|
|
Christ
Episcopal Church
|
|
Riverton, New Jersey |
|
|
|
Whose Church is it anyway? July
2007 At church
over the last few weeks, I have been greeted with several variations of the
phrase, “I hear the Pope says we’re not a real church”. This comes out of the re-release of the
declaration “Dominus Iesus” (Lord Jesus) which was
first promulgated by Benedict XVI seven years ago when he was still Josef
Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, the successor organization of the Roman Inquisition. I’ve read the
document (13 pages single spaced with 102 footnotes) and its primary purpose
as I read it is to make a very clear declaration of Roman Catholicism in order
to place parameters upon dialog with non-Christian religions. Although it reiterates that salvation is
through faith in Christ Jesus, the Roman church acknowledges that in regard
to other faiths, “she has a high regard for the manner of
life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in
many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that
truth which enlightens all men”. After defining the Roman church over and against other
world religions, the Christian Church is defined as “a single Church of
Christ, which subsists in the [Roman] Catholic Church, governed by the
Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”... “On
the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid
Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,
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 com-munion, albeit imperfect, with the [Roman Catholic] Church”. While I would
certainly say that the Anglican Communion has both a valid Episcopate and a
genuine sense of the Eucharistic mystery, the real issue is the difference in
how one defines what “The Church” is. I went back to
Richard Hooker (1554-1600), the greatest of Anglican theologians, who was
writing less than sixty years after King Henry VIII broke with the Roman
church. His discussion of what
constitutes the church follows from his defence of Anglicans permitting Roman
Catholics to receive Holy Communion, whereas most protestants excommunicated
them. He writes that since, “the only object which separateth ours
from other religions is Jesus Christ, in whom none but the Chruch doth
believe and whom none but the Church doth worship, we find that accordingly
the Apostles do every where distinuish hereby the Church from
[non-Christians], accounting ‘them which call upon the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ to be his Church’”. For
Hooker, those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord constitute the Church. Denominational distinctions do not mean
that those who follow them are not in the church, since those differences are
merely, “casual (superficial) and
variable accidents (circumstances that are not essential
to the nature of something), which ... make only for the happier and better
being of the Church of God”. Of Roman Catholics he diplomatically opines, “they define not the Church by that which
the Church essentially is, but by that wherein they imagine their own [church]
more perfect than the rest are”. Hooker considers that
the unity of the Church, regardless of “schisms,
factions and other such evils... sound and sick remaining both of the same
body as long as both parts retain by outward profession that vital substance
of truth which ... acknowledge ... our Lord Jesus Christ the blessed saviour
of mankind”. He explains this
understanding with the anology of Noah’s ark: we are saved from the tempest
without as long as we have climbed on board.
I am tempted to take the image further, and suggest what teeming
diversity of life we find within this fragile craft. Roman Catholicism’s exclusivist claims
stem from a reading of Matthew 16:18-19.
In this passage, Jesus declares after Peter’s confession of faith, “I tell you, you are Peter, and on this
rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against
it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound
in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Roman Catholic scholars claim that thus
Peter is the foundation stone of church hierarchy, that he then passed the
keys to his successors as first bishop of I would
suggest, along with many commentators that the rock upon which the church
would be built is that of a believer’s solid faith in Jesus’ Messiahship of the kind Peter showed at that particular
moment. The ability to bind and loose
was given by Jesus to all those present in the upper room on the first Easter
(John 20:21-23), so it was not an exclusive gift. In spite of legend, there is no objective
evidence that Peter was ever in These and
many other points have been made over the last millennium by Orthodox,
Protestant, Anglican, Old Catholic, agnostic and atheistic scholars. The wobbly foundations of Roman Catholic
claims to exclusivity are obvious to hundreds of millions of Christians. Many have claimed that R.C. stridency comes
out of the arrogance of size and power.
But I would suggest the reverse is true. Many within and without the Sadly, Dominus Iesus is indeed nothing
new. However, the theology of St. Paul
for me carries far more weight, and there we read, “God put his power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead
and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule
and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not
only in this age but also in the age to come. And he has put all things under
his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body,
the fullness of him who fills all in all (Eph
1:20-23). “You are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (I Cor 12:27). So, the true church is one which has Jesus
as its head, period. Thus, by
scripture’s definition, you and I, Benedict XVI and Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart and the Orthodox patriarch of See
you of the church in church?! Richard+ |
