Blog Pong with Fritz
"Blog Pong" is the description that Fr. Fritz has given to a the strange, yet mildly amusing, conversation that we are (not) having with another with one another on the Church and authority. I say "not" because we have, at least so far, not addressed one another as normal people do when they have a conversation. It is not that we are unfriendly, just that we are not normal. He writes some thing on his blog, I answer on my own, and so forth. Blog pong. Then enter Fr. Hogg, making all the more interesting, because now there are three people trying to play with two paddles and one ball. Like I said, not normal, but still, amusing. Perhaps even interesting. Or not.
Anyway, starting at the beginning, Fr. Eckardt said: "As for me, I still maintain with St. Cyprian that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that she is present wherever her Gospel is preached and her Sacraments administered rightly."
To this, I questioned whether he intended to suggest that both clauses were maintained by Cyprian (because clearly the second is not). To this he responded that he did not. That is good enough for me, and I meant no offense in raising the question.
Then there is the little issue I raised with Fr. Hogg on Cyprian and balance. I accused Fr. Hogg of copying some quotes from Cyprian and Fr. Quasten from another webpage. I have no problem with those who do this, as long as they reference their source. Fr. Hogg has asserted that he did no such thing, and that he typed it in himself. This seems rather incredulous to me, since he begins and ends precisely where others have done so on the web. Be that as it may, charity requires that we take Fr. Hogg at his word, and so we shall. He also admits that his quotes were not of themselve balanced, but provided balance when seen together with what I quoted from Cyprian. (dizzying, isn't it?) I didn't think the quotes needed balance with regard to the current discussion (which not about the differences between the Church of Rome and the East on the papacy). But I will agree that the formula "first among equals" requires balance. One can stress "equal" to such a degree that "first" has no meaning, as is often done in the east. Or one can stress "first" to such a degree that "equal" has no meaning, which the East accuses the West of doing, and once upon a time, they were correct.
This is a fascinating topic of discussion between the East and West, and there is a great series of audio records here. I haven't listened to them all, but have listened to the Fr. Neuhaus and Metropolitan Kallistos. Perhaps they can be a starting point if Fr. Hogg wishes to discuss the papacy.
Next, Fr. Eckardt raises the question of whether Roman Catholics mean that non Roman Catholics are all going to hell, since they are not in the Church . Response:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320
837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
And from Dominus Iesus (which is worth reading in full):
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
After all that, I believe it my turn to serve. And I would like to return to the original statement,
"As for me, I still maintain with St. Cyprian that there is no salvation outside the Church, and that she is present wherever her Gospel is preached and her Sacraments administered rightly."
I ask, "Who determines the 'rightly'?"
Labels: Ecclesiology
Ben Eicher said...
Pastor Woodring:
Welcome home to Rome! My late father was a 1960 Concordia Sem grad (classmate of Father Neuhaus and Robert Wilken), and a Piepkorn devotee. I swam the Tiber from Lutheranism in 1993 and was confirmed into full communion with the Church in 1994, loving every moment of it. I simply brought the good parts of my Lutheran heritage with me, and left those parts which sadly I had to admit were not so good.
I serve on the Board of Directors of The Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology, and have been a guest on the EWTN television show for "converts" [not a word I think really applies to Lutherans who come home to Rome], "Journey Home."
Hang in there. I will pray for you as you struggle with the disappointment and even anger of those within Lutheranism who have denounced you and will continue to do so.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Ben Eicher
June 26, 2008 8:42 PM
Mark said...
You hit the nail on the head with the last sentence in your post -- who decides, indeed? Private judgment of each individual believer, or the Magisterium of the Church?
June 27, 2008 1:17 AM
Vicar John Sias said...
Let's read a bit farther...
PART 1, SECTION 2 2, CHAPTER 3 3, ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 3, SUBSECTION 3, HEADING 5
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. 337
--
Both citations are from Lumen Gentium.
Those who do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church being saved by (moved by a grace self-evidently apart from Christ and his Church)!? What kind of grace moves outside such circles? What kind of "doing what is in you" satisfies Jesus' command, "Be perfect, even as your Father..."? How does this accord with the "Catholic view" you propose at the end of your last post?
June 27, 2008 11:27 AM
Dan Woodring said...
Vicar John,
This is a complicated one, and I will do my best to answer in spite of the limitations of human knowledge with regard to the mind of God.
These quotations have aften been misused, both by liberal catholics, and by critics of catholicism, to suggest universalism. That is simply not the case, and I believe a careful reading of the text, which may be illucidated by the magestariams own interpretation of these words, will be helpful, and not at all in conflict with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In particular, note these words: "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:"
Who then is this affirmation, "No salvation outside of the Church" aimed at? And who is it not aimed at?
It is aimed at heretics who reject the Church, and those who reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Who is it not aimed at? Let me provide some examples.
1. Unborn (aborted/stillborn) children and infants who die prior to baptism. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is not aimed at them, to deny that salvation is possible for them.
2. People such as those mentioned by St. Paul in Acts 17:30 "Truly these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men to repent." Therefore, we may not categorically declare that those who die having never heard the good news of salvation,("through no fault of their own") will necessarily be damned based on this affirmation.
I think that is enough to make the point. It is not as though there is an alternate route to salvation. We are bound to the Church, but God is not. It is similar to what Lutherans mean when they say "Baptism is necessary for salvation, but not absolutely necessary."
Your last paragraph raises the question of how God saves outside of the Church. It is a question that we are not able to answer, so we don't. We do not fully know the mind of God.
June 27, 2008 3:53 PM
christl242 said...
Hi folks,
I came to this site by way of another Lutheran blog.
The sentiments expressed here are so familiar. I am currently leaving a ten year sojourn in the Church of Rome back to the LCMS.
By way of background, I am German-born, Catholic father, Lutheran mother. My sister and I were raised Lutheran.
I, too, heard the siren call of Rome and thought I was bringing "all that was good" and leaving "all that was not so good". After ten years I have sadly discovered that the Church I thought I was joining no longer exists.
I well remember the beautiful Tridentine Masses my Dad took me to as a child even though I was formally raised Lutheran.
I certainly harbor no anger against any Lutheran who swims the Tiber.
I see here the same references that almost all post-Vatican II converts have in common, works by Scott Hahn, Thomas Howard, etc. etc.
I visted a local LCMS congregation last year. The liturgy was far more catholic than anything I experienced in my local Catholic parish. I am well aware that is not the case in all LCMS parishes. But then, worship at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception is one thing. Worship at the local suburban Catholic megaparish is quite another. It's become a hybrid of catholic and protestant without quite being either.
I'm glad to be coming home to my Lutheran roots.
June 28, 2008 8:19 AM
Don Engebretson said...
>>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. 337.<<
This statement seems pretty clear that the Catholic church here is allowing an "an alternate route to salvation" - that is, one that is separate from Christ and the Word and depends instead on the efforts of the unbeliever's own works ("try in their actions to do his will will...") How does one reconcile the phrase "through no fault of their own" with Paul's "they are without excuse" in Romans 1? And how is one "moved by grace" apart from the Word (for they "do not know the Gospel")? How can such a debased conscience be sufficient to bring saving knowledge of Christ?
June 28, 2008 11:33 AM
christl242 said...
how is one "moved by grace" apart from the Word (for they "do not know the Gospel")? How can such a debased conscience be sufficient to bring saving knowledge of Christ?
Indeed.
My Catholic Dad was clearly taught that "outside the Church there is no salvation" and it was literally imposed. My parochial-school educated, cradle Catholic husband might still be attending the Church had the changes wrought by the Second Vatican Council been better explained and implmented.
I still remember the warm welcome I received from the RCIA leadership team at the parish where I was received into the Catholic Church. Sadly, it soon became evident that they needed a bit of catechesis themselves and the liberal leanings of the Ursuline sister who oversaw the process became evident when I learned that she is a supporter of FutureChurch, an organization pushing for the ordination of women, et al.
I am still trying to deal with the sense of loss I began to feel after a few years as a Catholic.
Ask the average Catholic parishioner what the Athanasian Creed is and why it was formulated.
It would be very telling.
The Catholic Church needs to recover the full evangelical catholicity of the Good News of Jesus Christ. The balance between Word and Sacrament has not yet been fully restored.
June 29, 2008 9:37 AM
Rev. Gerson Flor said...
Christ said, "Go and make disciples...". But some successor of St. Peter corrects, if you don't go, don't worry, for pagans can still be saved.
Christ said, "I am the vine... apart from me you can do nothing". But some successor of St. Peter corrects, if you who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in your actions to do his will as you know it through your conscience, you can still be saved.
It is pretty clear that Pelagius has a firm hold on St. Peter's chair. That's why Matt. 16 speaks not of the man Peter (flesh and blood has not revealed this to you), but of his confession (You are the Christ, the Son of the living God). On this rock the church is built, and apart from it there is no salvation. This is Christ's word, and it shall remain forever true, despite those who by deceit or sword would wrest the kingdom of God's Son and bring to naught what He has done.
Dear brother, may God bless your pilgrimage to Rome just as He blessed Luther's. May He grant you grace to realize that that home has been plundered and so filled with debris that its foundation is all but removed.
No hard feelings; I would gladly go to Rome if it had any gold; but all it offers is the false glitter of human pomp, wealth, tradition and hierarchy. Therefore, since I am not yet called to the perfect, joyous church triumphant, here I stand. May God help me.
Btw, comparing Baptism's necessity with that of the Church reflects a serious misunderstanding. Baptism is a MEANS to bring us to Christ, the END. Salvation cannot exist apart from Christ, but the means by which the Spirit brings us to Him are varied; Baptism is the foremost, but not the only one. "He called you by our gospel."
July 8, 2008 7:21 PM