I was preparing to post another installment of "Gleanings from the Catechism" over this past weekend and I was taken aback by something as I was reading the section on the Church's catholicity, specifically regarding her missionary mandate. The Catechism quotes from the Vatican II Decree, Ad Gentes, in Paragraph 3, of Article 9,
Having been divinely sent to the nations that she might be 'the universal sacrament of salvation,' the Church, in obedience to the command of her founder and because it is demanded by her own essential universality, strives to preach the gospel to all men (849).
Pondering this declaration the word "men" (people) stood out in my mind. As I proceeded through the rest of the paragraph another portion of Ad Gentes was quoted,
With regard to individuals, groups, and peoples it is only by degrees that [the Church] touches and penetrates them, and so receives them into a fullness which is Catholic.
There was something in these readings that was tugging on my heart, so I delved into the Encyclical Letter of Blessed John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio. In this Encyclical (48-49) is contained the following,
This is part of God's plan, for it pleases Him "to call human beings to share in His own life not merely as individuals, without any unifying bond between them, but rather to make them into a people in which His children, who had been widely scattered, might be gathered together in unity.
It was all there, everything we speak, hear, write, and read about here and elsewhere, groups, universality, gathering, unity, etc. However, the tug was still there. Then it hit me! The source of the blow was not my keen perception, but the fine post recently submitted by Mr. Ralph Johnston entitled, Why St. Mary of the Angels Matters. While reading this post, I was nothing less than sickened by the realization that, due to the decision made that prevented St. Mary of the Angels from being received into the Church, there were people, individual souls of God's creation and infinite love, who were scattered. The statement that I found particularly bothersome was, "Many faithful of the parish were received individually into mainstream Novus Ordo parishes, while others found other church homes including Orthodoxy." Praise God that the former are at least in Communion with the Vicar of Christ, but what of the latter folks? This was the subject of the tugging upon my heart: individuals! Anglicanorum Coetibus is literally a Godsend. Be that as it may, I submit to you that we may get caught up in the coetibus, the groups, and lose sight of the fact that it is the soli Anglicani, the individual Anglicans, that compose the groups. If not for the individual souls, the groups do not exist. We must minister to, and nurture these individuals. We must avoid at all costs falling into the trap of "broad-brushing" our approach toward the groups to the detriment of the singular personage.
In preparing for last Sunday's sermon, in a different context, I was taking pains to emphasize that in our Christian walk we must not lose sight of the fact that in addition to the communal aspect of our ecclesial life there also exists an equally important individual component, our positions on the "team" so to speak, using St. Paul's sports analogy in 1 Corinthians 9:24ff. Just as in that sermon, I want to bring to our minds that in the context of Anglicanorum Coetibus we must not lose sight of the particular souls involved. This being said, I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that we are, or have discounted this notion. I merely want to ensure that we don't lose sight of the specific people that we desire to bring into the fullness of the Faith, nor the "custom tailored" ministry that may be necessary in some cases. Let us continually be aware that each person approaches this matter of moving toward communion with Rome from a different perspective, e.g., personal background, theological understanding, current catechesis, etc. These differences in perspective raise significant challenges for the community. For example, there are those of us (I include myself in this group) who have for several years believed everything the Catholic Church believes. Consequently, the move to communion is merely the logical result of our beliefs. However, and I will speak for myself, the "baggage" I carry is when I am confronted with talk that I am a "convert." By dictionary definition conversion is change in belief. When I am received into the Catholic Church I will change nothing in terms of my belief. I will merely be where I belong given those beliefs. So, this talk of "conversion" may be a source of consternation for some. On the other end of the spectrum, there are many who have had to, or will have to change prior beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. These folks need a completely different approach than those formerly described. Given the variety of personalities involved we must ensure that we are prepared to work patiently and prayerfully with each and every member to guarantee the strength of the body.
Nothing I have stated here is new, but I believe it may be an issue hidden in plain sight. As we glory in the addition of groups to the cause, the adding of pins to the map, we must not lose sight of each person involved in these groups and pins. Just in the short time since the announcement of Anglicanorum Coetibus we have been witness to the span of interest in the Holy Father's historic endeavor toward Church unity, but let us realize that this is the interest of specific Anglican, Episcopalian, and now Lutheran men, women, and children who desperately need our individualized, personal nurture, love, and prayers.
Take heed that ye not despise one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven (Matt. 18:10).
No related posts.
Your point is beautifully made. I think it would behoove us to recognize that relationship is essential to the Church's anthropology. Cardinal Ratzinger, a personalist in his own right, points this out regarding an insufficiency in Augustine's anthropology. Where Augustine sees man as a unified image of the Trinity in the intellect, specifically in the psychology of knowledge, memory, and will. Ratzinger points out that Augustine could not see this image in the bodily relationship of the human person who is always from another, and for another. Here Ratzinger is keeping good company with Hans Urs von Balthasar and his insight of Being as Gift. This means, for anthropology, that a human person, though an individual, is always an individual who is already in a relationship, as a child. This reality is the root of our responsibility for shaping our destiny. That destiny as it is already being lived here in the present discloses the human person as an ecclesial being, made for worship in the communion of saints. We can see that we do not have to go very far to see Augustine's emphasis on Imago Dei more fully developed in this line of thought. The word "Image" entails relationship. We are, then, as others have put it, sons in the Son.
Thank God for Cardinal Newman, Vatican II and the teaching of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI who have opened these doors.
Fr. "Doc,"
You wrote: In preparing for last Sunday's sermon, in a different context, I was taking pains to emphasize that in our Christian walk we must not lose sight of the fact that in addition to the communal aspect of our ecclesial life there also exists an equally important individual component…
I believe that you are onto something very profound here. When Saint Theresa of Calcutta was first beginning her ministry that grew into a new religious order, a reporter asked her how she hoped to meet the needs so many destitute souls. She looked the reporter straight in the eye and, nodding toward a nearby sufferer, said, "I'm going to start with this one." The rest is history.
As Catholics, we have become very proficient at running "one size fits all" programs that too often leave many souls slipping through the cracks, frequently creating very difficult situations for those who don't fit neatly into one program or another. And when Pope Paul VI attempted to restore the catechumenate as a permanent entity in the Catholic Church with the introduction of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (actually a revision of the previous Rite of Baptism of Adults, Long Form, which had fallen into disuse centuries earlier), many of our pastors parlayed it into yet another program that turns seekers into baptized faithful in about seven or eight months, depending upon the date of Easter, not recognizing that some catecumens may be ready for the sacraments of initiation and some might not.
So your prophetic message needs to be heard loud and clear — and I really do mean within the Catholic Church!
And thank you for stating it so eloquently!
You said: Consequently, the move to communion is merely the logical result of our beliefs. However, and I will speak for myself, the "baggage" I carry is when I am confronted with talk that I am a "convert." By dictionary definition conversion is change in belief. When I am received into the Catholic Church I will change nothing in terms of my belief. I will merely be where I belong given those beliefs. So, this talk of "conversion" may be a source of consternation for some.
Yes, and well it should be a cause of consternation — and not only for those who are coming into the Catholic Church, but also for those who continue in the denominations and especially congregations from which they come. Such misuse of terms such as "convert" and "conversion" implies either that the Catholic church does not adhere to Christian faith or that the denomination from which they come does not adhere to Christian faith. The dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium promulgated by the Second Vatican Council infallibly contradicted both of these assertions. The consequent alienation of non-Catholic congregations does not exactly further the cause of ecumenism, either. Thus, I cringe whenever I encounter such misuse.
Norm.
A fav. quote from our Papa:
"…the relation between individual and community is a relation between one totality and another."
Source: Caritas in Veritate
Fr. Holiday said: Consequently, the move to communion is merely the logical result of our beliefs.
Once again, we are the victims of shifting terminology as a result of cultural differences and perhaps just simple wonts, I suppose.
As a cradle Catholic, I find the use of the term "communion" in this sense to be quite odd. While I certainly understand its intended meaning and take absolutely no offense/offence, it just sounds so "Protestant" to my ear since I usually associate the term with the ever-shifting alliances or communions between various Protestant denominations. When my eyes read "communion" on this blog, my mind's ear hears "unity with."
In this area, we are blessed with Catholic Churches of all stripes. Individual churches or parishes are routinely referred to as St. _____, oh, the Polish church, the Croatian church, the Italian, or German church. We even refer to Eastern Rite churches as simply the Byzantine church or Ukrainian church. The "Catholic" part of the name is implied. (Perhaps one day, we'll see local Anglican churches. Yes, yes, I know this means something very, very different to others.) The point is, we will all be Catholic together as Christ intended.
Fr. Holiday said: However, and I will speak for myself, the "baggage" I carry is when I am confronted with talk that I am a "convert."
As part of my parish's RCIA instructor team, we are taught to never use the word "convert." It's not the church's proper term for Christians being "received into" the church, yet everyone in our class routinely refers to themselves or their spouses as converts. In the US, I'm not sure we'll ever overcome this, just as it's unlikely we'll ever overcome our habit of referring to ourselves as Roman Catholics, understanding that that term has no official meaning in the Church.
These idiosyncrasies are but small pebbles on the path to unity. Perhaps they are the little bit of patrimony we each contribute to the adornment of Christ's bride.
May God continue to bless all of you on the final steps of your quest. Your journey, perseverance, and virtue are an inspiration to all of us on this side of the Tiber and you are constantly in our prayers.
A Catholic in Pittsburgh,
You wrote: As a cradle Catholic, I find the use of the term "communion" in this sense to be quite odd. While I certainly understand its intended meaning and take absolutely no offense/offence, it just sounds so "Protestant" to my ear since I usually associate the term with the ever-shifting alliances or communions between various Protestant denominations. When my eyes read "communion" on this blog, my mind's ear hears "unity with."
Unfortunately, this is a case of pastors failing to teach the right way to the people in the pews for about forty years. As part of the liturgical reforms after the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI promulgated the Order of Reception of Baptized Christians into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church for reception of individuals baptized in other denominations. This order of worship was published both in an appendix in the volume containing the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults and in a separate booklet in the very early 1970's (IIRC, my copy of the separate booklet has a copyright date of 1972).
Going back even further, in the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium on the church, which is intrinsically infallible, the Second Vatican Council stated that there is an imperfect communion among all Christian denominations based on what we have in common. This document is nearly fifty years old.
You wrote: As part of my parish's RCIA instructor team, we are taught to never use the word "convert." It's not the church's proper term for Christians being "received into" the church, yet everyone in our class routinely refers to themselves or their spouses as converts.
Argh! "Fr. Clueless" strikes again, apparently in the person of your pastor!!!
The General Instructions to both the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) and the Order of Reception of Baptized Christians into the Full Communion of the Catholic Church state quite clearly that those baptized in other denominations who are coming into full communion do not belong in the RICA. Rather, the latter stipulates that they are to receive individual instruction tailored to their circumstances and their previous formation. Only those who come from either unbelief or non-Christian faith, who really are converts and thus are correctly called converts, belong in the RCIA. Further, the same general instructions very strongly imply that the reception of baptized Christians into the full communion of the Catholic Church also should NOT occur at the Easter Vigil.
And yes, I'm aware that the bound volume containing the RCIA has an appendix of combined rites for baptism of converts and reception of candidates into the full communion of the Catholic Church, but I'm also well aware of the title of that appendix — "Combined Rites for Use in Exceptional Circumstances." It's fairly safe to assume that the Congregation for Divine Worship, its consultors who drafted the revised rites, and the pope who approved and promulgated the revised rites cleary envisioned their use in a normal parish setting to be normative, and thus that the "exceptional circumstances" to which the title of the appendix refers are not what exist in a typical parish.
You wrote: … just as it's unlikely we'll ever overcome our habit of referring to ourselves as Roman Catholics, understanding that that term has no official meaning in the Church.
Actually, the term "Roman Catholic" does have an official meaning. It means that an individual, a parish, a religious order, or some other entity to which it refers is part of the Roman Rite within the Catholic Church, as distinct from one or another of the sui juris ritual churches of various non-Roman rites.
Correctly, I am a Roman Catholic whereas my bridge partner's daughter-in-law is a Ukrainian Catholic.
Norm.
Thank you, Norm. Excellent points.
My sole reason for posting to this wonderful blog is to simply present the Catholic-laymen-in-the-pew perspective of all that's going on. (That reason, incidentally, is why I post under this name rather than David. I'm not seeking anonymity.)
I found this blog while searching for a source of up-to-date information on the emerging ordinariates. While it serves that purpose wonderfully, it has also become a great tool for me to learn about all of you and your journeys but also my own faith. (Thank you to Mr. Campbell and all of the regular contributor who do a fantastic and sometimes thankless job.)
While we each must continually strive for perfection in the divine nature of the Church, we must also learn to function within the human nature of the Church, as imperfect as it is. Unless I'm the only layman reading this blog, I think it's important that the well-educated, regular posters understand the language of the laymen, however inaccurate it may be.
I'd like to point to an example of unclear terminology in my own post above. When I, as a laymen, say RCIA, I am not referring to the actual rite itself. It seems to be pretty typical in this part of the US for the acronym RCIA to be used as a generic name for any education offered to support candidates and catechumens preparing for the rite as well as the actual ceremonial rites. In our parish, even ordinary parishioners sometimes join the weekly classes as a form adult faith formation. As we sometimes have new folks join the program well beyond its formal beginning in the fall, our pastor and pastoral associate determine the status and required participation of each individual. This year, there is only one unbaptized individual who can rightly be called a convert, though as I said, everyone else seems to call themselves a convert or future convert.
I appreciate your point about who belongs in "RCIA", but in a parish of approximately 8,000 with a single priest, it is sometimes necessary for the extraordinary to become routine, as unfortunate as that may be. A typical 11:00 a.m. Sunday Mass congregation of over 1,000 all but forces us to use about 20 Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to prevent distribution taking longer than the Mass itself. Are these examples of the Church's original intention, no. But they are examples of the realities we face as a growing, orthodox Catholic church under the leadership of a single pastor.
(FWIW, sorry for my error in referring to the term Roman Catholic. I meant to make the point about the term Roman Catholic Church. A point I learned from this blog!)
Keep up the great work, everyone. You're always in my prayers. (It's just the bun fight, coney proper, heraldic, Most Rev/Rev, and other terminology I struggle with.)
David
David,
You wrote: My sole reason for posting to this wonderful blog is to simply present the Catholic-laymen-in-the-pew perspective of all that's going on. (That reason, incidentally, is why I post under this name rather than David. I'm not seeking anonymity.)
The perspective of the typical "layman in the pew" is certainly one with which we all must deal. I'm also a "layman in the pew" — but not exactly typical. Seeking to nurture my own faith, I started taking courses in theology, with a heavy concentration in liturgy and sacraments, though a summer study program offered by a school of theology and national seminary operated by a Benedictine community over two and a half decades ago and stumbled into a master's degree. At the time, I explained to those around me that, since I'm not in ministry as a profession, the practical significance of the degree is that I can now take courses from the same school for half the usual tuition, so long as I don't want to apply them toward another degree from that institution.
BTW, my own "handle" is one that I use on other web sites, but it also seems particularly appropriate on this board for reasons that undoubtedly are quite obvious to anybody who has bothered to open up a bible to look up Revelation 22:17 — a verse of scripture that has long spoken to me about our mission as Christians.
You wrote: I'd like to point to an example of unclear terminology in my own post above. When I, as a laymen, say RCIA, I am not referring to the actual rite itself. It seems to be pretty typical in this part of the US for the acronym RCIA to be used as a generic name for any education offered to support candidates and catechumens preparing for the rite as well as the actual ceremonial rites. In our parish, even ordinary parishioners sometimes join the weekly classes as a form adult faith formation. As we sometimes have new folks join the program well beyond its formal beginning in the fall, our pastor and pastoral associate determine the status and required participation of each individual. This year, there is only one unbaptized individual who can rightly be called a convert, though as I said, everyone else seems to call themselves a convert or future convert.
Yes, I'm painfully aware, and deeply saddened, that you are describing what acually "goes down" in a lot of parishes. Unfortunately, it is completely disobedient to the norms that Pope Paul VI issued in the General Instructions of both the Order of Reception of Baptized Christians into Full Communion of the Catholic Church and the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, which no subsequent pope has rescinded, and, quite foreseeably, it also has very serious adverse consequences for ecumenism and thus needs to cease. I can't change what clueless pastors are doing, but I can at least try raise the awareness of those around me as to what is right.
You wrote: I appreciate your point about who belongs in "RCIA", but in a parish of approximately 8,000 with a single priest, it is sometimes necessary for the extraordinary to become routine, as unfortunate as that may be. A typical 11:00 a.m. Sunday Mass congregation of over 1,000 all but forces us to use about 20 Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to prevent distribution taking longer than the Mass itself. Are these examples of the Church's original intention, no. But they are examples of the realities we face as a growing, orthodox Catholic church under the leadership of a single pastor.
Here, the critical distinction is between that which is extraordinary (done out of necessity even in a parish) and that which is exceptional (not intended for use under normal conditions). In 1978, when Pope John Paul II first authorized use of extraodrinary ministers, the approval stated clearly that extraordinary ministers could be used at masses with moderately large congregations to prevent the distribution of communion from being unduly protracted. IIRC, it was in the following year that the bishops of the United States proposed using extraordinary ministers to permit distribution of communion under both forms at Sunday and holy day masses, which often have large congregations. Caught off guard, the Vatican considered the proposal and granted approval thereof in 1983.
But there's no way that the distribution of communion can ever take longer than the mass itself because the distribution of communion now occurs during the mass. In the days of the Tridentine liturgy, many parishes had only the principal celebrant and the altar servers receive communion during mass, then distributed communion to the laity after the mass concluded, but that practice is no longer approved.
Norm.
I am reminded of the Pastoral Associate (a lay title; not to be confused with Associate Pastor) who administered RCIA in a parish that I formerly attended. By way of listing his accomplishments, he ticked off a long catalogue of faith traditions from which his RCIA particpants had come. Along with the expected list of various nonbelievers and protestant denominations, he claimed some fallen-away Catholics and even one Greek Orthodox! Surely, I argued, he realizes that the Catholics and the Orthodox are not just baptized Christians, but are Confirmed members of the true Apostolic Church! All that is required is for them to go to confession (and in the case of the Orthodox to express their desire for union, profess their acceptance of the Pope and the Magisterium, and be recorded in the register).
I did acknowledge that some remedial instruction might be in order for some candidates, but he proudly declared that he requires ALL catechumens (sic) to embrace the fullness of RCIA, including, most significantly for him, the "dismissal" (i.e. the exclusion of the RCIA particpants from the second part of the Mass to attend sessions of "breaking open the Word.")
Thereafter I made it my practice to sit in on some of the RCIA instructional classes on Wednesday evenings. But I never did attend a "dismissal," which was not considered a public event.
I think a lot of us would be shocked at what goes on in RCIA in some places.
I am sure there are also many parishes that do it correctly. I know that the practices of this particular parish were later reformed by a faithful successor pastor.
Fr. Doc: Beautifully put. Your thought about 'convert' put into words better that I could, just how I've felt about the term when applied to my 'coming home.' Well said. God bless you.
Thank you, Fr. Doc, for putting into writing the one issue that has been bothering me. I do not consider myself a "convert"; I am follwing a 50 plus year old path that was set out for me when I attended an Anglo-Catholic convent boading school in high school.