|
B B S T r a n s c r i p t
ASK FATHER
By J. Michael Venditti
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 6
 June 1994 
|
|
|
Subj: Primacy of Peter
Date: 93-03-05 22:13:24 EST
From: BrianMcN
Father,
I am a cradle RC. I am well schooled in the teachings of the Christian Church at Rome. I follow them faithfully. I know that in the documents of Vatican II we profess to be of origin from the Holy Spirit, who guided the meeting of the Church Fathers; a hierarchy of truths should be understood in relationship with other Christians. In my experience in an inner-city parish, the primacy of Peter is not high on the list of that hierarchy.
The Orthodox view of "first among equals" is reasonable and should not be dismissed. Since revelation is to the Christian Church, it should be a discussion, with a moderator, among all equal in baptism; that person in our tradition is the Bishop of Rome. I agree with that, but it is not a condition to accept the baptism, belief, or union with others who have accepted the Risen Christ into their life and lifestyle.
Dear Brian,
The exact quotation in Vatican II you are referring to reads, "When comparing doctrines with one another, [Catholic theologians] should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or `hierarchy' of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith" (Unitatis Redintegratio 11).
But remember that two paragraphs before that, at the beginning of that number, a qualification is made: "It is, of course, essential that the doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its genuine and certain meaning" (UR 11).
In the example you give of your experience of an inner-city parish, you seem to allude to that hierarchy of doctrine being something decided on the local level, but that is clearly not what the Council is teaching here. It is not up to individual Catholics, nor to local communities, to determine what doctrines are more important than others. That is a function reserved to the authentic teaching authority of the Church alone.
You describe the function of the Holy Father as a "moderator," who oversees discussion among all Christians who, in your view, seem to share an equal role in defining a hierarchy of doctrine. But, again, this is clearly not what the Council calls for when it describes the role of the Holy Father: "
[L]oyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him . . ." "
[H]is definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, inasmuch as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal" (Lumen Gentium 25).
I've found that it's very common for people today to latch onto this or that "phrase" or "idea" found in Vatican II, without really knowing what is being said there. You found a sentence that spoke of a "hierarchy of doctrine" and from there developed a theology of your own that has nothing to do with what the Council taught.
In fact, as you can see from the above quotation, Vatican II goes beyond Vatican I in its definition that obedience must be given to the Holy Father even when he does not speak ex cathedra. Remember that the purpose of an ecumenical council is to teach the truth, not to simply provide us with slogans to support our own ideas.
Fr. M
Subj: Confession
Date: 93-03-28 04
:36:47 EST
Fr
om: DougyC
Father,
Hasn't the sacrament of penance, as you describe it, been "gutted"? In the early Church penitents would state their sins before the entire congregation. I talked to a woman who now attends a service (at the local Catholic church) in which they are now trying to get back to the earlier forms of worship, and some of those groups are now doing just that. In my mind, quite intense and unneeded, but if they want to, why stop them? As I understand the sacrament today, the priest represents both God and his People.
For me, the sacrament permits me (in synergy with the proper priest) to understand what drives me to sin (some sins crop up over and over) and to get another opinion as to what to do to avoid sinning, in addition to getting a warm and fuzzy "God loves you anyway" kind of feeling. Somehow, both the "do it in front of everyone" position and the "do it in front of God only" position lack certain elements. With regard to the seal of confession, does that mean that if a guy says in confession that he is going to kill someone, that you cannot be proactive in halting that activity?
Dear Doug,
I'm afraid, Doug, that you've made a very common error: that of thinking that in the early Church there was only public confession and penance and that the private reconciliation of sinners before a priest alone was a later development; historically, that is simply not true.
The kind of public penitential service that you describe was celebrated in the early Church only for the benefit of those who had committed grave public sins, which required a public reconciliation to calm the scandal of the community. Its form was not unlike that of baptism and was reserved for those who had committed the sins of apostasy, adultery, or murder.
But there was also a private administration of the sacrament from the beginning, as attested by a severe letter of Pope Leo I in 459 censuring those who presume to act "against the apostolic regulations" by demanding public manifestation of sins. "It is sufficient," he says, "that the guilt which people have on their consciences be made known to the priests alone in secret confession."
Historical evidence clearly shows that the practice of public penance, contrary to much current thinking, was very rare even in the early Church and that from the beginning there was the private confession of secret sins, which the Church approved and which Rome insisted was of apostolic origin. Consequently, in spite of abuses to the contrary, the Church's position has always been that secret sins, no matter how grave, could and should be confessed privately and expiated privately.
It is interesting to note that the Church maintains a form of public confession and absolution called "general absolution." The conditions under which it can be administered are extremely narrow, such as when a large number of people are in danger of death and there is no time to hear their confessions privately.
The fact that some priests abuse this by absolving large numbers of people who are not in danger of death does not make the basic practice illegitimate, nor is it a return to some practice of the early Church. In the United States, as in most countries, general absolution may only be given with the expressed permission of the bishop for each instance it is used, and anyone absolved in this way is bound to confess his sins privately to a priest at his earliest opportunity. With regard to the seal, as I said before, the priest cannot act in any way that would reveal to anyone a sin confessed along with the identity of the one who confessed it. So, no, he could not act, even if someone confessed that he was going to kill someone.
Fr. M
Subj: Communion of saints
Date: 93-04-01 22:05:00 EST
From: JaeLB
Father,
What is the communion of saints?
Dear
Jae,
T
o put it too simply, the communion of the saints is the Church, but in a sense not often used by most people. We so often use the word "Church" to refer to the Church on earth, but the Church, as expressed in the Apostles' Creed, not only includes those of us struggling here on earth, but also those who are now with God in heaven as well as those on their way to God in purgatory. In short, the communion of saints is the whole Church, including its heavenly and purgatorial branches. All the members of the communion are bound together under Christ their head, forming one mystical body, and cooperate by sharing their merits and prayers with one another.
Thus, the members of the communion in heaven and in purgatory can intercede with us to the Father, and we can help to lighten the burdens of the souls in purgatory through our prayers for them. It is this interaction between all the members of Christ's body that is properly called the communion of saints.
The belief in a spiritual relationship linking the souls on earth with those who have gone before us has its roots in sacred Scripture and has been confirmed by decrees of the Second Council of Nicaea, the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, and the Second Vatican Council. As Paul says, "We give thanks for having been called to share the lot of the saints in light."
Fr. M
Subj: Purgatory
Date: 93-04-03 00:17:46 EST
From: Bordeleau
Father,
I went to Catholic high school in the 1960s, and we were taught that purgatory wasn't a "place" it was a purging "state" that took place at the point of death. It was a purging "process." The more sins you had to make up for, the more intense the instantaneous purging process. So is your phrase "those on their way to God in purgatory" a kind of expression, rather than an implication that purgatory is still a place?
Dear Bordeleau,
It's important to remember that whenever we talk about spiritual realities, we have to use words that are fashioned for our world. For example, the Church will often refer to the passage of time in purgatory, all the while knowing that time is something that exists on this world only; yet, since we have no other way of talking about it, we continue to speak in those terms, since it would be impossible to speak about it at all otherwise.
Regarding purgatory, the Council of Trent said, "The Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit and in accordance with sacred Scripture and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers, has taught in the holy councils and most recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory and that the souls detained there are helped by the acts of intercession of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar" (Neuner-Dupuis 310).
But even in using terms like "detained there" the council fathers knew that they were simply using terms that were relevant to our own condition here on earth, and so they added, "But let the more difficult and subtle questions which do not make for edification and, for the most part, are not conducive to an increase of piety, be excluded from popular preaching." In other words, the Church often teaches these realities in ways she feels most people will be able to understand them, without necessarily giving the most thorough definition possible.
In 1979 the Vatican published a letter answering certain questions concerning eschatology. Regarding heaven, hell, and purgatory, it states:
"In fidelity to the New Testament and Tradition, the Church believes in the happiness of the just who will one day be with Christ. She believes that there will be eternal punishment for the sinner, who will be deprived of the sight of God, and that this punishment will have repercussion on the whole being of the sinner. She believes in the possibility of a purification of the elect before they see G
od, a purification
altogether different from the punishment of the damned. This is what the Church means when speaking of hell and purgatory."
So, purgatory could be a place or it could be a "state" like your high school teacher told you. But we won't know for sure till we get there. It probably would have been better had your teacher told you, "Here's what the Church teaches; now, here are some possible explanations . . ."
Fr. M
Subj: Real Presence
Date: 93-04-13 04:33:40 EDT
From: NancyC21
Dear Father,
First of all, hope you had a blessed Easter!
Now for the question . . .
Can you please tell me exactly what the Church teaches about Jesus' Real Presence in the Eucharist? I have come to believe, based on what I thought the Church has always taught, that at the Consecration the bread and wine become Jesus' flesh and blood. In other words, they become Jesus'-body & blood-the-same-as-when-he-walked-among-us-on-earth. So, his real physical presence.
Am I correct in this understanding? I do realize that the bread and wine remain as, what is it called, the "accidents" (?) Yet, despite the remaining bread and wine, Jesus' flesh & blood become their real substance, that our human senses can only see as bread and wine. Right?
I was on another network and got into a debate with another "Catholic" who claims I'm all confused about this. The other person states that Vatican II and/or canon law describes it as more "the substance of Jesus' body and blood" (whatever that means). And that the body and blood are not physical (as in his physical body when he walked among us), but rather his sacramental body (again . . . whatever that means).
Please explain this to me! It has been bothering me lately, and I have not had the opportunity to talk (in person) to a priest about it. I will eagerly await your response!
Thank you, Father.
Nancy
Dear Nancy,
Thanks for your Easter greetings, and the same to you.
It's a good thing you wrote about this. Let me say, without any qualification, that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, as present to us in the sacred species as he was when he walked this earth as a man. Yes, he is really, physically present, as really present as you are to those around you, though present in a different way--present sacramentally rather than in the normal physical way. What's more, it is the certain teaching of the Church that nothing of the bread and wine remains except the accidents; the bread and wine are completely changed into the body and blood of the Lord. Neither the Code of Canon Law nor the Second Vatican Council could change the Church's faith in the Eucharist.
Pope Paul VI wrote, in 1968, "Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain firmly that in the order of reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus which from then on are really before us."
The word "accidents," in the context in which you use it, is a philosophical term meaning "appearances." In other words, the substance of the Lord's flesh and blood appears as bread and wine, but without being bread and wine. The Church explains this change with the word "transubstantiation," meaning that the substance of the thing is changed while the form remains the same--as opposed to "transformation," in which the form is changed while the substance remains the same. ("Transubstantiation" was decided upon as the right technical word at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, but naturally the truth it describes has existed since the Last Supper.)
When you freeze water, the substance of the water, H2O, re
mains the same, but the
form has changed from liquid to solid. In transubstantiation, the form remains, but the substance itself is changed, as in bread and wine into flesh and blood.
Likewise, since the substance has been completely changed, the whole Christ exists in either species, so that even if you receive only from the cup or the host, you still receive the whole body and blood of the Lord.
Protestant groups who cling to a Eucharistic tradition often come up with different theological theories about the Eucharistic presence; sadly, some of these sometimes find their way into the writings of Catholic authors. For example, a popular Protestant theory is called "consubstantiation," which holds that the bread and wine continue to exist along with the body and blood of Christ. It's possible that your friend from the other network has been confused by one of these ideas. In any case, an informed Catholic would never think that an ecumenical council has power to change the deposit of faith.
I hope this is helpful, and, once again, have a blessed Easter.
Fr. M
Editor's note: Fr. J. Michael Venditti, a priest of the Diocese of Metuchen in New Jersey, moderates the "Ask Father" forum on America Online. Visitors to the forum, who know him only as "Fr. M," have come to trust him with their doctrinal and moral concerns. With his permission we reprint here transcripts of questions and answers as they have appeared in the forum.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
