Mean What You Profess
I've been thinking alot lately about the Nicene Creed and all that we say in it.
The part I've been thinking about the most is, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church."
As a Catholic there is no problem with saying this, because we know that "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic" are the marks of the Church.
The Church founded by Jesus who passed it down to the Apostles to the Fathers to the present day.
The Catholic Church.
What concerns me, is that as an Anglican, I said this creed every Sunday. I would say this line of the creed and not really think about it. But now that I am becoming Catholic, it doesn't make sense that I would truthfully be able to say that line as a member of any other denomination than that of the Catholic Church.
The main reason is because of the word "One" in the line of the creed. We believe in "One" Church. Not two, or three, or four, or so forth, but ONE.
When other Churches split from the One Catholic Church, there no longer was ONE Church. There was Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian....
In the Anglican Communion alone there isn't ONE Church. There is the Episcopal Church of AMERICA, the Church of ENGLAND, the AFRICAN Church, the CANADIAN Church, and so on.
With Catholics, there isn't a separate church in every country. There is ONE Church throughout the world. That's why Catholics can faithfully say that we believe in ONE Church.
Now Anglicans might say to me that the line in the creed says that "We believe in One Holy CATHOLIC" Church. And we all know that Catholic in the creed means "universal", so we are all the universal Church under Christ.
However, they fail to see the "ONE" that precedes the "CATHOLIC" in the line. Catholic does mean "universal", it's true, but the line says "One Universal." If you call yourself the Church of England and the Church of America and the Church of Canada, you may be universal...but you are not ONE.
The Catholic Church is universal and one.
The Catholic Church is the fullest expression of the Christian Faith. Each time a group breaks away from the Catholic Church they lose something of the True Faith handed down from Jesus.
Let us also not forget that it was the Catholic Church who came up with the creed in the first place at Nicaea in 325.
The Catholic Church is the One TRUE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Now, I am aware that this blog is read by Anglicans and I write this post not to attack or look down upon you, but rather to challenge you to think about your faith and the words you say in the creed. I challenge you to really see what it is that you left in leaving the Catholic Church. The Church founded by Christ.
May all who have left (by choice or by being born into another denomination) the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church return home to the fullness of faith in Christ. Amen.
7 comments:
Not that I disagree with you that the Church is one, and perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument about not being one if you call yourself the Church of America, the Church of Africa, etc., but how do the Eastern Catholic Churches (for such they are called--they are not merely rites) fit into your view of things? The Rusyn Church, the Russian Church, the Melkite Church, the Ukrainian Church, the Syro-Malabar Church...I could go on. What is the difference between the structure of these Churches within the Church, and the Anglican Communion? (I'm not Anglican, I really want to know how this fits into your explanation.)
The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are still part of the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church.
A Rite represents an ecclesiastical, or church, tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. Each of the sacraments has at its core an essential nature which must be satisfied for the sacrament to be confected or realized. This essence - of matter, form and intention - derives from the divinely revealed nature of the particular sacrament. It cannot be changed by the Church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, tells us what is essential in each of the sacraments (2 Thes. 2:15).
When the apostles brought the Gospel to the major cultural centers of their day the essential elements of religious practice were inculturated into those cultures. This means that the essential elements were clothed in the symbols and trappings of the particular people, so that the rituals conveyed the desired spiritual meaning to that culture. In this way the Church becomes all things to all men that some might be saved (1 Cor. 9:22).
The different Catholic Rites do not profess different beliefs; rather they all profess the SAME Truth. They all recognise the Pope and the authority of the Magesterium.
This is unlike the Anglicans, where each of the different Churches profess different 'truths' (as seen with the whole sad issue of homosexual Anglican priests at the moment). They are not unified. They are not one.
So the different Catholic rites have different CULTURAL influences governing the form of their admination of the sacraments, but they are all united; One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church.'
see EWTN for more info on the different Catholic Rites:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
ps- good post Danny!
Granted that Anglicanism and Eastern-Rite Catholicism are not comparable (the issue being full communion with the Holy See for the latter), and granted that Danny probably didn’t intend a full discussion of ERC, I still find it an interesting dilemma.
What did Pope John Paul II mean by his desire for the Church to “breath with both lungs?” If (since) ERCs are in full communion with Rome, then how is the Church not already breathing with both lungs? In other words, what’s broken that needs to be fixed?
If something needs to be fixed (in the eyes of the Holy See), it seems there could be two approaches. First would be absorption of the Eastern Rites into the Latin Rite (in terms of liturgical uniformity, priestly celibacy, and hierarchy). But this would indicate that ERCs have some kind of second-class citizenship at present, sort of “some are more equal than others”. In theory, an ER bishop could be chosen as pope someday, but according to Canon Law, he would immediately have to switch to the (liturgical) Latin Rite.
The other possibility is a call for wide-spread expansion (a good word for a “lung”!) of the ER Churches (which, interestingly, are even called “Churches” by the Holy See). But expansion has always been problematic. The ER Churches came about in large part to provide a Catholic “covering” in historically Eastern-Orthodox lands. Where they have expanded in the East, they have been seen as encroaching on Orthodox “turf” and a threat to ecumenism (hence, the pejorative use of the word “uniate”). Where they have expanded in the West, they create jurisdictional oddities. Many major U.S. cities have at least one ER parish in the midst of various Latin-Rite parishes, with a different bishop. While ER and LR Catholics can attend Mass at the others’ parishes out of necessity, if they have the option they are encouraged to stay with the Rite of their birth/baptism.
Anyway, ‘tis a puzzlement. I did just read on EWTN's site that there are technically 22 Churches under Rome's authority, but only 8 (liturgical) rites, as some of the ER Churches "share" rites by virtue of common geographic or linguistic history.
I should correct one statement I made. I don't think it's true that any ER bishop could become pope. I think what I had heard dealt with the different liturgical rites under the ROMAN Catholic Church being papabile. The two biggest such rites are the Maronite and Ambrosian. If such a bishop were chosen as pope, he would immediately begin celebrating the LATIN-rite Mass.
Jane,
Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. I have company visiting from out of town and haven't had a chance to respond until now.
As Antonia pointed out, the different rites are cultural and they are all one under the authority of the pope. An example of this would be in America where there are Catholic churches where Irish-Americans attend, ones where African-Americans attend, Polish-Amercian, and so forth. They all practice and believe the same thing and are all under the authority of the Pope, however their liturgy (rites) are influenced by the culture of the differing ethnicities.
In the Anglican Communion, each country acts as an autonomous Church able to make their own canons (laws) outside of the (so called) authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (who is pretty much just a figure head as we have seen in recent developments of the communion). In the Catholic Church, whether it's Latin Rite or Eastern Rite, all churches are under the authority of the Pope. They are all ONE.
I hope this helps to understand. Thanks for your comment!
Frank,
you bring up a great question. The Eastern-Rites have always been allowed to marry and have had the same rites since before they split and came back to the Church. I think what John Paul II meant was that the Latin and Eastern Rites needed to realize that they are ONE Church with One head being the successor of Peter. There is still alot of misconception on both rites parts about the other. Many people in the Latin Rite don't know about the Eastern Rite and they should be encouraged to learn about them and embrace them as members of the One Family: The Catholic Church. Many Latin Riters have the misconception that the Eastern Catholics are part of the Orthodox Church, which is not in communion with Rome. John Paul was calling for all Catholics to act as One, because that is exactly what they are: Members of the ONE Catholic Church.
Thanks for your comment, Frank! I always appreciate your input!
Antonia,
Thanks for jumping in to answer while I was away! Great job!
Thanks for your clarification. I am actually very familiar with how the Eastern Catholic Churches operate--my boyfriend is Eastern Catholic, and I've had to study up on these things since it seems likely that I will be raising little Byzantine children one of these days--but I was unfamiliar with how the Anglican Communion works. Thank you for explaining it.
"And also with you", it is true that any Catholic bishop of any persuasion can become pope; technically, any unmarried, baptized male can be elected pope, though we haven't had a non-cardinal in some centuries. I believe (though I cannot verify this) that the reason he would have to begin celebrating the Roman Rite is not because he would be pope, but because he would be the Bishop of Rome, which is (obviously) a Roman Rite diocese.
Post a Comment