CTSA: Papacy is a 'gift' but needs repair, leading ecumenist says
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Miami
The papacy is a “gift” of the Catholic church to other Christians, a leading Catholic ecumenist said this morning, but it needs “repair” before those other Christians are likely to accept it.
Specifically, Margaret O’Gara of the University of St. Michael’s College in Toronto called for a papacy that’s “less centralized, less authoritarian, and more respectful of the diversity of local churches.”
O’Gara, the outgoing president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, delivered the concluding Presidential Address at the CTSA annual convention this morning in Miami. O’Gara is a longtime veteran of ecumenical conversations with a variety of Christian denominations.
O’Gara said she has been struck by the readiness of other Christian churches to embrace the papacy, citing a statement from the Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogue that the papacy is “part of God’s design for the church” and from the Lutheran/Catholic dialogue in the United States that the pope can function as a spokesperson for the gospel at the world level.
Pope John Paul II, O’Gara said, was an “engaging figure” for many Protestants, Orthodox and Anglicans, who admired his strong stands on issues such as abortion and war, his commitment to evangelization, and his capacity to project a Christian voice in global debates. At the same time, she said, John Paul’s pontificate left behind “a mixed heritage” ecumenically.
O’Gara cited eight motives for that ambivalence:
1. The Synod of Bishops remained merely advisory to the pope;
2. The authority of episcopal conferences was restricted;
3. A Vatican document on “Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion” asserted that the Petrine ministry is “interior to every fully local church”;
4. The Vatican document Dominus Iesus said that some Protestant and Anglican bodies aren’t really “churches”;
5. Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kasper carried out a debate over whether the local or universal church has priority;
6. The term from Vatican II that the church “subsists” in Catholicism was understood to mean that it exists fully only in Catholicism;
7. The ban on women’s ordination was declared definitive;
8. The volume of papal teaching raised questions about its authority, and what role it would play in sister churches if present divisions could be overcome.
In light of all this, O’Gara argued, the papacy must be reformed “in a more pastoral way, in a less centralized way, in a way that defends the diversity of the local churches” before it can serve the cause of Christian unity.
Concretely, O’Gara made two suggestions.
First, she suggested remedying what she called a confusion between papal infallibility and papal primacy, with the latter referring to the pope’s regular business of governance. Quoting the theologian Klaus Schatz, she said that primacy is too often treated as a sort of “ersatz infallibility,” so that even routine administration seems like an exercise of infallibility.
Second, she proposed reconsidering what she called the “classicist” language used buy the First Vatican Council in the 19th century to formulate the dogma of infallibility. Rephrasing the teaching in a more historically-minded fashion, she said, could make it less threatening to other Christians.
“Rather than appearing as an unchanging grasp of the truth, infallibility could be reinterpreted as the process through which, over time, the church discerns core teachings of the gospel for its age and culture,” she said.
Doing this, O’Gara said, will require some generosity on the Catholic side.
“Some Catholics don’t want to reform the papacy so that it can be shared with others,” O’Gara said. “They want it all to themselves, as a sign of their ‘identity.’” She challenged Catholics “to be willing, not just to keep wrapping [the papacy] up and offering it, but to do the hard work of reforming it first.”
O’Gara styled her address as a reflection on “old business” and “new business” in the ecumenical enterprise.
In the first category, O’Gara cited a number of areas where she said ecumenical dialogue over the last half-century has reached surprising breakthroughs: mutual recognition of baptism, the real and unique presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the church as communion, the need for a universal ministry by the pope, and acceptance of different forms of devotion to Mary.
All this, she said, reflects John Paul II’s insight in his 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint that sometimes “intolerant polemics and controversies have made incompatible assertions out of what was really the result of two different ways of looking at the same reality.”
At the same time, O’Gara complained that many of the agreements worked out in ecumenical dialogues have yet to be officially ratified and implemented by participating churches. Instead, she said, they “remain stacked up on the sidelines, gathering dust, as our churches procrastinate in their next steps.”
Under new business, O’Gara cited a number of areas where the various Christian denominations seem to be growing apart, including moral questions such as homosexuality and same-sex marriage, as well as doctrinal matters such as women’s ordination.
While acknowledging the importance of such questions, O’Gara warned against exaggerating their importance. She cited a tongue-in-cheek comment from the late German Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner about occasionally sensing a “neurotic fear that we may be in agreement.”
O’Gara offered two concrete examples of new issues on the ecumenical agenda. First, she said, many Evangelicals are troubled by the Catholic church’s post-Vatican II emphasis on the possibility that non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved. Second, other Christians disagree with Catholicism’s position on the ordination of women.
Without entering into the merits of those positions, O’Gara simply observed that neither were matters of dispute at the time of the Protestant Reformation. Protestants didn’t call women to ordained ministry in the 16th century, and Luther said that the native peoples of the New World would go to Hell because they had never heard of Christ.
O’Gara also pointed to new difficulties arising from pursuing dialogue in a globalized world, in which fault lines are not merely confessional but often cultural.
She pointed, for example, to her African students, who applaud the way Western Christians oppose abortion but are “scandalized” by the way they abandon their elderly in nursing homes. She said some Hispanic Catholics are ambivalent about ecumenism because their primary experience of Protestants is with fundamentalists whose interest is not dialogue but proselytism.
O’Gara also described her experience more than 20 years ago with her first Protestant student from China. After carefully describing the differences between medieval Catholicism and Luther on the Eucharist, O’Gara said, this student replied: “But in our church in China we hold both of those positions.”
All these questions, she said, will have to be taken up by a new generation of ecumenists. Doing do, she said, is essential “if we are to retain our Catholic identity.”
Margaret O'Gara misses the
Margaret O'Gara misses the depth of distrust for the bishop of Rome that exists in all other Christian churches. Sure, there are plenty of people who will say "John XXIII was a nice guy" or "JPII made really powerful statements". It's easy to say nice things when there's nothing at stake. All eight things listed for JPII's ecumenical legacy were mild symptoms of deeper suspicions.
Three questions occur to me that will have to be answered before unification with Rome even approaches being more than a laughable subject:
Popes have been wrong in the past; how can another Christian know when he's right or wrong?
Popes have been horrendously corrupt in the past; how will you keep this from happening again?
Popes have excommunicated those who don't deserve it, and left in place those who show neither remorse nor repentance; how will you keep the Church whole?
I'm sure there are others. Ultimately it's up to Rome to examine its history, find out what went wrong and why and see if it's even possible to prevent it from happening again. Other churches more or less just claim to be doing their best. If Rome really thinks it is first - and way, way, way out ahead of everything and everybody first - among equals, and wants unification, it really is time to grapple with history and show that it has the ability and the commission to lead Christ's church with the level of authority it claims. No other church sees any reason to believe it, and a great many reasons not to.
Frannie, If you were taught
Frannie,
If you were taught Catholicism was all about "me and Jesus," then you were receiving an evangelical Protestant education, not a Catholic one. Of course, there's an individual component: we have the freedom, individually, to accept or reject Jesus and the Gospel. But, as Catholics, we regard ourselves as part of the Body of Christ, which is inherently communitarian. Catholicism always holds a tension between the individual and the community. But it's never just "me and Jesus."
Dear Catmip and Frannie~
Dear Catmip and Frannie~ Several weeks ago I was reminiscing with my sister about our extended family. One of my most loved relatives was an aunt, a Sister of Charity. Just for fun I dug our her first communion gift to me, May 10, 1947. It is a little book, quite messed up by others who scizzered pictures from it and otherwise mucked it up. The title is: "Jesus and I" written for children by a Fr. Aloysius J.Heeg,S.J.
It is all about "Jesus and I" quite similar to "me and Jesus" but just a bit more grammatically correct. So, Frannie, if you have been so poorly educated as an evangelical protestant, that 'sect' seems to have found, retained something quite valuable and from which we can learn.
Someone criticized me for seeing love of self as an essential step in the process of loving God. If one truly loves oneself, one cannot stay within; one is equipped and impelled to recognize 'other' initially immmaturily as equally me and then as truly other, acknowledged as such and loved as such. The process to inclusivity is inevitable, if healthy. Even more so, when one recongizes and acknowledged Jesus one cannot (in human health or in message) remain 'one to one'. The process and progress of love in wholeness explodes into inclusivity, but the 'one to one' is never lost, never contradictory, never selfish never without being within the dimension of other and all, but needing and meriting the occasional quiet tranquility. The elements of the relationship(s) redound and strengthen, are tested, and grow. Or not.
When one calls the church a community, what is really meant, or implied? Community is a pretty ambiguous term. Is a community based on love hierarchical? When I join a group in which I have to submit to the rules and regulations and am excluded from certain places, functions or roles and 'expelled' if I don't agree to all the rules and, in advance, to all the rules that might be made by those in roles from which I am excluded. Is that a 'community'? Maybe I'm allowed but half of the group are not. I guess a 'club' or an'organization' are communities of a different sort, but not necessarily one that can be touted as what we usually think of or like to think of as community. Just thought I'd throw that in.
Are you saying that: If I do
Are you saying that:
If I do not adhere to the letter of the law of every catechism without question,
If I do not obey 100% of everything a cleric tells me without question,
If I do not adhere to 100% of every doctrine without question,
That somehow I am really a protestant and that I am rejecting Jesus?
Col55, Actually, yes you
Col55,
Actually, yes you would be considered a Protestant.
Well, I may not be able to make such a judgment, but I think the past popes and Dogmatic councils are justified in doing so.
Pope Innocent IV said: "Those who have detected even by slight proof to have deviated from the doctrine of the Catholic religion ought to fall under the classification of heretic and under the sentences operating against heretics."
Pope Leo XIII said: "The Church has always regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own"
The Council of Florence dogmatically stated that "The Holy Roman Church condemns, disapproves, anathematizes, and declares to be separated from the Body of Christ, which is the Church, everyone, who holds any contrary opinions."
Those who have detected even
Those who have detected even by slight proof to have deviated from the doctrine of the Catholic religion ought to fall under the classification of heretic and under the sentences operating against heretics."
"The Holy Roman Church condemns, disapproves, anathematizes, and declares to be separated from the Body of Christ, which is the Church, everyone, who holds any contrary opinions."
bmccaf10, under the doctrine of papal infallibility, you just condemned 99% of the laity, most of the clergy, and most if not all of the magisterium. Wow!!!! You have just singlehandedly proven that the the entire catholic church is really protestant and should be excommunicated ... very impressive!!! I am so glad you clarified that for us.
Wow, I guess that makes for
Wow, I guess that makes for the definition of "lean and mean."
Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Well, you're right on one
Well, you're right on one thing: you are NOT able to make such a judgment.
Did I even pass any
Did I even pass any judgment? I merely quoted Church teaching.
And as the person above has stated, if 99% of the Church is Protestant, than just further demonstrates how far the faith in our Beloved Church has fallen after the 60's. Before that, most who called themselves Catholic adhered to every doctrine. If a person who was baptized Catholic but did not adhere to every dogmatic and moral teaching, they said they were "not too good" at being Catholic. Now, everyone seems to think the Church is wrong and they are right. Talk about judging; judging the Church's teaching which were established by Christ and guided by the Holy Ghost is certainly more than any of us (including clergy)are allowed to do. We're very arrogant to think so.
"Well, I may not be able to
"Well, I may not be able to make such a judgment". That IS a direct quote from you. I merely am agreeing.
bmccaf10: you said: Did I
bmccaf10: you said: Did I even pass any judgment? I merely quoted Church teaching.
You are correct. I apologize.
It really would be a lot
It really would be a lot easier if we could look to our leadership as examples of how to live those teachings. Instead, what we have are examples such as Cardinal Law, AB Burke, and others, each of whom has left a wake of devastation behind them. If they were truly following Christ's teaching, wouldnt one expect to see greater unity and harmony in their wake?
It would be a lot easier if there was a loving, pastoral application of the doctrines, instead of what we are seeing now. There is a huge difference between recognizing that were are all "not too good", and being selectively excommunicated for not following an arbitrarily selected doctrine, and then justifying the action under the doctrine of magisterial infallibility.
I wasnt around before Vatican II, so I cant address your premise, but I would speculate that the percentages were probably the same, just a lot fewer people and a lot fewer parishes.
There was a news article today. Catholics are the largest religion in the US today. Ex-catholics are the 2nd largest religion. Why are there so many ex catholics?
I agree that the decisions of the leadership should be guided by the Holy Spirit. History shows us otherwise.
Is it arrogant to want a leadership that exemplifies love in its actions? Is it arrogant to want a leadership that practices honor, integrity, compassion? Is it arrogant to want a leadership that can be trusted to make wise decisions? Is it arrogant to want a leadership that is moral and ethical?
No, but apparently it's
No, but apparently it's delusional.
Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
I don't think Catnip is
I don't think Catnip is saying any such thing, since it would sure be tough for even bishops to live up to that.
Catnip is just pointing out (in a little too simplistic a fashion, but nonetheless) that evangelical Protestants see the the beginning of the spiritual life as germinating in the individual. Then those individuals come together and form a community, but everyone enters the church community the same way, as an adult individual.
The Roman Catholic view of the spiritual life is more like a family. Most people come become Roman Catholics not through RCIA but as infants, through infant baptism (and religious ed), just as most people first become part of a family not by marriage but by birth (and rearing).
The weakness of the protestant approach is that an adult can make the decision to leave a community as easily as enter it, witness the thousands of denominations. The weakness of the Roman Catholic approach is the tendency to not make the faith one's own as an adult and just coast on the childhood acceptance. The strength of the protestant approach is a strong commitment to the ideals of one's chosen community. The strength of the Roman Catholic approach is the ability to wait out the occasional rotten priest or bishop and stay connected with the community through the pains that come from sin's pervasive and destructive influence.
Thanks, Catnip. That's
Thanks, Catnip. That's helpful. But I'm still confused. Fr. Mark today on EWYN said we are saved as a community. I still don't get it. I was thinking that maybe salvation rests in the church ans she administers it, like through indulgences and general absolutions. I'm really lost here. I understand what you're saying about the communitarian life of the church, but I'm still confused about the salvation part.
Be patient with me--I'm old and fuzzy-brained.
Frannie~ I'm confused about
Frannie~ I'm confused about the community part. As I posted above, community is such an ambiguous or wildly analogous term that it can mean anything: community of man; community of interest; geographical community, community of religous; political (party) community; economic community,(free trade, corporation). Yet, we implicitly ascribe certain positive characteristics or 'emotional' tinges to the definition that are'nt necessarily integral to any one type of 'community'. Use of the term for church is as much abused as it is respected.
Blessed Karl, where are you
Blessed Karl, where are you getting that the church has taught for 2000 years that there were three pillars of the church? The 'magisterium' (which Jesus never intended to exist---because it is a copy of the Roman Empire's government---and was anathama to good Jews). This form of government evolved over several centuries and certainly did not exist in the time of Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement, etc. If the popes of the Middle Ages and the Reformation era had followed Jesus' commands ("Do you know what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord--and you are right, for that is what I am. So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you")---we would never had had a split with the Eastern Church, nor would Luther or the others have split with the Catholic Church.
Scriptures:
For Roman Catholics, it was at the Council of Trent that the canon of Scripture received its final definition in the decree 'De Canonicis Scripturis' (April 8, 1546). The early Christian church took about 300 years in formulating the canons of the scriptures. But please remember that they were being translated from Hebrew, Greek into the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. And then, they were further transcribed by the Benedictine Monks during the rise of the Medieval Age. But Roman Catholics didn't get the final definition until 1546--and then, they were really discouraged from reading Scriptures lest they interpret it. Catholics instead received a series of Catechisms. And in the United States, in the early nineteenth century, American Catholics received the Baltimore Catechism.
Apostolic succession and tradition
Peter was considered the first among equals. So were the next several popes (pope as a title did not exist for several centuries). And the early Christian churches were all "autochthonous". But the concept that Jesus ever said "You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it" originally occured this way. Jesus indicated to Peter and said, You are Peter (rock), but upon this Rock (pointing to Himself), I will build my Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." In the translation from Aramaic, the word, "but" was changed to "and". The entire sense of the statement was changed. That Jesus stated this as indicated in other places that "he is the Cornerstone rejected by the builders." Christians are the living stones that build the spiritual temple of which Jesus Christ is the living Cornerstone. This is found in Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21-22;. There was no mention of Peter being the Rock upon which Jesus' Church was built. This statement came later in writings such as the 'Donation of Constantine' and in the 'Isidorean Decretals' both of which were used to 'prove' that papal succession was from the beginning. As I stated above---both of these 'documents' are forgeries. And the Vatican record keepers will acknowledge it.
So please be careful in stating your comments. History does not support your contentions. By the way, Pope Paul VI, intended to give Catholics a constitution to elect their bishops as the early church had done( and other moderernizing elements in the Church). He had a committee meeting for about eight years from 1967 working on this process. However, when John Paul II was elected Pope, he did not trust democracy (coming from a nation ruled by both Nazis and Communists), so he had the Roman Curia bury the committee. A pity, because Constitutions are for mature adults. John Paul II gave us a Catechism which is for children. And this was a physical example of JP II's and Benedict's attempts to turn back the results of Vatican II to the pre-Vatican II days.
Questions, questions and
Questions, questions and more questions ...
If the catholic church is the one true church, then why does the catholic church have such a sordid and violence filled history? Did I miss the chapter where Christ said violence against another is acceptable if the church authorizes it?
If the catholic church today is following the teachings of Christ, then why has the magisterium not taken a formal stand to prohibit catholics from serving in military combat as other denominations have? By not doing so, aren't they giving implied consent to killing, which violates Jesus' teachings?
When the church sanctioned and supported the crusades, and ordered the slaugher of the muslims in the holy land, are we to believe that they acted in harmony with Jesus' teachings?
In the early church, a heretic was anyone who disagreed with the pope/church. Does that mean that everyone who is currently a member of any congregation other those approved by the vatican is a heretic? Was the torture and murder of heretics in harmony with divine love?
The catholic church sanctioned the inquisition. Are we to believe that they were acting in love when they sanctioned torture and murder?
And on and on and on it goes ….
It is easy to play a blame game on the churches that seperated themselves from the catholic church. However, if we make a truly impartial review, we see that the reasons for the "schisms" can all be reduced to a common theme: the catholic church was not acting in harmony with Jesus’ teachings, and those who seperated, left because they could no longer rationalize away the hypocrisy and apostasy of the catholic church.
Catnip and Blessed Karl, My
Catnip and Blessed Karl, My understanding of the kind of Christianity Luther created is based on experience. You are presenting Luther's (what shall we call them?) discussion points (?) as a theology. Some of these points were without a doubt extremely expressed in an extreme way in order to gain the attention of the Church that urgently needed reforming.
Instead of dialogue with Luther--and other clergy with similar perspective--the response was not only to reject the ideas, but to call for the man's execution. It would seem to me that if the thoughts of anyone writing here were to be met with a call for their execution, they would respond by rejecting the authority of the highest ranking individual making this judgment. When the Holy Spirit moved so many people to rally around Luther (my interpretation), Luther ended up in a position of having to define what it meant to be Lutheran.
Given the corruption of Christianity by the Catholic Church at that time in history, Luther's call for reliance on Scripture over Tradition was necessary. Nevertheless, much that comes from Tradition is actually part of the Lutheran religion, though it is not acknowledged as such since this Tradition is well-rooted in Scripture. While the popular response to Luther's being forced into taking this position was for people to claim their understanding of Scripture as valid ahead of the Catholic Church's understanding, the Lutheran Church's interpretation remains the same as the Catholic Church's interpretation.
Luther did not so much dismiss the role of works with regard to Salvation as he rejected the Church's claim in that time that one could earn or purchase one's own or another's Salvation. These days the Catholic Church also cites Scripture to teach that we are saved by God's grace, not by our own efforts or practices. Our deeds are a reflection of our love and faith, not our self-interest or fear. And, while Lutherans believe that one's good deeds have no salvific value, they do believe that one's bad deeds can earn one's eternal damnation.
Luther's anti-semitism cannot be denied. However, it was never made part of what it meant to be Lutheran. As to the restructuring of the Bible, again, I would see this as the result Rome's not being open to dialogue on the matter.
Over the years, Catholics have been taught things about Lutherans that are distortions. That was my point in asking what you meant, Blessed Karl.
The final
The final exam............"When was I hungry and you fed me? When was I thirsty and you gave me to drink? When was I naked and you clothed me? As long as you did it to me...." There will be no questions of faith on the final exam. Some people here are confusing the Final Judgement with the Inquisition.
I find it impossible to to reconcile the promised 'guidance of the Holy Spirit' with the 'self inspiration' offered to the few anti VatII devotees'. Did the Holy Spirit screw up or retire in 1958?
It would appear that the
It would appear that the Holy Spirit disappeared from the magisterium a lot earlier than 1958. At approximately the same time the Vatican Bank was established, several things happened. Musolinni bought the papacy's endorsement. The papacy was inspired to keep quiet about the holocaust in exchange for nazi gold. The church had priests working in concentration camps as commandants and officers.
I would say mid to late 1930's was the time the Holy Spirit disappeared from the magisterium.
Hmm Pelegianism, or semi-?
Hmm Pelegianism, or semi-? I haven't actually seen this one before. Anywho... wiki has a useful list of Bible versus on the necessity of faith (to be taken with, not opposed, to the list immediately following stressing the importance of works as well).
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
Something to
Something to ponder:
Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Protestantism, and others all have the same theological evolutionary heritage as contemporary catholicism. All of these are offshoots of medieval catholicism, all share the same heritage and lineage. All of these churches are built on the same rock of Peter that the catholic church claims to be built on.
Each and every one of these offshoots of medieval catholicism can validly proclaim themselves to be direct descendants of the Peteralian lineage of Christianity. Each and every one can validly lay claim to being the one true church.
Here is the conundrum:
The anglican church has the same heritage as the catholic church. From a point in time forward the catholic church seperated itself from the anglicans. Therefore, there is a distinctly valid arguement that can be made that it is in reality the catholic church that is guilty of schism, and it is the magisterium that orchestrated the division. It also can be validly argued that the abundance of moral, ethical and spiritual abuses of the catholic church magisterium through the ensuing time since the seperation are proof that it is in fact not the one true church. If it were, it can be argued that these abuses would not have happened.
Therefore, in order to promote Christian unity, and since it can be validly argued that it was the catholic church that created the schism, validly argued that it is the catholic church that is in error, which precludes the catholic church from being the one true church, the catholic church should take the loving and honorable action of submitting itself to the anglican doctrines, and acknowledging that the anglican church is in fact the one true church.
For those of you reading this and accusing me of heresy, remember as I said in the beginning, this is something to ponder, a thread to open a dialogue for discussion and enlightenment.
Note that essentially what I did was take magisterium rhetoric regarding christian unification, rearrange it a bit, and switch the words anglican and catholic.
Consider also that the anger that some of you who read this may be feeling, is reciprocated in kind by your brothers and sisters in other denominations when they read the catholic magisterium's unyielding demand that they submit themselves to the catholic church to promote christian unification.
All of these changed part of
All of these changed part of the Truth of the Deposit of Faith. Christ was the first to be Baptized by both Water and the Holy Spirit. He Has never left His Church.
Marie R., You are being
Marie R.,
You are being unnecessarily obtuse here. Martin Luther's "Christianity" has a different theological anthropology, a different notion of soteriology, and it embodies the modern approach to God: it is based on an individual's approach to God (whatever that may be) rather than a communitarian approach. Cutting the link with authority in the interests of "freedom," the sort of "Christianity" that Luther invented has little, if anthing to do with classical or normative Christianity, as represented by Catholicism. It is only superficially similar.
Dear Catnip, I heard a
Dear Catnip,
I heard a priest on tv say something very similar to what you wrote here. He said we are not saved as individuals but as members of a community. I don't understand this. My only religious education was 12 years of Catholic school and there it was always presented as "me and God." Jesus provided the means of my salvation and it was up to me to take hold of it. I never heard of this communitarian aspect. Can you help me understand it?
Marie R: The
Marie R:
The Christianity that Luther created was one of:
a) No Pope. He completely abolished the apostolic succession that the Church had 1,520 years prior to him. After Peter died Linus succeeded him, followed by Anicletus, followed by Clement..etc...
b) the Catholic Church has taught for the past 2,000 years that the three pillars of the faith were scripture, tradition and the magisterium. Luther, however, abolished tradition and magisterium and declared only scripture, sola scriptura, to be the only pillar needed. This is innerrantly false and has lead to the fracturing of Christianity into thousands of different denominations all fighting for who has the right interpretation of scripture.
c)Luther also believed in sola fide: being saved by faith alone. According to Luther there were no good works neccessary to achieve salvation.
d) Luther took seven books of the bibele, the deuterocanonical books, and put them towards the back because he believed that, though important due to their history, there were not on par with the rest of the books of the bible. Later on, Luther's successors would completely remove these books.
e) there was anti-semitism in Catholicism during Luthers time. However, read about what Luther though of the Jews. He took it to a whole new level and even advocated mass murdering all the Jews!!!!
Little Bear: when I say "orthodox" I do not refer to Eastern Orthodox but to Catholics who adhere to the Catholic faith as it has been taught and handed down to us for the past 2,000 years.
1) The Eastern Orthodox sacraments and priesthood are valid but illicit. They are still in complete schism with the Church. When a priest is ordained if he leaves the Church he does not lose the ability to celebrate sacraments. Ever since the schism the EO have not significantly changed their priesthood or sacraments, unlike the Anglicans, so they are valid.
2) I do not dispute what you are saying. However, Eastern Catholics are at least in communion with the Church as the original eastern Christians were. They do not follow the EO whom have schismed. JPII and Pope Benedict have both expressed admiration for Eastern Christian practices. Yes, there are some differences. But they do not propose any theology that is a complete turn around from the early Church fathers.
3)
Please read the following: http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
I will agree that there was some democracy early on. However, as the Church grew larger, this could no longer be acceptable. And with heretics entering the Church and distorting the message it is not prudent to have democracy in the Church. Why do you think it was abolished in the first place? As for John Carroll in Baltimore...how many priests or Catholics were there at the time? Not alot at all my friend. And the pope is the vicar of Christ. Vicar means acting in person of. The Pope, as successor of Peter, is acting guided by the Holy Spirit.
4)
Of course it evolved. If you were to show me your baby picture would I say "aha I know thats you! The similarity is astounding!" Of course not my friend. You grew up and your body and functions grew larger as you needed to further sustain your development and life. I agree with what youa re saying about the different rites subsisting in the Church. But also remember that the pope was regarded as "first amongst equals." We must also recall teh following incidents:
a) During the middle of the 2nd century Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna went to visit Pope Soter I in Rome. It was a discussion about the date of easter. Note it was one of the top bishops of the east going to visit the pope.
b) Pope Victor I (190 A.D) threatened to excommunicate (which he was highly criticized for) the eastern Christians for not accepting the western date of easter. Though he did not do this he executed Theodotus, a well-known heretic.
The rest of what you said I agree with. Though I do believe that the ROman Church was oldest. Whilst it is true that Peter went to Rome years after the establishment of Christianity it must be noted that Jesus instituted the Catholic Church. And, yes, this includes the various rites.
In regards to true ecumenis, this is a difficult matter. The Catholic Church is not able to compromise its beliefs. I think that even though we agree that there were different rites in the early Church they were all in communion with one another. Is this really what Jesus wanted...over thirty-thousand different sects competing with one another?! This is one of the greatest arguments against Christianity. The sheer number of sects does more to hinder, rather than promote, the Christian message. Protestantism is constantly schisming and "reforming" into more and more sects. The Eastern Orthodox, whilst having admirable customs, are not in communion with the Church unlike Eastern Catholics. This situtation is not going to strengthen Catholicism in the next 100 years against the coming onslaught of secularism and Islam. Christianity is unable to present a single united front against these two foes. Within Catholicism you even have Catholics saying not to convert Muslims! Divisions within the Catholic Church as Orthodox Catholics (not in the context of eastern orthodox) and liberals bicker and argue amongst each other and with other Christian sects! This is one of the reasons why true ecumenism (not relativism) is important.
Blessed Karl, You were using
Blessed Karl,
You were using the word "Orthodox" quite a bit in your post. Let's talk about the
"Orthodox" Christians---the Eastern Church. Jesus did not found the "Catholic" Church". He never gave it a name. His followers were called "Christians"--
that title given to them first in Antioch---and that title spread and became the name for the followers of Jesus Christ.
But officially, in 1155 (there had been dissention long before that)the Eastern Church and the Western Church split. The historical and theological reasons for this are long and convoluted---but the rupture occured. After Vatican II, after many, many centuries of bitterness on both sides, the Catholic Church has called the Orthodox Church its "Sister Church". Why?
1) Sacramental---The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Orthodox Church's sacraments. Not only Baptism (and by the way---the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Protestant Baptisms {provided the person baptized is either immersed in water or has water poured over their heads---using the correct formulary). But the validity of Confirmation (chrismation), Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick, and the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is recognized by the Catholic Church. If one is in an area of the world where only Orthodox Churches are available--one may attend Divine Liturgy (Mass) at one of these Churches on Sunday, receive Eucharist---and one's Sunday Mass 'obligation' is fulfilled. And if the Sacraments are valid, so are the priestly ordinations, the bishops, and patriarchs and their methods of governance.
How can this be, if the Catholic Church is the only church founded by Christ?
2) Theological---our Eastern Catholic Churches follow the Orthodox Churches' spirituality, liturgical rituals, etc. to a "T". The Eastern Churches (Catholic) acknowledge that the Pope is their head---a major difference from Orthodox Churches.
3) Papal Succession---Karl, for the first six centuries, the people elected the bishop of Rome---that is, the pope---by acclamation. And in our own country, in 1789, the priests of the original thirteen colonies elected the first American bishop, John Carroll of Baltimore. You are implying that Jesus established the "papacy" by placing Peter as the 'Leader' of the Apostles. But the early Church never thought in terms of Apostolic succession. In fact, the basis for Apostolic succession for centuries was based upon what was written in the Donation of Constantine and in the Isidorean Decretals----all of which were proven forgeries (and the Catholic Church recognizes that fact----if you can pin down Vatican sources who will admit that---and most will). And Karl, the pope is the vicar of Peter, not of Christ!
4) Governance---Jesus did not establish the magisterium---this evolved over the centuries. For several centuries, the Christian Church had a form of governance (and the Orthodox Churches still have it after over 850 years) called "autochthony".
Twenty-one autochthonous Churches exist within the Catholic Church. Some of them are very ancient, like the Melkites of Lebanon, who have a longer history than the Roman Church. They are all in communion with the pope, but they have their own governance, their own patriarchs, bishops, their own priests (some married and some {the monks}are not), and their own liturgies, in their own languages.
If true ecumenism is going to occur---Rome cannot be dictating all the terms to either the Orthodox or to the Protestants. The Catholic Church does not have a 'box' on all truth, just as the Catholic Church does not have God (all Truth) in a box. Christian Unity can only come with all churches (the Catholic Church included), praying, and listening intently to the truth that each of the churches bring to all discussions. And Karl, you are right, by saying the Pope, bishops, and priests must dispense of those areas that are not helping Christ's faithful (from all churches) get closer to God.
Could there be an
Could there be an autochthonous church growing in America?
The Polish National Catholic
The Polish National Catholic Church seems to be doing fine. http://www.pncc.org/
It appears that while
It appears that while Margaret O'Gara has stated that she believes that the Papacy is "part of God's design for the Church", she wants to change that design.
Cashelguy, can we talk?
yes, JPII thought it time to
yes, JPII thought it time to re-think the role of the papacy as well.
"Truth be told, my friends,
"Truth be told, my friends, the Church does not need reformers. It needs saints."
Just to nitpick (tired of beating my head against the wall), we do need reformers, who are also saints. Like our Holy Father, truly prophetic voices to restore continuity and identity within the Church, so that it can convert the world. 40 years of damage will take some time to set right.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
Stop beating your head
Stop beating your head against the wall. It's bad for the wall and it doesn't do your head any good either.
I believe the reformer/saints are among us. Their tragedy and ours is that we do not recognize them.
HT are you saying you don't
HT are you saying you don't think there were 1960 years or so of damage before VII? My, my, Satan surely is laughing his deriere off.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
The last forty years have
The last forty years have been as damaging to Faith and the Church, if not more so, then any similar period (protestant revolt included). (and now that the posturing is done)
Forty years ago we needed reformers, now we need heroes. Of course there has been a period of turmoil after each council, lasting about 50 years, and after that period the council was finally implemented. Perhaps now we are at the most turbulent time as the inital reaction to the Council finally gives way to the Council itself. Perhaps we are looking for Charles Borromeo, our Pius V. Perhaps they are out there, already making a difference.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
I have to disagree HT. The
I have to disagree HT. The time frame between 1930 and 1950 was the most damaging for the church. It was during that time frame that the Vatican bank was established using blood money from Nazi Germany and bribes from Mussolini. It was also during that time frame that priests served as guards and commandants of concentration camps, with the approval of the pope. In addition, papal pressure was used to prevent prosecution of some war criminals. Not to mention hundreds of thousands of conversions literally "convert now or we will kill you in the name of God"
You implied that the 40 years since Vatican II was more damaging than any other period. Do you really believe that? Are you really saying that transforming the Catholic Church to be more open to the laity is worse than having priests serving as guards in concentration camps? Worse than actively assisting the axis powers during WWII.
Vatican II was the beginning of an attempt to correct glaring errors within the Church. If anything, we need more of the last 40 years.
I can find no evidence on
I can find no evidence on the funding of the Vatican Bank from "blood money". (Well, except for a sight that blames WWII on the Jesuits).
The alleged co-operation of Pius XII with Nazi Germany would have been news to Hitler and Mousolini. He also condemned the forced conversions. (You really need to find some non-anti-catholic sources).
The horrors of war have a way of bringing out the absolute best in Man (as well as the absolute worst). WWII may have been humanities worst moment. It may also have been our best. The faith was encouraged by the heroic actions of many Catholics, from Kolbe to Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, from Karol Wojtyla to countless Catholics who helped Jews to escape.
In the last forty years we went from the highest rate of vocation, deeply held belief and devotion. Now we stand in the midst of a shortage of priests, many Catholics disbelieve at least one of the doctrines of the Church (even the Real Presence). Catholics have no distinct identity, they are indistinguishable in morality, behavior, even church attendance.
Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing, but expecting a different result.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
HT: You asked for evidence
HT: You asked for evidence - then read the following:
Genocide in Satellite Croatia 1941-1945
by Edmond Paris
There are LOTS of pictures, including photos of the clergy that were part of the
atrocities. There is an abundance of documentation, cross referenced, multiple sources, many of them from the Vatican.
(p 258) "there is a passage, following his last will, in which Pope Pius XII ... expresses remorse regarding his own personal attitude and silence concerning all the events and horrors previously described in this volume"
After you read the entire book as I have, then we can discuss your comments.
(You really need to find
(You really need to find some non-anti-catholic sources).
Lets see, according to canon, catechism and papal whatevers ...
--- if anyone speaks against the magisterium in any way,
--- they are automatically anti-catholic.
I would love to find some non-anti-catholic sources, problem is,
everytime I think I've found one, they are declared anti-catholic
by those who dont agree with their conclusions.
Interesting way of avoiding evidence you dont want to see.
You also said: "Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing, but expecting a different result."
You keep pointing the finger at Vatican II as the source of the problems in the church (last 40 years). The problems within the church have been happening for hundreds of years. Schisms have been the standard not the exception for the last 500+ years. Apparently the magesterium hasnt learned anything from that lesson, other than fingerpointing.
It has also been said that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to keep repeating them. 500+ years is a lot of repetition. How many more centuries before the leadership figures out that their way really isnt working?
Here today you live with an
Here today you live with an exclusionary mentality.Open the windows and doors of your church instead of closing them. That way people can see inside and even enter.
Do you know the difference between a ship and an armada? If you think of Catholicism as the center ship of an armada and it is surrounded by myriad other ships and boats, some sea worthy and others not so sea worthy but all capable of carrying souls. Most are marked with the sign of the cross. Some times some people take potshots at the other ships thinking they are doing the work of Jesus. I used to think like you.I was an anti-Protestant but if some people,priests bishops and even the Pope were knocked off their horse like St Paul was, they might hear the same voice saying "Why do you persecute me?"
I am Catholic in case you wondered and I exclude no one.
HT, you said "Forty years
HT, you said "Forty years ago we needed reformers, now we need heroes"
Given all of the magesterial abuses that Jesus is exposing within the leadership of the Church, (yes, Jesus is exposing) I believe that we need reformers more now than ever before. The sanctity of silence that the magesterium has depended on for so many centuries to hide its questionable activities and flagrant abuses is crumbling around them. Jesus is recreating the Catholic Church to be what He intended it to be. Not the hypocrisy and deceit that characterizes the leadership now, but the expressions of the love of God that it is intended it to be.
We need to remember, at one time, the Jews were the chosen people. When the Jewish leadership turned away from God, God turned away from them. At one time, the Catholic Church may have been the one true Church. But since the leadership has consistently turned away from God, will eventually turn away from it, the same way He turned away from the Jews.
He who has an ear, let HIM (since our leadership is male) hear.
In my original post on this
In my original post on this thread (that several, including you rated 0) I said "we do need reformers, who are also saints."
One of the indicators of a saint is heroic virtue, hence "Forty years ago we needed reformers, now we need heroes". Forty years ago a few reforms were all that was necessary. Now, we both recognize that more is needed than a few reforms. I, and others who share my opinion, generally believe that we need a revolution of holiness. You seem to favor the approach of CTA, VOTF, and other groups that want structural, doctrinal, and discipline changes. These are all externals, changing them will not change the moral quality of our leaders. (There is a traditional saying that we get the bishops we deserve, certainly it is true that they come from among the people).
Most of the abuse that are valid complaints are individual failings. Yes, they were widespread, but they were the sins of individuals, not the Church. (note also that these were/are sins of the age, where the Church fails to stand against the age, Her members fall victims to it.)
Unlike the original Children of Israel, the new People of God have a Church promised to withstand even the very gates of Hell.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
How many valid widespread
How many valid widespread sins of individuals, abuses and individual failures does it take before we recognize that the structure of the magisterium is corrupted? How many of the laity have to fall victim before the corruption is acknowledge and corrected?
What happened to us
What happened to us agreeing? Bait and switch?
Since you keep asking where things are in the Bible, Mt 16:16-19.
The Church, including the Magisterium, will prevail, despite the failings of individuals.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
I still agree with you that
I still agree with you that change has to come from the inside, not the outside.
I also agree with you, as I stated in another post, that the "church that Peter founded" will prevail.
To repeat, even though I have been condemned as a protestant and heretic by one of the "orthodox" on another forum, my issues are not with the church, but with the corruption of the individuals, and the abhorant incidence and depth of that corruption within the Vatican and other aspects of the magisterium.
I recognize that there are within those two categories many shining examples of Christ's light, who are doing the best they can to bring that light into the world, despite the horrendous burden of corruption they must deal with on a daily basis. I applaud their courage as much as I deplore those who are corrupted.
Truth is, there is NO excuse for the levels and types of corruption that exists within the leadership. Christ has called our leadership to be examples of integrity, not examples of what integrity is not.
"I also agree with you, as I
"I also agree with you, as I stated in another post, that the "church that Peter founded" will prevail."
I have a little problem with that statement, Jesus founded the Church, on the rock of Peter.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers
The corruption lies with
The corruption lies with those who are not in communion with the Magisterium and thus the teachings of the Catholic Church.
I'm not sure what you mean
I'm not sure what you mean here, would you please elaborate.
Little Bear, Thank You for
Little Bear, Thank You for your gifts. You wrote:
"If true ecumenism is going to occur---Rome cannot be dictating all the terms to either the Orthodox or to the Protestants. The Catholic Church does not have a 'box' on all truth, just as the Catholic Church does not have God (all Truth) in a box. Christian Unity can only come with all churches (the Catholic Church included), praying, and listening intently to the truth that each of the churches bring to all discussions. And Karl, you are right, by saying the Pope, bishops, and priests must dispense of those areas that are not helping Christ's faithful (from all churches) get closer to God."
It reminds me of a few other things I read recently:
"The many religions of the world are all good to the extent that they bring man to God and bring the realization of the Father to man. It is a fallacy for any group of religionists to conceive of their creed as The Truth; such attitudes bespeak more of theological arrogance than of certainty of faith. There is not a World religion that could not profitably study and assimilate the best of the truths contained in every other faith, for all contain truth. Religionists would do better to borrow the best in their neighbors' living spiritual faith rather than to denounce the worst in their lingering superstitions and outworn rituals.
All these religions have arisen as a result of man's variable intellectual response to his identical spiritual leading. They can never hope to attain a uniformity of creeds, dogmas, and rituals—these are intellectual; but they can, and some day will, realize a unity in true worship of the Father of all, for this is spiritual, and it is forever true, in the spirit all men are equal.
I have called upon you to be born again, to be born of the spirit. I have called you out of the darkness of authority and the lethargy of tradition into the transcendent light of the realization of the possibility of making for yourselves the greatest discovery possible for the human soul to make—the supernal experience of finding God for yourself, in yourself, and of yourself, and of doing all this as a fact in your own personal experience. And so may you pass from death to life, from the authority of tradition to the experience of knowing God; thus will you pass from darkness to light, from a racial faith inherited to a personal faith achieved by actual experience; and thereby will you progress from a theology of mind handed down by your ancestors to a true religion of spirit which shall be built up in your souls as an eternal endowment.
Your religion shall change from the mere intellectual belief in traditional authority to the actual experience of that living faith which is able to grasp the reality of God and all that relates to the divine spirit of the Father. The religion of the mind ties you hopelessly to the past; the religion of the spirit consists in progressive revelation and ever beckons you on toward higher and holier achievements in spiritual ideals and eternal realities.
While the religion of authority may impart a present feeling of settled security, you pay for such a transient satisfaction the price of the loss of your spiritual freedom and religious liberty. My Father does not require of you as the price of entering the kingdom of heaven that you should force yourself to subscribe to a belief in things which are spiritually repugnant, unholy, and untruthful. It is not required of you that your own sense of mercy, justice, and truth should be outraged by submission to an outworn system of religious forms and ceremonies. The religion of the spirit leaves you forever free to follow the truth wherever the leadings of the spirit may take you. And who can judge—perhaps this spirit may have something to impart to this generation which other generations have refused to hear?
I admonish you to give up the practice of always quoting the prophets of old and praising the heroes of Israel, and instead aspire to become living prophets of the Most High and spiritual heroes of the coming kingdom. To honor the God-knowing leaders of the past may indeed be worth while, but why, in so doing, should you sacrifice the supreme experience of human existence: finding God for yourselves and knowing him in your own souls?
The religions of authority can only divide men and set them in conscientious array against each other; the religion of the spirit will progressively draw men together and cause them to become understandingly sympathetic with one another. The religions of authority require of men uniformity in belief, but this is impossible of realization in the present state of the world. The religion of the spirit requires only unity of experience—uniformity of destiny—making full allowance for diversity of belief. The religion of the spirit requires only uniformity of insight, not uniformity of viewpoint and outlook. The religion of the spirit does not demand uniformity of intellectual views, only unity of spirit feeling. The religions of authority crystallize into lifeless creeds; the religion of the spirit grows into the increasing joy and liberty of ennobling deeds of loving service and merciful ministration."
May the Spirit of God be our Constant Guide and Companion. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will