Twitter Talk: November 2013

Tony Flannery

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

The Source of the Question

It turns out that the discussion concerning Tony Flannery is not as important as I once thought it was. What is important is my relationship and frank, open communication with you. I’m sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I got absorbed in Alvin Plantinga’s paper, “Pluralism: a Defense of Religious Exclusivism,” which proved to be crucial for other current discussions; and with the Conciliar Movement, which also provided critical understanding.

http://swantec.blogspot.com/2013/11/pluralism-defense-of-religious.html

http://swantec-tt.blogspot.com/2013/11/church-unity-and-conciliarism.html

My Background

This quote is very helpful in understanding my own proper relationship with the Roman Catholic Church. This is a quote I want to nail to my wall and remember for all eternity.

‘Peter Kreeft puts it well, paraphrasing St Thomas Aquinas:

“if a Catholic comes to believe the Church is in error in some essential, officially defined doctrine, it is a mortal sin against conscience, a sin of hypocrisy, for him to remain in the Church and call himself a Catholic, but only a venial sin against knowledge for him to leave the Church in honest but partly culpable error.” ’[1]

In general, this blog was very helpful. However, I am not at all interested in excusing or condemning Father Flannery. As you noted, he stands condemned or acquitted before the courts of the Roman Catholic Church and before our Lord Jesus Christ. I’m merely trying to improve my understanding of, and communication with, Roman Catholics, as well as with Orthodox and with Protestants.

I am a cradle Lutheran, the old conservative American Lutheran Church (ALC) kind: somewhat influenced by Calvinism and evangelicalism.[2] After years of shameful living I repented, served with The Navigators on Okinawa, and later became a product of Dallas Theological Seminary (1976), a place with strong Southern Presbyterian and Congregational history: a Scofield Bible kind of place. Rejecting Dispensationalism, I served the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) for about thirteen years, at which time I also rejected fundamentalism as a system of theology, and eventually rejected Calvinism as well. After another thirteen years or more seeking refuge in a hodge-podge of religious venues, I ended up in the Orthodox Church where I received the baptismal name Augustine. In Orthodoxy I ran into anti-Augustinian sentiments, opposition to original sin,[3] ultimately leaving to return to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) where I am today, as an uneasy refugee.

The Vital Importance of Dogma

By the words, “essential, officially defined doctrine,” I am compelled to believe that Kreeft specifically means dogma, Roman Catholic Dogma. Obviously, both Lutherans and Orthodox have dogma as well, which in some cases overlap, and in other cases are quite distinct. Other doctrine, that is not dogma, merely relates to the opinions of learned men, and is irrelevant for our present purposes. It is dogma that specifies our real differences, and issues of dogma that we must find a way to resolve. This is not to say that I believe in watering down dogma, but perhaps there are communications issues, differences of understanding, and new information that will cut through this Gordian Knot.

Well, at least we have, I hope agreed upon, a common term. We know specifically what to call this thing we seek: it is dogma. This may be old hat for you, since you grew up with the idea, but it’s relatively new to me. Please don’t laugh, at least not too hard. You may think it strange that I have studied dogmatic theology[4] at length, four years of it in seminary, and from thence in 1976 until today, but have not studied dogma other than accidentally. Okay, I did figure out that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is probably dogma in Lutheran, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches: even if the wording has been somewhat abused from what I am able to detect of its Greek original. It is perhaps ironic that Roman Catholic practice, at least some of the time, is closest to that Greek original. Strange that some people think Πιστεύομεν is best translated as, I believe.

In any case it is dogma that I need to learn. So I hope you can find it in your hearts to be patient with me as I stumble along. It is this inability, of people like me and Dr. Leithart,[5] to deal with specific terms in Roman Catholic dogma, which leads to communication difficulty, even though we are both very supportive of and sympathetic to catholicity.

Sincerity in Church Membership

Well, why don’t we both, Leithart and me, just take Roman Catholic instructions, and join the Roman Catholic Church. Believe me, I could like that very much. However Kreeft’s paraphrase of Aquinas explains everything. From Kreeft I can easily write the obvious corollary.

If an Orthodox or Protestant Christian comes to believe the Roman Catholic Church is in error in some essential, officially defined doctrine, it is a mortal sin against conscience, a sin of hypocrisy, for him to join the Roman Catholic Church and call himself a Roman Catholic, but only a venial sin against knowledge for him to remain outside the Roman Catholic Church in honest but partly culpable error.

Here is something I can and do respect. Here is my proper quest for knowledge. However, at age 76, I'm not the sort of kid that sits meekly and quietly at the back of class swallowing everything hook, line, and sinker. I will be screaming my head off, if I don’t understand, or think I’ve found a logical error. At the end of the day, I will be the kid that understands the lesson or dies trying. I sincerely hope that my screams are not offensive to you. I really love The Church, and am sincerely trying, the only way I know how, to be Catholic. Nevertheless, that path is radically different for me than for those of you who are cradle Catholics. Perhaps you can recommend helpful study materials.

Flannery, Leithart, and me

As far as Flannery’s waffling is concerned: it’s deplorable, there is no excuse for it; he needs to conform to dogma or depart. As for me, that advice leaves me without any place to go, unless I start an independent church, not the best idea, ever. I hope you picked up on the idea that, at least in my mind, Leithart and I are in pretty similar boats.

[1] In the introduction, “The Fabulous Father Flannery.” http://thethirstygargoyle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/father-flannerys-fables.html

[2] before it became liberal

[3] It took me a long time to learn that these opinions were in violation of Orthodox dogma: specifically the Councils of Carthage and Ephesus; but by then the emotional damage was done, and I’m still in recovery. Focal to my exile is the fact that I don’t know how to repent of and confess the sin of another. I will not get in bed with the theology of John Romanides; or, as I learn dogma, anything contrary to it. Notwithstanding this commitment to dogma, I will not necessarily have means to resolve issues where dogmas disagree.

[4] In evangelical parlance, dogmatic theology is just a synonym for systematic theology; it is not specifically the study of Church dogma, or Cannon Law and its development.

[5] http://www.leithart.com/2012/05/21/too-catholic-to-be-catholic/ and http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/comment-page-2/#comment-62788

Church Unity and Conciliarism

Monday, November 18, 2013

The Conciliar Movement and Papal Infallibility

If we wish to pursue the Unity of The Church, we must some give serious consideration to Conciliarism or the Conciliar Movement (1409-1449). In a nutshell, the Conciliar Movement claims that the "supreme authority in The Church resides with an Ecumenical Council." This has the ring of truth, and indeed, it must be on the right track, depending on how we understand that an Ecumenical Council is properly constituted. The opposing side to the Conciliar Movement is the Papal Infallibility movement, which now prevails.

The Historic Place of the Conciliar Movement

On the other hand, The Reformation (1517-1648) is set over against both of these movements. The Reformation proudly declares that "both Popes and Councils do err." This entanglement between Conciliarism, Papal Infallibility, and Protestantism can hardly be accidental or coincidental. In fact, we are forced to conclude that, in many ways, The Reformation is the outcome of the collapse of the Conciliar Movement.

The Fall of Constantinople (1453) is not unrelated either. Albeit, developing the linkages might require an encyclopedia of books. Even though the Byzantine Empire fades from the pages of history, Orthodox Christianity does not die. Orthodoxy recovers and flourishes, and today is the second largest of all church bodies. Indeed, this second place role must be seen as part of the problem: for many Orthodox fear that reconciliation with Rome would result in their domination by their larger brother.

The Goal of a new Conciliar Movement

What would be the goal of a new Conciliar Movement? Certainly not the resolution of the Roman-Avignon rivalry: in any case we have always believed that Avignon far overstepped all reasonable bounds. For me, the proper objective of a new Conciliar Movement would be the resolution of 1054 and the Fourth Crusade. However, this has proved to be a Gordian Knot, which only the Second Coming of Christ may untie. Nevertheless, even if we are unable to untie this not, and fail miserably: there are sufficient commands in Scripture to do exactly this; so that we ought to try diligently. This may liken us to moths attacking the flame, but I would rather die in seeming futility in obedience to Christ, than live in open opposition to what He has so clearly commanded.

Where Does Church Authority Reside?

This has to be the core of the unsettled argument. That in the Roman-Avignon rivalry, Rome prevailed, is of small comfort. Such a victory is little more than a triumph between two powerful rival city-states. Other city-states could have easily entered the contest. The continuing existence of the Orthodox Church indicates that this resolution to the problem did not sit well with many Asian Christians. The development of the Reformation indicates that this resolution to the problem did not sit well with many European Christians.

The authority of The Church resides first in God the Father. Scripture clearly indicates that the Father has delegated all of this authority[1] to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the King of the Universe. Scripture also clearly indicates that the Father has delegated all of this administrative power[2] to the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth.

On the day of Pentecost that authority and power was applied to every Christian present:[3] for it is evident that the cloven tongues of fire rested on every Christian, not merely on the Apostles, not exclusively on Peter. This evidence in fire and ecstatic utterance continued for several years, and was, for some time, the singular evidence that a new legitimate local church was constituted. We must consider the significance of these cloven tongues of fire and ecstatic utterances: what are they? These miraculous phenomena are none other than the same presence of God’s visible Glory that spoke with Moses at the burning bush, on the mountain, and in the tabernacle; the same Glory of God seen on the mount of Transfiguration. This miracle is the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is part and parcel of what it means to be a Christian. Without the baptism of the Holy Ghost there is no Christianity, no Church.

Where does the visible Glory of God reside today? It resides on the whole Christian Church on earth. However, as with Jesus and with Moses it is veiled for the time being: mostly because it is unbearable to look at. So, at its core, the authority of Christ and power of the Holy Ghost are being exercised exclusively through The Church. It should be clear that no individual has the authority by himself to say that another is not part of The Church: for “What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” In this context, Peter is merely the presiding spokesperson: he simply declares as fact, what the whole assembly has agreed on. In this sense alone, Peter does speak ex-cathedra.

This then is the whole bone of contention. One body believes that this authority and power was delegated exclusively to one bishop, where that bishop is first over all. Another body believes that this authority and power was delegated to a collegiality of bishops, where that bishop is first among equals. A third set of bodies believes that this authority and power was delegated equally to all, without any hierarchy or regulatory order. Of course there are many other variations on these views: but, at least in broad strokes, we have captured the main variations.

What Happened at Nicaea?

Nicaea (325) is the first major attempt to gather The Church on earth into one fold, with one voice. It was a time of great and violent controversy. Roughly three hundred pastors gathered together and hammered out a statement for their churches, “We believe….” This was not a peaceful gathering with simple votes and unanimous decisions. It was a meeting characterized by vehement emotions, argument, and even fist fights. Offending bishops had to be temporarily expelled to cool down. Nor was it a dictatorial declaration, forced upon the churches. According to some, the statement was read throughout the churches and returned to Constantinople (381)[4] for amendment and ratification. The outcome is not the statement of a handful of bishops, but to great extent, the voice of the whole Christian Church on earth. This is how dogma is discovered, by agreement, not by unilateral decree.

Nicaea did a great deal to heal rifts in The Church, to resolve controversy, and provided real leadership for the years ahead. Its aftermath left some things in doubt: for example, the status of the Oriental Orthodox, and Mar Thoma. Also Origen and Nestorius are condemned, which condemnations are still under dispute in some remote regions.

Nevertheless, none of the modern ecumenical movements have expressed such sincere striving for Church Unity, or such success as was achieved at Nicaea and Constantinople. Hence, Nicaea and Constantinople must stand as the resolution of the authority debate, and the model of how it should be accomplished. Unfortunately, this requires that a goodly number of very powerful hierarchical bishops would with all humility have to step away from their power for the sake of, and love for, The Church.

The Original Question

We return to the original question. “If we wish to pursue the Unity of The Church, we must some give serious consideration to Conciliarism.” What must change in our new Conciliarism is both our goal and our method. Conciliation must have as its goal the entire healing of the whole Church on earth, going back to 1054, and not merely the resolution of giant power struggles between warring empires. Conciliation must embrace as its method the listening to the voice of the whole Church on earth, this alone can be considered dogma, real substantial agreement.

Obviously, this cannot be successful without a real moving of the Holy Ghost among us. Also obviously, smaller bodies of brothers and sisters need not fear the domination of the larger brother; because, nothing can be accomplished without the sincere agreement of the least brother, and the largest brother, being moved by the Spirit of Humility, will have no desire to lead by force or oppression: but, of course, lead he must, he can’t help being the biggest brother. Moreover, this will necessarily result in a changed Church structure and organization: that much is inevitable.

So, can a Church Counsel be the final authority of The Church? Yes, if it operates within these guidelines of Tradition with consideration and respect for the whole laity. But if high handedness is involved, no counsel can ever speak for The Church. Does the presiding bishop speak infallibly ex-cathedra? Yes, if he speaks as the chairman of The Church, pronouncing as dogma and fact, on what The Church has already agreed. But if any attempt to act unilaterally exists, no one can ever speak for The Church in this fashion. Christ, is the only individual Who speaks for the whole Church on earth. The Holy Ghost, is the only individual Who executes the will of God on earth.

Our Prayer

“I say to you, ‘Ask, and it shall be given you. Seek, and you shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one who asks, receives; he who seeks, finds; and he who knocks, it shall be opened to ...him.
‘If a son asks for bread from any of you fathers, will he give him a stone? If he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? If he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
‘If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?’ ” — Luke 11:9-13

“When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatever He hears, He shall speak: and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive My things, and show them to you. All things that the Father has are Mine: therefore I said, that He shall take My things, and show them to you.” — John 16:13-18

“... in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. Blessed is our God always, as it is now, was in the beginning, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. Through the prayers of our holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen. Glory to You, our God, glory to You.

O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, You are everywhere and fill all things, Treasury of blessings, and Giver of life: come and abide in us, and cleanse us from every impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.”

[1] Matthew 28:18, ἐξουσία

[2] Acts 1:8, δύναμιν

[3] Acts 2:1-4

[4] Obviously their communication methods were somewhat limited.