 |
Bl. John Henry Newman
patron of change in the
Church
|
I picked up the following from one of the katholic krazy blogs (http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-happens-when-church-goes-wobbly.html)
who cites Father Ray Blake, pastor of Saint Mary Magdalene in Brighton,
England:
I really am beginning to
think that the Papacy, which Vatican II saw as the unitative, if it becomes
innovative becomes self-destructive. The very purpose of the Papacy is to
conserve that which was handed on to it. In the first millennium the faith of
the City of the Two Apostles stood still whilst the world revolved, its lack of
innovation made it the touchstone of orthodoxy during the Arian and
Iconoclastic crisis and enabled it to be the memory of the Tradition of the
whole Church. If the Church of Rome becomes the source of innovation can it
also be the touchstone of unity? If not where can we find that unity, which
after all was promised us by Christ? Can it exist outside of unity with Rome?
The answer Orthodoxy and 'ultra-Catholics' come up with is that it exists
within the Tradition itself, are ordinary Catholics going to come up with the
same answer?
Father Blake is no historian (and certainly no theologian) if he seriously
thinks that the Church of Rome has historically stood changeless in its
Apostolic Faith in an ever changing world. Whatever was he doing in Church history class in seminary? I hope he did better in his systematic theology and moral theology. Peter and Paul never heard the word “Trinity” but over the first four
centuries the Church of Rome and those Churches in communion with it gradually
began to articulate their understanding that the Godhead involves a
communion-in-love of three Divine Persons.
“Light from Light, True God from True God” has certainly been the faith
from the beginning, but it took three centuries to be articulated not only in
those words, but in that particular concept. (The words actually were Φῶς ἐκ
Φωτός,
Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, and
the concept has not been a stable concept as the Catholic faith has gone on to
deepen both the explanation and understanding of those Greek words meant over
the years.) When Peter and Paul led
their Church in “The Breaking of the Bread” (“Mass” is something that comes
much later) they did so in Greek (Peter possibly in Aramaic) not Latin. The
apostles were not familiar with our practice of private confession and
absolution. Baptism was by
immersion. There was no distinct rite of
confirmation, nor of “Christian Marriage” either. They did not think in terms
of what we mean by “sacrament.” The Apostles would never have seen a cross on
the altar—and for that matter, would not have been familiar with Christian
altars—only wooden tables. They used
leavened bread for the Eucharist and most likely every day cups of pottery or
glass. They did not wear special
vestments for “the Breaking of the Bread,” would not have been familiar with
“communion in one kind,” and would have been familiar with “communion in the
hand.” They did not know the word
“transubstantiation;” it would have baffled Peter and Paul—whose philosophic
training was not Aristotelian but neo-Platonic, would have rejected the term
out of hand to explain the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Indeed for Paul, the Presence of Christ in
the Eucharist would have been dependent on what was for him the fundamental Presence
of Christ in his Body, the Church, and not be seen as something distinct. Neither Peter nor Paul would know what a
tabernacle or a monstrance was. They
would have been appalled at religious statues as a violation of the first
commandment and seen them as a pagan innovation. There was no monastic or religious life. Perhaps
the one innovation that is truly inexcusable was the adding of the Filioque to the Creed—something that the
papacy long rejected but finally caved in on in the 11th
century. How dare the Pope unilaterally
change a dogma defined by an Ecumenical Council! But he did and the krazies, including Father
Blake, would almost undoubtedly “go the mats” over it, otherwise it would have
been changed back over the last fifty years. I could go on and on—but I think the point is
made. Faith—both in doctrine and
practice—evolves, develops, and does not remain static. Yes there is “innovation.” There always has been to make the ancient
faith live in its contemporary world. Faith
in Jesus Christ is not something static but living. And we must be attentive to
the leadings of the Holy Spirit in how change comes about and that
attentiveness depends on three factors achieving harmony: the faith of the
faithful (consensus fidelium), the
intellectual discipline of the theologians, and the authority of the
magisterium. I am sorry that Father
Blake and my krazy blogger aren’t happy with this, but some of us suffered
under the stagnation (or at least the very slow pace) of the last two papacies
and we stood, if not silent, faithful.
We most likely will find ourselves tried in patience again in a future
papacy, but will stand—if not silent, then—faithful still. So get over it Father Blake and krazy lady: you
don’t have to be happy about it; you don’t have to keep your mouth shut, but in
the end you do have to submit yourself to the authority of the Church.
I remember reading the Catholic philosopher, Gabriel Marcel,
when I was studying philosophy all those many years back. Granted it was a Jesuit University, but
Marcel has always been acknowledged as a Christian existentialist and an
eminent Catholic thinker. Marcel claimed
in his book Creative Fidelity that change is an essential component to
fidelity. That precisely because the
world is not a static reality, in order for us who are in the world to be
faithful to the Eternal we must be in constant change. It may be more clear to put it this way: As the
ground beneath our feet shifts, to keep our eyes fixed on that which does not
shift, we must shift our own position. God and Truth do not change but if we remain
static we will lose sight of the Unchanging precisely because the world in
which we stand has changed. So in the
face of Father Blake’s claim that the Apostolic Church of Rome had never
changed in its first millennium, may I offer from Blessed John Henry Newman (an
authority, by the way on change and continuity in the Apostolic and
post-Apostolic Church): To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.
