Philosophy and the Papacy

The School of Athens
Raphael (1509)

The Scripture readings for today's liturgy provide a biblical basis for the papacy, as John Bergsma explains. But as a Protestant, I was not able to see those verses as providing that basis, until I read Plato's Republic. Of the various philosophical factors that helped me become Catholic, one was teaching through Plato's Republic. I had taught it a few times before, but this time, I was teaching it with an eye toward its implications regarding unity. My conclusion was that for philosophical reasons we could expect Christ to have established for the Church an enduring office for her government, an office occupied by one person at a time. That conclusion allowed me to be more open and receptive to the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:32, and John 21:15-17. So how did Plato's Republic help me reach that conclusion?

In order to explain the role of Plato's Republic in helping me become more open to the Catholic understanding of St. Peter's unique office in the Church, I need to lay out the broader line of reasoning to which it contributed. That line of reasoning was as follows.

(Continue reading)

Five years ago today

Five years ago today, I decided to seek full communion with the Catholic Church. This was three days after Pope Benedict's election as the 265th successor of St. Peter, and two days after Pope Benedict, in his first message as Pope, said the following:

Nourished and sustained by the Eucharist, Catholics cannot but feel encouraged to strive for the full unity for which Christ expressed so ardent a hope in the Upper Room. The Successor of Peter knows that he must make himself especially responsible for his Divine Master's supreme aspiration. Indeed, he is entrusted with the task of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22: 32).

With full awareness, therefore, at the beginning of his ministry in the Church of Rome which Peter bathed in his blood, Peter's current Successor takes on as his primary task the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. This is his ambition, his impelling duty. He is aware that good intentions do not suffice for this. Concrete gestures that enter hearts and stir consciences are essential, inspiring in everyone that inner conversion that is the prerequisite for all ecumenical progress.

Theological dialogue is necessary; the investigation of the historical reasons for the decisions made in the past is also indispensable. But what is most urgently needed is that "purification of memory", so often recalled by John Paul II, which alone can dispose souls to accept the full truth of Christ. Each one of us must come before him, the supreme Judge of every living person, and render an account to him of all we have done or have failed to do to further the great good of the full and visible unity of all his disciples.

The current Successor of Peter is allowing himself to be called in the first person by this requirement and is prepared to do everything in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism. Following the example of his Predecessors, he is fully determined to encourage every initiative that seems appropriate for promoting contacts and understanding with the representatives of the different Churches and Ecclesial Communities. Indeed, on this occasion he sends them his most cordial greeting in Christ, the one Lord of us all.

Pray to God that many young men and women would rise to this call, and join with Pope Benedict in rebuilding the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers, through the charitable pursuit of truth and peace in Christ. May this be our ambition, and our impelling duty. May the heart of the Shepherd be the heart of Christ's sheep. As Pope Benedict said, each of us will come before Christ to give an account to Him of all that we have done or have failed to do to further the great good of the full and visible unity of all His disciples. May our labor of love now be such that on that Day we are not ashamed.

Video H/T: dans la tradition

St. Thomas Aquinas on the Unity of the Church

Today, on this eighth and last day of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, we will look at what St. Thomas Aquinas says about the unity of the Church, drawing from his commentary on the Apostles’ Creed in his catechism, his Summa Contra Gentiles and his Summa Theologica. (Continue reading)

"Clement of Rome: First Known Exercise of Papal Primacy"

Yesterday Professor Feingold (Ave Maria University) gave a lecture titled "Clement of Rome: First Known Exercise of Papal Primacy." Audio of the lecture can be found here.

Supernatural Temperance in the Mystical Body

Ecclesial consumerism manifests itself more explicitly in certain sorts of doctrines. Health and Wealth is one of them; nobody wants suffering. Assurance is another such doctrine. Recently I participated in a few conversations about Catholic and Protestant conceptions of assurance. The most telling aspect of the conversations was that truth seemed to take second place to desireability. I heard words such as "like," "prefer," "attracted," "couldn't handle" and "frightful." The terms "truth" and "false" disappeared. Switch out the nouns, and I could have been listening to an order being placed at a fast-food 'drive-thru.' To be sure, if "once saved always saved" is the standard of security one has come to expect, then without a developed sense of the difference between mortal and venial sin, the possibility of losing one's salvation is frightening and therefore repugnant. But such a person can recognize that truth must remain his foremost objective, because a theology guaranteeing that salvation cannot be lost, if false, is giving false assurance and endangering his soul. Ecclesial consumerism, however, is not ultimately about conforming to divinely revealed truth, but about "happiness on prescription; isn't that the whole point of getting religion?"

If I were constructing my own personalized religion, I'd make sure it guaranteed health and wealth, prevented all suffering, discomfort, and minor annoyances, as well as granted indubitable assurance of my elect-to-glory status, and ensured that 'Church' would always be "fun" and not "boring." But I would be like an unsupervised child in a candy store, on the short road to diabetes. To become like a child, in relation to an omniscient and perfectly loving Father, means that we receive revelation from Him in trust and humility, not ordering it up as we like it. The difference between those two stances toward God is the difference between heaven and hell; this is precisely why ecclesial consumerism is no trifling matter. Made-to-order religion was the downfall of our first parents as they chose what seemed in their own eyes to be a delightful and desirable means to become truly happy like God. Jude Simpson, in the video above, plays a modern day Eve.

As I wrote elsewhere, ecclesial consumerism "turns things exactly upside-down, creating Church in our image, rather than conforming ourselves to the Church that Christ founded, and in doing so conforming to the image of Christ." We conform to Christ by conforming to His Body, the Church. I'm not speaking of some mere abstraction called "the catholic Church," some invisible mental construct to which anyone in schism can claim to be already united and already conformed. I'm speaking of the Catholic Church, headed by the two hundred and sixty-fifth successor of that one Apostle to whom Christ the God-Man gave the keys of the Kingdom, that is, the Church.

Ecclesial consumerism also lies behind the divisions that now separate Christians into so many schisms. It operates not only on the demand side, but also on the supply side, feeding and enlarging the demand. The ecclesial consumerist is reluctant to acknowledge the logical implications of the myriad conflicting interpretations. These conflicting interpretations entail that a great many persons who claim to speak for God, cannot possibly be speaking for God. That is because God is one, and God cannot contradict Himself. These many persons are the demand side's self-accumulated ear-itchers in the Christian market of ear-itching. He who has ears to hear, let him hear, said Christ. But he who has ears to be itched, has forgotten what ears are for, exchanging the pursuit of truth for the pursuit of its concomitant pleasure. "God-Bearer" is fine, they say, but "Mother of God" gives offense to our ears. Talk of absolute assurance is delightful; talk about mortal sin is repugnant to our ears. And so on.

The unity that Christ wants His followers to have only comes through supernatural humility, through accepting in faith and trust the one divine message as explicated by the divinely authorized teacher, and the one divine life as offered to us by the divinely authorized priest. Mary the Second Eve, demonstrates this humility before God in her submission to divine authority: "be it done unto me according to thy will." She recognized the divine authority of the one whom God had sent to speak on His behalf. In Gethsemane Christ Himself demonstrates for us this humility before His Father. "Not my will but thine be done." As His human will conformed to His divine will, so our will as individuals must conform to the will of His Body, the Church. To take up our cross is to conform to His crucified Body.

For that reason, our pursuit of truth cannot limit itself to true interpretations of Scripture, but must also seek to discover the true Church, i.e. the very Church that Christ founded, and to which belongs the authoritative determination both of the canon and interpretation of Scripture. The same two stances that are the difference between heaven and hell, are manifested in our stance toward His Body, the Church. The same Apostle who learned that to persecute Christ's Body is to persecute Christ (Acts 9:4-5), understood that to give ourselves in service to His Body is to give ourselves in service to Him. St. Paul knew that if we love Christ, we will devote ourselves to building up His Body, the Church.

But how do we build up the Church in unity? Within the soul of the individual, according to Aquinas, the virtue of temperance restrains us from desires and pleasures contrary to reason. Furthermore, in Book IV of the Republic Plato describes the virtue of temperance at the level of society as a kind of harmony grounded in the agreement of each part of the society concerning who is the rightful ruler. Therefore because grace builds on nature, supernatural temperance within the Mystical Body can likewise be described rightly as a kind of harmony grounded in the agreement of each member concerning who has the primacy in magisterial authority. Supernatural temperance in the Body of Christ is the agreement of each member regarding who holds the keys of the Kingdom. In this way, supernatural temperance as a virtue of the Mystical Body restrains her members from the ecclesial desires and delights that are contrary to the divinely guided determinations and counsels of her visible head. Find the primacy in magisterial authority, and we find not only the antidote to ecclesial consumerism, but also the key to ecclesial unity, the principium unitatis (principle of unity). Building up the Church in unity through this supernatural virtue thus requires the pursuit of agreement among all Christians concerning who now holds those keys.

Video H/T: Energetic Processions

Pallium: Unity by Participation in St. Peter's Authority

Today, on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, Pope Benedict gave the pallium to 34 archbishops from 20 countries. The use of the pallium goes back at least to the early fourth century. It symbolizes the unity of the Church, by visually representing each archbishop's participation in the authority Christ gave to St. Peter to shepherd His flock. Prior to the investing, the pallia are laid on St. Peter's tomb beneath the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The Catholic Encylopedia article includes the following:

"Worn by the pope, the pallium symbolizes the plenitudo pontificalis officii (i.e. the plenitude of pontifical office); worn by archbishops, it typifies their participation in the supreme pastoral power of the pope, who concedes it to them for their proper church provinces. An archbishop, therefore, who has not received the pallium may not exercise any of his functions as metropolitan, nor any metropolitan prerogatives whatever; he is even forbidden to perform any episcopal act until invested with the pallium. Similarly, after his resignation, he may not use the pallium; should he be transferred to anotherarchdiocese. He must again petition the Holy Father for the pallium. In the case of bishops, its use is purely ornamental. The new palliums are solemnly blessed after the Second Vespers on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, and are then kept in a special silver-gilt casket near the Confessio Petri until required."

Below is the video of today's Pallium Mass at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Pallium Mass (Part 1)


Pallium Mass (Part 2)

Feast of the Chair of St. Peter the Apostle

Chair of St. Peter

Today, Februrary 22, is the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter the Apostle. This chair is the key to the unity of all Christians, as I explained here. That is in part because it not just a chair, but a throne (θρόνος), or cathedra, i.e. a seat of authority. God promised that Jesus would be given the throne of His father David.

"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David." (Luke 1:32)

Jesus instructed His Apostles to explain that the Kingdom (i.e. the Church) was here.

"And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (Matthew 10:7)

Jesus promised the Apostles that in His Kingdom (i.e. Church), they would sit on thrones and judge the new Israel.

"As My Father appointed a kingdom for Me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Luke 22:29-32)

God had promised to David that his son would sit on his throne, and build the house of His name.

"Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, he will build the house for My name." (1 Kings 5:5)

But Solomon was a type of Christ, for Christ is building the Church, which is the temple of God. God had promised to David that his throne would be established forever, and that he would not lack a man on his throne.

"then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, just as I promised to your father David, saying, 'You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'" (1 Kings 9:5)

This promise was fulfilled when Christ the King, the Son of David, conceived by the Holy Spirit, established the Kingdom that will never end.

"As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces ... But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. ... And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever." (Daniel 2:34,35,44)

This kingdom will continue to increase, will never be overturned, because it is divinely established.

"Of the increase of His government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from this time forth and forevermore." (Isaiah 9:7)

Christ, the Chief Cornerstone, designed Peter the rock, upon whom to build His Church. This is the Kingdom that will never be defeated, but will prevail to the end.

"And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19)

Christ has given stewardship of His Kingdom to His steward. This is the Petrine office, the chair of St. Peter the Apostle.

"Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time?" (Luke 12:42)

Christ rules the Church through the men He has entrusted with the keys of His Kingdom, and given them authority to speak in His name.

"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." (Luke 10:16)

In the discussion of the sacrament of Holy Orders in the Supplement of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, we find the following question: Whether in the Church there can be anyone above the bishops? (Supp. Q.40 a.6) The answer given is as follows:

We read in the council of Constantinople [381 AD]: "In accordance with the Scriptures and the statutes and definitions of the canons, we venerate the most holy bishop of ancient Rome the first and greatest of bishops, and after him the bishop of Constantinople." Therefore one bishop is above another.

Further, the blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria (375-444 AD), says: "That we may remain members of our apostolic head, the throne of the Roman Pontiffs, of whom it is our duty to seek what we are to believe and what we are to hold, venerating him, beseeching him above others; for his it is to reprove, to correct, to appoint, to loose, and to bind in place of Him Who set up that very throne, and Who gave the fullness of His own to no other, but to him alone, to whom by divine right all bow the head, and the primates of the world are obedient as to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself." Therefore bishops are subject to someone even by divine right.

... Wherever there are several authorities directed to one purpose, there must needs be one universal authority over the particular authorities, because in all virtues and acts the order is according to the order of their ends (Ethic. i, 1,2). Now the common good is more Godlike than the particular good. Wherefore above the governing power which aims at a particular good there must be a universal governing power in respect of the common good, otherwise there would be no cohesion towards the one object. Hence since the whole Church is one body, it behooves, if this oneness is to be preserved, that there be a governing power in respect of the whole Church, above the episcopal power whereby each particular Church is governed, and this is the power of the Pope. Consequently those who deny this power are called schismatics as causing a division in the unity of the Church. Again, between a simple bishop and the Pope there are other degrees of rank corresponding to the degrees of union, in respect of which one congregation or community includes another; thus the community of a province includes the community of a city, and the community of a kingdom includes the community of one province, and the community of the whole world includes the community of one kingdom.

... Although the power of binding and loosing was given to all the apostles in common, nevertheless in order to indicate some order in this power, it was given first of all to Peter alone, to show that this power must come down from him to the others. For this reason He said to him in the singular: "Confirm thy brethren" (Luke 22:32), and: "Feed My sheep" (John 21:17), i.e. according to Chrysostom [347–407 AD, Archbishop of Constantinople]: "Be thou the president and head of thy brethren in My stead, that they, putting thee in My place, may preach and confirm thee throughout the world whilst thou sittest on thy throne."

The chair of St. Peter stands in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, over the bones of St. Peter: (H/T: The Adoption Report)




Father in heaven, please bless and strengthen the episcopal successor of St. Peter, through whom you have provided the way to the unity of all your people, throughout the world, in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Please help all your people see and embrace this gift you have provided to the Church, that in her unity she may show to the world the most perfect unity and love within your holy and eternal communion of divine Persons. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

UPDATE: Today, Pope Benedict said:

"This Sunday is also the feast of the Chair of Peter, an important liturgical feast that highlights the office of the successor of the Prince of the Apostles. The chair of Peter symbolizes the authority of the Bishop of Rome, who is called to perform a special service for the whole People of God. Immediately after the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, the primacy of the Church of Rome in the Catholic community was recognized. This role was already attested to in the 2nd century by St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans, Pref.: Funk, I, 252) and by St. Irenaeus of Lyons (Contra Haereses, III, 3, 2-3). This singular and specific ministry of the Bishop of Rome was stressed again by the Second Vatican Council. "Moreover, within the Church," we read in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, "particular Churches hold a rightful place; these Churches retain their own traditions, without in any way opposing the primacy of the Chair of Peter, which presides over the whole assembly of charity (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Pref.) and protects legitimate differences, while at the same time assuring that such differences do not hinder unity but rather contribute toward it" (Lumen Gentium, 13).

Orthodox Delegate Speaks of Pope as Sign of Unity

Archimandrite Ignatios Sotiriadis

"Your Holiness," he said, "our society is tired and sick. It seeks but does not find! It drinks but its thirst is not quenched. Our society demands of us Christians -- Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Anglicans -- a common witness, a unified voice. Here lies our responsibility as pastors of the Churches in the 21st Century."

"Here," the Orthodox pastor continued, "is the primary mission of the First Bishop of Christianity, of him who presides in charity, and, above all, of a Pope who is Magister Theologiae: to be the visible and paternal sign of unity and to lead under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and according to Sacred Tradition, with wisdom, humility and dynamism, together with all the bishops of the world, fellow successors of the apostles, all humanity to Christ the redeemer."

"This is the profound desire of those who have the painful longing in their heart for the undivided Church, 'Una, Sancta, Catholica et Apostolica,'" he concluded. "But it is also the desire of those who, again today, in a world without Christ, fervently, but also with filial trust and faith, repeat the words of the apostles: 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!'"

(Source: Zenit, October 12, 2008)

Without a Pope: Orthodoxy & Unity

"His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew addresses the heads of the Orthodox churches in the Patriarchal Cathedral of Saint George." (October 10, 2008, Photo by N. Manginas)

Patrick Archbold of Creative Minority Report published this post on Patriarch Bartholomew's Friday address to the heads of the Orthodox churches. I recommend reading the Patriarch's complete address, because it is almost all about unity, especially starting in section 5. The most interesting part comes at the end, however, when the Patriarch says this:

We need, then, greater unity in order to appear to those outside not as a federation of Churches but as one unified Church. Through the centuries, and especially after the Schism, when the Church of Rome ceased to be in communion with the Orthodox, this Throne [i.e. in Constantinople] was called -- according to canonical order -- to serve the unity of the Orthodox Church as its first Throne. And it fulfilled this responsibility through the ages by convoking an entire series of Panorthodox Councils on crucial ecclesiastical matters, always prepared, whenever duly approached, to render its assistance and support to troubled Orthodox Churches. (my emphases)

Patrick Archbold writes:

The Ecumenical Patriarch rightly sees the problem. The Church needs to be Visibly unified to the world, not just a federation of independent State churches. That visible unity must come by way of public and open Communion with One See and its Patriarch. The Ecumenical Patriarch even goes so far as to say that this responsibility falls to his see and his person only because of the break with Rome. I think, although I may be reading into this with Roman eyes, that the Ecumenical Patriarch might even agree that were communion with Rome re-established, the role of being the visible unifier of the Church would no longer fall to him and his See.

Now I know that the Patriarchs of many of these autocephalous Churches would vehemently disagree with such a notion, whether Rome or Constantinople. With that said, I think that the Ecumenical Patriarch's pitch to his fellow Orthodox is an important step in the road to full and visible Unity of the Church as Jesus prayed. If these national Churches come to realize the importance of that visible unity to the world, we will be that much closer to being one, as Jesus and the Father are one.

I agree with Patrick's comments. It is a basic principle of metaphysics that you can't get unity from non-unity, just as you can't get being from non-being. Patriarch Bartholomew wants visible unity, saying, "We need, then, greater unity in order to appear to those outside not as a federation of Churches but as one unified Church." If the Orthodox are not a mere federation of Churches, but are in fact a visible unity, then there should be no worry about their appearing as a mere federation of Churches. But if they are a mere federation of Churches, then they can't solve this disunity problem by redoubling their efforts to be more unified with each other, because the problem is in that case an ontological problem, not merely a deficiency of cooperation or collaborative effort.

Trying to achieve or establish visible unity by means of a principium unitatis, i.e. being united to an existing visible unity, likewise faces the following dilemma. If Christ did not found the Church with a principium unitatis, then clearly we should not seek to outdo Christ by establishing one. But if Christ did found the Church with a principium unitatis, then visible unity can be attained only by union with that divinely appointed principium unitatis.

Patriarch Bartholomew seems to be aware of the need for a principium unitatis for visible unity. This is revealed in his emphasis on the importance of his own Throne for the visible unity of the Church. He is thus in a difficult situation. On the one hand, without a principium unitatis there cannot be actual visible unity. On the other hand, insofar as he seeks to elevate his own Throne as a principium unitatis, he highlights the intrinsic need for Orthodox reunion with the Chair of St. Peter.

Speaking as a Catholic, it is our constant prayer and desire for the restoration of full communion with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. We long for that day of reconciliation and reunion. We pray for full visible unity among all Christians, for this is the desire of the sacred heart of our Lord Jesus, that we would be one, as He and the Father are one.

Holy Spirit, hasten the day when we are one with one another. Make our hearts to beat with the same deep desire and passion as that of Christ's heart. Heal the wounds that divide us. Help us overcome the obstacles that keep us separated. Clothe us in true humility and fill us with charity toward one another. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Monocausalism and the Rock on which the Church is Built

St. Peter Holding the Key of Paradise
Pierre Puget (1653-1659)

From the Catholic point of view, Christ Himself is the cornerstone of the Church. Christ is one Person in two natures: one invisible, and one visible. So the Church (His Body) likewise has both aspects. It is both a visible organization and a spiritual community. (See CCC 771)

Although Christ is the head and chief cornerstone of the Church, during His absence [between the time of His ascension and the time of His return] He has entrusted the keys of His kingdom to His chief steward. (cf. Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 12:42) In other words, from a Catholic point of view, there is no contradiction between Christ being the head and cornerstone of the Church, and Peter also being a rock (subordinate to Christ) upon which Christ builds His Church, in the sense of making Peter its chief steward.

Often in Catholicism it is not an "either/or", but a "both/and". And the same is true of Matthew 16. But in Protestant contexts we quite commonly encounter the following dilemma: either the rock Jesus speaks of here is Peter or it is Peter's confession. But this is a *false* dilemma. The reason it is a false dilemma is that it is based on an implicit monocausalist assumption, i.e. that only one thing can be the rock on which the Church is built.

From a Catholic point of view there are at least four things the Church is built on: (1) Christ, who is the referent of Peter's confession of faith, (2) Peter the Rock, who makes the confession of faith, (3) the propositional content of Peter's confession, and (4) Peter's act of faith, for which He was commended by Christ, and given the keys by Christ. Each of these last three points to Christ. God the Father had revealed Christ's identity to Peter first, and this was a sign that Peter was to be the chief steward of the Kingdom, that is, the chief representative of Christ. The steward points to Christ because He is Christ's representative, the "vicar of Christ". The propositional content of Peter's confession obviously points to Christ, for Christ is what Peter's words were about. And Peter's act of faith points to Christ too, as an act of worship speaks about the worthiness of the recipient.

These last three are the three "bonds of unity" of the Church. (See CCC 815) I wrote about these in more detail under the section "The Three Modes of Organic Unity" here.

So the Catholic Church does not think it has to choose between Peter being the rock, and Peter's confession being the rock, and Peter's faith being the rock. They are all true, and they are all inseparable.

Here are some paragraphs from the Catholic Catechism that show how the Catholic Church views Peter's faith as the rock (even while, of course, believing that Peter himself is the rock).

"Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church." (CCC 424)

"Such is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God", for Jesus responds solemnly: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." Similarly Paul will write, regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus, "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles..." "And in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, 'He is the Son of God.'" From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ's divine sonship will be the center of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church's foundation." (CCC 442)

"Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it." (CCC 552)

In contrast, Protestants tend to see the rock only as the content and/or act of faith in Peter's confession. They tend not to see the significance (with respect to office) in Christ changing Simon's name to Peter and giving him the keys of the kingdom. They tend to read Matthew 18:18 as nullifying any uniqueness in Peter's office shown by Christ giving him the keys.

I have distinguished previously (here and here) between "comparing form" vs. "tracing matter". Here I'm pointing out that the Catholic Church believes that the Petrine office has preserved the faith of the Apostles, and that this is part of the significance of Matthew 16 -- Peter's being made a rock by Christ and being given the keys of the kingdom, and later being charged with feeding Christ's sheep and strengthening the faith of his brothers (the other Apostles) in John 21 and Luke 22. The Church believes that this matter (this office) has been given the keys, so as to preserve the form (i.e. the deposit of faith in its propositional and dynamic aspects) that was entrusted to it. The Church believes that the form and matter always remain united, just as the visible and invisible are held together in Christ's hypostatic union.

Babel or Keys?

'La Construction de la Tour de Babel'
Hendrick III van Cleve (1525 - 1589)
(click on the painting to view it full-sized)

Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. But the very nature of the promise implies the presence of a war. The dragon "makes war" against the children of Christ's Mother, that is, those who "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus." (Rev 12:17) So how does hell fight against Christ's Church? Of course there are external threats, such as persecution and the enticement of worldliness. But the more insidious attacks are internal; these are heresy and schism. Heresy and schism generally go together, because one without the other would be exposed for what it is. Only together can they hide each other. Satan hides himself in a certain respect, disguising himself as an angel of light. (2 Cor 11:14) That is his standard mode of operation. He once was Lucifer, the light bearer. So he portrays all his works as good and right and enlightened, as though they are the path of the truly wise, and especially suitable for making one wise. This is how he deceived Eve. This is how he deceived the people into choosing the murderer Barabbas [whose name means "son of the father"] over the innocent Son of God. And this is how he continues to deceive people into sinning against the Body of Christ, by leading them into heresy and schism.

But evil is always intrinsically self-destructive, because not only is evil a privation of good, but evil is also therefore a privation of unity and a privation of being. That is why evil is always parasitic on the good. Evil cannot exist on its own, but only in and in relation to what is good. For this very reason, the concepts of heresy and schism are not themselves sustainable within heresies and schisms. Within heresies and schisms these concepts collapse into the semantic equivalent of 'disagreement with my interpretation' and 'separation from me', respectively. All their objectivity and normativity is lost. Just as Satan succeeds when people no longer believe that he exists, so also he succeeds when the concepts of 'heresy' and 'schism' have been so evacuated that people no longer believe there really are such things.

The Church is supposed to be the voice of Christ to the world. Satan cannot defeat this voice, but through heresies and schisms he can drown it out in a sea of competing voices, each claiming to speak for Christ. In this way he creates confusion, not only in the world but even among Christians, for the effect is as if there is no authoritative voice of Christ, but merely a cacophony of opinions. Yet "God is not a God of confusion". (1 Cor 14:33) Christ did not leave His sheep without a shepherd. Nor did he intend that all who wish to determine who is the true shepherd first learn to read, let alone read and exegete Greek and Hebrew (as is testified to by the theological disunity among those who *do* read and exegete Greek and Hebrew).

The schisms that have weakened the unity and strength of our voice as Christians are in their effect like the curse of Babel that thwarted the builders of that tower. But the purpose of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is to reverse that division by means of a divine ingathering. This was the significance of the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2. (See the column of paintings on Neal Judisch's blog to get a better sense of the idea.) Babel was the tower of man, initiated by men and built up by men. It is the paradigmatic referent of Psalm 127:1, "Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain". Nimrod is said to have been the initiator of the tower of Babel; in this way he is a figure of the Antichrist. In contrast to Babel, the Church is the tower that God is building, joining all peoples together into one Body in which we all speak the same divine language. (To read an early second century description of the Church as the tower that God is building, see Book 1 of the Shepherd of Hermas.) This is the Body of Christ, of which He is the founder and Head.

One way to respond to the common insouciance among Christians regarding our disunity is to show the disunity for what it is, as Dickens showed child labor for what it was. That is the sort of thing I was attempting to do recently here and here, in showing that the position of those Protestants who claim to believe in a visible Church is only *semantically* distinct from the position of those Protestants who deny that there is a visible Church. This highlights the absence of a middle position between Catholicism on the one hand, and that of those who deny that Christ founded a visible Church. The denial of a visible Church leaves each man to do what is right in his own eyes, for in that case there is no divinely-established voice of authority in the visible Church, because there is no visible Church. This position has difficulty making sense of St. Matthew 16 and St. Matthew 18, as I showed in the comments here.

Moreover, the ecclesiological position of those who deny that Christ founded a visible Church is intrinsically disposed to perpetual fragmentation and disharmony and weakness, for according to that position Christ did not establish a lasting hierarchy by which to preserve and guard the first mark of the Church: unity. But while Christ assured us that the Church will endure, He also tells us that a house divided cannot stand (St. Matt 12:25; St. Mark 3:25; St. Luke 11:17). Therefore, unity is an essential mark of the Church. Christ did not tell us to make a man-made peace that He would then preserve. He gave to His Apostles His peace, a peace that is not of this world. He left His peace with them. (St. John 14:27; Philippians 4:7) This is the divine peace and unity into which we must be incorporated. It is this divine peace and unity given by Christ to the Church that makes unity the first mark of the Church.

There are many Christians who recognize the need for greater unity among Christians. The moral decline in the broader culture makes such a need more and more obvious. And the recognition of this need for greater unity should be commended and encouraged, as should the efforts to effect it. But there are two fundamentally different types of ecumenicism. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us the goal of a thing shows us what it is, and the difference in goal distinguishes these two different types of ecumenicism. I'm not speaking here of the proximate goal of fostering dialogue and improving mutual understanding and social cooperation between Christians of various denominations and traditions. I'm speaking of the final goal.

I have written here about the way in which one form of ecumenicism unwittingly continues the work of Babel, by trying to create a new tower that Christ Himself did not found. It does this by seeking to establish a new institution and trying to get all Christians to be united to it. We see this mentality in organizations like the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. (For an example, see here.)

True ecumenicism does not lay a new foundation other than that which God has already laid, the incarnate Christ being the cornerstone, followed by the "apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20), and their successors in the Church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). True ecumenicism is therefore necessarily by its very nature and final goal a searching for and reuniting with the Church that Christ founded. So long as some Christians conceive of the Church that Christ founded as the mere set of all believers, or as the set of all believers and their activities, or as a mere phenomenon, they will not perceive what the Church actually is, and how the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Mere sets and mere phenomena have no authority, no actual unity, and thus no actual being. What has no being cannot be a foundation, let alone a foundation of the truth.

To defeat the divisive work of Satan, we first have to come to see schisms for what they are. This is part of what it means to expose the works of darkness. (Eph 5:11) We tear away the façade of light that keeps us from perceiving evil as evil. These schisms are "ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body" (CCC 817). If we love our own bodies, then how much more should we care for the wounds of Christ's Body? But we can go about seeking to heal these wounds in one of two ways. We can either take the keys to ourselves, which is the way of Babel (or more precisely, an endless series of Babels, each with its own self-appointed or de facto Nimrod), or we can seek out the Church that Christ founded, where He left His peace, seeking full communion with the one to whom He gave the keys.

'Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter'
Pietro Perugino (1481-1482)

The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy

Eirenikon reposts a classic article.

Institutional Unity and Outdoing Christ

The Tower of Babel (1563)
Pieter Bruegel the elder

In June of last year, I had a conversation with Alastair Roberts on his blog adversaria, in the comboxes of four of his posts on "Denominations and Church Union and Reunion" (cf. here, here, here, and here). These posts were prompted, at least in part, by the passing of the FV/NPP report at the 2007 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America. Alastair was arguing for, among other things, the "desideratum of visible and even institutional unity" among all Christians. In our ecumenical efforts we [Christians] should be striving, in his opinion, for institutional unity, i.e. that we all be joined together in one institution. I agreed with Alastair on that particular point, but Alastair seemed to suggest that this future institution (in which all Christians of all denominations would be united) would not be any of the presently existing institutions; it would come into being as a result of the unification of all the various denominations.

To understand my concern about this claim, it may be helpful to read something I wrote last year titled "On the Imminent and Final Conflict Between the City of God and the City of Man." In my view, the Tower of Babel represents that religious unity established and advanced by [mere] men. It has its origin in [mere] men; it is established from the bottom up. It is, in its essence, the social embodiment of the act of Cain, who sought to make his own way to God, by his own labor. It is the institutionalized form of Pelagianism; it is the antithesis of grace. It is also, in my opinion, a type of the man-made religious unity (i.e. the Antichurch) that is to arise in the last days, and which the Antichrist will head. The Church, by contrast, is not like the Tower of Babel in that the Church has its origin from the top down, that is, from God, to man. In that way the Church is grace from beginning to end. Christ is the Head of the Church. For that reason, the Church existed before any [mere] men were members of it. To be received into the Church is to be received into that which the incarnate Christ Himself (i.e. God Himself) established, He Himself being the Head. Whatever [mere] man establishes, is not the Church; only what the incarnate Christ established is the Church.

With that in mind, my argument in response to Alastair was roughly this:

If Christ did not found an institution, then to seek to bring all Christians into institutional unity is a form of "outdoing Christ", that is, it goes beyond the degree of unity that Christ Himself saw fit to place in His Church. In that case, in our ecumenical efforts we should merely settle for moral and basic doctrinal agreement and collaboration in aid to the poor and needy. But if Christ did found an institution, then logically either that institution no longer exists or it continues to exist to this day. If that institution no longer exists, then it cannot come back into existence (by the impossibility of intermittent existence), and any institution we [mere] men might make in attempting to reestablish it is a different institution, not the institution founded by the God-man Christ Jesus. But if the institution founded by Christ still exists, then all our ecumenical efforts should be directed toward getting all believers into that institution. So, either we should not be seeking institutional unity, or we should be seeking out that existing institution that Christ Himself founded and seeking to bring all men into it.

I have copied and pasted below some of the relevant parts of the dialogue between Alastair and myself.

----------------------------------
June 20, 2007

Al,

When you say, "the denominations will cease to be necessary", it looks as though you are saying that the future unity of the Church (prior to the Second Coming, but after the reunion of all denominations) will be non-institutional. In other words, it seems as though in your opinion, the visible Church in the future will not be one institution, but simply non-institutional. Am I understanding you correctly?

You said in your combox comments to "The Denominational Church" that you think "Christ founded the Church to enjoy institutional unity", implying in my mind that you think that the Church (in its future state of reunion) will be institutionally one. So do you think that the Church in its future state of reunion will be institutionally one or simply non-institutional?

If you think that the future visible Church will be one institution, then I don't understand why you are trying to do something to the Church (make her institutionally one) that [you think] Christ Himself did not see fit to do while on earth.

But if you think that the Church in her state of future reunion will be non-institutional, then I don't see how that is anything other than ecclesial anarchy, the necessary fruit of individualism and ecclesial egalitarianism.

- Bryan

--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan,

I don't know what the future Church will be like. However, I expect that it will enjoy some form of institutional unity.
--------------------------------------------------------------

June 21, 2007

Al,

I too seek institutional unity. I do so believing that I'm not outdoing Christ, because I believe that Christ founded an institution. I'm not sure if you agree that Christ founded an institution, because I do not know what it means for something to have "institutional dimensions". But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you agree that Christ founded an institution.

The way we work for institutional unity will depend on whether we believe that one of the presently existing institutions is the original one. If none of the existing institutions is the original one, then all the existing ones can be done away with, and a single new one created. But if one of the existing institutions is the original, then institutional unity should involve all the other institutions being incorporated into the original.

You seem to think that if there was an original institution, it was schism-sensitive, such that it [though not the Church-as-mere-aggregate-of-believers] ceased to exist in the event of some schism. That is because, apparently, you think the institution of the Church does not have an ultimate "principium unitatis" (principle of unity) fixing the locus of institutional continuity in the event of schism. In that way you seem to have something more like a "mereological essentialist" view of the original institution — all the parts (or at least all the major parts) are equally central to the being of the organism as such. The organic notion of unity, by contrast, allows that an organism can lose certain parts and still continue to exist as an organism. In more complex organisms some parts are more central than others to the continued existence of the organism. This is why, for example, if you lose your toe you neither cease to exist nor do you continue on as a toe.

But I think there is good reason from the Scripture and the fathers (see especially the quotations of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, and St. Optatus) to believe that the successor of Peter has the role of principium unitatis. This is why, in my opinion, the original institution did not cease to exist when schisms occurred. Those remaining in full communion with the successor of Peter ipso facto remained in the original institution. And those separating from the successor of Peter ipso facto separated from the original institution. That does not mean (necessarily) that those departing from full communion with the successor of Peter depart from the aggregate of all believers.

The point I am making is that if your reunification plan involves starting a new institution (and abolishing all the present ones), then your plan assumes that the Catholic Church is not the original institution Christ founded, and that the successor of Peter does not have the role of principium unitatis. But Catholics cannot accept those assumptions. Therefore, while Catholics share your desire for institutional unity, we cannot support the manner in which you [apparently] wish to see it brought about. ...

- Bryan

------------------------

Al,

Let's say that the institution of the Church that Christ founded had the pope as one of its principles of unity. Suppose that Christ did intend that one dimension of the unity of His Church was to be the unity found in the one Bishop of Rome, the first among equals. This does not mean that, after the split between the West and the East and the split at the Reformation the Roman Catholic church is the one true institution that Christ founded.

It either means that, or it means that the institution that Christ founded ceased to exist. The institution, so long as it exists, cannot fail to have its locus in its principium unitatis. The idea that the institution continued as something other than the Catholic Church but not as any particular institution, would reduce the institution to the aggregate of believers. In other words, it would conceptually eliminate the institution altogether by conceptually making the institution equivalent to the aggregate of believers.

And the notion that the institution continued on as some other particular institution would have to posit a different principium unitatis, someone other than the successor of Peter.

You might accept the idea that the institution ceased to exist. One problem for that position is that the future institution you envision would then not be the same one that Christ founded. It would not be a divine institution (i.e. one founded by Christ), but a man-made institution. The only way to have a divine institution in the future is for it to be the divine institution that Christ founded. And that means that the original institution cannot go out of existence.

But as I just showed, if the original institution did not go out of existence, then it would have had to continue as one of the concrete institutions, in 1054 as either the Catholic Church or one of the EOCs, and in the 16th century as either the Catholic Church or as one of the Protestant denominations. And, as I have tried to argue, the role of Peter as principium unitatis is good reason to believe that in any split, where goes Peter, there goes the institution that Christ founded.

How philosophy helped me accept the papacy

At this link I describe how philosophy helped me accept the papacy.

St. Thomas Aquinas on Unity

Today is the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/5-1274), the greatest Catholic philosopher and theologian in the history of the Church. He is also one of the Doctors of the Church, being called the Angelicus Doctor, i.e. the Angelic Doctor. (He is also my patron saint.) In the old calendar, his feast was on March 7, the day of his death. January 28 celebrates the day his relics were moved to the Dominican church at Toulouse in 1369. A moving account of his death can be read here.

In a previous post I quoted from Aquinas concerning the difference between faith and individualism. Here I wish to comment briefly on Aquinas's understanding of the nature of unity, and apply it to the Church. Aquinas was well-studied in the works of previous philosophers on the subject of unity. He drew deeply, for instance, from Aristotle's arguments in the Metaphysics (Bk 4.2 and Bk 10). There Aristotle shows the relation of unity and being, and the different kinds and degrees of unity. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas explains the relation of unity and being:

"One" does not add any reality to "being"; but is only a negation of division; for "one" means undivided "being." This is the very reason why "one" is the same as "being." Now every being is either simple or compound. But what is simple is undivided, both actually and potentially. Whereas what is compound, has not being whilst its parts are divided, but after they make up and compose it. Hence it is manifest that the being of anything consists in undivision; and hence it is that everything guards its unity as it guards its being.

If we understand the relation of being and unity, we recognize that insofar as a thing loses unity, it loses being, and insofar as a thing gains unity, a thing gains being. This is why, for example, a house divided against itself cannot stand (St. Matthew 12:25; St. Luke 11:17). Jesus says this in the context of defending His casting out of demons, as we hear in today's gospel reading. One way of building up the Church, and thus giving it greater being or presence in the world, is to strengthen or increase its unity.

In the revelation of Jesus, we learn that God is love (1 John 4:8). And in this way we understand that love and unity are interconnected, as I discussed recently here and here. Love, within the one God in three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, is the greatest form of unity. Aquinas thus treated the sins of discord, contention, and schism as sins against charity. In relation to schism, Aquinas discusses the role of the pope in authoritatively determining the articles of faith, i.e. doctrine. Aquinas writes:

Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, "to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred," as stated in the Decretals [Dist. xvii, Can. 5. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed for thee," Peter, "that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: "That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you": and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision. Consequently it belongs to the sole authority of the Sovereign Pontiff to publish a new edition of the symbol, as do all other matters which concern the whole Church, such as to convoke a general council and so forth.

Here Aquinas shows from Scripture the significance of Christ's words to St. Peter, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not." This verse signifies something not only about Peter, but about his office. Next Aquinas shows why Jesus prayed this prayer for Peter, so that there should be but one faith of the whole Church. In other words, since we know whose faith will not fail, we know who to look to in determining what and where is the true faith. In this way, we can avoid and overcome schisms.

St. Thomas Aquinas, please pray for us, for the reconstitution of the full and visible unity of all Christ's followers. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Day 3 of the Church Unity Octave

Today is the third day of the Church Unity Octave. The following is from today's readings in the Liturgy of the Hours. It is from the letter of St. Ignatius (d. 107 AD), bishop of Antioch, to the Ephesians:

"It is right for you to give glory in every way to Jesus Christ who has given glory to you; you must be made holy in all things by being united in perfect obedience, in submission to the bishop and the presbyters. ... I am taking the opportunity to urge you to be united in conformity with the mind of God. For Jesus Christ, our life, without whom we cannot live, is the mind of the Father, just as the bishops, appointed over the whole earth, are in conformity with the mind of Jesus Christ. It is fitting, therefore, that you should be in agreement with the mind of the bishop as in fact you are. Your excellent presbyters, who are a credit to God, are as suited to the bishop as strings to a harp. So in your harmony of mind and heart the song you sing is Jesus Christ. Every one of you should form a choir, so that, in harmony of sound through harmony of hearts, and in unity taking the note from God, you may sing with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father. If you do this, he will listen to you and see from your good works that you are members of his Son. It is then an advantage to you to live in perfect unity, so that at all times you may share in God. If in a short space of time I have become so close a friend of your bishop -- in a friendship not based on nature but on spiritual grounds - how much more blessed do I judge you to be, for you are as united with him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father, so that all things are in harmony through unity. Let no one make any mistake: unless a person is within the sanctuary, he is deprived of God's bread. For if the prayer of one or two has such power, how much more has the prayer of the bishop and the whole Church?"

According to St. Ignatius, how are we made holy in all things? By being united to the bishop in perfect obedience. Is unity optional? No, since God is not double-minded, and we are to be united in conformity with the mind of God, we all are to have the same mind, by conforming to the mind of God. How do we conform to the mind of God? By conforming to the mind of the One whom God sent, i.e. Christ. How do we conform to the mind of Christ? By conforming to the mind of those whom Christ sent, i.e. the Apostles. How do we conform to the mind of the Apostles? By conforming to the mind of those whom the Apostles sent, i.e. the bishops. In this way, in our unity we form a harmony, since each is given a different role, but all are ordered together in a hierarchical unity. In order to be united in perfect harmony, we must all be united in conformity to the mind of the true shepherd (i.e. bishop) of the pasture where we live (i.e. diocese).

How do we determine who is the true shepherd? Do we look at all those who claim to be shepherds, and then pick the one that we like the most, or that (from our point of view), seems to feed us most, or that teaches our own interpretation of Scripture? No. That is consumerism. That is a sure way to fall prey to false teachers, to those who do not "enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climb up some other way" (St. John 10:1). False teachers "climb up some other way" by not coming to the sheep through the Apostles and the succession of bishops appointed by the Apostles. Those not sent to us by the Church are false teachers; they are self-appointed. We determine the true shepherd of our diocese by finding the person whom the Church sent to shepherd our diocese. When we are in union with our true shepherd, and our true shepherd is in union with the Church that sent him, then we possess unity with Christ, as He is in unity with the Father.

Those who reject the authority of bishops, by denying the sacramental distinction between bishops and presbyters, must dismiss St. Ignatius's teachings concerning the distinction between bishops and presbyters as a late first-century accretion, which must not be essential, because otherwise it would be in the New Testament. Their assumption, entirely unjustified by Scripture itself, is that the Scripture contains an exhaustive and explicit ecclesiology for the post-Apostolic era. Even though the Apostle John died about seven years before St. Ignatius wrote his letters, and even though the Apostle John lived and worked in the very area in which were located the churches to which St. Ignatius addressed his letters, those who reject the authority of bishops seemingly must claim that in those seven years, all those churches (and the church at Antioch) fell into the error of believing (1) that bishops had greater authority than presbyters, (2) that bishops were the successors of the Apostles in a way that presbyters were not, (3) that every church should if possible have a bishop, and (4) that this system of church government was Apostolic in origin, and not optional or provincial or conventional. In claiming that the Church fell into such serious error by the end of the first century, such persons are succumbing to the same ecclesial deism present in Mormonism. As Jesus and His Church are inseparable, so faith in Jesus and faith in His Church are inseparable. Ecclesial deism is for this reason not just a lack of faith in the Church, it is a lack of faith in Jesus Himself.

Lord Jesus, please help all who seek to follow you to see what are the fundamental points that divide us, so that by your grace we may overcome the divisions that separate us, and live in perfect harmony with each other on earth, as you live in perfect harmony with the Father in Heaven. Help us to recognize as secondary, differences that are in fact dependent on more fundamental points. Give us all an urgent desire to be united as one flock, with one faith, one baptism, under the one chief shepherd you have appointed (St. John 21:15-17).

Day 1 of the Church Unity Octave

Lord of unity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we pray without ceasing that we may be one, as you are one. Father, hear us as we seek you. Christ, draw us to the unity which is your will for us. Spirit, may we never lose heart. Amen.

Today is the first day of the 100th Church Unity Octave, or "Week of prayer for Christian unity". Yesterday Zenit posted an article describing how much progress has been made toward unity over the past 100 years. Two days ago Pope Benedict invited the Church to pray without ceasing for "the great gift of unity among all the Lord's disciples." The meditation for this first day of the Octave can be found here. Please set aside time this week to pray for the full visible unity of all Christ's followers.

This day (January 18) was chosen for the beginning of the Octave because January 18 was one of the two feast days of the Chair of St. Peter, the other being February 22. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Chair of St. Peter explains that January 18 was the day St. Peter "held his first service" with the Christians of Rome, outside the city in the cemetery of the Via Salaria. The chair on which St. Peter sat there was (it is thought) destroyed by the Goths in the early fifth century. The other feast day (February 22) of the Chair of St. Peter has to do with the chair upon which St. Peter sat in Rome.

What does the chair of St. Peter have to do with Church unity? Everything. Consider the words of St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (d. 258). He writes,

"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' He says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.' And again He says to him after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep.' On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering."

St. Cyprian is very explicit that Christ made St. Peter the ground (or foundation or basis) of the unity of the Church. (This does not, of course, in any way take away from Christ's role as the ground of the Church's unity; see my discussion of monocausalism if that is not clear.) In giving to St. Peter a primacy, Christ gave to the Church a gift, a means by which to preserve her unity. Otherwise at the first schism there would be no way to determine where the Church is, for each faction would seemingly have equal claim to be the continuation of the Church. Christ did not set up the Church so that all of her members must have graduate degrees in theology (as if even then there would be unity!) in order to determine where is the Church. St. Cyprian continues:

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance."

Notice that for St. Cyprian, the unity of the bishops and priests has its source (not only as a past event but as a present grounding or principle) in the chair of Peter.

The bishops of the Council of Serdica (343-344) in what is today Sophia, Bulgaria concluded the summary of the acts of the synod by writing to the bishop of Rome with these words:

"For this will seem to be best and most fitting indeed, if the priests from each and every province refer to the head, that is, to the chair of Peter the Apostle."

St. Optatus of Milevisu, bishop of Milevis in Africa (367), writes:

"But you cannot deny that you know that the episcopal seat was established first in the city of Rome by Peter and that in it sat Peter, the head of all the apostles, wherefore he is called Cephas, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do other Apostles proceed individually on their own; and anyone who would set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. It was Peter, then, who first occupied that chair, the foremost of his endowed gifts .... I but ask you to recall the origins of your chair, you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church."

Optatus shows that schism is defined in relation to the chair of St. Peter, because Christ made Peter the head of the Apostles. That definition of schism is exactly what we see today in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see here).

St. Jerome (340-420), writes:

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord.... I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter .... As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.

"The church [here, i.e. Syria] is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own. .... I meantime keep crying: "He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me... Therefore I implore your blessedness, by our Lord's cross and passion, ..... to give an apostolic decision. Only tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in Syria."

St. Jerome clearly recognized the role of the chair of Peter in preserving and grounding the unity of the Church. The church in Syria was at that time divided into three factions, and St. Jerome turned to the visible head of the Church (the bishop occupying St. Peter's chair) to determine which of the factions was part of the true Church, and which were schisms from the true Church. He clearly understand that Christ had foreseen that the Church needed a visible head in order not to provide an occasion for schism. St. Jerome writes:

"The Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism."

This statement shows that St. Jerome recognized that the unity of the Church was not based on a continuous miracle flying in the face of nature. Even nature teaches us that where there is no visible head, there will be no end of quarreling and divisions, to the point of disintegration. That is why Christ established a visible head, to provide a principium unitatis (principle of unity) for the Church. To be in communion with that rock upon which the Church is built, is to be in full union with the Church. To spurn that rock is to be in schism.

St. John Chrysostom (347-407), bishop of Constantinople, shows also an understanding of the difference in authority and jurisdiction between the episcopal chair of St. James in Jerusalem and the chair of St. Peter in Rome.

"And if any should say, 'How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?' I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair [of Jerusalem], but of the world."

St. Augustine (354-430), bishop of Hippo, writes:

"... because [the bishop of Carthage] saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the primacy (principality/supremacy) of an apostolic chair [apostolicae cathedrae principatus] has always flourished ...."

And elsewhere St. Augustine points to the chair of St. Peter as one of the things that keeps him in the Catholic Church. He writes:

"There are many other things which most justly keep me in [the Catholic Church's] bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church ...no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.... For my part I should not believe the gospel except the authority of the Catholic Church moved me."

The testimony of the fathers shows that they recognized the role of St. Peter's chair (signifying the greater authority Christ gave to Peter as the head) in grounding and preserving the unity of the Church. St. Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life." (John 6:68) Christ, in response, made these same words apply to St. Peter, by making St. Peter the visible head of the Church. If we were to turn away from St. Peter, to whom shall we go? What other visible ecclesial authority has been given his authority and charism? No one. Likewise, if we wish to see all Christians united in full visible unity, we must be like St. Andrew, Peter's brother, who brought St. Peter to Jesus. (St. John 1:40-42) But we do so by bringing into fellowship with St. Peter those who presently are not in full communion with him.

An Anglican Trilemma

I recently read a comment somewhere in which an Anglican claimed to be committed to the ideal of parity among the bishops.

If no man can serve two masters, i.e. two persons having equal authority over him (cf. Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13), then a fortiori no man can serve three masters (i.e. three persons having equal authority over him), or four, or five, or six, or however many (so long as the number is greater than one) bishops there are. But then it follows that a man can have only one highest ecclesial authority. Yet if there is nothing that gives one bishop more authority than all other bishops, then it follows logically that no man can serve any master, i.e. egalitarianism is true, and no bishop has any authority. Therefore, either Jesus was mistaken when He said that no man can serve two masters, or no bishops have any authority, or one bishop has more authority than all other bishops.

Anglicans are deceiving themselves if they claim to believe that all bishops have equal authority, for they obey and trust their Anglican bishop over the bishop of Rome. "No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

St. Leo the Great: Christ's foundation on Peter abides

"It is from this ultimate inexhaustible source of security that we have received strength in our apostolic task; for his activity is never relaxed. The powerful foundation upon which the whole structure of the Church rests is never shaken by the weight of the temple that presses upon it. That faith which Christ commended in the prince of the apostles remains forever unshaken. And, just as Peter's faith in Christ endures, so does Christ's foundation upon Peter. The structure of truth persists; blessed Peter retains his rock-like strength and has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he took over. Peter is called the rock; he is declared to be the foundation; he is made doorkeeper of the heavenly kingdom; he is made judge of what is to be bound or loosed, and his judgments remain valid even in heaven; in these various ways, he is assigned a rank above the others. By reflecting on the hidden meaning of these titles of his, we can come to appreciate how close he is to Christ. In our day he carries out his trust over a wider field and with greater power; he attends to every department of his duties and responsibilities in and along with him who gave him that dignity. And so, if I do anything well, if my judgment is sound, if I obtain anything from God's mercy by my daily prayer, all this is due to the achievement and the deserts of Peter; it is his power that lives on in his See, it is his prestige that reigns. This, beloved, is the outcome of that profession of faith which God the Father inspired in the apostle's heart. That declaration rose above the doubts of all merely human opinion, and took on the solidity of a rock unshaken by any outside pressure. For, in the world-wide Church, every day Peter declares: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, and every man who acknowledges the Lord is enabled to proclaim what those words mean." – St. Leo the Great (395-461 AD)

In the event of a schism, where is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church?

"There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism....there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church." (St. Augustine)

"You shall not make a schism. Rather, you shall make peace among those who are contending." – Didache (late first – early second century)

In order to understand how to bring about the "full and visible unity of all Christ's followers", we have to think about how to mend schisms. And that means we have to understand the nature of schism. Earlier this year I wrote about schism here and more recently here. And two weeks ago I argued here that the sooner we start recognizing schisms for what they are, the sooner we will realize that they need to be mended.

Mending a schism requires, among other things, knowing which party is in schism, otherwise neither side will see any need to join the other side. The two parties might meet at the ecumenical dialogue table (which is good), but if each side believes itself to have equal claim to being the continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, then neither has reason to join the other party, all other things being equal. So the question I wish to consider now is this: In the event of a schism, which of the resulting groups is the continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, and which is in schism from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church? (Of course this question will not apply to cases in which a group that is already in schism divides again.)

One important criterion for determining which is the continuing Church is retention of the doctrine of the Apostles. The continuing Church must retain the doctrine of the Apostles. But the primary problem with this criterion taken by itself is that any heretic can claim that his interpretation is that of the Apostles. That is because taking this criterion in isolation eliminates the possibility of an authoritative body that can adjudicate between claims to have the Apostolic doctrine. Here's why. If doctrinal agreement is the only criterion for determining the identity of the Church, then suppose there is a split into group A and group B. Group A might form its 'authoritative body' which then rules that group B is heretical, and group B might form its 'authoritative body' which then rules that group A is heretical. There is nothing that gives group A's 'authoritative body' any more authority than that of group B's, and vice versa. And if groups A and B each split into additional groups, the same will be true. Even if groups A and B split into as many groups as there are persons in both groups, the same will be true. Each person can say, "My interpretation is that of the Apostles", and no one has any greater authority to say, "No you don't." Hence, taking this criterion by itself is an adoption of individualism, an ecclesiology intrinsically disposed to fragmentation upon fragmentation.

So there must be an additional criterion, because Christ did not leave His Church without a principle of unity. In the fathers of the Church we find an additional criterion: sacramental succession from the Apostles (which I discussed here). By 'sacramental' I mean "by means of a sacrament", in this case the sacrament of Holy Orders. (Orthodox and Catholic fully agree that there are seven sacraments, and that Holy Orders is one of them.) Doctrine as such is purely formal. But a sacrament is not wholly *formal*, but necessarily includes a material principle. Baptism, for example, requires water as the material principle of that sacrament. The reason why a purely formal principle cannot be the sole criterion for determining which party in the event of a schism is the continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is that Form is capable of multiple instantiations. But there can be only one "holy, catholic, and apostolic Church", for Christ has only one Bride. Therefore there must be a material principle of identity and continuity. And that material principle is sacramental succession from the Apostles through the laying on of hands by those having such succession. The sacrament of Holy Orders confers magisterial authority. But only one having this authority can administer this sacrament. In the early Church magisterial authority was always treated as something that was passed down from God the Father to Christ (cf. Matthew 28:18; John 17:2; Revelation 2:28), from Christ to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the bishops through the laying on of hands (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). Often the Church (including the laity) would nominate candidates to replace a bishop who had died, but bishops were always ordained by other bishops. This is why submitting to the sacramental magisterial authorities (i.e. the bishops) was described (see here) by St. Ignatius (d. 107 AD) as submitting to Christ.

With this criterion, we can answer our initial question. First, when there is a schism, and one party does not have Holy Orders, and the other does, the party not having Holy Orders cannot be the continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, even if in all other possible respects it retains the Apostles' doctrine. The party not having Holy Orders is in schism. St. Ignatius (d. 107), bishop of Antioch, writes, to the Trallians, "Without these three orders [bishop, priest, and deacon] you cannot begin to speak of a church."

Second, the charism that accompanies the sacrament of Holy Orders is conferred whether or not the conferral is in accordance with Church law. This is why although the priests and bishops in the Novatian and Donatists schisms had Holy Orders, they were not the rightful authorities in their respective dioceses. So, in the event of a schism where both parties have Holy Orders, the party whose Orders were not received in accordance with Church law is the party in schism.

Third, one of the Apostles was given a primacy over the others, for to him alone did Christ say, "Upon this rock I will build My Church", and "I will give to you (singular) the keys of the kingdom of heaven." (St. Matthew 16:18-19) (See, for example, my previous blog post.) This Apostle passed on this authority to his episcopal successor in the Holy See (i.e. St. Linus), and he to his episcopal successor (i.e. St. Cletus). That list of bishops in succession can be seen here. Whenever a heterogeneous organism is divided, the head of the organism determines where the original organism continues. The part detached from the head is in schism from the organism. So likewise, whenever there is a schism and both parties have legitimate Holy Orders, the party that remains in communion with the episcopal successor of St. Peter is the continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. (If both parties remain in communion with the episcopal successor of St. Peter, then the schism is internal and must shortly be either resolved or one party will break with the episcopal successor of St. Peter, for he will require the two parties to be reconciled.)

"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one." (St. John 17: 20-21) Lord Jesus, may we heed your prayer. Give us the grace, humility and love to leave behind the schisms we have made, and be one with each other as you are one with the Father. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.