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 stay in the Catholic church as the 'best' church, that's just peachy for them...

The part that irritates me is the insistence that the Catholic church is the "one and ONLY church". Many groups feel that their church is the "best" is some particular way, but most don't claim to be the *only* legitimate source of grace. Those that do (and the RCC is not the only one, of course) are IMO setting a deliberate block in the way of Christian unity. That is sad, but I suppose to be expected. I don't think we will ever get complete Christian unity this side of eternity, but that's not a reason to go around making uncharitable remarks, IMHO. It is bad for our witness to the non-Christian world, which was, after all the Great Commission which we all agree on, I think.

[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."

Also, as the article and as Catholic theology indicate, the Catholic Church does not say that we are the only source of grace, which would indicate that somehow grace is denied to anyone who isn't Catholic. The very opposite is true, that Catholics recognize that God's grace most certainly works among the separated ecclesial communities, but that without the Catholic Sacraments, Christians are denying themselves the full extent of grace that God makes available to humanity.

I'm sorry that you think Fr. Neuhaus' article was uncharitable in any way. I simply cannot see it, and in fact see it as a paradigm of Christian charity. You cannot expect us to discuss unity without setting forth what we believe to be true, especially when it comes to defining what we believe Church to mean. What kind of Church unity would we have if there was no agreement on what it means to be Church? It certainly wouldn't be anything very meaningful, that's for sure.

[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?

I don't think the *article* is uncharitable. He is pretty much clear and straight down the line in presenting his point of view. I reserve the right to disagree, but I don't particularly have a problem with his statements about his views on the RCC.

I guess I just think the overall attitude that "we are the church and you are not" is an uncharitable one. But I think that because I don't think it is true. Hence my resignation to the fact that "Christian unity" is unlikely to be possible with those who hold such views. Again, the RCC is not the only one, and not the main one with which I have had such discussions. I move more in Eastern Orthodox circles so I'm more familiar with their POV on such subjects.

If I understand the Eastern Orthodox position, it is that they are the True Church, but they don't claim to know how/if God chooses to work through other communities. Which I think is a key difference to the RCC claim that other communities are necessarily less perfect and less grace-filled that the RCC itself.

I would be kind of interested to know how the RCC views Eastern Orthodoxy, since he says in the article that this is a special case. I would agree, since I think (personally and without intending to offend) that the Orthodox claim to apostolic descent (which most traditional churches make so much of) is probably better, IMHO, but without being a member of any of the above... I don't actually think apostolic descent is important at all, so it doesn't matter that much to me.

[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 that Christ established.

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. You might be right that what we believe about the nature of Church - which is to say, how we interpret the Word of God in Scripture, the words of Jesus Christ, and what has been taught by us rather consistently in terms of ecclesiology for some 2,000 years - will ultimately mean that we will not achieve Christian unity in our lifetime, but we cannot change what we believe to be true for the sake of coming together. As Fr. Neuhaus said in the article, "we do Christian unity no favors by fudging what we actually believe." If we are dishonest about what we believe to be true - and we believe it to be true because it has been taught consistently as a core doctrine of the Church for 2,000 years - then we can never achieve any real unity. Perhaps what we believe does make unity unlikely, but fudging what we believe makes it impossible.

The Orthodox Church is a special case, because they do have valid orders, valid sacraments, and an authentic apostolic succession. What the Catholic Church says is that they are particular churches (just as my parish church is a particular church but simply part of the bigger Church) who are wounded by their lack of full communion with the bishop of Rome, which we believe to be necessary for the perfect subsitence of the Church of Christ.

Finally, as to the question of grace. You wrote: I also understood him to say that grace is imperfectly expressed through the other ecclesial communities which are not part of the "Church".

The first thing that needs to be cleared up is that the Catholic understanding is not at all what you've said here regarding the ecclesial communities not being part of the Church. Just the opposite is true. There is one Church, and you are part of it, as is every baptized Christian. You are baptized into the Church. In terms of grace, the main difference is that there are certain specific means or vehicles of grace that Christ has established through the ministerial priesthood that necessarily cannot be available to those ecclesial communities, because there is no valid priesthood without apostolic succession. This would include Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation primarily. These are specific vehicles of grace that require a valid priesthood. But that does not prevent God from working through the other ecclesial communities in the operation of grace. It just means that two very specific means of grace that He established He established through the apostolic priesthood, and that priesthood can only be found in the Catholic and Orthodox Church.

Anyway, I obviously recognize that you disagree - if you agreed you would be Catholic. But I do hope you can recognize that there is nothing uncharitable about it at all. It is simply the ecclesial theology that has been handed down to us for 2,000 years, and we certainly can't just change it simply because today that theology makes people uncomfortable. Truth and charity must always work hand in hand, and if we forsake what we believe to be true, we cannot be charitable.

[elizabby]

Fair enough - thanks for clarifying all that.

Perhaps what I'm griping about is that it seems uncharitable to actively promote such views in a multi-denominational setting? Someone further down the thread commented (can't see it right now) that "sheep-stealing" isn't "kosher" if you KWIM. Yet, if the RCC is the "One True Church" why not? Surely the best way for everyone is to be part of it? Surely the natural consequence of feeling that the RCC is the "best ordered, etc" is to get everyone else into it?

Anyway, discussion of how good we are and how incomplete everyone else is may be useful for discussion within a RCC community, but I'm not sure what purpose it serves in a multi-denominational community, except to highlight division. I think we can both agree that reconciliation of the visible church structures to which we belong is unlikely, so personally, I would prefer to concentrate on what we have in common rather than what divides us.

Point taken, perhaps "uncharitable" is a little strong. Maybe I should have said "indiscreet"?

[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 future is unity, and so discussing what divides us, to me, is important to helping us lay our generation's foundation towards that distant future goal.

[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.

I'm familiar with discussing some pretty divisive subjects (infant vs believer's baptism can get pretty hot too) but with this one, it comes so much down to basic church doctrine/dogma that I really don't see any common ground even to begin with. At least in discussing Biblical interpretation we can agree with the starting text (usually) but here I don't think we can even do that.

Sorry to sound cynical, but I just can't see it happening *ever* (on earth) let alone within our lifetimes! I think it is a "job for Jesus" - on hold until He gets here! ;)

[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.

However, while I can talk about where I stand, if we don't talk about it, write about it, at higher levels hold conferences about it, then we come to no agreements. Over time it is possible for minds to meet, for understandings to change, et cetera. Perhaps our understanding of things will change, perhaps not. But we have to keep pushing on, figuring out if there is a better way to understand things. The thing is, over just the past 40 years or so there have been significant steps. Councils between Lutherans and Catholics, meetings between Orthodox and Catholics, discussions between Catholics and Anglicans, all at very high levels on the nature of unity. Now I don't imagine that actual unity among any of these is going to happen anytime soon, but minor roadblocks certainly have been taken down. And if each generation takes down another roadblock, then we move forward.

I understand and appreciate your cynicism, but at the same time, from my perspective, I think this is all part of our Gospel mission. Working towards unity, no matter how frustrating it is and how cynical we are about it, to me is a fundamental component of doing God's will.

[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).

The Bible (the set of books chosen by the Holy Roman Catholic Church to be 'scripture') makes it simpler than throwing a pebble into the sea:

Matthew's Gospel: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of Hell will not prevail against her".

Paul goes on at great length in his epistles about the Church as Body of Christ and we as members of the Body - those who are baptised into that Church of Peter and no other.

It isn't about "better" or "making claims" it's about pure and simple historical fact - your ancestors knew of absolutely no other thing apart from being members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Whatever else exists outside of that Church Christ founded may in some way occasionally be a source of grace but it is the exception and not the rule.

Either Christ has one Body or he has 35,000 of them. It isn't a fluke of fate that the Roman and Orthodox Churches together comprise the absolutely vast majority of the world's christian population; more particularly, the Church Christ founded in Peter at Rome is not over One Billion strong by chance. It is so because there was never anything else until Luther reinvented the faith of Christ.

It is far better to deal in facts concerning the Church rather than an emotive chat about who did what and who claims what - the facts of scripture and history speak for themselves and need no human qualification.

"One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic".

[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.