Recently in The Church Category

It is in part because of its unwavering stand on moral issues that I love the Catholic Church. In the video below, Francis Cardinal Arinze, former prefect and now prefect emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in a Q&A session addresses the problem of "pro-life" politicians voting in favor of abortion.

(I actually like the idea of the Pope sending twelve Swiss Guards to arrest them all.)

Forsake not the Twittering of yourselves together: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1895463,00.html?cnn=yes. Makes me immensely thankful for the liturgy.

In recent conversations about Catholic doctrine, it has become clear that evangelicals do not object to actual Catholic doctrine, but rather they object to what they misunderstand to be Catholic doctrine. Over the course of the next several posts (which will be filed under Belief), I will attempt to address these misunderstandings, misunderstandings that I myself held at one time, and will do my very best to explain what the Catholic Church really believes. In the spirit of Justin Martyr, I "have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation," and that you would not be influenced by "evil rumours which have long been prevalent" (First Apology, II).

For this post, I had planned to continue my series on the Marian dogmata, but given the recent controversy over the lifting of the excommunication of four schismatic bishops by Benedict XVI, I thought it would be timely to discuss the infamous doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Not only is it timely, but a discussion of infallibility should also be of some aid to our upcoming discussions of Mary, but for now we'll focus on whether or not the Pope can screw up.

Actually, whether the Pope can screw up is not the issue—of course he can screw up. St. Peter, whom Catholics believe to be the first Pope, screwed up big-time at Antioch when he refused to eat with the uncircumcised gentile converts—after having declared at the Council at Jerusalem that circumcision was not required for gentile converts! (cf. Acts 15 and Gal 2). But regardless of his mistakes, all Christians believe that Peter, a total screw-up before Pentecost and at least a partial screw-up after, was infallible at least twice when he wrote letters that made it into the New Testament.¹ The real question is whether it is reasonable that, as some objectors suggest, such infallibility would cease at the death of Peter and the apostles, and that the church throughout the rest of history would be left to figure things out the best they could.

A more recent example of a papal foul-up is Benedict XVI's lifting of the excommunication of four schismatic bishops in March. One of the bishops who was un-excommunicated (not the technical word for it) publicly declared that the slaughter of 6 million Jews at the hands of the Nazis never occurred. Benedict issued a letter to his bishops effectively apologizing for rotten timing. A basic survey course in Western Civilization at one's local community college should provide one with a plethora of much worse papal screw-ups. But, in spite of the innumerable mistakes Popes have made throughout the centuries, the Catholic Church maintains the doctrine of papal infallibility. So, either Catholics are totally blind and stupid, or infallibility must mean something other than that the Pope is a perfect man. I'm betting that 1/6 of the world's population (at last count around 1.1 billion Catholics) isn't totally blind and stupid—right or wrong, they must have a reasonable explanation for what they believe.

The key to the doctrine of infallibility is understanding that it is not the Pope, the man, who is infallible, but rather it is God who is infallible and who protects his church from error. In very simple terms, when a Pope defines a teaching on faith or morals that the whole church should believe, God prevents him from teaching error. Catholics do not believe the Pope to be infallible in matters of discipline, such as lifting excommunications, suggesting what one should give up for Lent, or socializing with gentile converts. Neither do Catholics believe the Pope is impeccable, "impeccable" literally meaning "incapable of sin." The Pope, like all other ordinary human beings, is susceptible to sin. Pope Benedict XVI, acknowledging his susceptibility to sin, goes to confession weekly. Obviously he doesn't consider himself impeccable or infallible in every aspect of his life, and neither does the rest of the Catholic Church. Rather, Catholics believe that God will protect the pastor of His church from teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

Because this series is a discussion of what the Church really teaches, it is important to look at her official statements of doctrine and dogma. So, to find the official position on infallibility we turn to the first Vatican Council. The Council was convened in part "for the uprooting of current errors" (Vatican I, Session 1), which is quite typical of Councils as they normally meet only when doctrinal and disciplinary questions and/or attacks on the faith arise. Among the questions to be answered by the Council was that of infallibility. After much deliberation the Council concluded that

when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, . . . he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals (Pastor Aeternus², 4:9).

The Latin phrase ex cathedra is important. Literally it means "from the chair"³ and here refers to the exercise of a bishop's office, in this case the office of the bishop of Rome. By specifying that the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, the Council does not extend infallibility to the Pope's personal life nor to his personal theological opinions, only to his definition of doctrines touching faith or morals in the official exercise of his office. Furthermore, it is only by "divine assistance" that the Pope can infallibly define a doctrine. The second Vatican Council gives further clarification:

And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter. . . . (Lumen Gentium, 25).

Like Vatican I, Vatican II emphasizes that the infallibility of the Pope is not based on the man himself, but by "virtue of his office" and that his definitions are only proclaimed with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Both Councils specifically mention that the Holy Spirit's guidance is promised "in blessed Peter," and they base their statements on a passage found in Matthew's gospel in which Jesus institutes his church:

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mat 16:13–19).

Even a cursory reading of this passage suggests that the rock on whom Jesus would build his Church is Peter, and so it would seem that Jesus intended Peter to be the chief of the apostles.⁴ And it seems that the kind of authority Jesus intends for Peter is the same authority that the Vatican Councils attribute to the popes, whom Catholics consider to be Peter's successors—that of a loving brother and a shepherd. Before he is betrayed, Jesus says to Peter, "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" (Luke 22:32). Once Peter has converted after denying our Lord, Jesus singles out Peter and gives him the charge to "Feed my lambs. Feed my sheep. Feed my sheep" (John 21:15–17). Drawing on these images, Vatican II describes the Pope as "the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith."

Applying the image of Peter as chief shepherd and strengthener of his brothers to the bishop of Rome is not unique to Vatican II. From earliest times the Church recognized the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and assumed that Peter's capacity as chief shepherd was passed to his successors as well. The authority of the bishop of Rome over the church is evidenced by one of the earliest extant Christian writings, the epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians in which Clement, then bishop of Rome, basically tells the church at Corinth to straighten up and get with the program. Clement exercised his authority over Corinth even though Corinth was already under the authority of its own local bishop. And, following the New Testament church's example of appealing to Peter and the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), the post-apostolic church continued to appeal to his successor in Rome for remedy of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. (For a detailed analysis of Rome's appellate jurisdiction, I recommend Joseph C. Ayer, Jr., "The Development of the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Roman See," Church History Vol. 57, Supplement: Centennial Issue (1988), pp. 29-42.)

But as I mentioned before, infallibility really isn't about the Pope, but rather about God. Jesus made a promise to Peter to protect His church from the gates of hell, and Jesus keeps his promises (if he doesn't keep his promises then this whole Christianity thing is a sham). The Catholic Church believes that as part of that protection, Jesus will prevent his church from falling into doctrinal error. To prevent his church from doctrinal error, Jesus promised to send "the Spirit of truth" who "will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). Not only did Jesus send the Holy Spirit to guide the church, but he also gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, the power of binding and loosing. It is unreasonable that Jesus, having gone to all the trouble to build a church and hand out keys, and to send the Holy Spirit to lead the church into all truth and teach it everything it needed to know, would decide to withhold such protection after the death of the apostles. It is much more likely that he would continue to protect his chief shepherds, Peter's successors, from totally blowing it when exercising the authority of the keys.

Furthermore, as is the case with the communion of saints, the scope of the objectors' objection is once again too narrow. Infallibility is not limited to the Pope, although he is given that gift in a special way, but it also extends to the other bishops and especially to ecumenical councils. According to Vatican II:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever . . . they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith (Lumen Gentium, 25).

Those Christians who adhere to an orthodox Christology—that is to say that they believe that Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity in the flesh, that he possess a divine and human nature, etc.—those Christians are indebted to several infallible ecumenical councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, etc.) who protected the faith against Arius, Nestorius, and the like. To reject the infallibility of those Councils' decisions calls orthodox Christology into question. If those Councils were not protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, then what all orthodox Christians believe about Jesus may be entirely wrong. If the Councils were wrong, then we all might as well be Episcopalian and just accept the idea that Jesus was a good man and a wise teacher. Without infallibility—God's protection of his church from error—Christianity would mean precisely squat.⁵

I should also point out that the Pope and the Councils do not make up new doctrines. Whatever they teach must come from the revelation given by Jesus to the apostles that has been handed down since the birth of the church. Again, Vatican II:

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with [divine] Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with. . . . The Roman Pontiff and the bishops . . . diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith (Lumen Gentium, 25).

In other words, the church may try to better understand and explain a doctrine, as was the case when the Council at Ephesus expounded the doctrine of the hypostatic union, but it will not accept any new, until-now-unrevealed revelation. Whatever the bishops teach must be part of the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jud 1:3).

Again, infallibility amounts to God protecting his church from the gates of hell, and in so doing protecting the Pope and the Councils from teaching error in matters of faith and morals. Mark Shea, a Catholic apologist whom I have quoted elsewhere, sums up infallibility in far more eloquent terms than can I. He is worth quoting at length:

The basic point is that infallibility is actually a very modest claim, despite appearances. It essentially means that the Catholic Church is populated by nothing but screwups and without the special action of the Holy Spirit, the revelation of Christ would have been lost a half an hour after Pentecost. All it guarantees is that the revelation will not be lost, that the Church will not define as essential Catholic teaching something that is not true. It leaves the Pope and the rest of the Church free to sin, to screwup, to make terrible decisions, and to majorly blow it in huge ways, including persecution of Jews, forged Donations of Constantine, dumb liturgical changes, corrupt political alliances and all the rest of the parade of bad things done by Catholics.

---

All scripture quotations are from the King James Version of the Bible.

Notes

1. I mean no disrespect to St. Peter. He has made no worse mistakes than the rest of us human beings. The fact that we are all screw-ups is the reason we need a Redeemer at all. The only reason that I single out Peter is that he is pertinent to the discussion given his role as the first bishop of Rome, and that his mistakes got recorded in the Bible.
2. In the link provided, Pastor Aeternus is referred to by its more descriptive subtitle, "First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ."
3. This phrase is the reason cathedrals are called "cathedrals." A cathedral is a bishop's church headquarters, so to speak. In addition to the chairs at the front of the church reserved for priests, deacons, and altar servers, cathedrals also have a chair reserved exclusively for the bishop.
4. There are those who object to the idea of Peter as the rock and who will suggest that it is actually Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ that is the rock. Their reasoning is based on Jesus's play on words in the passage. In the original Greek, Jesus says, "You are Petros and on this petra I will build my church." Petra is the Greek word for rock or stone. The objectors insist that because Jesus uses two different words, Petros and petra, that he is not calling Peter the rock but is referring to something else, namely Peter's confession. However, they are mistaken.
        Greek, like French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, Latin, and many other languages around the world, assign gender to inanimate objects. In German, a cat (die Katze) is feminine while a dog (der Hund) is masculine, regardless of whether the dog or cat indicated is male or female. If I were to tell a German pet owner that his male cat named Bob is adorable I would say, "Deine Katze Bob ist wunderschön." Deine is the feminine possessive adjective but it is used here even though Bob is a male cat. Sometimes the gender assignments are quite ironic. In Spanish, the word for a man's shirt is feminine (la camisa), but a woman's bodice (the upper part of her dress) is masculine (el blousón). In Spanish all nouns have gender, but in German not all nouns have gender. Some, like das Scheißhaus, are gender-neutral. But I digress.
        Petra, the Greek for rock, is a feminine noun. Assigning a feminine name to a man is inappropriate and would be quite insulting, especially in a strongly patriarchal culture like first-century Judaea. So Jesus, as he is quoted in the Greek text, assigns a masculine ending (-os) to Peter's nickname, thus he becomes Petros. The objectors further miss the point that Jesus and his disciples most likely spoke Aramaic, a language in which "rock" is gender-neutral. In Aramaic, Jesus would have said, "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my church." The play on gender is only recorded in the New Testament because it was necessary to make sure Peter retained a masculine name when Jesus's Aramaic words were translated into Greek.
5. There are those who, at this point in the discussion, would argue that they have the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide them and that this combination is enough to determine orthodox doctrine without the aid of councils and popes. I would encourage them to ask themselves why it is that the councils had to meet to defend the faith against Arius and Nestorius and the like in the first place. Surely those men had the same scriptures as the Councils to determine correct belief about Jesus. Another excellent question is why, though they all have the same Bible, that Baptists and Wesleyans and Lutherans and Presbyterians and hard-core Calvinists disagree on what basic, biblical things really mean, such as Baptism, Communion, justification, sanctification, regeneration, grace, free will, etc. The Holy Spirit can't be leading each of these groups in their differing directions—contradicting opinions can't all be correct and God does not contradict himself. In answer, the objectors, following Wesley's lead, might then appeal to some vague set of "essential" doctrines, an issue which I have addressed previously, the argument for which does not hold up given that the differing Protestant doctrines are all considered essential by those that hold them. Given these circumstances, how does one decide which set of beliefs to accept? The simple answer is to look for the Church that Christ founded upon St. Peter and the apostles.

In recent conversations about Catholic doctrine, it has become clear that evangelicals do not object to actual Catholic doctrine, but rather they object to what they misunderstand to be Catholic doctrine. Over the course of the next several posts, I will attempt to address these misunderstandings, misunderstandings that I myself held at one time, and will do my very best to explain what the Catholic Church really believes. In the spirit of Justin Martyr, I "have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation," and that you would not be influenced by "evil rumours which have long been prevalent" (First Apology, II).

One of the first objections raised against Catholics is, "But they pray to Mary!" The Blessed Virgin seems to irritate non-Catholics more than almost any other Catholic doctrine, and I'm not sure why. After all, she brought the God-man Jesus Christ into our world and for this, if for no other reason, she deserves our honor and respect. In future posts I will deal with the Marian dogmata, but presently I want to address the specific objection of "praying to Mary."

Catholics don't pray to Mary in the sense that they worship her. If anyone worships Mary they aren't being a very good Catholic; worship of anything other than God is idolatry, a grave sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church words it this way:

Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. . . . Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast" refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God (CCC, no. 2113).

These are pretty strong words against idolatry and, make no mistake, the Catholic Church follows its own proscription; it does not divinize Mary or honor her in place of God. She is a creature, a very special creature to be sure, but a creature nonetheless. So how do they get away with praying to her? To put it in evangelical terms, they make prayer requests and not prayers of supplication. And to be clear, Catholics don't ask Mary to perform miracles like parting the Red Sea, changing Coke into Pepsi, or even helping them find their car keys. They make prayer requests—they ask Mary to pray for them.

The best example of this idea is the most common Marian prayer, the Hail Mary, one which evangelicals seem most offended by. The first part greets Mary in the same way as the angel Gabriel and her kinswoman Elizabeth and comes straight out of the Bible: "Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus" (cf. Luke 1:28 and 1:42)¹. The second part is the prayer request: "Holy Mary, Mother of God,² pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen." Clearly, Mary is not worshipped; she is greeted in the same way that angels and relatives greet her, then she is asked to pray for us.

Before moving on, we should pause for a moment to consider the word "pray." For many, "pray" means directly addressing God in an act of worship, but there are other uses for the word. The Catholic Church was in England long before Protestantism and so, when talking about Mary, Catholics use it in the old English sense of the word, which is to simply ask something of someone. This is the sense that the US Supreme Court uses when they write in their opinions things like, "that court was of opinion that the law under which the prosecution was had was constitutional, and denied the relief prayed for by the petitioner;" and "Whereupon petitioner prayed for a writ of error from this court. . ." (Plessy v. Ferguson). "Pray" was especially popular in Elizabethan English. Shakespeare has Hamlet say to the players, "Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you" (Hamlet, Act III, Scene 2). And contemporary to Shakespeare is the King James Bible which quotes St. Paul as saying, "we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:20). Catholics don't worship Mary when they pray to her in the same way that the petitioner doesn't worship Supreme Court justices, Hamlet didn't worship his actors, and St. Paul didn't worship the church at Corinth.

And that is the doctrine in a nutshell. Prayer in the old English sense of the word. Prayer requests, not worship. 'Tis very simple. However, something that divides Christianity deserves a fuller explanation, and I would be remiss in my duty indeed if I explained this in anything less than 3,000 words.

The first step in my fuller explanation is to point out what most non-Catholics may not realize—their objection to praying to Mary is too narrow in scope; the practice follows from a doctrine called the Communion of Saints and thus applies to all the saints and angels in heaven. The Communion of Saints is a belief that, by virtue of our being members of the Church, the Body of Christ as St. Paul described it, Christians are united together in such a way that not even death can separate us. If we are indeed members of the one Body of Christ, then we cannot be separated—a body is no longer a whole body if it loses an arm or a leg. A body requires all its members to function fully (see Rom. 12:4ff.). At Archdale Wesleyan, we professed a belief in the Communion of Saints at least once or twice a year when we would recite the Apostles' Creed from the back of our hymnals. The last clause in the Creed says, "I believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." (Of course, we would always replace "the holy catholic church" with "the holy universal church of Jesus Christ" or something similar because "catholic," which means "universal," sounded too Catholic.) Unfortunately, evangelicals too often reduce the word "communion" to mean "fellowship" and, oddly, have tended to make "fellowship" into a verb synonymous with "eating pot luck dinners together." They have even built "fellowship halls" for this very purpose. In reducing the Communion of Saints to fellowship among those of us on earth, we lose sight of the bigger picture of the Church that includes not only those of us who are on earth but also our communion in Christ with those who have gone before us. We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us in the faith (Heb. 12:1; see ch. 11 for context). It is only because of our communion with them in Christ that it makes any sense to ask Mary and all the angels and saints to pray for us.

A concise example of prayer requests made in the Communion of Saints can be found in the penitential rite at the beginning of every Mass: "I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned. . . . And I ask Blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. The faithful ask for the prayers of their brothers and sisters on earth who are in their immediate physical presence, but also for the prayers of Mary, the angels, and the saints who are in heaven.

Prayers to the saints in heaven are limited to prayer requests, but it may not seem intuitive to the modern mind to ask them to pray for us. It is intuitive for us that we would ask the aspiring saints here on earth to pray for us. I ask my mother, father, wife, pastor to pray for me and they do. Likewise, they ask me to pray for them and I do. But science and empiricism are so ingrained in us that we cannot fathom how exactly we can talk to Mary and the saints to ask them to pray for us. They're dead, right? Well, if we truly believe Christian doctrine, we don't believe that those persons in heaven are dead—in fact, we believe that they are more alive than any of us here on earth simply because they are in heaven and in the direct presence of God Almighty. Furthermore, we have a share with them in the Communion of Saints through Jesus Christ our Lord. If we consider that we are addressing living persons through Christ, it isn't a huge stretch to ask them to pray for us. They are alive and we are in communion with them.

One question that often arises is that the saints are in heaven, in the presence of God, and are blissfully happy for all eternity—why would they care what is happening on earth? For that matter, do they even know what is happening on earth? Well, the Bible reveals to us that the saints in heaven are well aware of what is happening to the saints on earth and that they care:

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? (Rev. 6:9–10).

Here we see that the souls of the martyrs in heaven are quite aware of what is happening on earth and that they pray to God to bring about specific ends on the earth. If they were not aware of earthly events, they would not know that God had not already avenged their blood and consequently would not bother to ask for vengeance. Moreover, those in heaven are quite aware of the prayers of the saints on earth, and in fact carry those prayers to the throne of God:

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints (Rev. 5:8).

And even the angels get involved:

And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand (Rev. 8:3–4).

Clearly, the inspired written Word of God tells us that the angels and saints in heaven know and care about what is happening on earth, and that they take the prayers of the saints on earth to God—they intercede on our behalf.

But the idea that saints and angels deliver our prayers to God raises another common objection: that we have but one mediator between God and man and therefore we don't need to ask for the intercession of the saints. True, there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Tim. 2:5), but this objection seems to imply that because Jesus is our one Mediator that we have no need for the prayers of anyone else. That doesn't quite follow. I could tell my mother, "Don't pray for me! I already have a mediator!" but I would sound stupid. On the contrary, James tells us that we should "pray for one another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (Jas. 5:16). James's instruction to pray for each other requires that one intercede on behalf of another; in doing so we become mediators between our brothers and God. St. Paul throughout his letters tells his churches that he is praying for them, for instance 2 Cor. 13:7, Php. 1:9, Col. 1:9, 1 Thess. 5:23, etc. He also asks for their prayers: "Brethren, pray for us" (1 Thess. 5:25). Paul, like the rest of us, intercedes for his brothers and sisters and requests that they do the same for him. Why? Because the Church is a "holy priesthood" with a duty "to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 2:5). The duty of the priest is mediation between God and the people. Because we are a "royal priesthood" (2 Pet. 2:9) we have the duty and privilege to mediate on behalf of our brothers and the entire world. The letter to the Hebrews tells us that Christ is our High Priest, but "high priest" implies that there are lesser priests. In the Old Testament, the high priest would would offer the sacrifice of atonement on Yom Kippur and enter into the Most Holy Place in the temple, but all the lesser priests offered sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the people throughout the year. So it is with us; Christ has offered himself as the Sacrifice of Atonement and has ascended into heaven, but we the lesser priests still offer prayers and sacrifices on behalf of our brothers and sisters. By interceding for each other we in no way diminish Christ's mediation, we simply become participants with Him. The same is true for the saints in heaven who intercede on our behalf; they have as much a share in the royal priesthood as does any of the faithful on earth. Furthermore, James says that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. I ask: which of us is more righteous than those saints in heaven whom God has purified and made righteous?

Another typical objection to the intercession of the saints is that communication with the dead is strictly forbidden by the Bible. For the moment, let's ignore the point I made earlier about the saints in heaven not being dead and take a careful look at what the Bible says. There are numerous commandments against occult practices such as conjuring the dead, sorcery, witchcraft, divination, familiars, reading entrails, etc. Here are a few (source):

• Leviticus 19:26 . . . neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
• Leviticus 19:31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
• Leviticus 20:6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
• Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
• Deuteronomy 18:10–11 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
• Deuteronomy 18:14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.

The most famous example of the kind of occult practice forbidden by God is recorded in 1 Samuel 28:5ff. King Saul was terrified of what the Philistine army might do to his kindgom. Saul asked God what would happen, but God had turned away from Saul because of his disobedience and did not answer. So Saul has his servants bring him a woman with a familiar spirit; they deliver to him a woman from Endor (not the moon where the Ewoks live) whom he asks to call forth Samuel, the prophet who had anointed him king and was now dead. Samuel, of course, is upset from having been awakened at such an ungodly hour but Saul is terrified and wants to know what he should do. Samuel tells Saul that because he had disobeyed God, God had already ordered his punishment and would give the kingdom to David. The woman was worried because she knew she had violated the law, even though she had done so at Saul's command; Saul apparently had a reputation for having "cut off those that have familiar spirits" (vs. 9). Finally, Saul, not having eaten for a few days because of his distress, gives into the woman and his servants and eats, then they all go away. To sum up, Saul a) used a woman with a familiar spirit to b) conjure the dead in order to c) know the future so he could decide what he should do. He violated three very specific commandments: a) using familiars, b) necromancy, and c) divination, all three found in Deut. 18:10. (If we want to be picky, he also violated Lev. 20:27 because he protected the woman and did not put her to death.)

Fortunately, asking the saints for prayers in no way resembles Saul's little incident, any of the occult practices forbidden in the Bible, or any occult practice not specifically mentioned in the Bible. To ask a saint for his prayers does not involve whoring with familiars (wording like that is why I love the KJV!), wizardry, enchantment, astrology, necromancy, divination, etc. When participating in the Communion of Saints, Catholics do not seek to know the future through occult practices but instead rely on the intercession of their brothers and sisters on earth, those in heaven, and most importantly the intercession of Jesus Christ our Lord, all of whom ultimately pray for the mercy of God Almighty.

The Catechism, quoting the document Lumen Gentium from the Second Vatican Council, sums up far more eloquently than can I the Communion of Saints and the point in asking for their prayers:

It is not merely by the title of example that we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself (CCC, no. 957).

If we can fully understand the actual Catholic teaching on the Communion of Saints, a doctrine that even evangelicals profess, we can all make the prayer of the Church our own:

May [Christ] make us an everlasting gift to you [Father] and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary the virgin Mother of God; with the apostles, the martyrs, and all your saints on whose constant intercession we rely for help (Eucharistic Prayer III).

---

All scripture quotations are from the King James Version of the Bible.

Notes

1. Most English translations render "full of grace" in Luke 1:28 as "highly favoured." However, the original Greek word used is kecharitomene (κεχαριτωμενη), the root of which is charis (χαρις) which means "grace," and it is especially hard to translate well. Greek grammar is rich and can thus express complicated ideas in fewer words than English. Kecharitomene is one such complex word which suggests a permanent condition of having grace. In context it implies that Mary received grace from God at some time in the past, presently has God's grace, and will have it in the future. There is no good equivalent for kecharitomene in English or in most other languages. The best St. Jerome could do in the 4th century with his Latin translation was gratia plena, literally "full of grace." The first English Bibles were translated from Jerome's Latin and thus "full of grace" stuck. This word is found in very little Greek literature outside of the New Testament, and is found nowhere else in the Bible; it applies singularly to Mary.
2. Mother of God is a title given to Mary by the fathers of the early Church and is a dogma I will address in an upcoming post. In Greek the fathers called her theotokos (θεοτοκος), literally the "God-bearer." Personally, I think "Mother of God" works better in English; it's more poetic and provides a fuller sense of her duty in raising and caring for God in the flesh.

Last week, the Wesleyan Church General Conference voted unanimously in favor of Memorial 190 (I might call it a proposal or resolution—don't ask me why they call it a "memorial"). The full text reads thus:

OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER: Discipline recommendation for monthly observance.

Whereas, The Wesleyan Church, as indicated in paragraph 242 of The Discipline, espouses a high view of the Lord's Supper as a sacrament of our redemption and our eternal hope as well as a sign of Christian love and a means of grace;

Whereas, Jesus clearly commands his disciples to partake of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:14-23);

Whereas, The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 clearly indicates that this mandate applies to all believers as a means of proclaiming the gospel and anticipating the return of Christ;

Whereas, John Wesley in The Duty of Constant Communion contended that it is the duty of every Christian to receive the Lord's Supper as often as possible because of its benefits including giving believers the strength to perform their duty and leading believers on to entire sanctification;

Whereas, The Lord's Supper is not only a sign of Christian love within a local church, but it is also an expression of Christian unity globally and throughout history; and

Whereas, The current policy of one observance per quarter is out-dated as it originated in the worship of the early Methodist Quarterly Meetings of the 1700's, which were necessitated by the lack of ordained ministers to administer the sacraments within in the circuit system [cf. Dr. Lester Ruth, A Little Heaven Below: Worship at Early Methodist Quarterly Meetings, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000);

Resolved, That the second sentence of 725:6 be amended to read:

"Each pastor is encouraged to provide for the observance of the Lord's Supper at least once each month, but is required to do so at least once every three months (293)." ["The Wesleyan Church Memorials: General Conference 2008", 75.]

It is a wonderful thing that the Wesleyan Church has finally acknowledged that reception of Holy Communion should not be limited to once per quarter. This has been too long in coming. I am hopeful that this is a first step in a theological renewal for Wesleyans. Now, you may say I am too cynical, but as wonderful as this is, it raises questions for me.

First, should we simply encourage or should we require pastors to offer Communion monthly? The policy has always been to celebrate this sacrament at least once every three months, so pastors have always had the option of celebrating as often as they like. In fact, the Discipline gives pastors the right "To preach the gospel and to administer baptism and the Lord's Supper, to perform all parts of divine worship and to solemnize the rite of matrimony" (Discipline, 2000, 3075:1). If pastors already have the right to celebrate Communion as often as they like, then why have they not celebrated the sacrament more often? Why is a vote needed at all? I see two possibilities: Pastors either lack a full understanding of Communion or they feel like meeting the minimum requirement is enough. I hope it is the former. If there is simply a lack of understanding, we must re-educate our pastors on the importance of Communion. However, if there is only a desire to meet minimum requirements, then nothing short of a requirement will suffice.

Second, why is the encouragement for only monthly celebration? In support of its recommendation, the memorial presents John Wesley's argument that receiving Communion benefits us by "giving believers the strength to perform their duty and leading believers on to entire sanctification." I wonder if the drafters of this memorial read Wesley's entire sermon. His point was that because Communion provides these benefits, it is important enough to celebrate constantly. Wesley said that a "frequent" reception of Communion "is absurd to the last degree.... For if we are not obliged to communicate 'constantly', by what argument can it be proved that we are obliged to communicate 'frequently'?" ("Constant Communion," II.1). Monthly Communion is hardly constant Communion.

I think the answer to these questions stems from the central problem of Protestantism: we all try to make up our own thing. Protestantism divorced itself from the first 1,500 years of Church tradition and so had to start from scratch with its theological development. So we Wesleyans now find ourselves 500 years after the Reformation voting on whether it is a good thing to encourage monthly celebration of Communion. That the vote was unanimous does not change the fact that we still had to vote. Rather than decide for ourselves the best course of action, we would do well following the example of the New Testament Church which met daily for "the breaking of the bread, and the prayers" (Acts 2:42, Young's Literal Translation). Wesleyans are on the tip of rediscovering the belief of the ancient tradition from which the Protestants separated themselves—that the breaking of the bread/Lord's Supper/Communion/Eucharist is "the fount and apex of the whole Christian life" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 11). I hope that we Wesleyans will eventually discover this for ourselves.

Mark Shea gives what must be the best explanation of the Catholic doctrine of infallibility I have ever heard or read: "Infallibility Doesn't Mean Never Having to Say You're Sorry.

Last night I read Keith Drury's There Is No I In Church (Wesleyan Publishing House, 2006). Drury is a professor of ministerial studies at Indiana Wesleyan University and is the most prolific Wesleyan author I know of. In No I In Church, Drury illustrates the need for "moving beyond individual spirituality," the primary focus of most evangelicals, and refocusing our efforts to "experience God's power in the Church." I agree with him that modern evangelicals are far too focused on me, and that privatization of religion "is secular at best and at its worst can produce a spurious pagan spirituality" (p. 19). In a radically non-evangelical statement, Drury writes:

The privatization of faith may be more than just a philosophical problem; it may have a sin problem at its root.... We hate submission.... Human beings rebel against authority—especially the authority of the flawed group of humans in the church.... The gospel of Jesus Christ calls us into submissive community with other Christians. It is our sinful nature that tells us to resist (pp. 21–22).

Radical for an evangelical? You bet. However, he is spot on—we are called to submit to the authority of the church which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15, New International Version). The question is: to whose church are we supposed to submit?

Our early church fathers professed a belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic church." The adjectives "one" and "holy" are fairly self-explanatory. There can be only one church, one body of Christ, and by virtue of being the body of Christ it is already holy yet will continue to grow in holiness. "Catholic" and "apostolic" deserve a little more discussion.

Many evangelicals are terrified of the word "catholic." For them it conjures exaggerated images of a corrupt, dogmatic institution with the oppressor of all oppressors, the Pope, as its head. For the record, that image of the Catholic Church is false. The Catholic Church is a little dogmatic (but shouldn't we be dogmatic about the truth of Christ?) but neither corrupt nor oppressive. Still, this is the image of the Catholic Church that most evangelicals have grown to perceive. But I digress. The word "catholic" in the context of the one holy catholic and apostolic church professed by the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. means universal, comprehensive, complete, lacking nothing. It makes sense that Jesus would make his church complete, lacking nothing, possessing all truth.

"Apostolic" is on the surface self-explanatory—a church founded by the apostles. Peter, Paul, and the rest traveled the world founding gatherings or assemblies (in the Greek, ekklesia, translated into English as "church") of believers in Christ, so those churches would be considered apostolic. However, "apostolic" also implies a teaching authority. Jesus commissioned his apostles to go into the world "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20, NIV). That teaching authority given to the apostles did not disappear—it belongs to the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Even Drury, an evangelical who prizes the authority of the scripture, writes that "No one can know the mind of Christ apart from the body of Christ" (p. 31). In other words, it is not up to individuals to determine correct doctrine according to how they have read the scripture—that authority is the domain of the church.

Now, to get back to the question: to whose church do we submit? The answer: the one holy catholic and apostolic church instituted by Christ, founded by the apostles, and still possessing a teaching authority. The easiest way to find this church is looking for the church that the apostles founded. Was it the Wesleyan Church? Probably not. It was created in the 1960s. How about the Presbyterians? Nope. Founded by John Knox in Scotland. Methodists? Again, no. John Wesley founded that organization in eighteenth century England. Baptists? Founded by John Smyth in the early 1600s. I am afraid we will have to look outside Protestantism to find an apostolic church since all Protestant churches were founded by non-apostles. And they are not catholic because they all lack something, evidenced by their persistent separation from each other, their disagreements on doctrine, and Drury's need to write his book. Both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches claim that they can trace the succession of their bishops in an unbroken line back to the apostles, and they do a fairly good job in proving it. There are some differences in doctrine between the Catholics and Orthodox, but the similarities are remarkable (though I will need to make another post to make those remarks).

Having spent all my life in the evanglical world I face a very hard question: If the one holy catholic and apostolic church cannot be found within Protestantism and we are called "into submissive community with other Christians" (Drury, p. 22), how do we justify our continued separation from each other and our resistance to submit to the authority of someone else?