So what does it mean to be Catholic? The definition implies continuity with the early church, the church of Peter and of Paul and the rest of the apostles. It also defines a small set of doctrines, one statement of which is the Lambeth Quadrilateral (1886):
- That the Holy Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation;
- That the Nicene Creed is a sufficient statement of faith;
- That the two sacraments of baptism and holy communion be unfailingly ministered with the words of Christ’s institution; and
- That the historical episcopacy be locally implemented.
The Roman Catholic Church today is not the same church as the time of the Reformation and many of the main complaints of the reformers have been addressed or corrected. The Roman Church has agreed to the Doctrine of Justification by Faith: This was declared in 1999, in a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification issued with the Lutheran World Federation, a document subsequently signed also by the World Methodist Council in 2006. Since the time of the second Vatican council, the Roman Church has conducted its services in the vernacular tongue instead of Latin (in fact, I would go so far as to say that there is more Latin sung in Anglican churches today than in Roman catholic churches). The Church has admitted the the rules of celibacy for secular clergy are a matter of discipline and not of doctrine (indeed, Anglican and Orthodox clergy who have converted to Rome have not been asked to put aside their wives). There remains the vexing issue of Anglican orders (Anglicans recognise Roman Catholic clergy as validly ordained, but Roman Catholics do not, under Apostolicae Curae 1896). The practice of selling indulgences has quietly been put aside and nary a word is said of Purgatory nowadays (although the Roman Church has not officially recanted this error). The cult of the saints remains in some locations perilously close to idolatory, but the official doctrine of the church in this matter is blameless (though excesses remain widely tolerated).
I cannot say I have no remaining doctrinal issues with the Roman Church, and I still could not in clear conscience enter the Roman Church because of three barriers that have been erected since Luther’s time. Two of these doctrines are to do with Mary and one with the Pope.
I have no problem with chanting Ave maria’s or praying the rosary. The doctrine of Mary as Theotokos (that Mary is truly the Mother of God) is accepted not just the Roman Catholic church but also by the Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches. Not all those churches might be happy to use that precise form of words, but they accept the doctrine as true. I cannot accept as dogma the two post-Reformation dogmas, which are the Immaculate Conception of Mary (Ineffabilis Deus 1854) and her Corporeal Assumption (Munificentissimus Deus 1950). I will go so far as to say that these doctrines might be true, and I certainly would not try to convince a believer otherwise, because there exists no evidence either way. What I object to is that the Roman church demands from all its members belief in these Marist doctrines as a pre-condition for salvation: that I cannot accept. Salvation comes from Christ: all that is required is acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and anyone who claims otherwise (be he the Pope himself or the magisterium of the Church) is a liar. Perhaps God in his ineffable goodness did indeed see fit to grant Mary these graces, but it is wrong to insist that Christians believe in something that is not even recorded in the bible and, even worse, to teach them that their salvation is in doubt if they do not.
More fundamentally, I cannot accept the doctrine of Papal Infallability (Pastor aeternus 1870). (Is the name "Medici" not the strongest possible proof of the falsehood of that doctrine?) The Pope is a mortal man as is every member of the magisterium. To claim that there is any circumstance in which he is protected from error (even in that one specific moment when he speaks ex cathedra) is contrary to Scripture. Papal Infallability means there is no get-out clause: no Pope can now renounce Ineffabilis Deus or Munificentissimus Deus.
If the doctrinal issues are so clear, then what is my problem? Why are the decisions so difficult?
Once, in Cambridge, I stepped into the Catholic Church there (Our Lady and the English Martyrs) just to have a peek around. There I met an Irish woman who asked me a lot of questions, but eventually said, “Join the Catholic Church: you will feel like you have finally come home.”
And in a way she is right. When I attend a Catholic mass, I am exceedingly comfortable. I feel a communion, a dialogue with God that I do not feel in a Charismatic service or structureless Evangelical service. I find the same peace when attending an Anglo-Catholic mass, but Evangelical services make me very uncomfortable and sometimes fill me with blind rage. I tolerate Evangelical services, but I find them empty and meaningless: a lot of talk and flash, but utterly lacking in substance, and that annoys me. The evangelicals like to speak of a personal relationship with God: well I find that the Holy Spirit talks to me and moves me when I am in at a catholic mass, but I cannot hear him for all the noise and clapping of most Evangelical services. I have yet to find an Evangelical church where a personal relationship or connexion with God is possible for me, but in the Catholic churches it is so easy. I step in the door, the pieces of my world suddenly fall into place, and he is there, saying, ”Hello, there you are. Where have you been? Welcome home.” And, everything is alright again.
Today is the feast of Christ the King and I heard mass at Amsterdam’s only English-language Roman church, Blessed Trinity Parish Church in Watergraafsmeer. Although the sermon did not address the issue, I could not help thinking of Christ's fractured body, which is the church. A recurring theme in Paul's letters is church unity and the resolution of disputes. Maybe what I need to learn humility and simply submit to the authority of the church. Perhaps the Roman Church is in error (and by dint of hard thinking, I cannot convince myself it is otherwise); yet perhaps disunity is the greater error. Perhaps I do too much thinking and not enough believing? I have a nagging voice that tells me the Spirit is leading me to Rome, but I cannot bring myself to believe that that is true or that that is the right thing to do.
The current pope, Benedict XVI promulgated a new Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum Coetibus, on 9 Nov 2009. The substance of the document is to welcome Anglicans into the fold while retaining Anglican traditions and forms of worship. How do I respond to the Pope’s offer? I find it impossible to accept from a doctrinal standpoint, but deep deep down I am far less certain.
- Catholic Culture, 9 Nov 2009. (Analysis of the Apostolic Constitution from a Roman point of view)
- The Church Times, 20 Nov 2009 (Full text of Rowan Williams’ response)
No comments:
Post a Comment