There are all sorts of questions and discussions popping up lately that pertain to the issue of Catholicism, so I've decided to start this discussion to try to state, in the positive, what I think it means to be a Roman Catholic. I do this not as an apologetic, nor, less, a polemic against those who question the legitimacy or validity of Catholicism, but just to try to say something about who we are.

First, it should be noted that there are many professed RCs who don't really know their faith and who might not be able to consent to the criteria I will suggest.

Second, it should also be acknowledged that there are Catholics -- even leaders -- who haven't lived up to the implications of the Catholic faith.

Those two points taken as "givens," I will avoid getting into much discussion about them, as they generally tend toward ad hominem objections anyway.

So here we go, and let's see what happens:

------

1. A Catholic is a Christian, defined, here, as a professing follower of Christ who accepts the basics of the Christian faith (as stated in various credal confessions like the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed.)
- - Without consent to the creeds (ignorance of them being an exception), one cannot be considered a Christian. That's my personal view on the matter, but it's hardly unique.
- Ideally, one also tries to live the moral and spiritual implications of these beliefs, one has a personal relationship with Christ, etc.


2. A Catholic believes that Christ's work continues on earth through the working of the Holy Spirit, especially through the Christian community, which is Christ's mystical body in space and time.
- Pretty much all Christians believe this.
- The idea of an privatized Christianity apart from membership and participation in Christian community is incompatible with Christian revelation, though one may, at times, feel the need to be less involved, to search for the proper church, etc.

3. A Catholic believes that the Apostles were the leaders of the Church designated by Christ, and that their leadership was continued through the bishops ordained by the Apostles.
- You can read all about this early "passing of the baton" in the New Testament and in the 1st and 2nd century writings of the Fathers of the Church.
- As successors of the Apostles, the bishops are entrusted with the leadership of the Church and of faithfully transmitting the Gospel message (which includes defending it from error, when needed).

4. The "content" of the Gospel message is found primarily in the New Testament, but we also reverence the Hebrew Scriptures and believe them to be God's Word. Sacred Tradition is also viewed as a repository of the faith in its inclusion of complementary and explanatory material not found in Scripture, but not in conflict with the Scripture.

5. Hence, an interdependence exists between
a. the Bishops, who were leaders of the Church transmitting the Gospel, initially via oral tradition
b. the New Testament, which represents the written core of the oral tradition, and
c. Sacred Tradition, which includes non-biblical oral tradition and doctrinal elaboration on the Christian message through time.

6. Finally (the rub ), Catholics believe the Pope to be the successor of Peter, who was first among the bishops, and the visible head of the Church. He is entrusted with maintaining the unity of the Church and the integrity of the teaching, and is thus gifted by the Spirit to insure that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church.

---------

That's pretty much how I see it, and that's the way it was for the first centuries of Christianity up to the split with the Orthodox, then, later, the Reformation.

Obviously, there are all sorts of practical implciations for Catholics pertaining to proper formation in Church teaching, living accordingly, etc. That's another matter, however.

So, what think ye, dear forum? Does this make sense? Where do you find yourself in accord or disagreement? Maybe some of you are more Catholic than you thought?

Thanks for this summary, Phil.

You probably know what I think about the separate issues, but I imagine I think that way because the church I am in suits me/helps me/works on spiritual priniples I can relate to. If that church was ever to fall apart, God forbid, then I would have to consider the Catholic Church as an alternative option. Lots of true spiritual power and authority in the Church, despite my objections on a previous thread.

Again thanks, and much love.

At what point does one become an ex-Catholic? When I call some people ex-Catholics when they hate the pope and haven't been to mass in thirty years they get offended because the were raised Catholic and went to Catholic school. They still consider themsleves Catholic.

It's hard to say how much of what you describe is emotional ranting and how much has to do with belief. Most likely, such people aren't quite sure what they believe, and so, of course they can do their searching about this and continue to call themselves Catholics. Eventually, however, they ought to come to some clarity about whether they truly are Catholics, and I don't see how that's possible if one doesn't consent to the points I've listed above - - in which case they might find that they are quite at home elsewhere in Christendom.

- - -

OTOH, there are people like these teachers, who can't even quite bring themselves to believe in the bodily resurrection. I don't think they even qualify as Christians, though they certainly consider themselves such.

quote:

So, no, I don�t think that to be a Christian we have to
believe that Christ literally, bodily rose from the dead and that he literally, bodily
ascended into heaven. Yet I do believe that these words are our best attempt
to give expression to an experience which was true to the followers of Jesus in
his time, and is still true to those of us who engage with Jesus in heart, mind
and spirit still today. What Jesus� rising from the dead means to me is this: That
life is eternal, and that we are a part of that eternal life even now, in this life we
are living. That we live in eternal life was true of us before we were born; it is
true while we are living here and now; and it will be true after we have died. We
live always in the embrace of God�s eternity.

Wrong on several accounts, including her understanding of eternal life.

quote:

The most Christ-like professor I ever had once turned to our seminary class and asked us a question with an intensity that made us know he was serious: "What if they proved without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus of Nazareth never lived! What would that do to your faith?"

He stared fiercely at us. There was a long, awkward silence. Then he said, "I can tell you what it would do to my faith. It would not change it one bit. I would believe in the myth of Jesus. It's the best story going!"

No it's not! It's a dirty, manipulative lie if it's not true, regardless of the kinds of values extolled. Everything hinges on the resurrection! That's not to say that we fully understand what happened, of course, but it is to say that it's more than a myth or story.

Amen, brother.

What I described in my opening post is the "framework" within which Catholicism is structured, and this has implications concerning how Catholics understand Scripture and how we proceed in discerning the leadings of the Spirit as a Church. I haven't said much about the "content" of the faith, however, except in point #1, which esablishes that we are Christians who assent to the core Christian mysteries.

Down through the centuries, the Catholic Church has had to deal with a wide variety of tensions within the Church along with developments outside in secular society. As a consequence, something of a "Catholic approach" to issues has developed, which I think Daniel Helminiak describes very nicely in Religion and the Human Sciences.

quote:

. . . I speak of the Roman Catholic tradition -- and not of the fundamentalist-like authoritarian emphases within current offical Catholicism nor of the pieties so slient in popular notions of Catholicism and its practice. I speak of Catholicism with its reliance on natural law theory, its insistence in the face of classical Protestantism on both faith and reason, its continued affirmation of objective truth and goodness, its infallibly defined teaching that religion and science are reconciliable, its official understanding of Goad as Creator in the classical sense of the term, its continued adherence to classical Christian orthodoxy about Trinity, Christ, and Grace, and its long and profound intellectual treatment of religious and human question.

Those are the kinds of emphasizes that draw me as well, to which I would add Catholicism's champinioning of what we have discussed at length on this board as the "analogical imagination." Nowhere in all of Christendom is this as evident as in Catholicism, especially in its appreciation of the sacramental nature of reality and of those special Sacraments wherein we encounter God through tangible signs and symbols. It seems to me that apart from this kind of affirmation of sacramentality, the body and its senses are pretty much left out of the spiritual life and spirituality becomes overly intellectualized and even overly spiritualized.

I'm much in agreement with Helminiak's provisos at the beginning of his quote, and suspect that those are the kinds of things that many identify with Catholicism. They hardly characterize the spiritual heart of Catholicism, however, and have often been critiqued within the Church.

"It seems to me that apart from this kind of affirmation of sacramentality, the body and its senses are pretty much left out of the spiritual life and spirituality becomes overly intellectualized and even overly spiritualized."

I like this, Phil. I've not really looked into sacramentalism, but I've been considering the body's role in the spiritual life, looking for ways to integrate it meaningfully, inspired, as it were, by the physio-kundalini response in prayer. I wonder what you think of physical expressions of worship such as dance in church ceremony, taking David's worship of the Lord as he danced before the ark in 2 Samuel 6 as an example?

�understanding of Goad as Creator

I just found my new name.

It seems to me that apart from this kind of affirmation of sacramentality, the body and its senses are pretty much left out of the spiritual life and spirituality becomes overly intellectualized and even overly spiritualized.[

An interesting thought, Phil. You�ve just mentioned a lot of things about Catholicism that I like as well, although to be honest I couldn�t really give you a fine-toothed appraisal of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism other than y�all have bigger churches! I don�t know, for instance, much about how Protestantism might over-emphasis faith at the expense of reason (other than the usual fringe fundamentalists�are they not so fringe then?).

What I definitely don�t like about Catholicism is the heavy emphasis on authority. "Stifling" is the only word I can think of. I can get a whiff of it even from a distance. And if that is not your experience, and/or if this is only a mistaken perception, then all the better.

I will certainly take away from this discussion the important idea (Idea? More intellectualizing! More intellectualizing!) to bring one�s body and senses into the equation. Okay, I�m going to be forever unorthodox because I�m doing this alone (not part of a community) and not partaking of the Sacraments. And perhaps maybe therefore this all points to Catholicism as the way to go for I have no desire whatsoever (even as an avenue to meet babes) to be surrounded by Protestants in church or out. It is wrong, wrong, wrong to judge other people�s level of faith, but I must tell you that I am annoyed, annoyed, annoyed by the whiffs of superficiality that I often smell in real life. I want REAL over tradition, Sacraments, or anything else. When I�m a little more at home in my own skin, then surely I will be able to be more accepting and comfortable with people (in real life) who "Praise the Lord" this and "Praise the Lord" that about every other word out of their mouths.

Stephen, I'm all for dance and other ways of bringing the body into spiritual practice. Unto this end, hatha yoga holds great promise, don't you think -- especially if one could do the asanas without referencing the Hindu perspective?

Brad: What I definitely don�t like about Catholicism is the heavy emphasis on authority. "Stifling" is the only word I can think of. I can get a whiff of it even from a distance. And if that is not your experience, and/or if this is only a mistaken perception, then all the better.

I've been fired from jobs twice by such authority, and for some very dumb reasons. Still, my puny little individual experience hardly justifies questioning the wisdom of the present arrangement. One is free to criticize the decisions of authority, but it doesn't follow that such authority has not vital role to play in the tradition. In the end, these are only people, and so they are to be excused if they do the usual kinds of human misdeeds.

I don't know what your continuing references to a "stifling" authority are about, but maybe you could see if some of this isn't about "authority issues." People with such don't like any kind of authority -- Catholic, Protestant, employer, divine, etc. It's been my experience that many of the so-called "recovering Catholics" have loads of authority issues skewing their vision. Maybe that's not the case with you, but it's the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear complaints of this kind. No offense intended, of course . . .

While it's only natural to evaluate a tradition by what we see going on among the people who belong to them, I think it's important to look deeper than this. There are congregations that manifest the potential of a tradition better than others, for example, and hopefully one finds a good example of this along the way. One thing we say as Catholics is that it is a "big Church," encompassing a very wide array of communities, spiritual movements, vocations, etc. If you can't find what you need, keep looking around.

"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age." --G.K. Chesterton

Here is the postmodern alternative:

"With extreme dread imperatively becoming the demand for universality, carried away to vertigo by the movement that composes it, the ipse being that presents itself as a universal is only a challenge to the diffuse immensity that escapes its precarious violence, the tragic negation of all that is not its own bewildered phantom's chance. But, as a man, this being falls into the meanders of the knowledge of his fellowmen, which absorbs his substance in order to reduce it to a component of what goes beyond the virulent madness
of his autonomy in the total night of the world."
-- George Bataille

A mind is a terrible thing, get me outa here! Where's my time machine!

Michael, you've truly outdone yourself. Game, set, and match to the Catholic Church on this one.

Hee hee. Good contrast, Michael.

- - -

Moving along . . .

At the center of Catholic spirituality is participation in the Christian mysteries, as noted above, unfolding via the usual virtues of faith, hope and love, as all Christian traditions emphasize. For Catholics, however, this participation is focused in a special way in the Eucharist, where we believe we meet the risen, ascended Christ and are nourished by his life.

I often hear fundamentalists and evangelicals scoffing at Catholics because we supposedly haven't accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Yet every Sunday, Catholics process to Communion, and say "Amen" when the minister holds up the consecrated host, saying, "The Body of Christ." That "Amen" signifies belief, acceptance, and willingness to receive the life of Christ and to become part of his mystical Body on earth. We do, in fact, receive Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and in a manner even more tangible than whatever emotions might be stirred to life in a conversion experience.

The Eucharist is one of the primary reasons I have remained Catholic through some very rough and trying times in the Church. I believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, and I know from my own experience the peace and transformation that comes from frequent reception. When I go a few days without, I literally feel hunger for it -- an immense desire to receive . . . like my soul is starving, or something. Which indeed it is! What I've come to understand is that the life of my soul has its foundation in the Body of Christ moreso than in my own body, which lives on, of course, but by the life of Christ's Body as well. This is not a new dynamic -- it's described all over Scripture. But I know it to be real and true in my experience, and have come to see how Christ saves us through his resurrection by providing for the human race a new body for our souls along with his Spirit to renew us in his body. This is what we mean when we say he is the New Adam -- that the human race is being renewed and even remade through him.

What I have also come to see is that those somewhat controversial structures of the Church outlined in my opening post are essential for faithfully upholding the teachings on the Eucharist, and for providing valid and licit sacramental celebration. I do not mean to question here whether there is really Eucharist happening outside of Catholicism . . . I'm sure there is. What I do mean to say is that I am certain that Eucharist is validly and licitly celebrated and communicated in Roman Catholicism and thus I have no desire to see if that might also be the case elsewhere. This kind of living contact with the Lord is essential for my ongoing spiritual growth; I cannot imagine living without it.

So Eucharist plus the kinds of values noted in the Helminiak quote above are the telling factors for me, and the main reasons why I'm sure I will remain Catholic throughout my life, even while agonizing about some of the problems and stupidity that goes on.

The Eucharist is one of the primary reasons I have remained Catholic through some very rough and trying times in the Church. I believe Christ is present in the Eucharist, and I know from my own experience the peace and transformation that comes from frequent reception.

Yes Phil, I have the same approach to Eucharist. I literally see and feel the presence of Christ's spirit/energy in the Eucharist. Whenever I visit the Church my whole being is drawn to the tabernacle where the Eucharist is and I feel flowing of very pleasant spirit from it. Other important point I like in Catholicism is acknowledgement of mysticism. The life and work of all acknowledged saints is very helpful to serious Christians who really want to follow Christ and embody his mystical body. Above all mysticism is nothing other than embodying the Christ body.

" We do, in fact, receive Jesus as our Lord and Savior, and in a manner even more tangible than whatever emotions might be stirred to life in a conversion experience."

Tremendous .

"For Catholics, however, this participation is focused in a special way in the Eucharist, where we believe we meet the risen, ascended Christ and are nourished by his life."

This may be hard to believe(or not so hard), but I feel very drawn to this, not just intellectually, but mysteriously, with my whole being, almost like I am beginning to intuit Christ present in the Eucharist. I actually think I had similar "drawings" as a boy, but because of my background and such . . . In another thread I mentioned how I attended Catholic mass. What I didn't mention was that, when the bell rang and the wafer was changed, I felt a great solemnity that was more than just a sense of occasion, more than just an emotional reaction to, if you like, "bells and smells", but was, rather, a conscious response to some divine movement. So . . .

"What I have also come to see is that those somewhat controversial structures of the Church outlined in my opening post are essential for faithfully upholding the teachings on the Eucharist, and for providing valid and licit sacramental celebration. I do not mean to question here whether there is really Eucharist happening outside of Catholicism . . . I'm sure there is."

Does this Real Presence occur outside Catholicism? I certainly have changed in my approach to our own communion and the taking of the elements. Does the Real Presence occur if I perceive it or believe it so? You say, Phil, that the structures you outline are essential to the teachings on Eucharist. I take it you've gathered by now I have one or two problems with those structures(and other beliefs and practises within), yet I feel so drawn to this particular teaching.

Also, am I right too in saying that only the priest drinks the wine? This, I think, would really frustrate me. Maybe I need to understand more why that is so.

Thanks for your sharing in that post, Phil.

I much appreciate the kinds of questions you're asking, Stephen, but I'm afraid the answers to them might sound kind of "legalistic." What I was meaning to say in my post above is that I have trust that the RC Church has remained faithful to Christ's intent to communicate his risen life to us in the Sacrament through the centuries, and that the teaching authority has played a pivotal role in safeguarding the integrity of the Sacrament. That's the most "spiritual" interpretation I can give. Beyond this, it comes down to stuff like apostolic succession, valid ordination, etc. I'll post a few links about that which you and others can pursue, if interested:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905chap.asp - from a very traditionalist Catholic site, but has some pertinent info if you want to dig around in the article.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q049.htm
- deals with the issue of "valid consecration" and other Christian traditions.
In order for the consecration of the elements to take place, it must be performed by a ministerial priest, different than the universal priesthood all believers share (I will go into why in tomorrow's question of the day). Since the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the other ancient Christian churches have preserved the ministerial priesthood through the apostolic succession of bishops, their Eucharists are valid.

Unfortunately, the ministerial priesthood has not been retained in Protestant churches. It did not have to be this way, for the other Christian churches have retained it, but most Protestant churches (all but the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition) have rejected the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the universal priesthood (see my pieces, The Office of New Testament Priest and The Priesthood Debate) and thus ceased to perpetuate it, breaking the apostolic succession in their circles.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/christian_comparison.html
- A very helpful (even if somewhat simplistic) comparison if Christian traditions.

Thanks, Phil, and I understand now the need for proper consecration, apostolic succession and the teaching authority's role in preserving same.
Difficult for me to accept at the moment but something I will be thinking about and looking into.
My first impression is that something of the simplicity and informality has been lost. Christ introduced it without much of a rigmarole and the believers carried it on "from house to house" quite informally. Did they need an Apostle present to consecrate the bread? I have so much doubt about where the Tradition comes from, yet I see that something very powerful is going on. I'll need to wait and let myself grow with the idea. Thanks again!

BTW, in the last link, do you have to tick all the boxes before being accepted as a Catholic? Can you disagree on one or two points and still be accepted into the church? Maybe it depends on which particular boxes you cross.

I ask this in all seriousness - no hint of sarcasm.

The unchecked ones are the divisive issues, so you'd probably find yourself more in line with some of those traditions.

- - -

I'm thinking I haven't done a very good job explaining the whole authority issue, so let me try drawing some analogies. One would be to recognize that there is a level of Catholic life that is institutional, and, as such, is about governance. Same goes for secular society, where we have a moral-cultural component, an economic level, and a political. Now it would be a mistake to identify "America" only with the latter, and yet, without it, there could be no "America," for the moral-cultural life of Americans is both protected and influenced by political life, and, in turn, Americans choose their political leaders. In a similar manner, the hierarchy of the Church is entrusted with the governance of the Church and their doing so helps to insure the continuance of the Church's moral and spiritual life -- or, at least, that's how it's supposed to work.

Another analogy: the U.S. government is not really a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The Constitution lays out certain principles and limitations for government, and elected leaders make decisions on how to govern the people by passing laws -- hopefully, in the context of those constitutional principles. To insure such fidelity, we have a judicial branch, which applies the law in specific circumstances and acts as a kind of corrective to the executive and legislative branches of government. These three branches -- executive, legislative and judicial -- provide a delicate system of checks and balances which enables the government of the U.S. to continue to function in fidelity (more or less) to its constitutional principles. In addition, we could speak of principles of federalism -- how the individual states handle their own governance, and how they relate to the U.S. government, generally following principles of subsidiarity.

Catholicism, otoh, is a constitutional monarchy, with the Pope and his curial cabinet forming a kind of executive branch. Scripture and Tradition form a kind of constitution, and Canon Law is a kind of legal, judicial application to specific circumstances and situations. The bishops and dioceses are analagous to governors and states, respectively, and something very much like federalist principles apply in that dioceses are independent entities, even financially so. Nevertheless, the papal level can step in when a bishop needs correction, so there are checks and balances. In addition, Canon Law spells out how to proceed in some of these cases.

Of course, the analogy breaks down when comparing the relationships between the people and their governing leaders. In the U.S., we can choose our own leaders; not so in the Church. Although the Cardinals do choose the Pope, he, in turn, chooses those who will lead as Bishops and Cardinals, so it really does turn out to be a self-perpetuating system, especially when a pope leads for many years (as did JPII). Likewise, the bishops ordain those who will serve as priests in their dioceses (after proper formation and discernment, of course). Nowhere in all of this is there any accountability between the laity and the leaders, and this is both a strength and a weakness, imo. It is a strength because, as so many have pointed out through the years, "the Church is not a democracy," and that is how it should be in terms of its teaching. We really don't want "majority rule" when it comes to issues of doctrine and practice. OTOH, there should be some way for the laity to have a say in choosing their leadership -- more than what the "pocketbook" and letters to the editor can provide. I think groups like Voice of the Faithful make some good points and have an important message -- not just re. the sex abuse scandals, but re. the role of the laity in the Church.

In a later post I will speak to issues pertaining the duties of Catholics to Church teachings. Enough for now!

I'm hearing you, Phil.

This is actually a big deal for me just now. My own church, a small independant protestant evangelical church is kind of winding down at the moment (no details necessary, suffice to say it's a bit sad for me and my friends) and I'm faced with the prospect of choosing another church. I don't know if the recent climate here at shalomplace is coincidental or what but the RCC is looming large in my thoughts. A big step for me, especially given my family history and the socio-historic context of Catholicism in Scotland. (I could become the only Catholic in history to support Glasgow Rangers football(soccer) club. No seriously - Catholicism and Glasgow Celtic go together like eggs and bacon, Starsky and Hutch, you get the picture.)

Anyway, seriously now, certain beliefs/ structures /practises are beginning to appeal to me, like Real Presence, apostolic lineage etc; while others still niggle. So I'll guess I'll have to wait on God, still in hope that He touches my own church, grateful for your explanations and delineations, Phil .

I'm also fed up with the divisions in Protestantism, divisions which probably spring from private interpretaion of scripture; yet, paradoxically, I'm loth to surrender my own private interpretations to the authority of the Church .

I don't know if the recent climate here at shalomplace is coincidental or what but the RCC is looming large in my thoughts.

Ditto. I just keep taking my questions and doubts to God in prayer. I'm either answered here at Shalom Place or some insight just clicks within. Still, making that step seems too big right now, and yet I am "willing" to follow where Christ leads. We'll see.

I'm also fed up with the divisions in Protestantism, divisions which probably spring from private interpretaion of scripture; yet, paradoxically, I'm loth to surrender my own private interpretations to the authority of the Church

And I confess a ditto on that too.

Wow, that's just amazing openness, Stephen and Tate. I really wasn't attempting to evangelize anyone on this thread -- just wanting to discuss Catholicism and share some experiences, which I'll continue to do. BTW, Stephen, you might find just a few Anglican Churches in your part of the world. They do have a deep reverence for the Eucharist and are very much in tune with many Catholic teachings, except for the part about the Pope, of course. But that kind of goes back to their origins . . .

- - -

Having noted above how those in ordained ministry govern the Church and how lay people have no authority whatsoever in this regard, I should explain that there is extensive collaboration between these two layers of Church life. E.g., every parish is supposed to have a pastoral council, which, in turn, is to work with the pastor to set goals and accomplish the ministries of the parish. Same goes for dioceses, although some make more use of lay consultative bodies than others. Then there is the fact that lay people are involved in all sorts of ministries that used to be reserved for the ordained and religiously professed: teaching, spiritual direction, writing, and even administering parishes, in some cases. Lay people also proclaim the Word during liturgy, help distribute Communion, and assist in many other ways with the liturgy. The big news since Vatican II has been the emergence of lay ministry, which has helped to compensate for a decline in vocations to the priesthood and religious life. There is still something of a "two-track system," but nothing quite like what was evidenced before Vatican II, when the laity were hardly ever involved in any kind of formal ministries.

- - -

One will find great variation throughout the Church in the quality of parish and diocesan life. Much depends on who the pastor or bishop is, for without his encouragement and support, things just don't seem to happen. Even with these, however, sometimes things can be pretty slow and lifeless. This isn't especially unique to Catholicism, of course, as you can find within a short distance Lutheran (and other Protestant) churches that are thriving while others are dying. So one shouldn't guage the quality of Catholic life from one's own parish experience. Ideally, one belongs to the one assigned for one's area, but in our experience, that hasn't always worked. Better by far to be part of a community where one feels life and growth happening than to simply be in the "right place." That goes for any denomination.

Unfortunately, this isn't as easy to do with one's diocese. Unless you are close to a diocesan boundary (and these can be hundreds and hundreds of miles wide), then you're pretty much "stuck" with your bishop. I've come under the thumb of a couple during my time, and so I know the difference they can make. Even so, these were men who accomplished good things in parts of the diocese, and who, even when firing me, thought they were doing a good thing. What bothered me most was to see how short a string I had while observing how clergy with all sorts of problems were given chance after chance and assignment after assignment. There is a double-standard in how lay ministers and the ordained are treated by bishops; basically, lay people are completely expendible, and there's not much in the way of due process to help. If you're a lay minister, it's best to have a contract that's on the up-and-up legally, and which stipulates a significant severance penalty for premature dismissal. Not a happy thought, I know, but this is still part of the reality . . . and, for all I know, it might be much the same among Protestant Churches.

Maybe you could say something about the difference between universal priesthood and ministerial priesthood. In many evangelical denominations, for example, ministerial priesthood is open to all believers, so that there is really no distinction between priesthood and laiety as such, although a natural, but not explicit, division occurs according to gift etc. I see benefits and drawbacks in both systems.

This "structural" difference also accounts for variety in form. I enjoy the more rigid liturgical forms of the Catholic and Anglican churches, but really have a preference for open, spontaneous forms where every believer is given the opportunity to exercise their priesthood, as it were.

No matter the form of service, the presence of the Holy Spirit is key to both, and it's really up to me and the rest of the church to allow ourselves to be channels of His blessing. I'm happy to say there is a lovely movement of the Spirit in my own fellowship and we seem to have won through this recent difficult time. Nevertheless, I'll certainly continue to visit other churches in my area, feeling as I do a great openness in my heart towards all Christians at the moment, and quite sad that issues and doctrines can be so divisive.

I've been to the Anglican church in my town, Phil, and have felt a great blessing in taking part in the Eucharist. As I say, I enjoy the form of worship in "high churches" and have been thinking about visiting a local Catholic priest to discuss my amiguous feelings about the RCC, feelings that recently have been submerged in a tide of brotherly love that washes over all the denominations.

"One will find great variation throughout the Church in the quality of parish and diocesan life. Much depends on who the pastor or bishop is, for without his encouragement and support, things just don't seem to happen. Even with these, however, sometimes things can be pretty slow and lifeless. This isn't especially unique to Catholicism, of course, as you can find within a short distance Lutheran (and other Protestant) churches that are thriving while others are dying."

This is very true, Phil, and relates, I think, to the movement of the Spirit in particular diocese, as well as the governance and governors you mention. BTW I'm enjoying these tasty titbits from your own experience that you're throwing in. Keep 'em coming .

Not much time to "keep 'em coming" today or the next couple, Stephen, but I'll continue to share from my experience about Catholicism. I have several other areas I want to address during the days ahead.

Catholics do believe in the priesthood of all believers, and Vatican Council II formally stated as much in the document on the laity. There, it's noted that through Baptism, we all participate in the priestly, prophetic and kingly ministries of Christ through the action of the Holy Spirit. In addition, those called to formal ministry come from the laity, so there's that connection as well.

Probably what you're looking for in your opening pgh above pertains to the Catholic understanding of ordained ministry, or the ministerial priesthood. The Sacrament of Holy Orders consecrates on for this service and, in a sense, "sets one apart" for the purpose of being totally available to the Christian community (while being a part of it as well, of course). Through Holy Orders, the Spirit configures the minister to act "in personae Christi," (literally - "in the person of Christ") during times of Sacramental celebration.

quote:

The principal effect of the sacrament is the character (q.v.), a spiritual and indelible mark impressed upon the soul, by which the recipient is distinguished from others, designated as a minister of Christ, and deputed and empowered to perform certain offices of Divine worship (Summa, III, Q. lxiii, a. 2). The sacramental character of order distinguishes the ordained from the laity. It gives the recipient in the diaconate, e.g., the power to minister officially, in the priesthood, the power to offer the Sacrifice and dispense the sacraments, in the episcopate the power to ordain new priests and to confirm the faithful.

- See this link and search for others on the web re. Holy Orders for more info.

This is obviously different than the kind of ministries we see in Protestantism which emerge from the exercising of charisms. Hopefully, the priest is blessed with charisms to make his ministry fruitful.

Finally . . . back to this thread!

I've been wanting to say something about what is often called the "hierarchy of truth" in the Catholic Church. This is spelled out rather well on this page, where the author notes three levels:

A. Divinely Revealed Truths.
B. Non-infallible Church Teachings.
C. Teachings on faith and morals.

Different consents are required for each, and some authors would differentiate even more levels (see the table at the bottom of this page, for example, which I rather like. Also, this page has some good discussion on the topic.

So it's not simply a matter of everything the Pope teaches being infallible or absolutely binding, as many (even Catholics) sometimes think.