Turkey Bars Meeting of Orthodox Leaders

NICOSIA, Cyprus, AUG. 21, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The Orthodox Church of Cyprus announced that the Turkish government cancelled a visit between two Christian leaders in Ankara.

The meeting between Chrysostomos II, Orthodox archbishop of New Justiniana and All Cyprus, and Bartholomew I, ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, was to take place last Friday.

Chrysostomos II declared that with this refusal Ankara "has shown its real face," a press release from the Cyprus Embassy to the Holy See reported.

He is ready "to edit a letter addressed to the Holy See and to the World Council of Churches, in order to inform them," and "to awaken the international community on how unreliable the Turkish government is about human rights."

Chrysostomos II said he is prepared to meet the ecumenical patriarch elsewhere, "in order to show his solidarity with him and to thank him once again for its contribution in the solution of the problems arisen within the Greek-Orthodox Church."

The archbishop of Cyprus confirmed there are no disagreements between Greek-Orthodox people and their Turkish-Cypriot brothers.

The problems, he said, are from "the interferences by the Turkish government, which stops any attempt of integration between the two communities in mutual respect."

Zimbabwean president warns country's bishops are on 'dangerous path'

By Simon Caldwell
Catholic News Service

LONDON (CNS) -- Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has warned his nation's bishops that they are treading "a dangerous path" by criticizing the government.

He said he was angry about the Easter pastoral letter in which the bishops said Zimbabwe was in "deep crisis" and "extreme danger" because of the country's "overtly corrupt" leadership.

Mugabe, a Marist-educated Catholic, told the London-based New African magazine that he was not at Mass on Easter to hear the bishops' letter read.

"If I had gone to church and the priest had read that so-called pastoral letter, I would have stood up and said 'nonsense,'" he said in an interview in the May edition of the magazine.

Mugabe, 83, said the letter is not "something spiritual, it is not religious," and the bishops "have decided to turn political."

"And once they turn political, we regard them as no longer being spiritual, and our relations with them would be conducted as if we are dealing with political entities, and this is quite a dangerous path they have chosen for themselves," he said.

"For our bishops, this is a sad, sad story," Mugabe added.

Mugabe confirmed that he would soon be meeting with the bishops to discuss their concerns but did not give a date. He said he would refuse to speak to Archbishop Pius Ncube of Bulawayo, who has been severely critical of Mugabe.

Mugabe said Archbishop Ncube has "long been a lost bishop."

"He thinks he is close to God, that's why he says he is praying for me to die," said Mugabe. "But, unfortunately, God has not listened to him for all this duration. I don't know how many times a day he is saying that prayer: 'Please God, take that man Robert Mugabe away from us.'

"I have said it once at a Catholic gathering that being a bishop does not place one next to God, nor does it make one a chosen person for sainthood.

"No. A bishop can go to hell while an ordinary person goes to heaven, depending on the character of the person," he said, adding that he will say more when he meets with the bishops.

Mugabe, who has been president since the nation became independent from Great Britain in 1980, has been accused of destroying Zimbabwe's prosperity and oppressing the people, particularly those he suspects of voting against him.

Unemployment is running at more than 80 percent and the country's annual inflation rate of 1,700 percent is the highest in the world.

Food shortages are acute; large numbers of people are migrating to the neighboring countries of South Africa and Botswana; and, with elections approaching in March, political violence has intensified.

"Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths

By Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.
Illustration by Maria Korusiewicz

Nicea, August 24, A.D. 325, 7:41 p.m. "That was powerful preaching, Brother Athanasius. Powerful! Amen! I want to invite any of you folks in the back to approach the altar here and receive the Lord into your hearts. Just come on up. We've got brothers and sisters up here who can lead you through the Sinner's Prayer. Amen! And as this Council of Nicea comes to an end, I want to remind Brother Eusebius to bring the grape juice for tomorrow's closing communion service . . ."

Ah yes, the Baptists at the Council of Nicea. Sound rather silly? It certainly does. And yet, there are those who claim the Church of Nicea was more Protestant in belief and practice than Catholic. I recently read an article in The Christian Research Journal, written by a Reformed Baptist apologist, who argued this very point. No, I'm not making this up. The article, "What Really Happened at Nicea?" actually claimed the Fathers of the Council were essentially Evangelical Protestants.

As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical "scholarship," whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon "archaeology," or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly "researched," and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn't let it stand without response.

All the classical Protestant confessions of faith expressing the beliefs of the various Reformation branches include the doctrinal proclamations of the ancient Catholic Council of Nicea, whereby Christ is professed to be "of one essence" with the Father. The original Lutheran Augsburg Confession of 1531, for example, and the later Formula of Concord of 1576-1584, each begin with the mention of the doctrine of the Nicene Council.

Calvin's French Confession of Faith of 1559 states, "And we confess that which has been established by the ancient councils, and we detest all sects and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril." The Scotch Confession of 1560 deals with general councils in its 20th chapter. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, both the original of 1562-1571 and the American version of 1801, explicitly accept the Nicene Creed in article 7.

Even when the particular Protestant confessional formula does not mention the Nicene Council or its creed, its doctrine is nonetheless always asserted, as, for example, in the Calvinist Scotch Confession just mentioned, or in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of 1647.

At first glance, this all seems rather odd to the Catholic reader. After all, every branch of Protestantism professes the absolute and sole sufficiency of Sacred Scripture for establishing the fundamental points of doctrine. Why, then, do these various Protestant confessions bother to bring up the early councils (or any councils) when establishing their core teachings? Well, we shouldn't be too quick to accuse them of inconsistency just yet, for all of these confessions make it abundantly clear that the councils of the Church have no authority of their own, but only insofar as they teach things which have a clear warrant in the written Word of God.

For a Protestant, then, the general councils of the ancient Church and their creeds provide useful historical references for the expression of orthodox, biblical doctrine. They don't have any particular infallible status as councils of the Church. Even less are the doctrines of the early councils proposed as sound because they reflect the Church's Tradition as a source of knowledge of revealed truth.

So far so good. A Catholic may not agree with it, but such a view at least isn't internally inconsistent. Classical Protestants accept the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as scriptural, and so refer to the early councils which taught these dogmas. They pick and choose from the riches of Christian teaching, and sometimes they get it right. A Catholic can only be content that they do; we are not stingy with the good things we enjoy. As Pope Pius XI said of the various Protestant groups, "Stones cut from gold-bearing rock themselves bear gold."

But there's a bigger problem here. The words of Calvin quoted above give us an example of it. He refers to "the sects and heresies rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril." Protestant apologists want to claim for themselves the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as well as the early councils. Some even go so far as to claim that the Fathers held to the principle of sola scriptura (by Scripture alone)! A brief look into the events surrounding the great Nicene Council should suffice to dispel this foolishness.

Things were hard for the Church in A.D. 325. A certain Arius, a wildly popular presbyter in Egypt, was publicly denying the full divinity of Christ. In his view, Jesus was godlike, but not God Almighty (Jehovah's Witnesses are the modern day purveyors of this position). A charismatic figure, Arius gathered about himself a school of followers, and his influence spread. The local Catholic bishops condemned him, yet his activities continued. Finally, fearing that perhaps a split in Christendom would lead to disruption in the empire, the Emperor Constantine called a general council of bishops. There is some question as to whether the emperor acted on his own, or in concert with Pope Sylvester. While the accounts contemporary to the event mention only Constantine, a statement made in the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) indicates Nicea was called by both the emperor and the Pope. It is interesting to note this statement was made during the general session, and was received as true without question or objection. Surely they would have known better, were it not true.

Most of the Nicene Council's 318 episcopal attendees were representatives of eastern churches, like Ephesus, Jerusalem and Antioch. Pope Sylvester, too ill to make the journey himself, sent two legates. According to the ancient historian Gelasius, the Roman Church was represented by Hosius, bishop of Cordova (Spain) and the leading proponent of the orthodox position regarding Christ's divinity. Not only was Hosius representing Rome, but it seems he also presided over the council after Constantine's introduction. St. Athanasius, an attendee and tireless defender of orthodoxy, wrote admiringly about Hosius, "What council can be mentioned in which he did not preside?" (Apologia de Fuga, 5).

So the Council proceeded, led by a bishop officially representing the Church of Rome. The debate was heated, but the outcome was clear: Christ is not some kind of minor deity, but He is one in Being with the Father — God, in the fullest sense of the term. An important question, then, arises: Just how did the Council arrive at this position?

The Reformed Baptist author of the Christian Research Journal article claims, "The council had no idea that they (sic), by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority." This statement, though brief, is littered with errors.

First, even if the proceedings of the Council were nothing more than a debate on Scripture, it is thunderingly clear that the participants believed they had the authority to give the definitive interpretation of the data. According to the position of the Protestant apologist, the Church had no final interpretive authority; if an individual Christian believed the conciliar arguments to be unbiblical, he could reject them. How different this is from the position of the Council itself. The very end of the original Nicene Creed reads: "And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before He was begotten He was not, or that He was made of things that were not, or that He is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that He is a creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them."

Again, recall that the real issue is whether or not the Council believed itself to be the final authority in interpreting the data regarding Christ's deity. Clearly, the Church that anathematizes (cuts off) those who disagree with its findings is a Church that believes itself to have the last word.

But there is another problem with the claim that the authority of Nicea rests solely on biblical authority. The Council did not declare that the doctrine it proposed was simply a restatement or clarification of the Scriptures, but that "the Catholic and Apostolic Church" believes it, and condemns the contrary. The Scriptures are not cited even once in the Fathers' definition, hardly a likely thing had they been adherents of some "Bible only" ideology. To be sure, the Fathers of Nicea were certain that the orthodox doctrine was found in Scripture, but because they most assuredly did not hold to sola scriptura, it never occurred to them to separate the Church's authority from the interpretation of Scripture. Rather, if anyone at that time held to a view akin to the "Bible only," it was the heretical Arians, who rejected the Church's definition because it used terms not found in Sacred Scripture, but rather taken from Greek philosophy.

The absurd, and the outrageously absurd.

In trying to make his argument that the Council attendees were Protestant, our apologist makes the outrageous claim that, "Convinced that Scripture is 'sufficient above all things,' Athanasius acted as a true 'Protestant' in his day." Oh really? Did Athanasius hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura? Everywhere in his writings, St. Athanasius takes the Church's faith as the rule whereby the Scriptures are to be rightly interpreted. This rule of ecclesiastical faith (Greek: ho skopos tes ekklesiatikes pisteos) he adopts as a canon for rightly establishing the sense of the sacred text. The Arian heretics, on the other hand, use their private opinion (Greek: ho idios nous) as their rule or canon of interpretation.

Glancing through St. Athanasius' Discourses Against the Arians, one will quickly see how classically Catholic his use of Scripture is: "[S]ince they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense" (Discourse 1, 37).

"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that a very ecclesiastical sense" (Discourse 1, 44).

"This then is what happens to God's enemies the Arians; for looking at what is human in the Savior, they have judged Him a creature . . . But for them, learn they, however tardily, that 'the Word became flesh;' and let us, retaining the scope of the faith, acknowledge that what they interpret ill, has a right interpretation" (Discourse 3, 35).

"Had Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith" (Discourse 3, 58).

And these are just snippets. Repeatedly throughout his discourses, St. Athanasius gives the Church's rule of faith, and then applies it to the passages of Scripture misinterpreted by the Arians. There is simply no other way to understand his defense of the Faith against them.

In his Letter to Serapion on the Death of Arius, St. Athanasius distinguishes the orthodox Faith from widely held opinion, not by reason of its Scriptural basis solely, as a Protestant would, but because it is the teaching of the Church. Thus, the dictum "Athanasius against the world" points out his defense of the Nicene Faith against those who reject the Church's interpretation of Scripture, not his defense of Scripture against the "established church" (as our Protestant friend claims in his article).

Athanasius declared: "For the Lord Himself judging between the threats of Eusebius and his fellows, and the prayer of Alexander, condemned the Arian heresy, showing it to be unworthy of communion with the Church, and making manifest to all, that although it receive the support of the Emperor and of all mankind, yet it was condemned by the Church herself" (Letter to Serapion, 4).

Perhaps our Protestant apologist is a bit disappointed that I have not yet engaged him in any quibbling about Greek. Well, he's offered me a beauty of an instance; in fact, it's his very favorite quotation from Athanasius, the one in which he pretends that Athanasius professes the doctrine of sola scriptura over and against Church councils. Speaking of the Arians, St. Athanasius says:

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a council is needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine Scriptures" (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 6).

Does St. Athanasius' original Greek really say that Scripture is "sufficient above all things"? No. In a very simple sentence which a first-year Greek student should be able to translate correctly, St. Athanasius declares "For divine Scripture is more sufficient than all [other writings, councils, etc.]." The sentence in transliterated Greek reads Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe. Here we do not have an absolute statement, but a comparative one. To say that Scripture is the primary source of doctrine is not to say that it is the sole source of doctrine. I do not know of any Catholic theologian, doctor, or council of prelates of any period in the Church's history who would not view arguments from Sacred Scripture as the more authoritative among various sources of doctrine. This quotation gives absolutely no support to the Protestant error of sola scriptura. The issue here in the Greek is subtle, yes, but seemingly too subtle for the Protestant apologist to have caught.

Athanasius' entire anti-Arian corpus is nothing if not a scriptural refutation of heresy. The heretics claim Scripture as their guide. Fine, then let's show them how they err from Scripture itself. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, all the doctors of the Church, patristic and scholastic, prefer scriptural authority. In doing so, they do not reject, but rather assert, the teaching of the Church.

But there's more. The very context of this alleged Athanasian "Bible-only" proof-text (which just went "poof" as a proof) shows that even with the mistranslating, it demonstrates the exact opposite of the Protestant apologist's thesis. Immediately preceding the passage cited, and in the very same paragraph, St. Athanasius rejects the Arians' call for new councils based on the already sufficient expression of the Church's authority. He writes: "What need is there of Councils when the Nicene is sufficient, as against the Arian heresy, so against the rest, which has condemned one and all by means of the sound faith?" (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 6).

In other words, the Council of Nicea has decided the matter; the authoritative interpretation of the data has been given. The progression of the holy doctor's reasoning is clear: "Why do the Arians call for further councils when the Church's definition at Nicea suffices? Indeed, why do they want a council at all since Scripture, on which they claim to base their teaching, is so clear on this point? In any case, Nicea is enough for clarifying the true faith found in the Scriptures. Nicea is sufficient, and Scripture is more sufficient still, but either one would be enough." This, ladies and gentlemen, is a traditional Catholic argument through and through.

St. Athanasius wrote the famous Life of Antony, the semi-biography of the patriarch of monks — a work that later spurred St. Augustine on to his full conversion to Catholicism. In it, Athanasius gives St. Antony's dying words, a fine summary of the Catholic attitude toward Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Church in the face of heresy: "Have nothing to do with the Arians, for the irreligion of these is plain to everyone . . . Therefore keep yourselves clean from these and watch over the tradition of the Fathers, and above all, the orthodox faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, as you have learned it from the Scriptures, and as you have often been put in mind of by me" (Life of Antony, 89).

So was St. Athanasius a "true Protestant," as the Baptist apologist claims? The Athanasius who believed that a Christian could lose his salvation through mortal sin (cf. Discourses Against the Arians 3, 25)? The Athanasius who venerated Mary as "the Mother of God" (Greek: theotokos; cf. Treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, 8)? The Athanasius who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity (cf. Discourses Against the Arians II, 70)? The Athanasius who believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Sermon to the Newly Baptized)? If indeed Athanasius can be called a Protestant, then the word "Protestant" has no meaning at all.

But what about the other Fathers of Nicea? Did they give evidence of any Protestant leanings? Not even remotely. The Council of Nicea was a Catholic Council in the fullest sense, Catholic in the sense commonly understood today. If someone were handed the canons of this council for examination, he would immediately recognize the things treated there as matters of Catholic Church order, and not applying to any recognizable Protestant group.

The Council of Nicea dealt with many of the same canonical issues in 325 that are dealt with in the Church's current canon law, both Eastern and Western. Its decrees concern the qualifications, precedence and jurisdiction of bishops and priests (canons 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19), the proper role of deacons at the celebration of the Eucharist (canon 18), measures to ensure the validity of the ordination of bishops (canon 4), uniformity in the celebration of the Church's Eucharistic Liturgy (canon 20), the preservation of the celibacy of the clergy (canon 3) and the treatment of penitents and their reconciliation (canons 11, 12, 13, 14). It's worth quoting a few of these canons that show the Council's Catholic character quite unambiguously.

Canon 3 states: "The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion."

In this way, the Council forbade any woman to dwell in the house of a member of the clergy, except mothers, aunts, sisters or those "beyond all suspicion." It's interesting that there is no mention of wives here. Obviously, the clergy was by this time largely celibate. Perhaps even more significant, however, is the description of the sacrament of holy orders being divided into three levels of ordained ministry: bishop, presbyter (priest) and deacon. The Church of the Council of Nicea had all three, just like the Catholic Church today. The Baptist apologist who wrote the article we're critiquing does not agree with the Catholic teaching on the sacrament of holy orders (ie. bishops, priests, and deacons). In this, he is typical of most Evangelical Protestants, who likewise reject this sacrament.

Canon 18 states: "It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them . . . And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate."

Let's think this through. Does it seem likely that a council of "Evangelical Protestants" (which, remember, is exactly what the Baptist writer of that article in the Journal was arguing they were) would issue a canon laying out the liturgical order for the distribution of the Eucharist? Not likely. Of course, one would expect such a thing at a Catholic council. And that is precisely why we see this and similar canons emanating from this council: It was a Catholic assembly, not a Protestant one.

Another revealing canon is the 13th. In regard to the granting of Holy Communion to penitents at the point of death, it says: "Concerning those about to die, the ancient canon law is still to be maintained, namely that those who are departing are not to be deprived of their last, most necessary viaticum . . . As a general rule, in the case of anyone who is departing and seeks to share in the Eucharist, the bishop upon examining the matter shall give him a share in the sacrifice."

Is there any Protestant who would view the Holy Eucharist as "most necessary viaticum" at the hour of death? Would the Baptist apologist recognize the Eucharist as a "sacrifice" or oblation in which he shares? Do Protestants, for that matter, concern themselves with episcopal jurisdiction, the dates of feasts and the proper posture for liturgical prayer? When was the last time you heard of a Protestant pastor giving absolution and holy viaticum to a repentant excommunicate in order to ensure his eternal salvation?

No Protestant apologist attending the Council of Nicea would recognize it as an organ of his denomination or as anything resembling his version of "biblical" Christianity. The issues discussed and the conclusions reached are common only to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Of course none of the 318 council Fathers would be familiar with the expression "Roman" Catholic, since this pejorative expression was invented by the Protestants of the 16th century, and later humbly adopted by orthodox Christianity in the West. Nevertheless, the Council of Nicea bears the unmistakable mark of Catholicism. Not surprising, since the Council was Catholic.

"But wait," a Protestant might respond. "What about Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea? Doesn't that demonstrate there was no papal primacy in the early centuries of the Church?" This claim is always presented in polemical discussions of the Nicene Council.

Canon 6 reads: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

Are we to understand from this that the bishop of Rome is no greater in authority than the bishop of Alexandria? Indeed, our Baptist apologist writes, "This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else." Is this true? Not at all. The first thing one must do is note the context. What is the nature of the "jurisdiction" mentioned here? It is, primarily, the authority to ordain bishops. Notice that after laying out the territory for each of the metropolitans, the canon explains what is to take place within those limits: the selection and ordination of bishops. This point also fits the context of the preceding canons, paraphrased here:

Canon 4: Bishops are to be chosen by bishops of their province, and their choice is then to be ratified by the metropolitan having jurisdiction over that area.

Canon 5: Those excommunicated by one bishop are not to be re-instituted by a bishop of a different territory. Every province should have regular synods to decide these issues.

Canon 6: The metropolitans have jurisdiction over their respective territories. No one is to be made a bishop without their final approval.

Notice the function of canon 6 in context with the preceding two canons: It sets out territorial boundaries for more efficient administration. Recall that the pope is also the bishop of the city of Rome. He has a special administrative jurisdiction over Rome, whereas the bishop of New York has the same jurisdiction over New York, the bishop of Alexandria over Alexandria, etc. But this is not to say the Roman bishop has no authority over the Church; these are two different kinds of jurisdiction. So a plain reading of canon 6 in context shows it is hardly a blow against Roman primacy.

In the end, there is no way to avoid the inescapable fact that the Council of Nicea was Catholic in every sense of the term. Unfortunately for the Protestant author of the Journal article, no amount of cut-and-paste patristic work, no feats of "scholarly" gymnastics, no grotesque historical contortions can change that.

8:12 p.m.

"Brothers and sisters, I want to announce to you all that we've just had 23 people saved up here. Keep on coming! I see some more folks in the back. Let them through. Sister Pearl, can you make your way to the piano and do 'Onward Christian Soldiers'? It's the Emperor Constantine's favorite, you know . . ."

Evangelical Protestants at the Council of Nicea? The idea would be funny, if it weren't so sad that some people actually believe it.

The Players

Major Figures at the First Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) Arius A popular Alexandrian priest who, under the influence of Lucian of Antioch, denied the divinity of Christ. According to Arius, Jesus was the first "creation" of God, but was not God Himself. This false teaching was rebuked at a local Egyptian synod of bishops, but Arius refused to submit to their correction and was excommunicated. After several appeals, his heretical views were aired, debated and formally condemned by the bishops of the Catholic Church assembled at Nicea. St. Athanasius A priest from Alexandria (who would become the bishop in 328) and tireless defender of the Trinity and Catholicism. Along with Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, he stood as Arius' chief and most formidable opponent. Constantine Roman Emperor and convert to Christianity. The growing tension between the orthodox Catholics and the Arians on the matter of Christ's deity compelled him to call the Council to settle the issue. Hosius Bishop of Cordoba, and presider over the Council. He played a central role in Constantine's conversion, and acted as the Emperor's theological advisor. A vocal opponent of Arius, Hosius represented the Church of Rome, along with two Roman priests. Vito and Vincentius The two Roman priests sent by Pope Sylvester (who was too sick to travel) to represent the Church of Rome at the Council of Nicea. They, along with Bishop Hosius, signed the acts of the Council before the other convened bishops did — which was a remarkable thing for mere priests to do, unless they had special authority as legates of the pope. Major issues addressed by the Council of Nicea The relationship of the Son to the Father was the primary issue of dispute. Arius claimed the Son was a creation of the Father; the orthodox argued the Son was one with the Father (homo-ousion, one in being). The orthodox position was adopted and the defenders of the Trinity prevailed. The 20-year-old Meletian schism was brought to an end. Its instigator, Meletus, was returned to his see in Lycopolis but was forbidden to ordain any more bishops. The ordinations he had previously performed were declared null and void. The traditional date of Easter held by the Church of Rome was adopted by the universal Church. The extent of the penance required of apostates before readmittance to the sacrament of the Eucharist was settled. Several qualifications for ordination to the office of bishop were outlined. Deacons, priests and bishops were to remain in their diocese. The jurisdictions for ecclesial ordinations were set forth.

From Envoy Magazine

Constantine's comment: I love this article. I demonstrates the absurdity of the "Constantine the great invented Catholicism" position.

Disgraceful

MOSQUE VISIT
Catholics from Putnam County visit Masjid Al-Noor in Wappingers Falls, N.Y., to learn about Islam. (CNS photo/Jillian Murphy)

Constantine's comment:

The fact that Catholics would enter into a house of heresy is disgraceful enough. The fact that Catholic women would willingly cover themselves in the manner that Muhammadan women do shows how far we are willing to embrace barbarism and stupidity in the name of 'learning' and 'ecumenism'.

Kosovo

Constantine's Comment: The Albanian barbarians are desecrating Churches and Monastaries. It's a good thing we had such a great president like Clinton to bring this about!!

Cardinal Bertone backs canonization for Knights of Columbus founder

Nashville, Aug. 8, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (bio - news), the Vatican Secretary of State, offered his support for the cause of canonization of Father Michael McGivney, the founder of the Knights of Columbus, as he addressed the group on August 7 at a convention in Nashville, Tennessee.

Cardinal Bertone celebrated the opening Mass for the 125th annual K of C convention, and in his homily he praised Father McGivney as a priest who "found the faith and the courage to walk steadfastly towards Christ, and to inspire others by his leadership." The Italian cardinal-- who ranks second only to the Roman Pontiff at the Vatican-- noted that a cause for canonization is underway for Father McGivney, and said "I'll personally work on this."

The Vatican Secretary of State conveyed the greetings of Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) to the Knights, assuring them of "the Holy Father’s spiritual closeness and of a special remembrance in his prayers at this time." In a separate message to the group's convention, the Pontiff praised the Knights ofr Columbus for "wholeheartedly accepting the summons to discipleship."

Cardinal Bertone-- who was awarded the Gaudium et Spes (doc) award by the K of C-- addressed the convention in Italian. The cardinal's lack of familiarity with English was once considered an obstacle to his selection as Secretary of State.

From Catholic World News

Constantine's Comment: This is wonderful news!

Why Belloc Still Matters

Was Hilaire Belloc sometimes careless? Yes. Impolitic? Certainly. Is he irrelevant to 21st-century concerns? Never.

By R. J. Stove

American Conservative

An author too robust and significant to be wholly un-personned can still be marginalized. Consider this elegant pasquinade, which years ago won a parody-contest award in Britain’s New Statesman and which employs the same rhyme scheme and meter as Hilaire Belloc’s own “The chief defect of Henry King”:

The chief defect of dear Hilaire
Was not the clothes he used to wear,
The curious hat and monstrous cloak,
Paraded as some kind of joke.
No, Hilaire’s fault, and well he knew it,
Was, all he did, he’d overdo it . . .
There’s more—he held the strongest views
On politicians, and on Jews,
Such as, today, might give one cause
To think of Race Relations Laws.
But that of Belloc is the worst
That can be said. His comic verse,
His Cautionary Tales, his Peers,
His Beasts will last for countless years,
Delighting readers old or young
Who share Hilaire’s adopted tongue.

Well, that’s put Dear Hilaire back in his box, hasn’t it? If Belloc’s entire literary merit lies in his having catered to the A.A. Milne and Edward Lear demographic, we need no more bother ourselves with his wider aims than seek deep epistemological insight from re-reading about Pooh Bear or The Dong With The Luminous Nose. But then the New Statesman has never claimed theological expertise. Others, who do possess such claims, and who in many instances share Belloc’s Catholicism, have been at least as hostile. Malcolm Muggeridge complained, “although he has written about religion all his life, there seemed to be very little in him.” Six years before the Latin Mass’s recent anti-Belloc enfilade, St. Louis University’s James Hitchcock (in the May 1996 issue of Crisis) likened Belloc to “a man with a machine gun—by spraying shots everywhere he inevitably hit some targets, but many of his bullets went astray.” This allegation can at any rate be argued over, unlike certain antics of the occasional self-confessed Belloc fan. (Such as John Anderson, who passed as the doyen of Australian philosophy during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s and who labored with surrealistic persistence to reinterpret Belloc’s Servile State as a sacred text for antipodean atheist head-kickers. When Belloc’s friends included historical illiterates like Anderson, he hardly needed foes.)

How stands the case for the prosecution? In particular, was G.M. Trevelyan, Regius Professor of History at Cambridge 1927-1940, justified in having flatly called Belloc “a liar”?

Occasionally, alas, yes. Belloc confided as much himself, to a co-religionist at that: the British historian, newspaperman, and editor Douglas Woodruff. While going several debating rounds in print against his merciless ultra-Protestant detractor, the once-celebrated controversialist G.G. Coulton, Belloc came out with one assertion so breathtakingly implausible that it moved Woodruff to inquire, “But is it true?” “Oh, not at all”, Belloc retorted. “But won’t it annoy Coulton?” Such a deliberate, impolitic falsehood clearly sprang from insensate bravado rather than from malice. It is doubtful, moreover, whether the historian who hastily and occasionally deceives others is half as dangerous as the historian who consistently and lucratively deceives himself. (Many a reader obligated to plow through the unrelenting sanctimony of more recent and more fashionable gurus than Belloc—Arthur Schlesinger expounding the immaculate conception of JFK; Eric Hobsbawm assigning a similar redemptive role to the proletariat; Francis Fukuyama hyperventilating about free-market dogma’s limitless appeal to any polity, however Lower Slobbovian—must have felt increasingly inclined to welcome from these sources an honest lie or two.) Still, Belloc’s mendacity at that juncture defies excuses and leaves behind a singularly nasty odor.

An even graver sin, curiously slighted by Belloc’s most recent biographers, A.N. Wilson (Hilaire Belloc, 1984) and Joseph Pearce (the shorter, more reverential Old Thunder: A Life of Hilaire Belloc, 2002), occurs repeatedly in Belloc’s analyses of the French Revolution. Notwithstanding the fervor with which pope after pope—especially, in Belloc’s youth, St. Pius X—had declared support for Jacobins and indeed Girondins to be incompatible with the most basic Christian decency, Belloc remained as eupeptic as any Charles James Fox about the entire pageant of French politics from the Bastille’s fall via Robespierre to Napoleon. Revolutionary genocide against the Vendéens and Chouans scarcely touched Belloc’s consciousness. On his last (1937) tour of the U.S., he accused Americans of wanting to hear “48,376,277 times . . . that war is all wrawng and why cahunt everyone in Yurrup live peaceably same as us; that Religion don’t count same as it useter ’cos there’s more enlight’nment now.” So he could perceive, and denounce, lunatic world-saving Wilsonian optimism when it fell from his hosts’ lips. Why that optimism somehow became acceptable when the increase in “enlight’nment” had been effected by the guillotine, instead of by American presidential overreach, Belloc never explained.

This all amounts to a grim indictment. What case for the defense can outweigh it? There actually exist two such cases: first, Belloc’s daunting percipience; second, his equally daunting versatility as a poet.

Given Belloc’s prophetic skill, it comes as a severe jolt to recollect that he was born back in 1870. (He died in 1953, but a stroke robbed him of his authorial powers in 1942.) Almost every major political trend of the last hundred years—whether the Third Reich, or the bipartisan welfarism familiar from our own experience, or the socialization of agriculture, or incessant Middle East massacres, or the spirit of jihad, or the willful confusion between legitimate private enterprise and piratical paper-shuffling, or the sexual revolution, or mad-scientist genetic technology—Belloc predicted. His output retains an immediacy for our time that is impossible to discern in most of his journalistic confreres. At a time when H.G. Wells, John Dewey, and Bertrand Russell counted as forward-looking thinkers—while notching up an almost 100 percent failure rate when it came to even the least contentious prophesying about global trends five weeks, let alone five years, down the track—Belloc plodded on, fortified by nothing more glamorous than preternatural energy and a worldview too European and synoptic to countenance the least parochialism. Plodding of that type seldom facilitates benignity, genial tolerance towards opponents, or leisurely musings on the joys of artistic creation. Nor does life in the House of Commons, where Belloc sat for four dispiriting years (1906-1910) as a maverick Liberal parliamentarian.

Little wonder that Belloc at times bullied when he should have insinuated, at times cut corners on fine detail when he should have checked and rechecked a specific datum. His antagonists went to town when they caught him crediting the early-seventeenth-century Spanish poet Francisco de Quevedo with having influenced France’s Joachim du Bellay, who perished two decades before Quevedo was born, or citing a monastic chronicler dead since 1259 as an authority on conflicts occurring in 1265. They would have benefited from devoting equal attention to this passage, the closest approach Belloc ever made to explicating his historiographical outlook:

[Coulton] does not appreciate the weight of a whole stream of tradition, supported by a parallel stream of documentary evidence. If these combined make for a certain conclusion which no rational man can doubt, he would think it sufficient to bring out against it one isolated exception. Many generations hence there will be a broad stream of tradition and document to show that Englishmen in the nineteenth century did not eat human flesh, but I am sure that if Dr. Coulton were on the other side he would triumphantly quote the shipwrecked mariners of the Mignonette and continue to say that the Victorians were cannibals.

Where on occasion Belloc grew careless in small (although still important) matters, his mixture of erudition and depressive realism made him authoritative in large ones. True, he overestimated Russia’s liberal imagination to the disastrous extent of buying Kerensky Government bonds. Yet his comprehension of Bolshevism, when that plague-germ started on its pandemic course, surpassed not only anything Wells or Beatrice Webb or Bernard Shaw revealed—not that outsmarting those sages on the Soviet issue required notable effort—but much official scholarship as well. Naïfs might well have spent the Cold War unable to grasp how every Kremlin boss from Lenin to Gorbachev enjoyed the shameless backing of Armand Hammer and allied plutocrats on Wall Street. At such an outcome Belloc felt no surprise whatever. Spain’s civil war merely confirmed him in his realization that the capitalist and the communist alike have always hated any Catholic society far more than they have ever hated each other. Thanks partly to Cardinal Manning’s pronouncements, and to Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum encyclical, Belloc had learned this simple truth by 1902. It continues to elude the typical Republican Party apparatchik in 2002.

Because neither on this topic nor on any other did mealy-mouthedness come naturally, or at all, to Belloc, a veritable heavy industry has arisen for the specific purpose of forever associating his name with Nazi racialist hatred. Mere facts like Belloc’s loud and clear condemnations of Hitler from 1933 onwards —and of wider Teutonic militarism from, it often seems, the very day he learned to talk—have achieved little momentum against this industry, which has ensured that millions who have never read a line he wrote consider it as natural to link the words “Belloc” and “anti-Semitism” as to link “Gilbert” with “Sullivan” or “Abbott” with “Costello.” (Sometimes his aversion to Nazism led him into anti-Pius-XII rhetoric little different from John Cornwell’s and Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s diatribes nowadays. “The Pope continues to be mum,” he lamented in 1940, “and to confine himself to generalities. He is to be blamed.”) A good answer to myths of Belloc’s Jew-baiting is the 1922 book, which he actually called The Jews, and which Pearce rightly deems “an exercise in carefully considered and controlled restraint.” Here Belloc overtly reprehends Jew-baiters’ driving obsession: “The Anti-Semite will confuse the action of any particular Jew with his general odium for the race . . . [he is] so absorbed in his subject that he at last loses interest in any matter, unless he can give it some association with his delusion, for delusion it is.”

Worse still, The Jews maintains, is the glutinous progressive doublethink that lets Anglophone Gentiles imagine in 1922—and long afterwards—that Central and Eastern Europe would overnight become as easily governable as New England or New Zealand, if only their peoples could be administered an adequately stiff dose of pagan laissez-faire. Belloc’s pan-European credo—“The Faith is Europe,” he observed, “and Europe is the Faith”—sharpened his awareness of the emotional allure that nationalism possessed for other minds more flaccid and less educated than his own. Far from advocating anything like the Final Solution, The Jews, if properly pondered by Europe’s leaders, would probably have done more than any other English-language book to prevent the Final Solution. Its Chapters XI and XV also foresaw (a generation before the world had heard of Irgun) the price that Zionism would extract in Jewish blood.

Just as The Jews and its sequel The Battleground (1936) can illustrate far more about the Middle East’s current anguish than the collected works of Dick Cheney, so a better-known and wider-ranging production of Belloc’s, Survivals and New Arrivals (1929), furnishes—in its scrutiny of militant Islam—-a far better guide to what makes Osama run than any State Department verbiage. Even some of the pamphlets Belloc churned out to propitiate his children’s alleged “howl[ing] for pearls and caviar” contain more useful information than many a lesser scribe’s life work. The Free Press (1918) can teach us much more of the Rupert Murdoch mentality’s fundamentally nihilistic spite than is obtainable from any journalism degree course. And this is to leave out the travel books: particularly The Path to Rome and The Cruise of the “Nona,” whence epigrams stay in the mind long after the more conventional scene-painting fades from memory.

It would nevertheless be a bold reader who actually preferred such books to Belloc’s collected poems. Though Belloc has been dead for half a century, the charm, tang, and inspired mischief of his children’s verse—Cautionary Tales, The Bad Child’s Book of Beasts, More Peers, and the rest—remain as addictive to many a primary-school child in our own era as they were to us, and to our parents, and to their parents. Yet only the ill-informed would assume that those volumes constitute Belloc’s main, let alone his sole, poetical achievement. His muse’s many-sidedness is hair-raising. The finest tributes he lavished on his (platonically) adored friend Lady Diana Cooper display, even at the lowest possible reckoning, an exceptional aptitude for Elizabethan pastiche:

That I grow sour, who only lack delight;
That I descend to sneer, who only grieve;
That from my depth I should
condemn your height,
That with my blame my mockery you receive—
Huntress and splendor of the woodland night—
Diana of this world, do not believe.

Elsewhere he evokes seventeenth- rather than sixteenth-century idioms, as in “Ballade to Our Lady of Czestochowa”, which could almost be by one of the Metaphysical Poets:

Lady and Queen and Mystery manifold
And very Regent of the untroubled sky,
Whom in a dream St. Hilda did behold
And heard a woodland music passing by:
You shall receive me when the clouds are high
With evening and the sheep attain the fold . . .
Prince of the degradations, bought and sold,
These verses, written in your crumbling sty,
Proclaim the faith that I have held and hold
And publish that in which I mean to die.

Often he matches A.E. Housman’s freakish gift for achieving permanent and dignified memorability while using precious few words of more than one syllable. Who can happily contemplate life in the average nursing home after reading Belloc’s description—which, in its lucid pathos, even Housman might have envied—of decrepitude?

You find that middle life goes rushing past.
You find despair; and at the very last
You find, as you are giving up the ghost,
That those who loved you best despise you most.

Evelyn Waugh noted the Housman resemblance in 1954: “He [Belloc] was a Christian Shropshire Lad and, by that enrichment, immeasurably Housman’s superior.”

Did Belloc fail? In terms of personal wealth, of stemming history’s tide, he failed miserably. But perhaps a stray phrase from Ezra Pound’s Cantos best sums Belloc up: “a failure worth all the successes of his age.”

____________________________________

R. J. Stove lives in Melbourne, Australia and contributes regularly to Chronicles and the New Criterion. He is the author of The Unsleeping Eye: A Brief History of Secret Police and Their Victims.




Constantine's comments:

Belloc is my favorite writer. His work on the great heresies, the Jews and the Reformation are some of the best works that I own.

Iraqi Christians were safer under Saddam, says Vatican official

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Although Iraq has a democratic government, Iraqi Christians were safer and had more protection under former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, said the future head of the Vatican's interreligious dialogue council.

During the buildup to the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, French Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, who will become head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue Sept. 1, had criticized the U.S. government's plan of preventative war and said a unilateral war against Iraq would be a "crime against peace."

In a recent interview with the Italian magazine 30 Giorni, the cardinal said his early criticisms had been prophetic.

"The facts speak for themselves. Alienating the international community (with the U.S. push for war) was a mistake," he said in the magazine's Aug. 10 issue. A copy of the interview was released in advance to journalists.

He said an "unjust approach" was used to unseat Saddam from power, resulting in the mounting chaos in Iraq today.

"Power is in the hands of the strongest -- the Shiites -- and the country is sinking into a sectarian civil war (between Sunni and Shiite Muslims) in which not even Christians are spared," he said.

Christians, "paradoxically, were more protected under the dictatorship," he said.

Cardinal Tauran is a longtime veteran of the Vatican's diplomatic service and a specialist in international affairs. He was Pope John Paul II's "foreign minister," the official who dealt with all aspects of the Vatican's foreign policy from 1990 to 2003.

He said his new appointment as head of the interreligious dialogue council carries "great responsibility" but that he also sees it "as a new chapter in my service to the Holy See." The cardinal will be responsible for overseeing the Vatican's dialogue efforts with representatives of non-Christian religions, including Islam.

His June 25 appointment alleviated concerns that Pope Benedict XVI's temporary merger of the presidencies of the Vatican's interreligious dialogue council with the Pontifical Council for Culture indicated a downgrading of the Vatican's interfaith efforts.

Cardinal Tauran told 30 Giorni, "We have to do everything so that religions spread brotherhood and not hatred."

The Vatican's efforts at bridge-building with Muslims hit a speed bump when the pope's remarks on Islam in a September speech in Regensburg, Germany, prompted negative reactions across the Muslim world.

When asked if the pope's Regensberg address had compromised the Vatican's dialogue efforts with Muslims, the cardinal replied, "At first, yes."

"But later, especially during his subsequent trip to Turkey, the pope explained himself very well," the cardinal said.

He said Pope Benedict has great respect for Muslims.

The controversies that arose after Regensburg only highlighted the importance of having a specific Vatican department dedicated to dialogue with Islam and other religions, he said.

"Thank God the erroneous interpretations of the Regensburg speech did not stop the development of relations -- diplomatic, too -- with Islamic nations," he said, giving the example of the recent establishment of full diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates and the Vatican.

Cardinal Tauran said that as head of the Vatican's interreligious dialogue office he would use as his guide the Second Vatican Council's declaration on relations with non-Christian religions, "Nostra Aetate."

"To examine everything humanity has in common ... and to appreciate how much truth and holiness there is in other religions" would be some of the council's goals, he said.

But the quest to understand others will leave room to courageously pay witness to "the way, truth, and life" of Jesus, he said.

"In this sense," he said, "our road map is obviously the declaration 'Dominus Iesus,'" the 2000 document of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which said Christ and the church are necessary for salvation.

Interreligious dialogue should not promote the idea that all religions are equal, he said, but that all religions "which are seeking God must be respected because they have the same dignity."

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

Constantine's Comments - The War in Iraq has been catastrophic for Iraqi Christians. They are being cleansed from their ancestral homeland. This war which toppled a secular tyrant will likely result in the establishment of a Shi'a theocracy. Even under the best case scenario Christians are the big losers.

Prospects improve for Pope-Patriarch "summit"

From Catholic World News:

Moscow, Aug. 7, 2007 (CWNews.com) - After an August 7 meeting with Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexei II, Cardinal Roger Etchegaray (bio - news) said that the prospects for a "summit meeting" between the Orthodox prelate and Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) are steadily improving.

The cardinal cautioned that no plans were underway for a summit meeting, but important steps were being taken to strengthen the ties between Rome and Moscow, particularly through cooperative efforts to affirm the role of Christianity in European society. The veteran Vatican diplomat said that a meeting between the Pope and the Patriarch would likely be the fruit of these cooperative ventures.

Cardinal Etchegaray went on to say that Pope Benedict has cultivated a personal friendship with Patriarch Alexei, even at a distance. During his meeting with the Russian prelate he handed over a personal letter from the Roman Pontiff, which Alexei read. The Russian Orthodox leader expressed his thanks for the Pope's thoughts and promised a full reply.

Cardinal Etchegaray stopped in Moscow to meet with Patriarch Alexei as he traveled to Siberia, where he will participate in ceremonies marking the 10th anniversary of a Catholic cathedral in Novosibirsk. The French-born cardinal has frequently carried out sensitive diplomatic assignments for Holy See since retiring from his post as president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. As he approaches his 85th birthday he continues to be a valued papal envoy.

Book recommendation

I highly suggest that anyone who desires to understand the blessed sacrament pick up "How Christ Said the first Mass".

It is online at Google

I found this book to be one of the most informative books I have seen concerning the establishment of the Eucharist. Flip through the google post and buy the book. You will not be disappointed.