|
L e t t e r s
Vicar of Christ or of Jesus Christ?
|
This Rock
Volume 14, Number 9
 November 2003 
|
|
|
In his piece "Shadowy Popes" ("Frontispiece," July-August 2003), Karl Keating wrote that Gelasius I (492–496) was the first pope to use "Vicar of Christ" as a title. I always thought that the pope’s title was "Vicar of Jesus Christ." Am I mistaken?
Margaret Finley
Banning, California
Editor’s reply:
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “In the course of the ages, other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title ‘Vicar of Christ’ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. ‘Inter corporalia,’ 2, ‘De trans. ep.’). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to his Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. ‘Quanto,’ 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman pontiff who is ‘the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ’ (cap. ‘Licet,’ 4, ibid.). The title ‘Vicar of God,’ used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. ‘Fundamenta ejus,’ 17, ‘De elect.,’ in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ” (www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm).
Reason for ‘Sixtus’ Is Unclear
Karl Keating cites John Bowden as saying that John II (533–535) "was the first pope to take a new name on consecration ("Frontispiece," July-August 2003)." I thought that had been done much earlier by Pope Sixtus I. Didn’t he choose the name Sixtus because he was the sixth successor of St. Peter? If I’m right about that, then that little tidbit of history might be useful in apologetics to show the importance that the infant Church gave to the idea of papal succession.
Francis J. Slama
Montgomery, Illinois
Editor’s reply:
Regarding Pope John II, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “He seems to have been the first who changed his name on being raised to the papacy (Jan. 2, 533).” Regarding Pope St. Sixtus I, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, “In the oldest documents, Xystus is the spelling used for the first three popes of that name.” The reason that Sixtus I has the name he does is unclear.
Collision with a Postmodern World
Thank you for reminding me about what Vatican II really said ("Will the Real Vatican II Please Stand Up?" July-August 2003). It is striking how discontinuous much of post-Vatican II catechesis and practice has been with what was affirmed in the conciliar documents. The irony implicit in the article is the message "Do as we do, not as we say." What we "do" today seems to stem from Vatican II teaching colliding with a postmodern world and being shaped by it. Have the two become one?
Two generations have now grown up in the wake of Vatican II. Those born since the Council no longer have the continuity of historical memory and the clear experience of Catholic "culture," identity, and praxis. We rely more than ever on practice based on a right understanding of the conciliar teachings, today’s catechesis notwithstanding. (In my seminary years, I don’t recall the documents of Vatican II being high on our reading list.)
As we steer this barque of the Church into the future, I wonder what our North Star will be. Will it be authentic Vatican II teaching or the momentum of a postmodern culture and theology?
Joseph dos Ramos
San Francisco, California
He’s Younger Than You
Fr. Stravinskas ("Will the Real Vatican II Please Stand Up?" July-August 2003) makes some good points about orthodox statements in the Vatican II documents—probably survivals of the original schema prepared carefully before the Council. The problem is not with them but with other statements resulting from revisions by the liberal periti that are ambiguous at best, unorthodox at worst. Hence the confusion over what the Council really said.
There is also the troubling fact that the conciliar "reforms" were implemented by the same bishops who worked on the documents and voted on them. This indicates that what the bishops gave us when they returned from Rome immediately following the Council was indeed what they intended the documents to mean.
In a related feature, Jay Dunlap refers to the "Catholic ghetto" of the pre-conciliar Church. How old is Mr. Dunlap? Those of us who remember the vitality of the Church of the 1950s know that it was growing by leaps and bounds. Bishop Sheen was on prime-time television, not in an EWTN media ghetto. Hollywood listened when Catholics boycotted bad films. Converts were legion. If Mr. Dunlap turns to page 44 of the same issue in which his comments appeared, he will find excerpts from "golden age" apologists such as Frank Sheed, who preached in parks and on street corners. Ghetto? Not.
Diane Moczar
via the Internet
Hardon on Homeschooling
In response to Fr. Peter Stravinskas, concerning homeschooling ("Will the Real Vatican II Please Stand Up?" July-August 2003), I would like simply to quote from a well-known Catholic priest, the late Fr. John Hardon:
"I have been encouraging homeschooling under the strong advice of the Holy See. There is a passage in Pope John Paul II’s historic document Catechesis in our Time: ‘In places where widespread unbelief or invasive secularism makes real religious growth practically impossible, then the Church of the home remains the one place where children and young people can receive authentic religious instruction.’"
Fr. Hardon continues: "Homeschool Catholic education is defended and encouraged by the Vicar of Christ. He is saying that in secularized countries like our own, homeschooling may be necessary. Why should Catholic parents home-educate their children? Why not send them to Catholic schools? First, most of our once-flourishing Catholic schools in America have closed because thousands of consecrated women religious have abandoned these institutions. Second, because the religious instruction—even in catechetical programs in Catholic parishes—is sadly deficient. This is confirmed by the frightening report given by the chairman of the bishops’ commission on catechetics. He recites a litany of doctrinal errors and defects in the religion textbooks used to teach children in parishes in our country."
These comments are taken from a tape of a talk given at the Michigan Catholic Home Educators conference July 1997.
Steve and Jennifer Goffeney
Three Rivers, Michigan
Not the Litmus Test
I was particularly disappointed in some things Fr. Peter Stravinskas wrote ("Will the Real Vatican II Please Stand Up?" July-August 2003). I am unaware that "true" Catholic doctrine would bring one to "be upset" by practices such as lay distribution of Holy Communion or Communion in the hand. If these practices are "un-Catholic," I would certainly like to see the documents that condemn them. If it is un-Catholic for religious to wear lay attire, I would like to see the document that condemns it. I personally wish there were enough ordinary ministers of the Eucharist that we didn’t need extraordinary ministers, and I personally wear religious attire (unless I am on the golf course going on my morning run). However, I don’t think it is the litmus test for true adherence to Vatican II.
Fr. José Gerónimo Herrera
Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas
A Catholic By Any Other Belief
In a recent issue, a correspondent asked about a "Catholic" who lived with the correspondent’s daughter; who claimed that the Bible had many errors; and who did not follow the teachings of the Bible, the pope, or the Church ("Quick Questions," September 2003). You responded that a person who doesn’t follow those teachings is "really a Catholic," although "not a good one." I agree to the extent that it’s a matter of failing to follow Church teachings.
However, the correspondent seemed to be asking an additional question: What about an individual who consciously rejects Church teaching, as when the boyfriend claims that the Bible is full of errors? Or somebody who consciously rejects the Church’s teaching on chastity (as the correspondent seemed to be saying about her daughter’s Catholic boyfriend)?
Vatican II states, "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church [this is describing Catholics, as opposed to those like other non-Catholic Christians, who are in imperfect communion with the Church] are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who—by the bonds constitutedby the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the supreme pontiff and the bishops" (Lumen Gentium 14, emphasis added).
The section concludes that a person who does not persevere in charity is "not saved." That person "remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’" This passage appears to refer to somebody who is failing to live his faith (e.g., if the boyfriend, out of weakness, had been living with his girlfriend but had not explicitly rejected Church teaching). The passage does not seem to refer to somebody who consciously rejects the magisterium.
To make the point another way: Suppose an individual was baptized and confirmed Catholic, but later came to believe in false teachings. This individual enjoys the liturgy and sometimes attends Mass. He calls himself "Catholic." Is that person a Catholic, albeit a bad one?
Ernie Lidge
via the Internet
Editor’s reply:
A person who rejects the dogmas of the faith is potentially guilty of the canonical crime of heresy. According to canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law, heresy is “the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.” If this were the case regarding this young man, then he would be considered a formal heretic and the penalty would be excommunication, even though he would not cease to be a member of the Church. (Excommunication’s canonical effects are listed in canon 1331, and loss of membership is not one of them.)
If an individual has been improperly catechized so that he does not adequately realize the obligation he has to accept the dogmas of the faith, then for him to deny them is to commit material heresy. He may accept doctrines that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, but it may be due to ignorance of true doctrine or because of faulty presentation of true doctrine. This is different from formal heresy, which would apply once the teaching of the Church’s doctrines were made clear and presented with reasonable arguments and persuasiveness.
Good Take, but It’s a Fake
Great job by Jimmy Akin ("Bad Aramaic Made Easy," September 2003)—but a little late. In June, the Christian Science Monitor web site had an article about the James ossuary being declared a fake by the Israel Antiquities Authority. The inscriptions cut through the patina of the stone box, and around the inscriptions traces are found of chemicals "that didn’t exist in Jerusalem in the past 3,000 years but are found in modern tap water." Check out the site: www.csmonitor.com/2003/0619/p07s01-wome.html.
Pamela Whitney
via the Internet
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
