Carl E. Olson's Blog, page 163

Church Authority and the Petrine Element

Church Authority and the Petrine Element | by Hans
Urs von Balthasar




From In
The Fullness of Faith: On the Centrality of the Distinctively Catholic



Nothing is plainer, nothing is more evident, than that in the Catholic realm
the authority exercised in the Church of the Word and Sacrament is both
form and content. Indeed, it can only be "form" (the exercise of full official
authority) because simultaneously it is "content" (Christ's authority, which
comes from his Father, which he bequeaths to his disciples in clear words).
Similarly, it can only be "content" (the proclaimed gospel) because at the
same time it is the "form" of the Church, which authoritatively proclaims
it.



Were this not the case, there would be an alienating gulf between the proclaimed
content (Jesus Christ's message and the message concerning Jesus Christ)
and the proclaiming Church.




Either it would mean that what is proclaimed (redemption through the Son's
perfect obedience unto death on the cross) is a historical, objectivized,
archaeological fact people can "hold to be true" without inwardly participating
in it, such that- his obedience long ago makes us "free Christian men"
today. Or it means that we imagine ourselves (in a Pietistic sense) to
be sharing directly in the event of the cross, and so reduce the primal
act of Christian obedience to the miniscule proportions of an anthropological
"honesty" that "does justice to the facts".



Church authority, the obedient exercise of the fullness of power imparted
by Jesus Christ and handed on by the Apostles (cf. the Pastoral Epistles),
preserves the necessary distance in order to join us to Christ's work
in a valid way.



Thus we do not imagine ourselves to coincide with Christ and his redemptive
act, but all the same we are those who obey with his obedience and thus
are followers of him. Obeying within the Church, we preserve the servant's
distance from the Lord of the Church, and at the same time the Lord calls
us "not servants, but friends", because we have been initiated into the
mystery of his loving obedience, which is the key to all the mysteries
of God in Heaven and on earth.



When we confess our sins, we obediently submit to the fullness of power
he has imparted to the Church, which, for her part, responds in pure obedience
to his command to loose and bind. The two interact, with the result that
we not only participate in the continuing influence of the cross but are
drawn into the primal obedience of Jesus' Catholic, all-embracing confession
of sin on the cross and the Catholic, all-embracing absolution of Easter.



This is not blind obedience. As believers we know about the meaning and
fruitfulness of the Lord's obedience, we know about his handing on of
full authority and about its uninterrupted exercise down through the centuries.
A person who believes in the fullness of Christ's power sees no problem
in his handing it on. Indeed, the presence of this fullness of power in
today's Church will be a guarantee to him of his Lord's living presence,
even if he does not hear the echo, in the eternal realm, of what is done
on earth with this full authority, and so remains one who "obeys" in the
strict sense.



The Petrine Element



Notwithstanding all the problems connected with the papacy throughout
the history of the Church, two things speak in favor of its recognition
within the Communio Sanctorum and its apostolicity.



In the first place (and we have already touched upon this) the Petrine
element is taken for granted, so to speak, right at the beginning, in
the Petrine texts of the New Testament. And of these the most impressive
is not the passage in Matthew but rather the overpowering apotheosis of
Peter at the end of John's Gospel of love, which begins with the choosing
of Peter in the first chapter and contains, at its center, the Apostle's
great confession of faith in the Lord.



The Lukan text, in which Peter is commissioned to strengthen his brethren,
is no less striking than the passage in Matthew. Then there are the very
many other places in Gospels, letters, and in the Acts of the Apostles.
How can anyone who claims to adhere to the Word-the Word alone-fail to
be profoundly struck by these texts?



In addition there is the fact that, since the first and second centuries,
an undisputed primacy of the Apostolic See has been attributed to the
Bishop of the Roman community. Rome had no need to demand to be recognized;
rather, it was unquestioningly acknowledged, as we can see from the Letter
of Clement, the Letter of Ignatius, from Irenaeus, from the sober Admonition
to Pope Victor, etc. The principle of primacy had long been established
by the time Rome allegedly began to put forward exaggerated claims when
starting to develop its own theology of primacy. There can be many differing
views as to when these increasing claims began to be unevangelical and
intolerable within the context of the Church–in the fourth or ninth
or twelfth century–but the "unhappy fact" had already taken place.




One can only try to restore an internal balance within the Church, as
the Second Vatican Council saw its task to be; it is impossible to abolish
the principle without truncating the gospel itself.



The second argument for the Petrine principle is the qualitative difference
between the unity of life and doctrine within the "Roman" Catholic Church
and the unity that exists within all other, Christian communions. For,
if we begin with the Orthodox, no- ecumenical council has been able to
unite them since their separation from Rome. And if we turn to the innumerable
ecclesial communities that arose from the Reformation and subsequently,
even though they are members of the World Council of Churches, they have
scarcely managed to get any further than a "convergence" toward unity.
And this unity, as we see ever more clearly, remains an eschatological
ideal. Christ, however, wanted more for his Church than this.



If we look only from the outside, the Petrine principle is the sole or
the decisive principle of unity in the Catholica. Above it is the principle
of the pneumatic and eucharistic Christ and his everliving presence through
the apostolic element, i.e., sacramental office, fully empowered to make
Christ present, and tradition, actualizing what is testified to in Scripture.




Above it, too, is the Sanctorum Communio, the Ecclesia immaculata,
concretely symbolized by the Lord's handmaid who utters her Fiat.
But these deeper principles could not exercise their unity-creating power
right to the end without the external reference of the Roman bishop. And
the more worldwide the Church becomes the more threatened she is in the
modern states with their fascism of the right and of the left, the more
she is called upon to incarnate herself in the most diverse, non-Mediterranean
cultures, and the wider theological and episcopal pluralism she contains,
the more indispensable this reference-point becomes. Anyone who denies
this is either a fanatic or an irrational sentimentalist.













Hans
Urs von Balthasar (1905-88) was a Swiss theologian, considered to one
of the most important Catholic intellectuals and writers of the twentieth
century. 2005 marks the centennial celebration of his birth.



Incredibly prolific and diverse, he wrote over one hundred books and hundreds
of articles. Read more about his life and work in
the Author's Pages section of IgnatiusInsight.com.

St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome

St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome | Stephen K. Ray | From
Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church




There is little in
the history of the Church that has been more heatedly contested than the
primacy of Peter and the See of Rome. History is replete with examples of
authority spurned, and the history of the Church is no different. As we proceed
with this overview of history, we will allow the Scriptures, the voice of the


apostles, and the testimony of the early centuries of the Christian community
to speak for themselves. In many quarters, over the last few centuries, the din
of opposition and uninformed dissent has drowned out the voices of these
ancient witnesses. Novel ideas, like a voracious flood, have tried to erode the
foundations and the clear historical precedents provided by the Holy Spirit's
work in the primitive Church.



History has a clear and distinct voice, but it does not force itself upon us
uninvited. History is prudent and waits quietly to be discovered. Conversely,
the ingenious inventions of recent theologians and innovators are loud and
demanding, bursting upon our ears and minds, our lives and hearts, demanding
our immediate attention and loyalties. The riches of history fall quietly aside
as the prattling innovators blast their trumpets and loudly parade their
followers through new streets, trampling the knowledge of the ages under their
cumulative feet.



Here we will allow the voices of the past to speak again--for themselves. And
what the reader will find is that the utterances of the past still resound with
one voice, with clarity and force. To study those who have gone before us, following
in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus, his apostles, and our Fathers in the faith
is to lose interest in much of the clamor of modern notions. We find these
theological innovations and ecclesiastical groups poorly devised, if not
disingenuous. This is what John Henry Newman, a Protestant clergyman at the
time, found as he studied the primitive Church. He concluded: "To be deep
in history is to cease being a Protestant." [1] As the Protestant churches
continue to fragment and lose the fervor and orthodoxy of their past reform
efforts, many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are looking to the past to hear
what the early Fathers have to say today. They are beginning to listen to the
unobtrusive voice of the early Church, and they are finding it is quite different
from what they have been taught. Reading the writings of the early Church
allows us to tap into the very heartbeat of the apostolic teaching and
tradition of the primitive Church--the very Church bequeathed to us by the
apostles.



Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in
Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant
role in our research. William Webster has written a book that we will refer to
several times in our study. Webster is an ex-Catholic who decided to abandon
the Church and cast his lot with the Fundamentalist Protestants. His book is
entitled Peter and the Rock and
asserts that, as the blurb on the back of the book says, "The contemporary
Roman Catholic interpretation [of Peter and the rock] had no place in the
biblical understanding of the early church doctors." To ascertain whether
or not such an assertion is true is one of the main goals of this book. But
along with what the Fathers say,
we need to hear their silence as well.


While reading Webster's book, I noticed, along with his selective use of the
Fathers in attempting to discredit the Catholic Church's teaching on the
Papacy, that there are no citations "revealed" in his book in which a
Christian, especially a Church Father, explicitly denies the Petrine primacy or
the Petrine succession. Webster collects a large number of passages that are
supposed to prove that the Fathers oppose Catholic teaching, yet never is there
a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. This
is a silence that speaks volumes! We may
find differing interpretations of Peter's primacy, which is what we should
expect, according to John Henry Newman, yet we find no denial of that primacy.



I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who
denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster's response was
very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book.
His return E-mail stated, "No father denies that Peter had a primacy or
that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted
those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later
centuries that primacy and succession were 'exclusively' related to the bishops
of Rome." [2] What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary
truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement
with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome's
primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work
out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy.



The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert
or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving
from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in
Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster
freely admits, this refutation never occurred. Irenaeus may challenge the
appropriateness of a decision made by Victor, but he never challenges Victor's
authority to make the binding decision. Cyprian may at times disagree with a
decree of Stephen's on baptism, but he never rejects the special place of the
Roman See, which would have been the easiest means of winning the debate. The
bishop of Rome was unique in assuming the authority and obligation to oversee
the Churches. Clement and Ignatius make this clear from the first century and
the beginning of the second. If the authority exercised had been illegitimate,
or wrongly arrogated, it would have been an act of overzealousness at one end
of the spectrum, of tyranny at the other. Yet no one ever stood up and said,
"No, you have no authority. Who are you to order us, to teach us, to
require obedience from us, to excommunicate us?" If the jurisdictional
primacy of Rome had been a matter of self-aggrandizement, someone would have
opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church. The
silence is profound.



As doctrines develop, as authority develops, as even a family or society
develops, there is discussion relating to authority and its exercise. Amazingly
enough, this is also true for the canon of the New Testament, which was not
finally collected and codified for almost four hundred years after the death of
Christ. Does the fact that there were various interpretations of what the New
Testament was, or which books it contained--a discussion, by the way, that
raised its head again in the teaching of Martin Luther--in any way prove that
somehow the New Testament held by the Protestant is uncertain or in doubt
because there were various applications or perceptions of that canon in the
early years? The faithful Christian may have believed various things about the
canon, but he never denied that the Scriptures held a special place. He may
have clung to a different collection of books, yet he always understood that
there were "apostolic" books. In the same way, early Fathers, especially
Eastern Fathers, may have defined the primacy of Peter and the supremacy of his
successors in nuanced ways, yet they never denied that the primacy or authority
was attached to Peter and his See in Rome.



Authority has always been an object of distrust and, very often, defiance. The
nation of Israel refused to hear authority: they rejected the authority of the
prophets [3] and rejected their Messiah sent by the Father. [4] The apostles
themselves were abused and rejected. [5] Should it surprise us that many in our
present day reject and demean the unifying authority God has ordained in his
Church? In the primitive Church, as we learn from St. Irenaeus, the greatest
theologian of the second century, many groups splintered off from the apostolic
Church and "assembled in unauthorized meetings". [6] Rejecting the
Church and spurning her shepherd is nothing new to our day.



Christians of many traditions are currently espousing recent Protestant
traditions and modern schisms; yet they all claim the early Church as their own--asserting
that they are the rightful heirs to the teachings of our Lord, the apostles,
and the Fathers of the apostolic Church. Are they? Do they have a legitimate
claim to the theology of the early Church? Was the early Church essentially
"Protestant" in her theology and polity, or was she Catholic?



Much of the distinctive character of the Church through the centuries has been
based on the teaching concerning Peter and his place within the apostolic
company and in the Church. Was he chosen for a special position? Did Jesus
separate Peter out from the Twelve? Did Peter have authority over the body of
Christ, the one sheepfold? Was the position of bishop carried on by his
successors? How did the first generations of Christians relate to Peter? These
are questions we will try to answer as we proceed with this study.



Holy Scripture must be interpreted, since it is not laid out simply in the form
of a Church manual or textbook. One principle of proper interpretation involves
studying a topic or passage within its context, both the immediate context and
the context of the whole Bible. If this is neglected or done poorly, a plethora
of problems arises. Historical context must also be taken into account.



In studying Peter and the subject of primacy, it is especially important to
consider who or what makes up the foundation of the Church. The many facets of
the Church are like the multiple surfaces of a diamond glistening in the
sunlight. These facets are written about from different angles, and the
metaphors used--foundations, builders, stones, and so on--are as varied as the
gem's surfaces. In grammar school we learn not to mix metaphors. Mixing
metaphors makes clear communication difficult and can lead to
misunderstandings. This confusion of context is especially pronounced in much
of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant understanding of the
foundation of the Church. However, even George Salmon, no friend to Catholic
teaching (in fact he has proven himself a hero to many opposed to the Catholic
Church and wrote The Infallibility of the Church to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church),
understood the need to understand properly the metaphors used in Scripture. I
provide an extended quotation from Salmon's book to lay the foundation (pun
intended) for understanding the biblical and patristic references to Peter and
the foundation of the Church.

It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation
[of the Church]: "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which
is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor
may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances,
may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only
foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):--"Ye are built upon the
foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner-stone." And in like manner we read (Rev 21:14) :--"The wall of
the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles
of the Lamb." How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ,
and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly because the
metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation,
from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity
and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the
same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom
it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom
God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who
were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on
whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony
that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly
speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like
manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, "for one is
our Father which is in heaven." And yet, in another sense, Paul did not
scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in
the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and
that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter's also being, in a
different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the
Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some,
in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to
Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone. [7]

Our current study comprises four interrelated topics. The first two sections
examine the life and ministry of the Apostle Peter from biblical and historical
sources. The last two sections examine the continuing authority of Peter
through the centuries, carried on through apostolic succession and the primacy
of Rome. We divide the study in this way:



1. The Life and Ministry of Peter

A. Biblical study: Peter the man, the apostle, the rock: What is his place in
the teachings of Jesus and in the New Testament?


B. Historical study: Did Peter travel to Rome, oversee the Church as bishop,
and die a martyr's death in the city of Rome?

2. The Primacy of Peter in the Early Church

A. Earliest document study: The primacy of Rome in the earliest non-canonical
writings of the Church, authored by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.


B. Early Church study: Peter and the primacy of Rome taught and practiced
throughout the first five centuries.

Certainly, it is not possible to compile every passage from the Fathers that pertains to the study of Peter and the
primacy. This is true, first of all, because such passages are too abundant
and, secondly, because many times the primacy is not demonstrated by written
teachings per se, but by the actions
of the Fathers in particular historical situations. Some Fathers write of the
Petrine primacy and later change their stance as they move away from orthodoxy
or from a literal understanding of Scripture or when they enter into a personal
conflict with the bishop of Rome. Lately, several books have come out that are
hostile to the Catholic Church's teaching on papal primacy (we will discuss
these books in the course of our study). A perusal of these books shows that
their inability to deal fairly with the issue stems from their tendency to
"proof-text", by which they point out things that seem to support
their contentions and ignore everything that does not.



Another reason these opponents find it difficult to comprehend the Papacy is a
perspective, inherited from the Protestant Reformation, that is essentially
anti-sacramental, anti-mediational, and anti-incarnational. God's economy,
however, always involves mediation. The people of God, for example, stepped
back and demanded that God not speak to them directly, for they were afraid and
stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we
will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die" (Ex 20:19). Take
another example--Paul. God could very well have "saved" him directly,
but instead the great Paul was sent to the lowly Ananias for baptism and
instructions. Paul later went to Peter for approval and to make sure he
"was not running in vain", even though he had received revelations and
had even been taken up to the "third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2). No
Christian baptizes himself; this is done though the mediating agency of another
person. Without an understanding of how God works through mediation, it is
difficult to understand the fullness of the faith. [8]



It would take volumes to deal thoroughly with every biblical passage, every
Father's writings, and every argument against the Papacy. However, we will
provide ample material to establish the firm foundation of Catholic teaching
and to refute the opposition. In the process we will attempt to be fair with
the material, analyzing not only the Catholic position but the interpretation
espoused by the opposition. Much can be said about each of these topics and
detailed accounts can be read from other sources listed in the bibliography.



In our journey through the Scriptures and the primitive Church, we will consult
our first brethren in Christ. We will conclude by looking at the current
teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the widespread opposition. Now let
us journey back in time to the New Testament period and the generations that
followed in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.



ENDNOTES:



[1] John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in Conscience, Consensus, and the
Development of Doctrine (New York:
Doubleday, 1992), 50.



[2] E-mail from William Webster dated August 16, 1997.



[3] Mt 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning
those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children
together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"



[4] Jn 1:10-11: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him,
yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people
received him not."



[5] Paul says in 2 Timothy 1: 15, "You are aware that all who are in Asia
turned away from me, and among them Phygelus and Hermogenes." The Apostle
John writes in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not
really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but
they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of
us."



[6] "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this,
to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all
those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory,
or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do
this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the
very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and
organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also
[by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by
means of the successions of the bishops" (Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 3, 3, 2, in The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts
and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1985], 1:415 [hereafter ANF]).



[7] George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: John Murray, 1914), 338-39.



[8] The objection will arise, "But we have only 'one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus'" (1 Tim 2:5). To this the Catholic offers a
hearty Amen! Yet we see, not four
verses earlier, Paul commanding Timothy to pray for all men--to intercede (from
the Latin intercedere, to
intervene or go between, to mediate). Yes, Jesus is the mediator of the New
Covenant, for such a unique covenant takes a unique mediator (Heb 8:6). But do
we assume that, because Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, there is
no longer any mediation in the Church? Prayer is mediation. We are mediating God's message to a sinful world when
we preach the gospel. No finite human being can mediate an eternal covenant
between God and man, but a pastor can certainly mediate God's word, and a
simple soul can certainly intercede for the mighty. Mediation is alive and well
as we enter into the New Covenant and participate in the mediating work of
Christ.








Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles





• The Papacy and Ecumenism |
Rev. Adriano Garuti, O.F.M.


• On the Papacy, John Paul II, and the Nature of the Church |
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger


• Peter and Succession |
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

• "Primacy in Love": The Chair Altar of Saint Peter's in Rome | Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger

• Church Authority and the Petrine Element | Hans Urs von Balthasar


• Has The Reformation Ended? | An Interview with Dr. Mark Noll


• Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick | Mark Brumley


• Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May


• Exploring the Catholic Faith! | An Interview with Diane Eriksen


• Understanding The Hierarchy of Truths | Douglas Bushman, S.T.L.











Stephen K. Ray was raised in a devout, loving Baptist family. His father was
a deacon and Bible teacher and Stephen was very involved in the Baptist
Church as a teacher of Biblical studies and lectured on a wide range of
topics. Steve and his wife Janet entered the Catholic Church in 1994. In
addition to running a family business, Steve spends time researching, writing,
and teaching about the Catholic Faith. He is the author of Crossing
the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church, Upon
This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early
Church, and St.
John's Gospel: A Bible Study and Commentary . He is currently producing
a 10-video series for Ignatius Press called The
Footprints of God: The Story of Salvation From Abraham to Augustine ,
filmed on location in the Holy Land. His website is www.catholic-convert.com.

The “Martyrdom” of Pope Benedict XVI

The
“Martyrdom” of Pope Benedict XVI | Alberto Carosa | Catholic World Report

Don
Nicola Bux, one of Benedict’s close collaborators, on the deeper meaning of
the papal resignation

While Pope
Benedict XVI’s resignation and the end of his pontificate is still sending
shock waves throughout the world, Catholic World Report spoke with a senior theologian, Don
Nicola Bux, among the closest collaborators of Benedict XVI, especially
regarding liturgical matters, as he is
a consultor to the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.

Don Nicola Bux, a
priest the Archdiocese of Bari, has studied and taught in Jerusalem and Rome.
Professor of Eastern liturgy and theology of the sacraments in the Puglia
Theological Faculty, he is consultant for the international theological journal
Communio. Benedict XVI
appointed him peritus
(theological expert) at the synods of bishops on the Eucharist in 2005 and of
the Middle East five years later.

He has
authored numerous essays and ten books, already translated in many other
languages. Among his books is Benedict
XVI's Reform: The Liturgy Between Innovation and Tradition (Ignatius Press, 2012).

Don Nicola Bux
met Joseph Ratzinger in mid-1980s, when Cardinal Ratzinger had just arrived in
Rome from Monaco of Bavaria to assume duty as the new of Prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “In that time I participated in the
Spiritual Exercises that Ratzinger held for the priests of Communion and
Liberation'', Don Bux recalls.  

CWR: What is
your opinion about the decision made by Benedict XVI?



Fr. Bux: First of all,
this gesture must be seen in the perspective of faith, and not from an earthly
viewpoint, which always tends to manipulate the Church. There have been various
interpretations of the gesture: from the secularization of the papacy to a
revolutionized ecclesiastical power, from the democratization of authority to
the wounds inflicted on the body of the Church, even by exchanging a request
for pardon for one of its defects, or with the questioning of papal
infallibility. But did the abandonment of Benedict IX,  Celestine V and Gregory XII produce all
this? Ratzinger himself has investigated in his studies how the Petrine primacy
has a martyrological dimension: the responsibility of the Bishop of Rome is by
all means personal and may not be diluted into episcopal  collegiality, although it is always
interacting with it. And it’s impressive that Benedict XVI decreed the
canonization date (May 12, 2013) of the Martyrs of Otranto for their heroic
witnessing to the faith by shedding their blood precisely in the same
consistory of the very same date, February 11th, when he announced
his resignation. 

CWR: Is the
responsibility you are talking about related to the “consciousness” which Pope
Beneidict often referred to especially in his battles against contemporary
relativism?

Fr. Bux: Yes. “Responsibility” in this sense is
meant as a personal response to the Lord. There is an insurmountable limit of
consciousness, and not only for believers, but for all men. Do you remember the
Talking Cricket? Pinocchio could also pretend that he was not there and throw a
hammer at it, but it continued to speak. Benedict XVI has also explored this
theme by reminding of “The praise of consciousness” by Blessed John Henry
Newman, who in his letter to the Duke of Norfolk proposes a toast to the
conscience and the Pope



The Petrine ministry, in the end, is the ultimate emergency appeal to the
conscience of every man. In his speech in Latin announcing his decision to the
world, the Holy Father clearly says: “I have  repeatedly asked my conscience before God.”

Compared to contemporary relativism that prompts consciousness into doing what
one wants, for us it is the capacity to distinguish between good and evil, true
and false. It is the “voice of God”. It’s the only defense to preserve the
dignity of the person in his/her relationship with the world.

 CWR: The Pope asked
his conscience at length and, therefore, with great spiritual suffering. Is it
for this reason that you speak of “martyrological dimension” of the Petrine
primacy?



Fr. Bux: Yes. The
Petrine ministry has an inner martyrological dimension that enables one to
incessantly ask whether, in conscience, what one is and what is being done are
adequate to what are the inner aspects of the ministry of the Roman Pontiff.
Such daily exercise can actually become martyrdom.



This is real “martyrdom”. Let me be clear, the task of asking oneself is for
every human being. The father of the family must ask whether he is behaving
himself for the good of his family. Just imagine what it is like for a
Successor to Peter! And then there is something else you would have to realize—

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Hardships and Sonships

A Scriptural Reflection on the Readings for Sunday, March 10, 2013, the Fourth Sunday of Lent | Carl E. Olson

Readings:
Jos 5:9a, 10-12
Ps 34:2-3, 4-5, 6-7
2 Cor 5:17-21
Lk 15:1-3, 11-32

“How could a loving God send people to hell?” 

It’s a question I’ve heard many times from people who balk at the claims of the Catholic Church because they believe she worships a supernatural despot intent on punishment, not love. Years ago the founder the local  “Freethinkers and Atheists’ Society” sent me a letter filled with angry attacks on the Christian God. “It must be comforting,” he wrote, “thinking that you’re going to heaven where you can look down at the billions of souls screaming and writhing in pain … consumed by flame for all of eternity, but never dying; all this courtesy of your all-compassionate and loving friend Jesus. . . . Do you find this condemnation the act of a moral god? Why would such a creature bother creating an entire system where the vast majority of his creation will spend all eternity burning in flames?”

Sadly, this is the case for many people who, for various reasons, believe God wishes to deny them happiness, fulfillment, and love. Today’s Gospel reading of the well-known parable of the Prodigal Son offers a very different perspective, which flows from the knowledge the Son has of both His Father and man’s fallen, sinful state. Seemingly simple, the parable is rich with meaning and conviction, for it captures the tension and love at the heart of human relationships while illuminating the difficulty we sometimes face in correctly understanding the mercy, justice, and love of our Heavenly Father. 

Part of the great power of Jesus’ story of the father and his two sons is how it brilliantly captures the viewpoint of each of the three men without ever losing any moral clarity. And I think that most readers can relate in some way to the desires of each man, even while recognizing that some of those desires are sinful and others are holy. For instance, we know what it is like to be rebellious and to think that God is hindering us from enjoying our lives on our terms. This is what the Catechism calls “the fascination of illusory freedom,” (CCC 1439) the belief that we can find meaning, joy, and peace apart from God. 

We also know what it is like to begrudge the joy of others, as the brother does, understanding our relationship with God in purely legalistic terms while failing to the embrace the sonship given to us in baptism. In his encyclical Dives in Misericordia, Pope John Paul II highlighted what this parable teaches about the dignity of the son who dwells in the father’s house. He points out that when the one son leaves, his greatest loss is not material, but the loss of familial life—the “tragedy of lost dignity, the awareness of squandered sonship” (par 5). Yet the son who never left had also squandered his sonship, having failed to see himself as a son first, not just an heir to material possessions.



The prodigal son, upon recognizing how far he had fallen and how he had wasted his life—his very being—on sinful pleasures, rediscovers his sonship, paradoxically, by recognizing that he is not worthy to be called a son: “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son.” His brother’s failure is shown not just in his anger at the feast prepared by the father, but by his refusal to address as “Father” the one who gave him life.  

Many who believe that God desires to punish them have confused the alienation caused by their rejection of God with divine anger. In exercising their free will, they miss that their freedom is a gift of love given by a merciful Father. He will not force anyone to come home; He will not make anyone embrace the gift of sonship. But He does wait, longing for the return of every lost soul “to the bosom of his family, which is the Church.” (CCC 1439).

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the March 18, 2007, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Conclave Bingo!

From CatholicMemes.com:

The Catholic Church is Out of Touch with its Members? Say What?

Catholic experts available to respond to controversial survey on the state of the Catholic Church

ATLANTA, March 8, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ --
Numerous clergy, religious and lay Catholic experts are prepared to
address the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute's recently conducted
survey that found that 52 percent of American Catholics believe the
Church is moving in the right direction, but 52 percent also said Church
leaders were out of touch with American Catholics. Fifty-five percent
of the 497 Catholics who were surveyed said the next pope should move
the church in new directions.
According to the controversial survey,
released Friday, majorities of Catholic Americans also believe the
Church needs to change its stance on several hot-button issues,
including its ban on contraception (64 percent), marriage among priests
(62 percent) and the ordination of women (62 percent).

"The
survey doesn't adequately reflect the distinction between practicing and
non-practicing Catholics," said Mark Brumley, president and CEO of
Ignatius Press. "And while it is helpful to know what people say they
think, what is right or wrong isn't determined by a survey. The confused
results show that the Church needs to be clearer, firmer and more
persuasive in presenting her message, and not let people with little
understanding of that message call the shots. Jesus' teaching was not
initially well-received by the establishment of his day. It should come
as no surprise that the Church's continuation of that teaching meets
with opposition among today's establishment, sometimes even among people
who identify themselves as Catholics."

Dr. Pia de Solenni adds,
"If polls and news outlets want a real story, ask the people who
regularly attend Mass what they believe. Start here in the U.S. But also
ask people around the world, like the 350,000 who recently protested
same-sex marriage in France. If you want to get really interesting, ask
Anglicans in the African nations what they think about the Catholic
Church's teachings on marriage."

Dr. Pia de Solenni, Mark
Brumley and over a dozen other experts, including priests, lay experts
and women religious, are prepared to speak on the inadequacies and
inaccuracies of Catholic surveys conducted by Quinnipiac and other
polling institutes.
Contact Lisa Wheeler (770-591-0045 or
LWheeler@CarmelCommunications.com) or Kevin Wandra (404-788-1276 or
KWandra@CarmelCommunications.com) of Carmel Communications to schedule
interviews with our Catholic experts.

What Are Catholics To Do?

What Are Catholics To Do? | James Kalb | Catholic World Report



We can offer the world something only if we maintain what we have to offer.

The world
goes its own way without much regard for the Church, because it has very little
regard for truth—that is to say, for reality.

The problems
go to the roots of current ways of thinking. The modern movement of thought
began as an attempt to attain security and certainty by emphasizing what is
practical and by imposing strict standards of evidence. That meant tossing out
quite a lot: tradition, revelation, and the insight into natural forms and
functions—and their connection to permanent human concerns—that lies behind our
understanding of natural moral law.

People
wanted to be scientific, and that meant rejecting many normal ways of thinking.
They hoped the result would be knowledge that was exact, reliable, and useful,
and modern natural science has indeed given us amazing advances in medicine and
weaponry. Modern forms of organizing society, such as the modern state and the business
corporation, have also proved immensely effective in important ways.

There have
also been other results, the most notable of which is the reduction of all
seriously-considered human concerns to technology and desire. After all, if
higher goods and ultimate truths can’t be measured or produced to order, and it
seems we can get by without them by figuring out how to give people what they
want, then why not simplify matters and forget about them?

That’s
what’s happened in our public life. Everybody who matters is a secularist
today, and the situation has far-reaching implications. One is that educated
and well-placed people now believe that the institutions on which social order
is based should be technically expert, economically rational, morally
nonjudgmental, and universal in their reach. So the world should be ordered
comprehensively by global markets and expert regulatory bureaucracies, together
with subsidiary institutions such as universities, think tanks, media
organizations, and various NGOs that serve or try to influence government and
business. That, it is thought, is the uniquely rational way of organizing
society, and whatever threatens it, or attempts to limit it or introduce other
authorities, is irrational, disruptive, and a threat to humanity.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

In Defense of Marriage

In Defense of Marriage | John S. Hamlon | Catholic World Report



Why natural law arguments for marriage—while very important—are not enough

H. L. Mencken—satirist, progressive, pseudo-misogynist,
provocateur—wrote a book in 1918 called In
Defense of Women.  Like an optical
illusion, the title, depending on one’s focal point, can mean defending women
or defending oneself from women. The
irony is the initial hook. 

If the executive and judicial branches of the US Government have
their way with traditional marriage, the phrase “in defense of marriage” will
likewise have two possible slants: defending the marital union as designed by
God in the beginning or defending
oneself from marital unions as
designed by federal authority. 

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA). The general purpose of DOMA was to cement, at the federal level, the
traditional understanding of marriage. Why was that deemed necessary?

The seeds for DOMA were sown in 1993. Hawaii’s Supreme Court had
ruled that limiting marriage to one man and one woman was probably
unconstitutional (Baehr v. Miike). Immediately, there were those who
anticipated trouble down the road. Indeed, they reasoned, if the Hawaiian
legislature were to pass a same-sex marriage (SSM) law, the spores of that law
could drift to other states by way of the Full Fair and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. 

That clause (c. 1789) states that “full faith and credit shall be
given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
every other state.” In short, what is legally binding in one state is legally
binding in other states. If, therefore, a same-sex married couple moved from a
state that sanctioned SSM to one that did not, the new state of residence would
have to recognize the couple’s
bond.       

Enter DOMA, which says that (1) no state is required to recognize
a same-sex marriage from another state, and (2)
the word “marriage,” for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the
United States, means a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and
wife. 

DOMA does not restrict states from passing legislation for or
against same-sex marriage. DOMA does prevent
a same-sex couple who, married in a non-traditional marriage state, wants the
same rights in a traditional marriage state. For the 31 states with constitutional
amendments banning same-sex marriage and for the 11 additional states that
define marriage as between one man and one woman, DOMA is, in effect, an
interstate anti-bullying law.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

In defense of the productive "1 percent"

David Paul Deavel, a regular contributor to Catholic World Report, has penned an apologia for the oft-discussed "1 percent":

My wife and I are part of the 1 percent — so we’re used to criticism.
We’ve made a bundle — heck, a number of bundles — and while the rest of
the nation seems to be in a slump, we’re just making more. We’re part
of the false cult of quantity at the expense of quality. Our consumption
hurts the environment. Our ridiculous tax breaks reward our selfishness
at others’ expense. To give us larger breaks is so ridiculous a
suggestion even the Wall Street Journal calls us tax “gangsters.” But
we, I reply, are the makers. It’s right that our tax burden is lower,
since we ultimately provide the raw material for jobs, innovation and
future tax revenue.

Of course, when I say we’re in the top 1 percent, I mean
kids. I can’t prove conclusively that we’re 1-percenters, but given that
2010 census data showed that only 1.9 percent of American homes had
seven or more members, I think it’s likely. Many seven-plus households
are surely multigenerational, and 2012 census data shows the average
number of children under 18 per household living with parents was 1.88.

We ended 2012 with five. No. 6, God willing, will emerge from the womb in late summer.

Read his entire column on the StarTribune.com site.

Deavel mentions the new book, What to Expect When Nobody's Expecting, by Jonathan Last, who is also Catholic. In a recent interview with NRO, Last talked to Kathryn Jean Lopez about  the serious demographic, cultural, and political challenges facing the United States:

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

New: "A School of Prayer: The Saints Show us How to Pray" by Pope Benedict XVI

Now available from Ignatius Press:

A School of Prayer: The Saints Show us How to Pray

by Pope Benedict XVI

The Complete Edition | Hardcover | 282 pages

Prayer is essential to the life of faith. In this superb book, based on Pope Benedict's weekly teaching, he examines the foundational principles of the life of prayer. Believers of various backgrounds and experience in prayer-from beginners to spiritually advanced-will be enriched by this spiritual masterpiece.

Benedict begins considering what we can learn from the examples of prayer found in a wide range of cultures and eras. Next, he turns to the Bible's teaching about prayer, beginning with Abraham and moving though Moses, the prophets, the Psalms to the example of Jesus. With Jesus Christ, Pope Benedict considers not only the Lord's teaching about prayer, but also his example of how to pray, including the Our Father, his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, and prayers on the Cross. The prayers of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and the early Church are also explored. Benedict also draws on insights from spiritual masters, the saints, and the Church's liturgy. He challenges readers to live their relationships with God "even more intensely, as it were, at a ‘school of prayer'."

Although Benedict provides a sweeping survey of great figures of prayer, his discussion centers on Jesus Christ and even invokes him in the study of prayer. "It is in fact in Jesus," writes Benedict, "that man becomes able to approach God in the depth and intimacy of the relationship of fatherhood and sonship. Together with the first disciples, let us now turn with humble trust to the Teacher and ask him: ‘Lord, teach us to pray' (Lk 11:1)."

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought:
Light Of The World  - Hardcover
Newman  - Paperback
Holy Men and Women Of the Middle Ages and Beyond  - Hardcover
Treasury of Wisdom  - Hardcover
Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week  - Hardcover