U.S. Catholic bishops, acting at the direction of the Vatican, have rebuked a theologian at Georgetown University for writings that they say conflict with church doctrine on the uniqueness of Christianity and Catholicism.
In a 15-page statement released Monday, the bishops’ Committee on Doctrine criticized the 2004 book Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue by the Rev. Peter C. Phan.
Phan is a Vietnamese native and a priest of the Dallas diocese. He teaches in Washington and is a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America.
The bishops specifically criticized Phan for arguing that Christ should not be described as the “unique,” “absolute” or “universal” savior of humankind; that non-Christian religions offer an “autonomous” path to salvation; and that past injustices committed by the Catholic Church disqualify it from claiming to be the “unique and universal instrument of salvation.”
In what they presented as a “positive restatement” of relevant Catholic teaching, the bishops asserted that Christ “brings together humanity and divinity in a way that can have no parallel in any other figure in history.”
[blockquote]is a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America. [/blockquote]
…and that’s about all you need to know there, folks. The CTA is notorious for pushing the theological envelope as hard as it can. Serious Catholics put little stock in what they have to say and take EVERYTHING they publish with a very large grain of salt.
Sometimes I wish we could borrow a cup of orthodoxy from Rome. And maybe a spinal transplant or two.
As Chris Johnson would ‘quote’ Catholics in discussions of a hypothetical “Anglican Pope”:
“Hey we’ve got one of those. Works pretty well. You Anglicans can borrow ours any time you like.”
Indeed, in Anglicanism you can have bishops writing books in which they deny every point of the Nicene Creed and is there any such similar outcry coming from TEC HOB or Canterbury? Hardly. Instead, these heretical and apostate authors are congratulated and honored for their “insight” and “forward thinking”.
There are times when the Roman Catholic Church makes Anglicanism look like kindergarten.
“past injustices committed by the Catholic Church disqualify it from claiming to be the “unique and universal instrument of salvation.”
I disagree with a lot of his statements on the uniqueness of Christ, but all that he says cannot be disregarded. This part of the statement makes a whole lot of sense. When you are a Jew and the Roman Church is leading or encouraging a pogrom against you and your family, it loses its claim to be the universal instrument of salvation of these people–perhaps it could be called the instrument of their damnation?
[i]There are times when the Roman Catholic Church makes Anglicanism look like kindergarten.[/i]
And there are times when the Roman Church has made KJS look like paradise. Come one people! Why can’t you see the sin in both the Roman and the Anglican Churches? Must we always only see the splinter in the other’s eye.
This was not a defense of KJS. It was a wake-up call. The ROman Catholic Church has been abominably sinful in the past. As has the Anglican Church. Refusing to see the one side is more of an indication of your own character than a defense of the truth.
While I somewhat disagree with the tone of the previous comment, I do ultimately agree with justinmartyr. I get a little twitchy when people start haranging over whose church is better or worse. The way I see it, the Church is made up completely of fallible human beings (excluding Christ). Ergo, you can’t have a church without flaws with such building blocks. Every church has its problems.
I have a friend of mine whole is considering a leap to Orthodoxy. Granted, Orthodoxy does have an appeal in terms of doctrine and liturgy, but Orthodoxy, like all churches, has its own problems. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Well, I always have two things to say with that analogy. Is the grass actually greener, or does it just appear so from your current point of view. If it is actually greener, why is it greener? It may be that it is growing over a septic tank. One has to ask those questions.
Justin, I think it’s that people are looking at the current state of the RC and ECUSA, more than historicaly, in these posts.
Yeah, but Archer, the grass is pretty much dead and withered on the ECUSA side (speaking generaly, there are a few last gasps of green), if not replaced by poison ivy. Saying something is better than the current state of ECUSA is like saying a car is better than a Pinto. Doesn’t take much.
Once again, orthodoxy and orthopraxy are conflated. I’m not surprised, just a little disappointed.
Chris Molter: When you are being tortured or terrorized the difference between praxy and doxy matters little.
I think it is a defensible proposition that bad praxy there must be bad doxy (one does not occur without the other). Christ in his days on earth spoke out more strongly against bad praxy (hypocrisy, white-washed sepulchres, the heart) than against doxy. Not to say, of course, that bad doxy is any better.
I find that the praxy/doxy distinction, although academically important, is used more often as a defense of the sinful actions and thoughts and, yes, ideas, of fallible people in what is termed an infallible church.
Andrew 717: point taken. I do think that a historical view helps to put the current crises into perspective.
“The gates of hell shall not prevail…” statement is touted a lot in Catholic and Anglican circles to trumpet its infalliblity. But we must remember that Christ can and does snuff the candle of churches that disregard his commands. A careful reading of Revelation makes clear that churches are indeed fallible when it comes to bad praxy, not just doxy. Catholics beware!
Andrew 717, for us in the South the current problem is that the grass is not being replaced with Poison Ivy, but Kudzu, that horrific weed-vine that crawls through and over everything in its path. It may grow twenty feet in a year while choking the life out of good plants. The new theology of the TEC is like Kudzu. The vine is the easy-living feel-good theology that is rapidly covering and choking the life out of “The Good News†preached by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
#11, I agree about a historical perspective, but wanted to point out that one can have very different views of the Catholic Church’s historical behavior, and the current actions. I like B16 a lot, but i’m not swimming the Tiber.
#13, this Georgia boy knows all too well about Kudzu. Good analogy.
Well, the story is told (falsely, in my opinion, given her writings and speeches) that Schori affirmed to an anonymous orthodox bishop that she believes exactly what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on these matters.
Now, really: does anybody think Schori would disagree with the summary of Phan’s views as given here:
The Church is holy not on account of the actions of its leaders, but because Christ established it. Those who have committed atrocities in the name of the Church will suffer the consequences for it, for their actions, and the scandal caused to unbelievers, but that does not change the nature of Catholic ecclesiology, nor cancel out Christ’s promise to his body. No matter what happened hundreds of years ago, and no matter what mistakes bishops (who are all sinful on account of being human) have made in the past, a bishop’s role is to defend the faith and guard the flock even if it is unpopular. The US Catholic Bishops seem to finally recognize this, but I am not sure TEC bishops even have a classical understanding of the role of bishop. Standing up for apostolic truth is not always polite or “inclusive.”
Also, the Catholic Church has formally apologized for past atrocities, and save going back in time and doing things over, I don’t see what else we can do. Any church filled with human beings with a history is going to have a checkered past, and unlike many denominations, the Catholic Church has a long history that is on public display. The Orthodox Church is the same way, and the pogroms carried out in Orthodox regions are available for students of history to study. The torture and murder of Catholics in Protestant England is also documented, as is Luther’s encouraging the princes to crush the peasant revolts. However, I raise these points to show that all churches made of humans have done bad things, and I am not going to hold past mistakes against contemporary churches, otherwise, we could all start a “whose church had a more sinful past” contest, in which we would all lose.
#6:
My point was this: do you expect KJS or literally ANYONE from the TEC leadership OR House of Bishops to condemn, counter, refute or reject the heretical, apostate and anti-christian writings and/or rantings of some “progressive” TEC/Anglican theologian? I don’t. I expect such things to be applauded.
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic bishops speak out against someone who calls into question the Person and ministry of Jesus Christ.
Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Whatever sins the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of in the past, they now proclaim to the world that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
If only TEC bishops would do the same . . .
Yes, Peter Phan does sound rather Episcopalian, does he not.
As I wrote yesterday, I don’t think I could ever join the Roman Catholic Church. But I have to admit they have a better track record of defending the faith than Protestants. Kudos to them for putting Phan in his place.
[blockquote]Chris Molter: When you are being tortured or terrorized the difference between praxy and doxy matters little. [/blockquote]
I must be missing your point. I’m saying that the sinful actions of Catholics have exactly zero bearing on whether or not the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. Not only are you conflating praxy and doxy, but infallibility and impeccability as well.
“Peter Phan” ‘sounds Episcopal’ on more than one level…
[blockquote]I think it is a defensible proposition that bad praxy there must be bad doxy (one does not occur without the other).[/blockquote]Paul didn’t think so:
I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. (Rom. 3:7)
Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. (Rom. 7:15-19)
Those wishing to accuse Paul of heterodoxy are invited to sign their liability waivers first. 🙂
Looks like we’ve found Chuck Bennison’s replacement to me.
[i]I must be missing your point. I’m saying that the sinful actions of Catholics have exactly zero bearing on whether or not the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. Not only are you conflating praxy and doxy, but infallibility and impeccability as well.[/i]
I’m saying that where there are sinful actions (praxy) there is ALWAYS sinful theological bearings (doxy). Look back at the sinful popes and bishops of church history and you will find sinful theological justification for their actions. How is that confusing the two?
As a former RC, I just roll my eyes at this. Those who say the RC’s distasteful history was years ago and somehow not relevant assume that such history is not being made right now.
When the Pope or his servants make pronouncements about dogma such pronouncements are generated from the same flawed minds and processes that declared pogroms God’s will, Galileo was a heretic, the Reichskonkordat was a good idea and that reassigning pedophiles from one job to another was adequate treatment.
The RC gets singled out for special criticism not because it is any worse than, say, Eastern Orthodoxy, but because it claims exclusive access to God and divine sanction for its theological, political and social teachings.
Say what you will about TEC, but our “many paths” and “via media” rhetorical positions have a built-in humility–we’ve all trying to find the true and best way to serve God and interpret his Word, and we don’t dare claim to have it all figured out. That uncertainty drives reasserters nuts, but no TEC bishop ever burned anyone at the stake.
Sure, you can say that their statements were not spoken ex cathedra. But then seldom is anything at the time tagged ex cathedra. Theologians and later popes state it as such.
[i]The Church is holy not on account of the actions of its leaders, but because Christ established it. Those who have committed atrocities in the name of the Church will suffer the consequences for it, for their actions, and the scandal caused to unbelievers, but that does not change the nature of Catholic ecclesiology, nor cancel out Christ’s promise to his body.[/i]
Ahhh, the switching shell trick. For Romans the Church is NOT the Protestant “universal church, invisible, but stretches through time and history, made up of all Christians regardless of denomination.” No, we are told, it is the specific, visible Church, here and now. It IS the pope, the bishops, the cardinals. It is Peter’s See in Rome.
On the other hand, when the head of the organisation commands its followers to kidnap a Jewish boy, imprison him and convert him to catholicism (as it did in the 1920s) or burn people at the stake, or denounce claims of science, then, when it does these things, it is just a few followers and not the church itself doing them. Sorry folks, can’t have it both ways.
And, by the way, praxy, not just doxy, is grounds for destruction (fallibility) of a Church. Read Revelation.
#24 said, “Say what you will about TEC, but our “many paths†and “via media†rhetorical positions have a built-in humility–we’ve all trying to find the true and best way to serve God and interpret his Word,..”
Could you please explain this statement?
Analogy:
ENRON is not evil because it’s top brass bilked the customers and stole their funds. No, it is management that is evil, not the corporation.
Sure, Dan Ennis; but, putting aside the obvious fact that the law has never provided any TEC bishop with the authority to burn anybody at the stake, some TEC bishops have hounded mainstream believers out of the church and priests out of jobs in their dioceses, and some TEC bishops have blackballed graduates from certain seminaries, and, some TEC bishops have even launched lawsuits intended to financially devastate volunteer Vestry members and eject the rightful property owners from their parish. Best not to “go there” on what this crop of TEC bishops might have done in those times past when the Church and State enjoyed a closer relationship.
[i]Also, the Catholic Church has formally apologized for past atrocities, and save going back in time and doing things over, I don’t see what else we can do.[/i]
How about telling your followers that their conscience before God should not be sacrificed to the commands of the church?
Anything short of that just sets you up to do the same thing overagain.
Ahhh, the switching shell trick. For Romans the Church is NOT the Protestant “universal church, invisible, but stretches through time and history, made up of all Christians regardless of denomination.†No, we are told, it is the specific, visible Church, here and now. It IS the pope, the bishops, the cardinals. It is Peter’s See in Rome.
On the other hand, when the head of the organisation commands its followers to kidnap a Jewish boy, imprison him and convert him to catholicism (as it did in the 1920s) or burn people at the stake, or denounce claims of science, then, when it does these things, it is just a few followers and not the church itself doing them. Sorry folks, can’t have it both ways.
Justin, you didn’t read my post very carefully. My point was that Catholics believe the Church is holy because of Christ, period. I said nothing about an invisible church consisting of those who did what was right over the years. Yes, Catholics (like the Orthodox and the early Fathers) believe in a visible Church, but my point was that the sinful actions of its members, while bad, cannot take away the holiness, because it is on account of Christ, not human works. The Church’s claims and holiness do not rest upon its members actions, however horrific, although these actions can certainly create scandal and cause people to seriously doubt the claims. If a church’s message rested upon its leaders behaving perfectly, no church that ever existed could make any Truth claims.
Many of the posts above raise vaild points. However, in my experience, most of the Roman Catholics I’ve known and spoken to aren’t aware of the finer points of theology. All they know is that their church has definite moral teachings they can accept and live with. Abortion? Out of the quesion. Homosexuality? Forget it. Jesus Christ? The Son of God, the Savior of Mankind, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified, dead and buried, then rose again bodily on the third day.
They have a difficult time understanding how we can stay in a church that is on record denying all of those things and how no one speaks up for Christ. Especially in cases like this, when their bishops DO.
How about telling your followers that their conscience before God should not be sacrificed to the commands of the church?
Anything short of that just sets you up to do the same thing overagain.
Justin, I don’t have that much faith in the self and conscience. To me, doing so it is out of the frying pan and into the fire. Logically, setting up the conscience as final moral authority leads to just as much trouble as setting the Church up as final moral authority.
[blockquote]…no TEC bishop ever burned anyone at the stake.[/blockquote]Good thing you excluded CoE bishops from that statement.
And justinmartyr, I could say that REFUSING to “…sacrifice your conscience to the commands of the church…” has led to your having to talk about churches being snuffed. You also have not addressed Paul’s points.
Dr. Phan is one of several third-world theologians, along with Raimundo Panikkar (a native of India) and Jacques Dupruis (who ministered there), both Jesuits, who have written on theology of Christ and the world religions. All have been met with suspicion by the Holy Office. This condemnation by the American bishops, acting on orders from the Vatican (no surprise there), is but the latest. Those old guys in the Curia just can’t handle any fresh thinking about these matters: witness the trouble Dominican Eduard Schillebeeckx (Dominician) got into over his brilliant exposition of Christology forty years ago, or another Jesuit, American Roger Haight, more recently over his book “Jesus: Symbol of God.” As a Catholic priest friend said to my wife and me, “Anyone who thinks these days gets into trouble.” The Vatican sometimes forgets that theology is a human enterprise that calls for fresh reflection on revelation, not the regurgitation of dogma. That’s the kind of thing, fresh thinking, members of the Catholic Theological Society, an outstanding body of scholars, do. It is unfortunate that the Vatican can’t just let these ideas get tested in the theological marketplace, where the wheat and the chaff can get sorted out, instead of coming down hard on people.
The bishop who reported that ++Jefferts Schori holds the same views on Christ and the world religions that Vatican II set out in its constitutions, was being accurate. Unfortunately, anything ++KJS says gets inaccurately reported, if not twisted, and then is slammed by her critics. It is a shame that some could not resist bringing her into this discussion, but that is the way of the blogs.
I can see we are already getting into a “let’s see which church has the most checkered past” contest. That is what happens when you start connecting the personal holiness of leaders with the holiness and truthfulness of a church. All of our traditions are in trouble if we start this contest.
Usually when I get into a conversation like this online, I insist everyone involved share what church and tradition they are from, so that it is not just the Catholic Church’s past that is up for criticism. I think that is fair.
[i]the Catholic Church’s historical behavior[/i]
And interesting statement. There does seem to be a tendency to attribute all good in the Catholic Church to individual Catholics and all bad to the great bogeyman THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (deep voice, echo chamber effects).
And for heaven’s sake, if you people are going to run on about “pogroms”, please remember that word applies to Russia – i.e., to Orthodoxy, not Catholicism. I am sitting here trying to think of massacres of Jews in the west. True, the king and queen of Spain did exile Jews, and some probably were executed.
Justin – I suggest you re-check history. The Galileo affair is both more complicated and not nearly as sinister as protestants have pretended over the years. Also, that “kidnapped” boy, allegedly converted forcibly to the Catholic Faith: I suggest you read up on what actually happened, why it happened, and it’s outcome (the boy grew to become a man very happy to his life).
And if you place your conscience as the supreme arbiter of Truth, then you must answer as to how you can know that you worship Christ, and not a reflection of yourself that you call Christ. In other words, are you a Christian? Or a narcissist?
Dan Ennis: Your propagation of the Galileo and Reichkonkordat canards may dupe the uninformed (why not bring up the one about the evil Catholics burning the witches in Puritan New England in the 17th century, or worship of idols/Mary, etc?), but seriously…
The Truth will out.
Broad generalization alert: Most of the significant Catholic converts in recent history (Newman, Chesterton, Hahn, the recent Episcopal bishops, et al) converted because they believe they’ve found the Truth, while most who left the Church left because the music was bad, they didn’t believe a Church teaching or because of a human failing of a member of the clergy. The people are flawed, but the Church certainly isn’t.
Bob from Boone – the (conveniently) unnamed bishop was not accurate.
The Church teaches that Christ was the unique agent of mankind’s salvation and our only mediator before God, even in the case of other religious systems that may not recognize that fact. Mrs. Schori teaches that Christ is just one of many ways to God, in no way unique.
The Church teaches that God is eternal, ever-existing and ever the same, the Creator of heaven and earth. Mrs. Schori teaches that God is a construct of human experiences with one another.
As Bugs Bunny once said, it don’t add up.
Of course, those intent on turning the PGCCUSA into a relativistic mish-mash that is fully reflective of the thinking of the culture – for which a better roadmap than your first paragraph in #35 could hardly be written – while maintaining the financial base to keep the lights on in the interim, don’t like having Mrs. Schori’s more exotic meanderings publicized. That, too, is the way of the blogs.
Bzzzt!! Thanks for playing. The game ends at the first allusion to the Inquisition by somebody who does not want to use the name “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
Also, I wish to formally assert that anyone who says “theological marketplace” intending it to include laity and non-Christians does not believe in either a Faith Once Delivered or an Apostolic Succession that mean anything that need be conformed to.
If you want clarity of thought and gentleness in exposition regarding Jesus, you should try the main Old Guy in the Curia. He changed his name a couple of years ago, so you may have to look around.
#30 says, “How about telling your(Catholic) followers that their consciences before God should not be sacrificed to the commands of the church?”
Section 1790 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.”
Justinm, I’m afraid the Catholic Church has already beaten you to the punch.
Troubles in the church generally come from that “fresh thinking” that Bob from Boone applauds, and it comes from bending to the influence of the culture and the local political powers. If you check out JustinMartyr’s complaints, every one of them was pushed by the culture or by political expedient. Galileo was targeted by his fellow scientists, for example. Spain was involved in throwing out the Moors, and suspected the Jews of collaboration. Meanwhile, Catholics saved a tremendous number of Jews in Italy and the rest of Europe, while England and the U.S. turned them away during WWII. What is needed is not “fresh thinking” but always a return to first teachings, to scripture. The Catechism does a terrific job of scripture based teaching, and putting it in the hands of the laity means we all get to call the bishops down on their errors if the bishops are too slow to act. As long as humans form the church there will be mistakes made. Now TEC might have the right idea: remove the people and keep the properties, since properties don’t err….
“Section 1790 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, ‘A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.'” —Phil Swain
A teaching that would seem to offer an eloquent rebuke to commenters who believe “individual judgment” is the root of all ecclesiastical evil.
Phil- While your quote from the Catechism is correct, it leaves a misleading impression. The rest of that section states “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes eroneous judgements about acts to be performed or already committed.” Section 1792 goes on to state, in pertainent part, that “Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel…, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching…: these can be at the source of errors of judgement in moral conduct.”
In other words, for Catholics, we have a duty to inform our conscience in accordance with the Church’s teaching. A well-formed conscience, by definition, could not be in conflict with the Church’s teachings. Therefore, while our conscience is our guide, that guide is formed by Christ, acting through the Church.
Justin and Ireneas – As noted above, the Catholic idea of “conscience” appears to pertain to moral judgement with regard to specific situations/actions, not discerning theological ideas. Is that the sense in which you use the term?
#39, the bishop was Jon Bruno. And your description of ++JKS’s christology, on the basis of her statements I have read, is quite inaccurate.
No. 45 – B from B – I’d love to see evidence that Schori’s Christology is orthodox. Can you help me with documented statements/references? Thx.
Bob from Boone – Also can you show that her ecclesiology is orthodox qua catholic. Thx.
I think there is a heavy tendency in this discussion to confuse personal sin on the part of members and even leaders of a given church (even to the point of abusing authority) with corporate or institutional heresy on the part of the church itself. Both Protestants and Anglicans have committed atrocities in the name of their religions. This serves only as an indictment of the individuals giving the orders, not the church. Neither the Roman Catholic or Anglican Churches have issued any kind of dogmatic definition affirming the righteousness of these acts. You need to judge them on the basis of their doctrine and the broader picture of what they have produced (beyond the various sinful men that infect all churches).
When we look at the issues of doctrine clearly both are heretical. 🙂
[blockquote]I’m saying that where there are sinful actions (praxy) there is ALWAYS sinful theological bearings (doxy). Look back at the sinful popes and bishops of church history and you will find sinful theological justification for their actions. How is that confusing the two? [/blockquote]
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I apologize for not perceiving it initially. I agree with you 100%. However, I’d maintain that the bad praxy that followed the bad doxy was at odds with the Church’s definitive teaching, and therefore isn’t a strong argument against Church doctrine or dogma.
[blockquote]When we look at the issues of doctrine clearly both are heretical.[/blockquote]
man.. you Easterners LOVE your bomb-throwing, dontcha? 😉