UPDATED
The Wednesday Audience used to be fairly dull, especially have having been to a few. This Pope, however, is getting more an more interesting.
Today there was an attack on the Pope’s person. I know the Holy See is saying it wasn’t an attack. However, I apply the "Duck Argument": the guy was clearly shouting menacing things so that a Vatican cop lined up across from him before he jumped, it took several men to get him down, and one of the Swiss went to the hospital. And the Holy See says it wasn’t an attack. Riiiiiiiight.
However, there were fireworks in the Pope’s address today, which focused on St. Cyprian of Carthage.
You are going to love this one, folks, when it comes out in English.
Among the highlights I enjoyed is this. Read this and think about the Pope’s motives for the upcoming Motu Proprio (my translation and emphases):
[Cyprian] distinguishes between the Church visible, hierarchical, and the Church invisibile, mystical, but affirms with force that the Church is one only, founded on Peter. He does not weary of repeating that "who abandons the cathedra of Peter, on whom the Church was founded, deludes himself that he has remained in the Church" (Unity of the Catholic Church, 4). Cyprian knows well, and formulated it with forceful words, that "outside the Church there is no salvation" (ep. 4,4 and 73,21) and that "whoever does not have the Church as mother cannot have God as Father" (Unity of the Catholic Church, 4). An inalienable characteristic of the Church is unity, symbolized by Christ’s seamless garment (ibid, 7): the unity of which he says finds its foundation in Peter (ibid, 4) and its perfect realization in the Eucharist (ep. 63,13). "There is only one God, only one Christ", Cyprian admonishes, "only one is His Church, only one faith, only one Christian people, close in stable unity in the cement of concord: and you cannot separate that which is one in its nature (Unity of the Catholic Church, 23).
The Fathers of the Church were uniformly horrified by schism.
This Pope is steeped in the Fathers, especially St. Augustine, another North African who like Cyprian fought schism.
Notice the reference to Eucharistic unity.
Think about the SSPX and the Motu Proprio.
Then there is this. Quoting Cyprian the Pope continues:
"And when we gather together as one with the brethren and we celebrate the divine sacrifices with the priest of God, we must remember reverential fear and discipline, not to throw our prayers here and there to the wind with unseemly words, nor hurl with bombastic verbosity demands that ought to be commended to God with moderation, because God is the listeners not of the voice but of the heart (non vocis sed cordis auditor est)" (3-4). This concerns words that remain valid also today and which help us to celebrate the Holy Liturgy well.
Loading ...
I agree that it was an attack. One can clearly see the attacker mouthing “WO IST DIE MOTU PROPIO?!?” just prior to the incident.
Father,
Thank you for this powerful portion of the speech from His Holiness on St.Cyprians words of truth.
Only one Church.This reinforces the fact that we as Catholics are called to convert protestants,pagans,and anyone else outside the only way to salvation,to convert to Catholicism.
We are all created to be within the mantle of Christ which is,on this earth,the Catholic Church.
We must all become Catholics.Christ commanded this.A muslim should not be a good muslim.He would not be following Christs command therefore.
A protestant must not be a good protestant,for there is nothing good in protesting against the Catholic Church.
Yet,a Catholic can be a good Catholic since in the Church is contained all truth and to be good and to will, with Sanctifying Grace,to be a good Catholic is most desireable and in fact obligatory for justice.
God bless you.
Father,
notice also the following among the things the Holy Father said:
E quando ci riuniamo insieme con i fratelli e celebriamo i sacrifici divini con il sacerdote di Dio, dobbiamo ricordarci del timore reverenziale e della disciplina, non dare al vento qua e là le nostre preghiere con voci scomposte, né scagliare con tumultuosa verbosità una richiesta che va raccomandata a Dio con moderazione, perché Dio è ascoltatore non della voce, ma del cuore (non vocis sed cordis auditor est)” (3-4). Si tratta di parole che restano valide anche oggi e ci aiutano a celebrare bene la Santa Liturgia.
I’m not impatient at all…
Also think about the Eastern Orthodox and the Moto Proprio.
An aside: Jimmy Akin (http://www.jimmyakin.org/) finally comments on the Bertone article, where the coming soon means: in Vatican-speak could mean weeks or months, but means it’s coming.
I don’t think he has any inside information, but what are the chances that we are looking at months rather than weeks?
The Pope’s comments could just as easily apply to those bishops and priests who pay the Holy Father lip service and are in full canonical communion with the Holy See, but not de facto. He could be forewarning those bishops and priests who will be fully engaged to prevent any effective action taking place from the motu proprio.
And besides, Cardinal Castrillon has repeatedly said, “The SSPX is not in schism.” I don’t believe Cardinal Castrillon is repeatedly stating this in interviews without the Pope knowing about it and correcting him if he is wrong.
The statements the Holy Father makes let us know he knows what the score is in the Church–ie how many are out of communion although they call themselves catholic, even live on the legacy through donations, while often attempting to change the church’s theological trajectory through history and such. It’s huge and it’s thorougly disgusting.
Implicit in this is a fundamental difference between the last several popes and this one, re theoretical philosophical systems. This pope is interested in identity (which invokes truth and intention) in an entirely different way than recent (last 50 yrs) other ones. This makes him somewhat different politically. Thus his mode of operating is different than other previous ones. It’s said that a conservative gets the same place as a liberal, only slower. This is not the same thing as that. We’re not going toward that somewhere anymore.
The subject of the duplicity of these dissident (V2 schismatic) groups was carefully avoided up til the election of PBXVI. It’s why so many of us were suffering from cognitive dissonance over it–remember the emotional roller coaster, the constant self-rationalizing over Assisi, the uncertainty that anything would ever be done over abuses, etc.
Now it’s more or less open alongside the horror of schism that many most close to the church have. So the tension between the two is in the open instead of hidden–a shock to some people but not to those who suffered with it throughout the last years of the last papal reign.
There is, however, an increasing recognition that de facto schism is no less schism than de jure schism *when it becomes severe enough, which it has*. That is, small-time deviations while still attending the church, with the possibility of unwittingly passing on the truth anyway *is qualitatively different* from intentionally attempting to pervert passing on the faith of the Church and using the Church for one’s own means, in concert with others. Many well organized groups passed over that line–some time back. This recognition re concerted defacto deviation with intention is appropriate, even overdue, and it is tied to the distortions that entered the church after V2, with the very poor implementation and outright manipulation of that council which still persists. It is tied to the belief that there was an abrupt foundational or even ontological change re the entity of the Catholic church, a belief that is completely erroneous. This has been the topic for the Holy Father in many of his addresses for this reason. IT’s not just something to cheer over because we personally like it; it’s much bigger than that.
What to do about the huge problem? That is the question, and the Pope’s statements make it clear that the matter is in good hands, but difficult, of course. In the long run, you know that the Church is assured of victory, but what happens in the short run? How will it work out on the ground? Is there any way to minimize losses while staying on track, etc?
I think he will appeal to one of the Church’s most powerful assets, the holiness of individuals and families, faithful religious and priests. Thus, the support for appropriate worship and devotion, the MP and his continuous support of people who wish to follow the church whereever she goes. THus the different tactics and motives that seem to be at play in this papacy.
Because of this forthright approach, the effect he gets is entirely different from before. He is no performer or coach. He is leading quietly but masterfully and I am sure people sense that. It’s the reason that people go see this retiring little professor who is still abashed that people want to look at him. [One can see it in his face yet; it’s amusing.]
It’s also the reason why people who don’t even understand what’s going on will implicitly gravitate to him. And also the reason why he might be open to attacks of this sort, unfortunately. I’m glad they have beefed up the security. I hope they do what’s necessary to protect him as well as possible, even if it means limiting some things.
Pray for the Holy Father!
Personally, I think the time may soon come for a physical double fence between the crowd and the pope, such that to get close enough to touch, you have to be passed through a special more stringent screening process–what you have on you, what questions you can answer, who you came with, etc.
Sad, but true. They’ve got to stop that climbing and pressing against the fence and they’ve got to protect the Holy Father.
He’s warming up for something.
Father, those are indeed great words, and much needed. But how does the “no salvation outside the Church” jive with the teachings of Vatican II?
Read Dominus Iesus, gravitas. All salvation comes through the church.
Perhaps the German Bishops really did have something to worry about. Perhaps it isn’t just the Rite of Mass …
Comment by swmichigancatholic: Read Dominus Iesus, gravitas. All salvation comes through the church.
I understand that. But that’s not what the Counsel said.
“Outside the Church there is no Salvation”
The Pope shouldn’t be quoting that!!
People might think that he really believes it.
And everyone knows that the Catholic Church is inclusive.
I can just see the riots!
Pax Christi,
Teresa B.
Teresa,
Bring on the riots!
May our Blessed Mother hold you always.
Gravitas,
Slowly but surely, I thin the Pope is trying to show what the Council really said….and what it didn’t. And what it didn’t say is unfortunatly in practice is what we’ve been stuck with for 40 years.
The dissidents and liberals tried to say that the notion of “no salvation outside thew Church” was something we threw out with Vatican II….but nowhere did the Council say that, nor afterward.
Only the ecumenists, perpetual dialogers, dissidents, and radical malcontents tried to claim this. Because of them, we have become politically correct, and sensitive to other “religions”. God forbid that the Catholic Church proslitize!! The little Protestant groups in Latin America run roughshod over the Catholic Church in a crusade for converts, while we sit back and “dialog”.
Thank God for the Pope, to make this speech. If the Protestants are offended…that’s the way it goes. The Truth’s been stated, and we should applaud that it finally has been stated.
And i’m not trying to provoke a fight or be a wise guy. I’m seriously asking, how do His Holiness’ words
today jive with a council that he has embraced for so long that say the exact opposite? Father, a little
help on this would be greatly appreciated.
that’s not what the Counsel said.
gravitas,
actually that’s EXACTLY what the Second Vatican Council said (in continuity with the teachings of all centuries) and Dominus Iesus (and CCC 846) repeated on the base of (among other things) Lumen Gentium 14 (and Cyprian, see footnote 80 of DI). After all, Joseph Ratzinger was at VII, was prefect of CDF when CCC was written and issued, and in the same capacity he wrote, signed and presented to John Paul II the declaration Dominus Iesus. Now he is the Pope and he’s talking about the same things citing the same sources… I vote for Joseph Ratzinger knowing what he’s talking about!
Gravitas, perhaps it would help if you read Lumen Gentium 14-16. Far from saying the exact opposite of the Holy Father’s words today, they are in perfect agreement.
It may also help you to know that the words of Lumen Gentium are based on the dogmatic constitution on the Church that the First Vatican Council never got a chance to deliberate on and approve, but which they were about to approve.
Lumen Gentium 14: “This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
There is absolutely no salvation outside the One Holy Roman Catholic Church! How refreshing that the Pope had the courage to reaffirm a dogma that has not been articulated in over 40 years! Let the Motu Proprio come out on Corpus Christi!
DB: One Holy Roman Catholic Church.
I think it might be a bit disconcerting for Maronite Catholics or Ukranian Catholics to name only two non-Roman Catholic Churches in unity with Rome to hear that only in the Roman Church there is salvation.
However, concerning the release of the MP on Corpus Christi (which in the Vatican City and in the traditional calendar would be tomorrow, Thursday), I am all for that.
Chill the Veuve!
Gravitas – others have given you the Council references (LG 14-16).
I’m sure you’re not trying to be wise guy, but you seem to have a difficulty aligning the pope’s words with the Council. If you think the Pope spoke against the Council, perhaps you could give us the Council’s dogmatic statements to support your line. That might help us understand where you’re coming from.
D.B. Prewitt said: “How refreshing that the Pope had the courage to reaffirm a dogma that has not been articulated in over 40 years!”
Eh? I think you just might not have been listening carefully enough.
And Father, isn’t the traditional name “Holy Roman Catholic Church” understood precisely to mean that only in Churches that are in unity with Rome is there salvation? It’s not meant to say that only in the Latin Church, or only in the Roman Church, is there salvation.
This message from the Holy Father seems well suited to help prepare for the reception of the Motu Proprio.
It also appears to serve as a warning (intentional or not) to those who would reject it (the MP) as going either too far or not far enough.
DB: One Holy Roman Catholic Church.
I think it might be a bit disconcerting for Maronite Catholics or Ukranian Catholics to name only two non-Roman Catholic Churches in unity with Rome to hear that only in the Roman Church there is salvation.
However, concerning the release of the MP on Corpus Christi (which in the Vatican City and in the traditional calendar would be tomorrow, Thursday), I am all for that.
Chill the Veuve!
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,
Father Zuhlsdorf,
Call a spade a spade, it is the One Holy Roman Catholic Church! It has been for almost 2,000 years! I will quote Saint Irenaeus (Against the Heresies Book III Chapter III) to illustrate,
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authorityâ€
This is only one reason why it is the Roman Catholic Church.
To Jordan Potter:
I have been carefully listening what has been taught since Vatican II, and have found that the teaching has been quite politically correct, just the way the liberals like it. They write long explanations that sound quite good at first, but when you really look closely at what it is saying you find that it can be used to teach just about anything you want it to. You are in the True Church of Christ or you are outside it; it is just that simple. What Christ and his Apostles taught was simple and very much “black and white†the liberals want everyone to see many shades of gray between the two. That is very much our problem in the One Holy Roman Catholic Church today. “The Spirit of Vatican II†hides a great many heresies, Vatican II if it was presented in a responsible way it may not have been that bad, however when you really look at what the documents are saying there are several disturbing statements that the liberals may use to twist the truth.
I will give just two examples:
Unitatis Redintegratio # 1:
“Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God.â€
This sounds good, but read it carefully. The Roman Catholic Church is that one universal church is it not? This opened the door to the liberals to question a teaching that had been settled up to that time.
Unitatis redintegratio (# 4):
“Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons and daughters who, though attached to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full Catholicity in all its bearings.â€
You are in the Church or outside it. Those Christians that oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church are called… *gasp*… Heretics, and they are thus outside it. It is they, the heretics that prevent themselves from being in communion with the True Church of Christ, not the Holy Mother Church. Is this the above quote saying that the True Church of Christ, his one bride not really the universal church? See, the liberals want to change the Church from within using these awful wishy-washy statements. Instead of just leaving the Church they want to change it into what they want it to be. Look at what they did to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I had better leave it there I am sure I am going to get more love notes for what I just said.
Well, I guess a motu proprio will do, but after all this time I’d really prefer an Apostolic Constitution or maybe even a Golden Bull.
No, it does not. The word “Holy Roman Catholic Church” while popular, is found nowhere in the official nomenclature of the Church. It is rather a corruption of the “Holy Roman Empire”
The official names of the church are.
The Catholic (universal) Church
The church of Christ
“Roman Church” or “Church of Rome” is used only in reference to the actual see of Rome as a bishopric or to the Latin Rite, but not to the Pope as universal pastor, the proper term for which is “Petrine See (office, ministry)” So sorry D.B., you are technically wrong.
Fr. Z, D.B. and Tim,
First of all, thanks Fr. Z (and Tim) for your sensitivity to nomenclature here. Since we Easterners are often minorities in a Latin sea (or See, as in the case of the Russian-rite, but I digress…! :-) ) it means a great deal to hear a Latin priest respect how other, autonomous ritual church traditions.
If I might offer a slight compromise here on “One, Holy, Roman Catholic…”
Some of us who are of the ritual tradition of Constantinople also claim the title of “Roman”, since Constantinople was the “New Rome” and the seat of the Eastern Roman Empire for quite some time.
Of course, as Father mentioned, that would not really apply to (non-Greek) Antioch or especially Alexandria, since their traditions did not originate with New Rome. (In fact, the opposite is true especially as it pertains to Antiochene Christianity’s influence over Byzantium.)
For my part, the nomenclature I prefer is “Orthodox Catholic” or “Orthodox Christian in union with Rome”. Does that make me “Roman Orthodox”? Hmmm….
Of course, Rome is the See of Sts. Peter and Paul, as Irenaeus mentions, in large part because they founded and organized the CHurch of Rome, but more importantly, bore full apostolic witness there through martyrdon. Incidently, Peter was also the first bishop of Antioch – BEFORE he was bishop of Rome. For this reason, the Maronite Patriarch retains the name of “Peter” as part of his title. This should not be a scandal to anyone, since the entire Pentarchy is predicated upon the existence of an authoritative Petrine ministry:
Roma = place of Peter’s martyrdom, Church which presides in amor (“roma” backwards)
Constantinople = see of Andrew (Peter’s brother)
Antioch = first see of Peter
Alexandria = founded by Mark, Peter’s disciple
Jerusalem = where Peter was given the keys
As far as Pope Benedict’s speech, thank you, Father, for mentioning this in light of the MP. I would never have made that connection!
In ICXC,
Gordo
perhaps you could give us the Council’s dogmatic statements to support your line.
What dogmatic statements did the Second Vatican Council ever make?
William, Vatican II’s dogmatic statements are found in Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum, the two “dogmatic constitutions” of the council.
Jordan Potter, Pope Benedict XVI, in his address as Cardinal Ratzinger, to the Bishops of Chile in 1988, called the Council “modest,” “pastoral,” and that it defined no dogmas.
Therefore, anything in the Council teaching that is infallible is merely a reaffirmation of what had been defined before.
Excellent distinction, Brian. While the Council did not define any new dogmas, it nonetheless expressed several dogmatic points, particularly in the two dogmatic constitutions. While the Council was indeed “modest and pastoral” it still taught authoritatively as an ecumenical Council.
In Canon Law, we make distinctions between the various Churches sui iuris which make up the Catholic Church, e.g., the Maronite Church, the Italo-Albanian Church, the Malabar Church, et al. It’s an ongoing debate what to call the largest of the Churches sui iuris, the one to which most of us belong. Is it the Latin Church? If so, it’s the only one which calls itself by the language it uses. Is it the Roman Church? If so, some Eastern Christians get upset because they proclaim themselves to also be “Roman Catholic” in distinction from their Orthodox (big “O”, not little “o”) neighbors. It seems that if you get five canonists together, particularly five Eastern canonists, you get five different answers and reasons.
William didn’t say anything about dogmatic definitions. He asked about dogmatic statements. If a dogmatic constitution doesn’t contain dogmatic statements, then the Council wouldn’t have called it a dogmatic constitution.
Also, it is not just dogmatic definitions and the reaffirmation of a dogmatic definition that falls under the grace of infallibility. The Church believes and teaches many things infallibly that have never been dogmatically defined (an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium), but are infallible in the ordinary magisterium. So, hypothetically, the Council teaching can reaffirm infallibly things that have not been defined yet.
D.B,
Read Augustine’s De Baptismo Contra Donatistas and you will see that all the baptized are incorporated into the Catholic Church, although some have only a partial unity. I think that UR is using the term Catholic in the most extensive sense possible here and so of course we can say the Catholic Church is not yet as Catholic as it could be.
Mr. Robertson, this is seriously misguided. Of course, all the baptized are incorporated into the Catholic Church, as you say. As such, they have full and not partial unity with her…until such time as they break the bonds of communion by schism, heresy or otherwise. They then rupture that unity. Nowhere to my knowledge does St. Augustine speak of a partial unity with the Church; one is either a Catholic or not. Perhaps you are thinking of his teaching against the Donatists that personal sin does not cause one to cease to be a Catholic?
It is absolutely false to say the Church is not yet as catholic as she could be; she possesses the fulness of catholicity. She simply does not yet incorporate as many people as she could; but that diminishes those outside, not her own perfection.
Cerimoniere,
How about this passage from De Baptismo 1.1.2: ” For in all points in which they think with us, they also are in communion with us, and are only severed from us in those points in which they dissent from us.” If this does not constitute partial unity, I don’t know what it does. This is a result of his interpretation of the passage “He that is not against you is for you,” in its relationship to the passage “He that does not gather with you scatters.” Further, he considered baptism to be given by Christ and the Church, even if that baptism was given in schism, comparing this action to Jacob’s begetting of the tribes of Israel by means of his wives’ handmaidens.
As far as catholicity is concerned, I agree that the Church is as catholic as she could be in the sense that you mention, but I think that UR is referring to the sense in which it is seen that the Church does not yet encompass all of humanity.
Another thought about the statement of UR about Catholicity: If whoever is baptized is incorporated by that very fact into the Catholic Church, does not their separation from the Church constitute a defect of Catholicity? Augustine was not afraid to speak of the seamless garment of Christ (as a symbol of the Church)being torn asunder….
Just testing. Had trouble with another comment line.
It seems to me that one big change found in Vat II (LG 25) is the extension of the authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium to secondary objects. In Vat I Papal authority is said to pertain to both primary and secondary objects, but OUM authority only to primary objects.
Primary Object: Something that must be believed (credendum), e.g., the Immaculate Conception or the existence of the ministerial priesthood.
Secondary Object: Something that must be held (tenendum), e.g., male priesthood.
Jumping into the fray —
Tim Hallet writes:
No, it does not. The word “Holy Roman Catholic Church†while popular, is found nowhere in the official nomenclature of the Church. It is rather a corruption of the “Holy Roman Empireâ€
The official names of the church are.
The Catholic (universal) Church
The church of Christ
“Roman Church†or “Church of Rome†is used only in reference to the actual see of Rome as a bishopric or to the Latin Rite, but not to the Pope as universal pastor, the proper term for which is “Petrine See (office, ministry)†So sorry D.B., you are technically wrong.
Sorry, but D.B. is correct and those who are correcting him are wrong (well, either they are wrong or the late Pope Pius XII was wrong!):
“If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ – which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church – we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression ‘the Mystical Body of Christ’.” [Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, #13]
Pius XII explicitly describes the True Church of Our Lord as Roman.
it may be referring to the sedevacantists and the extremer modernists opposed to
the Traditional Roman Mass also.
I do not think it refers to the SSPX per se, possibly in stressing that a
fuller juridical communion is needed for them, but primarily – as Benedict XVI
called Lefebvre “that great bishop of the universal Church” – to those threatening
Rome with public disobedience and schism in case of a liberalisation of the
Old Mass.
The repetition of the Church dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation
in this lecture is very hopeful, though I happen not to have found such
clear language on this Dogma of Divine Faith in Ratzinger’s theological private
works.
Again, I do not think Benedict XVI is referring to the Society of St. Pius X which
is not in formal schism at all according to the Roman dicasteries, but rather to
liberals and politicians threatening to cut off ties with the Most Holy Apostolic See.
But a great sermon, I mus admit that!
D.B. said: “You are in the Church or outside it.”
Well, yes . . . and no. The Catholic Church’s ecclesiology is a bit more nuanced than your sharp either/or classification. Some who are not formally in the Church are nevertheless imperfectly joined to her, and others who are in the Church are for various reasons not fully incorporated into her.
RBrown said: “In Vat I Papal authority is said to pertain to both primary and secondary objects, but OUM authority only to primary objects.”
I know where Pastor Aeternus teaches that papal authority pertains to primary and secondary objects, but I’m having trouble finding the passage in Pastor Aeternus that teaches that the ordinary universal magisterium pertains only to primary objects. Could you help me find it?
dcs,
You wrote:
“Sorry, but D.B. is correct and those who are correcting him are wrong (well, either they are wrong or the late Pope Pius XII was wrong!): “If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ – which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church – we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression ‘the Mystical Body of Christ’.†[Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, #13] Pius XII explicitly describes the True Church of Our Lord as Roman.”
Ok. So the point is…what then?
That every particular Church should change its title to include an explicit reference to Rome? If that is what you are suggesting, I think it goes beyond even what Pius XII would say or is suggesting in the passage.
The question is – in what sense is the Church “Roman”? Insofar as the Bishop and Church of Rome presides in love over the Church by virtue of Petrine succession, one could say that the whole Church is “Roman”. Insofar as not every Church is subject to (or dependent upon) the Pope in his diocesan or patriarchal role, or was not part of the Eastern Roman Empire based in Constantinople (New Rome) not every Church will – or should – claim the title “Roman”. (The “St. Thomas Christians” of India come to mind…)
God bless,
Gordo
Father,
Thanks for the info. What I saw on tv certainly looked very much like an attack.
James Daly
Apologies for the delayed reply; work looms.
I’d like to look up the Latin text of De Baptismo, but I suspect that the issue here is what “are in communion with us” means in this context. I do not think that Augustine is suggesting that there is a sliding scale of ecclesiastical communion proportionate to the “amount” of the Catholic faith that a person believes, which is what a literal reading of that text would seem to imply. I think he means rather that different heretics are nearer to or farther from the Church, depending on the extent of their acceptance of the faith, but still one either is a Catholic or not.
The issue Mr. Potter raises is different again: whether one can tell if someone is actually in union with the Church. Evidently, when we speak of someone being a Catholic, we are usually talking about the external forum, because that is all we can know. We have no idea how many people may actually be Catholics through baptism of desire, or by a non-culpable separation of themselves from the visible Church.
Gordo the Byzantine asks:
Ok. So the point is…what then?
That every particular Church should change its title to include an explicit reference to Rome? If that is what you are suggesting, I think it goes beyond even what Pius XII would say or is suggesting in the passage.
I am simply pointing out that D.B.’s reference to “the One Holy Roman Catholic Church” is not wrong as others have suggested. Particular Churches in union with Rome can call themselves anything they want as far as I’m concerned, as long as it’s fitting (e.g., no “Martian Catholic Lutheran Churches” please) and as long as they don’t deny that they are subject to the Pope.
“I’d like to look up the Latin text of De Baptismo, but I suspect that the issue here is what “are in communion with us†means in this context. I do not think that Augustine is suggesting that there is a sliding scale of ecclesiastical communion proportionate to the “amount†of the Catholic faith that a person believes, which is what a literal reading of that text would seem to imply. I think he means rather that different heretics are nearer to or farther from the Church, depending on the extent of their acceptance of the faith, but still one either is a Catholic or not.”
According to my understanding of the text, Augustine considers all the baptized to be incorporated into the Church. A person who separates himself from the Church is a “dead member”. When such a person is restored to full communion, only that which is defective is corrected. What is of God and the Church is to be approved, even in a state of separation. Although a person who is separated from the Church does not belong to the Body of Christ (mainly because of a defect of charity), he can be said to be in communion with the Body of Christ with respect to those things that belong to the Church. Remember also that the eschatological fulfullment of the Church is always the standard by which Augustine judges present conditions, so many who seem to be outside can be more rightly said to be inside than some who are now inside. The tension produced by this eschatological perspective makes present judgments somewhat provisional, but we must still make our judgments according to present appearances. We must not despair of the salvation of any man, but we cannot approve of their error. The fact that schismatics have the sacraments puts them in a unique situation with reference to salvation; on the one hand, they are very close, since they need only the removal of the impediment in order to enter fully into the community of salvation. On the other hand, they may be worse off than those who do not have the sacraments, since they have them to their own destruction. Augustine would not have called the Donatists a Church in the true sense, because the Church takes its name from its eschatological reality. The individual members can be said to be in partial communion with the Church only in reference to the valid sacraments they possess. I think it is well expressed (and a very Augustinian approach) by JPII in Ut Unum Sint 11 “To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion.” I have seen some translations of this passage rendering it “present and operative,” which would be erroneous, giving the impression that the Church of Christ subsists in these communities.
I happily accept the general account you give here.
I maintain, however, that the commonalities which exist between the Church and many non-Catholic sects do not amount to “partial communion” in the ecclesiastical sense, that is, in the sense in which Catholics are in communion with one another. There is a difference in kind between that communion, and the commonalities which may exist between Catholics and, for example, an Anglican.
The exception to this, of course, is when the Anglican is really a Catholic in the eschatological perspective to which you refer, because he has somehow become united to the Church by extraordinary means. In that case, there is really full and not partial communion; we simply can’t tell, and must speak and act as though communion did not exist.
While the phrase “partial communion” can be understood in this way, I am afraid that it is one of those which is highly likely to mislead and is often used precisely so as to do so in ecumenical contexts.
dcs,
You wrote: “as long as they don’t deny that they are subject to the Pope”
Hmmm. I find it interesting that you would characterize our communion with the Church of Rome as being “subject” to the Pope. I suppose it depends on how one defines “subject”. The Pope is the elder brother to his brother bishops, exercising a spiritual form of primogeniture as the successor of St. Peter in relationship to his brother apostles. The language of Lumen Gentium, I believe, is “with and under”. “Subject to” I think does not capture the fulness of what his ministry means in the communion of Churches. There is no “with” in such a characterization, only “under”, which is improper and onesided.
Not meaning to be overly critical here, but this is a point in need of constant clarification among the Latins. Latin hierarchs are more properly “under” than “with” the Roman Pontiff in his role as the head of a ritual church. It is improper to ascribe such an approach to the Eastern hierarchs who are the heads of sui juris Churches. This does not in any way denigrate or diminish his primacy of (honor and) jurisdiction as properly defined by Vatican I and reaffirmed as well as clarified by Vatican II.
God bless,
Gordo