae – that is, the modern Church's formal position against contraception, you are correct to point out that this is a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, and thus does not rise to the level of formal dogma. However, as I said above, valid disagreement is not the same as disobedience. In this, we have the distinction between formal Papal infallibility and organic Papal infallibility. As I said above, we know when a Papal teaching is formally infallible and dogmatically binding because the teaching meets the criteria of Vatican I. Yet, this does not mean that a Pope cannot be teaching infallibly otherwise or that we are free to disobey a Pope's instruction whenever we please, as long as it is not ex cathedra. In this, I think the following principal applies: Namely, we can say with utmost certainty when a Pope is teaching infallibly (i.e., because he makes an ex cathedra statement, per the Vatican I definition, etc.). However, we cannot say with utmost certainty when a Pope is not speaking infallibly. Thus, we should always obey and give assent to a Pope's teaching (per Heb 13:17), tentatively presuming infallibility unless or until the Papacy itself (the only ultimate arbiter of infallibility) says otherwise via a formal, ex cathedra statement to the contrary.

 

In this, it may be helpful for you if I distinguish between the three areas of Catholic doctrine: 1) dogma, 2) canon law, and 3) theolgeoumena (or theological opinon).

 

1) Dogmas are those things which one must believe in order to be a Catholic – those things which are solemnly defined by Councils and/or ex cathedra proclamations of the Papacy (e.g. the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union of Christ, Mary's Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc.)

 

2) Canon Law are those areas in which a Catholic does not necessarily have to believe or have to agree with the Church, but must obey the Church in order to be a Catholic. An example of this would be something like priestly celibacy. A Catholic is free to believe that priests should be married; however, this Catholic is not free to encourage his priest to marry or, if he's a priest himself, to take a wife in violation of the Church's discipline.

 

....and ...

 

3) Theolegoumena or theological opinions are those areas in which a Catholic is free to believe one thing or another. For example, as a Catholic, I can believe that the Gospel of John was personally written by John, or that he dictated it to someone else who wrote it, or that John's disciples wrote it (based on his oral Traditions) after John's death. There is no formal position of the Church on such points, and there are a great many things like this in Catholicism. In fact, all dogmas start out as theolegoumena. Mary's Immaculate Conception, for example, was merely a theolegoumenon, debated in the Church for centuries, before it was formally dogmatized in 1857.

 

But, in regard to the burning of heretics and the prohibition of contraception, both these things are, at this moment in Church history, merely a matter of # 2 above – that is, Canon Law. As a Catholic, one could (or can) believe that the medieval Popes erred when they advocated the execution of heretics. ....That they were uncivilzed barbarians who murdered people unjustly. HOWEVER, .... If one lived during this time, one was not free to challenge or usurp the Pope's authority (as Luther did) and publicly oppose the canon law of the Church, or deny its authority. Likewise, in regard to contraception, ... A Catholic is perfectly free to believe that Paul VI went too far in his teaching against contraception. Yet, this same Catholic is still bound by Paul VI's teaching as far as obedience goes, and is not free to contracept. True, it is possible (although highly unlikely) that a future Pope may adapt over relax Paul VI's position, since Humanae Vitae is not a dogmatic, ex cathedra statement. Yet, it is still binding all the same as a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium, and so has the force of ecclesial canon law. Can you see the distinction? For, many of your questions above are misapplying how we Catholics understand infallibility and confusing the issues of dogma and canon law. Both are binding, but only dogma is infallible. Canon law (for the most part) can be "bound or loosened" depending on the situation in which the Church finds itself. The only thing that cannot be changed are the substantive, Apostolic truths involved in an expression of canon law, such as those found in regard to human dignity in Humanae Vitae.

 

3. Am I right that it was taught (and perhaps still is) that, if a Catholic eats meat on a Friday of Lent, that this is a "grave sin" – in other words, potentially a mortal sin deserving of eternal hell? Mark, this is the kind of thing that scares the hell out of Lutheran.

 

:-) And understandably so. But, here's the real deal .... If anyone ever went to hell for eating meat on a Friday during Lent, it was not because they ate meat. No sensible Catholic believes that (or has ever believed such a thing ...we read 1 Corinth 8:8 too! ;-)). Rather, if they went to hell, it was because they directly and intentionally disobeyed the Church, which has the authority to bind and loosen. That's where "grave sin" comes in. The same would be true of directly and intentionally missing Mass on a Sunday without a good reason. As Catholics, we believe that we are under authority, and that authority comes from Christ – i.e., "He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me." So, eating meat on a Friday or deciding to sleep until noon on a Sunday are beside the point. God doesn't care what we eat or have anything against us sleeping when we're tired. The point is willful disobedience to the Magisterium – the leadership of the Family, which has decided that the Family is going to communally express its love and devotion to God in a certain way, and woe to the man who breaks that communal unity. ...that is, willingly and intentionally. How can such a man truly claim to be in the Church? See Hebrews 10:23-27. For example, if a father of a family declares (with his fatherly authority ...which comes from God – Ephes 3:14-15) that all of his children will gather for dinner every Sunday, and one of the children decides he doesn't want to obey – that he doesn't want to meet with the family, can we say that this child is truly part of the family? Or has he not sinned against the family in a way, by violating its unity and their father's authority to determine how the family will live together??? Again, this is the only "grave sin" involved in eating eat of Friday during Lent. It is a test of obedience or disobedience and of one's commitment to the unity of the Church.

 

Why are the popes and the Western Church so juridical about this?

 

Well, ... Our Greek brethren will cited that as an example of "Latin legalism." :-) But, they see all of us Westerners (both Protestant and Roman Catholic) that way. Yet, the answer to your question of course resides in what I said above. We are not legalistic, but presenting a mystery of obedience. And once you explain it that way to the Eastern Orthodox, they understand it too. ;-) For, there are many things in the Byzantine Rite which also work that way (e.g. how a married priest is forbidden to have relations with his wife on Saturday night before the Sunday Liturgy. This of course doesn't mean that God is against sex within marriage, but is a reminder to the priest of his eternal calling as a priest and of the original, Apostolic discipline – pre-692 A.D. – in which married priests were required to live continently with their wives).

 

The Orthodox keep their fasts even more rigorously – but *not* on pain of sin, certainly not on pain of eternal hell.

 

But, the EO's also lack any form of united, magisterial authority. :-) Ergo, what do they have to really be obedient to? One bishops says to fast strictly, another makes liberal allowences (oikonomia). Who sets the tone for the united family?? Who is the father to all?? Thus, the mystery of obedience that we present in Roman Catholicism cannot properly be expressed among the disunited Byzantines. This is partly a difference in culture, and we must be respectful of that. But, the fact remains that obedience and legitimate authority are sorely lacking in the Eastern experience, esp, among the EO's, who are seriously disunited and heterodox (save for the basic dogmas of the ancient Ecumenical Councils). This is the fruit of centuries of isolation from the Roman Magisterium.

 

Indeed, Michael ... Look at Acts 15 again. I refer to the prohibition against eating meat sacrificed to idols or meat with blood in it. If a Gentile Christian disobeyed this command and ate meat with blood in it, how do you think the Apostles would handle that? Clearly, by eating bloody meat, this Gentile Christian would scandalize his Jewish Christian brethren and create division in the Church. So, would there be no punishment for creating division in the Church? Would that not be a sin? Would it not endanger the Gentile Christian's soul? We think it would. And, again, it would not be because bloody meat is sinful in and of itself. ...Nor meat eaten on a Friday. :-) Rather, the problem would be disobedience to the Church's decree and the resulting scandal – the very reason that the Church (in Acts 15) issued the decree. And so, St. Paul, in 1 Corinth 8:10-13 writes ...

 

"If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be 'built up' to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died. When you SIN IN THIS WAY against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are SINNING against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again ..."

 

So, while Paul clearly teaches that eating unkosher meat sacrified to an idol can't do a mature Christian any harm, he clearly says that violating the ecclesial mandate of Acts 15 is a SIN – a SIN that can lead both the violator and his weak brother to "destruction." Such is the importance and the power of Church authority, for it is the authority of the Holy Spirit Himself (see Acts 15:28).

 

Why dangle people over hellfire for the sake of food on a certain day? Again, to a Lutheran, this smacks of violating Paul's Galatians principle, "For freedom Christ has set us free, therefore let no one put you again under a yoke of bondage" (5:1).

 

Again, look at what this same Paul says in 1 Corinth 8:10-13, which is in referernce to the Apostolic discipline Acts 15. Violating a discipline of the Church results in sin; not because the thing itself is necessarily an issue, but because obedience to Christ's Church is necessary.

 

Likewise his words to the Colossians and the Romans, "Let no one judge you as to food or drink or sabbath days", etc.

 

Right. In terms of the things themselves, but obedience is a separate issue. Eating bloody meat or not eating bloody meat will not lead to holiness; but obeying the Church can and does.

 

It just sounds extreme to bring "grave sin" into the equation when it comes to keeping the fast on a certain day, OR ELSE.

 

Well, ... Only if you approach the issue from your native, Protestant perspective, Michael. But, of course, we do not approach it that way. To a Protestant, Christianity is primarily a personal thing – something that effects only Jesus and the Christian. But, in Catholicism (and also in Eastern Orthodoxy), Christianity is as much a communal thing as it is a personal thing – the mystery of the Body of Christ, and the ministry of leadership that unites that Body on earth. This, again, is why obedience is important.

 

4. Finally as far as my *theoretical* questions go, I am troubled by the claimed status of Vatican I as an ecumencial council with certainly infallible decrees, not only because it was really a council of the West (Louis Bouyer and others do not give the Western synods the status of ecumenical councils, since the East was not present), but *particularly* because it was not unanimous when it came to the decrees of immediate papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility. As you know, fully one-third of the council fathers voted against the dogmas, in writing, before they left Rome. To my mind, that makes Vatican I questionable, since the ancient standard for ecumencial councils was that they should be virtually unanimous. For the Spirit speaks clearly in the Body, not with mixed voice.

 

Well, ... A couple things: I don't know where you're getting the idea that one-third actually dissented from the Council prior to its conclusion. That is simply not the historical reality. Rather, all the fathers of Vatican I subscribed to the dogma. There were no dissenters in the end – not among the Council fathers themselves. The only Catholics who dissented were the so-called "Old Catholics" of Germany – a group led by German university professors, and that was mostly for political and nationalistic reasons (e.g. Chancelor Otto von Bismark was very threatened by Papal infallibility and what it might imply for the emerging secular German state viz. its independence from its "Holy Roman Empire" heritage. ;-).

 

Secondly, the idea that ancient Ecumenical Councils all ended in 100% consensus among the attending bishops is an Eastern Orthodox myth. In fact, not one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils concluded without anathemas and excommunications hurled at some of its members. Nicaea deposed and excommunicated Eusebius of Nicomedia and several other supporters of Arius; Constantinople I did the same for all the Arian and semi-Arian bishops in Byzantium; the Council of Ephesus excommunicated Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople and all of his supporters; Chalcedon excommunicated Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria and the entire Egyptian delegation; Constantinople II posthumously excommunicated three attendees of the two previous Ecumenical Councils; Constantinople III excommunicated the attending Patriarch of Antioch; and Nicaea II excommunicated a great many reigning Iconoclast bishops, who were not even permitted to attend the Council. :-) So, 100% agreement was never the result of any Ecumenical Council. There were always winners and losers. And while Vatican I had its "loosers" (those fathers who disputed Papal Infallibility or questioned the wisdom of dogmatizing it), it did not result in any excommunications, but in full assent on the part of the "opposition" ...as was also the case of most of the ancient Councils, where many bishops gave their assent so as not to be deposed and excommunicated.

 

Now, as for seeing Vatican I as a "Council of the West" rather than an Ecumenical Council, there may be some validity in this, given that Pope John Paul made the open invitation to the Eastern Orthodox to jointly explore and re-examine all dogmas proclaimed by the Catholic Church after the Schism. In essence, everything is on the table and we are ready to talk. :-) That's how confident we are that our doctrine is orthodox. For, we obviously cannot retract our established dogmas. But, we can certainly amend and re-define them in order to accomodate Eastern theology and an Eastern point of view. For, we are now ready to do that as well. ...But, so far, the EO's want nothing to do with this. They will not take us up on our standing offer. :-)

 

Yet, with all that said, ... It is somewhat problematic to conclude all the post-Schism councils are just councils of the West, given that our Eastern Catholic brethren have participated in many of them; and given that what historically makes an Ecumenical Council ecumenical is its ratification by the Chair of Peter at Rome. :-) Thus, that alone ...whether a council was composed solely of Westerners or not ...still makes the dogmas universally binding. Yet, the only thing "lacking" (so one could argue) from most of our post-Schism Councils is that all the dogmas were formalized according to Latin theology, which can occassionally be very different from Greek theology, and very alienating to Greeks who do not know how to "translate" it into their own theological systems. Yet, one can say the very same thing about most of the ancient Ecumenical Councils – that they used Greek theology to address heresies that arose among Greeks, not Latins. :-) Indeed, the Roman Church was not even represented at the Council of Constantinole I (or at the Trullian council, which the EO's number as "ecumenical), yet this did not stop us from ratifying Constantinople I as Ecumenical (or addressing and selectively ratifying the canonical legislation of the Trullian council). So if we Romans can be "Catholic" (universal) enough to "play on their home turf," why can't the Easterners return the favor?? :-)

 

Once again, an Ecumenical Council consists of the Bishop of Rome and the bishops united with him issuing a formal decree. Without the Bishop of Rome's participation and ratification, there is no Ecumenical Council. And the Byzantines themselves used to believe this. For example, St. Methodius ("Apostle" to the Slavs) maintained ...

 

Likewise, St. Maximos the Confessor of Constantinople, declares ...

 

Thus, it is not the participation of every possible bishop, or even every ranking bishop (e.g. all the patriarchs) that makes a Council ecumenical, but the agreement of the Bishop of Rome's communion – the bishops who hold to the same faith as him and declare something in union with him. It is simply an accident of history that this became predominately the Western / Latin Church. For, while it is of course preferred to have the theological input of everyone – of all quarters of the universal Church – that is not necessary for an Ecumenical Council. If it was, Ephesus could not have been ratified without Constantinople, Chalcedon could not have been ratified without Alexandria, and Constantinople III could not have been ratified without Antioch. Yet they were, the aforementioned bishops having been deposed and excommunicated by these respective Councils.

 

You also write ....

 

But I also have a *personal* question or two. And I present them to you, trusting in your confidence and in your trustworthiness.

 

Well, I'll do my best, Pastor. :-)

 

First, I was (for less than one year) a confirmed Catholic. I had been raised a Lutheran, but became very attracted to Catholicism, attended Masses, and was moved by what I experienced. Following college, in 1986, I went through RCIA (archdiocese of Seattle in the Hunthausen days) and was confirmed. I had intended to become a priest if God so willed. After being propositioned by a seminarian, and finding out that my parish priest was attracted to me, and coming into contact with another alcoholic priest, I panicked and wondered if I had made the right choice. What kind of outfit was this, really???

 

Indeed. :-) But, you go on .....

 

Then I read Roland Bainton's "Here I Stand" and was reminded of the many Medieval abuses and of the burning of heretics, etc. This greatly affected me. Finally, I decided that the Catholic Church wasn't all it claimed to be, and ran back home to Lutheranism with my tail between my legs.

 

Well, what I would say to that is that Catholics are not everything they claim to be. The vast majority of us (myself included) are hypocrites who fall tremendously short of what we claim to believe. We also have some saints, sure; but those are in short supply. :-) However, just because Catholics (as a rule) are major screw ups, this in no way implies that the Catholic Church itself is not what it claims to be – namely, the Spirit-guided Covenant People established by Jesus Christ, the New Israel (per 1 Peter 2:9-10; Gal 6:16, etc.). So, look at Israel under the Old Covenant. Look at how God's "Chosen" really behaved. More often than not, they broke the Commandments, worshipped false gods, and engaged in all kinds of lascivious orgies. Catholic Christians (as a rule) are mildly better than this. :-) But, the comparison still applies. Yet, just as it was not the behavior of the Jews that made them God's Chosen people, but the fidelity of God to His Covenant, the same is true of Catholics and the Catholic Church today. One judges Catholicism by what it solemnly professes to believe, not by the shortcomings of Catholics. For, it is the role of every Christian in the Catholic Church, not to be discouraged by the shortcomings of their brothers (as hard as that might be ...especially when one has priests, God forbid, coming on to you!), but to build up the Body and to win these people over to what they profess to believe in – something only personal commitment on the part of a Christ-filled individual can do. As a friend of mine who went back and forth between the Catholic Church and his more-dynamic, native Baptist tradition finally concluded, ... 'Sure, the Catholics are lute warm and have other problems. But, they have sound doctrine. The Baptists lack sound doctrine, and there's nothing I can do to change that. Yet, I can do what I can to change the shortcomings of Catholics.' This applies to sinful Catholics too, such as the deluded homosexuals you encountered.

 

But, you go on ....

 

After these many years, I now see my own church body (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) in chaos and confusion. I am part of an orthodox minority in the ELCA, and as I told you previously, am a member of a pastoral oratory dedicated to eventual reunion with Rome.

 

God hasten the day. We can use your zealous "muscle." :-)

 

I love my people and do believe God has a call for me in my city and parish as a pastor.

 

Well, that may be true. I'm sure we both believe that God works in mysterious ways. :-) But he also calls us to perfection. ....yet sometimes not immediately.

 

Yet I do seem to recall Unam Sanctam and the claim of Bonfiace VIII (hardly a devout man by the way) that it is necessary for the salvation of every human creature that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.

 

Well, you're probably aware of this, but neither the OT nor the NT require the person in the religious office to be personally devout or holy in order for that office to be used by God or to be validly authoritative. We are not Donatists. :-) See, for example, how St. John refers to the High Priest Caiaphas – a horrible man, who bribed his way into office and who wanted to murder the Son of God – in John 11:49-52.

 

What do you think? If I am working for moving my Lutherans in the right direction, am I still judged as apostate and under damnation, in Catholic eyes?

 

Well, your Catholic Confirmation gives you a certain responsibility, which would not be the case if you were just a Lutheran and nothing more (i.e., as a cradle Lutheran who never knew Catholicism, Unam Sanctum would not apply to you). But, you may not be able to bear the reality and responsibility of your Catholic Confirmation right now. I think your intentions are good and that God's mercy and His Spirit are certainly upon you. But, you are also called to perfection and to orthodoxy. If I were in your situation, I would simply give this to God and tell Him to lead you where He wants you to go. I think He will handle the rest, provided that you are honest with Him and with yourself. God doesn't call us to fear, but to peace. But, that peace must be truthful – that is, founded upon truth. I would also prayerfully contemplate 2 Tim 1:6. Whether you now believe this or not, you received a Sacramental Gift via your Catholic Confirmation. But, it seems that it was never properly "stirred up" or activated ...and is perhaps now expressing itself in a somewhat "illicit" way because it must express itself somehow. And notice that I say "illict," and not "invalid." :-) There is a big difference.

 

Yet, as my theoretical questions should show, there is just enough doubt in my conscience that I really am not sure if the Catholic Church is *the* one-and-only-true Church of Christ

 

Well, if you felt otherwise, I'm sure you would still be a Catholic, right? So, that is understandable.

 

To me, the Orthodox seem to have a great claim as well,

 

Well, we would say that the Eastern Orthodox are the true Church, but merely a schismatic expression of it. They are as Catholic as we are. They have the true priesthood and true Sacraments, etc. But, their Catholicism is cut off and trapped in a kind of "time capsul."

 

and I have to admit that lots of Protestants, particularly evangelicals and charismatics, seem to have a powerful anointing of the Spirit I cannot deny.

 

Nor do we Catholics. But, as Jesus said in John 3:8, "the Wind (the Spirit) blows where it wills." Anyone who calls upon Jesus can experience Him; but this does not mean that all of these are following the Apostolic Faith or in possession of the full truth. Some feed only on milk and have no knowledge of solid food. And some are feeding on milk that is not of the best quality. :-)

 

[Example: I was miraculously healed of Crohn's Disease after 18 miserable years through the prayers of a Third-Wave pentecostal preacher named Todd Bentley, who claims to have "the same anointing given to John Knox". Well! John Knox wasn't exactly friendly to Rome: yet I cannot deny the amazing miracle that happened to me. So is Todd a false prophet, or is Rome (ala Knox's claim) off base? There is, of course, no good way to test this conundrum.]

 

Well, .... :-) Just because Todd possessed the gift of healing (assuming that the healing came through him and not directly to you from God, via your faith), of course doesn't mean that Todd is doctrinally infallible or that he understood John Knox or his historical relation to the Catholic Church. Many people who are material heretics (as opposed to formal heretics – that is, personally guilty of sin) have Spiritual (charismatic) gifts. And even some notorious sinners (e.g. Rasputin of Russia) seem to have them, despite their highly-flawed lives. As we said, God is mysterious; and sometimes He works through the childlike faith of those who are otherwise problematic people. We Catholics see no contradiction in this. God can do as He wills and always has His reasons.

 

Mark, I initially left the Catholic Church after that brief year because of disgust and shock; now nearly 20 years have passed and I have gone first one way (more liberal) in my thinking, then the other (back again as it were to a conservative and catholic-orthodox mold). My mind has changed, at least twice!

 

:-) That's not unusual. It's human. Also, ... Please, keep in mind that you were in Seattle, which is a notoriously liberal part of the country, I'm sure for Catholicism as well. Though a native Philadelphian, I lived in Los Angeles for a number of years, and have seen some terrible and disgraceful stuff in that diocese. So, while the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has its loonies too, there is a big difference between where you happen to live in this country viz. the quality of Catholicism and its faithfulness to Rome, both doctrinally and morally.

 

I fulfill my calling in my parish, believing I am indeed the shepherd of my people. But, particularly in light of an influence towards apostasy in the ELCA, I'm unsure of God's ultimate call to me – as a prophet like Elijah to the apostate northern tribes, or to leave the ELCA and become Roman or Orthodox.

 

Well, ... Please just keep in mind that you have a responsibility both to your Lutheran flock AND to yourself and your own soul. Jesus said it: "From those who are given much, much will be expected." He didn't say this to scare someone in your position, but to call you to peace and truth. He'll lead you there if you ask Him and let Him.

 

In short, I have many questions, and am still searching out God's ultimate call for me, confused as I am by conflicting claims for my loyalty.

 

Well, you certainly have my prayers, Michael. God keep you and guide you in peace.

 

Second. Yet, if I were to become a Catholic (again), what could be my mission or purpose there? I have been given to understand that, since I was confirmed a Catholic before my ordination in the Lutheran Church, I am most likely not eligible for the "pastoral provision" whereby one could be a *married* priest. (If I could even find a bishop willing to take me on as a married priest.) And I am certainly a married man with three children (ages six, four and two). Yet, Mark, the priesthood of the pastoral office is my life. Even as a Lutheran pastor, I try to urge my people to offer themselves as a living sacrifice, in union with Christ whom we meet in the holy Eucharist. When I stand at the altar, I do so fully intending to re-present Calvary before the Father and impart its benefits to my people. I am a priest in my bones; what else would I do?

 

Well, .... I understand. But, first of all, as we have to consistenly tell women who aspire to the priesthood, being a priest is not a matter of merely "feeling" it, but being called to it by Almighty God in the context of objective truth. Now, I am no one to judge whether or not God is calling you to this. As I'm sure you are aware, I obviously do not believe that you are a priest right now; nor does Lutheran theology (except as far as the common priesthood of the laity goes ...which of course makes me a "priest" as well ;-)). But, is it possible that you are called to the Apostolic ministerial priesthood, even though you are married?? Sure it is. As for whether or not Rome would recognize your Lutheran ordination (after you had once been a Catholic) so as to grant the dispensation for Catholic ordination as a married man, .... I'm not a canon laywer, so I don't know whether that's possible or not. I'm not sure how Rome would approach that; but my "spidy sense" tells me it's not very likely. However, you still have several options in front of you (if you did return to communion with Rome):

 

Firstly, did you ever give any thought to the permanent Roman Catholic diaconate? Married men can of course become deacons in the Roman Church, and the diaconate is a participation in the priestly ministry (acting "In Persona Christi SERVITAS" – "In the Person of Christ the Servant" and opposed to "In Persona Christi CAPITAS" – "In the Person of Christ the Head"). So, while a deacon cannot Consecrate the Eucharist or hear Confessions, they can serve on the altar, proclaim the Gospel, preach homilies, administer the Eucharist, Baptize, give benedictions and blessings, and do most of what you do now as a Lutheran minister. In fact, funny enough, "deacon" and "minister" mean the same thing in Biblical Greek – "servant." What's more, if you were to outlive you wife (although that's a horrible thing to talk about), you would be able to enter the priesthood as a widowed deacon. Although, as you may know, you would never be permitted to re-marry. Once ordained (in both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church), married priests and deacons may never marry or re-marry. This is the Apostolic Tradition – i.e., a married man may become a priest, but a priest (once ordained) may never marry.

 

Another option would be for you to become an Eastern Catholic priest, thus permitting you to remain in communion with Rome. While most of the Eastern Rites here in the States require their priests to be celibate (so as not to create problems with the Roman Rite), there have been Eastern American bishops who have ordained married men. Yet, I'm not sure how this would be effected by your previous Catholic Confirmation. You'd have to, I suppose, start at "square one" and enter the Eastern Catholic priesthood as a layman, rather than entering the Catholic Church as a clergyman with a special dispensation for your marriage (as you would, in the best case scenario, in the Roman Rite). You would of course have to do the same thing if you entered the Eastern Orthodox Church, which would not only refuse to recognize any pastoral identity for you, but would also re-Confirm and possible even re-Baptize you as well. The EO's can be very inflexible that way.

 

Hope that helps, Michael. Again, may our Lord Jesus bless, keep, and increase you always. Please remember me in your prayers.