Whilst reading Origen’s Contra Celsus, I came upon his interpretation of Isaiah 2:3,4. From book 5, chapter 33 we read:
"Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in them." For the law came forth from the dwellers in Sion, and settled among us as a spiritual law. Moreover, the word of the Lord came forth from that very Jerusalem, that it might be disseminated through all places, and might judge in the midst of the heathen, selecting those whom it sees to be submissive, and rejecting the disobedient, who are many in number. And to those who inquire of us whence we come, or who is our founder, we reply that we are come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to "cut down our hostile and insolent 'wordy' swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war." For we no longer take up "sword against nation," nor do we "learn war any more," having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those whom our fathers followed, among whom we were "strangers to the covenant," and having received a law, for which we give thanks to Him that rescued us from the error (of our ways), saying, "Our fathers honoured lying idols, and there is not among them one that causeth it to rain." (ANF 4.558 - PDF here.)
One of Celsus’ attacks against Christians was that they refused military service in the Roman army. An important aspect of his argument was that Christianity emerged out of Judaism, and accepted their writings (i.e. the Old Testament) as authoritative. He appealed to OT passages that clearly supported military service and warfare; as such, the refusal by Christians to participate in Roman military service was contradictory. Origen countered Celsus’ by demonstrating that Jesus Christ established a higher, spiritual law that superceded the Mosaic Law. He also applied a number of OT prophetic passages—e.g. Is. 2:2, 4—to the Christian dispensation, a dispensation that began with the advent and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In book 8, chapter 73, Origen relates that, “Celsus urges us 'to help the king with all our might, and to labour with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for him ; and if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along with him.’" (ANF 4.667)
Origen’s response is quite interesting; note the following:
To this our answer is, that we do, when occasion requires, give help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, "putting on the whole armour of God." And this we do in obedience to the injunction of the apostle, "I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men ; for kings, and for all that are in authority ;" and the more any one excels in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even more than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many of the enemy as they can. And to those enemies of our faith who require us to bear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply : "Do not those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on certain gods, as you account them, keep their hands free from blood, that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the appointed sacrifices to your gods ; and even when war is upon you, you never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed !" And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight for them. And we do take our part in public affairs, when along with righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and meditations, which teach us to despise pleasures, and not to be led away by them. And none fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him, although he require it ; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special army—an army of piety—by offering our prayers to God. (ANF 4.667, 668)
Origen continues his apologia in the next chapter (74):
And if Celsus would have us to lead armies in defence of our country, let him know that we do this too, and that not for the purpose of being seen by men, or of vainglory. For "in secret," and in our own hearts, there are prayers which ascend as from priests in behalf of our fellow-citizens. And Christians are benefactors of their country more than others. For they train up citizens, and inculcate piety to the Supreme Being ; and they promote those whose lives in the smallest cities have been good and worthy, to a divine and heavenly city, to whom it may be said, "Thou hast been faithful in the smallest city, come into a great one," where "God standeth in the assembly of the gods, and judgeth the gods in the midst ;" and He reckons thee among them, if thou no more "die as a man, or fall as one of the princes." (ANF 4.668)
Origen clearly understood that the real struggle for Christians (and the world at large) is not a physical battle, but rather, a spiritual one. His above response to Celsus brings to mind the following from Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians:
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (KJV – 2 Cor. 10:3-5)
Shall end for now with a stern warning from Jesus Christ:
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (KJV – Matt. 26:52)
Grace and peace,
David
20 comments:
Hey Dave...long time...relatively speaking.
Not very in depth for now...but it seems to me like we need to see Origen in his day. In the third century, he understandably fails to see a world where the Christian is defending a Christian nation. I do not see any obligation for Christians to defend a nation committed to paganism. Unlike Origen, I might prefer to NOT pray for such a nation/state to survive. I could be easily persuaded that there was no obligation to defend a nation that had such a policy.
Anecdotally, one of my boys was a Marine only about a decade ago. I supported him then. Today? I am less sure I could be supportive as a Christian. That is because it seems like America is now officially pagan and anti-Christian to me.
I do not see Origen condemning the Christians who victoriously opposed the Turks at the gates of Vienna. Do you? Nor can I see Origen opposing the Spanish who evicted the Muslims from Spain. Do you? I agree with Origen against Christians fighting for Pagan Rome. I disagree with Origen, if he is against Christians fighting for Christian Rome, or Christians anywhere in the world if the Gospel would be suppressed if not for a fight.
I hope I do not misunderstand Origen. I think we can believe he was not a total pacificist. I propose that the Catholic faith, which he professed, permits military defense against those who would attack and suppress the Catholic faith. If he believed that the Christians must at most, pray for infidels to defend the Catholic faith, I think he was wrong.
Rory
Hi Rory,
Thanks much for taking the time to comment; you wrote:
==I do not see Origen condemning the Christians who victoriously opposed the Turks at the gates of Vienna. Do you? Nor can I see Origen opposing the Spanish who evicted the Muslims from Spain. Do you?>>
I think Origen would say that “the Christians who victoriously opposed the Turks at the gates of Vienna” and "the Spanish who evicted the Muslims from Spain” were nominal ‘Christians’ at best.
According to Origen, God’s new covenant people—unlike His old covenant people—“no longer take up ‘sword against nation,’ nor do we ‘learn war any more,’ having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader". (See first quote provided in the opening post.)
Origen also wrote:
>>But if all the Romans, according to the supposition of Celsus, embrace the Christian faith, they will, when they pray, overcome their enemies ; or rather, they will not war at all, being guarded by that divine power which promised to save five entire cities for the sake of fifty just persons.>>(Contra Celsus, book 8, chapter 70 – ANF 4.666)
You then wrote:
==I agree with Origen against Christians fighting for Pagan Rome. I disagree with Origen, if he is against Christians fighting for Christian Rome, or Christians anywhere in the world if the Gospel would be suppressed if not for a fight.
I hope I do not misunderstand Origen. I think we can believe he was not a total pacificist. I propose that the Catholic faith, which he professed, permits military defense against those who would attack and suppress the Catholic faith. If he believed that the Christians must at most, pray for infidels to defend the Catholic faith, I think he was wrong.==
It sure seems that Origen believed Christians did not need to take up arms to defend the faith and their own lives from physical attacks—their prayers were sufficient. Origen placed his trust in God, and God alone.
Though I cannot be 100% sure, I suspect Origen believed that God would use various means to protect the faith and the true disciples of Christ—means that could include ‘infidels’ (Cyrus and the Persians come to mind), nominal ‘Christians’, and angels.
Looking forward to your further thoughts on our topic at hand.
Grace and peace,
David
Dave, hi.
I do not say that Origen's rigid position against every war is implausible from the testimony of Scripture alone. But as a Catholic of the 3rd Century, Origen can perhaps be excused for not clearly seeing that Scripture alone is never adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy. THAT is why there is controversy, at least among people who share the same canon!
I think I hinted earlier that I would not find Origen's position, especially in the 3rd Century, to exclude him from Catholic communion. But later Fathers and theologians have adequately dealt with the relatively undeveloped approach of Origen to the question of war.
It might be useful at this point to take a look at what St. Thomas put down in the Summa Theologica:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm
From II, II, Q. 40, contra, from St. Augustine's epistle to Marcellus #138:
"If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man... and be content with your pay' [Luke 3:14] If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."
In one of Thomas' answers to Origen's position against every war, he makes an observation about the authority and duty of the state to use the sword against criminals who are harming the common good from within. Thomas then adds an argument in favor of the idea that the state is obliged to also protest its citizens against external enemies. I would add that these two functions are the primary reason for the natural existence of a political state.
"And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."
---to be continued
In addition to arguments in favor of just war, the Catholic faith denounces unjust wars and vengeance. One who is interested in this subject should read the entire article 40, of question 1. It seems to me that Origen errs when he understands Our Lord's remonstrance against St. Peter's individual attack against legitimate authority, as applying to the body politic at large.
What would a state do if it was prohibited by law from protecting its citizens against criminals from within and predators from without? When a Christian engages in a war to defend his homeland or takes police actions as a legitimate arm of the state he is not acting on his own authority (as St. Peter was in the Gospel). The Christian soldier or officer of the peace, in a rightly ordered Christian society, is acting not on his own behalf but as a citizen, for his fellow citizens, and their common good. Origen is confused because he failed to distinguish the difference between the role of individual Christians and the role of the state.
Finally, protecting the lives and rights of fellow citizens cannot be properly equated with the obligation to let God have vengeance, which belongs to Him alone. The Church is against all aggression without a just cause, and especially for the mere purpose of exacting vengeance on an offender.
From Thomas "third answer":
"True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."
Rory
My apologies for some confusion in my references from the Summa above.
They were all taken from different portions of what is called the Second Part of the Second Part, Question 40, article 1:
Is some kind of war lawful?
Hi Rory,
Forgive my tardy response to your Saturday posts, but the last few days have been quite full. (Attended my only nephew’s wedding on Sunday, and the drive back home on Monday left me with no energy for AF; then on Tuesday morning I got a call from my mom that dad had passed.)
You wrote:
==I think I hinted earlier that I would not find Origen's position, especially in the 3rd Century, to exclude him from Catholic communion. But later Fathers and theologians have adequately dealt with the relatively undeveloped approach of Origen to the question of war.==
Before addressing what Aquinas wrote on the issue of war, I think I am on pretty solid ground to maintain that there is, and has been, more than ONE Catholic position/view on war. Though Augustine’s 'just war theory' has been the majority view since the 5th century, it certainly has not been the only ONE. [See THIS POST for a fairly recent example.]
The second article of Aquinas’ question 40 on war is:
Whether It Is Lawful for Clerics and Bishops to Fight?
To which he answers with:
On the contrary, It was said to Peter as representing bishops and clerics (Mt. 16:52): "Put up again thy sword into the scabbard [Vulg.: 'its place'] [*"Scabbard" is the reading in Jn. 18:11]." Therefore it is not lawful for them to fight. (LINK)
He also wrote:
Prelates ought to withstand not only the wolf who brings spiritual death upon the flock, but also the pillager and the oppressor who work bodily harm; not, however, by having recourse themselves to material arms, but by means of spiritual weapons, according to the saying of the Apostle (2 Cor. 10:4): "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God."
Now, the very principles that Aquinas restricts to clerics and bishops, Origen extends to all true Christians. It seems the Origen has solid scriptural warrant for doing so:
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ...But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light...(1 Peter 2:5, 9 - KJV)
Grace ad peace,
David
Dave I was sorry to hear about the death of your father. In our short acquaintance, I always found him to be an amiable fellow. It was easy to like Arthur Waltz. May he rest in peace.
----------
David
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ...But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light...(1 Peter 2:5, 9 - KJV)
Rory
This of course is in reference to the priesthood of all believers which both Origen and you know. But to draw the conclusion that the universal priesthood is called to the same state as the sacerdotal priesthood is not necessary. Both make sacrifice...the essence of priesthood. Soldiering in no respect precludes the Christian soldier from his priestly obligations. St. Francis de Sales explicitly speaks of the compatibility of devoted Christian service with military service:
"It is not merely an error but a heresy to suppose that a devout life is necessarily banished from the soldier's camp, the merchant's shop, the prince's court, or the domestic hearth."
---An Introduction to the Devout Life, TAN Books and Publishers, (1994), p. 8
A question I would have that derives from Scripture would be about how long Cornelius, "a centurion of that which is called the Italian band; A religious man, and fearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and always praying to God" (Ac. 10:1-2) had from the time of his conversion as described in the book of Acts, until he had to give up his profession. Cornelius was happily docile to everything that St. Peter explained to him about the faith. It would be the perfect moment, after Cornelius and those gathered in his house had received gifts of the Holy Ghost to explain that soldiering is incompatible with his new life. If Jesus meant Cornelius needed to give up the sword just as Peter had needed to in the Garden, why did not Peter say so before he baptised him. Peter even asks if anybody has an objection to this soldier's reception in to the Church: "For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. [as a soldier] Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." (Ac. 10:46-48)
I would suggest that there is a significant difference between Pope Peter raising his sword in a moment of passion as a private man, and good Cornelius whose profession as a servant of Caesar is never questioned. The State exists to carry out God's will that there be peace and harmony, not anarchy in the world. Cornelius could fulfill his obligations to church and state as a public figure under the authority of the state. Not so, St. Peter. I think it weakens Origen's position that Cornelius was allowed to receive baptism in this instance, without the warning that he would be also making a career change.
It almost seems like the New Testament goes a little out of its way to affirm the faith of some of Caesar's soldiers. Besides Cornelius we have the centurion who Christ praises because "I have not found so great faith, not even in Israel." (Luke 7:9). The third example is of the centurion who stood by the Cross, who seems to have had the ability to offer "spiritual sacrifice", while employed as a soldier: "Now the centurion, seeing what was done, glorified God, saying: Indeed this was a just man." (Luke 23:47)
I consulted the link provided to Fr. James Martin, S.J., who is cited as a Catholic theologian who would take a position contrary to that which is given in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas which we have been discussing. Father Martin does not interact at all with the answers proposed by Aquinas, who allows that war is often unlawful. St. Thomas was only asking, "Is some kind of war lawful?" To say that some kind of war is lawful is not to promote a continual bloodbath. Indeed, it is to imply that some or most kinds of war are unlawful!
Fr. Martin seems a little naive and perhaps unfamiliar with why a Catholic might believe that some kind of war is lawful. On the other hand as he always does in the Summa, St. Thomas interacts precisely and openly with the best arguments in favor of what Fr. Martin appears to be saying. Aquinas uses Scripture, Tradition, and the Fathers to rebut positions once permissible by the Church before it emerged from the catacombs.
Apparently, few arguments can be found before the fourth century to counter Tertullian's and Origen's extreme answers to the question asked by Aquinas. If their doctrine is Apostolic in origin, I would suggest that it is too late for Fr. Martin to come along 1600 years after St. Augustine's analysis of the situation. The Catholic Church has not only taught, but perhaps more importantly, behaved, as though some kind of war is lawful, for all of these centuries since Augustine.
If Origen could say that a Catholic who supported and soldiered in any kind of war as supposedly lawful, was at best a "nominal Christian", he could not know that he would be condemning future canonized popes, and doctors of the Church who thought some kind of war is not only lawful, but necessary. Soldiers were given indulgences by the Church if they would consent to fight in Crusades. Soldiers like St. Louis IX, King of of France were canonized after dying on a foreign battlefield. St. Joan of Arc was fighting for her homeland against Englishmen. How can these and many others be saints, if no kind of war is lawful?
If Origen would condemn popes, soldier saints, and King Jon Sobieski of Poland who saved Vienna from Turkish invasion, what should he need to say of Augustine and Aquinas who taught these "nominal Christians" that some kind of war is lawful? I have to say that I think Origen would have taken a different point of view if he could see down the centuries of Church History. I think a thoughtful Catholic can understand Origen's failure to appreciate why good Catholic laymen could fight for their faith and homelands as loyal soldiers of Christ and patriots.
If Fr. Martin is correct, it would be outrageous to say that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. If Fr. Martin is correct, the Catholic Church has grievously erred in both teaching and action for far too long. She has ignored the Apostolic teaching that there is NOT some kind of war that is lawful. Her priests and prelates have promoted and canonized activity that is not permissible under any circumstances. By her faithless glamorizing of taking up fleshly arms, when God wished all Christians to always use only spiritual weapons, she has practically made the true kingdom of God vanish from the earth, while millions and even perhaps billions of souls who thought they were servants of God, have been lost because the Catholic Church taught them that God sometimes wills their service to fight fleshly battles.
Fr. Martin also takes a strong position in favor of an action which the new Catechism of the Catholic Church says is always intrinsically evil and has traditionally been characterized as a "sin that cries to heaven for vengeance." I think Fr. Martin would have to say with our LDS friends, that the Catholic Church had sunken in to a stinking apostasy a very long time ago, and certainly by the time of Constantine's victory. (another bit of soldiering that the Church has lauded.) Fr. Martin usually spends his time advocating that "some kind of homosexual behavior is lawful". If he is correct about either of his teachings, the Catholic Church would seem more likely the Whore of Babylon than the one true apostolic church.
Time permitting...I'd like to bring up doctrinal development and compare the "just war theory" of St. Augustine, with the Catholic teaching on capital punishment according to Pope John Paul II. (For lurkers, Dave and I had a phone conversation this week in which he suggested I might need to revise my view on just war as a development, if I could not accept John Paul's view on capital punishment. Maybe so. I don't mind if John Paul is right. It is not an issue I care about much, unless it appears to be at the expense of traditional Catholic faith and morals. I hope you all can take a look at it whenever it hopefully appears. Or better yet, join in the discussion!)
Regards to all...
Rory
Hi Rory,
I have refrained from commenting due to the following you wrote in your last October 2nd post:
==Time permitting...I'd like to bring up doctrinal development and compare the "just war theory" of St. Augustine, with the Catholic teaching on capital punishment according to Pope John Paul II.==
I suspect the ‘time permitting’ you spoke of will be this weekend; until then, one question for you to ponder: would you say that Catholic teaching on soldiering and warfare falls under the category of dogma or doctrine?
Grace and peace,
David
Dave, hey. (Lisa is at choir practice on Thursday nights. It is often Civ 2 time. This is better.)
I did not mean to preclude any of your thoughts on warfare while you awaited thoughts on capital punishment by me. Are we still not agreed on warfare? To your questions:
1) Yes, these questions on soldiering and warfare fall under the category of dogma or doctrine. It appears to me that warfare is a moral question which demands an answer. Likewise, the moral liceity of any action. Is it lawful to take the covid vaccines if they are traced to aborted fetal cells? The Church MUST give guidance to any and every question of human morality as to whether an action is permitted or not and in what circumstances. I like the way St. Thomas puts it. Is some kind of war lawful?
2) If it could be established that the only reason for capital punishment being permitted by the Apostles was for the safety of the public, I could be satisfied with saying that when other measures are available, they should be used instead. But I have not been persuaded that public safety is the only reason for the government to kill dangerous people on purpose. Still, I would not be troubled if John Paul were correct.
I tend to think that God approves of it when Caesar (the State), strikes fear into people who are considering murder, rape, and assorted egregious violence to their fellow citizens. He doesn't want some angry bishop out there chopping off the heads of criminals, or Peter in the Garden indiscriminitely lopping off ears. No.
But...speaking of the prince (the State), St. Paul writes in Rom. 13: "For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake." (vv. 4, 5)
It seems to me that there is more going on here than merely protecting the public from future acts of malicious violence.
So I definitely believe that the Catholic Church teaches that some kinds of war are lawful. I accept that Origen and Tertullian were mostly unchallenged in their pacifist leanings until the State also became friendly with the Church. I suggest that the latent seeds for doctrinal development of "just war theory" can be found in the passages from Scripture above which had been ignored when the State had been persecuting the Church.
If public safety is the only reason for capital punishment to have ever been lawful, I could accept a doctrinal development along the lines of John Paul II. If I understand correctly though, Papa Bergoglio goes further and uses words which in English would be always inadmissible as it would apply to capital punishment. That seems too far to me. That would make the Catholic Church apostate. That would not be development. That would make the Church wrong for no Apostolic reason about the State killing very dangerous people for a long time.
R.
Hi Rory,
My opening post and your subsequent comments have prompted a deep, renewed study into the development of doctrine and the related of issue church and state. I am currently rereading four books on Catholic Church history that are germane to our topics at hand. It is quite interesting to see how each of the four authors relate and interpret the same extant historical sources, and the conclusions they each form. I am hoping that by this weekend I will feel confident enough to add some substantive reflections on the topics we have been discussing. Until then, I would like to urge you (and others who may be looking in on this thread), to check out the following post I read earlier this morning:
Are There Limits to Papal Power
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Rory,
In my last comment I mentioned that I was “rereading four books on Catholic Church history that are germane to our topics at hand”—those four books are: Malachi Martin’s, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church; Peter De Rosa’s, Vicars of Christ; Philip Hughes, A History of the Church – Volume 2; and, John Rao’s, Black Legends. (I have also included germane sections from Philip Schaff’s multi-volume, History of the Christian Church and Warren Carroll’s, A History of Christendom - Volume 2.)
I am currently up to Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand)—who died on March 25, 1085—in my readings.
Martin and De Rosa (both former priests who remained Catholic) approach history with the notion that Christ’s Church must focus primarily on the spiritual needs of mankind, and avoid getting entangled temporal/worldly affairs. Right after quoting Jesus words that His “kingdom is not of this world” (p. 13), Martin writes:
>>Not one of the first eighteen popes died in his bed. All perished violently. While he lived, each of the first thirty-one popes wielded the authority of that spiritual kingdom, and taught what his predecessor had taught before him: Abide in the kingdom of God’s spirit. Wait for the return of Jesus, the final end of this visible world, and the ultimate triumph of God’s rule.>> (p.14)
And:
>>But from the time the popes entered the temporal arena, heavy and irremovable chains were forged around their churchly kingdom. They threw their friendship and their influence and their spiritual power to one side or another, and the chains started to form and to choke. In time the popes became some of the greatest power-brokers among men; and, until our day, they have never abdicated that role…
…The lives of past popes sometimes illustrate how low the weight of those chains could bring churchmen who preached the supreme law of love and the highest moral ideals. But, in cameo after cameo, history also reveals that various popes had opportunities to rid the church of its temporal power and wealth, to stand naked of all human and secular protection, to rely only on the promise made by Jesus that his church would never fail, and to employ the only power Jesus authorized them—the power of the spirit.>> (pp. 14, 15)
cont'd
cont'd
Martin believes that “the popes entered the temporal arena” beginning with Pope Silvester, shortly after Constantine's conversion to Christianity. From Martin’s pen we read:
>>Silvester takes the first step toward a genuinely universal church. He accepts an alliance between church and empire, so that the church can spread everywhere.>> (p. 35)
And then:
>>These two men, the pope and the emperor, have now set the stage for the next 1,600 years. The Church of Rome will always be allied with some temporal power. At one stage, it will even claim to be the source of all worldly power-political, civil, military, diplomatic, financial, cultural.>> (p.37)
The next 100 plus pages recounts example after example of bad/evil action/behavior by Popes and “Christian” rulers.
Now, John Rao does not ignore such examples in his book, but he approaches them with an entirely different set of presuppositions. Note the following:
>>Basic Church power and effectiveness come from the fact that fully awakened and practicing Catholics understand their need to struggle for individual salvation through her living, authoritative reality. But the actualization of the Church’s provocative potential in the natural realm has varied greatly over time in proportion to the seriousness of her commitment to two goals of the Incarnate Word possessing immediate, practical, historical and sociological importance.
The first of these aims is the correction of sinful men and the flawed natural order in which social beings of flesh and blood must live and work out their salvation. Despite its supernatural foundations, such a project has precise contours and can even be spelled out in transparent legal language. The second aim, on the other hand, is much more difficult to capture in limited human terms. It is centered round a spiritual reorientation of both man and nature to the exalted task of giving glory to the God who created them; to a renovation of the entirety of Creation; to a transformation of all things in Christ. Exactly what this means entails a complex learning process that has unfolded over time, and has only done so in union with individual and social progress in sanctification.>> (pp. 8, 9)
Rao does not believe that Christ’s Church should limit its mission to individual salvation; but rather, that it must also include the “renovation of the entirety of Creation; to a transformation of all things in Christ.”
Rao’s presuppositions yield a much different understanding of post-Constantine history than those of Martin and De Rosa. Reading all six of the above mentioned authors side-by-side has been quite informative. I am being forced to look at the history of Christendom from varying viewpoints, giving me cause for some deep reflection.
Back to my readings…
Grace and peace,
David
Dave hi.
In Creation that is beyond anyone's ability to interrupt there exists an order so intricate, and perfectly reliable that we can calculate to the second the eclipses of the moon and sun centuries and millenia from now. That is just one example of how perfectly ordered most of God's creation is.
David
Rao does not believe that Christ’s Church should limit its mission to individual salvation; but rather, that it must also include the “renovation of the entirety of Creation; to a transformation of all things in Christ.”
Rory
Where fallen man has trod, there exist disorders that need to be corrected.
"For the expectation of the creature waiteth for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that made it subject, in hope:"
---Rom. 8:19-20
"The creature" refers to all things, animate and inaminate. As the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms to express a way of understanding divine actions, so when we might say of waters and winds, that "hope" after having been "made subject to vanity."
Ultimately, restoration will only happen perfectly when God restores Creation with a new Heaven and new Earth. Then will the sons of God be revealed and restore order to the Creation which had been made subject to vanity.
I am sure John Rao agrees with the idea that in the meantime, we make an effort to try, as sons of God, to restore the order in creation. In the first place would be order in human society. We are so much dependent on one another that God sees us according to the society to which we belong, whether the first Adam and with an unregenerate nature, or the last Adam, born again. All of human society lives or dies in Adam or in Christ.
My point is that when the opportunity presents itself, Christians glorify God more when they extend God's law and rule throughout creation. This means that the State, understood as having its power from God, as Jesus said to Pilate, is a signal part of Creation that can be more or less perfected according to the influence of the sons of God. What is perfection in the State? The same as in individual souls, to bring order, justice, and ultimately peace to the Soul and the same truths, peace, and harmony to the State.
To propose that the sole recourse Christians have when persecution comes, is to retreat to one's cell to pray for divine intervention, is to forget that the creature awaiteth the manifestation of the sons of God. It glorifies God when the sons of God take up His armor and labor while they pray to restore all things in Christ, and to the best of their ability to erect a civil society based on truth, with a love for justice, mercy, and charity, and that for the common good, chastises evil.
The creature belongs to God, and God's children must wrestle with the devil for it. Our presuppositions will guide us on how we interact in human society. I would argue that it is a grave mistake for Christians to yield passively when the State is a disordered system of tyranny, cruelty, and injustice. It is permissible, nay, obligatory, for the fellowheirs of Jesus Christ to assert His rights as King of all creation, and to do what little acts they may, certainly including prayer, but also perhaps soldiering, voting, or politicking, according to our various states of life, all to the honor and praise of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hi Dave,
Nothing I have said should be conclusive from a sola scriptura perspective. Since what you are proposing would certainly mean the Catholic Church has been long apostate, it does not mean anything to show what that Church teaches. I can see how your position is plausible from Scripture alone, as is mine. To what Church, Restored or Apostolic, would one look to find Christian Tradition?
And let me ask a further question if I may.
If the follower of Christ is not permitted to take up the sword against external aggressors, does this rule extend to those who commit internal violence, against their fellow citizens? If we cannot defend ourselves against foreigners except by prayer, what about those who would steal into our homes and commit violence. May we defend ourselves and our families with any kind of weapon except spiritual weapons?
Rory
Hi Rory,
Thanks much for your continued interest and responses. Earlier today, you wrote:
==Nothing I have said should be conclusive from a sola scriptura perspective.==
Agreed.
==Since what you are proposing would certainly mean the Catholic Church has been long apostate, it does not mean anything to show what that Church teaches.==
IMO a practice/stance falls short of salvific doctrine. Interestingly enough, one finds within conservative Evangelical circles four views concerning war that are considered to be 'within the pale of orthodoxy’—offensive war, just war, non-combatant service, strict neutrality/pacifism.
As for Catholicism, is suspect that one would not be excommunicated if he refuses to participate in war on moral grounds.
==I can see how your position is plausible from Scripture alone, as is mine. To what Church, Restored or Apostolic, would one look to find Christian Tradition?==
Within Catholicism, there is irreformable Tradition and reformable tradition. Would you place Augustine’s just-war theory into the former? If not, could a faithful Catholic support Origen’s view?
==If the follower of Christ is not permitted to take up the sword against external aggressors, does this rule extend to those who commit internal violence, against their fellow citizens? If we cannot defend ourselves against foreigners except by prayer, what about those who would steal into our homes and commit violence. May we defend ourselves and our families with any kind of weapon except spiritual weapons?==
I am hard pressed to think of organized states, nations, countries, kingdoms, etc. that are devoid of ‘natural law’, and fail to provide some protection for people within from “internal violence”.
As for how far individuals should take ‘the law into their own hands’, that is a very complex question, and I do not feel anywhere near competent/qualified enough to provide an informed response.
Grace and peace,
David
OCTOBER 28, 2021 AT 5:22 PM -- typo correction:
>>As for Catholicism, is suspect that one would not be excommunicated if he refuses to participate in war on moral grounds.>>
Should read:
As for Catholicism, I suspect that one would not be excommunicated if he refuses to participate in war on moral grounds.
David
IMO a practice/stance falls short of salvific doctrine. Interestingly enough, one finds within conservative Evangelical circles four views concerning war that are considered to be 'within the pale of orthodoxy’—offensive war, just war, non-combatant service, strict neutrality/pacifism.
Rory
Dave, I think you are failing to appreciate the significance of erring in this particular "practice/stance". This isn't about eating fish on Friday or the date for the celebration of Easter, neither of which are alluded to in Scripture. This is not disciplinary, and I think Origen and Tertullian would have agreed. If the Apostles were taught by Christ in the Gospel to never bear arms, it is a matter of faith and morals. It would appear that this is precisely what Tertullian and Origen taught in the period before Christianity was accepted by state authority.
The Church is supposed to be infallible in matters of faith and morals. If Tertullian and Origen were correct, the Catholic Church has taught erroneously from the 4th Century until now that some kinds of war are lawful. In doing so, she has helped build an anti-Christian society which sent many of her children to the grave having sinfully preferred temporal weapons to spiritual weapons in their faithless confrontations with those who would do them or other innocent victims violence.
Popes have even offered indulgences to those soldiers who participated in so-called "Crusades" that the popes have themselves supported. What could be more of an offense to the Saviour if he taught that Christians are never to bear arms, than to make a mock of the Apostolic doctrine by popes calling on Catholics to march to war as though they were fighting for the Cross of Jesus?
---to be continued
David
As for Catholicism, I suspect that one would not be excommunicated if he refuses to participate in war on moral grounds.
Rory
In this instance as with many others, it is usually not necessary, prudent, or charitable, to immediately excommunicate a private party, who mistakenly holds to a position incompatible with Catholic Tradition. But if questioned by military personnel about such a person's objections, Catholic authorities would need to inform the military that this claim by a Catholic to be exempted on religious grounds, comes from his own private beliefs, and could have nothing to do with his Catholic faith.
Perhaps this person were in a position of authority in academic or ecclesiastical settings, teaching the faithful that it is gravely sinful matter to bear arms, and that no kind of war is lawful. After having been reproved by his superiors for accusing Catholic military personnel around the world, for more than millenium and a half, of being unfaithful to the Gospel, such a person might merit further discipline, including excommunication.
David
Within Catholicism, there is irreformable Tradition and reformable tradition. Would you place Augustine’s just-war theory into the former? If not, could a faithful Catholic support Origen’s view?
Rory
Dave, you wrote above, on Sept. 22, "I think Origen would say that 'the Christians who victoriously opposed the Turks at the gates of Vienna' and 'the Spanish who evicted the Muslims from Spain' were nominal ‘Christians’ at best."
In this passage, with your use of quotation marks you even imply that Origen would have to question whether a soldier could even be "Christian" at all! Be that as it may, I think Origen would need to expand "nominal Christianity" to include every Catholic who has ever supported a soldiering son, husband, or parishioner. The Church has not given her children the slightest hint for centuries that such actions are prohibited by the Gospel. Indeed she has canonized princes and kings who have borne the sword themselves. Such a corruption of the Apostolic teaching would seem to me to be proof that the Catholic Church is fallible.
To have taught her children to be supportive of "nominal Christianity at best", would seem to me to be incompatible with the Catholic claim to being the one true church. This would be why I think just war doctrine is irreformable.
Rory
Post a Comment