From Cardinal William Levada:
'...Nevertheless, a strict comparison between the Anglicans and the Eastern Church and Catholic Churches would not be correct, I hasten to add. The Eastern Churches, like the Ukrainian Catholic Church so numerous in Canada, are in the fullest sense of the term “Churches” since they have valid apostolic succession and thus valid Eucharist. They are therefore called Churches sui juris because they have their own legal structures of governance, all while maintaining bonds of hierarchical communion with the Bishop of Rome. The term Church is applied differently to the Anglican Communion for reasons rehearsed over a century ago by Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae curae. So the legal framework for Anglican communities seeking full communion precisely as communities would be different from that of Eastern Churches. They remain a part of the Western Latin Church tradition. That is why the Holy Father has decided to erect personal ordinarities in order to provide pastoral care for such groups who wish to share their gifts corporately with their Catholic sisters and brothers and with whom they have shared a long history before the Reformation in the 16th century.'
Since the Cardinal is stating, in reiteration of Apostolicae Curae and Dominus Jesus, that Anglican Churches are not 'Churches' in the fullest sense and lack apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, is he opening the door for the creation of ordinariates for reformation bodies that actually do lack apostolic succession and the catholic Eucharist? Could we soon see Lutheran ordinariates, Methodist ordinariates or even Baptist ordinariates? If Anglicanism is merely only a sect, the refusal to create ordinariates for other sectarian bodies would seem unjust and inconsistent...
16 comments:
I believe wholeheartedly that the Holy Father would be more than happy to set up Personal Ordinariates for Lutherans, Methodists, or Baptists who would sign the Catechism of the Catholic Church without preconditions as did the TAC.
Gratia et pax,
"Doc"+
The good Cardinal would lead one to believe that ALL Eastern churches are like the Ukrainian Catholic ("The Eastern Churches, like the Ukrainian Catholic Church so numerous in Canada, are in the fullest sense of the term “Churches” since they have valid apostolic succession and thus valid Eucharist. They are therefore called Churches sui juris because they have their own legal structures of governance, all while maintaining bonds of hierarchical communion with the Bishop of Rome.")
The Ukrainian Catholic Church is a distant 2nd largest church in the Ukraine and IS in communion with the Bishop of Rome. However, the other 'Eastern' Churches in Ukraine and Canada ARE NOT in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But this does not mean they do not have valid apostolic succession and thus valid Eucharist.
Rome continues to cloud the truth.
You may not agree with the Catholic Church on the invalidity of Anglican Orders, but Rome clouds nothing on this point.
Put most simply: The Catholic Church holds that no Christian community which emerged from the 16th century schisms is a true Church because every such community, including the Church of England, lost five of the seven sacraments in the 16th century. The only two sacraments, in this view, which remain to ALL Christian communities of the 16th century are Baptism and Marriage.
For this reason, the Catholic Church does not acknowledge Anglicans to constitute a true Church any more than Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. But this doctrine is NOT based on the absence of full communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome; rather, it is based on the loss of the Apostolic Succession and the four other sacraments that depend upon a true priesthood: Confession, Confirmation, Anointing, and the Eucharist.
This is the distinction to which Cardinal Levada referred. The Catholic Church does believe that all Orthodox Churches are true Churches because they have preserved all seven sacraments, and the fact that these Churches are not in full communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome does not change the fact that they have all the sacraments of the New Covenant.
As I say, there are many Christians who do not believe that this doctrine is true, but please do not charge the Catholic Church with obfuscation on this point. If anything, the Catholic Church is the only Christian community with a coherent and constant doctrine on this very point.
Fr. Newman makes some very good points. I do not agree with Rome's interpretation of the Reformation, but it is their view. The Church of England was not part of the European Protestant Reformation. As Elizabeth I made plain when "summoned" to the Council of Trent as a Protestant monarch and not "invited" as a Catholic Monarch. Anglicanism as always maintained that there are Seven Sacraments. Two major as being necessary for Salvation being Baptism and The Holy Communion and Five Minor Sacraments. In fact it was Anglicans who restored the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick to its proper use for all who were sick and not just for those in danger of dying.
I do not believe that Henry VIII would have broken with Rome and done away with five of the seven Sacraments. After all, it was two different Popes who awarded him the title "Defender of the Faith" for his brilliant book "In Defense of the Seven Sacraments."
Anglican are: Catholic but Reformed; Reformed but Catholic.
Oh, I certainly disagree with the Roman Catholic Church on more than just Anglican Orders! Rome is responsible for the over 20,000 different 'Christian Communities' in the world today. This is due to the degenerate teachings it promoted prior to and causing the necessity for the Reformation in the first place. Rome was wrong in 1054 and is still wrong today.
Leaders of the Reformation were so far removed from the True Ancient Church Tradition they thought Rome was the Tradition. Well, look a bit further back and you'll find the True Ancient Church Tradition!
Oh sorry, since the humans (Popes) that make church doctrine are infallible Roman history can't be changed. Strange how I got the idea there was only one infallible human walking God's earth, killed by Romans.
By the way, Rome does not have a lock on the name "Catholic" and it is not synomymous with Roman, as much as so many pius Romans would like it to be! It was around long before it was ever used by Rome. Many Anglicans and Orthodox (not in the See of Rome) are also Catholic. You use the word to mean Roman Catholic Church and you confuse others into thinking only Romans are Catholic.
Also, when you teach that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, you're teaching a heresy that was renounced 381.
Rome is the roadblock to Christian unity and it will never happen until Rome realizes that not all Popes are infallible in matters of Christian Doctrine.
I'm pretty sure that Dominus Jesus or maybe even one of the VII documents state that the Anglican Communion holds a sort of pride of place among the "ecclesial community" from the Reformation due to its retention of much of the liturgy and Catholic teaching.
I am not a Jew, but I call rabbis "Rabbi."
I don't believe that Anglican clergy stand in true apostolic orders, but I call them "Bishop" and "Father."
This is not hypocrisy; it's good manners. It is good form and more than good form to give to each person and each religious group the title they give themselves.
To Catholics, the "Roman Church" signifies only one thing: the Diocese of Rome. The Catholic Church, as Catholics conceive it and call it, is not the Roman Church; it is something much larger and more complex, and it includes Christians in every nation, worshipping in over 20 ritual Churches sui iuris. To reduce the worldwide Catholic Church with its 1.2 billion souls to the "Roman Church" is both absurd on its face and very bad manners.
Oy gevalt! Guy has given us all of the usual talking points of both the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox (i.e. misinterpretation of the dogma of papal infallibility and the misinterpretation of the western expression filioque), although I have to admit that it is the first time that I have heard that the Catholic Church (It is incorrect to call those Christians in communion with the Pope of Rome "Roman Catholic.") is responsible of the multitude of the Protestant ecclesial communities. If anyone can simply apply the term "Catholic" to themselves, does its meaning not become watered down? Furthermore, if "Rome is wrong", why does what Rome says quite obviously touch a nerve with you?
It is proper to call those Catholics who are under the Pope "Roman Catholics." The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and is elected by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome. Yes, the College of Cardinals are all clergy canonically members of the Diocese of Rome else they would not be able to vote in the election of their new bishop.
It is simply false to say that everyone who acknowledges the Bishop of Rome to be pastor of the universal Church is by that fact a Roman Catholic.
Maronite Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Greek Catholics, Syro-Malabar Catholics....these are all Catholics who acknowledge that being in full, visible communion with the Bishop and Church of Rome is constitutive of being Catholic, but they do not belong to the Roman Rite, so they are not Roman Catholic.
Only those Catholics who belong to the Roman or Latin Rite of the Catholic Church may truly be called Roman Catholics. But even they may never be called merely "Romans," unless they live in the Diocese of Rome.
Fr David, I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite, and I have a friend who is a Catholic of the Byzantine Rite (Melkite Greek Catholic), but while both of us are Catholic my friend is not a Roman Catholic. What defines our catholicity is a common faith and sacramental life united under the visible sign of unity of the faithful, the Pope of Rome. It is not an arbitrary term.
Well, let's see if I have this straight. No one can be called 'Catholic' unless they belong to a church that pays homage to the Pope of Rome. Nah, that's gotta be wrong. So say the Roman Catholics. Or is the Chicago Catholics since they are under the Bishop of Chicago or the Atlanta Catholics, under the Bishop of Atlanta. How ridiculous!
You're all Roman Catholic because you're in the See of Rome. And whether you like it or not there are Anglican Catholics who believe in most of the same things (save the all-knowing Pope)and who are just as or more Catholic than the majority of Roman Catholics today. Rome cannot dictate who is and who isn't Catholic. Opine all you want, facts are facts. I know Anglicans pray the rosary (the very same one as Roman Catholics). And thank God there are Anglicans who have not let Vatican II ruin their church as the Episcopalians and Lutherans have. Vatican II was at the forefront of another Reformation, the dumbing down of tradtions and customs of reverence to God. Priests worshiping the congregations is a good one for starters! Which Canons of the 1st seven Great Ecumenical Councils does that fall under??
Strange how no one has wanted to take on my accusations of degenerate teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in the pre-Reformations centuries. Let's leave the dirt under the carpet.
But I do know that the Pope's infallibility only perttains to matters of doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and nothing else, Brian, and I know the definition of filioque as well as the Ancient Church Fathers. It is wrong and you probably know deep down it is, but are unwilling to admit it. You're probably out of parochial school now so no one will slap the backs of your hands with a ruler when you admit that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son.
Well, this has been fun and I thank Fr. Chad for the topic. He is a great theologian, teacher and defender of the Anglican Catholic Church and I thank him for letting me rant here.
I close with my favorite Lenten prayer: O Lord and Master of my life, a spirit of idleness, despondency, ambition and idle talking give me not. But rather a spirit of chastity, humble mindedness, patience and love bestow upon me, Thy servant. Yea, O Lord King, grant me to see my failings and not condemn my brother; for blessed art Thou unto the agaes of ages. Amen O God cleanse me, a sinner.
Finally, Guy, you have said two things that are apodictically certain:
1. Father Chad is a great teacher, and
2. You are ranting.
May the coming days of Passiontide be fruitful for you and those you love.
Guy, please read the Council of Florence (and a gander at the Cappadocian Fathers, particularly St. Gregory of Nyssa, might be helpful as well) before you start ranting about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the filioque. It is not wrong, and I accept it fully as I do everything else Holy Mother Church teaches me. (Oh, and I am not a product of Catholic Parochial Education. I am a public school boy.) Suffice it to say it is a red herring that even most Eastern Orthodox scholars will tell you is a non-issue. Of course, how are we to know with certainty because of the lack of a visible Magisterium in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but I digress.
Actually Guy, I am most certainly NOT in the See of Rome (although I must say it would be nice if I were!). A quick look at the term "See" reveals that it comes from the Latin term sedes which pertains to the seat of authority of a bishop. My bishop is not Pope Benedict, it's Archbishop Gregory Aymond. However, as a Latin Rite Catholic, my bishop is in communion with the See of Rome.
Regarding the term "Catholic," I don't think the Roman Church has dictated anything to anyone. That was simply my opinion. The Roman Church indeed has a strict definition as to what "Catholic" is, and it is her prerogative to decide how she chooses to define what makes one a Catholic . My point was simply that lately everyone seems to toss the term Catholic around, and this makes the term somewhat nebulous, but it would seem that only the Catholic Church clearly defines for herself what makes catholicity a reality. It is not an arbitrary term for us. Simply because you consider yourself Catholic doesn't make you Catholic according to the Catholic Church's definition anymore than me saying that I am a member of the royal family of Lichtenstein would make me a member of that royal family. So, yes, Guy, when it comes to the Catholic Church applying the term Catholic to anyone, it is the Catholic Church who really does get to decide who is Catholic and who is not. Whether you agree with that decision (and obviously you do not, and that is ok) doesn't change the fact.
Fr. Newman,
I don't mean to be contentious, but there is something I don't understand about your statements regarding the use of the term 'Roman Catholic.' I understand that there are Ukrainian Catholics, etc. but doesn't the pope claim supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary jurisdiction? Therefore technically are you not under 'Roman' authority? I know that congeniality and good manners dictate otherwise, but couldn't the Pope technically enter into a diocese and assume control? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your doctrine, but given this teaching I'm not quite following the offense at the term 'Roman Catholic' in reference to all in fellowship with Rome.
If I am off-base here please correct me; I'm just trying to understand your position better.
BTW, I enjoy your blog Fr. Newman (so thank you also to Fr. Jones for posting the link).
Dear Spaethacc,
In Catholic doctrine, the Bishop of Rome, who is the pastor of one diocese, is also the pastor of the universal Church by virtue of being the pastor of the Diocese of Rome. But that universal Church is a communion of communions, and each communion within the universal communion has its own identity, history, rites, etc. And in the case of the ritual Churches sui iuris (of their own law), they a great deal of canonical autonomy.
Therefore, to take one example, a Maronite Catholic is a true Catholic but is not a Roman Catholic, and this is not simply a matter of etiquette or splitting hairs. The Maronite Church has its own patriarch, its own hierarchy, its own liturgy, its own spiritual and theological traditions, and not one of these things is Western, let alone Roman, but that in no way diminishes the true catholicity of the Maronite Catholic.
To be a Catholic of any kind means that a baptized person is in communion with a diocesan bishop or eparch who is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but only those Catholics who belong to a diocese of the Latin or Roman Rite can be called Roman Catholics. And as I indicated above, it is incorrect to call even Roman Catholics simply Romans (as is the very annoying habit of some Anglicans) because that labels can be applied only to the Catholics who belong to the Diocese of Rome.
Post a Comment