The Public Square
Richard John Neuhaus died on January 8, 2009, at the age of seventy-two—a great loss to the magazine, to American public discourse, and to his many friends.We present here a previously unpublished essay, “The One True Church,” which he wrote in New York during his last months, together with a few of our favorite While We're At It items from the nineteen years of his work in The Public Square.
My church is better than your church. It sounds like the stuff of schoolboy quarrels on the playground: My dad can beat your dad! Yet, sad to say, that is how many Christians have understood recent statements on Catholic ecclesiology. In 2000 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document called Dominus Iesus and then, in 2007, reiterated its main points in “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.”
The gist of these is that, with important qualifications related to Eastern Orthodoxy, non-Catholic churches are not to be called “Church” in the proper sense of the term but are better described as “ecclesial communities.” This was widely decried by many non-Catholic (and some Catholic) theologians as a departure from, if not reversal of, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. It was, we were told, a body blow to ecumenism, the quest for visible unity among Christians.
I have on occasion offered this proposition: “The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time.” Some of my critics have questioned whether that is adequate. To say that it is the most fully and rightly ordered, they contend, implies or at least invites the inference that other communities are also the Church of Jesus Christ, albeit not so fully and rightly ordered.
To think more fully about this, we need to clarify what the Catholic Church claims for herself and what she does, and does not, acknowledge with respect to other Christian communities. My own thoughts are occasioned by two essays I read recently: one by Avery Cardinal Dulles in a volume called Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition and the other by Christopher J. Molloy, an essay titled “Subsistit In: Nonexclusive Identity or Full Identity?” that appeared in The Thomist.
Before we can get anywhere with this discussion, two stipulations must be firmly in place. The first is that we are not engaged in a rivalry between our side and some other side. Some years ago, when William F. Buckley heard that a prominent Protestant had entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, he exclaimed: “This is great news. It's like the Yankees stealing the star pitcher from the Red Sox.” That is an understandable tribal response, but it takes us back to the squabbling of boys on the playground. Questions of great theological moment are at stake. In these matters, Catholic and non-Catholic alike should have as their one concern the question of what Christ intended, and still intends, for his one Church—it being understood by all that, in the deepest meaning of the term, there can finally be only one Church, since the Church is the Body of Christ, of which Christ is the head, and there is only one Christ.
Tribalism has no place in this discussion. As John Paul II reminded Catholics in his 1990 encyclical Redemptoris Missio, being a Catholic is not reason for proprietorial pride but for profound gratitude for a grace received, all undeserved on our part. Moreover, a Catholic who does not earnestly want to recognize and rejoice in the gifts of grace to be found in other Christian communities will almost certainly be more hindrance than help in this discussion.
The second and related stipulation is that we are not comparing an ideal depiction of the state of Catholicism with less flattering depictions of other communities—or vice versa. It is not a matter of what we like or dislike in this community or that. I have decided views on certain Orthodox and Protestant virtues that Catholics might well emulate. As Malloy writes, in reflecting on the uniqueness of the Catholic Church “one can affirm both the essential fullness of the ecclesial reality of the Catholic Church and the concrete poverty and woundedness of her lived life, together with her practical need of the expressive ecclesial riches found outside her visible boundaries.” Not only can one affirm both, one must affirm both.
Subsistit In
With those two stipulations firmly in place, one notes that the chief reason the documents of 2000 and 2007 were viewed as setbacks to ecumenism is that, for a long time and in many quarters, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council was gravely misrepresented. Cardinal Dulles writes that there still exists a general impression that Vatican II mandated a revolution in Catholic ecclesiology. He cites writings by John O'Malley as well as those by Gregory Baum, who claims the council reflects a “Blondelian shift” from “extrinsicism” toward experience and immanence. The Church is what you experience it to be. Richard McBrien speaks of “Copernican” and “Einsteinian” revolutions that overcame the unhealthy “ecclesiocentrism” of the past. Others claimed the council teaches that the Catholic Church is but one church among many. Some went further, saying that the Church is not only not the ordinary means of salvation; it is an extraordinary means for people who happen, for one reason or another, to be Catholic.
So what is to be made of all this? A good place to start is with what the Second Vatican Council actually said. Lumen Gentium, the Constitution on the Church, reads: “This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, which our Savior, after his Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which he erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”
Much ink has been spilled in unpacking those three sentences, with most particular attention being devoted to the words “subsists in” (subsistit in). Much is made of the fact that the first draft of the constitution said that the Church of Jesus Christ is (est) the Catholic Church, which suggests that the final wording is a weakening of a straightforward identity of the Church with the Catholic Church. Both Dulles and Molloy point out, however, that subsistit in did not replace est but replaced adest in—“is present in”—a phrase that appeared in an intermediate draft. As a matter of fact, subsistit in was proposed by Sebastian Tromp, who had been a staunch proponent of the earlier est and the position that the Church of Christ is identical with the Catholic Church. In addition, the great majority of conservative bishops at the council voted in favor of the final draft, which clearly suggests that they did not think subsistit in was a watering down of the Church's self-understanding.
A few years before he became pope, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger explained it this way:
The word subsistit derives from ancient philosophy, as it was later developed among the Scholastics. It corresponds to the Greek word hypostasis, which of course plays a key role in Christology in describing the union of divine and human natures in the one person of Christ. Subsistere is a special case of esse. It refers to existence in the form of an individual subject. . . . With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multipliability of the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church: the Church exists as a single subject in the reality of history. But the difference between subsistit and est also embraces the drama of ecclesial division: for while the Church is only one and really exists, there is being which is from the Church's being—there is ecclesial reality—outside the Church.
The elements of sanctification and truth to be found outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church are ecclesial elements. Can there be ecclesial elements without ecclesia? Obviously, some fine but important distinctions are in order. The late Johannes Cardinal Willebrands, longtime head of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, was fond of saying, “Christ and the Church are coterminous.” I take that to mean that, if one is in a living relationship with Christ, one is also in relationship with his Church, for body and head cannot be separated. Therefore communities of faith outside the Catholic Church are ecclesial communities.
And therefore Lumen Gentium says that non-Catholics who are baptized and believe in Christ are in a “certain but imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.” The goal of ecumenism is not to create a unity that does not exist but to bring to fulfillment the very real unity that is already there between Catholics and non-Catholics who are brothers and sisters in Christ. (For purposes of this discussion I leave largely aside the situation of the Orthodox, who have valid ordination and other sacraments and adhere to apostolic teaching. Among the Orthodox, according to Catholic doctrine, there are not just ecclesial communities but “particular churches,” although they are, in the language of CDF, “wounded” by the lack of full communion with the ministry of Peter exercised by the bishop of Rome.)
Realizations of the Sacrament
Molloy and others speak of the “full,” “complete,” “total,” and “exclusive” identity between the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ. Such language can easily mislead and is understandably offensive to non-Catholic Christians. The intention, however, is to underscore that the Catholic Church is nothing less than the Church of Christ and to counter any suggestion that the Catholic Church is—albeit the most fully and rightly ordered—only one church among other churches. Again, this is not a matter of boasting or of ecclesial rivalry, which should have no place among followers of Christ. It is a matter of being as faithful as possible to what Christ intended his Church to be.
Since Christ is manifestly present in other communities, and since Christ, the head, can never be separated from his Body, the Church, how are we to understand the presence of the Church in these communities that possess “ecclesial elements”? One formulation is offered by John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint: “Insofar as these kinds of elements exist in other Christian communities, the one (unica) Church of Christ has an efficacious presence therein. On this account, the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, albeit imperfect, communion. The constitution Lumen Gentium highlights that the Catholic Church knows that ‘for many reasons she is joined' to these communities in a certain real communion of unity in the Holy Spirit.”
Molloy puts it this way: “Dominus Iesus states not that the Church of Christ exists only in the Catholic Church . . . but that the Church of Christ exists fully only in the Catholic Church. The same document affirms that non-Catholic communions with valid orders and a valid celebration of the Eucharist [i.e., Orthodox] are ‘true particular churches.' Therefore, the Church of Christ can exist elsewhere, though not fully.” Then one must ask, what Church is it that exists in the Orthodox particular churches and in the non-Catholic ecclesial communities? The answer would seem to be that the Church that exists elsewhere than in full communion with the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.
An implication of that answer is that everyone who is baptized and believes in Christ is Catholic, although in imperfect communion with the Church. Some Christians who are quite sure that they are not Catholics may view that claim as an instance of outrageous ecclesiastical cheekiness, of recruiting by definition people who do not want to be Catholics.
Others, more charitably, may view it as the best that Catholics can do, given their peculiar ecclesiology. Yet others may recognize it as a consistent working out of what it means to be in continuity with the apostolically constituted Church as a distinct society through time. They might further recognize that the presence of the Catholic Church in their ecclesial communities gravitates toward full communion with the Catholic Church. Again the words of Lumen Gentium: “These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.”
Does this mean that all Christians are members, or partial members, or something like honorary members of the Catholic Church? The Church does not say so. In the 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (On the Mystical Body of Christ), Pius XII addressed the meaning of membership in the Church, but, as Cardinal Dulles writes, Vatican II took a somewhat different approach. The emphasis of Vatican II is on the Church as sacrament, which, he says, is of “foundational importance” to the ecclesiology of the council, appearing four times in Lumen Gentium and six times in other documents of the council.
Dulles explains: “Avoiding the term ‘member,' which had become bogged down in controversy, [the Council] spoke of perfect and imperfect realizations of the sacrament. The sacrament of the Church is fully realized only in the Catholic Church, the visible and grace-filled society in which the bonds of professed faith, ecclesiastical government, and sacramental communion remain fully intact. These bonds belong together insofar as the true Church indefectibly possesses them all. But the bonds are separable in the sense that some may survive in the absence of others. Non–Roman Catholic communities may possess some authentic ecclesial elements and be able to make fruitful use of them as channels of grace.”
I would only offer what I am sure Cardinal Dulles would recognize as a friendly amendment, namely, that such communities do possess such elements and do make fruitful use of them. The Council teaching readily recognizes the evidence of Christian faith and holiness outside the boundaries of the Catholic Church; evidence, one might add, that is sometimes more conspicuous than the evidence found among some who are in full communion with the Church.
And yet there is no denying that Dominus Iesus of 2000 and “Responses to Some Questions” of 2007, both interpreting Vatican II according to the hermeneutic of continuity, were viewed by many as a cause of ecumenical scandal.
These documents said nothing new but simply aimed at correcting misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the Church's teaching that had occasioned serious ecumenical confusions. Some Protestants thought that repeating the points in 2007 was rubbing it in a bit, but I suppose CDF had its reasons. In any event, we do Christian unity no favors by fudging what we actually believe.
Moreover, most non-Catholic Christians in the West do not bridle at the claim that what is authentically Christian in their communities is derived, in one way or another, from the apostolically continuing tradition that is the Catholic Church, beginning with the canon of Holy Scripture and the Christological and Trinitarian definitions of the early councils. Of course, what they have selectively received from the Catholic Church they have revised and reformed according to their understanding of the Bible or of the needs of the time, and such changes are the subject of continuing ecumenical conversation. People of goodwill do not take umbrage at the claim that such elements are “gifts belonging to the Church of Christ [and] are forces impelling toward catholic unity,” although they have their own ideas about what form that unity should take.
All Christians can agree on the formula that there is finally only one Church because there is only one Christ and the Church is his Body. Of course, Catholics are insistent that the one Church is both visible and invisible. But all affirm the maxim extra ecclesia nulla salus—at least to the extent that one must have heard the preaching of the gospel or read the Bible, both of which are impossible without the Church. As for saying that these other associations are ecclesial communities rather than churches in the full sense—as, for instance, the “particular churches” of Orthodoxy are churches—this should cause no hard feelings. Such communities do not claim to be what the Catholic Church claims to be.
They readily acknowledge that they are human associations united by common belief and purpose. The Presbyterian Church USA was formed in 1983, the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod in 1847, and the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845, while the Episcopal Church claims a more venerable, or at least longer, legacy reaching back to Henry VIII's styling himself Supreme Head of the Church in England in 1534. True, there are Landmark Baptists and sundry Campbellites who claim they have uniquely preserved or restored the true Church of the New Testament, but most of them do not take that improbable claim very seriously today, and those that do are not part of the ecumenical project.
Most Fully and Rightly Ordered Through Time
In sum, Catholics should not fear offending our ecumenical partners by affirming what we believe the Catholic Church to be. To be sure, that affirmation has weighty implications. For instance, Lumen Gentium also says, “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” But that, too, should not offend non-Catholic Christians, since we can all agree that such a person would be acting against his conscience and his sure discernment of the will of God. If he continues on that course without repentance, he could not be saved. It is quite a different matter with those who do not know—i.e., do not recognize the truth—that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be. They are wrong about that, of course, but that, presumably, is one reason why they are not Catholics.
And so I think I'll stay with my admittedly provocative title, “The One True Church.” In accord with the Church's teaching and appreciative of the scholarship of such as Cardinal Dulles and Christopher Molloy, I will also continue to make the case for the proposition that “the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time.”
For the Christian Church to be a legitimate participant in the public life of the broader societies and world in which it finds itself, it must be a distinct, identifiable community. One question suggested by this essay is this: to what extent should we as protestants be concerned that a multiplicity of distinct, identifiable communities exist, which are at times loosely linked, and at other times quite contrasting? Futhermore, should protestants be perpetually content with the “invisible” and “imperfect” unity that has been the state of the Christian community for centuries? Should we more actively seek “visible” unity by ultimately desiring “institutional” unity as well? These questions and the following response are not meant to discount the genuine ecumenical efforts that have taken place over the years from both the Catholic and Protestant sides, but only to assert their insufficiency so far.
ReplyDeleteAs a brief history, the Church was institutionally united for over 1000 years, until 1054 A.D., at which time the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated one another. Thus came the development of Eastern Orthodoxy as distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Bishop (the Pope) had from very early on been considered “first among equals” with respect to the other bishops of the Church (I think there were 5 or 6 bishops at the time). The Bishop (Patriarch) of Constantinople was regarded as second in prominence and because of political tensions and distrust as well as some theological rifts, a schism ensued. Attempts were made to repair the damage but healing never took place. In 1964, however, Pope Paul VI met Orthodox Patriarch Athenagorous I of Constantinople (Istanbul), and they embraced. A year later in 1965 the Pope and Patriarch officially lifted their excommunication decrees on one another. It only took 1900 years, but it was an important expression of Christian unity.
The other story of schism is of course related to the Reformation in the 16th century, starting with Martin Luther. From my perspective, a few points need making. First, Luther did not want reform that ended with a separate church but instead desired reform from within the Catholic Church. Central to his frustrations toward the Catholic Church was its selling of “indulgences” and the suggestion that salvation came not through faith in Christ and his sacrifice but through a man-made economic transaction. Regardless of Luther’s ultimate desire for unity, schism occurred. Which leads to my second point. Schism continues to occur, but where does it or should it stop? Consider the recent fractures in the Anglican Communion and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). And what about the split between the Reformed Church of America and the Christian Reformed Church or the break from the Methodists by the Nazarenes before that or the explosion of Evangelical non-denominational Bible churches that, implicitly at least, emerged because other main-line and conservative protestant denominations and the Catholic Church were all perceived to be inadequate? In the interest of disclosure, I have been deeply involved in two large, non-denominational Evangelical churches, one of which, Mars Hill (Grand Rapids, MI), I still profoundly respect and support. And I was baptized and confirmed in the ELCA, a denomination that the majority of my church-going family is still apart of. Saying this, as I read this article and many others, I now believe I must be able to answer the following question: why I am I not apart of the Catholic Church? I realize many Christians can give immediate answers to that question, but I no longer can. I guess this would be my final bit of disclosure.
What has happened cannot be undone. And, as Father Neuhaus states and the Catholic Church officially teaches (and I certainly affirm), “Christ is manifestly present in other communities [outside of the Catholic Church] [and] many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its [the Catholic Church’s] visible structure.” But should we as protestants ask ourselves individually and collectively as “ecclesial communities,” what would be required of the Roman Catholic Church for me/us to legitimately consider reentering its fold? And as a fair follow-up question, what distinctives and riches from the ecclesial community of which I am apart would need to be permitted by Rome for me/us to reenter its fold?
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that for western protestants, our connection to the apostolic tradition leading to Jesus and his election of his first disciples flows directly through our connection with the Roman Catholic Church. And yet the Roman Catholic Church still exists. For this reason Father Neuhaus begins and ends his essay with the claim, “The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time.” Is this sheer arrogance or is it simply empirically and historically true? If it is true, does the Catholic Church have a special responsibility and claim to Christian unity? If this is true, whether one considers becoming a Catholic or not, should not protestant theology and practices at least always be in deep “conversation” with the theology and practices of the Catholic Church? As I asked before, should “visible” or even dare I say “institutional” unity of the Church matter more to protestants? I think so.
I will post a new article in the next day or two, but please consider commenting on this article or my response if you have a chance.
Wow, where to start? I know you have been asking yourself the question quite a bit recently, Nate, so let me provide my brief rejoinder to the question of "why Protestant?" I obviously have a bit of selection bias working here, but I think the points will stand on their own merit.
ReplyDelete1. To say the Catholic Church is the "most rightly ordered" Christian community is to make an argument for a very specific type of hierarchy, in which the average believer finds him or herself on the bottom of a pyramid, with God at the top and several levels of intermediaries between. When I look at the ministry of Jesus, I don't see His intent to establish another religious bureaucracy (in fact, I think His fierce criticisms of the religious leaders of the day were a warning about what happens when we indulge our natural proclivity for organizations in order to assert our temporal power). Also, I think the form of the ministry of Paul and the other apostles also speaks against a centralized apparat. They didn't stay in any one area longer than it took to establish a community of believers in the core message of the Gospel, then they moved on (Newbigin actually delves fairly deeply into this).
For these and many other reasons, I believe the rigid hierarchy of the Catholic Church is an entirely human creation, for purely human purposes originating in the creation of a standardized doctrine (which is not a bad thing), but then becoming captured by "mission creep". As you know, i am deeply cynical about human nature, and I don't think it is a stretch to say that some of the early church leaders got a taste of life on top and created structures intended to keep them there. This process only accelerated once Christianity became bound up in Roman geopolitics, and led to the eventual establishment of Rome as the political center of the faith (the irony of which has always made me laugh because Rome was the antithesis of Christianity to John in the Revelation. From Jezebel to the Holy See.......)
Obviously, I will not lightly cast aside the centuries of tradition and philosophy that arise out of Catholicism, and I think they are extraordinarily valuable to all Christians. However, my criteria for entering their faith community would be a unilateral demolition of the entire papal authority structure, which I don't think is going to happen anytime soon. We have to be VERY cautious about inserting any gatekeepers between God and ourselves, and even more careful when those humans want to play a role in our absolution. I will be a part of whatever faith community does the most effective job of evangelizing the Gospel while keeping bureaucracy to a minimum, and as it stands right now i think the evangelical Protestants have everybody beat (though not always by much). This is just my initial gut reaction, and not nearly as well thought out or written as your question.......
Phil, as usual, you give a thoughtful, compelling critique. My response is based on my initial encounter (mostly over the past several months) with the doctrines, practices, and history of the Catholic Church and, admittedly, much of this response is tentative. I am not trying to be a Catholic apologist (though at times it might sound like it), but simply an honest Christian.
ReplyDeleteNeuhaus proposes that the Catholic Church is “the Church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time.” Part of what he is saying is that there is a thread of continuity between the Catholic Church as it presently exists and the historic Christian Church through the ages that is more robust than the thread that connects to any other ecclesial community. He is also saying that the resources of Christian belief and practice are most fully maintained within the Catholic tradition. I’m still wrestling with these ideas, but they are not so implausible to me anymore. The Catholic Church also claims that its succesion of popes are figures that constitute the line of St. Peter, on whom Christ promised to build his church (Matthew 16:18). I’ll quote directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the twelve with Peter as their head...The twelve and the other disciples share in Christ’s mission and his power, but also his lot. By all his actions, Christ prepares and builds his church” (pg. 219). A few pages later the Catechism describes the Church as both a “society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ” (pg. 221). This last statement is critical; the Church is both its visible structure as well as the life of a human community oriented toward Christ that cannot be ultimately and completely captured by that visible structure. Again, until this past year, I would have chalked many of these claims up to Catholic bizarreness, but I no longer see it that way.
To address a few of your points directly:
ReplyDelete...“When I look at the ministry of Jesus, I don't see His intent to establish another religious bureaucracy”
-Jesus did institute an order amongst his disciples. Peter was designated “first among equals.” Can this possibly foreshadow the ordered hierarchy of the Catholic Church? I won’t go so far, but I will say that I don’t think Jesus’ life and teachings lead us necessarily to condemn this hierarchic structure. At this point, I am unwilling to wholeheartedly defend something that I don’t fully understand, but I am more open to the possibility of its legitimacy.
...“I think the form of the ministry of Paul and the other apostles also speaks against a centralized apparat. They didn't stay in any one area longer than it took to establish a community of believers ...”
-This is true. But you mention it as the basis to advocate a decentralized Church structure. I think you miss a very important aspect of the development of the New Testament Church. For instance, the Letters to the church at Corinth were, in part, Paul addressing a church experiencing much internal conflict and explaining what it means to be a Christian community. He spoke with authority to them, and the Church councils that later carried out the cannonization process affirmed his authority by including these letters in the Bible. The Apostle Paul may have left after disciples were made in a particular community, but these churches were not left to mere organic development without external, authoratative influence. Consider this passage in 1 Corinthians 1:10 “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” Their divisions were largely over authority, and Paul exercised his authority given by Christ by writing this letter.
-I want to make a broad point about your concerns over a hierchic structure and the human proclivity toward organization to assert temporal power. First, we must distinguish authority from power. Authority is the capacity of a person or institution to achieve loyalty, submission, obedience, etc. from adherents without use of coercion. Power, however, often accompanies authority, but is the act of getting submission and obedience by the use or threat of coercion. It is external force instead of internal assent. In the Middle Ages the church and government were fused together, thereby making the Catholic Church an agent of authority and power. It is no surprise that it reached terrible levels of corruption and injustice during this period. The Catholic Church now espouses religious freedom as one of the tenants of its social teaching. By this tenant, the Catholic Church suggests that its structure ought not be vested with political power. There is much more to be said, but my point is that not all bureaucracies are equal. The degree of access an institution has to means of coercion to gain obedience is a determinative factor in assessing its disposition toward corruption. The Catholic Church has authority but no longer has power.
...“We have to be VERY cautious about inserting any gatekeepers between God and ourselves, and even more careful when those humans want to play a role in our absolution.”
ReplyDelete-On page 277 of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” it cites John 20:22-23, “Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." In this passage the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples and said these words. I by no means want to begin the charade of proof-texting without context. I only add it here to make a larger point that the whole idea of Jesus calling a group of people to express his Gospel to the world is in a sense, “inserting gatekeepers between God” and the rest of humanity. I’m just saying that giving some people the authority to forgive sins of others in Christ’s name is not something the Catholic Church pulled out of nowhere. Lastly on this point, I am in the process of learning more about the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance (the outward expressions of salvation/restoration) for Catholics and some of it is uncomfortable for me.
...“Obviously, I will not lightly cast aside the centuries of tradition and philosophy that arise out of Catholicism, and I think they are extraordinarily valuable to all Christians.”
-You have said this in prior conversations, which I appreciate. The Catholic intellectual tradition is what began this entire inquiry for me a few years ago.
...“My criteria for entering their faith community would be a unilateral demolition of the entire papal authority structure...”
-This is certainly a prohibitive criterion. I read somewhere that Pope John Paul II (and maybe Pope Benedict too) solicited feedback from the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Churches on how the Vatican might restructure in order to make reunification possible.
Final points:
ReplyDelete-First, the best of Catholics readily admit their Church’s culpability in the Reformation, and they confess that the Roman Catholic Church is still wounded by it. Second, I think much of what happened during the Reformation was led by the Holy Spirit. Third, the Christian community should be bent toward visible unity, and disagreements should be able to take place without visible fracture following. Fourth, rather than being primarily negative, I think the Catholic Church’s hierchic structure allows it to be a legitimate transnational actor. It also produces an institutional memory, which can promote the pattern of “thinking in centuries” rather than adjusting to every new social “wind” that blows. Fifth, without such a structure, I’m not sure how Protestants would have received the Bible when the time came for its widespread distribution to the masses. Sixth, lack of affiliation to a hierchic and historical structure of authority leaves churches open to all kinds of dangerous teachings, personality cults, etc. Seven, Father Neuhaus, the author of the article, was a Lutheran pastor for 30 years before entering the Catholic Church as a priest. If my family and I eventually do enter the Catholic Church, I echo the words he wrote in another article directed to his protestant friends; they were very impactful for me when I read them: “To those of you with whom I have traveled in the past, know that we travel together still. In the mystery of Christ and his Church nothing is lost, and the broken will be mended. If, as I am persuaded, my communion with Christ’s Church is now the fuller, then it follows that my unity with all who are in Christ is now the stronger. We travel together still.”