On Catholicity
Does catholicity come in degrees?
posted by Tom McGlothlin at 9:51 PM
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Contributors
- Comments record: 77, Duke Theology
- ...followed by... 54, Baptism Again
- ...then... 30, More Questions on Baptism
- RSS
- Episcopal Church Rejects Anglican Church Orders
- What is Duke Theology?
- The Littlest Socratic
- Operation Diaper Drop 2.
- Operation Diaper Drop.
- Denominationalism and ontology
- Update on questions raised about credit and usury
- The Judicious Mr. Hooker and the Episcopal Church
- Mary in the Old Testament
Previous Posts
6 Comments:
I hope my M. Div will help.
If catholicity is attainable through universal non-commitment, then my M.T.S. should do the trick. :-)
Tom,
I think catholicity - which seems to me closely related to the virtues of charity and patience - is learned slowly. Sanctification is an unveiling and a seeing, and catholicity is among the fruit nurtured in that ongoing encounter.
I might say that I don't think anyone can be catholic so catholicity cannot come in degrees for catholic is a communitarian descriptor. 'Catholic' describes a Church which submits itself to the quality of universality. When I say that I believe in the Holy Catholic Church I personally believe in the possibility of it more than my participation in it, but many of you know my Romish heresies. I don't think you have to go as far as me and make it an either/or, but when people make the claim "more catholic than the Pope" I think it signals a misunderstanding of catholic, the same misunderstanding which occurs when a person is described as "very catholic", et cetera. I think belief in the communion of the saints allows for degrees, but that is another topic and more in line with craig's response.
Craig's answer caught me off guard, because I wasn't expecting a description of catholicity as it applied to persons. So let me pose a new question (one which I think Wilson started to answer): Is catholicity a property of persons, or of churches?
Tom,
I answered as one who has been immersed in the Anglican Communion, and so took "catholic" to mean the word used to describe one who stands in a particular theological position within Anglicanism, and particularly within the Church of England (all of my Anglican mentors are British and so I tend to use the CoE categories). In Anglicanism, esp. since the Great Awakenings, there have been three main "parties" that have sought to lead the Church in different directions. The Evangelical party looks a lot like an American Methodist or CBF baptist or PCUSA presbyterian in terms of a traditional Protestant focus, emphasizing the classic marks of evangelicalism that Wesley evinced (which, because of Hooker's influence, is decidedly more 'catholic' than many of the Calvinist groups that evolved in America). The Catholic party is theologically distinctive, tracing a line from Lancelot Andrewes to Newman to Milbank. And then there is the relatively new "Charismatic" party that arose in the 20th century.
"Catholic" in the way I used describes a cluster of traits, and is not limited to the "universality" that Wilson uses in his response. I won't give an exhaustive explanation here, but I would suggest first that "catholic" in the Anglican sense is less about liturgical style and more about an Augustinian theological perspective that leads also to soteriological and ecclesiological assumptions. In particular, there is the Augustinian epistemological pessimism that acknowledges our inability to see that which God reveals in Creation until we are grasped by the Holy Spirit. Then there is the soteriological assumption that locates (but not limits) the activity of the Holy Spirit principally in the common life of the Church, and thus sees the Church as a sacrament through which Christ is present to the world, and through which and for which all the other sacraments are ordained. So being a Christian means participating in this fellowship of those pledged to Christ as Lord. But in addition, "catholic" implies an Augustinian understanding of this Church as a mixed fellowship (the earthly city) and a "school" in which a disciple learns and slowly manifests the habits of the forgiven people, and thus is transformed by the renewal of his mind; the important corollary of this is an extraordinary Augustinian patience in view of the backsliding tendencies of the various pilgrims within the Church. And therefore, linking with the "universal" meaning of the word, "catholic" implies the view that the Church (and esp. the priest) is responsible for the care (the cure) for all the souls in the geographic bounds of the parish - whether or not they participate in Church and whether or not they are notorious sinners. That is, a "catholic" view presupposes responsibility for the entire flock, including the spotted ones, for God intends God's blessing for all persons. So dividing the flock into "in' and "out" is incomprehensible in the catholic view.
This catholic view, as you may well imagine, contrasts significantly with many of the evangelical tendencies in the last few hundred years that, like Whitfield and many Calvinists, sees salvation as an event that can be marked in time (the moment one is saved as opposed to the pilgrimage through which one is perfected), and which, in order to protect the "salvation" of those "in" the true church, often divides the church into those "in" and those "out" in the quest for holiness.
I perhaps caricature an evangelical extreme position above, but that is in order to put the cluster of traits that I ascribe to a "catholic" view in sharper relief.
So, in the sense that I (and most Anglicans) generally use it, "catholic" is an adjective that describes a cluster of views that can be contrasted with certain evangelical tendencies. And so it is, I believe, appropriately applied to individuals.
The way Wilson and you have used the term is in the sense of the creeds, which I take to be an eschatological description that is appropriately applied to the Church ("we believe") and not to individuals.
Post a Comment
<< Home