The One True Church

[rest_in_thee]

First Things, the journal for which the great, late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus was editor, has published an article he wrote for the magazine just before he died. I have just read it, and it is a wonderful commentary on ecumenism and the nature of the Church, and a Catholic understanding of the One True Church. Here is an excerpt:

My church is

Comments

[elizabby]

In sum, Catholics should not fear offending our ecumenical partners by affirming what we believe the Catholic Church to be. To be sure, that affirmation has weighty implications. For instance, Lumen Gentium also says, “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.” But that, too, should not offend non-Catholic Christians, since we can all agree that such a person would be acting against his conscience and his sure discernment of the will of God. If he continues on that course without repentance, he could not be saved. It is quite a different matter with those who do not know-i.e., do not recognize the truth-that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be. They are wrong about that, of course, but that, presumably, is one reason why they are not Catholics. I'm not sure I've got this completely down, but as a non-Catholic Christian I don't really care one way or the other what claims you make for your own church. If someone wishes to

[rest_in_thee]

Well, you've got it a bit off. The Catholic Church does not claim to be the one and ONLY church, as you say. Rather, our theology asserts that Christ founded only one Church, which is the only logical assertion one can make, for the Church is the Body of Christ, and He is the Head, and for one Head there can only be one Body. And so in the one Church that Christ founded, Catholics believe that that Church most perfectly subsists in the Catholic Church. Or in the language of the article, the Catholic Church is "the Church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time

[elizabby]

Well, I did read it rather quickly, but I thought it read that the Catholic church is the only True Church, and everyone else is an "ecclesial community". Now, I'm not 100% sure what he means by that, but it does seem to say that everyone else is "not the One True Church". I also understood him to say that grace is imperfectly expressed through the other ecclesial communities which are not part of the "Church". Am I getting him wrong on this

[rest_in_thee]

but it does seem to say that everyone else is "not the One True Church"Sort of yes and sort of no. He's saying that there can be only one Church, because there is only one Christ, and Christ is the Head, and Church is the Body. There can't be many multiple churches. It can't be that everyone is a different Church, because that would necessitate many Christs. So what he is saying is that there is only One Church, established by Christ, and every baptized Christian is a part of that Church. The Catholic Church is where the Church established by Christ subsist most fully and most perfectly, or in the language of Fr. Neuhaus, the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time. In other words, there is no "my church is right and your church is wrong," but rather, "there is only Church, for Christ did not establish but one Church, and there can only ever be one Church." And Catholic believe (and honestly, it would be silly if we didn't) that the Catholic Church is most ordered towards the Church

[elizabby]

Fair enough - thanks for clarifying all that

[rest_in_thee]

I think a multi-denominational community is exactly the place for it. If we don't talk to each other and discuss what we believe and why we believe it, then there is certainly no hope for unity, ever. Yes we are divided, and I think there is a time when it's important to highlight what exactly divides us, instead of just quietly saying thinking about it. That's why charity is so important, because what we are discussing is divisive - or rather, we are discussing what already has us divided and why. But in talking about it openly and charitably, maybe some of us here can play a small role in erasing those divisions and working towards unity. We might not see visible unity anytime soon - we won't, I'm sure of it - but unity is part of God's plan, somehow. Christ prayed for it. And we know in matters of Church things take centuries or longer to change so dramatically, but they change by generations laying foundations upon generations. We all have our role to play in the here and now, pointing towards the future. Part of that

[elizabby]

Er, OK, but with the theology you've just explained, exactly how do you think unity might ever be achieved? Given another 2,000 years, let's say? Is it only possible by everyone else becoming Roman Catholic? This is what such a theology seems to suggest to me, which is why I see no point discussing it. Your starting points seem to me to exclude the possibility of unity without total capitulation of everyone else. Since some groups of the Orthodox take exactly the same position, I see some problems right there

[rest_in_thee]

Actually, within the Catholic Church there is much more than just Roman Catholic. There are some 14 different rites within the Church. I do think that the only way we ever achieve unity is with communion with the bishop of Rome, but that does not necessarily mean everyone becomes Roman Catholic

[elizabby]

Ah well, if the discussions are ongoing at a high level, I might just leave it to those who understand what all this is really about. I obviously do not. I didn't even realize there were different kind of Catholics at all...

Personally, I feel much more called (and suited) to discuss Christianity with non-Christians, than to the high level theology which such inter-denominational talks must require. I much prefer the "Mere Christianity" which doesn't at all go into this stuff (and I hope that doesn't sound hopelessly ignorant, but oh well...)

If the Anglican church decides to merge with either the Orthodox or the Catholic Church of whatever type, then I'll go with it, but until then I think I'll stay out of it. My local Orthodox priest seems to feel that Anglicans and Orthodox are quite theologically close, though I can't see that either myself.

[rest_in_thee]

Personally, I feel much more called (and suited) to discuss Christianity with non-Christians, than to the high level theology which such inter-denominational talks must require. I much prefer the "Mere Christianity" which doesn't at all go into this stuff

Which is both admirable and necessary :) It's like 1 Cor 12, we all have different roles to play in the Church. And as long as we do them in love we are serving God well.

[crosstherubicon]

"I appreciate that you disagree, but I don't think it's really fair to say that because you think the position isn't true that it must then be uncharitable"

[napoleonofnerds]

We don't agree on the great commission - it only applies to the Apostles and their heirs.

[crosstherubicon]

You ought really to only care what Scripture says, if you claim to be Christian (as I assume you do

[arago_sama]

It seems interesting to me that in Scripture both Peter and Paul are both concerned about 'the Body' but not the 'Church of Peter'. In fact, it seems to me that Peter didn't even realize any primacy, nor did several of his successors. Heck, there wasn't even a real hierarchy back then. It seems a lot of the bishop of Rome's primacy is based on retconning history.

[solaecclesia]

This statement of yours reveals a deep ignorance of history.

[arago_sama]

I guess I just haven't been reading history books written by Catholics. I'd imagine Orthodoxy's issues back then when the bishops of Rome began to assert their primacy stems from the same problem.