A duty forgotten?

Whoever refuses honour to the Son refuses honour to the Father who sent him.

This is part of how Jesus responds to those who question his actions such as healing on the Sabbath in John 5:17-30. It struck me that a similar sending by Jesus will carry the same duty. So the Apostles are sent, Simon Peter in a particular way with the keys, Paul to the Gentiles, and so on. But there's more: these Apostles, of whom Jesus said "he who hears you hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects the one who sent me"  (Lk 10:16), in their turn sent their successor bishops, who in their turn sent successor bishops as well as ordained priests and deacons. Is there not also a duty to them?

St. Augustine to pastors today

Well then, shepherds, hear the words of the Lord. As I live, says the Lord God... See how he starts. It is like an oath sworn by God, calling his very life to witness. As I live, says the Lord God. The shepherds are dead but the sheep are safe. As I live, says the Lord God. What shepherds are dead? Those who have sought their own interests rather than Christ’s. So what of the shepherds who seek Christ’s interests and not their own? Of course there will be such shepherds, of course they will be found: there is no lack of them and there never will be.

(From the Office of Readings, 22 September)

It is not Christ's will to forgive without the Church

From a sermon by Blessed Isaac of Stella, abbot -

There are two things that are God’s and God’s alone: the honour of receiving confession and the power of granting forgiveness. Confession is what we must make to him, and forgiveness is what we must hope to receive from him. The power to forgive sins belongs only to God, and this is why we must confess them to him. But God has taken a bride. The Almighty has taken the feeble one, the Most High has taken the lowly one – out of a servant he has made a queen. She was behind and beneath him and he raised her to be at his side. From out of his wounded side she came, and he took her to be his bride. Just as all that the Father has is the Son’s, so too what the Son has is the Father’s, since they share the same undivided nature. In just the same way the bridegroom gave all that was his to the bride and shared all that she had, making her one with himself and the Father. Hear the Son making his plea to the Father for his bride: I desire that just as you and I are one, so these should be one with us. The bridegroom is one with the Father and one with his bride. Whatever in her was foreign to her nature he took away from her and nailed to the cross. He carried her sins with him onto the tree and by the tree he took them away from her. Whatever was natural and proper to her he took on and clothed himself in it. Whatever was divine and proper to him, he bestowed on her. He took away what was diabolical, took on what was human, conferred what was divine, so that all that the bride possessed should be the bridegroom’s also. Thus it is that he who has committed no sin, on whose lips is no deceit, can say Take pity on me, Lord, for I am weak – for he who shares in his bride’s weakness must share in her lament, and thus all that is the bridegroom’s is the bride’s also. Here is where the honour of confession comes from, and the power of forgiveness, so that it can truly be said: Go and show yourself to the priest! The Church can forgive nothing without Christ, and it is Christ’s will to forgive nothing except with the Church. The Church can forgive no-one except the penitent – that is, one who has been touched by Christ – and Christ does not wish to forgive anyone who does not value the Church. What God has united, man must not divide, says Christ, and Paul adds, I am saying that this great mystery applies to Christ and the Church. Do not sever the head from the body so that Christ is whole no longer. For Christ is not whole without the Church, nor is the Church whole without Christ. This is why he says No-one has gone up to heaven except the Son of Man who is in heaven. He is the only man who can forgive sins.

(From the Office of Readings, 11 September)

Pope Benedict XVI: We are Church

.. in proper perspective (source: Sandro Magister, Chiesa News). Nothing like the Magisterium of the Church digging into 2000 years of wisdom and teaching to weigh in on what the Church means!

The 'we' is the whole community of believers, today and in all times and places. And so I always say: within the community of believers, yes, there is as it were the voice of the valid majority, but there can never be a majority against the apostles or against the saints: that would be a false majority. We are Church: let us be Church, let us be Church precisely by opening ourselves and stepping outside ourselves and being Church with others.

More good words from Pope Benedict XVI

His address to the well-oiled machinery of the Church in Germany has so much to say! Please read it! It complements my previous post, and he points to a deeper crisis of faith even where the facade of the Church may appear strong and vigorous. The spirit of suspicion and rebellion in the Church today certainly betrays a lack in all departments of faith, hope and love.

For example, I recently received a correspondence outlining certain strong suggestions to the Australian bishop's conference. One of these is to make bishops more accountable to the priests and laity of the diocese. While this is laudable in many respects, the tone of suspicion and power struggle suggests a discordant thought. The lines of authority in the Church, reasonably described in the New Testament and further clarified and foreshadowed in the Old Testament, paint the figure of a hierarchy. This structure, however, is not founded upon the backs of the laity, as if evoking the assembly "of the people, by the people and for the people." It is founded upon the cornerstone, Jesus Christ, on which were laid the foundation of the apostles, starting with Peter the Rock, and who did not leave us orphans, but established apostolic succession with the office of bishops. Taking these suggestions of flattening the structure (if that is what it is) to its ludicrous conclusion, we end up with a strange notion of making Christ, our High Priest and King, accountable to the ministerial priests who exist through his priestly ministry, and the laity who share the common priesthood, kingship and prophetic office through His.

What the Church has given the world

is not an unimpressive list of such milestones of civilization that one has to marvel at some of the shrill criticisms she gets. But that's to be expected, I suppose: we tend to see and cite the negatives much more than the positives, especially in a cynical age such as this. But any sincere critic should see things collectively before weighing in. A spade is a spade, of course, and that goes both ways.

Government in the Church

Fr. Michael Sweeney has written two articles on this so far, and they are must-reads:
Part 1: Introduction & Collaboration Between Laity and Hierarchy and
Part 2: The Church is Neither an Absolute Monarchy nor a Democracy. There are probably rumblings about Church structure and governance in most parishes, especially in western/affluent countries. Some would even link this to the sex abuse crisis, giving too much credit to the structure and too little to sin, I think. But this topic is important for even more fundamental reasons, as I think Fr. Sweeney will make clear in those articles.

The Hierarchical Body of Christ

Someone I esteem highly told me tonight of her departure from the Church after a solid attempt to be Catholic for I think a year, and the part that the hierarchical nature of the Church played in her decision to leave. I believe this pertains to the perception of and lapses into officiousness in the Church via the parochial system of Catholic schools. It is a saddening revelation. It isn't the hierarchical structure that causes problems, as the structure itself is mandated by Christ and supported by the Biblical accounts of Israel's and the Church's organization. Officiousness would come from domineering, and an abuse of authority. Some of it may well be perception only, whereas lapses into it comes from human nature.

I've seen some of these lapses, and they are tragic, but should not put one off from the Church that Christ founded on Peter. This Church continues to minister the sacraments, through which life in the Holy Spirit is given to us. This Church continues to teach definitively, with the Magisterium coming from Christ's authority, and his insistence upon it.

Where else can one go? As the Son chose to be incarnated in flesh and blood, and to act upon the world in his body, the Church, why should it surprise us that the body, while yet being perfected on earth, is as presently human as we are?

Fr. Bob: a question of will

There is, of course, the will of God as our ultimate guide. Ours is to conform to His, simply because, even by careful and painstaking analysis, especially with hindsight, His will trumps ours in all respects: efficiency, gains, timing, and so on.

There is the will of the Church, and likewise, the will of the (arch)bishop, speaking as the overseer of his diocese on behalf of the whole Church. This will is not of its own sovereign authority, but in lieu of the anointing by the Holy Spirit, it is taken to be conforming to the will of God. We can decide either way in Fr. Bob's case if the archbishop is himself conforming to and passing on God's will or not.

And then there is the will of Fr. Bob. That he would pit the will of the parish "elders" against that of the archbishop reveals a sadly rebellious spirit.

As for whether or not the archbishop (or canon law) is speaking the will of God or not, I suspect that the archbishop is being more prudent and discrete by not speaking of other reasons for Fr. Bob to retire. If only that he is beginning to confuse the Gospel and setting himself up as an idol, there is a very good reason for Fr. Bob to seek, not the will of his "elders" in the parish, but the will of God, the same God who instituted the office of bishops with his own authority and Holy Spirit.

Post-election Analysis of the Catholic Church in North America?

It's a pretty good one. More importantly, given that the situation in Australia is not much different, if behind by a few years, here's the big question: What does the Church in Australia do about it? We've recently lost the battle over the Abortion Law Reform bill in the state of Victoria, with a number of self-named Catholic/Christian legislators voting the wrong way. Debate over the Assisted Reproduction Treatment Bill is ongoing, but votes from the same group are once more up in the air.

One body

First reading today from Corinthians 12,12-14.27-31.

As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. Now the body is not a single part, but many. Now you are Christ's body, and individually parts of it. Some people God has designated in the church to be, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Strive eagerly for the greatest spiritual gifts. But I shall show you a still more excellent way.

There is the city on a hilltop

I feel less and less inclined to wade into ecumenical debates. There's been one brewing at Cum Ecclesia between the Catholic and Lutheran positions. The primary issues at hand are authority and the question of where the Church is.

I can't count the number of times that I had prepared a lengthy comment in the comment box only to find myself aborting the comment in the end. Not because I wasn't sure of what I wanted to say, but because my comments seem futile in the end. The Lutheran position does not hold much hope to me of dialogue. It is too subjective, it seems, and the Lutheran sentiment of one's unbending stand gets in the way.

In the end, lazy as it seems to be, I am inclined these days to simply lift my arm and point to the Church Magisterium: there she is, the city on a hilltop. Don't take my word for it, take hers. In any other Christian denomination, my interpretation of the Bible is the sure foundation of my arguments. In the Catholic Church, the interpretation of Scripture and Tradition that is offered by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the sure foundation. I have had the Iglesia ni Kristo or the Jehovah's Witnesses thrown at my face before, as an answer to this assertion of mine. Let me be clear then that I refer to Christian denominations who share the Nicene Creed and the pronouncements of the councils up to about the first millennium at least. Those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, the closing of revelation with the death of the Apostles, the Trinity, the hypostatic union of Christ's nature.

In predicting the demise of Jerusalem, the Lord told his disciples to scatter away. Going against prevailing practice at that time, they were to depart from Jerusalem, rather than to hide within and wait out a siege. No such warning is recorded about the Church that he built on the rock of Peter. He declares a promise that asserts the opposite: "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." St. Paul confirms this when he calls the Church the pillar and foundation of Truth.

If you pose a difficult dogma to me, I'll point to that city on the hilltop. I may not understand everything she tells me, I may fail to uphold my avowed obedience to her judgments, but I trust my Lord, who told me to trust that city. Even if I don't feel like it, even when I don't understand it -- even when I feel like dissenting. You see, at the end of the day, I just don't feel comfortable with the idea that I know better than all those popes, bishops, clergy, scholars, doctors and ordinary Catholics down through the centuries. Even if I were to consider that many of those popes, bishops, clergy, scholars, doctors and ordinary Catholics were individually sinful, and perhaps often individually wrong in word and deed, I'd be loathe to dissent. The Lord has already warned of what fate awaits those false teachers and leaders. I shall observe whatsoever the Magisterium teaches, but there will be times when I shall not do as they (of the Magisterium) do. God have mercy on them if they cause scandal, but I shall not make of myself a rebel. Some hats are simply too big for my head.

Why do you eat and drink with .. sinners

I don't know what I would have done in the 16th century, had I been witness to the corruption of Catholics then, including clergy. Perhaps I would have been one of the corrupt ones. I don't know what I would have done had I been anywhere near the clergy sex abuse cases. But if asked now, "how can you believe in the Catholic Church?" I might point this out:"

"Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" Jesus said to them in reply, "Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners." [Luke 5:27-32, today's Gospel reading]

The Lord does not give up his covenants, and the Church is more than a collective: she is a family, bound by the Holy Spirit in a unity beyond that of a natural family. She is the Bride, and the Bridegroom has married her in holy covenant, consummated his sacrifice for her, and will never abandon her for new brides.

Instead of Disagreeing...

From today's second reading (1 Corinthians 1:10 - 17), more of the Holy Spirit's sentiments about visible Christian unity in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church:

I appeal to you, brothers, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, to make up the differences between you, and instead of disagreeing among yourselves, to be united again in your belief and practice. From what Chloe’s people have been telling me, my dear brothers, it is clear that there are serious differences among you. What I mean are all these slogans that you have, like: ‘I am for Paul’, ‘I am for Apollos’, ‘I am for Cephas’, ‘I am for Christ’. Has Christ been parcelled out? Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Were you baptised in the name of Paul? For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the Good News, and not to preach that in the terms of philosophy in which the crucifixion of Christ cannot be expressed.

Now the Gospel reading (Matthew 4:12 - 23) might give us the most straightforward clue to unity among divided Christians today. As Herr Shutz has helped me understand, unity will be achieved by all Christians following Christ. And as I have learned from Mark Shea, this requires all to give a thorough and thoroughly meditated answer to Christ's most pressing question to all who would be his followers: "who do you say that I am?" I have to admit that I am not convinced with the answers coming from those who believe that the answer must conform with the times. Making the answer more relevant to modern hearers does not mean changing the answer, but merely in delivering it differently. Changing the answer is not an option, for Christ is the same yesterday, today and for always, objectively true, the Son of God who came to redeem us from sin by his sacrifice on the cross, because he loves us. This gospel, however, can be obscured by the squabbling among those who believe it, and that is a grave scandal, for there are many more who need to hear and see this gospel as a sign that there is Jesus of Nazareth, the light that Isaiah spoke of in prophecy (Isaiah 8:23 - 9:3):

The people that walked in darkness has seen a great light; on those who live in a land of deep shadow a light has shone. You have made their gladness greater, you have made their joy increase; they rejoice in your presence as men rejoice at harvest time, as men are happy when they are dividing the spoils.

And how confused people might be when they hear Christians argue, `I am for Paul', `I am for Apollos', `I am for Christ' -- dare I say it then, `I am for Luther', `I am for Calvin', `I am for Rome', `I am for Constantinople'. What scandal!

But I cannot resist pointing out that in the first millennium, there was only one universal Church, whose bishops were all in accord. That unity was challenged occasionally by heresy and heterodoxy, but they knew what the norm was, because that was what Christ expected. So those occasions were occasions of grace, too, where the Holy Spirit pulled the Church back, time and again, from endless fragmentation.

Where are we now, and what have we (not) done?

Building on rock

From Dailygospel.org, today's gospel commentary comes from St. Augustine:

Saint Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo (North Africa) and Doctor of the Church Sermon 7 on St John’s Gospel Is it surprising that the Lord changed Simon’s name, altering it to Peter? (Jn 1,42). “Peter” means “rock”; so Peter’s name is thus symbolic of the Church. Who is safe if not he who builds on rock? And what does the Lord himself say? “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock..." Of what use is it to anyone to enter the Church who builds on sand? He hears the word of God but fails to practise it; he builds, but on sand. If he had not been listening, he would not have been building; he hears and so he builds. But on what sort of foundation? If he hears the word of God and puts it into practice, then it will be on rock; but if he hears and does not put it into practice, then it is on sand. And so someone can build in two, very different ways… If you are satisfied by listening without practising, you build a ruin… But if, on the other hand, you fail to listen, you will remain without shelter and be carried away by the torrent of tribulations… Be well assured, my brethren: whoever hears the word without acting accordingly is not building on rock. He has no connection with that great name of Peter to which the Lord attached such importance.

If Protestants were today asked as to who was the greatest among the Apostles in that age, most of them might proclaim St. Paul as the clear favorite. And indeed, St. Paul was our greatest missionary, and certainly our most prolific New Testament epistle writer. St. Peter is almost obscured by the sheer depth and breadth of St. Paul's preaching. But it was not St. Paul to whom God first revealed the identity of the messiah. It was not St. Paul who was moved to proclaim the Christ, the son of the living God. It was not St. Paul whose name was changed to 'Kepha' ('Petros' in Greek), nor was it St. Paul who was given the keys of the kingdom. That all pertains to Simon Peter, simple fisherman, unlearned, slightly uncouth, impetuous and downright simple. How can this man be the rock upon which the Lord decided to build his Church?

Because the glory belongs to the Lord, who is the builder. So down the ages, we had very human popes, as human as Simon Peter was. Some were much worse sinners, others were more saintly. When St. Augustine had a difference with the pope of his time, you can bet that he was understandably upset. But he recognized in the pope the authority that the Lord anointed the Petrine See with. It is not the pope he obeys, but the Lord, who proclaimed for all the Apostles to hear: "you are Rock, and on this rock I will build my Church... I will give you the keys of the kingdom.."

We build on this rock because the eternal Rock built his Church on this rock. We build on sand at our peril.

One body

These readings come from today's Liturgy of the Hours:

Mid-morning reading (Terce)1 Corinthians 12:4 - 6

There is a variety of gifts but always the same Spirit; there are all sorts of service to be done, but always to the same Lord; working in all sorts of different ways in different people, it is the same God who is working in all of them.

Noon reading (Sext) 1 Corinthians 12:12 - 13

Just as a human body, though it is made up of many parts, is a single unit because all these parts, though many, make one body, so it is with Christ. In the one Spirit we were all baptised, Jews as well as Greeks, slaves as well as citizens, and one Spirit was given to us all to drink.

Afternoon reading (None) 1 Corinthians 12:24 - 26

God has arranged the body and that there may not be disagreements inside the body, but that each part may be equally concerned for all the others. If one part is hurt, all parts are hurt with it. If one part is given special honour, all parts enjoy it.

Clarifying how the Church established by Christ subsists in the Catholic Church

The Holy See clarifies why it uses the word "subsists" rather than "is" when Lumen Genium declared:

"This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."

Why is this being clarified today? Papa Benedict has been steadily and firmly working towards visible Christian unity. The recent motu proprio which clarifies the perpetual validity of the Tridentine Rite also points out the unacceptability of broad and liberal experimentation with the liturgy. This reaches out to those who reject the Novus Ordo because of grave liturgical abuses of the past generation or so. This clarification on Lumen Gentium is also relevant to the same people, some of whom protested at the word "subsists", so strong was/is their need to reject false ecumenism that was grounded on politeness and relativism. This also reaches out to the Orthodox Churches, our sisters in the East. But how do Protestants react in the way they are addressed? I guess we'll have to wait and see if they react at all. In any case, I think the clarification is about being precise, which is a necessary ingredient in true dialogue anyway.

Updates: A very good follow-up at the blog of Fr. Philip N. Powell. The Pertinacious Papist identifies a very good Evangelical response. And Lito at extra nos says "I told you so".

Would you like to hire an employee who refuses to follow company policy?

So Cardinal George Pell is requiring Catholic Educators to swear to uphold the Catholic faith?

Yes!

Actually the cartoon has it wrong. They actually *need* those brains in order to assimilate that. Otherwise, if we hand the Catholic faith to folks with their brains in the bin, they'll only do what comes natural to them (in that state): dismiss the Catholic faith without a thought.

Pun intended.

Couples for Christ

Members. We are. Not entirely sure how. Swept off our feet. But when I think about it, it seems more consistent with the work of God that we would feel like this and be a bit daunted. As some have said of the Catholic Church, it seems that CfC has claimed us (rather than we who claimed the CfC for ourselves). If a group had told us that it was as easy as 1-2-3 -- with no obligations, no sweat and no worries -- then it would be too trivial to be of God.

I'd been searching for a spiritual director for months now, so this seems to be God's answer. And I've been musing over the Catholic/Evangelical divide for years now, and CfC is both -- but while Evangelical, it is not Protestant. Perhaps I am onto the future of Evangelical Catholicism. The evangelizing zeal and spirit of Evangelicalism is alive in CfC! But while it is of the laity, it does not supplant the clergy. It instead focuses on what the laity does best -- to be efficacious leaven in daily living -- while remaining grounded on the Church as having both lay and clerical ministries. There is no inclination to merge these ministries. The household of God is huge, and His children have been given different callings and different gifts. Let the Magisterium of popes, councils and bishops teach and clarify. Let the clergy administer the sacraments. Let the religious orders teach, and minister to the needy. And let the laity, from families at the root, be leaven to the world. St. Josemaria Escriva would be pleased. :-)

May the Lord bless this new direction in our family's life. Veni, Sancte Spiritus!

No Salvation Outside the Church, explained

The interested visitor (hello!) should read through the blog posts and comment boxes of two Catholic converts on this matter:

• Joel, and
• Aimee Milburn

I don't think it was ever drilled into me, a cradle Catholic, that non-members were damned as such. For example, there are those Catholic doctrines on baptism of desire, baptism of blood (martyrdom), perfect contrition, etc. I never heard Sister Martha, Father Joseph or any of our teachers point out "those wicked [insert least favorite religious group here] are damned because [insert favorite rant here]!"

Catholics who think that non-Catholics are necessarily denied salvation are probably the same people who think that Catholics are necessarily saved, and both are wrongheaded notions.