A Response to Collin Nunis
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.
Hey Collin...
You voice a common Protestant complaint...and one which assumes what it is trying to prove.
The bystanders, most of them, will judge the matter according to the views which they already hold, and go on about their business. A few may be bemused enough to undertake some scrutiny of the their own notions.Your view of the Gospel assumes that the papacy is superfluous at best. It is precisely this view which I am attempting to challenge with my blog by asserting that obedience to the Gospel includes obedience to the pope, because Christ set up St. Peter and his successors to be the head of His Church; and since Christ established it, it is, therefore, essential to the Gospel.
—Thomas Howard, Lead Kindy Light: My Journey to Rome
I assume that you are a member of the ICCEC. The ICCEC believes that valid apostolic succession and the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are coterminous with the Gospel, because Christ established these things; and, therefore, we have no right to exclude them. (Christ says in Jn 6 that if we don't eat His flesh, we have no life!) Now, how would you respond to a Protestant Fundamentalist who chided your devotion to and defense of apostolic succession and the Eucharist by telling you to "shift focus and go for the Gospel"?
So, when you tell me to "go for the Gospel," I would reply by saying that that is exactly what I am doing! Remember, your notion of the Gospel is a Protestant one and it is not mine; and the whole aim of my blog is to point out that the Gospel that excludes the papacy is a novel and deficient one because it has set aside that which Christ established, and that which is delineated in Scripture and upheld by the early Church, the Fathers, the councils, and the saints.
Finally, consider how odd your words would sound to the English Martyrs: St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, St. Edmund Campion, and the hundreds of other men and women who, "suffered the extreme penalty for maintaining the unity of the Church and the Supremacy of the Apostolic See, the doctrines most impugned by the reformation in all lands, and at all times."Besides, what seemed to me to be the great concern of the Christian, was, to honor God, by due submission to all that He has revealed. And finally, the thought struck me, that there might perhaps be more danger in believing too little than too much.
-L. Silliman Ives, LL. D., The Trials of a Mind in its Progress to Catholicism
posted by Keith @ 3:23 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Thank you for your exhaustive response but let me clarify certain things as I don't think you're sure about what I have meant all this while.
For me, authority is good as the Bible says that you should "submit to your elders". It helps keep balance in check. For me, the bishop is the primary shepherd, teacher and pastor of his church community, which is the diocese. In this role, he is a spiritual ruler, but one which is based on the servanthood of Christ. I am not implying however, that the Pope is no servant. I have always regarded the Pope as good spiritual leader. History has had its bad apples and popes were no exception to attaining a bad reputation. However, God chooses the worst but we should never question His judgement.
We should remember that he is that position due to historical factors, not because Jesus made Him pope alone. To be frank, 5 bishops made decisions on matters of the faith, and Rome was one of them and was the only one from the Western Church. The Churches in Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem ceased to exist due to the Crusades. If I remember correctly as this is what I have read. Do remember in the New Testament that Peter only led Rome, while James (from the infamous "Brother of Jesus" ossuary controversy), by tradition led Jerusalem.
When speaking about the Gospel, I never meant a defense of the faith or what we have practised throughout the ages, but rather, how do you make sense of Jesus' message from a Catholic viewpoint. How can Catholics impact from Christian living? What if Catholics prayed like the Evangelicals did? What if Catholics really went about town literally being "defenders of the community" or "lights of the world; salt of the world" kind of people? I know Evangelicals and Pentecostals are no better at times, but how do we make sense out of it? Many Catholics are devoid of certain things and have not progressed to a level of Christian living like our Protestant counterparts (I have said earlier, they are no angels.) It saddens me to know that people tell me that Catholics do not know how to pray and worst of all, I had to hear it from the same Jesuit who chided the congregation for not taking an initiative to learn despite having Jesuits, considered "competent teachers of spirituality and prayer" as their pastors! Fundamentals are important but what about personal relationships with Christ? Don't you think that will better enhance the sacramental heritage we have inherited? Its time to see what really matters.
> We should remember that he is that position due to historical factors, not
> because Jesus made Him pope alone. To be frank, 5 bishops made decisions on
> matters of the faith, and Rome was one of them and was the only one from the
> Western Church. The Churches in Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and
> Jerusalem ceased to exist due to the Crusades. If I remember correctly as
> this is what I have read. Do remember in the New Testament that Peter only
> led Rome, while James (from the infamous "Brother of Jesus" ossuary
> controversy), by tradition led Jerusalem.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You seem to hold assumptions about the papacy indicative of the viewpoints propagated by the Orthodox churches and the so-called "Anglo-Catholics"; namely, that the papacy is an historical accident or a product of human capriciousness--and not, as the Catholic Church claims, founded by Jesus Christ. Thomas Fleming wrote that "one cannot rationally hold an opinion without considering the alternative." Have you studied the papacy from a Catholic point of view? I recommend the following books One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church by Kenneth Whitehead; Upon This Rock by Steve Ray; The Faith of Our Fathers by James Cardinal Gibbons, and The Russian Church and the Papacy by Vladimir Soloviev.
> When speaking about the Gospel, I never meant a defense of the faith or what
> we have practised throughout the ages, but rather, how do you make sense of
> Jesus' message from a Catholic viewpoint. How can Catholics impact from
> Christian living? What if Catholics prayed like the Evangelicals did? What
> if Catholics really went about town literally being "defenders of the
> community" or "lights of the world; salt of the world" kind of people? I
> know Evangelicals and Pentecostals are no better at times, but how do we
> make sense out of it? Many Catholics are devoid of certain things and have
> not progressed to a level of Christian living like our Protestant
> counterparts (I have said earlier, they are no angels.) It saddens me to
> know that people tell me that Catholics do not know how to pray and worst of
> all, I had to hear it from the same Jesuit who chided the congregation for
> not taking an initiative to learn despite having Jesuits, considered
> "competent teachers of spirituality and prayer" as their pastors!
> Fundamentals are important but what about personal relationships with
> Christ? Don't you think that will better enhance the sacramental heritage we
> have inherited? Its time to see what really matters.
You are right; a personal encounter with Christ trumps all. However, that does not mean that that is all Jesus wants from us. And the reason I don't focus on prayer, evangelization, a personal relationship with Jesus, etc., is, because, well, those things are not what this blog is about. Those things are assumed by me as given—as a common denominator between us. Are you saying that one can't write about the Catholic Church as the fullness of what Christ established except at the expense of those things you mention (prayer, evangelization, a personal relationship with Christ)?
As far as Catholics who don't know how to pray; well, it's a reality...and they are part of the Church. Jesus said there would be weeds among the wheat, and bad fish among the good. In Protestantism, the good fish separate out from the bad fish to form pure churches of, for instance, people who know how to pray. But, the bad fish they leave behind are every bit as Protestant as themselves, but they don't count them; they see only their own, pure, praying selves. Then they look at the Catholic Church--full of good and bad fish alike--and chide us for our bad fish. But they have bad fish too...they just leave them behind. Those Protestants who criticize the Catholic Church for the sin and sinners that are in her, need to count all of Protestantism (all the bad fish left behind), rather than just their own, separate, sect, when they assess their own situation. They abandon their bad, non-praying fish. The true church cannot does not have that convenience.
Besides...I have met just as many (if not more) prayerful, devout, Christ-seeking Christians in the Catholic Church as in my many, many years in Protestantism. They're here...but, yes, there's certainly bad fish here as well.
"It is easy to explain why so many disedifying members are always found clinging to the robes of the Church, their spiritual Mother, and why she never shakes them off nor disowns them as her children. The Church is animated by the spirit of her Founder, Jesus Christ. He ‘came into this world to save sinners.’ He ‘came not to call the just but sinners to repentance.’ He was the Friend of Publicans and Sinners that He might make them the friends of God. And they clung to Him, knowing His compassion for them. The Church, walking in the footsteps of her Divine Spouse, never repudiates sinners nor cuts them off from her fold, no matter how grievous or notorious may be their moral delinquencies; not because she connives at their sin, but because she wishes to reclaim them. She begs them never to despair, and tries, at least, to weaken their passions, if she cannot altogether reform their lives... We know, on the other hand, that sinners who are guilty of gross crimes which shock public decency are virtually excommunicated from Protestant Communions... These excluded sinners...either abandon Christianity altogether, or find refuge in the bosom of their true Mother, the Catholic Church, who, like her Divine Spouse, claims the afflicted as her most cherished inheritance. The parables descriptive of this Church which our Lord employed also clearly teach us that the good and bad shall be joined together in the Church as long as her earthly mission lasts. The kingdom of God is like a field in which the cockle is allowed to grow up with the good seed until the harvest time (Mt 13:24-37); it is like a net which encloses good fish and bad until the hour of separation comes (Mt 13:47). So, too, the Church is that great house (2 Tm 2:20) in which there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay."
—James Cardinal Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers
I have discovered your blog. So, along the lines of this papal discussion, I will weigh in. Forgive me ahead of time for quotes "in general", as I am not going to take the time to look everything up.
Your quote Dominus Iesus alot to add support to your arguement for the Papacy. That is a misapplied arguemnt under these circumstances because you are quoting a document that already assumes the very thing that your opponents/interlocutors are not commited to.
You are argueing after the fact. the problem as i see it is not the issue of the Petrine office, but one of plenitude of power. This is the same basic issue the East has with Rome as well. it is fairly evident from the first five centuries that the petrine office held a great deal of power over the church, but that power was not absolute, it was in dynamic tension within the context of a councilliar administration. The stance of the church towards the See of Peter was one of "deference" not "absolute obedience". While frequent appeals where made to Rome during that time the councils of the church ultimately ruled. Nicea is a good example, since it was called by Constantine and settled concilliarly, and not much mention is made of the Pope as a the prime mover at the time. The council of Constance might be another example of the need for councilliar authority to be "at least" equal in authority to the petrine office, which was submitted to this council at the time. In other words, in the first several centuries one might say, as in the old EF Hutton ad, "When Rome speaks, people listen"- this exemplifies deference within a councilliar economy.
that leads to a second issue, According to Vincents commonitorium that which is catholic is evidenced, not principally by apostolicity alone but by participation in The Catholic economy, "What has been beleived always, everywhere and by all". for we know that many heretical teachings came from goodly men in apostolic succession, and even during the Reformation we might say that Rome herself was more outside of this rule (ecumenicity, antiquity, universalty) then in it. In the same way we, as individuals, "participate" to greater or lesser degrees in the Divine Economy, (lets call it the Lex Aeternam, the explicate order of the Kingdom) so also the church can only "participate" to greater or lesser degrees, in praxis and dogma, etc..., in that lex Aeternam that is the Kingdom of God. Rome, simply because she has the Petrine office and claims that that office holds the power over all the churches, has not always been "Catholic" in this sense. Grated this may be a more orthodox understanding of things, but in my mind while the East and West quibble about whose position holds the most water we, in the CEC, are under no obligation to settle the argument. when East and West come to an understanding as to the nature of the Petrine office, who am I to settle the question? Until then I am Catholic/Orthodox "by participation in the catholic economy". Until Rome and the East settle the issue of authority we are free, imho, to be an autocephelous church working towards intercommunion and evidencing deference to the Petrine office and the fullest participation possible in the catholic economy.
Has any participant read "The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church"?
I would be interested in comments.
Great post, Matt. Thank you for drawing out the questions so well. Have you read "You Are Peter" by Olivier Clement? (Amazon misspells it as Oilvier).
I agree with Matt. It is the extreme demand of total submission to the supposed absolute and infallible authority of the papacy that has actaully worked against the gospel, it being a major cause of the historical division of the Church. It is this disunity, which Rome holds a major responsibility for in its attempt to "Lord it over", that harms so greatly the prayer of Christ.
Anonymous of "great post, Matt". I am sorry, I have not read Olivier Clements book.
Abelard said...
Has any participant read "The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church"? I would be interested in comments.
I haven't, but it's on "my list". I noticed that David Zampino, another participant of this blog, gave it
a good review at Amazon.
Have you read the book, Abelard?
Matt wrote:
in my mind while the East and West quibble about whose position holds the most water we, in the CEC, are under no obligation to settle the argument. when East and West come to an understanding as to the nature of the Petrine office, who am I to settle the question? Until then I am Catholic/Orthodox "by participation in the catholic economy". Until Rome and the East settle the issue of authority we are free, imho, to be an autocephelous church working towards intercommunion and evidencing deference to the Petrine office and the fullest participation possible in the catholic economy.
I devoted a whole new post in response this.
Post a Comment
<< Home