The communion of all Christians by baptism is real. It is as real as the hands which type these words, and in fact, more so. We know that because the bonds of charity persist beyond death and make distance meaningless. What we've got to do is ask ourselves if we are strengthening that communion, or not.
Let me get some things off my chest: First, I am not a Feeneyist or some kind of radical, Steve Schaper. I believe every letter of Vatican II. And, here's the key: NOTHING CHANGED. If you are committed to the idea that Vatican II signaled a shift in how Catholics understand non-Catholic Christians, frankly, you are wrong. I could see why that would be an appealing lie to believe, since a slobbering cabal of conversionist radicals you can conveniently dismiss as out of step with their own Church is useful for those in a schism. Ahem.
I just need to be blunt about that. The reason the whole "Christianity would be fine, if Catholics would stop excluding everyone" saw doesn't cut anything is that, without the Catholic Church, there is no Christianity at all. There's no Church to go back to instead. We cannot explain the orthodoxy of the first millennium at all without them...it...us. If I would have found it, I swear to you, I'd tell you. You think I wanted to torpedo my career? But look at the evidence yourself. As I once wrote, "Why would I pay as much attention to the text, context, place in the canon, authorial intent, and myriad other things in order to rightly handle the word of truth, and completely ignore the same with respect to the creeds?" To whom do they belong? Moreover, either they are my master, or I am theirs. If I am theirs, it is actually me I'm submitting to. We can dress it up all we like, but unless the Church has the final word always, you are in the same position as Mr."Me and My Bible."
This of course automatically implies a visible Church, because those dogmas and the means by which they come to us are as visible and as particular as the people involved. There is no orthodoxy apart from the Church who articulated it. I'm no more apt to buy the "We Lucked Out" version of Christian history, where a contextless, faceless, Churchless orthodoxy emerged from the primordial soup of theological reflection, than I am to use The Message for exegetical study. I never saw the visible and ecclesial dimensions of that heritage of orthodoxy upon which I relied, because at first, I didn't bother to look. This is the meaning of Newman's "history" remark.
In a certain way, we're talking about letting the common orthodoxy impel us toward unity. The mildly inconvenient reality (at least, it is claimed) is that its source is the Catholic Church. A friend pointed out therefore that Christ in the Eucharist is calling out to us. Dr. Cross, do you remember the moment we both realized this was so? The most precious grace was to know in fact that I did not give up everything. LG, 8 is not a concession to a more ecumenical age, though most certainly, we are in one. Rather, the Church recognizes the splendor of her own beauty--her holiness--in the lives and hearts of those separated from her! Why do I push so hard? Because even if I knew that all of us were saved, we still don't share the Eucharist. "That they may be one" is as deep as you can go, not only part way.
Let me get some things off my chest: First, I am not a Feeneyist or some kind of radical, Steve Schaper. I believe every letter of Vatican II. And, here's the key: NOTHING CHANGED. If you are committed to the idea that Vatican II signaled a shift in how Catholics understand non-Catholic Christians, frankly, you are wrong. I could see why that would be an appealing lie to believe, since a slobbering cabal of conversionist radicals you can conveniently dismiss as out of step with their own Church is useful for those in a schism. Ahem.
I just need to be blunt about that. The reason the whole "Christianity would be fine, if Catholics would stop excluding everyone" saw doesn't cut anything is that, without the Catholic Church, there is no Christianity at all. There's no Church to go back to instead. We cannot explain the orthodoxy of the first millennium at all without them...it...us. If I would have found it, I swear to you, I'd tell you. You think I wanted to torpedo my career? But look at the evidence yourself. As I once wrote, "Why would I pay as much attention to the text, context, place in the canon, authorial intent, and myriad other things in order to rightly handle the word of truth, and completely ignore the same with respect to the creeds?" To whom do they belong? Moreover, either they are my master, or I am theirs. If I am theirs, it is actually me I'm submitting to. We can dress it up all we like, but unless the Church has the final word always, you are in the same position as Mr."Me and My Bible."
This of course automatically implies a visible Church, because those dogmas and the means by which they come to us are as visible and as particular as the people involved. There is no orthodoxy apart from the Church who articulated it. I'm no more apt to buy the "We Lucked Out" version of Christian history, where a contextless, faceless, Churchless orthodoxy emerged from the primordial soup of theological reflection, than I am to use The Message for exegetical study. I never saw the visible and ecclesial dimensions of that heritage of orthodoxy upon which I relied, because at first, I didn't bother to look. This is the meaning of Newman's "history" remark.
In a certain way, we're talking about letting the common orthodoxy impel us toward unity. The mildly inconvenient reality (at least, it is claimed) is that its source is the Catholic Church. A friend pointed out therefore that Christ in the Eucharist is calling out to us. Dr. Cross, do you remember the moment we both realized this was so? The most precious grace was to know in fact that I did not give up everything. LG, 8 is not a concession to a more ecumenical age, though most certainly, we are in one. Rather, the Church recognizes the splendor of her own beauty--her holiness--in the lives and hearts of those separated from her! Why do I push so hard? Because even if I knew that all of us were saved, we still don't share the Eucharist. "That they may be one" is as deep as you can go, not only part way.
Comments