"...does not even know that he has never thought of it..."
Whatever positive or negative reasons one has for or against embracing the Catholic Church and becoming Catholic, the matter is only settled by dealing with one question: Is it true? In other words, is what the Catholic Church claims about herself reconcilable with the facts—with the facts as found in “the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millenium of its existence.” When we look at the facts here, do we find what the Catholic Church claims—that is, that she is the only church established by Christ and commanded by Him to teach in His name and with His very (infallible) authority until the end of time; the only church to which Christ bequeathed “the fullness of the means of salvation”; the only church established by Christ as the true home of all Christians?
But why does it even matter? Does it even matter if the Catholic Church is what it claims to be? Well, yes, it does. If the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ as the true home of all Christians, then to be outside of full submission to the Catholic Church is contrary to the will of Jesus Christ.
OK, so lots of groups claim things, why should the ICCEC bother with this clam? Well, for one thing, because the ICCEC draws so much from the Catholic Church, her Tradition, her theology, and from the writings of her faithful children, the saints. If the Catholic Church gets so much right in the eyes of the ICCEC, is it reasonable for the ICCEC to merely dismiss the central and consequential claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church? If the ICCEC credits the Catholic Church so much on so many points, is it reasonable for the ICCEC to dismiss this colossal claim without a reason at all?
Consider also that the ICCEC, by claiming to follow the same standards of orthodoxy as the Catholic Church, i.e. Scripture and Tradition as “exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence,” it places itself along side the Catholic Church. Shouldn’t the ICCEC therefore at least have some reasons for not believing the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church—a claim that the Catholic Church finds all over “the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence”?
I’ve witnessed a persistent resistance—almost an inability—of those in the ICCEC to even consider, much less engage, the Catholic Church’s claim to be the true Church, and to state why they believe, according to Scripture and Tradition, this claim be false. It reminds me of what G.K. Chesterton said about the slavery of the mind.
What I mean by the slavery of the mind is that state in which men do not know of the alternative. It is something which clogs the imagination, like a drug or a mesmeric sleep, so that a person cannot possibly think of certain things at all. It is not the state in which he says, “I see what you mean; but I cannot think that because I sincerely think this” (which is simply rational): it is one in which he has never thought of the other view; and therefore does not even know that he has never thought of it… The thing I mean is man’s inability to state his opponent’s view; and often his inability even to state his own.
—G.K. Chesterton, “The Slavery of the Mind,” The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic
posted by Keith @ 2:57 PM
16 comments
16 Comments:
What are you attempting to do with this blog? Argue theology? Slander an international church (part of the entire body of Christ)? Or merely boost your own ego by attempting to express your philosophical and theological knowledge of Catholicism, Christianity, and Religion in general?
Whatever your motive is, test the Spirit, because the fruit of this ministry is ultimately bad. It causes strife between the Body of Christ, which includes all who are in communion with Christ and His church, internationally and interdenominationally. It causes division in the Church, and it bears no good fruit of the Spirit. I'm not Catholic or CEC. I love Jesus Christ and attend a Methodist campus ministry. Test the spirits from which you are ministering through this site and show wisdom in your ministry.
God bless
Thanks for the comments, Kevin. As for what I am attempting to do with this blog, I believe I’ve already made that clear enough in my first post (4-28-06) and in the post dated 5-9-06.
As a Catholic, I must believe that Christ established the Catholic Church as the true church and the visible, institutional home of all Christians. If I didn’t believe that then I wouldn’t be a Catholic; for I would be disbelieving what the Catholic Church teaches about herself. Could it be that your problem with my blog is that you approach it not understanding that I, because I am Catholic, cannot accept your Protestant premises concerning the nature of the Church; namely, that it is an invisible, non-institutional entity consisting merely of the aggregate number of all Christians?
As for why I am focusing on the ICCEC and not the Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, or any other Protestant churches, the ICCEC claims that it is catholic in a way unlike most other Protestant churches. It accepts the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches’ belief that only valid apostolic succession makes a church a church; but the ICCEC believes that with apostolic succession (procured by any means) it becomes an independent “branch” or “jurisdiction” of the catholic Church alongside the “Roman” Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. The problem lies in the fact that not only is this novel idea repudiated by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, but it is repudiated by the very standard of orthodoxy the ICCEC claims for itself, namely “the historic, undisputed teachings of orthodox Christianity as taught by Jesus, spread by the Apostles, defended by the Patriarchs of the Early Church, expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, and exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence”.
Also, the ICCEC procured its apostolic succession from a rebellious Catholic bishop; and, as St. Francis de Sales, wrote in The Catholic Controversy, “Though they had mission in the Roman Church, they had none to leave it, and withdraw her children from her obedience. Truly the commissioner must not exceed the limits of his commission, or his act is null.”
Why don't you give the Charismatic Episcopal Church some time and space, and see what comes of it? In light of what Rabbi Gamaliel expressed in the Book of Acts, if the CEC is not from God, it will run into the sands and perish; but if it is a move of the Lord, it will flourish despite your doubts.
Have you read "Models of the Church" by Avery Cardinal Dulles? I would suggest, just because CEC doesn't fit into your model, paradigm or understanding, doesn't mean it might not be a valid Church and perhaps one day in full union with Rome or Constantinople.
--A pilgrim
One more thought, Fish! Your quote from St. Francis de Sales doesn't hold water. According to Vatican II, ecclesial bodies such as the Orthodox or even the Polish National Catholic Church are recognized as being true Churches, even if not in union with Rome. Granted talks are underway to pave the road for such reunion, but for example Catholics and Polish National Catholics are welcome at each others altars in case of need.
Under such an understanding, since the Charismatic Episcopal Church has episcopal succession from a Catholic bishop, and valid sacraments, and faith in the Triune God, it is surely as much "Church" as any other body, barring only full communion with Rome.
If Rome can have talks with PNCC, are you being less than generous with the CEC?
As to St. Carlos of Brazil being a "rebellious" Catholic bishop, you would probably consider St. Photius to be "rebellious" as well, but that is immaterial to the argument since the Roman Church still recognizes the Orthodox as being valid true churches.
Again, be patient. Perhaps the CEC has anointing to share with the larger Church, that will manifest in due time. God sometimes surprises us, going beyond His normal foundations, as He did in appointing St. Paul as an apostle, even though he was not ordained by St. Peter!
--A pilgrim
Howdy Pilgrim...
Re:
Why don't you give the Charismatic Episcopal Church some time and space, and see what comes of it? In light of what Rabbi Gamaliel expressed in the Book of Acts, if the CEC is not from God, it will run into the sands and perish; but if it is a move of the Lord, it will flourish despite your doubts.
Cannot error flourish? I think that the ICCEC has much right and is much closer to the fullness (full communion with the Catholic Church) than historic Protestantism, but I don’t believe that the axiom, “If it flourishes, then it must be from God,” accurately reflects reality. Did not Athanasius awake to find the whole world Arian?
Re:
Have you read "Models of the Church" by Avery Cardinal Dulles? I would suggest, just because CEC doesn't fit into your model, paradigm or understanding, doesn't mean it might not be a valid Church and perhaps one day in full union with Rome or Constantinople.
The ICCEC is a valid church because it has valid apostolic succession, but it is illicit—it is not in full submission to the authority established by Christ in the Successors of St. Peter.
“Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus, para. 17.)
It is my prayer and my hope—and my belief--that the ICCEC will come into the full communion with Christ’s Catholic Church. I just hope that it happens during the present generation rather than several from now.
I have not read Dulles book yet, but I will make note of it. And it’s not a matter of the ICCEC fitting into my model, paradigm, or understanding of the Church. There is a standard of orthodoxy which even the ICCEC claims for itself. That is where the model is to be found.
Howdy Pilgrim...
Re:
One more thought, Fish! Your quote from St. Francis de Sales doesn't hold water. According to Vatican II, ecclesial bodies such as the Orthodox or even the Polish National Catholic Church are recognized as being true Churches, even if not in union with Rome. Granted talks are underway to pave the road for such reunion, but for example Catholics and Polish National Catholics are welcome at each others altars in case of need.
Under such an understanding, since the Charismatic Episcopal Church has episcopal succession from a Catholic bishop, and valid sacraments, and faith in the Triune God, it is surely as much "Church" as any other body, barring only full communion with Rome.
You are exactly right. It would have been more proper for St. Francis to use the word “illicit” instead of “null”. Again I will quote the apropos section of Dominus Iesus promulgated by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
“Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.” (para. 17.)
Re:
If Rome can have talks with PNCC, are you being less than generous with the CEC?
I hold both churches in the same boat...as described in the above quote from Dominus Iesus.
Re:
As to St. Carlos of Brazil being a "rebellious" Catholic bishop, you would probably consider St. Photius to be "rebellious" as well, but that is immaterial to the argument since the Roman Church still recognizes the Orthodox as being valid true churches.
Correct. Valid, but not fully licit and not in the fullness that Christ intended and established. However, in the corpus of tradition, we see men who initiate schisms as under greater condemnation than those who follow unwittingly in their error.
Re:
Again, be patient. Perhaps the CEC has anointing to share with the larger Church, that will manifest in due time. God sometimes surprises us, going beyond His normal foundations, as He did in appointing St. Paul as an apostle, even though he was not ordained by St. Peter!
Again, I have great hopes for the ICCEC.
I am impressed by your arguments, Fish! Rock on!
My friend, focus and concern yourself more with the substance and the teachings of the Church. Why do political clouts bother you? What about the spirit and truth? What about the Gospel? I think its time you shift the focus of this blog and go for the Gospel. I'd suggest Fr. Christopher Wee, SJ's blog, http://chrisssignature.blogspot.com for pointers.
I was once in attendence at an ICCEC church. The Priest became a priest there because he was married and couldn't receive orders in the Roman Church - so I guess I am wary of the intentions of some in this communion. It's sort of like a child dressing up in it's mothers clothes and playing "pretend"
Anonymous,
I have met predatory Catholic priests. Does that mean they are pretend also?
Re: Seraph: I have met predatory Catholic priests. Does that mean they are pretend also?
No, Seraph, that means that they are very, very bad priests in the authentic Church. Even Jesus had Judas.
Good point, Fish, even Jesus had Judas. I'm just saying, the pot shouldn't call the kettle black.
The RC Church has had its problems over the centuries. Just read "Cum Nimis Absurdum" by His Holiness Pius IV, issued July 14, 1555, which begins, "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery...".
The bull continues with such sanctions against the Jews as forbidding them to own property, or to serve as nurses or doctors, segregating them to a walled compound in Rome with only three gates that were locked at night--and of course, wearing a yellow hat or scarf to identify them as descendants of Christ-killing Jews.
I suppose we should thank our lucky stars that this Bull is not considered infallible.
For the last century, popes have been kept in check by the forcible removal of their land (papal states in central Italy) and by a greater sense of collegiality. But it has not always been so, and the above bull is a reminder that the vicars of Christ have not always walked in the Spirit of Christ.
Not all vicars of Christ have penned beautiful encyclicals like "Evangelium Vitae". I wish it had been otherwise.
Sometimes modern RCs are triumphalistic against small groups like the CEC, and seem to have an amnesia when it comes to inconvenient facts of history.
Yes, the CEC has its problems. So do we all.
> Good point, Fish, even Jesus had Judas. I'm just saying, the pot shouldn't
> call the kettle black.
I don't see how I was criticizing the ICCEC for faults that the Catholic Church possesses herself. My post had absolutely nothing to do with moral failings within the ICCEC; so how was it calling the kettle black?
> Sometimes modern RCs are triumphalistic against small groups like the CEC,
> and seem to have an amnesia when it comes to inconvenient facts of history.
I have no such amnesia; and I am no more triumphalistic as a Catholic against non-Catholics as I am as a Christian against non-Christians. Every Catholic who believes what the Catholic Church teaches believes that the True Church subsists within her, and that, in her alone, Christ established the fullness of the means of salvation. (See my post dated 5-9-06.) As such, it is incumbent upon them to evangelize non-Catholics so as to bring them into the fullness that Christ has established for them in the Catholic Church. And so I do my best to share what I am convinced is the truth with charity. Are you suggesting that even though I believe that the fullness of the means of salvation is in the Catholic Church alone by the will and prescription of Christ, that I should just put a basket over that light and sit on it? Sure, one can challenge unorthodoxy in a triumphalistic manner; however, the mere challenging of those who one regards as outside the fullness of the truth is not, ipso facto, triumphalism. If that were the case, then Christians shouldn't challenge or evangelize non-Christians.
> Yes, the CEC has its problems. So do we all.
Again, my post had nothing to do with the "problems" of the CEC, except that of its failure (at least from my vantage point) to justify its own claims. If you want, I can dig up some particular moral failing of an ICCEC bishop or priest and post it as evidence against the validity of the ICCEC's claims to orthodoxy (as you have done here concerning the Catholic Church) but as that kind of argument fails both the test of logic and of charity, I won't go there.
A bull or encyclical is not just a personal moral failing, but involves teaching in ethics as well. If a modern-day encyclical had such bloopers, the RC Church would not be as attractive to those who seek absolute truth.
Is the Catholic Church THE (true) Church, is a somewhat silly question. Of course, since it goes directly back to Peter and at minimum holds still to the traditions and teachings passed down. It's an easy answer. Too easy!
But some of the arguments against the ICCEC, like "can't error flourish" ? can be answered... well even Rome flourished despite its errors. And certainly the Reformation had some valid points. The errors of Rome didn't stop it from growing with reformation and renewal. And the Orthodox didn't fold up their tents because they weren't "accepted" any more by Rome.
If Peter didn't accept Paul's correction about Peter's attitudes and actions towards the Gentile believers when the circumcsion group from Jerusalem showed up, where would the Church be today? Would there have been a schism between Paul and Peter. You bet! Two churches, a Gentile and a Jewish Church would have started right there.
Paul and Barnabas were not going to give in to Peter wanting to please the circumcision group from Jerusalem. Interesting, Paul was in effect holding up and defending what was decided upon by the authoritative decision of the first Council 15 A.D, and resisted Peter. What would have happened if Paul "submitted" to Peter in that situation where Peter was clearly in the wrong? What ? I thought Peter was infallible?
"Shouldn’t the ICCEC therefore at least have some reasons for not believing the claim of the Catholic Church to be the true Church—a claim that the Catholic Church finds all over “the undivided Catholic Church during the first millennium of its existence”?"
I would have to argue that the undivided catholic church of the first millenium is not tbe same as the current catholic church based in the See of Peter in Rome.
In the first millenium, the catholic church had a proper understanding of Rome's place in Christendom - first among equals - and only after the papal bull of excommunication against the Eastern church did Rome become THE preeminent See of the Church as the other See's fell to second class status and the Moor's.
The claim to be THE church is indeed an arrogant one and not worthy of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the responsibility of Rome - as first - to mend the rift with the Eastern Church after which together it can claim to be THE Church.
Until then, Rome is as much a separatist as the Protestants.
You make the claim that all roads supposedly lead to Rome (in the Church); so too does all the responsibility for re-establishing unity of the Church. If Rome were to re-unite with the East, I would be there in a heartbeat. But until Rome does so, I see her as an unrepentent stubborn child wanting her own way only.
Post a Comment
<< Home