Peter & Succession (Understanding the Church Today)

Ignatius Insight ^ | 2005 | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

[InterestedQuestioner]

Quix,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You've expressed some very reasonable concerns about institutions and authority. If you were addressing your concerns to a bishop's conference, I'm sure a lot of the bishops would be nodding their heads in agreement with many of your sentiments. Here and elsewhere, you have said some very good things about the relationship of the individual to God, and your comments about problems in Church organization would serve well as a nucleus for discussion about the current state of the Christian Church.

In that, we are on the same page. Nonetheless, we are left with a question of authority. Is every individual the ultimate authority as to what is and is not legitimate Christian doctrine and dogma? Is every denomination the ultimate authority? I think you and I would answer both of these questions in the negative. As for the article at the head of this thread, its point is not to disparage Protestant Christians. No one is asking you to fly to Rome and kiss Pope Benedict's ring or renounce your personal opinions. Rather, this is a call for a mature dialog with sincere Christians of differing view points, and you've brought some very reasonable concerns to the table.

We have problems in the Church. Some of those are very understandable and expected. The Church is a hospital for ailing souls, and problems of individual sin are inevitable in a Church whose mission is to sinners, both inside and outside its ranks. However, we also have a tremendous scandal of a divided Church. This runs completely against Christ's prayer that we all be one, hampers evangelization, and allows for dangerous heresies to exist among sincere and well intentioned Christians, side by side with orthodox Christian teaching. We've all felt the frustration of trying to sort out the serious and competing claims made by different groups. Which group(s) are correct? You and I have also both seen Christians forcefully mis-represet repugnant views as being foundational to the Christian message.

Fundamentally, the opening piece serves to move the conversation about authority out of a very unproductive rut. How is the authority of God manifested in His Church? We live in a fallen world, and we human beings have fallen natures. As you alluded, this leads to problems with human organizations. It also leads, however, to severe problems with individuals as well, and this includes the attempts by individuals to arrogate to themselves absolute authority to determine what is and is not authentic Christian morality and doctrine.

We are not saying that the Christian Church can substitute for the individuals relationship with God. What we are saying, however, is that Christ did indeed found an organization, a Church, and that as an organization, the Church, plays a crucial role in the divine plan of salvation. This includes a role in which the Church exercises authority in teaching doctrine and morality.


What then is the relationship between the individual and the Church? The individual does not determine doctrine. The Church has been entrusted with the Apostolic deposit of faith, and it falls to the Church to determine whether or not a particular doctrine is consistent with or opposed to the Apostolic faith. To the believer falls the choice of dissent or assent. In this the Catholic Church teaches that the individual must follow a well-formed conscience.

The Christian Faith has been handed down through the Church. It was our predecessors who received the faith from the Christ through the Apostles, and who have passed their understanding of the faith down to us. We Catholics believe that the Church had an Apostolic and hierarchical structure, and we believe that this Church has existed since the time of Christ. We are presenting views here which we think are quite reasonable, as we feel they are consistent with Scripture, and with our historical understanding of the history of Christianity. There is still plenty of room for discussion and sincere disagreement within this framework.

For the purposes of sincere Christian dialog, it would be helpful if the reasonableness of our views was acknowledged, even if you do not agree with them. It is also helpful to have our partners in dialog give a frank assessment of their own positions, and it is important that we both be willing to move away from slogans which do not reflect reality. I think you have gone a long way toward accomplishing this in several of your critical posts, and you have also made an important call to not lose sight of the individual's relationship to God when Christian authority is discussed.

I'm glad to see you voicing your opinions on this thread. I've seen enough of your posts to realize that you do have something very important to say. If this conversation is making you feel that we Catholics are being condescending to you our Christian brother, then we have failed in some sense. If this is the case, perhaps you could suggest how we might do better in the future.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Indeed, there is a lot of "experting" going on around here - which one ought to expect if the conversation is truly an academic one and not just railing back and forth.

And I do agree with you about boldfacing, supersizing, colors and caps - I tend to not read posts which have a lot of visual emphasis and thus miss whatever point was being made.

[adiaireton8]

There are two worldviews:

1. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

2. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I go with #1 which is typical in physics and math.

These are not worldviews, since a worldview is a *comprehensive* view of the world, and these are very limited and specific claims.

One does not have to choose between #1 and #2 because whether #1 or #2 is true is situation-specific. Absence of evidence of x is evidence of the absence of x *only when* we have good reason to expect that if x is present, we would observe evidence of x. But when that condition is not met, then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is why the more sure and reliable principle is "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."

-A8

[Alamo-Girl]

One does not have to choose between #1 and #2 because whether #1 or #2 is true is situation-specific. Absence of evidence of x is evidence of the absence of x *only when* we have good reason to expect that if x is present, we would observe evidence of x. But when that condition is not met, then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is why the more sure and reliable principle is "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."

So you are in the gray area. Ergo you leave the door open to accept "just so" stories (and the opinion of experts) on par with evidence and proofs --- whereas I value them only one step above "imaginings."

No big deal. We're different creatures, part of God's magnificent living canvas - together we add contrast to an unfolding picture.

[Running On Empty]

Thanks very much for your agreement with me about boldfacing, supersizing, colors and caps. I also tend not to read posts like that...period, because whatever they are attempting to convey, trying to read them makes me feel like I'm being screamed at from some large, high perch.

As for "truly academic" discussions---because I am not an academic, nor can I claim any time spent in the world of academia, I am always grateful to see purity of truth expressed in simplicity of language.

I don't know how many other full-time lurkers, and only rare-times posters like me may see it the same way.

[1000 silverlings]

"ergo" is kinda cool tho.

[adiaireton8]

Was Mark Peter's son?

Peter was married, and tradition says that his wife was martyred in Peter's presence, and, if I remember correctly, Peter did have a [biological] son. I can't remember Peter's son's name, but I'm quite sure that Mark was not Peter's biological son. Mark was the daughter of a certain Mary (Acts 12:12), but that wasn't Peter's wife. Maybe someone who knows this better than me can give some more information.

-A8

[Marysecretary]

AMEN, Texasgal.

[Marysecretary]

Sure, some could and some won't.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thankfully there appears to be two different kinds of threads here on the Religion Forum - and even on threads that include both the academic discussions and the clarity of statements, there are posters who seem to specialize - posters we can kind of "look up" to see where the best conversations are from day-to-day.

IOW, Free Republic seems to have something for everyone.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thanks for the chuckle, 1000!

[Marysecretary]

I did. They were pretty graphic and a bit harsh.

[1000 silverlings]

Yes, The Mark that Peter is referencing is probably John Mark, a scribe and not his biological son. Since that particular scripture is taking liberty with fact, there is no reason to assume that the "Babylon" referenced is the actual place in Iraq, or even the code for Rome. It can just mean a place of confusion, and probably means Jerusalem, for at the time, Jerusalem was in a major state of confusion.

."...they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city authorities, shouting, "These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has received them, and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus." (Acts 17:6 - 7)

[adiaireton8]

So you are in the gray area. Ergo you leave the door open to accept "just so" stories (and the opinion of experts) on par with evidence and proofs --- whereas I value them only one step above "imaginings."

A "just so" story is an imaginary but entirely speculative explanation of some event or phenomenon. We should reject "just so" stories, ceteris paribus, because there is no evidence that they are true. But that does not mean that personal testimony is therefore unreliable or non-evidential. The notion that we must choose between accepting "just so" stories and personal testimony is a false dilemma. A personal testimony is evidence, and its strength depends on the character and credibility of the speaker.

-A8

[Marysecretary]

His Church is the body of Christ, not just one denomination, wagglebee.

[adiaireton8]

I like obeying and following Scripture.

You like obeying and following [your interpretation] of Scripture. Who wouldn't? Everyone who follows their own intepretation can make it say exactly what they want it to say. And they do. Hence, 20,000+ sects.

-A8

[wagglebee]

Over ONE BILLION Catholics disagree with this 16th Century notion.

[1000 silverlings]

over 1 billion have eaten at McDonald's too. Doesn't make it fine cuisine.

[Marysecretary]

And who are the rightful leaders of the church? I am sincerely interested.

[adiaireton8]

Organizational followings tend to lead to fossilization and a host of RELIGIOUS evils.

So, why is your local church [the one which you attend so that you do not violate the command not to forsake the assembling of yourselves together (Heb 10:25)] not an "organization"?

-A8