Who Should We Believe?
Let’s make a list of some of our favorite saints whose writings have greatly helped our spiritual walks. John of the Cross? Therese of Lisieux? Catherine of Siena? Augustine? Thomas Aquinas? Francis of Assisi? Faustina? Teresa of Avila? Josemaria Escriva? Padre Pio? Now, let’s ask ourselves if any of these saints were led by God to seperate from the corruption in the Church by spearheading a movement to procure apostolic succession and form a seperate "pure" church (which would then be more catholic than the Catholics)? Weren't they, instead, in full communion with the Roman Pontiff (in spite of all the corruption and confusion that existed in the Catholic Church during their day)? Now, if we’ve come to recognize (and experience) the wisdom of these saints, what good reason do we have to mistrust their judgment when it comes to this matter? Furthermore, beyond that of dismissing the view of these holy, wise people, what is the motive of credibility for trusting someone else's view instead?
posted by Keith @ 10:25 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
As you know, the Charismatic Episcopal Church is willing to talk to the Church of Rome any time, and would love to be in fellowship with them. So, who is being schismatic by withholding fellowship?
Are you saying that the ICCEC is willing to come under full submission to the successor of Peter? The Catholic Church cannot compromise what Christ Himself established.
"The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God.'" -The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 816
To Anonymous...
"Withholding fellowship"??? What fallen branch can say to a tree, "Please, may I graph myself back on?"
Quite humourous...
In Christ,
To Innocent Bystander...
The Charismatic Episcopal Church is not a "fallen branch" but a vital, living embodiment of Christ's grace. Visit a CEC congregation sometime and find out for yourself. And educate yourself by reading "Orthodoxy and Catholicity" by John Meyendorff.
--A pilgrim
Dear Fish,
In your list of saints, you left out St. Gregory Palamas, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Photios, St. Theophan the Recluse, and St. Hermann of Alaska. Why? Perhaps because it would cast doubt on your supposition that only Rome is the Church? Please broaden your vision and come to grips with the reality of a Church bigger than you know.
--A pilgrim
Howdy Pilgrim,
Great comments here and elsewhere. I hope I can find time to respond to more.
So what would these saints have to say about purchasing apostolic succession from an excommunicated Orthodox bishop, and forming a separate, autonomous, non-Orthodox patriarchate?
Re: "Please broaden your vision and come to grips with the reality of a Church bigger than you know." How broad is the Orthodox vision of the Church; does it include separate, autonomous, non-Orthodox patriarchates?
Dear Fish,
Two comments!
In your last post, are you implying that the CEC "purchased" apostolic succession from the Brazilian National Catholic Church? That doesn't at all ring true to me. I have met some of the fine CEC bishops involved, and have been in brief correspondence with another priest who was involved in obtaining that succession, and I cannot believe that simony was at all involved. On the other hand, it is customary for those who visit the Pope of Rome to bring an offering in thanksgiving for his ministry; are you confusing those two things perhaps?
Now for the other comment. You recognize that I have deep sympathies for the Orthodox. I do. I cannot deny the grace of God moving in their midst, and they are just as ancient as Rome, and founded by the same apostles. After reading Meyendorff, I think Roman Catholic claims of the pope's hegemony in the ancient Church are at times overblown.
Yet I don't believe either the Orthodox or Rome are one and only Catholic and Apostolic Church. It seems to me we aren't talking about merely an outward society here, like the Rotary Club. Rather, we are talking about the mystical Body of Christ, which has far deeper ties of grace. Though it is manifested and embodied institutionally, it is a creation of the Holy Spirit--"the Wind blows where it wills"--and is therefore not easy for us humans to put in a box. For example, John Wesley was neither a Roman Catholic nor an Orthodox priest. Yet it is undeniable to me that the Spirit of Jesus Christ worked supremely powerfully in his ministry, transforming the face of an entire nation, enlightening many other lands, and saving England from a bloody repeat of the French Revolution.
You might not call John Wesley a saint or holy man, for he did not see the need to bow to the Pope. I do call him holy, for I believe the Una Sancta runs deeper than outward institution.
I admit, my outlook is not simple or easy to pin down. But I would suggest, neither is the Holy Spirit!
Truly,
--A pilgrim
Howdy Pilgrim...
Re:
In your last post, are you implying that the CEC "purchased" apostolic succession from the Brazilian National Catholic Church? That doesn't at all ring true to me. I have met some of the fine CEC bishops involved, and have been in brief correspondence with another priest who was involved in obtaining that succession, and I cannot believe that simony was at all involved. On the other hand, it is customary for those who visit the Pope of Rome to bring an offering in thanksgiving for his ministry; are you confusing those two things perhaps?
I don’t think I’m confusing things. Is it ever customary in the Catholic or Orthodox Churches for priests to bring this offering to the bishop who ordains them to the bishopric?
In all candor, I must confess that there is a possibility that I could be mistaken. (My goal here is to charitably challenge, not malign.) I am open to receiving more facts on this. I have, though, heard from ICCEC clergy that, in effect, apostolic succession was purchased from the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil.
Re:
Now for the other comment. You recognize that I have deep sympathies for the Orthodox. I do. I cannot deny the grace of God moving in their midst, and they are just as ancient as Rome, and founded by the same apostles. After reading Meyendorff, I think Roman Catholic claims of the pope's hegemony in the ancient Church are at times overblown.
Have you read any Catholic books in defense of the papacy? I suggest a book by Orthodox Vladimir Soloviev, The Russian Church and the Papacy”. Also, check out One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church was the Catholic Church by Kenneth Whitehead. Also, don’t miss Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Butler and Upon This Rock by Ray.
Just as ancient as Rome? Geographically, the East is just as ancient as the West, but ecclesiastically, they were not a separate Church for over a thousand years
Re:
Yet I don't believe either the Orthodox or Rome are one and only Catholic and Apostolic Church. It seems to me we aren't talking about merely an outward society here, like the Rotary Club. Rather, we are talking about the mystical Body of Christ, which has far deeper ties of grace. Though it is manifested and embodied institutionally, it is a creation of the Holy Spirit--"the Wind blows where it wills"--and is therefore not easy for us humans to put in a box. For example, John Wesley was neither a Roman Catholic nor an Orthodox priest. Yet it is undeniable to me that the Spirit of Jesus Christ worked supremely powerfully in his ministry, transforming the face of an entire nation, enlightening many other lands, and saving England from a bloody repeat of the French Revolution.
You might not call John Wesley a saint or holy man, for he did not see the need to bow to the Pope. I do call him holy, for I believe the Una Sancta runs deeper than outward institution.I admit, my outlook is not simple or easy to pin down. But I would suggest, neither is the Holy Spirit!
The Holy Spirit may not be easy to pin down, but He is not the author of confusion. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead his Church into “all truth”.
I find your conception of the Church to be irreconcilable with the data afforded us in the ICCEC’s standards of orthodoxy. Jesus said that he who would not listen to the Church, regard him as a heathen (Mt. 18: 17). When it comes to divorce, who do I listen to, the ICCEC or Rome? Jesus said to the first officers of his Church, “He who hears you, hears me”. Where do I hear the voice of Christ when it comes to the theology of sacraments? John Wesley or the Orthodox? Also, Jesus came establishing a Kingdom and He declared that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. How can the Church which we declare in the creed to be one, be divided against itself, contrary to the words of our Lord? The Scriptures declare the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth. If Wesley, the Orthodox, the ICCEC, and the Catholic Church all equally constitute “the Church”, and they preach conflicting “truths,” then how can this Scripture be true?
Then there’s Tradition. Do you think you can reconcile a completely non-institutional, invisible, “blows where it wills” Church with Tradition?
Howdy to you too, Fish!
It is late at night, but just a couple of thoughts.
I will check into your allegation regarding purchasing apostolic succession. But I wonder if your argument cuts both ways. As you know, it is traditional to pay a Mass stipend or Stole fee to the priest who offers holy Mass. In most Catholic dioceses, this is nominal, ten or fifteen dollars, payable to the priest. But the question then arises, would I then be "paying" for the Body and Blood of Christ? A Protestant might think so I suppose, but that would be a cynical view.
Consider also that, for three bishops to fly up from Brazil to the United States would be quite expensive, particularly considering the low standard of living in South America. My gut reaction is that, if any monies were involved, it was to cover such prohibitive costs--I doubt if Bishop Mendez is awash in cash--not to buy a sacrament.
On your other notes, I will surely read your suggested books. I have read Butler's "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" and find it lacking. It has very selective quotes. Just as one example, Chrysostom credits the apostle *John* with having the "keys" from Christ and being "ruler of the whole world" and "leader of the apostolic choir", yet only such statements referring to Peter are actually quoted in Butler's book. Likewise, devotional quotes about Rome's authority must be balanced by the other reality that, for example, Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council, and listed as such by the Roman breviary for centuries. At any rate, I didn't think that Butler's book was deep or thoughtful on the issues.
On your other points, "Hearing the Church" is not always as simple a matter as you seem to think; arguments about slavery, usury and even the immaculate conception of Mary flourished within the Church for centuries, indicating that there wasn't always one clear answer from Tradition. Think of the uproar for 60 years after the Council of Nicea, when even the bishop of Rome caved in and most of the episcopate was semi-Arian, except Athanasius, Hilary and a few others. It was the Spirit-filled consensus of the laity that guarded the Faith then, not the bishops or the pope.
Consider also that the hegemony of the Church of Rome was questioned and countered over centuries by the likes of St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Photios, and Polycrates of Asia Minor, while canon law put bounding restraints on popes interfering in eastern dioceses unless they were specifically requested to do so, or received an appeal. The Roman Church operated within in a collegial framework with certain checks, in other words. That is, until the monks of Cluny and Gregory VII threw out the old canons and invented their own. There was a real and definite change in the papal office in the eleventh century.
You are right that a purely invisible, "Spirit blows where it wills" Church would be chaotic--but that is why we have the canon of Scripture, creeds, and sacraments--the living Word of God that nourishes the Body of Christ. Canon and creed were raised up by the Spirit within the Christian community apart from much if any papal involvement, for "you" (plural) "have an anointing of the truth" as John's epistle says. The people of God are united in worshiping the Holy Trinity, even if there is disagreement over various issues. Relationally, we all who call upon the name of Jesus are one with Him--"Truth" is a Person, not just a list of doctrinal statements! And where disagreements are truly major, that is why the Church has had ecumenical councils to determine and recognize the "sensus fidelium" or shared anointing of truth shining amidst God's people.
In fact, Tradition can and has trumped a pope, as in the case of John XXII, who was condemned as a heretic because he denied that the souls of Christians in heaven shared in the beatific vision. "Hearing the Church" isn't only a matter of listening to the Church of Rome; it is listening to the voice of the Spirit also manifest in the Tradition given "once for all" and embodied in the prayers and faith of the whole people of God.
The canon, creeds and councils hold true, even if there are two or even three popes at once as happened in the Western schism! The Medieval Catholic Church was in tatters then, arguing over who was the pope, and it was a Council that deposed all three popes, elevated a fourth to the See of Rome, and called for Councils to be held every ten years afterward!
But looking past quarreling popes and strained relationships with eastern bishops, I would say that the Church of Jesus Christ was "one" in Jesus even then. Because--as St. Leo himself said--the keys of Peter have been handed down to *all* who hold office in the Church. I would expect that includes the fine and devoted bishops of the Charismatic Episcopal Church.
Bby the way, a fine CEC priest I know offers Mass not only for "Austin Randolph our Patriarch" but also for "Bartholemew Patriarch of the East; Luis, Patriarch of Brazil; and Benedict Bishop of Rome". He has a truly "Catholic" spirit, and in his prayers and teaching I have found much beauty and depth of the Holy Spirit, leading to renewal in my own life.
Sorry for the rambling and disjointed nature of this post; it has been a late night and I've got to get to bed!
--A pilgrim
By "fallen" I merely meant: no longer a part of... by possible acts of nature: a thunderstorm, a child's strong pull...etc... No, I did NOT mean "fallen" as "the Fall of Man" as in "sinful". I would never claim that the ICCEC was sinful!! I, too, was once a member of the ICCEC... it was an amazing stepping stone that God used to lead me to His true Church-- The Catholic Church. Hence, my interest in this blog. I agree that the ICCEC is filled with amazing people---many friends, this does not mean anything as far as validity goes.
Post a Comment
<< Home