Posted on 12/14/2005 8:57:33 AM PST by Petrosius
Ping
I find this to be a profound statement on (then) Ratzinger's part: the Church of Rome is a local Church with a universal responsibility.
That ecclesiology seems, in my limited knowledge, to be very much consonant with the first millenium (particularly the first half of same).
Kasper:
"A large portion of our people, including priests, could not understand the reason behind the regulations coming from the center; they tended, therefore, to ignore them. This happened concerning ethical issues, sacramental discipline and ecumenical practices. The adamant refusal of Communion to all divorced and remarried persons and the highly restrictive rules for eucharistic hospitality are good examples."
Kasper is quite open about the background to this spurious autonomy he seeks. It is not autonomy from Rome so much as autonomy from God's Law. If his priests are giving Holy Communion to adulterers living in sinful relationships, and all kinds of common or garden heretics, then he as their bishop has the responsibility to teach the truth of the Faith and uphold the law of the Church. He should have disciplined his priests rather than whining about changing the Law to accomodate their sin and the sin of those desiring to make sacreligious communions.
His main problem is that he has lost the Catholic Faith himself so he is quite incapable of teaching or shepherding anyone else. You can't give what you haven't got.
His whole argument has nothing really to do with the issue of ecclesiology - it all boils down to how to accomodate infidelity.
"Has not the Second Vatican Council enjoined every bishop to listen to the faithful, especially to the clergy?"
No, you plonker! It enjoined you to teach the Catholic Faith!
"If the bishop attempts to enforce the general norms ruthlessly?as his Roman superiors sometimes expect?his effort is likely to be useless, even counterproductive."
What has Rome got to do with it? You're not an altar boy, you're supposed to be a Catholic bishop. Christ appointed YOU to teach and uphold the truth, you don't need to hide behind Rome's skirts all the time.
"Yet there is a solution: the bishop must be granted enough vital space to make responsible decisions in the matter of implementing universal laws."
You already have it - you just don't have any right whatsoever to disregard morality, faith and the law in the name of an infidel pastoral infantilism.
"Beyond the immutable articles of faith and morals, however, there is the broad field of ecclesiastical discipline, which is essentially changeable, even when the norms were created to support, closely or loosely, some doctrinal position."
Bollocks, you sauerkraut nutmunch! You can't change the 10 commandments. All you need to remember in this case is :
Thou shalt not commit adultery
and
If anyone brings you a different gospel from the one you have received, let him be anathema.
If you can't handle these basic articles of the faith - resign now!
"Our people are well aware of the flexibility of laws and regulations; they have experienced a great deal of it over the past decades. They lived through changes that no one anticipated or even thought possible."
Nutz! They know you are a compromiser, Jesus never said anything about "Blessed are the compromisers."
"The Eastern church developed the doctrine and practice of oikonomia, ?economy?: a superior wisdom that guides bishops and allows them to resolve problems that the laws cannot handle."
Read Meyendorff on the subject - not all the Easterners believe it was a good idea.
"The local church is neither a province nor a department of the universal church; it is the church at a given place."
That's why it has the same laws and doctrines as the rest of the local churches. What you want is a schismatic church with its own doctrines, its own laws, and the ability to enshrine sin and call it good.
"The local bishop is not the delegate of the pope but is one sent by Jesus Christ. He is given personal responsibility by Christ. He receives the fullness of power through his sacramental consecration?the power that he needs to govern his diocese. This is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
This understanding of the bishop’s office should have led to decentralization in the church’s government. The opposite happened: the trend toward centralization returned after the council."
That's because so many local churches were put into the apostate hands of modernists like you. Once we get Catholic bishops again, there won't be any need for centralization.
"Less desirably, the local churches themselves can promote centralization whenever they abdicate their responsibility and turn to Rome for a decision?a ruse to evade their duty and find cover behind a superior order."
Its a symptom of non-Catholics needing to find a Catholic to take the blame for the Catholic Faith.
"The right balance between the universal church and the particular churches has been destroyed. This is not only my own perception; it is the experience and complaint of many bishops from all over the world. [In a note Cardinal Kasper refers to a talk given at Oxford by Archishop John Quinn, archbishop emeritus of San Francisco, and to reported statements by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, archbishop of Milan, and Cardinal Franz Koenig, archbishop emeritus of Vienna.]"
And there you have it - Quinn, Martini, Koenig and Kasper - not a Catholic bone in their bodies. Of course they have/had problems with Rome - Rome still thinks its Catholic.
""The Eastern church developed the doctrine and practice of oikonomia, ?economy?: a superior wisdom that guides bishops and allows them to resolve problems that the laws cannot handle."
Read Meyendorff on the subject - not all the Easterners believe it was a good idea."
Not all Easterners believe reading Meyendorff is a good idea! :)
I'll grant you this, however, +Kasper's idea of how oeconomia works is not at all Orthodox. It is not a carte blanche to bishops to ignore the canons, it is always to be applied on an individual, case by case basis and if there is no consensus among the bishops that a certain type of situation is appropriate for the application of oeconomia, it cannot be applied.
It is interesting that +Kasper's examples of where oeconomia should be applied in light of, "The adamant refusal of Communion to all divorced and remarried persons and the highly restrictive rules for eucharistic hospitality...." are among those areas where oeconomia is not applied (you should note that the Orthodox rules on how to deal with divorce are different from those of Rome, but one cannot simply get divorced, get remarried and show up for communion; similarly, if one is married outside the Church and doesn't get the marriage blessed by the Church, no communion, in fact, no sacraments at all.). The issue of "highly restrictive rules for eucharistic hospitality" was actually taken up by representatives of the Orthodox Churches in the early 1990s. They decided that as there was no consensus on inter communion with Rome (the question of Protestants never came up) by oeconomia, the exercise of oeconomia in that area would be forbidden.
It appears to me that +Kasper is trying to use an Orthodox theological and ecclesiological concept and practice for purposes other than what it was designed for.
"The church of Rome is a local church and not the universal church?a local church with a peculiar, universal responsibility, but still a local church."
"That ecclesiology seems, in my limited knowledge, to be very much consonant with the first millenium (particularly the first half of same)."
Particularly the "first half of same"!
What the pope says is consistent with Orthodox ecclesiology. The "catholic" Church in its fullness exists within the local diocese under its bishop. But the "catholic" Church as the universal Church is more than the sum of its dioceses. I am a bit surprised that none of these men refer to +Ignatius of Antioch's definition of The Church in his Letter to the Smyrneans or otherwise to his theology of the Eucharist as definitional of the "catholic" Church.
"Not all Easterners believe reading Meyendorff is a good idea! :)"
You can say that again! :-)
Seriously, I'd be interested in seeing what is being referred to here from Meyendorff about economia. The Paris school, from which M. came, is very big on economia and on cutting theological corners (by Orthodox standards.)
K's description of what economia does and doesn't mean is right on target. Economia always has to be considered in light of akrevia. This is to say, that when a bishop exercises economia for the sake of an individual soul, he is specifically acknowleging that this is not the way that things are supposed to be done. The bishop is making allowances for human weakness, within bounds considered acceptable by Orthodoxy as a whole.
When Kaspar writes that economia is "a superior wisdom that guides bishops and allows them to resolve problems that the laws cannot handle", this is simply not an accurate description at all. The application of akrevia is always preferable, and akrevia can handle anything. The question is rather whether *we* can handle the demands of akrevia. Economia is an acknowledgement of human weakness, not a "superior wisdom."
As a final note on this, it has been said that even akrevia is an exercise of economia, in the sense that the entire work of salvation by God is an act of great condescension to man. It is only in this sense that economia can be thought of as a "superior wisdom" -- i.e. having the wisdom to see the inner and deep meanings of the practices of akrevia, while keeping the strict practices of akrevia. All of us as Orthodox Christians have encountered someone in our lives who live out a very strict praxis, yet do so in a way that is organic and not at all legalistic. This is true economia in action, by these lights.
What Kaspar seems to be suggesting is that economia means that the rules can be rewritten. Nothing could be farther from the truth in the Orthodox understanding. One stuggles to imagine Kaspar saying to a divorced and remarried Catholic, "it is wrong for you to be divorced and remarried, and wrong for you to commune, but I'm going to allow it in this particular situation because I think it is in the best interest of saving your soul." I would imagine that he would want rather simply to say "it's OK for Catholics to divorce and remarry."
"It appears to me that +Kasper is trying to use an Orthodox theological and ecclesiological concept and practice for purposes other than what it was designed for."
Exactly. He views it precisely as some kind of carte blanche to ride roughshod over the canons, divine revelation, and the natural law. The modernists in our church use the term "being pastoral", but we all know what they mean!!!
"Seriously, I'd be interested in seeing what is being referred to here from Meyendorff about economia. The Paris school, from which M. came, is very big on economia and on cutting theological corners (by Orthodox standards.)"
My bad!!! A misquote! It wasn't Meyendorff I was thinking of, it was an essay written by John H Erickson in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 29 (1985). It was entitled "The Problem of Sacramental "Economy""
I'm surprised you would say Kasper is so bad, he's well respected by the pope and the head of the eccumenical relations between the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) and Rome.
As the bishop of a large diocese, I had observed how a gap was emerging and steadily increasing between norms promulgated in Rome for the universal church and the needs and practices of our local church.
The gap, I would submit, is not between the Roman norms and the "needs and practices" of the local church but between the universal norms and the "desires" of his local church. Cardinal Kasper first errs in seeing these norms as something purely Roman in origin, foreign to his local church. If, as he writes latter, the local church "is the church at a given place," then the norms of the universal church are also the norms of the local church. His second error is failing to discern the the wants of some of his people from real needs. There are those in the Church today who want one without any discipline. Cardinal Kasper apparently views this as a legitimate need and not as it truly is, a revolt against any restrictions on the human person. This is not a need but an error that needs to be corrected by the bishop.
On the other hand, he is the shepherd of a local church; he must, therefore, take care of his own people, respond to their expectations and answer their questions.
The bishop is called to be a shepherd to his people, not their representative. While he must always respond to their expectations and answer their questions, sometimes the answer must be "no". Their greatest need is the salvation of their souls, not affirming their self-esteem. If some are living in a manner that is contrary to the faith then charity and concern for their salvation demand that they be told.
If the bishop attempts to enforce the general norms ruthlessly?as his Roman superiors sometimes expect?his effort is likely to be useless, even counterproductive.
"Enforce the general norms ruthlessly"; here the cardinal betrays either his own rejection of the universal norms or his lack of courage. As for his efforts being useless or counterproductive, experience shows just the opposite. When the leaders of the Church are clear and consistent with the demands of the gospel then the people rally behind them; it is when the Church leaders equivocate and fail to give leadership that people will begin to stray.
Beyond the immutable articles of faith and morals, however, there is the broad field of ecclesiastical discipline, which is essentially changeable, even when the norms were created to support, closely or loosely, some doctrinal position.
While there are some disciplinary regulations, such as fasting, that are changeable this does not imply that all such are "essentially changeable". This is especially true regarding those that are related to faith and morals rather than to ascetical practices or governance. Nor should they be characterized as merely supporting "some doctrinal position", as if this were a minor concern. These regulations of the universal church are to support the truth of the faith and are intended to protect the salvation of souls. Such are the "pastoral" concerns with which he opens the article.
I would now like to turn my attention from the cardinal's pastoral concerns to his theological discussion of the relationship between the universal church and the local church. I do this with some hesitation, knowing that the then Cardinal Ratzinger and the present Cardinal Dulles have addressed this subject better than I could. My comments are only an addendum to what they have written.
The early church developed from local communities. Each was presided over by a bishop; the one church of God was present in each. Because the one church was present in each and all, they were in communion.
I do not think that Cardinal Kasper's assertion is sustainable. While the early church developed in local communities they were not developments of the local communities. The church, arising first in Jerusalem, was not the church of Jerusalem but the church in Jerusalem. The establishment, though early, of individual communities headed by its own bishop was a way for the universal church to address the question of governance and the need of a personal leadership.
From early times and within the network of communion, the See of Rome assumed a certain responsibility and authority.
Without renewing the debate over the Petrine office, Cardinal Kasper is confusing this with the question of the relationship between the universal church and the local churches. Even without acknowledging Papal supremacy the Orthodox profess an authority of the universal church to which the local churches are subject. Given the list of complaints that Cardinal Kasper gives, his dispute is not with the renewed centralization of the Roman Church but with the continuing norms of the universal church. Even without a pope and a central curia the Orthodox would object to a local church introducing a novelty contrary to the teaching and practice of the universal church that would take them out of the communion of faith.
The experience of interventions by the Roman Curia shows that it is actually reluctant to get involved in local disputes. It is only when these disputes are brought to its attention by other members of a local church, and only when the matter concerns the unity of the faith or the preservation of justice, does Rome get involved. Contrary to how it is presented, Rome is not centralizing the governance of the Church by making decisions that should be left to the local churches but guarding the deposit of the faith by insisting that the local churches be subject to the continuing norms of the universal church of which they are to be the local presence.
[Cardinal Ratzinger] claims that the doctrine of the primacy of the universal church follows from the history of the Pentecostal event reported by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles. ... This argumentation is highly questionable. Many exegetes are convinced that the "Pentecostal event" in the Acts of the Apostles is a construction by Luke. Similar "Pentecostal events" also occurred, probably from the beginning, in the communities of Galilee.
I must admit my unease with Cardinal Kasper's approach to Scripture. Once we start characerizing such events as Pentecost as "constructions" then the reliability of the Scriptures is lost; any event can be reduced from the historical to a mere theological construct, even the Resurrection. As for the "many exergetes are convinced...", this is not the mind of the Church. Again, I could start the denial of any Biblical truth the the statement "Many exergetes are convinced...".
No less a scholar than Henri de Lubac stated, "A universal church which would have a separate existence, or which someone imagined as existing outside the particular churches, is a mere abstraction."
Cardinal Kasper is misusing this quote from de Lubac. He is not stating that the universal church is an abstraction, only that one that is separate or "existing outside the particular churches." The universal church does indeed exist in and from the local churches but this describes its mode of existence, not its origin.
One side [Ratzinger] proceeds by Plato’s method; its starting point is the primacy of an idea that is a universal concept. The other side [Kasper] follows Aristotle’s approach and sees the universal as existing in a concrete reality.
This is a false dichotomy. Both the universal church and the local churches have a real existence; the universal church is not a notional universal in the Platonic sense. They are both the sacramental presence of Jesus Christ who is present in both through their individual members.
While Cardinal Kasper makes his arguments under the guise of defending the reality of the local churches, it is hard to escape the conclusion that he is doing this as a way to fight against the universal norms of the faith. If given the opportunity, is there any doubt that he would make his judgments concerning questions of Communion to divorced and remarried, etc. the new norms to be applicable to the entire church?
Right. I don't see how you can understand the flowering of the early church save by radiations of the Apostolic College.
It was not up to laity, even Our Lady, to establish the ecclesia in the various cities. It had to be Apostles or disciples sent by them, and then from there the bishop.
Some would say be very careful of anything that comes out of St. Vlads, especially from that era. But, truth be told, the same can be said for much of what came out of the GOA seminary in those days and even into the mid 1990s. This is one of the reasons Orthodox like Kosta, Agrarian and I are against an autocepahllous American Church.
It seems to me that it is crystal clear that the fullness of The Church abides in the local diocese. It is equally clear, by the use of the Greek words for "catholic church", that The Church is indeed "universal" and more than simply the sum of the local dioceses.
I am not sure that I understand your point. Could you please elaborate?
" I am not sure that I understand your point. Could you please elaborate?"
I got the impression you were subscribing to +Dulles' theory. Am I wrong?
Many exegetes are convinced that the "Pentecostal event" in the Acts of the Apostles is a construction by Luke. Similar "Pentecostal events" also occurred, probably from the beginning, in the communities of Galilee.This he contrasts to the traditional understanding of a single "Pentecostal event" in which the universal church was established and from which the local churches flowed. Thus Cardinal Dulles writes:
Unlike the state, the church was established from above, so to speak, by God’s action in Christ, who gave special powers to Peter and the Twelve. The church began to pulse with life when the Holy Spirit descended upon the church as a whole at Pentecost. Only subsequently, as the faith spread to Antioch, Rome, Alexandria and other cities, was it necessary to set up local authorities in charge of particular churches. The particular churches were, as Vatican II puts it, "fashioned after the model of the universal church," which is therefore antecedent to them, even though it in certain respects depends on them ("Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," No. 23).But as I have stated, this does not address directly the relationship between the universal church and the local church one the latter is established. Is this the statement of Cardinal Dulles to which you are objecting?
"Unlike the state, the church was established from above, so to speak, by God’s action in Christ, who gave special powers to Peter and the Twelve. The church began to pulse with life when the Holy Spirit descended upon the church as a whole at Pentecost"
I agree 100% with this.
"Only subsequently, as the faith spread to Antioch, Rome, Alexandria and other cities, was it necessary to set up local authorities in charge of particular churches. The particular churches were, as Vatican II puts it, "fashioned after the model of the universal church," which is therefore antecedent to them, even though it in certain respects depends on them ("Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," No. 23)."
I disagree with this. The history of the early church does not show this. The universal church existed from Pentecost, but the particular churches, say of Smyrna or Corinth or Magnesia were in absolute fact THE universal church in each of these areas, not "ecclesias" "fashioned after the model of the universal church". I think it is completely wrong and distorted ecclesiology to think that the structures of these particular churches was some sort of administrative necessity.
Perhaps, but would you argue with the premise that the historical development of the Church was:
universal church => local churches => grouping of local churches into regional patriarchates
This is not to question the importance or place of the local churches in relation to the universal church, just the historical order of their formation.
In addition to the question of historical formation, would you object to the statement that the local churches flow ontologically from the universal church?
Besides which it begs for focus on institutionalizing of the church. And that, imho, leads further and logically to clericalism and perhaps even legalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.