www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Where's the Catholic Church?

Thank you, Anastasios, for picking up on that. But you must note that Kurt was talking about the one-holy-catholic church and not the one-holy-catholic-AND-apostolic church. Elsewhere in responding to a point I made about churches with true sacraments and valid apostolic succession, he included Protestants by likewise adjusting the premise. In both cases, while enjoying the incisiveness of his comments, I am stymied by the inclusion of Protestants. Again, in both cases, the issue to me seemed never to include Protestants, but rather the EO, OO, RC, and Assyrian Church of the East.

Meanwhile, if I might explain before returning to full lurking status [among the other things that command my attention, I teach geography in high school and am coming up on the eve of opening day], my first encounter with an Orthodox Christian polemicist, who inspired some of us RCs to learn more about Orthodoxy, was with one who often played the Protestant "card."

It seemed that every Catholic "development" that was discussed, invited a comparison of Catholics with Protestants, as if they were somehow bad company that we would want to eschew as fellow pilgrims. At first I would back off or defensively look for another angle to discuss.

Then I realized I stood in the shadow of shame. We Roman Catholics created Protestantism with our sins and abuses.

Lord knows, on judgment day, there will probably be a sea of good Christian Protestants between me and the throne of the Almighty. Who knows to what degree the "last" will become the "first?"

p.s. As I read Dominus Jesus, I noted that no where did it equate the Roman Catholic Church with the one-true-catholic-AND-apostolic church. Rather it maintained that the Catholic Church subsisted in the one-true-catholic-AND-apostolic church as did Vatican II. However, a goodly number of individual Catholics, as well as a goodly number of Orthodox, do make that equation for their respective churches. Each house has members who define there body by exclusion rather than inclusion. When Christ said "Feed my sheep," He didn't add stream of canonical exceptions.

Blessings, blessings, blessings to you all.


[This message has been edited by Latin Lurker (edited 08-16-2001).]

>>>"Where is the Catholic Church?"<<<

St. Ignatius of Antioch gave two answers, interrelated, which say all that need to be said:

1. Where there is the bishop, there is the Catholic Church.

2. Where there is the Eucharist, there is the Catholic Church.

As the first man to use the term "Ekklesia Katholikos", I would say Ignatius holds the copyright, if not the patent. So regardless of what came after, these are the two criteria that count. Moreover, Ignatius was using the term "katholikos" not in its current sense of universal, but in the alternative sense of "fullness": where the bishop is, there is the fullness of the Church; where the Eucharist is, there is the fullness of the Church. All the Petrine apologetics in the world cannot transcend the truth that the Catholic Church exists in its fullness wherever there is a bishop consecrated in the Apostolic Succession, in communion with other bishops (not just ONE particular bishop), celebrating the Eucharist in accordance with the Tradition of his particular Church.

>>>UBI PETRUS EST, IBI
ECCLESIA EST.<<<

Semper ubi sub ubi!

Dustin,

While I repect your private opinion and you make some points which I think develop what I said, I/m afraid the gist of your statement is simply not what the Catholic Church and the popes teach.

From the teaching of the Catholic Church (i.e. that communion in union with the Pope of Rome), the Church refered to in the Creed consists of all baptized persons, in or without visable communion with that body in communion withthe Pope of Rome. This is a very fundemental and central assertion of the Church's teaching, not to be lightly glossed over. A denial of this is a denial of the Catholic Church's understanding of baptism. The Catholic Church as the church of all the baptized is the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, one cannot say that the Orthodox are mystically united to it and other Christians are not.

Now let us consider the term "fully". Neither Protestants nor Orthodox are in full communionwitht he catholic church. That is the sad problem that this forum seeks to overcome.

I.e., both Protestants and Orthodox are part of the Mystical Catholic Church, neither are fully members of the visable Catholic Church.

Of course, this does not deny that certain unresovled theological diferrences exist between the Catholic and Protestant Churches that are not points of difference with the Orthodox.

But you get into trouble with the Popes (Paul VI and John Paul II) when you claim "Protestants are simply unwilling to accept the divine truth". Both have made it clear this is not a belief the Catholic Church can accept. First is the assertion their is a lack of will. That is just totally our of bounds from the Catholic Church's viewpoint. Secondly, the public assertion of each particular divine truth is not a condition for membership in the church or even reception of the Eucharist.

K.

"Ignatius holds the copyright"

Stuart,
You could have saved me a lot of time, if you had gotten up earlier.

Blessed are the peace makers.

"Where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church." The Bishop par excellance is the Bishop of Rome! AFAIK of the "apostolic" sees only the Bishop of Rome has never fallen into heresy. There have been no Arian, Nestorian, Eutychian or Monothelite Bishops of Rome. Can Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch or Jerusalem make the same claim?

Dear Alexius,

Actually, Pope Honorius I was a Monothelite and, until the 12th century, his successors on the Roman Throne had to repeat the anathemas against him.

He is being "rehabilitated" today. But so is Nestorius et al.

A Pope may fall into heresy and, at that point, he is no longer Pope. The historical heretics of the Church were also deposed from their Patriarchal Sees.

Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople were centres and hot-beds, if you will, of theological controversy. Rome, by that time, was rather insignificant by comparison.

Although not "heretical," later Popes (of the Renaissance, for example) were hardly examples of "holy Pontiffs" (e.g. Alexander VI). They weren't heretical, but unworthy of the See of Rome for the poor moral quality of their lives.

That doesn't change the fact of the Petrine Ministry as exercised by the Roman Pope.

It only means no one, in East or West, can be triumphalist about their respective Patriarchs.

Alex

I agree with moronikus. The Eucharist is the center of all.

Would that we could all be like those babas!

>>>AFAIK of the "apostolic" sees only the Bishop of Rome has
never fallen into heresy. <<<

You DON'T want to go there, not with me. You are hereby warned. Save the cheap polemics and apologetics for the fundamentalists, but don't try to foist it off on someone who has a little more than a smattering of ecclesiastical history under his belt.

Jesus told Peter the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. There has to be some Church where that holds true else Christ is a liar.

And Jesus did not lie! The gates of hell did not prevail against the Holy Christian Church.

Are the Bishops of Rome "still" monothelites?

Are the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem "still" Arians, Nestorians, etc.

Of course not.

The gates of hell have not "prevailed" against the Holy Church.

The promises of Christ are irrevocable.

Bill

[You DON'T want to go there, not with me. You are hereby warned. Save the cheap polemics and apologetics for the fundamentalists, but don't try to foist it off on someone who has a little more than a smattering of ecclesiastical history under his belt.]

Thanks Stuart. You saved me from posting my reply which would probably only opened another can of worms.

Bob

I would think there must be one visible Church that has never fallen into error. Else it would be possible at one time every church even for an instance was in error at the same time and then there would be no Truth on earth for one to turn to. Then we have that heresy of the invisible church; the idea that the Church is only made up of believers known but to God. It would be impossible for a seeker to join an invisible Church. The gates of hell will never prevail. I don't see how that means they have from time to time but the Church fights back and overcomes the Devil only to be overtaken again and again.

There is more to every visible church than the hierarch/hierarchs and their faith, whether orthodox or heterodox.

There is also the faith of the "faithful," both clergy and laity, who have sometimes been a minority within their own "visible" church. But they have been the remnant who have persevered in the truth and in the short or long run, they have been vindicated by and in their orthodoxy and the gates of hell have not prevailed against the faith of the orthodox.

Bill

That's not what the Catholic Church teaches. Those Churches who have valid apostolic succession and the Eucharist are indeed "in the Catholic Church", although through "imperfect communion" (such as the Orthodox). Other Christians who have faith in Christ and have been baptized (such as Protestants) also are "in the Catholic Church", although they lack means for receiving the sacraments and are individually in "imperfect communion". Jozef Cardinal Ratzinger of the CFD expressed this teaching succinctly in the recent Dominus Iesus:

This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him."54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that "outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth",55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that "they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."57
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63
"The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection -- divided, yet in some way one -- of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach."64 In fact, "the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities."65 "Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, 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 which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."66
The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but "in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history."67 [br] http://www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve.cfm?recnum=3022#IV [br]

Pax Christi,
John