Follow
Over the last month we reviewed the history of Roman Catholicism’s use of the Council of Sardica to claim Roman Primacy, focusing last week on Pope Zosimus’ and Pope Leo’s attempts to stamp that alleged primacy with Nicene authority. It was under their pontificates—and the intervening pontificates of Boniface, Celestine and Sixtus III—that the canons of Sardica (343 A.D.) were circulated as if they were the canons of Nicæa (325 A.D.), and thus were used to advance two errors simultaneously: 1) the claim that the Council of Sardica had affirmed Roman Primacy, and 2) the claim that Roman Primacy had manifested as early as the Nicene era. The error of Zosimus and the fraud of Leo are just one example of what we see consistently in Roman Catholicism: the attempt to stamp novel and idolatrous practices with Nicene and ante-Nicene authenticity. The more distant the origins of the idolatry from Nicæa , the more creative the historical revisionism necessary to “prove” the antiquity of the practice. Relic veneration is one more example of this propensity in Roman apologetics.
Relic veneration is the veneration of “some object, notably part of the body or clothes, remaining as a memorial of a departed saint” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Relics). It may surprise the reader to know that, Ignatius of Antioch, one of the most celebrated martyrs of the Early Church, was completely oblivious to the practice of relic veneration. He was certainly not the first martyr in history, and he had lived long enough to see other martyrs face death—enough to know that any number of perils might face him in the arena: “death, … fire, … the sword, … wild beasts” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Smyrnæans, chapter 4). Yet for some reason, when thinking of the last option, he hoped that the wild beasts would “leave nothing of my body” behind. If the relics of martyrs were venerated in the early church, why did Ignatius hope he would leave none behind? Ignatius fully expected that if the wild beasts did not become his tomb, then the Christians in Antioch would provide a tomb for him, and given the option, he preferred that none of his remains fall into the hands of his brethren to burden them:
“Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one.” (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Romans, chapter 4)
Ignatius expected either to be entombed in the beasts or entombed in the ground. He did not expect to end up on a shelf in a relic room. What little we do know about his remains is from the Martyrdom of Ignatius, which purports to have been written by those who accompanied him to Rome (the Martyrdom of Ignatius, chapter 7). What was left of him was sent to Antioch and wrapped in linen:
“[O]nly the harder portions of his holy remains were left, which were conveyed to Antioch and wrapped in linen, as an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church by the grace which was in the martyr.” (the Martyrdom of Ignatius, chapter 6)
Before the Roman Catholic can jump to the wrong conclusion about storing Ignatius’ remains in linen in the reliquary at the church of Antioch, we simply remind them that linen was a traditional burial cloth (John 19:40) which served as the grave clothes of the departed as they were prepared for burial. When the context is death in the Patristic writings, as it certainly was in the case of Ignatius, linen served in this capacity; see for example, Tertullian’s reference to the woman who dreamed of “a linen cloth” and died five days later (Tertullian, de Spectaculis, chapter 26). Consider as well the testimony of Dionysius the Great who speaks of a man whose occupation was “dressing out and burying the bodies of those perfected and blessed martyrs” (Dionysius the Great, Epistles and Epistolary Fragments, Epistle 1, paragraph 3, c. 260 A.D.). Martyrs were dressed and buried, and Ignatius’ grave clothes were the linen in which his remains were wrapped. Confirming this, Jerome testifies that Ignatius’ remains were transported to Antioch and buried:
“When he had been condemned to the wild beasts and with zeal for martyrdom heard the lions roaring, he said ‘I am the grain of Christ. I am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts that I may be found the bread of the world.’ He was put to death the eleventh year of Trajan and the remains of his body lie in Antioch outside the Daphnitic gate in the cemetery.” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, Chapter 16)
If The Martyrdom of Ignatius can be trusted, it appears that whatever remnants of Ignatius that were not entombed in the lions, were wrapped in linen in order to prepare his remains for burial, not for populating the shelves of the local reliquary—for burial was the custom for the departed, martyr or not.
In fact, in the Early church, the very idea of wrapping up martyrs to keep their remains for personal or liturgical use was abhorrent. Athanasius, in his Life of Anthony in about 360 A.D., records that Anthony (c. 251 – 356 A.D.) refused to stay in Egypt to die because he did not want to be subject to the unlawful and unholy practice they had adopted of wrapping martyrs’ bodies in linen and keeping them as house guests. Fortunately, Anthony set them straight. By the time Anthony left them in 356 A.D., the Egyptians repented of their awful practice and were thankful to God to have been “taught rightly” by him:
“But when the brethren were urging him to abide with them and there to die, he suffered it not for many other reasons, as he showed by keeping silence, and especially for this:— The Egyptians are wont to honour with funeral rites, and to wrap in linen cloths at death the bodies of good men, and especially of the holy martyrs; and not to bury them underground, but to place them on couches, and to keep them in their houses, thinking in this to honour the departed. And Antony often urged the bishops to give commandment to the people on this matter. In like manner he taught the laity and reproved the women, saying, ‘that this thing was neither lawful nor holy at all. For the bodies of the patriarchs and prophets are until now preserved in tombs, and the very body of the Lord was laid in a tomb, and a stone was laid upon it, and hid it until He rose on the third day.’ And thus saying, he showed that he who did not bury the bodies of the dead after death transgressed the law, even though they were sacred. For what is greater or more sacred than the body of the Lord? Many therefore having heard, henceforth buried the dead underground, and gave thanks to the Lord that they had been taught rightly.” (Athanasius, Life of Anthony, paragraph 90)
Thus, in the early church, the proper treatment of the remains of a martyr was to dress them for the grave and bury them underground. It was offensive, unholy and unlawful to do otherwise. From 108 A.D. (when Ignatius was buried in Antioch) to 260 A.D. (when Dionysius described the job of dressing and burying a martyr) to about 356 A.D. (when Anthony rebuked the Egyptians)—it appears that the relics of martyrs were collected and given a proper burial. They were not to be kept as house guests or as honorary church members.
For this reason, when we read of The Martyrdom of Polycarp—which happened between 108 and 356 A.D.—we are justifiably and strongly disinclined to read relic veneration into the treatment of his remains by the church at Smyrna. Polycarp was martyred in 157 A.D., burned alive by the Romans, and then handed over to the faithful. Of his remains, his flock wrote,
“Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps.” (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, chapter 18)
Upon inspection of these four treatments on relics in the Early Church—Ignatius’ remains (108 A.D.), Polycarp’s remains (157 A.D.), Dionysius’ description (c. 260 A.D.) and Anthony’s rebuke (356 A.D.)—all four cases reflect upon the value of the relic, that they were “sacred,” “precious,” “perfected and blessed,” and “an inestimable treasure.” But it appears that the correct way to show honor to the departed was to treat them the same way as any departed saint: they were buried in the ground. Despite the value of the bones to the collective memory of the church or for the inspiration of future martyrs, they were not to be kept as “relics,” for to do so, as Anthony said, was a great dishonor to them.
We are hardly surprised, of course, to read and hear Roman Catholic apologists as they backfill the Early Church’s treatment of the remains of the martyrs with their later superstitious novelties. For example, Rod Bennett, a former Protestant, now Roman Catholic, comes to precisely the wrong conclusion about the bones of Polycarp (hat tip: Ken Temple). Upon a reading of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, as cited above, Bennett concludes, remarkably, that the Early Church must have kept the relics of martyrs in the churches for veneration:
“It would likewise appear from the passage being discussed that the remains (or “relics”) of these martyrs were also kept in the churches early on and played some part in these anniversary celebrations.” (Bennett, Rod, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words, (Ignatius Press, 2002) 220 n7).
Actually, in the context of this period in history, it appears that the remains of martyrs were most certainly not kept in the churches “early on,” and they were not venerated. They were buried. In the ground. When the Early Church so clearly abhorred the keeping of martyrs above ground (per Athanasius) and actually wrapped martyrs in linen to be buried (per The Martyrdom of Ignatius) and actually buried martyrs in a cemetery (per Jerome), and employed people for the task of burying martyrs (per Dionysius), it is nothing more than a gratuitous interpolation to read the Martyrdom of Polycarp and conclude that his remains were kept for veneration above ground in the church. And yet, that is precisely what Bennett does.
What is more, in his lecture for The Coming Home Network International, Rod Bennett reads the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp and concludes something of which the text itself makes no mention—that Polycarp’s relics were exposed annually for veneration:
“Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist himself, the one who leaned on Jesus breast at the Last Supper, and about that time we can see in the records a feast of the martyrdom of Polycarp being celebrated, compete with the exposition of his relics.” (Bennett, The Four Witnesses Brought Me Home, 35:15-35:45)
But what was being described by the Smyrnæans was a burial, not an extraction, and what followed was a birthday party away from the church, not an exposition in the church. The text simply does not support Bennett here.
First, the original text says “we deposited” (απεθεμεθα, deposuimus) the remains—which carries the connotation of “lay, set, put or place aside or away” (Romans 13:12; Ephesians 4:22,25; Colossians 3:8), which sounds very much like what was done for Ignatius’ relics. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that in Polycarp’s day, “The regular Sunday services were held in the private houses” not in actual church buildings (Catholic Encyclopedia, History of the Christian Altar), and the anniversary “commemoration services of the martyrs” were held at the martyr’s tombs (Catholic Encyclopedia, Martyr). Polycarp’s bones were buried, not kept at the church in Smyrna for annual exposition.
Next, in the Early Church the day of the martyr’s death was affectionately referred to as his birthday, and thus “the anniversary of his martyrdom” is better translated “the birthday of his martyrdom.” And so it is rendered in the original Greek, “μαρτυρίου αὐτοῦ ἡμέραν γενέθλιον,” and then rendered into Latin, accordingly, “natalem martyrii ejus diem” (P.G., vol. 5, cols. 1043, 1044). What was celebrated annually was not the relics but the means by which those relics had come to be—the martyr’s unwavering confession. What was celebrated was the memory of those who had “finished their course,” in order to inspire and prepare, by way of example, those who would soon follow in his steps. Thus, what the Smyrnæan’s were describing was a birthday party held at the site of his burial away from the church, not an annual exposition of Polycarp’s relics in the church.
In sum, the text says nothing about keeping Polycarp’s remains in the church and extracting them annually for exposition. Those extra details had to be inserted by Bennett, and those details are grossly anachronistic. What Bennett attributed to the Smyrnæans simply was not done back then.
Bennett insists that he first read the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom when he was but a “country Baptist.” As such, he read it with his very shallow understanding of history, for he not only assumed that the remains of martyrs were kept at churches at that time (they were not), but he also assumed that the remains of relics were exhumed annually for veneration (they were not). The data does not support his assumptions. With his shallow understanding of history, Rod Bennett fell for one of Rome’s most successful and disreputable tactics: to backload modern Roman novelties into the practices of the Early Church.
We think Fr. William Saunders’ 1995 article, “Why Do We Venerate Relics?” is a fine example of the Roman tactic that worked so well on Bennett. In that article, Saunders attempts to claim ante-Nicene authority for the practice of relic veneration, linking it to the end of the Diocletianic persecution, a full 12 years before the Council of Nicæa. The article appeared in the July 13, 1995 issue of The Arlington Catholic Herald, and is available online at the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN). As the title suggests, Saunders’ article was written to explain away the novelty of the veneration of relics.
Saunders begins by making some halting efforts at finding relic veneration in Scripture—Elisha receiving Elijah’s mantle (2 Kings 2:13), the dead man revived when he was thrown into Elisha’s tomb and touched his bones (2 Kings 13:20-21), the use of Paul’s handkerchief and apron to heal people (Acts 19:11-12). That last one is a stretch, since Paul was not even dead yet. But the real problem with all of these examples is that nobody venerated the “relics.” Thus, Saunders concedes that he can only find the “use” of relics in the Scriptures, but not their “veneration”:
“The use of relics has some, although limited, basis in sacred Scripture.” (Saunders, Why Do We Venerate Relics?)
Saunders then proceeds to the Early Church and appeals to the example of Polycarp’s bones which we noted above.
From the Martyrdom of Polycarp Saunders concludes that “at this time we see the development of ‘feast days’ marking the death of the saint … and a veneration of the remains” (Saunders, Why Do We Venerate Relics?, emphasis added). We grant him the celebration of birthdays, because the text actually says so. But where is the “veneration of the remains”? It is not there. Saunders assumed that because the Smyrnæans valued Polycarp’s remains, it must mean that they venerated them. But as we saw above, assigning value to the remains of a martyr can hardly be equated to keeping them and venerating them, and the practice at the time was to bury the remains, not store them. In fact it is because they were so precious that they were wrapped in linen and given a proper burial. They were not placed in “reliquaries.”
Saunders’ attempt to make Polycarp’s birthday into the veneration of his relics, is like Jerome’s weak attempt at turning Stephen’s funeral dirge (Acts 8:2) into a reliquary procession (Jerome, Letter 109, paragraph 3), as if the only possible value that could be assigned to a person’s remains is for their liturgical use, and the only possible way to celebrate a martyr’s “birthday” is to disinter his remains.
By way of contrast, actual relics are the remains of saints exhumed from tombs for veneration. Saunders covers over this difference with a revisionist gloss by first conceding the fact that Polycarp’s remains were buried in a tomb, and then in the spirit of Jerome, simply redefines the “tomb” as the “reliquary”:
“Essentially, the relics—the bones and other remains of St. Polycarp—were buried and the tomb itself was the ‘reliquary’.” (Saunders, Why Do We Venerate Relics?)
Unable to make a clear case for actual veneration of actual relics in an actual reliquary based on Polycarp, Saunders proceeds into the early 4th century, and suggests ante-Nicene support for the veneration of relics, placing its practical origins after 312 A.D.. That, Saunders says, is when people actually started exhuming the bodies of the saints and placing them in actual reliquaries for veneration:
“After the legalization of the Church in 312, the tombs of saints were opened and the actual relics were venerated by the faithful. A bone or other bodily part was placed in a reliquary—a box, locket and later a glass case—for veneration.” (Saunders, Why Do We Venerate Relics?)
Now that is relic veneration. But what is this we read about “after 312 A.D.”? Well, that depends on what the meaning of “after” is. It is true that “after 312” the tombs of saints were opened and the relics were venerated by “the faithful”—in fact, more than 50 years “after.” The earliest known case of a martyr’s bones being disinterred and moved to another location for veneration is the translation of the bones of St. Babylas of Antioch by Caesar Constantius Gallus in 354 A.D.. Two years after that, Emperor Constantius II translated the bones of Timothy in 356 A.D., and the bones of Andrew and Luke in 358 A.D.. It was only after this that the church started to embrace the practice.
One of the earliest references to “the faithful” collecting the relics of martyrs for personal veneration, as Saunders describes it, is a letter from Basil placed in 373 A.D.—”If you send the relics of the martyrs home you will do well” (Basil, Letter 155)—a full six decades “after 312.” In reality, the practice of venerating relics proliferated under Pope Damasus I (reigned from 366 – 384 A.D.), who “did much to encourage the veneration of the Christian martyrs.” The “restoring and creating access to their tombs in the Catacombs of Rome and elsewhere,” took place under his administration. The practice of exhuming the saints and venerating them was first introduced by the Caesars, and enthusiastically embraced by the religion of Roman Catholicism shortly thereafter.
In sum, the practice of venerating the relics of martyrs is a late 4th century innovation. Lacking evidence to support early veneration of relics, Saunders merely imputed relic veneration to the Smyrnæans and claimed that actual exhumations started “after 312” in an attempt to invest the practice with ante-Nicene antiquity. Unfortunately, such methods work on men like Rod Bennett. Like Pope Leo and the case for Roman Primacy, Saunders needed to find ante-Nicene authority for the practice of relic veneration, and he did his level best to make the data appear to support it—something he could only accomplish by separating the data from its historical context.
Our point is simply that Rome’s claims for antiquity require that she try as hard as she can to find Nicene and ante-Nicene origins for her novel practices. Saunders was simply engaging in the same historical revisionism that Leo was. Roman apologists, of necessity, must invest a tremendous amount of effort finding scraps of evidence in order to maintain the appearance of antiquity, so jealous is she of the apostolicity of the Early Church, and so earnestly does she try to co-opt it for herself.
In response, we say with Venantius, take away the relics, for Jesus is sufficient for us:
“Take away the linen clothes, I pray; leave the napkins in the tomb: You are sufficient for us, and without You there is nothing.” (Venantius, Poem on Easter)
Tim wrote:
“Thus, in the early church, the proper treatment of the remains of a martyr was to dress them for the grave and bury them underground. It was offensive, unholy and unlawful to do otherwise. From 108 A.D. (when Ignatius was buried in Antioch) to 260 A.D. (when Dionysius described the job of dressing and burying a martyr) to about 356 A.D. (when Anthony rebuked the Egyptians)—it appears that the relics of martyrs were collected and given a proper burial. They were not to be kept as house guests or as honorary church members.”
and:
“We are hardly surprised, of course, to read and hear Roman Catholic apologists as they backfill the Early Church’s treatment of the remains of the martyrs with their later superstitious novelties. For example, Rod Bennett, a former Protestant, now Roman Catholic, comes to precisely the wrong conclusion about the bones of Polycarp (hat tip: Ken Temple).”
This is very interesting. I had not read Tim’s article today before watching the video by Rod Bennett that both Bob and Jim were salivating over last week. When first watching Rod Bennett’s testimony, I could see immediately his love for relics and idols that both Jim and Bob cherish so much together. You can see why both Jim and Bob loved Rod Bennett’s testimony as relics and pagan idols and worship are close to their heart as Roman Catholic apologists.
Then, Tim gave me a link to an article by Ken Temple and Mr. Temple wrote:
“None of us had a proper understanding of local church Biblical authority. Our model of a mega-church pastor with no elders and no accountability, that did not do church-discipline (ignored passages such as Matthew 18:15-20; Titus 3:10; 1 Corinthians 5) was not a good model.
Years later, when we debated, looking back on that bible study that he just “started up”, Rod admitted to me that after people asked him, “who gave you the authority to start a bible study?”, and “What church ordained or commissioned you to do that?” – it was those questions that got him to question his authority to start a bible study. Those questions also forced Rod to think about church authority, accountability, ordination, and the proper role of church confirming people and sending them out to do ministry. (as in Acts 13:1-4) This reality, eventually lead him, along with the discovering the early church fathers, unfortunately, to think that the Roman Catholic church and it’s authority claims, is the one true church that Jesus founded.
After Rod read the early church fathers or around the same time, from my perspective, he was unprepared to deal with the arguments of Roman Catholic apologists such as Scott Hahn and his book, Rome Sweet Home; and the arguments of John Henry Cardinal Newman. He was using those and Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and Surprised by Truth (volume 1) (Edited by Patrick Madrid) kind of material on me. I quickly bought those books and studied them. Fortunately, I had gone off to seminary a few years earlier than Rod’s New Vision Bible study, and studied church history some, so I was not so shocked at the apostolic fathers as Rod was when he first encountered them.”
Amen!
As I said in my early post. These guys have NO EARTHLY idea what church government even is, and no concept as Southern Baptists what it means. Could you imagine going to a MEGA church with ONE PASTOR, no elders, no oversight, no church discipline, etc. like Bennett and Temple did?
Is it no WONDER Bennett loves Rome? He shifted from a backslidden Southern Baptist mega church with NO authority and NO biblical foundation run by one man to now the POPE who is one man who runs the world’s largest MEGA church, and is the Scriptures defined Antichrist.
It was a perfect fit…Bennett is a Roman Catholic now.
Ken Temple writes:
“Their writings have to be measured against the infallible Scriptures. There are some early mistakes in the early church fathers, true. Rod mentions some of them, baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, and the sacrificial nature of the Lord’s Supper. But he agrees with those; most Protestants do not, or have a different understanding of them than Rome does at least. Of course these in their early forms are not the same as later in history and not the same as how Rome defines them today. A Protestant can acknowledge some form of these early on, without believing the church went totally and completely “off the rails”. See Tim Kauffman’s excellent series on Baptismal Regeneration. I think Tim poked enough holes in that to question whether the early church really taught what Rome claims it did in the area of baptismal regeneration.
Rod claims that Clement of Rome teaches apostolic succession. Rod calls it “discipleship” and says that the Bible had not existed yet. Well, all the NT books were written by that time, in separate scrolls, and Clement even mentions Paul’s letter of 1 Corinthians. (1 Clement 47) What he means that the individual books and letters of the New Testament were not yet collected under one cover or list, as those books which are inspired, God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16), and therefore canonical (“canon”, meaning “standard”, “criterion”, “rule”, “law”, for sound doctrine and practice) I don’t think Clement of Rome taught apostolic succession in the way that Rome and Rod defines it today. Clement did teach that churches should not rebel and be jealous and get rid of their elders, yes. (1 Clement, especially paragraphs 1-6, 14, 44-47) But that is not apostolic succession.”
Amen!
Tim says apostolic succession is true, don’t you Tim?
Sure do: “a continuity in doctrinal teaching from the time of the apostles to the present.” That’s why I refuse to join Roman Catholicism in her protest against the apostolicity of the Church that Jesus built upon the Rock.
Thanks,
Tim
And you can name all of those churches in the unbroken line of that succession, can’t you Tim?
Yep. Sure can. Just like Rome can name all the ex cathedra statements the “continuous” line of popes have ever made. And just like Rome can name the continuous line of successors of Peter. Was Clement the successor to Peter in Rome? (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32). Or Was Linus? (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, paragraph 3). Was Ignatius Peter’s successor in Antioch? (John of Chrysostom, Homily on St. Ignatius, chapter IV). Or was it Evodius (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter 22). Was Annanias the first to preside over the church of Alexandria? (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter 21). Or was it Peter’s disciple, Mark? (Council of Rome, III.3).
There you have it: a succession so “continuous” from Peter that the church lost track of it within one generation. It must have been very important to them. Could it be that apostolic succession had to do with the purity of apostolic doctrines rather than the personalities of men?
Thanks,
Tim
Wow, it just dawned on me who Jim was after I started reading the article comments. Ken wrote:
“Jim,
In your first 3 posts, you did not interact with one point that I made in response to Rod’s lecture.
You only mention in passing his comment about “Mere Christianity” and that you loved the video.
You wasted a lot of time and space and don’t address specific points.”
This all makes perfect sense now. Here we go again…Bob and Jim are on the attacked rattling on about things not even on point. Poor Ken Temple…he does not have any idea who Jim is and how he is going to be flooded with lots of babble that has nothing to do with the article he wrote. Oh my, I feel so sorry for this poor man. Wait till Bob jumps in too. Painful to watch.
TIM–
You said: “Yep. Sure can. Just like Rome can name all the ex cathedra statements the “continuous” line of popes have ever made.”
Just like it, huh? What an interesting statement. You claim, just like Rome claims they can name ex cathedra statements, that you can name all the churches in the broken line of succession. Now if I have been reading you right, you believe that Rome actually cannot name all those statements. So I must conclude, then, that you cannot name all of those churches in an unbroken line of succession, either. And the only way you can claim that you truly believe apostolic succession is to change the definition of apostolic succession. What a great example of apologetic acrobatics. BRAVO!
online dictionary:
ap·os·tol·ic suc·ces·sion//noun
the uninterrupted transmission of spiritual authority from the Apostles through successive popes and bishops, taught by the Roman Catholic Church but denied by most Protestants.
Tim Kauffman dictionary:
ap·os·tol·ic suc·ces·sion//noun
a continuity in doctrinal teaching from the time of the apostles to the present
I guess your dictionary is the abridged edition.
Actually, Bob, I co-opted that from your dictionary:
Assuming you’re actually a “methodist,” that is. 😉
Tim
Watch out now. Walt will chastise you for using Wikipedia. It is just too “Romish” for him.
You said: “Assuming you’re actually a “methodist,” that is. ”
Again I notice you are using your abridged method. What you forgot to include was this:
“We believe it would not be right for us to administer either Baptism or the Lord’s Supper unless we had a commission so to do from those Bishops whom we apprehend to be in a succession from the Apostles.”
—Rev. John Wesley, A.D. 1745
Some scholars argue that in 1763, Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of the Diocese of Arcadia, who was visiting London at the time, consecrated John Wesley a bishop, and ordained several Methodist lay preachers as priests, including John Jones. However, Wesley could not openly announce his episcopal consecration without incurring the penalty of the Præmunire Act. In light of Wesley’s episcopal consecration, the Methodist Church can lay a claim on apostolic succession, as understood in the traditional sense. Since John Wesley ordained and sent forth every Methodist preacher in his day, who preached and baptized and ordained, and since every Methodist preacher who has ever been ordained as a Methodist was ordained in this direct “succession” from Wesley, then the Methodist Church teaches that it has all the direct merits coming from apostolic succession, if any such there be.
And that is what I have always been taught is that our bishops and presbyters ordination can be traced back to the apostles through our Anglican roots in unbroken succession. Calvinists cannot claim this. So they deny it.
Are you watching Walt?
Tim wrote:
“Bennett insists that he first read the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom when he was but a “country Baptist.” As such, he read it with his very shallow understanding of history, for he not only assumed that the remains of martyrs were kept at churches at that time (they were not), but he also assumed that the remains of relics were exhumed annually for veneration (they were not). The data does not support his assumptions. With his shallow understanding of history, Rod Bennett fell for one of Rome’s most successful and disreputable tactics: to backload modern Roman novelties into the practices of the Early Church.”
And here is the substance of the problem that faces these men who desire so much in their mind and heart to be a Roman Catholic with one antichrist Pope to govern their flawed concept of a central mega church throughout the world.
They know little about history of the early churches, and even less about the pre-, first and second reformations. They know nothing about the counter reformation, the Jesuit militancy to rise to global power with their Pope Francis sitting on the thrown. That is why it is critical to learn their history:
” Since 1814 the Jesuit General (the Black Pope) has controlled the Papacy. If a Pope becomes disobedient or rebellious to the Black Pope’s commands, he is punished (like Pope Pius IX) or is murdered (like Pope John Paul I). Thus, the Jesuit General was in command of Vatican I (1870) and Vatican II (1963-65).”
Now, the right people are in the right place with Obama.
http://jesuits.org/news-detail?tn=news-20140611091023
And CIA admits the Jesuits are the greatest intelligence network so is this not very comforting to know. This is what happens when the church becomes so powerful and evil.
For a great synopsis on Cardinal Newman and what the RCC is still undergoing, check this website:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=272
Tom,
Pretty spooky stuff, eh Tom?
Thanks for the heads up.
Oh, by the way, you remind me of that Thomas Nast cartoon that shows bishops with miters like crocodiles swimming to America from Ireland to gobble up the little WASP children.
Pure foaming at the mouth hysteria. HA!
http://thomasnastcartoons.com/irish-catholic-cartoons/the-american-river-ganges-1871/
You ought to join the Klan. It’s full of guys like you.
Wow Tom, that was a great article….especially this fact:
“While still a priest within the Church of England, by 1840 the suspicion that Newman had become a campaigner for Roman Catholicism neared certainty with the publication of his notorious “Tract 90.” In that tract, he used sophistry and casuistry to argue that the Thirty-Nine Articles (which state the Biblical position of the Anglican Church on salvation), if rightly understood, were compatible with the doctrine and dogma of the Church of Rome. Although the Thirty-Nine Articles repudiate teachings and practices of the Catholic Church(29), this tract was subtly clever in undermining the Reformed Protestant identity of the historic Articles of the Church of England. For example, Section 5 of the conclusion of Tract 90 states,
They say that the Church has authority in controversies, they do not say what authority. They say that it may enforce nothing beyond Scripture, but do not say where the remedy lies when it does. They say the works before grace and justification are worthless and worse, and that works after grace and justification are acceptable, but they do not speak at all of works with GOD’s aid, before justification. (30)
Such sophistry was a blatant denial of the very principle of the authority of Scripture alone and clearly promotes an argumentative attitude towards it. After Tract 90, it became apparent that Newman was committed to defending papal doctrine. He was officially received into the Roman Catholic Church in 1845 and ordained a Catholic priest the following year.
Thus in the 19th century, the Papacy used John Henry Newman as their point man to subvert the Church of England to Roman Catholicism and thereby set in motion a developing plan to regain England as a Catholic country(31). We may think that all this is the sound of “far-off things and battles long ago.” However, the Vatican ever thinks in terms of centuries. Benedict XVI, a skillful politician, understands that England lost its sovereign status in December 2009 when the Treaty of Lisbon went into effect. Little wonder then that the second stage of the “beatification” of Newman has had to wait until now.”
– See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=272#sthash.vVkqOhU7.dpuf
Tim,
I got a chuckle out of your suggestion that any martyr would actually tell people to be sure to collect his bones for veneration.
Of course Ignatius would not have been so vainglorious as to insist on being venerated! Sheesh!
Here is what Augustine said,
““For even now miracles are wrought in the name of Christ, whether by his sacraments or by the prayers or relics of his saints . . . The miracle which was wrought at Milan when I was there. . . [and when people] had gathered to the bodies of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, which had long lain concealed and unknown but where now made known to the bishop Ambrose in a dream and discovered by him.” (City of God 22:8 [A.D. 419])
And don’t forget Julian the Apostate executed two of his soldiers for not want to enforce his edict banning Christians for venerating relics.
I like the fact that when the Hebrews left Egypt, they took Joseph’s bones with them.
As for the handkerchiefs touched to Paul’s body while he was still alive, that’s what we true believers call “2nd class relics”.
Jim,
You observed,
It’s not just that he hoped there would be no remains. It’s that it did not occur to him that his bones ought to be preserved. Nor did it occur to his followers to place him in a reliquary. Ignatius expected to be entombed, one way or another. It turns out that part of him was entombed in the lions, and the other in Antioch. He wasn’t exhumed for exposition in a reliquary for centuries. If the practice was so common in the early church, why were Ignatius’ remains buried in a cemetary, and why were they not exhumed and transferred to a reliquary until 5th century?
You then cited Augustine. Can you tell me to what end you did so? Was there something in Augustine’s words about Ambrose that should convince me that relic veneration originated earlier than the latter part of the 4th century?
You then cited the case of Julian the Apostate:
The event you describe took place in Antioch in 363 A.D., 9 years after the bones of Babylas had been translated to Antioch. Julian shut down the cathedral in Antioch and ended devotion to the relics of Babylas that had been instituted earlier by caesar Gallus. The people there objected, saying, “that the powerful intercession of St. Babylas had pointed the lightnings of heaven against the devoted roof” (Gibbon, Fall of the Roman Empire, vol 1, ch. 23). Did you think to show that the veneration of Babylas’ relics was practiced before the emperor had translated the bones of Babylas to Antioch, or that relic veneration in Antioch preceded the initiatives of the emperors? I’m not sure what I am to take away from your citation, or what you thought to prove from it.
You also observed,
I also note that the purpose for which they carried them was to give them a proper burial in Sechem, not to carry them in reliquary processions:
It sounds to me that the earliest manifestations of “reliquary processions” are the translation of the bones of Joseph, the translation of the body of Stephen (Acts 8:2), the translation of the bones of Ignatius and the translation of the bones of Polycarp—all of which had burial, not veneration, as their objective. This seems pretty consistent until the end of the 4th century. Am I missing something?
Finally, you said,
You may have misunderstood my objection to Saunders’ citation. I did not say Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons didn’t count because they were clothing. I said it was a stretch because Paul was still alive. According to the Catholic encyclopedia, relics are “some object, notably part of the body or clothes, remaining as a memorial of a departed saint.” Paul wasn’t departed yet, and therefore, the aprons and scarfs don’t count as relics, but Saunders said they were examples of the “use” of relics in Scripture. Acts 19:12 hardly suffices as evidence.
A second class relic is “a personal possession, such as clothing” of a departed saint. It is not “a personal possession, such as clothing” of a living person.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
A 2nd class relic can also be something that was used by the saint WHILE HE WAS ALIVE.
Tim,
Don’t go moving the goal post now.
Relics don’t need to be exhumed, placed in a reliquary and processed through the streets with in order to be venerated.
This is the same faux pas you made about Eucharistic processions a year or two ago.
It was pretty hard to have processions through the streets during time of persecution by the way. ( By the way, I have taken part in two procession this week. The biggest in Europe was last Sunday’s Corpus Christie celebration and this Sunday was Nossa Senhora de Luz and St. Anthony in a little village by my house. I love a procession! They are so “in your face” to guys like you ).
Tim,
“Because no revelation is given ex cathedra if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given ex cathedra, it therefore follows that there is no authority to reveal things ex cathedra. Thus, the pope truly serves no purpose.”
You are so right. Papal statement, while given ex cathedra, are not new revelations. Popes don’t give revelations.
Fr. Ryland did not say what you say.
Jim,
You may also note that Ryland said “there can be no revelation” at all. He didn’t say there can be no “new revelation.” Since popes issue “divinely revealed doctrines” and you can’t know which of his “divinely revealed doctrines” are actually “revealed,” there is no revelation at all.
Unless, of course, Pius IX, or Newman, or Leo, or Nicæa were wrong. Which one do you follow?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Popes don’t make revelations
Ex Cathedra statements are NOT new revelations. They are not old revelations. They are not revelations.
You stressed, “You may also note that Ryland said “there can be no revelation” at all. ”
Okay. But where does he say Popes make revelation?
Revelation ended long ago.
Revelation requires inspiration. Popes are infallible, not divinely inspired.
Popes guard and clarify what has already been revealed.
Jim, I think we both agree that “ex cathedra statements” are made to proclaim a divinely revealed dogma. It’s not about new revelation or additional revelation. It’s about what is revealed and what is not. You think you know “what is a divinely revealed dogma,” but you don’t. Was Ineffabilis Deus ex cathedra? Was Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? Inquiring minds want to know, but inquiring minds can’t find out. The reason they can’t find out is because there is no authority in Roman Catholicism that can explain whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was ex cathedra or not, and therefore nobody knows if it is in the “canon of revelation” or not. That is the very problem Ryland thought Roman Catholicism had solved.
That is why Robert Sungenis, Roman Catholic Apologist, complained in 2008, “When the Church makes something infallible, I wish they would just do it plainly and clearly.” Yes, wouldn’t that be nice?
Since there is no authority in Rome to explain whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is or is not a part of the canon of revelation, there is therefore no authority in Rome. Don’t ask me. Ask Ryland.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Are you for real? JPII’s statement of priestly ordination was indeed infallible.
As for Bob S., again, are you serious? He is a sedes-vacantis.
By the way, you seem to confuse “infallible” with “ex cathedra”.
Was Humane Vitae ex cathedra? Was it infallible? Must a pope speak from the chair in order to speak with authority? Or can he merely be reiterating the constant teaching of the Church?
You should be able to figure that out since you set yourself up as an authority on all things Catholic.
Jim, I did not ask if Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible. I asked if it was ex cathedra.
You wrote,
That’s what I’m trying to figure out. Was it? How do you know?
You continued,
As you know, the pope must speak from the chair—ex cathedra—to speak infallibly.
So how do you know that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was ex cathedra? Or was it?
Thanks,
Tim
Jim,
Sure, they just declare what has been “revealed.” The problem is, the things they think have been revealed are things that other people think have not been revealed. And when they do declare what has been revealed, you can’t actually tell if they have actually declared to have been revealed is their opinion about what has been revealed or an infallible statement about what has been revealed. And that’s the same thing as not knowing if something has been revealed or not. Can you list the things they have declared ex cathedra to be revealed?
Sure they’re not. That’s why the early church testified to the sinful, vainglorious, obstructionist, self-seeking Mary whose sins were not washed away until the Cross. Because Mary’s sinlessness was an apostolic truth that had already been “revealed.”
He didn’t. I was not arguing that he had. I was stating Newman’s dictum on Revelation shows that the pope has never spoken infallibly, because there is no authority in Rome to decide if a papal statement declares a revealed truth or not:
Why don’t you just settle the matter by providing an infallible list of infallible papal statements? Then Rome would finally have an authority.
You’d think so, wouldn’t you? But even Trent allowed for additional private revelation:
Unless, of course, you’re saying that Trent was wrong. Or that the absolute, infallible certitude of one’s final perseverance was contained in the original deposit of faith.
Besides, you’re not taking into account The Boundary Problem of Apparitions:
Which Roman Catholic should I believe, Jim?
So you say. But Letter 6 of Leo is used to prove the ancient tradition of the respect that is due the apostolic see, and in that letter, Leo insists that the bishop of Thessalonica should consult with him “so that we may write back under the revelation of the Lord … because He has breathed favorably upon us…”
What do you think that means?
Yes, if only the popes could clarify what they have guarded!
Robert Sungenis, 2008: “When the Church makes something infallible, I wish they would just do it plainly and clearly.”
Maybe you can.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
If you remember back some weeks or months ago I was asking about where to find a link to all the source documents that Rome uses to justify their claim to a Papal superiority over the visible church. I think I have found that set of source documents here as I continue to look over the set. Very interesting as it covers the first almost 500 years of the church.
https://ia700509.us.archive.org/22/items/DocumentsIllustratingPapalAuthorityAd96-454Giles/Documents_Illustrating_Papal_Authority_AD_96-454.pdf
Another interesting supporting point that I found in re-reading the Introduction to Christian Church and Roman State to your/my comments that National churches were being built in the early church, NOT a CENTRAL CHURCH.
“But even this conclusion failed to finish controversy, for the attempt to impose the Chalcedonian formula created independent Monophysite churches in Armenia, Syria (the Jocobites), and Egypt (the Copts, with their daughter communion in Ethiopia). And since the clergy as leaders of the laity led the way into schism and heresy, ***in a sense it seems that the Church both nationalized the pastorate and de-Christianized the populace! Thus started permanently what some scholars consider the pernicious separation into national churches***—a fission which certain fautors of Christianity’s catholicity find at utter variance with its universal character, since they connect the Saviour’s words that there should be “one fold and one shepherd” (John 10:16) with his similarly celebrated promise to St. Peter about the construction of his Church (Matt. 16:18, on which see no. 422, n.7).”
The Introduction goes on to explain how “Internally the record is held perhaps by Rome, the otherwise conspicuous champion of order, which within this sylloge’s period provided seven egregious examples of papal schism: St. Hippolytus (217), Novatian (251), Felix II (355), Ursinus (366), Eulalius (418), Laurence 498), Dioscore (530).”
I never knew there were so many (a very long list) of Antipopes! Growing up I was taught there was this near perfect line of Popes that were unchallenged and had perfect unity from Peter through history all the way to my beautiful little Roman Catholic church and school in my town.
Yet, the list is rather long over the internal fighting who was pope and who as antipope (e.g., causing schism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope
The more I dig deeper into these periods the more you can see the fruits of Presbyterianism starting to grow into national churches opposing a central Bishop and Mega Church authority.
“The character of the Church as an institution of the State is clear especially from the control exercised by the emperor over the ecumenical councils, which were convoked by him (e.g., nos. 48, 397, 409, 464), over which he (e.g., nos. 49, 472) or his laic deputy (e.g., nos. 401-6) or deputies (e.g., no. 470) presided, whose agenda was conducted by imperial authority (e.g., nos. 48, 49, 397, 398, 401-6, 408, 409, 461-4, 466-73), and whose canons became law only when confirmed by imperial constitutions (e.g., nos. 52, 375, 410-412, 414-20, 422-6, 475-7, 479-87). (On emperors and ecumenical councils see no. 48, n.2.) but independently of general councils the emperor intervened in matters ecclesiastical (most of this sylloge’s documents demonstrate this interference) and theological (e.g., esp. no 527, an imperial instruction reading like a theological treatise defining doctrine and by almost all the eastern episcopate accepted for a generation as the competent description of Christological dogma). And he even controlled occasionally election to (e.g., no. 61) and deposition from (e.g., no. 50) the episcopate as well as the selection of Roman popes (e.g., no. 365).”
Very interesting…and totally opposite of what I was taught growing up in Roman Catholic school.
Tim,
You were quoted in this article:
3 See Timothy F. Kauffman’s series of articles, “The Visible Apostolicity of the Invisibly Shepherded Church” at http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2015/03/22/ the-visible-apostolicity-of-the-invisibly-shepherded-church-part-1/.
Editor. – See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/latest.php#sthash.1NRleyfS.dpuf
It is nice to see your work broadening out in defense of truth.
Thanks, Walt. I wasn’t aware of this. I appreciate the heads up.
Tim
Tim,
You must have been lurking over on CCC. You guys keep trying to make us look as confused as you Bible alone guys.
( The rest of your comments about, the Fathers, Lourdes and private revelations has already been hashed out months ago. )
You know, I have been enjoying reading about R C Sproul Jr and senior.
Whose right? Can they both be?
Keep trying Tim.
Tim,
Your theory says that Catholics are as confused as you guys.
No way.
You guys cannot ask the Bible to clarify itself. If you could, you would be continuing to divide even today.
Catholics do not use the Bible Alone as our center of authority but rather, the Pope and bishops in union with him. If a Catholic does not understand some document, he just needs to ask an authorized person for a clarification.
You say the early Church was a collection of little independent local churches with no central authority. Although the printing press had not been invented yet, they were Bible Only folk wh just turned to a book to settle disputes on matters of doctrine..
Then, in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, these little storefront Baptist churches morphed into one centralized mega church/Harlot. Where they had previously agreed to disagree on non-essentials like the Lord’s Supper, they suddenly were all forced to knuckle under to Transubstantiation and other pagan theories that lined the pockets of the rising clergy class.
And this whole takeover of the little storefront Baptist churches was pulled off with hardly a peep.
Out of the blue the sheep started worship Isis under the guise of Mary. They went from burying the dead to worshiping them. The true believers went underground for over a thousand years until the printing press was invented.
If God could of had the foresight to give His real church the printing press back in the first century we’d have 1.2 billion Baptists instead of Papists! 🙂
CK,
Just to bring you up to speed, Tim and Walt are having kniptions over these two Fr. ray Ryland videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoVJM_dkbjk
Thanks. I’ll watch.
TIM–
The veneration of relics falls hand in hand with the veneration of the saints. The relics of the Crucifixion are most venerated–pieces of the True Cross (including the nails and the superscription), the spear point of the lance of Saint Longinus, the Shroud of Turin, the Sudarium of Oviedo, the Crown of Thorns, etc. There is no doubt that relics are a very important part of the veneration of the living history of Jesus and the saints. Even St. Mary Magdalene’s relics have a long history.
This in itself opens the door to an interesting puzzle: why is there an unusual absence of the relics of the most venerated saint of them all, the Virgin Mary?
Tim,
Why? What it matter whether or not OS was ex cathedra? It was infallible. The pope even said so.
Whe the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he says so. When he speaks infallibly, he just has to reiterate the constant teaching of the Church.
Humanae Vitae was spoken to all men, form the office and addressed the constant teaching of the Church.
Your Protestant position on contraception flies 180 degrees in the face of the 2,000 year old Tradition of the Church. It even contradicts the teachings of the Deformers.
This issue PROVES BEYOND THE SHADOW OF ANY DOUBT your church is a false church.
Jim,
When did the pope say Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible?
Thanks,
Tim
Concerning Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
The ordination of women has never been allowed in the Catholic Church. That teaching was restated Ex Cathedra, May 22 1994.
Many would like to believe it was not Ex Cathedra and they give all sorts of excuses why it shouldn’t be. But it was. The Vatican still does not endorse women clergy–lay ministry, yes, but not clergy.
Does this fall under the doctrine of infallibility? There are two criteria to satisfy here–faith and morals. Obviously, women ordination is not a matter of morality. So that can be eliminated. Is ordination of women a matter of faith? It could be construed as such. The Church recognizes that people are called to the ministry by God through the Holy Spirit. However, the Magisterium has proclaimed that the Church has NOT been given the authority to ordain women. Ergo, it becomes not a matter of faith, but of church government. Having not met the criteria of faith or morals, then it does not fall under the doctrine of infallibility.
That being said, does it have to fall under the doctrine of infallibility to be infallible? No. A statement of truth is a statement that is not in error. So. intrinsically, truth is infallible whether spoken from the Chair of Peter or not.
Is it true that the Church has not been given the authority to ordain women? Yes. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise in Scripture or Tradition.
Did JPII speak from the Chair of Peter when he issued the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of John Paul II to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone? There is no doubt.
Truth spoken from the Chair of Peter. It appears to be infallible to me.
Bob,
If you re-read your citation, you will find that it contradicts your conclusion. You are confusing “infallibility” with “ex cathedra.” They are not the same thing.
The article from which you are citing is relying on Pastor Aeternus, which states that the pope speaks ex cathedra, from the chair, when “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” The article actually ruled out the possibility that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was proclaimed ex cathedra for that simple reason: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis had “not met the criteria of faith or morals”. Thus, it was not issued ex cathedra, or “from the chair.”
So your conclusion, in which you stated, “Truth spoken from the Chair of Peter. It appears to be infallible to me,” was based on an article that actually denied that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was “spoken from the Chair of Peter.”
The second half of your statement—that it “appears infallible to me” is precisely the point where all Roman Catholics live—they examine each papal statement, decide if it conforms to their personal, private interpretation of revelation, and if it does, they conclude that this is an infallible teaching to which I must subscribe. Other Roman Catholics read the same document and conclude that this is not an infallible teaching, and therefore I do not have to submit to it.
If there was someone who could settle all this, it wouldn’t be such a controversy, but what you have attempted is a great illustration of the problem: Roman Catholics brow beat everyone else for not having an earthly authority who can speak infallibly, and they proudly maintain (as Fr. Ryland did) that a revelation is not given unless there is an authority to decide what is given. And then they all go back to their private interpretation closets and decide for themselves what is given. You say it appears infallibly part of the original deposit of faith. Jim says the pope himself has said so. The nice people over at US Catholic say it is not because it did not meet the criteria for ex cathedra. Who is to decide? Fr. Ryland?
To summarize the exchange so far:
I asked Jim if Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was proclaimed ex cathedra. He responded that of course it was infallible. I responded explaining that I was not asking if it was infallible. I asked if it was ex cathedra. Jim responded, claiming that the pope himself has said that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible. So I asked when the pope declared it to be infallible.
I did not ask if it was infallible, and your own citation agreed that it was not ex cathedra.
If only there was a supreme authority on earth who could decide whether it was “given.”
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
I did not cite an article. I merely gave my logical conclusion.
Ok, I stand corrected.
But since the pope only speaks from the chair when speaking on a matter of faith and morals, and you ruled out from the beginning that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was a matter of faith and morals, you therefore ruled out that he had been speaking from the chair.
If ex cathedra statements are only those on faith and morals, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not on faith and morals, how do you conclude that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was ex cathedra?
Thanks,
Tim
Who told you that the Pope only speaks from the chair when speaking on a matter of faith and morals? That’s infallibility and not ex cathedra.
EX CATHEDRA
adverb or adjective ex ca·the·dra \ˌeks-kə-ˈthē-drə
: by virtue of or in the exercise of one’s office or position
INFALLIBLE
adjective in·fal·li·ble \(ˌ)in-ˈfa-lə-bəl\
: not capable of being wrong or making mistakes : not fallible
: certain to work properly or succeed
DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY
“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”–Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv:
The Pope speaks ex cathedra when he uses his authority simply from sitting in the office of the Bishop of Rome. He uses his authority on all matters concerning the Church–governing, canon law, ordaining other bishops, marriage annulments, giving special dispensations, etc. etc. It’s not limited to just defining doctrine concerning faith and morals.
The doctrine of infallibility is limited to only the defining of dogma on faith and morals and is just a part of the ex cathedra powers granted to the Pope.
In other words, when the pope is speaking ex cathedra, and he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, then that doctrine is to be regarded as irreformable. When the pope gives special dispensation on a certain matter to someone or something based on a certain circumstance and then that circumstance changes, the pope may “reform” his decision. Both of these actions are ex cathedra–by his authority as Pope.
That is my understanding of it.
Bob,
You asked,
According to Pastor Aeternus, the Vatican I statement that defined Papal infallibility, ex cathedra is “when the pope speaks on faith and morals.” By that definition, when a pope is not speaking on faith and morals, he is not speaking ex cathedra.
Here is the language from Pastor Aeternus:
Thus, according to Rome’s own definition, when he speaks on faith and morals as a shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he is speaking ex cathedra. When he is not speaking on faith and morals as a shepherd and teacher of all Christians (and as you said, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, he was not doing so), he is not speaking ex cathedra. And therefore Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not “from the chair.”
Thus, your statement, “That’s infallibility and not ex cathedra” is incorrect. When he’s speaking on faith and morals to the universal church, that is ex cathedra.
That is why it is illogical for you to say that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not a matter of faith and morals but was ex cathedra. As Pastor Aeternus said, if he’s not speaking on faith and morals, he’s not speaking ex cathedra.
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You said: “Thus, according to Rome’s own definition, when he speaks on faith and morals as a shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he is speaking ex cathedra.”
I agree.
“When he is not speaking on faith and morals as a shepherd and teacher of all Christians…, he is not speaking ex cathedra.”
Where in Pastor Aeternus did you read that?
TIM–
To further clarify my thought–
Ex cathedra includes:
1) teaching office
2) sanctifying office
3) governing office
All these are the powers of the office of bishop or “the chair”.
As far as the Bishop of Rome is concerned, the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility concerns only the teaching office, which is concerned with defining doctrines of faith and morals. Ex Cathedra powers include the teaching office but are not limited to it.
The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not include the sanctifying office or the governing office of the Chair of Peter.
That is not illogical.