Augustine's On the Unity of the Church, finally translated into English

 At William Webster's web-site, I discovered the full text of Augustine's "On The Unity of the Church" vs. the Donatists.   For the first time in history, the full text has been translated into English. (Amazing that it took so long !! Centuries!) I look forward to reading this, studying it, and possibly writing blog articles on this in the future.

 http://www.christiantruth.com/deunitateintroduction.html

Some choice selections from Webster's Introduction:

Augustine

Introduction:  “The question has been proposed: Is the Church of Christ among the Catholics or among the Donatists? This needs to be determined from specific and clear citations in Holy Scripture. First, evidence is brought forth from the Old Testament and then from the New Testament.”  (Augustine, Introduction, On the Unity of the Church. My emphasis)

. . . 

"But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case" (Chapter 5). (My emphasis)

Webster says that Augustine basically says, 

“Since both parties adhere to the truth of Scripture and believe them to be the word of God, it is scripture which should be the final arbiter.”

Augustine writes, “just as this doesn't need an interpreter” several times in his appeal to the Donatists.  Augustine believed that theses Scriptures were clear and perspicuous, and did not need an infallible interpreter to settle the dispute.  

In one of his sermons Augustine gives this exegesis of the rock of Matthew 16:

"Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15–19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.    Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer"

(John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

This treatise is of great interest historically because of what Augustine does not say constitutes unity. These words by Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the 19th century, who taught church history for 47 years, are very telling:

St. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all the other Fathers put together. Yet, from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence, in one letter, can be quoted, where he says that the principality of the Apostolic Chair has always been in Rome—which could, of course, be said then with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his Pastoral Letter to the separated Donatists on the Unity of the Church, must find it inexplicable...that in these seventy–five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the centre of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the Church, but of the Papal Chair, as one of them, he says not a word (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger), The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp. 70-74).

Augustine says, 'Whoever dissents from Holy Scripture concerning the head is not in the Church' (Paragraph 7). (my emphasis)

He repeats this passage:

But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case (Augustine, On the Unity of the Church, Chapter 5).

"I do not wish the holy Church to be founded on human evidence, but on divine oracles" (Augustine, ibid., Chapter 6). (My emphasis)

"All such things then removed, let them demonstrate their Church, if they can, not in the speeches and murmurs of African, not in the councils of their bishops, not in the epistles of whatever debates, not in false signs and prodigies, since we are prepared and cautioned against them by the word of the Lord, but in the precept of the law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the psalms, in the utterances of the one shepherd himself, in the preaching of the evangelists, that is in all the canonical authority of the holy books, and not such that they might gather and cite things that are spoken obscurely or ambiguously or metaphorically which anyone might interpret according to his own opinion as he wishes. Such things cannot be properly understood and explained unless first those things that are said most openly are held with a strong faith (Chapter 47).

The Future of Protestantism - Peter Leithart, Fred Sanders, Carl Trueman, and Peter Escalante

I watched the whole thing; but I admit I fell asleep here and there for 5 minutes or so. I think I went back and listened again to the parts I missed.

I am trying to understand Peter Leithart.

He was tried for heresy (it seems, if I understand it rightly, basically, of being accused of aspects of the “Federal Vision” – that infant baptism justifies and regenerates – and aspects of something similar to the New Perspective on Paul that seem to be adding the merit of works for final salvation and not distinquishing between justification and sanctification), within the last couple of years, but was exonerated.

Go to the Aquila Report and search under Peter Leithart and you can find the details.  (There are several other articles there on the heresy trial of P. Leithart.)

But the main prosecutor, Jason Stellman, later became a Roman Catholic. (very ironic)

Leithart seems to say that Roman Catholicism is part of the same body of Christ and the people are brothers and sisters as they were baptized with the same Trinitarian baptism. Leithart seems to be arguing the same kind of thing that Doug Wilson argued in his debate with James White, “Are Roman Catholics our brothers and sisters?” (see at http://www.aomin.org) – Wilson says something like “grab them by their baptism”.

I think Peter Escalante was wrong at 1:28:00 where he says that Francis Turretin said that the RCC was a church, just deformed, but has word and sacrament, etc.

Turretinfan provides evidence to the contrary:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2008/04/real-turretin-on-church-of-rome-in-his.html

No one mentioned directly the anathemas of the Council of Trent on the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

In this video, Leithard emphasizes:
1. Ecumenical meetings, Unity, John 17 – getting together locally to foster unity and discussions with Roman Catholics
2. Seemed to say that Transubstantiation could be an opinion, but not a dogma ( ?? !!!)
3. Liturgy
4. Sacraments
5. Eucharist/Lord’s supper has to be celebrated every week

Carl Trueman said that J. Gresham Machen’s view was that theological liberalism was not Christianity, but that RCC is a distorted form of Christianity; and that the Reformers did not re-baptize anyone who converted from Rome to the Protestant faith.

Trueman was good in emphasizing the Word/Scriptures/preaching/teaching and pastoral implications of helping the average person understand the issues, by not confusing them with too much ecumenism.

They needed to have James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and John Bugay of Triablogue and John McArthur, R. C. Sproul, and William Webster there to make the discussion more lively.

Catholic Nick and obstinacy

It still amazes me, though it shouldn't, how a clearly intelligent man like Catholic Nick can interact with Reformed bloggers for years and years and yet still fail to grasp the most elementary distinctions because of his Rome-leaning bias. A robust Protestant view of ecclesiology seems so foreign to him that maybe he is literally too far under the surface of the Tiber that everything looks muddy and brown.

We continue:

Sure, I can understand that's what you think about what infallibility is, but it does not exist in real life. And a false claim to infallibility doesn't get us anywhere.
Who cares about infallibility, BTW, if one is RIGHT about something?

The Judaisers DID go on Judaising. That's why Paul had to write Galatians and parts of 2 Corinthians and Philippians. Did you just forget that part? You keep acting like true authority or infallibility would lead to everyone agreeing, including enemies of the faith, but that's not true in the early church nor in RCC throughout history.


Take (almost) any doctrine and notice how some Protestant somewhere will deny it on the basis that the Protestants who believe it are not infallible.

But what do I care about "some Prot somewhere"? Why don't you actually argue in a way that is relevant here? I certainly don't argue that way! If a Prot is wrong about something, it's b/c he's WRONG; I never mention infallibility unless someone falsely claims it for himself.


This is precisely why no Protestant is bound to accept the Westminster Confession,

But what relevance does this have? The Confession is the authority for Presby churches; it serves to make it easier to identify who really agrees with them and who doesn't and thus to call ppl to comply with the set doctrine or to join another church (or to be called out as heretics).
LOok, you HAVE to realise that it's the exact same situation with RCC. Either someone submits himself to RCC and its confessions, or one doesn't. It's as simple as that. There's no force involved, and the authority you think RCC has is only applicable to those who agree to listen to that authority. It's the same with WCF and Presbys.


People can submit to it in the same way an employee submits to the office rules, but that's by no means infallible or binding on all Protestants.

Trading on an inconsistent comparison, like you always do.
It's binding on all WCF-PRESBYTERIANS. Just like CCC and Magisterial docs is binding on all RCs. But you need to compare church to church. Not "Protestants" as a whole.


And from that you can see that it's plainly ridiculous to speak of each and every denomination having their own distinct formally established dogma.

Why is it ridiculous? Each one DOES.


You're not distinguishing between "The Church" and "A Church".

Actually, I did so very carefully. That's why I said "A Prot church".


There is only One Church in reality, with various local manifestations (e.g. parishes), but not in Protestantism

That's completely untrue. I completely affirm that there is only One Church in reality, with various local manifestations (e.g. local churches). Just like in the NT.
There are no "parishes" in the NT, BTW.


In Protestantism, everyone is autonomous

Your Romanist blinders don't let you see the double standard you're using.
What do you mean by "autonomous"?


there is no single denomination where everyone comes together.

So?


You make my point for me, by saying it depends on the denomination you have made church authority worthless.

How so? What authority does the church have over outsiders?
What authority does RCC have over outsiders?


Now anyone can go and start their own denomination and make themself pastor

Anyone can do that with RCC as well, and RCC either intervenes and says "you're not of us" or it doesn't.
Same with PCA as well - someone could do so and call themselves PCA and PCA either intervenes and says "you're not of us" or it doesn't.
Further, there is always the question of the JUSTIFIABILITY of that guy's going off by himself. How does RCC handle the problem that there will always be split-offs? We've seen clearly how they did it in the 16th century - they threaten the lives of the splitters.
You're evincing a 16th-cent mindset; you apparently prefer RCC to operate with force against those who leave RCC. Nice.


All a dissatisfied Presbyterian has to do is go start his own Presbyterian denomination and just rename it.

All a dissatisfied Roman Catholic has to do is go start his own Roman Catholic denomination and just rename it.


That means the PCA is just a bunch of men pretending to have authority over Christians when in fact they hold no divine authority at all.

They have authority over THEIR OWN CHURCH - Matthew 18, Hebrews 13, Titus, 1&2 Timothy.
Just like RC priests and the Magisterium have authority over THEIR OWN CHURCH.


You have not given any indication there is one church Jesus approves of above all others. I

You didn't ask.
He probably approves most of the church that has the best doctrine and conduct. Like in Revelation 1-3.
Just b/c He approves MOST of a given church doesn't mean that other ones aren't true churches.


I have, which I why as a Catholic I say the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

Good for you, but your mistaken assertions mean nothing more than that you are mistaken.


What you're saying is that either there is no way to know which denomination Jesus approves of above all others, or that Jesus doesn't really care where you go as long as you join one.

As long as you join A GOOD CHURCH, there is plenty of reason to think you're doing your due diligence.


In other words, the original Church Jesus established flopped at least once, if not multiple times, and fresh new start ups had to arise from the ashes whenever a prior church went bad. That's pure Mormonism

Yawn. Of course the original church***ES*** flopped. When's the last time you read the NT?
The epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Titus, Timothy, of John, and Jude, and 3 of the 7 churches in Revelation 1-3 show that early churchES had serious doctrinal problems even in the lifetime of the apostles.
It's not Mormonism, since no one is claiming that the true church totally disappeared, only to reappear in the form of a polytheistic cult later.
Maybe you could exegete Matthew 16, showing that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means necessarily that "the church in Rome will never experience deadly doctrinal error" or "21st century people will always be able to find definitive historical evidence that Jesus' followers existed in force for a continuous flow throughout history". I'll be happy to see your exegesis along those lines.


There is no historical continuity from Christ upto now in your view. To you the Early Church Fathers practiced an extinct form of Christianity.

Your Romanist bias prevents you from dealing with my true position. You've had so many opportunities to be corrected on this; I'm losing hope that you'll actually ever even be able to deal with a real Protestant position. It's like you're stuck arguing against fading memories of Chick tracts.



The NT does not give a list of Majors/Essentials

Not a list per se, but it certainly seems a pretty shallow mindset to demand a list. Perhaps God preferred to reveal His essentials differently.
And the NT does split out majors/minors quite clearly in numerous places. John 8:24, pretty much all of Galatians (which, of course, condemns RCC quite vociferously), Revelation 1-3, etc. And 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14.
It's like you're not even reading. I've now told you 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 thrice; when are you going to interact with them?


If it did, then there would never have been debate on issues such as paedobaptism between folks like White and R Scott Clark in the first place.

Proof ≠ persuasion.
Be consistent; your argument proves too much - The RC Magisterium does not give a list of Majors/Essentials, nor can such a list be derived. If it did, then there would never have been debate on issues such as filioque between folks like RCC and EOC in the first place.
Or ...then there would never have been a debate on issues such as predestination in earlier RCC. Or of various Marian dogmas. The role of relics.
The list goes on and on. When will you actually take this into account? RCC does not have the unity it claims it has!



There is no "the church" in Protestantism to be able to follow Our Lord's instructions.

Sure there is. There's the local church.

CatholicNick seems not to have learned much

...at least not on the issue of "church unity" and the 29,000 30,000 33,000 58 zillion denominations argument.

Here is the comment to which I reply.


 I don't see why infallibility is necessary to have formally-established dogma. If a group gets together and says "this is our formally-established dogma. Nobody is infallible of course but this is our formally-established dogma, b/c although nobody is infallible, this dogma is actually true", what's wrong with that? You need to give an argument that infallibility is a necessary precondition for formally-established dogma. A Prot church DOES have a single, unified hierarchy. I have told you this many times; it's disappointing to see you haven't learned anything in the years since I pointed it out to you.

Instead, every pastor is self-appointed and does their own thing. That depends entirely on the church/denomination.

What makes you think these overgeneralisations do anyone any good?


  The PCA has no authority over someone like James White

Duh, but PCA does have authority over someone like a PCA pastor.
Just like an EO priest doesn't have any authority over someone like CatholicNick


  You're stopping short of asking the full question: not "join A church" but WHICH?

Well, of course, but we each have to answer the same question. Which church? Which infallible interpreter? EOC? WatchTower? Salt Lake City? Seriously, these answers have been around for many years. Why haven't you advanced the argument any?


Surely Jesus wasn't saying "I don't care which denomination you attend, just as long as you attend one".

Please argue for this assertion.



Suppose Jason (Stellman) wants to dump the PCA and go solo, so now he's attending his own start-up church. Is that just as good?

If he did so b/c he doubted paedobaptism and embraced credobaptism, that would be a good thing*. If PCA went apostate like Rome has, it could be a good thing. If he did it to reach previously unreached ppl, sure, why not? For reasons of swapping out doctrine, no, it wouldn't be good, b/c PCA's doctrine is very, very good. But all churches are "start-up" churches, so I don't really understand what you're saying. RCC does not extend back from Jesus and the apostles; neither does EOC or any other church.



This only begs the question as to what is "Major" and what isn't. 

Of course it does, but the NT tells us. And I already reminded you of it. A shame you once again refused to advance the argument.


It further raises the question why join a Church that is wrong on "smaller things" rather than seek out or form one that is right on both Major and Minor?

I did, and I found one that is about the closest to right on things major and minor that's in my area. I'm blessed; there are several like that and I am a member of one of them.


Once you start making a list of "Majors" then you'll see things begin to break down.

That's false; I've done that before and it worked out fine. There are also these things called confessions that have stood for hundreds of years. Those also work quite well.


 The difference between Jason and others is that Jason was willing to attempt to derive such a list.

No, the difference between him and others is that he had already given up on Sola Scriptura.


You don't realize that you're essentially acting as Pope when you go around saying "smaller issues like pædobaptism or church polity".

You need to argue for this. I don't think I'm infallible; I merely recognise that I have responsibility to do what Jesus told me to do. And I've already pointed out where the NT teaches the major/minor distinction.


Who says those are "smaller issues" when HISTORICALLY those and similar issues have bitterly divided Protestantism.

The fact that they don't corrupt the Gospel or necessary doctrine fundamentally "says" those are smaller issues. As for whether they have bitterly divided ppl, why should it bother me that men before me have been sinners and let conflicts go farther than they should have? And why doesn't it bother YOU that the same is true of RCC and RC history? One of us can deal with his own history.



Luther and Calvin hated and damned the anabaptists, and the more traditional Confessionally Reformed and Baptists would still find each other objectionable and closed communion.

So? RC and EO bishops/popes/patriarchs have hated and damned each other, and they would still find each other objectionable and closed communion.


  it's absurd to suggest a hierarchic, democratic, and individualist polity are equally acceptable.

I didn't suggest that. I"m afraid you may be having difficulty with the idea that people can recognise that a given idea is a minor matter and also that someone else is wrong on that minor matter and also that, since it's minor, it does not merit wholehearted anathemas. Since Jesus and the apostles did that, who am I to demur?


If you are in a debate about some major point of doctrine or morality with a good friend who's of a different denomination, which "church" do you approach for correction as per Christ's instructions in Matthew 18 to "tell it to the church"?

At the risk of stating the obvious, no church. How am I supposed to address "the church" when we're not part of the same church? How would you deal with an EO friend about his disaffirmation of the filioque?

*It should go without saying that I am a Baptist. I'm speaking as a Baptist here, since Nick asked me the question. 

Some Thoughts on Thanksgiving

Phil Johnson reminds us that Truly giving thanks to God will kill a lot of sins and wasting of time.

" Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving." Ephesians 5:4

Thankfulness is evidence of the new self

A truly grateful heart and attitude and expressing it are part of the new self, which we are to keep "putting on". See Colossians 3:10-17

The real reason . . . for thanksgiving

Dr. White on the Dividing Line on Tuesday, November 22, reminded us of the real reason to be thankful.

By working diligently through Philippians 2:1-11, we see the greatness of the incarnation and the humility of the eternal Son, the equality He had with God the Father, and the equality believers have with each other and so are called to humble ourselves and serve one another in love.

Four main points that stuck out to me:

1. The context of church unity (Phil. 2:1-4) and love and the equality of the believers and the exhortation to be humble and serve one another in verses 1-4 is key to interpreting verses 5-11 properly. Since the believers are equal, then the Son and the Father are equal, otherwise the passage would not make sense in the command to humility in verses 1-4 by illustrating it by the humility of the Son, since He was equal with the Father.

2. The parallel between the humility of the believers to one another in verses 1-4 and the humility of Jesus to the Father, in verses 5-8. (in humility consider one another more important than yourselves” (vs. 3) and “He did not consider equality with God the Father a thing to be held on to” (v. 6).

If Jesus is not equal with the Father, then the passage has no meaning, because if Jesus is just a creature, an exalted being, as the Unitarians say, then it is not humility for Him to “not regard equality with God a thing to be held on to at all costs”. “If Jesus was something else, if he comes into existence in a point in time; a creature, not eternal; then how could it be humility? . . . It’s not humility, its simple obedience, to not seek to be equal with God. For any created thing to even consider to be equal with God is blasphemy, it’s pure sin; its foolishness; it’s idiocy. It would be like the lump trying to say, “I am going to become the Potter. “

“that is not humility, that is just not committing blasphemy”.

“It is not humility for even the greatest creature”

“This is not Nicea, this is not some post-biblical development; It is this very stuff [biblical material and exegesis] that forced Nicea and Constantinople and Chalcedon.” James White

3. The Greek word, ‘εαυτου, "himself”, a reflexive pronoun, that is used twice – verses 7-8 – “He emptied Himself”; “He humbled Himself” – that the eternal Son who existed in the form of God, humbled Himself and emptied Himself, becoming a man – this is amazing love and an amazing message and truth. The incarnation; the crucifixion; - I stand in awe and amazement!

The Unitarians, since they don’t believe in the Deity of Christ or the eternality of the Son, they are stuck with “he was emptied” – “he is still a creature”, “and God gave something that He created”. “They are stuck with a God who does less than Abraham”; “thank God for the epsilon”. (ε) James White

Dr. White’s reminder to believers to be thankful for the ‘εαυτου (he-autou) was a good exhortation for the celebration of the thanksgiving holidays. Be thankful for the true God, the eternal Son, the eternal Word, who humbled Himself and became a man, and who humbled Himself and allowed Himself to be killed on a cross. “Not just any death, but a humiliating death, the lowest of the low kind of execution.” Wow!

The emptying is a positive act of adding a human nature. He existed in the form (morphe- μορφη ) of God and took the form (μορφη – morphe) of a slave.

4. The quote from Isaiah 45:23 and the equation of Jesus with "Yahweh" (Lord) - “that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” – Philippians 2:10-11. This is also an amazing thought, and the quote from Isaiah 45:23 shows that Jesus is Yahweh, The Lord, יהוה

"The problem the Unitarians have is a parallel to the same problem the Muslims have, because the angels are commanded to bow down before Adam. Iblis ( ابلیس - the Devil, from diabolos) does not bow down to Adam. But Islam cannot really explain why the angels are commanded to bow down to Adam. It seems like worship, as kissing the black stone in the Kaaba also seems like some kind of idolatrous act, even though Muslims claim it is not." (summary of Dr. White's thoughts, not exact quote)

"Why do you worship Jesus? The only answer the Unitarian can give is because God just tells them to."

There is a direct parallel of the worship of Yahweh, the Lord, in Isaiah 45:21-23, with Jesus as Lord in Philippians 2:10-11."

21 “Declare and set forth your case; 
Indeed, let them consult together. 
Who has announced this from of old? 
Who has long since declared it? 
Is it not I, the LORD (Yahweh – יהוה ) ? 
And there is no other God besides Me, 
A righteous God and a Savior; 
There is none except Me. 


22 “Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; 
For I am God, and there is no other. 


23 “I have sworn by Myself, 
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness 
And will not turn back, 
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. 


24 “They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD (יהוה ) are righteousness and strength.’

Isaiah 45:21-24a

In Isaiah chapters 40-48 especially, the oneness of God is affirmed; monotheism. But also . . .

In Philippians 2, the Trinity is affirmed, because the Deity of Christ is affirmed. (Philippians 2:5-11)

The Incarnation is affirmed. Philippians 2:5-8

The Crucifixion and atonement is affirmed. (Phil 2:8)

The God of the Bible humbled Himself! Wow!

Therefore, we should strive to live in humility and love and serve one another. (Philippians 2:1-4)

God made Himself nothing in the incarnation and crucifixion – the real reason for thanksgiving is His condescension, His humility, His coming and giving Himself for us to save us.

Lord, teach us to be grateful for these great blessings! And start with me!

What must the church salvage from her tradition and what must she, if the need arises, discard?

While searching the library for another title, I came across The Essential Pope Benedict XVI: His Central Writings and Speeches. (It's a popular level work, at least judging from the content and reviews I've read so far.) Thumbing through the collection of documents brought me to an interview (from 1996) on the resolution of the contentious "canon of issues" (i.e., women's ordination, contraception, celibacy, the remarriage of divorced persons). One set of question and answer was particularly interesting inasmuch as it relates a certain conception of unity based on a gradation in the importance of beliefs (emphasis in original):

[Peter Seewald] Everything revolves again and again on this point: what must the church salvage from her tradition and what must she, if the need arises, discard? How is this question decided? Is there a list with two columns? On the right: always valid; on the left: capable of renewal?

[Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger] No, it's obviously not that simple. But there are various degrees of importance in the tradition. It was once customary in theology to speak of degrees of certitude, and that was not so wrong. Many say that we have to go back to that. The term hierarchy of truths does seem to point in this direction, namely, that not everything has the same weight, that there are, so to speak, essentials, for example, the great conciliar decisions or what is stated in the Creed. These things are the Way and as such are vital to the church's existence; they belong to her inner identity. And then there are ramifications that are connected with these essentials and certainly belong to the whole tree but that are not all of the same importance. The identity of the church has clear distinguishing marks, so that it is not rigid but the identity of something living, which remains true to itself in the midst of development. (The Essential Pope Benedict XVI [New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2003], 128-129)

A Legitimate Distinction

A distinction between essentials and non-essentials has, of course, been a staple of Protestant apologetic discourse. I'm not aware of any notable Catholic apologists who deny this distinction, but such a denial is common enough on discussion boards and blogs (a recent example may be found here here). If reasoning with those who deny the distinction seems fruitless, then perhaps the current Pope's articulation will be sufficient to convince such dissenters of its legitimacy.

The Whole Tree

The fact that we speak in such metaphors ("whole tree") when discussing essentials undergirds that the identification of these, being at its core an ontological project, is no simple task for any religious community. The learned Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges the complexity of the issue within the Roman Catholic community. And as experience shows (or will show, if you have yet to attempt it yourself), the task of absolutely delimiting these essentials is challenging; a precise periphery proves evasive. Catholic apologists should expect, then, to see some measure of difficulty on the part of Protestants to articulate a highly precise account of the essentials of Protestantism.

What should be acceptable to all is a general account. To extend Ratzinger's metaphor, we perceive the tree of our tradition and we know the trunk is essential to its identity. Let us also say that the boughs are essentials, but the twigs are non-essential. Any attempt to analyze the entire tree will encounter borderline cases where it is difficult to tell when a bough is a twig and when a twig is a bough. The existence of such borderline cases does not invalidate the clear identification of the trunk, nor of clear cases of boughs and twigs.

Each and every disagreement over the nature of the essentials does not count against the overall project of seeking essentials. It is not enough to simply note that one Protestant here disagrees with another Protestant there as to the exact list of essentials. This unreasonably bypasses the clear essentials that do unite Protestant groups; that one part of a project is difficult or unresolvable does not render the whole difficult or unresolvable.

Additionally, such an appeal is easily overturned with a similar comparison between what one Catholic here claims as the essentials and what one Catholic there otherwise claims as the essentials. If disagreement at the periphery disqualifies any and every attempt to identify essentials, then every religious community must be agnostic as to their nature.

What would be of significance is if Protestants could not even provide a general account. Here, of course, we run into that critical issue of defining our terms--just what is meant by Protestant will greatly affect the outcome of any potential critique along these lines. But I leave it to our theological opponents, should they so desire it, to fill out the rest of the argument.