On being part of a defective church
I’m seeing lots of talk, all over the net, about how people are angry at the Pope’s latest pronouncement about how those of us who aren’t Catholic are lacking in the ecclesial department. (Slate has a bit of snark on The Vatican’s Product Recall.)
I guess I can see where I might be worked up about this, if I were a high church Anglican. Pace Apostolicae Curae, the Roman Catholic Church does sometimes act as if it expects a closer relationship with Anglicanism than with any old random Protestant Church – a thing that fits well with that Anglican claim to Apostolic Succession, even if the claim itself is not accepted on the Roman Catholic side. So you get ARCIC, and Pope John Paul II’s presentation of a pectoral cross to the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc. And then you get papal pronouncements reminding you that you still aren’t quite being counted as a properly non-defective church.
But I’m a Quaker. I know that I’m in a defective church, from the Roman Catholic point of view. I’m in a church that doesn’t even have formal sacraments, in any way, shape, or form! And we have pretty friendly relations, on the ground, locally, with Catholic groups. Some of us have in our local meeting have worked with the local Catholic Worker house, and others of us have gotten involved in events with the Sisters of St. Joseph in Orange. But I’ve never been in any doubt that, from the Pope’s point of view, we’re missing something as a church. To me, this isn’t news.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
One of the most refreshing moments of my wife’s return to Catholicism (from eleven years as a Friend) was meeting with the priest of her traditionalist church. He shook my hand and then briefly described the ways in which Quakers are wrong. He wasn’t mean and he wasn’t trying to score points. He was simply explaining what to him was a matter-of-face situation. After years spent learning the excruciatingly-polite Quaker ways of affirming everything and everyone it was so wonderful to meet someone who actually believed what he believed. I wasn’t at all offended.
There was an honesty to his statement that I appreciated. I would guess that most people of faith believe at some level that their belief is more valid that other’s and that the world would be a better place if more people believed like them. Why should it be news when someone states that publicly?
July 12th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Yeah, I don’t see what the big deal is either. It shows a lot of historical naivete to be shocked — shocked! — that the Pope disapproves of denominations that formed at least partly in opposition to the papacy. I think Martin’s right that this violates the code of what’s acceptable to say in public. Churches criticize each other all the time over matters of doctrine, politics, ethics and more, but to take this to its logical conclusion and say that some churches are better than others seems to be a big taboo.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:19 am
“The unbounded faith which Quakers have in their own principles, and the way they regard the principles and practices of other churches, approach intolerance on their part. They believe they are guided to their convictions by the Spirit of Truth, and they really think they have arrived at absolutely correct conclusions, and that any other opinions are wrong. They think that all who differ from them would agree with them if they had sufficient light….”
– D. C. Mott, The Quakers of Iowa, in Annals of Iowa, Vol. IV. (1898).
July 13th, 2007 at 5:26 am
It bears remembering that the position of early Friends was that the “high church” folks, with their paid clergy, human hierarchies, political influence, and legalistic ways of interpreting the scriptures and church tradition, were the “defective” church, and that the Religious Society of Friends of Truth was, in fact, the True Church revived.
My own point of view is that the True Church consists of those who worship God “in Spirit and in Truth” (John 4:21-24).
July 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
The question to ponder is how defective is one’s church? Is it so defective that it really is no Christian Church at all and actually leads people away from Christ and salvation? Is it so defective that it no longer worships the Person of Christ? Is it so defective that it is in clear opposition to the essential teaching of Christ and the apostles? Is it as defectively “liberated†as UCC Rev. Brett Becker says of the UCC?
“This is truly Independence Day for the UCC — we have declared ourselves independent from the teachings of Jesus and the clear teachings of Scripture.”
The early Quakers did none of this. http://www.quakerinfo.com/quak_jc1.shtml
How are the Quakers doing today?
July 19th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Do you mean where are the Quakers today on same-sex marriage (I assume that’s what the UCC reference is about)? All over the map, depending on what Yearly Meeting you’re part of. Some Yearly Meetings are staunchly opposed, some every bit as approving as the UCC, and, structurally, no Yearly Meeting has any authority over any other Yearly Meeting. Of the larger Friends’ organizations to which Yearly Meetings belong, Friends General Conference takes a different position than Friends United Meeting.
More generally, Quakers take highly variable approaches to the Bible, such that in some Yearly Meetings it is acceptable not to be Christian at all (in the same way that it’s acceptable for Unitarian-Universalists not to be Christian, I mean – people who make no claim to be Christian, not people who claim to be Christian and really aren’t), and in others that is not at all the case.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Well, I was speaking more broadly with reference to the Catholic Church’s reemphasis of the state of defective churches. I use the UCC as an example of a “defective” church that at least one of its own ministers sees as so defective that it really cannot be called a Christian church at all.
I used to attend a Quaker church in NY that was thoroughly Christian with little defect from the Catholic perspective, but in my travels I have found Quaker groups that have almost nothing in common with Christianity. Somehow they continue to use the term Quaker though far removed from the Quakerism I referenced, as you confirm. The contradictions under this term should be rather baffling to any reasoning people. Are the peace stance and the silence awaiting the clarity of the Light the only commonalities remaining?
Many of these Quaker groups that you mention cannot be described as “defective†in the Catholic perspective as “it is acceptable not to be Christian at all,†you say. By “defective†churches the Catholic Church says “Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.†(Catechism, Sec. 838) “The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . They therefore have a right to be called Christians. . . .†(Catechism, Sec. 818)
Those are the defective ones and would include Christian Quakers such as George Fox.
As for the others, if it is a question of ignorance there is still hope but if it’s a matter of rejection there is . . . .
You stated, “I know that I’m in a defective church,†so I thought it good to ponder what does this mean? From the Catholic perspective that I refer to can you still say this or are you outside of the church altogether? I thought this might be good food for thought and reflection.
Peace.
July 20th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Well, mostly what I meant by “I know that I’m in a defective church” is that I’m not going to get all upset about the Pope’s lack of ecumenism in believing that Catholicism is actually truer than other faiths. It’s kind of what I expect from, you know, the Pope, and, as other commenters pointed out, Quakers in the past have been perfectly willing to claim greater truthfulness for Quakerism.
But, on to the question that you’re raising – I should certainly care, at some point, if I come to believe that my church is really defective.
I think, from the Catholic perspective, that I personally couldn’t be considered outside the church altogether – I’ve been baptized and confirmed (in the Episcopal Church, naturally, not the Quakers), and the Catholic Church recognizes my baptism, and I accept Jesus Christ in terms sufficiently consistent with the traditional creeds (even though I’m now in a non-creedal church), that I don’t think I’d be judged to have repudiated Christianity. But I would think that a Universalist, non-Christian Quaker would have to be, from a Catholic perspective, outside the church altogether (though not necessarily unsaved, since there are provisions to allow for the possibility that some people who aren’t Christian at all could be saved).
July 20th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Thank you for, may I say, your honest confession of faith. Based on what you say I would agree with you that from the Catholic perspective you would be called a Christian and accepted “with respect and affection†as a sister. I am warmed by this confession as I think we might have a lot in common theologically. I’m a member of another “defective†church, the Mennonite church.
Now, I don’t think we can speak of the “Pope’s lack of ecumenism in believing that Catholicism is actually truer than other faiths.†Ecumenism refers to an extension, a reaching out to others in the hope of attaining greater unity and cooperation, an attempt, an initiative to find common ground, perhaps even eventual unity in Christ. This initiative does not mean one must renounce one’s belief in being the true or “truest†faith. The Catholic Church is a leader in the ecumenical movement. The lack of ecumenism is found more among certain Protestant denominations that thoroughly shun activities with other Christian churches.
To understand the degree of defect of a church or of oneself one must recognize the biblical standard of perfection, what Christ and the apostles were teaching. Some Quakers and the Orthodox understand that this occurs through the working of the Holy Spirit which is akin to the enlightening experience of the “inner Light.†Without the biblical standard of perfection it is too easy to confuse the Light of the Spirit with Lucifer, that other bringer of “light.â€
July 21st, 2007 at 8:19 am
Do Quakers still read Fox and Woolman? I find their journals quite thrilling.The seekers I meet seem to be more concerned with “social justice” than actually “quaking” under the influence of the Holy Spirit. I suppose all churches do change but a revival or two would not be amiss. The Unitarians and Salvation Army appear to be going the same way.
July 21st, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Yes, Quakers do still read Fox and Woolman. Probably Woolman more than Fox, because the style’s closer to modern and more accessible. But both can be found in any Quaker meeting library. On the other hand, some Quakers do a lot of reading of early Quakers, and others not so much. Within my own, fairly liberal meeting, people tend to start out by reading Friends for 350 years (a history of Quakers updated from Howard Brinton’s Friends for 300 years, and then move on to other things. Our meeting library also has lots of social justice related works, which is also pretty common in Quaker meetings.
To Jose: Yes, I suppose I should have qualified “Pope’s lack of ecumenism in believing that Catholicism is actually truer than other faiths,” since I meant more that people were taking his statement as damaging to ecumenism than that I actually think people have to stop thinking their church is truer before they can be considered ecumenical.
The biblical standard of perfection is an interesting topic; maybe I should start a thread for discussing it further.