Wednesday, September 20, 2006
NO APOLOGY NEEDED, THANK YOU
I wrote this on the above date. I was right.
"Benedict XVI will not apologize. He spoke the truth about Islam in Germany about one week ago. He knows it. The Muslim religious leaders know it. The Christian Theologians and Historians know it too. The Pope will not apologize for speaking the truth. I don't blame him and neither should you. Trust me, believe Benedict XVI on this."
It's almost a year since Benedict XVI told this to the Muslims and to the world about Muslims when he quoted a midaeval potentate about Islam. A day or so ago, Benedict XVI reminded us Catholics and the world that "[... Church of Christ...] constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him". (Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium, section 8.2)That's it, boys and girls, that's what we believe. That's what we live and die with. The Catholic Church is the one, true church, the one that Jesus Himself founded.
It is the truth that flows from that statement that is getting all the attention. Attention not only from the non Catholics, who have heard it all before, 45 years ago in Vatican II, but from the Catholics who also heard it and were not ready to hear what it means. In simple, stark terms it means that the Church of Christ, the one that He founded and the Catholic Church are identical. In simple stark terms it means that there are no directly interchangeable parts with others who from the 16th century forward, call themselves churches. For you older people, it means that your Chrysler Fluid Drive can't use my Buick Dynaflo Turbines. It means that your Buick is not a Chrysler and never will be. That is non-negotiable. The Catholic Church is the True Church, that is not negotiable.
Benedict XVI will never back down from this because it is dogma. He was there at St. Peter's when it was hammered out. A couple of months ago I was accused of being too conservative in my doctrinal statements. I was accused of not being ecumenical enough. I didn't show enough compassion and understanding of people from other religions. I couldn't figure out why. All I did was to comment positively on a Vatican document that said that Yoga is incompatible with Christianity, and Catholicism in particular. I have the Pope and the entire Vatican Council II on my side because I believe the dogma that defines our Church.
I have to clarify that the Orthodox Churches are true churches. They are true churches because they have maintained their connection with the Apostles. This is called the Apostolic Succession. They have valid ordinations of priests and bishops, they have valid baptism, eucharist, marriage, penance, confirmation and anointing of the sick. They are connected to Jesus through this succession and so they are true churches, intimately connected with the Catholic Church but have something missing that has to be connected before we can be whole again, and that is the live and valid connection with the Pope.
Even with these churches, we Catholics do not concede anything. We have deep theological understandings with them, but we remember that some of these understandings keep us apart rather than bind us together. Until these understandings come under the same truth, we will not be united and we will not apologize for our position. Neither will they, by the way. After all, a thousand years ago they called themselves "Orthodox" (right) while those attached to Rome called themselves, "Catholic" (universal).
This does not mean that we as Catholics do not believe in ecumenism. As a matter of fact, we have some of the most brilliant theologians in the world working in the ecumenical arena. Ecumenism is not a diplomatic negotiation. Ecumenism is a study of the different ways of looking at Divine truth and expressing the practices that stem from those views. Ecumenism is not a diplomatic game of "Alphonse and Gaston" for vicars; it is not a do-si-do" for parish leaders and it is not a round of cocktail parties for bishops. Ecumenism is a serious Theological endeavor that is closely monitored by the major Vatican departments, called "dicasteries". It comes directly under the Pope's direction in what is called the Congregation for the Unity of Churches. I believe that this congregation is competent to deal with the high level theologians and leaders of other religious communities in the world. I believe that the Unity of mind and heart of the Catholic Church is born of the Truth that sets us free. I believe that ecumenism is a drive towards the fullness of truth in the light of the Catholic Church.
I have had plenty of invitations to join other "churches". I have turned them down without a split second's hesitation. I'm not perfect but I'm still here. I have decided that I will die here too. With a hard head like that, why would you cry at my funeral? You'll know that I died happy, "cuz I dun it my way."
4 comments:
I'm new here so please help me understand... is it our DOGMA that defines us as "the one true church", or the BIBLE?
You say: "The Catholic Church is the one, true church, the one that Jesus Himself founded."
Hmmm. You and I must have read a different document. The document I read went into great detail explaining the difference between "subsist" and "is." Yet you ignore that distinction.
The document affirmed the one Church of Christ as also including members of other traditions, although the full spectrum of truth and means of grace exists in the Catholic Church.
You also seem to demean local efforts at ecumenism as "a round of cocktail parties for bishops" or "game of 'Alphonse and Gaston' for vicars." You say ecumenism is an effort to be undertaken only by theologians in official capacities. Yet virtually every Vatican document on ecumenism has explicitly stated that it is the responsibility of every Christian to personally work and pray for Christian unity.
I believe you owe your readers a clarification based on this and other documents.
This is the best Burning Question that we have posted in a long time.
The Bible and subsequent prayer and reflection have enlightened our collective conscience to define ourselves as the one true church. The Bible because it provides us with the historical and spiritual revelation that confirms that our behavior as a spiritual community is consonant with the spirituality and behavior of the followers of Jesus, the Apostles. Our historical and spiritual connection with Jesus and His Apostles as we verify by the biblical rendition generates and supports our Dogma.
Thanks for the probing question.
Paul Dion, STL
Theology Editor
ParishWorld.net
Deacon Stoltz:
Thanks for the comment. You requested a clarification. I am glad to oblige.
Deacon Stoltz:
You say: "The Catholic Church is the one, true church, the one that Jesus Himself founded."
Hmmm. You and I must have read a different document. The document I read went into great detail explaining the difference between "subsist" and "is." Yet you ignore that distinction.
P Dion
Allow me to quote the great detail of the response explaining the difference between "subsist" and "is".
Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?
Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"[11].
"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"[12].
What does this have to do with my use of the word, "founded by"?
The first sentence of the second question in the document says “Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5]. Is “founded” a close enough synonym of “established” or should I apologize for being imprecise? By the way, the footnote of this statement is, “This divine mystery of salvation is revealed to us and continued in the Church, which the Lord established in His own body.”( Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.1.)
I don't think that this distinction has anything to do with my statements. The explanation in question 3 brings out the fact that there is a relationship of identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church. The expression "founded by Jesus Christ" (“established by”, if you prefer)is doctrinally correct since the Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are fully identical, per the first sentence of the response.
Deacon Stoltz
The document affirmed the one Church of Christ as also including members of other traditions, although the full spectrum of truth and means of grace exists in the Catholic Church.
P Dion
You're absolutely right. All I said was that the parts are not interchangeable.
---
Thank you for being cautious and saying that I "seem to demean local efforts at ecumenism." To the extent that the expressions used could be construed to show a mean spirit, I apologize. What I do not apologize for is the truth contained in the meaning behind the words. Ecumenism is a technical exercise in systematic theology, not in negotiated accommodations. It is therefore to be left up to the experts.
It is true that "virtually every Vatican document on ecumenism has explicitly stated that it is the responsibility of every Christian to personally work and pray for Christian unity." I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I just as strongly disagree with equating "Christian unity" with "ecumenism". "Christian Unity" is a final product. "Ecumenism" is the work that is going on to get us there. Local efforts at ecumenism must be consonant with the results of the efforts of the Roman Curial Dicastery entrusted with this work. The Congregation for the Unity of the Church always communicates the results of its discussions with other groups around the world. Local accommodations made to Catholic doctrine and valid traditional magisterial pronouncements in order to "smooth things over" and facilitate rituals and other efforts at conviviality and/or human enhancement are not ecumenism. Yet, you and I both know that they happen and they are often incongruent with the fundamental doctrines of the Church. What we at the local level are called to do is to respect all people of all traditions, show Christian love and pray for the unity of all peoples.
Paul Dion, STL
Post a Comment