Peter's Keys or Ours?

This reflection on the keys given to Peter, written by Fr. Jose, makes me uneasy. Especially this part:

The truth is we don’t have to be offered this power of keeping the gate. We already have that power to open or close the kingdom of God to ourselves and to each other. We already have the keys to let ourselves in or to shut one another out of the kingdom or presence of God dwelling within us. We already have that power to open our hearts to life and love, hope and faith. And the power is ours as well to keep the shadows at bay.

While the writer's point about our own "power" to open and shut is a profound and insightful one, more needs to be said than what he wrote. In fact, to say that I have any power to shut someone else out of the kingdom, or let him into it, sounds as wrong as it sounds presumptuous to say of myself. While our own free will, a gracious gift from God, allows us to open to to shut out ourselves from the kingdom, those are our own decisions to cooperate with God's grace or not. While we do preach the gospel to plant seeds, it is not my "power" at work, only my participation. To God be the glory! Extolling our "power" to open and shut makes it seem as if it was sufficient in and of itself. All this talk of our "power" is discomfiting. We cannot even say "yes" to God without His grace. Of the pope, it is not his power, but Christ's power, extended to him as authority.
Why did Fr. Jose not write about the papacy, though that would be the most natural theme for this passage? Walking around the topic of authority, even with the best intentions, the essay ends up turning everyone into the ultimate authority, it seems. As Msgr. Charles Pope wrote today, if no one is pope, everyone is pope.
I believe that the authority of the Church and the papacy are not to be hushed up, but to be proclaimed! The readings today about Eliakim, and then about Peter make for an unmistakable lesson on authority. Yes, the authority to bind and to loose may be seen as power, but as you said, [s]uch power can never really be divorced from the grace of his love.. . The papacy is a gift, an expression of God's love. Such love, we should proclaim, and be thankful for!

Fr. Bob: a question of will

There is, of course, the will of God as our ultimate guide. Ours is to conform to His, simply because, even by careful and painstaking analysis, especially with hindsight, His will trumps ours in all respects: efficiency, gains, timing, and so on.

There is the will of the Church, and likewise, the will of the (arch)bishop, speaking as the overseer of his diocese on behalf of the whole Church. This will is not of its own sovereign authority, but in lieu of the anointing by the Holy Spirit, it is taken to be conforming to the will of God. We can decide either way in Fr. Bob's case if the archbishop is himself conforming to and passing on God's will or not.

And then there is the will of Fr. Bob. That he would pit the will of the parish "elders" against that of the archbishop reveals a sadly rebellious spirit.

As for whether or not the archbishop (or canon law) is speaking the will of God or not, I suspect that the archbishop is being more prudent and discrete by not speaking of other reasons for Fr. Bob to retire. If only that he is beginning to confuse the Gospel and setting himself up as an idol, there is a very good reason for Fr. Bob to seek, not the will of his "elders" in the parish, but the will of God, the same God who instituted the office of bishops with his own authority and Holy Spirit.

Witness and scandal

Exit polls in electorates where Obama won showed self-professed Catholics voting mostly Obama. But in electorates where their bishops came out publicly and explicitly against Obama, even where Obama won, Catholics were not as supportive of Obama.

Will the bishops who deliberately stayed silent or left their statements vague remember what the Lord said about scandals and the lukewarm?

Truly, a problem of clear and authoritative teaching.

Update:Like I said.. it's about teaching.

Authority and Reason

Today's Gospel reading (Luke 4:31-37) relates the amazement of the Lord's audience at his authority to teach and command. He taught at the synagogue with authority, and he commanded the unclean spirit to depart the man it was afflicting. Behind all this is the divine power which is God's alone; I think divinity is the basis for authority. Perhaps it is not too much of a stretch to consider that it is also the basis for reason, for what can be rational if it is not based on unassailable, perfect, eternal (and thus divine) Truth? What can be logical if it is not based on objective and true premises?

The commentary cited by DailyGospel.org from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) is worth repeating here:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger [Pope Benedict XVI] Lenten sermons 1981 "What is there about his word?" The moment that the Bible calls «the beginning» points us to the One who had the power to create what is and to say: «Let there be...!» and it was (Gen 1,1-3)... That phrase «Let there be..!» did not bring mindless chaos into existence. The more we get to understand the universe, the more we discover a rationality in it whose ways, interpenetrated by thought, amaze us. Through them we find again that creator Spirit to whom we, too, owe our reason. Albert Einstein wrote that the laws of nature: «Manifest so superior a reason that all other rationality of human thought and will seem, by comparison, to be an absolutely insignificant reflection of it.» We note that the infinitely great universe of stars is ruled by the power of Reason [Logos]. But we learn even more concerning this from the infinitely small, the cell, the fundamental elements of living things. There, too, we discover a rationality that astonishes us, so that we have to say with Saint Bonaventure: «Anyone who cannot see this is blind. Anyone who cannot hear it is deaf. And anyone who does not start praying and praising the Creator Spirit at this point, is dumb»... Through creation's rationality, God himself confronts us. Physics, biology, all the sciences generally, have offered us an account of the new and unheard of creation. Such great, new images help us to know the Creator's face. They remind us, yes, that in the beginning, and in the depth of every being, stands the Creator Spirit. The world has not issued forth from darkness and absurdity. It resonates intelligence, freedom, the beauty that is love. Seeing all this gives us the courage that makes living possible and makes us able to take up confidently on our shoulders the adventure of life.

There is the city on a hilltop

I feel less and less inclined to wade into ecumenical debates. There's been one brewing at Cum Ecclesia between the Catholic and Lutheran positions. The primary issues at hand are authority and the question of where the Church is.

I can't count the number of times that I had prepared a lengthy comment in the comment box only to find myself aborting the comment in the end. Not because I wasn't sure of what I wanted to say, but because my comments seem futile in the end. The Lutheran position does not hold much hope to me of dialogue. It is too subjective, it seems, and the Lutheran sentiment of one's unbending stand gets in the way.

In the end, lazy as it seems to be, I am inclined these days to simply lift my arm and point to the Church Magisterium: there she is, the city on a hilltop. Don't take my word for it, take hers. In any other Christian denomination, my interpretation of the Bible is the sure foundation of my arguments. In the Catholic Church, the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition that is offered by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the sure foundation. I have had the Iglesia ni Kristo or the Jehovah's Witnesses thrown at my face before, as an answer to this assertion of mine. Let me be clear then that I refer to Christian denominations who share the Nicene Creed and the pronouncements of the councils up to about the first millennium at least. Those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, the closing of revelation with the death of the Apostles, the Trinity, the hypostatic union of Christ's nature.

In predicting the demise of Jerusalem, the Lord told his disciples to scatter away. Going against prevailing practice at that time, they were to depart from Jerusalem, rather than to hide within and wait out a siege. No such warning is recorded about the Church that he built on the rock of Peter. He declares a promise that asserts the opposite: "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." St. Paul confirms this when he calls the Church the pillar and foundation of Truth.

If you pose a difficult dogma to me, I'll point to that city on the hilltop. I may not understand everything she tells me, I may fail to uphold my avowed obedience to her judgments, but I trust my Lord, who told me to trust that city. Even if I don't feel like it, even when I don't understand it -- even when I feel like dissenting. You see, at the end of the day, I just don't feel comfortable with the idea that I know better than all those popes, bishops, clergy, scholars, doctors and ordinary Catholics down through the centuries. Even if I were to consider that many of those popes, bishops, clergy, scholars, doctors and ordinary Catholics were individually sinful, and perhaps often individually wrong in word and deed, I'd be loathe to dissent. The Lord has already warned of what fate awaits those false teachers and leaders. I shall observe whatsoever the Magisterium teaches, but there will be times when I shall not do as they (of the Magisterium) do. God have mercy on them if they cause scandal, but I shall not make of myself a rebel. Some hats are simply too big for my head.

Authority

Authority has always been the key issue when it comes to the fullness of truth among Christians. Truth is a person, of course, and that person, Jesus Christ, is unassailable. But while he does not leave us orphans, he is not here in the person. So what do we do when Biblical scholars call into question the inspiration of canonical Scripture?

Michael Holmes, a professor at Bethel University, doesn't consider the story [of the adulterous woman] inspired Scripture. But he said he would include the story in the Bible, because of its long history and because the verses bear the marks of an authentic story about Jesus.

I'm not quite sure how one can be certain that it is an authentic story about Jesus if one is also certain that it is not inspired Scripture. But, moving on..

Such judgments raise questions about what words like canonicity and inspiration mean for evangelicals. If we reserve the word inspired for the text in the earliest manuscripts, yet accept that other material (such as the pericope adulterae) should be included in our biblical canon, are we implying that select biblical passages may be canonical yet not inspired? If so, what should we do with this distinction? Biblical scholars do agree on two things: The Bible story should be set apart with a note, and Christians should be cautious when reading the passage for their personal devotions.

While these scholars (and those in the comment box of CT) may have had (or continue) to grapple with such issues, I think I'll just be grateful that Mother Church can resolve this for me. I have constant recourse to the teaching authority of the Church (the Magisterium) so as to free me from such worries. Almost as if (gasp) I had recourse to the authority of Christ in the Body. But why should this present any difficulty? After all, where does authority lie if not in that Body, the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth? (Timothy 3:16)

I Am

All Christians should be aware of the implications of those two little words. I AM is how the Lord is known in the Old Testament. I remember our RE teacher in college pronouncing what I think was the Hebrew: eyeh asher eyeh, and it stuck in my mind. It made perfect sense that God who has no other reference of significance except Himself can only say that he is simply .. he is.

This also tells a tale about self-idolatry. When a man puts everything under a reference to himself, i.e., I am <blah>, then he is indeed exalting himself and making himself out to be .. God, who alone can really claim that reference.

Of course, I'm not saying we cannot literally say things like "I am Jeff" or "I am a father of three boys" or "I am the world's sorriest excuse of a handyman." I haven't got time to think about everything that I might attach to "I am" in referring to myself, but it seems at first glance that they are all references relational to something else. I am, indeed, Jeff, but I did not give myself that appellation. I am a father only because I do indeed have children. And I am a poor fix-it-man in reference to my attempts to fix things around the house. Besides, there's something disturbing about so many "I am" to throw around when, in the blink of an eye, "am" becomes "was". One day, I might even forget my own name!

Two little words with incredible significance. Abused, they run the risk of embarrassing us utterly if our claims are subsequently found out to be false.

Something else to be said about self-reference is that it is best replaced with a different model: external references. Rather than make claims about oneself, having witnesses works best -- even better with two witnesses. This may seem a stretch, but what brought on this blog post was some unease I am having in dialogue with Protestants. Do I really have to read the Book of Concord in order to make any case about the Catholic faith? Well, no, since they're not obliging me to look there anyway, but yes, since I really want to contribute to the dialogue. Except that, I get the feeling that it will degenerate into "my creed is purer than your creed". What's worse is when it is reduced to "my interpretation is better than yours!" And that's at the crux of the "I Am" dilemma: is it up to you and me? Can't we bring in a grown-up into this fray? Yes, but which grown-up do we trust? Oh, the Church? That grown-up is anti-Christ, putting itself ahead/above God. Well, not really. I like order, and it seems to me neat and orderly that the Church Magisterium does not have to make claims about itself based on .. itself. The Magisterium is not trustworthy because the pope and the bishops are wise, or learned, or more academically gifted. Why, you can put a few fishermen, a tax collector, and someone who once condoned the unjust execution of an innocent man named Stephen, and by Christ, they're trustworthy. Why? Because Christ said so.

But you, what about your teaching authority -- where does it come from? Who appointed you elder? Who laid hands on you, gave you the keys of the kingdom, and promised you infallibility, so that what you bind and loose on earth are bound and loosed in Heaven?

Don't look at me! No sir, I know I was never given that appointment. I have enough trouble with my anointing as a husband and a father. Me, infallible? Just who do you think I am?!

Authority

In today's gospel reading (Mark 1:21-28), the Lord visits a synagogue where "[t]he people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes."

The homily I heard today focused on how authority can be easily undermined by a disconnection between one's words and one's actions. The priest cited how, throughout Church history, we have been unfortunate enough to have Church leaders with such a disconnection: hypocrites, in other words. Lest we forget, however, hypocrisy is a disease that is in all of us. As a father, I lapse into this fairly often in what I tell my kids about keeping their temper or sharing with one another. The tragedy in hypocrisy is that our words may be precise and true, but our contrary actions will render our words hollow. Worse still, our hearers, who hate our contrary actions, will associate the same hatred with our words. Just look at how many people now hate the Gospel, true as it is, because of some hurt suffered in the past due to the untoward actions of hypocrites.

There is one person in all the world, however, who is without any hypocrisy: Jesus of Nazareth. His words and his actions are one: they are of love. Even better, he shares his holiness with us, his very life. This divine life can heal our hypocrisy -- if we do not reject this gift.

Fraying and unravelling

I can't exactly remember why retired bishop Geoffrey Robinson came to my attention today. In any case, it has been an occasion of sadness. He certainly seems to be an up and coming hero of some dissenting Catholics. It looks like he has not gone as far as some of his new fans seem to have gone, but I am not surprised that they would project their own aspirations on him.

I haven't read his book, of course, but this interview is enough to raise alarms for me.

His heart is most certainly in the right place when he raises grave concerns about the sexual abuse crisis, but he seems to get a few things wrong (in my opinion) and he seems to be bordering on heterodoxy. :-( I get a feeling that, in worrying the edges of the tapestry, he will end up unravelling more than he meant to at first. It's odd when he notes the weakness of synods in that the bishops are not professional theologians, but on the other hand, there he is contesting some rather serious dogma. I may have gotten that out of context, however, but my point seems to be relevant anyway.

It was probably Mark Shea in his book, "By What Authority?", who impressed upon me the slippery slope of unravelling the lines of authority in the Church. Or, more importantly, I learned to appreciate the lines of authority that, naturally, come from Christ himself. When one starts doubting the authority on earth of the pope and bishops, one has got to wonder where it all ends. No authority, no councils, no creed, no canon of Scripture -- gasp! What bedrock of authority do we have left to stand on??

Abuse of Authority

From today's Gospel reading from Matthew 23:1-12,

Then addressing the people and his disciples Jesus said, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees occupy the chair of Moses. You must therefore do what they tell you and listen to what they say; but do not be guided by what they do: since they do not practise what they preach. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will they lift a finger to move them? Not they! Everything they do is done to attract attention, like wearing broader phylacteries and longer tassels, like wanting to take the place of honour at banquets and the front seats in the synagogues, being greeted obsequiously in the market squares and having people call them Rabbi. ‘You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your servant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will exalted.

My Bible's commentary points out that there is a delicate balance on the point of authority.

This .. suggests that the ambitious appropriate to themselves the authority over the people of God and that to a certain point God tolerates it. Matthew, in recording these words of Jesus, wants to preserve in the Church fundamental equality. It is the whole Church which enjoys the Holy Spirit, and the heads or doctors will have no authority unless they are deeply rooted in the community's life. .. The bad example of the authorities does not discredit the word of God. Nor does it lessen the principle of authority. .. They cannot renounce their authority on the pretext of humble service and then carry out what the majority has decided.

There is no problem with people having teaching authority in God's household. The Apostles were explicitly given this authority, and even among them, Peter is singled out with primacy (see Matthew 16:13-19, John 21:15-19, Luke 22:31-32). Nor is it a problem of calling someone a father, or a rabbi, or a leader, for St. Paul does not hesitate telling the Corinthians that he became their father (1 Cor. 4:15), nor in telling the Christians in Rome that Abraham is the father of us all (Romans 4:16-17). St. John likewise does not balk at addressing his words to fathers (1 John 2:13).

And it is true that God may tolerate the sins of people in authority, as he had the many sins of kings, judges and Apostles in the Bible, as he tolerates ours -- for some periods of time. And for people ordained, God does not abolish their offices, as he retained the kingship despite Saul and/or David, the office of judges despite Samson, and in the above, the Lord allows the teachers of the Law to retain their teaching authority, despite, in the same breath, pointing out their sins and hypocrisy. For if it were a principle that an office is only as good as the office-holder, then the office of being a Christian witness is in trouble, for all can fall into sin and caused scandal.

Perhaps this is again a good occasion to point out the wise choice of the Father in choosing to building the Church upon Simon the Rock, for he is perhaps the perfect example of an office-holder who does not quite elicit complete trust. This man, so impetuous, occasionally given to thoughtless action and reaction, was not given the honor of becoming that Rock because he was personally fit for it. But then neither are any of us fit for the honor of being sons or daughters of the Most High. And yet we are. By grace. All by grace.

Peter, the Rock

In today's Gospel reading (Matthew 16:13-23), I am reminded of something I wrote last year concerning the Protestant disdain and/or horror of the papacy. I just wish they could also see in it what they accept in other contexts.

• Protestants readily accept that they can be their own Scriptural interpreters (with the Holy Spirit's aid) of Scripture, but not see that the papacy and the Magisterium, with the Holy Spirit -- revealing not by flesh and blood but from the Father in Heaven -- can do the same interpreter's job. The pope and the Magisterium also act as a second witness to the Holy Spirit being the first.
• Would Christians have refused to follow Peter's decrees unless they could be convinced from Scripture (the Old Testament)? Perhaps because they would never consider a human being wielding such authority to teach? But they accept their own authority to teach themselves. What's more, doesn't this constitute a contradiction to Christ's assertion that Peter has the keys to bind and loose on earth as in Heaven?
• Further to that, is it a Scriptural precept that one is never to obey leaders of the Church unless one assents? What of the seat of Moses? What of hearing the Apostles as if one were hearing Christ?
• It is easy enough to assert that the pope cannot possibly have infallibility. What is the basis? Is it his personal frailty? But his teaching authority and papal infallibility are not of "flesh and blood". Neither the most thorough, prayerful Protestant nor the pope possess a personal infallibility. Neither possess personal impeccability. Were Christians of all stations (including the Apostles themselves) to rely on personal abilities alone, then Christianity would succumb easily to extinction by error. Christendom would also degenerate into utter chaos, for there would be absolutely no foundation of certitude. On the other hand, were Christians of all stations (including the Apostles themselves) to rely on an equal share of the Holy Spirit's gifts, and were they all to assert an equal authority to teach from the Holy Spirit's guidance, then we would still degenerate into utter chaos. Why? Because it would be one's word against another's. The only solution is for the ministry to teach to be conferred rather than asserted. And the only conferrer could be the head, Jesus Christ. There is no objective basis otherwise.
• On a recent evening, my friend maintains that doctrines in dispute among Christians are probably not important and should not be held as rock-solid truth. My response was that this measure will result in the necessary conclusion that there is no truth. Why? Because truth cannot admit contradiction. Christians of different denominations still contest the sacraments, predestnation, and even the Trinity. They also still contest the meaning of justification, salvation by faith alone that is or is not truly alone. They contest the validity of divorce, and as a result, they contest what adultery means. They even contest abortion as murder or.. not, depending on which stage of pregnancy it is carried out. In such a tableau of contested doctrines, it appears that Christendom is at an impasse.

Does the papacy and the Magisterium solve all of this? Yes, but not perfectly! In order for this to work, people must actually assent to the teaching authority of the papacy and the Magisterium of the Church. They must see that the pope and the Magisterium of councils occupy the seat of Peter (previously that of Moses). We must therefore do as they tell us -- even as we must sometimes not do as they do. Because hypocrites as they may be at times, it is not the persons of authority we follow, but the Father in Heaven who reveals His truth to these frail human beings of flesh and blood.

But why can it not be that the Father reveals truth to ALL human beings who are baptized? Because this charism is not for everyone. Some are called to be prophets. Others as teachers. One was called Cephas -- Rock -- on which the Church is built, and given the keys of the kingdom. He was told that what he opens and shuts are on earth as in Heaven. He was also given the task to feed the sheepfold. The sheepfold are still here, but Cephas died almost 2000 years ago. Quo vadis? Is it now our lot to be our own Cephas? Are we now bearer of the keys? Will what we open and shut be on earth as in Heaven?

Where does the Bible say that?

Some thoughts on infallibility

In a recent post about my having been slammed down by a Calvinist for my Romanist ranting, I quipped about him

What a horribly precarious perch when one can no longer allow the possibility of being wrong.

And then Lito made a worthy point:

"Is this not applicable to the claims of the Pope and the Magisterium to infallability?"

I would be doing a Rand if I were to dismiss this point, because it's a valid point. Where lies the difference? After all, both Rand and the Church are citing the anointing of the Holy Spirit in making pronouncements with authority. One could cite, of course, that the evidence from Scripture and Tradition are on the side of the Church, but that doesn't quite convince Rand or others who likewise consider themselves infallible when it comes to interpreting Scripture.

I think the difference is that Rand believes he is right simply because he is born again. In other words, having been born again is, for him, his guarantee of certitude. Not that his infallibility comes straight from his state, but the Holy Spirit's anointing which guarantees infallibility does.

For the pope and the bishops, the Magisterium's credibility is not by their state of justification, which is no different from everyone else. It is not by their state of holiness either, which is no different from everyone else. For the pope and the bishops, the Magisterial infallibility has nothing to do with their personal characteristics because infallibility is a gift given by the Holy Spirit *despite* their inadequacy and unworthiness. It is, truly, outside of them. Simon son of John, who was nicknamed Rock by the Lord in Ceasarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13-19) does not cease to put his foot in his mouth consistently, simply because he was given the authority to bind and to loose, the certitude that his authority is ratified from above, and the keys of the kingdom. He is, in fact, the perfect example from among the Apostles (those who did not hang themselves) of how the Lord shepherds his people despite their inadequacies. Why choose such men as our leaders? Because we are earthenware jars, and what overwhelming power and gifts are given become clearly of God, not of men.

I am often confusing in my arguments, so the Historical Christian's posts on the Holy Spirit's guidance and papal infallibility are must reads on this topic.

Lito's point has also made me rethink the problem with Rand's evangelical approach. It is in not allowing the possibility that those who disagree with him have something worth hearing, or that they have something to say. As Lito had told me a few years ago when I first told him about Rand, this approach may win arguments but never hearts.

Pride and Hell

So this member of parliament says to the cardinal 'I would rather go to hell than take orders on how to vote from the Cardinal.' Dramatic, no? Lots of cliches I can think of here, but that's not nearly as interesting nor as urgent as what is at the heart of such an outburst. With such a retort, this MP is not appealing to the matter at hand -- which is the ethics of creating human embryos in order to use them as raw material, resulting in their death. No, this statement is about authority and power. Government is ideally about public service, but I wonder how much concern the MP has for the female public who risk the onset of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome from the drugs that are used in the harvesting of egg cells. I wonder how much thought the MP has put into the question of where human life really begins. If he'd care to check with embryologists, he might get the surprise of his life. And does he spare any thought to the dismal track record of embryonic stem cell research with zero successful human treatments so far? Has he considered how this legislation sets back the funding opportunities for adult stem cell research, which is far more promising and has enjoyed more than 70 successful human treatments so far?

But no, this MP isn't about those things. This is about who's in charge. This is about bravado. And sadly, this is about pandering to the crowd, who can be so taken with the idea of standing up to the Church that they can't be bothered to think about the matter at hand.

So the MP would rather go to hell? Oh he's doing his share to get us there, alright. When human beings at their most vulnerable are seen as no more than spare parts? Oh he's getting there..

What is the Church?

There's an ongoing discussion in the comment boxes of this post. The dialog begins with Lito pointing out something wrong with the question posed by Jeremiah:

"Given my Calvinist distinctives, which church would have claimed me as one of their own?"

It all goes downhill from there. :-)

There is an obviously large difference between the Catholic understanding of "the Church" and that of Lutherans (and Evangelicals) -- Lito is a Lutheran. The Coming Home Network has an online journal with good contributions from various converts to Catholicism, which is a good place to start with regards to the Catholic position, in light of the authors' previously held non-Catholic perspectives.

And the thoughtful visitor may wish to join the discussion by leaving comments.

Would YOU officially affiliate your church with an excommunicated leader of his church?

Jan. 31, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The primate of the Greek Orthodox Church has criticized the Patriarchate of Constantinople for accepting the affiliation of Orthodox bodies which, in effect, compete with established Orthodox churches in other countries. Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens made his comments in response to the decision by the Constantinople patriarchate to welcome Bishop Basil Osborn, who had been the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in Great Britain. By accepting the affiliation of Bishop Basil-- who has been excommunicated by the Moscow patriarchate-- the Ecumenical Patriarchate is creating a “dangerous divisive situation,” the Greek archbishop said.

I am sympathetic to both camps. I understand the need for fraternity among Christians, even extended to those excommunicated, but on the other hand, what's the point of excommunication if it only results in a splinter church whose leader has not reconciled with the Church? Would he not lead his flock to ruin? At the same time, there is this practical problem that Christians outside the Catholic Church truly must deal with: in the absence of a single arbiter, how is excommunication of any use? Excommunication is not a consignment to hell, as people often mistake it to be, but a means of effecting repentance and reconciliation -- exactly as the Lord taught to those who go astray (Matthew 18). But excommunication is worth nothing without the concept of a bottom-level foundation for the authority to excommunicate. This authority was given, of course, to the Apostles, and the Orthodox patriarchs are certainly exercising their authority in the cited report. But what if it is a clash between patriarch and patriarch? Bishop and bishop? If an excommunicated bishop or patriarch were to up and take along with him his own flock, then who is the highest administrative arbiter?

Well, of course I was going to say the Successor of St. Peter, who was given the particular role of holding the keys of the kingdom in Matthew 16, for binding and loosing on earth as in Heaven! If not the Pope, then who else? If not anyone, then what's the point in the Lord even mentioning excommunication?

Nature of Authority is Theme of Evangelical-Catholic Dialogue

WASHINGTON (January 4, 2007)--The Evangelical – Catholic dialogue held its fifth meeting at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, MN, October 6-8, 2006. Most Rev. Frederick Campbell, Diocese of Columbus, Ohio completed his term as Bishop Co-Chair and a new co-chair will be appointed soon. The dialogue considered the theme of the nature of authority, especially in Scripture ...

It's always good to tackle these questions head on. The report does not say, but I hope and pray that the outcome has been positive.