Here’s a very helpful summary of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about what the Church of Jesus Christ is, and who belongs to her. From Caelum et Terra.
For an Orthodox take (but certainly not the Orthodox take), see Fr Georges Florovsky’s 1933 essay “The Limits of the Church”.
“but certainly not the Orthodox take” therein lies a tale, I think. The Orthodox Churches, for better or worse, that decided that it’s best to do without the definitive and assume an implicit unity that may or may not really be there.
I don’t think that the Orthodox assume an implicit unity. On the contrary, the position held by the vast majority (approaching unanimity) of Orthodox theologians is a unity at the episcopal level. It’s the intersection of ecclesiology and theology.
At the risk of oversimplifying: Bishops in communion with other bishops who hold and teach the Apostolic/Orthodox faith.
On the other hand (and I write as a Catholic) ask six random Catholic bishops and six random Catholic theologians the same question that was so eloquently examined on Caelum et Terra and you’re bound to receive 10 differing responses and 2 that are the same but substantially nuanced.
Brendan: I have a hard time believing that the Catholic bishops’ voices are as cacophonous as all that. But, even if they are, so what? That’s why we have a Magisterium. ;)
But, Diane, it’s not a question of having a Magisterium – it’s the interpretation of that teaching. (or the lack of interpretation)
One example: Forty years (fully two generations) after the Second Vatican Council and the documents still haven’t been authoritatively defined. (Although, some would argue that Benedict XVI is embarking on that project now)
Everything from ecclesiology to liturgy to doctrine has been run through the prism of the Spirit of Vatican II.
Thus, the cacaphony.
But I wasn’t addressing the subject of authority in the Church. I was specifically referring to the understanding of unity (ad intra)
A related issue, I think, is that even though Rome’s position on many issues is crystal clear, the way in which Roman Catholics often express themselves liturgically seems to contradict what their Church teaches. There’s no doubt in my mind that liturgical chaos is a major cause of the cacophany that Brendan refers to.
The topic of the Liturgy is not very often brought up in ecumenical discussions between Rome and the Orthodox, but I believe it to be hugely important.
Anyhow, three cheers for Pope Benedict, his almost-year-old Motu Proprio, and his ongoing “Reform of the Reform.”
Diane:
Brendan: I have a hard time believing that the Catholic bishops’ voices are as cacophonous as all that. But, even if they are, so what? That’s why we have a Magisterium.
Thank you, Diane, for confirming that Catholic bishops are not part of the “Magisterium”. Joe
Joe,
Though your comment’s a bit catty, I think that your point is well-taken. Not that the authentic Roman Catholic notion of the Magisterium excludes the teaching of the bishops (it definitely doesn’t traditionally and especially according to Vatican II) … but perhaps Diane’s comment could be rephrased to take the magisterial role of the bishops into account.
While Diane’s comment is meant to distance dissident bishops from the magisterium. it also hints at a Catholic misunderstanding of the Church’s authority and indeed, the way grace operates in the Church: the Pope is the dispenser of grace and authority, the bishops passive receptacles, who in turn pass it on to the priests.
This of course is emphatically not the Church’s teaching, but a common misperception.
I agree with Eirenikon Editor to some degree. (I have to.. We chose a nearly identical banner for our blogs!)
I don’t discount the centrality of liturgy but I don’t see a reform of the reform underway in the RCC.
Unless the pope were to disavow the Pauline reforms (which he hasn’t) then they will remain in force. No tampering – strictly speaking – is allowed if, as is so often said by conservative Catholics “the liturgy belongs to Rome”
The pope has freed up the old Mass and called priests back to the ars celebrandi when approaching the new. But there’s no reform of the Novus Ordo on the horizon. It will remain as banal as it is now.
Eirenikon Editor- you are right, my remark was “catty” and I apologize for that tone. I just get tired of glib and pat remarks, and I have heard this one many times.
Daniel Nichols- I appreciate your post. I am trying to decide whether the “misunderstanding” which you pinpoint in Diane’s post is an avoidable one or an inevitable result of Catholic ecclesiology. Are there any books on Catholic ecclesiology which you would recommend? Joe
Dan, I agree with you that the pope is viewed as the source of authority — at least since Vatican I — but the source of grace?
Haven’t heard that one…
Good grief, Joe (and Daniel). I have never remotely implied that the bishops are not part of the Magisterium. I would politely sugegst that the “misunderstanding” is not in my post but in y’all’s eisegesis of it.
My point is simply this: The Magisterium is much larger than individual bishops. And thank God for that. Throughout history (e.g., in the East in the fourth century ;)), large numbers of bishops have been more or less off the rails. But the Pope and the Magisterium have always stood firm as the Rock of orthodoxy — as Maximos the Confessor and many other Fathers attest.
the way in which Roman Catholics often express themselves liturgically seems to contradict what their Church teaches
Esteemed Eirenikon Editor: With all due deference and respect…I am not sure this is quite true, just as I am not at all sure that the bishops’ voices are cacophonous. ;)
In the blogosphere, and especially among the less irenic Orthodox and Anglicans, the impression is often given that Catholicism “on the ground” is just one crazy Clown Mass after another. Whereas in reality this is so far from the truth that Catholics encountering such caricatures simply roll their eyes. Are there still liturgical abuses, including rather gross ones? Sure. Are they the norm? No, they are not. And in many places, they are disappearing altogether.
I do not mean to offend by pointing this out. But, seriously, we Catholics get as tired of having our liturgy trashed as Joe apparently gets of having Catholic Truth presented to him. ;)
I belong to one of the more liberal parishes in the Charlotte diocese, but it is scarcely the hotbed of liturgical abuse Internet polemicists are so fond of depicting. Not by a long shot.
God bless, all,
Diane
Diane,
I’m not trashing anyone’s Liturgy! Please don’t jump to such extreme conclusions!
I’m merely taking my cues from what many Catholic authorities themselves are saying about the crisis in contemporary Roman Liturgy, including Cardinal Ratzinger / Benedict XVI.
The situation may not be as dire as “one crazy Clown Mass after another” (I never alleged anything like this!) but there are some genuine problems in contemporary Catholic liturgical expression. Based on my own reading of Catholic authors (mainstream ones, not Lefebvrites or Sedevacantists), I don’t think that this is that extreme of a conclusion.
I apologize, O esteemed and beloved Irenic One, for jumping to conclusions. ;)
But…don’t you think those liturgical abuses are disappearing–slowly, perhaps, in some places but quickly in others? And Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have had much to do with that. (There’s that central leadership thing again. :-))
Today the situation is dramatically better than it was even five years ago, let alone ten or 20 years ago. Much of the intra-mural critique of Catholc liturgy “on the ground” dates from five, 10, or more years ago. Today, I respectfully submit, things are different. The glass is at least half full, if not more so. Still not completely full, I grant you, but getting there.
I know there are still dioceses where really bad liturgical abuses occur, but they are fewer and farther between. My in-laws’ archdiocese, Louisville, used to be AmChurch Central, but now even it is turning around. If Louisville can trend conservative…well, then, I dare say even Los Angeles and San Francisco can!
In the blogosphere, we are constantly criticized by the denizens of eensy-weensy communions, whether Anglican or Orthodox or LCMS or whatever. But there’s the rub: “eensy-weensy.” It’s easy to be pure, liturgically and otherwise, when the community is minuscule and largely intentional. Fr. Dwight Longenecker pointed this out, in his brilliant response to Continuing Anglican critics of the Catholic Church, entitled “Size Matters.” (I will find this for y’all momentarily.)
In response to Father Longenecker’s post, I penned the following little ditty. I hope it does not offend anyone here…I will leave out the stanza specifically relating to our Orthodox critics:
It’s easy to be pure
When your church consists of four,
And one of them’s your priest
And two others are deceased.
It’s easy to be pure
When your church is quite obscure
And minuscule and clannish –
And nobody speaks Spanish.
(omitted stanza comes here :-)
It’s easy to be pure,
But you’d best make extra-sure.
So, here’s what you should do:
Found a church confined to you.
[This last stanza was expressly inspired by a church-hopping friend who had gone through an Orthodox phase, then emerged, rejected Catholicism because he doesn't like illegal immigrants--no comment!--and now wavers between Continuing Anglicanism and "House Church."]
Anyway, the bottom line is that there are 1.31 billion of us papists, which means we’re a mixed lot by definition — and, believe me, even in the halcyon 1950s we were not a worldwide paragon of liturgical purism. You can’t have that many people without having some tares among the wheat. But then–isn’t that precisely what Our Lord foretold concerning His very own Church?
God bless, and asking pardon beforehand for any offense,
Diane
P.S. Last nigtht my family and I went to Mass at Saint Jospeh of the Hills in Eden, NC, a lovely little old church crammed with statues and smelling of must and incense and candle-wax. There wasn’t a liturgical abuse anywhere in sight. The homily was awesome. (It’s the Feast of Corpus Christi.) Today I attended Mass at our home parish, Good Shepherd in King, NC. Outside of our pastor’s unfortunate penchant for improvising during the “This is the Lamb of God” (the liturgical rubrics do not address this, so it’s a gray area), there was no liturgical abuse here, either. But then, I don’t usually look for such abuses. I’m too bsuy focusing on the Main Event. (oooh, did that sound sanctimonious…or what? ;))
I guess we’re just very blessed to be in the Diocese of Charlotte. But…isn’t the Archdiocese of Denver similarly blessed? That’s always the impression I’ve received….
Here is the link to Fr. Longenecker’s wonderful post, “Size Matters”:
http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2007/03/size-matters.html
May I respectfully suggest that, when the Continuing Anglicans and Canonical Orthodox, combined, have 1.31 billion members “from every nation, tribe, and tongue,” then their critique of our liturgical aberrations will carry much more force. ;)
OK, I’ve said too much. Sorry, y’all. I’m outta here.
Diane, dodging the brickbrats…
“I apologize, O esteemed and beloved Irenic One, for jumping to conclusions.”
Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee! :-)
No, seriously, I’m trying not to be overly critical here. When I speak of liturgical problems in the Latin Church, I speak very sympathetically. Forgive me, but it does seem that the Latin Church has, since the 1970’s, been involved in a major liturgical crisis (this is not my judgment but that of numerous Catholic thinkers) … and, thank God, it seems like the Pope and a new generation of clergy are beginning to turn this around.
“their critique of our liturgical aberrations will carry much more force.”
Sorry, Diane, I just rescued this comment from the spam queue.
Again, I’m taking my cue from Catholic critics (including the reigning Pope), not Orthodox or Anglican ones.
:) I do appreciate that, Irenic One. I just wated to observe that things are turning around. We Catholics in the blogosphere are so used to getting flak about liturgical abuses, and it does start to get to us a bit. As one person observed somewhere orother, “The biggest liturgical abuse at any Mass I’ve ever attended is…me.”