Seregei Bulgakov's "The Vatican Dogma"

[TheReturnofLive]

The Pope is beyond just having added jurisdiction; he is the only direct successor to an Apostle,

Disagree. The Bishop of Jerusalem is the Successor of St. James the Apostle; as the Pope as Bishop of Rome is Successor of St. Peter.

The Bishop of Rome inherits the authority that God willed to give to St. Peter; the other Bishops inherit the authority of the other Apostles. That is all. Order or Sacramental Character is one thing, and it is sometimes called the material element of Apostolic Succession. Jurisdiction or Authority is another; it is like the Supernatural Form that vivifies the Character. And it is called the formal element of Apostolic Succession. All Catholic Bishops have a true and proper ordinary authority. Only schismatic bishops lose out on it.

These two sections contradict each other. Roman Catholic theology holds that each Bishop has the authority the Apostles generally, but the Pope is the direct successor of the specific Apostle of Saint Peter. Otherwise, one would have to ask why there are more than 11 Bishops and from which Apostle the Ukrainian Bishops receive their Apostolic Succession, and why it's the case that Rome alone has Universal Jurisdiction despite the Church of Antioch and Alexandria being founded by Saint Peter (which would mean there would be, in Rome's communion alone, 5 Successors of Saint Peter; Rome, Coptic Catholic Alexandria, Melkite Antioch, Syriac Catholic Antioch, Maronite Catholic Antioch).

While Saint James in charge of the Church of Jerusalem, that does not mean that each Bishop of Jerusalem (given that there are multiple claimants in different jurisdictions; Rome, Eastern Orthodox, Armenians) is a direct, literal successor of Saint James in particular.


Orthodox theology differs in that each Bishop is a direct successor of the Apostles in toto, because Peter, while the pre-eminent and first Apostle, is not viewed as a Prince above the other Apostles.

[Xavier]

1. The other Apostolic Churches - the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Ancient Churches of the East - claim the exact same thing as the Catholics, as having an exclusive claim on being the True Church, so I have to "make a wager" against these other probabilities.

You're misunderstanding. The Orthodox admit those born Catholics can be saved as Catholic. See: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them." even from a relatively rigorist Orthodox site: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/metphil_heterodox.aspx That was from Theophan the Recluse.

You were born Catholic. Therefore, you can be saved as Catholic. If the Catholic Church is true, or even if supposedly Orthodoxy is true. That's 100%.

But if the Catholic Church is right, you cannot be saved after lapsing to a separated group, unless you become Catholic again; that's  a 50% unnecessary risk of eternal damnation, even if you believe Catholicism and Orthodoxy are equally probable. That's Paschal's Wager.

2. Even if I picked the right Church, and the Catholic Church - whichever communion that is - was right, my false belief would not merit me Salvation

No, but you would not lose out on all the graces you have been losing out on; by going to Confession and Holy Mass in the Catholic Church, and by praying the Rosary etc, you could easily, in time, receive the light and grace to be enlightened and save your soul. Now, it is uncertain; because, as you've seen, you fall into further and further error. So far as doubting the Bible and Christ Himself. That would never happen if you were a Rosary-praying, Confession-going, Mass-attending Catholic; you would receive so much more Grace.

Roman Catholic theology holds that each Bishop has the authority the Apostles generally, but the Pope is the direct successor of the specific Apostle of Saint Peter

Yes, agreed. All historical Churches that have a connection to the Apostles are respected by us. And the more, those that have a direct connection to St. Peter, such as Alexandria and Antioch. This was admirably explained by Pope St. Damasus: https://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/pope-are-the-other-patriarchs-dependent-on-rome.php

"Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the Holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name "Christians" was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)"

Alexandria and Antioch come next after Rome. Any Bishop at any time can receive authority from the Successor of St. Peter. This applies even to schismatic Bishops. If happily they return to Catholic Communion, they can be Confirmed by the Successor of St. Peter, and legitimately appointed or properly installed to the diocesan sees of their respective Churches, as has happened many times before. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quartu.htm

"33. We will add some remarks on Our prohibition of the enthronement of Patriarchs before Holy See. The writings of the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never been considered definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff. Accordingly, it is learned, those elected to patriarchal sees always sought such confirmation, with the support of the emperors. Thus, to pass over other names in a well known affair, Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople (a man who certainly did not serve the Apostolic See very well), and even Photius himself (the first cause of the Greek schism), requested the Roman Pontiff to confirm their elections by his consent. To this end they employed the intervention of the emperors Theodosius, Michael and Basil. For this reason the Fathers of Chalcedon, even though they declared all the acts of the robber synod of Ephesus invalid, willed that Maximus Bishops of Antioch remain in the see. He had replaced Domnus by authority of that synod since “the holy and blessed Pope who confirmed the holy and venerable Maximus as bishop of the church of Antioch appeared to have approved his merit in a just judgment.”[49] ...

But if you consider the patriarchs of those churches which in more recent times have renounced schism and returned to Catholic unity, you will find that all of them asked for confirmation from the Roman Pontiff; the Roman Pontiffs confirmed them all by letter in such a way that at the same time the Pontiffs appointed them and placed them over their churches ... [and on interference of worldly powers with the divine rights of the Papacy and of the Church] Therefore, the teaching of the Catholic Church received from Christ Himself, and handed on by the holy Apostles, is that the things of Caesar must be given to Caesar, but to God must be given the things of God. For this reason, when it was necessary, Our predecessors never avoided impressing on princes their duty of faith and obedience. Hence the administration of civil affairs is proper to the ruler, but ecclesiastical affairs are entirely the concern of the priests. Among these affairs are to be reckoned everything which is necessary to establishing and maintaining the so-called exterior discipline of the Church. It would be heretical to affirm that the use of this power received from God is an abuse of the Church’s authority; Pius VI already determined this.[57] The Apostolic See has often taken great pains to maintain this distinction of powers. St. Athanasius called the interference of secular rulers in Church affairs “a novel spectacle” and “an invention of the Arian heresy.”[58] Other prelates openly condemned it, among them Basil of Caesarea, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom and John Damascene. The last named affirmed publicly that “no one would persuade him that the Church is governed by imperial edicts; it is ruled by the customs of the Fathers, both written and unwritten.”[59] For the same reason the fathers of the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon declared publicly in the case of Photius, Bishop of Tyre, gaining the assent even of the servants of the Emperor, that “no pragmatic (that is, imperial decree) will be valid in opposition to the rules: let the canons of the Fathers be binding. “And when the imperial servants inquired “whether the holy synod wanted this to be defined in regard to all pragmatics which were in conflict with the canons, all the bishops answered, ‘All the pragmatics will come to an end: let the canons be binding, and let you see to this.'”

What Constantinople attempted to inaugarate, in Canon 28 of Chalcedon and elsewhere, was Caesaropapist subjection of Church to State. The idea that a see's prestige is due not to Apostolic origin, but to mere secular preference, as the CE notes, should have led to Patriarchal Sees in London, Paris, and New York; and Constantinople again would have been reduced to lowest, after it lost secular power. The Catholic Church has never accepted such ideas. They subject Christ our God and King to caesar. All rights come from Christ's Institution and from Apostolic Commandments.

[TheReturnofLive]

1. The other Apostolic Churches - the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Ancient Churches of the East - claim the exact same thing as the Catholics, as having an exclusive claim on being the True Church, so I have to "make a wager" against these other probabilities.

You're misunderstanding. The Orthodox admit those born Catholics can be saved as Catholic. See: "You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them." even from a relatively rigorist Orthodox site: http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/metphil_heterodox.aspx That was from Theophan the Recluse.

. . .

But if the Catholic Church is right, you cannot be saved after lapsing to a separated group, unless you become Catholic again; that's  a 50% unnecessary risk of eternal damnation, even if you believe Catholicism and Orthodoxy are equally probable. That's Paschal's Wager.

This one Saint doesn't actually answer the question that the Catholics will be saved but answers the question with a nonanswer of "God desires all men to be saved" and "trust in God."

How do you feel about the fact that a Liberal who has stated that the Orthodox Church's doctrine of homosexuality needs to be questioned, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, says this:

"All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church"...Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved....yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say."


That's in addition to all the first millenium Saints who said the same:

Saint Gregory the Dialogist:
"Now the Holy Catholic Church proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped save within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."

Saint Fulgentius:
"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Saint Cyprian:
"He who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ; he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother. Our Lord warns us when He says: `he that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.’ Whosoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ."

Saint Augustine:
"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and preach it too, but never, never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

Saint Cyril of Alexandria:
"Woe to the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come: but woe to that man by whom the offence comes." For offences of this kind, caused I mean by unholy heretics, are not levelled against some single individual, but are aimed rather against the world, that is, against the inhabitants of the whole earth. And the inventors of such offences the blessed Paul rebukes, saying, "But in thus sinning against the brethren, and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ." And that such offences might not prevail over the faithful, God somewhere spoke unto those who are the ambassadors of the upright word of truth, and skilful in teaching it, saying, "Go through My gates, and make a pathway for My people, and cast away the stones out of the way." And the Saviour has attached a bitter penalty against those who lay such stumbling-blocks in men's road."

[Xavier]

"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Yes, this teaching of the Catholic Church was formally pronounced, against formal schismatics intent on obstinate separation after having received the Scriptural Two Warnings, at Lyons II and Florence, in that same Council of Florence in these words: "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward ... https://catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

This applies to all who are knowingly separated or obstinately apart from the Catholic Church, as St. Augustine and St. Optatus had also said to the Donatist Schismatics. "we must see who was the first to sit on the Cathedra, and where 30 he sat. If you do not know this, learn. If you do know, blush. Ignorance cannot be attributed to you----it follows that you know.31 For one who knows, to err is sin. Those who do not know may sometimes be pardoned.32

You cannot then deny that you do know 33 that upon Peter first 34 in the City of Rome 35 was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra,36 on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas 37), |67 that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all,38 lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra 39 would already be a schismatic and a sinner. |68

Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.40" http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/optatus_02_book2.htm#C3