"Who Are the Church?" Is More Important Than "What is Church?"

Earlier this afternoon, the 2008 Pere Marquette Lecture was held at Marquette University. The speaker this year was Rev. Joseph Komonchak, a professor of Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

He made reference to "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" - the document released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) last summer in which the CDF stated that only the Catholic Church may be properly called church (see prior post).

Komonchak stated that this CDF document was based on an inadequate interpretation of the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium 8, which states: "The Church of Christ... subsists in the Catholic Church." There are two complementary meanings in this phrase. The first is that the fullness of salvation is found in the Catholic Church as it is in no other church. Komonchak gave such examples as the unitive ministry of the pope, the sacraments, and the extra books found in the Catholic Bible to illustrate the greater variety of instruments available within the Catholic Church for salvation. The CDF document appears to pay attention to only this meaning of the Lumen Gentium 8.

The second meaning of "subsists in the Catholic Church," as the doctrinal commission explained to the Vatican II fathers who were voting on this document, is that "ecclesial elements of church can be found elsewhere" outside the confines of the Catholic Church. This is why Lumen Gentium 8 did not read "The Church of Christ... is the Catholic Church," but had been changed to "subsists in."

Komonchak finds the more important question to be: "In whom is the Church?" In whom is the faith, hope, charity of Christ most realized? In 1950 Alabama, that may not be the segregationist Catholic Church, but the integrated Reformed Church down the road. He cited similar statements regarding the greater importance of "Who are the Church?" from Ratzinger, Augustine, Aquinas, and Unitatis Redintegratio, the Vatican II Decree on Ecuminism. It was very good lecture.

A Faithful Catholic

The New Donatists of the CDF

The Donatists in the time of Augustine created a stir by stating that sacraments performed by priests who had renounced the faith in time of persecution were not valid. As such, the "un-baptized" person, if they had received the sacraments of confirmation, marriage, or ordination, had not really received those sacraments either. They only thought they had.

A statement released yesterday from Vatican Information Services states that anyone baptized using the formula " I baptized you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier," or "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer," has not only not been baptized, but in Donatist-style, has not received those other sacraments either.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) stated that the other formulae are not properly Trinitarian and do not "obey Jesus' command as it appears at the end of the Gospel of St. Matthew." These arguments are quite weak. First, within Scripture we find innumerable names given to the persons of the Trinity. Does that mean those names are inadequate not only for baptism, but for using at anytime? In addition, God's infinite nature makes any naming of the Trinity grossly inadequate. Second, no serious scripture scholar really believes that Jesus literally commanded his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Jesus' followers discerned this after the resurrection, just as some of the today's priests and religious groups has discerned a different Trinitarian formula in which to baptize.

The US Bishops' Secretariat of Doctrine, Fr. Tom Weinandy, stated that unless there is a witness who is sure that the non-standard formula was used, "it is assumed they used the right formula." Sounds like the US Bishops are trying to make some wiggle room of their own because of the possible blowback from the CDF telling people their baptisms and marriages are invalid.

A Faithful Catholic

Baby Got Book

Jesus the Christ

I noticed that I don't have an entry yet on who Jesus is for us - hence this entry. Jesus is obviously the reason for every other entry in this blog. In some special way that I cannot comprehend, the Word took flesh in Jesus, the natural born son of Joseph and Mary. Full humanity and full divinity found a place in one person.

Jesus came to remind us of God's grace, that is God's unending and ineffable love for us - most radically displayed in his crucifixion. In the resurrection of Jesus there is a radical hope - all things, however bad and gloomy, will be made new. It is made new because this is not a raising of the dead as with Lazarus, Jesus has a new body and even his own disciples do not readily recognize him.

On par with that love & hope that we find in the crucifixion and resurrection, is Jesus' example of a life lived in a truly human way. He teaches us what it is to be truly human. As the Eastern Churches say: God became human in order that humans may become divine. And as we are made in the image and likeness of God, it is truly divine to live out our humanity as Christ showed us. Jesus lived his message of the Kingdom of God. A Kingdom that reached out to all, no matter what a person's state in life. The only people we find Jesus regularly having a problem with are religious fanatics that think they have all the answers.

May God keep us humble.

-A Faithful Catholic

Self Love - Is It All Bad?

Continuing my "Is it all Bad?" series, I wanted to focus on masturbation. The classic reason I always hear from religious persons for masturbation being wrong is that it is all about the person doing it, it's all inward - and therefore selfish and wrong. Catechism 2353, states that it is an intrinsic evil because it's making use of the genital region in a sexual way that is neither part of married love nor open to procreation.

First the Catechism, as I don't always believe that sex need take place inside of marriage or be open to procreation (see my Fornication entry), the "official" Catholic prohibitions are not persuasive. As given the reason that church people normally give (inward & selfish), would that not make watching TV, playing video games, reading, or any other activity we often do by ourselves wrong, especially if it is a little self-indulgent and not for learning purposes. What about eating ice cream late at night while watching bad television!? And as I couldn't find anything on the American Medical Association website concerning the harm done by masturbation, I can only conclude that under normal circumstance, masturbation is fine in the eyes of God. This an another "teaching" of the Catholic Church that obviously needs to be reevaluated.

Good Friday Just Got Better

According to Catholic News Service, Pope Benedict is amending the Tridentine Good Friday service with regard to its prayers for Jews. The 1962 version has been well publicized for its anti-Jewish character, but appears to be in the process of being completely rewritten. The 1962 version prayed for the conversion of the Jews and referred to their "blindness." The Vatican has not officially confirmed this report, but sources state that the Vatican should officially release this information soon.

Benedict continues to make a better mark on our Church than John Paul II, although it would be better if he could accommodate those lovers of the post-Vatican II liturgy as much as he accommodates pre-Vatican II liturgy lovers. But all in all, his greater tolerance towards thoughtful theologians with whom he disagrees (such as the Dutch Dominicans & Hans Kung) is extremely admirable and step in the right direction.

Real Purpose of Vatican II's Liturgical Reform

A week and a half ago, Richard McBrien (theology professor at Notre Dame) wrote about Archbishop Marini, former master of ceremonies at the Vatican, and Marini's new book: A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, 1963-1975. As McBrien states: "[He] challenges those who would, some 40 years later, attempt to undermine those reforms, in opposition not only to Vatican II but to the expressed wishes of Pope Paul VI himself."

Marini, who should know, states that the resistance to the liturgical renewal of Vatican II has very little to do with changes to the vernacular and certain rituals and everything to do with the ecclesiology that these changes represent. This of course being an ecclesiology (theology of Church) of the People of God, priests & laity are equal - together. The old ecclesiology has the priest playing the part of a parent with the laity being the cared for, but simple-minded children. As McBrien states: "Communion is given in the hand because the laity should feed themselves rather than be fed like infants or very young children."

A Faithful Catholic