Now moved HERE.

original sin and actual sin

Paul writes in Romans 5:15: "For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many" (NIV). Whenever I read the "how much more" I have the sense that there is much more he means that I do not understand. Augustine's interpretation, which I read this morning, illuminates part of the passage.

Not many more, that is, many more men, for there are not more persons justified than condemned; but it runs, much more hath abounded; inasmuch as, while Adam produced sinners from his one sin, Christ has by His grace procured free forgiveness even for the sins which men have of their own accord added by actual transgression to the original sin in which they were born. (On Forgiveness of Sins, And Baptism 1.4)

Letter on Jesus' own claims to divinity

C----,

Thank you for clarifying your point. It is true that Jesus did not say "I am God" but he did nevertheless claim divinity. His claims were sometimes indirect, but they are there. I can think of at least three places where Jesus claims to be divine. The first is in John's Gospel where Jesus tells the Jews The Father and I are one (10:24-38). Like Matthew 28:18, this passage draws attention to the distinction between the divine persons within the Trinity as well as points to their unity. For Jesus says The Father and I, implying that Jesus himself is not the Father (for the Son is not the Father), but then he adds are one, implying that Jesus is equal to the Father. In order for Jesus to be equal to the Father, he must be divine; in order for Jesus not to be the Father, he must be a different person. Even the Jews to whom he was speaking understood that he was claiming to be God and they were therefore ready to stone him for blasphemy. When asked why they were going to stone him, the Jews replied because you, a mere man, claim to be God (10:33). Earlier in the same Gospel, in fact, the Jews had wanted to kill him for he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God (5:17-18). Apparently, this was something he did a lot. And if the cry of the crowd before the crucifixion is any indication - the cry that he called himself the "son of God" - Jesus must have frequently implied he was divine.

Another passage in which Jesus indirectly claims to be God is Mark 2: 5-11 (also, Luke 5:20-24). In this story of healing, when the paralytic is brought before Jesus, he says your sins are forgiven. Notice again that the Jews realize what he is doing, for they say to themselves Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone? The Jews realize that since only God can forgive sins, Jesus is acting as if he were God. Jesus knows the thoughts of their heart and says Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." His question of which is easier is important because, judging from externals (as the teachers of the law were doing), it is more difficult to say "Get up and walk" since that can be verified by the senses. The claim "Your sins are forgiven," however, is easier to say (though not easier to do) since it can not be verified by the senses. Therefore, according to the pragmatic view, if Jesus can restore the paralytic, he must also be able to forgive sins. And since he acted as God, he must have thought he was God. Since he thought he was God, he was either right or wrong. If he was wrong, he was a lunatic. If he was right, he really was and is God.

Jesus' clearest declaration of his own divinity, however, is in John 8:58. In this passage, after the Jews ask who Jesus is (v. 50), he first implies he is greater than Abraham and then says it directly: before Abraham was, I am. In saying this, he uses the same expression that Yahweh used at Mt. Sinai in answer to Moses' question about who God is: "I am" (Ex. 3:14). The Jews, who were thoroughly familiar with the book of Exodus, knew exactly what Jesus was saying - that he existed before Abraham because he was eternal and, therefore, God - and they tried to stone him because of it (v. 59).

There are other passages that confirm this reading (Jn 13:13; Jn 6:46), but the passages mentioned seem to be the clearest presentation of who, according to the records we have, Jesus himself said he was, for he not only claimed to be eternal and one with the Father but he also acted as if he was God by forgiving sins.

Peace, etc.

impeccability and infallibility

Often discussions of the papacy confuse impeccability with infallibility. But when the Church teaches that according to Christ’s promise she has been preserved from error in matters of faith and morals, she does not also claim that either her children or her pastors are free from sin. In fact, she expressly and explicitly denies it. Cardinal Newman writes in his Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics:

I allow there are true charges which can be brought against us; certainly, not only do I not deny it, but I hardly could deny it without heresy. I say distinctly, did I take upon me to deny everything which could be said against us, I should be proving too much, I should startle the Catholic theologian as well as Protestants; for what would it be but implying that the Church contains none within her pale but the just and holy? This was the heresy of the Novatians and Donatists of old time; it was the heresy of our Lollards, and others, such as Luther, who maintained that bad men are not members of the Church, that none but the predestinate are her members. But this no Catholic asserts, every Catholic denies. Every Catholic has ever denied it, back to the very time of the Apostles and their Divine Master; and He and they deny it. Christ denies it, St. Paul denies it, the Catholic Church denies it; our Lord expressly said that the Church was to be like a net, which gathered of every kind, not only of the good, but of the bad too. Such was His Church; it does not prove then that we are not His Church, because we are like His Church; rather our being like the Primitive Christian body, is a reason for concluding that we are one with it. We cannot make His Church better than He made her; we must be content with her as He made her, or not pretend to follow Him. He said, "Many are called, few are chosen;" men come into the Church, and then they fall. They are not indeed sinning at the very time when they are brought into His family, at the time they are new born; but as children grow up, and converts live on, the time too frequently comes, when they fall under the power of one kind of temptation or other, and fall from grace, either for a while or for good. Thus, not indeed by the divine wish and intention, but by the divine permission, and man's perverseness, there is a vast load of moral evil existing in the Church; an enemy has sown weeds there, and those weeds remain among the wheat till the harvest. And this evil in the Church is not found only in the laity, but among the clergy too; there have been bad priests, bad bishops, bad monks, bad nuns, and bad Popes. If this, then, is the charge made against us, that we do not all live up to our calling, but that there are Catholics, lay and clerical, who may be proved to be worldly, revengeful, licentious, slothful, cruel, nay, may be unbelievers, we grant it at once. We not only grant it but we zealously maintain it. "In a great house," says St. Paul, "there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some indeed unto honour, but some unto dishonour." There are, alas, plenty of children of the Church, who by their bad lives insult and disgrace their Mother.

commentary upon his post

The subject of the post is introduced by a quotation and a link to the source from which the quotation was drawn.

The Vatican issued a document Tuesday ratified and confirmed by Pope Benedict reasserting that the Roman Catholic Church is the only "true" church and that other denominations do not hold "the means to salvation." [article]

Next is his immediate reaction to Benedict’s statement—or rather, since he gives no sign of having read the document itself, to the article about Benedict’s statement.

Well isn't that precious.

Notice the ironic use of the word “precious.” The word does not mean “of high value” but the opposite. Yet as amusing and effective as irony can be, it is not a substitute for thinking or reasoning. For example, rather than critiquing this post I could have said, “Gee, your profound insights, thoughtful reactions, and well-informed opinions in this post are precious.” But I would rather use reason than irony since the calm, passionate defense of a belief more easily opens the way for response or even refutation. In the next sentence, he clarifies his personal reaction.

And by precious I mean sad—divorced from both the message of Jesus [Matthew 25:31-46] and from world history since then.

Here are two implied arguments. The first is that Matthew 25:31-46 somehow refutes or speaks against Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. The second is that the history of the papacy somehow refutes or speaks against Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. Neither argument, however, can be refuted because neither argument is clearly presented.

I can fairly quickly skip past the fury and right on to the bewilderment and pity.

Here the author lets us know which emotional states he passed through in the moments immediately after reading the news article.

It's just quite the mind-blow to see otherwise reasonably intelligent people—people talking into cell phones, for instance; these aren't jungle people—casually mention their assent to the exclusivist and [quite literally] self-righteous nature of the Roman bishop.

This is the second most interesting part of the whole post because he manages to use two logical fallacies in the same sentence. The first is the Appeal to Incredulity (e.g., “I don’t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity”) and the second is the Appeal to Vanity (e.g., “You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity”) [SOURCE]. Interestingly, the author manages to blend both of them into a single appeal that we can, for the sake of accuracy, call the Incredulity-Vanity Appeal. However, no honest thinker can accept the argument that because this writer does not understand how intelligent Catholics assent to their faith, that faith must therefore be wrong.

Also, according to this author, the “nature of the Roman bishop” is “[quite literally] self-righteous.” Due to an ambiguity, this charge may be taken in two ways. The first way is if Roman bishop, which properly denotes the pope’s person, is a metonym for Roman bishopric, which denotes his office. Or, if the words are taken as they stand, that the any pope is, presumably in the exercise of his office, self-righteous. What then is meant by “quite literally” self-righteous? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines “self-righteous” as “piously sure of one's own righteousness” [SOURCE]. The word “piously” here is pejorative, meaning not “marked by earnest devoutness” but “marked by false devoutness” [2b]. The question at hand then is whether the papal office as such is sure of its own righteousness in a manner marked by false devoutness, or whether every pope as a pope has been sure of his own righteousness in a manner marked by false devoutness. And the second sense must be universal to every bishop of Rome, for a flaw in the nature of a thing must be universal to all instances of that thing.

The first sense, while supported by a later correspondence in which the author said “the papacy in and of itself is a self-righteous post,” is quite literally impossible since an office, having no consciousness, cannot be sure of anything. And the second sense—that in the exercise of his office the pope acts in a manner marked by false devoutness—begs the question, assuming that the bishop of Rome has not been granted his office by Christ.

Now we come to the most interesting part of post, the imaginary conversation between a Protestant and the pope.

Protestant: "And, why are you infallible again?"
Pope: "Because I said I was!"

In this passage the author has the pope claim that the ground of papal infallibility is the pope’s own assertion rather than, as Catholic’s believe, Christ’s promise to his Church. This is distortion number one.

Protestant: "Well, I happen to disagree. So there."
Pope: "Take it back!"

Here the author implies that every pope is merely a petty, power-hungry person incensed by disagreement. A more intimate acquaintance with the history of the popes, however, easily refutes this notion (vid. J. N. D. Kelly’s Dictionary of Popes). Distortion number two.

Protestant: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me."
Pope: "Sorry, God's going to light you on fire forever."

Finally, in his third distortion, the author suggests that in his condemnation of error every pope secretly wishes that those in error burn forever in hell. There is no evidence, however, to support such a wild claim.

Thus we have three distortions of Catholicism, two fallacious appeals, and two implied arguments. (Apparently, I miscounted the number of appeals earlier.)

reactions

I've been thinking about the reaction that a Protestant acquaintance had to the recent statement on Catholic ecclesiology. He writes,

Well isn't that precious. And by precious I mean sad—divorced from both the message of Jesus [Matthew 25:31-46] and from world history since then. I can fairly quickly skip past the fury and right on to the bewilderment and pity. It's just quite the mind-blow to see otherwise reasonably intelligent people—people talking into cell phones, for instance; these aren't jungle people—casually mention their assent to the exclusivist and [quite literally] self-righteous nature of the Roman bishop.

Protestant: "And, why are you infallible again?"

Pope: "Because I said I was!"

Protestant: "Well, I happen to disagree. So there."

Pope: "Take it back!"

Protestant: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me."

Pope: "Sorry, God's going to light you on fire forever."

I am not sure whether or not he has read the document itself—rather than its presentation in the media—and perhaps, even if he had, his reaction would be the same. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a classic case in which someone outside the Catholic Church hears a statement made by the pope or one of the bishops and, without trying to understand the context in which it was made, reacts to the declaration in that sense by which he immediately understands it.

A quick read of the introduction, however, tells the reader that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has in mind those Catholic theologians whose "new contributions to the field" of Catholic theology "are not immune from erroneous interpretation" when it comes to "the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions." In other words, the magisterium is telling Catholic theologians, especially those writing today, to interpret Vatican II honestly and without equivocation—and telling them this by clarifying the meaning of the Council's words.

Magisterium [to Catholic theologians]: Don't misrepresent Vatican II.

Protestant: What! You think you're infallible! You're just a bunch of pitiable, self-righteous, stupid snobs!

Two things come to mind. The first is Newman's delightful parody of this kind of reaction in The Present Position of Catholics in England, the second these lines from Robert Frost's "Woodpile":

A small bird flew before me. He was careful
To put a tree between us when he lighted,
And say no word to tell me who he was
Who was so foolish as to think what he thought.
He thought that I was after him for a feather—
The white one in his tail; like one who takes
Everything said as personal to himself.
One flight out sideways would have undeceived him.

Letter to a Coworker on the Trinity

C---,

Matthew 28:19, especially the second half of the verse baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is interesting and, as it happens, relevant to the Trinity for two reasons. First, because the text draws attention to the three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And second, because at the same time the text draws attention to their unity. For the passage reads in the name (singular), implying the three are also one, and not in the names (plural), implying the three are only three. Therefore, since the three share a single name, Matthew seems to suggest the three share a single nature, which in this case would be the one, infinite Divine Essence.

John agrees with this when he says at the start of his Gospel In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (1:1). In the same prologue John says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and, immediately after this, begins talking about Jesus. Therefore, according to John, Jesus is the Word. Returning to the opening passage, then, we can find three statements made about this Word: (1) this Word existed in the beginning; (2) this Word was with God; and (3) this Word was God. Since Jesus is, as John says, the Word, John the apostle must have believed that Jesus existed in the beginning, was with God, and was God. Consequently, it is not true that Jesus is nowhere called God in Scripture.

In fact, after he sees the risen Christ, the apostle Thomas cries out to him My Lord and my God! (John 20:28). Notice Jesus' reaction in the next verse: Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." Now everyone who reads the gospels, Christian or not, will admit that Jesus was a good man. His goodness stands out as at least equal, humanly speaking, to the other great religious and spiritual leaders of the world. But good men do not deliberately mislead others - for if they did, they would not be good. Therefore, since Jesus does not rebuke or correct Thomas's claim for Jesus' own divinity, Jesus must have believed it himself. For if Jesus were not God but merely a good man, he would have rebuked Thomas's idolatry, since idolatry is wrong.

There is more Scriptural evidence for Jesus' divinity and if you look online, I'm sure you can find more evidence and arguments. However, turning to your next question, I notice that the passages you ask me to explain divide into two categories: (1) Old Testament references to the Nephilim who are called the "sons of God" (Gen 6:2 and 6:4), and (2) New Testament references to Christians who are called the "sons of God". As for the first, the Nephilim, I cannot help you there. I'm fascinated by the Genesis passage, but I cannot adequately explain or fully understand it. As for the second, I may be able to offer some helpful thoughts. Your last reference was to Galatians 3, which reads

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It is clear from the context that by "sons of God" Paul is referring to Christians who believe and are baptized. Paul seems to refer to them in this way because, as the first verse you quoted explains, those who follow the will of the Father belong to the family of Christ. In other words, by following God's will we become God's children and heirs to his kingdom. For since the mission of Jesus was to restore sinful mankind to the sinless God, God the Son became man that men might as sons become filled inwardly with God. Therefore, it was the incarnation of the Son, whom John calls the only-begotten (1:18, 3:16), that allows men and women to become the adopted sons and daughters of the Most High. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul explains,

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. (1:4-7)

Does that answer your question?

Peace, etc.

male and female in God

From Mulieris Dignitatem:

We may quote here some characteristic passages from the prophet Isaiah: "But Zion said, 'The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me'. 'Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you'". (49:14-15). And elsewhere: "As one whom his mother comforts, so will I comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem" (66: 13). In the Psalms too God is compared to a caring mother: "Like a child quieted at its mother's breast; like a child that is quieted is my soul. O Israel, hope in the Lord". (Ps 131:2-3). In various passages the love of God who cares for his people is shown to be like that of a mother: thus, like a mother God "has carried" humanity, and in particular, his Chosen People, within his own womb; he has given birth to it in travail, has nourished and comforted it (cf. Is 42:14; 46: 3-4). In many passages God's love is presented as the "masculine" love of the bridegroom and father (cf. Hosea 11:1-4; Jer 3:4-19), but also sometimes as the "feminine" love of a mother.

This characteristic of biblical language - its anthropomorphic way of speaking about God - points indirectly to the mystery of the eternal "generating" which belongs to the inner life of God. Nevertheless, in itself this "generating" has neither "masculine" nor "feminine" qualities. It is by nature totally divine. It is spiritual in the most perfect way, since "God is spirit" (Jn 4:24) and possesses no property typical of the body, neither "feminine" nor "masculine". Thus even "fatherhood" in God is completely divine and free of the "masculine" bodily characteristics proper to human fatherhood. In this sense the Old Testament spoke of God as a Father and turned to him as a Father. Jesus Christ - who called God "Abba Father" (Mk 14: 36), and who as the only-begotten and consubstantial Son placed this truth at the very centre of his Gospel, thus establishing the norm of Christian prayer - referred to fatherhood in this ultra-corporeal, superhuman and completely divine sense. He spoke as the Son, joined to the Father by the eternal mystery of divine generation, and he did so while being at the same time the truly human Son of his Virgin Mother.

Although it is not possible to attribute human qualities to the eternal generation of the Word of God, and although the divine fatherhood does not possess "masculine" characteristics in a physical sense, we must nevertheless seek in God the absolute model of all "generation" among human beings. This would seem to be the sense of the Letter to the Ephesians: "I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named" (3:14-15). All "generating" among creatures finds its primary model in that generating which in God is completely divine, that is, spiritual. All "generating" in the created world is to be likened to this absolute and uncreated model. Thus every element of human generation which is proper to man, and every element which is proper to woman, namely human "fatherhood" and "motherhood", bears within itself a likeness to, or analogy with the divine "generating" and with that "fatherhood" which in God is "totally different", that is, completely spiritual and divine in essence; whereas in the human order, generation is proper to the "unity of the two": both are "parents", the man and the woman alike.

This is what I was trying to say HERE and HERE.

profession of faith

On my application to teach Latin at a classical Christian (and Protestant) high school, I was asked if I could sign their Statement of Faith without any mental reservations. The first article concerned the doctrine of sola Scriptura, the Trinity only coming in second. Although I can with reasonable confidence say that these brothers in Christ were sincerely devoted to the one triune God, nevertheless I find the organizing principle of their statement unsettling. The arrangement of the other doctrines makes sense - the same as that of the Apostles creed and the Nicene creed - but why did this come first? At any rate, I checked "No" and, as the application directed, wrote out my reservations on a separate sheet of paper, attaching them to the application.

With the exception of the following article, after which I have professed my own belief, I am in full agreement with C---’s Statement of Faith.

WE BELIEVE... the Bible to be the inspired, only infallible, authoritative, inerrant Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21)

I believe all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation and discipline in righteousness.

I believe that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author. I believe that in composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him, they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

I believe, therefore, that since everything asserted by the inspired authors must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

However, seeing as our infallible Lord is truly the Word of God, I cannot believe that Scripture is the only infallible Word of God, although the sacred writings are without a doubt the only infallible written Word of God.

Furthermore, since a final authority is by definition that authority above which there is no other, I cannot accept the assertion that Scripture is our final authority in all matters of faith, truth, and conduct. Rather, Christ alone is our final authority, and we treasure in our hearts the words of Scripture because He is their author.

Finally, because Scripture does not teach that it is the only medium of God’s revelation to His people and because, moreover, Jesus Christ is Himself the full self-revelation of the Father, I am led to profess that the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), whether or not found in Scripture (cf. John 20:30; 21:25), must be without error or the possibility of error, for God can neither deceive nor be deceived in His revelation.

The first three paragraphs - taken word for word from Vatican II's Dei Verbum - are devoted to what we hold in common, hopefully thereby making it more clear with what I am disagreeing and with what I am not disagreeing. In each of my last paragraphs, I wanted to show that statements (in this first article and elsewhere in the application) that were predicated exclusively of Scripture belongs properly to Christ.

As I was writing this I thought, even Protestants don't believe this articulation of sola Scriptura! After carefully choosing my words and laboring over the language, when I showed it to a friend he said that I just spent a lot of time not getting the job. He is right, but I hope that it was also because some more qualified person had applied.

Letter on Clement and Scripture

A----

Thank you for your last letter: I will try to respond to it in the next week or two. Also, D--- sent me his paper which, even though he said he doubts now whether the views expressed are really in Clement, I am nonetheless eager to read.

But I'm writing because I had some further thoughts on Clement, and you may, perhaps, find something of interest in them.

I have often heard the argument made by Catholic apologists - and I have made it myself - that without the Church we would not know which books constitute the canon of Scripture. Now there may be many senses in which this is true. For instance, had the Christians in the early Church not faithfully copied of the original manuscripts - what a thought! - we would not have them in our Bible. We are therefore dependent upon the early Christian church for our manuscripts and, in that sense, for our Scripture. And there may be many other senses too in which that statement is true. Yet, in the sense I intended it, it was a false argument.

The way I meant it (which may not be what other apologists have meant) was that when a third- or fourth-century Christian came to the various genuine and spurious writings of the previous two centuries, he or she did not have any evidence - from the content alone - which was inspired and which not; but rather, they had to rely on the authority of the church to make the judgment. Yet this is false for two reasons: first literally, because from content alone there is strong evidence (even if not always conclusive), and second circumstantially, because no one has ever been or could ever be in that situation.

One thing that struck me about Clement's letter is how different it was from Scripture. Although in the early Church the canon of Scripture was, as I understand it, somewhat hazy around the edges, nevertheless the difference between the letters of the apostles and this letter of Clement is remarkable. First, Clement does not speak with the confidence of an inspired writer. (At one point Paul even makes a point of saying that he has no command from the Lord.) Instead, Clement relies not only heavily but deliberately on the authority of the Old and New Testament by quoting, paraphrasing, or alluding to the sacred writings. And not even those New Testament writers who do quote from the Old Testament do so at such length or with such frequency. Second, he accepts the existence, apparently held widely at that time, of the Arabian phoenix. While I would love to see the phoenix in Scripture, and an apostle vouch for its existence, alas! the Holy Spirit had more important things to say. And third, Clement is (for whatever reason) not as condense and brief in his epistle as the inspired writers were in theirs. In fact, the editors of the book I have note this in their introduction - which on principle I always read after I've read the text. They write:

There does indeed appear a great difference between it and the inspired writings in many respects, such as the fanciful use sometimes made of the Old Testament statements, the fabulous stories which are accepted by its author, and the general diffuseness and feebleness of style by which it is distinguished.

Although I find their dismissal of Clement's allegorical interpretation unnecessary (see the postscript below), they are right on in their last critique. Clement's "general diffuseness and feebleness of style" often makes him difficult to read straight through.

So it seems to me that a Christian of the third or fourth century could have formed a plausible judgment, based only on a comparison of the works, about which works were genuine and which spurious. Eusebius (c.325) does not even mention it as disputed, although he does say it was it is "long and wonderful" and was "read aloud to the assembled worshippers in early days, as it is in our own" (3.16). Furthermore, he rejects the gnostic gospels because of their content, saying "nothing could be farther from apostolic usage than the type of phraseology employed, while the ideas and implications of their contents are so irreconcilable with true orthodoxy that they stand revealed as the forgeries of heretics" (3.25).

Moreover, the whole situation is absurd. This hypothetical Christian who makes judgments only on textual comparisons never existed. Decisions and judgments always have a wider context, both historical and spiritual. Eusebius gives as a reason for rejecting the Acts of Peter and the Gospel of Peter that "neither in early days nor in our own has any Church writer made use of their testimony" (3.25).

Let it be known: I hereby withdraw my earlier sense of that argument. For no matter how you listen - and this is the most important point - you will not hear the voice of our Shepherd sing in Clement's letter as it does so beautifully in St. John's epistles. Yet, if you listen closely, you can hear what is unquestionably His echo.

Pax, etc.

P.S. Also interesting is what the editors refer to as the "fanciful use sometimes made of the Old Testament statements". One passage in particular which the editors no doubt had in mind are Clement's remarks on Rahab. He says:

Moreover, they gave her a sign to this effect, that she should hang forth from her house a scarlet thread. And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all those who believe and hope in God. You see, beloved, that there was not only faith, but prophecy, in this woman. ( 1.12)

What is interesting is the presence of an allegorical interpretation within the early Church. Although I hesitate to affirm any use ever made of the allegorical mode, I do think it has a place next to the other modes of interpretation: the literal, the tropological, and the anagogical. I think that some passages have all four layers of meaning and, provided that all are grounded on the literal, such exegesis can be illuminating.

Letter on the Incarnation, episcopate, and the Word

Dear A-----

1. No, nothing you said suggested to me that you had anything but an orthodox understanding of the resurrection: I only said that because, having read your gmail chat display, I was reminded of how my friend explained the passage and, in the excitement of recollecting a truth discovered, I hastily shared the insight. Like you, I have on several occasions felt the force of Revelation's twenty-first chapter. In fact, this same friend once read the passage during the Liturgy of the Word and nearly wept, for not having prepared himself to read, he was not ready for the power of St. John's words. This same year we had both been writing on our quizzes and notebooks as perpetual reminders Ecce omnia nova facio.

I emphatically agree with you on the importance of the visible world in the economy of salvation. For by his Incarnation our Lord took on matter for the sake of our salvation, not only repairing the adverse effects of the fall but also further involving the physical world in glorification of God and redemption of the human race. Indeed, since man is a union of body and soul (not just a soul in a body) and since Christ came to save us (not just our souls), how astonishingly appropriate it is that the body participates in the redemption of the person. Whether in fasting or in feasting, in shedding its blood or in some gentler way, the body can and is acted upon by grace in order to lead the heart into the bosom of its Creator.

Also, I commend and encourage you in your efforts to resist the anti-cosmic spirit of Gnosticism, especially in the shade by which it haunts the bride of Christ. While I did not grow up in a Christian community noticeably under the shadow of Gnosticism, it was not until college that I really saw the profound significant of the Incarnation on how one views the material world as well as that special way in which visible and created forms can embody invisible realities. I think studying poetry - specifically John Donne's love poetry - was a great blessing in this respect.

2. The Protestant question What good is apostolic succession without the apostolic gospel raises the more fundamental question What good is apostolic succession or, to say that another way, What is the episcopate for. This second question it seems to me is prior to the first and once we have found the answer to the second, the first will become more clear. It is certainly the case that, at first glance, truth is more to be prized than apostolic succession. For instance, when Arius taught his dangerous heresy, he was, despite being a validly ordained presbyter, worthy of excommunication from the Christian church. Yet the question remains, why did the early Church preserve a succession of ministers in which each could trace the origin of their ministry directly to the apostles? One reason, as you already mentioned, is that these bishops and presbyters preserved the gospel free from heresy and, when errors came, it was their duty to resist them passionately and publicly. Another reason seems to be that they preserved those special gifts which had been given to the apostles by Christ for the sanctification of the world. For example, consider the following passage:

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:21-23)

It would appear that, unlike Peter's earlier question about forgiving your brother (where one human forgives another insofar as that human has been sinned against), the Holy Spirit was necessary for this new kind of forgiving, since were God not involved Christ's words Receive the Holy Spirit would have been irrelevant. And so if the forgiveness offered to the converted nations by the apostles requires God the Holy Spirit, then the apostles were offering true forgiveness. They are forgiven our Lord says, because they are truly forgiven by God himself through the ministry of the apostles, whose task it is to carry on the mission of Christ and reconcile mankind to the Most High. And yet, would our Lord hand over his mission to the apostles, saying As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you, without providing them the means by which to fulfill their appointed and seemingly impossible task? Certainly not. Moreover, the means of sanctification having been provided, how is this gift perpetuated in the household of God? To ask that question another way, would Christ bless the early Christian community with such divine gifts only to withdraw them in the second generation?

The evidence of Scripture suggests something else. In Acts 8, for example, Luke tells us that Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands (Acts 8:17-19). And in his letters to Timothy, Paul writes Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, as if this action were the means by which special gifts not only could be but in fact were passed on from one person to another (1 Tim 5:22). In fact, we may be certain that Timothy had the apostolic gifts from Paul himself, for the apostle explicitly reminds Timothy of the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands (2 Tim 1:6). And whether or not different gifts were communicated through the same means, of this we may be certain: the apostles laid their hands on others and the gifts of the Spirit were passed on.

This brief digression then reaches this conclusion, that the duty of those in the episcopate is, besides fulfilling their obligation to preach to gospel free from error, to reconcile the sinful world to the sinless God, using and passing on those special gifts which were given to the apostles by Christ. Both truth and goodness are the prerogatives of the bishops and presbyters. Therefore, the apostolic successors without the apostolic gospel (supposing such a thing occurred) would be unable to fulfill their divinely appointed task, as a person with only one leg is unable to walk.

Also, I would love to read and discuss what your friend wrote about Clement. At the moment, I have not read any secondary literature on Clement's beliefs.

3. When you asked "Does this mean [Christ] was a spirit before, like the Father and the Spirit?" did you mean before the Incarnation? The eternal Word who was with God in the beginning and was God must have been, like God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, not just a spirit. For God is not one spirit among many, but rather he is himself Spirit, the Immaterial One, Lord of all spirits, permeating each with His immaculate omnipresence.

Pax, etc.

just another life-long project

In order to increase my general knowledge of Catholicism, I have decided, somewhat perversely, to read through the Catholic Encyclopedia and memorize odd and interesting facts, such as this one: Aachen, a city in Germany known for its "salubrious springs," was the summer residence of Charlemagne.

newman's development

When I first read Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, I was impressed by his exposition of development and his extensive knowledge of Church history. Now, having read more of Newman's writings, I am even more impressed.

Newman's essay on development is not only an impressive synthesis of his vast historical reading, but also, when seen in the context of his other works, an example of its topic. For Newman did not only come to understand doctrinal development by studying the history of the Christian Church. He also learned the nature of development by attending to the growth of his own thought as well as deliberately developing his thoughts on development. He says in his thirteenth Oxford sermon, Implicit and Explicit Reason:

We are not only to "sanctify the Lord God in our hearts," not only to prepare a shrine within us in which our Saviour Christ may dwell, and where we may worship Him; but we are so to understand what we do, so to master our thoughts and feelings, so to recognize what we believe, and how we believe, so to trace out our ideas and impressions, and to contemplate the issue of them, that we may be "ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh us an account of the hope that is in us." (2)

He traced his ideas and impressions of church history best in his essay on development, but he had already had the idea two years before he wrote that book. In his fifteenth Oxford sermon, The Theory of Development in Religious Doctrine, he says:

What a remarkable sight it is, as almost all unprejudiced persons will admit, to trace the course of the controversy, from its first disorders to its exact and determinate issue. Full of deep interest, to see how the great idea takes hold of a thousand minds by its living force, and will not be ruled or stinted, but is "like a burning fire," as the Prophet speaks, "shut up" within them, till they are "weary of forbearing, and cannot stay," and grows in them, and at length is {317} born through them, perhaps in a long course of years, and even successive generations; so that the doctrine may rather be said to use the minds of Christians, than to be used by them. Wonderful it is, to see with what effort, hesitation, suspense, interruption,—with how many swayings to the right and to the left—with how many reverses, yet with what certainty of advance, with what precision in its march, and with what ultimate completeness, it has been evolved; till the whole truth "self-balanced on its centre hung," part answering to part, one, absolute, integral, indissoluble, while the world lasts! Wonderful, to see how heresy has but thrown that idea into fresh forms, and drawn out from it farther developments, with an exuberance which exceeded all questioning, and a harmony which baffled all criticism, like Him, its Divine Author, who, when put on trial by the Evil One, was but fortified by the assault, and is ever justified in His sayings, and overcomes when He is judged. (6)

I only wish I could immerse myself as deeply into history as he did.

ipse dixit

Grace is the seed of glory, glory the completion of grace.

to begin again

Finally! I finished transferring files from my old theology journal. Besides, I like Blogspot better than Livejournal. Although since I don't like to see multiple entries on the same day (just an unexplainable quirk), I had to date some entries into the future.

From Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

The ontological basis of the communication of idioms is the community and mutual communication of the Divine and human properties and activities in Christ. This derives from the unity of the Person in such fashion that the human properties are predicated of the Word and the Divine properties of the Man-Christ. The communicatio idiomatum in the logical sense (predication of idioms) obviously derives from the ontological reality.

Christ's Divine and Human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate. (De fide)

And later, about the "Rules Concerning the Predication of Idioms":

The nature of the Hypostatic Union is such that while on the one hand things pertaining to both the Divine and the human nature can be attributed to the person of Christ, on the other hand things specifically belonging to one nature cannot be predicated of the other nature. Since concrete terms (God, Son of God, Man, Son of Man, Christ the Almighty) designate the Hypostasis and abstract terms (Godhead, humanity, omnipotence) the nature, the following rule may be laid down: communicatio idiomatum fit in concreto, non in abstracto. The communication of idioms is valid for concrete terms not for abstract ones. So, for example: The Son of Man died on the Cross; Jesus created the world. The rule is not valid if there be reduplication, [and if] by reduplication the concrete term is limited to one nature. Thus it is false to say "Christ has suffered as God," "Christ created the world as a human being." It must also be observed that the essential parts of the human nature, body and soul, are referred to the nature, whose parts they are. Thus it is false to say: "Christ's soul is omniscient," "Christ's body is ubiquitous."

Further, predication of idioms is valid in positive statements not in negative ones, as nothing may be denied to Christ which belongs to Him according to either nature. One, therefore, may not say: "The Son of God has not suffered," "Jesus is not Almighty." Assertions liable to be misunderstood should be protected by clarifying additions like "as God," "as man," for example, "Christ, as man, is a creature."

Interesting stuff, in my opinion.

Open Letter to James White: A Response to His Article "Robert Sungenis and evpi. tau,th|"

The article may be found here: http://aomin.org/Epitetaute.html

Dear James White,

Although there are several excellent points you make - some of which I had never considered before - I think your reading is guilty of precisely what you accuse Catholics. You say:

This is the immediate context of verse 18, and to divorce verse 18 from what came before leads to the errant shift of attention from the identity of Christ to the identity of Peter that is found in Roman Catholic exegesis. Certainly we cannot accept the idea, presented in Roman theology, that immediately upon pronouncing the benediction upon Peter's confession of faith, the focus shifts away from that confession and what it reveals to Peter himself and some office with successors based upon him!

Actually, we can accept it. One of Christ's purposes in the Incarnation was to establish and bring all mankind into the true religion; therefore, it is not unusual that at the very moment his disciples make a profession of faith, He confirms them in that profession and promises perpetuity for the church which He will build ("and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"). Furthermore, your argument here is unconvincing for several reasons. First, because Scripture is not a systematic narrative; second, because the argument is based the assumption that Scripture has no sudden or unexpected transitions (when in fact the Bible is full of them); and third, because the same argument you use may be used against you. The immediate context of the following verses (which you do not quote) shows clearly that Christ was speaking directly to Peter and the apostles.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

As I understand it, your argument is that by switching from the personal pronoun to the demonstrative pronoun in verse 18, Christ signifies something other than Peter as "this rock." You appeal to the context to support this, accuse Catholics of ignoring that context, and yet avoid what implication the use of the second person in verse 19 has on your argument. If you want to argue that at first He was talking to Peter and then He was talking about Peter's confession - and this, because Jesus did not use the second person pronoun for a third time in the same sentence - then does it not make just as much sense to argue that, since at first He was talking to Peter and then again talking to Peter, He was probably talking to him all along? Even if you want to say that Peter was the representative of the apostles, as he is elsewhere in Scripture, He was still talking to him in the beginning of verse 18, and to him throughout verse 19, so why not in the second half of verse 18 as well?

Not only does the preceding context argue against this, but the following context likewise picks up seemlessly with what came before: the identity of Jesus as Messiah. Hence, the logical antecedent for tau,th is Peter's confession.

Actually, verse 19 tells against it. And it is not quite "seemlessly," as you said. Verse 19 is not directly about Jesus as Messiah but rather about how Christ gave His apostles the authority to forgive sins. It is about how Christ provided His church with the means to continue His saving work, that is, the work of reconciling the human race to the Most High. Consequently, reading the previous verse as related to Christ's gift to His church is not fantastic but natural. And while I can readily admit that verse 19 is indirectly about the identity of Jesus as Messiah (for the apostolic community He left on earth proclaims Him and continues His mission), I cannot understand why you say verse 19 supports your reading.

I can grant however that there is a secondary sense in which "this rock" refers to Peter's confession. First, because Christ built his church on the one to whom that divine revelation was given ("flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven"); second, because this sacred doctrine is the first infallible teaching of the church (for the church cannot err when it teaches those truths which God has revealed); and third, because this same revelation is the most important proclamation of the church at all times (that is, relative to sinful humanity, not considered in itself). But the primary sense still refers to Peter himself, for at least two reasons. First, because Christ is making a pun; and Peter's newly invented name is clearly the object of that pun. And second, because Scripture says elsewhere that the church is built on the "foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20). Consequently, it is neither strange nor strained to claim that in this passage Christ is building his church on the rock of Peter. Your reading only "commands the most logical grammatical sense" if you overlook the fact that Christ is making a joke. If I may be permitted the expression, you ignore the theology of the pun! :)

I welcome any criticism or comments you have. Indeed, I would be in your delighted if in your busy life you found time to respond to this letter.

Your brother in Christ, etc.

Open Letter to a Protestant: On "nulla salus extra ecclesiam"

A---,

Thank you for responding. My answer will be shorter than I planned. I believe the Catechism may have an answer for your objection, but if you disagree or find the answer insufficient in any way, please let me know where and why.

"Outside the Church there is no Salvation" [from the Catechism of the Catholic Church]:

846. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [cf. St. Cyprian, Ep 73:21; PL 3:1169; De Unit PL 4:509-536] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." [Vatican II LG 14]

847. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." [Vatican II LG 16]

Let me say this in my own words. As Catholics we believe that Christ established one church which would be and is united in spirit and love, in faith and teaching, in its mission and its government. As Catholics we believe our bishops are the true successors of the apostles, the representatives of the twelve on earth, and that the pope is by the will of God set up as the head of the visible church on earth.

In regard to other denominations then the Church's comments (especially the doctrine of "nulla salus extra ecclesiam"), should be seen in this light - since the conclusion follows from the premise. I mean if you think the Catholic Church is set up by Jesus Christ, then to reject the Catholic Church is to reject Christ; and to reject Christ is to reject the One who sent Him. But on this note, Vatican II clarified the doctrine by clarifying its application: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ , would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." And again: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church [i.e., the Catholic Church], but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart..." etc. As I said before, if you grant that the Catholic Church is the true successor to the Church of the Apostles, the conclusion follows.

Those born into Protestant and Orthodox churches, however, do not grant the premise; therefore, the conclusion does not follow. I doubt that any honest Protestant or Orthodox could say in good conscience, "Yes, I truly believe that the Catholic Church - as it exists today - is that very same church which Christ establish on the rock of Peter and built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets." Were such a man or woman to say that, he or she would convert; and until such a person says that, the various statements made in the Catholic Church about salvation outside the Church do not apply to that individual.

Does that make sense?

Peace, etc.

p.s. I agree that there is a lot being said in Matt 16, of which I think Christians have only begun to understand.

Open Letter on Pope St. Gregory the Great and the papacy

This letter was written to refute claim (make by John Calvin) that St. Gregory the Great rejected the doctrine of papal supremacy. It divides into two sections: three quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia and then ten quotations (with links to the text) from St. Gregory himself.

A---,

In its article on Gregory, the Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

A large number of letters relate to the reforms instituted by the pope (Epp., II, xlvii; III, xxxvi; IV, ix,xxiii-xxvii, xxix; V, ii; IX, i, xi, ccii-cciv; XIV, ii). His care over the election of a new bishop whenever a vacancy occurs is shown in many cases, and if, after his examination of the elect, which is always a searching one, he finds him unfitted for the post, he has no hesitation in rejecting him and commanding another to be chosen (Epp., I, lv, lvi; VII, xxxviii; X, vii).

The same article includes a passage from the Protestant historian Dudden:

In his dealings with the Churches of the West, Gregory acted invariably on the assumption that all were subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Of the rights claimed or exercised by his predecessors he would not abate one tittle; on the contrary, he did everything in his power to maintain, strengthen, and extend what he regarded as the just prerogatives of the papacy. It is true that he respected the privileges of the Western metropolitans, and disapproved of unnecessary interference within the sphere of their jurisdiction canonically exercised. . . . But of his general principle there can be no doubt whatever (Dudden, I, 475).

Finally, the article addresses in passing the controversy at hand:

There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope, a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epp., XIII, l, he speaks of "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches", and in Epp., V, cliv, he says: "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church." As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epp., II, xlvi; III, xxx; V, xxxvii; VII, xxxvii). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epp., IX, clvi), and his authority could annul them (Epp., V, xxxix, xli, xliv). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epp., II, l; III, lii, lxiii; IX, xxvi, xxvii).

This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself; "As regards the Church of Constantinople," he writes in Epp., IX, xxvi, "who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious lord the emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it."

At the same time the pope was most careful not to interfere with the canonical rights of the other patriarchs and bishops. With the other Oriental patriarchs his relations were most cordial, as appears from his letters to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

I had hoped to provide links to each letter, but unfortunately the citations refer to an edition of his letters which is not the one found online at New Advent.

"Epistolae", ed. P. Ewald and L. M. Hartmann in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epist.", I, II (Berlin, 1891-99); this is the authoritative edition of the text of the Epistles (all references given above are to this edition)

Sigh. Why isn't every book in the world online yet?

That did not deter me, however, from finding other supports for the position defended in the Catholic Encyclopedia, i.e., that Gregory as Bishop of Rome claimed authority over the universal Church - some of which have already been mentioned. Encouraged by Dudden, I found the following ten claims make by Pope St. Gregory the Great about the Apostolic See (with links to New Advent, all emphasises are my own):

(1) From Book III, Letter 30:

Inasmuch as it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches, there is, among our manifold cares, especial demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop.

(2) From Book IV, Letter 2:

...since after such a schism had taken place about nothing, it was right that the Apostolic See should take heed, with the view of guarding in all respects the unity of the Universal Church in the minds of priests.

(3) From Book IX, Letter 81 (to Maximus, Bishop of Salona):

Although to what was faulty in thy ordination at the first thou hast added serious evil through the fault of disobedience, yet we, tempering with becoming moderation the authority of the Apostolic See , have never been incensed against thee to the extent that the case demanded. [Why would Gregory rebuke what was faulty in the ordination of another bishop, and reference the "authority of the Apostolic See" in an ominous way, if he thought that the Bishop of Rome had no authority over other bishops?]

(4) From Book IX, Letter 111 (to Virgilius, Bishop of Arelate):

This [i.e., asking that the pope confirm the rights granted to the monastery] he [i.e., Childebert] did as knowing such reverence to be paid by the faithful to the Apostolic See that what had been settled by its decree no molestation of unlawful usurpation would thereafter shake.

(5) From Book V, Letter 52 (to the same):

But, since it is well known to all whence the holy faith proceeded in the regions of Gaul, when your Fraternity asks for a repetition of the old custom of the Apostolic See, what is it but that a good offspring reverts to the bosom of its mother? [A parent and child may equally possesses the same nature, but one retains authority.]

(6) From Book V, Letter 54 (to all the Bishops of Gaul under Childebert):

But if a contention (which may the Divine power avert) should happen to arise on matters of faith, or any business come up about which there may perchance be serious doubt, and he should be in need of the judgment of the Apostolic See in place of his own greatness, we have directed him that, having diligently enquired into the truth, he should take care to bring the question under our cognizance by a report from himself, to the end that it may be terminated by a suitable sentence so as to remove all doubt. [Why would Gregory say that the judgment of the Apostolic See will terminate and remove all doubt on a question about matters of faith, unless he thought that the See of Peter possessed an authority which the all bishops of Gaul lacked?]

(7) From Book II, Letter 48 (to Columbus, in dealing with errant bishops):

But we, who, though unworthy, have undertaken the government of the Apostolic See in the stead of Peter the prince of the apostles, are compelled by the very office of our pontificate to resist the general enemy by all the efforts in our power. [Why does he mention Peter as prince of the apostles here if not to reinforce that his jurisdiction extents even to, I think, Africa, where Columbus was?]

(8) From Book IX, Letter 12 (to John, bishop of Syracuse):

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see. [This was quoted above; notice that the last line removes the charge of arrogance -- of which you yourself know that the saintly Gregory was not guilty.]

(9) From Book IX, Letter 68 (to Eusebius):

And although our most pious Emperor allows nothing unlawful to be done there, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances,-- though without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force... [why would the decrees of a synod have no force without the consent of the Apostolic See unless it possessed a unique authority in the Episcopate?]

(10) From Book V, Letter 21:

But, when this my brother [John] with new presumption and pride calls himself universal bishop, having caused himself in the time of our predecessor of holy memory to be designated in synod by this so proud a title, though all the acts of that synod were abrogated, being disallowed by the Apostolic See,-the most serene Lord gives me a somewhat distressing intimation, in that he has not rebuked him who is acting proudly, but endeavours to bend me from my purpose, who in this cause of defending the truth of the Gospels and Canons, of humility and rectitude; whereas my aforesaid brother [John] and fellow-priest is acting against evangelical principles and also against the blessed Apostle Peter, and against all the churches, and against the ordinances of the Canons. [Why would one who falsely calls himself "universal bishop" be acting against (1) evangelical principles, (2) the prince of the apostles, and (3) all the churches, unless it was because he was usurping the place of the one to whom that title properly belonged?]

You can find more if you do a search for "Registrum Epistolarum Apostolic See" on New Advent. I found 45 hits.

I think all these sufficiently establish that Gregory believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Bishop of Rome possessed authority that surpassed that of other bishops - which is all I have tried to show, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether that authority exists under the New Covenant according to the will of Christ.

Have I convinced you?

Update: He said yes.

Open Letter on Scripture and sacred tradition

A---,

I agree with you on Matt 15:1-6. Human traditions that contradict Scripture ought to be reformed by using divine truth as a standard. However, Christ does not rebuke tradition itself nor does He imply that all traditions are of human origin. Rather, when asked why His disciples do not wash their hands according to human custom, He rebukes them by saying they have transgressed the very commandments which Moses received from God and passed on to the Israelites--that is, He appeals to a tradition which has God as its origin and source, just as He did on the question of marriage and divorce ("But from the beginning it was not so"). The problem with the religious hierarchy of His day was not that they received truths on tradition, but that they received human traditions as if they were of divine origin. An ecclesiastical tradition or custom is one thing, a divine tradition is quite another. And our Lord even gives the reason for their transgression: "for the sake of your tradition," that is, for the sake of a human and not a divine tradition. Not even the Pharisees would dare assert that the Ten Commandments were of human origin; their mistake was not ignoring the divine tradition of Israel, but treating human traditions as if they were a part of that original revelation. This passage, then, does not mean that a tradition of divine origin cannot exist as well within the new people of God.

Peace, etc.