Over at Called to Confusion, Sean Patrick comes up with this gem:
Where is the Catholic Church?
If you are curious then I might first suggest that you try this exercise:
If you live in a small town, go to the corner store on the main street and ask the first people you meet, ‘Where is the Catholic Church?’
If you live in a big city, go downtown and ask the first people you meet, ‘Where is the Catholic Church?’
If you live in Singapore, go to the nearest market and ask the first people you meet, ‘Where is the Catholic Church?’
If you live in Nigeria, go to town and ask the first people you meet, “Where is the Catholic Church?’
In each scenario I am willing to wager that the vast majority of the people asked this question will give you directions to the nearest church. But not just any church. You will be given directions to a church which is pastored by a priest who has been entrusted by a bishop to celebrate the sacraments. And this bishop will be in communion with the bishop of Rome, Benedict the 16th.
I recently tested this theory. I work in Houston, TX in an office complex that is 40 stories high. I stood in the lobby for a few minutes and asked several passers-by if they knew where the Catholic Church is located. I asked ten people in the span of ten minutes. Two people said, ‘I do not know, sorry.’ The rest of them gave me rough directions to either St. Anne’s Catholic Church or St. Michael’s Catholic Church. Both parishes are about equidistant from the office. Both St. Anne’s and St. Michael’s are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If I were to leave the office and follow the directions I was given I would pass at least a half dozen other churches but those churches were not identified as the ‘Catholic Church’ by any person that I asked. If I stood there all day and asked one hundred people the same question, I would be shocked if anybody pointed me to a church that is not in communion with the bishop of Rome.
You can also examine the question this way:
Go outside and go to your neighbor’s house. Knock on the door. Ask your neighbor what church they attend. If they attend a church then ask, ‘Which one?’ After they tell you which one ask, “Is that a Catholic Church?” If they answer in the affirmative then I would be willing to wager that the church in question will be a church pastored by a priest who is in communion with the bishop of Rome. If they say, ‘No, it is not a Catholic Church’ then I am willing to bet that their church will not be pastored by a priest who is in communion with the bishop of Rome.
What is my point? My point is that when it comes to the question, Where is the Catholic Church?: “Securus judicat orbis terrarum” or “The verdict of the world is conclusive.” – St. Augustine (Contra Epist. Parmen. III.24)
Even for Sean, this scales new heights of dizzy brilliance.
Or not. In popular parlance, “the Catholic church” is a name-brand for a particular denomination. As such, if you ask somebody in a small town “Where’s the Catholic church?” they will point you to a church that belongs to that denomination (assuming it has a Catholic church).
(Keep in mind that there are no capital letters in speech.)
It’s no different than if you asked, “Where’s the Baptist church?” I’d “wager” that they’ll direct you, not to just any ol’ church, but to a (gasp!) Baptist church! That’s right–a church pastured by a (gasp!) Baptist minister!
Is that dumb luck? No. Not if you repeat the “test.” Happens every time! Clearly there’s something uncanny afoot.
Same thing in a big city. If you flew into Houston, got off the plane, and asked somebody in the terminal, “Where’s the Catholic Church?” they’d say, “Which one?”
Likewise, if you asked them, “Where’s the Baptist church?” they’d say, “Which one?”
Will miracles never cease!
How does a post like that even get past their “Editor in Chief” or their “Academic Editor(s)”?
I often wonder what Sean’s contribution is to CTC is supposed to be. It can’t be the intellectual gravitas.
Does he provide a human shield to cover their retreat? Is that it? When Bryan senses that the argument is going badly for him over at Green Baggins, does he whistle; Sean comes bounding up, all frisky and eager-to-please, Bryan points him to the pesky Prots; says, "Go get 'em, boy!" then–as the fur flies–Bryan makes his escape with his reputation roughly intact? That’s how things seem to time.
That is an amazingly dumb article for Sean Patrick to have written. Maybe he's playing for the "I have special needs" sympathy card.
ReplyDeleteApparently it's so dumb that I literally do not get what the conclusion he's trying to "argue" for is.
ReplyDeleteAll analogies break down at some point, but sheesh...that one was still-born.
ReplyDeleteThat's embarrassing even by CTC's standards.
DBT: "Only we Romanists can claim catholicity, you silly schismatics. Just ask people where the nearest catholic church is and they'll invariably point you to a Roman Catholic congregation in full communion with the Pope! Case closed!"
ReplyDeleteAs Steve points out, there is no punctuation or capitalization in the spoken word. D'oh!
Guess I'm off to Home Sweet Rome. Thank you, Sean Patrick, for opening my blind eyes!
At the risk of piling-on, I'd bet that if you asked where the Burger King was, people would point you to the Burger King, and not to the McDonalds. I'd put that to the test, but it's cold enough to make me wonder whether I'm being tested like Job.
ReplyDeleteKidding (sort of).
Don't be ridiculous, Chris H. They'd point you to the Burger King and not to Mickey D's because, plainly, ONLY Burger King has the right to call itself a purveyor of hamburgers. C'mon, it's right there in the name: BURGER. KING. You lose, sucka! Game, set, match!
ReplyDeleteIf I recall correctly, Rin Tin Tin was a good and helpful dog. He might have even been trained not to crap all over the place.
ReplyDeleteHey guys,
ReplyDeleteI don't see much difference between Sean's point in this post, and Augustine's point (cited by Sean) in Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397). Both individual's are pointing out that "the name itself of Catholic" distinguishes the local Catholic Church from the houses and chapels of heretics.
Obviously, this nominal test of catholicity does not, by itself, suffice to distinguish the actual Catholic Church from pretenders. It is conceivable that some day Protestant communities, in addition to saying that they believe in one catholic church with diminutive letters and an asterisk, will actually put the name "Catholic" on their road signs. A few dozen local Protestant churches already do this, but that fact has yet to create a change in the common speech.
Until that change comes, Augustine's point will remain of some practical benefit, and this benefit will continue to provide some limited but palpable support for the doctrinal claim that the location of the Church that we confess in the creeds is not hidden in a corner of the mind.
I really do not know what to make of the title and related comments. As I have indicated, this particular post at CTC is right in line with St. Augustine. So, those of us who think that there is something to it are in pretty good company.
"a few dozen local Protestant churches already do this"
ReplyDeleteI mean, one Protestant denomination, the "Anglican Catholic Church," which has a few dozen parishes and missions in the US.
Andrew wrote,
ReplyDeleteI don't see much difference between Sean's point in this post, and Augustine's point (cited by Sean) in Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397). Both individual's are pointing out that "the name itself of Catholic" distinguishes the local Catholic Church from the houses and chapels of heretics.
Regarding Augustine's “Against the Epistle of the Manichaeus, called Fundamental” (4.5) we can note many differences between what Sean says and what Augustine does. Augustine offers four reasons to stay in what he terms the “Catholic” church. They are, 1. “The consent of peoples and nations..., “2. ...”her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age..., “3. “The succession of priests … beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter...down to the present episcopate.,”, and 4. “lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained”
So the first observation is that Sean has seized upon the least important item in Augustine's list and made it the sole basis for his conclusion.
The second observation, regarding Augustine's first point, is that Augustine's use of the language “consent of the peoples and nations” is clearly a reference to Nicene orthodoxy which was made the official religion of the empire. This however, was not done at Rome and was not done by a “Pope”. So the “Catholic” church that Augustine refers to was not the “Roman Catholic” church which has garnered Sean's affections. (Also, Augustine's rebellion against “Pope” Zosimus in the Pelagian controversy should lay to rest any idea of Augustine's allegiance abiding in Rome, per se.)
The third observation from A's second point is that Augustine was simply drawing a sharp contrast against the Manichaeans. The reference to miracles denies the evil of the material world required by Mani and his followers; the mention of hope is a shot at the fatalism requisite in Manichaeanism; “enlarged by love” may well be references to that theme in the Christian Gospels not found in the “Fundamental Epistle”, and “established by age” is a swipe at the fact that Mani was born 200 years after Christ.
Lastly, the “succession of priests” leads to Augustine's episcopate in union with all the other bishops of the empire, not solely to the Roman episcopate. Which is very different from the idea that Sean inevitably holds.
More will have to wait.
Peace.
ANDREW PRESLAR SAID:
ReplyDelete"I don't see much difference between Sean's point in this post, and Augustine's point (cited by Sean) in Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397). Both individual's are pointing out that 'the name itself of Catholic' distinguishes the local Catholic Church from the houses and chapels of heretics. Obviously, this nominal test of catholicity does not, by itself, suffice to distinguish the actual Catholic Church from pretenders. It is conceivable that some day Protestant communities, in addition to saying that they believe in one catholic church with diminutive letters and an asterisk, will actually put the name 'Catholic' on their road signs.
His argument involved an alleged contrast between the "Catholic" church and Protestant churches–whereby you get different results if you ask for directions. And, as I point out, his alleged contrast is nonsensical.
Last year, I wrote a series of posts in which I documented some contradictions between Augustine's concept of the church and the Roman Catholic concept. I quoted the Roman Catholic patristic scholar Robert Eno at length. See here.
ReplyDeleteThe term "catholic" isn't used commonly today, at least in the United States. If you ask people a question that uses more common terminology, such as "Where is the church?" or "Where is the Christian church?" or "Where is Christianity?", I doubt they'll limit their answer to Roman Catholic churches. They'll point you to a wide variety of congregations and denominations.
Many Catholics describe themselves or each other as "orthodox." Clearly this is neither intended by the speaker/ writer, nor understood by the listener/ hearer, as meaning that these Catholic reject the Papacy, Humanae Vitae, the Assumption of Mary, clerical celibacy, or the doctrine of original sin. Nor does it mean that these Catholics secretly believe they should seek to be re-admitted to full communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.
ReplyDelete