Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: horton@b11.ingr.com (Mac Horton) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Protestantism as Church Message-ID: Date: 23 Sep 89 07:41:11 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Intergraph, Deep in the Heart of Dixie Lines: 126 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu CLH says, re the renewed discussion over what the Catholic Church teaches about its own relationship to other Churches. > .... Most (all?) of the Catholics... > say that although the Catholics have a very different > understanding of the nature of the visible Church, it is misleading to > say that they claim to be the only true Church. ... > The discussion is whether > their concept of the Church in some sense denies validity to other > churches.... > It seems clear to me that Catholics are not yet quite ready to accept > the model of the Catholic church as just one denomination among many. > However they also recognize the role played by other denominations. > My feeling is that this leaves them in a certain tension, with theory > that has not entirely caught up with their de facto understanding. I > don't think anyone believes that the current position is a stable one. > I believe further development in their concept of the nature of the > church is probably going to happen.... Yes, further development is likely, but I think it would be a mistake to suppose that the Catholic Church will eventually see itself as only one denomination among many. In response to CLH, Joe Buehler says: > Catholics believe that our Lord founded a visible organization to save > souls. This organization is the Catholic Church. With its St. Peters > and its Judases. In this sense, the Catholic Church is the only true > Church. I think this is a fair statement of the Catholic position, Vatican II and all. Let's take particular note of the word "visible", though. There is no other *visible* organization which is the true Church. And this does certainly "in some sense deny validity to other Churches". But that's not the whole story. Here are some quotes from Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, which "in some sense" *attribute* validity to other Churches: Men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church....all those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ. Notice that there is no qualification on "incorporated into Christ" analagous to the word "imperfect" in the first sentence. This certainly seems to be an admission that the mystical body of Christ and the visible organization of the Church are not necessarily always one and the same thing. Further: [the sacramental actions of separated Churches] can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation. It follows that these separated Churches and Communions, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation... I also agree with Joe's assertion that the present divisions are contrary to the will of Christ. (PLEASE note that I am not assigning any blame for these divisions; there is more than enough to go around.) I personally, and the Catholic Church in general, place a very high value on unity among Christians. Among other things, I believe the divisions have been catastrophic for our witness to non-Christians. For instance, CLH, in response to someone's query about which direction his wife should take in her new Christian life, posted a long description of the options which seemed utterly daunting to me, and I couldn't help thinking that if I were the woman I'd be tempted just to drop the whole thing. (Of course I was in that position at one time, and you know where I ended up.) At this point, though, I feel Joe draws too hard a line: > From the Catholic point of view, the Catholic hierarchy has been given > full authority in things spiritual. How can non-Catholic ministers be > partakers in this authority when they are not subject to, and even > resist the Catholic hierarchy? Now, it is undoubtedly true that non-Catholic ministers do not, from the Catholic view, exercise the same kind of authority in the same way as the Catholic hierarchy does. But the citations from Vatican II which I quote above fall far short of denying non-Catholic ministers a genuine role in the mission of the Church, and in fact would seem to imply that they do play such a role. CLH again, in reply to Joe: > [I believe that my summary of postings this summer on > talk.religion.misc was correct. I had made some statement in that > group based on an understanding of the Catholic position such as you > present. I was roundly condemned by Catholics as engaging in > uncharitable exaggeration of the Catholic position. Either I am badly > misunderstanding what everyone is saying, or there are serious > divisions within the Catholic community on these issues. I will > withhold futher observations on this subject to see what other > Catholics have to say about it. --clh] I'm sorry, I don't remember who posted what, or even what, specifically, I myself said (except that I objected to the word "schismatic"). It is true that there are serious divisions within the Catholic community on these issues--on the one hand, large numbers of essentially Protestant theologians like Hans Kung; on the other hand, those who object to the amelioration of the hard-line position which prevailed from Trent to Vatican II. I find that my own personal opinion is rather precisely articulated by Vatican II. I could not possibly deny the significance in my own life of the Methodist, Baptist, and Episcopal Churches. They brought Christ to me. You can't get much more Christian than that. On the other hand, I do believe that the Catholic Church is, uniquely, *the* Church. Yes, there is tension here; it's almost a paradox, but I've never had any trouble living with paradox. Want to know what I fantasize about? A Catholic Church in which there is unity of doctrine but within which there are an Anglican Rite, a Presbyterian Rite, and so forth--hey, why not a Pentecostal Holiness Rite?-- over which the Pope exercises a rather more loose jurisdiction than we are accustomed to, much as is now the case with certain non-Roman rites.