horton@b11.ingr.com (Mac Horton) (09/04/89)
I've been thinking about the recent discussion in t.r.m of whether the Catholic Church is a schismatic body and am posting some comments here instead of t.r.m in hopes that the question will get a bit more thoughtful attention. The notion I'm exploring is that though few or no Protestant denominations regard themselves as being "the Church" in the same way that Catholicism does, Protestantism taken as a whole does exhibit a strong tendency in that direction, though it is not explicitly declared. There is no authority to decide what constitutes Protestantism, but there is a very strong consensus. Let me say at the outset that I'm really not drawing any real conclusions from this, but rather musing aloud on a way of looking at Protestantism. In t.r.m, Charley Wingate wrote: > As far as schizm is concerned here, let this event speak for itself. A > few years back, we had a service here at the chapel in celebration of the > 25th anniversary of the Epsicopal chaplain's ordination. It was a > eucharist. The entire christian chaplaincy turned out for this service > (except the mormons, assuming they are christian), including the RC > chaplain. Well, we get to communion, and while all the various protestant > chaplains are up there ministering communion in various ways, the RC > chaplain is standing, alone, in his pew. I can't think of anything that > speaks more eloquently to schizm than this. We could argue forever about whether the "RCC" is right or wrong in maintaining this separation, and I have no desire to do so. But along with the picture of Roman intransigence this story also suggests to me a picture of Protestant unity--a picture of Protestantism as a sort of Church unto itself, containing many communions which all afford each other more or less equal status, and within which doctrinal disagreements are not considered extremely serious. This Church is characterized very broadly by an emphasis on Scripture and individual judgment as the foundations of doctrine, with Church authority given a much smaller role. It is very conscious of itself as being in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church. Its doctrine is (again speaking very broadly) that of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds (with perhaps an asterisk by "one holy catholic and apostolic Church"), and so it is in general conscious of being separated from certain other bodies such as the Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses which depart from or add to those creeds, or to the Bible, in significant ways. (I know that some communions, the Baptists for instance, oppose the use of creeds, but I believe their doctrine remains mostly that of the creeds mentioned.) Some illustrative items follow. On the more fundamentalist side of Protestantism: -- Joe Applegate dismisses Catholicism as a non-Christian cult. Joe is far from being alone in the evangelical/fundamentalist/charismatic world in holding this view, cf. Jimmy Swaggart. -- David Buxton gives us a list of early (and not-so-early) Protestants who viewed the papacy as the anti-Christ. I was quite impressed (and depressed) by this list, especially as it included people who came along two hundred years later, such as Wesley. I had previously tended to think of these charges of "anti-Christ" as being hot-headed talk, not theology. (Catholics said much the same things about Luther at the time--from the Catholic point of view he would have seemed a monster luring people from the body of Christ--but while we continue to regard him as having been profoundly mistaken, I've never seen a Catholic statement of recent times which regarded him as uniquely evil.) Dave backs off some from the idea that the papacy remains the anti-Christ but seems to remain worried about a reversion. -- Barry Olson views Catholicism as having driven Christianity underground for a thousand years, and concurs vigorously with the anti-Christ view. I would be very surprised to find that he regarded any Protestant denomination so harshly, even if he had major disagreements with it. On the more "liberal" (how I've come to hate that word, as well as its supposed opposite, "conservative", but I keep using them because people probably know what I mean by them) side: -- Charles Hedrick views the Catholic Church (as well as the Mormons) as schismatic on the grounds that we do not recognize the sacramental actions of Protestant bodies; this implies the Church view of Protestantism, in that it becomes the body from which the schismatics are separate. (It is also a very Protestant definition of "schismatic", but that's another subject.) -- Charley Wingate seems to concur with Charles Hedrick. He complains about Catholicism's refusal to see itself as "just another denomination" (or words to that effect); again there is this implication of there being a body from which Catholicism is separated, and that body is not the Anglican or Lutheran or Presbyterian Church, but rather those communions which regard each other as equals--i.e., the Protestant Churches. -- In a long exchange with me on church authority and related issues, Michael Siemon, certainly not a man who seems to feel constrained to toe anyone's line of orthodoxy, nevertheless is willing to characterize his position as Protestant. This is interesting because he is as much at odds with many Protestants as he is with Catholics, yet he is willing to lump himself, if lump he must, with the P's rather than the C's. Again there is this sense of some basic common ground (the basically individualistic approach to doctrine which is fostered by Protestantism, I'd surmise). In general, -- Miscellaneous snide remarks and teasing from Protestants are hardly ever directed from one Protestant denomination to another, but rather to Catholicism or to one of the groups which are often or mostly considered outside the pale on the other end--Mormons, JW's. This suggests a sense of family or community among Protestants. Outside the net: -- A friend of mine who's a Presbyterian minister was recently thinking of becoming an Episcopalian. In talking about it with him I kept looking for, and not finding, the doctrinal reason for the change, since there is certainly a divide between classical Calvinist Presbyterianism and Anglican sacramentalism. But he kept talking about things which seemed to me to be mere matters of style. Eventually I realized that the old doctrinal arguments simply didn't matter much to him or, from what he said, to his denomination. And it occurred to me that we rarely or never speak of "converting" from one Protestant denomination to another, but do speak that way of transitions between Catholicism and Protestantism. Catholics tend to speak of "converts from Protestantism". A Jimmy Swaggart recruiting a Catholic might use a term like "saved", but there would still definitely be a sense of someone going over the wall. -- In my Protestant youth I often heard it said that "it doesn't matter which church you belong to". But looking back on it I realize that the implied scope of that indifference is really limited to Protestant communions; to become a Catholic is something else altogether. (Anecdote for Episcopalians: you're Romish enough to get included in that, too, sometimes, at least by Southern Protestants. A friend of mine who was being confirmed in the Episcopal Church invited her Baptist mother to the ceremony. When the bishop, robed and mitred, walked in, the mother burst into tears.) All in all, the application of the term "schismatic" to Catholicism has proven very fruitful to my thinking on this subject, not so much for what it says about Catholicism (I knew that already) as for what it says about Protestantism. There was a book published a while back on the American religious experience entitled _Protestant, Catholic, Jew_. The phrase comes to mind now; the three categories are sufficient to cover most traditional American religion but also distinct enough from each other to warrant separate consideration, while the differences among Protestants are of relatively much less significance. In the militant early days of my conversion to Catholicism, I tended to focus on differences and see Protestantism and Catholicism as almost being separate religions. More recently I've focussed on similarities, but have been pushed back in the other direction by net discussions. I think it's very much a matter of perspective, of whether one wants to see the glass as half-full or half-empty. I prefer to think of it as half-full. There's a missing piece here, of course, one which is missing from nearly all the Usenet discussions of Christianity. What of the Eastern Orthodox? Their doctrines are, I understand, not significantly different from Catholicism, barring the papacy and a few other things, and their perspective is shaped not by the Reformation but by very ancient tradition far afield from Euro-American Protestantism. Do they maintain the posture which is, in Hedrick's terms, schismatic? I suspect they do, but haven't had time to investigate it. What do they think of Protestantism? What do Protestants think of them? -- Mac Horton @ Intergraph | horton@ingr.COM | ..uunet!ingr!horton -- A love that's real will not fade away. --Petty/Hardin (via Buddy Holly) [You may be right in practice about Protestantism being in effect a single church. But I think this exaggerates both the unity among Protestants and the separation between at least the more liberal Protestants and Catholics. (I fear some of this exaggeration may be my fault, by the way.) It's hard to speak for all Protestants, but I don't know of any evidence that Protestants think of Protestantism as a super-church. Rather, I think when they speak of "the Church" in an absolute sense, they mean the entire Body of Christ. Protestants differ in their attitude towards Catholics. But I think aside from those who think it is the anti-Christ, the Protestant tendency is to consider the Roman Catholic Church as just another denomination. For myself, I certainly consider the RCC as prt of the Church, though it does from time to time act in ways that seem to deny its membership. Among Protestants, there is far from one happy family. I believe almost all of us acknowledge that there is only one Church. But cooperation is by no means uniform. You quoted Charley's experience with campus ecumenism. Certainly cooperation tends to be stronger. among campus ministers than in some other contexts. But even there it may be spotty. I heard a rather amusing story about a Methodist school in which no sponsor could be found for a Baptist youth group, so they ended up with the Catholic chaplain as their advisor! But cooperation tends to be on a case by case basis. There are general organizations to handle missions, Bible translation, preparation of Sunday School material, etc. Denominations participate in these organizations or not as seems appropriate. There may be a number of such organizations, for different groups of denominations. I don't think there is any organization to which every Protestant church belongs. The more conservative churches do not participate in the National and World Councils of Churches. There is a world alliance of Reformed churches (NB: the term "Reformed" means churches in the Calvinist and Zwinglian tradition, not all Protestant churches) that probably comes as close to acting the way you'd expect an ecumenical council to act, though of course everyone understands that in the current situation there can't actually be an ecumenical council that speaks for the whole church in the way that the early councils did. They actually had an official heresy proceeding a couple of years ago, and declared apartheit to be a heresy. But this group only includes one wing of the Protestant tradition. Yet despite the lack of organizational unity, I think there is a de facto agreement on meta-ecclesiology: that individual churches are "denominations" in one Church, which is the Body of Christ. And I think there is generally a respect for the actions of other churches, except where there are specific impediments (e.g. churches in the baptist tradition will not accept baptisms done by other churches unless they were done as an adult by immersion). I don't think anyone would fail to recognize a minister of another Protestant church as a minister, at least not for organizational reasons. In some cases they might refuse to recognize them as Christian, but the criticism would be that they rejected an essential tenant of the faith, not that their ordination wasn't valid. Similarly, people from extremely different churches might feel uncomfortable at each other's communion services. For example a Baptist might feel that "smells and bells" is not Biblical. But I don't think the issue would be one of validity in the sense that it comes up between Protestants and Catholics. It wouldn't be that a high church was somehow organizationally unauthorized or not a true church. There would just be objections to specific actions or beliefs. --clh]
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (09/07/89)
The post about the unity of Protestantism and its severe schism with
the Roman Church is particularly sensitive to me.
First off, I'm in the Reformed Tradition. The word "tradition" here is
important. The Presbyterian church uses documents going back to the
beginnings of that tradition in its consitution. Most Congregationalists
use that same Book of Confessions. There is similarly a "Lutheran Tradition",
a "Union Tradition". Those three, Reformed, Lutheran, and Union were the
first Protestants out of the barrel. The other "traditions" in Christianity
are usualy recognized as the "Roman" and "Orthodox" traditions. It's important
to note that, until 1917, there were really two different Orthodox churches,
the Eastern and the Russian. They had two different Patriarchs and all. They
were fairly closely tied, however, and since the Russian Revolution, I think
Russian Orthodox believers trace authority to the Patriarch of the Eastern
Orthodox church.
(whew)
Many years ago, I went with a group from New Mexico to Oaxaca to help in
construction with a church there. The reason we went there was that Oaxaca
and this church were where the leader of our group grew up. His (then) wife
is a Catholic... This situation isn't too uncommon anymore in the US, and
no one thought of it.
In Oaxaca, we were warned not to refer to the fact that Demetria (his wife)
was not Protestant. It seems that the rather severe persecution against
Protestants in Mexico, especially southern Mexico, had created a sore spot
among this church.
One day, I went to Mass with Demetria, basically as a learning experience
for me. As we entered the (beautiful) cathedral, I remarked about what a shame
it was that this situation existed; I was quite saddened by the division that
occurred. The priest overheard me. While I was permitted to stay, he refused
the Lord's Supper to me.
Since then, I have made a point of not misrepresenting myself. I have attended
a Catholic mass twice since, and both times the sacrament was denied me.
The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) reads:
The minister shall invite to partake of the Sacrament all those who are
active church members or communicants in good standing in some Christian
church, who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and repent of their sins, and
who covenent anew to live as followers of Christ. The invitation shall
include baptized children who are being nurtured and instructed to participate
with and understanding of the significance of the invitation to the Lord's
Table and of their response in faith.
Participation in the Sacrament is to be understood as a privilege given to
the undeserving rather than a right conferred upon the worthy. Yet, those
who are unprepared, who are self-sufficient and unrepentant, should be warned
not to come to the Holy Table.
(S-3.0500d)
The attitude here is that all who are believers and followers of Christ
are to be invited to participate. The attitude of the Roman church is that
all who are not followers of THAT CHURCH are excommunicate or incommunicate
are are not to be accepted to the Table. This attitude is unique.
The reason that we (Protestants) emphasize the schismatic nature of Rome,
is because it is Rome that declares itself as the only true church of the
Lord, as the only valid route to Christ. The essence of Protestantism is
that there is no route to Christ but Himself, and the He is reacheable to
all who want Him, without the assistance of any church or other group.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
Telephone: +1 505 292 0001 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
[We are about to duplicate a previous discussion in
talk.religion.misc. In order to avoid a complete duplication, let me
summarize what I see as the outcome. Most (all?) of the Catholics
there say that although the Catholics have a very different
understanding of the nature of the visible Church, it is misleading to
say that they claim to be the only true Church.
Certainly they do not claim to be the only valid route to Christ.
About that there is little ambiguity. They certainly accept
non-Catholic Christians as Christians. The discussion is whether
their concept of the Church in some sense denies validity to other
churches.
They certainly don't think that our sacraments are valid Catholic
sacraments. However there now seems to be a recognition that they are
none the less carried out in response to Christ's commands. In a
response to one of my postings, one Catholic said that although
Protestant pastors are certainly not validly ordained according to the
Catholic concept of ordination (which seems in some sense a simple
observation of fact), he does believe that they are appointed to a
special office in the Universal Church. I pushed to see whether any
other Catholics wanted to disagree with this, and none did. This
statement has more implications than it appears, because it
effectively acknowledges the authority of Protestant churches to act
on behalf of the Universal Church in ordaining (even though not in the
Catholic sense) leaders.
It seems clear to me that Catholics are not yet quite ready to accept
the model of the Catholic church as just one denomination among many.
However they also recognize the role played by other denominations.
My feeling is that this leaves them in a certain tension, with theory
that has not entirely caught up with their de facto understanding. I
don't think anyone believes that the current position is a stable one.
I believe further development in their concept of the nature of the
church is probably going to happen. There are in fact ongoing
negotiations between the Catholics and members of various other
Christian traditions.
The issue of intercommunion is a particularly sensitive one, because
many (most?) Protestants see the Catholic position as symbolically
excluding other Christians from Christ's table. The way it looks from
the outside is that a sacrament that is supposed to symbolize the
unity of the Church has been hijacked so that it symbolizes the unity
of a particular denomination, and its separation from the Universal
Church. Unfortunately, it's easier to state the problem than to find
a solution. To be fair, they have the same problem that some other
denominations have: balancing their responsibility to the truth as
they see it with the desire not to create unnecessary separations in
Christ's body. Similar considerations have led baptists to not
recognize baptisms done by other churches if it was done when the
person was an infant. Catholics have very specific ideas about the
validity of liturgical actions. Those ideas create exactly the same
problem for them as the baptist ideas about believers' baptism. I
suspect that as changes continue in the Catholic church,
intercommunion is going to be almost the last issue resolved, since it
involves almost every other sensitive issue.
Note by the way that the Catholics are not the only group affected by
ecumenical issues. At the most recent General Assembly, the
Presbyterian Church (USA) commissioned a study on how ongoing
ecumenical progress is going to affect our church's organization. The
Consultation on Church Union is continuing to lumber onward. The
problem from our point of view is that the viewpoints within the
Consultation tend to be based on some sort of episcopal form of
organization. So the Presbyterian Church (USA) has to decide whether
it wants to maintain its current ideas about church order, even at the
cost of hampering church union. One specific problem is that our
elders do not have any obvious correspondence in other denominations.
Here we have leaders that have been ordained, and who in Reformed
tradition are considered to hold the same New Testament office as
pastors. Are we to accept a form of church union that effectively
causes that ordination to vanish? (How would we even do that? Do we
have to do some sort of formal unordination?) Or do we say that
because in principle it is the same NT office, all of our Ruling
Elders turn into pastors in the united church? (You can all prepare
to call me Herr Prof. Rev. Dr. Hedrick.)
--clh]jhpb@lancia.att.com (09/11/89)
I do not think that anyone's mind will necessarily be changed, but it is
my hope that, as a result of these discussions, the Catholic religion
will at least become better understood by many. To this end, I have a
few comments on the summary that our moderator posted.
I did think that Mac's original posting on this thread was very well
written, and fair.
summarize what I see as the outcome. Most (all?) of the Catholics
there say that although the Catholics have a very different
understanding of the nature of the visible Church, it is misleading to
say that they claim to be the only true Church.
Catholics believe that our Lord founded a visible organization to save
souls. This organization is the Catholic Church. With its St. Peters
and its Judases. In this sense, the Catholic Church is the only true
Church.
A big problem is perhaps that some members of the hierarchy are
currently acting in a way that is suggestive of the idea that the
Catholic religion is one among many. But, that idea has no part in
Catholic theology.
Certainly they do not claim to be the only valid route to Christ.
In the sense that a person can save their soul without entering the
Catholic Church, yes. But that's not the normal course of affairs, it's
an extraordinary one. Our Lord did not and does not *positively* will
that people should be separated from this Church. He does not want
there to be a couple hundred different denominations. But He *permits*
it for His own reasons.
They certainly don't think that our sacraments are valid Catholic
sacraments. However there now seems to be a recognition that they are
Speaking in a general manner, the major Protestant denominations have
two Sacraments that the Catholic Church considers valid -- Baptism and
Holy Matrimony. (For those not familiar with the issues, Protestants
and Catholics mean different things by the word "sacrament.")
none the less carried out in response to Christ's commands. In a
response to one of my postings, one Catholic said that although
Protestant pastors are certainly not validly ordained according to the
Catholic concept of ordination (which seems in some sense a simple
observation of fact), he does believe that they are appointed to a
special office in the Universal Church. I pushed to see whether any
other Catholics wanted to disagree with this, and none did. This
statement has more implications than it appears, because it
effectively acknowledges the authority of Protestant churches to act
on behalf of the Universal Church in ordaining (even though not in the
Catholic sense) leaders.
From the Catholic point of view, the Catholic hierarchy has been given
full authority in things spiritual. How can non-Catholic ministers be
partakers in this authority when they are not subject to, and even
resist the Catholic hierarchy?
Probably just about everyone in this group has ancestors throughout the
Middle Ages who were Catholic. But the influence of the Reformation has
progressed to such a point that talking about the Catholic religion is
like talking in another, unknown language nowadays.
From the Catholic point of view, the world is undergoing a
disintegration over which recent Popes have wept, because the Catholic
religion is losing its influence over men's hearts.
It seems clear to me that Catholics are not yet quite ready to accept
the model of the Catholic church as just one denomination among many.
However they also recognize the role played by other denominations.
My feeling is that this leaves them in a certain tension, with theory
that has not entirely caught up with their de facto understanding. I
don't think anyone believes that the current position is a stable one.
I believe further development in their concept of the nature of the
church is probably going to happen. There are in fact ongoing
negotiations between the Catholics and members of various other
Christian traditions.
Perhaps few non-Catholics believe it, but one of the cardinal points of
the Catholic religion is that defined doctrines can *never* be changed.
To say that transubstantiation was a mistake, or that the Pope does not
possess the gift of infallibility, can *never* happen. They've been
decided.
The Catholic Church can only change in certain ways. Our moderator
seems to be suggesting changes that can't happen, from the Catholic
point of view.
I don't expect agreement that Catholic theology is right, but I wish
everyone could at least understand what Catholicism is all about.
Thinking something is Catholic that isn't is obviously not a real help
to anyone.
Joe
[I believe that my summary of postings this summer on
talk.religion.misc was correct. I had made some statement in that
group based on an understanding of the Catholic position such as you
present. I was roundly condemned by Catholics as engaging in
uncharitable exaggeration of the Catholic position. Either I am badly
misunderstanding what everyone is saying, or there are serious
divisions within the Catholic community on these issues. I will
withhold futher observations on this subject to see what other
Catholics have to say about it. --clh]mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (09/13/89)
I was quite pleased to see that the Roman church accepts baptisms
performed by Protestant denominations. I find the unity of the baptism
to be one of the most important things about the church today, and I'm
greatly saddened by denominations which refuse to accept baptisms performed
by other churches under certain circumstances.
On further reflection, I think this attitude holds for me for both
sacraments. The Lord's Supper is accepted as a valid sacrament by almost
every Protestant church...and they all use a virtually identical ceremony
when repeating the words of institution. It's a shame the Catholic church
cannot accept Protestant communions, though I understand why.
On still further reflection, I think this does actually hold more for
baptism than the Lord's Supper. Both the Nicene and Apostles' creeds
specify "one baptism", so perhaps that is more essentially unique.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
Telephone: +1 505 292 0001 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!cvw@research.att.com (09/13/89)
I don't read talk.religion.misc, but I (an excommunicate Roman Catholic) would not "roundly condemn" your recently posted summary as an exaggeration of the Roman Catholic position. And I don't think you misunderstand what everyone is saying: there are serious divisions within the Roman Catholic communion on these issues. In fact, Joe Buehler's posting to which you added your note pretty much says that such divisions exist. I would agree with Joe that Roman Catholics today have not been not taught things they ought to know. For example, your summary mentioned the question of intercommunion. So long as one believes that Roman Catholicism is "just another denomination", the current discipline is indeed hard to accept. But once one understands that anyone who receives Roman Catholic communion implicitly affirms that the eucharist in Anglican and Reformed churches is invalid and not sacramental, it becomes hard to see why communicants of the latter churches would even want to engage in unapproved intercommunion. (This example is from one of Joseph Ratzinger's essays on ecumenism in his book *Church, Ecumenism, and Politics*.) As a minor point, I deplore the tendency to omit the "Roman" from "Roman Catholic." There are American Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, Old Catholics, and Orthodox Catholics, for example. The acceptance of their churches' validity by Rome and by each others' churches varies dramatically, but all of them are Catholic. Joseph Ratzinger has had the grace to say that it is "sadly necessary" to modify the noun "Catholic" by the adjective "Roman". His essays seem to use the full name a couple of times, then drop the "Roman," but only for brevity, not out of a presumption that the adjective is unnecessary. Chris Van Wyk
horton@b11.ingr.com (Mac Horton) (09/23/89)
CLH says, re the renewed discussion over what the Catholic Church teaches about its own relationship to other Churches. > .... Most (all?) of the Catholics... > say that although the Catholics have a very different > understanding of the nature of the visible Church, it is misleading to > say that they claim to be the only true Church. ... > The discussion is whether > their concept of the Church in some sense denies validity to other > churches.... > It seems clear to me that Catholics are not yet quite ready to accept > the model of the Catholic church as just one denomination among many. > However they also recognize the role played by other denominations. > My feeling is that this leaves them in a certain tension, with theory > that has not entirely caught up with their de facto understanding. I > don't think anyone believes that the current position is a stable one. > I believe further development in their concept of the nature of the > church is probably going to happen.... Yes, further development is likely, but I think it would be a mistake to suppose that the Catholic Church will eventually see itself as only one denomination among many. In response to CLH, Joe Buehler says: > Catholics believe that our Lord founded a visible organization to save > souls. This organization is the Catholic Church. With its St. Peters > and its Judases. In this sense, the Catholic Church is the only true > Church. I think this is a fair statement of the Catholic position, Vatican II and all. Let's take particular note of the word "visible", though. There is no other *visible* organization which is the true Church. And this does certainly "in some sense deny validity to other Churches". But that's not the whole story. Here are some quotes from Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, which "in some sense" *attribute* validity to other Churches: Men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are brought into a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church....all those justified by faith through baptism are incorporated into Christ. Notice that there is no qualification on "incorporated into Christ" analagous to the word "imperfect" in the first sentence. This certainly seems to be an admission that the mystical body of Christ and the visible organization of the Church are not necessarily always one and the same thing. Further: [the sacramental actions of separated Churches] can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation. It follows that these separated Churches and Communions, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, 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... I also agree with Joe's assertion that the present divisions are contrary to the will of Christ. (PLEASE note that I am not assigning any blame for these divisions; there is more than enough to go around.) I personally, and the Catholic Church in general, place a very high value on unity among Christians. Among other things, I believe the divisions have been catastrophic for our witness to non-Christians. For instance, CLH, in response to someone's query about which direction his wife should take in her new Christian life, posted a long description of the options which seemed utterly daunting to me, and I couldn't help thinking that if I were the woman I'd be tempted just to drop the whole thing. (Of course I was in that position at one time, and you know where I ended up.) At this point, though, I feel Joe draws too hard a line: > From the Catholic point of view, the Catholic hierarchy has been given > full authority in things spiritual. How can non-Catholic ministers be > partakers in this authority when they are not subject to, and even > resist the Catholic hierarchy? Now, it is undoubtedly true that non-Catholic ministers do not, from the Catholic view, exercise the same kind of authority in the same way as the Catholic hierarchy does. But the citations from Vatican II which I quote above fall far short of denying non-Catholic ministers a genuine role in the mission of the Church, and in fact would seem to imply that they do play such a role. CLH again, in reply to Joe: > [I believe that my summary of postings this summer on > talk.religion.misc was correct. I had made some statement in that > group based on an understanding of the Catholic position such as you > present. I was roundly condemned by Catholics as engaging in > uncharitable exaggeration of the Catholic position. Either I am badly > misunderstanding what everyone is saying, or there are serious > divisions within the Catholic community on these issues. I will > withhold futher observations on this subject to see what other > Catholics have to say about it. --clh] I'm sorry, I don't remember who posted what, or even what, specifically, I myself said (except that I objected to the word "schismatic"). It is true that there are serious divisions within the Catholic community on these issues--on the one hand, large numbers of essentially Protestant theologians like Hans Kung; on the other hand, those who object to the amelioration of the hard-line position which prevailed from Trent to Vatican II. I find that my own personal opinion is rather precisely articulated by Vatican II. I could not possibly deny the significance in my own life of the Methodist, Baptist, and Episcopal Churches. They brought Christ to me. You can't get much more Christian than that. On the other hand, I do believe that the Catholic Church is, uniquely, *the* Church. Yes, there is tension here; it's almost a paradox, but I've never had any trouble living with paradox. Want to know what I fantasize about? A Catholic Church in which there is unity of doctrine but within which there are an Anglican Rite, a Presbyterian Rite, and so forth--hey, why not a Pentecostal Holiness Rite?-- over which the Pope exercises a rather more loose jurisdiction than we are accustomed to, much as is now the case with certain non-Roman rites.