I'm not sure I like the changes "pope" Benedict made to the Nicene Creed (I think it is)

[discombobulated1]

Post 44 "I always felt we had valid popes until the death of Pius XII"

Now I am confused. Is it that you have no doubts that pope Pius XII was the last pope? Please help a confused old man understand whether you are a sedevacantist or not, and who you think the last valid pope was. And why. I am not trying to put any words in your mouth. Just to understand you. I thought you just said John XXIII was not a valid pope because of his support of Vatican II.

OK< thanks for explaining. I think when I wrote that i was being a little sarcastic or something. I have not always "felt" much of anything about this issue. I am still gathering info to try to understand it, so really, how can I feel much of anything when I have yet to fully understand

such things as: WHEN is a heretical pope (and how) deposed and replaced? So far, I have all kinds of things to read that do not really (yet) explain this to my satisfaction. It seems it is Sede against non-Sede and we're supposed to pick one and take a side... well, I am not there yet. I tend to research things exhaustively.

So anyway, I shouldn't have worded things that way. I think, again, I was being somewhat sardonic because it is ridiculous to say we haven't had any valid popes since... say, the Arian controversy, as some Sedes do, but on the other hand, I don't think there are that many Sedes who go back that far.

 

[chevyontheriver]

OK< thanks for explaining. I think when I wrote that i was being a little sarcastic or something. I have not always "felt" much of anything about this issue. I am still gathering info to try to understand it, so really, how can I feel much of anything when I have yet to fully understand

such things as: WHEN is a heretical pope (and how) deposed and replaced? So far, I have all kinds of things to read that do not really (yet) explain this to my satisfaction. It seems it is Sede against non-Sede and we're supposed to pick one and take a side... well, I am not there yet. I tend to research things exhaustively.

So anyway, I shouldn't have worded things that way. I think, again, I was being somewhat sardonic because it is ridiculous to say we haven't had any valid popes since... say, the Arian controversy, as some Sedes do, but on the other hand, I don't think there are that many Sedes who go back that far.

I can respect gathering information. We're all in that phase most of the time. Picking a 'side' prematurely would be a crazy thing. I thought you already had done so.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why do people assume that just because you cannot save yourself (who argues w/ that?), that only God can (ditto) that you don't have to do any good works?!

Why do people think we don't have to do good works? I don't know. That's not a position I take. Christians have to do good works, good works aren't optional.

Where is THAT in scripture or Church teaching?

It isn't.

People are always drawing false conclusions, which are more from their own minds than from Scripture (rightly interpreted) or Church teaching... a dangerous thing, to be sure-- dangerous in light of what Jesus said, namely that

FEW find the narrow Way to Heaven

You're right, people often do draw false conclusions, usually after playing fisticuffs with a straw man.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

And does this have historic Lutheran basis or is it only your personal opinion? Did the early Reformers have some sort of episcopal ecclesiology, such that anyone who deviates from it is in "schism and rebellion"?

Quite abundantly, actually. Here's a bit of a toe-wetter,

"Therefore the Church can never be better governed and preserved than if we all live under one head, Christ, and all the bishops equal in office (although they be unequal in gifts), be diligently joined in unity of doctrine, faith, Sacraments, prayer, and works of love, etc., as St. Jerome writes that the priests at Alexandria together and in common governed the churches, as did also the apostles, and afterwards all bishops throughout all Christendom, until the Pope raised his head above all." -https://bookofconcord.org/smalcald-articles/ii/of-the-papacy/#sa-ii-iv-0009

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

@ViaCrucis - This sounds a bit idealistic and ahistorical. What about the Pentarchy and metropolitan sees, for example? What the Book of Concord seems to be doing is making an argument from human reason for a particular ecclesiological model, and the argument is very thin to say the least. I actually think the trial of this argument from human reason, in history, has shown it to be false even by its own lights, for "Oh, the complicated and confused state of affairs that [have resulted]" where the Reformation project has been implemented (9).

But my question still stands: what authority does this ecclesiological argument from human reason claim for itself? Why is it thought to have such authority that those who disagree are in schism? Does everything in the Book of Concord possess this level of authority?

 

[The Liturgist]

What about the Pentarchy and metropolitan sees, for example?

The five ancient Patriarchates were the Primus Inter Pares of their respective churches, and the Orthodox bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem still are. Likewise, a Metropolitan bishop was primus inter pares of the bishops of a Roman province, for example, the Metropolitan of Carthage was primus inter pares among the bishops of Africa Proconsularis, and after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Metropolitan of Caesarea was primus inter pares among the bishops of Syria Palestina. And likewise the Metropolitan of Caesarea-in-Cappadocia was primus inter pares of the bishops in Cappadocia.

Most of the historic Lutheran churches that retained the Episcopate had a presiding bishop or archbishop, for example, in the Church of Sweden, the Archbishop of Uppsala was of great historical importance.

 

[ViaCrucis]

@ViaCrucis - This sounds a bit idealistic and ahistorical. What about the Pentarchy and metropolitan sees, for example? What the Book of Concord seems to be doing is making an argument from human reason for a particular ecclesiological model, and the argument is very thin to say the least. I actually think the trial of this argument from human reason, in history, has shown it to be false even by its own lights, for "Oh, the complicated and confused state of affairs that [have resulted]" where the Reformation project has been implemented (9).

The quote provided makes appeal to the historic practice of the ancient Church; not just mere human reason. The arguments which the Book of Concord make, in general, are arguments from Scripture and arguments from the Fathers.

But my question still stands: what authority does this ecclesiological argument from human reason claim for itself? Why is it thought to have such authority that those who disagree are in schism? Does everything in the Book of Concord possess this level of authority?

The argument is rooted in biblical and patristic substance. Presenting it as "argument from human reason" is disingenuous.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

The quote provided makes appeal to the historic practice of the ancient Church; not just mere human reason.

It makes a vague appeal to a single sentence from St. Jerome. It looks to be an argument from mere human reason. It's a bit like when someone gives their opinion and then makes a vague appeal to "the science." Such is not a scientific argument; it's merely an opinion with a dash of "science" thrown in for good effect.

 

[The Liturgist]

The argument is rooted in biblical and patristic substance. Presenting it as "argument from human reason" is disingenuous.

Indeed, particularly when we consider that Canons VI and VII of the Council of Nicaea establish that the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and, in canon 7, the recently rebuilt city of Jerusalem, have the same authority as the bishop of Rome.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It makes a vague appeal to a single sentence from St. Jerome. It looks to be an argument from mere human reason. It's a bit like when someone gives their opinion and then makes a vague appeal to "the science." Such is not a scientific argument; it's merely an opinion with a dash of "science" thrown in for good effect.

That's underselling it by a wide margin. St. Jerome is taken as representative of patristic thought.

Article IV of the Smalcald Articles, in which the previous quote was taken, begins in this way:

"That the Pope is not, according to divine law or according to the Word of God the head of all Christendom (for this [name] belongs to One only, whose name is Jesus Christ), but is only the bishop and pastor of the Church at Rome, and of those who voluntarily or through a human creature (that is, a political magistrate) have attached themselves to him, to be Christians, not under him as a lord, but with him as brethren [colleagues] and comrades, as the ancient councils and the age of St. Cyprian show."

The appeal, here, is not to human reason, but to "the ancient councils and the age of St. Cyprian". St. Cyprian is mentioned here, of course, because it was to St. Cyprian that the Roman apologists often made their appeal; Luther in the Smalcald Articles, however, appeals to the ancient councils of the Church and to the historical realities of St. Cyprian's era in which bishops were co-equal brothers, not lords.

Between this opening and the quote offered previously, the Article addresses the fact that the Papacy has no basis in divine command or Scripture, that it is a human contrivance; and that even if the Papacy were to admit this but nevertheless insist that, on the basis of human reason, having a singular universal temporal head of the Church preserves the Church against schism and heretics (and on this point we must admit that this is a point of argument those who seek to make apology for the Papacy often do make) that such reasoning is faulty; for if the Papacy existed merely to facilitate unity, without divine command it could only result in the production of schisms and heretics. And, to take for ourselves historical example, there has never been a shortage of this, with examples myriad:

Of these examples I provide the following:

1) The Western Schism, in which political strife produced, at one point, three competing Pontiffs. Were the Papacy capable of preserving Christian unity because of the universal episcopacy of St. Peter's Chair, then we shouldn't have witnessed the fracture of the Western Church under competing Pontiffs as was the case during the Western Schism.

2) The existence of the Papacy did not stop the existence of heretics or schismatics; for the existence of Lollards, Waldensians, Hussites, and even the myriad of groups which took advantage of the situation of the 16th century demonstrates that the stranglehold of the Papacy over the Western Church produced more factionalism than it ever ceased. The threat of punishment against heretics, further, while capable of causing suffering did not have within its power the ability to maintain Christian unity. Rome's only defense, here, is that all schismatics are heretics--or, in a spirit of charity as has existed since at least Vatican II, that certain schismatics are separated brethren. Nevertheless, the supposed unity which is supposed to flow from the supremacy of St. Peter's Chair has not engendered Christian unity, but has engendered Christian factionalism.

3) We see again, this factionalism stemming from the Roman Pontiff's attempts to accumulate greater power, as occurred at the First Vatican Council, which again resulted not in Christian unity, but in schism; the so-called Old Catholic Churches being example of this.

4) Such supposed unity, again, does not manifest itself as we see in the Sedevacantist movements which have further occurred. And, extending this further into current times the Pontificate of Francis I seems rife with controversy, and whether schism is eminent or not remains to be seen.

Thus the Smalcald Articles assessment that even were we to permit the argument that the Roman Pontiff serves to create Christian unity, the historical evidence is to the contrary. The Papacy has not been a source of Christian unity, but has continually been a source of Christian disunity. And this has been the case, at least, since the time of the Great Schism of 1054.

Of course, the ancient Church in her great wisdom never permitted that a single individual act as head of the whole Church on earth; which is why the Canons do not permit such a scenario from taking place; and why St. Gregory the Great himself rebuked the claims of Cyriacus II of Constantinople.

When the Smalcald Articles, and the other parts of the Lutheran Confessions, rebukes the Papacy it is on the basis of biblical and patristic merit; not a mere polemic; but grounded in the great wisdom and teaching of the Church Catholic; which Rome under the Papacy is rebelling against.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just to clarify what you mean on this point, I assume you don’t have a problem with, for instance, the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria, because they have never claimed Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility, but rather, the title Pope, which was first used in Alexandria 300 years before the Roman bishops started using it, is simply used by the Patriarchs of these churches to indicate their status as primus inter pares.

So to be clear, by the Papal Institution, would I be correct in that you are referring to the system in the Roman Catholic Church wherein the Pope alone has powers that in all other churches of Episcopal polity, are distributed to all the bishops, and where the Pope alone is referred to as the Vicar of Christ, and is regarded as the supreme bishop, primus sine paribus, whose theological statements proclaimed ex cathedra are infallibile, and who is furthermore elected not by the Holy Synod or another entity comprised of either all the bishops or representatives of the bishops, as well as, in Anglicanism, representatives of the laity and the presbyters, but rather is elected by a handpicked group of super-bishops, the College of Cardinals, who are appointed only by the Popes, and thus allow a Pope to exert much more influence on the identity of his successor than would have been allowed by the ancient canons of the early church? Because these, to me, seem to be the distinguishing characteristics of the Papal Institution.

My understanding of the Papal Institution is not so much the use of the title Pope, since St. Gregory the Dialogist, also known as St. Gregory the Great, used it, and he expressly condemned the idea of a bishop exercising universal jurisdiction based on a fear (which is now, just over 1400 years later, proving to be warranted, due to disturbing statements by the Metropolitan of Bursa, who has since been promoted to Archbishop of North America and will quite likely succeed Patriarch Bartholomew) that the use of the title “Ecumenical Patriarchate” by his colleague John the Faster, the Patriarch of of Constantinople, would lead to that bishop claiming universal jurisdiction, which is also obviously something his successors claimed. And he claimed that this would make whoever claimed such the “precursor to the anti-Christ.”

Additionally, to review, the other aspects of the Papal Institution as I see it that are a problem and would need to be abolished as part of a return to Orthodoxy by the Roman church include:

• The ability of the Pope to promulgate infallible dogmatic statements ex cathedra, which could potentially be new doctrines or even contradict doctrines previously held, this point being uncertain.
• The Supremacy of the Pope, wherein the Pope alone exercises jurisdiction over the entire Roman Catholic Church and alone has several powers that in all other churches are either non-existent or are held by all diocesan bishops.
• The ability of the Pope to influence the choice of his successor via his ability to appoint people to the College of Cardinals, in violation of the canons of the early church which prohibit bishops from doing that.
• The claim by the Pope to be the sole Vicar of Christ.
• The ability of the Pope to issue indulgences.
• The reservation of certain other authorities to the Pope which bishops in other churches, even presiding bishops such as Orthodox Patriarchates and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, do not have.

If those issues were corrected, would that suffice from your perspective? Or did I miss some other important aspect of the Papal Institution you regard as offensive?

It's not the title or term of Pope that is problematic. It is the unique situation of the Roman Pontiff which is problematic. When the Patriarch of Alexandria is styled Pope, this is in keeping with the historic practice and language of the Church; but when the Roman Pontiff is styled Pope and temporal head of the whole Church of Christ on earth, it is entirely the innovation of Western ecclesiarchs, in stark contradiction to the Canons, Fathers, and Holy Scriptures of the Church Catholic. This is what I mean by "institution of the Papacy" or "Papacy" for short.

I would also like to take this time to be absolutely clear: I hold no negative feelings toward the man sitting in St. Peter's Chair, nor any hostility toward my Roman Catholic brethren. My tone is strict on this matter because I think it's a serious topic, and I do have strong opinions about the subject; but it is not in a spirit of animosity or antipathy--but in a spirit of seriousness and sobriety. My heart is for Christian unity; I desire unity at the Table of Christ. I believe the Papacy is antithetical and an obstacle of unity. In many ways I feel a stronger sense of kinship with my Roman Catholic brethren than I do many Protestants; because of the ways I believe modern Protestantism has gone astray and deviated, especially in regard to the Sacraments and the truth of the Holy Gospel. As Luther himself quipped, I would sooner drink blood with the Pope than with the extremists.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[zippy2006]

When the Smalcald Articles, and the other parts of the Lutheran Confessions, rebukes the Papacy it is on the basis of biblical and patristic merit; not a mere polemic; but grounded in the great wisdom and teaching of the Church Catholic; which Rome under the Papacy is rebelling against.

Sure. I suppose my difficulty is that Lutheranism is itself a schismatic sect and the source of the splintering of all of Western Christendom, so it's hard to see how it is in a position to give lectures on schism. But I suppose Lutheranism could still give historical arguments against an ultramontane ecclesiology without itself possessing a legitimate ecclesiology. Of course I don't think such arguments bear on schism. Schism presupposes an authoritative vantage point, and someone born in 1483 has not retrieved an authoritative vantage point vis-a-vis Christianity any more than someone born in 1805 has.

I think we are in agreement that the documents you are citing are doing nothing more than appealing or gesturing towards historical traditions. Maybe the purpose of those documents does not require anything more than this. But maybe it does, if it is meant to justify the schism of the Reformation.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's not the title or term of Pope that is problematic. It is the unique situation of the Roman Pontiff which is problematic. When the Patriarch of Alexandria is styled Pope, this is in keeping with the historic practice and language of the Church; but when the Roman Pontiff is styled Pope and temporal head of the whole Church of Christ on earth, it is entirely the innovation of Western ecclesiarchs, in stark contradiction to the Canons, Fathers, and Holy Scriptures of the Church Catholic. This is what I mean by "institution of the Papacy" or "Papacy" for short.

I would also like to take this time to be absolutely clear: I hold no negative feelings toward the man sitting in St. Peter's Chair, nor any hostility toward my Roman Catholic brethren. My tone is strict on this matter because I think it's a serious topic, and I do have strong opinions about the subject; but it is not in a spirit of animosity or antipathy--but in a spirit of seriousness and sobriety. My heart is for Christian unity; I desire unity at the Table of Christ. I believe the Papacy is antithetical and an obstacle of unity. In many ways I feel a stronger sense of kinship with my Roman Catholic brethren than I do many Protestants; because of the ways I believe modern Protestantism has gone astray and deviated, especially in regard to the Sacraments and the truth of the Holy Gospel. As Luther himself quipped, I would sooner drink blood with the Pope than with the extremists.

-CryptoLutheran

Splendid, I assumed that is what you meant.

By the way, out of curiosity, have you extensively studied Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy? Because your posts, most of the time, read like they were written by one of us; our Methodist friend @jas3 writes with the same quality, although I believe he has (correct me if I’m wrong, jas3) investigated the Orthodox churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

Sure. I suppose my difficulty is that Lutheranism is itself a schismatic sect and the source of the splintering of all of Western Christendom,

The Lutherans would argue the same thing about Roman Catholicism. And given the extent to which the Roman Catholic church changed between the year 500, when it was in full communion with the Orthodox, compared to where it was in 1500, by which time not only was the Archbishop of Rome now styled Pope, but the doctrine of Papal Supremacy had been introduced, the Creed had been modified with the filioque in violation of the canons of the Council of Ephesus, and even the basic mode of theology had changed (the RCC officially teaches that the last Patristic theologian was St. John of Damascus, and everything since that time is regarded as Scholastic theology, and while this is initially debatable, by the time of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas, we do see an obvious and problematic difference), and also the extreme corruption that characterized the Papacy throughout the 15th century, right up through the reign of Alexander VI, and the dubious morality of the decision of Pope Leo X to promote increased sales of indulgences in order to pay for a resumption of construction of St. Peter’s following the most recent instance where Rome was sacked, this time by the unpaid soldiers of the Holy Roman Emperor, who were initially sent there to protect Rome, well, a case can be made that the Lutherans would be right.

For my part, I am not going to make that case; I am not going to say that Rome left the Lutherans, but I also cannot declare the Lutherans schismatic. As I see it, the root schism happened in 1054 when the Papal legate unilaterally excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, a profoundly ill-considered act that set in motion a process that would result in much death and destruction as a result of the Crusades, especially the Fourth Crusade, and the inevitable resulting conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Turks.

 

[zippy2006]

For my part, I am not going to make that case; I am not going to say that Rome left the Lutherans

Right, for it would be historically inaccurate to say such a thing, and I think genuine Lutheran scholars are aware of this as well.

 

[The Liturgist]

Right, for it would be historically inaccurate to say such a thing, and I think genuine Lutheran scholars are aware of this as well.

No, you misunderstand me: I cannot declare Rome or the Lutherans to have separated from each other, because of the Great Schism of 1054. I think Lutherans can make an argument that Rome left them, particularly since Rome excommunicated them, rather than vice versa, although Rome could also argue that some positions of Martin Luther went too far, but the Lutherans could counter argue that the improvements made to the Roman Church at the Council of Trent wouldn’t have happened had Luther not done what he had done, and from an Orthodox perspective, actually, the whole affair is slightly frustrating because instead of having one schism to repair, there were now two, but that would still be manageable.

Where things became unacceptable, and this was neither Luther’s fault, for he actively opposed it, nor Rome’s, for they activiely opposed it, was in the proliferation of Radical Reformation denominations such as the Anabaptists, Mennonites, Soccinians, Zwinglians, and so on, which greatly complicated the process of ecumenical reconciliation in Western Europe. A similiar explosion of small denominations occurred during the Nikonian Schism in the Russian Orthodox Church, between the church after Czar Peter the Great seized control, and the Old Rite Orthodox; this schism was largely rectified, although some Old Believers remain who are not in communion. However, most of the more extreme, radical sects that appeared, whose appearance was partially due to an apocalyptic mindset triggered by the fact that the schism erupted in 1666, did subsequently disappear, in part because several renounced marriage, and some, the Mutilators, harmed themselves in such a way as to make reproduction impossible, thus ensuring their numbers would decrease over time, while still others were, over the years, persuaded to rejoin the canonical Orthodox church, such as the Molokans, whose beliefs were somewhat like those of Messianic Jews or SDAs in some cases, although other Molokans did convert to Judaism.

 

[zippy2006]

No, you misunderstand me: I cannot declare Rome or the Lutherans to have separated from each other, because of the Great Schism of 1054...

Well, I think it's pretty darn obvious that the Lutherans separated from Rome. I don't think this is controversial. There is no merit in making this more difficult than it is. What happened 500 years earlier does not affect the fact that the Lutherans separated from Rome.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, I think it's pretty darn obvious that the Lutherans separated from Rome. I don't think this is controversial. There is no merit in making this more difficult than it is. What happened 500 years earlier does not affect the fact that the Lutherans separated from Rome.

I don’t think its as obvious as you think, particularly when we consider certain changes in Roman theology and praxis which were relatively recent in the 1520s, for example, the move to allow communion in only one kind dated from around 900, and the Summa Theologica which had come to dominate the field of Scholastic Theology, and which in many respects disagrees substantially with earlier Patristic works of dogmatic theology, such as the Fount of Knowledge of St. John Damascene, who Rome for some reason regards as the last Patristic writer, and reversion of some of these changes, such as the restoration of a vernacular liturgy and communion in both kinds, in both Lutheranism and among the Unitas Fratrum, whose founders, St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague are venerated as martyrs by the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, can be seen as a reversion to the earlier faith and praxis of the Western Church.

Now if Rome were still in communion with the Orthodox, and had not drifted away from the Orthodox on issues ranging from hairstyles for clergy to the filioque, the matter would be much more straightforward. But the Roman church during the reign of Pope St. Gregory I Diologos, who is venerated by the Orthodox to this day as one of the great Fathers of our tradition, was very different from that during the reign of Pope Leo X.

 

[zippy2006]

I don’t think its as obvious as you think, particularly when we consider certain changes in Roman theology and praxis which were relatively recent in the 1520s, for example, the move to allow communion in only one kind dated from around 900, and the Summa Theologica which had come to dominate the field of Scholastic Theology, and which in many respects disagrees substantially with earlier Patristic works of dogmatic theology, such as the Fount of Knowledge of St. John Damascene, who Rome for some reason regards as the last Patristic writer, and reversion of some of these changes, such as the restoration of a vernacular liturgy and communion in both kinds, in both Lutheranism and among the Unitas Fratrum, whose founders, St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague are venerated as martyrs by the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, can be seen as a reversion to the earlier faith and praxis of the Western Church.

Now if Rome were still in communion with the Orthodox, and had not drifted away from the Orthodox on issues ranging from hairstyles for clergy to the filioque, the matter would be much more straightforward. But the Roman church during the reign of Pope St. Gregory I Diologos, who is venerated by the Orthodox to this day as one of the great Fathers of our tradition, was very different from that during the reign of Pope Leo X.

"...Therefore Lutheranism was not a separation from Rome." It is non-sequitur, your conclusion does not follow.

 

[The Liturgist]

"...Therefore Lutheranism was not a separation from Rome." It is non-sequitur, your conclusion does not follow.

No, I mean, Rome could be regarded to have separated from Lutheranism, insofar as Lutheranism reverted changes with Rome had made to liturgical praxis. But on the other hand Lutheranism represents a rupture in other respects.

This is why I refuse to recognize either church as the continuation of what was before; I also take the view that without Martin Luther, the very good improvements made at Trent would not have happened. For example, prohibiting the sale of indulgences, and reforms to the allocation of benefices, and other improvements. Pope St. Pius V did more good work for the Roman church than any Pope since St. Gregory I the DIologist, the Great, in my admittedly extremely controversial opinion.

The schism perhaps could have been avoided had Rome done Trent immediately, since it was the sale of indulgences that initially got Martin Luther upset.

By the way, lest people think I am being unfair with Roman Catholics, I greatly disliked the conquest of the Papal States by King Victor Emmanuel; I really feel that they should have remained sovereign territory, and I am relieved that the Vatican City at least regained its sovereignity via the Lateran Treaty, but as I see it, more territory than that ought to have been returned. And also I am not convinced Italian unification actually helped Italy.