But if Dr Williams has been determined not to make a drama out of this crisis, the Pope has been playing to the gallery. And it’s his strategy we should be focused on. Unlike the Bishop of Southwark, I don’t want Dr Williams to express his “disappointment”, I want him to ask, perhaps a little more politely than in my movie storyboard, what the Pope’s game is.
I’ll tell you what I think it is. Benedict is determined to rebuild his one, true and, importantly, universal Church. Under a banner of doctrinal purity, he is annexing orthodoxy. That’s why, in 2006, he dropped the title Patriarch of the West from the list of handles conferred on the Pope. Too parochial, too implicitly restrictive. Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church is altogether more agreeable to him.
Organic growth is not an option for him, so he must grow the Church by acquisition. The Apostolic Constitution is part of that acquisitive strategy, aimed less at dismembering the Church of England than at bringing home Catholics in America and Australia; but even more significantly being tested as a tool ahead of bringing others, such as the ultra-traditionalist and schismatic Lefebvrists, back into the fold. Benedict wants to consolidate orthodoxy wherever he finds it and, eastern Orthodox patriarchs should note, there can be only one voice of authority and it speaks from Rome. This Pope is on a reactionary and Counter-Reformational rampage.
RE: “Benedict is determined to rebuild his one, true and, importantly, universal Church.”
Tee hee. You think, Mr. Pitcher?
I’m surprised he didn’t compare the TAC to the Sudetenland.. buffoon..
“Organic growth is not an option for him, so he must grow the Church by acquisition.”
What planet is this chap from, I wonder? He is obviously not aware of the growth of Christianity in Africa, Asia, and those other areas of the Church than the parochial northern western area. I realize that ignorance is bliss, but this is beyond the pale.
I won’t waste my time reading this sort of drivel. But I will respond to Mr. Pitcher’s premise in this way. I could agree with the author’s thesis if it weren’t for one important aspect which he (and many others of the same mindset) forgets. This was not an INITIATIVE on the part of the Holy Father; this was a RESPONSE. Benedict did not sit down and think of how he could expand or “annex;” he was asked in charity to allow those who petitioned for a way to be in full communion and he responded in charity.
Benedict is trying to pull together the orthodox of the Christian faith because he knows that the evil one’s greatest tool is “divide and conquer.” If you don’t believe this, just take a look at the effects so far of our divisions.
Good grief, Pitcher, get a grip.
There is no doubt Pope Benedict wishes to draw other Christians into the Roman Catholic Church under Rome’s control, one way or another.
The fact that this is a light piece by Pitcher does not alter that fact and it looks as if I was right that the effect on the CofE of the timing of publication of the Apostolic Constitution has been to create a backlash.
What is there for the ABC and Pope Benedict to talk about this week I wonder?
Question: Is George Pitcher a pseudonym for James Careville?
#6, what Pitcher doesn’t seem to get is that power and control are incidental.
Yes, Chris (#2), Pitcher is a buffoon. This kind of wild rant is so irrational it’s scary.
David Handy+
Oy. I’m going to speak up from the other side of the aisle here, and say: Pitcher, get a grip.
From the way he’s talking, you’d think that roving bands of Catholics were sneaking into English churches, chloroforming unsuspecting Anglo-Catholics, and driving them away in unmarked vans.
(Besides, if Benedict’s sole aim were to grow the RCC, he’d do better to look at other targets than Anglicanism. If every Anglican in the world joined the RCC tomorrow, the Roman church would be only marginally larger than it is today.)
But that’s beside the main point, which is: people are not property. Not even people in pews. They can’t be “stolen” or “poached” or “acquired.” If they go, they go of their own free will; likewise if they stay.
[blockquote] Benedict is determined to rebuild his one, true and, importantly, universal Church.[/blockquote]
And you find the idea of Christian unity and orthodoxy objectionable?
[blockquote] Benedict wants to consolidate orthodoxy wherever he finds it and, eastern Orthodox patriarchs should note, there can be only one voice of authority and it speaks from Rome.[/blockquote]
Unlike the vast numbers of Protestants who seem stunned to discover that the Pope is indeed a Roman Catholic, we Orthodox have always understood Rome and know exactly what they are about. We have been dealing with them a bit longer than you have.
Rome has tried the uniate route with us with (judging from numbers) very limited success. All of the silly news stories notwithstanding there is very little interest in restoring communion with Rome among us because Rome is not Orthodox. The vast majority of Orthodox see Rome as a viable partner in charity and ally in combating some of the moral evils of our age. But restoration of communio in sacris is not seen as even a remote likelihood at this point because Rome claims to be The Church spoken of in the creeds. And so do we.
For communion to be restored one of us needs to cease to exist. And that aint happening.
In ICXC
John
11. Yes, finally the “uniate” complaint. Ross in #10 got it right. There is no such thing as poaching. People are free to follow their consciences. The pope can remove unnecessary barriers, but in the end conversion requires, well, conversion of the heart. And, there is no shortcut for that.
I do think that Benedict wants to regather the Church. That is the duty of the Petrine ministry. As the Petrine ministry exists nowhere else, it is not surprising that other Christians aren’t so interested. Those who oppose Christian unity are apparently unmoved by Christ’s last prayer in John 17. Not all the Orthodox are so opposed to Christian Unity, the Bulgarian Orthodox being a notable proponent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdlYrSeHneI
Re # 12
Fr. J.
[blockquote] Yes, finally the “uniate†complaint.[/blockquote]
No. It’s not a complaint. Just an observation. We have our Western Rite which I fully support. I happen to think some sort of Anglican Rite makes very good sense given there is no hope whatsoever of bringing the Anglican Communion back into the fold.
[blockquote] Those who oppose Christian unity are apparently unmoved by Christ’s last prayer in John 17.[/blockquote]
I know of no Orthodox opposed to “unity.” I know of very few who support unity outside of Orthodoxy.
[blockquote] Not all the Orthodox are so opposed to Christian Unity, the Bulgarian Orthodox being a notable proponent:[/blockquote]
Are you joking? The Bulgarian Church won’t even participate in the joint dialogue with Rome. Their Holy Synod voted to withdraw from the ecumenical discussions because it was obvious that no progress had been made on the theological points that continue to separate Rome from the Orthodox Church. The single (!) Bulgarian bishop quoted not only does not represent the Bulgarian Church but is barely in communion with it. He is the bishop of the Bulgarian diaspora in Western Europe and has long been noted for having one foot firmly planted on the other side of the Tiber. The youtube video is just another example of the regrettable behavior of the Catholic press/media which seems at times almost desperate for some hopeful sign from the Orthodox of serious interest in reunion, when in fact little exists given Rome’s intransigence on matters of doctrine.
As I said (ad infinitum), I have no hostility to Rome. But I also have no interest in returning to her either. If Rome wants unity all she needs to do is return to Orthodoxy. The door is open and the welcome mat is out.
Since that is more or less Rome’s position in reverse I see little point in all of these high level gatherings in exotic places. unless it is to discuss points of common interest (charity and an alliance against the encroachments of militant secularism and Islam.)
In ICXC
John
13. These Bulgarians are the Bulgarian diaspora spread throughout Western Europe and think somewhat differently than those remaining in the homeland. They are small but enthusiastic for unity. At over “a billion served,” I am not sure that desperate is the best adjective for the pope’s pursuit of Christian Unity. He understands his office and is acting accordingly with regard to all parties.
Re # 14
Fr. J,
[blockquote] They are small but enthusiastic for unity.[/blockquote]
I think it would be more accurate to say that their bishop is enthusiastic for unity.
In ICXC
John
The idea that “organic growth” is, somehow, “not an option” for the Bishop of Rome is one of the more absurd statements that I have encountered since Rome made their recent overtures to displaced Anglicans… Is this man really unaware that the Roman Catholic Church is the largest church in the world?
Even if 15,000 cranky members of TAC take up the offer from Rome (a highly unlikely scenario, by the way), it means NOTHING to Rome, in terms of numbers or enhanced prestige.
I would be very curious to know why this particular entry was posted on T19, except perhaps as a cautionary note to those of us who might want to overlook some of the more ridiculous ideas that one can find within the realm of Christendom.
Funny article. Pythonesque. You would think he thought it mattered.
15. The Bulgarian Orthodox diaspora in Western Europe held their synod in Rome and in their documents called for a return to unity. It was not only their bishop.
Re # 18
Fr. J,
If they have called for unity this then begs the question… Do they mean for Rome to return to Orthodoxy? Or do they mean for us to submit to the Holy See? If they are able to accept the dogmas of the Roman Church then they should sign the catechism as the TAC bishops did and seek to be placed under the jurisdiction of the appropriate Eastern Catholic Church. Either they are Orthodox or they are Catholic. I harbor no ill will if they feel drawn to Rome. But they need to be honest about it.
Our two churches do not believe the same things and this strange idea of melding that some harbor is too silly to take seriously.
In ICXC
John
19.
Apparently the Bulgarian Orthodox bishop does not speak for your position, and I’m even more certain that you do not speak for him. You may not be able to make sense of his urgent call for unity with Rome, but that does not mean that he has not made that call or that he and his synod do not intend what they have said.
I find, for instance, the Zoghby position, “Orthodox in communion with Rome,” equally inscrutable, though I do not doubt he taught it or that he meant it.
Re #20
Fr. J,
I do not doubt the bishop’s sincerity. I doubt the correctness of his position. Far more important than his being in agreement with me however, is his being in agreement with the Holy Synod of his church, which he is not. I always had profound sympathy for the late Met. Zoghby. His yearning was clearly genuine. But his position was simply not compatible with either Rome or Orthodoxy. I can imagine how terribly frustrating it must have been for him to profess the Orthodox Faith (which for the most part he did) but be rejected by us because he insisted on being in communion with, and in submission to, Rome.
For Rome’s part I can only wonder at its forbearance. +Zoghby was pretty open in rejecting a great deal of Roman doctrine and he did not recognize the OEcumenical status of the western church councils post 1054.
In ICXC
John
21.
Exactly, which nevertheless demonstrates that there remain a desire among some Orthodox for communion with Rome not limited to the official positions of the various Patriarchs and not limited to the Ecumenical Patriarch who is very much interested in working toward Christian Unity.
The point remains that Petrine Ministry remains relevant to the question of Christian Unity and that interest in that unity is not at all limited to Catholics but extends to some Protestants and Orthodox as well. And, as evangelicalism deepens in it familiarity with traditional Christianity, I expect this interest to only grow.
Ad Orientem (#19) You say, “Our two churches do not believe the same things.” That is rather sweeping statement, don’t you think? In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic only diverge on a very few points.
Apart from the “filioque” business (which I am pretty sure MOST Christians and MOST Roman Catholics will concede that the Orthodox got right), the points of divergence have very little to do with the SUBSTANCE of the Christian faith– they are matters having to do with the perceived structure of the Church amd liturgical practices.
Are you aware of the fact that the mutual excommunications have been rescinded? How can this be, if the “believe different things?”
I don’t want to see this thread divolve into an Orthodox/Catholic slugfest… But your comment above seems to suggest that you are, for whatever reason, personally threatened by the idea that there might be a lot of common ground linking ALL truly catholic churches.
Re # 23
bluenarrative,
Hmmm where to begin?
[blockquote] In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic only diverge on a very few points. [/blockquote]
The Trinity
Grace
Sin
Original Sin
The Immaculate Conception,
Purgatory
The Treasury of Merit
Indulgences
The Nature of the Church
The Number and Authority of the OEcumenical Councils
The Infallibility of the Pope
The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope
To name just a few.
[blockquote] Apart from the “filioque†business (which I am pretty sure MOST Christians and MOST Roman Catholics will concede that the Orthodox got right)[/blockquote]
Then why is it still being used? It has been dogmatized by the Roman Church. If as you say they agree with us why don’t they drop it. If indeed Rome has adopted the Orthodox position that memo has not reached the faithful who continue to recite it and believe it.
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi
[blockquote] the points of divergence have very little to do with the SUBSTANCE of the Christian faith—they are matters having to do with the perceived structure of the Church amd liturgical practices.[/blockquote]
I would have to disagree.
[blockquote] Are you aware of the fact that the mutual excommunications have been rescinded? How can this be, if the “believe different things?â€[/blockquote]
The anathemas of 1054 were lifted by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope which respect a local schism. Communion with Rome has in no way been restored.
[blockquote] But your comment above seems to suggest that you are, for whatever reason, personally threatened by the idea that there might be a lot of common ground linking ALL truly catholic churches.[/blockquote]
“…I believe in [b][i]ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH[/i] [/b]…”
How many “truly catholic churches” do you believe exist?
In ICXC
John
Ad Orientem (#24)
As far as the “filioque” goes, there is no theological impediment that I know of that prevents the correct recitation of the Creed during the liturgy– my impression is that the continued mis-recitation is primarily a matter of custom and habit.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about when you say that there is substantial divergence of belief concerning the Trinity, grace, and sin. You are going to have to enlighten me, on those points.
As I understand it, the Eastern Orthodox hold that the primary result of original sin is death. I know of no Roman Catholic (or Protestant) who would dispute this. However, Roman Catholics understand that “death” to involve a bit more than the concrete matter of a body ceasing to be function or of a life ending. This is a matter of degree, not of substance. The position of Rome, in this regard is much closer to the Eastern Orthodox position than, say, the Calvinist’s take on original sin.
I have spoken to Eastern Orthodox bishops who did not hesitate to state their belief that Mary was conceived without sin. If all Orthodox do not subscribe to this belief, I would still insist that there is nothing like uniformity of opinion regarding Mary’s moral stature in the eyes of God when she was first conceived.
Purgatory, the treasury of merits, and indulgences can all be grouped together. And here I will concede there is a marked difference between the position of Rome and the position of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. But nothing at stake in this dispute comes anywhere close to impacting upon any essential doctrine of faith– though, of course, Rome DOES hold that you cannot be a “Catholic” without subscribing to a belief in purgatory. I am neither a Roman Catholic nor an Anglo-Catholic, and I am most assuredly NOT a Systematic Theologian. But I know that Thomas Acquinas did not just pull this idea out of thin air. There is ample evidence in the writings of the Greek Fathers of the Church that some of them held to ideas that certainly resemble Rome’s current doctrine of Purgatory. Even the most prickly Eastern Orthodox bishop, if he were to set aside his hostility to Rome, would have to concede that Rome’s ideas about Purgatory dovetail rather nicely, in some ways, with an Eastern Orthodox understanding of salvation.
By definition, the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the primacy of the See of Rome. So what? Again, this is an issue which does not really touch on any essential point of essential Christian DOCTRINE– it is a matter of Church Polity and Ecclessiology, only tangentially related to any larger understanding of Catholicity.
If, as you say, Communion with Rome is impossible to achieve because of the theological gulf that separates the two churches, then why I have seen with my own eyes, over the course of the last 30 years or so, the Pope (either JP2 or B16) celebrating the Eucharist jointly with various Orthodox Patriarchs? Am I missing something here? I never saw a Pope participating in the Divine liturgy with a Baptist, say, or a Presbyterian. I can only conclude that Rome and Orthodoxy see eye-to-eye on MANY things, if not on all things.